EclectEcon

Muslim Studies at Huron College: What Do They Have to Hide?

Nearly three years ago, I wrote to the then Principal of Huron College, an affiliate of The University of Western Ontario, warning that their plan to accept $2 million to endow a chair in Islamic Studies was likely to lead to serious problems in the future, in large part because the source of the funding was questionable (see this, this, this, and this). I also pointed out that $2m is nowhere near enough to fund a chair and that clearly much of the funding for this "chair" would be drawn from the general funds.

Neither Huron College nor The University of Western Ontario heeded our warnings. They accepted the money and appointed Ingrid Mattson to the chair. Here is one less-than-supportive view of her credentials [via JT]:

Professor Mattson herself is a former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that was named by the FBI as a Muslim Brotherhood front as early as 1987. In 2007, ISNA was designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity shut down by the U.S. government for financing Hamas. During the trial, the U.S. government listed ISNA as one of the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

Recently this professor offered a course in proseletyzing for the Muslim faith. A non-Muslim was allowed to sign up for the course as an auditor but was then removed from the course, ostensibly because he wished only to audit the course. However, the prerequisites have changed to indicate the course is open (only?) to Muslims. From the same link,

As soon as Watson enrolled in Mattson’s course, he was told he would not be allowed in, ostensibly because he was only auditing the course. The syllabus was then changed to reflect this new prerequisite --that the the course must be taken for credit. In addition, a new line was added to the syllabus stating that the course was “open to Muslim men and women who offer religious leadership and/or speak publicly about Islam on behalf of their communities.”

To Watson, it was clear that the latest prerequisite was put in place to keep non-Muslims out of the course.

“It was the speed at which I was rejected,” Watson said, noting that another auditor was allowed to take the course for credit. “I [received] an email telling me [the] course was full [due to those taking the course for credit]. … I was never given the option of taking [the] course for credit.”

Then next day, Watson spoke to the Dean of Theology, who refused to take any action. Interestingly, the dean, Rev. Canon Todd Townshend, is an instructor of pastoral theology and welcomes non-Christians into his course.

Although Huron College began as an Anglican seminary, it is now a part of the University of Western Ontario. Yet, it still offers courses that teach future priests how to preach. ...

Watson says he does not object to a course that teach Islamic preaching. However, if it is being taught at a publicly funded school, it must be open to all students. If not, he says, it should being taught in a mosque or some other private venue.

As Barbara Kay has written,

It should be noted that UWO’s own code of ethics precludes any inquiries into a student’s religion during interactions. So it would seem that, prima facie, 54-year old accountant Moray Watson has a strong case for his accusation of discrimination against Huron College.

Nobody, including Watson, has a problem with a course in public speaking about Islam being offered at a college if it is inclusive. He also has no problem with it being exclusive, but offered in a venue such as a mosque or a community centre or a seminary that is not tax-funded. It’s really quite a simple issue. Open up the course or shut it down.

Related articles

Ontario university defends decision to kick non-Muslim out of course that teaches Islamic preaching

Non-Muslim claims discrimination

What's Going on in Copenhagen?

Remember the principled stance taken by many in Denmark when the cartoons featuring Muhamed were published there? There clearly is a dark side in Copenhagen as well, evincing serious anti-semitism [ht MA]. This is tragic. I hope everyone fights against things like this, regardless of the ethnic group.

The son of a Muslim father and an Israeli Jewish mother, Jacob began his education at a private Muslim school, where he was bullied because of his Jewish background and had to keep his distance from the other kids during recess. When he was transferred to a regular school, the abuse grew even worse; it wasn’t even safe for him to walk home alone. In eighth grade, his teacher told him to say that he was Palestinian and that his mother was Russian. “I had to lie about who I was,” he recalls. But it didn’t work. They knew. Eventually, a group of his classmates ganged up on him and stabbed him in the leg. “You can’t go here anymore,” his teacher said. ...

Jacob’s testimony was featured in the media – and, as Jyllands-Posten now reports, the hubbub just made his life even tougher. Some time after the hearing, two Middle Eastern men passed him in the street. “That’s him,” one of them said. “Jew pig!” shouted the other. On Facebook, strangers called him a “Jew pig” and “Nazi pig” and “Jew dog.” (Plainly, the imagination of these people is severely limited.)

In the wake of his moment in the media spotlight, Jacob’s mother was advised by several school officials to transfer him to a school outside of Nørrebro. She was stunned by the suggestion: Jacob had lived in the neighborhood almost his entire life; neither of them wanted to flee. But in August, he finally gave up, packed up, and moved out. He now resides in what he considers a safer part of town. Not that it’s made his life a bed of roses: a couple of weeks ago, he was on Strøget, the main pedestrian street in Copenhagen – Tourist Central, basically – when a couple of “Arabic kids” grabbed hold of him and made a serious effort to drag him away with them. Who knows what they had in mind. Fortunately, two companions of Jacob’s managed to come to his aid. (As someone familiar with Strøget, which is almost always quite a busy, bustling thoroughfare, I can’t help but notice that no passersby appear to have tried to help.)

As MA said when he sent me the link, "Not so wonderful Copenhagen."

Note to US Foreign Policy Advisors: Egypt is not Chile

I wonder if the US is just hoping that after the Egyptian military takes power, they'll become nice guys (eventually), stop killing the opposition, and (eventually) hold free elections, and (eventually) with proper guidance from smart economists, the economy will grow and people will be much better off.

After all, isn't that what happened in Chile? Pinochet and military had the socialists ousted from office and, in the process, many were killed. But eventually with help from many bright economists the economy grew much faster than it possibly could have under Allende and the socialists, and eventually democracy was restored.

But the Muslim Brotherhood is not the socialists of Chile. Its members are not nearly so likely to give in, be swallowed up, and become part of the mainstream. I hope the US is not being myopic in its strategic planning about what to do and how to react to the recent military coup and the killings of people from just about every group by members of just about every other group.

A Festival for Men Only?

I just ran across these photos of events at the 5th Annual Silk Road Festival in the Afghanistan highlands. A description of the event from Foreign Policy Magazine:

This past weekend, at the 5^th Annual Silk Road Festival, Afghans gathered to celebrate the heritage and relative security of the country's isolated highlands (Guardian).  Key activities of the festival included buzkashi - a game similar to polo that uses a dead goat instead of a ball - jousting, horse racing, and a tug of war.  There was also a poetry contest.  See photos of the event here.

I don't see any women in the photos. 

