It seems strange to associate the context of Canada with that of Iraq, but a closer look at the arguments used to reassure the demonstrating women in both countries reveals the similar ordeals that Muslim women in both countries must go through to secure their rights. It shows how their legitimate and serious worries are trivialized, and how vulnerable and alone they are. It shows how the Free World led by the U.S. went to war in Iraq, allegedly to bring liberty to Iraqis, and is compromising the basic rights of women in order to meet a random date. It shows how the theory of multiculturalism in Western liberal democracies is working against women in ethnic and religious minorities with misogynist practices. It shows the tenacity of many imams, mullahs and self-made Muslim radicals to subjugate women in the name of God. Most of all, it shows how many of those who consider themselves liberal or left-wing see their energy levels rise when it comes to Bush-bashing, but lose their voice when women’s rights are threatened by religious obscurantism.
Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali is protected by bodyguards due to threats by Islamic extremists.
Great article Kate – she really exposes the superficial left for its embrace of anything multicultural, even when doing so is an act of violence towards the most vulnerable within the community. Oh well, the liberals don’t care, its all about public declarations of tolerance and compassion, actually being substantively tolerant and compassionate (or even honest public stewardship) is for the birds – just ask the truth challenged premier of Ontario, author of this disasterous introduction of sharia into ontario (better known as the lyin’ one).
“Multiculturalism” is nothing more than state sponsored segregation. It leads to the ghettoization of cities and further defines what makes us different from each other rather than what makes us the same (the fact that we are Canadian).
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
The longer I live the more I understand what a colossal failure multi-culturalism has been. The lib-left will never get that only Muslim men will benefit by Sharia law. I don’t think they get that women are subordinate in Muslim society – regardless of the fact that they are living in Toronto. Muslims, by definition, are muslim before Canadian. Their religious identity trumps nationality.
Furthermore I can’t go into any muslim country and wrap myself in the Canadian Charter and demand those rights.
I am a liberal and full heartedly embrace multiculturalism. That being said, I have always been adamantly opposed to allowing Shariah law or any similar example from other cultures or religions, to co-exist with Canadian law. We are an open, tolerant, multicultural nation where people of all cultures, races, religions, ethnicities, etc. can practice their faith, celebrate their festivals, and be proud of who they are. However, there is only one law in Canada. Quebec uses a different legal system and there are certain exceptions for the First Nations but those points aside, everyone in Canada should live under the laws set by the three levels of government (national, provincial, municipal). When people come to this country, they are considered equals and are able to celebrate their culture. However, there should be the expectation that while these benefits are offered to all Canadians, all Canadians should be subject to the same law (barring to the two delicate exceptions previously mentionned). I have found myself in frustrating debates with the left over this issue and indeed with Jewish people who have a structured system that uses their religious laws to settle domestic issues such as divorce. I am not against Shariah law in particular but against the principle of parallel legal structures. The law must apply to equally to all Canadians (with those two exceptions) and must be seen as the supreme law in the land that all people must follow.
maritime liberal,why those two exceptions and not a hundred more or are you a bigot and closed minded?
Maritime Liberal: you are trying to square a circle. I don’t blame you; it hurts when one has to finally abandoned cherished delusions.
quite simply: it is impossible to be “an open, tolerant, multicultural nation where people of all cultures, races, religions, ethnicities, etc. can practice their faith, celebrate their festivals, and be proud of who they are” and simultaneous oppose Sharia.
Why Sharia and not Catholic annulment courts or Jewish arbitration bodies? Why are the rites of all religions respects EXCEPT, say, Mormon polygamy or Hindu widow burning…?
I’m not at all ashamed to say that I believe all cultures are NOT equal, and that further more, “equality” and “liberty” are mutually exclusive. Some cultures should be encouraged to flourish and others should not. In other words, I’m a backwards, bigoted troglodyte.
But I’m consistent.
My answer to your friends vis Jewish courts is very simple: Judaism and Christianity are authentic religions. Islam is more like Scientology or Amway, and does not deserve equal treatment.
But of course you can’t permit yourself to believe such a thing, hence your predicament. If you try viewing the world through the lens of history, facts, the evidence of your senses and _not_ a gov’t sponsored, knee jerk ideology you’ve adopted without question, you will find that the world, while no more peaceful than before, is at least much easier to comprehend. Decisions are easier to make. Action is easier to take.
However, if you value being invited to cocktail parties, I heartily suggest that you stick to liberalism…
Shariah law apparently aspires to replace the existing structure of our legal system with its own dictates. Jewish law may dictate the religious status of issues such as divorce however there is no pretense towrds replacing existing Canadian law in this regard. Hence we are talking apples and oranges when we talk about religion regulating itelf and trying to replace the law of the day.
Maritime Liberal – When was the last time you went to a Christmas concert at your kids school.
Multiculturalism was supposed to be about all cultures and religions being equal now we go to winter concerts with no meaning whatsoever. Freedom of religion in Canada is now freedom from religion – no mention anywhere of any god – especially not the Christian one. We have reduced all celebrations to something meaningless to anyone. Rather than showcasing many different culturals and/or religions thereby actually learning what they are about we have locked them all behind their own doors never to be shared with anyone.
If this was such a great idea why is that an Indian (sub-continent-not native) had his 16 year old daughter killed for dating a white boy. (this happened in Vancouver, thought the murder took place in India – extradition is currently underway) Why is it that an Imam in Scarbrough can threaten our PM (as much as I hate him I don’t think this is appropriate) and face no media backlash much less a backlash from less fanatical Imam’s in the country. Freedom of speech seems to only apply to the speech you want to hear – not the other guys! Why is it that Bishop Fred Henry is castigated for doing his job the way that the Catholic church expects him to do it.
Closer to home … Why did we all laugh at “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”? The first 30 minutes of the movie was about separating yourself from your cultural expectations, and the next hour was about making your family accept your choice for marriage. We laughed because it was Greeks that were being mocked – try making that movie about an Islamic girl. The real truth is that this type of reverse racism is going on everyday in most immigrant households across the county.
Your deluded in your thinking when you try to defend multi-culturalism. If you have friends from Ukraine, India, Pakistan, Lebanon – wherever, ask them what their parents have said when they dated outside of their culture. (Presuming they were even allowed to date – I have several friends that were sent back to the old country for their arranged marriages)
Kathy – I think comparing Islam to Amway is a bit harsh – Islam is as valid as Christianity and as old. It’s the interpretations by the zealot Imams that make it difficult. Their are alot arguments for not allowing Sharia law into Canada – but that’s not one. Last time I checked Islamic immigrants were not part of the founding people of this nation. On that point I’ll give it to Maritime Liberal – Natives and Quebecois deserve special consideration – no one else!
Interesting article, but here’s something I really want answered:
I totally supported the war in Iraq (and still do) but please PLEASE PLEASE somebody tell me that we aren’t going to let it become a theocracy, like Iran, or even like Egypt, which isn’t as harsh but still circumvents women’s rights and those of minority religions. Since the war was won, Christians have been heavily persecuted in Iraq (more so than under Hussein) and have been fleeing. Now what about women? Bush knows that the way a country treats women determines what happens in that country. He’s said it. So why is this on the table? Is the Bush administration going to let Shariah go through? Or is he not in a place to stop it now because it’s in the hands of the Iraqis? We went to oust Saddam and free a people, and now we’re about to put half of them under subjugation again. It just seems incomprehensible to me.
As for Ontario, that’s incomprehensible too, and we should be speaking out more loudly about it.
Sheila, actually Christianity predates Islam by 600 years. They both can’t be equally valid because Islam contradicts Christianity on many key points. Only one can be right.
Native Canadians do not deserve special consideration for any reason. This is just more unexamined Canadian mythology.
Well, most of us knew this all along. It’s been written about in various conservative online news sources. It’s about time that this came to a head. The war on terrorism, even though it is important, is not the real enemy. It can be defeated any time the West wants to get serious. The real enemy is walking among us. And, before you jump on the political bandwagon and take sides, it isn’t a liberal or conservative thing. As the article says, Mary Jo White was appointed by Clinton. It’s just common sense and believing that your country is worth fighting for. Obviously these people don’t and that makes them traitors in my books.
These people, including Jamie Gorlick, Bill Clinton and others, should all be charged with treason, convicted and jailed.
I’m glad to see you covering this Kate. These things affect Canada dramatically for the simple reason we depend on America for our very existence these days. I do not want these people governing America again.
Having said that I, for the life of me, do not understand why Bush is turning a blind eye to the dangerous situation of illegal immigrants, many of which have been shown to be terrorists, crossing the Mexican border by the millions. But as they say, that’s another story.
Maritime Liberal. You bring Sharia law into this discussion and then you say “I am not against Shariah law in particular…” Thanks for enlightening us. It’s good to know the enemy. You are one reason I no longer care about anything east of Manitoba.
Sorry for my previous comment. Wrong thread. I meant to post it to the “Humpty Gorelick Sat On A Wall” thread. Love that title by the way.
The comment to Maritime Liberal still holds however. Got that right anyway.
Kathy – OK Islam is a bit newer … so are a bunch of the Christian faiths – you’re Catholic, (I’m thinking not that relapsed!) what about all those “protestant” varieties. Then there are all the Eastern religions based on self actualization of one form or another. Exactly where is truth. I would say that Mohammed is to Islam – what Abraham is to Judeao-Christian thought. Was Martin Luther a fraud because he created a new branch of Christian thought. Even within Christianity there is no agreement (think Ireland).
I should admit that on the subject of religion I’m a bit Nietzchean – but I’m not denying anyone else their “life affirming myth”. Multi-culturalism has been a failure for society – but some of us actually tried to be that model of tolerance perpetrated by the noble lie Trudeau foisted upon us. It’s only in the last couple of years that we have seen what a failure MC is for political stability.
Here in Canada the Liberanos have already given a ‘nation within a nation’, the Nishka in B.C., a separate set of rules for governing; women of the Nishka tribe do not have property rights. Men inheirit aboridginal claims, women do not. Where were the woman’s rights Liberanos/NDPers on that decision? Cretian and one of the numberous NDP premiers of B.C. ratified that ‘scrap of paper’. It was opposed for many days by the Canadian Alliance ,ignored by the Bloc, defended by the NDP led by Alexia M and , of course, permoted by Crechan and the Liberanos.
Don’t tell me the Liberanos defend women. That outfit support women over working – so they can leave their childern at socialist indocternation centers. Women are loosing their free time in mega gobs – haw can a person work 8 hrs a day, drive around for 2 or 3 hrs. dropping off childern, shopping, and going to work etc., cook meals, clean house, mow the lawn, do the laundry, phone friends, take care of ailing parents…..women have been sold out by left wingers. We don’t have freedom, we have glorified surfdom. If you say that men can help with the above chores you are living in a dream world. Men are not any good at any of the above chores except maybe mowing the lawn – force them into female type servitude and they just leave.
Mothers/wives in the past had their own territory where they had the authority to rule with an iron hand – they ruled the house. Men worked outside the house. Men went out with the men from the office (not the women) and women visited other women, went shopping together, played bridge, read a book…in their ‘time off’. Often wives and husbands went out together and hired a babysitter (with no guilt, since Mom had been home all day WITH the childern). Women now have no time off. How is the situation better? Why do you readers think the birth rate in Canada is so low? Families are not organized because they have ‘time budgets’ that are not flexable. Working women cannot afford to take time off to do something messy like having a child – it is way too stressful.
Recognizing the inferior position of women in other cultures is confirming the ‘correct’ Liberano view of the ‘role of women’. Women should never be coddled, if they are they won’t work themselves to death to prove that they are BOTH the master and the slave of the family unit.
In my opinion, womens lib was let loose on us by lazy, immature men; and women, always listining to men, bought the ‘bill of goods’.
Kathy – Wow -LOL
“I’m not at all ashamed to say that I believe all cultures are NOT equal, and that further more, “equality” and “liberty” are mutually exclusive . Some cultures should be encouraged to flourish and others should not. In other words, I’m a backwards, bigoted troglodyte”
I missed this part before – I actually don’t disagree with most of it – but …
how can you honestly compare a pedophile bandit to Abraham or Martin Luther. I think you should
take a look at the facts. Islam is a evil religion that preaches genocide and subjugates their women.
Sheila,
*Furthermore I can’t go into any muslim country and wrap myself in the Canadian Charter and demand those rights.*
Yet Muslem women who come to Canada do expect to enjoy some added freedoms and those wishes are to be respected.
Anyone oppressed by religious law in Canada is being abused. Only time will give those persons the confidence to gradually claim the freedoms they see others enjoying in Canada.
73s TG
Since Kathy mentioned Natives not requiring special treatment- and I agree, btw- I remembered a brilliant thought I had this morning, with the imaginary lightbulb lighting up over my head, you know. My thought is that, hey, anyone who was born in Canada is a Native Canadian, regardless of race or ancestry. The concept of according Native status only to those born here who are of one racial/ancestral heritage only is in and of itself racist.
What happened two centuries ago happened two centuries ago. No one who was alive then is alive today. Everyone born in Canada living in Canada is equal, without regard to race or other ethnicity. No one alive today is responsible for, or a victim of, any injustices that took place two centuries ago. It is time for the state to declare all born in Canada to be equal. Of course, legitimate immigrants who become citizens are equal too.
Why the hell can’t the state treat people equally? Why the state-enforced racially-based segregation and discrimination? Are people that stupid? Or is that the nature of political correctness, to be stupid but obedient?
“how can you honestly compare a pedophile bandit to Abraham or Martin Luther. I think you should
take a look at the facts. Islam is a evil religion that preaches genocide and subjugates their women”.
Shawn grow up – I may not like Islam, or any religion for that matter – but it is a legitimate religion in this world. The history of Christianity isn’t that rosy either – infact it’s littered with acts of violence.
Some interresting comments and a couple of downright ignorant ones too. I apologize that I can’t reply to all of them at the moment but I will try to address as many as I can. If I get time later I will try to address them all.
Now in regards to Spike’s comments about if two exceptions why not one hundred. Let us look at each exception for a second. In regards to Quebec, their legal system’s structure is based upon French Civil Law (Napoleonic Code). I am not one hundred percent certain but I believe that the provinces have the right to set their legal system. Quebec’s was always based on Frances (for obvious reasons), it to me it seems a bit ridiculous to suddenly approach them and order them to completely change their system. The amount of work it would take to turn it to British Common Law really isn’t worth it. In regards to the First Nations, I think that we haven’t done enough to come to an adaquate arrangement on this issue or many others. For too long it was swept under the rug and oppressive and racist policies towards the First Nations exist. I don’t have the answer for this one but I think out of fairness, respect, and the desire to preserve the culture of our First Peoples which we tried so hard to destroy, some form of arrangement must be made. On a political level, I believe modern Canada has three founding groups and that we must respect these differences and allow them to flourish where at all possible. I am not an expert in law so I cannot say what is the best strategy for dealing with ultimately creating one final, indisputable arrangement with the First Nations but I do believe we have not tried hard enough.
Kathy:
“Maritime Liberal: you are trying to square a circle. I don’t blame you; it hurts when one has to finally abandoned cherished delusions.”
I was never deluded. I always believed multiculturalism was an important policy that has helped to shape Canada but we can’t have a hundred different systems for divorce law (for example). Minus the founding nations of modern Canada, everyone living in English Canada should be bound by the same federal, provincial, and municipal laws under British Common Law. In Quebec, the same thing under French Civil Law. And naturally, the same applies for the First Nations. That may sound a bit odd but that recognizes and respects Canada’s past of three founding nations and embraces multiculturalism but supports one law for everyone.
As for you questionning why I was against Shariah law. If you read my whole post I said I did not agree with the Jewish courts or any other religious court so I am consistent.
Now as for this:
“My answer to your friends vis Jewish courts is very simple: Judaism and Christianity are authentic religions. Islam is more like Scientology or Amway, and does not deserve equal treatment. ”
I actually sat and blinked for a moment attempting to realize that was a serious comment. We should treat the cultures of all people who immigrate with respect and equality. However, there can only be one law for everyone (again keeping in mind the two exceptions) and everyone must follow that law.
“If you try viewing the world through the lens of history, facts, the evidence of your senses and _not_ a gov’t sponsored, knee jerk ideology you’ve adopted without question”
So if I agree with a government policy I adopt that ideology without question? You are a conservative, did you adopt that sponsored ideology without question? With all due respect that was an ignorant remark and a logical fallicy.
Sheila:
“When was the last time you went to a Christmas concert at your kids school.”
I think I’ll take that as a compliment in a sense. I am only twenty and don’t have any children. Your point after that about locking all cultures away, I think you make an excellent point. We should celebrate all cultures including our own, that was the whole point of multiculturalism. As for freedom from religion, I don’t think the state should sponsor a specific religion nor do I agree that the Lord’s Prayer, for example, should be said at the start of the day in public schools. Now in regards to a winter concert, I don’t see why we can’t have a winter concert during which actual Christmas stuff is celebrated to. Just as I don’t have a problem with the schools doing something for say Hanakkah (spelling). I think that by allowing children to celebrate their cultural holidays with the school, even if its for ten minutes in their class room, we can learn from them and understand their cultures. I believe that the greatest cause of racism is ignorance. If we understood different cultures we would know where theyare coming from and have that knowledge rather than ponder the unknown. Perhaps having a culture class once a week in public schools were students learn about all cultures (including Christianity), on an equal level in order to promote tolerance and understanding, might be a good idea. I’m not saying it will happen but examining it might not be such a bad idea.
“Last time I checked Islamic immigrants were not part of the founding people of this nation. On that point I’ll give it to Maritime Liberal – Natives and Quebecois deserve special consideration – no one else!”
Thank you!
Back to Kathy:
“Sheila, actually Christianity predates Islam by 600 years. They both can’t be equally valid because Islam contradicts Christianity on many key points. Only one can be right.”
Taoism predates both of them, maybe that is the right one. What about Judaism? Of course let’s not forget the Polythesium practiced by the Romans and Greeks. How old a religion is does not mean anything. Also, how can we determine that only one religion is right and which one that is. We can believe one is right but we can’t prove that any one system of belief actually describes what is true. Maybe no religion is right. Maybe the right religion is a mix of all religions. We don’t know this.
John:
“You are one reason I no longer care about anything east of Manitoba.”
Actually I lived most of my life in Alberta. My blog even states that I am a western turned eastern liberal.
Shawn:
“Islam is a evil religion that preaches genocide and subjugates their women.”
Ok the first part of that statement is pure ignorance. Do you even understand stand anything of Islam? Have you read the Koran? Did you actually discuss this with anyone who understands Islam? That is a loaded, ignorance based comment. As for the latter part, the answer is yes an no. Just like Christianity has various interpretations, as does Islam. Some are more radical and extreme than others. Wahabism for example came out of the 1800s as a hardlined reactionary interpretation. That is the official religion of countries such as Saudi Arabia and former regimes such as the Taliban. It actually is only one interpretation and not reflective of Islam as a whole or its other interpretations. Go read a little history on it.
Sorry I couldn’t get to everything but that is a start.
Maritime Liberal, you are the one who needs to go read some history. Westerners who do not embrace the Islamofascist agenda are ignorant. Those engaged in brainwashing their youth into strapping bombs to their bodies for “jihad” are then presumably “enlightened”? Right…
“In regards to Quebec, their legal system’s structure is based upon French Civil Law (Napoleonic Code).”
It’s technically incorrect to refer to any civil law code other than the 1808 French Code Civil as “Napoleonic Code.” Moreover, Quebec, like Louisiana, Puerto Rico, Scotland, Sri Lanka, South Africa and a handful of others, does not adhere entirely to the civil law, but is a mixed jurisdiction: because it was ruled by a common-law country, its public law (those defining relationships with the state, such as criminal and adminsitrative law) is essentially common law, but its private law (the law governing relationships between private parties) is civilian. Because court procedure is itself public law, in every mixed jurisdiction you find courts using essentially common-law procedures to apply civil-law substance. Quebec, for example, does not follow the inquisitorial judicial model from France, but the adversarial one from England, although admittedly that’s an extreme example, since some civil-law countries (the Netherlands comes to mind) are actually closer to the common-law world on that point than they are to the French.
“The amount of work it would take to turn it to British Common Law really isn’t worth it.”
ENGLISH, not British. The common law is from England. Scotland’s private law–as it always has been and as it is still applied in the seperate courts Scotland retained under the 1707 Act of Union–is civil law. It is uncodified civil law, but while codification is nearly universal to the civilian world, that’s a relatively new development that occurred over the course of the 19th century.
However, the key point you were making, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree, is that regardless of which set of laws applies where, it should apply equally and on a territorial, not racial/ethnic basis. E.g., in Quebec, EVERYONE is subject to the Quebec Civil Code, not just Quebecois or, indeed, Canadians; likewise, in English Canada everyone is subject to the common law of the particular province.
Having worked with Indian tribes in the US (what you would call First Nations in Canada), however, I’m sorry but I don’t think allowing special exceptions for them either works or helps. Instead, it fundamentally undermines the basic and essential principle of equality under the law, and opens up a Pandora’s box for any other group with any gripe, real or imagined, to set themselves legally apart. See, for example, the privileges Senator Akaka here in the US is trying to set up for his fellow Native Hawaiians.
maritime liberal,you believe that there should be three basis of law in canada,then it follows that there could be a dozen different basis of laws based on the same premise because someone thinks that there should be..The mistake was made many years ago and we are just begining to reap the results and we are going to see enough that it may either break up the country or bring a dictatorship to power
Sounds like rather than believing in equality of all individuals, Maritime Liberal accepts to be brainwashed by the Liberal state propaganda machine that it’s somehow necessary to practice apartheid in Canada on the basis of racial and ancestral heritage and keep Aboriginals segregated in third world conditions, unable to participate with equal opportunity in the economic and social life of Canada. Maritime Liberal’s beliefs sound precisely like what the state is promulgating wrt its political policies which are only designed to keep them in power. Sounds like parroting political correctness rather than independent thought. How can a good person be in favor of inequality and discrimination? Oh, it’s easy… if the state, the media and one’s friends are saying it’s ok… then one need not have a conscience to tell one right from wrong, good from evil… I would call this “moral laziness”.
“Just like Christianity has various interpretations, as does Islam. Some are more radical and extreme than others. Wahabism for example came out of the 1800s as a hardlined reactionary interpretation. That is the official religion of countries such as Saudi Arabia and former regimes such as the Taliban. It actually is only one interpretation and not reflective of Islam as a whole or its other interpretations.”
No one is arguing that all religions don’t tend to have various intepretations and extremes.
No one is arguing that, at various times in history, the adherents of Christianity weren’t responsible for some pretty grisly acts.
No one is arguing that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are neither Islamists nor terrorists.
But this form of moral equivocation can only be taken so far.
The simple fact is that it is not Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or Jews carrying out these suicide attacks and conducting a widespread campaign of terror, it is Muslims.
Islam is currently undergoing a period in which there is a clear pattern of hardline, extremist belief and subsequent violent action.
The murderous nutbars out there today are Muslims, folks, not Methodists.
We should not go into denial about this nor should we be liberally applying “It’s-a-small-world-after-all” anodyne to the problem facing us.
For what it’s worth, I believe that although Islamist terrorism poses a clear challenge to us, it poses a far greater challenge to Islam.
Unfortunately, I’m not at all confident the Muslim world is up to that challenge.
JJM is right. Too bad the left, however, won’t listen or think. Those lefties who do exercise civility and do listen unfortunately will not mentally process the facts and reasoning given by JJM and will therefore, when it’s their turn to speak, demonstrate that they didn’t even try to see it the way JJM or I are putting it forth for their benefit. Pity the left.
Ok a couple of quick points.
Dave J:
Thank you for examining the Quebec law issue more closely. At the end of the day, as you indicated, the point I made was valid but thank you for going beyond my simplified analysis to examine Quebec’s legal system. As someone who is not a lawyer nor has studied the legal intricacies of English Canada’s or Quebec’s legal structures, I over simplified it in order to make a point which was still valid.
Spike:
“Westerners who do not embrace the Islamofascist agenda are ignorant. Those engaged in brainwashing their youth into strapping bombs to their bodies for “jihad” are then presumably “enlightened”? Right…”
I actually never said that. I was referring to someone else’s comments that Islam was an “evil religion that preaches genocide”. I said that was incorrect, that it was an extreme interpretation of Islam, and that the author was ignorant about Islam as a whole. Putting words into my mouth and then attemping to make me look foolish is a poor way to make a point.
Also,
“The mistake was made many years ago and we are just begining to reap the results and we are going to see enough that it may either break up the country or bring a dictatorship to power”
Logical fallicy there. You use a slippery slope argument resulting in only two definite options while ignoring all other possible ones. In addition, you chose two unfavourable options in order to drive home your point. I don’t see how you have the grounds to make this argument. For example, Quebec’s different legal system is not a cause of some desire in Quebec for separation. I also don’t see on what basis you could argue that having our current system will lead to a dictatorship. Not only is your argument full of logical fallicies, it is seemingly illogical.
JJM:
“No one is arguing that all religions don’t tend to have various intepretations and extremes.
No one is arguing that, at various times in history, the adherents of Christianity weren’t responsible for some pretty grisly acts.
No one is arguing that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are neither Islamists nor terrorists.”
I was making a point to someone who indicated that Islam was an “evil religion that preaches genocide”. By that argument, the author was seemingly lumping all Muslims and all interpretations together and I was simply pointing out the incorrectness of that argument.
Stephen:
“Sounds like rather than believing in equality of all individuals, Maritime Liberal accepts to be brainwashed by the Liberal state propaganda machine that it’s somehow necessary to practice apartheid in Canada on the basis of racial and ancestral heritage and keep Aboriginals segregated in third world conditions, unable to participate with equal opportunity in the economic and social life of Canada.”
I never said that, I am actually offended by that. I am appalled at how Canada has treated our First Nations throughout history and believe it is a national disgrace and an utter embarassment. As a nation we can and must do better, what we have done to date is completely unacceptable. Your comment also has very little to do with my argument. If you read my post, I was talking about legal systems. As for the state of living for our First Nations, it is an utter disgrace and I truly hope that Paul Martin lives up to his commitments to helping the First Nations. He is the first Prime Minister to establish a cabinet committee on the First Nations and will be holding a national summit in the fall. In addition, he has included First Nations leaders in celebrations such as the swearing in of the cabinet and the openings of national summits where FIrst Nations concerns were going to be discussed and addressed. Now we need concrete, decisive action to deal with this national embarassment. I hope Mr. Martin lives up to his commitment.
That was a bit off topic though but I felt it needed to be said.
On another off topic note, why is it that when someone agrees with someone said by the government and media, they are considered brainwashed? That seems both unfair and is a logical fallicy as it makes unfair generalalities about those on the left and how they came to believe in what they do. Let’s argue that issues rather than debate such stupidity.
“I was making a point to someone who indicated that Islam was an ‘evil religion that preaches genocide’. By that argument, the author was seemingly lumping all Muslims and all interpretations together and I was simply pointing out the incorrectness of that argument.”
While it IS true that lumping all Muslims together is simplistic, it IS a fact that extremism – violent extremism – is currently far more prevalent and acceptable amongst Muslims than it is amongst the other major faiths.
Maritime Liberal, you wrote: “…the first Prime Minister to establish a cabinet committee on the First Nations and will be holding a national summit in the fall. In addition, he has included First Nations leaders in celebrations such as the swearing in of the cabinet and the openings of national summits where FIrst Nations concerns were going to be discussed and addressed.”
Well, that SOUNDS great. But it means nothing. It’s all pomp and circumstance to make Paulie look good. The Aboriginal politicians, btw, are no better than non-Aboriginal ones like Paul. How can you explain how we can transfer $7 billion or so each year to Aboriginals via their politicians and there’s still third-world living conditions? Just how many are there living on reservations? Surely $7 billion divided up equally amongst every Aboriginal man, woman and child living on reservations would provide them with a decent standard of living? Come on, why do you have faith in Paul Martin’s claims that he cares about the plight of the ordinary Aboriginal? Can’t you bring yourself, after seeing how Paul did nothing for Aboriginals as a part of Chretien’s regime for so long, to doubt him? Just a little? Also, can you bring yourself to accept that yes, Aboriginal politicians, like Martin and Chretien, can be corrupt? Can you visualize these politicians, who are entirely unaccountable to ordinary Aboriginals and to the Canadian people who provide the billions via their paychecks, perhaps keeping a huge chunk of each check for their own enrichment?
Maybe you are too trusting of these people, the Liberals, who say all the right warm and fuzzy things and throw money at all the right causes. Maybe you believe their failures to actually help anyone are not their fault?
I’m sorry, but you have not learned to think for yourself.
Nice, leave the last part of that paragraph out. I indicated now that we now needed concrete action to go with these initiatives and that I said I hoped Mr. Martin would live up to his commitments.
Now as for your other points, yes I can accept that First Nations leaders can be corrupt. Indeed corruption is an enormous problem on many reserves and it is yet another of several major issues that need to be addressed. The entire First Nations portfolio is a disaster and has been, I would argue, since before Canada was founded. I know perfectly well, as I indicated, that the First Nations live in appalling conditions and that it is a national embarassment. Did you forget to read that part?
In regards to trusting the liberals. I, like most Young Liberals, come from the left-wing of the Liberal Party. We have certain principles and beliefs that we want moved forward and expect those in charge to act on them. We are in the same party, of course we expect those at the top to keep their word and sometimes are disappointed of frustrated. I know I certainly have been frustrated with the party on occasion but have also been extremely happy on others occasions. Being part of a political party does not mean you shouldn’t think for yourself. I am actually highly critical of the liberals at times, I believe I have a right as a member to be critical of the party at times. At the end of the day, it is the best ideological fit for me but the Liberals are a big tent party and sometimes various wings don’t agree with others.
Now back to policy for a moment. In addition to corruption on reserves, another problem is the fact that spending on the First Nations is spread over many government departments meaning bureaucratic waste, inefficiencies, and duplicate services. This includes money being used for healthcare, education, and even culture and heritage. What we have really seen is a lackluster at best and disgraceful at worst, approach to First Nation affairs for decades and it has resulted in little in terms of meaningful gains. I certainly don’t have concrete answers for how to solve this but I do know the government needs to work with the First Nations in order to do something to deal with the widesweeping problems facing this very important part of our population.
Finally, you said I haven’t learned to think for myself. I said that I hoped that Paul Martin would live up to his commitments. As a liberal, isn’t that a logical expectation. Wouldn’t you expect the same thing from Mr. Harper. I am an optimistic person and really hope that the liberals follow through on their commitments and begin to find concrete solutions to help the First Nations. I expect that of the liberal party and think it is time they act in a meaningful way. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.
On a side note, this seems to be moving further and further away from the initial topic.
“…I said I hoped Mr. Martin would live up to his commitments.”
Don’t hold your breath waiting.
maritime liberal,I dont have to put words in your mouth to make you look foolish, you are quite capable of doing that all on your own.If you think that is illogical then startrek must have influenced you more than you will admit.How do you think dictatorships come to power?Its by mutual consent to rectify a situation that the majority cant abide anymore.
I see, Maritime Liberal, that you’re not an idiot after all. You’re optimistic. That’s good. You try to be principled and give someone a chance to do the right thing. So, just wait and watch Paul Martin. Meantime, go about life without holding your breath so you will be less painfully devastated when the Liberals betray you and force you to see them for what they really are. Pursue higher education but question everything, especially leftist doctrine. Take a scientific approach and see patterns in what actually works and what doesn’t. Be logical, not emotional. Trust me. I learned long, hard, and painfully how to approach things without being manipulated and devastated by others who know not what they say and do, regardless of good or bad intentions.
Believe me, as I was once very much like you half a lifetime ago, I wish I was wrong. But I cannot honestly say I am.