Ten days ago The Globe and Mail published a facts-be-damned opinion piece by longtime NDP honcho Gerald Caplan in which he characterized concern about Islamism as being the strict purview of “Muslim haters” and racists who are “dedicated to inflaming hatred.” In a remarkable and rather surprising response, hundreds upon hundreds of commenters at the Globe and Mail tore Caplan a new one for his pontificating, condescending, politically correct royal “we” finger-wagging, and for his head-in-the-sand, polyanna-ish dismissal of the legitimacy of any concern about radical Islam.
In Caplan’s newest column — it begins “What an exit! What a classy way to go out” — the recently departed Jack Layton is uprighted to support Caplan’s previous column:
How disappointed Jack would have been had he seen the flood of ugly comments that last week’s column provoked…
Yeah – too bad he didn’t live long enough to express, in his own words, his acute disappointment with the unfavourable reaction to your column.
Methinks it’s a good time for Caplan to retire.
Hehe,Caplan used one of my comments in his article.
I suppose that makes me “nasty, bigoted, hateful, rude and insulting,”.
But it doesn’t make me want to blow up the G&M ,or attack some symbol of the left,like a UN building,which still puts me ahead of the ‘religion of peace’ in the grand scheme of things.
Well, wallyj, some of the comments were “nasty, bigoted, hateful, rude, and insulting”, but the majority were well-informed and well-spo…..typed.
If maybe twenty or thirty comments out of the thousand or so hadn’t been published, Caplan wouldn’t have been able to write his latest column, which essentially extrapolates the ruder, more over-the-top comments onto all who opposed the viewpoint expressed in his column.
Where does he have to stick his hand to make Layton’s corpse’s lips move like that?
Of course, along with the vituperative Jack-als who felt it necessary to threaten Christie Blatchford with bodily harm, Caplan just HAD to take a swipe at her, himself.
max is right. It’s time for Caplan to hang it up.
Evolution has a way of leaving lefties behind and they are the very ones that totally believe we evolved from monkeys, in their case, the jobs not done, witness another hapless leader like Jacques Layton was, running our biggest trading partner. Lefties never have to know a thing about business because they all live off the govt., be it subsidized housing community organizing etc. I prefer an economics major who understands business. People like Blatchford understand business, which creates wealth,to fund programs Caplan understands very little.
As I said on BCF. Jack would have loved knowing who Canada’s new allies in Lybia are. As I’m sure the Party faithful are today.
Iran ‘discreetly aided Libyan rebels'(AFP) – 1 day ago TEHRAN — Iran “discreetly” provided humanitarian aid to Libyan rebels before the fall of Tripoli, Jam-e-Jam newspaper quoted Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi on Sunday as saying.http://tinyurl.com/3ddgj7s
I went to the Globe and Mail site and wrote an apology for my “nasty, bigoted, hateful, rude and insulting,” comment.
I do hope the HA accept it,and realize the context of the statement.
The fix is in.
a quick scan of the top “upped” comments are all Caplan positive.
Not a chance when Kate’s flying monkeys have been unleashed.
Nope, the Globe’s thumb is on the scales to try and protect the poor little man from the reality that his Canada is not at all our Canada.
and what about the islamic hatred of non-islamics ? or is that off-limits ? the globe and the ndp beter start doing their research….
Senior Official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad: If We Come to Power, We will Launch a Campaign of Islamic Conquests to Instate Shari’a Worldwide: ‘The Christian is Free to Worship His God in His Church, but if the Christians Make Problems for the Muslims, I Will Exterminate Them’
On August 13, 2011, the Egyptian daily Roz Al-Yousef published an interview[1] with Sheikh ‘Adel Shehato, a senior official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), who, on March 23, 2011, was freed from prison in the wake of the Egyptian revolution. He was imprisoned in 1991 upon returning from a three-year sojourn in Afghanistan.
In the interview, Shehato expressed complete opposition to democracy “because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians.” He said that although the youth of the Arab revolutions have not declared the implementation of shari’a as one of their goals, the mujahideen nonetheless identify with their aspiration to overthrow the Arab rulers, whom they had always considered “infidels who must be killed because they do not rule according to the shari’a.” He added, however, that “once Allah’s law is applied, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme.” He went on to say that although he supports Al-Qaeda’s ideology, shari’a law would not be enforced by violence but by da’wa (preaching), whereas violence would be used only against the infidel Arab rulers.
Shehato said that if the mujahideen came to power in Egypt, they would launch a campaign of Islamic conquests aimed at subjecting the entire world to Islamic rule. Muslim ambassadors would be appointed to each country, charged with calling upon them to join Islam willingly, but if the countries refused, war would be waged against them. He also described the nature of the Islamic state to be established in Egypt: there would be no trade or cultural ties with non-Muslims; tourist sites at the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh would be shut down “because the tourists come [there] to drink alcohol and fornicate,” and all tourists wishing to visit Egypt would be required to comply with the conditions and laws of Islam; all art, painting, singing, dancing, and sculpture would be forbidden, and all culture would be purely Islamic.
Following are excerpts of the interview:
The Term “Democracy” is Not in the Arab or Islamic Lexicon; Once Allah’s Law Reigns Supreme, the People’s Role will End
Q: “Do you support the uprising?”
Shehato: “…The [Egyptian] youth rose up for a certain ideal… They did not rise up in order to put the shari’a into practice, nor did they [complain] that Mubarak’s regime did not rule in accordance with the shari’a… As Muslims, we must believe that the Koran is our constitution, and that it is [therefore] impossible for us to institute a Western democratic regime. I oppose democracy because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians. Simply put, democracy means the rule of the people itself over itself… According to Islam, it is forbidden for people to rule and to legislate laws, as Allah alone is ruler. Allah did not hand down the term [democracy] as a form of rule, and it is completely absent from the Arab and Islamic lexicon…”
Q: “If you do not believe in the rule of the people, why did you go out to Al-Tahrir Square with the slogan ‘he People Wants to Implement the Shari’a?’ Are you exploiting democracy in order to achieve what you want [only] to then abolish [democracy]?”
Shehato: “I am not exploiting democracy, since I have never joined and will never join politics or party activity… We believe that implementation of the shari’a [must be accomplished] far from the political game, though some [other] Islamic streams are willing to participate [in this game] in order to achieve the same goal [i.e., implementation of the shari’a]. We said that ‘the people wants to implement the shari’a’ because most of the people are Muslims, and also based on [our] reading of the situation on the ground. [At the same time,] we did not make demands for the people’s sake in the people’s name, but demanded the rule of Allah. And once Allah’s law is instated, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme.”
Q: “How do you reconcile your opposition to the will of the people with the notion of shura [consultation] in Islam?”
Shehato: “‘Shura’ in Islam means that alongside the Muslim ruler, there is a steering council comprising the finest of the senior Muslim clerics, to be selected on the basis of their piety and political leadership [abilities]. But there is no consultation with commoners, such as workers and fallahin, nor is there consultation over issues that contravene the shari’a.”
“The Christian is Free to Worship His God in His Church, but if the Christians Make Problems for the Muslims, I Will Exterminate Them”
Q: “What solution is the EIJ suggesting [today], after the revolution?”
Shehato: “…We still espouse the old jihadi ideology that is today the ideology of Sheikh Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the late Sheikh Osama bin Laden, and Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi… If the revolution was meant to overthrow the tyrant Mubarak, then we have always said that all the Arab rulers, without exception, are infidels who must be killed because they do not rule according to the shari’a. They are apostate infidels, as opposed to infidels like the Jews and Christians, and anyone who doubts that they are infidels is an infidel [himself].”
Q: “But we Egyptians have never regarded the Christians as infidels. [In fact,] many of us have Christian friends even closer than our Muslim friends.”
Shehato: “As a Muslim, I must support the Muslim and oppose the Christian. If there is a Christian who does me no harm, I will maintain limited contact with him. Islam [discusses] certain degrees of contact with the Christian, namely: keeping promises [that were made him], dealing honestly with him, treating him kindly, and befriending him. The first three are allowed, but the fourth [i.e., befriending the Christian] is deemed dangerous, for it contravenes the verse that says, ‘O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth’ [Koran 60:1]. It is inconceivable that they should serve in judiciary or executive posts, for instance in the army or the police.”
Q: “Are you against blowing up churches?”
Shehato: “Yes and no. The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari’a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation…”
Q: “These positions of yours frighten us, as Egyptians.”
Shehato: “I will not act [in ways] that contradict my faith just in order to please the people… We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari’a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions.”
If the Muslims Rise to Power in Egypt, They Will Form Muslim Battalions to Enforce the Shari’a Worldwide
Q: “If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?”
Shehato: “Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari’a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari’a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah’s help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]…”
Q: “You said that you endorse the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does this mean that your way of implementing shari’a in Egypt will be through violence and war, like their [way]?”
Shehato: “No, we will implement the shari’a through da’wa [preaching], while violence will be directed only at the infidel Arab rulers. In their case, there is no choice but to use force, though the shari’a does not call it ‘violence’ but ‘jihad for the sake of Allah.’ There is no other way… because they have power and weapons…”
Q: “How will the foreign ministry [operate] in an Islamic state?”
Shehato: “There are Muslims and there are infidels. We will have ambassadors in every country. We want to call all other countries to join Islam, and that will be the task of the ambassadors. If [the countries] refuse, there will be war. We will not tolerate mutual trade and cultural ties with non-Muslims.”
“In the [Islamic] State, There will Be Only Islamic Culture”
Q: “If you rise to power, what will be your approach to tourism?”
Shehato: “There will be tourism for purposes of [medical] treatment, but the tourism sites of the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh will be shut down, because my task [as a ruler] is to get people to serve Allah rather than [other] people [i.e., tourists]. No proud Muslim will ever be willing to live off tourism profits, because the tourists come [to Egypt] to drink alcohol and fornicate. [If they] want to come, they must comply with the conditions and laws of Islam. We will explain to them that, according to the shari’a, the pyramids are [the remains of] a pagan and polytheistic age.”
Q: “What will be the state of art and literature in such a state?”
Shehato: “In Islam, there is no such thing as art. Painting, singing, and dancing are forbidden. Therefore, in the [Islamic] state there will be nothing but Islamic culture, for I cannot teach [people] the infidel culture. As for literature, such as [the works] of Naguib Mahfouz, it is forbidden. Naguib Mahfouz was a criminal who stimulated [people’s] desires and struck a severe blow to modesty. We will return to the decent culture of the Muslims and the Muslim forefathers, and to Islamic history.”
Endnote:
[1] Roz Al-Yousef (Egypt), August 13, 2011.
So, almost literally translated, Shebato is saying, “we will butcher the Copts, blow up their churches, demolish all relics less than pyramid-sized, and declare war on all neighboring nations that do not enforce our version of sharia law.”
And he’s also saying that democracy, forget civil rights, is for dummies.
It means that the Arab world will have bloody borders continuously until such time as Islamism is exterminated.
But that’s the typical response you get from all of the ivory tower crowd, isn’t it? Doesn’t matter if it’s Caplan, Sheila Copps or Gerry Weiner.
They’re the worst kind of hypocrites. They have the gall to rail against the poor buggers living in neighbourhoods that have deteriorated into ghettos in the space of a decade or two, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that they’d move into those areas themselves.
Just another progressive smarmy rewriting history to justify their coaltion with the Islamofacists in Canada. I think it’s clear progressive male smarmies don’t like wimmin much, they can’t abandoned gender equality fast enough. I guess that whole Sharia Law allowing for sex slaves, sex with children, and multiple wives is their motivation?
jay currie says “The fix is in.
a quick scan of the top “upped” comments are all Caplan positive.
Not a chance when Kate’s flying monkeys have been unleashed.
Nope, the Globe’s thumb is on the scales to try and protect the poor little man from the reality that his Canada is not at all our Canada.”
Yeah, I noticed that too. Either the G&M is goosing the thumbs or the union hacks have finally woken up for the day.
Late with this comment, but I have no problem with PM Harper granting Jack Layton a state funeral. Mr. Harper was merely throwing the left a bone (or in this case, a box of bones). All Mr. Layton ever wanted was to do what was best for Canada. In his death, he finally achieved that goal. 🙂
He says he didn’t really read the comments on his article, yet for some reason skipped past all the highest rated, lucid criticism and cherry picked the most inflammatory ones.
The Necrophilia Demagoguery Party (NDP) is still at it, are they?
Kinda reminds me of Sunday School: “I think Jesus would be disappointed in you, Ricardo”.
OR
“I think Jack Layton, looking down on us from that eternal NDP utopia in the sky, would be disappointed in us.” “Don’t forget your daily prayers to Jack so that he can guide you and bless you.”
No wonder the NDP identifies with, and defends, radical Islam — NDP “secular atheism” is in fact religious in essence. The NDP enforces its ideology, and worships its leaders, like religious cult fanatics.
I think one of the things Layton was clued into was that the old-school Dipper sanctimony in evangelizing the politically correct hard line was largely unpalatable to the current generation of voters – in essence, it pisses them off to be preached to. Jack avoided this old Dipper tactic like the plague – it actually made him popular across party lines.
Caplan learned the hard way that no one wants to be preached to by a fallible demagogue – now go tell Steven Lewis and the other old school Dippers to use the zipper.
Occam at August 30, 2011 3:18 PM:
“…Jack avoided this old Dipper tactic like the plague – it actually made him popular across party lines…”
It does appear that Layton was making a genuine attempt at reform during the last NDP convention — for example by changing “Democratic Socialism” to “Social Democracy” in the NDP constitution. But he failed, and the hard-liners prevailed.
Although it may appear that there is little difference between “Democratic Socialism” and “Social Democracy”, the difference is in fact critical: the former is practically identical to Communism with the exception that the Communist system is instated “democratically” (in this case slowly and progressively) and there will always be superficial “democratic” voter participation (c.f.: the “Democratic” People’s Republic of North Korea); Whereas, the latter is not really supposed to be communistic/dictatorial — a Social Democracy is supposed to be a regular free democracy, but with emphasis on the social economy.
But the bottom line for me for evidence of the Dippers’ real intentions are the last things that Layton and the NDP did in Parliament:
1/ After the non-Partisan Commission cleared our Military and Harper of torture in Afghanistan, Layton and the NDP still continued to claim that they were guilty and that the “evidence was out there somewhere”. Layton and the NDP rejected the findings of the commission. I am convinced that these people would put Harper in jail if they could, with or without evidence.
2/ After the Canadian people elected the Cons with a resounding majority, Layton and the NDP still staged a filibuster to try to defeat the budget, and it was coupled with strikes from NDP Union supporters. I think coups d’état and constitutionally dubious “coalitions” coupled with destabilizing strikes are still very much on the Dipper agenda to wrest power.
Whether or not Layton was a genuine reformist or the NDP was going in that direction is irrelevant in view of the evidence: their actions speak louder than words. I think we have had a taste of what would happen if the NDP ever holds the balance of power in this country: demagoguery, nepotism, and likely a classic “peoples” dictatorship.