scaramouche

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

About me

User: scaramouche
Irreverent, contrarian, delighted to be out of synch with the zeitgeist, I depend on my sense of humour (such as it is) to keep me sane in this wacky world.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

Counter

visited *loading* times

« View the previous post.  |  Home  |  View the next post. »
Wednesday, 01 July 2009

Glorious and free? Think again: Mark Steyn puts Salman Hossain’s hateful --but apparently entirely legal--remarks in context, that being that up here in our "human rights" Trudeaupia, “Nazis” and other pale-faces had better watch their every word lest they get hauled in front of a fully or quasi-judicidal body to account for their thought crimes, but Muslims who want to vent about, say, “the Jews” can do so secure in the knowledge that the state will adopt a hands-off approach to their, er, free speech.
The Hossain incident reminded me of another occasion when Canadian authorities decided it was okey-dokey for a Muslim to speak freely. You may recall a couple of summers ago that a jihadist cleric from Pakistan was heard to say the following on Vision TV, Canada’s multiculti channel:
Now the other two strands are that is Jihad for Allah. But Jihad can be divided again into two, because whenever you find, so Jihad in the way of Allah for the cause of Allah can be pursued either with your financial resources or your bodily strength, when you go to fight the enemy in the battlefield. So Jihad, the highest form is fighting in the cause of Allah. And to give your contribution so as the requirements of the propagation of the Islamic message and the requirements of the requirements of the struggle to establish the message of Allah that can be fulfilled. You need money for that. And that is spent for the cause of Allah.
Only the insensate could mistake this for anything other than what it was: a clear call to jihad. And insensate is a good way to describe the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, which, following up on a complaint about the broadcast, could find nothing wrong with a crazed jihadi Jew-hater making such a call over Canadian airwaves. Here’s how the CBSC described the incident in its 2007-08 Annual Report:
It was a religious program that was the subject of VisionTV re Dil Dil Pakistan (CBSC Decision 06/07-1426, November 29, 2007). The program featured a Muslim imam, Israr Ahmad, giving a sermon in a mix of English and Arabic. On the episode of July 14, 2007, Ahmad discussed Sura 2 of the Qur’an and touched on the issue of jihad. He explained that jihad can be achieved through either physical or financial means.
The CBSC received a complaint that this mention of jihad would encourage violence against particular groups. VisionTV was also criticized for even allowing Ahmad to appear on television because he had apparently authored anti-Semitic books. The National Specialty Services Panel concluded that the broadcast did not violate any of clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics. The Panel pointed out that “although there is a reference [...] to the ‘enemies of Allah’, nowhere has the imam directly identified any group.” With respect to the mention of jihad, the Panel noted that the term “has no exclusive or limited meaning as a holy war. It is at least as understandable asreferring to struggle or strife, with no necessary implication of battle or hostility.”
The Panel also had no problem with Ahmad appearing on television since he uttered nothing abusive or unduly discriminatory on the challenged program, whatever he may have written or said elsewhere. There is no Code prohibition on allowing individuals with chequered pasts to appear in a broadcast:
“Even a notorious figure [...] could be an acceptable invitee to discuss appropriate subject matter in controlled circumstances.”
You see, when Ahmad mentioned that jihad could be waged against the enemy via warfare or via funding the warfare, he wasn’t actually coming right out and telling the faithful to high-tail it to the nearest available battlefield. No, indeed. What the chequered dude was actually doing was giving folks the option: You can either fight infidels on a battlefield OR you can wage the kind of jihad that involves a lot of internal soul-searching--you know, that non-threatening kind of jihad we keep hearing so much about. And since Ahmad didn't think to "specify" which inifidels he wanted them to fight, what else could the CBSC do but give him the benefit of the doubt?
Happy Birthday, Canada! You are in the hands of clueless, craven imbeciles who are serving you up to the jihad on a silver platter.
 
canadianflagej0.jpg

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:36 | link | comments

Comments: