SHOWING SUPPORT THROUGH SOLIDARITY NOT FACEBOOK COMMENTARY

I have spent most of the last 64 hours researching terrorism, the reasons for it over the centuries and contemplating the almost impossible task of defeating it in the world today.  I have not been alone in this exercise...A young woman by the name of Jamie Khoo, like me, is not impressed with the superficial commentary that overtook social media after the terrorist attacks on Paris this past weekend and suggests a more meaningful and supportive approach to the phenomenon that has reached global proportions.  I think her words are worth digesting.

By Jamie Khoo

 

I won’t be adding the French flag filter to my Facebook profile photo.  I’m also not writing condolence and prayer messages on my Facebook feed, tagged with #PrayforParis.  It is not because I don’t care, or that I don’t feel the profound shock and sadness for what has happened.


Jamie Khoo has loved writing and words

 from the moment she started to read. After

getting her MA in English, she went on to

pursue a career in writing and has her work

published in Elle Malaysia and Time Out

Kuala Lumpur. Sick of  being told by mass

media and society what "beautiful" is or isn't,

Jamie founded the website "a beautiful mind"

 to challenge conventional beauty ideals and

create new definitions and conversations

 about what beauty can mean for everyone.

In fact, it’s because I find it so absolutely awful that I’ve chosen not to engage in this way. I feel that just changing my photo, writing a few words and a hashtag on social media minimizes (even cheapens) the tremendous, horrific reality of what is going on all around the world, not just in Paris. From suffering arises another trendy social media gimmick, another way for us to show the world how “clued in” and “with it” we are.

Why do we change our photos, really? To show solidarity? But what does that even mean and how does a temporary Facebook photo do it? I’m not trying to be provocative, insulting or offensive toward people who have changed their photos. I understand that people have of their own reasons for doing so. In saying this, I’m not saying we shouldn’t participate or that it’s all and only a bad thing.

I’m saying: Can we please just be a little more mindful as to what we are churning out on our feeds?  Personally, my own Facebook settings are highly private, so only my friends see my posts. For me to change my profile photo or make a statement will only be seen by my friends; I don’t think I need to prove my stance, solidarity or affiliations among people I call my friends.

The people I know in Paris—or any other place that is hit by tragedy—are in my thoughts and in my messages; I just don’t feel the need to broadcast this to the world. I’ve found ways to reach out to them directly to find out how they are, and offer support in whatever way they need now. This is my way of responding to a conflict that I feel is more meaningful than merely changing my photo.

Again, just because my profile pic remains un-filtered, doesn’t mean I don’t care or that I’m not engaged. A large part of my work now involves reading about and researching the violence that is implicit in our everyday lives, the insiduous harm that is done to people just like you and me in every corner of the world—in first or third worlds, in peaceful cities or conflict-ridden states, to every class, race, gender, sexuality, ability and age.

Every day, as I sit with the reality of all this violence, I wonder what it would feel like to have a truly equal, peaceful, respectful, loving world; and how we can begin to make that happen in our own small sleepy villages or heaving city centres, wherever we call home and whatever may be happening there.

 

I believe that’s the question we should be asking every single day if we really want to do something to show solidarity and support for France, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, the refugees, Syria, Palestine, the Yazidi community, the Nigerian girls, the shootings in the U.S., the Nepal earthquake victims, the women in your neighbourhood who risk assault every time they leave their homes, the young girls destroying their bodies trying to fit into the world.

 

Let me be clear again that I’m not saying you shouldn’t change your photo, or post a prayer for Paris (or anywhere else). By all means do. But please don’t let it stop at that. Please don’t just get swept up in a social media frenzy and do it because it “looks good” or “feels” like the right thing to do. Pause for a moment just to ask what it means to you to filter your pictures and hashtag your posts: What do you hope to achieve with it and will you be able to achieve it fully in this way?

