15

In Rare Moments Of Lucidity, Ujjal Dosanjh Is Worth Listening To

Posted June 16th, 2010 in Canada and tagged , , , , by Adrian MacNair

In April, ethnically Sikh BC politician, Ujjal Dosanjh, said that Sikh extremism is on the rise in some parts of Canada, and blamed it on “politically correct” Canadians who let it happen. It sounded incredible to hear the words at the time, but then again his comments were tempered by the fact that he was beaten badly in 1985 by Sikh extremists after speaking out against violence done in the name of religion.

25 years later, Ujjal Dosanjh says that extremism is much worse, despite the fact that the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history occurred when Air India flight 182 was blown up in 1985 by Sikh terrorists, killing 329 passengers.

The reason that we can’t have an honest conversation about extremism — and this is according to a Liberal MP and immigrant — is that Canada’s “polite brand” of multiculturalism gives extremists the opportunity to drag their old grudges and prejudices from the homeland to Canada.

“I think what we are doing to this country is that this idea of multiculturalism has been completely distorted, turned on its head to essentially claim that anything anyone believes – no matter how ridiculous and outrageous it might be – is okay and acceptable in the name of diversity.

“Where we have gone wrong in this pursuit of multiculturalism is that there is no adherence to core values, the core Canadian values, which [are]: That you don’t threaten people who differ with you; you don’t go attack them personally; you don’t terrorize the populace.”

Fast forward to today’s op-ed in the National Post. Mr.Dosanjh writes about the honour killing of Aqsa Parvez by her father, and the increasing importation of such values to western nations:

In 2000, the United Nations estimated that 5,000 women and girls are murdered every year in honour killings, a term that masks the brutality of the crime it describes. In some cases, women are even killed because they have been raped. While such murders are particularly prevalent in the countries of the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and parts of Africa, as we are seeing, they also happen in the Western world.

[..]

There is a huge misconception that these crimes occur because of certain religious beliefs. There is no religion that condones the murder of women. It’s the feudal/patriarchal culture of male dominance and control that’s the culprit. For example, in the Indian sub-continent, and in the Indian diaspora, such killings happen among people of many different faiths. The irrationality surrounding the notion of “family honour” provides cover for brutality and inhumanity.

Mr.Dosanjh goes further, saying that in countries like Canada, Great Britain, and the United States, fear of offending minorities prevents society as a whole from examining the immorality of the mentality that leads to honour killings.

I suppose the only contradiction in all of this is that we have hate speech laws that limit free speech to the extent that people are genuinely afraid of being accused of disseminating hatred on the basis of “race or religion”. Don’t think it’s possible? The Human Rights Commissions are filled with such cases.

If Ujjal Dosanjh were more consistent, he’d move to throw out section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code, so that we can get down to the honest business of criticizing the extremism that the Liberal MP says we’re too afraid to speak about.

ALSO SEE

Let’s not forget what consequences can transpire for those people who do try and have that honest conversation.

15 Responses so far.

  1. dance...dance to the radioNo Gravatar says:

    Maybe it would help if we called them honour murders.
    And the perpetrators murderers.
    Killing seems a bit too antiseptic.

  2. KurskNo Gravatar says:

    It’s people such as the Marxist leaning Dosanjh that encouraged and gave us unfettered and unchecked mass immigration from third world countries.

    I am glad that he has had some sense beaten into him; it’s just too bad that he wasn’t beaten even more severely so as to knock out the remainder of the leftist idealism from his body.

    Harsh? Perhaps.

    However, an epiphany to change for a social engineer, much like a drunk, should never come after the last drop has been drained from the mug.It’s funny how both never see the answers when they are staring at the full measure…

  3. LNo Gravatar says:

    I am glad he is speaking out, and I hope to hear a GREAT DEAL more about immigration and refugees on the non-politically correct SUN TV. Your title is perfect and he knows very well that there are old world grudges being played out in his commumity and in others. It is interesting that he says that this is getting worse. I personally think that we need to shift to a differnt kind of “safe countries” immigration – those whose cultural values are a good fit. I hope that this is being done on the sly. There also needs to be a study on how bringing a wife from the auld country is working out for Canada. How many are dumped and end up on welfare? I just want to know.

  4. RogerNo Gravatar says:

    So it took the slaughter of 240 Canadians and almost 25 years for him to admit to the problem???

    Must be an election planned, another CoupScam since Iggy now want canada to stay in Afghanistan.

  5. balbulicanNo Gravatar says:

    I’m a bit confused.

    A murder was committed and detected. An investigation was carried out, the criminals were found guilty, and will be serving an appropriate term.

    The problem is…?

  6. [...] [More] AKPC_IDS += "16141,";Popularity: unranked [?] Web Logs ADD COMMENTS You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]

  7. StewartNo Gravatar says:

    The problem is that a person died. It should not have happened in the first place.

  8. [...] In Rare Moments Of Lucidity, Ujjal Dosanjh Is Worth Listening To [...]

  9. balbulicanNo Gravatar says:

    Very true. That’s why we have a criminal code. People shouldn’t murder each other over drug debts, marital disputes, an inheritance, each others’ race or sexual preferences, family honour, family feuds, in the commission of a robbery, in a vendetta, or for any of a hundred reasons that give rise to the crime we call “murder”.

    None of those deaths “should” happen. They do. So we arrest the people who commit them.

    I ask again…

  10. KurskNo Gravatar says:

    Well, try this on for size…

    In the west, when you murder a family member, society (both secular and religious) condemns the action as having no place in that society.

    Murder as a corrective measure is not encouraged.

    In other places that are not the west, that include religions such as Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism, the society (both secular and religious) condones the practise of murder for the sake of family honour. It is even spelled out in the Islamic Koran as to what must be done to accomplish this.

    Murder as a corrective measure is encouraged.

    All of this would be disturbing if it was kept ‘over there’; However, with the influx of immigrants from backwards societies that do these sorts of things, we have now imported the problem.

    I am glad that the father and brother are charged. I am distressed that the sister feels they should not do time. I am sad that the mother is O.K with the crime, as she feels it was within the father’s purview to do so and she did bring shame to the family.

    Can you honestly say this reaction from the family would be commonplace in the western world, from a family of Judaeo-Christian background?

  11. John BNo Gravatar says:

    Listen to this interview on today’s Metro Morning (CBC Radio One Toronto morning show) with Aruna Papp and she will spell out exactly what the problem is. Aruna admits to the same upbringing found in the Parvez family and the segregation from mainstream Canadian society it mandates.

    http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/

  12. balbulicanNo Gravatar says:

    So what you’re saying is:
    - women whose lives would be forfeit in a more primitive culture have an increased chance of survival if we allow them into Canada
    - in some cases the importation of those primitive attitudes still results in their deaths.
    - Therefore we should leave them all to die “over there”.

    Did I get that right?

  13. Balby,

    I think you should direct your questions to the honourable member for Vancouver South. He’s the one raising the spectre of needing to have a serious discussion about importing cultural abominations.

  14. John BNo Gravatar says:

    Well, we could bring the women here and leave their primitive fathers and mothers back home to stew in their medieval backwardness.

  15. dance...dance to the radioNo Gravatar says:

    The point I think that you are missing is that cultures with a tradition of honour killings are more likely to experience conflict in our permissive society.
    These women might not be subject to that cultural stress ‘over there’.
    Aren’t do-gooders always using the ‘if it saves one life’ argument as justification for abrogating personal freedom?

    What seems implicit in your tone is that a few dead women is the price that has to be paid as these immigrants adapt to Canadian culture.
    I wonder if they will ever adapt.
    You seem just meh.