Saturday, March 25, 2017
Canada's government must be Islamophobic. 95% of its listed terror groups are Islamic terrorists. https://t.co/j50Qbwrrq5#M103 #CDNpoli— Richard Klagsbrun (@KlagsbrunTO) March 24, 2017
...For the motion itself, and the politics that attended it, have not been without contention. The questions raised on its wording were legitimate. Why the particular focus on Islam? Why not a motion, as some have suggested, speaking out against prejudice against all religions?
There is also concern that the motion will, in some manner, chill valid criticism of Islamist terror, or will not make allowance for legitimate criticism or analysis of Islam. Such criticism would now be forced to wear the degrading mantle of Islamophobia. Given this welter of mixed impressions and varied understandings of the very point of the motion, how effective can it be?
There is the key term itself, Islamophobia. As I have suggested in an earlier piece, this recent coinage, Islamophobia, is itself a contested term. The minister piloting the motion sees Islamophobia as “the irrational hatred of Muslims that leads to discrimination.”
That’s not as clear as at first glance it might seem. If the fear is “irrational,” then the ambition to reduce it by means of a distant parliamentary motion is a curious if not a wild response. Irrational fears are by definition those not subject to reason. We eliminate those only by therapy or medicine. We do not argue them away. Hence, we have never had a motion deploring claustrophobia.
The cruel deeds, by a terrorist, at the British Parliament this week give sombre point to these concerns. Should we not have some moderate response of caution and concern after London? Is that irrational? There is nothing irrational in having a reasoned or limited fear towards a group publicly committed to terrorism, and self-declared perpetrators of it, in the name of Islam. Nor is there bigotry, Islamophobia, in seeing the declared connection with Islam in these kinds of terror acts. If there is an Islamic connection, and it is declared ,even insisted upon, by the actors themselves, it is surely not phobic both to see the connection, and heed the declaration.
Then too, there is the rhetorical or forensic deployment of the term. A person who criticizes Islam, or who reasonably makes a connection between current terrorism and certain groups within Islam will, in some circles, very quickly be labelled Islamophobic...
Friday, March 24, 2017
Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, should stand firmly against M-103, the motion by liberal MP Iqra Khalid that urges among other things the government to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” M-103 is not a bill, but its natural evolution could be a law criminalizing any speech, opinion or action that promotes so-called Islamophobia.
When she tabled her motion, Khalid cited her childhood experience. “ When I moved to Canada in the 1990s, a young girl trying to make this nation my home, some kids in school would yell as they pushed me, ‘Go home, you Muslim’ — but I was home. I am among thousands of Muslims who have been victimized because of hate and fear,” she said.
I sympathize. Living in Saudi Arabia as a young Christian boy, I was called an infidel by Saudi children, and made to feel inferior. We were not allowed to exercise our faith. In my native Egypt, millions of Christians live under systematic discrimination and widespread intolerance. Christianity, not Islam, is the most persecuted religion in the world today. My wife recently lost two second cousins, beautiful young women, the only children of their parents, in the recent bombing at the Coptic Cathedral in Cairo. I understand the pain of ignorance, hatred, prejudice, discrimination and intolerance. But I don’t call it Christianophobia, because it isn’t. It is ignorance, hatred, prejudice, discrimination and intolerance. In fact, here in Montreal, I experience denigration of my Christian faith daily by Quebecers who use the holiest religious terms routinely as expletives.
Ignorance and insensitivity are not phobia, however. Phobia is a medical term, denoting a pathological and irrational fear. The proper definition of Islamophobia is not irrational hatred of Muslims, but irrational fear of Islam. Hatred of Muslim Canadians, or any other group, is always wrong. Incitement to discrimination or violence against any group is illegal and always should be.
But let us not confuse the issues. On the same day Khalid tabled her motion, an e-petition with nearly 70,000 signatures was tabled that called on the House of Commons to recognize that “extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam,” and to condemn all forms of Islamophobia.
Extremist individuals? We are living in an age where depraved terrorist armies, who cite a unifying explanation for their actions in Islamic texts and doctrine, occupy large swaths of entire nations. Even if we dismiss these hundreds of thousands of extremists, and instead examine mainstream Islamic societies, what do we find? We find nation after nation where apostasy is a crime punishable by death, indigenous minorities are robbed of equal citizenship and religious dissent is considered treason. A charge of Islamophobia is used to silence, marginalize and imprison the few liberal Muslim thinkers who are attempting to reform Islam from within, and the weapon to subjugate and humiliate minorities. Who, then, represents Islam?...
One of the strangest turns in the story of Russia and the Trump campaign has been the recent outrage from Democrats over politicization of the investigation.
This all centers on Chairman Devin Nunes, the Republican who is leading the House Intelligence Committee's investigation. He was an adviser to the Trump presidential transition. The White House asked him last month to talk to a reporter to rebut news stories that alleged Trump associates had many contacts with Russian intelligence officers. On Wednesday, Nunes briefed the president about new information he had regarding dozens of widely disseminated intelligence reports on the Trump transition. He did this before he briefed his committee's Democrats.
All of this has prompted an outbreak of high dudgeon from the party of Clinton. Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, says Nunes must choose whether he wants to lead a credible investigation or be a surrogate of the Trump White House. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says Nunes is a "stooge."
Nunes on Thursday gave a half apology for all of this to the minority members of his committee. He told me: "The bottom line is I know it hurt some people's feelings, but I had a judgment call to make and I did what I felt was right. The commitment remains to keep the committee bipartisan." He added, "I appreciate their concerns, but I had to do what I had to do." Translation: The chairman loves your passion, Democrats.
So why would Nunes brief President Donald Trump before Schiff? The answer is that the entire Russia-Trump investigation by Congress from the beginning has been a partisan fight. Leaks about who may be a target of the probe, press conferences on "what we know so far," pushback from the White House and other Republicans -- it's all evidence that the Trump-Russia probe is a political football.
So both parties have tried to spin the investigation for partisan advantage...
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Here's where the Ryerson fascist imbeciles burst in on the speech:
Venezuela, Socialism, and awful people like Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis who want to bring it to Canada all suck
Last place finish by Venezuela on "world happiness index" shows preference for enjoying socialism, rather than responding to foolish surveys— DPRK News Service (@DPRK_News) March 23, 2017
US Intelligence Agencies Monitored Trump's Personal Communications Then Improperly Spread Information
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump's personal communications were picked up by U.S. intelligence operations that were monitoring foreign espionage targets, a top Republican said Wednesday in a major twist in the real-life spy drama unfolding in Washington.
The senior congressional watchdog on U.S. intelligence agencies, Devin Nunes, made that announcement to the news media, then went straight to the White House to brief the president on what he'd found.
Nunes said he had seen dozens of intercepted communications from November, December, and January between the Trump transition team and foreign targets who were under U.S. surveillance by legally obtained security-court orders.
But he suggested the material was then improperly spread...
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Fucking Gavin McInnes. After me spending all that time complaining about how he isn't very funny the other day, he puts out this today, which is pretty funny: