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.