Ezra Gets The Jihad Bit, But It's Party Time For Steyn

Ezra Levant actually calls the lawsuit against him by Canadian Islamic Congress' Khurrum Awan a "'soft jihad' against me -- a malicious use of our western laws to censor my criticism of radical Islam in the West." He takes it seriously and for what it is. Almost.

There is no "radical" Islam. Even self-proclaimed moderate Muslims, when brought to task, cannot produce a concrete, influential body of "moderate" Muslims. They finally have to concede that Muslims are Muslims.

Still, at least Levant isn't going on about freedom of speech and expression here, since it so clear who, and what, his antagonist is.

So what is Levant going to do about Awan, and the multitude of Awans that are waiting on the sidelines? Because these lawsuits, and other forms of hostility by Muslims, are going to continue ad infinitum, as long as Muslims feel they have the strength and the numbers to do so. (Hint at tackling the problem...).

It seems like Levant is getting it, but I wouldn't bet on it just quite yet.

Meanwhile, it's party time for Mark Steyn, who's doing a fundraiser for Ezra Levant. He titles his fundraising post "Socktacular!" after the name given to Awan as a sockpuppet to the Canadian Islamic Congress. More Steyn word gymnastics as he starts his post with: "In the dying moments of our Socktastic Sockquidation Socktacular…"

But, Steyn gets it too, as he adds:

Khurrum Awan is the last sock in Mohammed Elmasry's drawer - and, as one reader put it earlier today, "Awan is the loneliest number." But he's symptomatic of the larger struggle - of the freakshow alliance between Islamist intolerance and statist social engineering.

Almost. He finishes off with:

If [Awan] ever sincerely wanted to "start that debate" he's always on about, he must know by now that he'd lose. So all he has left is semi-illiterate litigious bluster.

Actually, Awan is not losing. He got Levant all flustered again, only a year after Levant's three-year ordeal under the HRCs (the case was dismissed in August 2008). All Awan and his ilk need to do is file a  suit - after all, those Muslim agencies can foot the bill. And  Levant has to start all over again raising funds, and sounding off his battle cry.

Ezra Levant's New Lawsuit - No Surprise There

I actually have a lot of respect for Levant's
fighting spirit. He just needs to figure out what
he is really fighting.

That didn't take very long!

Ezra Levant is being sued, in a real court, with real lawyers this time.

By whom, you ask?

By a Muslim!

Well, he is Khurrum Awan. He is part of the group that filed cases with the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission against MacCleans and Mark Steyn for the excerpt they printed from Steyn's book America Alone.  

Now, Awan is suing Levant ("here's the pdf document) for the "defamatory statements that [Levant has] published on [his] blog located at the URL www.ezralevent.com."

And who will help with the fundraising for the "nuisance suit", as Levant puts it? None other than Mark Steyn. "Check in tonight  [Tuesday July 28] at midnight" writes Steyn. 

Steyn should have fond memories of Awan since he was in that famous TVO almost-non-debate with him (here is the five-part video of the TVO episode), until Steve Paikan's journalistic integrity shone through and brought Steyn over into the debating room with Awan and his two (female) stooges, who had initially refused to debate Steyn.

And one of the women made covert threats towards Mark Steyn asking him if he likes to be a martyr.

This is what I've been talking about. For Muslims, the HRCs were just a gimmick, a tool, to disrupt and disorient their opponents. Levant went through three strenuous years fighting off his HRC suit. Now, he has to sit through this charade in the guise of a "real" lawsuit.

I wonder what battle Levant will fight next, to prevent more "nuisance" suits against him, because I don’t doubt they will happen again? The HRC war is almost over, but the enemy still stands!

Silencing Speech and the Word of God

Most normal, sane, people will accept someone's criticism, and will take it for what it's worth. They won't go out of their way to silence their critic.

But, as the fraudulent Human Rights Commissions have shown here, and the Hate Crimes Bill that has passed in the U.S. Senate will show in America if it becomes law, their attempts at silencing speech is more profound than a mere response to irritation.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the most active silencers are homosexuals and Muslims.

It struck me the other day, that what they're trying to silence is the voice (the word) of God. Christians are the most common targets for homosexuals. And Muslims in Western countries, whose laws, morals and ways of life are based on God's Word, are tireless in attempting to silence this Western system, and the God that they hate.

This is not a mere problem of freedoms. Silencing speech goes deep into our spiritual core.

Honor Killings As Canadian As Maple Syrup

We’ve had quite a week of honor killing news in Canada. Three teenage girls and an older woman were dumped into the Rideau Canal by the father, mother and brother of the three girls. The story is being investigated as honor killings (although I say that it is a done deal).

Another story recounts the death by drowning of a Kingston, Ontario girl and her mother. The sister, who was also found in the pool, remains in critical condition. The news report says that none of the three knew how to swim. And all three have Muslim names.

More news from Cnews:

A psychiatry professor at Newfoundland's Memorial University who has studied so-called honour killings said he is working with Justice Canada to define the term in the hopes that it will be included in the Criminal Code.

"The legal system in Canada was not familiar up to now about the context of honour killing and now cases are coming up," said Dr. Amin Muhammad, who estimated it has surfaced in about a dozen cases in Canada.

When I read the initial sentence of this report, I thought the psychiatry professor was just your run-of-the mill Scots-Irish Canadian. But, it turns out that he is Muslim (at least by family background).

Here’s what Dr. Muhammad has to say about honor killings:

We have found psychopathic traits in people who are perpetrating [honor killings]. You know that mental illness is a taboo, a stigma, here also; people from that part of the world, they don't approach a mental health specialist.

So, the problem is not an Islam problem, by a psychiatric one. And the solution is partly to treat the honor killing as a medical problem. But Dr. Muhammad is more realistic than that and also wants it included in the Criminal Code.

Bear with me in the direction of my thoughts.

Here is what Tarek Fatah, the moderate Muslim of Canada, has to say in his provocatively titled article: "How to cure the honour killings ‘cancer’:

Not until the leadership of the Muslim clergy takes steps to end gender apartheid and misogyny will they be taken seriously when they say, "honour killing" is not permitted by Islam...

Not until Muslim clerics and imams seriously abandon their notion about women being the possession of men will we begin to address the cancer of honour killings, which take more than 5,000 lives in South Asia and the Middle East alone.

So, we have two prominent Muslim voices who say that honor killings have nothing to do with Islam per se.

Muhammed says that it is a psychiatric problem that should be treated both psychologically, and as a crime. And Fatah lays the blame on misogynistic Muslim clerics.

In fact, it has become a Canadian problem, worthy of amendments to Canadian laws. This is the proposition Muhammed makes.

None dares stress the fact that this problem almost exclusively occurs in the Muslim population. And if real policies were to be made, we would be reducing the number of Muslims coming into this country, who are perpetrating such alien crimes, and trying to reduce the ones who are already here.

In the name of an alien religion, with a population that is just under 2% of the population, we are being subjected with recommendations to change the laws of this country to accommodate them.

Such is the strength of Islam.

What Do I Mean By Peter Brimelow's "Small Bit of Genius?"

In my post yesterday, I called this sentence from Peter Brimelow's "Building a New Majority" conference speech as a "small bit of genius" [quote of the sentence is below]:

Legal immigration is as much out of control as illegal immigration, because of the "family unification" policy, which basically means that foreigners who have relatives in America have a sort of civil right to come here, and ultimately it has the same effect.

I've been thinking about it all day yesterday, and was given the excellent challenge of explaining my comment.

Brimelow made the connection between "rights" and family reunification policies and legislation clearer for me in that one sentence. And I don't think anyone has, even in passing as Brimelow did, brought that connection unequivocally.

What caught my attention (and imagination) is that we are basing fundamental legislation and policies on whimsical, ever-changing rights: the right to have a job; the right to have health care (free); the right for "no child to be left behind"; the right to own (not just rent) a home; the right to bring your non-Canadian family with you when you decide to "immigrate" to Canada.

Why should family reunification of foreigners be a right? Some will say that people cannot live without their close relatives; that a husband feels lonely if his spouse is not with him in the same place (country, in this instance). In the name of these vacillating rights, whole countries change their laws and policies to accommodate anyone and everyone, including foreigners.

Even skilled workers believe they have a right to immigrate to Canada, even when job availability is reduced.

My short and not sympathetic answer would be: if you wish to come as a "skilled worker" and immigrate to Canada, don’t expect your wife and children to join you. Come as a single person, and start a family here, or make your stay temporary. This is in fact what happened to Chinese workers at the turn of the century.

Why cannot a country's own values and principles come first before rights? Such as:

The right for a foreigner to have his wife and children join him is trumped by a nation wishing to maintain immigration numbers low.

Because what happens in the current situation is that even if Jason Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, wished to lower next year's immigration numbers, he is still stuck with this right parading as family reunification, which then is like a perennially open door admitting scores of people in addition to the original immigrant, ad infinitum.

If people saw beyond rights, then perhaps part of the immigration debacle might be averted.

Just like, in fact, what Kenney was forced to do when he enforced visas for Mexico and the Czech Republic, whose countrymen were entering Canada and using the "refugee rights" to "appeal" their cases. This quote from a community agency, St. Christopher House, best explains that process:

The Court rule[s] that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right of refugee claimants in Canada to life, liberty and security of the person, and that claimants are therefore entitled to an oral hearing, in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Many refugee claimants, as Kenney realized with the Czech and Mexicans, are hardly the victims they claim to be. And usually their stay includes public subsidies, including housing, health care, schooling, welfare and not least, state-paid-for lawyers' fees. All this for non-Canadians who are trying to entering Canada with their best shot as "human rights" victims.

Except that Kenney couldn't (or wouldn't) change this right embedded in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. He had to stifle it through the more superficial restriction of visas to prevent these potential refugee claimants with all their rights from entering Canada.

I think the immigration (and refugee) system, and its consequent multiculturalism - note the HRCs - has become a system based on rights, of foreigners, as Brimelow wrote.

If people could see this, then many kinds of policies and legislature that keep getting passed may be accorded a more perceptive and discriminating eye.

Peter Brimelow Couldn't Elaborate on "Family Reunification as a Civil Right"

Vdare's editor, Peter Brimelow, posted his June 20th speech for a conference organized by the American Cause titled: "Building the New Majority." Speakers also included Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Ward Connerly and other prominent conservatives. I haven't yet read the other speeches (nor will do so in the foreseeable future), but I did read Brimelow's, which was conveniently posted at Vdare.

Unfortunately, it is the same kind of rambling speech that he made at the conference "Preserving Western Civilization."

One of my criticisms of the latter speech was that he was too familiar and personal, and pulled his audience unnecessarily into infightings and bitterness that he had experienced within the conservative movement. I would think that he has some new, young conservatives whom he would like to recruit into this "new majority." The kind of speech he made at "Preserving Western Civilization" wouldn’t have convinced me to join, if I were one of them.

Well, this time his speech is less acrimonious, but no less rambling. He manages to propose many possibilities for "building the new majority", but his 2,600-word speech makes detailed cases for none.

Nonetheless, there was one ingenious point he brought up, although he quickly lost track of it. He says, "I think it’s important that we start thinking about legal immigration too," (but I thought that was a major issue at Vdare since its inception, and not some new "thought" he's just recently had), then adds:

Legal immigration is as much out of control as illegal immigration, because of the "family unification" policy, which basically means that foreigners who have relatives in America have a sort of civil right to come here, and ultimately it has the same effect. The tremendous cross-subsidization from the American taxpayer to illegal and legal immigrants in this country just makes no sense from an economic point of view.

I think he rightfully describes legal immigration, through its family unification policy, as having evolved into some kind of civil right (translate that as a human right by the U.N., which certainly views refugee claims in that manner). An immigrant may come to the U.S. (and to Canada) as a skilled worker, and then proceed to have various family members join him as part of his life's requirements.

Now, the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, which are an off-shoot of the Multiculturalism Act, the Immigration Act (now called Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, are a fraudulent court system which are in the process of getting dismantled.

Yet, if immigrants, and their advocates, view their entry into Canada (and the U.S.) as part of their civil/human right, dismantling one fraudulent system will only generate another fraudulent system, unless the root of the problem is addressed. Witness the Hate Crimes legislation, which is getting serious attention in the United States.

Brimelow could have expanded on the point a good deal, especially since he and his writers at Vdare are uncontested experts on this.

His small bit of genius was lost in his 2,000+-word rambling, losing his chance to address legal immigration in a logical and unique way.

I suggest that Ezra Levant take this into consideration. Unless he understands the fundamental problems of the HRCs, dismanteling them will produce the same kind of fraudulent legislations that the U.S. is now proposing, and all without the HRCs.

-------------------
N.B. If you see "Read More..." after this, there is nothing more to read. I'm working on fixing this problem.

The Dhimmi Contract

Worth Knowing.
 
From Creeping Sharia

"The Lost Somalis from Minnesota" became "The Found Somali Jihadists in Somalia"

Left: The American soldier's body dragged around Mogadishu in 1993
Right: An Ethiopian soldier facing similar fate in 2006

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the Muslim congressman from Minnesota, is recommending that the "Lost Somalis of Minnesota" be retrieved (i.e. rescued from Somalia) and re-integrated into the American culture.

Some background on these "Lost Somalis":

- They are young Somali-Americans who started disappearing from their homes in Minnesota (mostly the Twin Cities), and were later traced back to Somalia pursuing training and fighting as jihadists. There even seems to be a Somali-Canadian connection.

- Some of these men ended up dead, and their bodies were even flown back to the U.S. for burial.

- Their families claim they knew nothing about their plans, although local imams and mosques are suspected at having influenced these men to join these jihadi groups in Somalia.

The writers at the website Refugee Resettlement Watch note:

If the Obama Administration sends even one of our young military people to Somalia, risking their lives to rescue Ellison’s voters, it will create a firestorm of outrage across this country! Excepting the teenaged (and now dead) Burhan Hassan, the majority of these Somalis who rejected the good life to become jihadi fighters are grown men.

They are also not the victims that Keith Ellison wishes to paint them as.

I wonder if Americans have forgotten that awful dragging of the dead American soldier through Mogadishu in 1993 during the Black Hawk Dawn operation? Well they are still doing it, but this time to Ethiopian soldiers who were sent into Mogadishu to fight against the Somali courts takeover in 2006. Both expeditions were done to prevent radicalized Islamic governments from taking over the country (and possibly the region).

Desecration of human bodies cannot be dismissed as simply primitive, barbaric events, performed in a state of delirious euphoria. It is a calculated exercise, aimed at showing the rival group what awaits it if it tries further encroachment into the territory. It is a war signal.

This is the society the "lost" Somali men from Minnesota come from. Rep. Ellison’s proposal to retrieve and re-integrate them is naïve at best. And considering Ellison’s close interaction with the Muslim community, both national and international, one has to wonder what are his ulterior motives.

The best Americans can do is leave those Somali men in Somalia. No retrieval, and certainly no re-integration.

Hate Crimes Bill Coming To A Country Near You. Wait, It's Already Here!

Ezra Levant and his conservative colleagues are staying mum about the Hate Crimes Bill that is underway in the United States.

Well, Canada has its own Hate Crime Code. From Wikipedia:

Since 1966 the Canadian Criminal Code has included a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on racial group, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor."...

Section 319, adopting the same definition of 'identifiable group,'...defined to mean 'any section of the public distinguished by skin color, racial group, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation'... punishes the incitement or expression of hatred against such a group.

