Diary Sept. 23 At Dalhousie

Last night at Dalhousie. (Full text of address at the end of the Diary)

First the financial stuff: the cost of the meeting was $ 500 for the room, $ 150 for insurance, 30 for the posters. Total $ 680. Revenue from tickets $ 280 Balance negative $ 440. At this rate I'll be in deep debt after a few more sessions. About time to consider setting up a non-profit organization. Anyone with expertise in this area please contact me at peter.march@smu.ca

The event itself went off peacefully. The Religious Studies Department from Dalhousie walked out after the presentation and before the discussion began. They were visibly angry. Not clear why ... perhaps they will write something which we can all read - and that will be very interesting.

The talk I gave went on far too long and had a generally adversarial tone - both of which I regret. I can fix the first by getting a clock to put infront of me when I'm speaking but the other is trickier, of course.

As to the second, the Tour now has two objectives. First it is a test of free speech: can the pro-sensitivity crowd stop me from speaking and/or will someone take a pot shot at me merely for expressing myself in a rational way about Islam and people who self-describe as 'Muslems'?

That's a pretty adversarial stance to take right there.

But the second point of the Tour is to air a number of arguments against Islam (the religion which takes the Koran as the word of Allah), and this means giving a series arguments which support the view that Islam is now a dangerous set of beliefs (and practices) incompatible with democratic forms of life. That is something I definitely want to argue. And the problem is that this second purpose is also inherently adversarial.

So the trick will be do deal with the issues in a rational way i.e. without indulging in the usual fallacies - arguing against the person, threatening the speaker, employing red-herrings, straw men etc.. I don't take 'being adversarial' as being itself fallacious but it might be accused of making the use of fallacies more likely. I have to try to be nicer about it. Eat supper before speaking, set my mood carefully before speaking, keep away from stress-buttons.

What I'm saying is that I'm not quite sure how to make it less adversarial, given the topic. I am opposed to religion in all its forms, Islam in particular, and I want to talk about why we should suppress it - just as we successfully suppressed the Christian religion before it. Once the audience realizes this, then clearly it seems inevitable that the mood will turn adversarial.

Text of Address Sept. 22


I want to begin with a bit of history to put the issues concerning Islam in some kind perspective.

Begin with this. The Christians have done much worse. The Christians took almost a thousand years to reach the apex of their power in 1071 or thereabouts. A thousand years and it was not easy. They had to replace all the institutions of the Roman Empire, they had to make or force everyone to become Christian and they succeeded with very few exceptions. 1095 AD is when they can fairly claim success and it is the date of the first Crusade. In 1095 they were truly at the top: they controlled government, they controlled the judiciary, they controlled education and they controlled science. They controlled, in a phrase, the public institution of the state. You control government, courts, education and science and you have the lot. You have a monopoly. I’ll come back to the idea of monopoly.

Of course, democracy, was a long way off in 1095 when the Crusaders set off and the lead up to 1095 was not without violence, burnings, torture, murder, etc.. Some people just wouldn’t become proper Christians. But what followed 1095 and lasted until 1291 is in another ball park entirely. Thousands of Crusaders (Soldiers of the Church – sound familiar?) set off on the command of the Pope (Urban II) to free the Holy Land. It was a huge mass of armed men. But they had a long way to go and on the way they had to eat. What ensued? The crusaders shambled across Europe and down its various peninsulas finding communities from which they could get their food. They chose, of course, to kill off thousands of non-Christians and take their food supplies. Literally thousands of Jews had their food taken, their villages destroyed, and then the inhabitants killed The same fate was met by many other communities branded as Christian heretics. A similar fate was met by any Muslem community which had dared to enter or to be on the border of Christendom.

So even before the Crusaders reached Palestine they had already killed thousands. Their game was terror, of course. And this is only the start of the Crusade.

When they reached Jerusalem they killed off the whole Muslem population and herded 30,000 resident Jews into a Synagogue and burned them alive. Just in Jerusalem alone 60,000 victims. Seven Crusades were to follow in the next two hundred years.

It was terror on a massive scale. The Jews, of course, were a central target. The rule was simple: “Christ killer, convert or die.” The church’s command had been obeyed.

Now think of 9/11, three thousand lives lost. -- A little perspective helps.

The Crusades or not the only period of specifically Christian violence. The Crusades are quickly followed by the period of Witch Burning 1484 – 1750. Estimates are that several hundred thousand, 80% female, were burned alive. During the same Period the Spanish Inquisition operated at its height torturing and killing thousands in the name of the Church. The tortures were terrible – far worse than having your head cut off with a knife while the cameras run.

After that there were a whole series of religious wars as the Catholics tried to exterminate the Protestants.

So the terrorists of today are nothing compared to these from the history of Xianity. If the terrorist today are Islamic then certainly this shows nothing special about Islam as a religion. In fairness of course, you could ask what had the Muslems been up to from the seventh century on and it would not be a pretty story either. The Muslems worked their way across North Africa converting or killing and a tremendous rate and ended up in Spain and were stopped only in 732 at the battle of Tours in France. But I hope the point is made. Just a foot note, I read that a number of priests have now been implicated in the Rwanda massacre of Tutsis.

So that’s my first point: Islam is not a particularly violent religion by comparison to Christianity. We should calm down on the point of Islam and violence. Abrahamic Religions do go through periods of horrific violence with the exception, of course, of Judaism. The Jews get killed, never do they do anything approaching what Islam and Christians have done.

The next historical stage is less often discussed. From the fifteenth century on Christianity goes into decline so far as its power and influence is concerned. First to go was the Christian control of the governments of Europe. The Divine Rights of Kings and the principle of the Separation of Church and State slowly eroded religious control of government ‘till the present day where we have reached the point that we wince at the use of ‘God’ by anyone in power.

From the fifteenth century on, as the Enlightenment gathers steam, the practice of Church domination of government is challenged and finally ends in the 18th century with the beheading of Louis 16th, and that’s the beginning of the Age of Revolutions.

Then there is the Ecclesisatical Courts, courts by which the church controlled much of the judiciary as well as protected the immense wealth it had in land and real-estate. Ecclesiastical Courts were effectively gone by the 17th century. Of course it has taken a long time to get religion out of our laws but the same-sex marriage bill of Paul Martin, the abortion bills of Trudeau, all signal the slow but unending progress of the ouster of Xian religion from our law.

In education the Church has gone from being the major controller of the system to the point where at this time, it is no longer a significant force. Many Catholic schools are in deep disgrace. My own university, Saint Mary’s in Halifax, has been secular for a quarter century. The Church has had its control of education wrested from it and education across Canada, and in the West generally, is now assumed to be a secular enterprise.

Finally science. From the time of Galileo in the 16th Century science has slowly and painfully separated itself from Mother Church ‘till today it stands as a massive institution as free as one could imagine it to be from all religious influence. But not completely, of course, not completely, President Bush is still trying to slow down stem-cell research!

The net effect of the last six hundred years is that the role of the Church in the public institutions of our way of life has been virtually removed. The Church is out of Government, Out of the Legal system, out of Education, out of Science.

There are two points which this history teaches:


As to the first, we first need to distinguish between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Freedom of religion is what Islam is asking for: we are talking about a theocracy, total control of the Courts under Sharia Law, total control of education, total control of science. No religion will ever get that in Canada, we fought the Church for the last six hundred years and we are not going back. What’s left of religion in Canada is freedom of worship, no more, no less. You can go to your place of worship, do your rituals etc., but you come out a just one citizen among many. Oh, that doesn’t include saying your prayers at night, comforting someone who has lost a friend or a parent, it doesn’t include a thousand private consolations. But they too are included in freedom of worship.

So, we in Canada must now accept that we do not offer freedom of religion. Islam will not be given the government, the courts, the laws, education and science. They would get that if they were given true freedom of religion – they’d fight for it. NO, we offer only freedom of worship. In Canada, and, as in the rest of the West, we will continue to suppress religion until it is banished from all our public institutions.

And, without that suppression there is no question of democracy in Canada. If we allow any religion a monopoly position in the culture, we can not have democracy: full blooded religion monopolizes the public sphere and must be suppressed. That is my second point. Democracy is inconsistent with freedom of religion and our history shows how strongly we believe that. If Islam wants to come to Canada then Islam must go through the same reform process which Luther forced through on the Catholics – and which Christ forced onto those ancient Roman’s religions. The Romans tried to kill off the Christians precisely because they were monopolistic – they worked to destroy other religions.

