“I want to go to Canada with my passport,” he said. “For those without documents, I think (the United States) is over. Now it’s Canada’s turn.”
This is a glorious development to witness:
A caretaker government has been running Belgium since June, setting a post-war record for a period without government.
I wonder how long it will take before people wake up and realize that they do not need government the way they thought they did.
The longer this ship sails, the sooner it will dawn on folks that the names on the ballot boxes do not identify the power of the state.
With Quebec struggling through reasonable accomodation issues in order to preserve their heritage, France has just voted 335 to 1 on a total ban on of face-covering veils in public spaces.
Similar laws are pending in Belgium, Spain and some Italian municipalities.
Is this the way the wind is beginning to blow in Western Societies? I’m both encouraged and dismayed if this is true. Not specifically about the veils, but rather by the attitudes behind it.
As far as being encouraged goes, I’m pleased to see countries and societies standing up for their own way of life and culture and protecting it from being trampled over by the stampede of Cultural (Reasonable) Accommodation. I’ve previously discussed this issue in other aspects here, and here.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The reason why so many people want to come to Canada is because it was such a wonderful, stable, and respectful country. We had clear values and respect for one another’s differences. What brought us to that status was a legacy inherited from Britain and France of a predominately Christian philosophy and a structured but flexible legal system based on basic Christian values.
Just as Quebec and France and other countries have been trying to do, I agree that if faced with protecting my culture (which is what has made Canada for example, a wonderful place to live and why people want to come here) that there should be conditions upon migrating to my country.
Foremost, I want to ensure that migrants understand that when they come to Canada, it is to pursue a better life in a Canadian manner, not to seek to rebuild the country in an image of how they would have rather seen their country of origin under those cultural rules.
Increasingly, other countries are saying ‘We are not some place to be considered a tolerant blank-slate-state that you can come in and change to suit your own beliefs’.
I say that there is nothing wrong with this.
I appreciate the differences that other cultures and individuals bring with them, but I recognize that not all of it can, or should be tolerated in Canada. (see Sharia Law, Honor “Crimes”, etc). Those things are not Canadian and have no place in Canadian Society or Culture. Time and again, I’ve seen other countries stomp on those who say “In my country…” with an immediate and sometimes hostile “You are not in your country!”.
Why are we in Western Societies so afraid to do the same? Is this some form of White Guilt/Wealth Guilt/Survivor Guilt etc? Are we so ashamed of our own cultures and ways of life that we are unwilling as citizens to stand up and defend it?
And why should I be dismayed by this? Frankly, I’m dismayed that there is only a small handful of countries getting on board with protecting themselves and their own ways of life and culture from outside influences.
Personally, I’m willing to say “This is my country and my way of life and my home. If you choose to come to live in my house, there are different rules you’ll have to live by. If that’s unacceptable to you, then I respectfully suggest you find someplace else more to your liking.”
And there’s nothing wrong with that.
With Aqsa Parvez finally resting peacefully, her murderers — her very own father and brother — sentenced to the Canadian-style “life in prison” with no chance of parole for 18 years, it’s time for the religious equivalence and multiculturalist types to step forward again and declare that “honour killing,” which I more accurately define as honour murder, is not just Islam’s problem.
Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP – it’s the bloody patriarchy, stupid!
There is a huge misconception that these crimes occur because of certain religious beliefs. There is no religion that condones the murder of women. It’s the feudal/patriarchal culture of male dominance and control that’s the culprit.
Dr. Amin Muhammad, Professor of Psychiatry at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador – it’s not just Islam, stupid!
While many recent cases in Western society involve Muslims, Dr. Muhammad said honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity.
To which I say: While it may be true that “honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity,” the numbers pale in comparison to the thousands of females murdered each year around the world in the name of Islam for the sake of family honour.
Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the “dishonour” of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.
It is dishonest at best to survey the numbers of honour murders committed by Muslims, along with the allowances for honour murder within the legal structures of Islamic nations, such as Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, which can be seen as a tacit endorsement of the practice, and then suggest equivalency among faiths when a handful of honour murders are committed by members of other faiths. Honour murder is a much greater problem for Islam than it is for other faiths and it is ludicrous to even suggest otherwise.
As for endorsement within religious texts, Dosanjh and Muhammed are correct that no religion condones honour murder per se, but they should have been more careful to point out the caveats under Islam that have led to the widespread acceptance of honour murder within Islamic tradition. As an example, Christianity, the faith I know best, provides no justification whatsoever to murder one’s own children or one’s wife, whereas the Qur’an Sura 18 arguably allows for the killing of children not even your own as long as you’ve accurately determined a child will grow up as a non-believer. (How that determination is made, I have no clue.)
Does honour murder occur in other faiths? Yes. Under which faith is it most prevalent, by far? Islam. Which nations tacitly endorse the practice through caveats of law? Islamic nations. That’s the point that must be accepted before reform can be realized, and it’s the critical point that Dosanjh and others prefer to gloss over to our collective detriment.
I credit Dosanjh in one respect, though; his reference to the role political correctness in shaping the response to honour murder.
… political correctness prevents us from demanding that the cultural norms that justify such heinous practices as honour killings have no place anywhere in the world. We must never be too sensitive to call a spade a spade.
As if on cue, some on the pro-dhimmi side are already suggesting Canadian judges should take “cultural practices,” such as honour killing, into consideration out of respect for (I say genuflection at the altar of) multiculturalism. Scaramouche, via Mark Steyn:
John Oakley is seriously entertaining the question of whether Canadian judges should give those who commit “honour” killings a break because they have different “cultural practices” and may not be aware of our norms and laws; defence attorney Lawrence Ben-Eliezer thinks judges should take these differences into consideration because we have “multiculturalism”.
Canadians, of course, are already aware of what “taking these differences into consideration” means: preferential treatment of en vogue “victim” groups of the political left. What Canadians are less aware of, in my opinion, is the tangible threat posed to Western society by ardent multiculturalism, our Achilles heel.
Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry is an idiot.