...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

Beheading on a Greyhound: File this one under “Bus Rides from Hell”—a passenger was murdered and decapitated by another passenger en route from Winnipeg to Edmonton. From Canadian Press via the Edmonton Sun:

WINNIPEG — Police said Thursday they didn’t know what prompted a passenger on a Greyhound bus heading to Winnipeg to viciously attack the man sitting next to him.

Passengers said the man repeatedly stabbed his seat-mate before beheading him and carrying the victim’s head around the bus.

RCMP Staff Sgt. Steve Colwell wouldn’t confirm those details, but did say a 40-year-old suspect was in RCMP custody and police were planning to interview him.

No charges were immediately laid.

Colwell said the behaviour of the passengers and driver probably prevented anyone else from being hurt.

“It’s not something that happens regularly on a bus,” he said. “You’re sitting there enjoying your trip and then all of a sudden somebody gets stabbed. I imagine it would be pretty traumatic ... the way they acted was extraordinary.”

Colwell said they “were very brave. They reacted swiftly, calmly in exiting the bus and as a result nobody else was injured.”

Shocked passengers described the horrific attack as something incomprehensible.

One moment, the quiet man near the back of the bus was minding his own business. The man hadn’t talked to anyone around him, and seemed to pay no attention to the younger fellow sitting next to him, who was listening to music on headphones.

The next moment, witnesses said, the older man stood up, still quiet, and repeatedly stabbed, then beheaded his younger victim.

“We heard this blood-curdling scream and turned around, and the guy was standing up, stabbing this guy repeatedly, like 40 or 50 times,” Garnet Caton said Thursday from a hotel in Brandon, Man., where he and other passengers had been taken to rest.

“There was no rage or anything. He was like a robot, stabbing the guy.”

Caton said the bus stopped and everyone scrambled to get out while the attacker started methodically carving up the victim’s body, not paying attention to anyone else.

Caton and the driver shut the bus door from the outside while they waited for police to arrive.

“We put our bodies up against the door, waiting for him to come out ... and he went back and brought the head to the front and pretty much displayed it ... and dropped it on the ground in front of us,” Caton said.

“All very calmly. He was wearing sunglasses. It was no big deal to him.”

Fellow passenger Cody Olmstead from Kentville, N.S., also recalled the chilling scene.

“The guy came to the front of the door with buddy’s head in his hands, decapitated. He dropped the head and went back and started cutting the body back up,” Olmstead said.

When police arrived, the victim and his attacker were the only ones left on the bus, Colwell said.

“When attempts were made to have him exit and surrender to police were unsuccessful, additional resources including the RCMP emergency response team and negotiator team were called in to assist.”

The man eventually tried to flee by breaking a bus window and jumping out, Colwell said.

“He was immediately subdued and arrested without incident and is currently in RCMP custody.”

Both Olmstead and Caton said the attacker and the victim appeared not to know each other.

They said the attacker boarded the bus in Brandon Wednesday night. The victim, who Caton said appeared to be about 19, had been on the bus since Edmonton.

Police would not confirm the victim’s age and said his name would not be released until his family had been notified. The suspect’s name wasn’t released either.

Federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said the full weight of the law must be brought to bear on the perpetrator.

“We want to make sure the process is followed as aggressively as possible, the full legal process ....” Day said from Levis, Que., where Conservative MPs are gathered for a summer planning session.

“This particular incident, as horrific as it is, is obviously extremely rare. Certainly the horrific nature of it is probably one-of-a-kind in Canadian history.”

Greyhound called the event tragic but isolated…

Well, I would certainly hope so.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:04 | link | comments (2)

And then there were two (maybe): This one gets two flashing alarms from Ezra Levant, so you know it’s a biggie—B’Nai Brith Canada is calling for a major overhaul of the country’s HRCs:

…The B'nai Brith, historically one of the most partisan supporters of Canada's human rights commissions, has made a dramatic break from the human rights industry, "urgently" calling for a "major overhaul" of Canada's human rights commissions. You can read the full text of their press release on the subject here.

The B'nai Brith is Canada's oldest and largest Jewish service club, dating back to 1875.

Frank Dimant, the Executive Vice-President of BB, said "we have to ensure that commissions do not become abusers of the very human rights they are charged with protecting" -- a clear shot at the HRCs' continuous violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well as their well-documented procedural abuses and corruption. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, is now under four different investigations, including by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

David Matas, BB's senior legal counsel, was also quoted in their press release, pointing to several illegal and abusive traits of HRCs, including that the same complaints can be filed with multiple HRCs, as was done by the anti-Semitic Canadian Islamic Congress in their complaints against Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn. According to Matas, "Commissions cannot become avenues of harassment in which complaints are simultaneously made in several jurisdictions. The remedy is to introduce rules that will allow for one jurisdiction only."

Matas also suggested deep re-education for the HRCs' corrupt censors, accusing them of ignorance and anachronism. “The remedy for ignorance is education and training. Investigators must be required to undertake compulsory in-house courses that meet these needs. They must always be able to distinguish between hate and protected political speech," he added. That's a pretty clear shot at political censors like Richard Warman and Dean Steacy, the latter of whom actually testified that free speech is not a Canadian value -- despite its entrenchment as a "fundamental freedom" in our Charter of Rights, our Bill of Rights, and our inherited unwritten U.K. constitutional corpus. 

Finally, Matas called for costs to be awarded against clear nuisance litigants, like the CIC and the Jew-bashing imam Syed Soharwardy, who simply walked away from his Alberta HRC complaint about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, after saddling taxpayers with $500,000 in costs, and me with nearly $100,000 in costs (another, identical complaint, continues against me.)

Matas said: “Costs must be levied against those whose clear aim is to abuse the system by launching attacks designed to harass bona fide respondents. This would be a deterrent against those who deliberately seek to hijack and corrupt the human rights system in pursuit of their own ideological bent.”

Again, you can see the entire release here.

This is enormous, because it ends the false unanimity amongst Canada's "Official Jews" in support of HRCs. As I've written here, most real Jews are not for censorship; it's just the personal obsession of a few "Professional Jews", like Bernie "Burny" Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Leo Adler of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

It's not surprising to me that B'nai Brith was the first to bolt the troika of Jewish groups that has turned a blind eye to the HRCs' corruption...

No surprise to me, either. However, I’m not quite as excited about the whole thing as Ezra is, and left the following comment on his blog:

I agree that BB's "breaking ranks" is big news, and could see it coming based on Frank Dimant's blog post of a couple days ago. Unfortunately, I also see this as a case of BB's wanting to have its cake and eat it too, or, as it was expressed in a CJC newsletter, of not wanting to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

As I wrote re the CJC cliché: The baby's a killer. The bathwater's toxic. THROW THEM BOTH OUT!

So, yes, this is a positive sign and a good first step. However, BB has still to be struck by the epiphany that you can't "fix" something that is inimical to democracy and rotten to the core. It should have learnt that lesson from the UN's "human rights" apparatus, which, despite a major overhaul, is worse than ever, and being used to batter Israel and the interests of the Western world.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:18 | link | comments

“Revirginization surgery”: Yes, that’s really how some plastic surgery clinics refer to hymenoplasty, the procedure which restores a woman to her previously intact condition (so her hubby and his kin, who prize her virginity above almost everything else, won’t be disappointed by the absence of blood on the couple's wedding night).

I got the idea to google “hymenoplasty toronto” from this article in the Toronto Star. The piece is an attempt to normalize the surgery—which really amounts to a doctor colluding in a scam and performing a completely unnecessary procedure— by making it sound as unremarkable as a nose job:

Twenty-five years ago, a young professional couple in Toronto visited a plastic surgeon's office with an unusual request.

She wanted her virginity back.

The pair, born in Iran but raised in Canada, dated through university. She was a lawyer, he, a doctor. They talked often about marriage but a letter from a college in the United States threw a wrench in their plans. He wanted to pursue a medical specialty and that letter was his ticket. She couldn't dream of leaving the rest of her life behind to follow him to Baltimore.

They agreed to part ways but not before she persuaded him to pay for her revirginization.

Since that day, Dr. Robert Stubbs, a Toronto-based plastic surgeon, has performed the operation on hundreds of other women across Canada. He has won international acclaim for refining the hymenoplasty procedure, which involves cutting away the scarred edge of the membrane broken during intercourse and narrowing the entrance of the vagina, then putting the pieces back together. One hour, $2,500, a few dissolving stitches later and voilà: a surgical virgin is made.

"The women came from all backgrounds," says Stubbs, 59, who closed his Yorkville practice last summer to build his dream home in the Haliburton Highlands.

"They were Coptic Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim. The majority were educated, from upper-status families. In spite of their exposure to Western ways, they still had this need to follow their family's culture. They said they would not force their daughters to do this but they were caught with one foot in the old world and one foot in the new."

While women around the world have been secretly reclaiming their virginity for decades, the procedure, and its moral and legal implications, has recently been thrust into the spotlight.

Just a few weeks ago, a court in northern France annulled the marriage of a Muslim couple because the bride had lied about her virginity. The groom reportedly learned of his bride's deception the night of their wedding and promptly outed her to the guests who were still partying on the dance floor. The annulment sparked a national debate so heated that the justice ministry asked the local public prosecutor to appeal the case. The appeal court is expected to deliver its ruling this fall.

Named after the Greek god of marriage, the hymen has no known biological function. While cultures that highly value virginity believe an intact hymen is the marker of a pure woman, scientific fact shows the hymen can break for reasons that have nothing to do with sex.

In Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons does not keep tabs on who performs hymenoplasty or how many of these surgeries are logged each year. "From the college perspective, it's not owned by one particular specialty," says spokesperson Cecily Wallace.

In Toronto, an increasing number of cosmetic surgery clinics, where some doctors may have limited training, seem to be cashing in on hymenoplasty, promoting the service online and in print...

After including some criticism of the practice, the article wraps up on a positive note, with the words of Dr. Stubbs, revirginizer: "For years I've been telling my colleagues, and everyone else I'm not crazy. Maybe the reality's setting in."

Maybe. Then again, Star readers who left a comment didn't appear to be buying it. Here’s what a few of them had to say:

·         And we wonder why the health care system is overburdened?

This has got to be the most ridiculous waste of time on an already overburdened health care system that I have ever heard. What is obvious is that physicians who are performing this medically unnecessary surgery on women are making a good buck from it. It is only a matter of time before, in the name of multiculturalism, O.H.I.P will begin footing the bill and and we will all be paying for this procedure while the wait times for essential surgery continues to grow. What a travesty!

 

·         The doctors cynically use ignorance and fear for profit

No self respecting physician would do such a procedure. It's catering to medievalism and ignorance. The profit is obscene. Similar minor local surgeries are billed to OHIP at 100-200$. Taking $3000 is disgusting. No doubt there is a reason why the two clinics mentioned in the article are under investigation. The mere fact that they offer this procedure tells me what I need to know about their ethics and how much they care about their patients. Multiculturalism is a curse on this country. When will be put an end to that foolishness.

 

·         Hymens can be broken in many ways

It is not just sex that breaks a hymen. It can be caused by all sorts of sports and activities and since women in the west are a lot more active in these ways then women in these traditional cultures it would seem to be impossible to claim that a broken hymen could be used as evidence of a non-virgin. And as the story says, insuring virginity is just a way for men to show their dominance over and ownership of women. It has no place in our society. Just one more piece of multi-culturalism run amuck!

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:36 | link | comments

A triumph for Elmo, Mr. Boudjengles and “hurt feelings”: The news that airport security officers at Toronto’s Pearson airport will be forced to endure “sensitivity training”—the result of concerted lobbying by two of Canada’s most prominent Muslim groups—has ricocheted off the pages of the Toronto Star right into Islam Online (my bolds):

CAIRO — Hundreds of officers at Pearson, Canada's busiest airport, will receive sensitivity training to guarantee a better treatment of Muslim and Arab passengers, to the welcome of lobbying groups, Toronto Star reported on Thursday, July 31.

 

"The CBSA constantly takes steps including outreach and training to ensure our services are not discriminatory or perceived to be discriminatory," said Patrizia Giolti, spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency.

The sensitivity courses, to start from September through March, will be give to 500 officers at Pearson airport, Canada's busiest airport.

The aim is to help officers "effectively perform their enforcement responsibilities in a respectful manner," said the CBSA.

Muslim passengers have long complained of being singled out for searches at Canadian airports.

They are often questioned about their activities and purchase abroad, have their luggage searched and passport information taken down.

"We feel that this is a type of profiling, which must cease," said Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

"After 9/11 we became all potential terrorists without doubt, and we still have some examples of people being picked up from the line because they wear long beards or the hijab," agrees Mohamed Boudjenane, executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation.

"It still happens on a regular basis."

Lobbying

Elmasry hailed the sensitivity courses are an "excellent idea".

He said the courses are in line with seminars and speeches his group has organized for federal employees over the past two years about the treatment of Muslim passengers.

Boudjenane, of the Canadian Arab Federation, agrees.

"That sort of proactive act, or measure, didn't come out of the blue," he insisted.

His group has organized meetings with federal employees to discuss complaints of profiling of and discrimination against Muslim passengers.

"We had to lobby very hard with them to realize that you cannot (target certain groups) because you have preconceived perceptions or because there are all sorts of clichés out there."…

Au contraire, Mr. Boudjengles. You most certainly can and should "target certain groups—until such time as those walking cliches cease and desist efforts to hijack airliners and murder passengers: it ain't Wiccans or Mormons trying to sneak onboard with liquid explosives in bottles of dandruf shampoo. Unless we are prepared to see aircraft destroyed and bodies blown to smithereens, "hurt feelings" must not be allowed to take precedence over security. As for "sensitivity training," I think it's a great idea—for Elmo, who has said that all Jewish Israeli adults are fair game for exploding shahids, and for Mr. Boudjengles, whose organization purveys the Big Lies about the Jewish state. However, I'm not holding my breath that those two will ever get "sensitive".

Update: Canadian songbird Jann Arden has some advice on the subject.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:44 | link | comments (1)

Chomsky’s swill: Mullah-booster/America-basher Noam Chomsky offers his take on the current scene to the readers of Tehran Times (my bolds):

TEHRAN - There are some speculations on prospects of Iran-U.S. relations. Washington sent its senior diplomat William Burns to Geneva talks on July 19 to join European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and envoys from China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.

Burns had said that he would be a listener in the meeting. Some analysts believed that his presence was a kind of diplomatic quibble. They believe this is a sign of shift in U.S. policy on Iran.

However, the influential American philosopher and author, Noam Chomsky, has a different view.

“I do not think the difference between participation and listening is a diplomatic quibble,” Chomsky told the Mehr News Agency in a recent interview.

“The Bush administration is under severe international and domestic pressure to rein in its radical extremism, which has led to catastrophes everywhere, and might bring about even worse ones” the American lecturer noted.

“Sending a non-participant observer is a way to avoid negotiations and diplomacy while trying to fend off criticism,” Chomsky commented.

Washington has signaled it is ready to open a diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Chomsky said the U.S. may use the diplomatic outpost to undermine the Islamic Republic’s government under the pretext of defending human rights.

“Setting up a diplomatic office is pretty much the same, I think. The office can also be used for subversion under the pretext of protecting human rights, as in Cuba”.

“Nonetheless, I think these steps should be encouraged, though without illusions. The American population, by a large majority, opposes threats against Iran and favors diplomacy. These small steps can perhaps open the way towards bringing the government towards public opinion,” Chomsky added

Right, Noam, because we wouldn’t want anyone to “undermine” those nice mullahs—them and their nice shiny nukes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:52 | link | comments (2)

Better late than never: CIJA honcho and newbie blogger Hershell Ezrin says that Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon’s ‘dozer piece in the Globe and Mail (the one in which Malarkey observed the “irony” of Jews getting flattened by bulldozers manned by Palestinian terrorists) “crossed a line”.

Gee, ya think?

As Hershell sees it,

…For a Canadian public who (sic) accepts equivalency and generally reacts to Middle East violence with ‘a plague on all their houses’, the story might evoke a brief review or a careless acknowledgment. For those who are friends of Israel, the thesis was repugnant. But there have certainly been other stories that have aggravated and frustrated, so why I have singled out this one for commentary?

The answer is that MacKinnon’s article, and the editors who sanctioned its placement in the news section of the Globe and Mail, crossed a very important red line. His reporting was designed, in my opinion, to lead readers to only one conclusion: that the Israelis got what they deserved. In placing this article in the general news sections of the paper instead of its opinion pages, the Globe and Mail entered the realm of advocacy, thereby undermining the ‘objective character’ of its news pages. The result is similar to what you get in the latest Oliver Stone movie about President George W. Bush’s youth or any good HBO biopic; the truth is selected, while objectivity, fairness and accuracy take a distant second place to advancing a one-sided story line. So much for giving readers the facts so that they can form intelligent choices…

Er, sorry to have to break it to you, Hershell, but MacKinnon (along with his wife, the lovely and talented Carolynne Wheeler) crossed that line long before you started blogging. Nice of you to finally notice, though.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:31 | link | comments (1)

 Chick “power”: Sharia decrees a second class status for women, who must submit to the authority of both man and Allah. At the moment, though, there is one area in which Muslim women are accorded equal status: the “privilege” of being a mass-murdering "martyr". Phyllis Chesler, a long-time feminist and critic of Islamic doctrine pertaining to women, explains why an increasing number of women are becoming shahidas:

…And, we are used to hearing that women in the Third World, including the Islamic world, are victims, not killers. How can they be both? They can.

According to the U.S. Military, in the last five years in Iraq, 43 women carried out suicide bombings.Women hide their explosive belts and bombs under their flowing black abayas–one more reason that such outerwear should be banned in the West. Actually, Muslims kill more Muslims than anyone else does. This latest attack was apparently launched by Sunni Muslims against Shiite Muslims. It might be in the interests of Islam to ban such clothing which has been used to disguise both male and female terrorists.

Of course, The New York Times suggests that “despair” and “spousal grief” drives women to become suicide terrorists.

Not so fast.

Women who have been despised and abused since birth may be especially vulnerable to the kind of ideological and religious entrapment which promises them glory (and their families money). Also, due to inbreeding/first cousin marriage and family violence, they may be mentally retarded, already terrorized, or prone to depression and therefore easy to manipulate. Or, female suicide killers may be filled with rage–enough rage so that they want to scapegoat strangers to avenge themselves against family intimates.

True, some women are mourning the loss of brothers, fathers, and sons but what about Islamist ideology? What about al-Qaeda handlers who tempt women with glory just as they tempt men? What about the Palestinian members of Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigade, Hezbollah and Hamas (al-Qaeda does this too), who exploit depressed, mentally ill, and mentally retarded women into strapping on an explosive belt and blowing themselves up? What about a culture in which being born female is often a capital crime, a culture in which girls and women are honor murdered for the slightest, alleged infringements of the patriarchal rules? If someone feels she is already a marked woman, why not redeem her shame by going out in a blaze of glory and taking some infidels along with her?...

Glory? Money? Surely there has to be some bigger enticement than that. But it seems that, in death as in life, the chicks get stiffed. For while the lads are promised scores of luscious vixens and untold delights forbidden them during their corporeal existence, women are promised…dwarfs?  Now, if the payoff was said to be an eternal spa staffed by Cary Grant and Brad Pitt look-alikes, then maybe one could understand the allure.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:55 | link | comments (1)

Bambi’s “puzzling” rut: Despite nine whole days of rapturous media coverage, the candidate returned home from his whirlwind tour to more or less the same polling numbers as before. What gives?, asks an L.A. Times pundit:

…He still leads Republican Sen. John McCain 51-44. But it's the same 51-44 as last time.

A CNN poll average shows an even slimmer 48-45 Obama lead, dangerously close for an experienced opponent who relishes being the underdog.

"Obama has not picked up any ground against McCain on foreign issues," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And some 52% think McCain would do a better job than Obama on the war in Iraq — virtually the same number who felt that way in April."

Other polls show the same stubborn one-digit lead holding for the Democratic nominee-to-be with only 96 days left until the general election. Some crucial state polls even show McCain gaining.

Obama seems to have everything going for him. A fresh face. A smooth, cadenced speaking style suited for TV. A message of change at a time when Americans historically favor change, after one party holds the White House for two terms. And after several convictions of GOP legislators.

Obama's got tons of money. An attractive family. Energized followers. A media that's curious about the new guy and tired of....

...the dogged old POW one. High gas prices, a poor housing market, a two-front war ongoing and a slightly sagging economy, all of which should help political challengers. Not to mention an unpopular incumbent president.

A lead's a lead, but political strategists are puzzled.

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Americans weren’t so taken with the sight of a candidate acting as if he were already the president: overweening arrogance is never appealing, especially in one so young.  There was also that unfortunate “citizen of the world” remark—not likely to be a selling point with those who prefer that their president, first and foremost, be a citizen of America, one who will represent and fight for America’s interests. (If they love you in France--where, after all, the only Americans they really like are Jerry Lewis and Woody Allen--that's a sign, for some, that something is seriously wrong.) Furthermore, Bambi had hoped that hopping onto the world stage would make it appear as if that was where he belonged—a colossus in the making. Instead, it made him look smaller, punier, like the wet-behind-the-ears, out-of-his-depth one term senator he is. In that sense, while his “optics” are good at home—attractive guy, picture-perfect family—the visuals of Bambi abroad weren’t nearly as compelling.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:48 | link | comments

Green with envy: That's probably how Canada's "anti-hate" types feel, knowing that China is going to be able to "censor" the Internet for the duration of the Olympics (and beyond).

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:55 | link | comments

The worst man at the wost possible time: Hasta la vista, Olmert. You were not, as they say, good for the Jews:

A disast'rous P.M. named Ehud

Never, ever did what he should

He was feckless and blind--

The blithering kind--

Who was always up to no good.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:25 | link | comments

Ontario government priorities: "No" to more law schools; "yes" to Palestinian propoganda.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:41 | link | comments

No pain, tons of gain: The anti-hate industry mounts a rear-guard action in the National Post— a lame defence of censorship from one of Canada’s  long-standing  “Nazi hunters”:

…The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been at the forefront of the war against hate in this country for decades. I personally believe it played a key role in eviscerating Canadian hate groups in the 1980s and 1990s. It helped shut down vile telephone hate lines and Internet sites that targeted vulnerable minorities. It forced the Heritage Front to focus on defending itself against complaints rather than on perpetrating acts of hate. After failing to obey cease and desist orders obtained against them by the CHRC, several members of organized hate groups were later incarcerated for contempt of court.

As the Internet grows, so does the commission's important role of defending Canadians against dot-com racists. Ernst Zundel was one of the first in Canada to use the Internet as a tool to spread hatred. I knew Zundel well; I infiltrated his downtown Toronto lair as part of my work with CSIS, and was part of a "security detail" protecting him and others. Zundel's agenda was quite clear to me: target Jews and create an atmosphere of hatred. It is thanks to the CHRC and Canada's anti-hate laws that he was unable to succeed. Canadians should be commending this kind of work, not condemning it.

The CHRC is experiencing growing pains -- the world is changing, and the commission has to change with it. Growth isn't always easy. Sometimes it's messy. But to cut the CHRC off at the knees as it goes through the growth process would be a grave mistake. - Grant Bristow infiltrated Canada's neo-Nazi movement in the late 1980s on behalf of CSIS.

No “growing pains” that I can see.  The monster has now morphed into a behemoth that is becoming bigger and more powerful by the day, and that poses a far greater threat to Canadian interests than all of our Zundels combined (all, what, twelve of them?).

But how could a Nazi-hunter ever acknowledge that truth, since to do so would render his services—and his worldview—obsolete?

Update: The article has been posted on the CJC site, of course.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments (2)

Awwwww: Puppy lullabye.

Wish it worked on my pup. When he hears music, he howls like a banshee.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:14 | link | comments

Little orphan antics: Here’s a heart-warming story from Arab News about orphans and the efforts of one young humanitarian to bring a little sunshine to their drab young lives:

JEDDAH: A group of young Saudis has joined forces with a number of associations to organize the so-called “Love Festival” that aims at helping orphans enjoy the various activities as part of Jeddah summer festival.

The Love Festival, which takes place at King Fahd Coastal City in Jeddah on Thursday, was one of the efforts initiated by the Friends of Orphans group, which was founded last year by a number of young students.

Ghassan Gamal, a 23-year-old soft-spoken Saudi graduate and founder of the group, said that the festival would hold various contests and activities for orphans who are cared for by various charitable organizations.

The event, he said, is co-organized by the Community Friends Committee, the Charitable Establishment for Orphans’ Care and the Jeddah Volunteering Club.

He said that the idea of the group came to him after volunteering with one of Saudi Aramco’s social programs. “I felt good when I saw the orphans happy and smiling, and I just couldn’t stop there,” he said.

Gamal formed a Facebook group, which caught the attention of numerous young boys and girls.

“The group is increasing in number as we receive many messages from young people who are willing to volunteer,” he said.

Members of the group make visits to orphanages, where they present gifts, spend time playing and mingling with the orphans in addition to organizing outdoor events. “We want the orphans to feel that we remember them, we love them and we are there for them,” he said.

Gamal’s group seeks sponsors for bigger programs that involve outdoor events, training courses and many other activities.

The group members meet to brainstorm and finalize organizational issues for the programs they plan. “We have set up many programs and events for this year’s summer vacation with the help of other charitable organizations and the private sector,” he noted.

Apart from the Love Festival, the group has planned a sports event where the orphans will practice soccer under famous Brazilian trainers. “Many other programs will take place during this month and we would hold more meetings to come up with new ideas,” Gamal said.

He said that the group’s activities have extended to other cities around the Kingdom. “We have successfully organized a two-week tour of Jeddah for orphan girls from Madinah and the Eastern Province,” he said.

“The growing number of volunteers has made the group more lively and respected. We will continue our work to support the orphans because it makes us feel happy and blessed.”

And why, you may ask, are there orphanages in the Magic Kingdom? Why aren’t these orphans adopted by their egregiously wealthy landsmen, who can certainly afford to raise another child or two? It’s because back in the day a certain messenger of God renounced adoption (because he wanted to marry his adopted son’s divorced wife), thus setting the precedent that’s been followed ever since.

Way to go, Mo!

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:05 | link | comments

What’s the difference between “interfaith dialogue” and abject, dhimmified groveling?: As Isi Leibler writes in the Jerusalem Post, not a whole heck of a lot:

A global conference promoting interfaith dialogue sponsored by the current Saudi regime sounds somewhat like South African proponents of apartheid holding a global kumbaya extolling the virtues of racial equality.

That is not to deny that King Abdullah broke new ground by hosting an interfaith conference and for the first time inviting Jews to participate in a Saudi-sponsored event. Rabbi David Rosen, chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultation, exuberantly described it as "an historic event" and a prelude "to the opening up of Saudi society," although he did caution that "time will tell if this is the beginning or just another event of no consequence."

Regrettably, being hosted by King Abdullah had such an intoxicating impact on some Jewish participants that they lost their bearings and indulged in excessive praise of their host that degenerated into groveling.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfeld, chairman of the National Center for Learning and Leadership, stressing that he was not naïve, claimed that immediately after he had blessed King Abdullah "with whom God shares divine glory," he saw the king's eyes fill with tears. Rabbi Michael Lerner, head of the radical Tikkun group, suggested that "for those of us who despair about Christianity and Judaism having gone astray... the notion that Islam might be the spark that generates a new religious revival based on mutual respect and spiritual intensity could dramatically expand our understanding of the endless potential for God to surprise us."

Walter Ruby, from the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, compared King Abdullah's initiative to Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika, forgetting that the Soviet reformer initiated dramatic reforms within his country, whereas Saudi Arabia still represents the most extreme example of fanatical Wahhabi style Islamic extremism.

In fact, state sponsored export of Wahhabism has produced a global network of jihadist Islamic schools and institutions which sanctify violence. This has led to the creation of centers throughout the world nurturing terrorist cadres and incubating many of the suicide bombers who are at the forefront of terrorist activities.

Saudi Arabia denies entry to Jews and prohibits all religions other than Islam the right to establish houses of worship. Saudi imams openly promote virulent anti-Semitism, depicting Jews in mosques and on TV as descendents of apes and pigs who should be killed. To this day, the Saudi educational system continues to incorporate obscenely anti-Semitic texts.

CLEARLY, KING Abdullah in his old age did not become transformed overnight into a liberal. But he is astute enough to realize that his country is under great threat from the expanding Iranian dominated Shi'ite crescent and is desperately seeking to bolster the regime's poor standing in the United States and Europe. That was the prime objective of Abdullah's interfaith conference.

Not surprisingly, the conference took place in Madrid rather than Jedda or Mecca.

Initially, "Rabbi" Yisroel Dovid Weiss, the New York Natorei Karta crackpot who had previously attended the Iranian Holocaust denial conference, was designated to be the only Jew to speak from the podium. After protests supported by an American Muslim imam engaged in interfaith activity, the Saudis backed down and disinvited Weiss. He was substituted by US interfaith guru Rabbi Arthur Schneier, who had hosted Pope Benedict XVI at his Park Avenue synagogue during his recent visit New York.

No Israeli rabbis were invited. Rabbi David Rosen, being Israeli with dual nationality, was designated as an American. In fact, aside from a brief exchange, Israel was kept off the agenda…

It is shameful that any Jew—even the obviously deranged, like the Natorei nutjobs—deigned to participate in this pathetic, despicable charade.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:59 | link | comments

Moonbat go home: The Ceeb was playing up this story big time yesterday—a clueless useful  idiot, a pawn of the jihad, who went to Israel to stir up trouble. From Yahoo! News:

OTTAWA (CBC) - A Canadian student who said he was beaten following his arrest in Israel last week is due to return home Wednesday.

 

Victor MacDiarmid, 23, was ordered deported after being arrested last Wednesday while taking photographs at a demonstration by women from the Palestinian village of Nilin in the West Bank.

The women oppose the construction of the next section of Israel's security barrier, which they say will separate them from their farmland.

Speaking to CBC News from a phone in the prison where he is being held, MacDiarmid described what happened after an Israeli soldier and police officer arrested him last week.

"They slapped me around, punched me up a bit, gave me a few kicks and spit in my face a couple of times," he said Tuesday.

"All in all it probably took maybe a bit less than 10 minutes, maybe more than five minutes."

MacDiarmid has not been charged with a crime. An Israeli defence spokeswoman contacted by CBC News refused to comment publicly, saying the issue is a court matter as the young man is about to be deported.

In a statement published earlier, however, the spokeswoman's office said MacDiarmid and another man were arrested for violating a closed military zone and attacking two border police officers.

MacDiarmid, who is studying international relations at the University of Toronto, has been held in a detention centre in Tel Aviv since his arrest. A Canadian consular official who visited him over the weekend reported he is in good health.

Victor's father, Robert MacDiarmid, said his wife, Angela Garcia, will be picking Victor up in Toronto, and he will be relieved to get his son home to Kingston, Ont.

"I mean this has been absolutely brutal," Robert MacDiarmid said Tuesday, adding that he just found out Friday that Victor was beaten at the time of the arrest by soldiers or border police.

Victor MacDiarmid has spent the past month in the West Bank volunteering for International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led group that protests against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip using "nonviolent, direct-action" methods.

During that time, he has been hit at least twice by rubber-tipped steel bullets, said MacDiarmid's father, who provided photographs of his son's wounds.

Despite such experiences, Robert MacDiarmid said he thinks his son will want to continue volunteering and he accepts that.

"It's good work, it needs to be done and I wouldn't object if he decided to go back."

Helping jihadis expunge Jewish sovereignty is “good work,” huh? Boy, the rotten apple sure didn’t fall far from that tree.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:47 | link | comments (2)

Silence is golden (saith sharia): Even with a First Amendment affirming an individual’s right to free speech, America is currently succumbing to the same pressures of political correctness that are inhibiting the rest of the West and its ability to defend itself against the onrush of sharia. In the U.S., various federal bodies, including Foggy Bottom, are now eschewing clear-thinking-and-speaking in favour of the kind of mush-mouthed euphemism supposedly intended to spare “hurt feelings”. Fortunately, there’s at least one American politician who “gets” the importance of clarity, and who is willing to fight for it. From FrontPage Magazine:

During the past year, several federal agencies – including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the National Counter Terrorism Center – have declared a war on words. Specifically, these agencies have issued memoranda discouraging their employees from naming the enemy in the War on Terror. The prohibition included words such as “jihad,” “Islamist,” “Islamofascism,” and “caliphate,” among others.

It’s not that the terms are inaccurate. Quite the contrary, as the agencies conceded, they often are used by the terrorists themselves. But they urged censorship all the same. Calling jihadists “holy warriors,” as they call themselves, is accurate, but it risks glorifying them. Moreover, even when used accurately, words like “Islamist” might be misinterpreted by moderate Muslims – who are henceforth to be known as “mainstream Muslims” – and should therefore be avoided so as not to offend anyone in the Muslim community. The phrase “Muslim community” should also be avoided.

To be sure, all the memos featured disclaimers stating that they were “not official policy.” But the fact that they were distributed on agency letterhead suggested at least a tacit endorsement of their content. Taken together, the memos marked a victory for government-imposed political correctness over clarity in the War on Terror.

That’s certainly how Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra saw it. On May 8, 2008, Hoekstra introduced an amendment to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that would prohibit government agencies from using any intelligence funding to enforce their new speech code. The amendment states: “None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act my be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words or phrases ‘jihadist’, ‘jihad’, ‘Islamofascism’, ‘caliphate’, ‘Islamist’ or ‘Islamic terrorist’ by or within the intelligence community or the Federal Government.”

At first the amendment failed to make it out of committee. Consequently, 900 people signed a petition in protest. As a result, on July 16, 2008, the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009, which included Hoekstra’s amendment, was presented to the full House of Representatives. This time the amendment passed in a 249-180 vote. All 180 opposing votes came from Democrats. Despite this opposition from their party’s leadership, 55 Democratic Congressmen voted in favor of the amendment.

During the floor debate, Rep. Hoekstra made a case for the critical importance of words in the conflict with Islamic terrorists. “Al Qaeda itself uses these terms to describe its fight against America, our allies, and moderate Muslims around the world,” Hoekstra noted. “Why then would we prohibit our intelligence professionals from using the same words to accurately describe Al Qaeda’s stated goals?”

Hoekstra also noted that the agencies’ memos suppress free speech. Citing death threats that jihadists routinely make to authors, cartoonists and journalists, he insisted that government agencies must not stifle free speech. Yet another danger of mandating political correctness, he observed, it that it would contribute to the politicalization of America’s national intelligence community.

On each of these counts, Hoekstra is correct. But more is at stake than free speech. The government’s memos preclude an honest and open discussion about the nature of our enemy. Terrorism in a tactic, but we are fighting those who subscribe to a dangerous ideology – radical Islam – that we ignore at our peril. It was not a coincidence that the Council on American Islamic Relations, a group with longstanding ties to Islamic terrorist organizations and an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas, was one of the groups to applaud the government’s new terminology for terror…

Just as it’s no coincidence that the Canadian Islamic Congress applauds Canada’s “anti-hate speech” laws and its enforcers; just as it’s no coincidence that the Organization of the Islamic Congress is pressing to institute sharia-compliant anti-defamation policies via the UN.

Nothing about this is a coincidence. Everything is calculated, connected, and intentional.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:33 | link | comments

The next species slated for extinction: Arrogant environmentalists.

Posted by: scaramouche at 07:59 | link | comments

Great news!: The mullahs’ hairy mouthpiece says if the U.S. “changes (its)attitude,”  Iran will, too. From the Tehran Times:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad said in an interview aired on U.S. television on Monday that if the United States adopted a genuinely new approach to his country Tehran would respond in a positive way.

“Today, we see new behavior shown by the United States and the officials of the United States. My question is, is such behavior rooted in a new approach?” the president told NBC.

“In other words, mutual respect, cooperation and justice? Or is this approach a continuation in the confrontation with the Iranian people, but in a new guise?” he said from Tehran.

If U.S. behavior represented a genuine change, “we will be facing a new situation and the response by the Iranian people will be a positive one”.

The interview came after the United States took the unprecedented step of sending a top diplomat to meet Iran's chief negotiator at talks in Geneva over Tehran's nuclear program.

On July 19, Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili held talks in Geneva with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana over ending Iran’s long-running nuclear standoff with the West.

Representatives from the four other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany also attended.

Iran is already under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions over its uranium enrichment program.

Iran, as signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has the right to enrichment for civilian purposes.

Ahmadinejad said he hoped the negotiations would yield progress.

“They submitted a package and we responded by submitting our own package. They again submitted a work plan and we submitted our own work plan,” he said in the interview…

I think I have it straight: so far there has been a “package” and a “work plan” on each side—and a whole lot of uninterrupted uranium enrichment by only one side

Next up:  “proposals” and “offers,” and maybe even another “package” or two.  By the time that’s done, the mullahs should be ready to lock and load.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:07 | link | comments

What do Black Liberation theologist, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Shia Liberationist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have in common?: Both blame the U.S. government for AIDS.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:47 | link | comments

Irony man: The Globe and Mail’s Mideast correspondent, Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon, says it’s “ironic” that Palestinian terrorists are turning bulldozers against Israelis since, you know, Jews use bulldozers, too.

Me? I’m struck by a completely different “irony”. My letter:

Mark MacKinnon thinks it’s “ironic” that Palestinians are now employing bulldozers as instruments of terrorism, since Israel has been using the same kind of machines to bulldoze the homes of terrorists.

It’s hard to see how that meets the definition of irony--observing “a discrepancy between expected results and actual results”--since, tragically, Israel has come to expect that kind of behaviour from Palestinians. It has also become accustomed to those who endeavour to set up false parallels, equating the actions of terrorists, who wilfully unleash mayhem on civilians, with the defensive actions taken by those on the receiving end of the terror.

Mr. MacKinnon is missing the real irony here--the same one that’s been observable for the past sixty years: that the Arab and Muslim world, which is vast in both area and population, has still to come to terms with the reality of one tiny Jewish state.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:05 | link | comments (2)

Why it's madness to engage in "interfaith" dialogue organized by the Saudis: Why? Because the Wahhabis' real agenda is not interfaith amity based on mutual respect. It's to further isolate Israel, that thorn in the side of Islam, by separating "the Jews"--i.e., those who practise the religion of Judaism (and who are therefore considered to be dhimmis under the terms of Islamic law)--from "Zionists"--those Jews who support the uppity Jewish state.

Something for rabbis and professional Jews to consider the next time an unctuous Wahhabi comes a-calling with a fancy invitation.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:52 | link | comments

Citizen Bambi and other “one-worlders”: Frank Gaffney warns us about transnationalists—“citizens of the world” (really, Utopian mush-brains/useful idiots) who long to tame the world’s only superpower and make it submit to a higher authority (which, go figure, happens to be the Islamists’ agenda, too). From FrontPage Magazine:  

…The appellation “Citizen” has a checkered past.  French revolutionaries used it  first to distinguish the common man from the reviled aristocracy, then to enforce their reign of terror on both.  Orson Welles entitled his classic film modeled on the life of William Randolph Hearst Citizen Kane – depicting an unscrupulous demagogue who, despite his privileged background, nearly obtained high elective office on a populist platform.

Now Citizen Obama uses a turn of phrase with no less troubling overtones.  The notion of world citizenship has become a staple of transnationalists who seek to subordinate national sovereignty and constitutional arrangements to a higher power.  They are working to replace, for example, our directly elected representatives operating in a carefully constructed system of checks-and-balances, with rule by unaccountable elites in the form of international bureaucracies, judiciaries and even so-called “norms.” 

Citizens of the world can have their rights circumscribed or even eliminated without their consent.  For instance, in March the Organization of the Islamic Conference – what amounts to a Muslim mafia organization – demanded that the UN Human Rights Council (dominated by the OIC’s members) amend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The effect was to alter the foundational freedom of expression so as to prohibit speech that offends adherents to Islam.

World citizens embrace the idea that the United Nations and other multinational organizations are imbued with a moral authority not found in nation-states like ours.  When he was the Democratic Party standard-bearer, Senator John Kerry famously described American foreign and defense policy as only being legitimate when it passed a “global test” – in other words, approval by the international community.

Today, the Democrats’ incipient nominee subscribes to the view that, as he put it in Berlin, “The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.”  Global citizenship amounts to code for subordinating American interests to our putative responsibilities as a member of the international community.  The former can be pursued only to the extent our fellow global citizens – or, more precisely, their unelected, unaccountable spokesmen in Turtle Bay, Geneva, The Hague or other seats of “world government” – approve…

No wonder he was such a hit in EUnuchland.

Update: The NRO's Rick Lowry tackles the same subject. He notes that "transnationalism" is closely associated with "multiculturalism," since both "share a hostility to American exceptionalism and seek to rein it in, by imposing global rules on the U.S. and by transcending its traditional culture (as defined by history, symbols and language)." Bambi, who has a shaky sense of self and has been trying on identities for decades, attempting to find one that fits, is merely putting on his latest guise--sophisticated cosmopolitan. It's one that's ill-suits him as is as ill-fitting as all the others.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:52 | link | comments

Ezra and the Beanstalk?: In the English fairy tale, a boy named Jack trades the family cow—its most precious possession—for a handful of beans.  Disgusted by her son’s lack of common sense, Jack's mother tosses the beans out the window. They take root in the soil, and grow into a huge beanstalk. Jack climbs the beanstalk, where he encounters a ferocious giant, who recites a mantra explaining his culinary preferences. (The giant likes to do to “Englishmen” what Jews have long been accused of doing to juicy young Christians and Muslims—i.e. smelling their “blood” and using it for their baked goods; might the tale be the true source of the English version of the “blood libel”?) Long story short, Jack ends up chopping down the beanstalk and killing the giant.

In Canada—no fairy tale—the citizens have traded their most precious possession—free speech—for a handful of fatuous promises about “human rights”. The apparatus that manages the “rights” has taken root and blossomed into a monstrous plant that is sapping the lifeblood out of our body politic. Meanwhile, the “giants”—the anti-hate industry—grow ever stronger, while the people grow weaker.

I’m not sure how the rest of the story turns out. Let’s say it’s a work in progress.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:28 | link | comments

Heavy metal Islam: Heavy metal—as in Def Leppard and Megadeth, not machetes and hijacked airliners used as giant projectiles. Who knew the former was popular in the Islamic world? Here’s more on the subject from Paste, a magazine I hadn’t heard of until I happen to pick it up this afternoon at my local humungous book emporium:

Headbanging in Hijab

A journalist tests his metal in the Muslim world

It's inconvenient but true that people, societies and religious systems are often more complex than we want to believe. Take Islam, for instance. In today's America, we're likely to presume that the violence and oppression we're told represents Islam is the entire story of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Many of us fail to consider that what we know of Islam is narrow and unnuanced-and that many Muslims struggle daily with the very extremism we fear. Plus, some of them really just want to headbang.

Heavy Metal Islam is precisely what its title suggests: A turning-inside-out of conventional wisdom-by way of some really loud guitars-in an effort to get beyond Western stereotypes and perceptions.

Metalhead and history professor Mark LeVine knows there's a lot more going on in the Muslim world than most of us realize (see his earlier book: Why They Don't Hate Us). Heavy Metal Islam emerged from years of LeVine's travel across the Middle East and North Africa, headbanging and talking with members of one of the least-known subcultures in the region. LeVine chronicles and partakes, reflecting on and helping shape the reality he discovers. He produces a deeply felt, informed volume that's both hopeful and emotionally honest.

"The mullahs celebrate violence," LeVine writes of Iran, "the metalheads critique it. Being a metal fan offers-however paradoxical it might seem - a 'community of life'Š against the community of death and martyrdom propagated by
the Iranian government." Or, as Moroccan metal giant Reda Zine tells him: "We play heavy metal, because our lives are heavy metal."

From Morocco to Pakistan, LeVine encounters a huge range of cultures and traditions-and covers death-doom metalists Orphaned Land (actually highly regarded among Arab metalheads); U2-approved Pakistani Sufi rockers Junoon; and Lebanese trip-hop duo Soap Kills. LeVine's interlocutors sing, rap and growl in Urdu, Arabic, Berber, English, and Hebrew; they're members of a movement spanning thousands of miles, and yet many live sharply limited lives, often risking arrest or even torture by going to a show. In fact, in some places, "going to a show" isn't even an option and YouTube replaces fan/artist interaction.

It's an enormous amount of ground to cover, but LeVine does a remarkable job, sketching not only the surprising realities of the musicians, but also providing excellent historical background Iranian condiment sabzi, to the claustrophobia of getting to a Palestinian Jerusalem home through four Israeli road blocks, and one 25-foot wall. And he does this all while managing the oft-forgotten trick of writing well.

LeVine is himself a Jewish-American and lived for some time in Israel. While there, he performed regularly with Palestinian oud player Ghidian Qaymari and Israeli world-music artist Sara Alexander: "It was the combination of Sara's acoustic guitar, accordion and gypsy-Middle Eastern melodies with my distorted guitars and Ghidian's oud, that inspired the journey that has produced this book," he writes.

Unsurprisingly, LeVine's vision goes well beyond musical cooperation. "The first political statement that I made was to get a rock band together," Junoon founder Ali Azmat tells him, and this sentiment echoes across the pages. For each artist, music is a light in the darkness of enormous pain and great loss, from the iron fist of dictatorships to the carnage of Israeli-Palestinian violence. Artists have devoted themselves "to creating an alternative system that builds an open and democratic culture from the ground up."

LeVine suggests that if these artists can bridge gaps with the working class and progressive Islamists, they may trigger desperately needed change-though he's smart enough to admit that it's a pretty sizeable 'if.' Inevitably, some will dismiss LeVine as naïve, but faith in our better angels is often dismissed…

Look no further, Bambi—sounds like the perfect guy to be your running mate.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:33 | link | comments

Smoglympics: (cough, cough)--That's the sound of international athletes, gasping to catch their breath in the Beijing smog. The atmospherics at the Olympics have long been polluted, but this year it's like the the miasma surrounding the corrupt IOC has been reified and become manifest in the Chinese air.

And just think--the athletes could have been choking on the far thinner fumes of Hogtown.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments (2)

Religion of explosions: There they go again, externalizing that peaceful personal struggle—in Iraq; in Turkey; in India.

Mind you, only an infinitesimal number of the overall ummah is involved, which I’m sure is a source of immense comfort to the dead, injured and bereaved.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:59 | link | comments

Who’s a bigger dhimmi?: These clueless Christians? Or these clueless Jews?

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:50 | link | comments

Tiny minority of extremists update: A third of Muslim university students in the U.K. think it's okay to kill kafirs to further the goals of Islam--new poll.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:25 | link | comments (1)

Separation anxiety: My kid is off to sleep-away camp tomorrow—the same one I went to when I was his age. You can be sure I’ll miss him, but unlike other parents of my generation—like the ones who are the subject of this article in the Sunday New York Times—I’m not a spoiled, self-absorbed, high maintenance pea-brain, so I think I’ll be okay until he returns. Those other parents? Let’s just say they need to grow up:

HONESDALE, Pa. — A dozen 9-year-old girls in jelly-bean-colored bathing suits were learning the crawl at Lake Bryn Mawr Camp one recent morning as older girls in yellow and green camp uniforms practiced soccer, fused glass in the art studio or tried out the climbing wall.

Their parents, meanwhile, were bombarding the camp with calls: one wanted help arranging private guitar lessons for her daughter, another did not like the sound of her child’s voice during a recent conversation, and a third needed to know — preferably today — which of her daughter’s four varieties of vitamins had run out. All before lunch.

 

Answering these and other urgent queries was Karin Miller, 43, a stay-at-home mother during the school year with a doctorate in psychology, who is redefining the role of camp counselor. She counsels parents, spending her days from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. printing out reams of e-mail messages to deliver to Bryn Mawr’s 372 female campers and leaving voice mail messages for their parents that always begin, “Nothing’s wrong, I’m just returning your call.”

Jill Tipograph, a camp consultant, said most high-end sleep-away camps in the Northeast now employ full-time parent liaisons like Ms. Miller, who earns $6,000 plus a waiver of the camp’s $10,000 tuition for each of her two daughters. Ms. Tipograph describes the job as “almost like a hotel concierge listening to a client’s needs.”

The liaisons are emblematic of what sleep-away camp experts say is an increasing emphasis on catering to increasingly high-maintenance parents, including those who make unsolicited bunk placement requests, flagrantly flout a camp’s ban on cellphones and junk food, and consider summer an ideal time to give their offspring a secret vacation from Ritalin.

One camp psychologist said she used to spend half her time on parental issues; now it’s 80 percent. Dan Kagan, co-director of Bryn Mawr, has started visiting every new family’s home in the spring and calling those parents on the first or second day of camp to reassure them…

There’s something seriously wrong when the kids act more mature than the grown-ups.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:16 | link | comments

Fashion victim: Ozzy Osbourne in a cowboy hat.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:40 | link | comments

If only…: ...John Bolton and not the Bambino was the front-runner for president. Here’s the former U.S. ambassador to the UN, who knows a thing or two about the fatuousness of the “one for all and all for one” mentality of Bambi and his ilk, attempting to remove some of the cotton batting from the candidate’s brain. From the L.A. Times:

…First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries…

And they say Bush is the one who’s “stupid”?

Update: Harpoon approves of the swoon:

…He was interrupted, not so much by the still rolling applause but by the crisp sound of a woman, perhaps two, ululating in the distance. It was a cry of joy, by people obviously of African or Arab origin.

Stopping mid-sentence, Obama beamed. The audience, feeding off his palpable pleasure, broke into whistles and cheers.

The moment symbolized who he is and what he stands for.

Here was an African American running for president being hailed by anonymous Arab-African women, in their own tradition, in the most unlikely of locales, and he (held in suspicion by a segment of the American electorate and subject to relentless scrutiny about his race, colour, roots and religious background) reciprocated instinctively from the depth of his cosmopolitan soul.

You often see such cross-cultural spontaneity at "world music" events, including in Toronto, but rarely at political rallies. It is this global sensibility and persona that gives Obama his rock star status….  

He "stands for" crass opportunism. He "stands for" favourable optics. That's why, in Detroit, he told his flunkies to get rid of two women in the crowd wearing hijabs, before the TV cameras had a chance to focus in on them, and why, in Amman, Jordan, he told his followers not wear anything green, since he didn't want people to think they were wearing the "Muslim" colour.

Not only is Bambi not who Harpoon thinks he is, he doesn't even know who the heck he is: hawk, dove; black, white; cosmopolitan, innocent abroad. He is all of the above, and none of them (since one cancels out the other). We sure know who Harpoon is, though: he's someone who thrills to the idea of "one-worldism" and the sound of ululation in Europe.

Update: ObamaMessiah, the Musical!; Jesus Wrote a Blank Check.

Update: PoMo Fauxbama.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:52 | link | comments (1)

Omar protest in Hogtown: Well, the heavens opened in Toronto yesterday afternoon, but despite the deluge around 200 hardy souls rallied in support of young Omar Khadr. Among the throng: Omar’s ever-loving family, who miss him like the dickens. From the Toronto Sun:

The message to the Canadian government by Karim Khadr was simple: "Bring him home."

Karim, 19, sat in his wheelchair in the pouring rain across the street from the U.S. consulate on University Ave. yesterday where a rally was held in support of bringing his brother, Omar, home to Canada, his birthplace.

"We are not saying bring him back and don't trial him," Karim said. "We want a fair trial."

He said he believes the government will do more if enough Canadians support the return of his brother from the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It's been six years since Omar Khadr, now 21, was arrested and accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.

"Most of our hope is based on the Canadian population," said Karim who was joined by his mother, his sister, and about 200 supporters.

Karim was paralyzed from the waist down in the same gun battle that killed his father in Afghanistan in 2003. He returned to Canada in 2004 with his mother to seek medical attention.

Karim and his family were happy with the turnout, despite the stormy weather.

"I am angry," Karim said about a recent video released showing his brother weeping at Guantanamo when he was only 16.

"He had so much hope that Canada would come to his rescue."

His sister, Zaynab, 28, said he's sorely missed.

"(He was) one of those kids that you might not notice, but you will miss the moment he's gone because you're going to be calling for him and he's not going to be there," she said.

Pascal Murphy, 30, said any system linked to torture should be terminated and Khadr deserves Canada's support.

"Guantanamo has been clearly linked with torture and so has Omar Khadr," he said.

Reading the above I can’t help but think of the toll the jihad has taken on this family: father dead; one son incarcerated for the duration of his adolescence, now facing a military trial; one son, even younger, stuck in a wheelchair for life. Not to mention the emotionally damaged ma and sis, suffused with loathing for the kafirs and their infidel laws. The crowd should be protested that abuse, not some sleep deprivation at Gitmo.

Update: Only "a few dozen" protesters turned out in Ottawa, including those sweet old moonbats, the Raging Grannies.

The Grannies, who always like to warble an unbelievably lame song parody in their own inimitably atonal fashion, sang this one for Omar, to the tune of "She'll Be Comin' Round the Mountain":

A Canadian unlucky to be brought,
To Gitmo will discover it’s still fraught
With tactics that are quirky thanks to guidelines that are murky
Get ‘em talking is the mantra that is taught.

That young Canuck need never fear the worst
That he will find himself among the cursed
Canadian humanity’s his shield from this insanity
Alas with Harper this has been reversed.

Noel Coward they ain't.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:29 | link | comments

A common enemy; a common struggle: Lest we forget (because sometimes we do), tiny Israel isn’t the only democracy that makes the Islamo-loonies go ballistic (literally): the world’s largest democracy—India—is also a constant focus of attackers. Today, Islamic supremacists set off some bombs in the Indian city of Ahmedabad, killing at least 29 (so far).

By coincidence, Ron Banerjee, of the Hindu Conference of Canada, gave vent to Indian frustration in a letter in today’s National Post:

Re: Sri Lanka's 'Black July' Riots, 25 Years Later, editorial, July 24.

The National Post correctly states that many Canadians have forgotten Sri Lanka's oppression of its (mostly) Hindu Tamil minority, thanks to the brutality of the Tigers. But an unanswered question remains: What exactly were democracies like Canada doing while this oppression was going on?

Today, Hindu minorities are being raped and slaughtered by the thousands by Islamic dictatorships in Malaysia, Bangladesh and Kashmir. What are Western democracies doing to halt this oppression?

Hindu minorities will have no option but to commence armed struggle against their oppressors if the West continues its hypocrisy and callous indifference.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:50 | link | comments

Funny business: Anthony Lane, one of the New Yorker’s two movie critics (David Denby is the other) has written a deliciously nasty, delightfully witty review of Mama Mia! , the film version of the Abba stage show. Among the portions that made me laugh out loud:

·         From the opening minutes, in which Sophie (Amanda Seyfried), a young pleasure seeker on the eve of her wedding, greets her two bridesmaids as they arrive on a jetty, yelping with delight like unweaned puppies, you can tell that everyone in this story is just going to have the best time. Ever.

 

    Sophie resides on a Greek island—an island like any other, where gnarled old ladies drop whatever they’re doing in the olive grove and tunefully join in on nineteen-seventies Swedish pop songs.

 

·         The legal definition of torture has been much aired in recent years, and I take “Mamma Mia!” to be a useful contribution to that debate. In a way, the whole film is a startling twist on the black art of rendition: ordinary citizens, often unaware of their own guilt, are spirited off to a secure environment in Eastern Europe, there to be forced into a humiliating and often painful confession of sins past. “I tried to reach for you, but you have closed your mind,” in the bitter words of Sam. I thought that Pierce Brosnan had been dragged to the edge of endurance by North Korean sadists in his final Bond film, “Die Another Day,” but that was a quick tickle with a feather duster compared with the agony of singing Abba’s “S.O.S.” to Meryl Streep through a kitchen window. Somebody, either a cheeky Swede or another North Korean, has deliberately scored the number a tone and a half too high, with visible results: swelling muscles along the jawline, tightened throat, a panicky bulge in the eyes. There is no delicate way of putting this, but anyone watching Brosnan in mid-delivery will conclude that he has recently suffered from a series of complex digestive problems, and that the camera has, with unfortunate timing, caught him at the exact moment when he is finally working them out. What has he done to deserve this?

 

·         Just to blur the issue, all three of them [the contenders for the title of Sophie’s dad] proceed to sport multicolored Lurex pants during the final credits, the better to launch into “Waterloo”—the song no plot could contain. Be warned, though: you also have to watch Streep march to the front of the screen, as if to invisible footlights, and scream at us, “Do you want more?” “Thank you, but no,” I replied, as politely as I could, but I don’t think she heard. Everybody around me was screaming back. They wanted more.

 

I sent the New Yorker a letter, commending Lane for his wit and for his ability to make me laugh out loud (something which, generally speaking, only the great Mark Steyn can make me do). In return, I received this most earnest of replies, one which pretty much put the kibosh on my laughter:

Thank you for writing. We appreciate your comments and, if you have a question, we’ll do our best to respond, although the volume of mail precludes our replying to every e-mail individually.

 

About our cover "The Politics of Fear": Barry Blitt has combined a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.  The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall — all of them echo one attack on the Obamas or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover. In this same issue you will see that there are two very serious articles on Barack Obama inside -- Hendrik Hertzberg's Comment and Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago...

 

Oh, dear. No one, and I mean no one, should have to labour that hard to explain “satire”. Ironically, the last word on the subject has to go to Jon Stewart, another purveyor of “satire” whose politics I no longer share. This was his line on The Daily Show about the Obama cover flap, as quoted in the latest Maclean’s:

Obama’s camp agreed the cartoon was offensive. You know what your response should have been? ‘Barack Obama is in no way upset that the cartoon depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists.’

If only the New Yorker could have had sufficient wisdom to say something like.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:27 | link | comments

Time isn't on his side: Dessicated rocker, Sir Mick, turns 65.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:33 | link | comments

Home girl defends the Butcher of Darfur: This letter appears in the Rochester, Minnesota Post-Bulletin:

I am a Sudanese woman currently residing in Rochester. I keep informed by the television and Internet media as to news about my home country of Sudan.

Just last week I followed the current details of an arrest warrant being requested for Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

The prosecutor from the International Criminal Court announced charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I find the entire framework of the prosecutor's case to be based on false accusations set forth to incriminate Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

I make this appeal to reverse the arrest proceedings. There will be detrimental effects for Sudan, leading to the same historical events as in Iraq. Why does President Bush not take any actions to redirect the activities going on in Darfur?

President Omar Hassan al-Bashir is a strong leader for the country of Sudan. I believe he needs to remain the executive in charge so that the government structure remains strong.

I firmly disagree with International Criminal Court's arguments to incriminate the Sudanese president. Please help motivate the court to dismiss the arresting proceedings against Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

Yeah, we’ll be sure to do that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments

A tale of two CJC news releases: One—dealing with a physical attack on a young Jewish girl by a hateful Muslim—is terse, bloodless, and, as Ezra Levant points out, rather grudging, with nary a mention of the attacker's religion. The other—dealing with a broken window at a Montreal mosque—is angry, impassioned, and suffused with empathy for the Muslim victims’ pain and suffering. 

Do you get the sense that the CJC is more concerned about “hurt feelings” and property damage--especially if Muslims are the ones experiencing them--than it is about Muslims beating up Jews?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:38 | link | comments

Quote of the day: By George Jonas in the National Post. Read it and weep:

I think the force with the greatest capacity for becoming a threat to liberal democracy is liberalism itself -- meaning loony-liberalism, a kind of ideological menage a trois between Timothy Leary, Karl Marx and Al Gore, at once passionate and arid, that in Western societies has all but captured the educational and judicial machinery of the state. In some, it's a virtual state religion, whose matriarchal, environmentalist, multicultural, anti-male, anti-family, anti-individual and public-hygiene shibboleths are enforced by Orwellian regulatory agencies, commissions and tribunals, better known as the smoke-, smut-, seat-belt-, thought-, language-and calorie-police.

The nightmare of modern life: the state in your face, on your back, and mucking around in your life as if you're some perpetually misbehaving child and it is some all-knowing nanny.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:42 | link | comments

Reality check: In today’s National Post, frequent letter-writer Syed A. Rahman clears up some “misconceptions” that may have arisen as a result of his previous missive. Instead of “fisking” the sucker, I’ve added links to address each “clarification”.

Re: Islam, Women and Israel, letters to the editor, July 25.

I would like to respond to some of the misconceptions about Islam expressed by a trio of letter-writers, in response to my earlier letter.

The holy Koran is the only religious book I know of that is written in spoken language. It is a compilation of sermons given by Prophet Muhammad over several years, so to choose bits and pieces from the Koran is unfair to a religion that is practised by over a billion people. The statement about women being stoned to death for being raped is totally outlandish. The purpose of the harsh nature of punishment is more of a deterrent than anything else. There are too many conditions that must be met before it is carried out.

Contrary to the popular belief that Islam is anti-Semitic, it is the Christians who have persecuted Jews throughout the ages, as in Spain under Queen Isabella or in Hitler's Germany.

And where it says in the Koran that men are superior to women, that has to do with men being physically superior to women, with a bigger responsibility for looking after the wellbeing of the family. Lastly, where it is implied that a husband can beat his wife, that is only supposed to be in a manner that does not cause any physical pain or hurt of any nature.

Syed thinks he's making a persuasive case when, in fact, he's only digging a deeper hole.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:26 | link | comments (1)

Oh, boy: The Islamists and their useful idiots are up in arms (heh) about how the Prime Minister is failing “boy soldier” Omar Khadr: they’re holding rallies in Toronto and Ottawa today to protest his treatment. Don’t expect anyone there to hold up a placard of another “boy soldier”—the terror tot who is being used by al Qaeda to shill for holy warriors. From the New York Daily News:

WASHINGTON - Al Qaeda allies running terror camps for tots on the Afghan-Pakistan border are using video of a boy “martyred” in combat to recruit jihadis.

The apparently lifeless body of the child, an Uzbek boy younger than 11, is the focus of the grisly half-hour video by the Islamic Jihad Union - a radical Uzbek group practically indistinguishable from Osama Bin Laden’s network, according to U.S. officials.

"In a fierce battle in Waziristan between the soldiers of Allah and the friends of Satan, Abd al-Rahim was wounded by an arrow," says an Uzbek narrator, referring to a bullet or shrapnel.

Waziristan is part of the Pakistani tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other thugs stage attacks on U.S. and allied forces.

"They couldn't find doctors, and under these conditions it wasn't possible to treat his wound. So, our young mujahid, Abd al-Rahim, reached martyrdom," the narrator says as the camera pans over the dead boy's face shrouded in a white cloth.

The video was obtained from the terrorism research service SITE Intelligence Group.

The ghastly film follows Abd al-Rahim and a dozen young boys in camouflage shirts and black headbands reading "There is no God but Allah" as they train with rocket-propelled grenades, pistols and Kalashnikov rifles.

The dead boy was "a translator between the native fighters and the mujahideen," the video says. Al Qaeda is littered with Uzbeks who marry into local Pashtun clans for protection. Many were slaughtered last year by their Pashtun hosts for abusing women, sources have said.

NATO and U.S. military officers told the Daily News it’s rare to find juveniles on the battlefield.

Last week, a boy in a suicide vest killed himself and two Afghan soldiers in Helmand province. In early June, NATO troops "caught two IED trigger persons who were later released due to their age, ten and under," said Army 1st Lt. Nathan Perry.

In May, Pakistani troops raided a compound they claimed was used to train kids as young as nine for suicide bombings in Afghanistan. But a U.S. special operations document referred to the army raid as a "ruse."

The tot was killed in Omar’s former stomping group. Had Omar played his cards right, it could have been him consorting with virgins and recruiting for the jihad. Poor lad, he’s stuck in Gitmo, awaiting kafir justice—a mega-humiliation, holy-warrior-wise.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:08 | link | comments (1)

Arbour on Canadian “rights”: Louise Arbour’s less than brilliant career at the helm of the OIC-steered UN HRC was presaged by these words she spoke back in 2005. Hindsight affording us flawless vision, we can see that Arbour was a clueless “human rights” type back then, and thus didn’t stand a chance when she leapt onto the public stage. From Maclean’s (my bolds):

…In our more recent history, the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 held the potential to change the relationship among executive, legislature and judiciary, opening up the possibility for an articulation of the rights-based component of public policy decisions. Section 7, guaranteeing the right "to life, liberty and security of the person," is particularly relevant in the context of the UN declaration's "freedom from want." Political scientists and legal scholars watched the courts to see what would be the impact of judicial review on public policy decisions.

The first two decades of Charter litigation testify to a certain timidity -- both on the part of litigants and the courts -- to tackle head-on the claims emerging from the right to be free from want. Canadian courts have championed civil and political rights and have articulated for themselves an appropriately far-reaching sphere of judicial review when the state invokes the use of repressive criminal law powers. But considerably more reticence has been expressed in relation to social, economic and cultural rights and the protection of vulnerable segments of the population on grounds other than discrimination.

Courts the world over have been playing an increasingly vital role in enforcing socio-economic rights, bringing them from the realms of charity to the reach of justice. Allegations as to the uniformly and uniquely "costly" nature of socio-economic rights obligations seem at best strange or misinformed, or at worst, disingenuous, set against these realities. Furthermore, the legality of judicial review of all human rights is not open to question under the Canadian constitutional system. Courts are well-equipped to reflect the entrenched expectation of Canadians that equitable access to the riches generated by our collective harvesting of this generous land is no longer a matter of charitable disposition.

The possibility for people to claim their human rights entitlements through legal processes is essential so that human rights have meaning for those most at the margins. There will always be a place for charity, but charitable responses are not an effective, principled or sustainable substitute for enforceable human rights guarantees.

The debate in Canada on these issues can be certain to continue. However, those fearing or objecting to the vision of human rights that I've outlined would do well to bring the true nature of their misgivings into the open, out from the shadows of straw men and calculated obfuscation. With good faith engagement on the substantive issues, I believe that there will be every prospect of a more just, inclusive and rights-respecting democracy in Canada in years to come.

Well, those “misgivings” have certainly come to the fore recently, although probably not in the way Arbour and the other “human rights” wonks either intended or desired. And now that the calculated obfuscation/semi-crypto Marxism of the HRCs and their boosters (like Arbour, with her stated desire to “harvest” Canadian “riches” by getting the courts to redistribute them in a more “equitable” fashion) has been dispelled by blasts of outrage from clear-thinkers like Steyn and Levant, there’s no going back to our former ignorance and complacency.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:49 | link | comments

 Ex-“devil-worshipper” contacts Coren: Upon reading Michael Coren’s column about Omar Khardr in the Toronto Sun last Saturday, an employee of our taxpayer-funded public broadcaster (and, being a Ceeber, a potential al-Jazeera recruit) took time out from his busy schedule to send Coren his unvarnished thoughts via email. Coren has made it the subject of today’s column:

…"You were kidding, right? No matter. That material is about as funny as a good old-fashioned waterboarding joke. Disgraceful." Richard Goddard goddardr@cbc.ca. o (+001) 416-205-5950 f (+001) 416-205-5731. Q on CBC Radio ONE. Canada Qs up: Afternoons 2 - 3:30, Evenings 10 - 11. Shipping Address: Office 2H109-D, Canadian Broadcasting Centre, 205 Wellington St. W., Toronto, Ont. M5V 3G7."

Perhaps I don't quite understand the mandate of the CBC and its employees, but I assumed that public time, money and equipment were supposed to be used for the public interest and not for private opinion and political vendettas.

If the message were purely personal, at the very least it revealed an intense ideological position from a producer who makes decisions about what should be on the public airwaves. But if it were purely personal why did it list so many CBC contact details? Was this an official CBC statement and if so could the directors of the corporation please explain their stance in greater detail?

My new friend is listed quite extensively at the CBC website. "Before joining The Current, Richard Goddard had an eight-year career in the devil-worshiping world of advertising. When he wasn't drinking blood or flogging the spoils of slave labour, he relaxed by producing for CBC Radio in Vancouver and later, Toronto. The sweet taste of truth eventually proved irresistible and Richard soon found himself producing regularly for local and national shows like Global Village, DNTO, Metro Morning and now, The Current."

TWADDLE

Pretentious twaddle aside, that sweet taste of truth requires a certain open-mindedness, especially when it comes to dealing with issues such as foreign policy, the United States, President Bush, Islam, terrorism, Canada's role in Afghanistan and our government's attitude towards its citizens abroad. Do we seriously, do we honesty and truly for a moment, do even the most liberal and leftist among us believe that Goddard is genuinely even-handed on these issues?...

The Ceeb? Even-handed? Why strive for even-handedness when you’re certain you’ve got a lock on truth?

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:23 | link | comments

The Son and only: Timesonline columnist Gerard Barker goofs on the Obamessiah phenomenon:

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for…

You catch the drift. Even funnier, I think, are some of the comments left by those who take their Bambi-worship VERY. SERIOUSLY. This person, for instance:

I guess having intellect is a crime. I guess having the ability to translate ideas and thought into words that are cogent is a crime. I guess inspiring people not to apathetic is a crime. I guess not seeing war as the solution to every problem is naieve. Bring on ww 4.Bring on Mcain the new caesar.

 

Sounds good to me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:53 | link | comments

Omar’s champions: The guy whose organization perpetuates the Big Lie(s) about Israel (a way to soften people up for the Shoah, Part 2) is lobbying to bring Omar Khadr “home”; the usual useful idiots are onside. Pay particular attention, though, to the threat in the final paragraph of the CP report warning Stephen Harper that if he refuses to comply, he may have to answer to a higher authority—and I don’t mean Allah.

TORONTO — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's refusal to press for the repatriation of Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay is a political and legal travesty, social activists said Friday in announcing a series of rallies across the country.

Canada could find itself hauled before the United Nations Human Rights Commission for failing to come to the aid of the accused Canadian terrorist, they added.

"Omar became a victim, on one hand, because he was manipulated by his family at a young age," said Mohamed Boudjenane, executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation.

"He's also the victim of this government, which is now supporting this kangaroo legal system happening in Guantanamo Bay."

In downtown Montreal, about 60 people protested in favour of Khadr's repatriation outside Canadian immigration offices.

Other rallies are planned for Toronto and Ottawa on Saturday, and another in Vancouver on Wednesday.

The Toronto-born Khadr, 21, faces trial before a U.S. military commission for allegedly killing an American military medic with a hand grenade after a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002.

He was 15 at the time.

Despite widespread international condemnation of the military commissions, the previous Liberal government and now Harper's Conservative government have refused to intervene on his behalf.

Harper recently insisted that Canada has no choice but to let Khadr go through the legal process at Guantanamo, where he has been detained for almost six years.

"There is not a snowball's chance in heck that he going to be able to get himself a fair trial," said Sid Lacombe of the Canadian Peace Alliance.

Recent opinion polls done following the release of video showing Khadr under interrogation by Canada's spy agency suggest Canadians want Khadr to face justice at Guantanamo Bay.

But the activists claim public opinion is starting to shift in favour of bringing Khadr home. They said Harper ignores the change at his political peril.

"Mr. Harper is trying to out-Bush Bush on these sorts of questions," Lacombe said. "(But) it will be politically problematic for him to tie himself this closely to the Bush administration."

Khadr remains the lone western detainee still at Guantanamo, where documentation indicates he was abused by his American captors. His trial is due to start Oct. 8.

Critics, including the United Church, argue that Khadr's age when he was caught means he should be treated like a child soldier, not a war criminal.

"Other action" may be needed if the rallies and public pressure fail to persuade Harper to act, Boudjenane said.

"Maybe Canada can find itself in front of the United Nations Human Rights Commission defending itself and the fact Canada is not respecting its own convention and treaties when it comes to the protection of child soldiers," he said.

Oh, no: not the UN Human Rights Commission, er, Council (they changed the name a while ago but, really, what’s the difference?). I bet Harper’s quaking in his Florsheims.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:13 | link | comments

Leftist-Islamist lunacy, hosted by the United Church: The tin foil beanie people turned out in droves last week to the Canadian Arab Federation-promoted  troofer/Judenhass event. The Jewish Tribune’s Atara Beck has the scoop (posted on the CCD site):

TORONTO A program last week at Bloor Street United Church sponsored by SIFT (Skeptics Inquiry for Truth) and Global Outlook Magazine and publicized by the church and the Canadian Arab Federation featured radical conspiracy theorists promoting the thesis that 9/11 was an American inside job and that the Toronto 18 (alleged members of an Islamic terror cell) were framed by an ideologically driven Canadian government.

Although the event gave lip service to respect for diversity, viciously antisemitic reading material was on display.

The event featured guest speakers Dr. Bob Bowman, who's been waging a campaign challenging fellow US citizens to "take back America," and Michael Keefer, an English professor at Guelph University who laments the Canadian government's "fear mongering" and the "largely mythical Islamic terror international."

This particular church has a history of activities on behalf of "social justice," and part of its mission, as stated clearly on its web site, is to "advocate on behalf of the Palestinians."

In fact, emcee Barry Zwicker praised "this United Church" for being "maybe the most progressive United Church in Canada."

Introducing the guest speakers, Terry Burrows, SIFT's project co-coordinator, declared: "We don't want a government that practises fascism and tyranny. We are Canadian patriots and we want to live in a country that upholds Canadian values of bedrock inclusiveness and respects diversity."

Among the literature that visitors were urged to take was a newspaper with content smacking of antisemitism, for example, "it's a fact" that "Zionists [are] controlling the media," "Zionists in Canada don't care about Canada's sovereignty and are willing to join the US, where they control Bush," "Zionists attack our advertiser [not named] threats by Toronto Zionists who attack the messenger rather than improve themselves and their nazi [sic] ways," and "Rothschild owned big pharma killers."

What's interesting, however, is that Bloor Street United Church would agree not only to host the event, but also to allow vicious hate-mongering literature to be distributed on its premises.

According to Tina Edwards, the office secretary in charge of bookings, the literature "must have been brought in by the tenant renting the space. It wasn't a church event. We rent space to community groups. We are aware of who's coming in the building, but we do not monitor material as closely as you're indicating that we might."

Rev. Martha Ter Kuile, spiritual leader of the church, told the Jewish Tribune: "I am afraid the event in question is not one that I know much about. I did not attend the event, and am not familiar with the Skeptics Inquiry For Truth group, who rented the Bloor Street United Church facility." She recommended contacting Church Council head Nenke Jongkind.

Jongkind said she was an usher at the event and didn't see the antisemitic material.

"Nothing about SIFT is antisemitic or anti-Jewish at all," she asserted. "I'm chair of the Church Council and a participant with SIFT. We definitely are not antisemitic; I can say that explicitly. We have a social justice committee that's active in a variety of ways to inform the community in a number of areas in social justice; for example, Black History Month."

Keefer, who accused the Canadian government of using fear mongering tactics and spreading Islamophobia, said he believes the Toronto 18 were tortured "out of desperation to possibly squeeze something out of them" that could be incriminating.
"We have to stand up and say, we will not permit you to continue arresting Muslim men and boys," he stated.

Bowman, calling for a revolution to "throw off the shackles of tyranny," told the assembled that the US is leading Canada not just to war, but also "down the primrose path to a police state."

He delivered a mock inauguration speech as newly elected American president, announcing that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney had been arrested as war criminals.

"Remember, we executed Nazis for just following orders," he proclaimed, and, "a US attack on Iran, which poses no threat to the US, would be a war crime."

Asked by the audience how he would deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he replied: "I am quite sure that if the Canadian people and the British people saw the US taking back their country they would not stand for being left behind with the status quo. I wouldn't have to lean on them. The people would lean on them.

"I would lean only on Israel," he elaborated, to enthusiastic applause. "Don't start calling me antisemitic. I have Jewish friends...."

Hey, don’t they all?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments (1)

History repeats: During Hitler’s time, there was all sorts of jockeying for power between the SS and the SA; ultimately, the SS prevailed.

Kind of like what’s been happening in Gaza, as per this post by L.A. Times blogger, Ashraf Khalil, who’s on the scene in Gaza City.

The evidence of last year’s power shift in Gaza (Hamas in, and the Fatah faction very, very out) is apparent in lots of big and small ways. Green Hamas flags are everywhere, of course, and the black-clad security guys keeping order in the streets are more likely to be sporting bushy beards.

But every now and then, it sneaks up on you in more subtle ways.

Yesterday, my colleague Rushdi and I met with Faisal Abu Shahla, a doctor who heads a major medical assistance charity. As soon as we walked in his office, we noticed the pictures of the late Yasser Arafat  and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on the wall. It was clear this was one of Gaza’s dwindling patches of Fatah ground.

Abu Shahla identified himself as "the former director general of all hospitals in Gaza." Then he introduced several middle-age guys sitting on his office couch, sipping tea and smoking. There was a former director of administrative services and a former chief of engineering for the health ministry.

Quickly we realized we were in a room full of senior Ministry of Health guys who were purged for their Fatah connections after Hamas took over Gaza last summer.

The last man on the couch was a ministry of health doctor who had managed to keep his job. "He’s hasn’t become a ‘former’ yet," Abu Shahla joked.

This doctor responded with a morbid, but deeply funny, joke. He quoted an Arabic proverb normally spoken when passing a graveyard, a phrase designed to emphasize the fleeting nature of our time on this earth.

“Entu al sabiqoon, wa nahnu al lahiqoon,” he said, grinning.

Loose translation: “It was your turn and soon it will be ours.”

Himmler did something sim’lar.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:48 | link | comments

Arrogant much?: In his speech before the rapturous throng yesterday, Bambi called himself  "a citizen of the world."

To hammer home the point he should have broken into the appropriate song:

I am the world.

I’m the messiah.

I am the one who’ll bring a better day--

You can’t aim highah.

There’s a choice you’re makin’

For “hope” and “peace” and “change”.

It’s true I’ll bring a better day

‘Cause I’m The One…

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:28 | link | comments

Just say no to ‘toon frenzy: Alicia Conlon, who writes for the New York Sun, was invited to join in the outrage over the New Yorker’s cover jest. She declined to do so:

The Women's Media Center on Fifth Avenue claims "it strives to make women visible and powerful in the media." Even though I've written almost a thousand op-ed columns for New York newspapers in the last 10 years, this organization and its president, Carol Jenkins, hasn't a clue that I'm a conservative. Nevertheless, I'm on their mailing list and have never responded to their notices until now. Ms. Jenkins sent me a "Dear Alicia" note asking me to join in the outrage over the insulting Obamas New Yorker cartoon.

She wrote: "The New Yorker owes the Obamas, and the rest of us, an apology — and retraction of the cover. I know that those of us who demand this will be called predictable 'whiners,' enemies of free speech and, of course, humorless. But a line was crossed here by a publication seemingly not the least bit in touch with the murmuring, low grade fires of unrest burning across this country. Not clever enough by half, the cartoon reinforces the worst fears of those who experience the Obamas as 'unknown' and legitimizes those who've been agitating a colossal smear effort."

To which I responded: "I also have been spending considerable time thinking about the so-called satiric New Yorker cover of the Obamas but my take is somewhat different. Yes, I did find it offensive but at least Michelle Obama is depicted as a strong albeit radical black woman. I don't recall much discussion of the cartoons by noted artists like Doonesbury, Oliphant and Danziger depicting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with slavery connotations. I've never seen much outrage at the cartoons labeling Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom, either. Apparently, despicable and racist satirical cartoons are fine when mocking conservative black Republicans but are not to be tolerated when Democrats are the foil."

I haven't read the New Yorker magazine in quite a while, and when I would occasionally pick it up in a doctor's office, I'd skim through it for the cartoons, which were always rather clever. Many years ago I recall one depicting a black man talking to a white man at a cocktail party with the latter saying (as best I can remember), "I'm sorry, but I think you've made a mistake. Someone who's been oppressing you for a hundred years would be much older." Now that was funny. This New Yorker cover was supposed to be satirical but satire sometimes sails over one's head. Vanity Fair just released a rather lame cartoon on its Web site showing McCain on a walker, his wife holding pills, and the Constitution burning under a fireplace with President Bush's portrait overhead.

According to Ms. Jenkins, the "characterization of Michelle Obama is particularly gratuitous — the militant, angry black woman — complete with an attack weapon. In the old days, before everybody (women, people of color, and the working class) got hot under the collar, this 'satire' would have been acceptable, ever so charming stuff. Now it's singularly obtuse, and worse. It makes one wonder, again, about the makeup of the New Yorker staff — was it not diverse enough to elicit even a single protest?"

There was no big fuss about Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" cartoon of Mr. Bush referring to Ms. Rice as "brown sugar," or Ted Rall's cartoon having Ms. Rice proclaim herself Mr. Bush's "House nigga." Noted political cartoonist Pat Oliphant showed Ms. Rice as a parrot with big lips and Jeff Danziger had her muttering like Butterfly McQueen's character Prissy in "Gone With the Wind." Nor has there been any concerted effort to condemn Don Wright's cartoon showing Justice Thomas as Justice Scalia's lawn jockey.

When has-been calypso singer Harry Belafonte called Colin Powell, the first black Secretary of State, a house Negro doing the work of his master, Mr. Powell responded with true diplomatic grace that criticism of his political position was fine, "But to use a slave reference, I think, is unfortunate and is a throwback to another time and another place that I wish Harry had thought twice about using."

In each case those vilified responded in a dignified, graceful manner ensuring that the defiler would be the one who came off looking stupid. Besides, getting angry about a cartoon is so yesterday…

Tell it to Vanity Fair.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:18 | link | comments

Sticks and stones can break our bones, but only “speech” can hurt us: Last month, a 17-year-old Jew in Paris was beaten up so badly that he lapsed into a coma. The incident, which was widely reported, prompted shock and horror in France.

Two years ago, a Jewish girl in Calgary was beaten up by a Muslim, who told her he hated Jews, and who called her “a Jewish piece of crap” as he pummelled her. The event was not widely reported—no CJC news releases, no stories in the national press—and there was no shock and horror because no one really knew about it. The only reason anyone outside of Calgary knows about it today is because yesterday Ezra Levant wrote about it in his blog, when there was a report in the Calgary press that the assailant had been sentenced for his crime.

What a ridiculous country we live in! We compensate people for fake “pain and suffering”—i.e. hurt feelings—while turning a blind eye to actual, physcial pain, the kind that involves contusions and broken bones.

Update: The CJC's news release.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:43 | link | comments

Resistance is key: FrontPage Magazine has an interview with Rev. Keith Roderick, the only Canon in the Episcopal Church who has defied political correctness and stands up for the rights of Christians being persecuted in Muslim lands.  Fr. Roderick outlines what can be done to halt the march of sharia:

FP: We’re here today to discuss the capability that of non-Muslim minorities to resist Islamization. What do you think is the reality and where is the potential?

Roderick: Non-Muslims have survived centuries of Islamization, but just barely. The fact that they still exist in spite of conquest, violent persecution and institutional discrimination is remarkable. Unfortunately, accommodation to the pressures of Islamization has opened their communities to demise. Non-Muslims in Islamic societies never speak from the perspective of power. The historic realities of living as a “them” in a society that is religiously, politically, and economically delineated between “us” (Muslim) and “them” (Khafir) means that non-Muslims speak from the perspective of victimization. Their survival response has often been to submit to the forces of their own oppression rather to resist them. Accommodation as the strategy for survival has all too often meant abandonment of their cultural identity and values. Nevertheless, Christians and other non-Muslims have shown remarkable resilience.

Perhaps resilience itself may be the most powerful force of resistance to Islamization.

FP: What is the goal of the Islamist?

Roderick: The goal of the Islamist is to order all things in society by Islamic law. That goal is inherently racist. It assumes that a favorable balance of power favoring Muslims is the norm. Some argue that co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims in the past is a template for today. However, unless there is the acceptance of true parity between Muslims and non-Muslims it is delusional to believe that such a peaceful “co-existence” can be achieved. The imbalance of power always and inevitably works against the non-Muslim in Islamic society.

Therefore, to be resilient in the face of this reality means that the minority must seek to preserve the integrity of his own culture. When one finds that all of the institutions of society are constructed to ensure that non-Muslims remain second class citizens, it becomes necessary to seek out one’s own cultural institutions to identify with and strengthen. Integration into a society of mutual benefit presupposes equality and security. When these are denied to minorities, “co-existence” becomes a facade to justify the status quo of discrimination and prejudice.

It is true that, even in the deepest throes of “Jim Crow” American society, whites and blacks lived and worked together. However, this did not signify a just society. Institutional inequality, prejudice, and insecurity made true co-existence impossible until the black minority asserted their basic civil rights and the white majority, under the pressure of that movement, institutionalized into law equal rights and security for all.

FP: Is there anything non-Muslim minorities in Muslim majority countries can do in terms of their disempowerment?

Roderick: Non-Muslim minorities should not expect to be saved by a “champion” from the United States or Europe. They cannot wait to have someone else preserve their existence. During the past 20 years Western countries have been supportive of the self-determination campaigns of Muslims, but neglectful of others, especially Christians. They should expect, however, that allies will join them in solidarity. Coalition building among various ethnic and religious groups who have experienced jihad and subsequent Islamization is becoming an important instrument of unity and strength.

When Igbo and Pakistani Christians, Indonesian Christians and Copts, Maronites and Assyrians recognize a common history of oppression that they share, they see the value of working to form a common strategy of resistance. Co-religionists in the West suffer a lack of passion for supporting non-Muslim minorities. There is often more interest in inter-religious dialogue than in speaking on behalf of those persecuted. It is part of the West’s self-denial…

Self-denial, you say? No, no, Fr. Roderick. The Obamessiah is a-comin’, and he’s going to save us all. Everybody sing: Bambi loves me, this I know/For the Dhimmicrats tell me so…

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:56 | link | comments

Strombo being groomed for the majors?: Kathy Shaidle asks whether excruciatingly "cool" CBC chatter guy, George Stroumboulopoulos, will be the next Ceeber to be called up to al-Jazeera (the New York Yankees to the Ceeb's minor league club).

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:29 | link | comments (4)

Immune to the swoon: That's me, not the 200,000 who reportedly turned out in Berlin today to bask in The One's presence.

Must be some deficiency in my make-up. I never really got the whole Elvis thing either.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:09 | link | comments

More human rights hijinks in B.C.: Another sage decision from the ‘roo tribunal that tried Mark Steyn and Macleans. From the Vancouver Province (my bolds):

…By all accounts, [Ghassan] Asad was well-liked by staff and management, both for his personality and good work, with an employee review dated August 22, 2001 reading: "Ghassan is an excellent employee and a tremendous asset to our company. His dedication is greatly appreciated and he is well liked by his colleagues and the company management."

However, according to the tribunal's 227 page report, that was soon about to change.

After being granted his Canadian citizenship on Aug. 24, 2001, a day he described as "one of the best days of my life," Asad celebrated by going on a trip that included stops in Toronto, Buffalo, Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C. and Detroit.

On his return to work on September 4, 2001, Asad shared with his coworkers tales of this voyage, showing them pictures and even writing a small story in the company's monthly newsletter about his experiences.

Any enthusiasm they showed, however, was quickly overshadowed by the terrorist attacks seven days later. It was then, claimed the report that Asad started to feel he was being made the target of suspicion, with some coworkers going so far as to suggest he was involved given his recent trip.

One coworker allegedly said: "Isn't it suspicious that Ghassan is Arab and Muslim, and he went to New York and Washington?"

Suspicious glances turned to outright accusations when the RCMP showed up at Kinexus in what would develop into a series of interviews about his trip and his political views. In one interview, police allegedly asked him if he liked or had ever met with Osama bin-Laden.

It was later determined the complaint had originated from the family member of one of Asad's coworkers. Asad was never charged.

Unable to cope with the mounting stress and claiming he had lost trust and faith in everyone, Asad took leave from work. While the judgment claims things improved somewhat on his return Oct. 1, 2001, he continued to feel some of his coworkers, including company CEO Dr. Steven Pelech, were "suspicious" of him.

He said management failed to address his concerns and he continued to feel alienated and shunned right up to his termination in March 2003.

"He (Pelech) didn't respect me anymore," Asad is quoted as saying in the judgment. "He would just ignore me when I wanted to talk about work-related issues."

Pelech, however, told the Province that while Asad's behavior around 9/11 was "strange," staff did their best to address his concerns and told him they did not "feel that he was a threat." He noted the staff at Kinexus is multi-cultural.

"We tried to be sympathetic," said Pelech, adding Asad continued to be rewarded for his good work with a promotion and salary increase. "What we tried to do was to see how we could help him understand that the management itself did not feel he was guilty of anything."

When asked if Asad had been made the subject of racial profiling or taunts he answered: "No. Not at all. If any comments were made they were made in jest. They were not serious."

He said Asad was eventually terminated because he was no longer performing his work duties satisfactorily.

"I think he is a very emotional individual," said Pelech. "I'm sure, in his own mind, he thinks he was persecuted...I think that what has happened here is he saw it as an opportunity to make some money or strike back."

In the end, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal found Kinexus discriminated against Asad but that the discrimination was not related to his termination because the employers were able to establish cause.

He was awarded approximately $11,000…

So tell us, ‘roos, how should everyone have acted when a guy from Saudi Arabia started acting “strange” following 9/11? Ignored it? Pretended he had a grip on things, when, clearly, he did not? Under such circumstances,wasn’t it understandable why authorities might want to err on the side of caution and question the oddly-behaved Saudi rather than assume than everything was hunky-dory?

It sounds to me like the people who really should be compensating Ghassan for his “pain and suffering” are the either the Saudis, who’ve exported their toxic ideology far and wide, and whose Kingdom was the provenance of the bulk of the 9/11 attackers, or, barring that, Al Qaeda, the jihadis who launched the attacks that engendered the suspicion. Good luck collecting from them, though.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:20 | link | comments

This doesn't sound good: Bambi urges renewed alliance with EU.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:59 | link | comments

And speaking of the Muslim Brothers…: What’s Mo Elmasry’s take on Hassan's and Sayid's ‘hood? Well, back in 2004 he seemed to be trying to distance himself—sort of but not really—from what he concedes is its brand of  “extremism,” calling himself a “Muslim democrat”. And lest you think that’s kind of like calling yourself a “jumbo shrimp,” Mo attempts to show that it’s not:

….The Qur'an does not offer a specific prescription or recipe for an ideal political system. But it does recommend and praise the value of collective decision-making for the common good (42:38). And elsewhere, it elevates collective decision-making from the category of recommended processes to that of obligatory ones (3:159).  

Thus if modern democracy offers a practical methodology for achieving collective decision-making for the common good, it is not only compatible with Islam, but is virtually an Islamic political system with a Greek name.  

Good Muslim politicians who apply sound Qur'anic teaching to their theories should therefore call themselves Muslim democrats.  

In fact, this was the primary thesis of Muslim reformers during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the most important of whom were Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abdu, and Rashid Rida (an Afghani, an Egyptian, and a Syrian, respectively).  

Each asserted that the values of freedom and democracy in the west are exactly what traditional Islamic teaching defines as justice (adl), right (haqq), collective decision-making (shura) and equality (musawat).  

These Islamic values relate to the rule of freedom and democracy, which consists of imparting justice and rights to the people, and affirming the nation's participation in determining its own destiny.  

Basically, they reframed and reformulated western democratic principles using Islamic terms, harmonizing Islamic teachings with western political, social and economic concepts.  

Other Muslim intellectuals, however, rejected the three western concepts of democracy, secularization, and the nation-state, saying they represented three direct contradictions of Islamic religious and political thought, and relying "for their authority on human rather than divine legislation ... formulated through secular rather than God-given laws."  

This group believed that no one can reconcile the conflicting ideologies of global Islam and western democracy without accepting the latter system's perceived drawbacks of intellectual dishonesty, spiritual blasphemy, and moral cowardice.  

This separationist point of view can be seen in the writings of Sayyid Qutb, a major figure of the Muslim Brotherhood who was executed by Egyptian authorities in 1966.  

Other Muslims thinkers agree with Sayyid Qutb. Among them is Abu'ala al-Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani scholar. Both Qutb and al-Mawdudi reject the idealization of the three western values of democracy, secularization, and the nation-state, finding them corrupting to the human soul and to society.  

But if you ask me -- and I hope you will -- I am proud to be a Muslim democrat. And that is that.  

Notice how Mo doesn’t criticize Qutb’s “separationist point of view,” but does get in a backhanded swipe at the West’s supposed “intellectual dishonesty,” etc.  Also, how he never once mentions the dreaded “S” word (sharia)--the better to bamboozle us into believing that Islam and democracy are indeed compatible (when, clearly, that’s not the case).

And that last line is a tiny masterpiece of doubletalk: He’s proud to be a "Muslim democrat," but he won't slam the Bros, and he won’t own up to the fact that anyone who “applies sound Quar’anic teachings” is ipso facto following sharia, and therefore cannot conceivably be a “democrat” in any Western understanding of the word. What we have here once again is a wilful failure to communicate the difference between how the West and Islam understand such concepts as “peace,” “human rights,” and “freedom”. And that, to quote Mo, is that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:15 | link | comments

"The Project":  FrontPage magazine has a must-read piece about how the Muslim Brotherhood set out to use the issue of "Palestine" to infiltrate and undermine the West.

Seems to be working.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:29 | link | comments

Paging George Orwell...: Hitler wannabe declares August 5th "Islamic Human Rights Day."

Why bother? Where he lives, every day is Islamic Human Rights Day.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:23 | link | comments

Oh, Kay: I took issue with Jonathan Kay’s recent column in the National Post which warned that HRCs might entertain complaints about “hate speech” in the Koran because, given the thought cops’ ideological leanings and Muslims’ designation as one of Canada’s special “victim” groups, that’s an exceedingly remote—if not downright risible—proposition. A letter-writer to the Post takes issue with Kay for entirely different reasons:

Jonathan Kay has made some comments about Muslims that need clarification. Calling certain Muslim texts sexist, homophobic or anti-Semitic is more of a stereotype than reality. A woman's place is so high in Islam that heaven is placed under the feet of a mother. Muhammad always preached love and kindness toward women.

As far as Jews are concerned, history is the witness to the peaceful life Jews had under Islamic rule. Even Muhammad had business dealings with them. It is only the creation of Israel, which is perceived by Arabs and Muslims to be illegal, that has created the tension we see now.

Reality check: According to sharia, a woman is a lesser human being, who is to be hidden away at home, and must heed the bidding of her huband, a man, and therefore her superior. Next, Jews under Islamic rule were dhimmis, inferiors to Muslims, and subject to the whims and brutalities of their local rulers as well as the humiliations outlined for them in Islamic law. Finally, the reason Muslims have had such a hard time accepting Israel is because of the Judenhass embedded in their religious texts; backward it got has he.

Also, the Jews had the temerity to be the first monotheists, waaay before Muhammad showed up on the scene. But, hey, it’s not like that’s something over which we had any control.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:51 | link | comments

The difference between Jews and Arabs: Jews take care of and resettle their own. Arabs don’t. They keep their “refugees” in squalor, perpetuate their misery, and use them as pawns in a genocidal chess game. Richard Z. Chesnoff in JWR has more:

…By 1947, close to a million Jews lived in the Arab world. Many played primary roles in local economies, global trade, and medicine. Some became senior advisors to Emirs and Sultans and helped enrich the cities of the Arab world ((EG Baghdad's pre 1948 Chamber of Commerce was 50% Jewish).

The historic decision to establish the State of Israel changed all that. Outraged by the idea of a Jewish state in their midst, the Arab world turned against its Jews, targeting them with legislated discrimination, government sponsored anti-Semitic riots and murderous pogroms. Faced with growing threats, outright violence and government moves to completely disenfranchise them, close to 900,000 Jews were forced to abandon their ancient homes.

Almost all were allowed to leave only on condition they signed agreements never to return and — most important — to leave their property and belongings behind. Recently uncovered documents indicate that much of this massive theft was a coordinated scheme by several Arab governments to grab Jewish property worth as much as $100 billion.

Today, with the exception of small communal pockets in Morocco, the Arab world is effectively Judenrein. Egypt which once had 180,000 Jews now has only a handful of mostly aged Jews living in Cairo and Alexandria; Iraq which had 160,000 Jews now has 20, Libya and most other Arab states have none.

But here comes the difference between the fates of Arab and Jewish refugees. While the corrupt Arab world condemned Palestinian Arabs to statelessness, squandered chance after chance to make peace with Israel and stole mega-millions in welfare funds, the Jewish state and the world Jewish community worked tirelessly to resettle its fellow Jews from Arab lands. More than half a million have settled in Israel where, after early years of economic and sometimes social hardship, they and their descendants have been successfully integrated and now form more than 50% of the Jewish population. Others found new homes in South America, Western Europe, the United Kingdom, United States, Canada — rebuilding lives while trying to retain their own unique cultural ties and communal institutions.

Most important, not a single Jew from the Arab world remains a "refugee", not one lives in a squalid camp or demands a "Right of Return" to the Arab world. Above all, not one angry Arab Jewish terrorist has ever strapped a suicide bomb to his or her waist and climbed aboard an Arab bus to murder dozens of innocents.

Next time someone moans to you about the plight of Arab refugees, remind them that there still is another way. And that compensation works in two directions.

Next time someone moans to me about the plight of Arab refugees, I can pretty much assume that person is a clueless useful idiot, and there’s not much point in “confusing” him/her with the truth. (Not that I won’t do my best to confuse 'em anyway.)

Update: Here's some that truth I was talking about, courtesy Raymond Ibrahim on the DhimmiWatch site.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:04 | link | comments (1)

What’s in a name?: Despite Bambi’s (empty) promises and best efforts to woo them, Israelis appear to be immune to the swoon. CBS tries to account for the “odd” lack of enthusiasm—an explanation deconstructed by Newsbusters (its bolds):

The Wednesday CBS Evening News story on Barack Obama's day in Israel presumed Jewish concerns about his commitment to Israel are unreasonable as reporter Sheila MacVicar empathized with Obama's plight while she fretted about how an Israeli newspaper columnist “referred to him by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.” After noting that Obama “did spend an hour with the Palestinian President, something John McCain did not do on his trip here,” MacVicar stressed the “the focus of the day was to try to reassure Jewish voters who are suspicious of him.” From Jerusalem, she then held up a copy of the newspaper as she rued:

It's an uphill battle. An example? A commentator writing in this morning's Israeli Ha'aretz newspaper referred to him by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama, talked about his Muslim stepfather, his childhood in Indonesia, his openness to dialogue with Iran as real sources of anxiety for both the Israeli establishment and American Jewish voters.

MacVicar concluded by bemoaning: “However unfair it may be, it will take more than this trip to alter the very deeply held perception of some that on Israel the Senator is not to be trusted.”…

Stiff-necked, recalcitrant Jews. Always out of step. Can’t they see Bambi’s the Messiah?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:31 | link | comments

Huseyin who?: At the moment there are two notable Canadians being held in foreign jails—Omar Khadr, in Gitmo, and Huseyin Celil, in China. The Sun’s Peter Worthington explains why one is such a cause célèbre and the other has been largely ignored:

…Omar Khadr is Canadian-born, but arguably the family is Canadian only by convenience. Omar was not fighting Canadians, and is not a Canadian issue. The Australian “illegal combatant” held at Guantanamo was returned to Australia only after he pleaded guilty.

If Omar pleads guilty, perhaps he’ll serve his sentence here — though I’d still argue he shouldn’t.

To make Omar Khadr a poster boy for Canadians presently in foreign jails is misguided, if not obscene.

If that was the case, why isn’t a similar campaign being launched on behalf of Huseyin Celil, kidnapped and held by the Chinese on trumped up charges of terrorism.

He’s an innocent Canadian citizen being persecuted — but there’s no anti-American mileage to be made from defending him, so he gets cursory treatment.

Bet he wishes he were in Gitmo instead of China.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:02 | link | comments

Danse macabre: The Butcher of Sudan is so keen to evade justice (not that that's necessarily what's being meted out in The Hague) that he is said to have embarked on a "charm offensive."

Offensive being the operative word.

Yesteray in Darfur, the site of his ongoing slaughter, "in front of thousands of people packed into what appeared to be a mandatory pop rally...the bespectacled, portly president jumped up on a desk and did a little jig."

A jig-dancing despot, eh? It's been done.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:46 | link | comments

Big dick: Fauxbama says he plans to use a “big sticks and big carrots” approach to get the mullahs to drop their enrichment program.

Yeah, that should work.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:13 | link | comments

The worst of both worlds: I found this intriguing quotation in the Wiki entry for the novel Brave New World:

Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1986 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Welcome to Soviet Canada, a Brave New World where you can party like it’s 1984.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:56 | link | comments

Party animals: Who’s the most popular Jew-killer in Lebanon? Why, Samir Kuntar, of course. The pudgy Sammy, who looks to have consumed a few too many shwarmas during his stay in a Zionist prison, was guest of honour at several celebrations, one of which was hosted by Al Jazeera (the media outlet favoured by Ceeb refugees looking for a bigger pay check). From the Jerusalem Post:

For the second time this year, Israel has decided to act against Al-Jazeera, after the influential TV station held a party for released Lebanese child-killer Samir Kuntar, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The party, held in Beirut, was organized by the Al-Jazeera bureau there to honor Kuntar on the occasion of his release from Israeli prison. He was hailed as a hero who carried out a brave military operation against the Jewish state.

The Government Press Office said it would impose sanctions on Al-Jazeera and demand an explanation from the station.

Al-Jazeera's bureau chief in Beirut, Ghassan bin Jeddo, has long been known for his close ties to Hizbullah.

Kuntar, for his part, thanked Jeddo and Al-Jazeera for supporting him and other prisoners in Israeli jails and for waging a campaign to bring about their release.

Daniel Seaman, director of the GPO, expressed outrage over the event.

On Tuesday, Seaman phoned Walid Omari, the Al-Jazeera bureau chief in Israel, and summoned him to an urgent meeting to inform him of the GPO's decision to suspend ties with the station.

Omari, who is currently abroad, is scheduled to report to the GPO on his return, a source at Al-Jazeera said, adding that the station had still not been informed of the new measures against it.

Seaman said he also planned to write to the Foreign Press Association in Israel to explain his decision.

"We will suspend all handling of Al-Jazeera requests," Seaman told the Post. "For now, we won't provide them with any of our services, which include issuing press credentials and assistance with bureaucracy and applications for visas."

Seaman said he would demand an explanation from Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, about the event.

"I want to know what they are going to do about this case," he said. "I want to know how they intend to handle this case. What they did was not professional."...

Maybe not, but it’s also not surprising.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:21 | link | comments (3)

Elmasry's not the only Arab who hearts the Zimbabwean brute: The Syrians like Mugabe, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:03 | link | comments

Sorry I missed it: Last month the Canadian Arab Federation held its Annual Policy Conference. One group of panelists reads like a Lefty/Islamist dream team:

Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech
This panel will explore some of the issues surrounding the manipulation of freedom of speech. Recent events such as the complaint against Maclean's magazine reference to the growing Muslim influence on Canadian policy will be examined to identify the underlying motives behind these actions.
Panelists
Khurrum Awan [Former President, Canadian Islamic Congress Youth Chapter]
Haroon Siddiqui [Editor Emeritus, Toronto Star]
Barbara Hall [Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Council]
Moderator: Jasmin Tuffaha [Writer, CBC News: The National]

Let’s see: one sock puppet; one Order of Canada winner/shill for the mullahs; one commissar; and one Ceeber.  The only thing missing is some mucky-muck from the Jewstablishment, but I guess, for obvious reasons, that wasn’t considered.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:53 | link | comments (2)

Unexpected connections: In last week's New Yorker cover story, I learned that Jesse Jackson's daughter is the godmother of the Fauxbamas' elder daughter. In today's Toronto Star, I learned that actor Christian Bale--Batman in The Dark Knight and currently going through a spot of bother in London for allegedly hitting his mom and sister--is the stepson of feminista, Gloria Steinem.

Hard to believe. Next you'll tell me that Winona Ryder's godfather was LSD aficionado Timothy Leary, and that Nicollette Sheridan was Telly Savalas's stepdaughter.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments

When "no" means "no": For all the opprobrium heaped on Nigel Chamberlain because he went to Munich and returned home with a worthless piece of paper, at least he went because Hitler had duped him into believing they could work things out. But when would-be genocidaire Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes it clear that there's nothing to negotiate, and that Iran is going ahead with its nuke the Jews project no matter what, what excuse do today's appeasers have for continuing their discussions?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:15 | link | comments (1)

Bambi sings Lenny: The Toronto Star poses the timely question, "Is Obama ready to take Berlin?"

"Hell, yes," cries Bambi, breaking into a Leonard Cohen tune:

They’ll “sentence” me to four years in the White House,

But I can’t wait for my term to begin.

I’ve travelled here to look all presidential.

First I’ll take Ramallah;

Then I’ll take Berlin.

 

I’m guided by a signal in the heavens.

I’ve fallen very hard for my own spin.

No way McCain can touch me with his weapons.

First I’ll take Ramallah;

Then I’ll take Berlin.

 

I really want to be the leader, baby.

I’ve got the presence, and the spirit, and the youth.

And in my quest to best all my opponents

I haven’t, I haven’t, I haven’t always told the truth.

 

I don’t like your Iraq warfare, Dubya,

I don’t like the kudos for your win.

I don’t like the way some people luv ya.

First I’ll take Ramallah;

Then I’ll take Berlin.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:15 | link | comments

The dishonesty of ‘honest broker’: You know how certain ideas are supposed to mean something nice, but when you unpack how they actually function in the real world, they turn out to mean their exact opposite? Thus “human rights” is supposed to be about vouchsafing freedoms. Instead, it has come to be a way of tamping out our most salient freedom—free speech. “Honest broker” is another one of those phrases. Oh, it sounds all fair and balanced. But when you examine it, it turns out to be a sneaky euphemism for revoking support for Israel so the Arabs can prevail.

So when a clean-favoured, imperially slim salesman stood up at an AIPAC convention and told the Jews he supports Israel, what he really meant was “I’ll say anything to get your vote.” Jennifer Rubin of the contentions blog contends that once Bambi’s in office, all indications are that he’s likely to go along with the Arabs and broker Israel plum out of existence (her bolds):

Jordan’s King Abdullah reportedly told Barack Obama that “even-handed” policies by the U.S. would bring about a more peaceful Middle East. Now let’s see if Winnie-the-Pooh guru Richard Danzig and the rest of the Legion of 300 can spot that one. This would be a “code word.” This has been the constant refrain from Arab states: the U.S. should be an “honest broker” and give up its special relationship with Israel, followed by all manner of prodding and pushing to resolve the Palestinian conflict (to which which they attribute all that ills the Middle East). So my question: what did Obama say in return?

His press conference on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict suggests he might not quibble with Abdullah. Obama’s remarks are a tour de force of moral relativism. Not a harsh word about the murdered Israeli soldiers. But plenty of “context” and not a hint that he would disagree with Abdullah’s admonition. His remarks include gems like this:

And that’s why terrorism is so counterproductive, as well as being immoral, because it makes, I believe, the Israelis want to dig in and simply think about their own security regardless of what’s going on beyond their borders. I think the same would be true of any people when these kinds of things happen and innocent people are injured. On the other hand, I think that the Palestinians have to feel some sense of progress in terms of their economic situation, you know, whether it’s on the West Bank or Gaza, if people continually feel pressed, where they can’t get to their job or they can’t make a living, they get frustrated.

And the suggested approach? Give the Palestinians more stuff and more freedom of movement:

And so, I think what the United States can do is — is to help to create more — a greater sense of security among the Israelis, a greater sense that economic progress and increased freedom of movement is something that can be accomplished in the Palestinian territories.

Is there any recognition in the wake of the recent atrocities that Israel lack the one key ingredient to peace negotiations — a responsible part with which to negotiate? No. Is there any evidence that giving the Palestinians more stuff and more “freedom of movement” (from precisely where to where, would he suggest?) improves matters? No…

Bambi’s such a people pleaser that I’m sure he’ll offer plenty of assurances to Olmert, too. When the time comes, though, you can bet he’ll revert to his default setting: clueless Lefty who’s fallen for the line that “poverty” and “the settlements” and “the Occupation” are the “root causes” of the problem.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:10 | link | comments

Boy's Own Adventure, jihad version:You just never know you're going to turn up on the 'Net. Take this "heartwarming" story about an American jihadi and how he finally landed his Heavenly houris. It's a real seat-of-your-pants thriller, if holy war happens to be your bag.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:30 | link | comments

Meaty miracle: Nigerians are said to be astonished because this morsel of beef is inscribed with the word "Allah".

They'd better put it in the fridge, and quick. "Allah" doesn't look so fresh to me.

This isn't the first time "Allah" has miraculously appeared in a comestible. Here's "Allah" in a tomato, and, of course, the infamous BK "Allah" ice cream squiggle (which was nixed lest it cause offense).

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:52 | link | comments

The American saviour: And he's portable, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:14 | link | comments

Hot ticket item: The controversial issue of the New Yorker with Bambi and the Missus on the cover is on sale for many times its value on eBay.

What am I bid for my copy (which is in good condition but which has been read)?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:00 | link | comments

Worst news of the day: Bambi vows immediate peace push.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:48 | link | comments

Walk softly, carry a teensy stick, and, once you've made a complete hash of things, get the Yanks to come in and mop up your mess: The most ridiculous headline/story/assertion you're likely to read in a long time, courtesy, who else?, the New York Times: With Karadzic's arrest, Europe sees Triumph. The supposed triumph? The EU strategy of soft--i.e. wimp--power.

The cynics among us might point to the fruits of this doctrine--two World Wars, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Kosovo and, coming soon to a Levant near you, an Iranian nuke or two poised to obliterate the Zionist entity.

Thanks for the casualties, EUnuchs--about the only thing we can "thank" you for.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:23 | link | comments

Guess who? They're both Radovan Karadzic. The first photo shows him as we remember him--the mastermind of the Srebenica massacre. The second shows him in the guise of a popular "new agey" therapist, the identity he assumed during his years on the run (which have now abruptly come to an end).

More proof that truth really is stranger than fiction. 

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:39 | link | comments

With “friends” like Brown, who needs Arabs?: Melanie Phillips laces into British P.M. Gordon Brown for his speech to the Knesset yesterday. In it, he shed lots of crocodile tears over the Jews’ tragic history, but then, wasting no time, segued right into Mahmoud Abbas’s talking points:

...Brown, the lifelong ‘friend’ of Israel, has thus told Israel that it must accept the agenda of its mortal enemies: an agenda designed to destroy it. As far as I can see, he has uttered not one word of reprimand to the Palestinians for their unending war of annihilation against Israel. He did not tell them that they have no right to expect anything at all unless they renounce their goal of destroying the Jewish state. He did not tell them that their ‘historic’ claim to any part of the land is based on a historic and legal lie, and that Israel is fully justified under international law to hold onto it against their unending aggression. He did not tell them that their misery is entirely of their own making and would end the instant they stopped trying to destroy Israel. He did not tell them any of these factual and moral truths. Instead, he parroted to the beleaguered Israelis in their own Parliament the disgusting moral inversion of Arab propaganda which turns Israel into the barrier to peace and the Palestinians into the seekers of justice.

He thus told Israel it must return to the ‘1967 borders’ – which are in fact the 1948 cease-fire lines and referred to in Israel as the ‘Auschwitz borders’ because they are totally indefensible. He told it that it must freeze and withdraw from settlements – thus endorsing the Arab agenda of ethnic cleansing which requires not one Jew to be living in a future state of Palestine. He told it that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine – despite the fact that the Arab claim to Jerusalem is entirely one of conquest; despite the fact that Israeli Jerusalem would be under bombardment from enemies living just a few streets away; and despite the fact that it would mean a return to the desecration of Jewish and Christian holy sites in east Jerusalem that was such a dreadful feature of its previous occupation by Jordanian Arabs.

And although the published text of his speech does not use the explosive term ‘right of return’ which appears in Ben Brogan’s blog and which would mean the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, he accepts that the Palestinian ‘refugees’ need a ‘just settlement’ – regardless of the fact that the descendants of no other displaced people are judged by the world to have ‘rights’ as refugees, including the 800,000 Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Arab lands after 1948; regardless of the fact that most of the Palestinian Arabs’ ancestors only arrived in Palestine on the back of the Jewish immigration in the early 20^th century; and regardless of the fact that in no other conflict in the history of this planet have those who have tried to wipe out a country been deemed worthy of reward and that the country that is the victim of their violent aggression been expected to accommodate them – even while it is still fending off their attacks.

This moral deformity is not just confined to Arab propaganda but is the signature belief of the left. Since the left believes that anyone who disagrees with it is ‘the right’, it dismisses the cause of truth, justice and morality in the Middle East as merely the thinking of ‘the right’ and thus not even worthy of consideration. That was indeed, after the unease displayed in the Knesset at Brown’s speech, the response by Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert -- a man who has done more to weaken Israel, both morally and strategically, and embolden and strengthen its enemies than any politician since the restoration of the State of Israel in 1948. It is also – tragically -- the view of many prominent Jews on the left in Britain and America. It is rooted in the left’s disdain for – or sheer incomprehension of – moral judgments, and their replacement by moral relativism and inversion camouflaged by self-righteous sentimentality. It is a view which actively strengthens the enemies of civilisation and makes continued violence and war absolutely inevitable. With his Knesset speech, Gordon Brown has shown himself to be just another creature of the morally bankrupted left, and what remained of his reputation as the rock of Caledonian granite now lies crumbled in the desert dust.

Brown's a faux-friend. Or a foe-friend. Take your pick.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:01 | link | comments (2)

Beware mully bullies with nukes:  Two experts on the subject sound the alarm about an Iran with nukes. First, Ilan Berman (who I heard speak at one of those lunch and learn thingys in the fall of ‘06), in the Toronto Star:

"The Iranians are playing a colossal game of chicken with us," says Ilan Berman, vice-president of the American Foreign Policy Council. "Does the international community have the will to take the short-term pain and disarm these guys, or accept the long-term pain of a region completely dominated by this regime? I think the world community has essentially come to grips with the fact that Iran is going to go nuclear. The talks are an implicit endorsement of Iranian nuclearization."

Next, Andrew Bostom, who’s investigated the historical roots of Iran’s annihilationist policies.

Funny how Jimbo “Eff the Jews” Baker and Lee Hamilton, the guys in charge of the “study group” responsible for that cockamamie “no nukes are good nukes” report released in the winter of ’06—the one that effectively handcuffed the president from doing anything substantive about Iran—haven’t had much to say of late.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:47 | link | comments

The national swoon: Bambimania, unpacked.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

Kay at sea: The National Post’s Jonathan Kay is a bright guy, but he rather misses the boat, I think, with this one:

Last week, at Toronto's Noor Centre --a cultural organization for liberal Muslims --I participated in a panel discussion on the question of whether the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) is justified in bringing human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine for publishing Mark Steyn's (now famous) cover article, The Future Belongs to Islam. What follows is adapted from my opening remarks.

No, I don't think the CIC's complaints have any merit. In fact, I find it quite creepy that government officials even take the case seriously. "Human rights" bureaucrats should focus on real human rights issues, like protecting Canadians from bigoted landlords and employers --not censoring journalists.

But you've heard all this before. I've made this case many times in editorials and columns, and so have lots of other journalists. So rather than repeat familiar arguments about the value of free speech, I want to focus on an aspect of the issue that relates directly to Canadian Muslims. The other panelists you've heard from take it for granted that Muslims will benefit from censorship imposed in the name of human rights -- because it will protect your community from Islamophobia. I'd like to challenge that assumption. Even putting aside all the usual principled reasons for upholding free speech, there are several utterly practical, self-interested reasons why the people in this room should be wary about hitching their carts to the thought-police horse.

It is only a matter of time before human rights censors come after Muslims. Like the Bible, Muslim scripture contains a lot of material that, by modern standards, would be considered sexist, homophobic or even anti-Semitic. One statement attributed to Muhammad, for instance, declares that "Judgment day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill the Jews, and then the Jews will hide behind stones or trees, and the stone or the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' " Is this the sort of thing that human rights mandarins will someday judge as "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" -- to quote the applicable language from the Canadian Human Rights Act (HRA)?

The prospect of a human rights tribunal telling you which Suras and Hadiths you are and aren't allowed to preach in your mosques may sound ridiculous.

But it's not. A few months ago, an Alberta pastor named Stephen Boissoin was slapped down by a human rights tribunal for the crime of proselytizing his socially conservative Christian attitudes toward homosexuality. As part of the judgment against him, he is now legally forbidden from commenting on matters of sexual orientation -- even in his sermons. The same sort of judgment was previously rendered against a Saskatchewan Christian named Hugh Owens, who cited Bible passages such as Leviticus 18:22 to denounce homosexuality.

Human rights mandarins haven't gone after mosques and mullahs -- yet. But that will change once Muslims have exhausted their usefulness as frontmen in the battle against Christians and conservatives. If Leviticus is now hate speech, how long before the Koran gets the same treatment?...

There’s something seriously awry with Jonathan’s argument. I think it’s that there’s no getting around the fact that portions of the Koran do indeed constitute hate speech, and that the hateful passages are part and parcel of the book’s Divinely-decreed doctrine of supremacy that motivates hard and soft jihadis alike to press for sharia to prevail over our godless democracies. However, there’s no way our Human Rights apparatchiks—leftists, Marxists, socialists, multicultists and Third Worlders, the lot of them—would entertain a complaint about the Koran, the holy book of one of Canada’s designated “victim” groups. And even if by some remote chance they ever did consider a complaint, the result would most likely be similar to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s ruling about VisionTV. The Council affirmed that it was okay for an imam to preach hate and call for jihad over Canadian airwaves because he did so in “the context” of the Koran, and didn’t raise his voice.

Jonathan may be a good guy, but when it comes to an understanding of Islam, he’s no Robert Spencer (or Ibn Warraq, or Andrew Bostom, or, for that matter, Mark Steyn).

Update: Speaking of Robert Spencer, he has some questions for and concerns about the "liberal Muslims" of the Noor Centre.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:24 | link | comments (5)

 The Sampson option: In his statement yesterday, Mo Sharpton, er, Elmasry drew a comparison between Omar Khadr and William Sampson, the Canadian who was incarcerated in a Saudi prison. The only reason the government took action on Sampson’s behalf and has ignored Omar, according to Mo, is because Sampson is “white,” Omar is “brown,” and Harper’s a flagrant “Islamophobe”.

Bill Sampson, who was accused of a trumped-up charge, repeatedly tortured, and forced to languish in a Saudi jail for three years, might have something to say about the government’s efforts—or, rather, the distinct lack thereof. You can read all about it in his book, Confessions of an Innocent Man: Torture and Survival in a Saudi Prison.

There is a comparison to be drawn here. It’s between a government’s "shocking indifference" for the plight of a “white” Canadian falsely charged and plunked in a Wahhabi hoosegow, where he endured 31 months of solitary, and its genuine concern for a “brown” Canadian, a real live jihadi terrorist, stuck in a Pakistani prison. I'm speaking, of course, of Omar’s late papa, who was sprung from jail solely because then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien took it upon himself to personally put a word in the ear of Pakistan’s then-Prime Minister; the P.M. deigned to do the equivalent for Sampson.

But that wasn’t about “race” so much as it was about Chretien’s and the Liberals’ utter cluelessness, as well as their "Islamophilic" desire to pander to Canada’s Pakistani community.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:08 | link | comments

“Human rights” above all: In a letter to the Toronto Sun, the executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation, an outfit that's well-known for its humanitarianism, makes the case for respecting Omar Khadr’s “human rights”:

Much has been said about the family of Omar Khadr, a bizarre clan who all but sealed Khadr's fate to languish in Guantanamo Bay while guaranteeing Canadian apathy.

Even more has been said about the Canadian government's callous indifference and frosty reception to the idea of Khadr's repatriation.

But what is seemingly lost in the debate about the rights guaranteed to a citizen and the serious allegations of purported terrorist acts is the most important nugget of information.

When Omar Khadr was arrested, he was just a kid.

The Geneva Conventions, ratified by Canada, promise a plethora of protections to children and child soldiers and some, if not all, have been betrayed by Khadr's family and now American officials.

The human rights which the international community, including Canada and the United States, are supposed to allot even to participants of war is absent in the case of Khadr. His victimization is apparent -- initially by the choices of his family and now through unjust government policy. He has been failed by those who have the duty to protect him.

At one time, Canada was one of the most active countries of the United Nations to strive to rehabilitate child soldiers in war-torn regions of Africa. In Angola for instance, millions of dollars were invested into the future and welfare of children by building and opening schools for former child soldiers. Incidentally, no educational resources or opportunities have been granted to Omar Khadr since his detainment six years ago.

Lack of support for Khadr's return is largely based on the rather boneheaded remarks his family made about their derision to Western society and his father's close link to al-Qaida; it was not, however, Omar Khadr's words which expressed scorn nor did he choose to begin any relationship with a terrorist group.

His victimization is further compounded by the right-wing agenda of Stephen Harper and his party which is flagrantly ignoring Canada's historical commitment to human rights and the rule of law. This is not the only example of Canada's sudden policy shift; the Durban anti-racism conference, landmine elimination and protection of the environment are suddenly no longer essential matters to Canada.

Omar Khadr's victimization by numerous parties is rather obvious but the exacerbation of his treatment is multiplied by the government's lack of respect for the international treaties and conventions that outline human rights and rights of children. It is time for Harper to stop playing games with the life of this youth and demand that he come home.

Yeah, Harper, why won’t you submit to the international “human rights”/eco agenda? It would make everything so much simpler.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:16 | link | comments

Bad connection: Halifax Chronicle-Herald writer Will King has a flash of insight—Omar Khadr is a lot like the iPhone.

Or, to be more accurate, he’s like the opposite of the iPhone. You see, while Canadians are lining up, signing up and clamouring madly for the iPhone, a mere technological gizmo, no one seems to be doing the same for Omar, a bloomin’ human bean:

TWO RECENT stories come to mind which, at first, seem unconnected; but after a little thought, I realize they both are tightly woven within the fabric of what we call society. And I wonder: Just what is it that we are covering with this fabric?

A little more than a week ago, the Apple iPhone was released in Canada and the response was many people giving up their sleep willingly to stand outside the stores all night, in hopes of being one of the first people to own this device.

In contrast, last week it was reported that Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who has been held at Guantanamo Bay since he was 15, had his own sleepless nights. His were not because of a youthful desire for an iPhone, but at the hands of his captors: It was reported they had routinely awakened him after intervals of three hours of sleep, and moved him in order to "soften him up" for a visit from CSIS agents who were to interrogate him.

One story is about action and the other about inaction.

When the iPhone was announced months ago, a petition was started protesting the fact the data usage plans that existed to go along with the iPhone were too pricey. If iPhone users were to use the devise to watch YouTube videos, download music, e-mail, etc., things needed to change.

Concerned potential iPhone users signed a petition whose site states: "The only way to have power to make change is in the number of people willing to fight for their rights. They know we need our phones. That gives them power. We need to get more than a petition going. We need to get a list of people together that is big enough that we can demand fair voice and data plans."

Ottawa South MP David McGuinty also spoke up and asked for support for C-555, the Get Connected Fairly Act, and the national media picked up the story. The carrier released a new data plan.

But what has happened to Omar Khadr, a human being, a once 15-year-old captured prisoner of war? Where is he? Where’s his petition? What’s the plan for him?

Omar Khadr is not an iPhone. He cannot download the newest hip-hop video; he does not have Facebook or flash-embedded technology; nor can his tortuous treatment, it seems, raise the furor that an unfair data plan can.

Omar Khadr is a human being; he bleeds, feels alone, cries, has fears. There was a time when we cared more for human beings than for our commercialized existence…

Maybe if he could download the newest hip-hop video and had flash-embedded technology, there’d be more incentive to spring him.  But probably not, since he has yet to account in an American court for the charges that landed him in the cooler. Also, bringing him “home” entails returning him to the loving arms of his unlovable Taliban ma and sis—not exactly an appealing prospect.

As for our supposed heartlessness: we’re not the ones who divest children of their humanity by turning them into technological objects—human killing machines.

Hmmm. I guess Omar is kind of like an iPhone.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:53 | link | comments

Jumping the gun: "President" Bambi says he and Iraq's Prime Minister have talked it over, and both agree that Amercian troops should be out of Iraq within the next two years.

Oh, wait. Bambi's not the president yet?

Could have fooled him.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:12 | link | comments

A "human right" to hardwood floors: If you ever want to have a laugh and a half, check out some of the decisions of the BC Human Rights Tribunal, the 'roos who even as we speak are weighing the evidence of the Buffy scholar and other experts on "Islamophobia" who gave testimony at the Steyn/Maclean's show trial. (Either that or they've gone fishing and hope to get back to their deliberations once the fish stop biting.) Here's an example of one of the many, many decisions you can find on the BCHRT site: a couple who complained that the wife's rights had been violated when her request to rip out the broadloom in their unit--she suffered from asthma and the carpeting supposedly made her wheeze--was turned town.

Now, I'm not saying that, if the carpeting did indeed exacerbate her condition, the condo owners weren't being unreasonable when they told her the floor covering had to stay (because it would have violated the condo's by-laws to remove it). But, really, hardwood as a "human right"? I don't think so.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:07 | link | comments (2)

Coming soon:

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:00 | link | comments

CJC’s over-the-top reaction: A couple of months ago, a window was smashed at a Montreal mosque—the third such act of vandalism since January. Here’s how the incident was reported in the Montreal Gazette:

MONTREAL - Muslims arriving for their regular morning prayers at the Makkah-al-Mukarramah mosque before dawn Saturday were dismayed to discover one of the plate glass windows in the double front door had been smashed.

It was the third time this year their building on Gouin Blvd. W. in Pierrefonds has been vandalized.

In January, the mosque was defaced with paintballs and about two months ago someone took a baseball bat and smashed four of the building's main windows.

"When the paintball was done, we shrugged it off as the work of confused kids," said congregation secretary Jameer Rauph. "When the windows were smashed, we started to get a little bit uneasy, but we were ready to forgive. Now, with this incident, the community as a whole is starting to worry."

Imam Ismail Jogiyat says he doesn't believe the mosque has been singled out by anti-Muslims.

"It's mindless vandalism," he said. "Sometimes weak people do stupid things. As a spiritual leader, I tell my congregation perhaps we are not honouring God enough. We have to pray harder for our enemies."

None of the men who gathered for prayers yesterday felt personally threatened. But they point out their congregation is small, and can't afford to repair the damage.

One member of the Sunni congregation, Syed Zaheer Ali, suggested the release of the Bouchard-Taylor report on the reasonable accommodation of minorities might have sparked the latest incident.

"The report came down in favour of the hijab, so that might have had a slight effect. I don't know."

Others say the absence of anti-Muslim graffiti, and the fact that other religious buildings in the area have been vandalized, suggests the attacks are random…(My emphasis)

Sounds like there wasn’t much too it, and that those involved mostly shrugged it off. The same can’t be said, however, of the Canadian Jewish Congress, which issued this overwrought news release (with the more hyperventilated portions bolded by me):

MONTREAL, MAY 27, 2008 - Canadian Jewish Congress, Quebec Region (CJC, QR) the official representative of the Jewish community of Montreal, strongly condemns the recent acts of vandalism on the Makkah-al-Mukarramah mosque, the third such incident of vandalism since January, 2008.

"It is unacceptable to see these types of acts against places of worship. We cannot allow the multiplication of manifestations of racism and Islamophobia," said CJC, QR President Dr. Victor Goldbloom. "As Jews, we know all too well the pain of such desecrations. It is the duty of all Quebecers to stand up and denounce all forms of hatred."

The Canadian Jewish Congress, Quebec Region expresses its sympathy to the entire Muslim community of Quebec and invites police to vigorously investigate these incidents in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.

A letter condemning the act and expressing concern and empathy will also be sent to Imam Ismail Jogiyat by the Canadian Jewish Congress, Quebec Region.

Oh, my. A bit de trop, don’t you think?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:05 | link | comments

Summer fun: Pack a hamper, pack up the kids, pack your festive terrorist head shmatta, and pack your animus for that vicious Zionist occupier, too. It’s the Palestine Canadian Social Club’s “Family Day for Palestine” this Saturday, and everyone’s invited. You’ll thrill as clueless Lefty Carolyn Parrish addresses the crowd, gushing empathy all over it. You’ll gasp as a real live “NAKBA survivor” recounts his harrowing tale of ethnic cleansing.  You’ll gaze in awe at “the exhibition of Photographs (slide show), Paintings, Handicrafts and other artistic material that reflects the history, culture and struggle of the Palestinian people.”

What can I say? Sounds like a blast.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:16 | link | comments (4)

Mohamed Luther King (not): This is a heads-up about a developing story for which, as yet, I can't find a link. I heard on CFRB news that CIC head, Mo Elmasry, is claiming that the reason Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to intercede and bring Omar Khadr "home" is because Khadr is "brown skinned" and Muslim.

That's right. The guy who thinks all Israeli adults are fair game to be blown to bits by jihadi terrorists is accusing Harper of being a racist.

Mo and the other Islamists want us to think that any time they don't get their way, it's about "race"; they know that, as far as guilt-ridden Westerners are concerned, being accused of racism is beyond the pale (bad pun not intentional, but in these circumstances unavoidable). Mo and Co. do have one thing in common with the American Civil Rights movement, though: deep in their hearts, they do believe that they shall overcome some day.

Update: The link is now up on the CFRB site.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:44 | link | comments

Clash of Wikis: Did you know that Wikipedia has an Islamic rival—Wikislam? No? Me neither. When you think about, though, it makes perfect sense that, just as there are two “Dars” (al-Harb and al-Islam) so, too, there would be two Wikis.

What’s the diff? Well, here, for instance is Wiki-al-Harb’s definition of “jizya,” the tax imposed on non-Muslims who live under Islam’s thumb:

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزْية; IPA: [ʤɪzjæh] Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power,^[1] (but with specific exemptions,^[2][3] though these were discarded at various points in history^[4]). From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."^[5] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.^[6][7][8]

The Arabic term jizya appears in verse Qur'an 9:29, but the Qur'an does not specify jizya as a tax per head. According to Paul Heck, the jizya taxation seems to be a developed form of the Sassanian practice of taxation.^[9] 

And here’s the Wiki-al-Islam definition:

Jizyah is the extra tax imposed on non-Muslims (Dhimmis) who live under Muslim rule according to the Qur'an and hadith:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur'an 9:29

"I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, then you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then you must pay the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will then fight you until God decides between us and you." (Al Tabari, Volume XI)

Khalid bin Al-Waheed (Muslim General, 632AD)

Once a land is conquered by Islamic armies the ruler can impose a taxation on those non-Muslims who will not convert to Islam.

Jizyah is paid as a sign of submission and gives Dhimmis some legal protection in return. Dhimmis usually are not allowed to carry arms to protect themselves or serve in the army. If the conquered do not wish to pay or convert, their fate may very well be slavery (and possibly rape) or death.

The amount of the Jizyah tax and the way it was collected varied from time to time and from place to place, but when imposed, the forced payment of Jizyah greatly stimulated the conversion of non-Muslims into Islam. In some cases the taxation of the non-Muslims was so profitable that the Islamic rulers prohibited their subjects from converting to Islam, lest they should lose their income.

Interesting. The Wikislam entry appears to be pretty bald about the ins-and-outs of the jizya, while the kafir Wiki seems to downplays it somewhat (with nothing, for example, about the punishment for resisting subjugation—slavery, rape or death, or, presumably, some combination of the three.) One might conclude the kafir Wiki is endeavouring not to offend, while the Islam Wiki is concerned with merely stating the facts.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:46 | link | comments

Subway blitz: Hard jihadists send the lads out with semtex strapped to their undeveloped chests or secreted in their rucksacks to blow up subways and other urban infrastructure. Soft jihadists may have hidden ties to terrorists, but, in public, they affect a peaceful demeanour, and use funds from God-knows-where to pay for some underground dawa. From the New York Post:

Allah board!

An Islamic group plans to blitz 1,000 subway cars with advertisements this September in a campaign being promoted by a Brooklyn imam whom federal officials have linked to a plot to blow up city landmarks.

The group says its mission is to explain the true nature of Islam to non-Muslims who believe the religion is bent on acts of violence - but Siraj Wahhaj, the inflammatory imam who appears in a promotional YouTube video for the project, has defended convicted bomb-plotters and called the FBI and CIA the "real terrorists."

US Attorney Mary Jo White even named Wahhaj one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the thwarted plan to blow up a slew of buildings.

"In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam," Wahhaj said in one of his sermons.

The stark, black-and-white ads of the Subway Project promote Islam with the goals of clearing up long-held misconceptions about the faith and reaching out to those interested in becoming Muslim, according to the Islamic Circle of North America, the group behind the campaign.

Timed to run during the month of Ramadan, the ads come in pairs, reading "Q: Prophet Muhammad?" or "Q: Islam?" and the corresponding answer is always "A: You deserve to know."

Those interested in knowing more are directed to call (877) WHY-ISLAM or to visit whyislam.org, which provide literature that teaches and proselytizes about the faith.

The group insists it is not looking to transform subway cars into the "G-had train."

"Anyone who looks at this ad objectively can see that it is not preaching anything," Azeem Khan, the group's assistant secretary general, told The Post. "There is a lot of Islamaphobia out there. We provide people with a chance to speak with an actual Muslim who is informed."

Wahhaj, imam of Al-Taqwa mosque, is a former member of the Nation of Islam and was the first Muslim to give an invocation at the House of Representatives.

Formal charges were never filed against him by White, although he did serve as a character witness for the defense in the trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman, "the blind sheik" who is now serving a life sentence for his role in plotting the 1993 WTC bombings.

In the promotional video for the Subway Project, Wahhaj is the first to speak.

"Every day in this city, some 4.9 million people ride the subways - that is a lot of people," he says. "Imagine them seeing the word Islam. Imagine them seeing the word Muhammad."…

No doubt it will give them all chills. The Post forgot to mention that the subway campaign has a theme song, a take-off of a classic written way back when by home boys, the brothers Gershwin. (A line from the original song, appparently, served as the inspiration for the imam's bit about democracy disintegrating.) Feel free to sing along:

It’s very clear

Islam will lead the way.

Not for a year

But now until Judgement Day.

 

The magazines and the movies

And that TV that you see

Won’t discuss the jihad

So we’ll be home free.

 

But, oh, kafir,

Islam will lead the way.

Allah made clear

Dhimmis’ll have to pay.

In time democracy crumbles

Dar-al-Harb soon tumbles.

They're both just so passé

Then…

Islam will lead the way.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:02 | link | comments

Looking out for Omar: If you thought the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal lacked jurisdiction (not to mention moral authority) to try Maclean's and Mark Steyn in its kangaroo court because of a complaint lodged by someone who resides in Ontario, get a load of this one: some legal eagles think it's a good idea to bring young Omar Khard back "home" so we can prosecute him here. There's une petite fly in the ointment, though--the likelikhood that a Canadian court would try such a case is virtually zilch. That and the fact that Omar and his late Pa were engaged in a shoot out with American soldiers, and Omar is alleged to have thrown a grenade that killed an American medic. In Afghanistan, not Come By Chance.

Aside from that, it's a brilliant scheme.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:22 | link | comments

Not yet ready to par-tay: Alan Shanoff has a good column in the Sunday Sun regarding the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on defamation:

Free speech advocates must be popping champagne corks celebrating two key decisions released this summer.

Within two days in late June the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the concept of fair comment and the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled why no hearing was warranted for the controversial Mark Steyn article published in Maclean's in October 2006.

Being a pessimist, I'm keeping the champagne in the cooler until I see the practical impact of these decisions.

The Supreme Court decision involved a radio editorial by Rafe Mair, a well-known British Columbia talk show host. He lambasted a social activist, Kari Simpson, for the position she took opposing any positive portrayal of gay lifestyle in public schools.

Mair called Simpson a bigot and said she had "placed herself alongside skinheads and the Klu Klux Klan." He also made references to Hitler when he said: "I'm not suggesting that Kari was proposing or supporting any kind of holocaust or violence but neither really -- in the speeches, when you think about it and look back -- neither did Hitler."

Simpson sued Mair and the radio station for defamation, the lowering of her reputation.

The trial judge dismissed the action but the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Simpson. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the appeal court's decision and dismissed the action.

The Supreme Court's ruling also clarified the defence of fair comment.

Fair comment

Fair comment is the defence that allows defamatory expressions of opinion to be published. I've always had a problem with the name of this defence, because of the use of the word "fair." Many courts have wrongly stated a comment must be fair or a comment must be one a "fair-minded" person could express. I'm sure jurors have also been befuddled by the word "fair."

So three cheers for the Supreme Court for unequivocally stating the issue of fairness or what a fair-minded person might think is irrelevant.

A comment can be farfetched, foolish, exaggerated, even unreasonable. It can poke fun at people turning them into caricatures. In short, the comment need not be "fair."

The comment must be a comment that a person -- however "prejudiced, exaggerated or obstinate" in his views -- could have honestly expressed based on the known facts. In this case a person could have honestly expressed the opinion Simpson would have condoned violence against gays, even though Mair himself did not hold this opinion, so the defence of fair comment defeated the lawsuit.

The other decision of note is the Canadian Human Rights Commission decision concerning the Mark Steyn Maclean's article titled "The future belongs to Islam." discussing Muslim demographics and referring to the "remorseless transformation" of Europe into "Eurabia" in a post 9/11 world of jihad.

The commission recognized the article was "colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike."…