...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 (7)

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 | comments

It won't be the same without them: The Jews have officially declined the invitation to attend the UN's eliminationist conference. The UN is most displeased by this turn of events, and who can blame it? When you go to all the trouble of organizing a public lynching, it's always a huge disappointment when the "guest of honour" fails to show up for his, er, noose fitting.

Oh, well. I'm sure the atttendees will still manage to amp up the Judenhass to orgasmic levels as per the previous Jew-bash bash, and few will even notice that the Jews aren't there.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:01 | link | comments

American Jews make a pact with Omar: The JTA has an article about well-meaning Jews who apparently comprehend nothing about sharia, jihad and dhimmitude, and how they are "bridging the divide" with Muslims (who, no doubt, are completely up to speed on those concepts; my bolds):

…As the concept of the twinning [reform synagogues and mosques] project evolved, Schneier turned for expert advice to the newly formed Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement. The center is the first of its kind and was established through an agreement signed by the University of Southern California’s Center for Religion and Civic Culture, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and the education-oriented Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation.

The three partners, all in the same Los Angeles neighborhood, had been working together for some time and decided to formalize their collaboration, said Reuven Firestone, a professor of medieval Jewish and Islamic studies at HUC.

“There are some anti-Jewish attitudes in the Muslim world and some anti-Muslim attitudes in the Jewish world, but there is no inherent conflict between Judaism and Islam,” Firestone said. “We have much in common in our goals and aspirations.”

A respected author, Firestone has written books on “Introduction to Islam for Jews” and “Children of Abraham: Introduction to Judaism for Muslims.” Out this month is his latest publication, “Who Are the Chosen People? The Meaning of Chosenness in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”

Firestone and Dafer Dakhil, the director of the Al Khattab Foundation, are the co-directors of the new center, with Hebah Farrag, a recent graduate of the American University in Cairo, as associate director…

In case you were wondering, the Omar Al Khattab Foundation is named for Islam’s second caliph, a man who was also “education-oriented” in that he wanted to teach dhimmis their rightful place in society. This post from jihadwatch provides some insight into the original Omar’s education project, one which these Jewish “bridge-builders” might be wise to consider when discussing so-called “commonalities”

...Modern Islamic apologists frequently reference Islamic tolerance, pointing to the Qur’an’s recognition that Jews and Christians have received legitimate revelations from Allah. The point out also that Jews and Christians were granted the right to practice their religions in Islamic states. However, it is a grave anachronism, not to mention a gross factual error, to equate the stipulations of Islamic law with modern-day notions of freedom of thought and tolerance. One hadith attests to the decidedly second-class status to which non-Muslims were relegated: “As for Sura Tauba [Sura 9], it is meant to humiliate (the non-believers and the hypocrites).”

In Shariah, this condition of submission is known as the dhimma, the protection of the Muslims, and those within it are dhimmis, protected (or guilty) people. The classical Islamic scholar As-Sawi specifies that the payment of the jizya signifies that the non-Muslims are “humble and obedient to the judgements of Islam.” The verse also specifies that the non-Muslims “feel themselves subdued,” or assume a “state of abasement.” The Bedouin commander al-Mughira bin Sa’d spelled this out when he met the Persian warrior Rustam. Said al-Mughira: “I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement.”

Rustam replied, “I know what jizya means, but what does ‘a state of abasement’ mean?”

Al-Mughira explained: “You pay it while you are standing and I am sitting and the whip is hanging over your head.”

Similarly, the renowned Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir (1301-1372), whose writings are still influential today, says that the dhimmis must be “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.” The seventh-century jurist Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab stated: “I prefer that the people of the dhimma become tired by paying the jizya since He says, ‘until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement.’” As-Suyuti elaborates that this verse “is used as a proof by those who say that it is taken in a humiliating way, and so the taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin.” He adds, however, that “this is rejected according to an-Nawawi who said, ‘This manner is invalid.’” Zamakhshari, however, agreed that the jizya should be collected “with belittlement and humiliation.”

The Tafsir al-Jalalayn specifies that the payment of the jizya signifies that the non-Muslims are “humble and obedient to the judgements of Islam.” As-Suyuti notes that the jizya is “not taken from someone in a state of hardship,” although that was a stipulation at times honored in the breach. For example, a contemporary account of the Muslims’ conquest of Nikiou, an Egyptian town, in the 640’s, says that “it is impossible to describe the lamentable position of the inhabitants of this town, who came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month…”

Ibn Kathir also quotes at length from an agreement made with a group of Christians by the second Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, who led the Muslims from 634 to 644 (Muhammad died in 632). The stipulations in this agreement, which is of dubious historical value, coincide with the foundation for the Shariah’s rules regarding the dhimmis. Although various specific regulations were relaxed or ignored outright in various times and places throughout Islamic history, generally they remain part of the Shariah for anyone with the will and power to enforce them. According to Ibn Kathir, the Christians making this pact with Umar say:

We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.

This, of course, allowed Islamic rulers great and small to take possession of churches whenever they so desired. Since the testimony of Christians was discounted and in many cases disallowed, often a simple charge by a Muslim that a church was being used to foment “enmity against Muslims” was sufficient for that church to be seized.

The great historian of jihad and dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or, notes that “the refusal to accept the testimony of the dhimmi was based on the belief in the perverse and mendacious character of infidels since they stubbornly persisted in denying the superiority of Islam.”

Ibn Kathir states this plainly: “Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad . . . Therefore, they do not follow the religion of the earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts.”

As a result, Jews and Christians had no recourse: “Churches and synagogues were rarely respected. Regarded as places of perversion, they were often burned or demolished in the course of reprisals against infidels found guilty of overstepping their rights.”

The Christians’ agreement with the caliph Umar continues: “We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night. . . . Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days.” It should be obvious to any impartial observer how far this is from modern-day Western ideas of tolerance. Just how far is made clearer by the fact that this charity was not returned. A traveler to Famagusta in North Cyprus in 1651, when laws regarding dhimmitude were still very much in effect in the Ottoman Empire, “recounts that all the churches there had been converted into mosques and that Christians did not have the right to spend the night there.”…

Why name your organization after this particular caliph unless you think he pretty much had it all figured out, interfaith-wise, way back when? And why do Jews who sign up for these interfaith thingys always take them at face value, and never bother to ask such questions?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:57 | link | comments

Le mot un-juste: Israel is an “apartheid” state. But only, as blogger My Right Word rightly points out, if you’re prepared to take the trouble of changing the definition of the word “apartheid”.

With that in mind, I feel safe in saying that Canada's censorship nomenklatura and its enablers are completely justified in claiming that Canada is a “free” country. 

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:16 | link | comments

Audacity of guy with ugly forehead icky: You say there’s been a momentous “change” in the U.S.? A “change” that will “expatiate America’s original sin” and that “lifts the ceiling of dreams for black men”? Tell it to the jihadis. From the Beeb:

The second-in-command of Islamic militant network al-Qaeda has condemned US President-elect Barack Obama in an audio message.

Ayman al-Zawahri said Mr Obama was not an "honourable black American" but a "house negro" - a demeaning term implying that he serves white people.

Mr Obama's plan to shift US troops to Afghanistan would fail, Zawahri said.

If genuine, the message would be the first acknowledgement by al-Qaeda of the president-elect's victory.

The audio message appeared on militant websites.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:03 | link | comments

Somali pirate, no phone home: Indian navy sinks Somali pirate 'mother ship'.

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

Will President Obama have the wherewithal to boycott Wannsee Durban II?:  Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:29 | link | comments (4)

“Honour” killing in Pakistan: Why aren’t OCAP, Elmo, NION and OISE up in arms about this—the murder of girls and women in Pakistan, and the government’s complicity in facilitating these crimes? The intro to an Amnesty International 2008 report offers a snapshot of the grim reality:

Introduction

"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."

Hina Jilani, lawyer and human rights activist

Women in Pakistan live in fear. They face death by shooting, burning or killing with axes if they are deemed to have brought shame on the family. They are killed for supposed 'illicit' relationships, for marrying men of their choice, for divorcing abusive husbands. They are even murdered by their kin if they are raped as they are thereby deemed to have brought shame on their family. The truth of the suspicion does not matter -- merely the allegation is enough to bring dishonour on the family and therefore justifies the slaying.

The lives of millions of women in Pakistan are circumscribed by traditions which enforce extreme seclusion and submission to men. Male relatives virtually own them and punish contraventions of their proprietary control with violence. For the most part, women bear traditional male control over every aspect of their bodies, speech and behaviour with stoicism, as part of their fate, but exposure to media, the work of women's groups and a greater degree of mobility have seen the beginnings of women's rights awareness seep into the secluded world of women. But if women begin to assert their rights, however tentatively, the response is harsh and immediate: the curve of honour killings has risen parallel to the rise in awareness of rights.

Every year hundreds of women are known to die as a result of honour killings. Many more cases go unreported and almost all go unpunished. The isolation and fear of women living under such threats are compounded by state indifference to and complicity in women's oppression. Police almost invariably take the man's side in honour killings or domestic murders, and rarely prosecute the killers. Even when the men are convicted, the judiciary ensures that they usually receive a light sentence, reinforcing the view that men can kill their female relatives with virtual impunity. Specific laws hamper redress as they discriminate against women.

The isolation of women is completed by the almost total absence of anywhere to hide. There are few women's shelters, and any woman attempting to travel on her own is a target for abuse by police, strangers or male relatives hunting for her. For some women suicide appears the only means of escape.

Abuses by private actors such as honour killings are crimes under the country's criminal laws. However, systematic failure by the state to prevent and to investigate them and to punish perpetrators leads to international responsibility of the state. The Government of Pakistan has taken no measures to end honour killings and to hold perpetrators to account. It has failed to train police and judges to be gender neutral and to amend discriminatory laws. It has ignored Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which it ratified in 1996, which obliges states to "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women" to eliminate prejudice and discriminatory traditions…

It would be helpful if AI noted the primary impediment to the government implementing Article 5: sharia law, which not only enshrines the misogyny and gender inequity, but gives it a Godly imprimatur. Easy enough for kafirs to tell Pakistanis to “change” sharia, but if they understood the nature of that law—that, emanating from Allah, it is flawless, and that lowly man has no “human right” to tamper with that deemed Divine—they would understand that what they’re demanding is virtually impossible.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:58 | link | comments

Censors on the global stage: If you thought Canada’s thought cops were fascist, just wait till the Saudis get through persuading the international community to do away with that pesky “Islamophobia”. From The Weekly Standard:

Two international meetings to promote interfaith harmony were held in the last two weeks, one in New York and one in Rome. The former, called by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia under the auspices of the United Nations, drew some 20 heads of state to discuss a "Culture of Peace." The latter brought together Muslim and Catholic scholars at the Vatican in the latest session of the dialogue called A Common Word. Both gatherings underscored the gulf between us. At both, all parties spoke for peace and tolerance, but they often meant different things.

As President Bush made clear in his remarks at the U.N. meeting, tolerance is understood in the West as respect for religious freedom. For the Muslim leaders in New York, tolerance means respect for religion itself, particularly Islam. As the astute Turkish political observer Ziya Meral pointed out, if Muslim leaders really wanted tolerance for different religious viewpoints, they would be holding similar discussions within their own societies. But no such discussions are going on.

Especially since 9/11, Islam has been publicly scrutinized, criticized, and sometimes ridiculed in the West to an extent never seen (or permitted) in Muslim lands. Many Muslims feel deeply offended by this, as well as troubled by the violent responses the criticism has sometimes drawn from Muslims--riots, death threats, even murders. Their leaders' solution is to try to halt the cycle by demanding an end to criticism of Islam, even in private speech.

For the past decade, the Saudi-based Organization of the Islamic Conference

(OIC) has pushed the U.N. to adopt a universal ban on defaming Islam. This measure would aim to curb the freedom not only of Danish cartoonists but also of scholars, writers, dissidents, religious reformers, human rights activists, and anyone at all anywhere in the world who criticizes Islam. This is already the effect of the domestic laws against apostasy and blasphemy that exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, and other states of the Islamic Conference.

Inside Saudi Arabia, there is, of course, a complete absence of religious freedom. All churches are banned, and apostates can be put to the sword (though in practice they more often suffer long prison terms). So the Saudi king's initiative might be seen in the West merely as a brazen public relations ploy. From the OIC perspective, however, the Saudi quest for religious understanding is more purposeful. The king, as the defender of the faith, has come to strike a deal with the West: Suppress criticism of Islam and you will be spared retaliatory violence.

King Abdullah is building momentum for a new U.N.-decreed protection of religions from defamation or criticism, and he wants Western support. This is not inconceivable. Already Canada, the Netherlands, France, and Italy, without real debate, have taken tentative steps to deploy defamation, hate-speech, and even long-dormant blasphemy laws…

I wonder if the Saudi-helmed effort to institute sharia law re blasphemy curtail “defamation” will factor into the Moon report, and if he’ll recommend keeping our censorship laws so we’ll be in synch with what’s happening at the UN?

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:31 | link | comments

Elmo “builds bridges” in the “Canadian context”: Unfortunately, Mr. "Every Israeli Adult is Fair Game For a 'Sploding 'Martyr'" is building them with other anti-Zionists—Jewish useful idiots, for heaven's sakes.

THE CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS MEDIA COMMUNIQUE

Nov 17, 2008

CIC PRESIDENT TO SPEAK AT ZIONISM AND ISLAMOPHOBIA FORUM HOSTED BY "NOT IN OUR NAME"

Canadian Islamic Congress national President, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, has been
invited to speak at a public forum on Zionism and Islamophobia organized by
the group "Not in Our Name: Jewish Voices Opposing Zionism (NION)."

The forum will be held in Toronto on Friday November 28, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), 252 Bloor Street West
(St. George Subway), Room 5-260.

Other speakers at the forum include Jake Javanshir, member of NION and Dr.
Abigail Bakan, professor of Political Studies at Queen's University.

Dr. Elmasry will speak about the impact of Islamophobia throughout history,
in the classroom, politics, media and the workplace…

I would warn anyone standing near a CJC bigwig in coming days to make sure to carry an umbrella. There’s a chance that the cognitive dissonance caused by linking arms to fight “hate speech” with an avowed anti-Zionist is likely to cause one or more of their heads to explode and, well, you’ll be happy to have something to shield you from flying bits of cerebellum.

Update: I'm thinking of starting a new organization to counter the cranks of NION. It's called CRION--Cranky Right-wingers Irate Over Nincompoops. Think it'll fly?

Update: Our slogan--For CRION out loud!

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:27 | link | comments (1)

Perimenopausal peeler hits the big time: Well, her story has made it onto FOX News. For a stripper from the Toronto ‘burbs that’s kind of the big time. From the National Post:

Fox News has seized on our story yesterday about Kimberlee Ouwroulis, the 44-year-old exotic dancer who has filed a rights complaint against a Mississauga strip club that allegedly fired her because of her age.

Here’s how Ouwroulis describes what happened: ‘‘The manager called me into the office June 6, sat me down, looked at me directly and I quote, "Your time is up here," and I asked, "Why? Is it my age?" He furthermore volunteered that another older girl had been fired the same day, and told me her name.’’

Ouwroulis took the case to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Fox took the subject up in a discussion of their legal panel (available at the moment on their home page), although panelists seemed dubious that a) Ouwroulis is 44 and b) what happened to her amounted to discrimination. Read their version of the story here.

Canada, as the human rights types like to remind us, is qualitatively different than America. In Canada, a middle-aged stripper gets to position herself as a “victim” of ageism and lodge a complaint to the government about her “victimizer (with all her legal fees picked up by the taxpayer); in the States, an aging stripper is told to get over herself and find a new career.

It seems to me that when aging figure skaters, gymnasts and ballerinas get too old to perform, they often segue into a second career imparting their skills and artistry to young students. Maybe Kim can take a page from them. After all, wasn’t it George Bernard Shaw who observed, “Those who can, strip; those who can’t strip because they’re too long in the tooth, teach pole dancing”? Or something like that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:23 | link | comments

“Utopia” here we come: Without referring to Canada’s parallel legal system, the human rights commissions, a line in a Roger Kimball blog post nails why these bodies pose such a risk to our nation’s health. (I’ve highlighted the line, so as to not leave you guessing which one I mean):

…Socialism, as Joshua Muravchik noted in his book Heaven on Earth: the Rise and Fall of Socialism, was “the most popular political idea ever invented.”

It was also undoubtedly the bloodiest. Of course, many who profess socialism are decent and humane people. And it is worth noting that socialism comes in mild as well as tyrannical versions. Muravchik, who was once a socialist himself, pays frequent homage to the generous impulses that lie behind some allotropes of the socialist enterprise. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that “regimes calling themselves socialist have murdered more than one hundred million people since 1917.” Why?

A large part of the answer lies in the intellectual dynamics of utopianism. “Utopia” is Greek for “nowhere”: a made-up word for a make-believe place. The search for nowhere inevitably deprecates any and every “somewhere.” Socialism, which is based on incorrigible optimism about human nature, is a species of utopianism. It experiences the friction of reality as an intolerable brake on its expectations. “Utopians,” the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski observed in “The Death of Utopia Reconsidered,” “once they attempt to convert their visions into practical proposals, come up with the most malignant project ever devised: they want to institutionalize fraternity, which is the surest way to totalitarian despotism.”…

“We institutionalize fraternity” could be the motto of every flipping HRC in the land.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:37 | link | comments (1)

Moon tune: It occurs to me that in all the excitement over the Conservative delegates voting to get rid of Section 13, we’re still waiting to hear from “human rights” expert, Richard Moon. He was supposed to be getting back to us with an incisive analysis of the efficacy of our current censorship provisions and, well, at least some of us are getting impatient. I know— maybe we can coax him out of hiding by singing this:  

Moon, Richard;

Where is your report,

The one that’s a retort

To Steyn?

 

Oh, we’re waitin’

Your validatin’

That Section Thirtee-een

Is all well and fine.

 

Free-speechers

Can’t wait to get their hands

On Dickie Moon’s demands

And schemes.

We’re after the same things, you’ll find:

Say what’s on our mind

And not get in a bind.

Moon, Richard, in your dreams.

 

Update: The song seems to be working. According to CFRB's Brian Lilley, the report is going to be released Monday, the 24th.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:12 | link | comments (2)

Piracy, Caribee and Somali: Aside from their common interest in hijacking, looting and pillaging, cinematic pirates and real pirates are very different. For one thing, real pirates don’t wear eyeliner or do a dead-on impersonation of decrepit rock icon “Keef” Richards (well, maybe they do, but it’s not something they’re well known for). For another, real pirates see hijacking, looting and pillaging as a religious calling. My favourite British periodical, Standpoint magazine, has a lively—and lengthy—examination of real pirates, Allah’s privateers:

Pirates conjure up images of hook hands, peg legs and eye-patches. The modern species is much less comforting, flourishing in failed states and confronting the crews of huge tankers and bulk carriers with a new and dangerous occupational peril. I once had an incredulous response from a young American radio journalist after remarking that international terrorism should be combated with the same concerted rigour that was once brought to bear on pirates. Being of limited contemporary cultural range, he immediately thought of Johnny Depp hamming it up in the 18th-century Caribbean as reconceived by Hollywood. But in the words of Captain Pottengal Mukundan, the head of the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), these are more like "maritime muggers" armed with AK-47s, than a cutlass-wielding Captain Blood.

Piracy is a very modern scourge that exists in dangerous proximity to Islamist terrorism, both as a source of revenue as well as the potential use of, for example, a liquefied gas tanker as a maritime super-bomb. Counter-terrorist agencies in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore conduct drills to prevent such an eventuality. A recent incident off Somalia involved pirates threatening to explode a huge ship laden with benzene unless the Japanese owners paid a ransom. There is hard evidence that Somali pirates are closely co-operating with the Islamist al-Shabaab militia, although ironically one of the few accomplishments of the Islamic Courts government was to have suppressed piracy before it was itself deposed by Ethiopian troops...

Poor pirates. You know what would really turn them around? Jewish mentors.

Update: I think some Stan Rogers is in order.

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

The old ball-and-chain: Could Bill scotch Hill’s chances to become the next Secretary of State (or is Obama looking for an excuse to not appoint her)? From the New York Times:

Over the weekend, former President Bill Clinton enthusiastically endorsed the prospect that his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, might join the Obama administration as secretary of state. “If he decided to ask her and they did it together,” the former president said, “I think she’ll be really great as a secretary of state.”Skip to next paragraph

Mr. Clinton delivered those remarks at an international economic symposium in Kuwait City sponsored by the National Bank of Kuwait, which said the former president would “share with a select audience his perspective on the issues likely to shape the future prospects of the region.”

It is precisely that kind of paid speech, which Mr. Clinton delivered 54 times last year for a total of $10.1 million in fees, that has complicated the vetting process that Mrs. Clinton is undergoing by the Obama transition team. “Whatever happens or doesn’t happen is between Obama and her,” Mr. Clinton said.

That may be, but Mr. Clinton’s postpresidential life as a globe-trotting philanthropist, business consultant and speech-giver poses the highest hurdle for Mrs. Clinton to overcome if President-elect Barack Obama chooses to nominate her as secretary of state, according to aides of the Clintons and Mr. Obama.

The Obama transition team is focused on the wide array of Mr. Clinton’s postpresidential activities, some details of which have not been made public. This list includes the identity of most of the donors to his foundation, the source of some of his speaking fees — he has earned as much as $425,000 for a one-hour speech — and his work for the billionaire investor Ronald W. Burkle.

The vetting of Mr. Clinton’s myriad philanthropic and business dealings is “complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides,” said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama’s closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration….

Yup, looking for a way out, I’d say.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:30 | link | comments

Steele on Obama: Shelby Steele (a man I could have fully supported for president, not because of the colour of his skin but because of the content of his character) gets at the crux of what makes the pres-elect tick.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:06 | link | comments

“Damaged goods” no grounds for annulment: A setback for sharia in France—a court has ruled that a marriage cannot be annulled simply because the bride is not “pure”. From the Globe and Mail:

PARIS -- A French appeals court yesterday refused a Muslim man's request to annul his marriage because he discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin.

The highly politicized case, which mixed questions of religion and women's rights, caused a furor when it was revealed six months ago that a lower court in Lille had agreed to the annulment.

At the time, one government minister called that decision "a fatwa against the emancipation of women," while others condemned it as an affront to France's fiercely protected secularism.

The names of the couple have not been made public, although he is said to be a computer engineer and she was a nursing student when they married in July, 2006.

Xavier Labbée, the husband's lawyer, has described him as the victim of a deception, who was led to believe his wife was "chaste." He said the husband wanted an annulment rather than a divorce in order to "erase" his marriage.

The state's lawyers said an annulment would violate principles of equality and a woman's right to control her own body.

Annulments are relatively rare in France - only a few dozen a year - and are supposed to be granted only in the event of a misrepresentation about a spouse's identity or an "essential quality of a person."

The appeals court ruled that neither the wife's virginity nor her past love life represented an essential part of her character. Even if she was untruthful with her husband, the court added, the lie did not justify an annulment.

A number of women activists said an annulment would send the message that French law sanctions the orthodox Islamic view that a woman's virginity is a precondition for marriage.

In a petition sent to French Justice Minister Rachida Dati in June, 150 members of the European Parliament said an annulment in the case would "only comfort fundamentalists in their archaic fight whilst the main barrier against this fanaticism should precisely be the law."

Ms. Dati, the daughter of North African immigrants and the first Muslim cabinet minister in France, at first defended the decision, saying that annulment can protect vulnerable women whose families pressure them into marriage.

She later reversed her position and agreed to have the state contest the annulment, but only after a surprising public admission that in her 20s she had her own brief marriage annulled.

The appeals court decision means the couple is still married, although they have never lived together. The husband publicly rejected the woman and denounced his bride to their families while the wedding party was still going on…

Well, that’ll certainly put a damper on things.

You know, the whole thing could have been avoided if the bride had had the foresight to visit a discreet plastic surgeon for a “revirginizing” procedure.

Update:"Revirginizing" in Montreal (h/t WM).

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments

Crisis averted: Further to CJC’s mentorship scheme and how it might, er, conflict with the nutso teachings of the mosque that serves Toronto's large Somali community, you’ll be pleased to know that it’s all been sorted out. From the Toronto Star via the CJC site (my bolds):

…Len Rudner, the Canadian Jewish Congress's Ontario director, contacted the mosque's board Friday to ask that they remove "material that we deem offensive."

The mosque's statement, Rudner said, "in essence ... says there are points of religion where scholars are going to disagree. And that's fair.

"But what really draws my attention on the website ... is one particular section where they talk about, for want of a better way of putting it, the ongoing historical efforts of Jews to destroy Muslim society."

Rudner said he's already heard back from the mosque and a meeting is planned to resolve issues.

And, late Friday, the mosque emailed Rudner to "apologize without reservation to the CJC and the Jewish community at large for any and all comments that they have found offensive on our web site, which we never intended in the first place.

"All of the writings to which offence has been taken have been or will be removed from our site immediately," added the email, signed by Said Omar, acting chair of the Khalid mosque's board.

In an interview Friday, Omar argued the mosque was not responsible for the offensive material, contending it had merely posted the opinions of scholars, and that mosque officials were well within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in disseminating information about Islam on their website.

It's not the first time the mosque or its board have been the subject of critical attention from other Muslim organizations that see it as extremist or ill-informed about Islam.

In 2002, a mosque employee sent an email to the Khalid mosque's Internet message service on Christmas Day, warning that saying "Merry Christmas" was akin to "congratulating someone for drinking wine, or murdering someone or having illicit sexual relations and so on."

The mosque defended itself against critics then by saying the email was sent by a junior employee without his superiors' approval.

Ahmed Hussen - who has met Prime Minister Stephen Harper and appeared on CTV Newsnet - is president of the Canadian Somali Congress and said the impression this Toronto mosque speaks for Somali-Canadians "saddens us as a community, because it's not reflective of who we are in this country."

Two weeks ago, Hussen said, his organization launched a Somali-Jewish scholarship and mentoring program, whereby Jewish professionals mentor Somali youth.

"A lot of folks, yes, go to the mosque. And some don't. But they go to the mosque as a religious centre. And they come out. They don't necessarily base their life decisions or their approach to Canada on what an imam says," Hussen said, adding that, in many cases, the more outrageous or offensive Imams are given "undue credence."

Quel relief!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:10 | link | comments (4)

Faux foes and real ones: When faced with a bogus threat—white power creeps coerced into posting nasty comments online about “the Jews”—the CJC gets itself in a lather, thundering that all Canadians must continue to be deprived of their most essential freedom because such “hate speech” is the precursor to genocide.

When faced with a genuine threat—a jihad-inspired seether who lobs a Molotov cocktail through the window of a Montreal Jewish School, and the jihad mindset which views Jews as being wicked and animalistic—the CJC…mentors Somalis.

Of course, a CJC functionary commended the judge who took the seether’s “ideology” into account when he sentenced him to four years in the slammer. And by the time the seether gets out, no doubt Jews “in the Canadian context” (a favourite CJC phrase) will have engendered enough good-feelings from their mentorship such that jihadis will no longer feel any need to act out against Jews/Zionists in this violent way.

Right?  

I think that old adage says it best: Molotov cocktails and ire may set you on fire but “hate speech” will really hurt you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:57 | link | comments (3)

Drunk on hopey-changey Manischewitz: Seems to me that a lot of the hopey-changey types who think Obama the Redeemer could be the best thing for Israel since T. Herzl are the same audacious hopers who thought everything would be hunky-dory once Israel decamped from Gaza.

Beware intoxicating wishcraft—it often results in a situation that’s much, much worse.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:15 | link | comments (2)

Yo ho ho and a tanker full of crude: In their most brazen move yet, Pirates of the Somali have hijacked a Saudi Arabian supertanker.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:55 | link | comments

High apple pie in the sky hopes: The candidate—now pres-elect—who based his campaign on wishful thinking seems poised to employ the same tactic as the linchpin of his foreign policy. Melanie Phillips explains:

Walid Phares is rightly incredulous at the noises coming out of the Obama transition team about talking to Iran and the Taleban to ‘win’ the war in Afghanistan. As he says, this is based on the following ridiculous assumptions: that Iran turns overnight from being the enemy of America into its ally; that a deal can be reached with the ‘good’ Taleban while the ‘bad’ Taleban simply vanishes into thin air; that Iran will be happy to install Sunni extremists in Kabul; and that America replaces Pakistan as its ally by its two mortal foes…

My riddle: How can you tell the “good” Taleban from the “bad” Taleban? Answer: The same way you can tell the “good” Khmer Rouge from the “bad” Khmer Rouge, and the “good” Nazis from the “bad” ones.

Update: Amir Taheri is alarmed too.

Update: The mullahs do Diamond (but is Obama listening?):

Where it began,

Think it was with the Germans.

Wanted to kill the “vermin” Jew.

Oh, was in the past,

But now the past’s repeatin’

Need to defeat “the Jew” anew.

 

Lies, lots of lies, spreadin’ out,

In the MSM; the UN, too.

 

Sweet Judenrein

(Ba ba ba)

Gonne wipe Jews off the map.

We’re inclined

Lure Barack into our trap (by "chatting").

 

Look at the goal (whooo)

And it seems so familiar.

Well, the agenda is the same.

Redeem the world,

Unfurl a genocide now,

Fully onside with Hitler’s game.

 

Lies, lots of lies, spreadin’ out,

In the MSM; the UN, too.

 

Sweet Judenrein

(Ba ba ba)

Gonne wipe Jews off the map.

We’re inclined

Lure Barack into our trap.

Sweet Judenrein...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:34 | link | comments

Useful idiots build a wall: What does the effort to fight poverty in Toronto have to do with the effort to “liberate” Palestine? Why, er, not a thing. But has that prevented the useful idiots of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) from linking the two together and hopping on board the Eliminationist Express? Heck, no! Here’s what the anti-poverty/anti-Zionism cranks are up to (h/t MK):

OCAP Builds Cement Wall Against Real Estate Developer In Solidarity With Palestinian

OCAP demands immediate end to the settlements on Palestinian land, calls for building real affordable housing in Toronto

Today, as part of the International Week Against Israel's Apartheid Wall, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) has erected a reinforced cement wall in front of the Toronto building '50 On the Park' at 50 Portland St. (Bathurst and King) owned by wealthy real estate developer Leviev-Boymelgreen. Leviev-Boymelgreen is a developer in Toronto and Brooklyn and also builds illegal Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestine.

By building Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Boymelgreen is committing war crimes under International Law. Boymelgreen is expanding the illegal settlement of Mod'in Illit that is built on the land of the West Bank Palestinian village of Bil'in. 60% of Bil'in's land has been stolen by Israel in the expansion of settlements and by the building of the separation Wall. Bil'in is a village that is being strangled - made into an open air prison surrounded by settlements, Occupation forces and military, and enclosed by Israel's Apartheid Wall. This is a system of colonization and apartheid against the Palestinian people which has gone on for 60 years.

In Toronto and New York, Boymelgreen builds luxury condos in the place of real affordable housing, displacing poor and low-income people from our neighborhoods. On top of this, Boymelgreen is a bad boss to workers. Boymelgreen has unjust and unfair labour practices; underpays workers, puts them in dangerous working conditions, and denies the right of workers to organize in unions.

Today, OCAP sent a strong message to Boymelgreen to get out of Toronto, Brooklyn and Palestine. We hold Boymelgreen responsible for supporting Israel's ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people and we will not allow a corporation like Boymelgreen to build condos in Toronto.

The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty calls for justice for Indigenous and poor people from Toronto, to Brooklyn to Palestine. As an anti-poverty organization, we support the brave struggle of the Palestinian people against the Apartheid state of Israel.

In Toronto we will continue to struggle for the right to real affordable and accessible housing. We will not be pushed, priced or policed out by wealthy real estate developers like Boymelgreen and the government policy that backs them up.

Build affordable housing NOT condos!
Free Palestine. Fight to Win.

Catchy slogan. Much zingier than, say, “Arbeit Macht Frei.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:10 | link | comments

You gotta love it: Mark Steyn’s deft takedown of the Toronto Star’s censorship/Islam-shill, Harpoon Siddiqui:

Mr Siddiqui's most recent intervention is his most desperate yet:

A Somali Canadian mosque in Toronto is being condemned, rightly so, for carrying anti-Semitic and anti-Western messages on its website. This, though, does invite a question: Where are the free-speech advocates defending the right of this group to say whatever the heck it wants? 

Er, sorry. Have I missed something? Is the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission investigating this mosque? Has Richard Warman filed one of his highly lucrative complaints against them? Are Mr Farber, the CJC and their colleagues dragging the imams into court and insisting that this mosque demonstrates why Section 13 is needed more than ever?

Why, no! And to try even to imagine the CHRC or its provincial siblings hauling a Somali mosque before their kangaroo courts is to understand how absurd Mr Siddiqui's comparison is. As he well knows, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism but freedom from government regulation, government prosecution, government fines and government silencing. "Free speech" doesn't mean some mosque should be beyond criticism; it means more criticism. It means Mr Siddiqui can call me an "Islamophobe" and I can call him a clapped out hack seeking to mire Canadian Muslims in a wholly unearned and invented victim complex, and the government sits back and says, "May the best man win. We don't have a dog in this fight."

Oh, Mark, haven’t you heard that there’s been a “paradigm shift”—at least when it comes to Somalis? Jews don’t haul Somalis into court for their bad words (not unless Somalis are prepared to bleach their skin, embrace Der Fuhrer, and post hateful comments about “the Jews” while skulking in some remote Prairie cellar); Jews mentor Somalis.

Alas, the "paradigm" remains set in stone for the "Nazis". You can bet if some paleface in Moose Jaw had been caught saying what the Somali imam did--that high heels were the work of Satanic Jewish chicks intent on corrupting the innocent--there would be hell to pay, and, soon enough, another tax-free check in a certain "Nazi hunter's" back pocket. 

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:34 | link | comments

Focus group gives “ human rights” shrine the cold shoulder: Guess what? Canadians aren’t chomping at the bit to visit a cold, windy, out-of-the-way city in order to genuflect to the concept of  “human rights”. From the Globe and Mail:

OTTAWA — Canadians, particularly francophones, think Winnipeg is too cold, boring and far away, so they will probably view exhibits at the new $265-million Canadian Museum for Human Rights in the city online rather than in person, according to government research.

The negative view of the Manitoba capital surfaced in small focus group discussions conducted for the federal Department of Canadian Heritage.

"These [French-speaking] participants suggested that the city suffers from negative stereotypes such as: cold, nothing to do, far away, and not interesting to visit," according to an internal government report in April. "Very few of these participants would put the museum on their list of things to see given the distance."

Ottawa is giving $100-million for construction and $22-million annually for operating costs of what will be the country's first national museum built outside of the National Capital Region. Last week, the Conservative government in an effort to save money scrapped plans for a national portrait gallery that might have been built outside of Ottawa.

The fact that the human-rights museum will be located in Winnipeg was an issue in English focus groups as well, though it was described as "more of a minor inconvenience to these participants."

Overall, the location appears to be such a hindrance that the department has been told most people will visit the museum only online…

"Most Canadians do not have the opportunity to visit Winnipeg, so the website could provide them an opportunity to experience the museum from anywhere in the country or the world," the report says.

The 208 Canadians who took part in the detailed discussions about the museum were selected from demographics the government believes are most likely to visit. To qualify, the participants had to fit into at least one of five categories: teachers; youth 18-25; parents, visible minorities and new Canadians and aboriginal Canadians...

Although they had little inclination to visit this money pit (which “was originally scheduled to open in 2010, but…is on hold until the fundraising goal of $105-million from the private sector is met”), focus group members had some specific ideas of what should be on display:

Participants in the small focus groups said they would expect the museum to feature displays on a wide range of Canadian and international issues, including the Holocaust, religious rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Chinese head tax.

Meanwhile, the aboriginal Canadians had their own recommendations:

The aboriginals who took part indicated they would like the museum to include material on Indian residential schools, and that the material not take sides when describing the history of aboriginal contact with Europeans.

Had I been a member of the focus group, my objection to this edifice wouldn’t have been due to its location; it would have been due to its concept—one that has been so debased and devalued over the years that it has come to have the opposite of its original meaning. “Human rights” is the sledgehammer that’s being used to crush the world’s only Jewish state; the smokescreen behind which the most loathsome violators of human rights cower; the ethos that helps perpetuate the cult of the victim and PC and Islamist totalitarianism. If we don’t watch out, “human rights” will be the death of us. The fact that so much money has been squandered on this white elephant—and that still more money will be sunk into it—is more than outrageous; it is obscene.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:08 | link | comments (5)

Mully bully sings same old song: It goes like this, "Down with the U.S.A."

Update: I prefer Bruce's (acoustic) version of the song (which substitues "born in" for "down with").

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments

Hamas priorities: The people of Gaza, so we are told, are starved for fuel and food. Hamas's solution: more sharia.

You know, the Jews took a crappy piece of land and, defying all odds, made it bloom. The Palestinians of Gaza were handed something that was already blooming (courtesy the Jews, who ethnically cleansed themselves from the territory) and turned it into crap.

There's a lesson there, I'd say.

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

R.I.P. Obama's "unshakeable committment to Israel": It was nice while it lasted (all of, what?, three months).

Update: 21 reasons why Barack Obama is wrong about Israel and the Saudi peace plan

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:27 | link | comments

Late bloomer: You can understand why perimenopausal pole dancer Kimberlee Ouwroulis would be upset when an employer told her her services were no longer required (which sent Kim racing off to the local “human rights” judiciary shouting “agism”)—she only got her start in the peeler biz a few years ago. Kim comes clean about her career goals in an interview with the National Post’s Rob Roberts:

Q My first question was going to be, how long did you expect to be stripping? But then I discovered you were 40 when you started stripping. How'd that come about?

A I started dancing on the suggestion of customers and managers at another bar where I had been waitressing for a year, at a strip club. I started in the business due to a nasty divorce. There are many dancers still in the business at age of 40; however, it is unusual to start the business brand-new at age of 40. It really worked for me, because I enjoyed it, and maintained a great attitude.

Q How did your manager tell you you were being fired?

A The manager called me into the office June 6, sat me down, looked at me directly and I quote, "Your time is up here," and I asked, "Why? Is it my age?" He furthermore volunteered that another older girl had been fired the same day, and told me her name.

Q How long do you expect to be dancing? Will you be on stage when you're 50? 60?

A When I started at age 40, I looked around and realized I actually fit in very well with the girls, and always felt good about myself and looks. I have plans to be in the business until I'm 47 or 48…

Oh, look. Kim’s co-worker who was fired on the same day has filed an “agism” complaint too. Wonder if the “human rights” adjudicator will ask the gals for a demo, so he can evaluate whether their performance is, you know, sufficiently spry. (Hey, if this guy can keep stripping, anyone can.)

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

It seems to me we’ve heard that rant before:  A leader with an irrational obsession about the Jews (he thinks they have to be killed in order to “save” mankind—what historian Saul Friedlander has dubbed “redemptive anti-Semitism”) rants in public about his eliminationist intentions—and, writes Matthias Kunzel, the world heaves a big ho-hum (again). From FrontPage Magazine:

It is a topsy-turvy world: At the United Nations—an organization born out of the struggle against Nazi Germany and intended to embody the lessons of the Holocaust—a head of state openly spouts anti-Semitic propaganda in an address before the General Assembly. Granted, he takes the trouble to denounce "Zionists" and avoid the word "Jew," but this dodge is transparent to any student of the Nazis. His speech is greeted with acclaim, and neither the U.N. secretary general nor any Western head of government bothers to object. The media are mostly silent.

 

It happened on September 23, and the speaker was Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A familiar figure at the U.N., Ahmadinejad has a history of using his turn at the rostrum to sermonize about his yearning for the return of the Shia messiah. This time, he went further, drawing inspiration also from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

 

The Zionists, he told the assembly, are the eternal enemy of "the dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people" (this is the English translation of his remarks on the U.N. website). Although they are few in number, the Zionists "have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the United States in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner."

 

Indeed, so influential are the Zionists around the world that even "some presidential or premier nominees in some big countries have to visit these people, take part in their gatherings, swear allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial or media support." In particular, even "the great people of America and various nations of Europe" are caught in the clutches of Jewish power: They "need to obey the demands and wishes of a small number of acquisitive and invasive people. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will."

 

Yet liberation is near. "Today," according to Ahmadinejad, "the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse. There is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters."

 

For Ahmadinejad, of course, such talk is nothing new. Addressing the international Holocaust deniers' conference in Tehran in December 2006, he declared (in a speech translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI) that "the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated"--freed, that is, from the "acquisitive and invasive" minority he "outed" in New York as the real power behind Western governments. The sentiment is not so far from that expressed in a Nazi directive of 1943: "This war will end with anti-Semitic world revolution and with the extermination of Jewry throughout the world, both of which are the precondition for an enduring peace." Just as Hitler's utopia, his "German peace," required the extermination of the Jews, so the Iranian leadership's "Islamic peace" is conditioned on the elimination of Israel.

 

Ahmadinejad's performance elicited applause from his audience and a warm embrace from the president of the General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a 75-year-old Catholic priest and holder of the Lenin Prize of the former Soviet Union. D'Escoto is a close friend of Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, in whose government he served as foreign minister from 1979 to 1990. This is the same Ortega who, four weeks after the Tehran Holocaust deniers' conference, joined President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela in welcoming Ahmadinejad to Latin America as a "a president willing to join with the Nicaraguan people in the great battle against poverty."

 

Equally noteworthy was the lack of reaction to Ahmadinejad's U.N. performance in Western capitals--with three exceptions. The German and French foreign ministers criticized Ahmadinejad's "blatant anti-Semitism," and Barack Obama expressed disappointment that the Iranian president had been given "a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views." Otherwise Ahmadinejad's misuse of the U.N. to spread anti-Semitic propaganda didn't even register as a provocation.

 

On September 23, the very day of his speech, Ahmadinejad was Larry King's guest on CNN. King offered the Iranian president an hour-long opportunity to hold forth as he pleased.

 

The next day, in an article for Salon, the Iran specialist Juan Cole of the University of Michigan took Obama to task for his comments on Ahmadinejad. Cole quoted a single sentence from the U.N. speech--one in which Ahmadinejad criticized the United States--while ignoring the anti-Semitic passages. "Larry King got at the true Ahmadinejad," Cole insisted, whereas Obama "fell into the trap of declining to make a distinction between anti-Zionist views and anti-Semitic ones."

 

The only “distinction” between them is that anti-Semitism (hating Jews because of their “race”) is the second phase of Judenhass; it followed the first phase, anti-Judaism, hating Jews because of their religion, and hating their religion. Anti-Zionism is the third phase—hating the Jewish state, and wanting to get rid of it, because it’s Jewish.

It is “esteemed” academic Juan Cole who has fallen into a trap—the same one esteemed philosopher Martin Heidegger fell into when he backed Der Fuhrer.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:32 | link | comments

Poppy pooper:  Writing in hard-lefty rag NOW magazine, Susan G. Cole explains why she refused to wear a poppy last Tuesday:

Last Tuesday, just seconds before going on air to do a news opinion spot, I was handed a poppy to wear so I could mark Remembrance Day. On instinct, I declined.

I had only seconds to make that choice and after the taping was done, agonized over my decision. Listening to the stories all over the radio about the sacrifices made by men and women who went to war, I had a flash of guilt. How could I have refused to honour these brave soldiers? What was I thinking?

I tried to retrace my process. I feel real sorrow for the thousands of men – mostly boys, really –  who were thrown into those stinking world war one trenches. If they returned at all, they were never the same, wholly traumatized by their brutal war experience. Speaking as a Jewish woman, I'm grateful that Hitler was defeated in World War II. But there's something about Remembrance Day ceremonies that disturb me. 

They seem to be only about one thing – celebrating the soldiers. They don't question the horror or war and the military machinery that throws helpless young men into the fray. Our World War II soldiers were conscripted – they had no choice but to fight – and the young men who made the so-called ultimate sacrifice had no control over whether they would go and where they would do battle.

If the intention of Remembrance Day is to salute soldiers for their efforts, and acknowledge their pain, then why not talk about war, what gets us into wars, who benefits, which economic interests thrive on war? We hear nothing of that, to the point where all the coverage of last Tuesdays ceremonies read more like propaganda than a proper salute.

And what about what happens to women as a result of war. Thirty years ago I participated in a Remembrance Day demonstration outside City Hall just after the official ceremonies. Members of Women Against Violence Against Women erected a home-made cenotaph that carried the words For Every Woman Raped In Every War.

It didn't go over well, which was no surprise. Who wants to hear about these kinds of female war-time casualties? And besides, to mention rape is to suggest that soldiers – even some of our soliders –  might be implicated.

To be fair, CBC Radio ran an item featuring a woman whose dad returned from World War II suffering from what we would now call Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and beat her up repeatedly. It was a poignant story and exactly the kind of coverage we should be getting when Remembrance Day rolls around.

As it is, I felt like, if I put on that poppy, I was saying yes to the military establishment that continues to treat young men and women as disposable objects, yes to the military values that promote machismo within the army and make the term gay soldier an oxymoron, yes to the assumption that war is a necessary strategy for resolving conflict…

Prior to reading this overheated nonsense, I had thought that Jen Lynch’s was the biggest insult to the dead. All things considered, I now think that Susan wins the “prize” (takes the cake?) for most insulting.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:29 | link | comments (2)

And you thought walking on water was an impressive feat: Obama lifts ceiling of dreams for black men.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:39 | link | comments

The Ceeb sides with the censors: An “unbiased” Ceeb story claims that the Conservative move to get rid of Section-13 is one sign that the party is “veering to the right”. Notice how it describes the effort to restore free speech (my bolds):

A resolution that seeks to limit the investigative and adjudication powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunals for complaints of hate-mongering was passed almost unanimously.

Hmmm. From the sounds of it, the Ceeb prefers the status quo: giving “investigators” and “adjudicators” unlimited power to curb “hate-mongering” (by forcing those with politically incorrect views to shut the hell up). Not much of a surprise, really, given that Ceeb and the HRCs are staffed by the same sort of anti-free speech ideologues.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:29 | link | comments

Where’s ex-Bev?: The “revert” who runs the jihadunspun website is still missing somewhere in in the wilds of Pakistan. But don’t worry. Our government is moving heaven and earth to secure her release. From Canada.com:

Canadian officials were working with their counterparts in northwest Pakistan Thursday in a bid to win the release of a B.C. woman who was kidnapped Tuesday along with her three local guides.

A Foreign Affairs spokeswoman confirmed a report in The Daily Times in Lahore that negotiations are continuing to free Khadija Abdul Qahaar, 52, formerly of West Vancouver.

She was seized at gunpoint on Tuesday while travelling to record video footage for a British journalist.

"The government of Canada is aware of the kidnapping of a Canadian citizen in Pakistan," said Lisa Monette, of Foreign Affairs. "Our Canadian officials are engaged with Pakistani authorities in seeking a safe and early release."

Qahaar changed her name from Beverly Giesbrecht after converting to Islam after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. She is the owner and publisher of a controversial pro-Islamic website called jihadunspun.com, which is registered to a West Vancouver address.

Qahaar's website was criticized by the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, which flagged it as "a Canadian pro-terrorist website" in its report Online Terror and Hate: The First Decade.

In an "urgent request" posted on her website on Oct. 22, Qahaar asked for financial help to get out of Pakistan, which she described as "erupting into a full-scale war zone.

"Allah knows that I really dislike having to ask but please know how hard we work for Allah," Qahaar wrote. "As a woman, I have already had a few close calls in the tribal areas as kidnappers and thieves are running loose even in Peshawar . . . With no family, it is my brothers and sisters that I must turn to for help."

At the end of her post, Qahaar lists payment options for Paypal, credit card and Western Union.

Friends said they last heard from Qahaar about 11 days ago...

Looks like her “brothers and sisters” failed to come through for her. Now it’s left to the kafir Conservatives in Ottawa to get her sprung.

Ironic, that.

This line in another report about ex-Bev's whereabouts elicited a grin:

Before relocating her home base to West Vancouver, Qahaar lived in Lions Bay for many years, where she was known as an impeccable hostess and gourmet chef.

From impeccable hostess to irrepressible jihadist—folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

Update: Oh, wait. I think I can see ex-Bev somewhere in here:

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:51 | link | comments (2)

Poopy power: The Toronto Zoo wants to turn animal excreta into energy. From the Ceeb:

The Toronto Zoo has hatched a plan to turn animal feces into fuel.

With more than 5,000 animals that call the zoo home, workers there say there is no shortage of raw material for making energy. It is proposing to build a plant that would convert animal and food waste into biogas using bacteria.

"These bacteria are going to have a feast on this stuff, this feces that would have gone to waste and put the methane straight up into the air, and they're going to produce more methane quickly that we can use to shove through a generator and produce electricity," said zoo curator David Ireland.

"This stuff is gold."

The zoo believes it could produce enough fuel to cover its own needs, as well as those of a few thousand homes. While the facility would cost $13 million to build, the zoo estimated it could make that money back in five years by selling the electricity.

"It's clean, green energy, pollution-free energy, and we hope we might actually be able to make a little bit of money out of it as well," said city councillor Glenn de Baeremaeker, who is also on the zoo's board of management.

He suggests the City of Toronto could put up the cash to build the facility, but officials at City Hall said there is no money for such a project in their budget.

"For the city to take part in this project, at this point in time, we're talking about pure debt and we don't have money to hand over to them now," said Shelley Carroll, the city's budget chief….

Reluctant to let its precious resource go to waste any longer, the zoo is also exploring bringing in a private-sector partner to finance the project, which it hopes to get off the ground next year….

Maybe the Ceeb should contact alternate fuel champion, Al Gore. He might be, er, game.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:31 | link | comments

Censorship and sharia: Anything yet on the CJC site condemning the Judenhass at that Somali mosque? No? Then I guess we’ll have to settle for a condemnation from the CJC’s compadre-in-censorship, Toronto Star pundit Harpoon Siddiqui. In today’s column, Harpoon appears to be chastising the Somalis for their hateful words about “the Jews” (although, discretion being the better part of cowardice, he doesn’t mention the loopy Jewish chick-Satanic shoes connection). Of course, what he’s really saying is what the Saudis have been saying--that kafirs had better knock it off with the blasphemy, as per the terms of Allah’s law:

A Somali Canadian mosque in Toronto is being condemned, rightly so, for carrying anti-Semitic and anti-Western messages on its website. This, though, does invite a question: Where are the free-speech advocates defending the right of this group to say whatever the heck it wants?

There aren't any, rightly so. But we can be certain that if some other group was saying similar vile things about Muslims and Islam, free speechers would be out in droves defending it.

This double standard is at the heart of the recurring controversies bedevilling relations between the Western and Muslim worlds, from the Danish cartoon episode to Maclean's magazine being dragged, unsuccessfully, before three human rights commissions in Canada.

The issue is not going away. In fact, it is coming to a head.

When Pope Benedict held a historic dialogue with Muslims in Rome recently, the final communiqué said this of religious minorities: "Their founding figures and the symbols they consider sacred should not be subjected to any form of mockery or ridicule."

The Catholics and Muslims present have jointly challenged a fundamental tenet of free speech, that religion is not above ridicule.

At the just-ended special multifaith session of the United Nations, 80 nations derided the "serious instances of intolerance, discrimination, expressions of hatred and harassment of minority religious communities of all faiths."

The meeting was held at the behest of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (backed by the U.S. and Israel, as an antidote to Iran).

The theme was picked up Thursday by Pakistani President Asif Zardari: "Hate speech aimed at inciting people against any religion must be unacceptable."

This has been the stance of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 57 nations with majority or significant Muslim populations. And the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council has passed resolutions calling for "combating defamation of religion."

All this has been challenged. The human rights council is dismissed, rightly, as the playground of states that routinely violate human rights at home.

Abdullah's outreach is seen as a smokescreen to hide the severe restrictions on non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia.

The campaign to curb post-9/11 Islamophobia in North America and Europe is described as a tool autocrats use to prosecute domestic dissidents, mostly Muslims, on trumped up charges of blasphemy.

Meanwhile, Canada, the U.S., the European Union and free speech groups have been campaigning against any limits on free speech.

All of the above represents one side of the ledger. On the other is the reality of the systematic vilification of Muslims, particularly the linking of Islam to violence (ignoring that people of all faiths – Christians, in particular – have shed a lot of blood invoking their gods).

Islamophobia "tends to dehumanize an entire faith, portraying it as fundamentally alien and attributing to its followers an inherent, essential set of negative traits, such as irrationality, intolerance and violence," notes the U.S. media watch group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. "Not unlike the charges made in the classical document of anti-Semitism, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, some of Islamophobia's more virulent expressions include evocations of Islamic plots to dominate the West."…

Right, ‘cause Muslims are the “victims” of a gigantic plot to “dehumanize” them, that whole Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb thing being something hateful kafirs concocted to make the faithful look bad. And the fact that the Koran, that perfect, uncreated text, engages in some concerted “dehumanizing” itself— hello, “apes and pigs”—well, best not to dwell on such unpleasant truths. As for The Protocols, that pernicious tract, that “warrant for genocide,” there again, Harpoon has taken pains to conceal the unpleasant truth that Muslims employ it in two ways. When they want to disguise and/or distance themselves from the oft-stated plan to establish sharia’s primacy, they claim that that plan must be bogus because The Protocols is bogus; think of it as piggybacking on a canard. At other times, however, they inisist that The Protocols is legit, that it captures the actual minutes of a long-ago gathering of Jewish elders during which they laid out their plans for global dominance.

As a free-speecher, I say hurray for free expression on Somali websites and other Islamic websites; how else would we know what these folks are really thinking? And phooey on all those who support the Saudi-sponsored effort to pull a fast one on us by instituting global blashphemy laws—i.e. the sharia— under the guise of countering “Islamophobia.”

Nice try, Harpoon, but you can’t fool me.

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

Tears of a crowd: David Pryce-Jones comments on the phenomenon of spontaneous public blubbering:

The victory of President-Elect Obama has generated public weeping. Lots of people captured on television have had tears running down their cheeks, and sometimes their voices have broken as they try to respond to an interviewer. It is a very disturbing phenomenon. The rational choice of the individual voter is essential to the working of democracy.

Tearfulness signifies instead the emotionalization of politics. Rather than calculate, the weepers have surrendered to feelings. And feelings are catching. A huge literature is devoted to analysing how individuals turn into crowds, and how beliefs and values change in the process, so that the crowd comes to behave collectively in ways that each individual member of it might not. This is not to imply that the tears on this occasion are the prelude to some nasty kind of mob ideology – on the contrary, it is a very human reaction. The weepers had listened to Obama’s promises of change and hope, and their wish to believe in what he was saying overcame any doubts and reservations they might have had, and so the tears flowed as they will do whenever emotions get the better of reason.

The trouble is that reality reasserts itself pretty soon in this world, and emotion is not the tool to deal with it. The return of reason comes at a cost, however. Those who couldn’t help weeping at Obama’s election displayed expectations of a very high order, and if in future they are ever disappointed with him they will also be disappointed with themselves.

Everybody now: “Feelings. Whoa, whoa,  whoa, feelings…”

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:34 | link | comments

UN pimps for “peace”: What’s the best way for a morally bankrupt international organization in thrall to its largest voting bloc—a Heinz 57 of nations ruled by mostly by tyrants, despots and fanatical theocrats—to get people to overlook its, er, shortcomings? Make a Hollywood hottie its “peace messenger,” of course. The Ceeb pants:

Oscar-winning actress Charlize Theron has been made a messenger of peace by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

The South African-born actress, who won an Academy Award for her role as real-life serial killer Eileen Wuornos in the 2003 film Monster, will have a special focus on ending violence against women.

Theron, who is now an American citizen, is also the founder of a project aimed at promoting HIV/AIDS education for children and their families in her former homeland.

"You have used your voice, compassion and special relationship with the public to create a better world," said the secretary general in his announcement on Friday.

The 33-year-old performer will be officially appointed on Monday in a ceremony in New York City.

Her new role is apropos considering Theron's background. At 15, she witnessed the death of her father when her mother Gerda shot him in self-defence when he attacked her…

Apropos, too, given that her father was a tyrant, and that “honour killing” is a common feature of so many members of the OIC.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:25 | link | comments

Rob Nicholson’s amazing journey: In a matter of mere months Canada’s Justice Minister has gone from supporting state censorship, to voting in favour of a measure calling for censorship to be torn down.

Two words: In. Credible.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:03 | link | comments

Saudis make a pitch for “common human values”: And by “common human values,” they mean Islamic ones, since those “values” emanate directly from what they consider to be the only valid law on the planet, Allah’s law, the sharia. Don’t expect them to come right out and say that, though, since, as my mama taught me long ago, you can catch more kafirs, er, flies with honeyed words about “common values” than you can with acidic truths about the need for everyone to acknowledge sharia's primacy (a lesson, alas, I failed to learn). From Arab News:

NEW YORK: Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said on Thursday that the reaffirmation of common human values would ensure the security of mankind.

“It is now incumbent on all participants to declare to the world that difference must not result in confrontation,” Prince Saud said at a press conference at the closing of the United Nations General Assembly session on interfaith dialogue.

The special session on interfaith dialogue rejected the use of religion to justify the killing of innocent people and acts of terrorism, violence and coercion, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who also attended the press conference, said. A declaration issued after the event called for building a “harmonious world” in which various religions and cultures can co-exist. The 192-nation assembly adopted the declaration reiterating strong support for all faiths while warning that extremism has intensified, causing communal strife and polarizing societies.

“The challenge now is to go beyond powerful positive words we have heard these past two days,” Ban said. “I pledge my full support to these efforts,” he added.

“King Abdullah’s initiative has come at a time when the need for dialogue among religions, cultures and civilizations has been greater than ever,” Ban added.

Heads of state and senior officials of more than 75 UN member states participated in the interfaith dialogue meeting called by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.

The declaration called for setting up a committee to implement the pledges made in the debate.

“Establishing the committee on interfaith dialogue proposed by King Abdullah would help enlist the principles of tolerance, dignity, family and integrity, common to all faiths to combat a host of world ills,” said Prince Saud.

Answering a question on how politicization of the proposed committee would be avoided, the prince said that participants in the dialogue would establish operating modalities to ensure its independence.

“All related initiatives should work together to maximize harmony,” said the UN chief. “This is not the end, it is just the beginning.”…

I’m afraid he’s right about that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:58 | link | comments (1)

Salim Mansour on war and remembrance:  From the Toronto Sun:

...Our desire for peace has become a yearning of just about every people across the globe as we become aware how perilously poised we are on a knife's edge of nuclear killings.

Our yearning for peace is one of the oldest wishes, and it connects us to generations past, even as we hope to maintain faith in keeping our world safe for unborn generations yet to come.

It is out of these hopes we have made a ritual of our gatherings on Remembrance Day, recollecting memories of past wars and lessons seemingly learned, and praying for soldiers who laid down their lives that we, in time, might harvest peace.

HONOUR WARRIORS

But do we -- citizens of free democracies -- truly honour our warriors, some buried in unknown graves in distant lands when we remember them merely as fallen soldiers; and do not speak forcefully about the world they secured for us with their dying breaths?

We do not honour well our fallen heroes if we only remember them as lives lost in wars that should not have been waged. They were soldiers -- selfless and brave -- who stepped forth to defeat evil so that the rest of us could rendezvous with our loved ones and chase our dreams in safety.

To truly honour our fallen heroes while drawing the proper lesson from their valour, we need to speak with much greater emphasis of their readiness to go to war knowing well the difference between freedom -- defended unto death -- and serfdom.

Our fallen heroes at Vimy, Dieppe and on the beaches of Normandy "blotted out evil with good" like those ancient Athenians, as Pericles reminded his people, who died defending freedom. Their valour extended immensely the realm of freedom in our lifetime. Their sacrifices prepared the grounds for raising the largest number of people ever from dire poverty into dignity of work and income during the past quarter century.

Our fallen heroes were soldiers wearing uniforms of democracies, and they wore them freely as did Pericles's warriors knowing "happiness depends on being free, and freedom depends on being courageous."

Our fallen heroes intuitively grasped the oldest lesson history teaches, that wars cannot be abolished legislatively, nor wished away by prayers; and peace might only be secured by being prepared to wage war against evil, and disarming Cains among us before they do harm.

This is the lesson we forget at our peril.

Hear, hear. That's the reason why the sight of Ms. Lynch and her totalitarian-inclined "human rights" apparatchiks trying to horn in or Remembrance Day ceremonies was so hard to stomach.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:32 | link | comments

A changed bird?: Benjamin Netanyahu has borrowed the look and style of the Saviour’s election website, much to the bewilderment of the New York Times and other lefties:

…Web sites aside, for liberals in both countries, the idea of Mr. Netanyahu as the Obama candidate of Israel seems mystifying. Of the three main contenders for prime minister in February’s election, including Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Ehud Barak of Labor, Mr. Netanyahu is the most hawkish and the least interested in the focus on dialogue with adversaries that Mr. Obama made a centerpiece of his foreign policy platform. Mr. Netanyahu has said he would shut down the current negotiations with the Palestinian leadership…

Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t fully onside with the wretched “peace process” and all that entails.

