Our Changing Landscape

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the View from the Right

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:36:00 +0000

Lawrence Auster at The View From the Right has linked to my recent post "All about Ayaan" on the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I have never liked Ali. I found her to be contemptuous of Christianity. I personally believe that the antidote to Islam is not atheism, but Christianity. Christianity is the route that the former Muslim Sam Solomon has taken. Ali has gone the godless way. Even the normally "lite" Mark Steyn agrees with me, according to the quote that Lawrence Auster provides.

Jesus and Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:36:00 +0000

Frontpage Magazine has an interesting article comparing the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus the Muslims discuss in the Koran, titled: Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jesus of Neverland.

The article has a lot of interesting information. One is the flat out contradictions between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of the Koran. The writer (William Kilkpatrick) asks pertinent questions to determine the authenticity of the sources (the Bible vs. the Koran). He discusses how the Islamic version of Jesus falls apart when put under the same scrutiny as that of Jesus of the Bible.

I think one of the most rigorous arguments for the existence of the Jesus of the Bible is all the narrations that depict his presence, his words and his actions. The Jesus of the Koran, on the other hand, has no personality or even a presence. He appears like a disembodied spirit. Here is what the author writes about him:

The Jesus of the Koran appears mainly in the role of a counter to the Jesus of the Gospels, but “appears” is really too strong a word. This Jesus doesn’t attend weddings, or go fishing with his disciples, or gather children around him. He has practically no human interactions, and what he has to say is formulaic and repetitive. He is more like a disembodied voice than a person. And, to put it bluntly, he lacks personality.

The author claims that this Jesus in the Koran "appears mainly in the role of a counter to the Jesus of the Gospels." It is an interesting argument. Do read the whole thing to get more insights into one of the most fake religions of the world. The more I learn about Islam, the more I realize that it was created on the backs of Christianity. The Anti-Christ if ever there was one.

We certainly have our enemies chiseled just right for us.

Burqua Prejudice

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:22:00 +0000

Frontpage Magazine has published an article of mine: Burqua Prejudice. You can read it here, with interesting comments by readers following the article.

I must say, I like the ambiguous photo that FPM has put up of the Fabulous Four. If I were a Muslim (and even not), I wouldn't want the women in my culture to dress and look the way they do. We don't have to be Muslim to be modest.

The Future King of England and Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:43:00 +0000

I wrote a couple of days ago about the deep spiritual manoeuvrings that are going on to Islamicize Palestine. This is of course happening in Europe (Eurabia) and the United States and Canada too. I don't think it is simply a structural strategy - putting mosques up, demanding sharia, including sharia financing in banks, building Islamic religious schools, etc. etc. I think it a psychic and spiritual take-over as well. The end result is of course a world populated with Muslims. But, it would be much easier, and much more efficient, if this occurred through conversions.

As I've said on this blog, I think all this Muslim infusion is not simply a take-over, and later a subjugation, of the host population. But an attempt to get deep into the skins of these non-Muslims, so that they will suddenly spontaneously combust into Muslims.

Here is the "Christian" future King of England, and Head of the Church of England, tying together environmentalism with Islam. Granted he is speaking in the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, so one could argue that he might be allowed to say a couple of nice things about Islam. But, this isn't the first time one has cause to question his relationship with Islam; even Daniel Pipes has speculated on it.

A normal, patriotic future King of England would find it hard to praise a foreign religion in any way (perhaps a respectful nod in a diplomatic fashion could be expected). But a full on:

The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason - and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us...

Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.

is surely indicative of a mind that is amenable to the messages of the Koran?

This quote could be out of context since it is one of a few available at the source the Daily Mail. Perhaps he said more positive things about Christianity in the same speech. But still, the fact that the Mail only quoted this part of the speech reveals where their thoughts are. And I still argue that the comment is far too Islam-positive for a future King of England, who presumes to head her Church as well.

The most important quote, which I presume also comes directly from the Prince's speech, is what heads the article:

"Follow the Islamic say to save the world," Prince Charles urges environmentalists

Ground Zero Mosque Protest

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:47:00 +0000

Stop Islamization of America poster
for the planned rally against the
Ground Zero mosque,
with event schedule

[Click on image to see a larger poster]

Kudos to Pamela Geller, of Atlas Shrugs and Stop Islamization of America, who has organized a rally today to stop the "Ground Zero" mosque that is planned. Even the pathetic CBC is reporting on it, and mentioned her organization SIOA by name. Their argument is that this mosque is being built by moderate Muslims, who need a place where they can practice their religion of peace in peace, since they are nothing like their radical counterparts who blew up the Twin Towers. Therefore, these CBC geniuses conclude, these conservative (read evil, here) movements need to be stopped.

The Spiritual Source of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Allah vs. God

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:52:00 +0000

Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon, two prominent scholars and chroniclers of Islam, were the speakers at yesterday's event organized by the International Free Press Society- Canada, and the Free Thinking Film Society. When I went to the venue, which was at a synagogue in the northern limits of Toronto, my only concern was that I wouldn't be able to get there on time due to the heavy traffic exacerbated by road construction. I made it in ample time. But the synagogue became more significant than just a venue. Bat Ye'or started her presentation by saying that this is the first time she has given a speech in a synagogue. Sam Solomon's speech was titled, "Islam and its eternal enmity towards the Jews." So, a synagogue was infinitely appropriate for this very important conference, where both Bat Ye'or and Solomon repeatedly reminded the predominantly Jewish audience that Muslim enmity towards them is very real, and growing daily.

