The Multiculturalism Jihad of Justin Trudeau
by Mark Jaskela
The idea that the Canadian national identity is one of multiculturalism may have been born, in part, out of insecurity. Living next door to the U.S. , a label of mental convenience for describing ourselves, thereby uniting and encouraging us, as well as just reminding us we’re not American, might have seemed a political necessity. Whereas America is looked upon as a melting pot, Canada is a proud mosaic, one wherein people of diverse cultural backgrounds are encouraged to retain them. In terms of the increasing incursion of Islam into life north of the forty-ninth parallel, however, the concept of multiculturalism could also be playing a significant role in what might eventually cause us to cease being Canada, at least as we’ve known it. History chronicles a limitless array of examples of how tyrannies have been inflicted on nations. In Canada, the liberal government’s Motion M-103, should it proceed unfettered to its likely conclusions, is a preliminary to the establishment of an oppressive, two-tiered form of societal reorganization. Earlier this year, a shooting rampage in a Quebec City mosque resulted in the deaths of six Muslims. Mass killings are a sad enough occurrence in any country. That those killings should then be seized upon as fodder for a legislative assault on the freedoms of all, as does M-103, only compounds and greatly amplifies the tragedy.
Presumably for the purposes of combating multiculturalism’s arch enemy, the anti-Islamic bigotry believed responsible for the massacre, M-103 is to advance a study to determine how prevalent Islamophobia is in Canada. Given that an accompanying, concrete definition specifying exactly what constitutes Islamophobia has yet to be presented to Canadians, the study is already predestined for abuses. The findings of the study are expected to result in the passage of a law or laws making it a criminal offense to criticize Muslims, Mohammed or Islam. Rejecting efforts by Canada’s Conservative party to pass anti-defamation-type legislation designed to include all faith groups, the liberals are apparently comfortable with M-103 offering no such protection for any group or faction other than Muslims.
Recently, on Canada’s taxpayer-funded TV station The Knowledge Network, a documentary aired entitled The ‘M’ Word, the ‘M’ standing for multiculturalism. While not all documentaries have propaganda purposes, there is a long-standing tradition of many of them serving as such. In this instance, various Canadian writers and academics opinionated on the meaning and significance of multiculturalism. Along the way, there was a selective digression into our relatively young country’s immigration history. It was noted that in 1913 and again right after World War II, Canada was home to massive immigrations of White Europeans. This caused periods of seeming instability as the immigrants were being assimilated, but soon we were once again a happy, harmonious, multicultural whole. By the same standard, the documentary contended, the same can rightly be expected with the major influx of Islamic refugees under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
As the son of an immigrant refugee mother, I’m definitely not anti-immigration. Nor would I advocate against the right of any civilized, law-abiding Muslim to immigrate here. What concerns me is how excessively pro-Islamic politics now threaten our country’s religious freedoms, freedom of speech and all other forms of expression, even freedom of thought. What will Canada look like if laws are established against having particular kinds of feelings? After all, that’s what a phobia is.
Without demonizing Muslims, it should be recognized that Islam presents unique problems with regard to its successful integration into western societies. Western world doctrines such as democracy, pluralism, multiculturalism and authentic liberalism, as distinct from what we see going on in Canada nowadays, are essentially incompatible with the fundamentalist Islamic tendencies born in the middle east. Those tendencies include pronounced inclinations toward religious, social and political dominance. While there are those who would say the same could be argued against the history of Christianity, it was still from out of historical Christianity that the aforementioned doctrines were nurtured, thrived and, in some instances, were even born out of. It seems inconceivable to suggest that the same could have ever have been true of Islam.
Whether in Canada or European nations in more advanced turmoil over trying to reconcile their societies with Islam, a fatal error resides in the vanity of liberal democracies deeming themselves capable of effortlessly absorbing any people, en masse, regardless of their foundational cultural or religious differences.
As if perceiving this tragic flaw, Russia’s Vladimir Putin has very vocally rejected the prospect of allowing his country to be overtaken or unsettled by Islamic influences. More democratically, Poland’s devoutly Christian majority took to the streets in that country’s largest demonstration ever to stand against the possibility of a major Islamic insurgence. To a casual observer, these responses might look extreme. Yet their extremism pales in comparison to the authoritarianism of what could result from Motion M-103, or the implementation of Resolution 1618 by the indefensibly anti-Israel, anti-Christ United Nations.
Rather than just evaluating Motion M-103 as a legislative fact in isolation, consider how it fits in, or fails to, with another facet of the moral tenor of the current Canadian federal administration. The chivalrous passion for feminism of Justin Trudeau is such that the man is fearlessly committed to putting an abortion in every pot, both in Canada and abroad. When he sat as leader of the opposition, he fired every liberal colleague who disagreed with his hostility toward life in the womb. Since getting elected, his government has designated 650 million dollars of taxpayer’s money to fund the war on the unborn outside of Canada. How he reconciles this alleged concern for women’s rights with Islam, hardly well-known for its commitment to the same, to put it diplomatically, is anyone’s guess.
Also cooked up by Justin Trudeau’s government has been the notorious Bill C-16 or so-called Bathroom Bill, legislation now awaiting final approval from the Canadian senate. Bill C-16 would allow anatomical males claiming to really be female the right to use women’s and girl’s public washrooms and public changing rooms. It too is doing little to endear the Prime Minister to those women aware of this serious misstep in the March of Progress. When America’s Target department stores, a company of its kind second only in size to Wal-Mart, implemented a comparable policy, it triggered a deluge of felonies in their women’s washrooms and changing rooms from male sex offenders.
This digression citing two, but not the only two policies of the Justin Trudeau liberals that are completely on side with the tragic, ongoing legacy of the sexual revolution should be cautionary to all. As already seen in European liberal democracies, rabidly unrestrained legislation of the politics of carnal mindedness coinciding with movements toward instituting approximations of sharia law have something in common beyond mere timing. Whether by conscious, human design or not, they are all bent toward the trampling down of anything resembling Christian moral conservatism and its influence on both society and the individual.
Exactly how Motion M-103 will advance the fortunes of Justin Trudeau in doing what he appears to do best, photo opportunities, remains to be seen. However, at least one book has already been published positing a credible explanation for his government’s Islamicizing of Canada. M-103 could well be part of a strategy designed to secure electoral favor for the federal liberals for the balance of the twenty-first century.
The situation in Canada should be both instructive and cautionary to Americans. Multiculturalism seemed a beautiful little idea once. Perhaps in some ways, it still might be. However, no idea of this world is beyond the grasp of being co-opted for desperately wicked purposes. Prior to the Cold War, American communism packaged itself as a way to be super-patriotic and super-American. It included extravagant parades down the streets of 1930s Hollywood. Now in Canada, an implicit appeal to a grotesque, multiculturalism dogma underwrites legislation that will privilege one group of people over all others, doing so in a way comparable to what many among that group, Muslim immigrants, came to Canada to escape from.
There are those North American Christians who would prefer to not engage with these issues. One well-known American radio preacher, a man I greatly respect, has expressed severe disdain for believers who get involved in political matters, rather than focusing more exclusively on fulfilling the Great Commission to go and make disciples. Among other theological reasons for not getting involved, scripture makes it clear that all who seek to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will invariably experience persecution. Granted, but respectfully, the persecution encountered by the first Christians was a historical situation that the early church was born into. It was not the result of their apathy. Certainly many more churches need to wake up and smell the eschatology, but that doesn’t mean that Islamic domination is an inevitability. Moreover and from an evangelical perspective, indifference to political assaults on our freedoms, the drastically pro-Islamic Motion 103 being a clear example of one, could lead to the doors of the kingdom of heaven getting slammed in a lot more faces than is the perfect will of a loving and merciful God. America and Canada, do not allow your countries to go in such a plainly disastrous direction.
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.