One AK per child

No, this is not some sort of a perversion of the ‘One Laptop per Child’ initiative – a very positive effort to help fight poverty in developing nations by placing education within the reach of each and every child, and which I wrote about here.

Instead, one Kalashnikov rifle is the price Osama bin Laden paid for each one of the child slaves he purchased to work on his marijuana farm in Sudan.  Think about that next time someone offers you a toke.

Yes – child slaves.

This seems unthinkable – today, in 2008, there are still children being captured and sold to slavery!  Some of their stories are beginning to come out, like ‘Slave:  My True Story’  by Mende Nazer  and ‘Escape from Slavery: The True Story of My Ten Years in Captivity and My Journey to Freedom in America’ by Francis Bok.

You can read more in FrontPageMagazine’s story, ‘Child Slavery in the Sudan’ by Stephen Brown.  The callousness and lack of empathy of the slavers is difficult to comprehend.

So, how could it be that today, slavery could still be practiced so openly?

I suppose we can thank the ‘desert religions’ and their ‘holy texts’ for this!

Please, do not misunderstand me – most Christians, Jews and Muslims today unequivocally condemn the practice of slavery.  Francis Bok even says that he could only escape his slavery because a Muslim family which disapproved of slavery helped him! 

Yet, Christian, Jewish and Muslim ‘holy books’ not only permit slavery, they describe the rules of how it should be practiced.  And, because ‘it is permitted by God’, many people justify the practice today.

Let’s look at the Christian’s Old Testament (it’s Jewish counterpart being the Torah).  Thanks to the Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality, here is an easy link to their ‘Biblically Correct Family Values’ , which quotes: 

Exodus 21:7-8: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”

If you are confused by the term ‘maidservant’, note that someone is sold to become one.  (Just keep this in mind when reading other bits of the Bible, and the word ‘maidservant’ is used.)  And, we know what ‘bethroher her to himself’ means…

The Society’s ‘Biblically Correct’ pamphlet on how to treat rape victims is no less informative:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Note that it is her father who gets the fifty shekels. The rape victim herself is not even worthy to receive monetary damages.

In other words, the rapist has just bought himself a ‘wife’ by paying her father 50 sheckles.  And, she becomes her rapist’s ‘wife’!

But there is more – here is explicit command to obey one’s owner– especially if one’s owner is also a Christian!

1 Tim. 6:1-2: “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and [his] doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise [them], because they are brethren; but rather do [them] service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.”

My point is not that the slavers in this story are Muslims – there are all kinds of slavers in the world today, both religious and secular.  However, it seems that feeling justified in owning (and abusing) other humans who are enslaved, feeling righteous in this practice, truly believing that one has the right  to oppress others because it pleases God – that is a monstrous mindset. 

Yet, it is this very mindset which is at the root of both slavery and the imposition of religious law onto secular society.  Whether it be the medieval Inquisition or modern-day Shariathe mindset is the same.  People feel justified in committing atrocities because they truly and honestly believe this is the will of one God or another…

That is why it is essential that we do not allow our secular laws to become increasingly accomodating of religious laws or even religious sensitivities!  That is why we must fight against the creeping of religious rules – ALL religious rules – into governing the behaviour (and speech) of the people in our society!

 

Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow – only one of the many victims of Sharia

It is inconcievable that a 13-year old should be publically executed.

It is unthinkable to stone a woman to death for the ‘crime’ of having been raped.

My mind is having incredible difficulty wrapping itself around the fact that both of these happened to the same person – Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow

What happened to this child is outrageous, and inexcusable and we must all work hard to make sure it never happens again!  And the way Aisha’s execution (can it even be called ‘execution’ when we are talking about a 13-year-old child?) is being reported – that is a crime in itself!

Just in case you are not familiar with this child’s suffering and murder, I wrote about it earlier.  She had been gang-raped, and when she sought ‘justice’ by filing a complaint with the police, she found out the hard way that her town had just come under ‘Sharia law’.  Her complaint menant that she was ‘admitting’ to have ‘engaged in extramarital sexual inercourse’, and that ‘justice’ demands that she be stoned to death…

Sharia is NOT an acceptable ‘law’ for any human being to be subjected to!  (Pay attention, all Brit readers, you have recently stripped human rights from a group of your own citizens, living in Britain – including a friend of mine – their only crime was being a Muslima!!!  Every single one of you should be ashamed of yourselves, until you get this abomination overturned!)

So, let us hear what life under Shari REALLY is…

How could it happen that the ‘legal courts’ would think that a 13-year-old can even ‘commit adultery’?  A ‘child’ can be abused by someone, but she cannot ‘commit adultery’!  Only an adult woman can ‘commit adultery’ – and then, only if she consents to a sexual act. 

How can it be that under Sharia, a 13-year-old would be considered ‘adult woman’?  Is this just some sort of a mistake?  Or, is it that under Sharia, it is perfectly legal for 13-year-old children to be ‘wives’???  After all, some ‘western’ reports called her ‘MRS. Aisha Dhuhuluw’…

So, what exactly is this ‘baby-wife’  ‘special case’?

But, that was a Christian’s interpretation.  He could be ‘twisting’ Islam…  To be fair, we should listen to what Islamic experts on marriage have to say on this topic:

Of course, this is only happening in the ‘far away’ countries ‘nobody cares about’!!!!  Right???  Oh, yes – and Britain – because Britain has instituted Sharia ‘law’ for British Muslims as the legal code for such things as ‘family law’ – which includes ‘marriages’. 

Here is what ‘marriage’ under ‘Sharia’ is like, from the child-wife’s point of view:

IF you are one of those sick enlightened people who think it’s OK for women in ‘far away’ places to suffer – and, please, do NOT count me among these people – then think again:

Far from being slowly but surely eradicated – these ‘Sharia attitudes’ are NOT the norm in fewer and fewer places…. To the contrary!  They are spreading, as Islamists (NOT respectable Muslims, but Islamists) spread their hateful and opressive ways throughout the world.

It is up to us, the adults, to protect our children.  All our children.  It is too late for Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow – but it is not too late to save others from Aisha’s fate!  If Sharia ‘law’ permits THIS to happen to children, then it is up to every single one of us to oppose this abomination perversely called Sharia ‘Law’!

Update:  The people who committed this crime against Aisha may have largely been funded by Brits!

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

How a 13-year-old rape victim’s execution is being reported

All right, we’ve all heard the gripes about how ‘things’ are distorted and what ‘gets reported’ is not always a factual, unbiased account of the events.  But this, this has got to be some of the most bizzare collection of distortions I have seen so far.

Or, at least, that I am aware that I have seen…

As far as I can piece this together (and I am NOT certain of the complete facts), it would appear that 13-year-old girl-child, Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow, was gang-raped.  She went to register the crime with the courts, presumably expecting the police to find and arrest her rapists.

However, last August, Aisha’s home town of Kismayo – a port in Southern Somalia – had been taken over by Islamist forces and Sharia law had been imposed.  When the child came to file her complaint with the police, she was asked ‘if she is sure this is what really happened’.  Aisha confirmed that she had, in fact, been gang-raped and asked for justice. 

This last bit came back to haunt her, her family, and anyone with a conscience!  At this ‘admission of engaging in extramarital sexual intercourse’ and ‘demands to be punished’, the police officials had ‘no choice’ but to arrest her.  The ‘Sharia Court’ (if you can call it a court) had heard the case and had ‘no choice’ but to sentence her to death by stoning.  After all, she herself ‘freely admitted her guilt’ and ‘demanded justice to be done’!!!

Dressed in black, with a green veil (green – the colour of Islam and peace), she was brought into a large stadium filled with about 1000 people.  Reporters, based on her ‘appearance’, guessed her age to be about 23 yearsof age, were forbidden to use their cameras, but radio broadcasts were permitted. 

Here, the child was bound hand and foot and – while screaming and pleading for her life – Aisha was buried up to her neck in a hole in the ground.

It would appear that the crowd – or at least some of the people within the crowd – tried to intervene and save the unfortunate child.  The ‘guards’ opened fire on the crowd, shooting a child dead.

50 men then started to throw stones at Aisha’s head (the only part of her above ground).  When they thought she was dead, they dug her up – but a check showed she was still alive, so they burried her again and continued to throw stones at her.  They had dug Aisha up 3 times to check if she is dead yet….and then burried her again to stone her some more…

Her family is distrought and angry.  Her father confirmed her age to be 13 years.

This, in itself, is a horrible story.  It is a nightmare!

I truly don’t know if there are words strong enough to express my anger and outrage!

But, it would appear, my reaction is not all that usual.  At least, if one were to go by what is being said in the many ‘official’ reports of Aisha’s suffering and murder lawbreaking and execution.

Please, consider the following:

AFP (Agence France Presse), the oldest news agency in the world, carries this report:

MOGADISHU (AFP) — Thousands of people gathered Monday to witness 50 Somali men stone a woman to death after an Islamic court in the southern port of Kismayo found her guilty of adultery, witnesses said.

Aisho Ibrahim Dhuhulow, who had been found guilty of extra-marital intercourse was buried in the ground up to her neck while the men pelted her head with rocks.

“Our sister Aisha asked the Islamic Sharia court in Kismayo to be charged and punished for the crime she committed,” local Islamist leader Sheikh Hayakallah told the crowd.

“She admitted in front of the court to engaging in adulterous sexual intercourse,” he added.

“She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply.”

The execution was carried in one of the city’s main squares.

Did you notice the mention of the fact she was a rape victim?  No, because this was not mentioned.  But you might have noticed how her ‘demand for justice’ was explained by the local Islamist leader Sheikh Hayakallah!!! 

Good reporting, AFP, making sure we hear the ‘proper’ side of the story!  Good reporting, AFP, for ‘digging for the details of what really happened there’!  Bang-up job, you are doning!  Truly!

But they are not the only ones reporting on this murder of Aisha along these lines…

Surely, that ‘most extreme-right-wing-media outlet’, Fox News, will have done a bit of digging around to find out what was happening, right?  If so, it was not mentioned in their article, ‘Somali woman stoned to death for adultery’!

No verification with her family, or Amnesty International, which also seems to have had no trouble learning Aisha’s true age – 13, not the 23 admittedly arrived at by a reporter’s ‘guess’….

No explanation that the ‘adultery’ in question consisted of being gang-raped….

WHAT THE F$*&Q^#$*&!!!!!!

How about other sources?

The ‘neutral’ and award winning Sky News reported:  ‘Cheating’ woman stoned to death.  I suppose the ‘Cheating’ – being in quotation marks – constitutes ‘neutrality’ (also in quotation marks).  And, they do report that while the officials explained she demanded this punishment herself (!), they do quote witnesses that heard her scream and saw her struggle….and they hint that only the guns of the guards – who killed a child in the process – kept the crowd from freeing poor Aisha.  But, not the correct age, not a peep about the fact that she had been the victim of rape….except those quotation marks around ‘cheating’, that is…

Why is it that one has to go to blogs (A New Dark Age Is Dawning)  and non-mainstream media like ‘Islam:  the religion of peace’ to find out information, and only then can kernels of it be seen in the ‘respectable news-outlets’ reports?

It was not until today, 5-or-so days after her murder execution, that there is even a peep about the true story…. CNN carried the little mention.

What are we doing?  Are we ‘normalizing’ Islamist violence against women?  Are we all headed for the burka?

Nike (among others!!!) is already working to normalize such attitudes!

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

‘Linking to offensive site is not defamation’ – legal precedent set in BC court

As many Canadian bloggers are being targetted for ‘lawfare’ – using real courts or the semi-judicial (but just as legally binding) Human Rights Commission/Tribunals in order to bully them with the threat of stressful, expensive and long-term legal battle – we have a legal precedent that might serve to curb at least some of these.

For example, Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury  is being dragged in front of the HRC for having linked to a site which contained something that was ‘potentially offensive’.  She, and many others like her, may now have a new weapon in their defense:  the precedent set in a BC court (a real court – unsurprisingly, is not as random as the HRCs!).

In this case, Jon Newton (p2pnet) was being sued for publishing a link – the argument being that the link itself constituted ‘re-publishing’ the offensive material. 

From p2pnet, in his own words:

Following a landmark decision by British Columbia Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher, p2pnet is the victor in a case in which Vancouver businessmen Wayne Crookes, once an important federal Green Party of Canada official, tried to claim I defamed him by linking to articles he didn’t like.

That amounted to publication,  he maintained.

The full decision can be found here (from p2pnet) and the actual pdf is here.

An excellent summary can be found at ‘EXCESS COPYRIGHT’:

Essentially, the Court held that a link is much the same as a footnote, except a lot more convenient.

Congratulations to both Mr. Jon Newton and his lawyer, Mr. Dan Burnett!  And, Judge Kelleher – well done!

Steyn/Macleans update

As most Canadians are aware, the ‘Steyn verdict’ came out yesterday:  Steyn and Macleans have been acquitted.  If you are not aware of the situation:

  • Macleans is Canada’s oldest news magazine. 
  • Macleans reprinted, as an article, an excerpt from ‘America Alone’, a book by Mark Steyn.
  • In this excerpt, Mark Steyn quotes a Norwegian Imam as saying that (I am paraphrasing) Muslims will win Europe without ever raising the sword, because they will outbreed the indigenous Europeans.
  • The term the Imam used was that ‘Muslims are breeding like mosquitoes’…
  • There was never a question that this is an accurate quote, the Imam has confirmed saying this
  • Despite this, 3 different ‘courts’ – Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals in Canada have charged Steyn/Macleans for ‘spreading hate against Muslims’ for pritnitn this quote.
  • The Human Rights ‘courts’ do not follow the rigorous rules and procedures of a regular court, but their rulings are no less binding.  And, ‘double jeopardy’ (in this case, triple), where a person can only be charged once per offence, do not apply, nor does ‘innocent until proven guilty’, nor is truthfulness of the comment an acceptable defence:  they do not decide truthfullness, but ‘hurtfulness’ of a comment.
  • Their defence bill (not reimbursable, not allowed to even sue to be reimbursed for court costs) has topped 7 figures.

So, finally, yesterday, they were aquitted of the charges.  Here is an MP3 podcast of an interview where Mr. Steyn describes the experience in his own words.   Here’s the audio [mp3] (via Western Standard’s shotgun blog)

Chilling.

Comment to B’nai Brith Canada

B’nai Brith Canada is one of the oldest human rights organizations in Canada.  Several days ago, they released a very interesting document titled:

Hate Jurisdictions of Human Rights Commissions: A System in Need of Reform

Submission by the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada to the Canadian Human Rights Commission

 It is an interesting document, both in what it says and in what its publication implies:  even the most ‘politically correct’ human rights organizations are considering the current happenings at the Canadian HRCs to be, in the least, worriesome.  That should give us all a moment to pause and think!

Dr. Frank Dimant is Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada and CEO of the organization’s Institute for International Affairs and the League for Human Rights.  Yestreday, on his blog ‘Frankly Speaking’, he asked for feedback on what people thought of the abovemantioned document. 

Following is the comment I submitted: 

Having read this submission several days ago, I found much in it which was very true and in need of saying.  Thank you for that.

However, there were some parts which I very strongly disagreed with and which – in my opinion – are illustrations of fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of human rights.  Please, allow me to explain using just one example.

In section iii – ‘Hate jurisdictions and their essential role’, there is a statement:  “The Holocaust did not begin with censorship.  It began with hate speech.  Auschwitz was built with words.”

This statement is demonstrably untrue.  The Holocaust DID INDEED begin with censorship:  the censorship OF hate speech! 

Prior to Hitler’s rise to power, Germany did indeed have hate speech laws, very similar to those we have here in Canada today.  These laws were indeed used to prosecute those who ‘spread hate against Jews’ – and Jewish leaders of that era were very satisfied with the application and efficacy of these laws!

It was precisely these hate speech laws which Hitler, once in power, used in order to silence dissenters – the very people who could have prevented atrocities like Auschwitz…..had they not been stripped of their freedom of speech. 

Auschwitz could never have been built had the fear of prosecution under hate speech laws not silenced those who would have spoken up against it!

It is precisely because hate speech laws can be, were and are used to silence those who would protest ‘incitement to hate’ which makes atrocities a possibility.  True, the ‘incintement to hate’ must (at least at first) be veiled or disguised in order to become entrenched as ‘acceptable’, but the veil can be very thin indeed.  We have seen it in history (the Nazi regime) and we are seeing it again from militant Islamists.

It is not by coincidence that many leaders of militant and politicized Islamism idolize Hitler.  But these Islamists are doing more than just idolizing Hitler- they are quite intentionally emulating him by using hate speech laws as a weapon, not a shield.  Failing to recognize this could be very bad for our society.

There is no place for hate speech laws in a society which wishes to remain free and whose citizens respect each other’s rights.  It was these hate speech laws themselves which facilitated  opression, torture and murder under the Nazi regime and which can (and, I fear, will) be used in this way again!  That is something we must never again allow to happen!

If you would be interested in more of my observartions, please, contact me.

Thank you,

Xanthippa

Can ‘good’ athletes compete in ‘bad’ Olympics?

The Beijing Olympics is about as much about sports as Sexapalooza is about human rights.

No, this is not at all being facetious – it is a very valid comparison.  Without ‘human rights’ (specifically, the freedom to exercise them), Sexapalooza would not be able to educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of sexuality’, its primary goal.  Similarly, without ‘sports’, the Beijing Olympics organizers (i.e. Chinese Government) could not educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of how wonderful their regime is’, their primary goal.

(Why the comparison to sexuality?  Because typically, repressing sexuality is among the first goals of an opressive regime.  And, you can bet your bippies, there will be no Sexapalooza (or anything even remotely similar) anywhere within smiting distance of the Beijing Olympics.)

When, eariler, there were calls for boycott of the games, ‘people’ said:  “But what about the athletes?  It is not fair to them!”  It seemed that, in many people’s eyes, the ‘right’ of the athletes to compete in the Olympics somehow invalidated any concerns about the message the world is sending by allowing this farce to go on! 

By participating, the world is very much condoning the harvesting (yes, HARVESTING – like, as in, ‘reaping’ – by definition) of human organs from political prisoners/innocent citizens – and that is just a tip of the iceberg of opression in China! 

But, sending a message that this behaviour is not acceptable and NOT participating in this sham of an Olympics would, somehow, be ‘unfair’ to the athletes…  We just don’t understand – they TRAINED for this!  It’s their DREAM!  And everyone knows that an athlete’s dream is so much more important thant a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s nightmare!

Their ‘right’ to compete is SOOOO much more important than a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s right to keep her liver!  (I wonder if Monty Python, in their worst nightmare, ever thought that their ‘can we have your liver’ sketch would come true….ecxept without the ‘asking’ bit!)

So, as we are about to be force-fed a set of Olympic games in a regime so controlling of its people, it dictates how cheering may or may not be done, why is nobody asking: 

‘What ABOUT the athletes?’ 

Who are these people for whose ‘right’ to ‘get a podium’ so many others have to pay for in blood? (And, make no mistake about it – much of the Olympic fanfare HAS been paid by the proceeds from ‘organ harvesting’.  Instead of ‘blood diamonds’, these are ‘blood medals’!) 

Who are these priveleged few, whose desire for fame is so great, they will – literally – look the other way, amile and say nothing, accept the medals as their dues… while their hosts murder and torture to get them these medals?

I, for one, do not think that any being worthy of being called ‘human’ could possibly choose to elevate themselves this high above others.  It is arrogant elitism at its worst.  And it is allowing their bodies to be used to promote this corrupt and opressive regime – for a fitting reward, of course!

So, would ‘good athletes’ prostitute themselves to the ‘grim reapers’?

The end of the Internet?

The Internet is the one tool in the hands of us, the ordinary people which allows us access to a wide variety of information and opinions.  It empowers us, so we are able to form opinions which are truly our own.

After all, most of us are not able to explore every aspect of science and society (and all that) all on our own!  If I spend my time in the lab, chances are I will not be able to travel to far off places to see what is happening there.  And, if there is no news-source to tell me that, say, a brand new type of car fuelled by water has been invented in Brazil, it just might not occurr to me to be dissatisfied with my gas-guzzler here….

The internet corrects this.  It allows me to search all kinds of sites, read things written by people from all over the world, with all kinds of opinions.  Raw and unfiltered… so I must learn to differentiate between supportable fact and fanciful notions or downright manipulations, but – again – the internet enables me to do that.  I learn a lot by doing this.

Yet, perhaps, even before my younger son gets to high-school, this may no longer be the case…. 

Thanks to Blazing Catfur, here is a truly scary piece of information:

AmericanFreePress.net published an article titled ‘Canada’s ISPs plan net censorship’.  Here are some excerpts:

The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether. “

The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package. Such plans would likely favor major news outlets and suppress smaller news outlets, as the major news outlets would be free (with subscription), and alternative news outlets, like AFP, would incur a fee for every visit.”

“Marketing and big budget ‘content-pushing’ just doesn’t seem to work on the Internet, and this is something that several industries want fixed. ISPs know this and will benefit greatly by fixing this for the marketing and entertainment industry,”

In other words, the internet will no longer be what it is now.  No more ‘surfing’.  Instead, the internet might – in effect – become no more than an extention of the current cable-subscription service/directed advertizing. 

The ISPs will be paid by the ‘richest’ sites (which will increasingly include specific TV shows and other ‘big-budget’ mass-media entertainment) to include their websites on the ‘package’ of 50/100/200 websites, much as entertainment channels are now sold in ‘bundles’.  If one wishes to go to other sites, they will either be ‘billed per visit’, or (depending on the ‘package’ one can afford to purchase from the ISP, all other sites will be blocked.

Yes, blocked.

But, even if you could access them ‘per visit’ – how many sites do you check on a daily basis?  For fun, news, entertainment?  5?  10?  50?

How many would you visit if it cost you $1.00 each time you went on?

And, if people can no longer afford to frequent all but the richest, most ‘influential’ (with ISPs, of course) websites, how long before most of the rest become obsolete…extinct???

And who will then control the majority of the content seen on the internet?  It will be the entertainment industry!  The very same people who have already bougth full or partian control of so much of our news industry.   

 Well, at least there will be consistency…

Our movies and TV shows will show the proper ‘moral’ lesson to go along with the ‘news’ and the ‘internet chatter’ of the day.  The ‘social engineers’ at the helm of these multinational corporations (which is what the big entertainment companies are now) will have unprecendented power over the opinions we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are able to form.

Is this an isolated move?

I wish it were….  But with the ‘stuff’ that has been happening all around the world, aimed at intimidating, limiting and regulating the expressions of free speech on the internet, this appears to be only one little step in the march towards internet collectivism….

 

(Thank you, ‘Dust My Broom’, for this most excellent post.)

Immigrants: escaping the ‘self-imposed ghettos’

Over the last few years, people all over the world have noticed ‘problems with immigrants’.

Failure to integrate leads to demands for the host culture to adapt to the immigrants, rather than the immigrants adapting to the culture and accepting the customs of their adoptive land.  Perpetuation of non-integration leads to immigrant-youth alienation, which, in turn, leads to immigrant-youth radicalization.  This leads to a vicious cycle of conflict between immigrants and their host cultures.

BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!!!

Immigrants come to their new, carefully selected homeland filled with dreams and hopes….  I know I did!!!  Along with these, there are also a few apprehensions, or dowright fears.  The greatest fear which I, as an immigrant, personally faced in coming to a new land is that of ‘the unknown’.

Yes, most of us educate ourselves about our new land before arriving here.  We study the demographics, the political system, the statistics about the population.  Yet, the textbooks can never capture the essence of the landscape, TV-documentaries never reveal the true atmosphere of a place – at best, these are mere glimpses that can help prepare us for the reality which our new homeland will be.

And we want there to be differences! If there were none, there would have been no point to having left our birthplaces!  We come here for the differences!

So, it is not the fact that there are differences that is frightening.  Rather, it is the not knowing the scope of the differences….and how we will be able to understand them and learn to adjust to them.  It is sort of like going through one’s teens all over again – but without the benefits of youth!  That is a very real fear most of us immigrants do face when we first arrive.

It is natural that we should reach out to others, who have gone through this before us.  Especially the members of our original ethnic groups who will have experienced these differences already, and know how to explain them in cultural and linguistic terms that are easiest for us to understand.  It is comforting to the new immigrant to see people who came from similar backgrounds are thriving and happy here, and we try to learn from thier experiences.  And that is good – usually…

As with everything, too much of a good thing becomes poisonous.

So it is with this type of help. 

The first, and perhaps most obvious, danger is that the person(s) doing the explaining of the customs have not successfully integrated themselves, that their understanding of the mainstream culture and how to integrate into it is flawed. 

This does not, in any way, shape or form, imply that there is any malice or ill intent here.  To the contrary.  There are many immigrants who misunderstand or misinterpret much of the cultural mainstream about them, and only partially succeed in integrating.  Perhaps their professional skills and/or their tenacity allow them to succeed economically, but they simply do not have the time, skills or desire to integrate socially.  Perhaps their social obligations to non-integrated members of the community hold them hostage.

It does not mean that they are any less intelligent, or any less ‘cultured’!  Not in the least!  Being able to successfully integrate into another society requires a specific set of skills, and ‘intelligence’ is not a deciding factor in these.  Nor is the ‘previous culture’, the one they are coming from, necessarily an indicator of how successful will be their social integration.  I really do not know what the indicators are, or what the required skills are – though mastering the language does have a lot to do with it.  Simply, I have observed that this phenomenon of ‘partial integration’ cuts across cultures, professions, education levels – even perceived ‘people skills’.

The people who have only partially integrated then naturally cleave towards other immigrants, who are a ‘fresh source’ of contact with their ‘original culture’.  After all, intelligent, sociable people have a need for ‘cultured expression’.  Those for whom the host culture is incomprehensible – or, at least, viewed in a skewed way – will seek out immigrants in order to satisfy this need to sustain the ‘cultured’ part of their soul. 

In turn, they honestly try to be helpful to the newcomers, helping them establish themselves here….mirroring their own un-integrated ways!  And much of what they do is helpful – yet, at what cost…

This is strike one against many new immigrants:  the very help they receive may, indeed, perpetuate misconceptions about the host society and actively prevent the new immigrants from successfully integrating within it.

