Posts
That’s the threat argument put forward by Sheema Khan in today’s Globe and Mail. Although she acknowledges that “government policy cannot, and should not, be held hostage to violence”, the rest of her opinion column shows that to be mere lip service.
The present conflicts between the West and Islamic terrorism are, she claims, rooted in our foreign policy vis-a-vis the Muslim world, which “perpetuates atrocities”, causing “resentment”, “anger”, and “trauma”. Thus do Muslims become “radicalized” and impelled to fly jumbo jets into office towers, plant bombs on subways and commuter trains, shoot strangers, and such like.
Canada is at risk, she says, because of our military presence in Afghanistan.
Canada was placed on al-Qaeda's hit list in 2002 after joining the coalition to bomb Afghanistan.
This may be news to Ms Khan, for she doesn’t mention it in her column, but Canada did not send troops into harm’s way on the other side of the world for no reason. A few months before, a well-planned terrorist conspiracy had resulted in the largest mass murder in American history. Said conspiracy was financed, supplied, and otherwise abetted by the Afghan government. Ring any bells? If not, keep your eyes and ears open next week when the fifth anniversary of that atrocity is observed.
She criticises the US for supporting “autocrats in the Arab world”. The force of that criticism is blunted by the fact that Arabs seem to exhibit little desire to elect freedom-loving, human-rights-based governments when given the choice. Indeed, there is an ongoing debate as to whether Islam and democracy are compatible. Some Muslim leaders insist that there is no relationship between Islam and political freedom, saying Sharia law is inherently anti-democratic.
Ms Khan herself recognises that Islamist antipathy to freedom and human rights is part of the problem.
The Conservatives dutifully repeat the mantra that domestic terrorism is hatched by those who "hate freedom" and everything that "democracy stands for." But this is not the whole picture.
“Not the whole picture”, she says. Not exactly a categorical rejection of a scurrilous accusation. I take that as an admission that it is a large part of the picture.
Another grievance—mentioned only in passing, but one that many consider key—is Western support for Israel. Ms Khan carps about alleged Western support for “autocrats”, while skipping over the fact that Israel is the only bona fide democracy in the Middle East—an oasis in a desert of authoritarianism. Yet that is in reality the fundamental sticking point. The US, Canada, and other Western nations have determined to defend Israel’s legitimate existence against those who labour for its destruction, and the Islamists can’t stand it.
Ms Khan raises a canard common among those whose view has been rejected: We haven’t had a public discussion on this issue.
Public debate on foreign policy is long overdue.
What a crock! In democratic countries, debate on foreign policy never ends. It was an issue in the last federal election, and the people made a decision. Ms Khan doesn’t like the government we chose, however, so now she’s trying to scare us.
And then there’s this tired and self-contradictory rhetorical manoeuvre:
Undoubtedly, the politics of fear and patriotism will be used to silence dissent.
An even bigger crock! Just because no one listens to you doesn’t mean you’ve been “silenced”.
If Ms Khan’s views represent those of a significant number of Canadian Muslims, I’m afraid we can expect more defending of terrorists in our midst.
For access to the full column, click here.
Judeoscope reports that Ms Khan is the former chair of the Canadian branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a tidbit not mentioned in the Globe and Mail.
Previous related posts:
