Tuesday, January 27, 2015

It's Amazing the Things That Get People's Shorts In a Twist

A comely tennista's "twirl," for example.

Why the Road to Hell Is Paved With Progressives' "Compassion"

Quotation of the day:
A secularized empathy provides religion without deity or scripture. The new temple becomes the government building and its new bible is a million pages of ObamaCare regulations that no one reads.

Steyn on the Levant Show

Need I say more?

European Jewish Congress Backs Pan-European "Tolerance" Law

That should do the trick, don't you think? ;)

Seventy years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the pathological Jew-hate in Europe is worse than ever, married as it is to a hatred for Israel, the Jewish state despised by on-scene Muslims and infidel chattering classes alike. One understands the desperation of European Jews, but there's no way a "law," especially one that kneecaps free speech, can cure or even ameliorate the disease of Zionhass.

Update: LRC has no time for Official Jews who refuse to acknowledge the Islam implicated in the current round of pathological Jew-hate.

Update: Sir Ben Kingsley doesn't seem to get it either.

An Example of How Interfaithiness Turns the Brain to Mush: Islamophilic NatPo Letter Urges Us To Contextualize Those Koranic Passages Calling for Jihad

A letter in the National Post offers an overly sanguine view of the world religion:
Re: Examining Islam, letter to the editor, Jan. 24.
Letter-writer Jonathan Usher’s seeming rejection of the Qur’an (Letters, Jan. 24) because of some suras in it, looks like a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, the Qur’an has problematic passages, but it remains the basis of belief and the foundation of faith for a billion-plus people. It inspired tolerant, inquiring and prosperous cultures like Muslim Spain in the past — cultures where original ideas and transmitted truths were passed on to us and are part of our heritage today. 
Isolating passages does not do justice to the whole of any scripture. One must look at context and circumstance. Fanaticism has a flair for fine-tuning specifics but ends up with a bunch of trees instead of a forest. Thus, interfaith understanding requires seeing the Qur’an through Islam, more than Islam through the Qur’an. Islam, like every world religion, is more than its scripture.
Doug A. Couper, Milton, Ont.
He's right, of course. Islam is more that its scripture. Islam is also the law--sharia--which, as Islam sees it, is supposed to rule uber alles.

As for "seeing the Qur'an through Islam"--that's an absolute crock. Why should non-Muslims see it that way when, clearly, that's not how practicing Muslims see it?

And re the alleged "tolerance" of "Muslim Spain": that's a function of ignorance and good PR. Here, for instance, is a more truthful account of those "golden" times, as cited by an expert on the subject, Andrew Bostom:
Expanding upon Jane Gerber’s thesis about the “garish” myth of a “Golden Age,” [36] the late Richard Fletcher (in his Moorish Spain) offered a fair assessment of interfaith relationships in Muslim Spain and his view of additional contemporary currents responsible for obfuscating that history: [37]
The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion — to mention only a few disruptive episodes — must give it [i.e., the roseate view of Muslim Spain] the lie. The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility. … Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126 (like the Moriscos five centuries later). … In the second half of the twentieth century a new agent of obfuscation makes its appearance: the guilt of the liberal conscience, which sees the evils of colonialism — assumed rather than demonstrated — foreshadowed in the Christian conquest of al-Andalus and the persecution of the Moriscos (but not, oddly, in the Moorish conquest and colonization). Stir the mix well together and issue it free to credulous academics and media persons throughout the western world. Then pour it generously over the truth … in the cultural conditions that prevail in the west today the past has to be marketed, and to be successfully marketed it has to be attractively packaged. Medieval Spain in a state of nature lacks wide appeal. Self-indulgent fantasies of glamour … do wonders for sharpening up its image. But Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch. 
One might say the same of the NatPo letter--that it is little more tha a self-indulgent fantasy that has next to no basis in reality.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Free Speech in Canada? Don't Be Silly

As Mark Steyn rightly proclaims in the National Post, "Free speech has to include the right to insult Islam." And Steyn says that as someone who was instrumental in getting rid of Section 13, the notorious censorship provision in our federal "human rights" statute. Unfortunately, as Barbara Amiel pointed out following the recent attacks in Paris, that didn't exactly make speech in Canada any freer:
For my money, the reason we don’t have a slaughter like the one at Charlie Hebdo is because no such magazine would ever be allowed in Canada. We save our Kalashnikovs for murdering free speech. First we had the human rights commissions who literally jackbooted freedom of expression. The case against Maclean’s centred largely on an article of Mark Steyn’s. The Canadian Islamic Congress didn’t like his piece on Islam and filed complaints with the federal as well as two provincial human rights commissions. Steyn’s work was vigorously defended by Maclean’s and Rogers Communications. Maclean’s and Steyn won. But the cost was high.  I speak from experience. When in 2011 I had the one and only column of my 37 years of writing for Maclean’s spiked, it was on Dutch anti-Muslim immigration politician Geert Wilders. I thought it was pretty milquetoast writing since I was automatically self-censoring and pulling my punches but I really couldn’t blame Maclean’s.  They were suffering from battle fatigue: nothing is more enervating and time-consuming than filling out the endless details and forms that human-rights complaints require. Not to mention the legal fees. “You’d win,” said one of my editors. “We know that. But we just can’t go there again.” In my view there is no media outlet in Canada brave enough to allow a full and proper discussion of Islam. 
After the imbroglio with Steyn, Prime Minister Harper gutted the HRC ability to monitor free speech.  The issue went by default to the Supreme Court—an inhospitable terrain for freedom. The jurists took on a case involving flyers written about a cow almost as sacred as Islam, namely homosexuality. The flyers written by “Christian Trust Activist” William Whatcott wanted to bring “sodomites” to Christ for redemption but not into classrooms as teachers on human sexuality. The unanimous judgment of Canada’s Supreme Court (overturning the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that had allowed the flyers) should have been reprinted in its entirety in a Canadian satirical magazine with cartoons of our jurists were such a magazine allowed in Canada, which, according to the Supremes’ decision, it would not. Yes, we have free speech, said the Supremes citing the Charter of Rights but that doesn’t mean we can say anything we like because free speech may be hate speech or at least hateful to some group. But a guarantee of free speech is not divisible. You can’t guarantee “some free speech” any more than you can be “a little bit” pregnant.
Amiel is scathing on the subject of our state broadcaster and its craven refusal to show the Charlie Hebdo 'toons:
As George Jonas pointed out in a 2013 column, human beings find a way of rationalizing their behaviour so that they can claim they are refraining from publishing or saying something not out of fear but because they don’t wish to offend. They convert the base notion of being scared into a noble weapon of seeing someone else’s point of view. In fact, this is one of the most insidious aspects of terrorism: we wash our brains and convert our fear into understanding. Example: the awful spot CBC put news host Evan Solomon in when reporting the Paris murders. He was given the job of reading CBC’s rationalization to explain why, although the motive for the Paris murders were Charlie’s cartoons of Muhammad and Islamists, the CBC would not show the cartoons in reporting the story. I didn’t tape his explanation, fascinated as I was by its maze of clauses, but the phrase “not to offend” made a cameo appearance. 
I would have had more respect for the Ceeb had it told the truth: "We have decided not to show you the cartoons because we're too afraid of being targeted by the jihadis."
In other words: a simple iteration of the facts, no maze of clauses required.

The Good News: The University of Chicago Reaffirms Free Speech. The Bad News: The Fact That Free Expression on University Campuses Is So Rare These Days That This Is News At All

Peter Berkowitz writes:
The good news is also news because, regrettably, the admirable position the University of Chicago has embraced on freedom of speech distinguishes it from a majority of universities in the land. Not every American college and university aggressively discourages debate and independent thought with restrictive speech codes that forbid the expression of opinions at which anyone might take offense. Yet rare is the university that clearly articulates the principles of free speech and proudly stands behind them.  
So when the president and provost of one of America’s preeminent institutions of higher learning appoint a special committee and assign it the task of “articulating the university’s overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community,” it is worth taking notice.
That's for sure. Let's hope its example inspires others, realizing, of course, that that's a long shot in view of the how wedded universities are universities are to their current hard-left/quasi-totalitarian orthodoxies--countering "micro-aggressions" and the rest.

Shia Fanatics See Recent Events, Including Death of Saudi King and Events in Yemen, as Signs of Their 12th Imam's Immanent Return

Ryan Mauro mentions some of the other "signs" indicating that the Mahdi is set for a return engagement. For some unknown reason, however, he leaves out a crucial one--the fact that all the Jews of the world must be eliminated before the Shia messiah shows his face. Then again, I have no doubt that Iran is interpreting Obama's willingness to cut it lots of slack, uranium-enrichment-wise, as a sign that it'll get to nuke the Jewish state sooner rather than later, thereby laying the groundwork for the Mahdi's return.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

If Only Bibi Wore Green Lipstick and Made Lame YouTube Videos...

Image by Dianny of All the Right Snark

Appeasement Deja Vu

Obama sucks up to Iran in an effort to "engage" it (and not because he's a Shia.) Meanwhile, Iran bloviates about the need to eliminate (exterminate) Israel.

Local Imam Dr. Hamid Slimi's Message of "Peace" (In the Islamic Sense of the Word)

I'm sure you're familiar with the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace. Listen closely, however, and you'll realize that what the imam is saying is that without Islam, there is no peace. Or, to put it another way, an adherence to Islam is the pre-requisite for peace. (Heck, they don't call 'em Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb for nothing.)