CIC Against Mark Steyn

A while back, I wrote about how the HRC could be used to silence critics of Islam. The Canadian Islamic Congress, whose leader, Mohamed Elmasry, has said before that he seeks to silence critics of Islam, has done just that. It has launched a suit with the HRC that seeks to charge Maclean's magazine with something like "flagrantly Islamophobic" hate speech as a violation. Maclean's has been hosting articles by Mark Steyn, and they published an excerpt from his book America Alone, which is the "offending" material. You can read it for yourself, as it is still up at the Maclean's website here.

One may ask, why would they try to quash the web article, but not the book? Well, as I said in the article I mentioned, the Human Rights Code section 13 which deals with "telecommunicated" speech is different from all other sections of the Code. It prohibits any telecommunication "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." There's nothing similar for non-telecommunicated speech, such as in a book. Maybe they didn't want to be known as Canada's book-burners, which would be the eventual result of banning books. The removal of webpages isn't such a dramatic image of this contempt of free speech.

Review of CFS "Final Report"

Here's a look, in French, at the Canadian Federation of Students' (CFS') Final Report of the Task Force on Needs of Muslim Students. I offer my own quick and dirty translation of the review below.

I wish to fully review this report in my own way in the future. It's on the to-do list. But you can read the report yourself (in English) here [pdf]. It's a fairly large document.

The CFS has been putting out these "anti-Islamophobia" buttons with this image on them. May I suggest to students the buying of a Gates of Vienna, "Proud to be Islamophobic" button in riposte? You may have to watch out though, CFS and others are of the nature of, bizarrely, defining Islamphobia as a form of racism, even though Islam has nothing to do with race and is, in part at least, a political ideology and should be subject to criticism just like any other ideology. So keep this in mind before you start publicly opposing political Islam on your campus.

Anyway, here's my translation:

The Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) published a report on the needs of Muslim students. The report contains about sixty recommendations which the report asks the Canadian universities to implement, at their expense, in order to fight “Islamophobic discrimination” on campuses.

The recommendations, based on a rigorous look at Islam, relate to, in particular: the places of prayers; adaptation to Muslim practices and religious festivals; segregation of the sexes in sporting installations (with screening of windows for the hours resevered for women); prohibition of alcohol at receptions; and a system of Sharia-compatible (interest-free) student loans; with public funds.

The CFS reminds the university authorities and the government their legal obligations with regards to matters of accommodation and asks them to implement, as soon as possible, what are described as "relatively modest recommendations." But, in fact, one sees here more significant requests which will have an impact on the university and taxpayers. Many of the concessions demanded of the unviversites, which are asked to conform to Islamic values, is an attempt to impose a particlar "Absolute Truth" over others, which paves a way that will likely become a highway towards Islamisation of Canadian campuses.

We comment on here some of the recommendations of the report :

Prayer-rooms and financing of Muslim associations

The report recommends rooms for multiple prayers easily accessible from all the points of the campus, reserved exclusively for Muslims, with matched installations for ritual ablutions. The cost of the management and maitenance of these installations should be assumed completely by the universities. It also requests that the universities assure an adequate financing of Muslim student associations.

One will remember that this question was discussed in Quebec last year when a Muslim student association of the advanced school of technology affiliated with the University of Quebec complained over discrimination on the basis of religion when the school refused its request for buildings dedicated to religious practice for the exclusive use of the Muslim students. The Commission of the rights of the people decided that the fact of holding exclusively a room for the practice of one religion could constitute a compromise causing an "excessive constraint" for the school, since they would likely have to support requests of the same order from students of other beliefs.

The association also required that the school grant an official recognition and financing to it. The Commission of the rights of the people refused this application. (Surely a fascinating act that this school with a secular character can refuse to accredit religious associations!) According to the Commission, this refusal does not prevent the Muslim students from gathering in association and thus does not infringe their freedom of association.

This decision of the Commission is in much the right direction. The university authorities of the other provinces would do well in imitating.

Segregation of the Sexes

The places of prayer should include the segregation of men and women. In the same way, the sporting centers and the swimming pools should include hours reserved exclusively for women. Curtains or screens should cover the windows so as to hide women from the sight of men.

But which vision of humanity is this promting here? How can one assert"segregation " in the name of the freedom of eligion and place "burkas" on the windows? The Charter of Rights recognizes the principle of eqal dignity of woman and man. The public institutions cannot endorse the opposite. They must refuse to entertain an obscurantist vision of the world wanting that the man is not responsible for his instincts and that it is fitting for the woman to have to hide in order to prevent the sin of effecting the thoughts and self-control of the man. This vision of the world, which runs against the Canadian values, reduces the woman to a sex object. It is also insulting for the men, who are seen as beings dominated by their uncontrollable instincts.

Prohibition of Alcohol

Dry periods, where no alcohol is in use, should be planned for the receptions and orientations sessions organized on campuses.

This recommendation amounts to imposing on others an absolutist lifestyle based on religious rules. A respectful compromise, of the pluralist character befitting Canada and its freedoms, would consist, rather, in replacing the traditional "wine and cheese" with a "wine, juice and cheese." [That is, rather than removing the wine altogether. And I point out that this "pluralist, Canadian" compromise of having non-alcoholic drinks is already the case --KC]

Student loans without interest in conformity with Sharia law.

Interest-free loans, as the Sharia requires, should be granted to Muslim students by the government.

The authors of the report indicate that Islam prohibits usury and loans with interest. The Muslim students would thus be placed in the unacceptable situation of having to infringe the precepts of their religion in order to attend university.

It claims here not a "legal right," but a "preference" to be financed by the community. No institution should have to accommodate the entire precepts of one religion. The loans with interest do not constitute an unreasonable obstacle to the exercise of, by Muslim students, their right to university instruction under respectful conditions of their dignity. Why should the mode of financing of university students be seen as forming part of the substance of the freedom of religion?

Islamic Perspectives in Courses

Students suggest integrating the Islamic perspective in the contents for course such as marketing, finance and nursing – fields where there would be specific differences between the Islamic and Western perspectives.

Why stop with the Islamic perspective? This is not equality being claimed here, but a complete reform of the contents of the university programs. If it was necessary to take action on this suggestion, one would also have, in a concern ḏegality, to introduce the perspective Christian woman, Hindu woman, Judaic, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Shamanic, etc. Do universities have to integrate the various versions of creationism into science programs?

The perspective of one religion given should be reserved for the courses relating specifically to the worldview of the various religions or beliefs. Otherwise, one falls into institutionalised proselytising.

Risks hostile reactions

The irony of CFS's initiative is that, instead of supporting the integration of young Muslims, it is rather likely to produce the contrary effect. The excessive character of the requests will reinforce the prejudices towards Muslims and will slow down spontaneous sociability between students of various beliefs. As one recently saw at the University of Toronto, where unhealthy tensions emerged when Muslim students asked for the prohibition of alcohol and music at a restaurant located on the campus.

By Annie Lessard

On the Quran, Canadian Prof. Speaks

Heinz Klatt, a professor at King's College in London, Ontario, writes on a new English translation of the Quran which has been called "woman-friendly." He says, "It is obvious that Islam needs other reforms than feminist translations of the Quran."

When considering translations of works of Islamic ideology, readers should wary themselves about the Islamic concept of taqiyya. In the spirit of taqiyya, Mohammed said, "War is deceit" (Bukhari hadith 4:269).

Dr. Klatt has written scholarly work on political correctness, and you can download his speech, "Political Correctness: Its Reign of Terror on University Campuses", from this page. As a case in point, in this situation with the Quran, Dr. Klatt has been called an "Islamophobe" for making purely factual statements about an historical work -- some people demand that their views go without any criticism whatsoever. Just think about the unlimited amount of criticism, textual and otherwise, that professors have done on the Bible and Christian ideology -- such a level would perhaps never be reached for Islam, at the rate things are going now. Islam is perhaps the only ideology that gets an essentially free pass from academia in Canada. One professor makes a most timid attempt at correcting this contradiction, and he gets smeared in an attempt to extinguish critical thought.

Islam is Peace in Word, but...in Deed?

(<-- Click for bigger version; on John Trenchard's request)

Everyone believes they're on the side of good. The Islam Is Peace Campaign believes Islam is peaceful, and so did the June 7th bombers. [And it's their two viewpoints on what exactly this peace is that are juxtaposed in the image here.] All Muslims, moderate and extremist alike, say that Islam is peaceful, but does Islam actually bring its fair share of this uncontested good, peace? Or is it better thought to bring, as the Pope in his infamous Regensburg speech quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologus II, saying, "things only evil and inhuman, such as [the] command to spread by the sword the faith..."

That quote comes from 1391 AD, but this is not an early example of linking Islam to violence. In fact, the earliest of all known bits of writing on Islam (earlier than the Quran itself, which wasn't compiled and standardised into its present form until 650-656 AD) includes the Doctrina Jacobi of 634-640 AD, which mentions a prophet of the Saracens (Arabs) who had came "armed with a sword." For as long as Islam had been around, it has been seen as violent. So we see ourselves in no different a situation today with this criticism continuing.

But what does this criticism lead to in response for groups like the Islam Is Peace Campaign, and CAIR, and others who would rather Islam be seen as peaceful? The Islam Is Peace Campaign lists their approach as having five steps. Numbers two to five are: 2) Create dialogue; 3) Address grievances; 4) Be creative; and 5) Create friendships. Four and five seem vacuous. Two and three read like they are acting towards peace, but they are actually the opposite of what you may expect. Two is not creating dialogue with extremist Islam so as to convince them otherwise, but actually with the rest of society, so that they may warm to Islam evermore. And three is not addressing grievances of the victims of Islamic terrorism, but rather the grievances of the Islamic terrorists! So the response to violence is to give those who commit it what they want, and, to those who suffer it, nothing but empty words. And, last but not least, step one is, "To fight Islamophobia," where Islamophobia includes any poignant criticism of Islam.

So where are the actions against the violence of Islam, and not just the words? They seem to be contained only to the purely reactive and defensive measures of the counter-terrorism departments of the intelligence agencies. Any pro-active, constructive steps to combat it are pushed out of bounds by accusations of Islamophobia. This goes so far that even Muslim groups are accused of being Islamophobic.

[I hope to get some comments before I keep on making posts, so that I may know someone cares that I'm saying anything.-KC]