Is it OK to insult Islam in Canada?

[Michael Hardner]

Any violence is unaceptable, but the level of violence is pretty heavily exaggerated. I've seen a number of the reports on it and when you get past the big red numbers into definitions you find that the people behind the studies - usually womens rights activists - have pretty broadly defined the term "violence" to include everything down to and including being shouted at. If you use the same terms and definitions for men you'd find that violence against men is much worse. Has anyone ever asked a man whether or not he'd ever been the victim of violence? Of course not! We all have.

You do have some points, but in a society that is extremely restrictive I'm not surprised that that country has less violence against women. Like Adam & Eve leaving the garden, coming to Canada gives everyone more control over their own lives but less protection.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it leaves pleanty to be desired....but the sheer numbers in Pakistan (90%) blow ours away, by capita and in total.

In any case, it's an apples-and-oranges comparison. They are denied basic freedoms.

Slave owners also didn't allow others to damage his property.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a tricky line to navigate - to value the aspects of one's one culture (openness, balancing of individual vs. collective rights) while seeing the value of other cultures as well.

I don't think those other cultures mentioned provide enough consideration for the rights of women but there's a saying about glass houses and throwing stones that comes to mind. To stretch the metaphor, we may not live in glass houses but we do have windows so I don't feel comfortable throwing stones.

Here's Susan G. Cole of NOW Magazine, saying pretty much the same thing:

Cultural Faceoff

But we in the West have our own patriarchal pressures, especially those related to conventional ideas of beauty.

Think about yo-yo dieting plans that fleece desperate women for profit. Or consider those high-priced surgeons cutting up women’s bodies and faces, sometimes disfiguring them. You may not love the niqab, but at least it doesn’t cut into female flesh to uphold an impossible standard of ageless beauty.

Botox anyone? It’ll addict you for the rest of your life.

...

And before any of you write to me inviting me to move to Saudi Arabia, let me be clear. I’d rather live in Canada.

Just like those women wearing the niqab in Quebec.

[Argus]

That's ridiculous. Nobody should feel guilty for what happened hundreds of years ago. There is a difference between being guilty and being responsible. If my grandfather stole something years ago, and passed it on to me without my knowledge I have no reason to feel guilty. Once I find out that this was the case, however, I have responsibility to return the object.

Nevertheless, you know full well the Left has a sense of collectice guilt over the misdeeds or imagined misdeeds of our ancestors, from how we treated natives to how we treated minorities, women, etc. Thus you have these sorts of people.

White and Guilty

[Bonam]

White and Guilty

Haha that is pretty messed up.

[Bonam]

Nevertheless, you know full well the Left has a sense of collectice guilt over the misdeeds or imagined misdeeds of our ancestors, from how we treated natives to how we treated minorities, women, etc. Thus you have these sorts of people.

White and Guilty

Actually I am surprised. Reading some of the other articles on that site, it amounts to quite a rebuke and illustration of the ridiculousness of "white guilt" and modern liberal notions of "anti-racism". With this showing up in a prominent paper like the national post, perhaps the tide is beginning to turn.

[Michael Hardner]

Nevertheless, you know full well the Left has a sense of collectice guilt over the misdeeds or imagined misdeeds of our ancestors, from how we treated natives to how we treated minorities, women, etc. Thus you have these sorts of people.

White and Guilty

Guilt is two things: it an emotion, and it is felt by individuals and it is a measure of culpability.

As with most things human, there is the emotional/poetic axis and the logical/rational axis upon which things are considered. Both considerations are valid, though. Certainly there are emotional impressions of our society felt by the right as well - such as 'pride'.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Rather than moralising from non existent, in the entirety of the picture superiority platform we could for once turn to ourselves and clean our own act so that in time (of their own choosing) the others could look at our model and maybe try to follow, in their own way and out of their own will. But that would be too hard an undertaking, professing empty words backed by little practical act is a lot more practical (i.e affordable) strategy, ne c'est pas?

Yea - because as a society we spend no time at all self-flagellating eevery aspect of ourselves. LOL!

"We're ruining the planet! We're resposible for 9-11! We need to discuss racism! We need to examine the mysoginy that lurks within all men!"

Sound like something we never do? Sounds more like a weekend watching CBC and CNN to me.

The definition of a nanosecond: The time between a terrorist attack and someone in the west explaining how we were asking for it.

We need to spend more time self-examining and self-criticising? Give me a freaking break. All we do is self-criticize. Perhaps if Islam had a few more Irshad Manjis and a a lot less nutjobs we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Edited April 17, 2010 by JerrySeinfeld

[JerrySeinfeld]

It's a tricky line to navigate - to value the aspects of one's one culture (openness, balancing of individual vs. collective rights) while seeing the value of other cultures as well.

I don't think those other cultures mentioned provide enough consideration for the rights of women but there's a saying about glass houses and throwing stones that comes to mind. To stretch the metaphor, we may not live in glass houses but we do have windows so I don't feel comfortable throwing stones.

Here's Susan G. Cole of NOW Magazine, saying pretty much the same thing:

Cultural Faceoff

It's a bizzare behavior: everytime someone mentions saudi officials pushing uncovered little girls back into a burning building, someone here at home brings up Jenny Craig - as if there is a moral equivalency.

Women are not opressed in this country. Not in the least. Women are free to choose their own career, their own religion, where they wish to live, with whom they wish to associate, what they wish to eat, wear, read, listen to, vote for. Women are given virtually every advantage including favourable college and university admission standards, reduced expectations (a lower bar) for employment criteria in some cases and even their own university departments (women's studies) - ever seen a "department of men's studies" in a Canadian university?

It makes me ill when I see people like Susan Cole try the logical acrobatics of drawing a moral equivalency between a mysoginistic murderous theocracy and Canada. But I supppose when you're life's goal is to find new and creative ways to criticizee your own culture and embolden objectively barbaric and inferior ones, you'll say pretty much anything.

Edited April 17, 2010 by JerrySeinfeld

[Born Free]

The definition of a nanosecond: The time between a terrorist attack and someone in the west explaining how we were asking for it.

I can almost hear the same kind of conversation going on in Baghdad....

Whats the definition of a nanosecond? The time it takes between a Cruise missle killing my family and someone in the west blaming us for something we didnt do...

[Shady]

"May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity"

"Doesn't South Park Remember Theo Van Gogh?"

Link

[JerrySeinfeld]

What exactly are you condemning ? The country, the culture of that country or the religion ?

Muddy is pretty specific about condemning the religion. I'm fine with someone being critical of barbaric practices in any culture, as long as the critic has a broad knowledge and is not just exercising chauvinism under the guise of cultural criticism. And of course, said person should also be aware of practices done by other religions, otherwise what is driving their criticism ?

You'll probably find that the number of posters here who can provide objective criticism on such topics is extremely limited, and overshadowed by the Lictors of the board who claim to wear a mortarboard, but really wear the bedsheet...

Michael I believe the mistake you've made here - and one that many Muslim apologists make - is that Islam is more than a religion; it is a political project, which envelopes the arenas of culture, government, freedom of speech, etc.

How else would you explain the Canadian Islamic Congress trying to shut down Mark Steyn or Ezra levant? The motivation certainly wasn't because anyone was preventing them from worship. No. The motivation has more to do with a prominent Islamic group attempting to dominate and overturn our fundamental freedoms in the charter, simply because they are "insulted". CIC isn't a "fringe group" - but a mainstream representation of Muslims in Canada. The complaints against Steyn were based upon one simple premise: making the any negative public remarks about Islam in Canada de facto against the law. Can you think of any countries like that? How about Saudi Arabia, which means the action taken against Steyn was a veiled attempt at importing Saudi style values onto Canadians.

We are all lucky that MacLeans and Steyn had the cojones to stand up and fight. Any lesser person or organization would have been censured, found "guilty" (100% conviction rate at the HRC) and paid a hefty fine, making the idea of ever criticizing Islam in public a very dangerous and expensive one for anyone who chose to go there.

Hence the title question.

You yourself have chosen to criticize other religions an cultures on this page. You should be thankful you enjoy this right, but by excercising that right you have answered my question: yes it should be OK to insult any religion, and Islam is not beyond debate, not should it be.

If the CIC had won, we would be that much closer to Sharia in this very country.

The very fact that the CIC took this case to "trial" is evidence of the Islamic community's lack of respect for the fundamental institutions upon which our society (and other societies) is founded.

In their minds, it is "Islam first, fundamental freedoms second". This lack of respect, or at the very least, understanding, for the foundation of democracy is troubling, no?

Edited April 17, 2010 by JerrySeinfeld

[Keepitsimple]

Here's some more food for thought:

Canadian takes on Islamist movement

Tariq Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. MB is the oldest and most powerful Islamist organization in the Arab world with deep pockets — resources donated by followers and petrodollar rulers in the Middle East.

The ingenuity of al-Banna was to organize MB as a social movement with a political mission by appropriating Islam as its ideological flag. The political mission is to establish shariah-based rule in the Muslim world.

MB’s mission in the West is to gain recognition from governments as the sole authoritative representative of Islam and with this seal of approval, provided on the basis of multiculturalism, build segregated enclaves for Muslims where shariah directives prevail.

Tariq Ramadan is the charming face of this transnational movement operating out of the Islamic Centre in Geneva, Switzerland, founded by his father Said Ramadan.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2010/04/16/13614511.html

[Michael Hardner]

It makes me ill when I see people like Susan Cole try the logical acrobatics of drawing a moral equivalency between a mysoginistic murderous theocracy and Canada.

I don't think that's exactly what she did - after all she did say that she prefers Canada.

[Oleg Bach]

NO you do not insult Islam or assualt anyone physically or verbally..why stick your hand in a growling dogs mouth? It is fool hardy and only leads to injury of all parties..I remember sueing a Jewish orgainization and they wrote that my family were "nominal Christians" - as if we were barbaric infidels not worthy of respect..it was astounding how a Jew would make themselves expert in the field of Christianity. IT is also astounding that we would even consider insulting Islam when none of us are expert enough to give a correct and accurate critizism of the doctrine.

WHEN the Jews attempted to remove our importance and heritage along with our Christian dignity by saying we were nothing it was an insult and brought about some resentment as you see...it was a mistake on their part and it is a mistake on our part to persecute Islam--even if some persecute and detest us--we are superiour if we maintain our non-secular approach- but once our faith is forfiet so are our rights.

[JerrySeinfeld]

NO you do not insult Islam or assualt anyone physically or verbally..why stick your hand in a growling dogs mouth? It is fool hardy and only leads to injury of all parties..I remember sueing a Jewish orgainization and they wrote that my family were "nominal Christians" - as if we were barbaric infidels not worthy of respect..it was astounding how a Jew would make themselves expert in the field of Christianity. IT is also astounding that we would even consider insulting Islam when none of us are expert enough to give a correct and accurate critizism of the doctrine.

WHEN the Jews attempted to remove our importance and heritage along with our Christian dignity by saying we were nothing it was an insult and brought about some resentment as you see...it was a mistake on their part and it is a mistake on our part to persecute Islam--even if some persecute and detest us--we are superiour if we maintain our non-secular approach- but once our faith is forfiet so are our rights.

Interesing clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_83AZD4TgoQ&feature=related

[JerrySeinfeld]

I can almost hear the same kind of conversation going on in Baghdad....

Whats the definition of a nanosecond? The time it takes between a Cruise missle killing my family and someone in the west blaming us for something we didnt do...

What colour is the sky in your world? Certainly innocents died in the Iraq war - UNINTENTIONALLY.

But if you're going to draw a moral equivalence between Islam and the west, you might want to pick another area for comparison. It's pretty common knowledge that in the contest for killing innocent civilians, Islam gets the gold medal

[Born Free]

What colour is the sky in your world? Certainly innocents died in the Iraq war - UNINTENTIONALLY.

But if you're going to draw a moral equivalence between Islam and the west, you might want to pick another area for comparison. It's pretty common knowledge that in the contest for killing innocent civilians, Islam gets the gold medal

I draw no moral equivalence.

The intention was to invade and conquer Iraq based on a bunch of facts that were not true. It was accomplished. Many many civilians died unnecessarily as a result. Ergo, the conversation in Baghdad that I cited was as valid as the definition you profered...

[JerrySeinfeld]

I draw no moral equivalence.

The intention was to invade and conquer Iraq based on a bunch of facts that were not true. It was accomplished. Many many civilians died unnecessarily as a result. Ergo, the conversation in Baghdad that I cited was as valid as the definition you profered...

Iraq is a free country thanks to the war that was won. Democracy, human rights, freedom.

Good riddance Saddam, Chemical Ali and the rest.

[Born Free]

Iraq is a free country thanks to the war that was won.

So you think....nonetheless, my comparison is no less relevant than your was.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Born Free

[Sir Bandelot]

Iraq is a free country thanks to the war that was won. Democracy, human rights, freedom.

Good riddance Saddam, Chemical Ali and the rest.

Says you. We don't even know how many civilians died. Was it 50,000 or 500,000? Either way they paid the price. I wonder how many Saddam would have killed in that time?

To quote Jean Kirkpatrick, a woman whom I admire for her intellectual capacity:

"Autocrats do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in that society, learn to cope ."

Meaning that it is CHANGE that is actually more unbearable. And that is what was done to them. They are closer to harsh theocracy now than they ever were under Saddam, despite his dictatorship.

Meet the new boss...

Edited April 18, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Handsome Rob]

Iraq is a free country thanks to the war that was won. Democracy, human rights, freedom.

Good riddance Saddam, Chemical Ali and the rest.

In what sense? The Yugoslavian one? Is that why Iraq is now the most dangerous nation in the world to reside in?

I don't think it's a far fetched extrapolation to say the Country may fragment, along religious or ethnic lines.

[Muddy]

Michael , please assure Ms Cole no one for religious reasons or cultural reasons will force her to undergo any of the procedures mentioned,to inhance her beauty or lack of it. Such is the freedom of womens rights in North America thank goodness.

[Argus]

In what sense? The Yugoslavian one? Is that why Iraq is now the most dangerous nation in the world to reside in?

I don't think it's a far fetched extrapolation to say the Country may fragment, along religious or ethnic lines.

That was always an assumption, even before the first war against Saddam. Like Yugoslavia, the strongman was the only thing holding that country together against centuries old internal divisions and hatreds. Iraq only had two scenarios; continued tyranny by a strongman, or a bloody civil war - like Yugoslavia.

What you've seen in Iraq the last few years is what a civil war looks like with a quarter million foreign troops there to keep a lid on things. Their presence gave a number of Iraqis the opportunity and time to get their crap together and consider other ways of settling disputes besides bombs and bullets. That's not to say Iraqis have clear sailing now, but they do have a chance - which they would not have otherwise had.

[JerrySeinfeld]

That was always an assumption, even before the first war against Saddam. Like Yugoslavia, the strongman was the only thing holding that country together against centuries old internal divisions and hatreds. Iraq only had two scenarios; continued tyranny by a strongman, or a bloody civil war - like Yugoslavia.

What you've seen in Iraq the last few years is what a civil war looks like with a quarter million foreign troops there to keep a lid on things. Their presence gave a number of Iraqis the opportunity and time to get their crap together and consider other ways of settling disputes besides bombs and bullets. That's not to say Iraqis have clear sailing now, but they do have a chance - which they would not have otherwise had.

Indeed. Those who still insist on 2006 thinking on Iraq mustn't havee read a newspaper sincce then. The odd car bomb aside (nothing Paris, Israel, London don't experience), Iraq is a changed place from 4 years ago. Some people don't wish to recognize that fact.