Falling through the cracks

I have been monitoring a lot of newspaper chatter about the implications of the arrests of 17 alleged terrorists in Canada. Much of it is simple common sense; the matter is before the courts, lets just let the justice system deal with them; the vast majority of the Muslims in this country are peaceable, etc.

Nevertheless, even some of the sensible writers drop a zinger or two that makes me feel like U.S. comedian, Lewis Black, who does a stint on The Daily Show, whereby he analyzes a story that has "fallen through the cracks" of the mainstream media.

Richard Gwyn, in the Toronto Star, rattling on about the "moral sickness" of terrorists, asks,

"What do we do about the Internet? Do we have to develop a censorship system like that in China, but with references that include "jihad" rather than "democracy" blocked out? "

Unlike China, where all the organs of communication are run by the state and it is not a problem, we would also have to censor the word "jihad" from every television show, newspaper, magazine and book. We have little control over what young Muslims read or see through any of these media, but at least we can track their movements and planning through monitoring their Internet use.

Again, in the Toronto Star, we find Haroon Siddiqui making apples and oranges comparisons,

"The common denominator among them has been that they are Muslims, some rationalizing their irrationality in warped Islamic terminology.

But what are we to make of that any more than most white-collar criminals happen to be Jewish or Christian? Or that many members of the Mafia have been Catholic?"

Let me help you, Mr. Siddiqui. Christian and Jewish white-collar criminals dont kill people, they just defraud them. The Mafia tend to kill other gangsters, and avoid, as much as possible, whacking ordinary citizens. All of them commit these crimes for money, not for some vague cause. All of them plan to carry out their deeds without getting caught suicide is not part of the deal. None of them would consider killing randomly in the name of their religion. None of them would include storming the Parliament buildings and beheading the Prime Minister as a worthwhile criminal act. I hope that clears up any ambiguities for you.

In an op-ed piece in the Toronto Star, Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia professor, wants us all to take a deep breath and calm down. He goes on at length about how life went on as usual in London despite the bombings carried out by the IRA in the 1970s. It is unclear why any of this is relevant to Canada, since life is going on here as well, and there were no bomb blasts.

It appears to be a lead-up to his next shot, which is a good old Canadian staple, when you have nothing more constructive to say pointing a wagging finger at Americans.

"The IRA taught the British an all-important lesson: If you're fighting to defend your way of life, you mustn't give up your way of life. Our American neighbours, in contrast, had little experience with terrorism prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Their response was excessive and counterproductive. They detained U.S. citizens without charge or access to lawyers, produced legal opinions justifying torture, and invaded a sovereign country on the basis of trumped-up evidence of terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction."

Small wonder that the anti-American Muslims find Canada a most comfortable country in which to settle.

He fails to mention that most of the IRA killing took place in Northern Ireland, and was directed, in the main, at fellow Irish citizens, much the way most of the terrorism is being carried out in Iraq. The British government may not have interfered with the lives of the ordinary Londoners, but they did unleash secret squads of SAS assassins to murder suspected terrorists. And they did violate the civil liberties of those they locked up for IRA activity.

Finally, we have this clarifying gem from the editorial pages of the Montreal Gazette.

"Let's be clear about who we mean by "they." We mean Islamists. Not Muslims. A Muslim is one who practises Islam, a great religion. An Islamist is one for whom Islam is not just a religion, but a political ideology. Islamists seek to establish pure Islamic societies governed according to the harshest interpretation of Islam."

That misses the salient point about Islam. Islam is a political religion. It is the reason why, within a century and a half after its birth, Muslims controlled an empire that extended from the Middle East and North Africa into parts of Europe, bigger than and lasting twice as long as the Roman empire.

That is why Muslims who chose to live in western societies find themselves seriously conflicted when confronted with a democratic political system that does not recognized the pre-eminent position of Islam.

Further, the Islamist vs. Muslim distinction is artificial and provides no better analytical tool than differentiating passive Muslims from moderate Muslims from radical Muslims.

If moderate Muslims believe in their hearts that the future of Islam is to supplant western society with an Islamic state, then how do we separate the sheep from the wolves, except by the deeds they perform? Moderate Muslims only talk about the Islamic future, radical Muslims try to implement it. But it is the talk that is the fertile ground from which the activists grow.

Terrorists in Canada, media

Falling through the cracks