Afghanistan Blasphemy Charge

A reminder that of the limits of all the efforts in Afghanistan, and how deeply a traditional country it remains in Afghan newspaper’s ‘blasphemy’ causes protests after rebuking Isis and Islam.

In Kabul, a crowd of approximately 500 people, including clerics and several members of parliament, gathered in front of the Eid Gah Mosque, the city’s second largest house of worship.

“The government must stop the people who insulted the prophet, the Qur’an and Islam, and prevent them from leaving the country,” said Fazl Hadi Wazin, an Islamic scholar at Salam University who spoke from the outdoor podium.

In an opinion piece published last week in the English-language daily the Afghanistan Express, a journalist named AJ Ahwar admonished Muslims for remaining silent in the face of Isis and the Taliban.

He also criticised Islam for not accepting other religions and minorities such as homosexuals and Hazaras, a Shia minority in Afghanistan.

The article ended by concluding that human beings are more important than God, which seemed to particularly incense protesters.

“The newspaper said God can’t control people and that God is unwise,” said Mangal Bader, 38, one of the protesters. He joined others in calling for the newspaper staff to suffer the same fate as five men who were recently convicted of rape and hanged, after great public furore.

“They need to be executed so humans know that you cannot insult the religion of Allah,” said Ahmad, 22, another protester.

In pauses between speakers, protesters chanted “death to America”. According to one demonstrator, the US instils ideas of freedom of expression in the minds of Afghan journalists, then grants them asylum once they anger their compatriots.

“The international community pretend to be heroes of freedom of expression,” said Wazin after his speech. “They have to come out and say they are not behind this. If they don’t, these protests will grow.”

Terror attacks threaten Canada’s multicultural project | World | DW.DE | 24.10.2014

Pretty shallow reporting and lack of understanding in this German report and experts cited.

Canadian commentary on both left and right more nuanced.

Terror attacks threaten Canada’s multicultural project | World | DW.DE | 24.10.2014.

Lawyers argue law to revoke Canadian citizenship is unconstitutional

A case to watch:

“Once you are a citizen, you are a citizen,” said lawyer Rocco Galati, who brought the case before the court along with lawyer Manuel Azevedo and the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.

Calling Ottawa’s act “an indirect amendment to the Canadian constitutions,” Paul Slansky, who represented the constitutional rights centre, said the government only has the authority over “aliens and naturalization,” but does not have the power to strip the citizenship of Canadian-born people.

“The issue is whether it can be taken away without your consent with the natural-born and naturalized citizens,” he told Justice Donald Rennie. “The government does not have the authority to legislate on this issue.”

Government lawyers asked the court to dismiss the case because the revocation provision has yet to be enforced and any constitutional challenge should be dealt with when an affected individual brings a case forward.

Federal legal strategy interesting – prefer to have this decided through case law.

Lawyers argue law to revoke Canadian citizenship is unconstitutional | Toronto Star.

And Chris Selley reminds us of the counter-productive aspects of revocation:

Now imagine Rouleau’s and Zehaf-Bibeau’s attacks had been thwarted at the last minute. Presumably they would now be facing terrorism charges. And now imagine they were dual citizens. There would now be mass calls to strip their Canadian citizenship and fire them out of a cannon toward whichever foreign capital issued their second passport. And this would be feasible, in theory anyway, under very popular new Citizenship Act amendments passed into law in June.

I have several philosophical objections to those amendments. But the Rouleau case illustrates its most basic practical flaw. Our sensible strategy is to keep the closest possible tabs on terrorism risks — and, if anything, closer tabs, one would think, on convicted terrorists who are eventually set free. Deportation is the very opposite of close tabs.

On the one hand, we’re seizing passports from people we fear may wind up on the ISIS battlefront. The government is actively publicizing this. On the other hand, the government has endorsed precisely the opposite notion: Get rid of terrorists entirely, and we’ll somehow be more safe.

In fact, a fairly common sentiment on Wednesday was that we would be better off not seizing these people’s passports. Fly to Istanbul, head down to Syria, see if we care. They’ll not be long for this world if they go, according to this view; we can cancel their passports once they leave, marooning them in the Levant; and denying them travel just invites them to turn their anger toward Canadian targets.

These two men were Canada’s responsibility. We nearly caught at least one of them

It’s difficult to overstate how churlish this is. It would amount to bolstering the forces of an enemy with which we’re at war. Perhaps 100 or so Canuck jihadists wouldn’t make much of a difference to the overall mission — but they could make an awful lot of innocent people’s lives miserable before finding themselves in the crosshairs of a coalition jet.

The Conservatives aren’t making that case, of course. It would be seen as morally bankrupt, which it is. But its difficult to draw a moral line between that case and the Conservatives’ own stated eagerness to pass off our terrorist garbage on other nations — indeed, the latter encourages the former.

These two men were Canada’s responsibility. We nearly caught at least one of them. We need to redouble our efforts and keep our eyes on the ball, not indulge childish exile fantasies.

Chris Selley: Our bad jihadi apples: Squash them or chuck them?

Prominent Muslim cleric urges imams to vet new Islamic converts

Imam Soharwardy being pro-active:

A prominent Muslim cleric says he intends to reach out to other imams to make sure that new converts to Islam are watched closely for signs of radical beliefs.

While authorities have made links to extremism in both the Ottawa and Quebec attacks, Imam Syed Soharwardy of Calgary says he is concerned about media reports that the two perpetrators were recent converts to Islam.Soharwardy, the founder of Muslims Against Terrorism and the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said imams should look for warning signs, such as a criminal record or drug abuse, before allowing an individual to convert.

“I’m not sure who helped them to convert to Islam. Who was the imam? What kind of relationship did those people have with those people who converted them to Islam? Those very important questions need to be answered,” said Soharwardy.

“They should take on the responsibility of checking backgrounds and staying in touch and make sure this person is not being recruited by any radical organization or terrorist organizations.”

Prominent Muslim cleric urges imams to vet new Islamic converts | CTVNews.

From Quebec, reporting on discussions between the Quebec government and representatives of the Muslim community, on security cooperation (already ongoing) but also raising integration issues for Canadian Muslims:

Mais cette conversation ne doit pas être à sens unique, prévient Salam Elmenyawi, président du Conseil. L’écoute doit être réciproque et d’autres sujets doivent être abordés, dit-il, comme une meilleure intégration des musulmans dans la société.

«S’il s’agit d’une conversation à sens unique, elle sera rejetée», dit-il. Et si cela vise juste à recruter des informateurs, cela ne marchera pas non plus, prévient-il.

Et bien qu’il reconnaisse qu’il y a des problèmes dans la communauté, «il n’est pas question d’une épidémie. Il s’agit de cas isolés», soutient-il. Mais, évidemment, un cas est déjà un cas de trop, ajoute-t-il.

M. Elmenyawi souligne qu’il ne faut pas sauter aux conclusions et que tous les faits de l’attaque de mercredi ne sont pas encore connus.

«Les médias cherchent toujours la mosquée la plus près», déplore-t-il. Mais il fait valoir que les gens peuvent être influencés par des idées radicales ailleurs.

La religion des musulmans n’est pas un problème, c’est la façon dont certains la pratiquent et la détournent qui est en cause, a souligné de son côté Hussein Nehme.

Il affirme ne jamais avoir rencontré de jeunes dans son centre qui auraient évoqué des idées de violence. Il assure que si c’était le cas, il discuterait avec lui pour voir d’où proviennent ces idées, et que s’il découvrait qu’un centre ou un groupe d’ici diffuse de telles idées, il contacterait les autorités.

«C’est notre devoir», dit-il.

Il se dit inquiet lui-même de ce que les extrémistes religieux peuvent faire à sa communauté. Il songe d’ailleurs à demander la protection de la police à quelques jours d’une fête, désapprouvée par certains.

Personnes à risques: des musulmans du Québec prêts à coopérer

Shallow, descriptive commentary by David Frum in the Atlantic, trying to explain Canada to American readers, without saying much in The Allure of Radical Islam in Canada.

Radicalized young people feel like ‘a speck of dust in an uncaring universe’ before joining extremists like ISIS | National Post

More good reporting on motivations for radicalization by Tom Blackwell in the Post:

What little evidence exists now indicates terrorists generally are no more likely to suffer from psychological problems than the general population, he [Lorne Dawson] said. As for the homegrown variety, some are second-generation immigrants struggling to find a place between their parents’ culture and Canadian society. Adhering to a dogmatic ideology might give them the direction they seek, said Prof. Dawson, noting that not all young people are craving freedom.

In fact, “there is a whole group to whom that is totally perplexing and frustrating,” he said. “They don’t want that. They want structure and order. They want a clear vision.”

Research that Prof. Bélanger and colleagues have done with Tamil Tigers and extremists in Jordan and the Philippines point to a single, overarching motivation, what the academics call the “quest for personal significance,” leading them to join a community they believe gives their lives meaning, and adopting its ideology in an effort to be accepted.

