Canada, oh, oh, … Canada

There is a motion coming up for vote in our the land of our wonderful neighbors and best friends to the north, Canada. It says in entirety:

Systemic racism and religious discrimination

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.

So … what’s not to like? First, let me say that I’ll be talking about Islam and not any individual Muslim. Individual Muslims come in the usual varieties— the good, the bad, and the ugly. I’m not referring to them. I’m talking about the ideology of Islam.

In my usual fashion, let me take a closer look at the resolution. I’ll start with the title:

Systemic racism and religious discrimination

First, this begs the question by assuming, not showing but assuming, that “systemic racism” and “religious discrimination” are both important problems in Canada.

Second, and more important, it also assumes that it is the job of the government to cure its citizens of these purported thought-crimes.

While these assumptions may indeed be true, they have not made the slightest attempt to support them. They have assumed them root and branch.

The motion continues:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:

(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;

Now we’ve added a new job for the government. They’re planning to keep people from being afraid.

Note that they are not investigating whether it might actually be rational to be afraid of a resurgent Islamic jihadism, after the bloody atrocities in Nice and Orlando and Paris and Brussels and Charlie Hebdo et cetera ad nauseam … no, no, instead they plan to “quell” the fears, to put water on the fire, to tell people everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, nothing to be afraid of here, move along, folks …

The lunacy continues:

(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

Another job is added, with “Islamophobia” curiously equated with racism and religious discrimination. Now, I understand and will certainly condemn “systemic racism” and “religious discrimination”. And although they are important, I doubt they are at the top of most Canadian’s priorities.

But what, pray tell, is this mysterious “Islamophobia” that we’re supposed to fight and condemn?

It sounds like the rest of the “phobias”, like say homophobia. In common parlance, the term “phobia” means a greatly exaggerated and baseless fear of something which is likely harmless. Homophobia, the baseless fear of homosexuals, is a great example. Homosexuals are no threat to other people. Like heterosexuals, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are just fools whose intentions are good. So having a big fear of them is obviously a “phobia”, because they pose no danger.

So I’ll start by noting that calling it “Islamophobia” ASSUMES that Islam is likely harmless. So the word itself contains an entire point of view … but is it valid?

Suppose some gay guy looks on the internet and he sees that orthodox Muslims with the blessing of their holy men are THROWING GAY PEOPLE OFF THE TOPS OF HIGH BUILDINGS TO THEIR DEATH, while Muslim mobs cheer. This worries and frightens him.


Or suppose some woman sees a video on the web showing orthodox everyday Muslims with the blessing of their leaders and the authorization of their courts bury a woman up to her neck in the ground, whereupon the Muslim mob picks up stones, special small stones so they don’t kill her instantly, and they stone her to death in the most painful way imaginable. When she sees that, she feels afraid.

And understandably so. When I see that kind of despicable savagery, I get afraid … and as far as I can tell I’m neither a woman nor gay.

Here is the important question—is their fear upon seeing those examples of Islamic justice an example of “Islamophobia”?

I say hell, no. I say anyone who is not fearful of the resurgence of the centuries-long Islamic attempt to violently topple the West is dangerously complacent. That is not a “phobia” of any kind—it is a perfectly reasonable response to endless, mindless barbarism.

And this is the core of my objection. The Canadians are setting off on an expedition to fight something they’ve never defined, a vague concept called “Islamophobia”.  This contravenes a very basic principle of good law. This is that a law needs to be “bright line” meaning that you can tell when you cross that line. You know when you’ve committed a crime.

But with the criminalization of “Islamophobia”, where is the bright line? What is Islamophobia? How does it differ from “religious persecution”? Where does a reasonable fear of a savage seventh-century ideology turn into something called “Islamophobia” that is to be avoided? How can we tell a logical fear from a “phobia”?

Without that bright line, without a clear definition of what “Islamophobia” actually is, it is clear that this is just another attempt by Muslims to head off any criticism of their fanaticism. It serves no other purpose. It does not lead to greater harmony. It is a callous and cynical attempt to criminalize discussing the problems with Islam.

Not only that, but carving out a special exemption for Muslims called “Islamophobia” is a sick joke, given that Muslims are the most Christianophobic of all religions. Their holy book, the Koran, tells them flat out not to take Christians as their allies …

Qur’an Sura 5:51—O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends (allies). They are friends (allies) one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends (allies) is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

… how phobic can you get?

But of course, if you speak out against Christianophobia you’re speaking directly against the Koran, and if you do that a bolt of liberal lightning will strike your fundamental orifice and set your hair on fire to punish your intolerable Islamophobia …

Now, do some folks have an irrational fear of Muslims? Sure. Sadly one group of people who suffer from that are the Sikhs, because their religion requires that they wear turbans. And because there are indeed people on this planet who “hate all ragheads”, Sikhs get attacked thinking they are Muslims.

But that irrational fear, however bad, should not be allowed to divert attention from the very real and rational fear of Islam, the fear that to their eternal regret Europe is experiencing now and for a long time … I see today that Angela Merkel is offering to PAY the Muslim refugees to go home.

The irony meter just melted.

Here’s the sad reality.

When Muslims are in the minority, they are always going on about “Islamophobia” and the “Religion of Peace” and how their precious human rights are being violated.

And when Muslims are in the majority … there are no human rights, particularly for women and gays.

Don’t believe me? Look at the treatment of women and gays in Muslim-majority countries. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Somalia. Sudan. Egypt. Iraq. Libya. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Crushing daily oppression interspersed with episodes of painful death, it is a fourteen-century-long history of human tragedy.

I advise all these bleeding Canadian hearts to seriously think about how women and gay people are treated in those countries before getting all high and mighty about “Islamophobia”. Fears of Islam are not some damn “phobia”. Adults fear Islam for a very real reason—Muslims in those countries do not believe in human rights. They do not believe in the equality of men and women. They do not believe in the presumption of innocence. They keep sex slaves. They kill people for the heinous crime of leaving the religion. They murder their own daughters for dating Christians.

Short version? Islamic ideals and laws are completely antithetical to our Western ideals and laws. This would be tolerable although unpleasant … except they want to convert the rest of the world to their ideals and laws by killing us if we disagree.

For fourteen centuries Islam has tried to overthrow the West by violence, and there is no sign of any letup in that endless war. To the contrary, the Islamic murders have grown more and more violent, widespread, and pervasive over the last fifty years. Over 20,000 people were killed world-wide by Islam-driven terrorists in 2016 alone …

Anyone who is not seriously concerned about that endless war is living in a dream, no matter how many decent, kind, wonderful Muslim friends they might have …


PS—I always ask that if you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING. That way we can all understand what your subject might be.

PPS—For my Canadian friends, yes, I’m aware that you’re not responsible for this madness. It’s just more of the TDS, the Trudeau Derangement Syndrome. There’s an old saying that “fish rots from the head down”, and sadly this is an excellent example …

NOTE: The Koran that I use for reference is here. In addition to several authoritative translations of each Sura, if you click on the Arabic it gives a word by word translation.


89 thoughts on “Canada, oh, oh, … Canada

  1. It’s Canada Day, the first of July, celebrating 150 years today. Canada and the USA are like brothers, having the same parent (Britain). The US moved out after a dispute with the parent while still an adolescent. Canada is like the kid who lived in the parents’ basement until he was 100 or so. Brothers, different but alike. One of the time honored (‘honoured’ in Canada) traditions is discussing what it means to be Canadian. About the only thing that is generally agreed upon is “not American”. Except that’s not universal either, since the Canadian stars (rock stars, movie stars, hockey stars) all live in L.A. And almost everybody else lives close to the US border. So on this occasion a few more articles are published about Canadian Values.

    But first, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attended a Gay Pride event … wearing Ramadan socks. Talk about multicultural. What other world leader would dare mix and match Gay and Muslim? Is that Canadian, or what? Master stroke on the symbolic side, but then symbolic is shallow.
    “Justin Trudeau is fond of the aphorism that diversity is our strength. That’s far too much to claim.”

    It may be a pleasurable paradox that all we have in common is our differences, but it cannot survive any translation into reality. No country, no nation, is founded on the differences it contains. And so it is with Canada 150, years after its birth in Confederation. Celebrating our differences doesn’t really mean very much, aside, again, from the facile moral uplift the slogan offers, unless it proceeds from a common, shared and unified understanding of ourselves as a nation.

    We speak often of something called “Canadian values,” but even those who claim to believe in them never get around to defining what they are. It’s impossible. Canada is too huge and too disparate, and its citizens are too dissimilar, to have evolved a set of standardized values. We’re also too changeable.

    In place of values we have something vaguer, something more like an instinct, or maybe an automatic reflex. We have fairness. We are not always fair, nobody could be, and sometimes our institutions are decidedly unfair, as when jails torture convicts with days and days of lonely, maddening solitary confinement.

    But in just about every issue that gets discussed, we try to point our way to fairness. Without articulating it, or even passing a motion about it through Parliament, we have somehow agreed on this as a desirable quality.

    Canada has, as the French say, the fault of its qualities. Because it is always consensual and never revolutionary, it has relatively less drama than have had the other G-7 countries.

    Why did Canada federate 150 years ago? To avoid becoming American!

    As the United States emerged from its Civil War with the greatest army and greatest generals in the world, and no reservoir of goodwill for Britain after The British flirtation with the Confederacy, French and English Canadian political leaders, both conservative and liberal, realized that the string of settlements and communities along the northern border of the United States, if they were not to be swallowed whole by the rampaging Americans, must join in one new country, of sufficient value to Britain to retain British naval deterrent strength against an American annexation. The British could not now refight a ground war in North America, but their naval supremacy could cause great inconvenience along the American shores and on the high seas. This, and the exhaustion of their long war, is all that restrained the United States from seizing Canada, as it has seized a million square miles from Mexico (including Texas and California) 30 years before.


  2. Update:

    With Parliament’s passage in late March of Motion 103, which condemned “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” the Canadian Heritage Committee was tasked with a study to determine “what Canadians have to say” on the motion. Now underway, formal hearings are revealing what polls have already made clear: many Canadians find M-103 disturbing.

    The article is interesting and not surprising. It contains a gem, or rather a link to a gem.
    The news article has links to a ten page submission to the committee and a ten minute YouTube video by its author. The paper is excellent, giving the history of the word ‘Islamophobia’, the history of the restriction of free speech in Europe to be Sharia-ready, and many other facts and suggestions.
    If only the politicians were so good! It’s worth taking a look:


You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s