This suggests a deep lesson about our system. It is that the habits of mind which allow it to operate are not something you can get easily, it takes centuries. Democracy which we associate with elections and the rule of law requires much more in actual practice than just permission to vote and fair courts. Of necessity, if we want a democracy, we must accept that no religion can be in a monopoly position over government, over the courts, over education or over science. Why? Because we need freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to educate our kids so that they become independent critical thinkers, freedom to criticize the laws and the leaders, on and on - freedom of travel, and all the other freedoms which monopolistic religion would surely deny to us.

The upshot is clear: if Islam wants to operate in Canada then there has to be Canadian Reformation of Islam. She must give up a desire to take over the government, give up the idea of establishing a theocracy here. She has to give up the idea of controlling the courts with Sharia Law, she must give up the idea of controlling education and science.

What will be left for Islam in Canada? Freedom of Worship – what all the other religions have, no more. That’s what the Christians get, that’s what the Hindu’s get, that’s what the Jews and all the others get. None of them gets a monopoly of the public sphere. None of them can - if we want Canada to be a democracy.



To be practical, what then, in more detail, are the Reforms which we need from Islam if she is to fit into our democracy? Well, many things.

They must repudiate the view that women are inferior to men. Check it out by reading the Koran.
They must repudiate the view that all who leave Islam, the apostates, must be killed. Again, read the Koran.
They must give up the idea that they will make war until everyone has become a Muslim. Read the Koran.
They must repudiate the notion that Jews and Christians are to be hated. Read the Koran.
They must give up the idea that they will try to impose Sharia, or any other Islamic Law on the state. Read the Koran
They must give up the idea that unbelievers have no rights. Read the Koran.
They must give up the idea that they have the right to indulge in spousal abuse. Read the Koran.
These are the foundations of the Reform of Islam for which we Canadians must now work hard to achieve. It took our ancestors half a thousand years to suppress the Christians, it may take as long again to resist Monopoly Islam.


Next, since I have started to talk directly about the Koran I want to lay out how I think we should deal with textual disagreements with the Islamic scholars. I believe that arguing with them is virtually pointless. I suggest the following simple procedure for settling disputes about what the Koran says: we each read the Koran. Now, suppose I make claims about what’s in the Koran, you go and check my theories about what I say for yourself, and you form an opinion. Simple science.

Why must you read it yourself? Because I would argue that you can’t interpret the Koran unless you have first settled the question whether it was written as Allah’s revelation to the world, or whether it is just a book like any other, like the Da Vinci Code, or the Satanic Verses.

Because if you believe that the work really is the work of Allah through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad or directly from Allah to ‘the Prophet’, then you believe there must be a consistent interpretation of the book. There must be a TRUTH about it. Believers therefore believe that there are no contradictions and go searching for some cunning solution to the obvious contradictions.

On the other hand if you think the Koran is just a book written by a bunch of mere mortals (as I think) then when you find contradictions you just note them and pass on. You will conclude, if you read it in this spirit, that the Koran intends to speak to both the meek and violent encouraging both! Thus it has many of what are for us unacceptable orders for the faithful to kill, to suppress women, to hate Jews etc.. On the other hand it will also be found to suggest many acceptable behaviours which clearly contradict these injunctions. The book is a mess but an effective piece of propaganda which will appeal to both the angels and the devils. Each side can choose its favorite Surahs and announce them as the word of Allah, and, since they are terribly clear, each side can claim it has God on its side. The pacifist and the terrorist are both quoting the Koran.

So on any question of interpretation I argue that each person should read the book and form their opinion of anything I’ve said about Islam. That’s what I call the scientific reading of Islam. I believe it is the only proper way to treat this problem of interpretation. The other way, a way in which we treat the text as divinely inspired, that way I call the Faithful Interpretation and it leads to endless disputes and unprofitable squabbles. In short, I’m not going to argue with those who want to quote the Koran: the text is contradictory on the crucial issues and there is no profit to saying more

Let me now return to the issues of Reformation. As it stands, one can not be a good Muslem in Canada. Unreformed followers of the Koran are called upon to, for example, kill me. I do think that Muhammad would have said that I was attacking Islam and that according to his orders in the Koran I should be off’ed post-hate.

