It’s that unthinking assumption that if people believe something to be true they aren’t open to discussion, argument or negotiation about what that belief entails or means in the day-to-day ordering of society. So when a small group of faculty members and students at Rome’s La Sapienza University succeeded in preventing Pope Benedict XVI from speaking there recently we were all left with a mirror image of tolerant and intolerant. Suddenly the religious is the open welcoming point of dialogue and academia, that bastion of free speech and inquiry without limit, is the source of militant, vigilant intolerance. (Catholic Register – Kavanagh is a senior producer at CBC Radio in Toronto.)
Do not adjust your browser. That’s not a typo. Yes, someone who works for the Crap Broadcasting Corporation has come to the defense of the Pope. Although it might be a surprise to him, the Catholic Church has always been the greatest patron of free thought and expression within the boundaries of revealed truth. There is much more freedom within the Church, than there is with the secular high priests and tribunal commisars who rule Canada today, for instance. As we can read from this frank admission, it tells you something when the guy who is regarded as the king dogmatist in the whole world by the Left is becoming the champion of free speech and inquiry. He gave no quarter in telling the Islamicists to ditch violence as the preferred mode of their communication, and apparently the slick guy in white played the “professors” and “students” like a fiddle in showing the world how these “academic” centres are full of filthy Leftist fascists.
Whowuh…..that’s not my headline everyone. That’s the National Post’s editorial!
Nonetheless, Mr. Smitherman thinks that the identification of known risk groups for infectious disease is a matter of “wonky bureaucrats” “ghettoizing communities” by means of “nonsense.” His passion for the social inclusion of skid row smack addicts and 15-year-old girls who have just had their ears pierced is truly moving, but letting identity politics imperil the health of the public is really not what one expects from a health minister. The victims of Canada’s tainted-blood scandal, which resulted partly from the purchase of blood from risk groups (notably American prisons) and partly from a politically motivated failure to introduce behavioural screening, are still dying around us thanks to the Smithermanlike attitudes of the 1980s. (Source)
Careful now, everyone. The gay militants are just ready to pull the trigger on another HRC complaint. Better watch out. You’ll be joining Steyn and Levant in front of the Kangaroo Kourt.
And to suggest that George Smitherman might actually care more about his pet community than health care in general. The nerve! The effrontery!
Do they not know that “rights” means that everyone has to share the pain equally? Isn’t that what socialism teaches?
Removing the posters because they made some people feel uncomfortable is a violation of the freedom of speech and expression that Canada fosters and protects.
Infringing on the rights of pro-life organizations and individuals does nothing to prove a point or win an argument. Freedom of speech remains, regardless of political climate or personal preferences.
The decision to remove the posters from Hamilton bus shelters was made by Don Hull, the city’s director of transit, at the instigation of Councillor Brian McHattie and three other complainants.
McHattie and Hull give the impression that they are trying to be neutral about a subject for which there is no neutrality (Canada is a pro-choice nation, not an abortion-neutral nation). These individuals are attempting to violate freedom of speech and expression in Hamilton.
The city is awakening to the reality of pro-choice radicalism in its midst, playing out in the bus shelters of our city. (Source)
It’s good to see Hamilton City council is following the lead of the HRCs and stifling debate.
What does this show? That the hippie liberals who clamored for the right to express themselves are really just fascist jackboots who won’t tolerate sexual dissension.
Surprised by the reaction to his pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research comments made Saturday night at a Hillary Clinton political rally, St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus spent part of Wednesday morning on the phone, trying to calm his elderly mother.”She was upset, thinking I was going to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and that I would be denied Communion during Mass,” Majerus said Wednesday night, in his first public comments over a controversy that included a strong rebuke from St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. “But she told me to keep doing what I thought was right, just as my parents taught me.”
This week, Burke said St. Louis University should discipline Majerus for comments he made at the rally. Burke also said he’d deny Majerus holy Communion if the coach did not change his positions on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research.
But if Burke is expecting an apology or silence from Majerus, it won’t happen. If Burke hopes Majerus will fall in line with the Roman Catholic church’s official positions on these two issues, it won’t happen. (Source)
And if you come up to receive holy communion, that won’t happen either.
It’s called freedom of association, in secular terms. As an organization, the Catholic Church has every right to associate with people she wants to and, more importantly, the right NOT TO associate with people who clearly have opposing moral views.
And by the way, if the Bishop denies you holy communion, you are, for all intents and purposes, excommunicated. You’ve been cut off from the sacrament and are not “communing” any more. And be sure to tell your mother that too since she told you to “keep on doing what you are doing”. Maybe both of you can then sit down and figure out if you both even believe in the Catholic faith anymore.
Things moved along relatively well until Davis, to the chagrin of many in his own cabinet and caucus, tabbed Elgie to rewrite the human rights code, the result of which was a proposal to given human rights officers more power than the police to search for and seize private documents without a warrant and based solely on a complaint, whether frivolous or not. There was so much opposition from Davis’s own party to the June, 1980 proposals, that the premier – typically – decided not to fight an election on his police state bill. But after regaining a huge majority in 1981, Davis pushed the new law through the legislature, a law which has served as the prototype for all the other provinces and has led to the sorry situation where Levant – and Maclean’s magazine writer Mark Steyn – are being forced to defend their opinions simply because there are some readers who were offended by them. It is sickening for Borovoy now to lament this state of affairs. This is the same Borovoy who, during an instructive two-week period in 1981, appeared at both the federal investigation into RCMP wrongdoing in Quebec and the hearings into Elgie’s infamous Bill 7. (Source)
Howlers, which come in several distinct species, are among the largest New World monkeys, with long prehensile tails, travelling through the upper canopies of jungles, ranging from southern Mexico down to northern Argentina, and back up again to Venezuela (where one of them appears to have become the president).But more to the point, each has an outsized hyoid bone, at the base of its tongue, allowing it to brace tongue against larynx in ways not possible to other animals. In human beings, the more discreet equivalent of this bone makes speech possible. In howler monkeys, it facilitates an excruciatingly loud noise, which is used by male and female alike to announce their territory. These are, according to the Smithsonian Institute (you see, I’m checking everything now), the loudest animals in the world.
How loud? You can hear them five kilometres away, through dense tropical foliage. On a modern, wind-swept university campus, you can probably hear them even farther. (David Warren.com)
Such is the cackle of the fascist Left these days.
After all, somebody’s hurt feelings are much easier to deal with than the messy consequences of seeking after the truth which these HRC don’t even seem to acknowledge exists in the first place. ‘Cause you know, truth is relative. There is no absolute truth. But, hey, there are always going to be hurt feelings. Look, can’t you see the tears falling down his face?
My lawyer has received two upset calls from the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The first, from Shirlene McGovern herself, complained about the publicity she is receiving. I’m surprised at her reaction — you’d think someone who regularly interrogates citizens about their private political views would be comfortable with the concept of public scrutiny. Imagine if she actually had to expose her private thoughts, not just her public actions as a government officer.A few days later, another commission officer called my lawyer, complaining about this blog. I told my lawyer to invite them to write a letter to the editor to me. I haven’t received it yet, so I presume they’re just going to file another human rights complaint against me. (Ezra Levant.com)
They are not amused, folks. Why is it not surprising that these HRC secret agents don’t like full disclosure and public scrutiny? What have they got to be upset about, exactly? That people are seeing for themselves the whole sham they are running? Maybe they don’t like the transparency of it all, having operated under the cloak of darkness all this time. Besides, I thought they were all for coming out of the closet?
Ezra mentioned that Judge Judy was a real judge and she, unlike the HRCs, believed in free speech. What he forgot to mention was that she also operated in front of the camera for all to see. That’s now three strikes against the HRCs. It’s now officially THREE rungs below Judge Judy. Zing!
Are they upset that they look like a bunch of Star Chamber commisars, giving out politically correct judgement without the scrutiny of the public?
You know this whole pathetic display only shows that a large segment of our society thinks that the government (or one of its appointed star chamber tribunals) is above the public’s right to know and criticize. The complaints by the AHRC only confirm this. It also shows that those videos are doing big time damage. “But, but, we’ll lose our phoney baloney jobs if this keeps up.”
Turn up the heat, Ezra and keep going. If Agent McGovern is upset, she only has herself to blame for being party to such a sham of an organization in the first place. Ezra did nothing but give his FREE OPINION of what he thought about the HRCs and the complaint itself. If some star chamber agent looks bad because of it, that’s not Ezra’s fault, it’s theirs for belonging to such a brutal and fascist regime as the HRCs.
So, as you can see, very problematic. No one is contesting the fact that Maclean’s has the right to publish what they want, and they can continue to publish these sort of provocative articles if they wish. But, the issue is about the right of communities to participate in our national dialogue on issues that relate to them especially. And, in light of the fact that Canada that – you know, Maclean’s is Canada’s leading national news magazine – it has a social responsibility – and Maclean’s and other magazines, for instance, claim that they published what they published in the public interest, but the public interest lies in hearing a debate on these sort of controversial issues. (Source)
Let me get this straight. You are demanding that a private publication conform to your editorial policies and justifying the intrusion of the State to ensure it. Is that right?
Oh I get it.
So if we conservatives banded together and demanded that Islam Today(i.e. Globe & Mail or Toronto Star) be forced to have “balanced” coverage of any major social or political issue by appealing to the HRCs, you would be OK with that? Or more to the point, would these left wing rags’ editors and publishers and READERS be OK with that?
But that’s the new tolerant Canada for you folks. One rule for the old white liberal media establishment. And another rule for us white conservative niggers.
See, the difference between the mullahkites and freedom-loving Canadians is that if we don’t agree with a particular slant of a publication, we FIND OTHER WAYS of getting the opposing opinion out into the public square. We don’t sic the HRC dogs on you. We don’t go crying to Big Brother if our views are not presented by a Left-wing publication.
It would be bad enough if there were limited Left-wing media outlets in this country, but the fact that there are many only shows that these professional victims have a Stalinist tendency to eradicate any editorial position which does not bend to the holy trinity of feminism, homosexualism, or islamism in Canada today.
The fact that this thinking is rather predominant among the Left today only shows the very perilous position Canada is sinking into.
Remember, Mr. Lefty, your smirk today can quickly turn into a frown tomorrow if you are found to be over the line on the politically correct boundary.
Today, it’s us. Tomorrow, it’s you.
Don’t cry when you had a chance to do something about it and didn’t. You won’t receive any sympathy from us.
The Islamic crescent flying over 10 Downing Street? You’d be surprised how quickly the question of what flag should fly over government buildings can become an issue. In 2005, Anne Owers, her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, banned the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and so is offensive to Muslims. The Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency has also banned the English flag from its offices. So has Heathrow Airport. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.197)
We also chose to file the complaints because there wasn’t any other route for us – I mean – ahh – we would have preferred to take the matter to some sort of self-regulatory body of the media such as the press council, but Maclean’s doesn’t subscribe to one, or doesn’t provide alternative venues for complainants like an ombudsman person or anything of that nature. So we filed with the commissions – not – also because of legislation – sorry – excuse me for one second – sorry – the human rights complaint – so, essentially our complaint was prompted by two things: the defamatory content of the article, plus Maclean’s stifling debate on the issue. (Source)
Get a grip. You have obviously not understood the concept of freedom. Freedom means not only having the liberty to publish what you like, but also to decline to publish what you don’t like.
Nobody owes you, buddy. If you don’t like what MacLean’s has done, go and complain to the plethera of liberal leftwing rags in this country. They will give you a much bigger forum than a modest conservative publication. Or, is it perhaps, that you seek to enforce your politically correct kafka?!
Reality, July/August 2007 National newsletter of REAL Women of CanadaIsrael (Izzy) Asper, head of CanWest Global Communications Corporation, had a dream. It was to leave as his legacy, not just to his family, or to his country, but to the whole world, a museum on human rights so people all over the world could come for inspiration, education and instruction. This dream is to be realized in 2011.However, there were a few problems with his dream. In the first place, as wealthy as he was personally, with his media empire, which included ownership of the National Post, the Vancouver Sun, the Ottawa Citizen, the Montreal Gazette etc., and Global TV; access to his well-funded Asper Family Foundation; and access to wealthy donors in the private sector, he still could not begin to raise the funds to cover the approximately $300 million building costs of the museum. As well, there were the further annual costs of approximately $22 million for the maintenance and staffing of the museum. Mr. Asper died in 2003, but his family took on his dream: in particular, his daughter Gail Asper. In short order under Ms. Asper’s direction, the proposed human rights centre received the following grants:Province of Manitoba - $40 million
City of Winnipeg - $20 million
Asper Foundation - $20 million
CIBC, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia - $3.5 million
This funding was still not nearly enough to get the project off the ground. Fortunately for the dream, the Liberal government, accurately assessing the museum as reflecting its own liberal values, announced on April 15, 2005, that a grant for the museum, in the amount of $100 million, would be provided by the government. The sun seemed to be shining on the project – that is, until the January, 2006 federal election, when the Conservative government was elected to power. The Asper family and supporters of the museum held their collective breaths over whether the Conservative government would honour the Liberals’ pledge to the museum. The problem with the museum is that it was mainly a shrine to former Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau and his Charter of Rights. That is, it was supposed to reflect the values set out in the Charter of Rights, which has been interpreted by Liberal-appointed judges to reflect the liberal views or philosophies of the judges and that of the Liberal party, rather than the views of the public. Patrons of this museum are the feminist Governor-General Michaëlle Jean (See REALity, May June 2007, “Our Wayward Governor-General,” page 3) and John Harvard, Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. In the latter’s former life, he was an outspoken left-wing Liberal MP from Winnipeg who traded his seat to allow the former homosexual Winnipeg Mayor, Glen Murray, to run in the June 2004 federal election (Mr. Murray was defeated) in return for his appointment in May 2004 as Lieutenant-Governor.
Further, to ensure that liberal values would prevail, the museum organizers identified, in addition to ethno-cultural and Jewish representatives, so-called “human rights experts”, including representatives of homosexual and feminist interests, who were to sit on the museum’s National Advisory Council. These representatives included:
Constance Backhouse, hard-line feminist professor from the University of
Ottawa, specializing in women’s studies. She is currently writing a book on sexual assault in Canada.
Ken Norman, former member of the executive committee of the notoriously biased and discriminatory Court Challenges Program (now, thankfully, disbanded by the Harper government – See REALity November/December 2006, p.7 “Conservative Government Cuts Left-Wing Agencies”), Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan.
Beth Atcheson, chair of the legal arm of the feminist movement, LEAF (Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund).
Lloyd Axworthy, known as “Pink Lloyd”, former Liberal Foreign Affairs Cabinet Minister under Prime Minister Chretien.
Stephen Burri, president of the homosexual lobby group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere).
Basil “Buzz” Hargrove, National President of the Canadian Autoworkers
Senator Mobina Jaffer, feminist lawyer, appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Chretien. She was a member of the feminist only Canada Panel on Violence Against Women, and a former unsuccessful Liberal candidate, as well as president of the National Women’s Liberal Commission.
Madame Justice Claire L’Heureux Dubé, retired feminist judge from the Supreme Court of Canada, founder and former member of the Board of Directors of the feminist organization CRIAW (Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women).
Professor Kathleen Mahoney, hard-line feminist professor of law at the
Calgary. She has published extensively on women’s rights and has served as legal counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of hate propaganda and pornography from a feminist perspective.
The Honourable Maurice F. Strong, well known, left-wing UN advisor, currently under investigation for his Oil-For-Food gambit in Iraq. He is also co-sponsor, with former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev, of the so-called “Earth Charter”, which includes, in its provisions, a right to abortion, environmentalism, and aboriginal traditions, etc. as basic international human rights.
The Honourable John N. Turner, former Liberal Prime Minister.
Tom Axworthy, political strategist and policy advisor for the Liberal party, former principal Secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau
Alexandre Trudeau, son of the late Prime Minister Trudeau and a left-wing film producer of a laudatory film on President Castro of Cuba and an anti-American film on the Iraq invasion.
Senator Noël Kinsella - Conservative Senator appointed in 1990 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney – former Chairperson of the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission for 22 years. He tabled a bill in the Senate in 1996 to include sexual orientation in the federal Human Rights Act.
Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein, appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Trudeau in 1984.
Senator Vivienne Poy, appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Chretien. She is the sister-in-law of former Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson. Senator Poy tabled a bill in the Senate to change the words of our national anthem to remove the scandalous phrase “all our sons command”. Not surprisingly, the bill was not successful. (See REALity, September/October 2001, p. 10.)Although these left-wing extremists predominate on the museum’s Advisory Council, there is a sprinkling of others, such as former red Tory Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and representatives from each of some Japanese, Ukrainian, Jewish, and francophone organizations.
These latter representatives, however, are all outnumbered by the left-wing, liberal activists who all bring to the Advisory Council their own special interests and agendas.
Many Violations of Human Rights:
The museum has two sections: the Hall of Fame and the Hall of Shame.
There are many violations of human rights in Canada to fill the Hall of Shame: these exhibits will, hopefully, serve as a reminder to future generations of past wrongs, never to be repeated. Examples include, the Chinese head tax passed in 1885; exclusion of all Chinese immigrants in 1947; refusal to allow a freighter with Sikh passengers to land in Canada in 1914; internment of Ukrainians, Italians and Japanese as enemy aliens; our treatment of Aboriginals; the refusal to allow Jews as immigrants, etc. The list is tragically long. On the other hand, the Hall of Fame will certainly be, according to Prime Minister Trudeau’s former principal secretary, Thomas Axworthy, a monument to Pierre Trudeau. Mr. Axworthy described Mr. Trudeau’s accomplishments in the Winnipeg Free Press, March 13, 2005, as follows:[Prime Minister Trudeau] modernized divorce and reformed the Criminal Code in 1967 by removing prohibitions against homosexuality and abortion, passed the Official Languages Act in 1969, and is the father of the 1982 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
In an article in the Ottawa Citizen (April 17, 2003), Izzy Asper is quoted as stating that his museum must:
“tell the dirty stories very clearly. And that relates to women, that relates to gays ”
He goes on to say, however:
“One is going to have to be very, very careful to prevent it from becoming a propaganda device for a particular political point of view.”
The fact is that the museum is shaping up to be quite “a propaganda device”. The museum will be used as a powerful tool to champion the left-wing interpretation of human rights, such as abortion rights, feminism, homosexual rights, with some legitimate exhibits sprinkled here and there to give the museum an appearance of legitimacy. Also, if abortion and gay rights activists find themselves in the Hall of Fame, for furthering such so-called human rights advancements as unrestricted abortion and same-sex marriage, then, by default, will those who defend human life from conception to natural death be relegated to the Hall of Shame, since they do not support all the “human rights” defined by liberals?
The museum is also intended to be used as a centre of learning for police, military, political personnel and, above all, children, to combat the “forces of hate and oppression” which include all those who do not support the humanist ideology.
Let’s face it, folks. This human rights movement is so entrenched in the Canadian subconscious among our leaders and academics that it will take no less than a counter cultural revolution as strong or even stronger than the sexual revolution of the 1960s. This propaganda monument will seek to further erode civil liberties and freedoms by casting those who disagree with the establishments views of “human rights” as defacto “haters”. And if you are branded a “hater”, you can basically kiss your freedoms goodbye. This tower of babel is going to keep reaching for the heavens until one day it will come crashing down violently.
The Star Chamber apologists have come out to engage the freedom loving people of Canada. How ironic it is that they are afforded the same right that they themselves are seeking to deny others.
And it is not just a mere handful of Canadians who look to our provincial and federal human rights commissions. Whether we know it or not, the vast majority of us benefit from decisions and rulings by these commissions…
Huh? No. Typically, it’s the fringe groups who target Christians and other conservatives. The general public usually has nothing to do with it. It’s basically a place where you can extort money on the cheap from the person or company who has offended you.
But they are right about something. It’s not a mere handful of Canadians who are benefitting. Actually, it’s one guy, at least with the CHRC.
In March 2006, for example, the Toronto Star reported that an average three-day civil trial is likely to cost at least $60,738 — more than the median family income in Canada of $58,100. The Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, recently urged governments and the legal profession to find solutions to the access-to-justice crisis that has made this country’s legal system punitively expensive for ordinary citizens. (Globe & Mail)
And you have found quite the solution. Complainants pay nothing; respondents everything. Guess that shows us what you think justice should be. Is such thinking specific to your particular marginalized group or does it infect the Left as a general rule?
Many years ago, I had the opportunity to witness directly to two women who were about to undergo abortions. Both occasions were at my place of employment and occurred within months of each other.
The first time I heard that one of my co-workers was scheduled to have an abortion, I was shocked. As the days ticked away and the scheduled abortion was looming over her, my conscience started to prick me. Although I felt uncomfortable in approaching someone about this subject at my place of employment, it was not the fear of losing my job or even broaching the subject that made me uncomfortable. I simply did not know what to say. I didn’t want to bungle it but I knew that I was probably the last chance for that unborn child.
I gathered myself and set out toward her office. I knocked on her door, stepped in the office, and closed the door behind me.
“Maggie, I hear that you’re pregnant and are going to have an abortion. Is this true?”
“Yes”, she said.
“Listen, I want to help you. If it’s money, I’ll help you as long as it takes.”
“No”, she said. “It’s not the money. I just can’t handle another kid right now. I have four children already by three different men.”
And so the conversation continued. At the end of it, she was crying. I gave her a hug and repeated my offers to help. She appreciated it and kissed me on the cheek.
“Please don’t do it”, I said. “Don’t give up hope. Trust in God.”
The next day, she had her abortion. A few months later, she left the company.
Her replacement too became pregnant. However, she was pregnant with twins and the doctors recommended that she abort one of them.
I was not that keen to get involved again given my previous experience, but I knew that I had to try. As the days came closer, I tried to approach my co-worker, but something would always come up, or I would start out to do it and then bail out.
On the day before her scheduled abortion, I was at home. “Oh well, just wasn’t in the cards, eh, God? Did my best. Time to move on.” Not quite. My conscience wouldn’t let me get away with such a lame excuse so I picked up the phone and called the office. When it rang through to her line, I breathed a sigh of relief as I got her voice mail.
“Hi Linda. Can you call me when you get a chance?”
I figured there was a 50/50 chance she would call back.
There was a part of me that was hoping she wouldn’t call back. Call it reputation. Call it meddling. Call it human pride. I don’t know what to call it, but I was kind of hoping that I could just give it the old college try but wouldn’t have to go through with it.
As I sat there holding the phone, it suddenly rang, sending a nervous anxiousness down my spine.
“Oh. Oh. Now what do I say?”, I asked myself.
“Hi John, this is Linda.”
“Oh, hi Linda. How are you doing?”
A short pause.
“OK, I guess. I am just about to leave. What can I do for you?”
A longer pause on my end as I scrounged my brain for some kind of work-related pretense I would be calling for. I quickly thought of something that I had asked of her a couple of days ago. After she answered my question, there was another short pause.
“Is there anything else?”
A long pause on my end.
“Are you sure?”, her voice almost sounding like she needed to talk to someone about the abortion.
“No, I am sure.”
As I heard the click of the phone and the monotone on the other end, I closed my eyes and pondered how I could be such a coward.
On this day, January 22, 2008, in commemoration of the disastrous United States Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, I would like to offer this little video tribute to all of the unborn children who need our voices, to the human family which is being mercilessly attacked on all fronts, and to our inalienable civil liberties which are being threatened.
In particular, I offer this remembrance to that unborn child that I failed to speak out for. I hope you forgive me, little one, for my voice might have made all the difference to you and I failed you at the worst possible time.
Let us all pray for courage to end this abortion onslaught and never, ever be ashamed like I was that day to SPEAK OUT FOR THE UNBORN.
“Rise Up” video URL here.
p.s. I know it’s a little long – just over 12 minutes, but I think you will enjoy it. If you are wondering, the live clip of the baby is my little Sophia, born July 13, 2006.
Amnah is a modern British Muslim. She is dressed in a denim skirt and her head is covered in a hijab. Poised and self-assured, she has come to meet Dr Suhaib Hasan, a silver-bearded sheikh who sits behind his desk, surrounded by religious books.
“But why would I have to observe the waiting period?” she asks him. “What are the reasons?” There is an urgency to her questions.
“These reasons don’t apply to me, that’s what I’m very confused about. If you could give me the reasons why I have to wait three months, then I’ll understand.”
Amnah is going through a divorce and is baffled at being told that she must wait for three months to remarry, considering that she hasn’t seen her estranged husband for two years.
She twists her sock-clad toes into the carpet, grasping one hand with the other in her lap, and fixes Dr Hasan with an intense look. He meets this with a simple reply: “These rulings are all in the Koran. The rulings are made for all.”
Amnah has little choice but to comply: Dr Hasan is a judge, and this is a sharia court – in east London. It sits, innocuously, at the end of a row of terrace houses in Leyton: a converted corner shop, with blinds on the windows, office- style partitions and a makeshift reception area.
Penal law is the duty of the Muslim state – it is not in the hands of any public institution like us to handle it. Only a Muslim government that believes in Islam is going to implement it. So there is no question of asking for penal law to be introduced here in the UK – that is out of the question.”
Despite this, Dr Hasan is open in supporting the severe punishments meted out in countries where sharia law governs the country.
“Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society.
“This is why in Saudi Arabia, for example, where these measures are implemented, the crime rate is very, very, low,” he told The Sunday Telegraph.
In a documentary to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled Divorce: Sharia Style, Dr Hasan goes further, advocating a sharia system for Britain. “If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief’s hand is cut off nobody is going to steal,” he says.
“Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.
“We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don’t accept it they’ll need more and more prisons.”
This is precisely what I mean about the mindless Left in the Western world. They are too busy hating civilization and the Christian foundations in it that they wilfully refuse to recognize that the new kids on the block are really hot for things they find repulsive.
Chopping off hands, flogging drunks, stoning adulterers?
Yeah. I can see how the CHRC and Sharia bleeeeend, don’t you? Then again, there’s always a silver lining in a cloud.
I mean, it’s generally not conservatives who get piss drunk or drop their pants at the slightest inclination. Maybe this Sharia is just what the doctor ordered, after all?
In fact, maybe we conservatives should join the Islamicists and push it through. After all, for the most part, it’s not our lifestyle that will be cramped. A small adjustment here and there, for sure, but look at the tsunami that’s gonna hit the Left. Oooh boy, now that’s entertainment!
Ms. McGovern’s business card said she was a “Human Rights Officer.” What a perfectly Orwellian title.
Early in her interrogation, she said “I always ask people … what was your intent and purpose of your article?”
It wasn’t even a question about what we had published in the magazine. It was a question about my private thoughts. I asked her why my private feelings were of interest to the government. She said, very calmly, that they would be a factor taken into account by the government in determining whether or not I was guilty.
Officer McGovern said it as calmly as if I had asked her what time it was.
When she’s doing government interrogations, she always asks people about their thoughts.
It was so banal, so routine. When she walked in, she seemed happy. With a smile, she reached out her hand to shake mine. I refused — to me, nothing could have been more incongruous. Would I warmly greet a police officer who arrested me as a suspect in a crime? Then why should I do so for a thought crime? This was not normal; I would not normalize it with the pleasantries of polite society.
Excellent article by Ezra in today’s Globe & Mail (finally some coverage in the left wing rags). This whole handshake thing is really quite amazing. It just goes to show how completely corrupt and idiotic the HRCs have become.
Good morning. I’m here to inTerrorgate you about your thoughts and speech. For this investigation, you no doubt have spent thousands of dollars already and you will spend thousands of dollars in the future. When you lose (as is the case with 100% of our victims), we will fine you even thousands of dollars more. We hope that the stress on your family and defamation against your character will ensure you never ever think or say anything politically incorrect again – at least against Islam or homosexuality.
Will that be coffee or tea?
Even when we are being thugs, Canadians are so polite.
Vatican, Jan. 21, 2008 (CWNews.com) – A crowd of about 200,000 people assembled in St. Peter’s Square for the regular papal Sunday audience on January 20, in a massive show of support for Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news).
After the Pontiff cancelled a scheduled appearance at La Sapienza university on January 17, due to noisy public protests, Cardinal Camillo Ruini (bio – news)suggested that Catholics in Rome should attend the regular Angelus audience to show solidarity with the Pontiff. The result was a full crowd in St. Peter’s Square, with many participants carrying signs and joining in chants to underline their support.
Pope Benedict was repeatedly interrupted by applause as he addressed the crowd, particularly when he spoke about his plans to speak at La Sapienza and his lifelong commitment to freedom of academic inquiry. At one point the crowd, taking up the Pope’s argument, joined in a chant of “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!”
The Pope thanked the crowd for showing its commitment to “a more fraternal and tolerant society.” He remarked that although his appearance at La Sapienza was rendered “inappropriate” by the protests, he remained dedicated to “frank and respectful dialogue between different points of view.” Speaking directly to the many students and professors who were in the crowd, the Pontiff urged them “always to be respectful of the opinions of others and to seek truth and goodness with a free and responsible spirit.”
The Sunday event was relayed by an audio-visual signal to another large crowd in Milan, where another large crowd– estimated at about 10,000– watched the Angelus audience on a large video screen.
At the Vatican, the large crowd included a noteworthy collection of Italian political leaders, including deputy prime minister Francesco Rutelli, Rome’s Rome’s deputy mayor Mariapia Garavaglia, and Senate member Paola Binetti. Also present were former justice minister Clemente Mastella, the leader of Italy’s Christian Democrats, Pier Ferdinando Casini, former prime minister Giulio Andreotti, and former president Francesco Cossiga.