Canada vs. Radical Islam
Having won a new term, Prime Minister Stephen Harper now needs to win the domestic fight against Islamism.
On October 14, Canadian voters handed Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper his second minority government, one even stronger than his first. Harper vows to maintain the nation’s military commitment in Afghanistan through 2011, but his dedication to fighting radical Islam at home remains unclear.
Ezra Levant was one of those trying to keep those issues on the table while working the party’s “war room” during the campaign. Levant famously reprinted the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in his magazine, the Western Standard, back in 2006, an act that got him hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for “Islamophobia.” That was Canada’s first real taste of Islamist “lawfare” tactics, and its most notorious next to similar charges brought against Maclean’s magazine and its columnist Mark Steyn.
Levant is optimistic about the prime minister’s commitment to fighting radical Islam on the domestic front.
“You might recall,” Levant told Pajamas Media right after the election, “that the 18 young Muslims arrested for plotting to blow up the CBC and CN Tower and behead the prime minister happened right after Harper was first elected. His response was not the typical politically correct response of having a photo-op with a radical imam.”
Rather, the Harper government refused to meet with, and thereby legitimize, radical groups like the Canadian Islamic Congress. Instead, the Conservatives pointedly visited Ahmaddiya and Ismaili Muslim communities, which tend to be more “educated, professional, charitable, liberal.”
According to one expert, however, the Harper government still has work to do on the anti-Islamist front.
David B. Harris directs the International and Terrorist Intelligence Program for INSIGNIS Strategic Research. He outlined the challenges facing the new government in the months ahead.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Kathy Shaidle blogs at Five Feet of Fury. Her new book about the Canadian Human Rights Commissions is The Tyranny of Nice: How Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights — and why it matters to Americans, coauthored with Pete Vere.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
22 Comments
1. Chris in Toronto:This just in: NDP & Liberals attempting to form coalition to force the Harper Conservatives from power. Just what we need. Yeeesh.
Dec 1, 2008 - 6:58 am 2. andycanuck:Oh, not Mike Harris. A different Harris. Never mind. (And don’t forget the Bloc as ‘unofficial’ member of the coalition, too, Chris.)
Dec 1, 2008 - 7:10 am 3. Amphipolis:Having won a new term
I don’t know who wrote your sub heading, but Harper did not win a “term.” Canada does not have preset terms for their prime minister. Canada’s parliamentary government is different from the government of the US. His party won an election, which means he can stay in office until there is another election (the date of which he would set at any time within 5 years) or until he is challenged at any time with a confidence vote.
It would be presumptuous to use the word term to describe it, and I suspect that only people in the US unfamiliar with the government structure they are writing about would use it.
Dec 1, 2008 - 7:18 am 4. Tom Paine:Amphipolis,
Nice quibble.
Now tell us what is the correct Canadian terminology for whatever he won. If that’s not too much trouble.
Dec 1, 2008 - 9:10 am 5. Lilith:Sorry, Tom (I’m sure your namesake understood this perfectly) but it isn’t a quibble — it is one of many differences between Canadian and U.S. politics. “He” didn’t win anything - as the leader of the party with the most votes he forms the government and becomes P.M.; Canadians do not vote for a Prime Minister, they vote for Members of Parliament - again, the party who wins the most seats in Parliament forms the government. The leader of the winning party becomes the Prime Minister. If the party wins election after election, this same Party leader could be Prime Minister for 5, 10, 20 years, etc.
Dec 1, 2008 - 10:16 am 6. Chris in Toronto:Comprenez vous?
Andy: I didn’t forget, I just didn’t mention it! The key point was the NDP-Liberal monstrosity.
The part I’m not understanding, though, is how a non-confidence vote won’t end up in yet another election? Am I missing something? Can you shed some light on that, please. (Thanks in advance!)
Dec 1, 2008 - 10:21 am 7. john gault:Amphipolis,
As if the correct terminology is the entire crux of the article. Did you scan the whole thing looking for any tidbit you could get your skivies in a wad over? How about the fact that I ended the previous sentence with a preposition? I got something most Canadians either don’t know or don’t want to think about: Without the protective cover of the U.S. you’d either have to become just like us or be overrun.
Dec 1, 2008 - 10:29 am 8. Lilith:Chris, I doubt very much that the NDP and the Liberals are actually going to attempt a non-confidence vote — there is no possible way that the Canadian public will tolerate the expense of another election — it just won’t happen. It’s just business as usual on Parliament Hill - once again Canadians are subjected to the juvenile antics of the opposition parties when there is a minority government.
Dec 1, 2008 - 10:30 am 9. Tom Paine:Lillith,
Substantively, it certainly is a quibble, since the leader of the winning party is always assumed by the voters to become the new PM. (Just to forestall another quibble, I know it’s not “the law”.)
But since you object to the term “term”, what term would you not object to?
Dec 1, 2008 - 10:50 am 10. Amphipolis:heh.
I’m NOT Canadian. Not even a little bit. I only spent one day in Canada (Niagara Falls, not more than a few km from the US) in the last 30 years. And it was a very nice day.
I’m a 10th generation Pennsylvanian, and I try to understand the subjects I write about. That term is like a big sign proclaiming that the author does not know what she is talking about. Which is why I assumed she did not write it.
How about having won this year’s Parliamentary elections or having won the right to continue to serve as Prime Minister?
Dec 1, 2008 - 12:33 pm 11. Follow Me!:My, my, how one pedantic remark triggeres a host of even more off-point responses.
John Gault’s response is uncalled for. The issue is–was–confronting radical islamism in Canada. Perhaps some of the Canadian readers can shed light on these (and I apologize if I mischaracterize any of the events):
(a)What’s been the result of the Steyn/Rights commission hearings? Is there any move to trim those comissions? (b), how do those comissions operate given other law in Canada which I understand guarantees freedom of speech? (c)Is there widespread public support there to regulate internet content?
Dec 1, 2008 - 12:36 pm 12. Laura:Canada (and the U.S.) needs to STOP all immigration from Islamic countries permanently. This is a no-brainer….. yet Ottawa refuses to do this. Ten years ago I never saw one hijab anywhere. Now they are everywhere and we have Moslems protesting in the streets every month, protesting outside consulates and businesses (the latest was Indigo books in Toronto to protest the sale of the book about the IDF!) burning flags and chanting death to America and Israel, planning to blow up buildings and kidnap the P.M. What the hell has happened to this country? When will the West learn that Islam is not condusive to our values and our customs. We have to put a stop to their immigration now, before it is too late.
Dec 1, 2008 - 12:44 pm 13. Kathy Shaidle:Follow Me,
Funny you should ask…
My new book The Tyranny of Nice is all about the Steyn case in particular and the Human Rights Commissions in general:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjm-political-101508-the-tyranny-of-the-nice-cold-civil-war/
You can also read about the outcome of Steyn’s case at Pajamas Media:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mark-steyn-victorious-but-dont-celebrate-yet/
Ezra Levant “won” too:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ezra-levant-1-canadian-thought-police-0/
Thanks to people like them, yes, there IS growing support for repealing our Section 13 hate speech law — the one that, as written, makes it impossible to be found ‘not guilty’, with new editorials calling for repeal every day.
However, the current ‘coup attempt’ in Parliament makes this unlikely in the near future, alas.
And no, I didn’t write my sub-head. That’s a PJ editor’s job…
Dec 1, 2008 - 1:03 pm 14. Follow Me!:Kathie: I read it (it has a boot on the cover). Thanks!
Dec 1, 2008 - 1:36 pm 15. Chris in Toronto:Lillith:
I hope you are right, but fear you are wrong. This is a huge constitutional challenge and the outcome, shockingly to Americans (and probably most Canadians), lies in the hands of the Governor General, one Michaele Jean, a former CBC television presenter! Can you say “yikes!” She is a political appointee of former (Liberal) Prime Minister Chrétien and couldn’t have been a more politically correct choice: black, female, immigrant to Québec.
She has, basically, three choices should a non-confidence vote happen (as seems likely): (1) accept Harper’s resignation and call for a new election (after just two months!); (2) accept Harper’s resignation and call on the Liberal-NDP-Bloc monstrosity of a coalition to form a new government; or (3) decline to accept his resignation and make the existing Parliament try to work together. (For those unfamiliar with the Bloc (proper name is the Bloc Québecois), it is a political party that runs candidates in one province only, namely Québec, whose sole aim is to establish the “Québec nation”. Their interest is solely to undermine federalism i.e.: to pull Quebec out of Canada—to destroy Canada.)
In Toronto, which for the most part elected Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament, the reaction has been, shockingly, mostly negative to the news of this attempted coup. Even from those who say they voted either NDP or Lib. People are mostly shocked and appalled. Lots of disgust, too. Except from the rabid left who are tickled even pinker than they already are.
So, let’s all hope Lillith is right. Afterall, in politics a week can be an eternity.
Dec 1, 2008 - 5:16 pm 16. Joe in Ontario:I AM Canadian and the use of the word “term” dose not cause me any great problem. What does cause me a great problem is the possible hijacking of the Canadian government by a bunch of people who were NOT elected to form a government. This would be the end of democracy in Canada if they are allowed to do that.
Dec 1, 2008 - 7:53 pm 17. Amphipolis:So much for Harper’s new term.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODFiNWRkOTdiMjMxMzM0YmExZmIyNDZmNjI5ZmM2ZWQ=
I think I’ll keep my precious terms, even if that means four years of Obama.
Dec 2, 2008 - 6:14 am 18. Former Canuck now in the USA:As a former Torontonian recently arrived permanently in the USA, I feel very happy that there is an alphabet soup of American government agencies making sure that we do not have a (G-d forbid) Mumbai style event here. As a Jew and dual subject of HM The Queen, (via British birth and Canadian naturalization 30 years ago) the realization 10 years ago that Canadian immigration policies, and the myth of multiculturalism, was propelling Canada in the direction of European models was a strong movitivation to leave. The Canadian security agencies — Horsemen, Sisters, jolly Tom Cobbly & all — are to be congratulated that Canada has not had an incident which took lives, despite the dangerous propensity of the politicians to ignore Canadian Islamicists to the peril of everyone.
Dec 2, 2008 - 12:23 pm 19. Joshua:The political Left keeps screaming about a hidden agenda but never reveals it.Why?Because there isnt one.Why on earth would i support the bloc quebecois who come from a province that has never ratified section 59 of canadas constitution?Only part of section 23 is accepted in quebec while 59 is not.Talk about cherry picking!No wonder western canada is up in arms about this.Quebec society is not different than the rest of the country.i know i was raised and lived there.
Dec 2, 2008 - 11:10 pm 20. mal:Over 8 billion dollars went to quebec in equalization payments.Thats the most of any province.As a taxpayer id like revenue canada to track that money and see where it went.
The NDP had control of ontarios govt in the 1990s and turned it into a welfare state.i was on the welfare rolls under a socialist govt.Guess what?Not once did they come and check to see if i was looking for a job.Not once did they encourage any type of work programs.At the time at minimum wage you made 800 /month take home pay.I was getting 700/month from welfare.Why work?LMAO!I was on welfare for 4 years!It wasnt until a conservative(mike Harris) slashed my check from 700 to 450 a month ,did i get off my ass and got work and i havent looked back since.So spare me that the NDP are patriots ok?
No bailout for the auto industry.I refuse to buy a car that runs on oil and gasoline.There is no reason a car to have speeds in excess of 200km and hour.Japanese cars are built to last while north american cars are not.(funny thing they used to be built to last but now they are built to breakdown right after the warranty expires!)I know ive owned both types.I now use public transit f@#k you very much canadas auto industry!:D
The economic engine of Ontario isnt the auto industry its small business.I know im employed at one and guess what?No unions!Why? ive got all i need with the business i work for including insurance and profit sharing.
So who owns the political Left Canada?The special interest and big unions do.You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
I have met moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as moderate islam
Dec 4, 2008 - 6:37 pm 21. mal:The Radicals are really the so called moderate muslims. The so called Radicals are just following Islam.
Dec 4, 2008 - 6:38 pm 22. Brian:I still wonder why there is only multiculturalism in Western Countries but there is none in the countries these people are coming from. They come here expecting us to give in to them and give them a whole lot more than an inch yet if we went there there would be no compromise and we would have to live under their rules or else. I have noticed Canada has changed so much over the past 20 years and its very troubling. The reasons why I can think this is happening is to establish a new world order with a one world government and to reach the goal of the United Nations to depopulate the world by 80 percent. What better way then mass immigration to destroy and repress the countries from within.
Jan 8, 2009 - 9:37 pm