This is interesting. Yet when one white guy like Bernard Goetz actually shoots genuine violent criminals in the act of committing a crime against him, and acted in genuine self defence at the moment, it means a lifetime of being in court, of having your life destroyed with infamy and on it goes. Meanwhile, gangs of Muslims in Sweden travel around in cars full of illegal weapons actually hunting a criminal for which they have no description and not a cop in sight.
Category Archives: Selective enforcement
Mark Steyn on Elisabeth Wolff and freedom of speech.
Mark Steyn was speaking at a tribute dinner for Ezra Levant Saturday Oct 30 in Ottawa and, I am told, his speech was spectacular. James Cohen, former board member of the International Free Press Society, managed to get a few moments of Mark’s time on Camera to ask him what he thought of the charges against Ms. Wolff. His answer of course, was as lucid and high impact as we have come to expect from Mr. Steyn. It never ceases to amaze me that he always lives up to the very high standard of excellence that he has created for himself. A very difficult thing to do.
I hope to have some sections of his speech for publication at some point from that night, the entirety of which may be made available on a commercial DVD from the Center for Policy Studies
.
Exposing the ACLU’s rather blatant double standard.
The modern ACLU reminds me somewhat of a particular Oscar Wilde quote although without the humour.
“There are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”
Except the ACLU does have 2 sets of consistent and opposing principles it acts on.
Below, is a video with which I do not entirely agree. That is to say, I do in fact believe in the separation of church and state. But this has to apply to Mosques as well, yet the ACLU actually fought for, and won the ‘right’ for Muslims to have publicly funded foot-baths for ritual prayer in federal airports. Something they do not even have in Saudi Arabia. Which makes this all the more annoying.
The politically correct Lucy van Oldenbarneveld meets Tarek Fatah….
From Gay and right:
Yesterday, I went to see Tarek Fatah speak at the Writers Festival in Ottawa about his new book, “The Jew is Not My Enemy”.
He was terrific, to say the least. Funny, serious, and resolute in his defense of western values and the enlightenment. Scathing about radical Islam and pissed off that far too many people on the left don’t see the threat.
However, after his opening 15 minute talk, he then sat down for a discussion with Lucy van Oldenbarneveld, a CBC reporter.
She was horrible.
First Question: What’s wrong with women wearing a burka and other coverings?
Tarek answered that this was unacceptable for women to walk around in tents and that the thought process behind it was repugnant. Lucy’s second question was well, only a about one hundred women wear them, so why all the fuss. Fatah replied that you wouldn’t accept 100 people being kept as slaves -and that even one person being kept as a slave would be one too many.
Lucy wouldn’t give up. The next question was still on the same topic….perhaps we should recognize the courage these women have to wear the burka and show their independence.
By this time, Fatah was livid.
Van Oldenbarneveld decided to go on another tack – and the question was on Islamophobia in Canada. Fatah answered with a long list of Muslims who
have been elected to public office, and who have high positions in government, etc.
He wondered….where is all the Islamophobia??
She countered with a question about whether Muslims feel threatened because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and threats against Iran.
Fatah answered that Muslims are killing Muslims in Pakistan, and that hundreds of thousands have died in Darfur. That’s real Islamophobia.
Not to be deterred, Lucy shot right back with a question about Islamophobia in Europe, and after Fatah answered that question, she came right back with a question about Islamophobia in Germany.
For the rest of this article please click over to Fred’s site.
The president of the Supreme Court says remarks made by anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders “undermine” the judiciary.
Radio Netherlands:
Speaking on television, Supreme Court President Geert Corstens said statements such as those made by Mr Wilders about his hate-speech trial “address in an erroneous manner” feelings living among the public.
Mr Wilders has repeatedly denounced his hate-speech trial as a “political trial” aimed at limiting the freedom of expression. On Friday he said he had “lost all confidence” in the judges trying him on charges of group insult, inciting hatred and discrimination. A review panel later that day granted his lawyer’s request to have the judges dismissed for creating an appearance of bias.
The Supreme Court president said undermining the judiciary was all the more serious in the case of an MP such as Mr Wilders. Mr Corsten said it was an MP’s task to help ensure the stability of the constitutional state.
© Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Amazing exchange between the military and a US senator
…and while I am busy smashing my own rule about not posting on internal US politics unless it has a direct bearing on our field of interest to dust, enjoy this fantastic Parody of one US Senator Boxer and members of the US military.
Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.
Unions really are overstepping their boundries.
Washington Times on the firing of NPR personality
EDITORIAL: Cut off NPR
Public radio fires distinguished journalist for recognizing Muslim threat
4:19 p.m., Thursday, October 21, 2010
This undated photo released by SeniorNet shows NPR news analyst Juan Williams. NPR News say it has terminated the contract of Mr. Williams after remarks he made about Muslims on the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel. (AP Photo/SeniorNet, File)
Respected National Public Radio analyst Juan Williams lost his job this week for offending liberal orthodoxy. On the bright side, no one can ever again defend NPR as being fair and balanced. This experiment in taxpayer-supported broadcasting must be put out to pasture.
“I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country,” Mr. Williams told Bill O’Reilly on Monday. “But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” On Wednesday, NPR terminated its contract with Mr. Williams, saying his remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
A post on the NPR website said Mr. O’Reilly “has been looking for support for his own remarks on a recent episode of ABC’s ‘The View’ in which he directly blamed Muslims for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” News flash to NPR: Muslims are to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks. The terrorists who killed 3,000 people were Islamic extremists, not “extremists who happened to be Muslim.” Their violent actions were motivated by and intended to further their hateful religious views. Denying the Islamic motivation of the attacks – a view actively promoted by the Obama administration and its surrogates – is willful and dangerous blindness to reality.
Mr. Williams has a reputation as a thoughtful liberal whose views go beyond the usual Democratic Party-approved talking points, and he’s earned deserved respect beyond those who were predisposed to agree with him. But it was no secret that NPR management was uncomfortable with Mr. Williams’ appearances on Fox News. In 2009, the taxpayer-subsidized operation demanded that Mr. Williams stop being identified as a “senior correspondent for NPR” when appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor.” This incident was a useful pretext for management to engage in some ideological cleansing. The firing looks even more suspicious coming as it does hard on the heels of a $1.8 million grant from ultraliberal sock puppeteer George Soros.
Australia: male journalists ordered out of courtroom while Muslim woman testifies without niqab.
I predicted this. I knew it would only be a matter of time before sharia standards would be granted formal legitimacy and folded into western court proceedings. This woman refused to remove her niqab at a previous hearing, so to satisfy her irrational sensibilities, the judge decided that sacrificing Australia’s own laws of gender equality to suit Islamic gender apartheid practices would be a fair cultural exchange.
From The Australian
Muslim woman removes niqab to give evidence, as male journalists are barred from court
- From: AAP
- October 18, 2010 5:28PM
A MUSLIM woman who sparked a national debate when she asked to give evidence in court wearing a niqab has uncovered her face to testify in a fraud trial.
Tasneem, whose last name has been suppressed by the Perth District Court, gave evidence for just 15 minutes today in the trial of Anwar Sayed.
Mr Sayed, 50, is accused of falsifying student numbers at the Muslim Ladies College of Australia in Kenwick, in Perth’s south, to fraudulently obtain part of $1.125 million the school received in state and federal government grants.
Tasneem, 36, has worn a niqab since the age of 17 and wanted to wear it while giving evidence in the trial.
But Judge Shauna Deane in August ruled she must remove the face-covering garment so that the jury could see her facial expressions.
Tasneem only removes the niqab when she visits the doctor and dentist, at customs in airports and when she has her driver’s licence photograph taken.
Judge Deane last week ruled that to make it easier for Tasneem to give evidence comfortably, men would be removed from the court.
The only men allowed in the courtroom while she gave her evidence today were male jurors, the judge’s usher, Mr Sayed and the lawyers.
While female journalists were allowed to stay in the court to report on Tasneem’s evidence, male journalists were ejected.
A lawyer representing Network Ten and the Seven and Nine networks made an application on Friday to alter the order so that male journalists could remain in court, but the application was rejected.
Giving evidence via video link today, Tasneem appeared comfortable, flanked by a security person and a support person, both of whom were female.
During her brief evidence she explained that she worked at the school as an Islamic studies teacher for two hours a day, five days a week.
Tasneem said that “from time to time” some students would go overseas on holiday or to visit family, mostly in Afghanistan, so it was possible they were enrolled at the school, but did not attend for long periods of time.
Mr Sayed is the director of Muslim Link Australia, which runs the Muslim Ladies College.
He allegedly knowingly signed a declaration that in the 2006/07 census year, more than 180 students were enrolled in the school when there were 80 to 100 fewer than that.
The school received about $164,000 from the state government and about $961,000 from the federal government.
The trial continues.
AAP
More cultural enrichment in Canada: the importation of polygamy, child brides, forced marriages
From The Ottawa Sun
Polygamy, child brides pose problems for immigration officials
By BRIAN LILLEY, Parliamentary Bureau
Last Updated: October 12, 2010 4:13pm
OTTAWA – Forced marriages, child brides, polygamy and arranged marriages between first cousins are some of the problems that Canadian immigration officials in Pakistan have to deal with.
The revelations are contained in a 26-page report prepared by Canadian officials working out of the immigration and visa office in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The report was obtained by immigration lawyer Richard Kurland through access to information legislation and supplied to QMI Agency.
“With few exceptions, the Islamabad spousal reunification programme involves Muslim proxy marriages arranged by the families, the vast majority of which take place between first cousins,” reads the report.
According to Kurland, polygamy is most common among wealthy Pakistani families trying to immigrant to Canada. Canadian officials often won’t reject an application just because a man has more than one wife, Kurland said.
“They say we can’t do this because you are polygamists so you have to divorce some, keep one and work it out domestically,” Kurland said. Kurland told QMI that often second or third wives will be sponsored into Canada as skilled workers for a business or as a maid for the household.
As for first cousins marrying, while the practice is not common in Canada due to a higher risk of birth defects, marrying your cousin is legal in this country.
“Marriages that are legal in Canada are legal for the purposes of immigration and sponsorship,” said Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.
Tazeen Ahmad, a British woman of Pakistani descent, produced a documentary earlier this year for Channel 4 called Dispatches: When Cousins Marry.
Ahmad documented the cultural reasons for the practice among British Pakistanis as well as the problems, such as a high rate of recessive gene disorders.
Canadian Court of Appeal ‘decides’ on niqabs in courtrooms
From The Ottawa Sun
Putting face on religion
By MICHELE MANDEL, QMI Agency
Last Updated: October 13, 2010 10:08pm
TORONTO – It is a typically Canadian solution.
The Ontario Court of Appeal won’t ban Muslim witnesses from wearing a face veil. Nor will the highest court in the province grant them an automatic right to do so.
Instead, in its highly anticipated decision, the appeal court has ruled right down the middle, saying “each case must turn on its own facts.”
As long as it doesn’t prejudice a fair trial, the court ruled, Muslim women should have the religious right to wear their niqab when testifying.
But if a judge is convinced by the accused that he can’t properly defend himself if she’s testifying against him behind a veil, the witness must remove her niqab and allow the face-to-face confrontation that is the norm in Canadian courts.
Justice system
“The criminal justice system as it presently operates, and as it has operated for centuries, places considerable value on the ability of lawyers and the trier of fact to see the full face of the witness as the witness testifies,” wrote Justice David Doherty in the ruling released Wednesday morning on behalf of the three-judge panel.
“There is no getting around the reality that in some cases, particularly those involving trial by jury where a witness’s credibility is central to the outcome, a judge will have a difficult decision to make.”
It was not a clear-cut victory for any side, but one cautiously applauded by all.
“It’s a real step forward,” said David Butt, lawyer for N.S., the Toronto woman who was ordered to remove her niqab at a preliminary hearing. “This walks a middle ground that balances two very important, competing rights.”
N.S. came forward in 2007 and accused her uncle and cousin of sexually abusing her as a child. When the case went to a preliminary hearing in 2008, she said she wanted to testify while wearing her niqab. When the judge ruled against her, she took her case to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June.
In its 54-page decision, the three-judge appeal panel ruled that there needs to be a “case by case assessment” and for the first time set out guidelines for judges in these previously “uncharted waters”.
For N.S., the appeal court overturned her niqab ban and said she must be given a proper hearing to show why her religion requires her to cover all but her eyes.
The defence must also be allowed to call evidence on the issue before the judge decides if she can testify wearing her veil or whether accommodations can be made for her testimony — such as an all-female court.
“The court did not decide the crux issue of whether the niqab comes off or stays on,” said N.S.’ lawyer.
“On the other hand, the court has given us a very firm set of factors to guide us.”
The Criminal Lawyers’ Association had argued that a witness can’t be properly cross-examined if their face is concealed but was satisfied with the ruling.
“It is a paradigmatic, Canadian decision insofar as it strikes a very workable compromise rather than making a choice between two important competing values,” noted association president Paul Burstein. “Time will tell.”
Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, was relieved the court of appeal did not grant an automatic right to give testimony behind the veil, which he insists is a political, not a religious, symbol. But he was troubled the appeal court seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate women wearing a face covering many in the west see as backward and misogynistic.
“They do not think that Muslim women are women per se, but some kind of exotic species that they have to nurture in the laboratory that’s called Canada,” Fatah complained.
For its part, the appeal court wisely shied away from making a definitive ruling on a piece of cloth that continues to divide.
“The wearing of a niqab in public places is controversial in many countries including Canada,” Doherty wrote.
“The controversy raises important public policy concerns that have generated heated debate. Those difficult and important questions are not the focus of this proceeding and cannot and should not be resolved in this forum.”
mi************@******ia.ca
Niqabs in Canadian courts???
From The National Post
Ontario court to rule if woman can wear niqab while testifying
For the first time in Canada, an appellate level court is going to rule on whether a woman can testify in court while wearing a niqab.
The Ontario Court of Appeal is scheduled to release its ruling Wednesday in the case of a 32-year-old Muslim woman who says she was sexually abused as a child by two male relatives.
The decision will be issued just days after the constitutional council in France approved legislation that will ban the wearing of a burqa or a niqab in public places. Women who wear the face-covering clothing could face fines of nearly $200. Anyone in France who forces a woman to wear a burqa or niqab could be sentenced to a year in jail.
In the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, the woman was originally ordered by a provincial court judge in October 2008 to remove the Muslim veil, which covers most of her face except for her eyes, while testifying at the preliminary hearing of the defendants.
The alleged sexual assault victim refused and the Ontario Court of Appeal heard arguments from the Crown and defence, as well as several other groups, during a two-day hearing in June.
The Ontario government urged the court not to issue a “blanket statement” and instead set out a legal framework for courts to decide the issue on a case-by-case basis. The appeal court could for example, allow limited questioning of a female Muslim witness, to ensure that her religious reasons for wearing the niqab are legitimate.
A lawyer for one of the two defendants argued that there is a long-standing right to assess the demeanor of witnesses when they testify and the woman should have to remove the niqab. The Muslim Canadian Congress sided with the defendants and its lawyer told the court that wearing the niqab is a political statement and the issue is not about religious freedoms.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) argued in favour of the woman’s right to testify while wearing the niqab. The lawyer representing LEAF suggested the woman should not have to “relive being forcibly uncovered,” if ordered to remove the niqab in court.
sk***@**********st.com
Interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Berlin, Oct 3 2010
ESW is on trial in Austria for ‘Hate speech violations’ which of course, means accurately quoting the Koran and exposing it’s contents in an unsympathetic way to Islam.
If you can, please consider contributing to her defence fund. I will post a link to it when one is available.
Full text below the fold:
Continue Reading →
Danish multicultural leftist gets solid dose of reality
Interesting clip. Would help a lot if I could read the article here, but as I can’t the video will have to do. Here is a link to a machine translation of the article. I do know one thing, his name was hysterically translated as, ‘Ra Buttercup’. His first name is indeed Ra, but his last name, a normal Danish last name I presume, was translated as ‘Butterup’
11 foreign nations sue the US state of Arizona for refusing to allow ILLEGAL immigration
This has to be a new level of absurdity and sedition by Obama. It is actually hard to type that. The President of the USA, it would appear, is in collusion with foreign nations to undermine a US state which is attempting to preserve it’s own American character.
H/T to the tireless FOOMF