See If You Can Guess How This Ends

22 Replies to “See If You Can Guess How This Ends”

1. I’m not at all surprised at the bias: What I am surprised at is their willingness to talk about their bias in even the least way.

2. Does anyone doubt that the CBC is at least as culpable? Just when one thinks that Michael Coulton’s reports from the USA can’t get any more biased and vicious, he outdoes himself, as he has been doing this week on the elections in Virginia. I doubt that the Democratic Party could produce campaign ads that would be more partisan.
   And perhaps some people will remember a story from a couple of weeks ago that had to do with the fondness for luxury goods on the part of the North Korean elite. Even that story began by repeating the comment of former Texas governor, Ann Richards, that George W. Bush was “born with a silver foot in his mouth”. Nothing else in the story had anything to do with President Bush; nothing! But the “reporter” found a way, however, awkward, to smuggle it in.

3. This is an important admission. And I don’t believe that the BBC is “too old” to change. That’s an excuse to do nothing. There’s a lot they can do to at least begin to iron the blatant biases out of their reporters’ copy.
   I think it is beginning to genuinely dawn on them, with the unrest of Muslim communities not only in Britain but throughout Europe, that a Frankenstein’s monster they have had a big hand in creating is being unleashed–and that they are as much targets as anyone else. Years of championing “multiculturalism” and “tolerance” and “diversity” has not resulted in the assimilation of Muslims but, rather, has allowed the extreme elements of this faith to practice jihad in their own backyards.
   For a full analysis of appeasement of extreme and violent elements in Britain, read Melanie Phillips’ “Londonistan.” It’s chilling and sheds light on this seeming turnabout in thinking on the part of the BEEB.
   They’d better begin to change, given that they’ve been a huge part of the problem. Now that they realize that they are as much targets as anyone else, I think they may be motivated…

4. I agree with b.a.t.b. – maybe people are finally waking up.
   I recently had like a 60-post argument with Zac at Towards A Just Society who thought publishing the Muslim/Danish cartoons was wrong; he would never have allowed them in his paper. “If you produced South Park, would you ban Jesus from appearing?” I asked. “If you produced Star Trek, would you disallow Kirk kissing Uhura? Would you cut out the gay neighbours in American Beauty?” Finally he got my point.
   I think more people are slowly waking up – too many Muslims are seeking inequality, not equality, and are willing to go to thuggish extremes to get it.

5. Jason Bo green the left is all about inequality.
   Affirmative action and hiring quotas are not something you foist, if you want to be treated equally. But they don’t. Do lefties want christianity and homosexality taught in school? No you have a holiday concert and manditory homosexual sensitivity training.
   I hope it ends in the elimination of the BBC and CBC,
   Or maybe they can have a 30 year hiring freeze on left wingers. To right past wrongs err lefts.

6. With regard to the Muslim veil, TVO’s Agenda last night had a nice, if incomplete, discussion on the hijab and veil.
   My own view agrees with two speakers on the show, who claimed that both the hijab and the veil are not religious symbols but are instead, attributes of enforced cultural domination that only emerged with the rise of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian oil-funded tribal dictatorships. What’s the point of this ‘uniform’ other than to signify and enforce a group membership and loyalty that takes precedence to your new immigrant residence?
   By the hijab and veil, you are declaring that your loyalty is not to the community to which you have immigrated; it is an ‘Other’ community. This is a clear statement of Otherness. Many Muslims claim that their loyalties are not to the nation in which they live, not to the laws and institutions of that nation, but to the utopian and aspatial and atemporal ‘Islam’. The very notion of ‘citizenship’ is being challenged.
   One speaker promoting both, reduced the hijab and veil to the pure cultural relativism of ‘freedom of speech and freedom of expression’. You can, as an individual, wear whatever you want. This speaker ignored that both the hijab and veil are not attributes of free choice, eg. pink hair colour, but are symbols, such as a uniform, signifying the rejection of free choice and a commitment to membership within a closed group.
   One speaker, who spoke against the veil, argued that it prevented communication – and asked – how would we like it if all people, men and women, were masked? How could we communicate? The promoter of veils rejected this, saying that she was ‘fine’ if everyone was veiled. THINK. We, as a species, are predominately a visual communicator. We communicate by sound, but, this sound is not enough; we, unlike eg dogs, are primarily a visual species. We require information about facial expressions to fully understand sound. The veil is an enormous hindrance to expressing meaning.
   If you remove the religious strictures from the hijab and veil, and several were saying there is nothing in the Koran about this form of dress, then – why do it?
   Not expressed on the show, but heavily expressed elsewhere, is the notion of ‘sexuality’. Many women say that the veil prevents them from being harassed by men, who, without the veil, will ‘make advances’ to them. This reduces men and women to pure sexual objects. A woman, whether 15, 25, 55, 65, 75, is ‘an object of lust’ and must be veiled. A man, whether 15, 25, 55, 65, 75, is ‘he who lusts’ and must be inhibited.
   There is no room in this perception for any interaction based on reason, thought. Men and women are just Pure Objects of Lust.
   This is frequently given as the reason for both the hijab and the veil. Hmmm.
   The ‘meaning of the hijab and veil’ is a serious problem to both Muslims and non-Muslims. For the Muslim – there are some who say it’s required in the religion, and others who say it is not required and is instead a political agenda of SA and Iran to develop an international base loyal to the ME rather than the new country.
   There are some who say it’s necessary to protect women from men, who are both defined as irrational, lust-filled creatures no matter their age.
   There are some who say that this group identification takes precedence to any identification or loyalties to their new country of residence.
   The basic question is the legal and political relationship of ‘groups’ within a political and legal ‘nation’. Multiculturalism has promoted group identification over national identification and has rejected the basic liberalist concept of ‘the individual’. This sets up adversarial ‘group politics’ and, by its rejection of the individual, also rejects the use of Reason. (Groups don’t think; they exist within emotional bonds).

7. Jason the sometimes sensible centrist says: “I think more people are slowly waking up – too many Muslims are seeking inequality, not equality,”
   You say that like it’s a bad thing!
   Seriously, f*ck equality. Equality is a Marxist concept incompatable with freedom and our Canadian heritage.
   I say there are too many people like Jason in Canada who are selective in demanding a false and self-serving “equality”. It’s fake equality seeking people like Jason, not the Muslims, who are the main problem in Canada.

8. Ali G needs to stick to the question of BLTs in Iraq.

9. Can’t wait for the Borat movie to open this week!

10. I watched The Agenda on TVO too last night. Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, was excellent in his criticism of the veil: He called it a mask.
    So I read ET’s comments with great interest. A point not yet made on this issue, either on TVO or here, which I think is crucial, is the security risk. Here we have both a religious group, some of whom are suicide bombers, and a form of religious dress, possibly protected under “religious freedoms” rubrics, which can hide both intent and the means to carry out atrocities. After 9/11, I have to admit to a very different attitude when I see a fully veiled figure. I might be inclined to wait for the next bus. Honestly.
    People wearing masks are not able to simply walk into banks and other public spaces in our society. Under the present circumstances–post 9/11 and the ME military engagements–neither should Muslim women be allowed to. If they wish to live in a free society–and one can’t have freedom without transparency–they’d better be willing to live within its parameters. (The ME sure as heck demands that of Western women over there.)
    In the West, when interacting with others, covering one’s face is also a social taboo: Wearing a veil in a non Muslim country is the height of anti-social behaviour, for very substantial reasons. And don’t tell me it’s a Charter right. (It’s interesting, in this context, that religious Christians in Canada have had scant Charter protection: Their rights to freedom of belief, expression, and association have been trounced over and over again by Canadian courts. Why should Muslims be given special protections that adherents of the founding religion are denied? ‘Great way to foster peace and goodwill among citizens, eh?) There is no right to conceal one’s identity in this society. Once we concede that, we’re totally doomed. Just think, the naqila or burqa may be used by anyone, man or woman, of any or no religion, to provide cover-up for all kinds of things.
    (I believe the Ontario government’s actually considering allowing veiled women to have their veiled faces as photo ID on their licenses. Think of all the license swapping one could do! Monty Python, anyone? It would be totally laughable if it weren’t real life in Canada. I believe that the state of Florida, even after being taken to court a number of times, has resolutely refused this ludicrous and subversive request. I wish I were confident that McGutless and his clowns would do the same.)
    I have little problem with the hijab or other ritual dress which allows one to see a person’s face. But full body covering is out as far as I’m concerned. If a woman wants to dress that way, I guess she’ll need to go to a ME country. After all, Western women are constrained in their manner of dress when living or visiting such countries. Equality: Bring it on!

11. Who said anything about Marx? Everyone should be equal in the law and enjoy the same basic freedoms and rights — Muslims should not have special freedoms that restrict others.
    I don’t really see the relation to Marx’s (foolish) ideas…

12. I also saw The Agenda last night and my main concern, like lookout’s, is the security aspect. ‘
    The Muslim woman who defended it, interestingly a “Western” woman, quite obviously a convert, held a piece of her hijab over her face and said, quite disingenuously, “It’s only a piece of material.” She obviously missed the very real import of this “piece of material.”
    It hides a person’s identity. The person so veiled could be a man or a woman, could be the person they purport to be or not.
    I say, absolutely no way should we allow masked people to walk around in public. I can’t mask myself and walk into a bank or try to get on an airplane. Why should Muslim women–who might be Muslim women, or might not be Muslim women: Who would know?–be able to do this? Muslim dress should be allowed, quite obviously, in their own homes and in their mosques, but not in the public square in Canada.

13. Re “The Muslim woman who defended it” from my post above should read, “The Muslim woman who defended wearing a veil, covering one’s face except for one’s eyes…” etc.

14. been around and lookout – yes, your comments on security are right – and no-one, other than Tarek, sort of, made any comments on this issue.
    As I said – no-one commented on the reason given by so many young women, about the ‘sexual nature’ of men and women that must be inhibited and constrained by hiding the women completely from their ‘lustful gaze’. I find that view so insulting to both men and women!
    The security issue is one that is valid, but I imagine that the Muslim defenders will counter that with the charge of ‘racism’, i.e., that you assume that IF the individual is Muslim (veiled), THEN, they will be committing a crime. They will simply throw the criticism back at you, claiming your immediate assumption of their guilt, is the real problem.
    I read elsewhere comments on deaf communication – which requires lipreading and facial expressions, for it is a fact that our species requires facial expressions to best interpret verbal communication.
    The veil is a clear statement that says “I do not wish to interact with you”. It cannot be substantiated by religious requirement, by sexual implications, or any valid reason. It is openly stating – I am a member of a closed group and I do not wish to communicate or interact with you. Period. That’s not conducive to a modern society.

15. Call those of us who oppose the veil racist if they wish: It’s about time we stopped being intimidated by their constant whining. If it’s not this issue, it’ll be some other. There’s no way to win other than to stand on our principles–as they do on theirs–and not back down. (Whose country is this anyway?)
    Re racism: BATB and I both pointed out the total non-racist viewpoint: ANYONE can wear clothing like that. It’s the cover-up, not the race, per se, that’s the problem. (Though the suicide bomber aspect’s not trivial.)
    As you point out, the veil also quite clearly tells the rest of us they’re not interested in being a part of us. That, of course, is their right. However, being incognito in public spaces is not–not for the rest of us and not for them.

16. Back to the BBC thing…I’ve been following this for over a year now and making comparisons wiht our own CBC.
    Virtually identical with the exception that BBC focusses on whitewashing the failures of multiculturalism while demonizing the right and attempting to rewrite their history….where CBC focusses on whitewashing the failures of the lib/left while demonizing the right and attempting to rewrite our history.
    My take…CBC = BBC light…less content and less class…just as anti-conservative.

17. Muslims are essentially self-segregating, hence, veils, suicide belts and body bags work out for their most fervent followers as favored attire.
    As far as veils….No, no, no in courts where the judge and jury can’t see your real demeanor. No, at cop and security stops where cops/security can’t see a concealed weapon. A photo of a piece of fabric isn’t an ID either. Only Islam would refuse to concede the obvious. If you are a Muslim that can’t live with the above, please, get the hell out of my country. You are of no value added to our culture.
    Any little lefties not getting that, please, convert and leave with them. An empty cranium isn’t an ID either.
    Every time we concede to this Muslim crap, we lose a little more to the thousand paper cuts that Islam is so gifted at weakening the West with.

18. ET suggests that vis a vis the security issue concerning the wearing of the veil, “I imagine that the Muslim defenders will counter that [sic] with the charge of ‘racism’, i.e., that you assume that IF the individual is Muslim (veiled), THEN, they will be committing a crime.”
    Funny, I hadn’t thought this at all–though I suppose there are people who might like to THINK that’s what I might be thinking.
    In no way do I assume that, of course, if the individual is wearing a veil, s/he is likely to be committing a crime. I am just very concerned that it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell who is behind the veil, whether or not the person is merely going about her/his–because it could be “his”; we don’t know–business or is, in fact, doing something surreptitiously.
    Anyone–of any race or religion–can carry out an illegal act far more easily if they are covered up and unable to be seen by others, which is why, in our society, we don’t allow people to cover their faces in public. We believe in community and getting to know one another, we believe in transparency. It has worked up to now and I see no reason why we should change our culture, our way of doing things, to accomodate an increasingly demanding minority. If my pointing these things out gets me branded as “racist,” then I’d say it’s the problem of the person who’s doing the name-calling, not mine.
    Like Penny, I’d say to those Muslims who insist on being veiled in public: Perhaps you need to move to an Islamic country, where the majority of people feel the way you do–and dress the way you do. In Canada, not allowing others to see your face in public is unacceptable–and, not only that, it is against the building of community, as ET points out. It tells us that you don’t want to be a part of our society.

19. thank you Penny, I agree completely.

20. thank you Penny, I agree completely.

21. Re CBC = BBC lite. This TVO program showed that TVO = CBC lite: The obvious question of security was barely touched. The topic went around and around in circles, so tied up in PC and the rights of the veiled persons, the obvious question about the safety and security of the rest of us went nowhere. Typical!
    I’m glad to see we seem to have a consensus here on the wearing of the veil in Western societies. I wonder how long it will take those in charge to get it. I don’t hold my breath. But when they drag out the Charter, I think we’d better stop sitting on our hands and demand OUR rights!

22. Re CBC = BBC lite. This TVO program showed that TVO = CBC lite: The obvious question of security was barely touched. The topic went around and around in circles, so tied up in PC and the rights of the veiled persons, the obvious question about the safety and security of the rest of us went nowhere. Typical!
    I’m glad to see we seem to have a consensus here on the wearing of the veil in Western societies. I wonder how long it will take those in charge to get it. I don’t hold my breath. But when they drag out the Charter, I think we’d better stop sitting on our hands and demand OUR rights!