CIC HAS MOVED to


877 Shefford Road.
Gloucester
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 8H9

Tel: (613) 680-2867
Tel: (613) 680-2871
Fax: (613) 680-2902

Privacy statement

One of human history’s most shameful chapters is the long record of genocide committed against indigenous peoples around the world.

In Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, white European settlers took their land, massacred their populations, tore them away from their religions, suppressed their languages and culture, and forbade inter- marriage with those who remained.

Native children were forcibly removed from their homes and communities to be "civilized" and raised as Christians. Those who survived the psychological trauma and physical abuse inflicted by Church and government now live in ghettos called reserves, where they are economically marginalized, politically sidelined and negatively stereotyped by the media and general public.

But on September 13, 2007 everyone who is proud to call him or herself a fully human being joined indigenous people around the world in celebration. After 22 years of intensive debate and negotiation, the United Nations Assembly approved the Declaration on Indigenous Rights. Just imagine -- 22 years of intense discussion, mainly among Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, just to say they recognized that the world’s indigenous people have rights.

"This marks a historic moment when UN member states and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all," said Michele Montas, spokeswoman for Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Yet those same four countries - Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand - took the astonishing retrograde step of voting against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration, which was also endorsed last year by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, was approved by a vote of 143 to 4, with 11 countries abstaining.

This means that genocide in a variety of forms can continue against indigenous peoples in many parts of the world.

Despite the betrayal of the four countries voting against it, the UN declaration is a landmark that sets out universal human rights standards for indigenous populations, who face discrimination, land theft, violence and deprivation in many parts of the world.

It calls on all states to prevent or redress the forced migration of indigenous peoples, the seizure of their land, or their forced integration into other cultures. It also grants indigenous groups control over their religious and cultural sites and the right to manage their own education systems, including teaching in their own languages.

"In our view, it is a stain on Canada's international reputation ...It's a slap in the face for all indigenous peoples," said Canada’s Assembly of First Nations National Chief, Phil Fontaine. He added, "It's inexplicable - for 20 years, Canada worked to secure support from the UN member states for this declaration, which Canadians helped write."

The four governments who voted "no" claim they could not support the declaration because of concerns over provisions on self-determination, land and resources rights and over giving indigenous peoples the right of veto over national legislation and state management of their resources.

One article of the declaration says that "states shall give legal recognition and protection" to lands, territories and resources traditionally "owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired" by indigenous peoples.

Another article upholds their right "to redress, by means that can include restitution or when not possible just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent."

Opponents also objected to a provision that would require states "to consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples ... to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water, or other resources."

But supporters consistently affirm that this declaration, even though it is non-binding, is just the first step on a very long and painful road to healing and reconciliation.

Thus Chief Fontaine has rightly warned that Canada's rejection of the UN declaration will only serve to intensify the anger of native groups, whose protests over substandard living conditions and land claims disrupted rail service and blocked highway traffic earlier this summer.

Opposition parties also lashed out at the Harper government for Canada’s about-face on the UN rights issue.

"By opposing this declaration the Conservative government has signaled to aboriginal Canadians that their rights aren't worth defending," said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. "The government has also dramatically weakened the leadership role Canada has long enjoyed in the global human rights movement."

Canada indeed missed a historic opportunity to be part of a landmark declaration on global human rights. For shame!

(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com)

On Aug. 28, representatives from the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh communities came together to express support for John Tory's proposal to fund faith-based schools.

While such unity among different faith-based schools is refreshing, a large part of this debate arises from the issue that funding would also be extended to Islamic schools under this proposal. And that is where many get squeamish. Assumptions and fears come into play, ranging from equating Islamic schools with stereotyped extremist male-only "madrassas" to presuming that such schools will trample on women's rights.

These stereotyped views are contrary to the reality of contemporary Islamic schools in Canada and are due to two factors: First, the true facts about Islamic schools are unknown to the general public. Second, some public figures have adopted the strategy of playing on these stereotypes in order to discredit Tory's proposal.

Here are some pertinent facts. Islamic schools are currently operating in just about every province of this country. They are publicly funded in British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec. Yes, Alberta -- despite being Prime Minister Stephen Harper's power base -- and Quebec -- despite sharing Quebec Premier Jean Charest's "safety concerns" for hijab-wearing girls on the soccer field -- both fund Islamic schools.

There is no evidence that the funding of Islamic schools in these provinces has resulted in the isolation of the Muslim community. On the contrary, girls and boys graduating from Islamic schools usually continue on to post- secondary education, and from there to a variety of key professional fields. In short, they are no less capable of making a contribution to public life than Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty was when he graduated from the Catholic school he attended.

Nor is there any evidence that women's rights are suffering. On the contrary, just as many women graduate from these schools as men, and just as many women continue on to post-secondary education and professional careers.

Another little-known fact is that the majority of the teachers at these schools are women who, through their life experiences and personal accomplishments, serve as worthy role models for their students.

An overwhelming majority of women representing the mainstream Muslim community support faith-based schools. In fact, Muslim mothers usually insist on Islamically educating their children, even though the added expense often imposes genuine strains on parents' limited budgets.

Unfortunately, many Muslim parents are unable to afford these private faith-based schools. Tory's proposal, then, promotes equality within the Muslim community; it makes a faith-based education available not only to the more affluent, but also to those who are unable to afford it.

These are the true facts about Islamic schools that one rarely hears.

What one commonly hears is discriminatory and stereotype-laden language, which is used to attack funding for religious and, especially, Islamic schools. Although all citizens have the right, and indeed the obligation, to debate the proposal to fund faith-based schools and to adopt positions on both sides of this issue, they do not have the right to use blatant fear-mongering in pursuit of their agenda.

Unfortunately, this stereotyping of Islamic schools hurts not only the Muslim community, but other faith communities, too, as it could ultimately prevent all communities from benefiting from a faith-based education.

That would be a terrible loss because faith-based schools emphasize respect for one's parents, teachers, elders and peers, as well as for the values, traditions, observances and history of the religious communities they serve. As a result, their graduates are usually more focused, disciplined and confident - an ideal recipe for producing the leaders of tomorrow.

In the mind of Dalton McGuinty, however, the enriched academic and cultural experience of a faith-based education is not worthy of recognition and funding. Fortunately, policy-makers in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec think otherwise.

Oct. 10 will provide faith-based communities with an opportunity to show that they, too, think otherwise.

(The authors are recent graduates or current students of Osgoode Hall Law School, and members of the Youth Chapter of the Canadian Islamic Congress. This article was edited for the CIC Friday Magazine.)

On October 10, 2007, Ontarians will go to the polls to vote to determine who will govern Ontario for the next four years. What is not widely known is that there is also a referendum being held on the same day that could potentially alter Ontario’s electoral system dramatically.

What we presently have is called the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) system where the candidate who gets the most votes wins and represents the constituency. Legally, it is the Member that is elected and not the Party. Officially political parties do not have legal status in the electoral system. Over the last few years, however, some steps have been taken to recognize the party system that has developed, such as listing the party affiliation of each candidate on the ballot. However, you do not have to be affiliated with a political party to run as a candidate.

The FPTP system has been heavily criticized because in many elections the majority of votes are not recognized in the government elected. Many voters as a result have no voice in our political institutions.

For example, if there were five candidates running in a riding and three got 24.99% of the vote and one candidate got 25% of the vote, the other candidate got only one vote. In this scenario 75% of the voters did not support the candidate who obtained only 25% of the vote but that individual gets to represent the constituency and all of its people. As a result of critics say that the FPTP system is not a truly democratic voting system, where all voters are equal, all votes count, election outcomes are fair, and governments actually represent the majority.

Many political scientists have called for a Proportional Representation (PR) system which takes into account every vote and determines political representation based on the percentage of the vote obtained.

This means that smaller parties who get 6% of the vote would get 6 % of the seats in the political decision making body. Even larger political parties who come second or third in a riding would have their votes counted and this normally would increase the representation of the opposition parties, taking away some of the advantage of the largest party. The result is a much more accurate reflection of the popular vote.

There have been majority governments in Ontario elected with as little as 37% of the vote and a large majority of the electorate being opposed to the elected majority government. Critics point out that this is dysfunctional and can lead to serious distortions in the political system and leave the majority of the voting public alienated and without any political representation or political voice in the governing institutions.

Critics of the PR system state that it promotes political fragmentation and encourages one-issue parties, as well as ethnic, linguistic and regional fragmentation; the results create unstable and weak coalition governments. In forming coalition governments, deal- making and the self-interest of individual parties after elections can further distort the political system. The opponents of the PR system also note that it loses the advantages of having a member represent a constituency and its peoples’ interests.

Both sides have valid arguments. All political systems have their strengths and weaknesses.

What is before the voters of Ontario in the referendum is a blended system that contains elements of both the FPTP and the PR system. The proposed new system is called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation. It would allow every voter in Ontario two votes: one for a local representative, and one for a party. Local representatives would be elected as they are now, but 39 seats would be used to ensure that each party gets the same percentage of seats as votes. This would mean that there is a member elected for each constituency but that the popular vote would be counted and 39 seats would be allocated on the basis of actual votes received.

Under the proposed MMP system you will still vote for your preferred local candidate just as you do now. In addition, you will also cast a vote for your preferred political party. The number of votes that each party wins will determine its share of the 39 at-large seats in the legislature and to make up any shortfall in seats based on the actual percentage of their vote.

If the referendum passes, the Ontario legislature will have 90 riding MPPs and 39 at-large MPPs. If after the 90 riding seats are filled, a party has fewer seats than its portion of the party vote, that party wins some of the additional 39 provincial (or at-large) seats to ensure it has its share of the total seats based on its popular vote in the at-large provincial vote. These at-large representatives are elected from provincial lists of candidates nominated by each party in advance of the election. Voters can judge these at-large candidates, as well as local candidates, and vote as they chose. This will give voters the option of voting for their preferred local candidate and also their preferred party.

A party’s percentage of the popular vote in the at-large vote would be reflected in the final election results. These individuals would be determined using a list selected, and presumably elected, by the political parties. So if the Ontario Green Party obtained 10% of the popular vote in the at-large vote it would be very unlikely that they could win any FPTP constituency elections but would still get 13 seats in the Legislature. This would give a political voice to the voters who supported them in the at-large election. A party representing 10% of the at-large voting public could potentially have substantial impact on the legislation that governs Ontario.

To quote the web site supporting MMP: "Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) will give Ontario voters the best of both worlds. You get strong local representation PLUS fair results, with parties gaining no more, and no fewer seats than they really deserve."

At the minimum MMP would increase the diversity of voices heard in our political system yet retains many of the advantages of the FPTP electoral system. However, it is up to the Ontario voters to decide. Do they keep the present FPTP system or experiment with the MMP electoral approach? If a majority of voters support MMP then that system will be implemented in four years, or 2011, the next fixed date for an Ontario election. For more information on MMP see http://voteformmp.ca.

If you want to get involved with the MMP campaign you can call toll-free 1-866-283-3MMP (667) or go online at http://voteformmp.ca/volunteer. You can also donate to the campaign to promote MMP by calling toll-free 1-866-283-3MMP (667) or go online at http://www.voteformmp.ca/donate.

The voters will decide who governs Ontario and they have one more thing to think about -- the referendum on MMP -- when they cast their ballots in the October 10th election.

(Edward C. Corrigan is a lawyer certified as a Specialist in Immigration Law and Immigration and Refugee Protection by the Law Society of Upper Canada in London, Ontario. He can be reached at corriganlaw@corrigan.ca or at (519) 439-4015. This article was edited for the CIC Friday Magazine.)

No doubt all the Canadian political parties are watching how Canadian Arabs and Muslims and their friends respond to the repeated attempt to keep pro- Palestinian activists out of the Federal Liberal Party nomination process. Their reaction will indicate whether this community is a force to be reckoned with or if it can be ignored. There are a number of examples of this campaign against pro-Palestinian activists and their supporters over the past several years.

In 2003, Carolyn Parrish, Liberal MP for Mississauga-Erindale, was targeted for defeat by pro-Israeli groups. There was a brutal nomination contest between Parrish and Steve Mahoney. Mahoney was also an MP in Mississauga whose riding, after redistribution, overlapped with Parrish’s. He chose to run against a fellow sitting Liberal MP instead of running in Mississauga- Streetsville, which also was part of his old constituency and had no incumbent running. Mahoney received strong support from pro-Israeli elements in the nomination battle.

Parrish narrowly won the nomination after a bitter battle and went on to win the riding by a wide margin in the 2004 General Election. Parrish, who was outspoken in her opposition to the Iraq war and Israel's treatment of Palestinians, was eventually kicked out of the Liberal Party caucus after she was quoted in the Globe & Mail criticizing Liberal leader Paul Martin and his staff.

Elias Hazineh, a Christian Palestinian who worked in Parrish's constituency office and served as President of the Mississauga-Erindale Liberal Riding Association, decided to run for the now-open riding. Hazineh, however, was barred from running by the Liberal Party because of his outspoken criticisms of Israel's treatment of fellow Palestinians.

With Hazineh blocked, Omar Alghabra, President of the Canadian Arab Federation, ran for the nomination with Hazineh’s support. Despite having strong community and professional credentials, Alghabra was strongly opposed by the Liberal establishment. He was not expected to win the nomination race to replace Carolyn Parrish and perhaps for that very reason was at least allowed to run. Since the Party had previously barred Elias Hazineh they could not appear to be blatantly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim and deny Alghabra the right to run.

The Liberal Party did its best to discourage Alghabra, favoring instead Charles Sousa, a bank vice-president and a personal friend of leader Paul Martin. Thanks to the support

Alghabra received from the large Arab and Muslim community, he won the nomination contest and then easily won the riding in the 2006 Federal Election. But in the process, Alghabra was attacked by Zionists and anti- Muslim elements. He was falsely accused of saying he supported turning Canada into an Islamic state. Fortunately, the Toronto Star newspaper exposed the false allegations made against him and helped counter the anti- Muslim smear campaign.

Other candidates who have expressed pro-Palestinian views have been blocked from running as Liberal candidates. Dr. Farid Ayad, a Palestinian, was strongly discouraged from running in Mississauga-Streetsville, a riding held by Pakistani Muslim Wajid Khan.

Khan was originally elected as a Liberal but then crossed the floor to join the Conservatives. Dr. Ayad eventually withdrew from the race. It was clear that he was not welcome in the Liberal Party. He is a dentist with a long history of community activism and involvement with the large Arab and Muslim community in Mississauga.

Grace Batchoun, a Palestinian activist with Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, sought a Liberal nomination in the Ahuntsic riding in Montreal held by the Bloc Québécois. Liberal Eleni Bakopanos had been defeated in the January 23, 2006 federal election. Batchoun’s supporters sent more than 600 e-mails to Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, urging the Party to accept her as a candidate. However, Dion and the Liberal Party made it clear they were not interested in Batchoun running in that riding. Dion preferred the previously defeated Liberal candidate Bakopanos who had supported him in his bid for the Liberal Party Leadership. Batchoun, despite having very strong support from the community, was discouraged and eventually dropped out of the race.

It is perhaps because Carolyn Parrish and Omar Alghabra won their nominations and their elections that pro-Israel elements in the Liberal Party are now trying to block pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab and Muslim supporters from even running for nominations.

This is what has happened to Ed Corrigan in the riding of London-Fanshawe. Corrigan, a former London City Councilor, a Certified Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration, a long time Liberal Party activist, and former president of a federal Liberal riding association, was barred from running for a Liberal nomination. He is also known for his strong support for the Palestinians and opposition to the Iraq war through his academic writings and political activism.

The Liberal Party Green Light Committee "red lighted" him over his supposed lack of support for important Party principles and lack of support for Liberal leader Stephane Dion. The principle he supposedly violated was not identified, but it clearly referred to supporting Israel. The fact that nearly 2,000 Arabs and Muslims signed up in London-Fanshawe meant that Corrigan could win the nomination since he had strong support in that community.

The other complaint raised against Corrigan was that he circulated a letter expressing concern about Dion’s participation in a celebration of Israel’s founding. The letter explained to Dion that the founding of Israel resulted in the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and posed a number of questions about human rights - questions that are very much in keeping with values that the Liberal Party claims to defend, e.g., non- discrimination, anti-racism, human rights and respecting international law etc.

The letter, dated May 14th, 2007, requested a meeting with Dion to "discuss how the organizations could work with him in support of these issues of human rights and international law." It was signed by the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Islamic Congress and 37 other organizations, including five Jewish groups. As of September 14, 2007 such a meeting has not yet been scheduled in spite of a number of follow-up calls to Dion’s office.

If the distribution of this letter signed by organizations representing Arabs, Muslims and Jews was grounds for excluding candidates from running for the Liberal Party, this is in reality an attack on all Arabs and Muslims in Canada. It is also an attack on free debate and democracy within the Liberal Party.

If Corrigan had little or no chance to win the nomination, the Liberal Party would have likely let him run. But London-Fanshawe has a large Arab and Muslim population and is a very multi-cultural riding. Ab Chahbar, another Muslim Arab candidate, was also running for the nomination in London-Fanshawe and he also was not "green lighted." After a long delay, he took the hint and dropped out of the race. In the end the nearly 2,000 Arabs and Muslims who had taken out memberships in the riding had none of their preferred candidates running for the nomination.

Two of the three women who were "green lighted" in London-Fanshawe had little or no involvement with the Arab and Muslim community. They also demonstrated little or no knowledge of the communities’ concerns yet they alone were left running for a federal Liberal nomination in a constituency where nearly 90 percent of the voting members were Arabs and Muslims. One of the women candidates, Sandy White, a social worker and former City Councilor did have good relations with the Arab and Muslim community. However, the Liberal Party establishment did not want her to win either. She was considered "divisive," no doubt because of her good relations with local Arabs and Muslims.

In the end, only 15% of the Liberal riding members in London-Fanshawe voted and the Party establishment candidate, Jackie Gauthier, a radio announcer with no political experience, won the nomination. It remains to be seen if the Liberals can win this riding from incumbent NDP Member of Parliament Irene Mathyssen.

But even a candidate hand-picked by the party leader will not necessarily have an easy ride if he/she is deemed to be anti-Israel. This was the case with Jocelyn Coulon, a political scientist and former journalist who was selected by Dion to run in the October 2007 by-election in Outremont.

Soon after his candidacy was announced in July, B'nai Brith Canada asked the Liberal Leader to remove Coulon because of his past stance on Israel. Coulon's analysis of Hamas's rise to power in the Palestinian Territories is what concerned them. In a February 2006 opinion piece, Coulon wrote that Hamas isn't just a terrorist organization, but a social and political movement that won the Palestinian elections because of its commitment to fight corruption and help people; therefore, the international community should not isolate it. In late August, Coulon retracted his previous position on Hamas at a meeting with Jewish community representatives.

The NDP at least has been open to letting Muslim, Arab and Palestinian candidates run. Jim Kafieh, a Palestinian Christian and past President of the Canadian Arab Federation, has run twice for the Ontario provincial NDP. Monia Mazigh, wife of abductee Maher Arar, ran for the federal NDP in Ottawa in 2006 on a pro-human rights, anti-security certificate platform. Mohamed Boudjenane, Executive Director of the Canadian Arab Federation, is running for the provincial NDP in Etobicoke North. In this riding, currently held by a provincial Liberal, all three major parties are running Muslims.

This is what Elias Hazineh, President of the Mississauga-Erindale Federal Liberal Riding Association had to say about the rejection of Ed Corrigan and the other candidates in a letter to Liberal leader Dion. "His [Corrigan’s] ‘sin’ apparently is his defense of the rights of the Palestinian people. My understanding is that this has been a common practice in the Liberal Party lately..."

Aside from Mr. Corrigan, Doctor Farid Ayad from Mississauga and Ms. Grace Batchoun of Montreal were also denied the opportunity to run for the Liberal Party despite their qualifications.

The problem here is much bigger than simply the nomination of one person, the implication goes far beyond the nomination rejection of Mr. Corrigan, Dr. Ayad and Ms Batchoun. Many loyal liberal supporters in the Canadian Arab and Muslim communities are bound to draw the only logical conclusion apparent from this sad episode; that pro- Palestinian candidates are not welcome and "need not apply."

There are several Arabs running for Liberal nominations in the Ottawa region, which also has a large Arab community. It remains to be seen how these individuals are treated and if the Liberal Party is open to Arabs and Muslims, including their concerns over human rights and social justice; or if it will continue to pursue an anti-democratic and discriminatory approach when it comes to candidates who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians.

If the Liberal Party is not supportive of the legitimate concerns of Canadian Arabs and Muslims, there is little reason for this growing community to vote Liberal -- and every reason for them to cast their votes elsewhere.

(Linda Belanger is founder of the Ottawa branch of the Canada-Palestine Support Network and currently edits their website at www.canpalnet-ottawa.org This article was edited and slightly abridged for the CIC Friday Magazine.)

The last of CIC’s three Ontario-Quebec fall fundraising dinners was held on Sept. 9 at RIM Park recreational centre in Waterloo and ended a successful weekend on an inspiring note, thanks to the crowd-appeal of keynote speaker Yvonne Ridley and CIC Ottawa director, Imam Dr. Zijad Delic.

However, they weren’t the only significant and memorable personalities in the room. Among the nearly 200 attending was NDP Justice Critic, MP Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh) who was thanked for his track record of being proactive on issues of social justice and for "giving more than lip service to the cause of Muslims as equal citizens."

And in an unexpected but welcome event for the local Muslim community a young woman, guided by CIC national president Dr. Mohamed Elmasry at the podium, chose this occasion to publicly recite the Shahada to affirm her acceptance of Islam. She was congratulated and encouraged by many present, including celebrated journalist and also recent revert, UK journalist- turned-peacemonger, Yvonne Ridley, who called it a "very moving moment." Her second book, the novel Ticket to Paradise, was actually written before she herself publicly recited the Shahada and became a Muslim. A poignant detail of that book is a small scrap of parchment that the leading character keeps with her at all times; inscribed on it are the life- changing words of the Shahada in both Arabic and English.

Prof. Rafiq Islam of Dalhousie University’s Engineering Faculty in Halifax also videotaped highlights of the gathering, including Yvonne Ridley’s talk, to post online for others to share.

Following an enjoyable meal of locally prepared Middle Eastern food, and before the main attraction of Sr. Yvonne’s talk on current history and its impact on Muslims worldwide, Imam Dr. Zijad Delic encouraged CIC members and guests to financially support the kind of good works that benefit all.

He noted that although CIC is "only 10 years young" as an officially registered NGO, it has accomplished "a century worth" of building understanding, good will and positive opportunities for Muslims in Canada. "Don’t think about your bills right now," he challenged listeners, assuring all that the Qur’an teaches "wealth is returned upon those who give without letting economic pressures hold them back ... Your wealth value and your face value both increase when you give."

Imam Delic’s passionate words and rich repertoire of Islamic and traditional Bosnian songs had their effect, as one by one, hands were raised to affirm donation pledges. Donors received a variety of excellent books in recognition of their generosity, including the exquisite calligraphy album, "Splendours of the Qur’an." Some also asked if any CDs featuring Imam Zijad’s splendid classically-trained baritone voice were available, but unfortunately his recording career took place some years ago in his native Bosnia and he has yet to lend his musical talent to a Canadian album. (A future project, perhaps?)

With Imam Delic having challenged and inspired people to give to the worthy cause of CIC’s work, the evening next focused on guest speaker Sr Yvonne Ridley who challenged her listeners on another level -- about what it means to be an eyewitness to history and how current history has sounded an imperative wake-up call for Muslims to unify and stand up for their faith.

Dealing directly with the painful fact of Palestine (which only days ago was officially labelled a "hostile" area by the Israeli government) she reminded everyone of a not-always-obvious truth; that Jews are not the enemies of Islam or, even more specifically, of Palestinians. The biggest threat, she stressed both during her talk and in conversation afterwards, is state-sanctioned militarism tied to the Zionist agenda and supported by American foreign policy. Zionism is not a religion or a culture, but a political ideology that stands in the way of the mutual respect many ordinary Jewish citizens would like to see.

Sr Yvonne noted that even a leading Jewish rabbi recently accused the pro- Zionist, pro-Israeli media of unjustly demonizing Muslims and Palestinians, a trend that has grown into an "industry" where numerous books and articles "tell only the Zionist side" of current and historical events.

Addressing the inevitable issue of "terrorism" and the American led "war on terror" (so-called), Sr Yvonne reiterated her frequent charge that the U.S. itself is a major proponent of terrorism through militaristic policies that reduce every issue to what best serves America’s national self-interest. It is apparently not in America’s self-interest, for example, to deal with the shameful fact that its client state, Israel, has ignored more than 70 UN sanctions against its treatment of Palestinians and Arabs. Former premier Ariel Sharon "told the UN to get lost ... and they did."

With no other resources, Palestinians -- "whose duty as an oppressed people is to resist" -- have had to do so in ways that no civilized people should have to contemplate. "It’s not rocket science," she asserted. The death of innocent people is not the goal of any legitimate cause, but "until there is equal justice for Palestine, the world will never have peace." For making such statements, Sr Yvonne has often been falsely accused in the mass media of advocating violence as a virtue.

If oppression and discrimination are serious and chronic conditions suffered by Muslims worldwide, an equally serious threat comes from much closer to home, she continued. The worldwide ummah has become internally weak, giving in to factionalism where some parts of the Islamic family are becoming so disunited "they are a threat to one another." In such a weakened state, the Muslims of Iraq, for example, became vulnerable to heightened sectarian conflict caused directly by the American invasion of their homeland. And meanwhile, the international community and neighbouring Arab world - "now run by American puppet leaders -- remain on the sidelines. "Why is only Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez coming out in public solidarity for Iran?" she asked pointedly.

Sr Yvonne has been back to Afghanistan a number of times since her much- hyped capture shortly after 9/11 (which motivated her autobiographical book, In the Hands of the Taliban) and said much disinformation has been spread about American "help" given to the people there. While 3 million children may now be able to go to school, there are not nearly enough qualified teachers; however, the media don’t report that detail.

In her wide-ranging and energetic talk, Sr Yvonne touched on many items of both challenge and hope. She urged her listeners not to be intimidated by non-issues in the media; to become informed and engaged in society; to give their children pride in their faith and history instead of succumbing entirely to pop culture; and to resist hatred and bigotry (Islamophobia) through taking a collective and proactive initiative in Canadian politics.

"Don’t get angry, get even," she said. "Work with your politicians; make sure they serve the electorate," instead of vice-versa. She also praised CIC’s grading reports done for recent elections; asserting that they do make a difference through making politicians accountable. "Organizations like the CIC cannot exist without the help of the Muslim community," she concluded. "CIC is making Muslims heard in the corridors of power."

After her talk, a long line of admirers brought copies of Ticket to Paradise for Sr Yvonne to sign. Over a hectic three-day period spent in Montreal, Toronto and Waterloo, she tirelessly autographed some 500 copies, yet took a few precious moments with each person in line to answer questions and encourage their life-journeys.

(Pauline Finch is a final-term Anglican seminary student at Huron College, UWO, and a part-time CIC office staff-person and copyeditor.)

Re: ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY -- By Dr. Elmasry

Assalamu’alaikum:

I was not sure if you would read this, or even reply to my message, but after reading your articles I feel obliged to somehow get in contact with the person behind them. I have a feeling sometimes that Islam and Democracy do have many similar values... I would love to discuss some of those values with someone who actually knows what they are talking about. If there is a way, please contact me. I'm sure we could share ideas ... I would love that.

To be called a Muslim Democrat is a good name. I shall also refer to myself as such ...

Indra Yunus

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: CANADIAN MUSLIMS DENOUNCE HARPER GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO UN DECLARATION ON ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Assalamu’alaikum Prof. Elmasry;

This position gives me an opportunity to hold my head high, both as a Muslim and as a supporter of CIC.

Baraka Allahu feekum. Ramadan Kareem

Waassalam, Jamal

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter on Gaza to PM and foreign minister

Hello Friends,

The situation in Gaza is rapidly deteriorating, and this week Israel announced new and crippling restrictions on supplies of basic necessities to the population there.

I invite you to join me in sending the letter below or a similar one, to Canada's political leaders.

Thanks, Eleanor Grant

(PS: The timing of this act on Israel's part, a few days before Yom Kippur and during the week that Jews call the "Days of Awe" - a time for humility and seeking forgiveness from others - seems to me like a particular affront (to God, I mean). This is a week when followers of the Old Testament frequently study the book of Isaiah chapter 58 - you might want to have a look at this passage. - E.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eleanor Grant

To: pm@pm.gc.ca; mina@international.gc.ca

Cc: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca; Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca; McDonough.A@parl.gc.ca; Lalonde.F@parl.gc.ca; Telegdi.A@parl.gc.ca

Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:50 PM

Subject: Gaza: A Call for Urgent Action

To the Right Honorable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister

and the Honorable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Dear Prime Minister and Foreign Minister:

Please find below an urgent appeal to the governments of the world, from the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, concerning Israel's new and illegal sanctions against the population of the Gaza Strip.

Please let me know: Will Canada use its influence with our allies and in the United Nations, to urge that Israel be ordered to stop this punitive measure? The world cannot stand by while over a million civilian people in Gaza are told to simply starve.

I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Grant

(Waterloo, Ontario)

Cc: Stephane Dion, Foreign Affairs critics, Andrew Telegdi MP

* * *

GAZA: A CALL FOR URGENT ACTION

The Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD) deplores the unanimous decision by the Israeli cabinet to impose sanctions on supplies of electricity, fuel, and other basic goods and services to the civilian population of Gaza, and calls upon the international community to prevent this crime against humanity from being carried out. Indeed, the very legal framework invoked by Israel to carry out this illegal and immoral act - declaring Gaza a "hostile entity" within a "conflict short of war" - has absolutely no standing in international law. The collective punishment of an entire civilian population, by contrast, is explicitly prohibited.

We call on the Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, to urgently convene the Security Council in order to tell the Israeli government that this step is completely unacceptable and must be rescinded.

We call on the governments of the world, and in particular the American government and the European Parliament, to censure this decision, especially in light of recent attempts to revive the diplomatic process.

We call on the world's religious leaders to condemn this blatant violation of human rights and the most fundamental assault on human life and dignity, made especially poignant as it is being implemented during the holy month of Ramadan. As Israelis, most of whom are Jews, we call upon Jewish leaders to speak out unequivocally against this offence against Jewish values on the eve of Yom Kippur.

And we call upon the peoples of the world to let their officials and leaders know of their repudiation of this cruel, illegal and immoral act - an act that stands out in its cruelty even in an already oppressive Israeli Occupation. ICAHD condemns attacks on all civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian. Violations of international law by governments affecting millions of people are, however, especially egregious and must be denounced.

And from Gush Shalom:

"With our own hands we are uniting a million and half people against us, in bitterness and hatred" says Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc). "The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are completely dependent on Israel for their most basic livelihood. This complete dependence was created, consciously and deliberately, by all governments of Israel since 1967. The state of Israel cannot now just shrug off its responsibility for the fate of the inhabitants of Gaza. The people of the Gaza Strip have already been living for a long time in terrible squalor, on the very edge of starvation. Now we push them even much deeper into hell. The state of Israel is today roughly trampling International Law, in indiscriminate collective punishments of a whole civilian population. We, too, will eventually pay the price.

This policy of force and oppression is also emptying of content the negotiations supposedly taking place with Abu Mazen and the leadership he heads, presenting him and his followers as accomplices in the terrible suffering caused to their people. There can be no peace without talking to and negotiating with the entire Palestinian people, with all its parts including the Hamas leadership, which has explicitly expressed its willingness to discuss a cease-fire and a mutual end to attacks on both sides of the Gaza border. This is the alternative to the policy of trampling force whose main proponent is Defense Minister Barak, formally leader of the Labor Party - effectively leader of the Extreme Right in Israel."