Muslims and Canada

Thought provoking observations from Ehsan Masood on a visit to Canada, the country that has consistently shown in various polls has the best relations with their Muslims:

One of the first things that grabs a visitor from Europe is the absence in Canada of an aggressive popular media. There is a tabloid press, but it concerns itself with the celebrity world, and the domain of the weird and the wacky. Canada's newsagents and supermarkets lack the familiar (to a visitor from Britain) sight of a long row of newspapers screaming alarmist headlines in capital letters that frequently exude scepticism (at least) and outright hostility (at most) towards people of non-western religions or new arrivals from other countries.

Furthermore, Canada's media (both popular and broadsheet) will not do anything to disturb the national consensus on diversity. So, for example, members of the Canadian far right, or Muslims who support violent extremists, will not automatically make the front pages, nor will they be invited to the top news shows as routinely happens in Britain. 'We just don't do that kind of thing in Canada', says Nazim Baksh, an award-winning producer and filmmaker for the CBC, Canada's public-service broadcaster.

In part, perhaps, as a result of this consensus, the Canadian popular press is not particularly popular. Its readership is negligible compared to the tens of millions in Britain who read the tabloids. And this has one very important implication for public policy. It means that popular newspapers do not have the degree of influence enjoyed by their European (particularly British) counterparts. What the Toronto Sun says on any given day undoubtedly contributes to local and national debates: but it is one voice among many. Its perspective does not have undue influence among members of parliament and the civil service. They, in turn, do not feel the need to make policy to fit in with the perceived views of popular newspaper readers.

...

In light of this range of views, it comes as no surprise to see that Canada (unlike many western European countries) does not have an official or semi-official Muslim Council, nor is there (at present) any attempt to establish a representative body that would want to act as an interlocutor between Muslims and the state. Muslim groups don't seem to want one, and neither does the state. Canada has been closely watching British developments in this area and the evidence points to one thing: representative organisations promoted by state authorities leads to messy politics and ultimately disjointed government.

The United Kingdom now has at least three claimants to the title of representative body: The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the British Muslim Forum and the Sufi Muslim Council. Each comes to Islam from a different point on the theological spectrum. And, as so often happens in government-NGO relations, each is being promoted by a different government department or agency because such an association matches a particular political desire or point of view.

So, for example, Britain's foreign office supports the Radical Middle Way project in an effort to counter extremism; the department of communities and local government promotes the avowedly anti-Islamist Sufi Muslim Council because it takes the view that the majority of Muslims do not want to take their faith into politics. Yet at the same time, the office of the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone (a member of the country's governing Labour Party) remains close to the MCB and its affiliated Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), in particular because of the MAB's association with the anti-globalisation left and support for Palestinian causes.

Comments

[joe90]

Aren't you enjoying the views and the rarefied air up there on the moral high ground john?

She's an irish sectarian bigot that supports republican-type violence and sectarian terrorism - these terrorist she calls 'men of honour'.

This is a matter of documentary record though john - something you have real a problem trying to handle.

Enjoy the moral high ground - two peas in a pod!

[Osama]

Aineliva, apologies, I do not get as much time for this as I used to. My delay in responding was no excuse for your namecalling of me as a politician though!

The Sufi thing is essentially a cover. I would regard myself as something of a sufi, as essentially it is to do with people concentrating on spirituality. Others would have a different definition though. What's clear is that the SMC has no real base, and people who call themselves sufis, and are labelled by others as sufis, have kept a very healthy distance from this government inspired body.

[ainelivia]

Thanks Osama. easy to see how that is going to lead to confusion. Especially for our government.

Namecalling you a politician? Everybody's got a bit of the politician in them, that's not the problem. It's what some politicos, of the paid variety, mostly conservative and (new) labour, [i have great difficulty putting those two words together, they just are a contradiction] have done over the years to sully the profession.

Thank you anyway for clearing that up for me.

[ainelivia]

A Short, Short History of Joe90, (using his own words, mostly.)

- He's a Scottish sectarian bigot that supports any-type violence and all forms of terrorism - especially MORONIC terrorism.

--------------------------------------------

[ainelivia]

Johnmellor wrote "Aineliva,
I know you're trying to be generous and hold onto the high ground but Joe is not just after a scrap, he's an actual moron."

Hallo John, thanks for the info. Do you really think I'm being generous?

High ground!!! Honey my parachute lever is missing and I'm hurtling toward nasty, am just amazed at how long I can actually use "Joe's wind & words to hang him with!!!*** It's all just good fun, although I have to admit that trying to have a meaningful discussion with Joe, is like trying to discuss the Oedipus Complex with George Bush.

[johnmellor77]

Aineliva,
You are being generous. I can't decide if Joe's just a silly 13 year-old or is genuinely unhinged. I hope it's the former but some of his posts are a tiny little bit out there...

He does provide Osama with a handy smokescreen whenever he needs to run for cover though.

[joe90]

So here is an foul-mouthed violent irish sectarian bigot that supports terrorist extermists, but who accuses me of the crime she is guilty of - however, now she seems to be saying that there is something wrong with being a a supporter of terrorist extremists, which she is - she even calls terrost extremist bigots 'men of honour'

There is no evidence of bigotry or racism or mysogeny etc, on my part - please provide the evidence for your allegations airheada, otherwise, this is just another one of your little fanatsies.

I wouldn't expect any apology from an overwrought amateur drama-queen and ego-driven tantrum-pulling prima donna like you for smearing and slandering my good name, but who knows?

And johnmellor who thinks Osama advocating 'non-coperation' or 'resistence' (or something like it, who knows) when it involves the British Police, is bad thing -
- but thinks supporting violent irish sectarian foul-mouthed bigots like airheada here is ok.

I suppose johnmellor is one of airheada's 'men of honour' now!

[johnmellor77]

Joe, well done on finally grasping that Osama was indeed advocating non-co-operation with the police unit in question.

[ainelivia]

Joe dearest, were you suckled on hyperbole?

[joe90]

Or something,
whatever makes you happy johnmellor - which is, after all, the only point of whatever it is you go on about,
ie your emotional state rather than anything substantial

Compare and contrast that final statement with your first views on the obscure topic that has you still so animated -
http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/03/the_terrorism_m.html#comment-65439634>Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 11:35 AM
I'll try again. Yes or no answers will suffice, Osama.
Do you think Muslims should co-operate with the police and security services?

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/03/the_terrorism_m.html#comment-65442344>Posted by: johnmellor77 | 05 April 2007 at 12:28 PM
In this post, you say all Muslim groups like the MCB can do to combat extremism is say it is unIslamic and that Muslims should work with the police and security services.
Do you still stand by the comments you made in Dundee where you said Muslims should resist and defy the SBCCU?

This was almost your final statement, until the one above -
http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/03/the_terrorism_m.html#comment-65585496>johnmellor77 | 06 April 2007 at 08:57 PM
What you said was not that inflammatory Osama. What annoys me was the way you tried to shirk responsibility for your words afterwards.

Notice the shifting ground to your objections johnmellor, to what Osama did or did not say at a public meeting, (a notorious and disputious arena for reporting what was and was not said) and what it was he was telling people to do or not do - all your shifting about is easily spotted.

For someone who seems obsessed with words and holds others to account for the actual words they use or don't use, you do seem to practice double standards yourself at the very least in this matter that seems so important to you - actually, the very crime you hold others guilty of.

At the very most, it could be said you have no idea what it is you are saying and contradict yourself, and cannot stick to the views you say you support.

And as you know, Osama was talking about a specific police unit, in a specific place, at a specific moment in time, which was carrying out highly dubious activities which could easily be viewed as racist.

How is the 'high ground' johnmellor, 'man of honour, and supporter of anti-British terrorists and terrorism?

ps
airheada,
you've been asked for proof that I support terrorism and bigoted foul-mouthed violent sectarian extremists like you?

As you haven't provided any and have just resorted to your usual normal anti-social behaviour, I'll take it your allegations are just the usual smears and slanders and name-calling you indulge in.

[johnmellor77]

Joe90, it's you who are continually shifting your position. It's either a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, or you really have difficulty reading.

My first ever post on this site was this was in November last year:

"So you think people should co=operate with this police unit then?"

Osama responded with a typical non-answer:

"John, the debate has now been framed around letting the police do whatever they want and being totally opposed to them.

It is not such an grotesque extreme choice as I'm sure you'll be able to read in the above post. We highlighted specific actions we were opposed to and the police agreed to review them. "

I responded:

"Osama,
No offense but having read both Courier articles, it seems pretty obvious to me they refer to the actions of one specific police unit, not the police as a whole and that it's actually you trying to reduce the argument to such broad terms!
Do you think people should co-operate with the "specific actions" you say you are opposed to while police review them?"

It's all there in the November archives. You get involved for a while and, as usual, make a dick of yourself.

My position has not changed. Meanwhile, for several months Osama has conspicuously refused to say if he genuinely believes telling people they must demonstrate greater resistance and defiance of a highly contentious police unit is not urging non-co-operation.

He can't possibly do that because the moment he does so he will look like a complete cretin, especially when you consider he described Israel in July last year as a country that "routinely defies international law." If an act of defiance is not one of non-co-operation, does this mean he believes Israel is acting within the bounds of international law? Is Osama Saeed a closet Zionist?

If he backs down however, he has to admit the claim that his words were "twisted" was just a lie in order to avoid copping any flak.

I believe it's called a rock and a hard place. Osama can try and dodge the bullet all he wants but his words were clear and unambiguous.

[joe90]

My position has not changed
- so how do you account for the fact that some of your latest statements
(though not them all, so much for the inconsistency you accuse others of!)
on the matter, don't use you're original form of words and are, indeed, wider in scope to your original statements on the matter?

Aren't you a hypocrite?

And I fail to see what it is your are objecting to still -
- Osama was obejcting to the actions of a particular police unit, and wasn't saying anything about how people should behave towards the police in general, which I notice you make no reference to when you say
....Osama has conspicuously refused to say if he genuinely believes telling people they must demonstrate greater resistance and defiance of a highly contentious police unit is not urging non-co-operation.

'non-cooperation' with whom johnmellor, the police in general or this unit in particular?

You have already made it quite plain, that you were objecting to Osama's declaration that people, Muslim folk in particular, should oppose ALL the Police and security forces, in some fashion - you are quite clear and specific about this accusation. I know this because you hold others to account over the actual specific words they have used, or it's been claimed they have used. So your sepcific wording is important.

And it's already been established that 'resistence' and 'defiance' are much stronger words and imply an 'active' element in contrast to just mere passive 'non-cooperation'. As if that isn't obvious but this is the level of triviality you operate at.

So your objection johnmellor,
(if it does exist, amongst you constantly contradicting yourself and your obvious double-standards) is basically that Osama is being far too soft on the police, or this police unit in particular.

..make a dick of yourself.
- I see being a 'man of honour' and a supporter of anti-British terrorist extremists that you like to indulge in foul-mouthed language as well. I can see why you think Osama's language is far too self-indulgent when it comes to letting the British Police and security forces off the hook.

ps
I do notice that you spend inordinate energy on what was claimed to have been said at public meetings, or on the journalistic abuses carried out by Murdoch's employees reporting on public interviews.

These are notorious public arenas exploited by mealy-mouthed mendacious folk like you because they know it's is difficult to verify between competing claims about what was said and what was not said. It gives the chance to throw mud and smears and allegations that people are lying etc .

[johnmellor77]

I keep having to rephrase my questions to make things simpler for you, Joe90.

And why do you are you trying to deny what even Osama himself admits to saying? That's just weird.

[joe90]

johnmellor's ever changing moods -

'll try again. Yes or no answers will suffice, Osama.
Do you think Muslims should co-operate with the police and security services?
- no mention here by johnmellor, about the Dundee police unit in particular - just a vague question about behaviour towards the police in general by Muslim folk in particular

Do you still stand by the comments you made in Dundee where you said Muslims should resist and defy the SBCCU?
- no concerns here, shown by johnmellor, about his anguish over whether to "resist and defy" is the same as "noncooperation"

What you said was not that inflammatory Osama. What annoys me was the way you tried to shirk responsibility for your words afterwards.
- no mention here by johnmellor, of the police, or if certain words mean the same as others - just his own personal anguish as to words used, or nor used and their meaning, as the case maybe

johnmellor's latest claim is that -
My position has not changed.

Here is johnmellor's unchanging position (as he calls it) - you'll notice it's quite different from all 3 statements above by this supposedly selfsame johnmellor -
Meanwhile, for several months Osama has conspicuously refused to say if he genuinely believes telling people they must demonstrate greater resistance and defiance of a highly contentious police unit is not urging non-co-operation.

[joe90]

I keep having to rephrase my questions to make things simpler for you, Joe90.

- I thought that wasn't allowed - this is the very crime you claim Osama is guilty of, for 'reprhrasing' himself?

I thought it was you who is hung up on actual words used, in contrast to their actual contents and meaning?

As I have clearly demonstrated - the meaning of your objection(s) change but you maintain they haven't, when they clearly have, or are they just words and don't matter?

Do you think Osama was being too soft on the Dundee Police unit - is this what's troubling you as a 'man of honour' (ie a foul-mouthed supporter of terrorsm against the British Police and secuirty services)?

[johnmellor77]

Sigh.
"Do you think Muslims should co-operate with the police and security services?"

This is what Osama had said was all Muslim groups like the MCB could tell people to do in the fight against extremism.

"Do you still stand by the comments you made in Dundee where you said Muslims should resist and defy the SBCCU?"

Here I was making the point that despite saying that all Muslim groups could do is tell people to co-operate with the police and security services he, while speaking for the MAB, told Muslims to do something quite different. Geddit?

"What you said was not that inflammatory Osama. What annoys me was the way you tried to shirk responsibility for your words afterwards."

A direct response to one of Osama's inane comments and it leads nicely on to this:

"My postion has not changed"
My position has always been that Osama did, by telling people to be stronger in their resistance and defiance of the police unit, encourage non-cooperation and that his claim it is "ridiculous" to infer that from what he said flies in the face of logic and the English language.

And just to repeat the point you have glossed over: Osama described Israel in July last year as a country that "routinely defies international law." If an act of defiance is not one of non-co-operation, does this mean he believes Israel is acting within the bounds of international law?