National Post (National Edition)
The right to draw Muhammad
Re: Pamela Geller, Patriot Or Provocateur?, May 5. Those who call Pamela Geller a hate-monger miss the point entirely, since the ultimate target of her campaigns is not Islam but us. She is putting her life in peril to warn us of the totalitarianism of jihad and its utter incompatibility with free expression. Responsibility for the violent attacks at her Muhammad cartoon event was claimed by none other than the Islamic State, which declared on its official radio station the next day that “Two of the soldiers of the caliphate executed an attack on an art exhibit in Garland, Texas.… We tell America that what is coming will be even bigger and more bitter, and that you will see the soldiers of ISIS do terrible things.” So they’re telling us what’s coming and Pamela Geller’s telling us what’s coming. It’s past time we noticed. I was deeply flustered by the left’s attack on Pamela Geller as provoking the attack in Texas, by hosting a drawing contest of the prophet Muhammad. This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Right here in Canada, Ezra Levant had a human-rights violation filed against him by the head of the Islamic Council of Canada, Syed Soharwardy. What for? For reprinting the depiction of Muhammad in the Western Standard magazine.
The first article in the U.S. Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech. When the Iranian government-owned newspaper Hamshahri sponsored the second annual International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, it received much backlash from the international community. The entries involved anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and holocaust-denial illustrations. But did Jews who felt offended beyond belief board a plane to Tehran and shoot up the offices of Hamshahri like we saw at Charlie Hebdo? The answer obviously is no, because that’s what separates us from the radical Islamists. In all this trouble, I think the left are running to blame the incident on people like Pam Geller, when they forget to remember the two Muslim converts who ran into the competition wielding assault rifles, with one goal in mind: slaughter those who insult the prophet Muhammad. As a sincere Muslim, I am ashamed of the attack that occurred in Texas, but just because someone commits violence in the name of Islam does not mean that Islam teaches him to do so. Pamela Geller has every right to be afraid. Even Muslims who practice the real Islam live according to the Qur’an, and those who have studied the life of Muhammad are afraid of these violent Muslims, but instead of fighting back with the pen, we should all unite and fight these people together, not by provoking them but through teaching them and telling them what Islam actually means. she told Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat, “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” Re: Trudeau Tax Plan A Big Gamble, John Ivison, May 5. Justin Trudeau’s taking a bit off the top does not amount to being Robin Hood. As a one per center, I know that any welloff person with an accountant will see his or her income taxed by no more than one or two percentage points, a small price to pay for enhancing one’s sense of citizenship with dignity.
Having said that, I topped up my TFSA immediately, because I don’t want a government with the misguided priorities of Mr. Harper’s having a dollar of my money to spend on ambiguous foreign wars, reigniting the Cold War with grandiose new monuments in Ottawa or upping our incarceration rate. Re: Back To School, editorial, May 5. On the education side of things, it seems teachers’ unions have become quite synonymous with bad business practices, when one simply takes into ac- count a collective walkout on students and, exponentially, their parents, every time they feel they have a self-indulgent grievance. Of course, at the same time, they are vehemently purporting that striking is in the best interests of their students. It’s time to make the whole public education system an essential service. Re: A Costly, Unneeded Plan, editorial, May 4. The retirement-income security crisis is anything but “alleged.” Over 11 million Canadian workers are without a workplace pension plan. Less than a quarter of Canadian tax-filers make contributions to RRSPs. Canada’s pension crisis is undeniable.
Ontario’s proposed pension plan is at least an attempt to address this crisis, made necessary by the cowardice of the federal Conservative government in refusing to expand the Canada Pension Plan.
The ORPP is yet to be finalized and of course will assist only some Ontario workers. It is no one’s first choice and underscores the need for a pan-Canadian solution.
There is an overwhelming consensus among provincial and territorial leaders, stakeholder groups and pension experts that expanding the CPP is the most efficient, effective and affordable way to address this crisis.
The time for debate on whether “there a problem” is long past. A recent Nanos poll shows an astounding 88 per cent of Canadians support an expanded CPP. Canadians have made up their minds.