The second, much less ‘visible’ or ‘correctible’ danger is ‘social indebtedness’.

One of the best human qualities is our reciprocity in kindness.  It is what we need for that most human of things:  building communities. It is one of our best qualities – yet, it is also this very same quality which may shackle immigrants and prevent them from successfully integrating into their host society.

When we receive help from someone – someone who is truly interested in helping us, not one who is trying to somehow get an advantage by doing things for us, but who is genuinely doing things because they want to help us, we feel truly gratefull, and ‘well-inclined’ towards them.  We wish to reciprocate their kindness.  Through this benevolence, this ‘reciprocity of voluntary kindnesses’, communities are built – one relationship at a time. 

In order to successfully itegrate, an immigrant needs to turn to its host society to satisfy her/his cultural needs. 

If this does not happen, there will not be anything but the most superficial integration.  It is therefore ESSENTIAL that these ‘community bonds’ be establilshed with members of the mainstream society – NOT that of the socially un-integrated immigrant community!

Yet, it is exactly within the un-integrated elements of the immigrant community that a newcomer to a society will find help, and it is with these people that the social bonds will begin to be built through ‘reciprocity of kindnesses’.

Before they realize it, many immigrants find themselves living (socially and/or physically) in a self-imposed ghettos, made up of immigrants from their background, who have not integrated into the host society.

As the size of this ‘ghetto’ grows, the need to integrate decreases.  Once the ‘community’ is large enough to satisfy both the economic and social needs of the immigrants, there will be little incentive to interact (much less integrate into) the host society.  Even worse:  any desire or attempt to integrate (outside the immigrant community) will be perceived by the ‘helpful’ elements within this sub-culture as ‘being ungrateful’ for the help received.  After all, this would be a rejection of their version of the host society – and, in effect, the rejection of the benefactors themselves!!!

Nobody wishes to be ungrateful or disrespectful of the very people who have gone out of their way to help her/him.  Eventually, there will be very strong pressure on the new immigrant to reject integration into the host society.

So, how do we escape this self-imposed ghetto?

I don’t know a ‘good’ way of going about this.  I know how I escaped – but I also know ‘my way’ cannot possibly work for everyone…. 

I escaped by ‘being eccentric’.

I’m the first one to admit it – I am eccentric.  And, ‘eccentric’ is one of ‘them irregular words’:

  1. I am ‘original’/’free thinker’
  2. You are ‘eccentric’
  3. he/she/it is ‘certifiably nuts’

I know I hurt people’s feelings along the way – people who were nice people, and tried to help me the best they could.  But, I was ‘equal’ in my treatment of others and rejection of their ‘help’.  Soon, my ‘would-like-to-be-benefactors’ realized that I was indeed grateful to them, in my own way, it’s just that I was a bit weird…. and incredibly pig-headed, headstrong and perhaps even a little bit stubborn! 

So, socially, I was ‘written off’ as a ‘lost cause’….. 

Still, when I became of ‘marrigable age’, there were MANY attempts to find an ‘appropriate match’ for me from within the ‘immigrant community’.  I suspect that male or female, all young immigrants – and children of immigrants – go through this to some degree.  And I also understand that this is really meant in the best possible way. 

But, well, that way, self-ghettoization lies! 

Again, I know I was seen as rude – but in the most polite way I could manage (yes, that is not saying much…), I rejected ALL ‘help’ equally.  I did understand the desire to help me drove these efforts, and thanked my ‘benefactors’ for their efforts, even as I rejected them.  As politely as possible, but firmly and definitely. 

My best help in this came from my parents.  They were supportive of my desire to fully integrate.  Had they had a different set of morals, had they thought my desire to actually exercise the freedoms my adopted homeland afforded me was an attack upon them and their honour, I might not have had the desire or courage to make my integration complete.  And to them go  my eternal thanks for empowering me like this!

In times when so many immigrants live in self-imposed ghettos, it is important for those of us who have succeeded in integrating into our host cultures to share our experiences and insights.  It is imperative that we go out of our way to help all other immigrants – not just those from out specific background – succeed the way we have, so they, too, may enjoy all that our new homeland has to offer us! 

It is just as important that we do identify ourselves as immigrants to ‘the mainstream culture’ – in order to make people see that immigrants CAN successfully integrate!  And, of course, to reassure them that we came here BECAUSE of thier culture and customs, and that we, the immigrants, want them preserved at all costs!!!

Therefore, it is also imperative that we, the well-adjusted immigrants, oppose most vehemently and most vocally the erosion of values in the cultures of our adoptive homelands!!!  We are the ones who MUST LEAD the forces that protect the cultures and customs whose protections we sought when we were the most vulnerable! 

After all, this is the only way we will be able to preserve our host cultures!  We have NOT picked them lightly, we picked them because we liked them. 

Perhaps we each and every immigrant is not completely comfortable with all aspects of the host culture, but the whole is what we came for, and this whole cannot exist without the bits we are not all that comfortable with….so we must protect ALL OF IT!!!! 

All right, I know I am ranting now – but, well, this is something really, really important! 

I do not wish to loose all that my adoptive homeland has to offer – especially its culture!  I came here for the benfits the ‘Western culture’ of individualism has to offer – and I’ll be damned if I don’t do everything in my power to preserve it for my children to enjoy!!!

Is this a trickle of reason?

Democracy is a wonderfu ideal.  Yet, there will always be a question of how to exercise our democratic rights, while preventing a ‘tyrrany of the majority’?

To many people, the best answer is:

Protecting the rights of each and every individual, the minority of ‘one’,  is the best and only way to ensure the protection of the whole society from tyrrany by the State.

Yet, not everyone agrees.  The philosophy which seems to currently be gripping much of ‘the Western world’ turns its back to the individual, turns a blind eye to the violations of individual freedoms, in favour of collectivism.  I have wondered how much of this is a philosophical difference, how much is simply due to the attitudes inherrent in different political systems.

Many people today think that the best way to ensure peope are not discriminated against – the best way to promote tolerance and harmony within a society – is to put limits on the freedom of speech.  By instituting ‘hate speech laws’, these people argue, hate and prejudice will not be allowed to spread and will, eventually, be eliminated from our society.

I wish this would be so!

Time and time again, ‘hate speech laws’ have not only failed to reduce prejudice, I woud argue that they have allowed it to fester, until a time when it erupts in hateful and abominable acts.  What is worse, they have resulted in political institutions which are invariably used to opress, all in the name of preventing opression.  We have seen this happen many times in history, but we still seem unable to learn the right lessons from history!  

Let us consider the example of  Germany in the 1930’s.  After all, it is precisely to prevent atrocities such as the Holocaust that ‘hate speech laws’ are being instituted.  Yet, in Maclean’s, Mark Steyn (both he and Macleans are also being persecuted under ‘hate speech laws’) quotes Canada’s leading libertarian lawyer, Alan Borovoy, as saying:

“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”

To the contrary!  Hitler, once elected, effectively used these laws to usurp power.

Should there be ANY limits on speech?  Mr. Levant, also currently being persecuted by the thought crime police, has videotaped part of his interrogation by the Alberta HRC.  He makes the most passionate, well reasoned speech on the attributes of free speech

But, is tide turning?

For the past several years, what would appear to be illegal behaviour in both its investigations and prosecutions by the HRCs in Canada has inexplicably been tolerated.  Now, this may come to an end. This week, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have announced they are opening a criminal investigatigation of some actions by the HRCs.  Ezra Levant has more information on this. 

Australia may also be changing its ideas with regard to limiting freedom of speech.  As Robert Jago writes on Dime a Dozen, Australia’s Liberal Party is calling for a change to its ‘hate speech laws’, because they have been shown to promote, not curb, divisions in their society! 

But, perhaps the best news comes from Erope! Czech Republic is a nation of reason (fully 59% of Czechs describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or non-believers) and their scepticism extends to other areas, as well.  Lubos Motl, one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists, writes that Vaclav Kaus, the President of Czech Republic, has vetoed an ‘anti-discrimination’ bill.  His justification?

“I consider the bill to be a useless, counterproductive, and low-quality bill while its consequences seem to be problematic….”

 Good on you, Czechs!

You can read the full, well reasoned and excellent speech here.  Mr. Motl writes that, ironically, “Because the bill has been “ordered” by the European bureaucrats and the country may face sanctions (let’s say it: the Czechs may be discriminated against) if the anti-discrimination bill is not approved”

Yes, the overwhelming bureacracies still want to control every aspect of society, including what we say and think.  But, little stories like this make me hopeful.  Perhaps these are the beginnings of a real change in attitudes:  one that will place more value on each and every individual, and treat all of us with the respect and equality in the eyes of the law that we deserve!

Has the dyke of opression finally sprung its first little leaks of reason?

 

P.S.  President Klaus’ book, ‘Blue Planet In Green Chains – What is Endangered:  Climate or Freedom’ is due for release in English this month.