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

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

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

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

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

No charges were immediately laid.

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

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

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

Shocked passengers described the horrific attack as something incomprehensible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greyhound called the event tragic but isolated…

Well, I would certainly hope so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you can see the entire release here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She wanted her virginity back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

·         The doctors cynically use ignorance and fear for profit

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

 

·         Hymens can be broken in many ways

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It still happens on a regular basis."

Lobbying

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

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

Boudjenane, of the Canadian Arab Federation, agrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gee, ya think?

As Hershell sees it,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A disast'rous P.M. named Ehud

Never, ever did what he should

He was feckless and blind--

The blithering kind--

Who was always up to no good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awwwww: Puppy lullabye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way to go, Mo!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next species slated for extinction: Arrogant environmentalists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahmadinejad said he hoped the negotiations would yield progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No wonder he was such a hit in EUnuchland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headbanging in Hijab

A journalist tests his metal in the Muslim world

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fashion victim: Ozzy Osbourne in a cowboy hat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: Harpoon approves of the swoon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: PoMo Fauxbama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noel Coward they ain't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, we’ll be sure to do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TWADDLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Sounds good to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was 15 at the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, don’t they all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Himmler did something sim’lar.

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

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

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

I am the world.

I’m the messiah.

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

You can’t aim highah.

There’s a choice you’re makin’

For “hope” and “peace” and “change”.

It’s true I’ll bring a better day

‘Cause I’m The One…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell it to Vanity Fair.

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

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

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

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

Update: The CJC's news release.

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

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

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

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

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

FP: What is the goal of the Islamist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was awarded approximately $11,000…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to be working.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bet he wishes he were in Gitmo instead of China.

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

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

Offensive being the operative word.

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

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

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

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

Yeah, that should work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe not, but it’s also not surprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve travelled here to look all presidential.

First I’ll take Ramallah;

Then I’ll take Berlin.

 

I’m guided by a signal in the heavens.

I’ve fallen very hard for my own spin.

No way McCain can touch me with his weapons.

First I’ll take Ramallah;

Then I’ll take Berlin.

 

I really want to be the leader, baby.

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

And in my quest to best all my opponents

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

 

I don’t like your Iraq warfare, Dubya,

I don’t like the kudos for your win.

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

First I’ll take Ramallah;

Then I’ll take Berlin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More proof that truth really is stranger than fiction. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The national swoon: Bambimania, unpacked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One story is about action and the other about inaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could have fooled him.

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

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

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

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

Coming soon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can I say? Sounds like a blast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qur'an 9:29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allah board!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s very clear

Islam will lead the way.

Not for a year

But now until Judgement Day.

 

The magazines and the movies

And that TV that you see

Won’t discuss the jihad

So we’ll be home free.

 

But, oh, kafir,

Islam will lead the way.

Allah made clear

Dhimmis’ll have to pay.

In time democracy crumbles

Dar-al-Harb soon tumbles.

They're both just so passé

Then…

Islam will lead the way.

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

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

Aside from that, it's a brilliant scheme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem, as we know, is that, while one tier of our two tier judicial system “gets it” about the connection between democracy and free speech, the second tier operates on an entirely different basis. My letter:

Like Alan Shanoff, I’m holding off on cracking open that bottle of bubbly just yet. That’s because I know that, while the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Canadians being allowed to say “colourful” things that may give rise to hurt feelings, the ruling does nothing to mitigate the intolerable power of our parallel court system.  I refer, of course, to our HRCs, which are in the business of easing hurt feelings, and where such niceties as “fair comment” and “the presumption of innocence” don’t even make it into the court room. In that system, a person who has dared to express an idea that someone else has found offensive--as the Canadian Islamic Congress took offense at some articles that had appeared in Maclean’s magazine--can be certain, that should their case comes to trial, they are destined to lose. And because, in that system, there’s no concept of “double jeopardy,” theoretically, a person can be “tried” for the same “thought crime” up to 14 times (the number of federal, provincial, and territorial “human rights” jurisdictions in Canada).

So, yes, the recent decision about defamation is a positive step, but let’s delay the celebrations until such time as our Soviet-style judicial system--the one that’s the antithesis of the regular one grounded in British Common Law--has been defanged or, better yet, eliminated.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:49 | link | comments

Dowd’s drivel: Bambi figures there’s no point in putting off acting all presidential when his coronation, er, election is a foregone conclusion, so he’s doing a whirlwind tour of the Middle East, to get a sense of what life is going to be like after inauguration. Then again, never one to hedge his bets, the point of his tour is to show the undecideds that he belongs on the world stage, even though he no experience in foreign affairs nor any understanding of the “nuances” (to borrow a word beloved of the previous Democratic presidential candidate) of the issues plaguing the  region. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd (the subject of my clerihew that begins “Maureen Dowd/Ought not to be allowed) needs no convincing. Like practically everyone else who toils for the Times, she’s already deep in the thoes of Bambimania, as well as some unresolved and long-standing Bush Derangement Syndrome . So it’s no surprise she has some advice for The One, written in her own inimitably Dowd-y manner (an acquired taste I have never managed to acquire):

…Since he’s already fighting the perception that he’s an exotic outsider, he can’t be seen as too insidery with the Euro-crats. He doesn’t want a picture of him nibbling on a baguette to overtake the effete image of the Europhile John Kerry windsurfing.

Then again, maybe it will be a refreshing change to see a leader abroad reflecting the America the world wants to believe in, after the ignominy of Iraq, Afghanistan, Dick Cheney and Abu Ghraib.

Even if Obama is treated as a superstar by W.-weary Europeans, some Obama-wary Americans may wonder what he’s doing there, when they can’t pay for gas, when the dollar is the Euro’s chew toy, when Bud is going Belgian and when the Chrysler Building has Arab landlords.

“I don’t know that people in Missouri are going to like seeing tens of thousands of Europeans screaming for The One,” a McCain aide snarked to The Politico.

Once Obama gets done with his European feats, which will have to include a knockout speech in Berlin, once he figures out where the dour Angela Merkel will let him soar, he has more labors at home.

Instead of obtaining the girdle of the Amazon warrior queen Hippolyte, Obama has to overcome the hurdle of the Amazon warrior queen Hillary. He has to figure out how to let her down easy on the vice presidential deal, while wooing the frantic Clinton sisterhood and Hillraisers who would rather see a McCain Supreme Court than support the glib, cocky young guy who presumptuously sped past their gal.

Obama must capture his own equivalent of the Erymanthian Boar, deciding how much to grovel to get Bill Clinton in his corner, and he has to calculate whether the Big Dog will be help or hindrance, or both, as he was with his wife, and how to use him, if at all…

Hipployte, the Amazon queen? The Erymanthian Boar? Big Dog Bill? The dollar an EU chew toy? I see the years of untreated BDS have taken a devastating toll on la Dowd’s already hit-or-miss ability to compose a coherent piece of writing.

As for capturing the imaginations of W.-weary Euroweenies, Bambi should have it made in the shade, because he sees things just like they do. In the article about Bambi in the issue of the New Yorker with the controversial cover ‘toon (Bambi in a turban; Michelle in a ‘fro) he’s quoted as having said soon after 9/11 that the “root causes” of the attacks were poverty and the failure of American foreign policy. That’s in line with mainstream EU thinking, as described by the late Jean-Francois Revel in his book, Anti-Americanism:

In September 2001, the nadir of intellectual incoherence was achieved. (Let’s not bother with the moral dimensions; we’re too blasé for that.) After the first gushings of emotion and crocodile condolences, the murderous assaults were depicted as justified retaliation for the evil done by the United States throughout the world…After a discreet pause of a few days, the theory of American culpability surfaced in the European press—in France, above all, it goes without saying—among intellectuals and politicians of the Left and the Right.

Shouldn’t we interrogate ourselves about the underlying “root causes” that had pushed the terrorists to their destructive acts? Wasn’t the United States in part responsible for what had happened? Shouldn’t we take into account the sufferings of poor countries and the contrast between their impoverishment and America’s opulence?

This line of argument was not only made in countries whose populations, keyed up to fever pitch by jihad, instantly acclaimed the New York catastrophe as well-deserved punishment. It was also heard in the European democracies, where soon enough, insinuations were made that—with all due respect for the dead, of course—a careful look at the terrorists’ motives was called for.

What does the future hold for Bambi and the ‘weenies?  To quote Claude Rains in Casablanca (a movie the Hollywood of today could never and would never make), it looks to be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:33 | link | comments

Got gas?: Aren’t you glad the U.S. went into Iraq to gain control of Saddam Hussein’s vast oil resources? Really seems to be paying off at the gas pumps, don’t you think?

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:53 | link | comments

Swift quip: In light of Bambimania as well as the confounding and enduring allure of irrational ideas (9/11 an inside job; sinister geriatric Jews plotting a global takeover, HRCs good for us, etc.), this quote by the author of Gulliver's Travels seems most a propos: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

I know what you mean, Dean.

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

Freeze-dried Harpoon: Years ago, a Toronto comedian used to do a hilarious version of The Wizard of Oz—Dorothy, Munchkins, Wicked Witch, ruby slippers and all—condensed into about a minute. As a service to my readers, I am going to perform the same operation on Harpoon Siddiqui’s column in the Sunday Star. Here goes:

Blah, blah, blah, Omar Khadr. Blah, blah, blah, hypocrisy. Blah, blah, blah, Harper bad. Blah, blah, blah, Robert Mugabe. Blah blah blah, Harper, Bush, starving poor Palestinians. Blah, blah, blah, nasty neo-cons. Blah, blah blah, Iran demonized. Blah, blah, blah, Bush inflexible, incompetent.

There, that should do it.

Of course, the letter I sent the Star is a tad more discursive:

If, as Haroon Siddiqui claims, Iran has been unfairly “demonized,” it is probably because its actions over the past few years have been somewhat less than angelic. To recap a few highlights: Iran’s president, the mouthpiece of oppressive theocrats, has vowed to wipe the world’s only Jewish nation off the map. To soften us up for that eventuality, he has convened conferences dedicated to Holocaust denial and “ A World Without Zionism.” Despite world-wide condemnation and the seemingly endless rounds of discussion, Iran continues to blow a big, wet raspberry at the world community and enrich the uranium that may soon allow it to follow through on its promises.

And yet, week after week, Siddiqui continues to rush to Iran’s defence, insisting it be seen as the victim of what he calls “Bush’s ideological rigidity.”

When you examine the facts, though, who’s being more “rigid”? The president who has been going out of his way to try to resolve the impasse through diplomatic means? Or Iran, which is in the grip of inflexible rulers who refuse to even discuss the possibility of curtailing uranium enrichment, even though the U.S., the EU and the UN have sweetened the pot with a wide array of incentives (of the sort that that motivated North Korean despot, Kim Jong-Il, to drop his enrichment program)?

I agree that little is to be gained by unfairly “demonizing” our enemies. However, it should be obvious that, in this instance, it’s Iran—which, after all, finds it politically useful to describe the U.S. as “the Great Satan” —that’s doing the demonizing, and America that continues to be on the receiving end of the demonization.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:46 | link | comments (2)

A League of their own: I’m not so thrilled about the ICC, the international court that can prosecute anyone, anywhere for war crimes/crimes against humanity; after all, if they can go after a despicable genocidaire in Sudan, who’s to say they won’t go after some American or Israeli for their so-called “crimes”? Even so, one has to guffaw at the Arab League reaction to the ICC’s suit against one of the League’s members, a murderous cretin named Omar al-Bashir. Bashir is personally responsible for the deaths of—well, who the hell knows? Estimates put the figure at somewhere around 300,000, but that’s likely on the conservative side. The League’s response has been swift and defiant. It has issued a clear condemnation. Oh, not of the genocide and the Arabs doing all the killing. Don’t be silly; what are a few less Blacks and animists to them? The League is upset about the charges. From UPI:

CAIRO, July 20 (UPI) -- Arab League foreign ministers issued a statement after an emergency meeting Saturday opposing war crimes charges against the president of Sudan.

 

The meeting in Cairo was called after the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, asked the court to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, the BBC reported. No warrant has yet been issued.

"The council decides solidarity with the Republic of Sudan in confronting schemes that undermine its sovereignty, unity and stability and their non-acceptance of the unbalanced, not objective position of the prosecutor general of the Internal Criminal Court," the ministers said in a resolution.

Amr Moussa, the league's secretary-general, said he would visit Khartoum Sunday to discuss the league's plans with Sudanese officials. The ministers would not release details.

The attacks in the Darfur region by government-backed militias have become a cause among political figures and celebrities around the world. But the ICC has been condemned by most African and Arab leaders since Ocampo's announcement.

Mind you, were the court to issue an arrest warrant for, say, George W. Bush (something that’s not outside the realm of possibility), the AL would no doubt be cheering wildly.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:24 | link | comments

 CIC reading suggestion: Even though my night table is groaning under the weight of unread books I’ve been meaning to get to, bibliophile that I am, I’m always on the lookout for something new. One tome that’s piqued my interest: The End of Democracy, by Abid Ullah Jam, a title being flogged (sorry, unfortunate pun) on the Canadian Islamic Congress website. (Most of the others for sale are by that eminent scholar/human rights activist/Robert Mugabe backer, Mo Elmasry, CIC Grand Poobah-for-life, so you know Ullah Jam is in esteemed company.)

Here’s what one reviewer had to say about the CIC-endorsed book (my bolds):

Following the end of the Cold War in which liberal democracy triumphed over Communism, Francis Fukuyama claimed it was "the end of history." In this devastating critique of democracy, Abid Ullah Jan (author of 'A War On Islam?') claims that far from being the end of history, the unprovoked attack on Iraq, despite massive global opposition and lack of support from a majority of nations in the United Nations, it is in fact "the end of democracy."

Democracy has failed and it has been used and abused, particularly following 9/11. Democracy has been undermined by a minority ruling elite to curtail civil liberties and mislead the public at home, whilst waging wars of domination abroad. The author argues that since the positive aspects of democracy are part of Islam, thereby undermining the case that Islam is incompatible with democracy, it will be Islam that will ultimately challenge and triumph over liberal democracy as we know it.

Human beings have been subject to centuries of failed governing mechanisms, such as empires, monarchies and dictatorships. In the twentieth century, Fascism and Communism wrought havoc and caused bloody wars and repression on a monumental scale.

The dawn of the 21st century has led into a new age of wars. This time – for the establishment of so-called democracy and freedom. Many proponents of democracy believe only in brute force and a constant need for pre-emptive wars for "liberating" others and imposing "democratic" models for others to emulate. This approach has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people so far.

Has democracy really achieved what is needed for human governance or have some of its finer principles been exploited to make contemporary democracy worse than the bloody ideologies of the past? This book provides answers to these questions and takes readers through the basic requirements of human nature and the kind of governing system for addressing the so far ignored human needs for a peaceful coexistence.

The book shows how exploitation of democracy leads to the continuation of a culture of violence, descended from the dictatorial attempts to fully dominate people as subjects; and how it operates to rely on a philosophy completely at odds with human nature and its quest for justice. The book looks into a system that best addresses all human needs and weaknesses.

In reading this book, one will come to recognize the sources, the features and the methods of contemporary governance systems, which have brought great suffering upon humankind in the name of freedom and liberty. The reader will also learn how imperfect governance mechanisms can be avoided, as they continue to shed blood, suppress more and more people, and prepare to spill still more blood, and how the world can be freed from the ideology of savagery with some fine tuning for real tolerance. A few required plug-ins in contemporary democracy, may lead to develop a perfect governing mechanism and reach the real end of history.

Oh, why beat around the, er, bush? Clearly, this is another plea for that flawless law that can be “plugged-in” to any contemporary democracy under the guise of “fairness” and “human rights”.

You want “justice,” “peaceful coexistence” and “the end of democracy”? Open wide and swallow sharia.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:04 | link | comments

Israel adrift: Naomi Ragan decries the Ehud government’s pusillanimity. From YNet News:

…I woke up the morning of July 16, 2008 with quite another feeling. Our soldiers, kidnapped on our own land, not across any international border, are brought back to us in caskets after two years of sadistic playfulness with the hearts of their families by Hizbullah terrorists, who led us to believe they were alive. And in exchange for dead bodies, we turn over a despicable baby-killer, Samir Kuntar.  

 

Oh, you will hear the boosters of the Israeli government sigh. What can we do? We are civilized and they are not. We care about our soldiers and their families.

 

No, I’m afraid you do not. If you cared, then you would have a death penalty for people like Kuntar, so that they too can be released in caskets. And if you cared, you would be intelligent enough, seeing our soldiers brought back to us dead, to have put a bullet through Kuntar and then turned him over to his friends.

 

Civilized is a euphemism for weak and helpless. Civilized is not a moral value, because we all know what Western civilization is capable of. Concentration camps. Civilian round-ups, the gassing of children. All this under the banner of laws and policemen and governments. On the other hand, the moral thing to do to a tried and convicted murderer like Kuntar is to spill his blood, because he has spilled the blood of others. That may not fit in with current civilized niceties, but let no one say it is immoral.

 

Ashamed to be Israeli today

When it comes to immoral, to release Kuntar to a hero’s welcome and the opportunity to murder others is on the top of the scale.

My government, the Israeli government, arranged this. They let it happen. They oversaw it and implemented it. I am deeply ashamed to be an Israeli today. And I’m not very proud of being a Jew either, if this is how a Jewish country behaves. To lead the world in ever more despicable acts of appeasement is nothing to be proud of. The torch we always carried, the “light unto the nations” has been blown out by the hot-air of our politicians.

If we cared about our soldiers, we would not be showing our enemies that kidnapping and terrorism pay. We would not be setting the stage for the next murderous terrorist raid and hostage standoff. We would be passing laws with a mandatory death penalty for convicted terrorists with blood on their hands, as well as their accomplices. We would be making these laws retroactive.

Then, we would be cutting off all water and electricity to Gaza until Gilad Shalit is released. If that didn’t work, we’d begin executions within one week, increasing the number convicted terrorists facing firing squads with each passing day until Gilad is returned to us safe and sound. And if that didn’t work, we would begin daily bombings of Gaza, with the same number and frequency of attacks that our own city Sderot has suffered over the past three years from the Gazans. Not civilized? Perhaps. But moral. Extremely moral.

 My fantasy is that Israelis will rise up and overturn the political system which has left them with the dregs of their nation as leaders - a bunch of self-serving crooks and sycophants who will do anything to stay in office; an electoral system in which a party like Kadima, with its collection of felons and moral imbeciles, who got only 23% of the vote, is allowed to rule us into the ground. We have Mr. Olmert, and Ms. Livni, and Mr. Peres, and Mr. Ramon (a convicted sex offender, who is now in line to take over from Olmert) and many, many others to thank, for creating this day of infamy.

May God redeem us from them. (My emphasis)

Amen to that, sister. Unfortunately, your suggestion about executing the Kuntars, though moral, would only turn them into martyrs—so I don’t know that you’d be any further ahead. That said, the practice of exchanging live terrorists for dead soldiers may have the aim of satisfying the tenets of Jewish law and enabling the families of the dead to give them a proper burial. Nonetheless, it is sheer madness, and, from a strategic standpoint, disastrous.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:58 | link | comments (1)

Making amends: The New Yorker "repents" for its misconstrued cover.

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

Stop me if you've heard this one before...: How many Human Rights Commissioners does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Two. One to take the person's complaint that their "right" to illumination has been violated. And one to rule in the complainant's favour in a kangaroo court.

Oh, wait. Looks like everyone's still sitting in the dark--and only one person has gotten screwed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:39 | link | comments

 And speaking of jokes…: Did you hear the one about the Arabs who got together at the behest of one of their own when he was charged with crimes against humanity? From VOA News:

Arab foreign ministers held an emergency meeting in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, Saturday to discuss the latest developments in relations between Sudan and the international community.

The emergency summit was called after the International Criminal Court indicted Sudan's president on July 14.

The ICC prosecutor has indicted President Omar al-Bashir on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that took place in the Darfur region.

Sudanese government officials said they requested the Arab League meeting in order to show that the country's judicial system is capable of addressing alleged crimes in the western region of Darfur…

You mean the guys responsible for the genocide want to show that they can “address” their own crimes?

Laugh? I thought I’d cry.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:38 | link | comments

Mad, bad, and dangerous: The West has made one more pathetic attempt to bribe, er, reach out to the mullahs before they go ahead and nuke the Jews, but the stars of that Emmy nominated show Mahdi Men have yet to respond.

It couldn't be that, like Hitler slavering over the Sudetenland, they sense their enemies'  disinclination to do anything substantive to stop them, could it?

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:54 | link | comments

Globe shills for Jew-killer: The Globe and Mail’s Orly Halpern assays some ghastly puffery about a despicable murderer, newly freed and acclaimed by death-cultists in Lebanon and elsewhere. (The deal that sprung him saw Israel transforming itself into the national equivalent of Charlie Brown on Halloween—Charlie got rocks; the Jews got coffins):

…Mr. Kuntar left Lebanon as a Communist devoted to the Palestinian cause, which he saw in black and white. But the world has changed and so has he. The contrast between the ideologies he had when he left Lebanon and the knowledge he has gained over the years appears to have left him with many contradictions. On the one hand he says he doesn't regret making the attack, although he vociferously denies killing the six-year-old girl and calls her death a tragedy.

Yet he told Ms. Kotas-Bar that he now opposes attacks on civilians. "I believe today more in the path of Hezbollah, that the first priority is military targets," he said. "Otherwise, the circle [of violence] will not close."

Mr. Kuntar said that as part of his military training he was imbued with a hatred of Israel in order to create motivation to fight no matter the cost. "It's easier when things are black and white. ... You don't hesitate, you don't ask yourself a lot of questions. But when there are other colours you need to think hard."

He told Ms. Kotas-Bar that he wants peace and he implicitly expressed support for a two-state solution. "The solution is that the stronger side needs to compromise and you are the stronger side."

That side says it's now out to get him. The day after his release Israel's Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that an unnamed Israeli official said that Israel planned to assassinate Mr. Kuntar.

To Ms. Kotas-Bar he said he knew he would have to hold some sort of public role for Hezbollah, which attained his freedom for him, and for his people. But what he longed for was to be alone in the home he bought on the beach in Beirut. "I want to have a key that I can go in and out whenever I want, to drink coffee on the balcony, smoke a cigarette, go down to swim in the sea." (My emphases)

Yup, sounds like a whole new man. Why would that nasty Israel want to go and “assassinate” such an amiable fellow?

Update: An article in Ha'aretz article paints a far different picture of Kuntar:

..."We swear by God to continue on your same path [as Hezbollah's "martyred" second in command, Imad Mughniyeh] and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that God bestowed on you," said Samir Kuntar, who had been the longest-held Lebanese prisoner in Israel until his release on Wednesday. Kuntar was convicted of murdering three Israelis in a 1979 terror attack in Nahariya.

Kuntar referred to Mughniyeh's martyrdom, saying "this is our great wish. We envy you and we will achieve it," God willing.

Kuntar and four Hezbollah guerrillas were freed in exchange for the bodies of two Israel Defense Forces reservists captured by Hezbollah in July 2006 in a cross-border raid that sparked the Second Lebanon War.

The exchange was mediated over the course of 18 months by a United Nations-appointed German official.

Later in the day, hundreds of people welcomed Kuntar in his hometown of Abey, a mountain hamlet 10 miles (16 kilometers) south of Beirut.

"This time yesterday I was in the hands of the enemy. But at this moment, I am yearning more than before to confront them," Kuntar said. "Hezbollah's weapons are a red line that no one should be allowed to cross," he told reporters...

Sounds like "Communist" Sammy's itching to get back in the saddle and off some more Jews a.s.a.p.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments

All joking aside: Rex Murphy surveys the sorry state of jesting both here and in our neighbour to the South. He concludes that we’re far worse off than they are since, when someone in the U.S. makes a joke that falls flat—say, like, when the New Yorker prints an “unfunny” cover—no one’s going to be forced to account for the faux pas to some humour-challenged commissar(s):

...The fracas over the New Yorker cartoon is yet another illustration of how defenceless Americans are in the face of outrages perpetrated by that league of hit men we know as editorial cartoonists. Poor Obama. All he can do is whine. If the U.S. had our system, he'd be filing complaints in five or six states alleging that he was held up “to hatred and contempt” and the New Yorker cartoonist would be out in Times Square selling his acid-pointed pencils to start a legal fund.

Speaking of which, the comedian in the heckling lesbian case is holding a fundraiser in Toronto tonight. He and his confreres in the chuckle industry want to raise a few bucks to bear the cost of officious scrutiny of joke night in B.C. They should be careful. Perhaps they could mail in the jokes to Barbara Hall, the Ontario human-rights czar, and get a pre-emptive ruling on their “hate-content.” There's no one quicker with an obiter dicta, as Maclean's has already learned.

Might save a lot of time and a few bills down the way.

They should also avoid any jokes involving sex, religion, politics or global warming. Outside those boundaries, I think they're safe. Chicken crossing the road jokes are safe. Assuming, of course, the fowl pedestrian is free-range and it doesn't meet a vegetarian halfway over. Absent those elements and I fear cries of chickenphobia will rear their squawking heads.

The really funny joke in all of this, however, is not going to come of out the mouth of any comedian. It is the dreary fact that comedians are the latest targets of Canada's human-rights commissions. Did you ever in your wildest dreams see heckling as the subject of a human-rights inquiry?

The mirthless sitting in adjudication over the mirth-makers, telling Canadians what they're allowed to laugh at.

My letter:

Back when there was still a U.S.S.R., Milan Kundera penned a novel—The Joke—about a university student who runs afoul of authorities in Communist-controlled Czechoslovakia when a joke he cracks goes horribly awry. The student, who wants to impress a nubile but overly earnest classmate, sends her a postcard poking fun at Karl Marx’s line about religion being the opiate of the people, only he substitutes the word “optimism” for “religion”, a dig at the enforced enthusiasm Communism imposes on society. The postcard is apprehended by authorities, who take their Utopian dogma very seriously indeed, and who know that humour and mockery are the most subversive forms of free speech. After enduring the kind of hilariously surreal grilling totalitarian courts are famous for, the protagonist is duly expelled and shunned.

Who knew that, forty years after Mr. Kundera wrote the book, Communism would be defunct, the Czechs would be free, and we here in Canada would find ourselves at the mercy of humourless apparatchiks who are determined to engineer a “perfect,” laughter-free society?

Looks like the joke’s on us.

 

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

Thumbs down: Anyone who’s visited the “Rotten Tomatoes” site knows that it rates movies based on their accumulated reviews. Well-received movies fall along the “Fresh” end of the continuum, while stinkers fall along the “Rotten” end (and are thus deserving of any rotten produce disappointed film-goers might care to hurl at the movie screen). Going by this rating system, that Gitmo interrogation starring Omar Khadr—not so “Fresh”. Here’s Michael Coren’s review in the Toronto Sun:

I have to be blunt. I'm disappointed. Perhaps the sequel will be superior and I suppose we have to be generous to a fairly inexperienced director and cast, but I thought the Omar Khadr video would be better than it turned out to be. A little like the latter Star Wars -- unfulfilled promise.

Actually the whole thing backfired, in that it was supposed to break our hearts and make us angry at the awful Americans who dared to keep a sort of Canadian in prison on suspicion of terrorism and of throwing a hand grenade that killed one of their medics.

Problem is, it showed a well-fed, well-nourished, obviously defiant and healthy young man blubbing and moaning and claiming, rather absurdly, that he has no feet or eyes.

"You do have feet" replied a tolerant Canadian agent, "they're on the end of your legs."

The only valid criticism of the United States is that this young man should have faced a trial by now. If, however, he had been in prison just a few miles away from Guantanamo on Cuba he would have been beaten to death in one of Castro's death camps. If he had been captured by friends of his family in Afghanistan or Iraq he likely would have been raped, tortured and then slowly decapitated. Irony's a funny old thing.

If there has been any abuse over the years it is clearly at the hands of Khadr's own kin. As the highly respected clinical psychologist Dr. Marty McKay told the Children's Aid Society back in 2004 when Omar's mother, Maha Elsamnah Khadr, came to Canada, "I am sure that you would agree that counselling one's child to become suicidal or homicidal constitutes emotional child abuse, leading to physical abuse when the child acts upon these feelings."

And this is precisely what the good woman has done, often and in public…

Oddly enough, the National Post has a story about a new psychological malady—people who are convinced a la that Jim Carrey flick The Truman Show that their lives are being filmed. Hmmm. I wonder if that’s how Omar feels. ('Real World, Gitmo'?)

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

Positive it can keep snookering us, no doubt: Iran 'positive' ahead of nuclear talks.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:08 | link | comments

Supreme dreams: The Custodian of the Two Holy Shmoly Mosques invited some non-believers to Madrid to participate in some interfaith charades, er, dialogue. (For obvious reasons, holding it in Saudi Arabia wasn’t an option). All went well with the schmoozing until the end, when a final communiqué revealed the organizers’ true colours. (I believe they were green, the colour of Muslim supremacism). From the New York Sun:

…The communiqué, a four page final statement that condemns a list of woes ranging from terrorism to sexual promiscuity, also urges Abdullah to convene "a special UN session on dialogue" between religions.

The statement also declared:

"Terrorism is a universal phenomenon that requires unified international efforts to combat it in a serious, responsible and just way. This demands an international agreement on defining terrorism, addressing its root causes and achieving justice and stability in the world."

And the statement urged people "to reject theories that call for the clash of civilizations."

The statement does not mention any religions by name.

The final statement, which was read by an official with the Muslim World League, Abdul Rahman Al-Zaid, rankled several of the conference participants because it differed from an earlier agreed upon draft. Under pressure from a conference participant, William Vendley of Religions for Peace, a second version was subsequently drafted which attributed the communiqué to the "conveners" of the conference and not the participants, as the earlier version had.

One complaint, which two participants voiced on condition of anonymity, is that the communiqué called for the Muslim World League to select some of the delegates for the suggested upon United Nations conference on interfaith dialogue.

The major complaint of many participants was that the document appears to have been revised at some stage without the consent of members of a drafting committee. And the vast majority of participants never had a chance to review any version of the statement before Mr. Al-Zaid of the Muslim World League read it aloud.

"For us as participants from other religions this is not an acceptable procedure for adopting documents," a Russian Orthodox priest participating in the conference, George Ryabykh, said.

Get used to it, George. That’s generally the procedure when kafirs let down their guard and become dhimmis.

Update: The Arab News headline about the confab reads "Dialogue is essential for peace."

Of course it is. Only, when we talk about "peace," we mean it in the biblical sense of "they shall beat their swords into plowshares/spears into pruning hooks." When Wahhabis talk "peace" they mean it in the Islamic sense--the "peace" that will prevail once Islam does.

Dialogue? I don't think so. More like a case of talking at cross purposes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:20 | link | comments

“Quality Education is Key”: What are the odds?—it could be the slogan of a British education effort, too. From the timesonline:

Muslim children will be taught British citizenship in mosque schools as part of a Government attempt to keep them away from the influence of Islamist extremism.

A trial of the new lessons will begin in several cities at the start of the new school year in September, according to Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary.

The initiative, designed to show young Muslims that there is no conflict between their religion and being British, is part of a package of measures published today.

They also include ministers commissioning an independent report by academic and theological experts at Cambridge University into whether the Islamic veil helps or hinders integration into British society.

"It is not for Government to dictate on matters of faith or religious teaching," Ms Blears said, launching the report. "But Muslim communities themselves have told us that stronger leadership is needed on what are often controversial issues."

She added: "We need to encourage and create safe places for sensible debate around issues that extremists can seek to exploit and make sure that young British Muslims recognise that their faith teaches shared citizenship vales."

Officials said mosque teachers in London, Leicester, Birmingham, Oldham, Rochdale, and Bradford would be trained in using the new materials over the summer. The new lesson plans will be used alongside traditional teaching about the Koran.

The teaching prospectus describes lessons capable of "demonstrating to young British Muslims that their faith is compatible with shared values and with being a British citizen - undermining the violent extremists’ argument that there is a fundamental conflict between the West and Islam, and being British and Muslim"…

Thereby attempting to undo some of the damage done by the Wahhabis as well as traditional triumphalist/supremacist teachings that have been given a new lease on life by the Islamic revival.

Lots of luck, Brits. You’re going to need it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:36 | link | comments

The Jewstablishment’s war on Cyber-hate: One of the bees in the Jewstablishment’s bonnet is controlling hate on the World Wide Web—a well-nigh Herculean, not to mention Quixotic, task. Here’s the conclusion of a 2007 B’Nai Brith document—Hate on the Internet: Best Practices for Industry Stakeholders—that came out of the 3^rd International Symposium on Web hate held a year earlier. For those concerned that our current anti-hate industry already has way too much power, it makes for some mighty scary reading (transcribed from my hard copy; sorry, no link):

Today, the call for a code of conduct among industry stakeholders reflects a growing consensus that government regulation is by itself unable to tackle the problems of hate speech in cyberspace. Expecting ISPs to be a “thought police” who monitor and censor the communication passing through their servers is both ethically undesireable and technically impossible. Yet, at the same time, to assume that ISPs can be passive and that all be be resovled with recourse to simplistic assertions of a ‘net neutrality’ and absolute ‘free-speech’ is morally dishonest and intellectually specious. Despite their limited capacity to screen content, ISPs remain vitally important as the front-end ‘gatekeepers’ by whom the vast majority of people pass in order to go online.

One way to cut this proverbial Gordian Knot is to realize that the public good and private interest are not mutually exclusive when it comes to industry regulation; an effective code of conduct does not have to sacrifice private interest on the altar of social responsibility. For example, adopting a well-defined procedural mechanism for dealing with complaints is precisely the means to effectively regulate industry stake-holders who consistently fail to live up to their assurances, deter potential offenders, and offer customers a sign of quality-control to attract their business.

Currently, Canadian ISPs have policy guidelines designed to encourage what they term ‘aceptable use’. While in practise such a definition is largely defined negatively in relation to complaints that ISPs receive from end-users, ISP codes of conduct lack a precisely defined sanctions mechanism to ensure proper follow up (sic) such complaints.  Therefore, the real weakness in current attempts at industry self-regulation is as much procedural as it is substantive: without a complaints procedure that spells out the circumstances under which sanctions will be applied, their mere presence on codes of conduct means little more than ink on paper. Only a framework that properly instrumentailizes such potential actions will make disciplinary measures routine, predictable and effective.

But is “government regulation” coupled with industry self-regulation going to be enough to tackle the problem?  Tammy Farber, another champion of censoring hate on the ‘net, thinks not. In a paper written for the Canadian Human Rights Commission he says,

More must be done to counter this challenge. In July 2005, Canada became the first non- European county to sign the additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime. The treaty is intended to facilitate international cooperation in investigations and extraditions. In so doing, the Government of Canada fulfilled an important commitment, which it articulated in the March 2005 federal Action Plan Against Racism. Canadian Jewish Congress and other likeminded organizations will continue their advocacy work on behalf of communities that are targeted by hate. We will continue to build partnerships with all stakeholders on this important matter. However, Canadian Internet service providers must also take as active a role in combating hate as they have against child pornography.

While an ISP may not be legally liable for information that flows through their network (of which they may not even be aware), they should, through self-regulation, be responsive to concerns raised by their customers and other interested parties and take steps to curb the flow of hateful material into this country. The technology exists to allow ISPs to block access to foreign websites and refuse to distribute content that is illegal when hosted in Canada. This approach has already been followed in the United Kingdom, through the partnership between British Telecom, the Internet Watch Foundation and other stakeholders. In other words, ISPs must work cooperatively to stem the tide and, in so doing, become good corporate citizens.

Certainly, the implementation of such a process of self-regulation would not be simple. How would it be determined which sites should be blocked? What criteria would be employed and how would it be applied? Who would be seated at the table? From where would the funding come to develop a database of prohibited sites that could be shared amongst Canadian ISPs?

Hate on the Internet will not disappear overnight. But the intractability of the problem does not absolve us of the responsibility to engage in its resolution. The very size of the problem requires us to pursue multiple approaches for partnership with government, police services, schools, community groups and service providers. It is work that needs doing. (My empahsis)

Tammy’s solution: more investigation, more regulation, more censorship. And at the end of the day will the censors have made even a minor dent in the hate? Don’t be silly. But they’ll sure feel good about themselves and be able to give each other high fives all ‘round for trying. And, hey, isn’t that more important than a picayune matter like free speech?

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

 Saudi Judenhass for moppets: Further to that story yesterday about Queen Noor and the Arab Children Congress (event motto:  “Quality Education is Key”), the National Post has an article about some of the “quality” education moppets in Saudi Arabia have been receiving:

Despite a promise to remove attacks on other faiths from the public school curriculum, Saudi Arabia's state-produced textbooks still refer to Jews and Christians as apes and swine, insist that Jews conspire to take over the world and on Judgment Day "the rocks or the trees" will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews, says the Washington-based Hudson Institute, a conservative think-tank.

The textbooks, used by five million students in the kingdom every year, as well as in many Saudi-funded institutions outside the country, also attack homosexuals and Muslims who do not practise a fundamentalist form of Islam.

For example:

-"The punishment for homosexuality is death. The companions of the Prophet were unanimous on killing although they differed ... in the manner of killing. Some companions ... stated that a homosexual is to be burned with fire ... he should be stoned or thrown from a high place."

-"You can hardly find an example of sedition in which the Jews have not played a role."

-Zionism has achieved its aims through a variety of "destructive movements" including the Rotary Clubs and International Lions Clubs, which are "Masonic clubs based in America and they have secret agents all over the world."

One of the suggested activities for Grade 8 students is to "write a composition on the danger of imitating infidels, giving some examples of imitation among the students and then present it to his classmates."

Nina Shea, author of the report, Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance, said the deeper problem the textbooks represent is a noxious ideology that is being exported all over the world…

My question for Canada’s Jewstablishment: what do you hope to achieve by going after incontinent Nazis and White Power pishers—at the expense of our cardinal freedom—when the Wahhabis, who exert far more influence than Hitler ever did, and have for far longer, are daily spewing out this poison to receptive mosques and madrassahs around the globe? Unless you have to plans to haul the Saudi education minister in front of an HRC and get a binding judgement against him and his policies, I suggest you knock it off post haste.

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

Tears for Omar: The videotape showing Omar Khadr being interrogated at Gitmo has struck a chord with some Canadians—as his lawyers knew it would when they decided to release it. Liberal leader wannabe Bob Rae, for one, is outraged that, at such a tender age (he was sixteen at the time) Omar had to endure such dreadful abuse.

In reality, as Stephen Brown and Jacob Laksin write in FrontPage Magazine, he was subjected to nothing of the kind:

...So far from brutalizing him, Khadr’s interrogator repeatedly tries to calm and reassure the detainee. Seeing that he’s stressed out, the interrogator urges Khadr to take a break ("take a few minutes to relax a bit"). Later in the video, he offers him –gasp! – a chocolate bar. On the whole, it looks more like a therapy session than an interrogation, let alone a violation of international law.

