What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Another day, another jihad attack

Sometimes I wonder why I do not, here at W4, more meticulously record the various jihad terrorist attacks in the West. I missed one last week. Maybe one just gets bored, because the pattern is so repetitive. Maybe I'm also bored at the prospect of possibly having to argue again with liberal readers that, yes, it is about Islam. Yes, this is a pattern. Yes, the religion is the problem.

Before I try to say something a little more interesting about Michael Zehaf-Bibeau's murderous rampage in Ottawa than, "Ho-hum, another day, another Muslim terrorist attack in the West," let me just mention a few statistical points to bear in mind at all times when the Usual Suspects say the Usual Things:

--From "Not all Muslims are terrorists" it does not follow that "Not all terrorists are Muslims." Not, mind you, that I am saying that all terrorists are Muslims, especially throughout history. But even if they were, that would still be consistent with, "Not all Muslims are terrorists." What is true is that right now a disproportionate percentage of people carrying out terrorist attacks in the Western world are Muslims.

--Related: From "Most Muslims are not terrorists" we cannot infer that it is not the case that Muslims are terrorists in numbers vastly disproportionate to their representation in the population.

--From "Most Muslims are not terrorists" we cannot infer that it is not the case that a disturbingly high proportion of Muslims in the West have terrorist sympathies. See this survey, for example.

--From "Most Muslims are not terrorists" we cannot infer that a disturbingly high proportion of Muslims do not support sharia, which is not the same thing as terrorism. This survey, again, is relevant.

Okay, with that all said, what about Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who murdered Cpl. Nathan Cirillo at the war memorial in Ottawa and then went on a shooting spree in the Parliament building? One point that immediately springs to mind is that he was already being watched by the Canadian government as an extremist. The Canadian government had apparently blocked his passport so that he could not travel abroad and join ISIS.

I think we need to think about this. Is this policy somewhat backward? It seems to show a greater concern for preventing homegrown Muslim terrorists from doing harm abroad than preventing them from doing harm in the West. It also raises interesting questions about civil rights. Should it be so easy to block someone from traveling? If there was enough information to prevent him from traveling, hadn't Michael Zehaf-Bibeau broken any laws, such that he could be put behind bars and prevented from murdering people? Would it have been better to let him go abroad? Do we really want to put ourselves in the bizarre position of deliberately keeping potential terrorists in the West but without grounds to imprison them? The result of this sort of policy seems to be more potential terrorists walking about free as birds on Western streets! Unless, I suppose, they do enough of their planning in a way that investigators happen to intercept and can arrest them for. A smart loner who keeps his mouth shut about his specific plans seems to be unstoppable, legally, so why do we want him around?

It may be that there is something I am missing here, but it seems to me that we should have better policies. Perhaps our own Paul Cella's jihad sedition law suggestion would work here in either the U.S. or Canada. Someone like Zehaf-Bibeau might run afoul of that and be able to be stopped more effectively, without the civil rights concerns that would quite understandably arise from allowing anyone to be arrested for being a "religious extremist."

What do readers think?

Comments (13)


I'm glad you posted on this.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian by birth, has been particularly thoughtful about this attack:

And finally I joined Sean Hannity, and among other things I mentioned the only good news of the day: Kevin Vickers is the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, which is, most of the time, a ceremonial role - he's the fellow who wears a goofy looking hat and carries the mace into the chamber each day. But he knew enough to understand, in a split second, that the ceremonial role had turned real and to take down the western world's latest Soldier of Allah. Many more of us will need to recover that primal survival instinct in the years ahead.

The sub-title of my new book is "Don't Say You Weren't Warned". I have been writing for over a decade now about the west's wannabe jihadists, often born and raised in Canada and America and Britain and Australia and Europe, some of them converts - or "reverts", as they call them. Throughout that period, the multiculti delusionists have insisted that Islam's contribution to the diversity mosaic is no less positive than that of Poles or Italians. Now we have pure laine Quebeckers and Nigerian South Londoners converting to Islam because it's the coolest gang on the planet. And one consequence of that is that a relaxed, open capital city will descend into the same panopticon security state as Washington. I love Ottawa - I know every yard of that stretch of Wellington Street connecting Parliament and the Cenotaph: Chateau Laurier is where I always stay when in town; not so long ago I walked past the war memorial with a senior Minister of the Crown and we talked about how simple and dignified and profoundly moving it was; and during my battles with the "human rights" commissions I had the honour of testifying to the House of Commons and strolling that same Centre Block corridor that that Allahu Akbar loon rampaged down today.

That security-lite Ottawa is gone, and that is a loss. But there will be others in the years ahead. Because the price of welcoming and incubating and growing Islam in the west is, ultimately, the loss of everything else.

So what is to be done?

First of all, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Meaning, let's immediately dis-invite Islam (and yes, that means Muslims from all over the world) to the United States. We obviously have our hands full integrating and monitoring the ones we have here already.

Second, profile, profile, profile. Let's watch imams and foreigners from places that breed radicals like hawks. When these folks cry 'discrimination', we say, "that's correct, we are discriminating with our law enforcement resources and we want to watch those people who are at a higher risk for radicalization and committing terrorism than your average, run-of-the-mill street thug. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the prophet Muhammad."

Finally, while I don't support the category of "hate crimes" and think they are bad laws, perhaps other forms of social pressure should be brought to bear on Islam's supporters by concerned Christians and regular Americans who recoil from what Islam truly represents. For example, if we began to expose their Jew-hatred more effectively, perhaps we could put pressure on corporations, politicians, organizations, etc. who are currently willing to share respectable forums with these folks (like CAIR) that it is not O.K. to do so -- these people support evil beliefs and should be forced to denounce the specific verses in the Koran that speak to Jew-hatred or decent folks won't associate with them anymore.

And speaking of other recommendations, here are a few from a recent interview with Geert Wilders:

What message can you offer Americans about the threat posed by Islam and efforts to stifle freedom of speech critical of Islam?

Americans are more patriotic than Europeans. That is a good thing. Europe would be in a better shape if it were more patriotic. Americans should cherish their pride in being American. They should insist that everyone who settles in America accept its values, which are based on its Western Judeo-Christian heritage.

America should close its borders to immigration from Islamic countries. There is more than enough Islam in America already.

Freedom of speech is a very important American value. In many European countries, people criticizing Islam are prosecuted. Telling the truth about Islam is considered to be offensive, because Islam feels offended by it. But the truth can never be offensive and people should never refrain from speaking it.

America should recognize that ISIS is an offspring of Islam. What ISIS does is what Islam commands. The Koran is full of commands such as sura 47 verse 4 “When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and cause a bloodbath among them.” When Obama, John Kerry, the British Prime Minister David Cameron, and others say that “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam” they are talking politically correct nonsense.

I like how he echoes our old disinvite Islam proposal!!!

I _have_ to think that, if this guy was an open and vocal enough jihad supporter/ISIS supporter that they thought he was going to travel abroad to join them, he would be caught in the net of a jihad sedition law. So that might help. But it seems crazy just to prevent him from traveling abroad while leaving him free to roam about. Heck, it almost seems like it would be better to _let_ him travel abroad than that.

Something to keep in mind when The Usual Suspects start spouting The Usual Hemming and Hawing --

There is no more such a thing as "moderate Islam" than there is such a thing as "moderate Christianity".

A "moderate Christian" is someone who claims to be a Christian *and* who simultaneously holds that Christianity just isn't all that important to how one conducts one's life. A "moderate Christian" is someone who isn't trying to emulate Christ ... which is to say, someone who is not really a Christian.

Similarly with Islam: A "moderate Moslem" is someone who claims to be a Moslem *and* who simultaneously holds that Islam just isn't all that important to how one conducts one's life. A "moderate Moslem" is someone who isn't trying to emulate Mohammed ... which is to say, someone who is not really a Moslem.

I've (slightly) expanded the above comment as post on my little blog --
'Moderate Islam' vs 'Moderate Christianity'

The numbers from the survey are factually useful, but I think I'm still dizzy from all the spin.

Not sure I follow, MA?

I was thinking about the Canadian government's policy the day of the shooting. It occurred to me that the fear may be that (a) a semi-radicalised young Muslim goes to Syria and becomes truly radicalised and desensitised to violence by his participation in ISIL's war and then (b) tries to return to Canada on his Canadian passport without there being any legal justification for denying him entry (he's a Canadian). It might be better to keep them here where they are easy to monitor than abroad, where they are not. After all, how hard would it have been for Martin Couture-Rouleau to get back in the country had he joined ISIL? If he possessed a good passport. Foreigners are one thing; converted natives another.

It might be better to keep them here where they are easy to monitor than abroad, where they are not.

Except that didn't work this time, did it? What happened is what happened. "Monitoring" turned out to be a laughable failure and didn't stop him from murdering.


I mean that the writers seem to be doing everything in their power to figure out a way to interpret the statistics to mean virtually anything besides "Islam is inherently a bad religion". Spin in the sense of "spinning" the narrative.

Ah. I have used it as a go-to survey for several years now and hadn't really thought about that recently. Good point. But the statistics are so damning that they shine through...If anything, it shows the inherent instability even in "that nice Muslim family down the street." The second-generation immigrant son just ripe for radicalization when he suddenly decides to get serious about his religion.

"The second-generation immigrant son just ripe for radicalization when he suddenly decides to get serious about his religion."

Except, of course, that it's not "radicalization", not in the way that term is almost always meant. It is, in fact, simply "decid[ing] to get serious about his religion", which includes getting serious about emulating the life and deeds of Mohammed. It is "radicalization" in the sense of going back to the root ('radix') of Islam.

Lydia, just link to www:thereligionofpeace.com. They keep up with jihadi attacks. There have been 24,212 since the 9/11 attacks.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.