Hello? Human Rights Calling...!
Maclean's is learning first-hand some of the problems inherent in Canada's multiculturalism policy. Where immigrants from countries who practise politics and religion and ideologies far different than those of liberal democracies enter the country to take advantage of all the freedoms offered its people as a birthright and as a gift to newcomers, select those they value, and reject and trash the rest.Where, as a result, a prickly-minded group of religious affiliates take umbrage at the freedoms Canadians enjoy to speak their mind, and use our very institutions meant to support minorities against real discrimination, to silence the majority. The case of religious discrimination brought against Mark Steyn and Maclean's to the B.C. Human Rights Commission by two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress is in the process of winding down.
Mohamed Elmasry and Naiyer Habib claim that Maclean's magazine, in publishing an article by Mark Steyn which detailed Islamist activities from among the world's Muslim communities living in Europe and North America, and the intent of this violent minority of Muslims to advance Islamism world-wide, aided innocently enough by a high birth rate among Muslims, has defamed Islam.
The article, they claim, through their lawyer and three articling Osgoode Hall law students, exposed them, as Muslims, to hatred and contempt. As though Islamist violence does not exist, and never did, and does not present a real and present danger to the West. They've allowed themselves to be tarred with the same brush, in effect. For neither Mr. Steyn nor the magazine claimed that all Muslims were Islamo-fascist terrorists.
That some are, is in fact, beyond dispute. And those groups of active and viciously violent jihadists do pose a threat to world peace and stability. A reality that should be recognized and be of true concern to Muslims no less than non-Muslims. Since both groups have been and continue to be targets by jihadists. One might think ordinary Muslims would abhor these jihadists and distance themselves from any connection.
A fact that the lawyer for Maclean's himself extracted from his questioning of Mr. Habib. Lawyer Julian Porter questioned Dr. Habib; surely the witness had no high regard for Osama bin Laden? Of course not, was the response, bin Laden is "twisting Islam". "After 9/11 you and your community must have suffered many slings and arrows?"
"Yes."
"Because of bin Laden?"
"Yes", agreed Dr. Habib.
So how is the article and the magazine guilty of smearing ordinary Muslims with the broad brush of jihadism by pointing out the destabilizing effect Islamist terrorists have had? Other than, perhaps, to point out that no great outcry of condemnation issued en masse from the Muslim community - issuing also a clear demarcation between themselves and those who misuse Islam?
Facts on the ground appear to indicate that the Arab Muslim community and the greater Islamic community approve some elements of jihad. Their schools and mosques thunder some level of appreciation of the "struggle" against their oppressors, the unbelievers, their perceived enemies. The human issue of defining Islam as impervious to the depredations of liberal values, setting Muslims apart from the majority of Canadians does them no credit.
It's an observable fact that many Muslims who have settled in Canada have taken great effort to separate themselves, their families, their values and priorities from those of native Canadians. It isn't only the Kadhr family that has rejected the "obscenity" of Western values and cultural mores, and who clamour for the introduction of Sharia Law.
Dr. Habib went to great lengths as a witness to speak of his efforts to foster peace and understanding between people of the Muslim faith and others. He spoke of his long and valuable association with Mr. Elmasry, as senior members of the Canadian Islamic Congress. This is the same organization that publishes newsletters and has an Internet presence deploring "Zionists", and describing Israel as an illegal entity, a cruel occupier of Arab land.
What encouragement is there for peace and understanding between people of different religious adherence in Canada, when such clear, hostile and divisive distinctions are made in public fora? This is Canada, not the Middle East. Mr. Elmasry's description of "Zionists the world over celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of a state-for-Jews-only in Palestine" isn't exactly spreading goodwill.
Dr. Habib mentioned the deeply deleterious effect that anonymous Internet postings critical of Islam had on him personally. "You read them, and they bothered you?" asked the CIC's lawyer. "How did those comments and the additional comments on that blog make you feel?" prompted Mr. Joseph. "It's humiliating, dishonouring, questioning our morals in Western society where we live", responded Dr. Habib.
Well, the fact that the Islamic practise of taking multiple wives, of female genital mutilation is a criminal offence in Canada, and it's being practised in stealth in the country by a fair number of Muslims presents a deeply disturbing problem in ethical behaviour and morals to most Canadians. And Jews in particular in Canada, feel deeply disturbed to hear a Muslim-Canadian complacently claim justification in killing adult Israelis because they represent the enemy-occupier.
Finally, those resonant words by Dr. Habib: "there is a handful doing certain [bad] things. But we do not want to be discriminated [against] in the way we have been discriminated against." Understandably. But it doesn't represent discrimination when a logical argument is made through a magazine article that Islam tends to lend itself to violence through jihad by a minority who take it beyond what the religious text presumes.
Nor even that a particular group's religious and social and cultural orientation leads them to a greater fecundity than other populations. And if there is a cautionary message in that tale, it's understandable, also. But the thing of it is, we all of us often hear messages we find contrary to our taste. Still, we haven't the right to deny the issuers of those messages the right to air them.
It's a clear message of freedoms. Which don't really imperil others'.
Labels: Canada, Conflict, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ Saturday, June 07, 2008
<< Home