the canadian elections and the cic

I haven’t gotten the memo yet, but I’ve got a pretty good feeling the Canadian Islamic Congress is going to deliver the lucrative Muslim vote to the NDP party in the upcoming Canadian elections on October 14th, for whatever that’s worth.

Let me be serious for a second.  I’m not a fan of block voting.  A CIC executive once came to our Centre and tried to sell us on the idea, and it went over like a turd in a punchbowl.  I don’t think Canada will ever see a “Muslim vote,” and I think that’s a good thing.  Ethnic politics drive me nuts, and here in BC we see it in spades.  Religious block voting is even worse, and the day a religious leader tells me for whom to vote, I’m walking out and won’t come back until I’ve got reasonable assurance that sort of thing won’t happen again.

But in this post, Mohamed Elmasry of the CIC puffs the NDP as the real party of change, the Grits and Tories being continuations of past and failed policies (now where have we heard that before?). Granted, he’s not speaking in this instance of what he believes Muslims should do; Media Matters isn’t a sectarian site after all. But it is reasonable to assume, given that Elmasry’s CIC does believe in block voting, that he’d like to be able to tell Layton he’ll give the NDP our votes.

He starts with a pretty crude caricature of American politics:

Thank God that Canadians, unlike Americans, do not vote in elections based on their family histories. Traditionally, a Republican votes Republican irrespective of who is running for the White House, or their political platform. A Democrat does likewise. And both follow the rationale that “it was good enough for my parents and grandparents, so it’s good enough for me.” It’s a tribal mentality at best, and our neighbors to the south seem happy with their inherited political status quo.

Frankly, I don’t buy that. True, you’ve got registered Democrats and registered Republicans, but we’ve got the same thing here, particularly among Tories and Liberals, and to a lesser degree Greens and NDPers. But that’s not “tribal mentality at best,” it’s partisan politics and it’s never going to go away–and I really don’t think it’s genetic. It’s based on ideologies and convictions, which are shaped in part by the culture of the place you’re from, which–what a shock–tends to have some geographical and generational patterns. Not so different from Canada.

Don’t believe me? Think what political party is going to take Alberta. Take a minute.

If you didn’t come up with “Conservative,” of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. But you’re wrong.

Anyway, Dr. Elmasry comes up with some pretty good reasons to vote NDP, among them:

• Jack Layton seems to be a strong leader.
• The NDP have a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
• Jack’s likely to push Canada’s peacekeeper role in international relations.
• NDP loves welfare.

Yadda yadda yadda. Anyway, the more I think about the big-government policies of the NDP, the more angry I get. This ultimately derives from a deeply-seated belief I have that politicians are, to a man or woman, incompetent boobs who can’t get decent jobs doing anything else, and as a result I would like to limit their influence on my freedom, choices, and wallet. The NDP stands for everything but. I would agree that Jack Layton is the strongest leader of the bunch, but that’s not saying much.

Regardless, I just want to focus on the Afghanistan issue for a minute. I know Dr. Elmasry thinks he’s preaching to the choir here, especially among his Muslim readers, and I realise I may be alone in this, but I’m pretty convinced that an unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2011, no matter who’s proposing it (and you’ll note Layton’s timeline is pretty close to Harper’s), is a big mistake. What in our history of dealing with Afghanistan indicates cutting and running will make things better? It didn’t work for the British or the Russians; why would it work for NATO?

Call me what you will. The Taliban are retrograde evil, and they need to be crushed, utterly and without hope for recovery. I’m not so warlike as to think a military answer is the only answer. Afghans need to have options other than joining the Taliban. That means economic investment and infrastructure development that will make Afghanistan the type of place people want to live and do business safely, and Canadians need to play a role beyond just the role our armed forces are undertaking. That’s the only compassionate solution. But pulling out the armed forces when we can’t be sure the Afghan forces will be able to handle the Taliban insurgency is basically telling the Afghans, once again, we don’t care about them. And that’s wrong.

