Terrorism in our Midst
First, let me state that I have several Muslim friends and acquaintances and have always found them to be a good, decent people. The vast, VAST majority of Canadian Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding people and have no affiliation with extremist groups. However, this does not preclude that there are fringe, radical elements in the Muslim community that are hostile to the West, to Canada, and to what Canada stands for. And it goes without saying that while most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim.
The Thursday morning suicide bomings in London were of a most heinous variety, and alerted many complacent Canadians to the very real prospect of terrorism within our borders. But as developments in regards to the perpetrators of the London bombings arise, what is most disconcerting is that the attacks were found to be the work of British-born suicide bombers.
I’ve been scratching my head trying to figure out - what would compel one to kill one’s own fellow citizens in one’s own nation of birth? Where is the loyalty, the patriotism, the devotion to one’s own land of birth? Where is the appreciation to a host society that offered an opportunity for a family to escape ignominious poverty in impoverished rural Pakistan? Admittedly England’s perpetual gray skies can dim one’s outlook on life, but was life in Leeds so wretched? Or are these guys just nutcases that got brainwashed by mullahs?
Moreover, given the attacks in London and the looming prospects of terrorists attacks here in Canada, I am forced to think about the potential for suicide bombings by homegrown Jihadis in Toronto. Will Muslims born in Canada growing up in alienated in the "infidel" secular West likewise succumb to indoctrination and fundamentalist teachings in our mosques and schools, as in Britain? Will this tiny fraction of the population compel us to foresake our cherished civil liberties and dictate our foreign policy? Will we be forever at the mercy and whim of a small population, and live in perpetual fear of terrorist retribution and suicide bombings in our large urban centers?
Unlike the UK where race riots are not uncommon, there is little history of antagonism towards the Muslim population here in Canada. While without doubt earlier minority immigrants of the late 60s & 70s will tell you were subject to racist taunts, these attacks have largely subsided as our nation has become more progressive and tolerant. And as a South Asian that immigrated to Toronto in the early 90s, I cannot recall an instance in which I have encountered racial prejudice.
Undoubtedly the presence of a rapidly growing Muslim population without doubt makes many Canadians a little fearful. Should we continue to believe that the possibility of Canadian-born, homegrown suicide bombers is not likely here in the Great White North – that Muslims born and raised in Canada and grew up educated in our multicultural public schools will embrace Canadian values – pluralism, secularism, tolerance - respect for all cultures, religions and lifestyles, equal rights for women – values Canadians hold sacred? Will they be quick to discard fundamentalist nonsense and enrich our multicultural fabric as groups generations past have?
I believe the best way to combat the prospect of terrorist attacks within our borders is to curb the immigration of culturally incompatible groups. I am not calling for an outright ban, but I think a curtailment of importing people who are hostile to Western tenets is not uncalled for. I am sure that many Canadian Muslims would be sympathetic to and understand the reasons for such a measure. (Though why anyone who hates the West would want to immigrate here escapes me!)
Such a restriction would be far more effective and far less costly to implement than requiring all Canadians to carry biometric National Identity cards - and thereby curbing the freedoms and civil liberties of all Canadians as a result. After all, why is such a measure necessary when it is only a tiny - albeit rapidly growing - fraction of the population that poses a significant threat to our national security?
Canadians have a right to be concerned. It is time for us to wake up – we've seen what has happened in New York and London and the prospect of terrorism in our cities is very real. Thanks to the gross imcompetence of our immigration system, there are over 50 terror cells that operate here – cells that pose a significant threat to the safety and security of Canadians. We have been complacent far too long. Why? Because we don’t want to offend groups sympathetic to the Liberal Party? Because we don't want to be accused of racism or racial profiling?
National security must come before political correctness.
Morevoer, the loss in immigrants from the Muslim world can be more than compensated for by immigrants from India, China, Eastern Europe, Latin Ameria, and sub-Saharan Africa - groups that integrate well and pose little threat to national security.
What must be understood is that such an revamping of immigration policy is not being implemented out of racism, but for the sake of national security. We want productive citizens who will make good Canadians, not terrorists or those who sympathize with terrorists.
Our society has a duty to put the safety and security of Canadians foremost.
The Thursday morning suicide bomings in London were of a most heinous variety, and alerted many complacent Canadians to the very real prospect of terrorism within our borders. But as developments in regards to the perpetrators of the London bombings arise, what is most disconcerting is that the attacks were found to be the work of British-born suicide bombers.
I’ve been scratching my head trying to figure out - what would compel one to kill one’s own fellow citizens in one’s own nation of birth? Where is the loyalty, the patriotism, the devotion to one’s own land of birth? Where is the appreciation to a host society that offered an opportunity for a family to escape ignominious poverty in impoverished rural Pakistan? Admittedly England’s perpetual gray skies can dim one’s outlook on life, but was life in Leeds so wretched? Or are these guys just nutcases that got brainwashed by mullahs?
Moreover, given the attacks in London and the looming prospects of terrorists attacks here in Canada, I am forced to think about the potential for suicide bombings by homegrown Jihadis in Toronto. Will Muslims born in Canada growing up in alienated in the "infidel" secular West likewise succumb to indoctrination and fundamentalist teachings in our mosques and schools, as in Britain? Will this tiny fraction of the population compel us to foresake our cherished civil liberties and dictate our foreign policy? Will we be forever at the mercy and whim of a small population, and live in perpetual fear of terrorist retribution and suicide bombings in our large urban centers?
Unlike the UK where race riots are not uncommon, there is little history of antagonism towards the Muslim population here in Canada. While without doubt earlier minority immigrants of the late 60s & 70s will tell you were subject to racist taunts, these attacks have largely subsided as our nation has become more progressive and tolerant. And as a South Asian that immigrated to Toronto in the early 90s, I cannot recall an instance in which I have encountered racial prejudice.
Undoubtedly the presence of a rapidly growing Muslim population without doubt makes many Canadians a little fearful. Should we continue to believe that the possibility of Canadian-born, homegrown suicide bombers is not likely here in the Great White North – that Muslims born and raised in Canada and grew up educated in our multicultural public schools will embrace Canadian values – pluralism, secularism, tolerance - respect for all cultures, religions and lifestyles, equal rights for women – values Canadians hold sacred? Will they be quick to discard fundamentalist nonsense and enrich our multicultural fabric as groups generations past have?
I believe the best way to combat the prospect of terrorist attacks within our borders is to curb the immigration of culturally incompatible groups. I am not calling for an outright ban, but I think a curtailment of importing people who are hostile to Western tenets is not uncalled for. I am sure that many Canadian Muslims would be sympathetic to and understand the reasons for such a measure. (Though why anyone who hates the West would want to immigrate here escapes me!)
Such a restriction would be far more effective and far less costly to implement than requiring all Canadians to carry biometric National Identity cards - and thereby curbing the freedoms and civil liberties of all Canadians as a result. After all, why is such a measure necessary when it is only a tiny - albeit rapidly growing - fraction of the population that poses a significant threat to our national security?
Canadians have a right to be concerned. It is time for us to wake up – we've seen what has happened in New York and London and the prospect of terrorism in our cities is very real. Thanks to the gross imcompetence of our immigration system, there are over 50 terror cells that operate here – cells that pose a significant threat to the safety and security of Canadians. We have been complacent far too long. Why? Because we don’t want to offend groups sympathetic to the Liberal Party? Because we don't want to be accused of racism or racial profiling?
National security must come before political correctness.
Morevoer, the loss in immigrants from the Muslim world can be more than compensated for by immigrants from India, China, Eastern Europe, Latin Ameria, and sub-Saharan Africa - groups that integrate well and pose little threat to national security.
What must be understood is that such an revamping of immigration policy is not being implemented out of racism, but for the sake of national security. We want productive citizens who will make good Canadians, not terrorists or those who sympathize with terrorists.
Our society has a duty to put the safety and security of Canadians foremost.

7 Comments:
-
Anonymous
I agree with a lot of what you've said...
7/14/2005 10:56:00 PMBut ultimately, who decides what's "incompatible" and how do we make sure that it DOESN'T turn into racism?
How do you know that people who ARE in charge won't make up a faulty list of guidelines? There's a large muslim population in Canada, but can they really fight against the "powers" if something goes wrong?
I know there is no right or wrong solution, but really... how could that work properly?
Uma
-
Sen
Hi Uma,
7/15/2005 08:48:00 AMFirst - welcome to the blog and I hope you spread the word and stick around.
Second - racists are motivated by hate. People like myself are motivated by a legitimate concern for Canada's security - and any such debate must emphasize this.
I am of Tamil origin. If I knew that there were a few radicals that hated Western society, that there were even a few born-and-raised pissed off Canadian Tamils that would seriously consider detonating a bomb in Union station, and I knew that 50,000 new Tamils were entering the country annually - I would say "hey it makes sense to limit Tamil immigration now. After all, you open the floodgates and a few seriously bad apples are bound to slip through the cracks. And it is impossible to monitor the movements of 50,000 new Tamil immigrants each year - a few of whom will have sympathies with the radicals that want to see stuff destroyed in Canada."
Why is it unreasonable for Canadians to ask for a curtailment of this migration? It is an utterly reasonable, proactive approach to combatting the possibilty of terror within our borders.
Of course, was I a Muslim I wouldn't like that my community in particular is being targetted, but from the point of security I would believe that it is an entirely reasonable course of action given that it is members of my community that are guilty. And I would be satisfied in knowing that I along with all other Canadians would feel safer as a result.
True, stereotypes are damaging and ideally we would all judge a person on his individual merits - but unfortunately as it is the Muslim terrorist stereotype has become ingrained in our culture. Of course it is wrong - but that doesn't preclude the reality that while most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim.
Question - Do you feel that young Muslim males (even or especially British-born ones) are more prone to social alienation than other groups - since traditional Islamic conventions, customs and mores are so foreign - even antithetical - to Western tenets? I do believe that East Asian, Hindu Indians, Latin Americans etc. are more "compatible" to that of Britain, Canada and elsewhere - and thus youth of these groups appear to have a much easier time fitting in (there is no radical fringe group in these communities that is openly preaching "bomb the infidels" anti-West hate speak).
Of course there are maladjusted individuals in every ethnic and socioeconomic group. I think the danger though is that disaffected Muslim youth are especially suspect to violent, radical fundamentalist ideology and preaching.
-
Anonymous
Hi,
7/15/2005 09:31:00 AMOk, first, the very last thing you said.
You may go on to tell me the case is an exception, but I know a handful of young Muslim males (we're all university students), both Canadian-born and those who are actually international students from Pakistan, who fit right in. Think about how in India, Pakistan, etc there are cities (like Karachi for instance) that are becoming more Westernized by the day. I was in shock during first year when I found out that these guys were just like us. They have the opportunity to watch the same TV shows, listen to the same music...
I know you said that they would be "more prone to social alienation than other groups", but my issue is that Muslim males have been living in Westernized countries for a while now and there was no sign of this alienation for all of them. Yes there have been a handful, but the majority seem to be fine. Muslims, like people of any other community, have had to learn to adapt to the culture change (if it appears to be such a drastic change), but it doesn't mean that they haven't been able to. You said yourself that you have muslim aquaintences, do they seem like they're alienated?
I, myself, have had muslim friends my entire life in Canada and they seem to have adjusted just fine.
The only thing that would make them weary of the "western world" now would be the fear of hate and discrimination because of those few "muslims who are terrorists".
I see what you're saying about how there are no groups from these other communities that are preaching the anti-West speak...and I agree. But I just have a problem with the idea of people extending that all muslims (either Western-born, or immigrants) are like (or more prone to be like) the handful who are in those groups.
You said, again, that "while most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim"... I ask that you think about the numbers and how many Muslims there are in this world, and what the ratio must be of non-terrorists to terrorists. I agree we need to do something to stop those who ARE terrorists, but to do something that affects all the muslims just because of a group of HORRIBLE bad sheep??
I'm of Tamil orgin as well. If, for example, there was the case of say, Tamil youth forming similar groups, I know that just like with these terrorists, I would be worried and would love to do anything to stop bombs or whatever. But I think restricting all Tamils is not the right answer. I know that the bad apples will be able to slip through, and I wish there was an easier way to stop that from happening... But stopping all the Tamils will only cause more unrest.
How do you know that the rest of the Canadians will not start having discriminatory or racist tendancies towards Tamil people who are already in Canada? People don't know any better the difference, or they're too ignorant to learn the difference. And what about the idea of the restriction pissing the radicals off even more and making Canada an even bigger target for terrorism? Of course, I'm not saying that we should let the terrorists run free, but I'm pretty sure that treating an entire community like that (restricting them) will not be met by happy expressions.
Finally (since I should stop rambling and get ready for class...), I agree that racists are motivated by hate an there is a difference between racists and those are concerned for security. But there is a fine line where people's concern can turn into discrimination without them really thinking about what is going on. It is unfair that an entire community must be treated differently because of a group of stupid terrorists.
I agree (and I believe you'll say this) that what is best for the country might be unfair, but it's still best for the country. I just don't think it's the best answer...
(btw, sorry if I repeated myself... it's early morning and I'm a bit out of it).
- Uma
-
Sen
You bring up some very good points - I like your input because you force me (along with others) to explore all angles of this very contentious issue in a very reasoned, rational way - I think we all benefit from this dialgoue.
7/15/2005 10:36:00 AMIt's hard to reconcile treating an entire community apart when it's small but very toxic minority that poses great danger. But that is the unfortunate reality and that reality is not going to go away if we don't take a proactive approach and properly address it.
All the Muslims I know are well adjusted - it's just that tiny, disenfranchised minority that is very, very dangerous. By in large, the disenfranchised of most groups take up anti-social ills like gangs, drugs etc. These things (though harmful) don't endanger the security of the society.
But the Muslim community is very different. Though the VAST majority of Muslims are well adjusted, what of the few disenfranchised, disaffected, and disillusioned Muslims that are not? What is to say that a very small disenfranchised minority of the rapidly growing Muslim community won't be brainwashed by radical fundamentalist preachings - like the boys in Britain? If anything, the case in London has shown that even seemingly normal guys - like the ones that did the suicide bombings - are susceptible to hate-filled preachings.
I am a young brown male. Therefore, I must live with the indignity of racial profiling everytime I cross the border or board a plane by virtue of my appearance. Even when I don't profess the same faith, I fit the physical profile of a terrorist. Do I like it? Certainly not. But, like any reasonable person, I understand that this is the unfortunate reality of the times. I have tacitly accepted it because although I must tolerate the indignity and inconvenience of such racial profiling, I am secure in the knowledge that the security of those around me hasn't been compromised. Is it not unreasonable for the Muslim community to accept the same?
BTW - you wouldn't happen to be that girl I know that recently converted to Islam? Don't you go buy another name now? ;)
-
Anonymous
Ah, I'm going to reply again soon... but to answer your last question:
7/15/2005 01:45:00 PMNope you don't know me... I'm Hindu and I go to UWO. lol ;)
-- Uma
-
Anonymous
I like that we're having this dialogue too because it makes you think about everything again but with more attention to all the different angles.
7/15/2005 03:32:00 PMAnyway, I agree that this case in London has shown that seemingly normal guys can be susceptible to hate-filled preachings. That's one thing they stress in the BBC articles because it's hard to believe. And in fact, that's a scary thought.
If only there was a way to go after those who actually are the preachers and stop the groups of fundamentalists.
There is a big difference between people who are really religous muslims and those who are fundamentalists... and I think it's very important that people realize that.
I know that we would all rather go through some hardships in order to be safe (like waiting in line forever at an airport, as small of an example as that is), but in that case, shouldn't everybody have to go through the whole profiling stage? Shouldn't everybody be examined thoroughly when crossing a border because anyone can be a terrorist?
Think of the Oklahoma City Bombing.... McVeigh and Nichols clearly weren't muslim. I've read about consipiracy theories that link them to Bin Laden... but there are also ones that link them to Neo-Nazi groups. Either way, it's a prime example of terrorists who do not fit this current profile.
I guess people try to work from experience and if they've seen (or only remember) all muslim terrorists, then they're more likely to suspect brown people in general, but that's not right.
It's hard to decide what to do and tougher to say who can actually make the decisions.
I don't agree that all muslims should be treated like potential terrorists. But I also agree that something must be done to stop terrorists and stop people from being preached to and moving towards terrorist tendancies.
I think that a plan of action, for security and what ever else, can be debated over and over again... I only wonder what will actually fall into place and how things will play out.
Let's hope it just doesn't get worse.
-- Uma
-
Sen
I know that we would all rather go through some hardships in order to be safe (like waiting in line forever at an airport, as small of an example as that is), but in that case, shouldn't everybody have to go through the whole profiling stage? Shouldn't everybody be examined thoroughly when crossing a border because anyone can be a terrorist?
7/15/2005 04:13:00 PMThis is where I respectfully disagree. I think it is entirely reasonable for Muslims and those who resemble them (like me) to be profiled at greater scrutiny because (statistically) these are the groups tending to terrorism.
It's a matter of efficient use of resources. Do you honestly believe a 70 yr old Tamil grandma in a cotton sari should be held in just as much scrutiny as the 25 year old bearded Arab guy?
Undoubtedly a few feelings will be hurt by this - but why should Akbar Hussain's feelings trump Joe Canadian's security?
This is a very sensitive, contentious issue that really forces us to consider what is sacred as a society. Certainly, this profiling is a form of discrimination that is malicious to the parties being discriminated against (like I) but it's a practice that I believe is, on the whole, justifiable as it is motivated not out of malice or hate, but out of concern for security.
Anyhow, I'm interested in what other parties have to say. The greater the diversity of opinions, the more we benefit.
BTW in the future, under "Choose an identity" select "Other" and just input your name. That way you're not "Anonymous" and we all know in advance who's commenting! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home