mp3 - Islamic invasion of Germany


jts

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jts said:

Perhaps Obama and Merkel and Canada's Justin Trudeau are examples.

Closer to home, Jerry, the Muslim brothers have taken over Calgary's City Hall. Plus, have you noticed these parliamentary faces in the news? Two of these folks are in the Cabinet!

01_new_0.jpg

 All Muslims, for heaven's sake, elected by voters.  Frightening or yawn-inducing, depending on your state of vigilance.

Here is another up and comer, active in the Liberal Party of Alberta, for heaven's sake.  David Khan.  Muslim up the wazoo, and also gay. These Muslim brothers will do and say anything, even take it up the you know what, as long as it advances the Invasion Plan.

C4GVDpOVUAAVIS6.jpg

They're in our TV, Jerry.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Vigilant, vigil, vigilante, vigilance, Amygdala, The Paranoid Style.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

32 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Closer to home, Jerry, the Muslim brothers have taken over Calgary's City Hall. Plus, have you noticed these parliamentary faces in the news? Two of these folks are in the Cabinet!

 

What's your point? Do you have a point? Are you denying the existence of the Muslim Brotherhood? Do you want to live under sharia? What in the video do you disagree with? What in the wiki article do you disagree with?

Muslims are everywhere, probably even in the building I live in. As long as they are nice peaceful Muslims, I have no problem with them. But if they start taking their religion (the Koran) seriously, that's when the trouble begins.

Muslims are potential allies against Islam if they leave Islam.

I don't have a TV and I never watched TV since 2001.

In Canada they are talking about M103. Is that covered on TV? I don't know because I don't watch TV.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jts said:

Muslims are everywhere, probably even in the building I live in. As long as they are nice peaceful Muslims, I have no problem with them.

Eminently sensible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a trailer for an NFB documentary by an Edmonton woman called Nisreen Baker. I watched it recently on our documentary channel, and was impressed.  These guys remind me of the Arab barbers I visit here in White Rock.  Family, friends, country, faith, family, family family, hockey.  A neat part of it is somewhat moving/uncomfortable -- first-generation "incoming" can be conflicted about where 'home'  truly is, whereas none of these men would go back ... 

Interesting are the passages where they describe the feeling of being 'foreign,' out of step with the mentality of the 'old country,' when they visit there. 

Also interesting is the tale of the barber's daughter, a Muslima who took up wearing hijab, and whose best friend is a Jew. How does that happen?  How they explain to each other the Canadian experience is kind of an eye-opener. Edmonton must be a decent place ...

Things Arab Men Say, Nisreen Baker, provided by the National Film Board of Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, anthony said:

Seeing stuff like that leads one to appreciate the First Amendment more and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:
28 minutes ago, anthony said:

Seeing stuff like that leads one to appreciate the First Amendment more and more.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhyj3SUTSfDUSoHMe0xTz

People Are Falsely Claiming That Canada Is About To Make It Illegal To Criticize Islam

BuzzFeed News - ‎Feb 9, 2017‎
Right-wing Canadian media outlet The Rebel characterized M-103 as tantamount to “Islamic blasphemy laws.” “The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Islam,” the website warns its audience. Although the government could, ...
 
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTThiuDke_W_75wmCxSPpo

Right-wing sites falsely report that Canada is about to make it illegal to criticize Islam

Mic - ‎Feb 10, 2017‎
Canadian conservative site The Rebel, for example, compared the motion to "blasphemy laws" in some repressive theocratic countries. "Canada is on the verge of passing what amounts to Islamic blasphemy laws," the post read. "If this motion passes, ...
 
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKh4RF9z7YUmaHZD4hfM4

Conspiracy Theorists Claim Canada Is Passing 'Sharia Law' – It's A Lie

Carbonated.tv (blog) - ‎Feb 10, 2017‎
Conservative websites are set abuzz with rumors that non-binding motion M-103 is a secret “Islamic blasphemy law” that would take away their freedom of speech and subsequently turn the country into a “Sharia state.” Far-right Canadian media website The ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

I am at my most skeptical when it comes to polls and surveys, this however is sobering reading.

