Would've been a perfect opportunity

This is why it sucks that Alan from Occam's Carbuncle deleted his blog a couple of weeks ago...

He was perfect at ranting about ridiculous stories such as this:

Drinks companies have been ordered to use uglier men in their advertising campaigns.

The Advertising Standards Authority believes "balding" and "paunchy" men would be less likely to encourage women to drink to achieve social success.

The new advertising code stresses that links must not be made between alcohol and seduction.

This is England today.

I believe, maybe naively or wrongly, that Canada still hasn't fallen that far... yet.

Freedom, democracy, pluralism, integration

Sorry for the lack of posts - I'm not going to pretend that it's been because of a lack of time; instead it has to do with a slowed thought process that starts after I finish my exams in April, and it also explains why I do relatively poor in the September and October of every school year.

To the point of the post...

I've had several thoughts on my mind since the London bombings...

So let me list them off:

1) After it became clear that the London bombers were homegrown - i.e. they were born in London, and not, in say, Cairo or Riyadh, someone suggested to me that perhaps Bush's (alleged, according to the person who I spoke with) doctrine of spreading democracy around the world was misplaced. The person suggested that if bombers can be born and raised in England, one of the most free and sophisticated of all western democracies, then surely it was misguided to suggest that the spread of democracy would lead to the end of Islamist suicide bombings.

His point, in my view, was poorly thought out because the suicide bombers were actually responding to (supposed) grievances that took root in non-free societies. It actually seems that if the entire world and in particular, the Middle East, became democratized, and free, and progressive, Muslim teens in Leeds would NOT be coerced and manipulated and lied to (40 virgins in paradise........) into blowing themselves up.

2) I read an interesting post over at Samizdata.net about Muslim integration into England and into Europe in general. I agree with all of it and I agree with it so much so I'll paste the relatively long relevant excerpt:

Moreover it seems obvious to me that a significant number of Muslims in Britain have successfully integrated into British society just fine and I see no reason to pretend otherwise. Yet clearly we do have a major problem with an equally significant number of Muslims who have not assimilated, show no sign of doing so and are manifestly a source of recruits for Al Qaeda.

Endlessly blathering on about how "Islam is a religion of peace" or alternatively to call for expelling 'Muslims', simply because they are Muslims, is the sort of wilful blindness and one size fits all collectivism of a sort I would rather leave to socialists of both left and right. Anyone who values western liberal civilisation needs to think a little harder than that, avoiding both atavistic collectivism and a head-in-the-sand refusal to see we have a serious problem that will not go away on its own.

If what we are trying to defend is a pluralistic tolerant society, then we have to make sure that the message is not just "throw the wogs out!" but rather "You are welcome here if you are willing to assimilate to a sufficient degree."

But how does one define what that 'degree' is exactly? I am not talking a Norman Tebbit style "cricket test" but rather a willingness to tolerate 'otherness'. We do not need Muslims to approve of alcohol or women in short skirts or figurative art or bells or pork or pornography or homosexuality or (particularly) apostasy. We have no right to demand that at all and obviously not all Anglicans approve of some of those things, so why require that Muslims must? No, what we do have the right to demand (and that is not too strong a word) is that they tolerate those things, which is to say they will not countenance the use of force to oppose those things even though they disapprove of them. In fact it is not just Muslims from whom we must demand such tolerance.

If we can get them to agree to tolerate those things, then it does not matter if Muslim women wear burquas because as long as they are not subject to force, a woman may elect to say "Sod this for a game of soldiers!" and cast off that symbol of misogynistic repression... and if she does not do so, well that is her choice then... but she must have a choice. They do not have to look like us (I do not hear calls for Chinatown to be razed to the ground), they do not have to share our religion(s), or lack thereof, but they do have to tolerate our varied ways and if by their actions or words they show they do not, we have every right to regard them as our enemies and take action to defend ourselves.

For decades the supporters of multiculturalism have used tax money and government regulations to actively discourage assimilation of immigrants into the broader society, preferring to see communities develop which favour 'identity politics' better suited and more amenable to their own collectivist world views. And now we are paying the price for that. We will not be able to defend ourselves physically or preserve our liberal society unless we stop tolerating intolerance, and that includes not just fundamentalist Islam but also the anti-western bigotry of the multiculturalists.

I had these sorts of thoughts brewing in my head ever since the bombings, and this post basically summed it all up. I'm not and I never will be a supporter of assimilation in the same way that many others view it, but I will always be in favour of choice (to wear or not to wear a Burqua - which is unlike the French government's recent attempts to circumvent that choice), freedom, tolerance and integration - all of which is a sort of mild form of assimilation.

3) I was also listening to a pundit on TV discuss the alarming (poll) numbers of British Muslims who supported or gave sympathy to the bombers. The pundit remarked about how you would never see those numbers among American Muslims, and I would suggest that you would never see those numbers among Canadians Muslims either. Why the difference between British (and probably European Muslims in general) and North American Muslims? It's odd because North America is still, in comparison, the "new world" - which was largely settled only in the past couple of hundred years. It's odd that integration and the lack of extremism is more evident in North America than it is in the long-established civilizations of Europe. Why do the Europeans seem to tolerate intolerance (back to point 2) more than North Americans, and particularly those North Americans of the United States?

Human Rights abuses in Punjab

I was just forwarded this e-mail, which was authored by a Punjabi woman who is fighting her deportation to India... here are some excerpts (excuse the poor spelling and grammar):

I want to bring some facts about me to your kind knowledge please.

I have been extremely suffering with my family from which I shall mention to explain my self more clearly.

1. My mother is an old lady of 75. She was also arrested from Jammu by the Punjab police and was thrown behind the bars so much illegally tortured that she lost her hearing power.

2. My sister Ravinder Kaur was arrested on 30th March 1998 according to news paper www.tribuneindia.com in blame of keeping ammunition , intention of using suicide bomb and doing a bomb blast in bus at Pathan Kot India. On blameless points she was tortured and sent to jail for seven months. But the Punjab police was failed to proof any thing against her and was released by the court with no charges . Her only crime was to be my sister and my crime was to be the wife of Ranjeet Singh. All this miserable incident took place that I married Ranjeet Singh who is wrongly involved in blameless and totally false suits. I have already submitted the concern documents in the Candian court.

3. My cousin Charanjit Singh was arrested by Jammu & Kashmir police SP Saini from a Gurdwara Dagyana Ashram. Yet he is on unknown place , died or not since 1998.Till now there is no evidence of him. The case from his family is under trial in Court without any progress against SP Saini. There is not so positive response in this aspect. Respected sir the only mistake of Charanjit Singh was to be my cousin.

4. My cousin Manmohan Singh , brother of Charanjit Singh was also sent to jail in 9th November 2000 according to news paper www.tribuneindia.com blaming false cases of ammunition. That time he was head Granthi of Gurdwara Bakshi Nagar Jammu and remained in jail for one year. I am also attaching the news of arrest by the police. Presently he is Chairman of Dasmesh Youth Organization Jammu & Kashmir.

5. My another innocent elder sister Manpreet Kaur (manmeet kaur) 45 years old wife of Jagjit Singh resident of Simbal Camp Jammu and my relative Lakhbir Singh 47 years old were arrested on 24th August 2000 according to news paper www.tribuneindia.com and involved in several bomb blasts . Manpreet Kaur (Manmeet Kaur) and Lakhbir Sigh were coming from Nepal and going to Jammu as her husband was a truck driver in Nepal .

