scaramouche

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

The Sock speaks: The guy member of Elmo’s hosiery triad reflects on the Maclean’s ‘Rooling (pun completely intentional). From the Province (my bolds):

…Khurrum Awan, an articling lawyer and CIC member who prepared the complaint, said he was happy the tribunal agreed with CIC's assertion that there was a "fear-mongering tone" to the article.

"We do hope news media in Canada will examine critically the way that they have been covering Muslims and Islam in their news and editorial coverage, and find an appropriate balance to be able to talk about important social issues while not publishing material of the nature in this case," said Awan.

The high-profile case has come to symbolize the clash between two competing rights: freedom of expression --  guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and the freedom to be free from discrimination -- guaranteed under federal and provincial anti-discrimination laws.

The B.C. tribunal itself came under fire for hearing the complaint in the first place, with journalists and some academics saying it would put a chill on future debate on sensitive topics.

Ah, yes—that ever-elusive “balance”. When you manage to track it down, Khurrum, could you please let these folks know? They’ve been searching high and low for it, too.

posted by: scaramouche at 00:47 | link | comments |

Shades of Hitler and the Grand Mufti: German neo-Nazis see Islamists as their natural allies.

Well, duh.

posted by: scaramouche at 00:21 | link | comments |

“It a real good thing what the BC ‘roos did”: I have perused the BCHRT ruling which dismissed the case against Maclean’s and Steyn, even as it chided the two for their “factual errors” (another instance of the quasi-judicial systems’ ability to have its cake and eat it too—see the Babsy Hallmonitor “verdict” in the “hate” case she wasn’t allowed to hear). My conclusion: there’s still a distinct Wahhabi-like chill in the air, and nothing whatsoever had changed. The “Nice” Forces still too have way too much power, and we, the not-always-so-nice, continue to live in a freaky Twilight Zone episode, where we’re at the mercy of an adorable, freckle-faced moppet, who, if we’re not careful is apt to think us into the cornfield. (And that corn is as high as an elephant’s eye, isn't it Rev. Boisson?)

As a bracing gust of clarity—an antidote to the mushy-brained useful idiocies of the clueless ruling—I am delighted to offer this example of Steynian “hate speech” from back in April. Enjoy it while you can, because if the “Nice” enforcers/Islamophobiaphobes have their way, such anti-social expression will soon be consigned to the past, when, once upon a time, we were free:

…I quote from "Concepts Of Race And Racism And Implications For OHRC Policy" as published on the OHRC website:

"The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered 'other.' "

Got that? Your denial of racism merely confirms your racism — because simply by being a "White hegemon" (like Barbara Hall or Jennifer Lynch) you wield racist power. The author, Frances Henry, cites the thinking of "modern neo-Marxist theorists" as if these are serious views that persons of influence in Canada's "human rights" establishment ought to be taking into account, rather than just the latest variant of an ideology that's led to the deaths of millions in Russia, China and everywhere else it's been put into practice. Yet, underneath the blather about "omissions" and "denial" of racism is the bleak acknowledgement that, alas, Canadians just aren't hateful enough to justify the cozy sinecure of taxpayer-funded hate police. "I would say that for a province as large and as diverse as Ontario, to have 2,500 formal complaints a year, that that's a very low level," Commissar Hall said. C'mon, you Ontario deadbeats, can't you hate a little more? Or complain a little more? To modify Brecht, we need to elect a new people, if only to file more "human rights" complaints.

Oh, and again, isn't that kind of a Nazi thing to do? Exaggerate the threat in order to justify government powers to deal with it?

Well, look, the defenders of the present "human rights" regime started this whole free-speech-leads-to-the-Holocaust line. I'm not saying that Canada's thought-crime enforcers are planning to murder millions of people, only that (as Jennifer Lynch might put it) history has shown us that extraordinary government powers in the name of "reasonable limits" often lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. Whether or not I'm the new Führer and Maclean's is Mein Kampf, Commissars Lynch and Hall are either intentionally inverting the historical record or, to be charitable, simply ignorant. But, if it's the latter, why should they have extraordinary powers to regulate public discourse?

I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits.

It's not a left/right thing. It's not a gay/straight thing. It's not a Jew/Muslim thing. It's not a hateful Steyn/nice fluffy caring compassionate Canadian thing.

It's a free/unfree thing. And the commissars are on the wrong side.

Indeed, but at the moment, it looks like the wrong side may be winning.

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

Ken’s “clarification”: NOW Magazine, the hard lefty freebie rag with the full-colour sex adverts in the back (and delusions of being a voice of influence throughout), prints the following missive from "misunderstood" Liberal MP Ken Dryden:

I am writing with regard to your recent article Dryden Blurs Liberal Stance On Mideast (NOW, October 2-8). I am concerned the article, reporting as it does on an important exchange that occurred at an all-candidates debate in York Centre, mischaracterized my position on aid to Gaza. I said – and I stand by my statement – that we should restrict government-to-government aid to Gaza, due to the Hamas-led government’s continuing refusal to disavow violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. My statement was clearly in reference to government-to-government aid. That was the context of the discussion, and in subsequent discussions with your newspaper, that point was underscored.

However, your article leaves the false impression that I implied or otherwise meant that I support halting humanitarian aid and food distributed through various United Nations and other humanitarian agencies. That is not my position, nor did I say that during the all-candidates debate.  Tragically, the residents of Gaza face a daily struggle for survival. I believe, and the Liberal party believes, that Canada must continue to provide humanitarian aid through non-governmental agencies. 

I regret any confusion on this matter, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify what was printed in your newspaper.

Ken Dryden, P.C., M.P.

York Centre

I don’t know about you, but now I’m thoroughly confused. If, as Ken insists (in what will undoubtedly turn out to be a futile gesture meant to prove his “street cred” to NOW’s angry, anti-Zionist readers) Gazans are facing “a daily struggle for survival,” does that mean that “humanitarian aid” isn’t getting through? And if that's the case, then why don’t more people in Gaza patronize this local supermarket, which seems to be extremely well-stocked for a supposed disaster zone?

posted by: scaramouche at 20:09 | link | comments (3) |

 The “mean” meme: I’m sure you’re aware of it, since it’s become epidemic.  In Canada it sounds like this:

·         Those neocons who severed brake lines and wrote insulting graffiti on Stephen Harper’s orders ARE SO MEAN.

 

·         That Stephen Harper, with his hidden neocon agenda IS SO MEAN.

 

·         Isn’t it MEAN that Stephen Harper, that MEAN neocon, is so completely lacking in empathy for the average Joe/Josephine who’s about to lose his/her home because of the financial meltdown.

 

·         That MEAN Stephen Harper—he doesn’t care at all about the environment.

 

·         Why won’t the Tories “repatriate” poor Omar Khadr? They’re so MEAN.

 

·        It’s so MEAN of those Conservatives to harp on Stephane Dion’s difficulties speaking the English language. It isn’t his first language, you know, and he’s doing the best he can.

 

·         MEAN Stephen Harper, taking money out of the mouths of starving artists.

In the U.S. it sounds like this:

·         There go those MEAN neocons again, trying to make our Bambi look bad just because of his close association with Rev. Wright/Bill Ayers/ACORN/Rashid Khalidi/that Black Muslim supremacist etc., etc., etc. Boy, are those MEAN neocons ever MEAN (know what I mean?).

The flipside of all this, of course, is that those on the Left are “nice”. Really nice. So “nice” that they would gladly allow in a “little bit” of sharia, if it makes people happy. So “nice” that they are willing to jettison free speech, if it means sparing people from “hurt” feelings.  The price of “nice” is  abject submission (a.k.a dhimmitude)—a price that, go figure, only the blue meanies here and abroad refuse to pay. Therefore, it is a given that Western civ. depends on the “mean”: The “nice” can lead us only to perdition.

posted by: scaramouche at 18:54 | link | comments |

Move over, Rev. Wright: Bambi claims to be stalwart in his support for the Jewish state’s right to be, but the coterie of Jew-haters/Allah-fans that surrounds him makes such a claim risible, to say the least. FrontPage Magazine has an article about one these dubious characters, a Black Muslim supremacist who was another of Boy Bambi’s many father figures:

