Reversal of "freedom of religion"

[Evangelical Capitalist]

I found this rather horrific article at DhimmiWatch.com, about calls for the incorporation of shari'a law into the Canadian legal system.

Not only does [a muslim essayist]affirm there the traditional proposition that apostates must “choose between Islam and the sword,” but he argues that, if Canada is to be true to its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it must allow the country’s Muslim community to punish those of its members who renounce or traduce their faith.

"[W]hat such a large segment of the Canadian minority believes as a precept of their faith/religion ought to be fully recognized if the Charter’s provision respecting freedom of religion are [sic] to have any real meaning. . . . Failing [to incorporate Islamic law concerning apostasy and blasphemy into the laws of Canada] will be a flagrant breach of equality rights. . . . Failing to interpret the guaranteed rights and freedoms of Muslims in accordance with the true spirit of multiculturalism results in the effective denial of this fundamental philosophy of the Canadian constitution."

What struck me about this was the implication of "frredom of religion" as pertaining, fundamentally, to the community as opposed to the individual, and the kind of conclusions that flow, plausibly, from such a premise. It's easy sometimes to read Ayn Rand discuss this kind of phenomenon and think, "Well, she's just exaggerating." But when you read something like this, it becomes pretty clear. It provides an outstanding example of the fact that she was absolutely right about the results of collectivizing rights: that they become the rights of some at the expense of others, or worse, the right to violate the rights of others.

It also drives home why the libertarian approach to rights, i.e. without any basis in moral principles, is intellectually bankrupt. To combat something this vicious requires a thorough knowledge and defense of the nature of rights, something sorely lacking in today's political discourse, and which the libertarians certainly don't bring to the table.

Lastly, and in that same vein, it points how how desperately we need Ayn Rand's work.

[DavidV]

If you think about it, this proposition is exactly "in accordance with the true spirit of multiculturalism."

[GWDS]

I live about half an hour outside of the city of Hamilton, where a group of muslims have been quite vocal about this. This is an increasing danger to our values in Canada, and is becoming a major issue in Europe aswell.

Unfortunalty alot of people in Canada think this is a wonderfull aspect of multiculturalism. I think it has to do primarily with a lack of education in my country. We defend multiculturalism because it makes no person feel second class due to their religion or ethnicity, we do not insist they leave their culture at the door. Aswell this is linked to other progressive ideals - women's rights etc.

Unlike in America, the social structure here demands multiculturalism. We have a strong nationalistic french bloc, and very, very little unity between the federal and provincial govenments. But while the french, natives, and chinese are willing to abide by the basic principals. What canadians need to learn is that many muslim immigrants want to overturn the whole system.

Islam, like the Nazis, is using the means of multiculturalism (religous freedom, rights to have arabic signs, educational systems, etc) to eventually rob such freedoms from other groups (jews, athiests, christians, and on an on...). If candians actually realised this, things would change rapidly.

Aswell, there is a prominent canadien talk show host, Irshad Manji, who is fighting to stop this at the same time she calls herself a muslim -

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/thebook.html

Edited March 7, 2005 by GWDS