bleeding heart

Everyone knows, uncontroversially, that different native groups have different views on different issues...and that differences of opinion exist within groups as well. I mean, that they're like every other grouping of human beings in this way is evidently a terrific weakness! Clearly the idea here is to prove that "First Nations groups" are, well, hypocrites.....the single and only crucial point being made in the OP.

I'm not so sure. I never use the word myself, precisely because I don't wish to sound disrespectful...but as of now, it remains part of the official government and treaty language in some cases, so my understanding is that when used in terms of Status, treaties etc it is not meant disrespectfully.

I agree there's nothing phobic, nor wrong, about pointing out barbaric behaviour. But choosing to view the whole mess, the whole fraudulent "War on Terror," as an existential battle between the forces of Good (Western nations, victims and heroes in the predictable and ahistorical formulation) and the forces of Evil (Islam entire) is indeed a cowardly stance. It has little or nothing to do with "Islamophobia," and mostly or all to do with doctrinal "truths" about Western benevolence. This undergirds everything Hirsi Ali has to say on the matter, at least when she moves from her critique of oppression of women into "They shouldn't be allowed to burn our flags." Or the self-regarding, apocalyptic polemics of the silly Swiss man in the video above.

Well, I don't think the complaint has been about Harper pointing out what Flaherty belived in; the complaint (accurate or not, count me an agnostic) was that Harper was politicking on a grave.

Well, the thread is only temporarily locked...so maybe that is indeed a better solution than suspending posters from the thread....especially where it's not always easy to see who is precisely or mostly responsible in every case.

And just as a point of order, the "I Am Canadian" beer commercials were a nationalist embarrassment. IMO.

I think that's a fair point. People have been eulogizing him all over the public sphere...as with Layton's death, many people have taken a moment to reflect on public servants, party be damned, and to appreciate it in a relatively non-partisan way.

Rue, Waldo and Wilber have each said it better than I could. Agreed completely.

But I've been suspended as well, and it wasn't exactly for my conservative politics, to my understanding.

Well, no, but there's an assumption--mostly if not exclusively by the political Right--that universities are hotbeds of anti-Israeli sentiment. That certainly wasn't my experience during a liberal arts degree--where the topic was in fact more marginal than most "hot topics" around--but either way, since the "anti-Israel" claim is actually pretty common (among those standing on certain points of an ideological spectrum), I'd suggest it is up to them to demonstrate the veracity of the claim.

Communism is not "their core self-stated founding principle." The bit you cited is uncontroversial, and in several respects is adhered to by every single Western government of any party--without exception. Like, for example, the statement you produced about government intervention in "monopolistic...organizations..as all parties agree to. I said "fascist" as a joke....you see, I think those who promiscuously throw around terms like "communist' and "fascist" where they self-evidently do not apply are frightened of honest debate. Anyway, while you're at it, you might want to throw some withering critiques at such socialist aspects of governance as the police...and the military. As the piece you provided uncontroversially and rationally says: "where necessary."

People are blasé about torture (or support and defend it, in some cases) based not at all on any serious considerations of the matter, but solely because powerful Western governments have committed themselves to it. The support is entirely a matter of servility, of sycophancy.

A matter of time....soon,. a blogger will inform them what to say.

I'm mildly surprised that anyone still calls the NDP "communist." I mean, sure, it makes sense if you're coming at the topic from a fascist perspective.....

The firebrand moaning deliriously about European's cultural and moral supremacy--and chilling warnings about the End of Civilization--gave me a warm feeling. After all, it's not as if Canada has a large and growing Muslim population. It's not as if the United States has a large and growing Muslim population. And hey, since we're talking about the glories of freedom and Western culture, a listener might find it interesting that the United States has a more entrenched system (and entrenched belief) in personal freedoms overall than any European country. And it seems evident that the good of this outweighs the bad by a large measure. And yet--somehow Americans and Canadians have managed to so far delay the sense of absolute panic that underlines this Swiss fellow's polemic, and so many of his "Muslims-are-scary" European counterparts. At bottom, ironically, I'm not perceiving an underscoring of Western, enlightenment liberal values in such fear-mongering little speeches and remarks...I'm seeing a kind of detestation of them, under the pretence of defending them. Is it in bad taste for me to suggest that the Europeans might take a page from the quieter, saner North American domestic response on this issue? After all, what critics are calling "bowing down" is no such thing....it is the assumption, properly conditional, that Muslim immigrants are going to accept their adopted country's laws, and become decent and productive members of society. And apart from an occasional outlier, this has proven to be the case, in spades. As usual, Canadian and American immigration policies have proven effective and reasonable. And as usual, Muslim citizens (also known as "Canadians" and "Americans") are not the enemy. Perhaps it's the people who keep screaming irrationally about them who are the real "enemies of Western civilization." Mmmmmm, delicious irony!

Well, since cybercoma is almost certainly not voting CPC, I think his "better choice" is implied, isn't it?

"Horny women." ok

Somalia's politics are intensely affected by "business interests," obviously, albeit mostly at the local level of relatively small business (organized crime and the like).

Her extremism is readily available for anyone willing to look. "We" are at war with Islam. when asked in the interview to specify ("Do you mean extremist Islam?"), she reiterated: "No. Islam." She continued in this vein, saying that the war should be fought by shutting down schools, "converting Muslims to Christianity"--as a political act, mind, not as a natural part of existing missionary work--and "destroying Islam," including "militarily." Well, as a "Visiting Scholar" at the imperial-minded American enterprise Institute, she plainly believes in the fantasy of a benevolent, US-led Western coalition militarily "destroying Islam." Which just happens, coincidentally, to align perfectly with the AEI's "unipolar world" fantasy, in which the US should be the de facto ruler, not least through military exercises "against current and potential adversaries." (bolding mine.) Do you really need me to parse out everything wrong with this view? Both its political lunacy, and its preposterous premises of an enlightened West fighting evil? (The latter is a belief held by commissars and sycophants....and literally no one else.) She has said that Anders Brievik acted as he did because his views were "silenced". I don't mean she was condoning the mass murders...she was not. But her view of Brievik as being "silenced" by the "advocates of silence" (ie "liberals") is about as salient as her (self-regarding) view of herself being "silenced". That is, she is "silenced" by having an honorary degree revoked....and that the university has offered an open invitation for her to come speak at the university sort of....demolishes that victim-fantasy, just a tad....don't you think? So in short: she believes the benevolent West is "at war with Islam"--explicitly not only with "extremist" or "political" Islam, but the faith entire; that "in war there is no middle ground." so that "you must defeat your enemies or get crushed"; that Islam is a "cult of death," and that "conversion to Christianity" is something we should be looking into; that she is "being silenced" by the very institution that gave her a standing invitation to come speak at said institution. (Her notion of "freedom of speech" is evidently plagiarized from Sarah Palin, who thought that the virulent criticism of her was "against [her] freedom of speech."); that the United States of America, and its weak-willed but well-intentioned allies, are organs of enlightened benevolence seeking to destroy evil. (The majority of history thus deemed irreconcilable with her imagined world, no doubt making her empire-enthusiast husband rather proud.); that "there is infiltration of Islam into the schools and universities of the West. You stop that."; that we shouldn't "allow" Muslims, in other countries, to "burn effigies" and "symbols" (the American flag): "you look them in the eye and you flex your muscles and you say, "This a warning. We won't accept this any more." And I'm sure she is candid and honest about her views. So am I....you must think me quite the guy. The difference is that I don't have glorious fantasies about Western militaries "defeating Islam," which is the stupidest and saddest delusion I've heard from a major public intellectual in...well, a couple days, I guess.

It's not necessarily the case. Like I said, it may be that Brandeis is insincere about its stated reasons....and the internet howls of "unfair!" are accurate. (Evidently an honorary degree is an entitlement, or even a right). Or it may be that they didn't like Ali's very open and stated extremism (some of which I noted above) after it was pointed out to them, and so withdrew on that point. Or, as I also said, it could even be a combination of fearful political correctness and a rush of sanity....no reason why the two must always be mutually-exclusive in this complicated world.

I was surprised and gratified to see Joffrey go.... And the reaction of "The Mother of Madness," as Tyrion so aptly called her, was priceless.

No one can even declare what this magical "centre" is (meaning that the oft-declared "most Canadians are centrists" theme is close to meaningless).

I agree with Michael. There is a complex set of cultural, tribal and political factors at play. Now, personally, I don't have much respect for the religion. And there's no need for me to have respect for it. But I think the notion (one shared by Ali, incidentally) that the Muslims are poised to take over Western civilization is....simply a silly idea. And the idea that we are--or should be--"at war with Islam" is a non-starter, and a kind of political lunacy. Ad while I too have perceived some pc cautiousness about criticizing the faith, I don't see it as a monolithic notion, of "the West committing suicide" as some more frail and fearful folks would have it; nor is it perfectly clear and obvious that Brandeis had only "political correctness" in mind when they revoked the trivial matter of an honorary degree.

This situation is slightly different from the way it's being painted...granted, it comes down to matters of degree. So, a couple of points: first of all, Hirsi's personal victimization and her eagerness to stand up to Islamic oppression does not mean that what she says is correct. She has made a lot of fantastic claims, and her own experience does not provide any added gravitas to them. For example, she said that the West "is at war with Islam" which is a "cult of death," and that "in war, there is no middle ground." the implication seems clear enough, especially given her "fellowship" with the openly-imperialistic American Enterprise Institute, and her support for every military "solution" to everything. She has said that Muslim schools should be closed; that Muslims should be converted to Christianity; and she is an advocate of a militaristic foreign policy "against Islam," putting her at the extreme hawkish edge of foreign policy prescriptiveness...far to the hawkish right of any administration, and to more extreme than...well, virtually everybody, including those who admire her. Personally, whether a university awards her an honorary degree is far outside my area of interest. Don't care if they do, or do not. Honorary degrees usually mean next to nothing. But well-known, vocal critics of Islam, such as Salman Rushdie, have received numerous such honours. That's presumably because they're not calling for perpetual war against a religion by the world's superpower....a stance that is quite literally insane. As a person advocating against oppression of women, and one who has herself been a victim and has embraced a less oppressive worldview, I can certainly applaud her. But as a foreign policy wonk, she is so far out in hawk-land that it beggars belief. For she too has an extremist religious belief: the extreme, faith-based statism of a benevolent West fighting evil. That's the stance of intellectual weaklings and moral cretins....without exception. Because it IS a matter of Faith, and wholly so, hostile to evidence. Brandeis made their objections clear; if there is an element of politically-correct, tip-toe around Islam note to it, then sure, criticism is due. But I think their objections simultaneously go deeper than this. ...... I should add, in case I wasn't clear, that I DO think a sort of politically-correct mindset sometimes pervades this issue...as with every issue, from homosexual rights, to anti-Semitism, to the complaint that "people are too critical of the West" (one of PC's most laughable forms). And so I agree with pointing it out where it rears its head. But I think too there are plenty of cases that are greyer, and sometimes people's views are excoriated not because (or not only because) of political correctness...but because they say stupid and ugly things.