Western Society & Home-grown Terrorists.

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe this is just a rant, maybe not:

There is an interesting bit in today's Globe and Mail (see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050715/BLASTPROFILE15/TPInternational/?query=Four+bombers%27+profiles+called+typical ) by Michael Valpy, titled: Four bombers' profiles called typical.

Valpy, citing an American expert, says that the bombers' profiles match â Å“...studies showing that 80 per cent of new recruits to Islamic terrorism are now coming from émigré diaspora populations, mainly in Europe, where they were born but do not feel part of broader society ...â ?

Unspoken is the broadly held contention that, somehow, 'we' have to restructure our societies so that 'they' feel part of it.

Within the past few years this issue has been/is being discussed throughout the Americas Asia and Europe.  (See e.g. Daniel Pipes at: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/450)  Pipes cites: â Å“Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.

When General Rick Hillier says, â ? They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties ..." he is not being overly hyperbolic.  As others have pointed out here in army.ca, Islam in not a religion which can be separated from government â “ it is a 'way of life' which provides, according to some of its proponents, all that anyone needs to live a 'proper' life.  Thus, Danish women who dress and act 'provocatively' are not living 'properly' according to Islam and Islamic men in Denmark ought to be 'understood' if not forgiven for raping them.  (That is, certainly, not the view of all Muslims, not even of most Muslims, but it is, indisputably, the view of enough spellbinding, charismatic Muslim imans and teachers who then infect the minds of too many young (mostly) men who are disenchanted with their lot in (Western) life and society.)

It appears to me that many Muslims are gravitating towards the Black 'experience' â “ which includes self-imposed isolation as a (too easy) response to social and economic (read education system) failure.  I believe that 'mainstream' society is making the same mistake with disaffected Muslims as it made â “ in my opinion â “ with Blacks: it (the mainstream) tries to lift all responsibility off the shoulders of the disadvantaged; it (the mainstream) puts all the blame on societal factors, like racism, (factors which do exist and which are part of the problem) thus convincing the disadvantaged that they deserve 'help' and that, somehow or other, they should achieve 'equality' without effort.  When, as the Black experience over about three generations suggests, the 'promise' of 'equality' cannot be fulfilled then the disadvantaged become more disaffected and the self-imposed isolation, which creates more and more problems, deepens.

It seems to me that we already have two too large, dispirited under-classes in Canada: aboriginals and Blacks â “ both disproportionately overrepresented in prisons, unemployed lines and on welfare rolls and seriously underrepresented in universities, colleges and good paying jobs.  We do not need a third: an Islamic under-class which is better educated but equally unable to 'integrate.'

I admit to being somewhat chauvinistic â “ maybe even a lot chauvinistic, but I cannot see how we can make already disaffected and believing Muslims feel part of our society without changing our society to such an extent that 'we' would become the disaffected.

I have no good ideas about what we should do but I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims â “ self imposed or not.  I guess I am suggesting that we must help or coerce Muslims to make themselves part of our society which, perforce, may mean discarding some of their socio-cultural and religious heritage â “ accepting, for example, that our freedoms and liberties are part of and will remain part of our society and those who will live here must embrace them, too.

If we do not do that, it seems to me, then we are helping the extremists to create a fifth column of our very own.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further.

Muslims in Canada are struggling with the fifth column slander (and it is, of course, a slander insofar as it might be directed at all, most or even very many Muslims in Canada).

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050716.wxmuslim0716/BNStory/National/ - it is not restricted for subscribers only.

Here are a few extracts of interest:

----------​

It is what Canada's Muslims feel they must do for their self-interest and protection, leaders of the country's mainstream Islamic organizations said in interviews.

The Canadian Roman Catholic Church didn't feel it had to issue statements denouncing Catholic terrorism in Northern Ireland. Canadian Orthodox churches felt no obligation to publicly condemn the ethnic cleansing carried out by Serbian Orthodox Christians in the Balkans.

â Å“But being a visible minority, you do not have the privilege of distancing yourself from your [global religious] community,â ? Mr. Fatah said.

----------​

Omar Alghabra, president of the Canadian Arab Association, for example, said he is tired of fielding media calls and of being viewed as belonging to some subversive â Å“fifth columnâ ? who must apologize for the acts of terrorists.

----------​

The Canadian Islamic Congress also got its statement out early. However, it immediately found itself facing a barrage of media criticism for saying, in addition to condemning the bombing, that it hoped â Å“Canadian Muslims do not pay the guilty-by-association priceâ ? â ” a declaration several editorialists and columnists labelled inappropriate and fanciful.

Ms. Valiante said there was no debate within the organization's leadership about putting in the guilty-by-association reference. â Å“You have no idea how terrified the Muslim community feels â ” following 9/11 when we found our mosques under surveillance by police and CSIS and Bill C-36 [anti-terrorism legislation] was passed.

-----------​

The Muslim community's discomfort is aggravated by a widespread conviction that it is seen as the Other in Canada â ” an alien group â ” even though Muslim leaders point out that Muslims are likely more securely integrated into Canadian society than in any other Western country.

â Å“We haven't been able to make the case [about ourselves] to the ordinary WASP Canadian,â ?

----------​

 

[Edward Campbell]

Below are two counter points from today's Globe and Mail, one by Christie Blatchford and the other by Ken Wiwa.  I am posting both because they are, on the Globe's web site, restricted to subscribers.

I am belabouring this point because I think it represents a fairly new situation for us.  There are historic parallels: for example, we interned some Eastern Europeans in 1914/18 and Japanese Canadians in 1942 - sometimes with scant evidence of subversion.  We - big broad 'we' - some of us, anyway, are using Islam and terrorism almost interchangeably , assuming fifth columns where probably none exist.

Blatchford says:
One thing is crystal clear: We still don't know one another very well, Muslims and non-Muslims.

What are the Islamic private schools and mosques in our country teaching and preaching? Most non-Muslim Canadians don't have a clue. They didn't in Britain, either. The lesson is that it's time for all of us to pay attention.

Wiwa, on the other hand, points out that:
Anyway, to get back to multiculturalism. What baffles people from the global South is when host communities in Europe and North America operate housing policy that effectively herds immigrants into ethnic ghettoes which are then branded as "inward-looking societies" ... Look at almost any urbanscape in Africa or Asia or Latin America, and you will find expatriate communities that are fenced off from their host countries, expat communities that could similarly be maligned as "inward-looking" because they are usually umbilically attached to their mother countries and have almost no, or very little, interest in integrating with the host societies.

I said, just up above, I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims - self imposed or not.

Elsewhere, Acorn, explained why we must 'know our enemy' and consider not just his tactics but his values and motives, too - in order to provide better 'steerage' to our front line combat troops.

General Hillier explained, just this morning - http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/index.jsp?program=The+House&network=CBC%20Radio%20One&startDate=2005/07/16&startTime=09:11 - why we must focus also on our own home defence.

Who is the enemy?

Are we going back to the future and brand Muslims of Arab descent as an enemy à la the Japanese-Canadians in 1942?

Do you know what your Muslim neighbours and their children hear in their mosques and schools?  Do Canadian Muslims really have to defend themselves, as a community, every time some fanatic throws a bomb anywhere?

 

[Edward Campbell]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=columnists/Summary.html&cf=tgamv3/common/MiniHub.cfg&configFileLoc=config&hub=christieBlatchford&title=Christie_Blatchford

Our culture of accommodation . . .
Only in Britain, or in Canada, would terrorist bombings prompt a big group hug

By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
Saturday, July 16, 2005 Updated at 11:16 AM EDT

Off to London after the terror attacks last week, I swear I might just as well have been in Toronto or Ottawa or Vancouver.

It was all so infuriatingly, weirdly, endearingly familiar -- the instant institutional reaction, immediately after the bombs went off, to reach out to British Muslims, from whose very ranks the bombers indisputably sprang; the angst at the BBC about whether the killers should be called terrorists (and the answer in the early days at least was "no") and, more generally, the striving all round for exquisitely careful language, lest anyone's feelings be hurt; the rush to condemn any possible backlash before there was a hint of one; the pronouncements from on high about what a perversion this act was of the wonderful religion of Islam.

I can imagine no other places on Earth but England and Canada where the national preoccupation in the wake of mass murder would be as much about consoling and protecting those who shared the bombers' religion (if in name only) as it was about comforting the families of the murdered and reassuring the wider public. In no other places would the search for a properly sensitive vocabulary be every bit as relentless as that for the perpetrators.

There's no telling if Canadians would cope so well as the Brits did with such an assault upon their capital city and collective sense of security, but by God, with that exception, much else unfolded precisely as it would have in this country.

Within four days of the bombs exploding, the Metropolitan Police had put together a private meeting with Muslim leaders, at which senior officers pledged that any incidents of anti-Muslim hate crime (and sadly, by then, there were some) would be vigorously prosecuted. I stumbled upon the meeting by accident at the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, where the bomb briefings were held, and got to listen at the doorway for a few minutes before being politely asked to leave.

And it's not that this isn't right: Of course the police should protect Muslims from moronic vigilantism (or any other sort for that matter); of course they should say they will do so; of course they and the rest of us should take racism and hate crime seriously; of course, of course, of course.

It's just that it's so damnably British (and Canadian) to be to be so studiously concerned about all this secondary stuff -- and the original sin here is inarguably murder -- from the get-go. Yet from Tony Blair and the Met boss, Sir Ian Blair, on down to the mythical man in the street, these matters were in the forefront even as the blood in King's Cross was drying.

The Met is even sponsoring a conference later this month -- aimed at promoting "community cohesion" -- that's perfectly in keeping with what governments and institutions in this country do as well. Even the words are the same.

Take, for example, "community." Is there a more loathsome, more meaningless phrase than "community" as it is overused by decision-makers and leaders in both countries?

It is nothing but code for Brits or Canadians who identify themselves, foremost if not first, by the country of their ancestry or by race or religion. In some instances, as with "the black community," the word is preposterously narrow: The black community in both nations is so diverse, and so heterogeneous, as to defy such a categorization. In other cases, the "community" in question is either so small or organized by so few that the word confers disproportionate importance.

My point is that Canucks share with the British a vision of our nations as places where the burden to accommodate social change, some of it sweeping, is not placed on newcomers alone, but as much upon existing and even founding citizens.

Remember the fuss, not so long ago, about Christmas celebrations in the schools? The first reaction in my part of Canada was often to ban the very name, and call it Winterfest or some such. God forbid a child should be marginalized. Only later did a more sensible arrangement, now in wide use at many school boards, evolve: Christmas would be Christmas in the school calendar, and let the carols ring out, but the faith-based holidays of other religions would be noticed and feted too.

The latter is a sensible arrangement that sits comfortably with most people, I think. I don't want a little Muslim child to feel left out, or a Muslim teacher. Neither do I want a little fifth-generation Christian Canadian, or a white Anglo-Saxon teacher, to be deprived of his culture.

Yet it seems to me that in our efforts to make everyone happy, we Canadians are often shamefacedly apologetic about preserving what is good and honourable about our heritage -- chiefly, that ours is a graceful, welcoming nation -- and sloppily keen to debase ourselves before the new.

One thing is crystal clear: We still don't know one another very well, Muslims and non-Muslims.

What are the Islamic private schools and mosques in our country teaching and preaching? Most non-Muslim Canadians don't have a clue. They didn't in Britain, either. The lesson is that it's time for all of us to pay attention.

If we won't do it for our own sakes, let's do it for the Muslim parents.

The Pakistani mums and dads of the Brit boy bombers, as the young men are called by the tabs over there, gave up everything that was dear and familiar to them to emigrate to a bold new world.

As always with immigrants, they did it to give their kids a better future, and as always, it was enormously brave and probably achingly difficult.

For at least a couple of those families last week -- think of teenager Hasib Hussain's folks, who called the Met to report their son missing -- the reward was to have that sacrifice, that gift, hurled back in their faces in the most profoundly cruel way imaginable.

How were those boys -- raised by parents who it appears tried, and with some real success, to become part of the larger secular mainstream culture -- made over into murderous Islamist zealots? Canada is so like Britain it beggars the imagination to believe that something similar could not be happening here.

It would have been awful enough for that poor family to learn that their Hasib was dead. How much more dreadful to learn he was a killer who with his final act sent the message that everything they had given up, or tried to get away from, was in vain.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.​

 

[Edward Campbell]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050716/COWIWA16/Columnists/Columnist?author=Ken+Wiwa

. . . is to some, however, a culture of exclusion

By KEN WIWA
Saturday, July 16, 2005 Updated at 11:21 AM EDT

It was Robbie Burns in the 18th century who riffed on the metaphysical differences in the way we see ourselves and others see us. In the aftermath of the attacks on London, we're again looking at this issue of whether we will ever appreciate how these differences can divide the world.

London is a pretty self-centred city. My home away from home has so successfully arrogated to itself the position of centre of the world that the most universally acknowledged measurement of time takes the London borough of Greenwich as its geographical centre. The London media (and I count myself as a part-time member of that tribe of misfits) do a grand job of playing the organ-grinder to the centrifugal tune. But there are times when London's self-regard and self-importance are worrying. Reading the various commentaries on last week's bombing, I came across this startling observation: "The foreign media are awash with references to 'Londonistan,' describing how this country has become a safe haven for Islamic extremists. . . . They also voice incredulity that the malign impact of multiculturalism and political correctness has for years seen Britain segregated into inward-looking communities that eschew British values while the forces of law and order walk on eggshells."

Apart from trying to figure out which foreign media, if any, have ever been "awash with references to Londonistan" I was momentarily hypnotized by the depressing parochialism of that analysis.

Blaming everything on multiculturalism is a Pavlovian fashion that still whets the appetites of the gleefully politically incorrect. You rarely hear multiculturalism being maligned in this way when, say, music or food is flavoured with multicultural influences -- because for the most part people don't feel threatened by "foreign" food or music. Detonate a bomb, however, and you release the thoughtless police and their attack dogs on the M word.

That so many of the London bombers were born and raised in Britain appears to have triggered this latest bout of mad dogs and English values. Whenever the vexed issue of foreign terrorists comes up, my thoughts often go back to the Oklahoma bombings . . . and I try to recall whether the there was the same kind of angst about values when extremists murdered 168 people 10 years ago in the name of Middle America?

I seem to recall that Tim McVeigh was explained away as a bad apple -- just like Private First Class Lynndie England and the others who gave American values a bad name in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. These misfits are usually characterized as bad apples unfit to make apple pie. But when the name is Hasib Hussain, born and bred in Northern England and identified as one of the London bombers, you just know that someone somewhere is going to blame the whole multicultural tree for failing to adapt its roots to the values of the orchard.

It is a brave man or woman who tries to root out the riff-raff from the rabble-rousers in these matters. When Gore Vidal suggested that Tim McVeigh was cut from the same American tradition as John Brown, Mr. Vidal was himself condemned as a bad apple. (If truth be told, Mr. Vidal gladly ostracized himself a long time ago. But that's another story. Or maybe not.)

Anyway, to get back to multiculturalism. What baffles people from the global South is when host communities in Europe and North America operate housing policy that effectively herds immigrants into ethnic ghettoes which are then branded as "inward-looking societies."

We're baffled. Look at almost any urbanscape in Africa or Asia or Latin America, and you will find expatriate communities that are fenced off from their host countries, expat communities that could similarly be maligned as "inward-looking" because they are usually umbilically attached to their mother countries and have almost no, or very little, interest in integrating with the host societies.

Okay, these communities rarely harbour terrorists (at least in the sense that is understood in the North). But then, what do they have to be angry about? They are generally getting a pretty good deal, they have all the home comforts they need, they are rarely humiliated or discomfited by their hosts -- if anything, they are seduced and feted with tax-free benefits and all kinds of incentives to use their skills and expertise.

I am not diminishing the London catastrophe, nor the value of those lives that were meaninglessly snatched away. But some of the analysis of why lives were lost does not convince me that we have learned to bridge the gap between how we see ourselves and how others see us.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. ​

 

[Dare]

Further.

Muslims in Canada are struggling with the fifth column slander (and it is, of course, a slander insofar as it might be directed at all, most or even very many Muslims in Canada).

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050716.wxmuslim0716/BNStory/National/ - it is not restricted for subscribers only.

Here are a few extracts of interest:

----------​

It is what Canada's Muslims feel they must do for their self-interest and protection, leaders of the country's mainstream Islamic organizations said in interviews.

The Canadian Roman Catholic Church didn't feel it had to issue statements denouncing Catholic terrorism in Northern Ireland. Canadian Orthodox churches felt no obligation to publicly condemn the ethnic cleansing carried out by Serbian Orthodox Christians in the Balkans.

â Å“But being a visible minority, you do not have the privilege of distancing yourself from your [global religious] community,â ? Mr. Fatah said.

----------​

Omar Alghabra, president of the Canadian Arab Association, for example, said he is tired of fielding media calls and of being viewed as belonging to some subversive â Å“fifth columnâ ? who must apologize for the acts of terrorists.

----------​

The Canadian Islamic Congress also got its statement out early. However, it immediately found itself facing a barrage of media criticism for saying, in addition to condemning the bombing, that it hoped â Å“Canadian Muslims do not pay the guilty-by-association priceâ ? â ” a declaration several editorialists and columnists labelled inappropriate and fanciful.

Ms. Valiante said there was no debate within the organization's leadership about putting in the guilty-by-association reference. â Å“You have no idea how terrified the Muslim community feels â ” following 9/11 when we found our mosques under surveillance by police and CSIS and Bill C-36 [anti-terrorism legislation] was passed.

-----------​

The Muslim community's discomfort is aggravated by a widespread conviction that it is seen as the Other in Canada â ” an alien group â ” even though Muslim leaders point out that Muslims are likely more securely integrated into Canadian society than in any other Western country.

â Å“We haven't been able to make the case [about ourselves] to the ordinary WASP Canadian,â ?

----------​

The Canadian Islamic Congress believes that Syria should stay in Lebanon. Their president, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry,  has said that all Israeli's over 18 should be targets. They slandered the RCMP as racists because they detained 19 Pakistani's. Interestingly enough, Global released Elmasry's disingenuous correction on their story. http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/story.html?id=c1e2293b-1758-443e-8863-6dff7df6d945 Oh, as long as it's just Israeli Jews he wants to massacre. Then it's "OK" for the Canadian public. Omar Alghabra is President of the Canadian Arab -Federation-. This group came out *against* the G.C. ban on Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
So did the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations. All on the pretext of these groups being primarily engaged in Humanitarian funding. They also do not support our efforts in Afghanistan.

So, of course these particular groups are tired of accusations that they are front groups, because they *are* front groups. The fifth column has been alive and well for some time.

As B'nai Brith put it: "As for the Canadian Arab Federation's complaint over B'nai Brith Canada's ad campaign on this issue, it is simply dishonest for the Federation to complain that B'nai Brith has depicted the unfortunate manner in which Islamic symbols have been hijacked by extremist fundamentalist groups. Rather, it should be the Federation's responsibility to speak out against the blatant abuse of these religious symbols by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to justify murder and terror."

Which, of course, they would never do..

 

[Infanteer]

The Canadian Islamic Congress believes that Syria should stay in Lebanon. Their president, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry,   has said that all Israeli's over 18 should be targets. They slandered the RCMP as racists because they detained 19 Pakistani's. Interestingly enough, Global released Elmasry's disingenuous correction on their story. http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/story.html?id=c1e2293b-1758-443e-8863-6dff7df6d945 Oh, as long as it's just Israeli Jews he wants to massacre. Then it's "OK" for the Canadian public. Omar Alghabra is President of the Canadian Arab -Federation-. This group came out *against* the G.C. ban on Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
So did the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations. All on the pretext of these groups being primarily engaged in Humanitarian funding. They also do not support our efforts in Afghanistan.

I think this is something of a new phenomonon that is due to globalization and all that jazz.  Usually, people would be supportive of their State's policies.  But now, with information capable of travelling to and fro at the blink of an eye, we see allegiences lying elsewhere - clan, religion, ethnic group, cause du jour.  These people obviously see themselves as Canadians whose loyalty goes towards those back in the lands of Islam than as opposed to Canadians who identify with our Western nature.  I'm sure we aren't the only ones feeling this - ex-pat communities of any ethnic stripe in any country our liable to be the same (remember Malaya with the ChiComms?). 

One odd example I witnessed was Sunera Thobani of UBC crowing about the US invasion of Afghanistan.  Despite the fact that she was the leader of feminist organizations that spearheaded the effort to ostracise the Taliban for their treatment of Afghan women, she was rabid in her condemnation of the US going in to boot them out - I figure that stemmed from her Islamic viewpoint that America is a Crusader kingdom.

 

[couchcommander]

I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims â “ self imposed or not.

I think you are on the right track here Edward Campbell.

A popular theory regarding deviance, in brief, states that when a person or group of people are unable to succeed in "normal" society (read succeed loosey, as this depends on the person and the situation, but basically it all boils down to gaining social status and acceptance), one of their reactions is often times to form a "deviant subculture" where they can succeed (ie if a child is in school and always getting in trouble, he will often times become friends with people who look positively upon disruptive behaviour, thus enabling him to attain status and acceptance, even if it is not within mainstream society).

This can be taken in a larger context. If groups of Muslims are unable to "succeed" (gain acceptance, social stature, etc.) in normal society they will quite possibily retreat into groups of like minded people where they can indeed "succeed". This usually means with other Muslims.

Thus one has the current situation where there can be found tight knit groups of muslims who are largey avoidant of outside society.

Further, as stated before, these groups will usually form their own set of standards to gauge social status; and it can, and has IMO, happened that one of the primary factors in this is determination of status becomes devotion to the Islam.

Though this is not necessarily a bad thing, as the grand majority of devoted, even fanatical Muslims are not terrorists nor do they condone it.

However, just like everything, there are different interpretations. One of these seems to be one in which terrorism is justified.

How does one get from simply being part of a Muslim community, to being a sucidie bomber?

Well, IMO, you see the same thing we saw with Muslims and Society happen inside the Muslim ciricle itself. It appears to me (and I may be wrong on this) that this particular interpretation of the Koran is not widely held. This would make the group who held these violent beliefs, once again, a subculture; albeitwithin another subculture (as I am sure most Muslims would condemn this viewpoint, marginalizing those who believed in it).

Now this, to me, becomes the problem. As in this particular subculture one would not only see religious devotion as a way of attaining status, but religious devotion to an interpretation that condones terrorism and promises eternal bliss to those who carry it out. From this, IMO, we see born the suicide bomber.

So, how do we deal with this?

That's were Edward Campbell's idea comes into the picture. If we can prevent the seclusion of Muslims groups from society by accepting their culture and promoting their success we would, iMO, be able to stop the suicide bomber before he is even born.

The hard part of all of this is that this is not something they do, but something we have to do as well. Each and every one of us carries in our head a "typification" of a Muslim. Often times it means he is brown, talks kinda funny, dresses differently, sometimes terrorists, scary, mean, cheap, ******* come up (and keep in mind, this might not even be consciously, but something that you have unknowingly leanred from society around you, whether it be the news, parents, friends, or even personal experiences). It's these negative impressions that most of us carry that form a barrier to these people.

Now of course Muslims have a responsibility in this as well. They need to appropriately identify and deal with the extremists amongst them, but more importantly they need to loose their negative impressions of us that similarily form a barrier for their own integration, and an effort needs to be made, by both "sides", to try and identify with one another, accept our differences, and try to live together.

*awaits the barrage back....*

(and sorry for the splling, , I didn't have time to check)

[edited for readability.... yes I know I failed]

 

[Dare]

I think this is something of a new phenomonon that is due to globalization and all that jazz.  Usually, people would be supportive of their State's policies.  But now, with information capable of travelling to and fro at the blink of an eye, we see allegiences lying elsewhere - clan, religion, ethnic group, cause du jour.  These people obviously see themselves as Canadians whose loyalty goes towards those back in the lands of Islam than as opposed to Canadians who identify with our Western nature.  I'm sure we aren't the only ones feeling this - ex-pat communities of any ethnic stripe in any country our liable to be the same (remember Malaya with the ChiComms?). 

One odd example I witnessed was Sunera Thobani of UBC crowing about the US invasion of Afghanistan.  Despite the fact that she was the leader of feminist organizations that spearheaded the effort to ostracise the Taliban for their treatment of Afghan women, she was rabid in her condemnation of the US going in to boot them out - I figure that stemmed from her Islamic viewpoint that America is a Crusader kingdom.

I've seen many examples of that. Socialists torn between their causes. Most feminists I have talked to have actually come on side since we removed the Taliban. As far as I'm concerned, no true feminist would be supporting many Middle Eastern governments, let alone the Taliban. Yet still, you can see them come out in droves at protests clearly oblivious to their contradictory positions, and to the radical Islamists grimacing beside their scantily clad bodies. After all, I would say it is a good thing, as it exposes duplicitous organizations and individuals who simply use divisive issues to attack the west.

 

[paracowboy]

I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims â “ self imposed or not.

I think you are on the right track here Edward Campbell.

That's were Edward Campbell's idea comes into the picture. If we can prevent the seclusion of Muslims groups from society by allowing them and promoting their success we would, iMO, be able to stop the suicide bomber before he is even born.

hmm, so a variant of Affirmative Action will quell Islamo-terrorism? But, by singling out Muslims for their success, or by going out of our way to ensure we include Muslims in >insert activity here<, are we not simply identifying and promoting their "different-ness"?

Here's a crazy idea: howzabout we just treat everyone exactly the same, and demand that everyone do it, too? Everyone's equal, nobody's special, we all get the same shot to succeed. Now, we keep promoting this here, exporting it to less-libertarian nations, and shooting the extremely recalcitrant in the face, and it will catch on.

 

[Britney Spears]

As far as I'm concerned, no true feminist would be supporting many Middle Eastern governments, let alone the Taliban. Yet still, you can see them come out in droves at protests clearly oblivious to their contradictory positions, and to the radical Islamists grimacing beside their scantily clad bodies.

???

What is your source for this?

 

[couchcommander]

hmm, so a variant of Affirmative Action will quell Islamo-terrorism? But, by singling out Muslims for their success, or by going out of our way to ensure we include Muslims in >insert activity here<, are we not simply identifying and promoting their "different-ness"?

Here's a crazy idea: howzabout we just treat everyone exactly the same, and demand that everyone do it, too? Everyone's equal, nobody's special, we all get the same shot to succeed. Now, we keep promoting this here, exporting it to less-libertarian nations, and shooting the extremely recalcitrant in the face, and it will catch on.

No I wasn't supporting Affirmative Action, in fact I detest it. It doesn't actually deal with the cause of the problems, which are in large part due, in my opinion to our own preceptions of said groups, and their preceptions of us.

And I like the treat everyone exactly the same (I assume you mean in regards to sex, religion, skin colour, ethnicity, etc.), in fact I think that this is a great idea. Not so sure about the shooting in the face thing.

Have a good day,

 

[Dare]

I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims â “ self imposed or not.

I think you are on the right track here Edward Campbell.

A popular theory regarding deviance, in brief, states that when a person or group of people are unable to succeed in "normal" society (read succeed loosey, as this depends on the person and the situation, but basically it all boils down to gaining social status and acceptance), one of their reactions is often times to form a "deviant subculture" where they can succeed (ie if a child is in school and always getting in trouble, he will often times become friends with people who look positively upon disruptive behaviour, thus enabling him to attain status and acceptance, even if it is not within mainstream society).

This can be taken in a larger context. If groups of Muslims are unable to "succeed" (gain acceptance, social stature, etc.) in normal society they will quite possibily retreat into groups of like minded people where they can indeed "succeed". This usually means with other Muslims.

Thus one has the current situation where there can be found tight knit groups of muslims who are largey avoidant of outside society.

Further, as stated before, these groups will usually form their own set of standards to gauge social status; and it can, and has IMO, happened that one of the primary factors in this is determination of status becomes devotion to the Islam.

Though this is not necessarily a bad thing, as the grand majority of devoted, even fanatical Muslims are not terrorists nor do they condone it.

However, just like everything, there are different interpretations. One of these seems to be one in which terrorism is justified.

How does one get from simply being part of a Muslim community, to being a sucidie bomber?

Well, IMO, you see the same thing we saw with Muslims and Society happen inside the Muslim ciricle itself. It appears to me (and I may be wrong on this) that this particular interpretation of the Koran is not widely held. This would make the group who held these violent beliefs, once again, a subculture; albeitwithin another subculture (as I am sure most Muslims would condemn this viewpoint, marginalizing those who believed in it).

Now this, to me, becomes the problem. As in this particular subculture one would not only see religious devotion as a way of attaining status, but religious devotion to an interpretation that condones terrorism and promises eternal bliss to those who carry it out. From this, IMO, we see born the suicide bomber.

So, how do we deal with this?

That's were Edward Campbell's idea comes into the picture. If we can prevent the seclusion of Muslims groups from society by allowing them and promoting their success we would, iMO, be able to stop the suicide bomber before he is even born.

The hard part of all of this is that this is not something they do, but something we have to do as well. Each and every one of us carries in our head a "typification" of a Muslim. Often times it means he is brown, talks kinda funny, dresses differently, sometimes terrorists, scary, mean, cheap, ******* come up (and keep in mind, this might not even be consciously, but something that you have unknowingly leanred from society around you, whether it be the news, parents, friends, or even personal experiences). It's these negative impressions that most of us carry that form a barrier to these people.

Now of course Muslims have a responsibility in this as well. They need to appropriately identify and deal with the extremists amongst them, but more importantly they need to loose their negative impressions of us that similarily form a barrier for their own integration, and an effort needs to be made, by both "sides", to try and identify with one another, accept our differences, and try to live together.

*awaits the barrage back....*

(and sorry for the splling, , I didn't have time to check)

[edited for readability.... yes I know I failed]

I think there is a disconnect in this arguement. I think that we would be fortifying the belief that Muslims are seperate if we treat them specially. I agree that all Canadians have a responsibility to demonstrate our good nature to Muslims. Yet, I think it is better stated that we have a duty to eachother, irrespective of religion to pierce the misconceptions. All Canadians to eachother have this opportunity every day. With every utterance and movement we make in their presence. On the other hand, I would say it's very difficult to hold back people who recognize the direction from which the fire is coming from, even if they do not grasp the distinctions, they are justified in wanting the threat to be vanquished. Polite education works better than scornful distain (which would seclude a misdirected reactive factor).

The types of people that are attracted due to the reasons you've mentioned are not the policy drivers, but a small percentage of the rank and file. I do not believe that the men behind these lackeys (the true threat) are driven by status or how we would measure "success" (material wealth and status). Many of them are quite wealthy with high status. Heavenly "success" I would agree with. The problem with that is their views of Heavenly "success" would not be anything we could earthly provide to satiate their desires. That and Heavenly "success" is purely a boolean operation, you either are or you are not. Should we elect to provide all the aid/benefits in the world to disaffected nations/groups, it would still not be enough to nullify the threat.

Essentially, the strategy of focusing on the lackeys as the primary problem is akin to attacking the appendages of the enemy. Or the symptom of the disease. It does need to be done, but not as the exclusive or primary strategy. As even the relatively well integrated lackeys (ie. the cricket playing London bomber) manifest radical sentiments.

We must confront the doctrines of the theocracy that allows this behavior to gain strength and we must make sure that their pool of potential recruits knows we're not the Bad Evil Guys that we're painted as. This will dry up a good chunk of their lackeys but it won't dent the hardcore. Most of them are in for the long haul too.

And in my usual controvertial nature I believe that in order to ultimately triumph, we have to view it as a deprogramming. From a heretic anti-Muslim back to a true believing Muslim again. They're making converts here, we need to start winning converts there. They can point to verses in the Qu'ran to justify anything they do. This is why we need moderate Muslims to take an even stronger roll in the intellectual battle against extremists rather than excusing them with "But" filled condemnations.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Couchcommander said:
The hard part of all of this is that this is not something they do, but something we have to do as well. Each and every one of us carries in our head a "typification" of a Muslim. Often times it means he is brown, talks kinda funny, dresses differently, sometimes terrorists, scary, mean, cheap, ******* come up (and keep in mind, this might not even be consciously, but something that you have unknowingly leanred from society around you, whether it be the news, parents, friends, or even personal experiences). It's these negative impressions that most of us carry that form a barrier to these people.

Now of course Muslims have a responsibility in this as well. They need to appropriately identify and deal with the extremists amongst them, but more importantly they need to loose their negative impressions of us that similarily form a barrier for their own integration, and an effort needs to be made, by both "sides", to try and identify with one another, accept our differences, and try to live together.

I'm not sure how I can square this with my view that:
â ?... we must help or coerce Muslims to make themselves part of our society which, perforce, may mean discarding some of their socio-cultural and religious heritage â “ accepting, for example, that our freedoms and liberties are part of and will remain part of our society and those who will live here must embrace them, too.â ?

This is where my chauvinism comes in: I believe that our society (and, of course, all its values and other trappings â “ including the political and social liberalism which 'we' â “ that very broad 'we' again - have built over the millennia) will, indeed must remain dominant here, in this place â “ in our home and native land.

On one level I agree with paracowboy: One of the principles of liberalism is that we are all equal and we all ought to be treated equally, at law, and held to equal standards, at law.  What someone thinks or believes is none of my business â “ not even when he believes that I am pond scum and should be shot.  It only becomes my business, and everyone else's business, when anyone â “ including, especially, the dominant cultural group (the WASPs, people like me, in our case) â “ decides that it should, can or must impose they beliefs, however benign, on others.  But for equality to serve us all and for equality to protect us all we must all accept the principle that none of us is better or worse than anyone else.  Equality as I see it requires that we all accept that each individual is sovereign and equal.  This is the post-Christian, secular liberalism which characterizes our modern, Western world and which General Hillier and I agree infuriates some Muslims.

