Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« A classic case of media bias | Main | Sunday Propaganda »

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Hezbollah flag at Calgary war memorial

Video taken at last weekend’s anti-war protest in Calgary showing a women wrapped in a Hezbollah flag leading the parade to the cenotaph in Central Memorial Park where she was one of the key speakers. It should be noted that the Royal Canadian Legion held a wreath laying ceremony at the same place this June. I wonder what they would think of this?

Thanks to Richard at Let Freedom Reign for the video. It is interesting to note that the activists who organized the event left these scenes out of their own pictures. (c/p)

Posted by Darcey on August 20, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hezbollah flag at Calgary war memorial:


I walk by that cenotaph every day and not a single one passes by without me giving a thought for all that has been done by my fellow countrymen for the sake of my freedom. To see that revolting young women drape a Hezbollah flag about herself afer all those sacrifices have been made on her behalf is nothing short of heinous.

Posted by: Rob Huck | 2006-08-20 11:37:32 AM

Just bear in mind that the majority of these so-called anti-war activists are nothing but a bunch of anarchists using the protest as a vehicle to get their hate-filled messages across.

Obviously this woman knew full well that displaying the flag would create controversy. That's why she did what she did. A child in need of attention. Chances are she doesn't even know who Hezbollah is. Or cares,just as long as she gets the attention she thinks she deserves.

You will no doubt find her at the next "protest of the week" waving some other equally objectionable sign or flag.

Disgusting but inevitable.

Posted by: Ralph | 2006-08-20 12:00:21 PM

I wish I could have gotten the name of the NDP speaker that was there. They shared the spotlight.

Posted by: Darcey | 2006-08-20 12:04:00 PM

The real irony is that a Canadian muslim terrorists demands peace at some other place of the world. This is typical of muslim terrorists when they, or their favorite terror groups are getting beaten.
Oddly enough this same terrorist did not come out demanding peace as long as her favorite terror group was preparing for war against Israel. How could that be when she is sooooo concerned about peace? (Or is she concerned about piece; today Israel, tomorrow Canada?)

If she and the rest of the Canadian muslim terrorists are so preoccupied by things that happen in their former home countries, why don't they move back there and stay there forever?
We do not need terrorists in this country.

Madyar Dyaerec

Posted by: Madyardaerec | 2006-08-20 12:21:25 PM

I really think that people who show themselves to be terrorist sympathizers such as this fool, should beaten to death by outraged citizens.

A tad harsh you say?

Well consider what it is the terrorists are trying to do to you and your kids and your mom an dad and your cousins and brothers and sisters ...

Don't know for sure? Well I'll tell you ...



This sympathizer and all the NDP and many Liberals are in their camp rooting for them and thereby wishing death to us. They don't understand the nature of our enemy so they act out of ignrorance and stupidity, but that is no excuse.

This sounds simple and scary doesn't it?

Well that's because the truth usually is simple and often scary ... that is why it is so unpopular.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 1:43:27 PM

What I don't understand is why people in Canada, who display Hezbollah flags or threats aren't arrested. Hezbollah is an illegal terrorist organization in Canada, so why are its supporters given free reign to sport the "insignia" of said illegal group?

Our law enforcement officers have become such wimps--all because of our Charter of Rights courts, who give lawbreakers more rights than either law-abiding citizens or victims of crime--that I'm not sure anyone in Canada is safe anymore.

The world's turned upside down. What is good is deemed bad and what is bad is deemed good, or at least isn't discouraged. In our rush to be "open," "tolerant," "sensitive," and "diverse" we've just become bl**dy fools.

"The law is an ass." That's for darned sure.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-08-20 1:53:52 PM

"I really think that people who show themselves to be terrorist sympathizers such as this fool, should beaten to death by outraged citizens."

I am beginning to suspect that this kind of thing represents the true face of the Right.

Posted by: probablywontbeback | 2006-08-20 1:57:50 PM

If you aren't a conservative, probablywontbeback,
you're probably lying. You also probably don't have two synapsis to rub together to keep each other warm in that empty brain pan of yours if you think one commenter represents everone else.

You'll also probably be back under another nic you collectivist twirp.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 2:11:54 PM

I'm not basing it on a single comment but on a pattern I've observed on a number of right wing blogs. This was just one of many. Your comment is another.

ps I may check back a few more times today.

Posted by: probablywontbeback | 2006-08-20 2:17:19 PM

Since you're reading this live, probablywontbeback, you should know that there is no real 'Right', but rather that conservatives represent the rights of the individual while socialists represent the power of the collectivist state.

I think Duke meant that since the state's first responsibility is the security and protection of it's citizens and Hizb'allah supporters represent a terrorist threat to us as citizens, that if the state fails to take action that some of us are eventually going to.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 2:26:28 PM

Why aren't more real Canadians more militant regarding the sympathizers of banned Terrorist groups? The problem we have now is not only coming from extremist Muslim/Islamic men, they are being well fortified, (by force?)by mouthy,obnoxious women who parade, weep and wail on cue and regularly call talk shows. At this point, we don't need these people in our country to continue to safely fight their causes of evil at great expense, socially and economically. Appearing with terrorist flags and all the evil that stands for should be swiftly dealt with. They are not only misfits in our country, they are misfits in the Human Race.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-08-20 2:33:24 PM

I should have mentioned that another consideration is how seldom other commentators object to 'disturbing' statements made by their (apparent) ideological allies. In fact, it appears that a number of people here view Duke's comment sympathetically.

Speller, are you saying that conservatives - I'm happy to use that term, if that's the preference of the people I am talking about - are going to go around beating people to death?

Liz J, what about people with a Cuban or Venezuelan flag or a Che t-shirt or a red flag. Should they be beaten to death, too?

(I am changing my nickname since I have now been back twice!)

Posted by: backagain | 2006-08-20 2:46:24 PM

"but rather that conservatives represent the rights of the individual"

Except for some who would suggest an illegal act of beating someone for an expression that disgusts that conservative.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 2:48:56 PM

Only trolls change their nics.
How many times have you commented under other nics, troll.

I not only view Duke's comment sympathetically I view your condemnation of Duke's comment, isolated as it is from a condemnation of the Hizb'allah supporter, as your support for Hizb'allah too.
You are, after all, a collectivist.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 2:57:10 PM

Well, I did announce that I was changing my nic and I did it in the interests of honesty and accuracy but I'll go back to the original one if you like.

"I not only view Duke's comment sympathetically I view your condemnation of Duke's comment, isolated as it is from a condemnation of the Hizb'allah supporter, as your support for Hizb'allah too. You are, after all, a collectivist."

So you think I should be beaten to death.

Posted by: backagain(was probablywontbeback) | 2006-08-20 3:05:42 PM

Are you a Hizb'allah supporter?

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-20 3:09:38 PM

No point or need to give these moonbat trolls any reply. They are attention-seekers with nothing intelligent to ad.

While I agree that most of these agitators are full-time nuts travelling to any opportunity to protest, the fact remains that Hizbollah is an outlawed terrorist organization. Such people should at the very least be brought in for serious questioning and kept under close surveillance.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-20 3:32:33 PM

Parading a Hezbollah flag around that Cenotaph is extremely disrespectful. Why not use a Swastika flag while they're at it!

If Hezbollah is banned under Canadian law then carrying that flag should be a crime as well.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-08-20 4:37:04 PM

People who think that: "another consideration is how seldom other commentators object to 'disturbing' statements made by their ideological allies" obviously haven't been around here for long, or they would have run into me by now, and then they would know better ;-)

Freedom of expression (in the sense of wearing a flag in public) is a compound issue, because expression is defined as (among other things) "the manner in which one expresses oneself, especially in speaking, depicting, or performing." Thus, when one refers to freedom of expression, one is referring to the disjunction: freedom of speaking, freedom of depicting, or freedom of performing.

So, for example, I am free to speak something like "I feel like punching you in the nose, but I won't". I am not free to perform punching you in the nose (except in self defense, of course).

The problematic part is what if I speak "I feel like punching you in the nose", and I don't add "but I won't". At what point does that become a credible threat, in the sense that you are then justified in performing punching me in the nose first, in self defense?

In my opinion, the point at which my speaking becomes a credible threat to your ability to exercise your like freedom is the point at which a free (but not anarchic) citizenry can legitimately impose state sanctions against such speaking.

The case of the flag of Hezbollah, in Canada, is a poignant one, when it comes to matters of free expression, precisely because Hezbollah the organization has been explicitly proscribed in Canada. To the degree that such proscription was due to their posing a credible treat to our ability to exercise our freedoms, I think that a free citizenry can legitimately impose state sanctions against such expression.

But, personally, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to go ahead and proscribe something (if need really be) but then let people agitate for it anyway. In the best case, the activists may be correct; in the worst case at least we have the bad guy's names. I fail to see how it would necessarily be better to force anyone underground. That just makes it worse.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-20 4:48:33 PM

Probably won't be back ... promises promises.

Go and carry an israeli flag in Iran, iraq, Syria, lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc ...

I guarantee you will be beaten to death immediately and not only by the men, but the women too.

Naivity your name is "Leftie"

Someone tell me what "STAND ON GUARD FOR THEE" means ... please.

I didn't say stand an appease now ... just incase you aren't sure.

Unless and until we start letting the average muslim and their leftist sympathizers know that they won't be tolerated, we stand to lose this world war.

I may not represent the mindset of the average rightest since many of them are still struggling to shake off the effects of Political correctness forces upon them by forty years of moonbattery in government, but slowly the tide is turning.

I might simply be riding point.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 5:10:59 PM

I don't want to see women wearing big black sacks in my country and don't want to see hoards of unemployed bearded angry men wandering around the streets of our major cities.

This is Canada. I want to see people who like hockey, baseball, motorcycles, chicks, nudity, freedom, parties, beer and funky music. There is more, but you get the picture.

Assimilate or go back to the scum hole you fled from.

Assimilation ... it's time has come. We must insist. Native indians need to do the same.

I was taught in school .. when they actually taught stuff, that a country was comprised of like-minded people who shared a common culture, language and customs.

Canada is no longer a country. I want it back.

If there is a hell, I hope Pierre Trudeau is burning in it right now .. that f**cking bastard.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 5:16:55 PM

Some questions are so off the mark and typical they do not deserve reply. Some need to get their heads sorted and join the real world. It's the leftist ideology which has given rise to such dangerous proliferation of the evil spawned in cultures with which we share no history in our evolvement as a Country. To hell with political correctness, call a spade a spade. It's tiresome having to look at people who do not wish to blend with our society, out stomping our streets telling us how to run our Country. They are here in body and their spirit is still fighting the causes they left to come to the safety and comfort of Canada and other Western Democracies. It's impossible, in fact stupid in the extreme to sympathize with those who hate us and wish to disrupt our lives and ultimately eliminate us.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-08-20 5:21:44 PM

Duke: You have it right on Pierre Trudeau. It's his handy work called Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Multiculturalism, both of which have, and are, taking our country to the abyss. He was highly over-rated in all categories as a Prime Minister. He was the ultimate Prima Donna and an outright prig.
Our country would never have formed without assimilation. Trudeau's Multiculturalism fiasco is taking it apart. He has ensured Quebec will remain a monoculture and bastardized the ROC to deal with an assortment of divided cultures enabled and funded to ghettoize.

Oh Canada, who stands on guard for thee?

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-08-20 5:48:44 PM

In her book, The Trouble With Islam, Irshad Manji points out the Arabic word for virgin is the same as raisin.

So, when the jihadist (see how specific that word is and how it cannot possibly be mistaken as bigotry toward all Muslims) recruiter promises the sexuallly-frustrated 15-years old 72 virgins, what does that promise mean?

Dark-eyed raisins? Could well be.

In the dark, that could be all the pimply-faced kid sees. when they turn on the lights ... surprise, 72 raisins.

Now, eat up. Yummy, yummy.

So what if Manji's a self-proclaimed dyke? I like women, too.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 5:54:57 PM

I will personally supply up to 100 raisins to each pimply face mulsim kid to blow himself up in his own house.

Yummy Yummy put C4 on your tummy
say good-bye to your daddy and bye to your mummy
blow up real good in your own neigborhood
leave the rest of us have lives that are good.


Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 6:18:03 PM

I like it.

A bidding war.

We're now up to a 100 raisins, pimply-faced Muslim kids.

Do I hear any takers?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 6:21:44 PM

The problem isn't so much people who wave Hezbollah flags -- those people are just harbingers of a much bigger problem coming down the pipes -- as from the cultural mainstreaming of of sub or pre-revolutionary culture and language.

The language of the left, centered around struggle and oppression and the self-reporting thereof has been appropriated by such a variety of concerns that we're losing the ability to describe reality. Consider the utter, real-world, factual difference between Joe Hill and, oh, a NYC teamster, then notice how the distinction between the two is effectively removed by a unified unionist language of struggle. This paint-shaker language tactic by those who fight for "the people" takes a lot more with it than just words; it removes meaning and our ability to reason with each other within our society. For example, note how flag-wavers who in effect -- yet with zero accountability -- back violent, misogynistic theists who never stop telling us that they wish to destroy Israel and murder Jews manage to protect such blights by simply placing them under the rubric of "the oppressed". Enemies of civilization and peace are portrayed by the broad soft left as victims of colonialism and capitalism and Zionism and corprate greed etc etc who, based on those most certain words, must be supported in their valiant struggle.

That particular type of language becomes a shield that protects more that just terrorist flag-wavers; when prominent politicians participate in rallies where the flag of a known terrorist organization calling for race-based genocide is flown, that's a pretty good hint that what we are facing is not a law-enforcement issue pertaining to the arrest of a few flag-waving whack-jobs, but a long hard social/political/cultural battle which has no assured outcome. One of the pivotal battles along the way will involve the fight to keep in common -- including broadcast and published -- use such words as "genocide" and "terrorist".

I'm sure the Legion members would have some strong opinions on the human display at the Calgary War Memorial; unfortunately, their language is out-of-date...

Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-20 6:51:46 PM

Two scoops of raisins might be a start.

Call it the Raisin Revolution, Raisin Hell, Raisin Issues.

The important thing is all-raisin, all the time.

There's no raisin not to.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 6:59:43 PM

Very well articulated EBD. Indeed the Hizbollah flag incident is only another symptom of the deadly sickness now prevalent throughout the free world, and we are dying from it. Losing our moral compass; being unable to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil; we have lost even the will to defend ourselves, the will to survive.

Still any hope of regaining our sanity can only be won one step at a time. I believe that dealing with anyone here who openly flaunts and supports outlawed terrorist groups would be one small (very small yes) step in the right direction.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-20 7:21:23 PM

Why not have some fun? Why not get some Jihadist kid and tell him the new rules are he gets the first virgin before he blows up then sub her with a hot hooker.

That outa blow his mind and maybe calm him down a little.

Then tell him there is more of that avaiable if he wants to stick around on the planet.

I am think that if we sent in an army of hookers we could win this think over night.

These muzzie teens and twenty somethings NEVER GET LAID!

That's the real problem with them.

The problem with the older jihadists who are encouraging them to go blow up a Jew, is that they have had sex with their sack-bagged vigins women right at home in the old tent and figure that it might be better to spare the young lads this enormous disappointment.

hey .. I'm just messin with ya.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 8:04:23 PM

Sorry about all the typos. I really should edit my comments.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 8:06:13 PM

Seems similar to the tactic used by Mormons ... run off the young studs so you can have the hot chicks for yourself.

But the older jihadists go one better ... when the young rubes blow themselves up, they'll never have to see those guys again while they're stickin' the business to one of the four wives they're allowed.

It's called takin' care of the competition.

And, after the deed is done, the guy who's alive grabs a bowl of raisins ...

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 8:08:06 PM

"I am think that if we sent in an army of hookers we could win this think over night.

These muzzie teens and twenty somethings NEVER GET LAID!"

Now you're talking, Duke. Seriously. Now apply this to free trade. Encourage free trade with any and all, unregulated by government gangs. Any government gang because all gangs have their own political agendas.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:11:39 PM


Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 8:14:47 PM

You have a problem understanding the concept of free trade, "Set you free?"

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:26:58 PM

A small thing we can do to fight back is to question the organizers and speakers of the event. We can ask them the pointed question, "Do you support Hezbollah." No? "Then why did you not ask them to leave the 'peace rally'." Simple. Watch them squerm. Don't let them say they weren't aware, that would be a ridiculous lie. Support the Palestine cause all you want. You disagree with Israels policies, speak up. But to turn a blind eye, therefore condone a terrorist organization, shows support to me. Now can someone find out who was there speaking for what group? I'm especially interested in the Iman who spoke about 'acceptance' and 'love thy neighbour' stuff while facing, twenty feet away, the Hezbollah flag. What else is taught at the mosque? I'd love to hear Rutherford and Breakenridge (Calgary talk show hosts) have a go at these appeasers. Lets find out who these 'usefull idiots' are.

Posted by: Bruce | 2006-08-20 8:31:50 PM

No. Do you?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 8:31:54 PM

No, "Set you free," I don't have a problem understanding free trade. What do you think it means?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:35:10 PM

I asked first.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 8:39:29 PM

You didn't ask a damn thing. Scroll back. Your comment is "huh?"

That's not a specific question.

Free trade is the ability for any person to trade with any person anywhere, and for whatever value the consenting parties to the trade agree to.

It is ungregulated trade.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:44:52 PM

You think?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 8:47:32 PM

You think otherwise?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 8:52:51 PM

Sounds close enough.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 8:57:02 PM

Good. Now explain your "huh?" question.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 9:13:55 PM

"a bunch of anarchists using the protest as a vehicle to get their hate-filled messages across."

Anarchists that I know are very passionate about what they love - freedom and freedom from gang rule.

The anarchists that I know wouldn't be draping themselves in any flag - except perhaps the Gadsden Flag.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 9:18:30 PM

The answer's been given.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 9:18:34 PM

"The answer's been given."

By you? I don't see anything above, in this thread, SYF. Would you point me to your answer?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-20 9:19:48 PM

Wow, Ian & SYF, this is *great*. You don't often see people taking such a big noisy crap on a website without any shame.

BTW, Ian, how's the drinking?

Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-20 9:30:14 PM


Thanks for noticing.

There's a certain satisfaction visualizing Ian getting more and more angry and frustrated with each post.

I learned this technique from the Qur'an.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 9:36:59 PM

I disagree with EBD's assertion to the effect that "you don't often see people taking such a big noisy crap on a website without any shame". I think we see that quite often. Indeed, I think that there are a half-dozen people who do nothing but that here at the Shotgun. Never mind the more minor cases of crapping on web sites, such as alluding to someone's ethanolization when one doesn't agree with them. That's why I always stay behind the fan ;-)

I do think that was an interesting rhetorical experiment, SYF. Discovering an effective technique in cases like this is difficult at best, especially when de-welcoming is proscribed, and the problem continues. All too often many of the most rational, intelligent, reasonable folks just give up and wander away, leaving all the heavy lifting to the few of us who value Ezra's free-speech experiment, have a sense of how to behave in public, and have a sense of perseverance that goes beyond casual laziness.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-21 4:40:02 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.