The Shotgun Blog
« Syed Soharwardy will withdraw complaint from AHRCC | Main | Early morning music »
Sunday, December 23, 2007
On my apology to Syed Soharwardy
Dear Western Standard readers,
On the matter of my apology to Syed Soharwardy, I plan to privately respond to every comment made directly to me about this.
In the interim, let me start by saying that I purchased the Western Standard website when no other buyers appeared. I did this to ensure that our independent voice would not disappear entirely when the magazine was forced to shut down.
I hired an editor who was a senior writer with the Alberta Report and the Western Standard. I did this so that the conservative voice of the Western Standard would not be lost during this ownership and format change.
I was a co-founder of the Western Standard and I want this product to survive and succeed with its independent, conservative editorial voice intact. I believe this conservative voice can, and did, exist alongside a classical liberal one.
The comments that prompted the human rights complaint appeared on an un-moderated blog, posted anonymously by someone who was not a Western Standard staffer or freelancer. I removed the comments when they were brought to my attention as they were offensive and did nothing to advance genuine discussion or enhance the reputation of the Western Standard. And I apologized to Syed Soharwardy as I am ultimately responsible for comments made on this forum, and, again, those comments were indefensible.
Just as the Western Standard magazine content was edited, the Western Standard website content will be edited. We simply want to provide our readers and advertisers with the best product we can.
Moderating the comments on our website will also protect the Western Standard from unfair attacks. For example, as online reader "OBC" noted, tonight we were forced to ban an IP address with 6 user names. This individual was actively working to discredit the Western Standard with anti-Semitic and racists comments that would never have come from any of the thousands of thoughtful readers who visit us online. I removed the comments and reported the IP address to our webmaster.
I’ll defend Western Standard editorial decisions, but not the unmoderated comments intended to hurt the Western Standard and unfairly discredit our editorial agenda.
For those worried that this new oversight is a slippery slope toward further self-censorship, I’m counting on your participation on this website to keep us on track and fiercely independent.
If you have any questions about my decision, feel free to post a comment or email me at [email protected].
Posted by westernstandard on December 23, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On my apology to Syed Soharwardy:
If you folks want to see who TRULY owes us Canadians an apology, read this:
YEAH - AS IF THAT'S EVER GOING TO HAPPEN!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-23 5:44:18 AM
Matthew, you're absolutely right to moderate comments, you've explained it well.
A forum like this will soon fall if it allows libelous slander which is not in the realm of freedom of speech.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-23 5:59:57 AM
You certainly have my support and that our of partners who occasionally comment on the Shotgun
-the "Gun" is the only medium for Conservative opinions in most of Canada. The Western Standard was founded in the best interest of freedom of the press in Canada -as advocated by that great Nova Scotian Joseph Howe. Sad to me having worked on the newspapers founded by Howe as a teenager, to see what most Canadian Media has become with the notable exception of the Sun Newspapers. MacLeod extending best wishes and continued success
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-12-23 6:04:13 AM
The CBC has been outed for some time, OBC.
It's a big price to pay to pay a non-elected body to act as an opposition to the government by skewing the facts to manipulate opinion.
It's more dangerous in a democracy, they're free to do it. In a dictatorship, they'd be forced to spout the government line.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-23 6:41:04 AM
"with the notable exception of the Sun Newspapers"
. . . and they are also beginning to tilt just a wee bit - at a time.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-23 7:09:31 AM
Liz J ~
Yes, but the fact that taxpayers pay for their bias is galling. They must be shut down - or, better yet, sold to private enterprise. THEN we'll see how long they stay solvent.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-23 7:11:47 AM
Did it really take a complaint to a HRC to deal with this? Why not a simple letter to the blog owner? To get the publicity, of course, for intimidation, a little further boost to self-censorship perhaps?
That the HRCs allow this is good reason to dismantle them.
Posted by: Hank | 2007-12-23 7:32:35 AM
I understand the logic of not being able to defend what you don't say (unmoderated comments), but still apologizing to Syed Soharwardy sticks in my craw. He and his narrow-minded cronies would see the end of a free press if they had their way, and they appear to be on course to getting it.
Posted by: Frank Hilliard | 2007-12-23 8:17:02 AM
You should not have apologized, period. As I said yesterday the only way to out these people and their agenda is to let Canadians see what they are up to, and airing these frivolous complaints is one way to do it. Elmasry can incite violence against Jews and carry on as if nothing happened, here we are apologizing for some anonymous comments. A victory for the "religion of peace."
If this site is now the only medium for a conservative view, all I can say is heaven help us. Why don't you just call it, Western Standard, Home of the "Progressive Conservative" view.
Posted by: MikeP | 2007-12-23 8:36:22 AM
Frank, you have a strong point. It's the old fine line again.
We have to hope the court of public opinion will be the one that wins the day from facts presented in truth and fairness, free from slander which is fodder for continuing the hatred it spews.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-23 8:42:07 AM
I would not remove ANY comment made by anyone no matter what the content or ignorance or bias or even mere swearing and cussing and raving.
I WOULD handle such matters differently from normal comments (especially the merely ranting and swearing and cussing).
Instead of removing or deleting such comments that were "offensive" (to me, the only such comments would be those which just took up space and were devoid of IDEAS rather than just swear words, say, repeated over and over by an idiot). I would just cut and paste such drivel over to ongoing threads entitled: "Cussing & Swearing" and "Racial Bigotry" and "Religious Bigotry" and "Sexist Bigotry" and "Libelous Remarks".
I would separate out those comments into clumps by date and then I would number each comment in order received (hopefully there is automated software to hand things easily).
Then anyone who posted something the blog owner didn't view as protected "Free Speech" (which is all of our objective in free societies), the comment could be cut and pasted off the basic discussion thread.
This method would allow the "offender" to return and state his case to defend his speech, and with an easy means of citing or referencing exactly what he had said (presumably in a manner which could remain on the basic thread of discussion).
I think that your capitulation to a speech muzzler from the thought police is a CATASTROPHE.
I personally WANT to see all of the "thinking" which my fellow posters care to vent.
If someone makes an idiotic or immature or nasty comment then it seems quite likely and quite possible that he will get an opportunity to learn how the world reacts to that, while it is still just words rather than ACTIONS.
My personal advice to my own children (which I follow as well) is that: "If you don't know how to pronounce a word, say it LOUD, and someone will probably correct you, and you will learn from your mistake."
Don't muzzle and stifle "speech" even stupid or vile speech. Note it and segregate it (so as not to clutter up the pages) but just move along. You could even set up a separate thread entitled "Peoples Court" for "litigating" such "cases" among those (immortals, i.e. without time constraints) inclined to argue the specific point.
Anyone who has failed to make a mistake or say something stupid or that they regret should merely levitate directly into Heaven (without detonating the suicide bomb).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-23 9:41:10 AM
Sowahardy has won a small victory. Now,I feel that I have someone looking over my shoulder as I type. Of course,all these comments are being read by him or one of his cohorts,scrutinizing for anything that will outrage or offend. If I mention that his use of the HRC is a sign of creeping islamification of Canada,a red flag will go up in their eyes. Will Phil Fontaine be watching for subtle racism against natives? Mr. Fontaine is demanding an apology from the NHL because they said Chris Simon may be seeking help for substance abuse problems. Will Andrea Dworkin be watching for slights directed towards women or fat male hating lesbians? Oops,theres one. Maybe it would be best to delete this comment.... I agree that anonymous comments should not be allowed. But where do you draw the line on free speech? I am sometimes abrasive and offensive,really, but I believe that my comments are justified by actual events,such as this apology.If you go to any left-leaning forum it is quite easy to find comments comparing Bush/Harper to Hitler. This is extremely offensive to me ,but I do not run to the HRC with a complaint. If something is especially repugnant I may contact the moderator or I will go elsewhere. If everything that is written must pass the litmus test of the above mentioned censors,this site might as well just post pictures of puppy dogs and rainbows. Then again PETA will protest about the exclusion of mature mutts and who knows what Jesse Jackson will say about using rainbows. In closing,I will make my own decision whather to continue here,or I may take the route of a well-known media whore and go on a 48 hour hunger strike in protest. Oops.I did it again!!
Posted by: wallyj | 2007-12-23 9:55:04 AM
Apologizing was the smart thing to do. No defendant has ever won in the kangaroo courts known as HRCs and no defendant ever will - hurt feelings trump everything.
At minimum, the HRC will force an apology, so why pay the legal costs when losing is a foregone conclusion?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2007-12-23 9:56:14 AM
What a contradiction in terms - a forced apology.
Apologies are worthless at the best of times, but when they are forced they are simply a tool to humiliate. Like twisting your brothers arm till he tells you he's not as smart as you.
I only apologize when I make an honest mistake that causes damage I truly regret. Is that what happened here?
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-23 10:09:42 AM
Down here in America we have the long tradition of admiring true heros who we call our Founding Fathers.
That is a powerful force (pride and honor) in battles such as this.
It often seems lonely and worthless to fight for mere words and ideals.
But when you think of your effort in terms of Truth, which it is, and Honor and Pride of home and family and community and nation, ALL FREE from fear and maintained strong and free by each member pulling on an oar, moving the boat forward, it can keep you going.
The destructive forces among us have terrible plans which separate and eradicate our families and even end the concept of children. That is a total disconnect from the future, and those same advocates of destruction of the family are the UNION TEACHERS who cut off the connection with history (you almost cannot find an American History course in our universities anymore).
This is NOT accidental. You may very soon find out how valuable it might be to post anonymously.
Lest I neglect to deliver the complete message, it is Communism my friends, in the Democrat Party down here and all your Leftist "liberals" up there. Communism = Atheist, Socialist Totalitarianism.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-23 10:15:12 AM
Unmoderated comments are a recipe for disaster, so good on you for at least making it clear that some comments may be deleted. The threat has to be there, for self-censorship to help keep things decent.
You should study what Charles at LittleGreenFootballs does - full registration required to make comments, with registration only open at random intervals, and new registrations closely monitored. Prevents hit-and-run slanderers, and allows tracking and exposing of the lunatics. I believe Michelle Malkin has implemented a similar system as well.
As far as apologizing to bullies like Soharwardy, I don't think that was a great idea. Sharks who smell blood don't swim away if you toss them a little morsel.
Posted by: Neil Flagg | 2007-12-23 12:29:39 PM
There have been many “Holocausts” some of which have lasted many years, including the Spanish Inquisition and its persecution of women. I’m glad the Jewish people have made a big thing of it and I wish all the racist slurs could be filed under one website that contains the facts. In that way I can refer the ignorant individual to a site that will clarify it for the individual.
Removing the word “Christmas” from a song, writing G-D instead of God, removing the fourth or thirteenth floor from the elevators and pretend they don’t exist is too extreme for my liking. If there are people out there that think the I believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny then so be it. However, if they remove God from the schools then the must replace it with some type of ethics.
My pet peeve is someone who has been found not guilty of a crime, through insufficient evidence or a technicality, turns around and states that he was found innocent burns me to no end. A thief robs someone and then breaks his leg in the escape can sue the victim for damages is also going too far.
Posted by: rab | 2007-12-23 12:55:03 PM
A couple of points to address some of the previous comments on this string.
1. Yes, we are now aware that our comments are being monitored by others than the blog owner. This has a stiffening effect on free speech. We will see how this shakes out over time.
2. If one has a problem with someone, it is always best to take the problem directly to that person first. Often a debate or even confrontation will resolve it. No need to to call the cops over hurt feelings. That is childish.
3. I wish we could stop lumping Atheists in with socialists and progressives. Ayn Rand was atheist and was anything but a socialist. I am to the right of George Bush and I am Atheist. I am not anti religion. I believe we can co exist. Novel thought?
4. We rant a rail about how we want new-comers to assimilate and accept Canadian values. The problem is that we are not sure what those values are. We are a divided and polarized culture at this time. We have a cold war raging between our left and right. I was born here and I find it confusing and frustrating when I try to define what it is to be a Canadian at this time.
I knew exactly what it was back in the fifties and even the sixties, but now? It is a rats nest. Until we come to terms about who and what we are, we will continue to have the folly of Multiculturalism, progressivism eating away at our identity and values.
It seems at times that the Left is a cult where all values and no values are the only way. Yes that is an oxymoron. The left appears to want to accept all cultural values, but somehow cannot fit the American culture into that equation. They live as well and opulently as anyone else yet continue to complain about our excesses. I think they are very confused.
All cultures with their spicy food, costumes religions are fine, except for fast food eating Christians.
The right seems less problematic. They are more pragmatic in that they are want to simply live a free, prosperous life and invite all others to do the same. They may be a bit less accepting of the gay life-style, but that life-style can be a bit shocking to straights. That is not a prejudice, rather, it is human nature. Some of us were born into a hetro world and see that as the norm.
In the free society that was built on conservative values, the gay world has found freedom and advantage. What's the problem? They are gradually getting what they want. Perhaps if they tone down their in your face annual parades they will even do better.
I also believe that if the violent temperaments of some immigrants were calmed down they would feel more accepted and comfortable in Canada. Remember that part of being Canadian is to be somewhat bland.
I digress. Enough for now.
Merry Christmas all.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-23 2:51:04 PM
I think continuous monitoring of comments by moderators or allowing only moderated comments is the way to go. I have tried different approaches on my blog (with an average of 3,000 readers a day, you can imagine the kind of rubbish I get to read sometimes).
Since I work from home (freelance writer and translator), I can monitor incoming comments fairly easily and still allow unmoderated comments. I suppose it all depends on whether the WS/Shotgun has the manpower to monitor all new comments and delete undesirable ones in short order. If not, I suggest you switch to moderated comments, which makes feedback management really easy (both the Shotgun and I use the same blogging platform, Typepad).
Good luck with the new project.
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2007-12-23 3:09:58 PM
Almost forgot: there was a good article on comments by Dennis Prager.
I did not implement his suggestions in full on my blog, but I did implement them on my separate website for essays, editorials and feature articles, www.ideas-issues.com.
My comment policy for Ideas & Issues is as follows:
>>Readers who wish to comment, therefore, are requested to follow the standard requirements for letters-to-the-editor: (a) Provide your full name (first and last), (b) your location (city, country, etc.) and (c) a valid email address. Only your name and city will be published.
Anonymous comments, spam, insults, off-topic rants, etc. will be rejected.<<
You might want to consider this or some variation for the Shotgun and new WS site.
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2007-12-23 3:14:25 PM
John West -
Among your thoughtful comments was the hope that we could separate Atheism and Socialism, and you cited Ayn Rand as a non Socialist Atheist.
My comment, defining Communism = Atheist, Socialist Totalitarian, was intended to identify the enemy as other than an individual(s) but rather as an underlying philosophy.
Any individual during the course of a single day might well be Roman Catholic, Atheist, Jewish, and several other things. Thoughts travel through our heads rather quickly.
It is the philosophy of Totalitarian government which utterly stifles freedom (freedom of speech first, or at least ultimately, if you are to arrive at Totalitarian control).
The two forms of Totalitarian government with which we have become familiar, and which still linger in various places on this earth are Communism and Nazism. The points these two evil philosophies have in common are: Atheism, Socialism and Totalitarianism. I think "Communism" is more "popular" in the dark places of this earth presently, but the Nazi types in Venezuala and Iran are certainly local favorites of the Communist types of China and nastolgic Russia.
John West - It is difficult to develop and/or hold onto religious Faith. I think that any individual who holds to a religious Faith would readily admit that they sometimes (frequently?) question their beliefs and sometimes lose heart, etc. It is the human condition. I don't deprive anyone of their individual religious Faith or lack thereof.
In the Roman Catholic Faith, of which I am an adherent, we believe that God provides everyone with the ability to acquire Faith at some point in their life (this is a concept we call Grace). Just a peculiar idea that I thought I'd toss out, FYI.
But the institutional aggressive philosophical movements designed to remove individual freedoms have Atheism as one of the "pillars" of their "Faith."
In Canada you have a big population (seemingly) of Atheists. In Canada you have (seemingly) a big helping of Socialism. In Canada you are presently contending with "thought control" muzzling of free speech, by GOVERNMENTAL entities, AKA Totalitarianism.
As G. K. Chesterton explained, when people stop believing in God, it is not that they stop believing in something, rather they start believing in anything. (I'm half-assed "quoting" from my poor memory).
In Canada you are (John West) demonstating the willingness to "believe" in anything, by willingly accomodating homosexuality and homosexual "lifestyle" as "normal" rather than recognizing it as an unfortunate mental illness, which is not normal or beneficial at all.
No one seems able to "argue" that point, instead, it "must be" unspoken, it can't even be espressed, because it's not "bland"?
You are fully two thirds of the way into the hands of Communism, and proud of it. And the one third remaining, you are willing to go more than "half way" to apologize and then "monitor" in order to be "friends" or something.
Gosh. America needs a friend on our five thousand mile northern border, but not one without any guts or beliefs.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-23 4:19:26 PM
Censorship is just the tactic; self-censorship is the goal.
It has been pointed out to me that http://www.cic.ca/ is the Catholic Immigration Centre ... so, is not owning the cic.ca domain an affront to Islam worthy of a HRC complaint?
Does any one have statistics on any of the HRCs along the lines of
- complaints filed
- complaints accepted
- complaints in favor of complainer
- complaints dismissed by HRC
- complaints withdrawn by complainer.
Posted by: Hank | 2007-12-23 4:22:39 PM
Understood Matthew. Best wishes in the new Shotgun venture. In case you missed them, I commented previously some thoughts on the matter of the nature and properties of the new Shotgun here (and following): http://tinyurl.com/227h2v and here: http://tinyurl.com/2rqhmf
If you wish to discuss this with me further, by mail, I can be reached via gmail to vitruvius2
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-12-23 4:34:35 PM
I used to like this blog and it was a daily reader. I even commented from time to time.
Just like Kinsellas blog you have now become irrelevant.
At least Ezra had guts.
Posted by: Horny Toad | 2007-12-23 4:50:58 PM
Homosexuality used to be the "Love that could not speak its name."
Now, it's the love that won't shut up. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-23 4:56:36 PM
Contrary to popular belief in Canada we do not have the right to free.
What is done is done. You have apologised for something you didn't say, but felt some responsibility for, good for you.
I hope in the future the HRC will start holding Mr. Elmsary and his hatemongers to the same standards. If they do Canada will benefit. If they do not, we will diminish as a country.
Good luck in your new venture.
Posted by: Paul | 2007-12-23 4:56:59 PM
Conrad, I appreciate your comments.
Re the accepting of the Gay life-style and collectivism. I was referring to Canadian societies growing acceptance of it, not mine. I don't accept it and never will. I think is is unnatural and grotesque. However, there are bigger fish to fry in our world today, so I am not going to war with gays. I just try to ignore them. I will fight the collectivists to the death.
I too was raised Roman Catholic and spent my childhood in dire fear of dying in sin and going to hell. I spent more time in the state of guilt than the state of grace because I have a human nature. At age fourteen I started to reason that if a loving god actually gave us our nature, why were his agents here on earth working so hard to make us deny it. The nuns and priest who taught me scared the crap out of me daily. That is not the way to raise kids.
Next thing that happened was, I developed in interest in astronomy. After coming to realize tha layout and size of the universe I was convinced based on pure logic and reason that this was not created as a back-drop for the likes of us. There was more to it than that simple explanation.
I am compelled by my nature to NOT believe in supernatural phenomena, nor do I believe in luck, ghosts or magic. I am aware that part of human nature is to believe in such things so I accept that, for most people, this is how they get through their lives. To deny them that right is to deny their human nature.
When you discuss the megalomaniacs who wish to subjugate their populations, I understand that religion poses competition to that end. Those people with the ambition to attempt such a thing cannot be anything less than psychopaths.
Something I do believe is that with great ambition comes great ego and psychopathy. They work together, they need each other. They are tools to that success. That is why so many of us throughout history have been ruled by, or worked for those kinds of people. They are the ones who always seek power over others.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-23 5:01:02 PM
Well, Paul, it's up to us to complain to HRC each and every time we hear hate being preached by the likes of Elmasry, problem is will it matter?
He and his ilk have been called on their remarks in the past but they somehow are not considered to be as serious as what might come from others not of their particular 'culture'.
That's just the way our Charter and Multi-culture Bills are being interpreted.
Anyone can come here and crap all over us, we are supposed to jump up, brush it off and bow and say sorry you feel that way, we apologize, we will change to accommodate all the hate you toss at us.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-23 5:29:36 PM
John West -
Thanks for your clarification and additional insight regrading your thinking.
I focus so heavily upon the homosexuality issue because it ultimately - quickly creates an attack upon the natural human family (as does Abortion and Feminism).
And the natural human family is the obvious basis for human society, and culture and freedoms, etc.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-23 5:31:14 PM
It might cheer you up to know that I am with you on feminism and abortion as well.
I have traditional values. They are the ones that got us the great society that so many are trashing these days. If they happen to succeed they will really regret it .
I hate to toss fuel on the fire, but here is another grand reason to shun the gay life-style. Those people are shameless, crude and rude.
I found this link on Kathy Saidle's site (five feet of fury) yesterday and I am still trying to get over it.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-23 5:40:10 PM
There is an accomodation to evil inherent in Leftist, "liberal," atheist, and similar related philosophical positions. We all recognize as human beings that it is always easier (seemingly and shortsightedly) to do other than that which is right. There has never been a lie that did not "benefit" the liar.
Our codification of beliefs, i.e. our laws, our government, must hold onto the good and reject evil, and all of that "construction" must be subordinate to "Natural Law" (or God, or however else you can characterize Truth) in order to enduringly protect us for today and tomorrow.
The attempt to have a soft friendly GOVERNMENT is the mistake that ushers evil in through the back door. The new 10,000 page or 100,000 page "Constitution" for Europe is a perfect example of lots of phony "rights" but nothing Good.
I'm truly afraid that you folks in Canada will lose your freedom, through your grave concern for the tender feelings of homosexuals and girls.
This is a terrible threat to America.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-23 6:26:02 PM
Let me be among the first to request a US liberation force be sent in here to reform our political system and set us all free. If you can do it in the Middle East, Canada should be a piece of cake.
Most of us are not armed and we are soft and lazy.
So y'all come on down ... or up as the map dictates.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-23 6:49:19 PM
Not quite an apology but moving in the right direction:
"One of Al Qaeda's senior theologians is calling on his followers to end their military jihad and saying the attacks of September 11, 2001, were a "catastrophe for all Muslims." "
Full story here:
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-12-23 7:36:03 PM
Liz- if by complaining you mean that a formal complaint should be made to the appropriate HRC, I agree. Its the old story of clogging up the courts. One can hope that government will see what a farce these commissions have become.
Posted by: DML | 2007-12-23 11:16:00 PM
I would like to kiss and make up with Elmasary.
He can start by kissing my skinny white Presbyterian ass.
Posted by: epsilon | 2007-12-23 11:40:57 PM
I assume that will work only if he puts on the make-up!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-24 6:55:06 AM
I know you are trying to get me to say something about putting lipstick on a pig. Stop it! I am trying to be culturally sensitive!
Merry Christmas and God Bless obc!
Posted by: epsilon | 2007-12-24 8:36:20 AM
Right back at ya, espi!
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-24 8:51:49 AM
Eurabia os well on its way:
"Anger over plan to broadcast Muslim call to prayer on loudspeaker in Oxford"
Muslim plans to broadcast a loudspeaker call to prayer from a city centre mosque have been attacked by local residents who say it would turn the area into a "Muslim ghetto".
Dozens of people packed out a council meeting to express their concerns over the plans for a two-minute long call to prayer to be issued three times a day, saying that it could drown out the traditional sound of church bells.
But a spokesman for the Central Mosque said that Muslim's also have the right to summon worshipers.
Dr Mark Huckster, who lives in Stanton Road and works at East Oxford hospice Helen House, told the Oxford Mail: "The proposal to issue a prayer call is very un-neighbourly, especially in a crowded urban space such as Oxford.
"I have lived in the Middle East and a prayer call has a very different feel to church bells and I personally found the noise extremely unpleasant, rather disturbing and very alien to the western mindset."
He added: "If an evangelical Christian preacher proposed issuing sermons three times a day at full volume there would be an outcry.
AND SO IT BEGINS! Where is our Charles Martel today?
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-24 4:55:31 PM
Your Charles Martel shall be nameless. But he shall be attacking the wires on a speaker system in Oxford methinks.
Posted by: epsilon | 2007-12-24 9:35:13 PM
The inmates take over the asylum. They will likely get their way or the church bells will be shut down. We have raised a generation of very compliant and frightened people.
Posted by: DML | 2007-12-24 10:49:04 PM
Translation: We have raised a generation of cowards.
Posted by: epsilon | 2007-12-25 12:13:03 AM
"Cowards" is such a harsh word. And I believe it to be sexist as well (i.e. it really is a masculine trait, to be brave in battle, and thus the opposite as well).
I can pretty this up and update it at the same time.
You folks don't make difficult choices.
There, that's better.
You see, down here we fight wars over things that threaten us or about things we believe in.
Our military is all volunteer "now" (it always was, Bill Clinton got drafted and inducted into our Army but he then cheated his way out of it, in one of innumerable ways open then, and new ones are open now, such as getting pregnant, not as in the new-phony-girly "we are pregnant" bur rather as in "I got pregnant while taking a government paycheck from the military and now I want to stop serving in the military because it looks like they are going to send me into a dangerous area, but I'll keep the paycheck, thank you" - the partial birth abortion comes later).
When you are an actual war fighting society (not "peace keeping" - we do that too, by means of having an actual capable military entity) you have to make decisions about who you are and what you are and why you are doing what you are doing (unless you are a Leftist in said society, then you can do things at the same time as you decry them - i.e. have it both ways).
If you fight wars, then you do it for a reason, and since you may well die in the war, it comes down to, protecting your family.
So family has to be important to you.
Homosexuals don't have families and Feminists don't have families. And since "100%" of the young women who you know, including yourself, declare that you are Feminists, therefor, ZERO young men in Canada are going to have families either (I know "Gay Marriage" is mighty important to you, but not for the purpose of having children).
When you don't form families, you don't actually make any decisions (i.e. as in indelible, honorable, can't just get divorced and dump the kids lives into the sewer, I guess I'll just stick with it, so what if I'm not "happy" at least I'm doing the right thing, the honorable thing, the responsible thing, it's a basic tenet of my religious belief system...).
When you don't form families, you have a society (which is dying) where the "women" are not mothers and the males cannot become fathers, even if any of them have the inclination (i.e. under that old stupid equality of rights Judeo-Christian system which honored and preserved the freedom of women for a mere 5,000 years).
The Feminists killed off the families, and the homosexuals got "normal" just like everybody else who is childless, childish, and entirely self-centered and self-absorbed.
He said that, and it hurt my feelings terribly. He should be punished and forced to apologize and then promise to never say that again.
We are fighting a War on Terrorism (poor name, very legitimate and honorable effort), whereas you are struggling with "choices."
No cowardice involved, that is way farther along the evolutionary maturation process road.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-25 10:03:18 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.