Separating politics and religion

The following is a piece I did up and shopped around to daily newspapers as an op-ed piece. I got no takers, so I thought I would stick it on the blog. Although I am seeing a separation in issues in this case, I would not like readers to assume that I do not think religion is beyond debate and discussion, I certainly feel very strongly that it is not exempt from that -- it's just that in this case, I don't think author Mark Steyn was really writing about the religion.

Canadian journalist and author Mark Steyn has been accused by the Toronto Star of writing an “Islamophobic polemic” in his book, America Alone: the end of the world as we know it. An excerpt from that book was published in Maclean’s magazine and now both parties are under investigation by the CHRC and its British Columbia counterpart. The basis for the complaints, brought by some Muslim students and the Canadian Islamic Congress, is that Muslims are likely to be held in contempt in violation of their right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion.

The problem this accusation poses is that Steyn did not write a book about religion. He wrote a book about politics and society.

Suppose Steyn had written a critical examination of socialism and made fun of some of the spokespeople for that socio-economic political spectrum. Would we be surprised to see socialist leaders like Jack Layton and Howard Hampton rushing off to the Canadian Human Rights Commission complaining that Steyn’s words would likely cause socialists everywhere to be held in contempt?

Yes we would, for two reasons.

The first and obvious one is that political criticisms are not grounds for complaints under the Canada Human Rights Act.

The second reason relates to why they are not included as offenses; it is because sharp debate about the principles and methods by which we organize and run our society in the court of public opinion is the lifeblood of our liberal democracy. We regularly argue about the vices and virtues of socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism and almost any political, socio-economic system in between. It is how we test our commonwealth against what it could be and how we find ways to adjust it for the better. We constantly renew ourselves in this fashion.

You certainly would not find Canadians filing complaints about attacks on fascism or communism, two highly discredited socio-economic-political systems. Why would attaching a deity to another political system somehow elevate that ideology into something sacrosanct under human rights legislation and beyond normal public analysis?

Harsh words are spoken in political dialogue. As long as they are not false, and therefore libelous, then the recourse for those who disagree is to write their rebuttals, citing arguments and marshalling evidence or examples in support of their positions. This is normal public political discourse and should always be encouraged rather than being censored.

Nowhere in the text of America Alone does Steyn evaluate and critically discuss the Five Pillars of Islam, the observance of Ramadan, the division of objects into clean or unclean, and any other significant aspect of Islam the religion as a religion. His passing references to some practices of Muslims, like women wearing headgear, or certain moral norms, are mainly cultural and not central to his theme.

One need only compare Steyn’s treatment of Islam with that of fundamentalist Christians, in American author, Chris Hedges’, recent book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, to see the difference. The U.S. Christian right working to create a Christian nation out of a constitutional secular one is something new in American society. His book also deals with how this religion informs politics, but Hedges, who claims to be a moderate Christian, is unsparing in his disdain for the divisive doctrines and misguided scriptural interpretations of the evangelical fundamentalists. Steyn does none of that.

The Judeo-Christian tradition at least recognizes the separation of church and state: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s.” Islam knows no such distinction and is as much a political ideology as it is a spiritual fountainhead.

Steyn concentrated his arguments on Islam as a political movement intent upon supplanting western liberal democracies with the Sharia as the operative legal system and the possibility of theocracies as the political systems. He doesn’t relish that idea. Few who are inculcated in the secular values of western liberal democracies would.

What these Muslims who are challenging Steyn and Maclean’s are really claiming is that no discussion of the political ramifications of Islamic imperialism is permitted in Canada. But, if the complainants don’t buy into the ideology then why would they not support the exposure of it rather than the censoring of it?

One hopes that if and when this matter ends up in front of a human rights tribunal the members of the panel will be able to distinguish the difference between an attack on a religion and its adherents from an attack on a political ideology, and recognize Steyn’s work as an appropriate discourse in the great tradition of liberal-democratic political debate, in violation of nobody’s human rights.

Cultural jihadism

There is an excellent summary of cultural jihadism in the City Journal, An Anatomy of Surrender: Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia, at this site.

Kudos to the chief and a raspberry to the judge

Now here is a community leader who has his head screwed on the right way and can smell patronization when it wafts through a court room. Poor, confused, liberal-minded white judges should take note of how natives wish to be treated.

Apr 26, 2008 04:30 AM
MONTREAL–The grand chief of a Mohawk reserve near Montreal wants a Quebec court judge to be reprimanded for saying a man's native heritage entitled him to special treatment in court.

Judge Juanita Westmoreland-Traore granted Davin Johnny bail on charges he took part in the riot that followed the Canadiens' series-clinching win over the Boston Bruins on Monday.

In granting bail Thursday, the judge said Johnny's native origins had to be taken into consideration.

Westmoreland-Traore said native Canadians "who sometimes show a high rate of unemployment and dependence on alcohol" are at a disadvantage in society.

Mike Delisle, the grand chief of the Kahnawake reserve, complained Johnny, 32, was given special treatment because of his native background and called it "insulting and embarrassing."

"We're not looking for any type of handout or any less justice to be laid down to First Nations people," he said yesterday. "This person should have been taken to the full measures of the law, like everyone else."

The judge set a number of conditions on Johnny, including restrictions on his movement.

The Canadian Press

Chilling vision of the future for free speech in Canada, from Mark Steyn in Maclean's magazine

Here's a few paragraphs from a recent piece by Mark Steyn in Maclean's magazine regarding the human rights versus free speech debacle in Canada. To read the full column, go here.

"As for "freedom of the press," in her now celebrated decision to dismiss the Canadian Islamic Congress complaint against Maclean's, Barbara Hall of the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission acknowledged that she did not have jurisdiction over magazines. So she ruled that, while she didn't have the power to toss us in the clink, she'd certainly like to and we certainly deserve it. Commissar Hall suggested that if my words had appeared on a sign rather than in a magazine article, she would be free to haul my hatemongerin' ass into the dock. Makes sense to me. So I've now put the offending excerpt from my book on a placard and I'll be in Toronto in the first week of May to drop it off at her office. I look forward to the prosecution. Given that we've already been found guilty, I don't think I've got much to fear from the trial.

Happily, beginning on July 1, under Ontario's "human rights" reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, " 'hate incident' means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members." "Act or omission"? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental. I quote from "Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy" as published on the OHRC website:
"The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered 'other.' "

Got that? Your denial of racism merely confirms your racism — because simply by being a "White hegemon" (like Barbara Hall or Jennifer Lynch) you wield racist power. The author, Frances Henry, cites the thinking of "modern neo-Marxist theorists" as if these are serious views that persons of influence in Canada's "human rights" establishment ought to be taking into account, rather than just the latest variant of an ideology that's led to the deaths of millions in Russia, China and everywhere else it's been put into practice. Yet, underneath the blather about "omissions" and "denial" of racism is the bleak acknowledgement that, alas, Canadians just aren't hateful enough to justify the cozy sinecure of taxpayer-funded hate police. "I would say that for a province as large and as diverse as Ontario, to have 2,500 formal complaints a year, that that's a very low level," Commissar Hall said. C'mon, you Ontario deadbeats, can't you hate a little more? Or complain a little more? To modify Brecht, we need to elect a new people, if only to file more "human rights" complaints...

I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits."

Wisdom from Woody Allen

"In my next life I want to live my life backwards. You start out dead and get that out of the way. Then you wake up in an old people's home feeling better every day. You get kicked out for being too healthy, go collect your pension, and then when you start work, you get a gold watch and a party on your first day. You work for 40 years until you're young enough to enjoy your retirement. You party, drink alcohol, and are generally promiscuous, then you are ready for high school. You then go to primary school, you become a kid, you play. You have no responsibilities, you become a baby until you are born. And then you spend your last 9 months floating in luxurious spa-like conditions with central heating and room service on tap, larger quarters every day and then Voila! You finish off as an orgasm. I rest my case."

The pictorial guide to Canadian Human Rights and Free Speech

This is the best explanation of the current battle over free speech and human rights I have seen.

Immigration

This is by columnist Greg Weston in today's Toronto Sun.

In the realm of mass misperceptions in this country, it is hard to find an area of government, public policy or politics more muddied by misinformation than the wonderful world of immigration.

Unfortunately, a population already infused with bad data is the perfect dupe for the kind of exaggerated claims being made by all sides in the current debate over the Conservative government's proposed immigration reforms.

The government isn't helping. For instance, the immigration department couldn't provide a simple demographic breakdown of the 900,000 people the government claims are in line to get into Canada.

In an effort to inject some cold reality to the increasingly heated debate about Canada's ethnic mosaic, herein some of the more popular immigration myths, and some inconvenient truths. Most of the latest available government stats are for 2006, and based on averages.

Myth: Visible minorities now make up about half the Canadian population.
Fact: The figure is about 16%, although that number is obviously higher in Toronto and Vancouver.

Myth: The largest number of newcomers are arriving from predominantly Muslim countries.
Fact: Chinese immigrants have outnumbered all other nationalities every year for the past decade, accounting for roughly 13% of all new permanent residents, followed by those from India (12%), PhiIippines (7%), Pakistan (5%) and the U.S. (4%).

Myth: The largest numbers of seasonal workers andtemporary immigrants come from Mexico and the Caribbean.
Fact: The biggest source of temporary labour in this country is from the U.S., almost 25,000 of them in 2006, followed by the Philippines (think nannies and the seasonal hospitality biz). Mexico is a distant third.

STUDENTS

Myth: The largest numbers of foreign students enrolling in Canadian colleges and universities come from the U.S. and China.
Fact: There are almost 170,000 foreign students currently in the country on temporary visas to study at Canadian colleges and universities, with an annual turnover rate of about 60,000. In all but one year out of the past decade, by far the largest incoming group of students has come from -- drum roll, please -- Korea, accounting for about a quarter of all the foreign faces in our classrooms today.

Myth: Among the roughly 90,000 so-called "humanitarian" immigrants allowed into Canada annually, mostly to be reunited with family members already here, the largest numbers come from India, Pakistan or Africa.
Fact: The biggest group of humanitarian immigrants allowed into Canada in 2006 came from Mexico, almost 12,000 of them or about 13% of the total in that category.

Myth: Among the 80,000 refugee claimants currently in the country awaiting a decision on their fate, the largest numbers showed up at the border from either Africa or predominantly Muslim countries.
Fact: In 2006, the largest number of refugee claimants by a mile were Mexicans, followed by the Chinese and Pakistanis.

Myth: Once a married person gains permanent residence in Canada, the spouse and kids will be allowed in almost on the next plane.
Fact: It currently takes eight to 10 months to process applications by spouses and children to join their loved ones here.

DOCTORS ON CALL

Myth: Professionals and other skilled workers get into Canada faster than any other category of immigrants.
Fact: A fully trained foreign doctor will wait an average 68 months to enter Canada, roughly three times longer than a grandmother reuniting with family.

Myth: The fastest way to become a permanent resident of Canada is to show up at the border and claim refugee status.
Fact: The fastest way is to show up at the border with $400,000 to invest in your new homeland. The cheque will barely have time to clear the bank before the immigration department throws down the welcome mat. In total, roughly 2,500 newcomers buy their way into this country each year, about 60% of them Chinese.