Snips:

40% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state. One third British Muslims believes anyone who leaves Islam shoudl be killed.

Canada: 62 % of Muslims want Sharia.

65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

51% of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Sharia courts rather than the courts of the USA.

(and although Ive only been concentrating on Sharia, and its undermining of liberties in the West as a future indicator (in fact, of some Muslims benefitting from the West's freedom, while wishing to oust it), and avoiding the normal concerns with radical terror violence ...

Suicide attacks:

26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings to be justified; 35% Britain; 42% France; 22% Germany; 29% Spain.

Doubtful as one can be about statistics, cut all these figures above - by as much as half - and they still are unacceptable (at best).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017/03/07 at 2:16 AM, william.scherk said:

Closer to home, Jerry, the Muslim brothers have taken over Calgary's City Hall. Plus, have you noticed these parliamentary faces in the news? Two of these folks are in the Cabinet!

01_new_0.jpg

 All Muslims, for heaven's sake, elected by voters.  Frightening or yawn-inducing, depending on your state of vigilance.

 

 

Not necessarily frightening OR yawn-inducing, William. My opinion is the same it's always been, somewhere between alarmism and denialism. Fluctuating all the time between two poles is the truth of what Muslims in the West think about the West, and what a minor percentage of those (never a small number, remember) is prepared to DO. In the mean time don't be gulled by the smiling face of every politician, "elected by voters"..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jts said:
4 hours ago, anthony said:

If M103 becomes law, then telling the truth about Islam will be illegal in Canada.

M-103* will not become law. It is a "sense of the House" motion, not a legislative bill. 

I don't like the motion, for a few reasons, but it will change no laws, propose no amendments, instruct no government departments. It is at best a House of Commons suggestion that a committee seek 'ways and means' of reducing what it calls "Systemic racism and religious discrimination."

If Pollyanna were explaining this, she would say, "We needed a robust public discussion about Islam in the aftermath of the Quebec mosque attack. Some folks feel a bit terrorized.  That thumping shake-out is what we got with this awkwardly worded resolution. Would you like more hummus?"

Cynic would explain otherwise: "'Islamophobia is a stupid term, too broad, too pathologizing of what might be warranted fears and suspicions and states of vigilance. It is a flabby term just like 'homophobia,'  and tends to be a thought-stopper with its moralistic connotations. Ugh. On the other hand, if my neighbour can shout at me that Islam is a pestilential ideology, then I can shout back "Islamophobe!"

Pollyanna is actually the more cynical here.  She points out that public discussion was what the motion meant to goad, since Pollyanna is not naive to human motivation. She sees an issue that was already fraught, inflamed by the mosque attack and anti-Jewish threats and vandalism, an issue further brought to central public attention when the government indicated it would support the resolution.  I mean, Pollyanna loves a jamboree, and jamboree was had. 

Cynic says, "There was a rollicking discussion.  Everybody got to shout out whatever the hell made sense to them. It was a Canadian cacophony."

Quote

There is no way to tell the truth about Islam without saying something bad about it.

I think that when you shake a rug, things come out.  The motion served to introduce the rug, which was grabbed at and shaken and beaten by anyone with hands.  In other words, both truth and "truth" were thoroughly shouted from the rooftops and public squares when the robust discussion was at its peak.

My favourite part of the Canadian-style hoopla over M-103 was a metropolitan Jewish-Muslim alliance denouncing the motion. That was good enough for me.

They particularly disliked what irks me -- the stupid word "Islamophobia" itself in the text. If mention needed to be made of the Quebec attack's target, it could have been mentioned in a less-stupid and exclusive way. That the government allowed debate on this rather than quashing it was remarkable. The text itself reads like the dreariest abstract for a Cultural Studies essay. 

The summary point I could make is that a naive feminist identity-politics motion was put before the House. It was debated by many grandstanding politicians. It was debated from the left coast to Newfoundland. People yakked about it in every letter to the editor and public forum imaginable. It was a surge of electricity in the body politic.

That is how we crush dissent and usher in Sharia.

_________________________________

Spoiler

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

-- to offer a track of discussion that illustrates the theme of Muslim Invasion here in the Garbage Pile  Sanitary Landfill rubbish tip, consider Pollyanna and Cynic as they attempt to explain the surge in illegal entries from the United States. Muslim hordes, one might say.

More concretely, this is a surge of folks who evade official crossings to walk across the un-walled border, then to appeal for asylum to the guys with the handcuffs. Tearing up the fabric of a US-Canada border agreement.  I expect that the US could care less that they are leaking north some putative 'refugee' claimants inside the homeland.

I'll kick off discussion with "Why is the Mountie smiling?"

slack-imgs.com_.jpeg

 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Canada: 62 % of Muslims want Sharia.

Missing is the actual headline:  62% want [some form of] Sharia. Implied is 'enshrined in law.'

A good discussion could be had of what 'some form of Sharia' is wanted.  As far as I understand the debate over such issues in Canada, there are things I might call "Personal Sharia" meaning adopting various gear and rituals. This personal sharia is already enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our basic law.   

There are things like Kosher and Religious 'Courts' of procedure, where such things as Jewish divorce are accomplished, and where Mennonite or Scientology or Ahmadiyya congregations discipline their adherents. Then there is more 'family law' ... arbitration, inheritances.

Then there is the 'accommodation raisonable' overlap of personal-sharia with public conveyances and institutions. Can the institutions acknowledge a 'right' to practice one's observances in public:  thus, religious adornments in public service, 'chapels' and rights to Sabbaths and Festival observance.

Then there is criminal law ... which I think is key. Since all interpretations of Islam (with notable exceptions) combine secular and religious law into a semi-coherent whole of tradition and rulings and etcetera -- criminal offences are often combined with moral offences.  

This is not possible under our basic law.  Criminal law is subject to the Charter. Practically-speaking, Canada is one of the strongest 'rule of law' jurisdictions.  This puts paid to the notion of an alternative moral-crime code alongside the Charter. Those who dream of a gay-stoning, thief-amputating Salafist-Wahhabi state are dreaming in colour. 

On the other hand, a disquieting-to-me aspect of personal sharia is a right to a religious education, to private education. 

What goes on in there?  Am I Islamophobic by having a certain level of vigilance to a hardline religious education? Do I favour the Amish over the Sunni?  Do I favour the Scientology over the Montessori over the Jesuit over the Shia or Sikh?  Don't I want the State to be at least as vigilant as me ... ?

I figure the worst that could ever happen to Canada is that a conservative Muslim majority would be subject to a secular state, somewhat like a rich, fully-industrialized globalist bilingual version of Tunisia. 

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Added yet more warrants for intelligent vigilance, spoiler fix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.barenakedislam.com/

ANGELA MERKEL is asking German citizens to “Make room for Muslims”

Check out the Refugees Welcome website, where you can register your home/aparment if you have space, and they will put you in touch with a Muslim migrant posing as a refugee who is in need of accommodation. If you don’t, the German government could kick you out of your home to make room for the Muslim freeloaders.

 

Anyone who is against this is a hate monger and a bigot and a racist.

In Objectivism we learn that the only valid purpose of government is to protect rights. The migrant Muslims have a right to your home. The government is acting correctly according to Objectivism when it kicks you out of your own home, possibly making you homeless, so migrant Migrant Muslims can have a home.

Now I gotta go wash my mouth with soap and water.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jts said:

http://www.barenakedislam.com/

ANGELA MERKEL is asking German citizens to “Make room for Muslims”

Check out the Refugees Welcome website, where you can register your home/aparment if you have space, and they will put you in touch with a Muslim migrant posing as a refugee who is in need of accommodation. If you don’t, the German government could kick you out of your home to make room for the Muslim freeloaders.

 

 

How long will the Germans put up with that? Is it some kind of weird atonement for the Holocaust that they're commiting suicide?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

M-103* will not become law. It is a "sense of the House" motion, not a legislative bill. 

I don't like the motion, for a few reasons, but it will change no laws, propose no amendments, instruct no government departments. It is at best a House of Commons suggestion that a committee seek 'ways and means' of reducing what it calls "Systemic racism and religious discrimination."

If Pollyanna were explaining this, she would say, "We needed a robust public discussion about Islam in the aftermath of the Quebec mosque attack. Some folks feel a bit terrorized.  That thumping shake-out is what we got with this awkwardly worded resolution. Would you like more hummus?"

Cynic would explain otherwise: "'Islamophobia is a stupid term, too broad, too pathologizing of what might be warranted fears and suspicions and state of vigilance. It is a flabby term just like 'homophobia,'  and tends to be a thought-stopper with its moralistic connotations. Ugh. On the other hand, if my neighbour can shout at me that Islam is a pestilential ideology, then I can shout back "Islamophobe!"

Pollyanna is actually the more cynical here.  She points out that public discussion was what the motion meant to goad, since Pollyanna is not naive to human motivation. She sees an issue that was already fraught, inflamed by the mosque attack and anti-Jewish threats and vandalism, an issue further brought to central public attention when the government indicated it would support the resolution.  I mean, Pollyanna loves a jamboree, and jamboree was had. 

Cynic says, "There was a rollicking discussion.  Everybody got to shout out whatever the hell made sense to them. It was a Canadian cacophony."

I think that when you shake a rug, things come out.  The motion served to introduce the rug, which was grabbed at and shaken and beaten by anyone with hands.  In other words, both truth and "truth" were thoroughly shouted from the rooftops and public squares when the robust discussion was at its peak.

My favourite part of the Canadian-style hoopla over M-103 was a metropolitan Jewish-Muslim alliance denouncing the motion. That was good enough for me.

They particularly disliked what irks me -- the stupid word "Islamophobia" itself in the text. If mention needed to be made of the Quebec attack's target, it could have been mentioned in a less-stupid and exclusive way. That the government allowed debate on this rather than quashing it was remarkable. The text itself reads like the dreariest abstract for a Cultural Studies essay. 

The summary point I could make was that a naive feminist identity-politics motion was put before the House. It was debated by many grandstanding politicians. It was debated from the left coast to Newfoundland. People yakked about it in every letter to the editor and public forum imaginable. It was a surge of electricity in the body politic.

That is how we crush dissent and usher in Sharia.

 

_________________________________

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

slack-imgs.com_.jpeg

 

Missing is the actual headline:  62% want [some form of] Sharia. Implied is 'enshrined in law.'

A good discussion could be had of what 'some form of Sharia' is wanted.  As far as I understand the debate over such things in Canada, there are things I might call "Personal Sharia" meaning adopting various gear and rituals. This personal sharia is already enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our basic law.   

There are things like Kosher and Religious 'Courts' of procedure, where such things as Jewish divorce are accomplished, and where Mennonite or Scientology or Ahmadiyya congregations discipline their adherents. Then there is more 'family law' ... arbitration, inheritances.

Then there is the 'accommodation raisonable' overlap of personal-sharia with public conveyances and institutions. Can the institutions acknowledge a 'right' to practice one's observances in public:  thus, religious adornments in public service, 'chapels' and rights to Sabbaths and Festival observance.

Then there is criminal law ... which I think is key. Since all interpretations of Islam (with notable exceptions) combine secular and religious law into a semi-coherent whole of tradition and rulings and etcetera -- criminal offences are often combined with moral offences.  

This is not possible under our basic law.  Criminal law is subject to the Charter. Practically-speaking, Canada is one of the strongest 'rule of law' jurisdictions.  This puts paid to the notion of an alternative moral-crime code alongside the Charter. Those who dream of a gay-stoning, thief-amputating Salafist-Wahhabi state are dreaming in colour. 

On the other hand, a disquieting-to-me aspect of personal sharia is an implied right to a religious education, to private education. 

What goes on in there?  Am I Islamophobic by having a certain level of vigilance to a hardline religious education? Do I favour the Amish over the Sunni?  Do I favour the Scientology over the Montesori over the Jesuits over the Shia or Sikh?  Don't I want the State to be at least as vigilant as me ... ?

I figure the worst that could ever happen to Canada is that a conservative Muslim majority would be subject to a secular state, somewhat like a rich, fully-industrialized globalist bilingual version of Tunisia. 

 

 

Way I see it, the moral responsibility lies with the majority of Muslims there in Canada, (and anywhere) openly volunteering to distinguish clearly what THEY mean by "Sharia law". Specifically, what parts they renounce (and denounce) as oppositional to rule of law, while not forfeiting their cultural and religious identity or their harmless laws. .

There was much ambiguity and disingenuity in France, which I feel only advantages the Islamist cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wenzel Strategies (2012): 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.
45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not).
12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death.
43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims.
32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/10/31/sixty-percent-of-us-muslims-reject-freedom-of-expression/
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/10/poll-nearly-half-of-us-muslims-believe.html

Excuse the snippets. I see the very comprehensive original did not copy and paste. If anyone wants to google it, it is called -

"Muslim Opinion Polls: A Tiny Majority of Extremists?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how boring and yet radical robust discussion can get. First a snippet of debate on the opposition motion, with the blonde being a Conservative MP and the brunette being Liberal. Good times:

Versus someone more riled. A bit zany, perhaps (see a range of video reportage here):

See also the almost ridiculous "Proof That There Is No Islamophobia, M103 Is a Lie and Iqra Khalid Is A Liar" from the same gentleman. 

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

[...] the surge in illegal entries from the United States. Muslim hordes, one might say.

What's a"surge" - i.e., what numbers are calculated?  And what method of tallying is used?

Ellen

First a sense of scale. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians and Americans move across the border northwards via official inspection stations every day. Because there is no actual fence (yet visible), some few attempt to elude inspection. For the most part they fail and are arrested forthwith. A secondary category from the frankly criminal or stupid are those attempting to evade a refugee agreement with the USA -- if they have an immigration or refugee claim file with the US authorities, they may not obtain an asylum hearing at the inspection gate. They are summarily detained and returned to the US customs and border enforcement apparatus. And vice versa, since we share items from our databases.

At the border two miles south of me at Peace Arch International Park, however, it is easy to take a bus to adjoining Blaine and walk across a pretty green lawn and plantings to an L-shaped side-road or down a path to the beach. You can do it in full sight of the border emplacements, or go further east where you trip multiple electronic wires as you cross someone's grassy unfenced backyard over a small ditch into Canada.

What happens to these people depends on what they say: do they seek to make an asylum claim?  If yes, they are detained but to social services within days, because the crime of unlawful entry is to be determined after a claim is heard in our asylum system, if ever.

Some few hundreds each year fall into the second category in Peace Arch sector, usually. So the surge is not of thousands upon thousands, just an increase in total numbers within the class.  

At some unlawful entry points, it is as if an underground railroad or atmospheric river directs them to certain places which defy logic.  I mean rural icebound places. These irregular crossings mean that civilians were often the first 'receivers' (particularly in Manitoba) and that subsequent 'reception' at the surge point has been regularized on an ad hoc basis. So far the RCMP has declined to charge anyone of the second class, and nobody has been deported back to the safety of the USA. 

Since you might be asking for some hard numbers and sources, I'll dig a bit and append what I find.

+++

Eg

At least 435 people illegally crossed into Canada in Manitoba, Quebec and B.C. in first 7 weeks of 2017

Canadian officials are keeping close tabs on the number of people illegally crossing the border into Canada, but they don't expect the winter increase will necessarily lead to a spring surge.

Government officials, who spoke on background and did not wish to be named, provided journalists with an update on illegal crossings today and confirmed an increase in three provinces.

Between Jan. 1 and Feb. 21 this year, there were 290 illegal crossings in Quebec, 94 in Manitoba and 51 in British Columbia, totalling 435.

That compares with 2,464 illegal entries apprehended by the RCMP in the same regions in all of 2016.


 

Edited by william.scherk
Stats, stat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islamophobia is a nonsense word. A phobia is a mental disorder. They are trying to get people to think fear of Islam is a mental disorder. Fear of the number 13 is a phobia. Fear of Islam is not a phobia.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anthony said:

Way I see it, the moral responsibility lies with the majority of Muslims there in Canada, (and anywhere) openly volunteering to distinguish clearly what THEY mean by "Sharia law".

Indeed, so we look at the questions of the 62% survey/sounding ...  and, I guess, examine the public record of actions and statements.  

How to encourage a state of 'open volunteering' requires more than an eyebrow raised in inquiry. I think we both have to probe and read between the lines, and examine trip-wires. And we examine the levels of social integration of Muslims, historically, for the historical community is often a semi-safe refuge within refuge, a landing and departure point as well as a harbour for bitterness and grievance.

This was one of the interesting features of "What Arab Men Talk About" ... they each had effectively lost their overarching culture of conformity constraining them as individuals, and each had 'lost' children to the secular values of the mainstream.  They had grievance with the 'old ways' that more than compensated for the small grievances they had with Edmonton. They blessed the secular state for keeping interfaith animosities at a minimum, and for a lack of corruption and coercion.

Quote

Specifically, what parts they renounce (and denounce) as oppositional to rule of law, while not forfeiting their cultural and religious identity or their harmless laws. .

Pollyanna says watch out for those who openly call for confounding the Criminal Code with 'special pleading' of a religious nature. That is dangerous.  Otherwise 'mental opposition' becomes a shibboleth to be uttered. A moral responsibility for ... dreaming of a Sharia state ... can best be answered in a moral court.  

Quote

There was much ambiguity and disingenuity in France, which I feel only advantages the Islamist cause.

For me, the difference between France's confrontation with the salafists and jihadi elements within, and the Canadian experience is that we are much more meticulously intent on integration, full social and economic integration. We have learned how to do it more successfully than any other modern state. Our living laboratory or experiment of multiculturalism has different conditions to that of France.

I mean, even in the most hideous of Canadian immigrant "ghettoes," perhaps the Jane-Finch corridor of Toronto, there is a turnover. The poorest and fucked-upped-est asylum finders and other recent family-class immigrants turns over in a generation. The Somali community is not doomed to that sector forever or even by major system-wide obstructions to gaining employment and education and advancement. Few will face lifelong second-class exclusion.

They'll be replaced by the next wave of seriously seeking safety, the South Sudanese, the Congolese, whomever.  

Each generation can implacably wear down barriers between citizens, which I believe imposes a greater secular morality on the newcomers and their children.  One hears it strongly in the most-committed to Canada. It is the very secular values that protect them from coercion and intrusion and discrimination that they celebrate, sometimes within weeks or months of arrival. 

For example, I was moved by the volunteerism of recent refugees themselves -- in terms of instruction in universal Canadian values: nobody, not a Mennonite nor an Muslim, not a Fundamentalist Mormon nor a Fundamentalist Salafi, nobody is to be persecuted for what is in their hearts or in their faith as long as they preserve the peace and observe the law.  One refugee lady was adamant that the incoming understand the responsibilities of the welcome they had received -- her awkward metaphor was a mother who plays no favourites with her children, but protects all and demands fairness and respect within the family. Canada was that metaphorical just family. It was your duty to respect and practice its values.

My interactions with Syrian refugees locally has confirmed my suspicions that some of them become 'super-patriots' almost immediately, as if Canada were an Empire protective of minority 'nations' within a common weal. They have been granted season tickets to this great stadium of the upper leagues.  They quickly grasp that.

 

France's suburban ghettos have no exact counterpart here as Canada was not an independent colonial power with possessions in Muslim lands.  And I could argue for a month, both sides, on incidents or elements of racial and religious aggression or discrimination in the public sphere, from Muslims hounding schoolboy Hindus to assaults and threats against the Jewish communities, to seriously religious wackjobs of a Muslim faith.  Canada is not Pollyanna World.

Back to your theme, Tony.  We may not inspect each Muslim's mind for immoral thoughts and plans ... or interrogate each one with guaranteed responses of truthful confession ... but we can be vigilant, probing, watchful and rational about our suspicions.  

A community watches over its members, in more ways than one. Keep newcomers in a close community embrace the better to observe them and teach them the values we are bound by.  

A benefit of the raucous debate within Canada is the benefit of all rug-beating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beat the rug!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now