Indeed, Khadr has been treated exceptionally well during his residency at Guantanamo. For starters, the fact that he survived at all is a credit to the American military. In Afghanistan, Khadr had planted roadside bombs to kill coalition troops. Nonetheless, he was nursed back to health by military doctors who attended to the near-fatal wounds he suffered while trying to kill American servicemen. No legal or medical rights have been denied him, and Khadr’s first two lawyers, whom he dismissed, were university law professors. Now housed in the least restricted part of Guantanamo, he has been allowed to read – according to former Gitmo chaplain James Yee, Khadr was particularly delighted to receive Disney picture books – and has even memorized the Koran. In this environment, to portray Khadr as a victim of military child abuse is to distort the facts beyond recognition.

And that is precisely what Khadr’s defenders have done. It is fair to say that no Guantanamo detainee has aroused as much misplaced sympathy as the 21-year-old Islamist. Whether in the form of books weeping over “Guantanamo’s child,” or this week’s mendacious video stunt, the save-Khadr campaign goes on. If there is any good news to emerge from these unedifying proceedings it is that, for the time being at least, Khadr himself is staying right where he is.

What we have here is another opportunity for Harper’s opponents to try to score some political points against him. Doing so by turning Omar and his Taliban mama into figures of sympathy, though, has to represent a new low in Canadian politics.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:00 | link | comments

Beauty contest: The mainstream media is supposed to feign at least a semblance of impartiality, even if everyone knows they are predisposed to favour the candidate who shares their word view. But the appearance on the scene of an adorable Kansan-Indonesian-Hawaiian with a Messiah complex has caused them to throw all caution—and impartiality—to the wind. The Obamania is so flagrant that not even media observer Howard Kurtz can safely ignore it.  From the Washington Post:

…Some 200 journalists have asked to accompany Obama on the costly trip, which will include stops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the campaign will be able to accommodate only one-fifth that number. No itinerary has been announced.

The senator from Illinois has been drawing far more media attention than his Republican rival from Arizona. With this week's Newsweek cover story on Obama's religious beliefs, he has been featured on Time and Newsweek covers 12 times in the past three years, compared with five for McCain. This week's New Yorker includes a 14,600-word piece on Obama's political rise in Chicago. Obama and his wife, Michelle, were recently on the cover of Us Weekly and were interviewed -- with their young daughters, which Obama later said he regretted -- by "Access Hollywood."

When McCain visited Britain, France and Israel in March and met with their leaders, no network anchors tagged along. NBC and ABC sent correspondents; CBS did not. None of the evening newscasts covered his trip to Canada last month. And McCain's swing through Colombia and Mexico two weeks ago was barely covered, although NBC and ABC sent correspondents.

The upcoming Obama trip, by contrast, has already generated stories about how large his crowds will be and whether German authorities will allow him to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. "Europe Awaits Obama With Open Arms," the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday.

Yesterday on CNN, Howard and Lou Dobbs grappled with the imbalance in coverage: Why, oh, why, they wondered, was it so overwhelmingly one-sided?  Seems to me they overlooked the obvious—that, objectively speaking, Obama is just a whole lot more attractive than McCain: younger, better spoken, easier on the eyes.

Put another way, if Denzel Washington was running for president against, say, Wilford Brimley, who would you rather look at?

Update: AP notes that McCain supporters are suffereing from "an excitement deficit." No kidding.

Update: Charles Krauthammer is one media pundit who's not taken in by the optics. Here he is in the Washington Post, skewering Bambi for arrogantly and narcissistically demanding a phtoto-op in front of the Brandenburg Gates:

…Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone...

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

Shooting down Hershell’s balloon: Yesterday, CIJA CEO Hershell Ezrin floated the idea that the reason there’s been so much controversy about a New Yorker cover showing Bambi and the Missus as their “critics” supposedly see them (Bambi be-turbaned; Michelle in urban warfare gear and an Angela Davis ‘fro) is because of those “quaint” Americans who can’t seem to keep up with the Fauxbama “Change Is Good” program. But according to a new Pew poll, the misconception that Bambi’s a Muslim is far more likely to hurt him among Democrats that among Republicans. (Republicans don’t seem to care what his religion is. Muslim, Christian: he ain’t getting their vote). From the Weekly Standard:

…The Pew study reveals nearly four out 10 (37 percent) are off in one way or another when it comes to knowing Obama’s religion. That 37 percent breaks down this way: 12 percent think he’s Muslim, 10 percent say they “don’t know and have heard different things,” and 15 percent answer they “don’t know and haven’t heard enough.” Given all the controversy about his church and his pastor earlier in the year, the lack of knowledge about his religion says a lot about the average American attention span on this issue.

The Pew survey also suggests the notion that Obama is Muslim hurts him among Democrats, but not Republicans. For example, of the Democrats who think he’s a Christian, Obama draws 90 percent support. But among those who say he is a Muslim, he only garners 62 percent--a gap of 28 points.

Views of Obama’s religion--accurate or not--have no impact among Republicans. He draws 10 percent support from Republicans who think he’s a Christian and 10 percent from those who think he’s Muslim.

Dare we infer from those stats that Democrats are more—I believe the term being trotted out these days with ever increasing frequency is “Islamophobic”?

So much for Ezrin’s considered opinion. 

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

Get ‘em while they’re young: You remember that song from South Pacific, don’t you?

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

Well, that’s what immediately popped into my head when I read this, from the Tehran Times:

AMMAN (Xinhua) -- Some 150 youngsters aged 14 to 16 from 20 countries across the Arab world, America, Europe and Asia gathered here to take part in the 28th International Arab Children Congress which kicked off on Monday focusing on education.     

During this year's congress dubbed ""Quality Education is Key,"" participants will discuss issues related to education such as art, gender equality, cultural diversity, human rights and economy-based education, local daily Jordan Times reported.     

They will be encouraged through various creative art disciplines in drama, music, visual arts and debate sessions to discuss the theme of the congress and come up with recommendation that will be announced by Congress Director Lina Attel during the closing ceremony on July 20 at Al Hussein Cultural Center.     

It has been 28 years since Jordan's Queen Noor initiated the congress following the 1980 Arab summit held in Amman, in an attempt to give children and youth the same opportunity as leaders of nations to express their needs and aspirations.     

""If we began by bringing together young people from all over the world at a stage in their lives when they can begin to appreciate common bonds and also express pride and understanding of the diversity of experiences and perspectives, we might be able to forge bonds towards a more constructive dynamic in the region,"" Queen Noor was quoted as saying.

Here’s just a bit of the “quality education” people receive in the Arab world— “education” that wouldn’t have been at all unfamiliar to the citizens of the Third Reich.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:15 | link | comments

Canadacentric: Israel’s misguided exchange with Hezbollah—Der Spiegel accurately pegs it as “two coffins for a murderer”—strikes  Melanie Phillips as “a tragic blunder.” Meanwhile, across the pond, Hershell Ezrin, capo di tutti capi of Canada’s Jewstablishment, is reminded of…the FLQ Crisis?

Talk about yer solipsism.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:57 | link | comments

Equal opportunity satire: The guys at JibJab show how it's done (and do a good job of sending up Bambi--why, there's even a gentle doe in his part of the piece).

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

Selective reproach: The Canadian Jewstablishment is determined to deport every last incontinent Nazi in the land, but you’ll hear nary a word from it about this guy—a Palestinian terrorist who lied his way into the country in 1968 and has been stonewalling a deportation order for the past twenty years. 

Guess the ‘stablishment doesn’t want to burn any of those “bridges”.

Update: The Jewstablishment sings Simon and Garfunkle (except for the last verse, which I'm pleased to sing on my own):

When you’re weary, feelin’ small.

When “hate” pervades the land, we will end it all;

We’re on your side, oh, when times get rough.

And Nazis on the go,

Like a bridge in that Guinness movie,

We will aid the foe.

Like a bridge in that Guinness movie,

We will aid the foe.

 

When you’re diligent,

When you’re lookin’ hard,

When you abhor the “hate”

You can find a lot.

We’ll take your part,

And feel your pain.

We’re searchin’ high and low.

Like a bridge in that Guinness movie,

We will aid the foe.

Like a bridge in that Guinness movie,

We will aid the foe.

 

Sail on, Tammy boy.

Sail on by.

Your slipped between the sheets

With some dubious consorts.

See how they smile--

Disingenuously.

Beware their quid pro quo.

Like a bridge in that Guinness movie,

It will aid the foe.

Like a bridge in that Guinness movie,

It will aid the foe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:05 | link | comments

Iran in the driver’s seat: Remind me again—which one is the superpower? From Fox News:

LONDON —  The United States will announce in the next month that it plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a British newspaper said on Thursday.

In a front-page report, the Guardian said Washington would open a U.S. interests section in the Iranian capital, halfway towards opening an embassy.

The unsourced report by the newspaper's Washington correspondent said: "The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a U.S. interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy.

"The move will see U.S. diplomats stationed in the country."

Senior U.S. diplomat William Burns said in testimony to Congress last week the United States was looking to opening up an interest section in Tehran but had not made a decision yet.

The Guardian said the development was "a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office".

Washington said on Wednesday it was sending Burns to join atomic talks with Iran this weekend to signal to Tehran and others that Washington wanted a diplomatic solution to their nuclear impasse.

Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful power generation, and not for the development of nuclear weapons as the West suspects, and has rejected conditions it give up uranium enrichment.

On Sunday, President Amhmoud Ahmadinejad suggested Iran would consider any proposal by the United States for a U.S. interests section in the Islamic Republic, should one be forthcoming.

U.S. media have reported that the State Department is considering opening an interests section that could mean U.S. diplomats returning to Tehran but operating under another country's flag…

That’s awfully nice of “Amhmoud” (Amhmoud?), letting Great Satan back onto his soil so long as it’s willing to use a disguise. Kind of reminds of the time the Red Cross said it was okay for the Jews to come into the fold,  provided they neutralized their “provocative” Jewish symbol.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:42 | link | comments

Bambi bleeds: The Messiah is so selfless that he’s not terribly worried that a New Yorker cover may unwittingly fuel misconceptions about him and the Missus. He’s far most concerned lest it give rise to misconceptions about, yup, Muslims. That’s right, Bambi sees it as another one of those “insulting” ‘toons. From the New York Daily News:

In his first substantive talk about the magazine's inflammatory cartoon depicting him and his wife as fist-bumping terrorists, Obama told CNN's Larry King the image fueled misconceptions and insulted Muslim Americans.

"I know it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it," Obama said. "But you know what? It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment."

The presumptive Democratic nominee said he wasn't personally stung by the cartoon.

"I've seen and heard worse," Obama said. "[Still], in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead."

"But, you know, that was their editorial judgment," Obama added. "Ultimately, it's a cartoon, it's not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about."

Obama has spent the better part of the past 18 months debunking false Internet rumors that he's Muslim and defending his patriotism. He's Christian, but Obama said he's been derelict in pointing out how hurtful these attacks are to Muslim Americans.

These fallacious e-mails and The New Yorker cartoon are "actually an insult against Muslim Americans," he said. There are "wonderful Muslim Americans" across the country, Obama said, and "for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate."

"It's not what America's all about," he said…

No siree. America’s all about an ambitious self-starter who can come out of nowhere, pander to everyone, and bamboozle the electorate into installing him in the highest office in the land. That’s what America’s all about.

Update: A 'toonist's clever take on "insulting" the unassailable.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:53 | link | comments

Leftist-Islamist misperceptions: Want to know why Alexa McDonough and Mo Elmasry are so simpatico? Could it be that they both view the world through the same distorted lens—the one that sees eee-vil Capitalism as the wellspring of the world’s ills? Here’s Mo, sounding a lot like a Alexa or Socialist poster-babe Naomi Klein,  in a speech he delivered in Cairo two years back. It strings together all the familiar buzz words—“apartheid,” “globalization,” “Kyoto,” “colonialism,” etc.:

…Apartheid South Africa is fortunately a thing of the past and Apartheid Israel is, sadly, all too much a thing of the present. But Apartheid Globalization threatens to be an even greater danger, promoted by rich and powerful countries as the new world order that will benefit us all. This is the big lie we are being asked to believe, whether we are rich or poor, have or have-not.

 

If we let Apartheid Globalization set the agenda, we will soon be deprived even of the air we breathe; our atmosphere will be polluted beyond repair by rates of overconsumption by the rich that will make the Kyoto Accord worth less than nothing.

 

Even now, the world's poorest are tragically paying the price as victims of so-called "natural disasters" that are directly related to human-originated climate change. In both developed and developing countries, hundreds of thousands of people die in such cataclysms every year.

 

The rich and powerful West still refuses to acknowledge that its wealth and development were built on the backs of the poor through centuries of slavery, colonialism and exploitation. This immoral denial is by far the biggest crime against humanity.

 

Instead, the West blames its victims and spreads dishonest propaganda claiming that poverty and underdevelopment in poor nations are problems of their own making, due to lack of democracy, rampant corruption, and poor governance.

 

The West conveniently ignores the history of civilizations destroyed by its colonial imperialism in Africa, China, India, the Americas, and in the Arab and the Muslim worlds. This is the racist Western view of culture that now advocates for globalization on its own inequitable and unfair terms.

 

In a speech at the opening session of the South Summit, convened by the Group of 77 in Havana, April 12, 2000, Cuban president Fidel Castro said:

 

"If Cuba has successfully carried out education, health care, culture, science, sports and other programs, which nobody in the world would question, despite four decades of economic blockade, and revalued its currency seven times in the last five years in relation to the U.S. dollar, it has been thanks to its privileged position as a non-member of the International Monetary Fund.

 

"For two decades, the Third World has been repeatedly listening to only one simplistic discourse, while one single policy has prevailed," Castro continued. "We have been told that deregulated markets, maximum privatization and the state’s withdrawal from economic activity were the infallible principles conducive to economic and social development.

 

"In the last two decades, along this line the developed countries, particularly the United States, the big transnationals who benefit from such policies, and the International Monetary Fund have designed the world economic order most hostile to our countries’ progress and the least sustainable, in terms of the preservation of society and the environment."

 

As Castro so clearly outlined, the Third World has paid a high price as a result of the economic crises, instability, and uncertainty, all manufactured by the rich and powerful as they grow even richer, speculating on the currency of poor countries. The well known unrestrained speculation on the currencies of the countries of Southeast Asia and the crises that followed is a powerful example.

 

This too is another crime against humanity. The Third World is forced to keep large sums of hard currency in reserve -- depleting the amounts available to invest in local development projects -- all just to protect its currency from predatory speculators…

 

Hmmm. Sounds like Mo’s prescribing the “cure” of sharia banking to heal The Third Word from wounds inflicted by all those nasty “speculators.” I’m sure Alexa and Naomi (who’s been known to express praise for Hezbollah’s local projects) would be on side with that.

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

Unmitigated Gall: The CJC has it—in spades. So does a gent by that last name—I take it he’s some legal type—who pens another lame defense of our anti-hate system. From the Canadian Jewish News, posted, along with Harpoon's two lame defenses, on the CJC site (the CJC’s bolds; h/t MK):

…These laws, however, have recently come under attack for being used in inappropriate circumstances. The attacks have focused on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and similar sections of anti-discrimination legislation in British Columbia, Alberta and elsewhere. Most recently, they arose out of complaints by a Muslim organization against cartoons, originally published in a Danish newspaper, and other depictions and descriptions viewed as anti-Muslim. This led to controversial complaints against writer Mark Steyn, Maclean’s magazine and Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the Western Standard magazine, and then to suggestions by some that the anti-discrimination laws affecting expression should be abolished.

What is the position of the organized Jewish community regarding these anti-discrimination provisions? The CJC supports these laws to ensure that another level of protection is afforded minorities in Canada.

At the same time, Congress proposes that a review of the substance and administration of these laws be undertaken to ensure that a line can be drawn between permissible and offensive speech, and that these laws are only used in appropriate circumstances.

The Canadian Jewish community is not alone in its concerns. In April 2007, the B’nai Brith Anti-Defamation Commission in Australia supported a government proposal to order Internet service providers to refrain from hosting racist and anti-Semitic websites.

Some believe freedom of speech is absolute and that there should be no legal limits or constraints on its exercise. They argue that there should be a marketplace of ideas from which the truth would emerge. But there are limits on any marketplace. No commercial marketplace should allow the sale of toys that are dangerous to children or foods that are harmful to health. That is why consumer goods are regulated. Equally, laws are needed to ensure that hateful and discriminatory expression does not cause harm to vulnerable groups in society.

For hundreds of years, the law has recognized the harm caused by defamatory speech. Anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws essentially achieve the same objective by prohibiting group defamation.

In Psalm 34, we are warned, “Guard your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile.” As a community, we should strongly support free speech while, at the same time, we should continue to censure unbridled expressions of hatred.

And there you have it—another guy who thinks we’re “children” and that the state needs to prevent us from visiting the marketplace, making our own selections, and perhaps carting home some “harmful” ideas.

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Gall. This being a democracy—in theory, at least— I prefer, no, I demand, to be seen as an adult, and as an individual. Not as a “child”. Not as a component of a “group”: That, dare I say it, is how people are viewed in totalitarian systems. And as a grownup and an individual, I reject and repudiate your tattered security blanket, which defends me from nada and which, globally and locally, is helping facilitate the creep of sharia.

As for citing Psalms—nice touch, but don’t you think there’s something ironic about quoting the scripture that provided the ethical underpinnings of Western civilization in order to defend measures that are helping to demolish it?

Good luck putting a lid on “defamatory speech” on the Internet, though. That’s one “marketplace”which, for good and ill, is likely to remain a free-for-all—and thus the last bastion of free speech—no matter what.

Posted by: scaramouche at 08:49 | link | comments

Potemkin Expo: Jihad has two countenances. The face of hard jihad—the jihad of Osama, Hamas, Hellzbollocks and the rest—is is ugly, messy and bloody. The face of soft jihad, on the other hand, is colourful, festive and yummy in the tummy. Here a bit of the timesonline’s account of an event—London’s Islam Expo—where the soft jihad was in evidence for those who cared to look behind the facade.

…Visitors to Islam Expo would have witnessed such innocent activities as an Islamic arts and crafts workshop for under 12s, live Islamic storytelling performances and lute-playing and poetry recitals in the pomegranate and date gardens.

The old Comintern would have instantly recognised the first rate tradecraft involved in organising all this. Just as Moscow and its allies knew how to organise a “popular front” to draw non-communist progressives and liberals into their orbit of influence, so some Islamists have honed a keen sense of how to present a non-threatening face to the West and to the many hundreds of decent, apolitical Muslims who turned up for a family day out.

But behind the cultural soft power of Islam Expo, there is political hard power, and some of it comes in quite raw, unpalatable forms. The organisers gave floor space in the exhibition section to the genocidal regime in Sudan (festooned with pictures of happy-looking black Africans) and to the “Cultural Section” of the Iranian Embassy (representing an aspirant genocidal regime) and the Algerian junta (no spring picnic on human rights).

This perhaps becomes less surprising when one examines some of the directors of Islam Expo. All oppose al-Qaeda violence, but they are anything but moderate Muslims. They include Azzam Tamimi, a supporter of Hamas suicide bombings in Israel and an admirer of Ayatollah Khomeini; and Ismail Adam Patel, who believes that women in the West who are raped share responsibility with their attackers.

Consider also the views of one of the expo's speakers: “Prof Zaghloul al Naggar, professor of geology and director of the London-based Markfield Institute of Higher Education has rightly told IslamOnline that many Westerners - some of them homosexual - convert to Islam in order to appeal to Islamic communities and spread sinful behaviour among Muslims, thus shaking their belief,” according to the allaahuakbar.net website…

To quote the tagline of a TV commercial for Fantasy Island (a rather threadbare Buffalo-area amusement park that was around when I was growing up):  Fun? Wow!

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:32 | link | comments

And for his next feat, he plans to walk on water and raise a guy named Lazarus from the dead: Bambi vows to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:03 | link | comments

Name that 'toon: The ICC has just announced that it plans to bring geocidaire, Sudan thug Omar al-Bashir, to justice. Guess how the Arab News' 'toonist chose to interpret that announcement?

 

Yup, because if the international community takes action against an Arab regime, no matter how loathsome or genocidal that regime happens to be, Uncle Sam (or, the Jews, or both) must be pulling the strings.

Update: The threats begin.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:34 | link | comments

Bruce Springsteen, Wall-toppler:? I venture that I'm second to none in my esteem for Bruce Springsteen's "Thunder Road": simply put, I love the song.  Even so, I haven't allowed my adoration for Bruce's music to cloud my understanding of history such that I believe that Brucie fit the battle of the Cold War, and the Berlin Wall came a-tumbin' down.

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

Dhimmi McDonough: In his column this past Sunday—a revolting piece of anti-Israel tripe—Harpoon Siddiqui cited with approval the words of former NDP leader, Alexa McDonough:

…A similar sentiment was expressed on the same day by New Democrat Alexa McDonough: "We have a Prime Minister who alone in the world still considers George Bush his political hero."

I had asked her about the sustainability of Harper's position boycotting Hamas and Hezbollah, when Israel itself is dealing with both, and also Syria:

·         Using Egypt as a mediator, Israel worked out a ceasefire that has more or less held in the Gaza Strip since June 19. Israel is also negotiating the swap of a soldier captured by Hamas two years ago for the release of jailed Palestinians.

·         Using the United Nations as mediator, Israel is close to a deal with Hezbollah for the return of two soldiers whose capture triggered the war in Lebanon. Israel is also ready to talk with Lebanon about a tiny piece of Israeli-occupied land, known as Shabaa Farms.

·         Using Turkey as a mediator, Israel has held two rounds of talks with Syria about a peace treaty.

If Israel is talking to all the relevant parties, why can't Canada?

McDonough: "Whether it's the Israeli-Palestinian dispute or Iran, we can't seem to get our government to understand that a policy of belligerence doesn't do anything to advance peace."

The Harper government may not be “advancing peace” in Islamist terms (i.e. the “peace” that will be in effect once Islam is officially calling the shots), but Ms. McDonough certainly seems to be doing her part to advance that agenda. Last month, Muslim organizations acknowledged her efforts on their behalf:

Canadian Muslim organizations salute Alexa McDonough for her contributions

(Ottawa, Canada – June 3, 2008) – The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) in partnership with the Canadian Muslim Network – a coordinating network of Muslim groups from across Canada – today paid tribute to the distinguished public service career of Alexa McDonough, MP for Halifax, for her tireless efforts on behalf of all Canadians.

As Member of Parliament since June 1997 and leader of the New Democratic Party from 1995-2003, McDonough has many ‘firsts’ to her name including being the first woman to lead a recognized political party in Canada, the first woman to win four consecutive federal terms in Nova Scotia and the only woman elected from among 32 MP’s in Atlantic Canada in the 39th federal election. With a history of activism stretching back to her early years, McDonough has supported and participated in dozens of advocacy and social action groups, human rights organizations, and professional associations.

“Alexa McDonough is an extraordinary Canadian whose tireless work on behalf of many noble causes, including her active and early involvement in the case of Maher Arar before it became fashionable, speaks volumes about her commitment to the universal principles of justice and equality for all,” said Abdul-Basit Khan, CAIR-CAN Chairman. He added that “McDonough is a shining example of individual commitment to Canadian values including respect for others, human rights, courage and perseverance to which all Canadians should aspire and we wish her continued success.”

“Canadians, especially those most vulnerable amongst us, owe Alexa McDonough an enormous debt of gratitude for helping make Canada a place where all people, irrespective of their political affiliation, race, ethnicity or faith traditions are afforded the same rights and obligations. Her numerous awards and accolades are a testament to her efforts to re-establish Canada as a civil liberties and human rights leader on the international stage – she will be sorely missed,” said Dr. Tyseer Aboulnasr, spokesperson for the Canadian Muslim Network.

Some organizations involved in the Canadian Muslim Network include:

Canadian Council of Imams
Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN)
Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC)
Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association (CMCLA)
Canadian Muslim Forum (CMF)
Federation of Muslim Women
Islamic Society of Kingston
Islamic Society of Toronto
Islamic Supreme Council of Canada
Muslim Council of Montreal (MCM)
Ottawa Muslim Association
Young Muslims Canada

That’s our Alexa—a true civil libertarian (in the shared Islamic-Leftist sense of the term, anyway).

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:40 | link | comments (6)

Ehud Faust: To prolong his political career, he's making pacts with devils.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:00 | link | comments (1)

Absurd impersonation: The Canadian Arab Federation explains its “Birthright Palestine” program—a direct steal of Israel Birthright:

Launching this summer, Birthright Palestine is a unique program initiated by native Palestinians for Diaspora Palestinians, to assimilate them back into their homeland via cultural immersion. It is meant to gather first-generation, western-born Palestinians (over the age of 18-years old) in their ancestral homeland so they can reunite and witness firsthand how their brethren are living under illegal Israeli military occupation, while assimilating them into Palestinian society.

 

The program is made-up of four major components: education, tourism, hospitality and volunteering, and will nurture relationships between participants of Palestinian ethnic origin born in the Diaspora and those between foreign-born and native-born Palestinians. Also, an exchange of ideas will take place, as local Palestinians will begin to better understand the situation of Diaspora Palestinians and vice versa – possibly leading to a cohesive consensus on core issues of importance to the Palestinian Nation.

 

The concept was created by the Palestine Center for National Strategic Studies (PCNSS), a new, non-profit, non-violent, non-factional, non-governmental organizational think tank based out of the Dheisheh Refugee Camp that facilitates student-based research guided by PhD mentors. This program is being implemented in cooperation and partnership with the Siraj Center of Holy Land Studies…

 

Could someone puh-leeze tell the Palestinians that, as part of a massive ummah, they’re not and can never be the Jews?  And as far as that “ancestral homeland” stuff is concerned, as far as I know, there were no "Palestinians" back in ancient times, and there’s no getting around it: we were there first.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:17 | link | comments

Times in the dark: Honest Reporting scanned a year's worth of New York Times reportage and, to no one's surprise, discovered that America's "paper of record" has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to Israel's totalitarian enemies.

In other words, all the news the Times saw fit to print last year was heavily biased in favour of the Islamofascists.

Good job, Times! You've kept your record for most long-standing cluelessness/willful blindness in the American media intact.

Update: In this podcast of the New Criterion's "Free Speech in the Age of Jihad," terrorism expert Steven Emerson calls the New York Times "an appendage of Hamas."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:42 | link | comments (1)

Fill 'er up?: A darkly comical YouTube video illustrates how high oil prices get us in two ways--by depriving us of hard-earned money, and by filling the coffers of our enemies, who are using the gush of funds to destroy us.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:32 | link | comments

Bushwah: A Jewish capo at Al That Jaz--the CBC without hockey--joins the growing chorus of voices calling for Bush to be next on the ICC's list of "war criminals" who should be brought to "justice".

Bush, al-Bashir: it's all the same in the wacky, wonderfully amoral world of moral relativism. (Hey, the names even sound alike, don't they?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:58 | link | comments

Prisoners: The release of videos showing a then-16-year-old Omar Khadr being interrogated by Canadian security officers at Gitmo has had the effect his lawyers were hoping for: a big splash in the media; much national hand-wringing; sympathy writ large for the “boy soldier” crying out for mama whilst being probed by “heartless” CSIS agents.

At least Omar’s ma has the comfort of knowing that her son, though sleep-deprived, is still very much alive, and, depending on the outcome of his trial, may return “home” in due course. Contrast that with the experience of the parents of Ehud Golwasser and Eldad Regev, the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hellzbollocks (a group that’s aces with Omar’s Taliban ma). For two years their parents have been through a living hell, not knowing whether their sons were alive or dead. Well, now they know: Ehud and Eldad are coming home in a wooden box.

You can be certain that during their time in captivity—however brief or long it may have been (and I have a feeling it was very brief)—they were not treated with anywhere near the same consideration as poor sleep-deprived, interrogated Omar Khadr.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:16 | link | comments (6)

Guys and gulls: Yes, it’s true. Hershell Ezrin, who, in his capacity as CEO of  CIJA, is capo di tutti capi of Canada’s Israel and Jewish advocacy groups (the CJC, Wiesenthal, B’nai Brith, et al), has his very own blog. Yesterday, Hershell took time out from his busy day to opine on the Bambi ‘toon tumult. As Hershell sees it (and he sees it through the eyes of a former strategist for the Ontario Liberals), the hoopla erupted because certain people who harbour “quaint” ideas have been unable to come to terms with the fast pace of "change" and the wonderfulness of Fauxbama, who's his kind of guy (my bolds):

…methinks the outrage over Blitt’s cartoon is less an issue of genuine offense and more a case of “the lady doth protest too much.” It touches on a fear of the world changing much too fast for many Americans to keep up. The New Yorker cover ridicules an America that is being left behind, grappling with quaint notions of Muslims in regulation turban and white robe and militantly angry black women. And whether other countries have bread or fruit.

We, the children of a post-colonial world, don’t fear an Obama Planet. It has been our world for a long time. We’re happy to finally see the growing success of one of our own.

No, I didn’t mean a Muslim. Stop hyperventilating.

Will do, Hershell. Got my brown paper bag at hand. Breathing in and out. In and out.

There. Serenity returns. Now, could you please explain how a half-black Kansan/Hawaiian who spent his adulthood imbibing Black Liberation Theology from Louie Farakhan’s amigo at the Church of Abominate Ameri-KKKa and the Jooos is “one of our own”?

Yesterday, Hershell’s guy Bambi, whose foreign policy chops don't exactly rival Dean Acheson's, explained that radical Islam rose in response to American foreign policy and poverty (i.e. a paucity of "bread and fruit") in the Arab/Muslim world—in its own clueless way, rather a quaint notion. Robert Spencer, who’s likely not Hershell’s kind of guy, demolishes this fatally naïve idea in one fell swoop (my bolds):

On Sunday CNN aired an interview Barack Obama recently gave to Fareed Zakaria, in which the candidate expressed the opinion that Islamic jihad is a result of U.S. foreign policy failure. This is, of course, an assumption that he shares with virtually everyone of any influence in both parties. It is conventional wisdom that the United States, or the West in general, can make the global jihad problem go away by doing something that is not being done now, or by stopping doing something else. The possibility that the jihad might have arisen not as a reaction to actions of America and the West -- and cannot be ended by our actions, either, with the possible exception of overwhelming military and cultural force -- never seems to occur to anyone.

Zakaria asked Obama: “Do you believe, when looking at the world today, that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century?” In reply Obama spoke of “terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity,” as if Islamic jihadists were Amish with AK-47s, and avowed that “the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face.”

How can such people be driven into extremist ideologies? Obama explained that when he was a child Indonesia, “Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.” And “around the world,” he said, “there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law.”

Of course, the problem in the world today is not an opposition of “Islam” to the “rule of law.” It is the resurgence of the Islamic supremacist ideology that has led to a global attempt to replace non-Muslim legal systems with Islamic sharia law -- an attempt that is making great headway in Europe and is also going on in the United States, both by violence and by stealth…

Oh, Robert, you’re such an alarmist. Try being more like Hershell Ezrin and Tammy Farber, chaps who embrace an “Obama planet” and who are building bridges with Muslims (our co-pebbles in Canada’s gloriously colourful multi-shmulti mosaic), and I can assure you, you’ll feel muuuch better.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:19 | link | comments

Serves 'em right: There's something quite delicious about the New Yorker wanting to poke fun at all the "misconceptions" Fauxbama's opponents have about him and his outspoken wife, and assigning one of the magazine's 'toonists to create a cover illustrating many of them, and then having to eat crow when people take the picture at face value.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:24 | link | comments

R.I.P. free speech: The great Ibn Warraq describes how the OIC did in free expression at the UN. From the New English Review (his bolds):

…[T]he Islamic countries in recent months, nay recent weeks, have tried to, and succeeded in, stifling criticisms of Islam at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. Human Rights begin with freedom of thought, and expression; democracy depends on it. Sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, a noble document whose articles18 and 19 guarantee freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of opinion and expression, Islamic countries on 28 March, 2008 managed to kill it.

The 57 Islamic States with support from China, Russia and Cuba succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this freedom. Theo van Gogh, the Danish cartoonists, Geert Wilders and anyone criticising Islam, or the Sharia will now be deemed to have 'abused' the freedom of expression. In other words, instead of protecting freedom of expression, the amendment will now be limiting freedom of expression.

The nations that created the United Nations, and promulgated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 were committed to the concepts of equality, individual freedom and the rule of law. In the last fifteen years, the UN has been taken over by the Islamic States, whose record on human rights is abysmal, and who have a very shaky notion of what constitutes democracy, and whose allegiance is to a seventh-century worldview defined exclusively in terms of man’s duties towards God or Allah. The Islamic States have been supported by those nations with a hatred of the United States of America, and those countries who see their future economic and political interests as being best served by their alliances with the Islamic States…

Today the UN, tomorrow…Canada.  Just kidding. In the area of free speech, our human rights laws are already sharia compliant.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:34 | link | comments (1)

Melanie in Obamaland: Attending a Hadassah convention in Los Angeles, Melanie Phillips comes face to face with two associated dementias from which far too many American Jews suffer--Bush Derangement Syndrome and Obamamania. Scary!

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

John Bolton, the anti-Harpoon: As an antidote to Harpoon Siddiqui’s mishugas in the Sunday Star, here’s the former U.S. ambassador to the UN (why isn’t this man running for president?) explaining why time is running out and Israel will have to take action very soon. From the WSJ:

Iran's test salvo of ballistic missiles last week together with recent threatening rhetoric by commanders of the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards emphasizes how close the Middle East is to a fundamental, in fact an irreversible, turning point.

Tehran's efforts to intimidate the United States and Israel from using military force against its nuclear program, combined with yet another diplomatic charm offensive with the Europeans, are two sides of the same policy coin. The regime is buying the short additional period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years.

Between Iran and its long-sought objective, however, a shadow may fall: targeted military action, either Israeli or American. Yes, Iran cannot deliver a nuclear weapon on target today, and perhaps not for several years. Estimates vary widely, and no one knows for sure when it will have a deliverable weapon except the mullahs, and they're not telling. But that is not the key date. Rather, the crucial turning point is when Iran masters all the capabilities to weaponize without further external possibility of stopping it. Then the decision to weaponize, and its timing, is Tehran's alone. We do not know if Iran is at this point, or very near to it. All we do know is that, after five years of failed diplomacy by the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), Iran is simply five years closer to nuclear weapons.

And yet, true to form, State Department comments to Congress last week – even as Iran's missiles were ascending – downplayed Iran's nuclear progress, ignoring the cost of failed diplomacy. But the confident assumption that we have years to deal with the problem is high-stakes gambling on a policy that cannot be reversed if it fails. If Iran reaches weaponization before State's jaunty prediction, the Middle East, and indeed global, balance of power changes in potentially catastrophic ways.

And consider what comes next for the U.S.: the Bush administration's last six months pursuing its limp diplomatic efforts, plus six months of a new president getting his national security team and policies together. In other words, one more year for Tehran to proceed unhindered to "the point of no return."

We have almost certainly lost the race between giving "strong incentives" for Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its scientific and technological efforts to do just that. Swift, sweeping, effectively enforced sanctions might have made a difference five years ago. No longer. Existing sanctions have doubtless caused some pain, but Iran's real economic woes stem from nearly 30 years of mismanagement by the Islamic Revolution.

More sanctions today (even assuming, heroically, support from Russia and China) will simply be too little, too late. While regime change in Tehran would be the preferable solution, there is almost no possibility of dislodging the mullahs in time. Had we done more in the past five years to support the discontented – the young, the non-Persian minorities and the economically disaffected – things might be different. Regime change, however, cannot be turned on and off like a light switch, although the difficulty of effecting it is no excuse not to do more now.

That is why Israel is now at an urgent decision point: whether to use targeted military force to break Iran's indigenous control over the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more critical points. If successful, such highly risky and deeply unattractive air strikes or sabotage will not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. But they have the potential to buy considerable time, thereby putting that critical asset back on our side of the ledger rather than on Iran's.

With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway. The alternative is Iran with nuclear weapons, the most deeply unattractive alternative of all…

If Iran gets its nukes, we may as well all say our prayers.

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

Another "scandalous" cover: I don't think this one could have been published in Canada:

"Kvetchnya"--love it!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:43 | link | comments

Bush fiddles; the U.S. burns: A cover 'toon that didn't raise any eyebrows:

My letter responding to the Globe and Mail article:

Wasn’t it the Ayatollah Khomeini who said, “There are no jokes in Leftism”?

 

Seriously though, this is far from the first time the New Yorker has published a satirical cover. Last year, for instance, there was one showing George W. Bush done up as Nero, with fiddle, flames and all. The implication being, of course, that “emperor” Bush was fiddling around while “imperial” America burned. Oddly enough, no one said “boo” about that cover, even though it was every bit as inflammatory (pun intended) as the one showing Barack Obama dressed as a desert sheikh and his wife drawn to look like a latter-day Angela Davis.

 

I guess some people can—and, then again, some others can’t—take a joke.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:02 | link | comments

There are no jokes in Leftism: The New Yorker cover showing Obama in desert garb and the Missus rigged out as an urban terrorist isn’t eliciting many yucks in pro-Bambi quarters. Instead of taking it as a joke, a satire of the right wingnuts’ perception of the power couple, the Bambinoes are freaking out because they think the New Yorker has besmirched their hero’s reputation. Oh, sure, no one’s rioting in the streets or burning down embassies—because that’s not what ‘toon bashers do here in the West. But you just know that, given their druthers, they’d like to behead those who insult Bambi. No doubt the magazine will soon issue an abject apology and promise to print the kind of cover the outraged want to see—one showing Bambi as Jesus and Michelle done up as Jackie Kennedy, pearls, gloves, pillbox hat and all. And maybe one of the Bambi moppets can be riding a pony, à la Caroline’s Macaroni.

I like this “get a grip, people” comment following Jonathan Alter’s Newsweek piece about the furor.

It is true that now Obama claims to be a Christian. But is is also true that one-half of his family, which is all of his natural father's family, is Moslem and lives in Africa today. Literally half of Obama's family is African and Moslem. These are not relatives from a 300 year old slave ancester (sic). These are his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. His step-father is a Moslem and lives in Indonesia. While a child, Obama lived in Indonesia and attended a Wahabe (sic) Moslem school. His religion was stated as Moslem. These are not connections that can be cast aside with an, "Oh, that was then, this is now" attitude. When you place this in combination with his wife's comments about being proud of America for the first time when her husband (Obama) was running for president, his very close 20 year relationship with a black Christian preacher who clearly hates the USA and his association with an unrepentant Weatherman who publically stated the day before 9/11 stated he was sorry he hadn't set off more bombs, you have a picture of a man we all should be shocked hold the public post of dog catcher, much less United States Senator. The idea he is being seriously considered for the office of President is positively revolting.

Dog catcher: heh. Personally, I don’t really care about Bambi’s provenance. I think he’s unsuitable for the highest office because he’s dishonest, hasn’t got a clue, is further to the left than Jimminy Carter (Hamas-fancier; worst president ever), and because there’s got to be a better reason for voting for someone other than his attractive packaging, and because voting for him makes you, the voter, feel virtuous.

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

P.O.'d genocidaire: Mass-murdering Sudanese thug Omar al-Bashir is so angry  that the international court in the Hague has charged him with crimes against humanity that he's says he's going to get back at it--by perpetrating more crimes against humanity.

That'll show 'em.

Posted by: scaramouche at 01:25 | link | comments

Warning: Global warming may cause kidney stones.

M'kay. And just what are we supposed to do with that info?

Posted by: scaramouche at 01:14 | link | comments

Oh, no, not more sleep deprivation: Will the torture never end?

I, for one, feel very guilty about it. Let's all repent by submitting.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:21 | link | comments

Brother love: Writing in the Times, a woman touts the delights of incest, a kink of which she is not ashamed and for which she offers no apologies.

Permit me to add mine to the chorus of voices going, “Like, ew!”

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:44 | link | comments

Syed’s transformation: Yes, it’s true. Syed Soharwardy, famous for complaining to Calgary police about Ezra Levant and, when they told him to shove off, taking his “hurt feelings” about Ezra’s sass and his temerity in publishing some Danish Mo ‘toons to the compassionate souls at the Alberta Human Rights Commission, who said, “C’mon down!,” has turned over a new leaf. As the Canadian Press reported late last month,

Step-by-step, kilometre-by-kilometre a Calgary imam is getting a unique perspective of our country in his multi-faith walk against violence.

Syed Soharwardy, 52, began a cross-country journey from Halifax on April 20.

The founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and Muslims Against Terrorism decided to do the walk as a protest against all forms of violence, including child and domestic abuse, terrorism, gangs, bullying and elder abuse.

Along the way, he says, he has encountered the good side of Canadians in terms of tolerance and acceptance.

“It is more educational to me than anything else,’’ he said in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press as he reached the outskirts of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.

“It gave me a picture of what Canadians are, what they are all about and they are such a nice people. I did not find a single person who would come to me and say, `You are wrong. You are a Muslim. You are a brown guy. Get out from here.’

“So far, with the journey half over, I have not seen a single (bad) person or had a bad experience.’’

Soharwardy, who was born and raised in Karachi, Pakistan, has been an outspoken critic of international terrorism and any kind of violence. He is also a long-time participant in interfaith groups that share a similar stand against aggression.

So it’s a brand-spanking new Syed, one who’s so thrilled that no one referred to him as “a brown guy” during his perambulations that he no longer believes that Islam, as per the name of his organization, is supreme, right?

No doubt his organization is is still adapting to the change, and its website will reflect its founder's newfound tolerance and acceptance real soon. Until then, it looks more or less like the same old ISCC to moi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:15 | link | comments (2)

Once is not enough: For those who didn't get their fill of mullah mouthpiece/beardo weirdo/would-be genocidaire on his first journey to Great Satanland (not to be confused with the greater Sudetenland), don't fret. He's coming back.

Update: Oops! Better make that "twice" is not enough.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:59 | link | comments

Prescient James: I wasn’t kidding about my summer reading preferences (see yesterday's post about ISNA “beach books”). Whilst reading Henry James’s The Bostonians over lunch, I happened upon two lines that seemed strikingly current. The first:

The sort of thing she was able to do, to say, was an article for which there was more and more demand—fluent, pretty, third-rate palaver, conscious or unconscious perfected humbug; the stupid gregarious, gullible public, the entlightened democracy of his native land, could swallow unlimited draughts of it.

Whoa. Change the “she” to a “he,” and you’ve pretty much described Bambi Fauxbama’s hold over the American electorate. Next:

The whole generation is womanised: the masculine tone is passing out of the world; it’s feminine, a nervous, a hysterical chattering, canting age, an age of hollow phrases and false delicacy and exaggerated solicitudes and coddled sensibilities, which, if we don’t look out, will usher in the reign of mediocrity, of the feeblest and flattest and the most pretentious that has ever been.

No two ways about it: Henry rocks!

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:49 | link | comments

Tickle me, Gitmo: Okay, I admit it. Against my better judgement, I did chuckle once or twice at The Daily's Show's Fauxmuppet.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:25 | link | comments (3)

Hard times: Bad news for Ottawa’s (alleged) jihadi laddie, Momin Khawaja. The judge presiding over his trial has decided that his “three cheers for jihad” emails are admissible. From the Ottawa Citizen:

OTTAWA - Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford has ruled that controversial e-mails Momin Khawaja wrote about crushing the west with 9/11-magnitude attacks are admissible evidence in the terror case against him.

In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said the "sinister and chilling activities" outlined in the allegations against Mr. Khawaja go beyond a plot to set off fertilizer bombs in London and that the e-mails' "prejudicial effect is not so as to outweigh its potential probative value."

In his decision, which also admitted DVDs showing gruesome scenes of Muslim jihad fighters into evidence, Judge Rutherford said the items could cause no more harm than the other explicit details of the alleged terrorist plot already laid out in the judge-only trial over the past three weeks.

The decision is a blow to Mr. Khawaja's defence team, who argued the e-mails written to Mr. Khawaja's then-fiancée made no mention of his alleged involvement in the London bomb plot and were, therefore, an improper and inadmissible prosecution ploy to use his political and ideological beliefs to draw unwarranted conclusions about his possible criminal intent in an entirely different matter.

Mr. Khawaja's defence is that he was duped by five British men, since convicted of plotting the London terror attack, into believing he was making bomb parts for the Muslim insurgency in Afghanistan, when the group's true aim was to terrorize London.

Mr. Khawaja is accused, among other charges, of making a radio transmitter-receiver that was to trigger the explosives for a group of five men convicted of plotting the attacks in Britain. If convicted, the 29-year-old Ottawa computer programmer faces life in prison.

In the October 24, 2003 e-mail to Zeba Khan, Mr. Khawaja wrote about the need for "constant economic J", or jihad, until the West "cripple and fall, never to rise again."…

If only Momin had stayed with that soft jihad stuff and gone into sharia banking, instead of (allegedly) into terrorism, he wouldn’t have found himself in such a pickle—and would be earning good coin in the bargain.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:15 | link | comments

Bambi and the Missus: The New Yorker cover that's got Bambi and his followers seeing red. (I'm rushing out to buy it right now):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update: The Republican and Democratic contenders come together to decry the cover as "tasteless and offensive." Music to my ears, since it affirms that free speech is alive and kicking in America.

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

And so it begins..: Fauxbama to visit the West Bank next week.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:01 | link | comments

Oh, grow up!: There’s no doubt that Bambi has tons of “charisma”—but so what? Charisma is a lot like anti-freeze: it tastes sweet, but it’ll kill you. And, as Michael Knox Berman writes in City Journal, Bambi’s “charisma,” which is about all he has going for him, betokens a disturbing “immaturity” among the electorate:

In the patois of punditry, “charismatic” has come to mean little more than “like a rock star.” But the striking thing about the charismatic leader is the extent to which his followers regard him as a healer of wounds, an alleviator of pain. In this sense, surely, Senator Barack Obama is charismatic. The carefully knotted ties and the dark, conservatively tailored suits only accentuate the exoticness of his shamanism; he has entered the American psyche not as a hero but as a healer.

The country, or much of it, has longed for such a figure, a man from the once-oppressed race whose rise to power will atone for the sins of slavery and racial stigmatization. But Obama’s rhetoric encompasses more than a promise of racial healing. He is not the first politician to argue that politics can redeem us, but in posing as the Adonis who will turn winter into spring, he revives one of the more pernicious political swindles: the belief that a charismatic leader can ordain a civic happy hour and give a people a sense of community that will make them feel less bad.

In his unfinished treatise Economy and Society, Max Weber defined charisma as “a certain quality in an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Weber was able to do little more, before he died in 1920, than give a pseudoscientific élan to an idea that had been kicking around for centuries. Most of what he said about charismatic authority was stated more cogently in Book III of Aristotle’s Politics, which described the great-souled man who “may truly be deemed a God among men” and who, by virtue of his greatness, is exempt from ordinary laws.

What both Aristotle and Weber made too little of is the mentality of the charismatic leader’s followers, the disciples who discover in him, or delusively endow him with, superhuman qualities. “Charisma” was originally a religious term signifying a gift of God: it often denotes (according to the seventeenth-century scholar-physician John Bulwer) a “miraculous gift of healing.” James G. Frazer, in The Golden Bough, demonstrated that the connection between charismatic leadership and the melioration of suffering was historically a close one: many primitive peoples believed that the magical virtues of a priest-king could guarantee the soil’s fertility and that such a leader could therefore alleviate one of the most elementary forms of suffering, hunger. The identification of leadership with the mitigation of pain persists in folklore and myth. In the Arthurian legends, Percival possesses an extraordinary magic that enables him to heal the fisher king and redeem the waste land; in England, the touch of the monarch’s hand was believed to cure scrofula.

It is a sign of growing maturity in a people when, laying aside these beliefs, it acknowledges that suffering is an element of life that sympathetic magic cannot eradicate, and recognizes a residue of pain in existence that even the application of technical knowledge cannot assuage. Advances in knowledge may end particular kinds of suffering, but these give way to new forms of hurt—milder, perhaps (one would rather be depressed than famished), yet not without their sting. We do not draw closer to a painless world…

For more on the subject, read Diana West’s not-to-be-missed The Death of the Grown-Up. 

Mention of  "the carefully knotted ties and dark, conservatively tailored suits" reminds me of some other knattily-dressed dudes who follow a similarly-attired shamanistic leader (although he often favours a bow-tie). One of them approached me at the Bathust subway station recently, requesting a "donation" in exchange for an innocuous-looking "Black History Month" newsletter (which, unbeknowst to the unsuspecting--like me--included a message from his fearless leader). I admit it--I was taken in, even though the dark suit on a hot afternoon should have been a dead giveaway. Fool me once, shame on you...

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

Another in a long line of really bad Canadian ideas: Teachers urge lawmakers to criminalize "cyber-bullying".

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:02 | link | comments

Ceeb chuckleheads weigh in: Sudan’s Islamist thug-in-chief, the guy on whose watch 300,000 or so Darfurians have been liquidated, is going to be brought up on charges of genocide by the International Court of Justice. Posters on the Ceeb site sense a certain, ahem, “injustice” in it all. Mohammed A, for one, has this suggestion:

why not also take Bush and charge him too? kill two birds with one stone... or so to speak

Good one, Mohammed. Why not, indeed? James 1975 has a similar thought:

If the president of Sudan can be charged by the ICC without his country having ratified the ICC treaty, then why can't president Bush be charged as well?

I know where you're coming from, James. And Sukdeep writes:

Bush is easily the top war criminal in the world.

Lucky for him, he got exemption a few months before starting the wars by continuously vetoing every UN resolution until his demands were met. In essence, the UN provided him and American military personal a license to commit war crimes...

I think I’m starting to sense a trend—Sudan: bad; Bush: worse. Got it. Meanwhile, Cheechum observes that it’s

Funny how those in third world countries are the ones charged with crimes against humanity, when those in the more powerful countries can commit all sorts of crimes, genocide and human rights abuses and are never charged, i. e. Israel, USA, etc.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too, Cheechum. What does your pal, Chongum, have to say about it? And more to the point, what are you both smoking?

Update: The Beeb has some problems with it, too.

Update: The thug's not worried. What's the ICJ going to do--pull an Eichmann? As long as the Court's in the Hague and he's in Khartoum, he's home free--literally:

Of his charge of mass murder, Bashir,

Has been heard to deride and to jeer.

He’s so devil-may-care

For a genocidaire

Why not? He’s got nothing to fear.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:46 | link | comments

Still bed mates: I checked the CJC site to see if, in light of Harpoon Siddiqui’s anti-Israel, anti-U.S., pro-Iran screed in yesterday’s Toronto Star, the links to two of his columns had been removed.

Nope.

How heartening to know that Tammy and the gang, who’ve climbed between the sheets with this anti-Zionist to persecute, er, prosecute haters, aren’t prepared to toss him out of bed and ruin a beautiful relationship just because he has a hate-on for Israel.

Lie down with dogs, get up fleas, eh?

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:57 | link | comments

First they came for the kids of the Nazi mother, but I wasn’t a Nazi mother, so I didn’t speak out…: The editorial in the National Post points out the problem with removing a child from his/her home environment because Ma or Pa is a hateful creep. It’s the same problem that plagues the rest of our anti-hate system: it’s highly selective, targeting contrarian Aryans but leaving the likes of Ma and Sissy Khadr alone; and taking it to its logical conclusion, someday soon you or I could have our kids removed because we’ve been deemed hateful by a state determined to enforce blind compliance with its dogmas—for the greater good of all, of course:

…The example [of Omar Khadr] is worth citing in the context of the Winnipeg tragedy: If one is looking for a cautionary tale of murderous ideology being transmitted from parent to child, you could find no better example than the Khadr family. Yet Omar Khadr, far from being reviled as a willing conduit of his father's hatred, is in fact a cause celebre in Canada. Why?

A thought experiment: Would those who support the decision of Manitoba's child and family services case workers to take away the Winnipeg woman's children also have supported an intervention to strip the Khadrs of their children when they were living in Ontario in the 1980s and 1990s?

The fact that such an intervention would be unthinkable should make us wonder at the motives of Winnipeg's child-protection workers in this case. They clearly are not acting on any universal child-protection principle that they would dare apply in most instances of parental hatemongering. Rather, they are acting in this case only because it so happens that the hatemongering mother happens not to be a member of any politically correct minority group. That is to say, she's a white Christian. How's that as a basis for permanently separating a mother from the child she bore?

Canadian parents might want to take a hard look at what's going on in Winnipeg. If a family's politics make them fair game for removal of their children, whose kids will the thought police be coming for next?

I think they may be coming for mine, since he’s the only ten-year-old I know who can pronounce “Ahmadinejad” and who likes to brief strange kids at the playground on the geo-political situation vis a vis Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Looks like I’m in big trouble.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:38 | link | comments (2)

Bambi’s amazing phrasing: You knew it was coming. Bambi is trying to weasel out of his promise that Jerusalem will never be divided. He now claims he didn’t mean what he said, but meant something entirely different, only saying as much to an audience of Jews wouldn’t have gone over too well, whereas now, after feeling concerted pressure from those who didn’t cotton to his vow, he’s decided that, upon further reflection, he should have been more careful in his “phrasing”:

Capiche?

Well, you would if you understood how desperate Bambi is to get to the White House, although why he wants to get there, since he clearly cannot distinguish his arse from his elbow and is as wobbly as a Weeble, is anybody’s guess.

Here’s Yahoo! News on the Bambi “clarification”:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said on Sunday he used "poor phrasing" in a speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

"You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given," he said in an interview aired on Sunday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria -- GPS."

"The point we were simply making was, is that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent," Obama said.

Obama's campaign has issued similar clarifications since the candidate's speech to pro-Israel lobby group after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination early last month.

In the speech, Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that if elected president in November, he would work for peace with a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," the Illinois senator said. Palestinian leaders reacted with anger and dismay.

Israel calls the city its undivided and eternal capital, but this status has never been recognized internationally. Palestinians want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, for a future capital…

As if they’d settle for only half of “Al Quds” (since, go figure, they’re aiming for an undivided city, too.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:08 | link | comments

Summer reading: They aren’t exactly beach books, but here are a few of the selections on offer at Islamic Society of North America/Canada website. Each and every one a real page-turner, I’ve no doubt: 

·         The World of Jinn and Devils: By Umar Sulaiman al-Ash. Translated by Jamaal Al din Zarab. What are jinn and devils? Where do they live? How do they impact our life? This pioneering book draws from the Qur'an and hadith in answering questions about the critical Islamic belief in Al-Ghaib, the unseen. It discusses the wisdom behind their creation, interaction with humans, eyewitness accounts, need for knowledge about them and common misconceptions about their power. The book argues that despite the dominant secular worldview that dismisses any un-observable phenomenon as non-existent, humans believe in the unseen. Furthermore, it is important to understand their place in creation to avoid satanic influences and come closer to Allah. $15.00

·         Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity: By Tariq Ramadan. This book attempts to demonstrate, using sources which draw upon Islamic thought and civilization, that Muslims have the means to respond to contemporary challenges without betraying their identity. $22.00

·         Bent Rib: by Huda Khattab This book examines a number of controversial issues such as domestic violence, female genital mutilation and failure to educate girls, and points out the divergence between Islamic teachings and actual culturally influenced practice. He problem is not Islam itself, but unIslamic that are prevalent in many communities, a situation that has to be addressed.  -  $9.00

 

·         Motherhood in Islam: The author has resorted to basic, steadfast and most reliable sources of Islam, namely, the Qur'an and the Hadiths. To explain meanings she has resorted to numerous classic sources. It is therefore, with utmost pleasure and pride and she presents to the readers of English this valuable research in the hope that it will enlighten thrm on the status of women in Islam, a subject which has long been misunderstood and inaccurately treated.  - By Aliah Schleifer - $18

 

·         The History of Islam (Vol 1-3): by Akbar Shah Najeebaba History stands as the most effective and valuable source of putting nations on the course of progress and prosperity and saving them from the path of disgrace and degradation. At a time, when there is tough competition among the nations of the world to excel one another, the Muslims, despite having the most glorious history, appear to be detached and careless as regards their history. This book presents the true Islamic events and their actual causes before the English readers because the other books in the English language found on the Islamic history have been written by such authors and compilers who did no justice in presenting the true picture of Islamic Era but their prejudice prevented them from doing so.  - $75.00  

 

Personally, my own seasonal preferences run to literary biography and early-to-mid period Henry James. But, hey, I’m game to give The World of Jinns and Devils a go.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:26 | link | comments

Akbar doesn’t mince words: Someone named Akbar Hussein has a letter in the Ottawa Citizen which, were it written by someone named, say, Casper Whitebread or Mark Steyn, would probably be accused of being “Islamophobic”:

When the non-Muslim world says with clear conviction that Islam propagates extremism, Muslims all around the world, even the terrorists, cry foul and declare that they are maligning Islam.

But is there a loophole some where in this faith that can make a follower an extremist? How can the so-called religion of peace be twisted in such a way that it becomes a weapon of murder? This everyday carnage in the name of Islam has not been taken seriously by the Muslims, thinking this is a kind of protest against oppression.

I went to many mosques to hear the sermons provided by the clerics but was totally disappointed to note that there is no pragmatic approach to this serious issue. They still spread fear in the name of Islam and criminally keep the worshippers in the dark.

Muslims play a more vicious role than these illiterate mullahs, because they never touch the real issue, but bring logic to such dastardly and senseless attacks on innocent human beings.

I am appalled to see that, in my opinion, the majority of Muslims are not concerned about this crisis in their faith which they follow with such strong conviction.

A faith that does not value human lives is a cult. The main problem with Islam is its reluctance to embrace reason and logic.

The entire paraphernalia of Islam is protected by the poisonous tentacles of immovable dogmas and ignorance. This dark side is supported by fear and the followers are innumerable. I don't see any escape route.

I'd say Akbar nailed it to the wall with no wiggle room.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:55 | link | comments (1)

No jokes, please, we’re Shias: I forget—was it the Ayatollah Khomeini or Mo Elmasry who said “there are no jokes in Islam”?  Oh, well, never mind. Whoever said it sure knew what he was talking about, since over in Iran—you know, land of Holocaust denial/nuke the Jews for a Shoah, Part II—the humourless ones are roiling, and not in a good way, over a John McCain bon mot. From the Jerusalem Post:

Iran harshly condemned remarks by Senator John McCain on Sunday, after he jokingly commented last week that cigarette exports to Iran could be "a way of killing them."

The presumptive Republican presidential candidate made the statements after he was asked about reports that US exports to Iran - a big part of which were cigarettes - had risen tenfold during US President George W. Bush's presidency. He immediately added: "I meant that as a joke."

But Iranian officials were apparently unamused.

"McCain's crude remark on the indiscriminate killing of the Iranian nation not only testifies to his disturbed state of mind, but also to his warmongering approach to foreign policy," Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said in a statement Saturday.

"We condemn such jokes and believe them to be inappropriate for a US presidential candidate. It is most evident that jokes about genocide will not be tolerated by Iranians or Americans," he added.

It’s like that old line—laugh and the world laughs with you; nuke and you nuke alone. And it should be clear to all by now that for the mullahs, who, like the Nazis, take their genocide very, very seriously, wiping the map clean of Jews via a nuke is no laughing matter.

And speaking of the paucity of yucks in those quarters, it looks like another European 'toonist has run afoul of the humourless thought police. From the WSJ:

On a sunny May morning, six plainclothes police officers, two uniformed policemen and a trio of functionaries from the state prosecutor's office closed in on a small apartment in Amsterdam. Their quarry: a skinny Dutch cartoonist with a rude sense of humor. Informed that he was suspected of sketching offensive drawings of Muslims and other minorities, the Dutchman surrendered without a struggle.

"I never expected the Spanish Inquisition," recalls the cartoonist, who goes by the nom de plume Gregorius Nekschot, quoting the British comedy team Monty Python. A fan of ribald gags, he's a caustic foe of religion, particularly Islam. The Quran, crucifixion, sexual organs and goats are among his favorite motifs.

Mr. Nekschot, whose cartoons had appeared mainly on his own Web site, spent the night in a jail cell. Police grabbed his computer, a hard drive and sketch pads. He's been summoned for further questioning later this month by prosecutors. He hasn't been charged with a crime, but the prosecutor's office says he's been under investigation for three years on suspicion that he violated a Dutch law that forbids discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

The cartoon affair has come as a shock to a country that sees itself as a bastion of tolerance, a tradition forged by grim memories of bloody conflict between Catholics and Protestants. The Netherlands sheltered Jews and other refugees from the Spanish Inquisition, and Calvinists fleeing persecution in France. Its thinkers helped nurture the 18th-century Enlightenment. Prostitutes, marijuana and pornography have been legal for decades.

"This is serious. It is about freedom of speech," says Mark Rutte, the leader of a center-right opposition party. Some of Mr. Nekschot's oeuvre is "really disgusting," he says, "but that is free speech."...

Funny how humour and freedom go hand in hand.

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

Muslim Gay-ity: Is it possible to be gay and still be a good Muslim, even though, according to the laws of your faith, your sexuality isn’t just a sin, but a crime that merits a death sentence?  Gay Muslim journalist Parvez Sharma has no problem reconciling gayness and Islam. He’s made a film, A Jihad for Love, that explores “forbidden love” in the Muslim world—and he’s made it for a Muslim audience. From the Toronto Star:

It was shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, when New Delhi-born journalist Parvez Sharma was inspired to make a film about his version of Islamic jihad – the Arabic word that means "an inner struggle" or "to strive in the path of God."

Unlike the threats of Osama Bin Laden's call for jihad, Sharma's struggle is about love – for those whose affections are not restricted to the ones of the opposite sex, a most-taboo subject among Muslims.

Over the next six years, Sharma travelled to 12 countries to document the jihad for forbidden love among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Muslims, and their experience of being denied love. The outcome, co-produced with American director Sandi DuBowski, is the 81-minute documentary, A Jihad for Love, opening in Toronto next Friday.

"The film speaks to our universal desire to be loved," Sharma said in a telephone interview.

The film, said Sharma, symbolizes the coming-out of Muslims, including the filmmaker's own struggle with his family, religion and inner feelings.

"My family's reaction was not positive" when he announced he was gay, lamented Sharma, who is 34 and was educated in India, England and the United States.

"My father and I have never discussed my sexual orientation. My mother died unhappy, and that's why the movie is dedicated to her."

Like the real-life characters in the movie, Sharma didn't abandon his Islamic faith, but he has struggled to reconcile his religion with his sexuality.

"I am told that I can't be a good Muslim because of my homosexuality, but the struggle has made me a better Muslim. I have become more respectful of my religion, a better person, a more spiritual person."

Sharma wanted his film to start a dialogue within the parameters of Islam without attacking the religion or apologizing for it, and he produced the documentary with an Muslim audience in mind.

"In terms of it being a taboo, I engaged a lot of self-censorship in making this film to make sure it's made through a very Muslim lens, that I was not misrepresenting my faith, so we can take back the discussion about Islam from extremists like Bin Laden," the director said.

Gay Pride doesn't exist in the Muslim world, he says…

Kind of an understatement, no? It’s kind of hard to feel “pride” for something that’s liable to get you pummelled on the noggin with large stones or hoisted from a giant crane with a noose around your neck. Good luck trying to keep the faith with that kind of law, Parvez. How’s his target “audience” likely to respond? Well, he’s already “received email threats and...been condemned by Muslim authorities,” so it looks like, while his target audience may be Muslim, his actual audience may turn out to be kafirs, who are apt to be more tolerant of alternate lifestyles.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:00 | link | comments

Diversionary tactic: In a desperate bid to direct attention away from the ongoing police investigation into his corruption, flailing, feckless Ehud Olert is trying to reanimate a dead beast. Olmert, who has a flair for hyperbole, claims that Israel and the Palestinians "have never been closer to peace."

Yes, and Olmert has never been closer to being thrown in the pokey, and Iran has never been closer to building a nuke--both of which makes all this peace-shmeace stuff rather moot.

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

Siddiqui spews: Tammy Farber’s HRC compadre, Order of Canada recipient Harpoon Siddiqui, has a doozie of a column in the Sunday Star. In it he bangs the gong for just about every bad idea going. Quoting that sage political scholar, Alexa McDonough, who once helmed the NDP, Harpoon hits most of the Islamist/Socialist talking points. Israel and the U.S. as “belligerent”/Iran as being on the defensive? Check. Louise Arbour, UNHRC pushover/OIC poster babe, as being unfairly disparaged? Check.  Stephen Harper as residing in George W. Bush’s backpocket? Check. Poor widdle Omar Khadr, Canadian lad, left to moulder in an American prison. You betcha. About the only thing he leaves out is Israel's "ethnic cleaning" and "apartheid". And, oh yeah, greehouse gas emissions.

But here, read this insidious piece of anti-Israel, anti-U.S., anti-West vitriol, and ask yourself how Tammy can bear to share the sheets with this guy. (Something tells me, though, that you won't see this one on the CJC site.)

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

More identity theft: The Palestine Holocaust Museum.

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

How Bambi's experience stacks up:

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:04 | link | comments

Opprobrium in the Star: Letter-writers in the Toronto Star are outraged by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's seemingly callous disregard for Gitmo's sole Canadian resident, Omar Khadr.

Well, they would be, wouldn't they?

My letter, which offers a differing viewpoint:

I think everyone up in arms over the way Omar Khadr has been treated and Prime Minister Harper’s refusal to intervene and bring him home would be well advised to consider this: It was the actions of a previous Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, which went a long way to getting Omar--and us--in this predicament. It was Mr. Chrétien, after all, who interceded with authorities when Omar’s father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was locked up in a Pakistan prison. Khadr père, who styled himself as a charity fund-raiser but was actually raising money to assist his good friend, Osama bin Laden, repaid the Prime Minister’s consideration for Khadr’s citizenship by reaffirming his bond with the man who went on to unleash the 9/11 attacks. Soon enough, Ahmed found himself embroiled in a firefight with American soldiers that would end up costing him his life and land two of his sons in Guantanamo.

 

If not for Mr. Chrétien, Ahmed Said Khadr might still be in a Pakistan jail, his wife and daughter, who have publicly expressed their contempt for Canada and its values, might not be living here, and we might not be having an angst-ridden debate about whether or not to bring Omar “home”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:01 | link | comments (1)

Mo’s invention: Mohamed Elmasry claims to have “coined and trademarked” the term “spiritual fitness,” the title of his self-help guide and program.

Really?

If that's so, then many, many people, including this person, and this person, and this person, and this person, and even the U.S. military, owe the “inventor” (confabulator?) a lot of coin.

If Mo had a dollar for every person, past, present and future, using his "invention," he'd be one mighty wealthy guru.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:43 | link | comments

Mullahs' missile shoot exposed as fraud: It's getting harder and harder to fool people with fauxtography these days. That's because of "conservative blogs" (New York Times terminology) with eagle eyes and a disinclination to accept that a picture from a questionable source is worth a thousand words--or worth anything at all--until it's been verified.

If not for these skeptical "conservatives,"  the fakery would no doubt have continued to fool the gullible likes of the NYT.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:04 | link | comments

The UN, again: More fun and games from our “friends” at the UN. This time the international body in the thrall of dastards and despots is once again calling upon the Juden to tear down the barrier they’ve built—the UN calls it a wall, even though the vast majority of it is fence—because of its “devastating” impact.

Yeah, it’s a real bummer when Arabs don’t have easy access to murder Jews. From Islam Online, up in arms about the ongoing Jewish infamy (I've bolded the most sick-making/unintentional laughter-induing bits):

CAIRO — Already cutting off thousands of Palestinian families, Israel's separation wall in the occupied West Bank will have a devastating impact on Palestinian livelihood if completed along its proposed route, the UN has warned.

 

"The Barrier compounds the fragmentation of the West Bank by creating non-contiguous enclaves of Palestinian communities and territory, which are isolated from each other and from the remainder of the West Bank," said the UN report released on Thursday, July 10.

The UN report, compiled by the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCH) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), said the wall swallows vast swathes of Palestinian lands.

"The majority of the route, approximately 87%, runs inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem (Al-Quds), rather than along the 1949 Armistice Line (Green Line).

It said the wall isolates nearly 9.8 percent of the West Bank, including Al-Quds.

"Approximately 35,000 West Bank Palestinians will be located between the Barrier and the Green Line, in addition to the majority of the approximately 250,000 residents of Al-Quds."

The UN report said the barrier cuts off thousands of Palestinians from their jobs, land or key services.

"Health and education services are generally located on the east, or ‘Palestinian’ side, of the Barrier, so children, patients and workers have to pass through gates to reach schools, medical facilities and workplaces and to maintain family and social relations."

The UN report was released to mark the fourth anniversary of a ruling by the International Court of Justice branding the 900 kilometers (540 miles) steel and concrete wall as illegal.

After the ICJ resolution, the UN General Assembly has asked Israel to tear it down and compensate the Palestinians affected.

But Israel is defiantly pressing ahead with the construction under the pretext of protecting Jewish settlements, also considered illegal under UN resolutions…

UN/ICJ/OIC thinking: still-necked, recalcitrant Jews. Can’t live with ‘em; kill ‘em.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:44 | link | comments

The inimicability of sharia: I’ve written about the lawyer at my sister’s firm who’s working on sharia banking files and who has no trouble sleeping nights because he reasons he’s working only for “moderate” Muslims. Well, in the Toronto Sun, Salim Mansur emphasizes that there’s no such entity as “moderate” sharia. The way it’s conceptualized, sharia is an all or nothing proposition. Actually, scratch that. It’s an all or all proposition. No choices. No loopholes.  (Mohamed Elmasry, putting a positive, new-agey spin on old-agey totalitarianism, has called it "holistic".) And those kafirs endeavouring to entrench any aspect of the flawless law are deluding themselves if they think it isn’t doing us any harm.

Here’s Salim:

In How Democracies Perish published during the late Cold War years, Jean-Francois Revel, French political philosopher, offered a rich meditation that remains compelling in the post-9/11 world of Islamist terror and rampage against the West.

Revel wrote about the paradox of democracy when facing an internal enemy -- as were the communists with their totalitarian agenda -- since his "right to exist is written into the law itself."

This is how Revel explained the dilemma: "Democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen's legitimate right to oppose and criticize the system."

In the post-communist world of Islamist terror, democracy in the West also is threatened by the misguided view of those individuals indicating readiness to accommodate demands generally advanced by Muslim mosque-based organizations.

The most recent example of such misguided view is the opinion offered by Nicholas Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, that Islamic law or Sharia could be introduced in Britain.

Lord Phillips' opinion concurred with that of Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Neither of them, in offering their weighty opinions, took into account the reality of a large portion of immigrants, including many Muslims, making home in Britain after fleeing from Sharia-ruled countries of the Arab-Muslim world.

Lord's view

Lord Phillips expressed his views at a Muslim Centre in East London where a sprinkling of Islamists would have been present. He probably would not recognize an Islamist apart from a Muslim, nor -- giving him the benefit of doubt -- would he have been likely informed that the demand for Sharia in Britain and elsewhere in the West originates with Islamists deceptively indicating this is a commonly shared request of all Muslims.

Islamists residing in the West are agents of another totalitarian ideology -- Islamism -- that is more insidious than communism since it wears the mask of religion. Their push for Sharia is acceptable to individuals such as Lord Phillips and the Archbishop of Canterbury because, in upholding multiculturalism, they willingly suspend their critical faculties when it comes to dealing with other faiths and cultures, in particular Islam.

Sharia is a legal system derived from the Qur'an and the traditions of Prophet Muhammad, and devised by Muslim scholars more than a millennium ago to dictate just about every aspect of individual living and thinking.

It is a closed system disallowing any innovation based on a modern reading of Islam's sacred texts, and it is violently at odds with liberal-democratic values…

As a friend of mine quipped recently, letting in “a little” sharia is like being “a little” pregnant: down the line you know the baby is going to be born and demand to be fed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:15 | link | comments

Booga booga: You think those shadowy Jewish elders plotting to control the world are secretive? They’re gregarious par-tay animals compared to that really secretive cabal—the folks who, twice yearly, decide who gets Canada’s highest non-military honour, the Order of Canada. No one seems to know who the heck those guys are. From the Southwest Booster:

The controversial appointment of Henry Morgentaler as a member of the Order of Canada has triggered a concern that the decision makers who are responsible for handing out Canada's highest civilian honour need to be accountable for their decisions.

However, Cypress Hills - Grasslands MP David Anderson points out that even as an MP he is unable to determine who these individuals are.

"We were astounded to discover that neither the Chair of the Council nor the Governor General's Office would give out the contact numbers for the members of the Council. My staff was told that even Members of Parliament would not be given this information. Why is this information being withheld?" Anderson commented in a recent press release.

Anderson, has called on the Chair of the Advisory Council for the Order of Canada to release the contact information for the members of the Council. Anderson made the request after numerous calls were received by his constituency office asking for contact information He has sent an e-mail request to both Beverley McLachlin, Chair of the Advisory Council for the Order of Canada, and Governor General Michelle (sic) Jean.

"Clearly making information available is in the best interest of Canadians," Anderson stated. "This is a public Council making a public decision. Council members should make themselves available. They made a controversial appointment that is being opposed by millions of Canadians."

Questions remain unanswered as to how the decision was reached, and it has been suggest that the appointment was not unanimous and in fact have been declined numerous times before it was approved.

One might be tempted to describe the Order awarders' modus operendi as "a hidden agenda" were it not for the fact that their agenda is crystal clear: give the honour to Liberals and other lefties, with a smattering of righties thrown in, just to keep things looking on the up-and-up.

Update: Michael Coren's no fan of the O of C, either.

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

Counting their unhatched chickens: Travel back in time with me to 2004, when Wahida Valiante, then, as now, Mo Elmasry’s Numero Dos (as "bilingual" Bambi Fauxbama might say) at the CIC, expressed her hopes for what the coming of sharia courts in Ontario would mean for the rest of the country (my bolds):

The Jewish community has its rabbinical courts called Beit Din's.

People of the First Nations have their sentencing circles.

Now Canada's Muslim community is moving ahead with plans to structure Sharia tribunals where family disagreements and inheritance, business and divorce issues will be judged on Islamic law based on the Koran.

Under the proposal, the tribunals will not deal with criminal matters and will have to respect all provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Cases that go before the Muslim arbitrators must have the voluntary assent of all parties involved.

While the plan for Sharia courts in Canada is well underway in Ontario with the establishment of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice to train arbitrators in Sharia and Canadian civil law, the move is now taking root in British Columbia.

The B.C. Muslim Association, which represents 56,000 B.C. Muslims plans to discuss Sharia courts for the province at a board meeting in two weeks.

"It seems like a good idea and we plan to discuss and study it at our board's next meeting," president Daud Ismail told The Asian Pacific Post.

He said the association will likely form a special committee to oversee the plan before approaching B.C.'s Attorney General.

Sikander Shah, the B.C. regional director of the Canadian Islamic Congress said the issue is on the agenda for the June board meeting.

Wahida Valiante national vice-chair of the Canadian Islamic Congress said she expects to see Islamic courts settling family, matrimonial and civil disputes across Canada over the next few years...

Ontario’s putting the brakes on the sharia march must have come as a real blow to the CICers. Is it any wonder they’ve turned to Canada’s thought cops ‘n’ courts to try to get the sharia-spreading project back on track?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:45 | link | comments

"Ich bin ein Berliner, too": Bambi does Jack.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:10 | link | comments

What does Barbara Walters, Jewess, have in common with Mahmoud Abbas, Jew-hater?: They both love that chinless Baathist despot, "Stretch" Assad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:44 | link | comments

Lending a helping hand—to Hamas: My husband, who’s in the construction game, e-mailed me the following. It’s from Novae Res Urbis, a Toronto urban planning newsletter (sorry, can’t find a link to the article):

 Planning in Gaza

By Mitch Kosny, John Gladki and Tom Ostler

Ryerson planning professor Mitch Kosny, planning consultant John Gladki and Toronto policy planner Tom Ostler went to Cairo in the spring of 2007 to meet with officials from the cities of Rafah and Khan Younis, Gaza.

 

The goal of the project was to work with city officials to develop a master plan, as well as work to improve public involvement in the planning and decision-making processes and improve municipal management. The project grew out of the 1998 signing of an agreement ($2.5 million CDN) between the Federation of Canadian

Municipalities and the Canadian International Development Agency to implement the Palestinian Municipal Management Project. It was known as PMMP, and then when it morphed into working with Khan Younis, another city in mid-Gaza, the project was known simply as PMMP II.

 

Mitch worked for FCM undertaking five missions—1999, 2000, 2001, 2005 and 2007. One of the reasons there was a gap between 2001 and 2007 was because of the Intifada. The same situation happened again from 2005 to 2007.

 

Our last Mission in 2007 couldn’t even be done in Gaza. We had to do it in Cairo and arrange for the Palestinian partners to travel to Egypt for about 10 days to work with us because we couldn’t get into Gaza. John was brought on board for the last two missions, in 2005 and 2007, because of his experience in master planning process and product—handson leadership in community planning at the City of Toronto for over 20 years.

 

John’s role was to assist Gaza planners and municipal officials to prepare master plans for their municipalities based on a sustainable development framework, focussing particularly on lands vacated by Israeli settlers after the Israeli pullout. Tom participated in the third phase in March 2007 because of his hands-on municipal planning experience, research competence and expertise in how to use data as well as his work in master/land use planning and policy-making.

 

The planners and officials from Gaza had specifically requested participation from a Canadian municipal planner with experience in developing master plans and experience with performance measures…

 

The rest of the article consists of an interview with one of the “three amigos” in which he goes into further detail about efforts to help the Gazans with their “master plan.”

My reaction: What in the Sam Hill is the Canadian government doing assisting Hamas in this way? Okay, I understand that, back in the days before Hamas was in the driver’s seat, the government could maybe get away with justifying this project.  But now? When we know that Hamas is building fortress Gaza? When we know that Hamas is one of Iran’s lackeys? When we know that, until the recent "ceasefire," Gazans have launched hundreds upon hundreds of missiles with the aim of terrorizing and/or killing Israeli civilians in Sderot and other parts of southern Israel? When we know that Hamas, the party elected by the Palestinians and for the Palestinians, is committed to an ambitious urban planning project that involves clearing away all the Jewish detritus so the whole frikking region can be—what’s that word the Nazis liked to use?—oh, yeah, Judenrein?

And these three amigos seem to have gone way above and beyond the call of FCM and CIDA to help them out; neither rain, nor sleet nor darkest intifadae have deterred them from their goal. They have gone out of their way, too, to ignore Hamas’s genocidal intentions, and ignore the fact that, when the Israelis “disengaged” from Gaza, they left the Palestinians a ready-made agricultural industry, which the Palestinians, in their glee at finally getting rid of the pesky Jews, promptly demolished.

You know, I don't put much stock in Hannah Arendt’s famous thesis about “the banality of evil.” But when I read about stuff like this, I think she may have been on to something.

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

Holocaust education no magic bullet: I’m currently making my way—slowly—through Saul Friedlander’s masterful The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945. My pace has nothing to do with Friedlander’s prose, which is compelling, but with the overwhelming grimness of the narrative. I’d heartily recommend the book to anyone who wants to understand the ins and outs of the Holocaust;  how and why it was, in the words of one historian,“the only pan-European co-operative effort of the 20^th Century.”

That being said, I don’t think reading this tome or any other book about the Shoah will do anything to inoculate the world against the next, and impending, Holocaust; nor do I think that “Holocaust education”—which is so beloved of the Jewstablishment that it’s thrilled by the Canadian government's announcement that it will be setting up a task force that will work with task forces in 25 other countries to determine the best way to teach kids about the Holocaust—will do a whit to ward off the Islamic genocidaires.

“Holocaust education” is fine and dandy; but, those pushing for it need to realize that it's not "the" cure, and that it's never going to counteract the type of mainstream Naziesque “education” (which usually includes Holocaust denial) that far too many Arab and Muslim youngsters receive. By the time these task forces get up and running, Iran's "task" of obliterating the Jewish state may already be completed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:30 | link | comments

Extry, extry: Ontario cops save David Lee Roth’s life! Er, no they didn’t.

So if the guy in the speeding vehicle going into anaphylaxis wasn’t the wizened rocker, who the heck was he?

Didn’t I see this flick back in the 80s? Only it wasn’t David Lee Roth, it was Howard Hughes, and he was picked up near Vegas, not Brantford.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:31 | link | comments (4)

Mullah fauxtography: Four Iranian missiles were detonated; only three made it off the ground. To hide the shame of it all, some Shia elves did a little doctoring.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:16 | link | comments

Vocal Islamists: Jonathan Kay of the National Post wonders why it is that regular Canadian Muslims have been content to be represented by the likes of raving Islamists like the CIC and the CAF:

First came its recent sponsorship of an essay contest on "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," in which it urged high school students to channel the group's own fervid hatred of Israel for prizes. Now, the group is promoting Sept. 11 conspiracy theories by announcing a July 14 Toronto speaking event entitled "The 9/11 deception continues."

The two featured speakers at the event will be Bob Bowman, who believes that the U. S. government participated in the 9/11 attacks, and Michael Keefer, a University of Guelph English teacher who apparently is sympathetic to much the same view. The event is being facilitated by "The 9/11 Citizens Inquiry," which defines itself as "a collection of individuals, researchers and groups who question the governmental, mainstream scientific and media accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

No one who values free speech would want to see this sort of crackpot festival shut down (if only because it would feed into the organizers' paranoid delusions of a 9/11 "cover-up"). But one must ask:Will it really further the CAF's self-stated mission -- "[to] represent Canadian Arabs on issues relating to public policy [and] raise awareness of domestic issues that affect our community" -- to promote an event at which a bunch of paranoid crackpots spout off about 9/11, particularly since those same crackpot theories mirror the conspiracy theories put forward by radical Islamists in the immediate wake of 9/11? (Remember the one about the 4,000 Jews?)

This is part of a larger problem. We are constantly being lectured about the dangers of "Islamophobia" and the racism endured by Canadian Arabs since September, 2001. But look at the people who Canadian Muslims and Arabs permit to represent them -- if only by default. The Canadian Islamic Congress' Mohamed Elmasry is a man who went on Canadian TV and condoned the terroristic killing of Israeli Jews over the age of 18. He recanted when an uproar ensued, but his group continues to embody the stereotype of Islamists as knee-jerk enemies of Western values -- including his censorship jihad against Maclean's magazine, and his recent newspaper column defending Robert Mugabe as a victim of Western racism and neo-colonialism. The CAF, which purports to represent Arabs (Christian and Muslim both), is now showing itself to be just as phobic.

No one elected their people, and the organizations themselves are tiny. But they do at least purport to represent the nation's Muslims and Arabs. The field is ripe for a well-funded, professional, sober competitor to challenge both groups. Yet none has emerged, so they essentially operate unopposed. How can members of the Muslim and Arab communities permit this to happen?

No one may have elected them but, both globally and locally, it’s the shrieky wheeler-seethers who get all the grease. And the resounding silence of “ordinary” Canadian Muslims? That’s probably a function of the fact that

A) They’re too busy going about their daily lives to care about what the “official” Muslims are saying;

B) They fear speaking up lest they are accused of being “un-Islamic” or worse—face death threats from their feistier co-religionists; or,

C) They either kind of or else wholeheartedly agree with the CIC/CAF position that “Islamophobia” in Canada is rampant and pervasive. Also, like those two groups, they don’t much care for that uppity, out of place colonial Juden “occupier,” and want to see it disappear a.s.a.p.

Ironic, isn’t it, that on the issue of Israel, the “official” Muslims and the “official” Jews couldn’t be farther apart, but that on the issue of free speech (or absence thereof) they’re totally simpatico?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:09 | link | comments (1)

Lucky nuts: Timing, as, they say, is everything. Just look at Jesse Jackson, who mistimed his remarks about wanting to geld Fauxbama, little realizing that his mic was still on. The result: a huge brouhaha as Jesse’s words blew up in his face. Then there’s a case of the most fortuitous, the most serendipitous timing imaginable—the guy who’s been marketing a tasty confection called "Obama’s Chocolate Nuts." After Jackson’s gaffe, his website, Obamaschocolatenuts.com, which is top of the heap when you google the words “Obama” and “nuts,” found itself inundated with unexpected visitors—and business.

In other words, one man’s “sour grapes” has turned out to be another man’s sweet reward.

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

Shaikh ‘n’ bake: Kooky Crown witness Mubin Shaikh has been trying to persuade a Brampton court that a young’un on trial for terrorism had absolutely no idea that the summer camp he was attending—the one where his imam/father figure, a splenetic jihadi, was camp director—was an, um, jihadi training camp. Crown prosecutor John Neander has a different—and very watery—take on it. (I’ve bolded the gush of wet metaphors, just for fun.) From the Vancouver Sun:

BRAMPTON, Ont. - A young man was the "favourite son" of a terrorist plotting to kill Canadian civilians with guns and explosives, a Crown attorney alleged in court Thursday.

The Toronto-area men - the accused leader of a supposed homegrown sleeper cell and the 20-year-old on trial - shared a "bond to do evil," he said. "(The alleged leader)'s mouth was a river of ugly, criminal rhetoric, a Mississippi overflowing at flood time, a torrent of bile and hatred and indeed, incitement of explicitly criminal acts," John Neander, the prosecutor, said in his closing arguments.

"(The defendant) was there, couldn't avoid the flood, wilfully joined in it, was carried along by it and is guilty of this offence."

The defendant, who cannot not be named because he was underage at the time of his alleged crimes, is the first of the "Toronto 18" to face a trial. In the summer of 2006, 14 adults and four youths were seized during dramatic police raids and charged with terrorism-related offences.

Thursday in court, the youth listened intently while Neander told Justice John Sproat that it would be "an insult to reason" to think that the accused did not know about the alleged leader's motives to do harm, and that a camp he attended was a training ground for violent acts, not simply a religious gathering.

For one thing, the alleged leader openly broadcast his extremist beliefs, including handing out CDs with graphic images of Muslims being attacked, Neander said.

Mubin Shaikh, the police agent who infiltrated the group, testified that he advised the youth against the alleged leader's dogma. But the young convert to Islam continued to follow his sage and to "get himself ready for Jihad, Jihad in the most evil sense," Neander said.

"Cogent evidence is that (the defendant) is an unqualified, unthinking follower of his emir, even when what the emir preaches is poison, even when what the emir preaches is criminal."

During surprising testimony under cross-examination, Shaikh, the Crown's star witness, downplayed the youth's involvement in the group. He said the purpose of the first camp, held in December, 2005, in Washago, Ont., - about 130 kilometres north of Toronto - deliberately kept from the youths; rather, they were told they were going on a religious retreat…

An assessment of Mubin Shaikh’s testimony: leaky, sneaky and extremely creepy.

The Globe and Mail article describes one of the camp’s “fun” activities:

The video from the camp also depicted what Mr. Neander defined as a jihadi tribunal, where the campers covered their faces with scarves and gathered around a prayer book and machetes.

How bucolic. I bet afterwards they all sat ‘round the campfire and made S’mores.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:15 | link | comments (3)

 Today’s must-read: An interview in the Jerusalem Post with one very wise woman, the Egyptian-born scholar of dhimmitude (her coinage) and jihad who goes by the pseudonym Bat Ye-or (daughter of the Nile):

 …When you heard about the peace treaty that Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin signed with Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1979, how did you feel?

I wasn't following it that carefully, due to family problems. Nor was I familiar with Israeli politics at the time. But I trusted Begin to do the best thing for Israel. So, I did have hope. Still, what you have to understand is that the problem is much larger than Egypt. The whole Muslim world is becoming more and more radicalized - more rooted in Shari'a, and less open to anything outside the religion. This is due to the policies of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), with 57 Islamic member states and a permanent delegation to the UN. At its last summit in December 2005, it decided upon a 10-year plan, one of whose resolutions was to root the Islamic uma - the world Muslim community - in the Koran and the [oral tradition of the] Hadith, which, of course, means Wahabbism. They also resolved to make the Palestinian issue the central issue of international politics. This is why we see relentless pressure on Israel from different countries. Because the OIC is an extremely powerful body, demographically, politically and economically.

The OIC is an Islamic body. How has it managed to turn the Palestinian issue into a Western focus? And to what do you attribute the political and cultural success of its ideology in Europe and the United States?

First of all, a distinction has to be made here between Europe and America, which have chosen opposite paths in relation to the Middle East.

As for OIC influence on Europe: It is visible in immigration policy toward Muslims, and in the Muslims' refusal to integrate into European societies.

The OIC considers nationalist-European movements, European history, European culture, European religions and European languages as Islamophobic. Why? Because Europeans have begun to feel that they are losing their own identity, due to their efforts to welcome immigrants who don't want to integrate. As a result, they have adopted measures to stop illegal immigration, to control legal immigration and to curb terrorism. Europeans fear losing their historical and cultural assets - particularly those of democracy and human rights - to Shari'a law. They want one law for everybody - and it's not Shari'a, which involves things like honor killings. It is thus that in all international forums, the OIC attacks Europe and demands that it apply multiculturalism.

Now, Europeans do not want multiculturalism. But this is a problem, because European governments - and especially the European Union - do not want to fight the OIC, and so they collaborate with it. Therefore, what we have inside Europe is a clash of interests between the European citizens and their governments.

A similar claim is often made about Muslim-Arab citizens and their governments - that a majority of the former is moderate, while the latter is extremist. Do you agree with this assessment?

No, I don't agree with it at all. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the Arab world, it is the governments - as we see so well in Egypt - that are at the mercy of the radicalized, Islamized, anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israel masses who are in a dynamic of jihad. Certainly the majority of Muslims follow the ideology of conquest; it is in the Koran and the Hadith! And every time they go to the mosque, they hear it. I mean, the first shura, that is recited five times a day, is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. So they cannot escape from it.

Unfortunately, the Muslims who are against this trend don't have the courage to make the effort to change it. And those who do have the courage are threatened with losing their jobs and having harm done to them and their families. So Islamism is the natural culture of the Arab-Muslim world. Even in Turkey an Islamist government has taken over. So, how can we deny the reality? And anyway, if the moderates were in the majority, they would be making protests and issuing manifestos against Osama bin Laden, instead of against America and Israel.

The environment is one of jihad on the one hand and of dhimmitude [the state of being a non-Muslim subject living in a country governed by Shari'a law] on the other. European countries are becoming dhimmi countries, and people don't realize it, because they don't know what jihad and dhimmitude are, so they don't recognize what condition they're in. When you have an illness, but are unfamiliar with its symptoms, you don't know that you are sick. You feel sick, but you don't know what you've got. You therefore can't make a diagnosis or embark upon a method of treatment to cure yourself. This is the current condition of Western civilization right now…

No, no. The cure for radical Islam is moderate Islam. And Islam is all about hugs and peace and milk and cookies. And the trouble with the world today is there’s too much Islamophobia and too many Islamophobes, like those extremists, Steyn and Levant (one a Jew; the othone who sounds like—and may as well be—a Jew). And, it’s the “Occupation.” And KarlroveandchimpymcbushitlerandtheJooos pulled off 9/11. And Canada is the bestest, most virtuous nation in the world because, even though we have tons and tons of unadulterated hate, we have lots of people gainfully employed in ending it. And, it’s the “Occupation.” And, it’s the crude, dude. And…

No two ways about it. We’re doomed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:37 | link | comments

The dawa Deepak Chopra:  Even though he’s extremely busy insisting on his “rights” and being a full-time professor, Mo Elmasry has another side. He’s trying to make a name for himself as a self-help guru. Here’s the description of an exciting and no doubt well-attended event that featured Imam Mo, self-help guy:

The Centre for Spirituality at Work

INVITES YOU TO

SPIRITUAL FITNESS:
PRACTICAL SPIRITUALITY at WORK

with Imam Dr. MOHAMED ELMASRY

Thursday January 26, 2006, 7:30 pm to 9:30 pm
The ABC, near Bloor & Yonge, Toronto

Fifty years ago, physical fitness had yet to become a household phrase. Today, people return from holidays, lament the weight they’ve gained, and talk about their plans to get in shape for the new year. Professor Mohamed Elmasry envisions just such an evolution for the concept of spiritual fitness, a phrase he has coined — and copyrighted. He believes the day will come when spiritual well-being is discussed with as much candor as a workout in the gym. Dr. Elmasry defines spiritual fitness as “how we can learn to monitor, assess and know ourselves. It offers potential answers to questions we often ask: Who am I? What do I want? Where am I going? And what is my purpose in life? In addition, it deals with questions about the true meaning of happiness, success, achievement and suffering. In short, it asks, what is the true meaning of life?” While his explorations are grounded in the Islamic faith, Mohamed draws upon seven years of research into “common truths of the world’s human community” from the religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as from humanism, psychology, and the writings of various spiritual masters. Join Mohamed tonight for conversation about Spiritual Fitness and readings from his new inspirational book of poetry, Divine Love, accompanied by Dr. George Sawa on a Middle Eastern musical instrument called the Qanon.

Dr. MOHAMED ELMASRY is a highly distinguished University of Waterloo computer engineering scholar and consultant who has authored or co-authored 16 books and more than 500 papers. He has served on many professional and charitable boards and committees, and won numerous Canadian and international awards. Well-known as the national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress and a part-time imam, Mohamed credits his own spiritual fitness and his practical approach to spirituality for providing the foundation that supports his visions and struggles in his life's work. He shared that wisdom in his 2003 book, Spiritual Fitness For Life: A Social Engineering Approach — 'social' as in ‘friendly’, and 'engineering' as in ‘planning well’. You can reach Mohamed at np@CanadianIslamicCongress.com …

“Friendly” and “well-planned”—hmmm, isn't that also the modus operendi of the soft jihad?

Memo to Mo: Why not give Oprah a call? “Spiritual Fitness For Life” sounds like it could be a perfect fit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments

Sideshow Bambi: Ladies and gents—step right up and see the most amazing, the most astonishing, the most remarkable sight you’ve ever seen. A man so ambitious, so determined to get to the top, that he can come out of nowhere, blend into a new milieu, and, once he’s squeezed every last drop of use out of it, more on to the next one, and then the next one.

Ladies and gents, I give you Bambi Fauxbama, the Human Chameleon.

In his first incarnation, see him move from the plains of Kansas via the sultry tropics of Hawaii to the tough urban environs of Chicago’s South Side. See him soak up the “Black liberation theology” of Big Daddy Wright. See him gain street-cred as he propels himself into the political arena.

Next, see him emerge as the Great Left Hope. Who is he? Where’d he come from? Don’t know. But, gawsh, ain’t he’s purty. And listen to him orate about “hope” and “change” and “Yes We Can!” Is he Martin? Is he Sammy? Is he Winston Freakin’ Churchill? Nope. He’s the Human Chameleon, and he’s so determined to be exactly who you want him to be—because that’s how he’s going to get to be exactly what he wants to be—that he’s shed his Southie skin and, newly moulted, is basking in the sunshine of your adoration.

And the final, the most extraordinary, the most spectacular transformation of all: watch Bambi Fauxbama, former Kansan, former Hawaiian, former Southie, formerly the most left wing candidate this side of Jimminy Carter, morph into a rootin’, tootin’, straight from-the-hip-shootin’ George Dubya Bush.

I tell ya, folks, you ain’t seen nothin’ like it in all your live-long years…

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

Mo’s theatre of the absurd: For those, like me, who missed it when it was posted last month, here’s Mugabe apologist Mo Elmasry’s idea for a “play” that he thinks has a lot to say about the Canadian--and the Muslim-Canadian--condition. See if you can make hide or hair of it:

The plot of this play is reality-based.

The beginning of the play is now, the year 2008, but moves back to Canada in the 1910s and then forward into a we-all-hope-not Canada of 2030.

The characters are all Canadian. They are identified here by gender, age, religion, ethnic origin, or job, for the purposes of character-building within the demands of the plot.

The proposed play's plot thesis is that racism is a moral crime for which all of society eventually pays. The author hopes that some directors will realize its potential on stage to be an effective educational presentation for schools or universities.

While coming to their opinions in different ways, the core characters all believe that Canada should restrict the number of immigrants it accepts from non-European countries, especially the Muslim ones.

Each character argues that non-whites -- especially Muslims -- do not integrate well into Canadian society and therefore pose a significant problem to "our way of life." To those who are skeptical about their opinions, all three main characters advance a supporting argument that "small is beautiful" and besides, immigrants do not add much to Canada's economy anyway (a lie that surfaces later in the plot).

After the three key characters lead an intensive lobbying campaign to the federal government to get their restrictive immigration viewpoint across, the Canadian government responds in their favour (this is already happening in real-life with the recent introduction of Bill C-50): the minister of immigration is given wide-ranging powers to select immigrants based on who the minister thinks should be admitted at the time. There would be no recourse for applicants who had met immigration requirements, but happened not to fit what the immigration minister wanted.

Let us call the characters A, B and C. All are males, although the director of this play can easily find real life Canadian female characters by doing a web search using key words like "Islamophobia," "anti-immigrants," "anti- multiculturalism," etc.

Character A is a white Christian immigrant from a European country who is a university professor. Character B is a second-generation Jewish white male from an immigrant family, a reporter-turned-writer. Character C is a Muslim immigrant from India, also a university teacher.

None of the three feel that the "racist" label fits them at all, but they do tend to seek out and keep friends who think as they do. The three have done a number of writing projects together and meet regularly to work on their biggest undertaking so far - promoting immigration restrictions. Their shared viewpoint has in fact become their obsession.

They form a small advocacy organization, create a web page, give public lectures, and publish books, papers and articles.

They are adamant in their mission: they do not want Canada to change.

They do not want to see their country become a socially chaotic nation that allows citizens (this is not a fabrication) to eat dogs as food, or chew Qat leaves for stimulation in place of good old "I am Canadian" beer. One of the three will say, "Canadians don't care what immigrants eat, until someone decides to barbecue man's best friend." The other two characters think this is a brilliantly clever point.

The three see themselves as mainstream Canadians and do not feel that recent-arrival minorities should have the right to vote or lobby the government for social change "like white folks do."

Another of the characters is heard to comment; "I like your argument when you say that the recent threat of jihadist terror has brought to the fore the dangerous nexus between large-scale immigration and limited levels of integration among Muslims in Canada."

Because no Muslim has ever been convicted in a Canadian court of law on terrorism charges, however, the three are prepared to look at what all the "experts" say, but still declare "Muslims are a danger anyway."

The three characters in fact believe themselves to be sufficiently expert on the subject of immigration and express their opinions freely and often. But one day a young university student takes offense and confronts them with some hard facts during a public lecture: they are no experts on immigration.

Undeterred in their position, the three state publicly that: "We have been victimized by those who accuse us of being anti-immigrant, xenophobic, or alarmist. This is not true: we all love to eat shawarma and sweet-and-sour chicken."…

As a pitch for a play, I’d have to say it’s a flop—a muddled, confusing mess that makes Samuel Beckett’s theatrical oevres look like marvels of clarity. As a window into Mo’s bizarre though processes, though, it’s boffo, thrilling, a sure-fire hit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments

Come fly with me: In Saudi Arabia, as we know, there’s a prison where would-be jihadis play ping pong, watch big screen TVs and are taught that, despite what they’re heard and read, the Koran does not approve of mass murder via self-detonation: There's no word, as yet, on how the “kid glove” treatment is working out. Half a world away in Gitmo, the treatment isn’t quite as gentle. We have just learned that Omar Khadr, for one, has been subjected to something known as the “frequent flyer program”—a regimen of sleep deprivation aimed at making him more amenable to interrogation. The revelation that Omar, the only Canadian in Gitmo, has had to endure such “torture” has pushed the nation’s media into high dudgeon mode. Here, for instance, is a bit of the Colin Freeze-Omar El Akkad spiel that’s splashed all over the Globe and Mail’s front page:

...Canada's only prisoner held at the controversial U.S. military camp was placed in a special program that intentionally deprived him of sleep and saw him moved every three hours for 21 days in order to “make him more amenable and willing to talk” prior to a visit by Canadian officials to Cuba.

The orders, carried out by U.S. officials, are contained in the selected release of until now “Canadian Eyes Only” documents that contain written summaries of video-recorded interviews with the then-17-year-old in 2003 and 2004…

The documents show that:

Mr. Khadr was subjected to what was known as a “frequent flyer program,” which moves a prisoner from cell to cell every three hours 24 hours a day. The idea is to keep prisoners from resting, making them more susceptible to interrogation. A Foreign Affairs document states that Mr. Khadr was placed in the program prior to a set of interviews and “will soon be placed in isolation for up to three weeks and then he will be interviewed again.” The effectiveness of the method was questionable in the eyes of the Canadians.

“Certainly Umar did not appear to have been affected by three weeks on the ‘frequent flyer' program. He did not yawn or indicate in any way that he was tired throughout the two-hour interview. It seems likely that the natural resilience of a well-fed and healthy 17-year-old are keeping him going.”

During the first Canadian visit, in February of 2003, Mr. Khadr recanted certain admissions claiming “all the information provided in his previous interviews was said only due to ‘torture.'”

During that same visit, Canadians agents questioned Mr. Khadr about his family. The cameras caught the teenager complaining about his wounds, his eyes and a shoulder, and dabbing “at a small spot on his shoulder that was seeping blood.”

Foreign Affairs kept records of the visits under intelligence files marked “UBL” or “Bin Laden.” The Khadr family once lived with the al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan. A forensic psychologist told DFAIT that Mr. Khadr was “a Mama's little boy.”

Considering him a “thoroughly screwed up young man,” officials remarked on several odd behaviours, including one after an interview with a Pentagon interrogator. “He was shown a picture of his family – he denied knowing anyone in the picture. Left alone … he urinated on the picture,” – twice, and despite being shackled. When left alone, the documents say, he “laid his head down on the table beside the picture in what was seen as an affectionate manner.”

Officials believed Mr. Khadr remains in the clutches of prisoners who are referred to as “pseudo-parents” who are able to influence his behaviour and train him in anti-interrogation methods, despite his time in solitary confinement in Guantanamo. DFAIT said that Mr. Khadr frequently did a “head jive,” averting his eyes and making other evasions as a “classic counter-interrogation tactic.”

The revelation that Mr. Khadr was subjected to sleep deprivation for weeks leading up to his meeting with a Canadian official – and that the Canadians knew about it – flies in the face of Ottawa's continuing insistence that the Canadian government has received assurances Mr. Khadr is being treated humanely…

“Frequent flyer program,” eh? I well remember going though something similar ten years ago when, every three hours or so, I awakened to shrieks that sounded like someone was being tortured. Bleary-eyed, exhausted,  I’d stumble around in the dark, hardly knowing where I was, hardly knowing if it was day or night, until I located the source of the cries—my newborn son—and did what I had to do to quell them (very often it  involved urine and feces—yuck!). Three hours later, the whole “program” began again. And it went on for month after month after month, until I thought I’d lose my mind.

When new mothers go through sleep deprivation, it certainly feels a lot like torture, but no one seems terribly concerned about it. When an alleged jihadi accused of killing a U.S. soldier has to endure it, everyone freaks out about his torment and screams about his “human rights.”

What a funny world we live in.

Update: This one pretty much wrote itself:

I guess that we’re all meant to shudr

At the treatment doled out to O. Khadr.

But who’ll shed a tear

For the torturous year

Of a newborn babe’s sleep-deprived mudr?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:22 | link | comments (2)

Bambi no habla Espanol: Mind you, that hasn't stopped him from telling everyone else that they should speak it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:48 | link | comments

The "new" Afghanistan: Sounds a lot like the "old" Afghanistan.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:55 | link | comments (1)

Worst. Idea. Ever.: An Inconvenient Truth—the opera.

I have it on good authority there’s going to be an aria that’s a dead ringer (get it?) for “La Dona e Mobile.” The first two lines go like this: “My carbon foo-oot-print is so ginor-or-mous/By me some credits from Algore’s emporium.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

Travel tips for eco-weenies: The Globe and Mail’s Douglas McArthur tells guilt-ridden readers how they can reduce their carbon footprint while flying the unfriendly skies:

Remember when the jet set was synonymous with glamour? When it seemed almost everyone aspired to travel by air to some distant land? Not so these days. Not only is most air travel decidedly unglamorous, today airlines and frequent fliers regularly stand accused by the environmental movement of making unnecessary contributions to global warming.

Groups such as the David Suzuki Foundation and Friends of the Earth Canada encourage people to think twice before boarding an aircraft; when possible, they say, vacationers should travel by train and business travellers should switch to video conferencing. The website http://www.lowflyzone.org even urges individuals to make a solemn pledge to avoid flying for a year.

Still, that's not stopping most of us. According to Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Ottawa-based Friends of the Earth Canada, the number of airline passengers is projected to grow by 200 to 600 per cent by 2050. For all those travellers, there are still ways to reduce greenhouse gases:

FLY NEW

Canadian passengers are in a good position because Air Canada and WestJet have relatively modern, fuel-efficient fleets - one of the reasons they haven't been caught flat-footed by rising fuel prices like so many U.S. airlines. When considering other airlines, a little research into the age and size of their aircraft can help you make a "clean" choice.

PACK LIGHT

Airlines have adopted the practice of charging for checked bags because they cost money to handle and, more importantly, because the additional weight consumes more fuel. Limiting yourself to a carry-on will save you luggage hassles and reduce your carbon footprint.

COUNT YOUR CARBON

The International Civil Aviation Organization, the UN's air transport body, launched an online carbon calculator last month (http://www.icao.int) that the organization says will help travellers choose the best option to offset the impact of their trips. According to the calculator, someone flying from Toronto to London Heathrow in economy class will send .94 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, whereas someone in a business- or first-class seat - which make less efficient use of aircraft space - will produce 1.78 tonnes.

PAY YOUR WAY

Many airlines now sell carbon offsets so passengers can pay to ease their guilt. Air Canada has partnered with Zerofootprint, while WestJet works with Offsetters.ca. As of late May, Air Canada passengers had bought $140,738 in credits since the program started a year earlier, which the carrier says offset 8,796 tonnes of CO2 and led to the planting of 1,759 trees.

But some passengers are skeptical. Ken Hamer, a Vancouver-based frequent flier, says that works out to more than $80 a tree. "That seems to me to be tremendously bad value," he says. "I'm pretty sure that I can go to any nursery and purchase a shrub tree for less than $10."

And some early carbon-offset projects actually harmed the environment, says the World Wildlife Fund-U.K.'s head of transport policy, Peter Lockley, which is why the WWF International brought other climate groups together to create the Gold Standard (http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org), a non-profit organization that recognizes genuinely beneficial offset programs.

Even so, Lockley worries that offsets may send the wrong message. "The danger is that the mentality becomes 'I can offset that and it's okay to fly.' "…

Oh, brother. Why don’t you folks do us all a favour and just stay home?  

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

Sacha’s new gig: The Ceeb is beside itself with glee to announce that Alexandre Trudeau—spawn of the Canadian Fauxbama, anti-Zionist documentarian, and CAIR-CAN keynote speaker—has joined the team that, a mere month from now (be still my heart), with be covering the Beijing Smoglympics:

Alexandre Trudeau has been added to the CBC Olympic Broadcast team, along with Sook-Yin Lee, Catriona Le May Doan, Mark Kelley and Shaun Majumder.

Trudeau and the rest of the new additions to the team will provide stories from around Beijing, reporting on the news, history and culture of China for "Beijing 2008: The Olympic Games" on CBC.

"The Olympic Games in Beijing opens up China to the world and we want to ensure Canadians truly experience the Games, not only from inside the sporting venues, but from around Beijing and the Chinese countryside as well as from across Canada," said Trevor Pilling, executive producer of "Beijing 2008: The Olympic Games on CBC."

"We are thrilled with the addition of Alexandre, Sook-Yin, Catriona, Mark and Shaun to our cast of reporters—their unique backgrounds and approach to reporting will add another intriguing dimension to our Olympic broadcast."

Trudeau will report from the ancient capital covering such topics as the city's architecture and infrastructure…

Yawn. Sounds like a terrific cure for insomnia. Wake me up when Sacha gets the itch to do an Avi Lewis and decamps to al Jazeera.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:58 | link | comments (3)

Arabs for troofers: The Canadian Arab Federation is promoting an upcoming event that is sure to be of interest to the tin foil hat community:

Canadian Arab Federation

La Fédération Canado-Arabe

ANNOUNCEMENT

July 9, 2008

The 9/11 Deception Continues

Skeptics’ Inquiry For Truth and Global Outlook Magazine present “The 9/11 Deception Continues - the ‘war on terror’ fraud and the frame-up of the ‘Toronto 18’”.

Speakers include:

Dr. Bob Bowman – Retired USAF Lt. Col., Vietnam Veteran, Former National STAR WARS Chief and Recipient of the President’s Award;

Professor Michael Keefer – Professor of English at U. of Guelph and graduate of Royal

Military College of Canada.

 

When: July 14, 2008 beginning at 7:30 pm (doors open 6:45 for advance ticket holders)

Where: Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor Street West, Toronto

 

Tickets are $12 at the door. For information, contact Terry Burrows, Project Coordinator, Skeptics’ Inquiry For Truth [SIFT] at events@911inquiry.org or 416-784-9114, or visit www.911inquiry.org.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:48 | link | comments

John Bolton (my dream candidate for president) nails it: A Fauxbama presidency would be dangerous, says the former U.S. ambassador to the UN, because Bambi's such a naif.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:29 | link | comments

Bambi pimps the kids: Says it won't happen again.

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

Palestinian schools in crisis: Israel’s to blame, of course. From The Muslim News (U.K.):

PNN: Despite numerous attempts by the Palestinian Authority to improve the educational system in Palestine, Israeli forces continue to impede the ability of teachers and students to attend schools.

The right of children to education is protected under international law, as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions.

During the last uprising, Israeli forces injured and detained countless students and teachers. This had a significant impact on the ability of schools to provide students with a continuous and regular education.

Global Convention on the Rights of the Child

“A child’s right to education became the most important right under international law in September 1990 when Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child was enacted,” Intesar Hamdan, the Palestinian Teacher Creativity Center program director, said. “Article 28 says that primary education is a basic right for all children.”

She added: “Through the items contained in the Geneva Conventions, we can discern that a child’s right to education includes the right to enroll in school and receive a quality education. Students should learn basic skills that enable them to become active members of society and the state.” There are thousands of students, with Palestinians having one of the higher literacy rates world-wide.

Weakness in Ensuring a Child’s Right to Education

Palestine has participated in several international forums committed to ensuring the right to education for all children. However, Hamdan indicated Palestine’s weakness in the application of the law, noting an overall shortage of schools and classrooms. He stressed the need for the Ministry of Education to allocate a larger portion of their budget to schools and develop a strategy for ensuring advancement within the education system.

Violence in Schools

“When we talk about a safe learning environment, we are not only talking about schools and equipment,” Hamdan explained.

“Although some schools are suffering from a shortage of such material, we are really talking about schools’ psychological and social environment. The Ministry of Education prohibits the use of violence against children, but unfortunately violence exists in Palestinian schools. Violence is used by teachers against students, among students, and by students against teachers.”…

Maybe there’d be less violence if they stopped teaching the kids to be violent. And hateful. And genocidal.

Just a thought.

Update: And speaking of indoctrination, it doesn't occur only in Gaza and the West Bank. Here are the winning entries in the Canadian Arab Federation's essay competition; the CAF had challenged youngsters to write their thoughts about "ethnic cleansing in Palestine."

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:33 | link | comments (2)

No sex on the beach, please, we’re Dubaian: A couple of Brits lured to Dubai by the sun, tropical breezes and upscale digs, have run afoul of authorities for engaging in a little al fresco jiggery-pokery. From the timesonline:

A British businesswoman is facing six years in a Dubai jail after she was allegedly caught having sex on a beach.

Michelle Palmer, 30, a publishing firm manager, says that she is “panicking” after being arrested by a police officer who saw her with a man on Jumeirah Beach in the tiny oil-rich state.

It has been reported that she was charged with having sex outside marriage, indecent behaviour in public, being drunk in public and assaulting a police officer.

Ms Palmer is said to be worried that the authorities will push for the harshest possible sentence to make an example of her behaviour.

It is thought that she works in Dubai for a magazine publishing firm and that the man also accused in connection with the incident was a British holidaymaker.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “Two British nationals were arrested in Dubai on July 5. We are providing consular assistance and the case is currently under investigation.”

Ms Palmer faces a sentence of between three months and six years in jail in the state, one of seven that makes up the United Arab Emirates. Her fellow accused faces a similar sentence.

The Foreign Office website says that in Dubai public displays of affection are unacceptable, and there have been several arrests for kissing in public. Sex outside marriage is illegal in the UAE, as is cohabitation, adultery and homosexual behaviour.

Ms Palmer said: “Because this is known everywhere they’re going to make an example of us and we’re going to get a higher sentence. We are in so much trouble and my family and everybody are affected. Until someone is in this situation they could never know what it’s like. It’s bad - it’s so, so bad.

“They are being pushed into a corner to make an example of us. I’m panicking. I can’t say anything else.”

In recent years, Dubai has become a popular tourist destination, with British holidaymaker tempted by the warm sea, perfect beaches and luxurious hotels.

In 2006 more than a million British visitors travelled to the UAE, and more than 100,000 British nationals are resident there…

Well, at least they aren’t planning to whip her or cut off any appendages.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:20 | link | comments

He who laughs last…doesn’t live in Iran or Canada: Long before there was a popular Ceeb shill-com depicting the high-larious antics of funny Muslims and silly infidels and their wee Prairie mosque, the Ayatollah Khomeini who, let’s face it, could never quite see the “fun” in “fundamentalism,” said the following sage words: “Dying,” he said, “is easy; comedy is hard.”

Just kidding. What he actually said was,

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Which, when you think about it, kind of amounts to the same thing.

Who knew those words would also apply in the true north strong and free, where comedy is under siege from our own mullahs? From the National Post:

TORONTO -A comedian facing a human rights tribunal hearing over lesbian jokes he cracked has announced a benefit show to raise funds for his legal defence -- and one of the confirmed acts is lesbian comic Linda Ellis. Toronto comedian Guy Earle, pictured, was the emcee at a Vancouver openmic show in May, 2007 when, he says, three lesbians began heckling him and other comedians. Mr. Earle said he fought back by trying to offend them with several nasty jokes. One of the women, Lorna Pardy, filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled last month that it would hear the case. Mr. Earle announced yesterday that 40 comics will perform on July 19 at The Comedy Bar in Toronto. The comics "will hit the stage for one minute of raw, uncensored social commentary," said Mr. Earle. "Standup is the embodiment of free speech and this show personifies our right to speak while we still can."

Ayatollahs; HRCs: seems they’re both in the biz of enforcing “virtue” and curtailing “anti-social” laughter.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:27 | link | comments (1)

The next Holocaust: No cattle cars. No camps. Just one Iranian nuke, aimed squarely at Tel Aviv.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:01 | link | comments

Banking on sharia: On behalf of North American kafirs, I would like to thank sharia financier Sheik Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who’s currently experiencing some, er, financial setbacks, for explaining the nuances of sharia banking to us. From FrontPage Magazine (my bolds):

Sheik Muhammad Taqi Usmani has been a rock star of the Islamic finance world, sitting on the sharia supervisory boards of no fewer than a dozen Islamic banks and financial institutions worldwide.

For nearly a decade, the mufti also has advised the Dow Jones Islamic Market Index, which licenses more than 25 stock funds that comply with Islamic laws forbidding certain Western-style investments. The venerable Dow Jones & Co. first retained him in 1999.

Usmani's name is now missing from the Dow Jones website, where it had previously been prominently displayed. His bio and photo suddenly vanished without explanation.

Meanwhile, all references to Dow Jones disappeared from the website of the North American Islamic Trust, or NAIT, which runs a sharia-compliant mutual fund out of Burr Ridge, Ill.

For years the fund had been called the Dow Jones Islamic Fund. Dow had lent NAIT its good name under a licensing agreement.

But recently the trust felt compelled to rename its lead portfolio the "Iman Fund," and amend several pages in its prospectus to remove all references to Dow Jones, as well as Usmani. Again, no explanation was offered.

What's behind the mystery? It's all been very hush-hush, but according to a high-level document I've obtained, along with interviews with company insiders, Dow Jones recently terminated NAIT's license and dumped Usmani to protect its brand. The company, now under new management, no longer wants to be associated with either of them, especially after they received a spate of bad publicity this year.

Articles published on this webzine -- as well as in the National Review, Investor's Business Daily and the Washington Times, among other media -- have called attention to Usmani's fatwahs demanding that Muslims living in the West conduct or support violent jihad against infidels at every opportunity.

"Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered," the radical Pakistani cleric wrote in his book, "Islam and Modernism," which in 2006 was translated from his native Urdu into English.

Usmani advocates spreading sharia law in America and the West -- the barbaric legal code