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.

The Smorgasbord of Cultures that Will Be Canada in 2031

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

The National Post's editorial  on Thursday had a short column: "What Canada stands for." Of course, the article starts with the biggest fallacy of all when it states:

Canada has always been a nation of immigrants 

Canada started as a country of British and French settlers, who claimed territory after territory, some by peaceful means, others through epic wars, to build a nation. Eventually, the British took the upper hand. Vast areas of land needed to be developed, especially in the prairies, and Canadians allowed Eastern Europeans, mainly Ukrainians, to develop parcels of often difficult land. Other European immigrants came in waves, but not as different peoples to do what they will. The came to a country already established with its own culture, laws, religion and society. These fluxes of immigrants, almost exclusively from European countries, had to subvert their identities and nationalities to that of their host country. They had to speak English, had to accept the dominant socio-religious structure of the country, and had to bring up their children as Canadians first and foremost.

But the next part of the sentence certainly rings true:

[A]nd it will become more so [a nation of immigrants] in the next 20 years. 

Yes, thanks to the policy of multiculturalism, the acceptance of immigrants who have no cultural connection with Canada, nor any desire to connect to it, Canada will become a nation of immigrants with nothing to tie them together.

The op-ed goes on to say:

According to a report released yesterday by Statistics Canada, by 2031, up to 28% of the population could be foreign-born. The number of people following a religion other than Christianity is expected to double to 14%, up from 8% in 2006. 

Who are these foreign-born? They are from countries where there is no natural social, cultural or historical association with Canada. They are from civilizations and countries as far and diverse as India, China, Somalia, Mexico. In short, they are almost all non-Europeans.

Here is a thought: A Chinese and an Indian (or a Somali and a Mexican) are far less likely to find points of interest in their culture, language, religion than a German and an Italian. However much Europeans divide themselves into distinct groups while in Europe, their commonalities are easier to find than their differences once they arrive at the shores of the New World.

They have long historical connections starting from Greece, going on to Rome, Jerusalem, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment the two World Wars, and an infinite number of more points of intersection in between these epic periods in history. A German is as likely to have some attachment to Michelangelo as is a Frenchman or an Englishman, and even the nihilist Dadaists of the pre-WWII period do pop up in European artists' imaginations. And these European immigrants brought this rich cultural heritage to Canada, with which they could all, at some level, associate. Canadians even looked (and look) back, to some extent , to European examples for their cultural developments.

How can a Chinese Buddhist’s culture have anything in common with a German’s or an Englishman's and ultimately a Canadian's? And here's an even more radical thought, which the multi-culti brainpower hasn’t thought about: How is a Chinese Buddhist to have anything in common with an Indian Hindu, or a Somali Muslim with a Mexican Catholic (who believes in his own brand of saints with the Mexican Patron Saint Guadalupe dictating a distinct Mexican culture very different from the Spanish influence since, for one, she was a Mestizo)?

At one point, immigrants from different parts of Europe had two things going for them when they arrived in Canada:

a). They had some intersecting points of cultural agreements with each other, and with the dominant Canadian culture.

b). There was no official multiculturalism which kept them tied up in their ghettoes, thus they were forced to blend and mix with the rest of the country. AND, they could do this because of point a)., where their cultures weren't too different from each other’s.

Now, flash forward to 2010. With the triple dose of a). official multiculturalism, b). cultures with little or no commonality with the dominant one, and c). cultures with little or no commonality with each other, it is no surprise that Canada is slowly parcelling off its land to 1001 different ethnicities and races, who are content to barricade themselves behind their exclusive territories. Here is an astonished journalist who reports that by 2007, there were 254 ethnic enclaves in Canada’s three biggest cities – Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver – up from SIX in 1981.

Official Canada in 2031 may look hybrid and mixed, as the above op-ed indicates, but the private Canada will be frighteningly exclusive. And this will have in turn engendered public exclusiveness, where groups of people segregate in their own towns, cities or municipalities, start their own shops, manage their own offices, and retain their own languages, religions and cultures.

But wait, hasn’t this happened in 2010? Toronto suburbs (still part of the Greater Toronto Area) such as Brampton and Markham are already there. Brampton is now 57% visible minority, the majority of which are Indians. Markham, a Chinese enclave, is 65% visible minority.

I won't go through the rest of the article, since it is the usual liberalized view of immigration, which doesn't take into any account these inassimilable characteristics of post-1967 immigrants (when the Immigration Act of 1967 removed all restrictions on non-European immigrants). But, the article ends off with this insipid suggestion:

Canadians need to define our values so that both immigrants and the native-born have the same expectations of what Canada stands for — and what it does not.

Even if Canada were to define more precisely what it stands for, immigrants are much better at defining who they are, and are not likely to give up their identities any time soon.

Wilders and His Astute Political Strategies to Win Back the Netherlands

I have blogged about the necessity of bringing the grass-roots counter-jihad movements closer to political realities. Not everyone is a politician, and not all politicians should hold political posts, especially counter-jihad ones. That is why it is incumbent upon us to look for, and attract, the very best.

It is a pleasure to see what an astute politician Geert Wilders is, as reported by Paul Belien in this article "The Wilders Momentum."

One of the moves that Wilders made during the recent municipal elections was to avoid overreach, as Belien explains here:

Rather than concentrating on quantity and fielding candidates wherever he could, even if he was not sure about the candidates’ background and talents, Wilders concentrated on quality.

He ran in only two municipalities, and his strategy was a resounding success, where his party won in Almere and came second in the important city of The Hague.

Reforming the Islamic presence in the West is a major role to accept. It might cost the politician his life. Therefore, whoever agrees to (or qualifies for) this position will have to be brutally honest, politically shrewd (and seasoned), and work with a lot of wisdom. I think the Netherlands found such a man in Wilders.

Of Burkas, Crosses and Yarmulkes

A few years ago, when Ontario was in the grips of battling off Sharia law, I watched with fascination as a Muslim Iranian woman courageously condemned Sharia as misogynistic, and that it had no place in Ontario or Canada. Ontario finally banned Sharia law, but also threw out Jewish and Catholic tribunals in the name of multiculturalism.

At that time, I had no blog. And I decided to write an article, and send it to the National Post. My article condemned the compromise (or inclusiveness) that these Muslims (mostly women) and non-Muslims were asking of the Ontario court system, in outlawing all religious tribunals.

I realized in those elementary moments of my education about Islam, Muslims and the West, that there was a big difference between on the one side Jews and Catholics, and on the other, Muslims. It was actually depressing to watch Jewish commentators come out for multiculturalism, who were willing to give up their own tribunals for the sake of "harmony." And the inept and ultra-liberal (and Liberal) Ontario Premier making impassioned speeches about one law for all was at the nadir of his political life, I thought.

I wrote the article, but no one would publish it at the time. Later on, I edited it somewhat (to make it more current) and ChronWatch.com published it in 2008. Here is the article, which is titled: Islam’s Missionary Women.

I write this now because Islam’s contributions to the West are still considered to be on the same level as those of Jews, and Western nations' founding Christians. But Wilders, whose party has now won in one municipality, and came second in another, and is expected to have big wins in the national elections, says that is not so. Ban the burkas, not the crosses or yarmulkes, is his declaration. How hard is it to come to that conclusion? This is more-or-less what I said about five years ago. The tragedy, though, is that modern people, who are deep in the throes of liberalism, still refuse to discriminate between that which is the source of Western civilization, and that which will seal its death.

Is the Calgary Muslims' Fatwa on Terrorism a Way to Avoid Losing the Immigration Grounds That Muslims Have Gained?

In my last post, "Fatwas on Terrorism by Imams: What Does This Really Mean?" and in a post in January, "Clever Calgary Imams Playing it Safe" I've been trying to figure out what is the meaning of the fatwas on terrorism that Imams in Canada and in England are declaring.

Here is the last part of the fatwa that the Calgary Imams have sent out:

Therefore, any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on the freedom of Canadian and American Muslims. Any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on thousands of mosques across North America. It is a duty of every Canadian and American Muslim to safeguard Canada and the USA. They must expose any person, Muslim OR non-Muslim, who would cause harm to fellow Canadians OR Americans. We, Canadian and American Muslims, must condemn and stand up against these attacks on Canada and the United States.

As Islamic scholar Andrew Bieszad, about whom I have written in my previous post, said in his speech, it is a sin for a Muslim to kill another Muslim. Could part of what these Imams are doing is to avoid Muslims killing other Muslims, since killing a fellow-Muslim is a sin? Do the Imams believe that there is now a substantial Muslim population in Canada, which could easily fall victim to terrorist slaughters, that they have to protect it from such deaths?

The fatwa clearly shows that Muslims have gained huge grounds just by their presence alone:

There is no single city in Canada and the United States where MASAJIDS (Mosques) are not built. In all major cities Islamic schools provide education to Muslim children about Qur’an and the Islamic traditions. Thousands of Muslims perform Hajj every year and travel to Saudi Arabia with complete freedom and respect. In the month of Ramadan, both Canadian and the United States governments recognize the occasion and greet all Muslim citizens. Muslims pray five daily prayers in mosques without any fear or restrictions. Muslims have complete freedom to pay Zakat (poor due) to the charity or a person of their choice. Muslims have complete freedom to celebrate their festivals openly, publicly and Islamically. Muslims enjoy freedom of religion just like Christians, Jews and others. No one stops us from obeying Allah and His Messenger (Peace be upon him). No one stops us from preaching Islam and practicing Islam. In many cases, Muslims have more freedom to practice Islam here in Canada and the United States than many Muslim countries.

Read the whole quote, it is quite disconcerting to read how much gains into our societies these Imams feel they have made.

Are the Imams also saying that terrorist actions in Canada will only exacerbate these gains already made in Canada, by focusing attention on the negative and violent aspects of Islam? And that other (jihadi?) Muslims are to leave this successful strategy, of invasion through occupation, alone?

I think part of their explanation for no terrorism (no jihad) is that as Bieszad says, jihad is not mandated by Islam, although at the very least it is permitted, and at its highest value it is commendable and noble. So, the Imams are not contradicting any Koranic orders by declaring terrorism - which is clearly a form of jihad - on Canada and the U.S. a fatwa. It is important to keep their population safe from death by other Muslims, and to continue this incredible Hijra, or immigration, which their host countries are welcoming with open arms.

Fatwas on Terrorism by Imams: What Does This Really Mean?

There's a strange phenomenon going on where Imams are issuing fatwas on terrorism. The first time I heard this, I reported it on this blog as, "Clever Calgary Imams Playing it Safe." But, now I'm not even sure if that is what's going on.

The latest is Pakistani-born Imam Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri, now living in Canada, who issued a fatwa on terrorism and suicide bombing saying that suicide bombers will enter hell, not paradise.

Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri is a Sufi Muslim, and Sufis are from the more pacifist strain of Islam. Assuming that his pacifist Sufism has to do with his declaration, then his position is to some extent understandable. But, I could not fully figure out the Calgary Muslims' intentions, so I declared their declaration as Taqqiya (i.e. lying in the name of Allah).

But, this might explain some things, at least in the Calgary fatwa. This recent video, "Islam and the West...Can They Co-Exist", features an Islamic theology expert Andrew Bieszad. I fortuitously watched the video today and came upon these comments (paraphrased below) by Bieszad on killing non-Muslims. I will go through his points, to come to the final conclusion that Bieszad makes, which is that Muslims are not mandated to kill non-Muslims, but that such an act is permissible, or acceptable, and at its pinnacle highly commendable and noble. You can watch his comments between the 20-25 minute points.

Bieszad says that (these are not direct quotes):

- Everyone is created a Muslim and through this gains his humanity and dignity.

- But there are those who, despite being born Muslim, are raised as non-Muslim. Such people have had their humanity and dignity revoked from them.

- Such persons can be given a chance at reversion - a return to the true religion to regain their humanity and dignity.

- If a person refuses to revert to Islam, he is no longer human, and has forfeited his dignity. He will not be treated like a human.

- A person is always given (or always should be given) the chance to revert to his original (and true) faith of Islam.

- If a forewarned person refuses to convert, and Muslims decide to do something about it (like throw bombs, send out suicide missions, or start a jihad), it is not the Muslim's fault, but the non-believer's fault.

- Therefore, it is not a sin to act negatively towards, and even to kill, these non-believers, since they brought these actions onto themselves.

- Most terrorist videos, including those sent by Osama bin Laden, provide a chance for this reversion. They also talk about the consequences of rejecting this reversion back to Islam, which is often killing these apostates and rejecters of Islam.

- Bieszad says that killing apostates and those refusing reversion via jihad is not a mandate of Islam, but is a range of acceptable actions from simply permissible to highly commendable and noble. He calls the most conservative acceptance of jihad as "not mandatory, but almost mandatory for one's salvation."

- My interpretation of this is that since the non-believer (either the apostate or he who refused reversion) is at fault for his rejection of Islam, Muslims are, at the very least permitted to evoke jihad (i.e. kill the non-believer in the name of Islam) or at the epitome of Islam’s beliefs, highly commended for these actions. There is no sin in jihad, or killing the apostate, since the Muslim is trying to rectify the original sin of the apostate. But, there is also no coercion to perform jihad. It is the choice of the Muslim (or Muslims) to go through with it or not.

Now, back to the Sufi Imam. Well, this makes sense because if viewed this way, if jihad and killing apostates is not a mandate of Islam, then as a pacifist branch of Islam, he can condemn it as not being prescribed in the Koran (permitted but not mandated). But, it took him 600 pages to explain his position, so it must have been really hard to substantiate!

And the Calgary Muslims, in my view, are using both this indefinite interpretation of jihad, and Taqqiya to tactically allow the acceptance of Muslims and Islam in the West. And this leaves the Westerners exactly where the Muslims want them: Confused, conciliatory and accepting of this religion. Muslims' ultimate purpose is not to live in harmony with non-Muslims, but to find any possible way to expand Islam into their lands, and ultimately include everyone in this Ummah.