Sam Solomon spoke first. I dutifully took my notebook and pen at hand, to jot down his words. But, after his first sentence, it was clear that we were in front of a formidable orator, and it was better just to listen. Solomon, a former Muslim, is now a Christian. He was a Muslim scholar and sharia law expert. His introduction to the majority Jewish audience was to plead forgiveness for having condemned and maligned them in his former days while a devout Muslim. Then he plunged right into Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel, which he says is inaccurately attributed to the creation of modern-day Israel. He explains that this deep-seated hatred goes to the origins of Islam, when the Jews rejected Muhammad's newly-created religion, and he condemned them for it. Solomon has a new book out, which bears the same title as his presentation: Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews.

The extraordinary effect of a former Muslim, who cites chapter and verse of the Koran in Arabic in order to gets his message across, is mesmerizing. Solomon has an incredible oratory voice despite his slight build; a voice which could have easily traveled across the large room without a microphone. His citations in Arabic conjure up images of a Muhammad throwing out these phrases in fits of fury (or Allah's fury, to acknowledge Muhammad's source). The harsh guttural sounds of Arabic almost need no translation into English; we know that these words are not said in love or compassion, but in hatred and destruction. Jew hatred, in Islam, is not an incidental affair resulting from border skirmishes. It is deep-seated in the psyche of Muslims who read (or listen to) Muhammad's words, words which are set in stone in the Koran. Muslims are mandated to hate Jews (and Christians).

This spiritual connection between Muslims' hatred of Jews and Christians is further elaborated by Bat Ye'or. Despite her quieter demeanor, this small lady is no less extraordinary, if nothing for her meticulous description of Islam's infiltration into European society, and now the world at large. She too has a new book coming out which is titled, Toward the Universal Caliphate: How Europe Became an Accomplice of Muslim Expansionism. She explains that her new book will delineate the global network that bodies like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are building in order to finally construct their worldwide Ummah.

One of the most significant insights I got from her presentation was her explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in spiritual terms. Informed people understand that the conflict has been manufactured by Muslims and Muslim apologists in order to find a basis for the destruction of Israel. But, Bat Ye'or says that the efforts behind the Palestinian concept is to separate Christianity from its Judaic roots to facilitate the Islamizaton of Christianity, and to render the whole region Islamic. Israel and the Jews can then be destroyed through a united Muslim front, as the Jews' natural allies, the Christians, become Islamicized. The end goal is to replace Israel with Palestine, rendering the whole region Islamic, and where Jerusalem takes its seat as the center of Islam.

For Christians, Israel and Jerusalem culminate with Christianity (through God's final design of bringing all His people under His wing through His Son Jesus Christ). Muslims have their alternate "Jesus," whom they call Isa, and to whom attribute prophetic rather than Messianic characteristics. This alternate Jesus is inscribed into the Muslim and Palestinian "narrative." Israel has occupied a land that rightfully belongs to Muslims, who have both spiritual and historical claims to this land. Thus, those "disputed" territories are neither Jewish, nor a Holy Land for Christians, but belong to Muslims and Isa. This Isa came to Jerusalem not to promote the Judeo-Christian God, but the Islamic Allah. Palestine is where Muslims fight their ultimate spiritual battle against Christians and Jews, the land which their Isa has proclaimed for them and their people.

Not many people describe the Palestinian and Jewish/Christian conflict in these spiritual terms. Even devout Muslims explain it in terms of territorial claims. But, Bat Ye'or, by peeling away at the layers has, I think, come up with a strong spiritual argument for why the Palestinian question consumes the whole world at such a visceral level. It is a matter of Isa vs. Jesus, Allah against God. Truth battling falsehood.

All About Ayaan

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:41:00 +0000

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the most famous Muslim-turned-atheist, is doing the rounds to promote her new book Nomad. Initially, she had planned to write a philosophical discourse which she had decided to title Shortcuts to Enlightenment. But she abandoned this project to continue with her roster of memoirs and autobiographies, and wrote the memoir Nomad instead. I've written before that this approach is probably more financially lucrative, and anything she says will be attributed to her opinions or her "personal story" and therefore cannot be refuted by scholars or historians. Welcome, therefore, to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali franchise, replete with adultery, and family and political betrayals - she did abandoned Holland in the midst of the country's grips with the murder of its citizen Theo Van Gogh. What happens to an ex-Muslim atheist who's out of the limelight? Well, she gets forgotten and ignored. And since Ali has never been one to stay out of the limelight, she seems always to have a dramatic comeback.

What is interesting about this new book, whose pages are filled with steamy family portraits and provocative chapters like "School and Sexuality," is its subtitle: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations. As usual with Ali, everything is about her. Wafa Sultan, another former Muslim, and much less egotistical, is the one who alluded to the phrase "clash of civilizations." But Sultan, in her wisdom and understanding, claims that there is no clash of civilization, but a clash between the backward Islam and the civilized Christian West. Here is her elaborate explanation:

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations...It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

Ali, in her supreme self-centeredness, cannot see through this description. After all, in her eyes, the clash is not between these two opposites, as Sultan explains, but between her (Ali) and the rest of the world. In fact, she has now decided that she, in her lofty conclusions, will clash with the very element that has made the West a formidable foe to Islam; she will fight Christianity.

That was what came across in her interview (or promotional stop) at the Colbert Report. Here is the video of the interaction. At one point, Colbert, the liberal, refuses to accept Ali demonizing Islam. But, perhaps he is less of a liberal than he makes out (TV shows are notoriously left-leaning, and he has to "play the game" to keep the ratings up). What Colbert does, unprecedented in other shows and interviews I've watched, is to invite Ali to Christianity, after having made her admit that she's an atheist. Partly, I think it is his way of telling her to put her money where her mouth is, since she is telling Christians to proselytize to Muslims, and get them to convert to the "better religion" Christianity.

At this point, Ali goes all out in mocking Christianity, which she has no intention whatsoever of joining. She makes fun of the Eucharist, brushes aside the notion of hell in Christian theology, and denounces Jesus Christ, saying she prefers the Enlightenment philosophers to him. Colbert did keep pushing her (in the guise of talk-show humor) until she reached this vocal and hostile condemnation.

Another revealing moment in the show was when Colbert asked her if she is now a Westerner. Her answer was, "I'm becoming one." After close to two decades in the West, including holding important political positions in a Western democracy (the Netherlands), what is there to work out? A forthright, "Yes I am a Westerner" would have been a welcome answer.

What makes Ali undermine Christianity so confidently ? Well, on the front cover of her new book, there is an endorsement by none other than the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins himself, who wrote, "This woman is a major hero of our times." And riding on the boldness that other atheists like Christopher Hitchens display, Ali has no qualms about publicly disclosing her religious (non) affiliations.

I wonder how Ali will be received in America? I get the feeling she will just circulate around the neo-cons and right liberal elites, writing her articles and possibly throwing out a book or two for the liberal vultures who love seedy stories about Third World "victims." I suspect she will get quite wealthy in the process. America, though, is not the "progressive" Europe. Religion in America hasn't been abandoned, and Christianity still informs the lives of the majority of Americans.

Ali also has her AHA foundation to promote and upkeep. Perhaps that's why she was hesitant to proclaim her uncontested Western affiliation; her foundation's primary concern is the defense of Muslim women abused by the Islamic culture and religion.

Finally, this is neither here nor there (perhaps - although I do hold a strong attachment to physical appearances), but Ali looks like she's lost quite a bit of weight. Her sordid personal life; living in a country that is not as liberal or religious-free as Europe; and resorting to the lowest denominator to promote her thoughts (writing a memoir rather than the philosophical discourse she had originally planned), must be taking their toll.

"Pluralistic" Aga Khan Dedicates Ismaili Centre to Islamic Art

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Fri, 28 May 2010 21:28:00 +0000

Canadian citizenship is for the giving and the taking. Conrad Black is a recent (ex) Canadian who gave away his citizenship to become a British Lord. Then he wanted it back when he faced jail time in the United States. He is still in a U.S. jail.

The Ismaili philanthropist Aga Khan, who is the current Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, recently received an honorary Canadian citizenship. Partly, it is to honor his activities around the world, where he says he advocates for pluralism, tolerance and equality. "You sound like a Canadian" declared Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper while bestowing the citizenship.

The other reason for the honorary citizenship is to commemorate his "gift" to Canada in the form of a multi-million dollar Ismaili Centre in Toronto. There is nothing pluralistic, tolerant or equal about this center. It is simply and clearly an Ismaili Centre. Aga Khan stresses that the centre will be dedicated to Islamic art.

Imagine a situation where a Canadian philanthropist were to be given an honorary citizenship in a non-Western country. Say it is a Muslim country, since despite their insistence that they are the most moderate of the moderate Muslims, Ismailis are still Muslims (note the dedication to Islamic art for the center in Toronto). True to his Canadian nature, this Canadian philanthropist would genuinely build a pluralistic centre, praising the wonderful multicultural country he comes from. Forget about him promoting a center so culturally specific that it would be "dedicated to Christian art." The only religion this Canadian would promote is Multiculturalism. And this would suit his hosts fine, since no Muslim country would allow any kind of dedication to Christianity anyway.

Harper's liberalism bypasses all these realities to yet again let another intolerant (naturally it's exclusive) group set up shop in Canada, benefiting from the generous Multicultural Policy, and weakening whatever is left of the true, traditional Canadian culture. The Aga Khan looks like a nice guy, and at some point he must wonder at this strange cultureless country, where anything and anyone is welcome.

I Take it All Back - On "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day"

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Fri, 21 May 2010 21:30:00 +0000

Ezra Levant exposed the Muslim bully
tactics when he published this cartoon
by Kurt Westergaard in his magazine the
Western Standard. Levant later went through
three years of Human Rights Commissions
abuses (including financial loss), before he won the case -
or more like, the case was dropped by
the Muslim complainant.

A couple of days ago, I posted some negative comments about the "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." My point was: Why should we engage in adolescent-style behavior by antagonizing Muslims, when we could work on some serious strategic issues.

Then, it hit me yesterday that if every Facebook, every blog, every pundit published a drawing each, what could Muslims do? Stage World War III? We are in fact reducing their behavior to absurdity. It's not even, "Come and get us," although that could happen later. What we are saying is, "This is our land, our civilization, our culture, so just shut up."

I imagined, in this moment of lucidity, that for every mosque that comes up, we could send a peel of church bells on a daily, regular basis, so that Muslims will feel so accosted that they cannot build, let alone pray, in those edifices. Reactionary aggression can sometimes be a good thing. Bullies, which is what I think Muslims are, often break down when they realize their target isn't just going to take it sitting down anymore.

Arab Mannerisms

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Thu, 20 May 2010 21:56:00 +0000

(Cross-posted at Camera Lucida)

Here is a short video of Rima Fakih, the now reigning Miss USA, being interviewed on Regis and Kelley. In this segment, Fakih is defending her pole dancing photos. This is a very preliminary analysis, and I'm doing it purely in an intuitive way. But, there is something unfamiliar about Fakih's mannerism. She doesn't have black or Hispanic behavior. She acts mildly aggressive (assertive?) with a lot of hand movements. Even her smile puts on harsh elements at times. Normal talk seems to be an exercise in emphatic discussion. Her charm also entails an element of aggression. Maybe she's just nervous about the pole dancing exposure. It will be interesting to see how she performs on her Miss USA duties, after all this "controversy" has died down.

Still, here is yet another mannerism we have to learn and adapt to.

Swedish Cartoonist's Home is Set on Fire

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Mon, 17 May 2010 22:00:00 +0000

Yet another Scandinavian cartoonist is under attack by Muslims. Lars Vilks’ cartoons depict Mohammad as a dog - the most reviled creature (after pigs?) in Islamic culture. First he was attacked during a speech he made at Uppsala University. Then, there was an arson attack on his home a couple of days ago.

Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society says (via Diana West's blog):

How was possible for these murderers to gain access to Vilks' house only a few days after a mob assaulted him at Uppsala University? What are the Swedish police and political class up to? As far as I know not a single Swedish politician has had a word to say about the attack in Uppsala. Is the truth that Swedish power-holders prefer to see Vilks killed in order to send a message to other critics of the Swedish multicultural idyll?

Now is the time to demonstrate practical solidarity. We can all do that by purchasing the drawing [below] his would-be murderers are so angry about.

As Mr. Hedegaard articulates, it is atrocious that no Swedish politician mentioned this incident. Yet, he and other counter-jihad writers*, including James Cohen at the International Free Press Society, suggest a public drawing spree of cartoons in defiance of Muslims' blasphemy beliefs. Then selling these cartoons, or wearing them (on t-shirts) in public.

No one suggests that more important than performing short-lived rebellious acts (against Muslims?!), is the strategy to remove Muslims from Western society, so we don't have to periodically live through these kinds of incidents.

I understand what I am suggesting is beyond the "practical solidarity" about which Mr. Hedegaard writes, but surely bringing it up is a step in the right direction? Simply attacking Muslims on our turf, is a never-ending exercise. Muslims will never tire of this tactic, which is in fact part of their long-term strategy to wear us out, so that we slowly accommodate their demands, and make our countries more hospitable for them.

* The diligent counter-jihad blog Gates of Vienna proposes a similar solution. I suspect the take on the incident is similar throughout the blogosphere.Yes, it is [1,2, etc.].

Conversations with a "Moderate Muslim"

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Sun, 16 May 2010 20:50:00 +0000

Allan Greg hosts half hour interviews with notable members of the public. Recently, he interviewed Globe and Mail writer Sheema Khan about her life in Canada. Greg was infinitely respectful towards Khan, who calls herself "A Canadian Hockey Mom," while permanently wearing her hijab. She talked about her children's integration in Canadian culture, and her unabashed support for her adoptive country.

Things got interesting near the end of the interview when Khan carefully said that one of the ways for Muslims to live peacefully in Canada is to carve their own Muslim place in the country. Greg didn't even blink an eye, let alone ask her to expand on this statement. She is simply saying that the best possible life in Canada for Muslims like her is if they live apart as Muslims. So much for moderate Muslims, and there goes the "integration" she talks so eloquently about.

What Exactly do "Moderate Muslims" Believe?

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Sat, 15 May 2010 13:40:00 +0000

Here is a quote from "The Battle for Islam" by Andrew McCarthy at The Corner. It is also discussed at the View from the Right.

The most frustrating thing about "moderate Islam" is that no one seems to be able to say what it entails. The so called "radicals" tell us exactly what they believe and (accurately) cite chapter and verse in the scriptures. The moderates never persuasively refute the radicals — they just say the radicals are too "extreme." This doesn't come close to making the case that the radicals have Islam wrong. If your goal is to persuade other Muslims — and everyone seems to agree that only Islam can settle its internal divisions — that's the case that has to be made.

Christine Williams: Model Immigrant

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Mon, 10 May 2010 21:12:00 +0000

Christine Williams hosts the popular current affairs show On the Line. She could be the female Michael Coren, since she doesn't shy away from unpopular topics, and is one of the few television hosts in Canada who is leans more to the right. I don't use "leans more to the right" lightly, because she is a moderate on many issues. Like Coren, she takes special care to cover all the grounds, and often defends many of the non-right issues in Canada in a, well, right angle.

For example, she has clearly stated that she believes the problem with Islam is that it has adherents who prefer to enact its more violent messages. Hence her insistence that it is the radical elements of Islam that are the problem, and not Islam itself. She has actually described jihadists as psychopaths and not as what they really are: the vanguard of Muslim society who are fulfilling their religion's commands through violent means.

She discusses multiculturalism extensively on her show. Her view is that since Canada is now inevitably a multi-ethnic society, there is no choice but to deal with it through multiculturalism, or more precisely, through generalized respect for all cultures. This implies that she is sympathetic to some multicultural policies. She still supports, and believes in, assimilation. But, she has outdated or incorrect data about the assimilation of nonwhite immigrants. Children of immigrants from non-European countries repeatedly say that they feel less assimilated than their immigrant parents. Immigrants of different cultures are having a difficult time relating with each other let alone with the culture at large. More and more immigrant and ethnic ghettos are cropping up in major Canadian cities. These are the kinds of facts that Williams should have at the tips of her fingers. Otherwise, she is simply be building a "wishful thinking" scenario, and deluding her public in the process.

Williams is interviewed here [two-part video], providing many insights into what formed her character. She came to Canada from Trinidad as a four-year-old, and spent difficult years growing up. Her parents often shuffled her back and forth between Canada and Trinidad as they adjusted to their adoptive country. Eventually, through rebellions and then conversion to Christianity, she became one of the model immigrants in Canadian society.

But, there are a few strange elements in her life too. The most outstanding is that her parents' lifestyle in Canada was initially dramatically inferior to that in Trinidad. By her account, they seemed to have been respected members of Trinidadian society, and perhaps even relatively wealthy. It took them many years to adjust to Canada, but they persisted until they achieved some success.

Another piece of information she provides in her interview is that despite having been in Canada since she was four, she never dissociated herself totally from Trinidad. She went back and forth to Trinidad regularly, sent by her parents as a child, and later on as an adult of her own free will. It was at one of those trips as an adult that she met her Trinidadian husband, who joined her in Canada. Twenty years later, they have two children in their teens. Are these the kinds of children of immigrants that I discussed above who feel less Canadian than their immigrant parents? Quite possibly.

I always wonder about people like Williams and her parents. The parents caused their daughters (Williams has a sister) a lot of anguish while growing up due to their stubborn insistence to "make it" in Canada. Williams herself is either delusional about the realities of non-Western immigrants in Canada, or she is being disingenuous, and ignoring important data about immigrants and assimilation (or lack thereof).

Ultimately, Williams comes off as a semi-advocate of multicultural policies, of the "lets all assimilate, but respect each others cultures" variety. I think this is is her way of reconciling her Trinidadian background with her Canadian reality. So, perhaps unconsciously, she wants it both ways. She is certainly holding two contradictory views: supporting a multi-ethnic, and by extension a multicultural, Canada; and promoting immigrant assimilation through Canadian "values" and "culture."

Harboring multicultural sentiments can be pernicious, such as respecting Muslims, and only reining in on the violent (jihad) and stealth (sharia) activities they exhibit. These, according to Williams, are only practiced by a radical handful. The rest, like all other nonwhite immigrants in Canada, and just like her and her family, simply wish to assimilate and become "Canadian." But the reality shows otherwise.

I wonder if people like Williams, successful, and by all appearances assimilated immigrants, have ever thought of going back to their countries of origin? There seems to be a subtle disconnect within even the well-intentioned non-Western immigrants like her, who get pulled into contradictory statements as they try to work out their place in Canadian society. Surely Williams would have a much easier time in Trinidad. After all, she followed her roots by marrying a Trinidadian man. And by all accounts, her children are less likely to feel Canadian, and more likely to accept their "differences" than she is (or can). She can be at least honest (although she is certainly very genuine, and her problem is lack of systematic thought on the subject) and say: "I am different, and I am leaning on multiculturalism, ethnic diversity and the wonderful smorgasbord that is Canada to allow me to live comfortably in Canada."

If this is how I assess Williams, then what about all those who adamantly do not wish to assimilate, and who fight to change Canadian society to fit their needs by unequivocally supporting the policies of multiculturalism? These are the ones that really need to go back, to their familiar societies, which do not require any radical changes in order for them to feel "at home."

What a concept! I haven't heard anyone argue about solving the multicultural disaster this way. So, it is time for concerned citizens like Christine Williams, and Salim Manur who wrote about the pernicious effects of multiculturalism here, to reassess themselves and their solutions.

Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon in Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Wed, 05 May 2010 04:38:00 +0000

Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon will be in Ontario (London, Toronto and Ottawa) this June. Details for registration are here. The event is sponsored by the International Free Press Society - Canada, and the Free Thinking Film Society.

Multiculturalism In Canada Is Here To Stay

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Wed, 05 May 2010 04:10:00 +0000

Salim Mansur has written in the Toronto Sun:

Multiculturalism is a diminution of Canada’s founding history. It diminishes the vitality and largeness of the political culture that has accommodated a multitude of ethnicities within its borders, while it fails in bringing to immigrants — especially of non-European origin — a compensating increase in appreciation for those values that went into building Canada as a model of civility...

It is now for the rest of us to engage in a constructive discussion on how to roll back multiculturalism, this doctrine of divisiveness, for the love of Canada.

Mansur fails to explain something: why is it that multiculturalism flourished soon after non-Europeans started to enter and remain in Canada? Could it be that the differences between Canada’s founders and these current immigrants are just too great?

How much easier is it for a Ukranian immigrant to assimilate fully and unconditionally to Canadian culture than it is for an Indian or Chinese immigrant? Based on cultural, historical and civilizational backgrounds, non-Europeans undoubtedly find it much more difficult.

These are the kinds of difficult questions that writers like Mansur have to face in order to talk honestly about immigration and multiculturalism. Then, we can discuss whether in this current climate and historical juncture it is even feasible to change or dismantle the multicultural policies. But I am getting more and more pessimistic, and I think that in Canada, multiculturalism is here to stay.

Spring Revives Hope

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Mon, 03 May 2010 13:10:00 +0000

Spring blossoms next to the statue of Egerton Ryerson,
the founder of Ryerson University

[I posted this entry in Camera Lucida last night, but it should also be here at Our Changing Landscape, only to show that some things do indeed remain the same. Egerton Ryerson's contribution to Toronto is an enduring legacy. His statue still stands. And the spring flowers bloom every year. This is a small sign of hope that in small miraculous ways, we can revive our hopes.]

I walk through the Ryerson University campus almost daily in order to catch the various public transportation options. The majority of voices and faces on this "urban" campus are of Toronto's brave new inhabitants: Arab, Indian, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, a smattering of blacks, and some who speak various Eastern European languages.

The library, which I often use, is filled with staff with strange accents, who often cannot help me with simple requests (such as renewing my I.D., for example), and I have to return when a more seasoned librarian is on duty. The librarian is the least appreciated, but the most knowledgeable, person I know (or knew). These days, these "new-comer" employees seem hired simply to swipe our library cards.

Once I heard (and saw) a student - at least I think he was, but he looked older - talk so loudly and aggressively in Arabic on his cell phone, that I reported him to campus security guards, saying that he looked suspicious. They took my comments seriously, and confronted the guy. Later on I asked what had happened, and one of the guards told me they didn't find anything unusual, and just told him to keep his voice down.

I took the photograph above last year, but the image is exactly the same this year, as the spring blossoms and young leaves decorate the various campus locations. The trees in the above picture are in front of the statue of Egerton Ryerson, the founder of what is now Ryerson University. I wonder what this Protestant minster would have thought of his learning institution being filled with Arab Muslim students, so much so that someone felt so startled by the behavior of one of them that she had to call the authorities on him.

Perhaps that the flowers bloom every year under his statue is a sign for hope that someday, somehow, normalcy will be restored. In the meantime, it is enough to enjoy these beautiful spring blooms.

Jason Kenney Thinks Immigration Is All Good

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:38:00 +0000

I made a point to watch Michael Coren's hour-long interview with Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism (with a title like that...), a couple of nights ago. Kenney has kept the high levels of 250,000 new immigrants for 2010, and is coyly playing with the idea of doing the same for 2011, despite the recession. I was sure Coren would ask him about this decision, and even discuss immigration as a broader issue.

Well, it didn't happen. Instead, Kenney spent many minutes talking about his "good will ambassadorship" visiting immigrant and ethnic communities and asking them how he could make things better for them. Of course, each ethnic community will have gripes, and will make demands that he favor their group, include more of their group in his new immigration numbers, give them more money for their particular cultural activities, and so on. None of them will say "reduce immigration, and dismantle the Multiculturalism policy," which is how things can really get better.

What was even stranger is that in order to deflect accusation of "racism" that his government may have had – Conservatives are always considered racist simply for being conservative – he was boasting how his immigration numbers are as good as, or better than, the Liberals'!

I don't see any MSM bringing up these topics (other than to say that it's all good), and no blogs either. Issues such as Muslim immigration; the effect of immigration on the future composition of big cities like Toronto (a major study recently reported that 28% of Canada's population will be foreign-born by 2031); multiculturalism and the public coffers, etc. are considered too inflammatory. I don't see why, since they pertain to important national issues.

For Jason Kenney, the unassimilable masses from the Third World is a myth. He thinks his good will, extra government funding, more "settlement" programs, and general wishful thinking will remove any doubts that the (very few) immigration and multiculturalism critics, including immigration expert James Bisset, bring to the table.

Even Third World (including Chinese and Indian) immigrants know better. They form their own ghettos, demand special treatment whether financially or culturally, and coerce the government to perform according to their needs.

Will the Real Jihadist Please Stand Up?

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:25:00 +0000

"Conservative" independent filmmaker Jason Apsoto has recently released a film on Islam called Kalifornistan. The website promoting Kalifornistan has this to say about the film:

KALIFORNISTAN follows the deranged leader of a terror cell called 'Glorious Jihad of Kalifornistan' as he plots to destroy Los Angeles with his 'mighty plutonium superbomb' - while being distracted by an exotic dancer.

KALIFORNISTAN takes viewers on a twisted journey of the post-9/11 world from Gitmo to Iran, from the dark corners of LA harbor into the mind of a terrorist too deranged even for Al Qaeda.

There are enthusiastic reviews for this film at its website, but I will be more critical. Apsoto has made his jihadist a lone, lunatic sex maniac, whose mission to destroy Los Angeles is due more to his deranged personality than his religious convictions.

Many writers give all kinds of reasons for jihadists' uncontrollable quest to bomb apostates: They are sexually frustrated maniacs; they are poor, oppressed Arabs; they are psychologically impaired; they have unresolved issues with their distant fathers; they are too close to their clingy mothers. And so on.

Apsoto seems to have fallen for the "they are deranged sex maniacs" variety, and that is where I cannot take his film seriously. I understand that artistic license is due, but even artists have to research their material and know something about their subject, rather than make up whatever they feel would suit the tone of their film.

One critic writes, "the film clicks as strong, effective satire." The jihadist's prescription is to follow the clear commands from the Koran, which is to turn the
whole world into Islam, whether by force or by stealth. Apsoto, rather than find a unique and artistic way (if possible) to write a fictitious account of a real Koran-following jihadist, prefers to make his jihadist a socio/psychopath so that his film becomes a "satire."

Hirsi Ali's Polite Disdain for Christianity

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 03:46:00 +0000

Ayaan Hirsi Ali pops up periodically to comment on the prevailing Muslim incident. This time she is reacting to the South Park censorship. As far as I can tell, she has been interviewed by Fox News and has had an article published by the Wall Street Journal on this topic. And here is a link to her interview with Anderson Cooper from CNN. That is more attention than the astute Diana West, whose analysis of the incident is far more valuable than Ali’s.

Near the very end of the interview on CNN, Hirsi Ali says:

We have to take them [Muslims] on. And that means, I think, scrutinizing Islam, criticizing it in the same way that we criticizing Christianity, Judaism and other ideologies, and other religions.

Equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense.

It never occurs to Ali firstly, that Islam has no business being alongside Judaism and Christianity to merit "equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense."

Second, it is interesting that she puts "offense" as part of her egalitarian treatment of religions, and that she puts "ideologies" and "religions" in the same sentence.

Ali has come forward as an atheist, and has declared her dislike for Christianity (to put it mildly). In the slips that she performed, it is clear that she politely disdains religion, and that offending Christianity might be just as commendable as offending Islam.

This is the kind person that the American Enterprise Institute has hired to protect American (and Western) interests.

More Diversity = More Disharmony

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:56:00 +0000

The anonymous author of the Canadian Immigration Reform Blog is one of those commendable writers in the highly populated blog world. He relentlessly and diligently documents immigration stories. His posts are often a week or two apart, but he never disappoints.

His commentary is also extremely useful, and I never find any points to refute. In his great post "Toronto, 2031: The Most Racist Place On The Planet" he writes about the out-of-control HRCs, and how they are fulfilling the exact role I had given them since I started analyzing the whole enterprise: to create an environment where "discrimination" can be controlled and subdued.

I also wrote many months ago that the post-1967 immigration policies (when entry was accorded to all nationalities, and not just to Europeans) have produced a population so diverse that a harmonized co-existence seems more and more difficult. What similarities does a Chinese have with an Indian, or a Somali with a Mexican? At least pre-1967, immigrants related to a generalized European culture, including the Ukrainians, the Poles and the southern Italians.

In his above entry entry, Pax Canadiana (the name that this blogger goes by) writes about a Turkish immigrant taking a Chinese woman to the HRCs for insulting him in her donut shop, and a Muslim woman reporting discrimination on the job by her black employer.

According to the Toronto Star article where Pax Canadiana obtained his information, HRCs cases have increased from 15/year to 15/month since 2008. Part of this increase is that the HRCs have made it easier for plaintiffs to file their cases. But, an important part is that with this increased diversity, there is also an increase in disagreements and antagonisms, and therefore an increased need for filing complaints somewhere. I've always said why not file in a court of law, but the HRCs are ready-made for these types of complaints.

In 2031, Toronto’s visible minority population is expected to comprise more than half of the city’s population. Expect Pakistani Muslims to sue black Caribbeans, and disgruntled Chinese to complain about their Somali neighbors. In fact, put any combination of nationalities together, and there is sure to be a case presented to the HRCs at some point.

So much for Multiculturalism, the policy which was to maintain a happily diverse population. According to Pax Canadiana’s (and my) assessment, all this is simply a recipe for friction and disharmony.

Update on: The HRCs Are Mostly About Discrimination

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:47:00 +0000

Below I have linked to the Youtube videos showing the discussions on dismantling the HRCs on the Michael Coren Show, which I wrote about in the previous post. The first couple of minutes of Part 1 I think pretty much delineate Coren's views (Coren is the more right-leaning of the talk show pundits), where he says that scrapping the hate speech component of the HRCs is a good idea, but all the rest should remain.

In Part 2, he briefly admits that even if the Conservatives were to initiate the dismantling of the HRCs, the other parties would derail it by saying that the Conservatives agree with (i.e., are) Holocaust deniers, homophobes (and he could have also said racists, sexists, and so on).

In short, like I said before, those who advocate the removal of the HRCs have only looked at the issue in terms of hate speech (free speech), and not in terms of discrimination. And I've said all along that the main purpose of the HRCs is to fight "discrimination," and curtailing free speech is just a by-product of the whole set-up. I don't think any party would enjoy being called racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and certainly not the newest accusation, Islamophobic. Unless people deal with these issues, I don’t think government maintained (and mandated), and tax-payer subsidized HRCs are going any time soon.

John Turley Stewart, of the National Post (who's also on the Coren Show panel), does a good job of arguing for total dismantling. But, to me, he sounds like the lone voice in the whole debate. Coren is for partial reform (i.e. getting rid of the hate speech parts), as I think are most critics of the HRCs, including Ezra Levant.

The HRCs Are Mostly About Discrimination; Hate Speech Is But a Small Part

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:08:00 +0000

Michael Coren, at his show The Michael Coren Show recently talked about the Human Rights Commissions. He opined in a manner that I think resembles most Canadians' thoughts: get rid of the hate speech (Section 13) codes of the Human Rights Act, but leave the rest as is. In other words, people who feel discriminated against for reason of religion, race, sexual orientation, gender etc. could still use the HRCs.

The reality is that the majority of HRC cases are not hate speech cases. They are stories of perceived discrimination at the workplace, in service areas (restaurants, etc.), while renting homes, and so on. So rather then take these cases in a normal court, and suing for whatever grievances endured, it seems expeditious, less costly and probably more likely to result in a positive verdict (for the plaintiff) than going to a real court.

But why should the government support these pseudo-court bodies when there are perfectly functional real court systems? As I wrote in this previous blog, it is all about avoiding discrimination in the multicultural society, and to prevent discord and dissatisfaction between all these various groups, with differing skills and abilities. Coerced harmony is better than battling things out in the real world of real laws.

Here is another interesting part of this story. Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, has maintained the high levels of immigration for 2010, at around 250,000. I don’t know the run-down of the countries being admitted, but recent history has shown that a majority come from non-Western countries. What is the likelihood that such groups will help maintain the HRCs, as they struggle to fit into the country? And what is the likelihood that such groups (both new and older members) will strongly reject the dismantling of the HRCs?

Most anti-HRC proponents have gone after the (narrow) hate speech component of the Human Rights Act. The reality is that it is the anti-discriminatory part that is larger, and probably in the long run, more powerful. Truly dismantling these costly bodies will, I predict, raise the ire of these many groups who benefit from pushing their grievances through the HRCs rather than fighting for them in the real courts.

Email Problem

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:57:00 +0000

I accidentally deleted an email sent to Cameralucidas@yahoo.com this morning. I closed the tab while my email inbox was loading. If you've been trying to get in touch with me, please try again.

Lawyers enabling Terrorists, Geert Wilders's Trial, and Other Articles by David Harris

noreply@blogger.com (Reclaiming Beauty) — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:57:00 +0000

Infant Princess Margriet of
Holland who was born in
Ottawa where the Dutch
Royal Family fled to during WWII

David B. Harris, who could have been the first high profile Canadian to experienced Muslims' attempt at censorship, also writes on Muslims, terrorism and national security. His recent article "What’s scarier than terrorists? Lawyers" appears in the Ottawa Citizen on February 19, 2010.

He was also part of the symposium: The Trial of Geert Wilders, published on the International Free Press Society website. His commentary is titled: "Pursuit of a Parliamentarian." Here is a French version of the speech, which includes a photograph of Dutch Queen Juliana, who fled to Canada with her family when the Nazis occupied the Netherlands. The photo shows her holding her infant daughter Princess Margriet who was born on Canadian soil in 1943. In order for Princess Margriet to claim her Dutch royalty, the Ottawa hospital suite where she was born was deemed “extraterritorial.” (Here is photo of the Dutch Royal Couple in Ottawa and their three daughters, including new-born Princess Margriet).

Mr. Harris writes at IFPS:

Connections of law and spirit were further cemented when the First Canadian Army liberated much of occupied Holland. Remembering all of this, the Dutch Royal Family upon liberation sent Ottawa thousands of tulip bulbs, a gift that continues yearly, to this day.

This shared history of struggle for liberty and democracy must leave Canadians wondering whether disturbing legal developments in the Netherlands signal a loss of The Hague’s commitment to the freedoms for which Canadians and Dutch sacrificed. In the land of the tulip, “the first freedom” – freedom of speech – may be in the balance.

We have come at another impasse in the West. Just like problems during the two World Wars required our joint efforts, we have a similar calling in our modern pursuit against jihad.