Meanwhile her husband and 2 children , 7 years old and 9 years old children were there in Nepal. Then Manpreet Kaur (Manmeet Kaur) and Lakhbir Singh stayed in Delhi Gurdwra Sees Ganj Sahib for pruchaging some thing. Delhi police arrested them there. I do not know who the third person Surjit Singh was? According to Delhi Police they were falsely involved in many bomb blasts incidents and explosions. Manmeet Kaur and my relative Lakhbir Singh were behind the bars for four and half years. To whom the court released with respect finding no proofs against them. I am also attaching the court’s order in this prospective.

6. Another my relative Jagjit Singh husband of my real sister Manpreet Kaur (Manmeet Kaur) and brother of my husband Ravinder Singh was also arrested by Jammu police on 8th February 2002.according to news paper www.dailyexcelsior.com they were deadly tortured by Jammu police for 2 months and they were also released when no proofs were fond by police against them.

7. My real brother Rajinder Singh was also arrested by Jammu police in 2002 without any blame violated severely in police station for many days that his dead occurred after a few days of his release back to home. His only mistake was to be my brother.

There were many attacks to bother me by the Indian Govt. They were constantly to terminate and shatter my thoughts and strength.

A family was arrested reported by daily Ajeet (www.ajitjalandhar.com 21-06-2005) . This poor and helpless family consists of 2 men 1 woman name Namdar Singh , Surinder Pal Singh Sharinder Kaur and 3 children age 10 years , 6 years and 2 years. Further the paper says that they were very noble , pious , and gentle with whom such torture was treated.

Like wise there are many other such cases made in which innocent people are falsely involved in keeping ammunition and sent to jail mercilessly the photo of this news is attached with it. After observing so much cruelties from the Indian Govt. hundreds of American Sikhs from West Coast protested on Monday 27th June 2005 in San Francisco against arrests in Punjab.

One Sabir Singh was taken away by police from Sabdi Khurd of Jagron city. All the people of village were frightened by this act of police. The father of this innocent boy Mr.Awtar Singh tried his best to know where his son was kept but the police did not give any clue of the boy. All the villagers have stated that police man in uniform along with other three persons without uniform came in car and lifted the unlucky boy to unknown place. The where about of the boy is unknown up till now.

The father of this unlucky boy also approached to the chief justice, chief minister Punjab, human rights commission and all police officers but the fate of the boy is yet not known.

In addition to this another two young men were arrested from Rara city of Punjab. They were running milk centre in village of Punjab. The two unlucky young men Amandeep Singh and Navtej Singh who were lifted by police no one knows where they are?

Punjab police has again started for the second to arrest the innocent citizens and demands money. Those who give bribe to police. They are released other are killed in police false encounter or put behind the bar.

Many persons are waiting for their children for the last 10 to 15 years or more which is like a dream for them.

Even today the police can arrest any one in Jagtar Singh Hawara case and demands illegal greffication according to his own will.

Beside this 20 political parties , International Human Rights Organizations (IHRO) Chairperson D.S Gill and SAD General Secretary Sirdar Charan Singh Lohara and all panthic and political parties including Human Rights and Kisan Union Group met Governor of Punjab on 02-07-2005 and gave a memorandum that all innocent arrests should be released.

The IHRO press release further added that “ all those , who have respect for human rights and dignity of people , felt the urgent need to counter the political onslaught let loose by the state police which has resulted in hundreds of arrests , torture , disappearances of persons and their false implications in criminal cases”.

Indian rulers want to keep these Sikhs arrested to torture , strive and oppress. India some democracy that does not tolerate basic rights , freedom of speech to the minorities like Christians and Sikhs.

Indian Govt. has no shortage of arms and explosions to pretend for thousands of people have lost their lives by their power and also bore the miseries of jails. They can use this method for any one at any time. I do not want to be their victims of cruelty.

Here I would like to humbly request on the basic human rights not to deport me from here because sometimes a scream is better than a thesis.

In other case I am deported I shall badly suffer , tyranise , oppress and torture like other family members already suffered.

In view of all this painful statement I should be allowed to live here , freely and peacefully to spend my life with my children in this atmosphere. I have already very much suffered and depressed. Do help me with truthful desires having mercy on me because the same may happen with me .

Waheguru will grant you your share for favor and sympathy on me. Please send the letter to govt. of Canada Subject: Please Do Not Deport Bibi Charanjit Kaur the address is given below govt. of Canada-

Pre removal Risk assessment

Citizenship and Immigration Canada
6855, Airport Road
Suite 526
Mississauga, Ontario
Zip Code L4vlya
Yours sincerely, charanjit kaur

Standing up for human rights does not make one a terrorist

I just stumbled onto a post over at Stephen Taylor's blog, via the Western Standard, and what I read was disturbing.

The title of the post was "Senior Liberal staffer spoke at rally organized by a terrorist group?"

The quick answer to his post title is "No.", but unfortunately, the rest of Stephen's post wasn't as carefully worded.

Last weekend, Cunningham attended a rally attended by former members of the International Sikh Youth Federation (current membership is illegal).

I attended the last thirty minutes of the rally, and it was NOT organized by the ISYF. It was organized by a small number of relatively independent Sikh youths.

Now, for those of you who remember watching last year's election coverage, Bill Cunningham, the Liberal aide who attended the rally isn't exactly very quick on his feet, so when he was questioned about his attendance, he gave a really weak reply:

"It's one thing I do is to make sure groups that have concerns feel that someone is at least willing to hear them. That doesn't mean I support them or agree with them."

Why wouldn't he support and agree with them? Well, maybe he was put under the false impression that the event was organized by the ISYF, and if that's the case, then I'm basically in the same camp - not agreeing with the ISYF all that much either.

Anyone who attended the rally knows that the sole focus was on human rights abuses, not just in Punjab, but throughout India, and not only against Sikhs, but also against Christians, Muslims and low-caste Hindus.

The focus of the protest was to promote awareness and to encourage the Vancouver Sikh community to pressure their elected officials to exert some influence on India, the nation that calls itself the world's largest democracy.

Never in my entire life of attending Sikh rallies have I ONCE witnessed anyone make a call to violence, and never in my entire life have I seen anything but peaceful and reasonable protests at these rallies.

India is capable of being reformed. It currently has a Sikh Prime Minister, a Sikh chief general, a Muslim President (ceremonial position), the Chief Minister of Punjab is naturally a Sikh as well. So in terms of the politics, the rally was not pointing any fingers towards political leaders, but it WAS pointing to systematic failures in the Indian system to ensure adequate and basic human rights.

And that is why I am SO disappointed and betrayed when I heard today that the Conservative Party was making an issue of Bill Cunningham attending the protest.

At the end of Stephen's post, he says:

At best this represents horribly poor judgment of a senior Liberal official. At worst this represents wanton and widespread ignorance to terrorism by the upper echelon of the Liberal Party.

Wrong again. At best, this represents a genuine effort among the Liberal Party to address the issue of human rights in developing nations, and at worst (likely scenario) this represents attendance for purely political reasons - i.e. wanting to appeal to the couple of hundred people in attendance.

For those of you who haven't noticed, I removed my membership in the "Blogging Tories" blogroll incase a scenario like this came up. I'm not a partisan, and I never really was. At this point, I'd still vote for the Conservatives, but if I EVER see the Conservative Party release a press release which implies that innocent and hard working Sikhs who are campaigning for human rights are "terrorists" - not only will I vote for the Green party (socialist, yes, but there's not many alternatives out there), I will work to ensure that dozens of others do so as well.

Update: I shouldn't have been so harsh on Bill Cunningham, here's something he also had to say:

I don't know if it was one or two people or if it's many, but I don't think the actions or past of a few should be reflective of the altruistic goal of the larger group.

That might not be popular to say, but he's exactly right. He was there, he saw what the protest was about, and thus he was unable to totally distance himself from what was said.

Was just wondering...

Has there ever, in the history of Canada, been so much negative attention paid to a backbench opposition MP?

Remember... I've been critical of both the Grewals in the past... but the media is simply being ridiculous now. Story after story - and what's the point? Does Grewal actually hold any power? No. He's a backbencher; a nobody.

Maybe coverage of people who are actually in Harper's shadow cabinet might make some sense, or dare I suggest coverage of people who are actually IN cabinet itself.

What exactly caused all this attention again? What did Grewal dare to do?

Oh yeah - he *legally* tape recorded his conversations with top Liberals so he wouldn't be branded as a liar, like Inky Mark.

Disgusting

I don't really need to post any commentary with this story because the outrage is so self-evident:

Cotler says Mugesera won't face death penalty

Last Updated Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:29:19 EDT

CBC News

The Supreme Court of Canada says Leon Mugesera helped incite the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda in 1994 and should be sent home to face trial.

But Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says Canada will not order Mugesera extradited unless it gets a binding assurance he will not be executed if convicted of the crimes.

Last month, Rwandan authorities said they would forgo the death penalty in Mugesera's case. His lawyer in Canada, Guy Bertrand, argued that sending him back would lead to his execution.

Cotler says Mugesera can still appeal to the immigration minister to remain in Canada on humanitarian or compassionate grounds.

Mugesera has lived in Quebec for more than a decade.

London

The thing that strikes me most about today's bombings in London is that the people that will be hurt the most, besides the victims of the disaster itself and their families, will be the vast majority of Europe's Muslim population that isn't Jihadist.

Did the bombers realize this? Muslims will now come under even more harassment, more suspicion, more bullying in schools, more travel restrictions, more no-fly lists at airports, more inspections and more surveillance.

Now that I think about it, maybe they did realize this? Alienating Muslims and making them feel unwelcome in Europe will increase Jihadist recruitment and it'll make it even less likely for Muslims to feel a bond with their adopted countries.

I think that this comment has been made many times already, but I don't think that England will be like Spain. The British will not only take this event in relative stride, but they'll also be far more willing to dish out retaliations... and the cycle will continue, on and on, over and over... until they (the government) starts acting in ways that it never intended to behave and starts acting with an increased level of brutality and likely freedom-curtailing. Which sucks.

Litmus Tests

I was hearing the term "Litmus Test" quite often today... in reference to the choice that George W. Bush will have to make in the coming weeks when he fills a Supreme Court vacancy. For those of you who don't know what a litmus test is, it's when you judge a person on one specific issue (abortion comes to mind here) and either accept or dismiss them based on that issue instead of evaluating them holistically and in my view at least... fairly.

Most Canadian Prime Ministers have not litmus tested their appointees because there is no real "battle" in the Canadian judiciary over contentious social issues... most Canadian Prime Ministers (who happen to be Liberals) just appoint people with similar views to themselves (thereby holistically judging their judicial philosophy). In America, it's crucially important to understand where a nominee stands on abortion, the separation of church/state and so on.

Anyways... to the point of my post, in the Canadian system of government, in which the executive and legislative branches are combined and not separated, it is usually tradition for the cabinet to vote as a bloc in order to show solidarity when it comes to the government's policies. This practice has some political merits (wanting to show a "united front"), but in reality, it's utterly ridiculous in practice because of how it litmus tests cabinet members on the government's social agenda. In this past parliament, Paul Martin required that all of his cabinet members vote for C-38, the bill legalizing Same-Sex Marriage. This was particularly outrageous because it essentially permanently excluded anyone opposed to Same-Sex Marriage from ever being part of a Liberal cabinet. It sent the message that only people who were in favour of Same-Sex marriage were capable and responsible enough to wield executive power in Canada.

Most Canadians, and even most Members of Parliament aren't very ideological. I'm sure every Liberal MP is capable of rallying around the budgetary and general policy initiatives of the party leadership, regardless of their substance, but when it comes to social issues, many of them do have "principles". And social issues is what's keeping many marginally socially conservative Liberal MPs from wielding any significant power at all (i.e. joining cabinet instead of being a backbench nobody).

The Liberal Party in essence, has a clear litmus test on their MPs if they ever wish to enter into cabinet and some might ask whether the Conservative were any different during the 1980s? The answer is yes. Yes, they were clearly different. Mulroney allowed his cabinet to break solidarity over the death penalty and abortion. There was no social issue litmus test to enter into the cabinets of Mulroney, Campbell or even Clark.

Just to finish off the with standard "If I were Harper" advice, I'd just like to suggest that instead of vaguely talking about how "family is a Canadian value" and talking about SSM in incredibly vague terms over the next 6 months, it would be best if Harper talked about how the Liberals wouldn't allow all of their MPs to vote against SSM, forcing some MP cabinet ministers (like that idiot Volpe) to vote against their beliefs and even forcing actually principled cabinet ministers (like Comuzzi) to resign. Harper should stress the disrespect and condescending attitude that Martin has towards anyone who thinks differently on SSM. The message should essentially be "inclusive"...

"I won't litmus tests my cabinet ministers and I'll form a cabinet that has a diverse viewpoint on contentious social issues"... and he could say that with a completely straight face even while sticking to his view that SSM is not good policy. Harper should keep mentioning words like "inclusion"and "compromise position"... I don't care much for those terms, but I'm pretty sure they'd sound appealing.

"The Other Canada"

Over at his diary on NRO, David Frum highlights the differences between the Canada of old and the Canada in which we live today.

To be fair and balanced, there have clearly been many advances, both socially (not being institutionally racist) and economically (free trade is the ONLY thing that comes to mind here), but it's hard to dispute the virtues and pride that Canada gave up in order to pursue whatever it believed that it was pursuing.

For example, Frum cites a military historian's analysis and comparison between Canadian and American military deaths during the First World War... and the figures are astounding:

Being a Canadian, of course, Schreiber underscores his point with a final statistical comparison to the US forces in the Meuse-Argonne region on the southern portion of the Western front.

Troops engaged

Americans: 650,000
Canadians: 105,000

Duration of Operations

Americans: 47 days
Canadians: 100 days

Maximum Distance Advanced

Americans: 34 miles
Canadians: 86 miles

German Divisions Defeated(Out of a total of 200)

Americans: 46
Canadians: 47

Average Number of Casualties Suffered per German Division Defeated

Americans: 2,170
Canadians: 975

Total Casualties

Americans: 100,000
Canadians: 45,830

“The ultimate conclusion that must be drawn,” he sums up, “is that … the Canadian Corps was able to make a highly significant contribution to the defeat of the German army on the battlefield at precisely half the cost in terms of life and limb as the American army.”

Yet the over-rated General John Pershing is celebrated with a magnificent modern monument on Pennsylvania Avenue – and Arthur Currie’s name is utterly obliterated among his own people.

That's not actually true. I do remember hearing about Arthur Currie in an actual classroom, and I just searched for and found the text of a speech he gave to his forces during the Lys Offensive in the Spring of 1918.

Here it is:

Looking back with pride on the unbroken record of your glorious achievements, asking you to realize that today the fate of the British Empire hangs in the balance, I place my trust in the Canadian Corps, knowing that where Canadians are engaged there can be no giving way.

Under the orders of your devoted officers in the coming battle you will advance or fall where you stand facing the enemy.

To those who fall I say, "You will not die, but step into immortality. Your mothers will not lament your fate, but will have been proud to have borne such sons. Your names will be revered for ever and ever by your grateful country, and God will take you unto Himself."

Canadians, in this fateful hour I command you and I trust you to fight as you have ever fought, with all your strength, with all your determination, with all your tranquil courage. On many a hard-fought field of battle you have overcome this enemy. With God's help you shall achieve victory once more.

Pretty Amazing eh? "Happy Canada Day".