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.
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?
Major Stephen Coughlin will be in Montreal on Wednesday, the 16th of September, Ruby Foo’s Hotel, 7655 Decarie Blvd. .
And, he will be right here in Ottawa on Thursday, 17th of September, at the Lord Elgin Hotel, 100 Elgin Street, at 7pm.
Both events are brought to you by Act!ForCanada.
For more information on Islamic laws on marriage, please see my previous posts:
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!
Finally, somebody really, really gets it!
Just because somebody believes in an ancient myth does not give them the right to torture animals in the name of that silly myth!
And now, Denmark has banned the religious exemption for Halal and Kosher slaughterers not to adhere to humane slaughtering practices.
‘The ban, which requires slaughterhouse workers to stun animals before killing them, will now extend to religious communities that were previously afforded an exemption. “Animal rights come before religion,” Danish minister for agriculture and food Dan Jørgensen told Denmark’s TV2.’
Finally, one place where common sense and human compassion wins out over irrational beliefs!
For the past decade or so, it has been drilled into us – and by ‘us’, I mean ‘citizens of Western democracies’ – that drawing any image, no matter how innocent, of the Islamic prophet Muhammed is a taboo.
Not to be done. under any circumstances.
Doing so would constitute ‘a provocation’ – and any response, however unreasonable or disproportionate, by Muslims anywhere on Earth is therefore the fault of the ‘provocateur’.
But, is it?
Is it, really?!?!?
What ever happened to denouncing ‘the hecler’s veto’? I thought that in a civilized society, each person is responsible for his or her actions – and ‘provocation’ is not an excuse to violence….especially non-violent ‘provocation’.
Yet, for the past ten-or-so-years, we have been conditioned (primarily by the cowardly mainstream media, but also by the way policing has systematically been carried out) to blame the person who is exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms for ‘causing a disturbance’ or ‘disturbing public peace’ when people react violently to them.
This is as upside down as it can get: yet, we have become so conditioned to this situation that we no longer question it.
At this point, drawing any picture – caricature or flattering – of the Islamic prophet Muhammed is seen to be ‘beyond the pale’ and anyone who dares to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech with regards to him is seen as the villain in any violent reaction to this lawful action.
Sad, but true. Very true.
The media spin is predictable: ‘they have a right to…, but…’
Meaning: ‘Yeah, they did something lawful that provoked other people to break the law, so it’s their own fault they got killed….’
So, the billion-dollar-question is: what constitutes such a provocation?!?!?
Holding a ‘Draw Muhammed Day event’ is one – as I learned on the 19th of May, 2015.
Holding an ‘equal opportunity blasphemy day’ is another, as I learned on the 19th of June, 2015.
So, what about yoga? Nobody can consider a bunch of people ‘stretching’ to be a provocation, right?
Well, not so fast…
June 21st, 2015, was UN’s ‘international Yoga Day’!
People all over the world got together in unbelievably unflattering outfits to stretch and grunt and look silly – while feeling like they ‘mattered’. Simple fodder for humour, right?
Not so fast!!!
This ‘government imposed’ yoga day was a clear provocation against Muslims worldwide!
Bowing to the sun!!!
Undermining the one-ness of Allah!!!
Plus it is a clear imposition of the Hindu agenda on Muslims worldwide!!!
Which leaves me wondering: for the past bunch of years, people have happily exercised yoga on the front lawn of Parliament Hill.
How long before the Islamists among us refuse to accept such a provocation and take violent means to stop such a blasphemous thing happening at the seat of Canada’s government?!?!?
How long before Islamist dress codes become mandatory on the Parliament Hill so as not to pose a ‘provocation’ to the Islamists in our midst?
It is not as far fetched as I hope it would be….
I have to say, yet again, that I am sick and tired of religionists demanding that their non-evidence based claims be ‘respected’ more than any other non-evidence based stories, just because they call them ‘religion’.
I am sick and tired of non-evidence based beliefs being afforded more privileges under the law than evidence-based claims.
But most of all, I am sick and tired of people demanding limits on my freedom of speech, just because my I will not treat as absolute truth everybody else’s non-evidence based claims!