JB Globe

Most South Asians HAVE integrated. Take a drive through Woodbridge and continue on towards Brampton. The only difference is one area has a higher concentration of South-Asian businesses and families and the other one is Italian. They're the same. So tell me why one is integrating and one isn't? You also seem to not realize that Italian immigrants came to Canada in the late 40's, and fifties, versus South Asians in the late 70's and 80's and had about a 25 year head start. If anything South Asians have probably been the quickest to adapt, considering how long they've been here and the average per-capita income. Yet another reason why not a single person here bought that story of you having that "multicultural" dinner party at your house. And why we don't buy any of your stories about "your Italian friend" and "your Indian friend" that seem ridiculous and always back up your viewpoints - because you come up with these gems then a week or two later you say things like "I hate all Italians" - which means either your stories are true and you're deceitful towards your "friends" about your feelings, in which case they're not really your friends OR - you're making the whole thing up because you are a bigot who doesn't have any actual facts or experiences to justify his views. Here we go - another survey "that was in a paper recently, I just can't remember which one or what it's called" so we'll have to take your word on it, because, after all - your word is gold, right? I'm willing to bet good money that the survey in question was the much-criticized and flawed study where participants were given the option of checking off "Canadian" as well as other options such as "Polish or Korean" but were given NO option for checking off any boxes that said "Polish-Canadian or Asian-Canadian" - if they checked "Canadian" AND "Korean" their survey was considered invalid and not counted. Left with no choice that actually reflected their identity they did a coin-flip and half of them chose Canadian and half of them checked off another box relating to their cultural heritage. But hey, if I'm wrong - go ahead and post the survey link. So long Canadians vote political parties into office that are pro-immigration and multiculturalism, we'll continue with things as usual. How does it feel that even your boy Harper is a huge supporter of immigration and multiculturalism? Face it Mike, you're alone on this one. That's why you only ever hear your viewpoints on obscure corners of the internet.

Let me clarify - what I meant to say is that both things are problems within a certain community of new immigrants to Canada, and like the rise of the mob in Canada during the 50's, Islamic extremism will most likely be controlled and dealt with - people from the community start cooperating with law enforcement, and (most importantly) start joining law enforcement at the same time as police forces start doing a better job of throwing the bigots out of their ranks, thus allowing those with the most cultural expertise to really make inroads in the fight against the respective problems. In fact I'd like to argue this is happening already, after all, the "Toronto Terror" plot was brought down primarily because a devout Muslim worked with the RCMP from the beginning to bring down that "cell" I know that structurally they are different problems, but they are similar in that they were problems that were specific to a certain ethnic group. They are similar because they were/are both used by critics of immigration as evidence as to why immigration is a bad thing - I was doing research for a documentary on immigration last year and was blown away between the similarities in old newspaper editorials between the arguments about "why Italian immigration / Muslim immigration is bad" yet now we don't here any more of that because Italians such as my father have had the time to integrate and society has become more accepting (either out of recognizing the benefits of integration, or because the bigots in society moved on to focus on groups that were "more foreign" aka - African & Muslim immigrants). I'm going to give you a chance to clarify here, after all I clarified just before - because it seems like you're saying that organized crime and Islam are the same thing. A better comparison would be organized crime and ISLAMIC EXTREMISM. Both those things exist on the fringes, after all. Well I'm talking about integration, not assimilation. That means that people who immigrate here don't have to commit cultural suicide - they don't have to cut that deep-rooted part of their identity out and adopt "traditional Canadian culture" (which I put in quotes because I believe the term is code for Anglo-Canadian culture, which is only a subset of Canada which Quebecois and first nations folks would have problems with being identified as THE national culture). They can have a multiple identity - the can be Muslim AND Canadian. That means that they will still feel connected to things like their cultural homeland, and the global community of their religion (which, isn't inherently destructive, unless you believe the Catholic Church is a threat). But what happens, usually very quickly (within the first or second generation of children born in Canada) is that the Canadian part of their identity becomes the strongest part, and that they tend to identify more with the Muslim-Canadian community and less-so with the international community, even if some feelings still exist. I never said anything about organized crime in general being dealt with, I said Italian organized crime, which while it still exists, is a shadow of what it was in the past. Now one of the biggest threats are biker gangs, which are made up of Quebecois and Anglo-Canadians. It seems that organized crime would still exist in Canada even without immigration, and that it has more to do with legal and economic issues than immigration. How were those feelings formed?

And what personal experiences with Muslims has lead you do believe this?

If I said anything like that than go ahead and quote me directly, because otherwise you just look like someone who lacks the capacity to respond intelligently to an argument so they resort to character assassination.

In response to my quote: "This isn't 1959, you can't turn back the clock." You said: Wheras my quote referred to white nationalists' futile attempts to turn Canada back into a nation dominated by Anglo-Canadian culture, you seem to be saying that Muslims are the ones who will turn the clock back. I can only assume you're insinuating that Islam = backward in your mind, therefor more Muslim immigrants mean more backwardness - which I find to be stereotypical and no reflective of the reality of the situation. Correct me if I'm wrong. Well I disagree with that. It's actually that MOST Muslims readily integrate and assimilate into Canadian society. Islam is not fundamentally different from the existing norm any more so than any religion is. In fact, it's a lot closer to the majority religion - Christianity, than any of the Dharmic religions. The main issue WITHIN Islam tends to be people confusing cultural customs with the religion. ie - the burqa is found nowhere outside Afghanistan and Western Pakistan, yet you have those people claming it's an "Islamic article of faith" which it isn't. Also people don't seem to know that pretty much EVERY immigrant group goes through a few phases of integrating, while society at large needs to go through phases of making itself more accepting. This is a universal fact - every group has to reconcile two identities, two cultures, and it may take a generation or so to do it. Take a look at any group and you'll find that groups become more and more integrated as time goes on, usually fully within 1-2 generations, so long as Canadian society keeps pace in becoming more accepting. And by accepting I mean dealing with things like laws and policies which act as barriers to people's Charter Rights. I also mean people in general taking an interest in learning about the experiences of people who come from all sorts of different backgrounds. I live in Toronto and have yet to notice any significant changes for the worse here become of immigration of Muslim-Canadians that isn't consistent with past immigration trends. The fears about Islamic extremism mirror those about Italian organized crime in the 50's and 60's, it was a problem, but it was dealt with, especially from within the community once it became more integrated. I don't see any current problems that are much greater than the problems that other groups have had to deal with on their journey of integrating into Canadian society. Now that was a paragraph full of assumptions. I'd like to see you cite quotes from myself to prove all your accusations, because otherwise it just seems like you're being lazy. For the record: - I don't believe Canada is an inherently bad society - I believe it's an inherently good society. That's why I love it and choose to remain living here. That said, there are bad aspects to it that I feel can be improved to make it even better. I don't understand what you'd have me do? I honestly believe I see a problem in society - should I try and fix it or not? Is it unpatriotic to admit that there are issues in Canada that need improvement? Great nations stay great because their citizens never put up their feet and rest on their laurels. - This isn't an either/or argument - there are traditions and institutions that are working great and should be preserved, and there are some which are showing their age and need to be revamped, and others that have become archaic and obsolete. There is a third choice, you don't just have to keep everything the way it's always been or toss everything. Case in point - women's rights in Canada. It was after all - tradition to deny women their rights as human beings under the law, but we changed that once it became clear how archaic it was. You don't keep things around just because "it's tradition" you keep them around because they are valuable to society, and if a certain tradition that has its roots in a reality unlike today is causing more harm than good - you don't keep it around "just because" - I've grown up with multiculturalism as an everyday reality for myself, and I've yet to see that immigration has done anything but overall benefited Canadian society.

In response to my quote: "This isn't 1959, you can't turn back the clock." You said: Wheras my quote referred to white nationalists' futile attempts to turn Canada back into a nation dominated by Anglo-Canadian culture, you seem to be saying that Muslims are the ones who will turn the clock back. I can only assume you're insinuating that Islam = backward in your mind, therefor more Muslim immigrants mean more backwardness - which I find to be stereotypical and no reflective of the reality of the situation. Correct me if I'm wrong. Well I disagree with that. It's actually that MOST Muslims readily integrate and assimilate into Canadian society. Islam is not fundamentally different from the existing norm any more so than any religion is. In fact, it's a lot closer to the majority religion - Christianity, than any of the Dharmic religions. The main issue WITHIN Islam tends to be people confusing cultural customs with the religion. ie - the burqa is found nowhere outside Afghanistan and Western Pakistan, yet you have those people claming it's an "Islamic article of faith" which it isn't. Also people don't seem to know that pretty much EVERY immigrant group goes through a few phases of integrating, while society at large needs to go through phases of making itself more accepting. This is a universal fact - every group has to reconcile two identities, two cultures, and it may take a generation or so to do it. Take a look at any group and you'll find that groups become more and more integrated as time goes on, usually fully within 1-2 generations, so long as Canadian society keeps pace in becoming more accepting. And by accepting I mean dealing with things like laws and policies which act as barriers to people's Charter Rights. I also mean people in general taking an interest in learning about the experiences of people who come from all sorts of different backgrounds. I live in Toronto and have yet to notice any significant changes for the worse here become of immigration of Muslim-Canadians that isn't consistent with past immigration trends. The fears about Islamic extremism mirror those about Italian organized crime in the 50's and 60's, it was a problem, but it was dealt with, especially from within the community once it became more integrated. I don't see any current problems that are much greater than the problems that other groups have had to deal with on their journey of integrating into Canadian society. Now that was a paragraph full of assumptions. I'd like to see you cite quotes from myself to prove all your accusations, because otherwise it just seems like you're being lazy. For the record: - I don't believe Canada is an inherently bad society - I believe it's an inherently good society. That's why I love it and choose to remain living here. That said, there are bad aspects to it that I feel can be improved to make it even better. I don't understand what you'd have me do? I honestly believe I see a problem in society - should I try and fix it or not? Is it unpatriotic to admit that there are issues in Canada that need improvement? Great nations stay great because their citizens never put up their feet and rest on their laurels. - This isn't an either/or argument - there are traditions and institutions that are working great and should be preserved, and there are some which are showing their age and need to be revamped, and others that have become archaic and obsolete. There is a third choice, you don't just have to keep everything the way it's always been or toss everything. Case in point - women's rights in Canada. It was after all - tradition to deny women their rights as human beings under the law, but we changed that once it became clear how archaic it was. You don't keep things around just because "it's tradition" you keep them around because they are valuable to society, and if a certain tradition that has its roots in a reality unlike today is causing more harm than good - you don't keep it around "just because" - I've grown up with multiculturalism as an everyday reality for myself, and I've yet to see that immigration has done anything but overall benefited Canadian society.

I found it odd that most news reports left out the fact that this seminary was one affiliated with the settler movement in Israel, aka - Jewish Extremists. The gunman could have shot up any seminary, he could've gunned down any Jew wearing a keepa in the street as he was walking to the place, but he didn't. Since the settlers are the FUNCTIONAL Israeli counterpart to Hamas, (note how I didn't make a moral equivalence) in that their aims run totally contrary to peace efforts and are the main source of antagonism towards the other side. Translation - Settlers are the ones on the Israeli side who do their damnest to make a peace settlement impossible. Case in point - Olmer recently announced the expansion of a West Bank settlement, causing the chief negotiator on the Palestinian side to say that with that move, the peace talks are essentially dead. To flip it, it would be like a gunman going after the most radical mosque in town - despicable, but clearly not an attack intended to be against Muslims in general - but of course that's how it would play, and that's how this attack plays in Israel and the world. Of course, I have no sympathy for the attacker . . . The killings won't do Palestinians any good - the gunman clearly wasn't thinking about what's truly best for his people, because, as we know, in the neo-con/Likhud psyche, one Israeli life is worth 100 dead Palestinians, and now the IDF can collateral damage (it's a verb now) a few hundred more civilians to death without Israelis starting to feel guilty about it. This attack will just prolong the realization that everyone will have to come to, which is that peace isn't possible without Israel giving up the settlements and Palestinians giving up terrorism.

I found it odd that most news reports left out the fact that this seminary was one affiliated with the settler movement in Israel, aka - Jewish Extremists. The gunman could have shot up any seminary, he could've gunned down any Jew wearing a keepa in the street as he was walking to the place, but he didn't. Since the settlers are the FUNCTIONAL Israeli counterpart to Hamas, (note how I didn't make a moral equivalence) in that their aims run totally contrary to peace efforts and are the main source of antagonism towards the other side. Translation - Settlers are the ones on the Israeli side who do their damnest to make a peace settlement impossible. Case in point - Olmer recently announced the expansion of a West Bank settlement, causing the chief negotiator on the Palestinian side to say that with that move, the peace talks are essentially dead. To flip it, it would be like a gunman going after the most radical mosque in town - despicable, but clearly not an attack intended to be against Muslims in general - but of course that's how it would play, and that's how this attack plays in Israel and the world. Of course, I have no sympathy for the attacker . . . The killings won't do Palestinians any good - the gunman clearly wasn't thinking about what's truly best for his people, because, as we know, in the neo-con/Likhud psyche, one Israeli life is worth 100 dead Palestinians, and now the IDF can collateral damage (it's a verb now) a few hundred more civilians to death without Israelis starting to feel guilty about it. This attack will just prolong the realization that everyone will have to come to, which is that peace isn't possible without Israel giving up the settlements and Palestinians giving up terrorism.

I'd like to point out that Muslim-Canadians already are integrated (note past tense) and we should work on continuing this trend. There are already many Canadian Muslim women who are working for women's rights in their communities, tackling tough questions, and redefining their religion for Canadian society. Zarqa Nawaz (aka - Little Mosque's creator) is one of them, I'd suggest you check out her doc on women and Islam, and her personal experiences - "Me and the Mosque" I'd also like to float the idea that there are many Canadians of European descent who are more integrated with the Canada of 50 years ago than the Canada of today. They need to be integrated into the Canada of 2008 just as much as NEW immigrants (including muslim immigrants) do. We'd not hesitate to call a man who believes a woman's place is in the home a dinosaur, so I don't see the problem in doing the same to someone who espouses white nationalist views. This isn't 1959, you can't turn back the clock.

How entertaining. You guys all think "the other side" is responsible for all the world's problems. It's almost cute.

I wonder how the author feels about the fact that his opinions are shared by ANY political party. Just about a month ago Harper even went out and said that the state of multiculturalism in Canada is overall very good, and the fears that an extreme minority of Anglos Quebecois have that the sky is falling - are pretty much an overreaction to relatively minor problems.

The thing about dealing with climate change, is that you end up dealing with a whole host of other problems as well. Cutting carbon emissions for example also means you're cutting air pollution, industrial waste, the use of toxic chemicals in building materials, oil dependency, etc. Things that are normally "externalized" in economic models would be dealt with, ie - we don't link the cost of health problems from all forms of industrial pollution when we evaluate the industrial sector - those are things which just show up when we talk about health care, we never attach them to industry to get an idea of the true cost of being environmentally negligent. In the long run the changes we can make to deal with climate change might even end up saving us / making us money. ie - energy efficient buildings will save us money, and developing the materials and technical expertise to build them will stimulate the economy. I fail to see why, for example, being a world leader in exporting green technology in a world where said technology is in huge demand - why would this lead to anything other than economic growth? We're seeing an industrial, economic and technological shift in the way the world operates and I believe it's ridiculous that Canada should fall behind. We can't afford to miss the boat on this one, it would be like missing the boat on assembly-line manufacturing or some other huge innovation. I'm worried that Canada will fall behind in developing green techs and industry and the world market will look elsewhere. We're already terribly behind the US and Europe in developing wind technology and implementing it, for example. A recent NY Times article profiled the world's largest wind plant being built in Texas of all places (Texas is now the US' #1 state for wind power). There's no reason why many of those turbines can't be made in Canada, but even when we build the handful of Windmills here in Ontario they're imported from Europe. I don't want the Canadian economy to start to go the way of the big three US automakers - getting lazy, not innovating, and getting left behind when the market shifts away from things like gas-guzzlers towards hybrids. The thing about climate change is that we can deal with it and make some dough as well.

Apples and oranges. India doesn't pretend to be an open society to all the world in terms of cultural accomodation. On the other hand, we here in Canada claim to be open and accepting of all folks from around the world. Because we can't just talk the talk. If we claim to be open and accepting, our laws and society better reflect that, otherwise we'd be hypocrites.

Absolutely, there's a reason why the less interaction and exchange you have between yourself and people who are of a different ethnic background/religion/etc the more likely you are to regard said people in a negative light.

How so? Really? How have you personallly been affected by this "tyranny?" - And if you're going to use a word like that, you'd better have a terrible, terrible example - otherwise you're just going to look like you're overreacting. When you say "our country" - who do you see as "one of us"? - Do descendents of Black Loyalists count? Chinese-Canadians whose families immigrated at the turn of the 19th century?

The whining never ceases. So someone wants to do something stupid and choose to wear a turban over a helmet - It's his choice. Society hasn't collapsed since this law was introduced in BC, and it won't collapse in Ontario. The way you people panic every time some news item about multiculturalism pops up makes me wonder how much exposure you've had in your life to people from different parts of the planet. Ignorance breeds fear after all.

Because of course, all of you lusting to put Castro on trial were just as vocal about putting Suharto on trial, right? Face it - just like some leftists give Castro a free pass because he was socialist, you give other dictators a free pass when they're allied with Washington, and pay more attention to the crimes of others when they oppose Washington.

I don't have the time to respond to many of the points raised in this post, but I would just like to say that as a Jew I found absolutely no anti-semitism in Higgly's original post. The only thing I could see was a well-researched position that runs counter to the claims of right-wing Israel supporters of the Likhud/Goi-Neo-Con persuasion. Whenever you write something counter to these folks views you always know the anti-semite card will be played early and regularly, even if you are Jewish yourself. However, it never gets any less infuriating, especially for me as a descendant of people who were exterminated because of REAL ACTUAL anti-semitism, when people cry wolf because they're too lazy to debate an argument based on facts. The non-Jews who do this have absolutely no business doing so, and the Jews who do this should damn-well know better. Exploiting anti-semitism and the memory of the Holocaust for political gain or to "win" an argument is a betrayal of the history of our people, and you have no business calling yourself a good Jew if you do so.

Well, when you're making an academic argument, of course it matters if it's academically sound. And when you don't have any or much knowledge in the field you're writing about, that will always affect your final product. For example, I'm perfectly entitled to write about astro-physics, but my opinion means squat compared to someone with a PHD in that field. That means when Ali writes off the entirety of Islam without ever studying it, her opinions don't carry much weight except with people who have an equally ignorant understanding of the subject. ie - I might be able to fool folks who don't know anything abotu astro-physics, but does that mean that my opinion is as valid as Stephen Hawking? I'm willing to bet good money that Ali's audience is overwhelmingly white, non-Muslim, and conservative. I myself have never met any Muslim that has anything positive to say about her, and have never read anything from a respected Muslim author, scholar, academic, etc. that supports her views either. It stems primarily from her "Islam is evil in and of itself" approach - it's no suprise that Muslims reject her views - they leave no room to be Muslim and good, because in her mind, all Muslims are followers of an evil religion. I've already spoke about Manji's audience as well. Her new film demonstrates she's evolving, and I think she's realized that you can't really affect change within a community if you're not writing/working FOR that community. Her last book was written more for non-muslims than it was Muslims. Her approach used to be one of chastizing the community from the outside, which is never as affective as working with people to change things from withing, which is what she seems to be moving towards. However I still think she has a long way to go before she reaches the influence and respect that people like Tariq Ramadan, Yusef Ali, or Reza Aslan have.

For the Tamil minority, yes they do. They certainly don't believe in national Sri Lankan democracy, but then again, neither do the Sinhalese - otherwise they wouldn't have been dominating Tamils as they've done since long before independence.

Ali is a joke, both academically on the issue of Islam, and with Muslims as well. She has absolutely no scholarly knowledge of Islam, her entire argument is based on this "My personal experience with Islam was terrible, so therefor it must be a terrible religion, end of story." It's like someone who was raised in an abusive family by a reverend going on to hate Christianity and Christians in general and thinking that it/they are evil. (incidentally a close friend of mind had that kind of upbringing, but doesn't engage in the bigoted hate-mongering, so what's Ali's excuse? She's obviously smarter than that). I mean, we're talking about the woman who on national TV tried to say "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" (of course, she couldn't do it straight-faced, she was smirking. Either she is delusional or she makes dishonest arguments. Either way she can't be classified as a reformer, because she isn't Muslim, she's an athiest now. You can really only be a reformer if you are actually PART of a community, and I'd go on to say that you'd have to have some pull within a community to be considered a true one. Manji's argument has developed since her first position, which I have to agree with Tarek Fatah's statement, which filed the role of giving comfort to non-muslims who need reasons to justify their hatred of Islam. Back then when her book launched I was at another launch for a book my friend wrote for, and it was mainly queer Muslim women who contributed to it - yet they were all clowning on Manji, mainly because she was speaking more to white, non-Muslim society than she was other Muslims, yet she was claiming to be a reformer? Didn't make any sense. But she seems to have taken the criticism and is trying to speak more to Muslims with her new writing. Ali on the other hand is just straight up playing to the xenophobic instincts of a segment of white/non-muslim society. She has absolutely no intentions of reforming Islam, and her argument has no solutions to any of the problems which she describes (some which don't exist anywhere but in her mind, others which are blown out of proportion, and others which although exaggerated are legit). The only solution she seems to have is for all Muslims to convert to something else (completely unrealistic), or some sort of global war on Islam (no wonder she's working for the American Enterprise Institute now!) In short, I don't really see how this woman is a reformer at all. I'd much rather talk about the efforts of someone like Reza Aslan, who unlike the two women mentioned has made Islam, religion and politics his field of study, and speaks as a Muslim to both his community and society in general.

You could easily put the Sinhalese government on the terrorist list as well. Both sides have targeted civilians, one just does so with suicide blasts and admits to it, the other one does it with airstrikes and pretends like a refugee camp was a "terrorist training facility" - if by that they mean the nurseries where the kids who survived the air attack and will grow up to join the Tigers because of it, well then I guess it was a training facility in a way.

Did you even read the article? What he's saying is that the entire purpose of education for kids from families with inattentive, or straight up bad parents, is that it should fill the void. Education in his words, is supposed to be a safety net for kids from bad families. It's supposed to be the one thing that breaks the cycle (ie - these kids grow up and pass on the bad traits they learned from their parents onto their kids). Frankly, if a parent doesn't care about their kid to the point of neglect, they're not going to care when a bunch of people start chastising them, either. They simply don't care.

Of course, that's not the whole picture. In order for any terrorist group to function, they have to recieve support from a portion of a country's population. In countries where terrorism is most active, this comes from people who are, a - oppressed in some way, and b - uneducated. It's this support which allows them to operate - if searches are being conducted, they have sympathizers willing to hide them, people willing to form a supply chain for things like materials to make explosives so that the various ingredients don't look like they're being purchased by the same individual, etc. It's no coincidence that the countries with the most terrorist activity were and are also those which were the most repressive or where there was much illiteracy. Seeing as how I have read quite a bit of the Qu'ran, I guess we were reading different books or something. Because while it's not a pacifist's manual (Islam never claims to be pacifist), it's not aggressively violent either. And it reflects those historical contexts, while at the same time for the first time clearly defining codes of conduct centred around social justice issues. The only time Muslims are supposed to wage war on anyone is when there literally is no other choice, when the other side refuses to negotiate, and their own community is under a direct, life-or-death threat. I've always wondered how people who believe that "Islam is the enemy" feel that not a single head of state agrees with them? That no major political party agrees with them, and that this rationale won't see the light of day in any policy circle. And just how do you go about fighting all of the adherents of a religion that's 1.5 billion strong, including your own countrymen, without ceasing to be a democracy, and not becoming a blatantly Imperial, genocidal power? And where would you get the oil from in a global crusade against Islam, anyway? It always seems like this argument is more about someone venting their anger towards their idea of Islam than actual logic and practicality.

Stop dancing . . . Why did you claim a passage in the Qu'ran was calling Jews in general "apes" when in fact it was referring to those specific Jews who practiced idolatry during Moses' absence as he ascended Mount Sinai? Why did you take a passage completely out of its historical and literary context? Did you do this because you have no actual learned or lived knowledge of Islam and therefor didn't even realize what the passage was talking about? Or because you're distorting facts to fit your anti-religious/anti-Islamic agenda? Which one is it? And I'm sorry, but when you're debating a religion in an secular, academic context, your religious/non-religious orientation doesn't matter. Just like if we were in an African studies class, it wouldn't matter what our ethnic background was - what matters is your argument.