Multicult died discredited on flesh-splattered subway walls.
by Paul Fromm (pictured)
Director, Canada First Immigration Reform Committee
THE IDIOTIC immigration policies that have dominated Canada, the U.S., Britain, Holland and France for four decades lost whatever intellectual credibility they might have had as the blood, flesh and brains of 55 Londoners splattered the walls of three subway stations and a double decker bus. The four suicide bombers of 7/7 and the perpetrators of a repeat performance two weeks later where the bombs failed to go off were all Moslems and all immigrants or second generation immigrants. After four years of denial, our Prime Minister and Anne McLellan, the Minister of Public Security are now warning that Canada is not immune to terrorism, that we'd better be prepared mentally and that it's a matter of not if but when. You can only blanche at the intelligence reports they must be looking at.
It's clear they don't know whom they're looking for. CSIS has few Arabic speakers and, apparently, few human sources among the 600,000 Moslems in Canada. There's much talk of "moderate" Moslems. Where are they? Did "moderates" inform on and denounce and expose the bombers and terrorists in their midst in London? in Leeds? in Madrid? in the U.S. prior to 9/11?
Here are some preliminary conclusions:
1. Poorly screened immigration is to blame. Terrorism? It's immigration, stupid.
2. Multiculturalism is mental AIDS. This failed policy fills newcomers with a sense of entitlement, says all cultures are equal, when they're not, and tells the taxpaying host population that we need the enrichment of the foreigners.
3. Multiculturalism encourages newcomers not to assimilate and conform and encourages them in anti-Western behaviour.
4. Some cultures come, not to assimilate, but to conquer. Multiculturalism permits and encourages this. Islam is an ideology of conquest and forced conversion.
5. Any sane immigration policy must be based not on what we can give to them but on what they can do for us (not to us.) Those who feel contempt for us or our way of life must be excluded or removed. It's up to the newcomer to prove his loyalty before being given citizenship.
Terror Attacks in London: The Principals
Mohammad Sidique Khan, (who routinely used three or four spelling variations of his name) may well have been the ultimate multicultural man -- married to a "community enrichment officer," Khan divided his time between working as a "learning mentor" to the children of immigrant families at a Leeds primary school and "liaising" with ethnic youth at the government subsidized Hamara [in Arabic, it means "ours", as opposed to yours] Outreach Centre. It was there that Khan "liaised" with bombers number two and three, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain. (A week after the attacks, police and the bomb squad would evacuate "200 houses in eight streets surrounding the Hamara youth access point in Beeston, Leeds, to carry out a controlled explosion in the building." (The Guardian, July 15, 2005)
The final, and only bomber born outside the UK, was a Jamaican-born convert to Islam named Jermaine also known as Jamal Lindsay. But "police were uncertain about how he spelt his name and what or how many names he may have used." (London Times, July 15, 2005) His wife, a White girl born Samantha Lewthwaite, "was drawn to Lindsay partly because of her long-standing interest in Islam. A former school friend said that Ms Lewthwaite had been fascinated by Islam since the age of ten when she lived among Asian neighbours on a housing estate. [Here's to the crescent moon whose magic rays move the tides of the world!] She converted to Islam when she was 17, taking the name Sherafiyah, before she met Lindsay, who used the Islamic name Jamal. The couple held a wedding ceremony but Samantha's mother, Christine, is said to have refused to attend." (London Times, July 16, 2005)
Two weeks later, a whole new cast of professional layabouts and space wasters would shuffle out to centre stage: Eritrean-born Muktar Said Ibrahim, also known as Muktar Mohammed Said, who was "sentenced to five years in youth detention when he was 17 for carrying a knife during a street robbery [he was part of a street gang ironically described as one that "terrorized railway commuters"] It was unclear how he was given British citizenship with a criminal record." (New York Times, July 27, 2005) It wasn't an exchange programme with Canadian citizenship judges was it? "Ibrahim was known as a menacing, drug-smoking racist bully at Canons High School in Edgeware, North London. He attended the school between 1992 and 1996. Wayne Howard, a White former pupil of the school, claimed that Ibrahim once racially abused him to provoke a fight. 'He called me a white honky. I was furious and swore back. It was what he wanted — he punched me hard in the face and I ended up with a bad black eye. He was excluded twice for fighting,' he said. ... Residents of Curtis House in New Southgate regarded Muktar Said-Ibrahim and [Somali-born roommate and fellow failed bomber] Yasin Hassan Omar as feckless young men living aimlessly on state benefits. ... Omar was known as a shoplifter. ... Muhammad Hassan, a grocery store owner, said that he once banned Omar from his shop. 'I saw him trying to steal some food,' Mr Hassan said. 'I told him to leave and never to come back. He was always living off social benefit and paid for food and telephone top-up cards with small change.'" (London Times, July 27, 2005) Be that as it may, welfare scrounger Omar "is believed to have drawn £24,000 in housing benefit and £13,000 in income support over the past six years." (Belfast Telegraph, July 27, 2005)
The one who made it to Rome, Hamdi Issac, also known as Osman Hussain, "had more interest in basketball and blonde women than Islam. ... His former girlfriend in Italy ... remembers how he ... 'drank a lot of beer and listened to hip hop, rap and gangsta music.' ... She said she later heard that in London he had a partner whom he had 'forced to wear a veil.' Hussain has three children with his partner in London." (London Times, August 2, 2005) The explanation for Hussain/Issac's alias is that he was "born in Ethiopia [but on entering the UK] claimed he was from Somalia, said Carlo De Stefano, head of Italy's anti-terror police ... 'He changed his name ... when he arrived in London he falsely declared he was a Somali citizen to obtain the status of political refugee and economic assistance more easily.'" (The Guardian, August 1, 2005) How many thousand "undocumented Somali refugees" did Elinor Caplan put on the citizenship fast-track?
"Hamdi, who grew up in Rome and speaks fluent Italian ... in his statements to interrogators [has said] the July 21 would-be bombers decided to 'take revenge on the English' for the anti-Muslim atmosphere following the earlier attacks. 'People gave us bad looks and made fun of us in the street, even women were mocked. We decided to react." (Chicago Sun Times, August 1, 2005) When in doubt, play the race card. In fact, the giant UK pollster ICM surveyed British Moslems after the July 7 bombings and found that while 63% believed non-Moslems brought the attacks on themselves by way of racist and Islamophobic behaviour, 80% had to admit that, after the carnage, neither they, nor any member of their family, had actually experienced any hostility or abuse from Britons." Italian police arrested two of Issac's brothers along with him, but please note -- a third, Abdulhai Issac, left Italy for Canada in 1996. Naturally, we granted him status as a political refugee. From Italy!
Almost nothing is known about the last wannabe bomber, Ramzi Mohammed, apart from the fact that both he and his brother Wahbi, are in custody and police have confirmed that both are being held over the attempted bombings. Like Issac, "the two Mohammad brothers appear to have come to Britain as bogus asylum-seekers around the same time. They are thought to have used false passports, claiming that they were Somali refugees." (London Times, August 2, 2005)
With petty crime and fraudulent refugee claims so thick on the ground, it's little wonder most everyone associated with the London attacks managed to acquire an alias or two. Canadians saw this in local jihadis Ahmed Ressam and Moustaffah Kamel -- it is something that really should ring alarm bells -- maintaining the father's name for the purposes of establishing lineage is one of the central tenets of Islam (which is why women's names do not alter on marriage). Canadian cities are awash with rootless, seemingly unemployable young immigrant males. Whatever aspirational dreams fired their decision to immigrate, lack of skills or a fundamental inability to assimilate keeps them on welfare. Without prospects, they cannot hope to attract a wife, and so the powder keg of disgruntled males grows. And yet, about half the London bombers were working, middle-class husbands and fathers. It's time, for everyone's sake, to insist that newcomers demonstrate their good faith -- rather than assuming that it is we who must do so.
A Policy That's All Problems
Suddenly no one wants to "celebrate diversity" anymore. Not if it means native-born suicide bombers hooking up at government subsidized ethnic outreach centres. Question is, did the other side of the compact ever subscribe to the illusion? Multiculturalism allows people to change hemispheres (and incomes) while preserving all the familiar sights, sounds and smells of home within the dank confines of a cheese keeper.
Two millennia ago, Horace said: "They change their skies, not their souls, who run across the sea." The day after "rivers of blood" ran through London's transportation system, as media types hungry for sound bites swarmed outside Whitechapel's huge East London Mosque, a worshipper groused: "This morning I was driving to work and a woman on the radio said she'd had her headscarf pulled. I was shocked, to be honest," said Ahmed Shafi, 31, a grocery store manager. "In this day and age you don't expect that." (AP, July 8, 2005) Poor baby, on that particular day, forensic teams were moiling underground, very near his mosque, scraping human tissue into numbered collection bags.
Three days later, Amsterdam saw the trial commence against Mohammed Bouyeri, the 27-year-old "typical" second-generation immigrant who shot Theo van Gogh six times, slit his throat to the backbone and used the kitchen knife like a push-pin to impale a five-page religious screed to the corpse's chest. Mr. Bouyeri was accoutred for court in a long, black gown, Palestinian kaffiyeh and extra-large Koran. He informed the court that he recognized none but Islamic law and added: "I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same .. exactly the same." Prosecutor Frits van Straelen presented pictures from Bouyeri's home showing executions, beheadings, hangings, cutting of throats, amputations and lapidation (killings by stoning). Bouyeri told Mr. van Gogh's grieving mother, Anneke, "I can't feel for you because I think you are an infidel." She, for her part, noted Bouyeri "had the time to plan this, because for three years he was on unemployment benefits." "In western Sydney in 2000, gangs of Muslim men and youths of Lebanese descent targeted and raped White girls. One girl was called an 'Aussie pig' and told: 'I'm going to f--- you Leb style.' Critics say this is evidence of multiculturalism's failure to bring harmony and a national sense of unity." (The Australian, July 20) Critics can be so cruel.
In fact, each of these Manichaean snapshots illustrates how, once laid down, a flawed belief system does not so much mature as sour into a credo of colossal selfishness, corroding all it touches. Far from fostering a general bonhomie and expanding interest in other people and other cultures, multiculturalism's default setting narrows the focus to inculcate the kind of self-regarding obsessiveness seen in the fellow at the East London Mosque. Presented as the path of least resistance, multiculturalism must have had an irresistible appeal to weak, lazy and stupid governments, but even weak, lazy and stupid governments can re-evaluate: "Rona Fields, a Washington psychologist who has studied members of paramilitary organizations and terror groups for three decades, says ... 'The image of the victim, the selfless victim, becomes an iconic memory.' Sympathizers start to see themselves as part of a marginalized, oppressed group, developing a 'we/them mentality' that transcends their ties to their own birthplace, community or even family. Religion doesn't necessarily play a major role in the process. 'It's an ideology, not a theology.'" (Maclean's, July 19) But isn't that just an unusually cold-blooded assessment of multiculturalism itself? Where, in all this, is the built-in safety override to discourage "marginalized, oppressed groups developing a we/them mentality" from exploiting or exterminating a host society of which they know almost nothing, except that they disapprove of it? (Particularly where lying or cheating to gain entry was your first clue that straight just doesn't play here). Killing people at, or on their way to, work and raping "Aussie pigs" may be extreme examples, but it's the same impulse that settles down to draw three years -- or a lifetime's -- worth of social benefits out of a not-much-liked host society.
Islam has no patent on selfishness or callousness. These qualities are sown broadcast throughout "multicultural communities" -- a misnomer if ever there was one. They are introverted exclusionary cells divorced from mainstream culture and are the antithesis of community. These ethnic redoubts are metastasizing in Canada). Apart from physical menace and incalculable expense to the captive host society, what do such policies do to immigrants and minorities themselves? We give them an education of a kind -- the tools to acquire and sustain a grievance and entitlement mindset -- but almost nothing that would cultivate the sense that they could or should compete on a level playing field as full and equal citizens. These unwholesome multicultural policies -- with their attendant directives that deride and demolish the existing culture -- should be safely disposed of like the poison the are.
If Benedict XVI, the new pope, dares to suggest that "Europe needs a new -- certainly sceptical and humble -- acceptance of itself, if it wants to survive, [that] the ever more passionately demanded multiculturalism is often above all a renunciation of what is one's own, a fleeing from what is one's own," then surely the lapsed Catholics running Ottawa can dare a little too. They can withhold citizenship until the well-established and self-sustaining candidate shows that Canada -- the abstract notion of a new start in a generous new home -- means something more than an insurance policy or a teat. They can withhold welfare payments (as the Australians have done without calling down the wrath of UN forces) until the candidate has lived here for three years. Even petty infractions like shoplifting (as was the case with Montreal's Moustaffah Kamal, Ahmed Ressam and London bomber Yasin Hassan Omar) should be deportable offences.
Harsh? Not as harsh as scraping commuters off subway rails. Meanwhile, in "'the downtown core of Montreal and Toronto, it's actually quite difficult to get terrorism insurance simply because it's tapped out,' says David Pegues, executive vice-president of Toronto-based Aon Reed Stenhouse. 'Capacity is used up. Toronto is probably the third-highest take-up rate of terrorism insurance in the world.'" (Maclean's, July 21, 2005)
You Owe Us
It was inevitable that once Elinor Caplan granted thousands of Somalis and Afghans permanent residence on the basis that their home countries exist in permanent chaos -- everyone else would clamber on the bandwagon: The Canadian Council for Refugees is demanding a free pass for "hundreds" -- another story suggests "as many as 4,000" -- from "Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Burundi, Afghanistan, Iraq and Liberia. ... The CCR, which released a 12-page report on the issue yesterday, believes Ottawa should establish a special programme to allow people from moratorium countries [countries to which Canada has ceased deporting people because of chronic turmoil] who have been here for three years to apply for permanent residency. In 2002, after the lifting of a moratorium on removals to Algeria, the government introduced such a programme for Algerians, and 93 per cent of those who applied received landed immigrant status. ... In 2001, 2,653 refugee claims from Zimbabwe were filed, and the acceptance rate was 47 per cent. By 2004, the acceptance rate had increased to 66 per cent, though the number of claims had dropped off to just 95, after the introduction of a visa requirement for Zimbabweans to come to Canada. ... Many early Zimbabwe refugee claims were rejected because of a lack of documentary evidence about police brutality and harassment, as well as claimants' reluctance to testify." (Globe and Mail, July 21, 2005) So, according to the refugee handbook, an initial refusal is evidence that they did not receive a fair hearing (and cannot now access all the freebies that would otherwise be on offer). Note they are still in Canada. With this precedent, anyone from any basket case country will effectively be ours in perpetuity once they make landfall.
More articles by Paul Fromm
This is a feature article from the current issue, #176, of the Canadian Immigration Hotline (July/August, 2005). It represents the fruits of our research into the terror attacks in London, attacks we're assured will soon be coming to complacent, multicult Canada. A year's subscription to the Canadian Immigration Hotline (10 issues) can be obtained for $25 by sending an e-mail with your VISA and expiry date or by snail mail to CFRIC, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada.
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE