 |
| al-Quds Day promoted as an International Day of Peace is little more than an orgy of anti-semitism |
This past week saw quite a bit of debate and controversy over the intention to hold an Al-Qud rally at Queen’s Park, the seat of Ontario’s provincial government. Founded by Ayatollah Khomeni, the al-Quds Brigade is the armed wing of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and has been active in promoting hatred of Israel and Jews in general.
Canada is a nation that has fairly significant hate-speech laws in place but for some reason despite its history, the Al-Quds Day rally became an issue of free speech rather than hate speech. Even the province’s premier, Dalton McGuinty defended the right of the rally to proceed which sort of reminded me of all those city mayors who defended the vandalism and rioting of the Occupy Movement on the grounds of the right to protest.
 |
| Teaching children to promote peace through hatred |
Hate speech is rather easily identified under the law. It is the promotion of hatred and/or discrimination by one person or group against another. It seems to me that promoting the destruction of Israel and death to Jews should qualify but apparently not in the minds of many who supported allowing the rally to go forward.
I’m not overly surprised. When it comes to rights and freedoms in this country, we are like children who have discovered adult tools and haven’t got a clue what to do with them.
We defend the right of student groups to host Anti-Israeli Apartheid Week but prevent supporters of Israel from speaking out on the same campuses. We promote free speech at universities but stand idly by as students and professors block speech by people like Ann Coulter and Benjamin Netanyahu simply because they don’t agree with them and by God, if they don’t agree with them, nobody who may agree with them or simply be curious about what they have to say is going to hear them say it!
That’s free speech these days; a tyranny of selective speech by a self-appointed sanctimonious group of pseudo-intellectuals who are so insecure in their beliefs that they do everything they can to prevent contrary opinion from being voiced. Sometimes it is merely the result of thoughtless and uninformed people jumping on a bandwagon because they think its trendy or cool and it’s just easier to support it than to actually take the time to learn what is behind it.
It isn't merely radical Islam vs Jew either. We see it in Quebec where the language rights of minorities are trampled into the dust. We see it in debates about abortion, gender equality and gender orientation. Just recently the overly sensitive knocked themselves out because the owner of Chick Fil-A had the audacity to believe in something and actually say it out loud. He did not impose his beliefs on others nor did he discriminate in his restaurants based on his beliefs. Instead, he actually ensured that his beliefs did not interfere with treating all employees and customers equally but that wasn't good enough for the sanctimonious and they organized protests and condemnation rallies.
So much for his right to hold specific views and to voice them in conversation.
It isn't merely radical Islam vs Jew either. We see it in Quebec where the language rights of minorities are trampled into the dust. We see it in debates about abortion, gender equality and gender orientation. Just recently the overly sensitive knocked themselves out because the owner of Chick Fil-A had the audacity to believe in something and actually say it out loud. He did not impose his beliefs on others nor did he discriminate in his restaurants based on his beliefs. Instead, he actually ensured that his beliefs did not interfere with treating all employees and customers equally but that wasn't good enough for the sanctimonious and they organized protests and condemnation rallies.
So much for his right to hold specific views and to voice them in conversation.
I find it interesting that so many on the left condemn Israel even though Israel provides health care and other benefits to Palestinians living within its borders and remains the only country in the Middle East where Christians, Muslims and Jews are free to practice their religion. The intellectual elite in our country refer to this as Apartheid.
The great irony is that many of these ‘enlightened’ souls are the same people who call for the elimination of the word Christmas because it is a Christian term and we can’t have that in our society. It is at precisely this point that, for me, it all crosses over from simply being hypocrisy to become abject stupidity.
We have become a society that defends those who wish to speak out in hatred and oppose those who promote a season of peace and goodwill to all. Someone less polite than I am might suggest that we have become a society with its head up its ass but I would never say something that crude or common.
Instead, let me say that I think we have become a society that has lost sight of its values and principles; a society that has become so mired in political correctness that in its rush to do the ‘correct’ thing, it has ended up on the wrong side of its own morality.
Or in other words; a society with its head up its ass.
We permit Muslim prayer rooms and gay/lesbian clubs in our schools, which I happen to think is a good thing. What I think is a bad thing is preventing Christians and other religious groups from having the same thing. Where we should be doing everything we can to break down the barriers and the absurd prejudices between different groups, beliefs and cultures, the politically correct are actually working overtime to erect new ones.
It is a guarantee that discrimination, intolerance and misunderstanding will continue and anyone who has studied history will know where that tends to lead.
I think we need to step back and rethink our values for a bit. We certainly should defend freedom of religion, free speech and the right to protest even for those with whom we disagree; but we have an obligation to oppose those who would pervert those freedoms and rights by using them to suppress one religion, race, gender orientation or culture in favour of another, promote hatred or abuse the right to protest with riots and vandalism. The politically correct choose the soft targets that allow them to appear to be inclusive but which in the end are nothing less than their own form of intolerance and confused morality.
It seems to me that we have our values upside down and that we should feel far less threatened or offended by someone who wishes us a Merry Christmas or Happy Chunakah than by those who advocate hatred and prejudice.
It may not be trendy but I believe that spreading understanding and tolerance is always a better alternative to spreading hatred and isn’t that what all that politically correct nonsense was supposed to be about in the first place?
Given the choice, I'll take the inclusive message of peace and goodwill in Christmas and Chanakuh over the messages of hatred and prejudice of al-Quds Day and Anti-Israel Apartheid Week any time.
© 2012 Maggie's Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others
just what we need, more acceptance of islamic desire for a world wide caliphate. islam is more dangerous than national socialism was.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't Islam that is dangerous, it is radical Islam. All religions have their radical extremists including Christianity. Before 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. was the bombing in Oklahoma City that killed 138 people. That was done by an extremist Christian fundamentalist.
DeleteIt is hatred that is our enemy and it is hatred we don't do a very good job of overcoming. We accept things like al-Quds Day and Anti Israel Apartheid Week in the name of free speech but attack the word Christmas. As I wrote in my post, we are a society that has its head up its ass.
What would help is for main-stream Islam to go in mass and support the position that radical Islam is a fringe group or small minority. Not doing this some days makes it hard not to label all with the same brush, no matter how unfair that may be.
DeleteI beg to differ, just a little: McVeigh was a self-proclaimed agnostic - as even wiki admits.
Deleteand your "radical Islamists" are IMO actually Muslim Fundamentalists ie. they follow the Koran and the Surah literally. Are you one of those "Republicans Who Don't Read"? :-]
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-08-08.html
Frank
Well Frank, up here in Canada we don't have Republicans, and even if the Oklahoma bombing wasn't done by fundamental Christians there are plenty of other examples of Christian Fundamentalist Hate, such as that ridiculous "Pastor" Terry Jones of Florida.
DeleteI am a practising Christian by the way. The problem with religious fanatics and idiots like Terry Jones, Islamic Freaks or Zionist Fundamental Jews, is that they tend to be the loudest of the bunch, much louder than any moderate.
Jeff
It is true that Mcveigh was agnostic but Terry Nicols was not and what triggered the bomb plot was the attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas. Both McVeigh and Nicols were outraged by it. There was an extremist fundamentalist Christian relationship to those who planned the bombing.
DeleteGreat article yet again, MB. However, there's one thing I'd like to point out, this being my own personal view.
ReplyDeleteI didn't have a problem with the comments made by the owner of CFA per se. In fact I never even read what he actually said, but I got the gist of it. I may not necessarily agree with him, but I respect his right to say what he wants as it is a principle of freedom of speech.
However, I do have a problem with what the company itself does. Supporting organisations like the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation with millions of dollars is, at least IMHO, wrong and indeed a valid reason to protest against.
As far as I know, the CEO of a multi-million dollar company like CFA is not allowed to spend that much money without consent of the rest of the board of executives, but I kinda doubt that Mr. Cathy employed managers who are more than "ye olde yea-sayers", so it might be kinda moot anyway.
All I want to say is that Mr. Cathy, as a person, has the right to say what he said, but if the company CFA donates money to organisations which promote the criminalization of same-gender-loving behavior, then I have the right to speak up against it, as I see that as rather intolerant.
Apart from this, I agree 100% with everything you wrote.
-Drakhor
Good comment. My personal beliefs and those of the owner of Chick-Fil-A don't mesh very well but there were two things that caught my notice. The first was that what he said isn't so different than what many Americans believe and whether you and I agree with them or not, they are entitled to their beliefs. It is how they act on them that is important and while he does support organizations like Marriage & Family Foundation, his company does not practice discrimination in its hiring practices. Because it is a family owned-business, he is entitle to donate as he sees fit.
DeleteThe second issue for me was that people protested not for what he does but for what he said and in a country that prizes free speech, that's wrong. I may not like what he says but I respect his right to say it provided it doesn't advocate active hatred against others and it doesn't rise to that level. There was no call to arms against gays, just a statement of his own personal beliefs.
I'd say the root of the problem is that people nowadays simply don't have an opinion anymore, they only repeat what they've been told by others, be it (TV) preachers, be it company owners, be it the bigoted populists which call themselves "Defense League". Having an own, valid opinion would require a certain brain capacity which seems to be severely lacking these days...
DeleteI think you're bang on and I think that was really my point about Chick-Fil-A. It was a lot of social media frenzy without much thought or research behind it. I see it every day on Twitter. Somebody gets their shorts in a knot over something and within hours, there's a frenzy of comment that is based on his or her original tweet rather than on the reality of the issue. It is thoughtless and dangerous abuse of the freedom to voice our opinions.
DeleteBad Comment. "Supporting organisations like the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation with millions of dollars...is not allowed..."
DeleteWhere did you get this information? Tony Perkins himself said, “[Chick-fil-A gave us $1,000 a few years ago. Far from being a big supporter of ours. We wouldn’t mind having their support but they haven’t been that way."
So we can agree on this: "I'd say the root of the problem is that people nowadays simply don't have an opinion anymore, they only repeat what they've been told by others"
In the spirit of this you might want to revisit this statement: "promote the criminalization of same-gender-loving behavior"
@defgh: First of all, if you're going to quote me, quote me correctly. I didn't say that supporting organisations like FRC and the MFF is "not allowed", I said it's "wrong", right after I said, yet again, that this is only MY opinion.
DeleteMultiple websites have reported about these donations, e.g. this one:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chick-fil-a-has-spent-5-million-trying-to-stop-gay-marriage/discrimination/2012/07/02/42684
The same article mentions FRC as, and I quote (correctly), "a certified anti-gay hate group".
At the same time, I said that, as far as I know, spending millions of dollars is not allowed WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF EXECUTIVES. That was a separate sentence, just in case you didn't notice.
Ripping my comments apart and putting them back together in a completely different context only makes you an idiot, IMHO of course.
I dispute, you were the one quoting some false source that Chick Fil-A donated millions of dollars to FRC. I gave you a link where you can watch Tony Perkins say with his own words that they've perhaps received $1000 years ago, not the millions you sourced to be the case.
DeleteYou're far too credulous, being the case that no company would or could donate millions of dollars and yet understanding the very fact they'd make this claim makes them a dubious source, you cite it anyway? So, your next comment "that people nowadays simply don't have an opinion anymore, they only repeat what they've been told by others" rebounds.
Just because you cite a source that's wrong doesn't absolve you of the error, but compounds it.
I oppose multiculturalism simply because our history in Canada and the United States is based upon our Christian understanding of the world which has allowed us to build this country on that basis. In the past three decades or so we’ve seemed to have lost it this concept and have emphasized multiculturalism to the point of losing our own roots and heritage. When one expresses this view I just stated, and is White, they’re chastised as a racist and a xenophobic. If we are to have immigration into this country we should enforce that fact that a Canadian is Canadian and not a hyphenated Canadian. Your free to practice your religion and preserve your culture but don’t be offended when there is a Christmas tree at city hall or a public school.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and so do an increasing number of countries around the world. Britain has formally rescinded its multicultural policy and the Netherlands requires potential immigrants to watch a video that is an overview of their country which includes women in bikinis at the beach. The message is that if any of this offends you, don't immigrate here.
DeleteIt is one thing to respect the culture of others, it is completely another to suppress your own culture and values out of some twisted concept of politically correct accommodation of others.
Personally, I'm tired of some people immigrating here to start a better life but bringing all of their prejudices and issues from their old country here.