CROSS-COUNTRY CHECK-UP ON THE MASSACRE IN PARIS

Cross-country Check-Up pretends to be a call-in show that is representative of what Canadians ‘from coast to coast to coast’ think on whatever subject it chooses to talk about each weekend. It does not represent the Canadian mindset any more than a few species of fish represent what’s in the ocean, for only certain kinds of people follow what CBC Radio is up to; moreover, while many liberal Marxist types follow CBC Radio religiously, the few social conservatives who follow it are often screened out when they call in. Still, what can we glean from Cross-Country Check-Up’s call-in show about the massacre in Paris?

The show ended up being about two things: our reactions to the slaughter in Paris, and our reactions to the prospect of taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the New Year.

The host was the visible minority woman called Piya; she’s about as pro-socialism as anyone I’ve ever heard in my whole life. You could easily tell that she was not happy when doubts were raised about the screening of these 25,000 refugees that Trudeau has promised to welcome by the New Year. Piya had two guests on to help her steer the show. Thankfully, only one of the guests expressed the willfully blind opinion that, in spite of what just happened in Paris, we have little cause to fear the refugees that are about to pour into our country. The other guest just stuck to the facts. 

About these oncoming refugees, several callers stated that they want them to come over very badly and as soon as possible; basically, these ‘rose-tinted glasses’ types want whatever Trudeau wants. The quintessential caller on the refugee question was an immigrant from Egypt. She informed the listeners that it took three years for the officials to screen her before they were satisfied that she was not a threat. Obviously, this woman understood the problem and burden of screening 25,000 people from Syria in just a few weeks. Ezra Levant says that it takes about ten months to screen a prospective citizen. That may be the norm, which means that the woman’s case from Egypt is an exception to the rule. That there are exceptions to the rule leads us to believe, does it not, that at least some of these 25,000 ought to be held back for three years as well? But even the most concerning characters will not be held back for the usual ten months! The truth is, most of the screening will have nothing to do with official documents and background checks; the screening will be reduced to verbal statements and maybe promises. That is the only way we’ll get so many refugees through the door by 2016.   

About the attacks in Paris, now, what were the reactions? Some phoned in to express revulsion at the massacre and to declare sympathy for the victims; two were eye-witnesses to the horror; another one admitted that all the bloodshed going on in the world had desensitized him; three called for war; and about as many called for status quo passivism. 

The rest of the callers, about half a dozen, wanted status quo passivism as well, even though they did not say so. You can tell by their comments. Two callers virtually justified the attacks by Isis, based on the foolish notion that Muslim terrorists lash out on account of poverty; one of these callers spoke on the authority of her service to outcast folks on the Downtown East Side in Vancouver, if you can believe it! At least one caller had to remind us that Islam is peaceful. Another did not like us calling the killers ‘Muslim terrorists.’ And another caller did not like us calling the killers ‘barbarians.’ 

What do we conclude from these gleanings? The best part of the conclusion that may be drawn is that even among listeners to socialist, pacifist CBC, opposition to the refugee plan may be heard, as well as shouts for war against Isis. The worst part of the conclusion that may be drawn is that Isis sympathizers are walking amongst us, for who else would object to mass murderers being called ‘terrorists’ or ‘barbarians’? We are so tolerant and inoffensive in Canada that Isis sympathizers feel comfortable defending the name of Isis on a public, coast to coast broadcast! A nation as sinfully tolerant as we are will get its collective head chopped off by zealous followers of Allah. It’s good that some sympathizers are out of the closet enough to speak so boldly in favor of Isis barbarians, for such people can be easily traced and profiled; the bad news is that profiling, to us, is ‘impolite.’ Better to be slaughtered than to be impolite to Isis cheerleaders—that’s the Canadian way.    

Few of us follow the Bible anymore. But most Canadians would agree that we should love our neighbors, foreigners, and even our enemies. How can we do these three things at once? Well, we fail to love our neighbors as we ought if we welcome foreigners who will put our neighbors at risk. Our neighbors will indeed be at risk if this refugee plan is pushed through ‘as is.’ Some of our neighbors will be killed if Trudeau follows through on his risky campaign promise. But if we alter the refugee plan in order to protect and love our neighbors, how may we love the foreigners? We may love them by taking time to screen them properly; then the ones we let in will have a safer place to live than they could by the sham screening that is taking place. We may love them by adopting the right ones: the ones who do not follow a book that calls for jihad. We may love them by providing them safe harbor in their homeland. We may love them by killing their enemies and ours. And how may we love our enemies? We may love our enemies by dropping leaflets to them from the sky—leaflets wherein is written what they must do to avoid being overrun by a strong coalition of air force, navy, and ground troops. We may love them by dropping tracts that deconstruct the falsehoods of the Koran and that point Muslims to a better way of worship. If we end up killing our enemies, can it be said that we loved them? Yes, we can say that we loved them when we gave them a space of time to repent before we killed them. Yes, we can say that we loved them even when we killed them, because by killing them we prevent them from killing others and from suffering more anguish in hell for doing so. 

When you follow the Bible, you can love everybody and there are answers to the toughest questions. When you go by liberal philosophy, you cannot even love your loved ones in a good measure. Indeed, if you go by liberal philosophy, you end up hating your enemies by allowing them to sin more and be punished more hereafter; you end up hating your foreign neighbors by not making proper distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys among them; and, as I said, you cannot love your closest neighbors as you ought when you welcome Muslims into your country without due distinction, for obvious reasons. 

There is a good kind of discrimination: which simply means to distinguish between two things or two persons. We are foolish to the point of hazarding our lives when we refuse to discriminate between extremely dangerous Muslims and moderately dangerous Muslims and between savage, violent Islam and all other religions.