LGF has slammed Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a post that refers to recent comments made by the PM on immigration to Canada. LGF’s analysis goes that Harper’s solution to terrorist immigrants is, “more immigration.”
After reading the quoted selection, and the linked Globe and Mail piece, it appears that our PM was engaging in typical sugarcoating and platitudes. His comments are an endorsement of immigration in general, which would not be out of line with most anyone's thinking. After all, most Canadians are immigrants and most of our recent immigrant populations have embraced liberal democracy. On the other hand, the PM was basically nonspecific in his remarks, which only serve to mollify a nervous Muslim community, but confuse other concerned Canadians.
The PM was being coy, and his words could be taken in a variety of ways. The LGF conclusion is fair, but so would be a conclusion that deduces that our PM is in favor of diversified immigration; that is, immigration from a variety of regions of the world, and not just from specific regions that tend to form homogenous enclaves in their adopted lands. In other words, the PM did not endorse or reject EU type immigration policy which could be loosely translated as, "Muslims only from a few countries immigration."
Rates of immigration and sources of immigration were not really touched on by Harper. Furthermore, we can’t expect any leader of a democratically elected government to openly accuse or disparage any single ethnic, or racial, or religious group, unless it is done in a very specific and articulate way that does not foment violence or aggression to that group. Immigration policy though, and especially sources of immigration, can be addressed in a more subtle manner. I’m not sure what LGF expected the PM to say; that Canada will no longer be taking Muslim immigrants?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a ringing defence of immigration to Canada, rejecting calls for Canada to be less open to immigrants. He reached out to moderates within the Muslim community and he clearly and articulately specified that they have the trust of the Canadian government. But, Harper’s statement also made it clear that it is THEY who must reject terrorism and embrace Canada’s values:
(added emphasis mine)
"I believe, actually, the opposite is true," Mr. Harper told the opening session of the United Nations' World Urban Forum here. "Canada's diversity, properly nurtured, is our greatest strength."
… "It is true that somewhere, in some communities, we will find . . . apostles of terror, who use the symbols of culture and faith to justify crimes of violence.
"They hate open, diverse, democratic societies like ours, because they want the exact opposite," Mr. Harper declared.
"[They want] societies that are closed, homogeneous and dogmatic."
Yet the terrorists and their vision will be rejected "by men and women of good will and generosity in all communities," Mr. Harper affirmed to loud applause.
"And they will be rejected most strongly by those men and women living in the very communities that the terrorists claim to represent, as we have already seen in Canada since those arrests."
Pundits are not bound by the PMO’s niceties though, be they within the MSM or New Media, and they are free to ask the difficult questions, as we’ve done here before. For starters, are all religions and cultures compatible with Liberal Democracy? CLICK
|