Muslims treated like second class citizens
From: http://gordiecanuk.blogspot.com/2009/03/time-to-declare-muslims-second-c...
Canada is a nation which proudly proclaims itself to be a country which follows the 'Rule of Law'. What does that mean exactly? How does Canada define the "rule of law"? Our own Parliamentary Website defines it as meaning that all are subject to the law, with no one...regardless of power, wealth or position, being beyond its reach. It goes on to say that the courts serve as protection for citizens in ensuring that various authorities are not allowed to operate above the law. In fact the same Parliamentary website contains these sage words:
"If anyone were above the law, none of our liberties would be safe".
In 1981 Canada proclaimed our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, assuring citizens access to due process. According to the Charter, an individual is protected against being detained without being informed of the specific offence. It goes further in guaranteeing that individuals are to be tried 'within a reasonable time'. Our Charter precludes the state from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
In short our democracy makes it unlawful to detain any person without providing legal justification and it ensures the accused the right to an impartial tribunal wherein the individual is allowed to confront the evidence against him or her. These are fundamental rights celebrated throughout much of the civilized world, with principles such as Habeas Corpus at the very heart of so called western democracy.
And yet, in spite of all these high minded ideals, for Muslims they are merely empty words on parchment. How can Canada proclaim itself a nation of law, when it violates those very same laws with some adherents of the religion that is Islam?
Everyone knows the story of Omar Kadar, the 15 year old who was taken to Afghanistan by his father to fight against the U.S. led invasion of that country. The allegation against this child soldier is that during a battle with American forces he threw a hand grenade which resulted in the death of a U.S. serviceman. Since that time he has been held in Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant, and is still awaiting trial. Some excuse this abhorrent disregard for western principles of law by pointing out that Canada must respect American jurisdiction in this matter.
But why should we protest at all when our own justice system ignores the foundations of our legal system here within our own borders? Mahmoud Jaballah is among many Muslims in this country who has been detained without charges being laid for several years. It is alleged that Mr. Jaballah is a senior member of a terrorist group, al-Jihad, an allegation he apparently denies. He has been held since 2001 and is still waiting for the authorities to show any evidence to back up their allegations.
Another Muslim accused of terrorist connections, Mohammad Mahjoub, recently decided to return to jail...rather than continue living with onerous bail conditions. Conditions which saw his children's new Wi game confiscated because it could be hooked up to the Internet. Under what authority is this man being held? He is held by the power of a "National Security Certificate", a legal instrument our own Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 2007.
So, how can Canadians continue to proclaim ourselves as a nation which observes the rule of law, and yet allow our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be used as toilet paper by the authorities?
Obviously our elected officials have no interest in protecting our Charter, which shames all Canadians and makes us no better than so many of the countries we chide for human rights abuses. Rather than endure ridicule for our obvious hypocrisy I have a modest suggestion to get us out of this legal conundrum.
We can once again proclaim Canada a nation that upholds the rule of law by simply changing our legislation. Specifically we can make legal our currently illegal treatment of certain Muslims by depriving them of their Charter Rights by virtue of their religion. It is not without precedent, Canada already distinguishes between the rights of Aboriginal peoples and everyone else, we merely need to create another class of citizenship for members of the Islamic faith.
We need not stop with stripping Muslims of their Charter and Constitutional rights, Canada could go even further. The next logical step would be to legislate against Muslims being allowed to hold jobs in our civil service. Later we could restrict or limit participation in our system of education and/or deny access to our universities. To safeguard against legal challenges Muslims could be prevented from working in the legal profession.
Obviously we would need legislation which would define what it is to be Muslim. It would probably be best to go back to each individual's grandparents, establishing Muslims as those who have 3 or 4 Islamic grandparents. Those with just 1 or 2 could be determined as half Muslim, and have rights assigned accordingly.
I realize there are many bleeding hearts who will decry these suggestions, proclaiming that all individuals are equal before the law. But it is obvious that Canada long ago abandoned these principles, and along with them the notion that we are a nation of laws. By changing the laws we would at least provide ourselves with ammunition to confront those who accuse our nation of ignoring our own constitution and legal precepts.
Now...I will ask that you please excuse this humble blogger. I have an appointment with a doctor, my tongue has become so firmly embedded in my cheek that I require emergency medical attention.
I get the references made in the last two paragraphs. And they are totally appropriate. Secret trials and other judicial acts of terror that have been used under the security certificates are exactly what my father slogged through Sicily, Italy and Holland fighting against in the 1940's.
It's high time Canadian judges and prosecutors that have been participating in these travesties be sent to Nuremburg for trial, like their counterparts under Nazi Germany were.
The similarities are striking.
Still, Gordie's idea of an ever-so-clever approach is mindnumbingly stupid. No wonder he has to come here begging for traffic for his blog.
If he had anything else to contribute (other than spamming us with his blog links as new thread topics), he'd be far less irritating.
Tundering Jeezus...thanks for the comments, I do okay, traffic hovers anywhere between 30 to 200 visitors in a day, depending on the topic and how long its been since the last entry...search engine traffic is usually at least 10 per day but its been as high as 25.
PT Barnum put it best, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Thanks for commenting :-)
gordie, I get where you're coming from, but having laws impact people in multiple ways based on racist standards not only isn't new, it isn't news.
It was going on way before 9/11, too. And it affects more than people who are Muslim. One major example is Aboriginal culture and spirituality both of which have been declared illegal in the past (those laws might still be on the books for all we know).
I'm not thrilled with the ever-so-sarcastic tone of the thread title, only because it's not hypothetical, it's a reality. There are many second-class (and third and fourth class) citizens in Canada, based on systemic racism, discrimination and other oppressions. It's not funny and it's not a joke. People's lives, who don't make the news, are impacted everyday. The droll approach is condescending, minimizing and, did I mention this already, not funny.
And the point about linking to your blog is: babble does charge for advertising.
What a load of nonsense. The danger of Canada's anti-terrorism laws is not limited to muslims; it could potentially affect everyone. It was not created to somehow make muslims a second class citizen. It could be used against anyone the government disikes regardless of their skin color or ethnicity or religion. Making it a racism or anti-muslim issue diminishes the dangerous implication of it for the rights of every Canadian.
A very poorly written piece IMO.
Thanks for speaking my mind, sanizadeh.
Well sure, its a nice point to make. That said, this assumes, first and foremost, that the law is applied without any element of existing systemic prejudice. And therein lies the rub.
The history of such carefully phrased legal definitions that are used by security legislation rarely openly portray those biases. This is the rule much more than the exception, as one can see by the fact that in almost every case where such legislation is present it is used most agressively against persons from marginalized groups.
Putting the solidarity hat on, and saying what can be used against one group of people, can very well be used against another, is all well and fine as a point of political arguement, but it is not to say that this is the way the law is applied in fact.
No. Non-muslims are being held on security certificates. None. That is the fact.
So Sanzideh asks, was the legislation created to attack Muslims per se? It certainly came into being at a time when the news media is filled with prejudiced chaff about the "Clash of civilizations" and less oblique references to Muslims and Islam, and other war on terror rhetoric, which only seems to be trotted out in reference to Muslim people. Well, that is hard to say, but in the recent past we have seen several ongoing open debates in the media about laws that suddenly need to be amended or changed, when set in the context of a growing Muslim population in Canada.
Cueball thanks for pointing out the specificity of the particular legal ways in which Muslims are being illegally persecuted. I always go the macro route, so your point is helpful.
Michelle, thanks for changing the thread title.
Hey Cueball, good morning!
Wanna have a debate as to whether the government hates Omar Khadr because he's a Muslim, or because he defied the New World Order?
That's the real problem with the OP, and why this thread can augur no good.
Is that awl you have to say?
Good Morning to you too.
That is a false dichotomy, because governments are not above manipulating popular public prejudice, or being influenced by them, as a means of asserting their dominance. Does Omar Khadr defy the New World order because he is Muslim, and is Islam one of the few conduits through which defiance can be manifested? Answering yes to that would then lead to the proposition that the New World Order is against Islam per se.
Where have you been the last 10 or so years?
Cueball, we've been agreeing on most subjects for a long time now and we're going to carry on agreeing - whether you like it or not!
LOL!
GROAN!
You wood start my day by working me into a lather!
Michelle, I saw right through that. You're so drill.
(okay, that last one is pushing it)
Sorry for my absence from this thread today, but I actually had work to do. Anyway, I saw dust-ups coming so I screwed off.
You nailed it, Michelle - forming a splinter thread would go against my grain, but maybe we can take a lesson in solidarity from the Conservatives - you know, lefty loosey, righty tighty.