Siddiqui in the National Post Feb 24, A21

Isn't it bad enough that Siddiqui writes for the Star without having him in the National Post?

He hates and demonizes the United States and Israel. He justifies and supports Islamism,and the worst of Muslim cultures,except its most violent forms, by saying that all cultures brought their past with them.. He justifies Muslim violence by pointing out that at some time Chirstians and Jews were violent as well,and he justifies current Muslim exclusiveness, and social separation by saying that other immigrants did the same thing.



Siddiqui has nothing to bring to the table except his own feelings that everyone that disagrees with him or criticizes some aspect of Islam is Islamophobic. His voice is not worthy of being heard.

Letter to the Toronto Star - re Siddiqui

Siddiqui stumps no one.

Afghanistan hasn't stumped Harper as Siddiqui suggests. It has stumped the Muslim community. Why, even with the help of the West, haven't Afghanis been able to lift themselves up by the bootstraps to get rid of the Taliban and make decent lives for themselves? What is it about the interpretation of the Koran which has stopped the Afghanis men from achieving freedom and not given Afghani women freedom to benefit themselves and society?

No, it is not Afghanistan that has stumped the West but the question of how a reasonable Muslim person can become an Islamist.

Re: Toronto Star

Well, I have received a few free Toronto Stars and they did the expected. They printed my rather irrelevant letter and didn't print the important one. Today there was an article by Siddiqui where Human Rights Watch said they spend a proportionate amount of time on Israel as they do other places. umm lets see - New Jersey is about the same size as Israel and has 1/3 more population than Israel. How much time does Human Rights Watch spend monitoring New Jersey? I have been boycotting the Star for years. Its foreign news has moved from moderate left to extreme left. I would suggest that it is not only not worth paying for and thereby supporting but it is not worth reading.

Printed letter
If we let short term workers into Canada who in practice stay here and become undocumented, isn't the answer to ensure Canada's unemployed get the jobs, and not as Siddiqui suggests, to let them in as permanent immigrants?

Not printed letter


Linda McQuaig has an interesting argument. She believes that Harper is an extremist because he supports the continued existence of a member of the United Nations - Israel. I presume that supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist organizations, is therefore a moderate stance. Harper even objects to universities that hold meetings to publicize Israel's anti-apartheid policies. The fact that Israel is not an apartheid state, and gives its minorities more rights than any of its neighbours seems only relevant to extremists like Harper and irrelevant to moderates. Another reason for accusing Harper of being an extremist is that he opposes anti-Semites. Again, I presume that moderates must support anti-Semites as part of their liberal attitudes towards terrorists, enemy agents, and the ill-used Khadr family. Lastly McQuaig accuses Harper of not supporting the Goldstone report. Imagine not supporting a report based on hearsay evidence from sources that have proven previously to lie to make their points. Moderates know that Hamas and Hezbollah have always told the truth about Jenin and Israel's other actions. Only extremists and Islamophobes would question the truth of anything that comes from the mouth of an Arab terrorist. Linda McQuaig has accused Harper of being an extremist when he has acted with due regard for the facts and the nature of the people he is dealing with. How have the words "Moderate" and extremist" become reversed by our left leaning intellectuals?