The idea that some cultures would want to import a tradition of murder is simply false, and Muslims the world over are trying to make this clear. The idea that we have to protest this crime as "unacceptable" is ludicrous. This man committed murder. I don't see anyone defending him.
Muslims, the world over, have not been very successful in this message: fatwas, suicide bombings, jihad, honour killings and public floggings do not send a message of tolerance and peace. I understand that there are crackpots out there, of all nationalities and stripes, but we are quick to denounce them and reaffirm what we know is right (one step back, two steps forward...). This maintains perspective, and this is why I think it is important for a community to risk vulnerability and come out honestly and address its issues.
Nice in theory, but impossible in practice. It would involve getting into people's homes and interfering with the way they raise their children. What right do we have?
People do not have the right to mistreat their children either, or their wives/spouses for that matter. A man does not have the right to bed his wife against her will, and a man does not have a right to force a religious practice onto anyone. This would be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the basic laws of the land. Anybody who cannot abide by these concepts, in good faith, should not be welcome in our society.
You're absolutely correct though that it is difficult to police these issues, which are domestic issues and tend to be silent and insidious, but this is all the more reason why we must not waver on the message. It must be clear and unambiguous that these things are unacceptable, regardless of religious or cultural practice.
It's a bit arrogant and often mistaken to think that we're the champions of democracy and civil rights. I say this especially because we've seen so many violations of civil rights here recently, but also, all of the Muslim immigrants I have met have a perfect understanding of these things.
It is not arrogance, it is the objective truth. The concepts and values of democracy and civil rights were born in the west, in Europe and North America. We are among the few rare places in this world that offer freedom from religious persecution, the democratic right to vote, equality for women, the right to marry for gays, racial and religious freedom. Are these perfect? Absolutely not! Again, it is always two steps forward and one step backward. Still, we should not be cavalier about what has been achieved here, or dismiss it as 'arrogance'. And we must not be willing to give it up because we might be afraid of offending new residents to Canada that come from places in the world that do not value these things.
Your ideals are admirable, but I would argue that Canada has become a place where we need to strive for harmony in diversity. This means not assuming that our values are the same, but that our differing values come out of many diverse (and sometimes incompatible) ideals. Canada has never been a place where people immigrate to assimilate into a mold that makes us all the same.
I fundamentally disagree. Generations of people from all over the world have come here to be Canadian and enjoy the freedoms and values here. I do not believe that the spirit of multiculturalism that Canada embraces implies that Canadians must be tolerant of 'everything'. Multiculturalism is the ideal that says that *all* who are willing to respect the laws of Canada, enjoy the rights but also accept the responsibilities, are welcome here. In other words, you can practice your religion, but you cannot force it on someone else; and you can practice your religion if your doing so does not infringe on anyone else's rights. This is a fundamentally different understanding of pluralism in Canada, than the apocryphal belief that Canada will politely tolerate anything in the name of multiculturalism.
This whole discussion has nothing to do with political correctness. It is about avoiding falling into the trap of stereotyping - and there are examples of that in this very thread. It is indeed an attack on Islam (not by you, I understand), as the debate in the mass media quickly turns to discussion of banning the hijab, when instead we should be focusing on domestic violence.
I agree that the attack on Islam is unfortunate. Muslims are fairly recent newcomers to Canada, relatively speaking, and their coming here raises issues about our willingness to be tolerant and practice what we preach, so to speak. This is our challenge, and the outcome will reveal whether a multicultural society can truly exist. That said, the problem isn't one-sided. People coming to Canada must be aware of our laws, and therefore our values. If these are not acceptable then they should consider other options for immigration. If these are acceptable, then welcome!!
This again assumes that Aqsa's murder was based on religion, an idea that the vast majority of Muslims deny. All religions, as practised by people I know, are indeed compatible with a "modern, pluralist, free and democratic society".
It is difficult to paint all muslims with the same brush, as there is a great deal of cultural diversity throughout the muslim world and not all cultural groups practice the same things or believe the same things. The practices in Afghanistan or Pakistan are extremely different than those in Saudi Arabia or Algeria or Jordan, for example. I suspect, however, that there is a little denial within the community on this issue and I continue to maintain that the denouncing of violence against women is important for Muslim Canadians, as it is a reaffirmation of both Islam and Canadian values. This is not unique to Muslims, however, we must all collectively continue to denounce what is dangerous to our values as a society.
Be wary of media personalities such as Irshad Manji, who is an apologist for the Muslim community. Every community has someone like this, who gains popularity by saying the things that those outside the community want to hear. I do not know any Muslims who respect her views.
I find this to be a sad commentary.
. 
