Western countries aren’t the only ones that have to confront crime in immigrant communities. It’s interesting to see how an Arab country like Bahrain reacts to a brutal murder by a Bangladeshi immigrant:

Bahrain will not renew the work permits of thousands of Bangladeshis working in the Gulf state, in a ban expected to heavily impact the nation’s construction industry.
…
The government officials have repeatedly claimed Bangladeshi immigrants are behind the nation’s growing crime problems.
Bahrain MP Abdul Halim Murad had called on the government to “put a timetable for the deportation of Bangladeshi labourers from Bahrain after their repeated involvement in murders and other crimes”.

One less pavilion in Bahrain’s folkfest.
h/t

“The Aspers make no secret of their support for Israel”

For, instead of having published The Satanic Verses in Margaret Thatcher’s England, he might have unwisely chosen Trudeaupia: 2008 for the release of his novel, and thus found himself dragged from hiding and delivered to his would-be executioners through the force of a human “rights” tribunal dictate to account for his blasphemy.

Whoops! Did I just commit stereotype?
And by every indication, this sorry waste of skin would have been skipping along at the heels of the pack, cheering the “human rights” process towards its logical conclusion[1].
So, I believe the time has come to challenge to this self-described Liberal “ass kicker”. Mr. Kinsella – how many more hours must pass before you publicly add the name Mike Duffy to your growing list of neo-Nazi sympathizers?
We’ll wait while you search for your balls.
Footnote:
[1] I’m stumped. What child’s toy goes best with “Danny Pearl was not a documentary”?

Cover thyself;

While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing, the controversial Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum. Moreoever, popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission complaint, published a description of the unnamed Catholic forum. Several details match, including the screen names of two participants to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.
Imagine that! Canada’s human rights tribunals are now attempting to prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.

h/t
Update Confirmation has been received that Catholic Answers is indeed the site named. It’s described thus: “Catholic Answers is one of biggest Catholic media empires in the U.S., and is especially popular among young orthodox Catholics.”

An open letter;

But this is what I do know. If the Minister of Justice for Canada is not willing to stand for free speech anywhere, anytime, against anyone, then the Minister of Justice does not deserve to be representing the citizens of Canada in such a capacity, let alone as a Member of Parliament for a democratic state. On the assumption that you even do support us, if you are trying to figure out when to speak out, where to speak out, or how to speak out on such a vital issue to the future of this country, then I say in all honesty and sincerity: there’s something wrong with you.
Before anything else, you are supposed to be defending our freedoms and real Canadian values – values that were bought and paid for on the fields of Flanders not the manufactured ones that serve the perpetually aggrieved communities to which your government is shamelessly pandering. At the very least, you should not be siding with the fraudulent thugs at the HRCs and the fools in your own Department who say that “truth is no defense”. Whatever trick you’re using to sleep at night as Canadian citizens are being financially and emotionally raped and pillaged by these Star Chamber Tribunals would give Somenex a good run for its money, I have no doubt.

Forward it to your friends, along with information on how to contact their MP.
Other dead tree commentary from David Warren, the Vancouver Sun, and National Post.. and a huge round up of links at Free Mark Steyn, too.
While you’re at it, you can contact our most timid provincial premier here;
The Honourable Brad Wall
Premier of Saskatchewan
226 Legislative Building
Regina, Saskatchewan
CANADA S4S 0B3
Telephone: (306) 787-9433
Facsimile: (306) 787-0885
E-mail: premier@gov.sk.ca
Be sure to ask how it came to pass that an individual is considered a “public official” obligated to set aside their Charter rights when performing a state function – but a “private citizen” on the hook for their own legal defense when set up for a human rights sting operation?
Every marriage commissioner (or any other public official) in the province should be thinking long and hard right now about their own personal exposure. Poligamy hasn’t yet been tested in the courts in regards to charter rights – would it be prudent in this legal atmosphere to refuse a ceremony joining a man and his second husband?
(Nichols lawyer is Michael Megaw, should you want to forward a donation.)

Just think where quoting Ahmadinejad might take you!

“I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,”

Make no mistake – he speaks in the name of Islam;

“I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed,”

No word from the Obama campaign on a date for their first face-to-face meeting.

From an exhibition in the Iranian city of Qom.
h/t
Related: “I actually think they’re trying to educate us. “

Where the foxes caper unmolested, the government packs your school lunch, and anyone who supports the kaffir, be they Labour, Conservative, Respect, he becomes a kaffir like them.

h/t Flea

“Perhaps Mr Siddiqui might be a less opaque. There is no ‘ongoing debate in Canada over when freedom of speech crosses the line into hate.’ When the likes of Hamas, Hizbollah and the policies of the Arab world are given credibility, the question of hate is not in question. What is in question is just how much hate is acceptable- and the answer to that is quite clear: Canadians have a very high tolerance for hate if it is well camouflaged.”

I know, unrest in Lebanon doesn’t really count as news but the government is showing signs of finally standing up to Hizbullah now that they’ve closed the airport:

Youth and Sports Minister Ahmad Fatfat told The Daily Star that the Lebanese Army and security forces would not hesitate to open the airport road in a timely manner.
“Hizbullah’s actions are an open attack against the state,” he said. “What Hizbullah is doing reminds the Lebanese people of what Israel did to the airport in the summer 2006 war,” he added, referring to the Jewish state’s bombing of runways and fuel tanks.

I’d have more sympathy for Lebanon if they’d realize that Hizbullah is probably a bigger threat to them than it is to the west or Israel. But they don’t seem to mind much as long as Hizbullah sticks to kidnapping and blowing up westerners or firing rockets at Israel.

This campaign’s aim…

… was to attack Boris [Johnson] as an Islamophobe; swing Muslim voters unanimously behind Livingstone; deliver the election for him; emerge, thereby, as a leading force in British Islam, and thus send an uncompromising message to the main political parties – follow our line, or there’ll be electoral consequences.
Its first shots were fired in January, when it was claimed that over fifty Islamic organisations in London had written to the Guardian endorsing Livingstone. (It later emerged that some of the letter’s signatories had written only in a “personal capacity”.) Its final salvo was the desperate advert, placed recently in the London Bengali paper “Janomot”, implying that Boris, as Mayor, would ban the Koran.
So who was behind this advert, and the campaign as a whole? It was produced by a group called the British Muslim Initiative (BMI). BMI’s website contains a section headed “About Us”. Readers who click on it will learn that the organisation was “formed by justice, peace and human rights campaigners”.
So who was behind this advert, and the campaign as a whole? It was produced by a group called the British Muslim Initiative (BMI). BMI’s website contains a section headed “About Us”. Readers who click on it will learn that the organisation was “formed by justice, peace and human rights campaigners”.
These campaigners presumably include Azzam Tamimi and Anas Tikriti, whose Guardian columns are prominently advertised on the site. Also advertised on the site is “Muslims 4 Ken”, whose leading lights, according to the Evening Standard, are…Anas Tikriti and Azzam Tamini.
Tikriti is a former President of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) – which is, in effect, the British branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and which, therefore, has links to Hamas. It’s been claimed that Tamini issued communiques on behalf of Hamas during the 1990s. He’s certainly on record as supporting suicide bombings against civilians in Israel.

h/t

Deborah Gyapong;

What if Maclean’s Magazine caves today and decides to accept an offer to “settle” made on behalf of three of the Muslim law students who are not actually parties to the complaints?

Update a first person report, and a first rate rant;

“We’re here because of a goddam ADJECTIVE now?” I “asked” RightGirl, beside me.
My outburst caught the attention of one of the female law students on the dias, and we engaged in a evil eye staring match for the next 15 minutes. Heh. Made ‘er blink.

More reaction now up.
And at the National Post. This sounds reassuring; “Maclean’s did not respond to the proposal yesterday, except to say it will be addressed by the editors in a future issue.”

Bruce Bawer’s “An Anatomy of Surrender” asks “Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them?”

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho­meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.
The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.
Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.
[…]
So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”