rjjago.wordpress.com

Today was Vancouver’s first real summery day.  It got into the mid 20’s - crystal clear blue sky.  Met Cathy after work and we went to Queen Elizabeth Park for a picnic.  This is the view from the benches near the conservatory (click to enlarge):

They have these statues up there of people having their picture taken:  

I’d never looked that closely but when you do, you can see that it’s not quite as sweet and 70’s and nerdy as it looks at first blush.  Spin round to the back and you can see that the man in the centre has his hand up the librarian’s bum - Cathy helped me notice that.  A gift of hers:

It’s going to be over 30 for most of the weekend.  I’ll be in the hills, hiking for as much of it as possible.

Nothing motivates a Liberal like self-interest.

The Ethics Commissioner last week ruled that Liberal MP Robert Thibault had to recuse himself from questioning Karlheinz Schreiber before committee. Former PM Mulroney has launched a libel suit against Thibault in a matter involving Schreiber - so you can imagine it wouldn’t be proper for Thibault to question him. it seems like is should be clear-cut to any fair minded person.

But not to Liberals. To them it’s a challenge to free speech so gross that it requires them to pervert the purposes of their committees and overturn the work of the ethics commissioner.

The persecution of a national news magazine and political websites by the CHRT, the libel suits against bloggers - that’s fine with the Liberals. They are firmly behind that - but to prevent a Liberal from using the auspices of parliament to question a man who is suing could be a witness against him in a civil court - that’s one step too far.

“Liberal, New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois MPs may have to find another method to try to disarm a ruling by ethics commissioner Mary Dawson that bars MPs who are being sued from participating in Commons or committee debates and votes on the subject of the suit.

The government, which supports her ruling, tried to thwart opposition MPs by asking the speaker to rule out of order a Commons ethics committee recommendation exempting libel suits as a potential conflict of interest.

Speaker Peter Milliken hinted he will agree with the government that it’s out of order because the ethics committee has no jurisdiction over the matter. His ruling is expected by the end of the week.

The conflict code amendment was suggested by Dawson herself when she ruled that Nova Scotia Liberal MP Robert Thibault should have recused himself from the ethics committee investigation of former prime minister Brian Mulroney’s dealings with German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber because Mulroney is suing Thibault for libel.”

The devil you say!  I’d never imagined such a thing.  Melanie Phillips (she of Londonistan fame) has an article in the Spectator detailing the Guardian’s anti-semitism.

The Guardian’s hatred of Israel and the Jews truly is a fathomless — and unfathomable — well. The last few days around Israel’s 60^th anniversary have seen a further escalation of its obsessive verbal pogrom. Today it published a piece by Samir el Youssef which turned the Arab attempt to exterminate Israel in 1948 into an attempt by Israel to exterminate Palestinian society (which did not then exist, as many Arabs have attested) but for which he magnanimously suggests Israel should be forgiven.

This follows a previous modest proposal by Ahmad Samih Khalidi of the need to choose between never-ending conflict and a new form of power sharing beyond the two state solution (ie the end of Israel); a series on Gaza’s heartbreaking human tragedies (Israel’s fault) plus a series of even more heartbreaking videos on the same; and for good measure the ex-editor of Haaretz, David Landau, (who recently shot to fame by telling Condoleezza Rice that Israel wanted to be ‘raped’ by the US to impose a settlement with the Palestinians) bemoaning the ‘chasm’ within Israeli society at the bottom of which were the indigenous poor.

Today also saw an interview with Daniel Barenboim, who in his moral and intellectual confusion sadly offers himself up as that most prized gift of all to Jew-haters: an Israeli Jew who attacks Israel, thus conferring immunity against the charge of prejudice.

And on it goes.  Read the rest here

Part of my seemingly endless series on anti-semites and Israel hating:

CBC head will feel at home at Al Jazeera

Crossing the line from critic to anti-semite

“Tell us who exactly are the anti-Semites that the prime minister is talking about”

Exit Question: Is there such a word as philo-anti-semite?  I.e. someone who is really really keen on anti-semites.  There should be a word for that.

Can this be right? Is he the last one?

John Foster Babcock was born a Canadian. As of today, the 107-year-old is Canadian again, thanks to the swift response of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the veteran’s April 19 letter asking to renew his citizenship.

With his right hand raised, Babcock swore allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and if need be, her heirs, in an oath administered by Robert Godfrey, regional director general for Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

“I’m happy to be back,” Babcock said. “There are a lot of nice people in Canada, a lot of good-looking ones, too.”

… At 15, he lied about his age to join the Canadian Expeditionary Force and shipped off to Britain. When his true age was determined, he was put in the Boys Battalion. The war ended before he was old enough to see action.

I’m planning to write a series of posts as well as an article on Canada’s most important progressive Muslims. I’ve got the obvious: Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, and Rahim Jaffer - but who else is there?

I’m especially interested in Conservative Muslim figures. Conservative in the partisan sense.

Any suggestions are greatly welcome in the comments (please include a link if possible). I want to post something on them in time for my monthly blog rankings. Those blog rankings bring in 10,000 hits over the course of a few days, and usually lead to 3 or 4 posts being picked up by big international bloggers like Michelle Malkin, Tim Blair, and the Corner at National Review.com - so it’s a good opportunity to gain exposure for progressive moderate Muslims.

I’m also interested in finding out about progressive Muslims in other parts of the Anglosphere - if you have suggestions on who would be good there, please, again, do let me know in the comments.

Shukran.

Former CBC news director Tony Burman has taken a job as news director at Al Jazeera. He’s joining fellow CBC allumnist Avi Lewis - their expert on the US:

Less than a year after leaving the CBC, former editor in chief Tony Burman is taking on a top post at news network Al-Jazeera English.

Wadah Khanfar, director general of the Al-Jazeera network, announced Burman’s appointment as managing editor on Wednesday.

Burman, who during his tenure as head of CBC News worked to integrate the broadcaster’s television, radio and online services, said that in his new post he will emphasize expanding “Al-Jazeera’s vast audience reach into important new areas of the world, most notably North America.”

He also said he would pursue “increased investment in investigative journalism, more provocative and insightful current affairs and expansion of the network’s large worldwide network of more than 60 news bureaus.” Burman succeeds Nigel Parsons, who was a key figure in launching Al-Jazeera English in November 2006 and was named the network’s new managing director of business acquisition and development.

What a good fit - he doesn’t even need to reign in his bias. For example …

Here he is explaining why the CBC didn’t show the Mohammed Cartoons:

At the CBC, we decided not to show the original cartoons in our extensive coverage of the controversy. We felt that we could easily describe the drawings in simple and clear English without actually showing them. This was intended, without embarrassment, as an act of respect not only for Islam but for all religions.

Why should we insult and upset an important part of our audience for absolutely no public value? We wouldn’t have done that if it involved overt examples of racism, or anti-Semitism or libel. Where do we draw the line?

Shouldn’t the media be part of the solution, not the problem?

Here is an excerpt from a report on Israel that ran during his watch over the CBC newsroom:

If Palestinians have committed terror, the Israelis have certainly committed war crimes. There is also the question of whether the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, thousands of whom are well armed and overtly bellicose, constitute civilians or combatants.

and in another report

I think the principal reason (for the attack) is our policies on the Arab-Israeli issues. This is extremely important. We’re now regarded as being very much in the pockets of (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon. And the second reason, of course, is Iraq

here is Burman on the use of the word Terrorism:

‘Terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ are used in CBC news and programming to describe particular acts or people, including in Israel and the rest of the Middle East, but only when attributed,” he said. “In other words, if presidents, prime ministers, political leaders, police chiefs and the like, use them, they are freely included in our reporting …

Our preference is to describe the act or individual to refer to them as ‘gunman,’ ‘bomber,’ or ‘militant,’ for instance and let the viewer or listener make his own judgment,” Burman said. “I think we all understand the definition of the word, but in the Middle East particularly it has taken on political overtones. It is used so commonly in Israel that, for many, ‘terrorist’ has come to equal ‘Arab.’

Keep in mind, that’s what he did with a federal ombudsman - just wait and see what he’ll do with the gloves off.

Jonathan Kay has more on this

As does Ezra Levant

And the Halls of Macadamia blog

And SDA has more on Burman’s other biases

Look what’s still available for registration:

Well it was still available. I’ve parked a few other sites for later (stephenharper.wordpess.com , liberalpartyofcanada.wordpess.com , greenparty, jacklayton, megapundit, inklesswells, etc…) they’ll be fun come election time. SEO (aka ‘Google bombing‘) is a minor talent of mine.

This Kinsella one - it’s too rich. Honestly I don’t have time to post on it, but if you want a crack at it, let me know, and I’ll add you as a contributor.

I don’t really mean that - I like Hill Dog as much as the next guy, but, c’mon, the code words for white people (”Hard working Americans”), the beer hall, the victory in West Virginia? What else do you want me to do with that?

It’s begging for a beer hall putsch reference, so there you go.

If the analogy is apt, she’ll write some unreadable book and be back in 4 years with some brown-shirted friends.

This is a long quote from a web page belonging to the Canadian Society of Muslims (CSM). The CSM was instrumental in the Sharia law putsch a few years back.

This is their view on the limits of free speech, blasphemy and apostasy in Canada. For the impatient here is the précis:

The entire global Muslim nation determines what is blasphemy and apostasy and what is the correct punishment for each. Muslims have been in Canada since confederation and because of this, the constitution was written with them in mind. The Charter of Rights mentions: the supremacy of God, reasonable limits on freedoms, and the respect for multiculturalism. Therefore in order to honour all three provisions, Canadian courts must defer to the global Muslim community with regard to apostasy and blasphemy in Canada - if it does not, it betrays multiculturalism and is unconstitutional.

[backgrounder on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the foreign.  Imagine the US Bill of Rights if it was written by Jimmy Carter]

Here’s the full quote:

the rights of individuals with regards to freedom of speech or expression, has to be balanced against the rights of other individuals to be protected from defamation, insults, slander and libel, etc. The same holds true with respect to the rights of all members of society vis a vis States, Sovereign rulers and the Real Sovereign, God - they all have to be harmonized in their own context. Obviously, then, when dealing with Islam or Muslims, one has to take into consideration the sensibilities of the whole Muslim ‘Community’/ ‘nation’/ ‘Ummat’ and their need for protection against harm, say for instance, through their rules of Blasphemy , which are framed on the basis of their own philosophy of life depicted through their own perception and sensibilities with regard to sacrilege, desecration, defamation, slander, libel and so on. Therefore, in the case of Blasphemy, it goes without saying that the Islamic rules are obviously determined by Muslims on the basis of their own religious principles…

According to the Preamble of the Charter, “Canada is ‘founded upon the principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law.” This “preamble” too must be interpreted in the light of Section 27 which makes it mandatory that “this Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”

Islam is and has been (even going back to the time of Confederation) a part and parcel of multicultural heritage and Muslim adherents have had the privilege of enjoying the status of ‘Canadians’.

Because of the recognition of “Supremacy of God,” Islamic law, which originates from the Divine Source of the Supreme Legislator, God, deserves to be recognized as a legitimate code under the Rule of which Law Muslims are constitutionally entitled to live and be recognized under Section 2(a): as to freedom of conscience and religion — in the same way as Islam recognizes the right of non-Muslims to live by their own laws when living as minorities in a Muslim State (as mentioned under “Islamic Law”)…

… The Canadian Charter of Rights (Section 1) also requires that any reasonable limits on the guarantees of the Charter have to be demonstrably justified. It is our position that in view of the above arguments that the limits prescribed by Islamic law, with regards to blasphemy/apostasy, do satisfy both the Charter requirements. Namely (i) the Islamic limits are reasonable limits, and are (ii) demonstrably justified within the meaning of Section 1 of the Charter on these grounds: a) The provision of the Preamble regarding the Supremacy of God, b) the constitutional obligation to interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians, c) that over one billion people (Muslims) worldwide consider those limits to the freedom of speech/expression to be reasonable, d)(i)what such a large segment of the Canadian minority believes as a precept of their faith/religion ought to be fully recognized if the Charter’s provision respecting freedom of religion are to have any real meaning. (ii) Adherence to Islamic principles in this context, ought to be accepted as sufficient enough to satisfy the Charter Requirement of demonstrable justification. Recognition of Islamic standards of reasonable limits on the freedom of speech by the Canadian courts does not necessarily entail any obligation to enforce the Islamic punishment for blasphemy/apostasy within the Canadian jurisdiction. The Muslims themselves (with the exception of the small Shi’ite minority) do not generally believe or insist on any extraterritorial rights to enforce Islamic Hadd punishment in non-Islamic countries. (See footnote 1, under II, Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions).

Therefore, it seems logical and reasonable that when dealing with situations which involve Islamic Blasphemy, the Canadian courts, in all fairness, must also determine the issue of the reasonableness of the limits on the freedom of speech and the issue of demonstrable justification in accordance with the sensibilities of the whole Muslim Community/Ummah. Muslims adhere to the Islamic religious principles underlying their laws, which according to them, are legislated under the very authority of the Real Sovereign, the ‘God’, Who is also recognized by the Charter Preamble.

Failing to do so will be a flagrant breach of equality rights under Section 15(1) of the Charter. Because of this failure, Muslims will not be given the equal protection and equal benefit of the law and they will not be treated as equal before and under the law. Indeed, Muslims will thus be discriminated against on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour and especially religion. All such diverse people as those who follow the Islamic religious tradition, despite their various race and ethnic origin are one people.

Failing to interpret the guaranteed rights and freedoms of Muslims, in accordance with the true spirit of multiculturalism results in the effective denial of this fundamental philosophy of the Canadian constitution. This is a tragic departure from that cherished ‘tolerance’ (the real tolerance) which is the distinguishing quality of a cultured people. The more tolerant a nation, the more cultured its people will be. With this measure of cultural excellence, Canada does hold a place of honour in the nations of the world and indeed we proudly stand head and shoulders above so many other nations. What a sad thing it would be to not appreciate the necessity of inculcating this multicultural philosophy into our daily lives. How else can human beings become civilized enough to be able to claim that they do actually respect other cultures and wish to co-exist with them.

The Conservative Party is the third federal party of which I have been a member. I manned a phone bank for NDP MP Libby Davies and put up signs for Liberal MP Hedy Fry. I’m not exactly a lock step partisan. I support whichever person most closely fits with my ideals at the time. I was in college when I supported the NDP, and my prime motivation then was getting invited to lots of parties. I supported the Liberals under Hedy Fry, because I had just returned back to Canada after 3 years in Europe and the Middle East, and well, that kind of place rubs off on you.

But after thinking about and re-evaluating what I want for myself and my country, I switched support to the Conservative Party. It was a positive choice - not because it was a less worse than the other parties - it was demonstrably better than the Libs and Dippers, and it’s ideals were laudable.

So here we are a couple years into government and more and more the party is betraying our ideals. I had a minor fit over the Quebec nation resolution, another over changes to immigration policy, another over their giving in to European threats on visitor’s visas, the stupid light bulb ban, Kosovo independence, and a few over things I didn’t put on the blog.

But free speech? Come on …

Ezra Levant has word that the government is sitting on its hands while the mandarins in the justice department are running wild and supporting the CHRC in its campaign to stifle free speech. Referring to an anti-free speech legal brief produced by the Justice Department, Ezra writes:

I simply don’t believe that a single member of the Conservative government, let alone the Justice Minister or the Prime Minister, would agree with, or even understand, the following passage (from paragraph 116):

“on a macro level, the general tone of society can affect the mind”, and can lead to incivility and the “breakdown of community protection”

I don’t even think the lawyers who drafted the brief even know what the hell that means. But they’re just following old instructions, and they’ll continue to do so until someone in the Conservative government yells “stop!”

I’d like to invite readers — and fellow bloggers — to go through the memo in detail. Give it a good fisking. Don’t be intimidated by all the legalese; focus on the arguments, the logic, the history, the psychobabble, the plain old unintelligible political correctness of it.

And, if you happen to be a Conservative Member of Parliament, ask yourself: does this legal brief speak for the government? And, if you happen to be the Conservative Justice Minister, what are you going to do about it?

A year ago, I would have believed that to have been an honest oversight. But now, more than 2 years into their government, it’s incredible - the Tories must know about these cases, and they must have signed off on them. That isn’t the party I joined, that isn’t that party I occasionally throw money at, and most of all it isn’t the party I’ve spent countless hours volunteering for.

It’s not on.

I’m not going to go as far as Mike Brock and quit the party. For one, I don’t like the Libertarian Party - they’re filthy with 9-11 Truthers. So I’ll hold my judgement until the convention this fall, but until then?

Until then, I’ll do my best to find honest conservative criticism of our government and post it here, hopefully get some of us together, hopefully we can make a difference at the convention - and if not?

If not, we have proof of what a few ideologues can do if pushed too far.

More on the free speech betrayal here, here, and here.  Oh and here.

Here is Stephane Dion from 2006 - on a carbon tax:

A carbon tax is not the answer since that only punishes industry. You obviously need tax reform to compliment the carbon market since you need to deal with other types of pollution too. But worldwide, emissions trading has worked far better than carbon taxes and this is the route Canada needs to go down.

That was then, this is now…

Note to self: add ‘flip flopper’ to ‘not a leader’ repertoire

h/t Calgary Grit

This from Stephane Dion last night:

The peak oil era is happening and we need to prepare our country to win in this economy

Peak oil? Really? Did anyone notice that enormous find in Brazil - it’ll turn the country around. What about the massive oil shale deposits in the US Great Plains? The oil under the Arctic Sea? The virtually untapped oil under the BC coast?

This is the definition of ‘Peak Oil’:

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, an energy crisis may develop because the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically.

The thing with peak oil is that it has been predicted again and again. And each time, the date has passed and oil production risen.

It has happened in some countries - granted - but worldwide? What is he basing that on? The projected dates for peak oil are all over the map - but put them together and you reach one conclusion - peak oil can only be seen up close, a year before the event at most.

So is Dion making policy based on wildly discordant predictions? It seems yes.

And what about his solutions? What would peak oil mean for Canada?

Say next spring, someone looks back and sees that the peak has occurred and oil production has crashed all over the Middle East. We in Canada would see the demand for our oil skyrocket. We’d face pressure to start drilling off the BC Coast, under the Arctic Sea - in fact if we didn’t start drilling in the latter, someone else very well could. Peak oil for us would mean a tax windfall, security threats, and centrifugal forces pulling the oil consumers of Ontario apart from the oil producers in the west.

And Dion’s answer is to make gas more expensive for the aforementioned consumers. That’s it?!

If it were me, I’d be looking at constitutional reforms to give Alberta its triple-E senate and defuse its future demands for more power and autonomy; I’d start replacing Ontario’s coal plants with nuclear plants; I’d invest more in southern Ontario’s Go Train and public transit systems; and I’d mandate higher levels of fuel efficiency from auto manufacturers - eventually demanding that every car be a hybrid - I’d also follow Brazil’s moves during the oil shock and ensure that new Canadian cars could handle higher levels of bio-fuels in their gasoline; as important, I would build a navy base on the Arctic Sea to enforce our contested sovereignty over the region; and I’d purchase planes that could quickly respond to any threat or intrusion.

Most of the above, fortunately, are Tory policy. Would Dion do any of those things? In spite of voting for most of them in the Commons - I doubt he would. The incoherent little hedgehog has just the one answer for everything - ‘tax and regulate’. And if he’s wrong … ? Hell, even if he’s right - it’s not the right answer.

Related: On Stephane Dion’s self-described ‘bad policy’