Religious extremism growing at a rapid pace: Marmur

Good piece on the struggle between the moderate middle and the radical extremists by Dow Marmur of Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple:

It has led to a polarization between indifferent secularists and radical extremists. The latter have much more fire in their bellies and are frequently bent on using the democratic system they despise to their advantage.

In Israel, for example, there have been cases of segregated public transport with women sitting at the rear to accommodate ultra-Orthodox men. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t even allowed to drive a car. Perhaps this has influenced the York student.

The polarization brought about by fanatics plays into the hands of atheists who have a need to point to religion in its most bizarre manifestations as proof of its depravity. There’s thus a perhaps unintended unholy alliance between radicals at both ends of the spectrum that’s further weakening the moderate centre.

The incident at York is a mild, characteristically Canadian version of a worldwide phenomenon. Mainstream churches and synagogues are hemorrhaging throughout the West while radical groups are thriving. Fringe views are allowed to take centre stage.

Optimists believe that this is only a temporary phase. They’re seeing signs of new ways of affirming God that go beyond both liberalism and fanaticism, and espouse values many of us hold dear. I hope that this is more than wishful thinking.

Religious extremism growing at a rapid pace: Marmur | Toronto Star.

Quebec Values Charter Commentary: Francine Pelletier, Chris Selley, Louise Arbour

Good commentary on Quebec and the values charter by Francine Pelletier:

Certains diront que le PQ a fait preuve de génie à si bien exploiter ce qu’Hubert Aquin appelait « la fatigue culturelle du Canada français », le sentiment d’insécurité qui colle à la peau des Québécois francophones d’un certain âge. C’est cette même frilosité que dénonçait d’ailleurs le chroniqueur Marc Cassivi de La Presse cette semaine, se désolant du caractère « blanc francophone » de la télé québécoise. Le Québec n’est ni moins métissé ni moins accueillant que bien des coins d’Amérique, mais la peur de l’Autre — ou si vous voulez, la peur de disparaître — y est plus manifeste. Le PQ l’a très bien compris. Malheureusement, plutôt que de tenter de nous hisser hors de ce guêpier, il nous y enfonce.

Crise d’identité | Le Devoir.

Some other commentary of note, starting with a good piece by Chris Selley, reminding that the sky may not in fact be falling:

It doesn’t look much like the first step of a revolution, really. And Occam’s Razor suggests a simple reason for that: Every time a pollster asks Quebecers if the “values charter” is a priority for them, they say no. The Léger poll last month found the issue was most pressing to just 14% of Parti Québécois voters, never mind the others. An even stickier wicket is that when Ipsos asked in October whether public servants should actually lose their jobs if they refuse to take off their religious symbols, just 38% of Quebecers said yes — many fewer than ostensibly support the law that would compel them to do so.

It all suggests that unexciting could yet win the day in Quebec. The charter might become law, but when it comes time to fire that renowned kippa-wearing surgeon, and hijab-wearing day care workers start bidding tearful farewells to their charges, Quebecers’ better angels might leap back into action. Hospitals and universities might simply disobey the charter, as they’ve promised to do, and there mightn’t be any political profit in demanding enforcement.

At this point, we would have to call that a win. We can hope. But what a spineless spectacle Quebec’s politicians would have given us along the way. Just 20% of intended Liberal voters support the charter; just 10% consider it the most important issue, and presumably most are opposed. Still Mr. Couillard can’t find his way to simply opposing an incoherent and buck-naked political provocation from a desperate and unpopular government fronting a sovereignty movement that’s running on fumes. One hopes he at least has trouble sleeping.

Chris Selley: How Quebec’s secularism debate could still fizzle | National Post.

Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court judge and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is particularly damming:

«Il est particulièrement odieux d’en faire payer le prix à des femmes déjà marginalisées et pour qui l’accès à l’emploi est un facteur clé à la fois d’autonomie et d’intégration», écrit-elle en référence aux musulmanes qui portent le hijab, dans une lettre publiée en exclusivité par La Presse.

Mme Arbour y critique vivement le projet de loi mené par Bernard Drainville.

Les Québécois doivent se garder d’être charmés par un certain nationalisme rétrograde et continuer à s’ouvrir sur le monde, plaide-t-elle.

«La Charte de la laïcité nous incite à céder au chant des sirènes, illustre Mme Arbour. Ce chant évoque l’image nostalgique d’une société homogène catho-laïque, où «nos» symboles religieux nous paraissent inoffensifs […] alors que ceux des «autres» feraient au contraire peser une menace permanente sur nous.»

Des conséquences odieuses, dit Louise Arbour

John Ivison: Ottawa will lose top human rights crusader when Liberal MP who fought for Mandela retires

Nice tribute to Irwin Cotler by John Ivison:

Yet Mr. Cotler has emerged intact and unspoiled by his 15 years in the House of Commons.

In the Tim Hortons in Mount Royal, he confided his motivation – the fundamental teaching handed down by his father, who used to tell him in Hebrew: “Justice, justice shall you pursue. This is the equal of all the other commandments combined.”

His father would surely be proud of the use to which his teaching has been put.

John Ivison: Ottawa will lose top human rights crusader when Liberal MP who fought for Mandela retires | National Post.

Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the politician’s sounding board | Embassy

Good overview on how well-connected and influential the Ukrainian Canadian community is, and the UCC in particular. Having worked with the community in the context of the Government’s Historical Recognition Program, I can attest to their effectiveness.

The community was instrumental in the development of Canadian multiculturalism, given its role, among others, in developing Western Canada just as French and British pioneers developed the East:

The UCC is an umbrella group that, through its member organizations, represents one of the larger diasporas in Canada. More than 1.2 million individuals identify themselves as Ukrainian-Canadian. However, the UCC manages to organize better than comparably sized diaspora groups, and punch above its weight in terms of lobbying the federal government, experts suggested, thanks largely to historical and political factors.

The UCC has been organizing members for more than 70 years. Ukrainian immigrants flooded to Canada over the past century fleeing poverty and oppression from Soviet and Nazi invaders, and those hardships kept the community together, said Yaroslav Baran, a political consultant at Earnscliffe Strategy Group and former chief of staff in the Harper government with roots in the Ukrainian community.

“With that kind of context and background, especially that post-World War II wave, they were very organized, very mobilized, preserved the language,” and became politically active in Canada, he said.

Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the politician’s sounding board | Embassy – Canada’s Foreign Policy Newspaper.

Coca-Cola Super Bowl ad: Can you believe this reaction?

Sigh ….

Coca-Cola Super Bowl ad: Can you believe this reaction?.

And from Commentary, a reminder that American Conservatism need not be intolerant:

What a weird and disturbing reaction. The ad was hardly “in your face.” It was in fact an affirmation that people from different cultures and lands and tongues are drawn to America and can love her, not because it’s their native land but because it’s a special land. America is, in the words of Ben Wattenberg, the “first universal nation.” The Coke ad beautifully captures the spirit behind the phrase on the Seal of the United States: E pluribus unum, “Out of many, one.”

This is something that not all that long ago nearly all conservatives would have understood. Yet today the ad by Coke is interpreted by some figures on the right as divisive and offensive, a Trojan Horse for immigration reform, as part of the Culture War. And the unmistakable message being sent by these individuals is that people of other cultures are aliens and threats and are therefore unwelcome. “Keep your mouths shut when it comes to our patriotic songs” is the message Messrs. Beck and Bolling are sending. What a brilliant way to appeal to a nation that is becoming increasingly diverse and multicultural.

A Disturbing Conservative Reaction to the Coke Ad

Understanding Anti-Semitism « The Dish

Good commentary by Steven Beller on antisemitism, and the need to view antisemitism in the overall context of hate, intolerance and fear of the other, not just as a Jewish issue:

The first sees antisemitism from the perspective of Jewish nationalism (Zionism), for which the answer to antisemitism is Israel, as the political expression of the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination. From this perspective attacks on Israel are against the national rights of the Jewish people and hence are antisemitic because anti-Zionist. This linking of antisemitism with anti-Zionism, conceptualized most recently in the theory of “the new antisemitism”, has garnered strong support in the world’s Jewish communities, and is also written into the European Union’s working definition of antisemitism. If we approach antisemitism as a Jewish problem alone, this has a certain sense. It makes little if any sense from the perspective of the second strategy, which sees antisemitism as the ultimate expression of the exclusionary logic of nationalism.

The Zionist perspective actually undermines the most powerful arguments of antisemitism’s main antidote: liberal pluralism. In this view, as Jean-Paul Sartre famously suggested, antisemitism is not a problem for Jews but rather for non-Jews, indeed for all of us. It is representative of a universal moral evil: the exclusion, fear and, ultimately, destruction of the other in society simply because of difference. “Never again” becomes a promise not about preventing Jewish genocide, but any genocide. It is the refusal or inability to accept and embrace difference within a society that is the root of the problem. The solution is to throw over the apparently modern, but actually primitive “either/or” logic of nationalism, and replace it with the more complex, but more supple, inclusionary “both/and” logic that underpins liberal pluralism, the ability “to agree to disagree”, to comprehend, and embrace difference.

Understanding Anti-Semitism « The Dish.

Why Stephen Harper owes Canadian Muslims an apology – The Globe and Mail

Following the accusation by the Prime Minister’s Office that the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), and its predecessor organization CAIR-Can, were associated with banned terrorist group (Hamas), the NCCM launched a lawsuit. Will be interesting to see how the lawsuit turns out.

Given the Conservative government’s strong support for Israel and its closer relationship with the Canadian Jewish community than with the Canadian Muslim community, no surprise with the following comment:

Prime Minister, the Canadian Muslim community is tired of being a political punching bag. And in case you have any doubt, we will neither be intimidated nor will we be silenced.

Canadian NGO: Why we are suing the Prime Minister’s Office | Toronto Star.

More nuanced commentary, but with the same fundamental message, is by Omer Aziz:

There is a broader issue here, and that is the sheer ease with which one can tarnish Muslims – not just foreign ones, but fellow citizens – and get away with it. Canadian society rightly isolates and condemns racists, homophobes and anti-Semites. The excommunication of racial supremacists has been so effective that even a false charge of racism or anti-Semitism can ruin a career or, if assiduously repudiated, discredit the mudslinger. Being called a terrorist-sympathizer, a Hamas supporter, an al-Qaeda apologist, or whatever potentially libelous charge someone throws at you to exploit your Islamic faith can also ruin your career, but comes at little cost for the alleged libeler if it is false.

During a brief stint as a Parliamentary intern I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Harper on a few occasions, and I do not think for a moment that he harbors an ill thought toward Muslims. He is doing what he thinks best for the country that elected his party three times to government. Whether he realizes it or not, however, his office has smeared a national organization established to represent Muslims, making mere punching bags out of citizens, dehumanizing them, and debasing the venerable Prime Minister’s Office. He owes the NCCM and all Muslims an apology.

Why Stephen Harper owes Canadian Muslims an apology – The Globe and Mail.

Cohen: Canada’s conversation about Israel brings shouts and insults

Good commentary by Andrew Cohen, reminding us of the diversity of views among Canadian Jews, and how these are muffled by the larger Canadian Jewish organizations:

But many congregants [of Shaar Hashomayim] worry — more than this prime minister can understand — about the country’s future as a democracy, even a Jewish Homeland, if it does not address its settlements in the West Bank. Or if it thinks the solution to Iran is solely military. Many of us hoped this government would raise reservations, as friends do, and as Ari Shavlit does in “My Promised Land,” his ruthlessly honest book.

Bless Rabbi Scheier. But when he hails a prime minister for speaking “truth” but offering nothing but self-comforting notions, when he lavishes praise on a mission of missed opportunity, he should know that he does not speak for me.

What Jews badly need are not stale notions and soothing platitudes, but that refreshing “gale of conversation” which has not yet blown into Canada.

Column: Canada’s conversation about Israel brings shouts and insults.

Ethan Cox: More Islamophobia in Quebec | National Post

Valid commentary on the tragic case of a women who died when her scarf became caught up in a Montreal metro escalator:

In the case of such a human tragedy, should we not put aside the petty political point-scoring, and the scarcely-veiled racism, for long enough to acknowledge that a woman died, a fact equally tragic no matter what religion she practiced? Ultimately, the responsibility was on the Journal’s editors to exercise restraint, rather than reach for the most inflammatory headline available to them. Instead, they emptied a jerry-can of gasoline all over the tinderbox that is Quebec today, and lit a match. (For those who’d suggest that a complaint to the Quebec Press Council may be in order, no such luck — Quebecor withdrew from that voluntary oversight mechanism several years ago.)

Comments on social media, such as one which celebrated the death and expressed hope it would lead Muslims to learn their lesson about not wearing the hijab in Quebec, are indicative of the prejudice stirred up by this case. Another said simply enough “one less terrorist in Quebec.”

It’s time to take a stand against the creeping scourge of Islamophobia, which is a problem not only in Quebec, where the odious tone of the debate regarding the so-called Charter of Values has put it under a spotlight, but across the country. Because at the end of the day, a scarf is just a scarf, and how it was worn should matter as little as its colour in responding to a tragic accident.

Ethan Cox: More Islamophobia in Quebec | National Post.

Les femmes d’un bord, les hommes de l’autre | Le Devoir

It would be nice to see some commentary in English media on accommodation at the U of Regina, where one of the complications is the large number of foreign students, including from Saudi Arabia, where mixed gender activities are prohibited and uncomfortable for many.

Professor Grayson spoke in favour of the Quebec Charter to French media but has not, to my knowledge, done so to English media. And while I do not agree with the decision of York U administration in favour of granting an accommodation, at least they were reviewing the issue and present, unlike U of Regina where admin appeared to be absent:

Une des personnes qui ont contacté le professeur Grayson est membre de l’Université de Regina. Cette personne, qui ne veut pas que son identité soit révélée, déplore les accommodements accordés par son institution à des musulmans demandant de ne pas être exposés à la vue de femmes. Cette personne cite les fenêtres de la piscine, les groupes séparés selon le sexe et même le fait que « plusieurs étudiants ont préféré recevoir un zéro plutôt que faire un travail sur les femmes et le leadership ». « Ce que j’ai trouvé le plus difficile fut la façon dont les étudiants masculins me dévaluaient et me traitaient comme un objet. En bout de piste, je crois que nous avons un problème au pays […]. Quelqu’un doit se tenir debout. »

Les femmes d’un bord, les hommes de l’autre | Le Devoir.