Freedom to Chose

In my two recent posts (Ban the Burqa & Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad" & the burka) I touched on the issue of the burka and tried to show that it has no place in Canadian society. I believe that it is part of a belief system that is repressive to women, and in opposition to our Canadian values of freedom of thought and expression, as embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My reasoning is that our Canadian system comes from a Judeo-Christian heritage: both the Old Testament and the New Testament affirm the right to chose God or reject him. Here's one of many examples from the OT from Joshua 24:15 (English Standard Version)

And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." 

"Choose this day whom you will serve," there is no compulsion attached to this invitation, no threat of beheading as dictated by Mohamed if a conquered foe would not adopt Islam. If not face execution by beheading there was the alternative of becoming a second class citizen called a dhimmi; a grinding life of submission, a second class citizen who's testimony bears no weight at all against that of a Muslim. That is basically the condition of non-Muslims in most countries under Islamic authority.

If we read through the New Testament we will see the gentle invitation to accept Jesus.

The Charter should protects that right to chose, and therefore it would be a perversion of the intent of the Charter to use it to promote traditional Islam, which is committed to taking away a woman's rights to chose and a man or a woman's right to chose to leave Islam. A Muslim person in Islamic lands is not free to chose to become a Christian, or a Buddhist, or become an atheist. The sentence is death. 

Islamic lands prohibit the preaching of Christianity - how could we use our Charter of Rights  and Freedoms in a way that promotes a religion that does that?

If we argue that the Charter should protect a woman's right to wear the burka, then we use the Charter to further cause of Islamification, which is a step towards taking away a woman's right to chose.

I make a difficult argument because our freedoms are so deeply ingrained in us; but those freedoms cannot be used for the purpose of allowing tyranny, and that is what the burka represents: a tyrannical religion which seeks to take away the freedoms that we hold precious and subjugate the conquered people to the will of Mullahs.

Gurth Whitaker

Calgary, AB 

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

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad" & the burka

Reading the excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad", published in the National Post, it reinforces my belief that to NOT ban the burka is a travesty:

The Muslim veil, the different sorts of masks and beaks and burkas, are all gradations of mental slavery. You must ask permission to leave the house, and when you do go out you must always hide yourself behind thick drapery. Ashamed of your body, suppressing your desires -- what small space in your life can you call your own? The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and a Muslim veil blinkers both your vision and your destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of a sex.

That is a compelling indictment of the burka and the traditions that surround it.

The argument that it breaches the religious freedoms of Canadians is surely misapplied.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensures equality and justice for peoples of all races, origins and genders, is based within the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition from which Canadian culture and laws have been developed.

Religious freedom is not absolute. For example there were many religions which included child-sacrifice in lands surrounding ancient Israel. Obviously, the murder of a child for relgious reasons would not be protected under the Charter. Therefore it is clear there are limits to what the Charter can protect, and what it can not protect.

The Charter is not absolute in that sense; on the contrary it preserves Canadian values of justice - not to protect traditions that are in opposition to our values. The walking coffin that is the burka and the surrounding traditions of the cultures which demand it be worn, are values that are opposite to the very values that the Charter protects. The burka is a custom that is from a tradition that is totally foreign to our values, and therefore to the Charter.

When I read passages from the New Testament which illustrate Jesus' relationship with woman, I see a respect and evidence brotherly-sisterly love which is foreign from this absolute mastery over woman that comes from Islamic traditions.

Read the excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad: 'Allah brings the rains and Allah makes the sun shine'

Gurth Whitaker

Calgary, AB

Against bigotry in all its forms

The liberal-leftist tactic is to cry "racism" when faced with valid criticism. I saw this yesterday From Tarek Fatah on his Facebook page, and it prompted my post: The despicable tactic of the left: Playing the Race Card

We saw it from Hedy Fry, Liberal Party MP from BC who accused the Conservative Party of racism, when in fact it fielded a higher proportion of candidates from ethnic minorities. I call that bigotry and slander.

I find it disgusting to accuse people of racism as a political tactic, and it comes from the left. The problem is this tactic works - sling filth and it sticks - people remember the slander not the true facts.

Here's some evidence [1] from 2001; four instances of trying to paint political opponents as racist:

• Liberal MP Lynn Myers, Parliamentary Secretary Solicitor General called a Canadian Alliance MP “racist” in the House of Commons, March 16. Then he lied, saying he’d said “rubbish”. He finally retracted his original remark.
• “Their supporters are Holocaust deniers, prominent bigots and racists,” – Elinor Caplan, Liberal Immigration Minister (The Toronto Star, Nov. 15) 
• “In an apparent reference to the right-wing policies of the Canadian Alliance, he [Jean Chrétien] told the Liberal International conference that ‘we have to keep working’ to combat the forces that ‘appeal to the dark side that exists in human beings.’ “ (Toronto Star, Oct. 29, 2000) 
• “The policies of Preston Manning, which appeal to peoples’ latent fears…are the same kinds of policies that permit a David Duke of Canada.” – Sheila Copps (Vancouver Sun, November 20, 1991)

That was the tactic of the left then: vilify your opponent, and that is the tactic of the left in the US today under Obama. Scream racist!

I updated my profile today to express my concern:

My aim in this blog is to shed light on leftist ideology & demagoguery by looking at the facts of a matter, rather than the misinformation presented by the media, which is dominated by leftist worldview

A Canadian writer travelling in Siberia during the Soviet era, asked his hosts about their reaction to the state-run propaganda. Their answer was “the difference between us in the USSR and you in the West, is that we know it is propaganda – you don’t realise it”

Do we realise what we are reading and watching is propoganda?

In my opinion, we should challenge every assumption that underlies the ideologies which are presented by our leftist media. Challenge the presuppositions of the CBC and CTV; likewise the Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star, and the rest.

Look back at those four bullets claiming racism and the only reason is that the recipients are conservatives.

A unfounded claim of "racism" or a slur like "red-neck" is bigotry and it is divisive, and it should be challenged and opposed. It is the enemy of true integration and harmony.
 [1] My source for bigoted remarks comes from Dr. James Lunney, Member of Parliament for
Nanaimo-Alberni in 2001. You can also read some other repulsive misinformation (lies, falsehoods) from Hedy Fry regarding cross-burnings and KKK activity supposedly in Prince George, BC. It was a slur nine years ago and it is the sort of slur that wont go away.


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Duceppe - Blatant Discrimination in the House

Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, slanders three completely innocent practicing Roman Catholics in the Canadian House of Parliament;  he names them as being complicit in some sort of conspiracy in what Barbara Kay calls a "political drive-by shooting."

That's a good phrase for it; a "political drive-by shooting." Here's his statement during question period on May 27, 2010: 

“Mr. Speaker, Ottawa’s bishop stated yesterday that a sizeable pro-life caucus is working behind the scenes within the government. The Prime Minister, who controls everything, must know about this caucus.”

Barbara Kay reports in her piece: Gilles Duceppe owes an apology to Catholics

With McCarthyite melodrama, M. Duceppe then intoned the names and positions in the Conservative Party of three practicing Catholics, as if that were proof of the ominous “caucus.”

Duceppe has probably been reading Dan Brown, because these three poeple's crime (beyond being Christians) is that they are members of a society called "Opus Dei." How sinister! Kay goes on to say:

These Catholics are all members of Opus Dei, a prelature of the Catholic Church, a group I am very familiar with, and amongst whom I count some of my closest friends. Opus Dei means in Latin “God’s Work.” Members of “the Work” believe that holiness is something to be strived for in one’s daily life: in one’s job, however important or however humble, in one’s friendships, one’s family life and civic obligations.

Opus Dei does good works all over the planet (I have seen documentaries on their projects in the hellholes of the world, bringing aid, comfort and social assistance to the poorest and most forgotten, without fanfare or publicity-seeking or missionary profit), punching far above their demographic weight. Few in number – about 85,000 world-wide and only a few thousand in all of Canada – they are immersed in public life in the most positive and benign ways. And of the more than 100,000 members of the Conservative Party, why yes, there are probably two or three members of Opus Dei.

But Christians are fair game it seems; Christian opposition to abortion is somehow seen as  undemocratic to the minds of totalitarian liberals; it is painted as a conspiracy. When it comes to any discussion about abortion, then not only do the gloves come off, but the knives and baseball bats come out.

And where is the press in this?


Quebec's liberal media seems on-board:

Look at the reaction to Cardinal Marc Ouellet’s call for public debate on the morality of abortion. Note: he did not call for legislative change. He called abortion a “moral crime.” In response the francophone media went ballistic. Would Patrick Lagacé of La Presse have dared to curse any non-Catholic religious leaders? It is unthinkable that any Canadian pundit would say of an imam, as Lagacé did of Cardinal Ouellet: 

“We must all die. We are all going to die. Cardinal Ouellet is going to die one day. I hope he will die of a long and painful sickness…Yes, the paragraph I have just written is vicious. But [Cardinal] Marc Ouellet is an extremist. And in this debate, all blows are permitted against religious extremists…the Cardinal is a fundamentalist. This is a known fact. From there on, whoever agrees to share a political podium with him should be treated like an accomplice to the fanaticism of Kazem Ouellet… “ 

It's clear that Christians are fair-game in the liberal-leftist ideology of Canada. I hold to the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights; a Christian has the same right to express their views on abortion or other moral issues, as does a member of the liberal-left. But what we see is that liberal-leftist ideologies claim they know what is best for public, and therefore they have the moral right to take away the voice of Christians, and to attack them as conspirators. Seems like the media may even support them; that is until it is one of their own.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

OPP & Ontario Government Deny Canadian's their Rights under the Charter

Yesterday in my post on Lux et Veritas  The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia, I outlined the disgraceful behaviour of the Liberal Government of Ontario and the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) in abandoning their duty to uphold the law.

To recap, the OPP under the direction of the Ontario Government and Premier Dalton McGinty abandoned lawful property owners to run the gauntlet of Six Nations insurrectionists who illegally took over development land and terrorised home owners.

I called them insurrectionists, but in fact the epithet thugs is probably more appropriate.

Not only where these tax-paying citizens of Canada abandoned by their democratic government, but the thugs were treated with a hands-off approach by the OPP because they are natives, and it seems clear that the OPP chief (Fantino) was taking his orders from Dalton McGinty.

My language was restrained compared to the editorial from November of last year in the NP (National Post) from which I took my title,  "The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia":

"Nothing symbolizes the pathetic gutlessness of Dalton McGuinty's government, or that of the provincial police force that is nominally sworn to protect the province's residents, than the saga now playing out in a Hamilton courtroom. The fate of a lawless Ontario enclave, it seems, now rests not with the province's politicians or its police, but with a pair of scrappy Caledoni litigants who have the guts to take a stand.

I have no complaint about calling the Premier "gutless" because his actions were gutless, but in fact it is far are worse than gutless.

but in fact it is far are worse than gutless.

By his policies he actively denied people in Caledonia their rights as Canadian Citizens under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seems clear that McGinty hired Fantino as OPP chief to follow his orders and policies after the previous OPP chief was displaced following an initial OPP action to put an end to the lawless thuggery of the Six Nations 'warriors'.

I don't think that denying someone their rights under the Charter makes Dalton McGinty subject to a charge under the criminal code, but I do know it is a disgrace, and I think he should be held accountable. I would think dereliction of duty would be a start. But it seems that politicians are never held accountable.

The charter is designed so that ALL Canadians of every ethnic heritage, every religion, every skin colour are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

The Charter is designed so that one no one group gets preferential treatment over another group; whether one group is of Chinese descent, Native American descent, European descent, African descent, or whatever - it shouldn't matter under the Charter.

The principle under the Charter is that everyone should get equal justice regardless of 'race, national or ethnic origin.'

Here is my comment on Christie Blatchford excellent article in the Globe and Mail yesterday.

 OPP & Ontario Government Deny Canadian Rights under the Charter

Apart from allowing insurrection and unlawful behaviour by natives, the Ontario Government and the OPP have actively denied the citizens of Caledonia their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Article 7 and 15.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every citizen ....

Article 7. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof ....”

The OPP failed to protect the life, liberty and security of the people involved; the Ontario Liberal Government should have ordered the OPP to do their duty or call for Federal help if the OPP wasn’t up to the task.

Article 15. “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination ... based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour ....

”The native people were given preferential treatment over the non-natives, and allowed to abuse them; that constitutes a clear contravention of Article 15.

The OPP clearly discriminated against non-natives who were not provided with equal treatment under the law on the basis of “race, national or ethnic origin”Non-natives should have been treated equally under the law and were not, therefore the OPP were clearly at fault and were responsible for denying one section of the community equality under the law in preference to another section of the community.

The OPP is required to uphold the law and the Charter not flagrantly ignore it.The master of the OPP is the law. The chief of the OPP is not the water-boy for the ruling Liberal Government. 

It’s not Fantino’s job to carry-out Liberal policies – his job is to see that the laws of Canada and the Province are followed.The Liberal Government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the OPP chief does his job. Each is part of the check and balance for the other, however it appears they were working in collusion.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary

The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia

The disgrace is the failure of the OPP and the Ontario Government to do their duty and uphold the law. Regardless of any merit of the land claims may have by the Six Nations (or lack of merit) the rule of law must be uppermost.

But the rule of law was not upheld in Caledonia, and innocent property owners were victimized.

Caledonia residents Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell, filed a $7-million suit against the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) and the Ontario Government for failing to protect them and their home from the actions of the Six Nation during the native occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates housing project that almost surrounds their property.

Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell suffered greatly under the lawless Six Nations insurrectionists since February 2006, and all the while help was denied by the OPP and the Ontario Government. But Brown and Chatwell had to sue the OPP and Ontario Government to get remedy, while the insurrectionists were rewarded and protected by the OPP.

According to the National Post editorial in November of last years "The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia", The OPP led a demonstration of Six Nations insurrectionists down the high street waving defaced Canadian flags and their own "warrior society" flags; whereas the non-natives where not allowed to march, and not allowed to wave Canadian flags.

"What has become glaringly obvious in their civil suit against the Ontario government and Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) is that within that province there are two tiers of justice, a preferential one for aboriginals and another, lower tier for non-natives."

"The disparity was never more obvious than at the trial on Thursday in Hamilton. There, the court was shown two videos, one of a non-native march through the small town last May, and another of a march by the Mohawk Warrior Society and its supporters down the same street a few months later."

Police stopped the first protest cold. When a non-aboriginal marcher attempted to defy officers and stride ahead anyway, he was arrested.

The non-native marchers said they merely wanted to wave the Canadian flag along main street. After three years of a land-claims siege on the town outskirts, they were tired of seeing only the flags of the Six Nations Mohawk reserve or the grandiosely self-styled "Warrior" Society. They merely wanted to fly the Maple Leaf, and thereby disabuse locals of the (not unnatural) conclusion that their area had been turned over de jure to the local native thugs. No matter: The OPP refused to let their demonstration proceed."

"Yet, six weeks later, a dozen or so Warriors marched through town, along the very same street, followed by their supporters driving pickups, all waving only Mohawk flags. There at the head of the procession was an OPP cruiser, lights flashing, clearing the way for the aboriginal protesters."

"The Mohawks were even seen waving Canadian flags with the Maple Leafs cut out of the centre. These flags were then tossed in mud without consequence."

Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell suffered terribly for nearly four years trying to live in a house they had purchased legally, but were victimized by no fault of their own and left to suffer by the OPP and the government of Ontario; but there are others too. Here are some of the details from the Hamilton Spectator from September 2007:

When native protesters first occupied the development on Feb. 28 last year (2007), Brown said police provided around-the-clock protection at the home.

That ended after heavily armed OPP officers raided the site on April 20 and carted off native protesters, touching off a massive standoff. Natives poured onto the site and blockaded major routes around the subdivision, including Argyle Street. The OPP pulled back from the site and suddenly the family was forced to cross police lines and native barricades to get to and from their home.

"The natives made us a 'passport' signed by Mohawk security with our address on it," Brown said yesterday. 

Natives searched their car and sometimes took items out of their trunk, including groceries, he added.

The couple's statement of claim to the court alleges native protesters engaged in extreme lawless conduct and, because the OPP did not stop it, the family was left living in fear for their personal safety.

The lawsuit also claims Brown was falsely thrown in jail after a confrontation between a forklift driver and natives who came onto his property.

It alleges natives forced Brown into their vehicle and took him to the police lines where they told the OPP he had been trespassing and had assaulted them. An OPP officer arrested Brown, and ordered him thrown in jail.

When Brown argued he was the victim, "that officer became angry and stated that Brown had to be imprisoned because of the way Brown spoke to him," the lawsuit alleges.

He spent the night in jail, but was not charged. He was released in the morning.

The stress of the situation impacted on Brown's work performance to the point the company fired him, the lawsuit claims. Brown has since filed a separate wrongful dismissal lawsuit against the firm.

John Evans, the couple's lead litigator, said the family has been denied access to their home in the most outrageous conditions.

"There has been consistent unlawful behaviour causing huge loss to these people, and they are unprotected," Evans said.

"The Police ice will not go on their property to protect them from these activities."

Yesterday, Chatwell said police stopped her at the barricades one night and refused to allow her vehicle through.

"Police made me walk home, which was about a quarter mile away from the barricades, when the town was having a rally," she said.

"They would not walk with me in the dark."

Can you imagine it? A woman is turned out of her car by the police at an insurrectionist barricade and forced to walk home in the dark,  though a hostile area and the police won't accompany her.
I referred to the "The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia" is "disgrace" a strong enough word? Or should I have referred to the "infamy" of the OPP and the Ontario Government?

infamy - extremely bad reputation, public reproach, or strong condemnation as the result of a shameful, criminal, or outrageous act: a time that will live in infamy. (Dictionary.com)

Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell were denied their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by both the OPP and the Liberal Government of Ontario; there is a lot more to say on about the OPP and Dalton McGinty, and I will return to this theme in my next post on Lux et Veritas


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary Alberta

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.

Toronto Imam - Preacher of Hate?

Last Wednesday the front page of the National Post (NP) had the picture of a Toronto Imam preaching what sounded like hate to Canadian ears. The on-line version posted the YouTube video of the finger-waving cleric's 36 minute-harangue of his 800 - 1,000 strong congregation.

 “Allah protect us from the fitna [sedition] of these people; Allah protect us from the evil agenda of these people; Allah destroy them from within themselves, and do not allow them to raise their heads in destroying Islam.”

The NP  reported that the cleric used the very derogatory term  "kuffar" for Jews and Christians:

Throughout the 35-minute speech he uses the word “kuffar” to describe non-Muslims.

Then follows all the usual whitewashing that we always get on these occasions from selected Muslim authorities; sugar-coating of the type: "Jihad is not armed struggle but an  'internal struggle' ", so the NP gives us a Muslim authority who thinks "destroy" should not be be interpreted in a "literal way". Yeah right - kuffars are stupid!

Professor Amir Hussain, who teaches theology at Loyola Marymount College in Los Angeles, but grew up in Toronto, said he does not read the word “destroy” in a literal way.

Canadians are getting wise to this tactic, and moderate and secular Muslims such as Tarek Fateh and the MCC (Muslim Canadian Congress) don't like this white-washing either.

Just a note here for liberal and leftist types which love to support radical Islam; moderate and secular Muslims would be the first to suffer if Islamism succeeds, and they also are concerned when terrorist activities are perpetrated by Islamists in the name of Islam.

Here's another dissembler of misinformation from the NP:

Walid Saleh, professor at the centre for the study of religion at the University of Toronto, said much of what Mr. Rageah said must be taken in the context of how Muslims may use terms in the midst of a religious service.

OK then! That's all right we just need to understand the "context". The thing is we do understand - well at least some do, but nevertheless in increasing numbers.

"Toronto Imam Preaching 'hate instead of harmony' "can be read here

According to Tarek Fateh's rebuttal in the NP "Bigotry Unchallenged" posted today. the "misunderstood" cleric spewed these words of hate:

We have to establish Islam [in Canada]. I wanna see Islam in every single corner of the city; I would like to see niqabis, and hijabis [women wearing face masks and head covering] everywhere in the city. I want to see ‘brothers' [Muslim men] in beards everywhere in the city. Because when they see more of us, they will have more respect for us. They will say, ‘look they are everywhere...we cannot go against them'."

The message is clear, this is not the religion of peace, but a religion whose main purpose is to dominate and take over. That is one of the main ideologies in traditional Islam.

Mr. Fateh states that "every Friday, at almost every mosque in Canada, the clerics make this prayer at the end of their sermon":

"Oh Allah, give victory to Muslims and Islam...Oh Allah, give defeat to the Kufaar and Mushriqeen," he prayed.

I have to applaud Tarek Fateh, he has the courage, the knowledge, and the standing to bring these points into the public view.

This is a particularly damming point, one that should not be forgotten, and nor should those Mosques where this takes place be allowed to forget it either.

It is not so surprising that young terrorists, such as the "Toronto 18" could be spawned if they are fed a diet of this kind of hatred.

Mr Fateh then proceeds to further illustrate the kind of misinformation and white-washing that always surrounds these discussions when radical Islam shows its face:

Since the disclosure, there has been orchestrated campaign by the mosque establishment to deny that the word "Kufaar" means "Jews and Christians".

There are several spellings for kuffar, kufaar, kufir, kafr and perhaps others too, but they refer to all unbelievers, all the ungrateful ones, not only Jews and Christians.

Kuffar make up the dhimmi class, these are the second-class inhabitants in an Islamic state under sharia. The sharia is very detailed how the dhimmi will live under Islamic domination and it is:

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

It is not just the Jews and Christians, this is taken from a previous post Lux et Veritas: Pakistan Christian Parties Against Blasphemy Laws, which has some useful notes on shariah at the end of the article.

Mr. Fateh goes on to demolish the red-herring that kuffar does not include Jews and Christians.

The dhimmis pay a special tax for the protection of their Muslim masters, but they do not have equal rights - quite the opposite. In fact dhimmis are very vulnerable under sharia, and any accusation, even false accusations, by a Muslim against a dhimmi, are sure to go against the dhimmi, because he is not equal to the Muslim.

Mr. Fateh continues:

Why then would so many Muslims in Canada be willing to whitewash the truth about the hateful sermons in almost every mosque in Canada?

One would hope that by exposing one imam caught on video praying for the defeat of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims, would spur ordinary Muslims to protest this type of bigotry.

Once again I have to applaud the work of Tarek Fateh and commend his excellent piece "Bigotry Unchallenged", which can be read here.

I will close about a fundamental freedom we have in Canada according to the Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms. Under Article 2, fundamental freedoms the Charter provides that:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms (a) freedom of conscience and religion

The kind of preaching Toronto Imam Said Rageah engages in, and the kind of prayer that asks for "Oh Allah, give defeat to the Kufaar" is not consistent with the Canadian Charter, because it promotes one religion (Islam) to dominate over the other religions of Canada either by coercion or ultimately by physical force or threat .No other religions seek to do that.

It is contrary to our Charter and a presents a risk not only to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, but also to moderate Muslims.


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.

Free-Speech Deniers at McGill

I find it strange that a a student at one of Canada's premier Universities (McMaster would head the list of course), would be so devoid of critical thought to:

on the one hand shut-down free speech because he doesn't agree with the opinions of the speaker,

and then on the other hand, avail himself of free-speech on this blog to leave a nasty remark (its somewhat pathetic but it is nasty).

I imagine that he can't see how stupid it makes him look.

Of course I don't think I'm "creepy" but that's just my opinion, fortunately my wife doesn't think so either, but when it comes to the assertion that I was spamming,the evidence is very clear - it was not spam (not that he would care about evidence).  I followed the McGill Tribune protocols, and added a link to Lux et Veritas; as I said yesterday:

Many Tribune  readers availed themselves of that opportunity to read more on the matter, which was pertinent to the discussion thread. It's common practice to leave links in comments (to offer back-up or more information on a matter, or the source of the information).

I try to present a logical rebuttal, perhaps somewhat ponderously, but my good friend Geraint cuts to the heart of the matter, and with an economy of words.

I have to say I think this is brilliant...

brilliant

1. shining brightly; sparkling; glittering; lustrous: the brilliant lights of the city.
2. distinguished; illustrious: a brilliant performance by a young pianist.
3. having or showing great intelligence, talent, quality, etc.: a brilliant technician.
4. strong and clear in tone; vivid; bright: brilliant blues and greens; the brilliant sound of the trumpets
5. splendid or magnificent: a brilliant social event. 
   

Sadly "anonymous little creep" is showing anything but "brilliance", but there is always redemption.

There is always the chance to turn the corner; and I hope so for his sake. My pastor prayed with me about this person after our worship on Sunday.

I attack his behaviour, I attack his ideologies, I attack the apathy that surrounds these issues, but ultimately I do not attack him per se.

I know that God loves the sinner and hates the sin. Every believer in Jesus Christ understands that, because we need forgiveness too. We know the source of forgiveness - it is through Jesus Himself.
 

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

the Fasicst Anti-Free Speech Mind

Following on from the sickening behaviour of student "demonstrators" at McGill, that I wrote about a few days ago here at Lux et Veritas (McGill Protesters Shut-Down Free Speech, posted Friday, October 9, 2009).
The students think it was their right to shut-down a legitimate event, that was authorised by McGill University for the simple reason that they didn't like the content of the presentation, they didn't like the view-point of the presenter, and they formed an opinion before the talk ever took place.

Now one of the protesters, left this nasty personal comment on this blog-site. The product of bankrupt mind 

Further Erosion Of Human Rights In Canada

Further Erosion Of Human Rights In Canada

First HRCs persecuting Canadians and contravening our rights under the charter, and now the Quebec Superior Court deals a further blow.