Tuesday, November 30, 2010

RTE Frontline with Marc Coleman and Richard Boy Parrot

This evening's RTE Frontline programme -which I've never watched before in my life - featured one of the founders of Ireland's new National Forum, Marc Coleman, and I thought I'd give it a watch to see what the man is like in person. Having read through the economic programme of the hastily- and recently- renamed right-wing think-tank (it was originally the National Alliance. Oops), I had equally hastily dismissed it as opportunistic populism but was quite prepared to give Coleman a hearing.

The main reason being that he is just so right in so many areas, and his no-nonsense, pro-Capitalist stance appeals to proper Liberals such as myself. Coleman has also been busily reaching out to left-wing groups, something I myself have a tendency to do, and has been similarly rebuffed, but nonetheless feels that his ideas and economic plan are the best for the country, including for the most vulnerable. I happen to agree, in fact, and Ireland as a whole is pretty vulnerable right now, given the recent presence of the IMF and their delightfully "helpful" plan to bail Ireland out with high-interest loans, on the condition we use a large chunk of our own savings to do it.

Anyway, I was impressed with Marc. His contempt for the mainstream political parties accurately reflects the anger of the public in general towards their inept political class, and his solutions are fiscally conservative and sensible, and most importantly, Capitalist. While bailing out the useless loan-retailers we call banks is the main occupation of the governing party, Fianna Fail, true Capitalists are calling for debt-equity swaps and other fancy ways of telling the creditors they may not get their investments back.

Criticisms of the National Forum? Just one really, but a very important one. They're not really very libertarian, in spite of the rhetoric. There's lots of nationalistic mumblings about a "new republic" and our language and culture being preserved and whatnot, enough to make the whole thing sound, well, like populism. Populism* is, of course, popular, but that's not reason enough to engage in it. You can't realistically be on everyone's side, as Coleman and his organisation seem to want to be. The section entitled "Our Vision" presents a point-by-point series of statements on the perceived shortcomings of the country, with a set of solutions that present anything but "Politics based on clear values rather than just catch-all consensus".

Where our country currently stands:
  • People feel abandoned by government, politics and churches
  • Our sovereignty and national pride damaged
  • Taxpayers bailing out failed banks and an inefficient state
  • A political consensus that backs an unaffordable Croke Park deal
  • An electoral and political system unfit for purpose
  • Contrary to the myth, a high tax economy
  • The nuclear Family discriminated against in our tax and welfare code
  • Consumers & taxpayers sold out to vested interests by consensus cop-out politics
  • The clear failure of partition, north & south – especially in Donegal
  • A criminal justice system overdue for reform
  • Our native culture drowning in mediocrity. Our Gaeltacht heartland dying
  • A ¼ million citizen unemployed. Immigration concentrated on too few sectors

Having said all that, they present some very good ideas which may at some point form the basis of a new political party, and one that I will look very closely at becoming a part of. Time will tell....



*You can't consistently believe in the Free Market and think that we need a strong welfare system as well, which is what a populist might claim to do. We need some good old Protestant simul justus et peccator, whereby we honestly tell people we don't like the welfare system but we won't take it down, that we believe in private healthcare but the public system can stay for the time being. It's pragmatic, and it's not perfect, and it's honest. It accepts the reality that too many people are dependent on the system for us to destroy it overnight. And while we have taxes, we might as well spend them on something that helps people rather than white elephant projects and Big Government Ideas.

In short, Ireland is going to have a mix of right and left for a while to come, there's no point pretending it's anything but. I'm not saying the National Forum does this, but it can be dangerous to stray into territory when you pretend that the differences between left and right don't exist - and the history of the twentieth century taught us that you can't claim to be both.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Leftists Get Behind Islamic Banking

What's most disturbing (to me) about this is that it's being held at my old University. Others will no doubt be amused by the attempt to introduce Sharia banking as an ethical alternative to the failed banking system that has bankrupted Ireland, but the Islamists haven't yet met a crisis they couldn't exploit.

FOSIS is, incidentally, the Muslim Students' society and their website is here. FOSIS' alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood and support for Hamas is revealed here at Harry's Place, which includes a video of the conference's keynote speaker, Dr Haitham al Haddad, vocalising his support for Hamas.

*******

Islamic finance & banking: A solution to Irelands financial fiasco!

In light of the major decisions taken by the Irish government which has largely divided our nation over with many critics have come out including former Irish Taoiseach John Bruton et al (some of those articles are included below) and even in other countries like France where Eric Cantona has set up an international bank protest which is to take place on the 7th December 2010 and has attracted a lot of attention

Islamic finance & banking: A solution to Irelands financial fiasco!
Islamic finance & banking: A solution to Irelands financial fiasco!

The cost to the Irish government of the bank rescues, NAMA and a large public sector borrowing requirement to fund current and capital spending has led by late 2010 to a per capita external debt of over $535,000. This represents some 1,305% of Ireland's annual GDP, making it the most indebted country in the world! The next most indebted country was the United Kingdom which owed 428.8% of its GDP.

There is an interesting event on next week on friday at 6pm in Trinity College Dublin which the MSA (Muslim Student Association), the Department of theology & religions & one of its lecturer [Alongside FOSIS Ireland] is hosting about Islamic finance & banking with an academic speaker who studied at the world renowned university SOAS.

It is hoped that this event will add to the academic debate on the current economic and financial crisis that is haunting the world and hopefully share some food for thought on the options of Islamic banking & finance which has been argued by academics and intellectuals alike to be historically more long term stable and just then the current status quo of banking.

Islamic finance & banking: A solution to Irelands financial fiasco!

Time & Date: 6pm, Friday 26th November 2010

Venue: Robert Emmett Theatre, Arts Block, Trinity College Dublin

Speaker: Dr./Shaykh Haitham al-Haddad
(UK & Saudia Arabia)
Contributor to the outstanding book ''Islamic Banking and Finance: What It Is and What It Could Be''
(Availiable on Amazon)

Shaykh/Dr. Haitham al-Haddad is one of the mainstream UK based scholars, a senior advisor on the Islamic Sharia Council, UK and currently holds the position of chair and operations advisor for the Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF). He has studied under the tutelage of world-renown scholars such as Shaikh Ibn Baz, Shaikh Ibn Jibreen and Shaikh Ibn Aqeel. Shaykh Haitham holds a BSc Honours in Law and Sharia from Omdurman University in Khartoum, Sudan. He also holds a Bsc in Computer Science from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Saudi Arabia) and a PhD in Islamic Law at SOAS, London. Shaykh Haitham is qualified to deliver religious verdicts with specialisation in Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh), Islamic law and Islamic finance.

For further information please contact ireland.communications@fosis.org.uk or call 0851637474 & media queries on ireland.media@fosis.org.uk
[Note: media interviews with speaker availiable]

Related Link: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#

Indymedia: How Leftists Argue

I should say "some" leftists, as I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush. Indymedia, as you'll know, I consider a very special brand of people with a tendency to be divorced from reality in a way other left-wingers are not. Indymedia is run by the WSM - the Workers Solidarity Movement - who are more like anarchists than socialists, but who seem to have a soft spot for the more aggressive forms of Irish nationalism and have never met a Western democratic country they didn't hate. So here is me asking a few polite questions over at their website:

warning: language not suitable for sensitive souls.

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Sun Nov 14, 2010 16:30Report this post to the editors


• The Gardai should not be enabled to harass people on the base of their ‘racial profile’
They're not.

• Irish citizens should benefit from the EU Free Movement Directive (2004/38EC) and have the right to be joined by non-Irish family members in Ireland

why? why should non-Irish people be given a statutory right to live in Ireland, taking the decision away from the relevant authorities. So-called "family reunification" has been a disaster where it exists.

• Long term residency in Ireland should be guaranteed to every student.

Again, why?

author by Dan Dalypublication date Sun Nov 14, 2010 17:38Report this post to the editors

Tim Johnston says "So-called "family reunification" has been a disaster where it exists."-

What countries are you talking about? Certainly not the U.S.

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Mon Nov 15, 2010 17:26Report this post to the editors

don't know about the US, but in Canada and the UK and even Denmark, the policy of family reunification is open to all sorts of abuse, and it takes the decision on new immigrants out of the hands of the authorities and gives it to recent immigrants, which means that being 'related' to someone living in Ireland is the primary criteria for being granted status.

author by WeaselWordspublication date Mon Nov 15, 2010 18:28Report this post to the editors

our problems are not caused by a few immigrants despite what those in power would like us to focus on. They are caused by white collar crime and corruption. Bank bailouts are a form of welfare. Corporate welfare. The bill for that dwarfs any meagre handouts given to a few immigrants. Corporate welfare is what needs to be cut not social welfare.

Tim, you are just trying to get people to fight among themselves and blame immigrants for their problems whilst letting the real bastards get away scott free. Typical neo con weasel tactic. How do folks like you sleep at night. Probably very soundly no doubt as sociopaths generally do.

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Mon Nov 15, 2010 19:56Report this post to the editors

Typical ignorant response. Instead of making any attempt to back anything up, just launch rabidly insane abuse at the one who asks simple questions.

Who said immigrants are causing the problems? Can't Ireland have more than one problem at a time??!!

author by francescopublication date Mon Nov 15, 2010 20:20Report this post to the editors

While it is completely wrong to blame Ireland's present problems on immigration, it is nevertheless correct to say that immigration, if perceived to be abusive or unlawful, is particularly unhelpful at a time when our society is under stress from the nefrarious activities of delinquent bankers, incompetent politicians, and compliant regulators.

Family-reunification exists in Ireland on similar terms to that applying elsewhere in the liberal democracies (the only nations on earth which observe the rule of law, in any case). It applies in a discretionary manner to successful asylum seekers (refugees). It certainly doesn't apply anywhere to illegal immigrants who may have been given residency under some administrative immigration-amnesty (such as certain mothers with Irish born children post the citizenship referendum). Of course, EU nationals - including third country refugees legally recognized as such by any EU member-state, have a legal right to be joined by spouses and under-age children and to reside anywhere within the EU. Otherwise, under international law, there is a right of family reunification only in a country where all the relevant family members have a legal right to reside. This rule applies equally to Irish people and to foreign nationals.

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Mon Nov 15, 2010 20:34Report this post to the editors

Thankyou for the explanation. So what is the new law trying to correct? As I understand (and experience) it, Irish citizens currently have huge difficulty getting citizenship for their wives (including my own and several people I know). How could this conceivably be made any more difficult?

author by HasbaraJohnsonpublication date Mon Nov 15, 2010 21:07Report this post to the editors

you are kinda ignorant and rabid yourself Tim. What with your regular support for Israeli and british murderers and your anti immigrant stance whilst blithely ignoring the real problem children of the current crisis. I know your type, you aren't fooling anyone

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Mon Nov 15, 2010 23:35Report this post to the editors

I suspect that's part of your overall problem, if you see people in terms of "types", not as individuals. If your worldview is based in caricatures - which, I gather, yours is - then shrieking accusations at people you know little about must be second nature. All people who don't hold the party line are evil right-wingers, in true Stalinist fashion?
So, then, having got that out of the way, what "anti-immigrant stance" are you referring to?
The stance of questioning the OP's demands and asking for clarification?

author by thimmehpublication date Fri Nov 19, 2010 08:17Report this post to the editors

A selection of quotes from Tim:
--------------------------------------------

"Typical ignorant response. Instead of making any attempt to back anything up, just launch rabidly insane abuse at the one who asks simple questions."

"I suspect that's part of your overall problem, if you see people in terms of "types", not as individuals. If your worldview is based in caricatures - which, I gather, yours is - then shrieking accusations at people you know little about must be second nature. All people who don't hold the party line are evil right-wingers, in true Stalinist fashion?"

"..shrieking accusations at people you know little about "

-------------------------------------------
"Irish citizens currently have huge difficulty getting citizenship for their wives (including my own and several people I know)."

"So-called "family reunification" has been a disaster where it exists."

--------------------------------------------

Ironic!

I've kept it to this one thread and left out all the pro zionist "shrieking" out of love and forgiveness for all humanity. Even the "johnsons" among us!

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Mon Nov 22, 2010 20:26Report this post to the editors

I don't see the irony.

I don't get the johnson joke and my name is not johnson.

You still haven't backed up any of your hysterical claims.

author by Fuck off TIMpublication date Mon Nov 22, 2010 23:03Report this post to the editors

yer a racist fucking prick - just fuck off back under whatever smelly rock you crawled out from under, you sad excuse for a human- YOU never saw an underdog that you didn't immediately hate, did you TIm? you cunt

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Mon Nov 22, 2010 23:41Report this post to the editors

LOL

author by ROFLMAOpublication date Mon Nov 22, 2010 23:44Report this post to the editors

STFU & F.Off

take a hint, ya clueless gimp

Friday, November 26, 2010

Gee, Whaddya Know?

h/t Closet Conservative

Terrorists motivated by ideology and not by "desperation"
He rejected the widely-held view of suicide bombers as motivated by personal pain, describing it as an insult to terrorists. “As for talking about psychological, social and economic factors and other motives for martyrdom, it is wrong to associate Palestinian martyrs with these factors since this underestimated the real value of a martyr and makes him/her some kind of social suicide,” said Banat, a teacher at the Al-Quds University in Jerusalem.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Australian Niqab-wearer Screams Racism - Gets a Smackdown

I love this story. It reveals the hypocrisy of veil-wearers and busts the myth that they're some kind of victims. The woman involved clearly knew how to scam the system, and having it backfire on her is a joy to watch.

The sad thing is that had this incident not been captured on film, she would have succeeded in destroying a decent man's career.

It also further illustrates the point that, if you're so 'traditional' that you have to wear an Islamic body bag, you shouldn't be driving a car.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The 1% Network

The 1% Network is an Irish organisation named after the 1% of the population (that's 33,000 people) who are millionaires and own 34% of Ireland's wealth, according to a 2007 report from Bank of Ireland called "Wealth of the Nation". It exists, quite simply, to complain about the fact that 1% of the population owns 34% of the wealth and demand the redistribution of said wealth. It's run by the Workers Solidarity Movement, one of the more anarchistic of Ireland's smaller socialist parties.

According to the website,
It is clearly both wrong and immoral that a small number of people should hold onto such vast wealth while the rest of us face savage attacks on our living standards and on our public services.
"Clearly"? I'd want to debate that point, but only because it makes no difference to me what some millionaires have, as long as they didn't acquire it illegally. Furthermore,
More importantly, this concentration of wealth in a tiny number of hands means that political power is also concentrated in the hands of this elite.
Does it mean that? In a Western democracy? I'm not so sure that it does, but the author makes no attempt to explain why it would.

Despite the attempt to clothe redistributive mob-rule policies in the language of equality and fairness, the 1% Network runs a "Treasure Hunt" around the wealthier parts of Dublin to highlight their cause - and I have to say it's quite clever.

This story at -ugh - Indymedia describes the walking tour and its halloween-themed events, including "zombie developers" and "ghost estate" ghosts. All round, it's very funny and gets the message across. The message being that corruption is a serious problem in Ireland and welfare-for-the-rich is still a reality. Even though The 1% Network's solution to the problem would be very different to mine, I'll gladly say that this piece of satirical peaceful protest is highly inventive and thoroughly effective.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Irish Bishop Off to Nigeria

I had to laugh at this press release from the Church of Ireland (which is still technically my religion).
Bishop Jackson is off to Nigeria to talk to the Anglicans there about "relationships and communion". But then comes the interesting part (emphasis mine):
The bishop also had a long meeting today with a visiting bishop from Zaphira State, where Sharia law holds, and discovered more about Christian witness in an interfaith context.
So, Sharia Law is an "interfaith context" now?

I sometimes wonder whether clergy are not just itching to get back to the old Roman days when the Church was being persecuted and Christians thrown to the lions. It's certainly my opinion of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who clearly believes that the C of E will do much better when it's living under Sharia.

There is definately a martyr complex at play here, or to be less polite about it, full blown masochism.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

I Really Hate Bill Maher

No link, no story, I just really, really hate him.

I accidentally watched his stand up routine for about 4 minutes and I feel ill. And homicidal at the same time.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Hats Off to Femen: Best Anti-Islamist Protest Ever!



From IOL.co.za

"Activists from the women's rights organisation Femen staged the protest in support of Iranian citizen Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, accused both of adultery and of being complicit in her husband's murder."

Photos: Reuters

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Your Tax Dollars At Prayer: The "Oldest Hate" in one of Canada's oldest Mosques

The Fur, it Blazes!

The inherent contradiction at the heart of "Anti-Racism"

Antiracism is beloved of the liberal left for a variety of reasons. It's "minority"-friendly. It demonises Conservatives (and 'white' people). It provides employment for Sociology graduates and other career do-gooders and Statist hacks. It requires lots of state interference and tax dollars to support. But most importantly, what antiracism does is provide a nice logic-bubble which makes arguing their case so much easier for antiracists, because they don't have to use actual logic.

When the recent RacismFreeEdmonton campaign faced a public backlash and was forced to remove some of its more insane theories from its site, you know - you just know - that those anti-racists sat there talking about how ignorant the public was, and how unready we all were to hear the divine truth of their theories. No doubt they blamed the education system, and the media, and the Conservative government for the fact that the public was unwilling to swallow the harsh lessons that they - the experts - had prepared for our consumption.

Because that's how elitists think.

For some members of minority groups (well, depending on the specific minority in question), it must seem natural to assume that there's some grand conspiracy of white people plotting against them at times. After all, many minority "community leaders" urge their people to stick together and form a nation within a nation almost. If you're a collectivist, it must seem natural to assume everyone else is too.

Which is why I don't understand Tim Wise. He should know better. For an African-American black nationalist, to assume all white people stick together is only a projection of his own collectivist mindset. It's wrong, but still understandable in a way. Antiracism makes that assumption (which is partly what makes it racist), that "white people" look out for each other and construct an environment where only white people prosper.

And that is the central error of anti-racism. Only a tiny minority of white people are "white nationalists" who believe they need to stick together and stay true to their race. This worldview belongs very much to a specific class of New World residents who are so badly off that to see themselves as better than some other group is an essential part of their psychology. In Europe, it can actually be described as a sort of "class analysis". Reading a lot of anti-immigration literature and blogs, there is often a sense whereby it is the ruling class that are blamed for inflicting immigrants onto the working class rather than the immigrants themselves, and I happen to largely agree with this analysis.

European nationalists, imbued as they always have been with collectivism, often blame their own ruling elites for mass immigration, and this is something that the European Left - which is so pathologically dependent on not being seen as "racist" - has been incredibly reluctant to grasp. Even though immigration provides employers with cheaper labour, increasing competition and hardship for the native working class, Socialists are having a hard time dealing with immigration as a problem worthy of analysis. In fact, the only Socialist I remember having commented on the subject told me that mass immigration will only "help redistribute wealth"!

Yes, from the working class.

The liberal elite on the other hand, loves immigration because it makes their cities oh so "colourful" and provides a range of new options for eating out. That many formerly working class areas are now no-go areas for natives and have turned into bastions of medieval culture is no skin off their rosy noses.

My point is that "white people" are often bitterly divided along class lines and that prejudices are not limited to skin colour. If two applicants arrive for a job interview, a well dressed, well-spoken man of Caribbean origin and a tracksuit-clad fellow with no education, no employer - no matter how Aryan - is going to give the job to the skobe*. And that's the truth of it. There is nobody more competitive with one another than Western white males.

The race solidarity preached by many black or Hispanic (or whatever) 'community organisers' is not matched by a similar ideology amongst the upper echelons of "white" society. There is only a sense of "suitable people", and an examination of employment patterns throughout Western countries from France to the UK to Canada will show that the category of "suitable people" includes members of every conceivable minority, because one feature of Western culture is that it is endlessly elastic and has learned (or, is learning) to judge people (largely) on merit.

To judge "white" countries for having an intricate set of societal mores, like a set of rules that must be followed to avoid being left on the sidelines, is uniquely ignorant in a way that almost rejects reality. Having emigrated twice, I know from experience that even subtle differences between largely English-speaking countries exist, which can lead to some confusion and moments where one's 'foreignness' is glaringly evident. To suggest that this is somehow unique to the "white" world is so blindingly stupid that it defies rational attempts to refute it. Go to Nigeria or Japan and see how far your "white privilege" gets you. Or China!

Every country, culture and ethnic group on the planet displays such mores. What makes the West different, one could argue, is that the presence of larger numbers of ethnic minorities that exist in Western countries compared to the rest of the world means that not being able to engage with the majority is more of a handicap, particularly when most members of minority groups are perfectly capable of engaging - and succeeding.

It is certainly true that the fairer and more inclusive society becomes, the more humiliating and shameful becomes failure within it.

In truth, it's not how different you look that invites prejudice; but it could be how different you make yourself look. It's not even about how you talk or act, but if you present yourself as part of any counterculture, you are not going to fit in.


*skobe: Skobie, n, Irish lower class oik.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Edmonton Anti-Racists get a deserved kick up the a**e

from Kathy Shaidle,

h/t Sharpe Stick

“Racism Free Edmonton” (that being the province’s capital city) declares that there is only one way to stop the “racism” that is apparently rampant across the nation.

And that is for every Caucasian person to “acknowledge your white privilege.”

That’s right: the Government of Canada is endorsing and promoting radical 1960s Maoism. Ordinary Canadians are being strongly encouraged to “accuse” themselves of “racism”
RacismFreeEdmonton is funded by the federal government and UNESCO, and explains that some great ways to stop racism would be to fill your home with pictures of persons of another race and to "form interracial friendships".

It seems us whiteys, however, are too dumb to get what "anti-racism" is all about, and the resulting backlash has led to the removal of some of the more offensive pages on the site. To us doltish peasants who have never set foot inside a Sociology department in our lives, it can seem like "anti-Racism" means to be against racism. What fools we are. "Anti-racism", as noted her on several occasions, is really about the removal of "white privilege" and the universal caucasian acknowledgement of said privilege.

Some snippets of this worldview have remained on the site, however:
Racism is a set of beliefs, attitudes and actions which either directly or indirectly assert that one race is inherently superior to another.

“Race” not only refers to biological characteristics, but is always defined by the dominant group in society.

Indeed. Defined by the dominant group. Racism, see, equals prejudice +power, and for those too slow-witted to grasp this concept, it means that only the majority can be racist -and that's us, see!

So far so good. BUT, if you happen to be a white South African or Zimbabwean, don't rest on your unracist laurels too soon. The fact that you're a minority, and in theory therefore cannot be racist, you still are, in fact, a racist. Now, this was "explained" to me by a certain anti-racist. When I say explained, what I mean is that she looked down her metaphorical nose at me and grunted that I was too stupid to understand that minorities can still be racist - so long as they're white.

While my tired brain searched in vain for a semblance of logic therein, another explained that "thousands of pages of sociological theory" had been devoted to the subject of anti-racism over the years. I suggested that if thousands of pages were required to explain it, then it probably wasn't a very good theory.

I still maintain this position.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Memorial day in the UK: Islamofascists burn poppies

A story of some sick, sick Islamofascists, from the Telegraph:

protesters burn poppy

Extreme Muslim groups marred Armistice Day in London by burning a model poppy in protest against the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Armistice Day: protesters burn poppy: Police escort the Muslim protestors into the underground train station after they began a protest in the Kensington area of London

As millions of Britons fell silent to remember those who have died in war a small group of protesters calling themselves Muslims Against Crusades held a demonstration in Kensington, West London.

Around 30 people gathered close to the junction of Exhibition Road and Kensington Road, adjacent to Hyde Park.

About 50 counter demonstrators gathered nearby but the two sides were kept apart by police.

Asad Ullah, of Muslims Against Crusades, said sparking violence "is not our intention" but added: "If it does, we are people who will defend our honour."

He said: "We are demonstrating because this day is a day of remembrance to remember every single fallen soldier, including those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"We find it disgusting that innocent people, innocent children, have been killed in an illegal and unjust war and we are demonstrating against that.

"We want the Government to pull the troops out from these countries and to stop interfering in our affairs."

Asked how many people are at the demonstration, he said there are "about 30" but more are expected.

Mr Ullah added: "We would like to have a protest closer to the memorial but it is difficult to get access. We want to break the silence and say: 'what about the silence for others that have died?"'

The Muslims Against Crusades website includes graphic images of children wounded in warfare and the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Earlier this year members of the group were involved in violent clashes with far-right groups during a troop march in Barking, east London.

We Remember

A fitting tribute from Scaramouche, succinctly put:

To all who served: thank you for our freedom.



I would like to add a personal note, in that my own father passed away this week and so 'remembering' takes on an even more poignant quality than in other years.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

UNESCO Declares the Tomb of the Patriarchs a "Mosque"

Another scandalous abuse of archaeological artefacts for political means.

h/t Holger Awakens

Palestine, UNESCO and Legal Realities

By David Singer Tuesday, November 9, 2010

The cynical Arab use of UNESCO to pass resolutions concerning two Jewish sacred and biblical sites —the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem - is part of an ongoing Arab obsession to deny any Jewish claims to sovereignty in any part of the West Bank.

Their latest attempt to hijack UNESCO also flouts UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed on 22 November 1967. That resolution recognized that there would be a termination of all states of belligerency and that the armistice lines existing at the conclusion of hostilities between the nascent Jewish State of Israel and six invading Arab armies in 1948 would be replaced by secure and recognized boundaries between Israel and its neighbours, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.

Israel and Egypt achieved this in 1979 - as did Jordan and Israel in 1994 - when they concluded peace treaties and established full diplomatic relations.

However there was one little glitch contained in both treaties. The permanent boundaries so established were without prejudice to the determination of the final status of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

This still remains the legal position in 2010. However the Arabs have made it abundantly clear for the last 43 years that they are determined to have sovereignty in the West Bank resolved completely in their favour to the total exclusion of Jewish claims to sovereignty in these areas.

Their pursuit of this objective was made abundantly clear with the recent decision of UNESCO’s Executive Board resolving that the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb

“are an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories”

This resolution represents one more insidious attempt by the Arabs to determine the final status of the West Bank as exclusively Arab territory and to deny the Jews the legal rights vested in them to settle there for the declared purpose of reconstituting their national home in accordance with Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

In arriving at its decision on 21 October - UNESCO’s Executive Board had in its possession an explanatory note presented on 19 March by 7 of its 58 member States - Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Tunisia - supporting their request to have the Board place the issue of the two sacred Jewish sites on the Board’s agenda for consideration.

That explanatory note falsely purported to represent the legal position existing in the West Bank in the following terms:

“Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory is inherently temporary and does not give the occupying power (Israel) sovereignty or title over the occupied territory. The seminal principle in international law is reflected in Article 43 of the Hague Regulations which requires the occupying power to re-establish and maintain public order and civil life for the benefit of the occupied population, and to respect existing laws and institutions in the occupied territory.”

Apart from describing the West Bank as “Palestinian territory” whilst its legal status still remains undetermined—the Arab position on the applicability and interpretation of Article 43 was totally misconceived and indeed deceptive and misleading.

Article 43 states:

“The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.”

Article 43 could not possibly have any applicability to the West Bank or the interpretation attributed to it by its Arab proponents in UNESCO for the following reasons:

  1. There was no legitimate power in the West Bank in 1967. Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank in 1950 had only been recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan and this position remained unchanged until its loss to Israel in 1967. Jordan may have been an occupying power. It certainly was not a legitimate power.
  2. The West Bank was not a “country” or recognized as part of a country in 1967. Its legal status then was—and still is—part of the 6% of land contained in the Mandate for Palestine still remaining unallocated pursuant to the provisions of the Mandate and the UN Charter.
  3. Article 43 does not mention—nor can it be reasonably interpreted as including—any obligation to “re-establish and maintain civil life for the benefit of the occupied population”

Any cursory examination of the Arabs legal claim by UNESCO’s secretariat should have resulted in an instant rebuttal of their position. That UNESCO unquestioningly swallowed such claim indicates the gullibility and lack of scrutiny of those who administer its proceedings.

Representatives from the Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic States, the African Union and the Organization of American States comprise 35 of the current 58 Board members. The passage of any anti-Israel resolution at the Board is virtually guaranteed.

This latest attempt to twist and misinterpret international law has become part of the relentless Arab effort to delegitimize Israel and deny any Jewish rights to live in the West Bank - its biblical, ancestral and legally recognized patrimony - in accordance with the unanimous decision of the League of Nations made in 1920.

Arab efforts designed to create the impression that Jewish towns and villages established in the West Bank since 1967 pursuant to such vested rights are illegal in international law is but another example of the lengths the Arabs are prepared to go in their desire to misrepresent the legal position in the West Bank and claim Arab sovereignty to the exclusion of Jewish claims.

Relying supposedly on international law to support such claims - the Arabs have no qualms in rejecting the binding legal validity of the Mandate for Palestine, the United Nations Charter and Resolution 242 as the determining pieces of international law to settle the final status of the West Bank.

The latest attempt to pull the wool over UNESCO’s eyes remains an important reminder to closely examine any purported legal claims made by the Arabs—which cannot ever be taken or accepted at face value.

source

Monday, November 8, 2010

More Racist Anti-Racist Irony!

Over at BlazingCatFur,

Where you'll learn about how being white is now a hate-crime, and other fascinating yet insane ideas!
You're guilty! Especially if you protest innocence! "Denying experiences of racism e.g. responding to a complaint of racism by stating that the experience must be imagined or exaggerated, the person is “too sensitive” or is playing the “race card”
I love it. As noted here before, anti-Racism is a classic logic bubble:

"you're a racist"

"No, I'm not."

"You've just proved it by denying your privilege"

"huh?"

"Yes, you're a racist and part of your racism is that you think you're not racist."

"but what if I'm actually not racist"

"You can't not be because you're white. White people made this society for the benefit of white people, so being white means you're racist".

"Oh. So how can I cure myself from my racism?"

"you must become an antiracist by talking about how racist you are and disparaging your culture publicly."

"But I'd still be white. right?"

"Yes, but you'd be a liberal, and that's ok".

"But liberalism is just a product of our particular white culture and society, so it must exist for the benefit of white people too?"

*head explodes*

See also Tim Wise's thoroughly racist "Open Letter to the White Right", in which he tries to make it un-racist by issuing a disclaimer about how he is only referring to some white people. Too late, fella.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Steynapolooza!

Yes I missed it. Mostly due to the high cost of flying to London, Ontario, I was unable to attend Mark Steyn's talk the other night.

A brief summary is presented here and Closet Conservative liveblogged the event. One comment attached to the first link caught my eye, and I'm reproducing it because it's probably the most factually incorrect, wacky and downright insane comment I've read in recent memory, and comes from a chap calling himself Jesusbonehead:
It's disturbing the amount of Christian-Holocaust denial among the posts. If one can not accept the real reason of the hatred of Jews (Christian theology) we are condemned to repeat such Christian-inspired moral depravities. Hitler was a god-fearing Catholic and simply enacted what Martin Luther (the Jews and their Lies) would have done had he the powers to do so. The actual Nuremberg Laws (Jew badges) were actually derived from the doctrine practiced (for 600 years) in the Papal States. Stalinism (Russian Orthodox supported) and Maoism were both religions based on blind faith in the Dear Leader and not atheist (sorry fundies). George Orwell observed correctly that ALL totalitarianisms are theocratic in nature and a product of the right.
I can't see one correct fact in there, and can only conclude it's satire. If not, I despair for the state of education in the Western world...