February 8, 2008

"Boo Hoo..... the whole world hates your cult of death......"

Who's fault is that?

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?

Posted by Kate at February 8, 2008 8:01 PM

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?

Posted by: jeff.k at February 8, 2008 8:35 PM

Classy. That's about all I can say.

Posted by: Robert S. Porter at February 8, 2008 8:52 PM


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 .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at February 8, 2008 8:54 PM

In this "Warren Kinsella" vs "Small dead animals" fight... I vote for none of the above.

Posted by: quebecois separatiste at February 8, 2008 9:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Liz J at February 8, 2008 9:02 PM

[deleted. Personal attacks aren't necessary. ED]

Posted by: Doug at February 8, 2008 9:18 PM

WL Mackenzie: "Pussy fart publications"


Posted by: Doug at February 8, 2008 9:25 PM

Yeah, Kate, move on for Christ's sake. This has gone way beyond an attention grope fest between you and Kinsella.

Posted by: Johnny Maudlin at February 8, 2008 9:27 PM

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.

Posted by: ET at February 8, 2008 9:27 PM

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".

Posted by: Kate at February 8, 2008 9:31 PM

"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"?

Posted by: Anon at February 8, 2008 9:32 PM

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.

Posted by: Doug at February 8, 2008 9:36 PM

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?

Posted by: Justthinkin at February 8, 2008 10:08 PM


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.

Posted by: johnnyonline at February 8, 2008 10:11 PM

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.

Posted by: morningstar at February 8, 2008 10:14 PM

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

This may be related: "Dion's Looking for a Compromising Position on Afghanastan".

Posted by: U-nuk at February 8, 2008 10:18 PM

"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.

Posted by: Kate at February 8, 2008 10:25 PM


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.

Posted by: johnnyonline at February 8, 2008 10:36 PM

wimpy, i'll get a grip, around your pencil neck.

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

— Winston Churchill

Now back to your milquetoast, wimp boy.

Posted by: Doug at February 8, 2008 10:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Terry Gain at February 8, 2008 11:00 PM

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'.

Posted by: ET at February 8, 2008 11:04 PM

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.

Posted by: Jim at February 8, 2008 11:16 PM

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?

Posted by: johnnyonline at February 8, 2008 11:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at February 8, 2008 11:31 PM

"A few bad apples"!!!!!! I laughed!!!!

Posted by: abcd at February 8, 2008 11:37 PM

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!

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at February 8, 2008 11:38 PM

A few bad dates, maybe, eh?

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at February 8, 2008 11:42 PM

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.

Posted by: quebecois separatiste at February 8, 2008 11:46 PM

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.

Posted by: truthsayer at February 8, 2008 11:49 PM

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?

Posted by: sheik yerbootie at February 8, 2008 11:50 PM

It doesn't really matter, but I believe the stoning picture is from a film.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at February 8, 2008 11:53 PM

"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...

Posted by: Norseman at February 8, 2008 11:53 PM


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.

Posted by: Terry Gain at February 8, 2008 11:57 PM

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?

Posted by: Alienated at February 9, 2008 12:17 AM

"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.

Posted by: Sounder at February 9, 2008 12:20 AM

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 does committing an “equal” crime make it any less of a crime?

Posted by: Junker at February 9, 2008 12:26 AM

The religion of peace?

Posted by: Libforlife at February 9, 2008 12:33 AM

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.

Posted by: MaryM at February 9, 2008 12:42 AM

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.

Posted by: Joe at February 9, 2008 1:00 AM

I recognize that picture and the more than 10,000 attacks stat from

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.

Posted by: set you free at February 9, 2008 1:30 AM

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?

Posted by: morningstar at February 9, 2008 1:37 AM

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.

Posted by: jack at February 9, 2008 1:39 AM

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?

Posted by: morningstar at February 9, 2008 1:43 AM

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.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2008 1:44 AM

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.

Posted by: jack at February 9, 2008 1:48 AM

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?

Posted by: abcd at February 9, 2008 2:23 AM

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.

Posted by: anon at February 9, 2008 2:55 AM

I love the visual of suiside bombers getting 72 male virgins...just a whole bunch of losers like him

Posted by: kelly at February 9, 2008 3:29 AM

"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.

"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.

Posted by: Jan in Alberta at February 9, 2008 3:38 AM

Morningstar, you say "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."

I'll take that bet. When did the Christian nations eliminate slavery?
When did Mauritania pass a law imposing penalties for owning slaves?
The answer to one of those questions is, 'last August'.
You might want to google 'muslim slavery' and compare numbers. Then again maybe you don't want to do that because you might be afraid of what you learn.
I suspect the question becomes whether you care about the victims of all oppressors or just the victims of white Christian oppressors.
Which, if true, means you don't care about the victims at all, they are just a political tool.
Prove me wrong by googleing 'muslim slavery'.
Show me how much you care.

Posted by: Stan at February 9, 2008 3:42 AM

"A picture of a couple of priests sodamizing an alter boy!"

Awww, how nice! Two kindly priests bought the kid a soda. Kid's lucky to be a Catholic. If he were a Muslim, chances are he'd get buggered by his uncle.

Look, kiddo, if you're going to play the moral relativism card (which is a desperation play at the best of times), you better try to relate things that, uh, relate. Yes there have been a few priests convicted of pedophile acts. And they have gone to jail for it. Because we here in the West, Christian, Jew, or otherwise, understand that pedophiles are sickos, and criminals if they act out their twisted fantasies.

On the other hand, Mohammed (piss be upon him) did in fact marry Aisha, the six year old daughter of one of his henchmen. He was right considerate, though, and did not pop the kid's cherry until she'd reached the ripe old age of nine. It's in the books. And Muslims are told that Mohammed is the "perfect man" and to be emulated in every way.

So your attempt to draw a parallel between aberrant behavior on the part of a tiny minority of Christians, and the prototypical behavior of the founder of the cult of Islam simply breaks down upon closer study.

Posted by: gordinkneehill at February 9, 2008 5:09 AM

"The Toronto Star article, written by the 'Four Islamic legal students/lawyers' who filed the HRC complaint against Macleans"

Only three of the four wrote the TorontoStar article. Hopefully the fourth, Daniel Simard, has come to his senses.

To find out who, what, where those deaths occured noted in the Warren article ....The MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base (TKB)is the one-stop resource for comprehensive research and analysis on global terrorist incidents, terrorism-related court cases, and terrorist groups and leaders. TKB covers the history, affiliations, locations, and tactics of terrorist groups operating across the world since 1968. Incident data and hundreds of group and leader profiles and trials. Interactive maps, statistical summaries, and analytical tools that can create custom graphs and tables

Posted by: JM at February 9, 2008 5:32 AM

Ex-Muslims: Islam's violation of Human Rights

...How it all began ( a long time ago in the isolated deserts of Arabia) : Already, when Aisha (the daughter of Abu Bakr, Mohammad's closest friend and unquestioning ally) was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Ref: SAHIKH BUKHARI, 5:235] and he wasted no time in realizing his dreams, inspite of the fact that object of his dreams was a mere child.Perhaps you want to assume that it is "normal" for a 50+ year old man to dream of marrying a 4-5 old child, and then ACTUALLY ask for her hand at 6?....

Posted by: JM at February 9, 2008 6:00 AM

Well the image made me laugh and maybe that's the difference between us. The mohammedans need to lighten up. I'm not religious so I could care less if it were an image of Christ, or Buddha or anyone else for that matter. As was pointed out above Jesus wasn't a paedophile unlike the "prophet of peace" ho, ho, ho.

Stan makes a good point. I seem to recall that slavery was abolished by "our friends the Saudis" in 1962

Posted by: Call me Infidel at February 9, 2008 7:51 AM

Let me interrupt for one second.

Only the words, deeds, parables, metaphors, and intrinsic meaning of Jesus bin Joseph can be considered specifically Christian.

The fact that various books of the Bible mention atrocities, or the fact that really depraved Catholic priests have done horrible things to children cannot be ascribed in any way to the presence or the expressions of Christ.

So the fact that these atrocities occur in the same book in which Jesus bin Joseph condemns them in no way causes those atrocities to be ascribed to Him.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at February 9, 2008 8:26 AM

Countries where the cult of Islam rules afford only a life of submission to women. In many hell hole Islamic regimes they're treated worse than we would consider humane for animals.

The Liberals and Dippers here want us to leave the Afghanistan fight to give the country back to the Taliban. The women and girls will go back to being
treated as breeding machines, no freedoms, no education, no medical treatment.

I say give it to the radical Islamists everywhere we find them and no backing down, call a spade a spade. They don't like cartoons because they're too close to the truth, too damned bad.
They don't mind CBC's Little Mosque on the Prairie because it's anything but close to reality.

They are not a fit with the modern civilizations and never will be. We will not change, they will have to or be isolated within the boundaries of their own earthly Hells. Those who want help to clean up the death cults should get it, just as we are attempting to do in Afghanistan.

The Bone Heads of the Left may yet prevent us from finishing the job in Afghanistan at the same time they spout on about human rights.

Posted by: Liz J at February 9, 2008 8:33 AM

Further to the Four legal students who, along with Elmasry, filed the HRC complaint against Macleans.

I continue to be stunned by the vapid and fallacious 'reasoning' in their Toronto Star article.

As pointed out, their article is filled with misinformation, ambiguity, outright deviation from the case and irrelevancies.

Their claim that they only filed the complaint because they expect Macleans to allow them to comment on Steyn's article is false; their demand was for equal and unedited space. No journal removes editorial authority. After all, if the Legal Four (Three)were fair, then, Steyn could be able to have Macleans publish a third equal space unedited article..and the Four would then add another..and so on.

How about if Macleans published something on Adscam? Would Chretien then be allowed equal space? By the way, the Toronto Star published their comments. Shouldn't Steyn now get an article published?
It removes the whole structure of a journal or newspaper (by removing the editorial board) and the magazine becomes simply an 'open rag' for rebuttals.

The Four reject criticism of Islam; they redefine it as our fault, and as a psychological neurosis as well. We are 'phobic'; our fears are unfounded and purely psychological. The fact that Islamic fascism and its terrorism are real and our reactive fears are therefore real - is ignored. The fact that imams preach violence - is ignored.

They make the claim that their case is about human rights. They do this because they have filed their case with the ubiquitous Human Rights Commission. If I file a lawsuit in court, that doesn't mean that my lawsuit is legal. Their case has nothing to do with Human Rights. Is publication in a magazine a Human Right? Is silencing criticism a Human Right?

And, they say nothing about the human rights violations promoted by Islam and Islamic fascism that deserve public scrutiny and criticism.

Furthermore, their attempt to link defamation with these articles is false. Defamation is specific and clear; it refers only to individuals, and to actions that have clear, observable and specific results. Reading an article of criticism and 'feeling offended' can't be laid at the feet of 'being defamed'. But these law students are attempting to do just that. And in the namem of a group, not an individual. You can't defame a group.

So- I remain stunned by the sheer illogic and weakness of their comments. Grade F in critical thinking.

Posted by: ET at February 9, 2008 9:38 AM

How's calling everyone racist working for ya, superstar.

Posted by: richfisher at February 9, 2008 9:56 AM

"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.

Posted by: set you free at February 9, 2008 1:30 AM"

Not often, they usually leave that to their political wing, the US Republican Party. But, it does happen

Posted by: Libforlife at February 9, 2008 9:57 AM

"Christians did worst. Just read a history book."

Sounder - Re-read your comment - two words jump out at me that make your arguement baseless.

Did and History

What Kate described is happening NOW and yet it seems to be OK with a vast number of those on the left side of the political spectrum - what every makes you happy or whatever floats your boat is OK and we should not intervene or speak out about it.

A "few" bad apples - maybe so- I no more think that every Muslim in the world condones blowing up people in a market to make a point no do I think that every Muslim condones stoning women, but you have to admit that they are not standing up and saying - this is wrong. No. They stand up and say - you are persecuting us by saying this is wrong, you are persecuting us by printing cartoons. seems that you - and all the others here who are in disagreement with calling them out on their mid-evil behaviour must be in agreement with this type of behaviour.

I truly think that those that stand quietly by and allow this to become the norm in our world are doing it out of fear - they believe that if we don't say anything, if we stand quietly by, we will be safe.

That, my friend, is how Hitler managed to gas 6 million jews...but then, you probably believe that the halocost is a fallacy along with 9-11.

Posted by: Albertagirl at February 9, 2008 10:07 AM

"A picture of a couple of priests sodamizing an alter boy"

See here's the thing about that - when it comes to the attention of the authorities that a priest is sodomizing an alter boy - he is sent to jail.

When a group of muslims is found to have explosives, we decry the fact that they are held in jail.

When a muslim boy soldier kills an American soldier we call for him to be released from the American jail because - after all - he did not have enough hugs when he was growing up.

When Muslim Mullahs speak out against the printing of cartoons, the vast majority of us bow down and say - you are right, we are sooooo sorry.

My question is why? When did Muslim's become the rulers of the democratic world.

I once heard that Osama Bin Laden stated that the way to defeat the west is through violence as the West has no stomach for that kind of fight.

It appears he was right.

Posted by: Albertagirl at February 9, 2008 10:20 AM

I haven't read the comments but I've have heard that the picture of the woman being stoned is not legit. It's from a movie. Although since some countries do have laws like that it's still relevant I guess.

Posted by: soup at February 9, 2008 10:26 AM

It may be only a "few bad apples" that have committed the thousands of ghastly attacks on innocents over the past decade. But it is the whole religion,all of them, that believe that non-believers are lesser people and should be shunned at best,killed at the worst. The islam 'faith' puts males at the top,followed by thier breeding stock,everyone else is worthless except for use as slaves.

Posted by: wallyj at February 9, 2008 10:34 AM

I wonder if that is his second wife, who was 6 or 9 years old? His third wife was 13 and he murdered his fourth wifes family [Jewish] before "going to bed." Yes a real role-model for all men.

If you want to see what the Jihad are like then go to: (be sure to read: Our Statement on Muslims - to show that this is not a hate site)

In January 2008:

Jihad Attacks: 187
Countries: 18
Religions: 5
Dead Bodies: 829
Critically Injured: 1378

And that was in one month. Now not all Islamists are radical, just as not all Christians are evil [as you see them.]

Greg in Dallas:

BTW Jesus Ben Joseph was another person. Jesus was a common name during His life.

Jesus Ben "G*d" [had no physical father - Joseph was not his father in case you did not know] is different - and wheather you accept it or not He loves you. His life was the opposit of Mohammed, just like your life is opposit of Hitler's life. There is no compairson at all. The only reason you hate Christ is because of the world's hatred for Him. I never hear you say the same about Buda or other leader of religions.

Yes the Old Testament is full of what you have said - for it shows the depravity of mankind - very honest with both the good and bad presented. From mothers eating their child to the opposite, of some of the greatest love illustrations. If not for the teaching of the Bible women would still be treated as in Islam - for Christ taught equality - which was against cultures of that day.

The main differance is that you have free will to accept or reject the Bible and message - where the Koran forces you to believe its teaching or death. You choose to reject the Bible, yet you want millions to stop their faith to believe as you do - sad.

Posted by: Paul at February 9, 2008 10:38 AM

morningstar is correct. Mohammed didnt lie with his child bride at age six. he waited till she was 9.
the muslims use this as an example of his restraint.

I'll restrain myself on my comparison with the se xuality of those other nomads that occupy the reserves of Canada. Nomads have similar traits, this, their lack of maintenance of buildings and songs that consist of drums and wailing of words without consonants.

Posted by: cal2 at February 9, 2008 10:38 AM

Unfortunately, Mohammed's example is still followed today, at least among the Shi'a. From Wikipedia's entry, 'Islam and Children':

The Shi'a Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini defined the following limits and consequences for adult sexual activity with children (roughly translated from Arabic):

A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, while other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing are allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister.

- Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom
- Original(in Arabic)

Also from Khomeini:

If a man who has married a girl who has not reached puberty possesses her sexually before her ninth birthday, inflicting traumatisms upon her, he has no right to repeat such an act with her.


"A father or a paternal grandfather has the right to marry off a child who is insane or has not reached puberty by acting as its representative. The child may not annul such a marriage after reaching puberty or regaining his sanity, unless the marriage is to his manifest disadvantage."

I guess we should point out these facts while we still can.

(By the way, you know another word for 'morning star'? Lucifer.)

Posted by: HRC Defendant-To-Be at February 9, 2008 11:37 AM

Kate, come on, you can do better. In terms of presenting and promoting balance about Islam I mean. I live across the street from a mosque and most of my neighbours are Muslim. They have yet to take hostages or behead anyone. They have flown no planes into buildings, at least not on this block. Their very worst crime, as far as I can see, is that they hog the parking spaces in the visitors section.

That's what I mean by balance Kate. The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims are going to school, to work, paying taxes and hoping for a decent life like you are. Now, if you want to shine a light on the lousy and horrible practices of Muslim societies across the planet, well fine. But what does a photograph of a drug-addicted half starved hooker standing on the corner of Hastings and Main say about Canadian treatment of women? Balance is not what you are about Kate. I think you need to own that.

Posted by: Johnny Maudlin at February 9, 2008 11:40 AM

Couple of points.

1% of a billion is 10 million insane rabid dogs who want us all dead. Add a at least a few hundred million sympathizers, funders and enablers.

That is a lot of terrorists so don't tell me it's only a small number.

Re the pic of the chick getting stoned ... it's from a move clip and I believe it is one I have seen ... I have seen three such clips. They bury her to the waist, then cover her head and torso with a white sack, then throw stones at her until she is dead.

In one such clip and it may be in this particular clip the woman at one point actually struggled free, ran away, but was quickly caught and you know the rest.

A comment on the 3 Osgoode Hall trainees ... Never have the words from William Shakespeare "Kill all the lawyers" been so meaningful, relevant and even desirable.

I am so sick of all this Muslim horse-shit ruining my world I am going to the bathroom now and vomit.

Posted by: John West at February 9, 2008 12:00 PM

"Balance is not what you are about Kate. I think you need to own that."

I _literally_ can't stop laughing over that one.

Posted by: Kate at February 9, 2008 12:29 PM

Balance would be sending all the mussies back to the middle east. ...and I volunteer to push the button when the last one gets there.

Posted by: FREE at February 9, 2008 12:37 PM

Balance is not what you are about Kate. I think you need to own that."

Unfortunately in this country we have been bending backwards more and more and more in order to accomodate the demands of the Muslim's that we have become the minority in our own country.

I am sure Kate would agree that most of those of the Muslim faith do not condone the radical Islam practices, however many of those are quick to come to the defense of Muslims when they are asked to conform to the laws and practices of this country.

So yes, this is the extreme and yes, it may not be "balanced" in your eyes, but sometimes you have to bend over so far the other way to get people to realize what they have allowed to happen.

If the millions of muslims (including your neighbours and the attendees of the mmosque across the street) who do not condone the actions of a few are not going to take a stand and say "this is wrong" then maybe we have to do it for them.

Sometimes we have to be poked in the eye with a big stick before we will finally take action.

