This Post Is Islamophobic

So drenched with whatever Islamophobia is supposed to mean that I must warn everyone who reads it.


Yesterday, two hundred and one MPs voted for a motion that considers opposition to Islamism "racist" (even though Islam is not a race) and will monitor and collate any possible criticism of Islamism above all other creeds:

... collect data to contextualize hate crime reports ...

Meaning that even long ago-written and vague criticism could be sought, collected and later subject to action.

This motion was authored by MP Iqra Khalid:

... Irqa Khalid was President of the Muslim Student Association when she was a student at York University (early 2000s).  The Muslim Student Association was founded by adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1963.  The Muslim Student Association has a series of alumni who have become suicide bombers, ISIS fighters and ISIS propagandists.
 
The Muslim Student Association at York University handed out a book at Islam Awareness Week with the title “Women in Islam & Refutation of some Common Misconceptions.”  The chapter on WIFE DISCIPLINING (page 99 of the online version) makes the following observation:  Submissive or subdued women. These women may even enjoy being beaten at times as a sign of love and concern.

Surah 4:34 in the Koran endorses what was in that chapter:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Iqra Khalid was in the Canadian delegation that met with Islamist lobbyists before the motion was passed:

On February 8, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid “reconnected” with Islamist lobby NCCM / CAIR-CAN, Montreal-based AMAL-Québec co-president Haroun Bouazzi and Islamic Relief Executive Manager Abdelbasset Benaissa for a discussion about Motion 103. She was accompanied by fellow MPs Salma Zahid and Frank Baylis for the occasion. Motion 103 aims at “develop[ing] a whole-of-government approach” to target so-called Islamophobia.

The gentleman in the middle is Immigration minister, Ahmed Hussen.

Only 14% of polled Canadians supported what is tantamount to a blasphemy and censorship motion (soon to be bill).

And what will this motion accomplish?

There is also concern that the motion will, in some manner, chill valid criticism of Islamist terror, or will not make allowance for legitimate criticism or analysis of Islam. Such criticism would now be forced to wear the degrading mantle of Islamophobia. Given this welter of mixed impressions and varied understandings of the very point of the motion, how effective can it be?

There is the key term itself, Islamophobia. As I have suggested in an earlier piece, this recent coinage, Islamophobia, is itself a contested term. The minister piloting the motion sees Islamophobia as “the irrational hatred of Muslims that leads to discrimination.”

That’s not as clear as at first glance it might seem. If the fear is “irrational,” then the ambition to reduce it by means of a distant parliamentary motion is a curious if not a wild response. Irrational fears are by definition those not subject to reason. We eliminate those only by therapy or medicine. We do not argue them away. Hence, we have never had a motion deploring claustrophobia.

The cruel deeds, by a terrorist, at the British Parliament this week give sombre point to these concerns. Should we not have some moderate response of caution and concern after London? Is that irrational? There is nothing irrational in having a reasoned or limited fear towards a group publicly committed to terrorism, and self-declared perpetrators of it, in the name of Islam. Nor is there bigotry, Islamophobia, in seeing the declared connection with Islam in these kinds of terror acts. If there is an Islamic connection, and it is declared ,even insisted upon, by the actors themselves, it is surely not phobic both to see the connection, and heed the declaration.

Then too, there is the rhetorical or forensic deployment of the term. A person who criticizes Islam, or who reasonably makes a connection between current terrorism and certain groups within Islam will, in some circles, very quickly be labelled Islamophobic.

No one likes to be called a bigot, and thus people — under fear of such a charge, mute their speech, trim their thoughts and withhold honest criticism because of the weight of this word, Islamophobe, being placed on their shoulders. Plainly put, sometimes the charge of Islamophobia is merely a harsh and dishonest way of shutting down an argument, or expelling all discussion. Who argues with bigots?

Yet there is an even wider reason to question the motion’s value.

Time and again it was stressed that it was not a law, not a piece of legislation, but a mere motion. It therefore mandated precisely nothing. It had no penalties for people who choose to ignore it, brought into being no requirements in action. So, it must be presumed, its point was merely to place on parliamentary record the sentiment of the House of Commons on a sensitive manner.

And, to be blunt, what will that likely achieve? Will it perhaps launch one of Parliament’s dubious and protracted studies? Will it change the social or moral landscape of the country in any detectable way? Its proponents make such a case for its innocuousness, such a point of repeating it is not legislation, and how it will not alter existing laws or behaviours. So what will it do? What is it for?

It is for what people correctly fear: that the government will put in place whatever it takes to silence critics and raise above all else a culture that proves time and time again how antithetical it is Western civilisation, even in its decrepit post-modern form. Indeed, had Western civilisation operated at full strength, this would not be entertained. There would be no need as the West has provisions for respect for all citizens and the ability to properly discriminate against things that cause the civilisation harm, namely cultures that openly revile others and get away with it.

Liberal voters, even if they claim to be disgusted by this motion, will continue voting Liberal regardless. The Liberals' antipathy to autistic children and penchant for corruption would have changed their minds before this motion ever came into being had the voters been so easy to ethically sway. When they become irrelevant, new voters blocks of unvetted migrants will take their places and motions like this will be commonplace.



Related - scratch a lazy-@$$ Liberal and one will find a petty, cowardly woman-hater every time:

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of losing "his sh*t" in the House of Commons Wednesday after he was questioned on the government's proposed changes to Parliament's rules.

(Sidebar: Michelle Rempel embarrassed the Liberals into acting for the Yazidis.)

During a particularly raucous question period — and just hours before the government unveiled its second budget — Rempel rose in the House to ask Trudeau about his reaction to an earlier question from fellow Tory MP Candice Bergen.

"This prime minister purports to be a feminist," Rempel said. "Yet when a strong, confident woman dares to question his arrogance and unilaterally changing the fundamentals of Canadian democracy, he tries to stare her down and yell at her."

Justin doesn't do well when challenged:

(Sidebar: the above was Islamophobic. Or something.)


And - Putin also doesn't like being challenged:

In the 1990s, Nemtsov was a political star of post-Soviet Russia’s “young reformers.” He became deputy prime minister and was, for a while, seen as possible presidential material – but it was Putin who succeeded former president Boris Yeltsin in 2000. Nemtsov publicly supported the choice, but he grew increasingly critical as Putin rolled back civil liberties and was eventually pushed to the margins of Russian political life. Nemstov led massive street rallies in protest of the 2011 parliamentary election results and wrote reports on official corruption. He also was arrested several times as the Kremlin cracked down on opposition rallies. In Feb. 2015, just hours after urging the public to join a march against Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine, Nemtsov was shot four times in the back by an unknown assailant within view of the Kremlin. Putin took “personal control” of the investigation into Nemtsov’s murder, but the killer remains at large.

The man who killed four people was under surveillance before the attacks in London:

British born, his birth name was Adrian Elms, dropping it for the Islamic name Khalid Masood when he converted.

Police believe that conversion happened in prison where he spent time for violent offences after his first run in with the law that resulted in a conviction in 1983, and his last conviction believed to have been in 2003.

Masood faced charges and convictions for weapons charges, disturbing the peace, assault and causing grievous bodily harm.

This was a man that was well known to police, and at one point, he was also on the radar of MI5 as a “peripheral” figure in a terrorism investigation.

And he was not monitored any further.

Oops.




Indonesian police use tear gas on thugs who threatened to destroy a Catholic church:

Indonesian police fired tear gas on Friday to disperse hard-line Muslims protesting against the construction of a Catholic church in a satellite city of the capital, Jakarta.

Several hundred protesters from a group called Forum for Bekasi Muslim Friendship staged a rowdy demonstration in front of the Santa Clara church in Kaliabang, a neighborhood of Bekasi city, after Friday prayers.

Witnesses said police fired tear gas as the protesters tried to force their way into the church, which has been under construction since November. Some also threw rocks and bottles into the site.

Raymundus Sianipar, a Catholic priest, said police asked him to leave the area for safety reasons.

That church is Islamophobic simply by being there.




The struggles of the Chinese faithful:

Freedom House’s investigators have concluded that controls over religion in China have been increasing since 2012, seeping into new areas of daily life and triggering growing resistance from believers. At least 100 million people — nearly one-third of estimated believers in China — belong to four religious groups facing high levels of persecution: Protestant Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims and Falun Gong.

China is Trudeau's favourite country.




Thanks to the struggles of previous immigrants, those sneaking in will not feel any crushing defeat:

Despite our treasured national mythos as a promised land of wealth and opportunity, our history is littered with tales of people crying or screaming with anguish after taking their first steps in the True North.

All systems go for the Keystone Pipeline:

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration approved TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, cheering the oil industry and angering environmentalists even as further hurdles for the controversial project loom.

The approval reverses a decision by former President Barack Obama to reject the project, but the company still needs to win financing, acquire local permits, and fend off likely legal challenges for the pipeline to be built.

What that means for Canada:
 

Most of the employee compensation benefits from Keystone XL would be concentrated in Alberta. But other provinces would also see an uptick in activity. A report in July 2012 by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) found that worker compensation in Ontario—mostly in its manufacturing sector—would rise nearly $10.68 billion between 2011 and 2035 if the project goes ahead.

Kathleen Wynne will find a way to stymy this. Guaranteed.




And now, filthy damn Islamophobic spinach.