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

 Like something out of Madame Tussaud's: Condi Rice meets the waxworks of KISS.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:30 | link | comments

Power, explained: How do we do it? How, when there are so few of us, do we Jews continue to “dominate the world”?

A Hamas official has the explanation: we do it through “sexual depravity”.

Well, duh.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:21 | link | comments

The dog days of liberty?: From the New Criterion:

Last month, The New Criterion and the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies hosted a conference in New York on “Free Speech in an Age of Jihad.” Many who have commented on the event characterized it as a conference about “libel tourism,” the practice of jihadists to use and abuse libel laws to muzzle criticism. But as several participants in the conference made clear, libel tourism is but one weapon in the multifarious armory of militant Islam. The unhappy truth is that the threat to civilization in the West comes not only from our enemies but also from within. This was a theme that Mark Steyn developed with his characteristic blend of humor and admonitory insight in his luncheon talk, “The Dimming of Liberty: Legal Jihad and the Criminalization of Resistance.” Steyn’s talk ranged widely, but its central message, he noted, was summed up by the historian Arnold Toynbee. Most civilizations, Toynbee wrote, die from suicide, not murder. We in the West preen ourselves on our high standard of living, our freedoms, our pleasures. But what beliefs, what backbone, undergird those material triumphs? Radical Islam is a fanatical, often a murderous, faith. The welfare-state liberalism of the West is less a faith than a perpetual grievance.

In The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek, hearkening back to Tocqueville’s analysis of “democratic despotism,” noted that “the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of a people.” The nature of that change was partly an enervation, partly an effeminization. The Islamofascists have a fanatical belief that theirs is a holy mission, that incinerating infidels is their bounden duty. For them, suicide is a gateway to paradise. For us, suicide is just that: suicide. The question is whether we believe anything with sufficient vigor to jettison the torpor of our barren self-satisfaction. One part of the purpose of “Free Speech in an Age of Jihad” was to describe the threat that radical Islam, in its more bureaucratic and legalistic avatars, poses to the West. Equally important was the effort to remind us that the threat to Western civilization lies as much with our response—or, rather, our lack of response. Western democratic society is rooted in a particular vision of what Aristotle called “the good for man.” The question is: Do we, as a society, still have confidence in the animating values of that vision? Do we possess the requisite will to defend them? Or was the French philosopher Jean-François Revel right when he said that “Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it”? The jury is still out on those questions. How we answer them will determine the fate not just of Western journalism but of Western civilization itself.

We know how Canada’s Jewstablishment is answering them: Up with HRCs and their “thought crime” sections; down with free expression, a pre-requisite for Western civ.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:53 | link | comments (1)

Damaged goods: A used car is known as a “pre-owned” vehicle. But what do you call a “used” (as in a no longer hymenally-intact) woman? How about a “non-virgin”? From the times online (my bolds):

The annulment of a young Muslim couple’s marriage because the bride was not a virgin has caused anger in France, prompting President Sarkozy’s party to call for a change in the law.

The decision by a court in Lille was condemned by the Government, media, feminists and civil rights organisations after it was reported in a legal journal on Thursday. Patrick Devedjian, leader of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement, said it was unacceptable that the law could be used for religious reasons to repudiate a bride. It must be modified “to put an end to this extremely disturbing situation”, he said.

The case, which had previously gone unreported, involved an engineer in his 30s, named as Mr X, who married Ms Y, a student nurse in her 20s, in 2006. The wedding night party was still under way at the family’s home in Roubaix when the groom came down from the bedroom complaining that his bride was not a virgin. He could not display the blood-stained sheet that is traditionally exhibited as proof of the bride’s “purity”.

Mr X went to court the following morning and was granted a annulment on the grounds that his bride had deceived him on “one of the essential elements” of the marriage. In disgrace with both families, she acknowledged that she had led her groom to believe that she was a virgin when she had already had sexual intercourse. She did not oppose the annulment.

Critics ran out of superlatives to condemn what they depicted as a dangerous aberration. Valérie Létard, Minister for Women’s Rights, said that she was “shocked to see that today in France the civil law can be used to diminish the status of women”.

Elisabeth Badinter, a philosopher and pioneer of women’s legal rights, said that she felt shame for the French justice system. “The sexuality of women in France is a private and free matter,” she said. “The annulment will just serve to send young Muslim girls running to hospitals to have their hymens restored.”

Although officially discouraged, the 30-minute operation is in increasing demand from Muslim women who fear the consequences of being unable to prove their virginity on their wedding night. Numerous agencies offer services for surgery trips to north African nations. One is offering a “hymenoplasty trip” to Tunis for €1,250 (£980). Internet sites and blogs are full of would-be brides in fear of the test of “the blood-soaked sheet”.

While ministers fulminated against the Lille decision, a different stand was taken by Rachida Dati, the Justice Minister, who has Moroccan and Tunisian parents. The law had, she said, protected the bride. “Annulling a marriage is a way of protecting the person who perhaps wants to undo a marriage. I think this young girl wanted . . . to separate quite quickly. The law is there to protect vulnerable people,” Ms Dati said.

The annulment was defended by Xavier Labbée, the lawyer who acted for Ms Y. The decision was justified by the bride’s deception, not her sexual history, he argued. “Quite simply it is about a lie,” he said. “Religion did not motivate the decision . . . but it is true that religious convictions played a role.”

Requests for annulments have risen sharply to nearly 2,000 a year in France, but experts could recall no case involving non-virginity.

Sharia: shortly to supersede the Napoleonic Code?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:37 | link | comments

Waiting for Goddard: Film director Jean-Luc Goddard who was associated with the Nouvelle Vague and made some unwatchable but critically acclaimed movies back in the '60s, was supposed to attend a Tel Aviv film festival. At the last minute he decided to pull out "for reasons beyond his control."

In other words, the anti-Zionists got to him.

Two questions: Why did the inveterate old Marxist agree to go in the first place? And: You mean Jean-Luc Goddard is still alive?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:07 | link | comments

AIDS "cure": In a now infamous sermon, Bambi Fauxbama's former mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, insisted that the U.S. government has been purposedly infecting black Americans with the AIDS virus. Wright never explained, of course, how such a thing was possible. But then, the whole point of conspiracies is that they can be as loopy and implausable as all get out, so long as they have resonance with the audience listening to them.

Good news for the good folks of Trinity United. What the U.S. has giveth, an African leader claims to have taken away.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:49 | link | comments

Immoral equivalence: Recently, a French court pretty much determined that Israel was not responsible for the death of Mohamed al-Durah. It held that it was far more likely that the young Palestinian boy was killed in one of those staged Pallywood productions that go over so well with the gullible international media. As far as the Toronto Star’s Oakland Ross is concerned, though, the question had yet to be settled definitively, and neither side can claim to have the inside track on the truth.

Bollocks, said I (more or less) to the Star’s editor:

There is something very distressing about Oakland Ross’ statement that the beliefs about who is responsible for Mohamed al-Durah’s death “are probably unshakeable, no matter what evidence may yet turn up.” It makes it sound as though the truth is irrelevant. And the truth is that, as that French court held, a preponderance of evidence points to the fact that the event was staged by Palestinians for the purposes of blackening Israel’s reputation.

Had that French court found that Israelis had indeed been responsible for the young Palestinian boy’s death, Israel would have had no problem owning up to its culpability; indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, Israel was quite prepared to apologize for it.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the other side. It is far more concerned with perpetuating what amounts to a modern-day "blood libel"--and cynically using the death of a child as a blunt propaganda tool--than in coming to terms with the difference between the truth and an outright fabrication.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:36 | link | comments

Slimi among the dhimmis: The article in the Canadian Jewish News about the interfaith dinner featuring the colourful comments of Imam Hamid Slimi is somewhat less “colorful” than the piece that appeared in the Jewish Tribune. The CJC report, for instance, omits any reference to the bizarre pissing Bedoin anecdote, as well as the imam’s assertion that synagogues and churches in dar al-Islam have never, ever, not even once in history, been torched by Muslims.

From the CJN piece:

TORONTO — Imam Hamid Slimi, RIGHT, made history on May 14 as the first imam to speak at a Neighbourhood Interfaith Group dinner.

 

The 22nd annual dinner, which was hosted by Yorkminster Park Baptist Church, brought together members of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities for a night of food, drinks and conversation.

“It’s good that [we] gathered together to break bread and listen to one another in the spirit of grace,” said Rev. Peter Holmes of the Yorkminster Church. “Gatherings like this are a sign of hope and a beacon of light to this world.”

Imam Slimi, who has been an imam for 11 years, is the founder of the Faith of Life Network; the imam of the International Muslims Organization of Toronto; and the chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams.

“We did extensive research,” said Bryan Beauchamp, one of the organizers of the event and the chairman of the Interfaith Group. “We wanted a moderate, progressive, well-educated and well- spoken person. [Imam Slimi] is the ideal guy.”    

In his speech titled “The Golden Rule,” Imam Slimi spoke about Islam and its beliefs.

“Islam is very simple. There’s one God in heaven and God is merciful,” he said. “There is this unfavourable thinking of Islam and Muslims. I can’t deny that there are extreme thoughts – it happens in every religion.”

During his speech, Imam Slimi, who was born in Morocco, addressed the misconception that all Muslims are taught to hate the Jewish community.

“Everyone is loved by God,” he said. “I grew up in a district where we had Jews and Christians. We were never taught to hate [them.] The prophet said that [Muslims] can marry Jews and Christians, who are the people of the Book.”

The imam was invited to speak at the dinner because of a comment made by Rabbi Erwin Schild four years ago. While addressing the gathering at the 18th annual interfaith group dinner, the rabbi said that the group’s next challenge was to engage their Muslim neighbours.

During this year’s dinner, Rabbi Schild spoke about the first murder documented in the Torah.

“It was one brother killing another,” he said. “The murderer [thought], ‘I can’t be responsible for my brother.’ In the course of time, we’ve learned that we are our brother’s keeper – what we haven’t learned yet is who is my brother. We are responsible for all religions.”  

This sense of responsibility led Beauchamp to become involved in the interfaith group, which was founded in 1986.

‘This is my calling,” he said, motioning around the room. “Our mission is to achieve respect and appreciation for the religious beliefs of others.”

The group includes 14 churches and synagogues, and one private school in midtown Toronto. There are no mosques in the community that the group serves, but Beauchamp plans to continue inviting Muslim speakers.  

“We’ll have a three-year cycle,” he said. “Next year, we’ll have a Roman Catholic archbishop, and in 2010 we’ll start the cycle again.”

Beauchamp, who is an Anglican, tries to seat people of different religions at the same table to encourage a dialogue.

“We spread Muslim guests among the room. We try to put four Christians and four Jews at each table,” he said.

Beauchamp says the key to uniting different religions is to concentrate on similarities rather than differences.

“Rather than sitting together and discussing whether Jesus will return to Earth we focus on ‘love thy neighbour as yourself.’”…

That “Golden Rule” again. Too bad its presence is notably absent in one of the Abrahamic faiths.

Update: When Brian Beauchamp describes the imam as being "moderate" and "progressive," he apparently means that, in matters pertaining to the U.S. and Israel, he and the imam are in synch. A cursory glance at the imam's Faith of Life website reveals some of the "progressive" thinking--links to a Guardian video about suffering in Gaza, a clip about how povery in the U.S. will never be alleviated while the "military-industrial complex" continues to be industriously military (i.e. keeps fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan), and how the media are spinning the Sadr City "success".

The imam seems to be "moderate" and "progressive" in the hard-leftist/moonbat sense of those words.

Update: Further exploration of the Faith of Life site turns up David Liepert, the network's founding Director, exposulating on a timely subject:

Quite a few authors and media darlings have been making their fortunes off the idea that Canadian Muslims secretly support Osama bin Laden. They support their clash of civilizations theory with sensational quotes from the fanatical fringe, while ignoring and even denouncing the notion of Islamophobia. However, according to the United Nations, 'Islamophobia is now more widely accepted as normal in the West, not only among the common people, but also, and more openly, among certain elites, who at times seemed to adopt it as an ideological or even aesthetic position.'

It would be nice if that weren't true of Canada . In Ontario last year, the right to faith-based arbitration in family disputes was taken away from everyone (even though it had been in place for decades) simply to ensure Muslims didn't get it. The idea of public support for private religious schools is suffering the same fate. A hate-speech complaint against a prominent magazine has even prompted a federal private members' motion to remove laws against hate-speech from the books! Apparently Muslims can't be trusted with that right either.

Canada's commentators seem unanimous: an individuals' right to stereotype and misrepresent a distinct minority is protected in Canada . But where are the supposed limits that prevent us exercising our rights to the detriment of others? When a prejudiced perspective becomes so endemic that it begins to promote systemic prejudice has it not gone too far?

There is a wide gulf between those commentators' dystopic maunderings and what is actually being taught in Canada 's Muslim Houses of Worship. There we learn that Islam is a peaceful religion that promotes equality and rights for all. It's a shame that's not the way it's practiced everywhere, but it's a shame we all share. Our situation is not unique: all ideological communities struggle against members using their beliefs to justify abusing others. But it is only on the pages of a few right-wing media outlets that we hear the constant outcry that the Muslim community is singularly challenged. Often, their conclusions are based on faulty interpretations of obscure scholars and a handful of fanatics few Muslims know about. Funnily enough, it seems that right-wing media outlets and Osama Bin Laden are on the same page...

Yup. Sounds very "progressive" to me. Here's more on Liepert the "revert".

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:19 | link | comments (1)

Today's Steyn song: With apologies to those "folkie" lads, the Kingston Trio:

Well, let me tell you of the story of a scribe named Steynie

And his battle with the thought police.

He went and mentioned things “offensive” by a Norwegian  mullah.

And got hauled before some HRCs.

 

But will he ever return?

No, he’ll never return,

And his fate we soon will learn.

He may write for others,

For Maclean’s, no longer.

He’s the man who’ll never return.

 

When he arrived at the courtroom

Judge he went through the motions

Of pretending what he should do.

But since the verdict was decided long before the hearing

It was clear that poor Mark was through.

 

But will he ever return?

No, he’ll never return,

And his fate we soon will learn.

He may write for others,

For Maclean’s, no longer.

He’s the man who’ll never return.

 

Now, you citizens of Canada

Don’t you think it’s a scandal

How the thought cops can do as they please?

Fight the loss of freedom! Make ‘em fire the censors!

And get rid of the HRCs!

 

But will he ever return?

No, he’ll never return,

And his fate we soon will learn.

He will write for others

But, alas, no longer for    

The true north “strong” and “free”.

For the true north "strong" and "free".

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:47 | link | comments

Political scandals: Why Israel has them, and it's neighbours don't.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:07 | link | comments

Bombs away: The mad mullahs live up to their name.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:53 | link | comments (1)

Who gets the Golan?: Not the chinless Baathist who's the mullahs' catamite.

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

Understatement of the day: Abbas anger at Bush over acceptance of Jewish state bodes ill for peace.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:35 | link | comments (1)

Song for Steyn: Here's another revised standard from the American songbook to mark the approach of Mark Steyn's show trial (it commences Monday in Vancouver):

All of it.

They’ve taken all of it.

Have a fit

That free speech is a goner.

Curb your thoughts:

They aren’t fitting.

Channel “nice”:

Your “crimes” aren’t  unwitting.

 

HRCs

Will bring you to your knees.

Make you wheeze,

And give you a pain now.

They’ve made a breech

In what was free speech

And they’ve taken all of it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:00 | link | comments

They're baa-ack: A FrontPage Magazine symposium examines a Nazi-esque 'toon and the implications of Arab Jew-hatred. A line that resonated: "Holocaust denial is the expression of a hidden lust for another Holocaust."

In Ahmadinejad's case, though, it's not so hidden.

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

The oldest affliction: Blogging was light yesterday because my mother’s husband passed away, and we had his funeral. He came into her life ten years ago—the same summer my son was born. We were very fond of him, as he was of us. The only spot of light in an otherwise dreadful day (aside from the weather, which was glorious): a conversation about “autism” between my son and two nephews—one aged 10, the other eight going on 30—in the backseat on the way to the cemetery. It went something like this:

Son: Autism is when people hate you for no reason.

Nephew: No, it’s not.  It’s when there’s something wrong with your brain, and it makes you act crazy. You hit your head on the wall.

Son: Oh, I meant anti-Semitism.

Autism, anti-Semitism--I get them mixed-up, too. (That Jimmy Carter is so autistic!)

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:34 | link | comments (2)

Traction action: Finally, a sex scandal Canadians can get excited about. Sharp-dressed but relatively inexperienced Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier (a man chosen more for his provenance--the provenance of Quebec--than his C.V.), was cashiered for leaving classified documents lying around his well-endowed lady friend's condo. The lady friend, to add piquancy to the tale, previously dated macho biker gang types.

The media have been looking for a Harper scandal that'll have traction, and this one seems to be it. I couldn't resist reducing it to rhyme:

Maxime Bernier, who lacked expertise,

Chose a hot biker babe as his squeeze.

Her colourful shmattas

Barely covered her ta-tas.

And now he’s stuck in the deep freeze.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:53 | link | comments (2)

Here we go again: The union of British university professors is once again about to weigh the matter of an Israeli boycott. The renewed calls to put the Jews in Coventry (so to speak) is said to be due to the ongoing "humanitarian crisis in Gaza," which the academics' blame on the Jews. (Well, they would, wouldn't they?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:39 | link | comments

Political opportunist: Now that Olmert’s in serious hot water, his heiress apparent, Tzipi Livni, is doing her best to distance herself from the bounder. A tall order, indeed, since she is so closely identified with him. Tzipi figures, though, that if she sounds all moral and high-minded, people will see her that way. From the Jerusalem Post:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni led a memorial service Wednesday afternoon for former Etzel commander David Raziel, and sent a clear message to Prime Minsiter Ehud Olmert that the country is not only about physical survival, but also about values.

Referring to Raziel and the Etzel fighters, Livni said that public servants would not be faithful to their jobs if they believe that the establishment of the state was the "beginning and the end."

"The state is not just a technical matter of borders and citizens, and independent is not an empty word," she said, "and it is not just symbols and a flag and an anthem."

The foreign minister went on to say that "the state has a vision and values that obligate its citizens and obligate its leaders."

Livni, without mentioning Olmert by name, said that "before we can be a light unto the nations, like we would want, we must first work inwards and sow lights."

Sorry, Tzip. It’s the Jewish people who are supposed to be “a light unto the nations,” not the Jewish state. Putting that kind of burden on Israel—expecting things of it that are not expected of other nations—is not only unfair, not only idiotic, it is suicidal.

Oh, and I’m pretty sure you can’t “sow” lights. You can, however, sow the wind, whereupon at some point in the future, you will reap the whirlwind.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:01 | link | comments

Survival mode: Ceeb ranter Rick Mercer goofs on the Dion Libs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:08 | link | comments (1)

Free-thinker, feather-ruffler, wave-maker, boat-rocker: In a country (Canada) where the Jewish establishment and others are actively working to thwart free speech so that a tyranny of "niceness" may prevail, these words by French Jew, Phillippe Karsenty, who refused to remain silent and fought back against the al Dura blood libel, are especially powerful. From Pajamas Media via the Jewish Tribune:

Today (last Wednesday), a French court ruled that I did not defame France 2 when I said that its news report was a hoax. Because I refused to be brainwashed, I was sued for defamation.

Our victory today was a victory for freedom—the freedom to think and to speak one’s mind; the freedom to question what one is told; and the freedom to disbelieve the solemn pronouncements of others when the individual concludes that his reasoning is correct, and that the state and all the state-run media—and all of the institutions they represent—are wrong…

The right to think, to speak, to evaluate, to accept and to reject the conclusions of others goes to the very heart of what it means to be free…

A person who’s willing to defy the establishment and speak truth to power—like Ezra Levant, like Mark Steyn, like Phillippe Karsenty—is a true hero.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:43 | link | comments

Oh, that Zbig: How’s this for black humour? A purveyor of the Big Lie about a super-powerful Jewish cabal, er, lobby, manipulating U.S. foreign policy accuses “some” Jews—those with genuine concerns about Fauxbama—of “McCarthyism”. From the Telegraph:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, said that the pro-Israel lobby in the US was too powerful, while the slur of anti-Semitism was too readily used whenever its power was called into question.

Presenting a solution for the Middle East, he listed historical compromises that had to be made by Israelis and Palestinians but accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) – the largest and most influential Jewish lobby group – of obstructing peace efforts.

He said: "Aipac has consistently opposed a two-state solution and a lot of members of Congress have been intimidated and I don't think that's healthy."

He added that other country-specific lobbies, such as the Cuban-Americans, the Armenians and the Irish, had also exerted undue influence in Washington.

Mr Brzezinski, who served under President Jimmy Carter, was a key player in the 1978 Camp David Accords and remains an important voice in the US foreign policy establishment.

An active author and analyst at 80, he is close enough to Mr Obama that his remarks may feed fears in the American-Jewish community that the senator would soften America's traditional strong pro-Israeli stance if he became president.

This perception has been created in part by Mr Obama's professed willingness to talk to Iran and partly by other foreign policy associates.

In recent weeks, Mr Obama has courted the Jewish vote and, on Israel's 60th anniversary, underlined the need for the US to show "unshakeable" support.

Mr Brzezinski has been accused of being "anti-Israel" by some Jewish academics, writers and bloggers after criticising Israel for excessive use of force and unwillingness to compromise.

Last year, censure of him reached new heights when he defended John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two academics who had criticised the pro-Israel lobby and were accused of questioning the right of the state of Israel to exist.

Mr Brzezinski said "it's not unique to the Jewish community – but there is a McCarthyite tendency among some people in the Jewish community", referring to the Republican senator who led the anti-Communist witch hunt in the 1950s…

Apparently, there’s a McCarthyite tendency among “some” decrepit anti-Zionists, too.

Update: Might these be "some" of the Jews Zbig is talking about?

Update: Paul on powerline comments:

Brzezinski, according to Ed Lasky [of the American Thinker site], is an outspoken supporter of Walt and Mearsheimer. This doesn't prove that Brzezinski anti-Semitic, but it certainly makes him someone best left on the sidelines when it comes to influencing America's foreign policy with respect to Israel, at a minimum. Unfortunately, Brzezinski (along with Samantha Power) is one of Barack Obama's foreign policy mentors. Obama calls Brzezinski "someone I have learned an immense amount from." Supporters of Israel should be very afraid about the content of Brzezinski's lessons.  

What a very "McCarthyite" suggestion.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:31 | link | comments

Saudis take a page from the Canadian playbook: Look what I found embedded in an Arab News piece about "women’s rights" in the Magic Kingdom:

Women have also called for representation on the Shoura Council so they can influence change and development. Others have also asked for inclusion on the board of the newly established Human Rights Commission in order to ensure women get the rights that their faith guarantees and their faith-based government also should guarantee.

Good luck getting your “rights,” Saudi chicks. Everyone "in the know" knows that Human Rights Commissions—whether Wahhabi, UNi or Canucki—are in the business of removing rights, not granting them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:11 | link | comments

UN leaps into action: Dizzy Des Tutu’s on his way to Gaza to “probe” Jewish (and only Jewish) malfeasance. (Hey, Des: While you’re in the neighbourhood, how ‘bout looking into those rockets being hurled every frikkin' day at Israeli civilians in Sderot?) From the New York Sun (my bolds):

JERUSALEM — Archbishop Desmond Tutu is planning to enter Gaza today to conduct a U.N. investigation into the killing of 19 Palestinian Arabs by Israeli shells.

After 18 months of being denied a visa by Israel, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is expected to cross the border at Rafah via Egypt.

The archbishop is intending to visit the scene of the incident, in which Israeli forces fired an artillery barrage into the Gazan town of Beit Hanoun early one morning in November 2006.

The first shell hit a house, causing members of the Athamneh family to run out into an alley, where they were cut down by further shells. Almost all the dead were from the same family, the youngest an 8-month-old girl.

The Israeli army carried out its own investigation but found earlier this year that the incident was an accident, and held no individual to account for the deaths. Palestinian Arab human rights campaigners were incensed by the finding.

Mr. Tutu's trip represents a major showdown between the Jewish state and the U.N. Human Rights Council, which commissioned his inquiry weeks after the incident.

The Israeli authorities gave no explanation for the visa delays but it is known Israel has problems with the human rights council because of its constant focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israeli government sources have said the council is politicized and biased for ignoring other human rights violations such as Darfur, while repeatedly censuring Israel.

Quel understatement.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:58 | link | comments (2)

Ehud and Tzipi’s despicable adventure: Hillel Halkin explains once again why the idea of “giving back” the Golan is sheer lunacy. From the New York Sun:

Every few years another supposed Israeli-Syrian deal of this sort hits the headlines; every few years I write another column against it; every few years it fades away until the next time.

So what's left to say now that the next time has again become this time? That one can only hope that this time, too, it will soon become last time?

That all the reasons for not surrendering the Golan that have been valid in the past are more valid than ever today, especially when the Syrian regime has just been caught trying to develop clandestine nuclear weapons and is successfully in the process of helping Hezbollah take over Lebanon and the president of America thinks that yielding to its demands would be a bad idea?

That offering to give up the Golan would therefore be the most unpardonable act that could be committed by a government whose leader, Ehud Olmert, has close to a zero approval rate from the Israeli public and will soon have to resign, and possibly go to jail, because of his crooked finances? Or that this same public has shown itself when polled, time after time, to be against ceding the Golan and currently opposes doing so by 70% to 30%?

Let's talk about this public and the paradox it represents in terms of the Golan. It's no secret that every Israeli government that has offered to return the Golan has been heavily influenced by high army officers who have supported such a move and that this is true of the Olmert government, too. Nor is it a secret why the army's general staff has tended to take this position.

This is not because the Golan has no strategic value in the army's eyes. It is because the army fears that, should war with Syria break out over the Golan, or over some other issue like Iran, this value will be offset by the rain of Syrian missiles that will hit Israeli population centers, panicking their inhabitants, causing massive casualties, and forcing Israel to sue for a ceasefire before it can press its military advantage.

Is the Israeli public unaware of this danger? If it was before the 2005 war against Hezbollah, it certainly isn't any longer. It knows what happened then, and it knows that what would happen if the Syrians were to emulate Hezbollah's tactics would be far worse. If it doesn't agree with the army, this is because it has more faith in itself and in the army than the army does.

It has more faith in the army, because it believes in the army's deterrent power, which could pulverize Damascus if the Syrians attacked Tel Aviv or Haifa. (The army, apparently, does not believe that any Israeli government would allow it even to threaten pulverizing Damascus, let alone to do such a thing.) And it has more faith in itself because it believes that even if Tel Aviv and Haifa were attacked, it could hold out long enough for the army to do its job.

This is not to minimize how grim a worst-scene scenario might be. No one in Israel wants to see thousands or tens of thousands of Israeli casualties, or for that matter, hundreds of thousands or millions of Syrian casualties. It is simply to say that the Israeli public, besides justifiably feeling that the Golan is by now part of Israel and should remain so, is more realistic than either its army or its government.

It knows not only what the price of risking a war with Syria might be, it knows what the price of not risking one would be. Once the Arab world understands that Israel does not believe it can fight or win another war, and will not fight one to hold onto its own sovereign territory (which the Golan has been since 1980), Israel might as well go into receivership immediately, because it will in any case be ripped apart piece by piece, each time yielding another bit of itself to the latest Arab ultimatum…

Well, isn’t that the whole point of the endless “peace in our time” efforts—to eat away at the Jewish state bit by bit until it’s no longer viable?

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:50 | link | comments

(B)arf!: A British prison guard has caught heck for supposedly naming his pooch after the Big Kahuna. From Netindia123 (h/t J.B.):

Naming his sniffer dog "Allah" has resulted in in prison officer Chris Langridge, 28, being shifted out of Britain's top Belmarsh high-security jail.

Though Langridge insisted that his labrador was called Ali, and not Allah, a Muslim inmate filed an official complaint against the the (sic) dog handler, and he was promptly shifted.

One Belmarsh officer said: "This is political correctness gone mad."

Belmarsh houses some of Britain's most notorious extremist Muslims, including hook-handed Abu Hamza. It also has the highest proportion of Muslim prisoners of any jail in Britain.

"Muslims don't like dogs and it would have been an insult to their religion if the dog had been called Allah, which is sacred to them. It is disgraceful the way the management kow-towed to them despite Chris's denial," The Sun quoted a source, as saying.

Langridge and his dog are now working at the Swaleside jail on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent. (ANI)

Reminds me of that old joke about the dyslexic agnostic: He sat up all night trying to figure out if there really was a Dog.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:02 | link | comments

Dhimmi daze: The cleric who heads up the Canadian Council of Imams spoke at an interfaith dinner—a first for the group—and weren’t all the clueless dhimmis tickled pink? By Atara Beck in the Jewish Tribune: 

TORONTO – The 22nd annual Neighbourhood Interfaith Dinner last week at Yorkminster Park Baptist Church, attended by about 400 people of diverse backgrounds, was a first for the event.

 

The interfaith group of 14 midtown churches and synagogues and a private school invited a Muslim spiritual leader as the guest speaker for the first time.

 

Moroccan-born and educated Hamid Slimi – Imam of the International Muslims Organiation of Toronto, founder of the Faith of Life etwork and chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams – delivered a talk, It’s All About the Golden Rule.

 

His method of illustrating the importance of “doing unto others as you would have others do unto you,” however, was unprecedented in that interfaith community and included, for example, an anecdote about a Bedouin urinating in a mosque.

 

According to Bryan Beauchamp, chair of the interfaith group, “although the examples used were shocking, the point [he was trying to make] will be remembered.”

 

Imam Slimi, introduced by Rabbi Frydman-Kohl of Beth Tzedec Congregation as “a good friend,” and “a man of great kindness and integrity stressed that the most basic aspect of religion is to help those in need.

.

“We’re all brothers and sisters in humanity,” he said, adding that the Islamic community poses no threat to Canada. “There is unfair thinking about Islam. It’s in the front pages. I cannot deny there are extremists and that happens in every religion.”

 

As for politics, “I can’t solve the Middle East. Only God can…it’s about justice…peacemaking without justice doesn’t happen.”

 

He spoke of the prophet Mohammed’s “respect for Christians…Jews have prospered in Morocco. We were never taught to hate Jews or Christians…“Nowhere in history is it recorded that a synagogue or church was burned under Muslim rule. All we hear today is politics…. It’s a mess.”…

 

I’m sure the anecdote about the pissing Bedouin was a hoot, and thus hate to put a damper on the levity. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to mention that, pace the imam’s comments,  there is no “Golden Rule” in Islam; how could there be, when, by definition, Islam is all about the faithful, who have an “in” with God, submitting to his will, while everyone else (the "others" of the "do unto others")  is second rate? Furthermore, the palaver about “peace with justice” is veiled language (pun intended) for the peace that will prevail once Israel’s out of the picture. Also, the notion that churches or synagogues have never been destroyed under Muslim rule is patent and outrageous nonsense (for more on the subject, see the writings of Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer and Bat Ye’or). And maybe the imam was never taught to hate Jews or Christians, but there's plenty of hatred on view in the Koran, should anyone care to go looking. Finally, there may indeed be “extremists” in all religions, but search high and low, and you’ll find nary a mention of “jihad” in either Judaism or Christianity.

 

Earth to interfaith dhimmis: Get a clue.

 

Update: Well looky here--some other dhimmis are in bed with "Golden" guy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:43 | link | comments (3)

No such luck: Honor killing victim wanted to live like other German girls--Der Spiegel.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:07 | link | comments

Vox populi: Hit the road, Ehud, you corrupt old peacemonger.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:55 | link | comments

A "hero" ain't nuthin' but a CJC sumbitch: In light of this, and this, this, with its talk of "puppies and bicycles," seems unintentionally--and grimly--amusing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:48 | link | comments

Sex and death: “Occupation," like war, is hell, right? Not so, according to a new book documenting the Nazi’s conquest of France. The author says that, rather than being a hardship, the German occupation amounted to one long sexual romp—sort of like the 60s, only with totalitarians in jack-boots who liked to ship off Jews to be killed and incinerated. From the times online:

A new book which suggests that the German occupation of France encouraged the sexual liberation of women has shocked a country still struggling to come to terms with its troubled history of collaboration with the Nazis.

Like a recent photographic exhibition showing Parisians enjoying themselves under the occupation, the book’s depiction of life in Paris as one big party is at odds with the collective memory of hunger, resistance and fear.

“It is a taboo subject, a story nobody wants to hear,” said Patrick Buisson, author of 1940-1945 Années Erotiques (“erotic years”). “It may hurt our national pride, but the reality is that people adapted to occupation.”

Many might prefer to forget but, with their husbands in prison camps, numerous women slept not only with German soldiers – the young “blond barbarians” were particularly attractive to French women, says Buisson – but also conducted affairs with anyone else who could help them through financially difficult times: “They gave way to the advances of the boss, to the tradesman they owed money to, their neighbour. In times of rationing, the body is the only renewable, inexhaustible currency.”

Cold winters, when coal was in short supply, and a curfew from 11pm to 5am also encouraged sexual activity, says Buisson, with the result that the birth rate shot up in 1942 even though 2m men were locked up in the camps.

The book has stirred painful memories. One French reviewer called it “impertinent” and another accused Buisson of telling only part of the story by focusing on the “beneath the belt” history of the occupation. Le Monde, the bible of the French intellectual elite, chided the author, who is the director of French television’s History Channel, for painting life under the occupation as a “gigantic orgy”.

People who lived through the occupation found it insulting to suggest that they spent it in bed. “It makes me really angry,” said Liliane Schroeder, 88, who risked her life as a member of the resistance and has published her own journal of the occupation. “It’s shocking and ridiculous to say life was just a big party,” she told The Sunday Times. “We had much better things to do.”

Schroeder nevertheless described her life as a messenger in the resistance as a “marvellous time” in which “people got on with life even if they weren’t laughing”. Young women were useful to the resistance, she said, because “when a young woman and a man sat in a café it did not look as if they were plotting. They looked like lovers”.

French sensitivities about the country’s wartime record were demonstrated last month when an exhibition of photographs depicting Parisians enjoying life under the Nazis included a notice explaining that the pictures avoided the “reality of occupation and its tragic aspects”. The photographs showed well-dressed citizens shopping on the boulevards or strolling in the parks. People crowded into nightclubs. Women in bikinis swam in a pool.

Buisson dedicates a chapter in his book to cinemas, which he describes as hotbeds of erotic activity, particularly when it was cold outside. “At a few francs they were cheaper than a hotel room,” he writes, “and, offering the double cover of darkness and anonymity, propitious for all sorts of outpourings.”

The French even had sex in the catacombs, the underground ossuary and warren of subterranean tunnels in Paris: war, Buisson argues, acted as an aphrodisiac, stimulating “the survival instinct”. He said in an interview: “People needed to prove that they were alive. They did so by making love.”

It has been claimed that prostitutes staged the first rebellion against the Nazis by refusing to service the invaders but Buisson called this a myth. The Germans, he claimed, were welcomed into the city’s best brothels, a third of which were reserved for officers. Another 100,000 women in Paris became “occasional prostitutes”, he said.

Elsewhere, members of the artistic elite drowned their sorrows in debauchery. Simone de Beauvoir, the writer, and Jean-Paul Sartre, the philosopher, were devotees of allnight parties fuelled by alcohol and lust.

“It was only in the course of those nights that I discovered the true meaning of the word party,” was how de Beauvoir put it. Sartre was no less enthusiastic: “Never were we as free as under the German occupation.”

De Beauvoir wrote about the “quite spontaneous friendliness” of the conquerors: she was as fascinated as any by the German “cult of the body” and their penchant for exercising in nothing but gym shorts…

Blonde, buff Aryans in abbreviated shorts: a sight to make even the author of a seminal book on feminism, The Second Sex, hot and bothered.

Sounds like the French could have used a good hosing down.

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

RIP ObL?: Even if this report proves to be true and he's pushing up poppies (part of the local flora), to paraphrase Celine, the jihad will go on (and on, and on).

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:58 | link | comments

Watchkitten in cahoots with the bad guys: Iran's ambassador to the the IAEA, the UN's useless nuclear watchthingy, says the agency is satisfied that Iran intends to employ nuclear technology solely for goodess and niceness.

Have I mentioned that now is the perfect time to fire watchmeow-in-chief, Mo ElBaradei?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:35 | link | comments

Suicide is brainless: "Former ambassador of Canada to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Jordan" Michael Bell (that's how he's described in the Globe and Mail) offers his two cents' worth on the prospects for "peace" in the region. And two cents is about all it's worth, since the former diplomat, now "the Paul Martin Sr. Scholaron International Diplomacy at the University of Windsor," (those who can, do; those who can't, teach; those who can't do either teach diplomacy) thinks that Olmert giving back the Golan in exchange for "peace" represents "the way forward."

I beg to differ:

Ehud Olmert’s desire to “talk peace” with Syria as “the way forward”? Well, that’s one way to look at it. The other is to see it as yet another example of the Prime Minister’s fecklessness, his inability to grasp the obvious. And in this instance it should be clear that, when your survival is at stake, you cannot rely on promises made by Baathists in league with your worst enemy.

 

“The way forward”? More like the road to oblivion.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:41 | link | comments

 Show tunes: This one's for Mark Steyn, on the occasion of his upcoming B.C. show trial:

There’s no tri-als like show tri-als

Like no tri-als I know.

Everything about them is depressing.

Everything’s like something out of Mao.

Soon enough they’ll have you there confessing.

Your thoughts, they’re stressing,

They won’t allow.

 

There’s no po-lice like show po-lice

They strive to bring you low.

Even with a bureaucrat like Barb’ra Hall

Don’t need no trial for a “guilty” call.

You’ve exchanged your freedom for no “rights” at all.

Let’s close down the whole show.

Let’s close down the whole show.

Channeling Ethel Merman: An excellent way to get the phagocytes moving in the morning. I feel positively invigorated.

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

Carter finks on the Jews: Hamas's favorite pea(nut)-brain, Jimminy "Cricket" Carter, says Israel has 150 nukes.

Surely it can spare one to drop on a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Jew-hater. (Just kidding. No need to use a nuke to swat a louse.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:58 | link | comments

Eeew: According to a survey, some Canadian hospitals are trying to cut costs by  re-using single-use devices.

Names, please.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:46 | link | comments

When the venue is the message: Following his attendance as his sister’s graduation ceremony at Columbia U. last week, Commentary blogger Eric Trager expatiated on the subject of censorship and free speech (my bolds):

…Given the continuity with which Columbia imbues its graduation ceremonies, perhaps it is unsurprising that Columbia University President Lee Bollinger’s speech demonstrated that he still doesn’t get it. Indeed, nearly eight months after inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, Bollinger still believes that the entire affair was a test of free speech. With the Ahmadinejad incident strongly implied, Bollinger thus used his address to warn of the “Censorship Impulse”:

It is said: A speaker will persuade people to think bad thoughts and do bad things; will offend some and make others angry and resentful; will ruin the minds of our youth; will lead others to think we approve the message or don’t care enough to oppose it; will bring instability, divert us from other more important tasks, and make it more difficult and perhaps even impossible for experts to handle the situation. We limit speakers in other ways, too, when claiming that others will be “chilled” and thereby diminish speech overall or that it will reflect badly on the rest of us.

Now, here’s the interesting point: All these arguments about the costs of openness are very often true - in the sense that they point to consequences that are real. Indeed, that’s why freedom of speech and academic freedom are continually under siege, even in a nation that says it places this value at its core, because “reasonable people” can always make freedom seem foolish and foolhardy.

Yet the “reasonable people” who protested Ahmadinejad’s invitation–myself among them–weren’t primarily concerned with what Ahmadinejad might say. After all, calls for Israel’s destruction are old news at the infamous Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures (MEALAC), while few expected that Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial would sway Columbia students. Rather, “reasonable people” argued that giving Ahmadinejad the pulpit at one of America’s top universities would legitimize his insidious views in the Middle East, and boost his credibility in Iran. …

Exactly. Just as the University of Toronto’s hosting the annual hate-fest known as Israeli Apartheid Week legitimizes the Nakba community’s insidious views, and boosts its credibility in Canada. If IAW events were held, say, in the basement of a bowling alley, it wouldn't have nearly as much "cred".

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

"Islamophobia" alert: Blogger Flaggman has alerted me to something I hadn't read anywhere else. Apparently, the telegenic threesome who are acting as Mohamed Elmasry's mouthpieces (a.k.a. "Elmo's sock puppets") are having a hard time findling articling positions. It seems prospective law firms somehow got the impression that the budding attorneys were "anti-free speech."

Go figure.

Update: I contacted Ezra Levant about the above. He says he's skeptical about the claims because the only thing law firms care about is a person's grades and his/her apparent willingness to "work like a slave."

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:06 | link | comments (2)

 Love and marriage (and marriage, and marriage, and marriage) in Hogtown: Aly Hindy, a well-known local imam, tells a Toronto Star reporter that he’s performed many a marriage ceremony knowing full well that the man standing at the altar already had one or more wives—and, really, it’s no biggie:

…"Polygamy is happening in Toronto; it's not common, but it's happening," said Hindy, imam at Salahuddin Islamic Centre.

Hindy, hardly a stranger to controversy, is well known for his friendship with the family of Omar Khadr, the young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and his outspoken views on the implementation of Islamic law. In the past five years, Hindy said he has officiated or "blessed" more than 30 polygamous marriages; the most recent was two months ago. Even some imams in the GTA have second wives, he added.

"This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion," he said. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."

Those who condone the practice rarely let their views be known, and those who practise it themselves tend to do so in secret, making it difficult to record how many such marriages have taken place in the GTA. Equally hard to determine is how many polygamous families have immigrated to the country, despite a 2005 report commissioned by the federal Status of Women that tried to find out the extent of polygamy and its implications.

But conducting such unions in clear violation of Canadian law is wrong, according to Syed Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, who speaks frequently on polygamy issues.

"Muslims should not enter into polygamy while they are living in Canada, because the local Canadian law prevails. It overrules the Islamic law if there is a conflict between the two," he said…

Under the Criminal Code, polygamy was deemed a crime in 1892. Those who enter into reside in, or officiate a polygamous union can be charged with a criminal offence and face up to five years in prison.

But the last time polygamy was prosecuted in Canada was more than 60 years ago…

In Texas, though, the “unacceptable” type of polygamy (which has a Canadian connection) is kicking up all sorts of fuss.

To recap: polygamy sanctioned by sharia—okey-dokey; polygamy sanctioned by the Book of Mormon—not so much.

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

Flogging a dead horse: Those idealist young activists, the brothers Kielburger (they’ve been on Oprah!), are urging Canada to “revitalize (its) role as UN peacekeepers.” From the Toronto Star (where the brothers have a weekly perch):

…The UN may not be perfect, but it has proven time and again its value as the world's premier agent of peace. If it's going to live up to these expectations, individual nations will need to step up.

A standing rapid reaction force, long advocated by former secretary general Kofi Annan, may be the best solution. Not only would it eliminate the need to piece together a last-minute contingent in an emergency, it would no doubt attract bright and ambitious soldiers well-trained for peacekeeping.

Canada could even play a lead role. Once a leading contributor of troops, we now supply the UN with fewer soldiers than Fiji and Togo. We may have our hands full in Afghanistan but could lend political and economic support to a more stable pool of UN peacekeepers.

Not only would doing so help the millions of war-ravaged civilians who rely on peacekeepers to survive, it would re-energize an important Canadian tradition – one that began more than half a century ago in the dusty Egyptian desert.

My letter:

I hate to break it to the Kielburger brothers, who are so keen to thrust Canada into a “peacekeeping” role, but being a UN “peacekeeper” is not what it used to be. Indeed, in recent times, UN “peacekeepers” have been implicated in a variety of unsavoury and discreditable pursuits, including the rape of women and children they were supposed to be protecting.

As for “keeping” the peace—the UN often ends up doing far more “watching” than “keeping”. Such is the case in Lebanon, where the UN continues to “watch” Hezbollah acquire massive amounts of armaments which, as any time, could be turned against the people of Lebanon and/or Israel.

Canadians—and the world—would be better off if there was a lot less UN “peacekeeping” and far more resolve to “revitalize” a corrupt, feckless, blinkered organization which lost most of it moral lustre a long time ago.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:38 | link | comments (1)

Consider them dubious: Voters question Fauxbama's "honesty".

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:37 | link | comments

The long and the short of it: A Globe and Mail editorial goes to bat for young Omar Khadr--deprived of his "rights," treated abominably by the Americans, and hung out to dry by his own government.

For those with time constraints, here's the gist, in verse:

Omar Khadr, Canadian lad,

Got caught in some bother with Dad.

He’s been stuck down in Gitmo

Where he don’t want to sit mo’

And we’re all of us s’posed to feel bad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:12 | link | comments

Freaky trend: Young Saudis in Londonistan sporting "Kabbalah bracelets."

Fatwa in five, four, three...

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:26 | link | comments

Give us your weak, your hapless, your mentally incapacitated, yearning to blow up: British authorities have been caught napping again. Here’s Melanie Phillips, scathing on the topic of a “new” strategy that’s taken authorities by surprise—enticing people with “challenges” (the p.c. label) to blow up for Allah. The strategy was recently used in Exeter, where a not-playing-with-all-his-marbles “revert” almost succeeded in deploying a particularly nasty device packed full of nails:

…A new strategy, eh? Well, fancy that!

Security officials say Al-Qaeda appears to have exported the tactic from Iraq, where disabled ‘foot soldiers’ have been used to devastating effect.

Of course, Islamic terror godfathers have used precisely this same tactic around the world for years -- but who could have expected the British to think it could happen here too? After all, according to the British politico-security establishment, the thousands of M***** terrorism suspects they are monitoring in the UK aren’t involved in I****** terrorism at all. Just crime. We learn that [Nicky] Reilly [the would-be bomber] had been

manipulated by a ‘charismatic’ al-Qaeda recruiter.

We also learn that he received a text message of support before he carried out the attack. From whom might that have been, we wonder? Not an Asperger’s support group member, for sure.

The president of Plymouth university’s Islamic Society said he could not believe that Reilly had been radicalised in the city. Good heavens, no. Who knew? Not the Security Service, it appears:

Security officials admitted that MI5 had been aware of Reilly but that he had not been under surveillance.

Of course not. Why break a great tradition?

Why, indeed? Wouldn't want to "offend" anyone by being over-vigilant (a great tradition here in Canada, too).

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:18 | link | comments (1)

Suicidal bridge-builders: The curious mesalliance between Reform Jews and Islamists.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:31 | link | comments

Alexandre the mediocre: Circle October 25^th on your calendar. That’s the date P.E.T. spawn Alexandre “Sacha” Trudeau will be the keynote speaker at the CAIR-Can fundraiser. Sacha is famous for being dandled, whilst still a pisher, on Uncle Fidel Castro’s knee, and for concocting “insightful” and “completely unbiased” documentaries.

Here’s the CAIR-Can pitch:

CAIR-CAN cordially invites you to its 2008 Gala Dinner with keynote speaker Alexandre “Sacha” Trudeau. The Gala Dinner will be held on Saturday, October 25th, 2008, at 6 p.m. in Toronto.

Alexandre Trudeau is a renowned documentary filmmaker, freelance journalist, and speaker. In 2003, Trudeau slipped into Baghdad shortly before the U.S.-led invasion. For six weeks during the bombing campaign, he lived with an Iraqi family to tell their story. This culminated in the 60-minute documentary film for the CTV program W5, "Embedded in Baghdad".

Trudeau later spent a summer with families on both sides of the Israeli "security barrier" in the West Bank, and in 2004 produced the documentary film "The Fence".

In "Secure Freedom" (2006), Trudeau investigated the Canadian government's steadfast support of the use of security certificates on the grounds of national security.

Trudeau is President and Chief Producer at Jujufilm. He is also director of Canada World Youth, and of the Trudeau foundation for excellence in social sciences and humanities research and innovation.

In his highly anecdotal talks, Alexandre Trudeau shares his often-controversial views on the political, social, and economic forces behind the headlines.

Information on tickets and venue for the Gala dinner will be announced shortly…

Papa would be proud.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:08 | link | comments (2)

Pallywood, fauxtography and the war against the Jews: There is no more effective weapon in the anti-Zionist arsenal than media manipulation. One of the most flagrant instances of such manipulation, the Al Dura affair, has just been exposed as a fraud in a French court (shades of Dreyfus). But as David Warren writes, despite the revelations, the manipulation and media jihad continue:

…France-2 still refuses to cut its losses, and make a clean admission of what happened. It has too much at stake in the affair, and is currently blustering about an appeal to the appeal. The evidence so far presented shows things won’t get any better for them. Meanwhile, the Israeli Supreme Court is now reviewing France-2’s Israeli media accreditation.

The case casts much light into the background condition of media reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Left-wing, anti-Israel journalists such as Charles Enderlin depend regularly for emotion-laden pictorial content, and for the rumours they report as breaking news, on locally-hired Palestinian photographers, cameramen, and stringers. The interests and loyalties of these people are not even an open question. For even if they personally desire to reveal only the truth, we must consider the physical consequences to them of reporting a single item favourable to Israel. Palestinians are frequently publicly executed as “Israeli agents” -- on direct orders from Fatah or Hamas -- on the basis of much vaguer suspicions.

The same story applies to Lebanon, where local journalists whose lives depend on their ability to please Hezbollah are the principal source of the news we receive, via editorial packaging in Paris, London, New York. This is how e.g. Reuters news agency was embarrassed, in August 2006, when battlefront pictures it had distributed to the front pages of the world’s newspapers were shown to have been not only photoshopped, but rather crudely photoshopped, in a Beirut studio in four different ways. The failure of Western picture editors to spot obvious indications of fraud, such as the duplication of smoke patterns, was in that case pointed out to them almost immediately by Internet bloggers.

As I mentioned above, tremendous damage is done by sensational mainstream media reporting that is, even when not fraudulent, considerably less than candid about sources. And this damage is compounded when the media give little or no attention to subsequent retractions.

The media are only slightly more concerned with “the truth” than are Canada’s HRC.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:53 | link | comments

The madness of King Ehud: Someone near and dear to me is all a-tingle at the prospect of Syria beating its spears into pruning hooks—provided the Zionists “return” the Golan. Me? I’ll have to go with Caroline Glick on this one:

…So just two months after the Lebanese, Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians boycotted the Arab League summit in Damascus as a sign of their rejection of Syria's Iranian controllers and of Damascus's support for the Hizbullah takeover of Lebanon, thanks to the Olmert-Livni-Barak government, Syria is again a full-fledged and respectable member of the international community. The US and Iran's Arab foes now have no choice but to accept Syria.

Israelis such as retired generals Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and Uri Saguy have close personal relations with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Barak and have been pushing for a withdrawal from the Golan Heights for some 15 years. Their argument for moving ahead in recent years has been that by offering the Golan Heights to Syria, Israel will pull Syria out of Iran's sphere of influence. Opponents of negotiations such as Mossad chief Meir Dagan have argued that such negotiations will have just the opposite effect.

As Syria's ecstatic reaction to Israel's announcement demonstrated, the Saguy-Shahak-Barak-Ashkenazi crowd is completely wrong and Dagan is completely right. By negotiating with Syria while it is firmly entrenched in the Iranian axis, Israel has not moderated the regime. It has legitimized Syria's presence in the Iranian axis.

That is, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government's embrace of Syria as a credible negotiating partner and Olmert's statement Wednesday evening that he supports giving Syria the Golan Heights - even as the Assad regime hosts Hamas and a dozen other genocidal jihadist groups; as Syria acts as Hizbullah's partner and logistical base and the main entry point for jihadists into Iraq; and with Damascus having effectively rendered itself Iran's Arab colony - mean that Israel has legitimized Syria's behavior. Now that Syria has received Israel's stamp of approval, the other Arabs and the US have no excuse for continuing to oppose it...

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

One-sided accommodation: Quebec has been experiencing some angst about “accommodating” newcomers. Last week, “la belle province” was advised to make mucho accommodations so that immigrants would feel more welcomed, and so Quebec, which, for obvious reasons, has a strong cultural identity, could become more squishily “multicultural,” like the rest of us.

Writing in City Journal, sage shrink/essayist Theodore Dalrymple delineates what can happen when a host culture loses its identity—a cautionary tale for les Quebecois:

…A feeling of unease is widespread, even among the longer-resident immigrants themselves, that Britain has lost its distinctive character: or rather, that the loss of a distinctive character is now its most distinctive character. The country that those immigrants came to, or thought they were coming to, no longer exists. It has changed beyond all recognition—far beyond and more radically than the inevitable change that has accompanied human existence since the dawn of civilization. A sense of continuity has been lost, disconcerting in a country with an unwritten constitution founded upon continuity.

London is now the most ethnically diverse city in the world—more so, according to United Nations reports, even than New York. And this is not just a matter of a sprinkling of a few people of every race and nation, or of the fructifying cultural effect of foreigners (a culture closed to outsiders is dead, though perhaps that is not the only way for a culture to die). Walk down certain streets in London and one encounters a Babel of languages. If a blind person had only the speech of passersby to help him get his bearings, he would be lost; though perhaps the very lack of a predominant language might give him a clue. (This promiscuity is not to say that monocultural ghettos of foreigners do not also exist in today’s Britain.)

A third of London’s residents were born outside Britain, a higher percentage of newcomers than in any other city in the world except Miami, and the percentage continues to rise. Likewise, migration figures for the country as a whole—emigration and immigration—suggest that its population is undergoing swift replacement. Many of the newcomers are from Pakistan, India, and Africa; others are from Eastern Europe and China. If present trends continue, experts predict, in 20 years’ time, between a quarter and a third of the British population will have been born outside it, and at least a fifth of the native population will have emigrated. Britain has always had immigrants—from the French Huguenots after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes to Germans fleeing Prussian repression, from Jews escaping czarist oppression to Italian prisoners of war who stayed on after World War II—and absorbed them. But never so many, or so quickly.

To the anxiety about these unprecedented demographic changes—a substantial majority of the public, when asked, says that it wants a dramatic reduction in immigration—one can add a reticence in openly expressing it. Inducing this hesitancy are intellectuals of the self-hating variety, who welcome the destruction of the national identity and who argue—in part, correctly—that every person’s identity is multiple; that identity can and ought to change over time; and that too strong an emphasis on national identity has in the past led to barbarism. By reiteration, they have insinuated a sense of guilt into everyone’s mind, so that even to doubt the wisdom or viability of a society consisting of myriad ethnic and religious groups with no mutual sympathy (and often with mutual antagonisms) is to suspect oneself of sliding toward extreme nationalism or fascism; so that even to doubt the wisdom or viability of a society in which everyone feels himself part of an oppressed minority puts one in the same category as Jean-Marie Le Pen, or worse. This anxiety inhibits discussion of the cultural question. In view of Europe’s twentieth century, the inhibition is understandable. One consequence, however, is that little attempt has been made to question what attachment Britain’s immigrants have to the traditions and institutions of their new home…

Good question. Especially in light of the ongoing clash between God-law and man-made law.

Update: No question in Harpoon Siddiqui's mind: accommodation's groovy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:04 | link | comments

Apple crap: Iran claims to be shocked--shocked!--at the news that its chip off the old block, Syria, is "talking peace" with the Zionists.

Is it genuine "shock"? Or is is feigned shock--a.k.a. taqiyah (the lies jihadis are permitted to tell in order to further their goals)?

Hard to say. My guess is that this may indeed be Syria's attempt to flex its muscles in an effort to become more powerful in its own right, but that, whether or not it has Iran's behind-the-scenes endorsement, you cannot, I repeat, cannot trust a chinless Baathist brigand.

To recap: Syria is bad news; Assad is bad news; Iran is really bad news, and so's Ehud "Scandal? What Scandal" Olmert.

All in all, a rotten bunch of apples.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:49 | link | comments

Malaise-y bones: Sure, he’s cuter, more eloquent, and isn’t saddled with a buck-toothed, meeskite family (probably the least telegenic presidential family since the invention of TV), but it should be clear by now that, in almost every other important way, Bambi Fauxbama is a dead-ringer for Jimminy “Cricket” Carter. From the American Thinker:

…In July of 1979 President Carter gave a nationally televised address in which he told America that he believed the nation was facing a "crisis of confidence." His speech would later be known as his "malaise" speech.

During his Oval office conversation with America, Carter did something no President before him has done. He gave a speech that was critical of the attitude and way of life of the American people. Many accurately perceived his speech to be about a defeated America. Carter dwelled on a what he believed was a lack of faith and confidence that had overwhelmed the American people, placing more blame on them instead of the failures of his Presidency as well as the Democrat controlled House and Senate.

"I know, of course, being president, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to put my campaign promises into law -- and I have to admit, with just mixed success," Carter said. "But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America."

Carter would go on to literally chide Americans for their lack of confidence in the country. After campaigning to restore America from the toll taken after Vietnam, Watergate and the energy crisis, he had failed and the blame was going to be placed on the people not his lack of leadership.

Obama's speech this past Saturday had a frighteningly similar "blame the people" tone as Carter's speech. While Obama still emphasizes the failures of Washington he also blames Americans for how they live their lives.

"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine," Obama said.

Obama later added fear tactics in making his case that Americans have to change their lifestyle. "We are also going to have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy and pretty soon, if their carbon footprint even approaches ours, we're goners."

Brian Fitzpatrick senior editor at Culture and Media Institute also believes that Obama's Oregon address is comparable to Carter's "Malaise" speech. He recently wrote about the media covering up his comments blaming Americans and their way of life. Carter had also become a media darling during his 1976 Presidential campaign. The media pass Obama received in Oregon is a blatant attempt to not add credence to the argument that Obama is the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter.

When you take an honest look at the advisors Obama has selected, his desire to meet with leaders who promote genocide and rule their nations with an iron-fist, the comparison to Carter is undeniable.  When you add the fact that both men are media favorites, place much blame on the way Americans live and support increased government regulation and big government programs instead of the free-market ideas to solve America's ills, the fear that people have that an Obama Presidency would by Carter's second term, is not just a concern, but a harsh reality.

As bad as a Fauxbama presidency is likely to be, I shudder to think of the kind of mischief he’ll get up to post-White House when, like Jimminy and Hillary’s squeeze, he refuses to shuffle off the world stage and continues to hog the spotlight.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:22 | link | comments

When is France going to “give back” Alsace-Lorraine?: A question a certain demented peace-monger trying to deflect attention away from his own corruption scandal might want to ask himself before he “gives back” the Golan in exchange for “peace” with Iran’s Mini-Me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:03 | link | comments

Power play: In an age-old power struggle recast for modern times, the Shias are trying to lord it over the Arabs (and everyone else, especially those uppity Zionists). At least, that’s the sense I get from this article in Lebanon’s The Daily Star:

BEIRUT: Senior Shiite cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah said Thursday that the current period requires Arab and Islamic efforts to settle the remaining problems and complications, and praised Iran's contribution toward reach agreement among Lebanese leaders in Qatar.

In a phone conversation with Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Reza Shibani, Fadlallah stressed the need for Arab and Islamic countries to communicate and hold "deep" dialogue over Arab and Islamic issues.

According to Fadlallah, discussions should tackle the issue of the Palestinian cause and ways to protect the Palestinians against continuous Israeli massacres, in addition to the suffering of the Iraqi people, which he said, "was caused by the American occupation of Iraq."

"The current political period requires joint Arab and Islamic efforts to resolve lots of problems witnessed by Arab and Islamic countries," he said. "By doing so, we might get out of the framework of divisions, as well as that of sectarian and political fanaticism which threatens the nation on more than one level."

Shibani informed Fadlallah of the role played by Iran to bring the Lebanese viewpoints together, as well as its coordination with several Arab and Islamic countries in facilitating the achievement of an agreement through the Qatar-sponsored dialogue.

Under Arab League auspices, rival Lebanese leaders clinched a deal on Wednesday to end the political feud that exploded into deadly clashes earlier this month and nearly drove the country into a new civil war.

The agreement, announced after days of tense talks in Doha, will see the election of a president for Lebanon on Sunday and the creation of a unity government in which the opposition will have a power of veto.

Meanwhile, the Higher Shiite Council vice president, Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan, said the Doha agreement has constituted a "new station" in the Lebanese people's life.

"The success of the Doha talks had a positive impact on Lebanon and the region," Qabalan said. "The agreement reached has brought us into a new phase of Lebanon's life; this is why we should benefit from it and provide our country with prosperity, stability and national unity."

Qabalan urged the Lebanese to communicate and forgive each other, "as they are brothers and partners in the country."

"The Lebanese people are called on to show unity and solidarity," he added…

Meaning: Submit to Hezbollah (and the mullahs)—or else.  

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:23 | link | comments

Who let the dogs out?: Canada’s pugnacious postal union wants us to “call off your dogs.”

We’ll call off ours if you'll call off yours.

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

Another Ceebster signs with “the majors”: Perusing my husband’s alumni magazine—Queen’s Alumni Review—I came across the following item under under “JOB NEWS”:

Nicolas (Nick) Spicer, Artsci’91, has joined Al Jazeera’s English TV’s Washington bureau. Nick has previously been the CBC News correspondent in Moscow since 2004, and before that he was a Paris-based reporter for the CBC and National Public Radio in the U.S. for 10 years. His Russian reporting took him the length and breadth of the country, as well as into Afghanistan with Canadian.

I’ve lost count of the number of high profile Ceebsters who’ve made the move over to A-J. Let’s just say that, at this stage, it’s not unfair to describe the Ceeb as “Al Jazeera’s farm team" (and we, the Canadians taxpayers, are the ones who have to pay for the players' training).

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:17 | link | comments (2)

Don't know much about history: Charles Krauthammer lays into Fauxbama for being a such an ignoramus about history (an ignoramus of historical proportions?).

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:23 | link | comments

Lady Justice’s extreme makeover: I sent the following letter to the National Post. It was in response—sort of—to this letter. Since the Post didn’t bite, I'll, er, post it here:

Grant Havers points to a fundamental problem with allowing Human Rights Commissions to be the arbiters of “hate speech” in Canada: who gets to define “hate”. To the Jewish establishment, it’s obvious what constitutes “hate”: lies, slurs, smears and calumnies spread by the likes of Ernst Zundel that aim to stir up bad feelings toward the Jewish people. In other words, same old, same old. To one of the articling law students acting as a front man for the Canadian Islamic Congress in its complaint against Maclean’s, however, “hate” is a truthful Mark Steyn cover story about demographic realities in Europe which includes quotes from radical clerics; as this budding attorney sees it, the late Oriana Fallaci, the Italian scourge who warned about the same demographic realities, is Ernst Zundel.

No matter. Once these complaints—whether they involve “lies” or the “truth”—come before the august commissions, the veracity of the material in question becomes irrelevant. After all, the HRC system of “justice” doesn’t concern itself with old-fangled British Common Law notions such as presumption of innocence, standard rules of evidence or even, heaven forefend, the “truth”. Its sole concern is to ensure that the party of the first part, henceforth known as “the aggrieved”, be compensated for having his/her feelings hurt due to whatever his/her definition of “hate speech” happens to be at any given time.

The shocking reality is that, in Canada today, Lady Justice is no longer blindfolded, and her scales are tipped precipitously in favour of one side—the side that, in the name of clamping down on its own personal definition of “hate speech,” is successfully extinguishing our free expression.

Here’s the lady’s “before” shot. And here’s what she looks like “after”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:13 | link | comments

Tony’s close call: Yikes! It has been revealed that while winging his way to a Middle East conference, feckless buddinsky Tony Blair came within a hair’s breadth of being shot down by Israeli fighter planes. Seems tensions were extraordinarily high when the Hashemites’ vacation chum was heading to the confab and, well, he was almost mistaken (imagine!) for a terrorist. From the timesonline:

Tony Blair came within moments of being killed when two Israeli fighter aircraft threatened to shoot down a private jet taking him to a Middle East conference in the belief that it might have been staging a terrorist attack.

The warplanes were scrambled to intercept after the jet pilot failed to contact air traffic control. Mr Blair, the international community’s envoy to the Middle East, was flying from the World Economic Forum (WEF) summit in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to attend a major conference on private investment in the Palestinian city of Bethlehem.

The Israeli aircraft used to intercept Mr Blair’s plane would have been versions of the F16 or F15, armed with Shafrir and Python air-to-air missiles. Both missiles have proved to be devastatingly effective and versatile. The Shafrir 2 missile shot down nearly 100 aircraft in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

Air traffic controllers spotted a suspicious aircraft heading into Israeli airspace from the Sinai peninsula on Monday and made several attempts to establish contact. When the pilot failed to respond to their urgent requests, the Israelis scrambled two fighters to intercept what they feared could have been a terrorist attacker.

The fighters flew above Mr Blair’s civilian aircraft to indicate to the pilot that he was considered a suspect target, at which point he finally made contact. The pilot told them that he was carrying Mr Blair.

During the entire incident, Mr Blair — flying with other delegates from the WEF, who were also attending the Bethlehem conference — was not informed of the situation by the pilot.

“They were unaware of it while they were on the plane,” Ruti Winterstein, spokeswoman for Mr Blair’s office in Israel, said. “They didn’t hear about it until afterwards, from the media.”

An Israeli army spokeswoman said the military would not comment on the incident, but another security source said the manoeuvre was standard procedure in such circumstances.

Israeli forces have been on high alert for threats from the Sinai region since Hamas knocked down a wall on the Egyptian border five months ago and had free access in and out of the besieged Gaza Strip for a week. It is also an area where terrorists linked to al-Qaeda have carried out bomb attacks on hotels in recent years.

Initial investigations into the events indicated a technical malfunction was to blame for the breakdown in communication, the Israeli newspaper Maariv said, adding that new systems had been set up in recent months to identify suspicious aircraft. Israeli fighters have been scrambled on several occasions to intercept potential attackers.

The conference in Bethlehem aimed to attract up to £1 billion in capital to jump-start the Palestinian economy, the main focus of Mr Blair’s mission in the region. More than 2,000 delegates and would-be investors attended the conference, which many welcomed as a positive first step towards creating a viable Palestinian state…

A viable Palestinian state: the oxymoron of our times.

I’m glad the Jews didn’t shoot down Blair, because if they had, we would never have heard the end of it. But since a “terrorist” isn’t only someone who straps on some dyno and blows up kafirs, but is also someone who attends conferences which end up enabling terrorism (by giving genocidal Jew-haters oodles of “capital,” some of which is bound to find its way into terrorist coffers), I don’t think he was misidentified.

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

A suggestion: Those in the GTA ("Greater Toronto Area") with the interest and some spare time this weekend might want to drop by a conference in Mississauga where "inspirational" British blowhard, George Galloway, is tentatively scheduled to speak.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:36 | link | comments (4)

Bambi woos Jews: The cutest candidate ever has taken his “I Wuv You Guys” act to a Boca Raton shul. From the L.A. Times (my bolds):

BOCA RATON, FLA. -- Courting a key voting bloc, Sen. Barack Obama campaigned at a synagogue Thursday, hoping to persuade Jewish voters to support “a black guy” with “kind of a Muslim-sounding name.”

Jettisoning his standard campaign speech, Obama talked instead about his support for Israel and the appeal of the Zionist dream to a biracial child whose family moved often.

"The idea that one could hang on to one's sense of balance and have a sense of family and, despite being an outsider, somehow still had a place to connect to . . . was very powerful to me," he said.

Jewish voters typically make Florida competitive for Democrats, but this year may be different.

Obama has faced an e-mail campaign falsely claiming he is Muslim. The former pastor of his church, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. And Republicans are attacking him for his willingness to negotiate with Iran.

Obama acknowledged these hurdles and spoke of another.

"One of the painful things for me over the past several years," he said, "has been to see the strains between the Jewish community and the African American community."

He said he wanted to regain "that sense of a common kinship, of a people who've been uprooted, a people who've been on the outside -- that strikes me as the very essence of what we should be fighting for."

Obama arrived at Congregation B'nai Torah to sustained applause, and several people wore buttons with his name in Hebrew. But some tensions quickly emerged.

The first questioner praised Obama, then noted that a friend had said: "If Barack Obama would change his name to Barry, I would vote for him."

Obama replied that as a child he was nicknamed Barry. He is named after his Kenyan father, and as a young man he chose to use his full first name to acknowledge his heritage.

"Let's be honest, part of what raises concerns is you've got a black guy named Barack Obama," he said. "So people say, 'He's got kind of a Muslim-sounding name, and we don't know what's going on here.' "

A man who identified himself as Michael Ackerman of Boca Raton read a list of Arab activists and intellectuals whom Obama had met with. To scattered boos, he asked Obama to name Jews who could vouch for him.

Obama bristled as he rattled off several names, including Penny Pritzker, his campaign finance chairwoman; Lee Rosenberg, a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group; and Abner J. Mikva, White House counsel to President Clinton.

"One of the raps on me when I first ran for Congress in the African American community is 'He's too close to the Jewish community. All his friends are Jews,' " Obama said. "That's part of the reason why this kind of conversation is frustrating."

He concluded by noting that Republicans were passing out fliers warning that he is anti-Israel.

And he urged people to ignore the whisper campaign that he is Muslim…

At which point he broke into a rousing rendition of Bei Mir Bist Du Shane: 

Bei mir bist du shane,

Please let me explain

Why my name’s Hussein--

It’s no biggie.

 

Bei mir bist du shane,

I think it’s insane

If you all refrain

From backing me.

 

I could say “Rev’rend Wright”

Even say “Farrakhan”

Each name would only tell you

“Barry’s” sure not your man.

 

Bei mir bist du shane.

Support my campaign.

I’ll hide my disdain

For that big “sore”.

 

Bei mir bist du shane

My “hopeful” campaign

Is not on the wane,

It’s gaining steam.

 

Bei mir bist du shane.

I’m so JFK-an,

A good-lookin’ swain,

So join my team.

 

I could say “Billy Ayers,”

Even say “Khalidi”.

Each name should only tell you “kachers”

Don’t vote for me.

 

Bei mir bist du shane.

My win’s preordained

So jump on my train

To victory...

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

Shoo fly, don’t bother him: A Toronto Star editorial praises the sagacity of a recent judicial decision:

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck a blow for common sense by refusing to award damages to a man who developed "debilitating" psychiatric problems after finding dead flies in his bottled water.

The case revolved around Waddah Mustapha, a Windsor man who in 2001 discovered one dead fly and part of another in an unopened bottle of water he was about to put on his home dispenser. He became "obsessed" with the discovery and suffered "a major depressive disorder with associated phobia and anxiety." A trial judge awarded him $341,000 in damages, but the Ontario Court of Appeal later overturned that judgment.

In a 9-0 decision yesterday, the Supreme Court said the water supplier, Culligan of Canada Ltd., breached the "standard of care" by selling Mustapha contaminated water. It also accepted that Mustapha's illness was real.

But the court found his injuries did not warrant compensation because they could not reasonably have been anticipated. Mustapha did not show that it was "foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer serious injury from seeing the flies in the bottle of water he was about to install," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

She added that, "unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence are imaginable but not reasonably foreseeable."

This sensible decision is a welcome check on the trend toward litigation in our civil society.

Maybe Mustapha can take his fly affair to a human rights commission (where all sorts of whacky complaints have been known to take wing).

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:04 | link | comments (2)

Ring mystery: The Ceeb describes a baffling reality:

It is a strange phenomenon: thousands of large, perfectly round "forest rings" dot the boreal landscape of northern Ontario.

From the air, these mysterious light-coloured rings of stunted tree growth are clearly visible, but on the ground, you could walk right through them without noticing them. They range in diameter from 30 metres to 2 kilometres, with the average ring measuring about 91 metres across. Over 2,000 of these forest rings have been documented, but scientists estimate the actual number is more than 8,000.

What causes these near-perfect circles in the forest?...

Some suggestions:

·         God

·         Allah

·         Gaia

·         Al Gore

·         Xenu

·         The Jews

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:33 | link | comments (3)

Busy day: Professional and personal duties kept me from blogging today. Be back tomorrow.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:35 | link | comments (1)

Death by chocolate--literally: But what a way to go.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:44 | link | comments (1)

While thousands cheered: The faithful turned out by the tens of thousands the other day in Oregon to cheer for their candidate, Bambi Fauxbama.

Of course, the fact that his "opening act" was a wildly popular rock band may have had something to do with inflating the numbers--not that the mainstreamers want you to be privy to that info.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:30 | link | comments

A plea for totalitarianism: Protecting his turf, a human rights lawyer defends Canada's thought cops.

Well, he would, wouldn't he?

To be clear, Canada has a population of over 33 million souls. Only one of them--he who shall remain nameless, for to name him, as he sees it, is to defame him--is availing himself of the thought crimes section of the nation's human rights code. I don't mean to deprive this gentleman of his livelihood, but I happen to align myself with those who believe that free speech and a single justice system predicated on a tradition of laws dating back to the Magna Carta are infinitely more crucial than allowing a self-styled avenger to line his pockets.

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

Madness: Israel confirms "peace" talks with Syria.

Such lunacy! One would have a serious death wish--or be seriously delusional--to trust the mullahs' Baathist lackeys.

And speaking of the mullahs' lackeys, another "peace" deal means Hezbollah is now well positioned to take control in Lebanon.

Update: If Syria is looking to wage "peace", why is it also trying to buy a whack-load of weaponry from the Russians?

Any thoughts on that, Ehud?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:13 | link | comments

American-Shia portmanteau: If Fauxbama wins the White House come November, he says he's planning to sit down and talk things over with that "reasonable" Mr. Ahmadinejad.

I'd say that's worthy of a song (to the tune of: "My Bonnie"):

Obamahmadinejad talking.

Obamahmadinejad--see.

They’re jawing without “preconditions”.

Oh, please bring back some sanity.

Bring back, bring back,

Oh, please bring back some sanity to me.

Bring back, bring back,

Oh, please bring back some sanity.

 

Obamahmadinejad gabbing.

Obamahmadin’--what a joke!

And as they keep talk, talk, talk, talking,

The Jew state’ll go up in smoke.

Go up, blow up, the Jew state’ll

Go up in smoke, no joke.

Go up, go up, the Jew state’ll go up in smoke.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:01 | link | comments

Nakba, shnakba: Predictably clueless hard-lefty Linda McQuaig—a paid-up member of the “Nakba community,” those Israel-bashers who hide their Zionhass behind a smokescreen of concern for the hard-done-by Palestinians—whinges about the unfairness of Canada, a Western democracy, siding with the Middle East’s only true democracy. The “It’s the Crude” dudette urges the P.M. to strike more of a “balance” and consider the feelings of the “Nakba” crowd.

My letter to the Toronto Star:

The Jewish people have experienced many “nakbas” —catastrophes—in their long history, including the destruction of two temples, exile from their ancestral homeland, expulsions, an Inquisition and, finally, a Holocaust. And each time the Jews have picked themselves up and adapted to their new circumstances. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have had only one “Nakba”. It occurred in 1948, when the mighty armies of the Arab nations failed to annihilate the tiny new Jewish state.

That’s the big difference between Jews and Palestinians. The Jews see a “nakba” as an opportunity to move ahead; the Palestinians see the “Nakba” as an excuse to blame others for their troubles so they can remain mired in the past.

 Flaggman subjects loony Linda to a rigorous fisking.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:35 | link | comments (3)

A plea to see a fait accompli: The Ceeb’s inhouse moderate Muslim, Natasha Fatah, offers a fairly balanced (“balanced” for the Ceeb, that is, meaning that it isn’t totally one-sided in favour of the Arabs) assessment of Israel at 60:

This month, while the state of Israel celebrated its 60th anniversary, I felt tremendous admiration for the Israelis and what they have accomplished. One of the world's most ancient, and hunted peoples, the Jews have survived in a region where they are surrounded by hostility. Not only have they survived, but they have also flourished, continuing the legacy of 5,000 years of Jewish contribution to the arts, medicine, science and politics.

But looking at the suffering of the Palestinians, my admiration for Israel is tainted. While Israelis celebrate their ability to survive as a nation in a tough and hostile neighbourhood, the Palestinians mourn their loss - the Nakba or "Catastrophe" that befell them in 1948.

The Israel-Palestine issue divides and polarizes like no other. No one has lukewarm feelings about this topic; everyone has strong opinions about the problems and the solutions.

My hope for a solution would be that next year, when Israelis celebrate the 61st anniversary of their state, Palestinians also celebrate the birth of theirs, a state where the indigenous Arab people of the region may also live in dignity and peacefully with their Israeli neighbours.

That would not be easy. Each side would have to be honest in the process and demonstrate much courage.

Need for compromise

Palestinians need the courage to do one very important thing - stop questioning Israel's right to exist. Israel does exist and no amount of wishing it away is going to change that. Just as the Palestinians are indigenous to the land, so are the Jews. Imams and clerics need to stop portraying Jews as if they are foreigners in Jerusalem, or an extension of European colonialism.

Many of us may not agree with Zionism, but the reality is that Zionism is the founding philosophy of Israel. Jews have longed to return to Jerusalem for well over 2,000 years, long before any Christian or Muslim walked the holy paths of Palestine.

Palestinians need to stop saying that Israel is an artificial state, and therefore doesn't have any historical right to exist. That is a toothless argument: Half the states of the Middle East are artificial constructions - this is the legacy of the colonial era. If Israel has no right to exist, then explain Lebanon and Jordan. The first was a mountain and the other a gift by the British to the rulers of Hejaz - who now claim a land called Saudi Arabia, which too is an artificial construct.

Having said that, Israel at 60 should have the wisdom to recognize that its creation displaced a people, and that today it occupies territories not its own. What Christian Europe did to its Jewish citizens during the Second World War is unforgivable, and reparations needed to be made. But, millions of Muslims and Christians of Palestine should not be made to pay for the racism and misdeeds of the Catholics of Europe or the Nazis of Germany. Palestinians are now refugees in their own land.

There is a great feeling of defensiveness among some Israelis, and they ask why they must always compromise? Why accommodate?

The reason is simple: Israel has power and is a democracy. It claims to rule by a higher standard and needs to be judged by that measure. It functions from a point of strength, and therefore it must be Israel that shows magnanimity and compassion. Ordinary Palestinians who support neither Fatah nor Hamas, should not pay for the crimes of cruel and short-sighted men who claim to represent them.

Talks need compassionate focus

I know that among Israelis and the Jewish community, some of the most open and honest intellectual dialogue focuses not only on Israeli acts of aggression, but also on those acts of compassion. Israel has opened its arms to Arab Jews of the Middle East who have been driven out of their communities.

But the Jewish state has also helped Muslims who are victims of violence. Black Sudanese Muslims who suffered at the hands not only of Arabs in Sudan, but also of their Muslim brethren in Egypt who responded to their entreaties for help by beating, abusing and throwing them out of the country, have been allowed to take refuge inside Israel.

Israel has offered shelter to the victims of modern genocides. When Bosnian Muslims looked for refuge, Israel opened its doors. But charity must begin at home. What good is Israel's compassion for the Darfuris and Bosnians, if it has none for the Palestinians?

Supporters of Israel, especially in the Diaspora need also to resist the temptation to label all critics of Israel as anti-Semites. This is not true, and does not allow for open discourse.

There is much pain and mistrust on both sides and many who doubt the wounds can ever heal. I would urge my skeptical Middle Eastern friends, Israeli and Palestinian, to look to the east.

Last year, India and Pakistan celebrated their 60th anniversaries of independence from British rule. Despite millions of lives lost in bloodshed during partition, three wars between the countries, and the looming threat of a nuclear attack just 10 years ago, the two nations celebrated this anniversary together as equals and as brothers.

When South Asians cross the border from Lahore to Armritsar to watch cricket matches together, they are met with warmth and affection. Politicians in Delhi and Islamabad may project animosity or dubious stability. But the average Pakistani and Indian, Hindu and Muslim, Christian and Sikh on the street recognize their long historical connections and the inherent humanity of the other. Perhaps one day Palestinians and Israelis will visit each other's cities to watch soccer games with similar affection.

If 60 years can begin to heal the deep-rooted wounds of Pakistanis and Indians, why can it not do the same for the Israelis and Palestinians?...

A bit optimistic about Indian-Pakistani “wounds” being on mend, I’d say: the terrorist attack in Jaipur last week, as well as a spate of other recent attacks and several that have been thwarted, are testament to that. As for the query “why can it not do the same for Israelis and Palestinians," any clear-eyed analysis would have to point to a one-word answer that starts with “J” ends with “D”. (Alternatively, starts with “Sha” ends with “ria”.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:14 | link | comments (1)

Only looking back: The Canadian Jewish Congress trumpets a coup for Canadian Jews—the government’s belated recognition of the infamous St. Louis incident. From Canadian Press via the CJC site:

OTTAWA _ The Canadian government has set aside money for an education program and monument memorializing the shameful rejection of the Jewish refugee ship St. Louis in 1939.

No official apology is in the works for the incident, which epitomized a period of anti-Semitic Canadian immigration policy in the 1930s and '40s.

But Canada's Jewish lobby has been campaigning since the late 1980s to have the story of the St. Louis memorialized, and a government official is confirming that's about to happen.

A spokesman for Conservative MP Jason Kenney, the secretary of state for multiculturalism, told The Canadian Press on Tuesday that Kenney's weekend announcement on historical recognition programs will include a St. Louis memorial.

Kenney announced in Vancouver that an official apology is coming from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government regarding the 1914 Komagata Maru incident, when 376 mostly Sikh immigrants were barred from landing in Vancouver and eventually ordered to sail away.

The settlement to the Indo-Canadian community could also involve as much as $2.5 million.

The St. Louis commemoration is more modest _ likely in the neighbourhood of $300,000 _ although the incident has wider historical echoes than the Komagata Maru.

Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress applauded the Conservative government's decision.

``The idea is that when governments begin to understand the follies of what they did in the past, they will ensure it's not done in the future,'' said Farber.

``It's certainly not too late. We're talking 65 years later--that's a drop in the bucket.”…

Memorializing the past is something “the Jewish lobby” does very well. Recognizing the next great tragedy that looms in plain sight—such as the one that may come to pass once the cone of silence about global jihad and the Islamist threat is lowered once and for all in Canada and around the world—and taking the steps required to forestall it, is something at which it is far less adept.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:45 | link | comments

Two-faced France: Nicolas Sarkozy may have been making nicey-nicey with the Jewish state, but that hasn’t stopped him from establishing “contacts” with those genocidal holy warriors, Hamas. From AP via the Globe and Mail:

PARIS -- France has had informal contacts with Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that rules Gaza, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said yesterday.

Hamas confirmed the contacts and said France was not the only European country to seek it out recently for talks.

The acknowledgment of secret contacts between France and a group considered to be a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union brought swift criticism from Washington.

Israel played down the revelation and insisted it has had reassurances from France, which has sought friendlier ties with Israel since President Nicolas Sarkozy came to office a year ago, that its policies haven't changed.

Mr. Kouchner said on Europe-1 radio that France has had contacts with Hamas leaders "for several months."

The Fatah party that dominated Palestinian politics for decades was trounced by Hamas in 2006 parliamentary elections.

In June, 2007, Hamas took Gaza by force, triggering a crisis among Palestinians.

Mr. Kouchner said France was not engaged in formal negotiations with Hamas. "These are not relations; they are contacts. We must be able to talk if we want to play a role," he said.

Mr. Kouchner made the announcement ahead of a three-day trip to the Palestinian territories and Israel this week. Mr. Sarkozy heads to the region next month.

As President, Mr. Sarkozy has embraced Israel, setting himself apart from predecessors who nurtured traditionally strong French relations with the Arab world. France has also sought to boost its role in the peace process under Mr. Sarkozy, and played host to an international donors conference for the Palestinians in December.

A Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip confirmed that his group had had contacts with France and, beyond that, "communications with many European officials."

"It reflects Europe's awareness that it made a mistake in boycotting Hamas," said the spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri.

He would not name the other countries that have been in contact with Hamas.

The talks, he said, were "about exploring Hamas's positions on political issues." There were no discussions about opening formal diplomatic relations, he said.

In a speech Sunday, Hamas's prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, said unidentified European delegations have been in Gaza recently to examine the Rafah border crossing and whether it could be reopened. The border has been sealed since last June's Hamas takeover.

In Washington, the State Department frowned on Mr. Kouchner's comments and reiterated that the Bush administration feels Hamas should be shunned until it changes its behaviour.

"We don't think it is wise or appropriate," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington when asked about French contacts with the group. "We have spoken out about that in the past when other individual states have chosen to have contacts. We don't believe it is helpful to the process of bringing peace to the region.

"Our position remains that Hamas should be forced to make a choice. The international system has laid out various conditions for them, they have yet to meet those conditions."

Mr. Kouchner said the talks were not held on a regular basis but provided no other details. In the radio interview, he said Hamas was "more flexible than before" but for the moment does not recognize the state of Israel.

Yeah, when it comes to being “flexible,” Hamas is a veritable Gumby.

Is it just moi, or do you see a Legion D’honneur in the offing for Hamas-chatter-upper Jimminy Carter?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:29 | link | comments

The enduring fecklessness of the Jewish establishment: Nathan Englander’s novel, The Ministry of Special Cases, is a dizzying, grimly funny account—part Kafka; part I.B. Singer—of a Jewish couple caught up in the madness of Argentina’s “Dirty War”. The novel details the parent’s efforts to find their nineteen-year-old son who’s been “disappeared”. As I read the following passage, in which the mother, Lillian, seeks help from the Argentine equivalent of the Canadian Jewish Congress and is told that the most the organization can do is try to persuade the government to put her son’s name on an official list, I experienced a frisson of recognition:

“So it’s on their list,” Lillian said. “A farce.”

“It’s ours. And it’s more than anyone else has managed,” Feigelbaum said. “We negotiate the names, and it’s a fight to get each one. The government still denies that these people are in their custody. It’s through perseverance and pressure, through finagling and back channels, that we have reached this watershed. We have gotten them to admit that these are the people we accuse them of incarcerating.”

“They admit that you accuse them?”

“Yes,” Feigelbaum said.

“What’s that worth?”

“Everything,” he said, “when it’s official.”

“That’s your best?” Lillian said. “That’s the most the officers of the Jewish community can do?”

“Do you think more would get done if we chained ourselves to the doors of the Ministry of Special Cases?” Aggressive tactics, rudeness and tough talk—that would leave me feeling satisfied at the end of the day, but where would it leave us?” Feigelbaum gave a sweeping gesture to include Lillian and the United Congregation and, she imagined, all the rest of Once’s and Argentina’s Jews. He raised his eyebrows and made a point of staring. “Why cut our noses, Mrs. Poznan, only to spite our face?”

“As worthless as Kaddish [Lillian’s husband, father of the ‘disappeared’ boy] swore,” Lillian said.

“Does that mean you’d prefer I don’t submit your son’s name?”

“For approval?” Lillian laughed. “You work with them, Feigelbaum. You channel the grand tradition of Jewish diplomacy: Never acknowledge catastrophe until it’s done.”

“That’s a preposterous accusation.”

“Afterward you’ll raise up a tall building around it. You’ll enlist a great Jewish after-the-fact army to fight with all of hell’s fury over how it is to be remembered.”

“This is a fantasy.”

“You’ll deal with the very same officials,” Lillian said. “You’ll fight bravely over how many of our dead they’ll agree to list on the monument.” Lillian gritted her teeth. “What it means, Feigelbaum, is that I want my son, Pato, home alive. Not the Museum of the Jewish Disappeared.”

“How dare you,” he said. “I risk my life, and my family’s advocating for this cause.”

Lillian shook her head. “I can see already in your eyes. I can see how you plan to mourn.”

“You’re crazy,” he said.

“And you’re worse than them,” she said. She meant to wound Feigelbaum, she felt his betrayal was great.

Surveying the terrifying farce that is Canada’s HRC legal system—an apparatus worthy of the kind of police state depicted in Englander’s book—and how the Jewish establishment remains hell-bent on preserving it no matter what, I know how she feels.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:33 | link | comments

Talking "peace" with holy warriors: Ceeb correspondent Stephen Puddicombe has a sit-down with a Taliban leader, and finds him far “milder” and more “rational” than expected:

…Don't think I am soft on the Taliban, as I have seen their work all over Afghanistan and Pakistan; it was just surprising how meek and mild he was, though six years in a Pakistani prison will do that.

But this blog is not so much about interviewing Taliban leaders as it is a discussion of talking peace with militants responsible for blowing up cars, killing innocent people in markets, even bombing the funeral of a victim killed in a suicide bombing.

Shariah law is the issue

I sat down and had a rational, reasonable conversation with this man. His solution to achieving peace was simply that Pakistan had to adopt Shariah law. Yes, that's the sometimes oppressive religious law: women are required to wear burkas, they can't go to school, men risk severe punishment if their beards aren't long enough, no music, no billiards, no dancing, few if any modern-day appliances. Violators face brutal punishment.

There are some positive things about Shariah law though; a council of elders listens to disputes and decides the outcome based on evidence, sort of like a native healing circle back home, but that's not enough to sell it to the West. But if the new government introduces Shariah law, Muhammad says he will renounce violence. I don't think that is going to happen.

Just visit parliament in Islamabad, and you will see plenty of SUVs and spiffy Italian tailored suits. No, this parliament won't give into threats and lose all that. And Pakistan, believe it or not, is a fairly liberal society. There are burkas here, abuse against women is an enormous problem, but there are a lot of modern, forward-thinking people as well.

The prospect of Pakistan negotiating with the Taliban tends to make Western leaders sick. They fear, as do many critics here, that a deal would allow the Taliban to focus its attention on Western forces in Afghanistan, including Canadians.

That's a question I put to another Taliban leader who agreed to speak with us. Mohallanh Alham is a large man who runs a religious school in a nearby village. He and one of his co-leaders invited us in after prayers for the interview.

You would never think these men were Taliban. They laughed and made us feel quite at ease. One of them was like a favourite uncle, a little portly, with a grand laugh and a flair for telling a good joke.

But when it came down to a discussion about the peace talks, their demand was inflexible: the implementation of Shariah law, or else a fight…

No matter how “meek,” “mild,” “reasonable,” and “rational,” a Taliban appears to be, it always  boils down to sharia (and its very different understand of "peace"), doesn’t it?

In honour of Steve and his “meek” Taliban host, I’m reviving my Dr. Doolittle song parody:

If we could talk to the Taliban, just imagine it,

Chatting to jihadis in Pashto.

Imagine intellectual wrangles, discussing all the angles.

Who knows just how far it all could go?

 

If we could talk to the Taliban, learn their rationale,

Maybe find a way to cool ‘em down.

We’d study up on their sharia, teach them Ave Maria.

Our dialogue’d be our shining crown.

 

We could converse with clerics who despise us.

And they would curse our presence in their land.

If they should ask, “Do you want the caliphate?”

Say for the helluvit,

“It’s grand!”

 

If we could talk to the Taliban, open up that door,

Think of all the things we could discuss.

Although we’d talk to the Taliban,

Flock to the Taliban,

Bow and scrape and squawk to the Taliban.

No way they’ll bow and scrape and squawk to us.

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

Suffrage and suff’ring: Why are women in Saudi Arabia so downtrodden? According to a Saudi “human right” expert, it’s because women have not spoken up and demanded their “rights”. From Arab News:

JEDDAH, 19 May 2008 — Ignorance, lack of awareness about their rights and lack of appreciation by society are why Saudi women are in their current situation.

This was emphasized by Al-Jowhara Al-Angari, vice chairman of the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) on Saturday night at a meeting organized by the Khadijah Bint Khuwailid Center at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI).

Basmah Omair, the center director, introduced Al-Angari and requested that all mobiles be placed on silent mode.

Al-Angari’s wide-ranging discussion covered most aspects concerning women and she exhorted them to take an active role in making a difference. “When a door is locked, it is not going to open on its own. You’ve got to bang on it, on and on for it to open,” said Al-Angari. “Women are afflicted with ignorance. We can’t claim our rights unless we know them.”

Al-Angari said that women in Islam have legal, social, political and civil rights. Islamic tolerance should not be confused with social norms and traditions. Women in early Islam were recognized as individuals with rights and voices and they acted accordingly. She illustrated this with examples from Islamic history. Citing that history, she questioned where, in comparison, women are today.

“Women pledged allegiance to the Prophet (peace be upon him). During the Al-Hudaybiya Treaty, the Prophet asked his wife Umm Salamah for advice which he later took,” added Al-Angari. “Asma bint Abu Bakr (daughter of one of the Prophet’s companions) carried food and water on foot alone to the Prophet and her father when they took refuge in Thawr Cave, outside Makkah,” she cited as another example of women’s initiative during the Prophet’s time.

She urged the almost 600 women present to know their rights and ask for them…

Some chicks’ rights under Saudi sharia: the “right” to be struck by your husband; the “right” to have your testimony in court considered to be worth half that of a man’s; the “right” to be encased head-to-toe in a black shroud; the "right" to be divorced instantaneously at your husband's whim; the "right" to be gang-raped, and then punished for your "crime"; the “right” to be under the thumb of your close male relatives; and the “right” to a cloistered, second-class existence.

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

When the going gets tough...: The previously "ebullient" one gets all solemn in a simalcrum of presidential maturity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:33 | link | comments

A Hymn to Them: George "'Enry 'Iggins" Bush sings:

Why can’t the Arabs be more like the Jews?

Jews are so clever, so quick to excuse,

Eternally hopeful, unfairly abused,

Who, when given lemons go and make some lemonade.

Well, why can’t the Arabs make the grade?

Why is Western freedom such a puzzle to 'em?

Can’t they understand democracy?

Why is free expression always muzzled?

Isn’t “freedom” a thing on which we should all agree?

Why can’t the Arabs be more like the Jews?

Jews are resourceful, even tho’ they’ve no oil.

Inventing new gadgets, an unceasing toil.

Would they be slighted if their land was but a sliver?

(Of course not!)

Would they be livid if there was not one state but two?

(Nonsense!)

Would they be wounded if the world were to ignore them?

(Halevai!)

Well, why can’t the Arabs get a clue?

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

Two peoples, two narratives, two outcomes: By Asaf Romirowsky in FrontPage Magazine:

…History does not offer any guarantees for success, and the story of the Jewish yishuv (community) could have gone in a different direction. Had the Zionists failed, they could have cited the British Mandate authorities, who betrayed their charge to help form a Jewish national home; the Arab opposition; and the trauma of the Holocaust as excuses for why the modern state of Israel could not be established under such arduous circumstances. But despite all these hardships, the Zionist movement managed to overcome and establish a national authority, as well as an organizational and institutional foundation that led to the creation of the state.

In contrast to the Zionist story, the Palestinian story prefers to blame everyone around them but themselves -- since it is easier to blame someone else than actually do the work that is desperately needed to move beyond a self-inflected catastrophe.

For some people, blaming is far more gratifying than building.

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

His brilliant career: Hugh O’Brian was a tall-dark-and-handsome type—competent yet unexceptional—who enjoyed some success in American TV and movies in the 1950s/60s. He is the subject of an amusing anecdote detailing the five stages of a successful person’s career. Here he is, recounting it himself:

"When you do reach a certain point of success ... there are five stages, not just of an actor's life, but anybody's life," he said. "The first stage is who's Hugh O'Brian, the second stage is get me Hugh O'Brian, the third stage is get me a Hugh O'Brian type, the fourth stage is get me a young Hugh O'Brian and the fifth stage is who's Hugh O'Brian."

I thought of the Hugh O’Brian anecdote as I read  Mark Steyn’s educated guess as to how the next stage of his career is set to unfold:

1) At some point in the next month, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will find Maclean's guilty. Even if they regard the 1938 Supreme Court decision as preventing them from imposing the Canadian Islamic Congress' stated "remedy", they will still be statutorily obligated to issue a cease-and-desist order. That would prevent Maclean's from publishing anything further by me on Islam, the west, demography, etc, and also prevent them from publishing anything by anybody else that took a broadly similar line.

2) Maclean's will appeal the decision to a real court and ask that the judgment be stayed pending the appeal. The court could stay the Tribunal's remedy in whole or in part, but, given that the cease-and-desist order automatically has the standing of a Supreme Court decision, it's doubtful whether the Steyn ban would be part of the stay. I've had conflicting legal advice on this. At that point, I will either be exiled from Maclean's, or permitted a temporary reprieve at the discretion of a British Columbia judge.

3) The Globe And Mail and The National Post and others would still, in theory, be able to hire me. Both papers have made overtures to me in recent years. But, given that, on the subject for which I'm best known and thus of most commercial value, my writings have been found guilty by a Canadian "court", they would be assuming a potentially very costly liability in agreeing to publish me. That may be why, in the months since this began, once eager-to-sign editors have fallen silent, and the phone hasn't stopped not ringing.

4) I have been nominated for the National Magazine Awards, which in the normal course of events would be regarded as a big career boost. In my case, by the time the winners are announced, I'm likely to have been declared unpublishable in the daffy Dominion. So any award will make a nice accessory for the tomb of my Canadian career.  

In other words, “who’s Mark Steyn, get me Mark Steyn, get me a Mark Steyn type, get me a young Mark Steyn, and who’s Mark Steyn?”

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

A real head-scratcher: George "'Enry 'Iggins" Bush asks, "Why can't the Arabs be more like the Jews?"

Diana West knows why.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:01 | link | comments

Delusional: That’s the only way to describe Harpoon Siddiqui on Bambi and the Bambi phenomenon (my bolds):

…So when Obama talks about wholesale change and a new beginning, he stirs their souls.

That he is a black man comfortable in his own skin is an added bonus. He offers a break with a racist past and a disastrous present. When he says on the night of his Iowa win, "they said, this day would never come," his audience – white and black, in front of him or their TVs – is moved to tears. That he is young, handsome and intelligent, speaks eloquently in a soothing baritone and exudes a "presidential" presence only make him that much more irresistible…

Irresistible he may well be—to those ostriches who want to avoid the reality of “a disastrous present” (global jihad; mullahs with nukes; HRCs, etc.). “Comfortable in his own skin”? Not in his black skin; even less so in his white skin. And can amyone who spent twenty years of imbibing the racist ramblings of Louis Farrakhan’s compadre really be said to have broken with “a racist past”?

Harpoon likes the cut of Bambi’s jib, and thus notes with approval those smitten by the candidate’s “irresistible” packaging—that face, that physique, that voice. To those of us who prefer not to take a holiday from history, however, the prospect of Fauxmama, the Missus, and their blinkered world view in the White House is enough to scare the bejeesus of you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:46 | link | comments

Have no fear, Bambi’s here: Bambi Fauxbama is accusing his opponents of “fear-mongering”—i.e. exaggerating threats to manipulate the electorate into supporting them and not Bambi. Two thoughts: Is it “fear-mongering” if there’s something to be genuinely afraid of—like, say, a messianic fanatic with nukes? Also, accusations of “fear-mongering” are pretty rich coming from someone who sat in Rev. Wright’s pews for 20 years, listening to him whip up bogus fears about Jews, whites, and their hand in various conspiracies.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:26 | link | comments

And then my head exploded: Ceeb weenie Evan Solomon (one of the few Jews at the Ceeb, it seems, who has so far resisted the siren call of al Jazeera) shmoozes Hanoi Jane’s former squeeze, sanctimonious anachronism, Tom “Fight the Man” Hayden. My favourite part of their chat in the Globe and Mail:

…When you and your former wife, Jane Fonda, went to Vietnam to protest the war, it caused a huge controversy, but now it is all too common to see a celebrity like George Clooney in, say, Darfur. Is the culture of celebrity causes actually contributing to the exhaustion and cynicism you talk about, or does it still offer a hope to ignite action?

In the absence of effective government policies, it's a necessity. But it can't be a substitute for government action. You can't have Angelina Jolie adopting all the orphans of Africa while George Bush is providing less aid than John Kennedy did 50 years ago. The Jane Fondas and Angelina Jolies and all these other fine people never intend to be substitutes for real political leaders. Their choice is to do something or nothing with their celebrity and what they can do is draw attention, raise funds and link up with humanitarian organizations.

Along with that comes a lot of envy, nagging and controversy from people who either don't like celebrities or, more likely, they don't like the issues raised by these celebrities. They wish they would just go away. But, again, Bono is not a substitute for a world food policy. He is the first to say that. What's lacking is government policy. Public support has been exhausted by the confusion over whether our tax dollars are effectively spent or whether they're siphoned off into corruption or ineffective channels.

So what do you think we need on the political side?

Somebody has to become a convincing leader for a sort of global New Deal. Government must play a role and not leave this up to humanitarian agencies. Maybe people are now waking up to that. I mean, you have a Harper government in Canada and we have a Bush government here in the U.S. These are government figures who are in retreat from government's role in the market, just at the time when the opposite is needed. We need a new John Maynard Keynes, we need a Tommy Douglas. We need people, politicians and thinkers, who seriously put forward a role for government. Some of the activists in United States want a revival of a Marshall Plan.

You're publicly supporting Barack Obama. Is this the kind of relief you think he will bring?

There is a euphoric movement for Barack Obama like nothing I've seen since '68. His election would certainly create a climate of higher expectations in the United States and perhaps around the world after what we've seen for the past decade or so. But Barack Obama positions himself in the centre…

If Barack’s in the centre, then I’m Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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

Some much-needed clarity: Plenty of conservative pundits—and conservatives—were no doubt impressed by George Bush’s speech in front of Israel’s parliament this week. As for the Washington Times’ Diana West? In the words (more or less) of American movie mogul, Samuel Goldwyn, include her out:

…"I suspect," Mr. Bush said, "if you looked back 60 years ago and tried to guess where Israel would be at that time, it would be hard to be able to project such a prosperous, hopeful land.

 

"No question people would have said, well, we'd be surrounded by hostile forces — but I doubt people would have been able to see the modern Israel, which is one reason I bring such optimism to the Middle East, because what happened here is possible everywhere."

 

Let's run that last bit by again. The president says the singular experience of "modern Israel" is one reason for optimism in the Middle East "because what happened here is possible everywhere." The jaw drops. On recovery, I suppose the most direct response to this statement, better suited to a beauty-pageant Pollyanna than a war-scarred president, is: No, Mr. President. What happened in Israel is not possible everywhere. Just for starters, what happened in Israel happened to a people whose monotheism and ethics, as Martin Gilbert writes in "Churchill and the Jews," was, in Churchill's view, "a central factor in the evolution and maintenance of modern civilization" — a central factor in liberty and democracy as the West still knows it.

 

This is not, to understate the case, something that may be said about the Islamic parts of the Middle East. Besides, what happened in Israel — the modern incarnation of the ancient Jewish nation that today enshrines freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, rule of law, women's rights, etc. — is also anathema (anti-Islamic) to the Islamic Middle East, which to this day seeks or plots Israel's annihilation, not in what has become a sham territorial dispute, but rather to deny infidels (former dhimmis, to boot) a foothold in what Muslims regard as once-Muslim land.

 

To President Bush, though, the un-Islamic conditions culminating in an anti-Islamic event — 60 years of infidel liberty — constitute a pre-fab democracy franchise that might just as easily have opened up in Riyadh or Baghdad as in Tel Aviv. I think he sees it this way because, emotionally, he wants to see it this way...

Wishful thinking and good intentions: paving the road to hell since the whole rigmarole (of mankind) began.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:33 | link | comments

Neil MacDonald hearts Bambi, hates conservatives and Zionists:  Ceeb correspondent Neil MacDonald, who used to report on the Middle East until, praise the Lord (and I don’t mean Tony Burman, who’s recently swung through the Ceeb’s revolving door into the welcoming embrace of the Ceeb sans hockey--al Jazeera) he was reassigned to Washington, has gone to bat for Bambi Fauxbama. Neil, an unrepentant Israel-basher from waaay back, wants us to know that Bambi’s been unfairly slammed as being anti-Israel (with my bolds and some fisking, in italics, along the way):

…So, at every opportunity, politically militant conservatives portray Obama as beholden to Muslims and cold, even hostile, to Israel. (Much scarier, according to Neil, than politically militant Islamists and leftists.)

They have accused him of planning to collude with terrorists because he has said he would meet with the leadership of Syria or Iran to discuss peace in the Middle East.

Even President George W. Bush seemed to join the attack this past week when, in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, he tacitly compared Obama to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister infamous for appeasing Adolf Hitler. (How dare Bush make such a claim? It’s an insult to the memory of Neville Chamberlain, who never tried to appease a guy who had nukes.)

Conservatives also hold up Obama's association with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former president Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and an Obama confidant. (Brzezinski favours including Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that now forms the government, in peace negotiations and Carter has labeled Israel's treatment of Palestinians akin to "apartheid.") (A pox on them both—Jew-haters to the core, whose hatred has fatally compromised their judgement. How else to explain the ludicrous idea of “negotiating” with terrorists? What’s the basis of the negotiations? We’ll stop lobbing missiles at you in exchange for your voluntary self-extinction?)

Knowing the tensions that exist between American blacks and the Jewish community, they pounced when Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, damned America for supporting Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. (Damn those militant conservatives for pouncing on the bigoted blowhard who, for the past two decades, has mentored the future president of the U.S. How dare they use the “tensions” between blacks and Jews to their advantage in an effort  to derail Bambi’s coronation?)

And they could barely contain their glee when an adviser to the leadership of Hamas, Ahmed Yousuf, told a New York radio show "We hope he (Obama) will win the election." (Militant and gleeful—the cads! Let’s focus on their “glee” so we don’t have to account for the disturbing fact that Bambi is Hamas’s go-to guy.)

Showing his flag

Instantly, that was translated into some sort of formal endorsement, as though Obama had sought out the support of radical Islamists. (No need to seek it out; it was forthcoming without any effort on his part at all.)

One conservative attack ad, featuring an American flag whose colors gradually fade to nothing, intoned: "The leadership of Hamas is so excited about the prospect of Barack Obama becoming president, they have openly endorsed him and complimented his new vision for America. So when Barack Obama tells you he offers change you can believe in, ask him to show you HIS flag." (Great ad.)

The attacks have been so relentless that a coalition of some of the biggest Jewish organizations in the U.S. was persuaded to issue a joint statement condemning the e-mail smear campaign. (The Jews’s implicit message: “Don’t hate us ‘cause we’re Jewish. We’re as clueless and lefty as you are.”)

Now, the candidate himself, understanding what is at stake, is pushing back

Obama has emphasized his Christianity, distanced himself from Carter and Brzezinski and pronounced Iran the gravest threat to the state of Israel, vowing to eliminate that threat. (And by “eliminating” he means sitting across a table from Moo “The Jewish State is a cancer” Ahmadinejad and trying to arrive at some sort of “compromise”.)

He has also authored opinion pieces for Israeli news outlets, granted interviews to Israeli reporters and reached out to Jewish leaders here, consistently describing Israel as a friend and stalwart ally. (Boy, he really wants that Jewish vote. Relax, Bambi; you already have it sewn up.)

But, consistent with his message of changing Washington politics, Obama has suggested a greater emphasis on diplomacy and less militarism in America's Middle East policy. (Yeah, that’ll work.)

He has even suggested it is permissible to disagree with a close ally like Israel, something you don't often hear from someone running for president. (“Disagree” about what? That Israel has a right to defend itself from those seeking to annihilate it? That Israel, despite the lunacy and rage of the Arabs and their lackeys, has a right to be?)

He told a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland that there is "a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel," the reference being to one of Israel's hardline, rightist parties.

"That," said Obama, "can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." (In other words, Bambi wants nothing to do with Israelis who aren’t clueless, self-flagellating dhimmis—like him. In which case, say your prayers now, Jews, because under a Bambi regime, you’ll be toast.)

He goes on

In an interview with The Atlantic magazine, he said this: "I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism. That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel."

He also told the magazine he'd even been accused within Chicago's black community of "being too close to the Jews." (Excuse me while I wipe off the green tea that has just gushed out of my nostrils onto my computer screen.)

Referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he added: "What I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions." (Please not: Obama and Osama both are in agreement that Israel is responsible for provoking the jihad.)

Reasonable? Not to Republicans. House minority leader John Boehner and his colleague, Rep. Eric Cantor, immediately announced Obama had called Israel itself a "constant sore." (Reasonable? Republicans? Don’t be silly. Everyone knows that it’s oxymoronic to put “reasonable” and “Republican” beside each other. And by “everyone” I mean “everyone” at the Ceeb and the like-minded who also believe  Jazeera is a completely unbiased news source—an Arab CNN.)

Many Jewish voters here, of course, aren't buying the conservative attacks.

"From our pro-Israel point of view, he's right on the money," says Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street, which bills itself as a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" political action committee here in Washington. (J Street: feh.)

In any event, says Ben-Ami, "The vast majority of American Jews actually vote for issues other than Israel. Imagine that! We vote based on social policy, health, gay marriage, and equality issues."

But while that may be true, Obama does appear to be struggling, at least for a Democrat, where the Jewish vote is concerned. In a recent Gallup Poll, 61 per cent of Jewish voters surveyed said they would vote for Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. It is an impressive number but it is far below the traditional support level of around 80 per cent.

An important difference

These numbers aren't lost on Obama's opponents. A shift of 20 percentage points can matter a great deal in places like Pennsylvania and Florida.

At the same time, though, there are signs that Obama's charm offensive may be working, at least in Israel itself. (Charm “offensive”: good choice of words.)

"He has somewhat succeeded in making people in Israel understand he is not in any way hostile or unfriendly," says Shmuel Rosen, Washington bureau chief for the Tel Aviv based newspaper Haaretz.

Rosen says the Israeli establishment is uncomfortable with the idea of an American president meeting directly with the Iranian leadership, but where Hamas is concerned he says Israelis might welcome an emphasis on diplomacy.

"Israelis tend to be more pragmatic in their approach in many ways. Most Israelis want Jewish Americans to understand that certain compromises have to be reached."

Adds Aluf Benn of the Israeli Institute for International Security Studies, "I don't think there is strong anti-Obama sentiment in Israel." But then, he says, "Israelis don't vote in U.S. elections."

And if they did, they’d probably vote Democrat.

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

No choice: Someone put a dynamite vest on a young boy and blew him up in a crowd of Canadian and Afghan soldiers. The Globe and Mail describes the event thus: “Suicide bomber as young as 10 hits Canadians.”

My letter:

Please don’t call what that ten-year-old boy in Afghanistan did a “suicide”. That makes it sound as though the child had a choice in the matter, which, clearly, was not the case. The decision was made for him by elders who put so little stock in human life that they are willing to transform their own children into objects—human bombs.

By no commonly understood definition can what occurred to this child—who was rigged with dynamite and detonated by remote control—be described as a “suicide”. Call it was it was: a depraved and brutal murder of an innocent.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments

The End is nigh: Mark Steyn has a delightfully baleful column in the latest Maclean’s. Enjoy it now, because come June, when the British Columbia sharia, er, “human rights” court orders the magazine to print a 5,000 word piece of Islamist bilge, Steyn has averred it will signal the end of his writing career in Canada (along with a huge victory for Mo Elmasry and his coterie of shrill sharia shillers):

…If you're an editor or a publisher, Canada's "human rights" regime is building a world in which the only choice on key issues of public debate is between state censorship or self-censorship. In Toronto last week, I had lunch in a fashionable eatery on King Street with a former editor who couldn't see what all the fuss was about. "You need to lighten up," she said. "Write about a movie." From next month, I'll have no choice. Although the Osgoode Hall law students protest that all they want is a "right of reply," when the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal finds us guilty, they are statutorily obligated to issue a cease-and-desist order that will have the effect of preventing Maclean's running any writing on Islam by me or anybody of a similar bent — even though the plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of a single fact or statistic or quotation.

So four weeks from now I'll be banished from the Canadian media, which will undoubtedly be distressing to my loyal reader (I use the singular advisedly). But a year or two down the line, many other subscribers to Maclean's and the Chronicle-Herald and eventually the Globe and the Toronto Star will be wondering why there are whole areas of debate that no longer seem to get much of an airing in the public prints. In 1989, Muslims who objected to Salman Rushdie burned his novel in the streets of England. Two decades on, they've figured out that it's more efficient to use the "human rights" commissions to burn the offending texts metaphorically, discreetly, offstage . . . and (ultimately) pre-emptively.

Pace my old comrade, I don't need to see a movie because I'm in one. We're at that point in the plot where the maverick investigator takes the call saying a third example of the strange spore has been found in a field in Idaho, and he pushes another pin in the map and goes "Hmm" thoughtfully.

But he still can't get his colleagues to see that something's going on.

My letter:

During the Cold War, the Berlin Wall was a potent and tangible symbol of the barrier separating the free world from the un-free, Communist one. Currently, the most potent symbol, at least here in Canada, is the “human rights” apparatus, which has jettisoned centuries of British Common Law and embraced a form of “legality” that would have been all too familiar to the folks who lived on the un-free side of the Berlin Wall. Under both Communism and HRC-ism, the state has the power to swoop down on you without warning or a warrant, poke around in your private property, confiscate whatever it wants, and go through the motions of holding a show trial to validate its foregone conclusion that you are guilty of expressing ideas of which it disapproves--a thought crime.  

With that in mind, I have one message for Canada’s Prime Minister: Mr. Harper, tear down those HRCs!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:14 | link | comments

The depths of depravity: This is how the "brave" mujahedeen wage holy in war in Afghanistan--they dress up an 11-year-year-old in a dynamite vest, send him into batallion of Canadian soldiers, and blow him up by remote control.

Never mind St. Rachel Corrie of blessed memory. Someone needs to put on a show about that kid and the patholgies that did him in.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:28 | link | comments

Jee-had!: Osama blows Israel a birthday kiss.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:30 | link | comments

From "Rachel Corrie, The Musical": The theme song, to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

My name is Rachel Corrie,

I was squashed by a machine.

I went to help the downtrodden

To whom the Jews were mean.

The way that I’ve been turned into Anne Frank

Is quite obscene.

The truth has gone astray.

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie.

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie.

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie.

The truth has gone astray.

 

An unextr’ordinary girl who didn’t have a clue.

The ISM recruited me to join the “Nakba” crew.

A useful idiot who could be turned against “the Jew”

Who dared to want their home.

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie.

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie.

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie.

They dared to want their home.

 

And now the Jews embrace me

And have put me on their stage.

I’m sure they all feel guilty

That my death has sparked such rage.

It isn’t hard to see what such derangement will presage--

The end of the Z.E.

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie.

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie,

Glory, glory, Rachel Corrie

My “truth” goes marching on…

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:22 | link | comments

Words fail: This one, as they say, takes the cake (also the flan, the pie, the muffin, the tart and the baked Alaska). Tonight at 7:30, the Miles Nadal Jewish Community Centre will be host to “Readings from the up-coming Theate PANIK production” of My Name is Rachel Corrie. The readings will be followed by a “discussion facilitated by Sy Landau with theatre and community panelists.” The event is being held under the imprimatur of United Way Toronto and—wait for it—the UJA Federation.

Yes, you read correctly. A Jewish Community centre and “the organizational hub of Toronto’s Jewish community” are lending legitimacy to a puerile piece of anti-Israel propaganda, a “play” that attempts to turn a foolish, clueless young woman, a pawn of the jihadists, into a martyr for the Palestinian cause—the Anne Frank of the Intifada.

Such lunacy has rendered me speechless.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:36 | link | comments (2)

Dumbest story of the day: Obama says Bush is 'politicizing' Israel.

Yeah, 'cause until old George came along, 'politics' didn't enter into it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:09 | link | comments

Alice in HRC-land: Following many splendid and daft adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll’s plucky heroine encounters a new and even more unsettling alternate reality:

“Oh, dear,” said Alice, as she approach a room marked “THOUGHT CRIMES” on the third floor of a non-descript office building. “Whatever am I doing here?”

“You know very well what you’re doing here,” snapped the Mock Turtle. “A few months ago you posted a negative review of a kebob joint on your blog ‘Alice’s Restaurants’—as I recall, you said their kebobs were ‘as desiccated as the Sahara and about as tasty as camel dung’—and hurt the owner’s feelings. You are here to account for your anti-social words.

“I was telling the truth. They were as desiccated as the Sahara and did taste like crap. Oh well, if I must, I must,” sighed Alice. Peering inside the small, shabby room, she noticed a large, constipated-looking marsupial seated behind a desk. The desk had a sign on it: “JUDGE, JURY AND LORD HIGH HOPPING-MAD EXECUTIONER”.

“B-b-b-but, it’s a kangaroo!,” sputtered Alice.

“Shhh! Of course it’s a kangaroo. Who else BUT a kangaroo could perform such a job?”

“Sit down,” boomed the kangaroo (who, to Alice’s ears, sounded an awful lot like the Queen of Hearts from her previous adventures in Wonderland—or was it that former mayor of Toronto?). “Let us begin. Alice, you are hereby and forthwith and other such-like legal-sounding mumbo jumbo accused of violating the Canadian Charter of Niceness in that, on such and such a date at such and such a time, you wilfully and with malice aplenty said something mean about a kabob. You may now plead guilty.”

“What do you mean ‘I may now plead guilty’? What about the presumption of innocence? What about standard rules of evidence?

At that, the kangaroo burst into a series of whoops, howls, chortles and cackles that startled Alice and the Mock Turtle, causing them both to jump. Some minutes later, the fit finally subsided, and the constipated, self-satisfied look returned to kangaroo’s face.

“Presumption of innocence? Rules of evidence? Not in my courtroom, missy. We don’t go in for those old-fangled Magna Carta-ish kind of notions here. We got rid of that stuff ages ago. Where were you?”

“I guess I must have been in Wonderland, or Through the Looking Glass, or maybe I was asleep,” said Alice.

“Too late now,” said the kangaroo. “Are you ready to hear your sentence?”

“Do I have a choice?”

At that, the kangaroo erupted into another prolonged fit of laughter.

“Oh, my dear,” said the kangaroo, wiping away a tear cascading down her nose. “Of course you don’t have a choice. I was only asking to sound polite. And in my book, sounding polite is the most important thing of all. Much more important than a silly little girl’s restaurant reviews…Alice, I hereby and forthwith sentence you to be taken from this courtroom and to immediately be executed.”

“Executed? Isn’t that a bit, um, extreme?”

“Foolish child. Everyone knows that’s the appropriate sentence for those who ‘insult’ kabobs. But, to show we’re humane, I’m willing to be lenient. I therefore sentence you to have your vocal cords severed and your Internet permanently disconnected.”

Just then a sextet of winged monkeys swept into the room and carried Alice away. And she was never heard from again.

THE END

The moral of the story: If you don’t have anything nice to say about kabobs, don’t say anything at all.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:10 | link | comments (2)

Oh, brother: Phil and Don send this one out to the lovely and talented Barbara Hall, Czarina of Ontario Human Rights:

Bye bye speech.

Bye bye truthfulness.

Hello ruthlessness.

I think ahm a-gonna cry.

 

Bye bye speech.

Hello, HRCs.

Bring you to your knees.

And help sharia fly.

Buh bye free speech,

Goodbye.

 

There goes my freedom

Right out the door.

I never noticed

It go before.

Our Marxist courts are so Soviet.

Can we unseat them?

The answer’s “nyet”.

 

Bye bye speech.

Bye bye truthfulness.

Hello ruthlessness.

I think ahm a-gonna cry.

 

Bye bye speech.

Hello, HRCs.

Bring us to our knees

And help sharia fly.

Buh bye free speech,

Goodbye.

 

We’re through with words that

Tend to insult.

Totalitarianism’s the net result.

Gave up our freedom,

Did not think twice

To have a land that mandated “nice”…

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

 Et tu, Liz?: Queen Elizabeth dons hijab for mosque visit.

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

Internal combustion: The Ottawa Citizen’s David Warren has an excellent column on how, whether or not we’re prepared to admit it, Israel’s fortunes and the West’s fortunes are tied together:

…To understand what I mean, the reader must consider almost any contemporary university campus, in which the radical political causes are quite various, but there is general agreement among radicals on each other's agendas. That one must attack Zionist Israel, and conversely champion oppressed Palestinians, is something every little half-educated campus ideologue knows he can take for granted.

What has this got to do with the future of Israel? Everything.

For while Israel's proximate enemies are Hamas and Hezbollah, and the unspeakable regimes in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere that control and supply these frontline terrorists, and are themselves pledged to Israel's physical annihilation, and are assiduously building missile stockpiles for the task - they have no chance of prevailing so long as the West remains united behind Israel. But for various reasons, the will to defend Israel is crumbling, and Israel's enemies know this. She resides in a region where she is outnumbered 60-to-1 in population, and by a much greater ratio in land area or elbow room (with accompanying natural resources). Israel has no prospects on her own.

And this is where I feel least hopeful about the future. The desire to defend Israel is being sapped, across the West, by causes ranging from exhaustion with endless trouble in the Middle East, to the thirst for oil, to the rapid growth of Muslim immigration, and thus of an electoral constituency that tends to be extremely unsympathetic to Israel.

But more profoundly, the left-Islamist alliance - forged in common opposition to everything the West stands for - has made the abandonment of Israel a common priority across the spectrum of people who take their politics from fashion.

Alas, most of the West's internal enemies, demanding the abandonment of Israel as first step, do not even know what they are doing. They are like parasites upon a host organism, and do not understand that when the host organism dies, they too will die.

My letter:

While I agree with David Warren's--and Prime Minister Harper's--assessment that, as Israel goes, so goes the West, I have to disagree with Warren's statement that the West's "internal enemies" haven't a clue about what they're doing. My sense is that most of them know exactly what they're doing: They are trying to bring down the West either because of their own guilt, self-loathing, nihilism, or some fatal combination of the three.

Call a spade a spade. What we are witnessing is the wilful destruction of Western civilization from within--a purposeful implosion, if you will. As a wise cartoon possum once famously observed, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:19 | link | comments

Fishing for hate: Suppose a bunch of fisherman were to show up in your backyard and scoop up all the fish in the lake. You’d be mighty peeved at their lack of consideration and conservation, wouldn’t you? And if they kept doing it again and again, and no one seemed to be doing anything about it, you might get so angry that you’d take matters into your own hands, and toss the offending fishers' fishing gear—and maybe even the offending fishers—into the drink. Were you to do so, of course, you'd risk being arrested for assault, because, even if they’re angry, people don’t have free reign to go around tossing other people and their property into lakes.

Now, suppose the fishers in question were “Asian” and the fisher-tossers were “white”—that would put a whole new complexion on things, wouldn't it, transforming a mundane fish grievance into a full-fledged “hate crime". At least, that’s what ever-vigilant Madam Commissar Barbara Hall contends. From the Ottawa Citizen:

TORONTO - Ontario's Human Rights Commission says racial profiling played a major role in the frequency of incidents in which Asian-Canadian anglers were harassed and assaulted in communities in the southern part of the province last year.

The commission launched an inquiry in November after nearly a dozen alleged incidents of Asian fisherman being attacked, both physically and verbally, with some having their fishing gear damaged or being pushed off docks.

Entitled Fishing without Fear, the report said there was a concern about stereotyping Asian Canadians as being more likely than others to engage in unlawful fishing. The commission deemed this "a form of racial profiling."

"If we are to combat discrimination and support people who experience it, it is critical that Ontario's institutions show strong leadership by acknowledging that racism exists and taking action whenever and wherever discrimination occurs," Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall said.

The commission met with police, municipalities, provincial government ministries, community associations and others to seek co-operation and said it obtained significant commitments to address discrimination and make communities safer and more welcoming to all races.

The Ontario Provincial Police announced it would create a brochure to advise anglers of the issue and where to call for assistance. Other commitments focus on addressing hate activity, racism and discrimination more broadly.

The commission added it intends to follow up on reports of any similar incidents, support organizations in fulfilling their commitments and to share information on progress made throughout the year.

Oh, that Babs. She’s a treasure.

Update: A poem for the OHRC Commissar:

Barbara Hall’s always fishing for hate

‘Cause the hate, she says, ne’er will abate.

Thus the need to entangle

Fisher-tossers in wrangles

And claim that they “discriminate”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:38 | link | comments

Pathological metaphors: Iran’s messiah-minded President Ahmadinejad describes Israel as “a cancerous tumor” and “a stinking corpse.”

American “messiah” Barack Obama describes it as “a constant sore” that “infects all of our foreign policy.”

A commonality that could be the basis of a beautiful friendship?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:08 | link | comments

Acceptable hate speech: Back in July, a Pakistani cleric appeared on a program broadcast on VisionTV, Canada’s “multi-faith, multicultural” TV channel. Reading from a gi-normous Koran, the cleric said that the Jews, who comprised “the first Muslim ummah” were vile, greedy, and iniquitious, had failed to heed God’s law, were therefore cursed for all time and, come Judgement Day, would roil in the flames of eternal hell-fire. Following that colourful spiel, he told viewers what God demands of the “second Muslim ummah,” i.e. the Muslims:

“Now the other two strands are that is Jihad for Allah. But Jihad can be divided again into two, because whenever you find, so Jihad in the way of Allah for the cause of Allah can be pursued either with your financial resources or your bodily strength, when you go to fight the enemy in the battlefield. So Jihad, the highest form is fighting in the cause of Allah. And to give your contribution so as the requirements of the propagation of the Islamic message and the requirements of the requirements of the struggle to establish the message of Allah that can be fulfilled. You need money for that. And that is spent for the cause of Allah.”

Got that? Overt Jew-hatred and a call to jihad—holy war against kafirs—broadcast over the kafirs’ own airwaves. Ingenious!

Not surprisingly, B’nai Brith Canada complained about the program to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. After careful consideration, it held that

The July 14 broadcast of Dil Dil Pakistan was comprised almost entirely of a presentation by Israr Ahmad offering interpretations from the Quran. Mr. Ahmad is a citizen of Pakistan and the rights to the Canadian broadcast of his readings of the Quran were acquired by the producer of Dil Dil Pakistan. In the July 14 episode, the visual presentation is almost exclusively of Mr. Ahmad sitting behind a desk with the Quran open in front of him as Ahmad speaks to the camera. The tone of the presentation is similar to an educational lecture and is relatively moderate and steady throughout.

 

There is no derogatory comment about Jewish people and no comment targeting people of Jewish heritage. The only controversial commentary we have been able to discern, both from viewing the program and from the complaints received, is a passing reference to the concept of Jihad. The relevant excerpt transcribed from the program is attached as Appendix E.

 

We appreciate that Jihad is a sensitive subject, as it has been used by extremists as a call to arms and a justification or rationale for violent acts. But, not all references to Jihad fall within this category. For the majority of the more than one billion Muslim people around the world and the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Canada, Jihad is about being faithful and living a life that is true to the lessons of Allah and to propagating the Islamic faith. A reasoned discussion of the Quran might well include reference to Jihad as it is raised in the Quran to be a central component of Islamic history and the Muslim faith. Indeed, an argument can be made that Canadian broadcasters, and religious channels in particular, have an obligation to explore concepts such as Jihad in an effort to educate viewers and to promote a better understanding of different faiths.

 

During the July 14 episode of Dil Dil Pakistan, after reviewing the historical connection of the Abrahamic faiths, the presentation emphasizes the importance of family values and strong families being the foundation of society. Jihad is then noted as another strand “in the way of Allah for the cause of Allah” as part of the propagation of the Muslim faith. The program then points out that there are different forms of Jihad, and that it can be pursued “when you go to fight the enemy in the battlefield” or “with your financial resources”. The section then concludes by stressing “the most profound part” being the importance for followers of Islam to propagate the faith.

 

In reviewing the tone of the presentation and reading the text, the July 14 broadcast of Dil Dil Pakistan does not appear to offend current broadcast standards. It does not target any group or individual and does not promote violence or conflict. There does not appear to be a “call to arms” or an attempt to incite viewers to cause harm to others. In the context of the overall presentation, the references to Jihad relate to the passages from Holy Scripture being discussed in the program and are fair comment in a society that upholds the freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

 

To review: You can revile, demonize, defame and hate Jews all you want; you can even call the faithful to wage a holy war. Just make sure to do so “in the context” of Islamic scripture, appear to be “moderate” and, oh yeah, don’t shout. And the fact that you’re a Holocaust-denying, jihad-preaching imam with a large following in Pakistan? That’s entirely irrelevant.

Isn’t it heartening to know that at least one strand of our glorious multiculti Trudeaupian tapestry (the one now kvetching to several HRCs about “Islamophobia” in Maclean’s magazine) has the right to unfettered freedom?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:17 | link | comments (2)

Hillary’s last stand: It won’t be enough to “take her home”.

Won most votes in

West Virginia.

Blue Ridge Mountains,

Shenandoah River.

State went for me,

Tho’ it’s much too late.

Bambi’s gonna beat me.

Losin’ is my fate.

 

No way back

To the House

Where I lived

With my spouse.

He was president.

I was a resident.

No way back

To that House.

 

All my mem'ries not so rosy.

Dark-haired intern, Oval Office frolics.

Tears a-plenty, seemed he would never learn.

Stayed with the ol’ horndog

So I could have my turn.

 

No way home

To the House

Where I lived

With my spouse.

He was president.

I was a resident.

No way back

To that House.

 

I hear his name--

“Barack Obama,” they are calling.

His charisma reminds me

That I seem to lack appeal.

And when this thing’s all over, sigh,

I’ll still be goin’ home again with that old heel.

That old heel.

 

No way back

To the House

Where I lived

With my spouse.

He was president.

I was a resident.

No way back

To that House.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:02 | link | comments

Pretty please: Make that crook Olmert go away.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:54 | link | comments

Fauxbama's ex-BFFs: As Melanie Phillips notes, the list of those cast adrift grows e'er longer with each passing day.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:07 | link | comments

Question: When is a Conservative not a conservative?: Answer: When he’s Conservative Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, and he argues in favour of Section 13, the anti-“hate speech” provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. (Given its destructive effect on our society, it should be renamed Section 1984.) And on whom does this so-called conservative base his evaluation. Why, on some far leftist law professor at a second rate American university who has two main clients: Canada’s ministry of Justice and Senator Ted Kennedy. This professor, Alexander Tsesis, has determined, based on his faulty reading of history, that there’s a direct correlation between hateful speech translating into hateful actions, hence the need to clamp down on the former—as Europe and Canada have done via anti-hate speech legislation—as a way of preventing the latter.

If that were the case, though, then Judenhass (and Gay-hass) in the EU would be on the downswing. Instead, both are booming, courtesy of those who belong to the same religious group that’s working so hard to curb “Islamophobia” (i.e. criticism of Islam and Muslims) and who, for religio-political reasons, cannot abide either uppity Jews or uppity gays (also the not-so-uppity ones).

I admit that the news about Nicholson has thrown me for a loop; if Conservatives don’t get what’s at stake here, and aren’t prepared to fight to preserve our freedom, then no one will. (By the same token, if Republicans don’t get that sanitizing all mention of Islam from the official lexicon is no way to fight the—you should pardon the expression—jihad, then no one will, and we who love freedom and who do “get it” are officially toast.)

Leaving aside for the moment the Tsesis fly’s analysis of history, how could any big or small “C” conservative think that someone who advises Ted Kennedy, for heaven’s sake, could have a handle on things?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:18 | link | comments (1)

Worst. Idea. Ever: Stephane Dion's "carbon tax".

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:45 | link | comments

FWIW: A "protest song" for today:

There’s something happening here

What it is should be crystal clear

There’s a hack with the power to decide

And her will it won’t be denied.

You better stop, brrr, feel the freeze

Ev’rybody bow to HRCs.

 

There’s battle lines bein’ drawn:

Who wants free speech, and who wants it gone.

Your trial now will commence

But the truth it ain’t no defence.

You better stop, brrr, feel the freeze.

Ev’rybody bow to HRCs.

 

No more room for the contrarian

When the law’s total’tarian.

Watch your words, and always be “nice”:

Channel “virtue”; prevent any “vice”.

You better stop, brrr, feel the freeze.

Ev’rybody bow to HRCs.

 

Paranoia’s the fear

When the Thought Cops’ agenda is clear.

Their power’s scary and real

And like a dog, you’ll be brought to heel.

You better stop, brrr, feel the freeze.

Ev’rybody fall down on your knees.

Stop, brrr, feel the freeze.

Ev’rybody act like good dhimmis.

Stop, brrr, feel the freeze.

Ev’rybody bow to HRCs.

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

Anthem update: Since Canadians, courtesy our parallel Marxist legal system, are no longer "strong and free," I've taken it upon myself to revise the national anthem to reflect our new reality:

Oh Canada,

Our home and native land.

True patriot love

For some time has been banned.

 

Multiculti cant,

Marxist bafflegab,

And all that other mush

Have divested us of the right to speak

In tones above a hush.

Thought cops now rule.

Take their advice.

Don’t say a thing unless your words are “nice”.

Don’t say a thing unless your words are “nice”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:24 | link | comments

Slippery, evanescent, like trying to pin a wave upon the sand: What is Fauxbama's position on Israel?

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

Hitch's hesitations: Your can add Christopher Hitchens, the Savanorola of atheism, to the cranky chorus who think the Z.E.'s days are numbered.

Well, since he doesn't "get" religion, you'd hardly expect him to "get" the Jewish state, would you?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:10 | link | comments (1)

 Off with his head:  Edward Luttwack in the New York Times weighs in on the apostasy thing:

BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership — a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.

One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.

This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obama’s election would raise America’s esteem in Africa — indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his father’s native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.

But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities…

Which might well put a crimp in Bambi’s plans (and neck) to get up close and personal with the mullahs once he's prez.

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

The “axis of evil” has only one arm: As Claudia Rosett explains, the one-armed bandit—Iran—has its hooks into Lebanon, and likely won’t let go until there’s “regime change”. From NRO:

In Lebanon, the Iranian-backed vanguard of terror known as Hezbollah has again drawn its weapons to provoke the worst crisis since it launched a war against Israel in the summer of 2006. The fighting that began last week in Beirut, and then relocated east to the Chouf Mountains and north to Tripoli, is the latest act in the relentless smothering of the Lebanese democratic state. At best, we might next see an uneasy respite in the killing while the usual players haggle, President Bush trolls the region for that oh-so-elusive Middle-East-peace legacy, Hezbollah further stocks its arsenal and from behind the barrel of a gun consolidates its grip, United Nations peacekeepers get paid to watch — and Lebanon’s hopes for democracy slide ever deeper into the pit.

By now, it ought to be obvious that Lebanon’s agonies will not be solved by parleys in Beirut. Nor will any solution come from elaborately brokered deals tendered by the Arab League, nor by way of American-inked diplomatic road maps, conclaves, and more United Nations resolutions.

Lebanon is a country infested with a terrorist-run movement — Hezbollah — which is backed by muscular, murderous, utterly ruthless and terror-loving state patrons in both neighboring Syria, and Syria’s kissing cousin, Iran. That gives Lebanon very bad odds. Damascus, Tehran, and their Hezbollah brood are not gunning for peace and democracy in Lebanon. Their game right now in that lovely, lively slice of Mediterranean real estate is instability, with its accompanying openings for encroachment, a tightening noose around Israel, and expanded turf and power in the Middle East. “Stability” in their scheme will come only with subjugation, and with Hezbollah’s declared goals of establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon and eliminating Israel.

In this same spirit, Iran and (as we recently learned) Syria have also been pursuing nuclear weapons (the only bright spot in this department being that Israel with an air strike last September destroyed the nuclear reactor that Syria was building in secret, with North Korean help, on the Euphrates River).

At the hands of this gang, Lebanon since the uplifting scenes in March, 2005 of its Cedar Revolution has suffered an obscene onslaught of subversion, infiltration, and violence designed to thwart any progress toward stable democratic rule. A series of leading reformers have been threatened, attacked, or murdered — such as newspaperman Gebran Tueni, an outspoken force for democracy, blown up in his car in December, 2005. In July, 2006, having launched an unprovoked war with Israel by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers who have not been heard from since, Hezbollah dug into its huge illicit arsenal to pose as the defender of Lebanon, posturing as a “resistance” force upon the wreckage its own actions had wrought. When the U.N. in August, 2006 brokered a peace deal, Hezbollah took the breather, but refused to comply with terms that it disarm. Instead, while attacking the legitimacy of the elected government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Hezbollah resumed trucking in weapons and building its parallel infrastructure, both physical and political, of a terror-state within a state, overseen by “Death to Israel! Death to America!” Iran acolyte Hassan Nasrallah.

In other words, having been only recently delivered from years of occupation by Syrian troops and secret police, Lebanon is now being colonized by Iran and affiliates — though, there is of course considerable overlap among these forces of murk, mayhem, and totalitarian rule. The only way out for Lebanese who desire a free state is to disarm Hezbollah. But as long as Hezbollah enjoys the havens, training camps, supply lines, and support of Syria and Iran, trying to wrest away its weapons is like trying to empty a near-bottomless well.

What of the U.N.? Stacks of U.N. sanctions and other resolutions, plus a long-simmering U.N. investigation into Syrian involvement in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, have all failed to prevent the debacles described above. As for the U.N. peacekeepers, the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL (now celebrating its 30th year as an “interim” U.N. exercise), the tale is no better. Clearly UNIFIL has been no obstacle to Hezbollah’s current bout of in-country carnage. Beefed up after the 2006 summer war, and currently fielding more than 12,000 military staff and more than 600 Lebanese, with an annual budget of $713 million, UNIFIL by various accounts has resumed its old routine in which Hezbollah stocks its arsenal, struts its guns, and UNIFIL observes. According to Lebanon’s An-Nahar newspaper, for instance, a UNIFIL patrol in late March tried to inspect a suspicious-looking truck in the Bekaa Valley. Up drove two vans carrying five men with assault weapons. The UNIFIL troops left. In a ritual U.N. response that won’t deflect a single bullet, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called the encounter “worrying.”

The truth is that there will be no salvation for Lebanon until there is regime change in Iran…

Unless you’re prepared to suffer the consequences of self-suffocation, I wouldn’t hold your breath on that occurring anytime soon—or ever.

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

“I like contestant #4—the blonde Valkyrie who reminds me of ze lovely und talented Eva Braun”: Even though he’s been under ‘house arrest’ in Italy for decades—he committed some appalling war crimes back in the day—senescent Nazi Erich Priebke was considered worthy of judging a beauty contest. From JTA:

Nazi war criminal Erich Priebke reportedly was invited to judge a local beauty pageant.

News reports over the weekend said Claudio Marini, the organizer of the "Star of the Year" beauty contest, had invited the former SS officer to be on its jury.

Newly elected Rome Mayor Gianni Alemanno called the idea "crazy."

Priebke, 95, is serving a life sentence under house arrest for his part in the World War II massacre of 335
men and boys at the Ardeatine Caves outside Rome.

Marini was quoted as saying he did not invite Priebke as a publicity stunt but as part of a "process of pacification."…

Not entirely sure who’s supposed to be being “pacified”. Lovers of fascism, perchance?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:26 | link | comments

Old Blue Eyes sings: A song for that wacky "Nakba" crowd:

Those Jews set up a state.

That we’ll eliminate

It’s not about our hate--

It’s nakba.

And there is no defence for it.

The Jews must recompense for it.

Rescind your common sense like we do.

 

Cause it’s nakba.

Woeful nakba.

And our focus on it’s simply koo koo.

 

When Jews arouse a lunacy

Take out an old and rusted key.

Whinge about all the ‘refugees,’  too.

 

It’s such an ancient bore.

Been there, done that before.

‘Cause Jewish sov’reignty is taboo.

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

Have some sharia, m’dear?: One would think that, because of First Amendment protections and the absence of a Marxist parallel legal system, Americans would have more of a shot at retaining their freedom. As an expert on the subject explains, however, sharia devotees are having great success implanting Islamic law into the U.S. body politic, too. From FrontPage Magazine (my bolds):

…Goldstein: It is important to start by defining the Islamist movement as that which seeks to impose tenants of Islam and Sha'aria as a legal, political, religious and judicial authority both in Muslim states and in the West.

One tenant of Sha'aria law is to punish those who criticize Islam, and to silence speech considered blasphemous against Islam or its Prophet Mohammed.

The Islamist movement has two wings – that which operates violently, propagating suicide-homicide bombing and other terrorist activities, and that which operates lawfully, conducting a "soft jihad," within our court systems, through Sha'aria banking, within our school systems and through organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Canadian Islamic Congress. Both the violent and the lawful arms of the Islamist movement can and do work apart, but often, their work re-enforces each other's.

For example, while the violent arm of the Islamist movement attempts to silence speech by burning cars when Danish cartoons of Mohammed are published, by murdering film directors such as Theo Van Gogh and by forcing thinkers such as Wafa Sultan into hiding out of fear of her life, the lawful arm is skilfully manoeuvring within Western court systems, hiring lawyers and suing to silence its critics.

Islamists with financial means have launched a "legal jihad", filing a series of malicious lawsuits, in American courts and abroad, and against anyone who speaks out against or writes about radical Islam and its sources of financing and support.

This type of lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits are often based on frivolous claims ranging from defamation to workplace harassment to plain Islamophobia, and have resulted in books being banned and pulped, in thousands of dollars worth of fines and in publishing houses and newspapers rejecting important works on counter-terrorism out of fear of being the next target.

FP: Where has this type of lawfare been most successful and least successful? Why? Can you give a few case examples?

Goldstein: Proponents of Legal Jihad are engaging in a technique called forum shopping or libel tourism where Plaintiffs bring actions in foreign jurisdictions and in foreign courts most likely to rule in their favor.

Islamic lawfare is achieving a degree of success in Canadian and European courts because their judicial systems and laws do not afford their citizens, or American citizens for that matter, the same free speech protections granted under the U.S. Constitution.

Though American courts have proven less friendly to Islamist lawfare and have for the most part ruled to protect the exercise of free speech within this country, notwithstanding that fact, defendants who have been victimized by legal jihad in US courts, even if they end up winning their case, in the end they lose in time and money spent protecting their rights when they could have been doing and accomplishing much more productive things…

The identical experience of those fighting HRC complaints. In other words, the sharia aficionados will use whatever legal venues are available to them. In Canada, they will turn to HRCs. In the U.S., where there are no HRCs, they will pursue their agenda through the regular court system. In both cases the effect on the “defendant” is the same.

Okay, now I’m really depressed.

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

The new ice age: Thomas Jefferson once noted that “the price of democracy is eternal vigilance.” Indeed. Several decades ago Canadians let down their guard and allowed a parallel legal system based not on hundreds of centuries of Western jurisprudence but on newly-minted Marxist mumbo-jumbo to become implanted in our body politic. We paid no attention as a whole rotten retinue of “rights” apparatchniks—a Frankenstein’s monster—grew stronger and stronger and we, the people, grew ever weaker. And now, as Mark Steyn comments in one of the most distressing blog posts I have ever read, the monster is out of control, and a big chill has fallen across the land.

The true north strong and free? Hah! More like the false north cowed and enshackled.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:18 | link | comments (2)

Harpoon, apoplectic: It’s not a pretty sight as the Toronto Star’s esteemed editorial page editor emeritus/twice-weekly opiner, Harpoon Siddiqui, seethes over Prime Minister Stephen Harper unwavering support for Israel. In a speech at a Toronto event celebrating Israel’s 60^th birthday, the P.M. boldly and baldly stated that Israel’s fate and the fate of the West are inextricable—a position, snorts Harpoon, that can only be described as “extreme”:

Stephen Harper equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

"Unfortunately, Israel at 60 remains a country under threat – threatened by those groups and regimes who deny to this day its right to exist," he told a Toronto celebration marking the anniversary.

"And why? Look beyond the thinly veiled rationalizations: Because they hate Israel, just as they hate the Jewish people."

Many groups and regimes, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, do deny Israel's right to exist. But not all others do so solely for the reasons cited by Harper. Some hold back recognition as a negotiating tool in the Palestinian dispute.

The Prime Minister also told radio station CFRB: "My fear is what I see happening in some circles is anti-Israeli sentiment, really just as a thinly disguised veil for good old-fashioned anti-Semitism." He added that he saw anti-Semitic sentiments during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon among "some elements in our political system, even some Members of Parliament."

On Friday, Bob Rae, Liberal foreign affairs critic, asked in the Commons as to which MPs the Prime Minister was referring.

Rae did not get an answer.

One wonders what Harper would make of those Israelis, as well as Jewish Canadians and others, who do strongly support Israel but also question some Israeli policies.

What would he say about the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians? This newly formed umbrella organization of 23 groups, critical of some Israeli policies, obviously does not "hate Israel," or "hate the Jewish people."

Harper's position is designed to silence and delegitimize even the mildest criticism of Israeli policies.

It's an undemocratic formulation that the Israelis themselves would reject. There's a sturdy debate in Israel on all aspects of its policies in the Occupied Territories.

In Rae's words, Harper is saying, "there's a very close association between being anti-Israel and being anti-Semitic ... I don't think it's fair to say that everybody who has or expresses concerns about Israeli foreign policy is anti-Semitic.

"If that were true, three-quarters of the population of Israel would be anti-Semitic."

Harper's comments came the same day as the Israeli ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, told the Globe and Mail and later CTV News that growing Muslim communities in France, Britain and Scandinavia have had an impact on the foreign policies of those nations and that he "fears" the same in Canada.

The 2001 census put the number of Muslims at 580,000 and of Jewish Canadians at 330,000.

Baker: "Do you expect from these greater numbers that they will absorb themselves into Canadian society as Canadians or that they'll try to push Canadians to adopt their own values and principles?"

What values? That they may exercise their democratic right to lobby their own government?

Baker also complained that he or other Israelis speaking on university campuses may face demonstrations or be prevented from speaking, as happened to Ehud Barak in 2004 at Concordia University.

First, that Montreal cancellation was much criticized. Second, Baker did not say when and where he was prevented from speaking.

There's an ongoing debate in Canada over when freedom of speech crosses the line into hate. The argument gets played out in universities over Israel Apartheid Week. Despite pressure to cancel it, the universities of Toronto, York and Ryerson have opted for academic freedom but McMaster axed the event.

Baker singled out "a Muslim Member of Parliament," Omar Alghabra, as having been "outspoken in his hostility toward Israel." Later, he called Alghabra's views "less than friendly," without citing any statement by the MP.

"I've got nothing against the fact that Muslims are members of the Canadian Parliament. But it worries me that the type of political influence that we're seeing in Britain, in France, might ultimately reach the Canadian political system."

Baker seems to want what Harper wants: Pro-Israeli voices should be heard loud and clear, but those who might question this or that policy of Israel should be silenced.

This is not how Canada works.

All groups, regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity, are free to speak, and the government of Canada makes foreign policy decisions in the interest of all Canadians.

Canada is not Israel where Israeli Arabs are second-class citizens.

For all of Baker's nervousness, our foreign policy has been pro-Israeli dating back to Paul Martin in 2004. Harper has just made it more so…

Here’s the situation on the ground in Canada:

·         All groups, regardless of their religion, race or ethnicity are not free to speak. If you do speak freely, as say Mark Steyn did in a cover story about spiralling demographics and their likely impact, or as Ezra Levant did when he took it into his head that publishing some controversial ‘toons in his now defuct periodical, Western Standard, was newsworthy, members on one particular religion will take offence and haul your buttski to one or more of Canada’s Marxist kangaroo courts.

 

·         There is no “freedom of speech” on campuses if the words you hope to speak are supportive of Israel, a word, a concept, a nation that drives a goodly section of academe plain bonkers. There is plenty of “free speech” available, however, if you belong to the Nakba community on and off campus which is labouring to liken Israel’s existence to a moral blot on humanity. To sum it up: if you want to speak some unpleasant truths about problematic Islamic actions and doctrines, you’re plum out of luck. If you want to tell lies—both big and little—about Israel, well, sir, the world is your oyster, and you might just be in line for an Order of Canada.

 

·         “Criticism” of Israeli policies isn’t ipso facto antisemitic. Obsessive and exclusive focus on the world’s only Jewish polity—that’s antisemtic. Calling for the end of the Jewish state to satisfy jealous, angry Arabs and Muslims, who see Israel as a rebuke to their teachings, a reality that simply cannot be—that’s antisemitic. The way I have come to see it: Not all “criticism” of Israel is “antisemitic”—but most of it is. (And yes, sadly, there are more than a few of the “critics” are Jewish anti-Semites.

 

·         It is not “extreme” to support Israel. What is “extreme” is to focus all your energies on trying to get rid of Israel.

 

·         Israel is a test case for the world’s democracies. Prime Minister Harper understands that perhaps better than any Western leader, and is willing to say so, even though he knows it is likely to make the Harpoons and the Raes all stirred up. The P.M. had better watch it, though. Mo Elmasry might lodge an official complaint with Babs Hall’s Commissariat, and she will feel compelled to slam the P.M. for his “xenophobic” and “Islamophobic” comments—bad P.R. with an election looming. (Just kidding. I know the P.M.’s comments are outside the HRCs purview—while he’s still Prime Minsiter, at least.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:41 | link | comments (2)

Nakba community protest: Israel’s success is driving ‘em crazy. From the Toronto Star:

Naji Farah was a Palestinian teenager living near Haifa in 1948 when his world was turned upside down by the creation of the state of Israel.

"Part of my family were refugees," the writer and former educator said yesterday. "My older brother had gone away to university and he was not allowed back. It was traumatic."

The 60th anniversary of the creation of Israel is also the 60th anniversary of what Palestinians call al-Naqba – the catastrophe – marked yesterday with a peaceful rally by about 400 people at Queen's Park.

Farah told what it was like to live through al-Naqba as he called for improved rights for Palestinians.

Representatives from unions, student groups and social-justice organizations joined with Canadian Palestinian leaders in calling for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the land they lost when the country of Israel was created.

This right to return has been supported numerous times by the United Nations, said Farid Ayad, president of Palestine House.

"Let the Palestinians live in their homeland with Jews, Christians and Muslims," he said. "Canada is the best model, we live in harmony. Let's apply that to Palestinians who want to live in harmony."

Speakers supported economic pressure, including boycotts, to push Israel on the issue.

There was a heavy police presence, including a mounted unit, at the rally. A handful of Jewish protesters were kept behind a barricade at the northern corner of the Legislature entrance. York University student Mike Khardas said the group's posters and activities were intended to highlight the fact that 800,000 Jews were also refugees when they were kicked out of 22 Arab states in 1948. He said the group's counter-rally wasn't intended to be inflammatory.

Hundreds waved flags and chanted during the al-Naqba event, which began at 1 p.m. and concluded with a march to Ryerson University and a fair celebrating Palestinian culture.

Yes, let’s all “celebrate” Palestinian “culture”—dynamite vests, Holocaust-envy and Farfour Mouse.

Yippy.

My letter:

Sixty years on, the “catastrophe” of Israel has resulted in a booming, vibrant  democracy that, per capita, is arguably the most creative, resourceful, and productive nation on the planet. Yet Farid Ayad, president of Palestine House, and others who gathered at Queen’s Park to bemoan Israel’s existence believe millions of Palestinians who never lived in Israel have a “right” to overrun it and effectively expunge every trace of Jewish sovereignty--the very factor that has led to Israel’s astonishing success.

 

Now, that would be a catastrophe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:49 | link | comments (3)

Happy 60^th, Israel: Mark Steyn’s birthday greetings to a certain little entity. Something you definitely want to avoid if you’re a member of the “Nakba community”. From NRO:

Almost everywhere I went last week — TV, radio, speeches — I was asked about the 60th anniversary of the Israeli state. I don’t recall being asked about Israel quite so much on its 50th anniversary, which as a general rule is a much bigger deal than the 60th. But these days friends and enemies alike smell weakness at the heart of the Zionist Entity. Assuming President Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic fancies don’t come to pass, Israel will surely make it to its 70th birthday. But a lot of folks don’t fancy its prospects for its 80th and beyond. See the Atlantic Monthly cover story: “Is Israel Finished?” Also the cover story in Canada’s leading news magazine, Maclean’s, which dispenses with the question mark: “Why Israel Can’t Survive.”

Why? By most measures, the Jewish state is a great success story. The modern Middle East is the misbegotten progeny of the British and French colonial map-makers of 1922. All the nation states in that neck of the woods date back a mere 60 or 70 years — Iraq to the Thirties, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel to the Forties. The only difference is that Israel has made a go of it. Would I rather there were more countries like Israel, or more like Syria? I don’t find that a hard question to answer. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East (Iraq may yet prove a second) and its Arab citizens enjoy more rights than they would living under any of the kleptocrat kings and psychotic dictators who otherwise infest the region. On a tiny strip of land narrower at its narrowest point than many American townships, Israel has built a modern economy with a GDP per capita just shy of $30,000 — and within striking distance of the European Union average. If you object that that’s because it’s uniquely blessed by Uncle Sam, well, for the past 30 years the second largest recipient of U.S. aid has been Egypt: Their GDP per capita is $5,000, and America has nothing to show for its investment other than one-time pilot Mohammed Atta coming at you through the office window…

Keep reading. It gets even better.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:42 | link | comments

Monsters, Inc: The Frankenstein monster that is Canada’s parallel legal system (the squishy, Marxist one that serves as a dumping ground for hack bureaucrats who couldn’t make it elsewhere in the public service) is holding its annual confab. The monster—CASHRA (which puts me in mind of one of Godzilla's arch-nemeses, Mothra)—is holding a four day event next month at picturesque Niagara Falls. The conference boasts an exciting roster of speakers, including Amnesty International’s Alex Neve (wonder if he’ll whine about Israel’s abridgement of human rights, as he did—inappropriately—at the “Combating Hatred” confab last fall); Alan Borovoy (wonder if he’ll mention how he’s terrified that the monster, his creation, has discovered its awesome power and is now running amuck and scaring the villagers); Barbara Hall (wonder if she’ll regale the crowd with how she passed judgement on a case over which she had no jurisdiction); and some guy who used to be the attorney for CAIR-CAN (wonder if he’ll point out that CAIR-CAN’s American wing is big on Hamas and has been accused of raising money to fund terrorism).

Here’s a list of conference events. The ones that caught my eye (with my comments in italics):

·         Expanding grounds of protection enumerated in Human Rights Codes
International human rights bodies criticize Canada over discrimination in areas not protected by existing human rights legislation.  This session explores current efforts to expand enumerated grounds and rights protections in areas such as political affiliation, gender identity, and social condition, providing a suitable background to explore Commission efforts in engaging Communities. (They want to expand their powers? Better head for the hills, villagers. The monster is out of control.)

 

·         Are Human rights systems engaging the diverse Communities they should serve?
This session explores our existing human rights systems and asks whether they fully accommodate the diverse persons they serve.  Does the current human rights system in Canada force individuals to adopt alien values to gain entry into the system? How do human rights systems meet the needs of Communities with different worldviews, communication styles, or cultures? (The above is nothing more than a way to try to drum up more business in order to justify their existence—and, oh yeah, expand their power.)

 

·         The issue of media and commission-Community engagement
This session explores the impact of media on human rights work in Canada. It will review the various roles of media in this work and identify ways in which Communities and Commissions can work together to positively employ the media to serve and promote human rights. It will focus on identifying positive examples and best practices. (The monster is in desperate need of some good P.R., what with all the negativity from Steyn, Levant et al.) 

 

·         Barriers to accessing human rights for non-citizens
This session explores the human rights situation of documented and undocumented non-citizens in Canada. It focuses on barriers faced by these individuals in employing human rights Commissions and other human rights protections. (This one reminds me of the tender-hearted folks for wanted to expand Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include…the Taliban. In this case, it’s more about wanting to access a large new pool of potential complainants.

 

·         The “Reasonable Accommodation” Debate
This session explores issues confronting human rights Commissions and Communities resulting from the “reasonable accommodation debate” in Quebec and beyond. It will focus on the issue of competing human rights claims and what role Commissions and Communities could or should be playing in the emerging controversy. (Since Quebec is the province least likely to buy into the multiculti bunkum, having a clearer sense of its own identity than the rest of us, it has been wrestling with how to “accommodate” newcomers who, say, want Quebec to make room for certain aspects of sharia law. The monster, clueless about the clash of laws occurring globally and locally, wants us to be as accommodating as possible.)

 

·         What we can learn from Human Rights Systems of the Global South
This session explores what we can learn from Commissions of the global south for Community - Commission engagement It focuses on identifying positive examples and best practices regarding relations with civil society and communities.

§  Moderator: TBA

• Salim Vally, University of Witwatersrand in South Africa
• Pearl Eliadis, Human Rights Lawyer
• Regina Thompson, Ontario Human Rights Commission
• Maina Kiai, Chairman, The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights

(You mean Canada is supposed to learn about ‘human rights’ from Kenya and other Third World countries of the “global south”? Shouldn’t it be the other way around, with Third World backwaters learning from our example?)

·         Advocacy and awareness using alternative media & technology
This session explores the various internet and media applications including alternative media that can be used as tools in the advancement of human rights. It focuses on what Communities and Commissions are doing to embrace new technologies and alternative mediums in their work. (The monster wants to get its mitts on the Internet. We’re doomed!)

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

Siege pathologies: The Oslo Syndrome has leapt Israel’s borders and, as Washington Times pundit, Diana West sees it, has set up shop in the U.S.:

A few years ago, Harvard psychiatric instructor Kenneth Levin wrote "The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege." In this illuminating book, Mr. Levin examines the Israeli experience of concessionary negotiations with a "peace partner" openly dedicated to Israel's destruction. He also examines the historical Jewish diasporic experience in which Jewish populations typically identified with their tormentors and even echoed their anti-semitism. Such interactions are driven by a permanent condition of siege mentality, Mr. Levin explains, and clearly manifests two kinds of delusional thinking.

 

First, there is the fantasy about the intentions of the aggressor (Arab, Muslim or Christian); then, there is the fantasy about changing the aggressor's intentions. Such thinking, Mr. Levin says, is common to victims of chronic abuse, particularly children. They fool themselves into thinking that they, the victims, control the abuser by linking the abuse they suffer to their own behavior.

 

In other words, they believe they cause their own abuse. This mind game, Mr. Levin insists, actually gives victims a sense of control over situations beyond their control (an abusive parent, for instance). This allows the abused person to avoid feelings of helplessness and despair.

 

And so the besieged victim pretends: Daddy doesn't really want to hurt me; if I'm a better girl, he'll stop. Israel pretends: Muslims don't really want to destroy our state, and so we'll give them land for peace. Jews in pre-Nazi Europe pretended: The anti-Semites are really right; we deserve a pogrom. Intriguingly, Mr. Levin writes: "But the book's themes have a still broader relevance. Even ostensibly powerful and secure populations, under conditions that entail ongoing threat and vulnerability, can manifest similar trends."

 

I have a new one for the doctor: a delusion so enormous it begs for immediate hospitalization and a transfer of power of attorney. The problem here is, that the patient is the United States government, which now says: If we just stop talking about jihad, Muslims will neither become jihadis nor sympathize with them.

 

Such is the message of a crazy new government guide,"Words that Work and Words that Don't," which urges federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, to eliminate all references to Islam when discussing, well, Islamic terrorism. Not only does that mean no more talk of "Islam," but it also means no more talk of "jihad." ("Extremism" is the new "jihad.") And forget about the "caliphate." (Try "global totalitarian state.")

 

Even such politically correct terms as "Islamist" and "Islamofascist," which take the traditional teachings of Islam off the hook, are now verboten. And so, oddly enough, is the term "Muslim moderate." According to the government: "The term 'moderate' has become offensive to many Muslims, who believe that it refers to individuals whom the U.S. government prefers to deal with, and who are only marginally religious." So "moderates" do not want to look like patsies next to "jihadists," and the U.S. government doesn't want to be insensitive to their needs. Sounds like a rest cure for Uncle Sam is long overdue.

If Uncle Sam thinks employing lame euphemisms is in any way going to endear him to the jihadis or Muslims at large, he needs more than a rest cure; he needs hard-core psychotherapy and heavy-duty meds.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:14 | link | comments

The once and future president?: Bambi's "Guinevere" sings:

It’s true! It’s true! He is the one for you.

And wait until you see what he can do!

 

A man was made a distant moon ago here.

McCain’s the name and youthful he is not.

He won't ring down the curtain on our show here:

Obamalot.

We’ll sit down with the mullahs by September.

Persuade ‘em to be nice and not to plot.

And they’ll send hugs and kisses by December.

Obamalot.

 

Obamalot! Obamalot!

It isn’t very hard to see.

That in Obamalot, Obamalot!

There is audacity.

 

The “hope” and “change” stuff’s sounding kind of threadbare,

And, heaven knows, Wright put us on the spot.

In short, there’s simply not,

A more congenial slot

For vacationing from history than here:

Obamalot.

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

Bravo, Harper: A Prime Minister who is willing to stand on principle, and who "gets" that as Israel goes, so goes the West.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:11 | link | comments (2)

Smears and jeers: On Tuesday night, Book Czarina Heather Reisman proudly announced to the crowd that had come to hear her in “conversation” with Mark Steyn (well, actually, they'd come to hear Mark Steyn and were prepared to put up with her for the privilege) that, save for Mein Kampf, her book chain had never refused to carry a book on its shelves. (Ms. Reisman didn’t mention that an issue of two periodicals—Western Standard and Harper’s—had been banned when they printed some controversial ‘toons.) In FrontPage today, Canadian novelist Howard Rotberg begs to differ. Recounting his harrowing dealings with Heather and her chain, he demonstrates that HRCs aren’t the only avenue to can clamp down on free expression. A good smear campaign can have the same effect:

…FP: Let’s begin with the trouble you began having after the release of your novel.

Rotberg: Several years ago, at a book lecture at the Waterloo Ontario store of the monopoly book retailer in Canada (with 72% of Canadian retail book sales), I was attacked by a Palestinian and an Iraqi, who shouted me down, with shouts of “you have no right to be heard if you are pro-Israel.” Then when I could no longer speak, and folded up my notes, and audience members asked the hecklers to be quiet and let me speak, the Iraqi shouted “he is a fucking Jew.” The lecture was stopped.

The only employee present was a young woman with a hijab. She later told some people in attendance that she was Palestinian and knew the hecklers. She later reported to her boss, fraudulently, that I said that “all Muslims are terrorists.” Later she changed the allegation in a written statement, also fraudulent, that I said that “all Middle Easterners are terrorists.” No matter how ridiculous, the PR person for Chapters stated in a press release that they were sorry that patrons had to hear racist statements from both the hecklers and the guest author.

Later an allegation appeared on the internet that I supposedly said at the lecture that “all Arabs and Muslims deserve to die.” In this case I got the internet site to furnish me with the IP address for the computer from which emanated this terrible allegation. Then I obtained a court order compelling the internet service provider to disclose the name and address of the computer owner. The allegation was posted in the name of a Jewish person, but I had reason to believe that such a person could never state that.

When I got the court order I found out that the source of the internet posting was a Palestinian family who lived a few doors away from the Jewish family whose name they appropriated for the internet allegation. I also did some detective work and found that the daughter of the family was a school friend and fellow member of the local university Muslim Students Association with the Palestinian, then 18 year old, book clerk, who started this little fraud. It had large repercussions. When I complained to the President of the book chain about the press release, she did not take it well. In one week, the book chain “banned” my book, returning some 300 copies to the publisher, and stated on their web site that the book was “unavailable”. Of course, refusing to carry it on their website was an indication of their animus; it costs the chain nothing in terms of shelf space to have it available by web-ordering, but the “fatwa” was a complete one.

FP: So what’s happening now?

Rotberg: I am still trying to get a court case heard against the book chain, but their lawyers are quite successful in stalling the case. Canadian newspapers do not want to cover the matter, because they receive large advertising dollars from the book chain.

In the McCarthyesque tragic-comedy of “tolerant” intellectuals running around looking for evidence of Islamophobia in Canada, people like me don’t stand much of a chance. Fortunately in the U.S. you have good people like yourselves, Mr. Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Chesler, Steve Emerson, and Robert Spencer. In Canada, we have one good group called Canadian Coalition for Democracies, but except for them, and some authors like David Soloway and Ezra Levant, I feel quite alone.

FP: Can anyone even get a copy of your book?

Rotberg: If you are in Toronto, you can still get a copy of my book at the chain’s flagship store at Bay and Bloor. That store ordered 30 copies of my book, not knowing that the president of the chain, had put her personal “fatwa” on the book, after I had a personal telephone call with her, demanding that she retract the press release stating that I had said “racist” things at the lecture. Her Vice-President of Supply Chain Management wrote the publisher within a week or two of our phone call returning 300 copies of the book, chain wide, not even keeping any copies where the 7 book allotment for each store had sold out entirely. Then when the publisher placed one last ad for the book in the (Toronto) Globe and Mail’s Book Section, stating that the book was available at the chain’s Bay and Bloor store “and other fine bookstores,” someone at the chain took a fit, and ordered all the books off the shelves. So on the Sunday after the ad appeared on Saturday, people went into that store asking for the book, and the poor store clerks couldn’t figure out what happened since they had so many copies in stock. Finally the staff was told to offer people coupons to be redeemed against different books.

When the publisher later sued in Small Claims Court for nominal damages, we were able to use the court process to gain access to the store's employee written statements. The actual written allegation was that I said that "all Middle-Easterners are terrorists", which of course I did not say. But even had I said such a thing, it would just be stupid rather than racist, because to me Middle Easterners include those of many religions, ethnicities and races, although I daresay that to the Islamist mind, Middle Easterners should only be Muslims, and the allegation is instructive as to the state of the Islamist mind.

No matter - having been labelled a "racist", that marked the end for me as a serious writer in Canada. The book chain alleged that the reason for the return of every single copy from every single store was "slow sales". In any case after that first weekend, someone had a change of heart and put the books back on the shelf, but just at the one store in the whole chain. However, the damage was done (although even with the books buried back in the fiction section, 18 books were sold in that location, which shows the marketability of the book). It has been a horrible experience, especially with so few willing to stick their necks out and support me.

FP: What is the significance and meaning here?

Rotberg: Well, what I see is that, in a country like Canada, without a strong national ethos, "multiculturalism and "tolerance" seem to have become predominant aspects of identity and culture, especially amongst left-liberals who are influential in our universities, our media, and other elites. I see myself as a casualty of the assault on freedoms which Islamists can so easily effect in this cultural milieu.

Lately, writers like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant and the publications carrying their work have found themselves under attack by Islamists who are using our "Human Rights Commissions" to silence us, in Canada. These commissions were originally set up by provinces to protect human rights, and were originally intended to give protections to minorities in the workplace, in education and in non-profit organizations.

Alan Borovoy, the founder and head of the Canadian Civil Rights Association, has now come to rue the use of these commissions by Muslim organizations and activists to try to censor and intimidate any criticisms of radical Islam, together with attempts to entrench religious rights for Muslims in secular areas. The Commissions, once they accept a complaint for prosecution, fund wholly the prosecution, so the complainant has no legal costs and the defendant must pay fully the costs of a legal defence.

So, as I discussed earlier, some three years before the complaints against Steyn and Levant, I experienced the success of Islamists in censoring my work simply because they did not like what was written in a novel. Unfortunately, although my book received good reviews, I received no support from Canadian human rights organizations, writers' rights organizations, or even Jewish organizations. Canada's monopoly book retailer, with 72% of the Canadian retail market, ended up effectively "banning" the book, and returning every one of the 300 copies on its shelves, even where it was selling well, and stating on its website (falsely) that the book was "unavailable." All this, because of a scheme by an 18 year old Palestinian book clerk, and some friends of hers, who shut down a lecture I was giving at one of their bookstores, yelling that I had "no right" to speak if I was "pro-Israel" and when audience members pleaded with them to be quiet, they retorted that I was simply a "fucking Jew." It took me a year to write the book but the 18 year old Islamist and her friends were able to “get rid” of the book so easily, in about a week’s time…

A chilling tale, indeed—one that shows the growing influence of “the Nakba community”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:48 | link | comments (1)

Brand spanking new sharia state?: Civil war rears its ugly puss in Lebanon once again, as Iran's flying monkies, Hezbollah, try to take over. (There are those would have you believe that there are two Hezbollahs: a "bad" one, that is armed up the wazoo and engages in bloody conflicts; and a "good" Hezbollah, that builds schools and hospitals and runs for political office. Don't you believe it. There's only one Hellzbollocks--and it's all bad.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:22 | link | comments

Moronic convergence in Toronto: Come one, come all, to the month-long anti-Jew bash being held for Islamists and their useful imbeciles on the hard left (a.k.a. ‘the Nakba Community’; yes, that’s right, ‘the Nakba Community’). Here’s a rundown of what’s on tap (h/t—J.B.):

MAY 2008:
60th ANNIVERSARY OF AL NAKBA COMMEMORATION ACTIVITIES

The following schedule of events is planned for May 2008 in commemoration of Al
Nakba. For more information please contact info@palestinehouse.com

>>Thursday 8th May:
Toronto Press
Conference

Hear Al Nakba survivors recount their experiences. Speakers include Palestinian
refugees and community supporters. Organized by Palestine House,
info@palestinehouse.com

>>Friday 9th May:
Anti-Apartheid Picket of Chapters/Indigo Bookstore.

The majority owners of Chapters Indigo founded 'Heseg', a scholarship program
for individuals who want to join the Israeli military. Meet 5pm @ Bay and
Bloor.

>>Saturday 10th May:
March and Rally @ 1pm, Queens Park, followed by Nakba Community Fair @3pm, Ryerson University Cafeteria

Join us in the May 10 Al Nakba Commemoration march and
rally, beginning at
Queens Park, 1pm. Make a banner and some noise, wear Palestinian dress and
bring your friends! Let's say NO to ethnic
cleansing and proclaim loudly: Palestinian refugees will
return!
Demo Poster PDF Format
Demo Leaflet PDF Format

 

Directly after the March and Rally will be the Nakba Community Fair. It will take place at the Ryerson Universiy Cafeteria, and it will feature music, performers, food, children’s activities
and visual art displays!
If you are involved with a group other than CAIA, please consider becoming
involved with the Nakba Community Fair!
The cost per table will be $25, and must be paid in cash, upon set-up of
tables. If you are interested in tabling, please email endapartheid@riseup.net,
before Wednesday, May 7th, with following information:

1. Name of group/organization
2. Brief mandate of organization
3. Person to contact about the organization, and their
telephone number and email address
4. Items to be displayed and/or sold at the table

We are looking for a wide range of organizations to take part in the
Community Fair, so please consider this opportunity to display your work!

>>Monday 12th May:
Film Screening of "1948" by Mohammad Bakri. William Doo Auditorium, University of Toronto
(45 Willcocks Street, at corner of Spadina Ave), 7pm

A profound and deeply moving record of the Nakba by Palestinian film-maker
Mohammad Bakri.

>>Wednesday 14th May:
Workshop: "Palestinian Education under Occupation and the
Campaign for Academic Boycott"

A meeting organized by Students Against Israeli Apartheid
(SAIA) and university
faculty from across Toronto to hear the experiences of Palestinian students
under occupation and discuss ways to move forward in the campaign for academic
boycott. For more information, contact saia@riseup.net

>>Thursday 15th May:
Tour of the
renowned Palestinian Hip-Hop group, DAM! Also
featuring Invincible and a B-Boy battle.

Straight from 1948 Palestine. All ages show. Organized by Coalition Against
Israeli Apartheid. Tickets are $15 and are available
at: Toronto Women's
Bookstore, 73 Harbord Street

>>Friday 16th May:
Reel Activism
Film Screening: Arna's Children

Documentary about Palestinian children of the Intifadas,7pm. @ Bloor Street
United Church upstairs Chapel. Organized by the Social Justice Committee of the
Uniting Church.

>>Saturday 17th May:
Youth Day –
Popular education workshop on Palestine.

An exciting and fun introduction to Palestine for youth! Run by the New York
based Palestine Education Project (PEP). Organized by High Schools
Against
Israeli Apartheid, haia@caiaweb.org

>>26th – 30th May Forum:
"Workers' Rights Under Occupation" at the Canadian
Labour Congress convention, Toronto.

Forum with Palestinian and Haitian trade unionist (details to be
announced). Organized by Labour for Palestine and Toronto Haiti Action
Committee

>>Thursday 29th May:
Preview
Screening of the Play, "My Name Is Rachel Corrie"

8pm, Tarragon Extra Space 30 Bridgman Avenue. Tickets are $20 and available at:
Toronto Women's Bookstore 73 Harbord Street

>>Friday 30th May – Sunday 1 June:
"Brick By Brick" National Conference.

National workshop for labour activists and trade unionists on building labour
solidarity with Palestine. To register, contact Labour for
Palestine, labour@caiaweb.org

I don’t know about you, but I can hardly wait for the Nakba Fair. I hear its “Whack a Jew” game is a gas. Also—I’m not sure how you can “screen” a play, or why trade unionists would want to build solidarity with a place where there are no trade unions, but I’m sure it makes perfect sense to the clever members of “the Nakba Community.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:08 | link | comments (1)

No sharia in Maryland: A Pakistani gentleman tried to invoke sharia law to divorce his wife in an American court, but, whadya know?, the court told him to take a hike. From the Baltimore Sun:

Saying "I divorce thee" three times, as men in Muslim countries have been able to do for centuries when leaving their wives, is not enough if you're a resident of Maryland, the state's highest court ruled yesterday.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals rejected a Pakistani man's argument that his invocation of the Islamic talaq, under which a marriage is dissolved simply by the husband's say-so, allowed him to part with his wife of more than 20 years and deny her a share of his $2 million estate.

The justices affirmed a lower court's decision overturning a divorce decree obtained in Pakistan by Irfan Aleem, a World Bank economist who moved from London to Maryland with his wife, Farah Aleem, in 1985.

Both of their children were born in the United States.

In 2003, Aleem's wife filed for divorce in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

When he filed a counterclaim, he did not object to the court's jurisdiction over the case, according to the ruling. But before the legal process could be completed - and without telling his wife - Aleem went to the Pakistani Embassy in Washington and invoked the talaq, in effect attempting to turn jurisdiction of the case over to a Pakistani court that later granted him a divorce.

When they were married in Karachi in 1980, Farah Aleem was 18 and had just graduated from high school. Irfan Aleem was 29, a doctoral candidate at Oxford University in England. As is customary, the couple signed a marriage contract. It obligated Aleem to give his wife the equivalent of $2,500 in the event of their divorce. When they split, he did so, and claimed he owed her nothing more.

Maryland's highest court disagreed.

"If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property," the judges wrote in their decision.

They said the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation."

Priya R. Aiyar, an attorney for Irfan Aleem, said yesterday from Washington that she had been unable to reach her client to tell him he had lost his appeal. Until she does, Aiyar said, she would have no comment on the case.

Jeffrey M. Geller, a lawyer for Farah Aleem, did not return a call seeking comment.

Experts in Islamic law and religion who are based in the U.S. said they agreed with the court's ruling. Abdullahi An-Na'im, a Muslim scholar and law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said "there can only be one law of the land."

An-Na'im, who wrote Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a, said that "if Muslims wish to influence what the law of the state says, they must do so through the normal political process and in accordance with civic discourse that is equally open for debate by all citizens, and not on the basis of religious beliefs."

Julie Macfarlane, a law professor at the University of Windsor, Ontario, who has spent two years on a research project titled "Understanding Islamic Divorce in North America," said she was surprised that Aleem had tried to force the notion of talaq on a U.S. court.

"It's unclear how he even thought he was going to make a successful legal argument on this point," Macfarlane said…

Guess he figured it was worth a shot.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:46 | link | comments

Stop it, Moo, you’re getting me hot: No one can talk dirty like that hairy maniac, Moo Ahmadinejad. From the Jerusalem Post:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the state of Israel is a "stinking corpse" that is destined to disappear, the French news agency AFP reported.

"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as having said.

"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

Ahmadinejad further stated that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" - referring to the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006.

Such poetry. Like a Percy Farbisseneh Shelley.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:23 | link | comments

Lies, damned lies, and John Esposito's damned lying statistics: One of the world's foremost apologists for Islam "cooks the books" to make it appear that "the tiny minority of extremists" is much tinier than, in fact, it is.

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

Tehran syndrome: On the occasion of Israel's 60th, the Iranian parliament's only Jewish member--he sits in the one seat it allots the entire community--chastizes Israel's "anti-human" treatment of Arabs.

Thus, ironically, demonstrating the need for a Jewish state where Jews don't have to say, "How high?" when tyrants command them to "JUMP!"

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:12 | link | comments

A fatal focus: While the UN endeavours through various of its agencies to “deal” with the “problem” of an embarrassingly successful Jewish state (embarrassing to the Arabs, other Muslims, and the ummah of clueless, self-loathing lefties; a source of pride to Jews and others who cherish freedom and democracy), it wilfully ignores some real problem areas—like Burma.  From the Weekly Standard:

IF THERE IS A DEFINING mood about the catastrophe that has engulfed Burma, it is the sense of denial. When a devastating cyclone ripped through the country over the weekend, the military regime reported that the storm had killed 351 people. While residents of Rangoon, the largest city, scrambled for food and shelter, state television broadcast an opera. At least a million people have been made homeless in the storm's wake--and none of them will be going to the opera. As of this writing, the death toll is expected to reach as high as 100,000.

Yet the air of self-delusion which the Burmese regime breathes so freely is shared by others, particularly those in the cloistered confines of the United Nations. For years, as the military junta has brutalized and impoverished its population, U.N. officials either have ignored its atrocities or imagined they could be negotiated away.

Indeed, the same U.N. institutions that have accommodated and "engaged" the Burmese government are stupefied by how sluggishly the regime has responded to this disaster. Meteorologists in India say they warned Burmese officials at least 48 hours before the cyclone slammed into the country. Yet state-run media failed to issue timely warnings to villagers in the storm's path. As thousands of tons of relief assistance sat idly along its border, the government dithered over whether to issue visas allowing relief organizations into the country. A U.S. offer to divert three Naval ships in the Gulf of Thailand to assist relief efforts was rebuffed. Earlier this week, many aid workers were still being denied visas.

"Running the country on a combination of internal repression and xenophobia," writes Kenneth Denby in the Times (London), "the junta seems not to have made up its mind that this is a tragedy that it cannot remedy on its own." The government's craven disregard for the survival of its own people in the midst of this catastrophe, the worst since the 2004 tsunami, should surprise no one. It is the easily predictable reflex of a brutal and paranoid regime--aided and abetted by U.N. apologists and a culture of human-rights hypocrisy.

For all its secrecy and isolation, the government's track record is well known. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDP)--another child of Orwellian imagination--ranks as one of the most repressive regimes in the world. It rules by decree, suppresses virtually all basic human rights, maintains thousands of political prisoners, and is conducting a campaign of terror against ethnic minorities. Last September, the military fired into crowds to quash a non-violent, pro-democracy demonstration led by Buddhist monks. In February, the regime is believed to have assassinated Padoh Mahn Sha Lah Phan, the general secretary of the Karen National Union, a leading democratic opposition group. Following an investigation earlier this year, Benedict Rogers, a human rights officer with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, reported appalling conditions in the country and among Burmese refugees. "Burma continues to deteriorate into further political, human rights and humanitarian crises," Rogers writes. "Forced labor, rape, torture and the destruction of villages . . . continue to be perpetrated on a widespread and systematic basis."…

To review: In 2007, the number of UN Human Rights Council condemnations of Burma: 1; the number of UN Human Rights Council condemnations of Israel: 13.

‘Nuff said.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:37 | link | comments

Happy Birthday, Israel: I only hope I look this good at 60.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:45 | link | comments (1)

Sighting Mark Steyn: I saw him in person last night (being interviewed by Heather Reisman at Indigo Books on Bloor). You can see him being interviewed by "hep" Ceebster, George Stroumboulopoulos on his show The Hour. (I’ve never been able to decide whether that name was either remarkably pretentious or terribly unimaginative.)

Listening to George's lame questions and watching him sit stone-faced at Mark's witticisms was a lot like listening to Heather's lame questions and watching her sit stone-faced as Mark's witticisms convulsed the standing room only crowd.

Clearly, the clueless lefties don't "get it”—any of “it”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:33 | link | comments (1)

Serendipitous discovery: One of the reasons I love the Internet is that I never know what the next click may happen to turn up. Here, for instance, is a post that appeared on the Canadian Islamic Congress site in Oct., 2005, about “activist attorney” Faisal Joseph and his exciting plans (my bolds):

…Along with that poignant story, keynote speaker Joseph pressed home the point that organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress are absolutely necessary in today's increasingly defensive society, for they offer a supportive forum from which Muslims and their non-Muslim brothers and sisters can speak up and challenge racism, prejudice, ignorance and just plain hate. In fact, he noted several times, there is no excuse for remaining passive and fearful; things don't get any better if an attacked community tries to be invisible.

It's disturbing enough that a country praised by the United Nations as one of the best places on earth to live, has to deal with destructive antisocial forces within its own borders; but in today's climate of heightened security paranoia, our government seems bent on making life difficult for anyone who doesn't blend into the crowd. In these times, even a Muslim baby can turn up on Canada's notorious "no-fly" list, as happened not long ago to an Ontario infant.

"This community is under a microscope, the likes of which has never been seen in history," Joseph declared, and it was clear that the mood of the room agreed with him.

But Joseph's argument and theme didn't stop there, because no condition is without a solution. Along with CIC national president Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, guest Imam Dr. Mohamed Khattab, and comedian/MC Rasul Somji, the London criminal lawyer and political advocacy expert invited Saturday's listeners to to imagine a different -- and wholly achievable -- future for the next generation of Canadian Muslims.

The key lies in attracting the brightest and best of young Muslim men and women to enter professions which, until now, were considered non- traditional. Instead of automatically setting their sights on engineering, architecture, medicine, information technology and related fields, a new CIC program is providing post-secondary scholarships for students willing and able to try political science, journalism, law, social sciences -- areas in which the Muslim presence has been vastly under-represented, even by Canada's multicultural standards.

It's all part of an even wider movement toward a concept called Smart Integration, an enlightened stratagy (sic) for being wholly Canadian and wholly Muslim. It's not infiltration, not assimilation, not a self-protective disappearing act, but rather an approach to being true Canadians whose lives are also grounded in a faith that fundamentally speaks peace.

If Faisal Joseph -- a second-generation Canadian from Truro NS -- can spend hundreds of pro-bono hours in courtrooms advocating justice for fellow Muslims caught in the insidious net of government sanctioned guilt-by- association, the challenge laid on the table along with Saturday's good food, was for every Muslim to be personally proactive. It goes something like this: drop the submissive, passive, defensive posture that makes the whole community huddle in fear of CSIS and any other government bogeymen, and join the decision-makers of the society you call home…

 

I have no way of knowing if the three telegenic law students benefitted from a CIC scholarship, but even if they didn't, it appears that getting them to appear on camera in lieue of Mo may be part of  the “Smart Integration” program, in which case it appears to be paying off.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:05 | link | comments

Steyn vs. the sock people: Wow! Was that a riveting hour of TV or what? Appearing on TVO’s The Agenda—the show’s “topic,” “What’s wrong with Mark Steyn?” crawled on the bottom of the screen throughout the hour—the author of America Alone threw down the gauntlet at the outset, demanding to face Mo Elmasry’s three sock-thingys on air. Host Steve Paikin was momentarily flummoxed, but soon enough the previously impossible was accomplished, and the "Islamophobe" came face to face with his accusers for the first time. My impressions:

·         Mo chose his spokespersons—two dolls and one guy—wisely. They are young, attractive, well-spoken and extremely telegenic—everything, in fact, that Mo is not. What Mo is is Judeophobic and homophobic. Mark Steyn? He says, this being a free society, Mo is free to be afraid of anything he wants. Steyn admits to being “phobiaphobic”—afraid that all the lunacy about non-existent “Islamophobia” will be the coup de grace of Canadian freedom. (In what was perhaps the most hilarious line of the evening, Paikin explained that Mo had been asked to appear but had “declined the invitation.”)

·         The two dolls seemed to defer to the guy, who was on a low boil throughout the encounter with “Mark Steyn” (as the trio always referred to him), and who demonstrated his comtempt for the man by not once making eye contact with him.

·         If last night was any indication of their skills at arguing a case, these three budding attorneys (who are now articling) need a bit more seasoning. Their unconvincing arguments went something like this: How dare “Mark Steyn” mention all the bad stuff occurring far, far away—the crazy mosquito-mentioning cleric in Norway; the crazed ‘toon marchers in Pakistan, etc.—when it has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims here in Canada? Doesn’t “Mark Steyn” know that referring to all the zaniness puts Canada’s Muslims in a bad light, and foments “hatred”? (In other words, ix-nay on the ihad-jay, “Mark Steyn” because as far as the sock-thingys are concerned, Canadian bubble-hood is definitely bliss.) Also, for some reason—and I don’t know where they get this idea—they are convinced that they have the “right” to commandeer a private publication in order to reach out directly to its readership. Sorry, socks. There are many lame provisions in Canada’s human rights codes (along with much Marxist mumbo-jumbo), but the right to “equal time” in Maclean’s isn’t one of them. At least, not yet.

·         The guy sock compared late anti-Jihadist Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci (which he kept mispronouncing “Falla-see”) to Canada’s very own Sieg Heil-er, Ernst Zundel. Not even close, socky. Fallaci was a Cassandra who, defying what she called the “cicadas” of craven, politically correct Europe, warned about the impending demise of Western civilization and the concomitant rise of Islamic pre-eminence. Ernst Zundel was—is—a squalid little Nazi. Even host Steve Paikin was incredulous at the comparison.

·         It’s clear that comrade Barbara Hall’s Queen of Hearts-like “verdict” (“guilty” as charged without benefit of a trial and no authority to hold one) emboldened the CIC to have another go at trying to commandeer Maclean’s. Way to go, Babs. (Begging a question not posed last night: Why hasn’t Premier Dalton McGuinty reacted to this outrageous behaviour and shown the officious commish the door?)

·         Steyn was visibly shaken when one of the female sock chicks—not the one with the luxuriant Breck Girl hair, the other one—accused him of wanting to be a “martyr”. Trying to contain his emotions, he explained that that’s the last thing he wants; he’d far prefer to sit back and gaze at the mountains. However, since the sock thingys have succeeding in attributing Mullah Krekar’s comment about Muslims breeding like mosquitoes to him, he’s received so many death threats that unwanted “martyrdom” may indeed be in the cards.

·         Steyn wiped the floor with the sock thingys, even if he doesn’t seem to think so.

Update: Catch it on YouTube.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:22 | link | comments (3)

Give me the sharia, the whole sharia, and nothing but the sharia: A young “revert” and would-be self-circumsiser (he aspires to follow in Abraham’s, er, footsteps) has been jailed because he balked at being tried in an infidel court. From the Globe and Mail:

An Islamic convert facing terrorism charges was rearrested after trying to walk out of his own trial yesterday - saying simply that "I'm outta here" - after telling the court he wouldn't recognize Canadian law.

The 20-year-old, who can't be identified because he was underage at the time of his arrest two years ago, had been released on bail. But he spent last night in jail, and his legal future is unclear.

At the time proceedings broke down, a police officer had been on the stand, and the court was discussing the young man's mental status, including whether he was suicidal.

The only youth among 11 Toronto area suspects accused of a variety of conspiracies is also the only one whose case has got to its trial phase. He faces charges of attending a terrorist training camp.

The court has heard only preliminary motions so far, and has yet to delve into evidence or testimony.

While on bail, the young man had been living with his Hindu parents.

A Toronto Muslim preacher told The Globe that the suspect had been coming to Friday prayers, saying that he would rather return to jail than live in a non-Islamic household.

"He said, 'In jail, I can at least pray,' " Aly Hindy, imam of the Salahuddin Islamic Centre in Scarborough, said in an interview.

"I said 'Don't do this!' " Mr. Hindy said. He added that he counselled the young man to pray in secret, but tensions between the suspect and his father had reached a boiling point.

The man's family did not comment last night.

Mr. Hindy added that the young man is "confused" and that "lots of young people, they need guidance."

The young man had lately been expressing an interest in circumcising himself, the imam said, consistent with his understanding of what the Prophet Abraham had done.

After the youth announced that he was firing his lawyer and didn't recognize the court led by Mr. Justice John Sproat, officials urged him to reconsider.

Dan Brien, a spokesman for the federal prosecutors, said only that the suspect had been remanded into custody, but he would not be giving any further details. A hearing is scheduled for Monday.

The man remains among the more peripheral suspects. He is accused of attending a two-week training camp shortly before his 18th birthday.

Two of his pretrial motions had recently failed this month. His lawyers failed in a bid to have a publication ban placed on allegations that some of his co-accused plotted to bomb a stock exchange, a spy service headquarters and an army base in Toronto.

A defence legal argument that involvement in armed jihad was a potential freedom-of-religion issue had also failed to sway Judge Sproat.

Jihad as a protected right? Never mind “swaying” Judge Sproat. How on Earth did he manage to keep from laughing?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:14 | link | comments (2)

They were here a minute ago...: Canada "misplaces" 41,000 fugitive immigrants.

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

Gender apartheid in the Magic Kingdom: Three swingin’ chicks in Saudi Arabia—like Club Med without the sex and fun. From the Guardian:

Just a few hours after lugging my own bags and jostling with the rush-hour male workforce on the tube to Heathrow, I found myself donning my abaya and being shepherded into a females-only line for immigration control at Riyadh airport.

When I was living in Saudi Arabia a few years ago, such measures stirred fierce feminist urges while I seethed against a system that so rigidly prescribed my space, but after working in London workforce and fighting for position at Prêt à Manger, ATMs, taxi ranks and rapidly-closing tube train doors, the old anger was strangely absent as a chauffeur whisked me away from the airport. That I was being chauffeured not because I was supremely wealthy but because I, as a woman am not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, did not occur to me.

During the rest of my time in the country I oscillated between the two positions, at times angry and disbelieving that such a system even existed and at others relieved to find out that there was special recourse and dispensation for women.

In most areas of professional life, men and women in the Saudi are kept completely separate (ostensibly to prevent "khalwa" with members of the opposite sex who are not direct relatives or mahrams and to uphold a pure and chaste culture in general).

The main exception to this is the medical sector where doctors and nurses of both genders work side by side. The business world in particular is dominated by men, and women are not even found in junior secretarial positions. Receptionists and personal assistants are male (if often not Saudi). This immediately precludes most Saudi women from employment within the sectors that are usually dominated by men, such as investment banking.

Saudi women tend to excel in professions where the separation is practical - indeed, where their employment can further entrench the separation of clients and customers. Female Saudi patients are encouraged to visit female doctors. When the female client base is either non-existent or basic in its needs, the women serving it tend to be few and poorly trained. In retail banking for example, branches serving female-only clients and staffed by females are restricted to offering basic services since the needs of female clients are mostly confined to simple transactions. The branches themselves are bedecked and decorated like plush houses; service is slow and amateurish.

It was upon walking into one of these branches that I was revisited by the sense of frustration and anger at the highly impractical setup. I needed to conduct a simple transaction, changing British pounds to Saudi riyals, but was informed that this could only be done in the men's branch and that I would be served there as this was a "special circumstance". I walked into the adjoining men's branch and, although covered from head to toe in black, felt probed and exposed; disdain at my lack of modesty (!) was palpable. It was a thoroughly unpleasant experience.

In restaurants there are "male" and "family" sections, and women sit in booths with drawn curtains or partitions to shield them from the male relatives of other women. Coffee shops, the closest social equivalent of a British pub, sometimes do not have female or family sections at all. Apart from family members, women do not have much opportunity to meet, get to know and fall in love with potential husbands. Indeed, a Saudi friend of mine boasted that her sister's husband would not recognise his own sister-in-law her if she unveiled herself to him in the street as he had never seen her without the burqa. At the time he had been married to her sister for 10 years.

While aiming for a society that is the epitome of chastity, an ironic result of has been the highly charged dynamic between the sexes. My sisters and I have been chased by cars full of youths many times through the streets of Riyadh, harassed through car windows and had telephone numbers expertly tossed in our laps when we had made the mistake of leaving the car window open…

They aimed for a society that’s the epitome of chastity. What they got is a society that’s the epitome of bonkers.

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

Terrorists welcome: Are you a jihadi who’s out of work and looking for a career with an international organization? Look no further than the UN’s UNRWA, an agency with lots of openings for self-detonators, er, starters, like you.

(I thought of the perfect name for a UN employment agency—monster.com. Unfortunately, it was taken.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:03 | link | comments

Mail call: A letter in the Toronto Star goes to bat for the mully-bullies, who, according to the writer, “can do no right”:

In a recent interview, when asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton replied that she would "totally obliterate" Iran. It seems no member of the mainstream media has thought of or dared to question Clinton about the far more likely scenario of an Israeli attack against Iran.

Iran has repeatedly denounced the use and possession of nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Moreover, the last time Iran attacked any country was nearly 300 years ago, in 1739.

Israel's record of aggression against its neighbours is well-known. It reportedly has more than 100 nuclear weapons and has adamantly refused to even consider signing the treaty. Aside from that, Israel knows that it can get away with an attack, as it enjoys the unconditional support of the world's only superpower.

Iran, on the other hand, is aware of the consequences of a hypothetical attack against Israel with hypothetical nuclear weapons.

I agree that the holy rollahs can do no right—but not because they are “misunderstood”. They can do no right because they are evil personified.

My response to the chap whose name is an anagram for les salami:

If Al S. Eslami thinks Iran is being unfairly victimized by Israel and the U.S., he’s in dire need of a reality check. It’s Iran that, for many years now, has been the aggressor. One more than a few occasions, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. To show that this is no idle threat, he has hosted “World Without Zionism” conferences, and, in an effort to undermine Israel’s legitimacy, has presided over a Holocaust-denial conference. Iran’s leaders are fanatical theocrats who oppress their own people even as they sponsor religious terrorism in the Middle East and abroad.

It may be that Iran’s leaders are, as they claim, building nuclear facilities solely to top up their energy needs, and there is no reason to fear what Eslami calls “a hypothetical attack” with “hypothetical nukes”. But given that Iran has more oil than it knows what to do with and its ongoing threats to obliterate the Jewish state, Israel would have to have a death wish of massive proportions to take the mullahs at their word.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:40 | link | comments (1)

Bad thinking and reverse racism: Christopher Hitchens unleashes a torrent of disdain on the bad thinking of L. Farrakhan and his fans (eg. bigoted blowhard, Jeremiah Wright). From Slate:

So numbed have I become by the endless replay of the fatuous clerical rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that it has taken me this long to remember the significant antecedent. In 1995, there appeared a documentary titled Brother Minister about the assassination of Malcolm X. It contained a secretly filmed segment showing Louis Farrakhan shouting at the top of his lungs in the Nation of Islam's temple in Chicago on "Savior's Day" in 1993. Farrakhan, verging on hysteria, demanded to know of the murdered Malcolm X: "If we dealt with him like a nation deals with a traitor, what the hell business is it of yours?" His apparent admission of what had long been suspected—that it was the Black Muslim leadership that ordered Malcolm's slaying—is not understood or remembered (or viewed) as often as it might be.

 

I invite you to look at the film of Farrakhan's sweating, yelling, paranoid face and to bear in mind that this depraved thug, who boasts of "dealing with" one of black America's moral heroes, is the man praised by Jeremiah Wright and referred to with respect as "Minister Farrakhan" by the senator who hopes to be the next president of the United States.

 

Liberal comment on Wright, and on the incredible damage that this conceited old fanatic has done to the Obama campaign, tends to dwell on the negative effect that black chauvinist rhetoric has on white working-class voters. Fair enough, I suppose. But why should a thinking black member of the working class want any truck with a Farrakhan fan or with a moral idiot who thinks that the drugs and disease in the black community are imposed by an outside conspiracy? I don't need any condescending liberal to explain to me why black Americans are inclined to be touchy about the way their forebears were treated any more than I require a patronizing former Harvard law student to guide me through the anxieties of the gun-owning and hunting community. I can quite easily understand these points without pedagogic assistance. What I won't be told is that Tawana Brawley was right, or that AIDS is the fault of the government, or that Jews were behind the slave trade, or that there is a secret Masonic code in the dollar bill. And the apologist for murder "Minister Farrakhan" and his big-mouth Christian friends flirt with this kind of half-baked garbage every day…

Here’s one “condescending Liberal”—an NYT reporter—who, almost a year ago, described Bambi’s embrace of Wright’s church and tried to put Black Liberation Theology in context for Times’ readers.

...Still, Mr. Obama was entranced by Mr. Wright, whose sermons fused analysis of the Bible with outrage at what he saw as the racism of everything from daily life in Chicago to American foreign policy. Mr. Obama had never met a minister who made pilgrimages to Africa, welcomed women leaders and gay members and crooned Teddy Pendergrass rhythm and blues from the pulpit. Mr. Wright was making Trinity a social force, initiating day care, drug counseling, legal aid and tutoring. He was also interested in the world beyond his own; in 1984, he traveled to Cuba to teach Christians about the value of nonviolent protest and to Libya to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, along with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Wright said his visits implied no endorsement of their views.

Followers were also drawn simply by Mr. Wright’s appeal. Trinity has 8,500 members today, making it the largest American congregation in the United Church of Christ, a mostly white denomination known for the independence of its congregations and its willingness to experiment with traditional Protestant theology.

Mr. Wright preached black liberation theology, which interprets the Bible as the story of the struggles of black people, who by virtue of their oppression are better able to understand Scripture than those who have suffered less. That message can sound different to white audiences, said Dwight Hopkins, a professor at University of Chicago Divinity School and a Trinity member. “Some white people hear it as racism in reverse,” Dr. Hopkins said, while blacks hear, “Yes, we are somebody, we’re also made in God’s image.”...

Well, that’s one way to unpack it—one hearts and flowers, completely fatuous, "religion of peace" kind of way. Here’s how James Cone, the guy who invented BLT, defines it. (I found the quote last week in this Wiki entry. When I went searching for it today, oddly enough, it was no longer there):

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

How silly of us “white people” to hear any “racism in reverse” in that. Must be a function of our being inherently racist by virtue of our skin colour.

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

"Rights" gone wild: Now animals and vegetables have rights, too.

Coming soon: minerals' rights.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:00 | link | comments

Quel catastrophe!: Nakba nonsense.

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

TV fun with Fufu and Kuku: More Sesame Street for little psychos-in-training.

Koo koo, indeed.

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

Do as we say not as we do: The National Post’s Jonathan Kay skewers the CIC’s hyperventilating hypocrite (and sock puppet-master extraordinaire), Mo Elmasry:

Don't you love the hypocrisy of it all?

The folks at the Canadian Islamic Congress purport to be the arbiters of what can and can't be said in this country. The CIC and its sock-puppet co-complainants are the ones who hauled Maclean's before various human-rights commissions in a bid to force the magazine to publish its Islamist propaganda. And the CIC regularly berates the media — and Canadian society in general — for the sin of Islamophobia. Just last week, the group put on a press conference in Toronto repeating such claims and demanding, yet again, that Maclean's publish its agitprop — or else.

Not a week has passed since that event. But the CIC has moved on. Today, the group's national president, Mohammed Elmasry, published an article on the CIC's web site about "Zionist Israel at 60." Not "Israel" — "Zionist Israel." Elmasry, the country's self-appointed judge of all that is hateful, is himself so full of hate for the Zionist entity (as Arab politicians like to call it) that he cannot speak the country's name without using the Z-word.

The article is not yet on the CIC web site. But I have received it by email, and have pasted it, in its entirety, below. My favourite line is the one that comes right off the top: "On May 15 this year, Zionists the world over will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of a state for-Jews-only in Palestine. Throughout the short but turbulent history of this Jewish state, its Zionist governments have resorted to ethnically cleansing Palestinian natives in order to maintain the racial "purity" of their nation."

Reality check: Israel is 16% Arab — and, trust me, the Arab citizens would laugh in your face if you offered them the chance to move out of "Jews-only" Israel and into one of the surrounding Arab dictatorships.

Note also the abominable reference to "an Israeli concentration camp" (as if anything in Israel could be compared to Dachau and Treblinka), the fantastically one-sided recounting of the region's history, the hysterical use of language to suggest that Israel's Jews are on par with history's great butchers, the complete omission of any reference to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were "cleansed" from Arab countries during the same historical period (a "crime" — if we are to adopt Mr. Elmasry's vocabulary — that has been given far less publicity than the plight of the Palestinians).

I don't dispute the CIC's right to spread such nonsense. They are as free to say all this as I am to debunk it. But it is quite rich that the same person who spews this kind of poisonous anti-Israeli bigtory should also arrogate to himself the right to dictate what Canada's media is allowed to say.

Just another advertisement as to why Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act needs to be repealed.

I don't know what Jonathan's getting so exercised about. Everyone knows that since anti-Zionism pertains to the hated, oppressive, colonialist occupier and not to "the Jews" per se, it is perfectly allowable--desireable, even--in our multicultist "Gan Eden".

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:33 | link | comments (1)

Wishful thinking in Arab News: Are we witnessing the death of Israel by a thousand cuts?

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

No monkeying around: Last Friday, an editorial in the National Post criticized the Canadian Islamic Congress's “new” offer to “settle” with Maclean’s magazine. The offer demanded that the magazine submit to the CIC’s demand that it be allowed to write and edit an article to rebut the assertions of a cover story written by Mark Steyn. In essence, it was the same as the “old” offer, the one Maclean’s had balked at, precipitating the CIC complaints to several HRCs.

Here’s the letter the CIC’s attorney, Faisal Joseph, sent the Post:

Your recent editorial discussed the April 30 settlement offer put to Maclean's on behalf of my clients, the Canadian Islamic Congress and four law students.

You were correct that this settlement offer was substantially the same offer that was put to Maclean's in an initial meeting nearly one year ago. What has changed is that we have new information about Maclean's position, as a result of their recent editorial in response to the statement made by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which condemned the writing in question as "contrary to the spirit of the human rights code", "xenophobic," "destructive," "racist" and "Islamophobic." Through this editorial, we have learned that Maclean's editors claim to have been "always prepared" to publish a reasonable response. We want to take them up on this offer.

Our current proposal for the rebuttal is just as reasonable as it has always been: a mutually acceptable author, penning a response of adequate length. We are willing to work with Maclean's to resolve the complaints and create the balance and debate we were always looking for. We only hope Maclean's is sincere enough to do the same.

And here’s the letter I sent (which wasn’t printed, but which I hate to waste):

There was a 600-lb gorilla in the room when Faisal Joseph, representing Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress, outlined his client’s offer of “reasonable conciliation” to Maclean’s magazine (an offer which, go figure, turned out to be neither reasonable nor conciliatory and was more or less the same as the previous offer), but no one seemed to want to mention it. The ape in question: sharia.

Sure, Joseph, his client and their youthful minions may frame their complaints as an issue of “rights”: their “right” to be heard, their “right” to equal time, their “right” to combat “Islamophobia”. But, really, that’s just window-dressing. What’s actually happening is that, at both the international and local level, there is a concerted move afoot to shut down all criticism of Islam, thus fulfilling a fundamental tenet of sharia, Islamic law. Under the terms of that Godly law, non-Muslims are prohibited from uttering anything “offensive” or “insulting” about Islam or those who practice it.

How fortunate for Elmasry, an unapologetic Islamist, that Canada has mechanisms in place—human rights commissions, the social doctrine of multiculturalism—that have laid the groundwork for implanting sharia. And more fool us that we are allowing core Western values such as free speech, a free press, and the presumption of innocence in a court which upholds our laws, the laws of man, to be sacrificed on the misbegotten altar of “human rights”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:28 | link | comments

As Israel goes...: So goes the rest of the West.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:06 | link | comments (1)

Two from “My Unfair Thought Cops”: Here are two completely unrelated items:  Ezra Levant’s post about how the Jewish establishment has foolishly lined up behind the thought cops, anda review of a revival of My Fair Lady, just opened in Toronto.

Put them together and you get this, a wistful tune that’s not sung by Bernie Eynsford-Farber:

They have often fought

To defeat bad thought

But they never really looked

At what that effort’s wrought.

All at once it’s clear

That sharia’s near

Brought to you by that Section 13.

 

Borovoy has warned

Of the consequence

But the CJC has failed to see the evidence.

Free expression’s quelled.

Western freedom’s felled.

Courtesy of that Section 13.

 

And, oh, that cowering feeling

Just to live in a state of denial.

That ever-souring feeling

That Barbara Hall can judge you “guilty” sans  a trial.

 

Even Chomsky’s warned

Of the consequence.

The Jewstablishment refuse to see the evidence.

Are we “safer”? Hah!

It’s a big façade

Thank the thought cops of Section 13.

 

And this, sung by “JADEWARR” (the pseudonym used by a CHRC operative when trolling for hate-speech on “Aryan” web sites):

I’ve grown accustomed to your hate.

It always makes my day begin.

I’ve grown accustomed to your mewls

‘Bout how the fuhrer rules.

Your wiles,

Sieg heils,

Go in my files.

So I can build a case, in short,

And haul your butt before a “court”.

I am supremely confident that your conviction’s a safe bet,

And you’ll be punished for your hateful attitudes, and yet...

I’ve grown accustomed to the thrill,

Accustomed to the chase,

Accustomed to your hate.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:11 | link | comments

Blast from the past: Architectural historian and BBC broadcaster Dan Cruickshank recounts his visit to Herat, Afghanistan where he saw the amazing leaning minaret of Jam:

...After many hours we turned a corner and there - between a cleft in the mountains - I saw a man-made finger of architectural perfection pointing towards the heavens.

The minaret of Jam, in its secret valley, looked magical and mysterious, almost impossibly slender and vulnerable, surrounded by the raw and rugged power of nature.

Standing 65m high, it is the most significant architectural memorial to the Ghorid empire, which in the height of its glory, in the late 12th Century, dominated Afghanistan, modern Pakistan and parts of Iran and as far south as Delhi in India.

I was amazed by the quality of the bricks and its fine surface decoration.

The lower portion carries the entire 19th sura of the Koran and tells of the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ and of patriarchs such as Abraham and Isaac that are venerated by the three religions of The Book - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The minaret appears to me a reminder of the beliefs these religions have in common, and an appeal for tolerance and understanding.

But it is also emblazoned with other Koranic texts that were surely intended as a stern message to the Ghorid's Hindu enemies, who were viewed as idolatrous: "As for those who disbelieve in God... We have prepared a blazing Fire."...

Same old, same old.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:49 | link | comments

In olden days a glimpse of Jewry would often elicit fury now, heaven knows…: Israel provokes the same kind of irrational wrath that was once focused on “Jews,” as Barry Rubin explains in this analysis of an AP “blood libel”:

If I would choose one article in the Western media that I have read over many decades as the worst piece of anti-Israel propaganda of all, it might well be Karin Laub's April 26, 2008 piece, "Palestinian plight is flip side of Israel's independence joy."

Why? Because many articles have slandered Israel on various points or told falsehoods ranging from the disgusting to the humorous or been based on assumptions that were at odds with the truth. But in this case, the article encapsulates the way in which much of the world has turned from admiration to loathing of Israel, and the way in which Israel's destruction--which in other contexts would be seen as genocidal--has been justified.

Sound exaggerated? No doubt, reading the above two paragraphs would shock the author who, I believe, had no conscious intention of perpetuating such a verbal atrocity. It is, once again, the unchallenged myths that are blithely assumed, that do so much damage.

Let me explain, first briefly and then at length. Israel is the only country in the world which is regularly slated for extermination and it is certainly the one most reviled. Without entering into a discussion of why such extraordinary double standards are maintained the core issue is that Israel is allegedly an illegitimate country because it is founded on the theft of other's property and the suffering of other people.

This is the modern equivalent of the blood libel, which held that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood for the Passover matzoh. But if that myth is too exotic for people remember that its "secular" equivalent was responsible for even more anti-Semitic persecution. That was the idea that any Jewish prosperity was based on the blood-sucking of Christian peasants or of society at large.

In this case, Israel is said to have murdered, ethnically cleansed and otherwise persecuted the Palestinians. Therefore, nothing it does can be good, no achievement of itself counts, and it has no right to self-defense. Obviously, such claims are often greatly diluted but nonetheless rest on this basis.

The Laub article is a systematic restatement of this thesis. To begin with, it is extraordinarily long for an AP article, 1,724 words. If this isn't a record for an AP dispatch, it must be up near the top. Obviously, this is a message that the AP editors are especially eager to convey: that everything Israel has is at Palestinian expense.

That this is a lie can be explained on many levels but at least two must be presented here. First, why is this measure applied only to Israel, and certainly only to Israel on an existential basis? It is well-known, certainly, that Germany has taken responsibility for Nazi crimes, and also there are applications for reimbursement of Jewish property seized in eastern Europe during the Nazi period.

Yet most countries are founded on expropriation, often of Jewish property. For example, Oxford University, where recently debates were conducted calling for Israel's destruction, was started on property stolen from Jews expelled in 1290. Far more recently, many Arab states received a huge infusion of capital from the expropriation of Jewish property after Israel's creation. Does France's or Britain's or Belgium's independence day require discussion of colonial depredations? We don't read articles that Japan's independence day is blighted by Chinese or Korean suffering, though the Japanese did engage in mass murder of those people. What about the fact that every country in the Western Hemisphere is based on the suffering of the indigenous natives? Or even in the case of Russia, given Czarist and Soviet behavior? In no case, however, is far worse behavior said to have poisoned any other country's very existence.

But perhaps even more important is the question of where true responsibility for Palestinian suffering lies…

AP, naturlich, tries to make the case that it lies primarily with the Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:29 | link | comments

Military “intelligence”: Judith Miller reports on American efforts to “deprogram” prisoners in Iraq. Oh, not the die-hard extremist types who are inspired by core Islamic teachings to wage a holy war on the infidel until the day when, as foretold by Allah, Dar al-Islam will be on top; there’s probably no way to reach them. No, the U.S. military is said to be having some success with the “could go either way” types, the ones who are supposedly motivated not by jihad, but by moolah. These types, it seems, may be quite amenable to hearing the Koran’s “real message”. From the New York Post:

…Some 78 percent said they'd participated in attacks against Coalition forces to feed their families, and 79 percent have children. Only one in three said that they had a strong religious belief. Some 64 percent are illiterate.

A major tipping point, say officers, was when detainees began volunteering for the classes being offered. Although al Qaeda detainees and the Takfiris (another group of religious extremists) pressured fellow Iraqis against joining in, more than 3,000 detainees have done so.

"After Iraqis here learn how to read and write, they can read the Koran themselves for the first time," says Sheik Ali, a Sunni who counsels detainees. (Like most Iraqis working in the program, he declined to give his surname; he must live in a US-guarded compound to avoid reprisals.) "I've seen detainees break down and cry when they realize that the conduct they thought was sanctioned by God is actually a sin."

The program's not cheap. The task force will spend about $1 billion this year, including new-facility construction. But a continued insurgency would be even more costly - in American and Iraqi lives.

And it has its critics. Marc Sageman, a psychiatrist, former CIA case officer and expert in Islamic radicalization, sees promise - but says that it's too early to call the program a success. He also fears that many detainees deemed to be de-radicalized, and then released to the still-unstable outside environment, may eventually revert to their former militancy and violent habits…

Which is not unlikely when they discover that their deprogrammers have purposely left out the Koran’s nasty bits, the ones which justify and sanctify the jihad.

My reading of this “program”: the whole thing is a complete waste of time and money because it fails to address the underlying cause of the jihad—Islamic scripture and the example of Muhammad, the first, and still the best, jihadi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:30 | link | comments

Reserving judgement: In a review of My Father’s Country, a book in which German journalist Wibke Bruhns tries to comprehend her parents and their generation's veneration of Hitler (Bruhn’s father was executed for being on the periphery of a failed plot to kill the fuhrer), U of T history professor Modris Eksteins offers this peculiar analysis. From the Globe and Mail (my bolds):

…The upshot was that Hitler and his movement, while vilified in the family as a manifestation of the mob before 1933, came to be celebrated and promoted once in power. Her father, veteran of the Great War, merchant and municipal councillor, enlisted in the SS within months of Hitler's accession to office; her mother joined the local leadership of the National Socialist Women's League. Nazi songs and slogans resounded in the grand Klamroth villa, built in 1911 for Wibke's grandfather by Hermann Muthesius, one of the most distinguished architects of the day.

Wibke Bruhns finds all of this excruciating. Everywhere, she finds seeds of later iniquity. It was her grandfather who developed a passion for genealogical research; the family archive was largely his doing. Her response: "I find it hard to see this dotty research as entirely innocent," and she draws a straight line to the family's Aryan pronouncements about itself after 1933. Aside from private protest by her mother about the bestiality of Kristallnacht, she finds no other overt expressions of sympathy for the plight of the Jews. Rather than applauding her mother, the daughter is upset by the inaction.

Alas, in this account and its accompanying judgments, one is reminded of the tunnel vision of an earlier Anglo-American historiography that saw the roots of Nazism in Luther, Hegel, Nietzsche and even Arminius, who defeated the mighty Roman army in the Teutoburg Forest. Yet, even if one is prepared to view Nazism as more than a dire response to the deepest and darkest crisis a modern society has ever faced - a calamitous lost war and back-to-back economic disasters of nightmarish proportions - why should these discoveries about her family be so surprising for Bruhns?

She is, after all, a veteran of her own lesser wars, especially those of the 1960s, when she espoused, as she admits, an innocent Marxism. In that tumultuous decade and its aftermath, under a mix of idealism and hardnosed "extraparliamentary opposition," a whole German generation repudiated the values of its elders because they were so badly compromised. Youth despised its progenitors for their silence after 1945 and, according to a famous catchphrase, their "inability to mourn." Did Bruhns later really expect that her parents had been so terribly different? "The effect of the yapping gnome [Hitler] is a mystery to me," she says at one point. With that admission of incomprehension, how can she then pretend to judge her parents and their contemporaries? She seems more interested in testing her forebears by her own standards than in understanding their anxieties and motivations.

Come again? You mean she’s not allowed to “judge” them because she can’t understand Hitler’s appeal? You mean only someone who was there at the time and has fallen under his spell is qualified to”judge”?

What bunk! By that standard, no one would be allowed to “judge” any historical event, since they were not there and could only “pretend” to “understand” the “anxieties and motivations” of the people at the time—and there would be no need for historians like Eksteins.

For reasons that are a mystery to me, Eksteins seems profoundly unsympathetic to Bruhns (and rather more sympathetic to the plight of the Germans and their "calamities"). I guess that makes me unqualified to “pretend” to “judge” his review.

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

Fatah’s uncertain future: In an apparent fit of dementia, the U.S. has pinned its hopes for “peace” on the health and well-being of faux-moderate, Mahmoud Abbas. What happens, though, if Abbas, whose heart, along with being two sizes too small is also a bit iffy these day, isn’t physically up to the demands of leadership? Who, oh, who, will replace him? Israel-bashing news agency AP has a run-down of the scoundrels-in-waiting. From the Boston Globe:

…At the time of his 2005 angiogram, Abbas said he hoped to name a vice president who could succeed him if he were incapacitated. But he never followed through, in part because the rival Hamas militant group swept parliamentary elections soon after.

Hamas subsequently seized control of the Gaza Strip from Abbas's forces, leaving the Palestinians with two rival governments.

Under Palestinian law, the parliament speaker is supposed to serve as a caretaker president if a sitting president is incapacitated, until new elections are held.

But Abbas's Fatah party is unlikely to cede control to the current speaker, Aziz Duaik, who is a member of Hamas, or call new elections in the current environment.

Further complicating matters, Duaik has been imprisoned by Israel, which considers Hamas a terrorist group. Abbas's likely successor in Fatah, Marwan Barghouti, also is in prison, serving five life terms for involvement in deadly attacks on Israelis…

Sounds like mighty slim pickings. One might even venture that Abbas’s demise and Fatah’s demise could well occur, well, concurrently.

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

Elegy for a bigot: Jeremiah Wright--gone to his Earthly "reward" :

Weep ye not for Reverend Wright

As he goes gentle into that good night.

A cushy retirement;

A humungous house:

An undeserved payoff

For a racist louse.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:20 | link | comments

"The 'mujahedeen', holy warriors who belong to the Muslim 'ummah', are waging a 'jihad' against 'infidels' in order to install a 'caliphate'", first over 'Dar al-Islam', but, ultimately, over 'Dar al-Harb', too": A sentence you won't be reading in U.S. government reports.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:12 | link | comments

Dow’s dangerous suggestion: Dow Marmur, rabbi emeritus of Toronto’s largest Reform synagogue, Holy Blossom, and occasional columnist in the Toronto Star, says that, “for the sake of peace,” Jerusalem should be divided.

…For me, like for countless others, Jerusalem has magic and meaning beyond words. But my religious commitment doesn't depend on how much territory it occupies. Precisely because I love it so much, and even though I know that Jews were there before others who now claim it as theirs, I accept that Palestinians, too, should have a share in it.

I am, therefore, among those who believe that for the sake of peace, the city could be divided again. If the Palestinians want to call its part Al-Quds and proclaim it as their capital, Jews should learn to live with it – on condition, of course, that access to the holy places of all faiths remains totally free.

Many say that this isn't realistic. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza two years ago, which carried the prospect of peace, has brought Iran, through its proxy Hamas, to Israel's borders. Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem may lead to something similar. That's why Israel may now have to hold its nose and negotiate with Hamas. Even then, however, the question of Jerusalem can only be resolved after all other matters have been dealt with…

If “peace” were indeed a real possibility instead of chimera, a figment, a fantasy, an illusion, I might—might—be willing to entertain the idea. But since “peace” is a non-starter as long as Israel is considered an “insult” to Islam—in other words, for the foreseeable future and beyond—then it is both absurd and irresponsible to even suggest “negotiating with Hamas” or “dividing” Jerusalem.

Clueless lefty Jews: can’t live with ‘em; can’t shut ‘em up.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:59 | link | comments

A kinder, gentler, Islam: A gift to Pakistan, land of umpteen extremist madrassahs. From the New York Times (the article, not the gift):

KARACHI, Pakistan — Praying in Pakistan has not been easy for Mesut Kacmaz, a Muslim teacher from Turkey.

He tried the mosque near his house, but it had Israeli and Danish flags painted on the floor for people to step on. The mosque near where he works warned him never to return wearing a tie. Pakistanis everywhere assume he is not Muslim because he has no beard.

“Kill, fight, shoot,” Mr. Kacmaz said. “This is a misinterpretation of Islam.”

But that view is common in Pakistan, a frontier land for the future of Islam, where schools, nourished by Saudi and American money dating back to the 1980s, have spread Islamic radicalism through the poorest parts of society. With a literacy rate of just 50 percent and a public school system near collapse, the country is particularly vulnerable.

Mr. Kacmaz (pronounced KATCH-maz) is part of a group of Turkish educators who have come to this battleground with an entirely different vision of Islam. Theirs is moderate and flexible, comfortably coexisting with the West while remaining distinct from it. Like Muslim Peace Corps volunteers, they promote this approach in schools, which are now established in more than 80 countries, Muslim and Christian.

Their efforts are important in Pakistan, a nuclear power whose stability and whose vulnerability to fundamentalism have become main preoccupations of American foreign policy. Its tribal areas have become a refuge to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and the battle against fundamentalism rests squarely on young people and the education they get.

At present, that education is extremely weak. The poorest Pakistanis cannot afford to send their children to public schools, which are free but require fees for books and uniforms. Some choose to send their children to madrasas, or religious schools, which, like aid organizations, offer free food and clothing. Many simply teach, but some have radical agendas. At the same time, a growing middle class is rejecting public schools, which are chaotic and poorly financed, and choosing from a new array of private schools.

The Turkish schools, which have expanded to seven cities in Pakistan since the first one opened a decade ago, cannot transform the country on their own. But they offer an alternative approach that could help reduce the influence of Islamic extremists.

They prescribe a strong Western curriculum, with courses, taught in English, from math and science to English literature and Shakespeare. They do not teach religion beyond the one class in Islamic studies that is required by the state. Unlike British-style private schools, however, they encourage Islam in their dormitories, where teachers set examples in lifestyle and prayer.

“Whatever the West has of science, let our kids have it,” said Erkam Aytav, a Turk who works in the new schools. “But let our kids have their religion as well.”

That approach appeals to parents in Pakistan, who want their children to be capable of competing with the West without losing their identities to it. Allahdad Niazi, a retired Urdu professor in Quetta, a frontier town near the Afghan border, took his son out of an elite military school, because it was too authoritarian and did not sufficiently encourage Islam, and put him in the Turkish school, called PakTurk.

“Private schools can’t make our sons good Muslims,” Mr. Niazi said, sitting on the floor in a Quetta house. “Religious schools can’t give them modern education. PakTurk does both.”…

Fatwa coming in five, four, three…

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:16 | link | comments

Bill Moyers poses a timely question: Was  it was really what Wright said or was it because he's Black that he got in such hot water?

Um, the former.

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

 Many unhappy returns: Here’s how some European “critics of Israel”—many of them Jewish—are planning to “celebrate” Israel’s 60^th. From JTA:

….Observers do not expect this year’s decadal anniversary to galvanize larger than usual pro-Palestinian protests for Israel’s Independence Day, and certainly not larger protests than those that surrounded last year’s 40th anniversary of Israel’s conquest of the West Bank, event organizers said.

But the Israel 60 celebrations are prompting some groups to organize alternative ways to mark Israel’s Independence Day for those with more ambivalent feelings about the nation.

“The majority of Jews in Europe who think about Israel want to participate in events that celebrate this anniversary,” said Tony Lehrman, the director of the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research, but “there is a far more significant sector now than before that feels there is nothing to celebrate.”

In Holland, the group A Different Jewish Voice is marking the anniversary by inviting eight Israeli peace activists to a May 7 forum in Amsterdam and a speaking tour of the country. Its Web site says the group “tries to broaden the public debate in the Netherlands about the Middle East conflict and its still one-sided pro-Israel approach.”

The invited activists include Nurit Peled-Elhanan, a founder of the International Committee on Education and Occupation who lost her daughter in a suicide bombing; Esther Goldenberg of Zochrot, which educates the Israeli public about the 1948 Palestinian exodus; and representatives of Combatants for Peace, ex-Israeli soldiers and ex-Palestinian combatants seeking nonviolent solutions to the conflict.

In Germany, perhaps Israel’s strongest European ally, Jewish groups critical of the country's support for Israel joined with Muslim and Christian protesters outside the Federal Chancellery on the eve of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to Jerusalem last month. About 80 protesters turned up.

Organizers for a similar event planned for May 15 include supporters of Jewish Voice for a Just Peace and a German Palestinian group.

Palestinians also expect to hold a Nakba demonstration May 14 at St. Paul's Church in Frankfurt, which could attract thousands.

In Britain, a coalition of pro-Palestinian organizations led by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign will hold a "Free Palestine" event May 10 in Trafalgar Square. Last year the same coalition organized a rally that drew thousands to the square for a protest of 40 years of Israeli occupation since 1967.

Organizations supporting the demonstration include British trade unions, anti-war groups, Islamists and a Jewish-Marxist association.

Also, the Islamic Human Rights Commission is putting on a conference at the Islamic Centre of England, a group closely associated with the Iranian government, on “Human Rights and Israel.” A description of the May 6 conference reads: “2008 sees the 60th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights and the creation of Israel. This conference discusses the conflicting paths of these projects."…

Not on the agenda (for obvious reasons): the conflicting paths of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam—a discussion which would help put the “conflict” with Israel in context.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:52 | link | comments

Just do it!: In a line imbued with the same kind of righteous fury as Ronald Reagan’s impassioned, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!,” Rex Murphy beseeches the Canadian P.M., “Mr. Harper: Tame these commissions.”

…These [human rights] commissions have stealthily migrated from their original and defined mandate to prevent discrimination in housing or employment, from deeds of discrimination, to an activist and capricious role of monitoring speech or thought. Under the hopelessly elastic and malleable rubric of “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” they investigate and rule on everything from bishops to magazine editors, from genital surgery to hand-washing protocols at McDonald's.

A single complaint triggers their attention and zeal. Their procedures conform to a pattern known only to them. They leave those complained against to endure the process entirely on their own resources, while those who lay a complaint are nursed with all the resources of the state. Their writ runs from letters to the editor to the furthest reaches of the Internet.

Complaints may be started and then idly dropped by the complainant without penalty or indeed remark from the commissions concerned. This was the case just recently when one of the complaints against former publisher Ezra Levant, for publishing the controversial Mohammed cartoons, was withdrawn by the Calgary imam who first brought it. Mr. Levant, for nearly a year bore, the cost of the aborted “investigation” and wore the shadow of having been under investigation for exposing people to hatred and contempt – not a pretty allegation for a citizen of an exemplarily tolerant country. And then “poof” the process ends, without comment, apology or compensation. Eerily, another on the identical issue, still continues.

The rulings of human rights commissions have the flavour of an agenda. They seem to have a problem with traditional religious organizations and religious speech. They are the very hall prefects of “progressive” political correctness, answerable in their judgments and methods it seems only to themselves.

These commissions have wandered so far from their original purpose as to be, in these matters of speech and expression, disowned by the respected civil libertarian Alan Borovoy, who more than any other man brought them, in their early restricted mandate, to birth. They are, in their very real capacity as censors and judges on what is to be said and not to be said, a noxious blot on the central dynamic of any self-respecting democracy…

Yet Mr. Harper, with all his tactical prowess, has let the controversy over human rights commissions go on without so much as a comment. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, outlandishly, can decline the now celebrated complaint against Maclean's and then proceed to mercilessly slag Maclean's, in public, and Mr. Harper's Tories sheepishly let the whole mess pass by without a word…

This parallel legal system (as Mark Steyn describes it) is a disgrace and a national embarrassment. It makes a mockery of centuries of Western jurisprudence. The time is nigh, Mr. Harper, to contain the Frankenstein monster before it can do any more lasting damage.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:59 | link | comments (2)

Tactical intransigence: Israel has made a tactical decision to defend its citizens from terrorist attack. As intrusive outsiders see it, though, in so doing it is stubbornly impeding the sacred "peace process”.

Tough toenails. Jewish lives are far more important than a bogus “process” that will further weaken Israel and lay the groundwork for the only type of “peace” the Palestinians are willing to accept—the “peace” of Israel’s non-existence.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:15 | link | comments

 Hall’s 1984 Animal Farm: Commissar Barbara Hall of the Ontario Human Rights Commission explains in a letter to Maclean’s magazine that four legs are good, while, conversely, two legs are bad.

No, strike that. What she really wants us to know is that while all rights are equal, when push comes to shove, some rights are more equal than other rights. (In the photo that accompanies the letter, the shambolic former mayor of Toronto appears to be dressed as a lumberjack. Memo to Babs: fire your stylist. Or, better yet, hire one):

…We need to keep in mind that freedom of expression is not the only right in the Charter. There is a full set of rights accorded to all members of our society, including freedom from discrimination. No single right is any more or less important than another. And the enjoyment of one depends on the enjoyment of the other. This means that if you want to stand up and defend the right to free expression them you must be willing to do the same for the right to freedom from discrimination…

Au contraire, Comrade. For a society to remain free, the right to free expression must override the right to freedom from discrimination, since free expression is something real and tangible and the cornerstone of Western civilization, while the right to freedom from discrimination is a squishy, fuzzy, insubstantial concept that has been compromised by Marxist theorists and whose definition seems to depend entirely on who’s doing the complaining and who’s entertaining the complaint. In the case of Elmasry vs. Macleans, there is nothing “discriminatory” about refusing to allow him to commandeer an issue of a privately-owned publication in order to “set people straight” about Islam; in Islamic terms, that’s dawa—religious proselytizing, designed to win friends and “reverts” and soften up the rest of the gullible, Kool-Aid quaffing kafirs for the one, the only, the Godly law of Islam.

Go ahead. Ask Elmasry, an unapologetic Islamist, if he thinks the right to freedom from discrimination should—what’s that word again?—oh, yeah, “supersede” the right to free expression (and maybe hook him up to a polygraph machine while doing the asking). I’d wager my five volume set of the complete works of Mark Steyn that the answer would be, “You bet your cushy sinecure I do.”

I would also like the comrade to know that I am fully capable of "enjoying" my right to free expression without simultaneously "enjoying" (hah!) Mo's "right" to shove sharia down our thoats.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:15 | link | comments (1)

My couplet runneth over: I haven’t been paying too much attention to the Londonistan race for mayor in Londonistan, so I have nothing to say about the odious Ken’s competitor. All I know about him is that he has the same first name with the guy who played Dracula in the 1930s, and that the British media keep referring to him as “shambolic”. The word “shambolic” sounds a bit like “diabolical”  but is actually You Kay slang for “disorderly”. I’m pretty sure that the adjective is not a slur on Boris’s organizational capacities, but a reference to his iffy grooming habits, including an unruly head of hair that makes him look a bit like a younger, blonder, beefier Professor Irwin Corey.

I am delighted to hear, though, that the shambolic one has triumphed. My glee is such that I have already taken the liberty of penning a farewell poem to the non-shambolic (i.e. well nigh bald) loser:

Ta ta, fare thee ill to you, wretched Ken.
May your like we never see again.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:42 | link | comments (2)

“Crime” and punishment: A group of Canadian lawyers is spearheading a drive to save the life of a Palestinian who has been sentenced to death by a P.A. court. His crime? He prevented a terrorist from attacking Israelis.

Do we need any more evidence of the way the P.A. has turned morality on its ear. George? Condi?

Anyone home?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:01 | link | comments (1)

Morris’s terrible mischief: How do lefty academics blacken the reputation of the Jewish state? Fudging the truth through the wilful mistranslation of historical documents helps, as historian Ephraim Karsh explains in the New York Sun (my bolds):

Benny Morris, the Israeli “new historian,” probably doesn’t know it, but it was his book on “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem” (1987) that led me more than a decade ago to temporarily shelve my research into the history of Islam and the Middle East and join the debate on the origin of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This happened when, purely by accident, I noticed a glaring contradiction between the English and Hebrew renditions of an October 1937 letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son. The English version had Ben-Gurion say: “We must expel Arabs and take their places”; the Hebrew edition represented him as saying precisely the opposite. An examination of the original document unequivocally settled the matter. It read: “We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption — proven throughout all our activity — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.”

To ascertain whether this was an isolated case of misrepresentation or a pervasive phenomenon, I undertook to carefully examine all the documentation used by Mr. Morris with regard to early Zionist attitudes toward the Arabs. In quick time, I was taken aback by the systematic falsification of evidence aimed at casting Zionism as “a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement ... intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs.” This ranged from the more “innocent” act of reading into documents what was not there, to tendentious truncation of source material in a way that distorted its original meaning, to rewriting of original texts to say what they did not mean, as he did with Ben-Gurion’s aforementioned letter.

As our exchanges reached ever-growing audiences, Mr. Morris was forced to concede that his “treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial,” and that he had “stretched” evidence to make his point. He also removed, in an implicit acknowledgment of their inaccuracy, some of the most egregious misquotes about transfer in “The Birth,” and admitted that in writing the book, he had not “had access” to — elsewhere, he says he “was not aware of” — the voluminous documents in the archives of the Israeli institutions whose actions in 1948 formed the main part of his indictment.

This, nevertheless, did not prevent him from claiming, in a revised edition of “The Birth” published in 2004, that “the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology” and could be traced back not only to the 1930s, as he claimed before, but to the father of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl. (True to nature, Mr. Morris based his charge on a truncated paragraph from Herzl’s diary, which had already been a feature of Palestinian propaganda for decades, and which referred not to Palestine but rather to Argentina, considered at the time by Herzl as the future site of Jewish resettlement.)

It is doubtful whether Mr. Morris even believed his own thesis. Certainly, in numerous press articles and media appearances over the past eight years, he has totally reversed the core of his historical narrative, claiming that while “the Zionist movement agreed to give up its dream of ‘Greater Israel’ and to divide Palestine with the Arabs” as long ago as the 1930s and ’40s, “the Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has denied the Zionist movement any legitimacy and stuck fast to the vision of a ‘Greater Palestine,’ meaning a Muslim-Arab populated and Arab-controlled state in all of Palestine.”

This belated acknowledgment of the truth about the Arab-Israeli conflict, to which he had willfully turned a blind eye for decades, won Mr. Morris the ire of former allies and admirers — such as the notorious duo Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer — who continued to use his academic writings in their Israel-bashing endeavors…

Karsh's "gotcha" may have resulted in Morris belatedly trying too make amends (too late, Benny; the damage has been done), but for most anti-Zionist academics, these revelations won’t make an iota of difference. To them, “the truth” is far less important than their phony-baloney narrative about the Jews “stealing” Arab land.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:43 | link | comments (2)

The fallout of Fitna: So how’s that Muslim boycott of Dutch goods going? According to a report in Arab News, it seems to be having a great impact—on the poor Saudi grocers who have been forced to swallow the cost of unsold items on their store shelves. At the same time, its impact on the Dutch has been profound:

…Rob Dekker, spokesperson at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Amsterdam, said, “The Netherlands is aware of private initiatives that call, mostly through the Internet and SMS, for the consumer boycott of Dutch products in response to the release of the Internet film, Fitna, by an individual Member of Parliament who represents a minority opposition party.”

He added, “This concerns products that are being sold in very different types of markets in different countries. Currently there is no information available on the outcome of these private initiatives.”

Dekker added that the Dutch government is aware of the feelings that the film has evoked among Muslims.

“As you are aware the Netherlands government has made it clear from the start that it completely dissociates itself from the content of this film because of the views it expresses, its offensive generalizations and its polarizing effect. In no way does this film reflect the views or the policies of the Netherlands government. We regret Dutch trade and industry would experience negative consequences abroad for an Internet film it is not responsible for,” he said.

Grovel, scrape, bow, shuffle.

In other words, mission accomplished.

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

Ain’t that a kick in the head?: Now that we know what we do about Chicago’s Trinity United Church, its raving ex-rev, and its loopy Black Liberation Theology, the following passage from Bambi’s The Audacity of Hope (a phrase he borrowed from one of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons) seems more than a tad disingenuous:

In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world. In the day-to-day work of the men and women I met in church each day, in their ability to “make a way out of no way” and maintain hope and dignity in the direst of circumstances, I would see the Word made manifest…

It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspect critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or other retreat from the world I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany…

The “epiphany” that his relationship with Revered Wright and his racist theology would turn out to be a liability instead of an asset was to come much later. Too late, in fact.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:52 | link | comments

Give a hoot; don't pollute: Definitely not the Palestinian motto.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:17 | link | comments

Ken’s friends: Londonistan’s Marxist mayor is in the fight of his political life. No wonder he’s hauled out the “big guns” to help back him up. From the Telegraph:

Ken Livingstone defended his decision to share a platform with a homophobic Islamic preacher as he and his challenger, Boris Johnson, were neck and neck in the race for the capital yesterday.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi has described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating in certain circumstances.

The Qatar-based Egyptian cleric has also advocated the use of Palestinian children as suicide bombers and once claimed that Asian tsunami victims were punished by Allah because their countries were centres of perversion.

But speaking on BBC1's Politics Show yesterday, the London Mayor insisted he was right to welcome the cleric to City Hall as an "honoured guest" in July 2004. He said that while he did not agree with some of his views, al-Qaradawi did not support terrorism against the West. "He is a man who is prepared to say al-Qa'eda is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation," he said.

Mr Livingstone's liberal approach to controversial figures such as al-Qaradawi has won him a friend in Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian supporter of Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel...

Oh, look. Some British Jews who are likely to be on side with Hizzoner’s “liberal approach”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:37 | link | comments (1)

Looking for “reality” in the Arab world: The vicissitudes of reality TV, Arab style. From the Ceeb (of course):

…Big Brother Bahrain was an unequivocal disaster. MBC assumed that filming the show in the Persian Gulf’s most liberal — some might say debauched — sheikhdom would alleviate the following problem: a raging crowd pouring forth from a large mosque, inflamed by an imam’s passionate speech, converging on a television studio, looking to increase ratings for all the wrong reasons.

“It didn’t matter that women and men were in different dormitories [on the show],” says Badih Fattouh, head of acquisitions and drama commissioner for MBC. “It just mattered that young women and men were free in that way. We say fine – for the safety of the people, and for the safety of Bahrain – we lose $9 million. So, we bear the loss.”)

The safety of Bahrain? “Oh yes,” says Fattouh. “In the majlis [parliament], they were questioning the [country’s] minister of information, querying how he could have allowed such a thing. It was a huge problem.”

Ronny Jazzar, working out of Beirut, enjoyed marginally more social freedom. But his next project looked like a nuclear explosion in waiting. American Idol was setting unprecedented ratings records in the States; first season winner Kelly Clarkson was an international superstar. Talent shows have a storied history in the Arab world, and Jazzar wanted to jump from the Miss Lebanon model to produce an Endemol-developed Idol/Big Brother hybrid called Star Academy. The idea was to bring together young, beautiful guys and dolls from different regions of the Arab world to live in a compound called the “Academy” and make sweet pop music for a grand prize.

This meant all sorts of potential cultural snafus. “We were a little bit scared,” deadpans Jazzar. But LBC could get away with things that MBC could not.

Debuting in 2003, Star Academy became, arguably, the most successful Arab television show in recent history. (There are no reliable rating systems for television satellite stations in the developing world.) The show’s brilliance lay in its pan-Arabism, its adaptation of text messaging to communicate with its audience and its careful management of male/female interaction — the men and women stayed in separate dormitories and held to strict codes of conduct. Star Academy, which is still going strong, never strained to break cultural barriers. It slid along on glittered wheels, selling wholesome, pan-regional entertainment to maybe the most circumspect audience in the world.

That’s not to say there weren’t hitches. Authorities in ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia shut down cellular services on Star Academy voting nights; kids worked around the networks, sending in their votes by texting from their computers. Given this level of popular support in the Kingdom, it was no surprise that a Saudi named Hisham Abdulrahman won the second season. I have seen Star Academy paraphernalia in Palestinian refugee camps in northern Lebanon; in limousines in Doha, Qatar; in malls in Dubai; and at a house party in Damascus, Syria. It’s a regional phenomenon…

Maybe so, but it’s no Farfour.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:16 | link | comments

Change of venue: There may still be a UN conference on Israel-elimination, er, racism next year, but it looks like it won't be taking place in Durban.

Rats! Now what am I going to do with all the t-shirts and bumper stickers I had printed up ("Durban II--It's Judenhasseriffic!")?

Oh, well. I hear Tehran is nice that time of year.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:36 | link | comments

Feel the love: Here’s the definition of Black Liberation Theology (the “theology” which animates Bambi’s church), according to James Cone, the guy who came up with it. From Wikipedia:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

How spiritual. I must be pretty dense, because this type of “theology”—a theology grounded in hatred, not love; revenge, not forgiveness—sound every big as repugnant as the “theology” espoused by white racists. Also, is it just me, or does all the talk about the "holy activity" of  destroying one’s enemy sound eerily reminiscent of the “theology” that’s the basis of the jihad?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments (1)

Where have all the high-profile Obama boosters gone? Gone into hiding, every one.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:13 | link | comments (2)

And now for something completely different: Tired of all the obits of the Jewish state on the occasion of its 60^th birthday? I know I am. Here’s a refreshing change of pace by Melanie Phillips—the cover story in the current Spectator:

Melanie Phillips says that the prosperity and growing cultural confidence of Israel is a fitting riposte to the Western intelligentsia, American meddling and the daily propaganda assault that ignores the Islamisation of the Palestinians

What would Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion have said if, on the day that he declared the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, he had known that six decades thence Israel would be encircled by its enemies, hopelessly outnumbered and fighting for its existence? He would surely have said: so what’s new?

Next week, on 8 May, Israel celebrates the 60th anniversary of that declaration. With every decade that it clocks up, people ask the same question: will Israel still be there for the next one? It is indeed astonishing that it has not only survived but is flourishing. Its situation as a permanently embattled nation is unique. On the day after Ben-Gurion declared its independence, six Arab armies invaded and tried to wipe it out. With the current exception of Egypt and Jordan, the Arab and Muslim world has been trying ever since.

Israel is the only country whose creation was approved by the UN; yet it is the only country whose legitimacy is called into question. It is the only country which the world requires to compromise with its Palestinian Arab attackers and accede to their demands, even while they are firing rockets at its schools and houses and blowing up its citizens. It is the only country which continues to provide electricity and basic services to those attackers and routinely treats thousands of Palestinians in its own hospitals, even those who have Israeli blood on their hands. And yet it is the only country which, in the court of public opinion, is condemned for behaving ‘disproportionately’ when it uses targeted military means to defend itself, and is accused of causing the very ‘Nazi’ or ‘apartheid’ atrocities of which it itself is the victim.

At present, the situation looks particularly ominous. Israel is menaced on several fronts by Iran which, racing to develop a nuclear weapon, is threatening a new genocide of the Jews while denying the last one. In Lebanon Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Iranian-sponsored army Hezbollah, which is once again armed with thousands of rockets, says the next attack on Israel is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 Iranian-backed Hamas, which is pledged to wipe out Israel and every Jew, has built a well-trained standing army of at least 20,000 men and a huge arsenal of weapons smuggled in from Egypt, and relentlessly attacks Israel with rockets and bombs.

It is widely expected that, once Independence Day is over and President Bush has returned home from his celebratory visit, Israel will finally mount a major incursion into Gaza to deal with Hamas. If it does, Western opinion, which largely ignores Israeli victimisation, can be guaranteed to cry ‘atrocity’ once again. And just as before, Hamas will deliberately place women and children in the line of fire to maximise civilian casualties in order further to inflame that opinion.

For Israel finds itself trapped by a pincer movement of military and psychological attack from not only the Arab and Muslim world but also the West. And Britain, whose intelligentsia has swallowed wholesale Arab and Muslim lies, is the Western leader of those baying for Israel’s head. Thanks to the poison spread by the British media, the universities, NGOs and the churches, Israel has been systematically demonised and delegitimised.

Few are aware, for example, how both Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately position both terrorists and weaponry in densely populated civilian areas, using women and children as human shields. While British headlines scream at Israel for causing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, few are aware that Hamas has been stealing fuel supplies intended for Gaza’s population and blowing up the crossing points to provoke Israel into closing them, to escalate the conflict and inflame the world. Even fewer are aware that many of the most inflammatory images from the region are fabricated, since both Hamas and Hezbollah routinely stage ‘atrocities’ or artificially exaggerate incidents using doctored footage — courtesy of British journalists who are threatened with murder or kidnap if they fail to toe the line.

More fundamentally, the obsessional demonisation of Israel is based on a false set of beliefs taken straight from Arab propaganda — that as a result of Holocaust guilt, Israel was created when a load of European Jews with no claim to the land were dumped on Palestine, driving out its rightful Arab Muslim inhabitants…

Please read the whole thing, for yeah, verily, 'tis most grand.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:42 | link | comments

False humility: The candidate who earned a law degree from elite Harvard University and who hobnobs with the glitterati is whinging that his ‘umble origins (cue the violins) preclude his being “an elitist.” From Reuters (my bolds):

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Thursday said he had grown up in less privileged circumstances than his rivals as he fought a perception among some voters that he is "elitist."

In an interview on NBC's "Today Show," Obama sought to explain a series of missteps that have dogged his candidacy over the past month and led some voters to conclude that he is out of touch.

"The irony is, I think it is fair to say that both Michelle and I grew up in much less privileged circumstances than either of my two potential opponents," Obama said in an interview with his wife, Michelle, at his side.

Obama's Kenyan father was largely absent from his life as a child, and his mother raised him with the help of his grandparents.

His rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, grew up in an affluent suburb of Chicago as the daughter of a small-business owner. The Republican candidate for the November presidential election, John McCain, is the son and grandson of Navy admirals.

Obama's front-runner status for the Democratic nomination has eroded in recent weeks amid a firestorm over racially charged remarks by his former pastor and his own comments at a San Francisco fund-raiser that small-town voters are "bitter" and "cling" to guns and religion.

"The comments I made in San Francisco at the end of a very long day were very poorly phrased," Obama said. "I should have said 'angry and frustrated' instead of 'bitter.' I should have said, people 'rely on' their religious faith during these times of trouble, instead of 'cling to.'" …

Yeah, I'm sure that would have made all the difference.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:28 | link | comments

Griping ‘bout ‘typing: An Arab is decrying the rampant “stereotyping” in Hollywood movies. From Reuters:

BEIRUT (Reuters) - American films and TV dramas shot since the September 11 attacks have reinforced screen images of Arabs and Muslims as fanatics and villains, ingraining harmful stereotypes, argues an author on the subject.

In his book "Guilty -- Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs after 9/11", Jack Shaheen praises some post-September 11 films for offering a more sympathetic image of Arabs and Muslims, who he argues have been castigated for decades by Hollywood.

But he says that too many have portrayed them in ever darker shades, criticizing films including "The Kingdom" (2007) and "The Four Feathers" (2002) and condemning the creation of a new "Arab-American bogeyman" in TV dramas such as "24".

"In the United States, you can say anything you want about Islam and Arabs and get away with it. In other words, as someone said, 'You can hit an Arab free'," said Shaheen -- also author of "Reel Bad Arabs -- How Hollywood Vilifies a People".

Shaheen, an American of Lebanese descent, has examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films, including more than 100 shot since September 11.

From action movies such as "True Lies" (1994) to comedies including "Father of the Bride Part II" (1995) and Disney's animated "Aladdin" (1992), Shaheen identifies films that have perpetuated damaging stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims.

"The images have remained primarily fixed and have only been changed in the sense that they have become more vindictive and damaging," he told Reuters in an interview in Beirut.

"What enables these images to persist and prevail? One of the primary reasons is silence," said Shaheen, a retired professor of mass communications who worked as a consultant on "Syriana" (2005) and "Three Kings" (1999).

"There's nobody in authority, no political leader, no Hollywood personality who has taken a stand and said that demonizing Arabs and Muslims is the same as demonizing Jews or blacks or Asians or any other racial or ethnic group."…

How hilarious! The reason Shaheen’s most recent examples of Hollywood “stereotyping” date from the 90s is because, prior to 9/11, there were no worries about trampling on the tender sensibilities of folks who shared the same religious affiliation as the “tiny minority of extremists” who were waging violent jihad.

Since then it’s been mostly hands off any mention of the jihad as Hollywood films feature villains who are A.B.M--anything BUT Muslim (eee-vil corporations and their eee-vil minions being the most popular villain du jour).

Instead of damning Hollywood, Shaheen should be praising it, especially since he seems to be earning good coin helping it toe the p.c. line. If anyone’s responsible for the bad P.R., it isn’t the wee timorous mouses of Tinsel Town, who have gone out of their way to avoid giving offense; it’s Osama bin Laden and his prayer stigmata’d second, Dr. al-Bizarri, along with all the explosive shahids.

Guys like this don't help, either:

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:01 | link | comments

Submit—or else!: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn muse on the Elmo shake-down—an event the sock puppet master declined to attend.

I’ve memorialized the proceedings in song—a Babs (Streisand, not Hall) standard:

Country has a racket,

Strictly second rate.

Pushy busy-bodies

Getting rid of “hate”.

“Human rights” the smokescreen.

Everyone “polite”.

Meanwhile the sharia’s

Hiding in plain sight.

 

You’ll see me nowhere around.

Where do I go?

That’s why they call me

“No-show Elmo”.

Even when I’ve organized a conf'rence

I’ll be notable there by my absence.

"No show Elmo"

For now I'll keep my head low.

The puppets speak for me

When I'm not there.

Once went on a cable show.

Oy! What a mistake.

I told the host that Israelis

Should all shake ‘n’ bake.

 

By now you must know

That I’m just "No-show Elmo"

From, yes, the CIC!

From, yes, the CIC! (See?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:24 | link | comments