97 Replies to “When Canadians Were Introduced To The Concept of Multiculturalism”

  1. Sure hope M at 10:36 is a troll trying to provoke, because if it is an individual, it’s impossible to condemn what he says strongly enough. For instance: ” I mean if you want a practical solution to infestation I could say one word: Einstatzgruppen.”
    Einsatzgruppen were of course extermnation squads run by the SS throughout the Reich. The same SS, that captured a few Canadian soldiers on D-Day, and murdered the disarmed men. ( Although justice was not brought to all the perpetrators, the story does have a just ending: the commanding SS officer, Meyer survived the war and was tried. Thanks to the mercy shown by a Canadian major general, the louse was saved from the noose, and sentenced to life instead. )

  2. Hey, wasn’t Quebec wanting to be just like France? Maybe we can send them all the Muslims in the country and they can support them with our money. Oops, there’s the rub….

  3. (@10:57 – no, it would be the other way around, wouldn’t it? He spends every summer… I’m so clever with this stuff I should go into Climate Science.)

  4. I realize that I am also guilty of providing no useful suggestions on how to address this situation. It’s one that we’ve created for ourselves, and it must be one that we can reverse.
    Hence this insanely long post. My apologies. I guess probably no one will read it, but here goes.
    First of all, angry or not, M, what you mention in your post is so offensive and disgraceful that I can’t have a rational response to it. That kind of talk ends all rational discussion. Enough said.
    GaryinWinnipeg – I am not a believer in any god, but that does not weaken my resolve to protect our civilization, or my ability to recognize the problem. When I fight this battle, I am fighting because I have daughters that I do not want to grow up in a land where the misogynistic thoughts of Islam hold the slightest sway.
    If we make this a religious issue, I believe it will be more likely to explode out of control. That it not to say that strong Christian faith is not a strong part of the defense against Islamic encroachment, but it can’t be the only answer, and I don’t actually believe that Christianity is united enough and vigorous enough any more in North America to fight this battle alone successfully.
    Personally, I believe the battle should be fought on the field of societal culture. Islam is strong with regard to indoctrination and enforcement, but with the way it treats women and with the unscientific and irrational nature of much Islamic thinking, Islam has to be inherently weak with regard to productivity and societal success. This is obvious from looking at the correlation between religion and quality of country around the world.
    Also, obviously part of the solution is to bring to the politicians’ attention the increasing awareness among Canadians that multiculturalism not only is not a good idea any more, it’s become a very bad idea. I believe Canadians are ready for this message in ways that they weren’t 10 or even 5 years ago. A government that makes this part of their policy will benefit from this in the polls.
    With regard to intake/immmigration, the Danes have takes some measures that are in the right direction
    http://garnetspy.com/2010/08/10/ask-the-danes-about-islam/
    From the article
    *************************************
    Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of “racism” by liberal media across Europe – even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.) If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark’s history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you. You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t.
    **************************************
    In addition, Canada is in a way fortunate because we get many immigrants from India and Asia. The Hindu are very aware of the dangers of Islam, and will be strong allies in the fight against it. The Asians are usually Christians or Buddhist, and are not going to be a problem. Quite the opposite, they will end up on the side of Western civilization because they are able to see, and very willing to admit, its superiority. Have a talk with someone from China or Vietname who has made a good life for themselves in Canada. They are very straightforward levelheaded people. For the time being they are not very politically active, but that hopefully will change. Part of the problem with Islam is its built-in inferiority complex that leads to a fight over the most trivial issues. Asians don’t have this problem – that’s one of the reasons they do better societally.
    Another factor to consider is Sharia finance schemes. These have to be blocked through consumer action (refuse to do business with banks that enable sharia finance).
    http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/category/canada/
    We dodged a couple of major problems in Ontario when we managed at the last minute to not permit Sharia family courts, and when John Tory’s idiotic faith based schooling proposal led to his worthy demise. But I can imagine these will come up again as the demographics change. Look at Britain. We should take action, i.e. pass laws, to make it impossible for these types of things to rear their heads.
    Just some thoughts…. will anyone listen? I am sure some are. If you look at the comment threads at major online media sites (The Globe, The Star, National Post) this type of discussion is occuring, though often censored. But it was not out in the open 5-10 years ago, and now it is. Still, there will have to be a tipping point when we can finally have this discussion out in the open, in the media, among Canadians and their political leaders, until real action can be taken. Obviously we are quite far from this, but not nearly as far as we were a decade ago. Hopefully we can have an adult discussion before it’s too late.

