[Rhodes22-list] Melting Pot - Another Success Story, Or Not!

[Brad Haslett]

Elle,

There's a number of post headings this would fit under but this one will
do.  This article is about the "witch-hunt" going on in Canada and the
infiltration of PC, multiculturalism, insert your label here _______________
!  We argue on this forum about a lot of things, sometimes even sailing, but
the author of this article has a point that applies to all of us Rhodies.
No one draws knives in this forum.  Well, maybe a few do on Ed but they're
cyberspace knives - something totally different.  "Da List" is a
poster-child in civil behavior, or at least a good example of civilized bad
behavior.  Who in their right mind wants a war?  It has already been
declared on us and we may argue about the leaders, the battlefields, the
methods, etc., but let there be no doubt, war has been declared.

Brad

----------------------------






  Speaking of Islam
Liberty and grievance in Canada.
by Lee Harris
02/11/2008, Volume 013, Issue 21


The English-speaking peoples are justifiably proud of their tradition of
free speech. When Thomas Macaulay reviewed the achievements of the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, he observed that the victorious English Whigs had shown
how "the authority of law and the security of property" could be reconciled
with "a liberty of discussion and of individual action never before known."

Since Macaulay's day, many of the other nations of the world have also
figured out how to reconcile liberty of discussion with the general welfare,
until a point has been reached where we in the West have completely
forgotten what a remarkable achievement our ancestors bequeathed to us. Even
a devout Whig like Macaulay, writing midway between us and the Glorious
Revolution, recalled a time when unrestricted liberty of discussion could
not be made compatible with domestic tranquility. Today, on the other hand,
most of us have lost any awareness of the painful fact that, under certain
conditions, a society might be forced to make a tragic choice between two
incompatible goods, namely, free speech and the public welfare. Yet the
events of the last several years should have awakened us from our dogmatic
slumber, for when it comes to speaking of Islam, there is troubling evidence
that our cherished liberty of discussion may not be compatible with security
of life and limb, not to mention the security of property.

It is only by keeping these sobering facts in mind that we can hope to put
into perspective the strange drama unfolding in Canada--a drama that
contains elements that might have been borrowed from the theater of the
absurd, making it uncertain whether we are dealing with a surreal farce or
an all too real tragedy.

On January 11, 2008, in a small drab government office in Alberta, a hearing
was held to investigate a complaint brought against Ezra Levant, a Canadian
publisher, author, and libertarian activist. The case, in truth, had its
origins two years earlier in Denmark, where the daily news-paper *
Jyllands-Posten* commissioned and published a set of cartoons lampooning the
prophet known to Muslims as Muhammad. As most of us remember, after a delay
of several months, and with an assist from a road-show to the Middle East
organized by unhappy Danish imams, the so-called Danish cartoons set off
havoc in various corners of the Muslim world, leaving a death toll of around
100 people, many of whom were shot by police in their attempt to quell the
riots. In the aftermath, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that
the cartoon controversy was the worst international crisis for his country
since World War II, when Denmark was invaded by the Nazis.

Ezra Levant had nothing to do with the original cartoon debacle. His
magazine, the now defunct *Western Standard*, decided to reprint the
cartoons in order to let its readers see and judge the drawings for
themselves. When the cartoons appeared on February 14, 2006, there were no
riots, deaths, or international crises. But, not long afterwards, Levant
found himself in hot water. Syed Soharwardy, representing the
self-proclaimed Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed a complaint with
the Calgary police, alleging that Levant was inciting hatred against him--a
crime in Canada. These criminal charges, according to the Calgary police,
are still under investigation. In addition, Soharwardy lodged a complaint
with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizen Commission.

In a related case, four Muslim law students affiliated with the Canadian
Islamic Congress have filed complaints against author Mark Steyn for
publishing an excerpt from his bestselling book, *America Alone*, in the
Canadian newsweekly *Maclean's*. These complaints, filed in December 2007,
will be heard by the British Columbian Human Rights Tribunal and by the
Canadian Human Rights Commission.

