Category Archives: Political Correctness

15 seconds

Posted on by

In a recent discussion I had with someone about Israel, they actually said to me that the number of people killed by incoming rockets was very low. So Israel’s reaction therefore was not justified. I was of course stunned. That somehow before Israel should be allowed to defend itself she should wait till lots of her citizens are murdered by terrorists. I asked if it was OK that I just fired a rifle randomly at my friends house and so long as I didn’t actually kill anyone that s/he wouldn’t call the police. That shut them up for a bit. I should have shown them this:

This video is part of an article on Israeli news requesting that media report on attacks against Israel in a manner that better reflects the reality of life under constant terrorist threat. Small excerpt below.

Noam Bedein, Director of The Sderot Media Center, has issued a call to mainstream media from the citizens of Sderot. Arutz Sheva has decided to publish it for our readers and hopefully, the mainstream media to whom it is addressed. A video below, shows children panicking to run for bomb shelters as a Kassam rocket approaches. 

Sderot Call on the Mainstream Media:

We ask you respectfully to change the way you report the continued rocket fire on Israel from Gaza.

The latest statistics from Natal, the organization dealing with post-traumatic stress, show that 70% of the children of Sderot suffer from symptoms of post-traumatic stress two and a half  years after the Cast Lead Operation and a full third of Sderot’s residents feel constant post-traumatic anxiety.

Australian leftists demand Israel tear down the security fence while saying nothing about Egypt’s wall for the same reason around the same people.

Posted on by

The hypocrisy of the left on these issues knows no bounds. I find it interesting that comments for this video are moderated. I left the comment, “What about the Egyptian wall. That one OK?” to discover that all comments are moderated. Hypocrites.

 

Ever enjoyed a Spanish wine or a paella? Maybe you are entitled to do this:

Posted on by

Since the suicidal cult of multiculturalism has allowed Muslims to break a large portion of our own laws with impunity on a day to day basis from turning public schools into mosques to wearing a full disguise on the street and in banks I think its time we used the same horrid laws and reasoning to get the same rights for ourselves, with the likely result that the multi-culty laws will be scrapped, as they should be, for all.

Anyone who has ever enjoyed a glass of Tinto, Spanish red wine or a fine Paella or even listened to a Paco De Lucia record could argue they have a right to express Spanish culture. Anyone who has been brought up in a Christian culture can argue that they should be allowed to express that culture here in Canada. As a fan of all three Spanish cultural manifestations I mention, and someone who was immersed in Christian culture from birth, I think I have the legal right to wear the clothes shown below on the bus, in banks and jewelry stores and public schools. I’m pretty sure I would be arrested, but I can’t see how the same arguments used by Muslims would not apply in every single context to these fine costumes, all of which date back much farther than the Muslim ones we are all so used to now, and continue to this day in Spain.

(click on any picture for a larger version)

Continue Reading →

Oz. PM called on her election lies.

Posted on by

I have to say, this woman, the Australian PM, is an excellent example of what can happen when intelligent people do not vote.

The post modern dilemma. Killed in a robbery, or jailed for ‘discrimination’.

Posted on by

Having created a society where any form of discrimination that is in your interest is illegal, but absurd forms of discrimination is encouraged such as allowing the cafeteria at public schools to turn in to mosques or forcing business to ban smoking etc. the family in this video faces what is probably a much more common dilemma than one might at first think.

H/T Snaphanen

Lowell Green Show July 12 2011

Posted on by

This was a really interesting program. Lots of revelations about how various Islamic institutions seem to get a pass from Canadian law, from schools to building mosques.

Get a coffee and settle back. Some of the Muslims who call in are also interesting.

Swedish fire service sued over affirmative action

Posted on by

I can’t believe it has taken so long for something so obviously reasonable to happen. We all need to hope this suit is successful. Reason must prevail over twisted hate filled ideology designed to destroy Western institutions and civilization. After all, you never hear about affirmative action for white people on basketball teams. Or for midgets. Or for black guys to work at Chinese restaurants. No, affirmative action only applies when you want to make sure a less qualified person takes the job of a white person, ideally a white male, anywhere in the Western world.

From The Local.Se

 

Södertörn’s fire department, just south of Stockholm, is being sued for actively choosing to hire women and people with foreign background, according to Sveriges Radio (SR).

The fire deparment’s gender and ethnicity quota became an unpleasant surprise for Simon Wallmark, who was informed that despite having trained as a firefighter, he was not encouraged to apply for a summer job, on account of being Swedish and male.

“The response I got from Södertörn was that I wasn’t qualified to apply for the summer jobs, because the jobs were reserved for women and people with an immigrant background,” said Simon Wallmark to SR.

He agrees that there is a need for more women and immigrants in the field, but argues that the recruiting should be done some other way.

Out of the 32 people finally hired by the fire department, 10 lacked the relevant education for the job.

The case is now being taken to court by Stockholm-based Centre for Justice (Centrum för Rättvisa).

“This is a case of a Swedish man who has been denied the same chances as others, just on account of being a Swedish man” Anna Rogalska-Hedlund, lawyer at Centre for Justice, told SR. Continue Reading →

“It’s not for politicians to decide” -Tim Hudak

Posted on by

Blazing Cat Fur busts the self named conservatives for being what they really are. Cowards. I also wonder who to vote for this election. Its slim pickings at this point.

Ontario Tories on Muslim prayer in schools: it’s not for politicians to decide

“Progressive Conservative critic Elizabeth Witmer said her party had no intention to bringing up religion in schools in the upcoming election, noting that this case is specific to one school board and it was up to them to sort out.  “We have indicated that we would not be bringing this (faith-based funding) forward again, we feel that the people did speak last time and our position is that this is an issue that the Toronto board needs to deal with,” she said.”
…

Please go to Blazing for the rest

Blazing Cat fur: An important addition to the Mosqueteria story

Posted on by

Check this post out at Blazing. As usual, the MSM appears to be failing us when it is a story we actually need to know. When Muslims and the establishment conspire to profoundly violate our core principles, that is when you can count on them to bury it at least 6 feet deep.

One question though. I wonder how they proposed to find out which women/girls were on their menses? I know Muslims don’t like dogs.

 

Pat Condell: An illiberal consensus

Posted on by

Damn I love this guy. When truth becomes a kind of covert, secret pleasure, you know we have a real problem. Pat speaks what not so long ago were obvious, ‘plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face’ truisms. And now we look forward to his videos with a kind of guilty delight like a dog grabbing a piece of steak fat out of the trash. We are in trouble. You can replace the BBC with CBC in this video and be exactly as accurate.

h/t dp19580

More on the Dutch ban on ritual slaughter.

Posted on by

There has been quite a few comments on this issue on Vlad. None of them agreeing with me whatsoever from any side. Just FWIW.

The National post just published this article as a sort of follow up on the previous one and I wish to take issue with much of what is said in it. Many of the comments on the previous post actually made some important points and if true, do change the equation somewhat. For example, if indeed the kosher method really does kill the animal with the same or less pain than the usual Western industrial methods, then it should be allowed based on that standard. But I cannot let rabbis say that this means ‘no Jews allowed’, as they do in this article, in Holland. It just means if they insist on eating only Kosher meat they have to be vegetarian or get the meat from Belgium. Life is about choices. Democracy makes laws for the public good now and again and while I do not agree with many of them, if they do not apply to all and exceptions can be made for the most irrational reasons, then there is no point in making them at all.

A few points:

The European Jewish Congress (EJC) announced it was considering taking legal action to block the ban, which it said violated the freedom of religion enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.

OK I have not read the “European convention of Human Rights” but surely if it speaks of freedom of religion, that can’t give religious people the right to run roughshod over secular law, only freedom from state persecution so long as they do obey the laws. Freedom of religion was always meant to mean you can pray in whatever manner to whichever god. Surely to Aphrodite it wasn’t meant to mean you can earn yourself a free pass from democratic law because you declare your religion obliges you to certain actions. If it does, then I belong to the sacred church of holy Texas Colt and I demand the right to carry an operational .45 cal sidearm at all times. You know, like the Sikh’s carry a knife. To defend their religion. Well I want my Colt to defend mine. Can’t help it if now and again a criminal gets in the way and I need to use it for non religious purposes.

CER President Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt vowed to lobby against the bill, saying: “We will not rest until this discriminatory, intolerant and hateful bill is thrown out. We call upon the members of the Dutch Senate to use their constitutional powers to restore the dignity of their country.”

How is it “discriminatory, intolerant and hateful”? It just means Jews and Muslims have to 1. Eat non halal/Kosher meat when in holland or 2. Order out or 3. not eat meat. In no way does it say no Muslims or Jews allowed. This is about a behavior. There should also be laws saying no rapists allowed. Would we accept an argument from a religious group that advocated rape of non-members (not that there is such a group of course) that such a law was hateful and intolerant of them? What about smokers? I notice even liberal Holland has banned cigarettes from bars and restaurants? Is that hateful and intolerant? Why do people insist on using the word ‘discriminate’ like its a bad thing?

“We have passed the stage of arguing the nuances of intention of anti-Semitism,” he said. “The practical effects of this bill mean that Jews are no longer welcome in the Netherlands. This has not happened for 70 years.”

No. It does not mean that. It means Jews are as welcome as anyone else they just can’t slaughter animals in a way that contradicts Dutch animal welfare laws. It is not antisemitic whatsoever. Antisemitism is when you discriminate against Jewish people for no reason other than the label of being Jewish, whether they are religious or no, or have any actual behavioral trait with which a person may take issue. This is what differentiates between antisemitism and being anti-Islam. People who are Muslim and choose to abandon all that crap no longer are on the radar of people who do not like Islam. Jews are hated for being jews, by those that do, for no actual reason of belief, behavior or any other rational attribute. This is a critical distinction and why in fact, everyone needs to learn to discriminate. Discrimination is the whole purpose of reason.

Eeyore for Vlad.

 

 

Interesting email exchange between a Canadian, and the CBC ombudsman concerning Israel.

Posted on by

I have left the emails perfectly intact except for replacing the name of the complainant. After all, this is Canada and if you take an unfashionable view on politics well, could impact ones job and social status. Just like you would expect in a free country.

Complainant to CBC:

When CBC.ca first posted the report “Hamas, Fatah proclaim reconciliation deal” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/04/hama-fatah-cairo-agreement.html), it included the following two paragraphs:

 

“The Quartet of Mideast mediators — the U.S., the EU, the United Nations and Russia — has long demanded that Hamas renounce violence and recognize the principle of Israel’s right to exist.

 

But Abbas aide Nabil Shaath told Israel Radio ahead of Wednesday’s signing that these demands “are unfair, unworkable and do not make sense.”

CBC has since removed these paragraphs from the report. The report was altered without publishing a notice of retraction or correction.

These two paragraphs are critical to the reported story, and to Canadians’ understanding of what just occurred in the Palestinian Authority.

Following a unification agreement, the aide to the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority proclaimed to the world that it’s “unfair, unworkable and does not make sense” to recognize Israel, renounce violence and respect past agreements.

This remarkable comment comes from the office of the so-called moderate Palestinian leader, who is purportedly engaged in peace negotiations with Israel.

The deleted comment provides a valuable insight into the Palestinian Authority’s attitude towards Israel, and the possible reasons why peace negotiations have been so prolonged.

The lack of visible results in the middle eastern peace process is commonly blamed on Israel. This comment, which has been stealthily removed by CBC staff, clearly implicates the PA as partly responsible for the failure of the talks. Furthermore, it portrays them as supportive of Hamas terrorism, contrary to their stated claims of desiring a non-violent solution. Lastly, these are their words, their attitude.

 

Why was this statement removed from the story?

 

Why was a retraction or correction notice not published on CBC.ca?

 

Thank you for your attention

The CBC responds:

Dear Mr. (Complainant): Continue Reading →

The joke of ‘secure Britain’: Vile banned militant extremist strolls through Heathrow immigration as 200 Somalian criminals are allowed to stay due to human rights

Posted on by
  • Free to walk the streets, asylum seeker thieves and drug dealers

By Jack Doyle

From The Daily Mail:

Last updated at 12:21 AM on 29th June 2011

 

Impunity: Banned radical extremist Raad Salah walking free in the streets of Leicester yesterdayImpunity: Banned radical extremist Raed Salah walking free in the streets of Leicester yesterday

 

Britain’s powerlessness to control who has the right to be in this country was glaringly exposed last night by two extraordinary cases.

In the first, an anti-Semitic preacher of hate whom the Home Secretary had banned from entering Britain was able to stroll in through Heathrow.

Last night, Raed Salah was giving a lecture organised by Islamist radicals to a large crowd in Leicester, and today he was due to speak at Westminster at the invitation of Left-wing Labour MPs.

In the second, a bombshell ruling by European judges blocked the deportation of some 200 Somali criminals back to their homeland.

The Strasbourg court said the men, including drug dealers and serial burglars, might be persecuted in war-torn Somalia, and that they must be allowed to stay to protect their human rights.

So, irrespective of how  heinous their crimes or the danger they present to the public, Britain has no power to expel them. Continue Reading →