Even If The HRCs are Dismantled, There Is Much More Work To Be Done

In my previous post I wrote:

As long as high levels of immigration from non-Western countries is the norm in Canada, I argue that there will be an endless stream of visible minorities who are potential HRC case filers, and will thus keep the HRCs going.

I should qualify that. Even if the HRCs are successfully dismantled with Levant's incessant activities, systems and institutions which do the work of the HRCs (affirmative action is one example) will still exist as long as there is the population group that demands these kinds of services.

That is what I meant by "underlying problems." If Levant doesn't address these problems, then dismantling the HRCs will have become a futile exercise.

Congratulations to Ezra Levant

Congratulations to Ezra Levant on the birth of his new baby this past weekend. This must come at an especially happy time for him, given his enormously successful book Shakedown, and the continuous screw-ups by the major players of the HRCs .

I hope Levant does read this blog, and takes note of my slant on all of this, which is that the HRCs are just a symptom of the underlying problems. Almost all my posts at Our Changing Landscape from May 16, 2009 onwards have been a detailed analysis of these underlying problems, with my moment of epiphany on May 28th which I titled: "The Human Rights Commissions Are Here To Stay." As long as high levels of immigration from non-Western countries is the norm in Canada, I argue that there will be an endless stream of visible minorities who are potential HRC case filers, and will thus keep the HRCs going.

Levant has made a courageous start to make Canada a better place for his infant child. I hope he goes a step further by attacking this underlying problem as well. As I've said, he is the ideal candidate for this.

A Preliminary Review of Supna Zaidi's Speech and Q&A

The presentations on Islam organized by ACT! for America with Lawrence Auster and Supna Zaidi is now on Youtube. There are four parts to the videos: one each for each presentation by Mr. Auster and Miss Zaida, and two more for a question and answer period for both presenters. The debate between the two apparently has been recorded as an audio, and will be made available.

I can't say much about the actual debate until I hear the audio. I think that is the interesting part (for me, at least, since I have been blogging about Mr. Auster's recommendations for how to treat Muslims in the West in a few blogs now). I don't think there ever has been a debate between someone who doesn't accept the term (or the person) "moderate Muslim", and the other party proclaiming to be a real-life moderate Muslim. Even the eminent Islam critic Robert Spencer, who has of late announced that Muslim immigration should be stopped, still cannot quite accept that his Muslim acquaintances are part of the violent, jihad-supporting group that much of Islamic history seems to point towards.

Until the debate is available, here are a few thoughts and comments (and a question here and there) on Miss Zaidi's presentation:

- Miss Zaidi says that without affiliation with mosques or Imams, movements Muslims such as herself try to initiate - a moderate approach to Islam - would be futile. But, aren't mosques and Imams the last place to go for moderate view points, and if they are behind it, won't the movement become other than moderate - i.e. radical? Doesn't that put into question the whole possibility of organizing large groups of Muslims as moderates?

- She talked extensively about her country of birth, Pakistan. When describing the modern history of Pakistan (actually, all of Pakistan's history is modern), doesn't it show that the country seems to be getting progressively less moderate? Isn't that the historical progression of all Muslim countries? Even Turkey, which had a secular government for the last sixty years or so (a very short period given the country's long history), is now beginning to slowly denounce its secularism, by the popular election of a conservative president who is a "former Islamist", and whose wife is wearing the formerly banned hijab in public.

- Is America to be the Islam reformer, where due to its cultural and political institutions, it seems to help people like her to pursue their quest for moderate (reformed?) Islam? As I mentioned above, almost all countries with Muslim populations haven't been able to advance that proposition. Why does she think America will be able to do it?

- She worries about her 1-year-old nephew's influences when he's a young adult and wishes to associate with other Muslims, who might have a radicalizing effect on him. I doubt that a Greek Orthodox or an Israeli Jew who immigrate to America would have such concerns about their younger relatives. Why is Miss Zaidi worried about hers? Isn't there something in Islam that underlines violent means for disseminating the faith that is making her worried? So, is Islam (or are Muslims) ever really moderate?

- Finally, I am surprised at her dismissal of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) - which I've blogged about here. ISNA is a virulent organization, working under the radar, but which is fully immersed with other organizations which advocate jihadi-like violence when confronting Western (and other) antagonists.

I look forward to listening to the debate. I am sure Mr. Auster will be generous and considerate towards Miss Zaidi, but at the same time, I don't think he will let inconsistent and unclear outlooks by Miss Zaidi pass over unremarked.

Debating a Moderate Muslim

Muslims who desire to appear moderate (or at least in opposition to what are perceived as radical, fundamentalist Muslims) have various ways of describing (or rationalizing) their positions. Here is one such argument from Tashbih Sayyed, a newspaper columnist and writer:

Tashbih Sayyed, a secular Muslim (or ex-Muslim, I’m not sure which), found the passage in the Koran that says, "There is no compulsion in religion," and decided that he would make that his view of Islam; meaning that he was ignoring the fact that the passage was abrogated by the Medinan suras, which call for endless war against, killing of, and terminal scalding and flaying in hell for those who reject Islam.

Here's more on the recent debate on Islam with Lawrence Auster and Tashbih Sayyed's daugher, Supna Zaidi, who is the assistant director of Daniel Pipe’s Islamist Watch and who calls herself a moderate Muslim. The debate was organized by ACT for America during the weekend.

I think this is the first time anyone who doesn't accept the term "moderate Muslim" has debated a self-ascribed moderate Muslim. But the crux of the debate (or speech) is Mr. Auster's recommendations for what to do about the dangers of Islam. Such an approach at looking at Islam - what to do about its dangers - is gaining more attention, and ACT for America has a useful set up where such issues can be discussed and disseminated to a wider public, hopefully conservatives and liberals alike.

Are Canadians a Cowardly Bunch?

A review of the presentations in London, Ontario, on the HRC by Levant, Shaidle, and Mansur

I don't think this photo was necessary
(read last section below).

I've posted here the presentation in London, Ontario, by Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur, where I normally post on information related to Islam, because the topic: "Human Rights Commission, Useful or Obsolete" relates both directly and indirectly to Islam.

Levant, as I've blogged before, was caught in the Human Rights Commission (HRC) nightmare when he published the Mohammed cartoons three years ago. Shaidle has written a book called The Tyranny of Nice, also dealing with the HRC. And Mansur presents a Muslim's perspective on the HRC.

The videos are available at Levant's website. Levant's presentation is in Part 2 of the videos, and begins at around the 23-minute mark.

Levant's impassioned speech was actually a pleasure to listen to. I agreed with his premise that Canadians are not a cowardly bunch, and he cited for example the World Wars, and the mission in Afghanistan. This is as good a time as any to bring up Canadian courage.

Levant's pugnacious start was in response to Shailde's challenge that the HRCs got so far ahead because of complaisant Canadians. But part of the problem with the HRCs is their undercover nature. They pounce on unsuspecting business owners, teachers and Christians (let's face it, the religious people they attack are Christians), who then, under the shock of losing their jobs and businesses make a "deal" to avoid further harassment. So, I disagree, and that rather than being complacent, people are shell-shocked into silenced.

The other point Shailde made was that the HRCs are a "typical" Canadian knee-jerk reaction of one-upmanship on the Americans, who had their lunch counter protests and a full-blown Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, this may be partially true, but the era of the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. was part of a strange global radicalization towards the left, which Canadians also participated in.

Shaidle frequently references some kind of Canadian Envy towards the U.S. which she says dictates many of the policies and developments made in the country. I actually disagree with this very strongly. It is normal that Canada react to the U.S. on many levels, just being close to the border makes this inevitable. But, many of the ways the country has shaped itself is a purely Canadian exercise.

Even the apparently complacent reaction to the HRCs is reminiscent of the matter-of-fact attempt of a country trying to keep many diverse (in the real sense) elements together at its inception, including a French minority, a British presence, and even the very first Prime Minister whose Scottish background forced him to interact with a "colonial" Britain, similar to the way his own Scotsmen had compromised back in Scotland.

So, yes, there is nothing wrong in saying that Canada is a land of pragmatic compromise, with an acute awareness of diversity. These were the loopholes that the HRCs managed to wiggle themselves into, to foment their destructive setup.

But, they had to get caught at some point, because the other traditions, the courage and fairness which Levant brought up, are still an innate part of Canadians' psyche.

One final thing. Shaidle opines that part of the HRC's modus operandi is to shut up the normally outspoken and vocal lower classes through an educated, upper-class elite. I have to disagree here also, since they are obviously pretty indiscriminate. I wouldn't call Ezra Levant a vocal lower class, nor does that fit MacCleans magazine, which along with Steyn, was part of a recent HRC scuffle. Nor would I classify the myriad of teachers, pastors and business owners, who keep getting the summons ticket, as lower class.

On a related, but tangential point, Shaidle and Wendy Sullivan have both posted a photo of them having drinks with friends, including two South Asians (including Salim Mansur) and one Iranian, after the lecture. This is to show that they are not "racist". I wish they didn't have to resort to this. As always, the right is reacting to the left, putting itself in embarrassing, if not unnecessary, situations (remember the I Am Sarah Palin video Sullivan did?). It was enough to have given the lecture, and that an unprecedented 600 people showed up.

Also, not to mention Levant’s very successful book tour, and his influence on a Conservative leader who plans to take on the HRC issue.

How Not to Fight the War against Islam

Ironic book title by Kathy Shaidle,
given the nature of her most recent post

I've always been ambivalent about our Canadian self-appointed conservative spokesmen, from Kathy Shaidle to Wendy Sullivan (she of the I Am Sarah Palin video fame), and even the boisterous Ezra Levant.

For all their outspokenness, I find them to be "conservative-lite". Or maybe it is the Mark Steyn Kool Aid that's influencing them (the link is to a photo at groupie Wendy Sullivan's blog with her and Steyn.)

I've put Shaidle to task about her appearance on public television, coming unprepared to speak on topics at hand (the last one was on atheism at TVO), and just spouting out a couple of irritated and angry words. I've also written about her interview with Robert Spencer on Islam, where she gave him a lot of slack.

Wendy Sullivan did the same on the Michael Coren Show, and I actually think Coren was more in the right (no pun intended) than in the wrong for chastising her.

This same group has also spent an inordinate amount of time sympathizing with Chinese minorities for an innocent gaffe that an adversarial leftist - Warren Kinsella - wrote on his blog.

And now here's Shaidle's latest post.

Ezra Levant is on a book tour for Shakedown, his latest on Human Rights Commission revelations, which he did a great job of describing here on the Michael Coren Show. Yesterday, he posted a photo of his Calgary book signing, which was nothing unusual, except I hope that he has the permission of these people to have their faces all over the internet - they could be potential HRC victims!

Well, Shaidle has picked up on that photo and uses it as a great example of...diversity! Look at those minorities in "redneck" Calgary, and how they support freedom of speech (because the whole point for this group regarding the HRC is the stifling of freedom of speech.)

She then goes on to write a completely unrelated story about that neo-con conman Conrad Black (look at all those cons!), and a cocktail party she attended, filled with elite immigrants and non-whites (Mark Steyn is also in there somewhere.) Yes, we all know what elite immigrants are really up to in Canadian politics (bringing in more immigrants.)

Well, the funny think about Levant's photo is all I see are two non-whites, or as Shaidle writes, "a black guy and an Asian dude", which doesn't make for much rejoicing, if that's what Shaidle is doing.

Also, there is no knowing why these two showed up, maybe they just want to say whatever they please, and "don't want no" Commission telling them what to do. Who knows if they really care about Canada as a nation, which is the whole point of true conservatism, I would think.

I've tried to figure out what the real purpose of her post might be. I think she’s getting a lot of flack from her readers for her sporadic “Your religion is f***ing retarded” outbursts about Muslims, and her various attacks on Toronto blacks. I think its getting to her that people are calling her "racist." She just doesn’t want to be called racist anymore, and needs her readership to keep on supporting her.

Another thing I have to mention is that she doesn't have any real idea of what she wants for Canada. As long as there are those who will violently or obnoxiously disrupt the peace, then she'll be at the forefront. She hates Islam because it is "retarded", writes about blacks and their attraction for guns and welfare, hates Warren Kinsella because he pokes fun at "conservatives".

All this from someone who wrote Tyranny of Nice, yet wants to be nice herself (for now)!

I’ve always maintained that the biggest problem with the fight against Islam is the vitriol that comes from the conservative side. Instead of name-calling, get the facts straight. Win your arguments based on information rather than rants. And you will win. Don’t give the Muslims (or liberals, or minorities) fodder for attacking you with your ill-conceived and unnecessary attacks.

Shaidle's attention in the media is purely based on her outspokenness on issues she doesn’t like. And I don’t think this makes for a very good conservative spokesman.

I definitely miss the outspoken, intelligent and erudite Kevin Michael Grace, who I hope is faring well since he's been absent from his website for many months now. We need more people who can articulate the problems, and find solutions to them. Not those who just yell at the top of their voices when they find something they don't like. Unfortunately, this is really what Shaidle is, or has become.

I wish her the best in her uneven battle to right what she thinks is wrong. But she's better off taking time to think, study and attack on foundations, rather than just on anger.

Brigitte Gabriel Has Another Interview At Frontpagemag.com And Says Even Less Than She Did In 2006

A very vocal Muslim woman from Iran, Homa Arjomand, made it her life's goal to stop Sharia in Ontario a few years ago. To avoid the many negative impacts of Sharia on Muslim women, as was her main argument, the Jewish and Catholic arbitrations were also dismantled, and the Muslim Sharia thus lost its bid. Multiculturalism won a strange victory.

