...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

About me

User: scaramouche
Irreverent, contrarian, delighted to be out of synch with the zeitgeist, I depend on my sense of humour (such as it is) to keep me sane in this wacky world.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

Counter

visited *loading* times

Thursday, 03 July 2008

CIC shakedown: Since the CIC doesn’t seem to be having much success in the “human rights” arena—it’s been shot down by two of the three bodies it complained to about Maclean’s Magazine’s “Islamophobia”—it is now warning that it may go elsewhere for redress—like to a real court of law. Here’s the CIC’s National Executive Director, imam Zijad Delic, lobbing threats in a letter to the Globe and Mail:

You referred to the Canadian Islamic Congress's complaints against Maclean's magazine as being "vexatious" (The Right To Offend - editorial, June 30). The Ontario Human Rights Commission did not share that opinion. It condemned Maclean's for its Islamophobic content and referred to the Maclean's article, the Future Belongs to Islam, as an "explicit expression of Islamophobia."

The federal commission's investigator stated: "An argument could be made that the material in the complaint bears some of the hallmarks of hate ... [in] that it does portray persons of the Muslim faith in a negative light based upon broad generalizations, and therefore may expose persons of the Muslim faith to hatred or contempt."

The Ontario commission has already condemned Maclean's; B.C.'s commission will make a decision on the merits of the case argued before it. The federal commission's decision not to hear the complaint will soon be appealed to the Federal Court.

One way or the other, the denigration of Muslims in the pages of Maclean's magazine will be brought to the attention of our legal system.

You do that, imam. You realize, of course, that unlike the B.C. ‘roo court that remains locked in deliberation over your complaint, a real court of law has stuff like discoveries, rules of evidence, a presumption of innocence and, oh, yeah, a regard for the truth. As such, it will likely prove to be far less receptive to your type of suit. You’ll also have to shoulder your own legal bills; I’m sure Ted Rogers (Maclean’s owner) can tell you how quickly those can add up.

The imam expatiates at greater length on the CIC site. As he sees it, it's those "angry right wingers" who are creating all the problems. It only they'd shut their pie holes and get with the "Islam is a relgious of peace" program, everything would be okey-dokey:

…Legitimate Muslim scholars have given their opinions on the matters the article talks about; however, the right-wing writers do not quote them. And they do not intend to do so either, for they have no interest in any knowledge and insight that will not serve their purpose of demonizing Islam and Muslims, both in Canada and across the globe.

We do not hear of these writers chasing after entire Christian denominations or Jewish faith groups because a few lunatics in their midst see the world as a one way street where only their signposts have any meaning. Similarly, Islam is not a monolithic faith either; we have no central authority from which to regulate and control what Muslims everywhere can say or do.

I'm sure that my Jewish and Christian friends can affirm the same relationship to our highest guiding Authority, regardless of how our human- run institutions function. Lunatics and extremists everywhere share the same lack of moral responsibility and self-awareness; they sanction only their own conduct and do not speak for you or for me.

But why then does this fundamental truth not hold in the case of any Muslim who also happens to be a proud Canadian? These angry right -wing writers prefer to see all Canadian Muslims as automatically guilty-by-association - that is, guilty until proven innocent - which runs totally counter to the logic and law of Canadian civil society. And this moral travesty seems these days to happen only to Muslims. We are being attacked by a hypocritical double standard that creates nothing but more confusion, conflict and anxiety, resulting in the unhealthy condition of having to be on guard and vigilant at all times.

Now if this unhappy situation was the article's intention all along, I have to admit it has succeeded. While I know that time will eventually redress this injustice, unopposed attacks by these writers will leave Canada as a whole vulnerable to even more social damage and confusion. For that reason, Muslims opted for legal avenues in order to counter discrimination and racism in a country we call our only home. We still hope that as Canadian citizens, we as Muslims can be accorded the same rights and protections as anyone else.

Such a naïve strategy totally misses the point. These writers conveniently forget that Canadian Muslims are an integral part of this country's social and historical fabric. We will not sit by passively while someone like him attacks our image and that of Canada itself.

Keep on writing, writers! But do not forget that honest and thinking Canadians will not allow themselves to be dragged into frivolous and demeaning debates. Please read the Bouchard-Taylor report on "reasonable accommodation" and better inform yourself on how mature and wise individuals really see the world in which you and I live.

Canadian Muslims can only hope that their actions and presence in Canada are much more respected by their fellow citizens than by certain media manipulators who masquerade as professional journalists.

Definition of "frivolous and demeaning debates": those that don't recognize Islam's perfection and unassailablity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:59 | link | comments (3)


Comments:
#1  03 July 2008 - 10:45
 
I'm warning you, scaramouche: come the kalifa, and you and Ms. Shaidle will be the first two khufar Canuckistani women to be frog-marched into your new burqas, never to be heard from again.

Heh.

/as if
/Hades. Freezing.
Anonymous
#2  03 July 2008 - 10:53
 
I don't think Kathy and me will get to have that "pleasure". As "insulters" of the the faith we're more likely to get Daniel Pearled.
User: scaramouche Contact me View user's mediablog scaramouche
#3  03 July 2008 - 14:28
 
Discovery, now wouldn't that be interesting.
User: Cyclist Contact me View user's mediablog Cyclist
Comments: