Thursday, September 30, 2010

Tea Party Colo(u)ring Book!

Some Grauniad readers are getting their knickers in a twist over this one. Can't say I'm into all the flagwavy stuff but this looks harmless enough to me.

My favourite part is the tree that Obama thinks money grows on!

Tea Party colouring book sells 'many thousands'

Publisher says it is having to order daily reprints of 'very pleasant' infants' primer on right-wing populist lobby.

Tea Party Coloring Book for Kids Childish message ... Tea Party Coloring Book for Kids

A colouring book teaching children about right-wing American political movement the Tea Party has become an unlikely hit in the US.

Described as a "very pleasant song, colouring and activity book on Liberty, Faith, Freedom and so much more" by its publisher, the Missouri-based Really Big Coloring Books, the book includes Tea Party word searches, pictures to colour in, puzzles, connect-the-dots and information about the movement and its history. It "teaches children (and parents) about the origins of the Tea Party and what it involves," says the publisher. "Get involved, participate, self reliance, freedom of choice, work, government-of-for-by the people, Leadership, Ingenuity, Jobs and responsibility!"

Priced at $3.59 (£2.25) online, the 32-page Tea Party Coloring Book for Kids is proving extremely popular, publisher and author Wayne Bell told CBS News, and he is having to reprint every day to keep up with demand. "We have sold many thousands," he said, adding that the book is outselling an Obama colouring book which he also publishes.

"The Tea Party calls upon our representatives to limit the government's role in everyday life, and to support people and businesses, but not demand from, control or over tax the people or businesses," says one page, accompanied by an American flag for children to colour in. "The government should never become a burden in our lives."

Bell told CBS that the publisher was "not really making a political statement" with the book, saying that the Tea Party was not behind it and is not receiving any of the proceeds. He also said he had received death threats about it, in writing and on the phone.

Not all feedback has been negative, however: a five-star review on the publisher's website said it was "about time" a colouring book about the Tea Party was published. "This is a good idea to have a book with [an] actual message that children can colour and learn at the same time about a real movement," wrote Sandy Swann, "educator". "I just love it ... a book on Tea Parties ... I am ordering one now!"

It's Islamic Heritage Month!

courtesy BCF :)

They're inviting the Islamofascist Canadian Islamic Congress to celebrate "Islamic History Month"


read on.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

New New Labour

According to Ed Milliband, the gap between rich and poor "harms all of us". I wonder where he got his economic education?

I love New New Labour under Red Ed.

Why? Because they've completely misread the people's mood, that's why. Harriet Harman has decried the lack of "gender equality" in the current British cabinet, even though it's her party that has never had a female leader. Spouting the kind of PC bullsh*t that the British people voted against just makes the Labour Party look like complete morons and will hopefully condemn them to years on the opposition bench.

IndyWatch: More Gaza Hilarity from Indymedia and the IPSC

It doesn't get better than this. Irish jihadist Fintan Lane, the subject of this post, is now being touted as a "Gaza Flotilla Survivor". I mean, you just can't make this sh*t up. Let's have a brief look at some numbers. The Gaza flotilla had 718 crew members, of which nine from one ship were killed. Now that's a 98.75% survival rate. Couldn't they have called him a 'participant'? 'crew member'? 'activist'?

In this story, according to Lane,
"The Israeli massacre only served to highlight the brutal nature of their enforcement of the siege and has put the spotlight firmly on what is currently happening in Gaza."
"Massacre"?

The IPSC's spin and use of language generally is always worth commenting on. I often wonder whether they aren't leaving themselves wide open to legal action, particularly chairperson Freda Hughes who had this to say:
“One and a half million Palestinians in Gaza continue to live under an illegal barbaric siege imposed by Israel in violation of International law. The humanitarian crisis remains as bad as ever with basic essentials including food, water and medical equipment continuing to be prevented from being brought into Gaza in adequate quantities.”
She declared her "opposition to Zionism" at her election as chairperson.

where she reiterated her commitment to
"continue to campaign for an end to Israeli Apartheid and the occupation of Palestine, which are symptoms of Zionism’s colonial ideology".
So, is it "Apartheid" or is it occupation? It can hardly be both at the same time. According to an IPSC website video, Israel is an "Apartheid state", but Ms.Hughes feels no compulsion to explain what she means by that. The video is filmed at a rally against Tony Blair in Dublin, whom she inexplicably accuses of "blind racial prejudice". Now I'm no huge fan of Tony Blair, but that's probably one thing I wouldn't have thought to accuse him of.

This is the same speech where she expresses her lack of hope in the peace process, on the grounds that Israel enters the talks "from a position of power" as though there were some unwritten law somewhere declaring that peace can only be made between equal powers. It's the typical language of so-called "human rights activists" who are only interested in selective humans and selective rights.

Palestinians are her "brothers and sisters"; Israelis are not.

***UPDATE*** (Oct 1st)

Here we go again...

Irish Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire today lost a legal appeal to prevent her deportation from, and 10 year ban on entering, Israel. Ms. Maguire appeared in the Petah Tikva district court this morning where her lawyers argued her case. According to her legal team she will now be deported within 48 hours during which time Ms Maguire may file another appeal with the Israeli high court.

Ms Maguire’s legal representative Salah Mohsen, of Adalah said today: "[The court] decided that she will be deported within 48 hours, leaving her the time, if she wants, to present an appeal to the high court." At the time of writing, the 66-year-old peace activist had not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling.

IPSC National Chairperson Freda Hughes today said: “The IPSC commends Mairead Maguire’s bravery in this case, and we hope she is aware that she has huge support from Irish civil society. Israel’s actions in this instance have revealed it to once again to be an Apartheid State that punishes people like Mairead for their support for Palestinians and human rights in the region.”

Ms Hughes concluded: “Ms Maguire has always proven herself to be an honest broker for peace in situations of conflict resolution. She has a proven track record of bravery in campaigning for human rights in conflict stricken areas. We commend her action in refusing deportation and strongly condemn this latest outrageous action by the Israeli state against an international peace activist. Ms Maguire has proven herself to be not only a good to the Palestinians but also to Israelis in her open and honest approach to dedication to achieving a just a sustainable peace in the region.”

Canadian Immigration Reform Group Launched

h/t Lime.

This is something that concerns all Canadians, whether they choose to be honest about it or not. Multiculturalism, many believe, has not worked and a different approach must be taken. Unfortunately there are those with a vested interest in the current chaotic system...

Country has nothing to fear from a real debate on the issue, former ambassador says

A pillar of the Canadian establishment, brushing aside the risk he could become embroiled in one of the country's most sensitive political issues, is endorsing a new organization challenging Canadian immigration policy.

Derek Burney is a former senior corporate chief executive, former ambassador to the U.S., one-time chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, and served as the head of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's transition team after the Conservatives won the 2006 election.

Canadian society, he said, needs to stop treating immigration as an untouchable "third rail" that can't be debated without prompting allegations of bigotry.

So he's joined the advisory board of an organization being launched Tuesday on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.

The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform will be headed by Martin Collacott, a former ambassador who writes frequently on immigration and refugee policy at the Fraser Institute, and James Bissett, a former director-general of the Canadian Immigration Service.

The new group argues the benefits of a high level of immigration aren't worth costs that include considerable government expenditures and higher housing costs, pollution and crowding in big Canadian cities.

"Unfortunately immigration and refugee policy is a bit like health care in Canada," Burney said in an interview.

"It's being denied rational debate at the political level, and this is despite the very clear evidence of abuse of the system, of fraud in the system and a lack of coordination in the country in terms of screening."

He says his major concern is that Canada's economy has been chronically plagued by relatively low economic productivity, yet the large number of unskilled workers and family-class immigrants weakens productivity further.

Burney said politicians of all stripes refuse to discuss such concerns because some immigrant communities that lobby for high quotas of family-class immigrants are "very active" in federal politics.

Burney, 70, acknowledged he was courting controversy that could damage his legacy as a business executive and senior public servant who played a key role in the successful negotiation of the 1988 Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement.

He is an Order of Canada recipient, has several honorary degrees, and had a street named after him in his hometown of Thunder Bay, Ont.

In 2007-08, he was one of five members of Harper's independent panel studying Canada's future role in Afghanistan.

