Over here on the left coast, a pseudo-legal "Human Rights Tribunal" continues to determine whether Mark Steyn committed a hate crime by tarring Muslims with a terrorism brush:
10:55 AM They’re back, and they’ve decided they’re going to hear her evidence. Buffy scholars everywhere breathe a sigh of relief.
She’s read many studies of racism in the media, although “Islamophobia” is a term she prefers not to use. Talking about stereotypes of Muslims as being associated with terrorism and the like. She does not believe the media are deliberately racist, but that journalists lack training in cultural sensitivity. On pressure of deadline, they rely on “shorthand,” stereotypes that are easily recognized by the readers. Not widespread, she says, but it happens often enough.
Now we’re talking about the Steyn article, and the passages that give her “concern.” McConchie rises to object, but is slapped down by the chairwoman. She (Hirji) reads a passage, says she sees a stereotype in it. Reads another, sees another. The cover is another stereotype, because it shows women wearing burkhas. The child’s face is in line with “the use of women and children as a marker of how oppressive Islam is.”
What is jihad? Article equates it with Al Qaeda: fighting, suicide bombing etc. But word actually means, originally, “to strive, to do one’s best.” Koranic sense is that religious struggle we must all engage in within our souls against evil tendencies. There is also “social jihad,” the obligation to change things that are wrong. This does not mean violence. The Koran is not a book of violence.
The notion of armed struggle, or violent jihad, is mentioned in the Koran. “Permission has been given to those who have been wronged only because they say God is our lord that they fight in self-defence.” (Sura 22.) So jihad is not limited to fighting — it’s just one type of jihad, and should only be done in self-defence. The extremist, violent types are an anomaly. “They are more a problem for us than for the west.”
Meanwhile, 3363km away, an Ontario court (a real one this time) hears about a homegrown terrorist plot featuring
The chatter was captured by a probe that was installed inside the car of a police informant who infiltrated the group and gained the trust of its alleged ringleaders.
Court has heard that the trip to Opasatika – a 10-hour drive north of the city – was to secure a safehouse, from which they could build a "covert" base.
During another exchange, the alleged ringleader says the house is ideal to store hand grenades, high-powered firearms and other weaponry. The evidence suggests that the house's windows would be a good place from which to fire their weapons.
"So it's just gonna be AKs, okay, PK is the biggest weapon we got. And a PKs basically – window thing. So you could line up two of them. Like you're shootin two at a time."
Then, police informant Mubin Shaikh asks, "Okay yo, so travel up here with people, equipment. We're just dealing with assault rifles."
Another man asks if they could also store "chocolate" there, which Crown prosecutor Marco Mendicino said is a euphemism for explosives.
During the car ride, music can be heard in the background.
RCMP Const. Lee Snelling, a wiretap investigator who was testifying before Justice John Sproat, said the lyrics had been translated into English.
Some of the lyrics were: "Ready to serve you my Islam – Ready to serve you my homeland ... And I offered you from the veins of my blood." The youth's voice has not been heard on any of the electronic intercepts, although the evidence suggests that he is mentioned on a few occasions.
During one conversation, after the trip to Opasatika, two alleged ringleaders mention an associate who was caught shoplifting. They say that during the arrest, the associate grew tired of standing and wanted to sit down, but couldn't because he had a machete down his pants. In the end, he gave in to fatigue and pulled the machete out from inside his pants, they say.
So you're left to wonder. Who really speaks for Islam in Canada?
Person B: What happens, what happens at Parliament?
Person A: We go and kill everybody.
Person B: And then what?
Mubin Shaikh: And then read about it.
Person A: We get victory.
Speaking of which, remember last month when I theorized about criminalizing small crimes overriding bigger ones? Another example of it presents itself here. Crimestoppers has been putting out "hate crime" radio ads, featuring news snippets of "an attack on a native man" "vandalism at a local mosque" and "man standing trial for disseminating hate". They then go on to announce that if you are aware of a crime based on distinguishing characteristics † to call Crimestoppers, emphasising that crimes can take many forms; assault. vandalism. racial slurs. Racial slurs? Again, the end result of telling Alberta's radio audience that "assault = ethnic slurs" is not the elevation of the importance of ethnic slurs but rather the degradation of the importance of assault. Ethnic slurs are nothing. I advise you to use as many of them as you can. While you can.
† The commercial also lists distinguishing characteristics. Wanna take a while guess what the last one is? "Sexual orientation". Distinguishing? Are they telling me that its no surprise that you can tell a dirty sodomist by just looking at how big of a fag he is? I mean I believe it, its just interesting to hear from them.
