The following 'Open letter from York University' appears in the April 1, 2010 issue of the Canadian Jewish News:
York University has been accused of harbouring and tolerating racist and specifically anti-Semitic behaviour. On the contrary, we condemn those who use the cover of free expression or academic freedom to promote anti-Semitism or any racist agenda.
We reject as an assault on our integrity and on the integrity of the members of the York community, the allegations that we deal with different groups within the student body differently.
The University is a forum for the free exchange of ideas. The free exchange of ideas does not include intimidation and racial discrimination. Nor will we bow to those who demand that we narrow the boundaries of academic freedom. We oppose those who abuse the rights of others.
The York community must be one where its members do not arrive on campus to study or to work in fear of physical assault. The University has taken steps to deal with those who abuse the University's committment to the free exchange of ideas and breach the standards of student behaviour. These steps include increased security, greater power to intercede, and consistent enforcement of policies.
We are not so foolish to believe that we have driven anti-Semitism or any other form of racism from our midst. We know that there will be incidents that will require our viglilance. But we have demonstrate that we have the will to act.
For many who come to our university, York is the first exposure to the world beyond their ethnic communities. York accepts the responsibility of teaching its students how to be citizens in a contemporary, diverse, Canadian society. Our goal is to equip our students with the tools they need in a less than perfect world. And we do so in a way that prepares them to participate responsibly in a global exchange of ideas.
The letter is signed by three York U mucky-mucks: Paul Cantor, Chair, Board of Governors; Celia Haig-Brown, Chair of Senate; and Mamdouh Shoukri, President and Vice-Chancellor. And didn't they (or their communication experts) craft some lovely words? Too bad that's largely all they are--words, spin, the same old lame palaver about "diversity" and "community" and blah blah blah till you just want to scream or maybe find shelter somewhere from the relentless onslaught (which, incidentally, is what some pro-Israel Jewish students were forced to do at York in an attempt to evade the contemporary, diverse crowd of Israel-loathers who demonstrated their will to act by threatening to throttle the Jews to within an inch of their lives; in Europe, back in the day, they used to call such incidents "pogroms"). The fact is that at York U and on other campuses (Provost Houle's institution springs to mind) political correctness exerts such a stranglehold that students are afraid of saying or doing anything untoward--anything that might violate the official and implicit codes of speech and thought. In these little hot house environments, there are only two acceptable targets at which to vent (and thereby let off some steam pent up by the restrictive p.c.): conservatives (like Anne Coulter) and "Zionists". Is it any wonder, then, that the sight of pro-Israel Jews drives many of the (Slamolefty) kids mad?
It remains to be seen if York's heretofore craven administration actually follows through on the promises made in this letter: Since it emphasizes all the usual Trudeaupian blarney, I tend to doubt it. (Sure, it took action against rabid Jew-hater, Salman Hossain, who had transferred from U of T--but, really, what choice did it have after Stewart Bell's article in the National Post made such a big splash?) What most fascinates me is that this is obviously a last ditch effort at damage control, the administration's admission that the university's image had become so tarnished in Jewish eyes that it had no recourse but to reach out in this way to the Jewish community. It's like an academe equivalent of "Houston, we have a problem" (only in this case it's more like "Jewston, we have a problem").
From the Daily Mail:
A brave Saudi housewife has reached the final of the Arabic version of the X Factor after lashing out at hardline Muslim clerics on live TV.
Wearing a black burkha, mother-of-four Hissa Hilal delivered a blistering poem against Muslim preachers 'who sit in the position of power' but are 'frightening' people with their fatwas, or religious edicts, and 'preying like a wolf' on those seeking peace.
Her poem got loud cheers from the audience last week and won her a place in the competition's final on April 7.
It also brought her death threats, posted on several Islamic militant websites.
The programme, 'The Million's Poet', is a chance for poets to show off their original work and is broadcast live every week on satellite television across the Arab world from Abu Dhabi.
Contestants are graded on voice and style of recitation, but also on their subject matter, said Sultan al-Amimi, one of the three judges on the show and a manager of Abu Dhabi's Poetry Academy.
Over the past episodes, poets sitting on an elaborate stage before a live audience have recited odes to the beauty of Bedouin life and the glories of their rulers or mourning the gap between rich and poor.
Hilal is the first to launch a political attack - a brave move by a Saudi woman...
No kidding. I'd hire a retinue of bodyguards--or leave the country--if I were her.
A retired diplomat name of Fowler
Was heard to utter this howler:
"We have so much to lose
Because of the Jews."
Iggy's foul but Fowler's fouler.
If, like President Hussein Barack, you have a PoMo mindset, everything's about "discrimination" and "human rights"--even Passover. Jennifer Rubin comments, quoting "the Great One":
Obama, as presidents have traditionally done, released a Passover message. It is typical Obama — off-key, hyper-political, and condescending. The core of the message is this:
The enduring story of the Exodus teaches us that, wherever we live, there is oppression to be fought and freedom to be won. In retelling this story from generation to generation, we are reminded of our ongoing responsibility to fight against all forms of suffering and discrimination, and we reaffirm the ties that bind us all.
No, he didn’t have the nerve to recite the emphatic exhortation “Next year in Jerusalem.” And frankly, it sounds like Eric Holder and his civil rights lawyers drafted it. Is Passover really about discrimination? Or is it about the deliverance of God’s Chosen People by God from bondage to the land of Israel? Hmm. Obama notes the “rich symbols, rituals, and traditions” but skips the God part. What is missing from Obama’s secularized spiel is the unique, historic, and, indeed, religious message of the Jewish holiday.
No, no, no--Passover has a "universal" message. You know, like the Anne Frank story.
Update: Thought I'd share my Passover quip re the first line of the Haggadah observing that we Jews "have eaten the bread of affliction": I'm tired of eating the bread of affliction. I think I'd like a nice croissant for a change.
