The Tyranny of Islamic Blasphemy Laws

Asia Bibi with her two children

Pakistan like other Islamic States have blasphemy laws which serve as a means to suppress and tyrannise Christians and Jews by the Islamic majority. Pakistan is one of the prime movers for the introduction of a blasphemy resolution  at the U.N.

Under Pakistan's blasphemy laws Asia Bibi an innocent Christian mother of two children, was sentenced to death and held in a Pakistani prison, since November 8 this year. So goes the fate of Christian minorities in Islamic States like Pakistan.

According to Reuters today a court barred President Asif Ali Zardari from pardoning Asia Bibi:

Last week, a government minister said an initial inquiry into the case of the Christian mother said she had not committed blasphemy but was falsely accused after a quarrel.

Blasphemy convictions are common although the death sentence has never been carried out. Most convictions are thrown out on appeal, but angry mobs have killed many people accused of blasphemy.

If you survive being killed by an Islamic mob, then the courts will try you and sentence you to death. That's how they intimidate and terrorise the Christian minority even if you are eventually given a "pardon" ( to receive a pardon you first have to be guilty; similarly for clemency).  

Here's the background of Asia Bibi's story from the Pakistan Christian Post

Lahore: November 9, 2010. (PCP) A Christian woman named Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by District and Session Courts after year long trial on accusation of blasphemy filed by Muslim villagers of Ittanwali, where she was residing from generations.

While working in farms with other Muslim women, Asia Bibi was dragged in religious dialogues on June 19, 2009, when Muslim women termed her an “Infidel” and Christianity a “Religion of infidels” and pressed her to embrace Islam. 

Asia Bibi who is married and have two children, defended Christianity with her little knowledge and told Muslim women that Christianity is only True religion on which Muslim women made a roar and accused her defiling Prophet Mohammad.

The Muslim men working in nearby fields also gathered and attacked Asia Bibi on which she fled to village in her home. The angry Muslims followed her and took her out of home and started beating her. They tortured her children also but meanwhile some one informed police.

The police took Asia Bibi to police Station and filed FIR against her under section 295-B and C of Pakistan Penal Code but showed it a protective custody to other Christians of Ittanwali village.

Section 295 B and C PPC are subject to life in prison or death sentence but it is first judgment in history of Pakistan when a woman is sentenced to death.

Release International an advocacy group for persecuted Christians around globe is pleading Asia Bibi case and have launched an online petition to ensure justice for her.

Meanwhile, Pakistan Christian Congress PCC have expressed concern on death sentence to Asia Bibi and have appealed to President of Pakistan to withdraw false case against Asia Bibi immediately.

PCC is pressing upon government of Pakistan to repeal blasphemy law and have organized multiple conferences in Pakistan and USA.

Will Pakistan repeal blasphemy laws? It was a promise of the President during the elections. Pray for Justice for Asia Bibi, her speedy release and the repeal of cruel and repressive blasphemy laws in Pakistan and throughout the Islamic world.

Pakistan is the country which is a prime movers for the introduction of a blasphemy resolution  at the U.N.This headline from the Canadian news service CANWEST from November 2008:

 "anti-blasphemy measures have sinister goals, observers say"

Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.

It's a 10-year plan to spread Islam: 

Passage of the resolution is part of a 10-year action plan the 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference launched in 2005 to ensure “renaissance” of the “Muslim Ummah” or community.

But some good news (really!); support is actually diminishing: in 2008 it was defeated 85-42, a margin of 43.

Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85–50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.

According to a report from CNS News (November 23, 2010):

The text has passed every year since 2005, but the last three years have seen declining support, with the margin of votes dropping from 57 in 2007 to just 19 last year (2009).

Could sanity be breaking out?

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Ban the Burqa

Following my piece yesterday about Canada banning the Burka, which was prompted by reading an excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad", in the National Post, I find today a compelling piece by Claire Berlinski titled “Ban the Burqa” from the August 2 issue of National Review. [1]

What I find compelling about Berlinski’s essay is that her viewpoint, which developed while living in Istanbul was formerly very sympathetic to a woman’s right to choose to wear the veil. She supported it strongly, however now she makes a very strong case for banning the veil.

She proceeds for several paragraphs as to why she supported women’s right to wear the veil in Turkey’s secular society. The former secular society is giving way to Islamic stridency and extremism. 

However, her viewpoint has come a full 180. Her logic and evidence for this change is impeccable; she presents argument and evidence that the wearing of the niqab is a Trojan horse for militant Islamism.

The ideology behind Kemal Ataturk’s banning the headscarf and the veil (niqab) was to ensure for the protection of woman who will be attacked, vilified with the slur of “prostitute,” and ultimately raped as fair game by Islamic men. That scenario is being played out in EU countries in no-go areas that Islamic men claim as Islamic territory. 

There are already many neighborhoods in Europe where scantily dressed women are not safe. In the benighted Islamic suburbs of Paris, as Samira Bellil writes in her autobiography: Dans l’enfer des tournantes (“In Gang-Rape Hell”),

there are only two kinds of girls. Good girls stay home,clean the house, take care of their brothers and sisters, and only go out to go to school. . . . Those who . . . dare to wear make-up, to go out, to smoke, quickly earn the reputation as “easy” or as “little whores.”

Parents in these neighborhoods ask gynecologists to testify to their daughters’ virginity. Polygamy and forced marriages are commonplace. Many girls are banned from leaving the house at all. According to French-government statistics, rapes in the housing projects have risen between 15 and 20 percent every year since 1999. In these neighborhoods, women have indeed begun veiling only to escape harassment and violence. In the suburb of La Courneuve, 77 percent of veiled women report that they wear the veil to avoid the wrath of Islamic morality patrols. We are talking about France, not Iran.

Establishing Islamic territory is a fundamental ideology of Islam. That territory is known as Dar a-Salam, which means house of peace and it is the land conquered by Islam. Those woman who are infidels and do not conform to the dress and code dictated by the Islamic men in control are fair game for rape by Islamic men. 

At its core, the veil is the expression of the belief that female sexuality is so destructive a force that men must at all costs be protected from it; the natural correlate of this belief is that men cannot be held responsible for the desires prompted in them by an unveiled woman, including the impulse to rape her. In 2006, Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, delivered a sermon referring to a recent rape victim thus:

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside . . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

This is Islamic thought, my argument yesterday that the Charter is opposed to this kind of religious thought, and therefore should not be used to protect Islamic proponents to force the use of the niqab.

Once veiling takes a hold, unveiled woman are not safe - this is the Trojan horse of allowing the niqab which promotes Islamic objectives:

The cancerous spread of veiling has been seen throughout the Islamic world since the Iranian Revolution. I have watched it in Turkey. Through migration and demographic shift, neighborhoods that once were mixed have become predominantly veiled. The government has sought to lift prohibitions on the wearing of headscarves, legitimizing and emboldening advocates of the practice.

Understanding the underlying reasons why the spread of the burka is of concern and it is much more dangerous than a simple religious choice, we need to understand the aim of Islam itself. For this I turn to the "Islamic Dictionary for Infidels" [2]:

"Converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview. Only if this task is accomplished, if the world has become a "Dar al-Islam," will it also be a "Dar a-Salam," or a house of peace." 

The burqa and niqab are emblematic and one of many key steps in this process, as  Berlinski's essay clearly shows, and that is why it is important to preserve our Canadian values as expressed in our Charter that we should ban them.

Claire Berlinski:

[1] Claire Berlinski: “Ban the Burqa” from the August 16 issue of National Review, is a must read.

Claire Berlinski is a freelance journalist who lives in Istanbul. She is the author of 'Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis Is America’s, Too,' and 'There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.'

[2] "Islamic Dictionary for Infidels" an essay by Wolfgang Bruno.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

The Media Spin on Israel

When the news media takes it's reports from Hizbullah, Hamas, or PLO sources it is usually based on outright fabrications; but leftists usually lap it up anyway.

What is harder to spot are the slight distortions, the slight twists or the spin, which although not a complete fabrication nevertheless deceive us. Because it is subtle it is more effective in its deception.

We have an expectation that our media will present us information in the news in a reasonably objective and truthful manner, and we formulate our opinions based on that assumption, however when the news concerns Israel and Palestine there is often some sort of deception involved which usually presents Israel in a bad light.

On this occasion the offending newspaper is the National Post in their headline "Peace Effort Stalls After Israel OKs Settlements, Nov. 18". The NP is usually one of the more reliable sources in this regard, however they are usually swimming against the tide of the  "mainstream media" ... which would be better named the  "lame-stream media."

Seems innocent enough but the word "settlements" completely distorts the true picture. Fortunately the NP publishes a letter to put the matter straight, but the damage is done, one more damaging distortion upon which to build the case of public opinion against Israel

Mike Fegelman, executive director, HonestReporting Canada, sheds light on the matter  ... the facts show a very different picture than that presented by the spin.

Gilo is not a 'settlement'

Contrary to the headline and body of this AFP report, the majority of the Israeli neighbourhood of Gilo is built on land legally purchased by Jews prior to 1948.

In the 1948 war, Jewish lands in Gilo were captured and confiscated by the Jordanian government. From 1948-67, Jewish landowners did not relinquish ownership to their land in Gilo and when Israel recaptured the land in the Six-Day War, Gilo was built.

Although the UN considers it a "settlement," Gilo lies within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries and is geographically contiguous to surrounding Jewish neighborhoods that pre-dated the 1967 reunification of the city.

Despite being over the 1967 Green Line, Gilo is certainly not a "settlement," in the most-used sense of the word which can conjure up images of isolated enclaves in the West Bank or hilltop outposts for those without a knowledge of the region.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

The Liberal Aversion to Face the Facts

The Executive Officer, the Commander in Chief, Mr President himself called the massacre at Fort Hood a tragedy. NO! It was terrorism plain and simple.

The only tragedy is that political correctness, mealy-mouthed obscurantism, has now so ham-strung people that a non-existent "Muslim backlash" is more important than the lives of those brave men and women who are fighting Islamic terrorism, helping moderates Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq to be free from Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and to lead a better life free from tyranny.

By-the-way: The "War on Terrorism" has now been renamed by Mr. President, it is now to be known as "Overseas Contingency Operation" whatever that might mean.

The "War on Terrorism" has a clear meaning for most people, (except liberal-leftists who don't like to think in simple clear concepts); "Overseas Contingency Operation" could be anything.

Obscurantism = a policy of withholding information from the public.

The article "Silence = Acceptance" (Bombay Revisited) by Mark Steyn sheds a brilliant light on the current liberal-leftist nonsense that has been spewed up in response to the despicable and contemptible murderous jihadi traitor at Fort Hood.

It seems that the liberal-leftist view of terrorism hasn't changes since Bombay; the media are still peddling this poison. Poison because it is dangerous to all Americans, Christian, Jewish, and moderate Muslim alike.

Is it "Muslim Terrorism"? Or is it "pre-traumatic stress disorder"? (Yes really - some leftist lummock suggested that, claiming that the jihadi major could be suffering from stress caused before going to war.)

Occam's razor should apply; the theory with the least number of assumptions (the least complex) should be favoured over all others. (It is not a proof but an aid for a logical analysis)

In the case of Major Hasan there are really no assumptions required - the facts tells the story. It was an act of terror. Whether he was acting alone or or not - it is still terror. The liberal-leftist theories are built on a web of tenuous assumptions and speculations.
 
I produce Mark Steyn's article "Silence = Acceptance" in its entirety...

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary Alberta

Silence = Acceptance

Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy.

By Mark Steyn

Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s columnar wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline: “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”

Indeed. And so it goes. This time round — Bombay — it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims “found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion.”

Oh, I don’t know about that. In fact, you’d be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was “linked” to any religion, least of all one beginning with “I-“ and ending in “-slam.” In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations — “Islamic terrorists,” “Muslim extremists” — and by the time of the assault on Bombay found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators “militants” or “gunmen” or “teenage gunmen,” as in the opening line of this report in the Australian: “An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok…”

Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.

The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution “practitioners.” “Practitioners” of what, exactly?

Hard to say. And getting harder. Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Bombay media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured, and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

Hmm. Greater Bombay forms one of the world’s five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An “accidental hostage scene” that one of the “practitioners” just happened to stumble upon? “I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?”

Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for “going after the wrong people” and inflaming moderates, and “that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.”

Really? The inflammation just “appears”? Like a bad pimple? The “fairer” we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as “ultra-Orthodox,” “ultra-” in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for “strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.” Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young Rabbi’s pregnant wife. Their two-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mown down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.

The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an “accidental” hostage opportunity — and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it’s not a hostage situation, it’s a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving “militant” revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they’re any more important than the Indians, Britons, and Americans targeted in the attack on Bombay, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.

In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: “Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.”

And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani “militants” in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying “Islamic” or “Muslim” or “terrorist,” we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.

We are enjoined to be “understanding,” and we’re doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there’s a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what’s the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that’s not “too big to fail,” what is?

Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel “vulnerable.” Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They’re the world’s fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he’s feeling “vulnerable,” he’s doing a terrific job of covering it up.

We are told that the “vast majority” of the 1.6-1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra’s estimate) are “moderate.” Maybe so, but they’re also quiet. And, as the AIDs activists used to say, “Silence=Acceptance.” It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam — “Allahu Akbar.”

I wrote in my book, America Alone, that “reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Koran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Bombay in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.

© 2008 Mark Steyn

Hasan Called War on Terror ‘War Against Islam’

Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS.

"Hasan Called War on Terror ‘War Against Islam," Classmate Says
by Justin Blum for Bloomberg (here)

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 others at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, regularly described the war on terror as "a war against Islam," according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him.

While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.

"He was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second," said Finnell, 41, a preventive medicine doctor in Los Angeles, in an interview today. "He was always concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted."

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, said she was told by Fort Hood authorities the suspect was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and had been “very upset and angry” in the past few days.

Finnell said he remembered Hasan “vividly” and said of the shooting: “I’m not surprised, based on the things he said in the past. I’m shocked that it happened, but not surprised.”

In conversations, students challenged Hasan on his statements and he would become “visibly upset, sweaty, nervous,” Finnell said.

Toward the end of the program, in 2008, Hasan gave a presentation that was billed as a survey of the climate for Muslims who serve in the U.S. military, Finnell said.

“It wasn’t really very objective,” Finnell said. “It was like he was trying to prove a point.”

 As I said in my previous post - there should be both screening and monitoring. It is immoral to put innocent lives at risk because of some politically correct ideology of avoiding profiling.

It is clear that there was inadequate monitoring of Major Hasan; here's the conlcusion from my post earlier today (here) "The Liberal Conclusions on Major Hasan"

Nor is it a reason for a witch-hunt. However, there are more than adequate grounds for proper precautions and for; complete shedding of political correctness.

We should remember that it Muslim solders could have been numbered with the slaughtered at Fort Hood. Giving Muslims special treatment to avoid profiling ultimately does not reward loyal Muslims, it only protects the Jihadists and therefore makes their purpose easier.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

The Liberal Conclusions about Major Hasan

We are warned: "don't jump to conclusions about Major Hasan"

Reuter's has this report (here):

"We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Obama said.

(I recall hearing the President said that before; it was when a policeman arrested a very abusive certain professor who happened to be black; I recall the President made a pronouncement that it was stupid to arrest a man in his own home, and the President said this before he was apprised of the facts. However, the facts were the professor - Gates is his name - followed the cop into the street and was hurling abuse according to eye-witnesses in the neighbourhood.)

Is anyone "jumping to conclusions"?  It seems to me that the opposite is true; the liberal media is going out of their way to avoid the obvious conclusion that this man is under the influence of radical Islam

Hasan's cousin, Nader Hasan, said in interviews that he had agitated not to be sent overseas. "We've known over the last five years that was probably his worst nightmare," he said.

Major Hasan happily joined the army and accepted the pay six years ago - but he has been dreading being sent overseas for five years. So he kept taking the army pay until he was drafted overseas five years later. Does that seems ethical? Not in my book.

I imagine no-one in the US forces is actually looking forward to being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan - but when you join you know that it is the military that you are joining and that means you may be called on to fight. This man has a degree - he's not an uneducated man, so he can't say: "when I signed on I didn't realise that I could actually be posted overseas". So now he finds out he has a change of heart. Little bit of yellow perhaps?

Nader Hasan also said his cousin had complained, as a Muslim, of harassment by fellow soldiers.

Yeah right! See the video at Lux et Veritas of Major Hasan parading around in Arab garb (here) - sure doesn't seem like he is intimidated by anti Muslim sentiments around him. He seems to enjoy acting the part.

But in reality it is actually a difficult position to be an orthodox believer in Islam in a Western Society.

According to sharia law the Muslim should get preferential treatment to the kufr (the dhimmi class), and in Canada and the US we have this principle of equality whatever race, gender, or religious beliefs. (The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

But sharia law speaks against that equality, as I have discussed previously in Lux et Veritas. I explore the relationship between sharia law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Toronto Imam - Preacher of Hate?

(Sharia is incompatible with the Canadian Charter and I am sure the same would apply to the US Constitution).

So Islamic teaching, and sharia law sets up an internal conflict. How can Major Hasan really be integrated into the US Army with his colleagues and fellow officers and soldiers when at the heart of his beliefs are that he should not mix freely with the kufr.

Hasan yelled "Allah akbar!" -- Arabic for "God is great" -- just before the shooting, Chuck Medley, Fort Hood's director of Emergency Services, told Reuters.

That's what the Jihadis scream when they attack, or just before they slice off someones head with their sword of Islam.

But the Fort Hood commander, Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, said there was no evidence this was a terrorist attack.

Hmm - must have been one of those "Christian fundamentalists", screaming: "Allah akbar". It sure seems like terrorism - one coward shooting with automatic weapons at unarmed people. Usually they prefer to attack women, children and old people. Do you remember the cruise ship the Achille Lauro? [1] On that occasion it was an old man in a wheel-chair the brave Palestinians killed - unarmed of course. The they tipped his body overboard. "Allah akbar! Allah akbar!" 

In May, a U.S. soldier at a base in Baghdad shot and killed five fellow soldiers.

I recall that shooting was by a Muslim too.

The authorities at Fort Hood were warned about Major Hasan's anti-war comments, and how he aired his views that Muslims should not be sent to fight Muslims, but the authorities did not act on the information.

Why not act on the information? Because of the success of soft Jihad. Although Jihad is real, terrorism is real, saving lives is not as important as toeing the politically correct line. Avoid profiling at all costs - this is more important than weeding out the bad apples.

"Thousands of Arab Americans and American Muslims serve honorably every day in all four branches of the U.S. military and in the National Guard," the Arab American Institute said.

There is a minority of bad apples - the vast majority of Muslims are not Jihadists. But poles such as the Pew Report show that there are a sizeable percentage of Muslims in the US who support suicide bombing and terrorism.

Statements such as the one by the Arab American Institute, have to be regarded objectively.

According to the US Department of Defence (here)  

There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States.

They make up between 10,000 and 20,000 members of the American military.

Let's say that 99% of Muslims in the military are loyal Americans and loyal to their military calling. That would be the vast majority.

BUT it would mean that 1% are not loyal. 1% is a small percentage, but if t is correct it would mean that 100 to 200 Muslims in the military are potential Jihadists.

The actual percentage may be smaller, or it may be bigger, it doesn't change the point; the statement: "Thousands of Arab Americans and American Muslims serve honorably every day in all four branches of the U.S. military and in the National Guard" while very nice to hear, is not a reason for complacency because there are likely some who are not loyal. 

Nor is it a reason for a witch-hunt. However, there are more than adequate grounds for proper precautions and for  complete shedding of political correctness. 

We should remember that it Muslim solders could have been numbered with the slaughtered at Fort Hood. Giving Muslims special treatment to avoid profiling ultimately does not reward loyal Muslims, it only protects the Jihadis and therefore makes their purpose easier.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB 

NOTES 
[1] 
On October 7, 1985, four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) took control of the liner off Egypt as she was sailing from Alexandria to Port Said.

The hijackers had been surprised by a crew member and acted prematurely. Holding the passengers and crew hostage, they directed the vessel to sail to Tartus, Syria, and demanded the release of 50 Palestinians then in Israeli prisons. After being refused permission to dock at Tartus, the hijackers killed disabled American passenger Leon Klinghoffer and then threw his body overboard.

The ship headed back towards Port Said, and after two days of negotiations, the hijackers agreed to abandon the liner in exchange for safe conduct and were flown towards Tunisia aboard an Egyptian commercial airliner.

United States President Ronald Reagan ordered that the plane be intercepted by F-14 Tomcats from the VF-74 "BeDevilers" and the VF-103 "Sluggers" of Carrier Air Wing 17, based on the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, on October 10 and directed to land at Naval Air Station Sigonella, a N.A.T.O. base in Sicily, where the hijackers were arrested by the Italians, after a disagreement between American and Italian authorities. 

The other passengers on the plane (possibly including the hijackers' leader, Abu Abbas) were allowed to continue on to their destination, despite protests by the United States. Egypt demanded an apology from the U.S. for forcing the airplane off course.

Major Hasan - Jihadi?

His brother claims he was getting some flak for being a Muslim on the base - BUT Major Hasan felt bold enough to walk around in Arab garb, and spout his opinions that the US shouldn't be in Iraq.

You can see the video from ITN News in the UK of  Major Nidal Malik Hasanin Arab Garb earlier today on Lux et Veritas (here).

It is sickening, this snake in the grass accepts wages from the US Army for the last 6 years and then when he is about to be posted to Iraq he starts protesting. According to the National Post today, he was "mortified";  I suppose killing 13 innocent people didn't come up on his moral radar.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who his family said had been harassed because of his Muslim faith and was "mortified" at the prospect of going to Iraq,

Major Hasan said at the base that he didn't think it right for Muslims to fight Muslims. BUT Hasan - Muslims are blowing Muslims up over in Iraq and Afghanistan!!

It is funny how the Muslim world makes a big fuss about US troops on "Arab soil", but the Muslim world is silent about Sudanese Arab Muslims raping, killing terrorizing Black Muslims in Darfur. Funny the BBC, CBS, and the rest don't make that point, although it is very obvious from the facts.

His brother states that he is "born in the US and a good American", but Major Hasan registered himself as a "Palestinian"

Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn’t think of himself as an American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” A mosque official found that curious, saying: “I don’t know why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine.”

The we get the nauseating mantra about anti-Muslim backlash, that we get every time there is a Jihadi atrocity.

CBS news, is more concerned about some supposed back-lash, than the families of the murdered soldiers. Here's the CBS odious headline on their website:

Mosques Up Security in Wake of Ft. Hood 

Anti-Muslim Backlash Immediate over Suspect Accused of Killing 13 at Army Base

It makes me sick - the Jihads are bad enough... but why do our news media turn things upside down?

Remember after 9/11 we heard all about the anti Muslim backlash? It didn't happen, FBI data showed that there were more anti-Semitic attacks than anti-Muslim ones.

But that is a corner-stone of the liberal-left ideology - they judge Jihadis through the lens of their own dogma. The facts don't count when you have a theory.

Why wont these clueless-gorms just look at the facts? Unfortunately that is what libby-leftists do - they stick to their theories at all costs. Refuse to face the facts - just like Chamberlain - waving a piece of paper to the British press on landing back in England after meeting the Nazis leader:

"I have here, an agreement signed by Herr Hitler..."

 Later he said:

My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds

Honour? Now we see newspapers and TV media trying to tie themselves in knots to show that we can have peace with Jihadis - it is just an aberration - if we appease them and speak nicely to them it will all magically go away.

How?

How will it go away? Jihadis have contempt for liberal "weakness" (we see this in the Middle-Easts reactions to Obama's apologetic overtures and unilateral 'we will throw the olive branch and make concessions without asking for anything in return').  They appreciate strength - not weakness. Remember Osama-bin-Laden's "Strong Horse" statement?

when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. 

The Jihads, the young men that are attracted to the movement - they like a strong horse. Christianity, our Western Democracy with its pluralism and tolerance is an abomination to them. They hate it and they want to destroy ot like they want to destroy the only democracy in the entire Middle East - which is of course Israel.

Folks, we need to protect the moderate Muslims too. We are not doing them any favours by this approach.

Robert Spencer makes some sound points:

Maybe he just snapped, perhaps under the pressure of his imminent deployment to Iraq. But it’s noteworthy that if he did, he snapped in exactly the same way that several other Muslims in the U.S. military have snapped in the past.

In April 2005, a Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. AP reported: “Prosecutors say Akbar told investigators he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq. They said he coolly carried out the attack to achieve ‘maximum carnage’ on his comrades in the 101st Airborne Division.”

And Hasan’s murderous rampage resembles one that five Muslim men in New Jersey tried to carry out at Fort Dix in New Jersey in 2007, when they plotted to enter the U.S. Army base and murder as many soldiers as they could.

That was a jihad plot. One of the plotters, Serdar Tatar, told an FBI informant late in 2006: “I’m gonna do it….It doesn’t matter to me, whether I get locked up, arrested, or get taken away, it doesn’t matter. Or I die, doesn’t matter, I’m doing it in the name of Allah.” Another plotter, Mohamad Shnewer, was caught on tape saying, “They are the ones, we are going to put bullets in their heads, Allah willing.”

Nidal Hasan’s statements about Muslims rising up against the U.S. military aren’t too far from that, albeit less graphic. The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that – once again – nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Video of Major Hasan in Arab garb

From ITN News in the UK: The first video of Major Nidal Malik Hasan has emerged after 13 people were killed at the Fort Hood camp in Texas. 



Gurth Whitaker
Lux et Veritas

US House backs resolution condemning Goldstone report

Some sanity reigns in the US and the EU

 
Further to my post on Lux et Veritas earlier (here)

According to the JP (full report here)

The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution on Tuesday condemning the Goldstone Report, that accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, and calling on the Obama administration to oppose its endorsement.

...and the EU is showing some backbone too:

Meanwhile, European nations launched intense negotiations with Arab states, ahead of a UN General Assembly debate on the report. 

In an attempt to scuttle efforts by Arab states to bring the matter to the Security Council, and from there to the International Criminal Court, EU states were backing new language emphasizing accountability for crimes against humanity and calling on Israelis and Palestinians to launch investigations into war crimes. 

The Obama administration has already condemned the report, which was expected to go to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, as unhelpful to its efforts to revive stalled Middle East peace talks.

Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said:

"I think the UN report is unbalanced, and unfair, and inaccurate,"

Pandering to the propaganda of the Arab and Muslim states does not help move towards peace in Israel-Palestine; on the contrary it is a barrier because it gives hope to all those that support Palestinian terrorism will eventually be victorious in its stated aims to destroy Israel.

What is needed is for the message to go out to the Palestinians that there is only one outcome and that is a peaceful one - not a military victory through terrorism and destruction of Israel.

The lasting principle should be that Israel has the right to defend herself against attack.

To put it simply, there can be no peace until Israel's right to exist is recognised throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

The content of the resolution is very encouraging, clearly identifying Hamas' responsiblity; a large portion of the report is included below with some key phrases high-lighted.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

The actual words of the motion passed by the House of Representatives is interesting & illuminating:

RESOLUTION

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.

Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission’ regarding Israel’s conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;

Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission’ to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression’;

Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures;

Whereas the `fact-finding mission’ included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel’s actions `war crimes’:

Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon,Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission; Whereas, on September 15, 2009, the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ released its report;

Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;

Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding
officers `in the fog of war.’;

Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’, is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission’s evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.’;

Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self-defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;

Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;

Whereas the report usually considered public statements made by Israeli officials not to be credible, while frequently giving uncritical credence to statements taken from what it called the `Gaza authorities’, i.e. the Gaza leadership of Hamas;

Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;

Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [the Israeli military]‘ specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.’;

Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission’s report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals’;

Whereas even though Israel is a vibrant democracy with a vigorous and free press, the report of the `fact-finding mission’ erroneously asserts that `actions of the Israeli government . . . have contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent with the government and its actions . . . is not tolerated’;

See more of the House Resolution at the Washington Independent here

Child Warriors - A Moving Letter

On Monday the National Post (NP) published a deeply disturbing article: "Taliban Deploy Children, Military Says"

"... three separate explosions in Kandahar in the past few weeks in which as many as 12 Afghan children were blown up as they were being taught how to make or place improvised explosive devices in what one Canadian officer described as an "IED training camp."

 "IED training camp" (Improvised Explosive Devices), what an obscenity. The depths of evil that Islamic terrorists have descended to; the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India; Al-Qaeda in Iraq; Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza and Syria, the list of evil goes on.

Today the NP published a letter in response titled "Child Warriors"; I was very moved by this letter so I am posting it in its entirety, and let it speak for itself.

The Taliban's use of children on their front lines is a tactic taken straight from the pages of the Palestinians' jihad manual. For years, Palestinian terrorist groups have used children as human shields, launched rockets at Israel from preschools in Gaza, and sent children out to do the most dangerous jobs, in the hopes that they would die and the Israelis would be labelled "baby killers."

As former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir noted:

"Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

She also stated,

"We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours".

Elana Aptowitzer, Ottawa.

It must be said that the Palestinian tactic of using their children to fight a war by indoctrinating them to become suicide bombers has been rewarded by other Arab and Muslim nations by gifts of money, praise and ideological support. Hamas & Hezbollah, are the proxies for Iran and its chief export which is hatred, and the rockets to to kill civilians.

My thanks to Mrs. Aptowitzer for her letter and bringing the quotes of Gold Meir to light, the letter can be read here.


Lux et Veritas: The Couragious Golda Meir: "The Couragious Golda Meir
A wonderful story about the courage of Golda Meir and the cowardice of Austrian Chancellor Kreisky."


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Pakistan Christian Parties Against Blasphemy Laws

Via the "Pakistan Christian Post" today comes this news: 

All Christian Parties Conference set to launch (a) movement to end the Pakistan Blasphemy law, Islamabad: October 18, 2009. 

Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are not only extremely harsh and unjust, but they are used  in nefarious ways "against Christians (for the purposes of) business rivalry and personnel grudges."

"Blasphemy is subject to capital punishment in Pakistan law - it caries a death penalty". And we know that in many Islamic environments the "kafir" (infidel, unbeliever) has no defence against a Muslim; in fact it is enshrined in sharia law, so it is very easy for a Muslim in such societies to do mortal harm to an enemy by accusing him of blasphemy.

The mobs are so volatile that any such accusation will usually end in the murder of the accused - whether there is any justification or not. If for some reason that doesn't happen, the Christian or Jew will have little chance in a sharia court, and a fatwa by an Imam will ensure that someone will carry it out.

By doing the Imam's bidding, to execute the blasphemer, they believe that they are doing Allah's will .

We have to understand that sharia law is harsh to the dhimmi, or people under the "protection" of Islam. This is a euphemism by our standards, it means that the Islamic regime will not kill them for being non-believers as long as they submit and accept the role of second-class citizens.

Sharia is completely contrary to the law we have in the west which is based on our Judea-Christian principles.  For example, our Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms states that "Every individual is equal before and under the law" this is not so under sharia, for example women do not have equality with men under the law, and kafir do not have equality with Muslims.

The Charter continues that all people have the "right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law ... without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability". This is not so under sharia for the reasons already stated - men are in ascendancy over women, as is the Muslim is in ascendancy over the kafir.

The nature of sharia law is contrary to the mind-set for a reader with a western upbringing, however we have to have some appreciation of sharia to understand how the persecution of Christians in a country such as Pakistan can occur so easily; I have included some notes as an Addendum at the end of this post..

The dire urgency for blasphemy reform is apparent when we consider the brutality of Christian persecutions on blasphemy charges, as the "Pakistan Christian Post" reports:

On accusations of blasphemy Islamic militants have destroyed hundreds of homes and killed dozens in year 2009 (alone), while children, women and elders were burnt alive.

The federal government of Pakistan and Punjab provincial government failed to secure life and property of Christians and to adopt necessary measure to stop violence against Christians.

The extent of the cruelty to Christians in Pakistan has been truly horrific, and not restricted to a few isolated cases. Christian persecution in general receives relatively little attention in the western media, falling outside the favoured liberal topic of the Palestinian question, and of course the Islamic world is not disposed to criticise persecution by Islamic regimes (silence on Darfur for example).

Islamic persecution of Christians has certainly not received the attention it deserves in the western media, and so I intend to cover this topic in more detail in future posts; here I will just note one such horrific incident as reported by the Daily Mail UK in August of this year:

Pope Benedict XVI has condemned the 'senseless attack' in Pakistan in which seven Christians were burned alive.

Hundreds of Muslims torched and looted Christian homes in Gorja. A man, a woman and four children were burned to death in their house, and two other men were shot dead by the rioters.

The killings began after false rumours that the Koran had been defaced spread through a city in Pakistan.

~~!~~

Blasphemy in Canada

How should we consider blasphemy in Canada?

What would be blasphemy under Islam? It would be blasphemy to state that "Mohamed is not the prophet of Allah", or to state that "Mohamed is a false prophet".

Similarly it would be blasphemy to state that "the Koran is flawed" or "the Koran is not the word of God."

I was brought up to give respect for other peoples beliefs and religions, and I still adhere to that today, but respect does not mean I agree with them, nor should I pay lip-service. We have to speak honestly and clearly, otherwise how can we have a reasoned discussion leading to a better understanding of the issue at hand. 

So now let's look at this issue of the prophet Mohamed, and the matter of Koran a little further, and let's also add Islam's teaching on Jesus Christ.

Orthodox teaching in Islam states that Jesus Christ was not crucified, and he did not rise from the dead as the Bible relates.This is what Imams teach their congregations from the pulpit.

Furthermore according to orthodox Islamic teaching, the Imam will also teach that the Bible is a Holy Book but it was tampered with, and therefore it is not the accurate word of God. Furthermore they are dogmatic that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, they say He is a prophet but he is not deity, he is not both God and man, as the Bible teaches.

Let's step back and consider this matter logically. Looking at this dispassionately we see that the orthodox teaching of Islam is actually a blasphemy to Christianity. We usually do not consider blasphemy charges in Canada, especially against Christianity, but in fact that is what it is - blasphemy.  

Stepping back again let's look at Christianity from a Jewish perspective. Consider Jesus' words in the Bible in the Gospel of John chapter 8:  

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

But this statement by Jesus, was actually blasphemy to the Jews, because he was claiming to be God. For orthodox Jewish teaching it is blasphemy for a man to claim that he is equal to God.

Summarising: 

• The fundamental belief in Christianity, the core of the faith, is actually blasphemy according to orthodox teachings of the Jewish faith
• A fundamental belief and teaching of Islam is a blasphemy according to orthodox teachings of the Christian faith. 

But under our Charter we are all free to practice our religion; just as Jews and Christians live together and respect each other's faiths without blasphemy charges, so Muslims must conform to the same norm if they want to live in Canada.
If an Imam can legally declare from the pulpit that Jesus is not who He says He is, and a Rabbi can say that Jesus is not the Son of God, then a Pastor can say that Islam has it wrong. It is one rule for all ... or for none.

We are all guaranteed the right to practice our religions in Canada under the Charter

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

As we see core teachings of some religions are blasphemy to others, and therefore blasphemy laws are incompatible with the Candian Charter.

So Canadians in our quest to be fair and just should not give a special privilege to Islam, or for that matter to Christians or Jews; but under according to our Charter we are all equal under the law.

Fundamental justice is a concept that comes from Judeo-Christian principles and it is enshrined in our Charter, therefore let us all remember that this applies to all faiths, all races, and genders; we do not have a special treatment for blasphemy for Islam. (I include atheism as a faith too)

"right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"

We can practice our religions free from persecution under the law and we can rejoice that we are protected  by our Charter

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

++++++++++++++++

ADDENDUM: Notes on Sharia Law in general and dhimmi or kafir in particular

Sharia is subject that should get further attention and will be covered in future posts at Lux et Veritas.

The source of the Sharia is the Koran and the Sunna (found in the Sira and the Hadith). Since the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims do not agree on which Hadith to use, they have slightly different Sharia systems.


Sharia law covers all aspects of life, including how a man and woman should have sex, for instance. Roughly there are five areas of Sharia law:

1. Belief-Allah, His angels, His books, His prophets, the Day of Judgment and the decrees of God.
2. Moralities-giving good counsel, humility, patience and so forth.
3. Devotions-the Five Pillars, alms, pilgrimage to Mecca, and jihad.
4. Transactions-business law, marriage, divorce and disputes.
5. Punishments-stoning, amputation, lashings, and retaliation

Dhimmis
The Sharia is very detailed how the dhimmi will live under Islamic domination.

O11.1 a formal agreement with Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Samarians, Sabians, and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham of one of the other prophets.

O11.3 such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam(b) and pay the kafir poll tax (jizya) Note: this is a tax that applies to kafir and is designed to show that he is greatfull for the protection of Islam - i.e. they don't kill him for being a non-believer

O11.5 Kafir subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

(4) Must keep to the side of the street ; Note to show that they are below the Muslim population

(6) Are forbidden to openly display wine or pork. ( or to ring church bells or display crosses) recite the Torah or Gospels aloud, or make public display of funerals and feast days.  Note: prayers by Jews are forbidden on the Temple Mount (Dome of the Rock) by the Islamic authorities, and this is stated by the Israeli police to all Jews before they are allowed to go up to the Temple Mount. Mouthing silent prayers is strictly forbidden. Muslims are passionate about this rule because Muhamed said that the prayers of Muslims are nullified if a Christian or Jew prays in the vicinity. A curious concept that God is limited by such a law.

(7) And are forbidden to build new churches.

Calgary Herald wont publish my rebuttal to CAIR

On Thursday, I published a post on Lux et Veritas, concerning the Calgary Herald publishing a pro-veil essay by Canadian CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations); read it here: CAIR Article in the Calgary Herald.

Canadian CAIR is an affiliate of CAIR, (who were) named as one of the "un-indicted co-conspirator in the HLF terror funding trial";

the Holy Land Foundation For Relief And Development (HLF) was a pro Hamas organisation.

I submitted a letter of rebuttal to the Calgary Herald Friday morning, but since it isn't published in today's Herald, I have to think that it's rejected by the editor.

I am including my full letter, but first I want to comment as to why the Calgary Herald would publish a piece from Canadian CAIR (do they know about CAIR?), and why they wouldn't publish my letter.

First why not publish my letter? Well the answer may be as simple as they don't think it is worthy, or it is too late, they have published a couple of letters already (I was a bit late submitting - the original article was published Wednesday & I didn't submit till Friday morning).

OR, perhaps the content is too dangerous for the Herald.

I wondered why the Herald would publish an essay by CAIR in the first place?  Here's a couple of possibilities:

1. They do know about CAIR, this is likely because their sister newspaper (big sister) the National Post was subjected to legal action by the Canadian CAIR.
2. They do not know about CAIR; they published the CAIR essay thinking it represents a moderate Muslims voice. 

If the reason is (1), then they published it to attract comment to bring this issue out into the open; however if that is true why not publish my letter?

If the reason is (2), they show a lack of good research; remember that CAIR is the named "un-indicted co-conspirator in the HLF terror funding trial".

Could there be a third possibility? This one I find very hard to imagine: could the Calgary Herald have some pro-CAIR sympathies within its staff? I  know, I find it hard to believe this is true either, but it is a logical possibility.

Here is my letter to the Calgary Herald submitted by email Friday October 16, 1:15 (not strictly speaking Friday morning)

09-10-16 Letter to Calgary Herald
Rebuttal to Mr. Riad Saloojee’s Article: “For Muslim women, veil is power and beauty”

Mr Riad Saloojee, dismissed concerns about the face veil (niqab) in his article published by the Calgary Herald on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, as “fear-mongering”. However concerns are well warranted; the niqab is associated with the most extreme forms of Islam and has no place in Canadian democratic society.

Mr Saloojee is a member of Canadian CAIR, whose parent organisation CAIR was named by the US government prosecutors as the “unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF terror funding trial.” The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development was a pro-Hamas organisation.

The niqab is widely worn in Saudi Arabia, where religious police beat women in the streets who are not appropriately dressed. Herald readers are probably familiar with such beating in Afghanistan by Taliban police. On occasions the woman beaten were actually wearing a burka, however a little ankle was visible so the police would set on them with whips. Sometimes these were older women.

In 2002, Saudi Arabia's s powerful religious police beat girls trying to flee a burning school in Mecca, because they were not properly attired. The police forced them back into the school where they perished.

According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam

The niqab is associated with authoritarian societies such as Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda; Canada should not allow the niqab here.

There may be women who choose to wear the niqab, but it irrelevant because it is imposed by Islamic ideology, and enforced by men, and is accompanied by other Islamic abuse of women such as wife-beating, and marriage to pre-pubescent girls.

Canadians should not mistake this matter as a freedom or rights issue; veils, niqabs, or face masks, should be banned in public in Canada to protect moderate woman.

NOTE: I also submitted a reference to the Herald on the burning school story in Mecca, which can be seen here Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

A Black Day for Human Rights (2)

How they voted.

According to the Guardian UK the voting at the UN Human Rights Council  in Geneva today was as follows:

In favour (25): 

Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djbouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Zambia.

Against (6):

Holland, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Ukraine, US.

Abstentions (11):

Belgium, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, Uruguay.

Did not vote (4)

Angola, Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan.

I am not sure what the difference is between "abstaining" and "did not vote" (let me know if you understand it); this further information from the Guardian UK sheds some light on it, but it seems an overly subtle difference to me.

Gordon Brown reportedly had a heated telephone call on Wednesday with Netanyahu, who pressed him to vote against the resolution.

Brown spoke again with Netanyahu this morning, hours before the vote, and Britain then decided not to take part at all. A Downing Street spokesman said:

"We did not participate in the vote. We were involved in discussions with Israel and the Palestinians about potentially substantive improvements in the situation on the ground and therefore asked for a delay to the vote."

The Jerusalem Post has more on the reasons for UK and France not to participate in the vote:

An unnamed British diplomat told Israel Radio that in the hours prior to the vote, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy had tried to get clarifications from Israel that would enable the countries to vote against the resolution.

France and Britain reportedly decided to refrain from voting after the contacts with Israel failed to produce the results they were seeking. 

Well perhaps I was too hasty with my comments of quisling for Gordon Brown; I suppose I can't blame him for the state of the UN Human Rights Council. 


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

ADDENDUM, apparently they are confused over at the BBC about the difference between "abstaining" and "did not vote." I found this gem on their website:

"No, we didn't abstain - we didn't vote."

Confused? We were. Apparently, there is a key difference between the UK government abstaining and not voting when the UN Human Rights Council backed a report into the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

A Black Day for Human Rights

A Black Day for justice and truth!

A Black Day for the peace of the Middle East!

A Black Day for the whole world!

The UN Human Rights Council  in Geneva today, passed a resolution endorsing the Goldstone Commission Report by 25 votes to 6, with eleven countries abstaining.

Five states, including France and the UK, declined to vote. I hand my head in shame at the coutnry of my birthday. The spirit of Winston Churchill is not alive in this administration, but the spirit of Nevill Chamberlain is in control.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

Brown the despised Prime Minister of the UK must wear the shame, must bear the epithet 

Quisling! Traitor! Betrayer! Collaborator! Judas! Turncoat! Fifth columnist! - you Benedict Arnold!

England you did not vote;

you didn't register your vote on this sham, this farce.

You failed to vote against this collection of human-rights abusers and didn't stand firm with the only democracy in the Middle East; Israel this tiny country in the Middle East surrounded by hate-spewing, blood thirsty war-mongers who have cynically sponsored terrorism, and suicide bombers. 

"It's all about the oil stupid!"

According to the Jerusalem Post, the Israel Foreign Ministry said in a statement today:

"The council's decision undermines efforts to safeguard human rights in accordance with international law, as well as the efforts to advance the peace process in the Middle East,"

"The decision encourages terror groups in the whole world and undermines world peace. The decision also ignores the fact that the IDF took unprecedented measures to avoid harming civilians, and [ignores] the terrorists' use of civilians as human shields."

the Post went on to say:

Although the Goldstone report also accuses Hamas of war crimes, the five-page resolution adopted in Geneva explicitly mentions only Israeli violations of international law.

Ealier today, I posted the video, of the address by British hero, Colonel Richard Kemp, addressing the UN Human Rights Council, on behalf of UN Watch.

Watch the video of Colonel Kemp's address here: Self-Defense is not a Crime of War.

Concerning the actions of the IDF (Israel Defence Force) in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, Colonel Kemp told the U.N. Council that:

'the IDF is the Most Moral Army in History of Warfare'

Read the article in Jerusalem Post here: Israel slams UNHRC over its 'one-sided, unjust decision'


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB