Monday, September 05, 2005

Cat n' Dog

Flying almost under the radar in news dominated by Hurricane Katrina are efforts by left-wing women's groups to prevent sharia from becoming part of family law in Canada. CNS News reports:

Protesters will take to the streets this week in cities from Amsterdam to Victoria, all because of a bureaucratic proposal that would allow Islamic law to be used in Ontario family arbitration cases. ... Almost 100 organizations have banded together under the banner of the International Campaign against Shariah Court in Canada. On Thursday, they'll march in six European cities and at least five in Canada.

The Christian Science Monitor reported on the genesis of the Canadian sharia controversy in August 2004. It highlighted the fundamental dilemma facing Canadian politicians: whether to uphold multiculturalism and logically endorse sharia or to reject sharia and logically weaken the multiculturalist principle.  In an article entitled Can tolerant Canada tolerate sharia?,  author Susan Bourette wrote:

The Ontario government redrafted legislation in 1991, granting religious leaders the authority to mediate civil matters. The law, called the Arbitration Act, was designed to help unburden an already over-taxed court system. At the same time, they hoped it would enhance the country's official doctrine of multiculturalism, the notion that a society is made richer when ethnic groups are encouraged to share their cultural expression and values. Rabbis and priests have also used the act to adjudicate squabbles over everything from dietary rules to monetary disputes between parishes. But critics of sharia charge that, in this case, the principles of multiculturalism are being exploited to enforce oppression. They argue that the practice of sharia in Canada undermines the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it discriminates against women.

One of websites coordinating opposition is NoSharia.Com, which sees the proposed Canadian as part of a "universal attempt" by "political Islam" to gradually foist its principles on the West -- eroding the gains which the Left believes it has won. NoSharia.Com has found a clever way to prevent their position from cascading through their whole ideological system, and escalating into a wholesale opposition to "political Islam" by generalizing their argument as opposition to all "faith based" types of arbitration. Resistance to sharia becomes a special case of their general struggle against conservative and bigoted behavior.

Canadian Muslim spokesmen point out with some justice, that sharia had been used since 1991 "to mediate legal disputes, such as divorce and child custody", according to the Christian Science Monitor article, and yet had provoked no outcry. Only when "a Muslim group proposed creating a formalized tribunal" did "what had been going on quietly for more than a decade" become a flashpoint with the Left. They had not yet understood that peculiar feature of Western politics: while conservatives stayed up nights worrying about terrorist attacks, the Left lived in perpetual fear of any incursions into its sacrosanct domain of social policy. The Left might care nothing if a Middle Eastern dictator prepared radiological bombs to bomb an American city, but let someone propose banning abortions in the third trimester and all hell would break loose. Saddam might invade Kuwait with no consequences, but woe betide anyone who proposed creating a formalized tribunal to mediate family disputes based on Islamic custom. This curious asymmetry of interests subconsciously manifested itself in the recriminations over Hurricane Katrina. To the Left, using the US Armed Forces to fight terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan is improper use of resources better reserved for disaster relief. That's what aircraft carriers are for. Judyth Hill, writing in the aftermath of 9/11 seriously suggested that Americans respond to that attack by enfolding themselves in comforting domesticity.

Make soup.
Play music, memorize the words for thank you in three languages.
Learn to knit, and make a hat.

If Liberals could somehow be persuaded that Osama Bin Laden threatens their cherished social policy -- the ability to "make soup" -- then America might go to war against Islamic terrorism in peace.


Blogger ex-democrat said...

"The Left might care nothing if a Middle Eastern dictator prepared radiological bombs to bomb an American city, but let someone propose banning abortions in the third trimester and all hell would break loose."
I can't help thinking that it is either narcissism and/or near-sightedness that accounts for interpreting the latter as more significant (to oneself) than the former.

9/05/2005 07:05:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

I wonder if the day will soon arrive when all arab lands are completely cleansed of Jew and Christian (peoples who predate the cult of the rock by many centuries of living in the middle east) when that is done the Islamification on Europe, Canada & Asia will proceed at full tilt....

However I see light at the end of the tunnel...

Jews thrown out of Gaza have set the precedent! I see Cananda, Asia and Europe to copy this and start throwing (en mass) Islamic peoples back to the Moab..

May the islamic forces of the world continue to overplay it's hand...

(big secret - the arab/islamic world is not threatened by the west, they believe their own propaganda, the holocaust was a fake... the euro's are soft... Truth the Euro's excel at mass murder and have for centuries! Islam has no memory of this)

9/05/2005 07:16:00 AM  
Blogger al fin said...

This is a major problem. The muslims are already on the warpat. The Canadian governments are too weak to oppose the demands. This is multiculturalism and political correctness gone berserk.

How ironic that it is the politically correct feminist movement that is being split by the reaction to muslim overreach.

9/05/2005 07:21:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

al fin
It does not seem like Mohameddan "over reach" if all they are doing, in Ontario, is codifying means and methods already in place.
It may just be that as the realities of Mohammedanism are dawning on those previously in denial.
Until the Mohammedan threat is fleshed out as a threat to THEIR cherished values the Left will not react.
They seem to think that the threat posed by potential Terror Attacks is not as great, to them or US, as political and legal threats to Leftist Dogma.
The Left really believes we are unbeatable, militarily. The only "real" threat to their version of Utopia being the 'Reactionary Right'.

9/05/2005 07:55:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

ex dem,
They're hysterical, and they're nuts, and they're sheep.
(Madness of Crowds)
Glad I don't have a taste for sheep.
...but what about Aba Zaba?

9/05/2005 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/05/2005 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

(snickers again)

9/05/2005 08:19:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

The single greatest challenge for any philosophy is the discovery of its limits, both those natural and the ones man-made –and explaining the why of the limits.
All three of Wretchard’s most recent essays touch on this in some fashion.
In New Orleans, the promotion of the “anything goes” philosophy was intrinsic in the city’s success as a party town, but was hardly suitable to meet the challenge of a major natural disaster. Once having accepted the philosophy, it simply was both impossible and unthinkable for the leadership to get out of bed on the 2 Sep and announce “Today and until further notice, folks, this is not New Orleans. This is Nazi Germany. Do exactly as you are told or else.” Nor in the years leading up to Katrina would it have been possible to promote the idea that “Anything goes is fine, except for the maintenance and reinforcement of the levee system, in which case we are taking the approach used in the creation of Hitler’s Atlantic Wall. It is of top priority and individuals may be drafted to work on it without recourse. Furthermore, members of the levee board caught using funds to buy such lavish excesses as aircraft for junkets and casinos will be shot at sunrise without trial.” But that is what it would have taken.
In 1984 the Communist Party of China – that which by definition made China “Red” - formally renounced Marxism as a philosophy. The communists in China formally accepted the idea of free markets, free trade, and therefore the free exchange of ideas. 5 years later they had the Tienermin Square massacre in which they said “Well, not THAT free, people.” They have not yet solved the problem of where capitalism ends; it may well destroy them as a country and almost certainly will destroy them as a dictatorship.
Now, the Left in the West increasingly faces the question of where their largely ad hoc principles end and why. Multiculturalism Si! Sharia law Non! But why?
The Federal Government has no business telling families that one of their members cannot be killed.
The Federal Government must immediately step in and prevent family members from dying when they decide to expose themselves to danger.
The best philosophies find their natural and logical limits. Collections of ideas with no logical or moral underpinning never know when to stop.

9/05/2005 08:28:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Little Babies don't feel pain:
When you poke them with a sharp stick in the womb, and the sonogram reveals movement, they're just doing a jig.
Animals don't feel pain either:
Cat's just doing a jig when a dog tears it to pieces.
Ain't Science Great?
Doug Lysenko.

9/05/2005 08:30:00 AM  
Blogger moderationist said...

Sharia law is apartheid of women. The women and girls will be isolated, subjugated, and intimidated. The Canadians are crazy.

9/05/2005 08:32:00 AM  
Blogger Common Cents said...

Had Gore won the presidency the US response on 9/11 would have been to:

Make soup.
Play music, memorize the words for thank you in three languages.
Learn to knit, and make a hat.

Hitchens believes the Demos would have followed Bush's responses only a year later. He is wrong on this point.

9/05/2005 08:54:00 AM  
Blogger ex-democrat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/05/2005 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger ex-democrat said...

on the subject of the liberal left's childish determination to have it both ways, i recommend this piece titled "ALL DELUSIONAL POLITICS IS LOCAL" guest-posted on Michelle Malkin's blog titled (
("New Orleans is dead because before the storm it overdosed on "Don't Worry, Be Happy," an attitude that it's now clear extended beyond city hall to include the great newspaper that is supposed to challenge officials and be a voice for the voiceless."
One reason that libs are wedded to multi-culturalism because they see it as exotic, sexy and cool. Maybe a part of dealing with their wilful ignorance towards the negative aspects of some of those cultures maybe figuring out why being a wasp is just not sexy enough?

9/05/2005 08:59:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

ot, but thank God:
First Comment at Pierre's Pink Flamingo Bar and Grill:
"It's good to hear that your mother in law survived the experience. The whole thing is just almost beyond comprehension at this point."
My comment was thank God they all made it.
Now say a prayer for Texas,
and our Country.

9/05/2005 09:20:00 AM  
Blogger Aristides said...

NoSharia.Com has found a clever way to prevent their position from cascading through their whole ideological system, and escalating into a wholesale opposition to "political Islam" by generalizing their argument as opposition to all "faith based" types of arbitration.

The secular faith of the Left is waging an asymmetrical war against the established ethos of the West. The decentralized deconstructionists have formed cells in universities and coffee shops, they are ubiquitous and self-sufficient, and when a weakness is exposed they swarm and terrorize with brazen fervor.

Contradictory cultures, so long as they play victim, are embraced as fellow travelers, but these same cultures are attacked when they parley with the enemy. Repression that originates outside of the West is authentic, so long as it occurs in impoverished enclaves. When it formally joins the machine, though, all hands on deck.

The presupposition of badness ascribed to faith-based arbitration is a bullet meant only for Christianity, a shiny stone to bring down the largest of Western Goliaths. Islam does itself no favors by being noticed. If it weren't so impatient, who knows what spoils would await.

9/05/2005 09:25:00 AM  
Blogger erp said...

At least some in the women's rights movement in Canada are waking up and taking action.

To their everlasting shame, the National Organization of Women (NOW) has been mum on the plight of Muslim women and on the disgusting practice of female genital mutilation.

Rush is right when he says that the NOW gals are only interested in furthering leftwing moonbattery and don't care a flying fig about women rights.

9/05/2005 09:25:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

When Lysenko began his fieldwork in the Soviet Union of the 1930s, the agriculture of the Soviet Union was in a massive crisis due to the forced collectivization movement.
.Collectivization attempts had been incredibly violent, involving the deportation and eventual deaths in camps of hundreds of thousands of peasants, and were followed by a famine in Ukraine which killed millions.

At the same time, there were few agricultural specialists who were willing to work committedly towards the success of the new and troubled collectivized farms.
Many agronomists were educated before the revolution, and even many of those educated afterwards did not agree with the collectivization policies and the damage they were doing.
Furthermore, among biologists of the day, the most popular topic was not agriculture at all but the new genetics that was emerging out of studies of Drosophila melanogaster, fruit flies with very simplistic genetic structures which allowed for easy studying of Mendelian ratios and inheritability.
Only much later would this research have obvious application to the problem of agriculture, and during the 1920s and 1930s it was easy for a radical like Lysenko to castigate these theoretical biologists for spending their time bent over trays of fruit flies while famine raged on around them.

In 1928, previously unknown agronomist Trofim Lysenko "invented" a new agricultural technique, vernalization (using humidity and low temperatures to make wheat grow in spring). He promised to triple or quadruple yields using his technique.
In reality, the technique was neither new, nor useful.
Check out the Ukraine Famine Link, Verc:
Maybe you could add to it?

9/05/2005 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

U.N. push for world government, advocates approval of key building block: Law of the Sea Treaty
The Center For Security Policy ^ | August 31, 2005 | Frank Gaffney

Decision Brief No. 05-D 44 2005-08-31

On eve of U.N. push for global government, advocates urge Senate to approve a building block: The Law of the Sea Treaty

(Washington, D.C.): As concern grows that the United Nations is intent on replacing what the National Security Guidance calls "an orderly arrangement of sovereign states" with a proto-world government - complete with the ability to impose international taxes, a new push is being made for a treaty that would advance that purpose: the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

9/05/2005 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

The undoing of America
The Washington Times ^ | September 5, 2005 | Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled tomorrow to decide whether to clear the way for the most odious, anti-American piece of legislation in memory: S. 147, the "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act."

Incredibly, as of now, more than 61 senators are expected to vote to begin a process that would ineluctably unravel the United States as a nation.

This legislation has been advanced in the spirit of pandering that has come to characterize all too much of our national political life. In this case, the pandering is on behalf of an ethnic community that is largely a figment of some politicians' imaginations...This could involve creating a new Hawaiian monarchy and perhaps lead to the islands' secession from the Union.

Hawaii's longtime Democratic Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye are leading the charge for S. 147...

A clearly unconstitutional effort to legislatively manufacture a new "tribe" out of one of the most heterogenous and fully assimilated populations in America...

Should senators violate their oath of office -- which obliges them to "support and defend the Constitution" -- by enacting S. 147, they will invite an even greater problem down the road. Other self-designating communities can be expected to demand recognition of their rights to have their own government and sovereign laws.

9/05/2005 09:44:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Oral History Project.

HARDIN: And Stanford, in biology, was not known for being particularly good then because they had a declining faculty that was really on the way down.
But new ones had been brought in, and they weren't well-known yet.
Now, the man I was working with was a second-rater.
I stayed with him - this is a complicated story; I shouldn't have, but I did.
But my principal contact at Stanford was George Beadle.
He had come there after several fellowships abroad and a year at Harvard and so on, a geneticist and, as I say, he was my principal contact.

I took his seminar courses, and I was his friend in every way and consulted with him about things.
I wasn't interested in the color of fruit flies' eyes.
That was just his work then, and I didn't see the significance;
that this was getting into in the nature of genes.
I didn't see that.
I really should have changed, but at any rate, he was really my mentor, in school and out.
He later got the Nobel Prize; a very eminent person.
He was a very fair and decent person to help me along.
I couldn't have been at a better place than Stanford, and that was a place where new directions in genetics were taking place.

9/05/2005 09:51:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

I was very active for a while in Hawaii politics.
Then my best friend was taken quickly by cancer despite the best of the best at Stanford.
I have not spent any time on Hawaii politics since.
...but unfortunately, it impacts all of us, doesn't it?

9/05/2005 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

To explain: Friend was intensely involved in Hawaii GOP.

9/05/2005 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

If it were Akaka w/o In No Way, my guess is they'd be laughing at him.
But the Senate is comprised of very esteemed folk:
Like Ted Kennedy.
In No Way Wields Pursestrings and Power.

9/05/2005 10:07:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Then there's Lingle, and Rove, and GWB,
but that's when I dropped out.
When the Chicoms shot down our plane, her first response was:
"It was a lot closer to China than to us!"
I raised just a bit of s... about that.
My friend asked what was going on.
I told him.
Hawaii and Japan and DC almost got rid of Rummy before he got started.

9/05/2005 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Aristo, re:
"The presupposition of badness ascribed to faith-based arbitration is a bullet meant only for Christianity, a shiny stone to bring down the largest of Western Goliaths.
Islam does itself no favors by being noticed.
If it weren't so impatient, who knows what spoils would await.
Nicely put, poetic, even.
You meant NAGS, of course, right?

9/05/2005 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger jim said...

Why shouldn't the Left should feel good about its multi-culti support for Islamism? Look at all the ethnic color provided by the concealing scarves, veils, black shrouds and enforced meekness of proper Muslim women in our drab western cities of mini-skirts, leather jackets, uncovered heads and hetero and homo hand-holding. Even the arranged marriages, forced servitude, second-class standing, beatings, genital mutilation and honor killings of some Muslim women living in the West aren't much of a problem if those people keep "their way" unto themselves. See- Progressives can too support a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

But, for Sharia to openly infringe upon liberal law would be a disaster for the Left. How could it continue to bash secular Christians and Jews as hegemonist theocrats set upon rolling back western social progress, if its heroic Muslims are legally outed as the actual reactionaries hostile to secularism, tolerance and liberalism? The Left's pandering to western antagonists and its vulgar campaign of progressive perceptions and diversity deceptions would then be exposed and found as unseemly as a naked female ankle under the Taliban.

And even more of us would be moved to say We divorce, we divorce thee, we divorce thee, our pretty, pornographic Progressives.

9/05/2005 10:40:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

Other self-designating communities can be expected to demand recognition of their rights to have their own government and sovereign laws.

your reap what you sow, viva palestinian liberation..

Now that the world/west has embraced the fake people of the "palestinians" right to self determination, look for this to continue... C4, you too are a colonists now when the native peoples demand your home back...

9/05/2005 10:43:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

The American Left is no longer secular, tolerant, or liberal:

American Taliban, Indeed!

9/05/2005 10:47:00 AM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

Make soup.
Play music, memorize the words for thank you in three languages.
Learn to knit, and make a hat,
and stick it to your ass with the soup!

It is ironic that the liberals do not understand that the thing that Islamists hate the most about the West is liberalism

9/05/2005 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Frostbite Falls said...

I suspect none of the commenters above are Canadian men, or, at least, Canadian fathers. Apartheid, or "separation," already exists in Canada. It exists between men and their children.

While the primary contractors of Canadian apartheid are the family law industry, which makes an average of $20,000 per broken family (to the tune of $1B per year), the architects of apartheid are the feminists. I don't blame Muslim men for one minute (even though I strongly oppose many Islamic practices) for trying to find any way possible to opt out of the discrimination inherent in Family Law. The "Sharia" proposal is modest...all it does is offer a mediation alternative to the feminist system, on a voluntary basis. One can opt out at any time, or even after the process is over, and return to the feminist system.

It is sad that the Catholic and Protestant denominations have stood by and watched the destruction of the lifelong contracts they administered on behalf of their members be destroyed by what seems today like an unstoppable feminist juggernaut.

Lest you think this is raving madness...a study was just released that analyzed every family law decision made by the new newest (feminist) justices on the Canadian Supreme Court. Out of 56 decisions between them made at a lower level in the last 10 years, only 2 decisisons agreed with the position advanced by the father.

The big battle here isn't multi-culturalism vs. feminism, but feminism vs. equal protection of the law. Let's hope that the battle hasn't been already lost.

9/05/2005 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

posted on the last thread.. (great timing?)

Why should nationalism and self determination only be at the expense of the west and it's allies (of course i am speaking why should the palestinians have a state) I look to china and india, with 2.5 billion people, to split into new nation states...

Free Tibet, Free Guangxi...

The Guangxi number 18 million... far more with a real ethnic history than any old "palestinian" with their 35 invented years of "fake" history...

Free Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region!

For some reason, i just cant get my arms around a democratic unified china...

As for India.... can we say Tamil? Kashmir!

additional food for thought..


Historical Foundation

The Chicano Movement of the late 1960's helped spark cultural and historical pride in our people. Chicanas/Chicanos demanded to be treated as equals and denounced acculturation and assimilation. Brown pride began to express itself through poetry, literature, art and theatre. The contributions of the Chicano Movement are numerous and continue to be very valuable to our society. Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (M.E.Ch.A.) is a student organization that promotes higher education, cultura, and historia. M.E.Ch.A. was founded on the principles of self-determination for the liberation of our people. We believe that political involvement and education is the avenue for change in our society. In March of 1969, at Denver, Colorado the Crusade for Justice organized the National Chicano Youth Conference that drafted the basic premises for the Chicana/Chicano Movement in El Plan de Aztlán (EPA). A synopsis of El Plan stipulates:

1) We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation);

2) Aztlán belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture;

3) We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation;

4) Chicano nationalism, as the key to mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to bring consensus to the Chicana/Chicano Movement;

5) Cultural values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza; and

6) EPA, as a basic plan of Chicana/Chicano liberation, sought the formation of an independent national political party that would represent the sentiments of the Chicana/Chicano community.

9/05/2005 11:26:00 AM  
Blogger jim said...

I don't blame Muslim men for one minute (even though I strongly oppose many Islamic practices) for trying to find any way possible to opt out of the discrimination inherent in [feminist] Family Law. The "Sharia" proposal is modest....

frostbite falls,

Much sympathy for your uber-feminist family law system. In the States and our courtrooms, decisions range between favoring men and handicapping them; husbands are either advantaged or discriminated against in divorce law, and fathers are routinely screwed. But, the Sharia proposal in Canada is not "modest" nor an antidote to feminism run amok in the law. It would institutionalize just another ruinous favoritism. The reaction to today's feminism (waaaay past its prime and into the scary decay and wormy stage) should be fairness and not throwback medievalism, as attractive to frustrated western men as it might be, considering the ugliness of today's PC. Sharia can be more hideous.

9/05/2005 11:27:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

In Washington State, Bestiality is only illegal if you can prove the animal did not enjoy it.
But how to tell?
And who really wants to know?
Longtime Rush listener figures you'd have to leave it up to the authorities to decide:
Unless you get it straight from the horses mouth, she says.

9/05/2005 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger ex-democrat said...

doug - "Four legs good; two legs bad." ?

9/05/2005 11:55:00 AM  
Blogger Hershblogger said...

When morality is entirely relative, and multi-culturalism is an ideal, you get sharia in Ontario.

Where's CARAL and NOW?

The Other Club first commented on this in March/05
in regard to SCOTUS affinity for guidance from International Law:
"Given sharia as family law in Ontario, Justices Breyer and Kennedy are hoist by their own petard. Canada is about to give us an example wherein women’s status is variable based on theological sectarianism. Under some of those sectarian interpretations, women are property, as evidenced by their treatment in Saudi Arabia (where the Quran is considered the constitution), Iran, formerly in Afghanistan, and, indeed, most of the Muslim world.

Female attire is dictated by the state, unwed mothers are flogged, adulterous women are stoned to death, and “honor killing” of females is perfectly reasonable. Under sharia, the husband has the unilateral right to divorce his wife without cause. He can accomplish this by uttering the phrase “I divorce you” three times over the course of three months.

What will SCOTUS do when CAIR brings a religious discrimination suit regarding polygamy?"

9/05/2005 11:58:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

I don't want to unduly alarm anyone, but in reference to Sharia Law, there are rumors to the effect that the new Iraqi Constitution will not recognize the primacy of Roe Vs. Wade.

9/05/2005 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger doolz said...

We have to take an Australian approach to this: if they want some good ol' time head-chopping, hand-lopping sharia law, they can move to Iran or KSA or some other such place. Does anyone care for adulterers to be stoned? How about some public lashings?

Multiculturalism should remain a 'feel good' public relations effort which broadens people's cuisine and musical boundaries.

9/05/2005 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger Vercingetorix said...

I agree with James H.
Frostbite, I sympathize with you over the inadequacies of Canadian law, but one tyrant does not beg to be replaced by another tryanny.

That is sharia which is brutal and has no place in the West if it has any in the East.

What is needed is the equal application of the law, kind of how the flat tax defeats the machinations of special interest groups; a fair, transparent, but most of all, stable law, not composed by judicial fiat would defeat both the Islamists and the feminists.

9/05/2005 12:49:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

This is an interesting piece. Its a Captain's Quarters repost on Freerepublic
Why Didn't Nagin Follow His Own Plan?

If you thumb down the page in comments you'll see a sattelite photograph of 145 drowned school buses 1.2 miles from the superdome. Those school buses were part of the plan drawn up by New Orleans to evacuate the city.

9/05/2005 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

RWE said...
I don't want to unduly alarm anyone, but in reference to Sharia Law, there are rumors to the effect that the new Iraqi Constitution will not recognize the primacy of Roe Vs. Wade.

did ya know all people of the world can be Iraqi citizens, all except israelis..

nice to see equal justice for all, cept the jews cause in the arab world it's a "good thing" to be jew free... just like democratic nazi germany

9/05/2005 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger jim said...

The Islamists and feminists per Wretchard's title: The Duel by Eugene Field:

The gingham dog and the calico cat
Side by side on the table sat;
'Twas half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)
Nor one nor t'other had slept a wink!
The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate
Appeared to know as sure as fate
There was going to be a terrible spat.
(I wasn't there; I simply state
What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)

The gingham dog went " Bow-wow-wow!"
And the calico cat replied "Me-ow!"
The air was littered,an hour or so,
With bits of gingham and calico,
While the old Dutch clock in the chimney place
Up with it hands before its face,
For it always dreaded a family row!
(Now mind: I'm only telling you
What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)


And so forth.

9/05/2005 01:33:00 PM  
Blogger truepeers said...

A little historical background. Multiculturalism is not exactly a new idea in Canada. After the British conquered Quebec, they guaranteed (in a 1774 act) the rights of the French-Canadian people to religious freedom, i.e. to the central role of the Catholic Church in social and institutional life, and maintained the French system of civil law.

In the nineteenth century when Ontario (Upper Canada, Canada West) developed as a predominantly anglophone colony with English Common Law, the largest immigrant group was from Ireland and imported into the colony all the Orange-Green rivalries and sectarian violence of home. One of the solutions was to institutionalize, with state financial support, a separate Catholic social welfare and, most importantly, school system. In the twentieth century, other religious groups would seek and get some limited support for their own separate institutions.

This system of making accommodations to the state norm, which was officially non-sectarian, but in practice was a generic protestant mix of largely anglican, presbyterian and methodist values (even the protestants were bitterly divided in early Ontario; so, for example, the Anglicans’ hopes of establishing some kind of university in ONtario on the Oxbridge model was squashed in favor of state support for only a nonsectarian university – until the early 20thC , one had to pledge allegiance to the articles of the Church of England to get a degree from Oxford or Cambridge), has continued in the twentieth century in various limited ways, from legal rights and social services specific to aboriginals to sectarian involvement in child welfare policies.

My point more generally is that Canada does not have a very coherent sense of a unifying nationality. Its independence from Britain did not entail any revolution or radical re-definition of what the new nation was to be about. So it has been very natural in what had always been a pluralistic society within a global British empire to seek accommodations for various sectarian interests, to defuse conflicts with elite-led negotiations and compromises.

So it is very much in the traditions of Canadian political culture to think, at first, that we can similarly accommodate the Muslims by giving them some bones for their own to pick in the area of family law (and schooling), keeping in mind that if the Muslim women have the strength to refuse a Sharia arbitration (this is the essential point of contention), they will maintain the right to opt instead for the mainstream process of family law.

This desire to accommodate was the natural, deeply-rooted Canadian first reaction to the Muslims’ demands. So the fact that there remains a lot of opposition in Canada to the very idea of any concession to Sharia law is significant, not simply of the common and understandable Islamophobia. Among other things, it points to the ongoing shift from the old multiculturalism (institutionalizing minority rights) to the new diversity in which the idea is not to promote real cultural diversity in society, but rather to defend a hegemonic form of liberalism (dare one say nationality?) with only a guarantee that people of all shapes and stripes can participate in shared institutions on a basis proportional to their numbers in society. The essential point is that everyone must now conform to the victimary ideologies that underlie the new “diversity” and redistribution system. The left is much more interested in patronizing supposed victims and justifying their own professions accordingly, than in defending anyone’s right to a particular and coherent cultural tradition, i.e. to any rigorous system. But then this new form of diversity leftism must also have a past, not only in the old multiculturalism but right back to the founding ideas of Christendom, though the left is largely ignorant of the religious basis for its utopian abstractions, which are in Canada a continuation of the generic protestant identity that founded the idea of the liberal mainstream in the first place. Canadian generic protestant liberals (a designation in which we should include some nominal Catholics and Jews) could tolerate the weird minorities when they were only old school Catholic and Jewish patriarchs, but now even some of the new school liberals have to draw lines somewhere as the Muslim male forces them to rethink what they are all about. Where will it end?

9/05/2005 04:00:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Frostbite falls,

The big battle here isn't multi-culturalism vs. feminism, but feminism vs. equal protection of the law.

Thanks for that information. My question is how this could happen. Truepeers makes the point that Canada has traditions which made it easier for different groups to live with each other. Is this a double-hijack? First Liberals hijacking family law in the interests of feminism, then Islamists paying them back in their own coin? If so, then whoever wins, you lose.

9/05/2005 05:08:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

From Dan Pipes of the New York Sun:


9/05/2005 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger ex-democrat said...

the enemy of my enemy is ... still my enemy.

or, as my dad might say, 'when one door closes, another one shuts.'

9/05/2005 06:12:00 PM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

Free Hejaz Now!

Interesting tibit of facts...

Saudia Arabia conquered and destroyed the INDEPENDENT NATION of Hejaz the keepers of Mecca and Medina in 1928!!!

Hussein ibn Ali or Husayn ibn Ali (died 1931) was the Sherif of Mecca, and Emir of Mecca from 1908 until 1917, when he proclaimed himself king. He ruled until 1924, when he was defeated by Abdul Aziz al Saud.

Hussein ibn Ali was the last of the Hashemites to rule the Hejaz. Hashemite rule over the region had existed in unbroken succession since 1201.

9/05/2005 06:16:00 PM  
Blogger miklos rosza said...

I had thought some time ago that the one possible way to get those on the left interested in opposing Islamism was to emphasize the abuse of women issue.

I'm not enough of an "activist," however, to repeat my talking points over and over again.

But there are two wars underway, one hard and one soft.

9/05/2005 06:31:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Your Tax Dollars at Work:
FEMA's Ill Rhymes
It's an age-old question : How do you explain the purpose of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to children? Rap, of course. Here's the sample lyrics :

Disaster . . . it can happen anywhere,
But we've got a few tips, so you can be prepared
For floods, tornadoes, or even a 'quake,
You've got to be ready - so your heart don't break.

Disaster prep is your responsibility
And mitigation is important to our agency.

People helping people is what we do
And FEMA is there to help see you through
When disaster strikes, we are at our best
But we're ready all the time, 'cause disasters don't rest.

If cultural misappropriation by people who don't understand what they're talking about makes you queasy, then prepare to vomit. When listening to this song, it's as if the person who recorded it had read a couple articles about rap music written in the mid-80's but still hasn't gotten around to actually hearing it for himself.
. The Talent Show

9/05/2005 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger John B said...

Re: "The Left might care nothing if a Middle Eastern dictator prepared radiological bombs to bomb an American city, but let someone propose banning abortions in the third trimester and all hell would break loose."

You don't know how true those words are. I attended the previous anti-sharia demonstration at Queen's Park (the Ontario legislature buildings) last year. Total attendance was about 75-100 with the largest groups being the Trotskyists (seriously) and the group of reporters and spectators. Only about two dozen of what I guess south Asian (Pakistani origin probably) muslims attended.

The Trotskyists, after speaking against the injustices of sharia to muslim women then began railing against Bush, the Christian right and the anti-abortionists who were equated with the worst violence committed in the name of sharia. Complete moral equivalence in other words.

9/05/2005 08:38:00 PM  
Blogger jim said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/05/2005 09:30:00 PM  
Blogger jim said...

dawg said...

Here's how to explain preparedness for some of the underclass in the Big Easy:

disaster for the Master is the time/
to take down him down hard doing your crime/
it's an opportunity to riot and run amok/
looting plasma big screen teevees and forcing a f *ck/
but you got to be ready to get your booty/
yea, it's a b*tch to prep, I know, but it's your duty/
be sure to get a piece, and stash it under your bed/
and don't forget your stash to take care of your head/
don't need nothing else, like no likker or ho-ing/
cuz when Cracker's winds hit home, that's not all that'll be blowing/
all them 'oppressors' will blow town, leaving the whole spread to us/
and the po-lice will fold and blow it, Nawlin 'leaders' p****y clueless/
then you can grab whatever you want, someone's wallet or their ass/
kill your sister over ice and say you're waging battle over class/
the most important thing to know, besides blaming the Man/
is that good footwear is essential to the robbing-raping plan/
Your Numero Uno get at gunpoint, and you better not screw it/
should be to steal some Nike's first, remember to just do it!!

(BTW, real rappers use asterisks and turgid prose. The FEMA guys just don't get the finer points of the artform.)

9/05/2005 09:33:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Wow, thanks for that, dawg:
I didn't think Mike Brown
had it in him.
What do I know?
Maybe a little thanks to Sister Guv
and Brother Mayor is in order for
being so cooperative.
But I can't carry a tune, so I'll
put the tap for a rap on you.

9/05/2005 10:08:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Still trying to remember where I ran into some sensitive soul saying:
"It's probably the ONLY Time they've ever had plasma screen, how can you blame them, much less shoot them."
or some such.

9/05/2005 10:15:00 PM  
Blogger iotm said...

The problem here is allowing religious based crap in the first place. Ontario should solve the problem by eliminating the special jewish and catholic priveledges, and then there would be no grounds for this kind of thing. Quebec should be the example with the elimination of seperate religious based schooling and the striking down of religious based family law. Allowing religious crap to take over isn't multi-culturalism, it's giving special priveledges to some, while denying some to others. Multi-culturalism is the elimination of any of those priveleges.

The threat to women is somewhat overplayed though. The Charter will trump any religious bullshit, and living in Canada, a religious person can simply drop their idiotic religion if one of these family tribunal things rules on something they don't like. It's unfortunate that state tolerance for religious-based repression exists in this form, but they've already enshrined it for catholics and jews, who have equally detestable practices, but there's no stopping it now.

It's funny that you mention women's rights vs. dictators. See the "left" here cares about people, you guys care about ideology. Opposition to a war is because it kills thousands of innocent people, fuck the dictator. The US couldn't care less whether it's a dictator or a democracy either, so don't use that tired rhetoric. For every Saddam Hussein there's a Hugo Chavez, and for every Taliban there's a Lavalas Party.

Not to mention all the countless dictators the US props up, which you guys seem to have no problem with. Complete moral inconsistency.

9/06/2005 01:02:00 PM  
Blogger ledger said...

If sharia law is adopted in Canada is it permissible for a disgruntled son to slap his mother out of personal embarrassment - with full approval of the Canadian authorities? It's seems like a slippery slope. Rewind to Jan 5, 2005.

(Here is the story of an irate Iraqi son slapping his mother in the Washington Post recounted by Tim Blair)


Imaad and his mother said the soldiers rushed in, ordering them to sit together while they searched the house... The soldiers went to search his bedroom. He heard laughing, and then they called for him, he said. Imaad went to his room and saw that the soldiers had found several magazines he kept hidden from his mother. They had pictures of girls in swimsuits and erotic poses. Imaad said the soldiers spread the magazines on his bed and put his Koran in the middle. "This is a good match," Imaad said one of the soldiers told him. "It was a nightmare" he said. "I will never forget those bad soldiers when they put the Koran among the magazines." Within 20 minutes, the soldiers left without arresting him or his mother.


'Why would they? They aren't the Taliban. Now we reach a section of the tale that, to be frank, does not reflect well on "mild-mannered" Imaad:'


While the soldiers went next door to search his neighbor's house, Imaad began to slap his mother, he said. "The American people are devils" ...


'The only violence in this saga is committed by Imaad against his mother -- and the Americans are devils?'


He left her and went to a mosque to spend the night. "I asked God to forgive me," Imaad said, "because I could not prevent American sins."


'You might have also asked God about that mother-slapping, pal.'


See: WP

It's obvious that sharia law belongs in Arabia and democratic laws belongs in the West. This reminds me of the old joke:

Q: Reporter: Have you stopped beating your wife?

A: al Zahari: Yes! I killed her three weeks ago.

9/06/2005 08:11:00 PM  
Blogger C R Mountjoy - GDF said...

Add to this trenchant post the fact that Calif passed Same Sex Marriages. Let's hope Ahnold won't be a Girly Man and kill it!

9/06/2005 10:38:00 PM  
Blogger fred said...

I think we may have this one backwards. While much is being expostulated about Islam being finally revealed for the repressive, totalitarian religion/ideology it is (it is more like a cult than a religion)to the Leftie women, it is actually the Left that if finally being revealed for the idiocy it is. We have had a loonie Leftie anti-semitic ranter down in Crawford being revealed for the fellow-traveler that she is and most Americans have responded to her with either a yawn or with aversion. Now, in Canada the radical femminists are subtlely admitting what fools they have been all along. Islam's classical texts have ALWAYS been there, in the open, for anyone to read and grasp. It's an open secret. However, the Left's alliance of convenience with the Islamists has not been obvious to most Americans and Canadians. Truly, most folks have been so blinded by Bush Hatred that they have not seen that the agitators and organizers of our own enervation have truly been despisers of our very way of life. It has not been easy to yank the disguise off of that crowd. The Islamists have always been open and above board about what their aims are. The Left has been more surreptitious. Out of the closet, you clowns!

9/07/2005 07:46:00 AM  
Blogger fred said...

While I'm at it, as a former Communist, neo-Marxist swine I thought that Marxists were supposed be able to spot and correct "contradictions" a mile away. They're supposed to know their history too.

9/07/2005 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger I LUV CATS said...

I found the cutest photo on your site.

7/09/2006 01:52:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger