Pat Condell: The great Palestinian lie

I have, for a time, lived in a UN refugee camp – as a refugee.  While the physical needs of the refugees are provided for – and I am very, very grateful for that – the UN refugee camps are not designed for a person to be a contributing member of the human race.

Not at all.

They are a place to seek physical shelter from persecution or hardships – a transit point along one’s journey.  They are resting place, not a place of permanent settlement.  Just a safe rest stop that lets you, the refugee, make arrangements for a productive life elsewhere without worrying about your immediate physical needs.

We, humans, form communities:  our social bonds are forged in the back and forth of giving and taking, helping and receiving help.  To be a balanced human being, we need to both give and receive.  We cannot function properly only giving or only receiving.

My family lived in the UN refugee camp for only 5 months, but even during that short time, I have noted that most adults (especially the men) had begun to undergo some serious identity crises.  Being a dependant – and idle – gnawed at them, even though they knew it was a temporary situation until some country checks through their background and decides to accept them as immigrants.

Yet, the UN refugee camps are now seeing the third or fourth generation of Palestinian refugees!

The Palestinian leadership and the agencies which profit from the Palestinian refugee situation are conspiring together to keep the Palestinian people in these camps and dependant on them.  For what?  A power rush?  Shame on them!

David Cameron: his Munich speech on Multiculturalism

This speech is worth listening to in its entirety:

Part 1:

Part 2:

The trouble with ‘circumcision’…

This is one of those ‘charged issues’:  moral and religious issues get muddled up with cultural prejudices and pseudo-scientific propaganda.  So, I’m really not sure where and how to begin…

The easy one first…

‘Female Circumcision’

So much has been written about this, I will not go into details of the various ‘levels’ of female genital mutilation (recently re-named ‘female genital cutting’ in order to escape the deservedly bad PR).   I’ll just note that it is a horrible thing which I condemn.

Rather, I would like to concentrate on the 3 reasons ‘why’ ‘female circumcision’ is practiced.

1.  Religious

Many Muslims believe that Islam mandates both female and male circumcision because in the Islamic texts, the sex act is, at times, referred to as ‘when the circumcised parts meet’.  This makes many Muslims believe that in order to emulate the prophet Muhammad, as their religion commands, both men and women ought to be circumcised – despite the fact that Muhmmad himself urged that ‘cutting less is better than cutting more’ because this ‘increases pleasure for both the man and the woman’ (I am paraphrasing).

2.  Cultural

Some cultures have such contempt for women that they believe that without removing the clitoris, a woman would not be able to control her sexual urges and would copulate with anyone, anytime.  Therefore, removing a source of sexual pleasure will help protect her honour and the honour of her family.

But contempt for women is not the only cultural reason for this practice.

In some  places, like Ethiopia, female circumcision is a cultural custom, practiced both  by Muslims and Christians.  It is part of the cultural fabric:  the mom was ‘circumcised’, the grandma was ‘circumcised’, so the possibility that the daughter might not be ‘circumcised’ does not even occur to anyone.  It’s just what is done!

I have commented on this phenomenon before:  people cannot possibly stop a harmful practice if it never actually occurs to them that there is something they could – and should – question….  It is only after people figure out that that something could be questioned that the actual battle for change can begin.

3.  Medical

As bizarre as it seems to us, there are people (women) who honestly believe that complete clitorectemy is medically necessary.  I saw a video (long ago) of an old woman who was renown as an expert practitioner of clitorectemy explaining (through an interpreter) that unless the clitoris is removed before puberty, it will grow and suffocate the child during childbirth.  She even cited ‘real evidence’, where women had ‘bad, partial’ ones and the baby suffocated in the womb…

Of course, most of us would recognize this as a symptom of the ‘operation’ itself:  the severe scaring which results in less flexible tissues which do not stretch properly, which causes the child to suffocate in the birth canal.  But, they ‘have their observations’ and truly and honestly believe that full clitorectemies are a medical necessity.

To recap:

‘Female circumcision’ is practiced for religious and cultural reasons as well as because trusted members of their society who preform the clitorectomies honestly believe that it is medically beneficial to do so and are believed by the members of their society.

Here, in The West, this vile and inhumane and – well, horrible, sadistic torture – is not tolerated.

YET!!!

Unfortunately, recent voices – from among the people who would be the ones who wish to perform (and benefit financially from doing so) this procedure – have began a propaganda to normalize this practice ‘for the good of the little girls’!  Their argument goes something like this:

The choice we are facing (they convincingly explain) is between horrible, painful, ‘back-shack-clitorectomies’ with no anaesthesia or even clean surgical instruments on one hand, and permitting a ‘ritual nick’ or ‘ritual pin-prick’ here, in the safety of a sanitary medical facility.

It’s the only safe option!

Don’t you care about these girls safety?

Please, consider, really consider, why is it that our political and cultural leaders are having such a hard time rejecting this flimsy excuse and ripping it to shreds for the ‘soft-racism’ and financial self-interest it so thinly veils?

I think that most of us would arrive at ‘the other circumcision’….

We tolerate it.

Many of us practice it.

If we permit bits of male infants’ genetalia to be chopped off (without anaesthetics to boot), how can we effectively combat a similar practice on female infants?  Equality of the sexes and all….

Which brings me to:

Male Circumcision

Again, most of us are familiar with the ‘mechanics’ of what the term refers to.  And, many of us, in The West, accept it as unquestioningly as that Ethiopian clitorectemist accepts ‘female circumcision’!

Some of us have, however, began to question this extremely painful practice which can lead to permanent re-wiring of a newborn’s brain.  Many studies demonstrate that male infants who underwent circumcision display symptoms of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) months or even years later and that the neurological damage the infant suffers may cause life-long damage.  And, most doctors now know that perfectly well.

And, there is always the issue of where do the rights of the parent end and the rights of the child begin….

Let me quote from the policy manual on non-therapeutic male circumcision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia:

“Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore, many consider it to be “unwarranted mutilating surgery”.

So, why are we still tolerating this practice?

There are 3 reasons:

1.  Religious

The first thing most of us (at least, those of us born in Europe) think of when we hear ‘male circumcision’ is the practice of Judaism.  So, for those of the Jewish faith, this has sort of been ‘grandfathered in’ and is never really questioned.  Even though it goes on and on about how Jews must also circumcise their slaves…

If nothing else, that ought to give us a moment of pause:  Jews are mandated by God to circumcise all their slaves?!?!?

Well, the Bible says so.

So, how did this practice enter the North American society?

Victorian ‘religious puritans’ (for lack of a better term) brought in the practice in order to decrease young men’s sexual pleasure so they would stop masturbating and spent more time thinking about God.

Really.

By removing the skin that protects the glans of the penis, the very sensitive nerve endings are constantly rubbed by ‘stuff’ – from undies on.  This ‘constant stimulation’ is too much – so the brain decreases the sensitivity of these nerves.  (Sort of like once you’ve been in cold water for a while, the nerve impulses screaming the  message ‘this water is cold’ become weakened and you are ‘used to the temperature’.)

That is the reasoning behind removing the foreskin.  By constant mild stimulation, the strength of the pleasure signals decreases and the mutilated man can better keep his mind on God!

To  sum it up:  just like ‘female circumcision’, the religious goal of ‘male circumcision’ is the reduction of sexual pleasure.

2.  Cultural

In North America, this practice became so deeply culturally entrenched that, for generations, nobody questioned the practice.  It was ‘simply done’.  Promoted on the grounds of hygiene, the religious origins of this practice became forgotten by much of the population and became ‘the norm’.

Now, some parents circumcise their male infants ‘so they would not feel different from dad and/or other boys’…  I know – I have seen it.

3.  Medical

Many medical practitioners who perform infant circumcisions claim all kinds of wonderful medical benefits as a result of the procedure.  Sort of like that Ethiopian clitorectomist does….

And there are tons of claims that circumcision reduces AIDS and other infections….  Yet, for each one of these studies, there are others that prove this is not so.  And if one reads these ‘circumcision reduces AIDS’ studies, you will find that ‘circumcision’ in these studies is accompanied by a comprehensive education on AIDS and other STDs….  Yet, the studies do not make any difference between reduction in AIDS through education or circumcision.  That is kind of like saying that learning the alphabet will make you good at math without mentioning that to learn the alphabet, you go to school where you are taught both the alphabet and the math….

So, what do the ‘Western’ MDs say about the medical benefits of male circumcision? Let’s see what the CPSCB has to say about the ‘Medical Perspecives’ (my emphasis):

Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended.

In other words, any claims of medical benefits of male circumcision are about as well grounded in fact as the Ethopian woman’s belief that not cutting out the clitoris will cause it to grow so bit, it will suffocate the infant during childbirth!

Yet – we tolerate it….

Why?

Both male and female circumcision is done for the same reasons:  religious and cultural pressures to decrease the ability of the individual to experience sexual pleasure, medical misinformation and cultural momentum.

Until we recognize the parallels between the two and criminalize the practice of parents imposing this choice onto their children, we cannot pretend we are a civilized people who respect basic human rights!

Race, religion and gender: the new apartheid in Ontario’s Education System

This issue has me so angry, I apologize ahead of time for the inevitably undisciplined rant I am about to unleash on you!

Why?

Because MY Canada is colour-blind, when it comes to race!

MY Canada is gender-blind, when it comes to sexism!

AND – MY Canada is all inclusive, when it comes to children!!!

And, in my Canada, religious affiliation is irrelevant when it comes to judging a person’s record as a human being!   Thank you very much!

During the last Ontario election, I could not bring myself to vote for the Conservatives….  Their leader, John Tory, proposed a public education system which was fully segregated on the basis of religion!!!

The very suggestion that a child’s religion – or any other ‘protected grounds’, as per our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ought to determine what school that child may or may not attend is so offensive and un-Canadian that it makes me see red!

The Conservatives lost that election:  and rightly so!!!

Aside:  Of course, before the election, I emailed my local Conservative candidate (now my MPP – Member of Provincial Parliament), Lisa MacLeod, asking her if she was indeed in favour of religious apartheid in our schools.  I still have her reply:  it angered me to no end to read that if her leader said so, she totally backed it…  (Perhaps this is the source of my dissatisfaction with my MPP – the ‘first impression’ she made on me, is rooted in this blatant sell-out of our most cherished freedoms, taking our precious children and sorting them by the accident of their birth!  I cannot trust anyone who would sacrifice our children to a doctrine or political party policy!)

And now, the Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, is planning to segregate our schools by sex!  You know, like they do in Saudi Arabia!!!

OK – I need to calm down.  Perhaps it’s ‘definition time’:

Apartheid:

Any policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

Separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

Do I need to go on?

Yes.  Ever since the British North American Act, there has been a religious apartheid in Ontario’s education:  one system for the Catholics, another for the Protestants.  Still, over the years, the ‘Protestant’ system has morphed and become secularized, separating the State from the Religion and keeping it out of the classroom.  The story is quite different when it comes to the Catholic system:  it has become known in Ontario as the SS – Separate Schools!

In my never-humble-opinion, the initials tell the story.  The very first public protest/demonstration I ever participated in was to protest the existence of the SS in our schooling!

Even the corrupt UN had recognized – and ruled – that the SS system in Ontario was in breech of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Predictably, the people of Ontario would not be complicit in this enslavement of our kids to their parent’s religious heritage.  The Liberals did not ‘win’ the election – as unbelievable it was that the universally reviled Dalton McGuinty could be re-elected, the Conservatives carefully and systematically LOST IT!

So, now, Dalton McGuinty (whose kids attend SS schools, and whose wife was a teacher in this corrupt system where government-funded religious indoctrination pollutes the minds of our children) is in power.  Complete control.  And, in no uncertain terms, he is instituting apartheid in our schools!  Apartheid of HIS own choosing!!!

Yes, he is very clear:  religious apartheid has no part in his plan.  That is how the Conservatives LOST EVERYTHING!!!

Instead, on his ‘watch’, we have seen the institution of religious apartheid in at least one school – a ‘pilot project’.

More like a ‘Pilate project!”

Unfortunately -yes.

Our school system now has – and enforces, as its ‘core policy’ – racial apartheid!!!

Here, in Ontario!

I wonder what would people like Martin Luther King, Jr. say about this policy of ‘Equal, but separate‘!!!

But, that is not evil enough for Black Boss McGuinty!

Now, he has decided that sexual segregation ought to become the norm in our schools!!!

OK – I had better stop now – I am just so angry, I cannot put a coherent sentence together.  Let me just say:  fixing our broken school system – but for boys only – is so evil, I don’t know where to start my chain of insults!!!  Sorry.

Still …

A person’s a person – no matter how small!!!

Or, how female!!!

Diaspora and our ‘bronze-age-brains’

There are two common-use meanings for this term:  diaspora and Diaspora.

The ‘little d’ diaspora refers to any (more-or-less) peaceful migration or immigration or general re-settlement of a socially cohesive group of people with a well-defined social identity into an already populated area, with no intention of integrating into the host society.  The ‘capital D’ diaspora refers to one specific ‘little d’ diaspora:  the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans and their resultant scattering around the World.

At this point, I am only focusing on ‘little d’ diaspora.

This ‘diaspora’ is a curious concept:  a group of people who share a common ancestry/language/culture/religion – such as a tribe, or a clan, settle in an area already inhabited by ‘different people’.  Once there, they do not attempt to gain the land by conquest:  they either legally purchase it or, if the population density is low, they simply settle there and eventually claim squatter’s rights. So, there is no war.

The ‘newcomers’ are usually not perceived as hostile, so the people in the ‘host culture’ do not harbour hostility towards them.  Or, at least, not particularly so.  At the beginning.

But, we, humans, have come to be who we are by following a certain path of social evolution.

Each one of us is, first and foremost, an individual.  And, even in the most collectivistic of human societies, there is an acknowledgement (or a lament) that we are, indeed, individuals.

This fact that each of us is an individual does not, in any way, change that we are also very social:  we nurture our young and have long learned that pooling our resources can help us survive and succeed.  We don’t always agree on how much of our resources ought to be pooled, and how this pooling ought to be accomplished – but that is a different matter.

Different human societies have indeed reached different states of balance (or, imbalance) between the ‘individual’ and ‘society’.  This is only to be expected, because humans are such a prolific organism that we thrive – or, at least, survive – in greatly varying regions of the world.  These produce very different pressures (stresses) on the different human groups and their social rules that they govern themselves by.  Thus, very different attitudes, moral codes and social rules had developed.

Many people I have talked to seem to think that there is some sort of a ‘universal’ set of rules of ‘morality’ that all people subscribe to.  I am sorry to disappoint these people:  there is no such thing.  It is only because most cultures which had, historically, interacted with each other had been ones which were also in physical proximity:  thus, both a similar set of environmental pressures and long-term contact (such as trade) between the cultures served to spread ideas, learn of each other’s attitudes – in short, served as a ‘normalizing’ pressure on the development of these cultures.  This then gives an ‘appearance’ of ‘universal’ concepts of ‘right and wrong’.

Thus, this ‘universality’ is no more than an appearance.  What worked for one group of people in one specific time and place became their set of ‘right and wrong’.  Sure, if they learned a rule that seemed to produce better results, they usually found a way of incorporating this new rule into their society.  (Often, this was in the form of a new deity – which is why so many monotheistic cultures seem to freeze in their ‘moral’ development… but THAT is a completely different post!)

Isolated cultures are  prime examples of just how different ‘right and wrong’ is, depending on the pressures on the society.  Most ‘mainland’ cultures prospered if there were more offspring:  the more babies born, the more were likely to survive and become productive members of their clan, the better the clan did.  So, in most of these cultures, homosexuality (actually, most activities which would divert natural sex-drive away from baby-production) was forbidden and became considered ‘immoral’.  I remember my Anthropology prof telling us about an isolated culture on a small South Pacific island, where the overpopulation was the stress which drove the development of the society.  On this island, homosexuality was not only permitted, it was considered to be morally superior to heterosexuality!  As a matter of fact, heterosexual sex was taboo for over 300 days of the year…

The same is true of ‘murder’ – the concept of ‘killing another human being’ as ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ is actually not all that common… as I have ranted on before.

As any physician will readily confirm, our brains are not any different from those of our bronze-age ancestors.  Sure, when we have better nutrition and vitamins, when we grow up mostly free of diseases, our brains develop into a much fuller potential then they would otherwise.  But not all our ancestors were malnurished or ill….  Our brains are have the very same physical characteristics, the same ‘blueprint’, if you will, that the brains of our bronze-age-ancestors did.

What differentiates us from our ancestors is our culture – our learning and our social attitudes.  In other words, ‘culture’ is what ‘defines us’ as ‘us’.

As opposed to ‘them’.

And this ‘them’ concept is extremely important to the way our ‘bronze-age blueprint-of-a-brain’:  because in our bronze-age past, ‘them’ could never really be trusted!  The simple fact that ‘they’ were not ‘us’, but ‘they’ meant that ‘they’ did not have a vested interest in ‘our’ survival.

That is why so many ‘ kings/chieftains’ would marry a daughter of a king/chieftain with whom they had just reached a peace-treaty:  the ‘father-king’ would have a vested interest in the survival of his grand-children, just as the ‘bride-groom-king’ has a vested interest in the survival of his own children.  This marriage and its ‘blood-bond’ reduces the ‘they’ factor and makes both sides see the other as at least a little bit more part of ‘us’.

Which brings me back to the ‘diaspora’:  the very point of a diaspora is that the newcomers do not become part of the ‘us’ which surrounds them. By the very definition of the word ‘diaspora’, these newcomers have a fully formed cultural (which includes religious) identity of their own and are not willing to compromise it in any way – especially through mingling of the blood!

In other words, the newcomers – by their choice – do not become ‘us’ to their neighbours/hosts.

This results in both sides being unable to fully trust each other:  blame our ‘bronze-aged brains’!

Help an ex-Muslim! Please…

Criss says it all:

The petition is here.

A chat with Lisa MacLeod

What interesting times we live in!

Tonight, Lisa MacLeod – the newly named Finance critic in Tim Hudak’s shadow cabinet – hosted a meet-and-greet with Tim Hudak.

It was very lovely.   Truly.

And while I spent most of my time talking with other attendees – especially with fellow immigrants to Canada – about our negative experiences with official Apartheid Multiculturalism policies (the latest honour dishonour killings made people – and not just us, immigrants – very, very angry), I did get to exchange a word or two with a few of the celebs there.

It’s been a very long day – and my stamina is still very low – so this will have to be a very brief post.  Yet, these little bits are well worth mentioning!

Mr. Pierre Poilievre was there and we exchanged a few words about the latest lawfare suit launched by one of ‘The Sock Puppets’ against Ezra Levant.  (Aside:  Wednesday, July 29th 2009, there will be an online fundraiser for Mr.Levant’s defense fund at Mark Steyn’s online store .  He is fighting this battle for all of us!  Thanks to BCF and 5’ofF for the tip!)

Then, I had a little chat with Lisa MacLeod, my host.  She was, well, to put it mildly, not impressed with what I have written about her in the past.  I can’t say I’m surprised, or that I blame her!  What can I say – she makes very lousy 1st impressions…which I did mention, unless I am much mistaken…

I must say that her reaction surprised me a little.  I was expecting her to be most upset by my criticism of her conduct as a politician…which we went into, very briefly.  Yes, the tention in the air was, as they say, palpable.

Still,  it was my criticism of her parenting that really, really upset her.  I must admit, I was not willing to  back down – I write what I see, as I see it;  no more, no less and I asked her if what I wrote was incorrect.  This seemed to upset Ms. MacLeod:  the anger seemed to dissipate and be replaced by a different kind of  ‘upset’.  That is good:  it showed me that beneath the ‘thick-skinned politician’ veneer (which I was so turned off by), there may be a truly genuine person who cares about the important things in life!

At this point, Ms. MacLeod excused herself and went  to watch her daughter play at the nearby playstructure.

Now, I am thinking that I may have been too quick to judge her:  that I fell for the image she tries to project (not one I would advise projecting) and failed to see the person behind it.  If she convinces me I was wrong about her, I’ll write about it.  

IF she convinces me!

Islamist Khaled Mouammar got to select Canada’s immigrants

In today’s National Post, John Ivison has an interesting piece of information:

It’s well known that the president of the Canadian Arab Federation recently called Jason Kenney, the Minister of Immigration, a “professional whore” for supporting Israel and criticizing the presence of Hamas and Hezbollah flags at a recent protest, prompting Mr. Kenney to say he would review the CAF’s federal funding.

But it is less well known that Mr. Mouammar spent the 11 years prior to February, 2005, sitting as a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, deciding whether refugee claimants from such North African countries as Morocco, Egypt, Algeria and Somalia should be allowed to stay in Canada.

Is this true?

If so, we are in deeper trouble than we realized.  I’d like to write more right now, but – I am speechless!!!

(P.S. – ‘Islamist’ does not equal ‘Muslim’. Mr. Mouammar may be an ‘Orthodox Christian’, yet he supports and actively works to promote the interests of militant, political interpretation of Islam:  that makes him an Islamist.)

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Aqsa Parvez – we remember you

jijabvictim.jpg

Aqsa Parvez – a martyr of ‘official multiculturalism’

One year ago today, Aqsa Parvez, a girl on the cusp of womanhood – was brutally murdered by her family because she dared to make a choice:  to be herself.  Now, her body lies in an unmarked grave – no name, no picture, just #774

The story of Aqsa Parvez touches me very deeply.  I am an immigrant who successfully integrated into the mainstream society – despite the disaproval from some members of my cultural community.  December 10th is the anniversary of when I arrived in Canada.  Aqsa and I both desired freedom.  The date which marks the beginning of my life in freedom is the very same as on which hers ended- what a tragic irony! 

Aqsa’s tragedy reminds me of probably the smartest, most intelligent person I had ever met.  She went to University with me and my husband – and graduated with the highest marks in her Engineering class.  A year or so after University, she met up with my husband and me and told us she just got engaged to a distant relative in the Pakistani community in England. 

She had met him once, for about an hour, and they talked.  She said thay both shared similar background:  growing up in a traditional family, needing to always be trying to balance their expectations and their desire to be part of the mainstream culture.  She thought this would be a good common ground from which they could build a relationship which balanced all these pressures.  So, both of them told their families they will agree to the marriage.

That was the last time we saw her or heard from her.  I was no longer allowed by her family to communicate with her – even to give her a wedding present my husband and I got for her.  Nor would they accept the present from us and forward it on to her.  We have no idea what happened to her.  Back then, we did not really understand it – so we were puzzled, instead of frightened for her.  Now it is too late to find her.  So, when I see Aqsa, I see my friend, too, and wonder what her fate is.

What happened to Aqsa – and my friend – and what continues to happen to many other men and women and children – is a scathing denunciation of our official multiculturalism, because this is where the road of official multiculturalism necessarily leads.

Aqsa Parvez was murdered because she dared to cross the boundaries of multiculturalism’s cultural apartheid!

The difficulty with ‘official multiculturalism’ is that is actively works to prevent the integration of immigrants into mainstream culture (or between different groups within one culture).  It is difficult enough to integrate as it is, but when there are official, semi-official, or, ‘officially tolerated’ barriers added, overcoming these real and artificial barriers becomes very difficult to achieve.  In Aqsa’s case, it proved impossible!

In effect, multiculturatsm introduces something very similar to a caste system.  A  ‘cultural cast’ system, if you will.   If you are in one pidgeonhole, then you are judged according to these rules, if you are in a different pidgeonhole, a different set of rules applies!  And never the two shall meet!

I have criticized this in the past, because it gives the leaders of the immigrant’s ‘cultural community’ power over the newcomer – and impacts how the integration will happen.  It often traps people into the same cultural norms they had fought hard to escape from!

And while I do not advocate ‘assimilation’ – which would require an immigrant to abandon who they were before coming here – it is essential that we ensure successful ‘integration’ of new immigrants!  Without learning how to succesfully interact with people in the mainstream culture, without the opportunity to create social bonds outside of their narrow ‘cultural community’, the new immigrants will, in fact, become ghettoized!

Policing in a multicultural society becomes difficult, too.  Each ‘cultural minority’ is taught not to identify with the over-arching state and its structures.  Many of the people within these communities are victimized by their neighbours – but seeking police protection has come to be seen as a betrayal of one’s own cultural community…  So, immigrant communities become not just socially isolated – they become legally isolated, too.  And very, very vulnerable…

It is time to call ‘official multiculturalism’ by its proper name:  CULTURAL APARTHEID!

Equal, but separate! 

We were not willing to tolerate this bigotry when the divisions were based on skin colour!  Does a person control the culture into which they are born any more than they control the colour of their skin? 

So, please, can someone explain to me why should we now be bullied into tolerating apartheid based on culture?

Because, at both its philosophical core and in its practice, that is exactly what multiculturalism is!

Political Correctness be damned – I will say it, true and direct, because if I do not, my fellow Canadians will continue to suffer.   (I apologize for my rough language, but I really get worked up about this!)

Wearing a headscarf has nothing to do with Islam.  There are plenty of good Muslimas who choose not to wear one!  We must get this straight, because wearing a headscarf is not a religious custom, it is a cultural one.  Yet, some people truly believe that it is part of Islam – and if we ignore this connection, we can never hope to improve this situation! 

This needs to be addressed:  both the role of the scarf (hijab) and the relative roles within the family, whatever the religious or cultural background.  We are all citizens, with certain rights that must not be taken away from us.  Regardless of my belief  (cultural, religious or anything else) in my rightness in doing something – if it is against our secular laws, no amount of ‘religious tolerance’ or ‘cultural tolerance’ can excuse such an action! 

I am very happy to say, Canadian Muslim leaders – from the moderate and brilliant Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress  to the ultra-conservative and extremely controversial Imam Syed Soharwardy – have spoken up to openly condemn what happened to Aqsa Parvez…. from robbing her of her life to the dishonour of burrying her in an unmarked grave!

 

It is time for all of us to have a critical, realistic look at  what are the practical results of official multiculturalism?  Has it helped our society?  Has it helped immigrants?  Has it helped anyone but the bureaucrats who make a career out of administering it?

The data from the experiment of ‘multiculturalism’ is in – let us see how the numbers add up!

It seems pretty clear they add up to #774!

 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

REAL cultural tolerance!!!

A few days ago, I had an experience that proved to me something I think most of us already know:  the ‘official bureaucrats’, ‘brave and steadfast guardians of multiculturalism’ (in the name of which they are ready to oppress us) really have no clue what ‘being multicultural’ is all about!!!

Having arrived a little early for my son’s ‘parent-teacher interview’, I walked around a little, admiring the pictures and poems posted in the school hallways.  Unusually, in front of the library door, there were a couple of chairs and a desk.  In these chairs sat two girls, I’m guessing about 12 years old.   They were supervised by one of their Mom’s (sitting off to the side) – their smiles betrayed the heritage.  Both mother and daughter wore a hijab – so I am making a presumption that they were Muslim.  The other student, the daughter’s friend, did not wear a hijab. 

Yet, the two of girls were obviously good friends – and they made an awesome team.  These two girls decided that it was important to help kids less fortunate then they – and they figured out a way they could make a real difference in the world!

In order to raise money for a charity helping kids in Africa, they focused their creative efforts.  Taking up card-stock, delicately ornate origami paper, glue and calligraphy markers, they made a whole slew of Christmas cards to sell to parents coming to the parent-teacher interviews!

When I asked, they told me they came up with the idea together.  Their eyes shone with pride of ‘doing right’!  And, they were justly proud – their cards were beautiful!  At a $1.00 a piece, I saw every parent passing them (including myself) dump all the change from their wallets and walk away with a stack of Christmas cards.

The Mom was the ’empowering parent’:  not only did she agree to supervise the ‘sales’, she was the one to buy the supplies, too.  The Mom was happy when other parents stopped and asked questions, and she looked downright ‘parentally proud’ when someone complimented the two girls or their Christmas cards – or their greater goal! 

And the girls deserved every compliment they got!  Many young people have awesome ideals, but these two girls had actually figured out a way they themselves could have an impact in making this world a better place for others.  My deep respect goes to them!

Now, I would like to repeat the reality of this:  I (an ignostic) have just bought a whole pile of the most beautiful Christmas cards ever from 2 very young people, one of whom wore the hijab (and, thus, was presumably not a Christian).  And the adult supervisor/enabler was (in my best guess) a Muslima.  I have no clues as to the cultural or religious thoughts of the third person.  Not one of us found anything in the least offensive in making, selling and buying cards wishing everyone to have a ‘Merry Christmas’!

To me, that is a perfect example of the way that people – without government imposed ‘official multiculturalism’ and the bureaucrats who force us into cultural apartheid – will do that most human thing ever:  build communities! And it proves we can do it without regard as to our background culture, religion, or any other superficial means of labeling us, classifying us and dividing us! 

That whole ‘divide and conquer’ will only work if we allow ourselves to be divided!  And if we allow ourselves to be divided, we will be conquered and our rights and freedoms will be taken away!

We must not be hiding our cultural icons from each other, for fear giving offence!  If we hide them, we cannot share them – nor can we rejoice in them!  We can learn from each other by sharing in each other’s festivals, ideas and thoughts.  That is the most human thing ever – and we must not allow those who wish to rule us by dividing us into ‘cultural solitudes’ to succeed!

We can understand that anything which celebrates the human spirit and the beauty of caring and sharing can help us build our community and grow as human beings.  And, at times, our young people can even teach us how sharing in each other’s celebrations can help people whom we do not even know!

That, in my never-humble-opinion, is REAL cultural tolerance! 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank