Specifically Islam of course. Worth seeing. nothing you wont know but good to see something this mainstream attacking political correctness and the bullshit submission to Islam by the UK
Continue Reading →
Category Archives: Political Correctness
Ezra Levant: B’nai Brith re thinks its love of Canada’s HRC’s
This is definitely a two-siren blog post.
The B’nai Brith, historically one of the most partisan supporters of Canada’s human rights commissions, has made a dramatic break from the human rights industry, “urgently” calling for a “major overhaul” of Canada’s human rights commissions. You can read the full text of their press release on the subject here.
The B’nai Brith is Canada’s oldest and largest Jewish service club, dating back to 1875.
Frank Dimant, the Executive Vice-President of BB, said “we have to ensure that commissions do not become abusers of the very human rights they are charged with protecting” — a clear shot at the HRCs’ continuous violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well as their well-documented procedural abuses and corruption. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, is now under four different investigations, including by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
David Matas, BB’s senior legal counsel, was also quoted in their press release, pointing to several illegal and abusive traits of HRCs, including that the same complaints can be filed with multiple HRCs, as was done by the anti-Semitic Canadian Islamic Congress in their complaints against Maclean’s magazine and Mark Steyn. According to Matas, “Commissions cannot become avenues of harassment in which complaints are simultaneously made in several jurisdictions. The remedy is to introduce rules that will allow for one jurisdiction only.”
Matas also suggested deep re-education for the HRCs’ corrupt censors, accusing them of ignorance and anachronism. “The remedy for ignorance is education and training. Investigators must be required to undertake compulsory in-house courses that meet these needs. They must always be able to distinguish between hate and protected political speech,” he added. That’s a pretty clear shot at political censors like Richard Warman and Dean Steacy, the latter of whom actually testified that free speech is not a Canadian value — despite its entrenchment as a “fundamental freedom” in our Charter of Rights, our Bill of Rights, and our inherited unwritten U.K. constitutional corpus.
Finally, Matas called for costs to be awarded against clear nuisance litigants, like the CIC and the Jew-bashing imam Syed Soharwardy, who simply walked away from his Alberta HRC complaint about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, after saddling taxpayers with $500,000 in costs, and me with nearly $100,000 in costs (another, identical complaint, continues against me.)
Matas said: “Costs must be levied against those whose clear aim is to abuse the system by launching attacks designed to harass bona fide respondents. This would be a deterrent against those who deliberately seek to hijack and corrupt the human rights system in pursuit of their own ideological bent.”
Again, you can see the entire release here.
This is enormous, because it ends the false unanimity amongst Canada’s “Official Jews” in support of HRCs. As I’ve written here, most real Jews are not for censorship; it’s just the personal obsession of a few “Professional Jews”, like Bernie “Burny” Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Leo Adler of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
It’s not surprising to me that B’nai Brith was the first to bolt the troika of Jewish groups that has turned a blind eye to the HRCs’ corruption. As I wrote several months ago, as the HRCs continue to beclown themselves in the public square, those who are allied with them will start to incur political damage, especially with this Conservative government. (The CJC, with its impeccable Liberal connections, doesn’t much care.) But I don’t think the B’nai Brith’s about-face was done to please the government; I think it was done in response to the B’nai Brith’s own constituency: grassroots, severely normal, Canadian Jews.
Unlike the CJC, and certainly the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the B’nai Brith actually has active members, and local branches across the country, made up of volunteers. They’re like the Jewish Rotary Club — normal. They’re not a hot-house of professional political lobbyists like Burny, who has his own political agenda, and is using the CJC’s name and reputation to prosecute his own hobby-horses. Grassroots Jews know that the real threat in 2008 isn’t a handful of teenaged kids talking tough about being Nazis in some website fantasy — really, the political equivalent to an online fantasy role playing video game. The real threat is a wave of radical Islam both internationally and here in Canada — including the CJC’s new ally, the Canadian Islamic Congress. The B’nai Brith understands — as David Matas makes crystal clear — that the Canadian Islamic Congress is an illiberal, abusive, human rights-violating enemy of Canada and enemy of the Jews. The CJC? Well, the CJC’s newest legal committee member, Warren Kinsella, actually gave help and advice to the Canadian Islamic Congress. I’m guessing that if a B’nai Brith officer tried that, he’d be fired the next day.
I am excited that the B’nai Brith has so publicly broken ranks with the rest of the Professional Jews, and has clearly accused not only the Canadian Islamic Congress of harrassment, but has taken pretty dead aim at the CHRC and its investigators, too.
But, even amidst my enthusiasm, I must still acknowledge some depressing realities:
1. The B’nai Brith remains an intervenor against Mark Lemire in the Warman v. Lemire nuisance suits\ that is clearly as abusive as anything the Canadian Islamic Congress has filed;
2. In that Lemire case, the B’nai Brith’s lawyers have conducted themselves in lock-step with the CJC and the CHRC, including supporting the section 13 thought crimes provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
3. The B’nai Brith has stopped short of calling for the abolition of section 13. In other words, they have not taken that final step of realizing that censorship is not a Jewish value, it’s not healthy for a liberal democracy, and it has only served to discredit the B’nai Brith — and make anti-Semitic nobodies into glamourous international celebrities.
Still, this is a huge step — the first and hardest step. The B’nai Brith has announced today that they no longer drink the human rights industry kool-aid. They’re not going to continue turning a blind eye to the corruption and abuse that’s rampant in the industry.
I expect two things will happen:
1. The human rights industry will respond with execration, demonizing B’nai Brith and Dimant and — as Kinsella usually does — accusing them of being supporters of Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. I know that sounds nuts, but ad hominem attacks are really all the intellectually bankrupt HRC industry has left.
2. I also expect that real Jews, normal Jews, grassroots Jews, Jews who lead normal lives — as opposed to the Official Jews, the Jews Who are Jews for a Living — will respond with enthusiasm, and that the B’nai Brith will attract both money and people away from the CJC.
I hope that the B’nai Brith will find its new path so rewarding — intellectually, morally and politically — that it will, in time, take the final step and acknowledge that the section 13 “thought crimes” law is unsalvageable, and should be abolished altogether.
Why don’t you take a moment and send Frank Dimant, BB’s boss, a letter of encouragement. Understand how hard it must have been for him to repudiate decades of collusion with the human rights industry. Wish him well in the weeks ahead, when he’ll be abused by his spurned lovers in the HRCs, and the dhimmis in the CJC. And tell him that he speaks for Canadians — Jewish and Gentile — and for Canadian (and Jewish) values of true civil rights much more than the corrupt poseurs at the HRCs.
You can e-mail Dimant here.
Fjordman, The greatest betrayal in history.
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.
This post was compiled from comments made on one of last night’s posts.
The scale of violent crime white people are being subject to in countries such as Sweden resembles warfare. Not only does the state not protect people against this racist violence, it actively sides with the attackers. Which means that the social contract is now dead and buried in most Western countries. The state is either expensive and irrelevant or it is an outright enemy.
The numbers in Sweden, and no doubt elsewhere, are worse than we are told. They are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by:
| A. | The warm weather/global warming, | |
| B. | Alcohol, | |
| C. | Internet dating sites, and | |
| D. | A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than before. |
These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other.
Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien cultures is quite literally banned by law. A Swedish man was arrested, brought in front of the local court and sentenced for “hate speech” for carrying a sign during a demonstration suggesting that rape was linked to immigration.
Meanwhile, Norwegians are being told that we need to hire thousands of more cops to contain the massive increase in crime brought on by mass immigration (which is still supposed to be “good for the economy), a mass immigration that will not only continue but increase. Nobody among the Leftist media elites says it should stop, they say it should continue indefinitely, and there are more and more hysterical witch-hunts against “racism” by the white indigenous people. It’s state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of the native population, cheered by our own media and intellectuals, in short: The greatest betrayal in history.
This is part of a massive and prolonged campaign of psychological warfare against whites in general that has been going on for several generations now, to strip whites of any sense of pride or self-respect. The current Swedish “conservative” prime minister has stated in public that his county’s traditional culture was merely barbarism, and that anything good was imported from abroad. While Swedish girls get gang raped by Muslim immigrants who are met with “respect for their diverse culture,” Swedish boys are being systematically indoctrinated with radical Feminism, in the most extreme cases being forced to wear female clothes and take female names by kindergarten teachers.
On the International Women’s Day, March 8 2008, the columnist Marte Michelet in the left-wing pro-Multicultural Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet attacked “brown” feminists. And no, by that she did not mean feminists with a dark skin, but those championing “Fascist,” racist and Islamophobic forces. She is the daughter of the Communist writer Jon Michelet and was until 1998 the leader of the Red Youth, the country’s “revolutionary youth league.”