  5. While fishing for pink salmon in the downtown area of Nanaimo today, I noticed a man and his two young sons (I assume) about 10 and 13.
    All were dressed in traditional Muslim garb, from their headgear to the loose white long blouse and loose fitting pants. They appeared to be enjoying the evening air and the harbour, but sadly I couldn’t help wondering who they are, how they came to be in Nanaimo and most importantly, how they might feel about me.
    Do they see me as just an average Canadian out fishing? Or am I a kuffar, a dhimmi, a person who is an un-believer and thus not worthy of knowing?
    It’s a shame, because I have none of these feelings when I consider Sikhs, hassidic Jews or
    Mennonites.
    But when I saw the three of them, I could not help asking myself: are they Canadians who happen to be Muslim? Or are they Muslims who happen to be in Canada?
    The ‘moderate’ Muslim community needs to address the fact that their less moderate breathern have put all Muslims under if not suspicion, then at least in a place where their adhereance to traditional values leaves the rest of us feeling uneasy – that they may be among us, but they are not a part of us – not by our choice, but by theirs.

  6. Gallen
    Do you really think that “couple of mosques” equals “many”?
    I think that “couple” means “couple” nothing more, nothing less.
    And you believe that once “they put feet on something it’s there’s”?
    I think you forgot the Caliphate of Cordoba, or the battle near Vienna, or the fact that nearly the whole (Kievan)Russia was under the Muslim rule. If Spaniards, or Russians or others thought like you, the whole Europe would be under the Caliphate rule today.
    But it isn’t.
    And if now there is a government who gives gifts to Inuvik muslims, then why do you think that in future there will be a government who will act the same?
    And if in future there will be the government who will act the same whose fault it will be? Don’t you think that it will be your fault for not voting for a different government. For a government which will make different kinds of decisions?
    Or do you already said to yourself “I have no rights? and “All is lost” and “Vae Victis”

  8. I have a plan. I need 50 CIA agents, each one carrying a brief case with a million Euros in cash. The streets will be cleared by “Christmas”
    PS: My ancestors are from France. I can’t believe that the people who wrote “Liberté, Egalité. Fraternité” in blood would put up with his BS!

  9. Well Lori, my apologies, but like I said until we are about to say these kinds of things it’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion since all these things are off limits in a civilized society. Didn’t I predict that reaction? ;(
    I’m skeptical to the degree to which muslims can fully integrate into our society. Having provisions where they have to learn the culture and work hard is nothing really. Remember a lot of muslims successfully migrate to the United State and learn to fly airplanes. Lots of muslims come to Canada and get jobs and go to university too. The month long Islamic Awareness Week at the University of Calgary is evidence of that.
    The thing is so what? A woman in a burqa who works hard and raises a family and never kills, wants to kill or wants to have her children kill is still a threat to the west. Why? because if you ask a Christian if it would be better for Canada to be more Christian (s)he would say of course! So would Ms. Burqa except to be more islamic is to recognize more and more of Sharia. Islam as it is is an expansionist political ideology.
    Freedom of Religion worked here because all our sensibilities and even atheistic traditions stems from how we understand Christianity. Islam is nothing like Christianity, it represents different modalities of life and a different perspective of the universe. Reforms to it have either been reversed or the people have been horribly persecuted so that’s not gonna happen anytime soon. It is something that our civilization in many ways is really poorly equipped to handle.
    We would need two things to peacefully withstand the growing Islamic threat. First is a unwavering certitude that we are right and they are wrong. Or at the very least that we will never want to live with them as master. Secondly we’d need demographics of infidels such that muslims (even the nice friendly moderate in so far as he actually IS a believer) could never form a sizeable voting bloc.
    The thing is that I don’t think that will happen. Just look at the US, blacks and hispanics really don’t like each other. Especially in poorer districts where they compete for jobs. Canada is just neck deep in fractious politics. The Sikhs have their own hatreds of indians. The tamils have their own greivances. Everyone has a cloistered enclave. A lot of chinese are apolitical and maybe don’t grasp the issues (though that’s hardly unique to them). We are so busy fighting for our crumbs that we don’t see the pie being taken from us. Look at our government alone. No one can form a majority because the left and the right not just don’t see eye to eye but have completely different perspectives entirely. I’m not even convinced left and right can ultimately live together harmoniously. We have no national character or ideology that is sure of itself (except the self loathing ones which don’t count). What is Canadian Identity after all?
    As for demography, you really can’t make people who don’t want kids to have kids unfortunately. I think that it would be a great policy if we had a scalable tax system that penalized childless singles and progressively rewarded people as they had more and more children. Also severe punishments for child neglect since people might do weird things with this incentive scheme. It makes sense that people with children ought to pay less as they are contributing to the nation’s future whereas a single swinger is a net drain.
    I don’t think that will ever happen though as anti-parasitic-children is cool right now. That said none of this will likely happen soon enough to prevent islamification anyways. I’m quite pessimistic on our survival barring some form of “disgraceful” action.

  10. M
    and of course various kinds of Muslims do like each other? Like all Shia like Sunnis( Iraq + Lebanon) and Emirate Sunnis like Egyptian Sunnis (just talk to Egyptians) and wahabi Sunnis like Sufi Shias (talk to Saudis). Of course they all would prefer or rather pretend (when living in the west) that all is peace and love among various kinds of Muslims. But it is not.
    And by the way – do black Muslims like white (or brown) Muslims?
    Of course you can be pessimistic and think “everything is lost” because some of us, non-muslims, do not like others of us , non-muslims.
    So what.
    But are you sure that in Canada or States 20% or 30% of population is Muslims ?
    2% of muslim in Canada will introduce sharia?
    Whites will always have no children?
    All Hispanics will revert?
    ******
    Oh gosh, we can not help creeping islamisation! Nothing will work! Islam is our future!!! /s
    Pah!

  11. Revenant Dream:
    Several months ago you informed us, probably with regret, that your education was less than you would have wished. Well, if I’m not mistaken, you are working hard to remedy that misfortune. In particular, I’ve noticed that your posts have improved. Whereas you used to strain to achieve a kind of poetic “eloquence”, you are now more concise and restrained in your writing, and your spelling is better. Congratulations, and keep it up!
    A suggestion: ask an English teacher to explain what a “complete sentence” is. If you understood that clearly, I think you would punctuate differently. For example, in your post of September 3, 9:05 PM, I think you would write:
    “The French, instead of being lions of sexual decadence, seem to have as much passion as the Panda.”
    In other words, you would use commas to separate parts of your sentence and you would use a period only at the very end.
    Another point: the word “contiguous” is usually employed to describe physical closeness rather than conceptual similarity. Thus, while Canada and the United States are contiguous (i.e., are physically next to each other), French birth rates and Panda birth rates are similar.

  12. I don’t understand the media end game. They are pro rights due to their Liberal leanings but in the end they will not survive. I’m not saying they should be anti- anything, that would be a plus. They have tied themselves in a warm blanket that is old and worn and the winds are starting to blow.
    How can radical Islam respect countries that place so little respect on themselves? They will kill you for their beliefs. You won’t exit your comfort zone to recognize a problem. You will debate whether there is a God. Doesn’t matter if you do, they are willing to die for a belief and you won’t. You won’t even speak the truth because it may upset and you are labelled. Gonna be messy.

  13. why not invite some local schutzhund clubs to bring their members around every friday afternoon? better yet, get a couple of german shepherds yourself. when i walk mine, certain ethnic types are terrified.

  15. Several things –
    First, I think the Australian Values statement, which must be signed by all visa and immigrant applicators, is the best way to deal with, in particular, Islamic entrants.
    “I understand:
    •Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good
    •Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background
    •the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.
    I undertake to respect these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia.
    I understand that, if I should seek to become an Australian citizen:
    •Australian citizenship is a shared identity, a common bond which unites all Australians while respecting their diversity
    •Australian citizenship involves reciprocal rights and responsibilities. The responsibilities of Australian Citizenship include obeying Australian laws, including those relating to voting at elections and serving on a jury.
    If I meet the legal qualifications for becoming an Australian citizen and my application is approved I understand that I would have to pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people”
    This must be signed. First, it defines Australia as a coherent entity with a basic, collective ideology. If you choose to enter, you must also choose to accept its values. Period.
    Harper is trying to do the same thing here with his change to the immigration rules but the left, with their agenda of isolating immigrants into dependent blocs – dependent on govt largesse – is fighting this.
    Second, Islam is not a religion but a sociopolitical ideology prevented from change by defining it, not merely as a religion, but by insisting that its texts come direct from god. As a sociopolitical ideology, it is based around a 7th century nomadic lifestyle, a tribal mode of life that was threatened by the expanding economy of more settled (Christian) market economies of that era. Therefore, Islam is a militant and offensive ideology, dedicated to wiping out all others. It is obviously totally unsuited to a modern world.
    Islam trapped itself in a particular ideology in the 9th c, when it rejected a view of religion as based on ‘natural law’ which includes human reason (Mu’tazilite ideology) in favour of a view that rejected human reason and insisted on complete submission to a god that was pure Will (Ash’arite ideology).
    This ‘fall’ – and it is a fall, into a view that humans must be mindless followers of a Supreme and even random God; that they have no free choice and no strength to better their own lives – also occurred in the early Christian religion when the religion became politicized. But Christianity, unlike Islam, did not begin as a political movement and therefore, it was able, in the 12th through 16th centuries, to free itself and move back to its basics of natural law.
    Islam has to go through this and it is difficult because that dogmatic view of humans as without reason, freedom, and Islam as militant – is so entrenched.
    The West must fight back. Australia’s Values Statement is, in my view, a requirement. An absolute and necessary requirement.
    Banning the burqa etc is also a requirement, because it is a statement of isolation from and rejection of interaction with others.
    Then, Muslims must be asked, in public debates, such questions as: ‘We acknowledge that you have cultural ideas that are specific to your religion. Now, tell us what you have IN COMMON with peoples of other religions and other beliefs”.
    I emphasize this tactic. The public must openly address peoples who insist on their uniqueness and force them to THINK about what they have in common with other peoples who live in the same land.
    If they insist that they have nothing in common, the next question is: ‘Why are you here’?
    And – that Australian values statement. It’s a necessity. Then, if the response is: ‘we have nothing in common’ – you repeat the NATIONAL values statement, and take them through each point. If they say they accept none of these values – then – they can be deported.

  16. ET
    re the australian values statement….?
    ireland did exactly that….and immigrants signed on the dotted line re polygamy etc etc etc…but it did no good whatsoever..it was meaningless with people of bad faith and EU lawyers intervening…

  17. Thank you, lookout, for your post last night @ 9:38. Well-said. ‘Will check out both of those links when I have time.
    It looks as though, FINALLY, intelligent Westerners are waking up to the fact that when you sell your spiritual heritage for a bowl of Cocoa Puffs, it’s game over. The Muzzies know this — they’re not THAT stupid — and they’re taking us to the cleaner… er, the guillotine.
    Our intelligentsia betters (sic) are trashing the one weapon the West has had to stave off an Islamic invasion, our spiritual “treasury,” as Dalrymple so succinctly and elegantly puts it, thus standing against Western Civilization with the barbarians. How’s that working out for us?
    Without a vision the people perish. That’s what Glen Beck’s rally was all about.

  18. john begley – the entrance values statement must be upheld by the government. If it’s a toothless document it will be ignored. The whole point of the document is not empty rhetoric but a self-definition by a nation of its laws and values. The EU has no legal authority over a sovereign nation.
    Furthermore, to define a political ideology as a religion, which is what Islam does, is something that must be debated and rejected.
    After all, one can define any act that is against the laws of a nation – and these can be anything from polygamy to homicide – as a religious requirement and thus, assume that such behaviour is above the law. That is a misuse of the definition of ‘religion’ and the law. No behaviour is above the law. That is something that a nation must insist on.
    I cannot emphasize this enough. All nations have values; all nations have laws. These are common to the whole population. Within each section, there is room for interpretation – by the people. So, at one time, there was no such thing as a ‘common law’ marriage; now there is and it is legally accepted, i.e., pensions and benefits include the couple. But if an immigrant comes to the nation and refuses to accept these values and laws – then, freedom does NOT include refusing to follow them.
    The West has to stand up for itself. It has to, as nations are doing, finally rejecting the veil, the sharia law and etc.
    It is difficult because Islam has incorrectly defined its political nature – which is all it really is – as a religion. It is not. (By the way, neither the headscarf or veil or full tent are in the Qur’an; they are cultural beliefs from a desert climate and from a patriarchal political system).
    And it is difficult because the first reaction of western nations to undeveloped peoples immigrating was the naive policy of multiculturalism. The ‘leave them alone’, aren’t they quaint’ view. This works for some groups but not for a militant expansionist POLITICAL ideology cloaked as a religion.
    The West has to fight back – and I stand by my suggestions of:
    – an entrance values statement;
    – public debates asking ‘what do you have in common with other peoples’ – which force them to THINK about commonality rather than uniqueness;
    – state laws against extreme cultural behaviour, ie., the veil;
    – no special dispensation from state laws, i.e., no sharia law;

  19. ET:
    I’m not familiar with the situation in Ireland, but I think John Begley is correct to assume that immigrants will say whatever is convenient and that lawyers will turn the whole matter into a game of words.
    The best way to halt the current demographic trend is (1) to flatly refuse to allow immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, and (2) to enforce existing law with regard to practices such as polygamy. Here in the U.S., no foreigner has a constitutional “right” to enter the country. Nor, despite so-called “freedom of worship”, does any citizen have a “right” to more than one spouse. Mischievous lawyers out to establish such rights will have an uphill battle.
    Whether my recommendations are ultimately adopted depends on politics, not law. Citizens need to value their own traditions and culture enough to use the law to further those traditions. Yes, the law is something to be used, and it will be used, whether we like it or not. The only question is, by whom and for what end?

  20. rsp – I don’t think that, constitutionally, you can legally refuse immigration or visas or travel to one particular religion.
    Economically, it would be naive to forbid entry to people from ‘predominantly Muslim countries’. After all, you’d be reduced to defining the entrant by religion; after all – what if they were a Christian or Jew? To define admission by religion would be in violation of the constitution. So – frankly, your suggestion is, to me, legally unworkable.
    Furthermore, this is a global economy. A ‘predominantly Muslim country’ would instantly retaliate by economic sanctions against the US.
    You say that no foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the country. I haven’t noticed the US able to stop the millions of illegal entrants.
    The US doesn’t have a constitutional right to forbid or permit entry. These are legal issues which, constitutionally, is the prerogative of the federal govt.
    I don’t think that isolation of Islam is the answer. They have to be forced to modernize. That includes those actions that I suggested, by the West.

  21. I think we can all agree here that Islam is as much a retrograde force as a theology. Supporting a liberal democracy and being opposed to Shariah presents a conundrum which demonstrates the reluctance to support statist measures explicitly discriminatory towards Islam. given that, and the general effectiveness of the political approach, one is left with civil measures. I favour censure with extreme prejudice, which flies in the face of Canada’s lack of free speech. Restoring free speech is therefore the first step. The cartoons, billboards, comedy routines, advertisements, dog parades, pork-fests, private discriminatory hiring and exercise of property rights, etc can then follow.

  22. Ah, the disintegration of Canada starting with destroying your past. Trudeau’s Canada is all based on falsehoods and supported by the Quebec political elite of the past 50 years that destroyed Canada. Yet, no none is suggesting we put a stop to it.
    It started with the Charter which no one was allowed to discuss before it was imposed on us. It said that Canada was a bilingual country which she never was. It was always – and still is – a country with two languages. Then it said that we are all equal but that the Indians and the French-Canadians have a special status – read more equal than everyone else.
    Then the kicker: that we are a multicultural country where all cultures are equal. So Canadian culture (i.e. English Canada) is just as equal as a culture that practices female circumcision or honour killing or believes that women are chattel. A predominately Quebec based Superior Court then ruled that the Charter is part of our Constitution – read needs 100% agreement to change. So a federal law can not be changed by Parliament.
    Thank you Mr. Trudeau and the Lieberals for these shackles and the death sentence to Canada. We were once a great country.

  23. [quote]The French have always been good at surrender[/quote]ZZMike
    ZZ,
    It is the Marxist’s that should fear the Muslims…The EU has tried to convert Muslims into Marxists..No Go …An American Muslim (Moderate) has the making of a good Republican…Read the 1st Amendment.
    I don’t fear American Muslims, or thier dreams. We have a society that melds people to a common cause. We have Marxists that are far worse than religious dogma from the 13th century…
    ”If it don’t fit you must acquit”

  24. ET:
    With respect to religion, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. Whether or not this can be twisted into a constraint on immigration policy depends on politics. A lawyer will argue anything. Whether his argument succeeds depends on the court, and the court is sensitive to political opinion.
    Will exclusion of people from predominantly Muslim countries result in the exclusion of some Jews and Christians? Probably. Too bad. You cannot hold public policy hostage to exceptional cases. There are plenty of other Jews and Christians who will get in. I’m not going to lose sleep over those who don’t.
    As to the economic inconvenience of Islamic retaliation, let them try it. As economic sophisticates are fond of saying, oil is a “fungible commodity”, and the miserable political regimes that sit on it have to sell it to someone. The Saudis do not allow Christians to proselytize in their country. Does that cause us to throw up our hands and refuse to deal with them? What makes you think the Saudis will be any less pragmatic when it comes to dealing with us? Besides, if we are so soft and decadent that the mere prospect of inconvenience dissuades us from defending our culture, perhaps we deserve to be overwhelmed.
    As for the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico, that is purely an administrative failure, and one that raises no constitutional questions.

  25. >>Will exclusion of people from predominantly Muslim countries result in the exclusion of some Jews and Christians?
    There are very few Jews left in predominantly Muslim countries. In any case they can emigrate to Israel, where they will be granted citizenship and then from there they could go to the States.
    The main Christan populations in predominantly Muslim countries are in Egypt and Indonesia and I doubt that there would be much likelihood of their leaving. In any case, they could also transit to the States via a non-Muslim country.

  26. [quote]As for the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico, that is purely an administrative failure, and one that raises no constitutional questions.[/quote]RSP
    I disagree somewhat…The third Constitutional leg is Judicial. They are playing a deliberate & disgraceful political role. We might be better served as a nation of STATES without the third leg, or some type of absolute oversight
    Immigration is played between Immigration lawyers & the Federal Courts…The Obama Admin is backing the immigration Lawyers turf.. ICE is
    a total waste…
    The biggest “Redistribution of wealth” players are trial lawyers
    JMHO

  27. Alberta Clipper said “The main Christan populations in predominantly Muslim countries are in Egypt and Indonesia and I doubt that there would be much likelihood of their leaving.”
    I work with about a dozen Assyrian Christians. They didn’t move here for the weather.

  28. RSP- I hope the court is NOT ‘sensitive to political opinion’. If that were the case, it would not be doing its duty. I remind you of John Adams, a lawyer and Founder, who defended the British military men, against ‘political opinion’ because it was the ‘just law’ to do so. Any rule that excludes an immigrant by virtue of their religion would be against the constitution (freedom of religion) and against just law.
    Economic sanctions against one country, ie, Saudi Arabia vs the US, would have an effect. On both countries, therefore, such a rule as you propose against Muslim immigration would never be passed.
    Philip Shaw – Islam, as a collectivist ideology that rejects individualism, is similar to Marxism, which is also a collectivist ideology that rejects individualism.
    John Chittick: Certainly, laughter has a vital role to reduce the self-defined elite to a common status but I think that your suggestion would instead incite hatred and acts of revenge.

  30. >>I work with about a dozen Assyrian Christians. They didn’t move here for the weather.
    I agree with you, but I think that most of the Assyrian Christians have already left Iraq. There are very few left and, again, they would have the option of transiting via Europe, or even Canada, if their final destination was the States.

  31. >>What a despicable sight, row on row of Muslim arses.
    I like to refer to it as ‘praying doggie style’.

  32. Throughout history it has been evident that Islam can either be surrendered to or vigourously opposed. They allow no middle ground. We actually have no choice other than that.

  35. Revenant dream,
    I know you’re thrilled to be corrected by RSP. Who wouldn’t be?
    Be careful about your sentence structure, because this probably will be on the final.
    A man can never have too much edjumacation.

  36. Here’s an excellent comment by Salim Mansur, who is a professor of Political Science in Ontario, and who is a Muslim.
    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2010/09/03/15241726.html
    “As I have written on numerous occasions, Islamism is a political ideology dressed in religious garments. It is a modern phenomenon — a totalitarian movement alongside the two other similar movements from the last century, fascism and communism — and appealing to those college educated Muslims who feel acutely distressed by the disparity between their native culture and the modern West.
    Islamism appeals to the wounded pride of Muslims, and it offers a hodge-podge of incoherent explanations to dress their wounds by blaming the West for ills of the Muslim world.
    This is the politics of Muslim victimhood. It blames the West, deemed rapacious, and those Muslims considered misguided, or worse, who have the temerity to embrace modernity, for the faults of Muslim failure as an individual, or as a people collectively.”
    “Since Muslims have failed to effectively counter Islamism, it is long overdue for governments in the West to implement more robust measures of information gathering about that segment of the Muslim immigrant population most susceptible to Islamist ideology.
    In other words, time to quibble over “profiling” is long past. This is not a matter of becoming “illiberal,” for liberalism, which I hold dearly — as I do my faith tradition as a Sunni Muslim — is not a suicide pact.
    Our common security requires a clear understanding of where our threat emanates from, to focus on that threat with necessary resources, and to remove blinders of political correctness that only weakens our efforts in defeating Islamism.”

  37. On the subject of protecting our culture, it’s simply not on, hasn’t been since BEFORE Trudeau.
    The only culture protected here is the French in Quebec, they’ve seen to it and have been aided in that regard by the ROC ceding to their every wish, SINCE Trudeau, to the present government.
    All Canadians have to learn French to work in the Federal government or any public service job, No one serving in the armed forces can go up the ladder unless they have a mastery of both languages, heavy on the French.
    The province of Quebec is French, nary a sign allowed in English. They will not be taken over by anyone. The ROC is watered down to the point of standing for nothing, ceding to all comers.
    This is exactly as PET hoped would happen.
    It’s long past time to be concerned for where this country is headed.

  38. “Any rule that excludes an immigrant by virtue of their religion would be against the constitution (freedom of religion) and against just law.”
    No, ET. The Constitution says nothing about the rights of people who want to enter the country. It is concerned only with the rights of people who are already here and, arguably, who are actual citizens. The latter are free to practice their religion without hindrance. As for “just law”, that is a vague term and is rightly viewed as a matter of opinion.
    As for the relationship between justice and popular opinion, I might point out that judges themselves refer to “evolving standards of decency”, and some of them seem proud that they let it influence their rulings. But what exactly are those “evolving standards of decency” if not popular opinion? By their own admission, then, judges who scan society looking for evolving trends are, at best, influenced by politics in the broadest sense of the word. At worst, when those “evolving standards” are merely their own, they are acting autocratically. Therefore, when I write that the courts are influenced by politics, I think I am being realistic.
    Recently, I wrote the following in response to a New York Times reader who wanted the Supreme Court to “fight for the common man”:
    It is not the job of the judiciary to “fight for the common man”, any more that it is the job of the court to fight for the rich. The court should confine itself to applying the laws passed by the legislative branch, subject to constraints imposed by the Constitution. When consulting the Constitution, the court should read it literally and refrain from seeing more in it than is plainly stated. If a plain, literal reading of the Constitution seems insensitive to “evolving notions of decency”, it is for the people, not judges, to add to the Constitution explicit support for those notions.
    That, ET, is a judiciary uninfluenced by popular opinion. Such a judiciary would not find immigration policy constrained in any way by the First Amendment.

  39. RSP- I agree with your outline of a judiciary uninfluenced by popular opinion. And in the case of changing mores, the judiciary has to wait until the legislature changes the law; the judge cannot make such changes on their own. Therefore, they are not so much, as judges, influenced by popular opinion, but are acknowledging the new laws passed by the people.
    With regard to immigration, I disagree with your opinion. Certainly the Constitution and its amendments can only apply to citizens of the US; it would be ridiculous for them to apply globally.
    However, since the definition of a citizen is someone who is free to practice their religion, then, it is illogical for that same US govt to refuse as immigrants someone within a religion that the US is declaring unacceptable, i.e., declaring that you are NOT free to practice that particular religion.
    Therefore, I stand by my point; the US cannot discriminate against potential immigrants on the basis of their religion. Not until it makes an amendment that one is NOT free to practice the Islamic religion within the US.

  40. Many civilizations have died in the past, but ours will be the first to do it live on TV.

  41. You guys do all realize that this hijacking of entire streets can’t happen unless the city authorities LET it happen, right?
    We’ve seen plenty of news reports about “pork sausage parties” being broken up and moved along by the cops, right? Anybody think a flash prayer mob can’t be broken up and moved along by those same police?
    As I’m increasingly becoming irate about, MUSLIMS are not the problem. They are taking advantage of the problem, which is insane Leftist elites enforcing multiculturalism on White majorities to the exclusion of all else.
    Two tier policing is -the- one and only problem. Eliminate the top of the political food chain, enforce basic property rights and traffic laws equitably and ubiquitously, suddenly there’s no problem.
    Deporting -repeat violent offender- immigrants couldn’t hurt either. I don’t care a damn what they do unless they take a swing at my head. That I can do without.

  42. “….I think that your suggestion would instead incite hatred and acts of revenge.” – ET
    I’m quite comfortable with my Islamophobia and I would compare it to Nazi-phobia – circa 1935. I don’t want any Muslim mistaking me for a multi-culti squish who has any tolerance whatsoever for the totally intolerant unevolved cult of Islam. A sentient citizenry with any regard for human rights and reason should feel obliged to let Muslims know what it thinks of allowing the West to succumb to Shariah. You stand up to them, perhaps driving them away, or you put faith in their acceptance of values they have not accepted in 1400 years of submissive existence.

  43. Philip G. Shaw
    I disagree. EU is secular not Marxist. If you think EU is Marxist you don’t understand what Marxism is.
    Btw
    how would you define a “moderate Muslims”?
    How do you know what are the dreams of American Muslims?
    How do you know that Marxists are worse then religious dogma from 13th century? I mean, how many Americans inside US were killed by the Marxists/communists and how many had been killed by Muslims?
    ****
    ET
    Everyone is free to practice their religion but it is logical for US government to refuse immigrants if the rules of their religion pertain not only to religious matters but also to political and social matters,and if such political and social rules disagree with laws and (perhaps)cultural traditions in the USA. US in the past refused to receive immigrants whose ideology was incompatible with US constitution and US laws. It should refuse immigrants if they have such beliefs now.
    Currently, Islam should be looked at as ideology first and religion second.
    ****
    Phantom
    I think you are wrong. I think there are two connected problems.
    The main problems is behavior of some Muslims. There would be no problem at all if they did not behave the way they do behave – disregarding the law of the land, and the spirit of the law. But they would not be such a large problem if the elites on the left and even on the right did not treat them differently from other citizens.
    So the first and the main problem is behaviour of Islamists and the second problem if behaviour of the (mainly) leftist elites.
    ****
    One more thing.
    In the discussions of the Islam, the Muslims and other minorities many people concentrate on the rule of law. It is important point. But in the society even more important is to keep the spirit of the law. I think everybody heard about “work to rule”. The people who strike using “work to rule” keep the rules but not the spirit of the rules – or laws. And the spirit of the law is often more important then the law itself.

  44. Playing Devil’s Advocate, might I suggest that banning, or restricting, immigration from predominantly Muslim countries could be interpreted not as an issue of religion, or freedom thereof, but of national security, and a realistic assessment of the source of Islamic terrorism (home grown jihadis notwithstanding).
    It would seem to me that a country has the ability to grant, or not, immigration status to any individual based on a number of criteria. Origin of destination, and not religion, would be the applied standard from a national security perspective — at least as far as I’ve seen the debate thus far in this thread. In my opinion, I don’t see an issue of religious discrimination.
    Of course, that is for parliament and the courts to ultimately decide.
    Just my thoughts after reading the thread to date……..

  45. I wish that the authorities in Canada would focus on Muslims as much as they focused on the Irish during the IRA years. You never heard the Irish complain because they didn’t mind. Most of them didn’t support the IRA and welcomed the attention. My house was raided by CSIS in the 80’s. They were doing their jobs and following their leads. I say more power to them.

  46. Ella,
    “I disagree. EU is secular not Marxist. If you think EU is Marxist you don’t understand what Marxism is.”
    Perhaps you don’t know what a Secularist IS. I agree that a secular POV may not be that of a Marxist.. and I do use the term deliberately
    “how would you define a “moderate Muslims”?
    Those that are not Jihad Warriors
    “How do you know what are the dreams of American Muslims?”
    1. They could be dreaming of an American success dream.
    2. They could be dreaming a Nightmare that they are hated.
    3. They could be dreaming of Jihad
    I would hope they dream #1 , and not #2 because Muslims are not hated in America, maybe in Canada… # 3 … I know the street will eat them….
    “How do you know that Marxists are worse then religious dogma from 13th century? I mean, how many Americans inside US were killed by the Marxists/communists and how many had been killed by Muslims?”
    Where do we start the count of Americans killed as a result of INSIDE America Marxist’s? Vietnam…Iraq…Afghanistan.. History has a way of getting to the truth…
    I do agree with your other points…

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation