Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the View from the Right

Lawrence Auster at The View From the Right has linked to my recent post "All about Ayaan" on the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I have never liked Ali. I found her to be contemptuous of Christianity. I personally believe that the antidote to Islam is not atheism, but Christianity. Christianity is the route that the former Muslim Sam Solomon has taken. Ali has gone the godless way. Even the normally "lite" Mark Steyn agrees with me, according to the quote that Lawrence Auster provides.

Jesus and Islam

Frontpage Magazine has an interesting article comparing the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus the Muslims discuss in the Koran, titled: Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jesus of Neverland.

The article has a lot of interesting information. One is the flat out contradictions between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of the Koran. The writer (William Kilkpatrick) asks pertinent questions to determine the authenticity of the sources (the Bible vs. the Koran). He discusses how the Islamic version of Jesus falls apart when put under the same scrutiny as that of Jesus of the Bible.

I think one of the most rigorous arguments for the existence of the Jesus of the Bible is all the narrations that depict his presence, his words and his actions. The Jesus of the Koran, on the other hand, has no personality or even a presence. He appears like a disembodied spirit. Here is what the author writes about him:

The Jesus of the Koran appears mainly in the role of a counter to the Jesus of the Gospels, but “appears” is really too strong a word. This Jesus doesn’t attend weddings, or go fishing with his disciples, or gather children around him. He has practically no human interactions, and what he has to say is formulaic and repetitive. He is more like a disembodied voice than a person. And, to put it bluntly, he lacks personality.

 The author claims that this Jesus in the Koran "appears mainly in the role of a counter to the Jesus of the Gospels." It is an interesting argument. Do read the whole thing to get more insights into one of the most fake religions of the world. The more I learn about Islam, the more I realize that it was created on the backs of Christianity. The Anti-Christ if ever there was one.

We certainly have our enemies chiseled just right for us.

Burqua Prejudice

Frontpage Magazine has published an article of mine: Burqua Prejudice. You can read it here, with interesting comments by readers following the article.

I must say, I like the ambiguous photo that FPM has put up of the Fabulous Four. If I were a Muslim (and even not), I wouldn't want the women in my culture to dress and look the way they do. We don't have to be Muslim to be modest.

The Future King of England and Islam

I wrote a couple of days ago about the deep spiritual manoeuvrings that are going on to Islamicize Palestine. This is of course happening in Europe (Eurabia) and the United States and Canada too. I don't think it is simply a structural strategy - putting mosques up, demanding sharia, including sharia financing in banks, building Islamic religious schools, etc. etc. I think it a psychic and spiritual take-over as well. The end result is of course a world populated with Muslims. But, it would be much easier, and much more efficient, if this occurred through conversions.

As I've said on this blog, I think all this Muslim infusion is not simply a take-over, and later a subjugation, of the host population. But an attempt to get deep into the skins of these non-Muslims, so that they will suddenly spontaneously combust into Muslims.

Here is the "Christian" future King of England, and Head of the Church of England, tying together environmentalism with Islam. Granted he is speaking in the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, so one could argue that he might be allowed to say a couple of nice things about Islam. But, this isn't the first time one has cause to question his relationship with Islam; even Daniel Pipes has speculated on it.

A normal, patriotic future King of England would find it hard to praise a foreign religion in any way (perhaps a respectful nod in a diplomatic fashion could be expected). But a full on:

The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason - and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us...

Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.

is surely indicative of a mind that is  amenable to the messages of the Koran?

This quote could be out of context since it is one of a few available at the source the Daily Mail. Perhaps he said more positive things about Christianity in the same speech. But still, the fact that the Mail only quoted this part of the speech reveals where their thoughts are. And I still argue that the comment is far too Islam-positive for a future King of England, who presumes to head her Church as well.

The most important quote, which I presume also comes directly from the Prince's speech, is what heads the article:

"Follow the Islamic say to save the world," Prince Charles urges environmentalists

Ground Zero Mosque Protest

Stop Islamization of America poster 
for the planned rally against the 
Ground Zero mosque,
with event schedule

[Click on image to see a larger poster]

Kudos to Pamela Geller, of  Atlas Shrugs and Stop Islamization of America, who has organized a rally today to stop the "Ground Zero" mosque that is planned. Even the pathetic CBC is reporting on it, and mentioned her organization SIOA by name. Their argument is that this mosque is being built by moderate Muslims, who need a place where they can practice their religion of peace in peace, since they are nothing like their radical counterparts who blew up the Twin Towers. Therefore, these CBC geniuses conclude, these conservative (read evil, here) movements need to be stopped.

The Spiritual Source of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Allah vs. God

Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon, two prominent scholars and chroniclers of Islam, were the speakers at yesterday's event organized by the International Free Press Society- Canada, and the Free Thinking Film Society. When I went to the venue, which was at a synagogue in the northern limits of Toronto, my only concern was that I wouldn't be able to get there on time due to the heavy traffic exacerbated by road construction. I made it in ample time. But the synagogue became more significant than just a venue. Bat Ye'or started her presentation by saying that this is the first time she has given a speech in a synagogue. Sam Solomon's speech was titled, "Islam and its eternal enmity towards the Jews." So, a synagogue was infinitely appropriate for this very important conference, where both Bat Ye'or and Solomon repeatedly reminded the predominantly Jewish audience that Muslim enmity towards them is very real, and growing daily.

Sam Solomon spoke first. I dutifully took my notebook and pen at hand, to jot down his words. But, after his first sentence, it was clear that we were in front of a formidable orator, and it was better just to listen. Solomon, a former Muslim, is now a Christian. He was a Muslim scholar and sharia law expert. His introduction to the majority Jewish audience was to plead forgiveness for having condemned and maligned them in his former days while a devout Muslim. Then he plunged  right into Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel, which he says is inaccurately attributed to the creation of modern-day Israel. He explains that this deep-seated hatred goes to the origins of Islam, when the Jews rejected Muhammad's newly-created religion, and he condemned them for it. Solomon has a new book out, which bears the same title as his presentation: Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews.

The extraordinary effect of a former Muslim, who cites chapter and verse of the Koran in Arabic in order to gets his message across, is mesmerizing. Solomon has an incredible oratory voice despite his slight build; a voice which could have easily traveled across the large room without a microphone. His citations in Arabic conjure up images of a Muhammad throwing out these phrases in fits of fury (or Allah's fury, to acknowledge Muhammad's source). The harsh guttural sounds of Arabic almost need no translation into English; we know that these words are not said in love or compassion, but in hatred and destruction. Jew hatred, in Islam, is not an incidental affair resulting from border skirmishes. It is deep-seated in the psyche of Muslims who read (or listen to) Muhammad's words, words which are set in stone in the Koran. Muslims are mandated to hate Jews (and Christians).

This spiritual connection between Muslims' hatred of Jews and Christians is further elaborated by Bat Ye'or. Despite her quieter demeanor, this small lady is no less extraordinary, if nothing for her meticulous description of Islam's infiltration into European society, and now the world at large. She too has a new book coming out which is titled, Toward the Universal Caliphate: How Europe Became an Accomplice of Muslim Expansionism. She explains that her new book will delineate the global network that bodies like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are building in order to finally construct their worldwide Ummah.

One of the most significant insights I got from her presentation was her explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in spiritual terms. Informed people understand that the conflict has been manufactured by Muslims and Muslim apologists in order to find a basis for the destruction of Israel. But, Bat Ye'or says that the efforts behind the Palestinian concept is to separate Christianity from its Judaic roots to facilitate the Islamizaton of Christianity, and to render the whole region Islamic. Israel and the Jews can then be destroyed through a united Muslim front, as the Jews' natural allies, the Christians, become Islamicized. The end goal is to replace Israel with Palestine, rendering the whole region Islamic, and where Jerusalem takes its seat as the center of Islam.

For Christians, Israel and Jerusalem culminate with Christianity (through God's final design of bringing all His people under His wing through His Son Jesus Christ). Muslims have their alternate "Jesus," whom they call Isa, and to whom attribute prophetic rather than Messianic characteristics. This alternate Jesus is inscribed into the Muslim and Palestinian "narrative." Israel has occupied a land that rightfully belongs to Muslims, who have both spiritual and historical claims to this land. Thus, those "disputed" territories are neither Jewish, nor a Holy Land for Christians, but belong to Muslims and Isa. This Isa came to Jerusalem not to promote the Judeo-Christian God, but the Islamic Allah. Palestine is where Muslims fight their ultimate spiritual battle against Christians and Jews, the land which their Isa has proclaimed for them and their people.

Not many people describe the Palestinian and Jewish/Christian conflict in these spiritual terms. Even devout Muslims explain it in terms of territorial claims. But, Bat Ye'or, by peeling away at the layers has, I think, come up with a strong spiritual argument for why the Palestinian question consumes the whole world at such a visceral level. It is a matter of Isa vs. Jesus, Allah against God. Truth battling falsehood.

All About Ayaan

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the most famous Muslim-turned-atheist, is doing the rounds to promote her new book Nomad. Initially, she had planned to write a philosophical discourse which she had decided to title Shortcuts to Enlightenment. But she abandoned this project to continue with her roster of memoirs and autobiographies, and wrote the memoir Nomad instead. I've written before that this approach is probably more financially lucrative, and anything she says will be attributed to her opinions or her "personal story" and therefore cannot be refuted by scholars or historians. Welcome, therefore, to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali franchise, replete with adultery, and family and political betrayals - she did abandoned Holland in the midst of the country's grips with the murder of its citizen Theo Van Gogh. What happens to an ex-Muslim atheist who's out of the limelight? Well, she gets forgotten and ignored. And since Ali has never been one to stay out of the limelight, she seems always to have a dramatic comeback.

What is interesting about this new book, whose pages are filled with steamy family portraits and provocative chapters like "School and Sexuality," is its subtitle: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations. As usual with Ali, everything is about her. Wafa Sultan, another former Muslim, and much less egotistical, is the one who alluded to the phrase "clash of civilizations." But Sultan, in her wisdom and understanding, claims that there is no clash of civilization, but a clash between the backward Islam and the civilized Christian West. Here is her elaborate explanation: 

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations...It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

Ali, in her supreme self-centeredness, cannot see through this description. After all, in her eyes, the clash is not between these two opposites, as Sultan explains, but between her (Ali) and the rest of the world. In fact, she has now decided that she, in her lofty conclusions, will clash with the very element that has made the West a formidable foe to Islam; she will fight Christianity.

That was what came across in her interview (or promotional stop) at the Colbert Report. Here is the video of the interaction. At one point, Colbert, the liberal, refuses to accept Ali demonizing Islam. But, perhaps he is less of a liberal than he makes out (TV shows are notoriously left-leaning, and he has to "play the game" to keep the ratings up). What Colbert does, unprecedented in other shows and interviews I've watched, is to invite Ali to Christianity, after having made her admit that she's an atheist. Partly, I think it is his way of telling her to put her money where her mouth is, since she is telling Christians to proselytize to Muslims, and get them to convert to the "better religion" Christianity.

At this point, Ali goes all out in mocking Christianity, which she has no intention whatsoever of joining. She makes fun of the Eucharist, brushes aside the notion of hell in Christian theology, and denounces Jesus Christ, saying she prefers the Enlightenment philosophers to him. Colbert did keep pushing her (in the guise of talk-show humor) until she reached this vocal and hostile condemnation.

Another revealing moment in the show was when Colbert asked her if she is now a Westerner. Her answer was, "I'm becoming one." After close to two decades in the West, including holding important political positions in a Western democracy (the Netherlands), what is there to work out? A forthright, "Yes I am a Westerner" would have been a welcome answer.

What makes Ali undermine Christianity so confidently ? Well, on the front cover of her new book, there is an endorsement by none other than the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins himself, who wrote, "This woman is a major hero of our times." And riding on the boldness that other atheists like Christopher Hitchens display, Ali has no qualms about publicly disclosing her religious (non) affiliations.

I wonder how Ali will be received in America? I get the feeling she will just circulate around the neo-cons and right liberal elites, writing her articles and possibly throwing out a book or two for the liberal vultures who love seedy stories about Third World "victims." I suspect she will get quite wealthy in the process. America, though, is not the "progressive" Europe. Religion in America hasn't been abandoned, and Christianity still informs the lives of the majority of Americans.

Ali also has her AHA foundation to promote and upkeep. Perhaps that's why she was hesitant to proclaim her uncontested Western affiliation; her foundation's primary concern is the defense of Muslim women abused by the Islamic culture and religion.

Finally, this is neither here nor there (perhaps - although I do hold a strong attachment to physical appearances), but Ali looks like she's lost quite a bit of weight. Her sordid personal life; living in a country that is not as liberal or religious-free as Europe; and resorting to the lowest denominator to promote her thoughts (writing a memoir rather than the philosophical discourse she had originally planned), must be taking their toll.

"Pluralistic" Aga Khan Dedicates Ismaili Centre to Islamic Art

Canadian citizenship is for the giving and the taking. Conrad Black is a recent (ex) Canadian who gave away his citizenship to become a British Lord. Then he wanted it back when he faced jail time in the United States. He is still in a U.S. jail.

The Ismaili philanthropist Aga Khan, who is the current Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, recently received an honorary Canadian citizenship. Partly, it is to honor his activities around the world, where he says he advocates for pluralism, tolerance and equality. "You sound like a Canadian" declared Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper while bestowing the citizenship.

The other reason for the honorary citizenship is to commemorate his "gift" to Canada in the form of a multi-million dollar Ismaili Centre in Toronto. There is nothing pluralistic, tolerant or equal about this center. It is simply and clearly an Ismaili Centre. Aga Khan stresses that the centre will be dedicated to Islamic art.

Imagine a situation where a Canadian philanthropist were to be given an honorary citizenship in a non-Western country. Say it is a Muslim country, since despite their insistence that they are the most moderate of the moderate Muslims, Ismailis are still Muslims (note the dedication to Islamic art for the center in Toronto). True to his Canadian nature, this Canadian philanthropist would genuinely build a pluralistic centre, praising the wonderful multicultural country he comes from. Forget about him promoting a center so culturally specific that it would be "dedicated to Christian art." The only religion this Canadian would promote is Multiculturalism. And this would suit his hosts fine, since no Muslim country would allow any kind of dedication to Christianity anyway.

Harper's liberalism bypasses all these realities to yet again let another intolerant (naturally it's exclusive) group set up shop in Canada, benefiting from the generous Multicultural Policy, and weakening whatever is left of the true, traditional Canadian culture. The Aga Khan looks like a nice guy, and at some point he must wonder at this strange cultureless country, where anything and anyone is welcome.

I Take it All Back - On "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day"

Ezra Levant exposed the Muslim bully 
tactics when he published this cartoon 
by Kurt Westergaard in his magazine the 
Western Standard. Levant later went through 
three years of Human Rights Commissions 
abuses (including financial loss), before he won the case - 
or more like, the case was dropped by 
the Muslim complainant.

A couple of days ago, I posted some negative comments about the "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." My point was: Why should we engage in adolescent-style behavior by antagonizing Muslims, when we could work on some serious strategic issues.

Then, it hit me yesterday that if every Facebook, every blog, every pundit published a drawing each, what could Muslims do? Stage World War III? We are in fact reducing their behavior to absurdity. It's not even, "Come and get us," although that could happen later. What we are saying is, "This is our land, our civilization, our culture, so just shut up."

I imagined, in this moment of lucidity, that for every mosque that comes up, we could send a peel of church bells on a daily, regular basis, so that Muslims will feel so accosted that they cannot build, let alone pray, in those edifices. Reactionary aggression can sometimes be a good thing. Bullies, which is what I think Muslims are, often break down when they realize their target isn't just going to take it sitting down anymore.

Arab Mannerisms

(Cross-posted at Camera Lucida)

Here is a short video of Rima Fakih, the now reigning Miss USA, being interviewed on Regis and Kelley. In this segment, Fakih is defending her pole dancing photos. This is a very preliminary analysis, and I'm doing it purely in an intuitive way. But, there is something unfamiliar about Fakih's mannerism. She doesn't have black or Hispanic behavior. She acts mildly aggressive (assertive?) with a lot of hand movements. Even her smile puts on harsh elements at times. Normal talk seems to be an exercise in emphatic discussion. Her charm also entails an element of aggression. Maybe she's just nervous about the pole dancing exposure. It will be interesting to see how she performs on her Miss USA duties, after all this "controversy" has died down.

Still, here is yet another mannerism we have to learn and adapt to.

Swedish Cartoonist's Home is Set on Fire

Yet another Scandinavian cartoonist is under attack by Muslims. Lars Vilks’ cartoons depict Mohammad as a dog - the most reviled creature (after pigs?) in Islamic culture. First he was attacked during a speech he made at Uppsala University. Then, there was an arson attack on his home a couple of days ago.

Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society says (via Diana West's blog):

How was possible for these murderers to gain access to Vilks' house only a few days after a mob assaulted him at Uppsala University? What are the Swedish police and political class up to? As far as I know not a single Swedish politician has had a word to say about the attack in Uppsala. Is the truth that Swedish power-holders prefer to see Vilks killed in order to send a message to other critics of the Swedish multicultural idyll?

Now is the time to demonstrate practical solidarity. We can all do that by purchasing the drawing [below] his would-be murderers are so angry about.

As Mr. Hedegaard articulates, it is atrocious that no Swedish politician mentioned this incident. Yet, he and other counter-jihad writers*, including James Cohen at the International Free Press Society, suggest a public drawing spree of cartoons in defiance of Muslims' blasphemy beliefs. Then selling these cartoons, or wearing them (on t-shirts) in public.

No one suggests that more important than performing short-lived rebellious acts (against Muslims?!), is the strategy to remove Muslims from Western society, so we don't have to periodically live through these kinds of incidents.

I understand what I am suggesting is beyond the "practical solidarity" about which Mr. Hedegaard writes, but surely bringing it up is a step in the right direction? Simply attacking Muslims on our turf, is a never-ending exercise. Muslims will never tire of this tactic, which is in fact part of their long-term strategy to wear us out, so that we slowly accommodate their demands, and make our countries more hospitable for them.

* The diligent counter-jihad blog Gates of Vienna proposes a similar solution. I suspect the take on the incident is similar throughout the blogosphere.Yes, it is [1,2, etc.].

Conversations with a "Moderate Muslim"

Allan Greg hosts half hour interviews with notable members of the public. Recently, he interviewed Globe and Mail writer Sheema Khan about her life in Canada. Greg was infinitely respectful towards Khan, who calls herself  "A Canadian Hockey Mom," while permanently wearing her hijab. She talked about her children's integration in Canadian culture, and her unabashed support for her adoptive country.

Things got interesting near the end of the interview when Khan carefully said that one of the ways for Muslims to live peacefully in Canada is to carve their own Muslim place in the country. Greg didn't even blink an eye, let alone ask her to expand on this statement. She is simply saying that the best possible life in Canada for Muslims like her is if they live apart as Muslims. So much for moderate Muslims, and there goes the "integration" she talks so eloquently about.

What Exactly do "Moderate Muslims" Believe?

Here is a quote from "The Battle for Islam" by Andrew McCarthy at The Corner. It is also discussed at the View from the Right.

The most frustrating thing about "moderate Islam" is that no one seems to be able to say what it entails. The so called "radicals" tell us exactly what they believe and (accurately) cite chapter and verse in the scriptures. The moderates never persuasively refute the radicals — they just say the radicals are too "extreme." This doesn't come close to making the case that the radicals have Islam wrong. If your goal is to persuade other Muslims — and everyone seems to agree that only Islam can settle its internal divisions — that's the case that has to be made.

Christine Williams: Model Immigrant

Christine Williams hosts the popular current affairs show On the Line. She could be the female Michael Coren, since she doesn't shy away from unpopular topics, and is one of the few television hosts in Canada who is leans more to the right. I don't use "leans more to the right" lightly, because she is a moderate on many issues. Like Coren, she takes special care to cover all the grounds, and often defends many of the non-right issues in Canada in a, well, right angle.

For example, she has clearly stated that she believes the problem with Islam is that it has adherents who prefer to enact its more violent messages. Hence her insistence that it is the radical elements of Islam that are the problem, and not Islam itself. She has actually described jihadists as psychopaths and not as what they really are: the vanguard of Muslim society who are fulfilling their religion's commands through violent means.

She discusses multiculturalism extensively on her show. Her view is that since Canada is now inevitably a multi-ethnic society, there is no choice but to deal with it through multiculturalism, or more precisely, through generalized respect for all cultures. This implies that she is sympathetic to some multicultural policies. She still supports, and believes in, assimilation. But, she has outdated or incorrect data about the assimilation of nonwhite immigrants. Children of immigrants from non-European countries repeatedly say that they feel less assimilated than their immigrant parents. Immigrants of different cultures are having a difficult time relating with each other let alone with the culture at large. More and more immigrant and ethnic ghettos are cropping up in major Canadian cities. These are the kinds of facts that Williams should have at the tips of her fingers. Otherwise, she is simply be building a "wishful thinking" scenario, and deluding her public in the process.

Williams is interviewed here [two-part video], providing many insights into what formed her character. She came to Canada from Trinidad as a four-year-old, and spent difficult years growing up. Her parents often shuffled her back and forth between Canada and Trinidad as they adjusted to their adoptive country. Eventually, through rebellions and then conversion to Christianity, she became one of the model immigrants in Canadian society.

But, there are a few strange elements in her life too. The most outstanding is that her parents' lifestyle in Canada was initially dramatically inferior to that in Trinidad. By her account, they seemed to have been respected members of Trinidadian society, and perhaps even relatively wealthy. It took them many years to adjust to Canada, but they persisted until they achieved some success.

Another piece of information she provides in her interview is that despite having been in Canada since she was four, she never dissociated herself totally from Trinidad. She went back and forth to Trinidad regularly, sent by her parents as a child, and later on as an adult of her own free will. It was at one of those trips as an adult that she met her Trinidadian husband, who joined her in Canada. Twenty years later, they have two children in their teens. Are these the kinds of children of immigrants that I discussed above who feel less Canadian than their immigrant parents? Quite possibly.

I always wonder about people like Williams and her parents. The parents caused their daughters (Williams has a sister) a lot of anguish while growing up due to their stubborn insistence to "make it" in Canada. Williams herself is either delusional about the realities of non-Western immigrants in Canada, or she is being disingenuous, and ignoring important data about immigrants and assimilation (or lack thereof).

Ultimately, Williams comes off as a semi-advocate of multicultural policies, of the "lets all assimilate, but respect each others cultures" variety. I think this is is her way of reconciling her Trinidadian background with her Canadian reality. So, perhaps unconsciously, she wants it both ways. She is certainly holding two contradictory views: supporting a multi-ethnic, and by extension a multicultural, Canada; and promoting immigrant assimilation through Canadian "values" and "culture."

Harboring multicultural sentiments can be pernicious, such as respecting Muslims, and only reining in on the violent (jihad) and stealth (sharia) activities they exhibit. These, according to Williams, are only practiced by a radical handful. The rest, like all other nonwhite immigrants in Canada, and just like her and her family, simply wish to assimilate and become "Canadian." But the reality shows otherwise.

I wonder if people like Williams, successful, and by all appearances assimilated immigrants, have ever thought of going back to their countries of origin? There seems to be a subtle disconnect within even the well-intentioned non-Western immigrants like her, who get pulled into contradictory statements as they try to work out their place in Canadian society. Surely Williams would have a much easier time in Trinidad. After all, she followed her roots by marrying a Trinidadian man. And by all accounts, her children are less likely to feel Canadian, and more likely to accept their "differences" than she is (or can). She can be at least honest (although she is certainly very genuine, and her problem is lack of systematic thought on the subject) and say: "I am different, and I am leaning on multiculturalism, ethnic diversity and the wonderful smorgasbord that is Canada to allow me to live comfortably in Canada."

If this is how I assess Williams, then what about all those who adamantly do not wish to assimilate, and who fight to change Canadian society to fit their needs by unequivocally supporting the policies of multiculturalism? These are the ones that really need to go back, to their familiar societies, which do not require any radical changes in order for them to feel "at home."

What a concept! I haven't heard anyone argue about solving the multicultural disaster this way. So, it is time for concerned citizens like Christine Williams, and Salim Manur who wrote about the pernicious effects of multiculturalism here, to reassess themselves and their solutions.

Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon in Canada

Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon will be in Ontario (London, Toronto and Ottawa) this June. Details for registration are here. The event is sponsored by the International Free Press Society - Canada, and the Free Thinking Film Society.

Multiculturalism In Canada Is Here To Stay

Salim Mansur has written in the Toronto Sun:

Multiculturalism is a diminution of Canada’s founding history. It diminishes the vitality and largeness of the political culture that has accommodated a multitude of ethnicities within its borders, while it fails in bringing to immigrants — especially of non-European origin — a compensating increase in appreciation for those values that went into building Canada as a model of civility...

It is now for the rest of us to engage in a constructive discussion on how to roll back multiculturalism, this doctrine of divisiveness, for the love of Canada.

Mansur fails to explain something: why is it that multiculturalism flourished soon after non-Europeans started to enter and remain in Canada? Could it be that the differences between Canada’s founders and these current immigrants are just too great?

How much easier is it for a Ukranian immigrant to assimilate fully and unconditionally to Canadian culture than it is for an Indian or Chinese immigrant? Based on cultural, historical and civilizational backgrounds, non-Europeans undoubtedly find it much more difficult.

These are the kinds of difficult questions that writers like Mansur have to face in order to talk honestly about immigration and multiculturalism. Then, we can discuss whether in this current climate and historical juncture it is even feasible to change or dismantle the multicultural policies. But I am getting more and more pessimistic, and I think that in Canada, multiculturalism is here to stay.

Spring Revives Hope

Spring blossoms next to the statue of Egerton Ryerson,
the founder of Ryerson University

[I posted this entry in Camera Lucida last night, but it should also be here at Our Changing Landscape, only to show that some things do indeed remain the same. Egerton Ryerson's contribution to Toronto is an enduring legacy. His statue still stands. And the spring flowers bloom every year. This is a small sign of hope that in small miraculous ways, we can revive our hopes.]

I walk through the Ryerson University campus almost daily in order to catch the various public transportation options. The majority of voices and faces on this "urban" campus are of Toronto's brave new inhabitants: Arab, Indian, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, a smattering of blacks, and some who speak various Eastern European languages.

The library, which I often use, is filled with staff with strange accents, who often cannot help me with simple requests (such as renewing my I.D., for example), and I have to return when a more seasoned librarian is on duty. The librarian is the least appreciated, but the most knowledgeable, person I know (or knew). These days, these "new-comer" employees seem hired simply to swipe our library cards.

Once I heard (and saw) a student - at least I think he was, but he looked older - talk so loudly and aggressively in Arabic on his cell phone, that I reported him to campus security guards, saying that he looked suspicious. They took my comments seriously, and confronted the guy. Later on I asked what had happened, and one of the guards told me they didn't find anything unusual, and just told him to keep his voice down.

I took the photograph above last year, but the image is exactly the same this year, as the spring blossoms and young leaves decorate the various campus locations. The trees in the above picture are in front of the statue of Egerton Ryerson, the founder of what is now Ryerson University. I wonder what this Protestant minster would have thought of his learning institution being filled with Arab Muslim students, so much so that someone felt so startled by the behavior of one of them that she had to call the authorities on him.

Perhaps that the flowers bloom every year under his statue is a sign for hope that someday, somehow, normalcy will be restored. In the meantime, it is enough to enjoy these beautiful spring blooms.

Jason Kenney Thinks Immigration Is All Good

I made a point to watch Michael Coren's hour-long interview with Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism (with a title like that...), a couple of nights ago. Kenney has kept the high levels of 250,000 new immigrants for 2010, and is coyly playing with the idea of doing the same for 2011, despite the recession. I was sure Coren would ask him about this decision, and even discuss immigration as a broader issue.

Well, it didn't happen. Instead, Kenney spent many minutes talking about his "good will ambassadorship" visiting immigrant and ethnic communities and asking them how he could make things better for them. Of course, each ethnic community will have gripes, and will make demands that he favor their group, include more of their group in his new immigration numbers, give them more money for their particular cultural activities, and so on. None of them will say "reduce immigration, and dismantle the Multiculturalism policy," which is how things can really get better.

What was even stranger is that in order to deflect accusation of "racism" that his government may have had – Conservatives are always considered racist simply for being conservative – he was boasting how his immigration numbers are as good as, or better than, the Liberals'!

I don't see any MSM bringing up these topics (other than to say that it's all good), and no blogs either. Issues such as Muslim immigration; the effect of immigration on the future composition of big cities like Toronto (a major study recently reported that 28% of Canada's population will be foreign-born by 2031); multiculturalism and the public coffers, etc. are considered too inflammatory. I don't see why, since they pertain to important national issues.

For Jason Kenney, the unassimilable masses from the Third World is a myth. He thinks his good will, extra government funding, more "settlement" programs, and general wishful thinking will remove any doubts that the (very few) immigration and multiculturalism critics, including immigration expert James Bisset, bring to the table.

Even Third World (including Chinese and Indian) immigrants know better. They form their own ghettos, demand special treatment whether financially or culturally, and coerce the government to perform according to their needs.

Will the Real Jihadist Please Stand Up?

"Conservative" independent filmmaker Jason Apsoto has recently released a film on Islam called Kalifornistan. The website promoting Kalifornistan has this to say about the film:

KALIFORNISTAN follows the deranged leader of a terror cell called 'Glorious Jihad of Kalifornistan' as he plots to destroy Los Angeles with his 'mighty plutonium superbomb' - while being distracted by an exotic dancer.

KALIFORNISTAN takes viewers on a twisted journey of the post-9/11 world from Gitmo to Iran, from the dark corners of LA harbor into the mind of a terrorist too deranged even for Al Qaeda.

There are enthusiastic reviews for this film at its website, but I will be more critical. Apsoto has made his jihadist a lone, lunatic sex maniac, whose mission to destroy Los Angeles is due more to his deranged personality than his religious convictions.

Many writers give all kinds of reasons for jihadists' uncontrollable quest to bomb apostates: They are sexually frustrated maniacs; they are poor, oppressed Arabs; they are psychologically impaired; they have unresolved issues with their distant fathers; they are too close to their clingy mothers. And so on.

Apsoto seems to have fallen for the "they are deranged sex maniacs" variety, and that is where I cannot take his film seriously. I understand that artistic license is due, but even artists have to research their material and know something about their subject, rather than make up whatever they feel would suit the tone of their film.

One critic writes, "the film clicks as strong, effective satire." The jihadist's prescription is to follow the clear commands from the Koran, which is to turn the
whole world into Islam, whether by force or by stealth. Apsoto, rather than find a unique and artistic way (if possible) to write a fictitious account of a real Koran-following jihadist, prefers to make his jihadist a socio/psychopath so that his film becomes a "satire."

Hirsi Ali's Polite Disdain for Christianity

Ayaan Hirsi Ali pops up periodically to comment on the prevailing Muslim incident. This time she is reacting to the South Park censorship. As far as I can tell, she has been interviewed by Fox News and has had an article published by the Wall Street Journal on this topic. And here is a link to her interview with Anderson Cooper from CNN. That is more attention than the astute Diana West, whose analysis of the incident is far more valuable than Ali’s.

Near the very end of the interview on CNN, Hirsi Ali says:

We have to take them [Muslims] on. And that means, I think, scrutinizing Islam, criticizing it in the same way that we criticizing Christianity, Judaism and other ideologies, and other religions.

Equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense.

It never occurs to Ali firstly, that Islam has no business being alongside Judaism and Christianity to merit "equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense."

Second, it is interesting that she puts "offense" as part of her egalitarian treatment of religions, and that she puts "ideologies" and "religions" in the same sentence.

Ali has come forward as an atheist, and has declared her dislike for Christianity (to put it mildly). In the slips that she performed, it is clear that she politely disdains religion, and that offending Christianity might be just as commendable as offending Islam.

This is the kind person that the American Enterprise Institute has hired to protect American (and Western) interests.

More Diversity = More Disharmony

The anonymous author of the Canadian Immigration Reform Blog is one of those commendable writers in the highly populated blog world. He relentlessly and diligently documents immigration stories. His posts are often a week or two apart, but he never disappoints.

His commentary is also extremely useful, and I never find any points to refute. In his great post "Toronto, 2031: The Most Racist Place On The Planet" he writes about the out-of-control HRCs, and how they are fulfilling the exact role I had given them since I started analyzing the whole enterprise: to create an environment where "discrimination" can be controlled and subdued.

I also wrote many months ago that the post-1967 immigration policies (when entry was accorded to all nationalities, and not just to Europeans) have produced a population so diverse that a harmonized co-existence seems more and more difficult. What similarities does a Chinese have with an Indian, or a Somali with a Mexican? At least pre-1967, immigrants related to a generalized European culture, including the Ukrainians, the Poles and the southern Italians.

In his above entry entry, Pax Canadiana (the name that this blogger goes by) writes about a Turkish immigrant taking a Chinese woman to the HRCs for insulting him in her donut shop, and a Muslim woman reporting discrimination on the job by her black employer.

According to the Toronto Star article where Pax Canadiana obtained his information, HRCs cases have increased from 15/year to 15/month since 2008. Part of this increase is that the HRCs have made it easier for plaintiffs to file their cases. But, an important part is that with this increased diversity, there is also an increase in disagreements and antagonisms, and therefore an increased need for filing complaints somewhere. I've always said why not file in a court of law, but the HRCs are ready-made for these types of complaints.

In 2031, Toronto’s visible minority population is expected to comprise more than half of the city’s population. Expect Pakistani Muslims to sue black Caribbeans, and disgruntled Chinese to complain about their Somali neighbors. In fact, put any combination of nationalities together, and there is sure to be a case presented to the HRCs at some point.

So much for Multiculturalism, the policy which was to maintain a happily diverse population. According to Pax Canadiana’s (and my) assessment, all this is simply a recipe for friction and disharmony.

Update on: The HRCs Are Mostly About Discrimination

Below I have linked to the Youtube videos showing the discussions on dismantling the HRCs on the Michael Coren Show, which I wrote about in the previous post. The first couple of minutes of Part 1 I think pretty much delineate Coren's views (Coren is the more right-leaning of the talk show pundits), where he says that scrapping the hate speech component of the HRCs is a good idea, but all the rest should remain.

In Part 2, he briefly admits that even if the Conservatives were to initiate the dismantling of the HRCs, the other parties would derail it by saying that the Conservatives agree with (i.e., are) Holocaust deniers, homophobes (and he could have also said racists, sexists, and so on).

In short, like I said before, those who advocate the removal of the HRCs have only looked at the issue in terms of hate speech (free speech), and not in terms of discrimination. And I've said all along that the main purpose of the HRCs is to fight "discrimination," and curtailing free speech is just a by-product of the whole set-up. I don't think any party would enjoy being called racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and certainly not the newest accusation, Islamophobic. Unless people deal with these issues, I don’t think government maintained (and mandated), and tax-payer subsidized HRCs are going any time soon.

John Turley Stewart, of the National Post (who's also on the Coren Show panel), does a good job of arguing for total dismantling. But, to me, he sounds like the lone voice in the whole debate. Coren is for partial reform (i.e. getting rid of the hate speech parts), as I think are most critics of the HRCs, including Ezra Levant.

The HRCs Are Mostly About Discrimination; Hate Speech Is But a Small Part

Michael Coren, at his show The Michael Coren Show recently talked about the Human Rights Commissions. He opined in a manner that I think resembles most Canadians' thoughts: get rid of the hate speech (Section 13) codes of the Human Rights Act, but leave the rest as is. In other words, people who feel discriminated against for reason of religion, race, sexual orientation, gender etc. could still use the HRCs.

The reality is that the majority of HRC cases are not hate speech cases. They are stories of perceived discrimination at the workplace, in service areas (restaurants, etc.), while renting homes, and so on. So rather then take these cases in a normal court, and suing for whatever grievances endured, it seems expeditious, less costly and probably more likely to result in a positive verdict (for the plaintiff) than going to a real court.

But why should the government support these pseudo-court bodies when there are perfectly functional real court systems? As I wrote in this previous blog, it is all about avoiding discrimination in the multicultural society, and to prevent discord and dissatisfaction between all these various groups, with differing skills and abilities. Coerced harmony is better than battling things out in the real world of real laws.

Here is another interesting part of this story. Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, has maintained the high levels of immigration for 2010, at around 250,000. I don’t know the run-down of the countries being admitted, but recent history has shown that a majority come from non-Western countries. What is the likelihood that such groups will help maintain the HRCs, as they struggle to fit into the country? And what is the likelihood that such groups (both new and older members) will strongly reject the dismantling of the HRCs?

Most anti-HRC proponents have gone after the (narrow) hate speech component of the Human Rights Act. The reality is that it is the anti-discriminatory part that is larger, and probably in the long run, more powerful. Truly dismantling these costly bodies will, I predict, raise the ire of these many groups who benefit from pushing their grievances through the HRCs rather than fighting for them in the real courts.

Email Problem

I accidentally deleted an email sent to Cameralucidas@yahoo.com this morning. I closed the tab while my email inbox was loading. If you've been trying to get in touch with me, please try again.

Lawyers enabling Terrorists, Geert Wilders's Trial, and Other Articles by David Harris

Infant Princess Margriet of 
Holland who was born in
Ottawa where the Dutch 
Royal Family fled to during WWII

David B. Harris, who could have been the first high profile Canadian to experienced Muslims' attempt at censorship, also writes on Muslims, terrorism and national security. His recent article "What’s scarier than terrorists? Lawyers" appears in the Ottawa Citizen on February 19, 2010.

He was also part of the symposium: The Trial of Geert Wilders, published on the International Free Press Society website. His commentary is titled: "Pursuit of a Parliamentarian." Here is a French version of the speech, which includes a photograph of Dutch Queen Juliana, who fled to Canada with her family when the Nazis occupied the Netherlands. The photo shows her holding her infant daughter Princess Margriet who was born on Canadian soil in 1943. In order for Princess Margriet to claim her Dutch royalty, the Ottawa hospital suite where she was born was deemed “extraterritorial.” (Here is photo of the Dutch Royal Couple in Ottawa and their three daughters, including new-born Princess Margriet).

Mr. Harris writes at IFPS:

Connections of law and spirit were further cemented when the First Canadian Army liberated much of occupied Holland. Remembering all of this, the Dutch Royal Family upon liberation sent Ottawa thousands of tulip bulbs, a gift that continues yearly, to this day.

This shared history of struggle for liberty and democracy must leave Canadians wondering whether disturbing legal developments in the Netherlands signal a loss of The Hague’s commitment to the freedoms for which Canadians and Dutch sacrificed. In the land of the tulip, “the first freedom” – freedom of speech – may be in the balance.

We have come at another impasse in the West. Just like problems during the two World Wars required our joint efforts, we have a similar calling in our modern pursuit against jihad.

Was David B. Harris the Very First Canadian to Go Through Attempted Censorship by Muslims?

David B. Harris is the former Chief of Strategic Planning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). He is now the Director of International and Terrorist Intelligence at INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc.

In April 2004, while on Ottawa's CFRB radio, he asked this question:

"Shouldn't someone be looking into CAIR-CAN's relationship with its more-troubling American relative, CAIR?"

CAIR-CAN's then Chair Dr. Sheema Khan sued both Mr. Harris and the Ottawa radio station for libel. Mr. Harris and CFRB radio didn't back down after these accusations. And in 2006, CAIR-CAN "dropped their suit, cold. No damages, no costs, no apology, no clarification."

This is very similar to what happened to Ezra Levant, except that rather than being sued for libel and brought before the court system, he was charged with "promoting hate" and brought before the Human Rights Commissions. Three years later, the complainant Syed Soharwardy also withdrew his case.

Perhaps in 2006, CAIR-CAN was not yet familiar with the intricacies of the HRCs, and went the legal libel route. In any case, both incidents show that Muslims are more than ready to silence anyone who speaks truthfully about the problems in their religion and its organizations. We have so far seen a court case and a HRC case come to nothing. (That doesn't mean though that the accused suffered lost time, lost money and endless months of frustration). But, I think that Muslims will continue to manipulate all the possibilities to silence discussion and debate, and most of all disagreement, when it comes to their religion.

The Taking of Christ

By Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio

The Taking of Christ, Caravaggio, 1602

Small Steps Towards Removing the Negative Influences of the Human Rights Commissions and the Human Rights Act

Here is a simple diagram which explains the relationship between the Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commissions.

Explanation of the diagram: 

1. The Human Rights Act defines discriminatory grounds, and areas where such discrimination is prohibited.

2. When someone believes he has been discriminated against, he can file a case with the HRCs.

3. As well as a plethora of areas, ONE violation involves hate speech.

4. A case, after it's been through the HRCs and was unsuccessful, can then be appealed through the Supreme Court.

There are a few of points I would like to make:

1. The only way a violation of the HRA can be heard is through the HRCs.

2. The HRA was designed to prevent DISCRIMINATION against particular groups (look at the diagram).

3. HATE SPEECH is only one of the violations. Others include discrimination at place of employment, in housing, while receiving services, etc.

4. Almost all the high level cases of Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Marc Lemire and now the lesbian couple case, involve what was deemed by the plaintiffs as hate speech.

5. These hate speech cases are actually very few. The only way they got the public's attention is because those accused refused to concede, and publicized their cases according to their influence.

6. The majority of cases, which continue on almost a daily basis, are mundane cases of perceived discrimination on the job, in housing, in service areas like restaurants, etc.

7. The majority are filed by what are called "visible minorities" who fall under the race, national origin, ethnicity, colour, and religion categories of groups.

8. Thus, rather than being a freedom of speech issue, the CHRs and the HRA are about discrimination, or more precisely, preventing what groups perceive to be discrimination against them. This includes discriminatory (hate) speech.

9. Finally, these visible minority groups are largely from the immigrant populations, and are often recent immigrants.

10. The HRCs and the HRA are strongly intertwined with the Multiculturalism Act and the Immigration policies of Canada.

11. The prominent Multiculturalism Act, and the very high levels of immigrants and refugees that are being admitted into Canada, fuel the HRCs and HRA with an endless client base.

12. Until there is a concerted revision of all of these institutions and policies - HRCs, HRA, Multiculturalism Act, immigration and refugee policies, - I don't believe that politicians will be ready to annoy their immigrant/visible minority constituents by changing laws that actually benefit such groups, but clearly harm others - like journalists, Christians, and comedians.

13. Since denying truth (via free speech) is such a dramatic constraint, it is no surprise that the freedom of speech aspect of the HRCs has received the most attention. But, what runs all these organizations is the anti-discriminatory position of the Canadian government, which will forfeit everything else to protect this position.

Solutions:

1. Reduce immigration levels in general.

2. Find peaceful ways to reduce immigrants by removing them from Canadian society.

3. Reduce immigration of Muslims.

4. Find peaceful ways to reduce Muslims by removing them from Canadian society.

5. Review the HRA on all levels and make revisions, especially with the "hate speech" sections.

6. Remove the HRCs so that cases are directly decided in Canada's courts, rather than in these improvised committees.

7. Christian leaders should be outspoken about the removal of Christianity from the center of Canadian culture. They should be outspoken about non-Christian elements which infiltrate the culture, and forcibly make demands to accommodate their lifestyles. Such groups include the stringent homosexuals, and the aggressive Muslims.

8. Canadians should be inundated with positive images of Canadian history, culture and religion, so that they don't weaken in front of aggressive accusations by homosexuals, Muslims and an array of visible immigrants from Chinese to Indians to Africans.

9. Canadians should retake what is rightfully theirs, without apology, and find ways to accommodate minorities of all types with fair and realistic strategies.

Lesbians and Light Bulbs on the Coren Show

There is ample room for comedy in Canadian politics. Perhaps that is why so many Canadians become comedians (the words even sound similar).

In Michael Coren's show last night, the "freelance writer" David Menzies was warned by Coren to lay off the jokes in case the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) came after the Coren show. Now, the CRTC is a type of Human Rights Commission for broadcasting media. I thought Coren had more spunk than that, but I don't blame him. Why let a silly joke ruin his show!

Menzies Moment:

There is yet another high profile HRC case going on. This time, a lesbian couple is filing a complaint against a comedian who made fun of their lesbianism. Actually, they heckled him during his comedy act, and he heckled back, but unkindly (i.e. he discriminated against their type and hurt their feelings).

Menzies was about to make a joke on lesbians and light bulbs, but got censored by the prudent Coren.

It was a laugh out loud moment. (Yes, Menzies was funny, but didn't Coren realize what he was doing?).

Senators Speaking Out Against the Human Rights Commissions

Various Senators are speaking out against the Human Rights Commissions, and asking for a review of the Human Rights Act. Their main argument is that the HRCs, and part of the HRA, curtail freedom of speech. I have never totally bought the freedom of speech argument. The problem with these institutions, which touch on the Multiculturalism Act and the Immigration Act, is that they are an attempt at accommodating diverse peoples, and especially giving visible minorities, with unfair advantages.

I think I am the only one here in Canada who writes (and has written extensively) in this manner when it comes to the HRCs. I don't see them as a problem exclusively with freedom of speech, but as institutions which are changing Canadians' relationships with each other and with their country.

I will post about my perspective soon, since I want to make my points as clear and succinct as possible. But for now, these developments are a good start, although not quite in the right direction.

Time for Ezra Levant to Focus His Energy on Addressing Multiculturalism and High Levels of Immigration

In my previous post, I wrote that the underlying existence of the Human Rights Commissions is to prevent discrimination of "vulnerable" groups such as women, racial minorities, the disabled, homosexuals, native Canadians, and religious minorities.

My position about the HRCs has always been that they exist mostly as a result of the multicultural and high immigration policies of Canada. I tried to convey this with statistics, articles and direct information from the HRCs and other governmental resources in my series of posts under Human Rights Commissions. I started this endeavor when I began to analyze Ezra Levant's complaints regarding the HRCs, which is that he is after dismantling them because they curtail freedom of speech and expression. Well, the reality is that they didn't stop the "freedom of speech" of the Muslims who attacked him, and dragged the case for three years during which he lost thousands of dollars.

Well, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, a union group, says it like it really is. In my previous post, I quoted PSAC as saying that closure of HRCs posts will "have a particular impact on racialized people and recent immigrants."

Somebody finally tells the truth, and it isn't the Conservative government, nor is it pundits like Levant and Mark Steyn (who was also stung by the HRC courts). It is a leftist union organization which let the cat out of the bag. Although, none of this was ever really a secret.

I tried to convey this to Ezra Levant, but email communication wasn’t really possible since he has no address posted at his site. So, I have been linking all my blog posts on the HRCs to his blog, hoping that he gets the time to read them.

Dismantling the HRCs is a gargantuan endeavor, not only because Canada has very specific, biased views on what is free speech and what isn't - look at Ann Coulter's experience - but because those very people for whom the HRCs exist are growing in numbers and in power.

Unless immigration rates are reduced, and the multicultural polices of Canada are revised (and frankly thrown out), the forces that push for organizations like the HRCs will continue to get stronger.

Perhaps my conclusions are unrealistic: Multicultural policies will never be revised, and immigration of minorities (both religious – i.e. Muslims - and racial) will continue to grow.

But, it is a first step to point out that the HRCs' problem is multi-faceted. Specific mandates and policies have been put in place, which gave strength and staying power to these institutions.

Even the Harper’s government seems convinced of their necessity. Rather than closing down centers, his government is allowing an overall expansion of the organization, with increased funding.

One final thought: the HRCs have actually become the canary in the coal mine, exposing the consequences of multiculturalism and high levels of immigration (and immigrants). I hope Levant starts to focus on this now, and perhaps more specifically and more realistically, on the Muslim presence here in Canada, who came in primarily through immigration and who are taking maximum advantage of the multicultural policies of the country.

Human Rights Commissions Service "Racialized People and Recent Immigrants"

Just yesterday, there was news circulating that Harper's government had closed down three branch HRC offices: one in Toronto, one in Vancouver and another in Halifax. The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) declared that these closures:

will have a particular impact on racialized people and recent immigrants. In many cases, the closures will make it much more difficult to challenge both systemic abuses and individual instances of discrimination. 

Well, it turns out that it wasn't Harper's government that ordered these closures, but the by HRC itself. Complaints are apparently dealt with more efficiently via telephone or email, and these three outreach branches were closed for budgetary reasons.

What is actually happening is not cuts, but expansions including an increased budget for the HRCs:

C[Canadinan]HRC’s budget is expected to grow from $21.5 million in the current fiscal year to just under $23 million in 2011-2012 fiscal year. The number of employees is set to rise as well from 197 full-time equivalencies to 203.

I've had whole posts explaining that the problem behind the HRCs is bigger than their pseudo-court systems (link to my Issues: Human Rights Commissions section on the side panel). I've discussed, analyzed, and demonstrated that the majority of the HRC complaints, notwithstanding the very few high profile anti-Christian homosexual ones, come from minorities, of which a large part are immigrants.

Recent demographic projections for Canada show that these “racialized” people, which includes Muslims, will continue to increase dramatically over the next twenty years. These are the kinds of people the HRCs cater for. Cases similar to Ezra Levant's and Mark Steyn's, who were brought before the "courts" by Muslim immigrants, will only grow, perhaps less dramatically at first, but in many other guises.

It is one thing to dismantle the HRCs. But, without correcting the roots of these problems which involves reducing the high immigration rates of “racialized” peoples, including Muslims, the HRCs will continue to exist and function in some manner. Attempting to dismantle them will only cause these politicized groups, with strong lobbies and high voting power, to rise up in furor.

Harper knows this, and that is why his government is keeping quiet.

Muslim Student Is Not an Assimilated Canadian Despite Her Conventional-Looking Facebook Site

Here is the Facebook page of the University of Western Ontario Muslim woman, Fatima Al Dhaher, who asked Ann Coulter to expand on her comment about Muslims flying off on their magic carpets that Coulter made a few years ago.

Bloggers have scoured the Internet to find out more about her, and landed on her Facebook page, which is of course deleted now. Blazingcatfur has screensavers of her Facebook pages, including the one I have above.

So, this is what an "assimilated moderate Muslim" looks like. She's a regular college student, likes John Mayer, watches Glee,  and has a bunch of innocous-sounding Facebook friends like Katy Clarke and Ashley Murray. But wait, what's that about "It's called Palestine, not Israel!!!!"?

Here is another screensaver from her now-deleted Facebook with the Israeli flag crossed out, next to the Palestinian flag. And yet another of a comment written on her Facebook by someone who hasn't a mainstream Canadian name, who talks about zionazis and kikeroaches.

The delusional division of radical vs. moderate Muslims is showing itself to be a sham on a regular basis. More Fatimas are in the woodworks, who appear to be regular Canadian girls going to college and are fans of pop stars and TV shows. But they always show their true colors at some point.

Ann Coulter in Canada Says She'll File...a Human Rights Commission Complaint

Ann Coulter is filing a Human Rights Commission complaint for hate crime towards her - a conservative, although she refines it by saying a Christian conservative woman. It is both funny and serious at the same time. I'm not sure she really means it, and if she's just saying it for effect. Her argument is that the letter the University of Ottawa's provost sent her was a "hate crime" towards her, and that it could also incite further hatred by others towards her. Coulter is always provocative, and I don't fully understand her accusation of "hate crime." I think it was more a case of discrimination, against the group that she has described: Christians and conservatives (females not necessarily so).

The University of Ottawa's provost sent a letter to Coulter. Here is the pertinent excerpt:

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. 

Most pundits, bloggers and non-liberal writers have said that this was a veiled threat warning Coulter that if her speech is unacceptable according to the requests of the letter, she could face repercussions.

In any case, her speech at the University of Ottawa was canceled due to an unruly crowd which caused the organizers of her lecture tour to fear for her safety.

Despite her canceled lecture in Ottawa, Calgary welcomed her with open arms. There's never a dull moment with Coulter, and her humor and drama was a good way to expose the hypocrisy of Canadian bureaucrats.

Her energetic, funny and informative interview with Michael Coren, where she holds nothing back (including her jokes about Canada), is here. She even manages to subdue him, and that is quite a feat.

More Reason for Resolve

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,
ca. 1497–98. Albrecht Dürer

One thing my short time battling liberals has taught me is that liberals never, ever compromise. They expect us to come to their side, and they don't budge an inch toward our side.

The other lesson I've learned is that, despite all our (my) good intentions and fair play, at some point, liberals often resort to lying and trickery (I will stick by those words) so adeptly and insouciantly that it looks like they made a mistake, to forge ahead with their desires.

The third lesson I've learned is that anyone who persistently and determinedly refuses to "go to the other side" is deemed irrational, and even fanatical. Liberals are very good at soiling a person's character, to render that person's arguments moot.

The despairing thing is that many conservatives do cave in, just a little here, and a little there, moving inch by inch towards the liberal side of things until finally they're right in the middle of it all.

I don’t know why, or how, this really happens. I think at some point conservatives think their positions are untenable, that they are truly the uncompromising monsters that liberals make them out to be, and what is wrong with health care for everyone anyway?

This is the time for resolve. It is also time for study and reflection, to understand and follow the true principles that provide the best possible environment for the best possible human beings. Sentimental reactions are not the solutions.

Recently, I have been watching End Times programs of American and Canadian Evangelicals. There are reasonable men who describe and analyze the scenarios from the Book of Revelation. They provide unimpassioned views of what we should expect. But, they say that just because the world appears to be heading that way (although it actually is) doesn't mean we give up on our principles. The wilder the world gets, the stronger our resolve should be to make it right, by following proper guidance. The more despairing the world appears, the more our responsibility to try to correct it. We should strive to do so every single day, despite our disappointments and our failures.

The American health care battle – war, really – has taught us that there are no soft liberals. They mean what they say, and they do what they say they will do. This goes for every aspect of the liberal world. They may be following the path toward the predicted End Times, but we have the option of not going down that road with them. The world is still ours to save.

One last thing I should add. After all the lies, arm-twisting and sheer bombarding force that the Democrats went through, all they got was four extra votes. Hardly a resounding victory. People should never despair. Evil is often far weaker than we can imagine. Capitulation is never the answer.

Friends of America

Psalm 57:1-4

In this time of incredible social upheaval, when America most needs friends and prayers, here is what I send:

Psalm 57:1-4 (King James)

¹Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast.
²I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me.
³He shall send from heaven, and save me from the reproach of him that would swallow me up. Selah. God shall send forth his mercy and his truth.
 ⁴My soul is among lions: and I lie even among them that are set on fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword.

Adding My Own Questions on Racism to the Dismally Deficient Ones Asked by the CBC Reporter

The excellent documentary "A Conversation about Race" by Craig Bodeker is no longer available on YouTube. Fortunately, I was able to watch it about a year ago. Since it is an entrepreneurial effort, as well as an educational one, the hour-long $20 DVD is well worth the investment.

The much shorter, and pernicious, video produced by CBC that I discussed yesterday, asks the same questions about racism as does "A Conversation about Race," but never bothers to substantiate the answers (and accusations of racism) as Bodeker valiantly attempted to do throughout his film.

I will try to add some follow-up questions that I think the CBC reporter should have asked to come up with concrete answers, rather than responses based on hurt feelings and emotional outbursts.

The journalist from the CBC comments:

As those numbers [of ethnic minorities] grow, racism still thrives. We visited three communities in Ontario to find out how:

I suppose my first question would be to the CBC reporter, to explain what she means by “racism continues to thrive,” and if she could show me actual numbers and statistics to support that statement.

Here are some of the responses she received for her question on how racism thrives, and I add my follow-up questions:

First black man: How to talk about it is not so easy or obvious.
KPA: I think it is very easy. Here is a simple question: can you give me specific examples where someone, or some people, have been racist towards you?

Second black man: You have to be at least two times as good as the other people around you, or you're not getting the job. You're not going to be placed if you're equal.
KPA: Has this happened to you or to someone that you know? Have you, or people that you know, been refused jobs and you thought it was because you were black and merely equal to, and not twice as good as, your white competitors?
KPA: Just another question. In your current job, do you think you were twice as good as your white competitors who didn't get the job? How do you know? Did your boss specifically tell you?

Muslim woman: The secretary at my school once told me to take off my earrings because they looked like planes that are about to take off.
KPA: That does sound annoying. Maybe she had bad memories of 9/11, and didn't like anyone wearing earrings that look like planes that might crash into buildings. Can you give other examples of racism towards you?

Third black man: Professors look at you like "do you really know what you're talking about?"
KPA: They just look at you, and you get that impression? Has any professor ever said to you that because you are a black student, you don't know what you're talking about?

And the focus of the report, Toronto teacher Kurt Moss, who, according to the CBC reporter, has been plagued by racism all his life, talks of his first incident of racism.

Kurt Moss: Me and a group of friends, mostly black males, were crossing the street. And someone who was crossing the street as well they (sic) said, "Get out of the way you niggers." That's when I realized, recognized, that this is a huge issue.
KPA: Has anyone ever called you a nigger, or any other derogatory name, since that first incident? And if not, how do you detect people's racism towards you?

The CBC reporter let everyone off the hook. They all felt racism, they perceived racism, they were annoyed, irritated and frustrated by some of the ways they were treated, but none of them produced any concrete examples of actual racist incidents other than Kurt Moss.

And Kurt Moss is now the champion anti-racist teacher-activist in the Toronto school system, all based on one, single incident probably about ten to fifteen years ago, which he is still traumatized by and which he simply won’t let go of. If I were of a truly cynical nature, I would say that this incident has become his goose which lays the golden eggs, sustaining his job, his activism and his life. Racism, or crying racism, can be a very lucrative business.

To watch the short video, you can go here to the CBC's The National site. The video is called, "Tolerance: Canadian Voices."

Oh Canada, Poor Canada!

Photo from Toronto Star article: 
"A city of unmatched diversity"


Contemporary Canada is being hijacked once again. Recently, Native Canadians have been usurping lands and bypassing law and order demanding a bigger share of the nation.

And imagine calling someone a liar or a thief, simply and absolutely based on your whims and perceptions, with nothing to back up your accusations? A video report from yesterday's CBC The National showed just that, well almost.

In response to reports projecting that 28% of Canadians will be foreign born by 2031, and large cities like Toronto and Vancouver will have close to 60% of their population as visible (ethnic) minorities, the CBC conducted its own little survey on racism (The video is titled, Tolerance: Canadian Voices).

Everyone in the survey said yes, there is racism. Except for one white man, who looked like he was talking from a small town. He said that "it feels like we're being taken over."

What is remarkable about this very short report (only six minutes long) is that all of the non-white respondents said that they felt that they have been discriminated against. But none of them came up with any concrete examples, unless it is half-baked ones like the Asian girl who feels that she is being discriminated against when people assume she doesn't speak English, and a black student says that he's always being asked where he comes from.

And besides this pervasive feeling of racism, which all the minorities were happy to jump on, none of them voiced any kind of thanks or gratitude for their presumably productive (at least with jobs and income) lives that Canada provides for them. They did not complain about discrimination at jobs, with housing, their children and school admittance. Instead, they all focused on some amorphous feeling of discontent, which they have cultivated for whatever reason.

This whole "Canada is a racist country" has a sticky, grimy feel to it. Like I said earlier, it is like someone who has decided that I am a liar, and however much the evidence and my behavior contradicts that, who will continue to swear by my dishonest nature.

So, this is what we are to expect much more of in the next twenty years, when the ethnic minorities, comprising a bigger and bigger piece of the Canadian pie, will feel it is necessary to continuously downgrade Canada.

Oh Canada, Poor Canada!

"Moderate" Muslims Slowly Weaving Islam into Canadian Society

Naema Ahmed, who was recently expelledfrom a 
French language class in Montreal for wearing a niqab.

An Egyptian woman, Naema Ahmed, was recently expelled from a French language class in Montreal because she refused to take off her niqab during class.

The Quebec immigration minister, Yoland James said:

There is no ambiguity about this question. If you want to [attend] our classes, if you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values: we want to see your face.

Quebec has been far stricter than other provinces when it comes to immigration. In fact, immigrants coming into Quebec are required to sign their commitment to the province's values.

Naema Ahmed was expelled from the French language class partly to uphold Quebec's decision that people receiving public services should present themselves with their faces uncovered. Teachers have also complained that the woman's coverings makes it hard for them to see if she is pronouncing correctly, and that it distracts the other students in the class.

"Moderate" Muslims are agreeing with this decision, but with their own twist. The weekly show "Behind the Story" hosted a panel tonight which included a soft-spoken, articulate, and for all practical purposes a "moderate" Muslim woman, Khadija Mustapha-Ali. According to Mustapha-Ali's Zoom Info profile, as well as working as an independent media producer, she is a "field producer" for CTS TV, the channel which programs "Behind the Story." There is nowhere in her Zoom Info profile which indicates Mustapha-Ali's faith. In fact, her productions company seems to do a variety of programs from home shows to restaurant guides.

Her name, though, does crop up in various Muslim-related activities, such as one called "MuslimFest: Celebrating the Best in Muslim Arts and Entertainment" where the Ali is part of a panel "Meet & Mingle with Muslim Journalists & Producers." She is also mentioned in a (small, 6-page, worth reading) pdf file of a brochure describing a program organized by Centre for Faith and the Media, and funded by the Canadian government, titled "The Muslim Project," whose intention is "to improve reporting on Muslim stories and communities within Canadian media." Mustapha-Ali is listed as the project coordinator.

I have gone to some lengths to show, as far as the internet sources allow, who and what Mustapha-Ali is. She appears to be one of those "moderate" Muslims, who lives a successful "Canadian" life fulfilling family, community  and job commitments. And she certainly behaves "moderately" – unless one can catch her out.

In tonight's "Behind the Story" panel, while discussing Naema Ahmed's expulsion from the French classes, everyone on the panel agreed that it is difficult to teach (and interact with) someone whose face is covered up, and the Quebec officials were right to do what they did.

Mustapha-Ali spoke quietly and unobtrusively. She agreed that "in that particular situation" the teachers and officials were right. But, what about private classes, could Naema Ahmed be accommodated in a private class?

This of course would have to be a government-funded "private class for one," and Mustapha-Ali quickly realized the unfeasibility of this suggestion.

She amended this to: if there are several women with their faces covered, then could a different class just for them be organized to accommodate their needs (of covering their faces)?

I found this extraordinary for several reasons:

- Mustapha-Ali has no intentions of changing the niqab-wearing traditions of Muslim women.

- She is so confident that there will be an increasing number of niqab-wearing women in Canada who will wish to attend classes (and receive public service) with their niqabs on, that alternate classes can (should?) be arranged for them.

- And this goes on to the bigger picture that even the "moderate" Muslims like Mustapha-Ali, who appear to be wholly integrated into Canadian society, are simply waiting for loopholes - and numbers - in order to insert their own society, norms, culture and religion at the appropriate time, and as seamlessly and inconspicuously as Mustapha-Ali is doing.

Finally, this itself is pretty extraordinary: No one at "Behind the Story" picked up on Mustapha-Ali's frank, albeit carefully worded, revelation. And if they had, they would have probably agreed with Mustapha-Ali that yes, indeed, if there are enough niqab wearing women, then let's open another class just for them.