A question – please answer, if you can!

Yes, I usually post my never-humble-opinions.

But this time, I know I would be out of my depth had I offered one….

Still, the question itself has kept me up on more than one night.

Granted, my early schooling came behind the Iron Curtain – so, perhaps the very premises of my question are flawed.  Yet, I have read enough (among the little bits of ‘H’istory that I have indulged myself in) here, in The West, that suggests to me that this question may, indeed, be more valid today than it has been in, well, almost a century.

Therefore, my dear reader, I beg you to indulge me in asking my question and, if you can, in enlightening me with the answer.

Thank you!

Now, for my long-winded question:

Before World War 1, the movement of peoples between nations was not regulated.

At least, it was not regulated in the manner in which it became regulated later on in the 20th century.

Yes, of course, there were border controls:  but these were meant mostly for economic purposes (import/export taxes) and to apprehend criminals.

After all, it was not so long ago that mainland Europe was still using the Feudal System of governance, where the freedom of movement of country folk was under complete control of their landlords.

And the aristocracy was not limited by borders:  crossing them freely and unencumbered to pursue political marriages.  The land they held was their only anchor to the kingdom in which they held it.

The craftsmen were also not anchored in place by ‘kingdom-governance’ (I cannot think of a proper term for this), but by the self-regulated guilds of their region, under which they were permitted to practice their craft:  guilds were built upon the apprentice-based artificially created scarcity of their products within various regions, calculated to ensure higher-than-market value of their work and thus inflating guild-members standard of living and social standing.

Similarly, scholars and artists moved freely between kingdoms, based on where they could find private patrons willing to fund them and their works.  (Note:  painters may be regarded as ‘artists’ today, but, prior to accessible photography, they were considered craftsmen and thus subject to the guild system.)  For example, consider the alchemical court of Rudolph the Second.

After centuries of feudalism, it took a bit from when the shackles were shattered to when people gathered the courage to reach for freedom and travel to far-away lands – not just to learn, or as a right of passage, but to settle for good.

At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the human migrations truly became unfettered and populations began to migrate.

From my own cultural background – this is where the huge exodus of Czechs into Texas began:  so great was this migration that it was not until the 1970’s that Spanish overtook Czech as the second language of Texas. The University of Austin still has the largest Czech Studies department outside of the Czech Republic…  And don’t even get me started on ‘Miss Czech Texas’..

Yes, I realize that I am providing just one example here, but, I am no historian:  which is why I hope to get responses which will enlighten me.

Now that I have set the stage…

It has been suggested that one of the most important ‘behind-the-scenes’ reasons for the First World War was the absence of proper regulation on

the migration of populations across political borders.

Yes, of course – there were the ‘obvious’ reasons:  but I have heard the claim that these ‘obvious’ reasons were, in fact, brought about because of the cultural instability and tensions brought about by, in practical terms, unregulated migration of populations across culturo-political borders.

It would be difficult to argue that what we are seeing now, in the EU in particular and in all of Europe in general is exactly the same type of unregulated migration of populations across cutluro-political borders!

But, it is even more pointed now than what it had been prior to WW1:  at least back then, the migrations did not tend to cross religio-cultural borders – something that is most definitely happening now.  The new migrants flooding Europe, without any true governance, are not just politically and culturally different, they are also religiously different:  subscribing to an intolerant, supremacist religion that permits exploitation and violence against non-members of said religion and refuses to recognize any culture other than its own…

Finally, the question:

Are the current, practically unregulated migration conditions into Europe as dangerous, if not more, than the ones that sparked World War 1?

Umar Mulinde. He chose to live his truth, despite the threat from Islam.

The Unknown-The Day I Was Called a Woman by Islam

For more information on Islamic laws on marriage, please see my previous posts:

Marriage under Sharia, part 1

Marriage under Sharia, part 2

It is also important to note that the Islamic Prophet Muhammed said that men and children are not, under Sharia, required to cover their hair:  only women who are either available for marriage or married are to cover their hair.  It is the role of the father (or, in his absence, the female’s wali, or ‘male guardian’, since women are never considered independent humans under Sharia) to determine at which age she is available for marriage and that this guardian is to signal this availability to the Umma (the Muslim community) by ‘imposing the veil on her’.

While the customary age for this is 9 lunar years of age, under Sharia, the female’s wali is the one who decides her eligibility for marriage, regardless of physical age or maturity.  There is no lower limit and under some Islamic rulings, even an infant may be married off and her husband consummate the marriage – though if she is physically damaged by this, the husband will be responsible for her maintenance for the rest of her life (but she will not count towards his total of maximum of 4 concurrent wives).

And then, there is muta’a:  the temporary ‘pleasure marriage’… Of course, if the girl is young, under muta’a, it is her wali who collects the mahr ‘bride gift/price’… because while a woman is entitled to own property, under Sharia, it is her wali who controls it for her – as a proper guardian should.

Isn’t Sharia wonderful?  It can take something sordid and despicable and turn it into something virtuous that pleases Allah himself!

Bill Warner PhD: Political Islam – Questions and Answers

Waiting for Eric Brazeau’s appeal hearing: 17th of April, 2015

This is a mood-setting background description – for the actual event itself, please, see here.

Finally, the day is here: Eric Brazeau will have his appeal motion hearing today!

What’s more: I am going to get to watch history be made!!!

For a wordy account of my journey here and the impressions of the courthouse, please, see here (written in the in-between time from when my bus arrived downtown Toronto to when I got to enter the courthouse, so it sets the atmosphere outside and is indulgently loquacious).

In the hour-and-a-half while I was outside in the foggy Toronto dawn (the direct sun rays never reached street level), I managed to get….sunburned. Now, my face is pink and turning redder and itchier by the minute! But, I digress!

It took me a while to find the proper place to go: that is the cost of showing up at the courthouse before the daily schedule does. Helpful people try to give you the best advice they can, but they just might send you to another building a block away and it just might take you an hour to get back to where you were in the beginning.

But, this time, the schedule was posted and I had no trouble going up the escalator and down the long corridor and around the corner, all the way to courtroom 2-6, where Eric’s case is scheduled to be heard at 10am.

There are no chairs just outside courtroom 2-6, so, at 9:15am, I am sitting around the corner, in front of 2-4, hoping that I’ll see other people who come here to support Eric and/or report on this incredibly important lawsuit and typing all this in, so that I may report to you, my dear readers, my freshest impressions of this day.

The Toronto courthouse is extremely different from the Ottawa one. First of all, the security is much, much tighter.

Of course, after the October terrorist attack in Ottawa, the security in the Ottawa courthouse also increased: main entrance only, checking bags etc. But, as of March, metal detectors and such were only used in select cases, placed in front of select courtrooms. Here, we are talking full TSA workup, with dire warnings that if they find even the tiniest pen-knife, you will be arrested and thrown in jail, never to see the light of day again, as will your children, and your children’s children and… OK, I may be paraphrasing a bit, but that is the general gist of the warning. I was a bit afraid they might confiscate my Redbull, as getting wings might seem dangerous, but I got lucky!

And while the security people checking bags and people coming in were friendly enough, in an officious kind of way (asking cheerfully if I’m showing up for jury duty), the security guard nearby the desk that lists the daily roster would do an about face and march in a different direction if a person even threatened to try to catch his eye.

The Ottawa guys are different: they go out of their way to be helpful, thinking of ways to search for your case (and, yes, at times, it almost seems like the way the cases are listed is meant to confuse and discourage). Let’s hope the Ottawa guys keep their friendly demeanour.

While waiting for 10 o’clock to arrive, I stuck up a conversation with a nice lady sitting next to me.  As we were chatted amiably, I explained why I was there and why Eric’s case was such an important one.

She took a great interest in it.  At the time, she heard something about some stuff happening on the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission), but from the mainstream newspapers, she did not understand what it was all about.  When she learned that Eric was still in jail, just because he said out loud that he did not like a specific religion, she was very angry on his behalf!

She confided that once, not that long ago, she was taken aback by a fundie (that is short for Christian fundamentalist) co-worker who had expressed a rather homophobic belief.  She did not like it, and explained to he co-worker that she did not like it, but she thought that it would have been wrong to stop the co-worker from saying out loud what she truly believes, even if it was stupid!

And I fully agreed with her!

The best response to bad speech is more good speech.

Yes, she agreed, because of the danger of driving bad speech underground, where it would gain power precisely because it was persecuted!!!

I was so happy to hear that she gets it!  She really, really gets it!

Perhaps there is still hope for our citizens!

It was on this note of high expectations that I am packing up and getting ready to enter the courtroom.

David Wood: The Jihad Triangle

Bill Warner: The Evil Done by Good Men



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers