Leitch’s screening for Canadian values not racist

kellieleitchJust like liberals are bashing President Elect Donald Trump in the U.S. for wanting to screen Muslims from the Middle East, Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch is being called a racist for suggesting the same thing in Canada.

In fact, she even had to beef up the security at her home (H/T NewsWatchCanada). That’s not right. Canada is supposed to be a free country with free speech.

So, what exactly is the problem? What is so wrong with screening all immigrants for their views about such Canadian values as freedom of movement, free speech and gender equality?

True, it is mostly Muslims from the Middle East that are objecting to that type of screening, or their apologists. The problem? While most immigrants want only to contribute to their new country, even while being encouraged to hold on to their traditions, far too many Muslims want to bring Sharia here. Plus, they make demands as soon as they get here– such as having prayer rooms in the same Canadian public schools where no prayer has been allowed for years.

Like all Canadians, I love the fact that immigrants to our country have come from just about every country in the world and up to recently, have been able to live side by side in harmony with their neighbours.

I mean, I grew up with Muslim friends and had many university colleagues who were Muslim. But, I honestly don’t recall any tensions with my Muslim friends. They accepted me and I accepted them. Some were from such countries as South Africa, Egypt or India — or their parents were.

Times, however, have changed, and not for the better, which is why the screening Leitch suggests is a good idea. Read this story, for example, about a woman in the UK. Then, tell me Leitch is not right.

In summary, Lubna, a young woman from Pakistan married a man her family chose for her. She had two children. That man beat her as did his family. He eventually left her to go to America with another woman and she had to find work to support her children, herself and her husband’s elderly parents. Yet, those same parents, the grandparents of her children, eventually threw her out of the home they had shared.

Lubna eventually gets a divorce in civil court, goes back to university and starts to make a new life for herself. However, because she was a devout Muslim, she decides to get a divorce in a Sharia court as well — which unfortunately turned her life upside down to say the least. With the Sharia court’s approval, her husband returns, demands she go back to him, does nothing when he kidnaps the children and won’t let her explain about his abuse. 

That is not gender equality. Thankfully, Lubna eventually follows the outcome of the civil court, gets custody of her children and goes on with her life. I can’t help worry for her safety though, given the distorted view some Muslims have on family honour.

Look, as far as I am concerned, all Muslims are welcome in Canada just like anyone else as long as they are willing to adjust to our way of life and legal system. Sure, some Muslim women may want to cover up their faces, something I disagree with. But, like it or not, that is what freedom is all about.

What we definitely don’t want is the kind of Sharia court described in the Daily Mail article or the values which drive those courts.

So, the crux of the matter is that Leitch is right to say that new Canadians and refugees should be screened for their willingness to accept our Canadian values of personal freedom, freedom of speech and gender equality — hardly a racist view.

That said, where do the other Conservative leadership candidates stand on this issue? Most, unfortunately, are so worried to offend anyone, they criticize her instead of the anti-Canadian values I discussed here.

Page separator

Endnote: While Thaddeus Alexander’s rant is pointed at the anti-Trump liberal protesters in the U.S., his message is related to why Kellie Leitch thinks we should screen immigrants. It is about all Canadians working together for the greater good. Well said Thaddeus!

2 thoughts on “Leitch’s screening for Canadian values not racist

  1. Pingback: Cowards « Jack's Newswatch

  2. It’s a valid argument, Sandy … but it’s lost on our chattering “intelligentsia”. Remember that Justin Trudeau (in)famously said that Canada is the worlds’ first “postnational” state, and whereas, years ago, Canada’s troubadour – Stomping Tom Connor – lamented that we have no Canadian Dream, Trudeau Jr. bragged that Canada “has no core identity”.

    Which all sounds so inclusive and welcoming. Until you see that the same Liberals who arbitrarily decided that cabinet should be 50/50 male to female to achieve “gender equality” – with no consideration for merit or experience – are the same ones who lined up a fundraiser/photo-op inside a radical mosque, where the women were kept at bay, separated from the important work the men had to do. Or allows an openly, proudly lesbian Premier – Kathleen Wynne – promoting the idea that Sharia Law should be allowed for Muslims who happen to reside in Ontario. I wonder if she truly understands the irony.

    Inclusive? Hardly. Pandering at best … but I believe it is more the extension of the progressive belief in the politics of division: that the governments role is to define – and then to protect – every more quantized and isolated identity groups, splitting people arbitrarily along, racial economic, religious and now, sexual definitions.

    This is NOT inclusion; this is not even tolerance: what we label as “multi-culturalism” and “acceptance” have in fact, become their Orwellian opposites: restrictive and corrosive ideologies to break down the bonds of society and replace them ENTIRELY with government control. No social manners; no acceptable standards of behavior between individuals, no sense of culture, group and social bonding, not even a sense of what sexual orientation (and its responsibilities) means. Only legislation and government control, arbitrarily defined and applied, as requiered. As the Romans would have said it: Divide and Conquer. Now applied to the political and social arena.

    And destined to fail as utterly (and perhaps tragically) as the Roman experience.


Comments are closed.