A clash of cultures is headed our way: Islamic immigration has
sparked friction in Europe; Canada can't afford not to debate the policy issues
it raises
The Vancouver Sun
Sat 28 Oct 2006

Page: C4
Section: Editorial
Byline: Dianne Rinehart
Column:
Dianne Rinehart
Source: Special to the Sun

If forewarned is forearmed, Canadians would be wise to
heed debates in Europe that could spell the death of immigration and
multiculturalism here if we don't unite tout de suite to make it work.

For they are symptomatic of a so-called clash of cultures that, tsunami-like,
is about to ram our shores.

Consider, first, that yet another writer -- French philosophy professor
Robert Redeker -- is under police protection because of death threats made over
an article he wrote saying, "Islamic extremists of today are like the Communists
and Bolsheviks of the Cold War."

Then consider a response from Toronto's Hamid Rizvi in a letter to the
National Post, mocking Redeker for requesting help from "responsible Muslims out
there who should without a doubt support me."

"Does he want moderate Muslims to support him when he is insulting the basis
of our religion?" Rizvi asks. And in that we have the basis for our own clash of
culture, for Rizvi, missing the point of free speech entirely, suggests if you
don't agree with his views on the Koran (which many Muslims do not), you're
asking to be killed.

I despair. Where's this going? To a hasty retreat by immigration's most
fervent supporters if we aren't prepared to resolve how best to protect freedoms
and human rights, including free speech, that are the hallmark of western
culture.

Example? Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, a former economist with the
World Bank and supporter of immigration, recently argued Britain must -- for
economic and social reasons -- reconsider the huge numbers it takes in.

His social reasons: The welfare of existing citizens has priority over those
want-ing in, "political communities have a right to determine their own
composition," and "the country must insist on the universality of its liberal
values."

These arguments are astonishing in liberal circles where any suggestion of
selecting immigrant groups based on their ability to integrate into a host
country's culture is considered racist.

Wolf, a former stalwart of diversity, now argues his belief was based on "the
possibly naive assumption that a shared commitment to core common values -- to
democracy, equality of men and women, a single, secular legal system and freedom
of expression -- would unite all citizens.

"When a small number of citizens wish to murder a random collection of their
fellows and a far larger number sympathize with them, that belief begins to look
very foolish."

Some feminist supporters of immigration now admit discomfort with immigrants
who wear the veil, demand sex-selective abortions, seek out back-street butchers
to genitally mutilate their daughters, engage in honour killings or import
impoverished, and hopefully docile, mail-order brides.

Which brings us squarely to yet another European debate over the "veil,"
launched after British MP Jack Straw acknowledged he requested that female
Muslim constituents meeting with him remove the niqab -- the veil that covers
all but the eyes -- because it's a barrier to good communication.

Please, let us not pretend it is not. Muslim and non-Muslim women alike agree
it creates a barrier. That's its purpose. No, the veil debate isn't about
whether women can wear it, but over fears they will be forced to or face
consequences, like the Parisian Muslim girls who report they are targeted for
rape by Muslim men if they don't.

Sadly, that infringement is gaining ground. In a Maclean's excerpt from
America Alone, Mark Steyn reports: "In Linz, Austria, Muslims are demanding that
all female teachers, believers or infidels, wear head scarves in class."

But it's not just about social issues. Increasingly, immigration is under
attack on economic grounds. Too much has been made of the effect it has on
improving an economy and too little on the effect it has on individual means,
Wolf argues. "China has a bigger economy than Switzerland. Most people would
prefer to be Swiss."

His arguments add weight to a study Canada's C.D. Howe Institute
recently released that found increased immigration cannot save Canada from the
economic effects of an aging population unless it is prepared to take in 2.6
million immigrants a year, compared to about 250,000 it now accepts.

No one of any standing is suggesting a halt to immigration but a debate on
Wolf's argument -- that the welfare of existing citizens should be considered
when policy is made -- might seem a good idea. To fear to tread there is
unforgivable and suicidal. We need to talk.

Dianne Rinehart is an Ottawa-based writer.

Illustration:
• Colour Photo: John Giles,
Associated Press / Aishah Azmi, a Muslim teaching assistant, was suspended by a
school in Leeds, England, after she refused to remove the niqab -- the veil
covering all but a small part of her face -- during lessons.
• Colour Photo:
Christopher Furlong, Getty Images / Azmi, 24, won a victimization suit against
the school this month but lost two key claims of discrimination and harassment
against the employer.

Edition: Final
Story Type: Column
Length: 742
words