Blazing Cat Fur has the story on how an MP – and a cabinet minister to boot – was effectively shut up by cries of ‘security concerns’. No matter that he was willing to provide his own security at his speech…
Recent Comments
RSS feed
BCF: silencing Jason Kenny – ‘Security Concerns’ are the next ‘Shut up, Slave!’ euphemism
March 14, 2011 — xanthippaIs ‘the tide’ in Britain turning?
January 15, 2011 — xanthippaFinally, a bit of encouraging news from England.
In an unrelated observation, something has me uneasy – to the point of being worried… The growing tide of ‘Slavic awareness’ has an ugly underbelly.
For centuries, the Slavs were hunted by the ‘Mediterraneans’ – especially the Venetians – and sold into slavery in Africa and the Middle East. The very word ‘slave’ comes from the name of the race, Slav. (And, yes – WAY more Slavs were sold into slavery into ‘Muslim Africa/Middle East’ than Africans were ever sold into slavery in Europe and the Americas combined: this is a matter of historical records!)
Needless to say, there has, for centuries, been a bit of a chip on the Slavic shoulder abut the whole oppression thing…and the continuing lack of acknowledgment of the Slavic role in history.
Add to this the lack of ‘multi-culturalism’ brainwashing in what used to be termed ‘Eastern Europe’/’Warsaw Pact countries’ – and the accompanying lack of self-shame in Slavs maintaining their cultural awareness….
Add to this the increasing pressures of the declining economic situation in the EU – and, most Slavic nations are members of the EU. When economies decline, unrest increases. If such an unrest has a nationalistic/racial ‘awareness’, there is a serious danger this bit will define it…
Add to this the increasing Islamist arrogance: both attacks on ‘native European women’ who don’t submit to the standards of Sharia and thus ‘invite’ rapes (rape jihad), the expections of financial support of Muslim communities by some Muslims, simply because they are Muslim, and increasing demands for accommodations of Islamist -motivated behaviours/customs….
Well, let’s just say I don’t like the ’emerging picture’ – not the way I see it evolving.
Not at all…
‘Moderate’ imam Musri: is he ‘al-Qaida in Armani’?
September 10, 2010 — xanthippaWas the ‘Koran-burning preacher’ Terry Jones duped by the moderate imam Musri?
September 9, 2010 — xanthippaWhile checking out TheReligionOfPeace, I came across this story.
Instead of trying to simply retell what the article says, let me try to re-construct some plausible approximation of how it might possibly had happened.
First, we have the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. And, yes – the undercarriage of one of the airplanes that hit ‘The Towers’ on 11/09/2001 actually fell on top of this building and damaged it: this makes the building ‘Ground Zero‘. Imam Rauf, who is building the Ground Zero Mosque cannot, by any reasonable person, be called ‘moderate’ – not with what has been learned about him… and certainly not based on his behaviour.
Anyhow…
Yesterday (Wednesday), imam Rauf is quoted in the linked article as saying that
‘nothing is off the table’ when asked whether he would consider moving the site.
Today, (Thursday), Donald Trump is reported to have offered that he would buy the building from imam Rauf for 25% more than it had cost him: not because he wants the building, but because he would like to end the controversy amicably. Considering that imam Rauf and his gang had paid $4.8 million for the damaged building, Mr. Trump is truly putting his money where his mouth is.
So far so good.
But things go from good to bad rather fast.
A nutty and, by the sounds of it, somewhat unpopular preacher Terry Jones from Florida got annoyed by something and declared September 11th, 2010, to be ‘International Burn-the-Koran Day’. (No, not a ‘Burn-an-imam Day’ – just destroying some inanimate objects he owns.)
Could it have been the very existence of the Mosque at Ground Zero? Or, perhaps the speed with which it’s breezing through all the building permits while St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, the tiny little churched destroyed as the South Tower collapsed on top of it, appears to be fatally entangled in the red tape which denies its reconstruction? Or was it hearing about the hundreds of bibles burned by Iran?
Perhaps he was expressing solidarity with the Muslims in Iran who have posted this video of themselves, burning the Koran, as a symbol of protest against the oppressive theocracy which is ruining their country? (Thanks, BCF, for digging this one up.)
Perhaps it was a little bit or everything.
Perhaps he was simply exercising his freedom of religion!
Whatever the cause, the fact remains that preacher Jones is well within his rights to destroy his own property, however he chooses to, and nobody has the right to meddle!
Of course, meddle they did.
And this is where it gets rather ugly…
‘Everyone’ has been meddling!
It was just ugly when it was just the usual media lackeys who condemned him.
It was emotional blackmail and just idiotic when people ‘all over’ tried to make him somehow responsible for the potential actions of other people. Yet, that is exactly what happened!
But when General Petraeus, the American Troops top commander in Afghanistan, came out and started telling anyone who’d listen that how a specific citizen of the USA chooses to exercise his Constitutionally guaranteed rights, he’ll be guilty of putting American troops into danger – that is when it gets downright scary!
Since when do we live in a society which permits military generals to dictate who gets to exercise their Constitutional rights, and how? Do we even WANT to live in such a society?
Of course, the media ignored the constitutional rights issue and instead of demanding that General Petraeus be stripped of his position and dishonourably discharged from the military (the minimum reasonable reaction to a general caught bullying civilians out of their civil rights) , they have given the military man a pass and continued to beat up on the nutty preacher. Sad, even if predictable.
Of course, this is not where it ended.
US President Obama – the guy who found nothing offensive in decades of reverend Jeremiah Wright‘s ‘God Damn America’ sermons – condemned his own citizen for exercising his freedom of religion. In this abc piece, Obama is quoted as saying (regarding Terry Jones’s plan to exercise his freedom of religion):
“If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values … this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance,”
In other words, Obama says that the USofA ‘has been built on the NOTIONS(?!?) of religious freedom’, but believes that exercising them is ‘completely contrary’ to American values. (I am presuming here that when Obama says ‘ours’, he actually DOES mean ‘American’.)
Does Obama really not realize what is coming out of his mouth?!?!?
Last night, the internet provider pulled the plug on the prea
Today, when Secretary of Defense Gates did not only not fire Petraeus, but actually personally phoned Jones up and parroted Obama and the disgraceful general, preacher Jones began to show cracks.
So, let me recap.
So far, we have tons of pressure on preacher Jones to cancel his ‘Burn-a-Koran Day’ day, which he is ostensibly holding as an exercise of his freedom of religion, because he is so annoyed with imam Rauf’s arrogant project which has created so much discord in the American psyche.
We also have imam Rauf claiming ‘nothing is off the table’ when he was asked if he would be willing to move the mosque’s location to a less controversial spot.
Donald Trump takes imam Rauf seriously and offers to buy out the ‘Park 51’ property from him while giving imam Rauf a 25% return on his investment.
In comes the ‘moderate’ imam Musri,reportedly an influential Muslim from Florida.
Preacher Jones meets with imam Musri and comes out of the meeting convinced (rightly or wrongly) that since the Ground Zero Mosque builders have agreed to move their project, he is calling off the ‘Burn-the-Koran Day’!
Yes, he has called the ‘Burn-the-Koran Day’ off!
But, he has done so in the honest belief that the reason for his decision to so publicly exercise his freedom of religion by burning the Koran was no longer there – that the thorn has been removed from his side!
Once the ‘Burn-a-Koran Day’ was called off, the ‘moderate’ imam Musri says that there must have been a misunderstanding: he only promised that the two of them (Musri and Jones) would travel to New York to seek an audience with imam Rauf in order to ask him to, please, be so kind as to consider, may be, perhaps, moving his project elsewhere.
If he’d like to.
Pretty please.
Gee – how could such a misunderstanding have come about?!?!?
On a completely unrelated note – have you ever heard of the Islamic concept of ‘taqiyya’?
Banning ‘the veil’: the end does not justify the means
July 15, 2010 — xanthippaFrance is just one of a growing number of European countries which have been passing laws which forbid wearing veils that cover one’s face in public.
While I loath all forms of this apparel, I loath this law even more – and have said so often and loudly.
Here is my take on it:
OK – I’m not a fan…
For many reasons.
The origin of veiling women’s faces is in the practice of owning wives as a class of slaves. This is the history. Not good – and nothing rooted in this tradition will likely meet with my approval.
Today, some women are forced to veil their faces in public, either through physical or emotional coercion. This, of course, is unacceptable.
In many instances, the facial veil is being used as a means of isolating a woman from the greater culture: this form of isolation prevents her from forming social bonds of her own among the greater community – and prevents her from building a support mechanism which would help her escape from any potentially abusive situation. I’m going to be repeating myself: this, of course, is unacceptable.
Yes, many women today do wear the full facial veil of their own free will, as a symbol of their ‘identity’. This, I find even more offensive! Setting aside the whole psychoanalytical thing of women choosing to self-identify with cattle, this is an act of haughty contempt for everyone else individually and the society as a whole. It is an aggressive assertion that they are better, worthier, more holy, than the rest of us… It is, in no uncertain terms, an outward expression of self-aggrandization and bigotry.
At the same time, it is often worn by some women as a not very subtle method of intimidation and aggression towards the greater society. These women are themselves Islamists who understand perfectly well the fear many have of having Sharia forced upon them by the Islamits: they wear the veil as an arrogant reminder of the threat they are posing to us all.
So, a woman wearing the ‘Islamic veil’ can either be a victim or an aggressor – either way, I don’t like it! And that does not even touch on the whole ‘security’ issue, where criminals use the face-veil to disguise their identity…
In other words, I would be very happy never to see anyone hiding their true face!
BUT…
The ends never justify the means.
In fact, the means often undermine and invalidate the end.
I got into a somewhat heated discussion about this with Trupeers over in the comment section of BCF‘s post on this. I think I was not very clear about it and confused the issue by poorly expressing what I mean. Still, it helped me ‘distill’ the essence of what I mean better.
My ‘first law of human dynamics’ states that eventually, every law will be abused and stretched into unforeseen ridiculousness. Therefore, whenever we pass laws, we must consider more than their immediate effect. It is our responsibility to examine the not-so-obvious implications of any law and to really really foresee any potential ways in which the law could be abused.
THAT is my problem with a law that bans ‘wearing a face-covering veil in public’.
The larger implications: we are permitting a government to legislate what people may or may not wear in public. You know, like they do in Iran…
It is always easier to give some power to a government than it is to take it back. Once we legitimize the practice of governments legislating and enforcing dress codes, that aspect of our existence will be at the mercy of some future government’s whims!
Are Canadian cops following illegal orders?
January 17, 2010 — xanthippaThis is a frightening thought indeed!
But, from Caledonia – where a police officer is reported ti have broken down in tears at the shame of following an obviously illegal order, as she followed it and arrested a man who’s only crime was that he tried to go h0me…while his home was in an area illegally occupied by Native protesters, to this incident reported by a citizen-journalist, the blogger Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy:
“There exist in Toronto today legally enforced no-go zones for Zionists.
The location and boundaries of these Zionist-free zones are defined at the whim of anti-Zionists and enforced by police.
…
What had I done? I stood near (but not too close) to a gathering of anti-Israel people. I photographed them as they held their signs and candles on a public sidewalk in a public display of protest which was advertised publicly. I had spoken only when spoken to and then not with any profanity or threats. I did not have any signs, logos, buttons or flags on my person. I did not chant or sing or say anything political. I had called for the police when I felt threatened.
…
Now, throughout this whole thing, a freelance reporter stood nearby with his large camera and no one stopped him from recording anything and no one made him leave. I was threatened with arrest and made to leave because I was identified as a Zionist whose mere presence was so upsetting that I was guilty of a criminal offense.
Read it and weep! I did…
Thanks to BCF for bringing it to my attention!
Omar Khadr is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’ – as per UN laws
August 25, 2009 — xanthippaJust about everyone has heard of Omar Khard: the one Canadian languishing in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
Most people – whatever their views and opinions are on the circumstances that lead to his current predicament – agree that his situation is quite tragic. The kid never had a chance to grow up ‘normally’.
Born into a family which was legally in Canada, emotionally in Pakistan and philosophically in 8th century Arabia, his childhood could not be considered ‘normal’ by any standards.
Both his parents were religious fanatics (his mother still is, his father gave his life to conduct violent jihad). He was physically bumped around, from living in the ‘Secular West’ at some points to a Muslim school in Pakistan to terrorist training camps. His sister was given in marriage at the age of 15 to an Al-Qaeda buddy of her father (the wedding is said to have been attended by Osama himself), his brothers actively conducted violent jihad (not all survived), and so on.
It really is a sad story. I can understand why it pulls at all our collective heartstrings!
Currently, the public debate is focused on what is to be done with young Omar now?
This is a very, very important decision: whatever action is taken (on not taken) on behalf of Omar Khadr will set THE legal precedent for future situation that are similar.
So, let us get it right!
In order to make the best possible decision, we must objectively examine what Omar Khadr is – and what he is not.
This is an essential step, because it will define under which circumstances the legal precedent set by the ‘Omar Khadr case’ will be applicable.
The most common description of Omar Khadr one hears in the MSM (mainstream media) – as well as one often repeated by his defense lawyers – is that Omar Khadr is a ‘Child Soldier’.
So, let us examine if this is the case:
Is Omar Khadr a ‘Child Soldier’?
The definition of ‘Child Soldier’ has two parts: ‘Child’ and ‘Soldier’.
First: is Omar Khadr a ‘Soldier’?
No, he is not.
At least, not according to the UN laws on the matter (or any other law I am aware of which defines who is, and who is not, a ‘soldier’).
The UN laws were written in order to protect the innocent civilians who get in the way of a war first, then the protection of legitimate soldiers second. And, they are very clear on who is and who is not a ‘soldier’ (again – basic Wikipedia search provides clear answers – but much more material confirming this is easily available through any major search engine…):
‘To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a “fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance” and bear arms openly.’
Omar Khadr, unfortunately, does not satisfy these qualifications.
Not only was he not a part of a recognized military ‘chain of command’, and not wearing any ‘badges’ or ‘distinctive markings’ that could, even remotely, be construed as ‘uniform’ or ‘fixed distinctive marking’: the crime he is accused of having committed is against the laws and customs of war. ( I can expand on this, at length, if asked, in the comments sections.)
Therefore, Omar Khadr DOES NOT satisfy the qualifications of having the status of a ‘soldier’. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a ‘soldier’: a ‘Child Soldier’, an ‘adult soldier’, or any other kind of ‘soldier’.
But, even if Omar Khadr were a ‘Soldier’: would he qualify as a ‘Child Soldier’?
This is a more difficult question – but there is a legal answer!
Omar Khadr was aged 15 when he was detained by UN troops and when the premeditated murder of a UN non-combatant medic, which he is accused of having committed, occurred.
Different people mature at different rates: at 15, some people really are still children while others are quite adult. Both individual maturing rates and cultural influences are important in determining if a 15-year-old is ‘an adult’ or ‘a child’. What does the law say?
Omar Khadr straddled two cultures:
- In Canada, a 15-year old is, legally, a child.
- Still, 15-year-olds are able to become emancipated, and legally become adults.
- Under some circumstances, non-emancipated 15-year-olds are charged with crimes as adults – so the ‘legal precedent’ can be applied both ways: it is a bit of a legal ‘gray area’ in Canada.
- In Islamist culture, a 15-year-old is considered to be an adult, without any reservations.
- The Khadr family certainly considers 15 years of age to be ‘adult’ – that is the age at which their daughter was given away in marriage!
It is obvious that in his own eyes, as well as according to the culture of his family, Omar Khadr is ‘an adult’. And, in our multicultural society, would it not be offensive to dismiss Omar Khadr’s minority cultural view of his status at that time?
OK, ok – so, the ‘multiculturalism’ thing is kind of messed up – and we all know it. Let’s look elsewhere:
What does the International Human Rights Law have to say on the subject? (The following is a cut-and-paste of what Wikipedia has to say on this: I usually like to paraphrase things, but I could not hope to make it more clear than they had…)
International humanitarian law
According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:
‘The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.’
Well, that seems rather clear: once a person has reached the age of 15, he/she cannot be considered to be a ‘Child Soldier’ – even though it’s better to recruit people who are over the age of 18…. 15-year-olds are ‘regular soldiers’!
Omar Khadr HAD ‘attained the age of fifteen years’ – so he IS, according to international law, ‘regular soldier’!
In other words, legally, Omar Khadr CANNOT be considered a ‘Child Soldier’, because he is not a ‘Child’: he would have had to have been FOURTEEN years of age or younger in order to be considered a ‘Child Soldier’!
OK – so we are nowhere closer to the answer of what Omar Khadr actually is: but, I have (hopefully) demonstrated that whatever he is, he is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’!
I know – the facts of the situation are unlikely to affect the direction of the public debate…. I have no illusions about it. People who point out the laws and the rules are nowhere near as interesting – and nowhere near listened to – as people who play on our emotions…
But, we MUST TRY, mustn’t we?
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 