I hate to say it, and I hope I’m wrong, but the “hawk” seems to have become rather dovish of late.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:48 | link | comments

Gloomy Glick: Poor Caroline Glick. While other Jews continue to plotz over the handsome young pres-elect and his adorable family (did you know that he’s promised to get his young’uns a puppy?), she refuses to swallow the hopey-changey sody-pop. Here’s the cranky Ms. Glick warning of the dark times she sees on the horizon post-inauguration:

…Due in large part to media credulousness, Obama's new image as a centrist was widely accepted by the public. And it is likely that Obama owes a significant portion of his support in the American Jewish community to the campaign's success in distancing Obama from men like Brzezinski and Malley.

But now that the campaign is over, it appears that as his critics warned, Obama's moves toward the center on issues relating to the Middle East were little more than campaign tactics to obscure his true policy preferences. Two days after his election, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius gave a sense of the direction in which Obama will likely take US foreign policy. And, apparently directed by Obama's campaign staff, Ignatius based much of his column on his belief that Obama's foreign policy views have been shaped by his "informal" advisor, Brzezinski.

Based on what Brzezinski and Obama's "official" campaign told him, Ignatius wrote that the two major issues where Obama's foreign policy is likely to diverge from Bush's right off the bat are Israel and Iran. Obama, he claimed will want to push hard to force Israel to come to an agreement with the Palestinians as soon as he comes into office. As for Iran, Obama plans to move immediately to improve US relations with the nuclear weapons building ayatollahs…

Oh, Caroline, you’re such a pessimist. ‘Sides, everyone knows that Rahmbo will never let that happen.

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

Feel the love: That Somali mosque that was in the news recently for making slurs against Jews and, er, stilettos has been in the news before. Last year the National Post’s Stewart Bell reported on the mosque’s seasonal advice for its flock:

A Toronto mosque is telling Muslims not to say "Happy Thanksgiving" or invite friends into their homes for turkey dinner on the holiday weekend.

The Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque says to "avoid participating" in dinners, parties or greetings on Thanksgiving because it is a kuffaar, or non-Muslim, celebration.

A two-part article on the mosque Web site says Muslims should also "stay completely away" from "Halloween trick-and treat nonsense," Christmas, New Year's, anniversaries, birthdays and Earth Day.

"How can we bring ourselves to congratulate or wish people well for their disobedience to Allah? Thus expressions such as:Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Birthday, Happy New Year, etc, are completely out," it says.

In 2003, the Khalid mosque, which mainly serves the Toronto Somali-Canadian community, apologized for a newsletter that compared wishing someone a Merry Christmas to congratulating a murderer.

At the time, a junior employee was blamed for the slight, but the mosque's Web site has since posted similar edicts covering not only Christmas but also virtually every other Western celebration.

Muslims who participate in the holidays are termed ignorant and hypocritical.

While not all are religious holidays, the Internet site says Muslims are required to be different from non-Muslims "in matters which are representative of them or are characteristic of their identity."

Also banned, it says, are: watching sports or soap operas, walking dogs, family photos, wedding bands, Western hats, mingling and shaking hands with the opposite sex.

"Allah and his messenger have warned us against following or imitating non-Muslims in things which are characteristic of their religion or beliefs. This is more emphasized in the case of their eids [festivals] or occasions, which always hold some religious or ideological non-Islamic meanings, and on which the kuffaar indulge in many evil practices."

The Web site also has a question-and-answer section, which advises that Muslims can join political parties only if they are "able to exert some influence on the direction of the party so that it will take an Islamic direction."

Elsewhere in the Q&A section, it says that, "with strong determination and patience, the world will God-willing be under the Muslims' control."

The mosque is run by a federally registered charity. Rival factions within the Somali Muslim community are fighting in court for control of the charity. The mosque president could not be reached yesterday...

In another Post article from last year, Bell reported on Somali-Canadians who had returned to their homeland to fight—and die for—the jihad. Bell quotes a Somali official who offers this intriguing bit of info:

"Mo" Abdullahi Mohamed, a Somali-Canadian who now serves as personal secretary to Deputy Prime Minister Aideed, said a Toronto mosque had been recruiting youths to join the Islamic Courts [the Somali jihadist organization]. The mosque is affiliated with Al Itti had Al Islami, an al-Qaeda linked Somali terrorist group headed by Sheik Hassan Aweys, leader of the Islamic Courts shura council, he said.

Anyone care to guess the identity of that mosque?

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:23 | link | comments

Sins of the father: Rahm Emanuel’s Pa said something nutty about Arabs, and now Rahm is apologizing like crazy:

US President-elect Barack Obama's White House chief of staff apologized to the Arab-American community on Thursday for remarks his Israeli-born father made to Ma'ariv.

Last week, Benjamin Emanuel talked about his son Rahm Emanuel's new job and told the Israeli daily that "obviously he'll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House."

That prompted an outcry from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which called on Rahm Emanuel, a former Israeli citizen, to condemn the "unacceptable smear."

On Thursday, Rahm Emanuel called the group's president, Mary Rose Oakar, to apologize on behalf of his family.

"These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family," the group quoted him as saying.

Oakar said the apology was accepted.

Emanuel spokesman Nick Papas confirmed the phone call and said Emanuel "offered to meet with representatives of the Arab-American community at an appropriate time in the future."

Grovel. Grovel. Scrape. And bow. So much for “Rahmbo”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:15 | link | comments (1)

Excoriating Jen: The Globe and Mail’s Rex Murphy has some withering words for CHRC Czarina Jennifer Lynch and her misappropriation of Remembrance Day ceremonies:

…Human rights, the real ones, are ours from the beginning. They are not bestowed by the state, because the state does not "own" them; they are not a state's or a ruler's or, for that matter, a human-rights commission's to give. It equally follows that they are not a state's or a commission's to abridge, circumscribe, tamper with or make a toy of.

The concept of human rights, real human rights, has been long with us. But only in modern times did we learn what immeasurable darkness falls on the world when they are nullified. The butcheries of Auschwitz and Buchenwald followed as a straight and bitter line from Hitler's assumption of absolute power in 1933 and his cauterization and extinction of the concept of freedom in the German Reich. Nothing less than the Holocaust underwrites the modern understanding and appreciation of human rights. They are as profound and central a concept to the democracies of the world as we have.

They constitute the core of human freedom. They are the antidote to tyranny. They are fundamental.

Of late, in Canada, however, this most painfully acquired understanding has been utterly unmoored. The various provincial human-rights commissions and their federal godfather have been cutting away at the core of, and extending into utter fatuity the term, human rights. They are capricious, agenda-riven, a great mishmash of political correctness and "right thinking" bulldozing away at the basic freedoms of thought, speech and expression while they, under some osmotic impulse, investigate, prescribe and torment with zealous and self-righteous abandon.

Which is why I find Ms. Lynch's presence at Remembrance Day ceremonies odd. Because Canada's human-rights commissions are diluting and trivializing and thereby offending the very core of the concept that gives them their name. And a Remembrance Day ceremony is an awkward occasion to be reminded of that.

Delegates at the Conservative Party convention are getting set to vote--again--on whether to axe Section-13, the CHRC provision that makes a mockery of the democratic ideals that Canadians have fought for, and have died defending. Here’s hoping that some of the delegates read Rex today, and that he gives those still sitting on the fence the final push they need to side with freedom.

Update: I have it on good authority--a fellow free-speecher attending the convention--that the motion to get rid of the abominable section in question has passed. Let's pause momentarily to savour the victory--and then redouble our efforts to get the government to act.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments (2)

Banality, redux:  Hannah Arendt got it wrong when she coined the phrase “banality of evil” to refer to the Nazis’ modus operendi. However, the phrase is what sprung to mind when reading this—a dry recitation in a Pakistan newspaper of the nation’s repugnant misogyny in action:

1,019 women killed for honour over three years

ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly was told on Thursday that more than 7,000 cases of rape and murders of women were registered between 2005 and 2007, in addition to 1,019 cases of honour killings. According to statistics tabled in the Lower House, the total number of honour killing cases is 1,019 – 321 in 2005, 339 in 2006 and 359 in 2007. Stove burning cases include 18 cases in 2005, 17 in 2006 and 10 in 2007. Meanwhile, 3,236 murder cases were registered during the period between 2005 and 2007 – 1,075 in 2005, 1,084 in 2006 and 1,077 in 2007. Similarly, 4,971 rape cases were registered in this period. The number of registered cases of domestic violence in the country is 4,290, apart from acid attacks, honour killings and stove accidents. The statistics showed that 53 cases of acid attacks were registered between 2005 and 2007.

To be clear, the evil isn’t banal; it’s pure and unadulterated. What’s banal is the way the evil is expressed—as a matter of statistics which dehumanize the women who are the victims of these crimes.

As an aside, why is it okay for a Pakistan newspaper to refer to them as “honour killings,” but unacceptable for Toronto Life to use the phrase?

Just asking.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:11 | link | comments

Bad writing: As someone who has toiled in the communications trenches, I have a certain soft spot for really crappy PR-speak/jargon-laden bureaucratese since, on occasion, it makes me giggle; on other occasions it just makes me want to tear out my hair. This piece of really bad writing, from Arab News, managed to make me want to do both. (I’ve bolded the giggle-inducing parts):

CAIRO: Prince Faisal bin Sultan, the secretary-general of Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz Foundation, commended the leading role of the Arab Thought Foundation and its fundamental task in enriching cultural development in the Arab world.

“It is a serious and distinguished attempt to revive the soul of ingenuity in the Arab personality in various fields,” said Prince Faisal.

“Sultan Foundation’s sponsoring the Arab Creativity Award for two consecutive sessions is a part of its mission in supporting cultural and scientific programs in the Arab world, and also as an appreciation for the role of the award and its elevated ideals and goals,” said the prince.

He praised Prince Khaled Al-Faisal, chairman of the Arab Thought Foundation, stating that the continuity of the foundation’s seventh session reflects the size of its efforts and deep faith in its towering principles.

The Arab Thought Foundation’s seventh international conference — Fikr7 — concluded in Cairo yesterday.

The theme of the conference was “The Culture of Develop-ment,” which focused on inspiring the development process in the Arab World through employing culture as a fundamental axis.

Prince Faisal pointed out that promoting innovation and creativity in the Arab world provides an appropriate environment to encourage philanthropic activities and social responsibility.

Well, I must say that employing culture as a fundamental axis sounds like a much better idea than employing fundamentalism in an axis of evil.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:23 | link | comments

Hugs for (alleged) terrorist: So what if, some years ago, he was (allegedly) involved in a spot of bother in France—the bombing of a Paris synagogue during Sabbath services that took four lives? Globe and Mail scribe Josh Wingrove wants us to know that Hassan Diab is a heckuva nice guy. Smart, too:

Until last year, Hassan Diab was leading the quiet life of a Canadian sociology professor.

Prof. Diab was teaching at both Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, was said to be a popular colleague and teacher. After leaving the violence of his native Lebanon and earning his doctorate in the United States, Prof. Diab, 54, received his Canadian citizenship and appeared to settle into Ottawa.

There, friends said he was a secular man with an interest in sociology and Middle East studies, and was not without a warm side.

"He has a great rapport with students," said Carleton professor Nahla Abdo, a friend of Prof. Diab's. "He's intelligent, he's smart, he's witty. ... I really think highly of his academic skills."

But just before noon yesterday, the RCMP showed up at a home in Gatineau, Que., and arrested Prof. Diab on behalf of French authorities, who allege he was an integral part of the bombing of a Paris synagogue 28 years ago. That 1980 attack, involving a bomb hidden in the saddlebags of a motorcycle parked outside the synagogue during a Sabbath service, killed three French men and an Israeli woman. It sparked thousands of French citizens to protest against the targeted attack on the Jewish community, France's largest since the Second World War.

Today, Prof. Diab will appear in court in an extradition hearing. He steadfastly maintains his innocence, saying he wasn't in Paris at all that year, his name is very common, and that French investigators simply have the wrong man.

"It's a case of mistaken identity," his lawyer, René Duval, told The Globe and Mail last night. "I'm telling you he's innocent, and we'll fight that up to the Supreme Court of Canada."

The first allegations against Prof. Diab surfaced last November, when a French newspaper, Le Figaro, received a leak that Prof. Diab built the bomb in the 1980 attack. The story made news across France and Canada.

For Mr. Diab, life hasn't been the same since. He has been harassed, followed, and had one person attempt to break into his apartment, his lawyer alleges. None of the specific charges against him have been made openly and French authorities have not attempted to contact Mr. Duval.

In today's hearing, Mr. Duval hopes to hear the specific charges on which the French hope to extradite Prof. Diab.

"They have to make a case that he should be detained, so they're going to have to show some of their cards," Mr. Duval said. "How would you like to be dragged into public scrutiny for something you haven't done, but is extremely serious nowadays?"

The Justice Department approved the "provisional arrest warrant" as per the extradition agreement between France and Canada, spokesman Christian Girouard said. A Canadian judge approved the move after reviewing basic evidence in the case against Prof. Diab, he added.

RCMP then carried out the arrest at a residence in Gatineau - not saying who lived at the home - and held Prof. Diab in Ottawa overnight, Corporal Jean Hainey said.

French officials say anti-terrorist judges Marc Trevidic and Yves Jannier travelled to Canada earlier this week in hopes of advancing their inquiry into the bombing. There was no comment on that by the Justice Department or the RCMP in Ottawa.

Hey, if Weatherpeople Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn can be “rehabilitated,” why can’t Hassan be, too?

Update: Josh seems to have left out a crucial piece of info--that the cuddly prof is an (alleged)  Palestinian terrorist. The reporter also seems to have taken pains to emphasize that Hassan is "secular"--as if to say that he couldn't possibly be involved in terrorism since, as we know, that's usually undertaken by religious crazies. But back in the day, lots of "secular" Palestinians were involved in all sorts of terrorism under the auspices of "secular" terrorist group, the PLO, and its "secular" leader, Yasser Arafat. The group Hassan is supposed to have been involved with was a much smaller rival of the PLO, which likely hoped to gain credibilty and heighten its profile among the "secular" Palestinians by attacking the synagogue.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments

Emoticons “haram”: :? And furthermore, :(

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:57 | link | comments

Hoist on her own petard: Pre-9/11, she was a kafir named Bev Giesbrecht. Post 9/11, she “reverted” to Islam, changed her name to Khadija Abdul Qahaar, and  started a website promoting jihad. Now this silly woman has gotten herself kidnapped in Pakistan by her own co-religionists, and the Ceeb wants us to see her as another Mellissa Fung. No dice, Ceeb:

A B.C. woman gathering video material for a documentary in northern Pakistan had pleaded for help to leave the "war zone" last month before she was kidnapped in a tribal region.

On Wednesday, The News International, an English-language Pakistani newspaper, reported on the kidnapping of Khadija Abdul Qahaar, 52, of West Vancouver. Formerly known as Beverly Giesbrecht, Qahaar publishes her own web magazine named Jihad Unspun.

The newspaper said Qahaar was taken at gunpoint on Tuesday by unidentified men in the Bannu district in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan while travelling by taxi with a translator and guide. The area is near the border of Afghanistan.

A spokeswoman for the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department told CBC News Thursday that a Canadian woman is missing in Pakistan but refused to confirm her identity.

Qahaar posted an entry to her online magazine on Oct. 22, titled "An Urgent Request From Khadija Abdul Qahaar."

"Pakistan is now erupting into a full-scale war zone. We have been in some very sensitive areas and even Islamabad is now locked down," Qahaar wrote.

"As foreigners, we must leave the country. However, we do not have the funds to get out.… I make this personal and urgently appeal to you to send whatever contribution you can to assist us to return to Canada and Britain," she wrote.

News of Qahaar's kidnapping came days after CBC reporter Mellissa Fung was safely released in Afghanistan after being held by kidnappers for a month. The Canadian media, including CBC News, kept details of Fung's 28-day abduction quiet until after the journalist's release, fearing the publicity could jeopardize efforts to save her.

Qahaar's friends in Vancouver told CBC News Thursday that they don't want a news blackout but rather all the help available to secure her safe return.

"I don't want Bev's plight to be forgotten on the back pages," said Glen Cooper, who has known Qahaar for 20 years.

"She knew that Pakistan was disintegrating. In the last few weeks I was getting a number of e-mails and calls from her, saying she was starting to get very nervous about the country and she just wanted to get this last video over with and basically get out of there," Cooper said.

Without the support of a major media organization behind her, he worries how much help the federal government will offer.

Qahaar has a daughter, Cooper said, but CBC News could not reach her for comment Thursday.

Gar Pardy, a former Foreign Affairs official, said Ottawa is likely to offer assistance in finding Qahaar.

"Certainly, it would be my expectation that the Canadian government would pull out every stop that's available to it in terms of providing assistance," Pardy said Thursday.

Cooper said Quhaar converted to Islam and took an Islamic name after the Sept.11 attacks on the United States.

She then set up the website, Jihad Unspun, which covers news in the Middle East with imagery glorifying those fighting against the United States.

She was in Pakistan to film new video to post and sell on her website, Cooper said.

"I had warned her that this is a very dangerous situation for you to be in. But Bev is Bev. She [has] her own mind," he said.

Seems to me the single-minded ex-Bev found exactly what she was looking for and got precisely what she deserved.

Update: Ex-Bev was working for the Arab Ceeb.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:24 | link | comments (3)

A complaint that doesn't hold water: One of the fallouts of having "human rights" bodies up the whazoo is the culture of selfishness and entitlement that it breeds--as in my "rights" come first no matter what, dammit." Case in point: a Newmarket woman who ran to the Ontario Human Rights Commission because the owner of a swimming school wouldn't let her whip out her breast and feed her infant--while both were in the pool.  "So you don't care to see my bouyant lactating bazooms?," one imagines the irate mama complaining to the owner. "Well, tough, er, titty."

As letter-writer to the Toronto Star points out, though, this isn't an issue of human rights but of public health. Just as, for safety reasons, one ought not be permitted to pee in the pool, one should not be be able to nurse there either, due to the potential for leakage (something quite different than potential shrinkage, a swimming-related issue examined in a memorable Seinfeld episode.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:49 | link | comments

Wicked shoes: As an act of defiance on behalf of my oppressed Somali sisters, forbidden to wear high heels--Jewish devil shoes--lest they be corrupted, I went out yesterday and purchased a pair of red patent leather pumps. Slightly open toes. Made in Italy. Leather like buttah. Look a lot like this:

Muslimas of the Somali mosque rise up! You have nothing to lose but your sensible footwear!

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:30 | link | comments (2)

Unbalanced in the Globe: A Globe and Mail reader with the euphonious name of Barnabe F. Geisweiller is mega-bummed out by the Mideast peace process, which he says is all give, give, give by the Palestinians, and all take, take, take by the Jews. He writes

The people Patrick Martin gives voice to claim the downfall of the left to be the product of Arab disingenuousness and intransigence (Left On The Sidelines In Israel - Nov. 12). It would have been worth noting that the Palestinians, too, have been left disillusioned by Israel's failure to respect peace agreements.

The colonization of the Palestinian territories by Jewish settlers has never stopped, it has increased exponentially, nor has any Israeli peace proposal offered a contiguous Palestinian state.

According to international law it is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who have made the concessions and received nothing in return.

Cue the schmaltzy violins and pass me a tissue to sop up my tears. My letter:

Barnabe F. Geisweiller says that, on balance, the Palestinians have made every concession, while the Israelis have made none. I’m not sure what spread sheet he’s looking at, but the one I see shows a completely different picture--Israel conceding Gaza to the Palestinians, who returned the favour by putting Hamas in charge and bombarding the southern Israel with rocket fire. Going a bit further back, Israel was prepared to concede up to 95 per cent of the land then-Palestinian president Yasser Arafat was demanding during negotiations for the Oslo Accords, a concession that was rebuffed by the leader, who decided it was in his best interest to launch an intifada instead.

As for Israel’s supposed failure to offer “a contiguous Palestinian state,” under no international law is a country obliged to carve itself up such that its existence is no longer viable--in essence, to commit national suicide. And since Palestinians in Gaza and Palestinians in the West Bank have shown themselves to be two distinct entities which are incapable of getting along, it seems to me that Israel is actually doing them a great favour by acting as a buffer between them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:17 | link | comments (6)

Selective empathy: One would think that an article in Canada’s largest circulation newspaper about hate speech at a local mosque equating Jews with devils might elicit some sort of public response from the Canadian Jewish Congress. Especially since, not more than a day ago, the organization issued this news release:

TORONTO - Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region (CJCONT) is deeply troubled by the vicious attack suffered by Jane Currie and Anji Dimitriou, in Oshawa, Ontario on November 3rd.

"On behalf of the Jewish community we would like to convey our support to Ms Currie and Ms Dimitriou. The viciousness of the incident is made worse by the possibility that the attack was motivated by the sexual orientation of the victims," said Frank Bialystok, CJC Ontario Region Chair. "Our community recognizes that such occurrences create fear for other members of that group and seriously undermines the foundation that our society is built on: democracy, equality, respect for diversity and the rule of law".

"In our multicultural society, it's important for us to speak up in solidarity with other minority groups," said Fredelle Brief, Chair of CJC's Community Relations Committee. "The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community has long suffered discrimination and abuse. We as Canadians have made great strides in recent years but hate crime statistics reveal that members of this community are still disproportionately targeted."

"We encourage the police to launch a full and complete investigation and to give strong consideration to the possibility that this attack was motivated by hate. We are confident that the individual responsible will receive a sentence that is appropriate for such a repugnant crime."

"In our multicultural society, it's important for us to speak up in solidarity with other minority groups," said Fredelle Brief, Chair of CJC's Community Relations Committee. "The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community has long suffered discrimination and abuse. We as Canadians have made great strides in recent years but hate crime statistics reveal that members of this community are still disproportionately targeted."

True enough. Would that the CJC had it in it to demonstrate the same kind of empathy for the community still disproportionately targeted by Somalis and other Muslims—the community the CJC is supposed to serve.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:04 | link | comments

The mosque responds: A story in yesterday’s Toronto Star had some pretty hair-raising things to say about the mosque that serves Toronto’s Somali community. Seems the message of amity in the “Canadian context”—the rationale for a cockamamie Jews-mentoring-Somalis program—has yet to filter down to the powers-that-be at the religious centre, where there’s still plenty of old fashioned, unadulterated Judenhass on hand. On its website today, the mosque endeavours to do some serious damage control. And, although they may be fairly recent arrivals, mosque leaders have already figured out that the most effective way to plead your case in the Trudeaupian context (where, in the name of multiculturalism, we are pleased to tolerate your intolerance, as long as it comes attired in exotic foreign dress) is to play the victim card. (My bolds):

A response letter was sent to John Goddard on Saturday November 8, 2008 before he published the article, and he failed to mention anywhere in the article that he has receivd a response from Khalid Mosque in regards to his concerns about the material in Khalid Mosque Website. Here is the letter that was sent to him:

November 8, 2008

Dear Mr. Goddard:

We would first like to take this opportunity to thank you for seeking our comments concerning certain material that is contained on our web site. We have maintained our web site to reach out to Muslims and non Muslims alike to provide to them the authentic teachings of Islam. We do not seek to offend or harm anyone with what is written on our web site. There are many different religions in this world and there are naturally many disagreements between scholars of each religion. This is a reality we all have to accept.

Different scholars of Islam may have differing opinions on the same subject. If the issue is clearly understood from the Quran and the Prophet Mohamed, the opinion of a scholar is not necessary. When we post a question and answer from a known Islamic Scholar on our web site, this does not mean that we agree or disagree with the views of that scholar on the particular issue being discussed. We try our best to enrich Islamic knowledge for anyone who visits our web site and show to them the differing views of Islamic scholars on a particular subject. We make it clear to all readers of our web site that unless the answers are provided by the Khalid mosque, the answers do not necessarily reflect the views of Khalidmosque.org.

It is our understanding that your article will address issues surrounding a Human Rights Commission hearing that is ongoing. We think it is very important that our position is clear to you and your readers: The Board of the Khalid Bib Al-Walid Mosque maintains the view that women are an extremely important part of the workplace in Canadian society and that they have made and will continue to make many meaningful contributions to Canada's economy and the well-being of their communities and families. We of course wish that all women enjoy as much success in life as possible.

We advise both our brothers and sisters in Islam and whoever else is willing to pay heed, that we all should try and adhere to the moral and ethical scripturally sourced authentic Islamic values regarding the way we dress for work and in our interaction with people of the opposite sex. We pray that our Lord gives us the resolve, the strength and the support required to freely practice what our Lord wishes of us.

We are law abiding citizens of this great country and we practice our religion in a manner that is entirely consistent with the rights afforded to us by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are against all forms of violence and we strongly oppose radicalism and extremism. Moderation, peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between societies are integral parts of our Islamic teachings.

We do not accept any form of intimidation. While some media outlets seek to lump all brothers and sisters of Islam together and suggest to their readers that all people of Islam are radicals and terrorists, this will never have the effect of forcing us to abandon our religion and its important teachings.

We would also like to respond directly to your questions concerning Judaism. We believe in the Torah as one of the books that Allah revealed from the above Seven Heavens. We believe in the prophets of Allah: Abraham, Ismail, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed. We believe that the Quran is the final message to the whole of mankind and Mohamed is the final Messenger and servant of Allah who was sent to the whole of mankind.

We are very concerned by the tenor of your questions that you may unintentionally harm the image of Somali Muslims in Canada with the words you write. As the Board of the Khalid Bin Al-Walid mosque, we are preparing ourselves for the inevitable backlash of hatred and threats that will come with the suggestion that we support radical Islam and that we are therefore terrorists. While we have become accustom to this form of racism, we never get used to it and it is very harmful to our people. We will reserve judgment on your article until after it is published and we are hopeful that it is accurate, fair and balanced. If it is not, we will seek the appropriate advice from our legal counsel.

Thank you, may Allah guide you to right path.

Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque
Management and the Board of Directors

Um, what about that stuff about high heels being the work of devilish Jewish chicks who want to corrupt your pure Muslimas? Nothing terribly “fair and balanced” about that.

Kafirs who swallow this hogwash deserve to be turned into dhimmis.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:20 | link | comments (6)

Where I stand: I stand foursquare with this, a free-speecher demand for the restoration of our most crucial freedom. This statement is going to be distributed on the floor of the Conservative Party Convention:

We strongly support those members of the Conservative Party of Canada who seek to repeal Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.

Vague concepts such as speech or writing “liable to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but are standard operating procedure at the CHRC.

Commissioners of the Canadian s Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. Intent or fair comment are also not defences. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defences, the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence. The CHRA provides for each Tribunal to make up the rules as they go.

Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:34 | link | comments

Multiculturalism in the “Canadian context”: An article in the Toronto Star, one of Canada’s  multi-shmulti Motherships, details how it works—i.e. say one thing to the easily-gulled kafirs, and something quite different to your flock.  (H/T BCF):

A mosque asking that Canadian workplaces respect a strict Muslim dress code is at the same time disseminating slurs against Jews and Western societies, and warning members against social integration.

The Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque near Kipling Ave. and Rexdale Blvd. serves as the religious authority for eight Somali women complaining to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that UPS Canada Ltd. violated their religious rights at a sorting plant. The mosque, founded in 1990 and serving upwards of 10,000 people, preaches strict adherence to sharia, or Islamic law, and no compromise with the West.

Teachings on the mosque's website, khalidmosque.com, refer to non-Muslim Westerners as "wicked," "corrupt" and "our clear enemies."

Sometimes Jews are singled out.

"Is it permissible for women to wear high-heeled shoes?" begins one posting in question-and-answer format. "That is not permissible," comes the reply. "It involves resembling the Disbelieving Women or the wicked women. It has its origin among the Jewish women."

Modern pastimes are condemned.

"What is the ruling on subscribing to sports channels?" another question begins. "Watching some of the female spectators, when the camera focuses on them time after time" stirs "evil inclinations," the lesson reads. "Some (players) may not even believe in Allaah."

Mosque leaders refused repeated requests for an interview…

Gee, I wonder why. I’m sure, though, that once those Somalis are finished being mentored by the Jews and the "paradigm" has, er, "shifted," and once the CJC has finished building bridges with every last Muslim group which, like it, is bent on getting Queen’s Park to cough up funding for religious schools, everything will be copacetic here in this, the best of all possible multi-shumlti Trudeaupian contexts.

And speaking of multi-shmulti Trudeaupias, think I'll put on some of my sinful Jewish stilettos and go watch a few episodes of the Ceeb's Little Mosque on the Prairies, where, comfortingly, none of  this nasty Islamist stuff ever occurs.

Then again, if I want to keep my breakfast down, maybe not.

Update: What'd I tell you? On tonight's episode, an encore presentation of "Amaar at the Bat," (w)e find out whether or not Rayyan accepted JJ's marriage proposal and what Amaar does about it."

Sah-weet!

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:18 | link | comments (1)

Melanie in America: My favourite Brit, currently on a visit to the Obama-bedazzled U.S., has a cut-to-the-chase (and cut-through-the-crapola) assessment of recent American foreign policy vis a vis the Mideast:

Within a few days of the American presidential election, Iran was already testing Obama with Ahmadinejad slyly offering him his congratulations.  Obama gave a guarded, pro-forma reply that Iran had to stop supporting terror and that its development of  nuclear weapons was unacceptable, without saying what he would do to bring ‘change’ to Iran.  In response to that Ali Larijani, Speaker of Iran’s parliament, pointedly did not deny that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The ball is now once again in Obama’s court, and the impression strengthens that Iran is looking forward to running ever bigger rings around America.

In America, where I currently am, I hear amplification of this analysis. The point missed by many is that, contrary to the view that Obambi represents an abrupt break with the warmongering Bush, the said warmonger effectively tore up his own doctrine sometime around the middle of his second term. The key is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and the way she has effectively hijacked American policy in the Middle East.

In order to counter the increasing power of Iran, Rice wanted to form a coalition with Arab states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which regard Iranian power as a mortal threat to themselves. Their price was the ‘peace process’ towards the creation of a Palestinian state. These ‘moderates’ never for a moment expected this would actually result in a Palestinian state – indeed, they would find such a development distinctly unappealing because it would be a proxy of Iran and thus increase still further Iranian control in the region. But the ‘peace process’ helped them in various ways: it weakened Israel, gave them a place at the global top table and furnished them with a plausible line to sell to their own home constituencies.  

There were those within the Bush administration who viewed this with alarm. They argued that the US should be bolstering ‘moderate’ Palestinians by helping develop the institutions of a free society such as a free press and the rule of law, building economic strength and easing the lives of ordinary Palestinians -- but not complicating all this by a political overlay which effectively rewarded terror by pressuring Israel to give up yet more land for Hamas/Iran to colonise. These voices were ignored. Rice was determined to force a political settlement.

The result is that the US has fallen into a trap. Far from peeling off moderate Palestinians from Hamas, Egypt and Saudi are trying hard to repair the breach between Fatah and Hamas. These putative allies of America are treading a fine line: playing the US along ostensibly in a common front against Iran, but at the same time doing nothing to act against Iran – indeed, on the basis that the US is weak and will not act against Iran, even taking care to keep their own lines to Iran well and truly open.

So America has not only gained nothing, not only weakened the Israeli front line but  given Iran what it needs most of all – the invaluable gift of time for it to bring its nuclear weapons programme to fruition…

Melanie Phillips for Secretary of State!

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:31 | link | comments

Barry to Barry: Middle East sage Barry Rubin pens a missive to “Barry” Obama. From JWR:

Dear President-elect Obama,

They say that you prefer the name Barry, and so it pleases me no end that another Barry is finally president of the United States. In addition, I once worked as a community organizer, so we have two things in common.

On that basis, then, I hope you don't mind my making some suggestions about how you might think about the Middle East. I'm not looking for a job in Washington. In fact, as I look back on my life, I note that if I'd been successful in some obsession for a US government post, I might have been a participant in such endeavors as the catastrophic mishandling of Iran's revolution, the failed US dispatch of troops to Lebanon, the botched trade of arms for hostages with Iran, the crashed peace process and the Iraq war.

So don't be misled. Today, everyone's talking about how wonderful you are. Those are the people who want jobs, favors and access. There are others who want something else from you — like control over Lebanon, Israel, Iraq or Georgia — who are more likely to be psychopathic than sycophantic.

Your expressed theme for your administration's Middle East policy can be described in one word: conciliation. You think that your predecessors made unnecessary enemies and blocked, rather than furthered, progress. Building on the basis of your perceived popularity and sincere goodwill, you believe that it is not so hard to make friends with Iran and Syria, soothe grievances that have caused Islamism and terrorism and solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Good luck. We hope you succeed.

But please bear in mind some important points.

• In the Middle East, it is not so useful to think yourself popular and show yourself to be friendly. You have to inspire fear in your enemies and confidence in your friends. And if you don't inspire fear in your enemies — if you're too nice to them — then you will indeed foment fear among your friends.

• Not everyone thinks the same way. When you talk of "empathy," America's enemies hear the word "fear." When you speak of change, they, too, want change. Unfortunately the change they want means wiping other states off the map, creating radical Islamist dictatorships and kicking the United States out of the region.

This is no misunderstanding: it's a conflict…

I’d feel a whole lot better about Israel’s fate if the Barry writing the letter and not the “Barry” who’s going to save the world was in charge.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:13 | link | comments

Firm denial: There is absolutely no truth to reports in the Jerusalem Post and the Arab press that someone connected to the Obama camp was secretly gabbing with anyone from Hamas during the election campaign.

So put that thought out of your head right now.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:00 | link | comments

Virtual Saviour: The latest video game craze— Super Obama World.

Sigh. I miss Pac-Man.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:23 | link | comments

A coupla overheated Iranian lunkheads sit around and sling mud at the JOOOOS: Compelling viewing on Mullavision as a TV director and another guy delve into the historical roots of “Zionism,” Christopher Columbus, and the great Jewish conspiracy to commandeer the planet. MEMRI translates:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Said Mostaghasi, director of the Iranian TV series "The Secret of Armageddon." The interview aired on the Iranian news channel IRINN on September 25, 2008.

To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1883.htm .

Mostaghasi: "Protocols of Elders of Zion' Confirmed As Zionists" Goals By 'Many Documents and Many Reliable People'

Said Mostaghasi: "Zionism already existed three or four centuries ago - in the 16th century - although it wasn't called Zionism then.

"What is the connection between [Zionism] and the plan [for an Israel] 'from the Nile to the Euphrates?'

"They acted very slowly. They have a very well-known text called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which contains many issues, including all their goals and plans. There are 24 protocols. They claim that the Protocols does not belong to them, but there are many documents and many reliable people who have determined that it indeed belongs to the Zionists. The Protocols describes a gradual process that takes place worldwide, and explains how they will take over the world. The fundamental issue is not [expansion] from the Nile to Euphrates - the "Greater Israel" that they talk about now, from the Nile to the Euphrates. Instead, their main goal is world domination. The 'Nile to the Euphrates' plan and the establishment of the State of Israel are tactical measures, but the fundamental goal is to take over the world.

"They began this plan three or four centuries ago - or perhaps earlier, but we have documents regarding the past three or four centuries - and it has progressed in a decisive manner."

Interviewer: "You are talking about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which Herzl and his successors have tried to implement. What are these protocols? What do they contain?"

Said Mostaghasi: "There are 24 protocols, which constitute a charter..."

Interviewer: "...which they agreed upon."

Said Mostaghasi: "That's right. The precise date of the Protocols is unknown. It is from the late 19th century, when the Czar's regime attacked a gathering of Jews in Russia, and the Protocols fell into their hands. Then it passed from hand to hand - first, a Morning Post journalist got his hands on it, and later, it was passed around until it reached the British Museum. It was translated into various languages, and despite the [Zionist] efforts to destroy it, it has survived and has been translated. People wrote books based on it - like Henry Ford, author of The International Jew. Even Winston Churchill had confirmed the veracity of the Protocols, before he placed himself at the service of the Zionists."[...]

"The Discovery of America by Columbus Was Made Possible by the Money of the Jewish Aristocrats"

"Even though they claim that the Protocols does not belong to them, if you examine the last century - or the past 50 or 60 years - you can see they have been acting exactly in keeping with The Protocols.

[...]

"The discovery of America by Christopher Columbus was made possible by the money of the Jewish aristocrats, who were searching for the Promised Land, which they initially thought would be in America. They even consider New York to be their No. 1 Promised Land. Interestingly, the number of New York Jews is equal to their number in Tel Aviv."

Interviewer: "In fact, Scorsese addressed this in 'Gangs of New York.'"

Said Mostaghasi: "Exactly…

Exactly? I must have missed that part of the film.

What’s most alarming is that the mullahs appear to be using Protocols, that pathetic fraud, in exactly the same way that Hitler did—as a Warrant for Genocide.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:16 | link | comments (1)

The truth about Aqsa: Phyllis Chessler commends Toronto Life for having the stones to stand up to the purveyors of political correctness and print the awful truth about Aqsa Parvez’s death. From FrontPage Magazine:

She knew.

She told her friends that her father was going to kill her. She ran away, stayed at a shelter, stayed with friends. She was lured back home by honeyed sentences. Her family could not sleep without her. Late last year, on December 10th, in Toronto, sixteen year-old Aqsa Parvez's father. Mohammed, and her brother, Waqas, collaborated in her murder.

Aqsa's crime? She refused to wear hijab, she was becoming too assimilated.

Mohammed and Waqas Parvez are currently in jail awaiting trial.

This seems to be an open-and-shut case of an honor killing. Islamists in Canada disagree and have launched a protest against a popular Canadian magazine, Toronto Life, for daring to describe Aqsa's murder as an honor killing. An announcement, ostensibly penned by Michelle@urbanalliance.ca went out over Facebook calling for people to barrage the magazine's editor, Sarah Fulford, with email and telephone criticism and to attend a Speak Out and press conference which was to have taken place last night. And to write to a new pro-Muslim magazine titled Aqsa-Zine.

Ironically, the new zine is open to Muslim women only. No Christians, Jews, or Hindus need apply.

This is the problem: Islamist separatism -- aka Islamic religious and gender apartheid. It is practiced in Muslim countries and transported by immigrations globally. Tradition and religion have a storng (sic) hold, especially on immigrants in a strange, new land. However, many  religious and cultural groups have managed to both integrate and to retain their own religious identities. Muslim immigrants (and their third generation descendants) seem to have a much harder time with this balancing act.

If we understand Islam as an all-encompassing political, military, religious, social, and cultural entity (which it is), then things become clearer…

And as things become clearer, the misogynistic aspects of Islamic doctrine are revealed—a truth so awful that there are those who can’t bear to hear about it, and who don’t want anyone else to hear about it either.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:48 | link | comments

Disgusting: This is:

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, Nov 10, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- This year, for the first time, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the honour of laying a wreath at the National Remembrance Day Ceremony. The wreath will be placed by Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch, Q.C, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Throughout our history, Canadian soldiers have served to promote and protect human rights and freedoms and to uphold universal values of dignity and justice. The Commission will pay special tribute to honour the men and women who have served so valiantly to uphold Canada's commitment to universal dignity and justice - values that transcend cultures and traditions.

This year also marks the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Memo to Ms. Lynch: You dishonour the memory of the fallen who fought for freedom by laying a wreath on behalf of two morally bankrupt institutions—the CHRC and the UN. Also, it might interest you to know that the UN has for some time paid mere lip-service to its Universal Declaration. It is currently in thrall to its largest voting bloc, which adheres to a completely different “universal” declaration, one it considers to have superseded the UN’s.

Ezra Levant comments on the solipsistic Ms. Lynch and her insult here and here.

Update: Mark Steyn has some choice words about Ms. Lynch and her hijacking:

...If you want to commemorate the 60th anniversary of that, why don't you push off and organize your own ceremony? But that's not what Remembrance Day is about - in Ottawa, London or even in the tiny colonial backwater of Grand Turk (where I was yesterday, as the locals made their preparations). November 11th is a day to honor the sacrifice of soldiers of the Queen who fought for their country in brutal bloody wars Commissioner Lynch's self-serving press release can't even be bothered to mention, as Ezra Levant notes.

This is one of the signature techniques of the left: The co-option of historical memory. You still have the same outward dress — the cenotaph, the dignitaries, the poppies, the old stooped veterans — but the meaning of the event is hijacked and inverted. The contamination of Remembrance Day by this ghastly woman is disgusting even by her standards.

By the way, Canada's pseudo-"human rights" bureaucracies are in sustained systemic breach of key aspects of the UN Declaration, including the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. Having been on the receiving end of Commissioner Lynch's "human rights" for the best part of a year, I regard her as, at best, an ahistorical nitwit unfit for public office. But, if she's so eager to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the UN declaration, why doesn't she get her own thug bureaucracy to comply with it?

That's obviously a rhetorical query, since as Mark well knows, for "human rights" types like Ms. Lynch it is sufficient to be seen to genuflect in the general direction of the Universal Declaration; one needn't actually follow the sucker to the letter.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:24 | link | comments

Heh: Robert Spencer gives Little Lord Haw Haw a well-deserved spanking:

Not too long ago Ayaan Hirsi Ali was being interviewed by a Canadian tool (who ultimately went to work for Al-Jazeera), and he kept asking her why she didn't seem to think that American militarism and imperialism and such were just as dangerous as the threat of Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism. Finally, after several go-rounds about this, she told him that since he had grown up with freedom, he didn't value it, or understand how seriously it was being threatened.

And it was true: for him, and for so many in the U.S. today, Constitutional law, including the non-establishment of religion, is as certain as the air we breathe, and we cannot conceive of the possibility that anything could weaken the principles upon which this nation was founded. The freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law -- all these things are unassailable, aren't they?

No, they are being assailed today by increasingly assertive global forces, even as many in the U.S. who once had been aware of the threat turn to other matters. Some have lost interest, others have decided that other issues are more important. Still others have even turned on former allies and comrades-in-arms, opting to pursue imaginary threats rather than actual ones -- or, maybe because they see the way the wind is blowing, they have switched sides. Very few people today are even aware of, much less interested in, the Muslim Brotherhood's "grand jihad" to eliminate and destroy Western civilization "from within, sabotaging its miserable house." And that unawareness and indifference allows this endeavor to proceed apace.

Today, then, we should remember and be grateful to those who gave their lives to secure and protect these freedoms for us -- as if our gratitude could ever be sufficient or adequate. We should ponder the fact that they had to give their lives in order to secure these freedoms. We should remember that if we are not willing to give our own lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to protect the unalienable rights enumerated at the founding of this Republic, we will most assuredly lose both them and the Republic itself -- lose them for ourselves and for our children.

Let us never shrink from the task before us: the great struggle to defend human rights, human dignity, and freedom from oppression and injustice -- particularly the oppression and injustice, and assaults to human dignity that are enshrined in the Sharia that is coming, step-by-step, steadily and apparently inexorably, to a willfully ignorant and indifferent West.

Happy Veterans' Day.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:51 | link | comments

Hue and cry babies: This cover story in the latest issue of Toronto Life is causing no end of fuss. The article details the short, unhappy life of Aqsa Pervez, the Mississauga teen who insisted on having some say in her own wardrobe choices (she refused to wear a hijab) and was allegedly offed by her brother  for “dishonouring” her family. The usual suspects— i.e. Islamists and their useful lefty henchmen/idiots who would prefer Canadians be prevented from hearing and speaking the awful truth about “honour killings” (a terrible way to describe such crimes since there is nothing "honourable" about them)—are a-seething and a-squawking about the story. They’ve even set up a Facebook page, so everyone can vent his/her “hurt” feelings.

Aqsa, of course, will never get to air her hurt feelings, or any other feelings for that matter, since she’s dead and gone. Funny how the Leftoslamist  kvetchers seem to be far less concerned about that.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:41 | link | comments (1)

Anti-Zionism in the “Canadian context”: Who needs Al Jazeera when you can watch Omniyat TV—a program for Arab-Canadians on CFMT? Here’s how the show bills itself:

More than news and information, Omniyat (Wishes and Aspirations) reflects the collective inner spirit of its audience.

Omniyat covers community events and sheds the light on topics relevant to local Arabic speaking communities, exploring their different "wishes and aspirations" and sharing them with viewers.

The program is a team effort. Our team consists of a diverse group of enthusiastic women and men who are talented professionals and are very active in the community.

Through Omniyat, we hope to make a difference by promoting young artistic talents and encouraging new cross-cultural initiatives. We wish to portray Arab Canadians as part of the larger Canadian society interacting with their environment.

Sounds all nice and multicultural, right? But about 30 minutes ago, flipping channels in search of Remembrance Day ceremonies, I happened to catch the ruminations of an Irish chap—a documentary film maker—who was spewing the most vile anti-Israel propaganda. Apparently, reflecting the “wishes and aspirations” of the Omniyat audience involves pandering to the collective inner spirit that longs for the end of Israel.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:19 | link | comments

At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month...: We take A Pittance of Time to remember those who fought and died so we could have freedom.

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

Allah’s law comes a-knockin’: Frank J. Gaffney ponders the question of how Obama is likely to deal with the relentless pressure of those championing sharia. From JWR:

Senator Barack Obama became President-elect on the uplifting, if inexact, slogan, "Yes, we can." This week, there is growing evidence that people who have in mind doing away with the presidency of the United States — and all other aspects of our secular, democratic and constitutional form of government — are similarly convinced of their inevitable success. Judging by the sheer audacity of their agenda, "Yes, they can" would appear an apt description of the prospects for the Saudis and other champions of the totalitarian program they call Shariah.

In the run-up to an emergency summit outgoing President George Bush has called to address the now-global financial crisis, the oil-rich Islamists of the Persian Gulf led by Saudi Arabia have not only established that their petrodollars are indispensable to any solution. They also seem to have secured the Bush Administration's acquiescence to the sinister strings attached to any bail-out of the West in which they might participate.

Specifically, the Saudis and their friends want the United States to join those, particularly in Europe, who have accommodated themselves to Shariah. No, we are assured, they aren't taking about the brutal theo-political-legal code that features such barbaric practices as beheadings, floggings, stonings, amputations, female genital mutilation and misogyny more generally.

All they want, those in the know insist, is for Washington to encourage Wall Street — more and more of which is owned by the U.S. government — to embrace Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF). A Treasury Department seminar convened last week depicted SCF as nothing more than a kind of socially responsible investing vehicle that respects Muslim religious beliefs by eschewing interest-bearing transactions and those involving pork and "sin" stocks. So, what's the big deal? The Catholics, Methodists and Jews have their funds, why not the Muslims?...

What will the answer be when the Islamists insist that free speech must not allow the slander, libel or defamation of Shariah, or other aspects of their faith? If the European Union and the United Nations Human Rights Council have already accommodated themselves to this demand, why should we object? So what if, by so doing, we would effectively thereby be precluded from talking about — or even understanding — the Islamist threat we face, to say nothing of eviscerating the First Amendment? As the Treasury Department can attest, we need the money…

And, heaven knows, they’re in it (right, Ginger?): “They’re in the money/They’re in the money/They’ve got a lot to help install Islamic law…”

Update: The oleaginous Saudis sing:

We're in the money,
We're in the money;
We've got a lot to help install Islamic law.
We're in the money,
The sky is sunny;

Old Dar al-Harb, we’re gonna stick it down your craw.

Our land is full of gushers,
We’re tight with Russians and Cubans, too.
And when we see an opening
There’s no hope at all; your day is through.

We're in the money
Come on now, Sonny.
We’ll lend, you’ll spend,

And then it's curtains for you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:49 | link | comments

Jewish capos cheer demise of “right-wing Jewish lobby”; Islam Online remains dubious but hopeful: Lefty Jews in Israel are assuring all and sundry that Obama’s win means that the “Jewish lobby” will no longer be an impediment (to Israel’s extinction):

CAIRO — Akiva Eldar, the chief political columnist and editorial writer for Israel's Ha'aretz daily, has a clear message for US President-elect Barak Obama before he assumes office as America's 44th president.

 

"Obama has nothing to fear from the right-wing Jewish lobby," the prominent Israeli journalist and author wrote on Monday, November 10.

The Israeli lobby, led by the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is usually seen as a major factor in sharing America's Middle East foreign policy, especially regarding the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Obama had promised to be actively engaged as an Israeli-Arab conciliator early on in his term.

He once dismissed Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as "not helpful."

"My interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States."

But fears of excessive pro-Israel bias were stoked by Barak appointment of Rahm Emanuel, an American Jew who had volunteered at an Israeli army base during the Gulf war, as his chief of staff.

Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, Rahm's father, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel.

"Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying by the Jerusalem Post.

"Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

Emanuel personally escorted Obama last June when he gave a strongly pro-Israel speech to AIPAC and held a private meeting with AIPAC's Executive Board.

Better Chance

But Eldar, who served as Ha'aretz US Bureau Chief in the 1990's, believes Obama has all what it takes to break free from the strains of the Jewish lobby in the US.

"Obama won the Jewish electorate's sweeping support (78 percent)."

He stressed that Republican John McCain's pledge to move the American Embassy to occupied Jerusalem did not sway the Jewish voters.

"Last week's election proved again that domestic issues are of greater interest to American Jews than relations with Israel. The group that believes that territories are more important than peace is negligible."

The Israeli journalist notes that Obama will be serving in a far favorable atmosphere, giving him bigger room to draft his Mideast foreign policy.

"In contrast to the first president Bush, most of Washington's power centers will stand beside the first black president: The two houses of Congress have Democratic majorities, the press is in love."

He said a new generation of politicians who advocate an active American involvement in the Middle East peace process is being aided by J Street, a new Jewish lobby challenging AIPAC.

Eldar added that at least 31 Congressional candidates adopted by the organized Jewish peace camp defeated their opponents.

This, believes the Israeli journalist and author wrote, gives a new meaning for the "friend of Israel" concept which had become a synonym for supporters of the Israeli occupation.

The same argument was made earlier this week by Gideon Levy, another journalist for Haaretz and former spokesman for Shimon Peres.

"When we say that someone is a 'friend of Israel' we mean a friend of the occupation, a believer in Israel's self-armament, a fan of its language of strength and a supporter of all its regional delusions," he wrote.

"When we say someone is a 'friend of Israel' we mean someone who will give Israel a carte blanche for any violent adventure it desires, for rejecting peace and for building in the territories," added Levy.

"Let us now hope that Obama will not be like them…

Two comments: Rahm’s dad sounds like a senile wanker; and who needs eliminationists when Jews like these are lining up to crap on their own state?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments (3)

Refund, please: The Ceeb has found a new way to squander our tax dollars—on a “partnership” with Al Gore (lately displaced from his heavenly perch by a great black saviour):

Current TV, the interactive television network with one-third of its content created by media-savvy viewers, is coming to Canada.

CBC said Monday it has struck a deal with Al Gore's Current TV to create a website and digital special channel called Current Canada.

An application has been made to the federal broadcast regulator for a digital channel, but the website and channel are unlikely to be up until the end of 2009, according to CBC spokesman Jeff Keay.

CBC will have a controlling interest in Current Canada, but the nationwide channel is expected to pay its own way through advertising and other forms of revenue generation.

The channel is designed to appeal to young adult audiences by engaging them in creating video for the website and TV channel and commenting on other people's work. User-generated content that gets a following online has a better chance of going to air.

For example, the Current TV website in the U.S. invites viewers to choose which news stories seem most important to them.

The U.S. channel has work by musicians and artists as well as by web video makers interested in issues or youth culture.

In line with federal broadcasting rules, 35 per cent of the content on Current Canada will be Canadian. All user-generated content would be moderated by a team of Canadian producers.

"Current Canada will have the potential to dramatically alter the way Canadians interact with both television and online programming," Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president of CBC English Services, said in a statement.

"Based on the successful model of Current TV in the United States, the U.K. and Italy, we intend to fundamentally redefine some basic elements of how programs are created and evaluated. This includes the interesting notion of who gets to create programming."

At least a third of programming will be user-generated, but Keay said he did not know what other content would be shown. It would not be programming from CBC's main network, Newsworld or Bold, he said.

Former U.S. vice-president and environmental campaigner Gore bought Newsworld International in 2004 and created a 24-hour channel, Current TV, which is now available in 58 million households around the world.

That’s the scariest thing I’ve read in a while.

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

"MCMXIV": A poem by Philip Larkin, in honour of Remembrance Day 2008, the 90th anniversary of the Armistice of World War I:

Those long uneven lines
Standing as patiently
As if they were stretched outside
The Oval or Villa Park,
The crowns of hats, the sun
On moustached archaic faces
Grinning as if it were all
An August Bank Holiday lark;

And the shut shops, the bleached
Established names on the sunblinds,
The farthings and sovereigns,
And dark-clothed children at play
Called after kings and queens,
The tin advertisements
For cocoa and twist, and the pubs
Wide open all day;

And the countryside not caring
The place-names all hazed over
With flowering grasses, and fields
Shadowing Domesday lines
Under wheats' restless silence;
The differently-dressed servants
With tiny rooms in huge houses,
The dust behind limousines;

Never such innocence,
Never before or since,
As changed itself to past
Without a word--the men
Leaving the gardens tidy,
The thousands of marriages
Lasting a little while longer:
Never such innocence again.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:07 | link | comments (1)

Lord, what fools these dhimmis be!: A radical cleric who isn’t allowed to enter the U.K  because of supposedly tough new measures prohibiting his brand of radical preaching got around the rules—and made fools of British authorities—when he beamed in his image from afar. A miniscule but receptive fringe of extremists was on hand to hear his message—a fiery argument for the supremacy of Allah’s law. From thisislondon:

JUST days after Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced tough new measures to name and shame foreign-based extremists and prevent them coming from abroad to stir up hatred in the UK, firebrand preacher Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad cocked a snook at her new initiative, the Evening Standard can reveal.

More than 200 Muslims at a packed public meeting in Tower Hamlets were told by organiser Anjem Choudary: "We have a special surprise, a special treat for you. Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad will be joining us on a live feed from Lebanon." He added: "As Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister - Bush or Brown - or [to] Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah."

Choudary, who with Bakri led the fanatical Al-Muhajiroun organisation - notorious for its glorification of terrorism and the 9/11 attacks before its banning and dissolution in 2004 -warmed up the crowd, two Sundays ago, with his own inflammatory rhetoric.

"It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours," he said. "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street."

To loud cheers of "Allah Akbar" [God is great], he railed: "There are three types of Muslims, those in prison, those of us that are on our way [to prison] and non-practising Muslims. Brothers and sisters, if you do not fear your home being raided by the Kufar [non-believer] police, you are not enforcing the Sharia."

Later, in front of a huge banner that exhorted "Muslims rise against British oppression", he introduced the star turn, 50-year-old Omar Bakri, who was standing by in Lebanon. A giant screen, six-feet high and six-feet wide, had been set up to project the image of the extremist known as "the Tottenham Ayatollah". He was refused re-entry to the UK in 2005 as "not conducive to the public good" after vowing that Muslims would "give the West a 9/11 day after day after day".

But when a problem with the live internet video feed failed to yield a picture, Mr Choudary phoned his colleague from the stage and put the receiver to the microphone. The connection was loud and clear and Bakri spoke for 15 minutes.

Apart from a group of elders with long groomed white beards sitting in the front row, most of the 200 men in attendance were Muslims in their late teens or early 20s, mostly dressed in shalwar kameez with westernised accessories - trainers, hoodies and jackets. At the back of the hall, segregated by partitions, were more than 50 women wearing burkhas.

"Do not obey the British law," Bakri told them. He praised his hero Osama bin Laden for being a warrior and exclaimed: "We must fight and die for Islam - this is the map and road to Jennah [heaven]." He said that Muslims did not need to obey man-made laws and that if anyone ordered them to, they should say they are Muslims "loud and proud". He branded the new anti-extremist laws "crazy".

Indeed, it is the new rules, announced two weeks ago by Jacqui Smith, that are meant to prevent "preachers of hate from spreading extremism in our communities". Yet here was Bakri doing just that, potentially grooming the next batch of homegrown suicide bombers. And there was not a uniformed police officer in sight.

The four-hour meeting, organised by Choudary using a website called Islam For The UK, took place right under the noses of Tower Hamlets council in a community arts centre the council rents out at £78 an hour. But neither the council nor the police nor the Home Office appeared to realise that Bakri had broadcast live into the heart of London…

Who’s running the police and the Home Office—the Keystone Kops?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:54 | link | comments

More Obama fans: The eliminationists over at the U.N. can barely contain their glee over the election of a man whom they view as being most amenable to their type of “change”. Anne Bayefsky of the NRO has the horrid details:

…The U.N. apparatus has mapped out the priorities for President Obama’s early days in office (taking it for granted he’ll be hightailing it out of Iraq), and the only question is how fast President Obama will say “I do.” Here’s the plan now sitting on the President-elect’s desk:

Run for election to the U.N. Human Rights Council as a vote of confidence in the U.N. “human rights” apparatus and the ability to change it from the inside. (Forget that the U.S. would have one vote, that the Western regional group of states is overwhelmingly outnumbered, and that reform of an agency serving the human rights abusers is the last thing of interest to the abusers firmly in control.)

Decide to participate in the Durban II “anti-racism” conference in April 2009, and send along a high-level emissary such as the Secretary of State. It would be hard to run for re-election to the Human Rights Council without attending the Council’s number-one priority, which is scheduled to take place shortly before the election. (Ignore that Durban II is a unredeemable and dangerous fraud. It adopts an anti-racism mantra to foment racism, the demonization of Israel and the defeat of free speech.)

Revitalize the Middle East Quartet, which drives the Arab-Israeli conflict through a multilateral prism with the U.N. as a full and equal partner. (Dismiss the fact that the U.N. partner always weighs in on just one side of the conflict, adopting the predetermined position that Israel is the “root” of the problem and any Arab “peace” proposal is the solution.)

Put Israel on the chopping block. “Israel first” has long been the calling card of the UN. The U.N. governing principle is this: “if only Israel did x, y, and z,” (the list to be expanded in response to successive Arab no’s), animus against the West would cease, terrorism would stop, the messiah would appear, and there would be no more war. (This might be called the “ass-backwards approach to Middle East politics,” since Israel is actually on the front line of the war against democracy and America’s way of life, not bringing up the rear. Serving up an Israeli hors d’oeuvre is just that – first course.)

Drive the effort to stop terrorism through the 2006 United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. (The strategy contains no definition of terrorism since U.N. members can’t agree on what counts as terrorism. It inverts priorities by focusing first and foremost on alleged “conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism,” such as “poverty” and “youth unemployment” “religious discrimination” and “socio-economic marginalization.”  Plain old Jew-hatred or enmity of freedom and equality are mysteriously absent from the list of causes.)

Agree to some form of global taxation, giving rise to an even more powerful, wealthy, and undemocratic U.N. fiefdom (and a poorer America).

All that remains is for President Obama to put a date beside each one of the items on the U.N.’s first “to do” list. And down we’ll go. 

Such a pessimist, is our Anne. Everyone knows that Obama’s new chief of staff, that Jewish pit bull Rahm Emanuel, won’t allow his boss to toss Israel to the slavering jackals.

He’s tough, that Rahm.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:05 | link | comments

Media double standard: I’m happy for Ceeb correspondent Mellissa Fung that she was freed following 28 days of being held captive by “bandits” or “insurgents” or Taliban or what have you. I knew there was something that bugged me, though, about the media black-out that we have been assured was absolutely necessary to facilitate her release, and I’ve figured out what it is. I am bothered by the fact that the media are willing to come together and hush up an event that imperils one of their own, but that the New York Times, for one, thinks nothing of disclosing top-secret information that could put the lives of regular soldiers at risk.

There’s something very wrong about that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:47 | link | comments

Exqueeze me?: "The Museum of Tolerance celebrates 70th Anniversary of Kristallnacht."

Celebrates?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:03 | link | comments

Unity bites: The Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson explains why “unity”—a recurring theme of the Obama campaign—is something to be shunned, not embraced:

…Unity is a phantasm raising hopes for something that can't be delivered--or that, once delivered, would be so un-American it would scare us half to death. Yet unity was Obama's theme. The sales pitch was a proposition that seemed self-evident: The only way "to get things done" and "move this country forward" was to "bring us together," just as we believe Reagan did even though he didn't.

Whether Obama really thinks such a thing is possible is anybody's guess. He doesn't look like a cynic to me. As a career politician, he has been required by his profession to face opponents and defeat them if he wants to get his way. Division is what politicians do. He's got to know this, even if his blissed-out followers don't. In his endless campaign, though, he never stopped talking as if the clashing political interests and contending ideas of a big, complicated, self-governing country were all just a terrible misunderstanding. His final stump speech--which his campaign called, with customary pomposity, the "closing argument," as though the candidate had suddenly turned into Perry Mason--was drenched in togetherness. Right at the top he promised that his victory would "put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat  .  .  .  "

Obama's theatrical gift is such that his listeners seldom pause to think about what he's saying. He communicates through a kind of subverbal music, half-heard and absorbed rather than cogitated on. But consider that promise above. What kind of "politics .  .  . divides the nation just to win an election"? Well, every kind. Elections presuppose a divided nation; if the nation weren't divided it wouldn't need an election. Besides, politics, of whatever kind, doesn't cause the divisions; it expresses them and clarifies them. Experience shows that this method of expressing division is far preferable to the alternatives, which often involve bazookas. You will note too that he declares his contempt for a politics that pits Republicans against Democrats. Republicans pitted against Democrats? Horrifying. Please make it stop.