Black Muslim lawyer Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour recently made news when it was revealed that he was a patron of Barack Obama and recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School in 1988. Back in the 1960s, al-Mansour, whose “slave name” was then Don Warden, was deeply involved in Bay Area racial politics as founder of a group called the African American Association. A close personal adviser to Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, al-Mansour helped the pair establish the Black Panther Party but later broke with them when they entered coalitions with white radical groups. After becoming a Muslim, al-Mansour found not only an ideological justification for his racism but also a political purpose. That was, in the words of a memorandum produced by the Muslim Brotherhood and seized by the FBI as part of its probe of the Holy Land Foundation, to “eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within.” Many black racists like al-Mansour are key figures in this “stealth” jihad, whose prime recruiting grounds are the U.S. prisons and mosques where inmates and worshippers alike are taught to embrace a radical Islam engaged in an apocalyptic battle against America.

Al-Mansour met Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in the mid-1970s and formed a relationship that led to al-Mansour’s hiring as attorney to King Saud. He has since been an adviser to Saudi billionaires who fund the stealth jihad and spread Wahhabi extremism in America.

Other black racist Islamists play less glamorous but equally significant roles as Imams at major mosques in the U.S.; as chaplains in prisons and jails; and as radical figures who haunt American higher education by advising and speaking for organizations such as the Muslim Students Association (MSA) on campuses across the nation. Whatever audience they target, they speak a lingua franca of anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-American hatred—all in the name of Allah.

And why is it that black racists such as al-Mansour constitute a significant proportion of these hate mongers? In large part, it is because blacks have been specifically and aggressively targeted for recruitment by leaders of the worldwide jihad, just as they were targeted for recruitment by the Communist Party USA in the 1920s. Black grievance, combined with the evangelism of the Nation of Islam over the last seventy years, has established an audience for the ideology of hate…

No, no, no. Blacks, having at one time been enslaved by the White Man, can never be “racist”. And anyone who says differently is ipso facto racist himself (that’s me, channelling the mainstream thinking of the Lefty establishment and the anti-hate/victim grievance industry).

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

Satire is what closes on Saturday night: As we know, Tina Fey is dead-ringer (and sounder) for a woman she clearly loathes, Sarah Palin. But you can bet that no one on SNL is brave (foolish?) enough to impersonate the epitome of human perfection, the beloved of God, the one, the only...Barack Obama.

Just jesting, of course. SNL “does” Bambi all the time, but would never dream of impersonating the gentlemen whom many refer to as “the seal of the prophets.” Some intrepid Germans joshers, however, are said to be ready to go where American satirists fear to tread. From Der Spiegel:

German Satire Magazine Shocks with 'Unbelievable Competition'

A Muhammad look-a-like competition is slated to take place during the Frankfurt Book Fair, and it has already offended and outraged people far beyond Germany. But Titanic, the monthly satirical magazine behind the inflamatory event, insists: "It will be a blast."

Titanic, the German satire magazine, is never far from polemics, but its latest action takes its reputation for controversy to new heights: It is staging a Muhammad look-a-like competition -- and has invited the Turkish President Abdullah Gül to take part.

Turkish newspapers were quick to react to the "unbelievable competition," which is to be held parallel to the Frankfurt Book Fair, where Turkey will be the guest country this year. The popular Turkish daily Sabah drew parallels with the infamous Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, which sparked death threats and protests across the Muslim world, with some escalating into violence.

 

According to its Web site, however, Titanic is going ahead with its look-alike contest: "Come along to the most dangerous event of the Frankfurt Book Fair ... It will be a blast," it wrote. The competition, to be held on Oct. 18, is set to take place on a specially built stage at the state-funded Caricatura Museum in Frankfurt. Achim Frenz, head of the museum, said it was designed to test of the boundaries of "jokes and fun." The museum's Web site comments: "Of course it is a sin to represent the prophet. For this reason, we are trying to do something exceptional."

During the competition there will be readings from the Koran and participants will be encouraged to mimic the Muslim prophet. "Of course you can never create a picture of the prophet," the magazine claims in a flyer advertising the event, "but you can try to emulate him."

Titanic, the German equivalent of Britain's Private Eye, has a track record of inflamatory stunts, including hoax bribery faxes sent in 2000 to delegates of the FIFA soccer world championship committee, urging them to support the German bid for the 2006 World Cup. In return for their votes, Titanic offered gifts of a cuckoo clock and Black Forest ham. Titanic also founded its own political party, Die Partei (the party), which lists the rebuilding of the Berlin Wall as one of its goals.

The museum head’s name is Achim Frenz? Too perfect!

Get set for the frenz-y, Achim.

Update: Sarah Palin is set to appear on SNL. Can't wait to see "Tina" Palin and Sarah Palin appearing on the same stage--and Sarah impersonating Tina.

posted by: scaramouche at 14:01 | link | comments (1) |

The wearing o' the Green: And I ain't referring to the Irish or environmentalist variety. In this photo of a still-standing New York City landmark, the upper floors are bathed in an aura representing the colour of its new owners' religious affiliation:

posted by: scaramouche at 13:32 | link | comments |

Judgement Day: Well, it's finally here. After months of sifting though mountains of evidence offered by Slayer experts and other savants; months of concerted cogitation and deliberation (with the odd day off here and there for some well-deserved R&R), the B.C. marsupials are finally ready to reveal their verdict in the Steyn-Maclean's show trial. Will they, as many believe, decide that they've hooked much too big a fish this time to continue operating with impunity (and thus let the fish off the hook)? Or will they, sensing the total collapse of Harper's forturnes and knowing how firmly entrenched the "Nice" industry is in Canada's body politic, and how unwilling any political party is to take it on, go with the Islamist flow and convict the "Islamophobes" of a "hate crime"?

All will be revealed at noon 'roo time today.

Update:"Victory" for the "hate-mongers." Yup, that fishy was TOO big for these 'roos. This represents a Phyrric victory, of course, since Maclean's doesn't get to appeal the judgement to a real court. Meanwhile, there's still a definite chill in the air, and while the "Nice" Cops and 'Roos may not be prepared to take on loudmouths like Levant and Steyn, the folks with smaller voices who have moths flying out of their wallets--the Rev. Stephen Boissons, and Guy Earles--are going to remain in their line of fire.

That said, I'd have loved to see the expression on Elmo and the Sockettes' faces when the verdict was announced. I expect it looked something like this.

Update: Andrew Coyne, the Maclean's scribe who live-blogged the sucker, calls it "Phyrric," too:

More comment to follow once I’ve read the thing, but be clear on this: it is no victory to be told by a shadowy government agency that you will be permitted to publish. This ruling only preserves the tribunal from utterly discrediting itself, and as such keeps alive the possibility that some other complainant can drag Maclean’s or any other media organization through yet another travesty half-a-continent away, at great expense of time and money. It also prevents Maclean’s from appealing the tribunal’s decision to an actual court, wherein it might have had the relevant section of the B.C. human rights laws thrown out on constitutional grounds. (Or does it? Can you appeal when you win?)

So the real fight, that of returning our human rights laws to their original purpose, and permanently clipping the wings of the human rights commissioners, will have to be won in the political arena. Until that day…

Until that day we must continue to invoke the Levant mantra without let up: FIRE. THEM. ALL.

Update: If anyone's keeping score, in the matter of Elmo's socks vs. Maclean's, it's two out of three for the latter. Lest we forget, OHRC Commissar Babsy Hallmonitor declared the defendants "guilty" of "xenophobia" and "Islamophobia," even though her Commissariat had no authority to try the case.

Update: Inquiring Steynians want to know: what does the verdict mean for Steyn's writing career in Canada? Has the chill given Maclean's frostbite, or is he going to return?

Update: Header in the National Post--Maclean's wins 'hate speech' human rights challenge in B.C.

My question: shouldn't the "win" and the "human rights" be in quotes, too?

posted by: scaramouche at 13:04 | link | comments (7) |

Should we hae them; shouldn't we hae them?: The good people of Scotland are reportedly split on whether to follow England's lead and allow Sharia Courts into the land.

That piteous yet defiant moan you now hear is the sound of William Wallace rolling over in his grave.

Update: A report about a couple of "Scots" who want to see Sharia rule.

posted by: scaramouche at 12:29 | link | comments (2) |