Little Mosque on the Prairie

Canadians are not known for the quality of the television they produce. Yet a Canadian sitcom set to debut on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (the CBC) next week is getting slightly more publicity than Gulf Wars I and II combined. And not just in Canada. CNN and The New York Times – among others – have given airtime and column space to “Little Mosque on the Prairie.” The title is a play on the 1970s family show, Little House on the Prairie, based on the books by Laura Ingalls Wilder. But the “prairie” in question here is a fictional town in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The series is said to focus on Canadian Muslims interacting with their non-Muslim neighbours, and all the hilarity that will naturally ensue.

While I object strongly that my taxes are used to pay for the CBC, I don’t object to the idea of this show itself. And if hilarity actually does ensue, I’ll be happy. But I’m dubious. The show’s creator, Zarqa Nawaz, a Canadian Muslim filmmaker who wears a traditional hijab, has noted “that while the classic sitcoms All in the Family and The Jeffersons dealt with bigotry and racism for the first time on American television, their success was based on the hilarious delivery of those issues, not on preaching to viewers.”

First of all, I would be willing to argue that All in the Family was indeed preachy, but that aside, Canada’s public broadcaster has had little success where sitcoms are concerned, and regularly scores low ratings against American shows that most Canadians would prefer to watch. The CBC is, however, long on preachy.

One must also take into account the CBC’s propensity for anti-American and anti-Israeli bias in its news coverage, and for increasing dhimmitude in the years since 9/11. The CBC has already hired a Muslim-Canadian consultant to “ensure it doesn’t cause unforeseen offense” with Little Mosque on the Prairie. The consultant’s job will be “to comb through the sitcom’s creative elements and suggest possible alterations.” The show has also been screened for select Muslim audiences to gauge community reactions. This seems odd, given that Nawaz has said, in many interviews, that she does not wish for Little Mosque on the Prairie to be known as a “Muslim comedy.” The show’s executive producers have stated that they hope the series will – with humour, of course – deal with “the treatment” of Muslims in Canada since 9/11. Treatment that includes a taxpayer-funded sitcom putting focus on their lives, one would do well to remember.

It is hard to believe that the CBC will buck tradition and bring forward anything truly daring or even funny, with this series. More likely, it will be a recycling of corny jokes and situations involving misunderstood Muslims and intolerant non-Muslims. I hope I’m wrong, but if I’m not, expect to see it on preachy European television channels, too.

Snap Judgements

Before jumping to conclusions, you should really watch the show. It is very funny and its humour is based squarely on the foolishness of stereotypes.

It has a white red-neck character named "Fred Tupper" and an equally outrageous muslim red-neck character named "Babar Siddiqui". By juxtaposing the two characters, the show's writers do a wonderful job of lampooning both the stereotypes of Muslims presented by the Tupper character and the stereotypes of christians presented by the Siddiqui character.

It is the biases of both extremes that are satirized by this show.

As for Rondi, if the writers of the show read her rants (uh) columns, they will no doubt find an endless source of material for their "Fred Tupper" character.


"It has a white red-neck character named "Fred Tupper" and an equally outrageous muslim red-neck character named "Babar Siddiqui" "

If I was looking for a specimen of white trash, I would choose a loony leftist rather than a "red-neck". Leftists have much in common with muslims, especially their contempt for the truth.

"It is very funny and its humour is based squarely on the foolishness of stereotypes."

Do you believe in the foolishness of crime statistics? I suggest you read the statistics about muslim crime in Western countries. See how they compare with "red-neck" crime.

Even if muslims were not so much worse than the whites, why should they be invited to Canada? What you present as anti-racist education is really propaganda for population substitution.

No offense intended

I just wanted to reassure everyone that there will be no violent repercussions for the brave civil servants of the CBC.  Judging by the promos aired over the last few weeks, there is no chance that this show will be critical of Islam or Muslims.

Indeed, as the great Mark Steyn noted, the interaction between enlightened, peace-loving Muslims and their intolerant, ignorant white neighbours will play out much like that between witty, urbane, strangely asexual gays and uptight homophobes on shows like "Will & Grace", "Three's Company" etc.

However, it is curious that CBC were not able to cast any Arabs or Persians (well-known for their tolerance and sense of humour) but rather had to cast a collection of hindus, italians, christians/atheists (black and white) and two non-obervant South Asian muslims.


So you think the CBC is anti American / anti Israeli
Therefore would you think that the FOX network ET al are anti Palestinian / anti Lebanese/anti democratic party…?
FYI…giving a fair and honest account of a news story i.e. both sides is not anti anybody – its just accurate journalism.

In Response

onecent: I agree that this type of programming always includes denigration of Whites, especially White males.


marcfrans: I agree that inter-group tensions are not the sole result of ignorance on the part of one or both. Competition for political clout, public goods and services, socio-economic status, and real estate, not to mention ethnic nepotism can cause tensions between the most understanding of groups. German Protestants and Catholics co-existed peacefully under the overall protection of a treaty, yet these neighbors were quite willing to turn on one another at the behest of foreign powers...

So far, so good...

Back in Canada for Christmas and so far the clips for the show on CBC are pretty funny:

Daughter walks in with a short shirt on, showing her navel. The father, angry and with a thick foreign accent, says, "You're not going out dressed like a protestant!". The daughter looks unimpressed, not about the shirt comment, but about the father's apparent error in English. "Dad, you mean *prostitute*." Unfazed, the father: "No, I mean, like a protestant."

This is very funny. It's a pity, however, the author of this piece does not know of "The Tournament" by the ueber-edgy Bruce MacDonald on CBC about a small hockey town, which dipped its toes Canadian multiculti with an Indian gynaecologist, with a thick accent, who wants his son to excel in hockey, as do the rest of the typical hockey dads and moms. The Indian fellow is just as "Canadian" and insane as the rest of the other parents. It was really well done and very funny. (Add an alcholic Quebecois coach, an insanely jealous mortician, a used carsalesman and we might offend everyone!)

One can justifiably say that the CBC's news programmes tilt left and the majority of the shows are a wee bit boring. But there are gems out there. Gems can't be preachy because they're just well written and funny. Let's hope the sound bites are indicative of the show as a whole...


I'll pass

Another scene has a character named Joe stumbling upon the new makeshift mosque housed in the parish hall of an Anglican church, then rushing out to call the "terrorist attack hot line" when he sees the Muslims bowing to pray, "just like on CNN."

When the liberal-minded Anglican priest later tells Joe there's nothing "sinister" about his Muslim neighbor's construction company, Joe responds with alarm: "Osama bin Laden ran a construction company, too."

Of course, a hackneyed multi-culti, pc production wouldn't be whole without a stereotypical white redneck to vilify, got to have that in the formula. Never mind that most of the murder and mayhem in the world is owned by Islam, the most intolerant entity on the face of the earth.

I'll pass, it's one more lame piece of MSM slop on the airwaves.  

Life is too short #2


@Canuck love

It would appear that you want it (life!) to be even shorter for your children and grandchildren in the future. 

I think empirical observation teaches just the opposite of what you claim.  The more we learn about each other, the more threathened we feel, and are!  This process can be observed in almost every western country with significant muslim immigration over the past quarter century, and of course it is an 'old story' in countries with longstanding muslim minorities (India, Thailand, etc...)

 True, most of us have two arms and two legs, but generally it is only westerners who can be critical about their own culture and civilisation.  You will not get very far with MOST muslims if you want "to talk" CRITICALLY about islam.  They, however, will love to talk critically about 'Canuck culture'.

You ask rethorically "how different can we really be"?  Well, for one thing, they cannot be critical of islam, i.e. no self-criticism.  And, second, I presume that you know something about 'conditions' in Canada, but I doubt that you know much about ACTUAL conditions in muslim countries.  You better take a good look at these 'conditions' in ALL muslim countries.  Then, perhaps, you will no longer ask such silly sentimental rethorical questions.


How does the Brussel journal allow such shoddy "journalism" ?!

Wow. Ms. Adamson, they call you a "journalist" ?! There was no outside consultant hired. Get your facts straight. If I, as just a normal reader of news, could have found a qoute from the show's creator to say they didn't, you for sure should've been able to find it....if in fact, you bothered to research a little for your biased article:

"Nawaz, a mother of four who's lived in Saskatchewan for 10 years, denies reports that the CBC hired a consultant to ensure the show was not in any danger of offending Muslims. In fact, she says, any process of that nature simply involved her bouncing jokes off friends.

"There was no official outside consultant," she says with a laugh. "I think that's part of what has sparked so much interest in the show - the thought that it might anger Muslims, how would they react, et cetera. But there is really nothing in the show that could offend Muslims."

That's from:

Dhimmitude?! Are you kidding me!?!? Who let's you write such garbage?! How in the world does airing only 8 episodes of a harmless comedy that just happens to have Muslims in it amount to the CBC encouraging dhimmitude?! What a wreckless statement. Which just goes to show what an irresponsible and unprofessional journalist/writer you are.

Another example of right-wing hypocrisy . It's getting quite old. *Yawn*

Intentionally unfair, or laughably ignorant?

In response to the moonbat rage below:

Rondi's statement that "The CBC has already hired a Muslim-Canadian consultant to “ensure it doesn’t cause unforeseen offense” with Little Mosque on the Prairie." is sourced directly from a Reuters article, which she link-sourced for all to see in that very line.

Because the article is social commentary, opinion supported by existing research, it is certainly reasonable to use generally credible news sources without investigating them all. In fact, it would be crippling to journalism in general if every legitimate source had to be scrutinized before use.

A charge against a journalist for quoting an other journalist is one of the two things mentioned in the title of this post: intentionally unfair, or laughably ignorant.

Take your pick.

@Flanders Fields...

"The popularity the press gained after intergation solidifyed into heavy leftness during the Viet Nam war and their biased inaccurate reporting was largely responsible for turning public opinion from supporting the war."

Actually, American public opinion was quite capable of recognizing an unnecessary war and one without end or victory, only casualties. The notion that the American military commanders could have defeated the Vietcong and North Vietnam were it not for interference and mixed messages from Washington is a fallacy. Firstly, the politicians' mistake was deploying American military personnel in Vietnam in the first place; secondly, contrary to popular belief, military commanders are usually reluctant to go to war in the first place f.e. the Wehrmacht Army generals were cautious and hesitant and regularly had to be spurred into launching offensives and engaging the enemy. Thirdly, these factors prevented an American victory:

  1. Marxism-Leninism was very widespread in Indochina due to Western colonialism and brutal Japanese occupation
  2. As a result, these occupied countries were highly nationalistic and had considerable resistance movements during the war
  3. As demonstrated by Ho Chi Minh and Mao, Marxism-Leninism and nationalism were compatible, and often resistance was spearheaded by Communist groups
  4. North Vietnam and the Vietcong received enormous amounts of materiel from China and the Eastern Bloc which neither France nor the United States were able to interdict
  5. The American forces were largely seen to be a foreign invader rather than a liberator from or ally against Communism
  6. American personnel were not experienced with either the physical country, people, or form of warfare; in contrast the British had gained valuable skills in Aden, Malaya, etc.
  7. North Vietnam could not be properly invaded and conquered by ground forces without causing war with China, and quite possibly the Soviet Union
  8. The Americans did not have the numerical strength to police every South Vietnamese person, nor were they in a position to commit genocide or democide to achieve security

Lastly, the Vietnam War was entirely unnecessary; its wholesale conversion to Communism did not alter the existing balance of power or have any significant negligible effects. In fact, the domino theory was incorrect as of 1960 because:

  1. The Sino-Soviet split pitted Beijing against Moscow for influence in East Asia, and in fact more Soviet Air Force and Air Defense units were stationed along the Sino-Soviet border than were in East-Central Europe
  2. Vietnam and China were and still remain old enemies and arguably are in a cold war with one another. They had numerous border clashes in which the Vietnamese proved superior, even though the Vietnamese were quite capable of accepting Chinese aid to fight French and American forces
  3. Vietnam's isolationist, nationalist, and anti-Chinese stance would have made its government receptive to collaboration with the US even if it was not a liberal democracy. Of course, this idea of co-operation never saw the light of day

Revisionist history is bad

You recount the revisionist history of the Viet Nam conflict which is placed forward by the press and leftist instructors in the universities. It sounds logical in looking at Viet Nam in hindsight, but it is perversion of truth. The facts were different while the war was underway and you are reciting "facts" which the leftists have advanced after the events occurred.

American opinion at the beginning of the war was almost as solidly pro-American as it had been for WWII. The primary difference being that few had any idea where Viet Nam was and some resented what they viewed as having to go to some out of the way place to rescue what the French had botched. American commanders viewed it as a place to take a stand against the spread of communism and Chinese and Russian expansionism. They were not happy with the location, but it was a matter of taking a stand there or another location in southeast Asia with equally negative characteristics. The Domino Theory was very key to the thinking and they were probably correct in seeing that a refusal to engage in Viet Nam would result in the entire area being under communist influence.

The American public was swayed by leftist activism and deceptive reporting which concentrated on the negatives of the American and South Vietnamese forces and avoided reporting details of the butchery of the northern communists. The war was basically won militarily but gains were given up at the political level. The Tet Offensive had devastated the Viet Cong in the south and it was no longer a credible military theat. The supply lines of the NVA had been disrupted until Johnson, supposedly caving to public pressure discontinued bombing of the north.

Basically, the war accomplished its objective of stemming the tide of communist expansionism in the area. Except for Laos and Cambodia, fueled by local communist regimes, the area remained free of undue communist influence.

Looks like France

France state TV channels share the same preachy politically-correct bias. That's why here many people regard the american productions as being more truly interesting and fresh.
The french police TV series, like the other state-funded dramas, always have this ideological, moralistic hidden message we're so much tired of ! Please ! Open the window !

Little Mosque on the Prairie

What's the deal with all of these comments? Is this a FOX fan blog site?

As a Canadian Tax payer, I have no problems with having a public broadcaster. I am proud that we do and I hope that CBC will get more funding by the citizens of this country. I hope that PBS does as well...
Healthy arguements and a wide range of opinions is required to make INFORMED choices.

As an infomed viewer, I have no problems with the views and programming that CBC provides.
I realize that there are many different opinions and I seek out diverse news programs
I acknowledge that CBC is not a passive cheerleader of the governments of the USA and Isreal.
I also acknowledge that CBC refers to the invasion of Iraq by the USA just as that... an invasion and a so called war on terror. Is this inaccurate?
Rondi Anderson refers to Canadian producing poor television. How did he/she come to that opinion? What facts are being referred to?
I for one... do not think that producing a comedy sitcom is somehow a sign of a great country. Does the world need another "friends" or a "leave it to beaver"?

Some posts refer to the media being liberal...
CNN! Really?
Isreal getting bad press? Well I think the government is getting accurate reports from the media that I read and watch...

These folks are obviously confused and ignorant to how the media of the USA is controlled by the current neo-cons in power. If the media had been doing their job, there never would had been the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Media and anti-Americanism

The media in general and the major networks in particular have been anti-American since before the sixties.  They have had leftist leanings since WWII (perhaps longer). They and the left in general gained power during the racial controversies of the fifties (they obtained credit for most of the changes which would have occured anyway in a slower and less confrontational manner).  The popularity the press gained after intergation solidifyed into heavy leftness during the Viet Nam war and their biased inaccurate reporting was largely responsible for turning public opinion from supporting the war.  They have been anti-American since that time, at times virilently so.


Much of the worlds opinion of the US comes from the media of the US.  I see CNN in Europe and it remains anti-American(unless there has been recent change).  In fact, I usually watch the news of European stations who are less upfront in presenting anti-American rhectoric.  Fox is a breath of fresh air, but if examined closely it is more to the left of center and rarely shows in Europe.  The world thinks they know the US because they view our media, but they see only what the media wishes for them to see.  It is just like the US in that sense as it is much the same thing as shows on the US airways.  The thing to remember is that the Europeans have no way to overcome it as their media is leftist too.  Except for BBC, most are not so openly so and just present leftist view as fact to be accepted.  Europe is educated in the same way, so the citizen in Europe really has little way to know about the US.

Ok to be abusive against 5 bil

The islamofascists believe it is ok to be offensive and even savagely violent against 5 bil non-muslims and any hint of even constructive critique of these fascists is not acceptable.  No wonder CBC is worried about "unforeseen offense". 

Jinah demanded 33% seats when muslims were only 25% in pre-1947 India. FIinally, he managed to grab the most fertile parts of India and still dumped more than 100 million muslims on the naive non-muslim Indians as not just economic/social burden but criminal burden.

Let me refer you to the islamofascist rule over India by violent
millennium long domination over the indigent culture of India as at

angry protests favoring the islamists on anti-merit action of the Govt at


Life is too short

I am Catholic and Canadian. I think Little Mosque is a brilliant idea and can't wait to see the first episode. This is exactly the type of show needed to prove that in the end we are all just humans trying to make our way through life on this earth. Every culture, religion and person needs to sit back and relax. It's just a show meant to make us all laugh. Ultimately, the more we learn about each other and what makes us tick, the less threatened each of us will be of our different ways of life. In the end we all have two eyes, two arms, two legs and love to talk. How different can we really be? How different can our Gods really be?

Preview of coming attractions

Episode one: Abdullah takes Nur, his 12 year-old daughter to the local National Health Service hospital and demands doctors perform a clitoridectomy on her. Hilarity insues.

Heads will roll?

You can be sure that if this program "insults Muslims" or "insults Mohammed," appropriate steps will be taken.

How disappointing.

How disappointing. When I first heard of this show I argued that it could do some good if Muslims and non-Muslims were mocked in equal measure. That the show is now (unsurprisingly, I suppose) being vetted exclusively by Muslim pressure groups indicates it will not do any good, and perhaps will do some harm, to communal relations in Canada.

muslim comedy show - possibly involving jokes about islam????

I haven't seen the show, but I suppose that the mocking part, regarding Muslims and especially islam won't reach very far. Mocking islam has ever since Mohammed's time been a capital crime.
So how they'll manage to turn anything regarding islam into a comedy remains a mystery to me.
Well, maybe it just depends on who's expenses you make the jokes.
Here's a nice compilation of some episodes of the prophet's life and how he dealt with people joking about him and his ideas to start with.


@ Kapitein


The anti-Israeli and anti-American bias of many journalists on both the CBC and on CNN is a long-established and easily-recognisable 'fact'.  In the case of CNN things have improved somewhat, at least on their domestic side, under the impact of growing competition from Fox Cable News.  But not in the case of the CBC, because it has been largely shielded from that competition by previous Canadian 'liberal' governments.

"Bias" does not require that EVERY news program would have to be "anti-semitic and pro-muslim". 


You asked what all this has to do with the program in question?   Well, the point was that the CBC goes out of its way to ensure that muslims "do not get offended".  At the same time it offends both Americans and Israelis almost on a daily basis.


I agree with Mr. Adamson's point that it is absurd that Muslim taxpayers are in part funding a programme that examines their relations with Canadians in a comical manner, especially in light of these relations in Canada and Europe post-9/11.

However, Mr. Adamson's ranting about the CBC seems to have little basis in fact:


"Canadians are not known for the quality of the television they produce."

Rather, Canadians are not known for the quantity or the popularity of television they produce, even though Canada is a major exporter of cultural goods. However, word is that the CBC's programming is becoming edgier, etc., like their show Intelligence, which hopefully will reach Europe.


"One must also take into account the CBC’s propensity for anti-American and anti-Israeli bias in its news coverage, and for increasing dhimmitude in the years since 9/11."

Actually, I have heard neo-conservatives argue that CNN is anti-Israeli, so either every news program is anti-Semitic and pro-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim, or it is difficult for Israel to get any good press. Secondly, what does any of this have to do with the program in question?