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.

Free Speech and Liberty Symposium in Ottawa

The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies recently held a symposium titled "Free Speech and Liberty." Here is the list of speakers, and the topics they presented.

The Human Rights Commissions which come under the Canadian Human Rights Act (instituted in 1977), and the Hate Speech Provisions (sec. 318-320) which were amended into the Criminal Code of Canada in 1970, were a reaction to the multicultural, multi-racial and multi-ethnic Canada that started to form after Lester Pearson removed restrictions on non-white and non-European immigrants entering Canada after the revised Immigration Act of 1967. Some of these institutions have been used against individuals, although sparingly and with minimal public awareness, prior to the Alberta Human Rights Commissions case filed against Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed Cartoons, and the cases filed in the B.C. Human Rights Commissions and the Federal Human Rights Commissions against Mark Steyn and MacLeans magazine for a reprint of an excerpt from Steyn's book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It titled "The Future Belongs to Islam."

Prior to these two cases, most of the HRC complainants were homosexuals, or those protesting what appeared to be white nationalist (possibly anti-Semite) individuals. But, the public was abruptly introduced to these institutions with the vocal and aggressive Muslims, who had no qualms against taking on media giants in the name of defending their culture and religion.

My point here is that free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press in our current debate are strongly intertwined with this multicultural landscape, and more specifically with the Muslim population. In fact, Muslims' incessant curtailment on speech is becoming common practice all over Europe, which has a longer history of Muslim immigration. In Canada, and in the United States, we are only beginning to see the tip of the iceberg.

I was curious to see if anyone in the Symposium mentioned the clearly strong influence Muslims have in the domain of "free speech and liberty." Blogger Rebekah, who hosts the blog The Miss Marprelate Tracts, did a great job of transcribing what she heard at the Symposium onto her blog. According to her account, only one person focused, his speech on the Muslim angle. That was Bjorn Larsen, now the President of the International Free Speech Society - Canada.

It is well and good to talk about the Muslim influence in restricting speech and liberty, but the final, and constant, question should be: "What do speakers who bring this up in their discussions suggest the solutions should be?"

I emailed Rebekah this question. I hope she answers, and will post her response when I get it:

Dear Rebekah,

Thanks for your great transcript of the symposium "Free Speech and Liberty." It was really helpful to get the viewpoints of the various speakers, and how they approach free speech and liberty.

One of the things I blog about here at Our Changing Landscape is how Muslims are now the prime influence in restraining, even restricting, free speech, freedom of expression, and consequently liberty in Canada. I discuss in various posts that one way to put a stop to this is to reduce, and even to stop, the number of Muslim immigrants into Canada as part of a multi-faceted solution.

I notice that Bjorn Larsen, now the President of the International Free Press Society – Canada, was the only one who explicitly brought up the Muslim influence in the restrictions on free speech. In your summary of his speech, you didn’t mention if he offered any solutions to this problem. Do you remember if he did say what to do about the presence of Muslims and their recurring and aggressive attempts to curtail free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press?

Thanks for you time and effort.

All the best,

Kidist Paulos Asrat

Time to Find Solutions to the Islam Problem

In a recent entry at the View from the Right, Lawrence Auster writes about a New York City presentation by outspoken Islam critic Wafa Sultan. He asked her "what Western countries should do to stop and reverse the Islamization of the West," and her answer was to treat them the same way America treated Germany and Japan.

You can read the discussion that ensued from that entry, including my comment which states that if vocal and prominent counter-jihad individuals and groups are pressed to include their views and suggestions on solutions to these problems, they might direct their energies towards these more fruitful endeavors, rather than endlessly regurgitate the horrors that Islam is doing to Western societies. Without working out the solutions, there is no point to the continuous stream of writings we have on Islam.

Let's Get On With The Business Of Defending Ourselves Against Islam

I have written with interest, here and here, Lawrence Auster's latest presentation on Islam, this time his debate with moderate Muslim Supna Zaidi. I mentioned in my comments that this was probably the first time a moderate Muslim has debated someone who doesn't accept that terminology of Muslims, or if they do exist, their importance as a group.

And it was worthwhile following that event, illuminating for me something of this "moderate" Muslim who has been the subject of so many Islamic experts and scholars, and a qualifier that many Muslims have taken on.

Despite a full afternoon of presentations, debates, questions and even audience participation that tried to convince Miss Zaidi to the contrary, she still left with the idea that moderate Muslims are an authoritative group, and an antidote to the "radicals" and "Islamists" out there, and that they are allies of Western societies in combating the harm that (radical) Islam is causing.

Ultimately, nominal Muslims (perhaps that is a better term than moderate) are dangerous. They appear to be like the nominal Christians (and reform/nominal Jews), who tend to quote parts of their holy books to make their points, but who invariably lead societies down dangerous paths. For example, it is nominal Christians and Jews who use the biblical verses about helping strangers to validate illegal immigrants’ presence, thereby putting society in all kinds of dangers, both life threatening and other slowly encroaching problems such as affecting the economy.

There is also something of an elitism amongst nominal Christians and Jews, who find that their "fundamental" counterparts are callous and unduly harsh and unrefined in their approach to their religion and lives, making these kinder, gentler nominal Christians and Jews superior.

Miss Zaidi, and I assume her association (still to be formed) of moderate Muslims, seems to just want to live an unencumbered life maintaining her culture and what she perceives to be her religion. She even talks several times that religion (Islam, in her case) should be practiced privately. This is a glaring contradiction in the face of the very public and aggressive religion that Islam is. She keeps contrasting the aggressive Arab Muslims with the quieter (more moderate?) South Asian Muslims, despite her inability to put Pakistan in that category. Her point being that her brand of Islam – moderate and South Asian - is superior and less aggressive, and hence more in-line with Western societies, than the more primitive "radical" Islam.

I think ultimately, these nominal religious groups, elitist and pushing liberal agendas, are a danger to society. They use wishful thinking – as Mr. Auster aptly put it – to promote their version of the world, ignoring the realities and dangers which, in Islam’s case, is out to destroy all non-Muslim societies.

I think that we have given moderate Muslims, and their notion of moderate Islam, enough time to prove their points. As this interesting debate has demonstrated, they have nothing to show for themselves. There are no moderate Muslim groups and whatever splinters there are, they have proven themselves incapable of fighting off aggressive "radical" Muslims. Ironically, they may even be as dangerous to us as the "radical" Muslims they speak against.

It is time to forget about moderate Muslims and moderate Islam, and to get to the business of defending our societies from Islam, pure and simple.

A Rough Transcript of the Debate on the Counter-Jihad Movement

I listened to the very interesting hour-long debate between Lawrence Auster and Supna Zaidi at the event organized by ACT! For America (which I blogged about here).

This debate, which also included the participation of audience members, occurred after each presenter finished a prepared speech, and answered questions from the audience.

Mr. Auster began his challenge to Miss Zaidi by saying:

What I heard over and over again was wishful thinking. Your position is, I think we ought to have standards, I think Muslims should not impose their faith on others, I think there ought to be moderate mosques, I think people should not yield to the power of jihadist Islam. These were all your personal opinions the way you would like things to be. The reality is that is not the way Islam is.

And from this introduction, below are what I considered the pertinent points of the debate, which I have divided into segments. Some of it is directly transcribed from the audio, most of it I've simplified in my own words.

You can go to the Unofficial Lawrence Auster page and scroll down to "Who belongs in the counter-jihad movement?" and "The Debate" to hear the whole debate, which I do recommend, partly to hear the debating style of Miss Zaidi, who I found cleverly rebutted several arguments, but who at the end of the day was unable to see the fallacy of her argument of plucking this moderate Muslim out of the thin air of her imagination. I found this inability strangely stubborn, as though some personal stance was at stake. Maybe if she started to acknowledge the violence and aggression of her religion, it might make her less religious, or even renounce her religion altogether?

-----------------

Organizing moderate Muslims

Z. We need to organize the moderation of Islam.
A. How long will moderation [reform] of Islam take?
Z. A couple of decades.
A. So we should let these people in, work on them for 50 years [until they're moderate], in the mean time they’ll do what they do?
Z. Screen them both at immigration level, and their schools, mosques and those individuals once in the country.
A. Still not enough. What if they don’t do what they say [or do what they don’t say]? Robert Spencer has finally said that screening is ineffective, and all Muslim immigration should be stopped. Why should a country allow people in with such huge problems in the first place?

-----------------

Who are the Islamists and who are the Muslims?

A. Are sharia believing, jihad believing Muslims objectively Muslims?
Z. Yes.
A. Then why do you call them Islamists?
Z. All Islamists are Muslims, all Muslims are not Islamists.
A. The net effect of this is saying that Islam is not the problem, but only Islamism is the problem. This weakens a society’s ability to defend itself from the dangerous form of Islam.

-----------------

A private vs. a public religion

Z. You should be satisfied with practicing your faith at home – in private.
A. Real religions are not just private.
A. The real Islam by its very nature is public, social, political – the real Islam is not just private.
A. Miss Zaidi is trying to create something that has never existed except in the
individual private realm and try to act as though this can become the common Islamic practice for most or all Muslims.
A. Shall we gamble our society on this wishful thinking?

-----------------

Is Sharia different in different situations?

Z. Sharia is an intangible; it means nothing, it illustrates itself in different ways depending on the generation or the century.
A. Spencer completely disagrees. The fundamentals of sharia are the same in all the Islamic splinters, they may differ on details.
A. This is a typical liberal argument – "there is a lot of diversity in Islam, you don’t need to worry about it". They do this to distract people from the essence of Islam.
A. There are all types of conflicts within Islam, does that mean that there is no such thing as Islam?

-----------------

What to do about the aggressive Muslim presence

A. The general trend of Western societies is to yield gradually to Muslims’ demands.
A. The inevitable dynamic happens where Muslims’ sharia-mandated aggressiveness and Westerners' acquiescence results with Muslims getting more and more power.
A. Separation of Islam from the West is the only solution to counter their sharia-commanded aggressiveness and Westerners' inevitable acquiescence.

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.

Conference on Preserving Western Civilization

This Weekend


This site started its odyssey (strong word for such a small blog, I know, but the ambitions were high) with the intention of recording the good and the bad that is happening in (my) Western culture. I wanted to focus on art and culture, but inevitably I had to get into areas like immigration and multiculturalism, factors which are negatively affecting the culture I'm writing about.

There is an important conference taking place this weekend in Baltimore, Maryland entitled Preserving Western Civilization. As far as I know, it is the first of its kind. I think it is a timely and necessary conference. It represents what I'm trying to do here at Camera Lucida and Our Changing Landscape, at least in blogging about the issues.

Some participating speakers include:

- Lawrence Auster from the View From the Right, whose website covers issues from Islam, to liberalism, to Christianity and Darwinism with a traditionalist perspective.

Mr. Auster will be presenting on A Real Islam Policy for a Real America.

- John Philippe Rushton, psychology professor from the University of Western Ontario, who has been criticized by Canadian media, and has even received the honor of David Suzuki's attention with Suziki saying, "There will always be Rushtons in science, and we must always be prepared to root them out!" for his views, including his book Race, Evolution and Behavior.

- Peter Brimelow, founder of Vdare, an immigration restriction site, and Brenda Walker contributing writer at Vdare.

I'm not sure about hotel reservations and conference tickets, but there's more information here, including the topics the speakers will be discussing. I would think Washington D.C. and Baltimore residents can go for the day (both days or one only).

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.

Keeping Up With Muslim Wedding Traditions

Here is more evidence that Muslims have no intention of really integrating into Western culture.

The recent wedding of a young Muslim South Asian newscaster from New Jersey was depicted as "a fusion" of cultures. In reality, there is not much "fusion about it.

I know this isn't an Ontario story, but the New Jersey story was the one I could find with the most detail about young married, or soon-to-be married Muslim couples.

Still, regarding Ontario, the writer and creator of Little Mosque on the Prairie, Zarqa Nawaz, has talked about her husband and family life. She recounts her husband "supporting" her career as a filmmaker by relocating from Saskatchewan to Toronto, as though he made special sacrifices. But, her husband is a doctor, and unlikely not to find work anywhere, given the shortages. So, moving to Toronto from Saskatchewan to follow his new filmmaker wife's career wasn't such a risky move. In the end, as it happens, they had to return to Saskatchewan because...it didn't suit the husband's career plans. Doctors from out of Ontario have to wait three years before gaining residency. So much for the "feminist" woman full of career moves with the supportive modern Muslim husband. Of course, her TV series is also a heavily subsidized CBC affair, where her real entrepreneurship and creativity is not important. I'm sure it is her "female and Muslim" attributes that gave her the show.

Back to New Jersey.

Syma and Aamer are American-born well-established Muslims. Syma is both Pakistani and Indian. Her now-husband Aamer is Indian. Syma has a semi-glamorous life as a fashion model and a newscaster at News 12, and Aamer is an attorney. They met through a chat line, and dated for a year before they became engaged. Such a long dating period is frowned upon, but this outgoing, rule-breaking couple did it anyway.

Other rules they broke?

- Syma wore an off-white wedding dress (actually it looks more like a sari to me) instead of the traditional red one.
- Syma decided to have the henna-painting ceremony - the mehndi - before the wedding ceremony - the nikah. (Unfortunately, we are having to learn new vocabulary as well)
- There were bridesmaids whose saris matched the wedding sari and other decor
- Although the couple had a traditional nikah (yes that would be wedding) ceremony, they gave each other rings, as per Western traditions
- The bride and groom also followed other Western wedding traditions such walking down the "aisle", cutting of the cake, throwing of the bouquet (but not the garter!) and having the first dance as a married couple (couples apparently don't dance in Muslim wedding ceremonies).

But, more detail shows this is just really fluff.

They got married under strict Muslim tenets, reciting words from the Koran. And Syma's mother had the last say in almost all the big decisions, including having the wedding venue in a formal, large hall with hundreds of guests unlike the few dozen Syma was planning. Large communities are ways in which such groups keep their bonds strong. One small detail, which sounds quaint: the wedding cake had a mosque dome, a crescent and a star as the cake topper.

When push comes to shove, the "fusion" parts of Muslim weddings, and married couples, is in the artificial and unimportant ones - well, some might relinquish a little more. But, the essentials of the weddings are all there, and no real tradition is broken.

Even the Western rites are submerged and integrated into the Muslim/non-Western ones, and not the other way round.

Eid at the Ex

Part of a poster for the Eid festivals at the CNE, showing the
Queen Elizabeth Building designated for prayers

[Click here to see a bigger and complete version of the poster.]

December 8th was the big Eid Al-Adha festivities.

This time, instead of the Rogers Center, Muslims used another well-known Toronto landmark to hold their celebrations: the Canadian National Exhibition (the CNE). This isn't the first time that these celebrations took place in the CNE, but the organizers promised that it would be bigger and better this time, expecting up to 15,000 people from around the Toronto area.

The CNE becomes a giant fairground for two weeks in August as it hails in Labor Day and the end of summer. This event is simply known as "The Ex". The theme song "Let's go to the Ex" is sweet music to thousands of young children, who have been celebrating the end of summer with carnival rides, hot dogs and cotton candy for decades.

The grounds started off as an agricultural fair, which later branched off into the August fair ground. The rest of the year, the many buildings are used for smaller trade shows, exhibitions and athletic demonstrations.

Other multicultural events also take place there, like the Chinese New Year.

But the Muslim Eid celebrations are the biggest yet. They also made extensive use of the Ex's facilities, including rides for children, and the Queen Elizabeth Building for prayers.

Various Toronto institutions set up a food drive, co-sponsored by the CBC and Little Mosque on the Prairie's. The show's caste (many of whom are non-Muslim) also attended to meet their "fans" and to help with the food drive.

Toronto and Ontario officials, including John Tory, leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, and Ontario's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Mike Colle were in attendance.

Here's how the Muslim Association of Canada describes the event:

MAC envisions Muslims as a community in Canada that is an essential, integral and vibrant part of this society yet maintaining its religious attributes and values. In aiming to integrate the Muslim identity into the Canadian social fabric, MAC has dedicated itself to events such the Eid Festivals. The Muslim community represents 10% of the GTA population and continues to grow each year. Given Eid is a very important celebration for Muslims, establishing a united gathering that represents such a multicultural community directly strengthens the Ontario heritage. This celebration is unique compared to most other events in the GTA; the events gather a diverse attendance that directly reflects the cultural mosaic of Ontario.

A nice contradiction, on the one hand advocating the multicultural nature of the Canadian society, on the other hand maintaining a Muslim exclusivity. But, this is common. Muslims will use the multicultural fabric to establish themselves, their families and their religion while excluding everyone else.

Eid at the Roger's Centre

Shot of screen with the CN Tower and Rogers Center
looming over Toronto, clearly looking like a mosque.
From the Arabic program Omniyat TV.

The past Eid Al Fitr Festival was celebrated in the Roger's Centre.

I had perviously noted that the Roger's Center and the CN Tower have been used to look like a mosque and a minaret.

Well, here is the progression of that intuition (observations?).

The huge sports complex interior was fittingly used to celebrate one of the most important Muslim festivals.

Of course, people will say that the center is often used for large community, multicultural, events. But, that's besides the point. One by one, we are getting used to our buildings take on different functions. And it is in the interest of the Muslims that this is the case, since they can camouflage their increased presence in the West as part of the multicultural reality.