Muslims and free humanity against Sharia

I am happy to find a comment from Muslims Against Sharia at one of our November posts.

I'm not sure which member of the group posted that, but it recalled to mind a Front Page interview with Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims Against Sharia:

Most of American mosques are financed and run by Wahhabis. Wahhabi imams are anything but moderate, hence most of religious leaders are radicals. So-called "civil rights" groups, i.e., CAIR, MPAC, ICNA, MAS, etc. that comprise Muslim establishment are nothing more than offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and fronts for Hamas and al-Qaeda. They are very well financed and are extremely skilful manipulators of the media. And most of the people in government and media truly believe that those groups are moderate, because they are either too lazy to do research or they choose to ignore terrorist ties.

As a result, when either the government or the media needs an Islamic point of view, Muslim establishment groups are go-to "experts" by default. With the "expert" seat being filled, moderate Muslims are left out.

Another problem with moderate Muslims is they are scared and not organized. They are scared because they cannot speak up in mosques for fear of being kicked out and there are virtually no organizations that represent their views. They are not organized, because, unlike the radical, they do not receive tens of millions of dollars in financial support, therefore they have to work for a living.
[...]
Their strategy is very simple. They constantly claim that they are peaceful and moderate, and Western media is more than happy to repeat that nonsense. They do not praise terrorism in public, but they justify it by playing the Muslim victimhood card. And they are very effective at it.

Many radical organizations have already been exposed by counter-terrorism researchers like Steven Emerson, John Loftus, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Joe Kaufman, Paul Sperry, Zeyno Baran, and many others. The proof that the Muslim establishment is anything but moderate is widely available. However, the government and the media either for political reasons or out of sheer stupidity completely ignore it.

Front Page's Jamie Glazov went on to ask:

I would like to touch on your intriguing point that “the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries, and all we want to do is to revert it as close as possible to the original." Is there any textual support for such a notion? And doesn't this notion run counter to the Islamic doctrine of the perfection of the Qur'an, which insists that the Qur'anic text is the same as it was in the time of Uthman? In light of these considerations, do you think you will gain much support in the Islamic world?

Massoud: We do not have any direct evidence that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries. However, there is some circumstantial evidence supporting our point. First, if you take two English Korans translated by two different people, the difference could be very substantial. Substantial to the point that the same verses could have completely different meaning. Case in point: a recent arrest of Ghows Zalmay, who, according to the fundamentalists, misinterpreted some verses in the Koran.

Based on these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that when the Koran was copied many times over, the mere mortals who did the copying might have "adjusted" the texts to reflect their personal views, or the views of their superiors.

Second is deductive reasoning. The Koran contains verses that represent mutually exclusive concepts, i.e., human 'life is precious' vs. 'kill the infidels wherever you find them' or 'respect the People of the Book' vs. 'do not take Jews and Christians for friends'.

Allah is infallible and cannot contradict himself, which means that some of those verses are not the literal word of Allah. Also, how can Allah, who is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be a source of "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?

The only logical explanation is that the Koran we have today was significantly altered.

Glazov was not convinced that Islam could be reformed, pointing out that the violence in the Koran is not incidental to the transcendent meaning of the text, but fundamental to it, a fact confirmed by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence in their calls for the Muslims to subjugate the infidels to the Ummah. Glazov also notes that Massoud's arguments about contradictions in the Islam seem to be answered by the mainstream's doctrine of abrogation - the later verses of the Koran supersede the earlier, more pacific, ones. Read the rest of the interview, to decide whether Kalim Massoud gives answers that are likely to convince a large number of Muslims who want to live in peace with modernity and its freedoms.

In any case, the comment we received yesterday is full of links to the project of Muslims Against Sharia to provide a reformed version of the Koran, rid of all verses "that promote violence, divisiveness, religious or gender superiority, bigotry, or discrimination". They want readers to check out their reformed version of the Koran and to let them know (koran@reformislam.org) if they are failing in their mandate to rid the Koran of violence. There's a project that could make use of certain bloggers we know.

As anyone who has read the Koran knows, this will not be an easy task. The curses directed towards the unbelievers are ubiquitous in that book, and the more explicit denunciations of the infidels are common.

In any case, Muslims Against Sharia left us with a link,
In Memoriam of Aqsa Parvez.

The recent Canadian media coverage of the Parvez murder is full of all the sins that Massoud discussed at the opening of the Front Page interview; the media seemingly take the words of Islamist front groups that this was "just a horrific incidence of domestic violence" that Muslims condemn, and "nothing to do with religion or Islam", at face value. For example, even when the media reports they are being manipulated, so as to not be able to attend and report on Aqsa's funeral, they still take the blather of CAIR at face value: ""We're not here to talk about religion or culture - it has nothing to do with it - we're just here based on the fact that she lost her life and we just want to work toward stopping this from happening in the future," Ms. Dadabhoy said."

Of course anyone who thinks an honor killing over a daughter's desire to escape from the Islamist dress code has nothing to do with religion is being intentionally disingenuous. The media should just dump the commentators from groups like CAIR, and make people like Khalim Massoud their go-to guys when they need an example of moderate Muslim opinion. And let the CAIR warriors cry to they're wet that people like Massoud are not real Muslims.

As David Warren comments, there are other girls in Canadian society trying to free themselves of Islamic strictures who, like Warren's friend "Harata", know full well "That [Aqsa] could have been me." Anyone with a grain of integrity will want to protect these girls. And that means stopping in their tracks the Saudi-funded apologists for orthodox or "radical" Islam that pervade North American mosques.

Dag wrote a long post on this topic on Saturday at No Dhimmitude.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Hat Makes the Man

A man's hat can tell you so much at a glance that you often needn't even ask.

Sometimes there is the hat and also another obvious clue to the man's character.

There is a hat.

There is a man's hat.

And there is a real man's hat.

When we witness that happy day when men across Europe don real men's hats, then we will see a new age of peace and prosperity and the Kingdom come. I look forward to the day when every man wears a good hat. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one. But please wear a good hat. It might seem a small thing but a hat is important to the future of the free world. The hat is as important as what's under it. I prefer the Kossuth hat. Any cowboy hat will do, of course, but one must wear a real man's hat if we are to save what we can of the world of the free. It says what one is. No need for words, no glorious speeches, just the hat.

Dear reader, I can almost hear you say, "Dag, are you being weird?"

Well, no. A hat is such an obvious sign of what a man is that one can hardly argue it. We in the West seldom wear hats, and it shows in our lack of real mission in life. A hat says. And a lack of hats also says. Real men wear hats for real men. When it becomes a sign of our times and our being that we have Kossuth hats, then we will know we are ascendant. It's not weird, it's just out of the blue. In time, I can for now only hope, a hat will be an obvious sign of ones stand, of our stand, as hats are for others today.

Feminists and Multiculturalists: A Failure to Covenant Part II

Covenant Zone meets every Thursday, 7-9pm, in the atrium of the central branch of the Vancouver Public Library, in front of Blenz Coffee. Look for the blue scarves. Please join us if you would like to discuss the health of the Canadian national covenant. Some potential material for discussion follows:

Don't watch this video unless you are prepared to witness acts of extreme violence towards women, a revelation into life for women under Islam (ht: Suicide of the West):


Writing about the murder of Aqsa Parvez, Barbara Kay argues:

We have this week two news items of tragedies involving girl victims. Both will serve to reinforce the belief of many Canadians -- count me in -- that the alliance of feminism with multiculturalism has created a two-tier sisterhood.

The top tier, Western women, have achieved full equality rights. Any and all male aggression against a top-tier woman triggers a public outcry and a million lit candles. The second-tier women -- those from other cultures -- are not so fortunate. Feminists exploit multiculturalism to justify their moral abandonment of the women who most need them: girl victims of dysfunctional or socially unevolved cultures
[...]
Multiculturalists would have us believe that the hijab is merely a religious symbol, like the Sikh kirpan or the Christian cross, freely embraced by the girls wearing them. It isn't, as many Muslim commentators, including Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan in these pages yesterday, have frequently explained. The hijab is rather a public sign of supervised sexual modesty, and marks those wearing it as chattel, leashed to their fathers and brothers as surely as if they were wearing a dog collar.

But you'll never hear a feminist murmur a word of complaint about these girls' lack of autonomy

Athos notes:

Ostensibly [Islam] claims revelation that supersedes both Judaism and Christianity; surreptitiously, Islam is a petulant, chip-on-its-shoulder "negative imitation" of both, always cocking an eye to see its model-rival in near-hilarious attraction/revulsion ... if it weren't so murderous.

But like all conventional expressions of the primitive Sacred, Islam cannot let go of its primary motivating force: the religious dread and awe of needing victims -- yes, human victims. Girard calls this essential element of conventional religion, anthropologically speaking, the "single victim mechanism" (Robert Hamerton-Kelly calls it the "Generative Mimetic Scapegoating Mechanism," and with good reason, but I won't get into all that now).

Needless to say, if the duck walks and talks and looks like a practitioner of human sacrifice, it is a form of quacking paganism. Period. Judaism long ago had to be pulled out of it -- ask the Major and Minor Prophets. Christianity has always ruefully dabbled in it, enjoying a good Sunday afternoon hangin' on the town square. But both listen to a biblical Spirit that says an unequivocal "NO!" to it as a raison d'etre.

There is too much gathering evidence that Islam is far, far away from such an unequivocal message. Especially when Mum and Dad want to take the daughter out back and slit her throat unless stopped by the authorities.

Islamophobia? you might say so...

Janet Levy on Lee Harris (ht: Dag):

The principle of honor is of primary importance in radical Islamic cultures. The honor of the community must be protected at all costs and far exceeds any notion of the individual or of individual rights. Religious leaders, who view the world across a long-term time horizon, operate for the good of the ummah, the propagation of Islam over time and the enforcement of Islamic law.

Tribal success hinges on the inculcation of a uniform system of steadfast shared values and of a sense of shame so deep and visceral that it is impervious to reason and makes death preferable to tribal code violations and the accompanying loss of collective honor. It solidifies a rigidly imposed “us vs. them” mindset in which “the other” is a cursed object of abject enmity. The faithful are indoctrinated and prepared to sacrifice themselves for furthering fanatic tribal goals. Martyrs for the cause are celebrated and elevated to a position of honor.

Tribal cultures thrive on the vacuum that chaos presents. It is a boon to fanaticism and totalitarian control. In a state of chaos, all behaviors become permissible and extreme measures are easy to enforce on desperate populations.

Against such beliefs and behaviors, the enlightened societies of the West are ill equipped to do battle, Harris says. In Western societies, like America, elites serve as critics of the status quo and are often opposed by the populace. They keep any impulses toward fanaticism by the masses in check. Chaos is anathema to reason or order, which must be maintained at all costs. Indeed, the fear of anarchy often leads to appeasement and repudiation of beliefs.

Harris defines America today as a “carpe diem feel good” society in which the happiness of the individual is placed above responsibility to the community, world or future. Rights are cherished above duties, the present valued more than the future, and material acquisitions deemed more important than hard work.

Shaming is used as an effective tool in the enlightened West but with a different twist from that of the Islamic world. People are shamed into thinking the “right” thoughts and ostracized for intolerance and aggressive behavior. This serves to dilute cultural values and life-preserving warrior behavior necessary for survival. In America, people are generally unwilling to make the ultimate sacrifice and will do anything to avoid death and loss of property. The society operates under the notion that all differences can be resolved with negotiation rather than bloodshed. Potential warriors, such as alpha males are feminized, drugged and shamed out of existence. Essentially, mandatory multiculturalism enforces respect for other cultures and disrespect for American culture, Harris argues.

Harris further suggests that America’s Protestant tradition of independent thought and action has been replaced by programmed thought, further weakening our ability to deal with fundamentalist Islamic societies. America’s teachers are “salesmen of a particular ideological brand” and enforce a groupthink mentality of the “correct” opinions. For example, instead of critically evaluating multiple points of view about women in society, students are told that women are oppressed and that they must be purged of their anti-feminist views. Politically correct values and attitudes religiously demand tolerance for different points of view. It is deemed contemptible to view our American culture, our nation or any religion as superior and practically de rigueur to be tolerant of the intolerant and odious, such as Muslim fundamentalists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Thus, Western civilization is stripped of the notion that anything precious and worth protecting or fighting for exists.

In summary, the West is suffering from an insidious ideological assault from the outside by fundamentalist Islam that could result in profound societal damage, while at the same time we are, from the inside, undermining our core values and traditions. We are not experiencing a clash of civilizations, but an overt attempt to dismantle the worldwide status quo. The West is vulnerable, because it has failed to recognize that survival hinges on being intolerant to the intolerant and acknowledging the superiority of our way of life and the exceptionalism of America. We will probably be unable to change the Islamists and alter their three-pronged prescription for non-Muslims – death, subjugation or conversion – but we can prevent them from changing us. Through our “enlightened” democracy and lack of cultural protectionism, we are inadvertently aiding their cause. Our ability to fight has been severely weakened by the enlightened principles of tolerance and multiculturalism that we have grown to cherish and by a lack of group cohesiveness and respect for our common values and accomplishments. While we think short-term and teach our children to have contempt for our culture, the Islamists think long-term and teach their children to die for Islam.

According to Harris, our success in fighting the threat of radical Islam will depend on a willingness to defend ourselves against that most potent weapon for survival: fanaticism. Societies that are the most fanatical about their preservation will prevail. America’s best hope is that the struggle for our survival may cause us to awaken and recognize the nobility of our culture as something worth fighting for. We must return to our core traditions and values, take pride in our ethical superiority and exceptionalism and recognize a sacred duty to instill Western ethos in future generations and as widely throughout the world as possible.

Covenant Zone exists to remember the superiority of our Western way of life and to help us become better able to articulate and defend our stake in the covenant of Canadian nationhood.

Theodore Dalrymple:

The new atheists are quite right to see the threat of theocracy in Islamism. But in attacking all religion, they are like the French government which banned not only the wearing of the headscarf in schools, but the wearing of all religious insignia whatsoever, despite the fact that wearing a Star of David or a crucifix has and had a completely different social signification from wearing a headscarf. In the name of non-discrimination, the French government failed to discriminate properly: and proper discrimination is, or ought to be, practically the whole business of life. If there were large numbers of Christians or Jews who were in favour of establishing a theocracy in France, who had a recent record of terrorism, and who terrorised each other into the wearing of crucifixes and Stars of David, then the banning of those insignia would have been justified too. The wearing of the headscarf should be permitted again when Islam has become merely one personal confession among others, without the political significance that it has now.

In attacking all religion so indiscriminately, the atheist authors are, I am sure inadvertently and unintentionally, strengthening the hand of the Islamists. In arguing, for example, that for parents to bring up a child in any religious tradition, even the mildest of Anglicanism, is to abuse a child, with the natural corollary that the law should forbid it (for how can the law permit child abuse?), some of the authors are giving ammunition to the Islamists, who will be able with justice to say to their fellow-religionists, See, it is all or nothing. If you give the secularists an inch, they will take a mile. No compromise with secularism is possible, therefore; cleave unto us.

Islamism is a worthy target, of course, but by now one that has been pretty well aimed at (though I recommend very strongly the forthcoming book from Encounter Books, Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan, by Caroline Fourest). To suggest, however, that all forms of religion are equal, that they are all murderous and dangerous, is not to serve the cause of freedom and tolerance. It is to play into the hands of the very people we should most detest; it is to hand them the rhetorical tools with which they can tell the gullible that our freedoms are not genuine and that our tolerance is a masquerade. It is to do what I should previously have thought was impossible, namely in this respect to put them in the right.

See also: the fate of street girls in Cairo

GalliaWatch blog update

We Covenant Zone bloggers have long followed the excellent reporting going on at Tiberge's GalliaWatch blog, concerning news on and about France, news that is rarely to be found within other North American news sites.

Therefore it is with great distress that we read this message from Tiberge this afternoon, concerning some unexpected problems she is undergoing with her blogging:

A minor catastrophe has happened - My ISP provider suddenly and without warning
cancelled my DSL account. I am off-line and cannot receive e-mail at my regular e-mail box. I cannot post, as far as I know, though I will try after I send this message. It's been hysteria - on the phone with this office and that. They insist a request was sent in to terminate service. I of course insisted it wasn't true. I have no idea how long this will last - maybe several days.

... Would you be so kind as to post a very short announcement at CZ announcing my problem, and that I will be back on line ASAP.

This is the peril of living in the modern age: "the computer is never wrong..."

I think I can safely speak for all three of us here at Covenant Zone, when I say that we sincerely hope this bureaucratic snafu is quickly set to rights..!

Dad kills daughter over not really "competing" cultures

I had this post, written too quickly, up earlier. I'm not sure I got started on this story with a correct idea. I wanted to take to task the headline writer at the Vancouver Sun, for his or her multiculti posturing. But maybe what I was responding to was less posturing than a reflexive deferral to the words of the supposed authority quoted in the Sun story. I took the post down, but Charles tells me it is worth keeping up. So here it is with a few more edits, if something can still be of interest in my angry response to a horrible murder....

I was responding to this headline in the Sun: “Muslim girls struggle with 'competing' cultures”.
[original post begins now]
You see those scare quotes around “competing”? That’s to imply that kids who grow up with Muslim fathers who might kill them if they “dishonour” their family by refusing to wear the hijab – as has just happened in Toronto to 16-year old Aqsa Parvez, a cold fact the headline shamelessly dances around - kids who want to dress and look like normal kids at their public schools, are not caught in a totally real clash of competing cultures.

But of course they are caught in a cultural competition, a competition that necessarily implies value, and judgment of what is of lesser value. We, as a postmodern liberal society, live in fear of the reality that conflict and value judgment is inherent to the human condition. And so we put simple references to reality in quotation marks.

You see, it is a matter of unquestionable religious faith, for the liberal-Gnostic Canadians who rule opinion in this country, that in this country there is no fundamental clash of cultures, just a lack of good people willing to live by the singular dictates of “multiculturalism,” i.e. the insistence that all people can get along in Canada just as long as they respect each others’ differences and let the multiculti authorities settle all differences from on high. How such pieties apply to Muslim fathers who think they must brutalize daughters who shame the family among pious friends, and to daughters who want to look normal by Canadian standards, no one really explains, and the article to which this headline refers is full of the usual posturing from liberal elites about how hard it is for girls caught between two cultures:

Many Muslim girls in Canada lead something of a double life when it comes to reconciling religious traditions while living in a secular, Western society, says a researcher at Wilfrid Laurier University.

"At home they're the good Muslim kid, they pray and they fast and go to mosque," said Jasmin Zine, a professor of sociology at the Waterloo, Ont., school. "When they go to school they become a different person. They create a persona to fit with the competing cultural demands of home and school."

The fundamental questions behind such sentiments are never raised: e.g. just how, exactly, is killing your daughter for bringing shame on the family a “religious” tradition? It’s only “religious” in the sense of conformity to an all-encompassing ritual code – a “total way of life” - that is centuries apart from the Western idea of religion rooted in the separation of church and state, of private religion and “secular” culture.

The Sun’s article also provides us the opinions of

“Ausma Khan, a human rights lawyer and the editor-in-chief of Muslim Girl Magazine.” “The decision whether to don the hijab is not always difficult for Muslim girls... But, she acknowledges, the hijab has become a flashpoint.

"It can so easily be taken for a signal of difference and otherness and alienation, but it doesn't have to be read like that," she said. Khan, 38, is now based in Los Angeles, but grew up in Canada. "There is definitely an American-Islam or a Canadian-Islam that has imbibed the reality of growing up in a pluralistic society that accommodates difference, that respects difference," she said.

"I think we see that. We see this in the practice of this generation of young women. They are accommodating. Just as they want to put their own view point forward, have their religious freedom and be protected, they are equally willing to recognize and respect the rights of others."

I first became familiar with Muslim Girl magazine a couple of months ago when I saw a fellow bus rider, a Muslim educator at Simon Fraser University - with whom I had previously discussed matters covenantal and “religious” when he first saw me on the bus with Israeli and Canadian flags on my Covenant Zone blog hat - showing an edition of the glossy mag with pride (it looks like the Muslim educators want to provide girls with an alternative to the ilk of Cosmo) to what looked like two SFU women students. One was wearing a hijab and the other, of European ancestry, who clearly knew the educator and respectfully deferred to him, may have been a convert to Islam or to the leftist-Islamic (global intifada) alliance.

Previously, this man had been keen to point out to me the apparent hypocrisy that Westerners think they can separate church and state, when in fact they can’t, or so he alleged – and therefore how can anyone expect the same of Islam? – a question provoked by my comments on Western nationhood being founded in covenants that were once religious, but are now largely secular or constitutional. Canada, and our constitutionally-based freedom, I pointed out, owes a historical debt to the first nation and first covenanters, Israel; and it is to remember this that I have the flags on my hat. I don’t think he appreciated the historical subtlety of my point – he didn’t even know the word “covenant” - that just because everything cultural can be given a genealogy that links it back to some ancestry in religion, it is therefore not hypocrisy to say we have progressed to the point where we choose to differentiate church and state, as Jesus did.

Since Canadians’ sense of nationhood is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, therefore we can’t really separate the religious and secular, he seemed to want to argue as I was getting off the bus.

I bring this up because the particular cover of Muslim Girl Magazine that I saw on the bus featured two young and attractive girls, one in hijab, one without, as if to say either is ok, or there’s a debate going on. But that’s the point the Vancouver Sun headliner will (or so it first appeared to me) only recognize in scare quotes. All culture is about conflict, since all signs of culture come into existence to defer humanity’s foundational potential for destructive, intra-specific violence. At least that is the hypothesis, very convincing to me, of Generative Anthropology. So, for example, a hijab was originally "designed" to defer men's violence over women’s sexuality, just as the latest in sexually-charged Western fashion is also a way of deferring conflict over sexuality by making it and its signs mundane. We can’t avoid the realization that there is a conflict, if yet largely non-violent, in our society about which approach (including others) to deferral is better, more valuable, than the other.

This argument from anthropology has all sorts of consequences for how we choose to face, or not, the global intifada that is out to destroy the basis for free constitutional democracies and the global economy that presently feeds over six billion people. Because... there is one sense in which there is not a “clash of civilizations” ongoing, and that is the sense that there is now only one global civilization, one world economy, from which no one and no society can be walled off, and in relation to which all the angry losers and marginal “cultures” in the global intifada are expressing a confict *internal* to the single civilization, and not one between truly independent civilizations.

Because of this, there is no way we can just leave Muslims to their own devices if we have any respect for their lives. There is already a far greater population in the Islamic world than could be fed by Islamic withdrawal from the global economy into some Sharia-bound backwardness. Either we welcome the prospect of a mass die-off (and all the guilt and conflict it would create in the West), or we admit that we are bound to Muslims for the foreseeable future, in which case it would be best if our conflicts were faced and not hidden in scare quotes.

Even those of my friends who clearly see the conflict out there, but who characterize it by claiming that Islam cannot be changed and cannot be negotiated with, are suggesting that we have no choice but to conquer and defeat Islam by force of arms, isolate and starve Islam, or give in to the Jihad. But precisely because they take this line, they have very little to offer by a way of a vision for what might transcend the coming final conflict between us and them. Once we defeat the Muslims in battle, then what?

I wish that they could see that there is value in already anticipating that question in today’s world, and that we need give up nothing by facing it now, if we are confident about the value of Western civilization. By highlighting the question now, maybe we can defer some of the violence they anticipate as inevitable. What if there is another way to conquer “Islam” by forcing it to acknowledge its dependence on the global economy and the covenants guaranteeing the individual freedoms by which this economy operates? In other words, what if we make it our explicit policy that we will only be at war with that part of “Islam” that refuses to play by the rules of the global economy - for example that part which thinks it can come to Canada and still brutalize its women. Only then can we learn what “Muslims” really believe, when they must choose between freedom and death, when the fantasy of a global caliphate, or of a world of second-class women, is truly revealed as an impossibility, if six or ten billion are to be fed?

But then, my friends say, you will not be dealing with Islam” as my friends insist Islam must be, i.e. supremacist and totalitarian, following Koran and Sharia to the letter. That would be fine with me. What if we face up to the reality that a global economy entails, and force Muslims in Canada to do the same? Then we might admit that the editor of Muslim Girl is not simply lying or being un-Islamic when she sees the young Muslim woman as the possible vanguard for a reformation: “Just as they want to put their own view point forward, have their religious freedom and be protected, they are equally willing to recognize and respect the rights of others." If this is true, then “Islam” cannot survive, but maybe something else Islamic can. It’s not for us to decide.

UPDATE: What is a lie is this:

A spokesman for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) said he is dubious of opinions that the girl's death resulted from a clash of cultures.

"Teen rebellion is something that exists in all households in Canada and is not unique to any culture or background," CAIR-CAN's Sameer Zuberi said in an interview. "Domestic violence is also not unique to Muslims."

The death of Aqsa "was the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian society and is blind to color or creed," echoed Shahina Siddiqui, president of the Islamic Social Services Association.

Does anyone really think domestic violence just happens? Surely it is always a sign of some underlying conflict. Sure, the nature of that conflict will be different from case to case. But in this case, it seems from all the evidence so far that the underlying conflict in this murder was between Islamic and Western values.

The Wisdom of Barbers

Even more than taxi drivers and bus drivers, the workers I most enjoy having a conversation with these days are barbers. Embarrassing confession time: when I was younger (and pathetically foolish) I went around with misplaced contempt for laborers such as these; why aren’t you out trying to change the world, I would scowl naively under their clippers… why aren’t you trying to “make a difference”? What kind of life are you living, by settling for being a “mere” barber??

Well, these half-forgotten memories bubbled shamefully to the surface today as I looked at my [sigh… balding] reflection in the bathroom mirror and judged that I desperately needed a haircut. Is it a sign of mid-life crisis, to be constantly measuring one’s current views against those held so dogmatically in one’s youth? Because I am increasingly stunned at the degree of change I notice within myself, especially my thoughts on the little things in life. I’ll take it as hopeful evidence that I’ve perhaps become a “grown-up”, at long last, for I now look forward to the perspective and wisdom that barbers, in particular, have to teach me.

This morning I found much to learn indeed. In my wanderings I discovered a wonderful shop owned by a warm and welcoming Eastern European gentleman. It didn’t take long to discover this was a match made in Heaven, him loving to share stories and me loving to listen.

Forty years in Canada after a youth spent rotting behind the Iron Curtain gave this older worker stories aplenty, let me tell you..! When I eventually asked him what he thought when he saw younger people sporting USSR logos on t-shirts and hammer-and-sickle icons on baseball caps, our conversation really turned interesting. “They don’t know, and they don’t want to know”, he said after the briefest of pauses. Is there any simpler way to summarize the willful ignorance of youthful vanity? His statement certainly summarized my position back when I was high on the illusory virtues of socialism during my own naïve youth.

From his perspective of having had the same shop in the same place for decades, often serving young customers from birth to college, he had many sad personal observations about the deterioration of the bonds of Family, and the changes brought upon family life by the ready prevalence of drugs. “Is it always the kids fault they take these things, when they see their own father selling it? When they see their own mother using drugs at home all the time?” Who will teach them right and wrong, if it is not their parents, he asked rhetorically.

Well, the memory of our fascinating conversation suggests to me a suitable answer to this rhetorical question: it is the example of the dedicated laborer, it is the witnessing of the harvest of the dependable worker, it is through contact with these positive experiences that civilization holds the chance to steer the young away from their current self-serving paths of self-destruction. Someone who takes pride in having their job done well, someone who enters into a contractual commitment with another and then works not just to fulfill expectations, but to surpass them… surely it is experiences and examples such as these that can have the necessary influence to save an empty life tumbling towards self-destruction.
Success doesn't just happen; it is made to happen. If a kid doesn’t know how to do anything, then no wonder they feel no loss in getting high; they have no skills to impair, no responsibilities to jeapardize, no future success to look forward to. If someone has never earned anything from the sweat of their own labor, then no wonder they are quick to adopt the belief system that the fruit of everyone's labor should be re-distributed “fairly”; they have not tasted the natural intoxication that can come from the pride of earning so much that much can then be given to charity… charity itself being the true blessing of wealth, socialism being the negation of charity.

If I could travel back in time, the older gentleman that I’ve become would greet his younger self with a sympathetic, yet stern correction to his youthful dreams of wanting to “change the world” by “making a difference”. Change the world, he would say, by daring to change yourself: embrace the ultimate challenge to make yourself into a Better Person, since, considering your starting position, that will be change aplenty to satisfy anybody. Make a difference in others' lives by making your own life one filled with differences: keep improving your ability to be of increased service to others. Change through the leverage of positive example.

The young who fry their minds with their poisons, whether in literal doses through drugs or figurative ones like marxism, are in a race against time, as each time either noxious fumes are ingested it weakens their ability to be of further long-term service to others, and therefore to themselves. In their adoption of a cynically self-serving nihilism they curse themselves to remain children of mind even as they age in body, always needing the protective care of servants, whether from their own family, or the proxy one of the state.

The race is on: will the minds of the young last long enough to learn the humiliating lessons so necessary to true growth? Will the good examples in their lives outnumber the bad, revealing that the biggest rewards so often come from the simplest of acts of service... like the humble achievement of being able to offer a good haircut, as advertised?
May they learn the humility to say a grateful “thank you” from appreciating the treasure that is a job well done…
and a Covenant fulfilled.

Mob Rule Triumphs in Vancouver, Canada.

Canadian law at the federal level again proved itself to be next to non-existent for certain types of people. Usually the law in Canada doesn't apply equally to native Indians and women and those who feel really, really bad about the crimes they've committed. Some times the law doesn't apply equally to young psychopaths from other countries with a sizable voter bloc in Canada. And sometimes the law doesn't apply equally to those who are "young." The law doesn't apply to church leaders if they don't want to obey it. And it doesn't appy to those who can rouse a mob. An example? Today will do just fine.

"Mr. Singh came to Canada on a forged passport in 2003.... Last week the border services agency served Mr. Singh with papers ordering him to leave the country on Monday. The exclusion order, which enforces an earlier deportation order, required the 48-year-old Punjabi man to report to the airport for a flight to India.... [The Indian] government [he says] has falsely accused him of having links to terrorism.... Border services officials said they were not willing to wade into the crowd to escort Mr. Singh to his flight."

Today a mob of Sikhs at the aeroport stopped the federal government from deporting an illegal alien. The government ceded its natural and legitimate sovereignty to a mob at the gate. A small group of people kept the government from acting on its own orders. A mob of people attacked democracy in this country and got away with it, like most others here do with impunity. If the government refuses to act in its interest, which is the public interest, and instead accedes to the demands of a mob, then there is no legitimate government here. No, it's not the end of the world. There will be no revolution in the street. But this is another case of a government that is illegitimate. It can only remain so for a time and then the people will be forced to take its place: More mob rule. This kind of government behaviour below is what leads nations to civil war and anarchy.

ERIK MJANES, "Crowd prevents Vancouver deportation." Canadian Press; December 10, 2007

RICHMOND, B.C. — The Canada Border Services Agency has stayed the deportation of a paralyzed Indian man after a standoff at Vancouver International Airport. "For safety and security reasons, Mr. Singh's deportation has been delayed," Derek Mellon, a spokesman for the agency, said Monday. He would not provide any information about when the removal order would be enforced.

About 500 people gathered Monday morning outside the departures level of the airport surrounding a van carrying Laibar Singh. By noon, the crowd had grown to over a thousand, many holding signs and chanting slogans. Supporters stood atop cars with a megaphone leading chants in English and Punjabi against the Conservative government and immigration officials. The agency was forced to delay Mr. Singh's deportation once it became clear officials would have to transport him through the crowd of supporters. Border services officials said they were not willing to wade into the crowd to escort Mr. Singh to his flight. For more than three hours, a standoff between supporters and security officials filled the street in front of the international departures area.

[....]

Harsha Walia of the human rights group No One is Illegal broke the news Mr. Singh's deportation had been stayed around 2 p.m.

[....]

Earlier, Ms. Walia disputed the border services agency's suggestion that the crowd was a safety hazard, calling it a smear tactic. "We are here as peaceful protesters. CBSA is welcome to go through the crowd. But they will have to answer to people's questions," she said. "They haven't been able to answer me or anyone else whether they believe this deportation is just. Their fear is not of violence, their fear is dealing with the legitimate concerns of people." She said the agency gave no timeline for further action.

"It's up to the government. The government has the ability to stop this deportation on a permanent basis if they don't want to keep playing this cat and mouse game." Within an hour of the announcement, the crowd was almost completely dispersed.

Swara Gill, head of the Kalgidhar Khalsa Darbar temple in Abbotsford where Mr. Singh had been staying, said the Khalsa Diwan Society in New Westminster, B.C., would be taking over Mr. Singh's care. Mr. Singh came to Canada on a forged passport in 2003but suffered a massive stroke three years later that left him a quadriplegic. Last week the border services agency served Mr. Singh with papers ordering him to leave the country on Monday.

He is fighting to stay in Canada on humanitarian grounds because he fears he will not receive necessary medical care if he is returned to India, where he says that government has falsely accused him of having links to terrorism.

NDP MLA Raj Chouhan said deporting Mr. Singh would be inhuman. "People are very angry," Mr. Chouhan said. "They are very concerned about it. "I caution this government if they don't resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the community, this government will pay a big price in the next election."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071210.windi1210/BNStory/National/home

The federal government in this country is surely not going to call out the troops-- if there are any in this province [not kidding] --to deal with a thousand Sikhs, a group known and proven to commit world-scale terrorist attacks on civilians in this country, in the skies, and abroad. The federal government caved in to coercive behaviour today. There's more and it's as bad or worse.You think Europe sucks? Look:

Naresh Raghubeer, "How ethno-politics poisons democracy." National Post. July 31, 2007

Last week, Ontario Auditor-General Jim McCarter reported that the province's Immigration and Citizenship Ministry has been dispensing millions of dollars in grants to ethnic groups under a process that is "not open, transparent or accountable." In many cases, groups got money simply because their members were chummy with ministry insiders.... Mr. McCarter's report does not merely highlight a failure of process in an otherwise sound government disbursement program. What the Auditor-General documents is nothing less than a taxpayer-funded political black market based on "ethnic" and religious vote-buying.

[....]

Awestruck Sikhs beheld $250,000 landing in a temple that was embroiled in a court battle over the alleged mismanagement of funds. Meanwhile, two grants of $100,000 each went to Sikh gurdwaras in Malton and Rexdale, where certain Sikh devotees promote the Khalistan movement and push to break up India. Photos of Sikh "martyrs" cover the Malton Gurdwara's walls. Even an image of Talwinder Singh Parmar is posted there, despite his masterminding 329 murders --including 280 Canadians and 136 children -- in the 1985 Air India bombing, the worst terrorist attack in this nation's history. It is the equivalent of funding a mosque that venerates Osama bin Laden.

The quest for votes means politicians are less willing to differentiate between moderates and extremists: Whoever is seen to control the microphone at the local temple -- and is therefore in a position to guide voting decisions -- gets the cash. Hence, federal and provincial politicians now shamelessly attend Sikh and Tamil events where terrorists are glorified. The same phenomenon may well explain why Liberal leader Stephane Dion had his party vote down crucial expiring provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law introduced by his own party in 2001. This placated the Muslim and Sikh supporters who helped him win the Liberal leadership. They know the Act's demise will help scuttle the RCMP's last chance to definitively fix guilt in the Sikh terrorist plot against Air India Flight 182, and thereby deny any sense of closure to the families of the murdered victims.

Full story here.

What does a government do when a thousand chanting people show up to defy the people of the nation? For all the rubbish talk in the first story about "The People" it is plain that the people are not a group or groups of ethnic voters. The people are referred to in this country as "The Crown." The people here are those who vote for the government rather than a mob who can get away with anything they can get away with. This country is in deep trouble. In this country, in this country where people only obey laws if they feel like it, there is a coming chaos. There cannot be laws for one group, laws of a different kind for another. That's no law at all. Canada is on the verge of chaos.

The Good Guys Fight Back

Two somewhat cheering stories came our way today. We note first that the Vancouver Sun is suing some hate mongers who put out a phony four-page version of the paper, using the Sun's fonts, graphics, and newsprint in a disgusting and mindlessly Judeophobic slander of Israel and of the Sun's primary owner, Israel Asper and family, implying that their support for Israel's existence as a Jewish state has led to the Sun's editorial stand (and the paper's advertisers) being somehow implicated in great moral crimes against the Palestinians. It's sad to see that at least one of the honchos in the "Palestine Media Collective" is actually a Jew, a hard-core leftist of the fallen generation Dag calls the death hippies:

The owner of The Vancouver Sun has launched a lawsuit against a pro-Palestinian activist and a local printing company over the publication of a fake edition of the daily newspaper.

A writ of summons filed by CanWest Mediaworks Publications alleges that long-time left-wing activist Mordecai Briemberg, other unidentified activists and Horizon Publications conspired to produce and distribute a phoney edition of The Vancouver Sun on June 7, 2007.

The defendants distributed about 12,000 copies of the fake newspaper in Vancouver, Victoria and at the University of B.C.

"We take this matter very seriously. We did say that we would follow up, and I believe our customers expect us to," Vancouver Sun publisher Kevin Bent said about the suit.

The CanWest writ also alleges the defendants published the content of the fake newspaper on various websites.

The suit said the defendants were "motivated by hostility to the principal shareholders of the plaintiff and by a desire to undermine, or hurt, the business of the plaintiff and its principal shareholders."

The plaintiff's writ, submitted by lawyer David Church, said Briemberg and six other unidentified people are involved in anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian media activities.

The writ alleges that the defendants "harbour antagonistic views towards the plaintiff, its principal shareholders and the reporting and editorial opinions expressed in the plaintiff's publications, including in The Vancouver Sun."

The writ also names Horizon general manager Garth Leddy as a defendant. Leddy declined to comment when reached Friday.

Defendant Briemberg has been a longtime critic of the Israeli policies in the Middle East. Briemberg was among some left-wing instructors fired in 1969 by Simon Fraser University.

The plaintiff is claiming punitive, aggravated damages and aggravated costs. CanWest is also seeking an injunction, prohibiting the defendants from creating any fake newspapers or publications with the plaintiff's trademarks.

Covenant Zone had the opportunity to remove copies of this hate hoax from the free newspaper racks outside the Vancouver Public Library. It was clear that a lot of money and effort went into this attack on Jewish people. It's great to see the Aspers fighting for decency by suing these self-righteous true believers in the purity of their leftist intellects.
-----------

We also received word today from ice about a story we covered ten days ago. The University of Florida vice-president who sent students an email suggesting their right to free speech was secondary to their obligation to recognize the pieties of the global intifida-leftist academic alliance, seems to be backing away from her previous, ethically-confused stance. Ice sends us the text of the latest effort of Patricia Telles-Irvin:

To: All UF students

From: Patricia Telles-Irvin, Vice President for Student Affairs

Subject: My e-mail last week

There has been much discussion about an e-mail I sent Nov. 26 regarding the posters advertising the movie "Obsession."

Since that time, some important dialogue has been exchanged between members of the student groups involved. But over the last week, there has been some misunderstanding on the university's position on certain points. Please allow me to clarify.

* The university supports the rights of students to freely express themselves on any issue.

* The university condemns terrorists acts and those who perpetrate them, regardless of who they are. And we clearly recognize there are people who use Islam to support violence.

* The university has no intention of taking disciplinary action against anyone involved in creating or distributing the posters. That was never a consideration.

* The university has heard allegations that the posters were removed by people who opposed their message. Efforts by the University Police Department and Student Affairs to confirm this or identify offenders were unsuccessful. Removal of posters from proper venues is prohibited by the university's policies and will not be tolerated.

The original intent of my e-mail was to foster greater understanding and communication among groups. As we all surely know, free speech is a cherished right not only in this country but also on this campus. We should always feel comfortable expressing our diverse opinions.

It seems that there are free-thinking students out there who don't take victimary moral blackmail without talking back. Since all the good arguments and real thinking are today on the post-victimary side, I'm sure we will be seeing more of this kind of fancy footwork from the frequently lost and nihilistic professoriate in future.

Prancing Vanities

Why don't homosexuals in the West condemn homophobic/murderous jihadis? Well, I didn't actually have a clue at all till I read this, which maybe sums it all up:

"If America elected a government/leaders that took a stand against the sexual religious fascists in our own country - we could take a stand against the Islamic countries. But we can not because of who the elitist Republicans have turned to for support as America woke up to how corrupt they are."

No, I'm sure that doesn't cover all homosexuals' understanding of reality. There is also this:

"There is no limit to the contempt I feel for the Islamic regime in Iran. That contempt is magnified by the knowledge that the US had a hand in installing the ayatollahs in power. Had we left well enough alone in 1953 and left their elected parliament intact, then imposing the brutal Shah over the Iranian people, we may never have lived through the nightmare of the hostage crisis and the never-ending pissing contest between the leaderships of our respective countries.

What makes me even more sick is the thought that the Iranians themselves don't seem to want to do anything about their own government and the problems that it causes to its citizens. Just as with Iraq, the people in Iran won't stand up to their Muslim rulers - but you can damn sure bet that they would stand up to us if we invaded.

I can only hope that for the sake of this poor Iranian man that his death was quick and relatively painless. Of course, I am sure it wasn't since one of the rules of sharia is that homosexuals should be executed in a painful way.

Sick. Just sick. But imagine how many American theocrats are watching stories like this, looking on with envy at what the theocrats in Iran get away with. Don't you think that the American Taliban are just as bloodthirsty as the Iranian mullahs are? Don't you think that Pat Robertson gets a hard-on thinking about publicly executing gays, adulterers, non-believers, etc.?"

Posted by: Jonathon | Dec 5, 2007 5:26:38 PM

You're wondering about the details of this? Plese read:

Iranian Man Executed Today Without Notice for Alleged Sex Crime

The execution of a 21-year-old Iranian man that was reportedly stayed due to international pressure in mid-November has happened.

"Mr. Makvan Mouloodzadeh was executed in Kermanshah Central Prison at 5 a.m. this morning, Iranian time." the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission reports :

"Mr. Mouloodzadeh was a 21-year-old Iranian citizen who was accused of committing anal rape (ighab) with other young boys when he was 13 years old. However, at Mr. Mouloodzadeh's trial, all the witnesses retracted their pre-trial testimonies, claiming to have lied to the authorities under duress. Makvan also told the court that his confession was made under coercion and pleaded not guilty. On June 7, 2007, the Seventh District Criminal Court of Kermanshah in Western Iran found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Despite his lawyer's appeal, the Supreme Court upheld his death sentence on August 1, 2007. The case caused an international uproar, and prompted a letter writing campaign by IGLHRC and similar actions by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Outrage! and Everyone Group. In response to mounting public pressure, and following a detailed petition submitted to the Iranian Chief Justice by Mr. Mouloodzadeh's lawyer, the Iranian Chief Justice, Ayatollah Seyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, nullified the impending death sentence of Mr. Mouloodzadeh. In his November 10, 2007 opinion (1/86/8607), the Iranian Chief Justice described the death sentence to be in violation of Islamic teachings, the religious decrees of high-ranking Shiite clerics, and the law of the land. In accordance with Iranian legal procedure, Mr. Mouloodzadeh's case was sent to the Special Supervision Bureau of the Iranian Justice Department, a designated group of judges who are responsible for reviewing and ordering retrials of flawed cases flagged by the Iranian Chief Justice. However, in defiance of the Chief Justice, the judges decided to ratify the original court's ruling and ordered the local authorities to carry out the execution."

According to their report, "Neither Mr. Mouloodzadeh's family or his lawyer were told about the execution until after it occurred."

Said Paula Ettelbrick, IGLHRC's executive director: "This is a shameful and outrageous travesty of justice and international human rights law. How many more young Iranians have to die before the international community takes action?"

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/12/iranian-man-exe.html

****

A reader from blog above writes:

"The right is supported by Christian wanna-be fascists - remember the Republican base may still want to reinstate the only recent reversal of sodomy laws. I am sure they would love that LEFT TO THE STATES.

If America elected a goverenment/leaders that took a stand against the sexual religious fascists in our own country - we could take a stand against the Islamic countries. But we can not because of who the elitist Republicans have turned to for support as America woke up to how corrupt they are.

As for Gay Republicans - just more elitists who are fighting to be allowed into the elitist party - and willing to support corrupt liars in the process."

Posted by: RJP3 | Dec 5, 2007 6:53:21 PM

****

Until the intellectual elite among homosexuals take a different tack and promote a veiw that America is the best place for homosexual rights rather than the worst threat on Earth we will continue to see homosexuals hanged like dogs while homosexuals whip themselves into fits of stupidity and rage against nothing much at all because they aren't smart enough of themselves to understand basic survival. Until the homosexual world decides to rid themselves of the Foucaults among them and returns to a realistic and non-conpiratorial vision of reality, one less "sophisticated" or one less artsy, a vision of reality that accords with real men with real ropes and a real urge to murder and no restraint in doing so, then homosexual s will continue to hang. Unfortunately, part of the homosexual presentation seems to be that of Left poseur. It's not only stupid, it's often and increasingly fatal. But to acknowledge such would be to accept the humiliation of showing the world that previously they paraded and posed and pretended like fools while the innocent suffered and died to give a back-drop to their Liberal vanities.

I who have little liking for homosexuality have enough regard for Humanity that I won't stay silent in the face of murder; nor will I pretend the problem stems from those like me when there is work to be done saving those who can be saved in spite of the frivolous posing of the mainstream homosexual ummah's fashionable anti-Americanism of the day. Those who are too addicted to intellectual mascara will likely keep on hanging till those who genuinely care about Humanity are able to put a stop to the outrage of murder-- of anyone for any reason. More interested in being seen as fashionable than in working to save the lives of their fellows. Well, it's not just homosexuals who are that vain and stupid, but in this case they are a glut.

"Feminists": a failure to covenant

There's something eerie about the Vancouver Sun publishing a defense of further legalizing prostitution on the same day Canadians are remembering the Montreal massacre. It seems to be a sign how much we really value women, whatever all the fancy feminist talk that goes around...

What do you think when you see women prostituting themselves?

Very few people, it seems to me, think, "oh, there goes another happy hooker!"

Nonetheless some people are willing to think: "oh there goes a poor woman who has to carry on a dangerous trade with the threat of violence always in the air; let's help her by making her poverty (of mind and spirit, if not of money) easier..."

In other words, you see a miserable women and instead of asking how can I help her to stop being such a miserable person, by helping her in ways that can help her to change her life, you ask, how can I get the world to recognize she is a victim, with rights, all the while affirming her for what she is, and not making moralistic demands on her.

The collapse of our public discourse into victimology/affirming difference, affirming the marginalized as a-ok just how they are, is leading a group in Vancouver to lobby for legalized brothels. It's not that we don't already have brothels, out in the open, that the governments and police tolerate - there is one in Burnaby in the same strip mall as a community police station. It's just that we call them "massage parlours" which the municipalities license and tax to make it all "respectable". This, notwithstanding that the Criminal Code of Canada still states it is illegal to operate a house of prostitution or to live off the avails of prostitution.

Anyway, apparently there is a class of street prostitute that either doesn't want, or isn't welcome, to work in "massage parlours" or "escort services". Thus they are at risk from whatever evil the men who pick them up off the streets are capable of inflicting. And sometimes that is murder.

A group of people calling themselves "feminists", and reportedly receiving support from politicians like Libby Davies and Mayor Sam Sullivan, have somehow become interested in advocating for the governments to license legal "co-op" brothels for such marginalized women, just in time for Vancouver hosting the 2010 Olympics. As they argue in today's paper:

Many feminists believe that adult sex work in Canada should be completely decriminalized.

To that end, Vancouver-based "First" is the only feminist organization in North America advocating the decriminalization of prostitution. First supports the right of sex workers to engage in consensual sex with other adults without being criminalized.

We believe that sex workers have the right to safe working conditions, the right to equal protection and benefit of the law, and the right to have their dignity, autonomy and liberty respected.

Decriminalization means the repeal of all criminal laws relating to adult prostitution. In Canada, prostitution is not technically illegal, but most activities associated with it are criminalized, including soliciting in public and living off the avails of prostitution.

Although decriminalization will not on its own stop the injustices experienced by sex industry workers, First believes that we cannot eliminate violence against sex workers and ensure their equal rights until we address the illegal and stigmatized status of their work.

The op-ed is given the demanding, don't-question-me headline "A 2010 deadline for prostitution".

Oh how heroic and righteous it is to be FIRST, to believe that everything will get better if we take this bold "first" step, if we are first to break new frontiers, to reduce prostitution simply to a question of an unquestionable "right" to sell your soul to the devil... Because we today are much too sophisticated to believe that what people used to refer to as the Satanic has any basis in reality, whatever name or analysis we now give to the unrestricted circulation of human desires. (By the way, true firstness, the true discovery of a sacred sign we can share with others, is an essential part of our humanity; but that just means it is important to work to distinguish it from Gnostic heresy.)

It occurs to me that a useful definition of many of the well-meaning fools who call themselves "feminists" is women who don't really know or believe in the sacredness of human love. In order to think it is ok to prostitute yourself, to treat your body and soul as a commodity, thinking it's just like any other worker who sells part of his or her body and its labour for money, you have to believe that sex and love are not something special, something sacred, reserved for only those who can make a total commitment to their beloved. It's the sign of a society that has made the dating scene for the average youth into a veritable rite of sexuality, where most young women do indeed come to see themselves as beings whose value is largely dependent on their sex appeal, who trade sex for friendship and social status without any great promises attached, who see the purpose of sex largely as pleasure, and as an envied object of conversation to show one's social value to others, and not necessarily as some invitation to a more holistic vision of one's humanity within marriage and family. And there's no sign that this is making anyone particularly happy. In fact, depression and nihilism among young people is epidemic.

Nonetheless, in this confused milieu, it is not surprising that we find women who think that trading in sex is ok; it's what everyone does, it's just natural and so it's healthy, and it's hypocritical to single out street prostitutes for victimization. It's just a form of class discrimination. And so the answer is to validate the hookers' status, to give them a greater stake in the "ownership" of their sexuality. And besides, if you legalize "co-op brothels" for street workers, you are making prostitution safer, making it harder for the violent men or pimps to do their evil.

But what if prostitution is inherently destructive of a person's soul, of the very purpose of their sacred humanity? Then, is there any way you can truly make it safer? Don't you make it more dangerous by making it easier and more secure, on a purely physical basic, for women to prostitute themselves? Say you see a man literally working himself to death, neglecting his family, so he can "retire at 50 and finally be free", or buy the McMansion, or whatever. Do you help him out by making it easier to put in extra long hours, or by suggesting he come to terms with his self- and family-destructive behaviour, behaviour that only a fool would consider a sign of freedom?

If feminists really cared about women, wouldn't they be putting all their energy into finding ways to help women out of prostitution, not making it easier for them to go down that dead-end road?

But how, in this day and age, do we even begin to understand that we have souls and a sacred purpose that can be destroyed?

I am not saying we have to believe in God (our soul exists, has meaning, on the scene of language regardless). But even if we don't, why isn't it evident to people that at the core of women's nature-in-culture is a need to be loved and respected, to be treated as something much more than a sexual commodity, a something more - an undivided, unconditional, and total love and family commitment - that can only be protected when you are not a sexual commodity? Because there are some things that no lover can provide to a woman who is a sexual commodity.

I imagine no adult, not least myself, has not allowed the sexual passions to lead him or her down dead-end roads. It's so ordinary as to be unremarkable. Such failures are not the greatest of sins; they are rather small ones usually, as many a girl trying to remember the difference between the failings of recent boyfriend #12, as compared to #6, can tell you.

But if we forget that there is a road with purpose out there for each of us to find, even if it be a chaste one, and that this road can't be found by simply giving in to the pressure or incentives to treat sex as a commodity and trying to validate that as a choice that is just as good as another, then we have given up as a species that treats its impressive sexual drive as a call to reproduce the species in body and divine spirit, a call to make a total commitment to something or someone.

Freedom depends on a market that is open to the circulation of our desires; it also depends our ability to resist the self-destructive potential of this circulation. No free market exists without a civil society resisting it. Covenant Zone exists to help teach ourselves how and why.

If prostitution were ok, why haven't they yet made it into an Olympic sport?

Maybe that can be the topic for today's Covenant Zone meeting. We meet every Thursday evening to discuss questions like this, in the atrium of the Vancouver Public Library, central branch, in front of Blenz Coffee. Look for the blue scarves, 7-9 pm.

Losing Treasures

Well, I got hit with some rather sad news today.
An older gentleman that I had the honor to work very closely with a few years ago, someone that I looked upon with great admiration, has passed away. He was of very advanced age, and had lived a full life, his love of travel and natural curiosity taking him everywhere, seeing everything, yet still feeling that his life's adventures were just beginning.

The end was not a quick one, nor painless. My thoughts go quickly to his widow, such a treasure in her own right, so proud of her many grandchildren, as anyone who spent more than a few minutes in her company can attest; so appreciative of the many treasures that filled her life. I smile now at the memory of watching them both leave work together, remembering tonight for the first time in a long time the obvious value they placed on being together; unsteady in step due to age, but rock solid in their commitment to each other.

I feel a sense of great loss. It was always a thrill to see how quickly he could resolve a problem on the job that had me positively baffled. I learned so much from him... starting with, how much more remained for me to know.
Selfishly, I can't help but think of the many questions that will now forever remain unanswered. Putting them off for another time is now no longer an option, as a treasure chest of experiences closes shut, cut off as a resource. I think of the many conversations we had, and say a quick prayer of gratitude for having had the nerve, and the imagination, to have asked as many questions as I did, when I did. And for him to have had the patience to gently answer all of them.

With family and friends, we don't often think of our relationships as a race against time. Yet at some point, the other person will likely be lost to us, the treasure that their connection to us brings to our life will be taken away. Maybe not completely, as long as memories remain; the connection may even grow as age reveals more to the relationship than we were able to observe at the time we lived it. Death is not a complete separation, if our appreciation for the connection lives on.

But right now that's not feeling like much of a substitute for having the person sitting right there, across from your desk, or at your side, sharing experiences and passing on so many life lessons to an eager, wide-eyed young sprout, amazed at the good fortune that could connect him to such a treasure.

I hope I made you proud by how I've used all the knowledge and experiences you were kind enough to share with me.

Rest in peace.

Somali gays under attack in the UK

I admit to having some doubts about whether one should encourage homosexuality as a "normal" thing, a good choice for young people, as the Government of British Columbia has recently declared our public schools will teach. Quite aside from one's take on the controversy over whether homosexuality is rooted in biology or learned desire, or both, it seems clear to me that Western culture and most families have had reason for taking heterosexual love in youth and marriage as a standard: it promotes social order and reproduction. It also seems evident to me that male homosexuality can become widespread, especially in a hierarchical culture, in the form of pederasty, and that such a widespread practice doesn't come without limiting or shaping a society in certain ways. It is a choice, with consequences. So I'm not surprised to see the hysterical fears of homosexuality among Islamic opinion leaders (like the President of Iran who recently informed Columbia University that there are no homosexuals in his country!), given that by all reports male homosexuality, while kept hidden and denounced, is nonetheless widespread in the Islamic world. Whether Islam, with its codes of dominance and submission, can ever overcome its often nasty take on the homoerotic, and its women-bashing tendencies, is something I often doubt, though I sincerely hope.

Holding this view doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have a society free enough for people to do what they will in private, or to talk about it in public. If the conventional Western nuclear family and heterosexual romantic ideal is an integral part of a free society, as I believe they are, we should defend both this family structure and any homosexual freedom to the extent it does not begin to subvert the family and societal reproduction. Such a balancing act will only be possible in a society where free speech is positively encouraged, and people are not scorned for what are today politically-incorrect defenses of the "normal", or criticisms of the sado-masochistic, or promiscuous, in matters sexual.

This understanding of freedom, however, which I had thought was pretty firmly established in the West, no longer goes unchallenged in the United Kingdom where free speech is no longer a priority (as producers of a recent television program investigating the radical Jihadi speeches being given in British mosques discovered when the police responded to the program not by investigating the mosques, but rather the program’s producers – for incitement to "racial hatred").

As usual the great challenger today to the established Western order is Islam. At present, our attention is on a story found buried in cyberspace about a UK website set up for Somali homosexuals to communicate and come in contact with each other. For their troubles, the site's male owners, who offer a reading of the Islamic holy texts to defend homosexuality, and who believe Islam is a religion of reason, have received various death threats, even from enraged Muslim women:

afrol News , 29 November - After the website Somali Gay Community was launched earlier this month, the staff behind the site has received death threats. The news about the website, which major Somali media picked up from afrol News, caused a storm of debate that included threatening hate messages. But it also gave the new gay site very many hits and members, documenting needs in Somali society.

Muraad Kareem, one of the Somalis behind www.somaligaycommunity.org, was astonished by the row of events that followed the publishing of an article about the website by afrol News. "Major Somali news websites have picked it up the article that you .. published. People were outraged to see such article on 'Hiiraanonline' which is a major news website. People could not believe that a major Somali news website would publish such article. They have asked it to be removed and their messages were horrific and hateful," Muraad tells afrol News.

"One of the messages was saying that they will hunt us down beyond enemy lines," he continues. "I was ignoring these messages but when I started to worry when my name, address, telephone number and that of Andrew Prince was posted on Somaliland.com."

Andrew Prince, a UK-based gay activist and web developer, stood behind the technical aspects of the Somali website. Also he was surprised by the amount of "hate writers" attacking him and Muraad on Somali blogs. He recalls: "One individual calls for us to be 'hunted down in the street and stoned like dogs' while another said, 'Allah will punish them', another, 'It's a western illness', and yet another, 'motherfocker if I ever see you on the street, am gonna chop you to pieces then feed ur crap to dogs' – this last one from a Muslim woman."

The two reveal that several individuals were going a step further than just threatening. Some investigated the whereabouts of the two and published this information on a Somali website. According to Mr Prince, "the site was threatened with being hacked so I had to take extra security steps to protect the site so that it stays online to serve the community that it was intended for." Muraad adds there were indeed attempts to hack the website.

Now we could chalk this up as just another story about the rise of intolerant Islamic supremacism in the West. But in the midst of all these stories another question is emerging: what is it going to take for Western people to stand up and make it perfectly clear that this type of hysterical and threatening behaviour is deranged, a sign of mental illness that must be faced and disciplined by healthy society?

Well, for starters, that would take a widespread recognition of what is a healthy and free society. But it also requires people knowing and loving the truth so much that they will risk their own security to defend it. Because, like it or not, it is possible that you are taking a risk with your life, or economic security, when you stand up to hysterical and threatening Muslims and their aiders and abettors among the appeasing elites of Western society.

Now it seems that the gay principals of the UK website are willing to stand and fight. They have put in enough time and love to recognize their stake in the system and to defend it for now.

Yet a question that is often asked in the blogs of conservatives - and those liberals transformed by 9/11 into taking what are today labeled “conservative” stances, i.e. the defense of classical, liberal values - is why aren't the "feminists" doing more to stand up for the women atrociously abused by Islam, like the many rape victims beaten and imprisoned for the "crime" of letting themselves be raped. Where are the widespread denunciations of orthodox Islam in the supposed equality-defending universities? We also hear the question, why aren't the leaders of the Western gay institutions standing up more for those homosexuals who, from time to time, are violently punished - sometimes executed - as the scapegoats for an Islamic culture that can't come openly to terms with its own culture of pederasty? Are gays in the UK going to get out in public and defend their local Somali gay website? Or are they going to make excuses for Islam, all the while dreaming of a vacation in, say, Egypt where you can service all kinds of desires as long as you know how to be discrete?

Islam, it seems to me, is acting as a great unveiler of what we in the West really believe. It's always easy to talk, and to think holy thoughts, but what you really believe is revealed by what you are willing to do and to defend when under direct personal pressure.



People cannot act if at heart they are nihilists, which is to say, according to my friend Adam Katz, if they don’t really know which among several contradicting imperatives to stand for and fight, and if they can’t link their discovery of a personal imperative to a true vision of a free and expanding culture where one is in a compact with other free persons to guarantee each other's freedom to speak and think and fight for what each believes is right, even when you disagree with each other on fundamental questions. If people's model of standing for something is simply to demand recognition for a historical victim status – e.g. for recognition and compensation for the fact that Western society, until recently, privileged the status of heterosexual males in public positions of all kinds – then people seem to be unable to deny other peoples' similar claims on such victim status, i.e. the claims of Muslims demanding respect and entitlements in the “post-colonial” West, even as the Muslim leaders do little to criticize let alone fight their many co-religionists saying or doing violently objectionable things. The problem that gays and feminists may face in overcoming their apparent paralysis on the Muslim question is that in criticizing the straight male, they have often come to assume it is ok to deny straight men the right to publicly criticize homosexuality or certain feminist doctrines. And this entails, in other words, that people no longer have a firm sense of the covenant we all must share to guarantee each other’s freedom to speak without being shunned, or worse.

If gays and feminists want to be protected in a free society they are probably going to have to take a lead in defending it, precisely because at present they may have more moral authority in the left-liberal circles of elite public opinion makers than do cranky straight males like me who might wish to criticize something about “the other”.

Gays are going to have to learn why it is imperative to defend homosexuality as a necessary freedom in face of those who would go on fits of gay bashing. But wait a minute, surely this is not any great intellectual dilemma, is it? Well, as Charles has reported, the best the Mayor of Amsterdam can come up with in response to a number of Muslim gay bashings is to “study the problem”. And what he means is that he is going to commission some report to show to the Muslims and say “look! this is what all good liberal people think”.

The problem with that is that what good left-liberal people think is that no one should any longer do or think anything that isn’t in line with what all good left-liberal people think. It’s paralyzing, waiting for the great consensus to turn your way. In other words, the left-liberals have spent so much effort in circumscribing all manner of non-“liberal” thought and social authority that they themselves no longer really know how to act on their own initiative, uncertain as to what might result from it, what new imbalance or crime of victimization they may inadvertently commit, especially against immigrant minorities doing objectionable things. They are too full of the idea that good liberal people simply embrace multiculturalism – the left defines itself as a coalition of “minority” groups - and not criticize other cultures, choosing instead to promote integration through mutual self-esteem. And they don’t have a plan B if that fails. And they will only learn again how to act on questions of life or death when they truly learn to love their freedom as something other than an entitlement, or a sign of what all good left-liberal people think, when they learn again what is an almost God-given imperative for oneself to defend, as if it were most sacred. The faith that will propel positive action cannot come from vague ideas of what all good liberal people believe. I think European gays will have to renew a commitment to both a more imperative and indefinite, open-ended, faith, in exchange with other lovers of freedom.

Dutch mayor fights back against islamist homophobia

A follow-up to the story we reported two weeks ago, on the troubling increase of incidents of muslim immigrants attacking Holland's gay community.

The mayor of Amsterdam is not taking this problem of violent homophobic islamists lying down. The kid gloves are off: authorities have announced they will... study the problem.

Netherlands authorities are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men target gays in Amsterdam considered one of Europe's most gay friendly cities.

Amsterdam has experienced a growing number of attacks on gays and lesbians, Der Spiegel reported Friday. In 2006, the Dutch metropolis registered 32 hate crimes directed at gays, but during the first half of 2007, 26 had already been counted, the newspaper said.
....
Half the hate crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin. Some researchers believe they lashed out at local gays after feeling stigmatized by Dutch society, the newspaper said.

Belgium's other crisis: urban violence

Belgium is much in the news these days, because of its unprecedented parliamentary crisis.

In the shadows of the dividing nation exists a further division, an increasingly irreconcilable chasm between civilization and anarchy... a quiet war between "youths" and police, offering grim prospects for whatever future Belgium wrestles for itself in its parliament.

What follows is one story in this daily war from one neighborhood outside Brussels, in three acts. Translated by myself, from an article collected by the diligent French news site Bafweb:

There is much talking of the tension that exists between the youths of the French banlieues and police officers… but there is not much mention made of the altercations that take place at home. A few days ago, one of these almost became dramatic. Iron bars, Molotov cocktails, gasoline cans… anything goes for beating on a cop!

Everything started on November 16, in Forest. Two motorcycle officers in the Midi zone noticed two youths on a [booster? In original]. The moment that one of the youths prepared to break a car window, the police approached. Naturally, when they spotted the police, the two thieves took flight on the booster. The motorcycle police kept up the chase.

Arriving at Saint-Antoine place, the police were literally caught in a trap by a gang of youths that had come to the rescue of the poor thieves… the police were thrown to the ground and clobbered by blows from iron bars! “The thieves managed to flee”, confirmed the police. End of the first act.

The next day, a patrol by the anti criminality brigade returns to the scene. The gang was there. “One of the youths shouted Son of a whore at the police”. Having located the young troublemaker, the officers, prudently, decided to return a little later, hoping to arrest him when he would be alone. Three hours later, the police spot the poet who is effectively alone. Feeling penned in, he set out in flight. “He began calling out to the others in Arabic.” Resulting in the gang reconstituting itself at lightning speed. The police were surrounded by raging youths…

“The police were obliged to leave given that the situation was going to degenerate, but they nevertheless were able to apprehend the youth, who resisted arrest violently.” End of the second act.

The following day, the police receive an anonymous call. “Something was being planned on a street in Saint-Antoine place.” A patrol arrived on the scene at a time when the youths were not expecting them. A piece of luck. A miracle! “When the detectives arrived, they saw six youths take flight, leaving something behind them on the ground.” The police approached, and discovered Molotov cocktails and a can of gasoline with five liters of gas. The youths awaiting the third visit from the police had prepared a surprise for them…

Despite the conclusive tone in the article's final paragraph, the story, of course, is not over.
What happens tomorrow?

Swiss church under siege

Treating a wave of vandalism against its stained glass windows as the equivalent of a natural disaster, the community of Monthey have banded together to entomb their church's beautiful windows, in order to save them.

Thanks to the tireless French-language news site BafWeb for bringing attention to this story; my translation of a tragically symbolic defense against violent "youth", as a besieged Swiss church sacrifices outer beauty for inner peace:

Soccer balls, stones, and rubber bullets: following a renewal of attacks upon the Catholic church of Monthey, the parish has put protective measures in place for their stained glass windows.

…

Sign of changing times, the church must protect its stained glass windows from vandals by imposing “armor-plating”!

Approximately 10,000 francs have been devoted towards this construction project, said parish priest Henri Roduit. “Acts of vandalism have always existed, but increasingly the phenomenon has taken on proportions too important [to ignore].”

And the pastor adds: “We are confronted with three sorts of vandalism against these stained glass windows. Besides soccer balls, there are stones thrown and rubber bullets fired from pistols.”

Facing up to the increasing frequency of these incidents, the parish wanted to take preventative measures, [because] of the high costs of repeated repairs. “The system chosen by the parish Council has the advantage of associating a defense against projectiles of all sorts along with protection against the cold. The plate-glass installed in front of the stained glass windows are made of a very solid composite material.” What’s more, the discretion of this process does not weigh upon the aesthetic. And let us remember that a stained glass window can be admired from the interior of a church. ...

Hiding the treasures of European culture behind increased layers of armor plating may speak well of the ingenuity and resilience of the remaining true believers, but what else does such a gesture suggest? It would be more reassuring that they would view their communities as a whole, and their very nation with the same pride, and would take measures on a larger scale to diminish the scale of "youthful" urban violence forcing those capable of appreciating the beauty of a stained glass window to remain indoors.
Are unrepentant thugs and vandals as inevitable as a winter frost? Maybe post-christian Europe has come to think so, if the remaining faithful few view a good defense as the best offense.