Deafening Silence

First Things Next (for the 2nd time)

This post first appeared in January, 2007.  As Martin Luther King Day approaches once again, I am re-posting the piece and in so doing reasserting my beliefs.  For good or ill, here I stand and here I'll stay.

To restate an old bromide: this blog may be little, but it covers the ground it stands on:

I should apologize.  I have not made myself clear.

This blog was a gift from a dear friend and in my eagerness to master basic blogging skills such as editing posts and linking- all very new things to me- I neglected to stop and properly introduce myself.

Out of respect for those readers who have been kind enough to stop by and browse, I will take a moment to clarify my position on some matters.

You have a right to know what you're in for.

I am a lifelong liberal.  I am a registered Independent.  I believe in individual rights and personal freedom.  I also believe in personal responsibility and the obligation to speak one's mind when those rights and freedoms are at stake.

I believe  those individual rights and personal freedoms are now at stake and I am using this space to speak my mind and to try to persuade fellow liberals to open their eyes and raise their voices as well.

You are sorely needed.

I have never in my life voted for a member of the Bush family.  I believe in a woman's right to choose.  I support equal rights for homosexuals.  I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq.

And I am unalterably opposed to Islamofascism.

Here is how I define it:

Islamofascism is an aggressive movement determined to impose fundamentalist Islamic theocracy on all the peoples of the world by means of violence and propaganda.  Its aims are Imperial and its appetite for conquest obsessive; it will continue to gleefully bomb and murder no matter how unlikely its ultimate success may seem to the rest of us.

I oppose Islamofascism but I do not oppose Islam.  I believe there can be a difference between the two, but that difference will remain obscure and indistinct so long as Islamofascism goes unchallenged.

It is up to those of us who believe in personal liberty and freedom to pose that challenge.  With the approach of Martin Luther King Day we should all take a moment to remember those who struggled and suffered and died for those freedoms before us- the brave ones who marched in the face of firehoses and attacking dogs; the women who endured beatings and forced feedings in prison to win the right to vote; the miners and factory workers who risked what little they had to stand up to the bosses and demand decent working conditions and fair treatment; the brave investigators of government crime who have helped to push the corrupt out of powerful positions.

We rest comfortably on the rights and expectations they purchased for us with their struggles.  Now it is our turn.

I want to be clear, so let me lay this out as plainly as I can:

• I oppose Islamofascism because I believe in the separation of church and state.

Coerced belief is unbelief; religious ritual without freedom of conscience is as pointless as a beating heart without pair of working lungs.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I believe in freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech- including to freedom to criticize and even give offense- is the very crucible that hones and tempers personal conviction.  Those who criticize and those who are criticized often teach one another without realizing it. That which stings most can also galvanize. This is precious to society.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I believe in freedom of religion.

This includes freedom from religion.  The agnostic, the atheist, the undecided- all have a spiritual contribution to make; they are both a check on and a provocation to the devout.  And for the believer, the freedom to question and doubt is a building block of true devotion. You may believe God is infallible, but we humans certainly are not.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I oppose slavery

From child labor to female servants treated as virtual prisoners, Islamofascism is rife with de facto slavery.  Slavery is by no means unique to Islamofascism- it is a centuries-old scourge- but in Islamofascism it is excused and practised with particular boldness- including in the United States.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I support Gay Rights.

  Islamofascist rhetoric against homosexuals is offensive in this country, but that is nothing compared to actual laws currently applied by theocratic regimes in the Islamic world.  Iran regularly hangs teenagers suspected of homosexuality.  It is an 'offense' punishable by death.  I could not look my gay friends in the eye knowing I did nothing to protest this.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I support freedom of the press.

Many people are not aware of the degree of cencorship forced on the press in much of the Islamic world.  Government control of newspapers and tv gives otherwise fair-minded people a very distorted and hateful picture of the West.  We have only to look at the threats and violence engendered by the Danish Cartoon Controversy to see an example of this.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I believe in a woman's right to vote and to hold public office.

This is a breathtaking rarity in many parts of the Islamic world.  And it is still new enough in our own country that we must fiercely protect and defend it.  Recent years have seen the first women cast into powerful government roles.  We must not let them be the last.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I believe in a woman's right to own property.

The legal right to an independent income and property is a woman's best defense against abuse.  It is a tool to help free her from an abusive mate; it is a stepping stone to education; it is a piece of security in an often insecure world.  It allows a woman to stand upright in her own name.  There is no substitute for this.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I believe rape must remain a crime- no exceptions and no excuses.

When I was young we were taught that rape was always an act of aggression and that victims were not to blame.  This core belief is now in danger.  Radical Imams in Australia and elsewhere are openly preaching that some women are 'asking for it,' and, most horrifying of all, some female government officials are hurrying to agree with them.  On this subject, we must hold firm and give no quarter.  Rape is always wrong; it is always a crime; this basic reality will not be changed to appease any militant belief system.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I believe domestic abuse must remain a crime- no exceptions and no excuses.

Abuse does not 'teach her a lesson' or show a child 'the error of his ways.'  Abuse simply hurts.  Sometimes it kills.  If  the Islamofascists are correct and the Koran really does prescribe beating one's wife or child, then Islam will simply have to learn to live with a certain a certain amount of frustration and self-restraint.  Domestic abuse must never be tolerated for any reason.  It is a crime.  And we are required to protect and defend the victims.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I believe in a woman's right to acquire as much education as her intellectual talents will permit.

From Elizabeth the First to Madame Curie, educated women have been indispensable to civilization. A society that prizes docile illiteracy over informed contribution smothers itself, not just its women.  Men and women suffer equally from its failures.

• I oppose Islamofascism because I wish for all Muslims- Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Druze, and every other sect- to enjoy freedom of conscience and peaceful worship.

Muslims suffer under Islamofascism just as non-Muslims do.  Their beliefs are picked apart and they are persecuted for doctrinal differences.  They are subjected to threats and intimidation.  I recognize that some self-identified Muslims support the aims of Islamofascism- perhaps more, regrettably, than most people are willing to admit.  But for those who do not, I wish an end to the feelings of dread and hopelessness- and a new beginning in freedom.

• In short, I oppose Islamofascism because I am a liberal.

And there you have it- for now.  This is the first time I have spoken specifically about my beliefs, but it will not be the last.  In the meantime I will try to present examples of threats to these core beliefs and freedoms- threats that have been going unheeded.  And I will also present Muslim voices arguing for coexistence and peaceful change.

We are all needed- each of us- in this fight.  It's our turn, now. 

...And What He Said.

Ezra Levant is being sued by the Alberta "Human Rights Commission."  He was the publisher of the Canadian Magazine Western Standard two years ago, at the time the magazine chose to publish the now-infamous Mohammed Cartoons.  For this "thought crime" he is being sued in the same venue as Mark Steyn- and by some very similar people.

Mr. Levant's opening statement to this "Human Rights Commission" is a forthright restatement of the same values enshrined in our own Bill of Rights.  I'm only sorry that it was a modern Canadian who so openly and proudly proclaimed these values and not a fellow American.

Some excerpts from Mr. Levant's fine statement:

When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com.

I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights...

We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War.

In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Actual video footage of Mr. Levant's appearance before the "Human Rights" commission can be found here.  It is well worth watching:

Levant testimony

hat tip: Instapundit

UPDATE:

Here are some direct video embeds of Mr. Levant's testimony:

Weapon of Mass Delight

...or would you call it a Cold Day in Hell?

Whatever your opinion, take a break from politics for a moment and watch while Mother Nature deploys an unexpected treat to a war-weary people- snow!

In Baghdad!

A fresh snowfall makes little children of all of us.  I include footage from both astonished Iraqis and homesick US soldiers.

Thought for the Day

I don't often go to shopping malls. 

I dislike noisy crowds.

However, circumstances led Dear Mate and I to brave our local mall today.  While walking down the (crowded) concourse, we spied a young man about 6' tall.  His hair was already very thin on top and what was left had been dyed fire-engine red and spiked straight up.  He had a rather tarnished silver ring in one nostril, and a small silver nose stud as well.  His chin whiskers were equally thin, and shaped in a kind of uneven, scraggly goatee that was oddly grey in places.

"You can only look that stupid in a prosperous society,"  said Dear Mate.

Color Me Speechless But Not Surprised.

This piece appeared in the Yemeni times today.  So far as I can tell, it is not a satire.

Even if it were a satire, it wouldn't be very funny.

"Honesty" isn't always refreshing- informative, definitely, but not always refreshing.  Some "honesty" is about as fresh and welcome as a fart in an elevator.  Or a fingernail found in a hamburger.

Read it and gag.

Hat tip: Jihad Watch

There Must Be Violence Against Women

By: Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy

This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.

First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.

Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples.

Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions.

One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.

If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also.

For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.

Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.

Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.

Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.

Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?

According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?

Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.



In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?

As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration.

Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us.



I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.

A Correction.

I have made a mistake. 

While researching What He Said, my post in support of Mark Steyn and Maclean's, I discovered that something I had said in an earlier post was incorrect.

On March 27, 2007 I posted a segment of the Sweet Home Allah Bamya series dealing with inaccuracies in the World Studies Notebook.  In it, I identified Ms. Audrey Shabbas and Abdallah Hakim Quick as coauthors of a controversial chapter.  In describing my research regarding Mr. Quick, I made the following statement:

The biography on Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick's website says that he has "served as Imam, teacher and counselor in the USA."  He has studied at the Islamic University of Madinah, Saudi Arabia and currently works as a lecturer at an Islamic Institute in Cape Town, South Africa.  His website promotes many books on Islamic topics but does not mention Arab World Studies Notebook.  It does feature lectures written by Sheikh Quick.  I browsed and read, finding the following statements in a 1997 composition titled "Seeking the Inner Muslim":

"In Canada, women have been given the legal right to walk around topless in public places.  Already, women can be seen mowing their lawns, sunbathing, or strolling down the street without any blouse, bra or shirt...."

...My confidence in the honesty of the Sheikh's scholarship was challenged, to say the least.

At the time I made this statement, I thought the idea of women strolling about legally topless in Canada was so absurd as to need no confirmation.

Turns out I was wrong. 

It appears that in 1996 female residents of Ontario were given the right to bare their breasts in public.  Apparently the decision is a bit controversial (after all, think of the implications for global warming!)- but has not yet been repealed.

So, while I still have other reasons to doubt the honesty of Mr. Quick's scholarship, his claim that women can go legally topless in Canada is not one of them.

My apologies to Mr. Quick for casting aspersions on one thing he has said that actually stands up to investigation.

I apologize to my readers as well.  This was simply sloppy work on my part, and I offer no excuses.  I can only hope this open acknowledgement will be taken as evidence of my own honest intentions.

Interestingly, while in turn researching this post I heard about another place where women can go legally topless in public- right here in the U.S. of A.!

In Columbus, Ohio, it is legal to sunbathe topless in public parks.

Mercy.  Just part of Life's Rich Pageant, I guess.

And now I have a request for any Canadian readers of this post:

What can you tell me about this law? How did it come about? It sounds as though it only applies to residents of Ontario- how do other Canadians feel about it?  How often is it -err- invoked?  Is it a nuisance to Ontario residents or do they not object to it?

Please post any remarks in the comments section.  I'm genuinely curious.

Columbus, Ohio readers, that goes for you, too.

Thanks!