I am not a practising, not even a professing Christian but I recognize and acknowledge my, personal cultural debt to 2,000 years of Christianity â “ it is one of the great foundation stones of the Western canon.  I am suggesting that Muslims must join our society â “ my chauvinism shows again because I reckon that anyone who wants to live, work, raise their family, etc in the West ought to accept ways of the West.  That being said I also understand that others, especially Muslims, can believe that the West is trying to impose its values â “ inter alia the values of pop-culture and Hollywood â “ on the entire world and there is no escape, no place where Muslims can be real Muslims.  (I note, by the way, that my Hindu and Chinese friends â “ including my Chinese partner â “ think this is rubbish.  They, most of them, believe that Western culture is full and vibrant â “ equally full of great things and dross; they believe that they, living here, can pick the best of our culture, including our political culture, and mix it with some of their traditional values to make, for themselves, a comfortable 'place' anywhere in the world.)

I am suggesting that Muslims must not be allowed to drift into isolation and I think that means they must adapt to our ways and values because 'we' are not going to adapt to theirs â “ not here, anyway.

Maybe I shouldn't keep chewing at this but I think it is a real problem when we are asked to face the prospect of defending our home and native land from home-grown enemies: fellow citizens who are divided from us by beliefs.

 

[couchcommander]

I think there is a disconnect in this arguement. I think that we would be fortifying the belief that Muslims are seperate if we treat them specially. I agree that all Canadians have a responsibility to demonstrate our good nature to Muslims. Yet, I think it is better stated that we have a duty to eachother, irrespective of religion to pierce the misconceptions. All Canadians to eachother have this opportunity every day. With every utterance and movement we make in their presence.

I couldn't agree more. I apologize if I made it seem as though we should treat them specially. My point was just that we should be aware of how our attitudes and perceptions can present barriers to others.

On the other hand, I would say it's very difficult to hold back people who recognize the direction from which the fire is coming from, even if they do not grasp the distinctions, they are justified in wanting the threat to be vanquished. Polite education works better than scornful distain (which would seclude a misdirected reactive factor).

Once again, I couldn't agree more. Especially your last sentance.

The types of people that are attracted due to the reasons you've mentioned are not the policy drivers, but a small percentage of the rank and file. I do not believe that the men behind these lackeys (the true threat) are driven by status or how we would measure "success" (material wealth and status). Many of them are quite wealthy with high status. Heavenly "success" I would agree with.

Yes indeed, as I said, success needs to be taken loosely, less in terms of concrete tangible items but more generally to mean the success of the person in society as an entire concept, ie how well they are integrate, how well they feel they are integrated, whether or not they feel they can acheive the goals society sets upon them, how well they acheive these goals, whether they have a supportive peer group, etc.

The problem with that is their views of Heavenly "success" would not be anything we could earthly provide to satiate their desires.

No, but by trying to prevent their ethical divergence from normalized societal values we can prempt the formation of these deviant values. In the end I don't think there is much we could do about the people who currently follow this viewpoint, but I feel that we can be very sucessful in preventing it from spreading.

That and Heavenly "success" is purely a boolean operation, you either are or you are not. Should we elect to provide all the aid/benefits in the world to disaffected nations/groups, it would still not be enough to nullify the threat.

Indeed, our focus needs to be on their socialization process and the formation of normative values.

Essentially, the strategy of focusing on the lackeys as the primary problem is akin to attacking the appendages of the enemy. Or the symptom of the disease. It does need to be done, but not as the exclusive or primary strategy. As even the relatively well integrated lackeys (ie. the cricket playing London bomber) manifest radical sentiments.

I would think it is more akin to denying the enemy food. And yes, you are right. Even someone who outwardly appears to be completely normal may in fact be very distrubed.

We must confront the doctrines of the theocracy that allows this behavior to gain strength and we must make sure that their pool of potential recruits knows we're not the Bad Evil Guys that we're painted as. This will dry up a good chunk of their lackeys but it won't dent the hardcore. Most of them are in for the long haul too.

I agree, educating these people would be a very good thing to do.

And in my usual controvertial nature I believe that in order to ultimately triumph, we have to view it as a deprogramming. From a heretic anti-Muslim back to a true believing Muslim again. They're making converts here, we need to start winning converts there. They can point to verses in the Qu'ran to justify anything they do. This is why we need moderate Muslims to take an even stronger roll in the intellectual battle against extremists rather than excusing them with "But" filled condemnations.

We all have a role to play, and as I said, Muslims need to do a better job of dealing with these extremist viewpoints within their religion and ensure that it is understood that they are not tolerated (ie you follow them, you are no longer a true Muslim..). Though this won't discourage everyone, I believe as well that it will empty the pool that little bit more.

[edit]

Re: Edward Campbell:

From my own, very superficial and quick dive into muslim theology (so I could be very wrong), I didn't see any real conflict between western libertarian values and Islam. In fact if one looks back into history one can see that Islamic societies, can, and have been some of the most accepting and toleran societies around. In short, I don't think the values that you and I hold dear are all that foreign to your average Muslim, nor are they things which they would need to come to accept but rather are values that they already hold. I think you are very right, however, that these views infuriate some muslims, but that can be said about Christians as well.

IMO the disconnect, and the cause of our apparent inability to live harmonously (I am not saying that muslims and Christians don't live harmonously, just that some don't), is sadly not some fundamental value difference but a set of assumptions and perceptions based more upon hersey and snap judgements that put up a wall between people before they have even met.
Thanks,

 

[paracowboy]

Not so sure about the shooting in the face thing.

but that's the best part!

 

[Dare]

???

What is your source for this?

Source for which part of my statement?
For one part, I would say, observe some anti-war demonstrations. Preferrably from the inside, if you can.

Here's something I dug up for you concerning the second part.
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/autumn03/polaut03-6.pdf
It addresses a portion of my position. The other is the apparent alliance of convenience that has be made (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) between several far left causes and radical Islamist causes which we can see manifest from street level on upwards (which includes deluded moderates and semi-moderates of both strains of thought, who genuinely believe the alliance is one of harmony). Unlikely, strange, and unnatural? Yes. Yet, not as strange as the Aryan Nation claiming alliance with Islamic fundamentalist organizations. Are both happening? You bet. I like to think of it as the Axis of Stupid. Feel free to improvise.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

If home grown terrorism comes from the fact that the youth are disenfranchised they can either vote in a government they want, suck it up, or fuck off.

 

[Britney Spears]

Source for the part I quoted silly!

As far as I'm concerned, no true feminist would be supporting many Middle Eastern governments, let alone the Taliban. Yet still, you can see them come out in droves at protests clearly oblivious to their contradictory positions, and to the radical Islamists grimacing beside their scantily clad bodies.

Here you are clearly insinuating that feminists organizations are organizing protests in favour of the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalism. May I ask in which "Rally" you witnessed this? I hope you are not referring to an anti-IRAQ invasion rally.

The source you provided is an article written by a feminist, berating other feminists for their seeming lack of tangible action against the Taliban and extremist Islamic regimes, a conclusion which itself is ridiculous. It does not come anywhere CLOSE to supporting your implication that feminist organizations are aiding the regime of the Taliban. In fact,

<a href=http://www.feminist.org/research/report/102_one.html> Feminist Majority Demonstrates Against UNOCAL Afghanistan Pipeline</a>
<a href=http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/02/18/stories/03180003.htm>French feminists protest Taliban Minister visit</a>


Heck, to save myself time, here's a <a href=http://www.houseofplum.com/plumcrazy/archives/000553.html>well sourced rebuttal</a> of the entire article.

Actually I was mostly inclined to agree with your points about Muslim sub-cultures in the west, but I don't know why you felt it neccesary to launch such an outrageous and unfounded attack on the feminist movement.

 

[Dare]

Source for the part I quoted silly!


Here you are clearly insinuating that feminists organizations are organizing protests in favour of the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalism. May I ask in which "Rally" you witnessed this? I hope you are not referring to an anti-IRAQ invasion rally.

The source you provided is an article written by a feminist, berating other feminists for their seeming lack of tangible action against the Taliban and extremist Islamic regimes, a conclusion which itself is ridiculous. It does not come anywhere CLOSE to supporting your implication that feminist organizations are aiding the regime of the Taliban. In fact,

<a href=http://www.feminist.org/research/report/102_one.html> Feminist Majority Demonstrates Against UNOCAL Afghanistan Pipeline</a>
<a href=http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/02/18/stories/03180003.htm>French feminists protest Taliban Minister visit</a>


Heck, to save myself time, here's a <a href=http://www.houseofplum.com/plumcrazy/archives/000553.html>well sourced rebuttal</a> of the entire article.

Actually I was mostly inclined to agree with your points about Muslim sub-cultures in the west, but I don't know why you felt it neccesary to launch such an outrageous and unfounded attack on the feminist movement.

I'm afraid it's not unfounded, nor is it outrageous. I was not implying that all feminist organizers are aiding the disposed regime with direct support. I suggest you go to *any* anti-war demonstration (including anti-Iraq war demonstrations) and talk to the people you meet there. Ask them if they are feminist, and ask them how they feel women should be liberated from oppression in the Middle East. Forget the banners, talk to the individuals. I'll bet you all the money I have (which ain't much ), that in any sizable demonstration, you are apt to find at the very... very least one feminist who believes the Taliban should have remained in power.

My words are an attack at hypocrites who are willing to leave Middle Eastern women in the dust to further their anti-War/US/West agendas. I welcome you to take a poll of your local universities Women Studies or Sociology departments and see how many support our removal of the Taliban. Your links are dated pre-war, and only further prove my point. The article you claim debunks the article I posted, doesn't address many points and what it uses to support it are specious and dated as well. I recommend you read the comments under it, the author seems to illustrate my point exactly (and also proves she doesn't know what she's talking about). The scarcity of articles on the Taliban from feminists post-war is telling. I would like to see even one celebrating our removal of the Taliban (A real celebratory one.)

It's hard for them to understand how physical applications of force are almost always required to remove tyrants. Thus, the logical inconsistency in their platform of wanting women to be free but not wanting anyone to force the imprisoner away. You might not see it, but I see an incredible hypocracy to a feminist wearing a kaffiyah and waving a PLO flag. Or a feminist calling us Nazi's for attacking Afghanistan. As if they were real close to liberating themselves or holding a bloodless revolution. You might not call it support to conduct such actions, that's fine. Perhaps you are thinking in militaristic terms of direct support. I am thinking of moral support and popular support.

The Feminist Majority, despite it's name and star power, is not actually the majorty of the feminist movement. People (of either gender), who honestly value the rights of women, don't support what the theocratic tyrannies allow against women.

http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2001/000114.html (succinct and on point)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52639-2001Oct12&notFound=true (the article which is linked in the above)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15242 (avec real sources. not the only university out there with such Professors)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11405 (note what the organizer of this event describes herself as: "anarcha-feminist",.. who happens to be organizing not just a rally, but an entire school tour!)
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/articles/brownshirts-of-our-time.htm (with response and counter response) A good example of what I am discussing.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/menasurvey/ (an interesting site)

Perhaps, you think these are isolated incidents? Or Horowitz constructed fantasies? Either way, introduce yourself to the mob. They'll gladly tell you everything about themselves and what they believe. I know several self described feminists who have gone through the (usual, bland) list of supposed western atrocities. Upon defeating each of these arguments it becomes clear that they are just repeating what they were taught by their Professors, and don't really understand how we are improving the lives of women in Afghanistan. How can you not see the parallels between fighting the "western imperialists" and fighting the "western patriarchy."

P.S. Where'd you get that quote in your signature? That's awesome.  ;D