Sayeth la Lynch re upcoming commissariat plans (with my bolds and snarky comments in brackets):
In June 2011, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act will be fully implemented and First Nations peoples living under the Indian Act will have full access to human rights protection for the first time in Canadian history. (Alas, if you're a non-native on a Mohawk reserve, you're plum out of luck rights-wise, paleface.)
This exciting and historic change exemplifies the evolutionary nature of human rights in Canada—as our society evolves, new challenges emerge. Adapting and responding to those new challenges requires commitment from employers, service providers, non-governmental organizations, and communities. Everyone has a role in creating and nurturing a human rights culture within Canada. (Some creatures "evolve"; others--like "human rights" in Canada--mutate. And if it's all the same to you, Jen, I'm too busy nurturing my own kid to nuture your sappy "human rights" culture.)
In the coming year, the Canadian Human Rights Commission's activities will be guided by two priorities that strive to influence positive and lasting change. (Only two? Sounds like you're slowing down.)
Our first priority is to work with First Nations to develop and increase their capacity to address human rights issues within their own communities. Working closely with First Nations groups, we will raise awareness of the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act; enhance understanding of collective rights in the application of the latter; invest in learning programs and events to help First Nations and other Aboriginal organizations prevent discrimination; and provide support to First Nations communities wishing to create or adapt internal redress processes. (You mean native sentencing circles with a "human rights" spin? Hands up anyone who thinks that's going to work.)
Our second priority is to provide federally regulated organizations with the tools and information necessary to create a self-sustaining human rights culture—an environment where human rights are integrated into daily practice, where every individual feels respected and equal; and where all can make for themselves the careers that they are able and wish to have, free from discrimination. As well, the investment made in preventing discrimination is a prudent business practice. (Welcome to the Trudeaupia. Shut your mouth, plaster a smug, self-satisfied smile on your face and let Jen and the gang push you around and there won't be any problems.)
To assist organizations moving toward a self-sustaining human rights culture, the Commission will develop more model policies on key human rights issues; create a framework for identifying and addressing systemic issues; document alternative dispute resolution processes used by employers and service providers; and pilot the Integrated Human Rights Maturity Model, which is a roadmap for implementing workforce practices that continuously improve the organization's human rights capacity. (An immaturity model, more like, since Jen's "human rights" bureacracy consistently infantilizes businesses and citizenry.)
The Commission's accomplishments are possible because our workforce has the ability to collaborate, innovate, and draw from a deep pool of diverse skills and expertise. It is a privilege to lead people dedicated to promoting and protecting equality rights. I am proud of the work that they do. Their commitment to excellence, rooted firmly in our statute's purpose, that "all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have," free from discrimination, is an inspiration. (Maybe to you. To others it's oppressive, onerous, smothering and burdensome. And the same applies to you, Queenie.)
Yes, I know, I know, Canada's upper chamber is Jurassic Park. Still, it's thrilling to hear Canadian Senator Doug Finley, who wants to scrap our Human Rights Act (essentially, the document that enshrines state-enforced political correctness) say this in front of a parliamentary committee:
In a pluralistic society like Canada, we must protect our right to peacefully disagree with each other. We must allow a diversity of opinion — even if we find some opinions offensive. Unless someone actually counsels violence or other crimes, we must never use the law to silence them.
Exactly. Disagreement is freedom; complete agreement is totalilitarian. It's as simple as that.
My funny lesbian,
Affronted lesbian,
You didn't smile at my act.
You turned my comedy
Into a drama, see?
Now no one's laughing--that's a fact.
Did we get into a scrap?
Do I have to take the rap?
Did I fall into a trap--the 'roo tribunal?
But who laughs last laughs best.
You've put me to the test
And you've cut my career short--
You and that kangaroo court.
How does he loathe it? Let him count the ways:
What Zionist Jews are doing to native Palestinians mocks the value of being human. For 100 years, they have refused to accept that the lives of Palestinians are equal to theirs. The world can no longer afford to be silent.
People who believe in equality must speak out. Yes, they will be called anti-Semitic. They will be bullied. They will be intimidated. They will be threatened. But they must be willing to pay the price if they hope to achieve equality for all.
Decent Jews are waking up to the reality of Zionism. They are a tiny minority. They deserve support.
Our generation can‘t say it didn’t know. The death, destruction and human misery in Gaza are made in Israel.
More than 1.5 million people have been under siege for 1000 days.
It’s no accident that Palestinian children are dying in Gaza.
This is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster blessed by the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Europe.
One day, those responsible will be convicted for war crimes.
The West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip have been under Israeli military occupation for more than 40 years.
Armed Jews-only settlements are being built daily on native Palestinian land, Apartheid style.
A wall divides...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Oh, sorry. I seem to have nodded off there for a moment. Did I miss anything?
The lawyer for the comedian who is facing the B.C. "human rights" inquisition has demonstrated the appropriate way to respond to these officious fools. From the National Post:
The lawyer for a comedian accused of discrimination after trash-talking a lesbian turned in his own performance yesterday, denouncing the human rights case brought against his client and walking out of the hearing.
"This is high-handed and I cannot stay here," lawyer James Millar told B.C. Human Rights tribunal member Murray Geiger-Adams. "I would be consenting to an illegal process. It's too bad you wouldn't listen. With your leave, I'll leave."
He was furious with Mr. Geiger-Adams, who insisted on starting the four-day hearing before determining whether the tribunal even has the authority to hear the case...
Hearing a case before determining whether it had authority to do so? How 'roo. And how wrong. If more attorneys declined to participate in this farcical process, a travesty of and an insult to regular Canadian jurisprudence, maybe we could get somewhere in our campaign to FIRE. THEM. ALL.
That portion of the organ where the sense of humour is located has atrophied to the point of non-existence. And the likelihood that it can ever come back to life? In two words: fat chance. From the National Post:
Sumo suits, the plastic novelties that can transform a skinny sports fan into a comically unstable sphere for the delight of a stadium audience, are racist and dehumanizing instruments of oppression, according to the student government of Queen's University.
They "appropriate an aspect of Japanese culture," turn a racial identity into a "costume," and "devalue an ancient and respected Japanese sport, which is rich in history and cultural tradition." They also "fail to capture the deeply embedded histories of violent and subversive oppression that a group has faced."
The Alma Mater Society on Monday published a two-page apology letter, and cancelled a foodbank fundraiser scheduled for Tuesday, which was to feature two sumo suits. The letter scolds the student government's own executive for "marginalizing members of the Queen's community" and failing to "critically consider the racist meaning behind [the fundraiser.]"...
Ellen Degeneres often has audience members dress up in those Japanese fat suits and cackles hysterically as they vie for prizes in the ungainly get-up. Better watch your back, Ellen, the "human rights" types are a-comin' for you, too.
Update: From an online article about Sumo (my bolds):
Potential wrestlers come to the world of sumo as young as 13 and their training includes compulsory school education. Many recruits are from rural areas where people are said to be better accustomed to the physical hardships which sumo demands. Training is rough and included beating with sticks to drive home the fine points of wrestling (this is quickly becoming a thing of the past). In recent years, the level of physical abuse has eased, which, together with the popularity of the sport, has attracted larger numbers of youngsters to try out.
Those who are successful enter a stable of wrestlers which is owned and trained by a retired successful wrestler called anOyakata; there are around 30 stables. Junior wrestlers not only have to train and attend school, they must do the dirty work of the stable, including attending to the whims of the senior wrestlers who are constantly requiring massages, snacks or drinks. The organization and values of this sport are fundamentally feudal (and are often criticized for bringing forward into the modern age patterns of behavior which are outdated and undemocratic).
That's what the p.c. crew at Queen's doesn't want anyone to laugh at--child abuse, feudalism and morbid obesity as a spectator sport? They're pulling our leg, right?
I'm a little busy tonight, what with it being Passover and all. So I won't get to go to the CBC "townhall" about violence in the, ahem, "South Asian" community. Here's what it's all about:
This townhall aims to create mutual understanding and awareness of family violence issues in the G.T.A's South Asian communities and break down cultural stereotypes perpetuated by recent high-profile murders of South Asian women in our community.
The discussion will focus on what needs to be done to move forward to address these issues, both within the South Asian communities and in the rest of the city.
Yes, because it's far more important to break down the "stereotypes" about the violence (i.e. how it's perceived by outsiders) than to deal with the violence itself, which is often a function of "cultural" baggage that should have been--but wasn't--left behind when the "South Asians" came here.
Mess with Vlad; pay the price. And trust me, no matter how many Muslims get crushed during payback time, there will never be a Judge Goldstone-type probe.
Just in time for Passover a respected former Canadian diplomat (who was once help captive by al Qaeda) has blasted Canadian politicians for pandering to ethnic voters. And by "ethnic voters" he means the Joooos. (From CP; h/t MK):
MONTREAL - Canada's role as a global leader has been compromised by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments obssessed with courting ethnic voters, former diplomat Robert Fowler said.
Speaking to the Liberal policy renewal conference on Sunday, Fowler blasted the leading federal political parties for letting the country's foreign policy be dictated by special interests.
Fowler said both major parties have been enticed by the allure of political gains within the Jewish community. He said it is a strategy that leads to an unproductive support for Israel and undermines Canada's reputation as a trusted mediator in the Middle East.
"The scramble to lock up the Jewish vote in Canada meant selling out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice," Fowler said.
"As the globe has become smaller and meaner, Canadian governments have turned inward and adopted me-first stances across the international agenda," he said.
"Canada's reputation and proud international traditions have been diminished as a result."...
Fowler's argument is bollocks, to say the least. If the Conservatives wanted to capture more votes, supporting Israel is a really dumb way to go about it. First of all, there are more Muslims in Canada than there are Jews. And second, the Jews mostly vote for the Liberals no matter what.
BTW, you won't find Fowler's accusation about the Jooos anywhere in the Ceeb's report. Funny, that.
I'm up to my elbows in matzoh ball mix and brisket fixings and wanted to wish y'all a 'chag sameach' while I had the chance. Blogging will be light/sporadic for the next couple of days while I'm busy cooking up a storm. It would be great if you could drop by for a taste because damn, I'm good.
Cooking update: Just tasted the chicken soup. It's 2 die 4. And the matzoh balls--they'd float away if I didn't put foil wrapping on top. Brisket's still cooking. My secret: cook it at a low temp for a long time. Of course, the red wine, onion, garlic and fresh rosemary help, too. Alas, I can't thicken the juices with flour to make a delectable gravy, as I would during the rest of the year.
Two Muslim pluralists comment re the niqab:
...Niqab as a security problem encourages non-Muslim suspicion of Muslims, since it encourages Muslims toward separatism from their non-Muslim neighbors. And the security issue is real. Male terrorists in such varied countries as Pakistan, Britain, Afghanistan, and Israel have donned female coverings in attempting to escape police. Ordinary criminals have put on niqab as a disguise while committing robberies in the U.S., Britain, Canada, India, and Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Niqab is not Islamic. Covering of the face by women is nowhere mentioned in Qur'an, and the opinions of Islamic legal scholars on it are not unanimous. The Hanafi school of Islamic law, which is most widespread among Muslims, specifically rules out face covering, on the basis of women's needs while dealing normally with men, in commerce and elsewhere. In traditional Islam, men are called on to act modestly, and women are not ordered to disfigure and subordinate themselves by masking their features. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said that women making the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca should not cover their faces or wear gloves, although in their typically perverse manner, Saudi Wahhabi clerics now seek to impose it upon them even then.
Millions of Muslim women around the world do not wear so-called Islamic dress, but have retained local customary garments, which do not distort their form or personality. Many have adopted the same fashions as Western or Far-Eastern women. Women in Hejaz, the Western Arabian region in which the holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located, did not, in the past, cover their faces, and increasingly protest against the imposition of this practice.
The radicals who promote niqab try to pretend that a woman becomes a "better Muslim" by covering her face. This concept is no more Islamic than niqab itself. In traditional Islam, division of Muslims between the good and the bad, aside from those who have committed terrorist or criminal acts, will be decided by God, not by men or women.
According to established Islamic guidance, Muslims who migrate to non-Muslim societies are required to accept and obey the laws and customs of the countries to which they move. Attempts to introduce niqab into Western countries represent an obvious violation of this principle.Western nations have developed a doctrine of "reasonable accommodation" of religious beliefs and practices. But acceptance of niqab in the West would embody "unreasonable accommodation."
Appeals for an immediate ban on niqab or face-coverings in Western countries are, in the view of many moderate Muslims, correct. To rid the Muslim world of niqab will require a sustained debate and social development in each country where it is presently found, based on a pluralistic discussion leading to its recognition as a non-Islamic, and dehumanizing, practice.
Some questions for niqab-booster Harpoon: Do we really have to demonstrate our "tolerance" bona fides by tolerating the intolerable? Doesn't that make us complicit in the oppression? Can we not ask of newcomers that, at the bare minimum, they leave such intolerable practices as "honour" killing, female genital mutitlation, polygamy and female face masks back in the old country?
A few oxymorons: tragic comedy; deafening silence; jumbo shrimp; genuine imitation; civil engineer (that's for my husband, who is one); Liberal 'Deep Thinker'.
On the domestic scene, the Harper government has been far too timid, failing, for example, to reign in our cockamanie "human rights" system. Internationally, however, it's been a tiger--the first nation in the world to have spine enough to tell the UNHRC jackals to stick their second Durban "anti-racism" confab, and the first to defund another despicable UN agency, UNRWA. Assaf Romirowsky, an expert on UNRWA, hails Canada's stance and shares his insights about the agency with FrontPage magazine:
To an outsider, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) seems to be a UN humanitarian group aiding Palestinian refugees. In reality however, it helps destroy the chances of Arab-Israeli peace, promotes terrorism, and holds back Palestinian society from ever achieving statehood.
There has been much evidence to show how UNRWA schools have become hotbeds of anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Semitic indoctrination, as well as recruiting offices for Islamist terror groups. UNRWA is the largest employer of Palestinians as such the local offices are dominated by radicals who staff and subsidize Islamist groups while potentially intimidating anyone from voicing a different line. UNRWA facilities and vehicles are used to store and transport weapons, and have actually served as military bases.
In this process, UNRWA has broken all the rules that are presumed to govern humanitarian enterprises, encouraging their resettlement, avoiding political stances, and putting refugees in danger. But by design, UNRWA is the exact opposite of other refugee relief operations, such as those orchestrated by the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR).
UNRWA defines a “refugee” in the broadest terms by including not only those Arabs who fled from territories held by Israel, but also those who stayed in their homes and lost their source of livelihood as a result of war. Today, this would include all third- and fourth-generation children of refugees, even those of just one Palestinian refugee parent.
UNRWA in its current make up is a liability for many reasons. For one, it affords its employees U.N. diplomatic immunity, it undercuts the organization’s accountability. UNRWA workers have abused their diplomatic privilege to engage in or encourage terrorism. Television crews have filmed UNRWA employees escorting armed Palestinian fighters in U.N. vehicles. Agency-operated – and, by extension, America-funded – schools decorate their classrooms with flags and banners celebrating terrorist groups.
Currently, all UNRWA has to do when it goes to request monies from the United States is to say that they take care of the betterment of the Palestinian refugees without any kind of actual transparency and accountability of what they actual do to further that agenda. The United States which funds a third of UNRWA’s annual budget deserves checks and balances from any agency it finances especially, UNRWA.
As a result of the above, Canada has become the first Western country to demand the type of accountability and responsibility that a donor country deserves by saying NO to UNRWA and only allocating monies to certain Palestinian projects within the Palestinian Authority that can show how they evaluate their work and prove their effectiveness.
Given that one of the chief policy issues for the United States is how to aid in mobilizing donors, both public and private, for a financial infusion of aid resources to finance refugee compensation (and resettlement, immigration, and rehabilitation) as well as the permanent status agreement in general. It would behoove us to follow the Canadian example which would allow our tax dollars to be spent on promoting independent Palestinian organizations and private-sector growth.
Gee, do you think maybe Hussein Barack should be more concerned about the damage that continues to be wrought by this terrorism-abetting-and-perpetuating agency than by a construction project in Jerusalem?
Buddhists? Wiccans? Seventh Day Adventists? A Russian Tim McVeigh with a grudge against the government? Don't be silly. It was jihadis, of course, signaling that the holy war in still a go in a land where apprehended warriors don't get the kind of kid glove treatment they do in the U.S.
What, you think the fact that there's no "Mirandizing" in Putin's domain is going to deter them?
Did you know that according to "hardened secular" Muslim Tarek Fatah Muhammed's child bride was actually well into her teens when she got hitched? In a similar vein, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s current secretary general, says it "would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs, that its values and practices are not democratic; that it favors oppression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights."
Read this (from the Beeb) and tell me the world isn't well and truly bonkers:
The world's first zero-carbon city is being built in Abu Dhabi and is designed to be not only free of cars and skyscrapers but also powered by the sun.
The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is the last place you would expect to learn lessons on low-carbon living, but the emerging eco-city of Masdar could teach the world.
At first glance, the parched landscape of Abu Dhabi looks like the craziest place to build any city, let alone a sustainable one.
The inhospitable terrain suggests that the only way to survive here is with the maximum of technological support, a bit like living on the moon.
The genius of Masdar - if it works - will be combining 21st Century engineering with traditional desert architecture to deliver zero-carbon comfort. And it is being built now.
Masdar will be home to about 50,000 people, at least 1,000 businesses and a university.
It is being designed by British architects Foster and Partners, but it is the ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is paying for it. And it will cost between £10bn ($15bn) and £20bn ($30bn)...
Quel bargoon.
If you thought Thomas L. Friedman's Flinstones v. Jetsons trope was other-wordly (and not in a good way), wait till you get a load of this, his latest pronouncement on the stalled "peace process":
If you think this latest Israeli-American flap was just the same-old-same-old tiff over settlements, then you’re clearly not paying attention — which is how I’d describe a lot of Israelis, Arabs and American Jews today.
This tiff actually reflects a tectonic shift that has taken place beneath the surface of Israel-U.S. relations. I’d summarize it like this: In the last decade, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process — for Israel — has gone from being a necessity to a hobby. And in the last decade, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process — for America — has gone from being a hobby to a necessity. Therein lies the problem.
The collapse of the Oslo peace process, combined with the unilateral Israeli pullouts from Lebanon and Gaza — which were followed not by peace but by rocket attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas on Israel — decimated Israel’s peace camp and the political parties aligned with it.
At the same time, Israel’s erecting of a wall around the West Bank to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from entering Israel (there have been no successful attacks since 2006), along with the rise of the high-tech industry in Israel — which does a great deal of business digitally and over the Internet and is largely impervious to the day-to-day conflict — has meant that even without peace, Israel can enjoy a very peaceful existence and a rising standard of living.
To put it another way, the collapse of the peace process, combined with the rise of the wall, combined with the rise of the Web, has made peacemaking with Palestinians much less of a necessity for Israel and much more of a hobby. Consciously or unconsciously, a lot more Israelis seem to believe they really can have it all: a Jewish state, a democratic state and a state in all of the Land of Israel, including the West Bank — and peace...
Does it sound to you--as it does to me--that Tom wants to "tear down that wall" so the Jews'll have no other recourse but to kowtow to Hussein Barack and the Arabs? As for TLF's idiotic idea that peacemaking is an Israeli "hobby" (like, what, scrapbooking? Or model airplane construction? Has the man even a glancing acquaintance with the concept of jihad?)--maybe it's Hussein Barack's "hobby"; maybe it's the Palestinians' "hobby," too. The Jews, however, have far better things to do (like trying to survive).
The Toronto Star's on-site shill for Islamism, Harpoon Siddiqui, wants to draw your attention to two sides of the same coin--the Wahhabis and the Quebecois:
Governments intervene against the religious wishes of Jehovah's Witness families to give blood transfusions to save the lives of their kin. The Quebec government wants to intervene to deny health care to women whose religious wish is to wear the niqab.
In Saudi Arabia, Iran and parts of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, police or vigilante militias crack down on women not wearing the niqab or the burqa. In Quebec, authorities want to crack down on women who do.
Quebec officials have already chased down one niqab-wearing woman to oust her from a second French language class after she had been hounded out of her first. The bureaucrats are emulating the gendarmes of autocrats Kemal Ataturk of Turkey in the 1920s and the first Shah of Iran in the 1930s who persecuted women wearing either the niqab or the hijab.
It is scary when a state feels compelled to keep women either covered or uncovered.
Nice try, Harpoon. Actually, the Quebecois have no problem with women wearing a head scarf (and nowhere in the Koran does it specify that a face mask/full body shroud is a requirement for female "modesty"). It's only the niqab/burqa that is viewed as, dare a mere infidel say it?, self-separating and anti-social. In Saudi Arabia, the burqa connotes how the wacky Wahhabis view women---as a nullity, a blankness, a void. In Quebec and the rest of Dar al Harb, however, where women do not live and die under the depredations of sharia law, the burqa has another meaning. It is, I think, rather like the apparal equivalent of a minaret--an in-your-face-kafir display of Islamic power. Thus, banning the burqa is the opposite of "scary". It represents freedom--for women and for the West.
Mike Milke of the Calgary Herald makes a good point about Provost Houle and other Canadian control freaks guardians of societal purity:
Those who want to shut others up, or "advise" controversial speakers to watch their words as the University of Ottawa provost did, display a lack of modesty about their own intellectual limits. They fail to recognize we're all a speck in a grand human drama over the millenniums. They assume that after dragging ourselves up out of primordial muck over the ages, that in 2010, we've evolved into perfect creatures with perfect wisdom. And, apparently, no one need intrude on our fantasy with contrary opinions.
That's hubris on a grand scale...
The grandest scale, in fact--a global one. Isn't that right, Organization of the Islamic Caliphate?
No surprise that it's the Slamolefties who are most sensitive to "blasphemy"/"defamation"/"hate speech" and who long to control the whole frikkin' conversation.
Starting tomorrow, the infamous B.C. 'roo tribunal (the one that ruled on Mark Steyn's "hate speech" offenses) will be adjudicating a squabble between a comedy club performer and his heckler. Because that's the kind of thing we do here in our funny, funny Trudeaupia. From the Toronto Sun:
VANCOUVER — A comedian who admits to using gay slurs against a woman who he says wouldn’t stop talking while he was on stage is getting ready to appear before B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal.
Starting Monday, the tribunal will hear the case of Guy Earle, an Ontario comic who was performing at a Vancouver restaurant in May 2007 when the incident occurred.
Earle says complainant Lorna Pardy and her same-sex partner were talking loudly, making out and flipping him off while he and other comics tried to work.
Earle admits he called the women several names and says after Pardy threw two drinks in his face, he responded by breaking her sunglasses.
Pardy’s lawyer, Devyn Cousineau, says Earle has tried to make the case about freedom of speech for comics but it’s really about his use of discriminatory language.
Pardy is seeking damages in the neighbourhood of $20,000.
Pardy is seeking damages? Sounds to me like Earle's the one who should be in line for damages since he's the one who was physically assaulted--twice. Unfortunately for him, he didn't fall into one of Canada's most favoured "victim groups". If he had, it would have been a case of one member of a "victim" taking on another member of a "victim" group, and they would have effectively cancelled each other out. But since Earle has the misfortune to be melanin-challenged and have a penis, the Sapphic can behave as badly as they'd like--grope each other during his act, give him the finger, even throw drinks in his face--and he's automatically the bad guy who has to prove his innocence in a kangaroo court (and, it must be noted, pay three year's worth of legal fees while Pardy gets a free ride). As Groucho Marx might have said under such circumstances: That's the most ridiculous thing I ever hoid.
A musical scene that wasn't performed the other day at the White House:
Hussein Higgins: No, no, no, Binyamin. If you want your supper you'll have to try again. Now, repeat after me...The GAME's the SAME and Israel is to BLAME.
Binyamin Doolittle: The GIME is LIME and JIHAD is to BLIME.
Hussein (thoroughly exasperated): You're just not trying hard enough, man. You stay here and do it again while I go dine with Michelle and the girls. Perhaps when I get back you'll have made some progress. (Higgins rushes out, leaving Binyamin alone).
Binyamin: The GIME is LIME and JIHAD is to BLIME. The GIME's the SIME and JIHAD is a CRIME...Oh, what's the use? I'm never going to get it right. (Pulls himself together and starts again, this time talking very slowly and deliberately). The...GAME's...the...SAME...and...Israel...is to BLAME.
Hussein (who was lurking outside, but now enters the room and says excitedly): By Gore, I think he's got it. Again, Binyamin.
Binyamin: The GAME's the SAME and Israel is to BLAME!
Hussein: By Gore, he's got it! By Gore, he's got it! Now once again, what is the GAME?
Binyamin: It's the SAME! It's the SAME!
Hussein: And what's my wretched claim?
Binyamin: We're to BLAME, to BLAME!
Both (dancing around the room): The GAME's the SAME and Israel's to BLAME! The GAME's the SAME and Israel's to BLAME!
Hussein: Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah...
Binyamin:...are HARDLY holy warriors. How KIND of you to let me come....
Both (still dancing): The GAME's the SAME and Israel's to BLAME! The GAME's the SAME and Israel's to BLAME!
Hussein (jubilant, triumphant): Finally, the breakthrough I was hoping for!
From the Toronto Sun:
Ann Coulter came to Canada last week to deliver three university lectures and to give a one-hour television interview on The Michael Coren Show.
And we all know what happened. Before she even set foot in the country, a vice-president of the University of Ottawa wrote to her with a warning, or perhaps threat, about how we treat people who offend the status quo in Canada:
“Our domestic laws delineate freedom of expression in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.
“Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus.”
Some tradition. The Ottawa speech did not take place because a gang of student protesters caused enough trouble for the local police to advise that the whole thing be called off. Which says a great deal about leftist thugs, weak cops and freedom of speech in Canada...
Indeed. And what is says is that the thugs are strong, the police are wusses, and freedom of speech in Canada is viewed with the same sort of abhorence that would normally be reserved for something really shocking and abnormal--like, say, necrophilia. It also says that our elites, our intellectual "superiors," are a bunch of anally retentive, mush-brained Trudeaupian cry-babies.
If anyone can make a mockery of the Passover seder, it's Hussein Barack Obama, friend to Rashid Khalidi, mentee of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the man who left the Prime Minister of Israel cooling his heels--a punishment for his failure to kowtow to Obama's 13, count 'em, 13 demands--while he left to eat dinner in another part of the White House. Here's a recap (in the NYT) of how things went down at the Hussein seder last year (my bolds):
...Ms. Tubman and Desirée Rogers, then the White House social secretary, tried to plan an informal meal last year, with little or even no wait staff required. White House ushers reacted with what seemed like polite horror. The president and the first lady simply do not serve themselves, they explained. The two sides negotiated a compromise: the gefilte fish would be preplated, the brisket passed family-style.
Then came what is now remembered as the Macaroon Security Standoff. At 6:30, with the Seder about to start, Neil Cohen, the husband of Michelle Obama’s friend and adviser Susan Sher, was stuck at the gate bearing flourless cookies he had brought from Chicago. They were kosher for Passover, but not kosher with the Secret Service, which does not allow food into the building.
Offering to help, the president walked to the North Portico and peered out the door, startling tourists. He volunteered to go all the way to the gates, but advisers stopped him, fearing that would cause a ruckus. Everyone seemed momentarily befuddled. Could the commander in chief not summon a plate of cookies to his table? Finally, Mr. Love ran outside to clear them.
Mr. Obama began the Seder by invoking the universality of the holiday’s themes of struggle and liberation. Malia and Sasha quickly found the hidden matzo and tucked it away again, so cleverly that Mr. Ziskend, the former advance man, needed 45 minutes to locate it. At the Seder’s close, the group opened a door and sang to the prophet Elijah...
Get your mitts of our holiday, buster. It's not universal. It's Jewish. J-E-W-I-S-H. Same as that little stiff-necked entity that's been giving you such headaches.
And, hey, in a way isn't that the real issue? Obama would like to "universalize" Israel same as he "universalized" Passover--by taking the persnickety Jewish part out of it ('cause the Arabs, his habibis, don't much care for it). No can do, Hussein. No. Can. Do.
Do us all a big favour and choke on a shankbone give the White House seder a pass this year, 'kay?
Found this one (from the Mississauga News) on the Ceej site:
Remember that old childhood adage, ’sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me’?
Well, it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now.
Name-calling does hurt, whether the insults are hurled face-to-face, through hate mail or in the form of graffiti. Attacks against an individual’s – or a group’s – sexuality, ethnicity, religion or culture can cut to the quick, demoralizing victims and inflicting wounds that can last a lifetime.
Sadly, such attacks are thriving in Mississauga and Brampton where incidents of hate-motivated crime more than doubled last year.
And, while the majority of Peel incidents were restricted to graffiti, others escalated to direct threats and assaults, leaving physical scars as well as emotional ones.
Peel is a widely diverse community with citizens from all walks of life: Each should be able to feel secure and safe from attack by the noxious attitudes of those who proudly display and disseminate their biases.
Students at the University of Ottawa this week made their intolerance for intolerant attitudes quite clear when they demonstrated against scheduled speaker Ann Coulter, an American right-winger with an apparent axe to grind against just about anyone who’s not a middle-class white American.
Residents of Peel can display their own intolerance for such attitudes and behaviour by defending those victimized by such hostility, by refusing to engage in any effort tinged by prejudice and by supporting Peel Regional Police in their efforts to quash hate crimes.
Those who engage in hate crimes are little more than bullies whose cowardly words and deeds reflect their own shortcomings and, like most bullies, they count on getting away with it. Don’t let them.
Remember that old childhood adage, "bite me"? It applies to dhimwits who know squat about Ann Coulter and what she is for and against (for: Israel and liberty; against: Big Government and out "betters" trying to push us around); who think that she, not Provost Houle, is the problem here; who don't "get" free speech at all; and who can't see that authorites are Speedy Gonzales when a "terrifying" graffito crops up, but are, shall we say, real slow pokes when it comes to the hate speech of a member of a "visible minority" (one of Canada's protected "victim groups")like, say, the extremely loquacious Salman Hossain.
That the Ceej would post this piece of drivel is more than Pathetic (with a capital "P"); it is an embarrassment.
Update: Re the old childhood adage about sticks, stones and names and how it's false. Who says so? Well, Queen Censor Jen, for one. She thinks the
“power (of words and ideas) while overwhelmingly positive, can also be used to undermine democracy, freedom and equality.” For that reason “Canada, and many other nations, have enacted laws to limit forms of extreme hateful expression that have very minimal value in the free exchange of ideas, but do great harm to our fellow citizens.”
Do they really, your Highness? Oh, sure, "names" can give offense, even make you mad. But weren't we all a lot better off when people let "words " roll off their backs--back before we traded away our free speech to higher ups who would decide for us which words were and were not acceptable?
Who died and made Jennifer Lynch Queen, anyway?
Oh, wait--it was the Conservatives, wasn't it?
Frankly, I could care less if you want to call me mean names, because doing so says far more about you and where your head is at than it does about me. No, the only hurtful words I really care about are ones like "Death to the Jews," and "Jewish child you're gonna f***ing die" and "Allahu Akbar"--you know, ones that announce murderous intentions. And, go figure, those are exactly the words our authorities are most likely to ignore. So who's really being "protected" by the Houles and Halls and Lynches, because it sure ain't the Jews.
An Islamic TV channel in the U.K. is being criticized for misrepresenting Islam and broadcasting some, er, "out of date" ideas. From the Evening Standard:
Britain's leading Muslim TV channel was accused of encouraging “marital rape” and promoting other intolerant views of women in a report on extremism published today.
The report by think tank Quillam says that the London-based Islam Channel broadcast comments saying that “the idea a woman cannot refuse her husband relations” was “not strange” and was instead part of “maintaining a strong marriage”.
It says that the channel also broadcast advice that a wife should not leave her home without her husband's permission and that a woman who wears perfume in public is a prostitute.
The think tank, which is calling for an investigation by broadcasting watchdog Ofcom, also accuses the channel of advertising talks by al Qaeda-supporting preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who is alleged to have inspired failed Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and of giving a platform to other extremist Islamists.
The report, which was based on an analysis of broadcasts over three months, also states that Islam Channel's programmes have undermined trust between community groups by airing hostile comments about non-Muslims and those who follow alternative versions of Islam.
The channel's website says that it aims “to present the Islamic viewpoint and values” and provide “authoritative and impartial Islamic information”. It aims to act as an “interface” between Muslims and non-Muslims and remove misconceptions about the religion.
But Talal Rajab, the report's author, said the programmes regularly promoted an “intolerant and out-of-date” form of Islam with unacceptable views. He said: “It is the most-watched Muslim TV channel in the UK. During the three-month period that we monitored its output, it repeatedly promoted bigoted and reactionary views towards women, non-Muslims and other Muslim sects.
“Although the channel does not directly call for terrorist violence, it clearly helps to create an atmosphere in which religiously-sanctioned intolerance and even hatred might be seen as acceptable...
Out-of-date to most Brits, perhaps. Very au courant in, say, Saudi Arabia.
Update: To be clear, what the Koran (which, last time I checked, is still in effect, same as ever) says on the subject of men, women and marital relations is that men are the plow, women are the field, and men can plow their field whenever they desire:
Koran 2:223. "Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves; and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers."
Good news for male believers, I guess. Not so good news if you happen to be the field, and aren't in any mood to be plowed.
The grotesquely misnamed UN "Human Rights" Council--really, a branch operation of the Organization of the Islamic Caliphate and its flying monkeys--has laid down the (sharia) law for us impudent kafirs:
In a tight vote Thursday, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted in favour of a resolution condemning so-called "defamation of religion."
A coalition of 17 mostly Western nations, including the United States and the Netherlands, opposed the resolution, but 20 states, including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, voted in favour. Eight states abstained.
The resolution adopted by the 47-member council was similar to one passed last year, but also included a section slamming the recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of minarets in the country.
The resolution has drawn criticism from liberal groups over concerns of infringements on freedom of speech and a bias in favour of Islamic states.
No mention of discrimination, other than anti-Muslim practices, were in the resolution. Opponents noted tight restrictions on Christians, Jews and others in states such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, which did not make it into the adopted text...
No kidding.
Well, don't we have egg all over our faces? Yesterday free-speechers were (briefly) elated because a media release issued by a Canadian union made it sound as though the federal government would finally be ratcheting back our oppressive, out-of-control "human rights" bureacracy. Turns out that not only is the government doing no such thing, it's actually expanding the racket. And that media release? I was all a misunderstanding. The decision to close the three offices in question--the issue that got the union so riled up--was the apparatchiks', not the government's, as per this report in the National Post:
...Likewise, the facts about the CHRC branch offices are much more bland and bureaucratic than PSAC's [the kvetchy union's] version.
For one thing, the decision to close them was not made by the government, but by the CHRC itself, in a year-long strategy process led by its own secretary-general, Karen Mosher. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson also said in a statement that his office had no involvement.
In a brief interview on Friday, Ms. Mosher described how an analysis of the CHRC's three priorities -- complaint resolution, discrimination prevention, and research -- led to the conclusion that they should close the branch offices.
In their place will be two regional headquarters focused on discrimination prevention, in Montreal and Edmonton...
Is anyone in the Conservative government keeping tabs on this monster? Is anyone concerned about how it's sucking us dry--literally and figuratively? Or have they all decided that it's way too much of a political hot potato, and that it's easier to let the creature grow unchecked?
Doesn't any politician have the stones to get out the garland of garlic and the wooden stake and do what needs to be done?
Where's our Buffy the Vampire Slayer?
There are those who might claim that Susan G. Cole, a smug lefty who craps all over such muscular American concepts as "free expression" and "rugged indiviudualism", is a national treasure. I have yet to meet any of them, but no doubt they are out there--somewhere (reading Cole's smug lefty freebie rag NOW magazine and jerking off to the colourful sex adverts, the 'zine's bread and butter, p'rhaps?). Me? I treasure the great George Jonas, a chap who knows a thing or two about self-satisfied ideologues and their designs on power. Says George re the campus kerfuffle involving Ann Coulter, the one orchestrated by "posturing wanker" Provost Houle and carried out by his youthful minions (my bolds):
...I'll call the faces in the tumultuous crowd that assemble in student federations and such "Mike" and "Ellen." They're the ones who shout, as Ellen was heard shouting: "Ann Coulter should go back where she came from."
"But she was invited by Campus Conservatives ..."
"We don't want her here."
Mike and Ellen are the idealistic, demonstrating, book-burning, sometimes violent spear-carriers of social trends and ideas that shape all periods, occasionally for the better, usually for the worse. Many are educated beyond their intellectual means; all concern themselves with matters beyond their maturity. They're the collateral damage of higher education.
Houle's letter to Coulter leaked. It reached Mike, Ellen and fellow Red Guard-types, inciting them to form an unlawful assembly to deprive Canadians who came to hear Coulter of their right to listen to her. Mike, one of the organizers, was quoted saying that "what Ann Coulter is practising is not free speech, it's hate speech."
Here's the circular sophistry of two-tiered freedom: Approved speech = free speech; censored speech = hate speech. This is what corrupts minds, and I don't mean students. I mean professors, provosts and presidents. The operating fallacies come from them. Mike and Ellen provide only the noise, the echo and the muscle...
Quite the toxic little Shangri-La they've got going there at the U of Houle: the Provost says, "Jump!," and the Mikes and Ellens say, "How high?" Just the sort of institute that would confer an honourary degree on the likes of Susan G. Cole, a chick who provides "the noise" in the world outside this mini Soviet-style republic.
Update: Margaret Wente weighs in:
...History has taken quite a turn. In ancient times (Berkeley in the ‘60s), student protesters took to the streets to demand free speech on campus. Now they demand to suppress it.
This view – that unpopular opinions should not be expressed in public because they are dangerous – is shared by an alarming number of adults, especially those who toil in the field of human rights. On a CBC radio phone-in show the other day, a highly agitated man who identified himself as a human-rights lawyer argued that Ms. Coulter should be banned from speaking because she is a human-rights abuser. Another caller, who proudly identified herself as a former human-rights investigator, said, “If any Canadian spoke like Ann Coulter, he'd be jailed.” In her view, Ms. Coulter has “infringed on our right to be safe, secure and not discriminated against. Canadian universities should grow a backbone and get rid of this menace.”
In fact, Canadian human-rights commissions have been trying to get rid of the menace of free speech for quite a while. (I'm glad to say they're losing.)...
They are? Could have fooled me.
And the "stupid" one I'm speaking to is, of course, leader of the free world HBO. Diana West explains what's really going on behind the Hussein hissy fit over construction and the pointed snub of Netanyahu:
...Obviously, there is more to this than apartment houses. In his book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Andrew Bostom explains the doctrinal basis not just of Islamic antisemitism – an eternal driver of the jihad on Israel – but also of the concept that there exists a kind of eternal right of return of Muslims to any former Muslim conquest. “All of historical Palestine,” he writes, “whose pre-Islamic inhabitants, Jews, Samaritans and Christians were conquered by jihad in the fourth decade of the seventh century, is considered “fay territory.” In other words, having once been conquered by Islam, such land is considered by Muslims to be “a permanent part of the Dar al Islam, where Islamic law must forever prevail.” According to this thinking, Israel, governed by “usurper” infidel Jews who are no longer a subjugated dhimmi people, “must be destroyed in a collective jihad by the entire Muslim community.”
Hard to ignore such a potent source of aggrieved aggression. But we do, and to the point of denying its very existence. And then what? Oskar Freysinger of the Swiss People’s Party, famous for leading the campaign to ban minaret construction in Switzerland, once put it this way to me when explaining why his party, known for its anti-Islamization policies, had always supported Israel: “We are well aware that if Israel disappears we lose a vanguard. They [the Israelis] are fighting our fight, in fact. As long as the Muslims are concentrated on Israel, it’s not so hard for us. But as soon as Israel will have disappeared, they will come to get the other part” – namely, Europe.
What Freysinger sees better than most (including Israelis) is the apocalyptic dimension to global jihad, regardless of the “peace process” and other camouflage. Not only are we witnessing what could be the final stages of jihad on Israel, the US is now openly supporting the wrong side.
Free speech may be as extinct as the Dodo bird at the U of Houle, but there is at least one place in the province where it's thriving: in the comments section of this anti-Coulter screed in NOW magazine by smug lefy Susan G. Cole. Here's a taste of the un-Canadian free-for-all, a comment by someone named LOL:
Ann Coulter's the best.
"Take a camel" lol that's gold.
As harsh as it might be if more muslims took camels we'd have alot less downed airplanes and buildings.
Better watch it, LOL. The above could get you hauled in front of a "human rights" outfit for saying something offensive about a protected minority group. Who do you think you are that you can say such "hateful" things on the Internet and get away with it--Salman Hossain?
Update: The comments here are pretty lively, too.