Such unreformed Islamics can not be good Muslems in Canada or if they are good Muslems then they can't be good citizens of Canada. We have the right, therefore to call for the Reform of Islam in Canada. Such reform must include, at least, a commitment to non-violence, to the equality of women, to the rights of children, to an acceptance of Jews and Christians without reservation. Let the Canadian Reform of Islam begin.


I want now to turn to the issue of free speech directly. This comes as a response to an important point made during the first lecture at SMU by MarK Mercer, namely, that we should not now contemplate the use of Criminal Code 319.1 since its use amounts to an attack on freedom of speech. I hear the objection and propose the following. I suggest the following position avoids the use of the Criminal Code 319.1 in dealing with anyone who indulges in hate propaganda – including, of course, preachers from whatever religion.

I’ll cut to the chase. Here are the fundamental ideas about free speech which I would now defend.

Proposed Basic rules re free speech:

Arrange for as much of it as possible
Free speech trumps readers and listener’s feelings.
Free speech which incites hatred should be legal.
Free speech which incites hatred likely to cause violence should be legal.
Free speech which leads to violence without inciting it should be legal.
Free speech which causes violence without inciting it should be legal.


but

Free speech which directly incites violence is not OK with the exceptions of war and self –defense (there might be other exceptions). We should prosecute such words under other, various, sections of the Criminal Code – under the provisions against sedition or sections having to do with the planning and inciting others to criminal acts.

I want to suggest that the above is a moderate but effective proposal for deciding hard cases when it comes to free speech.


Now, all the traditional arguments for free speech are ineffective, in my view. I will argue that free speech is one of the things which is fundamental to our political system so it can’t be justified and it is a big mistake to try to justify it. The point of the system is to provide a number of things and free speech just is one of them.

Of course, because the system also intends to provide truth, peace, prosperity, security etc. we are sorely tempted to spill ink showing how each of these contributes to the others but, the truth of the matter is simple. All of them are deeply, profoundly desired in their own right and none of them need supporting arguments. Maybe we could get richer if we suppressed free speech, maybe, but that’s not what we want. Thank you very much but we just don’t want a rich, closed society, we want a rich open society.

And when I say ‘desired’ I don’t mean that these are things which are morally good, all I mean is that so many of us mortals, the crowd, just do want them that we have the power to insist on them, and we won’t give them up. Heck, we’ll fight for free speech.

Mill argues that free speech has its uses and is crucial for a democracy as the only way of guaranteeing that truth will out. Well, I would reply that that’s nice but we’d want free speech even just for the joy of some good old gossip, a nice argument, words of love, religious talk, etc. Not much truth there. I don’t want to deny that free speech is somehow entangled with the search for the best solutions to political problems, I just think it all goes a hell of a lot deeper. We want it for it’s own sake. We revel in, bleed for freedom, we suffocate without chatter, and there it is. I’m sure the love of truth feeds our desire and ability to speak, but that does not justify our love of truth.

Enough already: we want free speech and that’s that. Fundamental.

On the other side you could list off the terrible problems ‘created’ by free speech. Yes indeed you could. Well, despite those problems we want it unless our life is at stake - as in times of war. At such times then, if our life is at stake, then maybe, for a while, we’ll shut up, or be shut up. But a life in the long run without free speech, no, we’ll fight for it if the long run kicks in. We won’t go without a fight on this one.

“So is it more important than life?” No, life is one of the things we desperately want too. We mustn’t get into the ‘prioritizing’ game. To explain the obvious: sometimes our most basic desires clash. If we can’t have both in the face of a Hitler, then, yes, we’ll have to risk a punch up. That just proves how much we value free-speech. Because if we ourselves can’t have life and free speech then we settle for the second best, that is, making bloody sure our kids do get both! - even though it might cost us our lives. We gamble everything in the hope of our kids getting the good life, a life in which they will enjoy both life and freedom. Our own life we think, is a worthy price.

Would I sacrifice free-speech for life? Of course, that’s what we do when we gird ourselves for war. My free speech is well sacrificed if it secures a good life for my children and yours. Don’t play priorities with fundamental values. We fight for the whole lot collectively. We fight for a way of life.


“What about other people’s feelings? Would you run rough-shod over their feelings?” Yes. Can I justify that? Yes. You see, Feelings aren’t FUNDAMENTAL and you can check that. We don’t offer our lives to spare your feelings, or even the feelings of our kids. We think that would be ‘silly’ We can’t think why we would ever choose to die to spare feelings. ‘Ornery, maybe, but give us credit, we can also be charming.

Will we sacrifice feelings to defend life and liberty? Yes we will and that tells you everything. What’s fundamental? What you are willing to die for! Are you willing to die to spare someone’s feelings? NO. Free speech trumps feelings.

This tells us that feelings have to be sacrificed all the time for more important things. Feeling aren’t even near being fundamental, not if you know us..

“Would you ride rough-shod over the self-respect of others, undermine their self-image, devalue their religion, etc. just so you get your vaunted free speech?” Ask me later.

This first. We are a social animal, yes we are. So, yes, we care for the well-being of others. Especially our kids, kids in general, and especially the weak. And you had better prioritize those because if you don’t you don’t understand us. Me, the staunch atheist, me prays on my knees for the life of my kids.

And I want them alive and free to speak their minds. So, I’m sorry, freedom it is - even if someone has adopted a religion or a way of life which my words do thus so deeply offend.

“But humiliation is worse than death!” No, you can’t get over death.

“Surely humiliation is worse than you having to keep silent, having to be sensitive, having to respect others’ feelings. Surely your silence is a small price to pay for someone’s being able to feel respected.”

No, in a democracy speech is free with very rare exceptions. Therefore everyone in a democracy must develop a thick skin and the ability to defend their ideas and reputation. For me to keep silent will only weaken their ability to live in a democracy. You get a thick skin, courage, by weathering criticism.

Ask me now. Would I ride rough-shod over whatever psychological states you care to mention? Yes. And my guess is I hold trumps: I’ve spoken for the crowd.

Well, this crowd, my crowd. Muslems at least (there may be others) have something in their holy book which says that ‘oppression’ is worse than death. Translate as ‘Losing your honor is worse than death.’ The message is clear: go out and slay your oppressors (those who would rob you of honour). Honor, now, is a psychological state and they will kill even their own to protect ‘honor’ – think of the honour killings of sisters, daughters (not all your sisters are your daughters) . So that crowd really does ‘respect’ certain feelings and cares more for honour than for life. Well, at least their men do. But not us, and it’s a difference which matters.

You make psychological states fundamental and you’d better prepare to see your young people dying. The mechanism is not far to seek. Feelings are hurt all over the place in complex societies, so if you make hurt feelings a matter of honour and honour a matter of life and death, you’ve made feelings a pretext for killing. Considering how often feelings are hurt, and then prepare for the corresponding level of violence.

The Middle East is a culture suffused with honor codes (read ‘sensitive feelings’ associated with the male ego) and it is no wonder they therefore have deeply violent societies. I think that societies which condone the killing of pregnant unwed daughters by burning them and who give as the only reason for such burnings as ‘family honor’, I think it fair to say of such societies that they are deeply violent. They are deeply violent because they make feelings (usually male ego feelings) a matter of life and death.

This then is the heart of the matter when it comes to freedom of speech in the case before us: shall we limit my speech according as it hurts feelings? To do so, I suggest, is to desire a violent society.

Again, the reasoning is this. Freedom of speech is a fundamental value in all social arrangements, to limit it by reference to feelings is to raise feelings on a par with fundamental values. Now, fundamental values are things for which we are willing to give up our life, and this means lives will then be lost in the defense of feelings.

Making feelings a fundamental value is therefore an understandable but tragic error.

It is understandable because it is natural to think that respecting each other’s feelings will produce a gentler society, a more accommodating one, one in which people are respected and treated as persons. In fact, it is a policy which invites the worst abuses of human rights and which sets the stage for violent confrontations and abuses of the weaker members of society.

So now I’ve talked a little about Christianity and Islam, I’ve suggested that Democracy was won only by suppressing Christianity and said that we need to face the same task now with Islam. The question is can we do it in under five hundred years and how many thousands of lives will be lost this time around?

And it’s not as if Muslems are unaware that their battle is, specifically, against democracy. Democracy can not be trusted to accept theocratic government, Sharia Law, the enforce Muslem education and to control scientists appropriately.

Let’s think for a moment with the Muslems. To Islam the offensive dress of Western women results from a failure of western men to make their women dress modestly and that results from ‘freedom’ of expression and that results from the host of freedoms offered under the system which we call ‘democracy’. To Islam, democracy substitutes the rule of the ‘mob’ (as an Islamic speaker said at Saint Mary’s) for the Way of Allah. The argument is repeated over and over again across a host of freedoms claimed by Westerners: our right to reject Sharia Law, our right to criticize Islam, the right to treat the Koran as just book on a par with any other. Muslims feel it is their bounden right (as per the Koran) to be violent in defense of their religion, in defense of their family honour, their own religious feelings, they claim the right to insist that their women’s obey their husbands and family, they will claim the right to censor news outlets which present materials discrediting Islam, on and on. If Islam is anything Islam is a restrictive system proposing to enforce a way of life. Democracy will certainly not be allowed to stand in the way, particularly when such a democracy would only empower those who prefer the ‘corrupt’ Western way of life.

Now, of course any individual Muslem can decline to accept this characterization of Muslems, any single Muslem has the right to look horrified and say “not me”, you’ve got me wrong. And every Muslem who says that has my grateful thanks. Muslems (people who self describe as “Muslem’) do not have to be consistent in what they say. They are welcome to say that everything in the Koran is true and then decline to accept what it says there in black and white – and which is almost certainly also contradicted by another passage. Read the Koran. I welcome such announcements. Let there be more of them.

And, of course, what I’m saying about Muslems is equally true of Christianity with the notable difference that we took away from the Christians their freedom of religion for the very reason that we must now make sure the Muslems do not get the very freedom we denied their precursors. Democracy is incompatible with state religion.

Nothing about the Jews being suppressed. No, and by-the-by, though we have persecuted Jews historically – I was alive when they were not allowed in the Waegwaltic Club – yet we have never had any reason to suppress Judaism. Yes, let it be a matter of record, Judaism has not behaved the way the Muslems and Christians have behaved. Check the history books. The record is not spotless, of course. The difference is that the Jews are a kinship group, hence do not proselytize, hence they are not likely to be expansionist.

I want now to turn to the question of practical measures by way of suppressing Islam in the very way in which we suppressed the Christians – Protestant and Catholic alike.

First, of course, we need to call for information. We need to directly address the issue of what exactly are the relevant scenarios which will play out in Canada as the Muslems become more and more influential in Canada. I’m not assuming of course that Muslems are monolithic, let alone individually consistent. But we do need to get some idea of what the problem is, if any. We certainly had our problems – it is a matter of history -with the Christians and I see no reason to think the Muslems will be any different. Reading the Koran and the New Testament and comparing, I judge that we are going to have much bigger problems with Islam than we had with Christians.

We need to study three questions (this point made by Dr. Nate Kling, former business prof at SMU) .

1) What is the ‘worst case’ scenario for the next ten years if we allow the present level of immigration and generally continue the present policies – roughly called, multiculturalism.

2) What is the best case scenario for the next ten years – considering present policy and a reasonable range of alternatives to present policies.

3) What is the most likely scenario for the next ten years.

Without a competent answers to these three questions the whole discussion will suffer from a lack of intellectual substance. I don’t know that we need a royal commission on Islam and Canada, but that does seem like the right way to go. It should examine the history of Islam, the record of assimilation of Muslems in other countries, the policies they have used, proposed, rejected, the possible immigration strategies, and so on, culminating in the best answers we can get to the three scenarios mentioned above – the good, the bad and the likely. To do very much without such a thorough study seems to me to either speak rashly or to be hiding one’s head in the sand.

How urgent is it? Very. Read the Koran. Go to Europe. Read the Koran because there you will see the statements which any young fire-brand can latch onto and justify violence. Go to Europe and encounter those who see themselves as living with a social disease much advanced over anything from which are presently suffering. The disease? The anti-democratic movement which is being spurred on by many self-described Muslems.