I wasn’t sure if I should comment on this topic, but I can’t not considering the criticism of the Prime Minister in the this country, be it from the left-wing media (ie. CBC) or protestors on the streets.

The PM has been very clear that he supports Israel because they are on the right side of international law. Israel has the right, if not the duty, to defend itself against attacks on it’s civilians and territory. It is Hezbollah that is in violation of international law for launching attacks from populated areas and using the population of Lebanon as shields. All those individuals who value the free society we enjoy in the “Enlightened West” should be agreeing with the PM wholeheartedly. Can you imagine the attitude of people in Canada if there was a terrorist group in Vermont hurling rockets at Montreal and the US Government couldn’t or wouldn’t deal with them? Would we be expected to sit back and take it?

Hezbollah probably kidnapped the Israeli soldiers (the beginning of all this) because Tehran told them to – in order to get the world’s attention away from their nuclear program. They have in large part succeeded – diplomats from around the world, and most of the UN are now busy with the Israeli-Hezbollah problem – and Iran has slipped down the priority list – buying Tehran time to develop their nuclear program….

Lebanon is a joke of a state in that it cannot even control what goes on inside it’s borders – no truly independent country can countenance a force like Hezbollah. I agree that the civilian deaths in both Israel and Lebanon are a tragedy. And perhaps diplomacy can help that. But if the diplomacy doesn’t result in the disarmarment of Hezbollah it will fail in the longer term.

And I fear that until Damascus and Tehran are dealt with, Hezbollah will continue to be a problem for not just Israel, but the free world.

I am sure that everyone has heard that the RCMP and CSIS have apprehended 17 people in Toronto, Kingston and Mississauga who were plotting terror attacks in Ontario. These suspects had three (3) tonnes of ammonium nitrate which would make for a very big bang.

The suspects are all of Arab descent and the indication is that many of them were Canadian-born or at least had gained citizenship at some point.

To me, this is an indication that we need to have better control over immigration and citizenship to ensure that the people we let in ACCEPT our post-enlightenment freedom loving society. And for those born here, we need to institute Civics classes in the public schools with a clear message to our children what the values of the country are. And I don’t mean those fluffy socialist values that the NDP and Liberal party would have you believe are important. We need to ensure our children understand the battle that has gone on since the 17th century that provides us with the freedoms we sometimes take for granted.

I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my copy of “Socialism” by Ludwig von Mises, in which he apparently presents the best arguments against socialism ever published (and I thought Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” was excellent!

As everyone who pays attention to the news knows, throughout the world Muslims are protesting against the publication of satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. The protests have ranged from violence in Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, and Denmark, marches in other nations, and primarily peaceful gatherings and protests in western countries such as Canada. This is very interesting considering that the cartoons were first published in Denmark in September of 2005, followed by publishing in Egypt in Al Fagr in October 2005 (to little outcry), and most recently in various European newspapers.

The fundamental issue, listening to the dispute between Muslims and those who are speaking for western civilization, is that there are three views:

• Freedom of Speech is absolute, even if it means you offend someone else’s beliefs
• Freedom of Speech is nice-to-have, but it would be best if you censored yourself and avoid offending Muslim society
• Muslim law is paramount

The last of these is the view of the protesting Muslims, making statements like “You don’t respect our religion” or demanding that western nations implement “a law committing the press and the media in the West that proscribes insulting our prophet”

The second of these is the pansy response, as can be found in the responses of the foreign ministers of Canada, Britain and the spokesman of the President of the United States. The speakers of these statements are either too terrified of the risk of speaking against Islam, or are trying to have it both ways, when it isn’t possible.

The first of these is the correct view for the future of western civilization. As I have posited before, there is a fundamental dispute between Islam and the free democratic society that is western civilization. The separation of religion from the state as occurred during the Enlightenment was the step that allowed western civilization to create the idea of Free Speech. Islam has not had an “Enlightenment”. There has never been a separation of mosque and state, and in many states they are one in the same (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc). Islam claims to preach peace, but the displayed anger and hate for Jews, Christians and Hindus show that Islam has not yet developed a sense of fairness. Islamic scholars still speak of “the infidels” the way that the Catholic church did during the Middle Ages at the time of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Western Civilization has overcome this view and provides for Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. Muslim nations do not allow either of these in any sense of the word freedom. It is illegal to openly practice other religions in many Muslim countries.

Therefore, I have two messages for anyone who is offended by the publication of the Muhammed cartoons, or anyone who feels that western civilization should back down on questions of freedom:

• We, the citizens of the civilized free nations, will defend that freedom. If you don’t want to live in a society that allows others free to offend your faith, perhaps you should live somewhere else.
• If you expect us to show more respect towards your faith, perhaps you should consider showing more respect for the faiths of non-muslims. We give you the freedom to practice your religion in our nations; perhaps you should consider reciprocating.

In the oft-attributed statement of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it“. This is a statement that all in the west should hold dearly to if we hope to maintain our free civilization.

So McGuinty has rejected calls for sharia law to be used in family arbitration in Ontario, and is going further to ban all religious arbitrations.

Good.

First of all, the separation of church/mosque/synagogue and state is a very important premise of free and democratic societies. We should not have religious rules restricting the freedom of individuals. Paine, Hobbes, Locke and Montesqieu would be rolling in their graves had McGuinty not made this correct decision.

(I can’t believe I’m congratulating a Liberal – but in this instance he is behaving like a classical liberal).

Now I’m going to go on a little diatribe about the conflict between Islam and Western Civilization and why I believe the conflixt exists and why there is no easy answer.

Western civilization, which has evolved from a Christian underpinning, went through a period consisting of the Reformation and the Enlightenment a few hundred years ago. The Reformation first broke the control of the Catholic Church on society, and the Enlightenment continued that path by providing an alternative to Christian thought, by birthing the idea of secular society.

Freedom and true representative democracy (such as exists in western civilization), could not exist if not for these changes. Religious control of a society limits it’s ability to move forwards, because religions are fixed in the past and are clearly threatened by change. In western civilization religious freedom is allowed (you can believe whatever you want), but religious beliefs and cultural practices are not forced on individuals.

The Muslim world has not had an enlightenment. Yes, during the Arab caliphates that existed from 632 until 1259 there was scientific and cultural advancedment, but there was no freedom for the general public from the rules of the faith. In most Islamic societies today, even where the sharia is not strictly applied, there are still rules in society that are imposed by imams, families and the state that limit the freedom of individuals.

Women for instance have little freedom in Muslim society, and Muslim society has little understanding of secular freedoms and the idea that someone can choose not to be a believer. And in the Islamic world, there is no strict concept of the separation of mosque and the state. They are one in the same, and have been since the time of the first caliphs in Damascus.

Until the Islamic world learns the teachings of the Enlightenment, or has one of their own, the conflict between Islam and the West will continue.