Israel ambassador's comments 'unjustified': critics

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...8/Baker_statements_080508/20080508?hub=Canada

Israeli Ambassador to Canada Alan Baker on Thursday defended comments he made to a national newspaper regarding Canada's Muslim population.

Alan Baker told The Globe and Mail he is concerned Canada's burgeoning Muslim population is shifting this country's policies in the Middle East. The Globe interview appears on the same day Israel celebrates its 60th year of independence.

Baker told CTV's Mike Duffy Live that Muslim communities have impacted foreign policy in countries like Britain, France and Scandanavia -- and that he "fears" Canada might follow.

"And I think that wouldn't gel with Canadian values of mutual respect," said Baker.

His comments have sparked criticism from the Opposition and members of Canada's Muslim community.

Bob Rae, Liberal MP and foreign affairs critic, said he doesn't agree with comments the ambassador made in the Globe.

"I think Ambassador Baker should reflect on his comments because I don't think they were either accurate or constructive," Rae told CTV News on Thursday.

Baker asks in the interview whether the growing numbers of Muslims in Canada will "absorb" themselves into Canadian society, or "push" their values and principles onto Canadians.

"And this is the gist of the problem," Baker said in the interview with the Globe.

A representative from the Canadian Arab Federation accuses Baker of trying to sew "division" and "bigotry" in Canada.

"It's up to our government to make it clear that they will not tolerate such behaviour," Khaled Mouammar, the federation's national president, told CTV's Newsnet on Thursday in Toronto.

Mouammar is calling on Baker to retract his comments and issue an apology. He also suggested that Ottawa "rebuke" the ambassador.

On Mike Duffy Live, Baker said the comments were only a small part of an otherwise long interview with the Globe about Israel's achievements over the past 60 years.

Baker told Duffy that his main concern is that he is too often greeted by Muslim activists preventing him from speaking publicly.

"My problem is with attempts to prevent me or any other pro-Israel spokesperson from being able to give our opinions or respond to questions and this is what happens to me on (university) campuses or various other places."

Baker also alleged in the Globe interview that Liberal MP for Mississauga-Erindale Omar Alghabra, a Muslim, has been "less than friendly" on his views of Israel, although he does not provide a specific example. Baker stressed he has nothing against the fact Muslims are members of the Canadian Parliament. But he said,"it worries me that the type of political influence that we're seeing in Britain, in France, might ultimately reach the Canadian political system."

Alghabra told CTV News he found Baker's comments "shocking and inappropriate."

"It's disappointing that he was speaking in generalizing terms and in a divisive way," he said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is scheduled visit Israel in June. Baker says it's an important visit because of Canada's involvement in Israel's peace process and Canadian visibility is important there.

Well last I checked, everybody was equally welcome to come and live in Canada and if many Muslims are coming here to live, then that's how it goes. What does he want us to do? Close our borders to people who are Muslim just so he can voice his side of arguments better with little opposition? Seems a tad racist to me.

"Baker told CTV's Mike Duffy Live that Muslim communities have impacted foreign policy in countries like Britain, France and Scandanavia -- and that he "fears" Canada might follow."

^ Well wtf? They're not supposed to have a say in things or have a voice at all in the countries in which they live? Should we only be listening to Israel and the Jewish community and ignore the other side of the arguments they present that might relate to Muslims in that area?

Seems to me like racism has come full circle in the Jewish community.
 
Last edited:

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
It only seems fair!

We've already changed the uniform code of the RCMP to accomodate one religious group...allowed exception to kids carrying knives as "religious symbols".... in Ontario Dalton McSmegma handed a million bucks to an Arab lobby.....so they can play soccer....

Jews have memorials and monuments and halls...seems only fair that Canada should become the Middle-East of the Mindless-West....
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
It only seems fair!

We've already changed the uniform code of the RCMP to accomodate one religious group...allowed exception to kids carrying knives as "religious symbols".... in Ontario Dalton McSmegma handed a million bucks to an Arab lobby.....so they can play soccer....

Jews have memorials and monuments and halls...seems only fair that Canada should become the Middle-East of the Mindless-West....

We have accomodated plenty of things for plenty of cultures, including the Jewish community, why should Muslims be treated any differently?

If we didn't give the support we have already given to the Jewish community and Israel, then we'd all be labeled anti-semites.... but now the Jewish community is trying to claim we shouldn't do the same for our Muslim community? Does anybody see how screwed up that sounds?

What about our giant asian community we have here in Canada? Should they be treated the same way? Should they not have a voice either? We're supposed to be about tollerance and equality (I always thought) and most, perhaps not all, people who come to Canada, come because of the intollerance in their own countries and wish to practice their religions and live their lives in peace..... but now we're supposed to pick and choose which races, religions, cultures we allow to have a voice in our country?
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Praxius

Canadians don't make those decisions my friend. Lobby groups whether Arab or Israeli or anyone with sufficient "pull" on some politicians nether-regions tell Canadians how Canada "should-be"!

Remember, "The Canadian Mosaic"....or....if you're Lebannese or come from some pitiful gawd-awful mess somewhere else in the world....why it would be down-right unfriendly if we didn't roll over and play dead!

Perhaps we could make a trade!

All native North Americans and their reservations for all the people who think they can come to Canada and begin running things the way they'd like them run in the places they left!
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
We have accomodated plenty of things for plenty of cultures, including the Jewish community, why should Muslims be treated any differently?

If we didn't give the support we have already given to the Jewish community and Israel, then we'd all be labeled anti-semites.... but now the Jewish community is trying to claim we shouldn't do the same for our Muslim community? Does anybody see how screwed up that sounds?

What about our giant asian community we have here in Canada? Should they be treated the same way? Should they not have a voice either? We're supposed to be about tollerance and equality (I always thought) and most, perhaps not all, people who come to Canada, come because of the intollerance in their own countries and wish to practice their religions and live their lives in peace..... but now we're supposed to pick and choose which races, religions, cultures we allow to have a voice in our country?

We do, as a nation, have the right to decide who may, or may not come to this country as an immigrant........on any basis we choose.

Period.

Exactly the same as if I own a house in which me and my family live, I have every right to keep out anyone I don't want let in, no explanation necessary.

It is MY damn house.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Anyone see a problem with this guy saying he is concerned that the rising muslim population stiffling discourse on Israel in the middle east,

and the immediate response being, trying to stifle response on Israel in the middle east?

He isn't a Canadian, he's the Ambassador to Canada and his job is to relay his concerns about Canada, to Canada.

He is doing his job.

That being said, it isn't like we have to (or even should) give a damn about what he says.

We are more than capable of running our own affairs, and if that lessens our relationship with Israel, then tough for Israel.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Colpy

I agree but is there any difference in allowing or dis-allowing entry compared to complicity in providing funding for people who've failed to demonstrate they're advocates of peaceful solutions to serious problems in the nations they left?

When is the "need" of a foreign national seeking refuge or asylum in Canada greater than the plethora of domestic issues that confront Canadians from native reserves to foreign nations fishing the Grand Banks to extinction?

While it's a nice idea that Canada be available to extending help to people who need it, isn't there any countervailing reasonable expectation with respect to not abandoning our principles and our traditions because these people are offended...? Because their religion says that a turban or a knife are religious symbols we accomodate their beliefs but has there been any reciprocal overture made by this community?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Colpy

I agree but is there any difference in allowing or dis-allowing entry compared to complicity in providing funding for people who've failed to demonstrate they're advocates of peaceful solutions to serious problems in the nations they left?

When is the "need" of a foreign national seeking refuge or asylum in Canada greater than the plethora of domestic issues that confront Canadians from native reserves to foreign nations fishing the Grand Banks to extinction?

While it's a nice idea that Canada be available to extending help to people who need it, isn't there any countervailing reasonable expectation with respect to not abandoning our principles and our traditions because these people are offended...? Because their religion says that a turban or a knife are religious symbols we accomodate their beliefs but has there been any reciprocal overture made by this community?

Oh I agree, Mikey.

I didn't have a serious problem with the turban thing.....I mean, Sikhs served in Allied armies in turbans, and served very well.

But the knife thing just blew me away. Sikhs carry blades because they swear to never be unarmed as part of their religion.

I immediately constituted a new spiritual reality in Canada.....the Order of the Most Sacred High Power.............and in our most revered of ceremonies, we swear a solemn and holy oath to NEVER be without an operational, loaded, cocked-and-locked Browning High Power on our person.........I mean, its only a symbol!

take THAT to the Supreme Court.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
We do, as a nation, have the right to decide who may, or may not come to this country as an immigrant........on any basis we choose.

Period.

Exactly the same as if I own a house in which me and my family live, I have every right to keep out anyone I don't want let in, no explanation necessary.

It is MY damn house.

I am aware of the various reason in which some people will be rejected from entering the country, but basing those reasons on race or religion is pathetic and to listen to some guy from another country telling us who we should and shouldn't be letting into the country just to suit his own personal racist agendas isn't any better.

Oh and the country itself is a little different then your house, as you don't have immigrants and people coming to your house trying to apply to live with you, nor should you have to deal with that.

The reality is that people come to our country for various reasons, just like any other country, and over a period of time, the culture will change and the needs of those citizens should be met. So if there are more muslims in Canada today then there was a couple of decades ago, so what? They should have every right to have their voices heard and if they want to have certain things changed in laws or society to suit them, that's the way it goes... democracy and all.

Canada is not a Jewish or Christian only country, and it is not filled with just british and french decendants, but from all over the world. Hell, I'm from Irish decent and used to be Roman Catholic..... what difference does that make on my ability to have input in this country? None.... as it should be for everyone else who lives here and is a citizen of this nation.
 
Last edited:

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
No no no Paxius

Ask a Quebecer if you have the right to put up a sign that has English in larger letters than the lawfully compelled French that's on that sign!

We make accomodations for the French language and there's little that's been more divissive in Canadian history than this very issue. How far ought one nation go in accomodating the language religion and traditions of people who come to this country and how long will it take before the nation of Canada is a mongrel nation without an identity of its own and without a sense of who and what it is to be a Canadian?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
I am aware of the various reason in which some people will be rejected from entering the country, but basing those reasons on race or religion is pathetic and to listen to some guy from another country telling us who we should and shouldn't be letting into the country just to suit his own personal racist agendas isn't any better.

Oh and the country itself is a little different then your house, as you don't have immigrants and people coming to your house trying to apply to live with you, nor should you have to deal with that.

The reality is that people come to our country for various reasons, just like any other country, and over a period of time, the culture will change and the needs of those citizens should be met. So if there are more muslims in Canada today then there was a couple of decades ago, so what? They should have every right to have their voices heard and if they want to have certain things changed in laws or society to suit them, that's the way it goes... democracy and all.

Canada is not a Jewish or Christian only country, and it is not filled with just british and french decendants, but from all over the world. Hell, I'm from Irish decent and used to be Roman Catholic..... what difference does that make on my ability to have input in this country? None.... as it should be for everyone else who lives here and is a citizen of this nation.

It is not citizens under consideration here....it is those entering to become permanent residents, then perhaps citizens.

I think we should accept a quota of refugees regardless of race, religion or whatever, and I think we should take them in from the most disadvantaged places on earth......

however, most immigrants are NOT refugees. They are economic migrants.

And, I submit, when we have so many LTTE (Tamil Tigers) supporters in Toronto that politicians are sucking up to that terrorist group, we have a problem.

When an Israeli politician can not speak at a university......we have a problem.

When a magazine is hauled before a kangaroo court at the behest of Muslims for printing the news, we have a problem.

When Chinese Canadians come out in support of China, and against Tibet, we have a problem.

Time to limit immigration to tose familiar with democracy, free speech, English common law, and constitutional rights.....and ALL immigrants should be required to pass a course on same.

We can open the fllodgates again in a couple of generations, when the people of foreign culture have been properly assimilated.........
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
No no no Paxius

Ask a Quebecer if you have the right to put up a sign that has English in larger letters than the lawfully compelled French that's on that sign!

If I'm inside Quebec perhaps... where I live, I don't have to put a lick of french of any of my signs.... and I'd know since that's my job. :p But that once again is an example of one part of society being accomidated.... all I'm saying is if you're going to accomidate one or two, you're better off if you accomidate all.... or none at all.

We make accomodations for the French language and there's little that's been more divissive in Canadian history than this very issue. How far ought one nation go in accomodating the language religion and traditions of people who come to this country and how long will it take before the nation of Canada is a mongrel nation without an identity of its own and without a sense of who and what it is to be a Canadian?

If you do not know what it means to be a Canadian, or confused about that, then I don't know what to tell you. I personally know what it means to be Canadian, I know the current identity of the country as well as my own identity.... I think you're trying to compare how we identify ourselves to how other countries identify themselves.... and that's just no way to identify ourselves, esspecially in this day in age of global diversity.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
It is not citizens under consideration here....it is those entering to become permanent residents, then perhaps citizens.

I think we should accept a quota of refugees regardless of race, religion or whatever, and I think we should take them in from the most disadvantaged places on earth......

Fair enough. Those who are not citizens shouldn't have a say in what the country does... they, to me, are guests in the country.

however, most immigrants are NOT refugees. They are economic migrants.

Such as my GF from Australia.

And, I submit, when we have so many LTTE (Tamil Tigers) supporters in Toronto that politicians are sucking up to that terrorist group, we have a problem.

Indeed we do.

When an Israeli politician can not speak at a university......we have a problem.

Well what about buddy down in the US University who got Tasered during a Kerry conference? "DON'T TAZE ME BRO!" ~ That happens everywhere by every race, gender or religion.

It's freedom of speech and when someone says something that offends me or that I disagree with, then I have that right to speak up. We don't know what exactly occured during that time he was at the university when he couldn't speak or was continually interupted... but even if that was the case, the students or people in question should have been addressed by the university's faculty.

When a magazine is hauled before a kangaroo court at the behest of Muslims for printing the news, we have a problem.

We get this all the time when someone says something about the Jewish community, their faith or any other one out there.... Question the Holocaust? Look out!.... when people get offended, they love to throw their arms up in the air and ask for punnishment for offending them because it's the end of the world or whatever now that they heard or seen this. Why should Muslims be treated any differently when they are offended and act the same way?

When Chinese Canadians come out in support of China, and against Tibet, we have a problem.

Why? Because they are speaking their minds and expressing their opinions? That's their right being a Canadian. Just because they're voicing something that you do not agree with, doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make you wrong.... those are differences and not everyone is going to agree.

When it comes to the Tibet situation, I imagine my views differ from your own.... but I'm not from China, so are my views worth more then their own? Or yours?

I personally feel that both sides of the Tibet issue are both right and both wrong in their own ways. But that's a different subject.

Time to limit immigration to tose familiar with democracy, free speech, English common law, and constitutional rights.....and ALL immigrants should be required to pass a course on same.
True, and I agree.

We can open the fllodgates again in a couple of generations, when the people of foreign culture have been properly assimilated.........

I disagree with assimilation, but I do agree that if someone wants to live in a paticular country they should abide by that country's ways..... or else, why the hell are you going there in the first place? If you don't like the government of China and how people live there, why would you bother to move there to live? If and when you land in that country and become a citizen of that nation, if you feel something should be changed, then you still have that right to seek change. Attempting to keep something the same forever will only destroy that thing in the long run. Like everything and everyone, we all need to evolve, adapt and adjust to the times.

The more cultures and beliefs mix, the more change will occur, the more we then have to adapt. I feel most people don't like mixing cultures, religions and races together in a country or area of the planet because then you have all kinds of different views, opinions, voices, etc... it makes things more complicated when you have to set guidlines for all to follow in that area..... but it is also required. Telling a mixed group of people that they have to abide to this one groups way of life, will only make it much more complicated.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Canada embraces multiculturalism. Canadian policy is not to assimilate immigrants.

http://www.mta.ca/about_canada/multi/index.htm#policy

We want immigrants to keep their cultures and languages... while learning ours. That means Canada and Canadians have to be flexible.

A symbolic dagger which isn't even sharp enough to open a letter isn't any more of a weapon than a cross. (You could stab someone with a cross too.) Allowing a Sikh RCMP officer to wear a turban rather than a stetsen was reasonable as long as the officer could be easily identified. (The official RCMP logo/badge is in the middle of turban in plain sight). Canada would have a hard time infiltrating the Sikh community without using undercover Sikh RCMP officers (as discovered during the Air India bombing investigation).

Accomodating other cultures and languages rather than assimilation is the Canadian way. If you don't like it, well you can leave Canada and move to a more intolerant country.

I agree with P. The Israeli ambassador saying Canada should block to reduce the numbers of Muslims coming to Canada is racist. But that's consistent with Israel's racist attitudes. Israeli's immigration policies are racist. For example Israeli Arabs have to leave Israel to be with their spouses if their spouses aren't Jewish (unlikely) or already Israeli (limited). Only Jews can immigrate to Israel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Praxius

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
The only problem I have with the Kirpan is the special treatment they get.

Other religions have requirements they are forbidden from carrying out if it breaks Canadian law.

Our country gives freedom of religion within the limits of the law, changing the law to fit one particular religion is racist.

If we are going to rewrite laws to allow for religious practices, we should rewrite them to allow ALL religious practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Praxius

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The Kirpan can be symbolic. In that context, I don't have a problem with it. If Sikh's want to observe their relgious need to always be ready to defend themselves, they can take up some form of unarmed combat training, like Karate for example. But a stylized dagger isn't a weapon. Its a religious symbol and I fully support the right of all devout to overtly display their religious symbols. That includes Burkas, crosses, Star of David, Buddha statues, inverted demonic pentagrams...



Whatever...


The Kirpan hasn't gotten special treatment. Its should get the same treatment as a cross.

Personally, I judge the different cultures by their food.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
If a child brought in a cross that was sharp edged or big enough to wield as a hammer, it would be banned.

So in that regards, the Kirpan is getting special treatment.

The laws are altered for one group, but not others (such as Rastafarianism)