Anyway, I know that opinion isn’t very popular and probably doesn’t have much traction among fellow Muslims. To be honest, I’m not even remotely sure who I’ll be voting for come October. The only thing I know is I’ll have to hold my nose while I do it.

the hopes and dreams of simpletons…

So I’m looking out for coverage of last weekend’s Islamophobia conference at Masjid as-Salaam in Burnaby, and I find this wee summary. Not a bad, if loaded, summary, focussing mostly on why a guy like Greg Felton would’ve been there, which is a good question because he certainly wasn’t on any of the promotional material and didn’t really seem like he wanted to be there anyway, although I left before salaat so I didn’t hear him talk. So anyways, I’m peeking through the comments and all of a sudden I’m drowning in epic fail. Check it:

But does a self-professed peace activist like O’keefe understand how he is a “useful idiot” for murderers? Do they understand that a renewed Caliphate and the kind of economy and science it would support would have to entail first a mass die off and a return to some kind of medieval order? O’Keefe must have some inkling. But what about the 150 ordinary mosque members who just showed up for a talk on “Islamophobia”? Are these people, our neighbors, best considered an “enemy”?

This from a BC hack called truepeers. He goes on to say he’s not quite there yet to call me his enemy–for which I’m eternally grateful, because I’ve no idea what I’d do if he did.

And then, from an apparently unemployed schoolteacher named Dag:

I understand that it’s probably more difficult and even physically dangerous for Muslims to stand publicly against the likes of Elmasry, given the nature of Islam, given the nature of jihad, so I won’t claim all “moderate” Muslims should stand against him and his likes in public. But I do stand and cheer for those among our friends who will take the risk of physical violence or even death to do what can be done to stand up against jihad and Left dhimmi fascism. Maybe, if enough of us stand firm in public, some day Muslims will find the same courage. There is hope.

Brave, dim Dag–keep cheering, dear brother, for those people intrepid enough (apparently more intrepid than you) who suffer themselves unto the swarthy hordes to stand up to dangerous BadMen like Mohamed Elmasry. Fight on, keyboard soldiers, fight on!

islamophobia: what it is and how not to deal with it

So I went to a conference held at Masjid As-Salaam in Burnaby on Friday called Islamophobia: What It Is and How to Deal With It.  Speakers were Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Dereck O’Keefe of rabble.ca, and Khurram Awan, one of the legal team that took Macleans to the Canadian, Ontario, and BC Human Rights Commissions for Islamophobic publications.  And no big surprises.

One thing I did take out of it was a better understanding of why Br. Khurram did what he did.  I’m virtually convinced now that it was out of frustration–they couldn’t get Macleans to apologize or to admit wrongdoing, or to publish a rebuttal, so they took it to court.  I get it now.  But I agree with him even less now.

Look, I don’t want to come down too hard on my brothers.  I get where they’re coming from.  But if Macleans Magazine wants to degenerate itself into a reactionary Neocon bullet-point mag, let them, and let the market decide whether or not it wants to consume that kind of swill.  If the market is happy with that product, and–here’s the kicker–if the Muslim community and its friends can’t field a saleable alternative, the Government ain’t the solution.

I understand that the Canadian Islamic Congress doesn’t agree with that position, and they’ve got a lot of their political capital invested in a position precisely its opposite, so I don’t blame them for that.  But the way I see it, there are three potential social scenarios we’re facing here in Canada:

1. The people of Canada can’t stand us Muslims and are willing consumers of Macleans/CanWest neocon Islamophobia.
2. The people of Canada are relatively ambivalent about Muslims and consume Macleans/CanWest neocon Islamophobia because they don’t really care–but they don’t really buy it, either.
3. The people of Canada don’t really agree with Macleans/CanWest neocon Islamophobia and don’t really buy it, and what we’re really watching isn’t a series of potent strikes against Islam and Muslims, but rather the death-spasms of redundant media trying to shock-and-awe its way back into Canadian hearts and minds.

Whichever it is, litigation won’t help.  What will is ensuring Canadians at least have access to entertaining and informative commentary that offers a true (or at least truthy) picture of what Canadians’ Muslim neighbors believe and do.