Many Marxist feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.
Attacks on Western history in order to instill shame into Western youths, a shame that militates against their thinking that their civilization is worth defending, are very common, especially targeting female students. Here is a quote from the book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t by Robert Spencer:
– – – – – – – – –
A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing…. Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground….When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority….Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’
Phyllis Chesler gets it right on the money
Thanks Grace as always for finding this gem:
Islamic Gender Apartheid
By Phyllis Chesler
Front Page Magazine | December 16, 2005
A speech for the 12/14/05 Senate hearing organized by the American Committee for Democracy in the Middle East.
According to one Iranian dissident, “being born female is both a capital crime and a death sentence.” Today, the plight of both women and men in the Islamic world, and in an increasingly Islamized Europe, demands a sober analysis and a heroic response. In a democratic, modern, and feminist era, women in the Islamic world are not treated as human beings. Women in Iran and elsewhere in the Islamic world are viewed as the source of all evil. Their every move is brutally monitored and curtailed. The smallest infraction – a wanton wisp of hair escaping a headscarf – merits maximum punishment: Flogging in public, or worse. This is happening in Iran even as we speak. In 2005, a hospital in Tehran was accused of refusing entry to women who did not wear head-to-toe covering. In 2002, in Saudi Arabia, religious policemen prevented 14 year old schoolgirls from leaving a burning school building because they were not wearing their headscarves and abayahs. Fifteen girls died.
Today, George Orwell’s Thought Police are, rather ominously, everywhere in the Arab and Islamic world. Orwell’s Thought Police pre-date the Afghan Taliban or Iran’s or Saudi Arabia’s Virtue-and-Vice squads, who arrest men and women for the smallest sign of “individuality”, difference, or female-ness.
Women in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and increasingly in Egypt, are veiled from head to toe. They live in purdah and lead segregated lives. Women are also forced into arranged and polygamous marriages, often when they are children, and often to much older men or to first cousins.
The solution to real problems is not to pretend they do not exist.
Rape by Muslims of non Muslim women in Europe has gotten much attention recently. So much so that a google search will do more for this article than me pasting links here. I feel its worth while to mention why an action done as a crime as opposed to a political act requires a very different approach.
When someone robs a bank for money and perhaps kills people in the process civilisation depends on due process. That the person is able to get a meaningful defense, the presumption of innocence, a trial by an impartial judge and or jury. these things matter. However, when a terrorist group robs a bank and kills people for a political end its simply not the same thing. These are people who are at war with civil society itself. The end goal is not the money and the murders where not done as a part of the process but all are a package to threaten and intimidate and further the goals of the terrorist group.
Fjordman see’s a little hope for Italy
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.
In 2008, after the center-right government of Silvio Berlusconi gained power in Italy, Spain’s vice-president Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega accused the Italians of racism. “The [Spanish] government rejects violence, racism and xenophobia, thus it does not agree with what is happening in Italy,” said Fernandez de la Vega. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International warned that the new immigration restrictions were part of a worrying trend, and that Italian politicians were legitimizing the use of “racist language.” Later, the president of the city of Milan, Filippo Penati, proposed to fine Muslims who pray on the streets or sidewalks outside of the local mosque because they create obstacles for others.
“For some time Italy has been the gateway of the Mediterranean, but this door now needs to be slammed shut because we have a duty to defend our citizens and guarantee their safety” said Italy’s Minister for Community Policies, Andrea Ronchi. “We shall punish illegal immigrants, irregular stays by foreigners who commit crimes on our territory. And this is our full right as a nation.”
Is it? In the view of various “human rights” organizations, European countries do not have the right to defend our borders or citizens. That would violate the “human rights” of those who colonize our countries and harass our children in the streets of our cities. We have a duty to die, to dismantle our nations and applaud our own annihilation because we are white and thus have no legitimate reason to exist. We’re a big, fat and stupid cow to be milked by others.
According to a survey from April 2008 funded by the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), the funds transferred from Europe to eight southern Mediterranean countries (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey) represent between 2% and 20% of the gross domestic product of these countries. The incomes received by immigrants and then sent to their countries of origin are a resource on which the governments in the Arab and Muslim world are becoming increasingly dependant. The European Union wants this trend to continue and expand, and Muslims will intimidate anybody who challenges these pro-Arab policies.
Mark Steyn on Rush transcript. great read!
Thank you so much SanS for sending this my way. Steyn is a wonderful read always
MY CONVERSATION WITH MARK STEYN
I was delighted to speak with the brilliant columnist and wit, author of the must-read America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It (Regnery), just released in paperback:
RUSH: Mark, my man, how are you, sir?
STEYN: I’m doing great, Rush. It’s an honor to talk to you.
RUSH: I appreciate that. What I want to hit on first is you. You have been on trial for “flagrant Islamophobia.”
STEYN: That’s right.
RUSH: With Maclean’s magazine, which published an excerpt from your book, America Alone. You have been brought before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in Vancouver by the Canadian Islamic Congress “on behalf of Muslim residents in the province of British Columbia.” Closing arguments were Friday [June 6]. What are some of the highlights of the tribunal? Where does it stand?
STEYN: There is no First Amendment in Canada. Canada, like a lot of other Western governments, has become very comfortable in the business of regulating speech. It always sounds terribly reasonable when these people say, “Of course I believe in freedom of speech, but it’s a question of where you draw the line, how you strike a balance.” All that line-drawing and balance-striking appeals to Canadians’ sense of their own moderation. They set up these human rights courts 30 years ago and they have tripped over a couple of cases a year since then. Along comes the Canadian Islamic Congress, which wants to shut down discussion of Islam and Islam’s relationship to the West. They spotted their opening and have been using these pseudo-courts to basically go after anybody who wants to talk about this issue.
RUSH: You have said you hope you lose.
STEYN: That’s right. I want to lose here so that we can take it to a real court, to a court of appeals, and eventually, if necessary, up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and get this particular hate speech provision struck down as unconstitutional.
The whole position of the human rights nomenclature up there is that America is out of whack with the rest of the world, and they say, “There’s no point telling us that people have freedom of speech in America.” As the Canadian human rights commissioner put it: the international community has decided there are limits to free speech, and Canada – unlike America – being a member in good standing of the international community, has to respect that. In other words, you take Canada, France, Sweden, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen, you find out what the consensus on freedom of speech is, and you pitch it halfway between Yemen and Sweden and that should be fine for anyone. I returned from this cockamamie trial yesterday [June 8] and believe me, I have never been so glad to cross the border and get south of the 49th parallel again. The guy at the border said, “What was your business in Canada?” I said, “I was on trial at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for crimes against humanity.” He said, “Oh, well, welcome home,” and waved me on.
Ezra Levant on CTV this is fucking UNREAL please watch
I have to ask the question:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/spreading-hate/#clip64624
The lawyer who opposes Levant on this clip demonstrates the traits of every political despot in history in this man’s humble opinion
Eeyore
Beware of censorship by RORY LEISHMAN
While the Canadian Human Rights Commission has bowed to widespread public opposition to proceeding with a complaint against Maclean’s magazine brought by the Canadian Islamic Congress, less powerful and prominent Canadians should beware: For them, the threat of censorship remains.
Even Maclean’s is still under investigation by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in a parallel case initiated by Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He has charged the magazine with expressing hatred and contempt for Muslims with the publication of an article by Mark Steyn on the escalating threat posed by radical Islam to democracy and freedom under law in Canada and other Western countries.
An article about Geert Wilders of Holland. His views and ideals.
Posted by: Diana West Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:26 AM
This Fourth of July, light a firecracker for Geert Wilders–a true son of liberty.
From today’s column:
THE HAGUE, The Netherlands — Having run the polite-but-grim gauntlet of Dutch government security to gain access to Geert Wilders, I finally understood what the 24-hour security requirements of the man’s continued existence really mean: To make the survival of Western-style liberty in the Netherlands his political cause, this Dutch parliamentarian has to live under high-tech lock and key.
This stunning paradox, with no end in sight, illustrates how far political freedom in the West has already eroded. Think of it: For writing about the repressive ideology of Islam, for arguing against the inequities of Sharia (Islamic law), for making a video (“Fitna”) to warn about Islamic jihad, Wilders lives in his own non-Islamic country under a specifically Islamic death threat.
If it is politically incorrect to notice this, it is also indisputably true. True, too, is that, sans state security, this death threat could conceivably be carried out anytime, anywhere — from the picturesque streets outside the Dutch parliament, to the house Wilders hasn’t slept in since 2004. That, of course, was when, on an Amsterdam street, a Muslim assassin plunged a knife into Theo van Gogh’s corpse, thus attaching the Islamic manifesto threatening both Wilders and his then-parliamentary colleague, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with death.
Gates of Vienna, an especially good article about Islam from an especially good site
Gates of Vienna has some of the best writing on the net about Islam and the west such as the following: (they frequently feature Fjordman, a historian that should be mandatory reading for all school children)
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war
Monday, June 30, 2008
Demographic Conquest
by Baron Bodissey
Several years ago, after 9-11 but before we started blogging, Dymphna and I often had discussions about the coming Islamization of Europe. It was easy to see the trend: on the one hand there was the demographic decline of the indigenous population, and on the other was a dangerous multicultural ideology that fosters increasing levels of Muslim immigration.
The conclusion was obvious: absent a change of course, Europe will become a Muslim continent by the year X. The only question is whether X will be 2040, or 2100, or somewhere in between.
What was hard to understand was how the transfer of power would occur. Right now the parts of Europe that have been Islamized are mostly the working-class neighborhoods of large European cities and their suburbs. The blue-collar natives are gradually driven out as whole districts become no-go zones.
However, the elites who make policy remain in power and are for the most part removed from the effects of their decisions. They don’t live in the devastated neighborhoods, or send their children to the gang-plagued schools, or worry about being mugged or raped on their way home at night.
So for the time being they get to retain their power and perks, and continue to act out the illusion of an advanced, harmonious, enlightened, multicultural society, superior in so many ways to the racist nationalistic states of the past.
National Post on Canada’s HRC’s and free speech in comedy
Comedy And Cruelty
B.C.’s human rights censors don’t understand what it takes to be a funny man. Their ignorance may sound the death knell for stand-up in this country
Last week, George Carlin was obituarized as a brilliant comedian, a scathing social critic and a fearless enemy of government censorship. All true. But it turns out the legendary funny man can also teach us a thing or two about human rights.
A few years back, Carlin was doing a stand-up bit about the austere-sounding names assumed by popes (“Somehow, ‘Pope Corky the First’ doesn’t command a lot of authority”) when a heckler got under his skin. The comedian, pausing from his Godly shtick, smote the loudmouth thusly:
“Would somebody just put a d–k in that guy’s mouth, please? That’s what he wants! He’s a c–ksucker in disguise! He’s got his mouth open because he wants someone to cum in it!”
And then it got worse:
“If you keep it up, we’ll grab your ass and throw you on the f—ing street where you belong with your mother. And I’m f—ing her in the a–hole every night anyway. So f–k you and your sister and your wife. If you got a kid, I hope your f—ing kid dies in a car fire. How do you like that you stupid c–ksucker?”
Bald-faced bigotry. Gratuitous obscenity. Wishing the death of a child. Forget the seven dirty words: We’re talking here about three of the most powerful taboos known to Western society.
Which is precisely why the crowd loved it. Carlin got an ovation. And one can safely assume the “c–ksucker” kept his mouth shut the rest of the night.
Among good comedians, heckler-bashing is an art form — one whose brush strokes are rendered with the filthiest, most juvenile words imaginable. The goal is not just to shut the guy up. It’s to humiliate him as a warning to others — to reclaim control of the room by pile-driving the guy into his seat.
It’s not the sort of experience you forget. Back when I was at CEGEP in Montreal more than 20 years ago, one of my broomball buddies got on the case of a comedian at a downtown night club. After a while, the exasperated performer waded into the audience, stuck the butt end of his micstand into my friend’s face, and started making furious beeping noises. “My s–thead detector ? it’s going off the charts!” he exclaimed.
The comedian just stood there, beeping and beeping and beeping away — for what seemed like a full minute — while my friend literally collapsed into his own ashen-faced mortification. The crowd went nuts.
Since that day, I have never even thought about opening my mouth at a comedy club.
It’s a cruel, Hobbesian disciplinary protocol. But it’s also essential to good comedy. If every two-bit office ham with three mojitos in him felt at liberty to pipe up, comedy shows would all transform into open-mic night, and stand-up itself would become a dead letter.
Which is why the aforementioned Mr. Carlin must be rolling around in his grave right now. Thanks to a decision rendered last week by a B. C. Human Rights Tribunal, comedians performing in Canada may soon be responding to hecklers by asking them earnestly to “please refrain from further spurious commentary.”
The case in question dates from May 22, 2007, when a certain Guy Earle was performing comedy at Zesty’s Restaurant in Vancouver. Late into his act, a group of women — who, by the manager’s account, had been drinking on the outside patio for the previous seven hours — took seats next to the stage and started heckling. (Earle himself has offered a more precise description: “Two of them started making out, flipping me the bird and saying I hated lesbians.”)
The UN really must be ignored. Islam now above criticism
Discussion of religious questions now banned at UN Human Rights Council
International Humanist and Ethical Union June 30 2008
The UN Human Rights Council is not allowed to judge religions, according to president Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. Criticism of Sharia law or fatwas is now forbidden.
This ruling follows attempts by the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates at the Council to silence criticism of human rights abuse in the Islamic world.
The representative of the Association for World Education, in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, had denounced the stoning to death of women accused of adultery and of girls being married at the age of nine years old in countries where Sharia law applies.
The speaker, David Littman, was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order and the proceedings of the Council were suspended for forty minutes when the Egyptian delegate said that “Islam will not be crucified in this Council” and attempted to force a vote on whether the speaker should be allowed to continue.
On giving his ruling after the break Council President Costea said that the Council “is not prepared to discuss religious questions and we don’t have to do so”. “Declarations must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion. … I promise that next time a speaker judges a religion or a religious law or document, I will interrupt him and pass on to the next speaker”.
Canada and the HRC’s and the CRTC
I have wondered what Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper thinks about Canada’s so called ‘Human Rights Tribunals’. So far many Canadians and even some long time Liberal supporters feel Harper may be the best PM Canada has ever had.
Even so, his silence on the HRC’s have been enough to take my meager contribution to the Conservative party and benchmark it for the defense of the Canada six, the bloggers who are slated to be keel hauled by Canada’s various HRC’s.
Then thanks to fellow Vlad contributor Grace, I saw this:
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack
on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a
democratic society … It is, in fact, totalitarian.”
– Stephen Harper, 1999
This is a rather excellent bit of good news. Lets hope he acts on it. The above link is one in a flood of recent articles condemning the HRC’s and Canada’s rapid slide into totalitarian leftism. I’ts wonderful to see many of Canada’s major newspapers and media suddenly showing a little guts and risking HRC attacks on themselves to do their jobs but still, fear of Canada’s CRTC prevents them from telling the truth about immigration from Islamic nations and violent crime directly related to the politics of their nation and religion of origins.
Maybe the UK needs to switch to sniffer pigs?
MUSLIMS OFFENDED BY SNIFFER DOGS
Looks like we now have another item to add to our ever growing LONG list of THINGS THAT OFFEND MUSLIMS.
Muslims, in Great Britain, are complaining that police “sniffer” dogs – used to detect bombs, drugs and…..terrorists are against Islam. That these valued members of the police and military – who undoubtedly have saved thousands of lives through their training – are considered “dirty” by muslims. (Let’s not profile here but just who have been the terrorists of late?) So these “British” muslims do not want these filthy police dogs sniffing their sacred muslim robes. Yes – NO touching of muslims by dogs is the demand. Of course to abide by this demand would adversely affect the highly trained dogs from doing their jobs. Muslims say dogs sniffing their luggage is fine but absolutely no smelling the muslim passengers/people.
But it would appear that muslims have a habit of “picking and choosing” just what “unclean” dogs they will or won’t let defile their muslim bodies (& cars). For instance, service dogs used as guides for the blind and many other life saving reasons – are too unclean to sit in muslim taxis – in fact muslim taxi drivers have been know to leave blind passengers stranded because they had a guide dog. At least, for now in the UK, disability seems to trump muslims distaste for service dogs and the law has been changed accordingly.
Whereas helpful dogs seem haram to muslims -the heinous act of dogfighting has become rampant in England – with the majority of perpetrators being muslim. Helpless dogs, often puppies, have been seized upon by vile dogfighting muslim groups and raised to be forced into excessive breeding, fighting and eventual death. Clearly these despicable, barbaric acts involve muslims touching their four legged victims – but apparently it is OK to touch dogs as long as the dogs are being tortured, maimed and killed – all for “sport”. Says alot doesn’t it? For recent instances of muslim individuals and group involvement in dogfighting go here and here and here.