Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« My debate observations | Main | Feeding the blog machine »

Thursday, January 31, 2008

New at the Standard

Ori Rubin gives us the first feature installment of a special three-part series on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions entitled "The HRC on Trial."

Posted by westernstandard on January 31, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New at the Standard:


Here we go! our rights to free speach are being eroded by the Islamist Ideologies agenda, of using our own laws against us. Remember there are no moderate Muslims if they adere to the tenants of the Koran. This is a wake up call so enjoy your freedoms now, when sharia takes over your rights, will be completely gone. Maybe if our get Lawmakers get some smarts we can curb this insanity. Take a lesson from the Ausies read the following.
Dear Muslim Immigrant

A great desire of true Christians is to see you at peace with the true God, each other, and the West. You immigrate to western countries because of the freedom, peace and prosperity you see here, which is a fruit of the influence of Christianity. This is true even though you will not see very much true Christianity still alive in the West and for this reason the true God is bringing judgment even at the hands of Muslims for He uses all vessels to do His will.

These things which are lacking in your own homeland are the natural and spiritual fruit of your own culture and religion and the fact that God is judging you for being contrary to His true loving nature. If these things are forced on the West the same destruction and hatred will come here and destroy your adopted countries. You notice that there is relative peace between the sects of Christianity because Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your enemies, to do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, to leave vengeance up to God, etc. The fact that our own governments and many people here do not obey these things is because they are of the world and not Christ.

Killing apostates, infidels, and the people of the Book, that do not comply with your own convictions is bringing civil war between your own people and will turn this world into a living hell. For this reason you should understand why many westerners do not want an invading religion that will destroy their relatively peaceful cultures as sinful as they may be. The article below is an example of this. Please read the New Testament and get to know the God of love, peace, prosperity and of judgment on sinners to bring them to repentance and life.


This is true and can be checked at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off.

Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society ... Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Posted by: Concerned Calgarian | 2008-01-31 8:53:52 AM


Dude - when I went to law school it was important to always cite the right Act. It kinda helped make it look like one knew what one was talking about. Then again you're at Osgoode

Surely it's section 3 of the ALBERTA Human Rights Act that Levant is alleged to have violated.

Posted by: Nbob | 2008-01-31 9:13:15 AM

Nbob -
It was section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights act. Thanks for pointing that out. It will be corrected quickly.

Concerned Calgarian -
There are many moderate Muslims, and treating the entire community as extremists is likely to produce more extremists, by making the entire community feel alienated and victimized. While we should deal firmly with extremists from any background, we should not unjustly persecute innocent people.

We must stand up for liberal democratic values, and the rule of law. We also must not let extremists pervert our good intentions, and erode our liberties.

I would say that the majority of Canadians of all backgrounds want largely the same thing: to live and seek prosperity in a well-ordered, free society. And it is this largely silent majority that we should be accomadating: not a handful of violent extremists.

Posted by: Ori Rubin | 2008-01-31 9:36:36 AM

The fact that it is a radical Muslim and not a disaffected Jehovah's Witness offended by being asked to put up a poinsettias at Christmas is irrelevant. There are all sorts of unsavoury plaintiffs. The point is that this latter-day Star Chamber is taking them seriously and hauling people to answer for what essentially amounts to a charge of heresy--the heresy of being politically incorrect.

These wannabes should be either defunded and disbanded or else sternly admonished that their mandate is to adjudicate matters pertaining to discriminatory hiring and housing practices. If they want to act like bona fide courts, then they're going to need to accept the rules of evidence, the rule of law, and the supremacy of the Charter. And while we're at it, let's start defunding universities that impose speech codes even as they dismantle conduct codes. University is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas, and it's become increasingly apparent of late that debate and academic excellence have been all but smothered.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-31 9:55:20 AM

What was the point of that cartoon?
Why did he do it?
Did it do anything positive on the situation or only make things worse, by fueling hate and ignorance?
I wonder if it were easier for those extremists to recruit having that cartoon in their hand.

Ezra's a Jew right? why is he using Nazi like cartoons to prove a point?
What was that point again?
Was their a point?
Or is he just a well paid ignorant and hate filled man?

Posted by: notloz | 2008-01-31 12:47:06 PM

notloz - congradulations for you have won the price for ignorance and stupidity.

Ori, I agree with your comments that we need to encourage the Muslims who reject the Islamist ideology while showing no mercy for the Islamists.

I also agree with Shane that all the HRC should be dismantled, since they have no place in a free democracy. I note that Dr. Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Victoria, has put forth a private member's bill to admend the HR Act, which is a step in the right direction at least. I have written my MP asking that he and the government support the bill.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-31 2:08:53 PM

notloz and Concerned Calgarian: This is a comment section reserved for comments specific to the article, for people who have actually read the article. If you haven't read it, don't come here and drop incendiary and misguided comments without actually reading the piece.

Your questions are answered in the article, notloz, and the article is about freedom of speech, not radical Islam, Concerned Calgarian. Please note the difference.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 2:15:37 PM

Notloz, whatever you're on, cut the dose. If you were to charge with heresy everyone who does useless things, you'd have to indict most of the Commons and all of the Senate, along with writers, poets, artists, actors, a great number of academics and intellectuals and people on the dole. That is in fact a lot closer to Nazism than what Ezra Levant is doing.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-31 2:39:08 PM

Freedom of speech doesn't mean anything in essence unless it's responsible.
The cartoon is a factor on this issue, and this is the perfect arena to have that discussion.
Don't ignore the tasteless cartoon, it is a factor.

Posted by: notloz | 2008-01-31 5:20:44 PM

Bull notloz! Freedom of speech does not mean anything in essence unless it is responsible - really? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, but this is clearly beyond you. As to "responsible", what that means to me is different from what it means to a jihadist, which is why it has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. If you are not from the UK, perhaps you should try it there where Islamic terrorist activity must now (oh yes, it is official) be called anti-Islamic activitiy.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-31 6:27:32 PM

notloz- As Levant stated, the purpose of showing the cartoons was so that readers could see what the issue was all about. It was not a case of the Western Standard publishing its own cartoons. From the history of the incident it is obvious that the imams in question were spoiling for a fight. The cartoons were pretty mild and most of the Muslims that I know were puzzled at what the fuss was all about. If nothing else, the reaction of the extremists should be a wake up call for us all. Thus it becomes an imperative to engage them with all of the intelligence we can muster. That includes taking them on in print and that requires freedom of speech and expression.

Posted by: DML | 2008-01-31 10:21:27 PM

Alain that cartoon shows me nothing about what the issue is all about! The Muslims I know were not impressed with their prophet being portrayed as a terrorist.

Posted by: notloz | 2008-01-31 11:11:57 PM

Notloz wrote: "Freedom of speech doesn't mean anything in essence unless it's responsible."

Actually it does. Because by acquiring a lock on what defines "responsible" speech, you are in effect regulating speech--and such speech, by definition, is no longer free.

Notloz wrote: "The cartoon is a factor on this issue, and this is the perfect arena to have that discussion. Don't ignore the tasteless cartoon, it is a factor."

A factor in what?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-31 11:19:21 PM

Notloz wrote: "The Muslims I know were not impressed with their prophet being portrayed as a terrorist."

And when did it become necessary to submit our speech or publications to them for censoring?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-31 11:20:10 PM

It's a real pleasure to be able to say: Shane, for once, it looks as though you and I are in complete agreement.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-31 11:23:26 PM

notloz - so what. Religious Christians must not be impressed either with how cartoonists mock them and their beliefs, nor am I impressed by the majority of cartoons featured in local newspapers. Still we manage to get on with our lives without resorting to murder and violence.

So welcome to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. No one can expect to go through life without ever being offended or having hurt feelings.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-31 11:25:41 PM

Perhaps you bloggers are aware of a situation we had in Halifax. a university Professor, Peter March, posted at least one of the cartoons on his office door. The reaction from some of the Arabic students was both swift and nasty, lots of shouting, fist waving and demonstrations. TV coverage of this incident showed some of these radical students screaming in March's face while they wore bandanas on their faces.They kept the heat on this poor chap for months. Last week he resigned.The radicals won and he was denied free speech. We lost a good man, thanks to a bunch of punks and a society so numbed by " political correctness" we couldn't help him.

Posted by: W.Faulkner | 2008-02-02 2:10:02 PM

Perhaps you bloggers are aware of a situation we had in Halifax. a university Professor, Peter March, posted at least one of the cartoons on his office door. The reaction from some of the Arabic students was both swift and nasty, lots of shouting, fist waving and demonstrations. TV coverage of this incident showed some of these radical students screaming in March's face while they wore bandanas on their faces.They kept the heat on this poor chap for months. Last week he resigned.The radicals won and he was denied free speech. We lost a good man, thanks to a bunch of punks and a society so numbed by " political correctness" we couldn't help him.

Posted by: W.Faulkner | 2008-02-02 2:10:12 PM

W.Faulkner, your comments are actually at odds both with the facts and with the position taken by many of the free speech advocates here.

First, the facts. Dr. March was not forced to resign. In fact, as a tenured professor SMU had no cause for discipline or dismissal against him. So they did the next best thing from their POV: they paid him to leave. It was his choice, freely made with no threat of sanctions behind it, to retire. As he was close to retirement age anyway, the payoff probably seemed like a good deal. He was not denied free speech.

Second, the position. While many (myself included) object strenuously to the idea of government agents limiting speech, the idea that non-governmental agents must accommodate all speech is not supported. So Macleans could have refused, if it wanted to, to print the excerpt from Steyn's book without it counting as objectionable censorship. And things like Golf Week magazine firing their editor for running a cover with a picture of a noose on it or advertisers refusing to place ads with publications based on their editorial content are also not objectionable censorship. Thus the idea that an employee should be able to say whatever he likes on company time with company resources without the employer being allowed to stop or fire the employee is not generally supported by folks here. Peter March did not post the cartoons on the front door of his home, he posted them on the door of his office at the University. So his employer, who owns the door, should have the right to tell him to take them down and to fire him for posting them. Or so would go the argument here.

In short, the government did not tell March he could not say what he wanted to say nor did the government come after him (with arrests or HR tribunals) for saying what he said. Which means that no one has wronged him. He is not a victim.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-02 2:36:08 PM

Listen idiots. No one ever has, nor will ever have, the right to NOT be offended. Mandating free speech is in essence obstructing on it.

Posted by: Fakt Czech | 2008-02-02 3:14:16 PM

Fact Check wrote: "In short, the government did not tell March he could not say what he wanted to say nor did the government come after him (with arrests or HR tribunals) for saying what he said. Which means that no one has wronged him. He is not a victim."

I see. So the fact that it was students and not government officials harassing him--harassment the government apparently did nothing to stop, by the way--means he cannot be called a victim. Fact Check, that is below feeble. The behaviour of the students as described above can only be described as swarming. As soon as it became clear this was an ongoing pattern the campus should have dispatched some cops to roust these masked thugs and teach them some manners--preferably with their nightsticks.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-02 9:10:40 PM

Spot on Shane. If the rule of law is respected and upheld, then thug and mob rule would not be tolerated. One can express one's disagreement without resorting to this. It is the same strategy used to prevent people from speaking on campuses when the people do not share the same ideology as the thugs. It was also used more than once in BC to prevent the deportation of an illegal resident.

Freedom of speech does not mean one can use violence, threats and intimidation to silence those with who one disagrees. This has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-02 9:52:34 PM

Shane and Alain: W.Faulkner claimed that "he was denied free speech". I disagreed with that and explained why. If you think Dr. March was a victim of violence, threats or intimidation, that is entirely another issue. I have not heard or seen anything to say he was a victim of any of those things, but that is neither here nor there on the question of whether his freedom of expression was violated. It was not. W.Faulkner is wrong about that.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-02 10:47:26 PM

According to the CBC. "March removed the cartoons on the same day he put them up, after he was asked to do so by the university administration."

In addition SMU would not allow Jared Taylor & March to debate on campus, which is probably their right, however, Taylor was definitely denied his right to speak freely in Halifax by masked thugs.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-02-03 12:38:38 AM

"There are many moderate Muslims, and treating the entire community as extremists is likely to produce more extremists, by making the entire community feel alienated and victimized."

Didn't the Israelis build a wall?

"Fewer Israeli civilians died in Palestinian attacks in 2006 than in any year since the Palestinian uprising began in 2000. Palestinian militants killed 23 Israelis and foreign visitors in 2006, down from a high of 289 in 2002 during the height of the uprising. Most significant, successful suicide bombings in Israel nearly came to a halt. Last year, only two Palestinian suicide bombers managed to sneak into Israel for attacks that killed 11 people and wounded 30 others. Israel has gone nearly nine months without a suicide bombing inside its borders, the longest period without such an attack since 2000.…An Israeli military spokeswoman said one major factor in that success had been Israel's controversial separation barrier, a still-growing 250-mile network of concrete walls, high-tech fencing and other obstacles that cuts through parts of the West Bank. ‘The security fence was put up to stop terror, and that's what it's doing,’ said Capt. Noa Meir, a spokeswoman for the Israel Defense Forces.…Opponents of the wall grudgingly acknowledge that it's been effective in stopping bombers, though they complain that its route should have followed the border between Israel and the Palestinian territories known as the Green Line.”"

Posted by: DJ | 2008-02-03 12:58:00 AM

Looks like I opened a can of worms..some agree, some dissagree with my opinion on the Peter march fiasco in Halifax. Your readers/bloggers, are very well informed and articulate.
I still feel, however, Dr. March was denied freedom of speech.He didn't have the freedom to display a cartoon? think about that.
Why was he forced to remove the material and why?
And why was this not enough to satisfy the radical element in our midst? Was SMU also afraid of the HRC, or the " politically correct"?
I say yes to all. I agree with the comment by tonge-in cheek ,Fakt Czech, nobody has the RIGHT not to be offended. When March took down the " offensive" cartoons, that should have been the end of it. Nay nay the infidel must be punished for not abiding to laws of Islam.He does not have the right to see humor in their idiotic double standards.

Posted by: W. Faulkner | 2008-02-03 7:25:05 AM

"The motivation is rarely profit, and most often mere political expression. Such people almost invariably have day-jobs. These ordinary citizens do not always have the time or money to properly defend themselves. And it is all too easy under such circumstances to give in.

Moreover, the Canadian justice system is built upon numerous liberal-democratic principles including the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to legal counsel, and equality before the law. That is why in the criminal justice system, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution, and defence counsel is provided to defendants who cannot afford to hire their own, while the costs of frivolous lawsuits are ultimately borne by the plaintiff. The HRC turns this process on its head.<<<

Iri - you are right on the money but what seems to have been largely ignored (if other reports from the transcript is true)- some of these same staff and intervenors were actually reposting hate messages as agent provocateurs and nothing has been done about the potential criminal code nor 13.1 HRC violations.

Any other organization caught with their pants down would be subject to an immediate public or judicial inquiry. RCMP, CSC and so on!

These HRC officers are not police/peace officers and have no right breaking the laws they persecute others for if indeed this turns out to be true.

There is a larger story the MSM and the government may be ignoring and missing.

Posted by: The LS | 2008-02-03 8:43:23 AM

Fact Check wrote: "W.Faulkner claimed that "he was denied free speech". I disagreed with that and explained why. If you think Dr. March was a victim of violence, threats or intimidation, that is entirely another issue."

No, that is THE issue. If you cannot exercise a Charter right without becoming a victim of threats, violence, or intimidation, and the government entrusted with protecting that right does nothing to stop the threats, violence, and intimidation, it is the same as not having the right at all. Few will dare to exercise their rights in the face an upraised knife. Would you?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-03 7:08:35 PM

Right on Shane....What Ezra Levant is going through right now has already happened to Dr. March, albiet in different way. Professor March has not only been silenced, but defiled.
You were the only one to come to the correct purpose of my original post.

I really have nothing more to add. Thankfully we still have the right to free speech in these forums.

Long live Canada !!!

Posted by: W.Faulkner | 2008-02-04 6:47:21 AM

The reason the AHRC prosecutes people like Ezra Levant is because they are unable to do the job they were indended to do. In September 1978 I applied for a job, which I was qualified, working for the Holy Cross Hospital but was denied because I am an unmarried man. At the interview they were quite upfront about this policy. I filed a complaint with the AHRC but was told by them that the Alberta civil service was exempt from the provisions of the law. Oddly enough I was not the true victim of this policy. In the early 1980's a serial rapist was stalking female staff at the Holy Cross but was eventually caught. In a plea bargain he admitted his crimes saying that he was motivated when he noticed so few men worked there and was unlikely to be confronted by one.

Posted by: Michael Shaw | 2008-02-04 11:03:04 PM

The fact is, Ezra Levant is not a good spokesperson for any issue. He has a tendency to shoot his mouth off and alienate people.

He is arguing freedom of speech when he publishes the cartoons but I don't think he would appreciate that same freedom of speech if a group of muslims came to his home, heckled him, his family, called him names and so on.

Knowing Ezra from a long time ago I find it hard to believe that he published the articles for some journalistically pure purpose (and since when is he a journalist anyway?). He did it for publicity and he does not have the gall to admit it.

One should be able to publish these cartoons, but the reason cannot be to spread hate or gain personal notoriety. There is in fact such a thing as muslim fascism and we all (muslims included)need to work to eliminate it. People like Ezra, I am sorry to say, with their grandstanding, bluster and downright stupid public display do not help us in this cause.

When we talk about Islamic fundamentalism, violence and terrorism we are talking about serious things and Ezra is a clown in this very serious issue that diverts the process into a name-calling rant-fest. It diverts us from finding solid solutions to the issues. We can help ourselves and the cause to put an end to Islamic tyranny by first getting rid of this blundering fool.

As for the Human Rights Commission, why didn't Ezra simply tell the HRC why he published the cartoons? He says he published them because in our country we have the right to do so and because it was necessary to the story he was telling. He has said this before so why was there a problem in saying it at the HRC meeting? Instead, he launched into, as he often tends to do, a buffoonish tirade against the commission and then was surprised the commission members did not rise up in applause for him.

There are many countries that do not have a Human Rights Commission or any such thing. I assure you none of you want to live in any of those countries, countries where there is no security of life or limb and whatever you have can be taken from you at a moment's notice without any due process.

You people live in this wonderful country, and you don't know anything. A lot of you need to (including Ezra Levant)thank your lucky stars you live in Canada and shut the hell up.


Posted by: alexander | 2008-02-05 9:32:39 AM

Do not let your dislike for Ezra cloud your judgement.
Ezra is very clear why he chose the words he did, and why he did not humour the HRC with an appeasing explanation.
He did it so the HRC investigator would in fact proceed to tribunal. He did it so he would be found guilty by this farce of a comission, and open the doors to legal challenge.
Ezra is doing Canada a favour.
Censoring the press cannot be an option.

And by the way, publishing a few cartoons is very different than muslims trespassing at his home, and threatening his family. Pure nonsense.

You speak of eliminating muslim fascism. How do you do that if you cannot report about it in the free press?

Posted by: Wade | 2008-02-05 1:47:55 PM

First of all, Alexander, living in Canada means we don’t HAVE to shut the hell up if we don’t want to, or even if other people take offence. That is a lesson apparently lost on yourself as well as the HRC. Now then.

1. I agree Ezra Levant is not a good spokesperson. Neither are you. But here you are, sounding off, more power to you.

2. Publishing cartoons is not the same as trespassing and harassing and intimidating behaviour. One is a Charter right, the other is a criminal offence.

3. His motives for publishing the cartoons are irrelevant and frankly none of your fucking business. For a message to be conveyed takes two parties—a mouth to speak and an ear to listen. In the end, the person responsible for an act of violence is that person, not the person who put the idea in his head.

4. Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with resentment, envy, and identity politics. Islam is just the common banner to which this particular demographic can rally. The tribalist mentality that prevails in that part of the world also plays a part. Only time will mute these factors, and it will not do so in the lifespan of anyone now living.

4. Again, Ezra is under no obligation to justify his reasons for publishing anything to anyone, certainly not to our very own Thought Police. I agree his tirade was buffoonish, grandstanding, and unprofessional. But the conduct of the HRC is downright sinister.

5. Yes, there are countries that do not have tribunals like these. Among them is the United States of America. One has gone so far as to call freedom of speech “an American import” and then remark that he is under no obligation to protect “American” ideals. Trudeau’s ghost casts a long shadow indeed in this country.

6. Being thankful we live in Canada should not have to mean we can’t address perceived injustices. There is nothing “due process” about the HRC. Rules of evidence do not apply. Double or triple hearsay is admissible. The truth is no defence. The law is no defence. The defendant shoulders the sole cost, whereas the plaintiff can make as many charges as desired without cost. The HRC quite pointedly ignores the very rules of fairness that distinguish our courts. But then, what do I know? I have Alexander to explain things to me, don’t I?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-05 3:02:03 PM

Shane, Good post, except you are wrong about "Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with Islam

In fact, the radicalism, or fundamentalism you speak of IS Islam literally. The Koran taken literally are the fundamentalists, and the ones who INTERPRET the hidden meanings of the Koran, and determine it to be a book of peace, are the exception or anomoly.
Too many poeple take the PC word as gospel regarding Islam, when in fact it is about hatred, control, death, killing, pedophiles, war, and oppression.
If you cant stomach reading the Koran, and i dont blame you, as it is trash, pick up one of the many books about it, and explaining it. I would recommend the Politically incorrect guide to Islam by Spencer. It contains actual koran passages, however be objective and pick up a Koran too. Its a shock.

Posted by: wade | 2008-02-06 8:30:45 AM

In the Middle Ages, Wade, Muslims had the world's most advanced civilization. It was possible to write a cheque in Baghdad and cash it in Morocco. Their astronomers, mathematicians, physicians and scientists were for a time the best in the world, and unlike Europeans, they tolerated the Jews. And all the negative things you mention can be found, sometimes glorified, in the Bible as well. Results of literal Christianity include the Inquisition and the Crusades.

If contemporary Islam has a problem, it's that it doesn't condemn extremism loudly enough. But then, moderate Christians don't usually kick sand in televangelists' faces either. I'm not afraid of Muslims, Christians, or Jews either. What I am afraid of is madmen--and NO religion or ideology can claim a monopoly on those.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-08 7:25:17 AM

A monopoly....no.
An abundance......yes.

Posted by: wade | 2008-02-08 8:12:07 AM

Shane, I think you got your information on Muslims in the middle ages from the Muslim Herald. There were no advances in science under Islam. They're taking credit for advances that happened well before the birth of Islam.

They even try to claim the greek alphabet was a Muslim invention. They mention Euclid as a Muslim scholar. These claims are wishful thinking.

As with most societies in recorded history, most advances in business and commerce were spearheaded by Jews living in Muslim & Christian areas.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-08 8:34:17 AM

Kudos to Mr. Rubin. I've never seen these issues discussed so astutely. But the naivete of some of these comments is astounding- and depressing. Alexander the grateful, for instance, telling us how lucky we are to live here and so shut up. Luck,however, has nothing to do with it, Alex, but rather the will and imagination of generations of settlers and before them of Europeans who believed in a higher conception of humanity, i.e., of people who are free where it counts, in the exercise of their conscience. "Shutting up" is not an option except for those consigned to the subversion and betrayal that unique conception.

Posted by: Gordon Tryon | 2008-02-13 7:55:04 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.