The last quarter of 2018 provided copious amounts of fodder for combatants in the battle of ideas.
Take the holiday season alone, for instance. Between the “wokescolding” of comedians, the populist uprisings and terrorist attacks in France, the commotion never seemed to subside.
As chasms widen between groups, the response to progressive thought policing, populist disruption, and radical Islam will be decisive for the success of any political party in 2019, especially in Canada.
With the threat of radical Islam becoming ever so palpable, I, for one, hope it can be tackled with a little more honesty.
My concern over this was aroused again as the holiday season ended grotesquely for some in Britain.
While most were indulging in New Year’s Eve festivities, people in Manchester were terrorized by a knife-wielding jihadist.
The perpetrator ran through a railway station and stabbed a middle aged couple and a police officer. Despite failing to kill anyone, witnesses said that he was extremely aggressive and “very intent on causing more harm than he actually did.”
As we have become accustomed to hearing, the suspect confirmed their devotion to the cause of Allah, and their service to an Islamic Caliphate.
Yet, at the time of writing, some are still ruminating on what the motive might be.
The suspect’s own words apparently don’t have enough clarity. He’s been detained under Britain’s Mental Health Act, and was reported to have said this: “As long as you keep bombing other countries, this sort of s**t is going to keep happening.”
This ultimatum is a commonly used by Islamic extremists to justify their bloodlust of which innocent Westerners are often victims. And has been employed by those prone to apologism when it comes to the violence committed on behalf of the Qu’ran.
I am curious about their answer to this question: If the West completely retreated from the Middle East, do you think Islamic extremists would renounce their antagonistic ways and agree to live harmoniously?
The strictures outlined in the texts to which these zealots are committed say otherwise. Unlike other monotheisms, the idol worship, rigidity, and intolerance prescribed in Islamic doctrines haven’t been open to much retrospection. Anyone who attempts any further inquiry is swiftly accursed, and feels the wrath of an Islamic mob.
There has existed a crisis in Islam where a disturbing portion of its adherents is predisposed to radicalism and feel enmity towards the Western way of life.
While conceding that terrorism is a “minority tactic,” Alex P. Schmid concluded in a 2017 study of Muslim opinion polls that “minorities sympathetic or supportive of terrorism are sizable enough to provide a radical milieu and breeding ground” for terrorism.
Corroborating this further are surveys done by the MacDonald- Laurier Institute that found that while not violent, some Canadian Muslims weren’t “strongly opposed to a Caliphate” or “even moderately opposed to at least some role for Sharia law.”
By way of our adulation of multiculturalism that results in our politically correct veiling of inconvenient truths, Islamists have had free rein to inflame these sentiments.
So much so that now they’re endeavoring to accomplish their goals of societal transformation by venturing into politics. As it was recently reported, the Islamic Party of Ontario has commenced the process of registering with Elections Ontario.
Its duplicitous “Principles and Policy” declares its respect for all creeds and religions, while simultaneously suggesting that Islam be the guiding principle of our institutions. Its leader, Jawed Anwar, has announced that the Party “stands against liberal values, gender killing ideologies, and desire worshippers” and “promotes complete submission and obedience to God.”
What’s more is that he has identified journalist Tarek Fatah as an “open enemy of Islam,” which will only increase Fatah’s already overwhelming vulnerability.
This thusly vindicates political scientist Salim Mansur’s contention that Canada “cannot indefinitely accommodate Islamists in its midst without doing irreparable harm to its culture.”
Discussing such matters with deliberation has triumphed in the political arena. The issue of national security is one wherein Islamism and populist disruption have converged. His imperfections notwithstanding, Donald Trump’s usage of the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” beguiled the common citizen who was irked by his predecessor’s refusal to utter it.
As the issue relates to this year’s election, I’m desirous of seeing honesty prevail, albeit not necessarily by means of a populist uprising. Trudeau is a lost cause, as he’ll inevitably approach it the way that we’ve come to know so well.
Scheer and Bernier have shared their worries over Islamism; and will hopefully have a debate over trenchant policy proposals rather than just engage in senseless disputes over whose rhetoric is more hardline.