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

The myth of the small donor: Here’s how the story went: little guy, minimum wager, strapped for cash, beaten down by the heartless system and the Republicanism of George Dubya, so longed for hope’n’change’n’change’n’hope that he cracked open the kids’ piggy bank and stuck his hands down the back of the sofa cushions, all in an effort to gather enough nickels and dimes to donate to The One, the Only’s, presidential campaign.

Too bad the whole thing’s a crock. From the L.A. Times:

Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama's amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his grass-roots support.

Except, it turns out, that's not really true.

In fact, Obama's base of small donors was almost exactly the same percentage as George W. Bush's in 2004 -- Obama had 26% and the soon-to-be-former president 25%.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.

In a recent detailed study that added up the total contributions from the individual donors, the institute discovered that rather than the 50-plus% commonly reported throughout the campaign, only 26% of Obama's contributions through August and only 24% through Oct. 15 came from people whose total donations added up to less than $200.

It comes down to which definition of "small donor" you accept: The political standard has been $200 period. But what about someone who donated $199 to the Obama campaign several times, perhaps totaling close to the $4,600 legal limit for the primary and general elections?

Oh, well. It was an awfully nice fairy story.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:39 | link | comments

Un-frikkin’-believable!: Quick now, which UN Agency gets your vote for the most loathsome and pro-actively anti-Zionist of all?

The risibly-named UN "Human Rights" Council?

Well, it’s certainly in the top two.

How about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees—UNWRA—which, for lo these many decades, has ensured that Palestinians “refugees” remain angry, abject, and itching to push the Jews of Israel into the sea?

Now what if I told you that the Canadian government, through CIDA, its waste-of-taxpayers’-money foreign investment agency funded UNRWA to the tune of $15 million dollars this year? But don’t worry. As it’s explained on the CIDA site, the money was put to excellent use:

This grant represents Canada's institutional support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) for 2008. UNRWA uses these funds, along with other donors' funding, to achieve its mandate.

UNRWA is the UN agency mandated to deliver basic services and humanitarian relief to the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza. UNRWA's regular program provides basic services to refugees in areas such as education, health, social services, and microfinance services.

With CIDA support, UNRWA's regular program in 2008 aims to provide education for half a million children, manage 9 million medical consultations through 127 health clinics, and provide food aid, shelter repairs, and cash assistance to about 235,000 refugees living in especially difficult conditions.

No doubt more than a few Canadian shekels that went into "microfinance services" ended up financing the micro-jihad against Israel.

All together now: ARRRRRGGGHHH!

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

Like Swan Lake, only without the swans and the lake, and with a deranged despot in the lead role jetté-ing like mad : A Zimbabwe choreographer is creating a dance documenting the life of Robert Mugabe.

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

Found on YouTube: A poem for the Lynch mob. And, no, I didn't write it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:04 | link | comments

India’s impotence: An Indian officer has a hard time articulating his—and his nation’s— frustration over the futility of trying to combat jihadi terrorism. From Der Spiegel:

The officer with the Indian Defense Ministry is searching for words. "What should we…? What should I…? It's…." His gaze turns away from the television where images from the attacks on Mumbai flicker across the screen -- distraught civilians, bloody scenes from around the city, politicians swearing revenge. Reports of new shootouts continue to pour in.

India has a security dilemma.

The officer says his superiors have forbidden him from speaking to the press. But, he adds, "this is a time when no human, no Indian, can keep quiet." He asks, however, that his name not be used.

Still, he stares at the screen -- which is now showing scenes from earlier terrorist attacks in India and photos of the Islamists behind them. "These goddamned…" He struggles for the right term. "Bhenchod." Motherf….

All of India is struggling, just like the officer, to maintain their composure in the face of the attacks. It is all the more unsettling that even the police, the military, the security personnel -- the people who are never at a loss -- don't know what to say and don't know what to do. It is an image that makes one feel sympathy: the officer in his olive green uniform, decorations pinned on his breast, stands there with his head sunk to his chest mumbling as he watches television.

The officer's apparent helplessness is symbolic for India's fight against terrorists and religious fanatics. After each attack, politicians -- like Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has this week -- promise that they will "do all in their power" to hunt down those responsible. And there will no doubt be a number of police raids in the days to come. Arrests will be made. There may even be some guilty verdicts.

But a far-reaching strategy to combat terrorism remains non-existent…

Clearly, more “interfaith dialogue” is in order.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:39 | link | comments

More on ovine-human inter-species relations and the Holy Rollah's book of fun: Looking for an enjoyable way to kill some time ? Then pull up a chair and read this--Mark Steyn's ongoing (and minutely detailed) adventures with pathetic "real" journalists who are obsessed with such ephemera as the colour of the cover of kooky, kinky Khomeini's book of religious musings.

Update: And speaking of ovine-human relations...

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:01 | link | comments

Moronic convergence and acceptable "hate": Blogger Richard Evans highlights a shocking discovery--some of David Ahenahew’s “hate speech” (which has landed him in the dock in Saskatchewan, for the second time) and official NDP party policy are virtually identical. Well, knock me down with a feather!

A propos of Ahenakew and “hate speech,” I found this sensible post by an anonymous commenter:

Jewish poster here. Obviously I don't approve of hate speech, let alone if it's directed at me. But we're not talking about whether hate speech is good or bad. We're talking about the practical effect of hate speech laws. I point out:

1. Hate speech laws are ineffective, and will not prevent hate speech at all, they will merely drive such speech underground;
2. Hate speech laws are counter-productive, and make martyrs out of people who were otherwise obscure;
3. In keeping with item 2, hate speech laws validate the paranoia of the haters, justifying their beliefs by substituting real persecution for imaginary persecution; and
4. Hate speech laws undermine freedom of expression and eventually will be used to curtail and restrict valid opinions and ideas not contemplated by the people who crafted the laws.

The idea that hate speech laws might have prevented the rise of the Nazis, or done something to protect Jews in 1930's Germany has got to be one of the most naive ideas I have ever heard. Sure, the Nazis managed to put Jews in concentration camps, gas us and put us in ovens, but if only they weren't allowed to say naughty things about us, it all would have been prevented. And who, pray tell would have prevented it? Who and what army? Who was going to stand up to the storm troopers when they said their naughty things? Maybe if they had given Hitler a cultural sensitivity training course, Kristallnacht would have been prevented. If only the German people were thrown in jail everytime they said something nasty about Jews, that would surely have stopped them from putting the Nazis in power...

I don't need someone persecuting skin-heads in my name, so that they can point to that as evidence that Jews like me control the world. We don't need to be substituting real persecution for pretend persecution, so that we can validate their paranoia. That kind of "protection", I don't need…

Me neither.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:05 | link | comments

Harpoon in the dark: Harpoon Siddiqui, the Toronto Star’s resident apologist for the Islamist viewpoint, wants us to know that kafirs aren’t the only ones who’ve been targeted by terrorists in Mumbai and environs:

…People of all faiths live cheek by jowl. The small Jewish community has rarely, if ever, been targeted before. The apartment I used to live in was shared by Muslims, Hindus and a Jewish woman.

The sacred and the profane coexist. Red light districts thrive near temples and mosques. The streets are shared by hookers and priests. There is no room for NIMBY-ism.

Terrorism is not new to the subcontinent.

After living in relative peace for centuries, Indians were engulfed in sectarian killings with the 1947 creation of Muslim Pakistan and largely Hindu but secular India. In the cross-border stampede of nearly 12 million, almost a million were massacred.

There have been repeated sectarian riots since, Muslims being the main victims. Still, an easy peace prevailed.

Then came 1992, when the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party desecrated an obscure mosque in a place called Ayodhya in an attempt to turn it into a temple. That led to intercommunal killing of more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims.

In retaliation, Mumbai's stock exchange and other locales were bombed, killing 260 and injuring hundreds. India blamed crime syndicates in the Bollywood underworld, and said that the Muslim perpetrators had found refuge in Pakistan.

The aftershocks of Ayodhya were felt in 2002 in the state of Gujarat, north of Mumbai. Nearly 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed and tens of thousands made homeless. Police in the BJP-run state were accused of complicity.

Since then, there have been many bombings, most attributed to Muslim extremists. In the last three years alone, Muslims have been blamed for at least 700 killings.

Last month, there was a new twist: Christian-Hindu savagery by Maoists and Hindu extremists in the eastern state of Orissa. More than a dozen people were killed, and a girl escaped being burned alive, her face looking no different than that of the Afghan girl in the recent acid attack by the Taliban.

This month, police unearthed an extremist Hindu terrorist cell following the bombing of a Muslim area near Mumbai.

It is anybody's guess who or what caused the Mumbai attack. It's possible that Pakistani militants were involved. Or it may have been revenge for the ongoing persecution of India's Muslims. Or, as one of the terrorists indicated, it was about Kashmir, the border Muslim-majority state, over which India and Pakistan have fought two wars, and where there has been recent unrest...

Since “it is anybody’s guess who or what” was behind the savagery, I suggest we all put on our thinking caps (no tinfoil beanies, please) and ruminate upon it for a minute or so...

Minute's up. Bueller? Bernie? Anyone?

Update: Oh, wait. It seems Amir Taheri (in the NY Post) may have an answer:

...The attacks in Bombay likely were carried out by Hindi-speaking, homegrown Islamists with possible links to elements within the Pakistani intelligence community who have built their careers and personal fortunes around the Kashmir issue. These elements are serving notice that they would resist [Pakistan’s President Assif Ali] Zardari's dramatic departure from a long-established policy of enmity against India.

While the attacks, which claimed more than 100 lives, may have been addressed to  Zardari, their primary target was India.

India is home to nearly 200 million Muslims, making it one of the world's largest "Muslim" countries. Until recently, however, a majority of Indian Muslims have steered clear of radical politics. Apart from the issue of Kashmir, which has at times turned them against the authorities in New Delhi, most Indian Muslims have been loyal to the Indian republic, appreciating its secular and democratic nature. India is the only country that allows its Muslim minority to apply the rules of Sharia (Islamic cannon law) to a range of issues of private life.

That India may now face a homegrown Islamist terror movement operating far beyond Kashmir is certainly bad news. This may be an indication that pan-Islamism is gaining ground among the younger generation of Indian Muslims. The key feature of pan-Islamism is its goal of "liberating" all lands that once were ruled by Muslims - from India to Spain and southern France, passing by parts of China and Russia, as well as the Balkans...

Oh.

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

“Interfaith dialogue”—it’s the pits: Rabbi Dow Marmur, rabbi emeritus of Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple, and twice monthly opiner in the Sunday Star, has some thoughts on the “pitfalls of interfaith dialogue”:

…The pitfalls are more complex. First, participants are too often tempted to see themselves as advocates of either the one or the other side in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Instead of trying to understand each other, they pretend to conduct futile and divisive pseudo-diplomacy. It's a sure formula for failure. The conflict between the Jewish state and the Palestinian authority (soon to be a state, we pray) is primarily political, not religious, and can only be resolved by their leaders.

Second, there's the temptation to judge others by our own criteria. Whereas Christian-Jewish dialogue has almost invariably been conducted between Western liberals, religious liberalism is often viewed with suspicion in Islam. Thus, instead of listening to and learning from each other, modernist Jews and traditionalist Muslims are at risk of ending up arguing with each other. What's intended to bring the two sides closer together may yield opposite results.

For the participants in this latest effort in North America to avoid both pitfalls, they must recognize that their aim is to improve the religious climate on this continent, not to solve the problems of the Middle East. Muslim-Jewish dialogue in Canada is vitally important in promoting civility and tolerance among Jewish and Muslim Canadians. To try to do more is bound to fail. Along similar lines, the partners in dialogue must discipline themselves not to try to impose their theological orientation and cultural baggage on each other…

Oddly enough, the Rabbi and I see completely different pitfalls (a function of our different world views, no doubt). My letter:

Rabbi Dow Marmur claims that one of the “pitfalls” of interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims is that the conversation could potentially devolve into a slanging match about the Israel-Palestinian situation, which “is primarily political, not religious.”

That’s an interesting way to describe current day Arab/Muslim rejection of the Jews’ ancient ties to their ancestral land—a bond that long predates the birth of the Islam’s founder—and refusal to come to terms with the reality of the modern Jewish state of Israel.

Without perhaps intending to, Rabbi Marmur has underscored the biggest “pitfall” of these interfaith confabs: Israel’s enduring centrality to the Jewish people. And as long as interfaith dialoguers cannot acknowledge and deal with that—the proverbial elephant in the interfaith parlour—the relationships established will be superficial at best.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:48 | link | comments (1)

Way to go, Jews!: As Ezra Levant writes, they’re taken a nutty but essentially harmless old codger and, by prosecuting him yet again for his loopy views, have transformed him into Dave Ahenakew, Superstar:

…My point is that Ahenakew is a kooky old man. He's racist. I doubt it's a deep racism, frankly -- I mean, how many Jews does Ahenakew bump into in a typical year in his home province of Saskatchewan, especially in his circles? It sounds like he's spent too much time surfing Left wing conspiracy theory sites -- I bet he's a 9/11 truther, too. The fact that he's Indian is just an interesting wrinkle -- he's basically a cranky old coot who has a long list of grievances, and the Jews are one of his many scapegoats.

Is Ahenakew violent? No, Does he advocate violence? No.

Does anyone in the world actually give a damn about what he says? No, other than his grandchildren who have to listen to him whenever they visit. But they probably ignore the old man, too.

David Ahenakew is a former somebody, who is now a nobody, who has views that are distasteful.

If a reporter hadn't been at the conference, none of us would know about it.

A reporter was there, and the resultant publicity marginalized Ahenakew even more in life, including stripping him of his Order of Canada. He was denounced nationally. He became a pariah.

And that's how it should be.

And it should have ended there, in 2002.

But it's 2008 now, and Ahenakew is still front-page news. And his nutty views, which should be in obscurity along with him, are in the news again, too. He's praising Hitler again, and hating Jews -- and the national (and even international) media are eating it up. Google News says there are 453 stories about him in recent days.

If you're in the PR business, you know that getting 453 different news stories in a week is an astounding achievement. That's a multi-million dollar advertising buy -- except that news stories carry much greater credibility with readers than do ads. Ahenakew could never have received such an audience for his views on his own.

Six years after the fact, and Ahenakew is facing his second trial for saying those bad words (his first conviction was overturned on appeal, and a new trial was ordered). I have no idea how many millions of dollars that has cost the justice system, but it's a lot. And all to persecute a man's foul words -- a man whose deeds of military service and educational reform were extraordinary. Ahenakew has never hurt a fly. But he's been charged with the crime of saying bad things.

He's being tried in criminal court, under the criminal code prohibition against hate speech. That's the only reason why he was acquitted -- because he's in the real court system. Had he been charged before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, he would have lost -- they have a 100% conviction rate.

I wonder if he'll be acquitted again. I mean, look at his words -- they're nutty, they're rude, they're anti-social, they're rambling, they're racist. But so what? Is that really a crime in Canada? (Actually, yes it is.)

In his first conviction, Ahenakew was fined $1,000. So let's say there's a great victory for Canadian justice here, and Ahenakew is convicted again, and fined, say, $2,000.

What has been achieved?

Other than the erosion of our right to have dissident opinions, I mean.

Well, there's the vast resources of the state that have been spent on him -- money diverted from fighting real crimes.

Ahenakew himself is obviously unrepentant. To the contrary -- he's surely now convinced, more than ever, of a Jewish conspiracy to silence him.

But that's not even the real achievement here.

The real achievement here is that a broken-down nobody is a media superstar, and that his odious views are receiving massive attention. No doubt, some Aboriginal youth look up to him as having stood up to the White Man, and stood his ground. He's a role model for defiance who made the white government blink at least once.

There is a glamour attached to him and his views that just wasn't there when he was a rambling old fool at a conference. Now, he's such a danger to the state -- his ideas must be so powerful! -- that the government has to silence him, using the brute force of the law.

It was the Official Jews who pushed for the creation of hate speech laws, both in the criminal code and in human rights commissions.

And what have those Official Jews achieved in this case?

They have turned a bigoted nobody into a bigoted somebody...

Whereas before his words would have been dismissed as the loopy ramblings of an aging crank, people—and maybe even First Nations young people—are now hanging on his every word.

Which means that Ahenekew’s prosecution is having the opposite effect from the one the O.J.s intended. Instead of him being marginalized, he’s been hauled front and centre; instead of “hate speech” laws “protecting” Jews from bad words (the claim being that such words invariably precede a genocide), they have ensured that these bad words will be heard over and over again.

Some safety blankie, you got there, guys. More like a leaky sieve, if you ask me.

Update: Give credit where it's due. They've gone and turned loony old Dave into a flipping hero. Note the sympathetic way CTV reporter Jill Macyshon wraps up her report. From the Ceej site (my bolds):

...MACYSHON: The Jewish Congress came to this trial to see Ahenakew charged for a hate crime. They also say something good has come of all this.

WENDY LAMBERT (Canadian Jewish Congress): In a way, the situation has led to an extraordinarily close relationship between the Jewish and First Nations communities in Canada. In fact it was almost like he was a catalyst.

MACYSHON: The Canadian Jewish Congress in Winnipeg wouldn't speak to Ahenakew's comments today, saying he's already been judged publicly and now it's the court's turn. Once a well-respected First Nations leader, Ahenakew has been stripped of his title and his Order of Canada pin which he's refused to return. He has little left but his pride. At the end of the day, Ahenakew had the last word, telling the court, I apologize for my mistake. If that's not good enough, I can't do anything more than that. Jill Macyshon, CTV News, Winnipeg.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:22 | link | comments (3)

More like “Dead Earth India”: Looks like the eco-warriors have been superseded by the holy warriors. The Ceeb has the details:

Live Earth India, a massive concert promoting environmental awareness, has been cancelled due to the terror attacks in Mumbai.

A statement sent out late Friday night by the organizers — including former U.S. vice-president Al Gore — said that the Dec. 7 event was called off.

The statement said that everyone involved with the concert was "stunned and saddened by the tragic events of the past few days" in which gunmen attacked two hotels and several major sites in Mumbai.

The siege, which lasted three days, ended with at least 195 dead, including two Canadians, and scores injured.

The statement did not allude to any future event in India or Mumbai.

It concluded by saying: "our thoughts and our prayers are with the victims of this terrible attack, with the bereaved, with the people of Mumbai and with everyone in India."

The Mumbai concert would have included international performers, including Jon Bon Jovi and Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan, environmental advocates and celebrities from around the globe.

It would echo last year's musical extravaganza, which took place on July 7, 2007. The Live Earth concert spanned four continents and featured 150 acts performing over a 24-hour period

Gore had said organizers chose India because it was on its way to becoming an economic powerhouse.

Live Earth India's proceeds would have been channeled to charities in the country.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:12 | link | comments

 Buddhists? Wiccans? Seventh Day Adventists? What variety of “terrorists” murdered the Rabbi, his wife and three other Jews in Mumbai? That’s a question that totally flummoxes the CJC. Not even the savage slaughter of other Jews can get the Ceej to utter the dreaded  “I” or “J” words (Islamist and Jihadist, in case you were wondering):

Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) is deeply saddened by the tragic news of the murders of Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, his wife Rivkah Holtzberg, and three others killed at the Chabad Nariman House in Mumbai.

“Yesterday we expressed our solidarity with the citizens of Mumbai, mourning as they mourned and praying for the recovery of the injured,” said CJC Co-President Rabbi Reuven Bulka. “Today we must mourn for our own. The pain is the same, though it now hits a little closer to home.”

"We extend our full support to Canada's Indo-Canadian community during this extraordinarily difficult time, and continue to hope for a speedy end to this tragic situation," Bulka noted.

“This is an atrocity, the likes of which must never be allowed to happen again,” Bulka added. “The targeting and murder of innocent civilians is such a horrific and grotesque crime, it is beyond human comprehension.

“Over the last few days the savage face of terrorism has once again been exposed as the most serious threat to mankind,” said Bernie M. Farber, CEO of Canadian Jewish Congress.

“While our community grieves we must also look with admiration and gratitude towards the courageous effort by Sandra Samuel, an employee at the House, who was able to rescue, Moshe, the young son of Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife Rivkah. It is said in our tradition that whosoever saves one life it is as if an entire world is saved.” Sadly, noted Farber, tomorrow is young Moshe’s second birthday.

“A speedy end to this tragic situation”? Oh, you mean like a quick wrap up of the global jihad? Sorry, Rabbi, don’t think that’s in the cards right now. Especially not with clueless Jews who don’t want thoughts of the Islamic--starts with "I" ends with "ic"--jihad to burst their snug little “Canadian context” bubble.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:28 | link | comments (5)

Fools for twinning: Go figure, the Toronto Star declined to publish either of my less than rapturous missives about the Wahhabis’ twinning scam. It did, however, print several  “ain’t twinning grand?” letters, each and every one similar to this:

I want to congratulate the organizers of the wonderful twinning of the Muslim and Jewish communities this past weekend. Our synagogue, Temple Emanu-El, was involved in this event and it was an extraordinary experience for all who were able to attend. We were made to feel so welcome at the Noor Centre, where we participated in their prayer service on Friday afternoon. On Friday evening, their members prayed at our temple, followed by a Shabbat dinner where the tables held a lively mix of Muslims and Jews.

The central theme of the weekend was one of family, the family of Abraham, patriarch to both religions. We heard from their Imam how we are brothers and cousins. The Torah portion on Saturday spoke of the death of Abraham, and how his sons, Isaac and Ishmael, came together to bury their father. On Sunday morning, we were asked to consider in a round table discussion at the Noor Centre how these two brothers might have felt, confronting each other after so many years of estranged separation. What words might they have spoken? Was it possible to imagine a peaceful reconciliation? The morning concluded all too quickly, leaving us looking forward to continuing the conversation.

I hope this past weekend was just a first step in the bringing together of our two communities. It is a valuable program that warrants repeating and expansion.

Helen Poizner, Toronto

Well, yes, we do have that nice Abraham in common. Of course, according to Islam, he’s a Muslim, as is every single “good” person in the Jewish—and the Christian—bible, starting with Adam and including Jesus (since, according to Islam, if you’re doing religion correctly, you are ipso facto Muslim). Which kind of puts a damper on the whole “we’re children of the same Patriarch” thing. But no doubt the “twinners” will find a way to gloss over that fact, as well as any of these passages from the Koran, a book which, as Irshad Manji reminds us in The Trouble With Islam, is taken literally by most mainstream Muslims:

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.” This friendship makes any Muslim a enemy of their own and deserving of the same fate as the unbeliever. This is because God does not guide an unjust people.

Sura3 3:64: “Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers (whom he defined as Christians in the 5th surah “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.) and has prepared for them a Blazing Fire to dwell in forever. No protector will they find, nor savior. That Day their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire. They will say: ‘Woe to us! We should have obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!’ ‘Our Lord! Give them double torment and curse them with a very great Curse!’”

Sura72:15 “The disbelievers are the firewood of hell.”

Sura 4:89 “seize them [the unbelievers and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Sura  9:5 “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

4:101 “When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.”

4:102 “For the Unbelievers, Allah has prepared a humiliating punishment.”

8:59-60 “Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

9.123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”

9.73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

Sura 2:187-189 “And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage: yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque, unless they attack you therein; but if they attack you, slay them. Such the reward of the infidels...Fight therefore against them until there be no more civil discord, and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against the wicked.”

2:190-292 “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out: For tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they first fight you there; But if they fight you, Slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”

2:193 “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and let there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.”

And let’s not even get into that apes-n’-pigs stuff, not if you want Jews to get on board with the twinning thing, that is. ("'Apes and pigs'? No, no, you must have misheard. It's 'grapes and, er, jigs'.")

As for the Zionist entity--well, that's simply beyond the pale (which, newsflash you well-intended-road-to-Hades-paving Jews, is kinda the whole point of this Saudi-backed initiative).

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:08 | link | comments

We’ll get back to you on that, Jen: Who sez the CHRC is Stalinistic? Why, it’s even set up a process whereby us little folk can let it know how we feel (feelings being a really big deal with P.C.-types) about Professor Moon’s suggestions. Read these exacting guidelines carefully, though, because otherwise your message could get put in the “ignore” pile:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission launched a review of the most appropriate mechanisms to address hate on the Internet, with a specific emphasis on the role of the Commission and of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Professor Richard Moon, of the University of Windsor, has delivered his report and it is now available online.

As the next step of the review process, the Commission welcomes public commentary and views on the Moon Report. The Commission will review the submissions and take them into consideration to better inform its recommendations to Parliament on possible legislative and administrative changes.

Submission Guidelines

·         Submissions will be accepted from November 24, 2008 until 5:00 p.m. on January 15, 2009 (EST).

·         Comments submitted must be directly linked to the Moon Report. If a document contains comments or views on other issues, those submissions will not be considered.

·         Submissions using foul, racist, sexist, defamatory or threatening language will not be considered.

·         Submissions should not include any personal information belonging to anyone other than the author.

·         Only one submission per person will be accepted.

The Commission will not respond to comments submitted.

Submission Options

1. Online submissions

2. Submissions sent by regular mail are limited to a maximum of 10 pages (paper size: 8 ½ X 11, font size: 12 points). By submitting your comments, you are agreeing your submission forms part of the public record and may be reproduced in whole or in part by any means. Send hard copy submissions to:

Moon Report Submission
Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1E1

Wow, they just love making people hop to a bunch of rules, don’t they?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:22 | link | comments (2)

Meet the Taliban: NRO’s Cliff May surveys the Afghan scene, and finds, lo and behold, nary a trace of Harpoon Siddiqui’s chimerical “non-hardcore elements”. (Wonder where they’re all hiding?):

Afghanistan is the most foreign country in the world,” says William Wood, the American ambassador in Kabul. I ask if I may quote him on that. He hesitates, then says it’s alright, then adds: “It’s a ferociously foreign country.”

Mountainous, landlocked and remote, populated by legendary warriors — Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek — historically rich but economically dirt poor, Afghanistan has been in a state of turmoil for almost 30 years, since the Soviet invasion of 1980. “People here are used to violence, Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, says. “But they also have been traumatized by violence.”

By 1989, the Afghans had defeated the Soviet invaders — a great and consequential victory, achieved with assistance from the U.S. But once the Russians were gone, Americans and Europeans lost interest in Afghanistan. Warlords fought among themselves for land, power and wealth — mostly in the form of the poppies from which heroin is made.

In 1994, a group of provincial vigilantes led by Mullah Mohammed Omar, the administrator of a religious school, rose up against the chaos and corruption. He and his followers called themselves “the students” — the “Taliban” in the Pashto language.

The Taliban restored law and order. People welcomed that. The Taliban also had the support of Islamists entrenched in Pakistan’s intelligence service. The Saudis approved as well.

Before long, the Taliban’s ultra-radical agenda became apparent. Girls were no longer permitted to go to school. Women could not leave their homes unless covered from head to toe in a burqa and accompanied by a male. Singing, dancing, playing music, watching television, sports, even flying kites — an Afghan national pastime — were prohibited. Prayer five times a day became compulsory.

Those who transgressed were sentenced to amputations or executions — by the thousands, often in public. Traditional tribal leaders were murdered and replaced by fire-breathing mullahs who broke with Afghan tradition by combining religious and political power.

In March 2001, the Taliban dynamited the Buddhas of Bamiyan — giant statues, great works of religion and art, built in the sixth century. To the Taliban, these were pagan “idols” that deserved destruction — like all things not Islamic. “It is purely a religious issue,” then-Afghan Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawekel told a Japanese reporter.

The Taliban, wrote the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, represented a new kind of Islamic fundamentalist: “aggressive, expansionist and uncompromising in its purist demands to turn Afghan society back to an imagined model of seventh-century Arabia at the time of the Prophet Mohammed.”…

Yeah, life was sure swell back in seventh century Arabia—no antibiotics, indoor plumbing or Thai take-out, just plenty of angry caliph bossing you around (and lopping off your limbs, should you back-talk).

Who wouldn’t want to return to that?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:54 | link | comments

How homegrown laddies become jihadis: The Independent has a report about adventurous young Brits rushing off to join the holy war:

More than 4,000 British Muslims have passed through terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to security agencies, providing a fertile recruitment pool for the Islamist international jihad.

Men from the UK's Kashmiri community have joined groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, the prime suspects in the Mumbai attacks, which have been fighting against Indian forces in Kashmir. Others from a Pakistani background are in the ranks of the Taliban and other groups taking part in action against British and Nato forces in Afghanistan.

A former commander of the British force in Helmand, Brigadier Ed Butler, has revealed that his troops had come across British Muslims in southern Afghanistan. "There are British passport holders who live in the UK who are being found in places such as Kandahar," he said. "There is a link between Kandahar and urban conurbations in the UK. This is something the military understands, but theBritish public does not."

Last year, RAF Nimrod intelligence-gathering aircraft tracking Taliban radio signals in Afghanistan heard insurgent fighters speaking with Yorkshire and Midlands accents.

As well as fighters joining their ranks, groups such as Lashkar also benefit from funds raised on their behalf in the UK by the Muslim community. It has also been claimed that some of the aid money donated for the earthquake disaster relief three years ago was siphoned off for militant groups.

Lashkar, previously known as Jaish-e-Mohammed, has forged links with al-Qa'ida in Pakistan and are said to have shared training camps. One of their most famous recruits was Rashid Rauf, accused of being a key member in the plot to blow up transatlantic airliners, who was recently reported to have been killed in an American missile strike.

British Muslim recruits have also been involved in other conflicts. Asif Hanif, 21, from London, killed three people and injured 55 by blowing himself up in Tel Aviv. A companion, Omar Sharif, 27, from Derby fled the scene after explosives strapped to his body failed to detonate and was later found dead, his body washed up on an Israeli beach.

Somalia's transitional government has accused Britain of being the main source of money and men for the fighters of the Islamist Courts Union (ICU), a fundamentalist group, in the country. The then deputy prime minister, Hussain Mohammed Aideed, declared: "The ICU's main support was coming from London, paying cash to the ICU against the government. Among those who died in the war with the ICU wereBritish passport holders."

The Independent, in Mogadishu after the Somali capital was taken over by Islamist forces last summer, discovered a significant number of young Somalis who had returned to fight for the Islamists from the diaspora in the West. Half a dozen young men, including two brothers from Wood Green in north London, were acting as bodyguards for Sheik Yusuf, one of the main Islamist commanders. One of the brothers, Hamid, said at the time: "The true Muslims are the only ones who are honest and who are patriots. We are doing our duty by fighting for the cause of Islam, which is above all countries."…

In other words “one for all and all for one (ummah).” Or something like that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:24 | link | comments (1)

Jen’s "brilliant" analogy: Well, it’s finally happened. CHRC Czarina, Jennifer Lynch (who gets paid the big bucks for her profound thinking), has officially put me off my favourite snack food. I read this in Joseph Bream’s Nov. 25^th report in the National Post, and haven’t been able to touch it since:

…She said the [Moon] report was commissioned to introduce "fresh thinking" on the problem of Internet hate speech, which has changed drastically.

"It's kind of like microwaving popcorn, you know? For the first while on the Internet, there was this little pop, pop, pop. And now, the popcorn is in full popping formation. It's just omnipresent, 24/7, popping up here, popping up there, and so it seems to make it difficult for measured voices to respond," she said…

Jen's thinking is kind of like microwave popcorn, you know? Oily, insubstantial and full of hot air.

Oh, well. I still have my pretzels.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:13 | link | comments (4)

Hey, hey, ho, ho, Sec. 13 has got to go: Salim Mansour calls for the end of state censorship:

…It is understood rights and freedoms, as the Charter declares, are subject to reasonable limits in keeping with the values of a "free and democratic society."

Hence, most Canadians accept the spiteful abuse of free speech as hate speech is, and should remain, punishable under the Criminal Code within the proper setting of a lawful court.

INADEQUATE PROTECTION

The CHRC and the CHRT are not properly constituted law courts. Respondents accused under Section 13 are not adequately protected, and complainants are merely required to prove being harmed "on a balance of probabilities" and not certainty.

Moreover, while the CHRT proceedings, as Professor Moon finds, are reasonably formal, "the procedural rules, including rules of evidence, are less strictly applied than in criminal cases."

Now that the professor's independent study has publicly recommended the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the federal Parliament needs to respond.

Ottawa should either act on the advice of Professor Moon, or begin its own procedure to review Section 13 even as a sitting member -- Keith Martin, Liberal member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca -- has already moved a motion to have it revoked.

Canada is a mature democracy, and most Canadians are reasonable and law abiding.

For Parliament to constrain free speech beyond the existing reasonable limits through the provision in the human rights act of Section 13 is an insult to Canadians and Canadian democracy, and it should act wisely as Professor Moon recommends.

“Insult” is the perfect word for it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:46 | link | comments (1)

It can happen here: What, another Holocaust you say? The inevitable result of rampant, unfettered “hate speech” should Section 13 be struck down? Well, er, no. These days, a second Holocaust—at least a non-Middle Eastern one—is pretty much a non-starter. What could happen here, though, as Mark Steyn makes plain in his latest O.C. Register dispatch, is an attack of the type hat hobbled Mumbai:

…What's relevant about the Mumbai model is that it would work in just about any second-tier city in any democratic state: Seize multiple soft targets, and overwhelm the municipal infrastructure to the point where any emergency plan will simply be swamped by the sheer scale of events. Try it in, say, Mayor Nagin's New Orleans. All you need is the manpower. Given the numbers of gunmen, clearly there was a significant local component. On the other hand, whether or not Pakistan's deeply sinister ISI had their fingerprints all over it, it would seem unlikely that there was no external involvement. After all, if you look at every jihad front from the London Tube bombings to the Iraqi insurgency, you'll find local lads and wily outsiders: That's pretty much a given.

But we're in danger of missing the forest for the trees. The forest is the ideology. It's the ideology that determines whether you can find enough young hotshot guys in the neighborhood willing to strap on a suicide belt or (rather more promising as a long-term career) at least grab an AK-47 and shoot up a hotel lobby. Or, if active terrorists are a bit thin on the ground, whether you can count at least on some degree of broader support on the ground. You're sitting in some distant foreign capital but you're of a mind to pull off a Mumbai-style operation in, say, Amsterdam or Manchester or Toronto. Where would you start? Easy. You know the radical mosques, and the other ideological front organizations. You've already made landfall…

Oh, Mark, you’re such an alarmist. Don’t you know that here in the “Canadian context” Jews and Muslims have built bonds and bridges which preclude such an attack from occurring, keeping us safe and secure in our own little bubble?

Now, let me tell you about the real peril we face—the terrifying threat of free speech unmediated by state-appointed censors.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:39 | link | comments

Reality check: You can imbibe all the hopey-changey Kool-Aid you can swallow without busting your bladder. It won’t change the basic reality that, yes, Virginia, there is a jihad, and we ignore it at our peril. Jennifer Rubin of the contentions blog expresses the real message of Mumbai: our enemies are emboldened by their perception of our weakness:

…That basic lesson — that weakness invites attack — should not be lost on Americans.

Beyond that, it should be a wake-up call to Americans for whom terrorism has been relegated to an afterthought, or afforded no thought at all. As intoxicated as the American media may be with “change” and the Presidential victory of Barck Obama, the world often takes little notice of American partisan politics. President Obama will face many of the same challenges as his predecessor. Rogue states, terrorist groups, regional conflicts and the like don’t halt to celebrate the arrival of a new President.

Liberals may disdain use of the term “war on terror” but it is certainly a war. Whether on foot or plane, when terrorists ravage entire cities and hundreds of civilians are killed and maimed there is no other way to describe it but “war.” If we want to maintain appropriate measures to detect and prevent terrorist activities and pursue guilty parties, we cannot avert our eyes nor kid ourselves that our fears are “exaggerated.”

And try as a President might to focus on other things, he cannot entirely delegate national security policy to advisors, no matter how well regarded they may be. The notion that “the economy will be front and center” only works so long as rogue states and terror groups cooperate. And they rarely do.

If we find that the national security responses and rhetoric of the Obama administration seem somewhat similar to those of the Bush administration, it won’t be because the Left was “sold out.” It will be because reality intervened. President Obama is responsible for the security of his citizens and, like President Bush, is not going to want to be the one who failed to prevent attacks on America. It is one thing to say you want to close Guantanamo, immediately end the war in Iraq and “engage” terror state leaders, but it is quite another to assess those positions from the Oval Office and be responsible for the implications of those measures. The campaign is over — it’s time to get real.

No, no, it's time to "twin" and "mentor" and engage in "interfaith dialogue"/fight "Islamophobia"  under the auspieces of good King Abdullah, and consider what unites us in "the Canadian context" and blah, blah, blah, blah...

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:39 | link | comments

Wake up, kafirs!: In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, the intrepid Claudia Rosett dares us to consider an even greater catastrophe now looming:

All you have to connect are two dots to see that today’s terrorist carnage in Bombay is yet another wakeup call about the 100,000-fold danger of letting Iran get the nuclear bomb — let alone start turning out nuclear weapons on an industrial scale.

We now wait to learn what language(s) are spoken by the terrorists attacking Bombay; where they were trained, armed, and who dispatched them. But the horror of seeing the landmark Taj Mahal burn, of the grenades and gunfire, of counting the dead, of seeing India so bloodied at her main international crossroads — this is an attack not only on India, but on all civilized states. The demands for passports, and winnowing out of American and British citizens is a message that in particular ought to concentrate the minds of President Bush, President-elect Obama, and the fools in America’s “intelligence” community who produced last year’s National Intelligence Estimate implying there is no real urgency to stop Iran.

Diplomatic talks with the Iranians have been going on for years, courtesy of the feckless European Union. The only real squeeze has come from the U.S. Treasury, which, as noted on Pajamas by Matthias Kuntzel, faces such obstacles as gross disregard by many of our erstwhile allies.

Short of a military strike — which may ultimately and in the not-so-distant future be the only way – an idea for leverage on Iran, which President-elect Obama has endorsed, is to try pressure Iran’s gasoline suppliers into cutting off the sales to the mullahs. Here’s an article by one of my FDD colleagues, Orde Kittrie, on that approach. Here’s a piece from The Chicago Tribune, along similar lines. The clock is ticking…

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:16 | link | comments

There are no words: Weep for our world, and for this beautiful couple who were murdered by savages for the "crime" of being Jewish:

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:59 | link | comments (1)

The big picture: Mark Steyn skewers those—including the Jerusalem Post—who seek to isolate the Mumbai attacks from the larger jihad:

…All jihad is local: If rockets are fired at Israel, it's a failure to settle the Palestinian question. If an NHS doctor drives a flaming Cherokee into the check-in desk at Glasgow Airport, it must be Tony Blair's foreign policy. The Jerusalem Post's headline writer poses the question:

Homegrown Terror Or International Jihad?

False choice. The answer is: Homegrown terror in the service of international jihad. Clearly, India has had a Muslim problem to one degree or another in the 60 years since partition, but increasingly those locally driven grievances have been absorbed within the global pan-Islamic ideology. What strikes you, as the dust clears in Bombay, is that one assault provided an umbrella for manifestations of almost every strain of Muslim grievance.

There's the local element - the fatal shooting of the city's anti-terror squad, and other prominent officials. There's the crusader element - the targeting of British and American passport holders. There's the Jew-hating element - the Munich massacre nesting within the more general carnage.

And there are the more ironic nuances of jihad: British subjects were to be found not just among the victims but among the perpetrators.

To pose the question as that Jerusalem Post headline is to miss the point. Moreover, the global ideologues correctly see our determination to attribute every attack to purely local phenomena unconnected to any bigger picture as a sign of weakness.

Or, to paraphrase a famous oath, all jihadis pledge allegiance to one jihad, under Allah, indivisible, with sharia and injustice for all kafirs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:53 | link | comments

Who says there are no "good news" stories?: 90-year-old weds 89-year-old in the U.K.

Not exactly "love's young dream." More like "love's old, arthritic and incontinent." But awfully sweet nonetheless.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:55 | link | comments

They Who Must Not Be Named: In its news release condemning the Mumbai attacks, the CJC was notably reticent in identifying the terrorists’ religious affiliation. Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer observes that a similar reticence has pervaded much of the mainstream press:

Who are the attackers in Mumbai?

According to AFP, they're "militants" and "extremists."

According to the Press Trust of India, they're "terrorists."

According to the Indian Foreign Minister, they're backed by "elements in Pakistan."

AP speaks of "suspected Muslim militants," and the Jerusalem Post dares to write about "Islamic terrorists," but in general in the mainstream media there is the expected reticence about identifying the attackers as jihadists or as Muslims at all, and no discussion whatsoever of the Islamic texts and teachings that almost certainly inspired them to this spree of murder and mayhem.

And some will say: what does it matter? There are "extremists" in every religious tradition. You are intent on identifying these attackers as Muslims and jihadists solely out of some irrational hatred for Islam, or racism, or bigotry, or some such.

The response to this is that it is impossible to defeat an enemy one does not understand. Islamic theology and law provide innumerable insights into the behavior and priorities of the jihadists -- and that may be why the Organization of the Islamic Conference is so intent on getting the UN to criminalize any critical examination of Islamic texts and teachings, even for counter-terror purposes. It is not "insulting to Islam" to notice that the Mumbai attackers identify themselves as "mujahideen" -- that is, jihadists, and jihad is an Islamic religious, legal, and political concept. That concept is in play here in numerous ways, and this story reveals another: the Mumbai jihadists set free their Muslim hostages, almost certainly because of Islamic strictures against fighting against one's fellow Muslims (cf. Qur'an 4:92, which prohibits a Muslim from killing another Muslim)…

Not that that’s inhibited Muslim-on-Muslim carnage elsewhere.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:45 | link | comments (2)

The message of Mumbai : Micah Halpern says that, in purposefully targeting the Mumbai Chabad Centre, the jihadis were sending a definite message:

It has taken time, but finally, the Jewish/Israeli angle of the Mumbai terror attack has trickled out from the mainstream press.

Not moving the Jewish/Israeli angle to a central position in the coverage was a serious oversight.
Not moving the Jewish/Israeli angle to a central position shows a significant misunderstanding of this terrorist attack.

These terrorist were organized. They selected their targets with precision and purpose. The Chabad House was not an accidental target, it was a central target. The Chabad House, the Jewish community center, was chosen because it represented Jews and it represented Israel.

The plotters attacked Mumbai because of its significance.
Mumbai is the silicon capital of India.
Mumbai is the symbol of Western expansion and capitalism.
Mumbai is a major tourist and business center and that is why the hotels and cafe were targeted.
The Jewish site was targeted because the Jews and Israel represent outsiders and exploiters.

The terrorists were sending out a message.
They do not simply want to cripple the Indian economy.
They want to tell their supporters elsewhere that India must fall.
That want their supporters to understand that India is in cahoots with the West and with other outsiders like Israel and the Jews.

They want their supporters to understand their message: Sharia uber alles!

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:21 | link | comments

Another day; another attack by crazed jihadis: And you know what that means, another gripe about the unfairness of Islam (a peaceful, amicable, Bahai-ish sort of faith) getting tarred with the terrorist brush. This complaint comes in the form of a letter to the National Post by one Abubakar N. Kasim:

When Muslims are accused of atrocities, the entire religion is brushed with the crime and all Muslims are held liable. As a result, I am doubly hurt when an act of terrorism like the one unfolding in Mumbai occurs, where innocent people are murdered.

I mourn on two different levels. I weep for the innocent, including Muslims, who lost their lives in the senseless and heinous attacks. I also cry that blame is being directly put on me and my religion, Islam, as if I were part of the crime…

Well, let me just say this, Abubakar—no one is blaming you for the Mumbai terrorism. However, as Tarek Fatah rightly points out on the opposite page (in a piece headed All signs point to Pakistan) “…Muslims around the world will also have to decide whether to enter the 21^st Century and distance themselves from the doctrine of armed jihad, or embrace these murderous haters of joy and peace.” Clearly, you have decided to distance yourself from these “haters”—and a big high five to you for that. But nothing is to be gained by Muslims pretending that armed jihad is not an integral historical component of their religion, and is instead some “aberration” invented by Osama-come-latelies.

Yea, verily, jihad is a fact. Deal with it, Abubakar.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:49 | link | comments (2)

Drop the blankie!: Official Jews are pro-censorship; grass roots Jews (who are much smarter, and who know better) are for tossing Section 13 and its equivalents (provincial, territorial, international) in the crapper. Here’s one smart cookie, Laura Rosen Cohen, with a cri de coeur for free speech:

Hate Speech? Bring. It. On.

To the great dismay of many Canadian Jews, The Canadian Jewish Congress continues in its relentless and misguided defense of censorship via its support of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In its most recent, public stance on the matter, published yesterday in the Globe and Mail, CJC counsel Mark Freiman patronizingly suggests that the Canadian criminal code is a 'blunt tool' and in no way able to effectively 'deal' with 'dehumanizing' and 'demonizing' speech that may be found on the Internet. It is his contention that by censoring 'hate' speech, Canada "protects its members, including vulnerable communities". As a Canadian Jew, I reject the characterization of my community as vulnerable and wholly decline this type of 'protection'. I'll fight my own battles, thank you very much, in person, or on the Internet.

Canadian Jews are fortunate enough to live in one of the most prosperous countries in the free world. Our parents and grandparents, many of whom survived the Holocaust, have built wonderful lives here. Despite the odds, language obstacles, abject poverty, and outright anti-Semitism of the time ("None is too many"), they worked, owned stores, sent their children to school and proudly watched as the second generation went on to university-becoming doctors, teachers, dentists, lawyers and other skilled professionals. In the space of little more than 60 years, Canadian Jews have gone from traumatized new immigrants, many of whom were illiterate shtetl-dwellers from war-torn Europe to highly influential, successful and productive citizens of this great country. With intermarriage rates of approximately 40% in Canada, one can also reasonably conclude that Jews are desirable spouses well beyond their own community.

Why then the obsessive focus on 'hate speech' on the part of its self-proclaimed representative? Why the continue insistence that Canadian Jews cannot protect themselves against so-called hateful sentiments on the Internet? Jews have historically never been a censorship-based society. We joke amongst ourselves-two Jews, three opinions (at a minimum). We are an opinionated people who have never shied away from debate. It is unconscionable that the CJC remains committed to the preposterous idea that Canadian Jews need CHRC protection from insults, no matter how vile or offensive. Now, Professor Richard Moon from Windsor University law school has courageously articulated that where speech poses an imminent, or criminal danger-it should be rightfully referred to law enforcement officials and dealt with through the criminal justice system. Otherwise, toughen up.

The Canadian Jewish Congress should simply admit that they have made a mistake and find a new cause célèbre. Not only have they greatly underestimated their own community's distaste for political censorship, but perhaps even more distressing is the fact that their lobbying is seriously and perhaps irrevocably damaging the Jewish community's relationship with non-Jewish Canadians who are loyal and dedicated friends of the community and Israel. There are many Canadian Jews who are willing, and able to take their lumps on the Internet and in real life. It is indefensible to suggest otherwise. The many Jewish constituents who are committed to our Charter-guaranteed rights of freedom of speech, thought and expression are being seriously underestimated and glaringly under-represented in Jewish officialdom. We reject the odious suggestion that hate speech could lead to genocide here in Canada and urge you to rethink your position on censorship and Section 13. On behalf of the Canadian Jews who treasure these freedoms, and in order to redress our fragile relationships with our non-Jewish friends, I would urge the CJC to issue a possibly reluctant, but eminently brave mea culpa and move on. Time is of the essence.

Actually, it looks like it may be too late. The Liberals and NDP appear poised to put an end to Conservative rule and install themselves as a new coalition government. Should that happen, the censors and their champions may end up having the last laugh (at our expense).

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:15 | link | comments (1)

Kosher pig: And by the same oxymoronic token—here’s David Solway in FPM on another obvious impossibility—a “moderate Islamist”:

The counsels of our Islamic-appeasing intellectuals today may be summarized in the career of Alistair Crooke, founder of the Conflicts Forum and formerly a special adviser to EU envoy Javier Solana. In the London Review of Books (Vol. 29, No. 13), Crooke self-assuredly asserts that the hard-line approach to Islamism, along with the refusal to countenance the more amenable elements in the Muslim world, is “opening a space, not for moderate pro-Western secularists…but for those who believe that to build a new society you must first burn down the old one.”

For Crooke, it seems the Arab world is crawling with pro-Western secularists just waiting for the opportunity to construct open, liberal democracies, confine the influence of the Koran to the mosque and the private sphere, recognize Israel’s right to exist within secure and defensible borders and neutralize the family compact paradigm that has governed the Muslim world from the beginning of its recorded history. Like so many others on the “rational Left,” Crooke is dreaming in jihadi-color.

No longer content to postulate a frivolous separation between “extremists” and “moderates,” Crooke and those like him have now come up with a super subtle distinction between “Islamism” and those “moderate Islamist movements” such as—wait for it—Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Anyone who has troubled to scan the charters of these organizations and follow their actions in a real-world setting would be right to wonder what planet the Crookes and Solanas et al. of the diplomatic Left are living on—a planet on which exotic beings like moderate extremists are part of the natural fauna. But we must have our nursery icons: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the moderate extremist...

And let’s not forget my favourite contemporary oxymoronic fantasy figure: Harpoon “Lou” Siddiqui’s much-vaunted “non-hardcore Taliban elements.”

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:06 | link | comments (1)

A tale of two news releases: Jews have been targeted in the Mumbai terror attacks. Here’s  the  news release on the incident issued by the B’nai Brith  (my bolds in the final paragraph):

B’nai Brith Canada extends condolences to families in Mumbai

TORONTO, November 27, 2008 – B’nai Brith Canada has extended its profound condolences to the families of the victims of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, which to date have left more than one hundred and twenty-five dead and hundreds of others injured.

The Jewish human rights organization is monitoring in particular the hostage situation at a Jewish religious institution, where amongst those being held captive is the local Chabad leader, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg.

“These horrific deadly acts of terrorism serve as yet another vivid reminder of how vulnerable we all are to the growing threat of terrorism and its global networks,” said Frank Dimant, Executive Vice President. “Our hearts go out to the families of the victims of these attacks, the ramifications of which continue to unfold on the streets of Mumbai. We have communicated with the High Commission of India in Canada to extend our condolences and sympathies.

“We are concerned by the specific targeting of Jews in these attacks, notably the takeover of the Chabad religious facility and the Jewish community members who were present at the time, including the Rabbi and his family. We continue to monitor the situation as it unfolds and have made contact with Chabad leadership in Canada to convey our concern and support over the safety and well-being of the hostages.

“At this moment of crisis we stand with the people of India and the people of the world who are joined together in common cause to fight Islamist terrorism and uphold democracy and freedom. We call for the safe release of all hostages, whether at the Chabad Jewish community centre or elsewhere, and urge that their welfare be a matter of top priority.”

And  here’s the CJC’s news release, a masterpiece of pusillanimity. Right off the bat you will notice that the communiqué condemns some sort of generic, non-specific terrorism conducted by God knows which religious group (Buddhists? Wiccans? Seventh Day Adventists?) for God only knows what reason; the Ceej has obviously made a specific decision that the terrorists shall remain nameless and unidentified so as to preserve the matchstick-thin bonds and bridges the Ceej has laboured so long and so hard to establish with Muslims in “the Canadian context” (my bolds):

Jewish community stands with Indo-Canadians against terror in Mumbai

 TORONTO, Nov. 27 /CNW/ - Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region and UJAFederation of Greater Toronto join Toronto's Indo-Canadian community in condemning the cowardly terrorist attacks in Mumbai and mourning the loss of life involved. Among the buildings overtaken by terrorists was Chabad House, a Jewish community centre where eight people are reportedly being held hostage.

    "The terrorist assault on Mumbai violates all standards of civilized behaviour. We stand in solidarity with Toronto's Indo-Canadian community in condemning this abhorrent disregard for human life and the values shared by all Canadians," said UJA Federation chair David Koschitzky.

    "As noted by our national CJC colleagues, terrorism is today's greatest global threat. Every country in the world must work unceasingly and cooperatively to root out terrorism in their midst and beyond their borders," said CJC Ontario chair Frank Bialystok.

    "Together with the Indo-Canadian community and all Canadians, we pray for the health and safety of the citizens of Mumbai and everyone who has been victimized by these vicious attacks," noted UJA Federation President & CEO Ted Sokolsky.

Values shared by all Canadians? In his fevered, Trudeaupian dreams. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that more than a few members of the ummah here in Canada are likely thrilled to see a large kafir city brought to its knees by jihadists.

At this juncture the question must be posed: Exactly whose interests is the Ceej now serving—the Jews’, or the Leftists’ and Islamists’?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:27 | link | comments

Memo to rose coloured spec-wearing Jewish “twinners”: Issi Leibler has some unpleasant news: you are being played like a well-tuned Stradivarius by Wahhabis who are more cunning than you (h/t BCF):

The interfaith conference of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia which took place under the auspices of the United Nations received wide acclamation. President Shimon Peres went to the lengths of telling the Assembly that he wished that “King Abdullah’s voice would become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people”. The World Jewish Congress published a full page advertisement in The New York Timespraising the monarch who leads one of the most oppressive and anti-Semitic regimes in the world.

To their credit, the Saudis were upfront about Israel, stressing that Peres and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni were present by virtue of their UN membership and not by Saudi invitation, and that the King would not engage in any contact with them. And, despite his somewhat servile remarks in praise of Abdullah, Peres was strongly criticized by the Saudi foreign minister.

As a reward for groveling to King Abdullah, the World Jewish Congress was invited to the conference after the Saudis had the chutzpa to brazenly inform them that major Jewish organizations - including the American Jewish Committee, the Presidents Conference, and the Anti Defamation League - were “too political” and would thus be excluded! It was shameful and unprecedented for a reputable Jewish organization to participate at an interfaith conference at which outsiders like the Saudis were able to veto who represents the Jewish people.

It was even more outrageous that the Jews who did participate in the event failed to challenge the behavior of the Saudi regime or even relate to the vicious anti-Semitism which dominates Saudi society. After all, it was Wahhabi preachers from Saudi Arabia who initially provided the inspiration for al Qaeda, until the latter turned on the Saudi leaders, accusing them of corruption and collusion with the US and Western world. To this day, Saudi money is utilized to promote global jihad.

This interfaith activity must also be viewed in the context of the global campaign launched by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the umbrella body representing 57 Moslem states, to criminalize any criticism of Islam - including Shar’ia law.

The members of the OIC include the most tyrannical and repressive states in the world. Many deny human rights to their own citizens and brutally persecute non-Islamic religious minorities, denying them freedom of worship. Even purportedly moderate Islamic countries such as Egypt endorse domestic campaigns inciting their citizens to hatred of non-Islamic minorities, concentrating in particular on promoting the crudest forms of anti-Semitism.

Some of these countries, like Saudi Arabia, also seek to globally extend the application of Shar’ia law, which incorporates barbaric practices such as stoning adulterous women to death, decapitating blasphemers, homosexuals and apostates, and cutting off limbs as punishment for petty theft.

The OIC bitterly complains that Islamophobia in Western countries is rampant and escalating. Yet taking into account that global terrorism today emanates overwhelmingly from Islamic fundamentalists - including those born and bred in the societies hosting them - it is surely a tribute to Western communities that they continue to peacefully co-exist with their Moslem minorities.

Without detracting from the obligation to combat hatred against Moslems and all minorities, the reality is that despite protestations to the contrary from liberals, Moslems residing in Europe face far less institutionalized discrimination than what other migrant groups, including Jews, underwent in the past. Moreover, they are not targeted by terrorists - in contrast to European Jews, their mosques and schools do not require round the clock security guards.

It is also astonishing that some Moslem organizations have the impudence to demand an end to security profiling, though over 95 percent of global terrorist acts originate from radical jihadists. Profiling is undertaken exclusively as a pragmatic means to maximize security and is not related to racist bias. If red-headed individuals committed the bulk of terrorist acts it would surely not be unreasonable to profile redheads for security screening. It is even more bizarre that demands to ban profiling are frequently supported by liberals, including paradoxically, Jews who themselves represent the prime targets for acts of terror…

Personally, I prefer the unvarnished truth to rose-tinted  narishkeit, but, hey, that’s just me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:28 | link | comments

Scare monger: In a letter to the Globe and Mail, Pearl Eliadis, a former head of the CHRC, warns of the dark times ahead should Section 13 be struck down (my bolds):

Montreal -- Mark Freiman is right - and courageous - for his stance (When Speech Becomes Dangerous - Nov. 26). If the argument for repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act rests on fear of "censorship," then the much heavier hand of the criminal law, with its threat of prison, would be of much greater concern to true civil libertarians. The fact is that discrimination can occur in print just as easily as the spoken word, and no one - not even journalists - should be immune.

The upshot of repeal would be to give in to the blog bullies and give free rein to extreme speech that most civilized countries restrict: child pornography, libel and defamation, and hate speech.

By the way, Reporters Without Borders released its Press Freedom Index recently and Canada ranked 13th - ahead of both the UK and the U.S.

Oooo, scrary! But she forgot to raise the scariest spectre of all—the hate-speech-generated “genocide” of Jews and/or Muslims.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:38 | link | comments (4)

Who’s on first?: There days you can count the pro-censorship boosters on your fingers. Let’s see, there’s the CIC, the BB, Wiesenthal, that meeskite from the Calgary Herald and, oh, yeah, the Abbott and Costello of Canadian censorship, Bernie “Bud” Farber and Harpoon “Lou” Siddiqui. 

The slimmer, more hirsute half of the team—the one who writes twice weekly for the Toronto Star—has yet another “yeah, censorship!” piece in today’s paper. Should you care to, you can read it here.

 

And here’s my response:

 

Haroon Siddiqui claims it’s “ironic” that the “Harper Tories” have been “neutering the human rights tribunal,” thereby alienating “mainstream” Jewry, a community they have supposedly long courted.

 

But I see a far bigger irony—the irony of a columnist writing for a large Canadian daily constantly beating the drum for state censorship.

 

Doesn’t Siddiqui realize that, when  censors are handed the power to decide what can and cannot be said largely on the basis of whether someone’s feelings have been “hurt,”  they could just as easily decide that he no longer gets to speak?

 

For instance, my feelings have certainly been hurt by false assertions about “Harper Tories” “riding the anti-Islamic bandwagon” (a bandwagon that exists solely in Siddiqui’s imagination), and “neutering the human rights tribunal” (it has done no such thing and, in fact, Prof. Richard Moon, who, in his report called for anti-hate speech provisions to be struck down, was appointed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission). However, I would never think to bring action against anyone for hurting my feelings, because I believe with every fibre of my being that, in a democracy, bureaucrats have no business being the arbiters of “hurt feelings,” and that a society cannot remain free if “feelings” are allowed to trump free speech.

 

I’m not alone in that belief. Indeed, there is growing support, on both the Left and the Right, to restore Canadians’ free expression—one of four fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ironically, on this particular issue, it is now Siddiqui and a handful of organizations such as the Canadian Islamic Congress and the Canadian Jewish Congress who find themselves out of step with the “mainstream”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:00 | link | comments (1)

“Civil,” sensitive and clueless: Meet the Ceeb’s Heather Mallick, a woman possessed of such exquisite sensitivity and self-control that, though her ears were burning over “insensitive” remarks made by a “simple-minded” speaker at a conference she was attending, she, like her similarly sensitive conference mates, was able to contain her extreme pique (something which, oddly enough, she was unable to do when espying a pro-life moose-hunter from Alaska).  (My bolds):

…Let me tell you about my weekend.

I was invited to speak in Montreal at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation's Fifth Annual Conference on public policy, entitled Redefining Canada's Global Agenda. That sentence is a dry way of referring to one of the greatest humans Canada ever produced and to a gathering of people — older ones doing magnificent things for the planet and the young Trudeau scholars, Canadians seeking to investigate the world at a cirrus cloud level of intellect, seeking to become what Trudeau himself would have called "global citizens." Oh, why don't you just lacquer my skin and feed me emeralds, I was so flattered.

But there I was, the only journalist in the place. My degrees are in English literature and the best I could do in conference terms would be to hold forth on Virginia Woolf's view of the League of Nations. "Very much in favour" I would say if I was asked, which I was not. And who wants to hear from journalists, sad remnants of a fading industry that will be revived but not without sweat and tears, and not yet.

All anybody wanted to discuss on opening night at the Trudeau Foundation was multilateral technical co-operation and global environmental facilities, with a degree of precision that would make a patents lawyer blanch. I had a lot to say, but with my new vow to belt up, I put my head down and worked on my quail, which was delicious.

Then a guest speaker blundered. He said he was happy to be in Montreal where people spoke French as badly as he did. The man was, I guess, fond of the Parisian accent. At this, the Quebecois in the audience got all attentive. Then he called Iran "a third-rate country." Everyone paled: Iran is part of one of the world's oldest civilizations; it is our cradle; we treasure its art from 9,000 years ago; and no civilized person dismisses any nation in this profoundly anti-historical anti-intellectual way.

And then he said the world was divided into three, the pre-modern, the modern and the post-modern, a simple-minded layer cake that would cause any intelligent audience to turn the knife on you. It would be like telling the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences that the planet has three ingredients: hard rock, rock that is less hard, and then dirt, which is ground-up rock.

I don't know how the man survived insulting the intelligence of everyone in the room. But I realized what was holding the Trudeau Foundation back. It was civility. We are Canadians; we do not throw our food or boo; at most, we sit with frozen expressions or refuse to clap. In fact, we were embarrassed for the man, an alleged scholar, and we discussed over dinner whether the foundation had called on him merely in order to spark a reviving vitriol on the first night.

Ah, yes. So “civilized” that they refuse to acknowledge that “our cradle” is in the hands of theocratic crazies who murder Canadian journalists and hoist gays from giant cranes—their penalty for acting upon their sexual impulses.

The same sort of “civility” could be found in Germany when Hitler came to power, but all the really “civilized” people were too busy reading Goethe and attending performances of The Magic Flute to pay much attention to the brute.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:20 | link | comments (2)

Got free speech?: No? Well, then it's time to sign this petition.

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

Buddhists? Wiccans? Seventh Day Adventists?: Some groups you can be certain are not behind today's terrorist attacks in the world's largest democracy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:25 | link | comments (1)

Huh?: I’m sure the eminent counsel for the Ceej thought this was a brilliant analogy at the time—comparing the possible elimination of Section 13 to the market crash. From the Globe and Mail:

….As the Supreme Court of Canada has observed in discussing Section 13, the danger of hate propaganda is in its dehumanizing and demonizing character and in the message that its objects are worthless and deserve any anger or worse that may be directed their way. 

The criminal law is a blunt tool to deal with this sort of hate speech. It is focused on the perpetrator and sets appropriately high thresholds, including proof of intent, before imposing punishment. Meanwhile, press councils and ISP "hate speech advisory committees" help promote responsibility in the media, but don't tackle the problem head-on.

What lies in between is a focus on the hateful messages themselves and on society's interest in protecting its members, including vulnerable communities, from their consequences. That's what Section 13 is designed to do. Its focus is not, as is often mistakenly assumed, on the impossible project of cleansing the Internet of hate. But, in removing what it can, it is directed squarely at denouncing the hate and denying it the legitimacy of status as an "opinion" or "point of view."

It is both unrealistic and counterproductive to look to the "marketplace of ideas" as an alternative to regulation in counteracting hate speech. History shows that when it comes to hate propaganda, the marketplace of ideas is as susceptible to market failure as an unregulated market in financial derivatives.

The Supreme Court of Canada was spot on when it affirmed both the reasonableness and the constitutionality of Section 13 in the fight against the dangers of hate speech. So why repeal it, as Prof. Moon suggests?

Why repeal it? Because censoring speech is something they do in places that are Islamist and fascist and Islamofascist. Because it is arrogance of the first order to assume that regular people can’t go to market on their own—without hack bureaucrats to direct them—and decide which ideas they care to “buy”. Because history has shown what can happen when speech is regulated by idiot “elites”—misery, despair and death on a massive scale (how now Mao, Stalin et al?).

That’s why.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:15 | link | comments

Compare and contrast: The news that Richard Moon recommended striking down state censorship drew an immediate, not to mention vehement, not to mention splenetic reaction from the Ceej. Compare that to its far milder, not to mention cool as a cucumber, not to mention phlegmatic response to some other news. From the Montreal Gazette (my bolds):

Almost four years after her son pleaded guilty to firebombing a Jewish elementary school, Rouba Elmerhebi Fahd was finally handed her punishment yesterday for her role in the crime - 12 months probation.

The Canadian Jewish Congress called it a mild sentence, but agreed with the judge that Elmerhebi Fahd was caught between her obligations as a mother and her duty as a citizen when she tried to help her son flee the country.

"If someone in your family is a terrorist, you can't help them," said Adam Atlas, vice-president of the CJC.

B'nai Brith spokesperson Moïse Moghrabi was less sympathetic, saying Elmerhebi Fahd "played the system" by delaying the court proceedings for years. He called the sentence nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Quebec Court Judge Robert Marchi pointed out that Elmerhebi Fahd, convicted of being an accessory after a crime, has no prior criminal record and wasn't the one who firebombed the United Talmud Torahs School in St. Laurent in April 2004. No one was injured, but there was about $500,000 in damage to the school. The library couldn't reopen for eight months.

Her son, Sleiman Elmerhebi, pleaded guilty to that crime and was sentenced to 40 months in prison. Marchi said the firebombing wasn't just vandalism, it was an act of terrorism.

Minutes after police visited Sleiman Elmerhebi at the Canadian Tire store where he worked, and where he bought kerosene to fuel the fire, Elmerhebi Fahd told a travel agency she needed a ticket to Brazil for her son.

She stipulated she didn't want him to fly through the United States and also told her son not to tell anyone about the planned trip.

Marchi pointed out that Elmerhebi Fahd, a mother of three, showed no remorse.

Maybe the Ceej can offer to “mentor” her.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:45 | link | comments (1)

 It's a good thing: One consequence of revoking the censors' powers (if indeed the government gets on the ball and revokes them)--you likely won't be seeing any more photos like this one:

Richard Warman (recipient Saul Hayes Human Rights Award) with Cal Goldman, 2007 Plenary. (Ottawa, June 2007)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:53 | link | comments (2)

The difference between a free society and an un-free society: In a society where there’s no free expression, scores of police can storm your house if the government doesn’t like what you’ve been saying on your blog. In a free society, there will be protests over that fascist government’s actions—even though the blogger has been saying terrible things about protesters and their free society.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:40 | link | comments

Sick!: The “logical” conclusion of political correctness: discriminating against a disease—a disease!—because not enough visible minorities suffer from it. The National Post has the nauseating details:

OTTAWA - The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough.

Cystic fibrosis "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men," said the motion read on Monday night to student councillors, who voted almost unanimously in favour of it.

Every fall, during university orientation for new arrivals, students fan out across the city and seek donations from passersby. According to the motion, "all orientees and volunteers should feel like their fundraising efforts will serve their diverse communities."

Nick Bergamini, a third-year journalism student on the student council, said he was the only elected councillor to vote against the motion. The decision is an example of campus political correctness gone too far, he said.

"They 're not doctors. They're playing politics with this," Mr. Bergamini said. "I think they see this, in their own twisted way, as a win for diversity. I see it as a loss for people with cystic fibrosis."

Shinearama is carried out at about 65 colleges and universities across Canada. It has raised money for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for almost 50 years and Carleton has participated for at least 25.

During orientation week this year, Carleton students, who have raised about $1-million over the years, raised $20,000, said foundation chief executive Cathleen Morrison, who was surprised and dismayed by the student association decision.

The rationale for dropping cystic fibrosis as the beneficiary is not correct, she said. CF is diagnosed just as often among girls as boys, although the health of girls deteriorates more rapidly, she said. It is commonly considered an illness that affects Caucasians, but that includes people from the Middle East, South America, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

" 'Caucasian' as we understand it isn't just white people," Ms. Morrison said. "It includes people with a whole rainbow of skins."

Student association president Brittany Smyth said the motion came about because the association has been contemplating rotating the beneficiary of Shinearama to different charities each year instead of giving the money to a single charity.

"It's about people wanting to do something different," she said…

She added, “Like instead of using our heads, we’re going to stick them up our arses for a change.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:14 | link | comments (1)

Moon and “the context” of censorship: Both locally and globally, there are efforts afoot to impose silence upon people by those who, for political and/or religious reasons, want to have the power to control human expression (and thereby control the humans). No doubt that comes as big news to those who like to think there’s something called “the Canadian context,” and that it is completely separate from and different than anything occurring at the international level. Tragically, these folks are in the grip of a crippling delusion, one that has rendered them incapable of thinking clearly and critically. My Rx for these poor, beclouded souls: read this editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. It explains that, when it comes to censorship, there is no “Canadian context.”  Or, rather, that “the context” of censorship in Canada and “the context” of censorship at the UN are actually one and the same:

…In general, though, the state must not dictate which jokes cross the line, or which terms perpetuate stereotypes. Misguided attempts to safeguard religious groups from intolerance can ultimately have the opposite effect.

People of any faith have the right to hold whatever beliefs they choose, to express those beliefs, to worship and associate how they like. They do not have the right to forbid others from criticizing their beliefs, even if that criticism takes a hurtful tone. To invent such a right is to criminalize the expression of certain opinions or forms of expression -- which is, in itself, an intolerant attitude.

This paradox explains why the world's most intolerant states are among the supporters of a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly on "combating defamation of religions." The resolution or something like it now pops up at the UN every year; this year's version recently passed a General Assembly committee.

The resolution is supported by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Human-rights groups worry, with reason, that it will be used to provide legitimacy to laws that punish blasphemy and apostasy.

"Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings," said Catherine Loubier, the spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. She's right. Ideas, whether they are religious or secular, must be subject to debate in any free society.

The resolution calls on the Human Rights Council to promote "universal respect for all religious and cultural values." Well, what if one family's religious values include the idea that a widow should throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre? Or that God wants men to take child brides?

Arguments that such practices are not reflective of the mainstream, or have no basis in scripture, are irrelevant. To the people who hold them, they are matters of faith. But that doesn't mean they're immune from criticism, or even from satire, anymore than the beliefs of mainstream Muslims, Christians and others are off-limits.

Canada has already spoken clearly at the UN. It can continue to lead the defence for free speech by repealing its own vestigial anti-blasphemy law, and by removing the Canadian Human Rights Commission's mandate to police expression.

To review: the censors like to think globally and act locally. Then again, they also like to think globally and act globally. In other words, it’s all one big “context” to them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments

Good enough: An editorial in the Calgary Herald makes the point that the Moon report isn't perfect, but it’s good enough to provide the government the excuse it needs to take censorship out of the hands of a bunch of corrupt hacks and restore the peoples’ freedom:

 …Moon is not a free-speech warrior. His report offers a few Orwellianisms of his own. For example, he suggests targeted websites could be more quickly pulled down, if Internet service providers ceded the decision to arm's-length bodies "composed of retired judges or lawyers."

No doubt they could. But, at what cost to free speech, or due process?

Still, Moon's report recognizes the essential distinction in Canada's two-tier justice system: Courts pursue blind justice according to law, commissions merely regulate expression by any means.

As simple justice requires an accused person be tried in a setting where the possibility of acquittal exists, Moon's conclusion that hate speech prosecutions be the exclusive province of the Criminal Code is welcome.

It is not everything free-speech advocates have been asking for. But it is far more than a baby step in the right direction.

Parliament should act on it.

The stars are in alignment, Mr. Harper. There will never be a better time to do what has to be done.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:13 | link | comments

Effacement and defacement: To show their disdain for women, Wahhabis force them to wear black shrouds, a symbol of how their society views them—as non-entities, nullities, voids. The Taliban stick chicks in shrouds, too, but they have a much more horrific way of demonstrating their contempt—they throw acid in their faces. The New York Times has a report about this horror, and how the Afghanis are dealing with it:

KABUL, Afghanistan — The police in Kandahar have arrested 10 Taliban militants they said were involved in an attack earlier this month on a group of Afghan schoolgirls whose faces were doused with acid, officials in Kandahar said Tuesday.

The officials said that the militants, who were Afghan citizens, had confessed to their involvement in the attack on the schoolgirls and their teachers on Nov. 12 and that a high-ranking member of the Taliban had paid the militants 100,000 Pakistani rupees for each of the girls they managed to burn.

The girls were assaulted Nov. 12 by two men on a motorcycle who were apparently irate that the girls dared to attend high school. The men drove up beside them and splashed their faces with what appeared to be battery acid.

Zalmay Ayobi, the spokesman for the governor of Kandahar, said that the orders to carry out the attack had been given from a foreign country, although he did not name the country.

The militants were arrested by the police last week. Mr. Ayobi said a joint delegation from the Interior Ministry and the office of the attorney general in the capital, Kabul, had arrived in Kandahar on Monday to evaluate the cases of the suspects.

The “Kabul delegation led by the deputy interior minister along with the governor of Kandahar announced today that the suspects confessed for their involvements for the acid attack on school girls in Kandahar city which happened on Nov 12,” Mr. Ayobi said.

Mr. Ayobi said Afghanistan’s public courts would decide the attackers’ fate after the investigation was completed.

At least two of the girls were hospitalized by the attack, with their faces blackened and burned.

The attack was condemned at the time by Laura Bush. She described the Taliban as “cowardly and shameful” for carrying out the attack.

“The Taliban’s continued terror attacks threaten the progress that has been made in Afghanistan,” the first lady said in an official statement released by the White House at the time, adding, “These cowardly and shameful acts are condemned by honorable people in the United States and around the world.”

Mrs. Bush has been a passionate advocate for the women of Afghanistan throughout her husband’s tenure. She has visited the war-torn country three times to spotlight development and women’s issues, most recently in June, a trip that was cloaked in secrecy so she would not become a target of terrorists…

Unfortunately, Mrs. Bush also visited Wahhabiland and the Gulf States, where she sat and chatted with beshrouded women, thereby unintentionally validating that form of repression.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:39 | link | comments (4)

Hell 2 pay: May I suggest that that's what there is going to be if, after being handed the go-ahead to get rid of state censorship, the Harper government fails to act.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:47 | link | comments

The inconsistent Mr. Nicholson: What are we to make of Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and how he seems to blow hot and cold on the censorship issue?  On a day when the CHRC’s own appointee gives the Conservative government the ammo it needs to get rid of Section 13, the Minister responds with what can only be described as a hearty…meh. Deborah Gyapong captured the Minister’s conversation yesterday with CFRB’s Brian Lilley:

I just listened to an interview CFRB's Brian Lilley did with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. The minister would not directly answer whether he supported Professor Moon's recommendation to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

He said:

"Well, we're going to have a very careful look at Professor Moon's recommendations."

It just came out today and it's fairly extensive."

He said he still hopes the Justice Committee will take it up.

"With the report just being released today I think its important that we have a very careful look at it."

As Justice Minister he said he gets lots of input on changes to various laws: drug laws, changes to criminal justice act, auto theft, identity theft. "It's very difficult to get any changes through Parliament."

He said he wanted to have the Justice Committee look at Section 13 in the last Parliament, but that was impossible. He said the election is over now and there is a new spirit of cooperation so he hopes the Justice Committee will take it up so all parties can examine this.

At the end of the interview, Brian asked if, given his vote at the Conservative Convention whether he personally liked the recommendation, he reiterated basically the same points.

I suggest we all send the Minister a version of this (very brief) letter (his e-mail address is Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca):

Dear Minister Nicholson,

In light of the near-unanimous vote by delegates at the Conservative Party convention to strike down Section 13, as well as Professor Richard Moon’s confirmation that it would be in Canada’s best interest to do so, I trust we can depend on you and your government to act speedily to restore our most precious freedom—free speech.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:48 | link | comments

Some “victim”: In a letter to the National Post, terrorism expert David Harris exposes the rank hypocrisy of an Islamic supremacist who has donned the cloak of victimhood:

Re: 'We've Been Victimized,' Joseph Brean, Nov. 22.

Reporter Joseph Brean states that self-styled Canadian-Islamic leader Professor Mohamed Elmasry's "most controversial episode" was his assertion in 2004 that all Israelis over 18 were legitimate targets. Maybe it depends what we mean by "controversial."

Back in 2002, while Canadian journalists were still babes in the hard-line-Islamic woods, the controversial nature of Prof. Elmasry's Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) was already pinging the radar of then-Global Television host Charles Adler. That May, on Global Sunday, Mr. Adler exposed the fact that Zafar Bangash, founder of Canada's disturbing Crescent International newsletter, had been granted the CIC's 2001 "media excellence award."

As detailed later by a Calgary Sun reporter, Crescent International called the 9/11 attacks "successful" and looked forward to the worldwide spread of Iranian-type theocracy. And Canada, it declared for good measure, is a "fully paid-up member of the Anglo-Saxon mafia, which is responsible for most of the recorded genocides in the world." Meanwhile, the newsletter reportedly characterizes infidels as " kuffar" and " kufr," terminology whose connotative value in radical hands can be as repulsive as the "n-word."

David B. Harris, director, International and Terrorist Intelligence Program, INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc., Ottawa.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments

Star ignores Moon: The news about the Moon report is splashed everywhere this morning—in the National Post, the Globe and Mail, on the Ceeb, and Reuters, and, of course, on blogs galore. Everywhere, that is, with one notable exception: Canada’s largest circulation newspaper, Harpoon’s mothership, moonbat central, the Toronto Star. It has nada, bupkes, diddly.

An editorial call, for sure. Guess the Moon story was crowded out by items considered to be far more important (like, say, “Offshore wind farm stirs up a tempest,” and “Transit staff mum on job attacks”).

Since there was no article to respond to in the Star, here’s my letter to the Globe:

I’d like to reassure Canadian Jewish leaders dejected over the recommendation to strike down Section 13, the anti-hate speech provision of the Canadian human rights code, that what they see as a calamity is actually a blessing in disguise. In recent times, their championing of censorship—they claim they need it to clamp down on the “hate speech” that inevitably leads to genocide—has actually sparked anti-Semitism, the inevitable backlash that’s arisen because Jews are seen in the forefront of divesting Canadians of their most crucial right. If state censorship is taken off the table, such bad feelings will recede, and there will likely be far less anti-Semitism in the land.

I’d also like to suggest that, instead of pouring all their passion into a renewed assault on free speech, they take the time to read some recent books about the Holocaust. If they did, they would find that hate speech did not cause the genocide; that, in fact, it was caused by a megalomaniac with an irrational obsession about “the Jews” and a bizarre hold over his people who used hate propaganda to help sell his eliminationist agenda. And since there’s no one on today’s scene, at least not here in Canada, who fits that bill, there’s absolutely no reason to fear that the restoration of free expression—a fundamental right enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms—poses a threat to Canada’s Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments

The morning after Moon: How will CHRC employees fill their days if they can't patch into someone else's phone line and play "Gotcha!" with subterranean "Nazis"?

Maybe they can find some middle aged strippers to complain about "ageism".

Some fast-food restaurant workers who get a rash from the boss's soap?

Anyway, here's my poetic "tribute" to the Lynch mob; they're bound to need a little pick-me-up this morning:

All the thought cops are wearing a frown

Now that Section 13’s been shot down.

Every JADEWARR and Lucy

Is singin’ the blues.

Please, Steve, wrestle the cops to the ground!

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:37 | link | comments

The National Post gets it right about Moon’s getting it right: It’s written in the editorial “we,” but it sounds a lot like Jonathan Kay to me (my bolds):

…We will admit we had concerns initially about the ability of Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor, to conduct an impartial review of the commission’s hate speech powers. He had occasionally in the past expressed what might be described as a collectivist view of freedom of expression — one that appeared to put the desire to protect minorities from insult ahead of the individual’s right to speak his or her mind boldly. Before his selection, Prof. Moon had written that speech has a “social character,” with great “potential for harm.” If left unchecked, “it can cause fear, it can harass and it can undermine self-esteem.”

Since this seemed, superficially at least, to concur with the commission’s own view of free speech — that it is less important than protecting politically favoured groups from criticism — we wrote in an editorial last June that we were hopeful Prof. Moon would be unbiased, but were not holding our breath.

But no such political correctness appears in his final report. Indeed, the only form of government censorship Prof. Moon justifies is that against “extreme expression — which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group.” This type of expression, he notes, is already contrary to criminal law — so in this respect, section 13 is redundant.

On the other hand, he reports, policing expression that merely “stereotypes or defames the members of an identifiable group is not a practical option.” If the commission or the government think reducing mean-spirited remarks against minorities is a noble goal, Prof. Moon explains, they should engage in public education rather than investigating those who use objectionable language or images.

Most, if not all, hate speech complaints should be handled by the courts, according to Prof. Moon. This is significant and sensible, since the courts require high burdens on proof and require a higher standard of evidence than human rights tribunals. Moreover, they are staffed by real lawyers — not civil servants who, as we learned during the recent human rights prosecutions of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, have little grasp of Canadian constitutional protections.

Limiting anyone’s free speech should be a last-resort measure in a democracy. Since human rights commissions permit hearsay to be admitted as testimony, and do no guarantee defendants a right to face their accusers or challenge evidence presented against them, they afford insufficient protection of defendants’ rights to justify a punishment as drastic as the loss of free speech…

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:28 | link | comments

America's shame: America's Most Wanted wimps out on depicting the murder of two Texas sisters as an "honour killing"; Phyllis Chesler want to know why.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:11 | link | comments

Humaniterrorists slapped down: The defendants in Holy Land Foundation case have been found guilty as charged.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:45 | link | comments (3)

Hendrik’s “insight”: New Yorker magazine pundit Hendrik Herzberg thinks he’s twigged to the real reason why Hillary is being tapped for State:

Here’s a non-Machiavellian, non-rivalrous reason why Obama might want to ask Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, why Hillary might want to say yes, and why the rest of us might end up pleased with the arrangement.

The team of Barack “Grandpa Was a Muslim” Obama, Hillary “I’m a Clinton” Clinton, and Rahm “Israel” Emanuel (that’s his real middle name! and he was a volunteer with the I.D.F. during the 1991 Gulf War!), with Joe Biden and Bill Clinton pitching in as necessary, would put the new Administration in an extremely powerful position to apply the kind of pressure that would give Israeli politicians the political cover they need to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Everyone knows what the deal would look like, including Ehud Olmert. It’s a question of having the political strength and exerting the will to make it happen.

Of course, the path could get awfully bumpy if the Palestinians can’t manage to get their act together, and if, as seems probable, Bibi Netanyahu wins the next Israeli election. On the other hand, a settlement to which Bibi was a party would likely be as durable as Menachem Begin’s peace treaty with Egypt.

It’s hardly a sure thing. But if it works: a round of Nobel Peace Prizes, please, bartender.

I’d hold off on that order, bar-keep. Hendrik’s clearly had way too much hopey-changey Kool-Aid for his (and our) own good.

But while we’re on the subject of Hillary’s appointment, why is Israel the one that must be pressured to reach a settlement (one that’s in its own worst interest, one might add)?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:41 | link | comments

There is no joy in Bernieville: Guess who’s really p.o.'d about the Moon report’s call to scupper state censorship? That’s right—Canada's intrepid “Nazi”-hunters/Somali mentors/mosque-twinning boosters, the Canadian Leftist Jewish Congress. Here’s the news release that was obviously prepared on the off-chance that the Moon report didn’t go their way:

Toronto---Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) expressed disappointment over today's principal recommendation in the report on combating Internet hate by Professor Richard Moon for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

"We commended the CHRC for commissioning this study on statutory and policy changes aimed at eliminating cyber-hate. CJC met with Prof. Moon as part of his stakeholder consultations and we hoped that he would recognize the valuable role that the Canadian Human Rights Act plays in protecting vulnerable minorities in Canada from exposure to hate on the Internet," said Hershel Sahian, Chair of the National Community Relations Committee for CJC.

"Instead, Moon's primary recommendation - to repeal section 13 of the Act - is contrary to the pressing need to maintain the fence of protection against those who would use the Internet to spread hatred and intolerance."

Mark Freiman, former Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, an expert on Canada's human rights legislation and a legal counsel with CJC expressed concern over Prof. Moon's hypothesis.

"Prof. Moon has noted the potential connection between hateful words and hateful actions, but pins his hopes on the rational capacity of the audience as protection. History provides little support for such an optimistic view. It certainly provides scant justification to overturn Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence that affirms the reasonableness, not to mention the constitutionality, of s. 13 as a protection for vulnerable minorities."

Bernie M. Farber, Chief Executive Officer for CJC, disagrees with Professor Moon's primary recommendation but does support Prof. Moon's observation that certain procedural changes are necessary.

"Section 13 is a significant component of the civil approach to combating Internet hate. While we disagree with Professor Moon's primary conclusion, we are interested in exploring some of his recommended changes to the administration of the law, as we have always maintained that the real current problem lies with its implementation."

"The Jewish community knows from bitter experience how devastating hate propaganda can be. We are grateful to live in a country which recognizes that free expression must have some reasonable limits to eliminate hatred, since hatred undermines core Canadian values of civil discourse, respect for diversity and social cohesion," said Farber.

Sweet Mother Macree. He still doesn’t get it.

Update: A friend just emailed to ask me re the Ceej, "Don't they know when they're beaten?" I sent her this Monty Python and the Holy Grail clip in response.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:33 | link | comments (5)

And the shocks just keep on coming: Yes, it's true. The CIC's Grand Poobah-for-life will be stepping down from his throne, er, perch, er, pulpit, er, whatever, effective Jan, '09.

Would that a few of our Official Jews were inspired by his lead.

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

Shine on, Richard Moon!: My heartfelt apology goes out to Richard Moon. Showing gumption, wisdom and intellectual integrity I never gave him credit for, he has--shockingly--called for the repeal of Section-13.

This is a great victory for Canadian freedom-lovers, and a kick in the teeth to all those who favour state censorship (you know who you are).

I have to say--this rather makes up for the unpleasant shock of the "twinning" thing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:55 | link | comments

He ain't heavy, he's my mentoree: In Canada, Jews "mentor" Somalis; meanwhile, Arabs "mentor"...other Arabs.

Um, why can't Arabs "mentor" Somalis? Or is that not enough of a "paradigm shift"?  (BTW, did you know that as part of the Jewish-Somali "shift," Somalis will be providing scholarships for Jews? My question is a two-parter: Do Jews really need to be helped out in this way by Somalis; and, instead of giving scholarships to Jews, why don't they just give them to their own students? The whole arrangement sounds, oh, I dunno, totally bonkers.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:24 | link | comments (1)

Islam Online hearts pirates: According to the Wahhabi website, those Somali pirates really aren’t so bad. In fact, writes IO scribe Abdinaser Mohamed Guled, they’re just doing the best they can under exceptionally difficult circumstances:

As Somalia descends into a blood-soaked spiral of chaos and suffering, the international community largely unstirred and hopelessly oblivious has instead focused its attention on the real life fruition of boyhood tales of piracy and crime on the high seas. Pirates, who have been steadily ratcheting up attacks as of late, are also becoming more and more audacious in carrying out their operations. The recent capture and subsequent sagas of the Faina and the Sirius star have barreled onto the nightly news, increasing pressure on governments to act quickly to counter skyrocketing piracy in the Gulf of Aden.

Eyl, a dusty outpost roasting in the hot Puntland sun, is a coastal town located in the Nugal region of northeastern Somalia. A town encapsulated by mountains and sea—life is good here. The pirates live the lives of modern-day rap stars, but with an actual street creed obtained from years of genius pillaging at the waterways. These modern-day gangsters drive expensive cars, choose from among the most beautiful women, and live in palatial homes that are sprouting up daily, thanks to a steady income of proceeds from ships successfully ransomed.

Piracy as Self-Defense Mechanism

The town of Eyl is one of the first base areas of the pirates. Piracy attacks and motives started after foreign ships pulling fishing trawlers have increasingly attacked pirates, beat them, and destroyed their small fishing boats, according to Pirate man Ahmed Ali, who claimed to be “the commander of Somalia’s right coastguard of pirates.” He spoke to IOL onboard a hijacked ship in the northern coast of Somalia, according to him.

He says pirates have become irritated by those acts from foreign vessels and have been forced to arm themselves and launch counter attacks by kidnapping ships. This fight made them “official pirates” in two years, 2007 and 2008, Ali said.

The mountains around Eyl provide safe hideouts and bases for pirates to ambush ships on high seas for kidnapping, but Ali said they rely on things more than simple geography. He said that his men have secret agents who inform them when ships are about to pass in the Gulf of Aden or the nearby coasts.

“When we desire to kidnap a ship, we firstly come together to build strategy of kidnapping and we follow along with the execution of our plan; we are military people,” Ali said

  “We are the actual guard forces of our sea, but we encounter difficulties bar more profits” Ali told IOL in a telephone interview. He says that their life has changed dramatically.

Piracy Drives Economy

As for the local people piracy becomes the main engine of economic boom, it stimulates other industries, creates jobs and makes people feel good. Each time a big ransom is secured, people receive funds and many are happy with that. Business movements are up-and-coming in this tiny town of Eyl.

Many residents of Eyl wake up every morning asking each other if any new ship is kidnapped yet.  “We say pirates are good men and good fathers because they bring money home,” said Hibaq Hassan a resident woman in the town of Eyl.

“Our families, wives and all of us have a good life, because we get ransom from antagonist ships we capture,” Ali said with a high-spirited voice denoting content with his piracy life, especially that he is “planning to build new good style house.”…

One man’s “pirate” is another man’s “entrepreneur,” eh?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:56 | link | comments

And speaking of sharia-compliant financing…: The poor (nebech) Gazans of Hamastan—their money is literally crumbling in their hands. The sympathetic New York Times-owned IHT has more about les miserables and their “tattered cash”:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip: The term "financial meltdown" is taking on a whole new meaning in the Gaza Strip: Under pressure by Israeli sanctions, local banks are literally running out of cash.

Most banks have sharply curtailed withdrawals, the U.N. has stopped distributing cash handouts to Gaza's poorest, and tempers are heating up as desperate people line up at local branches hoping to get a little money out of their frozen accounts. Economists and bank officials warn that tens of thousands of civil servants won't be able to cash their paychecks when they get their salaries next month.

"No society can operate without money, but that's the situation we are reaching in Gaza," said Gaza economist Omar Shaban.

The Israeli shekel is a widely used currency in the Gaza Strip, and the territory needs at least 400 million shekels, or about $100 million, each month in new currency to replace aging notes and to pay salaries, economists say.

The main source of currency is the moderate Palestinian government in the West Bank, which sends in currency shipments each month to pay its civil servants. The government still claims authority over Gaza, despite losing control of the territory last year to the Hamas militant group.

Israel has not allowed cash shipments since October, part of a series of sanctions it has imposed on Hamas since the group seized power in June 2007. Israel tightened the blockade earlier this month in response to a wave of rocket attacks out of Gaza. It fears Hamas will use money to fund attacks.

But the cash shortage has little effect on Hamas, which funnels money into Gaza through smuggling tunnels from Egypt. The militant group distributes cash to its own loyalists and the thousands of people it employs. It does not deal with the formal banking system.

Shaban said the money shortage has worsened because residents tend to keep savings stashed at home, rather than in banks. Gaza businessmen pay in cash for goods imported from Israel, further bleeding money out. Gaza's tunnel smugglers, who bring in diesel and goods into Gaza from underground passageways linked to Egypt, also pay in shekels for purchases.

Little money comes into the territory, meanwhile, because Israel has banned exports.

Jihad al-Wazir, of the Palestinian Monetary Authority in the West Bank, said his agency has asked Western officials to try pressure Israel to allow the money in time to pay December salaries. Mideast envoy Tony Blair and the World Bank have also contacted Israel about the issue.

The cash crunch is the latest shortage spreading through Gaza. Israel and Egypt's tightened blockade of the territory have caused widespread power blackouts, severe shortages of cooking gas and flour stocks are diminishing. Israel has virtually sealed the crossings since the outbreak of violence…

It takes the IHT ten paragraphs to get down to the reason for the cash crunch—Hamas’s breach of the ceasefire and its ongoing commitment to Israel’s destruction. Notice, too, that it takes that long to reveal that Egypt is also part of the “blockade"

I think that’s what you call “burying the lede.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:53 | link | comments

Money talks: Supna Zaidi looks at how greed and ignorance (but mostly greed) have enabled Islamic banking to take root in the West:

On November 6, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Departmenthosted a seminar on Islamic banking to train government employees on Sharia-compliant finance (SCF). According to a press release, it was “designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.”

It is interesting to note that while many in the West deride parallel societies, the lack of integration, and overall “foreign-ness” of its Muslim populations, they have no problem embracing Islamic banking. Maybe because this is the one area of religious “encroachment” that allows the West to make money, and lots of it.

The U.S. is behind European nations like the UK and France, which are actively promoting Islamic banking.

The UK already offers:

1.    Sharia-compliant car insurance;

2.    Sharia-compliant credit cards;

3.    Sharia-compliant mortgages.

Banking oversight in the UK is handled by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), a non-governmental body whose members are appointed by the Treasury. The FSA does not regulate the Sharia compliance of Islamic financial products, deferring instead to the Sharia supervisory board (SSB) of the financial institutions it has approved. Such religious deference, especially when the U.S. is still engaged in a “war against terror,” is a serious concern to critics of SCF.

One critic, the Coalition to Stop Sharia, hosted a press conference on the same day to reiterate its concerns, which were previously presented to various financial heads, but were ignored. The Coalition joins various organizations that do not want SCF practiced in the United States because of its potential connections to Islamism, the enemy in our “war on terror,” and the liability that would attach to practitioners of SCF who do not understand the potential seditious nature of their involvement…

Cue the Cabaret.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments

Six reasons why the Moon report will be probably be a total whitewash: I know like me you’re sitting on the edge of your seat, waiting to hear what’s in CHRC-appointed “expert” Richard Moon’s report. Ezra Levant says Moon will likely recommend tinkering with Section-13 to, you know, make it “more fair.” Beyond that, you can expect it to be the kind of report Jen Lynch and the pro-censorship forces can fully support. Here’s why (quoting Ezra):

1.     Richard Moon was hand-picked because he is on the record as pro-censorship.

2.     He was paid an enormous sum by Jennifer Lynch -- $50,000 for a few months work – so he’s in a conflict of interest.

3.     His contract specifically required him to submit a preliminary copy of his report to the CHRC, and to adjust his report as they direct him to. It’s not Moon’s report on Lynch, it’s Lynch’s report on Lynch.

4.     His contract specifically excluded him from investigating abuses and corruption at the CHRC.

5.     The few subjects left to his report are not properly his or the CHRC’s to comment on – that’s a job for Parliament.

6.     The fact that the CHRC commissioned this report in the face of various Parliamentary efforts to have a true review shows Lynch's contempt for Parliament and its authority over her.

On CFRB just now, Mark Steyn described the CHRC as “incompetent at best, corrupt at worst.” The Moon doc—the Lynch-pin of a defence to retain state censorship—cannot help but exemplify the “best” and the worst of the body that commissioned it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:39 | link | comments (1)

‘Piracy,’ irrational Zionhass and ‘human rights’: The great Melanie Phillips, quoting the great Caroline Glick, reveals the surprising connection between the three:

In the Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick makes the point about the piracy in the Gulf of Aden that I made here back in April and repeated on Question Time this week– that a major reason this menace has got out of hand is the spineless response of Britain and other western nations which have tied up their own hands through international law and ‘human rights’ doctrine. A Wall Street Journal article a few days ago made exactly the same point, noting that the British Foreign Office instructed the British Navy not to apprehend pirates lest they claim that their human rights were harmed, and request and receive asylum in Britain.

Glick broadens it out to the wider moral bankruptcy which is bringing western civilisation down:

The west’s perverse interpretations of human rights and humanitarian law, which bar it from handling one of the most acute emerging threats to the international economy, is a consequence of the West's abdication of moral and legal sanity in its dealings with international terror. In the 1960s and 1970s, when international terrorism first emerged as a threat to international security, the West adopted international treaties and conventions that tended to treat terrorism as a new form of piracy. Like piracy, terrorism was to be treated as an attack on all nations. Jurisdiction over terrorists was to be universal. Such early views were codified in early documents such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft from 1970 that established a principle of universal jurisdiction over aircraft hijackers...

And yet, over the years, states have managed to ignore or invert international laws on terrorism to the point where today terrorists are among the most protected groups of individuals in the world. Due to political sympathy for terrorists, hostility toward their victims, or fear of terrorist reprisals against a state that dares to prosecute terrorists found on its territory, states have managed to avoid not only applying existing laws against terrorists. They have also refrained from updating laws to meet the growing challenges of terrorism. Instead, international institutions and ‘enlightened’ Western states have devoted their time to condemning and threatening to prosecute the few states that have taken action against terrorists....

One of the reasons the international community has failed so abjectly to take reasonable measures to combat terrorism is because international terrorism as presently constituted is the creation of Palestinian Arabs and their Arab brethren. Since the 1960s, and particularly since the mid-1970s, Europe, and to varying degrees the US, have been averse to contending with terrorism because their hostility toward Israel leads them to condone Palestinian Arab terrorism against the Jewish state.

Until and unless the west comes to understand that its insane hatred of Israel – the country that serves as the west’s own forward salient against global terrorism – has been given traction by the international law and ‘human rights’ doctrine to which it so slavishly adheres, it will continue to write its own suicide note.

 Dear World: So long, it’s been good to know ya, love, the West.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:17 | link | comments

Irony of ironies: Who knew that the words to the theme song from Free To Be...You And Me, that seminal lefty kiddie program  from way back in the Seventies, would end up being so relevant in the Oughts?:

There's a land that I see where the children are free
And I say it ain't far to this land from where we are
Take my hand, come with me, where the children are free
Come with me, take my hand, and we'll live

In a land where the river runs free
In a land through the green country
In a land to a shining sea
And you and me are free to be you and me

I see a land bright and clear, and the time's comin' near
When we'll live in this land, you and me, hand in hand
Take my hand, come along, lend your voice to my song
Come along, take my hand, sing a song

For a land where the river runs free
For a land through the green country
For a land to a shining sea
For a land where the horses run free
And you and me are free to be you and me

Every boy in this land grows to be his own man
In this land, every girl grows to be her own woman
Take my hand, come with me where the children are free
Come with me, take my hand, and we'll run

To a land where the river runs free
To a land through the green country
To a land to a shining sea
To a land where the horses run free
To a land where the children are free
And you and me are free to be
And you and me are free to be
And you and me are free to be you and me

Free to be you and me—if only it were so. Alas, political correctness and “human rights” apparatchiks have put an end to such freedom.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:51 | link | comments

This just in: JFK was killed by the JOOOOOS.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:31 | link | comments

Quote of the day:  “History will ask only one question of our generation, and of the next one, and the one after that: did you secure the state of Israel? Woe to an American Jewry that does not ensure a rousing reply in the affirmative.”

--Ruth Wisse, Forgetting Zion, Commentary Magazine, October, 2008

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

And on a lighter note: My favourite celeb baby name ever--Bronx Mowgli Wentz.

You gotta admit, that "Mowgli" is killer.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:46 | link | comments (1)

Under the heading of  "Do As I say, Not As I Do": The Obamamobile--about as "green" as a Hummer.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:37 | link | comments

Harpoon touts Wahhabi “peace” project again: The Toronto Star’s wily pundit notes that the Saudi plot plan is a big hit with all the “peace” and “peace with justice” types (my bolds):

There's no sign of an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Tensions from that conflict continue to spill over into Canada. Yet peace is breaking out on many Arab-Israeli – and, more broadly, Muslim-Jewish – fronts in Toronto.

You wouldn't know so following the media. They have developed an alliance of lazy convenience with extremists, to whom they give disproportionate airtime and ink. The case of the Somali mosque in Toronto is only the latest example.

Let's start in Israel.

Yes, the U.S.-initiated peace effort is stalled, with Ehud Olmert on the way out and his successor Tzipi Livni awaiting an election. The rockets from Gaza continue to land in Israel, and Israel's collective punishment of Gazans continues. So do the arguments: No rockets, no collective punishment. No overall peace, no end to resistance.

Still, there has been a sea change. There's broad acceptance of a two-state solution. Israelis differ only on the details and on how best to break the political logjam.

Shimon Peres, Israel's most respected public figure, senses an opening. Using his presidential pulpit, and contacts with the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, he's keeping the peace agenda alive.

This helps the electoral chances of Livni over Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu. She is committed to the peace process.

Livni joined Peres at the United Nations last week in praising the 2002 Saudi peace plan of King Abdullah. This is the same plan that Israelis had earlier ignored.

The Jewish Diaspora in North America, traditionally more hardline than the Israelis, this time seems in sync with Israeli thinking. There has been praise for Abdullah's peace plan (Barack Obama likes it, too), and also for the king's recent multi-faith outreach.

The latter fits in with the twinning of 50 synagogues and 50 mosques in North America, including eight in the Toronto area, this weekend.

This is a historic development. Congregants are attending each other's services, exploring sacred commonalities and sharing meals.

It is an initiative of Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, New York. When I phoned him Tuesday, he was returning from a California gathering of the Temple Emmanuel, Beverly Hills, and King Fahd Mosque, Culver City.

"Many Jews there had never met any individuals of other faiths," let alone Muslims, he said. "There was a genuine spirit of brotherhood."

The twinning will "strengthen the moderates," and help combat anti-Semitism and anti-Islamism.

Jewish peace activists continue to work with Palestinians and Arab Canadians, including in Toronto.

The annual Voices Forward festival is finishing its third run. As reported by the Star's Nicholas Keung, movies, music, plays and lectures about the Israeli occupation have triggered a peaceful dialogue, according to artistic director Amit Breuer, who moved to Canada from Israel four years ago.

A photo exhibit about Hebron is at the XEXE Gallery, 624 Richmond St. W., until next Saturday.

Yet another photo exhibit about the West Bank is in Toronto. Bil'in – Village Against the Wall catalogues the weekly protests held by that village against the Israeli security fence. The show is at Tinto's Café, 89 Roncesvalles Ave. until Tuesday.

There are other instances of co-operation across the religious divide.

The Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian Somali Congress have started a mentorship program to match young Somalis with accountants, engineers, lawyers, etc.

Bernie Farber of the Jewish Congress was quoted as saying: "The stress here is on the `Canadian' part of our names. We are trying to forge a path and make a statement we haven't been able to make before."

He told me: "This is Canada."…

Alas, he’s right about that.

Say your prayers, Zionist entity, ‘cause your days are numbered. If the mullahs’ nuke doesn’t get you, the peace-mongers (the Bernies, the Livnis, the Schneiers, the other “twinners,” all of them labouring under the spell of the charming Saudis, who understand the kafirs a whole lot better than the kafirs understand the Wahhabis) soon will.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:31 | link | comments (6)

Somalis in America: Diana West examines how a community is settling into its new land:

One bit of research that didn't fit into the column concerns the entry of Somalis into Minnesota politics where, as a constituency, their political will is expresing itself in terms more Somalian than American--in the following case to Amy Klobuchar, who in 2006 was running for the US Senate seat she ultimately won. From the Minnesota Spokesman Recorder of November 15, 2006:

On  October 21 this year, Klobuchar attended the Somali Action Alliance candidate forum where she was asked several yes-or-no questions:

• If elected, will you work with the community to find a permanent solution to the smooth operation of the Somali money service businesses, so that the Somali community can send money to their family members back home?

• If elected, will you support federal legislation to ensure adequate funding for ESL [English as a Second Language] programs, well-trained teachers, and the addition of native language proficiency goals?

• If elected, will you support comprehensive immigration reform that includes taking steps to reduce the backlog of families stuck in the family reunification system?

• If elected, are you willing to meet with the community within 90 days of taking office to follow up on the commitments you made today and the issues presented to you today?

The 46-year-old Hennepin county attorney (now our new U.S. senator) answered all questions “Haa,” meaning “yes” in the Somali language, which appealed to the audience of more than two hundred.

Klobuchar did not limit her campaign to this meeting only. The following Saturday, October 28, along with her daughter and campaign managing team, she visited Carmel Mall, the oldest Somali mall in Minnesota, where she met with Somali businessmen and businesswomen.

Speaking to the Spokesman-Recorder about her visit to the mall and the current obstacle to Somali money wire services, she said that her visit was “to know more about Somali businesses in Minnesota,” and “there has to be a way that the community can send money back home for support of their family members.”

Apparently, facilitaring money transfers to Somalia has become the work of a US Senator. But isn't that taking "constituent services" to a new level?

“I am very pleased to see Amy in the mall and meeting with the community,” says Busad Kheyre, a Somali social worker at African Community Services in the Twin Cities and a businesswoman at the mall. “This is an indication of having a positive working relationship with the community.”

Kheyre, a mother of four children who is anxious about the closing of Somali money wire transfers in Minnesota, says, “This is the only way we can support our family members back home, and Amy can address this issue to Washington politicians.”

Although there is no accurate census of the Somali community in Minnesota, many estimate that more than 100,000 Somalis live in Minnesota, and many more family members are expected to come in the years ahead. They are the largest East African community in Minnesota to become naturalized in recent years, and politics is definitely one of their interests.

 American politics, or Somali politics?

Er, good question, albeit a most politically incorrect one (the reason we here in the northern multiculti paradise would never dare pose it—‘sides, we’re far too busy “mentoring”).

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments

Monkeyshines: Kofi Annan is leading a very active retirement. This week saw the former UN sec’y gen attempting to butt into Zimbabwe, so that he and fellow geezer/Zion-despiser Jimminy “Cricket” Carter could “solve” the problems there. In the weeks prior to that, he was in Paris, where he was promoting another of his, er,  pet projects. The Telegraph’s Benjamin Secher captured the (unintentionally) comical details:

One evening last week, a small room beneath the eaves of the Palais de Tokyo art museum in Paris played host to two unlikely figures. The first was a horribly lifelike sculpture of a monkey's head on a stick, its teeth bared in a disconcerting smile. The second was Kofi Annan.

"Who's that," said Annan pointing at the monkey and laughing his low, rumbling laugh, "the last guy you interviewed?" The grinning primate may be just the type of eccentric ornament you would expect to find in the offices of a celebrated centre for contemporary art, but what on earth was the former Secretary-General of the United Nations doing in a place like this?

The answer hung on the walls in the gallery downstairs, in the form of 115 beautiful, if rather bleak, photographs of a planet drilled, drained and dried out by man.

The images are the work of 18 leading photographers shortlisted for the inaugural Prix Pictet, the world's first photographic award devoted to sustainability, whose honorary president is Kofi Annan. This year the theme is water, and the prize - provided by the private Swiss bank Pictet & Cie - is £50,000.

"The goal of this award is unique," says Annan in a deep, resonant whisper which lends every word the weight of true sincerity. "That is, to use the power of photography to overcome our numbness, our lethargy; to use the qualities of the visual image to move us and reawaken our understanding of the urgency of the issues that confront us." For Annan - who retired from the UN last year, 45 years after joining the organisation as a WHO budget officer - no issue requires our attention more urgently than that of water…

I’m still trying to get the image of the monkey’s head on a stick out of my head.

Nope. Still there.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:34 | link | comments

A message for credulous twinners and other "tikkun olam" types: Four words that say it all:

(via Jihad Watch)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:16 | link | comments

What’s in a name?: Well, if the name is “the Saracen’s Head,” apparently there’s enough to potentially offend some people who don’t think the word  “Saracen” should be associated with the serving and consumption of alcohol. From the Birmingham Mail:

BIRMINGHAM Mail readers have spoken out against the decision to change the name of a historic city pub – accusing it of being “politically correct”.

The home of the famous Saracen’s Head, in Kings Norton Green, will become known as Saint Nicolas Place said its owners, at the nearby St Nicolas Church.

Angry letters fired off to the Mail said the church had no right to “wipe away 300 years of history” for fear of offending Muslims.

Ann Spooner, of Kings Norton, wrote: “To us it will always be the Saracen’s Head.”

The 18th-century former inn was originally built as a rich wool merchant’s house in the 1400s and was given to the church in 1930. In 2004 it won £500,000 to help bring it back to its former glory in the BBC programme Restoration.

Cannon Rob Morris said the church consulted with its congregation of more than 300 and the Friends of Historic Kings Norton in reaching the controversial choice.

In 2004 the Birmingham Mail reported how the Very Rev Morris said the name was “offensive” to Muslims. But he said the reason behind the name-change was to stop people from mistaking the building – now a community centre and church office – for a pub. It was also to recognise the role of the church and its more than a million pounds’ worth of investment.

Keith Carton, from Kings Norton, said: “When was the last time anyone can recall coachloads of lager louts turning up for a heavy session?”

Rod Murphy, from Northfield, said: “This barmy decision has nothing at all to do with people thinking the building is still a pub. The only people who use the building are locals and they know full well it is not a pub.”

Rod was among many who felt the new name was prompted by a fear of offending Muslims.

He said: “This is the real reason that the name is being changed. How the misguided, deluded do-gooder Canon Rob Morris can be allowed to wipe away 300 years of history is beyond belief.”

Mr Morris denied the charge adding the site would be home to the Saracen’s Head Cafe.

He said: “I’m surprised at how many people have complained.”

Yeah, you would think the fight would have gone right out of them by now.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:06 | link | comments

 Television Without Pity skewers self-righteous simp:

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:31 | link | comments

Jihad's over, right?: Wrong.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:22 | link | comments

Damage control: The vice principal (academic) of Queen’s University writes to alumni (of which my husband is one) to assure them that, despite what they may have read, the campus has not become a nightmarish 1984-like environment:

Dear Alumni,

Queen's Intergroup Dialogue, a modest pilot program initiated in the residences this September, has attracted a good deal of attention in the press, where its nature, goals and operation have been seriously misrepresented.

The six students who have been trained to serve their peers as facilitators in difficult or sensitive discussions have been presented as thought and speech police. In a notable instance, the Globe and Mail recently likened our student facilitators to the KGB. What motives the media have for this misrepresentation are unclear; what is very obvious, however, is that they have not sought to ascertain the facts. Because alumni and friends of Queen's must understandably be perturbed by this very negative publicity, I am writing to provide you with an accurate account of what the program is, what it does and does not do.

Building on the recognition that much of Queen's distinction as an educational institution derives from its unique broader learning environment, and reaffirming our longstanding commitment to "preparing leaders and citizens for a global society," the program has a very simple goal: to foster amongst students, in their ordinary interactions, a spirit of mutual respect and understanding, especially where they might potentially be divided by differences of racial identity, religious commitment, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

The program is founded on respect, which means that student facilitators are explicitly not intended or allowed to foist their views upon others. Indeed, they are expected to foster a safe environment in which all students can speak with assurance, and where differences of opinion will be worked through in civil debate. The entire project is premised on voluntary participation and it is not true that facilitators will in any way seek to censor, censure or discipline their peers

The Intergroup Dialogue program is not disciplinary but educational in nature, and more than anything else it resembles peer mentoring, long an established part of university life across Canada. It does not exist to force or even encourage consensus on any issue, except one: that freedom of speech and thought is impossible without respect, consideration, and a commitment to mutual understanding. It is difficult to see how we could claim to be educating global leaders if this commitment were not a cornerstone of our institutional life.

Finally, I should note that the project is indeed a pilot, and that it will be evaluated after a year. Any student who has been involved with it, either as a facilitator or a participant, will have an opportunity to comment on its value and usefulness.

In other words, don’t let the fact that we now have our very own campus thought cops deter you from sending us the big bucks.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:08 | link | comments

The new New Deal: Bring on the TVA!

Following is a transcript of President-elect Barack Obama’s radio address for Saturday, Nov. 22, as released by the president-elect’s office.

Good morning.

The news this week has only reinforced the fact that we are facing an economic crisis of historic proportions. Financial markets faced more turmoil. New home purchases in October were the lowest in half a century. Five-hundred-forty-thousand more jobless claims were filed last week, the highest in 18 years. And we now risk falling into a deflationary spiral that could increase our massive debt even further.

While I’m pleased that Congress passed a long-overdue extension of unemployment benefits this week, we must do more to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. We have now lost 1.2 million jobs this year, and if we don’t act swiftly and boldly, most experts now believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year.

There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis, which has been many years in the making, and it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. But January 20th is our chance to begin anew — with a new direction, new ideas, and new reforms that will create jobs and fuel long-term economic growth.

I have already directed my economic team to come up with an Economic Recovery Plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011 — a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face that I intend to sign soon after taking office. We’ll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.

These aren’t just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis; these are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long. And they represent an early down payment on the type of reform my administration will bring to Washington — a government that spends wisely, focuses on what works, and puts the public interest ahead of the same special interests that have come to dominate our politics.

I know that passing this plan won’t be easy. I will need and seek support from Republicans and Democrats, and I’ll be welcome to ideas and suggestions from both sides of the aisle.

But what is not negotiable is the need for immediate action. Right now, there are millions of mothers and fathers who are lying awake at night wondering if next week’s paycheck will cover next month’s bills. There are Americans showing up to work in the morning only to have cleared out their desks by the afternoon. Retirees are watching their life savings disappear and students are seeing their college dreams deferred. These Americans need help, and they need it now.

The survival of the American Dream for over two centuries is not only a testament to its enduring power, but to the great effort, sacrifice, and courage of the American people. It has thrived because in our darkest hours, we have risen above the smallness of our divisions to forge a path towards a new and brighter day. We have acted boldly, bravely, and above all, together. That is the chance our new beginning now offers us, and that is the challenge we must rise to in the days to come. It is time to act. As the next president of the United States, I will. Thank you.

No, no, thank you, Barack Delano Obama.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:42 | link | comments

Elmo’s dire forecast: In an interview with the National Post’s Joseph Brean, the CIC’s Grand Poobah-for-life warns of what could happen should “the legal system” fail to clamp down on “group defamation” (you know, like the "legal system" of Saudi Arabia does):

…"Criticizing is not a big deal [in Islam]," he said, referring to the Dan-ish Muhammad cartoons controversy. "You should understand there is a difference between criticizing a religion, OK, comparing it to another religion, and to make a mockery of the symbol of that religion. This is up to the legal system to decide."

Prof. Elmasry said Canadian law is deficient because it lacks the concept of "group defamation," which would "make it easier" for tribunals to uphold complaints such as his.

"There is individual human rights and there is collective, group human rights, and both of them are very important," he said.

In fact, the Canadian Human Rights Act is explicitly directed "to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have ... "

Nor is the common law tort of defamation, group or otherwise, addressed in Canada's human rights law, which is meant to be restorative rather than punitive. Prof. Elmasry said hate speech against a majority is less serious than speech against a minority because the majority is "anchored."

"If somebody makes a joke that you're white, who cares?" he said.

This is also not a distinction with a basis in human rights law, which prohibits discrimination on certain grounds such as race, but does not distinguish between races.

In his campaign against Maclean's, which he emphasized was very costly, Prof. Elmasry said his goal was to promote "hate-free free speech." At stake, he said, is a potential genocide of Canadian Muslims. "It happened to the Jews in Europe. It happened to the natives here in Canada. We don't want it to happen to us," he said….

It appears Elmo has learned his victim lessons very well: “hate speech” invariably leads to genocide. I’m happy to allay his concerns. The Holocaust did not, I repeat, did not, happen because of “hate speech.” It happened because an ambitious leader who a bizarre hold over his people sought to bring about a thousand-year rule by Ubermenchen, and for some crazy reason got it into his head that the way to do that was to “cleanse” the world of Jews. As far as I know, there isn’t anyone on today’s scene who has any interest in doing something similar to Muslims. So don’t fret, Elmo, your fears are completely groundless.

(As an aside, why is he claiming to be out of pocket? I thought the HRCs pick up the complainants’ legal tab, and that esteemed attorney, Faisal Joseph, was working pro bono. Is he just trying to make us feel sorry for him?)

(As another aside--any way you slice it, "hate-free free speech" is still censorship.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:27 | link | comments

Israeli “apartheid” in action: On a visit to the West Bank, Calgary Herald columnist Licia Corbella encounters a portion of what anti-Zionists call the “apartheid wall,” and details the impact it has had on lives on both sides:

I am standing on a street called Ha'anafa on the southern edge of this ancient city. Behind me, a five-storey apartment building made of the mandated limestone that gives this land such a pleasing patina. Below, olive groves on a steep terraced valley. It is a lovely view spoiled by a rather ugly security fence about 700 to 800 metres away.

The fence includes 20-metre high concrete planks for a short distance, but most of the fence is electrified chain link with barbed wire at the top.

But to the residents of this West Bank neighbourhood called Gilo, that fence is not an eyesore. Indeed, for all Jerusalem residents, including Arab Israelis, the fence is life. At the height of the intifada in 2002, and before the security wall was erected, more than 130 Israelis were murdered in March alone by Palestinian suicide bombers who only had to walk from their neighbourhood across the road to detonate themselves amid their Jewish neighbours. The death toll for the year was 452, with thousands injured.

to the several kilometres I travel just to pick up a loaf of bread, seeing the proximity between the security fence and the homes it's designed to protect is astonishing. It is in some spots narrower than the space many Canadians think is reasonable to have as a highway meridian. When we hear of stories about skirmishes between Palestinians and Jews within Jerusalem, it's impossible to understand just how small the distances are unless you see for yourself. Even for an unfit person, this distance would be considered a short run, barely enough to work up a sweat.

Since the security wall was built, there have been no more suicide murders and no more sniping at children walking to and from school.

For Palestinians, however, the wall is a hardship and an indignity. These olive groves directly below me are Palestinian land. Instead of its owner simply walking across the road to pick his crop, he must travel several kilometres down that same road, line up at a check point, get searched and then enter Jewish Jerusalem. It is inconvenient, disruptive and upsetting for Palestinians. Much of the international community has condemned Israel for erecting the security fence.

But if every western critic could stand here on this spot and see the distance between those who sought to kill and those who were to be killed, it's likely most would be silenced.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim journalist who lives in Israel and writes for the Jerusalem Post, says life was unbearable and extremely dangerous before the fence was erected.

"It's very simple," explains the reporter who once worked as a reporter for the Palestine Liberation Organization's newspaper. "I live in Jerusalem. I have three children and I can tell you that for three years I was afraid to take my children to the shopping malls here in Jerusalem. For three years if you asked me to meet you in downtown Jerusalem, I would have refused and for three years I was afraid to stop my car at a red traffic light next to a bus because I didn't want to die in a suicide bombing. The suicide bombers killed both Jews and Arabs."…

Those dastardly Jews and their despicable “apartheid”! How can the world tolerate such overt “racism” (a question that will be probed and answered during Durban II)?

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:16 | link | comments

A pirate speaks: Astonishingly, the Guardian provides space to a Somali pirate, so he can explain how his exploits are actually “heroic":

I am 42 years old and have nine children. I am a boss with boats operating in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.

I finished high school and wanted to go to university but there was no money. So I became a fisherman in Eyl in Puntland like my father, even though I still dreamed of working for a company. That never happened as the Somali government was destroyed [in 1991] and the country became unstable.

At sea foreign fishing vessels often confronted us. Some had no licence, others had permission from the Puntland authorities but did not want us there to compete. They would destroy our boats and force us to flee for our lives.

I started to hijack these fishing boats in 1998. I did not have any special training but was not afraid. For our first captured ship we got $300,000. With the money we bought AK-47s and small speedboats. I don't know exactly how many ships I have captured since then but I think it is about 60. Sometimes when we are going to hijack a ship we face rough winds, and some of us get sick and some die.

We give priority to ships from Europe because we get bigger ransoms. To get their attention we shoot near the ship. If it does not stop we use a rope ladder to get on board. We count the crew and find out their nationalities. After checking the cargo we ask the captain to phone the owner and say that have seized the ship and will keep it until the ransom is paid.

We make friends with the hostages, telling them that we only want money, not to kill them. Sometimes we even eat rice, fish, pasta with them. When the money is delivered to our ship we count the dollars and let the hostages go.

Then our friends come to welcome us back in Eyl and we go to Garowe in Land Cruisers. We split the money. For example, if we get $1.8m, we would send $380,000 to the investment man who gives us cash to fund the missions, and then divide the rest between us.

Our community thinks we are pirates getting illegal money. But we consider ourselves heroes running away from poverty. We don't see the hijacking as a criminal act but as a road tax because we have no central government to control our sea. With foreign warships now on patrol we have difficulties.

But we are getting new boats and weapons. We will not stop until we have a central government that can control our sea.

See, it really is all about “poverty”. As such, it's nothing that a little sharia refinancing/redistribution won’t fix.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:05 | link | comments (1)

Heh: Intrusive geezers Kofi and Jimminy barred from entry to  Zimbabwe.

Well, Mugabe may be a loathsome, cretinous despot, but he does have his standards.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:54 | link | comments

A telling juxtaposition: On the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) site—at the top, under the heading “CONNECTING COMMUNITIES FOR THE COMMON GOOD,” there’s a paragraph about the “twinning” scheme. At the bottom, there an ad for “HOME OWNERSHIP THE SHARIA WAY 1-866-GUIDANCE.”

I think it’s fairly evident what sort of “common good” ISNA is after.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:50 | link | comments

How disappointing: "Dubai--it's not all fireworks and Kylie."

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:40 | link | comments

Issuer of "Die, Mickey Mouse" fatwa irate at MEMRI: He says his words were "taken out of context."  And in another "mouse" context...:

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:58 | link | comments

“Sharing the wealth,” jihad style: Ahoy, Somali pirates. Someone wants to force you to participate in a compulsory redistribution plan. From Reuters:

The fighters from the Shabaab militia, a fundamentalist movement likened to an African Taliban, were reported to have turned up in the port of Haradheere in southern Somalia, close to where the tanker is currently anchored.

Some reports said the Islamists, who have tried to impose brutal law and order on Somalia's warring clans, had the pirates themselves in their sights.

Others in Haradheere, however, said it was thought that they had arrived in the hope of collecting a share of any ransom money.

The pirate group that hijacked the tanker, which is carrying $100 million worth of oil, have demanded a $25 million ransom for return of the vessel and its 25-strong crew, which includes two Britons.

"The Islamists arrived searching for the pirates and the whereabouts of the Saudi ship," said a clan elder in Haradheere.

"I saw four cars full of Islamists driving in the town from corner to corner. The Islamists say they will attack the pirates for hijacking a Muslim ship."

But other residents believed the Shabaab's motives were not altruistic. "There are many militiamen who have arrived in the town and they want to get a share from the pirates if the ransom is paid," claimed Ahmed Abdullahi, another clan elder.

The Shabaab fighters used to be the armed wing of the Islamic Courts Union, an Islamist organisation that briefly brought peace to Mogadishu two years ago before being deposed by the weak but internationally-backed transitional federal government.

During their time in power the courts union also virtually eradicated piracy. Since the Islamists' fall, the Shabaab has started up a guerrilla war against the new government, and is thought to seek a share of the pirates' spoils to finance its military campaign.

Meanwhile, the pirate crew on board the captured tanker are building up their defences against any rescue attempt by foreign warships in the area. Extra fighters and supplies of food are thought be coming into Harardhare, known as a pirate safe haven.

Pirates pirating from pirates: just another facet of our weird and wacked-out world.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:33 | link | comments

What “twinning” has to do with Durban II:

Almost concurrently, a full-page ad appeared in the New York Times, heralding the "milestone event" of twinning. The ad was sponsored by Schneier's foundation (ffeu.org), the Islamic Society of North America (isna.net), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (mpac.org), and the World Jewish Congress (worldjewishcongress.org).

Public service announcements were being aired on CNN, with imams denouncing anti-Semitism and rabbis denouncing Islamophobia (view on ffeu.org).

From Harpoon Siddiqui’s approving column, of course.

I have one last thing to say about this “twinning” thing, and it pertains to the above. Since both ISNA and MPAC are Saudi/Wahhabi fronts, there’s method to their madness of persuading naive Jews to agree to the false equivalence of antisemtism="Islamophobia": it validates the bogus concept (supposedly, the unfounded fear of Islam; actually, the global and local effort to curtail “blasphemy” and “defamation”--a tenet of Islamic law--along with any critical discussion of Islam). In so doing, these Jews are lending credence to one of the centrepieces of the upcoming Durban II conference. A second centerpiece posits another false equivalence, an oldie but a baddie near and dear to so many Wahhabi hearts: Zionism=racism.

Just try not to bring any of this up in discussions this weekend, ‘kay, since it might dispel all the warm and fuzzies.

Update: It occurs to me that the Arabs' military offensive has (so far) been unable to destroy the Jewish state. The Wahhabi charm offensive, though, might just do the trick.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:09 | link | comments

Al Qaeda cut-up: Who says there are no laughs in Islam? From the times online:

A stand-up comedy course for the inmates of a maximum security prison in Cambridgeshire was called off today after it emerged that a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist was among the would-be comics.

The Sun reported on its front page this morning Zia Ul Haq, convicted last year for plotting to blow up buildings in the UK, was one of 18 inmates brushing up their stand-up skills at Whitemoor prison.

Within hours the course had been cancelled on the direct orders of Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, who said that it was a “totally unacceptable” use of taxpayers’ money.

The Justice Department and senior managers in the Prison Service had apparently been unaware of the eight-day workshop, run by the Comedy School of London at a cost of £8,000 and attended by 18 prisoners.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:39 | link | comments

Another “twinning” critic: Looks like I’m not the only skeptic out there. Ruth King has some serious reservations (drastic understatement) about the “twinning” scheme, too (h/t WM):

A full page ad in the New York Times of November 11^thheralded November 21-23 as a “Week of Twinning” when Canadian and American synagogues and their respective rabbis and an equal number of mosques and mullahs will “join together to confront Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in their respective communities.”

 

This interfaith confab will be under the auspices of good old King Abdullah bin Aziz of Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes in the world which funds, promotes and teaches terrorism and fanatical hatred of all “infidels” and is the locus of all but two of the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11.

 

The deluded rabbis (I’m holding back here) fail to comprehend they are being “had” by the wily king and his co-religionists. Has anyone vetted the sermons of the imams that are so perturbed by prejudice? Did a single one of them ever denounce terrorism or the various and sundry texts in the hadith and the Koran that incite hatred and death to all unbelievers? Are the rabbis aware of the centuries of relentless Islamic anti-Semitism which antedate the Arab/Israel war? Will a single one of those mullahs invite Hirsi Ayaan Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, or Dan Pipes to speak to their congregations of the need to reform Islam, curb Sharia Law, and abolish Jihad?  In a word….no.

 

On the other hand, the rabbis involved in this silly posturing would probably be delighted to invite the good old Wahabbi thug to their synagogues to foster “understanding.” You know….Isn’t talk always better than war and isn’t peace the noble way and aren’t there plenty of passages in the Koran that talk of love and faith and aren’t there passages in the Old Testament that promote violence and didn’t Jews and Arabs enjoy real co-existence at one time, and didn’t we also have grannies who said mean things about other races? 

 

Thanks to these participants in the sham, the "twinning" is now permanent and you can’t denounce anti-Semitism without also denouncing its “sister” hatred Islamophobia.

 

The dictionary defines anti-Semitism as "hostility and prejudice to Jews." Historically it is mostly associated with Dachau, and Auschwitz, but there were centuries of murder, and dislocation of Jews in Europe and in all Arab lands with short eras of ‘tolerance.”

 

Currently, anti-Semitism is manifested in harassment, vilification, physical assaults, and murder of Jews, including terrorism and suicide bombings. In all Muslim countries sermons, school texts, broadcasts, and newspapers denounce Jews. These examples of visceral hatred for Jews run the gamut from cartoons, depicting Jews as apes, to calls for "death to the Jews," promotions of blood libels, and holocaust denial. UN assemblies, as well as affiliated organizations and conferences always degenerate into Jew-baiting. In the more elite intellectual Left “salons” of Europe and the United States it is openly manifested in shrill criticism of Israel, particularly among tenured professors in Middle East departments funded by oil rich Arab Kingdoms.

 

Only a few days ago, Arab students at University of California at Berkeley attacked participants at an Israel Liberation Week concert. Witnesses reported the attack by thugs shouting epithets and calling Jews “Nazis’ and “dogs.”

 

Now, what about "Islamophobia," a word not included in the dictionary? It is a phony construct. The word phobia is defined as an "irrational fear or aversion." If anyone can discover people who are motivated by an irrational hatred of Muslims rather than a well based fear of those, who, prompted by the tenets of Islam, attempt to murder infidels, stone, behead and flog those who dishonor Allah, and, most horrific, murder their own progeny in “honor killings” by all means let them bring such examples forward.

 

There are indeed moderate Muslims who have suffered persecution, dislocation, murder and genocide….at the hands of other Muslims. See Darfur. See Somalia. See Iraq.

 

There are, in America, decent and law abiding and devout Muslim families. Other than perfunctory criticism of the perpetrators of 9/11, or embassy bombings, or marine barracks bombings, or the USS Cole, they don’t speak out and they expose their children to the fanatical hatreds of the mosques. Recently, I had an exchange with a lovely and soft spoken woman from Nigeria, who has been here for 17 years. She told me her children go to a mosque school where they learn Koran and Arabic. When I questioned why they learn Arabic since that is not one of the myriad languages of Nigeria, she told me that Arabs pay for the schooling. One can only imagine what her children learn in an Arab funded madrassa. One could also question why after so many years in this country her family is not assimilated...

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:56 | link | comments

They’re gettin’ their act together and takin’ it on the road: BFFs Bernie Farber and Harpoon Siddiqui sing a tribute to their bond:

B: If you’re ever up a creek, I will speak.

H: If you call for censorship, I’ll be hip.

B: If “anti-Semite” is the talk, don’t worry, pal, I will balk.

Both: It’s friendship, friendship just a perfect blendship.
When other friendships are down the loo, ours will still be true.
Da da da da da da dig dig dig.

H: If you ever want to “twin,” hey, I’m in.

B: If you’re ever on the Ceeb, call for me(eb).
H: If you wanna find the “line” ‘tween free speech ‘n’ “hate,” I’ll say, “Great!”
Both: It's friendship, friendship, just a perfect blendship.
When other friendships are dead and gone, ours will still be on.
Loddle doddle chuck chuck chaa….

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:49 | link | comments (3)

Semi-flying pig moment: Calgary Herald pro-censorship columnist Naomi Lakritz and “walkin’ man”/“free-speecher” Syed Soharwardy both agree: what happened to Aqsa Parvez was an “honour killing,” and an abhorrent crime:

…Closer to home in Toronto, the same debate is being played out around the death of Mississauga, Ont., teen Aqsa Parvez­, whose father and brother have been charged with murder. Parvez­ was allegedly killed for becoming too westerniz­ed and reportedly refusing to wear her hijab. When Toronto Life magaz­ine did a story on her in their December issue and talked of honour killings, the politically correct were incensed. Among the outraged was Michelle Cho of Toronto's Urban Alliance on Race Relations, who said the article "feeds into fearmongering driven by an us-versus-them mentality suggesting that embracing diversity is like a runaway train leading to the death of liberalism as we know it."Whew. There's a fire-breathing mouthful of rhetoric for you. Now for some plain talk, let's turn to Calgary Imam Syed Soharwardy, who last month completed a cross-Canada multi-faith walk against violence.

"I believe it is honour killing. That is not something that can be denied. But it is un-Islamic. It has nothing to do with my religion, and I strongly condemn it. The people doing these heinous things should be punished," Soharwardy said in an interview Thursday. Soharwardy tells of the discovery of a cemetery near where he grew up in Pakistan, where the graves of 100 women and girls were unearthed: "They had been buried by their own families, all killed in the name of honour. The Pakistani government does nothing about these honour killings, nothing at all."

Soharwardy says the notion of families forcing girls into arranged marriages is not condoned by Islam: "Not many Muslims know that, but marrying a partner of your choice is a requirement, for both the boy and girl."He agrees if evil is to be rooted out, then it has to be labelled for what it is. If we are reluctant to look evil in the face or we try to divert attention from it by accusing those who are being forthright about it of racism, then we can't fight it. People who come from cultures where honour killing occurs don't hesitate to call this evil by its name. They don't see it as a blanket condemnation of their culture, race or religion; they see it for what it is, a crime that must be stopped and whose perpetrators must be punished.

There is nothing wrong with saying that someone from another culture is doing something wrong. Canadians can continue playing a game of political correctness, but the only ones who pay the price for it will be the very women who need help the most.

You can’t call it a full-blown flying pig moment, since Syed and Naomi aren’t willing to acknowledge that the misogyny and gender inequity written into Islam’s texts and laws may be a factor in these killings. But baby steps, right?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:56 | link | comments

Kumbaya, and all that hokum: In an interview last February in FrontPage magazine, Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who has written hundreds of articles and several books on Islam, tells Jamie Glazov what’s behind the Saudi push for interfaith dialogue, and how Western “multiculturalism” is a boon to the Wahhabi agenda (my bolds):

FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: Thank you for having me back Jamie.

FP: There is the reality and policy of Western multiculturalism. There is also the agenda of Islamic multiculturalism. Introduce the concept to us.

Kasem: Many western governments have a lofty ideal—to create a society, where people of different race, religion, culture, and tradition live together in peace and harmony, without losing their root identity. For many years, this policy has sprouted large-scale migration from many impoverished Islamic nations to wealthy countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, and a few European nations.

Happily adopting this Kafir (Islamic term for non-Muslim) multiculturalism, many migrants have successfully integrated with the host nation. This has enhanced their life style, quality of living, and a good perception of human bondage. They are pleased to practice their respective religions with full freedom, and maintain their tradition and culture without encroaching on others’ freedom to do so. There is, however, one exception—Islam. Islam is at odds with this Kafir Multiculturalism, even though Muslims use this policy to their advantage.

The Kafir Multiculturalism promotes religious tolerance, freedom of expression, and democracy. It accords equal opportunity for all, irrespective of race religion, ethnic origin, gender, and sexual orientation. In this policy of Kafir Multiculturalism, the Islamists have found a great opportunity to advance their agenda—to create a pan Islamic world. All the cardinal principles of Kafir Multiculturalism are working in favor of the Islamists. That is why all Islamists are in full support of Kafir Multiculturalism.

But Islamists’ support of Kafir Multiculturalism is just a deceptive ploy to hide their real motives. Behind the veneer of their broad smile, talk of peace, love for freedom and interfaith understanding, there is a vicious plan. This plan is the design to replace the Kafir Multiculturalism with Islamic Multiculturalism. This is similar to the Islamists’ attempt to replace the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 with the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. We should have no delusion that the Islamists are right on target with Islamic Multiculturalism, and they are advancing uncompromisingly, confidently, and stealthily towards their goal. Their weapon—it is none other than Kafir Multiculturalism—exactly the same way they had used UDHR as a weapon in the past.

FP: Ok, so what exactly does Islamic Multiculturalism entail?

Kasem: As I have noted, Islamists simply love the western concept of multiculturalism. It suits them perfectly to press on with their agenda of Islamization of western societies, by using the concepts of western democracy, freedom of expression, secularism, and respect for diverse culture, religion, language, and tradition. The Islamists cleverly use these noble ideals and good intentions to defeat the western policy makers in their own game.

We must comprehend that the Islamists have a totally different idea of multiculturalism. The foundation of Islamic Multiculturalism is solidly based on the supremacy of Islam, primacy of the Arabs, and the global Islamic Ummah. They find the western concept of multiculturalism too easy to use to their advantage.

For example, when Australia organizes ‘interfaith dialogue,’ the Islamists find in it an unparallel opportunity to espouse the ‘beauty’ of Islam. Mainly funded by the infidel tax payers, the ‘interfaith dialogue’ has become the best platform to advance Islam in the west. Thanks to those Westerners who are ignorant about Islam and are gullible useful idiots, the Islamists are laughing all the way to the mosques, knowing full well that Islam is totally safe in the hands of western politicians. The Islamists have nothing to worry about in terms of their agenda to eventually impose Islam on the infidel lands. The politicians of the infidel territories are doing the job for them (i.e., promoting Islam). These politicians even appoint the Islamists as advisors or consultative group in tackling Islamic terrorism. What could be more ironic than this?...

Please do read the whole thing—and maybe send it to a gullible kafir you know and love.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:29 | link | comments (1)

A dressing down: Despite the mullahs' best efforts to force everyone in Iran to conform to an "Islamic" standard of dress, young people in the glorious dystopia (some of whom have come under the evil influence of infidel stations like Fashion TV, available by satellite)  are bristling at the lack of control over their own appearance, and are finding ways to subvert the strict dress code. MEMRI has a clip of interviews with some of these fashionistas--part of an Iran TV campaign to clamp down on defiant displays of individualism the regime considers so un-Islamic.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:11 | link | comments

9/11, JFK, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and "Paul is Dead": Just a few of the top 30 "conspiracies," according to The Telegraph.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments

Peace—with an asterisk: The website of Thornhill’s Jafari Cultural Centre, one of the Toronto-area Islamic centres being “twinned” with a local synagogue, explains where it’s coming from, religion of peace-wise (my bolds):

ISLAM: THE RELIGION OF PEACE

As reflected in its name, Islam is a religion of peace. Muslims are taught to greet each other by saying “salãmun ‘alaykum — peace be upon you”. The daily prayers also end with the same sentence. In Islam, one of the names by which God is known is “As-Salãm” which means peace.

However, one must realize that peace, on a social level, is inter-twined with justice. Peace can only exists (sic) if justice is maintained in society.

Unfortunately, because of the Middle Eastern events of last fifty years, Islam has been branded by the western media as a religion of violence. In recent years, the word “Islamic” has become one of the adjectives of “terrorism”.

In this backdrop, firstly, one must realize that the events of the Middle East can be fairly and fully understood only in the light of the post-World War One history of that region, in particular the unfulfilled promises given by the British to the Arabs in order to incite them to rebel against their own Muslim rulers.

Secondly, no fair-minded person would allow himself to blame the religion of Islam for the wrong-doings of those who call themselves as Muslims. It is just like saying that the Catholic Church promotes violence and terrorism because of the Irish Republican Army’s activities!

Riiiight, because everyone knows that the IRA waged a “jihad”, er, crusade in the name of the Catholic Church. Oh, and by the way, did you know that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was a Christian? And wasn’t there a Jewish guy who once went into a mosque in Israel with both guns blazing?

Memo to Jews being twinned with the Jafari Centre: considering the centre’s understanding of history, here are a few topics you might want to avoid during get-togethers--the Balfour Declaration, the Paris Peace Conference, Mohammad  Amin al-Husayni, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Oh, and just so you know, “peace with justice” has a very specific meaning in Islam: It is the “peace” that comes--that can only come--once Islam is calling the shots. You can read about it here.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:07 | link | comments

Twin to win: I wrote John Thompson, head of the Mackenzie Institute, to ask his opinion of  the “twinning” effort. His reply:

You should have no objection to being twinned to an Ismaili mosque or an older Shi'ite one (if comprised of Iranians who fled the Mullahs).  Anything else and you should start looking at your homework for funding from WAMY (World Assembly of Muslim Youth), MWL/WML  (Muslim World League/World Muslim League), the ISNA (Islamic Societies of North America)... these are all Wahhabi/Saudi fronts. 

Oh. But I’m sure they’re really, really nice Wahhabis.

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

There are no words: Harpoon’s latest details a marvellous new venture between “moderates”.  From the Toronto Star, of course:

Away from the media din of extremist Jews and Muslims, some extraordinary developments are taking place that herald the beginning of a potent-ially historic thaw between the mainstream moderates of the two communities in North America.

"I never thought I'd live to see this day in my life," Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress said of the twinning of 50 synagogues and 50 mosques in Canada and the U.S., including eight in the Toronto area this coming weekend.

Jews and Muslims will visit each other's places of worship and break bread together. Setting aside the Arab-Israeli conflict that divides them, they'll explore their common religious roots and, more urgently, their obligations to each other as Canadian and American citizens.

The seeds were sown a year ago in New York. The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding invited 13 rabbis and imams, including two from Toronto: Sheykh Zahir Bacchus of Lote Tree Foundation, Brampton, and Rabbi Yossi Sapirman of Beth Torah Congregation in Toronto. (They had befriended each other at a Toronto seminar on the spiritual needs of the sick and the dying).

Those at the New York meeting hit upon the idea of twinning.

"The goal was to get 25 mosques and 25 synagogues," Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of the foundation and also chairman, World Jewish Congress United States, told me over the phone. "The response was overwhelming."…

Meanwhile, the stars were lining up internationally.

King Abdullah of Jordan had initiated a dialogue with Christians, following Pope Benedict's 2006 incendiary statement about Islam. In July, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia hosted in Madrid a broader interfaith summit, attended by Schneier, world Jewry's foremost proponent of interfaith dialogue.

Last week, the Saudi king helped arrange a special interfaith session of the UN General Assembly, where Israeli President Shimon Peres praised him for:

His 2002 peace plan for Arab recognition of Israel if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders.

His message of interreligious reconciliation: "Your Majesty: I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people ... It's needed."

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni concurred.

Almost concurrently, a full-page ad appeared in the New York Times, heralding the "milestone event" of twinning. The ad was sponsored by Schneier's foundation (ffeu.org), the Islamic Society of North America (isna.net), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (mpac.org), and the World Jewish Congress (worldjewishcongress.org).

Public service announcements were being aired on CNN, with imams denouncing anti-Semitism and rabbis denouncing Islamophobia (view on ffeu.org).

In the Toronto area, the Solel Congregation is twinned with the Islamic Centre of Canada, both in Mississauga; Temple Emanu-El, North York with the Noor Cultural Centre, Don Mills; Temple Har Zion with the Jafari Cultural Centre, both in Thornhill; and Beth Torah with Lote Tree.

They are using different formats.

For example, the Noor Centre (noorculturalcentre.ca) and Emanu-El (templeemanuel.ca) – both led by women, Samira Kanji and Rabbi Debra Landsberg – will open their doors to the public as they host each other:

At Noor, for the 1 p.m. prayer tomorrow (led by Prof. Timothy Gianotti, Noor Fellow at York University); at the synagogue, for the Friday evening Kabbalat Shabbat, which opens the sabbath, and also the Saturday sabbath service; and back at Noor Sunday, for a breakfast discussion, 9.30 a.m.

Who would have thought such a day would ever come?

Rabbi Schneier acknowledged that there were voices within the Jewish community who opposed the initiative, even wanted to "sabotage" it. There are no doubt similar voices on the Muslim side as well. But goodwill prevailed.

Schneier hopes to export the model to Europe. "We're creating a new paradigm here." Muslim-Jewish understanding is "the greatest challenge of the 21st century."

As Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam, a blog dedicated to resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, wrote Monday, addressing those participating in the twinning: "Mazel tov to you for the vision and courage you've shown." In Arabic, that's mabrook. Congratulations.

I have one thing to say to that, Rabbi Schneier: Paradigm, shmaradigm. The only way you’re ever going to resolve your “differences” is by submitting to the eliminationists’ agenda of getting rid of the uppity dhimmi-Jew entity whose very existence is an affront to Islam and the promises Allah made to the religion’s founder.

Capiche?

Oh, and just one more thing: you and the other Jews are being played for fools.

Since I am too gobsmacked to say much of anything else at the moment, I will merely offer some relevant links:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/023507.php http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6178; http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B3292E773-3EAD-4802-BD2E-EEF7FAC4ED5F%7D;  http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/

Update: Okay. Had a cuppa. Took some deep breaths. Gathered my thoughts. Here they are: Harpoon's line about "setting aside the Arab-Israeli conflict that divides them" is the tip-off to what's really going on here. This is a very canny attempt to drive a wedge between the Jews of North America and the Jewish state. The Arabs/Muslims know that unless Iran wipes Israel out with a nuke, there's likely no way to get rid of the pesky Juden through military means; been there, tried that, doesn't work. So now they aren't using tanks and guns, but their wits. Oh, and a little old thing called taqiyyah--a time-tested tactic that permits the faithful to lie like the Dickens if it furthers the cause of the faith. And since most Westerners have no understanding of taqiyyah, and, coming from the Judeo-Christian tradition are apt to take people at their word and give them the benefit of the doubt when they appear to come in friendship, it's the perfect weapon to use against us.

The custodian of the two holy mosques wants to be a "peace"-broker? Puh-leeze! If you believe that, you really do deserve to be "twinned" with a mosque and fed a lot of honeyed nonsense about interfaith amity "in the Canadian context." Just know, however, that as you're greedily devouring the lovin' there's an excellent chance that you new friends may actually be harbouring some very un-amicable thoughts about Israel's future as a soverign Jewish nation. Whatever you do, though, don't bring up the subject. It can only cause bad feelings, and no one wants to do that. Not "in the Canadian context," anyway.

Update: And in other news about interfaith amity "in the Canadian context," the head of the Islamic SUPREME Council of Canada is opening a centre devoted to--wait for it--free speech . Just to review: there is no free speech in Islam. (See how that taqiyyah thing works?)

Update: Everybody!

Update: Raymond Ibrahim on "the context" of Saudi "interfaith dialogue":

According to the Associated Press, Saudi King Abdullah recently said that he plans on attending a meeting in November at the United Nations in New York to further his "initiative to promote interfaith dialogue.” The King further remarked that “extending Muslims' hands to non-Muslims will help ‘purify’ the reputation of Islam at a time when the world is criticizing the faith.”

Of course, none of this is new; Abdullah has been “reaching out” to infidels for some time now. Prior to the much touted interfaith conferences in Madrid, the Saudi monarch is said to have “made an impassioned plea for dialogue among Muslims, Christians, and Jews” — going so far as to refer to the latter two as “our brothers.” The Jerusalem Post further wrote that such talks would be geared toward developing “respect among religions.”

The Arabian kingdom, however, is famous for tenaciously upholding and exporting “Wahhabism/Salafism,” that literalist brand of Islam that preaches absolutely no tolerance, murders apostates, and condemns all non-Muslims as infidels. It is also famous for having supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11, “educating” fellows such as Osama bin Laden, and boasting, of all things, a sword on its national flag. One can’t help but question the old monarch’s motives. Moreover, while the Saudi king was/is beguiling infidels with his calls for “dialogue,” that the textbooks of his kingdom are still instructing the youth of Saudi Arabia to hate all non-Muslims, is further demonstrative of Abdullah’s sincerity, or lack thereof.

Here’s another telling anecdote: days before the Madrid conferences, prominent Saudi Sheikh Abdul Rahman Barrak issued a death-fatwa against two Saudi writers. Their crime? They wrote articles in the Saudi paper Al-Riyadh questioning the Muslim position that holds all non-Muslims — whom the Saudi king would otherwise call “brothers” — as infidels. According to the Arab News, Barrak had said: “Anyone who claims this [that non-Muslims are not infidels] has refuted Islam and should be tried so that he can take it back. If not, he should be killed as an apostate from the religion of Islam.”

Does this mean that King Abdullah truly believes Christians and Jews are not infidels, and if so, does that also mean that Barrak should issue a fatwa for his life, for having apostatized?

At any rate, is the Saudi king aware that “dialogue” is supposed to be held by two or more singular participants who nonetheless genuinely believe that they share some basic human rights — such as the freedom to practice whatever religion they wish without being molested? Only civilized peoples who are agreed to such fundamentals can move on to more temporal matters, such as territorial disputes (e.g., Israel/Palestine). But what is the point of having “dialogue” over secondary matters when the primary issues — basic human rights — are not endorsed by all participants?

In Saudi Arabia, the facts remain: native citizens who dare apostatize must be slain; absolutely no churches, synagogues, or any other symbol of non-Muslim worship (e.g., crosses, Stars of David, Bibles) is permitted on the peninsula; non-Muslims are barred from entering Mecca or Medina.

These are just the visible forms of intolerance practiced in the home of Islam and its founder. Theoretically — or rather, theologically — speaking, the juridical worldview of Islam is little better: whenever the opportunity presents itself, the whole world must be brought under Islamic rule, either willingly or by the sword, following the pattern of the Islamic prophet and the first “righteous” caliphs. What is even more troubling is that this Muslim view of world conquest isn’t merely a product of certain obscurantist schools of Islamic thought; nor is it a “hijacking” by Bin Laden and his likes. Rather, it is the codified worldview of all four schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam. In fact, it is a communal duty (a fard kifaya) imposed on Muslims.

In light of all this, where exactly does Abdullah get the gall to call for “dialogue”? The measure of any community’s sincerity and tolerance toward the “Other” is how well that community treats the “Other” when the latter is under its authority.

In the United States, for example, Muslim minorities have the exact same rights — to build places of worship (mosques), publicly carry their scriptures (Korans), to worship and proselytize, and, simply, to be Muslim — as do Christians, Jews, and the rest. That is proof that the West is prepared for dialogue over ancillary matters: it has already visibly demonstrated that it firmly believes all humans are guaranteed basic rights.

Countries like Saudi Arabia evince no respect for basic human rights and freedoms. The contrast is amply demonstrated by the recent comments of one high ranking Saudi who said that “It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church [note the singular] in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognize the prophet Muhammad” — which of course would make all Christians Muslim....

One of the attendees of that infamous interfaith conference in Madrid: none other that Rabbi Mark Schneier.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:02 | link | comments (5)

Are cracks already forming in Americans’ idol worship?:  Looks like it. From the L.A. Times (my bolds):

Reporting from Washington -- Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

The activists -- key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House -- fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.

The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it….

Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, said that although Obama had campaigned as an agent of change, the president-elect is "a fairly centrist guy" who appears to be choosing from the Democratic foreign policy establishment -- "and nobody from outside it."

"So, in the short term, we're going to be disappointed," he said. "They may turn out to be all pro-war, or at least people who were pro-war in the beginning."

Martin said that his group was concerned about Gates and Clinton as well as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's choice for White House chief of staff. He also said his group was trying to mobilize its grass-roots supporters with e-mail alerts, but recognized that it must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory.

"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."…

Know how you feel, bro.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments

False advertising: They signed up for “change,” and what do they get? A retread of the Clinton White House.

Some "change".

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:50 | link | comments

Another Moon tune: With apologies to Ella, Frank, Larry and Dick:

Rich Moon,

We know you’re writin’ alone,

Unbiased and unconstrained,

Your thoughts completely unknown.

Rich Moon,

You won't hear us say a prayer for

A Section that’s only there for

Thought cops we really don’t care for.

 

And there will suddenly appear before us

The big report we’ve been awaitin’ so long.

Will we be able to stomach its findings?

Be strong, my friends, be strong.

 

Rich Moon,

Will you end up being a keener?

A “go, go, Section Thirteen!”-er?

Or else a censor-demeaner?

 

And there will suddenly appear before us

The big report we’ve been awaitin’ so long.

Will we be able to stomach its findings?

Be strong, my friends, be strong…

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:33 | link | comments

Gypsy Rose Levant: Inspired by the example of perimenopausal peeler/"human rights" advocate  Kimberlee Ouwroulis, (who, ironically enough, seems to have some, er, issues with visible minorities), Canada’s champion of free speech has decided to take up a second, more lucrative career:

…I visited the CBC website's story about Ms. Ouwroulis, and she has been actively posting comments about her own case. Some of them are biographical details, most of them are declaring that she's prettier than her photo makes her look. But I thought these two were a hoot:

We all got hired at other clubs; oddly the other clubs we were hired at were all owned by caucasian owners. Mr. Sit is Asian; and I believe is more predjudiced and youth driven...than other club owners. Too bad for me; and the others.

That Mr. Sit! He's Asian -- and you know how Asians are!

Perhaps Mr. Sit could file a human rights complaint against Ms. Ouwroulis. He could accuse her of racism (if "Asian" is a race), and she could accuse him of ageism. I wonder which ism would trump the other, in this game of politically correct poker. She's an ageing woman; he's just an Asian man. I think he'd lose -- Asians don't do well in the grievance business. As a group, they're too successful to be "victims".

But Ms. Ouwroulis? If she can just avoid trash talking blacks, gays or Jews or a little bit longer, I think she could be in the money. She sure thinks so:

Firstly; there are damage awards in Human Rights; for example Age Discrimination, Humiliation in the workplace, Loss of Income, since june 6,
these categories add up some times; combined with a 'loss' of income; I actually didn't come up with the 100 grand amount; the original reporter did; I am seeking damages; and don't know how much it would actually be. *that is in the application the damages; but not listed amounts as such

$100,000? Why not? She's got the lingo down pat -- "humiliation", "damages", etc.

I think I might get in on the game. Sure, I might be a little old, fat and male for the New Locomotion night club. But why don't I apply to Mr. Sit (that prejudiced Asian with his focus on youth!). When he turns me down, I'll be able to complain on the grounds of age, appearance and gender. If Ouwroulis can get $100,000 for just being old, I should be able to get $200,000 for my welt of grievances.

My advice for Ezra: If you’re gonna bump it, bump it with a trumpet.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:58 | link |