There has been remarkably little interest shown in these cases by the
American media, usually so alert to perceived violations of the right to
free speech, and it is perhaps too easy to speculate why the editorial
boards of our leading newspapers and magazines have not gotten up in arms
over these attacks on their Canadian colleagues. Could it be that they are
not as keen on defending our right to speak ill of Islam as they are to
defend our right to speak ill of virtually everything else? On the other
hand, the Canadian cases have caught the attention of the blogosphere,
especially but not exclusively among those to the right of center. After
Levant made the videotape of his appearance before the Alberta Human Rights
Commission available on YouTube, it was inundated with viewers, most of them
enthusiastically sympathetic with his defiant response to the order to
appear before the commission. There is also a Free Mark Steyn! website
dedicated to information about his pending case and to defending other
"Canadians from the thought police and 'human rights' commissars."

So what are we really dealing with here? A grave threat to the Anglo-Saxon
tradition of free speech, as some seem to think, or a cautionary tale of
bureaucratic folly in a nanny state running amok?

Before the commencement of his hearing, Levant read a statement in which he
refused to recognize that the commission had the authority to summon him
before it to answer questions relating to Soharwardy's complaint. Levant
vehemently asserts that he, like everyone else, has the unconditional right
to engage in speech that is offensive and unreasonable. The defiant and
pugnacious attitude that Levant took has been widely echoed by his
supporters, and there has been a uniform tendency to lump the various
Canadian tribunals and commissions together under the heading of kangaroo
courts, intent on violating what Levant, in his opening remarks, called his
"inalienable" right to freedom of expression, further sanctioned, in his
words, by "the 800-year tradition" of English common law on the subject.

Macaulay would have been quite surprised to learn that from the 12th century
onward there were no restrictions on speech under English common law. As a
Whig, Macaulay might have reminded Levant that it took the Whig revolution
to secure anything like the kind of liberty of discussion that we take for
granted. During the reign of James I, Macaulay might have noted, there was a
heated controversy over the degree to which members of the House of Commons
could freely speak their minds during a session of Parliament, and even
those members of the House who pushed to protect their own right of free
speech recognized that there were obvious limits beyond which it would be
improper to go. No member of the House of Commons could urge the overthrow
of the monarchy, for instance, or make speeches that endangered the general
welfare.

In 17th-century England, no one doubted that it was often in the public
interest to curb men's tongues. During the reign of Charles I, for example,
the archbishop of Canterbury William Laud decided to hand down a ruling that
forbade ministers to discuss the sublime mysteries associated with Calvin's
doctrine of predestination. They could not preach it, nor could they preach
against it. They could not mention it at all. This was clearly an
infringement on the right of free speech, but for Laud it was an
infringement that was amply justified in the interests of domestic
tranquility and social harmony. For Laud, what was at stake was not so much
the promotion of his own theological opinions as the suppression of the *furor
theologicus* that had caused so much devastation in England and throughout
Europe in the aftermath of the Reformation. What Laud wanted to achieve was
not the victory of his own narrow theological opinions, but the eradication
of all theological divisiveness, along with the rancor and the violence that
came with it. His goal was to bring about uniformity of religious opinion
and practice by weaning the English population away from violent
disputations over inherently unsolvable mysteries.

If Macaulay represented the Whig approach to liberty of discussion, Laud
could be said to represent the Tory approach. For Macaulay, free speech was
the foundation of mankind's "intellectual improvement," so that any state
that interfered with the free expression of ideas had impeded the growth of
knowledge and the ethical uplift of the race. In addition, for the Whig,
free speech was the ultimate bulwark against governmental or ecclesiastical
despotism. For the Tory, on the other hand, the state not only had a
legitimate right to interfere with free speech under certain conditions, it
had a duty to interfere. If liberty of discussion threatened to incite men
to violence, or caused them to take the law in their own hands, then the
state, representing the general welfare and not merely its own selfish
interests, had to curb this so-called liberty. Liberty yes, license, no.
When preaching sermons about predestination becomes tantamount to shouting
"Fire!" in a crowded theater, then such sermons must cease.

