Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Commentary

So who's fuelling the prejudice?

MARGARET WENTE

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:15 AM EDT 08/12/07

For grievance-mongers, no insult is too small to whip up ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Don Colby from Canada writes: All I can say is that I agree with Ms. Wente most wholeheartedly! I simply cannot believe how politically correct we're supposed to have become - especially our so-called regulatory bodies. Whatever happened to the ancient adage "When in Rome do as the Romans (do)"?
  2. Kim Huynh from Montreal, Canada writes: Here in the West, majority rules. The reverse is applied to those Muslim countries. But those who escape the repressing regimes to come here, they take advantage of the freedom and liberty in the host country to promote their views, especially the religious ones. That's exactly what Europe and North American countries are experienced. Religions in my view should not and must not interfere with the states, or else, we may suffer the stupidity that goes on in most of the Arab world. When you live in the world you have to accept the differences and the diversities for after all we may not be that different than you might think. i.e. Blood types, emotions, sufferings etc.
  3. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: It's sad you can't say anything contentious now-a-days without it being considered a hate crime, and being investigated by the various "Human Rights Commissions".

    I wonder if this mild article will be considered a "hate crime"?
  4. STEVE CHIPMAN from Dartmouth,N.S., Canada writes: I am concerned about "hate crimes" of any type regardless of who the target is. Could not any kind of opinion ultimately be considered as "hate" since it propounds one view and,by definition,not its opposite? I know there are lots of offensive people out there who want to say outrageous things about others but is not our best defense against such nonsense a completely open forum of ideas where they can be identified as such?
  5. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: Can someone help me get to the States?

    Canada is over. These Human Rights bodies are incredibly insidious if they think censorship is a human right.

    Disgusting.
  6. Jack O'Douley from Toronto, Canada writes: I can't think of a case where a Canadian "Human Rights Commission" actually protected human rights. They are just vehicles for enemies of our right of free expression to pursue their destructive agendas. How I wish Harper's government had the power to abolish them forwith. However, looking at the NDP bobbleheads in the House of Commons yesterday, I don't give much hope for such a sensible action.
  7. Godfried Wasser from Calgary, Canada writes: You can blame the CIC and similar organizations to fuel the racism they claim to fight, but I think a lot of blame lies also with the Human Rights Commission(s). The latter seem, in their own discretion, take on the most ludicrous cases. By doing so, these commissions make themselves look irrelevant as well. So, hair splitting Human Rights commission lay the groundwork for their own demise.
    Yet, we do need such commissions because there are true grievances in the world and in Canada that need a champion that stands up for real victims. With Human Rights commissions loosing their relevance who will defend the real victims?
  8. Godfried Wasser from Calgary, Canada writes: Although the comments on the Latimer case are closed, I hope Mrs. Wente would express her views on a Canadian 'Justice' system that feels that a man like Lattimer has to stay in prison until his spirit is broken. Talking about torture!
  9. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: Kim Huynh has already made my points for me. He is also right when he says we are not "that much different" from each other. Personally, I'd say there is NO difference because we can learn to speak each other's languages (if desired), we can trade or change clothes, opinions, religions and other ideas and myths, we can intermarry and produce children -- in other words, we are one and the same. We are all members of one species, homo sapiens sapiens. In biology, a single species is described as a monoculture, so there is no true multiculture happening in Canada, unless we count all species, not just humans. In Canada, we use the word "diversity" to describe different fashions, beliefs and recipes. The Human Rights Commission (HRC) is just a silly political 'overlay' agency, another insular layer between the electorate and their out-of-touch politicians, and it is just a place to park past politicians and their chosen favourites with fantastic salaries and privileges. The HRC should become more conversant in biology and the reports of Ontario's Environmental Commissioner, who has describes the devastating effects of too many humans on the landscape and other native species. There are REAL issues to be dealt with in this country, and none of them involve the myths that have propped up theocracies through intimidation and violence elsewhere. It is unbelievable that a teddy bear stirs a vicious mob to call for a firing squad for a female teacher, and a judge sentences a victim of gang rape to lashing and six months in jail -- gender inequality writ large with intense male hatred; where are the raised voices of concern from Canada's oh-so-politically-correct politicians? I'm afraid our politicians would let this happen here, if it served their vote-getting needs. The world needs a moratorium on religion, freedom from religion, while we discuss the real issues.
  10. Candace M from Edmonton, Canada writes: Ms. Wente has chosen an interesting set of words to answer her question on who is fuelling predujice against Muslim Canadians. She would do well to consider her own role in this process. Her use of language borders on inflammatory. By telling the CIC to "shut up" she makes clear that she believes that some citizens are less equal than others and that they should simply be grateful to be here, instead of asking not to be treated differently. In doing so, Ms. Wente adds to the fuelling of notions of an Other of whom we (meaning white Canadians) should be fearful and suspicious, and who must explain and defend themselves. Surveys of Muslim Canadians show that the vast majority came to this country for its human rights protections; this is proving to be an increasing source of irony as it becomes clear that some are less welcome than others.
  11. David Wilson from Toronto, Canada writes: If I may qoute Mr. Steyn's article -
    `Once you know that, all the rest is details. If you were a "moderate Palestinian" leader, would you want to try to persuade a nation -- or pseudo-nation -- of unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in a UN-supervised European-funded death cult to see sense? '

    or

    'The Western Muslim's pan-Islamic identity is merely the first great cause in a world where globalized pathologies are taking the place of old-school nationalism.'

    I admire Steyn's critical thinking and his witty and incisive writing. He often annoys me, but he always makes me think. Really, he does his job very well.
    I do see, however, that the above two sentences could be offensive to many Muslims. I don't think that the CIC is the first group to attempt to use Canada's wrong-headed anti-hate laws to censor views that they find offensive and I doubt that they will be the last.
  12. Dag Furst from Vancouver, Canada writes: And for what reason is the Ontario Federation of Labour joining in, I wonder? Having read union "literature" over the years, I would suggest union leaders frequently promote hate amongst their members towards management types. And how do managers feel about that? I would be very offended. We must do something about it! All we need is six people, a website and a few lawyers. Call it Managers Against Union Lackeys (MAUL) and we should be on our way ... or may be things aren't that bad.
  13. J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: I've been offended by muslims many times in my life and I feel offended just thinking back on them. And I'm offended primarily because their views are in complete contradiction with the fundamental principles of a western liberal democracy. Oh you say that the teddy bear incident happened in one of their countries, and you say they wanted to lash a girl who got raped in Saudi because it was her fault, and you say they gang raped a girl in Pakistan for her offenses, and you say they behead infidels an apostates in Saudi. And then you say you want sharia law in Ontario. Well I am offended too. And I am offended too by those who somehow imagine these values can coexist with ours. So take me what tribune, council or court you want and I'll state my views again if I haven't been clear.
  14. Candace M from Edmonton, Canada writes: J Lee from Vancouver: your views are perfectly clear. But I wonder how you feel about the internment of Japanese Canadians during WWII, or Italian Canadians or Ukrainain Canadians? Have Canadians forgotten the horrible treatment it put upon minorities in times of a "crisis"? We are quick to condemn those past actions and yet accept this same treatment of Muslim Canadians. It is easy to tell oneself that this time it is "different". It is not.

    And while the actions of fundamentalist regimes such as the ones mentioned are unquestionably repugnant, it is dangerous to link Muslim Canadians with them. Many of them fled such regimes and are as equally critical of them as you or I. Are those who have emigrated from China accused of being dangerous Communists who threaten the security of the country? Such a fear would be considered ridiculous. Why, then, is it acceptable to do the same to an individual from an Islamic country?
  15. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: uhhm if they are critical of these regimes Candace why do they wish to bring the very same values you say they do not want here?

    You are very very naive and possibly willfully ignorant.

    Edmonton, eh - try a big city like Van or Toronto with entire suburbs filled with people who dislike all those other groups you mentioned that immigrated here previously.

    They are isolating themselves and I can assure you my great-grandmother never hit the streets protesting for the death and silence of all those who do not bend at the knee to what her beliefs were - russian/slovak orthodox.

    She knew real oppression with all her male relations dead from Stalin bringing her brood with her alone from Eastern Europe in the 1930's. Most of these migrants face nothing like she did or my father who had to leave as a boy from Lithuania because his family was murdered by Hitler for being jewish.

    You are simply misguided and the rest of us though, have no desire to seek our own slavery.

    I appreciate you do not agree with the idea of Live Free or Die, but I do.

    I do.
  16. Mike Baker from Dublin, Ireland writes: I suppose if it is the unwitting intent on the part of the CIC and the HRC is to ghettoise the cause of all Muslims living in Canada then they have cause to consider their sole joint success.

    It's the terrible burden of every moderate, functional and responsible Muslim in Canada: to be undifferentiated from backwards reactionaries by backwards reactionaries. I have the greatest respect for the moderates who maintain their dignity and calm while a few co-religionist loud-mouths strike the matches as the local hillbillies spread the gasoline.

    We must distinguish the politicizing of faith from faith, or allow the insecurities of the former to coopt the strength of the latter.
  17. Loren amacher from lewisburg, pa, United States writes: Well said, Mike Baker! One might add : the moderate Muslims could secure more empathy among moderate and sensible people of all stripes if they spoke out in opposition to the nonsense spouted by their radical peers. Here in the States, a major mark on the escutcheon of moderate Christians is their almost complete failure to dispute the rantings of the religious far right - indeed, they seem to resent the 'new atheists' doing their job for them. My wife and I enjoy the company of our 'adopted' Muslim son from Cameroon, a bright grad from Bucknell trying his best to get along in the business world in Philadelphia. He knows the rigors of prejudice very well, but refuses to play his religious card in any way. He lets his ability do his talking. Perhaps his kind will, one day, inherit the earth.
  18. s b from canada, Canada writes: Candace M from Edmonton writes "By telling the CIC to "shut up" she makes clear that she believes that some citizens are less equal than others .."

    Actually, no, M. Wente did not make anything of the sort "clear". That is your own bigoted delusion, Candace. Typical straw man argument from a weak minded person.

    Your crazy comparison to interned Japanese Canadians is equally repugnant. If you think people writing magazine articles is remotely similar, you are an ignorant fool, and you disgrace the sad memories of the suffering - true suffering - that other minorities experienced. Shameful.
  19. by polar from Canada writes: s b from canada: M. Wente, may or may not believe that some citizen are less equal than others. However, telling anybody to shut up diminishes democracy. Also you trust a bit much people writing magazine articles. Steyn may not have wrotten hateful articles and is free to express his opinions but wheter he likes it or not he is partaking in creating a hostile climate for muslims. The same climate that had the Japanese interned. M. Wente says Steyn's articles has offended 99 per cent of Maclean's readers. Why? ,"He is like that" Says M. Wente. This time his insults didn't sit well with a lot of muslims whoare now seeking redress through one of their organization. And here we're wondering why they're doing that. Could it be simply because they're like that? M. Wente can opine all she wants about CIC, but her wish to shut it up sounds rather autocratic, as opposed to theocratic.
  20. Jack O'Douley from Toronto, Canada writes: by polar... you are talking nonsense. Wente is not saying that the CIC should "be shut up", she is telling them "to shut up". Advice they are free to take or not. On the other hand, the CIC is trying to "shut up" Wente and Steyn. Your comparison to the Japanese-Canadians is completely spurious. The CIC is trying to reduce our rights of free expression. It has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with certain Muslims trying to impose their view of how to behave on the rest of us who think Islam is an authoritarian pastiche of ideas borrowed from Judaism and Christianity.
  21. s b from canada, Canada writes: Jack O'Douley, you took the words right out of my mouth....
    "...Wente is not saying that the CIC should "be shut up", she is telling them "to shut up". "

    Exactly! Such a simple but very crucial distinction. I find it puzzling that anybody with, say, greater than a grade 8 education can not grasp this. (I'm referring to you by polar...)
  22. by polar from Canada writes: "To shut up or to be shut up"? Whether is "to" or "be' however you wish somenoe to close his mouth means you don't want that person to talk even if that person feels insulted. Had Wente said that the CIC is thin skinned, overeacted, or suggested to get over themselves or they were excerbating the problem (which I don't think they are) a dialogue could still be carried on. but no dialogue can go on when the other party is told, in one way or another, that you don't want to hear them. "Creating a climate" is preparing an atmosphere that makes it favourable to act on a perceived threat. Years before the Japanese were interned Orientals were constantly targeted by racist propaganda by media, government and Canadians. Same thing goes for Italians. Hate crimes don't happen in a vacuum. There has to be some societal consensus that gives those crimes the green light. "Insulting" articles, whether wrote intentionally or not, create a climate. Styene may be the last person on earth wishing harming anybody but, objectively speaking, his "insulting" article on muslims may cooperate in creating an unfavoroble atmoshere for them. Do I think he should continue with his style? Sure, as long he doesn't insult me.
  23. by polar from Canada writes: By the way, s m from canada, spare the sarcasm. It puts you in bad faith.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top