Saturday, February 2, 2008

Taliban and Saddam are gone, but the Shari'a remains

An update on the Afghan journalist sentenced to death for blasphemy.

HT: Ashamed to be Dutch at LGF
The Afghan embassy in Washington issued a statement on Saturday further distancing the Karzai government from the court's sentence. This comes after the Afghan Senate backed down from a statement supporting the sentence.

Amid international outrage over a student journalist sentenced to death for blaspheming Islam, the Afghan government Saturday said it was "fully aware of the gravity of the case."

Afghanistan "appreciates the concern expressed on his behalf," the government said in a statement released by the Afghan Embassy in Washington.

"The office of President [Hamid] Karzai is closely monitoring the case and working with Afghanistan's judicial system to find a just solution in accordance with Afghan law and our nation's international obligations."

Of course, that's the problem it has to be in accordance with Afghan law, which contains the smell of Sharia.

This issue was dealt with an essay released earlier today by Andrew Bostom. The U.S. and its allies did not create liberal democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, but democratic Shari'a states.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Here are some highlights.

Thus, as championed by a callow American pseudo-scholastic apologist for Islam’s Shari’a, who evangelized for “Islamic Democracy,” Shari’a-compliant Afghani and Iraqi constitutions were crafted (and of course extolled by this same “scholar”, here, and here).

The tragic consequences of such uninformed and dangerous cultural relativism, enshrined as “law,” were glaringly evident, once again, in Afghanistan this past week Pervez Kambakhsh, a 23 year-old Afghan journalist was recently convicted of “blasphemy”—consistent with classical Islamic Law—for downloading and distributing an article “insulting” Islam.

Now the Afghan Senate has issued a statement on the case—signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a reputed ally of President Hamid Karzai—approving the death sentence conferred on Mr Kambaksh, also in full accord with the Shari’a, by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif. Although not universal, commonplace public sentiments in support of this Shari’a ruling were expressed by Afghans across the age spectrum. Abdul Wasi Tokhi, an 18-year-old student at the American University in Kabul, argued for a swift execution, stating: “The guy should be hanged. He was making fun of Islam’s rules and regulations. He was making fun of the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. You cannot criticize any principles which have been approved by sharia. It is the words of the Prophet.” And Qari Imam Bakhsh, a Muslim cleric, concurred, maintaining: “I think he is not a Muslim. A Muslim would not make this kind of mistake. He should be punished so that others can learn from him.”

Two years before in March 2006, Abdul Rahman, similarly faced death at the hands of our Afghan allies—supported by the masses—for the “crime” of converting to Christianity. This fate was no fluke, not a brutal Afghan variant on the practice of “tolerant” Islam. Death for apostasy is part and parcel of Islamic scripture and tradition, codified in the Shari’a. When Afghanistan’s leading clerics endorsed Rahman’s death, they were on solid ground. Thus, in the wake of appeals by world leaders, including the Pope, and even though Mr. Rahman appears to have received a “dispensation” by the Karzai Government —for “mental health”, or other reasons, unfortunately, he is and remains guilty as per Afghan religious leaders, and Shari’a. Ultimately, Mr. Rahman had to be taken out of Afghanistan, clandestinely, and given asylum in Italy.

Notwithstanding the clear tactical success of the much ballyhooed 2007 surge (and the current obsessive Republican nomination campaign discussion, aptly termed, “The War on Timetables,” these military operations have engendered), if Iraq continues its seemingly inexorable progression towards a Shari’a state [“Islamic State by the will of the people”, in popular Islamic parlance], it will be neither a “free nation”, nor “a strong ally in the war on terror”.

Perhaps the earliest, most disturbing sign of things going awry in Iraq’s march toward “freedom” was already evident in February 2004: the refusal of the interim Iraqi government to allow its ancient, historically oppressed (often brutally so) Jews to return in the wake of the 2003 liberation. Singling out the Jews was agreed upon absent any objection, except for the dissent of one lone Assyrian Christian representative in the interim government, who knew well what such bigotry foreshadowed: the oppression and resultant exodus of the Assyrian community – which has transpired.

Although much lionized, Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Sistani remains an irredentist Shi’ite cleric who believes in najis—one of the more despicable belief systems in all of Islam—which imposes ugly restrictions on non-Muslim “infidels” due to their supposed physical and spiritual “impurity” [I have written about najis here, here, and here]. Sistani also “wishes” for Shari’a to be implemented in Iraq. As a result, Sistani-supporting women in the Iraqi Parliament are putting forth his repressive agenda. (From the Times of London, “Iraq’s women of power who tolerate wife-beating and promote polygamy”):

As a devout Shia Muslim and one of eighty-nine women sitting in the new parliament, she knows what her first priority there is: to implement Islamic law. When Dr Ubaedey took her seat at last week’s [March, 2005] assembly opening, she found herself among an increasingly powerful group of religious women politicians who are seeking to repeal old laws giving women some of the same rights as men and replace them with Sharia, Islam’s divine law.

And when Sistani posted this fatwa about gays on his website (see below), he precipitated a surge in homophobic killings by state security services and Shi’ite religious militias.

Q: What is the judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?

A: “Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible,” [emphasis added]

Conservative political scientist, and former University President John Agresto, wrote a poignant, and sympathetic, yet brutally honest memoir of the 9-months (September 2003 to June 2004) he spent in Iraq working as then Ambassador Paul Bremer’s senior advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. Agresto, who had direct dealings with Sistani, has remained “more skeptical of the Ayatollah al-Sistani and his partisans than so many of my colleagues in the Coalition.” He highlights one astonishing fact about Sistani that has received scant attention, let alone comment, in light of legitimate concerns over undue Iranian influence on Iraqi affairs:

The Ayatollah Sistani is…Iranian by birth, Iranian by religious training–he still retains his Iranian citizenship in preference to accepting Iraqi citizenship.

But Agresto’s more immediate and tangible concerns with Sistani derive from the Ayatollah’s deeply rooted Islamic religious bigotry, and his illiberal, theocratic vision of the governance of Iraqi society.

I do not believe that parties that demand that all public legislation be based on Islamic law as interpreted by Shiite imams are liberal. I do not believe that a religious leader who refused even once to meet with Ambassador Bremer, or any American, but would gladly meet with every anti-American antagonist and criminal, from Muqtada al-Sadr to Ahmed Chalabi, is a “moderate.” I do not believe that the same Sistani who condemned the interim Iraqi Constitution because it protected the rights of the Kurds and secured property rights to Jews should be thought of as terribly tolerant. Indeed, the very first time I heard, in all my months there, an Antisemitic diatribe was from the Grand Ayatollah.

Concrete readily discernible evidence aside, Agresto laments, comforting, if corrosive delusions about Sistani, and “Iraqi democracy,” persist.

We insisted that the Ayatollah Sistani was surely a “moderate” and a friend to civil and religious liberty despite all the hard evidence to the contrary. Let me repeat my previous observations and predictions: The Ayatollah Sistani is an Islamist bent on establishing a theocracy not far removed from that found in Iran. He is an open antisemite and a not-too-subtle anti-Christian. He threw his support behind democratic elections because they were the handy vehicles for imposing religious authority all over Iraq. Nor is he the only one, or even the worst, only the most prominent. Yet while I believe the evidence is as clear here as it is in the case of [Ahmad] Chalabi, we only see what we want to see, not what’s visible. In our religious lives, hope may well be a virtue — but in foreign policy it is more often a sin, a temptation to willful blindness.

. . .

President Bush’s (January 28, 2008) State of the Union rhetoric about “men and women who are free,” in the “young democracy” of Afghanistan (and Iraq)—disconnected as it was from the recent blasphemy cases which illustrate graphically the lack of freedom of conscience in those Sharia-law based Muslim societies—was eerily reminiscent of the same misplaced optimism expressed over 70 years ago by the British Arabist S.A. Morrison.

. . .

More than seven decades later, the goals of true “liberty and equality” for Iraq and Afghanistan remain just as elusive. After yet another Western power has committed great blood and treasure toward their liberation, in both Muslim nations, their politico-religious leadership appears more likely to continue promoting Shari’a despotism, than liberal democracy.

We have a moral obligation to oppose Shari’a which is antithetical to the core beliefs for which hundreds of thousands of brave Americans have died, including, ostensibly, over 4000 now, in Iraq, and Afghanistan. There has never been a Shari’a state in history that has not discriminated (often violently) against the non-Muslims (and Muslim women) under its suzerainty. Moreover such states have invariably taught (starting with Muslim children) the aggressive jihad ideology which leads to predatory jihad “razzias” on neighboring “infidels”—even when certain of those “infidels” happened to consider themselves Muslims, let alone if those infidels were clearly non-Muslims. That is the ultimate danger and geopolitical absurdity of a policy that ignores or whitewashes basic Islamic doctrine and history, while however inadvertently, making or re-making these societies “safe for Sharia.”

US policymaking elites should use whatever influence we retain, heed the ignored lessons of the Japanese experience, and encourage the “young democracies” of Afghanistan to say Sayonara to Shari’a if our goal is to midwife true liberal democracies, not two more illiberal Shari’a states.

Jewish tourists stoned ... in London!!!

It's a Saturday night puzzle for my readers.

Read this article full of references to "youths" and "community" and try to guess who the perpetrators are.

THE Holocaust Memorial Day marking the genocides of the 20th century was marred on Sunday when a gang of youths stoned Jewish tourists on a guided tour of London's East End.

A group of 96 visitors looking at sites of Jewish interest were attacked by youths hiding behind a fence in a back street in Whitechapel. (UPDATE CG: I'M INFORMED BY COMMENTERS AT LGF THAT THIS TOWN IS IN MP GEORGE GALLOWAY'S CONSITUTENCY)

Two were struck by the missiles, an American woman just starting a new post at London's Metropolitan University and a Canadian lecturer.

The woman had blood pouring from her head and needed hospital treatment.

The tour was organised by leading local historian Clive Bettington, who was later asked by police if he wanted officers to accompany him in future, but declined.

"That would be admitting there are 'no go' areas," he said.

"I won't be intimidated. We have a right to walk our streets unmolested."

He has now written to Tower Hamlets chief executive Martin Smith for an urgent meeting.

Sunday's incident was outside a former Jewish maternity home in Underwood Road, now used as social services offices, which was on his tour as a place of interest where playwright Arnold Whesker and showbiz comedian Lionel Bart were born.


An eye-witness said: "Stones started to come down on us and some in the group were scared and ducked.

"I looked over the fence and saw four Asian youths throwing stones. They were laughing, then ran away."

The woman who was injured, a New Yorker now living in London, started her job running the IT department at the Met University the following day.

"It wasn't exactly a nice welcome to the East End," she said.

"You're just so surprised standing in a large crowd like that being pelted with stones.

"I was shocked and didn't know what happened at first, then realised I was bleeding and knew I had been hit. My head was cut open."

She was treated at the Royal London Hospital and had to miss an inter-faith mdmorial service she was going to at the East London Central synagogue.

Her friend, Canadian Eric Litwack was hit by a missile, but did not need stitches.

He said: "It was obviously we were being targeted on a tour talking about Jewish history."


There was condemnation across the political spectrum at the multi-faith service at the synagogue later.

The Mayor of Tower Hamlets blamed it on "narrow religious views" in the community.

"It's horrifying this could happen in the East End in this day and age, on Holocaust Memorial Day of all days," Cllr Ann Jackson told the Advertiser.

"We must mediate between the narrow religious views of some in the Bangladeshi community. There is narrow mindedness in all communities. Everyone must realise ours is a tolerant society."

This happens in all communities? Holy moral equivalence, Batman!

Lib Dem's Louise Alexander said: "I'm shocked this took place on my doorstep. It's a 'wake-up' call that highlights we are not there yet."

The Labour leader of Tower Hamlets council, Denise Jones, later issued a joint statement with all Opposition group leaders on the authority, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Respect, apologising on behalf of the community.

"We totally condemn the behaviour of those that intimidated and attacked people on the Holocaust Memorial walk," the Town Hall statement said.

"It is utterly disgraceful that the insensitive, aggressive and quite possibly criminal actions of a few tarnished this important time of reflection.

"We apologise on behalf of Tower Hamlets to the people who were subjected to the abuse and give assurance that we are supporting the police investigation into the incident."


Tower Hamlets' newly-appointed senior police officer responsible for youth involvement, Ins Paul Sloan, is treating the incident as "an anti-Semitic attack and as a 'race hate' crime."

He said: "The injured woman certainly felt it was anti-Semitic because she's Jewish and the attack was motivated by the fact a lot of Jews were present."

Well, duh

"We're keen to work with the organiser to stop this happening again.

"We might accompany them in future. That's one of the tactics we would employ, but that's not routine.

"We have to get to the root of the problem and need to know how often it's happened before."

The Met's new police liaison officer for the area, Ins Brian Mitchell, was immediately informed about Sunday's incident in which he said youths shouted at the tourists, 'if you go any further you'll die.'

He added: "It gets flagged up as 'racial' because of the victims' perception of what happened."

Video: David Frum confronted by Truthers

Fellow Canadian and the man credited with coining the phrase "Axis of Evil," David Frum, is confronted by Truthers at a recent booking signing.

Watch and laugh as Frum deftly handles the Truthers.

Harem Scarem: UK set to legalize bigamy

From the Daily Telegraph.

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.

The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.

The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.

Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

A DWP spokesman claimed that the number of people in polygamous marriages entering Britain had fallen since the 1988 Immigration Act, which "generally prevents a man from bringing a second or subsequent wife with him to this country if another woman is already living as his wife in the UK".

While a married man cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain, some multiple partners may be able to enter the country via other legal routes such as tourist visas, student visas or work permits.

In addition, officials have identified a potential loophole by which a man can divorce his wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law, and obtain a spouse visa for a foreign woman who he can legally marry.

"Entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience," an immigration rulebook advises. "This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household."

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."

Mr Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial.

HT didache at LGF

Geert Wilders: The Movie

This is not a trailer for Geert Wilders' upcoming 10-minute movie on The Koran. But if someone would make a movie about Wilders, the commercial would probably look like this.

HT/UK Politics


In other news, a member of a far right Danish party believes Wilders' Koran movie is a Zionist conspiracy

Kusters: "Wilders wants to play these two groups against each other in order to establish a Zionist [ie, Jewish] state in our country. The man is strikingly often found in the Israeli embassy. That tells me enough."

HT - stevieray at LGF.

Lionheart the video

British blogger (and possible BNP propagandist) Lionheart is the subject of three new interview videos from an undisclosed location (with an unknown interviewer -- Guess Barbara Walters was busy) in America where he may seek asylum.

In the video Lionheart provides more details about the phone call he received from the police about the content on his blog. According to Lionheart, police have not told him what specifically on his blog is under investigation.

Those wishing to find out more details about Lionheart's threats against Charles Johnson of LGF or his ties to the BNP will be disappointed as the American asking him questions did not go into those details.

If you want answers to those questions, you should read this blogger who can't square Lionheart's pro-BNP pro-Israel circle.

What would you think of someone who says they're not anti-semitic but supports an anti-semitic party?

Suspicious? I definitely am.

. . .

Here are the 2 websites that Lionheart says he now supports
see LionHeart's deleted 'Vote BNP' post

The following quote is from the masthead of
"Enough Is Enough
It's time for leadership change in the British National Party. The internal management of the Party has been revealed to be fundamentally flawed and repeated calls for change have been ignored by the leader. Thus the only possible course of action to save the Party and secure a future for our people is to launch a leadership challenge. Enough is enough Nick, it's time to go!"

Note 'internal management' is their primary concern, secondly "Nick, it's time to go!".
So a shakeup in internal management and getting rid of Nick Griffin.
No condemnation of racism, no condemnation of the BNP's long history of anti-semitism.
It's not the policies they're bothered about, it's which ones to present to get them elected.

The following quote is from
"Where we stand
Voice of Change supports the policies of the BNP."

Need I say more?
This is a site explicitly supported by Lionheart.
"Voice of Change supports the policies of the BNP."
Lionheart supports
"Voice of Change supports the policies of the BNP."

Am I being unfair in putting these two together -

Lionheart supports the policies of the BNP.

Watch these videos through that lense before jumping on the Lionheart bandwagon.

Now in the videos, there's plenty of Lionheart going on about the Pakistani "invaders" who are pumping his community full of drugs, running cab "cartels," raping white women and killing his friends and family.

Lionheart claims he can't go back to Britain because Al-Qaeda wants to "kill" him and his government wants to put him in jail.

UK bishop faces death threats

Freedom of speech UK style.

The Bishop of Rochester has been placed under police protection following death threats made in the wake of his claims that Islamic extremists are creating "no-go areas" for non-Muslims in Britain.

The Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali revealed calls had been made to his home in Kent threatening both him and his family.

Kent Police are understood to have given the bishop an emergency number and are treating the threats made seriously.

In a statement made on his website, the bishop sought to clarify his comments originally made in an article in The Sunday Telegraph on January 6.

He said: "The purpose of my article was to point out that the best way for welcoming and integrating newer arrivals in this country should have been a Christian vision of hospitality and not the secular policy of multiculturalism which has led to such disastrous consequences."

He added: "I was aware that what I had written would cause a debate on the issue, but I have been surprised by its scale. If my overflowing postbag is anything to go by - and it has been overwhelmingly supportive - then it is clear that this is an issue that needs further discussion."

Of course the bishop's counterparts are understanding of the death threats.

In an interview with the Press Association this week, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams praised the bishop's record in Christian Muslim dialogue, but said the phrase used had given "a very unfortunate impression".

He said: "A lot of Muslims will say well there are 'no go' areas for us in British society, in some ways, so if the question is about how do we overcome that mutual isolation, that is a very good question."

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali added in his statement: "I made clear in the article that my comments were about the particular impact of Islamic extremism and were not about Muslims in general.
"I deeply regret any hurt and do not wish to cause offence to anyone, let alone my Muslim friends."

That distinction is not good enough, I guess.

Yo, of Brampton, Ontario. It's against the law to help the Taliban

From the world famous, as-seen-on-TV Jawa Report.

Even as Canadian soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan the official website of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the terrorist group more commonly referred to as the Taliban, is being hosted by a Canadian company. Other business services, essential to the Taliban operation, are being provided by American firms.

The website, The Voice of Jihad, carries the official logo of the Taliban and bears the signature and contact information for the two top Taliban spokesmen, Qari Muhammad Yussuf (Ahmadi) & Zabihullah Mujahid. The website was designed and maintained by Taliban webmaster Adil Watanmal.

Canadian MP's human rights commission motion will likely fail

The opposition Liberal and NPD parties in Canada's parliament have both come out criticizing Liberal MP Keith Martin's motion to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is related to speech.

In a story that focuses more on Stormfront's support of Martin's motion than the Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant cases (putting the cause in the worst possible light), the Canadian Press reports the following.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's office disavowed the motion and suggested Martin will be asked to withdraw it.
"This is not the position of the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal caucus or Mr. Dion," said spokeswoman Leslie Swartman.

"We support the Canadian Human Rights Act and will not entertain changes to it such as this."

. . .

NDP MP Wayne Marston said he was "deeply troubled that any Liberal" would try to weaken human rights legislation. While some complainants may try to abuse the act, Marston said his party has "great confidence" that human rights tribunals can weed out the frivolous complaints from the genuine ones.

"That's the role of the human rights commission to make that determination."

With the exception of one cabinet minister, the minority Conservative government, has been silent on this issue since it started becoming a big issue in the blogosphere late last year. Even if the Conservatives, who do not have a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, did support Martin's motion another opposition party (the leftist and separatist Bloc Quebecois) or a large segment of Martin's Liberal colleagues will have to break ranks with party leader Dion.

All in all, not looking good.

Ezra Levant is a little more optimistic about Dion caving and the Conservatives coming aboard.

The Weekly Standard examines Canada's kangaroo courts

At The Weekly Standard, Lee Harris takes one of the most balanced looks yet at Canada's human rights commissions, which are currently investigating complaints against high-profile conservative writers Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. Both have been the subject of complaints from Muslims.

There has been remarkably little interest shown in these cases by the American media, usually so alert to perceived violations of the right to free speech, and it is perhaps too easy to speculate why the editorial boards of our leading newspapers and magazines have not gotten up in arms over these attacks on their Canadian colleagues. Could it be that they are not as keen on defending our right to speak ill of Islam as they are to defend our right to speak ill of virtually everything else?

From there, however, the piece seems to go downhill. In an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations, Harris credits Levant's complainant for not rioting in the streets.

Fortunately, in the case of the Western Standard, there were no riots or deaths. It is true that Levant appears to have offended at least one Muslim, namely, the man who has filed the complaints against him. But Soharwardy did not stab Levant to death, or blow him up--and, to quote Gilbert and Sullivan, this is "greatly to his credit." Soharwardy may not be an Englishman, like the able seaman of the Pinafore, but at least he is behaving like one, vigorously availing himself of the law and its loopholes in order to get his way, and thereby avoiding the violence that so often accompanies expression of Muslim anger in other parts of the world. Canadian law has made the mere expression of hatred a crime, unlike American law, which must consider whether hateful speech is likely to lead to the actual physical harm of the person who is its object; and who can really fault Soharwardy for thus taking advantage of opportunities placed in his way? Levant may well object to Canadian law on this matter, and he may even be right to argue that the Alberta Human Rights Commission has exceeded its mandate by taking his case under consideration. But that is not Soharwardy's fault.

Harris then provides a totally misguided theory about the purposes of human rights commissions in Canada.

Let offended Muslims file complaints to their heart's content. Make outraged imams fill out tedious forms. Require self-appointed mullahs, representing imaginary counsels and committees, to provide documentation of their grievances. Encourage them to vent through the intrinsically stifling bureaucratic channels provided by panels like the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Show them, nanny-like, that you care about their injured feelings. Patiently and silently listen to their indignant complaints, and let them, ideally, get it all out of their systems. Humoring, let us remember, is not appeasement, but often a clever way to coax troublesome children of all ages into behaving like civilized human beings. Every good nanny knows as much. So perhaps there is something that the rest of the world can learn from the Canadian nanny's book of tricks. If it is a book of tricks. .  .  

Yes, "if it is."

Harris totally ignores the fact that these commmissions were set up prior to the worldwide jihad and were not created as a way to prevent rioting in the streets. Also, they have a 100 per cent conviction rate for hate speech.

He concludes with this scary thought.

If enough Muslims continue to react with violence to criticism of their religion and culture, all the other nations of the West will eventually be forced to make a tragic choice between two of our highest values. Either we must clamp down on critics of Islam, mandating a uniform code of political correctness, or else we must let the critics say what they wish, regardless of the consequences, and in full knowledge that these consequences may include the death of innocents. This is not a choice that the West has had to face since the end of our own furor theologicus several centuries ago, but, like it or not, it is the choice that we are facing again today.

Episode missed: Little Mosque on the Prairie should try airing the real stories

Toronto Sun columnist Michael Coren doesn't seem to be a fan of the Dhimmified CBC program Little Mosque on the Prairie.

HT/Different Drummer at LGF.

Late last year I wrote that, "It's the episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie that I missed. The one where the father is so angry with his teenage daughter for not wearing the hijab that he strangles her to death.

"Perhaps it will be in the special features section of the DVD version, released just in time for the holiday that used to be known as Christmas but not any longer because the word might hurt someone's feelings."

I was referring to the grotesque murder of a young woman in Ontario allegedly because she dressed in modern, western clothes and refused to conform to strict Islamic teaching. I was, inevitably, accused of racism and Islamophobia and threatened with murder.
Now I realize I'm missing all sorts of episodes of Little Mosque, because I can't imagine for a moment that such a show is not covering every fascinating aspect of the Canadian Islamic world. Such as the University of Toronto student who, as exposed in a report last week by The National Post, repeatedly has posted on the Internet that Canadian soldiers should be killed in Canada so that they cannot fight in Afghanistan.
"Any and all Western soldiers getting prepared to enter Muslim nations should be legitimate targets by any and all Islamic militants. If there were any planned attacks against Canadian/American soldiers by Muslim militants in Canadian soil, I'll support it," writes Salman Hossain, currently enjoying an education heavily funded by tax dollars.


He went on to write that, "I enjoy watching the blood flow from the Western troops" and "when do I get to shoot a few Jews down. Why target the Americans when the Jews are better?"

He continues that a "mass casualty" attack in Canada would be, "fantastic and would get the job done".

And so on and so on. The Jews are the most evil people in the world and have to be killed, North American troops have to be slaughtered, Canadians have to pay, Islam is great, Muslims forever, blood, guts, suffering, more blood, more evil Jews, more dead Canadians.

Eerily similar to the writings of a Muslim extremist who was convicted last week in Britain for conducting an elaborate plot to kidnap a Muslim soldier serving in the British army and cut off his head. The murder was to be filmed and shown on the Internet.

That man and his gang will go to prison. Hossain likely will not even be prosecuted. Unlike journalists Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, currently facing numerous Human Rights Commission hearings. Levant's crime was reprinting cartoons implying a link between terrorism and militant Islam. Steyn's was to discuss Islamic ambitions and to quote various Muslim leaders calling for Islam to conquer Europe.

If young Hossain were unique it would be bad enough. He certainly isn't. Ask Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress, read the death-threat e-mail received by me and every other journalist who criticizes Islamic fundamentalism, ask Canadian author Irshad Manji, ask the families of those legions of people murdered in the name of Islam.

Don't, however, ask the Canadian establishment and the deniers in the media. These are the sorts of people who make painfully patronizing shows about little mosques in Western Canada telling non-Muslims that everything is fine apart from our intolerance. What a funny old country Canada has become.

Canadian to be tried second time on hate charge

The case of David Ahenakew is back in the news.

After having his conviction of wilfully promoting hate overturned by two appeal courts, the Saskatchewan justice ministry has decided to retry him.

The former Assembly of First Nation's chief became relatively famous in 2002 after he delivered a speech which appeared to blame Jews for World War II. He told a reporter later that Jews were a "disease."

Ahenakew has apologized for the remark and the original conviction came with a fine of just $1,000. The government seems intent on pursuing this as a legal benchmark for future hate speech trials.

"In our mind, it was an appropriate case to proceed back to trial on,'' Daryl Rayner, head of the ministry's public prosecutions branch, said Friday. "The case really hasn't been decided.''

Rayner said Ahenakew was originally prosecuted because the Crown believed that there was a reasonable likelihood of success and that it was in the public interest to do so. He said the case still meets that standard.

"I don't think there's any dispute in terms of what took place,'' said Rayner. "It's just whether or not this is an offence or not, and so in our mind this was still appropriate to take before the courts.''

Friday, February 1, 2008

Levant's accuser organizing Muslim women's convention

Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, and the man who has filed a human rights complaint against Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed cartoons is organizing a Muslim women's convention in Calgary.

That would be the same Syed Soharwardy who is the subject of a human rights complaint himself from Muslim women at a mosque.

As Ezra reported the women allege in their complaint:

We were discriminated as women and were treated poorly, differently, negatively and adversely by the Directors and Officers of Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, Islam Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), Muslim Against Terrorism (MAT), Al-Madinah Dar-Ul-Aloom Ltd and Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Assembly. In this meeting we were treated diferently from men in the following manner:

· Abusive language uttered towards us;

· Not permitted to ask any questions;

· Danied participation as equal members of the Muslim community;

· Physically and verbally threatened; made to sit in the back of the hall;

· Accused of disrupting and subotaging the proceedings;

· Forced to vacate the pemises;

Followed-up by obscene and threatening phone calls and letters in the mail.

Lionheart on LGF: When are people going to wake up and publicly stop this twisted maniac.

The British blogger and BNP supporter Lionheart has issued what sounds like another threat against Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.

In a post Friday, Lionheart begins writing about anti-semitism in his community and then gets sidetracked and again launches an assault on Johnson and LGF.

"Who needs enemies when you have twisted friends like those in America, that is not all Americans might I add because I do have some good friends now and each of you know who you are, but that is those who are out there damaging and destroying some good people and the good work they are doing against the Jihad being enforced upon our civilization - When are people going to wake up and publicly stop this twisted maniac."

Of course, Lionheart is wanted by police in the UK for something he wrote on his blog and has become a celebrated cause with some bloggers, who believe they are defending free speech. Johnson and others (including myself) believe Lionheart is a loose cannon and is not worthy of support, especially given the threat he made against Johnson after LGF noted his past ties to the white nationalist BNP.

So the man the some bloggers want us to rally around is now calling on someone to "publicly stop" Johnson.

So much for free speech.

Petition to save Afghan journalist sentenced to death for blasphemy

The British newspaper The Independent has an online petition designed to pressure the British Foreign Office to apply pressure to have the Afghan government reverse a three-judge panel's decision to sentence an Afghan journalist to death for blasphemy.

In the latest developments in the Sayed Pervez Kambaksh case

Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has been inundated with appeals to save the life of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the student journalist sentenced to death after being accused of downloading an internet report on women's rights.

While international protests mounted over the affair, with the British Government saying it had already raised its concerns, hundreds of people marched through the capital, Kabul, demanding Mr Kambaksh's release.

The CBC is reporting that the Afghan Senate has reversed its statement earlier this week supporting the death sentence.

Major blow for freedom of religion in Egypt

Another story of Islamic supremacy in the Mideast. An Egyptan judge has ruled that a Muslim convert cannot change his religious affiliation. The problem stems from Article II of the Egyptian constitution which makes Islamic law the source of Egyptian law.

Judge: ‘He can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can’t convert.’

ISTANBUL, January 31 (Compass Direct News) – In a blow to religious freedom in Egypt, a Cairo court has ruled against a Muslim convert to Christianity who requested that his religious affiliation be changed.

Judge Muhammad Husseini said in a verdict on Tuesday (January 29) that it was against Islamic law for a Muslim to leave Islam, a legal representative for convert Muhammad Hegazy said.

“He can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can’t convert,” Husseini told the administrative court, according to the member of Hegazy’s legal team.

Husseini based his decision on Article II of the Egyptian constitution, which makes Islamic law, or sharia, the source of Egyptian law.

The judge said that, according to sharia, Islam is the final and most complete religion and therefore Muslims already practice full freedom of religion and can not return to an older belief (Christianity or Judaism).

“What happened is a violation of my basic rights,” convert Hegazy told the US Copts Association following the hearing. “What does the state have to do with the religion I embrace?”

And it wouldn't be a religious matter in the Mideast without ...

Hegazy’s initial lawyer, Mamdouh Nakhla, had made several procedural mistakes before death threats from Islamists forced him to withdraw last August.

Eid had hoped to reopen the case after applying to Egypt’s Civil Status Department to change religious affiliations on Hegazy’s official identification. He expected the department to reject the unprecedented request, giving him evidence with which to sue the government.

Despite the ruling, an ANHRI representative said that Hegazy still planned to appeal the decision or open a new case if possible. Hegazy’s wife Zeinab, also a convert from Islam, plans to go to court for her right to register as a Christian as well.

Death threats have forced the couple, who gave birth to a daughter this month, into hiding since the trial hit news headlines in early August.

And you know the convert's family has to be understanding of his his decision, right?

Last week, Hegazy’s father told an Egyptian paper that he would kill his son if he did not return to Islam.

“When I see my son, I will give him a chance to return to Islam,” the Muslim told Al-Masry al-Youm last Friday (January 25). If his son refused, he said, “I will kill him with my own hands, I will shed his blood publicly.”

WorldNetDaily has more background on the rise of Islamic supremacy dating back to the Sadat government.

Major victory for freedom of religion in Egypt

An administrative court in Egypt has rejected an official state policy based on Sharia that denies official identity documents for those who do not wish to be identified as Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

However, Hindus or Budhists will not be able to declare their religion on the documents, just leave it blank. So it's half a loaf.

Bahaai community in Egypt, local and international human rights organisations warmly welcomed an Administrative Court ruling this Tuesday (29 January), which reversed the official state policy of denying essential identity documents to Egyptians who do not wish to be identified in official documents as adherents of the three Monotheistic religions recognised by the state.

Bahaai Egyptians, leading a legal battle over the past few years to be certified as Bahaais on official documents, won a first step court ruling to that effect in April 2006. The 2006 court ruling, however, was overturned later by the Supreme Administrative Court.

This week's new sentence seems to meet the Bahaais' demand half way, since while rejecting the demand that the Bahaai faith is a religion, it allowed those who do not wish to be identified as followers of Islam, Christianity or Judaism to have official documents in which the religion category would either be filled by a "hyphen" or the word "without".

"This is not just a victory for the Bahaai community of Egypt, but it is also a victory for all those Egyptians who do not adhere to the three monotheistic religions," Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) told Al-Ahram Weekly. "For the first time in contemporary Egyptian history, an individual who professes Hinduism or Buddhism, or even those wishing to call themselves non-believers, could enjoy full citizenship rights. That in itself is a great advance of human rights and will tremendously enhance the country's human rights record," Bahgat explains.

Basma Moussa, a leader and spokeswoman of the Bahaai community of Egypt, concurs. She was ecstatic. "This ruling is what we have been struggling to achieve for years. At last our prayers have been answered. We are extremely grateful that justice has been served and that finally we can lead normal lives as Egyptian citizens," Moussa says.

Labib Iskandar, a leading Egyptian Bahaai, and a professor of engineering at Cairo University laments that, "we used to move about without personal identification cards. That is a criminal offence in Egypt. We could be stopped by police at any moment, anywhere and asked for our ID."

"Inability to produce an ID card entails a five-year prison sentence,"
Moussa, a dentist and an assistant lecturer at Cairo University says. "The civil status law makes it obligatory for every Egyptian citizen to carry on his or her personal ID card".

"These documents are essential to obtain education and employment, register births, immunise children, and conduct basic transactions such as opening a bank account, obtaining a driver's licence, or collecting a pension," Bahgat extrapolates.

"A previous ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court in December 2006 had upheld the state policy of refusing to recognise the religious affiliation of Bahaais in official documents, arguing that such recognition would violate public order and Sharia [Islamic law] requirements," Bahgat explains.

The December 2006 ruling prompted Bahaai Egyptians to file two other lawsuits -- the subject of Tuesday's ruling -- requesting documents that do not list any religious affiliation. "The new cases, filed by EIPR lawyers, argued that forcing Bahaais to identify falsely as Muslim or Christian violated their rights to freedom of conviction, privacy, equality and full citizenship rights," Bahgat notes.

Bahaais began to experience grave difficulties beginning in 1995, when the authorities insisted that all Egyptians had to acquire or replace personal documents with computerised ones from the central Civil Registry Office in the Ministry of Interior.

It is hoped that this week's ruling would finally allow Bahaai Egyptians to obtain birth certificates and computerised identity cards leaving the religious category void.

Bahgat, Iskandar and Moussa hope that the state would implement the ruling as soon as possible. "We urge the government to implement the decision without delay, and not to appeal this clear verdict of the court," Bahgat says.

Liberal MP stands up for free speech in Canada

Liberal MP Keith Martin becomes the first federal politician to attempt to do something about the ability of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate so-called hate speech.

The issue has received international attention due to two recent cases involving Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, who have been investigated by human rights commissions following complaints from Muslims.

The action is surprisingly coming from a Liberal MP, not a Conservative. But Keith Martin, if you recall, had been a long time member of the Conservative party's legacy Reform-Alliance party but defected to the Liberals when it appeared that Paul Martin would win a massive majority in 2003.

Liberal MP Launches Motion to Stop Human Rights Commission Squelching of Free Speech

By Hilary White

OTTAWA, January 31, 2008 ( - A British Columbia Parliamentarian, Keith Martin, has called for the abolition of the clause in the Canadian Human Rights Act that makes it possible for special interest groups to file petty grievance complaints through the Human Rights Commissions.

Martin today presented the motion to Parliament in the face of the ongoing scandals of Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals being used to silence journalists, Christian pastors and political writers on a variety of controversial topics.

The motion states, "That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act." Subsection 13(1) makes it a "discriminatory practice" for individuals or groups to communicate messages that are "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt". Critics of this section of the Act have long said that the clause creates the precise equivalent of a "thought crime".

Martin, a medical doctor and pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia Liberal MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca on Vancouver Island, was the former Reform Party's Opposition Health Critic. He left the Canadian Alliance party in 2004 after complaining that the party was allowing "social conservatives" and pro-life members to have a voice in the party.

Confirmation was not available from Martin's office as to whether or not the motion is in response to the current wave of complaints against Canadian journalists, politicians and religious leaders based on subsection 13(1). But a spokesman from Martin's office told that the publicity surrounding the complaints against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant by Islamic extremist imams has raised the profile of the issue throughout the country and around the world.

Martin's motion comes as three complaints are ongoing against Ron Gray, head of Canada's Christian Heritage party. These complaints by homosexual activists allege "hatred" and "contempt" against homosexuals because of the party's support for traditional Christian moral teaching on sexuality and marriage. In December, a Christian pastor and youth counsellor, Stephen Boissoin was found guilty by an Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for publicly expressing the Christian teaching on homosexuality.

Ezra Levant himself has thanked Martin for the initiative saying, "If a progressive, young, hip Liberal MP from an urban seat feels comfortable proposing this bill, it is a sign that reforming these commissions is politically safe, even for a Conservative government still worried about being tagged as 'anti-human rights'."

"The man picks political winners. That alone is a signal to other MPs that it's safe to stand and be counted on this fight."

To date, no comment on the issue has come from Conservative members of government, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Iranian ambassador says Wilders puts troops lives at risk

First the U.S. military command in Afghanistan, now Iran.

Courtesy Jihad Watch

THE HAGUE, 01/02/08 - Iranian Ambassador Ziaran intends to invite all Islamic ambassadors in the Netherlands for a meeting on Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders' film on the Koran.

Ziaran met this week with the LBM, a new umbrella of Moroccan organisations in the Netherlands. On NOS Journaal, the daily TV news of public broadcaster NOS, he said he would organise a meeting with the ambassadors of Islamic countries shortly on the already-controversial film that Wilders has said he plans to air in March.

LBM, chaired by former leftwing Greens (GroenLinks) MP Mohammed Rabbae called on Ziaran to issue a message to the Iranian people not to react violently to the film, in which Wilders wants to portray the Koran as a fascist book. Ziaran could not guarantee that the streets of Tehran would remain calm.
According to De Volkskrant, Ziaran warned the Netherlands that the lives of its troops in Afghanistan may be endangered by Wilders. The newspaper yesterday quoted him as saying that the Afghans would "regard the Dutch troops as representatives of people who besmirch the Koran".

Where I come from, this sounds like blackmail.

Christian life in Pakistan

Christians abducted for their organs and the police taking a laisez-faire approach.

Mar Balochan (AsiaNews) – Trafficking in human organs might be behind the recent spate of disappearances reported in and around Sangla Hill, a village in Punjab’s Nankanna district. The most sensational case is that of Francis Nadeem, a 15-year-old Christian who was abducted and killed according to his self-confessed captors. But so far his body has not been found and the police seem more interested in protecting the two culprits who are from influential local families. The story is reported in Pakistan Christian Post, a local Protestant paper that gathered the elements of the story from the family of the missing boy and from ROD (Rays of Development), an NGO that sent a fact finding team to the area.

Sadeeq Masih, Francis Nadeem’s father, said that in the evening of “20 December, Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Zaman, two rich and powerful Muslims from a neighbouring village came to our house and took away Francis by force. They left on a motorbike and never came back. As soon as we could, we started looking for him everywhere, but without results.”

Members of the family of Christian boy even went to see the families of the two Muslims, but were chased away without any explanation.

When this did not work, Sadeeq turned to the police. “We filed a missing person report and the police began an enquiry into my son’s disappearance.” However, Imran and Zaman were stopped only on 14 January when they admitted to abducting and killing the boy, telling police even where they had dumped the body.

So far the police have shown no inclination to do much about the matter. Instead the ROD team visited the area where the murderers said they had disposed of the body but found nothing.

For Sadeeq local policemen “are corrupt.” In his view “they are covering up for the kidnappers because they are rich and influential. We are denied the truth.”

The boy’s father goes even further: “I am convinced that Francis was not killed. I think that like others who have disappeared in the area he is being used for his organs. I am sure there is an actual gang involved in this horrible traffic.”

As a matter of fact ROD has released a statement saying that there have been “at least 12 unexplained disappearances in the area over the past two months”.

Reaping the fruits of the first Gulf War

Michael Rubin at National Review Online received this email today. Didn't we kick Saddam out of their country so they could be free?

Last week the Ministry of Information in Kuwait Suddenly stopped all TV Talk shows in the government owned TV station. This included three popular programs: The weekly Diwaniya hosted by Dr. Shafeeq Ghabra; Six over Six hosted by Yousef al-Jasim; and Muftarak Torok hosted by Dr. Kafyah Ramadan. The stoppage came as a surprise to the public. The ministry’s justification for the stoppage circled around linking debate programs with state policy. The ministry’s statement made it clear that the programs must be more sensitive to state policy, to “Islamic heritage and national unity."

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Iran punishes 54 Bahai followers

The Iranians continue to punish members of the Bahai faith, which is outlawed in Iran.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran on Tuesday said more than 50 followers of the minority Baha'i faith were convicted of distributing propaganda against the country's Islamic regime, state media reported.

Ali Reza Jamshidi, Iran's judiciary spokesman, said three people, who were in custody in southern city of Shiraz, were sentenced to four years in prison. Another 51 Baha'i followers were given one-year suspended prison terms, Jamshidi said, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Last year, Baha'i communities abroad had reported that a group of followers were detained in Shiraz, located about 550 miles south of Tehran, while helping poor communities there.
Iran had been the cradle of the Baha'i faith in the middle of the 19th century. But the faith was banned after the 1979 Islamic revolution, and it is not recognized in the Iranian constitution as a religious minority.

The Baha'i faith was founded in the 1860s by a Persian nobleman, Baha'u'llah, who claimed to be a new prophet in the series of prophets that included Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Islam considers Muhammad to be the last of the prophets.

The Religion of Book Banning

If you're going book shopping in Malaysia, you may have a hard time finding these books. (HT Jihad Watch)

Ministry Bans 11 Books About Islam

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 29 (Bernama) -- The Internal Security Ministry has banned 11 books -- eight in English and three in Bahasa Malaysia -- about Islam whose contents have been found to be deviating from the teaching of the religion.

According to the ministry's Quran Publication Control and Text Division Secretary Che Din Yusoh, the ban order was gazetted on Jan 17 under Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.

The books banned are:

* Secrets Of The Koran: Revealing Insights Into Islam's Holy Book by Don Richardson (Regal Books From Gospel Light, Ventura, Calfornia, USA);

* Qur'an and Women Rereading the Secrets Text From Woman's Perspective by Amina Wadud (Oxford University Press, New York);

* The Two Faces Of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and It's Role in Terrorism by Stephen Schwartz (Anchor Books, New York);

* Woman In Islam by Margaret Speaker Yuan (Greenhaven Press Farmington Hills);

* Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About The World's Fastest-Growing Faith by Robert Spencer (Encounter Books Califonia);

* What Makes Me A Muslim by Catherine M. Petrini (KidHaven Press Farmington Hills);

* The Importance Of Muhammad by Marilyn Tower Oliver (Lucent Books, Farmington Hills);

* Faiths Islam Worship, Festival and Ceremonies From Around The World by Trevor Barnes (Kingfisher, Massachusets);

* Amalan Kemurahan Rezeki by Lifa Karimah (Jasmin Enterprise);

* Rahsia Jalan Yang Lurus (Al-Mustaqim, Johor Bahru); and

* Islam & Pluralisme by Al-Mustaqeem Mahmood Radhi (Middle Eastern Gruaduate Centre, Damansara Kuala Lumpur).

Afghanistan: What are we fighting for?

I'm a proponent of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, but when I see stories like these you have to wonder what are we fighting for there?

Afghan MPs back blasphemy death

The upper house of the Afghan parliament has supported a death sentence issued against a journalist for blasphemy in northern Afghanistan.

Pervez Kambaksh, 23, was convicted last week of downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam. He has denied the charge.

The UN has criticised the sentence and said the journalist did not have legal representation during the case.

The Afghan government has said that the sentence was not final.

A government spokesman said recently that the case would be handled "very carefully".

Now the Afghan Senate has issued a statement on the case - it was not voted on but was signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, an ally of President Hamid Karzai.

It said the upper house approved the death sentence conferred on Mr Kambaksh by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif.


It also strongly criticised what it called those institutions and foreign sources which, it said, had tried to pressurise the country's government and judiciary as they pursued people like Mr Kambaksh.

It's one thing to have one crazy judge in Afghanistan lay down a death sentence for blasphemy, but it's an entirely different thing when the leader in the Senate says the Senate endorses it.

This is a total outrage.

Is this the democratic government that we're fighting to defend in Afghanistan with our resources and manpower and blood?

Sure the Taliban is gone, but now we have a government in power that supports death sentences for blasphemy.

Not surprisingly, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier's office has been quiet on this.

Book says Canadian MP, think tank members spied for the Soviets

It would be surprising, since was reportedly one of the more strident anti-communists in Ottawa in the 1980s. But that's what a new book alleges.

OTTAWA -- A publisher has cited legal considerations in halting Canadian shipments of a book that alleges a former Conservative MP from Calgary was a paid informant for the Russian intelligence service.

It is the latest controversy to flare up over Comrade J, American journalist Pete Earley's account of espionage in the early years of the post-Cold War era.

The volume is based on the recollections of Sergei Tretyakov, who spied for Moscow in Ottawa and subsequently at the United Nations before defecting to the United States with his family in 2000.

The book alleges Alex Kindy provided information that wound up in numerous spy cables in return for thousands of dollars in cash. It says Kindy, codenamed Grey, was recruited in 1992 by Vitali Domoratski, a vice consul actually working in counter-intelligence for the Russians from their embassy in Ottawa.

Kindy, 78, did not return Earley's telephone calls or respond after being sent copies of Tretyakov's account. There was no answer late Tuesday at his Calgary home.

Lynn Kyba, Kindy's assistant from 1984 to 1993, said there was no way the MP would have spied for the Russians.

"He was a dedicated Canadian,'' she said in an interview. "It just doesn't fit.''

"Of all the things you'd say about him, that's not one.''

The book has been greeted with skepticism in other quarters. The International Atomic Energy Agency dismissed Tretyakov's allegations that he enlisted the co-operation of a Canadian nuclear expert working with the outfit in Vienna.

In a statement Tuesday, legal counsel for publisher Penguin Group's U.S. division said the company had temporarily suspended shipments to Canada "to allow time to evaluate the legal ramifications, under Canadian law, of speculations about the book that have arisen in the Canadian market.''

This does not apply to the many copies already available in Canadian stores.

Comrade J says U.S. intelligence officials told Earley that Tretyakov, who served in Ottawa from 1990 to 1995, recruited five trusted contacts in the Canadian capital who provided him with classified military and political information. The material included details of U.S. and Canadian efforts to track Soviet submarines in the Arctic.

But the biggest Canadian fish was allegedly reeled in by Domoratski, one of Tretyakov's officers at the Ottawa embassy.

The Ukrainian-born Domoratski is said to have met Kindy, whose parents hailed from Ukraine, at a reception. The two soon became friends.

Earley, a former Washington Post reporter, acknowledges that Kindy -- a strident anti-Communist -- was an unlikely mark for the SVR, the post-Cold War successor to the Soviet Union's ruthless KGB.

However, Domoratski reportedly thought Kindy was vulnerable because he needed cash for his re-election campaign.

Kyba, who ran Kindy's 1993 campaign, disputes the notion he was hard up for money. "He did not have any problems at all. None at all.''

Kindy, a physician, was born in Warsaw, Poland. The father of three children was first elected to the House of Commons in 1984, winning the Calgary East riding for the Progressive Conservatives.

He won the Calgary Northeast riding in 1988 but was booted from the Tory caucus in April 1990, along with David Kilgour, after they voted against their own government's introduction of the widely hated Goods and Services Tax.

Tretyakov says Kindy accepted Russian cash in a series of meetings in 1992 and 1993.

The book quotes Tretyakov as saying Moscow was interested in getting Kindy to discuss "various intrigues inside the Canadian Parliament and government. This was intimate information about his colleagues and also details about international maneuvers that were going on.''

When Domoratski returned to Moscow, his replacement in Ottawa was supposed to become Kindy's new handler, the book says. But the MP refused to speak to him.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service spokeswoman Manon Berube said CSIS was aware of the book, but declined comment on the allegations. "We don't discuss specific cases or situations.''

VDH on Mideast Peace

A Modest Proposal for Middle East Peace

By Victor Davis Hanson

There seems to be a growing renewed animus against Israel lately. Arun Gandhi, grandson of the purported humanist Mahatma Gandhi, thinks Israel and Jews in general are prone to, and singularly responsible for, most of the world’s violence. The Oxford Union is taking up the question of whether Israel even has a right to continue to exist. Our generation no longer speaks of a “Palestinian problem,” but rather of an “Israeli problem.” So perhaps it is time for a new global approach to deal with Israel and its occupation.

Perhaps we ought to broaden our multinational and multicultural horizons by transcending the old comprehensive settlements, roadmaps, and Quartet when dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, a dispute which originated with the creation of Israel.

Why not simply hold an international conference on all of these issues — albeit in a far more global context, outside the Middle East?

The ensuing general accords and principles could be applied to Israel and the West Bank, where the number of people involved, the casualties incurred, and the number of refugees affected are far smaller and far more manageable.

Perhaps there could be five U.N. sessions: disputed capitals; the right of return for refugees; land under occupation; the creation of artificial post-World War II states; and the use of inordinate force against suspected Islamic terrorists.

In the first session, we should try to solve the status of Nicosia, which is currently divided into Greek and Turkish sectors by a U.N. Greek Line. Perhaps European Union investigators could adjudicate Turkish claims that the division originated from unwarranted threats to the Turkish Muslim population on Cyprus. Some sort of big power or U.N. roadmap then might be imposed on the two parties, in hopes that the Nicosia solution would work for Jerusalem as well.

In the second discussion, diplomats might find common ground about displaced populations, many from the post-war, late 1940s. Perhaps it would be best to start with the millions of Germans who were expelled from East Prussia in 1945, or Indians who were uprooted from ancestral homes in what is now Pakistan, or over half-a-million Jews that were ethnically cleansed from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria following the 1967 war. Where are these refugees now? Were they ever adequately compensated for lost property and damages? Can they be given promises of the right to return to their ancestral homes under protection of their host countries? The ensuring solutions might shed light on the Palestinian aspirations to return to land lost sixty years ago to Israel.

A third panel would take up the delicate issue of returning territory lost by defeat in war. Ten percent of historic Germany is now part of Poland. The Russians still occupy many of the Kurile Islands, and Greek Cyprus lost sizable territory in 1974 after the invasion by Turkey. The Western Sahara is still annexed by Morocco, while over 15 percent of disputed Azerbaijan has been controlled by Armenia since 1994. Additionally, all of independent Tibet has been under Chinese occupation since 1950-1. Surely if some general framework concerning these occupations could first be worked out comprehensively, the results might then be applied to the much smaller West Bank and Golan Heights.

In a fourth panel, the international conference should take up the thorny issue of recently artificially created states. Given the tension over Kashmir, was Pakistan a mistake — particularly the notion of a homeland for Indian Muslims? North Korea was only created after the stalemate of 1950-3; so should we debate whether this rogue nation still needs to exist, given its violent history and threats to world peace?

Fifth, and finally, is there a global propensity to use inordinate force against Muslim terrorists that results in indiscriminate collateral damage? The Russians during the second Chechnyan War of 1999-2000 reportedly sent tactical missiles into the very core of Grozny, and may have killed tens of thousands of civilians in their hunt for Chechnyan terrorists — explaining why the United Nations later called that city the most destroyed city on earth. Syria has never admitted to the complete destruction of Hama, once home to Muslim Brotherhood terrorists. The city suffered the fate of Carthage and was completely obliterated in 1982 by the al-Assad government, with over 30,000 missing or killed. Did the Indian government look the other way in 2002 when hundreds of Muslim civilians in Gujarat were killed in reprisal for Islamic violence against Hindus? The lessons learned in this final session might reassure a world still furious over the 52 Palestinians lost in Jenin.

In other words, after a half-century of failed attempts to solve the Middle East crisis in isolation, isn’t it time we look for guidance in a far more global fashion, and in contexts where more lives have been lost, more territory annexed, and more people made refugees in places as diverse as China, Russia, and the broader Middle East?

The solutions that these countries have worked out to deal with similar problems apparently have proven successful — at least if the inattention of the world, the apparent inaction of the United Nations, and the relative silence of European governments are any indication.

So let the international community begin its humanitarian work!

Greek Cypriots can advise Israel about concessions necessary to Muslims involving a divided Jerusalem. Russians and Syrians can advise the IDF on how to deal properly and humanely with Islamic terrorists. Poland, Russia, China, and Armenia might offer the proper blueprint for giving back land to the defeated that they once gained by force. A North Korea or Pakistan can offer Israel humanitarian lessons that might blunt criticisms that such a recently created country has no right to exist. Iraq and Egypt would lend insight about proper reparation and the rights of return, given its own successful solutions to the problems of their own fleeing Jewish communities.

But why limit the agenda to such a small array of issues? The world has much to teach Israel about humility and concessions, on issues ranging from how other countries in the past have dealt with missiles sent into their homeland, to cross-border incursions by bellicose neighbors.

No doubt, Middle East humanitarians such as Jimmy Carter, Arun Gandhi, and Tariq Ramadan could preside, drawing on and offering their collective past wisdom in solving such global problems to those of a lesser magnitude along the West Bank.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

When the military goes PC

From FrontPage Magazine.

On September 1, 2006, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England was featured as a speaker at the 43rd annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA. He began his speech by stating the following:

Friends, fellow Americans, people of faith - Good afternoon! Thank you to Dr. Louay Safi for the kind introduction, and a special thank you to Sheikh Muhammad Nur Abdulla, and Dr. Ingrid Mattson, for your leadership and for the invitation to join you at this Islamic Society of North America conference.

Thank you also for the pleasant lunch, and the opportunity to dialog with the Society’s leadership. It was most beneficial to share ideas and values.

It is a profound honor for me to be here with you today, representing all the men and women in the United States military, and all the civilians who serve America in the Department of Defense and throughout the US Government.

ISNA was established by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-associated Muslim Students Association (MSA) in 1981, helped into existence by a group of MSA alumni and a teaching assistant at North Carolina State University (NCSU) named Sami Al-Arian, who only two years prior co-founded Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Egypt. ISNA was incorporated using the same physical address as the MSA, which was also the address used to incorporate the American Hamas financing wing, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).

In December of 2003, ISNA was the subject of a terrorism investigation launched by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee “into possible links between nongovernmental organizations and terrorist financing networks.”

In June of 2007, ISNA was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a legal case brought by the Justice Department against HLF officials that dealt with the funding of millions of dollars to Hamas. During the trial, a May 1991 MB document bearing ISNA’s name was presented as evidence, stating: “The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and G-d’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Even today, right on ISNA’s official website, one can read the following quotes: “May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens [religions] shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.” And “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” The statements have been on ISNA’s site since March of 2006, months before England gave his speech.

Furthermore, ISNA Executive Council member Muhammad Nur Abdullah (see above) and board members Jamal Badawi, Yusuf Ziya Kavakci, and Muzammil Siddiqi all currently serve as Sharia Scholars for the ‘Fatwa Bank’ on Islam Online. Contained in it is a fatwa (religious ruling) mandating violence against American troops, entitled ‘Seeking Martyrdom by Attacking US Military Bases in the Gulf.’ It states, “[A]ttacking American soldiers who came to launch war against Muslims is an obligation and Jihad, as they are true invaders. Hence, killing any transgressing American soldier is an obligation and a kind of Jihad since those occupying troops came to invade Muslim lands.”

For such a high-ranking government official, as Deputy Secretary England is, to participate in an event sponsored by ISNA is alarming to say the least, but the series of events that followed the speech were far worse and will have much greater implications for the future.


At Pajamas Media, Claudia Rosett notes that a Muslim aide for dep sec England has had his bio taken off the DoD's Web site.

Hey, Presto! Where did it go?

Last Friday NRO ran my article, “Questions for the Pentagon: Who Is Hesham Islam?” The article raised questions about some of the stories recounted in a glowing profile, dated Oct. 15, on the Defense Department web site, featuring a top Pentagon aide, Hesham Islam.

Instead of answering the questions, the Pentagon appears to have disappeared the profile.Today, the entire web page, complete with photo of Islam in his office and lavish praise from his boss, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to have simply vanished from the DoD site. What was previously a link to the article (click on the second link listed here) is now a link to current news articles (no Hesham Islam), and the profile seems to have disappeared even from the October 15 archives.

As of this writing a cached version can still be found on Google. Lest it disappear from the face of the earth, here’s a copy of the original in pdf format, and here it is saved as a web page. This is an Armed Forces Press Service article which the Pentagon until recently appeared only too happy to publicize as DoD gospel.

What’s going on? I phoned the Pentagon to ask, following more than a week of trying to get answers prior to publishing the story last Friday about the mysteries surrounding this top aide, whom Gordon England, number two man at the Pentagon, described last year (that link has not yet disappeared) as his “personal close confidante.” No answers yet. Once again: Who’s running this show?

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Muslims, Europe and the BNP apologists

The London Daily Express is the only news outlet in the world to give any attention today to this study released by a special West-Islamic World Dialogue working group at this week's World Economic Forum in Davos.

AN “overwhelming majority” of Europeans believe immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to their traditional way of life, a survey revealed last night.

The poll, carried out across 21 countries, found “widespread anti-immigration sentiment”, but warned Europe’s Muslim population will treble in the next 17 years.

It reported “a severe deficit of trust is found between the Western and Muslim communities”, with most people wanting less interaction with the Muslim world.

Last night an MP warned it showed that political leaders in Britain who preach the benefits of unlimited immigration were dangerously out of touch with the public.

The study, whose authors include the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, was commissioned for leaders at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

It reports “a growing fear among Europeans of a perceived Islamic threat to their cultural identities, driven in part by immigration from predominantly Muslim nations”.

I should note that not only is the media largely ignoring this study, but I could not find it anywhere on the World Economic Forum's web site, which has a special page for the West-Islam initiative.

One Tory MP interviewed for the Daily Express story summed it up this way.

Backbench Tory MP David Davies told the Sunday Express: “I am not surprised by these findings. People are fed up with multiculturalism and being told they have to give up their way of life.

“Most people in Britain expect anyone who comes here to be willing to learn our language and fit in with us.”

Mr Davies, who serves on the Commons Home Affairs Committee, added: “People do get annoyed when they see millions spent on translating documents and legal aid being given to people fighting for the right to wear a head-to-toe covering at school.

“A lot of people are very uncomfortable with the changes being caused by immigration and politicians have been too slow to wake up to that.”

These comments by Davies should be a positive sign to those in the counterjihad movement in the UK.

As should those these made by Tory leader David Cameron last year.

Speaking in Birmingham this week, Tory leader David Cameron said religious leaders who advocated a separate state for British Muslims were the "mirror image" of far-right racists such as those in the British National Party (BNP).

Promoting multiculturalism, he said, was undermining the sense of British identity -- whether by discouraging immigrants from learning English or by giving Muslims protesters free rein to run wild in the streets of London.

"Multiculturalism has come to mean an approach which focuses on what divides us rather than what brings us together," Cameron said.

However, you wouldn't know it if you read the comments at the bottom of the Daily Express story.

27.01.08, 10:05pm

Hundreds, nay, thousands of people post on the Express news items with one similar vein. Nearly everybody wants a BNP government. Well, here's my challenge. Everyone who now posts demand that the Editor/owners become an official BNP sponsor. The only way we can make it happen is with a strong arm in the 'right wing media'. If anybody from the Express reads this, stop getting mileage from your headlines and put your money where your mouth is. Nick Griffin awaits your phone call. P.S when Britain's finished so is your newspaper !

• Posted by: Bilbo • Report Comment

In light of Cameron's very un-PC comments it seems to me that people who want to support the white nationalist BNP (and other nationalist groups in Europe) will support them no matter what Cameron and the conservatives do or say.