Would you also change your photo if there had been an option for Lebanon, Kenya, Nigeria, Turkey, Palestine…or any other country in the world that suffered just as incredible a loss, even if you’d never heard of the place?  Why or why not?

What else could you be doing—whether or not the news is filled with distressing headlines—that would be (more) meaningful, bring about tangible support, in your world right now?

Please let those millions of lives lost in conflict be worth more than a quickie photo change or an easy hashtagged prayer.  Let them be the reason you do something different and really kind today, to share support and effect change for even a single person.

 

PARIS TERRORISM ATTACKS HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA

Bulletin:  French police have issued a warrant for 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam's arrest. French officials and the Islamic State group had both said there were eight attackers initially. Police said seven died.

While those responsible for the despicable terrorist attacks in Paris. France, Friday night were unknown, there was initial concern that they might be traced to Islamic State (ISIS) extremists, the very group that Canada and other nations are battling in Iraq and Syria.  The shocking incident ensures that the issue of terror and security will be thrust onto the Canadian agenda once again.  And rightfully so!

In a country where multiculturalism is holy writ and political correctness keeps many cowed, it will no longer take audacity to ask whether the presence of Muslims in Canada is a threat to Canadian society.



Woman with candle at a "silent gathering" in Toronto shows
support for those slain or injured in Paris.

Since September 11, 2001, a growing chorus has warned that Western society and its values are at risk of being overrun by a tide of Islamic immigrants. The Eurabia movement has popularized a set of assumptions about Muslim immigrants to the West: that they are disloyal, that they have a political agenda driven by their faith, that their high reproduction rates will soon make them a majority. These beliefs are poisoning politics and community relations in Europe and North America and have led to mass murder in Norway. Rarely challenged, this movement’s claims have slipped into mainstream politics.

Canada is rapidly changing culturally in ways our political elite, media elite and academic elite do not want to discuss. But the fact that this is not discussed, or is swept under the carpet, does not mean the public is not keenly aware of how much the country has changed in great measure in a relatively short period, and if this pattern continues for another few decades there is the likelihood that Canada will have changed irrevocably, and not necessarily for the better in terms of its political tradition as a liberal democracy.

The flow of immigration into Canada from around the world, and in particular the flow from Muslim countries, means a pouring in of numbers into a liberal society of people from cultures at best non-liberal. But we know through our studies and observations that the illiberal mix of cultures poses one of the greatest dilemmas and an unprecedented challenge to liberal societies such as ours.  Problems are imminent when there is no demand placed on immigrants to assimilate into the founding liberal values of the country to which they have immigrated.

National security threats do exist within refugee populations, and there are particular reasons to be concerned.  I am all for giving refuge to those fleeing the ravages of war in their homeland, but it is now worth spending time to carefully make sure that those being resettled into Canada will not bring tribal feuds or radicalism along with them. Canada is fortunate to have greater screening and selection abilities than the European nations scrambling to meet the demands of refugees on their doorstep and we can only hope and pray that those procedures are effective enough.

It goes without saying that it would be a tragedy if doors were locked against desperate refugees, and law-abiding Muslims were treated like criminals.  We need to ensure that those selected for resettlement in Canada intend to live peacefully and that they are committed to assimilation.  The new government’s first responsibility is to the Canadian public and to ensure its safety. That is why the Trudeau government could be forgiven if it did not fully deliver on the promise to rapidly bring 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada this year.

The hijab, burqa and niqab are not the real issue

Now on to a related topic.  Unlike a certain segment of society and especially on the heels of this week’s terrorist attacks on Paris, I cannot get myself bent out of shape over Muslim women covering their faces and bodies when immigrating to Canadian soil.  The hijab, burqa and niqab have become a topic of much controversy and heated debate.  A number of countries have banned the wearing of these religious garments, while others like Canada have considered banning or limiting their use.

Many arguments have been made against the wearing of the burqa and niqab, claiming they are anti-social, backward, oppressive, and not part of Islam.  “When in Canada do as Canadians do,” is a favourite anti-burqa and niqab chant.  Unfortunately, we have allowed this issue to overshadow the much more pressing and serious matter of Muslim immigration being a demographic and political threat to Western culture

I simply feel that a degree of tolerance is warranted in this one regard because we are talking about deeply-rooted religious beliefs that are not easily discarded overnight.  Having a debate over whether to ban a well-established religious practice is in itself discrimination, and goes against the very values which ought to be protected. Being tolerant does not only mean accepting people who look and act exactly like us; but accepting the choices of other people, especially, if we do not understand or agree with them. 

We are also talking about a double standard here because other religious symbols and clothing are not only tolerated in Canada, but respected.  If we are going to take an anti-stand in this matter we should at least familiarize ourselves with the three main types of Islamic dress relating to women when in public and the reasons for them:

1. Hijab: This is the most common type of Islamic dress, which covers the woman’s body, leaving only her face and hands visible.
2. Niqab: This type is like the hijab, except it also covers part of the face, leaving only the eyes visible.
3. Burqa: This type is the least common, and involves covering the whole body as well as covering the face with mesh, so that the eyes are not visible.

The hijab can generally be found amongst Muslim women all over the world, while the niqab and burqa are more common in specific regions.  It is not obligatory for a Muslim woman to dress in one of the above fashions in front of other women. It is only obligatory in the presence of men who are not closely related to them, as prescribed in Islam.

The literal meaning of hijab is to veil, to cover, or to screen.  Islam is known as a religion concerned with community cohesion and moral boundaries, and therefore hijab is a way of ensuring that the moral boundaries between unrelated men and women are respected. In this sense, the term hijab encompasses more than a scarf and more than a dress code. It is a term that denotes modest dressing and modest behaviour. For instance, if a Muslim woman was wearing a scarf but at the same time using bad language, she would not be fulfilling the requirements of hijab.

The majority of Muslim women wear hijab to obey their God and to be known as respectable women. (Quran 33:59) However, in the last 30 years hijab has emerged as a sign of Islamic consciousness. Many women see wearing the hijab as indicative of their desire to be part of an Islamic revival, especially in countries where the practice of Islam is discouraged or even forbidden.

While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being “set free” from society’s unrealistic fashion culture.

Hijab, ideally, frees women from being thought of as sexual objects of desire or from being valued for their looks, or body shape rather than their minds and intellect. No longer slaves to consumerism, hijab is said to liberate women from the need to conform to unrealistic stereotypes and images dictated by the media. Women wearing hijab have expressed that dressing modestly and covering their hair, minimizes sexual harassment in the workplace.

It is true that in some families and in some cultures women are forced to wear hijab but this is not the norm. The Quran clearly states that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256).  A woman wearing hijab becomes a very visible sign of Islam. While Muslim men can blend easily into any society, Muslim woman are often put on the line, and forced to defend not only their decision to cover, but also their religion.

Islamic scholars have agreed that both the burqa and niqab are part of Islam, but have differed as to whether they are also compulsory or optional acts of virtue. This explains why some Muslim women wear the hijab, while others decide to wear the niqab or burqa.  To me, this is not only a freedom of religion issue facing Canadians today, but one that boils down to women’s rights – and fashion.

But lest not allow the hijab, niqab and burqa to detract from terrorism and national security discussions in the crucial weeks ahead…Personally, it will be the least of my concern.  The far greater matter of our country’s security, on the other hand, is of grave concern and we can only hope and pray again that our government is capable of protecting it.  Given harsh realities, we must make the best of a looming messy conflict that defeats easy analysis.

A “veiled” threat is one thing…The real McCoy is quite another.

Vigilance is of the essence as terrorism reaches deadly global proportions.

FRIENDS: AH YES, I'VE HAD A FEW...AND ON FACEBOOK TOO

FRIEND: noun. One who is personally well known by oneself and for whom one has warm regard or affection...Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary.

To me, a "true friend" is someone who has touched your heart and will stay there. Someone you care for, who cares for you. Someone you can do the stupidest things around and always be forgiven. Someone you'll instantly remember in 10 years because they are in your heart and not just your mind. They have the ability to change you, even if they don't. They will be etched in your memories forever.

Of course, we use the word "friend" very loosely in our society today. Dictionaries define it as "attached by affection and esteem". You can usually count those on one hand. "Acquaintance" is often a better description of a relationship, but it sounds awkward and cold. But Facebook has redefined the word to include people you worked with years ago but haven't spoken to since, people from high school that you weren't even friends with then, and someone to whom you gave your business card 12 minutes earlier. And of course, people you simply do not know.

Over the course of the eight or nine years that I have subscribed to the social media network "Facebook", I have accumulated a consistent average of 170 "friends" (give or take a couple of dozen or so who have either died or defriended me, or whom I have defriended for various reasons) which pales by comparison to some who have lists of friends numbering in the thousands. Because in all honesty, I can literally count on one hand the individuals on my list who meet the aforementioned "friend" criteria, I decided today to analyze my list of Facebook "friends".

But first, I had to overcome an inferiority complex resulting from the fact I had so few FB friends compared to others amassing far in excess of 500 (some as many as an almost unbelievable 3000). The Facebook obsession of collecting "friends" creates the impression that some users are wildly more sociable than others but in truth it is either an obsession or indicative of the fact that an individual is subtly marketing something -- a special interest, a product, themselves.

Oxford University Professor Robin Dunbar has conducted a study of social groupings throughout the centuries, from Neolithic villages to modern office environments. His findings assert that size of the part of the brain used for conscious thought and language, the neocortex, limits us to managing 150 fiends, no matter how sociable we are. Dunbar also applied his theory to determine if the "Facebook effect" has stretched the size of social groupings.

He compared the online traffic of people with thousands of friends to those with hundreds and found that there is no discernible difference between the two. "The interesting thing is that you can have 1,500 friends but when you actually look at traffic on sites, you see that people maintain the same inner circle of around 150 individuals that we observe in the real world," he stated in defining "maintained" friends as those you care about and contact beyond Facebook at least once a year.

I cannot tell you how relieved I was to learn that I am not the social outcast that I had come to think I was. In fact, taking Professor Dunbar's theory into consideration, I probably have at least 25 more Facebook "friends" than my mind can comfortably manage. With that in mind, I set out to take a closer look at my list of FB "friends".

Off the top I have two daughters, one son-in-law, four adult grandchildren, four second cousins and two third cousins, a sister-in-law and a niece (a total of 15) who I consider to be more than just Facebook "friends". They are, after all, family/relatives. So remove them from the equation and I come pretty close to Dunbar's manageable limit of 150 Facebook "friends".

Interestingly, I have never officially met 55 of my so-called Facebook "friends" and have only met another dozen very casually or briefly on just one occasion. Some of those I invited to become Facebook "friends" because of mutual interests and, likewise, they me. Every single one a great person in their own right, but have they touched my heart?...Will they still remain friends down the road?...Would they be there for me if called upon, or vice versa? In a few special cases, I think that I can genuinely answer in the affirmative. In the majority of the cases however, probably not! So friends in a Facebook sense -- yes; but friends in real life -- no. I am sure the feeling is respectfully mutual.

Just as in real life where I am a relatively private person, I have never outwardly solicited Facebook friendships. Personally, I have been very selective in who I have welcomed to my inner-circle of Facebook "friends". Often to my detriment, I become too familiar with Facebook friends and begin talking to them like they are real friends, forgetting that they do not really know me nor do they understand my tell-it-like-it-is personality and strange sense of humour (a dangerous combination). I am not the easiest guy to get to know but I am always gratified when someone accepts my infrequent reaching out for friendship in real life or otherwise and in my mind a private bond is created that is difficult to explain.  That is just me.  I am either all in, or all out!

I am of the old school that considers a friend a friend, regardless. I want to hold on to them. I loose sleep over differences. I celebrate achievements. I grieve when I lose a friend in real life...and on Facebook too.

WHAT'S BEHIND THE MANIPULATIVE NATURE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

I find myself understanding the need for a certain amount of political correctness in Canadian society today but on the other hand I find myself being somewhat uncomfortable with its premise.

Who determines what is politically correct and what is not?  Who says we have to be politically correct and who, if anyone, polices political correctness?

Political correctness is loosely defined as "avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."


...Believe it or not!

I even came across the phrase "politically incorrect", when researching this post...Now there's an oxymoron for you!

Political correctness is a hugely successful campaign that has effectively altered traditional standards of behavior in order to advance the political agenda of mostly left-leaning groups (the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system). From gay rights, to feminism to open borders, rules dictate that you conform with the prevailing group-think at the risk of social ostracism.  Christian traditions on which this country were founded (prayers at public assemblies, references to God in pledges of allegiance, the celebration of Christmas and Easter), are the latest targets of the political correctness movement.  This is where I have a problem.

Interestingly, a group of some 600 Canadian academics has stated that they do not deny that there is room to discuss and debate how contemporary democracies should respond to religious, cultural and linguistic pluralism. Indeed, Canadian legal and political theory is at the forefront of exploring such matters. But a common point of departure for these debates and discussions is a commitment to civility, decency and toleration. Toleration does not require that one like or endorse the cultural or religious practices of others, but it does require that we refrain from insulting the dignity of those with whom we disagree. 

I tend to side with African-American author and economist Thomas Sowell who when faced with politically correct statements made by self-righteous busy bodies, asks himself four questions that will determine the validity of any statement:

1.  At what cost?
2. Compared to what?
3. According to whom?
4. What hard evidence do you have?

By Sowell's standard, pretty much every politically correct statement and/or idea does not pass this simple test. If you're content to allow others to define you, by all means, keep playing by the politically correct rules. If you're OK with allowing others to manipulate your sentiments to achieve their own agendas, feel free.

As a society we are always making judgments about what language and ideas (not to mention people) are acceptable and which ones are deemed unacceptable.  I agree that once we acknowledge this, it becomes clear that “political correctness” is an inherently biased meme.

How did all of this come about? Over the last 40 years, North America has been conquered by the same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force is ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it everywhere and sweeping much of it away. 

So runs the controversial thesis of a collaborative book recently published by the Free Congress Foundation—a U.S. conservative think-tank—on its website, entitled “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology.

The authors of “Political Correctness” attempt to trace the movement back to its origins—Marxism and the Frankfurt school of thought. By so doing they claim to uncover the true and sinister purpose of political correctness—the complete eradication of traditional Western Culture. They also attempt to demonstrate how deeply political correctness has penetrated into every aspect of Western Culture, and how damning its presence is.

Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever can. The ideology that has taken over our country goes most commonly by the name of “Political Correctness.” Some people see it as a joke. It is not. It is deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtually all the rules, formal and informal, that govern relations among people and institutions. It wants to change behavior, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has.

Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought. Who dares to speak of “ladies” now? Just what is “political correctness?”  A predominant theory is that “political correctness” is in fact cultural Marxism – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.

In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the translation, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?” The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in American universities after many of its leading lights fled to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany. The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.” These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call “political correctness.”

The lineage is clear, and it is traceable. The parallels between cultural Marxism and classical, economic Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or political correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a “classless society” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced.

Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over other groups.  Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Political correctness defines Blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and the white race as basically evil.

These types of parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because political correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact merely a variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the movement by classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.

Political correctness now looms over or society like a colossus. It has taken over political parties and is enforced by many laws and government regulations. It almost totally controls the most powerful element in our culture, the entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education. It has even influenced the clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment. Correctness then, is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes.

That, to me, is extremely troublesome.  When we allude to political correctness with an air of self-satisfied nobleness, we should remind ourselves of from whence it came.

Personally, I and most people I know were raised to embrace and practice Christian principles of respect, decency and toleration.  I resent being pressured to be “correct” by someone else’s self-serving, flavor-of-the-day cause, politically legislated or otherwise.  Likewise, I resent being placed in the position of having to prove that I am not sexist, racist or homophobic and having to suppress the fact that my beliefs are Christian in nature.

After Remembrance Day on the 11th of November, without apology, I will resume the custom of wishing a "Merry Christmas" to the people I meet in the course of my day! 
 
God willing, I will also continue to express myself freely without fear of reprisal.

CHATHAM-KENT LAUNCHES IMMIGRATION PARTNERSHIP NETWORK

    

Chatham-Kent Mayor Randy Hope presented certificates of recognition at the launch of an Immigration Partnership Network.  Marie Carter of Dresden, representing the Migrant Workers' Ministry, is shown second from the right.

                

I am glad they they get it in my home community of Chatham-Kent!

 

Chatham-Kent's population is declining, with fewer economic opportunities and some people now considering the municipality a retirement location.  The key to reversing this trend may just lie in international immigration.

Regional council, along with the Chatham-Kent Local Immigration Partnership and business representatives across the municipality, met Nov. 4 to launch the Chatham-Kent Welcome Network. The CKWN’s aim is to present Chatham-Kent as welcoming community for international immigrants.  Mayor Randy Hope spoke passionately about the project.

“It’s important to understand what Chatham-Kent was all about,” Hope said. “It originated from immigrants. We held festivals, to demonstrate that we are a group of nationalities … it’s an important ingredient to our [municipality].”

Chatham-Kent’s population dipped 4.2 per cent between 2006 and 2011. Hope is working to reverse that trend, especially with disappearances of major employers like Navistar.  “Immigration is a key element [to creating jobs],” Hope said. “Take a look at Streetsville. What’s that? Mississauga … the fastest growing municipality in Ontario. We want to take that title from them.”

The federal government launched a project in 2010, encouraging local communities to advertise themselves to immigrants. The municipality of Chatham-Kent became involved soon after, and started the CKWN project in 2014   

In the official launch of the network this week, representatives of a number of community organizations received special recognition certificates, including my friend Marie Carter of Dresden who on behalf of the Catholic Diocese of London, promotes and supports the development of effective, practical outreach to the 20,000-plus migrant agricultural workers living and working in the nine county area of southwestern Ontario that is encompassed by the Diocese. She works in conjunction with parish-based outreach groups and with community partners who share the Migrant Workers Ministry's vision.

THREE RELIGIONS COME TOGETHER TO RELOCATE A REFUGEE FAMILY : WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF UNIVERSAL HUMANITY AT WORK IN CANADA




The common values decreed by the great religions, such

as “love your neighbor as yourself,” are universalized

as the next step of human behavior beyond any dogma.

I cannot bring myself to be either pro or con when it comes to the issue of immigration in Canada. I am prepared to trust that our new government will do what is right and in the humane interest of all Canadians -- old and new. I also place trust in the new selection system for immigration to Canada that separates the "good" from the "bad" of the would-be Canadian citizens.  " Express Entry", which came into effect exactly a year ago, changed how Canadian immigration is managed by moving it from a supply-driven system to a demand-driven one and, as such, new screening practices have been implemented to catch those whose entry applications are ill-conceived or dangerously politically motivated. 

What bothers me, however, is the unhealthy division, hate and venom that this matter has generated in the buildup to the federal election.  American-style, cruel, insensitive things have been expressed in the public realm without due consideration given to the ramifications on our national identity. I strongly contend that we must ensure that immigration enforcement is conducted in a humane manner that respects human dignity. That is what we have to continually impress upon our members of parliament.

A Canadian election campaign that began amid widespread concern over a faltering economy turned into a national referendum on the rights of immigrants. The so-called “niqab issue”, inspired by the ruling party’s legal campaign to prevent one Pakistani immigrant from veiling her face during the ceremony held to formalize her new citizenship, remains powerfully divisive even after the October 19 election.

Although polls show that a substantial majority of Canadians supported the government position, opponents have denounced it as a dangerous and even “disgusting” attack on the country’s fragile multicultural harmony. The matter, in my mind, boils down to rights that can only be settled in Canadian courts. Meantime, the real needs of refugees were pushed to the backgound.

As the debate heightened, there was a tendency in some quarters to paint all immigrants with the same "they want to come here and change our country" brush. Forgotten in the concern for national security, was the fact that there is an immediate desperate need to relocate displaced Iraqi and Syrian refugees in western countries, including Canada. Truth be known, just one per cent of the 630,000 Syrian refugees and about five per cent of the 50,000 Iraqi refugees in Jordan stand a chance of being resettled in a new home in the West. The rest are expected to wait out the war, and then return to the devastation and certain unrest that will exist in their homelands.

It has been my contention that Canadian religions should be playing a more active role in all of this and I was encouraged to read a Toronto Star item today by Nicholas Keung, a native of Hong Kong who writes about immigration, refugee, migrant and diversity issues.  In his report Nicholas tells about members of Maple Grove United Church and Shaarei Beth-El synagogue in Oakville and Mississauga's Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) mosque, coming together to give a family of seven from Jordan a new life in Canada.

Christians, Jews and Muslims do not always share a common cause, especially in the Middle East, but this is most certainly a case of the three groups finding friendship in their goal of serving humanity through a Syrian refugee sponsorship group called Abraham's Children Together. Although they already had a working relationship through the Interfaith Council of Halton (County) they were brought together earlier this year by the Canadians in Support of Refugees in Dire Need, a grassroots Muslim organization formed in response to the refugee crisis in Europe.

"This is what organized religions can do," said Rev. Dr. Morar Murray-Hayes of Maple Grove.  "We are all brothers and sisters in terms of our origins. We felt that we could make a statement to the family leaving behind conflicts and coming to our country, where all the Abrahamic religions bond together out of active love (an allusion to the fact that all three religions are based on the teachings of the Prophet Abraham)."

The project was not without skeptics in the beginning, admits Rabbi Stephen Wise.  Some members of his congregation were hesitant about helping people from Syria, a longtime enemy of Israel.  Then there was the United Church of Canada's decision to boycott products made or linked to Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.  

"There was initially some discomfort in working with other groups," Rabbi Wise said, "but we have built strong bonds and trust with the United Church and the Muslim community over the years through honest dialogue.  Most of us (Jews) came to this country as Holocaust survivors...In the 1930s we were the refugees...The world turned its back on Jews, we just cannot do that to somebody else today."

The project set out to raise $27,000 but has so far received $120,000 in donations.

Dr. Aliya Khan of Canadians in Support of Refugees in Dire Need (CSRDN), an endocrinologist and professor at McMaster University, says she likes the idea of religions bonding together in an act of generosity, especially for a family fleeing conflict in their homeland.  She hopes this initiative will show the world how different faith groups can work together and live in peace through universal humanity.

CSRDN is an organization dedicated to upholding the principles of peace, justice and mercy towards all irrespective of race, colour or religion. It assists in the arrival of refugees to Canada and in their resettlement and integration into Canadian society.  The organization also supports the government in bringing relief internationally and in providing an opportunity for a new life and hope for those in desperate need.

To my mind, we should remember that refugees do not have ulterior motives at times of crises.  They do not abandon their homes out of choice, and they are not unaware of the risks they face.  It is out of desperation that they flee war and torture, misery and poverty and persecution, seeking only a safe haven for their children and families in a country that was built on the immigration of people just like them over the course of the past couple of centuries.

It is up to you and me to show newcomers to our country that the Canadian way is the best way.