If there was not a single terrorist attack, suicide bombing or rocket attack against Israel for, say 5 years, you can come back and ask forgiveness then….until then, STFU and crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.
People hate muslims because of the terror and savagery they have been inflicted on innocent people in the name of Islam…. no more, no less. Clean up your own act before you complain to others about racism and bigotry. Oh, and you can include ‘tolerance’ too. When I can openly walk down a street in Saudi Arabia carrying a bible in my hand on my way to a corner church and be greeted with smiles instead of rifles and hand-cuffs, let me know
He’s dead, by the way.*
Via Kathy Shaidle, (Actually, I pretty much stole her post wholesale.)
Update For readers who find this image disturbing, I advise you avoid the movie “Team America – World Police”. Their positionally compromised inanimate figures aren’t anatomically correct, either.
But as it clearly offends some of our readers, I’ll provide some of that “balance” so many of you complain is lacking here, by adding one that offends me.
So, what do you say? Can I get my nomination for Best Feminist Blog now?
Whoa this is gonna get ugly…..
I don’t like the symbalism of “Islam” giving it to a blonde-ie “western” woman.
Or did I read too much into that?
Classy. That’s about all I can say.
jeff.k
Dude , it’s already ugly . I would never presume to speak for either Kathy or Kate , but of all the voices that should be speaking up about Islam , Western women’s (groups ?)should be among the loudest , if not the loudest .
In this “Warren Kinsella” vs “Small dead animals” fight… I vote for none of the above.
He’s dead and still doing it.
Blasphemy, someone could get hurt!
One thing we have to assume, sex is an obsession with Muslims when they can brainwash young men to suicide bomb ‘Infidels’ with the promise of 72 virgins.
[deleted. Personal attacks aren’t necessary. ED]
WL Mackenzie: “Pussy fart publications”
ROTFLMAO!
Yeah, Kate, move on for Christ’s sake. This has gone way beyond an attention grope fest between you and Kinsella.
The Toronto Star article, written by the ‘Four Islamic legal students/lawyers’ who filed the HRC complaint against Macleans, is disturbing in its refusal to provide readers with the truth of the situation.
First, they claim that they filed the complaint because Macleans refused to publish their desire to respond to Steyn’s article. They set up the scenario that suggests Macleans is refusing a debate on Islam. This is untrue. Their non-negotiable demand was that Macleans publish a five page article without any editorial jurisdiction over content or images used and that it be on the cover of the magazine. No editor can allow the content of his magazine to be published without his editorial oversight.
Second, the Four don’t tell the reader that Macleans published many letters from readers about this article and invited the Four to do the same; they refused.
Third, the Four don’t inform the reader about the nature of the HRAct and the HR Commissions. They don’t tell us that the original intent was very specific; it was and is to prevent discrimination in housing and the workplace.
They don’t inform the readers that the specific objections are to ONE Section of the HRAct, namely Section 13.1, which says that it is discriminatory to communicate:
“any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
Keeping us uninformed enables the Four to manipulate public opinion. How do they do this? Rather than providing the reader with facts, with the particular objection to Section 13.1 that people have, instead, the Four tell us that the agenda is about ‘human rights’. This is untrue. They don’t tell us what ‘human rights’ are harmed. This suggests that opposition to the HRAct by so many people is also an opposition to Human Rights.
Untrue. Manipulative.
Fourth, the Four tell us that the HRC ‘extends to defamatory publications’. No, this is untrue. Defamation is very clearly outlined in Section 319 of the Criminal Code; it requires evidence of actual acts against individuals and evidence of actual harm done to individuals. The HRAct is not about defamation – and the Four are wrong to tell readers that this is so.
Fifth, they complain that ‘biased or misleading portrayals’ that are found in publications are unacceptable because they are somehow, violations of ‘human rights’. But the conclusion that something is biased or misleading is an interpretation and must be a result of a debate, not a de facto assertion. That is, the Four are essentially claiming that criticism of Islam is, in itself, ‘biased’.
They then move on to claim that the post 9/11 world became ‘Islamophobic’ and suggest that this is both unreasonable, biased and due to bad publicity. Now, phobia is an irrational state of mind based on non-reality. However, 9/11 was an action that was real and therefore, our fears that more Islamic attacks against the West would occur – are not irrational but real fears.
Sixth – again, the Four don’t tell the readers exactly why so many have objected to the HRAct and the HRCommissions – the fact that Section 13.1 is focused, not on actual events but on pure speculation of a future event that is ‘likely to result in someone feeling hated or viewed with contempt’. Since both feeling hated and viewed with contempt are entirely subjective and personal, no legal judgment can be made about them.
The Four, however, tell us the HRCommissions operate within the ‘principles of law’. But this is untrue. No legal criteria can ever evaluate the not-yet-happened future, and no legal criteria can ever evaluate subjective emotions. There are no legal principles possible within such an imaginary situation.
The Four also tell us that the HRCommissions have a ‘level of independence’. Independence from what? From reality? From objective criteria?
Finally, the Four, totally ignore the objections that everyone has against the HRAct and the HR Commissions – ie – that they are making judgments about pre-crimes, that they are judging what hasn’t yet happened; that they are judging subjective feelings of individuals.
And, the Four instead, tell the uninformed reader that their complaint is only about ‘Human Rights’, which they never define, and all they want is to be able to write an article in Macleans about their position.
Now, what puzzles me is – how can these people have passed the Bar exam? Their whole essay was pure hogwash, manipulative and indifferent to truth.
Looks like a couple of you are on the wrong thread. Either that, or you’ve managed to master the interweb without developing the skill known as “link click”.
“Now, what puzzles me is – how can these people have passed the Bar exam? Their whole essay was pure hogwash, manipulative and indifferent to truth.”
And your point would be? Doesn’t “hogwash, manipulative and indifferent to truth” describe what lawyers (and by extension judges) do in court to a “t”?
Oh Kate, don’t you know that all topics, like truth are “relative”?
One man’s interweb link click to Warren Kinsella is another frog’s chateaubriand and gauloises.
Kate….could it be because you are not posting your links “en frogeessee” or “lefteessee”? How else do you expect the poor babies to learn without help from “mommy”?
On a more serious note,these “lawyers” have the gall to talk about human rights? Since when do human rights include imprisoning women for being raped? Adulteresses stoned to death? Murdering innocent Jews? Forcing men/women into slavery that should make blacks happy to be in America? Oh. And let’s not forget preachng genocide. Isn’t that “hate speech”,or is it hate when only WASPs say it?
doug,
ad hominem – useless in the debate.
it may feel good but will not advance your point of view one iota. i don’t agree with separatiste’s point of view – but scurrilous remarks are not only ineffective but unbecoming. you know better. get a grip.
What is wrong with you people?
Muslims are people.
You are going to lump a billion people in with a few bad apples.
None of you are different than the people who fell for hitlers sh#t.
I would say this site is bordering on hate crimes.
Imagine a character resembling jesus raping a six year old.
You need your head examined kate.
This may be related: “Dion’s Looking for a Compromising Position on Afghanastan”.
“Imagine a character resembling jesus raping a six year old.”
If you can find a Bible reference for that, I’ll buy the Lego myself.
morningstar,
i like your lines. but at the same time i think you should not try to sweep this under the proverbial magic carpet. radicals (and just for balance, there are other perspectives on what is radical) just 1% of a billion = 1 million. that’s a lot death and destruction. you are witnessing the new assault on vienna.
wimpy, i’ll get a grip, around your pencil neck.
Now back to your milquetoast, wimp boy.
Imagine a character resembling jesus raping a six year old.You need your head examined kate.
Posted by: morningstar at February 8, 2008 10:17 PM
Morningstar, if you are using satire it’s far too subtle. If not. you are a self inflicted victim of the disease of political correctness.
Assuming it’s the latter please tell us in what way does Mohammed resemble Jesus? They are almost polar opposites. Jesus spread the word through persuasion. His message was one of tolerance and love.
Mohammed spread his religion through conquest and fear. His message was one of intolerance and conformity to his demands. His good ideas were borrowed from the Jewish and Christian bibles. His extremism lives on in his followers -allegedly 1.3 billion strong. Of course to openly quit Islam is to risk death.
I suggest that you read the New Testament and the Koran. Perhaps you won’t be quite so ignorant.
You know, I think that blogs etc ought to be more vocal in questioning the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ which is being used (as it was by the Muslim lawyers in the Toronto Star article) whenever anyone criticizes Islam.
A phobia is an irrational, unfounded fear. Criticism of Islam and Islamic fascism can’t be diverted and rejected by asserting that anyone who is concerned about Islam/Islamic fascism is ‘phobic’.
The reaction of riots and murders to the Danish political cartoons was real. The Muslims, rather than debating the validity of the political statements in the cartoons, reacted with fury that the West could even voice such statements. They even declared that ‘images of Mohammed’ are forbidden. That’s only for Muslims. Is the Islamic world trying to tell us that their rules are universal and we must follow them? That insistence on universality is enough to create, not an irrational, but a very valid fear.
The massacre of 9/11 was a reality; that’s enough to create a valid fear.
The London, Madrid, Bali and other bombings were realities; that’s enough to create a valid fear.
The preachings of hatred against the West by various imams are real; they are enough to create a valid fear.
Therefore, to assert that when we in the West both express our fears and concerns, and criticize the repressive and totalitarian nature of the Islamic regimes – that we are merely suffering from a ‘phobia’ and are ‘irrational’ – is ridiculous.
I think we have to openly confront the Islamic attempt to deflect criticism by labelling it as ‘phobic’.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the accolades from the Babbilonians Kate.
Intelligent women are as offensive to liberals as they are to moslems.
I am an islamophobe and have the guns to prove it.
dear doug,
as your lawyer, i advise you to seek professional help. what? are you cranking meth, or what?
relax. everything’s gonna be alright. the good guys are gonna win in the key of b sharp.
i’ve got my eye on the the ball and i don’t need your hysterics to remind me of how important it is. calm down and write your member of parliament to support keith martin’s motion. that’s how we do it here in canada. foaming of der mouth – das is verboten, nein?
morningstar and doug should know better than to bring a knife to a gun fight. I you want to go toe to toe with Kate I strongly recommend you come prepared… with facts, figures and references. Ad hominem attacks just don’t cut it.
For what it’s worth, Jesus was a turn the other cheek kind of guy, not a lop off your head type.
“A few bad apples”!!!!!! I laughed!!!!
Agreed ET: Just don’t use the propaganda word (islamophobia) even if defending yourself: phobia = irrational fear. Here are some true phobias: infidelaphobia; Christianaphobia; Judeaphobia; freedomaphobia.
They’ve picked up the highly successful “homophobia” which also totally misses the mark.
As you know the UN is feverishly attempting to get “islamophobia” adopted as a crime. In the UK — albeit somewhat weakened by the House of Lords — they have a anti-blasphemy law. These laws are specifically designed to squelch criticism of Islam, and Islam only. It looks to me like the elites, who are trying to flush our cherished heritage down the drain, will attempt to shut us up if we wake up and speak up.
This event looks like an excellent venue for a loud, rude and boisterous protest. That is, if we are allowed to assemble. They’re not, anymore, in Belgium, for example.
You have to admire Kate and Kathy’s guts!
A few bad dates, maybe, eh?
Take all the crimes committed by christians over the past 500 years and compare then to all the crime committed by muslims over the past 500 years..
Christians did worst. Just read a history book.
What has been happening since 9/11 is more Islam awareness than Isamophobic. The west has become more aware of the “Religion of peace” since Bin Laden sent his message. They have got our attention and that is not always a good thing.
It’s a fake picture. You are supposed to bury her up to her neck, and then throw rocks at her- don’t you read the Koran?
It doesn’t really matter, but I believe the stoning picture is from a film.
“Take all the crimes committed by christians over the past 500 years and compare then to all the crime committed by muslims over the past 500 years..
Christians did worst. Just read a history book.”
Read several history books, still missing the figures where Christian people chopped the heads off of infedels…
qs
You confuse Christians with atheists. You get an F.
And today Christians aren’t killing anyone to spread their religion. So that’s two Fs. So try again.
Serious questions to qs:
What part of the middle east or northern africa did you emigrate from? And how long have you lived in Canada?
“Christians did worst. Just read a history book.”
… quebecois separatiste
Yep, all in history for sure. (That means the past) You missed something very relevent though, like today, in 2008. Christians grew up and stopped, Muslims are still doing it.
Just read a newspaper.
Hehe, there’s nothing like a gratuitous Lego picture to rile the masses. I’ll have to look into this whole Lego based incitement initiative….seems to have promise.
I never understood the whole equivalency crowd. For starters, trying make equal the Christian crimes of modernity, and the Muslim ones, is an utter joke. I do, however, love to watch them twist and turn when you ask for examples that live up the numerous wars, widespread human rights abuses, various slaughters, etc perpetrated in the name of Islam. Secondly, I never quite grasped how equivalency with Christians would forgive their crimes. If they’re trying to prove hypocrisy, fine, but what about the issue at hand…..how does committing an “equal” crime make it any less of a crime?
The religion of peace?
http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1695
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Kate: You go girl! Now, we just have to figure out a way to get Layton on a plane to go negotiate…hmmmm, any ideas???????
Pictures speak more than words. We really do live in a sick world.
I just finished reading the 91st Psalm (one of my favourites), Matthew’s record of the Beatitudes then as I meditated I listened to Amazing Grace and my eyes filled with tears as I thought back on all the people (some Christian, some Muslim, some Hindu, most indeterminate) I met today who expressed love to me or I to them. Then I read here that I a bigot because I critique the teachings(?) of a madman.
I read the sublime words of blessing from He who gives Grace to all who ask and I compare that with the call after call for murder and slaughter found in the Qur’an and I am called a bigot because I don’t respect the latter.
I read the words of He who said, “He who is without sin cast the first stone” and His messenger who said, “Therefore there is neither Jew or Gentile, slave or freeman, male or female for all are one in Christ Jesus”, and I think on the women sentenced to death or mutilation or beating because they were the victim of a horrendous crime and I am called a bigot because I cling to the former and reject the latter.
Indeed it is sad that people are so blind that they can not see the difference but I reserve my deepest sorrow for the Muslim for I know full well that pure Islam hates even its own.
I recognize that picture and the more than 10,000 attacks stat from http://www.thereligionofpeace.com.
Love that website, which give a daily tally on murders committed in the name of Allah.
And, Libforlife, get a life! I have never heard any Christian minister or preacher advocating death to other innocent human beings, particularly in the volume that Muslim extremists rack up on a daily basis.
Do you guys just pick and choose what is said in the bible?Last time i read it there were fairly violent things being said.
Do muslims have military bases in 130 countries?
If a mountain of facts were presented to you would it really change any of your twisted minds?
Wimpy?6’3 230 corn fed cowboy-anytime,anywhere
A wimp is a person who hates for no reason,who picks on people that the crowd is picking on,who continually makes excuses for his own inadequices,who is jealous,vengfull,and cowardly.
Sound familiar?
Kate and Kathy – amazingly courageous! Compare this to the British artist who only dares to insult Christ, because he doesn’t want to lose his head.
The point being made is that we should have the freedom to insult and be insulted. This is not what has happened in the Levant case or the Steyn case.
I am a Christian. I will defend your right to disagree with me and insult me and insult and disagree with my God. That’s the freedom we fought Hitler for and we fought Communism for and we are now fighting Muslims for.
As for Muslims defending Allah, I fully believe that my God can defend Himself.
You know what would be funny!
A picture of a couple of priests sodamizing an alter boy!
There is some fair and balanced news.Wouldn’t that be fair?
We have military bases to fight for freedom. There is not a policy to “destroy the infidel” muslim. We are in fact fighting for their right to hate us and hate each other. We are actually trying to get them to get along with each other. I don’t think it’s going to work, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Go ahead and insult me and my faith. It’s your right and privilege. I don’t think it turns Kate’s crankshaft either. (She can speak for herself) She’s simply making a point about freedom of speech.
It is my understanding, from my reading, that the USA has a variously sized military presence in many countries, by invitation of the hosting governments. I don’t know about 130 countries, but that wouldn’t surprise me. These good American people, well trained disciplined professionals, are mainly there to train the local security forces, to help keep the peace, save civilian lives, that sort of thing. This is just a small part of the good and charitable work the Americans do all over the world. There’s a lot less violence and terror because of it. I would be curious to hear what’s bad about this situation?
Do you know the best way to catch Islamic terrorists? You have to trap them, lure them out of hiding by setting out some bait, a little girl reading a book works best.
I love the visual of suiside bombers getting 72 male virgins…just a whole bunch of losers like him
Joe:
“Indeed it is sad that people are so blind that they can not see the difference but I reserve my deepest sorrow for the Muslim for I know full well that pure Islam hates even its own.”
I’m working in a part of Russia that is Muslim and the reason you site is why the Imams here advise their followers to not get involved. As foreigners we are infidels by nature. Should the moderate Muslim community stand up and decry the actions of the fringe radicals (who they think are completely insane, BTW) they become the equivalent of heretics which is an even larger offense. They feel the West is better suited to make the arguement but are not willing to compromise to achieve the reward. Sad, but understandable.
Morningstar:
“Do you guys just pick and choose what is said in the bible?Last time I read it there were fairly violent things being said.”
I’m not a religous person, AT ALL, but I think you are confusing the Old Testament with the New Testament, you should refresh your memory and read it again. Either way, if you want to accuse people of cherry-picking the quotes, bring something to the table to counterpoint the issue. Hyperbole and rhetoric just don’t cut it here. BTW, maybe the West does have a larger military presence in the world but who is called on for aid in the event of disaster, genocide, election fraud, ect? And who is best positioned to do this at a moments notice? Thought so.
“A picture of a couple of priests sodamizing an alter boy!
There is some fair and balanced news.Wouldn’t that be fair?”
Yep, you should start your own blog where you could write/print/publish anything you like. I suggest Saudi Arabia, be sure to keep it “balanced” there as well. Anything else is just vengeful.