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

Mo’s theatre of the absurd: For those, like me, who missed it when it was posted last month, here’s Mugabe apologist Mo Elmasry’s idea for a “play” that he thinks has a lot to say about the Canadian--and the Muslim-Canadian--condition. See if you can make hide or hair of it:

The plot of this play is reality-based.

The beginning of the play is now, the year 2008, but moves back to Canada in the 1910s and then forward into a we-all-hope-not Canada of 2030.

The characters are all Canadian. They are identified here by gender, age, religion, ethnic origin, or job, for the purposes of character-building within the demands of the plot.

The proposed play's plot thesis is that racism is a moral crime for which all of society eventually pays. The author hopes that some directors will realize its potential on stage to be an effective educational presentation for schools or universities.

While coming to their opinions in different ways, the core characters all believe that Canada should restrict the number of immigrants it accepts from non-European countries, especially the Muslim ones.

Each character argues that non-whites -- especially Muslims -- do not integrate well into Canadian society and therefore pose a significant problem to "our way of life." To those who are skeptical about their opinions, all three main characters advance a supporting argument that "small is beautiful" and besides, immigrants do not add much to Canada's economy anyway (a lie that surfaces later in the plot).

After the three key characters lead an intensive lobbying campaign to the federal government to get their restrictive immigration viewpoint across, the Canadian government responds in their favour (this is already happening in real-life with the recent introduction of Bill C-50): the minister of immigration is given wide-ranging powers to select immigrants based on who the minister thinks should be admitted at the time. There would be no recourse for applicants who had met immigration requirements, but happened not to fit what the immigration minister wanted.

Let us call the characters A, B and C. All are males, although the director of this play can easily find real life Canadian female characters by doing a web search using key words like "Islamophobia," "anti-immigrants," "anti- multiculturalism," etc.

Character A is a white Christian immigrant from a European country who is a university professor. Character B is a second-generation Jewish white male from an immigrant family, a reporter-turned-writer. Character C is a Muslim immigrant from India, also a university teacher.

None of the three feel that the "racist" label fits them at all, but they do tend to seek out and keep friends who think as they do. The three have done a number of writing projects together and meet regularly to work on their biggest undertaking so far - promoting immigration restrictions. Their shared viewpoint has in fact become their obsession.

They form a small advocacy organization, create a web page, give public lectures, and publish books, papers and articles.

They are adamant in their mission: they do not want Canada to change.

They do not want to see their country become a socially chaotic nation that allows citizens (this is not a fabrication) to eat dogs as food, or chew Qat leaves for stimulation in place of good old "I am Canadian" beer. One of the three will say, "Canadians don't care what immigrants eat, until someone decides to barbecue man's best friend." The other two characters think this is a brilliantly clever point.

The three see themselves as mainstream Canadians and do not feel that recent-arrival minorities should have the right to vote or lobby the government for social change "like white folks do."

Another of the characters is heard to comment; "I like your argument when you say that the recent threat of jihadist terror has brought to the fore the dangerous nexus between large-scale immigration and limited levels of integration among Muslims in Canada."

Because no Muslim has ever been convicted in a Canadian court of law on terrorism charges, however, the three are prepared to look at what all the "experts" say, but still declare "Muslims are a danger anyway."

The three characters in fact believe themselves to be sufficiently expert on the subject of immigration and express their opinions freely and often. But one day a young university student takes offense and confronts them with some hard facts during a public lecture: they are no experts on immigration.

Undeterred in their position, the three state publicly that: "We have been victimized by those who accuse us of being anti-immigrant, xenophobic, or alarmist. This is not true: we all love to eat shawarma and sweet-and-sour chicken."…

As a pitch for a play, I’d have to say it’s a flop—a muddled, confusing mess that makes Samuel Beckett’s theatrical oevres look like marvels of clarity. As a window into Mo’s bizarre though processes, though, it’s boffo, thrilling, a sure-fire hit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments

Comments: