kimmy

An editorial by Tarek Fatah in the Calgary Herald addresses this issue: Tarek Fatah: CBC and Jihad For those not familiar with Fatah, he is highly outspoken about conservative Islam, and Islamists in particular. He is somewhat like Irshad Manji, in the sense of being a Muslim who has been accused of trying to make a name for himself by bagging on Islam. His bias on this subject is well known, so read with a grain of salt. That said, he also makes it his business to know about groups like MAC. Disclaimer over, here is some of what Tarek Fatah says about MAC: Fatah also blasts CAIR, although his ammunition with regard to CAIR does not appear relevant to the Canadian branch, other than raising the everpresent spectre of Saudi funding. Fatah's conclusion sums up my concern about the CBC allying with a group with dubious goals, although he says it in much stronger language: -k

Sorry, I hadn't realized what was added after the fact. I gathered he'd fixed a dead link, but that was all. Not exactly... from their website: "Little Mosque on the Prairie's cast and crew, in association with the CBC, Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), Islamic Institute of Toronto (IIT) and MuslimServ, are asking YOU to join us in the fight against hunger." The phrase "in association with..." certainly sticks out. As far as I can gather, the producers and cast of the show have partnered with these Muslim groups to raise donations for Canadian food banks. The CBC itself is providing support and promotion for this endeavor. Cast members will be appearing at events, with proceeds going to the charity, and so forth. The organizations will I assume be inviting their members to donate. And to reiterate, I have no complaint about the cause. It sounds like a terrific idea, and I think it is great that the cast of the show and these Muslim organizations are helping to support food banks. My concern here is just with the possibility that this one group may have ideology that just isn't compatible with Canadian values, and if that is the case then it is unfortunate that the CBC has partnered with them in an arrangement that amounts to more or less an endorsement. I would like to know more about MAC before I rush to any judgment about whether this is appropriate. -k

I love how Harper is not a "national leader" because he got shut out of a province with half the population of the Edmonton area... ...while for decades, no Liberal leaders has received anything from the prairies but a handful of leaves, yet somehow these Liberal leaders have had no difficulty going around telling everyone that they are "de Prime Ministar for de whole countrie an all of de Canadiens for sure an all dat!" -k

Canada has lost 103 soldiers in Afghanistan over the span of about 7 years, yes? How long does it take ethnic gangs in Canada's biggest cities lose that many lives? About 2 months? -k

While this thread has turned into another massive train-wreck (like just about every thread about Islam turns into...) I would like to go back to somethings said earlier on. Michael, this just doesn't seem like your usual quality of writing. Given the claims made about Hassan Al-Banna in the original post, with citations, trying to describe him as "a guy who believes Muslims should have their own courts" seems like an absurd attempt at soft-sell (in the same sense as saying "Ronald Reagan was an American actor...") ...and this seems like another. The CBC has not merely given to the same charity as this group. The LMOP show, which is heavily promoted by CBC, has entered into a charity partnership with this organization, and the CBC is providing promotion and support for the whole partnership. There is undeniably a degree of partnership between the CBC and this group, and arguably even endorsement. It should be obvious why there is potentially a controversy here. To provide a non-Muslim analog, I suggest that most people would not complain if the CBC entered into a similarly good-intentioned partnership with Christian charities such as the Salvation Army or Catholic Social Services... but a great many people would be upset if the CBC entered into a charitable partnership with the Westboro Baptist Church, no matter how well intentioned it was. Now, what the Muslim Association of Canada actually stands for is another matter. They allegedly wish to implement the teachings of Hassan Al Banna... what do they interpret those teachings to mean in the context of Canada in 2008? Do they interpret it to mean that Muslims should isolate themselves, as Pipes alleges? Do they interpret it to mean pressing for Sharia law, as Pipes alleges? Nothing on the group's website gave me an answer to those questions. Perhaps some journalist will provide more information about what the CBC has actually partnered up with here, but not if people are intent on taking the attitude you've adopted towards this. -k

While this might not be "knives out for Palin", it seems like somebody thought she (and many other governors) deserved the fake anthrax letter panic treatment: White powder mailed to Palin's office. Oddly, the letter was addressed to Palin's predecessor, Frank Murkowski, even though he has been out of office for over 2 years. Palin is not alone: at least 30 governors have been targetted. All of the letters have Dallas-area postmarks. In at least one case, the powder has been found to be flour. -k

I am glad we agree on at least that much. I've never heard any suggestion that Jews (as a group) are less kind to atheists than to members of any established religion. As for what hard-core Muslims believe, who gives a crap? The rules of their religion dictate certain kindnesses towards Jews and Christians, however I certainly wouldn't choose to live as a dhimmi in a Muslim country. Adopting Judaism or Christianity so that Muslims might like me better is about the last thing I think I'd do on this planet. If I write about "Jesus", I am writing about the historical figure whose teachings are at the heart of Christianity, and indeed much of western civilization. I have great respect for Jesus. If I write about "Jeeeeeezus", I am writing about an idol frequently cited by bigots and ignoramuses to justify their tiny, narrow minded views. In my experience, when somebody cites "Jeeeezus" in an argument, they're just about to say something that would make The Great Teacher cringe. I can't bring myself to write "Jesus" when I am writing about people who don't seem to actually understand Jesus. So I write "Jeeeeeeezus" instead. -k

Peoples' freedom to hold whatever religious views they wish is one of our core principles. The freedom to believe in no religion at all is implicit in that. In this country, what you people mistakenly think is a "war against Jeeeeezus" is actually a war in defending peoples' right to hold their own religious views. -k

This is certainly a more challenging issue than trying to determine whether Lisa Simpson or Meg Griffin are "persons". There are several questions to be considered. I think they are really just variations on questions raised during previous trials, such as Robin Sharpe's. I believe that in Sharpe's trial, it was determined that while most of the material he possessed was indeed child pornography, written works of fiction were not considered child pornography on the grounds that no exploitation of a minor had actually taken place (I think that was appealed some number of times... not sure on the ultimate status of the ruling.) I think the situation you're suggesting-- life-like computer-generated "victims" are probably very similar to a verbal distinction. Reading a story, one might not be able to tell if it were real or fiction... looking at a drawing, it could be from the mind's eye or it could be from an actual model. I suspect that the same ruling about written pornography would apply to images created by hand or computer, provided a real model were not used. If no victim is harmed in the creation of pornography, should it be illegal anyway? There's 2 arguments in to be made on that front. The first is obvious: it should be banned because the general public hates it, it is against community standards. The second is that the existence of the pornography has harmful consequences... it could lead to real crime. Could the verbal or visual depiction of children in sexual situations cause someone to actually have pedophile urges? I think most people probably suspect that somebody who has pedophile urges after watching kiddie-porn was probably a pedophile to start with. Could the verbal or visual depiction of children in sexual situations inspire a pedophile to attempt to prey on children in real life? That is a difficult question. I think some people have argued the opposite, that this material provides a release that might reduce the likelihood of a pedophile seeking out "real world" victims. However, the argument that seeing or hearing something caused someone to do something bad has been made many times, for many years. Ozzy Osbourne made my son commit suicide. Marilyn Manson made my boy kill those kids. Resident Evil made my son go on that murderous rampage at his school. Playboy magazine made my client rape that woman. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles made our kids attack that child. South Park made our kids beat up that redheaded child. Maybe there's some validity to this sort of view, although I am skeptical. My question is, if this argument is to be made... why is it made so selectively? I saw a grisly murder on TV this week. Shouldn't we put a stop to this? If watching Simpsons Porn is going to make people try to have sex with children, isn't watching grisly murders on TV going to make people try to commit grisly murders? -k

The internet presents people with the opportunity to read and see and hear things they'd never read and see and hear otherwise. Sometimes they use that opportunity to educate and edify and illuminate themselves. Other times they use it to amuse or astound or shock themselves. Last week I watched a video of a fat girl attempting to sing while dancing atop a table... the table flipped over, the girl went head over heels, landed on the table, then crashed to the floor. She was quite likely badly hurt. But god, it was funny. Am I a bad person for having watched the video? Does it represent some repressed malice? Is it likely that I'm going to go around knocking dancing fat-girls off tables in the future? No, I really don't think so. It was a moment of entertainment, a chance to say "LOL, WTF?!" I strongly suspect that the reason someone would create "Simpsons Porn" or "Family Guy Porn" is to create a reaction of "LOL, WTF?!" -k

(didn't you just answer your own question?) -k

That is very well said, cybercoma. The question "what does English Canada want?" carries the implicit assumption that English Canada is a homogenous entity. Is that how Quebec still views us? "TRoCs"? If not "English Canada" then what "Canadas" are there? East/Central/West? Rural/Urban? At this point in our history, is there any relevant way of breaking Canada into relevant sound-bite-sized groups for handy analysis? -k

Why do humans with a penis seem to be involved in large-scale frauds more often than humans without a penis? Probably because humans with a penis have historically and continue to be more often in positions to commit large scale fraud. High positions in banking and business and so-forth. Why do Jews seem to be involved in large-scale frauds more often than their numbers might indicate? Probably because Jews have historically and continue to be often in positions to commit large scale fraud. High positions in banking and business and so-forth. I think the people most likely to commit a $380 million fraud are people who handle $380 million on a regular basis. (that is where I would start investigating such a crime, at least...) If a disproportionate number of people in such positions were Jewish, that's not a slam at Jewish people. Jewish people have a long history in finance, and I would not be surprised if they continue to be active in finance in disproportionate numbers, simply for reasons of family tradition. -k

Somehow I'm skeptical that Obama's plans wrt appointing his successor would involve a large cash transfer and a plum job for Mrs Blagojevich. -k

While I can't imagine what kind of retard would want to watch "Simpsons" porn, this is ridiculous. If fictional characters are ruled to be "persons", I suppose killing them would be ruled "murder" then. -k {waiting to see if Matt Groening is charged in the death of Bleeding Gums Murphy.}

Ok, other than being from the same state and same party, is there any real reason to think Obama has connections to this guy? The world of Chicago politics may be "clubby", but all politics are clubby; I suspect that Chicago politics are noted not so much for being "clubby" as for the shady reputation of that club. I don't think people should make the assumption that Obama was connected to this guy's shady dealings. -k

Well, Brian Mulroney already has his Order of Canada. Judging from the names on the list, it appears that most former Prime Ministers become a Companion of the Order, so Dion will probably-- oh, wait! haha, nevermind! Joe Clark may have been a rump, but he was not an easterner. Getting some witch-doctor to bring Joe's rotting corpse out of the cemetary to try to revive the party's fortunes was probably the final stroke for the PCs. I was quite young at the time and don't know what the thinking was. Shameless (and inept) ploy for Western votes? Attempt to appeal to those who were nostalgic for the glory days of his 6 month run as PM? Were they banking on his marvelous oratory skills to inspire? His really fresh vision for the future? Was Kim Campbell busy that week? If somebody with a long memory for pointless trivia can provide some insight onto why they went with Joe Clark, I'd be interested to hear it. So why did the west turn against the PC party in such decisive fashion? Well, I think that in the business world there's a theorem or axiom (?) that goes something along the lines of "if everybody stops buying Brand X when Brand Y becomes available, Brand X was probably a piece of crap." I gather you feel that Western Canadians had some kind of moral obligation to try to nurse the PC party back to health after the Mulroney gang drove it off a cliff? Why? If the west was supposed to provide unconditional care and nurturing for the PC party in good times or bad, maybe it should have been more deserving of this support, and more loyal to the people who were assumed to provide it. They weren't. Big mistake, apparently. Taken for granted one time too many. -k

As if Michaelle Jean wasn't busy enough, she's appointing new members to the Order of Canada this Friday. Among the 47 recipients are Preston Manning and Deborah Grey. (full list of appointees) Preston will be made a Companion of the Order of Canada, which is considered the highest level of the award. There may be only 165 living Companions of the Order at any given time, so somebody literally has to die for you to get in. This is indeed an exclusive honor. Although during his career as an MP and leader Manning was often a focus of attacks, I think history looks much more favorably on Manning than it did when he was in office. His fiscal policies were adopted by the Chretien Liberals, and he articulated the principles on which the Clarity Act is based long before Chretien and Dion did. While many disagreed with Manning's beliefs, I think most agree that he embodied principle and integrity. Deborah will be made an Officer of the Order of Canada, which is less exclusive but still a great honor. As the first Reform MP, and the longest serving, she helped usher in a new era, and will be remembered for her straightforward and down to earth prairie-mom demeanor. I think both of these MPs are deserving recipients of this honor. -k

the Vancouver Province: we could still work with the Tories Last week, Vancouver Island MP Keith Martin was among just a couple of Liberals saying this (along with former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler...) Now other BC MPs are expressing the same view. Usual Dosage, probably the most prominent of the BC Liberals, says "If the budget is appropriate, I'm willing to consider it. We can't be unreasonable. Canadians expect us to be reasonable." Dosage says that support for the coalition is "about 50-50" among his constituents, which probably means that either he is using a pretty selective definition of "constituent", or that he's getting his information from the same people that do Stephane Dion's polling. Hedy Fry says that they could support the budget if it contains "a good stimulus package". She also describes Dion as "a really, really lame duck leader, who doesn't inspire confidence in anyone". Joyce Murray says her mind is not made up right now. Along with Martin, these 3 account for 4 of the 7 Liberal MPs west of Windsor. (the remainder are Ralph Goodale in Saskatchewan, another Vancouver riding, and the MP from the Yukon.) -k

This is nothing new. It's piggies staking out their place at the trough. Stelmach notices Ontario and Quebec manufacturing-- the auto sector, prominently-- about to receive a staggering amount of federal money, and probably a bunch more when the inevitable "financial stimulus package" arrives. And he wonders... how can we get some of that action here? If some of the kids are getting toys and cookies, the other kids feel left out. -k

Harper has received almost a free pass in this fiasco, by virtue of being opposed by one of the most inept trios ever to cross paths. (If the coalition were a movie, it would be Joel Schumacher directing David Caruso in a Joe Esterhaus script...) ...but I don't think Harper can afford to provoke a similar crisis any time soon. Canadians have no further interest in this sort of nonsense, and while Dion has worn the blame this time around, Harper might wear it next time. -k

That's odd. Given the sad state of her dentalistry, I'd have guessed she was British. I hope so. I think the potential reward for the Liberals is huge here. If Ignatieff took that offer and did something concrete with it, he'd look like the kind of leader that Canadians are pleading for right now. These are intriguing times. I can hardly wait to see what happens next! -k

I am sure that your sentiments would be music to the ears of most western separatists. I do quibble with the point about provoking Quebec, however. I think that if you check your history book, you'll notice that Quebec was "provoked" before Harper, Day, or Manning arrived on the scene. The only Western Canadian who might have been on the national scene in time to "provoke" Quebec was Diefenbaker, and I'm not convinced that Quebec's issues with the rest of Canada can be traced to Diefenbaker in any sensible manner. I think you might find that the federal leaders who've been most guilty of provoking Quebec are actually Trudeau, Chretien, and Dion. -k

Alex Jones' 12 year old nephew cracks the case? Yes, you can find the phrase "New World Order" in many books. It's a phrase commonly used to describe the post-cold-war international community. Finding the phrase "New World Order" in a textbook does not constitute evidence of the kind of world government conspiracy that Alex Jones thinks exists. Ok, so just supposing that there was a super-secret world government that controls everything. Would they let an elementary school text-book blow their cover? The same global conspiracy that goes to any length to hide its existence and cover its tracks somehow lets a school textbook expose its secrets? :lol: It's almost like some people are born with a gene that disables critical thinking. -k

What makes you say "they don't have a clue" or "don't know what the fuck they're talking about"? That they disagree with the way you think they should see things? There's a line that can be crossed where instead of an intelligent response, you get a fist in your ear. "Selfish pieces of garbage" isn't the sort of dialog that is going to get you an intelligent response. Perhaps there's a life lesson you can learn from today's little chat. -k