It is easy, looking back, to take a smug attitude toward the men of those
times, and to preen ourselves on how much farther we have advanced in the
recognition of the importance of basic human rights than our ancestors. But
what we forget is that we are the heirs of a profound cultural
transformation that made free speech less dangerous to the social order than
it was in previous centuries. We were all brought up in a world in which it
was safe to speak our minds--safe both for us, and for the other members of
our community. There was a tacit compact by which we all agreed to play by
the same set of rules. I could say pretty much whatever I wanted to say,
provided I allowed you the same liberty. Furthermore, I agreed that I would
not become too upset if you offended me, provided you agreed that you would
not become too upset if I offended you. Of course, most of us would watch
what we said, in the interest of not causing others too much offense, but we
would not fly off the handle if now and then someone went too far over the
line. We might grumble and complain; we might even decide not to speak with
the person who offended us, but we would not stab the offender to death, or
behead him, or riot in the streets in protest against him, or burn down
buildings to indicate to the world the fury of our resentment.

Levant, and other defenders of the classical Whig position, do not seem to
realize that this tacit social compact is presently breaking down in the
very nations that prided themselves the most on having achieved it. Today,
because of Islam, the *furor theologicus* that we in the West thought we had
put behind us is reemerging and can flare up in any part of the world. A
cartoon or a film documentary that Muslims find offensive can set off a
chain of reactions that lead to riots, bloodshed, the murder of innocents,
and international crises. To continue to maintain, in the light of these
troubling facts, that the state has no business watching what its citizens
say is to indulge in a wistful anachronism. Even the most dedicated
libertarian must surely realize that at some point the other members of his
society may not be willing to pay the social costs of his freedom of
expression. One may of course wish for a society to stand firmly behind
those who have the courage to speak their minds; but it is simply naive to
expect the general population to support them beyond a certain point. The
question is, How close are we to that point?

Let us consider several well-known examples.

First, let us go back to the publication of the original cartoons in the
Danish magazine. It is highly likely that the Danish government would never
have heard about these cartoons if they had lampooned Zoroaster, the Buddha,
Moses, or Jesus of Nazareth. Caricatures of these revered figures might have
offended certain readers, causing them to write angry letters to the editor,
or even to cancel their subscriptions; but nothing would have happened to
make the Danish government weigh in the balance the individual right of free
expression versus the general welfare of their nation. On the other hand, if
the fallout of the Danish cartoons was indeed the worst thing to happen to
Denmark since the Nazi invasion, then what patriotic Dane could be happy to
see his country embroiled in an international uproar because of an editorial
decision at a newspaper?

Second, consider the well-known case of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh. His
protest film about the oppression of women in Islam outraged Muslim
sensibility in Holland and led a lone fanatic to stab van Gogh to death in
the streets of Amsterdam. The Dutch, who had achieved their celebrated
tolerance after enduring the worst form of the *furor theologicus*, were
stunned by this violation of the tacit compact by which they had managed to
balance the desire for freedom of expression with the desire for social
harmony. The effect of van Gogh's murder was chilling, since it revealed the
breakdown of a fragile civil ecology that permitted the strong-minded and
stubborn Dutch to live at peace with one another despite their differences.

The consequences of this breakdown were also evident in the Dutch treatment
of the brave Somali-born woman who had conceived and scripted the offensive
film. Van Gogh's murderer had pinned a death threat against Ayaan Hirsi Ali
to his victim's chest, declaring to the world that she was a target of
possible attack. For obvious reasons, the neighbors who lived in Hirsi Ali's
apartment building were disturbed to think that they were living next to
someone who might become the object of a terrorist attack, possibly in the
form of a bombing. By speaking out courageously against radical Islam, Hirsi
Ali not only put herself at risk, but, as her neighbors saw it, she had also
(quite inadvertently) put them at risk. But why should her neighbors be
forced to live under the same death threats that Hirsi Ali had received?
They had said nothing controversial themselves, and deeply resented the idea
that they might be called upon to pay the price for a courage that they had
never dreamed of displaying.

Those of us who have the luxury of living risk-free can easily ridicule the
paranoia of Hirsi Ali's Dutch neighbors. But their feelings were no doubt
akin to those of a group of hostages held by masked men with guns, who
suddenly discover that they have a hero in their midst, intent on speaking
his mind to the gunmen who are holding them. The other hostages might
momentarily admire the hero, but they will probably also wish that he keep
his heroism to himself, since by speaking his mind he is exposing his fellow
hostages to the danger of getting shot.

In the case of Hirsi Ali, her neighbors were satisfied when she moved out of
the apartment block, and the Dutch government was eventually satisfied when
Hirsi Ali moved out of their country. But suppose she had not moved. Then
what? Might not the day have arrived when her neighbors asked the government
to protect them by gagging her? If the person who is exercising his freedom
of speech is endangering the lives of other people in his society, how long
will it be before an appeal is made to quiet him by whatever means are
available? Indeed, how long can such a state of affairs go on before it has
an intimidating effect even on those who are by no means lacking in the
courage to risk their own necks?

For example, when Pope Benedict XVI gave his Regensburg Address in 2006,
there was also a Muslim backlash, less lethal than that of the Danish
cartoons, but still more than enough to create serious ethical reservations
in the mind of anyone of stature who undertakes to make a public criticism
of Islam. If certain words can literally kill, then morally responsible men
and women will naturally be hesitant to say them aloud, leading to a
self-censorship that can make timorous those who are not -otherwise short on
courage.

In the bloody aftermath of the Regensburg Address, many journalists in the
West assailed the pope for "causing" the mayhem and held him personally
responsible for the death of a Catholic nun murdered in Somalia by Muslim
fanatics. This attack on the pope was certainly unjustified, and yet, if we
are completely honest with ourselves, we must recognize that there is a hard
unpleasant kernel of truth in it. If criticism of Islam sets off riots and
leads to the death of innocent people, then those who are prepared to make
these criticisms must also be prepared to face the moral hazard they are
running by doing so.

Fortunately, in the case of the *Western Standard*, there were no riots or
deaths. It is true that Levant appears to have offended at least one Muslim,
namely, the man who has filed the complaints against him. But Soharwardy did
not stab Levant to death, or blow him up--and, to quote Gilbert and
Sullivan, this is "greatly to his credit." Soharwardy may not be an
Englishman, like the able seaman of the *Pinafore*, but at least he is
behaving like one, vigorously availing himself of the law and its loopholes
in order to get his way, and thereby avoiding the violence that so often
accompanies expression of Muslim anger in other parts of the world. Canadian
law has made the mere expression of hatred a crime, unlike American law,
which must consider whether hateful speech is likely to lead to the actual
physical harm of the person who is its object; and who can really fault
Soharwardy for thus taking advantage of opportunities placed in his way?
Levant may well object to Canadian law on this matter, and he may even be
right to argue that the Alberta Human Rights Commission has exceeded its
mandate by taking his case under consideration. But that is not Soharwardy's
fault.

Levant appears to recognize the inherent absurdity of the situation when he
compares his "interrogation" to a story by Franz Kafka. And if you watch the
video on YouTube, you can see what he means. While Levant defiantly defends
his ancient and inalienable rights, as if he were pleading before the Star
Chamber, a lone bureaucratic inquisitor, Shirlene McGovern, sits across the
table from him. Drab as the room itself, she is silent under Levant's
ferociously indignant tongue-lashing. Every now and then McGovern squirms
uncomfortably, raising her eyebrows at some of Levant's more extravagant
claims, no doubt wishing that she could get her government paycheck without
this kind of ordeal. Obviously, she is someone who, as the phrase goes, is
just trying to do her job, and has no desire to abridge anyone's freedom of
speech. Indeed, when Levant finishes castigating the commission that she
represents, McGovern responds by saying, as any good Canadian might, "You're
entitled to your opinion, that's for sure." And she obviously meant it.

McGovern has been condemned as the mindless functionary of the nanny state
at its worst. But before we jump on this inviting bandwagon, let us at least
try to give Nanny her due. If speaking of Islam runs genuine risks of
inciting violence, we cannot just pretend that it isn't so. We can be
indignant about this and declaim loudly against it--but what good does such
an approach really do? If criticizing Islam promotes bloodshed, then
criticizing even more hardly seems like an attractive solution. On the other
hand, let us look at the possible upside to the nanny approach.

Let offended Muslims file complaints to their heart's content. Make outraged
imams fill out tedious forms. Require self-appointed mullahs, representing
imaginary counsels and committees, to provide documentation of their
grievances. Encourage them to vent through the intrinsically stifling
bureaucratic channels provided by panels like the Alberta Human Rights
Commission. Show them, nanny-like, that you care about their injured
feelings. Patiently and silently listen to their indignant complaints, and
let them, ideally, get it all out of their systems. Humoring, let us
remember, is not appeasement, but often a clever way to coax troublesome
children of all ages into behaving like civilized human beings. Every good
nanny knows as much. So perhaps there is something that the rest of the
world can learn from the Canadian nanny's book of tricks. If it *is* a book
of tricks. .  .  .

For here's the rub. If the Canadian government were using its "kangaroo
courts" as a deliberate ploy to siphon off Muslim rage or to guide it into
proper bureaucratic (and happily nonviolent) channels, then we could perhaps
admire it for its prudence and cunning. But suppose these commissions and
tribunals are not a cunning charade, designed to hoodwink ill-tempered
Muslims into becoming good litigious Anglo-Saxons? What if the Canadian
government actually thought that it could help matters by cracking down on
writers like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, by fining them or by throwing them
into prison, silencing those who have the courage to speak of Islam, while
encouraging Muslim immigrants to feel that they can manipulate weak-kneed
governments into stifling any criticism of their religion and culture?
Obviously this naive approach would backfire disastrously, and would end by
endangering the very domestic tranquility that it was trying to preserve.

Of one thing we can have no doubt: Short of a firing squad, there is nothing
that the Canadian government can do that will have any effect on what Ezra
Levant or Mark Steyn will say and write in the future. You couldn't have
picked worse people to try to cow. But unfortunately, it is the nature of
the nanny state to bring up citizens who have been trained not to rock the
boat. Under a nanny regime, the good citizen is one who is reluctant to
speak his mind merely out of fear of what other people might think. For
people already this cowed, even the threat of a minor bureaucratic hassle
would be a powerful argument for keeping one's mouth shut, and for standing
by while our hard-won liberty of discussion is steadily eroded. Canada still
has uncowable men like Levant and Steyn; but where will such men come from a
generation hence?

Even worse, the threat of ongoing legal action, carried out in a number of
different Canadian provinces, might be more than enough to keep less
well-known writers and smaller news outlets from exposing themselves to the
risk of legal costs that a magazine like *Maclean's* can afford to take.
When faced with the threat of an endless hassle, draining away limited
personal resources, many writers will simply take the safer course of not
saying anything offensive about Islam. But since it is difficult to say in
advance what will be offensive to men like Soharwardy, the safest course
will be to say nothing at all. In short, gagging Canadians may not take a
generation. It may work in a matter of a few months.

And is it just Canada that we are talking about? After all, if enough
Muslims continue to react with violence to criticism of their religion and
culture, all the other nations of the West will eventually be forced to make
a tragic choice between two of our highest values. Either we must clamp down
on critics of Islam, mandating a uniform code of political correctness, or
else we must let the critics say what they wish, regardless of the
consequences, and in full knowledge that these consequences may include the
death of innocents. This is not a choice that the West has had to face since
the end of our own *furor theologicus* several centuries ago, but, like it
or not, it is the choice that we are facing again today.

*Lee Harris is the author, most recently, of *The Suicide of Reason: Radical
Islam's Threat to the West.
     (c) Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights
Reserved.
On Feb 4, 2008 10:04 AM, elle <watermusic38 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> As one who has observed firsthand the painful and
> deadly effects of MRSA and Clostridium difficile, this
> ABSOLUTELY takes the cake.
>
> The ARROGANCE.
>
> I'd better stop now before I let loose with what I
> REALLY think.
>
> elle
> --- Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Brad!
> >
> > Once again, Islamic fundamentalists are trying to
> > take us back
> > to the 18th century or before.  This is not to be
> > tolerated.
> >
> > Bacteria, viruses, and parasites do not know about
> > sharia law.
> > They also don't care.  Neither do I.  After this
> > juicy tidbit
> > of news, I'll be even more careful in any hospital.
> > We also
> > have cases in this country of hospital staff
> > "interpreting"
> > orders concerning disease control.
> >
> > /Robert
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Brad Haslett wrote:
> > >
> > > Keep your eyes on Great Britain and Europe if you
> > want to see what the
> > > future looks like.  PC and multi-culturalism is
> > really working, isn't it?
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > >
> > >   Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'
> > > By Julie Henry and Laura Donnelly
> > > Last Updated: 1:51am GMT 04/02/2008
> > >
> > > Muslim medical students are refusing to obey
> > hygiene rules brought in to
> > > stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they
> > say it is against their
> > > religion.
> > >
> > > Women training in several hospitals in England
> > have raised objections to
> > > removing their arm coverings in theatre and to
> > rolling up their sleeves when
> > > washing their hands, because it is regarded as
> > immodest in Islam.
> > >
> > > Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will
> > refuse to co-operate with
> > > new Department of Health guidance, introduced this
> > month, which stipulates
> > > that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow".
> > >
> > > The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread
> > of infections such as
> > > MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed
> > hundreds.
> > >
> > > Minutes of a clinical academics' meeting at
> > Liverpool University revealed
> > > that female Muslim students at Alder Hey
> > children's hospital had objected to
> > > rolling up their sleeves to wear gowns.
> > >
> > > Similar concerns have been raised at Leicester
> > University. Minutes from a
> > > medical school committee said that "a number of
> > Muslim females had
> > > difficulty in complying with the procedures to
> > roll up sleeves to the elbow
> > > for appropriate handwashing".
> > >
> > > Sheffield University also reported a case of a
> > Muslim medic who refused to
> > > "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed.
> > >
> > > Documents from Birmingham University reveal that
> > some students would prefer
> > > to quit the course rather than expose their arms,
> > and warn that it could
> > > leave trusts open to legal action.
> > >
> > > Hygiene experts said last night that no exceptions
> > should be made on
> > > religious grounds.
> > >
> > > Dr Mark Enright, professor of microbiology at
> > Imperial College London, said:
> > > "To wash your hands properly, and reduce the risks
> > of MRSA and C.difficile,
> > > you have to be able to wash the whole area around
> > the wrist.
> > >
> > > "I don't think it would be right to make an
> > exemption for people on any
> > > grounds. The policy of bare below the elbows has
> > to be applied universally."
> > >
> > > Dr Charles Tannock, a Conservative MEP and former
> > hospital consultant, said:
> > > "These students are being trained using taxpayers'
> > money and they have a
> > > duty of care to their patients not to put their
> > health at risk.
> > >
> > > "Perhaps these women should not be choosing
> > medicine as a career if they
> > > feel unable to abide by the guidelines that
> > everyone else has to follow."
> > >
> > > But the Islamic Medical Association insisted that
> > covering all the body in
> > > public, except the face and hands, was a basic
> > tenet of Islam.
> > >
> > > "No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical
> > student, nurse or patient -
> > > should be forced to bare her arms below the
> > elbow," it said.
> > >
> > > Dr Majid Katme, the association spokesman, said:
> > "Exposed arms can pick up
> > > germs and there is a lot of evidence to suggest
> > skin is safer to the patient
> > > if covered. One idea might be to produce long,
> > sterile, disposable gloves
> > > which go up to the elbows."
> > >
> > > I
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > --
> > Robert Skinner  "Squirrel Haven"
> > Gorham, Maine         04038-1331
> > s/v "Little Dipper" & "Edith P."
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
>
>
> We can't change the angle of the wind....but we can adjust our sails.
>
>  1992 Rhodes 22   Recyc '06  "WaterMusic"   (Lady in Red)
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>