Category: Faith

Yes, I did.  Silly me thought that just because the byelection in London North Centre was a done deal, Pearson won and all that, that was going to be the last that we heard of it.  We could get on with the rest of our lives.  Man, but I can be naive sometimes.

It seems that the London cops have decided to open an investigation into something of a rather unsavoury incident that occurred a few days before we went to the polls:

At the request of London’s Muslim and Jewish communities, police are probing a fake flyer left at doors of several Jewish homes days before the federal London-North-Centre byelection, Chief Murray Faulkner said yesterday.

Disguised as a political endorsement of Liberal candidate Glen Pearson by the Canadian Islamic Congress, the back of the flyer had three cartoons reflecting a close link between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Israel.

The CIC has denied involvement with the flyer, which seems to suggest Muslims should support Pearson because the Harper government is pro-Israel.

Somebody, anybody, I don’t care who… give me a God damned break. We in London have better things to do with our time than sit back and watch the spectacular turd typhoon that this will no doubt kick up.

No doubt, it will be only a matter of time before the usual suspects pop up to begin the monomaniacal debate over who should be most offended; Muslims or Jews? “Hate crime” and all the other favourite buzzwords will fly fast and furious and we’ll all be gawking at our bellybuttons till our eyes pop out. 🙄

All this — and much, much more — because of what, more likely than not, was nothing more than a couple of little shit-disturbers with a dumbass sense of humour, access to daddy’s PC and printer and too damned much time on their hands…

First things first: a flip o’ my chapeau to the Relapsed Catholic for beating me to the punch on this one.

Some people will look at the issue and think that I’m referring to Xeno in the usual “xenophobia” context. Not so.

I’m referring to Xeno of Elea, the Greek pholosopher famous for, amongst other things, his paradoxes. You know; those bothersome little questions that, by their very nature, seem to have no possible answer at all. Perhaps the most famous of all of them was the question which has so often been paraphrased like this:

What, exactly, would occur if an immovable object were to be struck by an irresistable force?

What, indeed? It is beginning to seem as if this very question is, as you read this, being played out in Regina.

Bill Whatcott, a “long-time pro-life and family campaigner” from the Big Flat, has recently been slapped to the tune of $17,500 by Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Tribunal for… wait for it… hurt feelings.

Yup, that’s right. We’ve gone from “sticks and stones may break my bones” to “BOO HOO, he hurt my feelings, your honour; WHERE’S MY CHEQUE?!?!”

Okay, let’s examine this, shall we? First, in my opinion: yeah, he went a little overboard and crossed the line of decent debate (kinda hard to look reasonable strolling down the street holding a sign saying “Bare Bottomed Pitifuls are Celebrating Buggery in Regina. God Help Us!”), but it is still damned hard to slap down the very logical points that he does make:

If you can find factual inaccuracies in my flyers or if you can find that I said something in bad faith, at that point there should be civil penalties […] I’d be the first one to agree with that. […] If I’m lying by saying that homosexuals are predisposed to sexually transmitted diseases at a rate greater than the general population, by all means find me liable for slander. If I’m wrong in saying….that there is a predisposition in homosexuality towards the sexual abuse of children, if that can be factually proven to be wrong, find me guilty of libel. But don’t tell me that I can’t say something that is true.

In other words: “prove me wrong and I’ll take my medicine.” Sounds reasonable to me. Also sounds like the best way to deal with any disagreement, debate or what have you.

But the problem here (and a chilling one it is) is that the SHRC doesn’t seem to give a damn about bothersome little things like facts or truth. According to Janice Gingell (a lawyer for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission):

Sexual orientation is a protected category under the code and you are not allowed to say things that will cause other people to feel hatred or ridicule or belittlement towards members of those protected categories.

Yup, you got it. Thou Shalt Not Speak Against The Priviledged Group. Period. Truth? Lies? Doesn’t matter. Just sit the hell down and shut the hell up. Forget freedom of reli… aw, screw it. Forget any freedoms you think you have. None of them matter. You aren’t one of the Protected Ones. So you’re screwed.

Orwell himself couldn’t have done better.

Getting back to Xeno….

…he will not pay a $17,500 fine ordered by Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Tribunal […] Whatcott has vowed to continue distributing his flyers with about 3,500 more to go out on Thursday.

It begins. Personally, I was wondering not if it would happen, but only when and where. It now seems that the Aussies’ collective bullshitometer has now hit the redline over the turd typhoon currently swirling around Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly and hanging in the air like a bad fart.

Hilaly, as some of you already know, is the misogynist dink that stirred decent Australians to uproar when he said that immodestly dressed women were like “uncovered meat” and that they invited rape. Specifically:

“If one puts uncovered meat out in the street then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The comments sparked a thunderous “just who the hell do you think you are?!” across Australia. Hilaly, like seemingly all bigoted Muslim leaders who manage to finally rouse the outrage of the non-Islamofascist populations that they manage to infiltrate, promptly developed timely chest pains, did a faceplant, and had to be whisked away to hospital.

Right on cue, all the apologists and other usual suspects popped up to wag their fingers at the rest of us and regurgitate the old tried and true “moderate Muslim majority” bullcrap. Well, the Muslim community did come out to voice their opinion this time… in support of the bigot. And Australians, it seems, have had just about enough of this bullshit:

Excuses over. The disgraced mufti of Australia set Muslims a test last month and they failed.

That test couldn’t have been easier: make Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly pay for preaching that unveiled women invited rape.

Prove that Muslims can’t be led by a man who says raped women must be “jailed for life”. Prove we have nothing to fear from your faith.

Simple? Yet yesterday 34 Muslim groups signed a petition backing this bigot, while others plan a big rally for Sydney tomorrow, denouncing not Hilaly but the non-Muslims who criticise him.

The results are in: Islam here — as represented by many of its leaders — is now a threat.

Welcome to the real world, ladies and gents. As I said at the beginning of this post, it has begun. The only question is: just what is “it?” Are we going to continue to behave like some abused child, continually asking what it could have been that we did wrong, while our enemies strive relentlessly to undermine the very foundations of our civilisation? Or will we, the West as a whole, finally lose our patience with all these lies and say, “either get rid of your medieval machinations, or we are going to start getting rid of you.”

Islam is a bully. And there’s only one way to deal with a bully, isn’t there?

Yeah, I know this should have been posted yesterday but what can I say; I don’t blog when I’m sick as a dog. Flingin’ fluids fore and aft is not conducive to the production of readworthy materiel. 🙄 You’re welcome. But I’m back up and about, more or less, and it’s time to fire off what should have come out last night. Leading the list, from the “gee, what a big surprise” department, it turns out that Blochead Raymond Gravel didn’t have permission from the Vatican to run in the byelection in Repentigny after all, and has been “relieved of the exercise of sacramental duties,” according to Joliette Bishop Gilles Lussier. Seems that Church has some sort of thickheaded rules about the mingling of secular and clerical responsibilities. Seriously now; I’m not the only one that saw that coming, am I?

Catholic Online
Priest’s political candidacy ‘painful’ for Catholic Church

The Suburban
Rotrand urges Fortier to run for office

Freeps
Loner parachutes into race

So, just what would Ronald Reagan do if he were around now and having to deal with the terrorist lunatics that currently threaten our way of life? Over at the Brussels Journal, Joshua Trevino has an interesting take on that very question, examining some of the similarities between the threats of Communism and Islamofascism. I can’t say that I agree with everything in the article, but it points out some harsh truths and asks some equally harsh questions that, sooner or later, are going to have to be answered.

It seems that, even in oh-so-tolerant Europe, the tolerance for the malicious stifling of any and all criticism of Islam or frank discussion of it’s impact on Western society is coming to an end.

In dealing with Islamism in the present day, we make the very error that Reagan eschewed with the Communists. We proceed from Islamist premises — namely, that Islam is inherently peaceful; that it is inherently sane; that it is inherently just; and that it is a welcome and benign participant in our post-modern public square. One may not accuse George W. Bush in particular of failing to render a full obeisance on these points. Attendant to this are all manner of details that somehow fall outside the bounds of acceptable discourse in Muslim eyes, and hence in the eyes of any who fear violence. Most recently, we see the shutting-down, by murder and by fire, of any critique or perceived disrespect of the Muslim founder. Reasonable people of any faith may find Muhammed an admirable figure. Or they may examine the historical record and conclude that Muhammed was a violent visionary who slaughtered the defenseless and violated a nine-year old; but state these things in public, and deathly ire stalks the speaker — or, if he is not available, his co-religionists. What victory may we aspire to so long as the most basic freedoms are thus quelled?

Hat’s off to Dave for the heads-up on this.

The Lefties went apeshit again this past week (I know, I know: insert yawn here), this time over rumours that the Tories were secretly plotting to draw up a bill that would (gasp!) protect the rights of churches and marriage commissioners from having to perform same-sex marriages. Never mind that these rumours were likely started by the paranoid, fearmongering usual suspects to begin with. As long as the “standing up for people’s rights” crowd has something over which they can jump up on their little pogo sticks of indignation and hop back and forth in front of the nearest TV cameras, everything’s good in Leftyland.

And then, when things were just going so nice and indignantly, along comes Winnepeg Sun columnist Tom Broadbeck with the audacity to point out that marriage commissioners have rights too. Just because you take on a public sector job does not mean that the secular Left suddenly owns your sorry ass. They still have a choice, and yes, it is their right to make it without fear of reprisals (like getting fired).
Oh, dear. What is this world coming to?