The difference between the HRCs’ method and the courts’ method is that the HRCs are fraudulent, and the courts will go through "due process." But due process for “hates crimes?" Doesn't that make a mockery of the courts?

As I've said before, it is not enough to dismantle the HRCs. There is a depth of problems to address, including the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, which both feed into the HRCs, and would function in a similar manner as the HRCs without the HRCs.

And I maintain that these days, it is the high levels of immigration that is sustaining the HRCs, and, the two Acts mentioned above in turn sustain the HRCs (please see the side column titled “Issues” to have a comprehensive list of topics on immigration and the HRCs).

Now, back to the United States. Without a Multiculturalism Act, a Human Rights Act, or an established Human Rights Commission, law makers and politicians have still found a way to install (or try to install) a Hate Crimes Bill.

Here is what Attorney General Eric Holder has to say about the proposed Hate Crimes Bill:

Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc.

And even more insidious:

Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.

The HRCs aren't the problem, they are the symptom. This is what I'm trying to get Levant and Canadian conservatives to see.

Doing Business Immigrant (Arab?) Style

I recently needed to buy a new case for my glasses (which I need for long distance viewing), and went to the famous Toronto optician, Hakim, to look for one. The original Hakim was apparently an immigrant from Iran, who started this very successful store which is now established throughout Canada.

I found what I thought was the right one, a conservative black case, and went to the cashier to pay for it. The woman at the store, who looked like the manager, didn't charge me for tax, and I thought it was a promotional tactic, and thanked her and left.

The next day, I realized that this black case was a little too small for my glasses, and I didn't want to break my lenses. So, I went back for an exchange. They only had a fluorescent blue which would fit my glasses. Well, I like blue, and it is summer, after all, I reasoned. Plus, $10 is a bargain.

So, as I was pulling out my receipt from the day before, the shop manager (different, this time), said she didn't need it, and just exchanged the box for me.

Now, doesn't this store keep some kind of inventory? When was a black conservative case the same as a blue fluorescent one? Aren't there serial numbers and other identification marks to show two different boxes underwent two different transactions (one bought, the other bought then returned)?

I think the two managers (one looked Arab, the other Indian) were working in that fluid Middle Eastern style, where bargaining, small financial favors and other alien store practices take place.

But, why should I trust them in the future? For all I know, they don't keep proper tax records; or they don’t have fixed prices and only the savvy customers (Arabs?) will know when and how to bargain down the prices.

This is the kind of culture we are having to get used to.

Boston's Muslim Children

The Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center officially opened its doors last week.

As well as a worship center, it hosts a number of cultural programs, and a summer school for children.

The photo above shows nine-year-old Sarah Erritouni practicing calligraphy.

Watch this video, called "Summer of Learning", showing young Muslims who were clearly brought up in America and speaking English with no accent whatsoever, learning to read the Koran in what appears to be very good Arabic accents.

This is the assimilation that is not taking place, wherever Muslims are present in large numbers.

Ezra Levant, Gwen MacGregor, Saying the Same Thing About Freedoms

Gwen MacGregor is a Toronto-based artist. She is considered one of the pillars of the Toronto visual arts scene, and won the Toronto Visual Arts Award in 2003. She also happens to be a former colleague of mine, where we spent two years on the board of Trinity Square Video, in Toronto.

I've been following MacGregor 's work for a while now. Mostly it is with muted awe at how bad her work is. MacGregor is intelligent, and a truly nice person, so it takes a lot for me to describe her art this way. Here is someone much more forthright and descriptive than I am.

Recently, MacGregor publicly criticized the Koffler Centre for the Arts’ decision to dissociate itself from artist Reena Katz, from whom the Centre had commissioned an exhibition. Although Katz’s exhibition will take place, the Centre pulled its name from print and digital material, and any advertisement for this show. MacGregor's protest is taken seriously, and she's even quoted in the Toronto Star.

Reena Katz is affiliated with Israel Apartheid Week, which views Israel as heaping "barbaric assault on the people of Gaza", and aims to:

[E]ducate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center has denounced Israel Apartheid Week as:

A worldwide campaign to demonize Israel and intimidate students and faculty who support the Jewish State is underway.

Enter Gwen MacGregor, and three other artists who also withdrew their support for, or exhibitions at, the Koffler Centre because, as MacGregor put it in a letter to the Centre:

[A]s an artist I feel very strongly that freedom of expression without fear of reprisal is necessary for the creative process.

The Koffler Centre was very generous, and didn't actually withdraw its funds from Katz's exhibition. Nor did it discontinue the exhibition. All it did was dissociate itself from it, allowing none of its logos or its name to appear alongside Katz's exhibition.

This is certainly not restriction on freedom of expression, more like a restraint on the Centre’s associations.

What if MacGregor were to curate works by an artist who undermined Canada’s right to exist, and was part of a group that wanted to exterminate Canada. How would she react?

Once again, this freely uttered "freedoms of whatever" is exactly the problem with discussions that focus on freedoms, as Ezra Levant has done with his battle against the HRCs.

Levant has to be able to discriminate between peoples who will harm, or even destroy, his country, and those who are genuinely practicing their various freedoms of speech or expressions.

And constantly, it is the Muslim groups in Canada who have shown themselves the dangerous ones. Even the Koffler incident was instigated by Muslim sensibilities, although Jews like Katz and liberal Canadians like MacGregor also participated.

One way to avoid such a difficult act of discrimination is not to allow this dilemma to occur in the first place.

By reducing the number of Muslims in Canada, a major strategy for which is restricting, and even stopping, Muslims from further entering into Canada, the real intent of freedom of speech and freedom of expression can recover its civilized presence.

Side Column Link to Posts on HRCs

I've put a new heading on the side column titled "Issues", where I've linked to all my posts on the Human Rights Commissions.

Levant’s Endorsement of Hudak Doesn’t Mean That The HRCs Are Going Any Time Soon

There's, as always, a lot to write about the approach towards the HRCs that Levant is taking.

In my most recent blog about the HRCs, I commented on Levant's endorsement of the new Ontario Progressive Conservatives' leader, Tim Hudak, who is supporting the dismantling of the HRCs.

I wrote that Hudak isn’t actually out for dismantling the whole system, but wishes to keep the "educational" component instead.

Here's a blogger who noted the same ambiguities about Hudak that I did. He quotes from a May 12, 2009 announcement by Hudak:

"Complaints would go to specially trained judges, similar to the existing Domestic Violence and Family Law Courts."

And the blogger goes on to write:

Why do our judges have to be specially trained? Are human rights so complicated or subtle that experienced judges have to be specially trained to adjudicate infringements?...

Surely human rights should be obvious and basic, not in any way complicated or subtle. Our intent should be to protect fundamental freedoms, not to enrich lawyers and the human rights establishment with its cadre of activists...

The language in Mr. Hudak’s May 12 announcement sounds a bit too much like the gobbly goop we have been hearing from the currently entrenched human rights establishment

Exactly.

There is also the fact that the voters of most liberal candidate Liz Elliott, who came in third, gave their votes over to Hudak, securing him his victory. Now it is disturbing that they find Hudak "liberal" enough to turn over their votes to. A much truer conservative leader, Randy Hillier, came in fourth, possibly because of this voter consolidation. In a recent TVO interview, Hillier was much more hard core about dismantling the HRCs. Everything must go, is his stand.

Also, note how Levant heads his entry as on Hudak as: "Tim Hudak proves HRC reform is a political winner", whereas he's been advocating their total dismantlement previously. He is happy to compromise it seems. But, that is not surprising, since he doesn’t see the essential problem behind the philosophy of the HRCs, and is only concerned with their government financed fraudulence.   

And like I keep saying, the U.S., which doesn’t have HRC-type institutions, has been living through decades of "rights" oriented policies, laws and court cases, which have essentially catered to grievance mongers and changed the society. See this post for more detais.

Once again, the problem is not the HRCs. It is the attitude that "discrimination" has to go at all costs, and that all people have equal rights to everything under the sun, from jobs, to homes, and even to eating in the same restaurants.

Where is Hirsi Ali After Wilders's Election Victory?

I’ve been wondering what Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to say about Wilders's win in the EU in early June. It was a major event, discussed by blogs and many media.

My thesis has been that she is no longer an interesting and effective speaker against the Muslim incursion which the West is experiencing. In fact, I have said that some of her views are actually anti-Western and potentially destructive.

As far as I can tell, she has said nothing about Geert Wilders's win. There is nothing at her official (looking) website, nor at her American Enterprise Institute profile.

In fact, at AEI, she has three articles about Obama’s non-speech in Cairo.

I don’t know why she chose not to comment on Wilders's election results, which brings such a bright light into the dark tunnel he has been living in.

All I can think of is that she is subtly, unconsciously (or maybe delusionally) anti-Western, which I will explain later on in this blog entry. 

I found this YouTube interview (in two parts) of her at her website, conducted sometime in February 2009.

On the dangers of fanatics acquiring the nuclear bomb:

She compares the potential fall-out with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If she is going to consider herself an expert in geopolitical warfare, then she really better do her homework. The causes, preparations, dropping, and fallout of these two bombs can in no way be compared with what Iran and North Korea are planning, with Iran saying one of its purposes is to annihilate Israel.

I’ll take that back. The pause and smile with which she mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki indicates to me that she knows that the comparisons she is making will not be readily accepted by Westerners.

On the divergence between Islam and the West:

Ali equates the 10th and 11th centuries with the decline in the so-called Islamic golden age, and the emergence of the West from (so-called) backwardness.

Of course, with her reference to the backward European nations, she is talking about the Medieval period. Even as a layperson, I can argue against this "fact", simply by saying that there were impressive architectural and artistic developments that happened even within this period.

But, what makes it worse is that Ali seems to equate the break from this "backwardness" with the Europeans' curiosity about other cultures and countries (including this "advanced" Islamic world), to which they traveled and acquired their knowledge and ideas.

Her implication is that the West couldn’t have emerged from this stifling world of the Middle Ages by itself, and had to get the necessary knowledge from the Chinese, Indians, and of course the Muslims.

But how is it that these backward Europeans managed to pull together difficult and arduous journeys to acquire this precious knowledge, given that their backwardness wouldn't have allowed for such elaborate plans?  

I will add my own interpretation of what she’s trying to say. I think she equates the Middle Ages with Christendom (she has said many times her frame of reference for the West she admires is the Enlightenment). And being an atheist, and I think anti-Christian, there is no way she can equate the West’s fount of knowledge having developed from within this Christian, Medieval world.

On reforming Islam:

For someone who is hired by the AEI, and who apparently spends her days researching Islam, she continues to make her delusional (and I will have to say, ignorant) statements about Islam: That it can be reformed.

I have written about her Muslim self-identification before. She can always call herself Somali, or black, or simply East African, to form a personal identity. But she chooses to call herself a Muslim, which invariably links her with the Islamic world. I have always found this very telling. I firmly believe that all her talks about reforming Islam is really so that she can continue to leave her options open regarding her personal identity – to converge Islam and Muslim together.

So, she is clearly a non-Westerner, preferring to identify with her own creation of an irreligious (or quasi-religious) Islam. In fact, throughout the interview she refers to her and the Muslim world as "we", and only once references herself as a Westerner. 

But, in her belief (and desire) for the reformability of Islam, she splits Muslims into the fundamentalists - the believers of radical Islam, and the moderate - those who desire a reformed, more benign Islam. And she goes into the tired, and refuted, discussion that the two types exist, and that the harm is being done by the "radical" Muslims and not the "moderates."  

So, nothing on Wilders, but a whole lot on her convoluted ideas. In fact, she hasn’t been in the news since Wilders's election victory was announced, which says to me that journalists aren’t really interested in what she has to say, and she isn't really interested in the radical, retaliation towards the Muslim world that seems to be working.

No HRCs In The U.S. But Look At Greeley, Colorado and Dearborn, Michigan

Here's a story about the Somali meatpackers in Greeley, Colorado's Swift & Co. meatpacking plant, who walked off the job, and 100 of whom were fired last year, because their supervisors wouldn't let them pray at sunset during Ramadan.

There are no Human Rights Commissions in the United States. Yet, there are enough loopholes for minority groups to make cases for their discontent at work (or at schools, as the University of Michigan foot-washing sinks for Muslims demonstrates). Also, see my previous story about a Hate Crimes Bill H.R. 254 that is underway in the U.S.: 

Pending Hate Crimes Legislation

On January 5, 2007, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee introduced H.R. 254. The definition of "hate crime" remains the same as passed in 1994, but this bill goes much further than the enhanced sentencing provided by the 1994 legislation. H.R. 254 establishes a new federal offense for hate crimes and mandates a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses with the possibility of life imprisonment for crimes motivated by "the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person."

Here's another story from Dearborn Michigan, where an Arab Christian proselytizer was prohibited from handing out Christian literature during the Dearbon Arab Festival. From Creeping Sharia:

The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Dearborn’s policy and seeking a court order allowing the group to wander the festival grounds freely to pass out literature. U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds denied the Law Center’s motion on behalf of the Christian group.

No HRCs in the U.S., but Muslim groups, amongst others, are having no difficulty curtailing the freedoms of other groups through regular court proceedings. This is exactly what Levant recommends: use the court system to fight your battles, and get judges like Nancy Edmunds to favor the aggressive, freedom quenching groups.

Ezra Levant, who managed to untangle the corrupt HRCs, is merely working on the surface. His latest post is that the new leader for the Progressive Conservatives, Tim Hudak, put the dismantling of the HRCs on his political platform.

The National Post had this to say about Hudak:

Mr. Hudak is not without his flaws either. His attempt to have it both ways with the HRC (keep the commission, but abolish the tribunal) will probably satisfy no one.

To be fair, Hudak, according to an interview he did recently, just wants to keep the educational component of the HRCs, rather than any part of the fraudulent court. But why even keep that seemingly harmless component?

Hudak evidently believes in the principles of the HRCs, which is to fight the dual demons of discrimination and inequality at various levels in someone’s life – from the workplace to acquiring housing and even to eating in a restaurant.

Even without the HRCs, given Canada’s Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, there are infinite venues for people to voice their grievances.

It is easy to get all indignant about false courts and the guilty-until-proven-innocent charges of the HRCs, let alone the exorbitant costs they incur on the poor recipients of these filed cases.

But, not one dismantler of the HRCs, from Hudak to Levant, has talked about their underlying problems.

They just saw an unfair system, run by government monies, and said that real courts are where such cases should be filed.

The question is:

Why should such cases be filed anywhere, at a bona fide court or a  fraudulent one like the HRCs? Why should a group of people like, say, the Somali Muslims in Greeley, have the option to file their ridiculous claims that their supervisors were mistreating them? This meatpacking plant has already its established workplace traditions, which have obviously helped build the plant very successfully over time. Yet a new set of people is setting up its own traditions which are obviously disrupting the plant and its workers. A sane supervisor should indeed fire them.

Levant is saying that the Muslims who complained about his Mohammed cartoons, and later filed a suit at the HRCs against him, should go to real courts.

They very well might, in the near future. And they might win their cases, causing him yet another six-figure cost for his defence. There are many ways his opponents can save money, including using the government-subsidized legal aid centers which furnish people with lawyers based on income, but which subtly favor minorities and immigrants.  So, its back full circle to the beginning. 

To put it bluntly, the problem is not fully that of the HRCs. The problem is the kinds of people who are filing these cases, as I have discussed in detail in my previous posts.