Barbara Kay is absolutely right. Unfortunately many Canadian Jews including
our academics follow the leftist, pro-Palestinian, anti-zionist line. Luckily Torontonians
have Torontonian Salomon Benzimra's factual book on international law relating to Israel
to educate us, as well as the Canadian branch of a wonderful and remarkable Israeli organizion called
The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel to enlighten us on their legal and social
efforts to counter post -zionism and bring a reasonable and enlightened Judaism
back to Israeli society. Unfortunately the Jewish community has failed to take advantage
of this information. Only in Canada you say? Unfortunately not.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Re; Barbara Kay - Letter to National Post - religious equivalency
Barbara Kay is right in saying that schools shouldn't teach equivalency in religions and that it is impossible to teach only facts. However the real problem is that we
are a country with a culture, morals, and values based on the Old and New Testaments. If we say that all values are equal then we lose our sense of right and wrong and the values which make Canada such a great country. I don't want Canadian values to be considered equal or to be replaced by whatever values and culture is now dominant in Saudi Arabia. Ours is better and I want to keep it that way.
are a country with a culture, morals, and values based on the Old and New Testaments. If we say that all values are equal then we lose our sense of right and wrong and the values which make Canada such a great country. I don't want Canadian values to be considered equal or to be replaced by whatever values and culture is now dominant in Saudi Arabia. Ours is better and I want to keep it that way.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
hate speeches and universities - letter
Note - The real point is that Univeristy Presidents don't distinquish between speech
which is almost hate speech and are rants against Israel based on slanders and lies, and true criticisms of Israel. The former are not illegal but should be prohibitted and the latter should be permitted. However if the university
administration, faculty and student body cannot tell the difference, there is a problem.
Unpublished letter - The problem is greater than firing bad teachers. It is not only a question of students learning enough facts but also of learning to think and to recognize right from wrong and truth from propaganda.
This is most obvious in our universities. Students at UWO face no punishment for disrupting approved of speeches and presentations, and the President of McMaster cannot distinquish a hate speech against Israel and Zionists, which quotes falsehoods as facts, from a speech about Israel's faults and problems. Students, whether at high school or university, should learn more than facts. They should learn to think - to distinquish between fact and fiction and good and evil. In addition they should be taught that all things are not equal and that our Canadian value system is excellent and worthy of support.
Teachers or professors who are incapable of understanding the above, in addition to their specific subjects, and who teach their students only to be politically correct should be let go as they are truly not doing their job.
which is almost hate speech and are rants against Israel based on slanders and lies, and true criticisms of Israel. The former are not illegal but should be prohibitted and the latter should be permitted. However if the university
administration, faculty and student body cannot tell the difference, there is a problem.
Unpublished letter - The problem is greater than firing bad teachers. It is not only a question of students learning enough facts but also of learning to think and to recognize right from wrong and truth from propaganda.
This is most obvious in our universities. Students at UWO face no punishment for disrupting approved of speeches and presentations, and the President of McMaster cannot distinquish a hate speech against Israel and Zionists, which quotes falsehoods as facts, from a speech about Israel's faults and problems. Students, whether at high school or university, should learn more than facts. They should learn to think - to distinquish between fact and fiction and good and evil. In addition they should be taught that all things are not equal and that our Canadian value system is excellent and worthy of support.
Teachers or professors who are incapable of understanding the above, in addition to their specific subjects, and who teach their students only to be politically correct should be let go as they are truly not doing their job.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Police functions
Police functions
It is time to review the functions of the police. They have failed to act in two of their most important functions. They are police. Their function is to stop people from breaking the law or if they can’t do that then to find the people who broke the law. The latter can be discouraging when the courts are lenient with criminals and the police must catch the same person again and again. However that is their job. Recently however in cases dealing with public protests they have failed to enforce the law and instead ensured that neither side in the protest or counter protest was injured. Their function is to enforce the law, not to act as witnesses so the matter can more factually be discussed at a later date. There is a comparison here with our army when they were part of the UN mission as intermediaries between two warring parties. If the parties were peaceful then everything was fine but if war or conflict broke out, our troops closed their eyes and left the scene. That was their job, although it was not useful. That is not the job of the police. They must, if possible, enforce the law at the time it is being broken.
Imagine if the police watched a home invasion happen without interfering and then later tried to identify the thieves. It sounds ridiculous but this is how
the police handle protests.
The second problem is that the police think that they are the only ones that can enforce the law and that the public is wrong to act in self defence. Thus people who act in their own defence are dragged off the prison or charged. Usually, thank goodness, they are eventually freed by the courts after much mental stress. Statistics indicate that there is less crime where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. That saves lives even though there will be instances where guns will be wrongfully used to hurt others. The real problem is the use by criminals, not by people who want to protect themselves.
Lastly the police often seem mean and foolish. They hide behind bushes to give tickets. They give tickets for driving offences that are posted, but unreasonable. They spend much of their time at construction sites, talking to the construction workers and obviously doing nothing useful. They won’t answer the simple question of “How many points will that ticket cost me?” I know it’s a tough job, but my experience with the police is that when they are on duty they are neither polite nor helpful. It’s no wonder that they are not getting the respect that they deserve and would get if they were doing their job in an efficient and friendly way.
It is time to review the functions of the police. They have failed to act in two of their most important functions. They are police. Their function is to stop people from breaking the law or if they can’t do that then to find the people who broke the law. The latter can be discouraging when the courts are lenient with criminals and the police must catch the same person again and again. However that is their job. Recently however in cases dealing with public protests they have failed to enforce the law and instead ensured that neither side in the protest or counter protest was injured. Their function is to enforce the law, not to act as witnesses so the matter can more factually be discussed at a later date. There is a comparison here with our army when they were part of the UN mission as intermediaries between two warring parties. If the parties were peaceful then everything was fine but if war or conflict broke out, our troops closed their eyes and left the scene. That was their job, although it was not useful. That is not the job of the police. They must, if possible, enforce the law at the time it is being broken.
Imagine if the police watched a home invasion happen without interfering and then later tried to identify the thieves. It sounds ridiculous but this is how
the police handle protests.
The second problem is that the police think that they are the only ones that can enforce the law and that the public is wrong to act in self defence. Thus people who act in their own defence are dragged off the prison or charged. Usually, thank goodness, they are eventually freed by the courts after much mental stress. Statistics indicate that there is less crime where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. That saves lives even though there will be instances where guns will be wrongfully used to hurt others. The real problem is the use by criminals, not by people who want to protect themselves.
Lastly the police often seem mean and foolish. They hide behind bushes to give tickets. They give tickets for driving offences that are posted, but unreasonable. They spend much of their time at construction sites, talking to the construction workers and obviously doing nothing useful. They won’t answer the simple question of “How many points will that ticket cost me?” I know it’s a tough job, but my experience with the police is that when they are on duty they are neither polite nor helpful. It’s no wonder that they are not getting the respect that they deserve and would get if they were doing their job in an efficient and friendly way.
Univeristy of Western Ontario - Israel event
University of Western Ontario should expel the students who breached the use of buildings policy. They have proven that they learned nothing of importance while university students so their academic records should also be expunged. A loss of 1 to 3 years of university work sounds to me like fair punishment for disrupting an approved activity and bringing disgrace to the university and themselves.
Damascus 2012 - NP letters to editor
Syria has no history of democracy, but one of Islamic acceptance of subjugation to Allah. That concept migrated to their politics. They want more freedom under a strong ruler, not democracy. The experiences of the Arab Spring in other Arab countries leads us to no other conclusion. The choice is not democracy, but dictatorship or Islamism in the form of a Muslim Brotherhood or Taliban type of government. I would appoint a secular benevolent dictator.
.
.
Monday, February 6, 2012
letter to Sun Feb 6th p. 28 re Iran
I agree that it is risky to attack Iran, but it is riskier not to. The lesser issue is Israel. Iran has said that it will attack Israel as soon as it has weaponry. Realistically this will of course not upset anyone in the Middle East or Europe, and it will not stop the flow of oil, but it will eliminate a line of defence for North America. Israel is also the only democracy in the middle east and a source of much new technology. We would lose that and of course all the Jewish and Christian holy places in a nucclear attack. Furthermore I don't think we want to see some 6 million Jews and 2 million Arabs slaughtered by the Iranians. To say the least, It would be politically incorrect and offensive. More importantly, Iran is waiting for the 12th imam. In preparation for his arrival Iran has said it will make the whole world Muslim. How will it do this? Obviously by war and if it has nuclear weapons, by nuclear war. We wouldn't have to worry about destabilizing the Middle East as it would be a series
of states all under Taliban or Al-Queda like governments. We wouldn't have to worry about oil because as a conquered now Muslim nation, most of our infrastructure and standard of living will have been destroyed by the war against us. The potential for harm is much greater from a nuclear armed Iran then from attacking Iran before it has nuclear weapons to use against us. Israel and America are therefore not the problem - they are the solution.
of states all under Taliban or Al-Queda like governments. We wouldn't have to worry about oil because as a conquered now Muslim nation, most of our infrastructure and standard of living will have been destroyed by the war against us. The potential for harm is much greater from a nuclear armed Iran then from attacking Iran before it has nuclear weapons to use against us. Israel and America are therefore not the problem - they are the solution.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
letter to Sun and their articles
• Between Mansur's column and Coren's column the answer to many of our problems is easy. We don't need immigration and we especially don't need immigration from Islamic countries, as those immigrants will bring with them a type of Islam or customs which are antithetical to Canadian values. It doesn't much matter if the practices and ideas of those from Islamic countries are or are not part of Islam. They are customs and values that we do not want in our country.
Immigration in the face of globalization
115
By Salim Mansur ,QMI Agency
FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2012 08:00 PM EST
In 1958, John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. senator, published a small book aptly titled A Nation of Immigrants. The world was much different then, as new states in Asia and Africa emerged, while European colonialism retreated.
The West was in the midst of a post-war economic recovery, and there was demand for low-wage workers in a growing economy.
Kennedy’s book made the case for ending quotas on immigration based on national origins. His argument was also in keeping with the Cold War politics, of denying Soviet Union influence among the newly emerging countries at the expense of the U.S. depicted as a racist society.
Two years after President Kennedy’s assassination, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The U.S., as Kennedy had called for, adopted an open immigration policy and Canada followed soon after.
Kennedy celebrated in his book how much America, in its making, owed to immigrants. He wrote, “Since 1607, when the first English settlers reached the New World, over 42 million people have migrated to the United States.
“Another way of indicating the importance of immigration to America,” Kennedy observed, “is to point out that every American who ever lived, with the exception of one group, was either an immigrant himself or a descendant of immigrants.” The exception was the aboriginal people inhabiting the continent.
The act of leaving the old world for the new, Kennedy wrote, involved breaking with the past and embracing the future as immigrants braved the immense hazards in making the journey across seas and oceans filled with uncertainties. But inside a decade of Kennedy’s writing, the arrival of wide-body transcontinental jetliners brought about a revolutionary change in the means of travel, and with it the entire meaning of immigrants and the experience of migration were altered.
Then came Pierre.
Elliott Trudeau’s multiculturalism and this policy, together with the revolutions in global transportation and communications, meant immigrants arriving since the 1970s were more or less trading places without making any break with their old world cultures and loyalties.
As a result, what Kennedy wrote about earlier generations of immigrants may not be said to the same extent for new immigrants. In the new conditions of globalization, the distinction between migrant workers and immigrants became increasingly obscure.
Many among new immigrants — given the policy of multiculturalism and the acceptance of dual or multiple citizenships — are migrant workers landed as immigrants, who draw upon the benefits of the host country while remaining attached to the customs and values of their native country.
It is politically incorrect to probe the practical reality of what has come to pass in the half-century since Kennedy pushed for open immigration, but the growing disconnect evident among newly arriving immigrants with the culture of their host country is undeniable.
These are issues that need to be discussed openly and widely. Immigration is not merely about numbers, as I indicated in my previous columns. Its effects over time inevitably change, and not necessarily for the better, the host country’s culture.
Kennedy, in looking back, celebrated the overall positive outcome of immigration. In looking ahead, we are far more aware since 9/11 of immigration’s divisively negative side.
Article by Coren – Feb 3rd 2012 – Toronto Sun
I sat last Sunday watching television with a mixture of incredulity and anger as a police inspector stood in front of a camera and explained the evils of domestic violence.
He was discussing, of course, the Shafia case and the murder of four innocent women, some of them mere girls, by their Muslim father, their Muslim mother, and their Muslim brother.
The detective meant well, I’m sure, but this had nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with honour killings.
I then watched a Kingston Islamic cleric explain how this mass murder was not about Islam, and how “people of other faiths commit such crimes.”
Do they? Well, there have been some isolated cases within the Sikh community, but the only religion that produces such slaughters in countries throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, is Islam.
Yes, of course the vast majority of Muslims would never kill or harm their children, but what does Islam actually say about the place of women within the family, the community and society?
A woman is property within the Muslim faith, first of her father, and then of her husband. Often these fathers and husbands are loving and kind, but not always. And when they are not, they are empowered by teachings of the Qur’an and by Muslim tradition to act in a horribly barbaric and oppressive manner. Look, let’s be candid here. There are Jewish people who think their children dead if they marry out of Judaism. This is rare these days, but even when it occurs, there is never any violence and certainly not death.
The same might occur with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and there can be division and pain when a Hindu or Christian young person goes astray or even marries a non-Christian or non-Hindu.
But nothing like an honour killing. This is a product of the gender power imbalance intrinsic to Islam, just as was the polygamous marriage that was the context for this family. Two wives in this case, more in many marriages in our major cities.
For God’s sake, when are we going to grasp the nettle truth and ask genuine questions?
What happens if a Muslim converts to another religion? Will they be safe, will they be tolerated? What happens if a Muslim is attracted to someone of the same gender? Forget gay marriage — that’s a viable debate — but will a Muslim be allowed freedom and safety if they are homosexual? What if a Muslim marries a Christian or a Jew, what if they critique the Qur’an?
This is not the cringe-worthy Little Mosque on the Prairie, this is not cozy fantasy, but difficult reality. You’ve read and will read myriad comments and articles splashing around in relativism and obfuscation.
You’ll hear comments about “all religions,” “all people,” Islamophobia, racism. Put it aside. You know the truth, and you know police, politicians, consensus journalists, mainstream commentators and the like are running scared.
It’s too late for that cowardly, anti-intellectual nonsense. Four dead women are crying out from the grave for the truth to be screamed from the top of the houses, from the top of the mosques!
Immigration in the face of globalization
115
By Salim Mansur ,QMI Agency
FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2012 08:00 PM EST
In 1958, John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. senator, published a small book aptly titled A Nation of Immigrants. The world was much different then, as new states in Asia and Africa emerged, while European colonialism retreated.
The West was in the midst of a post-war economic recovery, and there was demand for low-wage workers in a growing economy.
Kennedy’s book made the case for ending quotas on immigration based on national origins. His argument was also in keeping with the Cold War politics, of denying Soviet Union influence among the newly emerging countries at the expense of the U.S. depicted as a racist society.
Two years after President Kennedy’s assassination, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The U.S., as Kennedy had called for, adopted an open immigration policy and Canada followed soon after.
Kennedy celebrated in his book how much America, in its making, owed to immigrants. He wrote, “Since 1607, when the first English settlers reached the New World, over 42 million people have migrated to the United States.
“Another way of indicating the importance of immigration to America,” Kennedy observed, “is to point out that every American who ever lived, with the exception of one group, was either an immigrant himself or a descendant of immigrants.” The exception was the aboriginal people inhabiting the continent.
The act of leaving the old world for the new, Kennedy wrote, involved breaking with the past and embracing the future as immigrants braved the immense hazards in making the journey across seas and oceans filled with uncertainties. But inside a decade of Kennedy’s writing, the arrival of wide-body transcontinental jetliners brought about a revolutionary change in the means of travel, and with it the entire meaning of immigrants and the experience of migration were altered.
Then came Pierre.
Elliott Trudeau’s multiculturalism and this policy, together with the revolutions in global transportation and communications, meant immigrants arriving since the 1970s were more or less trading places without making any break with their old world cultures and loyalties.
As a result, what Kennedy wrote about earlier generations of immigrants may not be said to the same extent for new immigrants. In the new conditions of globalization, the distinction between migrant workers and immigrants became increasingly obscure.
Many among new immigrants — given the policy of multiculturalism and the acceptance of dual or multiple citizenships — are migrant workers landed as immigrants, who draw upon the benefits of the host country while remaining attached to the customs and values of their native country.
It is politically incorrect to probe the practical reality of what has come to pass in the half-century since Kennedy pushed for open immigration, but the growing disconnect evident among newly arriving immigrants with the culture of their host country is undeniable.
These are issues that need to be discussed openly and widely. Immigration is not merely about numbers, as I indicated in my previous columns. Its effects over time inevitably change, and not necessarily for the better, the host country’s culture.
Kennedy, in looking back, celebrated the overall positive outcome of immigration. In looking ahead, we are far more aware since 9/11 of immigration’s divisively negative side.
Article by Coren – Feb 3rd 2012 – Toronto Sun
I sat last Sunday watching television with a mixture of incredulity and anger as a police inspector stood in front of a camera and explained the evils of domestic violence.
He was discussing, of course, the Shafia case and the murder of four innocent women, some of them mere girls, by their Muslim father, their Muslim mother, and their Muslim brother.
The detective meant well, I’m sure, but this had nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with honour killings.
I then watched a Kingston Islamic cleric explain how this mass murder was not about Islam, and how “people of other faiths commit such crimes.”
Do they? Well, there have been some isolated cases within the Sikh community, but the only religion that produces such slaughters in countries throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, is Islam.
Yes, of course the vast majority of Muslims would never kill or harm their children, but what does Islam actually say about the place of women within the family, the community and society?
A woman is property within the Muslim faith, first of her father, and then of her husband. Often these fathers and husbands are loving and kind, but not always. And when they are not, they are empowered by teachings of the Qur’an and by Muslim tradition to act in a horribly barbaric and oppressive manner. Look, let’s be candid here. There are Jewish people who think their children dead if they marry out of Judaism. This is rare these days, but even when it occurs, there is never any violence and certainly not death.
The same might occur with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and there can be division and pain when a Hindu or Christian young person goes astray or even marries a non-Christian or non-Hindu.
But nothing like an honour killing. This is a product of the gender power imbalance intrinsic to Islam, just as was the polygamous marriage that was the context for this family. Two wives in this case, more in many marriages in our major cities.
For God’s sake, when are we going to grasp the nettle truth and ask genuine questions?
What happens if a Muslim converts to another religion? Will they be safe, will they be tolerated? What happens if a Muslim is attracted to someone of the same gender? Forget gay marriage — that’s a viable debate — but will a Muslim be allowed freedom and safety if they are homosexual? What if a Muslim marries a Christian or a Jew, what if they critique the Qur’an?
This is not the cringe-worthy Little Mosque on the Prairie, this is not cozy fantasy, but difficult reality. You’ve read and will read myriad comments and articles splashing around in relativism and obfuscation.
You’ll hear comments about “all religions,” “all people,” Islamophobia, racism. Put it aside. You know the truth, and you know police, politicians, consensus journalists, mainstream commentators and the like are running scared.
It’s too late for that cowardly, anti-intellectual nonsense. Four dead women are crying out from the grave for the truth to be screamed from the top of the houses, from the top of the mosques!
Friday, February 3, 2012
Letter to Sun re Kenneth Mark
Kenneth Mark paid the ultimate price for beyond a good citizen. He was a fine man
who ultimately brought some security to his community. Extraordinary ordinary citizens like Kenneth Mark and Sarah Burke bring honour to being Canadian and should be symbols and icons for what it means to be a Canadian. Kenneth Mark should be honoured with a statue in Queen's Park as an unique and important Torontonian and Ontarian.
who ultimately brought some security to his community. Extraordinary ordinary citizens like Kenneth Mark and Sarah Burke bring honour to being Canadian and should be symbols and icons for what it means to be a Canadian. Kenneth Mark should be honoured with a statue in Queen's Park as an unique and important Torontonian and Ontarian.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
NP - Feb 1 Gun control
Gunning for safety
I think that Ian Thomson should be given a medal for not killing the criminals
who tried to firebomb his home.Not being brave and having no patience, I would
have shot them to ensure my future safety. I have no fear of neighbours with guns.
It is criminals, crazies, and out-of-control police that have me worried.
I think that Ian Thomson should be given a medal for not killing the criminals
who tried to firebomb his home.Not being brave and having no patience, I would
have shot them to ensure my future safety. I have no fear of neighbours with guns.
It is criminals, crazies, and out-of-control police that have me worried.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)