scaramouche

Sunday, 31 May 2009

An evening with Elmo, his loyal sock puppet, and a Beeb “revert”: BCF, intrepid kafir, ventured into hostile territory to report on thought crime-complainant Mohamed Elmasry’s fundraising dinner for his latest baby, an online Islamist magazine called Canadian Charger (perhaps not the most well-chosen name, given that it conjures up images of marauding jihadis on horseback):

…Elmo took the floor and spoke of Canada's crying need for his new magazine. He showed a slide of a letter from then National Post owner Conrad Black advising Elmo that he had choices and if he didn't approve of the Post's coverage of Muslims he should start his own magazine. Elmo is obviously a slow learner, had he taken Black's advice to heart when first offered Macleans and Mark Steyn would never have been dragged through the morass of Canada's Kangaroo Human Rights Kourts.

Then the evening took an almost pathetic turn. Elmo began his fundraising effort in earnest. He asked the crowd, which numbered possibly 200 at most; Who would be the 1st to pledge Ten Thousand Dollars? An awkward and prolonged silence was met by a revised supplication. Who would be the 1st to pledge Five Thousand Dollars? Barely a murmur was heard. Plaintively Elmo asked; Who would be the 1st to pledge One Thousand Dollars? At this point I hung my head in a sense of shared embarrassment.

On to the auction. This segment fared somewhat better. A series of paintings by Hamilton resident Dr. Ibrahim Shalaby did bring in some revenue with one piece going for $2500.00, another for $1500.00 and third for around a grand. Only half of the paintings offered sold, with a possible sale, at a reduced rate, for a 4th at evenings end.

Was the fundraising a success? I have no idea how much was donated privately via the envelopes provided, most of which were left behind, unused, at the nights end. I suspect Elmo's hopes were dashed. I saw no mass scribbling of cheques and of the few made out Elmo was forced to remind the crowd that they should be made payable to his not for profit Canadian Voices Corporation and not the Canadian Charger itself.

Also in attendance: sock thingy Karrum Awan. Awan is the male member of the triad of budding attorneys who fronted for Elmo during his, er, difficulties with Maclean’s Magazine and its mouthy “Islamophobe” Mark Steyn—a role Awan is apparently still delighted to play:

Nervously, Khurrum Awan introduced himself as the evenings MC. Stumbling but brief in his remarks, he outlined the events schedule - it was his only official appearance. A lawyer this ill at ease speaking in public should be a concern to any potential client.

The evening’s keynote speaker was Yvonne Ridley, the former Beeb reporter who famously “reverted” to the faith while being held hostage by some jihadis—making her a poster babe for Stockholm Syndrome:

Sister Ridley takes the stage. At this time I was joined by two gentleman who had assisted at the auction. They introduced themselves and I informed them of my identity - for the evening. We had a lively discussion on the subject of corporate concentration in the media.

Ridley described herself as being wrongfully portrayed as a Taliban apologist. She then proceeded to apologize for the Taliban throughout her address. Her talking points? Obama is worse than Bush and is behind the genocide taking place in Pakistan's Swat Valley. She thanked Allah for allowing her to be captured by the Taliban and not the USA. The bescarfed Ridley spoke also of Islam's commitment to women's equality. She railed at the western media for its wrongful portrayal of Muslims selectively citing the example of Pakistan's Red Mosque Girls efforts to close down a local brothel - Why anywhere else these girls would be lauded for their civic mindedness she declared, uh huh. And on and on it went until her talk was divinely interrupted by the call for Magreb prayer. A welcome smoke break for this Kuffar. Her diatribe ended shortly after our return.

Ridley was not the incendiary speaker I had expected, in fact hoped for. Truth be told the entire evening was a low key affair leaving me somewhat disappointed. No overt Jew Bashing only the the usual vilification of the "Zionist State". Of note she did pointedly ask at one point that if any members of the "mainstream media" were covering this event that she would be happy to clarify any remarks she may make leading me to suspect she had been advised to keep her comments in check. I base this suspicion also on her comments regarding a "Palestinian Key" she offered for auction. In describing the keys provenance she stated that she had been advised by Elmo not to reveal who had given her this gift. When the Key failed to attract significant bids she broke her silence informing us that the Key was a gift from the democratically elected President of Palestine - I assume she was referring to Khaled Mashaal leader of Hamas.

A Palestinian key, huh? No doubt it was most authentic, although I have it on good authority that, sixty years after the premises were vacated, the locks have all been changed. So get over yourselves and your silly keys already, Islamic supremacists!

That being said, I’d like to personally thank BCF for taking it upon himself to report on this event since, being a Yid, I wouldn’t have had the stomach to do so myself.

Update: Behold, the Mashaal key:

That must've been one helluva door. Who lived there--the Friendly Giant?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:31 | link | comments (5)

When the stereotyped stereotype: A NY Daily News pundit calls the Sotomayor appointment a “Supreme choice that shatters old sterotypes.”

Well, yes, in the sense that some people may “stereotype” Latinas as being like, say, Carmen Miranda and Jennifer Lopez, Sotomayor definitely breaks the mould. Then again, this “wise Latina,” as she has famously called herself, is guilty of some stereotyping herself, since she apparently believes that her gender and ethnicity endow her with greater wisdom and keener judgement than any old Caucasian male.

Proof yet again that just because you’re a member of a downtrodden minority doesn’t mean you can’t indulge in a little gratuitous racism.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:16 | link | comments

What’s on tap at Keffiyahpalooza?: Here’s a summary of one of the many scholarly papers that will be presented at York University’s upcoming Israel-bash (my bolds):

Yasmeen Abu-Laban

Department of Political Science, University of Alberta | Bio>>

Abigail B. Bakan

Department of Political Studies, Queen's University | Bio>>

Israel/Palestine and Apartheid South Africa: Implications of the Comparison for the "One-state Solution" in the Middle East

Although scholarly and political discussions highlighting the similarities and differences between Israel and Apartheid South Africa as settler-colonies go back many decades, since 2000 there has been a growing literature that draws parallels between the condition of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and the black population under Apartheid South Africa. Perhaps reflecting the inspiration of a post-Apartheid South Africa today, many authors representative of this new generation of work, including llan Pappe, Ghada Kharmi, Virginia Tilley, Salim Vally, and Uri Davis, also are proponents of a "one-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Drawing from the field of comparative politics in political science, this paper systematically assesses the utility of the Apartheid analogy and its implications for a "one-state solution." In light of state practices of differential treatment, citizenship and rights, and land access, we suggest that the analogy is essentially valid. It operates as a useful heuristic tool, and also supports an effective international mobilizing strategy. As we will detail, the comparison has been highlighted by major international political figures, including Bishop Desmond Tutu and United Nations Rapporteur John Dugard, and has attracted considerable media attention in both mainstream and alternative publications. Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has carried the analogy into popular discourse. Moreover, there is now a significant international social movement that explicitly identifies the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Apartheid South Africa as an effective strategy for raising awareness and support for a movement for Palestinian human rights.

Our analysis does not, however, assume an exact correlation, a perspective consistent with comparative political science. Rather, differences and similarities are brought into sharp relief precisely through the comparative method. In this vein, we note that the notion of "apartheid" in both the South African and Israeli contexts has important implications for a one-state "solution." In particular, from the vantage-point of a wider analytical framework of comparing countries across geographic, political, and historical boundaries the case of Apartheid South Africa and contemporary Israel reflect differences in state ideology, their relationship with other states, and with international interest groups. It will be argued that post-apartheid South Africa, from such a perspective, offers both the promise of transformation and stability within a liberal democratic unified state model, but also the warning signs and limitations, and the need for continued measures to ensure equality and human rights.

And the best way to “ensure equality and human rights,” of course, is to get rid of the Jewish sovereignty that has made Israel the “apartheid” state it is (hence the need for the "one-state solution," which would terminate that sovereignty). Or so goes the addled thinking of “brilliant” academics who appear not at all concerned about the paucity of equality and human rights in the Muslim world, and who perceive apartheid where it does not exist but fail to discern actual apartheid (between genders; between kafirs and believers) in Saudi Arabia.

Guess there’s not much payoff in trying to “solve” those problems.

Update: A paper that won't be delivered at York--"The Final Final Solution: The Arabs' Inability to Destroy Israel Militarily and How It Led to the Enlistment of Leftist Academics (Many of Them Jewish) as Hatchetmen in the Jihad Against the Jews." I'd be prepared to deliver it myself, only I don't have the proper credentials.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments

Just don't call it part of an "axis of evil," 'kay, because that's sooo neo-Con: Pentagon chief Robert Gates says North Korea's nuke blast signals "dark times" ahead.

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

Feel the love: Dear President Obama, please tell us, oh wise one, how Palestinians are supposed to get together in a single state when they can't keep their hands off each other--and not in a good way.

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

Stand and deliver: Quoting two of the most egregious dhimmi apologists for Islam—Juan Cole and John Esposito (what, no Ward Churchill?)—the Toronto Star’s resident shill for the Islamist perspective, Harpoon Siddiqui, ponders a real head-scratcher: can Obama "deliver" on his promises to Muslims?:

There was the American overreach under George W. Bush. Now there's Barack Obama's outreach to the Muslim world.

On Wednesday, he will be in Saudi Arabia to meet King Abdullah. On Thursday, he will be in Egypt to deliver his much-anticipated address to Muslims.

He has already taken four mini-jabs at the subject – in his inaugural address; his Jan. 27 interview with Al-Arabiya TV; his March 19 video address to Iran; and his April 6 speech to the Turkish parliament.

This has drawn mixed reviews:

He wouldn't be addressing the Christian world, or the Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist worlds. Why the exception for Muslims?

By framing terrorism in religious terms, he's treading the same turf as militant Islamists, on the one hand, and Bush, on the other.

He has no choice but to fix the shattered relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

What are his challenges? Four experts I spoke to outlined them:

Where's the beef? Juan Cole, author of Engaging the Muslim World (Palgrave Macmillan), said Obama has done well to ditch Bush's formulation that tackling Muslim militants was "like taking on the Axis powers in World War II, and the way to do it was through conquest, occupation and a transformation of the Muslim world.

"That was a huge conceptual error, doomed to failure."

Jihadists are not the old Soviet Union nor Nazi Germany. Non-state actors are best dealt with as the criminals they are.

However, Obama has a challenge of his own. "Beyond denying the Bush paradigm, he must develop his own positive paradigm. I haven't heard that articulated," said Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan.

John Esposito, co-author of Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think (Gallup Press), also feels Obama is running out of time. "The window is beginning to close on him."

Egypt: "There's a real irony in the leader of the free world delivering a major speech to Muslims in one of the most repressive parts of the world," said Nader Hashemi, author of Islam, Secularism and Liberal Democracy (Oxford).

Hosni Mubarak is an oppressive dictator, "one of the most despised, in part due to his close alliance with the U.S. and collusion with Israel in maintaining the siege on Gaza."

A better platform would have been Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation, or Pakistan, Turkey or Bangladesh, all evolving democracies.

Israel-Palestine: It's the No. 1 issue for Muslims, said Esposito, director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in Washington.

Hashemi, a native of Toronto now teaching Middle East and Islamic politics at the University of Denver, recalled Obama's words in Sderot last year that if his daughters were subject to daily rocket fire, as Israelis were from Hamas, he'd do everything in his power to stop it.

"This begged the question: if the president's daughters were refugees who could not return home, stuck in one of the most densely populated areas of the globe, and subject to an ongoing siege, would Obama also do everything in his power to alleviate their suffering?

"Failure to speak in moral terms about the plight of the Palestinians will be a massive setback for his Muslim outreach initiative."…

I don’t know about you, but reading Arabs talk about “morality” and shedding crocodile tears re “the plight of the Palestinians” (when the “plight” could have been over decades ago had “refugees” been absorbed into Arab lands) makes me heave.

You can read Harpoon’s incisive analysis vis-à-vis Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan/Pakistan, too, and his Islamic sundae is topped by this cherry from Cole (who has been described as “blindly anti-Israel to the point of being an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, an apologist for radical Islam, and someone who despises American public opinion”):

Give Obama eight years, and things will look different.

That’s what we’re afraid of, Juan—that the world, post-Obama, is going to look a whole lot greener, and not necessarily in the Al Gore/David Suzuki sense of it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:01 | link | comments

Saturday, 30 May 2009

Song for a Wahhabi potentate: This one's for you, Abdullah!

Kafir for sale or rent.

Oil is such a lubricant.

Grease palms to smooth the way.

Islam will lead some day!

Ah, that Obama bows to me.

Doesn’t think I’m jee-ha-dee.

I’m a man of means with big dreams.

King who wears robes.

Though I’m a Wahhabi

“Interfaith’s” a specialty.

Host confabs, "twin" with shuls.

(Those dhimmis are such fools.)

I stoke hopes of "peace" with the Jews.

Can’t you see it’s all a ruse?

I’m a man of means with big dreams.

King who wears robes

I’m known in ev-er-y madrassah from Lyon to Lahore.

All of the children are learnin’ the score.

And ev’ry handout is part of the scam.

And ev’ry dime is buyin’ time for Dar al-Islam, I sing…

Kafirs for sale or rent.

Oil is such a lubricant.

Grease palms to smooth the way.

Islam will lead some day.

Ah, but Obama bows to me.

Doesn’t think I’m jee-ha-dee.

I’m a man of means with big dreams.

King who wears robes.

I’m a

King who wears robes…

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

Swift “justice” in Iran: After rounding up the usual suspects suspected, mere days ago, of blowing up a mosque full of worshippers, authorities in Iran have already tried, convicted and hanged three of them. From the Telegraph:

The men were convicted of being "mohreb" (enemies of God) and accused of belonging to a terrorist group allegedly backed by the United States, which strongly denied involvement.

The blast at Thursday evening prayers in the Shia mosque, two weeks before crucial presidential elections, also injured 125, making it the worst loss of life in an attack in Iran since the war with Saddam Hussein ended two decades ago.

The city is the capital of a troubled province on the borders of both Pakistan and Afghanistan, home to a separatist insurgency supported by many from Iran's Baluch minority, and a major trafficking route for opium smugglers.

The men were also accused of being involved in a bomb attack in the city in 2007 which killed 13 revolutionary guards.

Jalal Sayyah, from the governor's office of the province, said: "The terrorists, who were equipped by America in one of our neighbouring countries, carried out this criminal act in their efforts to create religious conflict and fear and to influence the presidential election."

After they were executed, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a statement demanding that investigators quickly find and punish foreigners who he said were behind the bombing, although he did not mention any nation by name.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly denied emphatically that Washington was behind the attack, which it condemned.

He said: "We do not sponsor any form of terrorism in Iran and we continue to work with the international community to try to prevent any attacks against innocent civilians anywhere."

Iranian authorities have blamed a shadowy organisation called Jundollah for attacks in Zahedan. The group claims to fight for the rights of Iran's Sunni minority, but Iranians accuse it of being linked to al-Qaeda and backed by the United States…

Six words you’ll never hear an Iranian “convict” say: “I’m appealing to a higher court.”

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

The art and craft of empathy: James Bowman in the New Criterion blog points out that “empathy,” the quality most prized in Washington these days, is a term borrowed from art history:

…Originally Einfühlung, it was a word invented by German aestheticians in the late 19th century to describe a kind of response to a work of art which involved "feeling in," or direct emotional engagement with it. When we say we "identify ourselves" — or, more frequently if less comprehensibly, simply "identify" — with a character in a book, drama or movie, we are engaging in an act of empathy. A learned discussion of the word’s history can be found here.

The art historian Wilhelm Worringer contrasted Empathy with Abstraction as the contrary principle and so laid the groundwork for modernism in art by teaching artists to avoid sentimentality or what Ruskin called "the pathetic fallacy" by repelling rather than attracting the emotional engagement of the viewer — by making images new, strange, abstract and therefore emotionally uncomfortable, rather than familiar and reassuring. At some point in the intervening century since Worringer wrote, popular psychology has managed to make empathy seem attractive and desirable again, as it obviously is to Mr Obama and Judge Sotomayor, but it is worth recalling what at least some of the original theorists of the term were intending to notice about it, which was that empathy was essentially an illusion — a bit of fakery, an attempt to claim a familiarity, even identity with others that could not in fact exist.

We might bear that in mind when we look at the most famous statement by Judge Sotomayor on the possibilities of empathy, and the one that is being quoted by both sides in the debate over her nomination: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." This is, rightly considered, an anti-empathy statement. The "white male who hasn’t lived that life" is being denied any capacity for empathy, while the "wise Latina woman" who has lived it herself can understand only through having shared the same experiences — not the same thing, surely, as empathy, which by its very nature pre-supposes not two subjects with the same object but a kind of identity between subject and object.

The problem may arise through a form of language inflation. The advocate of "empathy" is, after all, making a very large claim on behalf of his own powers of emotional projection. We all must sense this when someone tells us he knows just how we feel, and we instinctively want to answer, "No you don’t!"

Bowman concludes that valuing “empathy” as something higher and more noble than “compassion” is “a fake,” adding

We should not deny the extent to which we have the capacity to sympathize with or compassionate (v.t.) the feelings of others, but neither should we exaggerate it. In any case, the large claims of the empathetic are not necessary for a judge or Supreme Court justice to identify herself with those it most behooves (sic) her to identify herself with, namely the Framers of the Constitution.

What, that bunch of old white guys? Why on earth would a wise Latina—or for that matter a clever black-and-white former community organizer—want to identify with them?

Posted by: scaramouche at 01:42 | link | comments

Friday, 29 May 2009

The jihad against U.S. data systems: The dopeychanger is most perturbed.

Update: Stop the presses--he who walks on water drops by fast food joint, ingests
meat discs plus cheese.

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

Round up the usual suspects: Some terrorists blew up a mosque in Iran, but authorities are pretty sure they know who’s behind it. From CNN (which, go figure, has no hesitation in calling terrorists “terrorists” and not something fluffier like, say, “militants” when it’s Muslim-on-Muslim violence):

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Several suspects have been arrested and were being questioned Friday in the bombing of a Shia mosque in southeastern Iran, according to the provincial governor.

The number of casualties varied following the Thursday evening blast that occurred during prayers to commemorate the seventh-century death of Fatima, the daughter of the prophet Mohammed.

Ali-Mohammad Azad, governor of Sistan and Balochistan province, told Iranian television network IRIN that at least 15 people were killed in the city of Zahedan. Azad said 80 of the wounded were hospitalized.

Iran's semi-official news agency, Fars, put the death toll at 20, with 125 wounded.

No group publicly accepted responsibility for the attack, but Azad blamed a terrorist group, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported. He said intelligence forces were quick to identify and arrest those behind the incident, who were trying to leave the country after the attack.

Fars attributed the explosion to a "terrorist incident," but said no claim of responsibility had been received.

Azad said information on the arrested terrorist group would be unveiled to the public once interrogations were complete.

"The terrorists and notorious gang planned to stir order and security in the province on the eve of (the June 12 presidential) elections, using ongoing insecurity in our eastern neighbors," he said Thursday.

Several days of mourning were reported to be under way for victims of the explosion.

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a hard-line cleric who led Friday prayers in Tehran, said there were signs that the United States and Israel were involved in the mosque bombing, IRNA reported. The cleric, who put the death toll at 25, condemned the bombing before a congregation on the Tehran University campus.

Zahedan is about 1,100 km (700 miles) southeast of Tehran, near Iran's borders with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Sistan-Balochistan province -- which shares a border with Pakistan -- is the site of frequent clashes involving Iranian police, drug dealers and armed groups. The province is located on a major narcotics-smuggling route between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yup, it’s Great Satan and his little buddy, Israel—and not al Qaeda or another gang of wacky Sunnis—who are once again wreaking havoc in Mully-Bullyland. And if you believe that you probably also believe that the Holocaust is a scam and the Jews caused swine flu.

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

Beeb query: Can Obama deliver on the Middle East?

Well, Beeb, that depends on what you mean by deliver. If you mean can he deliver a "two-state solution," then the answer is "no". If you mean can he deliver up the Jews to the slavering wolves on a silver platter, then the answer is "you betcha."

We'll soon see how it all pans out. Who knows? Maybe at the last minute court Jew Rahm will come to his senses and pull a Queen Esther.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:26 | link | comments

The CIC meets ‘n’ greets Fatah: R.M. sent me the following—a Canada Israel Committee news release from a few days ago. (I didn’t get it because I asked to be removed from the CIC e-mail list a while ago):

Jewish Community Leadership Meets with
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

Ottawa, May 26, 2009 - Canada-Israel Committee National Chairman Moshe Ronen led a delegation of Jewish community leadership today in a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat.

Said Ronen: "It was an opportunity to get Abbas's perspective on the challenges facing Palestinians and Israelis as they try to advance the peace process."

Ronen added that the encounter also allowed the community to convey some of its concerns regarding the continued anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian environment, much of it with anti-Semitic overtones. This toxic language has leeched into the Canadian street and university campuses.

Added Rabbi Reuben Poupko, co-chair of the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus: "Of particular concern has been the distrust and suspicion rooted in the perceived refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state."

Mr. Abbas praised Canada's involvement in the region as a donor country and expressed particular appreciation for its role to help build the Palestinian justice system and security infrastructure.

Marc Gold, President of Federation-CJA of Montreal, expressed satisfaction that the Canadian Jewish community was able to re-enforce its support for ongoing dialogue based on a commitment to a two-state solution - two states for two peoples.

Eric Maldoff, Chairman of the Quebec-Israel Committee, concluded that all stakeholders in the region - and their counterparts in Canada – share a responsibility to foster and encourage voices of moderation to work toward a peaceful and just resolution to the conflict.

Yeah, I’m sure Abbas and Erekat were most receptive to the Canadian Jews’ “concerns,” and that the voices of moderation can be coaxed out of hiding—just as soon as the Arabs promise not to execute them should they dare raise their heads.

I’m at a loss here. Are these Canadian Jews in complete denial about the situation, or so full of themselves that they couldn’t pass up the opportunity to seem like “big machers” by meeting with the Palestinian smoothies?

Probably both.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:31 | link | comments

Sharia in Canada: The other evening I watched aghast as a chick from Standard and Poors explained to CTV viewers that Canada now had its very own index for sharia-complaint public companies. I waited for the CTV talking head to ask the chick at least one hard-hitting question about the index—like “Is it really a good idea to let Allah’s law set up shop in a free (well, semi-free) Western nation?” or "Why are infidels so clueless about the stealth jihad?" Of course, it never came. Instead, she asked the S&P chick to list the various things the sharia index prohibits—pork, alcohol, etc. (Jews/Israelis, too, no doubt, but for obvious reasons, that wasn’t mentioned.

Here’s the CTV report (my bolds):

Standard & Poor's is launching a Shariah compliant version of the S&P/TSX 60 that will exclude companies that don't meet criteria outlined within Islamic law.

Shariah law, based on the teachings of the Koran, does not allow for investment into companies that deal in pork, alcohol, gambling or pornography.

Banks are also excluded because investors are not allowed to earn profit from interest.

"Companies which have high levels of debt or high levels of interest earnings are also screened out," Alka Banerjee, Vice President of Standard & Poor's Index Services, told CTV.ca in an interview from New York on Wednesday.

At present, companies which have debt less than 33 per cent of their market capitalization are allowed within the index.

A Shariah Supervisory Board, comprised of Islamic scholars, determines if a company qualifies.

Banerjee said Shariah-compliant indexes are still in their infancy but interest is growing.

"A lot of Islamic investors would like to invest along their religious beliefs as well as the rise of petro-dollars in the Middle East, as well as the prosperity in southeast Asian has all led to a demand for Shariah indices and other kinds of products," Banerjee said.

Including the Canadian launch, S&P now has Shariah compliant indices in 52 markets.

Other markets include the S&P 500 Shariah, S&P Europe 350 Shariah, S&P Japan 500 Shariah and S&P CNX Nifty Shariah to name just a few.

The S&P/TSX 60 Shariah Index currently has 25 companies that meet the board's requirements.

"This number can change month-to-month," Banerjee said.

Some of the companies that made the cut include EnCana Corp, Research in Motion, Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, Barrick Gold Corp., Suncor Energy Inc., Goldcorp Inc. and Petro-Canada.

A commenter points out the obvious problem with this index and says all the politically-incorrect things CTV was too craven/clueless to say:

Let me get this straight....investors who follow sharia law, which by the way, includes the institutional right to rape the female in a marriage, are being catered too by screening for companies that are thought to be "approved" and in line with these beliefs???

How about screen against companies that support repression be it based on gender, religion or race etc. Perhaps a few of these 'sharia' approved companies would fall out in that case.....

The message I get from this is that people are not as valuable as a bottom line buck.

What a messed up world.

And becoming more messed up by the day because of greed and our blasé media.(Interesting, isn't it, how when the Ontario government wanted to allow sharia tribunals there was a huge outcry, and the plan was quickly nixed, but when sharia comes to the Toronto Stock Exchange no one says boo.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:28 | link | comments (2)

Heavyweight dispatches lightweight in the ‘Peg: In this corner: David Matas, ‘human rights’ lawyer, attorney for Canadian Jewish lobby group, the B’nai Brith, and advocate for state censorship. In the other corner: Ezra Levant, mouthy conservative and the author of Shakedown, a scathing exposé of Canada’s “human rights” racket.

Oh, look. Ezra’s kayoed David in record time. Not that it was too hard to do, since Matas wields the Official Jews’ tattered security blankie—state censorship—in an effort to fend off the blows.

What's the fight about? In Winnipeg's The Jewish Post, Matas, blankie in hand, pens a feckless rebuttal to Shakedown in which he claims that censorship is essential, and that getting rid of it “is a prescription for anarchy.”

“It is in everyone’s interest,” he writes, “that we have a society living under the rule of law rather than living in a lawless society.”

Ezra’s deft takedown:

Anarchy! Ladies and gentlemen, the only thing standing between Canada's peace, order and good government, and riots in the street, a war of all against all, are these HRCs and their censorship laws! Canadians are so malevolent, so violent and lawless in their hearts, that were it not for people like Jennifer Lynch, we'd be at each others' throats!

I'm not interested in living in a lawless society. I rather like our laws, or most of them. I like the Criminal Code, though we could do without the hate propaganda sections -- and, given the infrequency with which those provisions are actually used, it seems like the police can do without those, too, without us lapsing into "anarchy".

But look again at what Matas has done: he has said that to repeal censorship laws is to make us lawless. No: it would simply remove the laws from our thoughts and our words, and keep the police focused on violent deeds.

I rather like the idea of living in a country with intellectual anarchy. And, given the fact that you are reading this on the Internet, I get the feeling that you do, too. The Internet is about as lawless a frontier as it gets, when it comes to ideas and information. You will read offensive things on the Internet. But you're a grown-up. So you can handle it.

I'd like to live in a country where I'm safe from real harm. But when it comes to ideas, thoughts, emotions and other harmless deeds -- yeah, anarchy sounds a lot better to me than living under the yoke of Canada's HRCs, including the one that has had Matas on the run for half a decade for B'nai Brith's word crimes.

Newsflash, Dave: We've already seen signs of “anarchy” in the streets—and it had nothing to do with censorship. It’s what happens when a seething amalgamation of lefties and Islamists gather to “protest” Israel’s “war crimes” and vent in a Nazi-like fashion, and counter-protesters are told to flee because police cannot control the mob. Frankly (though perhaps not Frank Dimantly), I’d be far more concerned about that threat than about preserving the illusory security afforded by depriving Canadians of their most valuable freedom—the freedom they need to speak out about the threat. Matas, of all people, should know that, since he and his organization were ensnared for half a decade by the very system that, idiotically, they’re working so hard to preserve.

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

Tempus fugit: North Korea’s Dear Leader just exploded another of his many nukes, thereby blowing a big, wet raspberry in Obama’s face. The fanatics in Iran are on the cusp of the nuclear capability that will enable them to follow through on their promise to obliterate ee-vil Zion. Pakistan, a nuclear state, is imploding, which may soon put a nuke in jihadist hands. And the global jihad continues full throttle, with no sign of let up. But what does the dopeychanger see as the most pressing issue of the day, the one that MUST. BE. FIXED. NOW? Take a wild guess:

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Israel and the Palestinians don't have "a moment to lose" in pursuing peace, President Barack Obama said, while recognizing political obstacles on both sides.

Obama spoke Thursday after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, just over a week after he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"In my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu I was very clear about the need to stop the settlements; to make sure that we are stopping the building of outposts; to work with the Palestinian Authority in order to alleviate some of the pressures that the Palestinian people are under in terms of travel and commerce, so that we can initiate some of the economic development plans that Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has said are so important on the ground," Obama said. "And that conversation only took place last week.

"I think that we don't have a moment to lose, but I also don't make decisions based on just the conversation that we had last week because obviously Prime Minister Netanyahu has to work through these issues in his own government, in his own coalition, just as President Abbas has a whole host of issues that he has to deal with."

Obama repeatedly stressed his commitment to attend to the issue. "I don't want to put an artificial timetable, but I do share President Abbas's feelings and I believe that many Israelis share the same view that time is of the essence, that we can't continue with a drift," he said. Abbas echoed, "Time is of the essence."

Netanyahu has said he is willing to restart talks immediately, but also believes the more urgent priority is containing Iran's nuclear threat…

Clearly, Bibi and Obama have a different set of priorities. Bibi wants Israel to survive as a Jewish state. Obama wants to reach out to a Muslim world that views Israel’s continuing existence as Jewish as an impossibility, an affront to the universal faith. There is no way to “solve” this problem in a way that will please both sides. And to continue trying to do so, and to make it the priority at a time like this, is, well, bonkers. But then, obsessing about and trying to “solve” the “problem” of the Jews can often have that effect on people.

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

Thursday, 28 May 2009

Bombs away: The story about the Starbucks bombing in New York City seems to have all but disappeared from the media's radar. Does that mean it was just a teenaged prank and there’s nothing to worry about? Phyllis Chesler is dubious:

The Manhattan Starbucks Coffee Shop which was bombed yesterday, is only two and a half blocks away from where I live. As soon as I returned from my brief holiday and heard about this latest incident, I went over to see it. News trucks and police cars impressively surrounded the crime scene; indeed, the blown-out windows on East 92nd Street were already boarded up and the bench outside was, indeed, shattered. The FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force had been there and gone.

While there have been a number of “political” bombings in Manhattan between 2005-2008, (outside the Times Square military recruitment center, the British Consulate, and the Greek Consulate), all thought to have been committed by a “man on a bicycle,” and at a Starbucks in Providence, Rhode Island, this one, according to one eyewitness, may have been committed by two “blond teenagers.”

Please note: The media is telling us that no Arabs, no Muslims, no Afghans, no jihadists were involved in this attack, that this one was an all-American, all-Christian prank. Does that make you feel safer?

Remember when the entire eastern seaboard experienced a power failure in August of 2003 and how relieved we all were, despite sweltering without light, electricity, transportation, communication or refrigeration, when we discovered that it was “only” a massive grid failure, not another terrorist attack?

And, by the way, last week’s unexploded target synagogues in Riverdale in the Bronx are only twenty minutes away from where I live by car, as are/were the Twin Towers of the forever-missing World Trade Center.

I not only live in interesting times—I see that I also live in a very interesting neighborhood as well. I thought that Jerusalem was the center of the world. Perhaps it is, but Jerusalem, unprotected, has proliferated and gone global. Now, teenagers and prison-convert jihadists are blowing up coffee shops (or trying to), and synagogues, (or trying to); how long before they start blowing themselves up too? Both here as well as in the Middle East and all over the Islamic world?...

Oh, Phyllis, why live in fear when you can embrace hopeandchange and rainbows and lollipops? It’s the only way to go in Obama's America.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:31 | link | comments

Winnipeg White Elephant in dire financial straits: The Canadian Mausoleum of Human Rights has gone spiky white cap in hand to the government, demanding more, more, more moolah in order to complete construction. From the Ceeb:

Just a few months into construction, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights has encountered a major capital budget shortfall.

The original projected cost of the project, $265 million, has ballooned to $310 million, according to Patrick O'Reilly, chief operating officer.

He blamed the increased costs on inflation, the fluctuation of the Canadian dollar, and plans to make the building more environmentally friendly. Gauging those factors is an inexact science, O'Reilly said.

"It's something that's not necessarily predictable. I mean, you predict some inflation, you predict there might be some currency fluctuation, [but] what we're saying is, on this one we've seen much more than was expected," he said.

O'Reilly said the museum administrators will turn to their fundraisers to see if they can contribute more. Private sector contributions already account for $110 million of the original capital budget.

"It's never easy to ask people for money, but I think people who were supportive of us and people who have been at the table with their money … know that we're committed to this and we know they're committed," O'Reilly said. "We're saying, 'We're almost there. We need that little bit of help to get past the final stages.'"…

I say we give ‘em the dough—but only if they use it for a permanent exhibit called “the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Hall of Shame.” The exhibit would document all the nutty cases that come the apparatchiks’ way, and all the loopy decisions that, I venture, make the Canadian ‘human rights’ system unique—and uniquely demented.

No Hall of Shame; no shekels. It’s as simple as that.

Update: Come to think of it, the Saudi 'human rights' system could also be said to be uniquely dememted--but in a sharia, not a Trudeaupian, kind of way. I'd be willing to cough up some cash for an exhibit about that system, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:59 | link | comments

I think I have it straight: Were I to say something "offensive," something deemed "hurtful" enough to elicit a complaint to the Ontario "human rights" enforcers, the thought cops could come to my home without warning or a warrant, rifle through my possessions, and cart away anything they desired in order to "proseucute"/persecute me in a faux-court in which I would be denied every critical right available to me were I a defendent in a regular court of law.

But if I'm a suspected terrorist named Mohamed Harkat cooling my heels at home, and the police come a-knocking unexpectedly to make sure I'm satisfying my bail conditions, that's not allowed: the police, a judge has ruled, need a court's permission before they can pay a visit.

Got it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

Obama, philosophe: Barack Obama, as we know, is really big on empathy. Why, it’s the stellar trait he sought above all others in his search for a Supreme Court Justice. It thus occurs to me that you could call Obama an “empathecalist”.

What’s that?

It refers to someone who follows the school of philosophy—empathecalism—founded by Professor Emile Flostre.

Of course, Prof. Flostre is a fictional poseur (inspired by existentialist Jean-Paul Sarte) exposed as such in one of my favourite 50s musicals, Funny Face. (Intellectual bookstore clerk turned high fashion model Audrey Hepburn thinks he’s “it” before being swept of her feet—literally—by Fred Astaire.) But no matter. Obama has managed to breathe new life into this fatuous philosophy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments (2)

Fawning in the extreme: I've come across a lot of wretched excess in my time, but this CJN editorial which profers a certain censorship-touting, "bridge-building" Jewstablishment organization as a veritable Moses and we, lucky Canucki Jews, its children of Israel being led to the Promised Land, is the very definition of de trop.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:42 | link | comments (2)

A snapshot of hate: A friend sent me this, a profile of today’s anti-Semite (h/t JB):

The modern anti-Semite looks entirely different. He does not have a shaved head. He has good manners and often an academic title as well. He mourns for the Jews who died in the Holocaust. But at the same time he wonders why the Survivors and their descendants have learned nothing from history and today treat another people as badly as they were once treated themselves. The modern anti-Semite does not believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But instead he fantasizes about an “Israel lobby” that is supposed to control American foreign policy like a tail that wags the dog. For the modern anti-Semite, it goes without saying that every year on January 27 he will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. But at the same time he militates for the right of Iran to have atomic weapons. For “how can one deny Iran what one has permitted Israel or Pakistan?” as Norman Paech [the foreign policy spokesperson of the German Left Party] has put it. Or he inverts the causal relationship and claims that it is Israel that is threatening Iran and not vice-versa as [German Middle East scholar] Dr. Udo Steinbach did in a recent radio interview. The modern anti-Semite finds ordinary anti-Semitism disgraceful. He has no problem, however, embracing anti-Zionism and is grateful for the opportunity to express his resentment in a politically correct form. For anti-Zionism is a sort of resentment just like classical anti-Semitism was. The anti-Zionist has the same attitude toward Israel as the anti-Semite has to Jews. He is not bothered by what Israel does or does not do, but rather by the fact that Israel exists. That is why he participates so passionately in debates about the solution to the Palestinian question which could well mean a final solution for Israel. On the other hand, he is left indifferent by conditions in Darfur or Zimbabwe or Congo or Cambodia, because there are no Jews involved in those places. Ask the foreign policy spokesperson of the Left Party, for instance, how many statements he has issued about “Palestine” and how many about Tibet.

Not bad, but my description is much shorter: The modern anti-Semite has an irrational obsession with the Jewish state, not the Jewish people; thinks Islam and Islamists are misunderstood; sees the UN its toxic offshoots (UNWRA, UNHRC) as a force for good in the world; and is convinced that Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein have it all figured out.

Did I forget anything?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:31 | link | comments (5)

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not fund Hamas: Humaniterrorists found guilty.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:13 | link | comments

The worst-kept secret in the world: Fasten your seatbelts, infidels. In a couple of days, Obama is set to address the entire Dar al-Islam from the campus of Cairo U—and the unabashedly Obama-worshipping New York Times is absolutely giddy about being able to divulge the "top secret" news:

CAIRO — The official word is that nothing has been decided about where President Obama will give his speech when he visits Cairo next Thursday to address the Muslim world.

It is supposed to be a secret.

There are, of course, matters of security for the president of the United States when he comes to visit this crowded, chaotic city on the Nile filled with quite a few people who hold a good deal of animosity for the United States.

But it is not a secret.

“He is speaking in Cairo University,” said Ramadan Abdel Al, 40, who manages a small store that sells men’s shirts on the 26th of July Street. He had stepped onto the street for a cigarette break. “I read it in the paper.”

The newspaper, Al Masry Al Youm, was pleased with itself for getting hold of the presidential itinerary and announcing on its front page that the speech would be given at Cairo University. Of course, there remains the chance that the article was wrong, that President Obama does not plan to speak at Cairo University.

“The whole schedule is not confirmed,” said a spokeswoman from the United States Embassy on Wednesday, who declined to give her name.

Cairo University is a landmark occupying a large gated area in Giza, part of greater Cairo. It is an important institution that once helped to elevate modern Egypt to the center of Arab learning.

These days its reputation may have sagged, but its walls smell of fresh paint. The grounds have been manicured and the walkways swept clean. The floors have been polished and men were seen dangling from the domed roof that is a familiar sight in many Egyptian movies.

Why the big clean up?

“We are very proud to host the president of the United States,” said Galila Mukhtar, who works with university public relations, as she stood inside the auditorium building on Wednesday.

So Cairo University it is!..

Be still my racing heart.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:05 | link | comments (2)

The penalty for Judenhass: York University has punished two students involved in an almost-pogrom at York U. From the Canadian Jewish News:

TORONTO — York University has sanctioned and reprimanded two students for their involvement in a Feb. 11 incident in which Jewish students were barricaded in the Hillel lounge by a group of students yelling anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slurs.

Last week, associate dean of Osgoode Hall Law School and York adjudicator Janet Mosher found that Krisna Saravanamuttu, the incoming president of York Federation of Students (YFS), and York student Jesse Zimmerman violated York’s student code of conduct for their involvement in the incident.

Mosher said that they made Jewish students feel “intimidated, frightened, tense and nervous” and promoted an atmosphere of “hostility, incivility and intimidation.”

Saravanamuttu got a formal reprimand on his academic record for two years, a $150 fine, and was ordered to take a training session through York’s Centre for Human Rights on equality, free speech and respect. He also must write a 15-page essay about fostering a campus free of discrimination, harassment and intimidation.

Zimmerman received a formal reprimand on his academic record for one year and must write a formal apology to the complainants. He’ll also be required to take training sessions at the Centre for Human Rights and write a 15-page essay.

Hillel at York, Hasbara at York and UJA Federation of Greater Toronto released a joint statement commending York for its findings.

Hillel at York President Daniel Ferman said that he hopes the ruling will pressure Saravanamuttu to step down as incoming YFS president.

“I think he needs to respond to these things and see what he’s willing to do to make sure students feel safe on campus. Obviously, we need a campus free of racism, and we can’t have the president involved in these types of incidents,” Ferman said.

Obviously, but it sounds like York is content with meting out a slap on the wrist (sending ‘em to the ‘human rights’ centre—now, really) and that Jew-baiter Krisna still gets to be the next president of YFS—so where’s the punishment in that?

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

Hooky’s crooked sons: Abu Hamza is in the news again, this time because some of his sons have been arrested for thievery. From the timesonline:

Three sons of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical Muslim cleric, face joining him in jail for their part in the sophisticated theft of £1 million worth of luxury cars.

The trio were involved in a gang that stole and then sold BMWs, Range Rovers and Mercedes across Europe for cash.

Targeting cars that had been left for weeks in long-stay car parks they applied to the DVLA to change the address using false documents, including passports.

The DVLA would write to the real owners but if they did not receive a reply within 14 days a new log book would be sent out.

Knowing that the legitimate owners were away, the defendants would then inform the DVLA that the name of the registered keeper had also changed, enabling them to obtain keys for the vehicle.

Other cars were stolen in domestic burglaries. Some were used as collateral for more than £20,000 in loans that were then defaulted on.

Hamza’s sons, Hamza Kamel, 22, and Mohammed Mostafa, 27, helped run the two year con with the cleric’s stepson Mohssin Ghailam, 28, Southwark Crown Court heard.

Hamza, 51, who has a hook for a hand, was jailed for seven years in 2004 for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.

He now faces extradition to the US for allegedly setting up an al-Qaeda training camp. Last year another of his seven sons, Yasser Mostafa Kamel, 18, narrowly escaped jail after admitting burglary.

Martyn Bowyer, for the prosecution, said: “The criminality came to light through the police investigation into the organised theft and resale of high-value motor vehicles.

“That theft used 32 vehicles which were either stolen, targeted for theft or used as collateral to fraudulently obtain loans.

“A number of vehicles had been taken to Europe or beyond, such as Morocco and, no doubt, sold. The value of these 32 vehicles as they would have been purchased new exceeded £1 million.

“This was a sophisticated, well-planned and professionally executed enterprise.”

Mostafa was jailed for three years in Yemen in 1999 for plotting a bombing campaign.

In 2006 he attracted publicity for singing the praises of Middle East terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas as rapper “MC Hamza”…

Kind of ironic, since now he's probably going to try to beat the, er, rap. (Sorry.)
My question: were the Hamza spawn and step-spawn the sole beneficiaries of their
thieving, or did some of the loot go to fund jihad?

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

Bizarre mismatch in Prospect: Scanning the obscure/unfamiliar periodicals crammed into the obscure/unfamiliar periodical section at the local branch of the Canadian bookstore monolith, my eye was grabbed by this, on the front of the April issue of Prospect, an unfamiliar Brit publication: Hanif Kureishi: the fatwa, Rushdie and me.

Hmm, sounds like something I’d like to read, thought I. And, indeed, it was. The weird thing about it, though, is that there's a huge disconnect between the lead-in to the interview with writer Kureishi, a Rushdie pal, and the interview itself. The lead-in makes a clear pitch for state censorship, a necessity in a “multicultural” society, claims interviewer Kenan Malik:

Twenty years ago the Rushdie affair became a watershed in the relationship between British society and its Muslim minority. The campaign against The Satanic Verses, the book-burnings that accompanied the protests and Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa that forced Salman Rushdie into hiding for nearly a decade helped to transform the political and cultural landscape of Britain.

The Rushdie affair was different from the previous conflicts between British society and its minorities. Muslim fury was driven not by questions of discrimination or poverty, but by a sense of hurt that Rushdie’s words had offended their deepest beliefs. Where did such hurt come from, and why was it being expressed now? Could Muslim anguish be assuaged and should it be? How did the anger relate to political questions about citizens’ rights, duties and entitlements? Britain had never asked itself such questions before. Twenty years on, it is still groping for answers.

It was through the Rushdie affair that many of the issues that now dominate debate—multiculturalism, free speech, radical Islam—first came to the surface. It was also through the Rushdie affair that our thinking about these issues began to change. In the post-Rushdie world there has developed a much stronger sense that it is unacceptable in a plural society to give offence to other cultures or faiths. In 1989 few people had doubted Rushdie’s right to publish his novel. In 2005 there was widespread acceptance that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was wrong to publish cartoons that offended Muslim sensibilities. Politicians praised the British media for not publishing the cartoons and condemned as “disrespectful” the decision of some European papers to reprint them.

Shabbir Akhtar is a Muslim philosopher who became a spokesman for the Bradford Council of Mosques after the book-burning. “Self-censorship,” he wrote at the height of the Rushdie affair, “is a meaningful demand in a world of varied and passionately held convictions. What Rushdie publishes about Islam is not just his business.” Many liberals have come to agree. “If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict,” as the sociologist Tariq Modood has put it, “they have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ deep beliefs to criticism.”

The impact of 9/11 and 7/7, and the murder of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh in 2004, have all helped to shape the cultural landscape. Particularly revealing is the story of The Jewel of Medina. The book about Aisha, Muhammad’s youngest wife, written by Sherry Jones, an American journalist, was to have been published by Random House last year. But after an American academic described it as “offensive,” Random House dropped it. No other big publishing house would touch it. In 1989 Penguin continued publishing The Satanic Verses despite the fatwa, death threats and the murder of several publishers and translators. Twenty years on the fatwa has effectively become internalised.

But in the actual interview, Kureishi has most emphatically not “internalized” the fatwa, is under no illusions about the Islamists, and states quite plainly that free speech must not—must never—be controlled in bid to prevent “hurt feelings” (my bolds):

…“The fundamentalists I met,” says Kureishi, “were educated, integrated, as English as David Beckham. But they thought that England was a cesspit. They had an apocalyptic view of the future. They lived in a parallel universe. They had no idea what life would be like in an Islamic country but they yearned for everything sharia. And they had a kind of Islam that would have disgusted their parents.” Kureishi recalls visiting the house of Farid Kassim, one of the founders of the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir. “Four women brought in the food. They came into the room backwards, bent over, so we could not see their faces. I have never seen that anywhere else.”

The Rushdie affair, Kureishi believes, transformed not just his own work, but also “the very notion of writing.” The fatwa “created a climate of terror and fear. Writers had to think about what they were writing in a way they never had to before. Free speech became an issue as it had not been before. Liberals had to take a stand, to defend an ideology they had not really had to think about before.” How have they borne up to the task? “The attacks on Rushdie showed that words can be dangerous. They also showed why critical thought is more important than ever, why blasphemy and immorality and insult need protection. But most people, most writers, want to keep their heads down, live a quiet life. They don’t want a bomb in the letterbox. They have succumbed to the fear.”

Doesn’t sound to me like Kureishi “has developed a much stronger sense that it is unacceptable in a plural society to give offence to other cultures or faiths”—thank heaven. I wonder if he was upset that his interviewer turned out to be such a pro-censorship weenie.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:22 | link | comments

Blast from the past: Super-sleuth Ezra Levant has tracked down John Beattie, who, back in the mid-1960s, was a semi-soused loser and the self-styled leader of Canada’s Nazi Party. Despite its grandiose name, it was largely a party of one—Beattie himself—until some Jews got hold of him and boosted his fortunes (and, as it turns out, even gave him room and board):

Most of the people involved in the whole affair are dead. But not Beattie. He was just 23 in 1965, so he's just 67 today. He lives in Ontario and works as a paralegal. I've read hundreds of pages about his antics, both from the Toronto Star's archives and other sources, including Bialystok's book on the subject. That gave me the media's side of the story and the CJC's side of the story. But it didn't fill in all the blanks.

So I phoned up Beattie the other day and, to my surprise, he spoke with me. I'll write a more substantial piece about that conversation later, probably in a newspaper. But for now, let me just mention the one fact that stuck in my mind the most: what Beattie said he did all day long.

Like I said, he was unemployed back then. He was 23, and as Garrity wrote (and Beattie admitted to me) he was not unacquainted with the temptations of alcohol. Once in a while his life was very exciting -- typically at a public speech where thousands of Jews came to counter-protest, or when he was being chased on the streets by vigilantes. But most of the time he just sat around in an apartment that belonged to "the old Dutchman". I asked if that was Henryk Van Der Windt named on this page in Bialystok's book as one of the Jewish "spies". Beattie said it was.

I asked Beattie what he did in that apartment with Van Der Windt. He said they'd sit around dreaming up ways for Beattie to get into the Toronto Star the next day. They'd hatch an idea -- Beattie was going to blitz City Hall! -- and call up the Star, which would breathlessly report this scandalous, if vague, "news" the next day. As the Star's letter-writer Greenberg could detect, it was all about getting press. What Greenberg didn't know was that Beattie's PR man, Van Der Windt, was a CJC spy.

Beattie wasn't an organizer. He wasn't a recruiter. He wasn't a fundraiser. He wasn't an orator of any skill. He wasn't a researcher. He wasn't a publisher or writer. His "Nazi Party" wasn't a party, didn't have a membership list or bank account, didn't have a constitution, didn't have a newsletter and didn't have a plan. It was a game for an immature 23-year-old, and the game was how to get himself in the newspapers. The fact that that game just happened to suit the Canadian Jewish Congress is the reason why we have "hate speech" laws in Canada today.

No, no, Ezra. See, those “Nazis” are really frightening, and if we don’t do something to silence their “hate speech,” soon enough you’re going to see a Canadian Crystallnacht.

Of course, “hate speech” laws and state censorship provisions in our human rights codes won’t put a crimp in Der Sturmer-style (and worse) hate speech in the Arab/Muslim media. Nor will it put the brakes on creeping/cantering/galloping sharia both here and abroad. Nor will it quell roiling mobs of Jew-haters hurling Nazi-esque epithets at pro-Hamas rallies in downtown Toronto. My conclusion: if Official Jewry raised alarms about the genuine threat at anywhere near their level of hysteria about the fake one, we'd all be better off. But I guess being in a state of denial is a full time job, and, anyway, the O.J.s are far too busy planning plenums and erecting "bridges" with false friends.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:57 | link | comments (3)

Rahm no chum: Some Jews I know rejoiced at having an Israeli-born Jew—Rahm Emanuel—in the White House. I wasn’t one of them. Turns out my hesitations about him—that he’s a leftwing ideologue of the Peace Now persuasion who would do us dirt at the first opportunity—have panned out, as evidenced by this profile in Newsweek:

Emanuel's status as a near-native son gave some Israelis and Jews the impression he would be their guy on the Obama team—the pro-Israeli with the receptive ear. He had those golden Zionist credentials, after all: His father, Benjamin, had been a member of the Irgun, the right-wing Jewish militia that existed before Israeli independence. His Uncle Emanuel had been killed in a skirmish with Arabs back in the '30s, prompting the family to change its name from Auerbach to honor him. But some in the Jewish community have been disappointed. Even his own rabbi, Asher Lopatin, has doubts about his absent congregant. "There is a lot of disappointment," says Lopatin, who presides over the Modern Orthodox Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel Congregation in Chicago. "In some ways there was a heightened expectation because Rahm is so connected to Israel and the Jewish community. Instead what we've seen is more of the tough Rahm Emanuel. Not the warm Rahm."

Oh, pshaw. I’m sure Ahmadinejad and the mully-bullies, who’ve seen Rahm in action betraying his own by pushing the dopeychanger's cockamamie "linkage" scheme, appreciate his “warmth”.

Update: You remember that old Andrews sister tune, don't you?:

Linked by Rahm to Ayatollah:

Punch in the Jews' nose-ah.

Both Rahm and Obama

Reachin' out to holy rollahs.

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

Mosque and state snuggling up?: A Connecticut school board is weighing whether to close public schools for Muslim holidays.

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

Useful idiots in Gaza: It can be tough being a ~~jihad-enabler~~ “peace activist” on a “humanitarian” mission. Witness the travails of a bunch of anti-Zionist lunkheads who had a really hard time getting into Gaza. The Toronto Star’s Oakland Ross fills us in:

GAZA CITY – A nine-member Canadian humanitarian delegation finally entered the Gaza Strip yesterday, after being held up at the Egyptian border for nearly four days.

"It was certainly an ordeal," Sandra Ruch of Toronto, the group's leader, said after arriving in Gaza City. "It's such a long process."

After being turned back at the border with Gaza three days in a row, the group was then questioned at their Egyptian hotel by Egyptian agents who identified themselves as "secret service," said Ruch.

Finally, the group was cleared to enter Gaza.

The Canadians are part of a larger Gaza initiative organized by CodePink, a U.S.-based organization that promotes peace efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza.

The Canadians were bringing medical supplies and children's sports equipment. They also aim to focus world attention on the plight of Gaza's 1.5 million people, most of whom rely on international assistance to survive.

The border delay meant the trip would be a short one for many of the Canadians. Ruch said she would have to leave tomorrow. "It's so sad. I have so many people to see."

Israel controls most of Gaza's access to the outside world and has imposed a partial economic blockade on the territory, ruled by the militant Islamist group Hamas.

All they are sayin’ is give Jew-hating murderers a chance…

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

Another sceptic: Someone else isn’t exactly bowled over by King Abdullah’s interfaith efforts (unlike that gullible dhimmi, Thomas Axworthy):

Re: A Surprising Exercise In Dialogue, Thomas Axworthy, May 26.

It's all very well to sing the praises of Saudi King Abdullah, but genuine interfaith means the Saudis must tolerate those who differ in ideology from Wahhabism. I would save my praises for King Abdullah until we see equal acceptance and respect for Shias, Ahmadis, Ismailis and Sufis. Saudi Arabia must also allow churches, synagogues and temples to safely exist and be open to their followers. Once that happens, I will happily raise a glass to King Abdullah.

Raheel Raza, Toronto.

Considering the toastee, the contents better be de-alcoholized.

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

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Impediment to "peace": Israel is promising to tear down a bunch of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

If it agreed to tear down the entire Zionist enterprise (the real sticking point to "peace" in Arab/Muslim eyes), I bet it would elicit a much more enthusiastic reaction.

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

Taliban winning the media war: They may be a bunch of ragtag primitifs hell-bent on setting back the clock to the 7^th Century, but according to Foreign Policy, the Taliban are running rings around American sophisticates, communication-wise:

On May 20, an investigating team from U.S. Central Command released its interim findings concerning civilian casualties that resulted from U.S. bombs dropped during a battle near Farah, Afghanistan, on May 4.

A 16-day interval may be entirely appropriate for an internal investigation of U.S. military practices. But if this report is an attempt at "strategic communications" to counter Taliban propaganda, the United States is failing and needs a new approach.

A recent Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report on strategic communications highlighted at Small Wars Journal showed how good the Taliban have become at propaganda and how far the United States must run to catch up. The Taliban doesn't need 16 days to get its message out:

[Michael] Doran [a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense] said that in Afghanistan, U.S. forces carry out an operation "and within 26 minutes -- we've timed it -- the Taliban comes out with its version of what took place in the operation, which immediately finds its way on the tickers in the BBC at the bottom of the screen."

Taliban information operations are not only speedy -- they also reach a range of media markets:

Taliban warlords renovated printing presses; launched new publications in Dari, Pashto, Arabic, and English; and maintained Voice of Sharia, a radio station, for dissemination of Taliban ideas and statements. ... By early 2009 Afghan and Pakistan Taliban factions were operating hundreds of radio programs, distributing audio cassettes, and delivering night letters to instill fear and obedience among their targeted populations.

What is the U.S. government doing to improve its strategic communications effort? The U.S. Army is responding by rewriting Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations to give lower ranking commanders more authority and flexibility over local information campaigns. In Afghanistan, the United States is considering increasing the number of radio transmission towers, cellphone capacity, and local news stations to increase the amount of information available to Afghans. The United States might also jam Taliban radio transmissions and block access to Taliban Web sites.

So they’re going to rewrite Field Manual 3-13, huh? Bet those Taliban won’t know what hit them (not).

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

Song for 'Sploding 'Slamists: When Mark Steyn sat in for Wendy and Mike the other week, he spun this tune--one of the songs he'd hoped to put on his album, "Songs for Swinging Sexists," if he ever got around to making it (which, alas, he never did). It's been ricocheting through the windmills of my mind lo these many days, and, in an effort to cast it out I've given it a rewrite:

They like to seethe about the infidels they all deplore.

They live and breathe the sacred Koran’s call to holy war.

The consequential things kafirs don’t really want to know:

These are the things jihadi shaheeds find so apropos.

But have no fears, and shut your ears, it disappears, won’t hear

Jihad talk, Jihad talk.

Shout “Allahu Abkbar” as they blow themselves to Kingdom Come.

A palmy place that’s graced by luscious babes who coo and hum.

They tend to ev’ry need and heed a lad who’s got an itch

They let him have his way and these are chicks who never bitch.

A perfect spread, too bad you’re dead, so now instead they talk

Jihad talk, talks to them.

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

Iggy on the move: An irrepressible Liberal spinmeister/pitbull with inside info can't help spilling the beans about his fearless leader's plans to bring down the Harper Conservatives--and soon.

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

You "reach out" like crazy, and where does it get you?: Nowhere, it seems, since they still hate you.

Oh, but wait. As William Kristol notes, Obama thinks he's going to make a breakthrough via sheer force of personality:

In an interview for Richard Wolffe's new book, Renegade: The Making of a President, Obama told the Newsweek reporter he wants to hold a "Muslim summit."

If I had a Muslim summit, I think that I can speak credibly to them about the fact that I respect their culture, that I understand their religion, that I have lived in a Muslim country, and as a consequence I know it is possible to reconcile Islam with modernity and respect for human rights and a rejection of violence. And I think I can speak with added credibility.

Kristol remarks:

Leave aside the foreign policy naïveté in this comment--the notion that foreign leaders will adjust their policy aims because of where in the world the president of the United States happened to live when he was in grade school. Consider what it says about Obama's self-understanding. The implication of his comment is that American leaders don't routinely respect others' culture or understand their religion. That is Obama's special gift. And to speak to foreign leaders merely with the credibility and authority inherent in being president of the United States isn't good enough. Does Obama grasp that his task is to advance U.S. interests in a lasting way, not his own personal approval rating in the world? As we saw on his earlier apology tour through Europe and his attendance at the Summit of the Americas, the attempt to advance his own standing can come at the expense of standing up for the nation he represents.

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

Three great women: And the women are—George Eliot, the greatest of Victorian novelists, who wrote Daniel Deronda, the great proto-Zionist novel; Gertrude Himmelfarb, the great literary critic who has a new book out about Eliot and the novel, a work the Brit literati have always shunned; and Melanie Phillips, fearless observer of the U.K. scene, who writes about the other two in the Jewish Chronicle:

…In her brilliant and moving book, The Jewish Odyssey of George Eliot, the distinguished Victorian scholar Gertrude Himmelfarb concludes that the essence of the [novelist's] attraction [to Zionism] lay in Eliot’s perception that Judaism, although unique, was inseparable from the culture and history of all mankind.

The key point Himmelfarb makes is that, for Eliot, Zionism was not a response to antisemitism. As a self-evidently natural correlative of Judaism, it was something positive, noble and good in and of itself.

This is surely a vital point for today’s Jews to grasp. For so often they present Zionism in a defensive manner. They justify it on the basis that Israel is an essential refuge for a people which uniquely has been persecuted in every country in which they have settled. In similar vein, the founding of the state of Israel is misleadingly represented as Europe’s response to the Shoah.

But Zionism’s roots are far deeper. Zionism is simply the movement for the self-determination of the Jewish people. And its significance is greater than any other movement of national liberation because Judaism itself rests upon three legs — the people, the religion and the land. If one is lopped off by having its legitimacy denied, the whole thing collapses. That is why anti-Zionism is far more than an unpleasant political position. It is a direct attack on Judaism itself.

As Himmelfarb writes, what was so remarkable about the character of Daniel Deronda was that Eliot had him emigrate to Palestine, not out of fear of pogroms or persecution, nor even because of the drawing-room antisemitism of England, but instead to fulfil a proud and unique heritage.

What she was therefore saying was that Judaism is not principally a story of persecution and that Jews are not in their essence victims, survivors or martyrs. It is not the antisemite who defines the Jew. It is Judaism, the religion and the people, that has created the Jew and Jewish statehood.

In grasping this, George Eliot’s achievement was all the more notable because she was repudiating some of the most powerful ideologies of her time: noxious anti-Jewish prejudice; aggressive, atheistic hostility to all religion; and the secular humanism of “enlightened” liberals who were in fact anything but.

Ring any bells? Himmelfarb’s book could not be more perceptive — or more timely.

The book has just come out in Canada, and I'm hoping my copy arrives soon.

Update: City Journal's review of Himmelfarb's book confirms what I'd always suspected--that Daniel Deronda is a great novel that never received its proper due because of the Brits' "genteel anti-Semitism."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:46 | link | comments (1)

Take that, Heather Mills and Macca: Canada's Gov-Gen cuts out seal's heart, eats it.

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

The way ahead: While Tom and the other interfaith dhummbis are being dined though not wined in Jeddah, the official organization of the ummah—the OIC—has gathered in the same town to figure out the best way to advance its interests. Its conclusion: what’s needed is more cries of “Islamophobia,” more taqiyaah, and lots more totalitarianism. From Arab News:

JEDDAH: Internal and external challenges faced by Islam are being discussed at a conference of Islamic affairs and endowment ministers from the member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that is currently under way in Jeddah.

“The most dangerous challenge faced by Muslim countries is linking Islam with terrorism and violence and dubbing it an obstacle to progress,” said Syrian Minister of Endowments Muhammad Abdul Sattar Al-Sayyid, who chaired the sitting yesterday.

Al-Sayyid added that misconceptions about Islam are compounded by some ignorant Muslims preaching ideas foreign to Islam. He also drew participants’ attention to the Western media tendency to malign Islam unjustifiably.

While presenting his paper, Salim Abdul Jaleel, deputy minister at the Egyptian Ministry of Endowments, stressed the need to appoint religious affairs attachés at the embassies of Muslim countries in the West.

“These attachés should be assigned to monitor Muslim issues in those countries and undertake tasks to project the correct image of Islam in order to dispel misunderstandings,” said Abdul Jaleel.

“The attachés should also be tasked with recording accusations against Islam in the country where they work and reporting them to the concerned authorities for necessary action,” the Egyptian official added.

Abdul Jaleel also proposed setting up of Islamic media centers in non-Muslim countries to deal with anti-Islamic campaigns and other problems.

The Egyptian minister stressed the need to study allegations against Islam and prepare refutations in all languages for online circulation.

He said the internal challenges against Islam include the spread of evil ideas under the guise of Islam with the aim of corrupting pure Islamic principles with un-Islamic ideologies.

He also pointed out the dangers of permitting unqualified organizations and people to speak on behalf of the Muslim community, something that leads to chaos and confusion.

He further warned against frequent media attempts to attribute extraneous ideas to Islam as though they are part of Islamic creed.

Abdul Jaleel’s solutions included offering intensive training in modern issues to students of religious institutions and religious preachers.

They should also be trained on methods of countering ideological and media attacks against Islam, he added.

He said Islamic propagation should focus on principles of toleration and respect for others and give less emphasis on differences amidst Muslim scholars. His suggestions also included the setting up of religious commissions to coordinate the activities of all religious establishments and groups in Muslim countries.

United we stand and kafirs fall, eh?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments

Another dhimmi falls for the Saudi con: The wily Wahhabi potentate has bamboozled another Westerner—ivory-tower Trudeaupian, Thomas Axworthy. Currently enjoying the King’s largesse at a swanky confab in Jeddah, S.A., Axworthy tells National Post readers that he’s mighty impressed by Saudi efforts to bridge the gap between Muslims and Christians:

…From the time of his accession to the throne in 2005, King Abdullah, 86, has reached out. In November, 2007, he travelled to Rome to meet with Pope Benedict (in the Islamic religious world a gesture comparable to Anwar Sadat's famous visit to Jerusalem). In June, 2008, Saudi Arabia convened a gathering of 500 Muslim leaders to affirm the legitimacy of dialogue. In July, 2008, this was followed by a world conference on religious dialogue held in Madrid, Spain, which in turn led to a November, 2008, UN conference on religious tolerance. "We all believe in one God," the King told the Madrid gathering. "We are meeting today to say that religion should be a means to iron out differences, and not to lead to disputes."

In Canada, we may yawn at the interfaith dialogues that are a common (though welcome) feature of religious life. But to have Saudi Arabia champion dialogue is really quite extraordinary. The House of Saud forged an alliance in the 18th century with the ultra-conservative Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and Wahhabism has been blamed for much of the intolerance present in Islam. Saudi Arabia, for example, continues to ban non-Muslim places of worship.

But in opting for dialogue with other religions, King Abdullah is rejecting the school of Islam that believes that the only way to survive is to keep foreign influences at bay. It is because Saudi Arabia is so conservative that the King's initiative has so much credibility. "The whole Muslim world is now for dialogue," participants were told. This is no small thing...

Indeed, not. It’s a huge thing—as immense as, well, Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb put together, the two worlds the Wahhabis aim to unite under sharia, Islam’s universal law. And if Axworthy has swallowed their codswallop about “dialogue,” he’s one very dumb dhimmi.

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

Quel ironie!: From the CJC website:

This Day in CJC history, May 26, 1999 - Toronto: CJC announced their donation of $60,000 to York University, which was made possible by a special fund set up by CJC following the 1985 gathering in Ottawa of several thousand survivors and their children.

Ten years on, of course,York is a hotbed of kooky, splenetic Zionhass (our era’s anti-Semitism) helmed by a craven, dhimmified bunch who are doing nothing to stop the hatred, and any Jew or Jewish organization that gives “Gaza U,” as it’s not so affectionately known, so much as a plugged shekel should have his/her head examined.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:36 | link | comments (2)

Monday, 25 May 2009

Anti-Zionists behind A-J offensive (in more ways than one): I’m all for free speech and battling bad ideas by speaking out against them instead of through censorship. I would note, however, that those who are trying to bring Al Jazeera to Canada are A) a former Ceeb chief, a Jew, who’s getting paid the big shekels to shill for Arabs; and B) an infamous anti-Zionist group. Of course, this being 2009, these anti-Zionists, like many others of their ilk, cloak their true intentions by making sure to use the words “peace” and “justice” in their organization’s title--more often than not a dead giveaway that the kind of “peace” and “justice” being envisioned does not include a Jewish Israel. And this particular group, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, has been one frenetic little beaver: here, sponsoring lectures by the likes of Jew-hating Jewish Holocaust balker, Norman Finkelstein; there, one of the groups behind ~~the howling, seething mob of Jew-haters~~ the anti-Gaza protest; and now a key backer of Al Jazeera’s bid to beam its “alternate viewpoint” into Canada.

My question: Who’s backing the backers? Are they homegrown moneybags, or do they come from more arid climes, if you catch my dune, er, drift?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:21 | link | comments (4)

Tiny totalitarian’s turn: Obama has “reached out” to nutjob; now, nutjob’s returning the favour and “reaching out” to Obama. From the Beeb:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says if he is re-elected next month he wants to have a face-to-face meeting with US President Barack Obama.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wanted to debate global issues with Barack Obama at the new UN session in September.

But he added that Iran would not discuss its nuclear programme outside the framework of the UN nuclear agency's regulations.

In March, Mr Obama said he was seeking engagement with Iran.

Global issues

Speaking to foreign journalists, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would never abandon its advances in uranium enrichment in exchange for western offers to ease sanctions or other economic incentives.

The nuclear issue "is closed", he told a press conference in the Iranian capital, Tehran.

So Mr Obama's hopes for a new and constructive dialogue with Iran on the nuclear issue look as far away as ever, says the BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran.

However, Mr Ahmadinejad did confirm that he would be presenting to the powers negotiating with Iran over its nuclear programme a package of proposals on managing global issues.

They are likely to include proposals for global nuclear disarmament, our correspondent says.

Last week Iran announced it had successfully launched a new medium-range rocket, capable of reaching Israel and southern Europe.

Iran says its nuclear programme is purely for peaceful purposes, while the US has accused it of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

On the campaign stump for the presidential election on 12 June, Mr Ahmadinejad has compared Iran's enemies to "dogs", saying: "If you retreat, they attack; if you attack they retreat." …

Sounds like nutjob gets Obama far better than Obama gets nutjob. (12 June? Surely the Beeb means May, no?)

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

Buddhist? Wiccan? Seventh Day Adventist?: A bomb of indeterminate origin has shattered the windows of an NYC Starbucks.

Update: No word yet on who would want to bomb a Big Apple Starbucks, but a CNN report zeroes in--sort of--on one distinct possiblity (my bolds, so you won't blink and miss it):

NEW YORK (CNN) -- An explosion outside a Starbucks on the Upper East Side of Manhattan sent frightened people running into the street early Monday.

The explosion blew out the windows of a Starbucks coffeehouse at East 92nd Street and Third Avenue at 3:25 a.m., according to New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

A "low-order improvised explosive device" exploded after being left on a wooden bench in front of the coffeehouse, Kelly said. The blast could be heard many blocks away, according to CNN affiliate WABC-TV of New York.

Seven people were briefly evacuated from the building above the Starbucks, Kelly said, but no one was injured. The interior of the Starbucks sustained no damage.

It's too early to tell whether Monday's incident is connected to other minor explosions in New York City in recent years, including ones at the British and Mexican consulates and another in Times Square, Kelly said.

He did note one immediate similarity between the detonations: All occurred at roughly the same time of night. He said the police would continue to analyze other similarities.

However, Kelly also noted that Starbucks has been the target of low-grade explosions in other cities...

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:15 | link | comments

Out of sight, out of mind: Martin Peretz writes that, while Bush prefered to off-load torture to those who do it best, Obama wants to pretend torture won't take place if he asks really nicely for all the beastliness to stop:

…As I wrote earlier, I believe that Guantanamo has become nothing more than a fetish. It derives from overheated campaign rhetoric with which, alas, Obama is stuck. U.S. courts can extend their authority even to an American military base on the island of Cuba, and they have. My suggestion that a high security penitentiary in Guam was not serious. Legally, it would change nothing.

The president has made a point both regarding the torture and other wanton abuse of Arab and Muslim prisoners. His argument that the very place, Guantanamo, and photos of prisoners there and elsewhere being tortured by the American military and American intelligence will further enrage Arabs and Muslims against the U.S. He is either innocent on this issue or insincere. No, I simply don't believe it. They need nothing so superficial as pictures to deepen the hatred of those who hate us. Let us be frank: nearly every Arab country and most Muslim countries do not protect against torture. It is, I would say, assumed by anyone in prison for political crimes, at least, that they will feel the lash of the whip, many times over. And more.

That was the whole purpose of rendition, to get allies to extract information that we cannot comfortably or legally extract. Why do you think Arab terrorists were sent to Jordan? To have tea with Abdullah and Rania? Or to Egypt? To smoke a hookah with Mubarak?

An intriguing article appears in today's New York Times. Entitled "U.S. Relies More on Allies in Questioning Terror Suspects," it is by two seasoned and astute journalists, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti. They write that "the current approach seeks to keep the prisoners out of American custody altogether." But who do you think organizes the operation in which Pakistani commanders pick up a Saudi or Yemeni Al Qaeda terrorist? Their fate? The Times observes that, "as a safeguard against torture...the United States would rely on diplomatic assurances of good treatment."

Yeah, that should work.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:22 | link | comments

Pirate rehab: It's no more yo ho ho for these reformed Somali 'gunmen', reports the Beeb. And in other pirate palaver, the National Post wants to ensure there's no "Mistaking pirates for terrorists".

Any thoughts on that, Mr. Spencer? Mr. Ibrahim?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:54 | link | comments

Judenhassers' song heist: In the May 8 International Jerusalem Post (the article appeared in the regular JP in April), Samuel G. Freedman laments the “theft” of the Holocaust by the exquisitely refined who adore the ostensible symmetry of the “Zion=Nazis” equation:

…IT'S NOT as if the Nazi analogy began with the Gaza war. Well before it, the UN's special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, was tossing around terms like "genocidal tendencies," "Holocaust implications" and "Holocaust-in-the-making." But the appropriation of Jewish tragedy for anti-Semitism is especially pernicious as talk grows of war-crimes prosecution against Israeli political and military leaders, a Nuremberg tribunal of our very own. This is Jew-hatred wearing the garb of Jew-sympathy, and in a way that especially seduces a certain breed of Jewish or philo-Semitic liberal: You've suffered so much, how can you possibly do the same thing to someone else?

Beneath its pacifism and seeming idealism, the contention depends on a kind of historical theft. This past weekend, I happened to attend the terrific revival of August Wilson's play, Joe Turner's Come and Gone. Inspired by actual events and people, it tells the story of a former slave who is recaptured and put into plantation bondage by a bounty-hunter. The captive, finally freed, asks another character in the play what he had that the white man wanted so badly. The character answers, "Your song."

Stealing the Holocaust is a form of stealing our song - not the only Jewish song, thank God, but a genuine one, a dirge for the ages. It is using a piece of our past to disenfranchise us in the present and imperil us in the future. Part of the reason the blood libel worked so well, after all, was that it relied in a pivotal way on a Jewish truth, the centrality of matza to Passover.

So if the Holocaust is a kind of proof-text on the necessity for Jewish sovereignty, then to snatch it away, to possess it on false terms, is an argument for Jewish helplessness. Which, lest we forget, is how it all could happen in the first place.

As far as I know, there’s no song called “Helpnessness.” But this one will do in a pinch.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:15 | link | comments

Obamanation: How is Obama negatively affecting America? David Solway (who always throws in a word or two that's new to me—“muniments”?) counts the ways—22 of ‘em. Here’s how he prefaces the long list of perils:

So much has now been written about Barack Obama, and from so many different points of view, that one must scour the muniments of the improbable, the miraculous, or the impossible to find something startlingly new to say. Who knows? Perhaps it will one day be confirmed that Obama is really the second coming of the long-awaited messiah who brings a new world order with him, or a galactic visitor from a remote planet in another solar system, blessed with a wisdom beyond the capacity of ordinary human beings. Or perhaps he is Beelzebub’s latest avatar, as prophesied, let’s say, in a recently discovered scroll in a cave near Tel Miqne in the Holy Land.

But the truth is something far humbler and yet no less unnerving. It’s not easy to draw a bead on a cynical shape-shifter like Obama, but the effort must be made. Whatever his mysterious origins may be — numinous, demonic, interstellar, Hawaiian, Kenyan — the fact remains that he is bad news for the future health and prosperity of the United States, which seems to be subsiding into the economic and political abyss.

I will attempt here only a modest summation of certain elements of disquietude that Obama’s presidency has provoked. Nothing new, just a synoptic refresher, a compendium of reported items, which may help us to put things in perspective and justify the edginess that many of us feel. For it’s high time we take Lear’s command to heart and see the man for who he is, and in the round: “Off, off, you lendings! Come unbutton here.” And there are lots of buttons to be popped:

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

G&M chastises Netanyahu for stalling the almighty “peace process”: A Globe and Mail editorial urges Israel’s leader to keep chasing the phantasmagorical in the face of a looming and horrific reality—an Iran with nukes:

The road to peace in the Middle East does not run through Tehran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's insistence in Washington last week that it does - and that there can be little progress toward a Palestinian state until Iran's nuclear-weapons program is halted - is seriously mistaken, and an obstacle to stability in the Middle East.