“When, for instance, [they feel they are] not important, they don’t matter, they are a speck of dust in some kind of uncaring universe, it increases psychological pain,” he said. “One way of assuaging this negative feeling is connecting through a group.”

That connection might occur in person or, in the case of “lone-wolf” radicals, through online correspondence with an extremist overseas, like ISIS members who have posted propaganda videos on the Internet, said Prof. Belanger. Once hooked, the home-grown radical may be willing to sacrifice his own life – as well as take others’ – thinking “they will have more in death than they had in life.”

Radicalized young people feel like ‘a speck of dust in an uncaring universe’ before joining extremists like ISIS | National Post.

Radicalization: Les lois existantes suffisent, disent des experts

Will be part of the debate next week as the Government introduces its new measures to give CSIS more powers:

Pour Kent Roach, professeur de droit à l’Université de Toronto et expert reconnu des lois antiterrorisme au Canada, les services de sécurité ont déjà tout ce qu’il faut. « Avant d’attribuer les événements de lundi [Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu] et mercredi [Ottawa] à des carences dans la lutte antiterrorisme canadienne, il faut être prudent », dit-il au Devoir. Il suggère d’« éviter d’aller vers des changements législatifs faits dans l’urgence ».

Selon lui, « l’enjeu est beaucoup plus de mettre en application les lois existantes que d’en adopter de nouvelles », même si le cas de Martin Couture-Rouleau qui a tué un militaire à Saint-Jean montre qu’il peut être difficile d’accumuler une preuve suffisante permettant d’arrêter une personne que l’on sait potentiellement dangereuse. « Mais dans ce cas, nous ne savons pas pourquoi son passeport a été confisqué sans que d’autres actions soient prises », dit-il prudemment.

L’avocat criminaliste Jean-Claude Hébert pense sensiblement la même chose que M. Roach. « Il est faux de prétendre que les lois ne prévoient pas les outils juridiques nécessaires, au contraire », dit-il. M. Hébert estime que les forces policières et de renseignement ont le « fardeau de la preuve de démontrer qu’ils manquent de pouvoirs et que cela empêche les agents de faire leur travail correctement ».

Les lois existantes suffisent, disent des experts | Le Devoir.

Misbahuddin Ahmed sentenced to 12 years for terrorism crimes | Ottawa Citizen

Stronger message than revocation in this criminal conviction and sentencing:

“That carries with it an utterly deplorable stigma that is likely impossible to erase,” he said. “He has brought untold shame upon his family, his community, and peace-loving Muslims throughout this country.”

Turning to Ahmed, he added: “You will now have ample time to reflect on the fact that you enjoy the immense privilege of living in one of the great democracies in the free world. Whether you know it or not, you are a lucky man.”

Misbahuddin Ahmed sentenced to 12 years for terrorism crimes | Ottawa Citizen.

More Ottawa Shooting Commentary

Further to yesterday’s round-up of the recent shootings, more of the better commentary or more interesting commentary that has crossed my eye.

Wesley Wark: Reducing the risk of terrorism provides a sober assessment of the ongoing risks and the need neither to over or under act, but learn the lessons from any failures and gaps in security.

In the theme of let’s not get carried away, André Pratte in La réponse and Stephen Maher Time to reflect on the courage of our ancestors remind us to have balance and perspective. Doug Saunders notes how the public space around parliaments the world over has been whittled down by successive security threats in Don’t let the seat of government become a fortress.

On the other side, Journal de Montréal’s Richard Martineau is characteristically alarmist in Terrorisme: appelons les choses par leur nom.

More on the common elements to the two most recent cases of radicalization, Martin Couture-Rouleau  and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau:

Martin Couture-Rouleau et Michael Zehaf-Bibeau partagent plusieurs points en commun : ils étaient jeunes (25 ans et 32 ans), ils s’étaient récemment convertis à l’islam radical, la GRC avait confisqué leur passeport par crainte qu’ils rejoignent le groupe État islamique, et ils auraient agi tels des « loups solitaires ».

Pour les autorités policières, c’est le cauchemar. Les deux jeunes ont agi de leur propre chef, sans même avoir été initiés au combat par des groupes extrémistes à l’étranger. Ils sont difficiles à repérer et à neutraliser.

Un loup solitaire aux motivations inconnues

And further details about the troubled life of the shooter, Zehaf-Bibeau in the Globe in Drugs and religion key themes in Ottawa shooter’s troubled life and in the Post in Details of Zehaf-Bibeau’s life paint picture of a man derailed by homelessness, crime and addiction, detailing his drug addiction, quarrelsome personality and his failed efforts to use his faith to control both.

Canadian Muslims are quick to respond and express outrage in Canadian Muslims denounce recent attacks, fear backlash.

Matt Gurney challenges the military’s decision in Canadian soldiers don’t hide in their own damn country — rescind the order to not wear uniforms in public.

Barbara Kay covers a different angle in The unique anguish of a terrorist’s mother:

If it is inevitable, why feel guilty about these “bad seeds”? And yet, inevitably, parents do. Our sympathetic embrace for the real victims should therefore be wide enough to include their murderers’ collateral damage.

A great deal of favourable commentary on Parliament yesterday, how each leader struck the right tone, the hugs of support, and the deserved standing ovation for Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers starting with Jeffrey Simpson in Tribute, solidarity and back to politics (with some barbs at the difference between Government rhetoric and funding).

Jonathan Kay noted the contrast between this time and 30 years ago, when the then Sergeant-at-Arms was able to talk armed Denis Lortie into surrendering in Two Sergeants-at-Arms, two kinds of heroism.

Rick Salutin, similarly praises Kevin Vickers, but provocatively, and accurately, rubbishes the idea of Canadian innocence in We didn’t lose our innocence. We never had it.

Andrew Coyne, perceptively noted the nuances in the various positions and how that hopefully portended more serious political dialogue and debate in Politics weren’t put aside during the Ottawa hug-out, they were just made over for the occasion:

For Mr. Harper, it was “to identify and counter threats and keep Canada safe here at home,” as well as “to work with our allies” in the fight against “the terrorist organizations” abroad who hope “to bring their savagery to our shores.” For Mr. Mulcair, it was “our commitment to each other and to a peaceful world.” For Mr. Trudeau, it was “staying true to our values” of “fairness, justice and the rule of law.”

“We will not be intimidated,” Mr. Harper vowed. “That is not going to happen,” Mr. Mulcair seconded. “We will not be intimidated into changing that,” Mr. Trudeau agreed. But they meant very different things.

And the still and video images of the citizens of Ottawa paying their tribute to fallen soldier Nathan Cirillo (as well as the accounts of those who tried to save him in ‘You’re breathing — keep breathing’), as well as to democratic values, were moving.

 

Les fous de Dieu sont-ils des “fous” ?

Some interesting articles on the psychology of radicalization, starting with French psychologist Jean-Michel Hirt:

Leur idéal mortifère a pris toute la place dans leur personnalité. Comme tous les passages à lacte, les crimes que les jihadistes commettent se font dans une sorte daveuglement, de sidération de la conscience. La plupart des individus qui se retrouvent en prison pour avoir tué ont du mal à reconnaître ce quils ont fait.

Mais on sait, parce que la guerre nest pas une affaire nouvelle, combien les traumatismes peuvent se révéler considérables, quand les individus en reviennent. Certains ne peuvent plus continuer à vivre normalement et tombent malades. Tuer, ce nest jamais quelque chose qui se fait comme on avale un verre deau. Aucun criminel nest à laise dans sa culture et bien dans sa peau. Ce sont des individus qui souffrent de profonds troubles psychiques quils narrivent pas à résoudre et qu’ils projettent violemment sur autrui.

Les fous de Dieu sont-ils des “fous” ?.

An interesting take on the motivation for radicalization and suggested strategy to combat it by Arie W. Kruglansk:

The appeal to one’s trampled identity, combined with the depiction of one’s group’s degradation, can have a profound visceral effect, incensing and redirecting individuals who are otherwise well-adjusted and on their way to a seemingly bright personal future.

According to reports, Nasser Muthana, a 20-year-old volunteer in Islamic State, had acceptance offers from four medical schools. Muhammad Hamidur Rahman, who died in August while fighting in Syria, was employed at a Primark store in the coastal city of Portsmouth, United Kingdom, and had a father who owned a restaurant. His personal future thus appeared assured and yet it could not undo the pain and humiliation he saw his Muslim community facing.

Extremist ideology is effective in such circumstances because it offers a quick-fix remedy to a perceived loss of significance and an assured way to regain it. It accomplishes this by exploiting humans’ primordial instincts for aggression and sex.

Consider the latter. Sex is the most primitive assertion of one’s significance; it’s a means to perpetuate one’s name — and genes — into the future. Islamic State strategically uses it as a reward for aggression.

The militant group has set up marriage centers where women register to be wed to its fighters. Captured Iraqi women and girls are forced into sex slavery, living in brothels run by female jihadists. Rape of non-believers is considered legitimate, while fatwas proclaiming a “sexual jihad” encourage brutality against females. Lastly, martyrdom is associated with sexual bliss in paradise.

Understanding the magnetic appeal of Islamic State’s extremism is a prerequisite to developing a suitable, psychologically sensitive counter narrative. For example, an appeal to moderation and a life of patient struggle seems ill-suited to win over the hearts and minds of jihadists. Instead, the glamour of jihad must be countered by an alternative glamour; the charisma of martyrdom pitted against a different kind of charisma, the appeal to primitive drives redirected, jiu jitsu style, against the brutality of the enemy, turning the psychological tables on Islamic State as it were.

For example, young men vulnerable to the appeal of extremist ideology might be persuaded to fight the desecration of their religion and promised a place in history by defeating the satanic evil that soils their faith. Social media may need to be turned abuzz with the glory of standing up to evil, encouraging the bravery needed to undertake personal risks for “breaking bad.” This message should not be presented in faint pastels but in bright, bold colors.

Measured arguments against Islamic State wouldn’t do the job. Countering it requires fiery, impassioned appeals.

Joining Islamic State is about ‘sex and aggression,’ not religion

 

 

Hambrick, Ferreira and Henderson: Practice doesn’t necessarily make perfect

Much more nuanced and sophisticated analysis than the pop “triple advantage” theory of Amy Chua’s Tiger Mom’s claim that cultures blessed with ‘triple package’ get ahead in America sparks uproar:

It is therefore crucial to differentiate between the influence of genes on differences in abilities across individuals and the influence of genes on differences across groups. The former has been established beyond any reasonable doubt by decades of research in a number of fields, including psychology, biology and behavioural genetics. There is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that genes contribute to individual differences in abilities. The latter has never been established, and any claim to the contrary is simply false.

Another reason the idea of genetic inequality might make you uncomfortable is because it raises the specter of an anti-meritocratic society in which benefits such as good educations and high-paying jobs go to people who happen to be born with “good” genes. As the technology of genotyping progresses, it is not far-fetched to think that we will all one day have information about our genetic makeup, and that others may have access to this information and use it to make decisions that profoundly affect our lives. However, this concern conflates scientific evidence with how that evidence might be used — which is to say that information about genetic diversity can just as easily be used for good as for ill.

This information could just as easily be used to identify children with the least genetic potential for academic success and channel them into the best schools

Take the example of intelligence, as measured by IQ. We know from many decades of research in behavioural genetics that about half of the variation across people in IQ is due to genes. Among many other outcomes, IQ predicts success in school, and so once we have identified specific genes that account for individual differences in IQ, this information could be used to identify, at birth, children with the greatest genetic potential for academic success and channel them into the best schools. But this information could just as easily be used to identify children with the least genetic potential for academic success and channel them into the best schools. This would allow us to identifying those who are likely to face learning challenges and provide them with the support they might need. Science and policy are two different things, and when we dismiss the former because we assume it will influence the latter in a particular and pernicious way, we limit the good that can be done.

Wouldn’t it be better to just act as if we are equal, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding? That way, no people will be discouraged from chasing their dreams — competing in the Olympics or performing at Carnegie Hall or winning a Nobel Prize.

The answer is no, for two reasons. The first is that failure is costly, both to society and to individuals. Pretending that all people are equal in their abilities will not change the fact that a person with an average IQ is unlikely to become a theoretical physicist, or the fact that a person with a low level of music ability is unlikely to become a concert pianist.

It makes more sense to pay attention to people’s abilities and their likelihood of achieving certain goals, so people can make good decisions about the goals they want to spend their time, money and energy pursuing. Moreover, genes influence not only our abilities, but the environments we create for ourselves and the activities we prefer — a phenomenon known as gene-environment correlation. For example, yet another recent twin study found that there was a genetic influence on practicing music. Pushing someone into a career for which he or she is genetically unsuited will likely not work.

The second reason we should not pretend we are endowed with the same abilities is that doing so perpetuates the myth that is at the root of much inaction in society — the myth that people can help themselves to the same degree if they just try hard enough. You’re not a heart surgeon? That’s your fault for not working hard enough in school! You didn’t make it as a concert pianist? You must not have wanted it that badly. Societal inequality is thus justified on the grounds that anyone who is willing to put in the requisite time and effort can succeed and should be rewarded with a good life, whereas those who struggle to make ends meet are to blame for their situations and should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

If we acknowledge that people differ in what they have to contribute, then we have an argument for a society in which all human beings are entitled to a life that includes access to decent housing, health care and education, simply because they are human. Our abilities might not be identical, and our needs surely differ, but our basic human rights are universal.

Hambrick, Ferreira & Henderson: Practice doesn’t necessarily make perfect