Tuesday, February 28, 2006
More computer problems
I'm having computer problems again. I will resume posting as soon as I can. There are a lot of things in the news I'd like to comment on.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Will there be a judicial inquiry into the Air India bombing?
From the Globe and Mail (Air-India report filed 'under budget,' Rae says, Feb 21). Robert Matas writes:
Bob Rae says he provided advice "early and under budget" to the former Liberal government on outstanding questions about the Air-India terrorist attack in 1985.
But he is still waiting to hear from the new Conservative government as to whether it wants him to continue as head of an inquiry into the twin bomb blasts on June 23, 1985 that killed 331 people.
[. . .]
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day was not available yesterday for an interview. However, Mr. Day has previously said the appointment of a judicial inquiry into the Air-India disaster was a campaign commitment and the Conservative government intends to fulfill its campaign promises.
Mr. Rae said he has not heard anything from the new government. While biding his time, he said he is doing further research and meeting with officials from the RCMP and from Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. His staff of three in the Air-India secretariat in Ottawa continue to work on the creation of permanent memorials acknowledging the victims of the Air-India disaster.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the article here
A proper inquiry would thoroughly examine the immigration and refugee policies that allowed Sikh terrorists to establish themselves in this country. A complete inquiry would ask whether Sikh immigration is in the best interests of our society. However, that isn't the kind of thing you're allowed to study in contemporary, multicultural Canada. In our allegedly free society, there are certain questions you just can't ask.
Bob Rae says he provided advice "early and under budget" to the former Liberal government on outstanding questions about the Air-India terrorist attack in 1985.
But he is still waiting to hear from the new Conservative government as to whether it wants him to continue as head of an inquiry into the twin bomb blasts on June 23, 1985 that killed 331 people.
[. . .]
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day was not available yesterday for an interview. However, Mr. Day has previously said the appointment of a judicial inquiry into the Air-India disaster was a campaign commitment and the Conservative government intends to fulfill its campaign promises.
Mr. Rae said he has not heard anything from the new government. While biding his time, he said he is doing further research and meeting with officials from the RCMP and from Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. His staff of three in the Air-India secretariat in Ottawa continue to work on the creation of permanent memorials acknowledging the victims of the Air-India disaster.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the article here
A proper inquiry would thoroughly examine the immigration and refugee policies that allowed Sikh terrorists to establish themselves in this country. A complete inquiry would ask whether Sikh immigration is in the best interests of our society. However, that isn't the kind of thing you're allowed to study in contemporary, multicultural Canada. In our allegedly free society, there are certain questions you just can't ask.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Reforms to Ontario Human Rights Commission
The Ontario Human Rights Commission should either be abolished outright or its mandate limited to cases involving the provincial government and its agencies. The state has an obligation to treat all citizens equally, but I don't think individual citizens should have the same obligation. Canadians like to boast that they live in a free society, but how free are we when there are so many restricitons on freedom of association and freedom of contract?
Private businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they want using whatever criteria they want. They should also be allowed to do business with whomever they want using whatever criteria they want. Government shouldn't have any say in the business decisions of private companies. While racial or ethnic discrimination is usually attributed to 'prejudice', that's not necessarily true. Businesses may have rational reasons for preferring to employ or do business with members of certain groups.
From the Toronto Star:
Ontario will revamp its human rights system in an effort to reduce a massive backlog of complaints waiting to be heard, Attorney General Michael Bryant said today.
Bryant said he will introduce legislation this spring that aims to slash the time it takes for a complaint to be investigated and heard to about a year.
Currently, the process can take as long as five years.
Human rights complaints would be filed directly with Ontario’s human-rights tribunal instead of first going through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which evaluates and investigates complaints before deciding if they have merit.
“It’s by shortening the pipeline from resolution to complaint, it’s by eliminating the detours, it’s by eliminating the duplication,” Bryant told a news conference.
Filing complaints directly to the tribunal would do away with the duplicate investigations of both the commission and the tribunal, which can’t share the results of their efforts.
The changes would also allow similar complaints to be grouped together to reduce the time it takes for each case to go through the system.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the story here
Private businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they want using whatever criteria they want. They should also be allowed to do business with whomever they want using whatever criteria they want. Government shouldn't have any say in the business decisions of private companies. While racial or ethnic discrimination is usually attributed to 'prejudice', that's not necessarily true. Businesses may have rational reasons for preferring to employ or do business with members of certain groups.
From the Toronto Star:
Ontario will revamp its human rights system in an effort to reduce a massive backlog of complaints waiting to be heard, Attorney General Michael Bryant said today.
Bryant said he will introduce legislation this spring that aims to slash the time it takes for a complaint to be investigated and heard to about a year.
Currently, the process can take as long as five years.
Human rights complaints would be filed directly with Ontario’s human-rights tribunal instead of first going through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which evaluates and investigates complaints before deciding if they have merit.
“It’s by shortening the pipeline from resolution to complaint, it’s by eliminating the detours, it’s by eliminating the duplication,” Bryant told a news conference.
Filing complaints directly to the tribunal would do away with the duplicate investigations of both the commission and the tribunal, which can’t share the results of their efforts.
The changes would also allow similar complaints to be grouped together to reduce the time it takes for each case to go through the system.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the story here
Another blow to free speech: historian David Irving sentenced for denying the Holocaust
I don't have a lot of time for people who deny the Holocaust. As far as I'm concerned, it is a fact beyond dispute that Nazi Germany systematically murdered millions of Jews in an attempt to wipe this people from the face of the earth. Those who deny the Holocaust are at best cranks, at worst neo-Nazis who would like to start killing Jews again.
That said, I believe in freedom of speech. Once the state says one offensive opinion is forbidden, nothing will stop it from censoring other opinions. I believe it should be legal to deny the Holocaust, because silencing Holocaust deniers opens the way to silencing other opinions including legitimate criticisms of Islam. I find it frustrating that Muslims who want to censor some satirical cartoons can win debating points in some quarters by comparing the Mohammed caricatures to Holocaust denial. Even though the comparison is ridiculous, we shouldn't be giving Muslims or any other special interest group, including other religious groups, the opportunity to censor their critics. I want to live in a society where it is taken for granted that people have the right to express controversial opinions that may offend some people.
From the Toronto Star:
Right-wing British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison today after admitting to an Austrian court that he denied the Holocaust, a crime in the country where Hitler was born.
Irving, who pleaded guilty and then insisted during his one-day trial that he now acknowledged the Nazis’ Second World War slaughter of six million Jews, had faced up to 10 years behind bars. Before the verdict, Irving conceded that he had erred in contending there were no gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
“I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,” Irving testified, at one point expressing sorrow “for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War.”
Irving, stressing he only relied on primary sources, said he came across new information in the early 1990s from top Nazi officials, including personal documents belonging to Adolf Eichmann, that led him to rethink certain previous assertions.
But despite his apparent epiphany, Irving, 67, maintained he had never questioned the Holocaust.
“I’ve never been a Holocaust denier and I get very angry when I’m called a Holocaust denier,” he said.
Irving’s lawyer said he would appeal the sentence.
[. . .]
Read the whole article here
That said, I believe in freedom of speech. Once the state says one offensive opinion is forbidden, nothing will stop it from censoring other opinions. I believe it should be legal to deny the Holocaust, because silencing Holocaust deniers opens the way to silencing other opinions including legitimate criticisms of Islam. I find it frustrating that Muslims who want to censor some satirical cartoons can win debating points in some quarters by comparing the Mohammed caricatures to Holocaust denial. Even though the comparison is ridiculous, we shouldn't be giving Muslims or any other special interest group, including other religious groups, the opportunity to censor their critics. I want to live in a society where it is taken for granted that people have the right to express controversial opinions that may offend some people.
From the Toronto Star:
Right-wing British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison today after admitting to an Austrian court that he denied the Holocaust, a crime in the country where Hitler was born.
Irving, who pleaded guilty and then insisted during his one-day trial that he now acknowledged the Nazis’ Second World War slaughter of six million Jews, had faced up to 10 years behind bars. Before the verdict, Irving conceded that he had erred in contending there were no gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
“I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,” Irving testified, at one point expressing sorrow “for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War.”
Irving, stressing he only relied on primary sources, said he came across new information in the early 1990s from top Nazi officials, including personal documents belonging to Adolf Eichmann, that led him to rethink certain previous assertions.
But despite his apparent epiphany, Irving, 67, maintained he had never questioned the Holocaust.
“I’ve never been a Holocaust denier and I get very angry when I’m called a Holocaust denier,” he said.
Irving’s lawyer said he would appeal the sentence.
[. . .]
Read the whole article here
Friday, February 17, 2006
Toronto Star - US ruling dismisses Arar lawsuit
From the Toronto Star (U.S. ruling dismisses Arar lawsuit by Tim Harper, Feb 17):
A U.S. federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against the Bush administration brought by Ottawa engineer Maher Arar, essentially giving Washington the green light to continue its practice of sending terrorist suspects to third countries where they could be tortured.
Brooklyn District Court Judge David Trager cited the need for national security and secrecy in making his decision, but also raised the possibility of Canadian complicity in the decision to send Arar, now 35, to Syria in 2002, where he was tortured for almost a year.
"The need for much secrecy can hardly be doubted," Trager wrote in an 88-page judgment. "One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's removal to Syria."
[. . .]
Read the whole article here
A U.S. federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against the Bush administration brought by Ottawa engineer Maher Arar, essentially giving Washington the green light to continue its practice of sending terrorist suspects to third countries where they could be tortured.
Brooklyn District Court Judge David Trager cited the need for national security and secrecy in making his decision, but also raised the possibility of Canadian complicity in the decision to send Arar, now 35, to Syria in 2002, where he was tortured for almost a year.
"The need for much secrecy can hardly be doubted," Trager wrote in an 88-page judgment. "One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's removal to Syria."
[. . .]
Read the whole article here
Terrorism case - Air India bomber faces perjury charges
From the CBC (March court date for Air India bomber on perjury charges, March 16):
The only man convicted in the 1985 Air India bombings will appear in B.C. Supreme Court in mid-March to face perjury charges arising from his testimony at the trial of Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik.
Inderjit Singh Reyat is currently serving a five-year prison sentence for manslaughter in the bombing of Air India Flight 182 that killed 329 people. He has already served a 10-year sentence for manslaughter in another bombing that killed two baggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport.
The perjury charges stem from Reyat's testimony during the trial of Malik and Bagri, who were acquitted last March of murder and conspiracy charges in connection with the bombings.
{. . .}
Read the whole article here
The only man convicted in the 1985 Air India bombings will appear in B.C. Supreme Court in mid-March to face perjury charges arising from his testimony at the trial of Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik.
Inderjit Singh Reyat is currently serving a five-year prison sentence for manslaughter in the bombing of Air India Flight 182 that killed 329 people. He has already served a 10-year sentence for manslaughter in another bombing that killed two baggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport.
The perjury charges stem from Reyat's testimony during the trial of Malik and Bagri, who were acquitted last March of murder and conspiracy charges in connection with the bombings.
{. . .}
Read the whole article here
Thursday, February 16, 2006
US ID rules could hurt Canadian tourist industry
Here's another article that shows how American concerns about the border impact the Canadian economy. After 9-11, it was inevitable that Americans would be concerned about their borders, but Canada's lax attitude towards terrorism makes the problem worse.
From the Toronto Star ($400M lost to U.S. ID rules, Feb 16):
The U.S. government's decision to soon require that its citizens carry special identification cards to re-enter the country could cost Canada as much as $400 million a year in lost tourist dollars, a new study predicts.
Exact details of the Western Hemisphere travel initiative haven't yet been finalized, but it starts applying in 2007 for travel by air and sea and then expands to land-based modes in 2008.
"Absolutely, the ID card is a big issue, though it is still under the radar screen," said Shanna Young, executive director of marketing at the Toronto Zoo.
"It will really impact our school groups and seniors' groups who travel by bus from the U.S. border markets. A lot of those people don't have passports."
This latest threat to cross-border travel comes at a time when the Canadian tourism industry is still licking its wounds from a number of disasters, including the SARS and mad cow outbreaks and a huge jump in the exchange rate.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the article here
From the Toronto Star ($400M lost to U.S. ID rules, Feb 16):
The U.S. government's decision to soon require that its citizens carry special identification cards to re-enter the country could cost Canada as much as $400 million a year in lost tourist dollars, a new study predicts.
Exact details of the Western Hemisphere travel initiative haven't yet been finalized, but it starts applying in 2007 for travel by air and sea and then expands to land-based modes in 2008.
"Absolutely, the ID card is a big issue, though it is still under the radar screen," said Shanna Young, executive director of marketing at the Toronto Zoo.
"It will really impact our school groups and seniors' groups who travel by bus from the U.S. border markets. A lot of those people don't have passports."
This latest threat to cross-border travel comes at a time when the Canadian tourism industry is still licking its wounds from a number of disasters, including the SARS and mad cow outbreaks and a huge jump in the exchange rate.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the article here
Illegal immigrants: Toronto police board approves 'don't ask don't tell' policy
The Toronto Star reports today that the city's police board has approved the so-called 'don't ask don't tell' policy I blogged about yesterday. Under the policy police won't ask witnesses or crime victims about their immigration status.
Tracy Huffman writes (Police board approves `don't ask, don't tell', Feb 16):
In an effort to break down a wall of silence between crime victims living illegally in Canada and police, the Toronto Police Service is adopting a "don't ask, don't tell" policy whereby officers investigating a crime won't ask victims and witnesses about their immigration status.
The concept was unanimously supported by the police services board yesterday after outreach workers and members argued in its favour.
It is now Chief Bill Blair's job to write the policy, "to ensure that victims and witnesses of crime shall not be asked their immigration status, unless there are bona-fide reasons to do so," the motion stated.
The move will help protect non-status residents who are in abusive relationships or witnesses to crime, said Andrea Gunraj, an outreach manager with the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the article here
This is one more sign that the government has no intention of doing anything about illegal immigration. Canadians should be concerned that their country's immigration laws are being openly flouted, but aside from the occasional grumbling on talk radio and in letters to the editor, there doesn't seem to be any outrage. I'm guessing that a lot of Canadians don't see how this issue affects them. Either that or they feel there's no point in complaining because the government won't listen to them anyway.
Tracy Huffman writes (Police board approves `don't ask, don't tell', Feb 16):
In an effort to break down a wall of silence between crime victims living illegally in Canada and police, the Toronto Police Service is adopting a "don't ask, don't tell" policy whereby officers investigating a crime won't ask victims and witnesses about their immigration status.
The concept was unanimously supported by the police services board yesterday after outreach workers and members argued in its favour.
It is now Chief Bill Blair's job to write the policy, "to ensure that victims and witnesses of crime shall not be asked their immigration status, unless there are bona-fide reasons to do so," the motion stated.
The move will help protect non-status residents who are in abusive relationships or witnesses to crime, said Andrea Gunraj, an outreach manager with the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the article here
This is one more sign that the government has no intention of doing anything about illegal immigration. Canadians should be concerned that their country's immigration laws are being openly flouted, but aside from the occasional grumbling on talk radio and in letters to the editor, there doesn't seem to be any outrage. I'm guessing that a lot of Canadians don't see how this issue affects them. Either that or they feel there's no point in complaining because the government won't listen to them anyway.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Comments restored
I've had second thoughts about my decision to hide comments. I think a blog needs comments, but I'm still bothered by some of what I read. I thought about moderating comments, but I don't like the idea of having to make a quick decision about whether to block a certain comment or not since there's always a chance of misinterpreting an innocent remark. Comments are on for now. I'll see how it goes.
I would like to make something clear. I am not a white nationalist or a racial separatist. A Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. I have no use for Holocaust deniers and people obsessed with Jewish conspiracies. No serious historian denies that the Nazis deliberately and systematically killed millions of Jews. I don't want to waste my time debating the obvious. If you think there is a Jewish conspiracy to undermine Western civilization, you might consider getting mental help.
I would like to make something clear. I am not a white nationalist or a racial separatist. A Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. I have no use for Holocaust deniers and people obsessed with Jewish conspiracies. No serious historian denies that the Nazis deliberately and systematically killed millions of Jews. I don't want to waste my time debating the obvious. If you think there is a Jewish conspiracy to undermine Western civilization, you might consider getting mental help.
Illegal immigrants: Toronto police board considers "don't ask, don't tell" policy
Canada, unlike the United States, doesn't share a border with Mexico, but our northern location doesn't stop us from having a serious illegal immigration problem. No one knows how many illegals there are here, but 200,000 is a frequently cited number. Our federal, provincial and local governments refuse to deal with the issue and there are business interests, such as the construction industry, that benefit from the cheap labour.
Just as in the United States, Canada has its share of political activists pushing for amnesty. One way for these special interest groups to advance their agenda is to make it seem as if nothing can be done to deport the illegals. The activists do all they can to make it appear as if illegal immigrants are here to stay whether Canadians want them or not. The amnesty lobby also works hard to portray illegals as victims rather than as the lawbreakers they are.
Of course, no one ever mentions that illegal labour depresses the wages of Canadian workers or that certain jobs are no longer available to Canadians because employers would rather hire low-paid illegals who aren't in a position to insist on proper workplace standards. Some of the same people who complain about the low minimun wage and the plight of the working poor support the illegals who are driving down wages. They don't seem to realize that the law of supply and demand applies as much to labour as any other commodity. Raising the minimun wage doesn't help poor workers if employers have the option of hiring illegals willing to work for less.
In today's Toronto Star there is an article that says the Police Board is considering adopting a "don't ask don't tell policy" with regard to illegal immigrants. The pro-illegal lobby claims the policy is necessary because as things now stand illegal immigrants are afraid to come forward as either witnesses or victims of crime.
Star reporter Nicholas Keung writes:
A construction worker is owed months' worth of wages from his deadbeat boss. A domestic worker is robbed and assaulted on the street. A bystander witnesses a shooting on her block.
But none comes forward to police, fearful of being the one who gets "caught."
It's a conundrum faced by many crime victims and witnesses who, because they're among the estimated 200,000 people living in Canada without legal status, are afraid to call police for help — or come forward to tell what they know about a crime.
But that may change after the Toronto Police Services Board meets today to vote on a proposal endorsing a "don't ask, don't tell" approach that would restrain police from demanding that victims and witnesses reveal their immigration status.
"This is going to be a significant milestone for the non-status community, that the police have finally acknowledged the reality that they face every day," noted Sima Sahar Zerehi, a spokeswoman for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Campaign, a two-year-old grassroots advocacy group for non-status migrants.
[. . .]
Note the euphemisms: "non-status community', 'non-status migrants'. Sounds a lot better than 'illegal aliens'.
Read the rest here
Just as in the United States, Canada has its share of political activists pushing for amnesty. One way for these special interest groups to advance their agenda is to make it seem as if nothing can be done to deport the illegals. The activists do all they can to make it appear as if illegal immigrants are here to stay whether Canadians want them or not. The amnesty lobby also works hard to portray illegals as victims rather than as the lawbreakers they are.
Of course, no one ever mentions that illegal labour depresses the wages of Canadian workers or that certain jobs are no longer available to Canadians because employers would rather hire low-paid illegals who aren't in a position to insist on proper workplace standards. Some of the same people who complain about the low minimun wage and the plight of the working poor support the illegals who are driving down wages. They don't seem to realize that the law of supply and demand applies as much to labour as any other commodity. Raising the minimun wage doesn't help poor workers if employers have the option of hiring illegals willing to work for less.
In today's Toronto Star there is an article that says the Police Board is considering adopting a "don't ask don't tell policy" with regard to illegal immigrants. The pro-illegal lobby claims the policy is necessary because as things now stand illegal immigrants are afraid to come forward as either witnesses or victims of crime.
Star reporter Nicholas Keung writes:
A construction worker is owed months' worth of wages from his deadbeat boss. A domestic worker is robbed and assaulted on the street. A bystander witnesses a shooting on her block.
But none comes forward to police, fearful of being the one who gets "caught."
It's a conundrum faced by many crime victims and witnesses who, because they're among the estimated 200,000 people living in Canada without legal status, are afraid to call police for help — or come forward to tell what they know about a crime.
But that may change after the Toronto Police Services Board meets today to vote on a proposal endorsing a "don't ask, don't tell" approach that would restrain police from demanding that victims and witnesses reveal their immigration status.
"This is going to be a significant milestone for the non-status community, that the police have finally acknowledged the reality that they face every day," noted Sima Sahar Zerehi, a spokeswoman for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Campaign, a two-year-old grassroots advocacy group for non-status migrants.
[. . .]
Note the euphemisms: "non-status community', 'non-status migrants'. Sounds a lot better than 'illegal aliens'.
Read the rest here
Manslaughter case: another ugly example of racial tension in Toronto high schools. "There is a war going on."
It's been a long time since I've been in a high school classroom. I don't know how widespread racial tension is in Toronto schools, but just from following the news I can see that in some cases it can get quite ugly. I assume the level of tension varies from neighbourhood to neighbourhood and school to school.
I don't want to be alarmist but I hardly think we're getting the full dimension of the problem from the media because school adminstrators have every reason to downplay any problems. One sign of racial animosity is the white flight I blogged about in November. Also in November a Globe and Mail article by Christie Blatchford painted an ugly picture of the situation at James Cardinal McGuigan Catholic high school where 16 black students were charged after a teenage girl complained about an 18-month campaign of sexual harassment.
Yesterday's Toronto Star had an article (Slain student's last moments revealed, by Peter Small, Feb 14) about a disturbing manslaughter case in which a 16 year-old white boy was stabbed to death after being swarmed by a mob of largely "South Asian" teens. Andrew Stewart died on December 3, 2004 while defending a pregnant friend. On Monday an 18 year-old pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The attacker's identity is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act because he was 17 at the time of the killing.
Toronto Star reporter Peter Small writes:
In a tense courtroom brimming with friends and family of East York Collegiate student Andrew Stewart, an 18-year-old man has admitted to stabbing him to death 14 months ago.
It was the culmination of a case that rocked the city — a 16-year-old stabbed to death defending a pregnant friend at a high school hangout during a lunch break. Yesterday's plea was also the end of tortured judicial process that began with unco-operative witnesses, then moved to a preliminary hearing last summer rife with racial overtones, hallway confrontations and threats.
[. . .]
On this Friday, Dec. 3, 2004, they arrived shortly before 1 p.m. Stewart played a relaxed game of pool with the 17-year-old, who by law cannot be named. Williams bummed a cigarette from the girl and went out for a smoke.
That's when she saw perhaps 15 to 20 youths, who appeared to her to be mostly South Asian, heading toward the restaurant. Most wore dark clothing, some with masks or scarves over their faces.
These teens had been called together by one of their number at East York Collegiate to fight a group of "Albanians" over an incident the previous day.
The group confronted the Albanians near the school, but the presence of police officers across the street dissuaded them from exchanging anything more than hostile glances.
[. . .]
The girl testified that she and Stewart tried to ignore the intrusion, waiting for the youths to settle down before continuing their game.
"And then one guy bumped into me," she recalled. "And I said, `Excuse me, do you mind? We are trying to play a game of pool.' And he said, `What are you going to do?'"
A second young male would testify that, in fact, one of the girls provoked the group, saying: "What are all you Pakistanis thinking, walking in acting like you're big and bad?"
The restaurant was, as Williams told court, a hangout for "white people."
Tensions mounted.
[. . .]
Stewart then managed to push his attackers off and get out of the restaurant. He ran south toward Williams' ex-boyfriend's place, banging on the door to get in. Several of the youths in the restaurant fled the restaurant in the opposite direction, but others ran after Stewart.
"I started running after them, telling them to stop," said the 15-year-old male.
Several of them swarmed Stewart as he reached the door, pounding on it to be let in. He was punched, kicked and struck with a pool cue. The accused took a knife from his pocket and stabbed Stewart multiple times.
[. . .]
Read all the ugly details here
Also note this passage from the sidebar article accompanying the main story:
Tensions ran high in the corridors of the Old City Hall courthouse between young friends of the victim, mostly white, and the brown-skinned friends of the accused.
Justice Marion Lane barred Stewart's friends from wearing T-shirts commemorating him in court. But many donned them again outside. "There's war going on," said one.
The two groups exchanged tense words and glances. During one lunch break, a few youths shoved and spat at each other at the nearby Eaton Centre, drawing police attention but no charges.
I don't want to be alarmist but I hardly think we're getting the full dimension of the problem from the media because school adminstrators have every reason to downplay any problems. One sign of racial animosity is the white flight I blogged about in November. Also in November a Globe and Mail article by Christie Blatchford painted an ugly picture of the situation at James Cardinal McGuigan Catholic high school where 16 black students were charged after a teenage girl complained about an 18-month campaign of sexual harassment.
Yesterday's Toronto Star had an article (Slain student's last moments revealed, by Peter Small, Feb 14) about a disturbing manslaughter case in which a 16 year-old white boy was stabbed to death after being swarmed by a mob of largely "South Asian" teens. Andrew Stewart died on December 3, 2004 while defending a pregnant friend. On Monday an 18 year-old pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The attacker's identity is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act because he was 17 at the time of the killing.
Toronto Star reporter Peter Small writes:
In a tense courtroom brimming with friends and family of East York Collegiate student Andrew Stewart, an 18-year-old man has admitted to stabbing him to death 14 months ago.
It was the culmination of a case that rocked the city — a 16-year-old stabbed to death defending a pregnant friend at a high school hangout during a lunch break. Yesterday's plea was also the end of tortured judicial process that began with unco-operative witnesses, then moved to a preliminary hearing last summer rife with racial overtones, hallway confrontations and threats.
[. . .]
On this Friday, Dec. 3, 2004, they arrived shortly before 1 p.m. Stewart played a relaxed game of pool with the 17-year-old, who by law cannot be named. Williams bummed a cigarette from the girl and went out for a smoke.
That's when she saw perhaps 15 to 20 youths, who appeared to her to be mostly South Asian, heading toward the restaurant. Most wore dark clothing, some with masks or scarves over their faces.
These teens had been called together by one of their number at East York Collegiate to fight a group of "Albanians" over an incident the previous day.
The group confronted the Albanians near the school, but the presence of police officers across the street dissuaded them from exchanging anything more than hostile glances.
[. . .]
The girl testified that she and Stewart tried to ignore the intrusion, waiting for the youths to settle down before continuing their game.
"And then one guy bumped into me," she recalled. "And I said, `Excuse me, do you mind? We are trying to play a game of pool.' And he said, `What are you going to do?'"
A second young male would testify that, in fact, one of the girls provoked the group, saying: "What are all you Pakistanis thinking, walking in acting like you're big and bad?"
The restaurant was, as Williams told court, a hangout for "white people."
Tensions mounted.
[. . .]
Stewart then managed to push his attackers off and get out of the restaurant. He ran south toward Williams' ex-boyfriend's place, banging on the door to get in. Several of the youths in the restaurant fled the restaurant in the opposite direction, but others ran after Stewart.
"I started running after them, telling them to stop," said the 15-year-old male.
Several of them swarmed Stewart as he reached the door, pounding on it to be let in. He was punched, kicked and struck with a pool cue. The accused took a knife from his pocket and stabbed Stewart multiple times.
[. . .]
Read all the ugly details here
Also note this passage from the sidebar article accompanying the main story:
Tensions ran high in the corridors of the Old City Hall courthouse between young friends of the victim, mostly white, and the brown-skinned friends of the accused.
Justice Marion Lane barred Stewart's friends from wearing T-shirts commemorating him in court. But many donned them again outside. "There's war going on," said one.
The two groups exchanged tense words and glances. During one lunch break, a few youths shoved and spat at each other at the nearby Eaton Centre, drawing police attention but no charges.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Stephen Harper's less than full support for free speech. Does this 'moderate' 'centrist' 'conservative' understand what's at stake?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has issued a statement on the controversy surrounding the caricatures of Mohammed that were originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and which will be reprinted in the Feb 27 edition of the Calgary-based Western Standard. Harper's statement on the cartoon affair follows a similar one by foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay. In his statement, Harper says:
Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others.
So far so good. Canadians have the right to publish the cartoons, but they also have the right to condemn them. Absolutely. That's what free speech is all about.
Unfortunately Harper adds:
I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically
Harper says he believes in free speech but then goes on to praise the Muslim groups who are pushing to censor the cartoons. There would seem to be a contradiction. If Harper believes in free speech why does he praise the Muslim groups who are demanding government censorship?
Let's be clear about this. The Canadian Islamic Congress and other Muslim organizations aren't just criticizing the cartoons; they are pushing to prosecute anyone who publishes them. There would be no contradiction between Harper defending free speech and commending Muslim restraint if Muslims weren't advocating government censorship. Criticizing an editorial judgement is quite consistent with a defense of free speech. Having the right to publish something doesn't always mean it's a good idea to do so. However, since Muslim groups are calling for government censorship, Harper's praise can seen as indirect support for those calls.
This interpretation is reinforced by Harper's 'regret' that the Western Standard and others have published the cartoons. Why does he feel the need to express regret? Does he regret that Hollywood is making a movie based on the anti-Catholic novel the Da Vinci Code? If Harper were to express regret everytime a Canadian newspaper published something that offended Christians he wouldn't have time to do anything else.
Canadian prime ministers don't seem overly concerned with Christian feelings. Why all this solicitude for Muslims? Is Harper afraid of violence similar to what we've seen in the Middle East? Or is it that Muslims are seen as a vulnerable minority while Christians are viewed as powerful? Whatever the reason, there seems to be a double standard.
In any case, Harper's defense of free speech seems less than complete. Does Harper understand what's at stake?
Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others.
So far so good. Canadians have the right to publish the cartoons, but they also have the right to condemn them. Absolutely. That's what free speech is all about.
Unfortunately Harper adds:
I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically
Harper says he believes in free speech but then goes on to praise the Muslim groups who are pushing to censor the cartoons. There would seem to be a contradiction. If Harper believes in free speech why does he praise the Muslim groups who are demanding government censorship?
Let's be clear about this. The Canadian Islamic Congress and other Muslim organizations aren't just criticizing the cartoons; they are pushing to prosecute anyone who publishes them. There would be no contradiction between Harper defending free speech and commending Muslim restraint if Muslims weren't advocating government censorship. Criticizing an editorial judgement is quite consistent with a defense of free speech. Having the right to publish something doesn't always mean it's a good idea to do so. However, since Muslim groups are calling for government censorship, Harper's praise can seen as indirect support for those calls.
This interpretation is reinforced by Harper's 'regret' that the Western Standard and others have published the cartoons. Why does he feel the need to express regret? Does he regret that Hollywood is making a movie based on the anti-Catholic novel the Da Vinci Code? If Harper were to express regret everytime a Canadian newspaper published something that offended Christians he wouldn't have time to do anything else.
Canadian prime ministers don't seem overly concerned with Christian feelings. Why all this solicitude for Muslims? Is Harper afraid of violence similar to what we've seen in the Middle East? Or is it that Muslims are seen as a vulnerable minority while Christians are viewed as powerful? Whatever the reason, there seems to be a double standard.
In any case, Harper's defense of free speech seems less than complete. Does Harper understand what's at stake?
Canada's new immigration minister - Monte Solberg
There was an article (`No one would've thought about' Solberg, Feb 13) in yesterday's Toronto Star about Monte Solberg, the new Conservative Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As can be expected from the diversity-obsessed Star, the article is written from the point of view of the pro-immigration lobby. The story is so one-sided it doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Canadians who want to reduce immigration levels. The reporter seems to assume mass immigration is a given no one would ever question. Immigration/Diversity reporter Nicholas Keung writes:
The appointment of a small-city Alberta Conservative MP as immigration minister last week has many newcomer advocates concerned about what it means for key policies such as family reunification — and whether Monte Solberg has the knowledge, exposure and sensitivity for the job.
'Newcomer advocates' is a cute euphemism for the self-serving immgration lobby which profits from the current system. If immigration rates were reduced, these people would be out of a job. Why is the reporter so concerned about what the immigration lobby thinks? Why isn't he interested in the opinions of ordinary Canadians who don't have a vested interest in bringing in more people?
It's telling that Keung identifies 'family reunification' as a key policy, when Martin Collacott and other thoughtful analysts have identified an over-emphasis on family reunification as one of the main problems with the current immigration system. Has Keung read Collacott's 2002 report? Has this "immigration/diversity" specialist even heard of it? If he has, why doesn't he mention it in the article?
Immigration supporters like to argue that Canada uses a point system to seek out the world's best and brightest, but ignore the fact that well-educated immigrants often have less well-educated relatives. The media and the immigration lobby's preoccupation with making family reunification easier is a good example of how immigration is usually discussed from the point of view of what is good for immigrants rather than what is good for Canadian citizens.
It's interesting that Keung refers to Solberg as a 'small-city Alberta Conservative MP'. Since the election when the Conservatives were shut out of Toronto, central Vancouver and Montreal, there has been much talk of an urban-rural divide in Canadian politics. However as has been pointed out, the Conservatives do have urban support in Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton, all of which have metropolitan populations of close to a million. What does exist is a cleavage between the three largest metropolitan centres and amaller urban centres. In the case of Vancouver and Toronto immigration accounts for the high level of Liberal support despite the Gomery scandal.
Keung also writes:
Calgary-Nose Hill MP Diane Ablonczy, who won the respect of advocates while serving as Conservative immigration critic for four years, acknowledged that Solberg would have a lot to learn quickly, but added that he is "bright, personable and has a good heart for people."
Ablonczy, author of the Conservative campaign platform on immigration, said a top priority will be to set up a national body to help immigrants get their foreign training recognized in the workforce. She assured Ontarians that the new government would honour a recent $920 million federal agreement with the province on immigrant settlement funding.
"In my view, the immigration system had been abused for many years for partisan purposes to bail political support, (rather) than really focusing on the needs of the newcomers. We want to see that changed, and I believe it will change," Ablonczy said from Ottawa, where she is taking up a new post as parliamentary secretary to the finance minister.
It's nice that Ablonczy is concerned about the needs of newcomers but what about the needs of the people born here? Are the needs of Canadians served by an immigration policy that has created a violent urban underclass? Are the needs of Canadians served by an immigration policy that puts undo stress on the environment and urban infrastructure. I agree something has to do be done about recognizing foreign credentials. It's unfair to encourage highly educated immigrants to come here and then tell them their degrees aren't any good in the Canadian job market. It's no wonder many immigrants are disillusioned. By all means lets address the issue of recognizing foreign credentials where appropriate, but at the same time let's look at the problems bad immigration policy is creating for Canadians.
Read the rest of the Star article here.
The appointment of a small-city Alberta Conservative MP as immigration minister last week has many newcomer advocates concerned about what it means for key policies such as family reunification — and whether Monte Solberg has the knowledge, exposure and sensitivity for the job.
'Newcomer advocates' is a cute euphemism for the self-serving immgration lobby which profits from the current system. If immigration rates were reduced, these people would be out of a job. Why is the reporter so concerned about what the immigration lobby thinks? Why isn't he interested in the opinions of ordinary Canadians who don't have a vested interest in bringing in more people?
It's telling that Keung identifies 'family reunification' as a key policy, when Martin Collacott and other thoughtful analysts have identified an over-emphasis on family reunification as one of the main problems with the current immigration system. Has Keung read Collacott's 2002 report? Has this "immigration/diversity" specialist even heard of it? If he has, why doesn't he mention it in the article?
Immigration supporters like to argue that Canada uses a point system to seek out the world's best and brightest, but ignore the fact that well-educated immigrants often have less well-educated relatives. The media and the immigration lobby's preoccupation with making family reunification easier is a good example of how immigration is usually discussed from the point of view of what is good for immigrants rather than what is good for Canadian citizens.
It's interesting that Keung refers to Solberg as a 'small-city Alberta Conservative MP'. Since the election when the Conservatives were shut out of Toronto, central Vancouver and Montreal, there has been much talk of an urban-rural divide in Canadian politics. However as has been pointed out, the Conservatives do have urban support in Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton, all of which have metropolitan populations of close to a million. What does exist is a cleavage between the three largest metropolitan centres and amaller urban centres. In the case of Vancouver and Toronto immigration accounts for the high level of Liberal support despite the Gomery scandal.
Keung also writes:
Calgary-Nose Hill MP Diane Ablonczy, who won the respect of advocates while serving as Conservative immigration critic for four years, acknowledged that Solberg would have a lot to learn quickly, but added that he is "bright, personable and has a good heart for people."
Ablonczy, author of the Conservative campaign platform on immigration, said a top priority will be to set up a national body to help immigrants get their foreign training recognized in the workforce. She assured Ontarians that the new government would honour a recent $920 million federal agreement with the province on immigrant settlement funding.
"In my view, the immigration system had been abused for many years for partisan purposes to bail political support, (rather) than really focusing on the needs of the newcomers. We want to see that changed, and I believe it will change," Ablonczy said from Ottawa, where she is taking up a new post as parliamentary secretary to the finance minister.
It's nice that Ablonczy is concerned about the needs of newcomers but what about the needs of the people born here? Are the needs of Canadians served by an immigration policy that has created a violent urban underclass? Are the needs of Canadians served by an immigration policy that puts undo stress on the environment and urban infrastructure. I agree something has to do be done about recognizing foreign credentials. It's unfair to encourage highly educated immigrants to come here and then tell them their degrees aren't any good in the Canadian job market. It's no wonder many immigrants are disillusioned. By all means lets address the issue of recognizing foreign credentials where appropriate, but at the same time let's look at the problems bad immigration policy is creating for Canadians.
Read the rest of the Star article here.
Monday, February 13, 2006
I've decided to hide the comments
This blog is published on a website that does not belong to me. When I created this journal, I agreed to abide by the terms of service, which include this clause:
You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
People have been leaving comments about Jews and non-whites that I consider hateful. I am worried these kinds of comments could cost me my blog. Even if that doesn't happen, I'm also concerned that messages about Jewish conspiracies and race wars will discredit everything else I write here. There is a difference between being realistic about racial differences on the one hand and promoting hatred towards people of other races on the other. In my opinion some of the comments left here do promote hatred. Please note I'm still against government censorship. People should have the right to express objectionable opinions, but at the same time, I should have the right to disassociate myself from those viewpoints.
That said, I'm still interested in what people think of my blog. If you would like to comment on something I've written, please email me at hyphenated_canadian@yahoo.ca Feel free to disagree with anything I say.
You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
People have been leaving comments about Jews and non-whites that I consider hateful. I am worried these kinds of comments could cost me my blog. Even if that doesn't happen, I'm also concerned that messages about Jewish conspiracies and race wars will discredit everything else I write here. There is a difference between being realistic about racial differences on the one hand and promoting hatred towards people of other races on the other. In my opinion some of the comments left here do promote hatred. Please note I'm still against government censorship. People should have the right to express objectionable opinions, but at the same time, I should have the right to disassociate myself from those viewpoints.
That said, I'm still interested in what people think of my blog. If you would like to comment on something I've written, please email me at hyphenated_canadian@yahoo.ca Feel free to disagree with anything I say.
More on Canada's Haitian-born Governor General
Some interesting comments about Michaelle Jean can be found here:
Her inauguration speech was widely praised as all-encompassing, passionate, and finally redeeming her of the negative publicity that preceded her. Yet, few caught onto the fundamental unCanadian stance of her speech, just as they forgave her unCanadian associations that prevailed during her brief “campaign”.
An impressive part of her speech dwelt on her life as an immigrant, but more disturbingly, as an offspring of slaves: “ I whose ancestors were slaves, who was born into a civilization long reduced to whispers and cries of pain, know something about [freedom’s] price” she eloquently stated, emphasizing that “Every Canadian woman, every Canadian man prizes that freedom and would defy anyone who tried to take it away.”
It is as though she herself had pulled apart those chains of slavery, whereas the truth is that she fled a brutal dictatorship brought on by the sons of those freed slaves. And by insisting on her history of slavery, she is chastising white Canadians and their ancestors for incidents long forgotten and no longer legitimate.
[. . .]
Her inauguration speech was widely praised as all-encompassing, passionate, and finally redeeming her of the negative publicity that preceded her. Yet, few caught onto the fundamental unCanadian stance of her speech, just as they forgave her unCanadian associations that prevailed during her brief “campaign”.
An impressive part of her speech dwelt on her life as an immigrant, but more disturbingly, as an offspring of slaves: “ I whose ancestors were slaves, who was born into a civilization long reduced to whispers and cries of pain, know something about [freedom’s] price” she eloquently stated, emphasizing that “Every Canadian woman, every Canadian man prizes that freedom and would defy anyone who tried to take it away.”
It is as though she herself had pulled apart those chains of slavery, whereas the truth is that she fled a brutal dictatorship brought on by the sons of those freed slaves. And by insisting on her history of slavery, she is chastising white Canadians and their ancestors for incidents long forgotten and no longer legitimate.
[. . .]
Showdown at the Free Speech Corral. Western Standard publishes Mohammed cartoons. Muslim groups demand hate literature charges be laid.
It's Showdown at the Free Speech Corral. A Calgary-based magazine has published the contreversial Mohammed caricatures orignally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten From the Globe and Mail:
The Western Standard, a political magazine based in Calgary, will today reprint eight of the 12 Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed that have caused riots and controversy around the world, and one Canadian Muslim leader warns that hate-crime charges may follow.
Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, a former Reform and Canadian Alliance activist, calls the cartoons "innocuous" and accused Canada's "mainstream media," including The Globe and Mail, of failing to stand up for free speech for refusing to print the images.
"I was prepared to see the most outrageous, depraved, blasphemous cartoons," Mr. Levant said in an interview yesterday. "I was surprised by how tame they were."
But the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Mohamed Elmasry, warned yesterday that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature.
[. . .]
The Western Standard, a political magazine based in Calgary, will today reprint eight of the 12 Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed that have caused riots and controversy around the world, and one Canadian Muslim leader warns that hate-crime charges may follow.
Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, a former Reform and Canadian Alliance activist, calls the cartoons "innocuous" and accused Canada's "mainstream media," including The Globe and Mail, of failing to stand up for free speech for refusing to print the images.
"I was prepared to see the most outrageous, depraved, blasphemous cartoons," Mr. Levant said in an interview yesterday. "I was surprised by how tame they were."
But the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Mohamed Elmasry, warned yesterday that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature.
[. . .]
Canada's tiresome, er 'tearful Governor General makes plea for equality'
From an article in today's Toronto Star:
The powerful voices of a church choir brought tears to Governor General Michaëlle Jean's eyes yesterday as she delivered an impassioned speech urging Canadians to be vigilant against discrimination.
Stop right there. If Michaelle Jean really cared about equality, she would denounce the government-enforced racial and gender quotas that discriminate against white men.
Jean, attending a service marking Black History Month, said the legacy of slavery still haunts the world's collective consciousness.
Slavery was abolished in Canada before we were a country. This institution is an extremely minor part of our history. Jean is mentioning it for two reasons: 1) to make whites feel guilty 2) to make excuses for black social pathologies
During her brief address, she invoked the names of recently deceased U.S. civil rights pioneers Rosa Parks, whose refusal to sit in the back of a bus provoked marches in her support, and Coretta Scott King, the wife of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King, who carried on her husband's work after he was assassinated in 1968.
What does this have to do with Canada?
The Governor General, who has spoken often of how her family made a new life in Canada after her parents fled Haiti's dictatorship in 1967, bemoaned statistics that suggest that many young blacks see little alternative to a life of despair.
She said they face prejudice that prevents them from being hired for jobs that match their skills, stops them from getting decent housing and sees them accused of crimes they did not commit.
Michaelle Jean is a professional victim and should never have been made Governor General. It's time to stop blaming whites for every black social problem.
The powerful voices of a church choir brought tears to Governor General Michaëlle Jean's eyes yesterday as she delivered an impassioned speech urging Canadians to be vigilant against discrimination.
Stop right there. If Michaelle Jean really cared about equality, she would denounce the government-enforced racial and gender quotas that discriminate against white men.
Jean, attending a service marking Black History Month, said the legacy of slavery still haunts the world's collective consciousness.
Slavery was abolished in Canada before we were a country. This institution is an extremely minor part of our history. Jean is mentioning it for two reasons: 1) to make whites feel guilty 2) to make excuses for black social pathologies
During her brief address, she invoked the names of recently deceased U.S. civil rights pioneers Rosa Parks, whose refusal to sit in the back of a bus provoked marches in her support, and Coretta Scott King, the wife of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King, who carried on her husband's work after he was assassinated in 1968.
What does this have to do with Canada?
The Governor General, who has spoken often of how her family made a new life in Canada after her parents fled Haiti's dictatorship in 1967, bemoaned statistics that suggest that many young blacks see little alternative to a life of despair.
She said they face prejudice that prevents them from being hired for jobs that match their skills, stops them from getting decent housing and sees them accused of crimes they did not commit.
Michaelle Jean is a professional victim and should never have been made Governor General. It's time to stop blaming whites for every black social problem.
Egyptian immigrant accused of terrorism sues Ottawa for $1 million. Secret proceedings raise civil liberty concerns.
From an article (Secret court hearing raises alarm, Feb 13) in today's Toronto Star:
Somewhere in a Canadian courtroom, sometime soon, a secret hearing will take place to discuss an Egyptian Canadian suspected of making surveillance videos of Toronto's subway system and the CN Tower.
Civil libertarians have labelled the hearing Canada's Star Chamber proceedings, since its location or date cannot be disclosed, and the public is barred from attending.
It's known as a "Section 38 application," under Canada's Evidence Act. The legislation has existed for more than two decades as a means for the government to safeguard sensitive evidence, but amendments resulting from the omnibus 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act now shroud the process in secrecy.
[. . .]
The upcoming Section 38 application involves a civil lawsuit launched by Kassim Mohamed, a 39-year-old former Toronto school bus driver who was at the centre of an extensive 2004 terrorism investigation. Never charged, he is alleging Canadian security services shared his personal information with Egyptian authorities, and is thereby responsible for his two-week detainment and alleged harsh treatment in Cairo.
[. . .]
The government has defended the changes to the law as necessary tools to safeguard diplomatic ties and protect Canada's security. Former justice minister Irwin Cotler cautioned in a 2004 interview to not examine changes brought on by the anti-terrorism legislation in the "abstract" but "only in the context in which the arise."
[. . .]
Mohamed's case also provides an important gauge of how the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service conduct terrorism probes. Since the criminal code was amended in 2001 to include terrorism, the Mounties have only made one arrest under the new charges.
Mohamed's case was extensive, involved the RCMP-led terrorism unit and warnings reached as high as the Prime Minister's office. When the details of his case became known, a group of Muslim Canadians protested outside the CN Tower, accusing Canada's security services of targeting Muslims.
[. . .]
Mohamed, who is currently residing freely back in Cairo, has denied any connection to terrorism and says he was making the videotape for his children in Egypt because they miss Toronto. As part of his $1 million lawsuit against the federal government, Mohamed is seeking a letter saying he is no longer a terrorism suspect — which has been refused. The federal government denies any information about their probe was passed to Egypt.
[. . .]
As always there's more to this case than can be made public. I don't know if this guy is a terrorist or not, but as I've said before Canada's security agencies are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they make a mistake, as it appears they did in the case of Maher Arar, they are accused of being incompetent and overzealous, but if God forbid, we ever have a terrorist attack, they will take the blame.
A reckless immigration policy has made the country vulnerable to terrorism. We have imported thw world's conflicts and we have allowed terrorist groups to make Canada their home. Did any of our federal politicians ever ask themselves whether our immigration depaartment had the ability to properly vet applicants from countries where terrorists are active?
Somewhere in a Canadian courtroom, sometime soon, a secret hearing will take place to discuss an Egyptian Canadian suspected of making surveillance videos of Toronto's subway system and the CN Tower.
Civil libertarians have labelled the hearing Canada's Star Chamber proceedings, since its location or date cannot be disclosed, and the public is barred from attending.
It's known as a "Section 38 application," under Canada's Evidence Act. The legislation has existed for more than two decades as a means for the government to safeguard sensitive evidence, but amendments resulting from the omnibus 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act now shroud the process in secrecy.
[. . .]
The upcoming Section 38 application involves a civil lawsuit launched by Kassim Mohamed, a 39-year-old former Toronto school bus driver who was at the centre of an extensive 2004 terrorism investigation. Never charged, he is alleging Canadian security services shared his personal information with Egyptian authorities, and is thereby responsible for his two-week detainment and alleged harsh treatment in Cairo.
[. . .]
The government has defended the changes to the law as necessary tools to safeguard diplomatic ties and protect Canada's security. Former justice minister Irwin Cotler cautioned in a 2004 interview to not examine changes brought on by the anti-terrorism legislation in the "abstract" but "only in the context in which the arise."
[. . .]
Mohamed's case also provides an important gauge of how the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service conduct terrorism probes. Since the criminal code was amended in 2001 to include terrorism, the Mounties have only made one arrest under the new charges.
Mohamed's case was extensive, involved the RCMP-led terrorism unit and warnings reached as high as the Prime Minister's office. When the details of his case became known, a group of Muslim Canadians protested outside the CN Tower, accusing Canada's security services of targeting Muslims.
[. . .]
Mohamed, who is currently residing freely back in Cairo, has denied any connection to terrorism and says he was making the videotape for his children in Egypt because they miss Toronto. As part of his $1 million lawsuit against the federal government, Mohamed is seeking a letter saying he is no longer a terrorism suspect — which has been refused. The federal government denies any information about their probe was passed to Egypt.
[. . .]
As always there's more to this case than can be made public. I don't know if this guy is a terrorist or not, but as I've said before Canada's security agencies are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they make a mistake, as it appears they did in the case of Maher Arar, they are accused of being incompetent and overzealous, but if God forbid, we ever have a terrorist attack, they will take the blame.
A reckless immigration policy has made the country vulnerable to terrorism. We have imported thw world's conflicts and we have allowed terrorist groups to make Canada their home. Did any of our federal politicians ever ask themselves whether our immigration depaartment had the ability to properly vet applicants from countries where terrorists are active?
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Laughing at Lefty skewers Siddiqui
Laughing at Lefty skewers our friend Haroon Siddiqui. Chief Troll writes:
Ah Haroon out does himself here with the help of the Turkish Foreign Minister. Yes let's play the victim card. The parallels to Anti-semitism Haroon points out are striking. History recalls that throughout the 1930's Jews routinely incinerated innocents by flying planes into skyscrapers. How Jews routinely beheaded innocent schoolgirls. How Jews martyred themselves in suicide bombings on a daily basis. Cripes Haroon you are an ASS.
And what about that last line "In Europe, where they face daily discrimination, they have been more agitated, though still in a peaceful way." Say what? Does Theo van Gogh mean anything to you? How about this article in todays Sunday Times. The London Bombings? What planet is Haroon on?
Hat tip: Relapsed Catholic
Ah Haroon out does himself here with the help of the Turkish Foreign Minister. Yes let's play the victim card. The parallels to Anti-semitism Haroon points out are striking. History recalls that throughout the 1930's Jews routinely incinerated innocents by flying planes into skyscrapers. How Jews routinely beheaded innocent schoolgirls. How Jews martyred themselves in suicide bombings on a daily basis. Cripes Haroon you are an ASS.
And what about that last line "In Europe, where they face daily discrimination, they have been more agitated, though still in a peaceful way." Say what? Does Theo van Gogh mean anything to you? How about this article in todays Sunday Times. The London Bombings? What planet is Haroon on?
Hat tip: Relapsed Catholic
Haroon Siddiqui: "a growing realization that freedom of speech is circumscribed"
Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui has written another commentary about the Mohammed cartoon affair. His latest column (Uproar over cartoons fosters understanding, Feb 12) reinforces my opinion that multiculturalism means the end of free speech. Siddiqui makes some observations that confirm what I've said before. When people with conflicting values are forced to live together, the state uses censorship in the form of hate propaganda laws to suppress sforms of expression that might cause social friction. Siddiqui writes:
There is a growing realization that freedom of speech is circumscribed by laws of libel, hate and religious freedom, and also self-restraint dictated by such subjective considerations as to whether or not words or drawings may be gratuitously insulting or morally reprehensible.
[. . .]
With our nations becoming pluralistic, people of different backgrounds are paying heed to the concerns of others: Canadians better than Europeans. Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay did well to echo this Canadian attitude in his statement on the controversy.
Judging by Peter MacKay's snivelling statement, I would say Canada's new Conservative government doesn't care too much about freedom of speech either.
Siddiqui also writes:
Pluralism and globalism together are moving monoculturalists to the margins. The whining you have heard in the past two weeks is their nostalgia for the days when they could say whatever they wanted about Muslims and get away with it.
Speaking as one of the monocultural whiners, I freely admit that I pine for the days when Canadians enjoyed freedom of speech. Freedom matters to me. I'm funny that way.
Siddiqui is distorting the issue. This debate isn't about gratuitous insults. It's about the right of citizens in democracies to openly debate immigration and multiculturaism. It's about the right of citizens to look critically at Islam. I fear that if Siddiqui and other Muslim supporters of hate speech laws have their way, no one would ever be able to say anything negative about Islam while leaving Muslims free to attack Christianity and other religions, which they routinely do. Just look at the one-sided way Muslims treat the Crusades, which are portrayed as Christian aggression, ignoring the fact that Christians were responding to the Muslim conquest of much of the Christian world. Egypt and the rest of the North Africa were once Christian lands. Today Egypt's indigenous Christians, the Copts, are treated as second-class citizens.
More Siddiqui:
There is also increasing appreciation that Islamophobia did play a big part in the episode.
Here's some of what Daniel Pipes has to say about so-called Islamophobia:
Coined in Great Britain a decade ago, the neologism Islamophobia was launched in 1996 by a self-proclaimed "Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia." The word literally means "undue fear of Islam" but it is used to mean "prejudice against Muslims" and joins over 500 other phobias spanning virtually every aspect of life.
[. . .]
The term presents several problems, however. First, what exactly constitutes an "undue fear of Islam" when Muslims acting in the name of Islam today make up the premier source of worldwide aggression, both verbal and physical, versus non-Muslims and Muslims alike? What, one wonders, is the proper amount of fear?
Second, while prejudice against Muslims certainly exists, "Islamophobia" deceptively conflates two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam. I personally experience this problem: Despite writing again and again against radical Islam the ideology, not Islam the religion, I have been made the runner-up for a mock "Islamophobia Award" in Great Britain, deemed America's "leading Islamophobe," and even called an "Islamophobe Incarnate." (What I really am is an "Islamism-ophobe.")
Third, promoters of the "Islamophobia" concept habitually exaggerate the problem:
[ . . ]
Finally, calling moderate Muslims (such as Irshad Manji) Islamophobes betrays this term's aggressiveness. As Charles Moore writes in the Daily Telegraph, moderate Muslims, "frightened of what the Islamists are turning their faith into," are the ones who most fear Islam. (Think of Algeria, Darfur, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.) "They cannot find the courage and the words to get to grips with the huge problem that confronts Islam in the modern world." Accusations of Islamophobia, Mr. Malik adds, are intended "to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities." Another British Muslim, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, discerns an even more ambitious goal: "all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society."
Exactly what is happening today in Canada.
There is a growing realization that freedom of speech is circumscribed by laws of libel, hate and religious freedom, and also self-restraint dictated by such subjective considerations as to whether or not words or drawings may be gratuitously insulting or morally reprehensible.
[. . .]
With our nations becoming pluralistic, people of different backgrounds are paying heed to the concerns of others: Canadians better than Europeans. Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay did well to echo this Canadian attitude in his statement on the controversy.
Judging by Peter MacKay's snivelling statement, I would say Canada's new Conservative government doesn't care too much about freedom of speech either.
Siddiqui also writes:
Pluralism and globalism together are moving monoculturalists to the margins. The whining you have heard in the past two weeks is their nostalgia for the days when they could say whatever they wanted about Muslims and get away with it.
Speaking as one of the monocultural whiners, I freely admit that I pine for the days when Canadians enjoyed freedom of speech. Freedom matters to me. I'm funny that way.
Siddiqui is distorting the issue. This debate isn't about gratuitous insults. It's about the right of citizens in democracies to openly debate immigration and multiculturaism. It's about the right of citizens to look critically at Islam. I fear that if Siddiqui and other Muslim supporters of hate speech laws have their way, no one would ever be able to say anything negative about Islam while leaving Muslims free to attack Christianity and other religions, which they routinely do. Just look at the one-sided way Muslims treat the Crusades, which are portrayed as Christian aggression, ignoring the fact that Christians were responding to the Muslim conquest of much of the Christian world. Egypt and the rest of the North Africa were once Christian lands. Today Egypt's indigenous Christians, the Copts, are treated as second-class citizens.
More Siddiqui:
There is also increasing appreciation that Islamophobia did play a big part in the episode.
Here's some of what Daniel Pipes has to say about so-called Islamophobia:
Coined in Great Britain a decade ago, the neologism Islamophobia was launched in 1996 by a self-proclaimed "Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia." The word literally means "undue fear of Islam" but it is used to mean "prejudice against Muslims" and joins over 500 other phobias spanning virtually every aspect of life.
[. . .]
The term presents several problems, however. First, what exactly constitutes an "undue fear of Islam" when Muslims acting in the name of Islam today make up the premier source of worldwide aggression, both verbal and physical, versus non-Muslims and Muslims alike? What, one wonders, is the proper amount of fear?
Second, while prejudice against Muslims certainly exists, "Islamophobia" deceptively conflates two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam. I personally experience this problem: Despite writing again and again against radical Islam the ideology, not Islam the religion, I have been made the runner-up for a mock "Islamophobia Award" in Great Britain, deemed America's "leading Islamophobe," and even called an "Islamophobe Incarnate." (What I really am is an "Islamism-ophobe.")
Third, promoters of the "Islamophobia" concept habitually exaggerate the problem:
[ . . ]
Finally, calling moderate Muslims (such as Irshad Manji) Islamophobes betrays this term's aggressiveness. As Charles Moore writes in the Daily Telegraph, moderate Muslims, "frightened of what the Islamists are turning their faith into," are the ones who most fear Islam. (Think of Algeria, Darfur, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.) "They cannot find the courage and the words to get to grips with the huge problem that confronts Islam in the modern world." Accusations of Islamophobia, Mr. Malik adds, are intended "to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities." Another British Muslim, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, discerns an even more ambitious goal: "all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society."
Exactly what is happening today in Canada.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Disillusioned Chinese immigrants returning to China
From the Toronto Star (A fast flight to China Feb 11). The Star's "immigration/diversity reporter", Nicholas Keung writes:
In a standing-room-only corner of a Toronto Chinese restaurant, all eyes are on Yu Yuemin's "Heaven on Earth" presentation on cosmopolitan Hangzhou, China's fifth largest city.
[ . ..]
It may sound like a tourist pitch, but Yu is all business. She and her entourage — two dozen public and private employers — are here on an international talent search, one of many the Chinese government is organizing to lure expatriates back.
Their timing couldn't be better. Current hype about opportunities in China is coinciding with growing disillusionment about prospects in Canada, whose poor record for recognizing immigrant credentials is blamed for an exodus of many educated Chinese Canadians.
There's even a name for these migrants of the globalization era: Hai-gui (Mandarin for both "sea turtles" and "returnees from overseas").
[. . .]
China has been Canada's top source of immigrants since 1998, having exported more than 280,000 people here in the past decade. New arrivals peaked at 40,363 in 2001, but have been declining since.
[ . . .]
A recent joint study by Ryerson and York universities found that Chinese immigrants, despite a rising education level, were earning an average of $15,000 a year — only half as much as the average Canadian.
"Although their earnings increase with their length of stay in Canada, our study shows it will take more than 20 years for this group to close that wage gap," says Ryerson professor Wang Shuguang. "Chinese immigrants often have the ability to do the job but lack the opportunity to demonstrate this."
But not every return by a "sea turtle" is as glorious as Tian's.
Some — victims of a returnee glut — end up with a different nickname: Hai-dai ("seaweed" in Mandarin: people floating aimlessly, waiting to be hired).
[. . .]
Read the rest here
In a standing-room-only corner of a Toronto Chinese restaurant, all eyes are on Yu Yuemin's "Heaven on Earth" presentation on cosmopolitan Hangzhou, China's fifth largest city.
[ . ..]
It may sound like a tourist pitch, but Yu is all business. She and her entourage — two dozen public and private employers — are here on an international talent search, one of many the Chinese government is organizing to lure expatriates back.
Their timing couldn't be better. Current hype about opportunities in China is coinciding with growing disillusionment about prospects in Canada, whose poor record for recognizing immigrant credentials is blamed for an exodus of many educated Chinese Canadians.
There's even a name for these migrants of the globalization era: Hai-gui (Mandarin for both "sea turtles" and "returnees from overseas").
[. . .]
China has been Canada's top source of immigrants since 1998, having exported more than 280,000 people here in the past decade. New arrivals peaked at 40,363 in 2001, but have been declining since.
[ . . .]
A recent joint study by Ryerson and York universities found that Chinese immigrants, despite a rising education level, were earning an average of $15,000 a year — only half as much as the average Canadian.
"Although their earnings increase with their length of stay in Canada, our study shows it will take more than 20 years for this group to close that wage gap," says Ryerson professor Wang Shuguang. "Chinese immigrants often have the ability to do the job but lack the opportunity to demonstrate this."
But not every return by a "sea turtle" is as glorious as Tian's.
Some — victims of a returnee glut — end up with a different nickname: Hai-dai ("seaweed" in Mandarin: people floating aimlessly, waiting to be hired).
[. . .]
Read the rest here
Canada is losing manufacturing jobs
Saturday's Toronto Star has a troubling article (What's killing our manufacturing jobs? Feb 11)about the loss of manufacturing jobs in Canada. The decline in Canadian manufacturing should be kept in mind when the immigration lobby says Canada needs more workers. Steven Theobald writes:
Almost 42,000 factory jobs vanished in Canada last month — 33,000 in Ontario — for the biggest monthly drop in 15 years as a stronger dollar and cheaper imports hit manufacturers
[. . .]
The final piece of furniture rolled off Joe Falcone's factory floor two weeks ago, marking the end for a 23-year-old company and its 100 employees.
The Mississauga-based manufacturer called in the liquidators after finally losing the battle against both the strong Canadian dollar and cheap imports flooding in from China.
[. . .]
The plant, which once served a 600-strong customer list that included Sears Canada, Bloomingdale's and Macy's, has been sold. "To prevent closing we tried to do different things, but still we are not competitive with the Chinese," Falcone said. "Operation costs are way higher here."
This story has been playing out across Canada's manufacturing sector, more than half of which is located in Ontario.
January was an especially brutal month, with an estimated 41,600 factory jobs lost, the biggest one-month drop in 15 years, Statistics Canada says.
Ontario saw 33,000 manufacturing jobs disappear last month, taking the province's total cuts to 93,000 since the end of 2002, just before the loonie began its 36 per cent appreciation.
Canada's factory sector, which still employs 2.13 million people and is a source of exports, fought back against the stronger currency. It even added a few thousand net new jobs in 2004.
But the wheels fell off last year and manufacturers started cutting payrolls — 145,000 positions in the past 12 months.
The sector may see a bit of a rebound in the summer when payrolls typically peak, but the overall outlook won't get better any time soon, said Jay Myers, chief economist at Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.
[. . .]
Read the rest here
Almost 42,000 factory jobs vanished in Canada last month — 33,000 in Ontario — for the biggest monthly drop in 15 years as a stronger dollar and cheaper imports hit manufacturers
[. . .]
The final piece of furniture rolled off Joe Falcone's factory floor two weeks ago, marking the end for a 23-year-old company and its 100 employees.
The Mississauga-based manufacturer called in the liquidators after finally losing the battle against both the strong Canadian dollar and cheap imports flooding in from China.
[. . .]
The plant, which once served a 600-strong customer list that included Sears Canada, Bloomingdale's and Macy's, has been sold. "To prevent closing we tried to do different things, but still we are not competitive with the Chinese," Falcone said. "Operation costs are way higher here."
This story has been playing out across Canada's manufacturing sector, more than half of which is located in Ontario.
January was an especially brutal month, with an estimated 41,600 factory jobs lost, the biggest one-month drop in 15 years, Statistics Canada says.
Ontario saw 33,000 manufacturing jobs disappear last month, taking the province's total cuts to 93,000 since the end of 2002, just before the loonie began its 36 per cent appreciation.
Canada's factory sector, which still employs 2.13 million people and is a source of exports, fought back against the stronger currency. It even added a few thousand net new jobs in 2004.
But the wheels fell off last year and manufacturers started cutting payrolls — 145,000 positions in the past 12 months.
The sector may see a bit of a rebound in the summer when payrolls typically peak, but the overall outlook won't get better any time soon, said Jay Myers, chief economist at Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.
[. . .]
Read the rest here
Friday, February 10, 2006
Mohammed cartoon discussion: Did you really mean to say Denmark is a Christian country? Perhaps you misspoke.
I was up late Friday night watching the TV Ontario foreign affairs program Diplomatic Immunity. (TV Ontario is a public broadcaster owned by Ontario's provincial government.)
As might be expected, tonight's topic was the international turmoil surrounding the caricatures of Mohammed originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
I found the discussion disturbing. It reinforced my opinion that in Canada multiculturalism has become a secular religion that almost no one dares to challenge (in public), because doing so is considered socially unacceptable. In describing multiculturalism as a secular religion, I mean that this political and social philosophy determines in a fundamental way how Canadians in general, but particularly our governing elite, view the country. Canada, with the exception of French-speaking Quebec, used to see itself as British, but today our society's Anglo-Saxon roots are all but forgotten unless it is to vilify the British founders.
Multiculturalism goes hand in hand with the idea that national identities defined by ethnicity and culture are retrograde and obsolete. It is a close ally of the proposition nation nonsense that Vdare so properly skewers. The "proposition nation" philosophy doesn't seem to sell as well in Europe, which does not have the North American tradition of relatively open immigration. European nations have longer histories and even though multicultural thinking has made inroads, Europeans seem less willing to give up their national identities. Multiculturalism is now so engrained in our thinking that many Canadians feel morally superior to European countries where the philosophy is more grudgingly accepted.
Canadian smugness was clearly visible in the programme I saw tonight.
The show began with host Steve Paikin interviewing the Danish ambassador to Canada, Paul Kristensen. Early on, the ambassador said Denmark was a Christian country. Paiken reacted in a way that suggested to me at least that he thought he had caught the ambassador saying something shocking.
I can't reproduce Paikin's words exactly, but he said something along these lines: "Mr. Ambassador, you just said Denmark was a Christian country. Did you really mean to use that word, 'Christian'? Are you really saying Denmark is a Christian country" At first, the ambassador said yes, but then he qualified his remarks by saying the Danish state wasn't officially Christian but Denmark was Christian in the sense that a majority of Danes are Christian.
Paikin also asked the ambassador if Denmark regretted allowing Muslims to settle there. Again, I got the impression that the question was designed to elicit a response that would show Danes are intolerant. I don't think it would occur to someone like Paikin that allowing mass immigration from Muslim countries might be a bad idea. (More about that below.)
In the panel discussion that followed the interview, one of the guests said Canada had avoided any violence over the cartoon controversy (so far), because Canadians, unlike those nasty Europeans, were more welcoming towards immigrants. It was also said that Canada's sensitivity towards newcomers was demonstrated by the fact that Canadian newspapers hadn't published the cartoons and that our politicians had in fact condemned them. At least that's what I remember from the discussion.
The panelists also said that Europeans still saw themselves as white Christians and had not truly embraced multiculturalism. This was presented as a failing on their part. Panelists tut-tutted over the fact that many Europeans regretted ever letting Muslims settle there. Gee, I wonder why.
Janice Stein repeated the hoary old myth that Europe needed immigrants to compensate for its low birthrate. She and the other panelists agreed that in allegedly rejecting immigrants the continent was exhibiting a death wish. This led to a discussion of why the European Union was eager to expand into eastern Europe where the people were white Christians. The panel predicted that Ukraine would be let into the EU before Turkey, because Ukrainians were white Christians. The panel used the phrase 'white Christian' a lot.
Although no one as far as I can recall said the word 'racist' aloud, that Europeans were inveterate racists seemed to be the undelying theme. If not 'racist' exactly, then at least intolerant and retrograde in their desire to maintain their historic national identities unlike post-modern Canada which has wisely jettisoned its history and white Christian identity.
At the top of the message I said I found the discussion disturbing. Here's why. The panelists took for granted that multiculturalism and mass immigration were good things. They seemed to think opposition to either was beyond the pale of acceptable discussion. They also seemed to support the idea of censoring images Muslims didn't like.
In Canada, we used to be able to debate multiculturalism and immigration. We need those discussions now more than ever, but our country's political, media and business elite are working together to prevent them. In the first message I wrote on this blog, I said that if Canada was really a democracy we would be able to discuss the racial dimension of immigration openly. The incredibly one-sided discussion I heard on Diplomatic Immunity tonight reinforces my fear that we can't.
The panelists on that show clearly don't think this kind of discussion is acceptable. Unfortunately, they're not alone. Free speech in Canada is severly constrained. I was going to say dead, but that's not quite true. We can still discuss things like taxes and healthcare, but on the fundamental issues of race, ethnicity, and culture, we are all but silenced.
As might be expected, tonight's topic was the international turmoil surrounding the caricatures of Mohammed originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
I found the discussion disturbing. It reinforced my opinion that in Canada multiculturalism has become a secular religion that almost no one dares to challenge (in public), because doing so is considered socially unacceptable. In describing multiculturalism as a secular religion, I mean that this political and social philosophy determines in a fundamental way how Canadians in general, but particularly our governing elite, view the country. Canada, with the exception of French-speaking Quebec, used to see itself as British, but today our society's Anglo-Saxon roots are all but forgotten unless it is to vilify the British founders.
Multiculturalism goes hand in hand with the idea that national identities defined by ethnicity and culture are retrograde and obsolete. It is a close ally of the proposition nation nonsense that Vdare so properly skewers. The "proposition nation" philosophy doesn't seem to sell as well in Europe, which does not have the North American tradition of relatively open immigration. European nations have longer histories and even though multicultural thinking has made inroads, Europeans seem less willing to give up their national identities. Multiculturalism is now so engrained in our thinking that many Canadians feel morally superior to European countries where the philosophy is more grudgingly accepted.
Canadian smugness was clearly visible in the programme I saw tonight.
The show began with host Steve Paikin interviewing the Danish ambassador to Canada, Paul Kristensen. Early on, the ambassador said Denmark was a Christian country. Paiken reacted in a way that suggested to me at least that he thought he had caught the ambassador saying something shocking.
I can't reproduce Paikin's words exactly, but he said something along these lines: "Mr. Ambassador, you just said Denmark was a Christian country. Did you really mean to use that word, 'Christian'? Are you really saying Denmark is a Christian country" At first, the ambassador said yes, but then he qualified his remarks by saying the Danish state wasn't officially Christian but Denmark was Christian in the sense that a majority of Danes are Christian.
Paikin also asked the ambassador if Denmark regretted allowing Muslims to settle there. Again, I got the impression that the question was designed to elicit a response that would show Danes are intolerant. I don't think it would occur to someone like Paikin that allowing mass immigration from Muslim countries might be a bad idea. (More about that below.)
In the panel discussion that followed the interview, one of the guests said Canada had avoided any violence over the cartoon controversy (so far), because Canadians, unlike those nasty Europeans, were more welcoming towards immigrants. It was also said that Canada's sensitivity towards newcomers was demonstrated by the fact that Canadian newspapers hadn't published the cartoons and that our politicians had in fact condemned them. At least that's what I remember from the discussion.
The panelists also said that Europeans still saw themselves as white Christians and had not truly embraced multiculturalism. This was presented as a failing on their part. Panelists tut-tutted over the fact that many Europeans regretted ever letting Muslims settle there. Gee, I wonder why.
Janice Stein repeated the hoary old myth that Europe needed immigrants to compensate for its low birthrate. She and the other panelists agreed that in allegedly rejecting immigrants the continent was exhibiting a death wish. This led to a discussion of why the European Union was eager to expand into eastern Europe where the people were white Christians. The panel predicted that Ukraine would be let into the EU before Turkey, because Ukrainians were white Christians. The panel used the phrase 'white Christian' a lot.
Although no one as far as I can recall said the word 'racist' aloud, that Europeans were inveterate racists seemed to be the undelying theme. If not 'racist' exactly, then at least intolerant and retrograde in their desire to maintain their historic national identities unlike post-modern Canada which has wisely jettisoned its history and white Christian identity.
At the top of the message I said I found the discussion disturbing. Here's why. The panelists took for granted that multiculturalism and mass immigration were good things. They seemed to think opposition to either was beyond the pale of acceptable discussion. They also seemed to support the idea of censoring images Muslims didn't like.
In Canada, we used to be able to debate multiculturalism and immigration. We need those discussions now more than ever, but our country's political, media and business elite are working together to prevent them. In the first message I wrote on this blog, I said that if Canada was really a democracy we would be able to discuss the racial dimension of immigration openly. The incredibly one-sided discussion I heard on Diplomatic Immunity tonight reinforces my fear that we can't.
The panelists on that show clearly don't think this kind of discussion is acceptable. Unfortunately, they're not alone. Free speech in Canada is severly constrained. I was going to say dead, but that's not quite true. We can still discuss things like taxes and healthcare, but on the fundamental issues of race, ethnicity, and culture, we are all but silenced.
Black judge in Peel Region faces Ontario Judicial Council. Judge's defenders make race an issue.
From today's Toronto Star (Judge fights secret complaint hearing, February 10, 2006). Legal affairs reporter Tracey Tyler writes:
The criminal justice system in Peel Region may not be able to function if "scandalous" evidence involving one of its judges is made public at a hearing this spring, a panel of the Ontario Judicial Council has heard.
But a lawyer representing Justice Marvin Morten says the region's residents, particularly its 500,000 members of visible minorities, deserve to know why a black judge is in danger of losing his job.
If Morten's hearing unfolds behind closed doors "there will be an uproar in the black community," added Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, a lawyer representing Pride News Magazine, which specializes in news for African Canadians, one of several media outlets which appeared before the council yesterday to oppose a sweeping publication ban on evidence.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the article here
The criminal justice system in Peel Region may not be able to function if "scandalous" evidence involving one of its judges is made public at a hearing this spring, a panel of the Ontario Judicial Council has heard.
But a lawyer representing Justice Marvin Morten says the region's residents, particularly its 500,000 members of visible minorities, deserve to know why a black judge is in danger of losing his job.
If Morten's hearing unfolds behind closed doors "there will be an uproar in the black community," added Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, a lawyer representing Pride News Magazine, which specializes in news for African Canadians, one of several media outlets which appeared before the council yesterday to oppose a sweeping publication ban on evidence.
[. . .]
Read the rest of the article here
A few quick words about Holocaust denial and free speech
A couple of people have left comments saying there is a double standard concerning free speech. They say the same people who defend the right of newspapers to publish cartoons offensive to Muslims are silent when Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zundel, David Irving and David Ahenakew are silenced by the state. As I've said before, I don't believe Holocaust deniers should be punished for their opinions. (see here) Canada's prosecution of Ernst Zundel led us down a slippery slope and it is one of the reasons Canadian Muslims feel emboldened to make outrageous calls for censorship. Ottawa should abolish the hate propaganda provisions of the criminal code and get out of the censorship business. That said, I find Holocaust denial offensive and have no time for antisemites who deny the Nazis murdered millions of Jews. Antisemites are entitled to their ugly opinions, but I'm equally entitled to ignore or challenge those views as I see fit.
Another Mohammed caricature to brighten up your day.
This may be my favourite of the twelve controversial Mohammed caricatures. Somehow it seems light-hearted even though it deals with a dark theme. I can see why Muslims might think the cartoon is unfair because most don't believe suicide bombers will be serviced by virgins in heaven. But if this is a distortion of Islamic theology, who did the distorting? Westerners didn't invent this belief. If Islam has a bad image, blame the terrorists.
Canadian Muslim group wants Ottawa and the provinces to denounce the Danish Mohammed cartoons
From a story posted today on the CBC website (Canadian Muslims ask governments to condemn cartoons):
Canadian Muslims want the federal and provincial governments to denounce the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in European newspapers.
Muslim groups want the governments "to express without any ambiguity their total disapproval of the abusive use of freedom of expression in Europe," Bashar Elsolh, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, told reporters in Montreal on Thursday.
This story infuriates me. When Canadian Muslims ask the government to condemn cartoons published in a foreign newspaper, they are trying to impose their religious values on the West. They are saying Muslims have the right to stop any newspaper in any country from violating one of their religious taboos. They are also trying to silence any criticism of Islam and Muslims. That's what they mean by "abusive use of freedom of expression." They believe in freedom of expression as long as it doesn't offend them.
As Daniel Pipes wrote Tuesday in the New York Sun (Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism):
The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.
More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones . Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?
[. . .]
The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist "that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos ... they're asking for my submission."
Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand "resolutely with Denmark." The informative Brussels Journal asserts, "We are all Danes now."
[. . .]
Now let's see how Ottawa and the provinces respond.
Canadian Muslims want the federal and provincial governments to denounce the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in European newspapers.
Muslim groups want the governments "to express without any ambiguity their total disapproval of the abusive use of freedom of expression in Europe," Bashar Elsolh, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, told reporters in Montreal on Thursday.
This story infuriates me. When Canadian Muslims ask the government to condemn cartoons published in a foreign newspaper, they are trying to impose their religious values on the West. They are saying Muslims have the right to stop any newspaper in any country from violating one of their religious taboos. They are also trying to silence any criticism of Islam and Muslims. That's what they mean by "abusive use of freedom of expression." They believe in freedom of expression as long as it doesn't offend them.
As Daniel Pipes wrote Tuesday in the New York Sun (Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism):
The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.
More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones . Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?
[. . .]
The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist "that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos ... they're asking for my submission."
Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand "resolutely with Denmark." The informative Brussels Journal asserts, "We are all Danes now."
[. . .]
Now let's see how Ottawa and the provinces respond.
Mohammed cartoon controversy: Muslim protesters confront professor in Halifax Nova Scotia
From today's Toronto Star:
A peaceful protest turned tense yesterday when some Muslim students confronted a Halifax professor who drew criticism for posting contentious cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on his office door.
Peter March, a philosophy professor at Saint Mary's University, said he was merely trying to promote a reasoned debate when he suddenly showed up in the midst of 100 protestors.
"You can't do philosophy directly and honestly without causing inflammation," he said as the protest march was getting started. "It's one of the side effects, rather like surgery."
When students realized who he was, a group of angry youths started shouting, "Go away!" and "You don't belong here!"
But March stood his ground, attempting to debate some of them before organizers urged the students to ignore him and move on.
The shouting matches, all captured by TV cameras, are precisely what some Canadian Muslim leaders fear contribute to negative stereotypes of their religion. Passions flared again on the university campus when March engaged in several discussions that soon turned to heated arguments.
He was helped into a campus building by police who barred the doors to a group of angry students.
[. . .]
A peaceful protest turned tense yesterday when some Muslim students confronted a Halifax professor who drew criticism for posting contentious cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on his office door.
Peter March, a philosophy professor at Saint Mary's University, said he was merely trying to promote a reasoned debate when he suddenly showed up in the midst of 100 protestors.
"You can't do philosophy directly and honestly without causing inflammation," he said as the protest march was getting started. "It's one of the side effects, rather like surgery."
When students realized who he was, a group of angry youths started shouting, "Go away!" and "You don't belong here!"
But March stood his ground, attempting to debate some of them before organizers urged the students to ignore him and move on.
The shouting matches, all captured by TV cameras, are precisely what some Canadian Muslim leaders fear contribute to negative stereotypes of their religion. Passions flared again on the university campus when March engaged in several discussions that soon turned to heated arguments.
He was helped into a campus building by police who barred the doors to a group of angry students.
[. . .]
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The Muhammad cartoon jihad: Should satirical novelists who offend Muslims also exercise 'self-restraint'? What about scholars?
The Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui, who is himself Muslim, has now written three columns (here, here, and here) about the Mohammed cartoon controversy. In today's column, Siddiqui writes:
It is said that Muslims are trying to force non-Muslims to live by Islamic taboos. Not so.
Muslims in the West are only asking that democracies live up to their rules — exercise freedom of speech with the concomitant responsibility of self-restraint, and also respect people of all faiths or no faith at all.
This is not a new proposition. It has always been a balancing act between competing rights.
Which competing rights does Siddiqui refer to? The right to free speech vs. the right not to be offended? There is no right not to be offended. Satirists have been offending religious sensibilities for generations.
Siddiqui writes:
That should suffice as a guide to our democratic conduct. Otherwise, it will be open season on the belief systems of others. Today it is Islam, tomorrow it may be some other faith.
What planet does this professional journalist live on? He doesn't seem to have noticed that it's been open season on Christianity since the Englightenment. Hasn't Siddiqui heard of Voltaire? I'm sure the Catholic Church of the time wished Voltaire had exercised his free speech 'responsibly'. Not that today's Church is all that different.
Maybe this is less true of Canada - I don't know - but the United States has a long history of satirizing Christian fundamentalists. Did Sinclair Lewis's novel Elmer Gantry offend Christian fundamentalists any less than Jyllands-Posten's Mohammed caricatures offended Muslims? Should the publishers of Elmer Gantry have exercised 'self-restraint' out of deference to the religious sensibilities of Christians? If not, why not? How is a book that paints Protestant Christianity in a negative light more acceptable than cartoons that mock Mohammed?
Is it the medium that's at issue here? Are satirical illustrations more offensive than satirical novels? Considering the threats on Salman Rushdie's life after he wrote The Satanic Verses, the answer would appear to be no. Does Siddiqui think Rushdie should have exercised 'self-restraint'?
Where does scholarship fit into this discussion of exercising free speech responsibly? Scholars have also been known to offend Muslims. Should they be censored too?
The Bible has been subject to critical analysis since the emergence of the 19th century German higher criticism. In fact, Protestant fundamentalism is a reaction to this new approach to studying the Bible. Secular biblical scholars who challenge conservative Christian beliefs often cause controversy, but they are still able to do their work in peace. The same isn't true for scholars who take a critical approach to the study of the Koran. They live in fear for their lives:
That Aramaic was the lingua franca of a vast area of the ancient Middle East is a notion that is by now amply noted by a vast public, thanks to Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ,” which everyone watches in that language.
But that Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran, and of the Koran of a primitive Christian system, is a more specialized notion, an almost clandestine one. And it’s more than a little dangerous. The author of the most important book on the subject – a German professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages – preferred, out of prudence, to write under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg. A few years ago, one of his colleagues at the University of Nablus in Palestine, Suliman Bashear, was thrown out of the window by his scandalized Muslim students.
In the Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries, mangled by the wars of religion, scholars of the Bible also used to keep a safe distance with pseudonyms. But if, now, the ones doing so are the scholars of the Koran, this is a sign that, for the Muslim holy book as well, the era of historical, linguistic, and philological re-readings has begun.
Does Haroon Siddiqui think Christoph Luxenberg's right to academic freedom needs to be balanced "with the concomitant responsibility of self-restraint"? Does Siddiqui think Luxenberg should discontinue his work out of respect for Islam? Certainly, the Muslim fanatics who want to kill him think so. If we adopt the principle that no one should ever publish things that hurt the feelings of religious believers, where does the censorship end? The Muslim jihad against the Mohammed cartoons is a campaign against fundamental western values. It's too bad some journalists can't see this.
It is said that Muslims are trying to force non-Muslims to live by Islamic taboos. Not so.
Muslims in the West are only asking that democracies live up to their rules — exercise freedom of speech with the concomitant responsibility of self-restraint, and also respect people of all faiths or no faith at all.
This is not a new proposition. It has always been a balancing act between competing rights.
Which competing rights does Siddiqui refer to? The right to free speech vs. the right not to be offended? There is no right not to be offended. Satirists have been offending religious sensibilities for generations.
Siddiqui writes:
That should suffice as a guide to our democratic conduct. Otherwise, it will be open season on the belief systems of others. Today it is Islam, tomorrow it may be some other faith.
What planet does this professional journalist live on? He doesn't seem to have noticed that it's been open season on Christianity since the Englightenment. Hasn't Siddiqui heard of Voltaire? I'm sure the Catholic Church of the time wished Voltaire had exercised his free speech 'responsibly'. Not that today's Church is all that different.
Maybe this is less true of Canada - I don't know - but the United States has a long history of satirizing Christian fundamentalists. Did Sinclair Lewis's novel Elmer Gantry offend Christian fundamentalists any less than Jyllands-Posten's Mohammed caricatures offended Muslims? Should the publishers of Elmer Gantry have exercised 'self-restraint' out of deference to the religious sensibilities of Christians? If not, why not? How is a book that paints Protestant Christianity in a negative light more acceptable than cartoons that mock Mohammed?
Is it the medium that's at issue here? Are satirical illustrations more offensive than satirical novels? Considering the threats on Salman Rushdie's life after he wrote The Satanic Verses, the answer would appear to be no. Does Siddiqui think Rushdie should have exercised 'self-restraint'?
Where does scholarship fit into this discussion of exercising free speech responsibly? Scholars have also been known to offend Muslims. Should they be censored too?
The Bible has been subject to critical analysis since the emergence of the 19th century German higher criticism. In fact, Protestant fundamentalism is a reaction to this new approach to studying the Bible. Secular biblical scholars who challenge conservative Christian beliefs often cause controversy, but they are still able to do their work in peace. The same isn't true for scholars who take a critical approach to the study of the Koran. They live in fear for their lives:
That Aramaic was the lingua franca of a vast area of the ancient Middle East is a notion that is by now amply noted by a vast public, thanks to Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ,” which everyone watches in that language.
But that Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran, and of the Koran of a primitive Christian system, is a more specialized notion, an almost clandestine one. And it’s more than a little dangerous. The author of the most important book on the subject – a German professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages – preferred, out of prudence, to write under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg. A few years ago, one of his colleagues at the University of Nablus in Palestine, Suliman Bashear, was thrown out of the window by his scandalized Muslim students.
In the Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries, mangled by the wars of religion, scholars of the Bible also used to keep a safe distance with pseudonyms. But if, now, the ones doing so are the scholars of the Koran, this is a sign that, for the Muslim holy book as well, the era of historical, linguistic, and philological re-readings has begun.
Does Haroon Siddiqui think Christoph Luxenberg's right to academic freedom needs to be balanced "with the concomitant responsibility of self-restraint"? Does Siddiqui think Luxenberg should discontinue his work out of respect for Islam? Certainly, the Muslim fanatics who want to kill him think so. If we adopt the principle that no one should ever publish things that hurt the feelings of religious believers, where does the censorship end? The Muslim jihad against the Mohammed cartoons is a campaign against fundamental western values. It's too bad some journalists can't see this.
Canada's al Qaeda family back in the news: Abdullah Khadr charged on four counts
Canada's self-described "al-Qaeda family" is back in the news. From today's Toronto Star (Khadr faces U.S. terrorism charges by Michelle Shephard):
In a case the U.S. administration says will "transcend all borders" in the fight against terrorism, Canadian Abdullah Khadr was formally charged yesterday on four counts, including allegedly plotting to kill Americans overseas.
The charges facing the 24-year-old after his indictment by a U.S. federal grand jury also include allegations he provided rocket-propelled grenades and bomb components to Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.
[. . .]
Khadr is the eldest son of reputed Canadian Al Qaeda financier Ahmed Said Khadr. The U.S. indictment alleges that when his father was killed in a battle with Pakistani forces in October 2003, Abdullah Khadr continued on an alleged mission to help Al Qaeda target U.S. and coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
[. . .]
Khadr was indicted in a Boston court yesterday of conspiracy to murder Americans outside the United States; conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction; possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a crime and conspiracy to possess a destructive device.
If extradited and convicted, Khadr could be sentenced to life in prison and fined $1 million.
[. . .]
His Edmonton-based lawyer said yesterday that he hoped the Canadian government would not bow to American pressure and surrender Khadr to the U.S. authorities.
[. . .]
Khadr's brother, 19-year-old Omar, is detained in Guantanamo Bay and will face a military tribunal this year, charged with murder in the killing of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.
Daniel Pipes has a weblog specifically devoted to news stories about the Khadr family. It has a lot of useful information.
In a case the U.S. administration says will "transcend all borders" in the fight against terrorism, Canadian Abdullah Khadr was formally charged yesterday on four counts, including allegedly plotting to kill Americans overseas.
The charges facing the 24-year-old after his indictment by a U.S. federal grand jury also include allegations he provided rocket-propelled grenades and bomb components to Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.
[. . .]
Khadr is the eldest son of reputed Canadian Al Qaeda financier Ahmed Said Khadr. The U.S. indictment alleges that when his father was killed in a battle with Pakistani forces in October 2003, Abdullah Khadr continued on an alleged mission to help Al Qaeda target U.S. and coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
[. . .]
Khadr was indicted in a Boston court yesterday of conspiracy to murder Americans outside the United States; conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction; possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a crime and conspiracy to possess a destructive device.
If extradited and convicted, Khadr could be sentenced to life in prison and fined $1 million.
[. . .]
His Edmonton-based lawyer said yesterday that he hoped the Canadian government would not bow to American pressure and surrender Khadr to the U.S. authorities.
[. . .]
Khadr's brother, 19-year-old Omar, is detained in Guantanamo Bay and will face a military tribunal this year, charged with murder in the killing of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.
Daniel Pipes has a weblog specifically devoted to news stories about the Khadr family. It has a lot of useful information.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
David Warren on the real story behind the Mohammed cartoon controversy
Ottawa Sun columnist David Warren has written an important story about what lies behind the uproar over the Mohammed cartoons. Peter MacKay needs to read this:
The cartoons were nearly ignored when they first appeared: there was one death threat from a Muslim immigrant, but police determined the man was mentally ill. Trouble began stirring when imams called attention to the cartoons, with incendiary sermons in Danish mosques. An imam in Aarhus publicly reminded the editor of Jyllands-Posten of what had happened to the Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh. But even that could have blown over.
Remember this the next you hear Antonia Zerbisias or Gwynne Dyer blame the uproar on prejudice against Muslims. Dyer said Denmark's Muslims are beleaguered. It sounds to me like it's the Danes who are under assault.
From several sources, we now know that word of the cartoons was then carried systematically through the Muslim world -- to principal mosques, madrasahs, and government offices starting in Egypt. This was done by delegations sent by Ahmed Abu-Laban, the Saudi-supported Imam of Copenhagen. And in addition to the dozen cartoons that had actually appeared in that obscure provincial newspaper -- most fairly innocent, and one actually satirizing opposition to Islam -- the delegations' "media kits" included as many as 30 graphics that had never appeared, and by their nature would never appear, in a Western mainstream newspaper. For instance, a photo of a man dressed as a pig, over the caption, “This is the real Mohammad.”
The fake pictures not only outnumbered the real ones, they were much nastier. Many were in the style of anti-Semitic cartoons that appear frequently in Arab papers, but turned around to target Muslims instead of Jews. And the covering letter, which I have read in translation, was full of outrageous lies about events in Denmark, and misrepresentations of what had been said by Danish journalists and politicians.
It is this document, and not any copy of Jyllands-Posten from Sept. 30th, 2005, that is at the root of the Muslim riots, the Saudi-sponsored pan-Arab boycott of Danish goods, and various fatwas and other acts that put Danes and other Europeans, who had never previously heard of Jyllands-Posten, in peril for their lives.
Read the whole column here.
The cartoons were nearly ignored when they first appeared: there was one death threat from a Muslim immigrant, but police determined the man was mentally ill. Trouble began stirring when imams called attention to the cartoons, with incendiary sermons in Danish mosques. An imam in Aarhus publicly reminded the editor of Jyllands-Posten of what had happened to the Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh. But even that could have blown over.
Remember this the next you hear Antonia Zerbisias or Gwynne Dyer blame the uproar on prejudice against Muslims. Dyer said Denmark's Muslims are beleaguered. It sounds to me like it's the Danes who are under assault.
From several sources, we now know that word of the cartoons was then carried systematically through the Muslim world -- to principal mosques, madrasahs, and government offices starting in Egypt. This was done by delegations sent by Ahmed Abu-Laban, the Saudi-supported Imam of Copenhagen. And in addition to the dozen cartoons that had actually appeared in that obscure provincial newspaper -- most fairly innocent, and one actually satirizing opposition to Islam -- the delegations' "media kits" included as many as 30 graphics that had never appeared, and by their nature would never appear, in a Western mainstream newspaper. For instance, a photo of a man dressed as a pig, over the caption, “This is the real Mohammad.”
The fake pictures not only outnumbered the real ones, they were much nastier. Many were in the style of anti-Semitic cartoons that appear frequently in Arab papers, but turned around to target Muslims instead of Jews. And the covering letter, which I have read in translation, was full of outrageous lies about events in Denmark, and misrepresentations of what had been said by Danish journalists and politicians.
It is this document, and not any copy of Jyllands-Posten from Sept. 30th, 2005, that is at the root of the Muslim riots, the Saudi-sponsored pan-Arab boycott of Danish goods, and various fatwas and other acts that put Danes and other Europeans, who had never previously heard of Jyllands-Posten, in peril for their lives.
Read the whole column here.
Canadian foreign minister issues statement on Mohammed cartoon controversy. MacKay says freedom of expression 'must be exercised responsibly.'
Canada's new Conservative foreign minister Peter MacKay has issued a statement on the Mohammed cartoon controversy. It reads in part:
“The publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has caused offence to Muslims and non-Muslims around the world and in Canada.
“Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada, but it must be exercised responsibly. We commend those Canadians who have acted appropriately.
Does the new Conservative government believe in freedom of speech or doesn't it? What does MacKay mean by 'acting appropriately'? Is he saying we should avoid publishing anything that might offend a pious Muslim? Who will decide when free speech is being 'exercised properly'? The government? The courts? MacKay's statement doesn't say whether publishing the cartoons would be legal in Canada. Would he support prosecuting a newspaper that printed the drawings under the Hate Propaganda provision of the Criminal Code?
The controversial Muslim lobby group CAIR CAN has issued a press release praising MacKay:
The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) welcomes the statement issued today by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay regarding the offensive cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.
"Minister MacKay's balanced statement comes at a critical time in this debate and we appreciate his leadership in encouraging responsibility by both the media and citizens protesting the cartoons," says Riad Saloojee, CAIR-CAN's executive director.
Minister Mackay's statement encouraged responsible use of free speech and condemned the violent protests around the world. He also highlighted the need for a better understanding of Islam and his commitment to work with Muslim communities, noting that "respect for cultural diversity and freedom of religion is a fundamental principle in Canada."
[. . .]
Does respect for cultural diversity and freedom of religion include respect for those Canadians who object to the teachings of a particular religion or of religion in general? Does respect for freedom of religion mean Canadians shouldn't be allowed to publicly reject religious doctrines they find offensive? Freedom of religion should include freedom FROM religion. I'm not saying religion should be banned from the public square. Far from it. Religious believers shouldn't have to hide their faith, but at the same time they shouldn't be allowed to silence critics. People who don't like Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, etc. should have the right to say so. Some Muslims seem to think they're entitled to special treatment. They're not. Islam is fair game just like any other faith.
“The publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has caused offence to Muslims and non-Muslims around the world and in Canada.
“Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada, but it must be exercised responsibly. We commend those Canadians who have acted appropriately.
Does the new Conservative government believe in freedom of speech or doesn't it? What does MacKay mean by 'acting appropriately'? Is he saying we should avoid publishing anything that might offend a pious Muslim? Who will decide when free speech is being 'exercised properly'? The government? The courts? MacKay's statement doesn't say whether publishing the cartoons would be legal in Canada. Would he support prosecuting a newspaper that printed the drawings under the Hate Propaganda provision of the Criminal Code?
The controversial Muslim lobby group CAIR CAN has issued a press release praising MacKay:
The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) welcomes the statement issued today by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay regarding the offensive cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.
"Minister MacKay's balanced statement comes at a critical time in this debate and we appreciate his leadership in encouraging responsibility by both the media and citizens protesting the cartoons," says Riad Saloojee, CAIR-CAN's executive director.
Minister Mackay's statement encouraged responsible use of free speech and condemned the violent protests around the world. He also highlighted the need for a better understanding of Islam and his commitment to work with Muslim communities, noting that "respect for cultural diversity and freedom of religion is a fundamental principle in Canada."
[. . .]
Does respect for cultural diversity and freedom of religion include respect for those Canadians who object to the teachings of a particular religion or of religion in general? Does respect for freedom of religion mean Canadians shouldn't be allowed to publicly reject religious doctrines they find offensive? Freedom of religion should include freedom FROM religion. I'm not saying religion should be banned from the public square. Far from it. Religious believers shouldn't have to hide their faith, but at the same time they shouldn't be allowed to silence critics. People who don't like Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, etc. should have the right to say so. Some Muslims seem to think they're entitled to special treatment. They're not. Islam is fair game just like any other faith.
Toronto has started to take gun violence for granted
The editorial in today's Toronto Sun says something Hogtowners might want to think about. The gun violence in this city has become so commonplace people are beginning to take it for granted:
Sadly, many other shootings don't receive the same coverage because it is now expected that they will occur in certain parts of our city.
Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall a time not that long ago when any shooting would be frontpage news. There has always been crime in Toronto, but not to this extent. People sometimes cite statistics showing crime per capita is not up, but I don't trust those numbers. A lot of minor crime that used to be reported isn't any more. There would be no point. The police would be too busy to do anything about it. The first time someone broke into my friend's garage he reported it. The second time ditto. The third time he didn't bother, but he did he get better locks.
Of course, how safe you are depends a lot on the neighbourhood you live in. While no area is crime-free, some parts of the city are worse than others. I'm pretty sure people in Rexdale feel less secure than residents of the Beaches. My own area is pretty bad. There was another shooting yesterday morning outside the local strip club. At least three people were murdered in my general neighbourhood this summer, one in a park five minutes from where I live. There was one other shooting in the park that I know of, but it wasn't fatal. It involved a dispute over drugs. I've seen people in this particular park smoking crack. I still remember the first time I saw this. "Oh. So that's what a crack pipe looks like. Wow. Just like on TV."
A longer excerpt from the Sun editorial:
One night. One dead. Two wounded.
Not as dramatic as the infamous Boxing Day shooting on Yonge St. in which a 15-year-old girl died and six others were wounded, but awful, nonetheless. Following that outrage, some tried to argue the reason politicians and the media paid so much attention to it was that the murdered girl was white, while most of the other victims in the past year have been black.
This is nonsense. The Yonge St. shooting became a huge story not because of the race of the victims (who, were of all colours) but because of where it occurred -- in the heart of our downtown core -- because of the large number of victims -- and because almost every Torontonian has walked past the place where it happened dozens of times.
Sadly, many other shootings don't receive the same coverage because it is now expected that they will occur in certain parts of our city.
But whether it's a young mother shot and killed at a nightclub, or a young man shot and killed at a funeral, or a four-year-old wounded by gunfire, or a TTC driver blinded in one eye, or a father killed by a stray bullet while watching TV inside his home with his son, every incident is an admission of defeat in a city once known as Toronto the Good.
Sadly, many other shootings don't receive the same coverage because it is now expected that they will occur in certain parts of our city.
Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall a time not that long ago when any shooting would be frontpage news. There has always been crime in Toronto, but not to this extent. People sometimes cite statistics showing crime per capita is not up, but I don't trust those numbers. A lot of minor crime that used to be reported isn't any more. There would be no point. The police would be too busy to do anything about it. The first time someone broke into my friend's garage he reported it. The second time ditto. The third time he didn't bother, but he did he get better locks.
Of course, how safe you are depends a lot on the neighbourhood you live in. While no area is crime-free, some parts of the city are worse than others. I'm pretty sure people in Rexdale feel less secure than residents of the Beaches. My own area is pretty bad. There was another shooting yesterday morning outside the local strip club. At least three people were murdered in my general neighbourhood this summer, one in a park five minutes from where I live. There was one other shooting in the park that I know of, but it wasn't fatal. It involved a dispute over drugs. I've seen people in this particular park smoking crack. I still remember the first time I saw this. "Oh. So that's what a crack pipe looks like. Wow. Just like on TV."
A longer excerpt from the Sun editorial:
One night. One dead. Two wounded.
Not as dramatic as the infamous Boxing Day shooting on Yonge St. in which a 15-year-old girl died and six others were wounded, but awful, nonetheless. Following that outrage, some tried to argue the reason politicians and the media paid so much attention to it was that the murdered girl was white, while most of the other victims in the past year have been black.
This is nonsense. The Yonge St. shooting became a huge story not because of the race of the victims (who, were of all colours) but because of where it occurred -- in the heart of our downtown core -- because of the large number of victims -- and because almost every Torontonian has walked past the place where it happened dozens of times.
Sadly, many other shootings don't receive the same coverage because it is now expected that they will occur in certain parts of our city.
But whether it's a young mother shot and killed at a nightclub, or a young man shot and killed at a funeral, or a four-year-old wounded by gunfire, or a TTC driver blinded in one eye, or a father killed by a stray bullet while watching TV inside his home with his son, every incident is an admission of defeat in a city once known as Toronto the Good.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
No Mr. Dyer, denying a link between Islam and terrorism isn't courtesy, it's pandering to bullies
Western grovelling before Muslim bullies, both domestic and foreign, is starting to irritate me. I'm tired of seeing Muslims always being portrayed as victims when Muslim extremists are the ones attacking us. I don't accuse all Muslims of terrorism, but there's no denying the Muslim world is full of groups who see in Islamic theology a justification for mass murder. This is a fact any person who reads a newspaper should be able to grasp. Non-Muslims link Islam with terrorism because Muslim fanatics flew two airplanes into the World Trade Center killing 3,000 people. They link Islam with terrorism because al Qaeda bombed US embassies in Africa and tried to blow up the USS Cole. The bombings on Bali and countless suicide attacks in Israel also suggest a connection between Islam and terror.
The Muslim reputation for murderous fanaticism is well-earned. Muslim advocacy groups who think their religion is misunderstood can't blame non-Muslims for this. As long as Islamic terrorists are committing mass murder, the rest of us have a right to fear Islam and Muslims. We have a right to question whether Muslim immigration is good for our countries as well as a right to refuse further Muslim immigration. Let's get this straight once and for all. Denmark, Canada and other western nations have no obligation to accept Muslim immigrants. We have the right to say "No more." Muslim citizens in the West have the same civil liberties as other citizens, but foreign Muslims have no claim to our countries.
The list of Muslim terrorist attacks is well-known, but that doesn't stop dhimmis like Gwynne Dyer from writing tripe like this:
Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the series of 12 cartoons about Muhammad more than four months ago, has the largest circulation of any Danish newspaper. Denmark's Muslim community, only 170,000 strong, is one of the most marginalized and beleaguered in Europe, and the governing coalition includes a large party that is explicitly anti-immigrant and implicitly anti-Muslim.
Translation:some Danes don't like how Muslim immigration is changing their country and support a party that wants less of it. To a pro-immigration zealot like Dyer, political parties that want to restrict immigration are beyond the pale.
Dyer continues:
The paper's culture editor, Flemming Rose, claims that the decision to commission 12 cartoonists to lampoon Muhammad was just an attempt to start a debate in Denmark on self-censorship in the media, but he got a lot more than that for his money.
The cartoons were neither clever nor funny, and two of them were blatantly offensive. One depicted Muhammad himself as a terrorist, his turban transformed into a fizzing bomb; the other showed him speaking to a ragged queue of suicide bombers at Heaven's gate saying: "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." They deliberately implied that Islam is a terrorist religion, and Denmark's Muslims quite reasonably demanded an apology.
Whether the cartoons are offensive or not is a matter of opinion. I can understand Danish Muslims not liking the drawings and demanding an apology, but I can also understand Jyllands-Posten refusing to give them one. The link between Mohammed and terrorism isn't something the newspaper invented out of thin air. This connection was made for it by every terrorist who ever killed in the name of Islam. The idea that there are virgins waiting in heaven for suicide bombers is another idea Muslims came up with on their own. Jyllands-Posten was merely mocking a belief held by Muslim terrorists. If this belief distorts Mohammed's message, the blame for the misunderstanding lies with the terrorists. Some people say Islam is a religion of peace. For many Muslims it may well be, but how can we know for sure when groups like al-Qaeda say otherwise? Who speaks for Islam? How is the non-Muslim supposed to know?
Dyer goes on:
The newspaper refused to apologize, and Denmark's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, sucked up to the anti-immigrant vote by refusing even to meet ambassadors from Muslim countries who wanted to protest about the cartoons.
Sucked up? I love this. Rasmussen stood up for his people. He was right to refuse to meet with the ambassadors. Muslim countries were trying to interfere in Denmark's internal affairs. They were pressuring the Danish government to deprive Danes of their right to free speech. Strange that a purported foreign affairs expert like Dyer doesn't grasp the concept of national sovereignty.
Near the end of his column, Dyer writes:
Similarly on the Western side — you can't really say Christian any more, except for the United States and maybe Poland — the great majority of newspapers did not publish the cartoons. It is not self-censorship to refuse to publish these abusive images that link Muslims with terrorism, it is simply common courtesy.
It might be an act of courtesy, but it might also be fear. (I was going to say cowardice, but given the real danger, I don't think that would be fair.) I'm sure different papers have different reasons for not publishing the cartoons, but I have to think at least some of the editors were influenced by the experiences of Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh.
Dyer concludes:
It does not mean that no Western cartoonist may ever use Muhammad again (though they will doubtless be more cautious about the context in future). The ban on images of Muhammad is a Muslim tradition, not a Western one. But we live in a joined-up world where everybody can see everybody else all the time, and being polite to the neighbours is a social obligation. Jyllands-Posten and its emulators were very stupid and very rude.
No Mr. Dyer, the West doesn't have a 'social obligation' to mollycoddle Muslims. As long as Muslim terrorists commit mass murder in the name of Islam, we have a right to draw a link between Islam and violence. Denying such a link exists isn't courtesy, it's pandering to bullies. Cartoons may not be the most sophisticated way of making the point, but they draw attention to the issue.
The Muslim reputation for murderous fanaticism is well-earned. Muslim advocacy groups who think their religion is misunderstood can't blame non-Muslims for this. As long as Islamic terrorists are committing mass murder, the rest of us have a right to fear Islam and Muslims. We have a right to question whether Muslim immigration is good for our countries as well as a right to refuse further Muslim immigration. Let's get this straight once and for all. Denmark, Canada and other western nations have no obligation to accept Muslim immigrants. We have the right to say "No more." Muslim citizens in the West have the same civil liberties as other citizens, but foreign Muslims have no claim to our countries.
The list of Muslim terrorist attacks is well-known, but that doesn't stop dhimmis like Gwynne Dyer from writing tripe like this:
Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the series of 12 cartoons about Muhammad more than four months ago, has the largest circulation of any Danish newspaper. Denmark's Muslim community, only 170,000 strong, is one of the most marginalized and beleaguered in Europe, and the governing coalition includes a large party that is explicitly anti-immigrant and implicitly anti-Muslim.
Translation:some Danes don't like how Muslim immigration is changing their country and support a party that wants less of it. To a pro-immigration zealot like Dyer, political parties that want to restrict immigration are beyond the pale.
Dyer continues:
The paper's culture editor, Flemming Rose, claims that the decision to commission 12 cartoonists to lampoon Muhammad was just an attempt to start a debate in Denmark on self-censorship in the media, but he got a lot more than that for his money.
The cartoons were neither clever nor funny, and two of them were blatantly offensive. One depicted Muhammad himself as a terrorist, his turban transformed into a fizzing bomb; the other showed him speaking to a ragged queue of suicide bombers at Heaven's gate saying: "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." They deliberately implied that Islam is a terrorist religion, and Denmark's Muslims quite reasonably demanded an apology.
Whether the cartoons are offensive or not is a matter of opinion. I can understand Danish Muslims not liking the drawings and demanding an apology, but I can also understand Jyllands-Posten refusing to give them one. The link between Mohammed and terrorism isn't something the newspaper invented out of thin air. This connection was made for it by every terrorist who ever killed in the name of Islam. The idea that there are virgins waiting in heaven for suicide bombers is another idea Muslims came up with on their own. Jyllands-Posten was merely mocking a belief held by Muslim terrorists. If this belief distorts Mohammed's message, the blame for the misunderstanding lies with the terrorists. Some people say Islam is a religion of peace. For many Muslims it may well be, but how can we know for sure when groups like al-Qaeda say otherwise? Who speaks for Islam? How is the non-Muslim supposed to know?
Dyer goes on:
The newspaper refused to apologize, and Denmark's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, sucked up to the anti-immigrant vote by refusing even to meet ambassadors from Muslim countries who wanted to protest about the cartoons.
Sucked up? I love this. Rasmussen stood up for his people. He was right to refuse to meet with the ambassadors. Muslim countries were trying to interfere in Denmark's internal affairs. They were pressuring the Danish government to deprive Danes of their right to free speech. Strange that a purported foreign affairs expert like Dyer doesn't grasp the concept of national sovereignty.
Near the end of his column, Dyer writes:
Similarly on the Western side — you can't really say Christian any more, except for the United States and maybe Poland — the great majority of newspapers did not publish the cartoons. It is not self-censorship to refuse to publish these abusive images that link Muslims with terrorism, it is simply common courtesy.
It might be an act of courtesy, but it might also be fear. (I was going to say cowardice, but given the real danger, I don't think that would be fair.) I'm sure different papers have different reasons for not publishing the cartoons, but I have to think at least some of the editors were influenced by the experiences of Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh.
Dyer concludes:
It does not mean that no Western cartoonist may ever use Muhammad again (though they will doubtless be more cautious about the context in future). The ban on images of Muhammad is a Muslim tradition, not a Western one. But we live in a joined-up world where everybody can see everybody else all the time, and being polite to the neighbours is a social obligation. Jyllands-Posten and its emulators were very stupid and very rude.
No Mr. Dyer, the West doesn't have a 'social obligation' to mollycoddle Muslims. As long as Muslim terrorists commit mass murder in the name of Islam, we have a right to draw a link between Islam and violence. Denying such a link exists isn't courtesy, it's pandering to bullies. Cartoons may not be the most sophisticated way of making the point, but they draw attention to the issue.
CBC: Winnipeg man running for Italian parliament
From the CBC:
An expatriate Italian living in Winnipeg is running for a seat in the Italian parliament.
Carmine Coppola moved to Canada 13 years ago, but he still owns property in Italy, visits often and has kept up with politics in his former home.
Coppola, 52, hopes to win one of four seats in the North and Central America district in the April 9 election.
A constitutional amendment in 2001 makes it possible for people who live outside Italy to vote. However, Coppola knows he has a difficult campaign ahead.
"The majority of Italians are concentrated, as you know, in Montreal, in Toronto, in New York," he told CBC News.
[. . .]
Italian voters abroad will elect six senators and 12 deputies to the parliament, which has a 315-seat senate and 630-seat chamber of deputies. Representatives will also come from three other districts: Europe, South America, and Africa, Asia and Oceania.
The article doesn't say whether Coppola has dual citizenship or whether Italian-Canadians with dual citizenship are eligible to vote in the Italian election.
An expatriate Italian living in Winnipeg is running for a seat in the Italian parliament.
Carmine Coppola moved to Canada 13 years ago, but he still owns property in Italy, visits often and has kept up with politics in his former home.
Coppola, 52, hopes to win one of four seats in the North and Central America district in the April 9 election.
A constitutional amendment in 2001 makes it possible for people who live outside Italy to vote. However, Coppola knows he has a difficult campaign ahead.
"The majority of Italians are concentrated, as you know, in Montreal, in Toronto, in New York," he told CBC News.
[. . .]
Italian voters abroad will elect six senators and 12 deputies to the parliament, which has a 315-seat senate and 630-seat chamber of deputies. Representatives will also come from three other districts: Europe, South America, and Africa, Asia and Oceania.
The article doesn't say whether Coppola has dual citizenship or whether Italian-Canadians with dual citizenship are eligible to vote in the Italian election.
CBC: Military short on bilingual staff; too many of those damn English
From an article posted today on the CBC website:
Senior Canadian military officials at the Department of National Defence's headquarters are not meeting bilingual requirements, creating an English-dominated work environment, an audit has found.
Shocking. Simply shocking. How did this happen? A work environment dominated by the country's majority language? We can't have that now, can we?
"The number of bilingual military personnel at headquarters who meet the language requirements of their positions is insufficient," wrote Dyane Adam, commissioner of official languages, in a department audit released on Tuesday.
[. . .]
Adam's staff surveyed 1,883 bilingual employees. About 55 per cent responded to the questionnaires.
Don't defense staff have better things to do with their time than fill out questionnaires? Doing their jobs comes to mind.
The survey suggests francophones often switch to English in the workplace.
"English dominates even among French-speaking employees, who tend to use their second language in their daily work, particularly when their supervisor is not comfortable using French," said the survey.
[. . .]
The audit says the Canadian Forces has been slow to address the issue, with a "significant gap between the formal message, action plans and objectives and the actions taken by employees."
The main reason given for this slowness is that operational needs "take priority over the language rights and obligations of employees."
No kidding. The military might be preoccupied right now with a little place we like to call Afghanistan. Maybe the commissioner has heard of it. It's been in all the papers. Knowing French is nice and everything, but maybe some of our soldiers should be learning Pashto or Dari instead. Just a thought.
Adam recommends increasing the percentage of francophones, improving the language skills of senior management and formalizing language objectives for managers.
Translation: Adam is recommending that the department discriminate against anglophones.
Senior Canadian military officials at the Department of National Defence's headquarters are not meeting bilingual requirements, creating an English-dominated work environment, an audit has found.
Shocking. Simply shocking. How did this happen? A work environment dominated by the country's majority language? We can't have that now, can we?
"The number of bilingual military personnel at headquarters who meet the language requirements of their positions is insufficient," wrote Dyane Adam, commissioner of official languages, in a department audit released on Tuesday.
[. . .]
Adam's staff surveyed 1,883 bilingual employees. About 55 per cent responded to the questionnaires.
Don't defense staff have better things to do with their time than fill out questionnaires? Doing their jobs comes to mind.
The survey suggests francophones often switch to English in the workplace.
"English dominates even among French-speaking employees, who tend to use their second language in their daily work, particularly when their supervisor is not comfortable using French," said the survey.
[. . .]
The audit says the Canadian Forces has been slow to address the issue, with a "significant gap between the formal message, action plans and objectives and the actions taken by employees."
The main reason given for this slowness is that operational needs "take priority over the language rights and obligations of employees."
No kidding. The military might be preoccupied right now with a little place we like to call Afghanistan. Maybe the commissioner has heard of it. It's been in all the papers. Knowing French is nice and everything, but maybe some of our soldiers should be learning Pashto or Dari instead. Just a thought.
Adam recommends increasing the percentage of francophones, improving the language skills of senior management and formalizing language objectives for managers.
Translation: Adam is recommending that the department discriminate against anglophones.
Toronto Sun: Polish immigration scam
Another story from the Sun:
Mounties are probing an alleged immigration scam at the Canadian embassy in Poland in which dozens of Poles may have been sent here illegally without background checks.
RCMP officers were at the embassy in Warsaw last week interviewing diplomats and support staff in the visa section, security officials and Polish community members said yesterday.
Police are poring through documents relating to the issuing of Canadian visas for the past two years, sources said.
"There were no background checks required," said one Toronto-area Pole, who knew others who said they paid for visas. "Even the worst criminal can buy a visa for Canada."
[. . .]
Mounties are probing an alleged immigration scam at the Canadian embassy in Poland in which dozens of Poles may have been sent here illegally without background checks.
RCMP officers were at the embassy in Warsaw last week interviewing diplomats and support staff in the visa section, security officials and Polish community members said yesterday.
Police are poring through documents relating to the issuing of Canadian visas for the past two years, sources said.
"There were no background checks required," said one Toronto-area Pole, who knew others who said they paid for visas. "Even the worst criminal can buy a visa for Canada."
[. . .]
Toronto Sun: 2 shot at basketball game
There must be something about basketball that stirs up people's passions, because every other day there seems to be a story about a shooting at a game. From the Toronto Sun:
Two people were shot and taken to hospital with serious injuries last night after gunfire erupted at a community centre during a basketball game.
A 19-year-old woman was rushed to Sunnybrook hospital with three gunshot wounds after being shot at the Northwood Community Centre on Clubhouse Ct. near Sheppard Ave. and Jane St. around 11:15 p.m.
[. . .]
The second victim, a 21-year-old man, ran across the ravine and collapsed in a backyard after being shot during the same incident, police said. He was discovered by a resident and was rushed to hospital with a wound to the shoulder, police said.
He was expected to survive.
[. . .]
One of the suspects police were looking for was a black man wearing an army-style jacket, police said.
Two people were shot and taken to hospital with serious injuries last night after gunfire erupted at a community centre during a basketball game.
A 19-year-old woman was rushed to Sunnybrook hospital with three gunshot wounds after being shot at the Northwood Community Centre on Clubhouse Ct. near Sheppard Ave. and Jane St. around 11:15 p.m.
[. . .]
The second victim, a 21-year-old man, ran across the ravine and collapsed in a backyard after being shot during the same incident, police said. He was discovered by a resident and was rushed to hospital with a wound to the shoulder, police said.
He was expected to survive.
[. . .]
One of the suspects police were looking for was a black man wearing an army-style jacket, police said.
Toronto Sun: Know Radical Islam Week at the University of Toronto
Brodie Fenlon writes in today's Toronto Sun (U of T conference stirs up Muslims):
A week-long conference on radical Islam organized by Jewish student groups at the University of Toronto has stirred up controversy and resentment among Muslims at a time of heightened sensitivities due to world events.
The "Know Radical Islam Week," which includes presentations on terrorism and civil rights violations in Islamic regimes, began yesterday at Sidney Smith Hall just as violent protests swept the globe over published caricatures of Prophet Mohammed.
[. . .]
A week-long conference on radical Islam organized by Jewish student groups at the University of Toronto has stirred up controversy and resentment among Muslims at a time of heightened sensitivities due to world events.
The "Know Radical Islam Week," which includes presentations on terrorism and civil rights violations in Islamic regimes, began yesterday at Sidney Smith Hall just as violent protests swept the globe over published caricatures of Prophet Mohammed.
[. . .]
Marijuana grow-up case tossed out because of 'racial profiling'
Tracey Tyler writes in today's Toronto Star:
A Superior Court judge has halted criminal proceedings against a man accused of running a marijuana grow operation, saying police engaged in racial profiling by targeting the man because he was Vietnamese.
The investigation began when an Ontario Provincial Police officer went to the Barrie land registry office and looked up people with Vietnamese surnames who had recently purchased homes.
In doing so, police used race "as a proxy for criminal activity" and violated Van Trong Nguyen's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Justice Emile Kruzick said.
Nguyen was arrested Feb. 26, 2003, after police searched his Orangeville-area home and found 596 marijuana plants. He was charged with three forms of drug possession, theft of hydro and mischief to hydro wires.
In a Jan. 16 decision, Kruzick stayed all charges, ruling an individual's right to security and liberty of the person is violated when police use racial profiling as the sole basis for an investigation.
Wonderful. Police use a technique that apparently works and the judge throws the case out.
Admitting evidence police obtained illegally by violating the Charter would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, he said.
Doesn't letting a criminal go free "bring the administration of justice into disrepute"?
The officer "consciously or unconsciously" used race as a sign of criminal activity, he said.
"Consciously or unconsciously"? Are Ontario courts going to punish the police for using instincts honed on the job? I think this judge needs to read Steve Sailer. Why did the officer take a look at Vietnamese names? Are we supposed to believe he's a bigot who doesn't like people from Vietnam or is it that his street-level experience has taught him that Vietnamese are prominent in the marijuana grow-op business? Political correctness is madness, because it forces us to ignore reality. It makes us pretend that cultural patterns don't exist and that different ethnic groups aren't concentrated in different industries, including illegal ones. The judge in this case might benefit from reading Thomas Sowell's 1994 book Race and culture: a world view. He might also want to look at Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed as well as The Quest for Cosmic Justice.
A Superior Court judge has halted criminal proceedings against a man accused of running a marijuana grow operation, saying police engaged in racial profiling by targeting the man because he was Vietnamese.
The investigation began when an Ontario Provincial Police officer went to the Barrie land registry office and looked up people with Vietnamese surnames who had recently purchased homes.
In doing so, police used race "as a proxy for criminal activity" and violated Van Trong Nguyen's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Justice Emile Kruzick said.
Nguyen was arrested Feb. 26, 2003, after police searched his Orangeville-area home and found 596 marijuana plants. He was charged with three forms of drug possession, theft of hydro and mischief to hydro wires.
In a Jan. 16 decision, Kruzick stayed all charges, ruling an individual's right to security and liberty of the person is violated when police use racial profiling as the sole basis for an investigation.
Wonderful. Police use a technique that apparently works and the judge throws the case out.
Admitting evidence police obtained illegally by violating the Charter would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, he said.
Doesn't letting a criminal go free "bring the administration of justice into disrepute"?
The officer "consciously or unconsciously" used race as a sign of criminal activity, he said.
"Consciously or unconsciously"? Are Ontario courts going to punish the police for using instincts honed on the job? I think this judge needs to read Steve Sailer. Why did the officer take a look at Vietnamese names? Are we supposed to believe he's a bigot who doesn't like people from Vietnam or is it that his street-level experience has taught him that Vietnamese are prominent in the marijuana grow-op business? Political correctness is madness, because it forces us to ignore reality. It makes us pretend that cultural patterns don't exist and that different ethnic groups aren't concentrated in different industries, including illegal ones. The judge in this case might benefit from reading Thomas Sowell's 1994 book Race and culture: a world view. He might also want to look at Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed as well as The Quest for Cosmic Justice.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Canadian Islamic Congress says Jyllands-Posten editors should be treated as Holocaust deniers
The Canadian Islamic Congress, which is often described as a "moderate", "mainstream", Muslim advocacy group has issued an outrageous media communique, which states that the editors of the Jyllands-Posten should be treated as Holocaust deniers for posting cartoons of Mohammed that many Muslims find offensive.
Today's communique, which includes a perfunctory rejection of a violence, reads:
The Canadian Islamic Congress today issued a strong rejection of recent violent protests against the publication of anti-Islam cartoons in a number of European newspapers.
Responding especially to attacks on Danish and Norwegian embassies in some countries, the CIC said that "treating people as guilty-by-association is against Islamic teachings. Instead, those journalists -- whether cartoonists, commentators, or editors -- who show no respect for other religions or faiths, should themselves be treated no differently than Holocaust deniers. They should be legally challenged on that basis."
The statement went on to urge that offending journalists not be granted media visas, interview access, or other professional considerations, and that the publications they work for should be boycotted for disseminating hate literature.
"People of faith the world over should appeal to the professional ethics of
the international media to stop the spread of hate, whenever and wherever
it happens," the statement concluded. "Muslim minorities everywhere pay a
heavy price for this kind of bigotry -- it is Muslims, not Islam, that need
to be defended here."
The CIC sent today's statement to the embassies of both Denmark and Norway,
as well as to those of Muslim countries in Ottawa.
I believe in freedom of speech. I've always been opposed to the prosecution of Holocaust deniers, because in a free society people have a right to express opinions others find hurtful and offensive. While no right including freedom of speech is absolute, I oppose almost all government censorship. In my opinion, the harm caused by most censorship is far greater than the harm caused by bad ideas and hurtful opinions. More to the point, I believe I'm intelligent enough to evaluate what I read. I don't want some semi-educated bureaucrat making my reading decisions for me. I certainly don't want a Muslim imam or for that matter, a Catholic bishop (I'm Catholic), restricting my access to books and other reading material. I'm an educated adult. I'll make those decisions for myself. Thank you very much.
Canada's most famous Holocaust denier is Ernst Zundel, a German citizen who lived in Toronto for decades before being deported to Germany where he's now being prosecuted. Zundel is an obnoxious person. I don't blame Jews or anyone else for being offended by his denial that there was a Holocaust, but I have always felt that using the power of the state to silence him was more dangerous than anything he had to say.
One of my concerns is the slippery slope. If the government can go after Zundel for his opinions, what would stop it from silencing anyone else it dislikes? I remember discussing this with friends and being told that the slippery slope argument was weak, because the government would use its power to censor with discretion. Censorship would be reserved for extreme cases. However, I knew it wouldn't stop with Zundel. There were just too many groups with axes to grind. I knew the Zundel case would set a dangerous precedent.
Zundel was prominent in the news at the same time that the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwa against Salman Rushdie. It was the eighties. Canada had fewer Muslims back then, but that didn't stop them from calling on the government to treat The Satanic Verses as hate literature similar to Zundel's writings..
While I defend Zundel's right to present his skewed view of World War II, I don't think spreading misinformation about the Holocaust is comparable to publishing cartoons that present Mohammed and Islam in an unflattering light. The Holocaust is a historical FACT. A dislike of Islam is an OPINION. Citizens in a free society have no obligation to respect Mohammed and Islam any more than they have an obligation to respect Jesus and Christianity or Buddha and Buddhism. The Canadian Islamic Congress may not like it, but thousands of people have been murdered in the name of Islam. Non-Muslims have good reason to question whether Muslim immigration is a good idea and ask whether Islamic theology promotes violence against non-Muslims.
I resent the Canadian Islamic Congress and any other Muslim group that tries to prevent non-Muslims from criticizing Islam and its founder. Mohammed is their prophet not mine. I claim for myself the right to despise Mohammed and the religion he invented. I claim the right to mock Mohammed and his followers just as I claim the right to mock any religion or secular philosophy. Freedom has little meaning if I can't ridicule beliefs I find ludicrous. At this point, I don't know enough to have a firm opinion about Islam. For now I only have questions, but if I ever conclude that Islam is an evil religion, I should have the right to say so publicly. I don't care what the Canadian Islamic Congress and other enemies of freedom think. If members of the Congress want to be protected from negative opinions of their faith, they might consider moving to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Today's communique, which includes a perfunctory rejection of a violence, reads:
The Canadian Islamic Congress today issued a strong rejection of recent violent protests against the publication of anti-Islam cartoons in a number of European newspapers.
Responding especially to attacks on Danish and Norwegian embassies in some countries, the CIC said that "treating people as guilty-by-association is against Islamic teachings. Instead, those journalists -- whether cartoonists, commentators, or editors -- who show no respect for other religions or faiths, should themselves be treated no differently than Holocaust deniers. They should be legally challenged on that basis."
The statement went on to urge that offending journalists not be granted media visas, interview access, or other professional considerations, and that the publications they work for should be boycotted for disseminating hate literature.
"People of faith the world over should appeal to the professional ethics of
the international media to stop the spread of hate, whenever and wherever
it happens," the statement concluded. "Muslim minorities everywhere pay a
heavy price for this kind of bigotry -- it is Muslims, not Islam, that need
to be defended here."
The CIC sent today's statement to the embassies of both Denmark and Norway,
as well as to those of Muslim countries in Ottawa.
I believe in freedom of speech. I've always been opposed to the prosecution of Holocaust deniers, because in a free society people have a right to express opinions others find hurtful and offensive. While no right including freedom of speech is absolute, I oppose almost all government censorship. In my opinion, the harm caused by most censorship is far greater than the harm caused by bad ideas and hurtful opinions. More to the point, I believe I'm intelligent enough to evaluate what I read. I don't want some semi-educated bureaucrat making my reading decisions for me. I certainly don't want a Muslim imam or for that matter, a Catholic bishop (I'm Catholic), restricting my access to books and other reading material. I'm an educated adult. I'll make those decisions for myself. Thank you very much.
Canada's most famous Holocaust denier is Ernst Zundel, a German citizen who lived in Toronto for decades before being deported to Germany where he's now being prosecuted. Zundel is an obnoxious person. I don't blame Jews or anyone else for being offended by his denial that there was a Holocaust, but I have always felt that using the power of the state to silence him was more dangerous than anything he had to say.
One of my concerns is the slippery slope. If the government can go after Zundel for his opinions, what would stop it from silencing anyone else it dislikes? I remember discussing this with friends and being told that the slippery slope argument was weak, because the government would use its power to censor with discretion. Censorship would be reserved for extreme cases. However, I knew it wouldn't stop with Zundel. There were just too many groups with axes to grind. I knew the Zundel case would set a dangerous precedent.
Zundel was prominent in the news at the same time that the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwa against Salman Rushdie. It was the eighties. Canada had fewer Muslims back then, but that didn't stop them from calling on the government to treat The Satanic Verses as hate literature similar to Zundel's writings..
While I defend Zundel's right to present his skewed view of World War II, I don't think spreading misinformation about the Holocaust is comparable to publishing cartoons that present Mohammed and Islam in an unflattering light. The Holocaust is a historical FACT. A dislike of Islam is an OPINION. Citizens in a free society have no obligation to respect Mohammed and Islam any more than they have an obligation to respect Jesus and Christianity or Buddha and Buddhism. The Canadian Islamic Congress may not like it, but thousands of people have been murdered in the name of Islam. Non-Muslims have good reason to question whether Muslim immigration is a good idea and ask whether Islamic theology promotes violence against non-Muslims.
I resent the Canadian Islamic Congress and any other Muslim group that tries to prevent non-Muslims from criticizing Islam and its founder. Mohammed is their prophet not mine. I claim for myself the right to despise Mohammed and the religion he invented. I claim the right to mock Mohammed and his followers just as I claim the right to mock any religion or secular philosophy. Freedom has little meaning if I can't ridicule beliefs I find ludicrous. At this point, I don't know enough to have a firm opinion about Islam. For now I only have questions, but if I ever conclude that Islam is an evil religion, I should have the right to say so publicly. I don't care what the Canadian Islamic Congress and other enemies of freedom think. If members of the Congress want to be protected from negative opinions of their faith, they might consider moving to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Canadian Muslims join the cartoon jihad
According to a report posted today on the CBC website, about 200 Halifax Muslims have joined the worldwide cartoon jihad. From the CBC article:
The protesters in Halifax demonstrated peacefully on the sidewalks outside the consulate.
Although women were lined up on one side of the street and men on the other, their messages were the same: freedom of speech in any country should have limits.
Who gets to decide what those limits are? What criteria should we use?
"Freedom, yes! Insult, no!" protesters shouted during the demonstration, which lasted about an hour.
For some Muslims any criticism of Islam is an insult. Some Christians, Jews and others also feel insulted when their faith is criticized. If we were to censor everything that someone found insulting, we wouldn't be able to say anything.
They said they were deeply upset by the caricatures, which were first published in Denmark in September, then reprinted in other European countries. One of the cartoons that drew the most criticism depicts Muhammad with a turban-shaped bomb on his head and some protesters said they were offended by the implication that all Muslims were terrorists.
The cartoon could be interpreted that way, but it could also be interpreted to mean that Islamic teachings inspire violence. While most Muslims are not terrorists and there is more than one kind of Islam, the terrorists who attacked on September 11 were motivated by their understanding of Islam. Muslim violence is the reason non-Muslims associate Islam with terrorism. As long Muslims plant bombs and fly planes into skyscrapers, Islam will be associated with terrorism. If Muslims don't like the way the world views them, they should take it up with bin Laden.
"I feel insulted about who I am and that's not right," said Ali Duale.
I'm sure all of us feel insulted from time to time. Join the club.
Duale said one of the main reasons for holding the protest was to try to educate more non-Muslims about their faith.
"Most of the people, they can not picture why someone would get this much upset just seeing a picture. The point is not the picture," he said.
"The point is, people, they don't know what will hurt us and how much it will hurt us. And this is one of the reasons we are here today."
Hurt feelings don't justify calls for censorship.
The protesters in Halifax demonstrated peacefully on the sidewalks outside the consulate.
Although women were lined up on one side of the street and men on the other, their messages were the same: freedom of speech in any country should have limits.
Who gets to decide what those limits are? What criteria should we use?
"Freedom, yes! Insult, no!" protesters shouted during the demonstration, which lasted about an hour.
For some Muslims any criticism of Islam is an insult. Some Christians, Jews and others also feel insulted when their faith is criticized. If we were to censor everything that someone found insulting, we wouldn't be able to say anything.
They said they were deeply upset by the caricatures, which were first published in Denmark in September, then reprinted in other European countries. One of the cartoons that drew the most criticism depicts Muhammad with a turban-shaped bomb on his head and some protesters said they were offended by the implication that all Muslims were terrorists.
The cartoon could be interpreted that way, but it could also be interpreted to mean that Islamic teachings inspire violence. While most Muslims are not terrorists and there is more than one kind of Islam, the terrorists who attacked on September 11 were motivated by their understanding of Islam. Muslim violence is the reason non-Muslims associate Islam with terrorism. As long Muslims plant bombs and fly planes into skyscrapers, Islam will be associated with terrorism. If Muslims don't like the way the world views them, they should take it up with bin Laden.
"I feel insulted about who I am and that's not right," said Ali Duale.
I'm sure all of us feel insulted from time to time. Join the club.
Duale said one of the main reasons for holding the protest was to try to educate more non-Muslims about their faith.
"Most of the people, they can not picture why someone would get this much upset just seeing a picture. The point is not the picture," he said.
"The point is, people, they don't know what will hurt us and how much it will hurt us. And this is one of the reasons we are here today."
Hurt feelings don't justify calls for censorship.
Globe and Mail article: 'Vancouver reports low rate of refugee-status approvals'
From the February 3 edition of the Globe and Mail (Vancouver reports low rate of refugee-status approvals). Jonathan Woodward writes:
Vancouver continues to be the hardest place in Canada to get refugee status, turning away nearly three out of four people allegedly fleeing their home countries.
Refugee claimants -- largely from Mexico, China, and Honduras -- were accepted in Vancouver at about half the rate of the national average last year, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
And Vancouver has had the lowest rate since the IRB was established in 1989, giving the city a reputation as a place that takes a dim view of refugee claimants, said immigration lawyer Phil Rankin.
"This region has always had a culture of cynicism and they've always gone to town on refugees," he said.
Forgive me for saying so, but an immigration lawyer is not exactly a disinterested observer. Considering how Canada's refugee system has been abused, a little more cynicism might not be a bad thing.
The article also says:
Last year, Vancouver's board granted asylum in 27 per cent of the 1,552 cases it heard.
Toronto's board, which dealt with 16,702 cases -- the most in the country -- accepted 7,658 people, or 46 per cent. In Montreal, which deals with the second-highest number of cases, 44 per cent of the 7,342 cases were successful.
As a whole, Canada -- including the other boards in Calgary and Ottawa -- accepted 44 per cent of 27,212 cases.
44 per cent sounds high to me. Call me cynical, but I wonder how many of those approved really are refugees. Also, I note the article doesn't say anything about judicial appeals which can drag on for decades. See here and here.
"These are people who need Canada, and Vancouver is turning them away," said Victor Porter, an executive with the Canadian Council for Refugees.
Another objective observer. Does Porter assume every person who makes a claim is a legitimate refugee? It would be nice if professional refugee advocates would acknowledge some of the problems caused by Canada's overly generous refugee policy. Don't Canadians have a right to be protected from foreign terrorist groups and organized crime, both of which have used the refugee system to bring people here?
Also in the article:
David Griffiths, the manager of civil law for B.C.'s Legal Services Society, said Vancouver sees a greater percentage of Honduran candidates, who are more likely to abandon their claims.
What happened to the Hondurans who abandoned their claims? Did they leave? Were they deported? Or did they melt into Canada's huge illegal immigrant population? Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressam was an asylum seeker who abandoned his claim. He wasn't removed from Canada because Ottawa decided it wouldn't deport people to Algeria where there was a civil war. Hundreds, maybe thousands of Americans nearly died because of Ottawa's 'compassionate' policy. According to a 2003 report by the federal auditor general Ottawa lost track of 36,000 failed refugee claimants.
Vancouver continues to be the hardest place in Canada to get refugee status, turning away nearly three out of four people allegedly fleeing their home countries.
Refugee claimants -- largely from Mexico, China, and Honduras -- were accepted in Vancouver at about half the rate of the national average last year, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
And Vancouver has had the lowest rate since the IRB was established in 1989, giving the city a reputation as a place that takes a dim view of refugee claimants, said immigration lawyer Phil Rankin.
"This region has always had a culture of cynicism and they've always gone to town on refugees," he said.
Forgive me for saying so, but an immigration lawyer is not exactly a disinterested observer. Considering how Canada's refugee system has been abused, a little more cynicism might not be a bad thing.
The article also says:
Last year, Vancouver's board granted asylum in 27 per cent of the 1,552 cases it heard.
Toronto's board, which dealt with 16,702 cases -- the most in the country -- accepted 7,658 people, or 46 per cent. In Montreal, which deals with the second-highest number of cases, 44 per cent of the 7,342 cases were successful.
As a whole, Canada -- including the other boards in Calgary and Ottawa -- accepted 44 per cent of 27,212 cases.
44 per cent sounds high to me. Call me cynical, but I wonder how many of those approved really are refugees. Also, I note the article doesn't say anything about judicial appeals which can drag on for decades. See here and here.
"These are people who need Canada, and Vancouver is turning them away," said Victor Porter, an executive with the Canadian Council for Refugees.
Another objective observer. Does Porter assume every person who makes a claim is a legitimate refugee? It would be nice if professional refugee advocates would acknowledge some of the problems caused by Canada's overly generous refugee policy. Don't Canadians have a right to be protected from foreign terrorist groups and organized crime, both of which have used the refugee system to bring people here?
Also in the article:
David Griffiths, the manager of civil law for B.C.'s Legal Services Society, said Vancouver sees a greater percentage of Honduran candidates, who are more likely to abandon their claims.
What happened to the Hondurans who abandoned their claims? Did they leave? Were they deported? Or did they melt into Canada's huge illegal immigrant population? Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressam was an asylum seeker who abandoned his claim. He wasn't removed from Canada because Ottawa decided it wouldn't deport people to Algeria where there was a civil war. Hundreds, maybe thousands of Americans nearly died because of Ottawa's 'compassionate' policy. According to a 2003 report by the federal auditor general Ottawa lost track of 36,000 failed refugee claimants.
Friday, February 03, 2006
The Age: Australian productivity commission finds economic benefits of immigration are 'very small'
The Australian paper The Age has printed an important story about the economic impact of immigration in that country. The Age reports:
AN ABIDING and unshakeable belief of Australian business is that immigration is good for the economy and we need a lot more of it than we're getting.
But is the belief soundly based? According to a Productivity Commission paper on Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, not really. The economic benefits are "very small".
[. . .]
So the real test of whether immigration is good for the economy is not whether it makes the economy bigger but whether it makes the people in the economy better off. By the same token, we're not running an immigration program for the benefit of the immigrants, but for the benefit of the people already here.
[. . .]
At the most fundamental level, the main thing immigration does is add to the demand for labour.
It follows that the more skilled the immigrants are who add to the supply of labour, the more immigration is likely to add to GDP per person. This is why the experiment the Productivity Commission performed in its study was giving immigration every chance to get a good result.
It used an econometric model of the economy to get an idea of what would happen if we increased the skilled migrant intake by half (about 39,000 extra immigrants each year) for the next 20 years.
It found that, by 2024-25, this would cause annual real GDP to be 3.5 per cent greater than otherwise. But get this: by then, real GDP per person would be only $335 a year (or 0.6 per cent) higher than otherwise. In the report's words, such a result is "neutral to mildly positive". Translation: chicken feed.
[. . .]
Be warned that these econometric modelling exercises are terribly dodgy. Even so, it's clear increased immigration is a long way from the main game.
AN ABIDING and unshakeable belief of Australian business is that immigration is good for the economy and we need a lot more of it than we're getting.
But is the belief soundly based? According to a Productivity Commission paper on Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, not really. The economic benefits are "very small".
[. . .]
So the real test of whether immigration is good for the economy is not whether it makes the economy bigger but whether it makes the people in the economy better off. By the same token, we're not running an immigration program for the benefit of the immigrants, but for the benefit of the people already here.
[. . .]
At the most fundamental level, the main thing immigration does is add to the demand for labour.
It follows that the more skilled the immigrants are who add to the supply of labour, the more immigration is likely to add to GDP per person. This is why the experiment the Productivity Commission performed in its study was giving immigration every chance to get a good result.
It used an econometric model of the economy to get an idea of what would happen if we increased the skilled migrant intake by half (about 39,000 extra immigrants each year) for the next 20 years.
It found that, by 2024-25, this would cause annual real GDP to be 3.5 per cent greater than otherwise. But get this: by then, real GDP per person would be only $335 a year (or 0.6 per cent) higher than otherwise. In the report's words, such a result is "neutral to mildly positive". Translation: chicken feed.
[. . .]
Be warned that these econometric modelling exercises are terribly dodgy. Even so, it's clear increased immigration is a long way from the main game.
Video of "Middle Eastern youth" in Australia assaulting a man
The blog European Ethnocentrism links to a video showing a mob of "Middle Eastern youth" in Sydney, Australia brutally assaulting a man a few feet away from a police station. According to the report, not one of the men in the video has been charged. The unprovoked assault is described as a "revenge attack" following the Cronulla riots.
European Ethnocentrism has another post about the Cronulla riots here.
European Ethnocentrism has another post about the Cronulla riots here.
CBC: US convicts Lebanese-Canadian of helping Hezbollah
From the CBC:
A Lebanese-Canadian man who tried to sell military equipment to the militant organization Hezbollah has been sentenced to five years in a U.S. prison.
Naji Antoine Abi Khalil, 39, was sentenced Thursday. He pleaded guilty in August 2005 to trying to provide material support to Lebanon-based Hezbollah.
He also pleaded guilty to conspiring to export sensitive military equipment from the United States without a licence, and trying to provide Hezbollah with night-vision goggles and infrared aiming devices.
Khalil, chair and general manager of the Montreal import-export company New Line Services, holds dual citizenship in Lebanon and Canada.
[. . .]
A Lebanese-Canadian man who tried to sell military equipment to the militant organization Hezbollah has been sentenced to five years in a U.S. prison.
Naji Antoine Abi Khalil, 39, was sentenced Thursday. He pleaded guilty in August 2005 to trying to provide material support to Lebanon-based Hezbollah.
He also pleaded guilty to conspiring to export sensitive military equipment from the United States without a licence, and trying to provide Hezbollah with night-vision goggles and infrared aiming devices.
Khalil, chair and general manager of the Montreal import-export company New Line Services, holds dual citizenship in Lebanon and Canada.
[. . .]
More election analysis from Polyscopique
Polyscopique has posted some more election analysis. Citing a report [PDF document] by five political science professors, he writes:
This confirms that the most interesting changes have taken place in Québec.
This confirms that the most interesting changes have taken place in Québec.
Globe and Mail: 'US insecure about Canadian border'
On Tuesday I blogged about American concerns that terrorists might enter their country from Canada. Today the Globe and Mail has another story that mentions American worries:
U.S. officials said they're slightly more worried about the border with Canada than Mexico when it comes to terrorists crossing into the United States.
“My impression is that perhaps our border with Canada has, to some degree, been of a bit greater concern than that with Mexico,” John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, told a U.S. Senate hearing Thursday on global terror threats.
“Although, obviously, we have to watch all of our borders very, very carefully.”
U.S. officials said they're slightly more worried about the border with Canada than Mexico when it comes to terrorists crossing into the United States.
“My impression is that perhaps our border with Canada has, to some degree, been of a bit greater concern than that with Mexico,” John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, told a U.S. Senate hearing Thursday on global terror threats.
“Although, obviously, we have to watch all of our borders very, very carefully.”
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Mohammed cartoons enrage Muslims: does multiculturalism mean the end of free speech?
Keeping the peace is the most important function government has, because without social stability life becomes a Hobbesian nightmare in which no one is secure. Given the paramount importance of maintaining order, there are times when democracies must curtail freedoms to prevent chaos. One of the liberties that might be suspended under certain circumstances is free speech. If society is teetering on the edge of violence, government must censor any speech that would inflame the situation.
I fear immigration and multiculturalism are balkanizing Canadian society and that as the divisions grow, government may have to clamp down on free speech to prevent ethnic conflict. In Canada we already have so-called 'hate speech laws', which make almost any controversial statement about race, ethnicity, religion and other subjects risky. Exactly how risky is hard to say, but when a human rights tribunal rules against a newspaper for publishing an ad that quotes the Bible, society has already lost much of its freedom.
The hysterical and utterly irrational reaction of Muslims to the publication of some fairly innocuous cartoons of their prophet Mohammed makes me even more worried. If a few satirical drawings can cause this much anger, any society with a large Muslim population may be pressured to censor everything that would offend this group. The frightening thing isn't that Muslims took offense. That's to be expected. Every religious group has its sacred cows. No, what is frightening is the ferocity of the anger caused by cartoons, which in the words of Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch "are much less offensive than what is routinely printed in every American newspaper about presidents, presidential candidates, and other pols."
Spencer continues:
Ultimately, then, the cartoon controversy is a question of freedom of speech. As I wrote in mid-December: “As it grows into an international cause célèbre, the cartoon controversy indicates the gulf between the Islamic world and the post-Christian West in matters of freedom of speech and expression. And it may yet turn out that as the West continues to pay homage to its idols of tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism, it will give up those hard-won freedoms voluntarily.” Freedom of speech encompasses precisely the freedom to annoy, to ridicule, to offend. If it doesn’t, it is hollow. The instant that any person or ideology is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, freedom of speech has been replaced by an ideological straitjacket. Westerners seem to grasp this easily when it comes to affronts to Christianity, even when they are as sharp-edged and offensive as Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ or Chris Ofili’s dung- and pornography-encrusted Holy Virgin Mary. But the same clarity of thought doesn’t seem to carry over to an Islamic context.
Yet that is where it is needed most today. The cartoon controversy, insignificant and even silly as it may be in its origins, is an increasingly serious challenge to Western notions of pluralism and freedom of speech. The Danes have already begun to apologize, to the tentative satisfaction of Danish Muslim groups. But so far both the newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the Prime Minister have limited themselves to saying essentially that they are sorry if Muslims took offense, and that none was intended. If they go farther and “punish those responsible,” as the Arab Interior Ministers demanded, or treat the cartoons as a human rights violation, as a Belgian imam demanded, they will be acknowledging that lampooning Muhammad and criticizing Islam is somehow wrong in itself. Such a notion is just as dangerous for a free society as the idea that the Beloved Leader or dialectical materialism is above criticism. It is death for a free society.
Too bad the Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui doesn't see it see it this way. In Siddiqui's view, the real issue is western bigotry towards Muslims:
The protracted, still-raging controversy over a Danish newspaper's caricature of the Prophet Muhammad is a case study of the West's troubled relations with Muslims.
It features the easy clichés of the age — freedom of speech vs. Islamic intolerance, and open democratic debate vs. politically correct cravenness.
But what it has actually exposed is the European media's tendency to exploit anti-immigrant, particularly anti-Muslim, bigotry, as well as the Danes' readiness to bow to the gods of commerce.
[. . .]
But the issue goes well beyond the old debate over whether freedom of expression has limits. It does in countries like Canada, which have anti-hate laws. But regardless of the presence or absence of legislated limits, every society has its own notions of what is acceptable and what is not.
We can be certain that the editors publishing the Muhammad caricatures would not smear their pages with anti-Semitic graffiti. Or commission drawings maligning the Pope, by depicting him, say, in compromising sexual positions.
And had the editors opted to be that offensive, we can be equally certain that not too many people would have been rushing to their defence.
It is this double standard that's at the heart of the repeated conflicts between the West and the world of Islam over how far anti-Islamic provocateurs can go in baiting Muslims, repeatedly, knowing full well the depth of Muslim feelings about their most cherished beliefs.
Invoking freedom of speech or the need to puncture political correctness are no more than smokescreens to hide that larger, and uglier, truth.
I agree there's a double standard; only it's the exact opposite of what Siddiqui claims. When it comes to Christianity, anything goes. People can and do portray Christianity, not to mention Christians, in the most vile of ways. And Christians do respond, but with boycotts and letter-writing campaigns, not violence. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear about any riots over NBC's controversial "Book of Daniel". People are less ready to ridicule Islam, because everyone remembers what happened to Salman Rushdie.
I fear immigration and multiculturalism are balkanizing Canadian society and that as the divisions grow, government may have to clamp down on free speech to prevent ethnic conflict. In Canada we already have so-called 'hate speech laws', which make almost any controversial statement about race, ethnicity, religion and other subjects risky. Exactly how risky is hard to say, but when a human rights tribunal rules against a newspaper for publishing an ad that quotes the Bible, society has already lost much of its freedom.
The hysterical and utterly irrational reaction of Muslims to the publication of some fairly innocuous cartoons of their prophet Mohammed makes me even more worried. If a few satirical drawings can cause this much anger, any society with a large Muslim population may be pressured to censor everything that would offend this group. The frightening thing isn't that Muslims took offense. That's to be expected. Every religious group has its sacred cows. No, what is frightening is the ferocity of the anger caused by cartoons, which in the words of Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch "are much less offensive than what is routinely printed in every American newspaper about presidents, presidential candidates, and other pols."
Spencer continues:
Ultimately, then, the cartoon controversy is a question of freedom of speech. As I wrote in mid-December: “As it grows into an international cause célèbre, the cartoon controversy indicates the gulf between the Islamic world and the post-Christian West in matters of freedom of speech and expression. And it may yet turn out that as the West continues to pay homage to its idols of tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism, it will give up those hard-won freedoms voluntarily.” Freedom of speech encompasses precisely the freedom to annoy, to ridicule, to offend. If it doesn’t, it is hollow. The instant that any person or ideology is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, freedom of speech has been replaced by an ideological straitjacket. Westerners seem to grasp this easily when it comes to affronts to Christianity, even when they are as sharp-edged and offensive as Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ or Chris Ofili’s dung- and pornography-encrusted Holy Virgin Mary. But the same clarity of thought doesn’t seem to carry over to an Islamic context.
Yet that is where it is needed most today. The cartoon controversy, insignificant and even silly as it may be in its origins, is an increasingly serious challenge to Western notions of pluralism and freedom of speech. The Danes have already begun to apologize, to the tentative satisfaction of Danish Muslim groups. But so far both the newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the Prime Minister have limited themselves to saying essentially that they are sorry if Muslims took offense, and that none was intended. If they go farther and “punish those responsible,” as the Arab Interior Ministers demanded, or treat the cartoons as a human rights violation, as a Belgian imam demanded, they will be acknowledging that lampooning Muhammad and criticizing Islam is somehow wrong in itself. Such a notion is just as dangerous for a free society as the idea that the Beloved Leader or dialectical materialism is above criticism. It is death for a free society.
Too bad the Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui doesn't see it see it this way. In Siddiqui's view, the real issue is western bigotry towards Muslims:
The protracted, still-raging controversy over a Danish newspaper's caricature of the Prophet Muhammad is a case study of the West's troubled relations with Muslims.
It features the easy clichés of the age — freedom of speech vs. Islamic intolerance, and open democratic debate vs. politically correct cravenness.
But what it has actually exposed is the European media's tendency to exploit anti-immigrant, particularly anti-Muslim, bigotry, as well as the Danes' readiness to bow to the gods of commerce.
[. . .]
But the issue goes well beyond the old debate over whether freedom of expression has limits. It does in countries like Canada, which have anti-hate laws. But regardless of the presence or absence of legislated limits, every society has its own notions of what is acceptable and what is not.
We can be certain that the editors publishing the Muhammad caricatures would not smear their pages with anti-Semitic graffiti. Or commission drawings maligning the Pope, by depicting him, say, in compromising sexual positions.
And had the editors opted to be that offensive, we can be equally certain that not too many people would have been rushing to their defence.
It is this double standard that's at the heart of the repeated conflicts between the West and the world of Islam over how far anti-Islamic provocateurs can go in baiting Muslims, repeatedly, knowing full well the depth of Muslim feelings about their most cherished beliefs.
Invoking freedom of speech or the need to puncture political correctness are no more than smokescreens to hide that larger, and uglier, truth.
I agree there's a double standard; only it's the exact opposite of what Siddiqui claims. When it comes to Christianity, anything goes. People can and do portray Christianity, not to mention Christians, in the most vile of ways. And Christians do respond, but with boycotts and letter-writing campaigns, not violence. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear about any riots over NBC's controversial "Book of Daniel". People are less ready to ridicule Islam, because everyone remembers what happened to Salman Rushdie.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
New jail for terrorist suspects
The Toronto Sun reports (Suspects on move by Tobi Cohen, February 1, 2006):
Terrorist suspects could be moving this spring when a new jail for those being held on security certificates opens next door to Millhaven Penitentiary.
Corrections Canada officials confirmed yesterday that construction of a new, self-contained, six-person facility is expected to be completed by the end of March next to the Bath institution, outside Kingston, Ont.
Mohamed Harkat, who's been detained at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre under less than ideal conditions since his arrest in December 2002, would be among those transferred there shortly thereafter.
Egyptian detainees Mohammad Mahjoub and Mahmoud Jaballah as well as Syrian Hassan Almrei are among the other men being jailed under security certificates.
[. . .]
Terrorist suspects could be moving this spring when a new jail for those being held on security certificates opens next door to Millhaven Penitentiary.
Corrections Canada officials confirmed yesterday that construction of a new, self-contained, six-person facility is expected to be completed by the end of March next to the Bath institution, outside Kingston, Ont.
Mohamed Harkat, who's been detained at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre under less than ideal conditions since his arrest in December 2002, would be among those transferred there shortly thereafter.
Egyptian detainees Mohammad Mahjoub and Mahmoud Jaballah as well as Syrian Hassan Almrei are among the other men being jailed under security certificates.
[. . .]
National Post: Gang leader deported to Sri Lanka
Stewart Bell of the National Post writes:
Immigration authorities have deported a high-ranking Toronto gang figure who came to Canada 17 years ago as a refugee and promptly embarked on a life of crime and violence.
Jeyaseelam Thuraisingam was the leader of the Seelapu gang, one of several Sri Lankan Tamil street gangs that Toronto police and Canada Immigration have been working to dismantle since 2001.
[. . .]
Known on the street as Seelapu, Thuraisingam came to Canada in 1989 and was granted refugee status. The following year, he became a permanent resident, but he later joined a ruthless Tamil gang and was repeatedly arrested.
His gang was the Scarborough wing of the VVT, which immigration authorities described as ''a group of military-trained terrorists from Sri Lanka'' who help raise money for the Tamil Tigers.
During the 1990s, the VVT and its affiliates were engaged in a long-running turf war with a rival Tamil gang called AK Kannan that caused the deaths of at least three bystanders.
Read more here.
Hat Tip: Modern Tribalist
Immigration authorities have deported a high-ranking Toronto gang figure who came to Canada 17 years ago as a refugee and promptly embarked on a life of crime and violence.
Jeyaseelam Thuraisingam was the leader of the Seelapu gang, one of several Sri Lankan Tamil street gangs that Toronto police and Canada Immigration have been working to dismantle since 2001.
[. . .]
Known on the street as Seelapu, Thuraisingam came to Canada in 1989 and was granted refugee status. The following year, he became a permanent resident, but he later joined a ruthless Tamil gang and was repeatedly arrested.
His gang was the Scarborough wing of the VVT, which immigration authorities described as ''a group of military-trained terrorists from Sri Lanka'' who help raise money for the Tamil Tigers.
During the 1990s, the VVT and its affiliates were engaged in a long-running turf war with a rival Tamil gang called AK Kannan that caused the deaths of at least three bystanders.
Read more here.
Hat Tip: Modern Tribalist
HIV on the rise in Ontario immigrants, gay men. Doctor calls it "big epidemic".
CTV reports:
Over the past five years the incidence of HIV in Ontario has increased by 37 per cent, with an average annual increase of about six per cent, according to new figures by Dr. Robert Remis, a University of Toronto professor who heads up the Ontario HIV Epidemiologic Monitoring Unit.
[. . .]
The most dramatic increase, he said, occurred among certain groups of recent immigrants and among people infected heterosexually.
"But in two groups in particular: Those persons from sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean and other persons infected heterosexually, those have increased 87 and 77 per cent in terms of prevalence in the past five years."
The incidence of HIV among gay men is also alarming, said Remis. His findings indicate there have been 3,800 new cases of HIV among gay men in the past five years, representing a 28 per cent increase.
[. . .]
The numbers point to a sharp need for increased intervention efforts, Remis believes. Those efforts must be more concentrated and more highly funded, and must target small group intervention and personal intervention, both to the infected and uninfected, to reduce the chance of spreading the disease, he said.
Prevention efforts also must pay special attention to immigrant groups from sub-Saharan and Caribbean countries, he said, noting that those people groups have been largely ignored until recently.
Health officials know very little about this group of people and more research is needed about how they get infected, if and how they get tested for HIV, and what barriers inhibit them from getting tested, he said.
"We obviously need to do a lot more research and we also need to improve the quality and sensitivity of the services to these groups who are coming from countries all over the world with a very different culture," Dr. Remis said.
[. . .]
"I think the bottom line is this is a big epidemic. It's a major public health challenge for Ontario and for Canada as a whole," Remis said.
Hat tips: Relapsed Catholic, Proud to be Canadian
Over the past five years the incidence of HIV in Ontario has increased by 37 per cent, with an average annual increase of about six per cent, according to new figures by Dr. Robert Remis, a University of Toronto professor who heads up the Ontario HIV Epidemiologic Monitoring Unit.
[. . .]
The most dramatic increase, he said, occurred among certain groups of recent immigrants and among people infected heterosexually.
"But in two groups in particular: Those persons from sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean and other persons infected heterosexually, those have increased 87 and 77 per cent in terms of prevalence in the past five years."
The incidence of HIV among gay men is also alarming, said Remis. His findings indicate there have been 3,800 new cases of HIV among gay men in the past five years, representing a 28 per cent increase.
[. . .]
The numbers point to a sharp need for increased intervention efforts, Remis believes. Those efforts must be more concentrated and more highly funded, and must target small group intervention and personal intervention, both to the infected and uninfected, to reduce the chance of spreading the disease, he said.
Prevention efforts also must pay special attention to immigrant groups from sub-Saharan and Caribbean countries, he said, noting that those people groups have been largely ignored until recently.
Health officials know very little about this group of people and more research is needed about how they get infected, if and how they get tested for HIV, and what barriers inhibit them from getting tested, he said.
"We obviously need to do a lot more research and we also need to improve the quality and sensitivity of the services to these groups who are coming from countries all over the world with a very different culture," Dr. Remis said.
[. . .]
"I think the bottom line is this is a big epidemic. It's a major public health challenge for Ontario and for Canada as a whole," Remis said.
Hat tips: Relapsed Catholic, Proud to be Canadian
Is immigration an important issue for most Canadians? Do polls tell the whole story?
Pretty much everyone interested in politics pays at least some attention to public opinion polls. Even though democracies aren't nearly as democratic as we are sometimes led to believe, voter opinion still matters. In the normal course of events, ordinary citizens may not set the agenda, but they still get to decide which party will govern.
Having an interest in politics, I pay attention to polls too, but only up to a point. I find polls frustrating because they seem to contradict each other so much. A lot depends on how the pollster asks the question and on how representative the sample is. People don't always give honest answers. A lot of times they say what they think the pollster wants to hear. This is especially true if they've been led by the media to think their viewpoint is somehow illegitimate. Also, polls usually don't show how deeply held particular opinions are. Ask a member of the public for an opinion on almost anything and he will usually offer one, but that doesn't mean he cares a lot about the topic or that the issue is something that will influence his vote. Of course, polling companies do conduct focus groups where people get to talk about why they think the way they do.
I believe most Canadians would like a reduction in immigration, but I'm less sure they care enough to do anything about it. Preston Manning's Reform Party was never against immigration as its detractors said, but it did propose cutting immigration from 250,000 to 150,000 a year during periods of high unemployment. If Canadians care about immigration, why didn't more of them vote for the only party that proposed reducing immigration? Is it because the party didn't put enough emphasis on immigration in its campaigns or is it because Canadians don't care that much about the issue? Most immigrants settle in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. For Canadian outside those centres, immigration may not be a big concern. I don't know.
Certainly decades of multicultural propaganda and general historical ignorance play their part. For forty years Canadians have been told by their government that Canada is a nation of immigrants. Canadian school children aren't taught much, if anything, about their country's British roots. Students are told that Canada's previous immigration policies were "racist" and that the Canadian economy needs ever larger numbers of immigrants to make up for a low birthrate even though this isn't true.
Canadians may not especially like their country's immigration policies, but many have been brainwashed into thinking of immigration as a force of nature that can't be stopped. A successful campaign for immigration reform will have to start by letting Canadians know they do have a choice, by letting them know there's nothing inevitable about our current policies. Canadians need to be liberated from the repressive political correctness that stops them from talking openly about immigration. Canadians need a leader who will let them know their concerns about immigration are legitimate. Unfortunately, Canada's next prime minister, Stephen Harper, is not that leader. While I have no reason to doubt the man's decency and good intentions, his support for even more immigration is pathetic. While I'm happy the corrupt Liberals are out of power, at least temporarily, I find it impossible to be enthusiastic about a new government that won't change Canada's disastrous immigration policies.
Having an interest in politics, I pay attention to polls too, but only up to a point. I find polls frustrating because they seem to contradict each other so much. A lot depends on how the pollster asks the question and on how representative the sample is. People don't always give honest answers. A lot of times they say what they think the pollster wants to hear. This is especially true if they've been led by the media to think their viewpoint is somehow illegitimate. Also, polls usually don't show how deeply held particular opinions are. Ask a member of the public for an opinion on almost anything and he will usually offer one, but that doesn't mean he cares a lot about the topic or that the issue is something that will influence his vote. Of course, polling companies do conduct focus groups where people get to talk about why they think the way they do.
I believe most Canadians would like a reduction in immigration, but I'm less sure they care enough to do anything about it. Preston Manning's Reform Party was never against immigration as its detractors said, but it did propose cutting immigration from 250,000 to 150,000 a year during periods of high unemployment. If Canadians care about immigration, why didn't more of them vote for the only party that proposed reducing immigration? Is it because the party didn't put enough emphasis on immigration in its campaigns or is it because Canadians don't care that much about the issue? Most immigrants settle in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. For Canadian outside those centres, immigration may not be a big concern. I don't know.
Certainly decades of multicultural propaganda and general historical ignorance play their part. For forty years Canadians have been told by their government that Canada is a nation of immigrants. Canadian school children aren't taught much, if anything, about their country's British roots. Students are told that Canada's previous immigration policies were "racist" and that the Canadian economy needs ever larger numbers of immigrants to make up for a low birthrate even though this isn't true.
Canadians may not especially like their country's immigration policies, but many have been brainwashed into thinking of immigration as a force of nature that can't be stopped. A successful campaign for immigration reform will have to start by letting Canadians know they do have a choice, by letting them know there's nothing inevitable about our current policies. Canadians need to be liberated from the repressive political correctness that stops them from talking openly about immigration. Canadians need a leader who will let them know their concerns about immigration are legitimate. Unfortunately, Canada's next prime minister, Stephen Harper, is not that leader. While I have no reason to doubt the man's decency and good intentions, his support for even more immigration is pathetic. While I'm happy the corrupt Liberals are out of power, at least temporarily, I find it impossible to be enthusiastic about a new government that won't change Canada's disastrous immigration policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