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is terrifying to Israelis, as it should be to the rest of the world, too. As a successful medium-range missile test showed last week, an Iranian bomb would have grave consequences throughout the region, extending a nuclear umbrella over unsavoury groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Western countries and their Arab allies, along with Russia and China, must be prepared to do everything they can to prevent that possibility.

But Iran's intransigence should not justify standing still on creating the conditions necessary for a viable, peaceful Palestinian state. In the volatile Middle East, one or another regional problem has almost always competed for attention with the plight of the Palestinians: Egyptian aggression in the 1970s, Israeli-Syrian tensions in the 1980s and Iraq's ostensible pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s and 2000s. Now is as good - or bad - a time as any to try to settle the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

None of this is to say that Iran does not loom large in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Despite sectarian differences between its Shia leadership and mostly Sunni militants in the territories, the Iranian government has become an energetic supporter of Hamas, which continues to violently oppose the very existence of the state of Israel. The appeal of Hamas and its rejectionist ideology to Palestinians, however, owes at least as much to the continued stalemate over their future as to Iranian patronage.

Even as it keeps a wary eye on Tehran, Israel's government should move immediately to restart good-faith negotiations on statehood with representatives of Fatah, the relatively moderate Palestinian party that runs the West Bank. Visible progress toward a deal - in particular, a complete freeze on the expansion of Israeli settlements - will buoy Fatah against Hamas in the Palestinian elections expected soon.

Mr. Netanyahu is entirely correct to refuse to countenance a nuclear Iran, which would pose an unacceptable threat to Israel, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Yet a continuation of the bloody, costly and morally corrosive occupation of the Palestinian territories is just as dangerous to Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish democracy.

There’s no occupation of Palestinian territorities, since Israel maintains a presence only in the West Bank. So knock it off with the reflexive pluralizing, corrosive editorialist. And that much-vaunted “peace process,” the one that's going to "solve" everything? Think of it as the diplomatic equivalent of the mullahs’ A-bomb, only with less collateral damage (since the Jews, but not Palestinians, are in its line of fire).

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:09 | link | comments

“Chutzpah” is as “chutzpah” does: A gent with an Israeli-sounding name trashes
the homeland in an irate letter to the Globe and Mail:

The most cherished document in the history of the state of Israel is the Scroll of Independence. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, read it out in 1948 when he declared the "creation of a Jewish state." One would have assumed that the next logical step would have been to give it legal status.

Yet as Patrick Martin writes (Call To Recognize 'Jewish' State Sets Off Alarms - May 22), such legislation never occurred. After 61 years, there is not even a single law that declares Israel as a Jewish state. To demand it of the Palestinians is thus the utmost degree of chutzpah.

Israel Aharoni, Thornhill

Sigh. I’m so tired of Jews who side with our enemies, and tired, as well, of the
overuse and misuse of the Yiddish word for “unmitigated gall.” Nonetheless, I’ll see
Aharoni’s “chutzpah” and raise him a “chutzpah”:

The effort to delegitimize the state of Israel continues apace, what with Patrick Martin and letter-writer Israel Aharoni fuming about the fraudulence of the piece of paper which would supposedly make its existence legit. Mr. Aharoni also frets about Israel’s “chutzpah”—its presuming to be a Jewish state—a claim which so distresses the Palestinians.

Apparently, Israel’s de facto existence lo these past six decades as the world’s only sovereign Jewish democracy counts not at all, and the Jewish state’s “legitimacy” is something conferred exclusively by those who are convinced it hasn’t any.

If that isn’t “chutzpah,” I don’t know what is.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:35 | link | comments

Uncorking York: The official types need to probe, examine, and look into things in much greater depth, because, heaven knows, the incidents of Judenhass/Zionhass at Toronto’s York University remain baffling enigmas, shrouded in mystery. From JTA, no less:

TORONTO (JTA) -- Jewish advocacy groups in Toronto have teamed to launched a commission on the quality of Jewish life at one of Canada's largest universities.

UJA Federation of Greater Toronto is joining with the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy and Hillel of Greater Toronto to better Jewish life at York University, which has been the scene of much anti-Jewish and anti-Israel activity over the past few years.

The commission, chaired by UJA Federation board member Dr. Elyse Lackie, is seeking submissions from those with personal experiences at York and ideas about improving Jewish life on the Toronto campus.

The recommendations will be presented to the York University Task Force on Student Life, Learning and Community before the start of the academic year this fall.

In a statement, UJA Federation of Greater Toronto officials said there have been "repeated, documented" incidents at York in which Jewish students have been intimidated.

Earlier this year, a number of Jewish students were barricaded in the Hillel lounge by a mob yelling anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slurs. Police had to be called to escort the students out of the building.

To date, no disciplinary action has been taken by the York administration.

No doubt all these Sherlock Holmesteins will be able to get to the bottom of it, and recommend that the best way to “improve” the quality of Jewish life on campus is for Jews to leave and go to some other university. The odds of York agreeing to other ameliorative changes—say, turfing out pro-Hamas agitators or providing a balance to offset the professors’ one-sided Zionhass, are kind of a long shot.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:05 | link | comments

Sunday, 24 May 2009

Crazy plan: In light of the fact that prisons are ground zero for “reversions” and jihad recruitment (three of the four would-be-bombers in the foiled plot to bow up a New York synagogue were jailhouse "reverts"), terrorism expert Steve Emerson says Obama’s Gitmo repatriation scheme is muy loco:

…That President Obama now wants to transfer hundreds of hardened jihadists into American prisons is a guarantee that they will serve as emissaries and proselytizers of jihad to the thousands of prisoners they are exposed to. In virtually no time, it is all but certain - based on past patterns of radical Islamic growth in jails that we have investigated - that we will witness the number of radical Islamic inmates multiply by thousands, maybe more.

The Guantanamo prisoners will be looked up as jihadi rock stars and each one could potentially produce a hundred new ticking time bombs ultimately walking the streets of America. Although the President tried to reassure us that no inmate has ever escaped from a super maximum security prison, what about the newly indoctrinated jihadists among the existing inmates who will be certainly released after their terms are up? In light of the massive damage and death that only four converts to Islam in prison could have carried out as witnessed in the interdiction of the recent terror plot, one cannot even begin to imagine the potential for damage and death a thousand times greater were there to be a whole new generation of hardened jihadists walking the streets of the US with an agenda of nothing but murder and destruction. FBI agents with whom I have spoke say that the transfer of prisoners to the US is insane, pure and simple…

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:40 | link | comments (2)

What gives?: Is the dopeychanger truly determined to effect a real “peace” between Israel and the Palestinians? Or is all the frenetic peace/shmeace stuff—the latest non-starter in a seemingly endless series of non-starters—a smokescreen for something too horrible to contemplate, i.e. the leader of the free world doing his level best to sabotage the Jewish state (because Jews are few in number and don’t have an ounce of black gold to speak of, and because Obama is a leftist ideologue to the enth degree)? Caroline Glick leans heavily toward the latter view:

…On the face of it, Obama's obsessive push for a Palestinian state makes little sense. The Palestinians are hopelessly divided. It is not simply that Hamas rules the Gaza Strip and Fatah controls Judea and Samaria. Fatah itself is riven by division. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's appointment of the new PA government under Salam Fayyad was overwhelmingly rejected by Fatah leaders. Quite simply, today there is no coherent Palestinian leadership that is either willing or capable of reaching an accord with Israel.

And as for the prospects for peace itself, given that there is little distinction between the anti-Semitic bilge broadcast daily in Gaza by Hamas-controlled media, and the anti-Semitic bilge broadcast daily in Judea and Samaria by the Fatah/Abbas/Fayyad-controlled media, those prospects aren't looking particularly attractive. That across-the-board anti-Semitic incitement has engendered the current situation where Hamas and Fatah members and supporters are firmly united in their desire to see Israel destroyed. This was made clear on Thursday morning when a Fatah policeman in Kalkilya used his US-provided rifle to open fire on IDF forces engaged in a counter-terror operation in the city.

Given that the establishment of a Palestinian state will have no impact on Iran's nuclear program, and in light of the fact that under the present circumstances any Palestinian state will be at war against Israel, and assuming that Obama is not completely ignorant of the situation on the ground, there is only one reasonable explanation for Obama's urgent desire to force Israel support the creation of a Palestinian state and work for its establishment by expelling hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their homes. Quite simply, it is a way to divert attention away from Obama's acquiescence to Iran's nuclear aspirations.

By making the achievement of the unachievable goal of making peace between Israel and the Palestinians through the establishment of a Palestinian terror state the centerpiece of his Middle East agenda, Obama is able to cast Israel as the region's villain. This aim is reflected in the administration's intensifying pressure on Israel to destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. In portraying Jews who live in mobile homes on barren hilltops in Judea and Samaria -- rather than Iranian mullahs who test ballistic missile while enriching uranium and inciting genocide -- as the greatest obstacle to peace, the Obama administration not only seeks to deflect attention away from its refusal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is also setting Israel up as the fall guy who it will blamed after Iran emerges as a nuclear power.

Obama's intention to unveil his Middle East peace plan in the course of his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, like his decision to opt out of visiting Israel in favor of visiting a Nazi death camp, make clear that he does not perceive Israel as either a vital ally or even as a partner in the peace process he wishes to initiate. Israeli officials were not consulted about his plan. Then too, from the emerging contours of his plan, it is clear that he will be offering something that no Israeli government can accept.

According to media reports, Obama's plan will require Israel to withdraw its citizens and its military to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. It will provide for the free immigration of millions of Israel-hating Arabs to the Palestinian state. And it seeks to represent all of this as in accord with Israel's interests by claiming that after Israel renders itself indefensible, all 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (including Iran) will "normalize" their relations with Israel. In short, Obama is using his peace plan to castigate the Netanyahu government as the chief destabilizing force in the region…

Anyone get the feeling that Obama considers the Jews expendable? (Well, I guess he wouldn't be the first.)

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

“Justice,” Canucki-style: How costly is it to join a cabal of would-be jihadi terrorists plotting to blow up major infrastructure? In Canada, anyway, it’ll set you back about 2 ½ years, providing you were an impressionable ‘yout’ when you became involved with the plotters, and, further, that you’re a “revert” who promises to go that extra mile to connect with your infidel relatives. The Globe and Mail reports on a judge’s extremely, ahem, nuanced sentence for terrorism:

A youth charged as part of the 2006 Toronto terrorism arrests was sentenced yesterday to time served and released after two years of presentence custody.

The youth, who cannot be named even though he was sentenced as an adult, was given a prison term of two years and six months. Under an agreement with the Crown, the time he spent in jail before his trial and sentencing was counted at "1.25 to 1," adding up to exactly 2½ years.

For knowingly participating in a terrorism group, the now-21-year-old could have been sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Mr. Justice John Sproat of the Ontario Superior Court pointed to presentence reports that described the man as immature and insecure, a combination that made him prone to bad decisions.

Documents released to the news media after the decision paint a picture of a young man who grew up in troubled surroundings and struggled to find somewhere to belong.

Court documents show that he came to Canada from Sri Lanka at age 7 and had trouble fitting in and learning English. A psychiatric report said he claimed that his father was "distant and abusive" and that his Hindu family reacted badly to his decision to convert to Islam.

The report noted that the young man has no extreme mental or personality disturbances. "Rather, he presents as an immature individual with strong dependency needs, feelings of inadequacy, and a tendency to look to others for approval and acceptance."

Nonetheless, Judge Sproat said, the nature of the man's crimes was serious.

"[The man] understood this was a terror group," the judge said. "[He], by his eager participation, was serving in enhancing the group."

The man becomes the first person sentenced in the high-profile terrorism case, almost three years after police arrested 18 people. Since then, charges have been stayed in the cases of three youths and four adults. One adult recently pleaded guilty to terrorism offences, but has yet to be sentenced. The other adult suspects have yet to go on trial.

The courts usually cease to protect the identities of people charged as youths but given adult sentences. However, the judge agreed to extend that protection pending an appeal.

The defence had asked for a one-year sentence, which essentially meant immediate freedom for their client. The Crown had asked for three years, which would have amounted to a six-month term.

In deciding on a sentence, it appears the judge attributed particular significance to a letter the young man wrote to him, in which he said he wants to turn his life around.

"As a convert, I can really understand the importance of being tolerant and accepting of others," he wrote. "My parents and extended family are not Muslim and I love them and do not believe they are deserving of less respect by anyone simply because they are not Muslim."

I’m sure he’s most sincere about that, and that others are taking note of the effect such words can have on a compassionate Canadian judge.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:38 | link | comments

Foreign influence: There’s been a major kerfuffle at Ottawa’s biggest mosque. 13 of its leaders have resigned to protest the retention of Imam Khaled Sayed. It’s not that the imam, sent here a year ago from Egypt, isn’t learned. It’s that his command of English is, well, rather dicey, and the rebels would prefer a cleric who didn’t orate with such a heavy Egyptian accent. Gates of Vienna has a good summary of the squabble. I wouldn’t have paid too much attention to the story—synagogue politics; mosque politics: it’s all about big fish swimming in a small pond and getting in each others’ way, more or less. However, the following happened to catch my eye:

The community’s previous imam, Gamal Solaiman, left Ottawa in 2007. When the community could not find a satisfactory replacement, the Egyptian Ministry of Religious Affairs sent Imam Khaled from a program that sends scholars to Muslim communities abroad. He has an initial term of one year, which ends in July 2009, with an option to extend to 2011 if both sides agree. The Egyptian government, not the mosque, pays his salary…

Come again? You mean Hosni Mubarak’s regime picks up the tab for the imam of the main mosque in Canada’s capital? If the Canadians want to be able to have a say in who gets to be their imam, why don’t they bloody-well pay his salary? And isn’t there something unsettling about Egypt having so much influence over what happens here in Canada?

Or should we be thankful that at least this mosque isn’t under the sway of the Wahhabis?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:38 | link | comments

Obama's radical ghost?: Did former Weatherguy Bill Ayers have a hand in penning Obama's first book, Dreams of My Father? This American Thinker thinks so, and bases his case upon a close analysis of Billy boy's writing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:49 | link | comments

“Human rights” S.O.S.: Sensing that Ontarians may be out for HRC blood, a card-carrying member of the grievance industry (she runs a Toronto legal clinic for Chinese and South Asians) lashes out in the Sunday Star. The eagle, who has a vested interest in ensuring there’s a steady supply of warm “victims” for her clinic (‘else she’d have to find other work), claims the desire to get rid of the buttinskies (my word, not hers) is evidence of a malign conservative plot and a function of wanting to return to the bad old days of ee-vil Tory premier, Mike (Booga Booga) Harris:

…Sadly, voters in this province eagerly bought what they were being sold by Harris, who went on to win the premier's job by stripping access to equal employment opportunity by women, people with disabilities, racial minorities and aboriginal peoples.

Those who think that this time around voters will not repeat the same mistake they did with Harris should think again. Indeed, the very same socio-economic conditions that gave rise to Harris-style government are present today.

Back then, as it is now, the province was in a recession. Angry and desperate Ontarians were looking for something – and someone – to blame for their economic woes. Those with the least political power became the convenient scapegoats.

Overnight, welfare moms, racial minorities and immigrants became a drain on our society and were the prime targets for the backlash. Rather than exposing the fallacies of the neo-conservative policy of the day, the media did little to counter the negative stereotypes invoked by the Tories to justify their political stand.

Further, two recent academic studies yet again confirm racism is alive and well in Canada. The first, a study by Jeffrey Reitz at the University of Toronto, found that the more discrimination someone faced, the more they were likely to identify with their ethnic group, rather than as a Canadian. As the headline in the Toronto Star report about this study starkly stated: "The darker your skin ... the less you fit in." With a weaker sense of Canadian identity, scholars point out that many in these racialized communities are less likely to vote.

The second study was conducted by researchers at the University of British Columbia who found that job applicants with "English-sounding names" have a greater chance of getting job interviews than those with Asian names.

Workplace discrimination is precisely the ill that employment equity law is designed to cure. Despite mounting evidence of the rise in racial inequities, policy-makers have yet to acknowledge the social harm created by the repeal of the Employment Equity Act in 1995. Instead, Ontarians are often told that racism and discrimination are no longer an issue, as we now live in a post-racial era thanks to the election of U.S. President Barack Obama.

Putting aside the completely illogical link that is made between the election of another nation's president and the status of racial equality in our own backyard, and the growing signs that the Obama administration may be different in appearance but not in substance when compared to the previous administration, Canadians must face up to our own responsibilities, both legally and morally, to ensure that all people are treated equally and with respect.

Our journey toward equality is never-ending, and our human rights laws are an important tool to guide us along the way. Rather than electing political leaders who strive to gain power by appealing to the darkest side of our nature, let us start choosing those who champion a vision of rights and justice.

Got that? It’s never-ending. An idea that offers enormous solace, I’m sure, for those who toil in the grievance industry and its offshoots. Cold comfort for those who can see how this self-perpetuating industry and its endless false alarms (some of which end up being adjudicated by our “quasi-judiciary”) is wholly undermining to our freedom.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments

Brand name obsolescence: BCF has alerted me to an article in Saturday’s Toronto Star which questions the relevance of the “brand name” for Canadian Jewry, the Canadian Jewish Congress, on the occasion of its 90^th anniversary. This being the Toronto Star, bastion of leftist cluelessness, the article queries whether an “establishment” organization that’s welcome in the corridors of power can presume to represent younger Canadian Jews concerned about Israeli treatment of Palestinians, especially in—what’s the name of that godforsaken territory full of terrorists and human shields that’s not in the middle of the Indian Ocean?—oh yeah, Gaza.

Well, those sorts of Jews can certainly find other groups that are muy sympatico—like, say, Not in Our Name and the Canadian Arab Federation. Meanwhile there are other sorts of Jews, those not in synch with the Star and the aggrieved young’uns, who believe the CJC has rendered itself irrelevant for other reasons—because it pushes the “progressive” agenda, champions state censorship and seeks to “protect” Jews by kissing up to “moderate” Muslims in the (vain) hope that, come the pogroms, such “moderates” will rush to our defence.

Mark Steyn explains the CJC’s befuddled modus operandi—spelunkering for hidden “Nazis” while turning a blind eye to the clear and present threat:

The more the new judenhass metastasizes across the western world through a malign Islamo-leftist alliance, the more feverishly the CJC insists that the real enemies are "Nazis": No, no, you silly Jews, pay no attention to those government-funded imams or corduroyed college professors, Ontario union leaders or Guardian columnists. We need to redouble the fight against rightwing aryans in uniform before they sweep the prairies! As Kathy Shaidle says, there are more Nazis in the average "Hogan's Heroes" episode than the whole of Canada. If you're interested in pursuing phantoms in an alternative universe, cardboard heroes like Warman and Bernie Farber are your go-to guys. If you want to do anything about the rampant anti-Semitism in the real actual western world today, you need to look elsewhere.

Indeed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:41 | link | comments

Saturday, 23 May 2009

Al-Quds or bust: Despite the reality that Al-Quds isn’t mentioned by name—no, not even once—in their holy book, Muslims in far-off Indonesia, we are told by Wahhabi news site Islam Online, are pining, yearning, aching like crazy for the city. Well, they would, wouldn’t they, since, like other ummah devout, they’re not allowed to visit until the Jews have been chased out:

JAKARTA – Yearning for the holy city of Al-Quds (occupied East Jerusalem), Indonesian Muslims are launching a massive campaign to raise awareness about the occupied holy city.

"We miss Al-Quds. All Muslims miss it," Amrozy Rais, director the Indonesia's Center for Middle East Study, told IslamOnline.net.

"So, we need a massive movement to get it back."

Indonesian NGOs have launched a massive campaign to raise awareness about the occupied city, including holding seminars, festivals and fund-raising campaigns.

"Al-Quds is the capital city of the Arab culture and Islam," Rais said.

"It's not suitable to let the third holy place ailing."

The campaign has been drawing a positive response in the world's most populous Muslim country.

"We plan to hold international forum in Turkey," said Rais. "We have had a positive signal from the government and parliament to do so."

Israel captured and occupied Al-Quds in the six-day 1967 Middle East war, then annexed it in a move not recognized by the world community or UN resolutions.

The city is home to Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam's third holiest shrine, and represents the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"We miss Al-Quds because it was the center of awakening," Rais said.

"Most of us want to go back to RasulAllah era to be able to visit the place regularly."

Yearning

Many Indonesian Muslims are aspiring for visiting the holy city and praying at Al-Aqsa Mosque.

"When I went to `Umrah last year, I really wanted to visit Masjid Al-Aqsa but I could not do it because it's under Israel authority," Fajar Sidik, a chemist, told IOL.

Sidik is not alone.

"I miss Al-Quds to be with Muslims," Hardito Warno, a journalist, said.

Indonesian scholars have issued a fatwa banning Muslims from visiting Al-Quds until the city is liberated from the Israeli occupation.

"We have to take it back first then we can go there," said Warno, calling for Muslims worldwide to join hands to liberate the holy city…

New Year in Jerusalem, eh?

Historian Michael B. Oren places the loss of Jerusalem, as we Jews prefer to call it (since we were there first), at the top of his list of the seven—count ‘em, seven—existential threats facing Israel.

Update: Hugh Fitzerald offers another reason for the Indonesians' longing--they're not Arabs, and therefore feel they must try harder to show their Islamic bona fides:

Indonesia is the one Muslim state that was conquered not by Muslim warriors, but by traders from the Hadramaut who came to Java and established trading entrepots on the coasts. They then turned these into military centers, as was natural for Muslims, and then slowly expanded them, but in the main sought to win power through converting the leaders of Java and Sumatra, who then ordered their subjects to convert. And the continued presence of the monuments of the Hindu and Buddhist past, the pre-Islamic sites such as Borobudur, as with Persepolis in Iran, keep reminding people that they were not always Muslims, though of course the purest Muslims would just as soon raze to the ground any reminder of the pre-Islamic or non-Islamic elements in Indonesia.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:20 | link | comments (1)

Another “genius” heard from: Dhimmis to the left of me, dhimmis to the right, here I am, stuck in the Miliband with you:

CAIRO – British Foreign Secretary David Miliband asserted on Thursday, May 21, that the Iraq war creates prejudice against his country just as the Crusades and the colonial powers' failure to create two states in Palestine.

"Decisions taken many years ago in King Charles Street are still felt on the landscape of the Middle East and South Asia," he said in a key speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OXCIS) on Thursday, May 21.

"Ruined Crusader castles remain as poignant monuments to the religious violence of the Middle Ages."

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe during 1095–1291.

The campaigns, most of which were sanctioned by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule.

"Lines drawn on maps by Colonial powers were succeeded, amongst other things, by the failure – it has to be said not just ours - to establish two states in Palestine," added Miliband.

In 1917, then British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour sent a letter to Baron Rothschild declaring that the British government views with favor the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

In 1948, Israel was created on the rubble of Palestine, forcing thousands of people out of their homes.

Miliband placed the Iraq war in the same context as the Crusades and colonialism.

"More recently, the invasion of Iraq, and its aftermath, aroused a sense of bitterness, distrust and resentment. When people hear about Britain, too often they think of these things," he said.

"These events are associated with a history of relations between Europe and the Islamic world that have been characterized by conquest, conflict and colonialism."

In 2003, then Prime Minister Tony Blair parted with several European allies in backing the decision of then US President George Bush in invading Iraq without a UN mandate.

Coalition of Consent

Miliband underlined the need for a new approach to build wider coalitions and consent among ordinary Muslims.

He insisted that Britain should find common ground with Muslim societies and understand their complexity…

Yes, I hear they’re very “nuanced.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:04 | link | comments

Gee, ya think?: Obama says dangerous Guantanamo prisoners might be big problem.

An even bigger problem: the fact that the guy making that staggeringly obvious statement, the guy who's bringing the dangerous ones to the U.S. mainland, sits in the Oval Office.

The staggeringly obvious seems to be the trend this morning. Here's AP noting that Cheney going mano a mano with President Mushforbrains is a boon to the GOP. Well, that's bound to happen anytime the president wants to jettison a policy that's kept the U.S. safe from terrorist attack for eight years and replace it with the failed Clintonian one that saw Americans getting pulverized.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:50 | link | comments

Friday, 22 May 2009

Everybody in whole cell block was dancin' to the jihad rock: Phyllis Chesler isn’t at all surprised that the four lowlifes who wanted to blow up a New York synagogue “reverted” to Islam while in prison, since the faith can hold particular appeal for such dudes:

…According to my esteemed colleague, Frank Gaffney, the Saudis have been funding Wahabi-style political-religious conversions among marginalized men in prison in the West for a long time. The Islamic Society of North America has allegedly placed many imams and mullahs in the American prison system where they prey mainly upon men of color, (they are over-represented in the American prison system), whose lives have already been shattered by poverty, racism, drugs, mental illness, gang life, and a long history of criminality. (And, as a reader, David Thomson, has just pointed out, their lives have also been “severely harmed by widespread illegitimacy, vile rap music that denigrates women and traditional values, feelings of victimization, self-pity, and the politically correct nonsense that asserts that all their problems are the result of white imperialism.”)

Islam may be presented to these inmates as a religion of many colors, as especially friendly to men of African descent. Jihad may also be presented as a way to overcome “oppression.”

Islam is probably not presented as an imperialist, colonialist force or as a religion whose leaders practice genocidal jihad, slavery, and both gender and religious apartheid; whose leaders were instrumentally involved in the African slave trade to America; and who, today, keep slaves, and persecute black Africans in Darfur. A formal, radical doctrine which preaches hatred of “white racist America,” the very country that has jailed them, might be balm to their shamed spirits. Perhaps jailed men of color are also attracted by the possibility of polygamy, or by female co-religionists who are, voila!, subservient to men on American soil.

Perhaps James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams, and Laguerre Payen, (the Bronx Four), were inspired by the late, great Malcolm X, a.k.a. Malik Shabazz, a criminal turned Muslim leader—who was, arguably, assassinated by The Nation of Islam who found his preaching ultimately too…peaceful, too color-blind, too charismatic.

Or, perhaps these latest homegrown terrorist-wannabees were inspired by the ability of the Nation of Islam, (which emerged in 1930 America), to offer African-American prisoners protection and an identity in jail, and more than that: to help them remain sober, and to give dignity, meaning, and purpose to their lives. To the extent to which this “hate Whitey, hate the Jews” version of political Islam could and still does, indeed, uplift and console the spirits of the disenfranchised…..we are all in grave trouble.

Perhaps men also convert simply because they want to receive the perks that Muslims receive in prison: a better quality halal food, incense, prayer rugs...

Winning hearts and minds with couscous and kebabs. Genius!

I got to meet Frank Gaffney the other night when The Third Jihad, the doc banned by PBS for ~~telling the truth about the Islamist agenda~~ not being nice enough to Islamists was screened in Toronto. Gaffney addressed the crowd prior to the screening, and took questions afterward. The only face I recognized (aside from my sister, who treated me to the event) was that of an Official Jew who once had a heated run-in with Ezra Levant, an encounter I was privileged to witness. This chap, a champion of Canada’s state censorship, was seated in the row behind me. I was thus delighted to be able to ask this question during the q&a: “I’m sure you know that here in Canada, we’re really big on multiculturalism. I was wondering if you could talk a bit about how multiculturalism dovetails with the Islamist agenda. I’m thinking specifically of the area of free expression.”

Politically incorrect? Un-Trudeaupian? You betcha! But that’s the only way to go unless you’re prepared to live with cantering fascism of the Islamist/leftist kind.

Update: Robert Spencer explains why jihadists have it in for Jews (and, go figure, it has nothing to do with Gaza).

Update: Let's rock!:

Imam threw a party in the county jail,

Prisoners were prayin’, they begain to wail:

“Allahu Akbar, baby, is the way to go.”

Should’ve heard those blissed out zealots crow.

Let’s rock! Everybody let’s rock!

Everybody in the whole cellblock

Was dancin’ to the jihad rock!

Suleiman was scarfin’ down some grilled kebabs.

Reminiscin’ ‘bout the time he pulled some jobs.

Little Abdul showin’ off, he’ll scream and shout.

Sez he’s doin’ lots of Jews when he gets out.

Let’s rock…

Number Forty-Seven said to Number Two:

‘Ja read what Holy Koran said about “the Jew”?

Sez the Prophet turned ‘em into apes and swine.

To err, he sez, is human but jihad’s divine.

Let’s rock…

The sad sack was a-sittin' on a block of stone,

Way over in the corner weeping all alone.

The imam said: " Hey, buddy, come join in the fight.

An afterlife of ho’s--yo’s if you do it right!"

Let’s rock…

Let’s rock! Everybody let’s rock!

Everybody in the whole cellblock

Was dancin’ to the jihad rock!

Dancin’ to the jihad rock!

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

Hell raisers: Satans both great and small can’t defeat the glorious Shia republic, sez the tiny bloviator, because it’s well nigh invincible. From Fars News:

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Islamic Republic will crush any country that is used as a launch pad for a possible military operation against Iran

"Today Iran has the power to turn any base that fires a bullet at Iran into hell," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the central city of Semnan on Wednesday.

"In the past some (world powers) threatened Iran but today they cannot threaten Iran with their military power," he said.

"Today we declare that no country has the power to threaten Iran," MNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"Unfortunately, today there are some people who think that compromise with enemies will remove threats but experience has shown that whenever Iran softens its stance the enemies are emboldened," he added.

"If we want the threats to be removed we should steadfastly resist against the enemies," Ahmadinejad concluded.

Pure sabre-rattling. Nothing a few more hugs ‘n’ smiles from Barack can’t turn around.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:30 | link | comments

Opening the door to da’wa: One of many buildings people can visit this weekend during Doors Open Toronto, an annual city event, is a downtown mosque. The mosque, in a former bank building, belongs to the Muslim Association of Canada, which Maclean's magazine has described as "a group openly supportive of the international Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, and its founder Hassan al Banna." (My bolds):

Event information: Visitors can expect a guided tour of the mosque and a chance to view a number of special exhibits. Throughout the weekend, the mosque will be hosting exhibits of Islamic art and calligraphy by Ibrahim Shalaby and Ibraheem Youssef, as well as architecture by Indonesian mosque architect, Kusdaya Sukada. On Saturday, May 23rd, Masjid Toronto is hosting a unique and rare one day exhibition of original and historical treasures of Islamic arts & antiques from the private collection of Dr. Farhan M. Asrar (resident physician at McMaster University and affiliated hospitals). Islam, the world's fastest growing religion has been the inspiration for a number of the world's greatest art treasures, these works of art expressing the majesty of Islam, with the words and teachings of God. Dr. Asrar's vast and marvelous collection includes rare and beautifully embellished Qurans (Islamic holy book) which are all handwritten and centuries old. All masterpieces were painstakingly handwritten by world renowned calligraphers, illuminated in gold and precious stones and date back 250-550 years old. Other items from his collection on display include handwritten manuscripts on Hadith (Prophetic tradition), Duaa (Prayer), historical and renowned handwritten books such as the 'Ain-e- Akbari', 'Tuzukay Jahangiri', illuminated 'Shahnama Firdausi', 'Masnai Manawi' by Jalaluddin Rumi, Nusratul Qulub, etc. Several masterpieces of Islamic calligraphy in various scripts including original calligraphic works of Emad Al-Hassani, Persia's most celebrated calligrapher. Dr. Asrar will also be displaying from his private collection, currency notes (banknotes) from around the Islamic world, share certificates and important original Islamic documents from the Ottoman period, Makkah, South Asia, Egypt, Nizam of Hyderabad's period and several other countries.
After their tours, visitors will be invited to explore audio-visual presentations about the Muslim faith and taste snacks and treats from various parts of the Muslim world. Throughout the day, visitors will also have the opportunity to observe the mid-afternoon prayer and listen to Muslim poets and authors present their work. The program schedule is as follows: Saturday, May 23, 2009
12:00-12:15pm Spoken word by Big Akhee Big Ukhti (BABU) Leadership group, 1:30-1:40pm Mid-afternoon prayer
2:00-2:15pm Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star, author of Being Muslim, a criqitue of post-9/11 politics, from Iraq to Afghanistan -- via Canada [especially Toronto]. Book signing follows program. 3:00-3:15pm Rukhsana Khan, award-winning author and storyteller Sunday, May 24, 2009
12:00-12:15pm Spoken word by BABU Leadership group
1:30-1:40pm Mid-afternoon prayer 2:00-2:15pm Spoken word (Jafar Alam, Sarah Rostom, BABU Leadership group)
3:00-3:15pm Spoken word (Boonaa Mohamed, Michael Cain, BABU Leadership group) As this is a place of worship, visitors are requested to abide by the following dress code: All clothing must cover shoulders and knees. Footwear must be removed upon entering the building.

Be there or be kafir.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:58 | link | comments (4)

Thursday, 21 May 2009

Disingenuous dopeychanger: As I was listening to Obama's glib, cynical speech today--a desperate bid to justify his cockamamie plan to shut Gitmo and bring the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to mainland America--I was reminded of what Mary McCarthy once said about Commie self-confabulist Lillian Hellman: "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the."

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

For once, why not try putting the cart after the horse?: A great line, as quoted by Cal Thomas in JWR:

A recent Washington Times editorial put it well: "The Obama administration should focus less on creating a Palestinian state and more on helping Palestinians earn the right to statehood." That is exactly the right order.

The right order in a sane world. In our berzerko world, the cart-before-the-horse-approach makes everyone (well, not everyone) go giddyup.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:56 | link | comments

Jehan’s true colours: How well I remember the "good old days," when I was a smug leftist, and I attended an event where Anwar Sadat’s widow was feted by a Jewish women’s organization. Funny, but I don’t recall her saying the kind of stuff she recently said on Egyptian TV (translated by MEMRI):

"[Al-Sadat] Called Upon the Arabs to Join the Negotiations [With Israel] – But They Refused"

Jehan Al-Sadat: "[Al-Sadat] called upon the Arabs to join the negotiations [with Israel], but they refused. He told them that if they had a solution, he would be willing to go along with it, but they didn't have any solution. As a leader responsible for his country, was he expected to wait 30 years – and indeed, 30 years have passed by now – until they decide whether they want peace or not? Don't forget what happened in Gaza – the unjust bombing of the Palestinians in Gaza..."

Interviewer: "The recent aggression..."

Jehan Al-Sadat: "...which broke our hearts... Egypt could have been subjected to the same thing, if it did not have peace with Israel.

"If not for the peace signed by Anwar Al-Sadat, Israel would have bombed a school here, a hospital there in Egypt. Egypt would have been subjected to the same aggression as Gaza, if Anwar Sadat had not protected Egypt from this.

"Over the past 30 years – look how many Palestinians have been killed, look how many homes have been destroyed in Gaza and elsewhere, look what material damage they have suffered. If they had listened to Anwar Al-Sadat, and had reached an agreement with Israel, all of this could have been prevented.

[...]

"Many people opposed the Camp David Accords, but believe me, many of them sent me letters, and told me, during dinner parties and meetings, that although they had been against Camp David and Anwar Al-Sadat, they now consider him to have been ahead of his time. They say: 'When we see what is going on in Gaza, we know that this man saved Egypt from a great disaster.'"

[...]

Interviewer: "Is it true, as has been said, that at one point, before the [1952] revolution, Al-Sadat was a member of [the Muslim Brotherhood] – especially since during his presidency, the Muslim Brotherhood enjoyed a 'honeymoon period?'

Jehan Al-Sadat: "Yes, yes."

Interviewer: "Was he really a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Jehan Al-Sadat: "Yes, yes, yes. In fact, as a child, I believed strongly in the Muslim Brotherhood. They were established in Al-Roudha. Al-Hudhaybi lived in Al-Roudha. These young men had moral values, faith, and ideals. I took pride in them to the point that I would collect what little money I could from my family and friends, and I would go to the place of Al-Hudhaybi, who lived practically next door, and I would knock on the door and give him the envelope. Of course, this was peanuts to him. He would look at me, just a girl, and would laugh and pat me on the shoulder. He would thank me, and I would be happy, because I was sure I had done a great patriotic act, by helping the Muslim Brotherhood.

"I still believe there are many moderates and rational people among them, who want to change the image caused by a wing of terror and murder, which arose all of a sudden among them, and which is rejected by everybody. Many among the Muslim Brotherhood have also rejected this fanatic wing. Allah willing, our Lord will guide them to accept the country's regime."

[...]

"I hope to see peace in my lifetime, and I hope that the Palestinian leaders realize that Obama is their golden opportunity, and if they do not take advantage of this opportunity, only God knows what will become of the Palestinian cause."

I wouldn’t be too worried, Jehan. You can be sure those who want to redress the historical “wrong” of Israel’s existence will keep the “cause” front and centre.

I would note that while Israel and Egypt haven’t been mixing it up militarily for the past three decades, Egypt may hold the distinction of being the most antisemitic country in the world, and Egyptians retain their unhealthy obsession with Israel. Indeed, there are some who might argue that that Begin-Sadat peace treaty was actually a bad thing, since it led Israelis and others to conclude that the bone of contention was Israel’s possession of some land, instead of all of the land of Israel, and raised false hopes that land could be traded for “peace” again. Israelis and Americans have been chasing this chimera ever since.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:18 | link | comments

Scamming the Brits as easy as shooting fish in a barrel: The timesonline reports that some lads of the excitable persuasion may have entered the U.K. under false pretenses:

Thousands of young Pakistanis exploited a hole in Britain’s immigration defences to enrol as students at a network of sham colleges, The Times can reveal.

The gateway, opened by fraudsters who have earned millions from the scam, has allowed in hundreds of men from a region of Pakistan that is the militant heartland of al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taleban.

Eight of the terror suspects arrested last month in Manchester and Liverpool were on the books of one college.It had three small classrooms and three teachers for the 1,797 students on its books. Another college claimed to have 150 students but secretly enrolled 1,178 and offered places to a further 1,575 overseas applicants, 906 of them in Pakistan…

Not such a scam, really. Aren’t those the student-teacher ratios at some Pakistani madrassahs?

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

Jewish suck-ups: Here in Canada Jewish officials are involved in a number of bizarro schemes aimed at ingratiating Jews with Muslims—Somali mentorship programs and the like. And in the U.S.? Same thing, as per these observations in FrontPage:

…Notwithstanding the most incontrovertible survey data – findings so solid, consistent, and devastating not even the most naïve multicultural Pollyanna can be in denial regarding the fanatical anti-Semitism pervasive among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims – the ADL [American Defamation League] continues incomprehensible efforts to curry favor with Islam. It has done it in the past by falsifying the historical record (see the Armenians), permitting non-experts in its employ to make intellectually vacuous, sophomoric distinctions about Islam and Jihadism, and seeking publicity by attacking one of the few European politicians with the courage to speak out about the impact of mass Muslim immigration to Europe (more of which later) that will in the course of uprooting Western civilization in its heartland, inevitably bring an end to the Western European chapter of Jewish history within a few decades. For Islamic organizations to have the lead "attack dog" in the American-Jewish Establishment go after one of its mortal enemies [Armenians who want their genocicde acknowledged--a cause the ADL has now distanced itself from] was an unexpected, unalloyed pleasure.

Whatever expletives others have used to characterize its action, what the ADL has done isn't an aberration. It flows from deeply rooted predilections: unconditional commitment to open-borders immigration and its mission as a professional "tolerance promoter" to promote tolerance even for the least tolerant (with some exceptions, of course)…

Time to wake up, somnolent ones. All this “tolerance promotion” is doing is digging us an even deeper hole.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:59 | link | comments

Whassup with Harpoon and the Tamils?: The Toronto Star’s resident shill for the Islamist viewpoint, Harpoon Siddiqui, is baffled by Torontonians’ apparent lack of tolerance for serial Tamil protests:

We want Tamil Canadians, and other minorities, to "be Canadian." Yet when they act Canadian and exercise their Charter right to peaceful protest, we call them "Tamils," the very identity we do not want them to revert to exclusively.

For their recent protests, Tamil Canadians have been derided for causing traffic disruptions and adding to policing costs…

…We also don't complain about the costs of policing the Toronto entertainment district Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights all year round.

At peak times, up to 30,000 people gather there. Many get drunk or come drunk in their cars or limos from the suburbs. The bars/clubs have their own security. But up to 100 police officers – on foot, bikes, horses and in cruisers – are there to prevent violence, break up fights and maintain order.

They do so with a soft touch.

At the end of the long night, they move the crowds onto the roads and hasten them along to parking lots, taxi stands, streetcars and subway stations.

The Toronto Police Services Board proposed a tax levy on the businesses there to recover the costs.

But city lawyers said, rightly, that under the Police Services Act, the municipality is responsible for providing adequate and effective policing, period. That was that.

Why, then, the fuss over Tamil Canadians? Because they broke the law, it's said. But they didn't break the law any more than truckers, farmers or aboriginals blocking highways, roads and trains.

Tamil Canadian rallies were peaceful and orderly, except for the one-time takeover of the Gardiner. No riots. No injuries.

Yet the Ottawa Police Services Board sent a bill of $900,000 to the federal government for policing Tamil Canadian protests over two weeks, leading up to an April 14 rally on Parliament Hill.

It turns out that the bill isn't really a bill. It may just be a reminder to John Baird, the Ottawa area Conservative minister, to come through on his election promise of $2 million a year for the political and diplomatic policing costs unique to the capital.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair represents the new breed of highly educated and trained leaders who use their heads to resolve issues, not batons. We should be proud of the way our police force managed the recent protests.

The Tamil Canadian issue is clouded by the very apt terrorist designation given the ruthless and totalitarian Tamil Tigers. But it helps to remember that Tamil Canadians are not Tamil Tigers. Those who are, are charged. Sympathy does not equal criminality.

This the Sri Lankan consul-general in Toronto, Bandula Jayasekara, does not understand. His assertion that Canada is "a haven for foreign terrorist groups" is an unsubstantiated, unacceptable interference in our domestic affairs. We don't run Canada by Sri Lankan standards.

That’s rich coming from someone who’s on board with creeping sharia.

So what’s really going on here? Why is Harpoon once again going to bat for Tamil protesters? Is it that he’s so sympathetic to their cause, so delighted by how “Canadian” they’re acting? Or is it that he’s pleased to see that police are impotent in the face of such protests—for example, the one which saw a seething mob of Hamas supporters hurling hateful epithets about Jews and their state?

So many questions; so few answers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:15 | link | comments

Jihad in North America: While official Jewry here in Canada keeps its eyes peeled for the dire threat of swastikas in public loos, the Jew-haters—Nazi-esque, though not actually Nazi—have moved on to much bigger projects. From CNN:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Four men arrested for an alleged plot to bomb a New York synagogue and Jewish community center are expected to appear in federal court Thursday, the U.S. Attorney's office said.

The men also wanted to use surface-to-air missiles to fire at U.S. military planes, according to a criminal complaint filed in White Plains, New York.

James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen are accused of plotting to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Riverdale section of Bronx, New York.

Each man had at least one alias, according to the office. Three of them are U.S. citizens and one is a Haitian, a statement from the New York governor's office said, citing the U.S. Attorney's office

The charges are based on information from an FBI informant, the attorney's office said in a written statement.

The statement said the informant met with Cromitie in June 2008 in Newburgh, New York. During that meeting, Cromitie said his parents live in Afghanistan, that he was angry over the U.S. war there and that he expressed interest in "doing something to America."

The four men began meeting with the informant at a home equipped with concealed video and audio equipment, plotting to bomb the synagogue and Jewish community center, the statement said.

They also conducted surveillance, including photographs, of an Air National Guard base where they wanted to blow up planes, the statement said. The informant provided the men with a surface-to-air guided missile and C-4 plastic explosives, none of which could actually be used.

"While the weapons provided to the defendants by the cooperating witness were fake, the defendants thought they were absolutely real," acting U.S. Attorney Lev L. Dassin said in the statement.

"The bombs had been made by FBI technicians," said Raymond Kelly, New York City police commissioner. "They were totally inert. no one was ever at risk or in danger of being injured."

The charges include conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction in the United States and conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles. The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.

"The targeting of any house of prayer in the United States is a threat to all religious groups and all religious leaders have an obligation to speak out publicly against this planned outrage," said a statement from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group.

The group urged all Jewish institutions to tighten security at their facilities…

According to the e-mail I received, Wiesenthal is calling on “ Muslim leaders to use their Friday sermons to explicitly and specifically condemn those who promote such terror in the name of Islam." Sure thing. Just as soon as they’re finished quoting the Koranic passages wherein you-know-who turns Jews into lowly beasts and “the Jews” are reviled as hell-bound scum of the earth—words which, along with all the jihad palaver, might have a bit to do with the bomb plots. (Funny, though, how none of the names of those arrested sounds Islamish.)

Update: The New York Daily News supplies the missing piece (my bolds):

...All four men were US-born.

Arrested was alleged ringleader James Cromitie of Newburgh, the son of an Afghan immigrant and his wife.

Cromitie served a long stretch in prison in the past.

Alleged henchment David Williams, Onta Williams and Leguerre Payen were busted with him.

Sources said the three were jailhouse converts to Islam...

Oh.

Update: How refreshing--a report (from Fox News) that doesn't buy the lede:

NEW YORK — As part of a holy war against America, four men sought to commit jihad when they plotted to bomb a Jewish temple and gun down military planes in upstate New York, the New York City police commissioner said Thursday.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters outside the Bronx temple Thursday that one of the men said, "If Jews were killed in this attack … that would be all right."

Kelly said the men allegedly "wanted to commit Jihad" and were angry about Muslims being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces...

Update: Guess which word in the above is strangely absent in the Islam Online report. Here's a hint: it starts with "j" and ends in "d" and the middle letters are "i," "h," and "a".

Update: Judith Miller writes

[W]hile Washington is mired in debate about how and where Gitmo detainees should be held and/or tried, the foiled plot in New York demonstrates that the terrorist threat to America, and to New York in particular, did not end with Obama's election as president, but rather, remains alive and well. James Cromitie, the plot's alleged ringleader, is an American citizen and convert to Islam. Also known as "Abdul Rahman," Cromitie was released in 2004 after having served four years in prison for selling drugs in a school zone. To the best of law enforcement's knowledge, he had never met anyone from Al Qaeda or a terrorist group. Yet the complaint quotes him last November lamenting the fact that "the best target [the World Trade Center] was hit already." That left a strike at Iraq and Afghanistan-bound military aircraft and an attack on synagogues as the best fallback targets. "I hate those motherf***ers, those f***ing Jewish bastards," the complaint quotes Cromitie as saying. "I would like to get [to destroy] a synagogue."

Whadya know? "Revert" James, er, Abdul sound like he wouldn't be at all out of place in a mob of Hamas supporters in Toronto.

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

Wednesday, 20 May 2009

What’s that bad smell?: It’s the Western intelligentsia’s rank hypocrisy, writes Melanie Phillips:

Two points arise from the apparent victory by the Sri Lankans against the Tamil Tigers. The first is that this has been achieved by flying in the face of the conventional wisdom that terrorism can never be defeated by military means but only by negotiation, ‘peace processes’ and compromise. The Sri Lankans tried that some years ago, with the result that the Tigers were enormously strengthened and merely ratcheted up their terrorist attacks.

As a result of that experience, the Sri Lankans decided that the only way to defeat the Tigers was to destroy them militarily. Consequently, they have waged a war against them as notable for its ruthlessness as for its strategic and tactical skill. In particular, they ensured that the media was excluded from the theatre of war so that what they were doing was not fully exposed to scrutiny.

The lesson to learn from all this would therefore seem to be that terrorist insurgencies can only be defeated by military means -- which in turn can only work if such measures are not undermined by the queasy neo-pacifism and defeatism of the west expressed through the surrender monkeys of human rights lawyers, NGOs and the media. In the Times, however, Michael Clarke, Rector of the Royal United Services Institute, warns that it may be premature to arrive at such a conclusion since the refusal of the Sri Lankans to try to win hearts and minds may yet mean that Tamil terrorism returns at a future date. Well, we shall see whether that turns out to be true or not.

But what is undeniable is that that war against the Tamil Tigers has exposed the rank hypocrisy and double standards of a western world that demonises and delegitimises Israel, on the basis of a false accusation that it has disproportionately targeted civilians in a theatre of war, while remaining relatively muted in the face of evidence which has emerged – despite the media restrictions – that the suffering of civilians under Sri Lankan bombardment (whether or not the Sri Lankans tried hard enough to minimise their suffering) has vastly exceeded that of the Palestinians…

Yes, but those Gazans suffer so all because the Jooos—colonialist, imperialist, capitalist interlopers—stole land that rightfully belongs to Arabs and Arabs alone.

You would think a smart cookie like Melanie Phillips would be able to see that. Caryl Churchill, for one, certainly can.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:17 | link | comments

Great news!: Obama sez the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression is over and "normalcy" is returning.

If by "normalcy" you mean incurring a jillion dollar debt that Sasha's and Malia's grandkids are still going to be paying off, that is.

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

The U.S. Senate sends the dopeychanger a message: And the message is--Gityo' mitts off Gitmo.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

UNRWA out for blood: Bernie Madoff’s dupes aren’t the only ones feeling the pinch these days. A portion of the massive UN bureaucracy that perpetuates the Palestinians’ “refugee” status has suffered dramatic finacial reversals and is demanding more blood money. From ANSA (bolds are mine):

AMMAN, MAY 12 - Tens of thousands of students in Palestinian refugee camps across Jordan will not be going to school for the coming three days, while healtch care units no longer will receive patients after staff in the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA began a strike demanding a pay hike. The work stoppage involves more than 10,000 workers of UNRWA across Jordan, who provide services to nearly 1.8 million Palestinian refugees who came to Jordan after successive wars that plagued the region. Health clinics have been shut down and garbage collection was put on hold from today until Thursday, said activists from the workers committee and UNRWA officials. The three day strike comes less than one month after a one day work stoppage for thousands of the UN staff across the kingdom, who have been urging officials from UNRWA to meet their demands. The committee also wants answer to loss of millions in the organization's retirement fund due to the collapse of stocks in the international market. Activists said if UNRWA does not abide, they will start an open ended workstopage next month. Nearly 170 schools, providing education to more than 124,000 students across the kingdom's 13 refugee camps, closed their doors and 1200 doctors and 1000 sanitation workers joined the work stoppage on hope of pressuring UN official grant them pay hike. UNRWA spokesman in Amman Matter Saqer called on the staff to end the strike and resort to "reason" arguing this type of measure will lead to "nowhere." "UNRWA administration exerted efforts until the last minute to avert the strike, now the staff union asked a 7% increase in salary, because the government granted granted workers that increase and UNRWA is based comparative policy," he told ANSA. "UNRWA conducted a salary survey and we shared with the committee the results and asked them to wait and the decision will be made, concerning the pay rise, but the staff union said we want a commitment to have an increase, but we said we can not give that commitment" he added. According to officials from Department of Palestinian Affairs (DPA), which manages affairs of 1.8 million Palestinian refugees, UNRWA needs urgent financial assistance to enable the agency to implement its programmes and increase the allocation for its budget in Jordan. UNRWA saving fund suffered a 20 % deficit due to the global economic crisis, a figure employees say was too high for them to bare considering their already difficult economic conditions. Most of Palestinian refugees who fled their homes after the 1948 and 1967 moved to Jordan and settled in a number of refugee camps, where they continue to receive aid from UNRWA, a body created by the UN after the war to help displaced Palestinians.

Palestinian “refugees” from wars that occurred many decades ago maintained in squalid camps at immense cost and denied citizenship by a nation that has a Palestinian majority: if anything exemplifies the madness of UNRWA, of the UN, it is that.

The best thing for both Israelis and Palestinians--for the whole world--would be to starve this insatiable behemoth and allow it, at lost last, to expire. (Which begs the question: would Jordan expire, too, since UNRWA seems to be its primary industry?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:16 | link | comments (1)

What do you call a first time offender in Somalia?: Lefty.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:39 | link | comments (1)

Some little jihadi needs more Obama hugs: Iran's tiny bloviator says he has missiles that can reach Israel and Europe.

But don't worry. It's not like he going to use them or anything.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:07 | link | comments

Swastika hotline a waste of cash: Laura Rosen Cohen skewers and then roasts one of Jewish victimhood's holiest bovines--the B'nai Brith Hate Hotline. Jews can access the hotline, which costs $100,000 a year to run, if and when they spy a Nazi grafitto in, say, a public washroom stall. (Some of them can be very hard to see.) LRC rightly (in more ways than one) notes that the hotline doesn't do a whole lot to "protect" Jews from actual hate, since most of these etchings are scrawled by harmless teenage vandals who get a charge out of acting all juvvie, not by real live gen-yoo-wine Nazis. She can think of a few better ways to spend the money:

Why not counter ‘hate speech’ with better speech, more persuasive speech, or more compelling speech? Why not sponsor a play-writing or songwriting contest on Israel and send the winner to Israel for an all-expenses paid trip?

What, and give up our hotlines and our Section 13s—all the things that give Canadian Jews the illusion of security and that safeguard our “psychological well-being” in Pierre’s Trudeaupia? Oh, Laura, how could we live without our binkies?

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

The long, long arm of the HRCs: In a letter to the Globe and Mail, retired HRC gumshoe Carl Raskin ‘splains why we need Big Brother—because despite Canada’s best efforts to construct a Trudeaupia, some people “in the private sector” continue to misbehave:

Ottawa -- As a retired Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator and author of several published UN reports on discrimination, I must take issue with Time To Right Some Wrongs (May 19).

How I only wish the marketplace would correct discriminatory behaviour. However, discrimination is committed not by rational enterprises seeking to maximize profit but by human beings with varied motives. This is why commissions base decisions not on discriminatory motives but on outcomes. Regretfully, the private sector continues to discriminate, and it is for this reason that only a government agency can safeguard the rights of those protected by legislation.

Similarly, society has come a long way since the enactment of many of the governmental discriminatory practices cited. And yet, one can think of recent policies and practices with discriminatory effects. What Tom Flanagan fails to mention is that rights commissions are at arm's-length to government and often take on complaints against government itself.

Finally, it is wrong to assert that commissions allow complaints to be lodged in multiple jurisdictions. It is the complainant who decides to lodge a complaint, which can only be dealt with in the commission with jurisdiction over where an alleged infraction has taken place.

Well, that’s one way to spin how a battalion of sanctimonious, irony-challenged ideologues hassle small business owners (“the private sector”) and validate nuisance suits—strippers who want to get nekkid past their expiration date, “medical” marijuana users who want to spark a doobie at their favourite sports bar, well-hung trannies who want to let it all hang out in the chicks’ locker room at the local gym— in the name of “perfecting” society.

As for that arm’s length bit—ask Rev. Stephen Boisson how long the arm of an HRC can be. So long that its edicts can reach well into the future, and maintain a chokehold till the end of a man’s days.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:43 | link | comments (2)

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Model's new flame: Headline in the National Post--"Kate Moss in reported relationship with Buddha."

Um, isn't he dead? Or did dating Kate give the old chubster a new lease on life?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:29 | link | comments

Obama's show stopper: The dopeychanger, doing a star turn a la Mama Rose, tells Israel's P.M. that peace in our time is on the horizon:

I had a dream, a dream about me, Bibi.

You know I agree, Bibi,

The Jews should be free, but Bibi…

I’ll be swell,

I’ll be great.

Gonna reach out to Muslims who hate.

Startin’ here,

Startin’ now,

Bibi, ev’rything's comin’ up crescents!

Make some moves! Give up land!

And what happens is gonna be grand.

Bow and scrape. Hug Hamas.

Bibi, ev’rything’s comin’ up crescents!

Now’s my outing. Stand the world on it’s head.

No use shouting. That just leads to more doubting!

Curtain up! Shut your eyes!

We are planning your future demise.

You’ll be gone, wait and see.

Judenrein, the Mid-E.

That lucky moon they talk about is due.

Bibi, ev’rything’s comin’ up crescents for them--and for you!...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:22 | link | comments

Pyrrhic victory: This article by Globe and Mail scribe Kirk Makin caught my eye, not because of the topic—a judge reluctantly ruling that a mother be granted sole custody of her daughter because the girl had been so severely alienated from her "blameless" father (the mother’s doing)—but because of how it unintentionally illustrates the difference between our law and sharia law:

The family law system has failed Ayman Al-Taher, leaving him just one sustaining force as he battles for his severely alienated daughter: his faith.

A Muslim chaplain at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, Mr. Al-Taher's last hope of seeing his 10-year-old child Ihsan slipped away last week, after Ontario Superior Court Judge Leonard Ricchetti permitted her mother to move their daughter to Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Justice Ricchetti expressed frustration that Tasnim Elwan beat the system by flagrantly violating court orders, spiriting Ihsan out of the country, and taking every measure possible to keep them apart.

Mr. Al-Taher is blameless, Judge Ricchetti said. Nonetheless, he said Ihsan has been so thoroughly alienated that granting her father any form of access would be harmful to her.

"I cannot state strongly enough the court's condemnation of the mother's lack of consideration for Ihsan's interest that she have a relationship with her biological father, and the actions she has taken towards the father," Judge Ricchetti said.

"Had there been any other way to achieve Ihsan's best interests than by letting Ihsan remain in her mother's custody, I would have done so without hesitation."…

Were the father living in Saudi Arabia, of course, he would have all the rights, and the mother would have none. But, by moving to Saudi Arabia, she is willingly renouncing the equal rights she has here to live in place where: she cannot drive; will require a close male relative to chaperone her in public; and, while in public, will be forced to wear a constricting, all-encompassing black shroud lest her womanly form make the local men hot and incapable of controlling their animal lust. So while the father has lost out, I wouldn’t say it’s much of a win for the mother, either.

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

It's the Great Betrayal, Charlie Brown: Wesley Pruden writes that Obama, in the Mideast to put in his two shekels' worth (which is about all it's worth), is sending Muslims "a frilly Valentine." (h/t TS)

While the Jews get a rock?

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:34 | link | comments

Nonsense and sensitivity: The National Post’s Yoni Goldstein detects “nuance” and “artistry”—but no anti-Semitism—in Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children:

…Churchill's play is overwhelming. In just 1,100 words -- less than 10 minutes of performance -- she travels 60+ years, through the most calamitous, joyous and frightening experiences in Jewish history. In the end, this is not a play about Palestinians or the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. It is a play about Jews.

It is brutal piece of work -- the brutality is in the evocation of the frazzled Israeli psyche. By contrast, Israel's Middle East neighbours have, for the most part, a rather easy time understanding their conflict with the Jewish state: They hate and wish to kill. And this is why they play no active role in Seven Jewish Children. Their act is a known commodity -- there is nothing further to explore.

Israelis have a much more difficult experience. They seek peace, but wish to protect themselves and their children from rocket attacks and suicide bombs. They live in fear, but wear the mask of the warrior -- it has been ingrained in their persona from early childhood through army training and a life of service to their land. Their country is at once a religious stronghold and a democratic state.

This inner conflict is at the heart of Seven Jewish Children. And Churchill offers no feel-good ending. The fear and uncertainty will continue. In a sense, they must continue, for to live without them is to descend into inhumanity.

Perhaps I’m less sensitive to “nuance” and “artistry” than Yoni is. Personally, I think not. My take on the play is the same as Rex Murphy’s—that it’s “a distasteful piece of agit-prop,” devoid of artistic merit, designed to elicit maximum sympathy for one side. And, trust me, it sure ain’t the Jewish one.

There are a number of English works that are both anti-Semitic and worthwhile; Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice and several Anthony Trollope novels come to mind. However, Churchill’s bilge is definitely not one of them.

Update: A friend and fellow member of the Zionist cabal notes that "Hamas is also very nuanced." Other things with "nuance" include

· "Allahu Akbar!"--mega-nuanced;

· Mein Kampf--nuanced to the max;

· Protocols of the Elders of Zion--so nuanced it's sick.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:18 | link | comments (2)

Monday, 18 May 2009

"The day Leonard Bernstein slipped me some tongue": Hear monologist non pareil Mark Steyn reveal this and other tales of horror (including the time Paul Simon dissed Frank Sinatra's ring-a-ding-ding version of Mrs. Robinson) as he fills in for Wendy and Mike on the first anniversary of their radio show.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:32 | link | comments (2)

Same old Arab intransigence: I’m reading—and enjoying—Allis and Ronald Radosh’s new book, A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel. In light of the new round of “peace talks” being foisted on the Jews, and the delusion that it will lead somewhere Jews want to go, I thought it would be interesting to post what the Wahhabi potentate wrote to FDR back in the day about the possibility of Jewish statehood, as well as what two influential American Jews—Abba Hillel Silver and Rabbi Stephen Wise—told President Harry Truman, who was wrestling with whether to support Jewish sovereignty in “Palestine.”

First, here’s what King Saud wrote re the idea of Jewish sovereignty in a letter to FDR not long before the president’s death:

The Arabs alone, Ibn Saud wrote, “had a natural right to Palestine,” a fact that, he stated, “needs no explanation.” He then proceeded to give the explanation he said was not necessary. Arabs had been in Palestine since 3000 B.C., while the “Jews were merely aliens” who had come there in intervals and been turned out in 2000 B.C. Any historical claim by the Jews was nothing but a “fallacy.” To allow the Jews entry, Saud argued, would be to allow them to enter a land “already occupied” and would then “do away with the original inhabitants,” which would be “an act unparalleled in human history.” The Jews’ ambition was not only to occupy Palestine but to “take hostile action against neighbouring Arab countries.” To allow a Jewish state would mean a deadly blow to the Arabs,” who for generations would “defend themselves…against this aggression.” The Allies, he told FDR, had to “fully realize the rights of the Arabs” and “prevent the Jews from going ahead” in any matter that would threaten all the Arab nations.

And here’s what Abba Hillel Silver and Rabbi Stephen Wise told Truman re those comments and the dead president who had endeavoured to play both sides of the street (my bolds) :

Most upsetting to them was Roosevelt’s failure to answer Ibn Saud’s “vilifications of the Jewish people.” These slanders, they noted, should not “have been allowed to stand unchallenged by one who knew how false those statements are.”….(T)hey proceeded to answer his arguments in detail…(rejecting) the claim that the Arabs had legal or moral title to sovereignty over Palestine. Though they conceded that Arabs had conquered it more than 1,300 years before, their rule was intermittent. Palestine was ruled by Christians during the Crusades and conquered by the Turks in 1518. It had remained a neglected backwater of the Ottoman Empire for three hundred years. “In the eroded, poverty-stricken and disease-ridden country which within the last few decades the Jewish people set out to reclaim,” the report continued, “it was difficult to recognize the land of milk and honey they described in the Bible. In the twenty years between the two World Wars, the Jews have done much to repair the ravages of the previous 1300.”

As to the ethnic claims, about 75 percent of the Arabic-speaking people now in Palestine were recent immigrants or the descendents of people who came in “comparatively recent time.” If Palestine exists as a separate concept,” they concluded, “it is because of its immemorial association with the Jews and Jewish history. At no time was there a Palestine Arab State…The Pan-Arab claim to Palestine is an attempt to add yet another to the immense, but for the most part thinly populated and underdeveloped territories of the independent Arab states.” They added that while the Jews had “conquered deserts and swamps, revived agriculture and industry and established in Palestine a sturdy, self-reliant community,” the “great mass of the people in the various Arab states are kept down in ignorance and fanaticism, in dirt and wretchedness by a ruling class which shows little or no interest in the improvement of their miserable lot.”

It’s almost shocking to read such words—the facts—so baldly stated all these years later, after decades of insidious but highly effective Arab propaganda has given rise to almost universal disapprobation for the Jewish “theft” of Arab land. If only the dopeychangers and the Israelis could read and assimilate these few brief sentences, it might obviate the need for the latest go-round of pointless “peace” talks.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:56 | link | comments (1)

Deadline double standard: Bibi and the Dopeychanger-in-Chief both agree: Iran’s nukes are the gravest threat to global stability. Nonetheless, Obama doesn’t want to rush into anything and impose an “artificial deadline” on Iran, since the Iranians are so cultured and all, and he wants to give them a chance to come to their senses on their own, as if there’s all the time in the world. From Fox News:

President Obama won't put an "artificial deadline" on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program but said Monday that the Islamic Republic's obtaining a nuclear weapon would be not only a threat to Israel and the U.S. but "profoundly destabilizing" to the international community in general.

In talks with reporters after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama said he would not let talks go on forever, but the June election in Iran will be revealing about whether there is a chance for progress with Tehran by the end of the year.

"Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential and we want them to be a full-fledged member of the international community, and be in a position to provide opportunity and prosperity for their people but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon," Obama said.

The president added that a "range of steps" are still available against Iran, including sanctions, if it continues its nuclear program.

"We are not foreclosing a range of steps ... in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious," he added.

Netanyahu said Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons would be an existential threat not only to Israel but the rest of the world.

"It could give the nuclear umbrella to terrorists or worse, it could actually give nuclear weapons to terrorists I believe it would put all of us in great peril," he said. He added that in his 59 years of life -- the modern Jewish state is only 61 years old -- he has never seen the Arabs and Jews so closely share the same threat as the one they both face from Iran.

Before the meeting, a senior aide to Netanyahu, national security adviser Uzi Arad, hinted that Israel might consider military action against Iran, saying there was a "sense of urgency" in Israel over the Iranian nuclear threat.

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was recently quoted as telling members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that the U.S. could give Israel greater assistance in deterring Iran in exchange for movement toward a Palestinian state -- a key plank of the U.S. agenda for the region. Officials later said Emanuel's comments were not meant to pressure the Israelis. …

Riiiight. ‘Cause while the dopeychangers manifest supreme sensitivity toward the Iranians and wouldn’t dream of imposing an “artificial deadline” on mully-bullies who are getting set to drop an atomic load on Israel, the dopes have no problem imposing an “artificial deadline” (i.e. make “progress” in the “peace process”—or else) on the Jews.

Update: CNN mischaracterization--Obama's "tough-love" approach to Israel.

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe "love" enters into it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:55 | link | comments (6)

Adam Lambert better not show up wearing eyeliner and channelling Freddy Mercury, though, ‘cause if he does he’s dead meat: The Toronto Star gives a heartfelt Paul Abdul vote of approval to “Islamic Idol”:

CAIRO – Flames burst from the stage for a grand entrance, and fake fog swirls around a young man in a white robe. He clutches the microphone, gazes seriously into the camera and then, accompanied only by drums, he sings.

"I accept Allah as my God, His religion as my religion, and His messenger as my messenger," he intones, as the audience, divided into men's and women's sections, claps along with the rhythm.

The singer is a contestant on a new Islamic version of American Idol, launched to promote and drum up talent for the Arab world's first Islamic pop music video channel.

The satellite station, 4shbab – Arabic for "For the Youth" – is the brainchild of an Egyptian media worker, Ahmed Abu Heiba, who says his mission is to spread the message that observant Muslims can also be modern and in touch with today's world.

"We have failed to deliver this message," he said on the sidelines of the contest, which aired late last month. The show is called Your Voice is Heard, though Abu Heiba has nicknamed it "Islamic Idol."

"What I am trying to do is to use the universal language of music to show what Islam looks like," he said.

The channel, which was launched in February and can be seen across the Arab world, is a bid to capitalize on a generation of young Muslims who have become more observant but are also raised on Western pop.

But it's hard to hit the right balance between conservative and liberal. The channel shows no female singers – or any other women – adhering to the mainstream view that women performers are taboo in Islam. Still, some conservatives are wary about mixing pop culture and religion.

So what does Islam look like on 4shbab? There's rock and hip-hop from American and British Muslim bands, singing about the struggles of keeping up with daily prayers or dressing modestly. The Arab singers tend toward a more romantic pop style – young men with smouldering eyes and flowing shirts sing in the rain about leading a virtuous life, going to mosque and supporting their families.

Abu Heiba said he wants to include women singers on the station, but "I believe that our societies are not ready to accept it."

The Arab world is full of female singers, but only on the numerous secular pop music channels. The videos often feature scantily clad women singing or dancing, with suggestive lyrics. Many tut-tut that such videos are offensive and against Arab and Muslim culture, but viewers still flock to the wildly popular video TV stations.

Abu Heiba said 4shbab is an antidote to the "lewd" music videos mainstream channels show.

"We give our kids the shadow of holiness because this is basic in our culture and religion," he said.

Hagar Hossam, 16, said she watches 4shbab "every day." Dressed in a head scarf and a long robe, the high school student giggled with her friends in the women's section of the competition.

"Islam isn't just about praying and religious rituals," she said. "We're allowed to have fun, be happy and be young. We just try to balance it with our religion and with what makes God happy."

I have no problem with that. As long as they “balance” it by singing, and not by trying to force the rest of us to swallow fun, happy sharia.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:31 | link | comments

Everyday popular delusions and the madness of the Jewish crowd: It’s a bizarre tale, indeed, one recounted by Ezra Levant here, here and here. It’s about how, back in the 1960s, Canada’s most prominent Jewish advocacy group, the organization one would think the least likely to want to boost the fortunes of local “Nazi” types, did just that.

Ezra calls it an “embarrassing” chapter in CJC history, and the Ceej apparently agrees, since it’s gone to great lengths to try to discredit him and expunge it from the public record. No can do since the record—newspaper reports, and even a cover story in Maclean’s—speaks for itself. However, in reading Ezra’s gobsmacking J’accuse, along with the chapter he links to in historian and Ceej executive Frank Bialystok’s book (whose last name, sorry Frank, always makes me titter since it’s the name of Zero Mostel’s character in The Producers), I think I can begin to unpack the sequence of events and underlying psychology that led to a kind of Jewish hysteria—a tribal freak-out, if you will. That freak-out back in 1960s Toronto, I’m sad to say, led directly to state censorship and the enforcers (the “human rights” commission chuckleheads) who lord it over us today.

It begins in the run up to WW2, when American and Canadian Jews were trying to figure out what they could do to the Jews of Europe escape from Nazi oppression. As always, there were two approaches to try to rouse government action: speak up forcefully and demand action; or “sha shtil,” the succinct Yiddish phrase for “don’t make too much noise because you’ll only draw attention to yourself and make things worse.” Official Jewry of that day, naturally, chose the latter approach, and discouraged anyone—for example, Peter Bergson in the U.S.—to raised a hue and cry. It’s unclear whether speaking out forcefully would have been more persuasive. However, not only did “sha shtil” not work, but it had a dreadful impact on the psychology of the Jews who lived in safety in Canada as Hitler’s final solution was unfolding in Europe, making them feel impotent and angry at themselves for embracing “sha shtil”.

Of course, having six million of your brethren slaughtered in the most horrific ways imaginable is bound to have a deleterious effect on one’s psychology—maybe even make you a bit paranoid and apt to perceive threats that aren’t really there. And that’s exactly what happened in Toronto, when word got out that a pathetic loser named John Beattie who styled himself as the leader of Canada’s Nazi Party was going to hold a “rally” in Allan Gardens, a lovely if somewhat skeezy Toronto botanical park (heroin addicts liked to go there to shoot up). He never got the chance. A Jewish mob barred his entry, and ended up throttling the handful of “Nazis” who had turned out to hear him. Police were called in to break up the fracas, news of which ended up being splashed all over the front page, causing no end of embarrassment for official Jewry, who had to try explain why it was that a mob of Jews felt the need to beat up on a few deadbeats.

What made the Jews behave in this freakish way? As Bialystok explains in his book, it was a reaction—or rather, an over-reaction—to “sha shtil,” the Jews’ way of repudiating their former “tread gently” approach. I venture there was also a degree of survivor guilt involved, along with lots of pent up anger. And one more element: fear. It was only twenty years, after all, since the end of the war, twenty years since Hitler’s Death Camps had been liberated. It was also the height of the Cold War—duck and cover drills in schoolrooms, and only a few years on from the near-catastrophe of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It all blended together in a goulash of paranoia—and led to the freak out at Allan Gardens.

It also led to the most demented part of the story—the CJC paying a guy named John Garrity to “infiltrate” the Canadian Nazi Party. Sure, the name sounds very impressive and scary, hearkening back to Hitler’s version, but prior to Garrity’s involvement, “the Party” was nothing more than a “handful of pathetic losers” (as they were described by Maclean's magazine at the time). Once Garrity—remember, the CJC’s “mole”—got his hands on it, though, he was able to build it up into a going concern. Or at least, enough of a going concern to keep the Jews’ paranoia on a low boil and prompt official Jewry to demand the government take action to protect the Jews from this “threat”. Which led directly to provisions against “hate speech”—really, a curtailment of free speech—being written into Canada’s human rights codes.

To recap: Upset over the final solution and their embrace of “sha shtil,” Canadian Jews in the ‘60s whipped themselves into a frenzy over a bogus “threat” and then insisted the government step in to defend them from the phantom menace they themselves had concoted (“reasoning” that Hitler started out small, too, and it’s a well-known fact that “hate speech” invariably leads to genocide.)

And that, my friends, is how we got from there to here, and why official Jewry clings e’er tightly to its fraying security blankie—state censorship—even as mobs of angry Jew-haters are given free reign to rage in downtown Toronto, and police tell counter-protesters to flee for their lives because there’s no way to protect them.

Ironically, the threat Canadian Jews feared all those years ago has now materialized, only it isn’t sporting Nazi duds. It’s wearing a multi-culti happy face.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:05 | link | comments (9)

Sunday, 17 May 2009

Today in euphemistic jihad news...: "Islamist insurgents" capture a key town in Somalia; "Rebels" storm town in Phillippines, turn Christian residents into human shields; "Militants" destroy two oil pipelines in Nigeria.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:40 | link | comments

Saturday, 16 May 2009

Scratching my head: How come the phrases "disproportionate force" and "two-state solution" haven't been flung--not even once--re the bloodbath unfolding in Sri Lanka?

Funny, that.

Update: Are the Tamil Tigers getting set to pull a Masada?

Update: Sri Lankan military declare victory--in Jordan, yet. From the Ceeb:

Government forces have defeated Tamil Tiger rebels after surrounding them in Sri Lanka's northeast, Sri Lanka's President Mahinda Rajapaksa announced Saturday.

Speaking during a visit to Jordan, Rajapaksa said he would return Sunday to a country free from the "barbaric acts" of the militants — as "a leader of a nation that vanquished terrorism."

The development follows 25 years of civil war between the military and Tamil separatists.

To review: No ceasefire forced upon Sinhalese by the UN. Terrorist forces crushed.
"Disproportionate force" not an issue. Whole thing apparently okey-dokey with Arabs.

Nope. No double standard there.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:04 | link | comments (1)

Pearl’s world: Pearl Eliadis, the former CHRC Czarina who tried—and failed—to gain traction with her anti-Steyn-Levant/pro-state censorship screed, “The Controversy Entrepreneurs,” goes to bat for an alleged Rwandan war criminal whose refugee claim was turned down years ago. Pearl says that for “the process”—a two-year trial that has cost multi-millions—“to have any credibility, the defendant has to have all the guarantees that are necessary for a criminal defendant," adding that "It isn't just that you have some showcase political trial and somebody is convicted in advance, you have to meet the standard of proof and that standard has to be beyond a doubt.”

Good thing he’s been tried by a real Canadian court and not by one of the country’s many “quasi-judicial” “human rights” bodies, including the one Pearl herself used to head up, because none of the above—neither the presumption of innocence, nor due process, nor the requirement to meet any standard of proof, nor the eschewal of pre-judgement—would have pertained. (h/t BCF)

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

Honour killing sanitized in Ottawa courtroom: A University of Toronto professor offers an excruciatingly “nuanced” explanation of “honour killings,” a phenomenon of certain, ahem, “traditional societies”. The National Post has the poop:

Honour killings involve a cleansing of dishonour aimed at restoring a family's respect after the so-called "misbehaviour" of female relatives, an expert told the Ottawa murder trial of Hasibullah Sadiqi yesterday.

The "act of purifying through blood" involves control of women by male family members, said Shahrzad Mojab, a University of Toronto professor who has researched the topic extensively.

Prof. Mojab was testifying at the trial of Mr. Sadiqi, 23, who is accused of shooting his sister Khatera and her fiance, Feroz Mangal, in a car at an Ottawa shopping plaza shortly before 1 a. m. on Sept. 19, 2006.

Mr. Sadiqi faces two counts of first-degree murder.

The Crown is arguing the deaths came as a result of an "honour killing" sparked by Mr. Sadiqi's anger over his sister's engagement, and is trying to prove Mr. Sadiqi's actions were planned and deliberate.

Mr. Sadiqi's defence lawyers acknowledge their client is responsible for the deaths, but are expected to argue there was provocation, which could reduce the murder charges to manslaughter if certain legal conditions are met.

Prof. Mojab told the court she does not know the people involved in the case.

Having one's family respected is very important in "traditional" societies such as that in Afghanistan, where the Sadiqis are from, she told the court.

Losing honour could occur via anything from a woman's appearance violating notions of modesty to refusing arranged marriage, requesting a divorce or having a relationship without the permission of the family, Prof. Mojab said.

Methods to clear a family's honour in such societies range from displacing a family member to "the act of purifying through blood," she said…

Ah, yes: “purifying” the family by brutally murdering the slut who “dishonoured” it by opening her womanly portal—property of the family’s males—without their permission. Nothing to see here, folks. Just another lively "cultural" practice we stick-in-the-mud kafirs will have to learn to live with.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:38 | link | comments

Obama’s m.o.: U.N. scourge Anne Bayefsky blasts the dopeychanger’s heinous
plans:

In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn’t fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey…

The international gangsters are just like the Sopranos, only nowhere near as cuddly.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:59 | link | comments

Beeb boob broods and blathers ‘bout ‘Bama’s “peace” bust: A Beeb correspondent reflects on peace efforts past, in anticipation of the latest one by the hapless hopeychanger. The correspondent is, well, despondent. I’m sure you can figure out whom he holds most responsible for that (my bolds):

…It may be too late. Israeli settlement activity has already convinced many Palestinians that a viable state of their own is now a physical impossibility.

Many Israelis are equally cynical about the prospects for peace.

But the Obama administration says the end result must be a two-state solution, and by incorporating the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative into its own effort, it is also telling Israel that its reward would be peace.

Not just with the Palestinians, but with dozens of Arab and Muslim states across the world.

Mr Netanyahu will tell the president that Iran's nuclear ambitions constitute a much more pressing problem.

Mr Obama will not dismiss this danger but nor, it seems, will he be satisfied with hiding behind it.

He seems intent on reaching out to a sceptical, disillusioned Arab world.

His first foreign television interview after taking office was with an Arab satellite channel and his long-awaited address to the Muslim world will be delivered in Cairo in a couple of weeks time.

In another break with tradition that has Israelis wondering, Mr Obama's visit to the Middle East will not include a trip to Jerusalem.

But his Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, has already visited the region three times.

With his soft-spoken, easy manner and intriguing mix of Irish and Lebanese blood, Mr Mitchell is not a bit like patrician James Baker, but I think I can hear those Middle Eastern heads being knocked together already...

Oh, you mean patrician, potty-mouthed James Baker, the guy who’s famous for that deathless utterance,“F**k the Jews”? Yeah, he’s quite the aristocrat.

Pardonez-moi while I shoot the hopeychangers and the Beeb a missive composed by a wonderfully insightful German.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:51 | link | comments

Rex on dreck: My pal Stu alerted me to this—Rex Murphy’s thundering take-down of that bilious piece of dreck, Seven Jewish Children. (Spoiler alert: unlike Rick Salutin of the same rag, who feasted on Churchill’s tripe, Rex feels no compunction about revealing the play’s final “gotcha” line):

…One last quotation and we'll have done. It is the playlet's last lines: Tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it's not her.

We're "chosen people": Churchill saves herself by a single article: the omission of "the" in front of "chosen." That, of course, would have made this whole bibulous outpouring so much more "problematic," to draw on a term which is so useful in rhetorically dicey transactions. The full phrase "the chosen people" would have made Seven Jewish Children emphatically about "the Jews" and not just Israel. But "chosen," without the definite article, is thrown in to win the whole tawdry pot without risking a full showing of her cards.

The final point to be made is that Seven Jewish Children is also the drawing of a vicious circle. As I indicated, it begins in the shadow of the Holocaust. What its sly progress describes - its "thought," if that is not too generous a term for the whole agitprop display - is that the people who were the objects of Hitler's extermination, the very people herded into the camps and destined, were he to have had his full triumph, to be wiped utterly from the face of the Earth, have now become the exterminators. Six million dead, and a generation or two on, their descendants have morphed, by the playlet's indictment, into the very Monster of Jewry's greatest and genocidal nightmare.

It is the deepest, most radical insult to pass on Israel and Israelis to imply that they are now what Hitler and his demonic henchmen were then: that Israelis are the present world's Nazis. To my ear and mind, linking today's Jews of Israel to the Nazis - as is so frequently the case in the demonstrations and rhetoric of the "anti-Zionists" - passes as something, in a curious and painful way, more baleful and morally astonishing than denying the Holocaust.

About no other set of people could such a drama be written, or find audiences, than the Jews of Israel. Seven Jewish Children is a document of our age - not in the manner that "progressive" thought would have it be. But as yet one more signal, though more sharply intense and fevered than all the rest, of how utterly inverted, how ferociously off track, the moral intelligence of our time has drifted.

I have nothing—and I mean nothing—to add to that.

Update: On second thought...here's an except from Seven Jew-Haters, a playlet not written by Caryl Churchill:

Tell her the "Jewish problem" goes waaay back.
Tell her that they said we killed Jesus.
That we balked at Islam's prophet.
Tell her they claim a Jewess poisoned him,
made his last few years a misery,
and hastened his death.

Tell her that he made apes and pigs of the Jews
and they believe we remain so transformed to this day,
and for all time.

Tell her Jew-hate is a kind of madness,
a lunacy,
a psychosis,
a virus transmitted from person to person to person
that's impermeable to reason
and almost impossible to stop.

Tell her that two thousand years of pent-up loathing
Reached its climax in Europe,
When six million were slaughtered in an orgasm of Judenhass.

Tell her the lunacy has mutated,
and now wants to "solve" the "problem"
of Israel's existence.
Tell her that the stupid, self-righteous "smart" people
who adore Foucault and Derrida
and other effete purveyors of moral relativism
have tied up history's loose ends
into one tight little package.
Then: Nazis killed Jews.
Now: Jews kill like Nazis.

Then her that the Caryl Churchills of the world,
so sanctimonious,
Intoxicated by their own rectitude,
are useful imbeciles
who enable jihad.

Tell her that, after the crocodile's done with the Jews,
he's going to finish off the poor, deluded saps
demanding "justice" for Palestine
and a Mideast that's Judenrein.

Tell her being "chosen" is not all it's cracked up to be.
Tell her it has given rise to deranged conspiracy theories--
rumours of wells poisoned and juicy young "goys" bled dry--
And then,
the mob amock,
brutes exacting "revenge,"
cracking (or severing) Jewish heads.

(And one final zinger):
Tell her to remember:
in every era,
in every generation,
from the remote past
and into the distant future
(even if not a single Jew remains)
Something about "the Jews" brings out the crazy in people.
Always has.
Always will.

That's it. Think I can pitch it to the Ceeb?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:26 | link | comments (3)

"Tolerance" in T.O.: Harpoon Siddiqui, Toronto Star pitchman for the Islamist perpective, is front and centre in today's paper, insisting that "Tamil protests [are] a test of our tolerance".

Yes, indeedee. Because if we're prepared to "tolerate" thousands of Tamils, with woman and kiddies shoved to the front of the procession, tying up a major expessway for hours, or blocking traffic on downtown's hospital row, surely we'll have no problem "tolerating" hoards of angry, barely-containable pro-Hamas "protesters" chanting "Death to the Jews" and "Jewish children gonna f**king die!"

And, gawsh, isn't that what multicultarism is all about--tolerating the intolerable because each and every community/culture/faith is merely another colourful--and equally delightful--pebble in our wondrous national mosaic?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:01 | link | comments

Jonesing for empathy: One of my favourite books growing up was To Kill a Mockingbird, and my favourite line from the book was daddy Atticus telling daughter Scout, ”You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it. (The line in the movie substituted “shoes” for the more racially-charged “skin”.) Whether it’s “skin’” or “shoes,” it was a lesson in empathy--the need for the more fortunate among us to put themselves in the less fortunates’ place.

And a wonderful lesson it is. However, I have since learned that, while empathy is indeed a precious commodity, it is not the be all and end all. Because when empathy becomes numero uno, the trait you esteem above all others, common sense can walk out the door.

Take President Barack Obama—please! (sorry, couldn’t resist hauling out that old howler). In a speech delivered at the Holocaust Days of Remembrance ceremony in Washington, what did he say was the most crucial element in preventing genocide? Why, empathy, of course ('cause empathy, and not, say, bombing the rail lines into Auschwitz would have spared more lives). And in assessing the merits of the next person to sit on the Supreme Court of the land, what one trait must a potential appointee possess in abundance? You guessed it: e-m-p-a-t-h-y.

Why is Obama such an empathy-junky? Well, maybe he’s a fan of To Kill a Mockingbird, too. Or maybe he’s a big squishy leftist who enjoys luxuriating in “empathy” because it makes him feel so gosh darned virtuous, and because it’s a way of putting off the hard decisions—the messy decisions— that could actually stop a genocide. And while I would hope that empathy would be part of a Supreme Court justice’s personality mix, surely there are other, more valuable qualities—knowledge, experience, and sound judgement, for three. But then, we both know that “empathy” in this instance isn’t really “empathy,” but code for “humungous lefty”.

It’s easy to slap a “Save the Whales” or a “Free Tibet” sticker on your bumper. But look around—there are plenty of bumper stickers out there, and lots of people feeling really good about drving around with their empathy in plain view. But, unless empathy is followed by action, whales are going to die, and Tibet will never, ever be free.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:33 | link | comments

Stop the “solution” pollution: There’s no need for Israel-loathing intellectuals to gather at Toronto’s York U (our own little bit of “Palestine” in this, the world’s most multicultural burg) for what my amiga WriterMom calls a “Kaffiyehpalooza”—an exercise in Israel-removal poorly disguised as a search for Mideast “solutions”. This letter in the May 1 issue of the International Jerusalem Post (it appeared in the regular JP in April) explains everything they need to know:

Jew-free entities

Sir, - The threat delivered via Aden ("Two-state solution," Letters, April 16) must not be allowed the last word.

The British Palestine Mandate (1920) included the territories on both banks of the River Jordan: and is so defined in Article 2 of the PLO Covenant issued in 1964 - during Jordanian rule in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank).

Accordingly Transjordan, through the PLO constitution, constitutes the first of the Jew-free entities of the previous Mandate. Removal of Jews from the former Egyptian-Administered Gaza (a potential city state of the Dubai type) constitutes the second of the Jew-free entities, which for the past four years has been "governed" by Hamas fascists.

A third Jew-free entity is in the making in areas and major towns of the West Bank administered by Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority.

The fourth entity of the former Mandate is constituted as the Jewish State of Israel, which includes amongst its citizenry 1.3 million non-Jews who enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of Arab kinsmen throughout the region.

Summary: The territory of the British Mandate supports four entities for two peoples - three of which maintain a Judenrein status, whilst the fourth - Israel - sustains a very large Arab-Muslim minority harboring irredentist elements.

Conclusion: The two-states-for-two-peoples mantra is a chimera.

KARL HUTTENBAUER
Berlin

I’m pretty sure no one thought to invite Karl to the conference. Wie schade.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:55 | link | comments

Supreme leader’s supreme duplicity: The Grand Supreme Cream of the Crop and the Top of the Heap Ayatollah say’s there’s not a speck of discrimination in the glorious Islamic Republic. From the Tehran Times:

SANANDAJ, Kordestan Province -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised ethnic diversity in Iran and said the Islamic Republic’s system is not in fact prejudiced against any particular sect or race in any part of the country.

“The system of the Islamic Republic definitely has no prejudiced, ethnic, …and discriminatory look toward any part of the country,” the Leader said in a meeting with a group of experts, writers, poets, etc. from Kordestan Province.

Pointing to efforts by enemies to launch ethnic and sectarian violence in Kordestan Province in the early days of the Islamic Revolution, the Leader said, “The Islamic Republic found supremacy over these enmities with a reliance on people but it is necessary that all people including elites to be vigilant and careful” in countering such evil intentions by foreigners.

Supreme Leader sees bright future for Iran…

One lit by large mushroom clouds, perhaps? And, hey, let’s ask the Baha’i and the Jews about the absence of malice in Ayatollahville (but not the ones who still live there, since they’re all being watched and likely won’t be able to tell us the truth).

Posted by: scaramouche at 01:06 | link | comments

First they came for the Jews: Then they came for the Christians.

Update: The final final solution.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:48 | link | comments

Friday, 15 May 2009

Making much of a phantom menace: Ever committed to its agenda of perfecting society, the Toronto Star informed readers yesterday that, according to a new report, Toronto is—wait for it—very, very, “racist”. An editorial in today’s paper seconds that commotion:

Racism is still with us

We take pride in our ability to absorb immigrants from every culture, live together harmoniously, and bring up our children in a country where racial diversity is normal.

But every so often we need a reminder that skin colour still holds some Canadians back and weakens their sense of belonging.

A new study of multiculturalism by Jeffrey Reitz of the University of Toronto and Rupa Banerjee of Ryerson University provides disquieting evidence that members of several visible minority communities don't feel at home here. In their survey of 41,666 Canadians, the two researchers found blacks felt highly stigmatized and South Asians experienced some degree of discrimination.

What was most disturbing was that these feelings didn't subside over time. They got stronger. Second and third generation immigrants, identifiable by race, felt less attached to Canada than their parents.

Clearly, we need to work harder in our classrooms, workplaces and all our institutions to make prejudice unacceptable and unCanadian.

Fifteen years ago, Bob Rae's NDP government introduced a comprehensive anti-racism program into Ontario's schools. Mike Harris's Conservative government scrapped it and it has never been revived.

Now would be a good time. We know that poverty is disproportionately high among visible minorities. We know that highly-educated immigrants are falling behind their Canadian-born peers economically. We know that kids are using racial epithets in the schoolyard. And now we know that racism is a multi-generational curse.

We can't afford the delusion that we're doing well enough.

Yes, yes, we must do much better until we arrive at the kind of Trudeaupia of which the Star and Marxist university professors can approve! My letter:

I have a hard time believing the new--and highly alarmist--report about racism, the one that makes the multicultural Toronto of 2009 sound more like Montgomery, Alabama, 1960.

No doubt there are still pockets of “racism” around; humans are, well, human, despite the state’s best efforts to perfect them. However, the recent example of what happened in Keswick, a white bread community it there ever was one, where hundreds of high school students stood up for a Korean boy, is probably a truer indication of our “racism”.

It’s unfortunate that some visible minorities don’t feel at home here, and that the odd kid continues to hurl racial epithets in the schoolyard. But this most recent talk of our “racism” strikes me as being less about “racism” and more about providing a justification for the state redistributing wealth and butting into our lives via human rights commissions and other highly intrusive mechanisms.

Me? I'm waiting--and will undoubtedly grow old waiting--for the report that reveals the "racism" of certain minority groups, for example the ones that believe Jews were transmogrified into apes and pigs and are therefore undeserving of their own state (a polity which is racist, Nazi-like and practises apartheid).

Update: Someone named "nadjam" left this comment about yesterday's article:

I have two children in high school, and I'm happy to say that both of them have the "United Nations" as their group of friends (Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Black, White, Russian, Italian, and so on). The kids they hang out with completely reflect the multiculturalism we celebrate in Toronto (as does the neighbourhood we live in). What's interesting is that the kids they are friends with reflect the same moral values. As a parent, that's what I encourage. I couldn't care less the colour of their skin. Do they treat each other with respect? Do they value each other's opinions and perspectives? If my child ever treated another person in a way that was degrading or racist, it is my child who would be disciplined!

Do tell. You mean the parents and not the state bear responsibility for teaching their kids proper behaviour? What a revolutionary concept. As for that "United Nations" part--guess the sage professors must have skipped that neighbourhood. (I haven't waded through the report, but I wonder if the alienation experienced by some "second and third generation" young'uns is due not to "race" but to religion, if you catch my meaning.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:41 | link | comments (7)

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Capitalizing on one woman's tragedy: It's sad that Farrah Fawcett has terminal cancer. But it's really barfy that NBC is trying to turn her into Princess Di by running this sappy, maudlin documentary ("America's Angel") about her cancer battle.

Why would Fawcett allow herself to be used in this undignified way? Is the lure of celebrity so great, even at this late stage of the game?

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

A trip this Jew will never take: Around the Mediterranean by motorbike: From Algeria to Jordan.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:48 | link | comments

British warbler recants: I finished my work for the day so I thought I’d post this, from Canoe:

"What I said on stage in Toronto on Wednesday night at Massey Hall was not meant how it came across. But I completely understand how it was offensive," she said in a statement forward by the vice-president of publicity for Columbia Records in New York.

"I sincerely apologize for being so naive and disrespectful! It was not my intention to be hurtful and I'm very sorry."

The 20-year-old singer was telling a story about buying two guitars from a "rude" pawn shop owner in Toronto before the concert when she added: "He wasn't Canadian, he was Jewish. "

The comment drew either silence or nervous laughter.

"I just meant he wasn't a rude Canadian," she continued before adding: "I'm digging myself deeper."

Quite a pit you’ve dug for yourself there, Adele (who, according to the CJN, called said Jew the "rudest person ever" and said, "But don't worry, he wasn't Canadian, he was Jewish"--shades of Cabaret, eh?) Shall we chalk it up to youthful exuberance, or call a spade a spade and say you’re a product of your environment, where Judenhass is all the rage?

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:30 | link | comments

A heads-up: I'll be resisting the temptation to blog today--I have to finish an assignment. Back this weekend, I hope.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:51 | link | comments

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

"Why can't a girl have a penis?": If you have more than a little time to spare, read Charlotte Allen's hilarious piece about her encounter with "the teachers who teach our teachers"--a buncha pretentious, over-the-hill Hippie Marxist cranks who pronouce Cuba "Kooba" ('cause it's sooo "Continental," don't cha know?).

The part of the piece that made me laugh out loud: "Charlotte Allen, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's Minding the Campus website, is writing her doctoral dissertation in medieval and Byzantine studies."

I'd say her studies in the Byzantine certainly make her well-equipped to understand these Bozos.

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

Brief (but nauseating) encounter: Roger L. Simon comes face to face with pure, unadulterated evil in the form of a tiny, hairy Shia (they were staying at the same Geneva hotel during the Durban II madness):

Standing in the lobby of the Intercontinental Hotel, we were suddenly told to put our cameras away.We were not allowed to take pictures and indeed had to keep our cell phones in our pockets, lest they be construed as a weapon.

I heard screaming sirens followed by shrieking motor cycles when Ahmadinejad himself entered, accompanied by a phalanx of Iranian secret service, all of whom were larger than he. He was indeed a small man, almost diminutive, and marched straight across the lobby in what seemed at the time like a goose step a few feet away from me, staring directly at me while waving and smiling in my direction.

I did not wave or smile back.

I couldn’t. Indeed, I was frozen. I felt suddenly breathless and nauseated, as if I had been kicked brutally in the stomach. I was also dizzy. I wanted to throw up. But no one had touched me and I hadn’t eaten anything for hours.

It was then, I think, that I found, or noticed, or understood, religion personally for a moment.

Here’s what I mean.

For most of my life I had rationalized the existence of bad people – or, more specifically, placed them in therapeutic categories. They were aberrant personalities, psychologically disturbed. It wasn’t that I thought better economic conditions or psychoanalysis or medication or whatever could fix everyone. I was long over that. Some people… serial killers, etc…. had to be locked away forever. They would never get better. But they were simply insane. That’s what they were.

Still… I had seen whacked murderers like Charles Manson, late OJ Simpson, up close and this wasn’t the same. This was more than the mental illness model. Far more. For one thing, I had never before had this intense physical sensation when confronted with another human being. Nor had I wanted to vomit. Not for Manson. Not for anyone. This was different.

It was almost unreal, like being in a movie, in a certain way. I know comparisons to Hitler are invidious, in fact usually absurd, but I was feeling the way I imagined I would have felt opposite Hitler.

I was in the presence of pure Evil.

Now that’s a big word and I have spent my life reluctant to use it. But there it was – popping up out of my mouth within seconds of the Iranian leaders disappearance into the hotel elevator. For once, “psychopath” or “sociopath” did not feel remotely appropriate. Only the E-word would suffice.

The next day Ahmadinejad spewed his Holocaust denying bile to the United Nations plenum – ratifying that evil, if not the repellent Durban I - and some, but not nearly enough, of the state representative’s walked off. Enough would have been all of them.

A short time after that, I saw the Iranian again, up close and personal, although I really didn’t want to do it.

In fact I would have preferred to be almost anywhere else but in that room with him at a press conference as he twisted the logic of the journalist’s questions, turning the word “democracy” into “tyranny,” “freedom” into “oppression” and “tolerance” into “racism.”

I didn’t say anything. I didn’t know how to address or question evil, although by then I knew to my core I was facing it.

This was the guy that my president wanted to talk with?

Oh, Roger, you’re such an alarmist. Don’t you know that Tiny’s bark is worse than his bite, and that it's Israel that's the incarnation of pure Eee-vil.

Sheesh.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:13 | link | comments

The Maleficent Seven: Michael B. Oren outlines the seven--count 'em--seven existential threats facing the state of Israel.

Talk about stacking the deck.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:49 | link | comments

Say it ain't so, O: Guess who made the short list to fill Souter's spot on the SCOTUS? Obama's dumb-as-a-box-of-hair Homeland Security Secretary, Janet "From Another Planet" Napolitano.

But she's doing suuuch a good job where she is!

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:14 | link | comments (1)

Readin’, writin’, ragin’: The Toronto Star’s Rick Westhead boldy goes where most kafirs fear to tread—“Inside Pakistan’s Jihad U”:

AKORA KHATTAK, Pakistan – The school that terrorism experts call Jihad U sits on a remote strip of Pakistan's Grand Trunk Road.

Its formal name is the Darul Uloom Haqqania madrassa, and inside boys as young as five sit cross-legged in a cramped classroom, rocking back and forth as they commit to memory the 77,934 words of the holy Qur'an.

It may look innocent to an outside visitor, but Pakistan's government and leading analysts charge students here are learning more than just holy scriptures.

As Pakistan's army continues to flush the Taliban out of the Swat Valley region, seminaries like Haqqania, whose graduates include Taliban leader Mullah Omar, are likely to become a new front in Pakistan's fight against militants. This week Pakistani President Asif Zardari promised his government would take control of his country's madrassas to keep students away from extremism.

Madrassas in Pakistan have long been regarded as potential training centres for Taliban militants and Jihad U with its 3,000 students, is said to be one of the most prodigious when it comes to churning out hard-minded radicals.

The school's leaders endorsed a 1998 fatwa issued by Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden that urged Muslims to kill Americans wherever they were found and, in recent years, posters of bin Laden brandishing an AK-47 as he gallops on a white horse have decorated the school's dim-lit dormitories.

The head of the school, Syed Yousef Shah, who served tea with biscuits to visitors, says Haqqania's purpose is not to train militants, but as long as there is injustice by the super powers, the madrassas will produce Taliban fighters.

He called the emergence of the Taliban "a reaction to the injustice and brutality done by America, France, Britain and other super powers," adding "the Taliban and militants are against those who are friends with America."

The Haqqania has a curriculum that embraces a version of Islam known as Deobandi, which teaches a super-orthodox interpretation of Islam calling for a return to the "pure" 7th century Islam of the Prophet Muhammad.

Students start their days with prayers at 4 a.m. and spend most of their time reciting the Qur'an before lights are turned off at 11 p.m. There's no math or science taught here. Classes focus on subjects such as fiqqah, the study of the Islamic constitution.

Shah had difficulty deciding the message he wanted to deliver – that some of his graduates rightfully take up arms against the West, or that his school teaches "peace, tolerance and understanding."

There were no weapons visible during a tour of the seminary's sprawling grounds. "This is not a (terrorist) training centre," says Rashid ul-Haq. His grandfather established the madrassa in 1947 and his father, Maulana Sami ul-Haq, was a Pakistani senator for 18 years and is one of Haqqani's directors. The family says the school is supported by public donations.

"There are no weapons here," Rashid ul-Haq says. "This is a clean madrassa."…

The premises may be “clean”. The lessons being taught are full of blood and viscera and gore and teensy bits of flesh.

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

Today’s scorecard: George Jonas gets it:

To think that peace in the Middle East is ripe for the plucking requires a kind of naivete one cannot readily associate with anyone savvy enough to get himself elected to the presidency of the United States. It's certainly difficult to associate it with Obama. And if someone who isn't naive proposes something that only a naive person would propose, chances are that he is -- well, what kind of a person is he?

Do I see someone raise his hand? Yes, sir, you in the blue shirt. Why, a cynical person, that's right. Thank you.

It takes a cynical person to adopt a naive person's proposal, take credit for the goodwill, then blame the inevitable failure on the side he wishes to betray or abandon. Which, I suggest, is precisely what Obama is planning to do.

Shira Hirzog…not so much:

Words matter in the Middle East. In the weeks leading up to his first official meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wiggled around the American expectation that he accept "two states" as the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, he's emphasized his own demand that Palestinians accept Israel's Jewish identity. In response, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has reiterated his recognition of Israel as part of the two-state approach, while emphatically refusing to acknowledge its Jewish identity.

Mr. Netanyahu's position is justified in principle, but his timing ahead of Monday's meeting is counterproductive. Surfacing the issue was a politically motivated move aimed at stalling negotiations that he knows will create pressure on his hawkish coalition and challenge his publicly stated views.

Underlying the seemingly semantic debate are deep-rooted psychological and historic grievances as well as tangible concerns. There is a widespread Israeli belief that even moderate Palestinians haven't relinquished their dream of a state that would take over pre-1967 Israel by defeating it demographically. This lies at the root of the insistence that the refugee issue (otherwise known as the "right of return") be resolved in the future Palestinian state but not in Israel proper.

Mr. Abbas says that the Palestine Liberation Organization accepted the principle of two states in 1988, that the Palestinian Authority has repeatedly supported two states, that he recognizes Israel practically - and that it's up to Israelis to decide the character of their state…

In fact, Shira, Abbas’s most recent utterance on the subject is that he doesn’t—that he will never—accept Israel’s Jewishness.

But enough about the befuddled Ms. H. Back to Jonas: He calls the latest version of the “peace-for-land computer game” “Microbama’s release of Oslo 3.1.” Wish I had thought of that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:56 | link | comments

Like sheep—sheep!: Back from the AIPAC Conference, Isi Leibler warns that besotted American Jews (baaaa!) are likely to blindly follow Obama no matter where he leads them—even if it’s over the precipice:

…To date, Netanyahu has not put a foot wrong. But his real test will be Washington where he will face the awesome challenge of trying to achieve an understanding with Obama over Iran and the Palestinians while simultaneously resisting pressures for concessions which could further erode our security.

IN THIS CONTEXT, the support of American Jewry is enormously important. Obama would presumably seek to avoid alienating his Jewish constituency, 80 percent of whom voted for him and also contributed more than 50% of Democrat campaign funding. However should Jews be perceived as being ambivalent, or worse, hostile towards the Israeli government, there is little doubt that this would dramatically influence his approach.

Regrettably, in addition to a decline in enthusiasm for Israel from a new generation for whom the Holocaust and struggle to create a Jewish state are dim memories, the Israeli relationship with American Jews over the past decades, has also undergone considerable erosion. Successive leaders have neglected to nurture the American Jewish lay leadership, concentrating instead primarily on wooing rich Jews as donors for their political or personal projects. Jewish lay leaders are largely unknown and, aside from AIPAC, national Jewish political activism is concentrated primarily in the hands of three highly capable but aging professionals - Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee and Malcolm Hoenlein of the Presidents Conference.

In addition, aside from the negative impact of the general financial meltdown, American Jews have been traumatized by an escalation of virulent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic outbursts, reflected even in the purportedly reputable media. Anti-Israeli hysteria on the campuses has mushroomed and campaigns to boycott Israel have intensified. Ominously, American Jews, especially after the Freeman and AIPAC “espionage” imbroglios, are now also being accused of harboring dual loyalties.

JEWISH LEADERS are loath to openly express their concerns. But off record, many despairingly predict a Jewish head-on clash over Israel with the most popular US president since Franklin Roosevelt. Their concerns are exacerbated by the behavior of key Jewish officials in the administration who privately proclaim that they would not flinch from a major confrontation with the Jewish state and predict that most American Jews continue to venerate Obama and will support him…

That FDR—he was no damn good for the Jews either. Those progressive Jews never seem to learn, do they?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:27 | link | comments

(Mis)using the Holocaust: Maclean’s has a story about how the Poles may use a visit to Auschwitz to try to shock prison inmates into eschewing a life of crime—a sort of “scared straight” program with a death camp twist. Not surprisingly, the Canadian Jewish Congress’s Bernie Farber, the son of a Holocaust survivor, thinks it’s a really crummy idea (the CJC’s bolds):

Every year, thousands of people visit the Auschwitz concentration camp site in Poland to tour the grounds and pay their respects to the dead. This year, an unusual group will visit: Polish convicts, who will be attending a course on the history of Auschwitz and crimes committed there, museum officials confirmed to the Daily Telegraph. The program, which one prison official called "shock therapy," is intended to teach criminals about the dangers of violence and oppression as part of their rehabilitation -- yet, according to a Canadian expert, such programs rarely, if ever, work.

Irvin Waller is a professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa, and co-director of its Institute for the Prevention of Crime. The U.S., he notes, has tried similar tactics to deter at-risk youth from crime; one program, dubbed "Scared Straight," saw young offenders taken to maximum security prisons, where inmates would relay the horrors of life in jail. In randomized controlled trials, Waller says, "these programs show no impact." What does reduce recidivism "are programs that actually tackle the risk factors leading people to crime," he says: education and mentorship programs, for example.

And whether or not inmates would benefit from visiting Auschwitz, other concerns remain. Bernie Farber, chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress, worries that using the former camp in this way is "gimmicky." Beyond that, he notes, Auschwitz must stand as "a place of reverence and memory." And, says Farber: "Auschwitz happened not because hardened criminals were let loose in the world; Auschwitz happened because ordinary people let their evil impulses take over. Auschwitz must stand as a monument to the potential for evil in humankind -- average humankind, not criminals."

Actually, Auschwitz happened because an evil man with an irrational obsession about “the Jews” gained power, and no one, not even the good people, like, say, Canadians, did much of anything to save Europe’s Jews from their fate (“None is too many,” and all that). So, yes, “evil” is definitely involved. But far too often “in the Canadian context” (a phrase Bernie likes), Auschwitz and the Holocaust are used not to condemn evil (“evil”—such a quaint and biblical concept), not to explain how, historically, the evil impulse has endeavoured to “solve” the pesky Jewish problem once and for all (and continues to do so today), but to help advance the squishy progressive agenda (tolerance! multicultism! environmentalism!). In that sense, what’s the difference between Poles using Auschwitz to rehabilitate criminals, and leftists using the Holocaust to indoctrinate youngsters using a bunch of mushy platitudes—essentially, Kumbaya, with death camps? Aren’t they both using Auschwitz in their own way for their own ends?

Or are only leftist Jews and other progressives allowed to “use” the Holocaust?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:27 | link | comments (5)

Tuesday, 12 May 2009

Mel spells it out: Obama’s policy of linking the “peace process” to Iran, writes Melanie Phillips, is dumb, dangerous and, well, just plain nuts:

Leave aside for the moment the malice towards Israel that is involved, the attitude of the Obama administration towards the Middle East is well-nigh incomprehensible in its suicidal stupidity. It is trying to make Israel play the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938, when Britain under Neville Chamberlain told it that if it didn’t submit to the Nazis it would stand alone – with the result that the following year, Hitler invaded Poland. Determined to prove that history repeats itself the second time as tragedy, America is trying to force Israel to destroy its security by accepting the creation of a terrorist Iranistan on its doorstep, under the threat that otherwise the US will not help protect its security by defanging Iran (and how, precisely would it do that?). But in doing so, the Obama administration is jeopardising the security of America itself and the free world, not to mention the Arab states which have good reason to fear Iranian regional hegemony…

But those mullahs are so warm and cuddly—like big Shia teddy bears. Who wouldn’t want to reach out and be their “friend”?

If you go to the Mideast today in search of a "compromise";

If you go to the Mideast today you’re sure of a big surprise.

For ev’ry Ayatollah around is open to the wonderful sound

Of hopeychangers asking ‘em to a picnic.

Picnic time for mullah types.

They’re gonna stow their gripes about how Great Satan’s dastardly.

Watch them give up all their nukes.

They’re putting down their dukes and dampening Tiny Hitler's hypes.

See them gaily gadabout.

And if they scream and shout

Don’t pay ‘em no never mind.

At zero hour they’ll put a big hole where the Jews were

Because they’re crazed little loony-tunes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:06 | link | comments

High tech in backward places: How do you keep people from slipping back into 7^th Century modes of thinking? Why, by text messaging them, of course. From the Toronto Star:

OTTAWA – Canada plans to boost its propaganda reach by tapping into mobile phones in Afghanistan to send text messages, run contests and drive listeners to its military-run, Pashto-language radio station.

It's a fairly crude, transparent tactic in the high science of counter-insurgency, but the military sees it as a way to better connect with local Afghans in a war-torn land where the cellphone is one of the fastest growing, and only reliable, means of communication.

The capability, to be set up this summer, will encourage Afghans to sign up for text-message alerts from defence officials and to enter military-run contests awarding prizes to lucky locals, according to public tendering documents.

It will also let Afghans send text messages to Rana-FM, a radio station set up by the military in 2006, and have them read on the air, half a world away at the broadcast centre in Kingston, Ont. The station, whose name means "light" in Pashto, is staffed by Afghan-Canadians, and mixes messages from Canadian and coalition officials with news programming and popular music aimed at teenage and young adult listeners in Kandahar.

Rana-FM manager David Bailey described the station in 2007 as key to "winning the information war" against the Taliban and demystifying Canada and Canadians for Afghan listeners. Defence department officials were unable yesterday to comment on the new text-message initiative.

The hearts-and-minds effort could serve a double purpose by allowing Canada's secretive intelligence arm, the Communications Security Establishment, to gain a foothold in the Kandahar community, track cellphone signals and listen in on conversations, experts say.

"There are other capabilities that come with cellphone information, certainly," said John Thompson, an intelligence expert with the Mackenzie Institute in Toronto. "But I think one of the problems is that southern Afghanistan is not one of the most well-serviced markets in the world for that sort of thing."

The number of mobile phone users in Afghanistan has grown to about 5 million from virtually none at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to reports and estimates. One estimate suggested 150,000 new users were buying the phones each month in the country.

John Adams, head of the CSE, revealed in 2007 that his agency is heavily involved in the Afghan mission, which accounts for about a quarter of its work. Though he wouldn't elaborate on the nature of that work, intelligence experts say Canadian agents in Ottawa would be tracking emails, cellphone calls and signals and various other scraps of information soldiers pick up from insurgent groups.

The Taliban's use of mobile phones for both operational and propaganda purposes is well-documented. A report last year by the respected International Crisis Group noted insurgent leaders are adept at communicating with their counterparts by phone and text message to co-ordinate movements and that they use cellphone signals to detonate roadside bombs. They also use the phones to keep in touch with foreign journalists and threaten locals suspected of collaborating with western military forces…

Unlike, say, the Amish, jihadis see no contradiction in wanting to go “back to the future” while employing all the latest technological geegaws. But then, unlike the Taliban, the Amish aren’t waging a holy war in order to spread God’s law.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:25 | link | comments

Freaky convergence: What are the odds? Today really is Ruby Tuesday. Margaret Wente weighs in the the subject.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:03 | link | comments

Membership has its rewards: The perma-Durban is holding a vote. A secret one, of course, since the body that’s deployed as a battering ram against the world’s sole Jewish state functions best in the dark (like insects under a rock). From the Jerusalem Post:

Secret balloting is scheduled Tuesday morning in New York for 18 seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council, but the results are already in for all but a handful.

The United States, Belgium and Norway will replace Canada, Germany, and Switzerland, while China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia will be reappointed to three-year terms on the Geneva-based body.

Azerbaijan, Hungary and Russia are engaged in a genuine competition for two vacancies allotted to Eastern European states, while six African nations - Cameroon, Djibouti, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria and Senegal - are vying for five empty seats.

The elections have come under fire from human rights groups like Human Rights Watch, which along with calling for contested voting has also cited many of the candidate countries for violating their citizens' human rights.

Former Czech president Vaclav Havel described the exercise as a "farce" in a stinging essay in Sunday's New York Times.

Human rights organizations have long criticized the council, created in 2006, for welcoming countries with spotty human rights records as members and perpetuating the dysfunction that plagued its predecessor organization, the UN Commission on Human Rights. The work of that body was widely discredited because of the inclusion of countries accused of severe human rights abuses, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe.

In its current incarnation, the council has been particularly critical of Israel, holding votes on five resolutions against Israeli policy in a single week in March. Israel's ambassador in Geneva, Roni Leshno-Yaar, accused countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference of quashing other issues, including freedom of speech and religious freedom, at Israel's expense.

The US, which under the Bush administration had boycotted the council, announced in March that it would seek a seat in order to gain a foothold before a comprehensive review scheduled for 2011.

US envoy Susan Rice told reporters the Obama administration felt engagement would offer the opportunity to work "from within, rather than standing on the sidelines."

The US entry prompted New Zealand to withdraw its candidacy, on the grounds that the US could push "positive changes" more quickly…

The most positive change of all would be to do away with this ridiculous body, this pathetic excuse for “human rights” advocacy. But I don’t expect the US, in its current “if-you-can’t-lick-‘em-join-‘em” mode, to render this service.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments

Pirates’ “Islamophobia”: Somali brigands, reports the Toronto Star, may be on the verge of amending their piratical ways out of fear.

No, not fear of kafir navies. Fear of the fanatics’ wrath:

GAROWE, Somalia – Abshir Boyah, a towering, notorious Somali pirate boss who admits to hijacking more than 25 ships and to being a member of a secretive pirate council called "The Corporation," says he's ready to cut a deal.

Facing intensifying naval pressure on the seas and now a rising backlash on land, Boyah has been shuttling between elders and religious sheiks fed up with pirates and their vices, promising to quit the buccaneering business if certain demands are met.

"Man, these Islamic guys want to cut my hands off," he grumbled over a plate of camel meat and spaghetti. The sheiks seemed to have rattled him more than the armada of foreign warships patrolling offshore. "Maybe it's time for a change."

For the first time in this pirate-infested region of northern Somalia, some of the communities that had been flourishing with pirate dollars – supplying these well-known criminals with sanctuary, support, brides, respect and even government help – are now trying to push them out.

Grassroots, anti-pirate militias are forming. Sheiks and government leaders are embarking on a campaign to excommunicate the pirates, telling them to get out of town and preaching at mosques for women not to marry these un-Islamic, thieving "burcad badeed," which in Somali translates as sea bandit.

There is even a new sign at a parking lot in Garowe, the sun-blasted capital of the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, that may be the only one of its kind in the world. The thick red letters say: No pirates allowed.

Much like the violence, hunger and warlordism that has engulfed Somalia, piracy is a direct – and some Somalis say inevitable – outgrowth of a society that has languished for 18 years without a functioning central government and whose economy has been smashed by war.

But here in Garowe, the pirates are increasingly viewed as stains on the devoutly Muslim, nomadic culture, blamed for introducing big-city evils like drugs, alcohol, street brawling and AIDS.

A few weeks ago, Puntland police officers broke up a bootlegging ring and poured out 327 bottles of Ethiopian-made gin. In Somalia, alcohol is shunned. Such a voluminous stash of booze is virtually unheard of.

"The pirates are spoiling our society," said Abdirahman Mohamed Mohamud, Puntland's new president. "We will crush them."…

And by “crush them” the pirates are hoping he means finding them gainful employment:

Still, the Puntland pirate bosses insist they are ready to quit, if the sheiks find jobs for their young underlings and help the pirates form a coast guard to protect Somalia's 3,000-kilometre coastline from illegal fishing and dumping.

Yeah, that should work.

Maybe the fanatics can take a cue or two from Canada, where a successful "mentorship" program is already in place.

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

Multiculturalism in action: A huge Tamil protest on Parliament Hill last month failed to entice a single high-profile Liberal to show up—a big change from the good old days, when Canadian politicians, and not only Liberals, were delighted to appear at Tamil events, even ones where the Tamil Tigers flag was flown with pride. And nary a Liberal was in sight this past Sunday when another huge Tamil protest, this time in Toronto, tied up a major roadway for several hours. However, this time around, the Liberals felt compelled to take a stand—one that sends the entirely wrong message, according to a Globe and Mail editorial:

…At the very least, Sunday's event forced the Liberals to twist themselves into knots. They claim – as does the NDP – to have intervened in order to restore order. A statement issued by Mr. Ignatieff's office yesterday is a model of ambiguity, shedding little light on what this “intervention” involved. While the statement pledges to “continue to raise the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka in the House of Commons,” it is largely devoted to condemning the Tamil Tigers. Yet despite reports that the blockade reportedly involved the chanting of pro-Tigers slogans, it generated a more prompt response in Parliament than last month's much larger demonstration – the Liberals using two of their first opportunities during Question Period to demand to know why the government “has been so late and so lame in the defence of women and children against this brutality.”

There is nothing wrong with opposition MPs giving voice to the humanitarian concerns in Sri Lanka, as Bob Rae, the Liberal Foreign Affairs critic, has been doing in a measured way.

But for a dangerous and illegal demonstration to achieve more obvious results than a peaceful and legal one sends a very curious message not just to Tamils, but to all political protesters.

And the message is: might is right; there is strength in numbers; and, above all, demography is destiny, and, depending on what’s unfolding in the larger world, Canadians can expect to get pushed around by “victim groups” that have the really big numbers.

Update: The Toronto Star, natch, has a somewhat different take on the issue, noting with approval that "Liberal outreach helped defuse (the) Gardiner protest."

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:55 | link | comments

Monday, 11 May 2009

Neatness counts: In the April issue of Standpoint, British writer Howard Jacobson explains the insidious appeal of equating Israel with Nazis, an equation which strikes him as a being new and even more sinister kind of Holocaust denial (my emphasis):

I can tell you what it is [the “new” Jew-hate], but I'm not sure I can tell you where it comes from, because it comes from many sources; from outside Jews, and also very crucially from within Judaism. Lots of Jews are up to this trick, or whatever we call it. I see it as a new and much more sinister kind of Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial we can deal with now. Most of the world knows about it. We recognise the look of the people who do it and we know the nonsense of it, we just leave them alone and let them get on with it. But this is much more sinister and much more appealing, this one goes: "It was a terrible thing that happened to the Jews. We all know what a terrible thing Auschwitz was. Look, we concede it, you poor Jews." It's necessary that they demonstrate their degree of empathy for us. But what follows the sympathy is an analysis - a psychoanalysis - that is far from sympathetic: "You were traumatised by the Holocaust into visiting a Holocaust of your own upon the Palestinians." It's like the abused child who grows up and abuses the next child. We are now described as abusing the Palestinians in exactly the same terms as the Germans abused us - "abused" for God's sake! And in this way, we are actually made to pay for the Holocaust itself. I talk about it as a kind of retrospective guilt for the Holocaust. It's almost as if we've turned time the wrong way round, that because of what we are now doing to the Palestinians, we lose the right to the dignity of the Holocaust, if you can call it dignity.

This is a very sinister move. It's at the heart of the Caryl Churchill play [Seven Jewish Children, performed at the Royal Court Theatre] and you get a lot of it at the universities, because it's appealing in its neatness, it's vaguely post-modern, you can mention Freud, you can chase around the names of several fashionable intellectuals. It is also very sinister, because it begs the question of what Israel is in fact doing or not doing to the Palestinians. Jewish trauma elides into Palestinian trauma, the cruelty Jews suffered into the cruelty Jews now dispense. It is not only that unequal things are equalised, but that the equalising settles the question of what is happening between the waring parties. Accept that the done-to have become the doers and the issue is settled: Israelis are the new Nazis, the Holocaust in Europe becomes a new Holocaust in the Middle East, Gaza is new a Warsaw Ghetto - never mind that one side of Gaza was open to the world and it could never have been a Warsaw Ghetto, never mind that the Ghetto was exterminated and there is no sign whatsoever of any Israeli intention or desire to exterminate…

A brilliant analysis, I think. Jacobson underscores the lure of false symmetry, and how the desire to tie up all of life's messy loose ends into one neat little package (for what else is a conspiracy theory but just that—a desire to “organize” reality?) can make imbeciles—and hate-mongers—of the most intelligent.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:28 | link | comments

A surfeit of "solutions": While on a visit to Israel, the Pope, not draped in a festive Palestinian shmatta this time, is calling for a "two state solution." That call is likely to fall on deaf ears, however, since, as Charles Krauthammer writes, "Those like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who might want to entertain such a solution, have no authority to do it. And those like Hamas's Meshal, who have authority, have no intention of ever doing it."

Rather a cul de sac, I'd say.

Then there's the fact that, as far as the Canadian Arab Federation and others are concerned, the "one state solution" is already in effect--so why bother going through the motions of maintaining Jewish sovereignty over Israel?

So many "solutions," none of them any good.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:39 | link | comments

Tamil travails: The Toronto Tamil community—the world's largest outside of Sri Lanka—is growing more desperate and brazen in its efforts to try to persuade the Canadian government to do something about the civil war. Yesterday, protesters marched en masse up a Toronto expressway, tying up traffic and putting themseves and motorists at risk.

My advice to the Tamils: The best way to get the world to pay attention to your plight is to convert to Islam and move to Gaza. Quicker than you can say "George Galloway is a bit fat wanker," the world will sit up and take notice—and holler like hell about how the Jews are perpetrating a "Holocaust" on you.

Heck, maybe Caryl Churchill will even write a play about it.

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

Witty Kenney: Immigration Minister Jason Kenney comments (in the Globe and Mail) on Ruby Dhalla's allegation that she's the victim of a conspiracy:

"I don't know what conspiracy," Mr. Kenney said yesterday on CTV's Question Period.

"Would this be between the Conservative party, the NDP, three Filipino nannies and the Toronto Star [the newspaper that first reported the story]," I mean I can hear the black helicopters hovering overhead. I think it's unfortunate and undermines credibility when people start talking about conspiracy theories."

Those black helicopters--I think they may be Janet Napolitano's security forces
patrolling the border.

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

Stuff and nonsense in the Post: Showing that it understands nothing—nothing—about jihad, dhimmitude and sharia, a woefully wrong-headed editorial in the National Post claims that Islam and democracy are perfectly compatible as long as an Islamic society is "stable":

In the heady foreign policy free-for-all that followed 9/11, thousands of articles were written about whether Islam is compatible with democracy. The pessimists argued that the religion's basic tenets -- jihad, a lack of separation between mosque and state, a rejection of true religious pluralism -- are fundamentally incompatible with democratic values. Optimists, such as George W. Bush and the men he'd surrounded himself with, took the opposite view: They believed Muslims would quickly build successful democratic societies once the Middle East's political order was overthrown through invasion and regime change.

Both sides got it wrong. As several currently newsworthy examples show, Islam and democracy are perfectly compatible in stable Muslim societies. But in societies where that stability is lacking -- such as Iraq, Afghanistan and a growing list of failed states -- radical Islam drives nations toward totalitarianism and nihilistic

violence. While it doesn't destroy democracy on its own, the extremists' appeal to Islamic purity acts as a powerful accelerant once a society starts to burn.

First, the good news. In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, Islamist politicians felt compelled to moderate their message in the country's recent election campaign -- and fared poorly anyway. While it once was feared that Jemaah Islamiyah would turn the country into a southeast Asian version of Afghanistan, Indonesians have turned against radical Islam decisively in the years since the 2002 Bali bombing.

Similarly, in India (whose 150-million-plus Muslims rank as the world's third-largest Islamic constituency), the recent elections were largely peaceful, and a planned boycott in Muslim-majority Kashmir attracted a mixed response. Turkey, too, remains a (generally) stable democracy, despite the election of a party with Islamist roots seven years ago.

It's also worth noting that here in North America, we see little evidence that Muslims have rushed to reject Western political values in favour of some kind of shariah state-within-a-state, as many culture warriors once feared. Notwithstanding a few headline-grabbing episodes, Canadian Muslims generally have channeled their activist efforts into mainstream politics. The same is true in the United States.

Even in war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan, national elections have attracted high turnout --an amazing result given the deadly risks voters in those countries face on election day.

The question is: Why haven't these nations become thriving, peaceable democracies?...

Isn’t it obvious why they haven’t? It’s because “democracy” is about a whole lot more than going through the motions of casting a vote. It’s about having a society predicated on true equality for all, something which is impossible in the context of Islam and the inequities—between women and men, Muslims and non-Muslims—written into Islamic law. It’s about the habits of freedom, of thought and expression, which propel a society forward instead of edicts of blind submission, which hold it back. It’s because man-made law is fluid and flexible, a work in progress, and Islam’s God-law, the sharia, is rigid and Draconian. It’s because, bottom line, democracy and sharia are two competing and irreconcilable systems and, like oil and water, they do not mix.

The sooner everyone in the free world understands that essential incompatibility, and the fruitlessness of tying to blend the two because such a solution (in both senses of the word) will inevitably separate into its component parts (as a vinaigrette, left to settle, will inevitably separate into oil on the bottom, vinegar on top) the better off we’ll be.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:49 | link | comments

Sunday, 10 May 2009

Schlepping around in B.C.: If you’re looking for a chuckle, you could always read how Obama slayed ‘em with his comedic stylings. Or you could check out the rulings of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, those “quasi-judicial” ‘roos, some of whose cases are wholly hilarious. Here, for instance, is one involving a complainant named Justin Schleppe that the marsupials decided to nix at the outset (unlike, say, the Canadian Islamic Congress complaint against Maclean’s, which schlepped on for some time):

I INTRODUCTION

[1] On December 8, 2008, Justin Schleppe filed a complaint against Terry Jones Bex, Atilla Pircher Kapus and “The Prism Lounge – now the ‘Paparazzi Club’”. The legal name of the corporate respondent is not clear on the materials before me; it is not necessary to resolve this issue for the purposes of this decision, in which I refer to it as “the Lounge”. The complainant alleges that the respondents discriminated on the basis of sex in employment, contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code.

[2] The complainant self-identifies as “Justin Schleppe AKA: Jenna … a humble T-gUrl”. As the complainant’s gender identity is somewhat unclear on the materials, and in an effort to be respectful to all parties, I refer to “the complainant” as such in this decision, and attempt to avoid gendered pronoun references wherever possible.

[3] The complaint involves alleged discrimination by the two individual respondents, and the Lounge, which they operate, and at which the complainant was employed. The complainant also lived as a tenant in the home of the two individual respondents. On the materials before me, it is apparent that the relationships between the parties were stormy.

[4] Section 22(2) of the Code requires complaints to be filed within six months of the alleged contravention. Where a continuing contravention is alleged, the complaint must be filed within six months of the latest alleged contravention: s. 22(2). Where the complaint is filed after these time limits, a member of the Tribunal may accept the complaint for filing, provided that it is in the public interest to do so and no one will be substantially prejudiced: s. 22(3).

[5] In this decision, I decide whether the complaint was filed, in whole or in part, more than six months after the alleged contraventions. If it was, I decide whether to exercise my discretion to accept any late-filed parts.

II DECISION

[6] I deny the application to accept the complaint for filing.

Good call. Score one for the small business owner—this time around. If “Justin Schleppe AKA: Jenna … a humble T-gUrl” of indeterminate gender was smart, though, he/she’d hightail it to Ontario, for it’s in this jurisdiction that another, er, indeterminate roped the B.C. ‘roos’ Ontario counterpart into considering his/her gripe against the gym owner who wouldn’t let him shower with the ladies. From the sounds of it, the Schleppe case might have had a better shot here.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:38 | link | comments (1)

Some shmaltz for Mother's Day: Happy Mother's Day. This song--Tom Jones singing "My Yiddische Mama" (betcha never thought you'd hear that one)--goes out to my Yiddische mama, and to all the mamas, whatever their lingua of choice.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:34 | link | comments

She has met the enemy and it is us: Intrepid security honcho (honchess?) Janet Napolitano wastes no time in retripling efforts to safeguard her nation from the terrifying threat to its north.

Yes, because you never know when hoards of beer-guzzling, back bacon-scarfing, hockey-playing hoseheads are going to descend on you.

Does that mean that the world's longest undefended border (as the 49th parallel has been billed) is the world's longest undefended border no more?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:25 | link | comments (1)

Saturday, 09 May 2009

Quo vadis, Bibi?: I thought Israeli leftists, suffering as they were from a terrible case of Oslo Syndrome, were clueless. But for the life of me I cannot fathom the apparent cluelessness of those in Israel who are supposed to get it. This Jewish Press report about this past week’s AIPAC conference, for example, leads me to wonder whether Bibi gets it, but had decided to play along with the charade of the “peace process,” or whether he’s as delusional as Peres, Olmert and company:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking via satellite, told the AIPAC policy conference in Washington Monday evening that he supported a "triple track" approach to talking with the Palestinians covering security, economic and political negotiations.

At a breakout session the day before, Ron Dermer, a top adviser to Netanyahu, explained how the prime minister would go about doing that and why he believes it will work.

First, Dermer said, Netanyahu would "work to change the reality on the ground." He praised Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, U.S. security coordinator for the Palestinian Authority, for his work with Palestinians.

"It's amazing that" during the Gaza operation late last year and early this year, "you had protests in European capitals and didn't have them in Jenin, Nablus and Jericho," Dermer said.

"That says to me that maybe the security forces are doing a little bit better and maybe the Palestinians want a different life, a better future."

Dermer then moved to the economic track, noting that a prime minister "can do a lot" to "move the bureaucracy along and to get through all the red tape" to get roads paved and buildings built.

"True economic development and security cooperation can create a context where political progress is possible," he said.

And that political progress is more likely, Dermer said, because "something is happening in the Middle East that has not happened in the last 100 years" - the Arab world and Israel share "a common enemy" in Iran.

"On the basis of this common danger, not only can you work together on that common threat but also work together to advance peace," he said...

Oh, dear Lord. Tell me he doesn’t really believe that the Arabs are going to co-operate with Israel because they fear Iran. Doesn’t the Bibi regime know that the Arabs hate Israel more than they fear the Shias, and that, when push comes to shove, they’re going to side with their own, even if they happen to represent a different branch of the faith? Look at Hamas. They’re Sunnis, but for the sake of their mutual desire to see Israel expunged, they were willing to make common cause with the mullahs.

If I can see that, surely Bibi can too, right?

Update: Arabs and other Muslims set aside their differences in order to do tons of business with Iran. But, hey, I'm sure that doesn't preclude their forging a regional alliance with Israel to combat their combat their common enemy, the mullahs.

Update: Caroline Glick offers this clarification re the happy hopechangers' faulty understanding of the situation, and "court Jew" Rahm Emanuel's part in purveying it:

As Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel made clear in his closed-door briefing to senior AIPAC officials this week, the administration is holding Israel indirectly responsible for Iran's nuclear program. It does this by claiming that Israel's refusal to cede its land to the Palestinians is making it impossible for the Arab world to support preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Somewhat inconveniently for the administration, the Arabs themselves are rejecting this premise. This week US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited the Persian Gulf and Egypt to soothe Arab fears that the administration's desperate attempts to appease the mullahs will harm their security interests. He also sought to gain their support for the administration's plan to unveil a new peace plan aimed at isolating and pressuring Israel.

After meeting with Gates, Amr Moussa - who has distinguished himself as one of Israel's most trenchant critics - said categorically, "The question of Iran should be separate from the Arab-Israel conflict."

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:52 | link | comments (2)

The Toronto Star’s “MEME OF THE WEEK”: Barack Obama, so saith the lefties, is a lot like Spock (the Vulcan, not the permissive baby doc):

In 2008, MIT's Henry Jenkins was asked to name a contemporary figure with the same qualities as Star Trek's Mr. Spock. "Before I quite knew what I was saying," he wrote, "I found myself talking about Barack Obama." The New York Times' Maureen Dowd agreed in February 2009. In the days before the release of the new Star Trek movie this week, the notion finally became a meme. "Some Trekkies have compared the Spock character...to President Obama," said NBC News' George Lewis. "Obama is Spock: It's quite logical," a Salon headline proclaimed. Obama, like Spock, is a detached mixed-race sage with prominent ears and a soothing baritone. Both have a "passion for reason," Jeff Greenwald explained, effortless charisma and the ability to speak with nuance, in addition to "total self-confidence and amazing problem-solving skills." Democrats, of course, hope the Obama administration lives long and prospers.

Well, the part about the prominent ears and the detachment may be Spock-like, but the meme falls down (so to speak) when one considers Obama’s policies: There is nothing logical or rational about saddling future generations of Americans with a staggering debt; or trying to endear oneself to implacable, fanatical theocrats who hate your country and everything it stands for; or turning America into a facsimile of the dhimmified, sclerotic EU.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:52 | link | comments (3)

Check this out: As a pessimistic conservative, I was tickled to discover this blog--the optimistic conservative. It's the work of Commander Jennifer Dyer, a retired U.S. Naval intelligence officer. I especially like this post, which I first read in The Jewish Press. It's about Obama's mush-brained thoughts on the Holocaust, and how he believes "empathy" is the way to prevent genocide.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:16 | link | comments

Sex with snakes: I can sort of, kind of, understand the appeal of wanting to get up close and personal with sheep (a topic of great interest to the late Ayatollah Khomeini, among others)--they're soft, fleecy and, well, sheep-like. Having sex with creatures that have forked tongues and are covered in scales, though...not so much. And, really, who even knew there were folks out there who were keen to give reptile-human interspecies canoodling a go? For instance, there's a chap in British Columbia, pagan fellah, whose religion incorporates the practice into its rites. He's really p.o.'d that his, er, proclivities resulted in his human rights being abridged, he says, by Vancouver police. His claim in currently being heard by the B.C. 'Roos, the same sage "judges" who adjudicated Mark Steyn's show trial last summer.

My question: does PETA know about this guy? Because I'm pretty sure they'd have something to say about how "human rights" don't take precedence over reptile "rights". (Thanks to BCF for the link.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:52 | link | comments (1)

Talibanstan: Salim Mansur, history prof and Toronto Sun columnist, says there’s no need to fret about Pakistan falling into the hands of the Taliban since they already more or less hold the lease:

There is frantic concern in Washington and elsewhere that Pakistan has reached its tipping point and might succumb to the Taliban forces entrenched barely 80 km (50 miles) from the capital, Islamabad.

But the concern is misleading. A country of some 160 million Muslims is not about to be overrun by the Taliban. On the contrary, Pakistan is more or less a Taliban state shaped by its origin and history.

This is the unpalatable reality that cannot be publicly discussed in Washington, London or Ottawa due to diplomatic niceties. It is also complicated by the patron-client relationship the Pakistani elite pursued with the U.S. over the past six decades as a means to counter India's dominant position in the region.

Pakistan was forcefully established by an elite on the basis of an exclusivist and bigoted idea that since India's Muslims constitute a "nation" they deserve a state of their own.

The perversion of Islam into a nationalist ideology hugely aggravated communal politics in undivided India that would not end with the partitioning of the subcontinent in 1947. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, ruthlessly planned this division when he called for direct action -- communal blood-letting -- by his supporters which led to the massive Hindu-Muslim riots known as the Great Calcutta killings of August 1946.

This act of terror made certain that trust between Hindus and Muslims was irreparably broken, and Britain was compelled to depart by partitioning India.

To recall this history is to have an inkling of the sort of a country that emerged as a result of terrorism followed by ethnic cleansing of the non-Muslim population -- most Hindus and Sikhs left or were forcefully driven out from present-day Pakistan.

Subsequently, the Pakistani elite declared the Ahmadiyyas -- a small peace-loving sect of minority Muslims -- to be non-Muslims, and persecuted them as the harbinger of further bigotry to be unleashed in the slide of Jinnah's Pakistan into a Taliban state.

The economic exploitation of former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by the ruling elite began with Mr. Jinnah imposing Urdu as the national language on Bengali Muslims with their own rich linguistic and cultural tradition. Eventually the two halves of Pakistan would tear apart in 1971 following civil war and systematic massacre of Bengalis by the Pakistani military.

Since 1971 the unremorseful and bloody-minded ruling elite of Pakistan -- civil and military -- pushed Pakistan deeper into a dependency alliance with Saudi Arabia.

It meant importing the Saudi version of Islam -- Wahhabism -- and its spread deep across the country through the rapid expansion of religious schools and mosques funded by money from the Gulf countries. The products of these schools and mosques are the Taliban "jihadis," or holy-warriors, who set forth for Afghanistan in the war against the former Soviet Union…

Similarly—and closer to home—all those stressing about “sharia financing,” the economic component of the jihad, setting up shop in Canada can knock it off. As I heard on local Ceeb radio yesterday afternoon, sharia banking is already flourishing here, and Toronto is becoming its North American hub. (Both the Ceeb host and the interviewee, a gent involved in the flim-flammery, seemed to think that was a ripping idea.)

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

To boldly wear what no party leader has worn before: I always knew there was something other-wordly about Jack Layton and his missus, but I could never quite put my finger on it. Thanks to steynonline (where I found this photo) I finally know what it is. (Don't be surprised if it turns out the twosome are raising Tribbles in their backyard.)

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

Why do they hate us?: A writer in The Australian tries to account for Israel’s er, unpopularity among leftists and Muslims:

HAVE my very own Israel problem and it is this: the Israel I know, which I have visited for weeks at a time, which I experience through its literature and media and the Israeli citizens I have met, bears no relation to the Israel I see in most of the Western media. That Israel seems almost to dominate Western intellectual life. It is commonly held that Israel lies at the heart of the widespread Muslim hostility to the West and much of the ideological conflict in the Middle East. But Israel must surely also lie at the heart of the West itself; it is so often the centrepoint of raging ideological debate, shrill mutual denunciation, ferocious polemic, emotional demonstrations, university activism and academic boycotts.

That Israel of the Western mind (and indeed of the Arab mind) is a hateful place: right-wing, militaristic, authoritarian, racist, ultra-religious, neo-colonial, narrow-minded, undemocratic, indifferent to world opinion, indifferent especially to Palestinian suffering.

Yet the Israel I know is mostly secular, raucously, almost wildly democratic, has a vibrant left wing, having founded in the kibbutz movement one of the only successful experiments in socialism in human history. It is intellectually disputatious; any two Israelis will have three opinions and be happy to argue them to a lamp post. It is multi-ethnic, there is a great stress on human solidarity, there is due process. And I've never heard an Israeli speak casually about the value of Palestinian life. I've heard Israelis voice a desire to neutralise Hezbollah or remove Hamas from leadership in Gaza, but I've never in any context heard an Israeli express the view that the value of a human life is determined by race.

The Israel I know is a Western democracy, often under siege, often making mistakes, sometimes moral mistakes. But I also see its institutions, its courts, its free press and vigorous academics challenging those mistakes and trying to correct them, sometimes exaggerating them in the process. I see a society striving for the good, sometimes doing the wrong thing, certainly not beyond criticism, but overall behaving as well as any comparably sized Western society would or could in all the circumstances.

How to explain this contradiction between the Israel I see and that other, evil Israel that dominates so much Western intellectual life?

One reason Israel generates such passionate responses is because of the multiplicity of its identities and the variety of functions it fulfils in political debate. Each of these identities or roles is affected by all the others, but it's helpful to disentangle them conceptually.

First, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Turkey is a democracy but is not technically in the Middle East. Lebanon is no longer a full democracy, its politics dominated by armed militias and Syrian interference. Israel is the only society in the Middle East with all the institutions of a democracy: a media that reveals all its secrets, a free parliament, independent courts, independent universities and the rest. This earns it a lot of support, especially in the US, but it also means that Israelis generate much of the most damaging criticism of Israel.

This is a singular quality of Israel but it is also discloses a singular quality of the Middle East. Is there another region in the world in which there is only one democracy? This fact alone demonstrates how utterly at odds with its own region Israel is, but also how very odd that region is. The Jewish people, as Walter Russell Mead has written, are an old people but the Israelis are a young people. And deeply imprinted on their DNA is the culture of democracy.

Israel is also the only Western nation in the Middle East (with the exception of substantial but minority parts of Lebanon). Israel is the only national expression of Western values, and indeed Western power, in today's Middle East. These terms can be confusing. The West aspires to universal values of democracy and human rights that can be as well observed in Japan, South Korea or India, nations with very different cultural traditions from the West. Nonetheless these values, while universal, define Western nations in their polities.

This leads to the third of Israel's distinctive roles. Second only to the US, Israel is the most acute object of the hostility to the West that flourishes in Western intellectual life. Official Iranian propaganda has described the US as the "Big Satan" and Israel as the "Little Satan". In the West, this is a view mostly found on the ideological Left but it has echoes more generally. Much of it is heir to traditional Marxism, which saw the structure of capitalist societies as inherently unjust and built on exploitation. This ideology was expanded to incorporate the international economy: Western nations are rich because they exploit poor nations. This is not the social democratic critique of neo-liberalism recently articulated by Kevin Rudd. It is instead the view that capitalist societies, and the international system, are of their essence irredeemably and intolerably unjust.

If you add to this inheritance the polemic of Noam Chomsky and his disciples against Western militarism, of Edward Said against Western scholarship and understanding of the Middle East and indeed of all formerly colonised peoples, and of the epistemological assault on traditional Western knowledge mounted by French critical theory from the 1960s onwards, you have a paradigm for understanding the West into which Israel fits all too neatly…

To sum it up: they hate Israel because it’s Jewish, capitalistic and democratic—three traits that cannot—that can never—be reconciled with Marxism or Islam. Also—some of them have succumbed to the pathological madness of Judenhass, which currently plays out as an animus toward the Jewish state (and rebounds onto the Jewish people).

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

Think the U.S. is prepared for the possiblily of an incoming Iranian or Taliban nuke?: Think again.

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

Not a pretty picture: Pope Benedict, on a visit to the Palestinian state ruled by Hashemites, wears a Yasser Arafat revolutionary shmatta as he "apologizes" for a 2006 speech in which he accidentally insulted Islam's founder. The Pope explained that the offensive words he was quoting did not reflect his own views, and that he is looking forward to a more fruitful relationship between Christians and Muslims.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:29 | link | comments

Allahu Akbar, Granny: The president may not be an official member of the ummah, but his Granny sure is. From the (Pakistan) Daily Times:

LAHORE: US President Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, Sara Obama, will perform haj this year along with her son Syed Obama, a private TV channel reported on Saturday. According to the channel, Sara and Syed will also visit Dubai before going to Saudi Arabia for performing haj. Sara (85) is an active participant in welfare and charity programmes. The channel said performing haj is one of the most desired wishes of the US president’s grandmother.

Sweet. Maybe she can bring back some ZamZam water souvenirs for the grandkids—that is, if she doesn’t get crushed by the mob during the “stoning the devil” ritual.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:20 | link | comments

Friday, 08 May 2009

Hamas-loving NOW Magazine offers up a disturbing Der-Sturmer-style image: Could someone please pinch me, because looking at this picture of a stiff-necked, loud-mouthed Jew, his mouth stuffed full of dough-re-mi, makes me feel like I've travelled back in time from multicultist Toronto, 2009, to Berlin,1933 (h/t angelweb).

Shame on you, Susan G. Cole. Shame. On. You.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:00 | link | comments (4)

Rahm the rat: In a disgusting display of crapping on your own, Obama’s court Jew/jester, Rahm Emanuel, has linked America’s putting the brakes on Iran’s plans to wipe out the Jewish state to Israel making “progress” in “peace talks” with the Palestinians.Yoram Ettinger explains what’s up with that bizarre line of thinking, and why it’s a really dreadful (and half-cocked) idea:

…Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief-of-Staff, claims that a linkage exists, because the Palestinian issue is ostensibly the Arab crown-jewel. Therefore, an Israeli giveaway of Judea and Samaria would, supposedly, appease the Arabs, which would facilitate a broad anti-Iran coalition. However, Arab states have refrained from assisting Palestinians during the 2008 Gaza War, the first and second Intifada and the 1982 Israel-PLO War in Lebanon. They do not shed blood or substantial resources on behalf of Palestinians, but shower Palestinians with rhetoric. Since the 1950s, they have considered Fatah, PLO and Hamas role-models of inter-Arab subversion and back-stabbing, which must be repressed and not advanced. No Arab-Israel war has ever been caused by – or fought on behalf of - the Palestinians. Hence, Gaza, Judea and Samaria were not transferred, by Egypt and Jordan, to the Palestinians following the 1948/9 War. Moreover, Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan were concluded by bypassing the Palestinian issue, in spite of Palestinian threats and despite Israel's war on PLO and Hamas terrorism. Does Rahm Emanuel assume that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai and Oman – which consider Iran a clear and present lethal threat – would oppose the removal of the Iranian machete from their throats, as long as there are Jewish communities in Samaria?! Hasn't Emanuel learnt from the 1991 Gulf War that Arab members of a coalition do not produce a meaningful added-value?!

The linkage concept advances Iran's fortunes. It makes the anti-Iran campaign a hostage in the hands of Palestinian terrorists, diverts some of the criticism away from Iran, provides Teheran with additional time to develop nuclear capabilities and enhances Iran's domestic and regional legitimacy.

The linkage concept creates an unwarranted US-Israel tension, thus adrenalizing the veins of Arab radicals and Palestinian terrorists, erodes Israel's posture of deterrence, pours cold water on the prospects of peace and adds fuel to the fire of terrorism, dealing a blow to vital US and Israeli interests.

Gee, Rahm--nothing like having a Jew like you in the White House (is something I’m sure the Arabs are saying to themselves right now).

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:06 | link | comments

Tinsel Town Jews honour a great humanitarian: This came via e-mail this morning:

Holocaust survivors, Business, Political and Entertainment industry leaders and members of the Jewish community were in attendance when the Simon Wiesenthal Center bestowed its highest honor, the 2009 Humanitarian Award, upon actor and philanthropist Will Smith at its National Tribute Dinner in Los Angeles.

The award was given to Mr. Smith for his commitment to education, cultural diversity, and social responsibility and was presented by actress Charlize Theron at the star-studded event. Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of DreamWorks served as Master of Ceremonies. Grammy Award-winning songwriter and producer Josiah Bell entertained…

Well, as long as he’s committed to education, cultural diversity and social responsibility (any thoughts on Israel, Gaza and the Zionist “occupation,” Will?), and super-hot babe Charlize Theron agrees to give it to him, I guess he’s worthy of the Jews’ prize, right?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:46 | link | comments

He's reviewing the situation: If you haven’t yet read it, don’t miss Mark Steyn’s piece in the May Commentary Magazine. It sets out in grim and mordantly amusing detail how Europe has once again become, ahem, inhospitable to Jews and how, demography being destiny, the rest of the free world can count on eventually sharing the Jews’ fate.

Steyn is one of the few robustly heterosexual males I know who has a real affinity for show tunes (my husband is another), so it’s no surprise he would start out by mentioning Lionel Bart, composer of the musical Oliver! :

On Holocaust Memorial Day 2008, a group of just under 100 people—Londoners and a few visitors —took a guided tour of the old Jewish East End. They visited, among other sites of interest, the birthplace of my old chum Lionel Bart, the author of Oliver! Three generations of schoolchildren have grown up singing Bart’s lyric:

Consider yourself

At ’ome!

Consider yourself

One of the family!

Those few dozen London Jews considered themselves at ’ome. But they weren’t. Not any more. The tour was abruptly terminated when the group was pelted with stones, thrown by “youths”—or to be slightly less evasive, in the current euphemism of Fleet Street, “Asian” youths. “If you go any further, you’ll die,” they shouted, in between the flying rubble.

A New Yorker who had just moved to Britain to start a job at the Metropolitan University had her head cut open and had to be taken to the Royal London Hospital at Whitechapel, causing her to miss the Holocaust Day “interfaith memorial service” at the East London Central Synagogue. Her friend, Eric Litwack from Canada, was also struck but did not require stitches. But if you hadn’t recently landed at Heathrow, it wasn’t that big a deal, not these days: Nobody was killed or permanently disfigured. And given the number of Jewish community events that now require security, perhaps Her Majesty’s Constabulary was right and these Londoners walking the streets of their own city would have been better advised to do so behind a police escort…

That was enough to get me my parodistic juices flowing, and reimagine “Consider Yourself” being sung by today’s Brits to the Jewish objects of their disaffection:

Consider yourselves unloved.

Consider yourselves personae non gra-a-tae.

We’ve taken ‘gainst you so strong.

It’s clear we’re not going to get along.

Consider yourselves well out.

You might want to move all of your furniture.

There isn’t a lot of time.

We say, hey, you’ve got to abjure your crime.

If there’s a chance to be

We can speak for Arab “rights”

We’ll ignore their slights and views.

Always a chance a lad

Hot for jihad’ll blow us up.

What say we blame it on “the Jooos”?

Consider yourselves reviled.

Consider yourselves part of the conspiracy.

Those Zionists are the worst.

We’re first t’curse and spit on their infamy…

Everyone gives a pass to horse’s ass, George Galloway.

He’s a pal away on tour.

Raving about boycotts, sanctions and divestment schemes.

Hamas is his prime cause du jour.

Consider your awful fate.

You haven’t a lot of pull.

For after some consideration, we can state
Consider yourselves…

Expendable.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:28 | link | comments (1)

Lessons of the Holocaust: Educating people about the Holocaust, the theory goes, is the way to prevent a second Holocaust. But since most Holocaust education is completely divorced from current trends in Judenhass, (i.e. obsessive, irrational hatred for the Jewish state, and how it has spilled over onto Jews in general) and has become merely another tool to push the mushy progressive agenda (diversity! ecology! tolerance! niceness at all costs!), the efficacy of such teaching must be called into serious question. At best, it’s innocuous. At worst, though, it’s dangerous, because it sets up a false dichotomy between the dead Jews of Europe—virtuous victims who mostly went to their deaths without complaint—and the living, breathing Jews of Israel—the “new” Nazis who treat their victims, the Palestinians, as if they’re Jews.

It’s heresy to say such things, I know, but I feel I must, since we’re living in another age of madness, and in our mad, mad world, Holocaust “education” and memorialisation are being turned against us by our enemies. Unless there’s a concerted effort to tie in what happened back then with what’s happening today; unless anti-Zionism, the latest manifestation of Judenhass, becomes the focal point of education, it’s counterproductive to pour so much time and effort into Holocaust programs.

But, hey, that’s just me, pooper of parties, rain-er on parades. Over in Israel, there’s an Arab who’s convinced that “teaching Palestinians about Jewish trauma is (the) path to peace.” Globe and Mail stringer Orly Halpern has the details.

NI'LIN, WEST BANK — Through a hall in the building's basement, past a large colour poster of Yasser Arafat and photos of Palestinians refugees in 1948, is a room where the cracked cement walls are covered with black-and-white photos showing the bodies of emaciated Jews piled high, with German SS soldiers looking on.

Arab Israeli lawyer Khaled Mahameed, the man who initiated this Holocaust memorial photo exhibit in the West Bank, is convinced that teaching about Jewish trauma is the path to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

“The photos of the Holocaust have enormous strength to change the positions of both sides, more than all the armies in the world,” says Mr. Mahameed, who bought the photos with his own money from Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum in Jerusalem and translated all the captions into Arabic.

But teaching the Holocaust to Palestinians is no simple task. The subject is controversial here and throughout the Middle East. In Israel, it is often viewed as a justification for the Jewish state's existence. That is exactly what causes Palestinians to either ignore it or deny that it ever happened.

Palestinians explain they are hurting from the Jewish state so why should they learn about Jewish suffering. In the past year in Ni'lin, Israeli soldiers have killed four youths from this once quiet agricultural community during weekly protests against the construction of the Israeli security barrier.

One of them was 10-year-old Ahmed Mussa. His uncle, Hassan Mussa, is one of the leaders of Ni'lin's Popular Committee for the Resistance to the Fence, which Mr. Mahameed had to convince in order to display the exhibition in the town.

“The impetus behind this exhibition is to express our absolute rejection of killing of people – regardless of their place, religion and even colour,” Mr. Mussa, a 35-year-old schoolteacher, said in fluent English. “We are informing the Jewish people we feel sorry for what was done to you. But we have a question: Why do you punish us?”

Mr. Mussa, who learned about the Holocaust from Mr. Mahameed, gives a tour of the exhibition. But he turns his head away when he reaches a photo in which two people stand on top of a pile of naked corpses.

“I don't want this to happen to people and I don't want to see this happen to my people,” he said pointing, but not looking. “It made me think about random killing of innocent people and about Gaza and all that.”

The death of hundreds of Gazans in Israel's recent invasion is still fresh on many Palestinians' minds. It's also depicted on a short wall reserved for Palestinian pain. Here, photos of dead Gazan children are glued alongside pictures of the four dead Ni'lin youth and other photos of soldiers dragging Ni'lin farmers from their land.

Mr. Mussa said says the exhibit may “bring people closer together … [and] give a push to make peace because we'll have become totally aware that both are victims.”

Mr. Mahameed has meetings planned with people in the Palestinian Authority to convince them to teach about the Holocaust in the school system. But, in the meantime, his efforts in Ni'lin may soon come to an end. The Amira family, whose basement hosts the exhibit, said it has received a call from someone in the Israeli security services, who advised to take down the exhibit or risk troubles to the family.

See what I mean? A “feel good” story that’s supposed to be about how Holocaust education can bring people together turns out to be yet another exercise in moral relativism: “You have your ‘random killings’”; we have ours, which have been perpetrated by you. You have your Holocaust; we have our naqba.”

In other words, the only “lesson” these Israeli Arabs have learned from the Holocaust is that Israelis are victimizing Arabs, same as Nazis did to Jews.

Any lessons about the similarity between “Aryan” notions of supremacy and Islamic ones? Don’t be silly. Anything about the Koran’s hateful words about Jews, and how they animate the Muslim animus toward Israel? Perish the though.

In that case, I highly doubt that getting the Mahameed lesson about the Holocaust into the PA school system (where Judenhass and victimhood are already on the curriculum, and the spectacle of piles of dead Jews is apt to elicit cheers, not jeers) is likely to have a salutary effect.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:41 | link | comments

Thursday, 07 May 2009

Freedom’s just another word for something we don’t have: As a citizen of Canada (born and bred here, as were my ma and pa) I knew I was entitled to certain “rights” (including the right of free expression, to which I’m entitled, but which I don’t really have because of censorship provisions in Canada’s human rights codes). I had no idea, however, that, as a Canadian, I also have certain well-defined “responsibilities”. As the Ministry of Immigration and Citizenship sees it, I’m supposed

· to obey Canada’s laws;

· to express opinions freely while respecting the rights and freedoms of others;

· to help others in the community;

· to care for and protect our heritage and environment; and

· to eliminate discrimination and injustice.

Exsqueeze me? As far as I’m concerned, a citizen of a truly free nation would bear responsibility for only the first one; in a truly free nation, the others, while they may be a nice thing to do (with the exception of the second, which sounds like a backhanded endorsement of state censorship—“try not to say anything offensive,” and all that hogwash) would be considered optional, not compulsory.

Or am I wrong, and is everyone in the flipping nanny state expected to behave like some combination of Boy Scout/community organizer/human rights activist/Green Party member/social worker? And if I don’t fulfill my “responsibilities,” who’s going to get on my case—the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:12 | link | comments

Bad (but apt) connection: It’s déjà vu all over again, notes David Pryce-Jones in The Corner:

“Only connect,” was the advice that the novelist E. M. Forster gave to anyone who wishes to understand the world. He wasn’t a very forceful personality, but the advice remains sound. And recent events have provided a rather startling illustration.

In September 1933, Josef Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, arrived in Geneva to address the League of Nations. He stayed in a smart hotel and gave a press conference to admiring journalists. His purpose was to claim that Nazi persecution of Jews was justified. Jews had too much power and influence, and, besides, they weren’t German and had no right to be in the country. (I owe this information to Flight from the Reich. Refugee Jews, 1933-1946, a thoughtful study just published by the historians Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt.)

In April 2009, Mahmud Ahmedinejad, the Iranian president, arrived in Geneva to address the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. He too stayed in a smart hotel and gave a press conference to admiring journalists. His purpose was to claim that Muslim aggression against Jews was justified. Jews have too much power and influence, and besides they have no right to be in a country of their own.

Only connect, eh?

It’s like the Boy from Oz sings: Dreams (of genocide) can come true again/'Cause everything old is new again.

Okay, maybe he left out the “g” word.

Update: You had to know it was coming:

When Cossacks were rampagin’

And lots of pogroms those Czars were staging.

No need to remember when

‘Cause everything old is new again.

(Speadin’ all) those blood libels, they heed ‘em.

About how Jews take juicy lads and bleed ‘em.

Crazy now; they were crazy then.

‘Cause everything old is new again.

Get out your canards, your crap and your twists.

Professor, tell us 'bout those Zi-on-ists.

And nutty tales we thought were long dead

Are now revived and spewed and spread.

Don’t throw away the hate.

Just aim it straight at the Jewish state.

Genocide can come true again.

‘Cause everything old is new again…

They might kill a lot of Jews again.

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

Ceeb's little blue book gets an update: Ceeb company gal Esther Enkin explains that big changes are in store for the Mothercorp’s journalistic code:

CBC has a little blue book, which you may know as our Journalistic Standards and Practices.

It is known internally as the blue book because its latest version, completed in 2001, is covered in a little blue binder.

You know it, because many of you refer to it when you want to make sure we are living up to the standards we have publicly set for ourselves. By the way, it is a condition of employment that all editorial staff read and know what's in it.

The blue book is a unique document in Canadian journalism. There is no other as comprehensive or detailed as ours and, as a journalistic operating manual, we feel it serves us well.

But it is starting to feel dated so we have just launched a thorough, detailed review of the entire document.

As we move forward with this review, we know there are fundamentals that cannot and will not change. The principles spelled out at the beginning — that we are committed to accuracy, fairness and integrity in all news coverage, no matter what the platform — can only be strengthened.

But it is the advent of new platforms that is one of the reasons we have decided to do this now. The current version does, in fact, have a section about online journalism, revised in 2003, so it covers some things. But reading it now, this section feels almost quaint — in six short years!..

You know what also feels almost quaint, Esther? The idea that the Ceeb serves the interests of freedom-loving Canadians, instead of being a bastion of smugness, cluelessness, multi-culti cant, and the reflexive anti-Americanism/anti-Zionism that, more often than not, is the product of a “progressive” world view.

Want to know what else is “quaint”? That sharia law. Funny how no one’s in a rush to update that “code”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:43 | link | comments

The Maestro: Here’s Barbara Hall’s letter to the Globe and Mail (posted on the OHRC site) in which she espies “hope” for us poor benighted bigots:

Re: Black belt teen strikes back at bully, and rallies community against racism

400 voices got it right

I have watched with great interest – and hope – the events unfolding at Keswick High School in the past week. It was so refreshing to see 400 students rising together to tell their peers, their school, and their community, that racism and bullying are not welcome.

One of the best lessons we learned during our recent inquiry into assaults on Asian Canadian anglers was that it takes a whole community to stamp out racism and discrimination.

Acts of racism have not disappeared from our society. They can happen at any time, in any place. While it’s sad that we continue to battle the ugly effects of intolerance, it is heartening to see organizer Matthew Winch and his fellow students strongly stating that his community does not approve. This is an example of how communities need to work together to eradicate racism in our communities.

Speaking out against racism and discrimination often starts with one voice. And in Keswick this week we saw a 400-voice symphony of hope.

Yours truly,

Barbara Hall, B.A,
Chief Commissioner

You would think that the “symphony” would have demonstrated to Babs how unnecessary her egregiously intrusive “services” are. But nooo. She sees the episode as evidence that she needs to press on “conducting” anti-racism efforts in the province until every last trace of “discrimination” is expunged.

That’s our Babs—the Atruro Toscanini of “human rights” (only Babs has the bigger balls and, um, baton).

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments (2)

When Ezzy met Jenny: Not since a campaigning Michael Ignatieff knocked on Kathy Shaidle’s door has there an unexpected and awkward howja do like this—Ezra Levant bumping into jet-setting Commissar Jen Lynch:

I took in a bit of Question Period when I was in Ottawa yesterday. I was in the Centre Block waiting for the elevator, and a kindly old lady gave me a huge smile, and said hello. I said hello back -- perhaps it was a fan.

Not quite. She introduced herself to me: she was Jennifer Lynch, the Chief Commissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I was surprised -- she looks nothing like her publicity photo, which must have been taken way back when she was a leftist activist working for Joe Clark. That was when she was making a name for herself as an anti-Alberta bigot.

I wasn't particularly surprised to bump into Lynch. It's Ottawa after all, and she's furiously lobbying MPs to keep the censorship provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act -- and to keep her job. I was just surprised to bump into her in Canada. Other than the foreign affairs minister and the international trade minister, I doubt there's many people in Ottawa who rack up bigger travel expenses on the public dime than Lynch does. I mean, just to pick one of her countless junkets at random, here is the expense report from one of her jaunts to Vienna -- she stuck taxpayers with an $8,200 tab to go to a 15th anniversary party, commemorating... another junket.

I just said the first thing that came to mind: "I'm surprised to see you in Canada, not jet-setting to Europe or Africa," and we both entered the elevator, along with Dick Harris, MP and Alykhan Velshi, Jason Kenney's Director of Communications.

"I'm in town with Mark Steyn," I said, to fill the awkward silence.

"I know," she said.

"There's going to be a lot of hate speech tonight!" I joked. Well, I thought it was a joke. But I think Commissar Lynch was already mentally assigning the case to one of her enforcers. Maybe it would be Sandy Kozak.

Lynch was quiet now. But I was warming to my theme: "I think I'm going to file a hate speech complaint against myself," I told her. "Who do you think would win that one?"

In an act of mercy, the elevator opened, and Commissar Lynch walked out, rictus grin still in place.

Jennifer Lynch is old? I guess the exigencies of wining and dining in European capitals on the taxpayers’ tab takes a lot more out of one than I had though.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:25 | link | comments (2)

Wednesday, 06 May 2009

Goodbye Ruby Tuesday on Wednesday: The Liberals, no surprise, have been fairly low key about accusations that one of their own, Ruby Dhalla, may have treated two Phillippino nannies to a taste of indentured servitude. Ruby intends to fight the accusations (sparkling white) tooth and (impeccably-manicured) nail in order to clear her name. Meanwhile, her fearless leader, Iggy the ignoble, accepted her resignation as the multiculturalism critic, but has remained mum about the controversy itself.

Imagine, if you will, that it was a Conservative minister--or even a backbencher--on the receiving end of such an allegation. The shrieks of outrage from Liberals accusing the Tory of being an outright racist would be downright deafening. But when a glamorous Sikh woman is the alleged maltreater, it's almost as if the cognitive dissonance (along with the desire to contain the damage and the,well, sheer embarrassment) is too much for the multicultists since it conflicts with the received wisdom that "vulnerable minorities"/members of victim groups are incable of being "racist" and taking advantage of other, even more vulnerable minorities. For a "progressive" to acknowledge that reality is to risk a fatal cranial explosion.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:02 | link | comments

And speaking of beasts...: The Grand Ayatollah refuses to talk to apes 'n' pigs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

How Hillary Clinton spells "jihad": "E-X-T-R-E-M-I-S-M".

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

“Beauty” in the Magic Kingdom: Saudi Arabian standards of beauty are entirely in the eye of the beholder—or would be, if all the chicks weren’t encased head-to-toe in black shrouds. From Breitbart:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Sukaina al-Zayer is an unlikely beauty queen hopeful. She covers her face and body in black robes and an Islamic veil, so no one can tell what she looks like. She also admits she's a little on the plump side.

But at Saudi Arabia's only beauty pageant, the judges don't care about a perfect figure or face. What they're looking for in the quest for "Miss Beautiful Morals" is the contestant who shows the most devotion and respect for her parents.

"The idea of the pageant is to measure the contestants' commitment to Islamic morals... It's an alternative to the calls for decadence in the other beauty contests that only take into account a woman's body and looks," said pageant founder Khadra al-Mubarak.

"The winner won't necessarily be pretty," she added. "We care about the beauty of the soul and the morals."

So after the pageant opens Saturday, the nearly 200 contestants will spend the next 10 weeks attending classes and being quizzed on themes including "Discovering your inner strength," "The making of leaders" and "Mom, paradise is at your feet"—a saying attributed to Islam's Prophet Muhammad to underline that respect for parents is among the faith's most important tenets.

Pageant hopefuls will also spend a day at a country house with their mothers, where they will be observed by female judges and graded on how they interact with their mothers, al-Mubarak said. Since the pageant is not televised and no men are involved, contestants can take off the veils and black figure-hiding abayas they always wear in public.

The Miss Beautiful Morals pageant is the latest example of conservative Muslims co-opting Western-style formats to spread their message in the face of the onslaught of foreign influences flooding the region through the Internet and satellite television.

A newly created Islamic music channel owned by an Egyptian businessman aired an "American Idol"-style contest for religious-themed singers this month. And several Muslim preachers have become talk-show celebrities by adopting an informal, almost Oprah-like television style, in contrast to the solemn clerics who traditionally appear in the media.

Now in its second year, the number of pageant contestants has nearly tripled from the 75 women who participated in 2008. The pageant is open to women between 15 and 25. The winner and two runners up will be announced in July, with the queen taking home $2,600 and other prizes. The runners up get $1,300 each.

Last year's winner, Zahra al-Shurafa, said the contest gives an incentive to young women and teens to show more consideration toward their parents.

"I tell this year's contestants that winning is not important," said al-Shurafa, a 21-year-old English major. "What is important is obeying your parents."

There are few beauty pageants in the largely conservative Arab world. The most dazzling is in Lebanon, the region's most liberal country, where contestants appear on TV in one-piece swimsuits and glamorous evening gowns and answer questions that test their confidence and general knowledge.

There are no such displays in ultra-strict Saudi Arabia, where until Miss Beautiful Morals was inaugurated last year, the only pageants were for goats, sheep, camels and other animals, aimed at encouraging livestock breeding…

In that case, I guess the Miss Beautiful Morals pageant—a contest for female human
beings instead of beasts—could be considered a quantum leap forward. Sort of.

Update: The winner of the Wahhabi Most Beautiful Goat contest. And let me tell you,
that's one fetching specimen:

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:00 | link | comments (1)

What happens when leftist ideologues are put in charge of “security”: What happens is that most of the “threats” are perceived to be coming from the right-wing end of the political spectrum, and other threats—leftist, Islamist—fall by the wayside. From the Washington Times (my bolds):

WASHINGTON — The same Homeland Security Department office that categorized veterans as potential terrorists issued an earlier report that defined dozens of "extremists" ranging from black power activists to abortion foes. The report was nixed within hours and recalled from state and local law enforcement officials.

Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans were among several political leanings listed in the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" that came out of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) in late March.

The lexicon lists definitions for key terms and phrases used by Homeland Security analysts "that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States," the report said.

(Click here to download a PDF of "Domestic Extremism Lexicon")

Black separatism was defined as a movement that they said advocates the establishment of a separate nation within the U.S., and its members "advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence directed toward local law enforcement" to advance their goals. Black power is a "term used by black separatists to describe their pride in, and the perceived superiority of the black race," the report said.

Under the listing "antiabortion extremism," the lexicon cites a movement that "advocates violence against providers of abortion-related services." It notes that some people in the movement "cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities."

"The lexicon was not an authorized I&A product, and it was recalled as soon as management discovered it had been released without authorization," said Amy Kudwa, Homeland Security spokeswoman.

"This product is not, nor was it ever, in operational use," Ms. Kudwa said.

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the report "causes further concern that Congress needs to get to the bottom of exactly how DHS determines what intelligence products to distribute to law enforcement officials around the country."

"Although we have evidence that some of the groups described in this and other DHS intelligence products are an active terror threat to our nation, I would be interested in knowing why this lexicon mentioning left-wing extremist groups was deemed inappropriate by DHS and recalled, yet a similar report focusing on veterans, antiabortion activists and anti-illegal immigration activists was fit for distribution and sent out by DHS to law enforcement agencies across the country," Mr. King said.

The 11-page lexicon document lists terms from A through W, beginning with "aboveground," which is defined as extremist groups or people who "operate overtly and portray themselves as law-abiding," and ending with "white supremacist movement." The listing notes six categories of white supremacists: Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan, Christian identity, racist skinhead, Nordic mysticism and Aryan prison gangs.

A "left-wing extremist" is described as someone who opposes war or is dedicated to environmental and animal rights causes, while a "right-wing extremist" is someone who is against abortion or for border enforcement…

In other words, “right-wing extremists” are, by definition, very scary; “left-wing extremists,” on the other hand, are merely a little more “out there” than your average, every day “progressive”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:40 | link | comments (1)

On second thought…: The Globe and Mail’s Christie Blatchford details the “shocking turnaround” of a jihadi terrorist—one of the “broad strata” of Mississaugans accused of plotting to blow up significant local landmarks—who is now fessing up to his guilt. Perhaps the most “shocking” aspect of the situation, though, is how the judge in the case tried to keep we the people from finding out about the volte face:

BRAMPTON, ONT —Now that it can be told - sort of - it should be noted how close a call it was.

When Saad Khalid, one of the notorious and now-shrunken group once known as the Toronto 18, this week abruptly pleaded guilty to participating in a terrorist plot to build and detonate bombs in the country's largest city, it should have been obvious that this was a matter of enormous public importance.

With 12 other adults and five young persons, Mr. Khalid was arrested on June 3, 2006, in the case that was at the time Canada's first brush with the spectre of so-called "homegrown terrorism" and which immediately caused a national and international uproar.

Charges were later stayed against some alleged members, with the accurate moniker becoming the Toronto 11, one of whom, a youth, was convicted last year of participating in a terrorist group; he will be sentenced later this month. Nine other men, all adults, await their trials.

In the intervening almost three years, as the wheels of justice ground - barely - forward, young Mr. Khalid was not only de facto proclaiming his innocence by his participation in the process, but also was properly presumed to be innocent.

Indeed, in the mainstream press and on the Internet, there were many Canadians, commentators and private citizens both, who asserted the innocence of all the accused men in the most vigorous manner possible. A sophisticated Toronto 18 website and a "Presumption of Innocence Project" sprang up, and supporters even organized occasional solidarity rallies at the Brampton courthouse.

Yet when in the face of all this, Mr. Khalid stood before Superior Court Judge Bruce Durno on Monday afternoon to suddenly enter a guilty plea - a shocking turnaround whereby after all the motions and proceedings that had gone on before, he was effectively saying, "Oh by the way, I did do it" - the matter already had been placed under a temporary publication ban by Judge Durno.

The ban went unopposed that day because media outlets, who are by Supreme Court of Canada dictate supposed to be notified in advance by those seeking such bans, weren't notified, as is too frequently the case.

Only yesterday, with defence lawyers who can't be identified according to Judge Durno's latest order arguing that the whole kit and caboodle should be subjected to a ban of longer duration, was there a media lawyer, Ryder Gilliland, who represented the Toronto Star, Sun Media and the CBC, present in court to make the case that the public should know.

Naturally, the details of the defence application - which lawyers brought it or supported it and what they had to say about it and what Mr. Gilliland said to convince Judge Durno to partially lift the ban - are to remain secret until the jury in the trial on the same indictment begins its deliberations.

The whole shebang might have remained under wraps indefinitely and might never have been revealed had The Globe and Mail not learned on the sly on Monday morning that a surprise guilty plea was in the works.

The Globe's Kirk Makin was the one reporter and media representative scrambled to the almost empty courtroom here when defence lawyers for Mr. Khalid and another accused awaiting trial obtained a temporary but sweeping ban on publication before Mr. Khalid formally entered his plea.

Now 22, he pleaded guilty to a single count of participating in a terrorist organization "with the intention of causing an explosion or explosions that were likely to cause serious bodily harm or death" or damage property.

This charge says that he was acting in support of other conspirators whose names are subject to an earlier ban on publication.

It also links Mr. Khalid to what prosecutors allege was a truck-bomb plot, with the targets allegedly under discussion including the CN Tower, the Toronto Stock Exchange, the offices of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and a military base.

Another group of the accused are alleged to have participated in a terrorist training camp in 2005, where, prosecutors say, they took weapons training and heard jihadist speeches exhorting them to take action…

That last part—about fiery jihadist exhortations prompting young lads to take up Allah’s cause—is probably the least shocking aspect of the whole thing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:48 | link | comments (2)

Tuesday, 05 May 2009

Priorities: In a further bid to pander to the immense Muslim world, watch as the Barackists leave the puny Jewish democracy to twist slowly, slowly in the wind. From the WaPo:

The Obama Administration has signalled a tougher approach towards Israel ahead of fresh talks on the Middle East peace process by insisting it must endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

“Israel has to work toward a two-state solution,” declared Vice-President Joe Biden today in a speech to the annual conference of a powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington.

“You’re not going to like my saying this,” he warned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) before adding that the Jewish state should not build any more settlements on Palestinian territory, and should “dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement”.

President Obama later held a White House meeting with Shimon Peres, his Israeli counterpart, who holds a largely ceremonial position. But the US Administration’s message appeared to be addressed to the new right-wing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is due to visit the White House on May 18.

Mr Netanyahu has dismayed American, Arab and European officials by pointedly refusing to back Palestinian statehood since taking office on March 31. In his own speech to Aipac, sent via satellite link, he said: “We are prepared to resume peace negotiations without any delay and without any preconditions — the sooner the better.” Saeb Erekat, the senior Palestinian negotiator, however, criticised Mr Netanyahu’s speech for its “vagueness” on core issues such as the status of Jerusalem and refugees, as well as its failure to commit to a two-state solution.

Aipac has demonstrated that it — and Israel — still exercise considerable muscle in Washington by persuading the US Justice Department last week to abandon the prosecution of two former employees on charges that they spied on America for Israel.

Aipac’s 6,000 delegates are being urged to bombard Capitol Hill with demands that Congress support ever more draconian sanctions against Iran whose Government has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

Mr Biden used his speech to reiterate that the US would never abandon its commitment to Israel’s security and that “nothing is off the table” with Iran — a phrase often used to imply that military action against uranium enrichment facilities remains possible.

He added that Israel had the right “to make its own judgment about what it needs to do to defend itself”, which many members of the audience saw as a hint that the US might allow it to deliver an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, was, however, reported to have linked efforts to thwart Iran’s nuclear programme — “the number one threat in the Middle East” — with progress in the peace process…

Come again? If Iran is threat numero uno, what sense does it make to link it to “progress” in the “peace” process? What does the uno have to do with the other?

A pox of ye all, happy hopeychangers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:44 | link | comments (1)

Isn’t that special?: The New York Times has an interview with noted statesman/jihadist thug Khaled Meshal. (Warning: you might want to down a Gravol—or three—and wait ‘til it kicks in to better stomach what follows):

On the Hamas Charter and a Palestinian State:

The most important thing is what Hamas is doing and the policies it is adopting today. The world must deal with what Hamas is practicing today. Hamas has accepted the national reconciliation document. It has accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders including East Jerusalem, dismantling settlements, and the right of return based on a long term truce. Hamas has represented a clear political program through a unity government. This is Hamas's program regardless of the old documents. Hamas has offered a vision. Therefore, it's not logical for the international community to get stuck on sentences written 20 years ago. It's not logical for the international community to judge Hamas based on these sentences and stay silent when Israel destroys and kills our people.

On the Decision to Stop Firing Rockets:

There is a mistake committed by some international parties. They regard the firing of the rockets from Gaza as the starting point followed by the Israel response. It's the opposite. Israel is practicing the occupation. Israel is controlling every aspect of life in the Palestinian territories. Israel is imposing the siege. Israel is starting things and therefore you have the reaction. Palestinians defend themselves through firing the rockets. Israel is responsible.

Not firing the rockets is part of an evaluation of the movement to serve the people's interest. Firing these rockets is a method and not the goal. The right to resist the occupation is a legitimate right but practicing this right is decided by the leadership within the movement.

Resisting is based on evaluation and timing that take into consideration the following: Maintain the right to resist and to respond to the occupation, keeping in mind the interest of our people and the hardship they are going through and exposing the reality of the Israeli aggression and its policies.

On Hamas's Goals:

The central goal is the liberation of the occupied land and regaining our rights, ending the Israeli occupation, leading our people toward liberation and freedom, achieving the right of self-determination and living in a sovereign state on liberated land. This is the goal for our people to live without occupation, away from the killing.

Until we achieve this goal, we will work hard to serve the Palestinian people in all fields: social, economic, humanitarian in order to alleviate the suffering, implement the reform program to fight corruption, strengthen the democratic life in the political system in the frame of Palestinian Authority and the PLO, unify Palestinians inside and outside for all to work toward one goal that is serving the national cause, and .strengthen the relationship between the Palestinian people and the Arab/Islamic world.

On the Type of Government Hamas Seeks:

The priority is ending the Israeli occupation and achieving the national project. The nature of the system is left for the people to choose. As the people choose their representatives, they will choose their program too.

On President Obama:

There is no doubt that he is speaking a different language. Such language is not only necessary to the international community but also to the American administration after the heavy burden that was caused by the Bush administration and the neoconservatives.

Obama has been clear with his intention regarding a few issues: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran. He has given a different speech to the Islamic world through the Turkish gate. But frankly when it comes to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, we have still not seen a fundamental change either on the level of action or on the level of language. When it comes to Obama, his language is different and positive. When it comes to Hillary it's the opposite. She is returning to the previous administration of Bush,. especially when repeating the Quartet conditions as a condition for reaching Palestinian reconciliation. Her repetition has led to harming the Palestinian dialogue and obstructing it from reaching success to end the Palestinian division.

Taqiyah. Evasions. Bollocks on toast. Even with the anti-nausea meds, it’s just as
barfalacious and pukefying.

Update: Mincing no words, David Horowitz unloads on Meshal and the other
would-be genocidaires and their "progressive" enablers:

The avatars of the next Holocaust -- Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and the terrorists of Hamas -- are far more open than the Nazis in their determination to kill the Jews. Hitler hid the final solution from the German people. He hid the fact that he wanted to exterminate the Jews, because he believed the Germans were too civilized a people to support it. But the Iranians and Hamas and Hizbullah -- they shout it from the rooftops to the cheers of the Palestinians and the Muslim world and Daniel Ortega, and American leftists like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill and their academic “progressive” friends.

Conservatives need to understand this about progressives: they hate you. Their malevolence will destroy you if you give them the chance.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:40 | link | comments (1)

Freak out over “racism”: A brawl between a schoolyard bully and a Korean kid who stood up to him (and smashed him square in the schnoz) that should have been no big deal turned into a really big deal because, after all, this is squishy, mega-sensitive multiculti Canada. “Human rights” buddinksky Babs Hall was particularly delighted to weigh in on the altercation. Sensing another opportunity to justify her phony baloney job—such occasions tend to be few and far between these days—Babs decried the punch up as evidence of—what else?—endemic “racism”. The Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente, bless her, takes some of the wind out of Babs’s sails (my bolds:

Every properly trained school child knows the correct way to handle a bully. You look him calmly in the face and make an "I-statement" that describes how his bullying affects you. An example of an "I-statement" is: "When you talk to me that way, I feel diminished and scared."

Unfortunately, the Karate Kid of Keswick High must have missed the lesson. The 15-year-old, whose family came to Canada from Korea five years ago, has a black belt in tae kwon do. So when a schoolyard bully called him a dirty rotten Chinese (or words to that effect), he deftly chopped the bully in the nose and broke it. He was promptly hit with the maximum suspension, 20 days, and threatened with expulsion, not just from the school but from the entire district. On top of that, the police charged him with assault.

"It's the first time in my life I ever fought someone," said the student, who has a straight-A average. "I've been trained not to attack. It's total self-defence."

But this is Canada. Our schools have a strict zero-tolerance policy for violence and racism. In the good old days, the principal would have suspended the bully and told him he got exactly what he deserved. The bully would have learned his lesson and shaped up. The police would have had better things to do than lay charges over a schoolyard punch. We are more progressive than that today - so progressive that we can't trust common sense to work these things out.

Not surprisingly, the Karate Kid's parents have been wondering what kind of nutty country they've landed in. The entire system has piled on their son, and even though 400 students turned out to denounce the school and the police for punishing the wrong guy, from their point of view, Canada hasn't exactly given them the warmest welcome.

"This isn't just kids fighting. The core of this is racism," said his mom. That view is heartily endorsed by Barbara Hall, Ontario's chief commissioner of human rights, who expressed her joy that Keswick's students are standing tall against discrimination. "It was so refreshing to see 400 students rising together to tell their peers, their school and their community that racism and bullying are not welcome," she gushed.

But is bullying synonymous with racism? Does Keswick High really have a racism problem? Or does the massive student protest prove the opposite? Is Keswick the most intolerant town in Canada? Or does it just have its standard quota of louts, morons and white trash? That is an especially touchy subject in a place that's still reeling from allegations of racism after recent run-ins between Asian fishermen and a few locals. Ms. Hall identified these run-ins as hate crimes and denounced them at great length, and the police set up a special hate-crimes unit to stamp out hate in this sleepy corner of the province…

Could it be that instead of stamping out “racism,” Babs, through her over-reaction, is really adding fuel to the fire, so to speak?

Just a thought.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:20 | link | comments (1)

Starve a flu; drink yourself blotto: While the brewing pandemic that may never materialize has put a damper on this year’s Cinco de Mayo celebrations in Mexico City, some intrepid souls in D.C. will be defiantly tying one on. The Washington Post has all the, er, fiestive details:

The Mexican Embassy has canceled the mariachis that were booked for its Cinco de Mayo celebration this evening. No margaritas either, just wine. And privately, some partygoers are confessing it seems like folly to attend a crowded, enclosed event with people who might have just returned from Mexico.

But ask not whether to party or not to party, for on Cinco de Mayo, party one must -- just this year with a little restraint, and plenty of hand sanitizer.

Guys in bright suits and big hats blowing trumpets with awesome gusto -- all the reasons we love mariachi music -- might strike the wrong chord while influenza rages back home. Fair enough.

But wine for Cinco de Mayo? That's like sake for Saint Patrick's Day, beer for Bastille Day, vodka for the Fourth of July. Things are seriously unsettled, people.

On the other hand, count it a victory of the Mexican spirit that the embassy party is taking place at all, at the Mexican Cultural Institute on 16th Street NW, with food, fellowship and awards for civic service making up for the missing mariachis and margaritas.

Hard to say whether the event will be jammed with the usual standing-room-only attendance. Some attendees feel guilty and paranoid even admitting any fears over swine flu -- and the embassy reports only a handful of regrets.

"We're going to have the event that we normally have, but without the festive tone," says Ricardo Alday, embassy spokesman. "We didn't want to send a wrong signal by canceling it."

Similarly, the big annual Latino professionals' networking event this evening -- slogan: "Feed your inner Mexican!" -- is on track to draw the usual crowd of about 600 lawyers, lobbyists, Hill staffers and business people to the Park at Fourteenth restaurant downtown. The Coronas and Patrón Reposado tequila are free from 5 to 6 p.m. and discounted after that. "Cowboy boots and gauchos aren't necessary, but having a good time is!" says the online flier…

So brave of them to set aside their fears for a chance to chug free cerveza and teqila. (Pass me the Bacardi, Ricardo, ‘cause tequila gives me a grande headache.)

PatronTequila.jpg PATRON TEQUILA image by dads78

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:19 | link | comments

Ruby’s nanny woes: Got a chuckle out of the Toronto Star's splashy front page exposé of Liberal cabinet-minister-in-waiting Ruby Dhalla. Ruby is one the Libs' rising star, a former Bollywood actress who's as glam and multishmulti as all get out. Time will tell whether her political career is scuttled by these distinctly un-multishmulti allegations:

Fast-rising Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla has become entangled in the nanny trap, with allegations two nannies hired to care for her mother were illegally employed and then mistreated.

The nannies also allege Dhalla improperly seized their passports and family members forced them to do non-nanny jobs such as washing cars, shining shoes and cleaning family-owned chiropractic clinics.

Magdalene Gordo, 31, and Richelyn Tongson, 37, say they were hired by Dhalla to work at the family home in Mississauga and routinely toiled five days a week, earning $250 a week while working 12- to 16-hour days. The Dhalla family did not obtain the necessary federal approval under the Live-In Caregiver Program for the women to live and work in their home.

Ruby Dhalla said she is "shocked and appalled" by the allegations and never abused the nannies.

"Anyone who has ever worked in our home has been treated with a lot of love, with a lot of care and compassion and money has never, ever been withheld from anyone," Dhalla told the Star in an interview.

Dhalla, 35, is Liberal critic for youth and multiculturalism. The first Sikh woman in the Commons, she was first elected MP in 2004.

She's no stranger to controversy. A trip to India in January 2008 turned into a public relations nightmare after two children were beaten by police after an aide's purse was stolen. Dhalla was portrayed in the Indian media as uncaring about the children's fate. Later, Dhalla said she condemned violence of any kind.

Facing new allegations she mistreated nannies, Dhalla, in a statement released to the Star through a lawyer, said she has "no knowledge of the details regarding the live-in caregivers for her family" and had "no involvement in the selection, interviewing, hiring, supervising, sponsoring or any financial transactions whatsoever with a live-in caregiver for my family."

The allegations surfaced two weeks ago at a public meeting where nannies told two Ontario cabinet ministers that placement agencies and employers are using the federal Live-In Caregiver Program to keep them enslaved…

Keeping slaves, huh? Now there’s something you sure won’t want to put in your campaign literature. I’m fairly certain, though, that it’s all a big mix up, and the future Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will end up being absolved. (Maybe.) Meantime, let’s sing!

She says she is “shocked” and most “appalled”.

Didn’t mistreat “nannies” (that’s what they’re called).

Made ‘em shine her shoes.

Do lots of other stuff they didn’t choose.

It made the news.

Goodbye, Ruby Dhalla,

Star is calling you a shrew.

Iggy’s multiculti “critic”

Still we're gonna miss you.

Hid their passports so they couldn’t dash.

Made ‘em work long hours for not much cash.

Says she has “compash”

And since she looks quite smashing to the eyes

She’s on the rise.

Goodbye, Ruby Dhalla,

Star is calling you a shrew.

Iggy’s multiculti “critic”

Still we're gonna miss you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:04 | link | comments

Monday, 04 May 2009

The un-Obama: There’s no getting around it—Michael Ignatieff is no Barack Obama. With his reedy voice, Ivory Tower mien and lack of discernable charisma, Iggy ain’t no warm ‘n’ fuzzy hopeychanger, or even a reasonable facsimile thereof. That doesn’t mean, however, that he won’t stoop to sprinkling himself with some of Barack’s magic pixie dust in a bid to get elected. You know the drill: blah, blah, blah, hope! Blah, blah, blah, change! Blah, blah, blah, Harper mean, scary Conservative…From the Iggy-adoring Ceeb:

Michael Ignatieff took direct aim at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, attacking his track record on national unity, as he accepted the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, unopposed, at a convention in Vancouver on Saturday.

"I want to speak directly to Stephen Harper," he told a crowd of about 3,000 cheering Liberals.

"For three years you have played province against province, group against group, region against region and individual against individual. When your power was threatened last November, you unleashed a national unity crisis and you saved yourself only by sending Parliament home.

"Mr. Harper, you don't understand Canada … that a prime minister is there to unite a country, not divide it…. You are failing to do your duty," he said.

"Mr. Harper you have failed us. If you can't unite Canadians, if you can't appeal to the best in all of us, we can…. We Liberals can build a federation based on co-operation, not on confrontation."

Ignatieff said he believes Canadians "feel a longing for change that replaces spite and spin for civility and common purpose."…

What Canadians feel is a longing for their own Obama—a longing that, at this juncture, is destined to go unsatisfied, even if they are foolish enough put Iggy on top. What I can’t figure out: why is it that someone who is so adept at writing, and who has authored many books, can’t seem to summon up anything more than the same old flatulent leftist piffle?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:50 | link | comments (1)

Divine Steyn: Around the same time that Mark Steyn was tapped as one of the Dramatis Personae in Canada’s long-running Theatre of the Absurd (a boffo hit that never closes), and was enduring the slings and arrows of outraged Islamists at a show trial in B.C., my well-meaning mother-in-law bought my son a T-shirt. Black, with a barely discernable grey maple leaf in the background, it had a message written in cursive white lettering:

I’m not perfect, but I’m Canadian and that’s close enough.

Now, far be it from me to slam Canadian snark masquerading as patriotism or my well-meaning mother-in-law, who was not attune to what was going on in B.C. (how could she be, when the only media outlets she pays any attention to—the Globe and Mail and the Ceeb—weren’t exactly giving it a lot of play?). But, given the timing, when I read the message I couldn’t help but muttering (sotto voce so as not to hurt my m-i-l’s feelings): “You’ve got to be bleeping kidding me!” Canada, perfect? Well, maybe we were somewhat nearer perfection back before Wile E. Trudeau got his hands on the joint and we were forced to swallow his tutti frutti diversity Kool-Aid; back when we had real rights of free expression and not our worthless “Charter” rights (another Trudeau “gift”); back before we were at the mercy of a pseudo-judiciary with ever-expanding powers, some of which are normally reserved for police states. So, no, cheeky T-shirt message-writer, Canada and Canadians are hardly “perfect.” Nor, come to it, should perfection ever be something we seek because, as many failed Utopian projects—in Hitler’s Germany, in Stalin’s Russia, in Mao’s China, in Khomeini’s Iran—have demonstrated, “Utopia” is nothing to aspire to. Not unless you have a yen for totalitarianism and democide. Thus, I would have been far happier had the T-shirt read

I’m not perfect, but I’m human, and that’s good enough.

And speaking of perfection, did you know that there’s a religion—Islam—which claims that its Prophet—Mohammed—is perfect, as is the uncreated book—the Koran—that has existed for all time up in heaven, way before God ever revealed it to the perfect Prophet via Gabriel, his angelic mouthpiece? That, as they say, is the God’s honest truth. But were someone to take umbrage at my having said it, and haul my keester in front of one or more of Canada’s p.c. tribunals, the truth would be completely irrelevant. What would be relevant is the references in our human rights codes (federal, provincial, territorial—14 in all) to “hate speech,” and the need to censor it on behalf of Canada’s “vulnerable communities” lest failure to do so result in—well, who the heck knows? Nazis rampaging down University Avenue? Crazed Christian fundamentalists trashing gay bath houses? The “thinking” behind it, obviously, is that “hate speech” is the precursor of—and almost inevitably leads to—genocide (hmmm, now where on earth would they get that idea?), and that Canadians, who, on the whole are a fairly placid people, require constant state vigilance to ensure that, somewhere down the road, loose lips don’t lead to all hell breaking loose. (Oddly enough, when all hell did break loose at pro-Hamas gatherings during the Gaza conflict, and seething, barely-containable “protesters” hurled Nazi-like epithets—“Jewish children gonna effing die” was only one of many such gems—those pushing for state censorship failed to see that the much-vaunted “protections” afforded by HRCs were pretty threadbare, to say the least.)

Which brings me in a somewhat roundabout way to Mark Steyn’s new book, Lights Out: Islam, free speech and the twilight of the West. Among other things, the book includes some of the Maclean’s articles that prompted Mohamed Elmasry, then-head of the Islamic Canadian Congress, to test how well Canada’s censorship provisions dovetailed with sharia law. In fact, as Steyn reveals in these articles and commentary written following his ordeal, they mesh very well indeed. The state censors who considered Elmasry’s complaint did so because they agreed with him that Steyn’s writings fell under the rubric of “flagrant Islamophobia.” The only difference: in “free” Canada, “Islamophobia” occurs when someone writes or says something that hurts a Muslim’s or a leftist’s “feelings”; in the unfree Muslim world as embodied by the 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, “Islamophobia” is expressing anything critical about “perfect” Islam, a core proscription of Islamic law—the one and only law as far as the Islamists are concerned. The Catch-22 of the situation is that to even point that out is to risk being accused of “Islamophobia,” and to be silenced on that basis.

Thank heavens there are mouthy, obnoxious, right-wing “hate-mongers” like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant who are willing to stand up for freedom and take the piss out of the self-righteous and the excruciatingly sensitive. And to do so by deploying the weapon these forces consider most threatening: humour, irreverence, and wit. Even as I was utterly, thoroughly outraged revisiting Mark’s pre-show trial encounter with Elmasry’s front men, the three bright-eyed, budding attorneys (alias "the socks"), and his Bizarro Adventures through the B.C. ‘Roo Looking Glass, I was hugely entertained by his drollery and his many uproarious, laugh-out-loud lines. (I was thinking of quoting a few, but I wouldn’t want to spoil your fun when you come read the book, as you must.) Finishing the book yesterday at the local Starbucks, my cackles, hoots and guffaws caused more than a few coffee-drinkers to glance at me as if I were in dire need of anti-psychotic meds.

My favourite part of the book? Well, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t partial to the chapter that quotes yours truly. Something to do with a kerfuffle about sheep, and the purposeful misattribution to Mark Steyn of the Ayatollah’s words re the proper post-carnal etiquette vis a vis one’s fleecy love muffin. (Khomeini advised that one is allowed to enjoy an old roll in the wool provided one does not then up and make a meal of the poor beast.) Let’s just say it puts a whole new spin on Johann Sebastian Bach’s “Sheep May Safely Graze.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:38 | link | comments (2)

Tolerable hate: A National Post reader poses an intriguing question:

The staging of Seven Jewish Children begs the question: Where is the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Such hate propaganda is not a balanced informed critical expression of freedom of opinion and has no place in a democratic society such as Canada. Our HRCs must carry out their mandate to protect all minorities from hate, regardless of the perceived merit of such artistic garbage.

Allan Johnson, Brockville, Ont.

Actually, Allan, it’s a very bad idea to invite the biggest buddinskies in the land to run roughshod over theatrical productions; when you give the virtue enforcers an inch, you can be certain they will take a mile (viz the recently expanded "pro-active" powers of Babs Hall's OHRC), and if they are allowed to censor the likes of Seven Jewish Children, they could just as easily decide that, say, Fiddler on the Roof can no longer be mounted because at some unspecified point in the future it might engender ill-will toward the descendents of Czarist Russians. Aside from that, there’s no way any of our many “human rights” bodies would ever entertain a complaint against Churchill’s play because most of the apparatchiks would likely find its sentiments about Palestinians and Israelis completely simpatico. Now, a play that happened to approve of biblical injunctions against same-sex canoodling—that’s the kind of “hate” the busybodies
could really sink their teeth into.

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

Tee hee: Colon Cancer Canada's cute slogan--"We're behind your behind."

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:20 | link | comments

Google’s goats: In the quest to “go green” what’s more important—good intentions/optics or genuine, environmentally-sound results? That’s a question this Washington Post writer sort of got around to asking when he went to see the grass-eating goats which had been trucked in en masse to serve as “green” lawnmowers at Google’s California headquarters (my bolds):

As promised, I went to go visit the Google goats today, you know, the goats that were brought in to replace lawnmowers in Google's ever-expanding quest to go more green. I was told the goats would be in the big field at the corner Rengstorff & Amphitheater (on Google's campus in Mountain View), and sure enough, I found a few hundred of them there. Apparently, the area was previously covered in 4-foot tall brush, but within a few days, the goats had eaten it down to basically nothing (as you can see in the videos and images below).

These goats, which were being picked up today and transported to their next gig (at Morgan Hill), will do this field-clearing once a year for Google, the herder on site told me. He was a bit concerned for the goats because a few of them got sick due to people feeding them flowers (which, apparently, are poisonous to them), he told me. PETA, would no doubt be concerned about the lack of shelter for when it was raining, and the electric fence that encircled the goats.

But all in all, it looks like the goats did the job they were brought in for, and were very efficient in doing so. Now, the question of if it cost Google more in both money and fuel to have the goats shipped over to the site versus what it would have been to pay some people to mow the lawn, is a different question. But hey, nevermind that, cute friendly goats!...

To answer my question: good intentions/optics (cute friendly goats!) trump genuine results almost every time.

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

Sunday, 03 May 2009

Judenhass on the Ceeb: As a "service"--and only as a service, mind you, and not because of any animus it might harbour toward Israel--Ceeb radio is broadcasting all 10 splendiferously splenetic minutes of Caryl Churchill's toxic piece of anti-Zionist propoganda, Seven Jewish Children.

Our tax dollars harnessed to the annihilationist agenda. Niiiice!

Update: Just dashed off this one:

I’d like to thank Sunday Edition for doing us the “service” of broadcasting Caryl Chuchill’s play, Seven Jewish Children. Had I not heard it with my own ears, I would never have know how thoroughly hateful and one-sided it actually was.

As a further “service,” and not because of any anti-Zionist bias on the CBC’s part (the CBC being a completely unbiased national broadcaster that serves the interests of all Canadians), allow me to suggest that in upcoming weeks you run other similarly edifying works—say, those speeches of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dealing specifically with the “myth” of the Holocaust and the Zionist “tumour,” and perhaps even a dramatization of that lively tract, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Just so we’ll know what all the fuss is about, of course.

Yours truly,

Update: Ceeb company gal Esther Enkin wants us to know that the Mothercorp
is resisting the temptation to give into its predilections and rename the brewing pandemic
the "IDF flu" or the "Victims of the Brutal Zionist Occupation flu."

Just kidding. Why, the Ceeb would never do anything as brazenly hateful as that. Even
if, disingenuously, it first offered a disclaimer that it was doing so as a "service".

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:26 | link | comments (2)

The Ontario Human Rights Commission spreads its tentacles: Here’s Commissar Babs Hall’s latest bit of “pro-active” legerdemain/power play—butting into how the police go about their business:

Police Reference Checks Procedure for Toronto Police Services
Recently, the Toronto Police Services Board announced changes to its policy for agency participation in the Police Reference Check Program for the Vulnerable Sector. These changes were announced in the March 27 letter to all agencies having a Memorandum of Understanding with the Toronto Police Services.

A requirement of the new policy is that every agency must certify that

its management (and human resources personnel, if any) have an understanding of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) as it applies to hiring and/or approval of volunteers and

at least one agency member whose responsibility includes review and assessment of the suitability of volunteer applicants will receive training on the Code as it applies to volunteer selection.

The training requirement, according to the Toronto Police Services letter, "may be met ... through training on the Human Rights Code delivered by a consultant, the Ontario Human Rights Commission ... (through an agency like Volunteer Toronto ...) or through a study program undertaken by the responsible Agency member using resources available on the Commission’s website".

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is committed to ensuring that organizations receive the support they need to effectively meet their obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code in the recruitment of volunteers and employees. An Interim Guide, Police Record Checks for Vulnerable Sector Screening is available to provide guidance on the subject.

As well, the Commission is developing a policy statement on this issue. This policy will be available later this year, likely in the Fall. In the interim, a draft policy is available on the Commission’s website addressing police reference checks and mental health discrimination. This draft policy should provide some helpful guidance...

No doubt this will give added impetus to police, already hyper-sensitive about causing offense to “the Vulnerable Sector," to remain vigilant about "profiling" (because we have such a broad strata of society and, who knows?, Icelandic grannies could just as easily be behind the next wave of terror as any other "vulnerable" group). It will also underscore the wisdom of police advising, say, moderate Muslims on the receiving end of death threats by immoderate elements of their “vulnerable” community to shut the hell up—or face arrest.

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

Bilge alert in the Sunday Star: Harpoon Siddiqui, up to his old tricks, is trying to blame “the media” for “failing multicultural societies”—and, more specifically, failing to “educate” young Muslims away from radical teachings:

...As our nations become more multicultural, the need for cross-cultural journalism, i.e. telling the story of one group in a way that all others can relate to it, becomes essential. Yet newspapers – nay, most mainstream media – are poor at it.

Our knowledge of the many communities among us is primitive. Our adversarial lingo, combined with outdated notions of immigrants and their cultures, often comes across as racist. And, we are loath to admit, we do treat different groups differently, depending on their place in the social hierarchy. We bow to the establishment, insult the marginalized.

That's life, I guess. But when not just the tabloids but respected mainstream broadsheets become peddlers of prejudice, social cohesion is endangered, as the Quebec commission on reasonable accommodation so bluntly said last year.

The media thus risk failing both as a business and as the essential institution of democracy that they claim to be.

These observations are not a call to political correctness. The media can and should be equally tough on all. But, first, we have to earn the right by being equally fair to all.

Problems afflict our international coverage as well. Our readers have a sophisticated understanding of global issues that we don't.

Take these recent examples from even some high-end publications.

A New York Times analysis of the strained relations between Vladimir Putin and Mikheil Saakashvili, the pro-American president of Georgia, had this gem: "The two leaders' impact on relations between their countries reflects the intense role that personality plays in governments in the former Soviet states." Personalities do not play an intense role in the U.S.?

The Times Literary Supplement from London, reviewing a book by Amin Malouf, the Lebanese Christian writer living in Paris, said: "Middle Eastern identities are complex." European ones aren't?

A New York Times story, "Feeling secure enough to sin," heralded the resumption of cockfighting and night-clubbing in Baghdad. Setting aside the wisdom of using the return of vice as a barometer of normalcy, the story was oblivious to the obvious: that it took only an invasion, a six-year occupation, at least 100,000 dead and 4 million displaced to get the Iraqis back to the joys they had enjoyed under the secular Saddam Hussein.

The same paper brought glad tidings of a different sort from the Indonesian parliamentary election last week: "Voters retreat from radical Islam." Except that Muslim voters have been doing so regularly – in Malaysia, Turkey, Bangladesh and even Pakistan. Radicals have done well only in oppressed societies, such as Western-backed Egypt and Algeria, or those under attack or occupation, such as Iraq and the Israeli Occupied Territories.

If educating us on the complexities of the world, and advancing mutual understanding here and across the oceans, are the last supposed strengths of newspapers, we are not doing a good job of it.

Rather a heavy burden to lay at the feet of a dying industry, no? My letter (which hasn't a hope in Hades of getting in):

Haroon Siddiqui seems to think it’s the “media’s” job to educate people about the “complexities” of “Middle East identities,” since that’s one way to stop young Muslims from turning to radicalism. He further claims that the West is to blame for the spread of radicalism, since the only places in the Muslim world where it’s in making inroads is in “oppressed” Western-backed Muslim nations like Egypt or in countries under Western attack and/or “occupation," like Iraq and “the Israeli Occupied Territories.”

Such an assertion is as outrageous as it is delusional, since it blames the West--and only the West--for what amounts to an Islamic revival that has been going on for many decades. If more and more young Muslims are embracing fundamentalist tenets, it is not because of anything the West is doing. It is because someone with oodles of money back in, say, Saudi Arabia is paying for imams here in the West to indoctrinate young Muslims in radical teachings, including Islamic supremacism. Such teachings are bound to make these youngsters feel “alienated” from their societies, even if their families have been here for two or three generations, and prompt a few of them to turn to terrorism. That’s what happened with the lads from Leeds, fish and chips-consuming, football-loving, mostly well-off young men who were persuaded to pack explosives into their rucksacks and blow themselves up on the London transit system.

It’s unlikely any of these youngsters would have been deterred by reading an article or two in the local newspaper for the simple reason that fewer and fewer young people are reading newspapers. Or watching TV. They get their “news,” such as it is, on the Internet. So there’s no way that the “media” can be used as a vehicle to “educate” young people because for the most part, the traditional or dinosaur ”media” doesn’t even reach them.

Finally, I feel I must correct a point of grammar. There aren’t any “Israeli Occupied Territories.” There is the West Bank, which is controlled by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction, and in which Israel maintains a presence for security purposes, and there’s Gaza, which was wholly vacated by Israel and which is now under the rule of Hamas, an acolyte of Iran. If there is “oppression” in those two areas, whose rival regimes happen to despise each other, it is because, unlike Israel, a flourishing democracy, both are in the grip of authoritarian, oppressive regimes--as are many other Muslim nations. That’s the reason why people from so many of these nations--whether “Western-backed” or not--continue to flood into the free West.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:37 | link | comments (1)

Give 'em hell, Billy: Bill Whittle does an absolutely devastating take-down of smug poseur Jon Stewart, who is convinced that what old Harry S did to the Japanese 64 years ago constitutes a 'war crime'.

Posted by: scaramouche at 01:21 | link | comments

Saturday, 02 May 2009

Word of the day: It's a new one on me--proskunesis.

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

A very Canadian non-decision: A judge has ruled that a Muslim woman testifying in court may be required to remove her veil so that people can see her face. Then again, depending on the circumstances and the depth of her religious convictions, she may get to keep it on. From the National Post:

An Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled there is no blanket right of a Muslim woman to wear a veil while testifying in court.

Justice Frank Marrocco did not issue a broad finding under the Charter of Rights, however, and instead suggested this should be decided by judges on an individual basis in court proceedings.

The Superior Court judge released his ruling yesterday after hearing arguments this spring in a high-profile case about the clash between religious freedoms and the fair trial rights of a criminal defendant.

"The Canadian approach may be a compromise," wrote Judge Marrocco.

"A trial judge will have to consider other societal interests in addition to freedom of religion and the right to cross-examine. There is the practical problem of making sure that control of the proceedings remains with counsel and the trial judge and does not shift to the witness," he observed.

Judge Marrocco presided over the appeal of a 32-yearold alleged sexual assault victim in Toronto, who was ordered to remove her veil while testifying at the preliminary hearing of the two defendants.

Provincial court Judge Norris Weisman found that the woman's religious beliefs were not strong and ruled last fall that she must remove the niqab, which covers everything but her eyes.

Instead, the woman appealed the decision to the Superior Court. Judge Marrocco heard submissions from lawyers representing the Crown, one of the accused, the woman and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Superior Court judge concluded that Judge Weisman has the power under the Criminal Code to determine how a witness might testify. There are protections such as testifying behind a screen, which was not acceptable to the woman, because she could be seen by the accused.

The Criminal Code powers include the right of the judge to order the woman to remove her veil while testifying, said Judge Marrocco.

But the process conducted by the provincial court judge was not sufficiently thorough and he has been ordered to conduct a new hearing on the issue.

The woman will be permitted to wear her niqab during a "hearing within a hearing" when the preliminary inquiry resumes in August, explained Judge Marrocco. She will be asked to testify under oath and explain her religious beliefs as well as answer questions from the defence about the sexual assault allegations, which date back to when she was a child. It will then be up to Judge Weisman to determine "whether cross-examination has taken place," as it is defined under the Criminal Code and whether testimony with a veil on is admissible evidence in a Canadian court, said Judge Marrocco.

If Judge Weisman determines that the statements given while wearing the niqab is not proper evidence, he may order the woman to testify again without the veil. If she refuses, the charges could be dropped against the two men.

Lawyers for the woman and one of the accused men indicated on Friday that they may seek to appeal the ruling of Judge Marrocco after reviewing the decision.

In other words, instead of showing some spine and standing up for our infidel, man-made judicial system against the encroachments of Allah’s jurisprudence, the judges involved are batting this one around like it’s a hot falafel ball and have decided precisely...nada. There’s no doubt that a woman should be able to wear a niqab in, say, an Iranian court (although she goes into any proceeding there knowing full well that, under the terms of Islamic law, her testimony is worth exactly half that of a man’s, and in a case of rape, she requires the eye-witness testimony of four—count ‘em—four gentlemen to attest to the veracity of her attack). Here in the infidel West, however, where there is supposed to be a distinct separation between mosque and state, a defendant has a right to face his/her accuser—and to see his/her face. And, clearly, that’s impossible if said accuser is encased head-to-toe in a shroud that reveals nothing save her peepers. I wouldn’t lay odds, though, on a Canadian judge, antennae finely tuned to minority sensitivities and with “human rights” busybodies breathing heavily down his neck, arriving at the same conclusion.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:48 | link | comments (3)

In the grand tradition of The Jew of Malta and The Passion Play of Oberammergau…: The National Post reports that Seven Jewish Children, the venomously hateful playlet by Caryl Churchill that revives Medieval blood libels and aims them squarely at the Jewish state, has had its Canadian debut in Montreal. Since the whole thing takes a scant ten minutes to perform, I’d suggest Ms. Churchill lengthen it and give it more pizzazz by turning it into a musical. And because I’m such a theatre-lover (as well as a long-time student of Judenhass in all its bloody historical manifestations), I’m pitching this theme song, free of charge.

(Jew-hating Brits like Caryl Churchill and George Galloway sing):

Who stole the lemon trees from Arabs?

Jooooos!

Who’s noted for their awful land grabs?

Jooooos!

Who cares if they’re successful--

They made the sandy desert grow and bloom.

The folks in Gaza suffer so

They deserve the Jewish “living room”.

(Victimized Palestinian underdogs sing):

Who swiped our homes and left us with keys?

Jooooos!

Who always do whatever they please?

Jooooos!

Who are so stiff-necked and stubborn

They balked when that great Prophet came to town?

Who’s been the fly in our ointment?

Who’s such a disappointment?

Who’s stalling our anointment?

It’s Jooooos!..

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:01 | link | comments (2)

Even scarier than swine flu? Obama's plans for Israel.

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

High School guidance counsellors and life coaches eyeing spot on top court?: The most far-left president in U.S. history gets to select someone to sit on the highest court in the land. Someone with an impressive legal background and a wealth of judicial experience to draw upon in writing decisions that will have a huge impact on America, now and in coming years. Someone who’s sober, reflective, wise, and…empathetic?

Reporting from Washington -- A debate among Democrats over who should replace Justice David H. Souter on the Supreme Court began emerging Friday between those eager to return the court to its liberal era of 40 years ago and those who are wary of tacking too far to the left.

But President Obama, who will choose the nominee, focused not on volatile ideological questions but on personal character, saying he wanted someone with "empathy" for "people's hopes and struggles."

Making a surprise appearance in the White House press briefing room, Obama told reporters that he had just talked with Souter by phone about his retirement, which is to take effect at the end of this court term, probably in June. It was the first official confirmation of the justice's departure.

Obama said that in considering a successor for Souter, he was looking for a "sharp and independent mind" and a sense of compassion.

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook," he said. "It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."…

Karl Marx, Pierre Trudeau and Mao were considered and quickly rejected, being foreign and, well, dead.

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

Friday, 01 May 2009

Jew flu: Like you didn't see this one coming.

Update: My friend E. sent me this—a piece in Albawaba that debunks the idea that, as the headline puts it, “Muslims (are) immuned from swine flu symptoms”:

While the Arab world is on high alert in fear of the swine flu outbreak, many Muslims in the Middle East are certain they are safe and immune from the new strain.

Generally speaking, Islam prohibits the consumption of pork because it considers the pig to be "unclean". Many Muslim doctors and specialists have been claiming long before the present plight that pork is a harmful diet. In addition, according to the Islamic belief, consumption of swine-flesh leads to lowliness in soul and demolishes spiritual and moral faculties in any person.

Thus, the news about the symptoms and the infections from the current swine flu virus created a heated debate in the streets, the cafes and internet forums all across the Arab world - will the "scavenger pig" spread also among the Muslims?

A review of some posts loaded in recent days to the internet exposes some kind of optimism among the Muslims. For instance: "Anonymous Coward" wrote: "Muslims are better immune. Did you ever hear of SARS cases in Muslim countries?" Other posts support this view, claiming Muslims will not be infected as they don't eat the "dirty" pork. This is of course a wrong suggestion as humans do not get swine flu from eating pork.

Thanks for clearing that up, Al. (“Consumption of swine-flesh”; “demolishes spiritual and moral faculties”: Do you get the feeling that the above was written by someone whose first language is not English?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:44 | link | comments (1)

Gone but not forgotten: May 1--May Day--in the Soviet Union:

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:09 | link | comments

Woof: If I got a dime every time someone told me “the kids have promised to take care of a new puppy,” I’d be able to buy myself a venti triple decaf no whip Mochachino at Starbucks. And had Michelle Obama, who is reported to be waking up every day before sunrise to walk Bobama, said it to me, I would have told her the same thing I told all the others: “You really think the kids are going to walk and feed the pup and pick up its poopy? In your dreams, honey”:

Parents everywhere, take heart: Even the Obamas have trouble getting their kids to keep all the promises made when begging for a pet.

"I got up at 5:15 a.m. in the morning to walk my puppy," first lady Michelle Obama said Thursday of Bo, the Portuguese Water Dog who joined the family Easter weekend, fulfilling President Obama's campaign promise to daughters Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7.

"Even though the kids are supposed to do a lot of the work, I'm still up at 5:15 a.m. taking my dog out. So for everyone who has a child asking for a puppy – you have to want the dog," Mrs. Obama said to knowing laughter from a luncheon audience of congressional spouses.

"As I do," she added. "I love my Bo."…

And I love your Bo, too, Michelle. In fact, I think he's far the most appealing male in your household. (As an aside, some American relatives who were up for a family simcha last weekend asked what I thought of their prez. I answered that in all honesty I thought he was shaping up to be the best American president since Jimmy Carter. Rather a conversation stopper, that.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:59 | link | comments

Quote of the day: Amir Taheri (in Der Spiegel) nails it, with no wiggle room:

The Islamic Republic has been at war against the United States and the international system led by Washington for almost 30 years. It has been a low intensity war because the US and its allies have shied away from full-scale confrontation. The US has shown it has lots of power, but not the courage to use even a fraction of it. The Islamic Republic's power, on the other hand, is "tiny," as Obama has noted. Yet the mullahs have been prepared to use their "tiny" power in full, with already devastating effects.

The issue is not how to avoid war with the Islamic Republic. It is how to end a war that has been going on for almost 30 years.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:26 | link | comments

Israel gone in a flash: Durban II’s keynote speaker has vowed repeatedly to wipe Israel off the map. Looks like someone has beat him to it. From Arutz Sheva (my bolds):

(IsraelNN.com) The British airline, BMI, has removed Israel from the electronic maps displayed to passengers in some of its planes, Army Radio reports. The report claimed that the reason was to avoid offending Muslim passengers. However, the maps showed passengers the direction of Mecca.

Israel does not appear in maps on BMI flights between London and Tel Aviv, and Khefa, the pre-independence Arabic name for Haifa, appears on the maps.

In addition, the electronic maps display the distance between the plane and Mecca. The airline claims that the map has not been changed due to a “logistical problem.” Instead, it has presently been removed from the two planes that transport passengers to Tel Aviv.

“For this reason, the inflight entertainment system in the two planes was made to adapt to the passengers flying to and from those destinations and therefore the map showed mainly places holy to Islam,” the airline company said in a statement.

BMI denied that it had a political agenda. “If BMI had any political agenda in order not to anger neighboring countries, it would not have invested so much in the Tel Aviv line,” the company stated.

“This is a fault. The electronic map will be removed from the airline’s two planes that operate the route to Tel Aviv,” BMI stated. “We make every effort to take passengers’ sensitivities into account through an apolitical policy.”…

So you mean BMI’s, er, solution isn’t to put Israel back on the map but to get rid of the entire map on flights to Israel? And that’s not “political”?

Well, at least they were “sensitive” enough not to mention anything about “peace in our time.”

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

The first thing we do, let’s kill all the pigs: People are laughing at the government of Egypt for being a tad too pro-active in efforts to prevent swine flu:

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's government was hoping to look strong and proactive in the swine flu scare with its decision to slaughter all the country's pigs, after taking heavy criticism at home for poor planning and corruption in past crises.

But instead, some Egyptians called the move a knee-jerk overreaction that even the World Health Organization said was unnecessary.

Egypt, which has no swine flu cases, is the only country in the world to order a mass pig slaughter in response to the disease. The move mirrored Egypt's battle with bird flu, in which the government killed 25 million birds within weeks in 2006.

But international health officials said the swine flu virus that has caused worldwide fear is not transmitted by pigs, and that pig slaughters do nothing to stop its spread. The WHO on Thursday stopped using the term "swine flu" to avoid confusion.

In Egypt, even the editor of a pro-government newspaper criticized the order to slaughter the estimated 300,000 pigs, which was pushed by parliament and issued by the government.

"Killing (pigs) is not a solution, otherwise, we should kill the people, because the virus spreads through them," wrote Abdullah Kamal of the daily Rose El-Youssef…

Don’t give them any ideas, Abdullah.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:09 | link | comments

Women on top: Phyllis Chesler explores what passes for female executive success in the jihad milieu—powerful women “mentoring” girls sullied by rape and persuading them to become Allah’s bombshells:

…Last week, as I carefully smelled the roses in Georgia, there were three carefully organized explosions on one day in Iraq, which killed a total of 80 civilians. One explosion was carried out by a woman in a black abaya, holding a 5 year-old child’s hand, (probably not her own). She killed herself and 28 other Muslims in a crowded market in a Baghdad slum. The civilians, many of whom were other women, were waiting on line for free flour, cooking oil, tea, macaroni, and other staples that the police were handing out. Of course, police officers died as well.

Many people have written to me, surprised, outraged, perhaps demoralized by the fact that this latest Muslim-on-Muslim atrocity was committed by a woman and mainly against other women.

As the author of Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, which is just now being released in a new edition with a new Introduction, I am, unfortunately, not surprised. Please recall how quickly the mainstream media covered the “sensational” use of rape by the male members of Al-Qaeda as a way to recruit female human bombs. At the time, people seemed surprised by the fact that Samira Jassim, an Iraqi woman, played an essential role in the further exploitation of these rape victims.

Although women depend upon each other for emotional intimacy and social stability, they are also highly competitive with, mistrustful of, or hostile towards other women. Like men, women have also internalized sexist beliefs. Are women really sexists? Of course they are. A study of 15,000 people in nineteen countries on five continents found that women hold sexist views just as men do. However, some studies suggest that women with low self-esteem are more likely to internalize negative views of women which may account for how such women treat other women: With cruelty rather than kindness.

In addition, women are expected to compete mainly against other women, not against men, and they do so both directly and indirectly (through slander, shunning, and “backstabbing.”) In the Third World, especially in war zones, the female-female aggression is far more direct, often fatally so.

I have written a number of articles about Muslim mothers who have participated, both directly and indirectly, in the honor killing of their daughters; and about female Muslim suicide-homicide bombers who have specifically targeted other women and children.

For example, in 2008, in Iraq, one of four female homicide bombers entered a tent that provided shelter to weary female religious pilgrims. She sat down, read the Koran with them, and left a bag behind that, moments later, blew them all up. Please note that she targeted weary, religious Muslim women.

Thus, I was dismayed but not surprised when a Sunni, Al-Qaeda plot emerged, one in which male terrorists raped eighty Muslim girls and women, then turned them over to Samira Jassim who patiently, persistently, “maternally,” persuaded the rape victims, (many of whom had been targeted because they were depressed or mentally ill), to “cleanse” their shame by blowing themselves and other Muslims up. Twenty eight women did so.

In an interview with Dr. Anat Berko, the author of The Path to Paradise. The Inner World of Suicide Bombers and Their Dispatchers, she pointed out that there is “always a woman” behind the female suicide bomber, who functions like a “pimp or a Madam in a brothel.” Potential women suicide bombers are never alone again, they are always accompanied by at least one, usually older woman, who encourages, manipulates, guards, and supports the potential shaheeda–just like a mother might do.

In a culture in which girls are raised by women whose own mothers did not value them as they did boys, women may hunger for attention from an older woman–even one whose sole purpose is to ensure their jihadic death. In Dr. Berko’s book, there is a frightening example of how all the jailed, intercepted Palestinian female suicide bombers obeyed and respected one of their own: a woman who was the harshest, angriest, most mentally ill amongst them. Sadly, perhaps this most reminded them of their own mothers.

In a terrible sense, “Madam” Jassim, only exaggerated, by a bit, what is routinely and normatively done to many girls and women today in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and increasingly in countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, etc. After all, Jassim played the Evil Stepmother in a culture which fears, despises, shrouds, genitally mutilates, force-marries girls to their first cousins, and perpetrates honor killings. How different is collaborating in their rape and helping them find glory through jihad? In a sense, some may actually view this as a quantum career leap for women…

In that world, it’s the equivalent of breaking the glass ceiling.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:58 | link | comments

Van-tastic!: For some years now the scaramouche family conveyance of choice has been a Chrysler minivan. With a kid, a dog, and a canoe, we appreciate the sturdiness and capacioiusness of the Caravan (we're on our third), and the stow 'n' go feature of our current model—it allows us to easily free up one, two or even all the back seats—has been a godsend.. It is thus immensely gratifying to know that I, my husband and all Canadians now own a 2% stake in the company that makes our car.

Why, it's just like having my very own Lada parked in the driveway.

In homage to my trusty automobile and my new status as part-owner of Chrysler, here's Van singing about a 'van.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:31 | link | comments (2)

Caught on tape: In the olden days before video cameras and youtube, a royal sheikh could take out his anger on an underling with impunity. These days, though, not so much. From the timesonline:

A videotape showing a member of the United Arab Emirates Royal Family torturing a man is threatening a multibillion-dollar nuclear power deal between the US and the Gulf kingdom.

The 45-minute tape shows a man that the Government of Abu Dhabi has acknowledged is Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan — one of 22 royal brothers of the UAE President and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince — mercilessly and repeatedly beating a man with a cattle prod and a nailed board, burning his genitals and driving his Mercedes over him several times. He is assisted by a uniformed policeman.

The fallout from the film — which was smuggled out of the UAE by a former business associate of the sheikh — has reached all the way to the Oval Office, where the civilian nuclear deal, awaiting the signature of President Obama, remains unsigned. A senior US official has said that the Administration is holding off certifying the treaty as a direct result of the film.

The deal was sealed on January 15 during President Bush’s last week in office, but needs to be recertified by the new Administration. Under its terms, the US agrees to provide technology and equipment to help the UAE to develop civilian nuclear power plants. In return, the UAE pledges to abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and not to reprocess its spent nuclear fuel.

Jim McGovern, the Democratic co-chairman of the congressional Human Rights Commission, viewed the tape last week and told The Times that it was “one of the most horrific things I have ever seen in my life”. In the tape the sheikh is seen torturing an Afghan grain salesman he claims has cheated him.

Mr McGovern has written to Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, expressing his “outrage, horror and revulsion” about the tape and demanding that all sales and transfers of technology to the UAE, “including nuclear”, be suspended. He calls on Mrs Clinton to take a lead role in the investigation. He also told The Times that he would hold congressional hearings into the issue. “If the UAE think this is going to blow over, they are wrong,” he said. The case will be a further test of the Obama Administration’s commitment to human rights.

One of Sheikh Issa’s brothers heads the UAE’s Interior Ministry, and the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, Sheikh Issa’s half-brother, is due in Washington next month. Mr McGovern said: “If we stand for human rights we have to speak out, even against human rights violations in countries that may be our friends or are strategically located.” The UAE is one of Washington’s main Arab allies in the region. “You need to condemn torture wherever you see it,” Mr McGovern said.

The tape was smuggled out of the UAE by Bassam Nabulsi, a former business associate of Sheikh Issa who fell out with him. The videotape was filmed by Mr Nabulsi’s brother, who used to work for the sheikh.

Mr Nabulsi says that after he confronted the sheikh about the tape he was tortured in a UAE jail by members of the Interior Ministry, a claim the UAE Government denies.

He is suing the sheikh in Houston, Texas, and wants to produce the tape as evidence.

Sheikh Issa’s Houston lawyer confirmed it was his client in the tape, and called his actions “inexcusable”. Yet he also said that his client had been “unduly defamed” by the incident…

Yeah, I’m sure when he isn’t torturing people he’s an absolute pussycat.

About me

Recent comments

Links

Archives

Counter

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:31 | link | comments (5)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:16 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments

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

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:01 | link | comments

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

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 01:42 | link | comments

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

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:26 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:31 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:28 | link | comments (2)

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

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:31 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:59 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:42 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:31 | link | comments (5)

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:13 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:05 | link | comments (2)

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

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:22 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:57 | link | comments (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:46 | link | comments (1)

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:36 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:21 | link | comments (4)

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:15 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:22 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:54 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:15 | link | comments

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:09 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:35 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:05 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:40 | link | comments (2)

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:38 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:38 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:49 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:41 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:20 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:04 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:50 | link | comments

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:30 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:58 | link | comments (4)

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:56 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:18 | link | comments

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

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:59 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:15 | link | comments

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