Now We Can Read Arabic

Just as I predicted, Arabic script is now presented to us without the English translation.

Here is a photo of a halal sign I took on the window of a kabab shop on the busy Yonge street. This is no "ethnic" restaurant. This is your regular fast food pita-with-fillings shop. I suspect the writing is exclusive to Muslims, but I just think it is part of the gradual indoctrination for non-Muslims and non-Arabs to recognize Arabic words and script.

What are they preparing us for? To read the Koran? I said it here first!

A Rough Transcript of the Debate on the Counter-Jihad Movement

I listened to the very interesting hour-long debate between Lawrence Auster and Supna Zaidi at the event organized by ACT! For America (which I blogged about here).

This debate, which also included the participation of audience members, occurred after each presenter finished a prepared speech, and answered questions from the audience.

Mr. Auster began his challenge to Miss Zaidi by saying:

What I heard over and over again was wishful thinking. Your position is, I think we ought to have standards, I think Muslims should not impose their faith on others, I think there ought to be moderate mosques, I think people should not yield to the power of jihadist Islam. These were all your personal opinions the way you would like things to be. The reality is that is not the way Islam is.

And from this introduction, below are what I considered the pertinent points of the debate, which I have divided into segments. Some of it is directly transcribed from the audio, most of it I've simplified in my own words.

You can go to the Unofficial Lawrence Auster page and scroll down to "Who belongs in the counter-jihad movement?" and "The Debate" to hear the whole debate, which I do recommend, partly to hear the debating style of Miss Zaidi, who I found cleverly rebutted several arguments, but who at the end of the day was unable to see the fallacy of her argument of plucking this moderate Muslim out of the thin air of her imagination. I found this inability strangely stubborn, as though some personal stance was at stake. Maybe if she started to acknowledge the violence and aggression of her religion, it might make her less religious, or even renounce her religion altogether?

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

Organizing moderate Muslims

Z. We need to organize the moderation of Islam.
A. How long will moderation [reform] of Islam take?
Z. A couple of decades.
A. So we should let these people in, work on them for 50 years [until they're moderate], in the mean time they’ll do what they do?
Z. Screen them both at immigration level, and their schools, mosques and those individuals once in the country.
A. Still not enough. What if they don’t do what they say [or do what they don’t say]? Robert Spencer has finally said that screening is ineffective, and all Muslim immigration should be stopped. Why should a country allow people in with such huge problems in the first place?

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

Who are the Islamists and who are the Muslims?

A. Are sharia believing, jihad believing Muslims objectively Muslims?
Z. Yes.
A. Then why do you call them Islamists?
Z. All Islamists are Muslims, all Muslims are not Islamists.
A. The net effect of this is saying that Islam is not the problem, but only Islamism is the problem. This weakens a society’s ability to defend itself from the dangerous form of Islam.

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

A private vs. a public religion

Z. You should be satisfied with practicing your faith at home – in private.
A. Real religions are not just private.
A. The real Islam by its very nature is public, social, political – the real Islam is not just private.
A. Miss Zaidi is trying to create something that has never existed except in the
individual private realm and try to act as though this can become the common Islamic practice for most or all Muslims.
A. Shall we gamble our society on this wishful thinking?

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

Is Sharia different in different situations?

Z. Sharia is an intangible; it means nothing, it illustrates itself in different ways depending on the generation or the century.
A. Spencer completely disagrees. The fundamentals of sharia are the same in all the Islamic splinters, they may differ on details.
A. This is a typical liberal argument – "there is a lot of diversity in Islam, you don’t need to worry about it". They do this to distract people from the essence of Islam.
A. There are all types of conflicts within Islam, does that mean that there is no such thing as Islam?

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

What to do about the aggressive Muslim presence

A. The general trend of Western societies is to yield gradually to Muslims’ demands.
A. The inevitable dynamic happens where Muslims’ sharia-mandated aggressiveness and Westerners' acquiescence results with Muslims getting more and more power.
A. Separation of Islam from the West is the only solution to counter their sharia-commanded aggressiveness and Westerners' inevitable acquiescence.

A Preliminary Review of Supna Zaidi's Speech and Q&A

The presentations on Islam organized by ACT! for America with Lawrence Auster and Supna Zaidi is now on Youtube. There are four parts to the videos: one each for each presentation by Mr. Auster and Miss Zaida, and two more for a question and answer period for both presenters. The debate between the two apparently has been recorded as an audio, and will be made available.

I can't say much about the actual debate until I hear the audio. I think that is the interesting part (for me, at least, since I have been blogging about Mr. Auster's recommendations for how to treat Muslims in the West in a few blogs now). I don't think there ever has been a debate between someone who doesn't accept the term (or the person) "moderate Muslim", and the other party proclaiming to be a real-life moderate Muslim. Even the eminent Islam critic Robert Spencer, who has of late announced that Muslim immigration should be stopped, still cannot quite accept that his Muslim acquaintances are part of the violent, jihad-supporting group that much of Islamic history seems to point towards.

Until the debate is available, here are a few thoughts and comments (and a question here and there) on Miss Zaidi's presentation:

- Miss Zaidi says that without affiliation with mosques or Imams, movements Muslims such as herself try to initiate - a moderate approach to Islam - would be futile. But, aren't mosques and Imams the last place to go for moderate view points, and if they are behind it, won't the movement become other than moderate - i.e. radical? Doesn't that put into question the whole possibility of organizing large groups of Muslims as moderates?

- She talked extensively about her country of birth, Pakistan. When describing the modern history of Pakistan (actually, all of Pakistan's history is modern), doesn't it show that the country seems to be getting progressively less moderate? Isn't that the historical progression of all Muslim countries? Even Turkey, which had a secular government for the last sixty years or so (a very short period given the country's long history), is now beginning to slowly denounce its secularism, by the popular election of a conservative president who is a "former Islamist", and whose wife is wearing the formerly banned hijab in public.

- Is America to be the Islam reformer, where due to its cultural and political institutions, it seems to help people like her to pursue their quest for moderate (reformed?) Islam? As I mentioned above, almost all countries with Muslim populations haven't been able to advance that proposition. Why does she think America will be able to do it?

- She worries about her 1-year-old nephew's influences when he's a young adult and wishes to associate with other Muslims, who might have a radicalizing effect on him. I doubt that a Greek Orthodox or an Israeli Jew who immigrate to America would have such concerns about their younger relatives. Why is Miss Zaidi worried about hers? Isn't there something in Islam that underlines violent means for disseminating the faith that is making her worried? So, is Islam (or are Muslims) ever really moderate?

- Finally, I am surprised at her dismissal of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) - which I've blogged about here. ISNA is a virulent organization, working under the radar, but which is fully immersed with other organizations which advocate jihadi-like violence when confronting Western (and other) antagonists.

I look forward to listening to the debate. I am sure Mr. Auster will be generous and considerate towards Miss Zaidi, but at the same time, I don't think he will let inconsistent and unclear outlooks by Miss Zaidi pass over unremarked.

Debating a Moderate Muslim

Muslims who desire to appear moderate (or at least in opposition to what are perceived as radical, fundamentalist Muslims) have various ways of describing (or rationalizing) their positions. Here is one such argument from Tashbih Sayyed, a newspaper columnist and writer:

Tashbih Sayyed, a secular Muslim (or ex-Muslim, I’m not sure which), found the passage in the Koran that says, "There is no compulsion in religion," and decided that he would make that his view of Islam; meaning that he was ignoring the fact that the passage was abrogated by the Medinan suras, which call for endless war against, killing of, and terminal scalding and flaying in hell for those who reject Islam.

Here's more on the recent debate on Islam with Lawrence Auster and Tashbih Sayyed's daugher, Supna Zaidi, who is the assistant director of Daniel Pipe’s Islamist Watch and who calls herself a moderate Muslim. The debate was organized by ACT for America during the weekend.

I think this is the first time anyone who doesn't accept the term "moderate Muslim" has debated a self-ascribed moderate Muslim. But the crux of the debate (or speech) is Mr. Auster's recommendations for what to do about the dangers of Islam. Such an approach at looking at Islam - what to do about its dangers - is gaining more attention, and ACT for America has a useful set up where such issues can be discussed and disseminated to a wider public, hopefully conservatives and liberals alike.

The Canadian Coptic Centre's Imposing Warning Sign

The Canadian Coptic Centre, in Mississauga, Ontario

While driving through Mississauga, a suburb of Toronto, I saw the most formidable church I have ever seen. Not even the Cathedral of St. James, in Toronto, comes close, at least in size and prominence.

The Canadian Coptic Centre is a colossal building with some eight or nine cupolas. Its church was consecrated as the Church of Virgin Mary and St. Athanasius in 1989.

A few miles down the same road is the Al-Farooq Mosque, an unassuming building for now, but with plans for a $6 million expansion.

Copts in Egypt have suffered constant persecution from their Muslim conquerors, and in fact, the antagonism and violence against them in Egypt seems to be growing. Many Copts here in Canada know of this experience first hand. What a shock it must have been for them that just down the road is a mosque, relatively small and innocuous for now, but with the promise of huge expansions.

Al-Farooq Mosque was established in 1987, as the first mosque in Mississauga. The Canadian Coptic Centre's Church of Virgin Mary and St. Athanasius was consecrated just two years after, although its property had been bought in 1982, when construction continued for another eight years.

Now, this is speculation on my part, but it looks like the mosque came later (established 1987, says its web site, whereas the Coptic church started construction in 1982 which was completed in 1989). So, surely the Copts, in retaliation to what looks like the antagonistic presence of their age-old enemies, continued to expand this cupola-rich church to ward off, and to warn against, their new Muslim neighbors?

What more can they do? If they talk too negatively, they will be harming the “freedom of religion” mandate of Canadian society. And Muslims will never let them get away with it. To me, the best they could come up was to build their imposing building, both to protect themselves (spiritually), and to warn their Canadian host country of the dangers they had to flee, literally in life and death situations. And that the same could happen to them again, and in fact to anyone in the path of the single-minded Muslims.

I hope people are listening.

Are Canadians a Cowardly Bunch?

A review of the presentations in London, Ontario, on the HRC by Levant, Shaidle, and Mansur

I don't think this photo was necessary
(read last section below).

I've posted here the presentation in London, Ontario, by Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur, where I normally post on information related to Islam, because the topic: "Human Rights Commission, Useful or Obsolete" relates both directly and indirectly to Islam.

Levant, as I've blogged before, was caught in the Human Rights Commission (HRC) nightmare when he published the Mohammed cartoons three years ago. Shaidle has written a book called The Tyranny of Nice, also dealing with the HRC. And Mansur presents a Muslim's perspective on the HRC.

The videos are available at Levant's website. Levant's presentation is in Part 2 of the videos, and begins at around the 23-minute mark.

Levant's impassioned speech was actually a pleasure to listen to. I agreed with his premise that Canadians are not a cowardly bunch, and he cited for example the World Wars, and the mission in Afghanistan. This is as good a time as any to bring up Canadian courage.

Levant's pugnacious start was in response to Shailde's challenge that the HRCs got so far ahead because of complaisant Canadians. But part of the problem with the HRCs is their undercover nature. They pounce on unsuspecting business owners, teachers and Christians (let's face it, the religious people they attack are Christians), who then, under the shock of losing their jobs and businesses make a "deal" to avoid further harassment. So, I disagree, and that rather than being complacent, people are shell-shocked into silenced.

The other point Shailde made was that the HRCs are a "typical" Canadian knee-jerk reaction of one-upmanship on the Americans, who had their lunch counter protests and a full-blown Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, this may be partially true, but the era of the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. was part of a strange global radicalization towards the left, which Canadians also participated in.

Shaidle frequently references some kind of Canadian Envy towards the U.S. which she says dictates many of the policies and developments made in the country. I actually disagree with this very strongly. It is normal that Canada react to the U.S. on many levels, just being close to the border makes this inevitable. But, many of the ways the country has shaped itself is a purely Canadian exercise.

Even the apparently complacent reaction to the HRCs is reminiscent of the matter-of-fact attempt of a country trying to keep many diverse (in the real sense) elements together at its inception, including a French minority, a British presence, and even the very first Prime Minister whose Scottish background forced him to interact with a "colonial" Britain, similar to the way his own Scotsmen had compromised back in Scotland.

So, yes, there is nothing wrong in saying that Canada is a land of pragmatic compromise, with an acute awareness of diversity. These were the loopholes that the HRCs managed to wiggle themselves into, to foment their destructive setup.

But, they had to get caught at some point, because the other traditions, the courage and fairness which Levant brought up, are still an innate part of Canadians' psyche.

One final thing. Shaidle opines that part of the HRC's modus operandi is to shut up the normally outspoken and vocal lower classes through an educated, upper-class elite. I have to disagree here also, since they are obviously pretty indiscriminate. I wouldn't call Ezra Levant a vocal lower class, nor does that fit MacCleans magazine, which along with Steyn, was part of a recent HRC scuffle. Nor would I classify the myriad of teachers, pastors and business owners, who keep getting the summons ticket, as lower class.

On a related, but tangential point, Shaidle and Wendy Sullivan have both posted a photo of them having drinks with friends, including two South Asians (including Salim Mansur) and one Iranian, after the lecture. This is to show that they are not "racist". I wish they didn't have to resort to this. As always, the right is reacting to the left, putting itself in embarrassing, if not unnecessary, situations (remember the I Am Sarah Palin video Sullivan did?). It was enough to have given the lecture, and that an unprecedented 600 people showed up.

Also, not to mention Levant’s very successful book tour, and his influence on a Conservative leader who plans to take on the HRC issue.

Burquas for Turkey

Doesn't Turkey's government call itself "secular", and hasn't it banned the hijab, at least on University campuses?

Well, apparently, on February Turkish parliament has:

[V]oted 'yes' for a proposal tabled by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to amend the Constitution to relax the ban.

This is not an amendment yet, and could still not pass, although I doubt it very much. Just the hijab-donned wife

Type rest of the post here

Easter's New Place of Worship

From Easter Parade to Easter shopping

Terrorist bombers during Easter don't need to go to churches, or even to social events like Easter parades. No, they just need to stop by at the corner mall. That's where everyone is celebrating.

Al-Qaeda terror plot to bomb Easter shoppers

Police were forced to round up the alleged plotters after they were overheard discussing dates, understood to include the Easter bank holiday, one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year.

Levant's Fight is Picked Up by a Politician

There is good news that Ezra Levant's energetic cross-country tour to promote his book Shakedown on the atrocities of the Human Rights Commissions is bearing fruit.

Levant writes at his website:

I'm delighted to see that Randy Hillier, a candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, has made the abolition of Ontario's human rights commission part of his campaign platform. Here's his statement on the subject -- I love his tagline: real justice, real judges. That gets to the heart of it pretty well. Ontario's HRC is run by a failed Toronto mayor, a Marxist crusader named Barbara Hall. She's no judge, and what she's meting out is not justice.

Levant was called to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Mohammed cartoons in his Western Standard magazine. His case was rejected after three years and, according to Levant, about $100,000 of his own money. Conversely, Canadian taxpayers probably footed about $500,000 to pay for the Commission's bills.

An Imaginative Leap Back to Reality

Please read the formidable piece that Lawrence Auster at the View From the Right has posted: A Real Islam Policy for a Real America. It is the speech that he gave at the recent Preserving Western Civilization conference.

He took us on a imaginative leap away from this liberal world that we currently live in, yet what he really did was to bring us back to earth and reality.

ABC - Washington Post Poll on Isalm

Do you think mainstream Islam encourages violence
against non-Muslims, or is it a peaceful religion?

Diana West quotes from a recent poll printed in the Washington Post, and discusses this question:

Q: Every religion has mainstream beliefs, and also fringe elements and extremists. Thinking of mainstream Islam, do you think mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims, or is it a peaceful religion?

I have presented these poll responses visually to make it easier to compare the patterns. I've gone to the original pdf file to get more complete data, with information also available for 2006. I have averaged the two sets of data for 2002 and 2006. Besides what is presented here, the pdf file has many more additional interesting information.

The comparatively low numbers in 2002 for those who think that Islam encourages violence are probably due to the public still getting used to this new phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, and the violence of Islam after 9/11.

The numbers for those who think that Islam encourages violence do increase sharply from 2002-2003, but the trend shows a gradual decrease from 2003 to 2009. There is no reason to think this decrease will not continue, unless something dramatic happens, similar to 9/11.

Conversely, the group which thinks that Islam is a religion of peace has steadily increased, bypassing even the 2002 levels.

So, more people think that Islam is a religion of peace in 2009 than they did in 2002, and the trend shows that they will continue to do so. And less people think that Islam encourages violence in 2009 than they did in 2003, with the trend continuing in that direction.

Why is that?

Firstly, I think it is complacency. Nothing as terrible as 9/11 has happened yet, so people haven't had to face again the violence Islam is capable of.

But, I think more importantly, the Islam experts and conservatives, with their almost daily output of information, and some with eloquent books, haven't managed to convince the public about the dangers of Islam.

These experts may react in vitriolic and ad hoc manner as the atrocities of Islam arise (like honor killings, especially the recent one in Buffalo), but they haven't come up with clear terms for Islam, Muslims, and even how to combat it, confusing the public about the nature of this religion.

For example, many Islam experts are still using the terms "moderate Muslims" and "extremist or radical Muslims", when it has become more and more clear that such differentiation of Muslims is incorrect.

While obfuscating the terms thus, they are unable to come up with concrete solutions to the problems, making it seem that only a minority of Muslims (i.e radicals), and an extreme fringe of Islam are what we should be dealing with.

This inability to take the bull by its horns is translated by the general public as the problem not being that great or important to begin with, while in fact, the problem is a very big one, tantamount to a civilizational war, that could destroy life as we know it.

As a final point, three other things stood out for me from the data in the pdf file.

1). Muslims make up only 1% of the American population (2% in Canada).

2). People who know a Muslim tend to think it is a peaceful religion rather than one which encourages violence.

3). Even though more people now think Islam is a peaceful religion than in 2003, 41% have a favorable opinion of Islam now compared to 47% in 2003.

But, as this statistic is broken down, those who tilt the percentage toward a favorable one in 2009 are:

- those more knowledgeable about Islam - 53% favorable towards Islam
- those who know "a" Muslim - 52% favorable
- liberals - 60%a favorable, and Democrats - 47% favorable
- and younger people - 44% favorable

In contrast, only 26% of conservatives and 33% of Republicans view Islam favorably, amongst other groups.

Liberals and Democrats are going to be difficult to convince otherwise. But, this information implies that those with increased interaction with Muslims are more likely to have favorable opinions about Islam. Those who have some knowledge about Islam, those who know a Muslim (or two), and younger people who have increased relationships with Muslims through work and social life, are more likely to have more tolerance for the religion and for Muslims.

Astute and knowledgeable politicians and experts can deal with this complacency (increased trust of Muslims and Islam) by:

- simply reducing the number of Muslim immigrants, and preferably having a moratorium on all Muslim immigration for the foreseeable future. At the very least, this will reduce interactions with Muslims, which clearly influences the view on Islam.

- and by the experts providing honest and unfiltered information about the dangers of Muslims and Islam.

And, 1% (and even 2%) of Muslims is a minuscule amount. Surely we can make sure this percentage doesn't grow, and that the 1% already present doesn't hijack our society. I am optimistic that we can do both.

How to Fight the War Agaist Islam

Jim Kalb was interviewed by the bloggers 2BlowHards on January 2004. It is a three-part interview dealing mostly with conservatism.

I remembered reading this part of the interview a while ago. In view of my last post, How Not to Fight the War against Islam, I thought it appropriate to present it here.

Here is the pertinent part:

2B: I find many media conservatives (Bill O'Reilly, etc) unappealing -- gloating bullies who like to use ridicule and tell people, "Tough, kid, suck it up." To what extent to such people represent the kind of conservatism you discuss?

Kalb: They are indeed conservative, since what makes their views what they are is that they choose some things that are inherited or natural at the expense of liberalism -- that is, at the expense of a direct attempt to maximize the equal satisfaction of individual preferences. They're not thoughtful, though, so they can't explain why they reject the liberal program in favor of something else. The result is that their conservatism takes on an aggressive and arbitrary quality, at least in style.

This has been my problem with conservative writers (pundits, bloggers) for a while. This is why I don't follow the vituperative writings of Main Stream Conservatives (a new term here?) such as Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham (notice how these are all women - is there a connection?). Talk show hosts and Fox News presenters are perhaps the more volatile of the male version of these female bloggers. In fact I no longer read them, or listen to them, unless there is a link to them from other blogs or sites.

In Canada, we have bloggers Kathy Shaidle, Wendy Sullivan (and the more obscure Kate McMillan), TV host Michael Coren and magazine publisher Ezra Levant, who are part of this vocal conservative group.

In my own humble way, I think I recognized the trend that Jim Kalb discussed in his interview in 2004 (which I only recently found, and was not influential in my decision) after a year or two of reading their sites.

I think that there are various levels to the thoughtlessness that Jim Kalb is describing. I think Coulter is actually quite sharp and witty, and comes up with sophisticated arguments. But, it gets tiring to just get a string of complaints (amounting to rants, at times) on her weekly articles, all aimed at "liberals". No solutions, no new ideas, just the kind of arbitrariness that I discussed here about Shaidle's recent post, which was thoughtlessly acquiescent to the leftist run-of-the-mill idea of "diversity".

I feel that we have been led (or led ourselves) on a wild goose chase, without realizing what we are chasing, why we are chasing it, and what to do about it if we ever caught it (not that we'd even want to catch it.)

In truth, what we should have done is to define our own principles better, and forget about "catching up" or acting in defense. It not necessarily an offensive mode that I am suggestion, but a tactic that includes better articulation of our ideas, better understanding of the consequences of liberal/leftist ones, and strategies and principles to advance those, and protect what we already have. This of course takes time and study, and is not privy to the sound-bite type reactions which we have borrowed from the left.

Besides the knee-jerk reactions, which Kalb mentions in his interview with 2blowhards, here are two articles which explain this phenomenon more clearly.

For the sake of brevity, I will just posts some relevant quotes from both, and leave you to read the articles for yourselves, since the authors discuss their ideas in depth, and convincingly.

From Jim Kalb's Reason and the Future of Conservatism:

[M]odern tendencies of thought have deficiencies that make them destructive if left to their own devices. What do we do about it?

There is an inarticulate "I just don’t like the way things are going" response. That takes two forms: first, things were better the way they used to be, and second, "thus far and no further." Neither of these options is going to stand up. Something more principled is needed.

Many conservatives therefore adopt what might be called the neoconservative or moderate modernist response...But that doesn’t work either.

[...]

What conservatism needs, then, is a non-modern understanding of reason—of what makes sense. Otherwise conservatives will always be playing defense, with no clear idea what the game is about.

How do we articulate a different understanding of reason?...We can start, though, by noticing some things lacking in modern reason with regard to the good, the true, and the beautiful.

As to the good,...rational action is not a simple matter of means and ends...Loyalty, for example, is rational because it’s a matter of acting in accordance with what I am. I’m loyal to my country and my family not simply because I happen to feel like it or to achieve some other goal but because I’m part of them and they are part of me.

As to the true, we need the transcendent. The modern outlook lacks a way of dealing with realities that we cannot fully grasp

[...]

Religion is the obvious source. You can pretty much define religion as a scheme of orientation toward goods and truths we can neither do without nor understand completely.

One final point [on beauty]: a great point in favor of conservatism should be a superior understanding of beauty. Beauty is one thing that modernity can’t give us at all. The point of beauty, after all, is to be exactly what it is. It’s irreducibly non-technological. For these reasons, a conservatism that does not take beauty seriously is rejecting something essential to its own life. Burke said that a social order has to have something in it that inspires love. He was right.

From Lawrence Auster's How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance:

While conservatives complain endlessly (one might even say boringly) about the double standard, however, they have signally failed to understand it. One explanation may be that today's leftists deceptively describe their politics as "liberal," a fiction to which conservatives have all too willingly subscribed.

Conservatives have done this partly out of naïveté and partly out of a desire not to be polarizing, since their most basic need as conservatives is to affirm the harmony and cohesion of the existing order. Treating leftists as "liberals," they are constantly surprised and scandalized at the "liberals'" illiberal intolerance.

Let us therefore go beyond these futile complaints about the double standard and instead ask why the double standard is so characteristic of today's "liberalism." Once we answer that question, we may be in a position to combat the double standard effectively, instead of spending the rest of our lives complaining impotently about it.

[...]

The basic reason for the "liberal" double standard...is that today's "liberals" are really leftists who have rejected the older liberal belief in a shared equality of citizens before the law and have embraced the socialist vision of "equality as a fact and equality as a result," as Lyndon Johnson famously put it.

Moreover, since socialism has been discredited following the fall of Soviet Communism, the left has for tactical reasons largely shifted its demand for equality of results away from the economic sphere to the cultural/moral sphere and the advancement of "oppressed" cultural and ethnic groups. The result is cultural socialism...In order for the desired state of equality to be attained, we, the unfairly dominant group, must be condemned, excluded, and dragged down, while the Other must be celebrated, included, and raised up.

[...]

The key point is that the double standard results automatically from the demand for equality between inherently unequal things. The double standard is not a mere excess or defect of leftism, but its essence.

[...]

Therefore the real debate that we conservatives must seek to join with our "liberal" adversaries is not between their alleged support for equality and tolerance and our alleged bigotry and hatred. The real debate is between their desire to dismantle our traditional morality, institutions, and culture, and our desire to preserve our traditional morality, institutions, and culture—indeed our very freedom and existence as a people.

Modern liberalism is a leftist and nihilistic rebellion against the inherently unequal nature of the human condition. If we conservatives named this ideology for what it is, we would have a fair chance to defeat it or at least stem its advance. If we are effectively to oppose modern liberalism with its destructive double standards, we must oppose it on principle.

How Not to Fight the War against Islam

Ironic book title by Kathy Shaidle,
given the nature of her most recent post

I've always been ambivalent about our Canadian self-appointed conservative spokesmen, from Kathy Shaidle to Wendy Sullivan (she of the I Am Sarah Palin video fame), and even the boisterous Ezra Levant.

For all their outspokenness, I find them to be "conservative-lite". Or maybe it is the Mark Steyn Kool Aid that's influencing them (the link is to a photo at groupie Wendy Sullivan's blog with her and Steyn.)

I've put Shaidle to task about her appearance on public television, coming unprepared to speak on topics at hand (the last one was on atheism at TVO), and just spouting out a couple of irritated and angry words. I've also written about her interview with Robert Spencer on Islam, where she gave him a lot of slack.

Wendy Sullivan did the same on the Michael Coren Show, and I actually think Coren was more in the right (no pun intended) than in the wrong for chastising her.

This same group has also spent an inordinate amount of time sympathizing with Chinese minorities for an innocent gaffe that an adversarial leftist - Warren Kinsella - wrote on his blog.

And now here's Shaidle's latest post.

Ezra Levant is on a book tour for Shakedown, his latest on Human Rights Commission revelations, which he did a great job of describing here on the Michael Coren Show. Yesterday, he posted a photo of his Calgary book signing, which was nothing unusual, except I hope that he has the permission of these people to have their faces all over the internet - they could be potential HRC victims!

Well, Shaidle has picked up on that photo and uses it as a great example of...diversity! Look at those minorities in "redneck" Calgary, and how they support freedom of speech (because the whole point for this group regarding the HRC is the stifling of freedom of speech.)

She then goes on to write a completely unrelated story about that neo-con conman Conrad Black (look at all those cons!), and a cocktail party she attended, filled with elite immigrants and non-whites (Mark Steyn is also in there somewhere.) Yes, we all know what elite immigrants are really up to in Canadian politics (bringing in more immigrants.)

Well, the funny think about Levant's photo is all I see are two non-whites, or as Shaidle writes, "a black guy and an Asian dude", which doesn't make for much rejoicing, if that's what Shaidle is doing.

Also, there is no knowing why these two showed up, maybe they just want to say whatever they please, and "don't want no" Commission telling them what to do. Who knows if they really care about Canada as a nation, which is the whole point of true conservatism, I would think.

I've tried to figure out what the real purpose of her post might be. I think she’s getting a lot of flack from her readers for her sporadic “Your religion is f***ing retarded” outbursts about Muslims, and her various attacks on Toronto blacks. I think its getting to her that people are calling her "racist." She just doesn’t want to be called racist anymore, and needs her readership to keep on supporting her.

Another thing I have to mention is that she doesn't have any real idea of what she wants for Canada. As long as there are those who will violently or obnoxiously disrupt the peace, then she'll be at the forefront. She hates Islam because it is "retarded", writes about blacks and their attraction for guns and welfare, hates Warren Kinsella because he pokes fun at "conservatives".

All this from someone who wrote Tyranny of Nice, yet wants to be nice herself (for now)!

I’ve always maintained that the biggest problem with the fight against Islam is the vitriol that comes from the conservative side. Instead of name-calling, get the facts straight. Win your arguments based on information rather than rants. And you will win. Don’t give the Muslims (or liberals, or minorities) fodder for attacking you with your ill-conceived and unnecessary attacks.

Shaidle's attention in the media is purely based on her outspokenness on issues she doesn’t like. And I don’t think this makes for a very good conservative spokesman.

I definitely miss the outspoken, intelligent and erudite Kevin Michael Grace, who I hope is faring well since he's been absent from his website for many months now. We need more people who can articulate the problems, and find solutions to them. Not those who just yell at the top of their voices when they find something they don't like. Unfortunately, this is really what Shaidle is, or has become.

I wish her the best in her uneven battle to right what she thinks is wrong. But she's better off taking time to think, study and attack on foundations, rather than just on anger.

The Diversity of Support for Free Speech

I've always being ambivalent about our Canadian self-appointed conservative spokesmen, from Kathy Shaidle to Wendy Sullivan(her of the I Am Sarah Palin video fame), and even the boisterous Ezra Levant.

For all their outspokenness, I find them to be "conservative-lite". Or maybe it is the Mark Steyn Kool Aid, that's influencing the group.

I've put Shaidle to task about her appearance on public television, coming unprepared to speak on topics at hand (the last one was on atheism, previously it was a panel on the ordination of the recent pope), and just spouting out a couple of irritated and angry words. I've also written about her interview with Robert Spencer on Islam, where she gave him a lot of slack.

Wendy Sullivan did the same on the Michael Coren Show, which I actually think Coren was more in the right (no pun intended) than in the wrong for chastising her.

This same group has also spent an inordinate amount of time sympathizing with Chinese minorities for an innocent gaffe that an adversary leftist - Warren Kinsella - wrote on his blog.

This all comes to Shaidle's latest post.

Ezra Levant is on a book tour for Shakedown, his latest on Human Rights Commission revelations, which he did a great job of describing here on the Michael Coren Show. Yesterday, he posted a photo of his Calgary book signing, which was nothing unusual, except I hope that he has the permission of these people to have their faces all over the internet - they could be potential HRC victims!

Well, Shaidle has picked up on that photo and uses is as a great example of...diversity! Look at those minorities in "redneck" Calgary, and how they support freedom of speech (because the whole point for this group regarding the HRC is the stifling of freedom of speech.)

She then goes on to write a completely unrelated story about that neo-con conman Conrad Black (look at all those cons!), and a cocktail party she attended, filled with elite immigrants and non-whites (Mark Steyn is also in there somewhere.) Yes, we all know what elite immigrants are really up to in Canadian politics (bringing in more immigrants.)

Well, the funny think about Levant's photo is all I see are two non-whites, or as Shaidle writes, "a black guy and an Asian dude", which doesn't make for much rejoicing, if that's what Shaidle is doing.

Also, there is no knowing why these two showed up, maybe they just want to say whatever they please, and "don't want no" Commission telling them what to do. Who knows if they really care about Canada as a nation, which is the whole point of true conservatism, I would think.

I've tried to figure out the real purpose of her post might be. I think she’s getting a lot of flack from her readers for her sporadic “Your religion is f***ing retarded” outbursts about Muslims, and her various attacks on Toronto blacks. I think its getting to her that people are calling her "racist." She just doesn’t want to be called racist anymore, and needs her readership to keep on supporting her.

Another think I have to mention is that she doesn't have any real idea of what she wants for Canada. As long as there are those who will violently or obnoxiously disrupt the peace, then she'll be on the forefront. She hates Islam because it is "retarded", writes about blacks and their inadvertent attraction for guns (and welfare), hates Warren Kinsella because he pokes fun at "conservatives", and wrote her book Tyranny of Nice, yet wants to be nice herself (for now.)

And this from someone who just wrote a book called the Tyranny of Nice!

I’ve always maintained that the biggest problem with the fight against Islam is the vitriol that comes from the conservative side. Instead of name-calling, get the facts straight. Win your arguments based on information rather than rants. And you will win. Don’t give the Muslims (or liberals, or minorities) fodder for attacking you with your ill-conceived and unnecessary attacks.

Her attention in the media is purely based on her outspokenness on issues she doesn’t like. And I don’t think this makes for a very good conservative spokesman.

I definitely miss the outspoken, intelligent and erudite Ambler, who I hope is faring well since he's been absent from his website for many months now. We need more people who can articulate the problems, and find solutions to them. Not those who just yell at the top of their voices when they find something they don't like. Unfortunately, this is really what Shaidle is, or has become.

I wish her best in her uneven battle to right what she thinks is wrong. But she's better off taking time to think, study and attack on foundations, rather than just yell whenever things go wrong.


Type your summary here

Type rest of the post here

"Little Mosque" is Scraping Along While "Corner Gas" is Gone

Finally it's happened. With budget constraints looming, the CBC has cut that show with the ever-declining ratings, Little Mosque on the Prairie.

Wait, that's not exactly what's happening. The CBC isn't cutting the show per se, but is cutting down on new episodes, and showing more reruns.

That is exactly as I predicted about three months ago in my article How Canada's Little Mosque on the Prairie is aiming to take over our souls, when I wrote:

Ratings [for Little Mosque on the Prairie] are down from the premier of two million viewers in January 2007 to about 500,000 in the latest poll in November 2008. But such low ratings have never stopped the CBC from maintaining ideologically appropriate programs: left-leaning, often anti-American/anti-Western, with a multicultural angle.

Meanwhile, CTV's Corner Gas, another sitcom about life in small town rural Saskatchewan, which as far as I know has no Muslims or mosques in sight, is being canceled despite its popularity, with ratings of 1,184,000 for the week of March 24.

It wasn't budget problems that caused the show to shut down, but after six seasons as Canada's most popular comedy, Corner Gas' creator Brent Butt decided it was better to leave while still on top.

That is something the Little Mosque crowd will never do. Better to eke out ideologically appropriate "comedy" to get the masses slowly indoctrinated. After all, there are so many things to cover, and reruns just won't cut it!

Strange Allies in the War on Terror

Cropped image from Michelle Malkin's book cover In Defense of Interment.
[Click on image to see full cover.]

The Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre (JCCC) in Toronto started a new documentary series on March 2009 called Nikkei Flix. I had to look up Nikkei (these days, we are just expected to know obscure words from alien cultures, and if not, shame on us for not being global enough). Nikkei, according to Wikipedia are, "Emigrants of Japanese ancestry or their descendants."

The first film to kick off this series is Caught In Between, which the film's schedule proudly announced was, "Part of the programming for International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is March 21." Better late than never.

The documentary film's official web page describes Caught in Between as a film that:

[T]races how in the wake of 9/11, two communities that had rarely crossed paths have come together in solidarity to speak out against the U.S. government’s attacks on civil rights and civil liberties. Speaking at San Francisco’s Japan Town Peace Plaza, Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, Japanese Americans, and others ... make passionate pleas to uphold our constitution and protect innocent people who are targeted as the "enemy."

The film's site further discusses Japanese American internments during World War II, and associates them with the current "War on Terrorism":

As the Arab, Muslim, South Asian communities face post-911 repression, this documentary captures Muslim and Japanese American communities revisiting the dark days of the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II. Interviews with former internees, their children, religious leaders, citizens and immigrants from Japanese and Muslim American communities are woven together to make crucial connections between then and the current “War on Terrorism.”

Michelle Malkin's book In Defense of Interment made similar associations. But, Malkin was supporting those internments, whereas Caught In Between refers to that episode in American history as "the U.S. government’s attacks on civil rights and civil liberties."

So far, there have been no official plans (or talks) that Muslims be interred, unless one takes Malkin's attempt to suggest otherwise in her book. Malkin's book was highly criticized, and I don't think she ever brought up, or developed, that idea further.

At a crucial time in America's history, when all her citizens should be banding together to eliminate her enemies and protect her from internal threats, we have yet another ethnic group with a chip on its shoulder and full of grievances, which is actually hampering national security and siding with what is clearly the enemy. 9/11 was not an isolated event, as proceeding events have shown us, but one in a series of tactics to have Islam reign supreme.