Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (CHPC); Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination (M-103 Hearings):
Dear Committee Members,
I am writing to express my extreme displeasure that the Committee has apparently not seen fit to hear the testimony of Major (Ret’d) Russ Cooper who has apparently submitted a 10 page document (attached) detailing his objections to, and detailed analysis of the many “false narratives” surrounding Motion M-103 and which are largely being promoted by the Liberal Government itself.
That you apparently refuse to consider his views, and those of over 200,000 Canadians who signed several related petitions and who have likewise objected to those “false narratives” in decidedly pointed terms, suggests if not proves that the Committee and the Liberal Government is generally less interested in curtailing the supposed “racism” directed at Muslims than in simply criminalizing any and all criticism of Islam itself, than in turning a blind eye to its many odious and bred-in-the-bone flaws.
I won’t repeat much of Major Cooper’s rather damning and detailed indictment of both M-103, of many of its proponents and backers, and of many Government policies and programs over the last few years – some of which apparently border on being criminally negligent if not manifestly treasonous. But one thing in particular that bears emphasizing – if not being cause for sounding the alarums all across the country – is that, as put by the late British philosopher Anthony Flew  in his review of Ibn Warraq’s Why I’m Not a Muslim, “Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state.”
And that is hardly poetic license or political hyperbole as emphasized by Major Cooper’s frequent reference to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Which, as he details, has already been used to curtail various rights and freedoms, particularly in European countries who have likewise not seen cries of “islamophobia” for what they largely are: a disingenuous if not fraudulent and politically motivated attempt to sweep the worst and quite likely intrinsic flaws of Islam under the carpet. But that characterization of Flew’s is confirmed by the document itself and by many credible jurists and philosophers  as it more or less explicitly repudiates those “equal individual rights and liberties of … a secular state” – and we still are one of those, are we not?
But to further emphasize that profound and fundamentally antithetical dichotomy between the different views on human rights held by Western democracies, on the one hand, and by theocratic – and I emphasize theocratic – Islamic states, on the other, I would like to draw your attention to a rather stark though cogent and equally damning summary of that dichotomy by an ex-Muslim, Anjuli Pandavar :
The UDHR and the CDHRI: Their Ideals and Ours
It is one of the enduring myths of the great liberal delusion that all people aspire to the same values as the values of the Enlightenment. Our ideals, flowing from the Enlightenment, include universal Human Rights and equality for all. So firmly is this ideal built into our psyche that we measure our societal worth by our insistence on pursuing this ideal without exception (barring exceptions, of course). It should not be necessary to point out that these are my ideals, too. I may further add that I hold these ideals to be superior to anything else humanity has hitherto devised.
It is, however, inescapable that Human Rights and equality for all are not ideals that all people share. What is more, significant sections of humanity are actively opposed to them. Indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ideal of equality for all human beings are so strongly opposed by so many, that no fewer than 45 states signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), adopted in 1990, expressly to challenge the universality of the UDHR, and specifically its applicability to Muslims, and to instead safeguard the pre-mediaeval and inhuman Shari’a as the framework for human relations and interactions. It is neither a slight nor an insult to say that Muslims do not hold to the UDHR as an ideal, on the contrary, it is an affirmation.
To underline a central point of hers, it is simply a “liberal delusion” that Muslims, by and large, “aspire to the same values of the Enlightenment” that undergirds the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; their “religion” – more totalitarian political ideology than religion – largely precludes that. In the face of which, to try and whitewash that dichotomy away, to ignore its many problematic consequences, to try to sweep it under the carpet with the entirely bogus and egregiously fraudulent charges of “islamophobia” and “racism” is to be derelict in your duties and obligations to Canadians and to Canada.
Surrey (Newton), BC
If you would like to write to the Heritage Committee, all the information is below.