• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Respect our values or Leave

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
891
Points
1,040
GAP said:
Beyond the pale on the veil
...
The irony is that, last fall, Egypt's top Islamic cleric said students and teachers at Cairo's Al-Azhar University would not be allowed to wear face veils in classrooms and dorms on the grounds they had “nothing to do with Islam.” The education ministry later barred the niqab during exams, to prevent students from sending others to take the tests ...


And that's the issue: this is NOT a religious matter; it is a socio-cultural matter.

Women are required to be veiled because, and only because, in patriarchal societies, like the ones they or their parents or even grandparents left behind, women are property and men - husbands, fathers even brothers - have a right to control access to their property. That may be an acceptable socio-cultural norm in Saudi Arabia it is not in Canada and it must not be allowed to become a Canadian value.

Most Muslims, sadly, do not understand what their religion requires and what (most things) it ignores; in that they are like most Christians. But ignorance, despite the evidence provided by the majority, is not a Canadian socio-cultural value.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Of course, if basic values are corrupted within the establishment, there is little reason to complain about other's values:

http://wcollier.blogspot.com/2010/04/capitulation-at-lsu.html

Capitulation at LSU

From USA Today:

    Dominique G. Homberger won't apologize for setting high expectations for her students. The biology professor at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge gives brief quizzes at the beginning of every class, to assure attendance and to make sure students are doing the reading. On her tests, she doesn't use a curve, as she believes that students must achieve mastery of the subject matter, not just achieve more mastery than the worst students in the course. For multiple choice questions, she gives 10 possible answers, not the expected 4, as she doesn't want students to get very far with guessing.

    Students in introductory biology don't need to worry about meeting her standards anymore. LSU removed her from teaching, mid-semester, and raised the grades of students in the class.
    ...
    Kevin Carman, dean of the College of Basic Sciences, did not respond to requests for a phone interview Wednesday. But he issued a statement through the university's public relations office that said: "LSU takes academic freedom very seriously, but it takes the needs of its students seriously as well. There was an issue with this particular class that we felt needed to be addressed.

    "The class in question is an entry-level biology class for non-science majors, and, at mid-term, more than 90% of the students in Dr. Homberger's class were failing or had dropped the class. The extreme nature of the grading raised a concern, and we felt it was important to take some action to ensure that our students receive a rigorous, but fair, education. Professor Homberger is not being penalized in any way; her salary has not been decreased nor has any aspect of her appointment been changed."

    In an interview, Homberger said that there were numerous flaws with Carman's statement. She said that it was true that most students failed the first of four exams in the course. But she also said that she told the students that — despite her tough grading policies — she believes in giving credit to those who improve over the course of the semester.

    At the point that she was removed, she said, some students in the course might not have been able to do much better than a D, but every student could have earned a passing grade. Further, she said that her tough policy was already having an impact, and that the grades on her second test were much higher (she was removed from teaching right after she gave that exam), and that quiz scores were up sharply. Students got the message from her first test, and were working harder, she said.

    "I believe in these students. They are capable," she said. And given that LSU boasts of being the state flagship, she said, she should hold students to high standards. Many of these students are in their first year, and are taking their first college-level science course, so there is an adjustment for them to make, Homberger said. But that doesn't mean professors should lower standards.

    Homberger said she was told that some students had complained about her grades on the first test. "We are listening to the students who make excuses, and this is unfair to the other students," she said. "I think it's unfair to the students" to send a message that the way to deal with a difficult learning situation is "to complain" rather than to study harder.


When I first read this story, my initial thought was that there must have been a lot of LSU football players in Homberger's class, but now that I've had more of a chance to think about it, I suspect the reality is much more prosaic--and much more depressing.

Call me an old fart, but times have really changed. I had my share of jackass profs who thought they were too good to be teaching undergrads, but when I did get bad grades, my folks sure as hell didn't direct their ire towards the professor or the deans. I think I'm very safe in saying that the guy in the engineering dean's office who dealt with undergraduates would have laughed us out of his office if we'd ever gone to complain about a class being too hard. That guy (I've forgotten his name; the dean proper was the late William Walker) was never shy about telling you you should consider changing to another major if you couldn't cut it.

I was certainly unprepared for college-level math and science when I got to Auburn. I rarely had to study in high school, and it took the shock of my sophomore year before I figured out that I couldn't just slide by on instinct any more. That more than anything else was the most valuable thing I learned in college.

From reading the full story, it looks to me like the kids at LSU had a similar attitude going in, but more importantly they were on their way to learning they had to change to the "John Houseman way" for their own good. Unfortunately, griping to the dean apparently carries a lot more weight today than it did 20 years ago. That's a shame. Those kids would be a lot better off if they'd persevered. Now all they've learned is the value of whining.

For further reading, have a look at Stuart Rojstaczer's fascinating GradeInflation.com site.
 

zipperhead_cop

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I see a lot of emails go around and there are an awful lot that unfortunately look more like racism than actual concern for our culture or society.  However, this one did come around not too long ago:

Subject:  Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous Criminals

Got this from my friend in England.......................You will not believe this one . . . . . . .What we have to do.Vote this insane demented Labour government OUT! The damage they have done to Britain is making our lives worse and our reputation as a nation is quickly disappearing. No-one should be above the law or get special treatment. It should of course be one law for all. Religion should never even come in to it. Please do pass this on.

Bedfordshire Police's rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals

If they're non-Muslim
. Consider the most opportune time of day to be able to arrest  suspects with minimum resistance . Apply all necessary force to enter the premises
and arrest suspects  accordingly.

If they're Muslim:
. Community leaders must be consulted before raids into Muslim houses.
. Officers must not search occupied bedrooms and bathrooms before dawn.
. Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises.
. Cameras and camcorders should not be used in case capturing women in inappropriate dress . If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not  disrupt the prayer. They should be allowed the opportunity to finish . Officers should take their shoes off before raiding a Muslim house.
. The reasons for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.
. Officers must not touch holy books or religious artifacts without permission.
. Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.

With this continuing appeasement, no wonder it's now predicted that Britain will become an Islamic state by 2070.  (Time to think about  your children.)


Now, I just figured that it was just another hokey email and that it couldn't possibly be true ---->  [delete]  However, my sister (who is also a LEO) decided to actually pursue it and contact the named department:



-----Original Message-----
From: My sister Sent: 19 April 2010 00:05
To: Force Control
Subject: Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous Criminals]


Hi there - I got this e-mail and I was wondering if it was true.

                        Thank you -
                                [My sister]



This is the unedited (except where I took out names) response she got back from them:


Sent: Mon, April 19, 2010 2:39:56 PM
Subject: [Fwd: FW: Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous Criminals]]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: FW: Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous
Criminals]
From:    "[name removed by me]@Bedfordshire.pnn.police.uk>
Date:    Mon, April 19, 2010 3:18 am
To:    [My sister]--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms ZZZ
Thank you for your email.
I would like to reassure you that the message you have seen regarding Bedfordshire Police policy on entering households - Muslim or otherwise -
is incorrect. It has though generated lots of enquiries to our force and is clearly doing the rounds! Bedfordshire Police does have a policy for entering all households adopted by many police forces from guidance from the National Community Tension Team, and is not therefore peculiar only to our force.
The correct version of our policy, summarised below, deals with some basic considerations when entering Muslim households, especially for pre-planned
operations.
* Innocent occupants of a household such as women and children may be present and Police should never under-estimate the impact of any loss of their personal dignity. Muslim women may be more flexible in their choice of dress at home amongst family members than outside and police entry could contribute to a loss of dignity. Opportunity should be afforded for occupants to cover themselves sufficiently to comply with the etiquettes of "Hijab" if a non-family member is present - and that includes the head for women.
* The same level of etiquette and respect should be observed in Muslim households as in a Muslim place of worship, such as a Mosque.
* Female officers must be available wherever practicable to deal with females and there should not be any cross gender contact by the officers.
* Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station. All clothing needs to remain pure for prayer and the denial of appropriate clothing will be a very serious issue for the individual.
*  If possible, officers should not take shoes into the houses, especially in areas that might be kept pure for prayer purposes - nor should they step on any prayer mats etc. This might be difficult in some cases but needs to be seriously considered - plastic overshoes may be an option in some cases if the cleanliness/ purity of the overshoes can be maintained. Non-Muslims are not allowed to touch Holy Books, Qurans, or religious artefacts without permission.
* In the current climate the justification for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.
* The aftercare of those not detained must be considered. Sufficient arrangements should be made to offer alternative accommodation to thosewho are removed from their homes whilst lengthy searches are carried out. If they are not removed from the house they should be allowed some flexibility and privacy.
*  Deployment of family liaison officers should be considered to minimise the impact on the families and the local community.
This guidance, and I stress, is just that. It was written in 2005 at the time of the increased tensions following the 7/7 bombings and applies in the main to Counter Terrorism operations. The same considerations and respect for faith and diversity are always applied no matter what the belief of the household, Muslim or otherwise.
For info and completeness I have also attached an update guidance document [couldn't get it to open] which has been devised by the NCTT which assists all forces in this area
of policing.
I hope this answers your query?
Kind regards
JH
Media Relations Manager
Bedfordshire Police
Tel: 01234 84 2390
????@bedfordshire.pnn.police.uk


I have a nutty idea.  If you don't want to get raided and seen by "infidels" perhaps don't live with terrorists?  Just throwin' it out there...

So the true version is a somewhat diluted version of the original, but not entirely inaccurate.  And what is the point?  Seems to me, if this is applied mostly to TERRORISM suspects, why the hell should they be getting ANY consideration?

Albeit a UK policy, don't think that we aren't roughly 10 years behind them in the ongoing disintegration of our society.  Has it occurred to anyone else that the multiculturalism experiment isn't really working? 
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
586
Points
1,260
zipperhead_cop said:
Subject:  Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous Criminals


https://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/foi/disclosure_log/documents/March%202010/Response%20Letter%202010-00207.pdf
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
891
Points
1,040
Thanks to Margaret Wente for telling an important, indeed vital story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/our-daughters-in-peril/article1561203/
Our daughters in peril
Forget Islamophobia, this comes down to speaking out against family violence

Margaret Wente

She is a beautiful and vividly articulate 18-year-old who lives somewhere in Toronto. She ran away from home three years ago because she was afraid of her abusive father, who used to hit her and her sisters repeatedly. “I knew it was hard for my dad to change,” she says. He is used to the way things work in Pakistan, where they lived till she was 10. She has a close friend who also fears her father. He has beaten her viciously, and has threatened many times to kill her.

Two and a half years ago, another Toronto-area teenager named Aqsa Parvez was strangled after her father allegedly threatened to kill her for ignoring his wishes. Her father and brother have been charged with her murder. When the second girl discussed this tragedy with her father, he told her, “You kind of girls and girls like her deserve whatever happened to her. ”

The story of two friends is featured in a riveting new documentary calledIn the Name of the Family, which premiered this week at Hot Docs in Toronto. Its director, Shelley Saywell, is a gifted filmmaker whose work has been acclaimed around the world. Her specialty is venturing into places where others fear to tread – and she found this particular place right here in Canada, in high-rise apartment buildings and suburban homes. It is a world where the abuse of teenage girls is all too common, sometimes even fatal.

“This is a lot more prevalent in North America than I had thought,” says Ms. Saywell, who, through her other work, is on familiar terms with the shame-and-honour culture that is often brutal to women.

Intense conflict between conservative immigrant fathers and their modern daughters is nothing new. But this kind of violence – often premeditated, and condoned by the community – is driven by a cultural belief that fathers ought to be able to control their daughters. Daughters who act immorally – by talking to boys, or going to the mall, or wearing immodest clothes – bring shame and humiliation onto their entire families. Whatever punishment they suffer is widely thought to be their fault.

“This is the dirty laundry of the community,” says Ms. Saywell, who worked closely with female researchers from Canada’s Pakistani and Afghan communities to make this film.

In the film, we see the first girl urging her friend to leave home for good. “Your dad is scary,” she says. “One day, something really bad is going to happen, and he won’t stop. What if he tries killing you, what are you going to do then? You can’t leave your house, right?”

“No,” the second girl says.

“So what are you going to do?”

“I don’t know.”

A few days later, the second girl picks up a cellphone message from her dad. “ ‘The way you are acting, God will never forgive you,’ ” she translates. “ ‘You are going to die in fire …’ ” She breaks off. “I can’t listen to this.”

After Aqsa Parvez was killed, Facebook was full of comments from girls who wrote, “That’s my story. That could be me.” The second girl also identifies with Aqsa. Her father once woke her up in the middle of the night and asked her – “but it was nicely – he asked me, ‘You don’t want to wear the hijab?’ and I said no. And he asked me why and I told him that I don’t feel ready. And then he asked me again, and I said no. Then he asked me a third time and I said no again, and then he just took a pillow and put it over my face … and he started suffocating me. I was holding my breath and I couldn’t scream, and I was trying to scream. And everyone was sleeping. And then my sister finally came in the room and started crying and then my dad stopped. I went back to my room and I remember I did try telling my mom but he kept denying it and my mom believed him. And even today if I bring it up he denies it.”

Girls like these have few good options. If they leave, they’ll be estranged from their families and their community. They will lose their mothers, who virtually always side with their husbands. There are no safe houses, as there are in parts of Europe, where girls in danger from their families can stay until they’re old enough to live on their own.

The film recounts the wrenching stories of Aqsa Parvez and other girls who were brutally, sometimes fatally, attacked. One young Afghan woman, Fauzia, describes how she was stabbed over and over by her brother. (In a parallel interview, her brother, now serving 10 years in prison, insists that if only she’d behaved herself, he wouldn’t have done it.) But one of the most troubling scenes unfolds at Aqsa’s community mosque in Mississauga. A group of high-school students, under the watchful eye of the imam, are discussing the impact of her death. They insist that Islam is a religion of peace, and complain that Muslims are once again being victimized by Islamophobia. “She shouldn’t have done that,” one girl says. Not a single one stands up for Aqsa.

Ms. Saywell was concerned that she too might be accused of Islamophobia. She was right. A short review in Now magazine (by a well-known local feminist) panned the film for being anti-Muslim. But Shahzrad Mojab, professor of women’s studies and adult education at the University of Toronto, calls it a well-documented treatment of a subject that hasn’t been taken seriously. Even though the stereotyping of Muslims is a serious problem, she says, timidity in the wider community has created a culture of silence around this issue. “We don’t want to be seen as racist. We want to be nice,” she says. “But then we ignore violence.” As for Muslims, she says, “The community has to come forward and propose ways of dealing with these issues that can go beyond this film.”

“I’m a woman, and their community is mine too,” insists Ms. Saywell. “And we have to stand up for everyone in it. We can’t allow the mainstream of society to isolate the problem, and we can’t allow the community to isolate itself.”

This week, the film was screened for several hundred high-school students at a local movie theatre. Ms. Saywell hopes it will be widely shown in schools. Prof. Mojab hopes it will be a wakeup call for teachers, counsellors, social workers, the media, police officers and the legal system.

The young women we meet in the film were extraordinarily brave to go on camera with their stories. Why did they do it?

“They want to be seen as strong, not victims,” Ms. Saywell says. “And they want to help other girls. They want them to know that they’ve survived, and that there are ways out of this.”

After the screening for students the other day, a girl came up to Ms. Saywell and told her she needed to talk. “This is my story too,” she said. The two friends have already begun to make a difference.


This is NOT a religious issue and those who trot out Islamaphobia are cowardly and stupid. Assault is assault and prison is the only acceptable outcome for men (and their wives) who cannot leave their wholly and completely unacceptable cultural issues back in the ‘old country’ where they belong. These cultural issues have no place in a modern, civilized country like Canada. We must make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate these cultural practices here. Those who cannot conform can leave or spend years and years in our prisons. Not other alternative is acceptable.


Edit: typo
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
586
Points
1,260
E.R. Campbell said:
Thanks to Margaret Wente for telling an important, indeed vital story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/our-daughters-in-peril/article1561203/

Looks like the subject is a bit of a hot potato down on Front St. at the Globe:
"Comments have been disabled.:
Editor's Note: We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. We appreciate your understanding."
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
Then Margaret Wente was right in her article

Ms. Saywell was concerned that she too might be accused of Islamophobia. She was right. A short review in Now magazine (by a well-known local feminist) panned the film for being anti-Muslim. But Shahzrad Mojab, professor of women’s studies and adult education at the University of Toronto, calls it a well-documented treatment of a subject that hasn’t been taken seriously. Even though the stereotyping of Muslims is a serious problem, she says, timidity in the wider community has created a culture of silence around this issue. “We don’t want to be seen as racist. We want to be nice,” she says. “But then we ignore violence.” As for Muslims, she says, “The community has to come forward and propose ways of dealing with these issues that can go beyond this film.”
 

karl28

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
E.R. Campbell

This is NOT a religious issue and those who trot out Islamaphobia are cowardly and stupid. Assault is assault and prison is the only acceptable outcome for men (and their wives) who cannot leave their wholly and completely unacceptable cultural issues back in the ‘old country’ where they belong. These cultural[ issues have no place in a modern, civilized country like Canada. We must make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate these cultural practices here. Those who cannot conform can leave or spend years and years in our prisons. Not other alternative is acceptable.

This is the best statement in regards to this sistuation I have heard in a long time . 
 

Ex-SHAD

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's great to see a politician speaking his mind, rather than pandering to politically correct interests.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
891
Points
1,040
Ex-SHAD said:
It's great to see a politician speaking his mind, rather than pandering to politically correct interests.


Could you point, please, to the post that leads you to believe that a politician his speaking his mind? The closest I could find was this post, dated 25 Nov 09, but the politician in question is a her. I'm not being picky - just looking for the source of your comment.
 

zipperhead_cop

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
E.R. Campbell said:
This is NOT a religious issue and those who trot out Islamaphobia are cowardly and stupid. Assault is assault and prison is the only acceptable outcome for men (and their wives) who cannot leave their wholly and completely unacceptable cultural issues back in the ‘old country’ where they belong. These cultural issues have no place in a modern, civilized country like Canada. We must make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate these cultural practices here. Those who cannot conform can leave or spend years and years in our prisons. Not other alternative is acceptable.

Except, unfortunately, there is nothing unlawful about smacking around your wife/daughters in Canada.  Well, I suppose there is a law about that somewhere that says something to the contrary.  However, when it comes to sentencing, it might as well not be against the law.  You can pretty much do a really good job of punching out your wife about every two years and still only ever get probation for it.  Oh, you might <<<shudder>>> have to go to anger management counselling. 
Nope, beating our women is a white trash, tried and true Canadian pass time.  Seems to me Mr. Parvez is fitting in just fine (maybe a murder is a tad overboard).  He has gotten a nice pulse on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is getting his fill as his rights shall be paramount at his trial.   

Perhaps I'm coming off a touch cynical tonight  :p
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
This ties back to one of the meta-themes of Samuel Huntington's book "Who Are We?", the idea that large groups of people arriving together and importing their culture are not immigrants but settlers. Groups who actively reject North American culture, refuse to integrate or become productive citizens are indeed settlers in that sense. While this article is written by and for Americans, we face the same issues:

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/05/14/the-immigration-issue-is-not-about-racism/

The Immigration Issue Is Not About Racism

Posted By Phyllis Chesler On May 14, 2010 @ 11:28 am In Uncategorized | 13 Comments

Think: Economics; Think: Jihadic Terrorism

This morning, I saw some very angry but cuttingly eloquent people on television all on their way to Arizona to protest the new immigration law as strictly racist. They view this as a base and calculated attempt to keep black and brown people out of America and away from the voting booths. In their opinion, they expect all those who are black, brown, or olive — or rather, who identify themselves solely in terms of their skin color — to vote for candidates, both in the midterms and in all future elections, because of their skin color.

Busloads are apparently on their way to Arizona. They are calling themselves freedom riders. They are playing or preying on our historical nostalgia and respect for the real freedom riders who once risked danger and death on behalf of civil rights for African-Americans.

Whoa!

True, America is a country of immigrants. Except for the Native Americans, we have all come from somewhere else. This is our genius, our history, our shining legacy to the world. True, we, like so many other countries, relied upon slave labor, indentured servitude, and wage slavery. To our credit, we abolished slavery and shed much blood in order to do so. Elsewhere (everywhere, if you count the contemporary trafficking in women and children–and I do), slavery is still practiced.

It is true: Not everyone made it in America. But their children or grandchildren probably got to live the American Dream. This included fighting in world wars for the freedom of many other people. ‘Tis also true: Our country has traditionally been ruled by white male landowners. But that has been changing. A half-African, half Caucasian-American man of relatively humble origins occupies the White House; an African-American man is our current attorney general; an African-American man is also on the Supreme Court. Two women of humble origins are also there. Our national and local governments are now populated by representatives of both genders and by people of many ethnicities, faiths, skin colors, both gay and straight.[1]

We can argue about how successful America has been in integrating or elevating women and minorities. Clearly, progress has been made; clearly, we have many more miles to go–and these are hard-fought and relatively recent accomplishments. However, the Arizona immigration question is not really about race or racism, nor is it about legal status. It is about economics. And, of course, it concerns jihadic terrorism.

From an economic point of view, here’s the question: Can America afford to absorb and fund the integration of an untold number of immigrants, especially during an economic recession or depression? Can America afford to follow Europe’s example and allow immigrants, either legal or illegal, to work for minimum or sub-standard wages while American-born laborers remain unemployed? Can America afford to follow Europe’s example and allow the legal or illegal immigration of those who do not wish to integrate, who will not or who cannot become self-supporting, and who must rely on public funding?

From a national security point of view: Can American continue to allow legal and illegal immigrants who wish to conquer us either through legal and economic jihad or through military acts of terrorism against civilians and soldiers on American soil?

These are the issues we must contemplate.

Allow me to suggest a book which was first published by the French writer, Jean Raspail, in 1973. It is an extraordinary and prescient novel, The Camp of the Saints [2]. I first wrote about it in my own book The Death of Feminism [3]. Raspail imagined a flotilla of millions of immigrants traveling from the Ganges to France. An all-powerful, multiculturally correct intelligentsia that has taught Europe that it must atone for its racist, colonial guilt welcomes the invasion. Europe (European culture) is destroyed, both from within and without. The novel is raw, thrilling, overwhelming, ironic, cruel, bitter, and every bit as brilliant as George Orwell’s 1984. At first, Raspail was attacked as a racist. Within a decade, European government leaders were all reading his work. Now what Raspail feared has indeed seemingly come to pass, at least in Europe.

Jean Raspail

In 2002, Oriana Fallaci, the incomparable Italian journalist, published The Rage and the Pride. In it, and in subsequent articles, she both exposed and railed against the Islamic/Islamist “invasion” of Europe and the Islamic/Islamist terrorist threat. She understood that the point of jihad is to subdue and conquer. Despite the high and unpredictable risks of war, she defended the Jews and Israel with a morally hot passion.

Oriana Fallaci

In 2005, my esteemed colleague Bat Ye’or documented the exact reality that Raspail prophetically fictionalized in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Land of Dhimmitude, Land of Islam. The work is scholarly, scary, daunting, and very carefully and cogently argued. Bat Ye’or, an Egyptian Jew forced to flee her homeland, focuses mainly on Islam’s religious apartheid, not on its gender apartheid.

Bat Ye'or

In my view, Raspail, Fallaci, and Bat Ye’or are not racists. The Islamification of the West involves profound cultural, religious, and class differences. What will happen to Western culture when another, perhaps anti-modern, anti-Western culture demographically triumphs in the West? What if that triumphant culture practices gender and religious apartheid? Can you imagine what the fate of infidels and women will be?

Try to do so. This is important. Do you want to be surrounded by a sea of women in burqas? Do you want to be persecuted for praying in a Christian church, a Hindu temple, a Jewish synagogue, or Buddhist shrine?

[1] [4] Currently, ten of 23 (43%) Cabinet-level positions are filled by Caucasian-American men; four (17%) are held by Caucasian women; four (18%) are filled by African-Americans and this includes both men and women; three (13%) are held by Asian-Americans; two positions (8%) are filled by Hispanic-Americans. Myth aside, President Obama has only one Jewish-American in a Cabinet-level position.

Currently, in the United States, women of all races comprise 16.8% of the House and 17% of the Senate. African-Americans comprise 9.7% of the House and hold no Senate positions. Jewish-Americans comprise 7.4% of the House and 13% of the Senate; Hispanic-Americans comprise 6.2% of the House and 3% of the Senate; Asian-Americans comprise 1.6% of the House and 2% of the Senate. May I note that while this is not perfect progress that Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians etc., play no part in the leadership of countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria,  Iraq, etc.

Article printed from Chesler Chronicles: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/05/14/the-immigration-issue-is-not-about-racism/

URLs in this post:

[1] [1]: #_edn1

[2] The Camp of the Saints: http://www.amazon.com/Camp-Saints-Jean-Raspail/dp/1881780074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273860535&sr=8-1

[3] The Death of Feminism: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403975108/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1403968985&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0NMCJ52WJJVF6AYV14EA

[4] [1]: #_ednref1
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
891
Points
1,040
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an interesting piece on which my take is, probably, counterintuitive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-bans-imams-appearance-at-event-for-islamic-history-month/article1739319/
MacKay bans imam’s appearance at event for Islamic History Month

STEVEN CHASE

Ottawa— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Last updated Saturday, Oct. 02, 2010 12:38AM EDT

An Ottawa imam who calls himself a bridge builder between Muslims and other Canadians has been barred by the Harper government from speaking at a Defence Department event next week on the grounds that his organization has promoted “extremist views.”

Zijad Delic, national executive director of the Canadian Islamic Congress, was scheduled to participate on Monday in a National Defence headquarters ceremony recognizing Islamic History Month.

But Defence Minister Peter MacKay has cancelled the imam’s planned appearance after learning of it Friday. His office issued a statement saying the Canadian Islamic Congress has a record of fomenting hatred and has no place at an event honouring Muslim contributions to this country.

Mr. Delic has previously been cited for efforts to help Muslims integrate into Canadian society. He was one of 13 Canadians included in a 2009 book, The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World, penned by Islamic studies scholars at Georgetown University. One of the book’s editors called Mr. Delic “a scholar who writes about how Muslims can integrate into Canadian society.”
Mr. MacKay’s office cited incendiary comments that were made in 2004 by a then-president of the Canadian Islamic Congress as the reason for its decision.

“The Canadian Islamic Congress has declared that Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets of suicide bombers,” Mr. MacKay’s spokesman Jay Paxton said.

“These types of comments don’t support Islamic heritage, they simply divide Canadians, promulgate hate and they have no place in Monday's celebrations.”

He denied the decision was sparked by conservative Christian activist Charles McVety’s public condemnation Friday of the planned appearance by Mr. Delic. A press statement released by Mr. McVety suggested Mr. Delic represented a security risk to National Defence but Mr. MacKay’s office said the decision to cancel his appearance was made before this news release.

“Was the Delic invitation facilitated by associates of the Canadian Islamic Congress or other radical Muslim elements operating from within National Defence headquarters itself?” the statement by Mr. McVety said. “Something has gone wrong, and we ask fair-minded Canadians to call upon Prime Minister Stephen Harper to fully investigate this serious security failure.”

Reached by phone, Mr. Delic said he was terribly upset by Mr. MacKay’s decision to oust him from the celebrations.

“I am devastated, definitely,” he said. “It’s an insult.”

Mr. Delic said the Congress has come a long way from 2004. In October of 2004, then-president Mohamed Elmasry drew widespread criticism for saying that because all Israelis over the age of 18 must serve in the army, they can be considered fair targets for Palestinian suicide bombers. Mr. Elmasry later apologized for the remarks.

Mr. Delic accused the government of playing politics with the Congress. “We are set to advocate not only for Canadian Muslims but for Canada because this is our homeland.”

He noted he previously spoke at the Department of Foreign Affairs in 2008 on behalf of the Congress and Muslims. “I don’t think anything has changed except maybe we’ve gained more trust with Canadians.”

Mr. Delic said since 2006 he has worked to make the Islamic Congress a force for change.

“I have always worked on Canadianizing the Canadian Islamic Congress. I have always worked toward more co-operation with the Canadian government.”

While Mr. Delic calls the Canadian Islamic Congress a bridge builder, the lobby group has previously attacked a major Canadian magazine for running articles that it disliked.

The Congress helped launch controversial human-rights complaints against Maclean’s magazine several years back, alleging the publication promoted hatred against Muslims. The offending writing included commentary by bestselling Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn whose book,America Alone, argued that Western values in Europe and elsewhere are under threat from the rising demographic weight of Muslim communities.

Mr. Delic at the time defended the campaign against Maclean’s by saying free speech has its limits.

These attacks on Maclean’s elicited sympathy in Conservative Party ranks. In late 2008, the majority of delegates to a Tory party convention voted in favour of scrapping the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s power to probe complaints under the “hate messages” section of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Next week’s planned Delic speech had already become fodder for talk among conservative bloggers and activists by the time Mr. MacKay made his decision Friday.

Next week’s National Defence celebrations recognize a Parliamentary motion passed back in 2007 that declared October to be Islamic History Month.

The October 4 event at the Defence Department’s main Pearkes building is intended to recognize this period. Mr. Delic was supposed to deliver a short address at this ceremony.

“On hearing about that, Mr. MacKay thought it was inappropriate based on the past comments of the organization he represents – and therefore asked the imam to not speak,” Mr. Paxton said.


Minister MacKay is wrong. We should (almost) never pre-censor anyone. (I say almost because I’m pretty sure there are a very few exceptions to almost any rule.) I’m reasonably certain that Mr. Delic, like Mr. Elmasry, says and believes things that I regard as hateful, intellectually muddled, untrue and supportive of those who want to kill us and our soldiers. That’s no reason to shut him up; nor is it a reason to silence George Galloway or Glenn Beck. They may be wrong, they may be racists, they may be hate-mongers but that is not a reason to silence them.

If we value freedom then we must defend those who stretch it to, maybe even beyond, its very outer limits; we cannot just defend those with whom we agree - if we do the freedom and the sacrifice of those who defend freedom is meaningless. Our friends and families died to defend Delic and Elmasry, not you and me.

On the other hand we should not have ANY government sponsored religious events anywhere, at any time. If the Canadian Legion, for example, insists upon formal, religious prayers on Remembrance Day then the Government of Canada should provide zero support – readings of the Act of Remembrance and even from Ecclesiasticus can be allowed because they, including the King James version of the Christian bible, are, primarily, a huge part of our majority, cultural (Anglo) heritage.

On a broader note, “history” months (Black History, Islamic History, Gay History and so on, damned near ad infinitum) are a waste of rational time but if, as I suppose they do, they pacify the ignorant masses with intellectual pabulum  then they are probably here to stay.



Edit: grammar and punctuation  :-[
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
891
Points
1,040
This is NOT a Canadian value and, thankfully, it is not a Canadian problem - but it is an (extreme) example of what might happen if we ever allow religious laws* to enter our canon:

dip0110-09-indon_916851cl-8.jpg

A masked and hooded person (R) canes Indonesian food seller Murni Amris for violating Islamic sharia law outside a mosque in Jantho, Aceh province. Two women were caned in Indonesia's staunchly Muslim Aceh province for selling food during the fasting hour of Ramadan, an official said. Hundreds of people gathered to watch as Murni Amris, 27, received three lashes and Rukiah Abdullah, 22, received two at a mosque in the city of Jantho, southeast of the provincial capital Banda Aceh.
(CHAIDEER MAHYUDDIN/AFP/Getty Images)



__________
* Not just Sharia - religious fundamentalists of all stripes are equally active in pushing for religious laws and they (the religious fundamentalists) are all equally reprehensible. Just consider the actions of many Christians re: e.g. abortion and gay rights.
 

Nauticus

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
E.R. Campbell said:
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an interesting piece on which my take is, probably, counterintuitive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-bans-imams-appearance-at-event-for-islamic-history-month/article1739319/

Minister MacKay is wrong. We should (almost) never pre-censor anyone. (I say almost because I’m pretty sure there are a very few exceptions to almost any rule.) I’m reasonably certain that Mr. Delic, like Mr. Elmasry, says and believes things that I regard as hateful, intellectually muddled, untrue and supportive of those who want to kill us and our soldiers. That’s no reason to shut him up; nor is it a reason to silence George Galloway or Glenn Beck. They may be wrong, they may be racists, they may be hate-mongers but that is not a reason to silence them.

If we value freedom then we must defend those who stretch it to, maybe even beyond, its very outer limits; we cannot just defend those with whom we agree - if we do the freedom and the sacrifice of those who defend freedom is meaningless. Our friends and families died to defend Delic and Elmasry, not you and me.

On the other hand we should not have ANY government sponsored religious events anywhere, at any time. If the Canadian Legion, for example, insists upon formal, religious prayers on Remembrance Day then the Government of Canada should provide zero support – readings of the Act of Remembrance and even from Ecclesiasticus because it, the King James version of the Christian bible is, primarily, a huge part of our majority, cultural (Anglo) heritage, can be exempted on cultural grounds.

On a broader note, “history” months (Black History, Islamic History, Gay History and so on, damned near ad infinitum) are a waste of rational time but if, as I suppose they do, they pacify the ignorant masses with intellectual pabulum  then they are probably here to stay.
While I agree the government should never support religious events at all, if they do, they should not support ones that can be viewed as hateful.

Mackay is right, in my opinion, to cancel this particular appearance. This does NOT mean that the government is censoring anybody, it merely means that they do not condone or endorse his or her message.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
891
Points
1,040
This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is about a guy who does share good Canadian English common law values but who is being charged with a crime anyway:

http://www.nationalpost.com/anger+Little+China/3613368/story.html
Big anger in Little China

3613369.bin


Aaron Lynett, National Post Files
David Chen, owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart, was charged after holding a thief in a van until police arrived at the scene.


Peter Kuitenbrouwer, National Post • Saturday, Oct. 2, 2010

Saturday, Oct. 2, 2010

When David Chen and his brothers bought a three-storey white-brick storefront in Toronto's Chinatown two years ago, they inherited, on a balcony above the street, a life-sized fibreglass moose -- one of a series that speckled the city many years ago. They painted the moose's antlers with Chinese gold coins, painted the Yin and Yang symbols on its back and gave it Fu Man Chu moustaches. Then they named their grocery store after the mascot, calling it Lucky Moose Food Mart.

Luck, however, has proven elusive.

In May of last year Mr. Chen's video cameras caught images of a man stealing plants and fleeing on a bike. When the man returned an hour later, Mr. Chen and his brothers chased him, caught him, tied him up, threw him in a van and waited for the police.

Toronto police did arrest the thief, Anthony Bennett, charging him with theft. But they also arrested Mr. Chen, 36, jailed him overnight and charged him with kidnapping, possessing a concealed weapon (the box-cutter he uses to open cases of produce) forceable confinement and assault.

Crown attorneys have since dropped the first two charges. Mr. Chen's trial on the forceable confinement and assault charges begins Monday.

The case has become a cause celebre in Toronto, clogging radio talk shows and filling the pages of the city's four Chinese language daily newspapers. Most opinion sides with Mr. Chen.

"It's been covered and covered and covered," says Chi-Kun Shi, a Toronto lawyer who is helping Mr. Chen, and whose ex-husband, Peter Lindsay, is Mr. Chen's lawyer. Merchants in Chinatown, she adds, "say David is their hero. These are business owners. They are not Rambo. They are not waiting around to do some kung fu."

Having exhausted their anger at Toronto police (who say they must charge Mr. Chen because he broke the existing law on apprehending shoplifters) some in Toronto's Chinese community have turned their wrath on Ottawa, which has failed in 17 months to lift a finger to rewrite the law.

"People call the talk shows and say, 'Is this racism?' " Ms. Shi says.

"And you can't blame them for using the R word when you consider the complete disregard the Conservative government has shown to the Chinese community over the David Chen incident."

Jason Kenney, the federal Immigration Minister, said last year that "Mr. Chen is a victim of crime. The law should remember that property owners have the right to use reasonable means to protect their property." His government, however, has not changed the law.

Meanwhile Joe Volpe, the Toronto Liberal MP, this year introduced a private member's bill to decriminalize Mr. Chen's act. Olivia Chow, the New Democrat MP who has Lucky Moose in her riding, introduced her own legislation, the Lucky Moose Bill, in Parliament this week.

Dundas Street West, where Lucky Moose lives, is a chaotic stretch where trucks double-park at all hours, streetcars struggle to pass, and $25 foot massage em-poria compete with bubble tea places, ginseng shops and barbecue restaurants.

Yesterday at lunchtime Mr. Chen, a white T-shirt stretched on his athletic frame, stood in front of Lucky Moose, directing workers as they stacked bok choi and red onions and red grapes ($1.99/lb). On weekdays he gets up at 4 a.m. and treks to the Ontario Food Terminal to pick up produce. He showed me a bed in a tiny attic, where he sometimes naps, next to four video monitors that display images from 60 cameras in the store. He works until midnight.

"We are working hard," he says. "And then we get charged. It's not very fair. We feel very bad. I feel I want to get out of the case, but I can't get out of the case. I just want to protect my stock. I just want to get this over with so I can get on with my business."

He showed me, taped to a pillar in the store, a photograph of an old man in a baseball hat pushing a stroller.

"This guy came in with a child and stole $35 worth of stuff," he says.

Many of the thieves here get away, storekeepers said. Even those convicted serve little time. Anthony Bennett, 52, the man Mr. Chen caught, has been convicted 28 times, in Ontario and British Columbia, starting in 1976, mainly of theft, possession of cocaine and trafficking in narcotics. On each offence, he served a few days in prison.

In August 2009, Mr. Bennett pleaded guilty to the Lucky Moose theft and two thefts from another plant shop. The Crown asked for 90 days in jail; the judge knocked that down to 30 days to reward the thief for agreeing to be a Crown witness against Mr. Chen.

Down the way from Lucky Moose, John Chan was sitting at his counter at China Art City, a sprawling shop that sells bonzai and bamboo plants along with ginseng, ceremonial daggers, tea and large carvings of Buddha.

Mr. Chan, who regularly chases thieves from his store, vows to attend court on Monday to support Mr. Chen.

"I call the police so many many times," he says. "They come in one hour, sometimes three hours."

Therefore, he reasons, "If you see someone steal something, you catch them. That's normal."

Mr. Chen just worries how the busy Lucky Moose will fare while he and his brothers sit in court. "The store is going to be a mess," he says.

pkuitenbrouwer@nationalpost.com


Property is, according to John Locke, and ought to be, according to Stephen Harper, a fundamental, indeed natural right. But in Canada, post 1967, property is a bad word and despite what the cabinet might want the bureaucracy will do everything in its (very considerable) power to block any attempt to craft laws that enshrine property rights.

Mr. Chen is a good, responsible Canadian; Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, Wayne Wouters and his minions - less so.
 

zipperhead_cop

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Am I the only one who thought that article seemed to be off its Ritalin?  All over the board! 

E.R. Campbell said:
Property is, according to John Locke, and ought to be, according to Stephen Harper, a fundamental, indeed natural right. But in Canada, post 1967, property is a bad word and despite what the cabinet might want the bureaucracy will do everything in its (very considerable) power to block any attempt to craft laws that enshrine property rights.

Mr. Chen is a good, responsible Canadian; Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, Wayne Wouters and his minions - less so.

Okay, calling the Prime Minister a bad, irresponsible Canadian because he didn't just rush to expand a citizens powers of arrest as a result of one visible minority getting charged is really pushing the pocket I think.  You don't get to suck and blow at the same time.  A citizens powers of arrest under CCC 494 are pretty clear and DO NOT include making arrests after they have lost contact with an offender.  Right or not, good faith or not, Mr. Chen did not have the legal authority to make an arrest.  So every single thing he did after he put his hands on the thief was unlawful.  The box cutter charge was pretty lame, unless he used it to threaten the thief. 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a big fan of people taking ownership of their communities.  In the sage words of the ever wise Chief Clancy Wiggum: "Can't you people take the law into your own hands? I mean, we can't be policing the entire city!"  ;D  But given the MASSIVE latitude the Charter gives people to not have to be responsible for their behavior, enforced by the judges who allow all manner of idiocy to occur, what would you have our minority government do?  And you are correct when you observe that property crimes are really not against the law due to there being no actual real penalty for committing them.  Again, the laws indicate there are some decent penalties but when the judges refuse to administer them how is anyone supposed to get anything that resembles "justice"? 
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
891
Points
1,040
zipperhead_cop said:
Am I the only one who thought that article seemed to be off its Ritalin?  All over the board! 

Okay, calling the Prime Minister a bad, irresponsible Canadian because he didn't just rush to expand a citizens powers of arrest as a result of one visible minority getting charged is really pushing the pocket I think ...


The debate is not about the state's exclusive right to use force or a citizen's use of force and I'm not arguing for expanded powers of citizens' arrest because I don't know enough about the issue. But the debate would not even occur if we, as a society, accepted property rights. We would not have this if we acknowledged and respected property rights:

3576253.bin

Photograph by: Handout, Maclean's

There is a demonstrable positive correlation between a nation's place on the global transparency index and respect for property. It is not a question of socialism vs. capitalism; it is a question of "is one's property really ones' own?" It is more that just laws on the books - it is how they are administered and enforced, which goes far, far, far beyond judicial discretion. In fact, despite good laws and despite good law enforcement, our failure to respect property as a fundamental, natural right weakens us as a society.

The debate over property rights has been hot since about 1982 when they failed to make it into the Charter of Rights - I guess Locke wasn't sufficiently Cartesian for the Charter's authors. But the debate began before that, with the rise of Marxism that, consciously, needs to suppress fundamental or natural individual rights in order to further empower the biggest collective of them all, the state itself.

So the real debate is between liberalism that aims to protect the sovereign individual and his natural rights from the depredations of all the collectives, including the state itself, and illiberalism that aims to follow the path of least resistance towards some poorly conceived social goals. Canada, despite a somewhat illiberal constitution (mainly found in the 1982 add-ons), is somewhat less illiberal, in practice, than is, say, the USA where, since 1933, collectivism and an appalling lack of respect for private property have run rampant. But we could do better and a good first step would be to reinforce the status of property rights, which exist, powerfully, in the common law, in our statute laws, making property rights, once again, quite fundamental and natural - as they must be in a real liberal society.
 

57Chevy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
390
I think Mr. Chen's trial on the forceable confinement and assault is quite the joke. They were quite civil in their actions. They did not harm the thief in any way, except for maybe his huge ego. They could have done much much worse. Instead, they waited ernestly for the 'law' to come. It makes a
whole lot of sense to me.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
891
Points
1,040
I will always defer to z-c on matters of law enforcement; he's the SME. The issue, for me, is not what Mr. Chen did or did not do, nor is the legality or even propriety of his actions the issue; my concern is with the values his actions represent. In that domain I remain convinced that Mr. Chen's values are right and those of our government are less so.
 
Top