The French language debate – a rite in which each leader demonstrates his or her grasp of French and Quebec issues – turned up something interesting. Mulcair and Trudeau think the niqab is perfectly suitable attire for taking your citizenship oath: Harper and Duceppe don’t.
Neither, it turns out, do 80% of Canadians and 90% of Quebecers. There’s a fine old fight going on at Dawg’s blog in which Dawg himself says,
The niqab, after all, is just synedoche for the Muslim presence in Canada. In the service of hatred and fear, articles of ethnic clothing are completely interchangeable.
The electorate has become a mob. And how easy it was. dr.dawg
While I certainly don’t agree that the electorate has become a mob, I think Dawg is exactly right when he says that the niqab has become “synedoche for the Muslim presence in Canada” (synedoche means a part which represents the whole (yes, I had to look it up too)).
All of a sudden the people of Canada have the opportunity to express their views about Muslim immigration. Perhaps not directly – after all the niqab is not a particularly good proxy for Islam as it is not required religiously and not all Muslim women feel compelled to wear it – but far more overtly than the topic has ever been broached before.
Dawg ascribes all manner of sinister motives to Harper, his Aussie advisor and the CPC in bringing this up at all. For all I know this may very well be an exercise in wedge politics. If it is then it is about time that this wedge be tested.
Immigration policy in Canada has never really been put to any sort of popular test. Nor has the ruling class’s conviction that the only thing which matters about Islam is Islamophobia. Dawg lines up nicely with the ruling class and, in the lively comments, states,
There IS no legitimate debate about the degree a government should be prepared to extend human rights to minorities. Rights should never be up for debate, and frankly I don’t give a damn what Chantal (Hebert) says to the contrary. dr dawg
Apparently, well over 80% of Canadians disagree with this position.
Partially, I think, the debate turns on whether one sees Muslim immigration as just another instance of immigration or if one sees such immigration, particularly from the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia, as potentially more problematic than other sorts of immigration.
There are thousands of Muslim immigrants to Canada who lead rich, full integrated lives as Canadians. I am thinking particularly of the several hundred thousand Ismailis who arrived as refugees in the 1970s and have gone on to build vibrant, integrated communities all over Canada.
However, there is a growing minority of Muslims who have moved to Canada but who seem incapable of leaving their old countries, customs and culture behind. The burkas at Walmart are one thing, the demand for segregated swimming times another, the terrorism and support for Sharia law yet another.
Over at Dawg’s the argument seems to be that even noticing that there are Muslim immigrants who do not integrate well into Canadian society is bigoted or racist. Which it may well be; but Canadians have the right to at least discuss how they would like their country to evolve. Should we welcome immigrants from parts of the world where anti-Semitism is matter of fact? Where women are treated as chattels? Where support for the barbarity of Sharia law is a religious duty?
Harper – perhaps by design, perhaps by accident – has given Canadians the opportunity to discuss and, maybe, vote based upon their particular answer to the question of whether, in general, we should accommodate the religious, cultural and political demands of Islam.
I suspect he has won the election by giving Canadians that choice.
[And, as a bonus, I rather doubt that there are any Canadians other than the editorial board of the Globe and Mail, who don’t take a certain satisfaction when convicted terrorists are stripped of their Canadian citizenship. Just as few Canadians lamented when various Nazi war criminals lost their citizenship.]
85% of Canadians believe that you should eat salad with your salad fork, not with your dessert fork.
0% of Canadian believe that we should have a law making it compulsory to should eat salad with your salad fork.
Jay, have you ever considered that maybe this face covering fetish is win-win?
I find it sad that so many read the trivial or banal musings of various popular blogs and forums, and so few seem to come around here where they could find a worthwhile offering.
Still, that’s the trend of modern times, anything before substance. Total clueless ignorance? There’s an app for that. (in fact, I was just reading it before I came here)
I’m okay with gays, gay marriage, women being treated as equals, freedom of/from religion, and the freedom to criticise religion. I am therefore required by both logic and honour to oppose Islam in all its forms. It’s that simple. Islam — a religion that edifies the teachings of a sick, violent pedophile (according to their own scriptures) — is incompatible with modern civilization.
“I’m okay with gays, gay marriage…”
So you have the same problem with Catholicism?
” Should we welcome immigrants from parts of the world where anti-Semitism is matter of fact? Where women are treated as chattels?”
Yes and yes. Canada and America has been taking immigrants from such places for eons. There have always been hysterical cries of ‘they’re taking our country away’ and it has always been hysterical baseless BS every time. The CAGW of the right.
“I rather doubt that there are any Canadians other than the editorial board of the Globe and Mail, who don’t take a certain satisfaction when convicted terrorists are stripped of their Canadian citizenship.”
C-51: bad arbitrary government power.
Citizenship revocation: good arbitrary government power.
Well, now we are being offered a hotline to report barbaric cultural practices.
I suppose it would be considered mischief to include C-51. Perhaps a more friendly reception would be offered a complaint of too many Leaf games on TV.
They’ve seen something they like in the rear view mirror, and I suppose the p.c. left had this coming, after all, they have had their own hotlines for years (name and shame, keep out of the classroom, and off campus, not to mention the civil service). So I find it rather amusing to see the far left all in a bother about this boomerang effect.
I guess it all boils down to a dislike of contracting out.
As to radical Muslims being essentially no different from earlier waves of immigrants, umm, not so much. Not only are they different, they are alien. The obligation to take them in was invented by radical leftists for no other reason than the faint hope that they might turn on the right before the left, which seems unlikely — jihad is an equal opportunity form of genocide and being a leftist will not save your bearded head. Perhaps I am too cynical, perhaps they think that a flood of radical Muslims will improve our country and its culture. Let’s look at the Swedish example. Case closed.