And of course Obama's chief pledge is to make it stop. He'll be elected and unity will ensue. But how? It goes without saying that the easiest way to unify the country is to eliminate those elements within it that make trouble for the unifier. Stalinists and Nazis were terrific at unifying countries. Their techniques are closed to him, of course, Obama being neither a Stalinist nor a Nazi but only a hardworking, ambitious, well-meaning American pol. But in dealing with the wayward elements, he has other options. He can declare that the nonunifiers are philosophically or morally indecent. Or he can pretend they don't exist.

Obama does both, depending on the rhetorical point he's trying to make. When his opponents dissented from his tax plan, he said they were making "a virtue of selfishness." They were, he said, coddling criminal CEOs and responding with Pavlovian discipline to the commands of sleazy lobbyists. They refused to honor American troops and veterans. Their cynicism was instinctual. Obama's "new politics of unity" would end "the old politics of division" by labeling those old politicians and their arguments irredeemably corrupt, hence unworthy of consideration. Obama's supporters were asked to divide the country between those who were united--that would be them--and those who weren't, for whatever reason. In a platform trick reminiscent of Huey Long, Obama actually asked his supporters during campaign rallies how much money they made, the better to drive them away from the unsavory, nonunited elements that earn more than they do…

For those who prefer messy divisiveness to mushy hopey-changey “togetherness,” it looks like it’s going to be a long 4-8 years.

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

Odd men out: While much of the world continues to hail the Obama win, one country has already leapt off the bandwagon. From the Jerusalem Post:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has great admiration for his own fortune-telling capabilities. For years, he has been making all kinds of predictions. Among his most famous are the destruction of Israel and the end of the "US empire."

In March 2008, he made another prediction. "They would not allow Obama to become the US president," the Iranian president declared confidently in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

This new failure in his clairvoyance has probably disappointed the president.

Nevertheless, he took the time to congratulate the man he thought would never become US president by saying, "Teheran welcomes basic and fair changes in US policies and conducts."

He added what is obviously his idea of helpful advice: "I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem."

Despite this message, the conservative hard-line camp in Iran is worried about the overwhelming enthusiasm and support for the US that Obama's election has created around the world. A popular American president who talks about peace and wants to negotiate with Iran would take away their justification for leading the anti-American front in the Middle East. Furthermore, increased international support and credibility for the United States represents a more serious challenge to Iran, especially if the international community initiates new sanctions against Teheran. All this while oil prices are falling.

This is why efforts are already efforts under way in the Iranian press to tarnish Obama's image.

"A hawk in a dove's outfit" is the way the right-wing newspaper Keyhan described Obama in a front page article the day after his election. The article puts special emphasis on what it calls "Obama's praise of America's actions in Afghanistan and George Bush Sr.'s war in Iraq." It goes on to say, "Obama has never been peace-seeking."

Jomhuriye Eslami, another right-wing newspaper, has gone a step further. It headlined an editorial, "That Black Man Will Never Change US Policy." It went on to say that despite Obama's victory, US policy will remain the same because of "the structure of the American regime, which was established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists."

In other words, Obama's victory won't change the fact that, to Iran's leadership, America remains a racist state controlled by Israel…

Boy, was that a short honeymoon.  Looks like President Obama has his work cut out for him with these lunatics.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:09 | link | comments

The price of freedom: Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted that, as per Canadian policy, no ransom was paid to the abductors of Ceeb correspondent Mellissa Fung. However, as Norman Spector points out in the Globe and Mail, money may not have exchanged hands, but her release did come at a cost:

First, a disclaimer.

I learned about the abduction of Mellissa Fung one day after it occurred -- the day before the federal election. And I agreed with the decision of media organizations not to publicize it, for the reason set out in Les Perreaux's fine article in today's Globe and Mail entitled A question of whether no news is good news

"Experts argued it was also a time of deep peril for Ms. Fung. While her case may have become an election issue, an online video of her execution would have caused an even greater uproar, had her kidnappers known her potential value."

Still, as Mr. Perreaux's article points out, no one expected the embargo to continue as long as it did. Indeed, according to a report in yesterday's La Presse, both that paper and The Globe and Mail asked the CBC last Friday why a continuation of the boycott was deemed necessary.

And the fact is there have been a number of similar cases where media organizations have chosen to publicize kidnappings immediately.

Nor were the statements on the weekend by the Prime Minister and the Publisher of CBC News to the effect that no ransom had been paid completely satisfying.

In an article Two Taliban leaders swapped for Canadian journalist published in today's on-line version of the "Pakistan Observer," we learn that a price may have been paid for Ms. Fung's release:

"Two Taliban leaders held in Afghanistan on charges of terrorism and murder of foreign troops have been released in exchange of a Canadian journalist kidnapped about a month ago and freed on Saturday . . .

"Afghan forces in Afghanistan initially claimed that the Canadian journalist was freed as a result of an operation while other sources suspected that a 'heavy ransom' was paid for her freedom. However an Afghan source Sunday confirmed that she was released only after Canadian and Afghan Governments had agreed to release the two 'dangerous militants'," the Pakistan Observer article added.

If this report is accurate, it raises some difficult questions about negotiating with the enemy that Mr. Harper will have to answer.

As long as the swap-ees were “non-hardcore” Taliban and not the “hardcore” variety, I’m sure it’s okay.

Update: The Canadian government is denying reports about the prisoner exchange.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:13 | link | comments (1)

A house of a different colour: In a letter to the Globe and Mail, Ottawa’s Douglas Cornish, a gentleman possessed of exquisite sensitivities, poses a timely question. Idiotic, but timely:

Re They Don't Call It The White House For Nothing (Focus, Nov. 8): Peter Scowen observes that white is the colour of most U.S. presidents' hair by the time they've been in office a few years, and that is probably true. But is the name "White House" still suitable, given that, for the first time, a black man is going to be president?

What do you suggest, Doug--that they lose the white and rename it “Barry’s Place”?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments (2)

A brand NOI day: There’s one virulently anti-Zionist religious figure who’s delighted by the Obama win and the change it connotes—and I don’t mean Reverend Jeremiah Wright (oddly enough, the rev seems to be keeping mum for now). From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan told his congregation Sunday he saw a "oneness of spirit" among the multitudes who rallied and celebrated Barack Obama's presidential victory at Grant Park and around the nation -- a victory, he contends, God directed.

But he stressed Obama's supporters have the responsibility to stay engaged and help his presidency be a successful one, particularly given the dire state of the nation's and global economies, continuing foreign policy challenges and a high national debt that he said has put the future of America's children at risk.

While labeling Obama's upcoming responsibility of leading the nation a "horrible burden," Farrakhan said Obama has the vision to be successful, with God's help, and a "tremendous capacity to handle what God has put on his shoulders."

The controversial leader stayed quiet during the presidential campaign after voicing his support for Obama at a Chicago Saviors' Day event in February. Farrakhan said he didn't want any of his comments to hurt Obama's campaign.

But in a sermon at the packed Mosque Maryam on the South Side on Sunday, Farrakhan spoke of the joy he saw after Obama's win, reflected in the tears of Oprah Winfrey, which he said matched the tears of the young and old, black, brown and white, and also included the gang-banger.

Obama's campaign "unleashed a spirit that brought more hope" to the world among its diverse people, a hope that he'd never before witnessed in life, Farrakhan said.

But Farrakhan cautioned that America still remains polarized. While commending Sen. John McCain's concession speech, he said it was insufficient to relieve the strain of loss by some of McCain's supporters, many of whom reside below the Mason-Dixon line, "where racial attitudes and traditions die hard." He called on pollsters to examine how deep the divide is and said pastors, teachers and others should work to change those attitudes.

He also warned Congress and others not to "hamstring" Obama as he works to bring about positive change to the country and the world.

On the foreign-policy front, he said Obama should not be goaded into war with Iran because of unsubstantiated nuclear weapon fears.

"It would be suicide for Iran to entertain the thought of using any nuclear weapons against Israel or any other country," he said.

But if Iran truly is only seeking to use nuclear power as an alternative to oil, America should be able to verify that assertion, he noted...

Thanks for the foreign policy wisdom, Lou. I’m sure we’ll hear a lot more of it—and you—in coming days.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:18 | link | comments (1)

Someone left the birthday cake out in the rain: I think it was a party-pooping Saudi sheik.  From AP (link via Hot Air):

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia -- When Hala Masaad invited her girlfriends over to celebrate her 18th birthday with cake and juice, the high school student was stepping into an unusual public debate. Is celebrating birthdays un-Islamic?

Saudi Arabia's most senior Muslim cleric recently denounced birthday parties as an unwanted foreign influence, but another prominent cleric declared they were OK.

 That has left Masaad with mixed feelings about her low-key celebration last month. She loves birthday parties, she says, because they make her feel that she has "moved from one stage of life to another."

"But I sometimes feel I'm doing something haram," she said sheepishly, using the Arabic word for "banned."

The Saudi ban on birthdays is in line with the strict interpretation of Islam followed by the conservative Wahhabi sect adhered to in the kingdom. All Christian and even most Muslim feasts are also prohibited because they are considered alien customs the Saudi clerics don't sanction.

Only the Muslim feasts of Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the holy fasting month of Ramadan, and Eid al-Adha, which follows the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, are permitted.

Elsewhere in the Muslim world, including in Egypt, Dubai, Lebanon and Iran, people routinely celebrate birthdays, especially for children. Among middle-class and affluent families, parties can be elaborate, with cakes, toys, clowns, ponies and many presents. In Egypt, the prophet Muhammad's birthday is celebrated by handing out special sweets -- in the shape of a doll for girls and a horse for boys.

Even in Saudi Arabia, it's not hard to find Saudis who celebrate birthdays or stores that cater to putting on parties, despite the ban.

What makes the latest controversy notable is that it started when a prominent cleric, Salman Awdah, said on a popular satellite TV program in August that it was OK to mark birthdays and wedding anniversaries with parties as long as the Arabic word that describes the events -- eid, or "feast" -- is not used.

That prompted a quick denunciation by Saudi Arabia's grand mufti and top religious authority, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al Sheik, who said such celebrations had no place in Islam and gave a list of foreign customs he suggested were unacceptable.

"Christians have Mother's Day, an eid for trees and an eid for every occasion," said Al Sheik, who also heads the Presidency for Scientific Research and Religious Edicts, speaking to Al Madina newspaper. "And on every birthday, candles are lit and food is given out."

There is no question that the television remarks by Awdah, who is not employed by the country's religious establishment, contradicted several fatwas, or religious edicts, issued by senior Saudi clerics over the years.

One such ruling, by the previous mufti, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Baz, said Muslims should not emulate the West by celebrating birthdays -- even that of Muhammad, which is marked in most other Middle Eastern countries as a holiday.

"It's not permissible to take part in them," he said. "Birthday parties are an innovation . . . and people are in no need of innovations."

Still, some Saudis welcomed a loosening of the prohibition.

"Allowing such celebrations can be an element that can strengthen ties among people and contribute to an increase in the happy occasions in our society," wrote Ibrahim Dawood in a column in the newspaper Al Eqtisadiah.

Others, including several prominent Muslim scholars, issued statements backing the ban and denouncing Awdah.

Sheik Abdullah Manie, a member of the Council of Senior Scholars, said Awdah's remarks were a "slip of the tongue that he should retract."

"We Muslims should have our identity that sets us apart and makes us proud," he said in a statement.

Some Saudis worry the controversy will be used by conservative members of the religious establishment, including the religious police, as a green light to crack down on all celebrations.

Despite the continuous fatwas against them, it's not hard to find merchandise for celebrating birthdays, anniversaries or even Western holidays like Valentine's Day. But importing the items can be tricky for shop owners.

One store owner said it's hard to say when shipments will be intercepted. A month ago, an order of balloons, hats and banners was confiscated, said the owner, who did not want to be identified.

Still, business was brisk at one gift store recently, where parties might cost from $4,000 to $32,000, depending on the decorations, giveaways and number of guests.

Customers can browse albums of wall decorations, table settings and cakes, and order party bags with coloring books and school supplies.

But one Jidda resident, Riham Ahmed, 20, said she didn't like birthdays. "It's enough to have two eids," said the economics major. "My birthday is a normal day. Even my parents don't congratulate me."

Her sister Arwa agreed.

"I missed my 25th birthday by two days [in August] and only remembered it when I checked the calendar for prayer times," she said. "I don't like it when someone tells me, 'Happy birthday.' It's like a reminder that I'm getting closer to death."

In that case, Happy Birthday, Arwa.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:19 | link | comments

No hopey-changey bug juice for Mel: Melanie Phillips is another sourpuss who can't seem to get with the swooner program. Thank heavens:

In Britain, there is a collective swoon over the election of Barack Obama. Media superlatives have exhausted the lexicon of cliches. Journalists wept with joy over his acceptance speech. Even members of the Conservative shadow cabinet are firmly in the fan club. There’s been nothing like it since… well, I was going to say Dianamania, but actually the person who most comes to mind at this moment is Britain’s former prime minister, Tony Blair.

Like Obama, Blair took the country by storm when he won the first of his three general elections in 1997and threw the Conservative party completely off balance (indeed, it still hasn’t recovered). Like Obama, Blair was charismatic, eloquent, hip, and relaxed, in cruel contrast to the bunch of sleazy, incompetent throwbacks to the paleolithic era in the departing Conservative administration. Like Obama, Blair was seen as a messiah figure, who would lay his hands upon a broken nation and bring healing where there was discord. And like Obama, Blair had an agenda of change.

Blair was widely considered to be a conservative cuckoo in the Labour nest. Indeed, he came to power because he symbolically trashed the party’s commitment to state-control socialism, thus establishing his credentials as a centrist. What few realized at the time was that in fact he was a radical of a different stripe. He wanted to remake Britain and even change human nature itself, wiping out prejudice and ushering in a new world order of progressivism.

Accordingly, his government either directly promoted or did nothing to stop the long march through Britain’s institutions — the systematic undermining of the country’s fundamental values and traditions, in line with the cultural Marxism strategy of the philosopher Antonin Gramsci. It tore up Britain’s (unwritten) constitution, devolving power to Scotland and changing the composition of the upper parliamentary chamber, the House of Lords, destroying the delicate equilibrium of the balance of power.

It also set about changing the identity of the country. Promoting the doctrine of multiculturalism, it opened Britain’s doors to mass immigration. In the state-controlled schools, teachers no longer saw their role as the transmission of Britain’s historic culture, which was “racist”; accordingly, children were not taught the history of their country, but instead a concept of ‘citizenship’ which was all about changing the values of the country. It undermined marriage, promoting instead “lifestyle choice” by incentivising lone parenthood (official forms no longer refer to husband and wives, merely “partners”). It discouraged prison sentences because criminals were said to be victims of life and jail would make them worse.

Obama has talked about remedying what he sees as the flaws in the U.S. Constitution which promotes only “negative liberties,” or freedom from something rather than positive rights to something. Well, through human-rights legislation Britain has exchanged its historic concept of “negative” liberty — everything is permitted unless it is actively prohibited — for the ‘positive’ European idea that only what is codified is to be permitted.

As a result, freedom has shrunk to what ideology permits. Equality legislation has cemented a “victim culture” under which the interests of all groups deemed to be powerless (black people, women, gays ) trump those deemed to be powerful (white people, men, Christians). Since this doctrine holds that the “powerless” can do no wrong while the “powerful” can do no right, injustice is thus institutionalized, and anyone who queries the preferential treatment afforded such groups is vilified as a racist or bigot.

All this constitutes a profoundly illiberal culture in which no dissent is permitted, group is set against group and intimidation is the order of the day. And this also happens to be the culture of ACORN, of the radical groups funded by the Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund, and the ‘educational’ or criminal justice ideas of William Ayers, endorsed by Barack Obama.

Just as Britain thinks the “powerless” can do no wrong at home, so it thinks the third world can do no wrong abroad — and even when they fly planes into American buildings, the blame therefore lies with America for behaving badly in the first place. It is hard to exaggerate the virulent hatred of America that has been coursing through Britain these past eight years.

The reason was that America had dared to defend itself by use of force, riding roughshod over the U.N., and thus, it was said, putting the rest of the world at risk; and that it wanted to export its values to countries which did not live under democracy and the rule of law because it thought that these values were superior to their own. Britain thought this was an imperialism which had cost thousands of lives — and that America was to blame for Islamic violence in the first place because it supported Israel.

Now, however, the refrain in Britain is that “now we can all love America again.” Britain is ecstatic that America has elected an apparently antiwar president in a time of war. Some might think this is a form of national suicide. But Britain recognizes Obama as one of its own. That is because Britain’s intelligentsia and political class is signed up to “transnational progressivism” which holds that the nation is the source of all the ills in the world because it is inherently racist…

However, the truth is that a designated victim group be every bit as prejudiced as anyone else (see previous post)--something the multicultists refuse to acknowledge because to do so would call into question their basic premise about racism and "evil" nationalism. And if they did acknowledge that victims of bigotry can themselves be bigots, the build up of cognitive dissonance would cause their heads to explode.

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

Oops!: The law of unintended consequences kicked in—big time—in California this week. As a record number of African-Americans turned out to cast a ballot for their guy, they were accompanied into the voting booth by their own prejudice—one that helped scupper gay marriage in the state. Of course, people know who’s really at fault here: the Mormons. From the Canadian Press:

WASHINGTON — Aja and Miriam Aguirre rushed their trip to the altar in San Francisco a few weeks ago, fearful that the state of California might vote in favour of banning same-sex marriage on election day.

Their fears proved accurate.

Yet as angry as the newlyweds are, they're almost as outraged at the suggestion that African-Americans are to blame, especially as the country basks in the glow of Barack Obama's historic election.

"I refuse to perpetuate a cycle of oppression because someone is telling me who to blame, who is at fault for my status as a second-class citizen,where I might displace my anger and frustration and outrage," Aja Aguirre said Sunday, despite fears that her marriage could conceivably be deemed illegitimate.

"I won't do that because it is false in every way. I know better than that. I hope we all do."

A bitterly ironic battle has erupted in California in the days since Obama was elected the first black president in American history, a victory many African-Americans are hoping signals an end to generations of repression.

Proposition 8, banning the right of same-sex couples to wed, passed by more than three percentage points in the reliably Democratic state.

Much of that margin came from a flood of as many as 500,000 new black voters turning out to cast their ballots for Obama. According to various polls, African-American voters supported the ban by 70-30 per cent, while whites were slightly opposed and Hispanics evenly split.

"I'm not sure what to do with this," Dan Savage, a well-known gay advice columnist, wrote on his blog in the aftermath of the vote.

"I'm thrilled that we've just elected our first African-American president ... but I can't help feeling hurt that the love and support aren't mutual."

The African-American community, Savage said, has a problem with homophobia that needs to be confronted.

"I'm done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there - and they're out there, and I think they're scum - are a bigger problem for African-Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African-Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their colour."

In the midst of such heated talk and hurt feelings, a rally late last week against Proposition 8 in Los Angeles turned ugly.

"It was like being at a Klan rally except the Klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks," said one attendee, a gay black man.

The UCLA student said he was twice called the n-word.

But many argue it's not race that is to blame for Proposition 8, but the religious right. It was the Mormon church that pushed to get the measure on the ballot, after all…

After all. What kind of world would this be if you couldn't blame Black homophobia on the Mormons?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:24 | link | comments

Mythic man in the mirror: I’m delighted to report that Diana West is every bit as cranky as Michael Coren. Here she is in Townhall, taking on some shiny, happy hopey-changey types:

If we really inhabited a "post-racial" world, the news of the week would be that a Democrat has won the White House. But since we don't inhabit such a world, there is much more to the news, even more than that an African-American, far-left Democrat has won the White House.

The New York Times' Thomas Friedman clued us in the morning after, waxing rhapsodic (or something): "And so it came to pass that on Nov. 4, 2008, shortly after 11 p.m. Eastern time, the American Civil War ended, as a black man -- Barack Hussein Obama -- won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States. A civil war that, in many ways, began at Bull Run, Va., on July 21, 1861, ended 147 years later via a ballot box in the very same state."

As befitting a Pulitzer-Prize winner, Friedman was only just warming up ("For nothing more symbolically illustrated the final chapter of America's Civil War than the fact that" blah blah...). But there were others taking up a similar battle cry. Madeleine M. Kunin, former governor of Vermont (and, as she also bills herself, eternal "first woman governor" of Vermont) declared at the online Huffington Post that the election of Barack Obama "is, in a sense, the culmination of Lincoln's quest -- a more perfect union."

And, well, so it came to pass that in those earliest hours of the new era that Spike Lee went on MSNBC to tell us will heretofore be known as AB (After Barack, natch, with all past millennia relegated to BB, Before Barack), the Civil War ended, and Lincoln's "more perfect union" was achieved. What next -- or, perhaps, why bother? That is, who could ask for anything more?

One answer is Menachem Rosensaft, who, elsewhere on Huffpo, pushed the election results into a somewhat different cosmic direction. "On Nov. 4, 2008, at 11 pm," he wrote, "Robert Kennedy finally won."

I rubbed my eyes but Rosensaft continued: "Forty years after his assassination shattered dreams and brought his quest to change America to a sudden, brutal halt, Robert Kennedy reached the goal that had been denied him in life."

Now I was starting to get it. Candidate Obama, whom the media permitted to remain a political cipher behind the flowing messiah robes, is now President-Elect Obama, magic mirror of historical redress…

Wasn’t it Gertrude Stein who remarked that “a Rosensaft is a Rosensaft is a Rosensaft”? How right she was!

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:06 | link | comments

Rock ‘em sock ‘em monks: Now, there’s an expression I bet you thought you’d never read. From CNN:

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- An unusual sight greeted Jerusalem police as they entered one of Christianity's holiest sites Sunday morning: dozens of monks punching and kicking each other in a massive brawl.

Monks from the Greek Orthodox and Armenian denominations were preparing for a ceremony at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the Old City when a disagreement led to a full-fledged fistfight.

The fight began when Armenian clergy were holding a procession to commemorate the finding of the cross believed to have been used in the crucifixion of Jesus, according to The Associated Press.

The Greek members of the clergy wanted one of their monks present, the AP reported, for fear that the procession would undermine their claim to an ancient structure built on what is believed to be the tomb of Jesus.

The two sides could not agree, and when the Armenians tried to begin the procession, the Greek monks stepped in and the fighting began, the AP reported.

"We were keeping resistance so that the procession could not pass through ... and establish a right that they don't have," a young Greek Orthodox monk with a cut next to his left eye told the AP.

Many among the dozens of monks came away with cuts and bruises, said police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld.

Officers were called to the scene to break up the brawl. They detained two monks, one from each denomination, Rosenfeld said.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is thought to be built on the site of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Rivalries between the different sects that share control of the church often lead to tensions.

If Greek Orthodox monks and Armenian monks can’t get along, what chance is there for Israelis and Palestinians? J

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:34 | link | comments

Advice for Obama’s first hundred days: One of my favourite Americans, John Bolton, has some sage words for the pres-elect. From the Telegraph:

…Nearly six years of European diplomacy has failed to slow Iran's nuclear program. Five UN Security Council Resolutions demanding that Iran halt uranium enrichment (and imposing risibly weak sanctions) have had essentially no effect.

Russia in particular is using Iran as the sharp tip of the spear to disrupt our policy throughout the Middle East. Moscow will watch what you do just as intently as Tehran. Any new President will be advised to engage in at least some renewed diplomatic effort. But do not be fooled. Insist on three months of intense, good-faith negotiations, and we will soon find out if Iran is serious.

If not, which I believe to be demonstrably the case, suspend negotiations quickly. Then, ratchet up efforts on the only options, unattractive though they are, that have a chance of stopping Iran from acquiring deliverable nuclear weapons: regime change or the targeted use of military force against Iran's nuclear program.

If you wait longer, you will surely have the worst of all worlds: Iran with nuclear weapons, and an even greater threat of nuclear proliferation as other Middle Eastern states draw the appropriate conclusions from its success at thwarting our non-proliferation efforts…

America's Image

Do not let global "public opinion" about the United States, from Albania to Zimbabwe, dissuade you from doing what you think is right for America. Your job is to defend and advance our interests and values, a task which invariably will displease our adversaries, and even many of our friends, especially those who wish we were, well, more European in our behaviour and attitudes.

What we must do, however, is more effectively advocate the policies you will be pursuing. Failure at both the political level in Washington and abroad, and at the level of the career Foreign Service, made the Bush Administration one of the most tongue-tied Presidencies in our history. We should try to shift international public opinion to support our policies, not modify our policies to try to satisfy international public opinion. The State Department will not understand this distinction. You must.

A final word

Many U.S. and foreign commentators have been quick to tell us that America is in decline, and that our role in the future will not be what it once was. They will be correct only if you fall prey to their pessimism.

And if you do, rest assured that they will shortly turn critical of "American isolationism," just as they have been critical in recent years of "American unilateralism." You will never satisfy them. Defend America and its friends, and the rest will take care of itself.

I think the intended recipient of this advice can be depended on—to ignore most if not all of it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:25 | link | comments

Somalis in different “contexts”: The Telegraph reports that Somalis in the U.K. have been sending lots of shekels back home to help fund a notorious gang of jihadis; the group is said to be behind the recent stoning of a 13-year-old girl.

Could the same thing be happening here in Canada? Perish the thought. At least, that's the modus operendi of some well-meaning Jews--who have taken a number of young Somalis under their wing in a mentorship program.

But then, there's a huge difference between Somalis in Canada and Somalis in the U.K. You see, when Somalis spend some time here in the "Canadian context," they undergo a remarkable transformation--a "paradigm shift," if you will. Whereas Somalis in "the U.K. context" are more resistant to shifting.

Hey, U.K.--why not send us your Somalis so we can "shift" them? We can always send them back later on, after they've undergone the "change".

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:08 | link | comments (1)

Hostage drama: Ceeb correspondent Mellissa Fung was kidnapped nearly a month ago in Afghanistan, but due to a news blackout, her abduction came to light only yesterday, after her rescue. Here she is recounting some of her ordeal (in the Ottawa Citizen):

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- CBC-TV reporter Mellissa Fung described being held in grim conditions in a cave for four weeks before before being freed, the reporter said in a videotape released Sunday.

Fung was released unharmed Saturday after being taken hostage a month ago near the Afghan capital, Kabul. She was seen for the first time since her abduction in a video handout by Afghanistan's intelligence agency, which secured her release.

"The cave was very, very small," Fung said of the hole in which she was detained by her kidnappers. "It was about five and a half feet deep. It led to a tunnel and then a room."

When asked by a security officer if she was beaten, Fung, wearing a head scarf and an army camouflage jacket, said: "No, they never hurt me.

"They kept me blindfolded, but not the whole time," she said. "They chained me. . . . Just my hands and legs for the first three weeks." "Finally last night around 8:30 p.m. local we . . . successfully raided a house and rescued Ms. Mellisa Fung who works for CBC of Canada. The raid was conducted in one of the villages of Maidan Wardak province," Intelligence Agency spokesman, Saeed Ansari, said Sunday. He said three people have been arrested, "who are the second level of people involved in this case . . . Our security forces are seriously chasing the other people."

Ansari said he could not reveal further details of the investigation into Fung's kidnaping.

In the video, Fung is shown speaking on a phone reportedly with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but there is no audio with the video. She goes on to name her captors as she knew them to be called.

The 35-year-old reporter is then shown being hugged by Ron Hoffmann, the Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan. "I don't smell great," she told Hoffmann. "I'm okay . . . I'm sorry about this."

Hoffmann is shown thanking Afghan officials on behalf of Prime Minister Stephen Harper before escorting Fung to a waiting vehicle to the Canadian embassy.

Fung was taken hostage Oct. 12 after her vehicle was stopped on the way to a UN refugee camp. Her kidnapping was kept quiet at the request of the CBC out of concern for Fung's safety.

The hostage takers are thought to be criminals, not Taliban or other insurgents…

Or perhaps they were some of those “non-hardcore” Taliban we’ve heard so much about.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:24 | link | comments

Last rites: Some of the faithful gathered in Indonesia today to give a trio of their own an emotional send off. From Reuters:

TENGGULUN, Indonesia (Reuters) - Three Indonesian militants executed on Sunday for the 2002 Bali bombings were buried by their families at ceremonies attended by thousands of supporters shouting "Allahu akbar" (God is greatest).

Some analysts had warned of a hardline backlash but the funerals went off relatively peacefully, despite some scuffles with police and reporters.

The three men from the militant group Jemaah Islamiah -- Imam Samudra, 38, Mukhlas, 48, and Amrozi, 46 -- were executed by firing squad on Nusakambangan island in central Java shortly after midnight, the attorney-general's office said.

The two explosions on Bali's Kuta strip on October 12, 2002 killed 202 people, including 88 Australians and 38 Indonesians.

"People need to be vigilant and there's a possibility of someone responding to the appeal of the three dead men but I don't think people should believe that there will automatically be some active terrorism," Sidney Jones, a security expert from the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, said.

In an interview with Reuters last year, the militants said their only regret was that some Muslims were killed.

Emotions ran high as thousands of people poured onto the streets for the funerals after the bodies were flown by helicopter to their home towns -- brothers Mukhlas and Amrozi to Tenggulun in East Java, and Samudra to Serang in West Java.

About 3,000 people gathered when Samudra's body, covered in a black shroud with Islamic inscriptions, was carried to a mosque. Some jostled to touch the body or help carry the bier.

In Tenggulun, thousands of militant Islamists from various groups had gathered, shadowed by armed police.

People chanted "Goodbye Syuhada (heroes)" and "Allahu akbar" as the bodies of Mukhlas and Amrozi were taken from the mosque to an Islamic boarding school where controversial cleric Abu Bakar Bashir led prayers for the brothers.

Bashir, who has been accused of co-founding regional militant group Jemaah Islamiah, was jailed for conspiracy over the Bali bombings, but later cleared of wrongdoing.

Earlier, there were some clashes with the police as authorities tried to prevent the crowd from getting too close to the bodies…

It’s so touching when a tiny minority of extremists has an excuse to get together and perform the Java Jive (“We hate coffee, we hate tea/We hate the infidel it’s plain to see…” ).

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:28 | link | comments

Great expectations: Tzipi Livni—think of her as the un-Obama, since no one sees her as the answer to anyone’s prayers—says Israel is fully onside with the Palestinian state the world is willing into existence, with one big proviso. From the Jerusalem Post:

Israel recognizes the need to establish a Palestinian state, provided that it is not a terrorist one, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the Middle East Quartet on Sunday. Livni said peace negotiations with the Palestinian leadership were being conducted "seriously and intensively."

At the Sharm e-Sheikh meeting, Livni and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas briefed the Quartet on the status of talks in their first joint address to the body since the start of the Annapolis process in November 2007. At the end of a meeting, Quartet representatives said they would support the current process but would not intervene.

In a statement issued after the meeting, the Quartet emphasized the importance of continuing the negotiations regardless of leadership changes.

"The Quartet...underlined its commitment to the irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations," it said.

Livni asked that the international community exhibit tolerance and respect to the two sides and allow them to conduct the negotiations on their own.

"We support political and economical aid to a Palestinian leadership that recognizes Israel, respects its agreements with it and fights terrorism," she said. "We expect the international community to support us in preventing extremism and terrorism."…

Silly Tzipi. Don’t you know that the international community is fully committed to preventing “extremism and terrorism”—of the Zionist Apartheid state? What do you think that whole Durban II shindig is all about?  As for the interminable peace process (which is all process and no peace), it meets the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If only a Deus ex Machina could descend from the skies and “fix” everything…

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

The Saviour as silencer: Quick, somebody get Michael Coren a big glass of that hopey-changey Kool-Aid. He’s under the misapprehension that the Saviour’s election isn’t the dawn of a brand new rainbowy day, and that it may, in fact, signal the end of free speech in America. (Coren--an equal-opportunity curmudgeon--has some harsh words for the other side, too):

A young student friend e-mailed my on Tuesday night.

"Have locked myself in my room because the place is full of little idiots -- who cannot spell Barack Obama's name and could not name one of his foreign or domestic policies -- running around screaming obscenities about George Bush, conservatives and how Sarah Palin is a bitch. I love democracy!"

Even so, the people spoke. A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere.

A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon.

Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meagre political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative.

Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition…

Those who love freedom and have faith in the individual believe in fighting bad speech with good speech. Those who pay lip service to freedom and put their faith in big government and its factotums, believe in fighting bad speech (speech that is genuinely bad—i.e. racist and hateful—as well as speech that they have deemed bad simply because it’s out of synch with their way of thinking) with censorship. It appears that the Obama bunch subscribe to the latter, alas.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:10 | link | comments

 Harpoon’s “big picture”: The Toronto Star’s highly esteemed Islamic pundit Harpoon Siddiqui surveys the Muslim world—crises galore in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Syria—and says the pres-elect had better knock it off with the American belligerence that’s behind them all (except for the “crisis” in Gaza, which, naturally, is Israel’s fault):

…One can argue over the rationale for each of these attacks – Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, bad intelligence about Taliban hideouts in Afghanistan, or alleged trafficking of terrorists from Syria to Iraq – but there's no escaping the conclusion that there's no overarching strategy. Or if there is, it is not working.

We are told that the U.S. and its allies are not engaged in a clash of civilizations. But, given the above list, they are widely seen to be.

Pope Benedict – who foolishly fuelled just such a perception with his ill-informed comments about Islam two years ago – has grasped the seriousness of the Muslim-Christian divide. He has just hosted a high-ranking Muslim delegation at the Vatican to open a dialogue.

There are some other positive signs, albeit too few.

The Syrian-Israeli peace talks, conducted through Turkey, are still said to be on track. Tony Blair, the international envoy for the Middle East, is still at it.

Pakistani and Afghan leaders are searching, with Saudi help, for ways to open a dialogue with non-hardcore Taliban elements.

Obama has no option but to see the big picture of U.S.-Muslim relations. Otherwise, he may end up as ineffective as his predecessors.

Non-hardcore Taliban elements, eh? Since Harpoon seems to think such a creature exists (an idea that makes about as much sense as non-hardcore Khmer Rouge elements or non-hardcore Nazi elements) I nominate him to make contact and open a dialogue with them. Maybe they can bond over a map of the “big picture”—the one showing Dar al-Islam (the Islamic world) in green, and Dar al-Harb (the portion of the world ruled by non-believers and thus still up for grabs) in, er, non-green. And he’s right. If Obama is to be at all effective, he has to be able to see this “big picture,” too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:25 | link | comments

You can’t defeat militant Islam with militant mush: Why were the Ottomans turned back at the Gates of Vienna in 1683, thus ensuring the survival of Western civilization? It was because they faced a formidable Christendom that refused to surrender. And why is our current-day civilization not up to the task of turning back the relentless tide of Islamism? It is because Christendom isn’t what it used to be, and because what has arisen in its place—radical secularism—has neither the wit not the will to fend off the invasion. A piece on the NRO site has more about radical secularism, and how it is helping usher in the new era of Western capitulation:

…In an important chapter [of his new book America’s Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New National Religion Herb] London delineates [the radical secularists’] six central principles, what he calls the “articles of a possible secularist catechism.” Listen closely, and we can hear several of them reverberate in this presidential election season.

The first doctrine is that “[t]ruth is subjective, relative, or contextual.” Next is the assertion that [r]ationality can solve moral and ontological questions about man’s nature,” followed closely by the notion that a “rational government is freed from the limits traditionally imposed on its purview through the attainment of technical knowledge. Man’s eternal problems, including the plight of the poor, can be solved through a welfare state based on the redistribution of wealth.” The fourth article of faith holds that “[s]ince we are all children of the globe, subject to the same rationality, national loyalty and patriotism are dangerous anachronisms.” The fifth asserts that the “most important goal one can seek is self-transformation, what the psychologist Abraham Maslow called ‘self-actualization.” The last dogma stipulates that“[d]iscrimination is the great bugbear of social intercourse.

The mandate ‘judge not, let ye be judged,’ stripped of its original meaning as a plea for compassion, is not a justification for closing one’s eyes to the difference between right and wrong.” London’s assessment of these secular commandments is quite damning. “[L]et us say that, taken together, they form the basis for a seductive new religion. Since this religion is based upon individual, self-directed action as the source of salvation — and upon manifest disapproval of the transcendent — one might just as accurately describe it as a new form of paganism.”

MILITANT ISLAM
The perpetrators of 9/11, alas, were not pagans, but adherents of militant Islamism. Radical secularism, London is right to stress, is incapable of confronting this deadly strategic threat. Since it eschews theology in favor of rationality, this paradigm cannot adequately comprehend a fanatical movement rooted in religion. As he laments, “[b]elieving that there must be a rational explanation for seemingly irrational behavior, Western leaders and opinion makers bend over backwards to contrive exculpatory explanations. Rarely do they come to the conclusion that the violence is fomented by religious zealotry no liberal concessions can possibly mitigate.” Many Western policymakers are handicapped by the limits of the secularist imagination, in other words.

Militant Muslims, for their part, perceive that the fissures now visible in the foundation of Western resolve — due in part to the corrosive effects of radical secularism — present opportunities they can exploit, cracks they can pry open. During a recent seminar on his book in New York City, London made a perceptive comment in reply to a question on what might be fueling the rise of extremist Islam at this historical juncture: “Perhaps it is because radical Islam recognizes a cultural weakness in the West,” he said. As he puts it in his book, “[c]ertainly part of the reason for the recent tumult is the belief circulating in the Islamic world that a secular West no longer has the will to resist Islamic jihad…

No, no, a thousand times no. It was that cowboy Bush and his neo-cons who caused the “recent tumult,” and everything’s going to be fine now that there’s a Saviour in the Oval Office.

Who says religion is dead?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:10 | link | comments

Raining on the parade: There are those who see the sight of a “Messiah” who’s apparently been endowed with superhuman gifts because he’s  black and who say, “Yesiree. Good things are on the horizon for the Jewish people and all mankind. Peace on Earth. Swords into plowshares. No more jihad. Und so weiter.” And then are the party poopers who say, “What? Are you kidding me? He’s going to fix things because he happens to be black? How does that work, exactly?”

At times such as these, when almost everyone seems to have chugalugged tremendous draughts of the near-irresistible hopey-changey Kool-Aid, I like to recall the delightfully mordant words of Noel Coward:

There are bad times just around the corner,
There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky
And it's no use whining
About a silver lining
For we KNOW from experience that they won't roll by,
With a scowl and a frown
We'll keep our sprits down
And prepare for depression and doom and dread,
We're going to unpack our troubles from our old kit bag
And wait until we drop down dead.

And for those who would insist that Obama is the Messiah I have two words: Shabbetai Tzvi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:35 | link | comments

Is the writing on the wall for Section 13?: The Conservative Party of Canada, the party that holds power in the land, is having a convention. This is one of the resolutions being floated:

RESOLUTION P-203

Modify HRC Jurisdiction

iii) The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In other words, the time may soon be coming when we can say buh bye tyrannical censors pushing the agenda of “Nice”; adios self-satisfied CJC Nazi hunters who’ve made a cottage industry of playing “gotcha” with White Power pishers being coaxed into posting mean things about “the Jews” from the comfort of the folks’ basement in rural Saskatchewan; Abyssinia, Elmo and other Islamists who, in keeping with OIC’s push to curb kafir and dhimmi sass at the international level are doing their bit to end “Islamophobia” in the “Canadian context”; catch ya later, Jen Lynch and her over-eager mob of clueless and intrusive busy-bodies who see censorship as the path to Utopia instead of the road to tarnation; and a pox on bureaucrats, lawyers and other anti-"hate" types endeavouring to “balance” free speech and “hate” speech by divesting the people of their most crucial right and the cornerstone of any free society: the right to speak your mind without fear of being silenced by the state.

Free at last, free at last, thank God Almightly, we’ll be free at last!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments (2)

“Magic” Obama: Kathy Shaidle posts an insightful piece by Brendan O’Neil. O’Neil writes that the pres-elect was the beneficiary not only of liberal guilt, but of a desire to vote for a black guy to demonstrate one’s moral superiority over the great unwashed (who supposedly won’t vote for a black guy ‘cause he’s black). (I’ve decided not to call him Bambi anymore—been there, done that—although, post-election, he has had that “deer caught in the headlight look” at least once or twice.) Anyway, the whole piece is well worth a look-see. What struck me in particular, though, was this paragraph (my bolds):