Posted by: Albertagirl at February 9, 2008 12:54 PM

Interesting numbers from the terrorist DB linked to above. Of the 34 terrorist incidents documented in Canada since 1968, only 9 incidents were performed by what we would/could call whites;

1 was by militant peace activists who blew up a weapons mfg facility,
4 were by militant environmental activists,
1 was the FLQ adventure,
1 was some dude that wanted to blow-up the pope, and
2 were bombings against US Embassies.

None of those were targeting Jews. Further, in instances where Jews were targeted, 7 instances in all, the attacks were carried out by Hamas(1) and Al-Fatah/BSO(6).

Kinsella's white power boogey-men don't seem to exist. Not in these numbers anyway...

Of the remainder of terrorist incidents that took place on Canadian soil;

4 were by Cuban nationalists,
3 were by Armenains against Turks,
1 was by a Hungarian against a Russian,
1 was by a Lebanese,
4 were by Sikhs (including Air India)
1 was by a "black power" group,
1 was by a Croat,
1 was by a Ugandan, and,
1 was by a Sudanese

Not a whole lot of Christian terrorism going on...

Posted by: Richard Evans at February 9, 2008 12:55 PM

The Pic of the stoning may be from a movie; but it gets the idea across nevertheless; I use it on my blog all the time.

The following is not a fiction: (warning - very graphic)

Posted by: Paul2 at February 9, 2008 12:57 PM

Johnny why aren't you demanding this balance just as vehemently from CBC? They ALWAYS have docudramas about sex trade workers, disenfranchised francophone youths who CHOOSE to do non-stop drugs and live on our street, and the bonus round, two Palestinians living in Israel- both drug addicts, gay, prostitution themselves, breaking the laws, hating Jews while living off them. Then we flip on the ole national news guys and they are flying the Israel flag in blood red...( just an artistic impression I bet. ) BUT you say, damn Kate you're not presenting balance...ahhhhh!

Pretty funny in an ironic kinda way all this sputtering and spouting and stomping of yer foot demanding your version of 'balance'.

Posted by: ldd at February 9, 2008 1:03 PM

Is Johnny Maudlin being maudlin? Unwittingly or just having some fun? If not, it's quite good satire.

\Maud"lin\, a. [From Maudlin, a contr. of Magdalen, OE.
Maudeleyne, who is drawn by painters with eyes swelled and
red with weeping.]
1. Tearful; easily moved to tears; exciting to tears;
excessively sentimental; weak and silly. ``Maudlin eyes.''
--Dryden. ``Maudlin eloquence.'' --Roscommon. ``A maudlin
poetess.'' --Pope. ``Maudlin crowd.'' --Southey.

2. Drunk, or somewhat drunk; fuddled; given to drunkenness.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at February 9, 2008 1:11 PM

Advocating killing a billion human souls.

And nobody says anything.

And i'm the crazy one?

Gandhi said were a product of our thoughts.

I bet most here are butt ugly people.

Posted by: morningstar at February 9, 2008 1:16 PM

Here we go again with the ignorant leftards making claims and accusations, not on historical fact, but on their feelings. The only reference these miscreants have:

"Imagine a character resembling jesus raping a six year old.

You need your head examined kate."

Well, Mohammad did rape a 9 year old, consummating his marriage with her. He also performed the Muslim trick called 'thighing' on her from the time she was six.

Jesus did no such thing.

This is a fact that most people know today. Except for you.

Needless to say, Mohammad's behaviour on this issue alone is offensive. It's even more offensive that Muslims call this sadistic pedophile rapist a 'prophet.'

"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."

How about we take 1400 years instead? Adherents of Islam murdered an estimated 270 million during this period, including 80 million Hindus and Buddhists in India. Not satisfied with their blood lust, they are still running their total up with 10,000 terror attacks since 911.

But of course they are only doing what they've been instructed to do in the Islamic trilogy. In fact, Mohammad provided many nice examples for them to follow, including personally ordering and presiding over the beheading of 600 - 900 non-combatant Jewish men (their crime was they wouldn't convert and join his terrorist army) after the battle of Trench. Thoroughly enjoying the blood letting, Mohammad made the prettiest Jewish woman watch her husband, father and all her male relatives have their heads hacked off, before taking her home, raping her, then adding her to his harem collection for further raping. He then allowed his men to rape all the women, before selling them into slavery.

The ideology of Islam is based on foundational violence, specifically in its commands and rewards for attrocities against non-Muslims and women. This is proven in the Quran. It is also proven by Mohammad's life example (which all Muslims are commanded to follow) as found in the Sira (the bio of Mohammad) and the aHadith (the actions and sayings of Mohammad).

The opposite is true for Christianity.

The NT and Christ's life example do not support violence in any way and cannot factually be misconstrued to support it either, regardless of so-called Christian violence.

So, therefore your claim is false.

What I find the most offensive though, is that 'morningstar,' et al. defends the Islamic ideology. In so doing, they defend genocide, anti-Semetic racism, violent bigotry, pedophilia, violent misogyny, slavery and piracy. Amongst other hideous, non-human practices.

The hypocrisy of these four Muslim lawyers is beyond contempt. Their so-called 'religion' is being examined and the findings made public. As this keeps up their entire cult will end up on the other end of the charges. The only difference being, these charges will be based on fact.

It's also worthwhile noting that many writers, including some in the National Post, are starting to address Mohammad as "the Islamic prophet" as opposed to the "prophet Mohammad." This is significant, because it separates and defines him as being specific to that cult. As well as making it infinitely clear that the most of the world does not accept him as a prophet of any kind.

Posted by: irwin daisy at February 9, 2008 1:23 PM

I recommend morningstar change his nom de blog to blackhole. From which no light emits.
And presumably the "Christian" Nazis contributed to these morally equivalent numbers, eh?
And that the Crusdades were started out of mere boredom? ya know like the way the Israeli IDF gets bored and decides to go in bulldoze some houses and kill some little kids .... puke.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at February 9, 2008 1:39 PM


Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at February 9, 2008 1:40 PM

PS: the web offers abundant images of the story in which Jesus raises the little daughter of Jairus from the dead.

As you can see, there's always a girl, and a bed, and a Prophet.

But, er, that's where the resemblance ends.

Oddly enough!!

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at February 9, 2008 1:40 PM


Gandhi drank his own piss and -- incredibly -- slept with teenaged girls!

I don't tend to take his advice on stuff, thanks.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at February 9, 2008 1:42 PM

Texas Canuck at 11:31 PM (don't you guys ever go to bed?) "For what it's worth, Jesus was a turn the other cheek kind of guy, not a lop off your head type." That is part of the present problem. When we worship a "cheek turner" and they worship a "head lopper" who do you think has the advantage? We need a new strategy!

Posted by: Gus at February 9, 2008 1:45 PM

Advocating killing a billion human souls.

And nobody says anything.

And i'm the crazy one?

Gandhi said were a product of our thoughts.

I bet most here are butt ugly people.

It is an ugly sentiment--one worthy of a Muslim, in fact--and it should have no place among civilized people. So count me in agreement with you on that point.

But I'm more interested in your response to the facts presented here, which the fake Lego box represents with perfect accuracy, according to the Hadiths. Do you disagree with Bukhari's contention that Muhammed consummated a marriage with a pre-pubescent girl? On what grounds? Do you deny that Muhammed had many wives--among them the widows of his Jewish victims--and condoned the rape of slaves by Muslim men? How do you account for the fact that "the perfect man" presided over mass executions of non-combatants? How do you explain away Muhammed's instructions to give infidels the choice of conversion or the sword (or, if they were lucky enough to be 'People of the Book', the third choice of life as a third-class citizen, existing at the sufferance of any Muslim)?

I mean, these are all widely accepted facts among Muslims, Lucifer, and Muhammed is held to be the "perfect man", worthy of emulation in all respects. How do you explain all this away?

Posted by: HRC Defendant-To-Be at February 9, 2008 1:51 PM

"Advocating killing a billion human souls."

Geesh - please point out where Kate even insinuated that?

That is the whole point here - there are human souls being killed in the name of Islam every day and it is wrong - the very fact that people here are saying that pointing out the atrocities committed by so called allah-fearing individuals is somehow not balanced.

The point is not that no one is saying anything, no one is allowed to say anything because they will be hauled before a tribunal because they dared speak up against someone's so called "religion".

So Morningstar - why don't you be the first to stand up against the blowing up of market places, or of the jailing and hanging/stoning of women who had the audacity to allow themselve to be raped.

Posted by: Albertagirl at February 9, 2008 2:29 PM

Do i really have to get my bible out and start quoting what is said.

Should all christians be judged say-on what happened during the spanish inquisition?

If man commits a crime its a crime and religion has nothing to do with it.

There are bad people in the world and some of them are white,black,christian,muslim,hindu,indian,european,hispanic,asian,tall,short,blonde,brunette,men,women,etc,etc,etc and what ever other label you can think off.

The problem that is happening here is you people are sterotyping a BILLION people as evil!

Posted by: morningstar at February 9, 2008 2:45 PM

Dumb ass star

Posted by: h.ryan. at February 9, 2008 2:48 PM

"Should all christians be judged say-on what happened during the spanish inquisition?"

As I pointed out before - that was then - this is NOW.

Posted by: Albertagirl at February 9, 2008 3:03 PM

I agree with you Morningstar. In spite of the hijacking of Islam by ideologues, the religion itself is Abrahamic, and at its spiritual roots, has the characteristics of religion - self awareness, peace, fellowship and morality - a way of living, a code of goodness if you like.

But, moderate Islam is doing a terrible PR job. IMO no reasonable person should argue for the elimination of Islam and its 1 million souls. That kind of thinking plays into the hands of their crazy Islamofascists, who get to set up an emotional us vrs them mentality. Having said that, there seems to be a refusal to discuss the problems of Islam (yes it has problems right now, so did Christianity in the Dark Ages). Instead, we hear emotional grievance rhetoric.

Sure, Islam doesn't really want to wash its dirty laundry in public. I think moderate Muslims, and there are many, need to be more forceful in their explanation of peaceful Islam. We, though, have to understand that there are powerful forces within Islam who will brook no criticism or attempts and reformation - and it's not easy to slough off outright intimidation as demonstrated in this thread. Equating leaders who happen to be Christian, or Muslim, or atheist for that matter, to those belief systems is also silly. There is man's work and there is God's work - they don't seem to intersect in a lot of places when we look at the Bush doctrine or Whabbiism and so on.

Maybe we should all take a step back, take a deep breath, and thoughtfully consider our words. Just my thoughts.

Posted by: Shamrock at February 9, 2008 3:04 PM

morningstar - the problem with your assertions is that you are leaving out something important. Causality.

You are reducing the Islamic terrorism to actions of individuals, who are 'doing bad things'. The problem with this, is that it ignores WHY these individuals are hijacking planes, blowing up trains, blowing up restaurants, blowing up buildings, etc. You are suggesting that they are all completely unrelated; that each act is just some deranged or personally unhappy individual. This is wrong.

There is a common causal factor in all these incidents - and it is Islamic fascism. Islamic fascism is a specific ideology of Islam that is focused on setting up fundamentalist Islamic rule in, not only the Middle East nations, but in the rest of the world - and particularly, in the West.

You are ignoring that this specific ideology, a religious ideology, is the causal factor for all these terrorist actions. The individuals themselves provide the world with these reasons! Their imams argue in support of this take-over of the world!

So, your continuous assertion that there is no ideology behind these terrorist actions and it's simply the work of separate individuals who are, in their own way, criminals, is completely wrong and naive.

Posted by: ET at February 9, 2008 3:08 PM

Heres some bible quotes for you:

A man or a woman who acts as a fortune teller shall be put to death by stoning

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death

If a man commits adultery with another mans wife both should be put to death

Women should keep quite in churches,they are not allowed to speak

Slaves obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear,serve them as you would serve christ

Kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night

Anyone who works on the sabbath shall be put to death

Do i need to find more?

Do you people see how stupid you sound now?

Posted by: morningstar at February 9, 2008 3:09 PM

Morningstar, please provide direct Bible references. The other thing you should consider is putting those passages in the proper context, their message if you will.

Posted by: Shamrock at February 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Maybe we should all take a step back, take a deep breath, and thoughtfully consider our words. Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Shamrock at February 9, 2008 3:04 PM

And just after you use the words Bush "doctrine" in the same breath as Whabbiism , hee hee?

Got any more thought?
Dying to hear them.

Posted by: ldd at February 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Morning Star re your 2:45 post, there is one difference. The Spanish inquisition et al were done by a power group trying to maintain its power. It's actions were only tangentaly connected to the base material the power group supposedly represented. There in no where in Christian base material, Old or New Testaments that call for such behaviour and in fact both Old and New Testaments repudiate such behaviours.

The same can not be said for Islam. If a Muslim is not converting the infidel on the edge of the sword then he is not acting in a true Islamic manner. Such instructions are in the Islamic base material the Qur'an.

See the difference? Yes evil has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Such evil is not based on the foundational teachings of Christianity. Yes evil is being perpetratec in the name of Islam. Such evil is based on the foundational teachings of Islam.

Posted by: Joe at February 9, 2008 3:19 PM

weestar, you're repeating yourself.

THINK: Then and Now. do I need to find more ?? If it pleases you, you will.

Posted by: ldd at February 9, 2008 3:19 PM

Morningstar - get your fat head out of your butt. In our society/western culture we have had and continue to have pedophile priest outted for their crimes. We have not said that it is part of the society we live in and is therefore acceptable. We have tried and jailed the guilty. We continue to condemn this type of behavior with harsh penalties (although not harsh enough for my liking - blame the Liberals for that).

This is in sharp contrast to Islam and Shariah Law, isn't it morningstar? In Saudi Arabia it is quite acceptable for a man to take several wives including pre-teens. It is acceptable to take a woman who has "transgressed", bury her up to her neck and stone her to death. And now the idiot who is the Archbishop of Canterbury wants that system to be legitimized in Great Britain. I know that we are not perfect in Canada. As long as we have people who behave and think like asshats, we surely can improve but anytime you think that the old Archbishop might be on the right track, morningstar, by all means, buy a one-way ticket.

Posted by: a different Bob at February 9, 2008 3:24 PM

Idd, I guess I was being too subtle for you - I am not being relativistic or attempting to be balanced, I am talking about perspective.

Now do you understand?

Posted by: Shamrock at February 9, 2008 3:30 PM

Kate, you're an old country girl, right? Sort of simple and straightforward, right? Can hunt and fish with the best of them, right? So why can you not be straight with regard to what is going on, right here and right now, on your blog?

You say you "literally" could not stop laughing at my comment about balance. I don't know what other ticks you have when you're nervous. That's fine. But you had to respond, right?

I understand that you do not purport to present balance here, Kate. I am commenting about that. I am telling you that your failure/refusal to present a balance of views is an invitation to the kind of only-slightly-disguised hatred that exists, right here, right now on your website.

Your other commentors, some of whom can write, will go on and on, with endless examples of the sins of radical Islamists, and glaring ommisions of global military/political/religious context, as a way of saying "this is why we feel it's ok to point out the faults of Muslims..."

I am simply calling "bullshit" Kate. Many of your commentors, are, in fact, racist. They hate Muslims. All Muslims. Am I wrong about that? No, I'm not. And that's why you notice my comments, Kate.

Posted by: Johnny Maudlin at February 9, 2008 3:34 PM

....was being too subtle for you - I am not being relativistic or attempting to be balanced, I am talking about perspective. Now do you understand?

~and glad I never will.

Posted by: ldd at February 9, 2008 3:37 PM

"Should all christians be judged say-on what happened during the spanish inquisition?

If man commits a crime its a crime and religion has nothing to do with it."

Yes, pretty much..internal and external diologue is what led to the reform and the enlightenment..

The excesses of the inquisition were a problem that was dealt with by reformation (both from within and externally applied pressure...)

Point number two.. when the violence is not considered a crime if given by diktat from religious leaders, than it becomes an obligation..

Islam is spread by the sword... yesterday, today, and tomorrow..where have you been?

You think that the extremists are doing this for fun on a scale such as we see?

Posted by: Kursk at February 9, 2008 3:39 PM

Morningstar - those so-called bible quotes you posted - they sound very much like what is actually being practiced as law in many Moslem countries today - as in "right now".

Sorry, maybe I'm not understanding you. You quote those out of the bible (probably old testament) and can you inform me as to which countries where Christanity is practiced are the actions in those quotes acceptable?

Somehow you just don't get it or you are an ideologue that is too steep in your asshat way of thinking.

Posted by: a different Bob at February 9, 2008 3:41 PM

Morning Star: you are not very Biblically literate are you? You pulled those verses off an anti-Christian hate site. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that 5 of the seven points you raise are what is known as the Law. In Christianity the Law has been taken away with the death of Christ.

The other two points come from the New Testament. Women being silent in the Church was part of the ancient liturgy. In liturgy the story of God and man is portrayed in symbolic fashion. The symbolism in this liturgy is that during the service Man represented God and Woman represented mankind. Since the biggest function of the service was to show God's Love and Will to mankind it was important that Mankind shutup and listen. Likewise when Paul said he did not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man in the church service. The symbolism would be that Mankind is telling God what to do.

There was one other important thing a Christian must do, and that is lead others to Christ. Perhaps you have heard of the Great Commission? Paul's telling the slaves to submit to their masters was one way Paul saw to bring the Masters to accept Christianity. What master would follow the lead of a disobedient slave?

A personal note. As a young Christian I managed a branch of a medium sized multinational corporation. During an economic downturn my branch became the most profitable branch in the company. Quite unexpectedly the regional manager and the CEO of the company came to visit. The regional manager (not a Christian) told the CEO that I taught Sunday School. The CEO then looked at the regional manager and said, "I want all my branch managers to teach Sunday School".

Now how do you relate "slaves submit to your masters" as some kind of incitement to hatred?
I guess your anti-Christian web site didn't tell you that did it?

Posted by: Joe at February 9, 2008 3:43 PM

Jonny cires out, Kate's not presenting balance dammit, and I demand that she does! hee hee
And then shamy says: nah-uh, I don't gotta be balanced man!

Is recess over yet?

Or are threats of being jailed are yet to come?

Posted by: ldd at February 9, 2008 3:49 PM

johnny maudlin - what the heck does 'balance' mean? In actual practice?

Surely you don't support a premise that ALL ideologies are equally just, mature, responsible and logical? Do you reject evaluation of ideologies?

I'll only speak for myself, but my basic premise is that Islamic fascism is a dysfunctional and pathological ideology. That's an evaluation based on my understanding of its agenda, of its premises about the type of society it advocates, its treatment of people who reject that lifestyle, and so on.

What kind of 'balance' would you suggest to my above conclusions? Surely you wouldn't advocate someone supporting Islamic fascism!?

What do you mean by global military/political/religious context?

Certainly, terrorism is global, with Islamic fascists fighting Muslims in various states in Africa as well as in the ME, Pakistan, Afghanistan. And fundamentalist Islam is trying to insert their religious, legal and social infrastructures in Western Europe.

But, your demand for 'balance' is, I admit, puzzling. What do you mean?

Posted by: ET at February 9, 2008 3:49 PM

morningstar - who gives a damn about your Old Testament quotes in this context, they aren't being acted out in our daily lives, I mean really, get real. This is life in the here and now. We are living in an age when Koranic quotes are still enslaving females, stoning adulterers, hanging gays, and all of the other nasty stuff that Mohammed said was ok.

I know you are trying very hard to advance some point for us, but, that isn't working out for you.

Posted by: penny at February 9, 2008 4:34 PM

Hey, morningstar, still waiting for direct answers to the questions I asked:

- Do you disagree with Bukhari's contention that Muhammed consummated a marriage with a pre-pubescent girl? On what grounds?

- Do you deny that Muhammed had many wives--among them the widows of his Jewish victims--and condoned the rape of slaves by Muslim men?

- How do you account for the fact that "the perfect man" presided over mass executions of non-combatants?

- How do you explain away Muhammed's instructions to give infidels the choice of conversion or the sword (or, if they were lucky enough to be 'People of the Book', the third choice of life as a third-class citizen, existing at the sufferance of any Muslim)?

Much as you might try to duck and weave, these are important questions. The Jesus Christ of the Bible never married--let alone several times, including to children--never took slaves, never condoned the subjugation of women, never killed anyone, and never advocated forced conversion of unbelievers.

Now, if the Muslims of the world had Jesus Christ as the model of their perfect man, rather than a blood-soaked slave-taking warlord who (according to Islamic tradition!) had intercourse with a prepubescent girl and who commanded his followers to kill or convert all unbelivers, well...

...the world would undoubtedly be a more peaceful place, wouldn't it?

So, rather than desperate tu quoque attempts to sidetrack the issue, how's about you man up and, you know, actually formulate a defense of Islam?

Posted by: HRC Defendant-To-Be at February 9, 2008 5:10 PM

In the context that the “multiculturalism besotted” MSM and virtually all public—e.g., elementary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions—and far too many private institutions—e.g., the Anglican Church—are propaganda machines for the left-wing “surrender monkeys” who surround us on all fronts, all the time (too often on our own dime), SDA provides a timely and necessary balance.

BTW, it would take thousands, if not tens of thousands, of SDAs, with no comments at all from lefties, to even begin to redress the imbalance of the left-wing juggernaut in this country.

For those worried about a “lack of balance” here (private space, BTW): stop being so parochial. Broaden your horizon, guys!

Posted by: lookout at February 9, 2008 5:10 PM

Some senior members of the Church of England are calling on the idiot Archbiship Williams to step down after he invited Sharia Law to be accepted in Great Britain. I'm encouraged by that response and the one given by Brown, the Prime Minister. Man they need to get their sh-t together in that country. Oh for the days of Maggy!

Posted by: a different Bob at February 9, 2008 5:12 PM

Posted by: Johnny Maudlin at February 9, 2008 3:34 PM

Just so you don't sound stupid again, Johnny.

Muslim is a religion, NOT a race.

Posted by: set you free at February 9, 2008 5:15 PM

Re: "The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims are going to school, to work, paying taxes and hoping for a decent life like you are." and other comments posted by Johnny Maudlin

Thanks for the perspective. I know what you mean. I agree balance (perspective) is indeed sorely lacking on this topic. I wish that some would consider it for a moment before attacking you for providing it. No doubt attacks on me will commence forthwith.

Maybe some need to get to know some of the Muslims in their neighbourhood. I work with a couple of Muslims, there are quite a few that work out at the gym I go to, there are the people who clean my office, the couple that run a local store, the checkout girl at Safeway, etc... When you see pictures of their babies in Oilers sweaters, talk to them about struggles with "old-school" attitudes of their parents (strikingly similar to the experiences of people I know whose parents are from the "Old Country" in various parts of Europe), etc., it's hard to stomach some of the subtle and not-so-subtle comments posted here about Muslims. The ones I know have nothing in common with the extremists and nutbars commonly used as examples.

I'm not suggesting there aren't fundamental disagreements I have with Islamists. And now that I appreciate where Irwin Daisy, for example, is coming from, I can appreciate and learn from his contributions. But he's the first to put forth that Muslims are the primary victims of the Jihadis, and while he may hate fundamentalist Islam (such as the Taliban, as do I), I don't see that he hates Muslims.

There's no question that, for me, cultures built on Christian values are preferable, largely because they have become secular democracies. However, those who suggest atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are in the distant past are forgetting Bosnia 10-15 years ago, when Serbs (Orthodox Christians) practiced "ethnic cleansing" in a manner eerily similar to Nazi methods. Radovan Karadzic used Christians the same way Jihadis use Muslims. I still remember the news stories about snipers who picked off Muslims, including children. Please don't tell me it didn't happen. I don't know the numbers, but ultimately as many as 200,000 Muslim civilians were murdered (according to some).

Finally, it was largely Christian democracies that put a stop to the atrocities. That's where the divergence happens. It would be good to see the Islamic countries take such a stand against atrocities, big and small, but, indeed, they are often fomenting, funding, and encouraging them. We should have no tolerance for Imams preaching violent Jihad.

As for accommodating Muslims who come to Canada from Islamic republics; they should assimilate, obey our laws, and learn to appreciate our values. Otherwise, if our sensibilities don't work with their interpretation of Islam - don't come here. The Muslims I know are glad to be here and contribute to making this a better place for all.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 9, 2008 5:32 PM

Many of your commentors, are, in fact, racist. They hate Muslims. (Johnny Maudlin)

Since when has 'Muslims' been a race?

Posted by: Fred1 at February 9, 2008 5:36 PM

Christianity has evolved from the literal dictates of the Bible. Islam has not evolved and thus it's believers are at war with themselves and the rest of the world.

Morningstar...... Oh, never mind, why bother?
Just take your mat and go off to prayer.

Posted by: Liz J at February 9, 2008 5:38 PM

Hey, Johnny Maudlin, I love this bit:

Many of your commentors, are, in fact, racist. They hate Muslims. All Muslims. Am I wrong about that? No, I'm not.

Yes, you are. 'Muslim' is not a racial or even an ethnic grouping.

I don't hate Islam any more than I hate crocodiles, tigers, or great white sharks. Large predators would eat me if they got the chance, just as Muslims following the actual commands of Muhammed as set down in the Koran and the hadiths would kill me and try to bring about sharia law, given the opportunity. The common sense approach in both cases is the same; enign separation to the greatest practical extent.

Posted by: HRC Defendant-To-Be at February 9, 2008 6:10 PM

Jimbo, I appreciate your irenic comments. Yes, many Muslims are beautiful people: I know some too.

However, do they ever speak out against the extremes of their religion? Have there been any concerted public efforts by these lovely people, whom both you and I know, to support either Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant—or Fr Alphonse DeValk?

I’d really like to know what some of my Muslim acquaintances think of Islamofacism and terror attacks, and near attacks, all over the world, but dare not ask, for fear of being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism. In fact, re Muslims I know at work, if I should make such enquiries, I’d contravene my employer’s “Equity [sic] Policies” and probably lose my job. At the least, I’d be docked pay and forced to attend a “re-education” session. Here. In Canada. In 2008. I’m not making this up.

Remember the ordinary German citizens, who lived close to the concentration camps for years, but claimed they had not a clue what was going on? Of course, the penalty for knowing and trying to do anything about it was likely death. Obviously, everyday Canadian Muslims are, similarly, between a rock and a hard place. (But, unlike the Germans, they don’t live—quite yet, ironically—under a fascist regime. In fact, Canadian Muslims have all kinds of privileged rights going for them: religious and freedom of speech rights, BTW, that I, a British, Christian Canadian, whose forebears were instrumental in building the democratic infrastructure of this country, have lost.)

Under these circumstances, I find it disingenuous in the extreme to excuse “lovely” Canadian Muslims entirely from any responsibility or accountability for what’s going on in their communities, when they know altogether that malignant forces—they’re like a cancer—are in their very midst. From my experience, the “good” Muslims you and I know definitely hide behind the skirts of political correctness. I don’t really know what the Muslims I know think about Islamic terrorism because I’m constrained from asking—by the very real penalties I’d be subject to if I did. And, what’s interesting: they’re not telling. (Not even the one I worked with for five hours a day for years—a really lovely person of whom I’m extremely fond.)

There are sins of omission too, you know.

Posted by: lookout at February 9, 2008 6:22 PM

"Do i really have to get my bible out and start quoting what is said."

You obviously don't have one. But in case you do, yes is the answer.

Oh, I see you posted some OT verses in order to bolster your false argument. Have you heard of the 'New Covenant?'

And now I see you pulled those verses off a Christian hate site. I guess I was right in the first place, you don't have a Bible.

"Should all christians be judged say-on what happened during the spanish inquisition?"

The Spanish Inquisition is not based on or supported by the teachings of the NT or Christ's life example. So therefore your statement is moot. However, if you put away your childish 'feelings as facts' for a moment, let's consider some real facts:

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.

"I agree with you Morningstar. In spite of the hijacking of Islam by ideologues, the religion itself is Abrahamic, and at its spiritual roots, has the characteristics of religion - self awareness, peace, fellowship and morality - a way of living, a code of goodness if you like."


This statement is essentially wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that Islam has been hijacked by anyone. As well, the ideology divides the world into dar al Islam and dar al Harb. The fellowship, peace, etc. that you point out is reserved for the Ummah only. There is no golden rule in Islam.

Robert Spencer has an interesting insight on 'moderate Islam:'

"For if Islam itself is a wholly positive entity, then one would not expect those who take it only in moderation to be the heroes of the piece. The idea that Islam becomes benign only when the Muslim in question imbibes of it sparingly suggests that it contains within it the elements that make it so often not benign."

And an interesting question from a blogger named Cantor:

"Question to the supposed Moderate Muslim:"

"We know that you will abandon the doctrine of offensive violent Jihad, but will you ALSO abandon the notion of Islamic "self-defense"?"

"The correct answer would be: "Yes"."

Born and raised in Toronto, I have known many good people who happen to be Muslim, and count some of them as friends.

However, this is not the point. The ideology is the point.

It is an ideology that instills as much violence against Muslims and particularly Muslim women, as towards non-Muslims.

'Muslims against Shariah' agree. Responding to a challenge from another reformer (in the comments section of an interesting debate, including Hitchens and others - "The “Islamo-Fascism Debate" at

Thomas Haidon: “You have arbitrarily taken verses out of the Qur'an.”

MAS: That is not correct. We provide reasons why we removed the verses. Why not instead use the brain Allah gave you to try and chellenge the traditional understandings of these verses.

There is no point in challenging the understanding of “kill them [infidels] wherever you find them”. This is a clear call to genocide. Claiming otherwise is no better than whitewashing terrorism. These verses MUST be removed.

Quite right.

Posted by: irwin daisy at February 9, 2008 6:26 PM

You know you're on shaky ground when you resort to playing the dictionary police. Come on! When Johnny Maudlin refers to racists, it's perfectly clear what he means. I think he makes some valid points, based upon personal experiences that don't square with some of the over the top assertions regarding Muslims.

I don't like the image heading up this topic. I think it's juvenile and stupid. It's intentionally offensive to Muslims. But that's the point. If Kate, Kathy, or whoever, want to post that kind of crap on their site, they have a right to do so.

In fact when people post these kinds of images it reflects directly upon them, and helps me know better where they're coming from. In this case, context is important - that being the case against Mark Stein before the HRC, and especially the case against Ezra Levant for reprinting the infamous Mohammed cartoons.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 9, 2008 6:35 PM

Great post!! Thanks for showing the pic, too.

Posted by: Howie Meeker at February 9, 2008 6:42 PM

The problem that is happening here is you people are sterotyping a BILLION people as evil!

Many of your commentors, are, in fact, racist. They hate Muslims. All Muslims. Am I wrong about that? No, I'm not.

To be sure, some of the comments are a little over the top. However, I will speak for myself. There was a comment further up that mentioned that 1% of 1 billion is 10 million (a correction from an even earlier post). I am interested in another number. 10% of 1 billion is 100 million. It was a few years ago that a survey across the Middle East identified that 10% of the survey participants approved of the actions and idealogy of Al Qaeda. From what I know about the Middle East, I can certainly believe that there are at least 100 million people that support violent Islamist organizations.

In view of the number of Islamist attacks that are occurring around the world and in consideration of the number of plots that have been disarmed by authorities before activation, it seems to me that it is not wrong to ask questions about where the allegiance of Western Muslims lies and to determine if a similar 10% can be found in Canada. We also happen to know from similar surveys that anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment runs much, much higher than the 10%. How much of that animosity is also directed at Canada? If civil rest breaks out in Canada between the violent Muslims and non-Muslims, indeed, where do the sympathies of non-violent Muslims lie?

It is not wrong to ask such questions. I can be persuaded that even a majority of Muslims would not sympathetically support Islamist actions; however, I have not yet become convinced of that idea. The unfortunate lesson from history is that certain people will assume certain things for themselves if they do not get the answers. Therefore, not only is is not wrong, it is actually favourable to Muslims to ask these kinds of questions.

Where do the sympathies really lie?

Posted by: Brent Weston at February 9, 2008 6:43 PM

Oops. The second line in the above post was also supposed to be in italics as I was quoting another poster.

Posted by: Brent Weston at February 9, 2008 6:46 PM

Nothing new to add Johnny?

They always go for the name calling when they lose face on point.

And for your record: My Muslim neighbours trust me with their children as I do them with mine. We're very fortunate to have a warm and welcoming relationship with these decent people.

Posted by: ldd at February 9, 2008 6:57 PM

Re" "sins of omission", etc Posted by: lookout at 6:22 PM

I agree we need to hear more from the moderate Muslim community. I have spoken to some on this very point.

While I wasn't satisfied with all of the answers I got, one point kept coming up. I was told the media had little or no interest in speaking to moderates, who disagree with extremists, and outnumber them substantially. They just don't make good news, apparently. Whenever they did speak to a moderate, they would also put on a "radical" for "balance", despite that most Muslims considered the radical as nuts, at best. Sound like the media we know and love?

It's a lot different, obviously, in a country like Afghanistan. I'm brave as hell when I'm sitting on my couch in Canada. I don't know how brave I'd be if speaking out meant the real likelihood of people trying to behead me. (By the way, Stephane Dion, that's one reason we need troops in Afghanistan) A little intimidating.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 9, 2008 7:00 PM

Careful Morningstar.

They might start calling you Kinsella soon. Thats all they seem to know over here.

Heres what you need to realise.

Muslims hate infidels. The vast majority of, apparently unaware of what the term hypocrisy means, hate muslims. Ostensibly, there is nothing wrong with hating muslims, because muslims hate everyone else. Muslims dehumanize infidels, so lets dehumanize them.

But heaven forbid anyone should point out to them that they are not much better than muslim fundamentalists when they behave like the latter.

A terrorist is not someone who simply pulls a trigger or detonates a bomb without thinking. A terrorist is someone who knows what he is doing and why he is doing it. He has already justified what he is doing to himself.

The good folk here havent killed anyone (yet), but they have set the basis for justifying the killing of all muslims. In this way, they are similar to the ones they claim they hate. Apparently the best way to hate someone is by acting exactly like them.

I assume most here would also bite any dog that bit them. I caution against it- it can be bad for your health.

Posted by: wooster at February 9, 2008 7:08 PM

What utter poppycok, wooster. For example, read my latest post on this thread. If you don't have a serious language processing deficit and have any integrity at all, you'll need to modify your little rant.

Jimbo, I appreciate your response. (You notice I wasn't talking about Muslims in Afghanistan, many of whom, however, are incredibly courageous, e.g., think of all the ordinary citizens who voted.)

The MSM: villains again. Who'd be surprised by that? Fifth columnists: a pox on them.

Posted by: lookout at February 9, 2008 7:19 PM

Hiya Kathy

"Gandhi drank his own piss and -- incredibly -- slept with teenaged girls!

I don't tend to take his advice on stuff, thanks."

Resorting to taking unproven (yes, unproven - is about as reliable as the Soviet Politburo's press releases) potshots at a man who did arguably do more than most to bring independence to India - an anti-islamic terrorism and anti-communst bulwark - is reflective of one very serious problem in your life. The man's personality may have been all over the radar, but that doesnt mean that he did not achieve something great, well, certainly greater than anything you can aspire to, and there might be some lessons to learn from what he said.

Martin Luther King Jr., for one, learnt those lessons, and played an important role in turning America into what it is today. I guess you have an article saying something similar about him?

I think you need to get laid. Might ease your frazzled nerves a bit.

Posted by: gluck at February 9, 2008 7:27 PM

I have absolutely no sympathy for so-called moderates:

If they are devout Muslims then they will, no matter how "quaint" and nice they are now, defer to Sharia when they hold a plurality. Every single ex-Muslim says this ... all of them. Waffa Sultan goes as far as to say that the term "extremist" or "radical" is a Western invention, because in Muslim countries there is just Islam ... and it is all extreme in the light of Western enlightenment.

Just because people are "nice" and have a "job" means nothing in the context of this discussion. The vast majority of Germans or Japanese were not murderous thugs ... yet they did not lift a finger to prevent the greatest calamity ever from hitting humankind. I have no doubt, that the vast majority of Muslims living in Western countries, who truly believe in Muhammad, will do nothing to prevent Sharia from being imposed. If they do try to support basic human rights instead of Sharia ... then they can't really call themselves devout Muslims now, can they. There choice is Muhammad ... or liberal democratic values.

Many Muslims may be secular though, and not really practicing Muslims ... so they are irrelevant to this discussion anyway. Yes, they just want peace and to make a better life for their kids ... but they aren't "real" Muslims in the true sense ... no more so than "Christians" who don't believe in the bible.

Maybe I'm wrong ... so here's how you can help me. Please point out one single Muslim nation, state, country, region, etc., that respects basic human rights. The only ones that do or have, were/are under colonial or totalitarian rule. Even Turkey goes through regular military interventions that supress Islamist rule; yet Turkey is a garbage heap when it comes to respect for basic human rights.

... I'll be waiting for you to "name that place".

Posted by: Paul2 at February 9, 2008 7:28 PM

Point 1) You never base your criminal laws on a religous text, ANY religous text. In fact nothing that involves the state should be base don religous texts, which is why the state shoudl get out of the business of marriage. Unions are fine...but thats another argument

Point 2) This is just about perspective, as our hostess says. You cant claim offense that warrants state intervention for a picture that is based on facts from ones own book....of course the edict of no depiction is limited to those who are muslim not others, just like swearing using the name of Jesus is a really bad thing to a believing Christian but is immaterial to non Christian. Or should we be taking people to the HRC for saying "Jesus Christ" in a profane way because it is against Christian law, or GodD**n because it offends Christian and Jewish religons.

As well, the act of stoning a woman, for god knows what religous crime she committed, could be being with an unknown man, is offensive. So the perspective is which act are you more offended by.

The lego picture is impolite, along with swearing in front of a devout Christian, the second is truely offensive and immoral and in my country (thank goodness) criminal.

Posted by: Stephen at February 9, 2008 8:24 PM

To clarify, I meant the second picture being criminal and immoral not swearing.....

Posted by: Stephen at February 9, 2008 8:40 PM


You're right to point out the curious MSM slant. Not long ago PBS refused to run a documentary they themselves actually produced on Muslim reformers. Ostensibly because they received complaints from Islamist organisations like CAIR.

A particular leftist handicap they all share is in reading and comprehension - as most recently exhibited by a troll named 'wooster.'

How horrible to have to go through life like that. Shouldn't the government set up social programs to help? I'd gladly contribute my taxes.

Posted by: irwin daisy at February 9, 2008 9:01 PM


I hope you have a chair and a case of beer or some wine at hand. You might wait forever for an answer to your question. If only we could defend ourselves from Islamism with naivity and political correctness we might have a fighting chance against this extremist political movement that claims to be a religion.

But even as they move into this country and attempt to deprive us of our centuries old traditions of free speech they have their politically correct naive enablers. It doesn't seem to matter how may innocent throats are cut the true racist who would vilify this behaviour if committed by westerners turn themselves into pretzels in order to excuse it.

Stupid liberals apparently intent on proving that liberalism is a disease rather than just a flawed cowardly political philosophy ignorantly claim there is some quivalence between the loving pacificist Christ and the warmonger Mohammed.

Out of such ignorance we will be doomed. Fortunately we have courgeous people like Irwin Daisty who aren't afraid to research the history of Islam and then speak truth to terrorist traditions.

Posted by: Terry Gain at February 9, 2008 9:55 PM

Johnny Maudlin, I got yer balance right here. On one side I have the Archbishop of Canterbury saying "Sharia is inevitable", and on the other side I have a picture of the World Trade Center with a big frickin' airplane sticking out of it.

Or how about this one: Canadian journalist beaten to death in Iran on one side, Ezra Levant up in front of the AHRC for publishing the previously published Danish cartoons of Mohamed on the other.

Oh wait, wait, I got a GREAT one: stoning women to death for adultery is legal in Iran, Saudi Arabia and etc. Not only is it legal, they actually do it on a regular basis. As opposed to Canada, where depicting The Prophet in Lego is -legal- but capital punishment isn't.

By the way, why is it nobody seems to give a crap that Mohamed is being depicted in Lego except for two Lefty retards who object to -everything- on SDA? Where's the hordes of offended Mississaugans swearing hellfire (or rocket fire) on the infidels?

Posted by: The Phantom at February 9, 2008 10:14 PM

I think you need to get laid. Might ease your frazzled nerves a bit.

Posted by: gluck at February 9, 2008 7:27 PM

Gluck, you've just hit a bullseye at proving a point that Kathy's been making for years - when a liberal thinks they're losing an argument with a woman, they call them ugly, and tell them they're a)hysterical or b)need a good fuck. And go to bed every night basking in the warm glow of their enlightened worldview.

Do you have any idea of what a caricature of a knuckle-dragging creep you sound like? Of course not - that's what the echo chamber is for.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 9, 2008 11:30 PM

Reply to:

Posted by: WeHaveaFriend at February 9, 2008 4:13 AM

Gord Sinclair was a cantankerous old SOB at CJAD in Montreal before he passed away. I always looked forward to his thoughts and outlooks. Then, one day, nothing.

CJAD's replacement is some wannabe entertainment-type reporter that likes gossip and talks conservative (last I saw).

Gord was one of those no-holds-barred, I-don't-care-what-you-think old-style journalists.

They don't make 'em like that anymore, sadly.

Posted by: PiperPaul at February 9, 2008 11:52 PM

jack said on February 9, 2008 at 1:48 AM, in part:

"She can speak for herself".

Isn't that concept exactly what "some people" want to restrict, stop and punish?

I'm a knuckle-dragging male that is easily distracted by boobies but I also prefer my women to have brains and kick me in the ass if I behave assholish. Not that that ever happens, of course.

Posted by: PiperPaul at February 10, 2008 12:32 AM

Phantom: grow up. What a tired load of horseshit you are propagating. What have you got to say about the history of violence and wars with the sign of cross attached? Idiot. It's alway 911 and women buried in the sand with the racist set...

Nothing about the billions of people just living their lives. Idiots. Repeating the kant. Balance, someone asked...what is balance? Come on, someone else know damn well what balance is. Balance is presenting facts in context, balance is a form of honesty. Balance is an interest in...balance. But some dumbass wants to pretend the issue is my inability to distinguish between race and religion.

It's this simple: when the idiots here (and you know who you are...) carry on about Islam, and refuse to acknowledge the other half of the story (meaning the relevant history...) then you are making a cause for conflict and hate. Simple. It's a fact Jack. It's a fact Kate.

Posted by: Johnny Maudlin at February 10, 2008 12:39 AM

morningstar, you are truly in a class by yourself.

Throw out a few random Old Testament quotes to rile the masses, and if that doesn't get you flamed, you can resort to labelling those who oppose you as "racist".

Typical liberal tactic: when you can't win an argument, then by all means do marginalize your opponent to shut them up.

Tedious, really. As are you.

If you want to read the Bible, try the new testament & note the difference in Jesus' teachings from those of mohammed, then come back & try the moral relativism thing. Or not; you probably won't notice the difference, so let it go.

See, Einstein, Christians typically don't fly planes into skyscrapers, or behead those who disagree with their religion, or self-detonate at the local mall. Or commit any other number of atrocities in the name of Christianity. Not usually, anyways. But do please correct me if you find any recent quotes from Pope Benedict XVI that call for the slaughter or even just a teensy-weensy jihad against non-Catholics.

Unlike the folks you read about

YES: all muslims aren't terrorists®

Having stated that boilerplate quote, it is useful to note that the vast majority of the world's terrorism is authored by muslims in the name of their religion. And that 36% of british muslims believe sharia law should be the rule of law in the UK. And that 12% of canadian muslims believed per an Environics poll that it was justifiable to behead Stephen Harper for his supposed lack of respect for islam in the wake of the danish cartoons.

Think of that, for a moment: 12% of 700,000 is 84,000 people - a sizeable city - who think it is acceptable to murder the leader of this country because he doesn't appear on bended knee when discussing their religion.

Are you getting this, morningstar?

Who cares if the "minority" group of islamists have hijacked islam; when the supposed majority remain silent then people are not out of touch to treat the entire lot with suspicion or fear. And for my money, judging by the human rights abuses worldwide, I'd say the silent ones are actually in the minority, worldwide.

For myself, I've no qualms with anyone immigrating to this country who try to live their lives as canadians first, and leave all their other baggage back 'ome. But to come here and expect our country to change to suit you, your religion or cultural values, to try and squelch centuries-old traditions of free speech that run contrary to the laws of some other squalid third world theocracy... kindly p*ss off and return to wherever your came, posthaste. You don't deserve to be here.

Mark Steyn was right in another observation: the more people like morningstar try to excuse the actions of these whackjobs, they begin to sound as loony as those who perpetrate the abuses themselves.

at gmail d0t calm

Posted by: mhb at February 10, 2008 12:44 AM

Hiya rick mcginnis

Lets see. I mentioned Gandhi. And I mentioned Martin Luther King Jr. Does that make me a Liberal?

Or is it the fact that I defended a man who doesnt belong to Western Civilization? Does that make me a liberal?

Or is it the fact that I am sufficiently educated in history to know what Gandhi did for India? Does that make me a liberal?

Theres precious little in the above for you to infer I am a liberal. Disagreeing with Kathy is perhaps the only thing that makes you think so.

They say a stupid question begets a stupid answer. In her case, a stupid remark was responded to with an equally stupid remark.

Yes, I know what I was doing. Reasoning with her on Gandhi is about as good an idea as reasoning with an aggressive animal. I daresay her entire understanding of Gandhi is built on that one article and probably nothing more.

She reminds me of those trouble makers in high school who has to be counter-current, whatever it takes. A Gandhi-basher because everyone else says Gandhi had some admirable traits. Perhaps she should read up about him.

Whether I m right or wrong, I believe in an eye for an eye, a fist for a fist. Like most of the people on this board, I should add.

And when idiocy like hers shows up, I see no need to temper myself down. She said something incredibly stupid and she deserved the response.

PS- Getting laid does help frazzled nerves. A lot. And most counter-current types are full of frazzled nerves - they need something to go against, but in societies like Canada, we re too damn polite to not accomodate them.

Oh and I guess I am a liberal with a very conservative voting record. Not sure what a conservative is, other than one who never criticizes a fellow conservative. Frankly with her ilk in my camp, I m ready to run in the opposite direction.

Posted by: gluck at February 10, 2008 5:21 AM

I went and joined rabble to nominate you for Best Feminist Blog. Alas, the nominations are already closed.

Not sure they will let me stay over there, since I am a feminist, lesbian, who is progressive by being politically conservative.

Posted by: Kyla at February 10, 2008 10:23 AM

morningstar referenced some items from the Old Testament that are as bad as they seem. Most of them come from the Book of Levitivus...

Here's the real difference, however. Predominantly Christian states don't act on those "rules". Militant Islam and some of their governning states, do...

Now, this is typically the part where the Christian haters bring up the part about abortion doctors being shot by Christian extremists... to which I reply, the perpetrators of horrible acts those acts were tried, found guilty and punished by the state...

The hanging and stoning for far less serious offenses, such as adultry and homosexuality in Muslim states are still actually condoned (and in many cases, carried out) by the state...

Posted by: The Greek at February 10, 2008 10:40 AM

Okeydoke, you're a conservative, gluck. Who used one of the cheapest, most cretinous ploys imaginable to try to win an argument. I just call 'em the way I see 'em.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 10, 2008 10:47 AM

"Phantom: grow up. What a tired load of horseshit you are propagating. What have you got to say about the history of violence and wars with the sign of cross attached? Idiot. It's alway 911 and women buried in the sand with the racist set..."

This was explained to you several posts back. If you do not respond to it with facts, then bringing up the same demolished false argument again only makes you identifiable as the "idiot."

Furthermore, your continued support of the ideology that promotes burying women in the sand before stoning them to death, calls Jews sons of apes and pigs and calls for their genocide in holy writ, as well as 1350 years of aggressive violence against non-Muslims and women including 10,000 attacks since 911 - makes you not only the 'racist,' but a bigot and a misogynist of untold proportions. To that I'd even add monster.

You've been warned. Ignorance is not a defence

"It's this simple: when the idiots here (and you know who you are...) carry on about Islam, and refuse to acknowledge the other half of the story (meaning the relevant history...) then you are making a cause for conflict and hate. Simple. It's a fact Jack. It's a fact Kate."

No, actually you racist asshole, it's this simple, there have been well over 100 posts on this topic and you have presented nothing but your feeliings and vitriol. Where is this "other half of the story?" Where are your fact based historical accounts? Where is your knowledge of the Islamic texts and definition of meaning?

Here's a hint lame brain, post your counter argument and support it with facts. Otherwise, go back to your racist moonbat cave.

Posted by: irwin daisy at February 10, 2008 11:01 AM

I imagine that we could substitute muslim with asian,black,indian and get the same response from everyone here.

I hope everyone that reads this thinks carefully about what political party they really want to represent their views.

The conservative party definitely has a lock on the bigot vote.

Posted by: morningstar at February 10, 2008 11:45 AM

No, morningstar,

You and your cohorts have been charged with racism, bigotry and misogyny and the evidence presented.

You have not refuted this with facts. Only feelings and invective, as is usual for your kind.

In fact, you present damning evidence against your lack of rational reason, the ability to comprehend and capacity to think, ie. "I imagine that we could substitute muslim with asian,black,indian and get the same response from everyone here."

Logically, it is the parties that you and your fellow travellers represent that have been brought into the full light here.

Posted by: irwin daisy at February 10, 2008 12:42 PM

With respect to morningstar, the old addage holds true...

"What's the definition of a racist? A conservative that is winning an argument against a liberal."

Posted by: The Greek at February 10, 2008 2:04 PM

Hiya rickmcginnis,

You've read what I have posted. Now kindly let me know what exactly makes me a leftist?

If you call it the way you see it, then I can suggest you get your eyesight checked. The world has changed in the last 40 years. I am a conservative insofar as I believe that there are certain values that cannot be questioned. I believe in individual rights, democracy, small government, and freedom of faith.

I vote for the party that best represents those values.

And when I see people talking trash, then I stand up for what I believe is right.

I dared post something criticial of someone who is, in your eyes a conservative. Does that make me a liberal?

You can call me any name you want - but I can guarantee there is nothing I posted that would give you the basis for calling me a liberal.

I'm not nearly as creepy as some pretentious and prejudiced individuals on this board.

Posted by: gluck at February 10, 2008 2:37 PM


I don't know why rickmcginnis thinks you're a liberal, but when you post statements like, "I'm not nearly as creepy as some pretentious and prejudiced individuals on this board." that's when I think you've identified yourself as a liberal.

Posted by: The Greek at February 10, 2008 3:00 PM

Gluck. I get it. You're a conservative. You waiting for a secret handshake or something?

I don't care, though. You said something really stupid, and I called you on it. I have a question - if a man had written Kathy's post, would you have told them they need to get laid to calm their nerves?

And where's your rigorous refutation of her assertions? Frankly, I don't have an patience for this totemic ancestor worship, from either liberals or conservatives. (Yes, yes, I know - you're a conservative. I heard that.) The names Gandhi and Martin Luther King aren't sacrosanct - most "heroes" prove to have feet of clay, and I don't know who gifted you with the whip and mace to police this forum for sufficient reverence.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 10, 2008 3:40 PM

*ahem* That should have read "INsufficient reverence."

Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 10, 2008 3:41 PM

hiya rickmcginnis

"if a man had written Kathy's post, would you have told them they need to get laid to calm their nerves?"

Something along the lines of "Not getting any?" or, well, "You really need to get laid." But yes, if it was a guy I would dish it out to him too.

I should remind you that it was she who brought sex into the picture. Not me. What Gandhi's sex life has to do with anything is beyond me.

I recognise Gandhi and King as human, but I dont see any point in tolerating snide attacks on the characters of two people who have done more for the history of their nations, than she will ever do for hers. What sickens me even more is the reputation people like her, with their imagined histories, give to people like me, who by virtue of voting for the same party as her are labelled as ignorants.

I believe in that old saying - the most dangerous enemy is the enemy within. Its a bit difficult to stand up for your views when the person standing next to you, and purportedly with the same ideological viewpoint as you, goes around throwing muck on people who arent present by discussing their alleged, and I stress alleged, sex life.

Its a terribly leftist tihng to do. Part of being a conservative is behaving with dignity. But that doesnt mean affording respect to those who dont deserve it.

Posted by: gluck at February 10, 2008 3:58 PM

And telling someone that they "need to get laid" is dignified argument?

Thanks for clearing that up for me. And tell me exactly how you feel you can call Kathy "ignorants" with that logic.

And guess what - I really have a hard time believing that you'd "dish it out to him too" had a man wrote Kathy's post. It's so easy to pretend to be so diplomatic in retrospect, isn't it?

Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 10, 2008 4:01 PM

Johnny Maudlin, the history of Europe is rife with bad behavior done by Christians against Christians. Yes, it is true.

But... do you happen to know any Indian history? Maybe, African history? I will cheerfully see your Spanish Inquisition with 800 years of the Muslims in the Punjab, and raise you some Vikings.

Christianity is far from the worst group in history. The depredations of the Caliphate makes the Catholic Church look like choir boys.

If you want apples and apples, you can compare the Ottoman Empire to the British Empire over the exact same time period, and you'll see the Brits actually give Imperialism a good name.

Or you could if you knew your ass from a hole in the ground. Go and read, moron.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 10, 2008 6:44 PM

This photo turns up all over the right-wing media, but the 'stoning' actually takes place in a 1994 Dutch indie film called De Steen, directed by Mahnaz Tamizi. The "stonee" is actress Smadar Monsinos.

Even Horowitz has scrubbed from the page he used to flog Islam Awarness Week LAST OCTOBER.

Posted by: dizzy at February 11, 2008 12:46 AM

Right wing media? Really?

hee hee love it!

Just wondering: think holocaust photos are getting stale and should be scrubbed as well?

Somehow I don't think a depiction of what actually occurs currently to defenseless women every day should be dismissed like last weeks garbage. Even though we don't know their names or see their faces on our lofty MSM and their 'victim of the week news programs' doesn't meant it should be scrubbed by thoughtlessness.

Posted by: ldd at February 11, 2008 4:14 AM

"This photo turns up all over the right-wing media, but the 'stoning' actually takes place in a 1994 Dutch indie film called De Steen, directed by Mahnaz Tamizi. The "stonee" is actress Smadar Monsinos."

PWNED! Haha... these people flip out over doctored photos, this is hilarious.

Posted by: Arthur A at February 11, 2008 4:47 AM

PWNED! Haha...

Take a deep breath and relax there, chuckles. Several people - most of them regulars around here - have already pointed out that it's a film still, and I don't think I'm alone in recognizing it as soon as I saw it - it's old news 'round these parts. Posting it is basically a shorthand for all the real images of this sort of thing that exist, but tend to be grainy cell phone videos or frame grabs of the real thing.

And the real thing exists, sadly - there's no PWNing that, babycakes.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 11, 2008 8:57 AM

Hiya rick mcginnis,

I afford dignity only to those who come across as behaving with dignity. I doubt you would treat a yelling raving liberal harping on about Harper's sex life, with any dignity. And rightly so. Those who dish it out deserve a response in kind.

Now this conversation has reached a new level of inanity. Why you are defending her is your problem. But before going around as some kind of hero, perhaps you should consider whther the person you are defending is worth defending.

Posted by: gluck at February 11, 2008 9:28 AM

Kathy doesn't need any defense from me - I'm just trying to shine a little light on you, for your own good. Whatever your reaction to what she wrote, suggesting that a good fuck would have prevented it from being authored - a line that, I'm sorry, I can't imagine you using on a man - is many deep leagues away from a coherent counterargument. Just keep using that line of debate - talk about "a new level of inanity" - and see just how much credit it brings to anyone, liberal or "conservative," who chooses to use it.

Just think - stop reacting.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at February 11, 2008 10:06 AM

"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.

What if I can find an example of human sacrifice to the Judeo-Christian god?

"Jephthah vows to sacrifice to God whatsoever comes to greet him at the door when he returns home if he is victorious. The vow is stated in Judges 11:31 as "Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering." When he returns from battle, his virgin daughter runs out to greet him. That he actually does sacrifice her is shown in verse 11:39,

Savage, no?

Before you go throwing mud at Muslims, let's remember that the sky ghost you folks believe in is pretty much just as nasty and brutish as theirs.

You may now try and split hairs as to how sacrificing a virgin is not nearly so bad as marrying a six year old.

Posted by: John at February 11, 2008 4:37 PM

Irwin Daisy: Take a pill lad. The history or Islam and Christianity are not too different. Both ideologies have attempted to dominate and control. That's all. No need for you to high blood pressure about the thing. My use of the descriptor bigot, applied to you and Kate, is appropriate. That's all.

Posted by: John Daly at February 11, 2008 5:16 PM

Yep; Clear to see those that live just to divide and those that don't. Reasoning skill levels follows along those lines as well apparently.

Meanwhile, somewhere in armpit Ontario, queen quinsella, deep undercover, is STILL looking for his merit on an arena bathroom wall with a handy-dandy pen light in hand, "no comment" was the last utterance heard from his lips...


Betch'a he's wishing that was his first comment.

Posted by: ldd at February 11, 2008 7:17 PM