timeimmortal

Grace and I went to see the fireworks last night, and while we were waiting (Edmonton fireworks never start on time, except on New Year’s) for the show to begin, we got to talking about the state that Canada was in. In particular, Grace wondered what, exactly, the men and women Canada has sent to fight in e.g. Afghanistan are really fighting for. Obviously, they’re fighting to establish and preserve the Agfhan government…but what is it about Canada that is worth their sacrifice?

There’s a lot about this country that’s pretty great, to be sure. We are (more or less) a democracy, and Canadian citizens enjoy a reasonable degree of freedom, especially when compared to other nations in the world. The climate is decent (it’s been hot, lately, but one expects that in summer…and a couple strategically-placed fans around the apartment seem to at least partially mitigate the worst effects thereof). We are a fairly prosperous nation, with a good economy. And evidently, there must be something about Canada that thousands of immigrants every year see as being worthwhile — why else would they uproot themselves and, in many cases, their families and move here from halfway around the world?

At the same time, though, there’s much about Canada that is anything but great. We are tragically soft on crime, and far too many unborn Canadians never see the light of day due to the fact that abortion law in Canada is practically non-existent; in most jurisdictions, it’s perfectly legal to terminate a baby at pretty much every stage of development prior to actual birth. Our culture, in pace with most Western cultures, has slipped further and further down the well of moral depravity, especially in regard to various sexual “preferences” and “lifestyles”. And while we are ostensibly a free people, that freedom can be (and has been) severely curtailed in many instances — thanks to human rights commissions, even human rights that Canadians supposedly possess as per the Charter that is the foundational document for this nation’s governance have been stripped away to suit the whims and demands of activists and the too-easily-offended.

And Grace and I came to the conclusion, standing there waiting for the fireworks, that about the best we could reasonably say about Canada is that it’s a good place to live, but that it could be better. And we both came away wishing that we didn’t have to think about the country that has been our home in such terms.

Over in Europe, and in the U.S. as well (and probably here in Canada, although it has not yet been publicized to any extent), a “rape epidemic” is in progress, as more and more immigrants from various (primarily Islamic) nations come to the West and attempt to impose their values onto the predominant culture. Most recently in Brussels, Belgium, the example of a woman who was assaulted for not wearing “the veil” (e.g. the hijab) can be found, over and over again. In the U.S., there is the recent example of the Said sisters, two honour killing victims. In Canada, we have the sad case of Aqsa Parvez, also an honour killing victim.

In a way, this sort of thing shouldn’t come as a surprise to us. Beginning with Pierre Trudeau’s attempt to re-invent the image of what Canada was, our societal attitude has moved steadily leftward, toward the socialist and multicultural ideals that are now so pervasive in every aspect of Canadian society. And somewhere along the line, we lost something — we lost confidence and courage, specifically. We now lack the confidence and the courage to say to those who immigrate here that they have come to a nation that does not necessarily follow the ways of “the old country”; indeed, we have bent over backward to reject all the many positive things about Canada’s founding heritages in a misguided (and ultimately false!) effort to pretend that every culture in the world is equal.

And yet we know that not every culture is equal, and that some cultures are, frankly, barbaric or inferior by comparison to our own. Any culture that would give sanction to a father to murder his daughter solely on the basis of her style of dress has no place in Canada, until and unless it is willing to give up that aspect of itself. And people from that culture have no place in Canada until and unless they are willing to give up that aspect of their heritage. To claim that such views can somehow be wedged into the “cultural mosaic” of Canada is, ultimately, to give the culture of Canada over to its destruction.

Even more that just rejecting those imported cultural attitudes that are incompatible with what Canada stands for, however, Canada needs to work to re-elevate itself about the level of “it could be better.” Canadian society needs to stop being so limp-wristed where dealing with crime is concerned. It needs to stop being so permissive where sexual immorality is concerned. It needs to stop encouraging its people to be thin-skinned complainers by providing them a forum (in the HRCs) to effect government-mandated financial ruin on those with whom they disagree. And along the way, it might just do well to add the right of private property into the Charter.

Canada needs to be worth fighting and dying for again — it needs to be more and better than it is now, if for no other reason than to give purpose to the sacrifices it demands of its men and women in uniform. Is it really worth the sacrifice, to die for a country that could be better?

Apparently yet another furor is about to erupt over a depiction of Muhammad.This time, the offending example is at a church in Belgium, the Catholic church of Our Lady in the town of Dendermonde. The depiction itself is on the pulpit, the base of which is a carving of two angels treading upon a man who is believed to be Muhammad.

And yes, the church is now under police guard, and the fear is that attacks on the church (and possibly churchgoers?) will be perpetrated. Such things have happened before during Muslim riots.

My thought, though, is that the church should keep the pulpit in place since, after all, it’s probably a more or less truthful depiction of the facts at hand. Islam’s prophet was, by and large, a detestable man, but in a more general sense there is not a human being who was ever walked the Earth who was even worth the role of footstool to the angels. Muhammad would be so lucky as to be something upon which angels tread.

My thoughts and prayers go out this day to the victims of the terrorist attacks in London — I pray that God’s merciful salvation will see the many dead received into His arms, and that the Holy Spirit will guide and aid the healing of the wounded.

In the aftermath of these terrorist attacks, there will probably be a lot of commentary (again and again, flogging the dead horse again…) about the “root causes” of Terrorism, and I think that most of this commentary will eventually devolve into scathing condemnations of three things:

a) George Bush
b) The “Zionist” entity and Israel
c) the “quagmire” in Iraq

And none of it will even come close to the truth.

The root cause of terror, this terror, isn’t a desire to promote a political cause, nor is it a method of protest against oppression. Not in the case of al-Qaeda. Their “root cause” is much simpler than economic disenfranchisement or neo-Marxist “liberation”. They seek to kill the infidel…which would be us. Mark Steyn weighs in with a timely quote from a couple years back, when some French ships were the target of terror attacks. It appears the terrorists were hoping to take out an American ship, but the French boats worked too…they were all infidels. Here’s the relevant excerpt, for people too lazy to click on the link:

…

On which subject, the Independent’s Robert Fisk thinks the Aussies were targeted for a more specific reason—blowback for being too cosy with the Great Satan: “The French have already paid a price for their initial support for Mr Bush. The killing of 11 French submarine technicians in Karachi has been followed by the suicide attack on the French oil tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen. Now, it seems, it is the turn of Australia….” And don’t worry, there are plenty of others who’ll be getting theirs any day now. Just in case al-Qa’eda had missed one or two, Fisk helpfully provides a useful list of legitimate targets: “Belgium, which hosts Nato HQ; Canada, whose special forces have also been operating in Afghanistan; Ireland, which allows US military aircraft to refuel at Shannon…”. Blessings be upon you, Mister Robert, we had entirely forgot to add “Kill the Irish” to our “To Do” list.

I wonder if it was a cautious editor who added “initial” to that French “support for Mr Bush”. The French were supportive for about ten minutes after 11 September, but for most of the last year have been famously and publicly non-supportive: throughout the spring, their foreign minister, M. Vedrine, was deploring American “simplisme” on a daily basis. The French veto is still Saddam’s best shot at torpedoing any meaningful UN action on Iraq. If you were to pick only one Western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, the French would be it.

But they got blown up anyway. And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, “We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.”

No problem. They are all infidels.

…

(c) Copyright Mark Steyn, 2005, all rights reserved.

And even as I see that there are some people already weighing in with “root cause” commentary that pretty much follows the above predictions (see here, here, here, here, and here for starters…and then here for some laughable CIA paranoia), I’d just like to say that I hope the British government will show itself to be above such hypocrisy and address the real causes — the terrorists themselves, and the war they have declared against the infidel.

Because really, this “root cause” bleeding-heart talk is all pretty hypocritical, if you get right down to it.

Think about it…if al-Qaida or Hamas is justified in blowing up a bus in England or a restaurant in Tel Aviv because they perceive that the western Zionist oppressors are killing innocent Iraqis or Palestinians without cause and are driving the Islamic faith to ruin, then why isn’t some anti-abortion activist justified in blowing up an abortion clinic because s/he perceives that the pro-abortion oppressors are killing innocent unborn children without cause and are driving the moral fabric of society to ruin? Whether it’s a bus or an abortion clinic, it’s terrorism and it’s murder to blow it to pieces and kill people in doing so, so if you’re going to legitimize one and not the other then you’re committing a hypocrisy.

And if now you’re thinking “hah, now at least you’re admitting that Christians commit acts of terror too when they blow up clinics”, then I think you should read one of the recent articles at relapsedcatholic, and then the article that the author, Kathy Shaidle, links to from there. That’s not to say, of course, that there isn’t blood on the hands of some of those who claim to be Christian…but it IS to say that in many cases, the amount of blood is probably far less than many of my more liberal-minded acquaintances would prefer to see on the hands of members of a faith system they hate with almost irrational passion.

It’s both funny and tragic to me, and Mark Steyn has again commented on this (although sadly it appears that the relevant article is no longer linked from his page), that many of the same people who speak out against violence against women, oppression of women, violence against homosexuals, and discrimination against minority religions (i.e. “non-Christian” religions in the West), and who speak out in support of corruption-free elections and a vague concept of “freedom”, do so only in the West, in their own nations. On the global stage, many of these self-same people would be willing to plant themselves in the camp of fanatical theocrats and dictators who force women to wear burqas, who believe that the removal of the clitoris is the rite of passage into womanhood, who behead homosexuals — or toss them off rooftops, as the Taliban were fond of doing — and whose electoral process makes a mockery of concepts like democracy and “freedom”, all in the name of opposition to the even greater world threat: America. Saddam Hussein can execute and gas his own people, the Sudanese government can slaughter and rape Christians willy-nilly for the crime of not converting to Islam, and the “socially liberal” champions of individual rights here in the West are often the first to criticize America, Austrailia, and even Britain when they decide to go toe-to-toe against a dictator like that…or, come to think of it, when a Christian tries to peacefully convert them by handing them a pamphlet. If the Sudanese government stopped at pamphlets, there’d be a few thousand more Christian human beings alive today, and a few less trees. As sad as it is, for some people, the trees are the more important item.

And us conservatives are the scary ones, eh?

Well, so be it…consider yourself officially chilled to the bone.