CUPE Ontario Embarasses Themselves Again

Sid Ryan has shown himself, again, to be a true idiot and Arab apologist by proposing a ban on Israeli scholars in Ontario Universities.

"In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general," said Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario.

He further illustrated his bigotry by making the standard Islamist comparison between the Israelis and the Nazis (that one never gets old):

"Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale," CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan said last night. "They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That's what the Nazis did.

What Sid forgot is that the Nazis also banned people from working who did not pledge allegiance to their chosen dogma - which interestingly also included a hatred of Jews. Sid notes that the ban would not include people who were born in Israel and emigrated, just visiting scholars. So, presumably he is not concerned if one of your grandparents on your mother's side was a.... One thing he did not include was if the ban included Israeli Arabs who did not explicitly condemn the university bombing. Hmm...something to think about.

Sid did eventually did apologize for Nazi thing. Apparently, “(i)t was never (his) intention to hurt or cause offence to anyone. (He) was attempting to draw attention to the terrible bombing of a learning institution. (He) got caught up in the emotion and the comparison (he) used was hurtful and completely beyond the pale.” He still wants to ban the Israeli scholars who don't explicitly condemn the Arms Factory Bombing.

Apparently he still feels it is important for Israel to stop trying to prevent Hamas trying to push the Jews into the sea. I suppose that is why Sid was awarded the Canadian Arab Federation's Social Justice Award.

I would fight for his right to believe and say that. I do not, however, believe that Sid has the right to be heard or to continue to be supported as the President of CUPE Ontario. It disgusts me that the people who maintain him there have access to our young people and the ability to pollute their minds with their vile invective.

The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

I just watched the subj video on Youtube and I found it to be quite frightening but not in the way the author intended. His oversimplification was to the point of distoriton and it is the type of distortion that is used to force political action in a direction that is not usually in the best interests of humanity.

Wonderingmind42 asks if anyone can find errors in his work. There are several errors:

• 1. He assumes that GCC is caused by human action. There is significant evidence that this is not true. In this case the Manmade/True/Yes square is not "money well spent" since that money was spent on measures against irrelevant (or perhaps not driver) activities. Massive resources are squandered and we are left dealing with a new global climate reality that we have not prepared for.


• 2. He assumes that GCC is reversable/stoppable. In this case Manmade/Nature is irrelevant. The result of this logic error is that The action taken in the True/Yes square results in a happy face when, indeed the action that needs to be taken, for a Natural/True/Yes square, is to learn how to best deal with the new global climate reality. In this case, the action taken for the Manmade/True/Yes square would have the same result as the Manmade/True/No square.


• 3. As noted by RichieSmooth in an earlier comment, "global recession ... is as bad as the true/no option. Your health and quality of life can go down just as much, you've simplified the downside of false/yes too much."

This kind of oversimplification and silencing of dissent as the GCC Movement is doing usually results in disaster. Hopefully, reason will prevail this time.

Dalhousie Honours an Arsepluck

May 25, 2007 I was sitting in the Rebecca Cohn Auditorium in Halifax at my son's graduation from Dalhousie Law School. The speech from the recipient of the Legum Doctor (honoris causa), Prof William Schabas, seemed a little flaky in that he referred to his fight to establish the inalienable right of all people to peace and that, to that end, he had established offices all over the world. It seemed typical of a liberal that he had responded to a need he had identified by establishing a beauracracy.

Just the other day, however, I discovered a new dimension to Prof Schabas. I was perusing a post at The Torch and it struck me that one of the people who had written to the International Criminal Court to investigate the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan for War Crimes was this same wingnut. I recognized him because he is the director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights in Galway. The letter was instigated by Michael Byers, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia who is a senior policy advisor to the federal NDP who wrote a defence policy discussion paper for the NDP in the spring of 2005. He is a strong proponent of distancing ourselves from the USA in defense matters.

What is Schabas role in this? It is not clear if he is a happy participant in a stunt that was clearly designed to play to the tune of the debate going on in Commons the week of the letter allowing the NDP to state that there had been complaints to the ICC about the CF in Afghanistan or if he was a dupe of Byers' to lend credibility to the stunt that was lacking in a PoliSci Prof/Political Hack but it was a cheap and dirty trick to play on people who put their lives on the line by people who respond to human rights issues by setting up offices around the world.

I am offended that I was made part of honouring this arsepluck by attending my son's convocation.

South Korea "Submits"

I heard the term "root cause" on the radio today with regards to the Taliban abduction and murder of South Korean Christian aid workers and I had to look into what the "root cause" for the situation was. I found the source of the story through Michelle Malkin's August 2, 2007 post.

Sure enough, as reported in the English version of The Chosun Ilbo, it was the US's fault again:

At a meeting of the Uri Party on Wednesday, Rep. Park Chan-suk said, "The root cause of the hostage crisis lies in our dispatch of troops to Afghanistan. While the Koreans are suffering, the U.S. stands firm on the principles. It's irresponsible and it's a betrayal of one of its allies." Uri Chairman Chung Se-kyun said, "The U.S. should not remain a mere bystander."

Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea a quotable pacifist group has labeled "the Bush administration the "main party" responsible for the abduction of 23 Koreans by the Taliban." I think that their reasoning for this was the irresistable pressure that President Bush applied to Bae Hyung-kyu and his group to risk their lives and to go into Afghanistan without telling them:

• that the Taliban don't want the conditions of normal Afghans between Kandahar and Kabul to improve,
• that the road between Kandahar and Kabul is so dangerous that it makes the DMZ between North and South Korea look like the Epcot Centre, and
• that anyone travelling in an Islamist controlled region under the banner of Christianity is considered to be a proselytizer and is subject to death.

Wait a minute...the Bush Administration didn't send these people there any more than than they sent the Christian Peacekeeper Teams there. They are just expected to pull their asses out of the fire when everything goes pearshaped on them. I'm not just ranting about this! The same group said, "On Wednesday, the group in a press conference threatened a "massive" candlelight rally unless the U.S. starts negotiations with the Taliban immediately."Fortunately, the families of the captured Aid Workers have not bought into the rhetoric:

Lee Jeong-hoon, a representative of the families, said on Thursday, "Since an anti-American demonstration could have a negative influence on the negotiations for the release of the hostages, we have made efforts to avoid being involved in any such demonstrations." "An anti-American movement could be what the Taliban want," Lee said. "We rejected suggestions by some anti-American groups to hold a candlelight vigil and march to the U.S. Embassy in Korea."

Yes!! That is exactly what the protests for disengagement from Afghanistan are doing. Dealing with them as real people legitimizes them and makes them stronger. It emboldens them to go into schools and kill little girls for being out of their homes and it ensures that this "hostage crisis" will happen again. Meanwhile the Korean government has engaged in a remarkable round of moral equivalence:

Korean hostage negotiators have agreed to direct talks with Taliban kidnappers in Afghanistan, a purported spokesman for the Islamists militants told DPA Thursday. The news agency quoted Qari Yousuf Ahmadi as saying Korean Ambassador to Afghanistan Kang Sung-ju spoke directly by phone with his Taliban counterpart.

His Taliban counterpart??!! Is Kang Sung-ju a murderous terrorist? That is the only counterpart that the Taliban have in the real world. How can they even say that? This is what Lee Jeong-hoon was talking about. Every inch that these people are given emboldens them to take the next. Their stated goal is to bring their version of Sharia law to the world and they use every concession received as a launching pad to the next while treating every concession given as a temporary tactical retreat. It is an eternal struggle for them to force the Submission of everyone to the authority of Islam.

Every time an atrocity is not met with overwhelming force it rewards them with another inch. Al Quaeda has already taken over foreign policy for Spain when they were elected to that office as a result of the 2004 Madrid train bombings. They now seem poised to take over that position in South Korea. How is it that countries can rail on about the evil USA dictating foreign policy to them and then jump onto the Islamist bandwagon as soon as they say "Boo"? Once they cede their foreign policy to Islamofacsists it is a short hop to total "Submission". For Spain this will simply be a re-reconqista but for South Korea it will be something new.

Negotiation with Animals

Jack Layton and the NDP want to start peace-oriented discussions with the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are the same people who murder adolescent girls for the crime of going to school. How do you negotiate with that??!! Do you tell them that this is wrong??!! If you have to then there is not basis for discussion.

The NDP and thier advisors advocate an unconditional rejection of violence that makes them smugly think of themselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, and defense of people like these Afghan girls, because they think it's a supposed surrender to violence, leaves no resort but to beg for mercy or offer appeasement.

Evil grants no mercy, and these animals are evil, and to attempt to appease it is nothing more than a piecemeal surrender to it. Surrender to evil is slavery at best, death at worst. Thus, the unconditional rejection of violence is really nothing more than embracing death as preferable to life.

Those who embrace this path of death will achieve what they embrace, if not for themselves then for their children. The right, the absolute necessity, of overwhelming response against anyone who initiates force against you is fundamental to survival. The morality of a people's self-defense is in its defense of each individual's right to life. It's an intolerance of violence, made real by an unwavering willingness to crush any who would launch violence against you. The unconditional determination to destroy any who would initiate force against you is an exaltation of the value of life. Refusing to surrender your life to any thug or tyrant who lays claim to it is in fact embracing life itself.

If you are unwilling to defend your right to your own life, then you are merely like a mouse trying to argue with owls. You think their ways are wrong. They think you are dinner.

Layton's predecessor, Alexa McDonough, said much the same a week after the WTC attack on 11 September 2001. She felt that an international court should mete out the punishment. Current advisors of the NDP want the same courts to mete out punishment to our own soldiers in Afghanistan rather than to the Taliban and al Quaeda. (more on that later) You can't wag your tongue at such people and offer it the justice of a civilized court. They don't acknowledge our concept of justice.

Even as the Taliban as killing off one Korean teacher after another people are calling for negotiation and talks with the captors. This was the tack that was taken by Karzai in March to secure the release of Daniele Mastrogiacomo, an Italian journalist who had been captured by Taliban forces, a tactic that significantly encouraged this abduction. However, Cheong Wa Dae (S Korean Office of the President) also ruled out the possibility of military action against the kidnappers. "There is no change in the stance that without our government's consent, there will not be any military strategy to solve the issue," Cheon Ho-seon told reporters. Nothing can be more misguided. This event is the direct result of Karzai's capitulation and that of the Spanish left wing government's after their last election.

If, hoping to appease it, you willingly compromise with unrepentant evil, you only allow such evil to sink its fangs into you; from that day on its venom will course through your veins until it finally kills you.

Compromising with murderers, which is precisely what these people are suggesting, grants them moral equivalence where none can rightfully exist. Moral equivalence says that you are no better than they; therefore, their belief - that they should be able to abduct, torture, rape, or murder you - is just as morally valid as your view - that you have the right to live free of their violence. Moral compromise rejects the concept of right and wrong. It says that everyone is equal, all desires are equally valid, all action is equally valid, so everyone should compromise and get along.

Where could you compromise with those who abdut, torture, rape, and murder people? In the number of days a week you will be tortured? In the number of men to be allowed to rape your loved ones? In how many of your family are to be murdered?

No moral equivalence exists in that situation, nor can it exist, so there can be no compromise, only suicide. To even suggest compromise can exist with such men is to sanction murder.

Some comments on negotiation with murders was paraphrased from Terry Goodkind's "Naked Empire".

Why Are We In Afghanistan

As noted by Kate at Small Dead Animals there really is a reason that we are in Afghanistan.

1. Millions of girls are back in school with 400,000 new female students starting school for the first time this year;
2. Over 100,000 women benefited from micro finance loans to set up their own business;
3. Over a quarter of parliamentarians are women;
4. Over 7 million girls and boys are in school or higher education;
5. 83% of the population now has access to medical facilities, compared to 9 percent in 2004;
6. 76% of children under the age of five have been immunized against childhood diseases;
7. More than 4000 medical facilities opened since 2004;
8. Over 600 midwives were trained and deployed in every province of Afghanistan;
9. GDP growth estimates of between12-14% for the current year;
10. Government revenues increased by around 25% from 2005/06 to 2006/07;
11. Income per capita of $355, compared to $180 three years ago;
12. Afghanistan is one of the fastest growing economies in South-East Asia;
13. Over 4000 km of roads have been completed;
14. Work has begun on 20,000 new homes for Afghans returning to Kabul;
15. Over 1 billion square metres (roughly 32 km X 32 km) of mine contaminated land cleared;
16. 10 universities are operating around the country, against one (barely functioning) under the Taliban; and
17. 17,000 communities benefited from development programmes such as wells, schools, hospitals and roads through the Government’s National Solidarity Program (NSP).

Of course this directly contradicts comments by Taliban Jack Layton in early July that, “It’s the wrong mission; it’s not working; it’s not going to accomplish the goals.” Unless he missed the point, each of the seventeen points above were not true before we went into Afghanistan. If we leave or "scaleback" before the nascent Afghanistan government is ready to defend itself then they will not be true anymore in a year.

Why is it that we never hear these points from the CBC?

Taliban Jack Layton

Taliban Jack Layton has been doing his best to get Canadian soldiers killed again. Every time there is a death or serious injury he rewards the insurgents with such PR releases as this in the Edmonton Sun July 4, 2007:

“The prime minister needs to engineer a scaleback of military operations in Afghanistan in the face of mounting civilian and military deaths, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Wednesday shortly before news that six more Canadian troops had been killed.
Layton said Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to show leadership by urging the United States to stop high-altitude bombing in the war-torn country and withdrawing Canadian troops from what he characterized as a hopeless mission.”

So TJ thinks that when the going gets tough the tough bugger off. All the Taliban have to do is hit the Canadians a few more times and he should be able to convince the Canadian people to pull out immediately. It makes you wonder if Jack will be awarded an Honourary Mullah title for services to al Quaeda.

Jack has promised Mullah Omar that his party will ensure the issue is front and centre in coming federal byelections and he added the only way to peace is through negotiation. He urged Harper to take a lead role in establishing a peace process.

I am trying to remember when it was that anyone on the Taliban side has indicated that they are interested in negotiation. Perhaps it was when they hung a woman and her son outside their village for the crime of teaching in a school.

In his final nugget of wisdom Taliban Jack excreted:

“Students of history will know that all major conflicts are resolved, ultimately, through peace-oriented discussions. . . . And that’s what needs to happen here.”

Clearly Jack is not a student of history. WWI was resolved through "peace-oriented discussions". The result was WWII, the continued distrust of the West by China that exists to this day, most of the problems in the Middle East... The list goes on. WWII was resolved by destroying the war making ability of the enemy. The result is a Europe that co-exists as Union and a Japan that leads the world in manufacturing and is integrated with the world economy as a full partner.

The only thing that resolves conflicts with monsters like the Taliban, al Quaeda, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is superior force and the resolve to use it to the end. Anything less is seen as degenerate weakness of an infidel who must be crushed and brought to submission.

As one of the greatest philosophers of freedom and liberty, John Stuart Mill said:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is worth a war, is much worse.

Jack Layton's war on Canadian Soldiers is a truly ugly thing.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Left Wing Space Cadet Marches Against Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I could not believe the load of tripe that I heard from Marilyn Churley, the former Ontario NDP MPP and Cabinet Minister and federal NDP nominee in Beaches—East York (Toronto) for the next election on Michael Coren the other day. Responding to comments about the shameful excuse for an interview that Avi Lewis hit Ayaan Hirsi Lewis with on the CBC (see it at this link) she said in at minute 1:45 of this clip that she was not ashamed of the treatment he levelled at Hirsi Ali.

This wouldn't be so bad if she were distancing herself from him but she was defending him and agreed with his tactics. During an entire nine minutes and twelve seconds of the tirade his vitriolic abuse was rapid fire but at minute 5:06 of this clip she said that she didn't see him belittling her. It is one thing to stand up and proclaim that such a woman doesn't deserve common respect and decency but to claim to have seen the attack and deny it happened is a little unbelievable, even for the NDP. To see for yourself, see here where I show the "interview".

The final laugh was when Ms Churley objected to the criticsm of the Lewis family - which include such luminaries as father Stephen Lewis who travels the globe blaming the west for the problems of Africa, mother Michele Landsberg, grandfather former NDP leader David Lewis, and wife Naomi Klein whose anti-globalization manifesto "No Logo" became quite a successful logo - by calling them heroes who have done more for Canada than anyone else at minute 4:00+ of this clip. I guess that "Harper" and "Bush" must be shot down at any opportunity but the stars of the Left are above criticism. Such is on the way to Fascism.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I have a new hero. I have heard for some time and read about a woman, who was born in Somalia and fled to the Netherlands, became an educated writer, outspoken critic of Sharia states and Islamist behaviour in the west. She has lived under threats of death from Islamist authorities and extremists since her picture "Submission" came out in 2005. As a result of this ten minute video her partner in the production, Theo van Gogh, was brutally murdered and a death threat pinned to his chest with the knife used to butcher him.

This is a woman who has been through extreme hardship since childhood and suffered severely under the laws and traditions of Islam. For the audacity of proclaiming herself a free woman and criticizing such Islamic practices as she has survived she is branded an apostate who must be killed.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali became known to me in more than a passing sense during an interview with Avi Lewis on his programme "On the Map". Avi Lewis has not lived a life of hardship. He is a spoiled and pampered, and apparently relatively uneducated, child of Leftist globetrotter Stephen Lewis and journalist Michele Landsberg. I say that he is relatively uneducated because the most detailed bio I could find stops the narrative of his education by saying that he attended Upper Canada College. In other words, he went to High School.

Lewis' treatment of this heroic woman was childish and embarassing to anyone whose taxes are wasted on a government broadcaster that would field this trash. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's responses, on the other hand, were even and dignified. This enraged Lewis to the point he started speaking in tongues. By calm responses to Lewis' attacks she exposed him as the idiot he is and destroyed the cliché Leftist fare that he spewed. The Left's showpiece came to a gunfight armed with a knife.

Click "Play" below and enjoy the show.

Religion Is the Cause of Extremism, Violence, and War

It seems that every time I look up there is someone proclaiming their Atheism, and then going on to chastise the rest of us for our belief in God. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written books about how silly Faith is - not just silly but, as Dawkins put it, "Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense." Hitchens is a proponent of a similar idea that religions hurt people because of the religious wars, fatwas, and interfaith violence.

Globe and Mail columnist and chair of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada, Sheema Khan, insightfully and accurately assessed liberal open mindedness as, "Of course we are open-minded, so long as your world view agrees with ours." The idea that a strong faith is the sign of a simple mind is close-minded and childish. It characterized my opinion when I was a young adult and it surprised me when my classmates maintained that attitude as I grew up.

This argument is flawed. Violence and murder of the sort noted above don't require Religion to stir up extremist passions. Crimes have been committed in the names of nationalism, communism, racism and animal rights; atheist dogma was a the heart of the cult of Ayn Rand and anti-religious persecution in the Soviet Union; and Fatwas are being issued daily to those who don't follow the strict doctrine of Global Warming. It is not the religion that causes the damage. Most religions teach peace and love of one's neighbour. The damage is caused by the overwhelming desire of some to exert control over others - it is a political issue.

If all religions disappeared tomorrow there would be any number of causes to fill the void. This whole spiritual nihilism is akin to saying that the cause of the anarchist would benefit anyone but a prospective strongman. The object of violence in the name of religion or any other cause is to reduce the control of the legitimate authorities and permit the leader to assume control in the manner of a warlord. It has nothing to do with spreading the word of God.

Sheema Khan's column in the Globe and Mail 12 November 2005