Some Cultural Aspects of Freedom -- a Muslim woman in the US

For a woman from Lebanon now living in the US, a symbol of her freedom is "I have a key". She is free to choose so much more in her life than she had been under Lebanese Muslim rules. This is a beautiful piece. It is compelling and revealing about so many things we read about. And yet I somehow fail to comprehend the enormity of the lack of freedom until I read first-hand accounts like this one. I highly recommend reading it (via Steve Horwitz). 

... I have keys to my front door, now, and I can open my front door and walk down the street whenever I want to.

In the first weeks when I was in the United States, I had so much fear and trembling at this freedom. I stayed in my apartment alone during my first two days in my new home, and when I did finally venture out, I checked to make sure my keys and ID and wallet were in my purse a thousand times. I wore long, flowing dresses and tied my hair up in a scarf even though it was August and very hot, even though I am an atheist who happens to find no personal value in modesty, even though I was not going out to meet anybody and knew not a single man in town, even though I tried to convince myself that in this land it wouldn’t matter if I was. I looked around every corner and checked over my shoulder in case my father was somehow watching, lurking.

This piece is reminiscent of the work by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Other links about Ayaan Hirsi Ali are here. 

The Muslim Brotherhood vs. the rest of Egypt

Wow. What a difference (via Daily Alert):

The Arab American institute last week published the results of an opinion poll of over 5,000 Egyptians titled "After Tahrir: Egyptian Attitudes Toward Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood." More than 70% believe the economic and security situations have worsened. Among those who support the Muslim Brotherhood, 98% say their lives have improved. Among the rest of the population, over 80% say their lives have worsened. 92% of Muslim Brotherhood supporters reject the contention that the Brotherhood intends to control the state and Islamize it. On the other hand, 93% of the rest of the country said that is precisely what the Brotherhood is doing. (Al-Ahram-Egypt)

Time to Denounce Jihad

Is "jihad" a basic part of Islam? And if it is, does it mean butchering non-Muslims as has happened not just in the past week but with far too many terror attacks? If so, it is time for everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, to denounce jihad. 

Consider this recent piece from HuffPost [h/t Jack]. I have no idea whether the writer [Tarek Fatah] is on or off the mark, but it rings true. Regardless, it certainly is time to denounce explicitly jihad as he describes it.

While ordinary Britons and non-Muslims around the world are bewildered by these never-ending acts of terrorism, the response of the leaders of the Islamic community is the tired old cliche -- Islam is a religion of peace, and jihad is simply an "inner struggle."

The fact these terrorists are motivated by one powerful belief -- the doctrine of armed jihad against the "kuffar" (non-Muslims) -- is disingenuously denied by Islamic clerics and leaders.

Yesterday, instead of calling on Muslims to shelve the doctrine of armed jihad, predictably, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued a quick press release claiming the "barbaric" attack has "no basis in Islam."

Not true, MCB. As a Muslim, I can say without fear, the latest terror attack has a basis in Islam and it's time for us Muslims to dig our heads out of the sand. [emphasis added] 

... This was an opportunity for the Muslim leadership to confess they have failed and that the time has come to admit that jihadis cannot be fought without fighting the doctrine of jihad.

... [W]e keep hearing the propaganda that "Jihad" has nothing to do with warfare. Here is what the "Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam" has to say about Jihad:

"DJIHAD(A), holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. It narrowly escaped being a sixth 'rukn,' or fundamental duty."

The only Muslim group that has come to this conclusion are Ahmadi Muslims, whose founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the nineteenth century had the wisdom to declare:

"I have brought a commandment for you people; it is that henceforth 'jihad by sword' [armed jihad] is forbidden ... Now jihad for the sake of religion is prohibited."

For uttering these words, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was deemed to have blasphemed and was declared an apostate by the orthodoxy in Islam...

 

Antisemitism in Malaysia:Fulford Takes on Simpson and Burman

Robert Fulford, writing in the National Post, itemizes the antisemitism extant in Malaysia and in the process criticizes columnists Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Burman of the Star. 

It’s only when we grasp the unremitting and mindless hostility of countries such as Malaysia that we begin to understand the pain and difficulty of Israel’s place in the world. This is the context in which we should think about the Harper government’s pro-Israel policy. Israel faces automatic enmity from all the Arab nations, most other Muslim-dominated states and the many organizations in democratic countries that dedicate themselves to showering abuse on Israel (and no one else) in the name of human rights....

Yet many Canadians apparently believe that there is something unfair in this situation, not in the invective heaped on Israel but in Canada’s habit of friendship with the only democracy in the Middle East. It’s argued that this policy has done harm to Canada. Jeffrey Simpson of The Globe and Mail says that because of our attitude to Israel, “Canada’s reputation in the Arab world is mud.” Tony Burman, of the Toronto Star, former head of Al Jazeera English, and now a journalism teacher at Ryerson University, says that our government’s “passionate pro-Israeli stance” has damaged Canada’s reputation throughout the Middle East “after decades of being one of the world’s respected ‘honest brokers’ on Mideast issues.”

Of course there are many reasons for Canada's pro-Israel stances: democracy, constant threats of annhilation, and expulsion of Jews from so many arab and other Muslim countries to name three important ones.

Is Multi-Culturalism a "Delectable Lie"?

Salim Mansur has recently published a book on multiculturalism, The Delectable Lie, published by Mantua Books. He was in Regina, Saskatchewan, last week, speaking about  and debating the topic with Khurram Awan. Salim Mansur is a professor of political science at The University of Western Ontario and, as regular readers of Eclectecon know, a good friend. Khurram Awan is an attorney who worked for a group of Muslims in their human rights cases against Rogers Communications, Maclean's magazine, and writer Mark Steyn. 

The deck was clearly stacked against Mansur, who has been described as a modern, moderate Muslim. There was virtually no advertising of the event at the university, despite my pleas that the event be advertised widely. And it appeared that about 80% or so of the audience was made up of friends of Awan.

Mansur's presentation focused on the contrast between 19th-century liberalism and many different cultures. He relied heavily on political philosophy, John Stuart Mill, and catch-phrases from the U.S. Declaration of Independence (probably a strategic error in presenting to a left-leaning, anti-US audience). He also cited incidents of honour killings in Canada and Pierre Trudeau's reported regrets about having supported multi-culturalism.

Awan focused on legal aspects, essentially saying that all cultures must abide by the laws of the land. 

I found the entire event extremely disturbing.

• Questioners were clearly hostile to Mansur and were allowed to make inappropriately long speeches themselves attacking him. One, in particular misquoted Mansur, misrepresented Mill, and attacked his reference to the US Declaration of Independence, all to audience nods and wild applause. 
• In response to all these questions, Mansur continued to emphasize that they would not be able to have these discussions in a country that doesn't value freedom as much as we do in Canada, and that is his concern. This point seemed to fall on deaf ears.
• When I asked Awan how to reconciled the freedoms of expression and religion when they come into conflict, he launched into a discussion of "hate speech", which was appropriate, and then mentioned "competition in the marketplace for ideas", a view to which most classical liberals subscribe. His only criticism of this view was that he thought Rogers had an obligation to provide a venue for opposing views so that this competition could take place. Afterwards, I took him to task for that position (not being allowed follow-up questions and not being allowed to make a speech myself). He admitted that he, himself, would feel no obligation to provide equal time for Mansur's views in his own speeches, but argued that Rogers had/has an obligation to provide equal space for people who oppose views like those of Mark Steyn.

Of course this is incorrect. When I called him on it, he alleged that Rogers has a monopoly in the media. Nonsense. The CBC and many other media outlets certainly provide support for views counter to those of Mansur or Steyn (or Ezra Levant, for that matter). Also, if the issue is one of monopolization of the media, that should be a Competition Policy issue, not a human rights issue.

• A Muslim woman complained that Corner Gas doesn't hire female comedy writers but that she is a writer for CBC's "Little Mosque on the Prairie." She somehow attributed her freedom to be a comedy writer in Canada to her Muslim faith, but the logic of that escaped me. Nevertheless, the audience applauded wildly. Once again Mansur's response essentially said that she is lucky to be in Canada, for surely Muslim women in other countries, where Muslim and Arab cultures dominate, would not have the freedom to pursue such interests. Again, the pithiness of this type of response seemed to slip right past the audience.

In Mansur's book, I am especially enamoured of his work on the clashes of freedoms. For example, on p119, he approvingly cites Dworkin's piece, "The Right to Ridicule."

The theme throughout his book is well-stated on p134:

Multiculturalism was promoted as a policy that would make for a tolerant, accommodating and peaceful society tending towards increased diversity as a result of open-door immigration policy. But tolerance of the intolerant, the accommodation of those who push extremism of one sort or another as the Islamists or the Khalistani Sikhs have done, under the cover of multiculturalism [EE: and, I would add, under the cover of "freedom of religion and charter guarantees] has amounted to the undermining of liberal democracy from the inside. This is the paradox of liberal democracy, its vulnerability resulting from its concerns to improve the conditions of living for its citizens and its commitment to remain true to its principles of freedom and individual rights even as some might want to subvert them.

As I blogged many years ago, when the freedoms conflict, freedom of expression must take dominance over freedom of religion. Otherwise intolerant religions will dominate.

Update: Here is yet another example of the clashes that can result as we try to work our way through the conflicts between various freedoms [h/t Jack].

More on Islamic Studies at Huron College

I hope I have made it clear in my previous postings on this subject that I do not oppose free and open inquiry into any religion. The concern we raised in our initial letter, and which we continue to emphasize, is about the source of the funding for the proposed chair in Islamic Studies at Huron College, which is affiliated with The University of Western Ontario.

Because I was the primary signer of the initial letter, my name appears in this article quite a bit. Let me make clear, though, that even the initial letter was a group effort. 

From the article,

The UWO-affiliated college is caught in the crossfire of a decision to accept money from Muslim groups -- one local, one international -- to help fund a new chair in Islamic studies. Critics say there's a link to violent jihadism there and the $2 million could influence school courses and choice of chair. Huron College insists neither is true.

Based on numerous items, I am concerned about the quality of the "due diligence" performed by Huron College in their investigation into the nature of the source of funding for this endowed chair. I really hope they will re-open the question for discussion and additional input.

More Concerning Huron College and Questionable Funding

As I hope you all know, and as I have made clear in the past, I do not oppose the inclusion of Islamic Studies at Huron University College at The University of Western Ontario. At the same time, as I have indicated in my previous postings, I have some concerns about the source of the proposed funding for an endowed chair in Islamic Studies (see here and here). As a followup, a number of those who signed the original letter (including me) have signed the following letter to Campus Watch:

To: Campus Watch

Re: Funding of Chair in Islamic studies at HUC from questionable sources

We thank Campus Watch for  publishing the excellent essay of Barbara Kay on the establishment of a Chair in Islamic Studies at Huron University College in London, Ontario funded mainly by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). Your coverage sparked quite a bit of media interest in Canada and, at last, this matter is getting public attention.

 This report is coming to you from a number of the individuals who signed the original letter of concern to Huron University College. (It is not signed by all of them because we want to get the information contained in this communication out quickly and we do not have the time to contact and receive a reply from all the signatories.) As the message is too long for a letter to any editor  we hope you will publish this on your web-site as an update to Barbara Kay’s essay.

  To every argument put to them, Huron University College through its acting principal, Dr. T. Fulton, responds that Huron College has done due diligence, examined the issues and that it is ethically acceptable to take the $1 million dollar matching grant from the  IIIT because no unindicted co-conspiritor from the IIIT  has been convicted in a court of law and  nor have any other donors..

  We would like to add some new information on this matter. The signers of the letter to HUC learned of the funding  of a chair in Islamic Studies on March 8 from the London Free Press, the local newspaper. A sentence from the article says: ″The chair is backed by $2 million in private funding, with support from the Islamic Centre for Southwestern Ontario, the London Muslim Mosque and the Muslim Association of Canada". There was no mention of a matching grant of 1 million dollars to be provided by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). On HUC’s website, which has an appeal for funds for this project, there is a reference to a matching grant from a “major North American foundation″. Through web searches we discovered that the provider of the matching grant was to be the IIIT, which is not even a foundation, let alone a major North American foundation.

 We then did some research on the MAC and the IIIT and wrote to HUC & the University of Western Ontario, (UWO) with our concerns. However, knowing that what we had to say would not be welcome news to HUC, we did not just send the letter but also provided a large package of documents and articles backing up all our contentions. The MAC and the IIIT are Muslim Brotherhood related organisations. The founders and executive officers of the IIIT have been involved and cited in numerous terrorist related investigations particularly in the provision of funds to the military wing of Hamas. (We will be happy to supply the document package to any interested party.) On this topic it is fair to say that HUC has simply not paid attention to the materials supplied by us to them. Their argument seems to be that short of a court conviction, anything goes.

 When we looked for information on the IIIT  & the MAC we didn’t look into the Islamic Centre for Southwestern Ontario (ICSO), located in London, Ontario although it was mentioned as a financial contributor in the LFP announcement described above. Something has happened in the last few days, however, that makes it necessary to bring this organisation into the story now. Ten days ago there was an article in the Ottawa Citizen entitled, ″Gadhafi charity in Canada linked to terrorism. Government revokes status of World Islamic Call Society". (May 7, 2011). In that article we learned that a Gadhafi charity was sending money from Libya to the personal bank account of a gentleman named Assem Fadel who then transferred the money from his personal account in to the bank account of the only branch in Canada of the Libya-based WICS which also happens to be located in London, Ontario. Money was then transferred from the WICS account to terrorist organisations outside Canada.  This was the reason the government of Canada removed the charitable status of the WICS. Question: Why is this relevant to the funding of the Chair in Islamic studies at Huron College? Answer: It just so happens that the president and director of the Islamic Centre for Southwestern Ontario is none other than Assem Fadel and he is also the president of the Canadian branch of the WICS. Here we have a clear and indisputable link between Gadhafi sponsored terrorist related activities involving the president of the Islamic Centre of Southwestern Ontario, a funding organisation of the chair in Islamic Studies. This link can not be denied by Huron College even if Assem Fadel claims an innocent explanation for what transpired. This didn’t happen years ago. It happened just over a week ago.

 Assem Fadel is not the only local promoter of the Islamic studies project with links to the World Islamic Call Society. At least 2 other major proponents of the chair in Islamic studies have attended conferences of the World Islamic Call Society in Libya. They are Faisal Joseph, a prominent lawyer in London who is closely involved with HUC  and Munir el-Kassem a dental surgeon who is also the ex-Muslim chaplain of the University of Western Ontario.

 This new information needs to be put before the public so that HUC be asked to take it into consideration and once again examine the question of whether or not they should accept funding from these sources. We recommend highly that they do not.

 

 

More On the Weak Due Diligence at Huron College: Barbara Kay Takes up the Cause

Huron College, which is affiliated with The University of Western Ontario, is in the process of accepting $2m from questionable sources to fund a chair in Islamic Studies. I wrote about my concerns, including a copy of my letter about them, last month (here), saying

I'm concerned about the source of the funding. I would hate for Huron College to fall into the abyss populated by the LSE or Hartford Seminary. 

Barbara Kay has written recently about this situation in a lengthy piece in Campus Watch. The Acting Principal of Huron College is Trish Fulton, whom I have known for nearly 40 years and for whom I have great respect. But I am disappointed, to say the least, that she and her colleagues have voted to accept the funds. Here are some excerpts from Barbara Kay's column [be sure to read the last paragraph of this excerpt]:

Fulton replied to Palmer's letter two days letter. She wrote that the "funding was approved by our Executive Board after a thorough due diligence process...[which] included reviewing the outcomes of the various decisions that were before the U.S. District Courts dealing with IIIT and its members...."

Curious to know what in this case constituted a "thorough due diligence process," I arranged for a telephone interview with Fulton, which took place on April 27. At the outset of our conversation, to make it clear that I was not calling with any motives of entrapment, I informed Fulton that I was not speaking to her in my capacity as a weekly columnist with Canada's National Post newspaper, but as a freelance writer engaged to write an article for Campus Watch, a media organ whose mandate was known to her.

I asked Fulton if Palmer's letter had given her pause or in any way persuaded her to review the decision to accept IIIT's and MAC's funding. She said that the letter did not come as a complete surprise, but that "we were not naïve" about the issues, and had no regrets.

I asked her what constituted "due diligence." Fulton said they had "reviewed the court decisions on allegations" against IIIT and its principals. They had also reviewed the experience of Temple University (alluded to in Palmer's letter). To my question of whether she felt the beliefs and principles of MAC and IIIT were "compatible with your values," she replied a prompt and firm "yes." I asked the question again, stipulating that by "your," I meant "Huron College." Again, she replied, "Yes, they are."

Elaborating, Fulton explained that for Huron, due diligence extends only to the "activities of the donors," adding, "We don't probe deeply into values held by donors." Huron, she said, is "concerned about the legitimacy and the civic presence" of donors, but "not the views they may hold on a wide variety of cultural issues." In Fulton's view, it is only a group's "actions" that would "compromise the academic pursuit."

As reported elsewhere, Canadian lawyer and Huron University College Executive Board member Faisal Joseph appears to have played an important role in the due diligence assessment. This role may have included the making of determinations about the pertinence of related US legal proceedings and the significance to be attached to an absence of such proceedings. Joseph, a noted member of Canada's Muslim community, is a controversial figure who participated in a January 2008 conference in Tripoli, Libya, a gathering sponsored by the World Islamic Call Society (WICS), a creation of Libya's Gaddafi regime. (In early May, its Canadian branch, WICS-Canada, saw its Canadian charity tax-status revoked over concerns of radicalism and possible financial links to the foiled 2007 JFK International Airport bomb plot.)

 

Geert Wilders Visited London, Ontario, Yesterday: some quotes and photos

Geert Wilders, outspoken Dutch critic of Islam and producer of the (in)famous film, Fitna, spoke in London, Ontario, last evening, under a cloak of secrecy and surrounded by a wall of security. 

Wilders is a well-known public figure who sees Islam as more of an ideology than a religion. During his talk, he lambasted multiculturalism. Two quotes:

Multiculturalism is the biggest disease in Europe today.

And the reason for that?

Multiculturalism would not have been such a catastrophe if it weren't for Islam.

Because of his views, his public statements, his film, and his policy proposals, Wilders' life is constantly in danger. The organizers of the evening event, the International Free Press Society, refused to advertise the dates and locations of his talks while he is in Canada. Instead, we found out about them through word-of-mouth and then had to register before receiving the information [he does have two more talks planned while he is in Canada, in case you are interested; the information is available at the IFPS website]. 

Accompanying Wilders were about 10 security personnel from The Netherlands; also the RCMP had a large security contingent on hand. We all went through a security check before being admitted to the place where he spoke.

This is just plain wrong. People speaking about religion and ideology should not live in fear for their lives and the lives of their friends and families. 

Geert Wilders:

The warm-up act for Wilders was a dialogue between Ezra Levant (of human rights and freedom of the press fame in Canada) and Sam Solomon, a noted scholar of Islam and Sharia Law; it was mostly an interview of Solomon by Levant. During that interview, Solomon (who converted to Christianity and was at times quite coy about his past) proclaimed,

If you do not hate, you cannot be a complete Muslim.

Both Wilders and Solomon are very outspoken critics of Islam.

Here is a photo I took of Solomon and Levant ( all my photos from the event: twelve-times optical zoom, no flash, from about 50 feet away):

The session was introduced by Bjorn Larsen, who recently filmed a documentary about Caledonia, freedom, and property rights and who heads up the IFPS:

One more photo of Wilders, who was extremely engaging and compelling as a speaker:

Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim

Salim Mansur is a well-known columnist and political scientist who often writes about the Middle East, about Islam, and about North American politics. His book, Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim is a collection of some of his more poignant writings, with the addition of longer essays that have not been published as his weekly columns in Canada. 

If you are not familiar with Mansur's writings, you might want to take a look at his columns as they become available on line with Sun News. Better yet, buy his book. 

Here are a few excerpts that particularly caught me. On Palestine:

 At best Arab claims to Palestine and Jersusalem were based on squatters' right ... Palestine was "liberated" from Ottoman Turkish rule by Britain towards the end of World War One and then partitioned twice. In 1922 for the first time when Britain demarcated the land on the east bank of the River Jordan as Transjordan (later to become the Kingdom of Jordan); and then for the second time in November 1947 when the United Nations divided the remaining territory on the west bank into two states, one Arab and one Jewish.

On the impact of 9/11 on his Muslim faith:

The events of September 11, 2001, ... made me rethink the basis of my thinking and living, writing and teaching regarding the politics of the Middle East, the world of Islam and its relationship with the West. That morning of 9/11, I along with so many of us, was overwhelmed by the horror of the evil we witnessed. That night I went to bed unaware of how greatly changed would be my sense of the world on awakening. I soon realized that I was beginning to reclaim a history and meaning for my faith -- Islam -- that was obscured, if not deliberately erased by those in authority and those aspiring to replace them. 

Salim Mansur and I have known each other for many years. We have met in the hallways at the university, we have met frequently on Saturday mornings for coffee at Starbucks in Masonville, we often socialize with our friends Ben, Eva, and Rory. His emergence as an intellectual leader, promoting and encouraging a Muslim reformation is inspiring. 

Judging from the reactions of many Muslims to his work, he is in a small minority. But his influence is growing.

.

Disclaimer: Salim gave me an autographed copy of his book.

Side note: For once it looks as if the Canadian price is roughly the same as the US price.

Concerns about the Funding of a Chair in Islamic Studies at Huron College, University of Western Ontario

It has come to the attention of a number of us that Huron College is in the process of accepting money to fund a chair in Islamic Studies. I think that's just fine.

But I'm concerned about the source of the funding. I would hate for Huron College to fall into the abyss populated by the LSE or Hartford Seminary. Here is the full text of the letter we sent to the Acting Principal of Huron College [very big h/t to Eva, Rory, et al for all the work they did on the letter!]:

Dear Principal Fulton,

I am writing to you on behalf of a local group of alumni, friends and faculty (present and former) of the University of Western Ontario to express our alarm over the disclosure that two Islamist organizations -- the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) -- will provide most of the $2 million in funding for a new Chair in Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Theology at Huron University College. While we commend the College for undertaking to “make a substantive contribution to understanding of Islamic thought and Muslim identity in pluralistic societies” through the establishment of this Chair, we think it is extremely ill-advised of the College to accept funding from any organization implicated in violent jihad.

Published reports state that the IIIT has agreed to match funds raised by the Muslim Association of Canada, the London Muslim Mosque and private individuals. That means that the IIIT contribution will be up to $1 million. The IIIT is incorporated in the United States and is believed to receive most of its funds from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries.

While leaders of the IIIT and the MAC insist that they are peaceful, moderate and democratic, these assurances cannot stand up to inquiry. Evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

MAC states on its website that its mission is: "To establish an Islamic presence in Canada, that is balanced, constructive and integrated.” For greater clarity, the statement adds: “We believe that, in the twentieth century, the approach of Imam Hassan Al-Banna best exemplifies this balanced, comprehensive understanding of Islam.”

Al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB was the creator of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). In the existing Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas quotes Al-Banna’s declamation: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

The IIIT is also an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Two examples of IIIT’s involvement with terror: In 2003, Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, a co-founder and former president of the IIIT, was cited as an  un-indicted  co-conspirator in the trial of Sami al-Arian, an Islamist activist  who  served a 57-month prison sentence in the United States for conspiring to channel funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist group in the United States and Canada. In pleading guilty, al-Arian admitted that he knew that the PIJ engaged in suicide bombings and other “horrific and deadly acts of violence” against the people of Israel.

Jamal Barzinji, founding member and current vice-President of the IIIT, has likewise been implicated in funding for terrorists. In a sworn affidavit filed in 2003, a senior special agent with the United States Customs Service testified: “I believe that Barzinji is not only closely associated with PIJ as evidenced by ties to Al-Arian..., but also with HAMAS.”

Connecticut-based Hartford Seminary (HS) is deeply involved with the IIIT. Several IIIT academics are appointed to positions at the HS and a year ago it accepted a $1-million gift from the IIIT, despite the organization’s well-known radical links. Meanwhile, the Muslim studies courses and programs at the seminary are roiled in controversy. In an article published last month by the National Association of Scholars, Islamo-Correctness at Hartford Seminary, Andrew Bieszad, a Catholic who graduated from Hartford Seminary last year with a master’s degree in Islamic studies, relates his very unpleasant  personal experience at HS. He concludes: “In Islamic studies at universities today it has become difficult to disagree with Islam and still maintain one’s credibility, safety, or ability to study in school. Academia has refused to question Islamic teachings, and has thus become a participant in promoting Islamic orthodoxy at the expense of academic integrity.  I know this because I am a product of this environment.”

 In 2008, Temple University refused $1.5 million in funding from the IIIT for a chair in Islamic Studies. University President Ann Weaver Hart explained in a statement that Temple University had decided not to act on “this generous offer” by the IIIT, “until post-9/11 federal investigations of the IIIT are complete.”

A few days before the new Chair in Islamic studies at HUC was announced, newspapers all over the world were reporting the enormous embarrassment of the London School of Economics as its acceptance of funds from Gadaffi’s Libya became known. The scandal resulted in a student revolt and the resignation of the Director of LSE. We do not want to see similar headlines about our university some day in the future.

We urge Huron University College to follow the example of Temple University and refuse funding from both the IIIT and MAC. Otherwise, Huron University College will not only jeopardize its exemplary reputation for academic integrity, but also seriously undermine its efforts to raise funds from other individuals and organizations that would not want to provide financial backing to a university that is affiliated with Islamist groups that provide moral and/or material support to violent jihadists.

We look forward to your response to our concerns.

 

Lars Hedgaard Acquitted

Whether you like what Lars Hedgaard said or not, and whether you like the reason for the acquittal or not, the very fact of the acquittal is an assist in the support of freedom of speech. 

When I see the political abuse of "hate speech" laws, these laws cause me great concern. I'm not sure where to draw the line, if one must be drawn, but I certainly prefer the concept of "competition in the marketplace for ideas" to legislative and judicial control.

For more specifics on the Lars Hedgaard case, see this and this.

The Dwindling Voices of Moderate Muslims

My friend and colleague, Salim Mansur, writes a weekly column for the Sun chain (& others). His latest column decries the attacks on Muslims who speak with moderate and moderating voices (as he does). His concluding paragraph is both accurate and depressing:

 I witnessed that genocide first-hand [in Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971]. And now I watch from some distance the predictable implosion of a nuclear weapon state and the slide of a whole region into the dark bowels of barbarism.

It is even more than depressing; it is frightening. And there is no easy solution. 

As he says in the column,

A few days after the church bombing [of the coptic Christian church in Egypt], Salman Taseer, governor of Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous province, was gunned down by a member of his elite security detail in Islamabad, the country’s capital.

Taseer represented the rapidly dwindling number of Pakistanis who may publicly describe themselves as “liberal” or “secular” Muslims.

Taseer’s crime — according to the accused killer and the majority of Pakistanis who likely approve of the murder — was his request for presidential clemency for a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, detained on death row under the country’s blasphemy law, and his effort to repeal this reprehensible statute.

 The accused murderer of Taseer, when brought to court for indictment, was greeted with a shower of rose petals, and by several hundred lawyers prepared to defend him at no cost.

U.S. aid (bribes) has clearly not been an overwhelming success in Pakistan. 

Where Are Arab-Islamic Leaders on This? the church bombing in Baghdad

Salim Mansur asks pointed questions about leaders in the Arab-Islamic world in his most recent column:

... [I]f such an atrocity was not just another criminal event in a "normal" day across the Arab-Muslim world, then we should have heard of a special meeting being called at the UN, or in one of the capitals of member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to express outrage against those who killed innocent worshippers inside Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Church in Baghdad.

We then should have heard of Muslim political and religious leaders expressing their grief over the dead and wounded — there were some 120 Iraqi Christians in attendance at the Sunday evening mass when Muslim terrorists attacked the church and left 58 dead with only a dozen escaping unhurt.

Instead, we have deathly silence of the Muslim leadership as non-Muslim minorities inside the Arab-Muslim world are routinely abused, their homes and places of worship under daily duress, and their hearts filled with fear of violent death in the hands of Muslim jihadis.

The silence signifies the abdication of any responsibility by governments of the Arab-Muslim world to protect non-Muslims in their countries, and severely punish those who target them.

... The simple truth is Muslims are among the worst perpetrators of crimes against non-Muslims, and penalties based on obsolete jurisprudence of Shariah implemented in Muslim states violate the UN Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights, to which they are signatories.

Query: when will the fatwa be issued against Salim Mansur? Or has one already been issued?

Tarek Fatah, a Reformist Muslim, Writes about Jewish-Muslim Relations

From Barbara Kay's column in the National Post,

In his new book, The Jew is Not My Enemy, to be released Oct. 19, Fatah summarizes the present situation between Jews and Muslims: Jews hate Islam, and Muslims hate Jews. “Even the most radical Islamist websites [attack Jews viciously but] do not have a single sentence attacking the Jewish faith,” Fatah notes, while even the most rabidly anti-Islamist Jews “rarely attack Muslims, yet have little reservation in deriding Islam and the Koran.”

Even if this observation is true only in general but not universally, it is a pithy insight. But the rest of the column expands the idea (i.e. read the whole thing). Some excerpts:

Tarek Fatah grew up in Pakistan. He does not remember any anti-Semitism in his youth. But on a 2006 visit home, he was revolted by the ubiquity and virulence of the anti-Semitism he met when socializing with even educated and wealthy Muslims. In a posh neighbourhood of Karachi he saw a banner over a grocery store announcing, “Bird flu is a Jewish conspiracy.” He was dumbstruck to hear the store owner’s theory that the “Yahoodis” wanted to destroy the poultry industry of Muslim Indonesia. The owner then pressed a free copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Fatah and told him it would explain everything, including how the 2004 tsunami was a joint venture by the Yahoodis and the United States.

Anti-Semitism spewed forth from every social and media spigot on this visit, from the Karachi Press Club to the upper crust’s charity balls. In Pakistan today, Fatah sadly notes, “expressing hatred of the Jew…is the easiest way to establish one’s intellectual credentials.”

and

Fatah’s basic arguments come down to this: The Koran itself — the sacred text — does not express a shred of anti-Semitism. The Hadith, though, were written by men centuries later, and certain Hadith verses “can best be described as hate literature.” They can and should be revised or dumped. True anti-Semitism — the blood libel and the exterminationism — are imports, Fatah says, from medieval Christian converts to Islam and Western fascism. The convergence of Arab and German enmities permitted Nazi-style anti-Semitism to penetrate and flourish amongst Arabs and then throughout the Muslim world. The Muslim Brotherhood is behind the successful transmogrification of the Jew into Islam’s existential enemy.

Where's Muhammad?

This cartoon was pulled from a number of newspapers. [h/t Jabber]

It is a poke at the uproar caused by the Danish cartoonists who published cartoons depicting Muhammad. 

"I was very happy to get blown up to save the world."

That sentence was uttered, not by a terrorist suicide bomber, but by a child actor in the notorious video "No Pressure". [see this, h/t Jack]

The parallels are disturbing: Children and young people from different walks of life being brain-washed into being willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause.

For another parallel, see this, about some veiled threats against atheists from some Christians in Oklahoma [from Ted Frank, no link available].  

I understand and agree with the need to teach children and youngsters the importance of principles and morality. But killing and threatening to kill those who disagree with you is rarely, if ever, defensible (I was a pacifist for much of my life). I much prefer competition in marketplace for ideas. 

 

Stop Quibbling over Terror Profiling

"Stop Quibbling over Terror Profiling" is the title of one of the best columns ever written by my friend and colleague, Salim Mansur. It should be required reading for everyone, but especially for those who are concerned about the profiling of young Muslims in our defense against terrorists. 

Here are some pithy quotes, but be sure to read the whole thing. It does a great job without ever having to discuss probabilities, statistics, and inference:

The arrests last week in Ottawa and London, Ont., of four of eight suspects allegedly linked with the global Islamist movement reveal again how vulnerable Canada and other democracies are to Islamist “homegrown” terrorism. ...

These alleged terrorists are not emerging from the ranks of the desperate poor, hungry and homeless. They come mostly from the aspiring middle class background of immigrant families, and their education ironically makes them readily susceptible to the sort of identity politics that thrives on the cocktail of Third World resentments and grievances....

There will be more such cases, and the terrible thought is some of these homegrown terrorist plots may succeed as it happened with the July 2005 London, U.K., bombings, or get barely foiled as were the attempted attacks in July 2007 in Glasgow and London (those arrested in this episode of terrorism were all Muslim doctors), or the failed bombing in New York’s Time Square by Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American.

There is ample evidence, if proof is still needed, that homegrown terrorists in the post-9/11 world are predominantly Muslim males primed by Islamist ideology. ...

[The] time to quibble over “profiling” is long past. This is not a matter of becoming “illiberal,” for liberalism, which I hold dearly — as I do my faith tradition as a Sunni Muslim — is not a suicide pact.

Our common security requires a clear understanding of where our threat emanates from, to focus on that threat with necessary resources, and to remove blinders of political correctness that only weakens our efforts in defeating Islamism.

And for all my friends, please note Mansur's distinction between Islam and Islamism.

Women, Chattel, and Islam in Yemen

Here is yet another disturbing story about female children in Yemen being treated as chattel to be sold off as brides to willing bidders. In this case it was a swap, a trade in kind: my sister for your sister [h/t Gary]:

The practice of marrying young girls is widespread in Yemen and drew the attention of international rights groups seeking to pressure the government to outlaw child marriages.

Legislation that would make it illegal for those under the age of 17 to marry is in serious peril after strong opposition from some of Yemen's most influential Islamic leaders...

More than a quarter of Yemen's females marry before age 15, according to a report last year by the Social Affairs Ministry....

Last month, a group of the country's highest Islamic authorities declared those supporting a ban on child marriages to be apostates.

Okay, I guess I am an apostate. News stories like this one highlight the importance of understanding that freedom of religion cannot be and should not be absolute. There are far too many religious practices and dictates throughout the world that impinge on and threaten other personal freedoms that I consider more important.

It Is Time for Ugly Americans to Paint a Prettier Self-Portrait

Far too many people around the world think of Americans as greedy and self-centred. And yet per-capita giving in the US is very high. As a recent example, consider all the giving by Americans to help the victims of the flooding in Pakistan. From the NYTimes,

The United States was by far the largest single donor, with $82 million, according to United Nations figures, with Australia the next largest donor at $26.6 million. The United States said its total contributions amounted to $90 million, including helicopters, boats and temporary bridges, according to the State Department.

Not all the aid was flowing through the United Nations. Britain, for example, has sent more than $40 million, and the European Union said it would double its aid to more than $90 million.

Although the disaster has fallen in the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when charity is considered a duty, Muslim states have donated virtually nothing via the United Nations and relatively small sums on their own. Turkey was the largest such donor, with more than $11 million, and Kuwait donated $5 million, United Nations figures show. Saudi Arabia has pledged more than $80 million, but United Nations records indicate none of it has been delivered.

The US does not lead the world in per capita giving for Pakistani flood victims, but it is way ahead of many countries (see this). Furthermore, the above numbers do not include giving through private charities. I'd guess Americans are way ahead on that front, too. More people need to know about the comparative overwhelming generosity of Americans, even in situations like this.

It Is OK for Teachers to Disagree with Some Political Views But Not Others? Guess which...

From FoxNews (Europe), [h/t BenS]:

A British teacher was fired from his job after complaining that some of his Muslim students were celebrating the Sept. 11 hijackers as "heroes," the Daily Mail reported.

Nicholas Kafouris, 40, who taught at East London's Bigland Green Primary School for 12 years, is suing the school for racial discrimination after he was allegedly forced from his post because he would not tolerate the remarks of his students.

Kafouris claims members of his class, some as young as eight years old, openly praised Islamic extremists in his classroom, hailing the terrorists behind the attacks of Sept. 11 as "martyrs," the Daily Mail reported.

Kafouris alleges the students told him they "want to be Islamic bombers when we grow up," and "the Christians and Jews are our enemies, you too because you're a Christian," according to the Daily Mail.

Let's See the UN Human Rights Groups Go after THIS!

From Arab News [h/t Judith]:

Child bride turned over to 80-year-old husband

AL-LAITH: A 10-year-old bride was returned last Sunday to her 80-year-old husband by her father who discovered her at the home of her aunt with whom she has been hiding for around 10 days. A local newspaper said the husband, who denies he is 80 in spite of claims by the girl’s family, accused the aunt of meddling in his affairs. “My marriage is not against Shariah. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he said. He added that he had been engaged to his wife’s elder sister and that this broke off as she wanted to continue with her education. “In light of this, her father offered his younger daughter. I was allowed to have a look at her according to Shariah and found her acceptable,” he said.

But don't hold your breath waiting for the UN to say, much less do, anything about it.

Cowardice, Sell-Out, or Both? Yale University Caves on Danish Cartoons

From Roger Kimball (h/t BenS),

In its August 13 report on the decision by Yale University Press to censor Jytte Klausen’s book The Cartoons that Shook the World by insisting that she publish the book without the Danish cartoons or other images of Mohammed, The New York Times informed its readers that

Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, . . .

It turns out, though, that the recommendation was not “unanimous.”...

1) The story in the Times implied that in its appeal to experts the University and/or the YUP was exercising normal caution. But in fact, Professor Klausen’s book had already been throughly vetted. Readers’ reports — including two from Muslim scholars — were unanimously enthusiastic. The only Muslim member of the House of Lords, Baroness Kishwer Falker, enthusiastically endorsed the book. The book had also been vetted by YUP’s legal counsel and passed muster. The YUP’s publications committee unanimously and enthusiastically recommended the book for publication. So why call in another “two dozen authorities” on the veritable eve of publication?

Another detail: 2) .... As I said in response to a comment from Jytte Klausen, “I strongly suspect . . . that the threats-of-violence trope was a pretext, or at most a subsidiary concern” for Yale. What was the real reason that Yale was anxious to bowdlerize Professor Klausen’s book? Even now, I know, energetic investigative reporters are looking into Yale’s financial relationships with some of the spots where Linda Lorimer, Vice President and Secretary of the University, told Professor Klausen she has often traveled recently: Saudi Arabia, for example. Quite soon, I suspect, we will know why the Yale administration insisted that the Yale University Press dim the lux and veritas when it came to Professor Klausen’s book.

It looks as if the appeasers at a typically left-wing elitist institution over-ruled their own, in-house, Yale University Press. Or maybe the university was afraid of offending potential major donors? Or maybe both?

York University Wimps Out and Distorts the Situation

Yesterday, after months of labour unrest and after attacks on Jewish students, the president of York University made a speech to the university senate. In part, the speech said,

[A]t a time when our community should be pulling together, we turn on each other instead — academic disruption, intimidation, sit-ins, name-calling, shouting people down, banging on the doors and windows of Senate or the Board of Governors or student clubs.  Then we run to the media and tell anyone who will listen how bad York is.

Is it any wonder our own students are disconnected?  Or that turnout at our student elections is so low?  Or that our students and their families are voting with their feet?  Our public face is not demonstrating the core values a university should stand for:

• Freedom of speech – especially for those with whom we disagree
• Mutual Respect
• Reason
• Discourse
• Objectivity
• Being able to teach — and learn — without disruption
• Being open to other ideas and other people.
• And yes, social justice.

So far so good? It reads mostly like typical university motherhood- and-apple-pie type statements. Except I quite vehemently disagree about social justice. I wish every course that mentions this term could be struck from university catalogs. And then the tone continues to change as more biases creep in:

But we cannot demand social justice only for ourselves and for those who think like us. Social justice is for everyone, or it is for no one. York has a history of social activism, but the events of the past weeks — intimidation and shouting each other down — have nothing to do with social activism.

Now I begin to disagree even more. No matter what people say, whenever they use the term "social justice", they typically mean a redistribution of wealth and political power. The use of this term so much by a university president bothers me. But read on.

That is why I am asking you today, as Senators and key representatives of the academy, to make your voices heard and say, “enough is enough.”

I want to give a couple of examples of how the academy can contribute to open dialogue on tough issues.  At other universities in this province, faculty members participate as guest speakers at lecture series organized by student clubs. These events tackle the very same issues we are struggling with:

• Islamophobia
• Anti-Semitism
• Racial profiling
• Overcoming stereotypes

Oops. Islamophobia exists because the major terrorists of concern are Muslims, not because of any racism. And racial stereotyping makes some sense if only the people from a particular racial group are those who are most likely to carry out some heinous crime. These things are not at all the same thing as anti-Semitism or discrimination in general. If the odds are high that only people from a specific group are likely to kill, bomb, or otherwise terrorize people, then it makes sense for security forces to pay special attention to people from that group.

And why, oh why, is Islamophobia mentioned first on that list, when the problem at York University has been attacks on Jewish students (and others) who oppose the bombing of Israel by Hamas?

Let me repeat: Islamaphobia is not at all in the same category as Anti-Semitism. That the York prez lumps them together is quite revealing about his biases.

The goal is not agreement or endorsement of each others’ ideas, it is to create safe spaces where people can come together to articulate their views — without fear and without being shouted down.

I’ll give you another example happening right here at York.  Next week, the York Centre for International and Security Studies is hosting an event that will examine the idea of academic boycotts.  Speakers will explore the topic in a reasoned way in an academic forum.  These two examples share one common element: faculty involvement.

After having read the rest of the speech, I am very skeptical about the nature of this conference. It seems like such an open-and-shut case that boycotts (like those proposed by the British UCU or by the Ontario branch of CUPE) should not take place.

George Brown: "The Biggest Coward in Europe"Please, not another Neville Chamberlain!

This sort of thing leaves me near despondency. From the BBC,

Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders had been invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords.

But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office.

He told the BBC it was a "very sad day" for UK democracy.

The Dutch ambassador was also at Heathrow to make clear his government's opposition to the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK....

Mr Wilders' film Fitna caused outrage across the Muslim world when it was posted on the internet last year.

After being questioned at Heathrow, the MP said he had been to the House of Lords two weeks ago and there had been "no problem".

He added: "I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm not protesting or running through the streets of London."

Mr Wilders added: "Democracy means differences and debate. It's a very sad day when the UK bans an elected parliamentarian... Of course I will come back."

He said the government's actions had proved that Gordon Brown was the "biggest coward in Europe".

When I see photos of the signs that some Muslims hold up during their demonstrations, I cannot help but react the same way Wilders has. I've seen Fitna. It does NOT incite violence, and it does not incite hatred. It might incite fear, but that is debatable. And debate about the content of the film is what is called for.

The Brits are behaving in a cowardly fashion. They should throw out the current gubmnt and elect people who will support freedom of speech in this context. Where are the quotes from the Tories who are or should be outraged? Where are the Brits in general? They should all be outraged!

The background to this case is even more outrageous (see here for details): Wilders was invited to present his film, but the invitation was rescinded when a/the Muslim member of the House of Lords objected. The others became concerned about rioting in the streets, etc. In other words, they caved in. They knuckled under to bullying and violence. You'd think they had forgotten the lessons from Neville Chamberlain. As Melanie Phillips wrote,

So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

I hope Denis McShane spoke out against this tragedy. But most of all, I hope the Brits come to their senses and re-invite Wilders.

Failing that, I hope Stephen Harper invites him to Canada.

We Are Unlikely to See This in the MSM

My casual reading of the main stream media (MSM) has been that they tend to use Gazan stringers to report from Gaza. Understandably, I am skeptical about the objectivity of the reports. Similarly, I am skeptical (but much less so, I freely admit) about some reports from some Israeli sources. With this caveat in mind, consider this item (h/t Alan Adamson)

Israeli troops are withdrawing from Gaza, yet we are seeing Palestinian schools and hospitals being used as centres for ‘brutal torture’, Palestinians kidnapped at funerals, Palestinians shot in the legs and their hands broken, Palestinians summarily executed on trumped up charges. Israeli war crimes? No, it’s not the work of the IDF; all this comes courtesy of the ruling Islamist faction of the Palestinian ‘resistance’. We have seen recently a number of Western commentators playing down the violence inherent in Hamas’s ideology and world view. We hear much of the ‘democratically elected Hamas’, and now we see, yet again, the reality of rule by Hamas.

The above summary is based on news reports from The Jerusalem Post. I tend to trust the reporting there. And I certainly do not recall having seen anything about this in what I read of the NYTimes or WaPo.