But he said he felt it was time to take a stand in support of Collacott and Bissett, who have argued in relative obscurity for years that Canadian immigration policy needs reform.

"It's a third-rail kind of issue, nobody wants to talk about it, it's not for polite company," said Burney, now an adviser to the Ogilvy Renault law firm and formerly chief executive officer of Bell Canada International and later of the CAE Inc. aviation firm.

Collacott and Bissett "have a great deal of knowledge about the subject, and they're not irrational, they're not emotional, they're not racists.

"They're simply trying to acquaint Canadians with the facts."

The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform is an organization dominated by academics and former senior bureaucrats, many with links to Canada's conservative movement, who argue that immigration levels are far too high and that refugee screening policy too lax.

Canada has in recent years brought in roughly 250,000 immigrants and refugees annually, and since 1990 has accepted more per capita than any country in the world, according to the Fraser Institute.

There are also 300,000 or so skilled and unskilled "temporary" workers in Canada, of which 192,500 arrived in 2009. And the government admitted 79,500 foreign students last year.

The critics say Canada's policy is essentially hijacked by self-interested groups -- employer groups seeking cheap labour even when there's high unemployment, lawyers, advocates and consultants in what they call the "immigration industry," and urban MPs from all parties who depend on immigrant groups for political support.

They also cite statistics and reports, including several from federal government researchers, showing that Canadian immigrants since the 1980s have struggled economically compared with the average Canadian.

Others backing the new group include Gilles Paquet, a frequent public commentator and professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa's Centre on Governance, and Salim Mansur, a University of Western Ontario political scientist, columnist, former federal candidate for the Canadian Alliance party under Stockwell Day's leadership, and author of Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim.

Collacott said his group is trying to avoid, rather than import, what he calls the "xenophobic" hostility that exists today in Europe against immigrants and minorities. To do that, mainstream parties need to debate the issue openly, he said.

"While we've done better than the Europeans in terms of integrating immigrants into society, there are lots of signals that we're not doing well enough," Collacott told Postmedia.

Canadians need to debate the questions "without being called ant-immigrant and racist."

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Hypocrisy of James Cameron

Cameron gets it from Ezra Levant.

It is comforting to know that one of America’s leading industrialists is jetting in from Los Angeles, America’s smoggiest city, to lecture Canada about the environment.

Filmmaker James Cameron was born in Ontario, but moved to Hollywood as a teenager. He made it big there, with box office hits like Titanic, Aliens and The Terminator. Cameron is expected to personally net $350 million from Avatar alone.

As Esquire magazine points out, that’s almost as big as the GDP of the Caribbean country of Dominica, population 72,500.

But pay no attention to his lifestyle, or his extravagant projects with their vast energy consumption. Do not be distracted by his deeds. Listen to the man’s words. He is a prophet.

Ours “will be a dying world if we don’t make some fundamental changes about how we view ourselves and how we view wealth,” he said this year. “We’re going to have to live with less.”

The man is an artist, so he is entitled to use sophisticated techniques like irony and metaphor. So when he says “we” should live with less, he means “you” should. Cameron’s press tour to promote Avatar took him to 107 cities. Perhaps he’ll “live with less” for Avatar II, by flying to just 100 cities.

You know, set an example for the little people.

Oh, don’t make that face. What, aren’t you more grateful for his advice? Who are you to judge that a tycoon living in an 8,000-square-foot house, with an adjacent 6,000-square-foot house for staff, can’t also be an expert on modest living?

Cameron is coming here because he called Canada’s oilsands an environmental “black eye,” and now he wants to see them for himself. Ordinary people get the facts first, before denouncing something. But Cameron isn’t ordinary. He’s special.

There is a chance that Cameron will change his mind. Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is going to meet with Cameron to make Canada’s case. But Cameron has a track record when it comes to people he disagrees with politically.

Last month, he called people who are skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming “swine.”

That’s an improvement from this spring, when he said he wants to “call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out” calling one skeptic a “f------ a------” and saying “I believe in ecoterrorism.”

Stelmach should prepare for his meeting with this deep thinker by listening to some gangsta rap.

In a brief moment of common courtesy and intellectual open-mindedness, Cameron once agreed to debate global-warming skeptics, including another filmmaker named Ann McElhinney. Cameron soon started demanding various changes to the terms — that it be switched from a debate to a roundtable discussion, that only Cameron be allowed to film it, that all media be kept out, etc.

McElhinney’s group accepted all the changes. But literally a day before the debate, Cameron cancelled. So much for wanting a shoot-out at high noon.

Canada should be open to anyone visiting our oilsands — it’s one of the differences between us and OPEC countries where political critics are routinely murdered. Our respect for human rights — including our protection of political dissent — is what makes us different from other oil producers.

There is a possibility, however small, that Cameron might be convinced. But I doubt it.

So once Stelmach is done answering Cameron’s questions, perhaps the premier might ask a few of his own. I’d start with an easy one: If Cameron swears off oilsand oil because it doesn’t meet his ethical standards, where does he buy his jet fuel from? What ethical standards meet the Cameron morality test? Terrorist Saudi Arabia? Nuke-building Iran? Toxic Nigeria?

Or is that one of the things he didn’t want the media to ask about at his cancelled debate?

— Read Levant’s blog at ezralevant.com

News Article About Incident in Israel

Title of Piece in form of Sensationalist Headline

Subheading indicating that some incident took place in Israel about which initial reports are sketchy

by British Journalist, 28th September 2010

This introductory paragraph fails to mention said sketchiness but is in no doubt that the Israeli military and/or the government has committed a heinous deed worthy of journalistic overreaction.

Here we insert name of location of incident alongside previous incident suggesting continuity with previous incident and hence likely similar cause. Journalistic embellishment including placing of incident location in sentence alongside Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda indicating both journalist's awareness of such contexts, and atrocity of Israeli incident, in spite of there being no similarity whatsoever.

Employment of words such as 'massacre', 'human right abuse' and 'war crimes' but with weasel words like 'alleged' and 'observers suggested' inserted to suggest impartiality of journalist and to shift the blame for any future correction of factual statements. A quote from a local woman who was hiding in her basement the whole time expresses her belief that "hundreds" are dead.

Cite commentary from neutral source such as Hamas or other Islamic Brotherhood-connected entity decrying Israeli war crimes past, present and future. Add account from 'bystanding witness' who was not present but whose shock and terror at the news of the incident is itself newsworthy.
"Sound bite expressing shock and horror at incident"
This paragraph does not mention homicide bombers or their placement anywhere near the location of incident. Nor does it mention the location of any nearby jihadists. Instead it provides a comment from a former freedom fighter living in the West who now represents a neutral charitable organisation with the words "congress" or "Islamic" in its name. He
"Suggests incident belongs in context of wider crimes against Palestinian people and touches on subjects which indicate that Israeli reaction was overreaction to Palestinian Action which was in itself only a reaction to something Israel was doing wrong".
This is a bold quote taken from the main text indicating that if you read on you'll find it

Here is a cut and paste quote from Wikipedia on the recent history of the incident location.

This section questions how the incident might impact upon peace negotiations, and suggests that some other countries might want to talk to the Israeli government about it. At this point Journalist openly declares the neutral and unbiased nature of his reporting by mentioning an Israeli minister he has not bothered to contact about the incident, but hopes that the insertion of an Israeli name provides a balance to the piece.

This final paragraph provides the actual body count of said incident as though the news just came in as he was typing it, but suggests that this may only be a provisional figure, but even if it isn't, Israel will undoubtedly create more corpses next time there is an incident.

Massacring Truth

For all their faults, CBC have just aired the 2004 documentary Jenin: Massacring Truth, about the so-called massacre of civilians by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank town of Jenin in 2002.

The world's media, and even the UN reporters, went nuts on this story, reporting hundred of civilians brutally slaughtered by nasty Israeli "war criminals". The final death toll?

26 Palestinian fighters, 26 civilians and 23 Israeli soldiers.

What was most satisfying about the documentary was watching slimy journalists confronted by one Israeli soldier and forced to eat their words. Some were apologetic, most were arrogant, particularly one British female reporter, the Times of London's Janine di Giovanni, who refused to let the soldier remain in the room with her, and asked the interviewer and crew if they were Jewish.

On April 16th she wrote:
"Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life,"
Even as the truth emerged, foreign media were still busy filming skeletal (!) remains 'found' by the town's residents only days after the battle.

According to Tom Gross at honestreporting.com,
Under the headline "Amid the ruins, the grisly evidence of a war crime", the Jerusalem correspondent for the London Independent, Phil Reeves, began his dispatch from Jenin: "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed." He continued: "The sweet and ghastly reek of rotting human bodies is everywhere, evidence that it is a human tomb. The people say there are hundreds of corpses, entombed beneath the dust."

Reeves spoke of "killing fields," an image more usually associated with Pol Pot's Cambodia. Forgetting to tell his readers that Arafat's representatives, like those of the other totalitarian regimes that surround Israel, have a habit of lying a lot, he quoted Palestinians who spoke of "mass murder" and "executions." Reeves didn't bother to quote any Israeli source whatsoever in his story. In another report Reeves didn't even feel the need to quote Palestinian sources at all when he wrote about Israeli "atrocities committed in the Jenin refugee camp, where its army has killed and injured hundreds of Palestinians ...

.... On April 17, the Guardian's lead editorial compared the Israeli incursion in Jenin with the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11. "Jenin," wrote the Guardian was "every bit as repellent in its particulars, no less distressing, and every bit as man-made...

... Other commentators threw in the Holocaust, turning it against Israel. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a leading columnist for the Independent wrote (April 15): "I would suggest that Ariel Sharon should be tried for crimes against humanity ... and be damned for so debasing the profoundly important legacy of the Holocaust, which was meant to stop forever nations turning themselves into ethnic killing machines."

What an eye-opener. And when the Turkish Hamas sympathisers were killed on the Mavi Marmara, it must have seemed like history repeating itself.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Czech president tells UN to stay out of economics

h/t Ozzie Saffa

Right on, Vaclav. The UN needs to STFU.

Klaus opposes calls for increased UN role in economics

* Says more regulation is wrong way out of crisis

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus on Saturday criticized U.N. calls for increased "global governance" of the world's economy, saying the world body should leave that role to national governments.

The solution to dealing with the global economic crisis, Klaus told the U.N. General Assembly, did not lie in "creating new governmental and supranational agencies, or in aiming at global governance of the world economy."

"On the contrary, this is the time for international organizations, including the United Nations, to reduce their expenditures, make their administrations thinner, and leave the solutions to the governments of member states," he said.

Klaus appeared to be responding to the address of the Swiss president of the General Assembly, Joseph Deiss, who said on Thursday at the opening of the annual gathering of world leaders in New York that it was time for the United Nations to "comprehensively fulfill its global governance role."

Deiss suggested the world body should get more involved in economic and financial issues and not leave them solely in the hands of forums like the Group of 20 club of key developed and developing nations.

Klaus, a free-market economist who oversaw a wave of privatization in the 1990s after communism collapsed in his homeland, also said the world was "moving in the wrong direction" in combating the economic crisis.

"The anti-crisis measures that have been proposed and already partly implemented follow from the assumption that the crisis was a failure of markets and that the right way out is more regulation of markets," he said.

Klaus said that was a "mistaken assumption" and it was impossible to prevent future crises through regulatory interventions and similar actions by governments.

That will only "destroy the markets and together with them the chances for economic growth and prosperity in both developed and developing countries," he said.

The Czech president, a vocal skeptic of global warming, said the United Nations should also keep out of science, including climate change. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made fighting climate change one of his top priorities. (Editing by Paul Simao)

Ezra Levant: Ethical Oil

Here's Ezra Levant defending his latest book, Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands.

His premise is simple - Canadian oil is better than oil from Saudi Arabia, China or Sudan - and his arguments exhaustive.

His critics don't get it. Here's another Greenpeace activist talking about "renewable energy" when the debate is about different sources for oil. He can't even admit that there are human rights abuses in places like Sudan.

Leftwing blogger Dawg probably hasn't even read the book, judging by his inclusion of an image of the supposedly "mutated" fish that turned out to be not one.

Levant's personal style does him no favours at times, but his research is excellent and his conclusions hard to fault.



Original Air Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010
Air pollution, water contamination and dead ducks; Alberta’s so-called dirty oil continues to be the target of heavy criticism.

But now author and columnist Ezra Levant argues human rights violations and corrupt political regimes in other oil-producing countries make Alberta oil the ethical choice. Environmental groups claim the impact of oil-sands production has human rights implications for the whole planet.

Is Alberta oil the ethical choice as Levant suggests? Does his argument miss the point oil sands critics are making? And how do human rights violations compare to environmental impacts?

Joining us for this discussion is author Ezra Levant and, Mike Hudema, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Assyrian Christian Stabbed and Beaten - In Sweden

From TT

The Sweden Democrats, part of Europe's "new Right" made it into parliament in Sweden's recent general election. The party, which takes a firm stand on immigration and Islamicisation in Sweden, has of course been denounced as "raaaaacist" and its members have been physically attacked, one having had a swastika carved into his forehead - an irony surely lost on the vicious fascists who carried out the attack.

Sweden Democrat, Issa Issa, 31, is grateful that he's alive after the brutal knife attack the day before yesterday.
- They said they would kill me, "he says.
Now he's decided to end his politics and leave the lot.
Aftonbladet interviews Issa Issa at the hospital where he has been given police protection.
Shortly after 22:00 (10:00 pm) on Thursday some stones were thrown into his apartment on the first floor in the angered district in Gothenburg. The windows in the kitchen, living room and bedroom were shattered. Issa and his family had to throw themselves onto the floor.
Outside were two people.
- They shouted "fucking Christian, fucking Sweden Democrat, come down," said Issa.

My Old New Muslim Friend Update

Having had a few days to calm down, I sent a peace offering email to my Islamic convert friend (let's call her Mary) in her Islamic warzone (let's call it Jihadistan). I suggested that she might have had the opportunity to see things differently and meditated on the meaning of tolerance, with a hint that maybe tolerance should be extended to those with whom we don't necessarily agree. I wrote that I have friends who are Muslim, Buddhist, Asatru, athiest, Christian, socialist, nationalist etc. and that since only the Western Muslim convert has actually turned her back on me, it hardly presents an image of tolerance from within her new faith.

All fell on deaf ears, of course, but at least I tried. But Mary's repeated statements that she is a UN aid worker, with the implicit claim that she is a good humanitarian while I am not, including her need to get back to her risky life in Jihadistan, got me thinking. While I may initially have thought it brave for her to be in Jihadistan, and even 'humanitarian', her status as a Muslim convert changes that view entirely.

What is "humanitarian" about a Muslim in a Muslim country helping Muslims?

Particularly when it is the UN that is paying for it - an organisation largely funded by Western countries.

The Muslim concept of charity and helping others is based around Zakat. Zakat is charity that cannot be used to help non-Muslims (although this article seems to disagree). A feature of Zakat is that is must be earned legally, but it says nothing about being donated by non-Muslims, as most of the UN's wealth is.

The article in parenthesis also explains the concept of Sadaqah, another view of Islamic charity. Both are essentially based around alms-giving and are noble concepts but neither really involves international peacekeeping in the manner of the UN.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Indymedia Hilarity of the Day

From this story:

The group remonstrated with the soldiers for thirty minutes until a youth threw a stone and the soldiers responded by firing huge quantities of tear gas at the peaceful crowd.
It gets funnier:
A group of youths began throwing stones towards the soldiers, and three photographers stood next to the soldiers were hit.
You'd think they'd have better aim by now.

One exciteable fellow by the name of chris (lower case) had this to say:
People in the 'government' , of israel should be arrested and tried,for warcrimes that could not only rival,but most definately overtake,that of hitler's regime..
To which I added my own helpful comments,
They overtake that of Hitler's regime to be sure, and Stalin's and Mussolini's as well, and approach that of Emperor Palpatine. The Israeli government has destroyed AT LEAST one planet. I have it on good authority that they are responsible for global warming and the hole in the ozone layer in their quest to destroy this one which they will then dominate from their space station, New Zion, located on the moon. As such they should pre-emptively be tried for war crimes immediately before The Hague is vaporized.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Has The Desperate Toronto Star Resorted To Buying Anti-Ford Ads On Google? [UPDATED]

From the perma-awesome BlazingCatFur:

We know the Star hates Rob Ford and democracy, we know that would-be saboteurs connected to the Star have edited Rob Ford's wikipedia page to add potentially libelous content and now we find the Star may actually be purchasing Anti-Ford Google Ads.

How's this for an insult from the Star to All Rob Ford supporters? EyeCrazy has the details.

***UPDATE***

Now they're DENYING it!

Back to the Hijab

According to Mark Steyn, following the murder of Aqsa Parvez,

CITY-TV’s call-in poll on the story this lunchtime posed the following question:

Do you think society discriminates against women who wear a hijab?

Gotcha. It’s our fault.
Aside from that built-in assumption, there's another claim being made within that thoughtless TV question; that the only reason a Muslim girl might not want to wear her hijab is because she is afraid of 'discrimination'.

Not because she might want to play a bigger social role in Canada?

Thursday, September 23, 2010

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Mosque

Well, actually it didn't, but yours truly has just had yet another kick in the teeth from the world of Islam.
Scaramouche brings news of yet another Sudden Jihad Syndrome (SJS) incident from Nebraska.

What is more personally traumatic right at this very moment, however, is that an old girlfriend of mine has become a Muslim.

She is from a one Western country and was raised in another Western country, and the last I heard of her she had married a Muslim. Nothing ususual, she always had an interest in "Eastern" things and that's common enough these days. She is currently working for a UN agency in a particularly tough Islamic country, but kept contact on Facebook regularly. We discussed Islam frequently, but she never revealed to me that she had converted.

She was clearly sympathetic to the faith, but I gave my opinions as honestly and as sensitively as I could, all backed up by facts, polling data, Koran quotes, etc, and got the usual replies about how rubbish the West is, how we're the real barbarians and how the West oppresses women by having inflated ideas of beauty leading to bulimia etc. She told me about how angry some Australians were when a Muslim kid pissed on a bible at camp (how many riots were there and how many Mosques burnt down? I asked) as being equivalent to Muslim anger over Koran burning.

I was reluctant to carry on the conversation in any case, but would not have done if I'd known she was a practising Muslim (albeit a Sufi according to her). She deliberately withheld that information from me and I'm really sickened over it. Even though I had my best 'culturally sensitive' hat on, she still managed to tell me I'd insulted her (she was none too complimentary about my Western culture, which I pointed out) and that I was "raving", despite demonstrating a wide and knowledgeable view of Islam in all its guises.

Here's an excerpt:
"First off, not all Western countries ban them [burqas], and have only started doing so in the face of increased resurgence of Islam in the West generally. I don't approve of it, because I think there should rather be a law against forcing someone ELSE to wear certain clothing, which gets to the heart of the issue. Burqa-wearing is NOT a choice, it's forced and women have been murdered for refusing to wear them, in the US and Canada. Turkey and Algeria ban them too, in certain circumstances, because they understand that a burqa is no more a piece of clothing than a gun is just some bits of metal.

In the cases where it is a choice, it is also a rejection of Western values, NOT a preservation of Eastern ones. Why? because the Koran only commands modesty - and Western standards of modesty are much 'lower' (as you pointed out) than Saudi Arabian ones. But weaers are choosing the Saudi definition, which is a new thing because as you've also mentioned, Muslims in the West have for decades - and even in Egypt and other countries too, particularly Iran - not covered their faces or heads. In Cape Town, they usually just wear scarves, but recently the full coverings have become more common. The change represents a fundamental rejection of Western values, which (rightly) raises suspicions about what else they might be asserting."
I explained the differences (as I saw them) between Wahhabism and North African culture, Pakistani culture, Persian culture and even Cape Town Muslims all to no avail. Despite being aware of all these things, I was spouting "propaganda" which was "vitriolic", and promptly got deleted from her Facebook.

The word "intolerant" springs to mind, and I don't think it refers to me.

***UPDATE***

Having calmed down considerably, and chatted with another friend, I've come to realise this: most Western "converts" to Islam call themselves "Sufis". Because why? It's Islam Lite, that's why, a trendy way of showing your multicult cool without having to do any of the hard stuff that Islam commands. And Sufism is not the whole of Islam, indeed a lot of it is considered outside the bounds of Islam by a lot of Muslims.

Bottom line: I'm not interested in being lectured on the "diversity" of Islam by someone who is on the very fringes of it themselves. Such friends I can do without.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

The English Defense League: The New Face of Europe?

Interesting from the Hudson New York.

I admit I don't know a lot about the EDL, and the mindlessly critical media coverage of them is probably to blame for that. I do know they are non-racial and anti-Islam (but not necessarily anti-Muslim) and that they are by no means synonymous with the BNP.

*****

A group of extremist Islamists attacked the returning soldiers as "butchers of Basra," "baby killers," and "terrorists" during a homecoming parade not long ago in the city of Luton. With years of anti-British "political correctness," and a political class that has failed to tackle Islamism with seriousness, this proved to be too much: the crowd that had turned out to cheer on the soldiers was soon making their disgust known to the Islamists; the two groups had to be held apart by police. Within a few days, a video was floating around the internet, showing the aftermath: calling themselves the "United People of Luton," thousands of (mostly) young men had taken to the streets in a rowdy, and chaotic show of anger and frustration, chanting "no surrender to the Taliban," "we are Luton," and, directed at the Islamists, "scum."

A short time later, the English Defense League [EDL] emerged from the United People of Luton, and, in a little over the year since its founding, has become the largest street protest movement in Britain.

The EDL has also inspired the recent establishment of independent leagues in the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and other EU states; the movement is attracting international attention – including from the Israeli-based Haaretz and the US-based Dissent.

Strident opposition to integration -- from politicians, the media, and Islamist extremists -- has led to serious social problems, not only for long-settled British citizens, but also for immigrants and the children of immigrants. These range from the high rates of unemployment among Muslims, the forced marriage of school girls (and to a lesser extent school boys), to honor violence against women and girls, and violence against homosexual Muslims. Opponents of integration know of these problems, but ignore them. It would appear that their intention was not to make life easy for immigrants, but to make life easy for themselves.

Mass immigration into Europe, is, in some sense the "Americanization" of Europe, according to Christopher Caldwell, author of Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West, who has said that over the last few decades – especially over the last ten years – Europe has become increasingly multi-ethnic, and multi-religious, and multi-everything. In this sense, it resembles the US, especially its cities, such as New York; however, because the EU was intended as a "counterbalance" to the US – and an exemplar of a more socialistic, statist, and allegedly moral and ethical way of doing things – Europe has enacted immigration and integration in an almost opposite way. Consequently, as immigration has increased, instead of becoming more like the US, Europe has become less like it.

In the US, newcomers may be encouraged to feel proud of America's achievements in the world, its democracy, its opportunities. Immigrants might retain significant aspects of their culture, their religion, or values from their former homes, but, largely, they are also proud to be American, and proud to have democracy, liberty, free speech, and the other opportunities for which they came. In Britain, however, immigrants have been encouraged to remain separate from the rest of society, to refrain from learning the language of the host culture, and from integrating. The Archbishop of Canterbury appeared to encourage the adoption of some sharia into Britain in 2008; a few months later, Stephen Hockman, QC, former chairman of the Bar Council, called for aspects of sharia to be formally incorporated into British law.

Read the rest here.

Dublin City Council Jumps on the anti-Israel Bandwagon

fucking disgraceful, is all I can say.

according the IPSC website,
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) tonight welcomed a motion passed by Dublin City Council which condemned “the Israeli attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla’s aid mission that resulted in deaths and injuries of many of those attempting to bring much needed aid” to the besieged Gaza Strip and called for support for the Irish Ship To Gaza campaign and the Second Freedom Flotilla due to depart in late October. The motion further called on the Irish Government to review the purchases of military equipment from Israel, and to discontinue the EU’s preferential trade agreement with Israel.
WTF?
What business has any city council got meddling in international affairs?

And where to begin. "Much needed aid"? "besieged" Gaza Strip??

Of course, it has Sinn Fein stamped all over it, the nasty Irish (fascist) Nationalist Socialist Party that is quick to hate "Zionism" but slow to reflect on their own brand of ethno-nationalism.

Sinn Fein routinely garners some 6-7% of the popular vote in Ireland. Another reason I'm way the hell out of there.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Only Racists Vote Against Obama

No, that's not my opinion. That's the opinion of one Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. You only need to see the first 20 seconds or so of this video, where he states that the only reason to vote against BHO is if you're a Big RacistTM.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Discovered: Tim Wise, Nutjob of the Century

I've just found my way onto Tim Wise's "antiracist" website, and this article is just interesting enough to warrant a read. Or not, but here are some of the highlights:

"conservative theory lends itself almost intrinsically to racist conclusions"

"So too, virtually all the activists in the civil rights struggle, contrary to the revisionism of folks like Glenn Beck, were decidedly to the left" [Like the Republicans who tried to pass civil rights legislation in 1957?]

"But in fact, colorblindness is exactly the opposite of what is needed to ensure justice and equity for persons of color."
[Yes, obsession with colour is what's required!]

I love this one:
"To treat everyone the same — even assuming this were possible — is not progressive, especially when some are contending with barriers and obstacles not faced by others"

"white children may well come to conclude that the reason blacks, Latinos, and American Indian folks are so much more likely to be poor, and live in “less desirable” neighborhoods or communities is because there is something wrong with them. They must not try hard enough to succeed. If colorblindness encourages us to ignore color and its consequences, as it must almost by definition, then we are left with explanations for inequity that are not only conservative in nature, but racist too." [Or we could teach them that there are less simplistic explanations, no?]

"data says people of color tend to be more progressive than whites" [really???]

"How many climate change activists, for instance, really connect the dots between global warming and racism?" [how many, indeed?]

"the predominant strain of American feminism — and that which has been largely responsible for setting the political agenda for women’s issues for the past five decades — has been disproportionately white"
I include this one to raise the question, how, if progressive movements (he mentions various prog groups as well) are "disproportionally white", can the author claim that people of colour are "more progressive than whites"? Are they secretly progressive?

"After the passage of Proposition 8 in California — which banned gay marriage — many within the white LGBT community blamed blacks for the outcome. Although black support for the measure was higher than that for whites, early reports of 70 percent approval in the African American community were dramatically inflated and based on a small number of precincts. And since blacks only comprise a small share of the electorate in California, to blame the black community for the outcome is to ignore the much larger overall role played by whites in the election."
Those secretly progressive persons of colour again! voting down gay marriage rights. While "blaming" them for the outcome is a bit mental, pointing out their disproportionate support for it is not. And Wise is happy to point out over- and under- representation in other areas. (I'm not sure the Catholic Mexicans would have been "progressive" in this regard either.) Wise quotes Maurice Tracy who claims that:
"The fact is that black culture is homophobic because America is homophobic"
Wise adds, "it is hardly surprising that African Americans may have come to see the LGBT struggle in California as a white one, divorced from their day-to-day concerns"
So why did they vote for it then?



Incidentally, I was directed to the this site from this Babble post, where one commentor makes a notable and bizarre (and quite disgusting) attack on Orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis (whose book I've just bought):

"Islamophobia is fashionable now, backed up by high class racists like Bernard Lewis who lay out articulately and in painstaking detail nice, politically correct academic reasons as to why white westerners are uber menchen. Of course, Edward Said could probably blow Lewis out of the vile, turgid quasi intellectual waters from which he slithered, but in the end, Said is dead and, even if he had survived his battle with cancer, the man couldn't speak with a posh English accent, which is essential if you want Leftish white north Americans to pay attention to you.

His racism is counched in very subtle, very academic language.Lewis praises Islam and Arabic, while at the same time talking about a clash of civilizations, and this clash of civilizations is framed in historical and cultural terms. He never talks about Muslims stealing jobs or openly calls them barbarians. If he did pull An Anne Coulter, and say, "The Islamic hordes are at our gates, let's kill'em!" No one on the bourgeois left would listen to him, but since he doesn't a lot of us do.

Because of this, lil' Bernie is more dangerous then Coulter."

So, because Lewis does not say racist things (yet must be racist because he's broadly on the Right), he is not unracist, he is just hiding his racism. See?

The poster neatly equates race with culture, revealing the race-essentialism inherent in "progressive" thinking. The irony is that the Babble post in quesion is about how leftists can sometimes be racists, and yet all the respondents are completely blind to their own racism even while talking about it.


Babble.ca delenda est!

Well, not really. Where else would I look for a valuable insight into the progressive/regressive mind?

Here's a thread by an anti-Israel activist who is upset that people think he is against Israel.
WTF?
Yeh, I know.

Here's the screendump:



The best part is the text accompanying the name of the commenter Bacchus, "Israel Delenda Est".

Progs don't seem to like having their views characterised accurately, and seem quick to turn to the imperialist, colonialist legal profession for help ....

And the ever power-hungry mod Maysie does not like being ignored!

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Kevin Myers Strikes Again : on Islam

another good article:

IT'S interesting how Pastor Jones -- who memorably appeared in 'The Sunday Times' as "Paster Jones" -- was presented in the western media as the nut job.

But the many Muslim governments who threatened the US government about the violent consequences if he went ahead with his threat to burn the Koran were not so characterised, even though they came up with the usual old line: We are a people of peace, but if that man burns some paper, there'll be killings.

Just let me break this news to you gently. Things could get much, much worse. Come back in two years' time and perhaps you'll see what I mean. For in 2012, the Islamic world will be celebrating the 1,400th anniversary of the appearance of the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed, a visitation that turned him into a prophet and changed the world. What emotions will that anniversary unleash in the Islamic world? How will Muslims commemorate the events of 9/11 in the year 2012? And what further steps will the Western/secular world have taken in the meantime to propitiate Islam -- in the way that Islam never takes towards us infidels?

It's all pretty much one-way traffic and some of it is quite bizarre. Turkey has just passed a referendum, largely at the instigation of the EU, which will finally curtail the political power of its army. But the Turkish army is the one guarantor of secularism in Turkey. Only a truly dogmatic form of post-Christian Euro-liberalism would have imposed the moral and political values of Scandinavia on an Islamic country like Turkey. To remove the army as the final guarantor of Turkey's secular constitution is like the Alpine countries condemning dams and telling the Netherlands to get rid of theirs. Or like the EU insisting on a universal freedom of procession right across the EU, from Lisbon to Lyons to, ah, Lurgan ...

The one-size-fits-all theory -- it doesn't work, does it? Many Turkish liberals opposed the referendum proposals from the Turkish government, in part because they see the thin end of the wedge of Islamic power replacing that of the army. If the EU rologists have their way, Turkey will be in the EU within a decade or so; and then what? What are the consequences of the mass movement of Turkey's Muslims into western European cities? It'll all work out in the end, is the generally accepted piety, which continues: Once European Muslims come to enjoy the tolerance of European institutions, they'll behave just like European Christians and secularists and become culturally indistinguishable.

Which is just fine: but what is the guarantee that European Muslims will start conforming to the norms of Europe? And where is the model for such optimism? Where do Muslims in numbers behave like tolerant western Christians/secularists do everywhere, from Argentina to Austria to Australia?

For one of the characteristics of any Muslim society is that it never seems to mutate into a post-Muslim society. The great political -isms of the world -- communism, fascism, Nazism -- have vanished. Christianity is virtually dead as a political force everywhere outside the US.

But all societies that were Islamic 500 years ago remain Islamic today. When Mohammed had his vision in 612AD, all of North Africa was Christian or Jewish or polytheist; what is now Pakistan was Hindu; Afghanistan was probably polytheistic and Iran was Zoroastrian. Today, that entire land mass, from the Atlas mountains in the west to the Himalayas in the east, is now Islamic and the tiny surviving non-Muslim minorities are usually marginalised and penalised under law.

INTOLERANCE of visible, vibrant diversity is one characteristic of all Islamic societies everywhere. Another -- and usually a result of it -- is intellectual and economic failure. Across the Islamic world, there is not a single university of merit -- nor an aircraft manufacturer or pioneering IT company or even an indigenous and successful car factory (though Turkey and Malaysia were for a time talking about manufacturing an 'Islamic car', which is not merely beyond parody, but also a cruel reminder of why the words 'Islam' and 'technology' do not naturally seem to fit into the one sentence).

This is not unrelated to the other truth that Muslims across the world are queueing up to enter the Western-secular world that Islam simultaneously professes to despise. But why is it only the Christian-secularists who have this immigration? How many Muslim immigrants do China and Japan accept every year?

And, of course, western societies usually pass through paroxysms of guilt with the arrival of these aliens and assure them they can do whatever they want. So honour killings of Muslim women in Britain were categorised as "culturally sensitive crimes" and went uninvestigated for years. Somalis take Somalia -- including the joys of female circumcision -- wherever they go. Moreover, I would really love to know whether Muslims in any British cities with large Muslim populations ever sell their homes to non-Muslims. Or is property, once owned by Muslims, henceforth always to be inhabited by their co-religionists?

Pastor Jones is a mad crank. Agreed. So what do you call those who threaten homicidal violence over the deluded antics of such a creature?

kmyers@independent.ie

Homophobia in Palestine

Two good quotes

Finally, it is important to note that the unique social, historical and political situation of Palestinians—the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza and decades of discrimination against Palestinians in Israel—has created real obstacles for advancing respect for sexual and gender diversity in Palestinian society, which has not experienced the same opportunities to grow and evolve as many other societies. Al-Qaws, along with other progressive organizations, aims to combat precisely this problem and advance respect for sexual and gender diversity in the Palestinian society.

Our reality is a very challenging one, although we live in the Israeli state and should be protected by its laws, that is not the case. We live by the Palestinian ethics of honor and rules. When your family or community wants to hurt you, the state does not interfere. When these ethics are broken, the community itself takes the measures it feels are right to protect its honor. Your family can be pressured to disown you, you can get beaten, forced to marry… so as you can see, although we are not outlawed, we do pay a price, we are judged and sentenced by our own community many times.
All Israel's fault, see?

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

"McDonald's Has Killed Far More People than the Terrorists" - Michael Moore Weighs in on the GZM

Another reason to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque?

If the 'Mosque' Isn't Built, This Is No Longer America

OpenMike 9/11/10
Michael Moore's daily blog

I am opposed to the building of the "mosque" two blocks from Ground Zero.

I want it built on Ground Zero.

Why? Because I believe in an America that protects those who are the victims of hate and prejudice. I believe in an America that says you have the right to worship whatever God you have, wherever you want to worship. And I believe in an America that says to the world that we are a loving and generous people and if a bunch of murderers steal your religion from you and use it as their excuse to kill 3,000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back. And I want to put it at the spot where it was stolen from you.

There's been so much that's been said about this manufactured controversy, I really don't want to waste any time on this day of remembrance talking about it. But I hate bigotry and I hate liars, and so in case you missed any of the truth that's been lost in this, let me point out a few facts:

1. I love the Burlington Coat Factory. I've gotten some great winter coats there at a very reasonable price. Muslims have been holding their daily prayers there since 2009. No one ever complained about that. This is not going to be a "mosque," it's going to be a community center. It will have the same prayer room in it that's already there. But to even have to assure people that "it's not going to be mosque" is so offensive, I now wish they would just build a 111-story mosque there. That would be better than the lame and disgusting way the developer has left Ground Zero an empty hole until recently. The remains of over 1,100 people still haven't been found. That site is a sacred graveyard, and to be building another monument to commerce on it is a sacrilege. Why wasn't the entire site turned into a memorial peace park? People died there, and many of their remains are still strewn about, all these years later.

2. Guess who has helped the Muslims organize their plans for this community center? The JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER of Manhattan! Their rabbi has been advising them since the beginning. It's been a picture-perfect example of the kind of world we all want to live in. Peter Stuyvessant, New York's "founder," tried to expel the first Jews who arrived in Manhattan. Then the Dutch said, no, that's a bit much. So then Stuyvessant said ok, you can stay, but you cannot build a synagogue anywhere in Manhattan. Do your stupid Friday night thing at home. The first Jewish temple was not allowed to be built until 1730. Then there was a revolution, and the founding fathers said this country has to be secular -- no religious nuts or state religions. George Washington (inaugurated around the corner from Ground Zero) wanted to make a statement about this his very first year in office, and wrote this to American Jews:

"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy -- a policy worthy of imitation. ...

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens ...

"May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants -- while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

3. The Imam in charge of this project is the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. Read about his past here.

4. Around five dozen Muslims died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Hundreds of members of their families still grieve and suffer. The 19 killers did not care what religion anyone belonged to when they took those lives.

5. I've never read a sadder headline in the New York Times than the one on the front page this past Monday: "American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?" That should make all of us so ashamed that even a single one of our fellow citizens should ever have to worry about if they "belong" here.

6. There is a McDonald's two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald's has killed far more people than the terrorists.

7. During an economic depression or a time of war, fascists are extremely skilled at whipping up fear and hate and getting the working class to blame "the other" for their troubles. Lincoln's enemies told poor Southern whites that he was "a Catholic." FDR's opponents said he was Jewish and called him "Jewsevelt." One in five Americans now believe Obama is a Muslim and 41% of Republicans don't believe he was born here.

8. Blaming a whole group for the actions of just one of that group is anti-American. Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. Should Oklahoma City prohibit the building of a Catholic Church near the site of the former federal building that McVeigh blew up?

9. Let's face it, all religions have their whackos. Catholics have O'Reilly, Gingrich, Hannity and Clarence Thomas (in fact all five conservatives who dominate the Supreme Court are Catholic). Protestants have Pat Robertson and too many to list here. The Mormons have Glenn Beck. Jews have Crazy Eddie. But we don't judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos. Unless they're Methodists.

10. If I should ever, God forbid, perish in a terrorist incident, and you or some nutty group uses my death as your justification to attack or discriminate against anyone in my name, I will come back and haunt you worse than Linda Blair marrying Freddy Krueger and moving into your bedroom to spawn Chucky. John Lennon was right when he asked us to imagine a world with "nothing to kill or die for and no religion, too." I heard Deepak Chopra this week say that "God gave humans the truth, and the devil came and he said, 'Let's give it a name and call it religion.' " But John Adams said it best when he wrote a sort of letter to the future (which he called "Posterity"): "Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it." I'm guessing ol' John Adams is up there repenting nonstop right now.

Read the rest here.

Moore seems to confuse secularism with atheism, a common liberal error. Secularism does not produce "no religious nuts" but rather more. Bear in mind, that is not a slur; all religious people are considered "nuts" by the liberal elite. I imagine the Founding Father had a bit more respect for religion than that.

Some notes on Moore's piece:

1. In Moore's paragraph 1, he completely misses the point; nobody objects to Muslims praying at the Burlington Coat Factory. I do agree with him that the 9/11 site should be a memorial park, though.

2. Tolerance has nothing to do with it.

3. He may be nice, but has made some disturbing statements in the past. And what does niceness have to do with it?

4. Again, so what?

5. Muslims "belong" just fine, but many of them may have to ask themselves why they cut themselves off from the rest of America. Self-exclusion is nobody else's fault.

6. Hmmm.

7. Who is blaming Muslims for the recession? First I've heard of it.

8. See 1.

9. Pat Robertson and Glenn Beck don't fly planes into buildings.

10. John Lennon (allegedly) funded terrorists. And I don't believe in ghosts.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Multiculturalism Trumps Feminism. Again.

My favourite feminist Laurie Penny has written a new article at the New Statesman, leading me to question whether I actually understand feminism at all.

She reports on the Sabbar Kushur verdict, where an Israeli Arab was charged with 'rape by deception' after lying to an Israeli Jew about his ethnicity. Laurie's argument is interesting. First she castigates the victim for her "racism". And then attacks the "chauvinist" system for dropping an initial charge of rape in favour of the deception charge. The charge was altered because the woman has an allegedly questionable past, as well as having endured a "lifetime" of sexual violence, and the prosecution was reluctant to put her on the stand.

Penny sees this as evidence of male oppression, but in reality reflects the notorious difficulty of prosecuting rape cases.

"This changes much about the story - but nothing about its racist ramifications. Even if the victim herself could be conclusively shown to have told the entire truth about her experiences, this would not for a second change the fact that the verdict given by the Jerusalem district court was scored with ugly cultural assertions about race, religion and fear of miscegenation.

The judge in the case declared that the sex was consensual, but that the woman never would have agreed to it had she known that Kushur wasn't Jewish."
Where miscegenation comes into it I have no idea. (And I must refer to a previous post of my own showing a ShiaTV cartoon teaching young Muslim girls to stick to their own.)

Was the decision "scored with ugly cultural assertions about race"? Er, no. It upheld the right of a woman to decide with whom she has sex - a right I had assumed was dear to feminists.

Penny quotes Dr Golbarg Bashi, Professor of Iranian Studies at Rutgers:
"What is the difference between lynching young black men in the Southern United States on the mere assumption of having 'laid hands on a white woman' and criminalizing a Palestinian man for having done the same to a white Ashkenazi woman?"
A lot actually. In the former case the sex was presumably consensual, with the white girl having no illusions as to the ethnicity of her lover. In the latter, a man (who is actually rather white -see photo) deceived a woman about his ethnicity.

One commentor on the story had this to say:

Elizabeth
12 September 2010 at 21:13

First of all, it was known when the verdict became public in July that this charge of "rape by deception" was a result of a plea bargain and that the original charges were rape and indecent assault. The media and anti-Israeli bloggers jumped the gun and accused Israel of being a racist state.

Kashur was convicted of a crime that he confessed to in a plea bargain - rape by deception. The minimum time in jail in Israel for forcible rape is 4 years, and rapists usually get more. Therefore, even if you judge this sentence based solely on the "rape by deception" charges, it is not a harsh sentence. If you read the verdict in full (7 pages) and not just selective quotes from it you'll see that it mentions race only twice in the verdict. The rest of it is focused on the fact that Kashur lied about being single and wanting a serious relationship.

As a feminist, I'd think you might use this case as an opportunity to show how this is another example of rape culture - where the victim is destroyed on the stand in order to serve the interest of the rapist. Where the victim is mocked in Israeli and world media for being foolish to sleep with a man after barely knowing him, when it turns out she was emotionally unstable.

You're welcomed to read more about this case here (includes full translation of the original Haaretz/HaIr story)

http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/09/05/israel-rape-by-decept...

She is the victim here, not Kashur.


While I fully understand Penny's argument, I cannot see how a feminist could make it. For me, it's just another example of "Anti-racism" trumping the rights of women, and one particular woman who has every right to decide who gets to sleep with her.

Dear Muslims

Dear Muslims

As a Westerner I've noticed your increased presence in our countries. As such, and given that our governments have not provided you with any kind of welcome package, I'd like to offer a few words of encouragement.

You may have noticed that our Western nations are far more prosperous than your own former countries. There is a reason for this. The reason is not "imperialism", or "colonialism", no matter how many times you have heard this from your Imam or seen it on Al-Jazeera. It is because of our belief in freedom and the ability of our culture to create wealth.

The reason we have this wealth, alongside the growing developments in technology and science, as well breakthroughs in medicine and engineering, is because our culture promotes and cultivates these things. We have had to learn this behaviour, and it has taken a long and painful few centuries to come to the stage we are at.

And so, you are very welcome to settle here, in order to escape from your repressive, backward-looking, poverty-inducing regimes.

But we are not interested in becoming like them. In any way, shape or form.

We do not want Sharia Law, because we do not want to be poor, backwards-looking, and anti-intellectual. We don't even want to hear about it. Becoming poor, backward and rejecting modernity is not in our vocabulary. It is not an option we even want to have. It does not even fall into our category of "multicultural" to be like that.

When you are here, please take the time to enjoy your new-found freedom. Take a moment to appreciate what makes our countries different from yours.

Try to engage with us, as you will likely find that living the way you did in your former country will prevent you from enjoying the lifestyles of those around you. Many of your countrymen have done so. Considering such successful individuals 'apostates' and insisting on sticking to the 'old ways' will probably not advance you or your family in any way.

You will be free to practise your religion as you see fit, but bear in mind that obeying some of its precepts may put you at odds with both the law of the land and most of your Western neighbours. It may benefit you to take a more circumspect view of those precepts, as is the approach generally recommended in our culture.

So, try to learn the ropes, take some time to settle in and appreciate the benefits of living in a modern, multicultural, tolerant, prosperous society, and you'll find people very welcoming and friendly. But a word of advice: Sharia Law? Best keep it to yourself. We are not interested.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Some of the Joys of Professional Journalism....

.... include getting paid twice for the same article.

Alison O'Riordan of the Irish Independent expects her readers not to notice, perhaps?

This article appeared in June 2009 and this one in March 2010. Both are personal pieces on her ill-fated apartment purchase, just before the Irish property crash in 2008. But what strikes the reader is the cut'n'paste quality of the writing:

IT was supposed to be the most exciting time of my life -- instead I've endured sleepless nights and bouts of anxiety and regret since that fateful day when I signed away my life without really knowing what I was getting into.
The sleepless nights and bouts of anxiety will continue but hindsight is a very exact science and I can do nothing about that fateful day when I signed away my life and effectively put myself into my own financial prison.
I now see my apartment devalue massively on a daily basis. Hooke & MacDonald have said 40 per cent is the typical price drop for new houses and apartments in Dublin
I now see my apartment devalue massively on a daily basis.

Hooke and McDonald have said the typical price drop for apartments in city-centre locations is 40 per cent.

Trapped in a negative equity nightmare after dreams of city apartment living turned sour

trapped in negative equity with my dreams of city-apartment living turned sour.

And so on.

I have slightly less sympathy now :)



George Bernard Shaw, Socialists on Eugenics and Hitler

Clumsy title, but you'll find this either frightening or fascinating depending on how you look at it. Here's GBS defending Hitler and calling for a "humane gas" to wipe out the parasites of society.


Great Response to Israel- Haters

I've been following various contributions by IPSC members on the Irish website indymedia.ie and one defender of Israel (derided as being in the pay of Tel Aviv of course) named Frank Adam has tirelessly laid out the case for Israel. A segment of his latest response is, I thought, worth a reprint here:

The only reason "Palestine " gets so much air time is because it is the only subject the whole Arab World can agree on and use as a political lightening conductor (and you fall for it) from its own vicious in-fighting which has nothing to do with Israel. In OD's life, Arabs have killed two million min and he has to explain why he is so bothered about Palestiine but not the others: first million in the Iraq / Iran war of the 1980's half and half to Iran and Iraq; then at least half a million in Algerian civil wars of the 90's and within their War of independence about which a whole Arab generation bragged that "Algeria is the country of the million martyrs" while being discreet that half were from internecine in-fights; Nasser threw away 60 000 men in the Yemen in an adventure which is thought to have killed 200 000 locals and Saudi backed the Eritrean War of Independence and its own adventure in Muscat and Oman which Britain defeated. The Syrian induced Lebanese civil wars killed 100 000 in the 70's and Syria killed 20 000 "Moslem Brothers" in the Hama rebellion besides the Kurdish rebellions in Turkey and Iraq. It is really pathetic that Turkey gets het up about 9 twits who set out to get themselves killed for a publicity stunt - and correspondents fall for it across the World while Turkey kills Kurdish rebellious Moslems every year since the fifites if not before. Oh! Do not forget the Sudan where Darfur is a sub campaign of Arab Moslem oppression of the southern Christians and pagans costing 2 or 3 millions dead since independence in 56.

Get outraged about Arab violence proportionately and consider that it is a tantrum against the entire modern world - of which Israel is a minimal part, but I can understand that as another small country IPSC can only take on a small part of the Arab problem of which 9/11, Lebanon and Iraq are parts as well. Reproaching Syria, and Libya which sent agents to offer poisoned sweets to the children of its exiles, might be just a bit more really risky.
Right on, Frank.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Swedish Democrat tortured by Fascist Thugs

And by Fascist, I of course mean "Anti-Fascist Action".

Tundra Tabloids has the story.

With knife threats they forced themselves into the apartment where in about 20 minutes they were torturing David with a knife, for example, a neck scratch and cut a swastika on his forehead. Leftist extremists, who spoke in an Arab-like language and Swedish [...] threatened David because he participated in the Square meeting together with their leftist counterparts [...], also took the chance to steal David's computer and money before they disappeared.

Liberals Flee to Canada!

heh :)

From The Manitoba Herald

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The recent actions of the Tea Party are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray, and to agree with Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.

Canadian border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

“I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,” said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield , whose acreage borders North Dakota . The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?”

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields. “Not real effective,” he said. “The liberals still got through and Rush annoyed the cows so much that they wouldn’t give any milk.”

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves.

“A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions,” an Ontario border patrolman said. “I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though.”

When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.

In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half- dozen young vegans in powdered wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove that they were alive in the ’50s. “If they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age,” an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and are renting all the Michael Moore movies. “I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can’t support them,” an Ottawa resident said. “How many art-history majors does one country need?”

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada , Vice President Biden met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals. A source close to President Obama said, “We’re going to have some Paul McCartney and Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might even put some endangered species on postage stamps. The President is determined to reach out,” he said.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Freda Hughes, Poster Girl for Ireland's Anti-Israel Hate


Here she is, the chairperson of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Jewfinder general for Ireland, possibly Europe's most anti-Israel country. Her "Facebook likes" are a cocktail of leftwing organisations and causes, including one called "Intifada Palestine", whose website can be found here.


The reason I am posting on Ms.Hughes is that she made a speech at Tony Blair's recent trip to Dublin, where she accused Israel of entering the peace talks in poor faith, from a "position of power" as she calls it. She doesn't like Tony Blair being involved in the peace process because he likes Israel, and as we all know, the only real lovers of peace are those who hate Israel and want it destroyed. Right?

Other than that, she blathered at length about "Zionist oppression" and the "apartheid regime".

The photo comes from here, where the IPSC encourages the boycott of all Israeli goods. Here, Hughes declares that
"Israel's treatment of Palestinians amounts to nothing short of Apartheid"
Other history buffs were present too:

"Brendan Archbold said, "The parallels between the old Apartheid regime of South Africa and the state of Israel are quite striking. Just as South African forces shot and killed their own people in Sharpeville and Uitenhage, so too do the Israeli military adopt a shoot-to-kill policy"
Shooting ones own citizens makes a country an "Apartheid State" then, does it? Hamas, take note.

The funny thing about these "striking parallels", is that nobody in the IPSC campaign actually explains them. Archbold adds:
"Just as Israel models itself on the old racist regime in South Africa, so too must we must model our response on the boycott policy that contributed so much to the ending of Apartheid"
The lazy thinking behind such statements is self-evident, and explains why nobody even bothers to make rational arguments. The parallels between Israel and the old South Africa are so shallow and tentative that it's far easier for the rational person to think of things they don't have in common.

Freda Hughes is representative of this lazy, shallow thinking. Her blindly leaping on the IPSC cause is just a part of a broader anti-everything agenda. Singling out Israel for unique criticism seems to require no explanation at all for the IPSC and its supporters. Not nice being singled out for criticism, is it Freda?

A Very Canadian Story

h/t BlazingCatFur

This story from the National Post has everything a PC goon could hope for: a woman of colour fighting the Evil White Males and trying to get the HRT to force them to give her a job. Priceless.

Windsor law dean candidate alleges racism

"She claims the school found her “threatening” because of her intentions to “do more than pay lip service to equity” by addressing the “distinct contrast” between the diverse student population and the “white male leadership.”"

A law professor is asking the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to force the University of Windsor to appoint her dean of law, after her candidacy was spoiled by accusations of plagiarism and, she claims, racism and sexism.

Emily Carasco, a one-time NDP candidate who teaches family and immigration law at the university, is also seeking payments for “injury to dignity” of $60,000 from the school, and $15,000 from her colleague who raised the accusation, hate-speech expert Richard Moon.

In her complaint to the HRTO, Prof. Carasco alleges that Prof. Moon “sabotaged” her candidacy in a “personal attack,” with “overblown, hearsay-based allegations of plagiarism,” which the school used as a “convenient pretext” to reject her candidacy with “indecent haste.” All of this, she alleges, was motivated by racism and sexism, and the school’s refusal to accept a woman of colour as a leader.

She claims the school found her “threatening” because of her intentions to “do more than pay lip service to equity” by addressing the “distinct contrast” between the diverse student population and the “white male leadership.”

Her complaint includes a list of all Windsor Law deans back to 1967, of which she says only one was not a white man and she left the post early.

“The University and Faculty of Law leadership remain in the hands of white males,” Prof. Carasco claims, creating a “culture of privilege which white men expect to have continue, and will defend with impunity.”

She claims the alleged sexism and racism behind her rejection is “particularly hard to swallow in a context where I am surrounded by individuals who claim that they understand and live by the values that underlie human rights law.”

The school, now without a law dean since July, has started a new search, which Prof. Carasco is asking the HRTO to block until her complaint is resolved.

Most unusual, though, is her request for an order appointing her dean for a five-year, renewable term, which is likely beyond the tribunal’s practical power.

Prof. Carasco was one of two people on a short list created by the law school’s search committee, which included a judge, a member of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, visible minorities and women, including the chair, Kathleen McCrone. After months of interviews and debate beginning last year, the committee recommended neither candidate, forcing the school to start fresh.

The other failed candidate, lawyer Scott Fairley, said the process seemed to him rigorous and fair, with no sign of racism. He said the process was “structurally very transparent and very public, almost to the point of paralysis.”

“The only odd thing was the committee choked at the end,” he said. “This was a hugely expensive and time-consuming process, and the university was left with nothing at the end.”

The scandal began in March, near the scheduled end of the search process, when Prof. Moon, who was not on the search committee, contacted the chair to describe a “very serious” accusation of plagiarism in a 2006 book co-authored by Prof. Carasco called Immigration and Refugee Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary, parts of which had to be recalled from the publisher and rewritten by another co-author.

Prof. Moon, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Windsor, is best known for his 2008 report to the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommending the end of its hate speech mandate.

His note suggested the committee seek out the original chapters to see for themselves the “sources that were not properly referenced,” according to Prof. Carasco’s complaint.

One of Prof. Carasco’s co-authors on the book was Prof. Moon’s wife, University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin, a prominent advocate for Omar Khadr.

“Professor Moon’s reasons for making these spurious allegations at the eleventh hour are highly suspicious,” Prof. Carasco wrote, given that he heard them from Prof. Macklin long ago. “[H]e raised them at a time and in a manner that would do maximum damage to my reputation and candidacy.”

Prof. Carasco’s explanation of the alleged plagiarism was that another co-author raised it over email while she was overseas, and that she consented to have him rewrite parts of her chapter.

This co-author, University of Victoria law professor Donald Galloway, “made substantial alterations to the galley proofs of my chapter, removing my material outlining the history of racism in Canada’s immigration policy.” She said her own recent review of this episode “disclosed no problems” and showed she in fact made “voluminous attributions” to the author of the allegedly plagiarized passages, Ottawa journalist Valerie Knowles, who has written two histories of Canadian immigration.

Prof. Carasco said she was the only person of colour among the four co-authors, and now believes that Prof. Galloway’s “focus on the attribution issue” was an excuse for him to “remove material on racism which he believed should not have been included.”

Prof. Galloway could not be reached on Thursday.

Prof. Moon’s lawyer, Freya Kristjanson, denied the allegations of racism and sexism, and said his client raised his concerns in the appropriate manner, “motivated by genuine concern for academic integrity.”

University of Windsor spokeswoman Holly Ward said the allegations are a surprise, and are taken very seriously. She said the school has hired lawyer Raj Anand, a former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to prepare a response.

The call for applicants said the new dean should be a “distinguished academic” with administrative experience. It also expressed the school’s openness to candidates from “traditionally marginalized groups.”

Prof. Carasco, who was born in Bombay and grew up in Uganda, studied law at Makerere University in Kampala, then fled as a refugee in 1972, shortly after dictator Idi Amin took power. She has two degrees from Harvard Law School and has been a Canadian citizen since 1983.

She ran for the federal NDP in 1993 against Liberal veteran Herb Gray, and has served on Ontario’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. One newsworthy episode in her past role as human rights commissioner for the University of Windsor — and author of the school’s human rights policy — involved her vowing to punish whoever was responsible for a poster that showed a faculty member’s face superimposed on a picture of Adolf Hitler.

In other words, they quickly figured out she's a race-baiting huckster who'll spend all her (highly paid) time 'fighting' her own pet causes. She also managed to prove she has no idea what Human Rights are, as her running to the HRT demonstrates.