"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.