NO!!!!!! Not the UN!!!

Bert Raphael, in the Globe and Mail, praises Lewis MacKenzie for an insane idea:

Finally a voice of reason and logic from someone who has been there and knows the facts on the ground: I refer to the article by retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie suggesting that a solution to the Israeli-Hamas war is the deployment of a strong and armed UN force in Gaza (What Is The UN Waiting For? Deploy A Strong Force To Gaza - Jan. 6). If the United Nations gave the force the power to disarm Hamas and ensure that only humanitarian goods and not guns entered Gaza, the current problems would be solved.

I'm not sure what is more dizzyingly ludricous: suggesting that the UN would pass a resolution to protect Israel against Hamas when their man on the ground is Richard Falk , or anyone with a memory longer than a week would suggest that the son of Oil-for-food would be a good idea.

MacKenzie notes that:

Hamas makes no secret that, aided and abetted by Iran, it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Any idea of a ceasefire in the current fighting leading to a change in Hamas's dedication to Israel's elimination is naive to the extreme.

and he is right but what is also extremely naive that an organization that would put 17 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the 47 Member Hunam Rights Council has no true mandate to represent any solution leading to peace in the Middle East and will certainly not make any effort to guarantee the continued existance of Israel. MacKenzie is right on one point and his article would have been adequate if he had left it at:

"The UN Security Council and member states should be ashamed."

How Dare the Israelis Bomb a Mosque

Because it was a Munitions Depot!!!!

Mind Boggling Inanity at the CHRC

There is not much I can say about the ridiculous decision by the CHRC to reject a complaint filed by Marc LeBuis regarding hate speech from Montreal imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti against gays, women and Jews that hasn't been said by Firey Spirited Zionist, Mark Steyn, or Ezra Levant except to say that it is wrong to say, as Al-Hayiti says, that:

• Homosexuality is a "perversion"
• Homosexuals "spread disorder on earth"
• Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
• "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded..."
• "It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery..."
• Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth."
• Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing..."

and he should be shunned from polite society for saying these things. I would defend his right to make an ass of himself by saying them - as I would for Reverend Stephen Boissoin who wrote a letter entitled "Homosexual Agenda Wicked" to the Red Deer Advocate. He received a lifetime ban on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality. Read the letter at the link. It is nothing like the vitriol of Al-Hayiti.

So the lesson is, if you are Muslim you have a right to free speech. If you are not, particularly if you are Jewish or Christian beware not to dislodge your gag.

Perhaps something positive will come out of it all. Ezra Levant reports that support for the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is getting louder and wider. Perhaps the hypocrisy of Jennifer Lynch and her band of zealots at CHRC should finally be looking through the classifieds.

The Challenge of Kosovo

Well, they have done it. And three permanent members of the Security Council have recognized them. Kosovo is one of the worst candidates outside of Africa to become a viable state. It is unbelievable that the disastrous consequences to a world order that depends on nation-state stability are not recognized by these countries upon whom that order depends. The message of such a successful manoeuvre is that every ethnic minority on the planet can declare themselves sovereign with no consideration to their ability to manage as mature states. In the case of Kosovo (from Caroline Glick):

• Its forty percent unemployment is a function of the absence of proper economic and governing infrastructures.
• In November 2007, a European Commission report detailed the Kosovo Liberation Army's failure to build functioning governing apparatuses. The report noted that "due to a lack of clear political will to fight corruption, and to insufficient legislative and implementing measures, corruption is still widespread... Civil servants are still vulnerable to political interference, corrupt practices and nepotism." Moreover, "Kosovo's public administration remains weak and inefficient."..."The composition of the government anti-corruption council does not sufficiently guarantee its impartiality," and "little progress can be reported in the area of organized crime and combating of trafficking in human beings."
• The prosecution of Albanian war criminals is "hampered by the unwillingness of the local population to testify" against them. This is in part due to the fact that "there is still no specific legislation on witness protection in place."
• In 2006, John Gizzi reported in Human Events that the German intelligence service, BND confirmed that the 2005 bombings in Britain and the 2004 bombings in Spain were organized in Kosovo. Furthermore, "the man at the center of the provision of the explosives in both instances was an Albanian, operating mostly out of Kosovo...who is second ranking leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, Niam Behzloulzi."

As Glick points out, supporters of Kosovo claim that as victims of "genocide," Kosovar Muslims deserve independence. But if the Muslims in Kosovo have been targeted for annihilation by the Serbs, then how is it that they have increased from 48 percent of the population in 1948 to 92 percent today? Indeed, Muslims comprised only 78 percent of the population in 1991, the year before Yugoslavia broke apart. In recent years particularly, it is Kosovo's Serbian Christians, not its Albanian Muslims that are targeted for ethnic cleansing. Since 1999, two-thirds of Kosovo's Serbs - some 250,000 people - have fled the area.

There have been clearances and massacres in that area ever since the Ottomans moved into the neighbourhood in 1389, taking over in 1455. What is needed here is a period of healing and normalization, supported by the international community, not a demonstration of the principle of the Wakf, the belief that any land that has been in Muslim hands belongs to Islam into perpetuity. Ask Spain. They know that they are on the Radar for the loonies to re-establish Andalusia. God help us if this goes much further.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Doesn't Get Britain

Who would have thought that the Head of the Church of England would fail to understand why people want to live in Britain.

I have read a number of stories about the Archbishop Rowan Williams' comments that the adoption of aspects of Shari'a law was "unavoidable". It occurred to me that it was entirely possible that the writers had missed some important contextual aspect of his speech. Then I found a copy of the full text of his lecture on Islamic Law in Britain and got the full blast of his intent. It is a bit of a tough slog as he is quite obtuse in his pseudo-dialectic. I really do not feel that he wants to Islamize Britain but he fundamentally fails to understand why it is Britain is a place that people want to live and want to go to and live.

The Archbishop of Isengard, as I have come to think of him, appears to be under the typical Left Wing belief that we in the West have stumbled on a great place to live in a land of milk and honey through no effort of our own or our ancestors. We [that is our ancestors] haven't gone through tremendous difficulties to arrive at a model of society that permits us to live in conditions where even our poor and disadvantaged would be envied as aristocrats by most of the world. It is this ludicrous assumption that leads to the equally banal conclusion that British Common Law as "A" form of Law but it is not the only form of law that should be considered in Britain.

What he the other of his ilk of moonbats don't realize is that British legal tradition is the reason that the most successful Western societies are able to advance and foster the dynamic flow of ideas and energy that drove us to the top of the food chain. We are not locked in the 7th century because we did not limit ourselves to Shari'a based medievalism. The Islamic world regressed from their Golden Age because they reverted to the primitive tribalism that forbids modern interpretations of Shari'a and growth beyond the desert.

Don't get me wrong. It is not that Shari'a would merit the force of law outside of the dusty oil patch if it modernized. The real basis of the success of the West is that the Law is based on the secular enlightenment principles that moved it forward and permitted the modern liberal democracy. There is not place for a legally binding decision from anywhere other than the legally constituted State. That includes Shari'a Courts, the Orthodox Jews that the good vicar harped on about or any other non-state agency. There is nothing wrong with people freely going to a priest, rabbi, or imam to mediate a disagreement but when the resulting decision becomes legally binding that is Wrong! The province of Ontario rightly came to that conclusion when the same question arose. All religious legally binding arbitration was banned in September 2005.

Ontario moves ahead one step. Canterbury's Britain moves two steps back. I thank God that the Archbishop has none of the authority that some of his predecessors had.

Canterbury and Other Tales From the Dark Side

I just read Kathleen Parker's article "Canterbury and Other Tales From the Dark Side" in (JWR). I thought it was spot on. I particularly liked the reference to Mordor:

"One does not have to be anti-Islam to be concerned as radical Islam clashes with Modern Europe. One does have to be blind - or in dangerous denial - not to be concerned that threats and violence from religionists, coupled with incremental accommodations and submissions by the soon-to-be "formerly" dominant culture, are leading to a darker age.
Is that the land of Mordor in the distance?"

This gave me the picture of Rowan Williams as the Archbishop of Isengard. Unfortuately, I don't see a Mithrandir in the wings waiting to rescue the Anglican Communion from this misguided dolt. It is sad, too. I used to like to be an Anglican.

Canadian vs Islamist Values

"There's a widespread belief in the public that people don't want to hear offensive speech all the time. But to some degree, we have to permit it in our society if we're going to have freedom of speech."

That was the thought that Richard Bronstein publisher of the Jewish Free Press after he came to an agreement with Syed Soharwardy to withdraw his complaint at the Alberta Human Rights Commission. That perfectly summarizes the whole point that Ezra Levant has been making in his very public dispute with the same commission. The whole point of Levant's defense is that Canadians have a foundational right to free speech within some very limited criminal restrictions.

Levant and Bronstein did not try to incite violence and they said nothing slanderous. They did offend some people who think that no-one should criticize Muhammad because Muslims are not supposed to criticize Muhammad. There seems to be a belief, not just in Canada, that ethnic minorities - most often lately this means Muslims - have a right to not be offended. No-one has a right to not be offended. Multiculturalism doesn't mean that Canadians who have been in Canada are required to accommodate everyone else's sensibilities while new arrivals are not required to adjust their expectations to our society.

While Soharwardy has now dropped the complaints his comments to the CTV in 2006 show how little he understands the paradigm he lives in here in the free West:

Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada said publishers of the cartoons should apologize and added that they are abusing freedom of the press.
"They have to apologize in the newspaper, and they have to condemn their action, and they have to come to our centre and apologize to our congregation, too," he said.

It is Soharwardy who should apologize to Levant, Bronstein, and everyone in Canada who believes in the importance of a constitutional democracy and to whom a Sharia based society would be intolerably offensive existence.

Levant's oddessy and his brilliant responses to the AHRC can be seen here.

Danish Solidarity

So here is the item that inspired me to start writing again. The link goes to Captain's Quarters, one of my favourite sources of information and dialogue on contemporary issues. The issue in this place is the plot to murder Kurt Westergaard, the author of the cartoon at the right. As reported by CNN, Danish papers have demonstrated solidarity with Westergaard and Jyllands-Posten over the fundamental Western Rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.

I can't think of anything more important than this issue and the need to defend our society against the constant attacks on the fabric of Western society by the minions of Islamofascism. It will not stop until the world has submitted to the harsh Salafist interpretation of Sharia law. Live and let live is not an option. I have supported this since I first read about the animal furor that occurred in response to the cartoons (see the marker at the sidebar), I use Danish products when I can, and I push the issue whenever I can. I strongly recommend that anyone who values our Western way of life do the same and that anyone who has a forum to do so links to the Captain's Quarters post linked in this title or to the Michelle Malkin post here.

This really is worth everything that we stand for. Watch in the near future for posts about the Canadian shame at the Alberta Human Rights Commission where Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard, is defending his right to Free Speech after publishing the Danish Cartoons in the WS.

South Korea Taliban as Foreign Affairs Ministry

In a brave move to resolve the hostage crisis in Afghanistan the South Korean government of President Roh Moo-hyun has hired the Taliban to kidnap and kill people who travel to Afghanistan to help bring the country out of the catastrophic anarchy inflicted by the Taliban since they seized power in 1995. As part of the deal the Taliban have take ownership of South Korea's sovereignty over their Foreign Policy, a role that they and their partners al-Qaeda assumed in Spain in March 2004.

While Roh might interpret his actions differently, it is rare that one is permitted to determine one's historical epithet. It is, however, certain that the success met by the Taliban in its dealings with Roh's government will ensure that they use similar tactics in the future. They would be fools not to and they have indicated positively that they will. Further, the success will encourage the Taliban to take more bold actions against Afghan civilians, aid workers, and other caring civilized people with anticipated impunity and the money awarded them by the South Koreans as part of the deal will enable them to fund paramilitary activities against the troops trying to bring a semblance of order to the country.

Korea was once a great nation whose influence was formational to the development of the Japanese civilization and who maintained independance in the face of attempted invasions from the Mongols and Japanese as well as constant pressures from neighbouring China. How truly pathetic that they should fall so far as to roll over for a bunch of bandit dogs in the backward sticks of a tribal hinterland.

The streets of Seoul are truly paved with the blood of their betters. May they long hang their heads in shame.

Cambridge University Press Offers Its Submission

This is really frightening!


The Cambridge University Press is the oldest publishing and printing house in the world. It received its Royal Charter in 1534 by Henry VIII. Its charter authorizes it to print "all manner of books" and it has been a paragon of academic and intellectual leadership since its inception.


Until now. Now CUP takes its publishing direction from Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz a Saudi billionaire whose charity Muwafaq is designated as "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen" by the US Treasury Department and the Sheikh himself as a "specially designated global terrorist."


How did this come about? CUP published a book, "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the University of California history professor, emeritus Robert O Collins. In the book they detail who has funded the radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, North America. They show who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the last 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet. The book was received with positive critical reviews with even the Globe and Mail calling it "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world."


The problem is partly that the leader of this web is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz who was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government and Sheikh Mahfouz doesn't like his dealings with the enemies of the West being public knowledge. The rest of the problem is that English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff so when Bin Mahfouz' attorney Laurence Harris filed suit in the UK against the UK publishers they capitulated completely. They have pulped all unsold copies of the book and asked libraries to take it off their shelves. They even sent a letter to the Sheikh saying:

"Throughout the Book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.

"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."

This despite the fact that the information was not manifestly false. According to The Terror Finance Blog "'Alms for Jihad' is properly sourced, with hundreds of references. And Burr and Collins provided Cambridge University Press with all their materials on bin Mahfouz' al Qaeda and Hamas financing, contrary to the false statements by both bin Mahfouz' and Cambridge University Press attorneys."


Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld has shown, in her defense of her right to publish "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" that Americans cannot be bullied out of their First Amendment rights by foreign courts. Unfortunately, Cambridge University Press didn't have that protection.

One wonders if Justice David Eady, the judge common to both the "Funding Evil" and "Alms for Jihad" cases, required the publishers at CUP to make the Shahadah. If the British People don't start to take back their rights to publish the truth they will soon be lining up to make an obligitory Shahadah, "I testify that there is no god but Allah..." though, with protectors such as Justice Eady, it might just become implicit to being British.