I wrote about this in Islam's Missionary Women where I say:

All these women [Homa Arjomand, Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan and Irshad Manji] are pleading that their Western compatriots help them reform Islam and support their fellow Muslim women in achieving their dreams of transformed lives in the West. Each of them is using the rhetoric of freedom of the individual, freedom of expression, and a simplistic concept of secularism to justify her appeals.

But our duty as Westerners is not to reform Islam, nor to accommodate Muslim women--those very women who will have male and female Muslim off-spring, thereby turning our countries into what they left behind. Our responsibility is to make sure that Islam is kept at a distance, which includes Muslims...We can never be sure if our assistance to these multitudes of Muslim women would alleviate their plight, but making drastic changes in our own societies in response to their grievances will only damage us.

Brigitte Gabriel is another Arab woman speaking against Islam, but who is a few steps ahead of the rest perhaps because she is Christian. Her new book, They Must Be Stopped, attempts to address what to do with the growing Muslim presence in the US. It is equally relevant in Canada.

I have written about Brigitte's impassioned demands previously [also links to her 2006 Frontpagemag.com interview], and in her recent January 16, 2008 interview at Frontpagemag.com, she still doesn't come up with a better plan than stopping them from doing whatever it is they're doing through regulations, laws and constant monitoring.

Her argument is to stop them once they are here. One major thesis of her argument should be to stop the from coming here in the first place. She doesn't say this at all in her interview, although in her 2006 interview she does say "close our borders". That's it. In fact, in her 2008 interview, she seemed to have regressed. No mention is made about border closing at all.

They Must Be Stopped has to include the argument that allowing such a large, dangerous group in our society is unacceptable.

Brigitte now needs to think one more step ahead. In a sane world, no Muslims should be admitted into our countries. In an even saner world, we should find ways to remove such a large presence of a group that is eternally set to destroy us (for reasons of their own which they certainly find valid) . The policies need to be fine-tuned, but that is the direction that Brigitte, as a vocal and well-known spokesman, should be going.

Although to be fair, the full title of her book is They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam And How We Can do It .

In order to really critique it, I should read the whole thing, including the part where she says "How we can do it." But the problem is, she never talks about the "how", always about the "what" (sometimes about the "why".) I don't know why this is, but Robert Spencer once told in me in an interview that he feels the public is not ready for the "how".

But, if they never talk about it at important interviews, how is the public ever going to be interested in, and realize the feasibility of the "how"?

Preserving Western Civilization

There is an important conference coming up from February 6-8 in Baltimore, Maryland called "Preserving Western Civilization".

This relates to Geert Wilders' quote which I've put as a banner on top of this blog:

"The Islamization of our Western culture is a real threat to everything we stand for."

This conference will address this issue, amongst others. From the conference program:

We believe that America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity must be defended. Today, our glorious Western civilization is under assault from many directions. Three such threats will be discussed at this conference. First, the massive influx to the United States and Europe of Third-World immigrants who do not share our fundamental political and cultural values. Second, the threat from Islam, a militant ideology that is hostile to our society and, in principle, committed to destroying it. Third, because of the persistent disappointing performance of blacks (which many whites mistakenly blame on themselves) many whites have guilt feelings that undermine Western morale and deter us from dealing sensibly with the other threats.

Here's a link for registration and conference details.

Lawrence Auster, who will also be participating, has more on his site. See also the "Action" link I have on the right panel about Mr. Auster's: proposition for separating from Islam through a "rollback, isolate, and contain" strategy.

Islam on the Air

Vision TV Islamic programming

Here is an email I sent to Vision TV regarding their Sunday program on the Koran:

From: Kidist Paulos Asrat
Subject: Vistion TV Programming
To: audience@visiontv.ca
Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 1:41 PM

To whom it may concern,

I am very disappointed in Vision TV's Sunday programming.

Sunday in Canada is a sacred day for Christians. This is the day that many of us attend Church services, and commemorate the rest of the day to the Lord.

It is with great surprise and astonishment that I find that Vision TV has a Muslim program discussing the Koran on Sundays at 11 am. This is the hour around about the time when Christians are involved in our worship. It is both an insult to Christians and to the Canadian culture, which is primarily a Christian one. Putting a program of an alien religion, which in many cases is the antithesis of Christianity, on our holy day is a grave error on your part.

I ask that you remove this programming from your Sunday schedule.

Sincerely,

Kidist Paulos Asrat

I had recently written about this. Today, I decided to do something about it.

---