letter to Sun and their articles

• Between Mansur's column and Coren's column the answer to many of our problems is easy. We don't need immigration and we especially don't need immigration from Islamic countries, as those immigrants will bring with them a type of Islam or customs which are antithetical to Canadian values. It doesn't much matter if the practices and ideas of those from Islamic countries are or are not part of Islam. They are customs and values that we do not want in our country.

Immigration in the face of globalization
115

By Salim Mansur ,QMI Agency
FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2012 08:00 PM EST

In 1958, John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. senator, published a small book aptly titled A Nation of Immigrants. The world was much different then, as new states in Asia and Africa emerged, while European colonialism retreated.
The West was in the midst of a post-war economic recovery, and there was demand for low-wage workers in a growing economy.
Kennedy’s book made the case for ending quotas on immigration based on national origins. His argument was also in keeping with the Cold War politics, of denying Soviet Union influence among the newly emerging countries at the expense of the U.S. depicted as a racist society.
Two years after President Kennedy’s assassination, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The U.S., as Kennedy had called for, adopted an open immigration policy and Canada followed soon after.
Kennedy celebrated in his book how much America, in its making, owed to immigrants. He wrote, “Since 1607, when the first English settlers reached the New World, over 42 million people have migrated to the United States.
“Another way of indicating the importance of immigration to America,” Kennedy observed, “is to point out that every American who ever lived, with the exception of one group, was either an immigrant himself or a descendant of immigrants.” The exception was the aboriginal people inhabiting the continent.
The act of leaving the old world for the new, Kennedy wrote, involved breaking with the past and embracing the future as immigrants braved the immense hazards in making the journey across seas and oceans filled with uncertainties. But inside a decade of Kennedy’s writing, the arrival of wide-body transcontinental jetliners brought about a revolutionary change in the means of travel, and with it the entire meaning of immigrants and the experience of migration were altered.
Then came Pierre.
Elliott Trudeau’s multiculturalism and this policy, together with the revolutions in global transportation and communications, meant immigrants arriving since the 1970s were more or less trading places without making any break with their old world cultures and loyalties.
As a result, what Kennedy wrote about earlier generations of immigrants may not be said to the same extent for new immigrants. In the new conditions of globalization, the distinction between migrant workers and immigrants became increasingly obscure.
Many among new immigrants — given the policy of multiculturalism and the acceptance of dual or multiple citizenships — are migrant workers landed as immigrants, who draw upon the benefits of the host country while remaining attached to the customs and values of their native country.
It is politically incorrect to probe the practical reality of what has come to pass in the half-century since Kennedy pushed for open immigration, but the growing disconnect evident among newly arriving immigrants with the culture of their host country is undeniable.
These are issues that need to be discussed openly and widely. Immigration is not merely about numbers, as I indicated in my previous columns. Its effects over time inevitably change, and not necessarily for the better, the host country’s culture.
Kennedy, in looking back, celebrated the overall positive outcome of immigration. In looking ahead, we are far more aware since 9/11 of immigration’s divisively negative side.

Article by Coren – Feb 3rd 2012 – Toronto Sun
I sat last Sunday watching television with a mixture of incredulity and anger as a police inspector stood in front of a camera and explained the evils of domestic violence.
He was discussing, of course, the Shafia case and the murder of four innocent women, some of them mere girls, by their Muslim father, their Muslim mother, and their Muslim brother.
The detective meant well, I’m sure, but this had nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with honour killings.
I then watched a Kingston Islamic cleric explain how this mass murder was not about Islam, and how “people of other faiths commit such crimes.”
Do they? Well, there have been some isolated cases within the Sikh community, but the only religion that produces such slaughters in countries throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, is Islam.
Yes, of course the vast majority of Muslims would never kill or harm their children, but what does Islam actually say about the place of women within the family, the community and society?
A woman is property within the Muslim faith, first of her father, and then of her husband. Often these fathers and husbands are loving and kind, but not always. And when they are not, they are empowered by teachings of the Qur’an and by Muslim tradition to act in a horribly barbaric and oppressive manner. Look, let’s be candid here. There are Jewish people who think their children dead if they marry out of Judaism. This is rare these days, but even when it occurs, there is never any violence and certainly not death.
The same might occur with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and there can be division and pain when a Hindu or Christian young person goes astray or even marries a non-Christian or non-Hindu.
But nothing like an honour killing. This is a product of the gender power imbalance intrinsic to Islam, just as was the polygamous marriage that was the context for this family. Two wives in this case, more in many marriages in our major cities.
For God’s sake, when are we going to grasp the nettle truth and ask genuine questions?
What happens if a Muslim converts to another religion? Will they be safe, will they be tolerated? What happens if a Muslim is attracted to someone of the same gender? Forget gay marriage — that’s a viable debate — but will a Muslim be allowed freedom and safety if they are homosexual? What if a Muslim marries a Christian or a Jew, what if they critique the Qur’an?
This is not the cringe-worthy Little Mosque on the Prairie, this is not cozy fantasy, but difficult reality. You’ve read and will read myriad comments and articles splashing around in relativism and obfuscation.
You’ll hear comments about “all religions,” “all people,” Islamophobia, racism. Put it aside. You know the truth, and you know police, politicians, consensus journalists, mainstream commentators and the like are running scared.
It’s too late for that cowardly, anti-intellectual nonsense. Four dead women are crying out from the grave for the truth to be screamed from the top of the houses, from the top of the mosques!

Attack on Israeli school bus

It is time to add up the significance of the actions of the inhuman group that call themselves Palestinians. Last week they murdered some of the Fogel family including a baby and a young child who were sleeping peacefully in their beds. The latest poll stated that 1/3 of the West bank Palestinians approved of the killing of these babies and children. The West Bank is considered to be “moderate”. If “moderate” Muslims approve of the killing of children what do the radicals of Gaza think? On Monday, they murdered Juliano Mer Khamis, a Palestinian actor and producer, because he was a peace activist, and yesterday they tried to murder a bus of Israeli students by firing an anti-tank missile at the school bus. What kind of people target babies and children? In addition they believe in polygamy, honour killings and killing gays? What does all this say about their culture? Surely it is not a culture that should be supported by Canada either independently or through the U.N. Surely it is not a group which is deserves our sympathy or the establishment of its own country. It takes at least two generations to change a cultue so I am not hopeful for any immediate cultural changes. Canada should not be funding the culture of a group of child murderers who have no respect for the rights or the lives of others. It is time to review our Middle-East policy.

Note on op-ed about Ignatieff

Rodriquez, the Liberal party's Canadian Heritage Critic, wrote an op-ed in the National Post today, 05/11 on Ignatieff that included the sentence "He lived the life of an artist, with all the financial insecurity that comes with it." Ignatieff comes from a rich and famous family and lived the life of a well-paid Harvard professor. He never had to bear the financial insecurity of an artist. If this statement of Rodriquez is an example of the truth of the rest of the op-ed and of other Liberal writings, then they are not worth reading. He also says that the Liberal vision is "a cultured Canada." Does that mean that we will be like France where every "cultured" married man has a mistress and they are famous for caving in to and appeasing dictators?