Tag Archives: Canada

Proud people violently hate violence

Ephraim Kishon, a famous Israeli writer, once wrote a story about some kind of an international socialist gathering. It took place in Prague, capital of what used to be communist Czechoslovakia.

A group of Israeli youngsters, quite obviously of the so-called left-wing political persuasion, came to the heart of Europe to take part, too.

And, Kishon wrote, a group of Czechoslovak young communist organization activists used to walk around them, hissing: Jews! Jews!

What are they saying? the young Israelis asked.

Oh, their official interpreter said with an embarrassed expression on his face, they’re saying you’re Jews.

So? asked the young Israelis. So what? Yes, we’re Jews.

A few moments later it hit them: oh, they (the Czechoslovak young communist organization activists) seem to have a problem with THAT. Well, we can hardly care less. They have a problem with the fact that we are Jews. We are, and we don’t.

Mind, these were all children and grandchildren of people who had only very recently experienced the cruelest racist outrage in modern history, the Holocaust.

They were proud of their heritage, and if someone had a problem with it, they just shrugged it off: we won’t be solving others’ problems for them.

Kishon was born in Hungary. As a Holocaust survivor himself, he moved to Israel. He didn’t know a word of Hebrew or Yiddish when he got to the Promised Land. He managed to learn both languages well enough to write for printed publication and, later, for stage and film productions. His written Hebrew was impeccable, his spoken Hebrew reminded all and sundry of his Hungarian origin.

And yet, he never ever even thought of calling himself a Hungarian-Israeli.

Meanwhile, across the Big Pond

Which brings us to the United States and its ongoing battles with what has been called systemic racism.

The fact that Canada’s prime minister seems to think his country has the same problem can be viewed as a side show. It could, if only the so-called spontaneous protest demonstrations were not allowed to break all the limitations imposed by the so-called Covid 1984 (this is not a typo) pandemic.

Those who object to the draconian measures of power-hungry government officials suffer police harassment of the worst kind if they don’t obey the two-metre social distancing rule during their peaceful demonstrations.

Those who have issues with what they view as pervasive racism in our society, can march hand-in-hand in tight crowds, loot, attack innocent bystanders, and not many dare say a word about it (and never mind against it).

One would have expected that laws should treat all of us equally. Seems the expectation has been way too idealistic.

Yes, the outbreak of protest was triggered by inexcusable, criminal, even, treatment of a suspect by an American police officer. And yes, this officer, and all those who were standing around him doing nothing to save the suspect’s life, should be behind bars now, and never be allowed to work in any public office ever again.

Not that George Floyd was an angel in any shape or form, as some try to depict him now. His rap sheet was quite lomg, and it did include violent crimes that landed him in prison, once for five years, and that only because he pled guilty in a plea bargain.

And yes, the police were called in on that tragic day because he was suspected of committing yet another illegal act, while intoxicated.

Still, again, none of it justifies what happened to him, and here’s hoping that justice meted on those officers involved in the tragedy will be swift and just.

But what we are facing now is about something else.

It is about people who seem to suffer from deep-rooted inferiority complexes because of who they are, or what skin colour they happened to be born with.

Systemic discrimination my foot

Not only was the United States one of the first countries to constitutionally abolish slavery, its history has shown that the country has continued to fight to make sure that particular amendment (number XIII) is upheld.

Here’s what it says verbatim:

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, and by the House on January 31, 1865, the 16th U.S. President, Abraham Lincoln, signed it into law on February 1, 1965, and the required number of states ratified it on December 6, 1865.

That it would cost Lincoln his life within a few months at the hands of an assassin is another tragic page in U.S. history.

Making sure that this particular amendment becomes reality everybody learns to live by and respect has been a struggle through modern U.S. history.

But none of it constitutes systemic discrimination. Not only has it been banned, but, as time has marched on, equality has become the code word for our existence.

This is not to say there have not been some individual cases of racism. Except, it seems, the definition of racism as used these days is sadly lacking, and so is the definition of discrimination as such.

And, perhaps not even surprisingly, it goes both ways.

Generally speaking, we all discriminate, day in and day out. If we apply for a job and somebody else gets it because s/he has convinced the would-be employer that s/he is the best and most knowledgeable candidate, is it discrimination?

You bet it is.

This is not a frivolous attempt to dismiss an important point with a meaningless attempt at a joke. Why not? Because there have been cases where the unsuccessful candidate would start crying discrimination, or, worse still, racism, and the employer would end up fighting for dear life before all those ideologically bent quasi-judicial human rights commissions.

It is intriguing, on the other hand, that there exist publications where authors of any kind whose skin is other than black need not apply. Ebony magazine, anyone?

Just try to imagine the boot on the other foot.

Can’t see it? Yes, and that’s one of the expressions of racism, too.

Or how about affirmative action?

The original 1961 plan by then-President John F. Kennedy included a provision, according to which government contractors were supposed to make sure that applicants for jobs are hired (and employees treated) fairly, without “regard to their race, creed, colour, or national origin.”

Fair enough.

Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, added another executive order, demanding that government employers “hire without regard to race, religion and national origin” and “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, colour, religion, sex or national origin.”

Again, fair enough.

Except, instead of only bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, the plan developed into a project to promote diversity (whatever THAT is supposed to mean, it remains in the eye of the beholder), and redress apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances.

That history has shown that you can’t right a wrong by another wrong, has become perfectly irrelevant.

There exist some civilized countries in the world that maintain that giving preference to someone just because of their race, ethnicity (or any other standard other than merit) is not only bad for everybody concerned, it is also harmful for the entire society, including those who have supposedly benefitted.

Not so in the lawsuit-happy United States. It’s gone so far that the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2003 that the University of Michigan Law School could consider race as a plus-factor when evaluating applicants holistically. What the word holistically was supposed to mean in this context is left to any future lawyer’s imagination. The ruling only told the University of Michigan Law School not to use quotas.

Hallelujah, what progress when compared to communist countries that used quotas based on university applicants’ parents’ class origins.

So, what’s the issue?

Some of the most cynical political analysts around the world suggest that the issue is based on the fact that, historically, white-skinned Americans would bend over backwards to make sure there is no unfairness in their country. They have been trying, through their history, to repeal and redress the sins of their foreparents. When those who had cried foul were rewarded, they saw an opportunity to win other, even more important, concessions.

It’s called guilt-trips. Those most cynical political analysts say, today’s would-be victims have developed victimhood into artistically embroidered science.

Now, this concept is not new. Just look at Germany. After World War II, the victorious Allies instilled a deep-seated feeling of collective guilt for Nazi atrocities within her population. So, today’s Germans are willing to do whatever the evangelists of modern political correctness order them to do to clear their consciences of crimes committed by their grandparents.

Yes, that may be part of the problem, more generous analysts would say, but they still believe it is the inferiority complex that leads the black population to a certain level of self-pity that demands that others come, crawling on their knees, banging their heads against concrete floors, crying it’s all their fault. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

After all, why would they be changing their American names to Arabic-sounding names? Are they not aware that it was the Muslim Arabs of Africa who made their ancient ancestors slaves? Are they not aware that it was the Muslim Arabs of Africa who sold their ancient ancestors into slavery overseas? Are they not aware that slavery is still very much kosher among the Muslim Arabs of Africa?

Or: why would they be hyphenating the description of their nationality? African-American? Even the poorest in their communities are better off than most of the real black Africans in Africa.

In the early 19th century, a new state emerged in Africa. It became known as Liberia. It came to exist on a land purchased by an American group that thought it might be useful for black Americans freed from slavery to return to their roots.

While the idea may sound far-fetched these days, it may have had its charm then: the enforced arrivals across the Big Pond in the holds of slave ships were still relatively fresh memory then.

There had lived sundry groups in the area that would become Republic of Liberia: some indigenous tribes, as well as a number of immigrants from other African countries, such as Somalia.

The returnees from overseas would become known as Americo-Liberians. They would hold positions of power until the final years of the 20th century: the country was created for them, after all, so, who else should run it?

This arrangement came to a relatively violent end during the last couple of decades, and one of the accusations hurled at the Americo-Liberians insisted that one of the first things they did upon arrival was to enslave some of the locals.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the influx of Americo-Liberians has all but dried up since the country’s first few decades of existence.

Is there a lesson to learn?

Your turn.

The clean-air report nothing but another “skies-are-falling” drivel

The air in Toronto is cleaner than the air in Edmonton.

Thus a study, dubbed “scientific” by Toronto-based national media.

We would have to adopt two wild assumptions in order to even begin considering it seriously, never mind accept it.

The first wild assumption: the study would have to be based on facts, not on so-called straight arithmetic averages; the data used would have to be verifiable and verified. And that would be just the basic requirements for judging the study.

The second wild assumption: we would have to assume that those who reported it knew whereof they spoke (wrote). Meaning, basically, that they were not guided one bit by the generally accepted misconception that a journalist’s job is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. Judging by the current mainstream media’s output, their instructors in sundry journalism schools never told the candidates of this craft that their job is to inform.

As a minor aside: why do these journalism schools exist in the first place? Story-telling and curiosity are the only two abilities a journalism candidate requires. Neither can be taught. The technology, laws, etc., these things change at least once between a journalism candidate’s first entrance into the hallowed halls of learning and her/his departure.

Equipped with a diploma, they are convinced that here they are, ready to change the world. They are nothing of the sort. Especially considering that changing the world is not their job.

Which brings us back to the clean air story.

To make it read or sound believable, our intrepid journalists started asking questions. Their selection of those they feel are fit to enlighten us is frightful. The usual suspects who claim (in the case of Edmonton, and Alberta in general) that it is the industry that is to blame, and the government is guilty for not doing anything about it, and, besides, car exhausts are a terrible culprit, as well, what with everybody and their dog riding around either in a pickup or, Heavens forbid, an SUV.

Short memories

It seems proponents of government-enforced radical change ought to remind themselves of several facts. These facts happen to complicate their simplified outlook somewhat, but, alas, that’s life.

Such as: even if we do accept the Toronto-based report and pretend it answered all the questions it was supposed to answer in order to be considered a serious scientific paper, there are a few unpleasant questions remaining. Not only about its methodology. About nature, as well.

First of all: oh, absolutely, we should not be abusing our environment, but mind telling, for example, the Russian taiga forests to stop burning?

It just so happens that for a number of decades running our atmosphere has been seriously damaged by smoke coming all the way across Santa’s North Pole condo, making the regions south of Edmonton within days.

Here’s what’s happening: the Russians let, on way too many occasions, the taiga forest fires burn out all by themselves. Forest fires, they say, with some justification, are a natural occurrence. They would only act if these fires came too close to forced-labour camps (yes, they still have them, and most of them are in Siberia). Russian authorities consider these camps a useful source of cheap labour, as they always have been. Might as well protect them.

There have been several other occasions, such as that the fires came too close to nuclear installations. That’s when the Russians would act.

Don’t expect for a moment that they would employ water bombing aircraft. But they would employ bombers. Russian (formerly Soviet) air force bombers stationed in those regions would practice carpet bombing. These bombing sorties would become part and parcel of military training, while creating buffer zones against the spread of the fires. What the fires do inside those zones, that, the Russians would tell you, was either God’s or nature’s decision, depending on that particular Russian’s religious inclination (or lack of same).

Compared to the inferno that keeps happening with regularity in Russia’s taiga, British Columbia’s (or Canada’s, in general) forest fires are nothing but small camp fires, used to roast meat, play the guitar or banjo, down a beer or two, sing a few songs and enjoy each other’s company. Not only that, we as Canadians feel we have the obligation toward both the forests and the wildlife that inhabit them. That’s why the best water bombers have been designed and built in Canada. They are used in civilized countries all over the world. Canada leads the field.

How about closer to home?

Now that winter seems to have left Edmonton for a few weeks, it took the city administration more than a month to wake up to the fact that a thorough clean-up job would be in order.

The system we have here borders on the insane. It may have even crossed that border.

If you, as a tax-paying citizen, have issues with too many potholes in your area, don’t expect city crews to be aware of them without you telling them. No, they are incredibly busy, and if you tell them, and are persistent enough to keep calling them every even (or odd) hour to remind them, chances are they will patch them up just as the leaves start falling and birds begin their journey southwards with the autumn coming in.

No, they will not fix them. They will only patch them up. Whether this is an attempt to create full employment in Edmonton remains to be seen. It looks like it.

The same goes, and now we come full circle back to clean air, for city roads.

After a few weeks went by without major blizzards, you could see city crews cleaning the roads. This is not to say they were doing a heck of a job of it, especially when they were watering the roads just as spring rains began hitting the place. Still, as a beginning it looked interesting. That, of course, didn’t mean that the debris left behind the watering cisterns would be swept away during that same operation. First, the water had to dry. Besides, you should give the debris a fair chance to enjoy the windy weather and do a bit of flying around, in order to see their neighbourhoods.

Then came the turn of sweeping away the debris from the grass along the roads. Where? Why, back to the road surfaces. Meaning: those surfaces that, allegedly, had just been cleaned.

Now what?

Now nothing.

When nothing had been happening for a week, an annoyed citizen called the city complaint centre, filed her or his concern, left her or his name and phone number, and got a call from someone in the city administration another three or four days later. Just don’t you worry, we’re going to get around to it.

When?

Ah, said the unnamed city employee (unnamed because he wasn’t told in advance he might be quoted for publication), anyhow, ah, said that employee, in a week or two. He sounded somewhat troubled when that citizen mentioned that, due (or thanks) to the last windy days it would make no sense for anyone to come to clean the road a week or two from now: the debris would be all in the air by then.

The city employee went on to explain that these things are the responsibility of two separate departments, as if two departments could not co-ordinate what they’re doing. And let’s not even mention the bold idea that cleaning roads in a city Edmonton’s size should not require two separate departments.

Feet on the ground

Of course, all this makes environmentalists’ cries sound somewhat ridiculous.

Get rid of coal-burning power stations. Stop using pickup trucks or SUVs. Solar or wind power stations are the answer. And so on.

It doesn’t take much research to establish that solar and wind power stations are one of the least effective (and efficient) sources of electricity. To put it simply: the energy these electric power sources create is way too expensive to even maintain the economic status quo.

Yes, the environmentalists would say, but if that’s the cost for healthy living, so be it. Is there anything to that argument? Turns out there isn’t. There would be more if these people were on record as saying that all of us should turn the lights off whenever we leave a room.

It just so happens that Canada is in the forefront of nations devising, building and using with spectacular effectiveness equipment to filter unwanted emissions from coal-fuelled and diesel-fuelled electric power plants. Except, it seems, the environmentalist crowd haven’t been made aware of it. Why they didn’t make the effort to find out themselves is another question.

How about nuclear power stations?

Well, they may be the song of the future. As soon as someone invents a way of safe disposal of radioactive waste.

How about power stations that use tide?

Another idea whose time might yet come. Perhaps as soon as someone develops a working plan how to control the tides so that the supply does not depend on the Moon’s mood alone.

The main issue

Here’s what the so-called environmentalist movement is all about: let the government decide what’s best for you. And you. And you. And, speaking of it, you, too.

Who guarantees that government knows best? Why, the government, of course!

There’s a world of difference between the science of ecology and the ideological movement of environmentalism. While it is a fine idea that all of us should contribute to keeping this planet clean, lying about the current state of affairs borders on the criminal.

Indeed, yes, lying.

How would you explain the cries that we’re entering yet another ice age just a few decades ago, to be followed by similarly loud cries (by the same people, too) that we’re going to burn, that’s how the planet is heating up.

And all that within just a few decades.

Of course, the real explanation is simple: none of these changes are new, and those yelling the loudest have obviously missed their high school science class when their teachers were explaining the basics of solar cycles.

What makes this even more dangerous is that mainstream media, ideologically blind and incapable of learning, ignores signs that what we’re dealing with here is frightful nonsense.

On top of it, mainstream media these days is unable (read: unwilling) to tolerate opposing views. It presents the terribly warped statements by climate alarmists as fact, while those same climate alarmists are laughing all the way to their banks, going to collect another set of grants for their more than questionable would-be research.

Speaking of which: how much have you learnt from mainstream media about the e-mail traffic within the East Anglia climatology institute? That would be the place that co-ordinates all of the worldwide climate alarmism.

Turns out a Russian hacker managed to break into the system and publish its content. Frank exchanges about falsifying basic data and conclusions galore. Has it made mainstream media’s front pages? Was it leading news broadcasts? And how about the fact that this doctored East Anglia drivel has remained the basis of the United Nations’ regular alarmist climate change reports?

An old fairy tale tells us about a boy who would shout in feigned horror that wolves were coming. He would have great fun watching his neighbouring villagers running out, their weapons at the ready, hoping to chase the wolves away before they got to the kid.

One day, as the boy was taking a herd of whatever domestic animals to pasture, a pack of wolves appeared.

The kid cried in horror. Nobody bothered to even look out of the windows. Next thing the kid knew, he was on the wolves menu.

Bon Appetit!

Middle East beginning to lose its clout

A rat is at its most dangerous when it is cornered and sees no way out.

This is precisely what’s been happening to some formerly mighty Middle Eastern monarchies lately. Oh yes, they still carry their heads of state in aircraft filled with golden washroom basins and other such stuff, but their grip on the world economy is getting looser by the day.

Meaning?

Meaning that the oil hegemony that used to keep the rest of the world by the throat no longer exists. These kingdoms spent the money they made off oil exports on luxuries for their aristocracy, spread of Islamic ideology all over the world, and almost nothing on general education, improvement of their populations’ lot and finding alternative methods of supporting themselves. Consequently, the end is nigh.

An interesting point: modern technologies for oil extraction developed in North America, have made, for example, the U.S. last year’s largest crude exporter, beating Saudi Arabia hands down.

Here a few calculations for the next year, based on several intelligence sources’ estimates (independent of one another): in 2015, the U.S. is expected to produce 12 million barrels of oil a day, exporting one full million of it daily. Iran, by comparison, is not expected to produce more than 1,5 million barrels a day.

While none of this has made international headlines, this has: the Palestinian Authority asked the United Nations to recognize its territory as a country. Where this would have created some heated discussions across the spectrum a year or two ago, now, the request was turned down without much debate.

Why? Because loss of oil superpower status equals loss of relevancy.

Come think of it, there was much more debate about the issue within the Palestinian Authority’s territory. Hamas, a terrorist organization if there ever was one, and de facto ruler of the area, has been unhappy about the request. Such recognition of statehood would have meant recognition and stabilization of borders, including those of Israel. So far as Hamas is concerned, this would be anathema. Israel has no right to exist.

In any case, the simple change inside the oil markets has meant not only that prices have been going down. It also spells doom for those who had thought the world was their oyster and they could dictate where it was going and how using the threat of either cutting oil supplies, or increasing their prices.

No longer.

Yes, some of the monarchies have been eyeing tourism as a replacement for the flow of petro-dollars. Witness all those towers and sundry palaces in their countries. They even are willing to go so far as to permit booze in those places, much to the chagrin of their religious leaders.

Except tourism is no replacement for a weapon such as crude oil. It can support Monaco or Monte Carlo or, even, Las Vegas, but certainly not a region that used to think it could become a world leader.

The list of losers includes Russia as well as the Middle East monarchies.

The list of those on the winning side includes not only the U.S., but also Canada, Mexico, as well as some African countries, such as Nigeria.

The times of shameless blackmail of European politicians, using Middle Eastern petro-dollars, are over.

Yes, we still see paroxysms, such as Sweden not only jumping the gun and recognizing the Palestinian territory as a state before the United Nations turned this frightfully stupid, shortsighted and provocative request down. But then again, this is the same country whose social democratic government only recently suspended democracy till at least the year 2022.

Yes, we still witness useful idiots (there exists no milder and more generous description) who carry anti-Israeli (and anti-Semitic) slogans around and blame the Muslim backwardness on the Jews rather than on their own rulers. We can safely expect their rhetoric to become more heated when the only source of income these Middle Eastern countries have enjoyed dries up.

Except: money speaks, and where there’s no money, there’s no political will, either. European Union politicians’ spines may grow a bit stronger than they have been lately.

The single-issue groups that have been claiming Muslim lifestyles were to be adopted in the countries Muslims had immigrated to will face critical financial shortages: most of them receive support from the Middle Eastern monarchies. It is also to be expected that regular citizens of Europe will become louder than they have been thus far. This, by the way, has been becoming a new (and welcome) feature of communal life in Europe. Hopefully, this will spread.

This has nothing to do with denying Muslims the right to believe what they wish to believe.

This has everything to do with denying Muslims the right to impose their beliefs on all and sundry.

We can expect a few years of violence: the Middle Eastern (and Russian) rulers will be blaming the rest of the world for their nations’ ills. Anybody but themselves. And the Middle Eastern religious leaders will become even more shrill than they are now. Again: it’s the infidels who are guilty of it all, not the centuries of mental, emotional and physical repression their nations had to endure under their leadership.

Is there any hope for them? And for the rest of the world?

Who knows? Forcing these monarchies to go around, begging, won’t do the trick. Continuing to do their bidding won’t cut it, either.

Convincing them to grow up and realize we’re now in the 21st century is our only hope. It’s going to be a slow and painful process. But the first step is behind us: Middle Eastern monarchs no longer rule the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is becoming aware of it.

Like hippos in a china store

The government of Hungary is considering kicking U.S. chargé d’affaires André Goodfriend out of the country. It is of the view that the American diplomat is poking his nose into matters that are none of his business.

The country’s State Attorney has asked the foreign ministry to initiate stripping Goodfriend of diplomatic immunity so this office can prosecute him based on a legal action started by Hungary’s taxation administration chief, Ildikó Vida.

The foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, said he’s sending an official request to the State Department. Whether he’ll succeed is more than questionable: the stuffed shirts at Foggy Bottom would go through the roof and describe Hungary’s request impertinent to nth degree, while President Barack Hussein Obama is expected to go ballistic.

Except: if the Americans, as is expected, tell the Hungarians to go and fly a kite, Goodfriend will be flying first: he Hungarian government will designate him as persona non grata, and if they are kind and generous, Goodfriend will have 48 hours to pack up and leave. If not, he’ll have to leave forthwith.

First, a bit of a definition: a chargé d’affaires represents his or her nation in the country she or he is accredited to. That means, this diplomat has to receive le agrément from the host government (for whatever reason, French is still the language of diplomacy). This means that the host government can always withdraw its agreement with the diplomat’s continued stay.

The chargé d’affaires enjoys the same privileges and immunities as a regular ambassador. In most cases, the chargé d’affaires only serves on a temporary basis, while the ambassador is away. Still, these diplomats can be appointed for longer periods of time, something that seems to have happened in Goodfriend’s case. As diplomatic protocol rules, a chargé d’affaires could be appointed also when the two countries disagree on something and they prefer to be represented by lower-ranked diplomats, basically in order to save face.

Now that we have the niceties behind us, here’s the scoop: several governments’ diplomatic representatives (including Canada’s) went public with their masters’ displeasure about what they described as corruption running amok in the countries where they are stationed. Not that it had the desired effect. General populations in these (mostly post-communist) countries are perfectly aware that their governments’ standards of honesty and decency are nothing to write home about. Still, they detest it when foreigners wag their fingers and tell them this isn’t cricket.

In the Hungarian case, the country’s chief taxation official, Ms. Vida, and five of her subordinate officers were denied entry visas into the U.S. this past November, based directly on accusations of corruption as expressed by none other than Goodfriend himself. Ms. Vida described his statements as slanderous and defamatory and libellous drivel, but her prime minister, Viktor Orbán, said this wouldn’t be enough. Sue the bloody Yankee, he told Ms. Vida, or I’ll fire you.

Wonderful. Except you can’t sue a diplomat who’s protected by immunity. You can only ask her or his government for permission to strip her or him of that immunity, and if no agreement is forthcoming, you can kick her or him out.

And this is where it seems to be headed.

President Obama, whom most of the post-communist countries’ citizenry detest about the same they used to detest their communist leaders, didn’t help matters when he announced that in Hungary, in his esteemed opinion, the something he calls “civic society” is in danger. What he had in mind precisely remains unclear, but Hungarian officials figured out that the U.S. commander-in-chief was unhappy because they refused to blindly follow his lead and call Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin all kinds of names.

That the Hungarians might have a reason for a more nuanced view is something Obama has never considered. In fact, he seems to be frightfully unaware of this.

On the other hand, post-communist countries have been up in arms lately. They have detected that U.S. embassies in their countries have been interfering with their internal affairs. They are quite sensitive about these things: they’ve had their share of being ordered about by the communist leadership in Moscow. Bad enough that the European Union bureaucracy has been trying to replace the communist economic community system with a similar structure of their own. Post-communist countries, one and all, view this kind of behaviour askance.

For example, the Czech Republic is livid because the U.S. embassy has been supporting (financially) a movement to teach Islam in Czech schools.

Now, Canada’s ambassador Otto Jelínek has joined forces with his U.S. and Norwegian colleagues, trying to tell the Czechs that corruption is bad. The Czechs are perfectly aware of what kind of swindlers and fraudsters they have in their government. But they still feel that young Jelínek would do better tending to his knitting or, even better, to his family business that produces the finest plum brandy (slivovice) in the world.

What angers them even more is the gall with which the Americans and Canadians invited the Norwegians to join them in the chorus of anti-corruption condemnation. The Czechs and the Norwegians have been at swords drawn lately. A Norwegian social worker has taken away children from a Czech family that was in the northern country, citing abuse, without providing single proof. The Czech government has been trying to reason with its Norwegian counterpart, to no avail, thus far. And these busy beavers are going to tell us how to behave? is the tenor of the Czech public reaction.

That the Americans didn’t notice they were entering a minefield is behaviour typical for this administration. That ambassador Jelínek, who speaks and reads and writes Czech, was not aware of the backlash this step would create in his parents’ homeland is beyond shameful.

And most of the post-communist countries’ public opinion agrees: the Americans don’t like Putin. Not that we love him. In fact, not that we love the Russian bear, period. But, they say, nobody, and least of all Obama, is going to tell us what to do, what to think, and how to act.

They’ve been there, done that, got the t-shirts.

To heck with the Americans. Let them eat cake. But Canada’s government – of all governments in the world – should know better.

Freedom of expression takes a hit on the chin

This is called political correctness gone berserk.

A basketball team owner happens to be a perfect moron. Proof: he’s over 80 years old, and takes a 25-year-old concubine.

She, at least in his view, cheats on him, and she does so with much younger men of her own racial background.

Whether she really DOES cheat is another matter, it’s the perception that counts.

So, he tells her he’d rather if she ceased bringing these young men into his arena, and entertain them there. In a taped conversation that is so obviously staged one is shocked nobody’s noticed, he makes the demand and mentions the colour of those men’s skin in the process.

By the way, this whole scenario is called entrapment, and it is illegal.

The concubine proceeds to share the tape with others. And all hell breaks loose.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver takes only three days to ban said owner, one Donald Sterling, from the league for life. He fines him $2.5 million. And he tells all and sundry he wants the other owners to force Donald Sterling to sell his team.

Everybody’s happy and dancing with joy. What courage! We’re telling bigoted racists where to take off, at long last! We’ve taken a stand! Happy, happy, joy, joy!

What Commissioner Silver did was he blackmailed the other owners. They can see very clearly what kind of reaction they would have on their hands if they refused.

Different options?

Of course, and what if owner Sterling refuses to sell? He bought the Clippers in 1981 for a measly $12 million, moved them from San Diego to Los Angeles and the club could bring him a cool $1 billion. Even considering inflation, this would be a nice piece of income.

But does he really have to sell? Not really. So, what does NBA do if he tells them to go fly a kite? Will they take his franchise away? The only thing they can do is say Clippers no longer belong in the NBA. The league will be minus a team. Does the NBA realize this might cost a certain number of players their jobs?

The Clippers will be gone: does the NBA have a huge lineup of potential owners who would be ready to shell out at least a billion bucks? And even if the NBA finds another owner, Clippers’ players are and will be bound by contracts signed with the Clippers, they won’t be able to just pick up and go. Granted, those contracts had to be approved by the league office but they are still contracts between those players and the Clippers, not between the players and the league.

But these are frightfully minor issues.

Freedom for some, not others

Here’s the major issue: where’s freedom of expression gone? See, freedoms are indivisible. Just as women can’t be partially pregnant, so it goes with freedoms. You can’t ban a certain kind of speech just because it’s racist or otherwise offensive.

A little aside here: who’s made all those Clippers’ players multiple millionaires? Why, their owner, the guy, that is, who’s paying their wages. How many of those guys are (to use a politically correct term) African-American? Looking at NBA rosters in general, and the Clippers’ roster in particular, how does more than 90 per cent sound?

The cancer of political correctness has been spreading very dangerously the last few years. Now, it seems, it is metastasing. For those lucky enough not to have had encountered cancer closely: mestastasing is the stage of cancer where the disease spreads to other organs, most of them originally healthy, and starts killing them one after another. It’s also considered the final stage of cancer.

Back to the issue.

Democracy and freedom go hand in hand. Once the state, or anybody else, for that matter, begins making decisions on what is and what is not acceptable expression, we’re getting on the most slippery slope that leads straight to the hell of dictatorship. And it does not matter one iota whether speech some want to ban is offensive to many or to few.

Shockers

We’ve been seeing this kind of things more and more often these past few years.

How does a society of lawyers give itself the right to say it wouldn’t acknowledge law degrees earned at a church-based college? (Happened in the two most enlightened provinces of Canada. Can’t guess? Why, British Columbia, at first, and Ontario, too.)

A group defined by its sexual orientation tries to impose itself on a St. Patrick’s Day parade. When told, yes, everyone’s welcome, except we’d rather you came and joined us as individuals, not as a movement of persons keen on demonstrating their sexual preferences, all kinds of excrement hit the fan. Even a polite explanation doesn’t help: perhaps you should consider the name of the festivities: it’s a Saint, it’s a Catholic Saint, to boot, and the Catholic church has certain misgivings about this issue. Nobody’s forcing you to become Catholic, so, pray, don’t force us to accept your sexual demonstrations.

Who got in trouble? If you guessed the St. Patrick’s Day parade organizers, you know your country well. And if you elaborated that it must have happened in British Columbia, congratulations.

There’s a theory making rounds: most of those who claim they are victims of this or that politically incorrect behaviour suffer, first and foremost, from inferiority complex.

A story, a personal observation: many years, decades, even, ago, a group of Jewish students arrived in a Communist country capital to take part in some festival. And the Communist youth officials, trained in anti-semitism, one and all, were walking around, hissing rather loudly: Jews! Jews! The Jewish kids asked what were their hosts saying. When hearing the translation, they shrugged and ignored their hosts. Asked why don’t they go and punch those idiots out, they shrugged again and said: But why? We are Jews all right. If they have a problem with that, it’s their problem. We have no problem with being Jewish.

And that was the end of it.

Yes, yes, yes, African-Americans have had the history of racial discrimination and whatnot. To be precise: great-grandparents and grandparents of today’s young African-Americans had that experience. Not today’s NBA players. African-Americans who are rich beyond most people’s understanding.

But: which was one of the first countries in the world to fight and win the war against slavery? Why, their own country, the United States. And yet, way too many of them act as if this kind of subhuman treatment existed still. Which is why, perhaps, so many of them convert to Islam and give themselves Muslim names. If they knew their history, they would have known whence their ancestors’ enslavement came. If they only paid attention at school, they would have known who still believes slavery is an excellent source of cheap labour force.

But all of this was years ago. This is now.

To get back to the NBA. The players said if the Clippers owner’s case was not solved with all speed and to their full satisfaction, they would boycott their games. Three cheers! So, the employees will be telling their employers how they can speak and what is and what is not permissible speech.

Here’s the answer they should have heard: fancy you telling us that. Here’s the list of wages you’re going to forfeit if you ignore work you’ve signed up to do.

Instead, they get to dance and cheer just because an old moron was livid that his unacceptably younger concubine was cheating on him too openly.

This is a day we should all be ashamed of, not a day to be proud of.

The world takes Putin’s actions on the chin – and does nothing about it

Many, many years ago, in the first half of the previous century, a Dutch sea captain of Czech origin, Jan Van Toch, anchored his ship by a small island somewhere in the Pacific. His company ordered him to find areas where they could get some original pearls. These jewels were coming back into fashion, you see. And Van Toch’s Rotterdam bosses wanted to ride the wave, enhancing their own bank accounts in the process.

The good Captain found, to his genuine surprise, animals whom the natives feared and called black devils. They were intelligent newts. Captain Van Toch befriended them, gave them all kinds of equipment, including underwater guns so they could defend themselves against the local shark population, and convinced a captain of Czech economy who, accidentally, had been born in the same little town as Jan Van Toch, that this could become a business venture.

It did. Thus Czech author Karel Čapek. That, by the way, is the guy who gave the world the word “robot.” But that’s another story for another day.

Čapek wrote and published (in 1936) War with the Newts (Válka s mloky in the original Czech). It was also translated as War with the Salamanders.

This satirical science-fiction novel describes how modern industrialists first enslaved and exploited the newts, until the creatures acquired human knowledge and rebelled. They needed more shores for themselves. So, they started destroying the continents, enlarging the world’s oceans and thus creating more space in which they could live.

If it resembles Adolf Hitler’s demand for “Lebensraum” (space to live in) for the German nation by any chance, it is no accident.

The conflict between the humans and the newts led to a global war for supremacy.

As the war progressed, the author introduced an anonymous voice, known as Mr. X, who told humankind it was perfectly insane to continue developing and delivering all kinds of weapons and sundry equipment to the newts who were, all along, continuing with their operation to destroy that same humankind. Mr. X called on people to stop this. His call was met with derision: economists, politicians, labour union leaders, they all said humankind had never had it better, employment figures were reaching 100 per cent, in fact, people would need more workers to meet all the orders coming from under-the-sea level, and who was this Mr. X anyway to try to stop progress.

If you want to know how it all ended, run to your local library or a bookstore.

Cut to the chase

We are in the twenty-first century now, and the world keeps supplying another Hitler, one who goes under the name of Vladimir Putin, and is also known as the president of Russia. Putin’s Russia is getting all kinds of sophisticated weaponry, and the European Union goes on without stopping but once to think how suicidal this is.

Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas, writing for an Estonian web publication, ICDS (the abbreviation stands for International Centre for Defence Studies), of Tallin, that country’s capital, have exposed the world’s dark secret.

Before we proceed, a tip of the hat is due to Jan Maisler for a competent translation, and to Jiří Wagner, editor of the Czech news site, Neviditelny pes, for preparing this information jewel for publication.

If you don’t speak Czech, learn to. You would be able to read the story quoted from below in its fullness. And if knowing the language of the people who gave the world such beers as Pilsner Urquell and the original Budweiser (not the weak imitations as provided by Anheuser-Busch) is not important to you, where are your values, for crying out loud?

Back to the topic

The European Union (EU, for short, and it doesn’t deserve anything more, anyhow), says it’s upset about the Russian aggression in Ukraine and it’s going to impose sanctions.

Oh yeah? That’s the question posed by Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas.

How about weapons exports to Russia? And – more importantly, perhaps – how about the close co-operation between some EU countries and Russia, developing new weapon systems and transferring military technologies and expertise to Russia?

Strangely enough, most mainstream media all over the world keep their mouths shut when it comes to this topic.

But why?

Is it because speaking out would equal washing dirty linen in public? Is it because putting a stop to this shameful behaviour would (let’s go back to Čapek) slow down or, Heaven forbid, stop the flow of income that happens to turn into profit at a later stage? Is it because mainstream media never got a press release detailing these shenanigans?

Realizing that modern-day reporters seem to have never heard that what makes a reporter is curiosity, this could be as valid a reason as any.

Or is it hypocrisy, pure and simple?

A few years ago, Russia invaded Georgia. The reason, Putin said on the occasion, was to defend the poor, defenceless Russians in Ossetia (sounds familiar, does it not?). Shortly after that, Russia signed a deal with France. It would buy from the French amphibious vehicles of the Mistral class (a.k.a. “projection and command” vehicles). The Baltic republics, all of whom had known Soviet occupation, objected. The EU called their reaction “hysterical” and worse.

That, Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas write, was a clear signal: who cares about Russia’s aggressive behaviour, so long as France’s military economy prospers? It may even fill French government’s coffers with new taxes. So, what’s the big deal?

Everybody’s happy: Russia has got new killer toys to use in its future aggressions, France gets richer. What’s there to complain about?

Remember the Iraqi nuclear facility, Osirak? It used to be called by many “Ochirac,” after then-French president Jacques Chirac who allowed the transfer of his country’s sophisticated nuclear knowledge (and the training of Iraqi scientists in his country) despite clear warnings that something dirty was going on. In a daring air attack, the Israelis would obliterate the place, thus earning eternal hatred from France.

So, what’s new? Nothing much, really.

As Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas inform us, the Franco-Russian military co-operation now includes the development of a new generation of vehicles for the transport of Russia’s infantry, the development of a production line for building thermovision, equipment that would allow the Russian military to operate in the middle of the night, as well as a number of other similar projects. Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas also quote Dmitrii Rogozin, Russia’s vice-premier responsible for defence (read: military) industries, as saying that the two countries have launched a “new era of intensive Franco-Russian co-operation that includes intensive exchange of confidential information.”

God knows where all that is going to end. And if She knows, She’s not telling: it’s confidential information, after all.

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles

Since the EU includes two major weapons exporters (France and Germany), it was to be expected that the Germans would not be far behind their French brethren.

Germany’s Federal Security Council (Bundessicherheitsrat in German) is chaired by the country’s Chancellor herself (her office is equal to Canada’s Prime Minister, with the President serving as a figure-head, just as the Governor-General does in Canada). It has been issuing export licences for weapon sales like nobody’s business. Russia has been quickly making its way to the top of the list of countries that deserve getting Germany’s military technology.

One of the most alarming recent German sales to Russia: modern equipment to train units up to the size of a brigade. That, Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas document, happens to be first-class equipment to run an operations command post. Thus far, it has been available only to the most developed countries. Whether Russia is one of the most-developed countries remains to be seen, but it now has this equipment.

In fact, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has developed a doctrine that basically gives her country’s military industry a free hand. Thus Merkel: “I am convinced that it is in our interest to enable our partners to effectively participate in keeping or renewing security and peace in their regions.”

Which means that if Putin says that Russians in Ossetia or Ukraine (or anywhere else, for that matter) are in danger and he only wants is to ensure their safety and security, his word is gospel.

Konrad Henlein used this refrain in the Sudetenland regions of former Czechoslovakia, with Adolf Hitler’s enthusiastic support. It ended in a deal (the so-called Munich Agreement) signed by British Prime Minister Sir Neville Chamberlain, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier, Italy’s Duce (Leader) Benito Mussolini and Germany’s Reichskanzler (Chancellor) Adolf Hitler.

Sir Neville Chamberlain returned to London, telling all and sundry he had secured “peace in our time.”

Indeed. We all know how it ended.

Lying through their teeth

The EU politicians claim that if they co-operate with Russia, they would have a say in what that country is doing.

A bald-faced lie if there ever was one, and they know it.

Vladimir Putin is much more realistic. He knows that, beside some tut-tutting that followed his incursion into Georgia, nothing happened and everything was business as usual even before the dust settled. So, he figures, and quite correctly, too, that if he annexes the entire country of Ukraine, not just Crimea, he’ll pass jail and will be free to buy, say, Pennsylvania Station, to use the language of the game of Monopoly.

Why Pennsylvania Station? Just a play on words: Putin received a phone call from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., the other day. The U.S. president himself, Barack Obama was on the line. They chatted for about an hour after which Putin told Obama he had other, more pressing, commitments to attend to and bid good-bye.

Would Putin change anything, pray tell, after this conversation? Are you kidding? Why should he? What can a president whom he considers a perfect weakling do to him? And besides, all of his military’s supply needs are met, courtesy France and Germany, so, who cares about the U.S., anyway?

So, Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas pose a legitimate question: who’s influencing whom, come to think of it? It’s obvious the EU (and the rest of the Western world) have practically no impact on Putin’s thinking and actions with whatever rhetoric they dare mouth. And not that the EU overextends itself in its condemnations of Russia’s aggressions, either. In fact, it seems that Canada is the only country willing to take at least some action, symbolic as it is. Expelling Russian military personnel and limiting Russian officials’ right of entry is nice, but if Putin had feathers, none of them would be ruffled.

What can be done?

Not much, really, if we decide to subscribe to what today’s Western politicians (and those of the EU in particular) call realpolitik.

Impose sanctions? To be effective, they would have to include all matters military, including an immediate stop to all military sales and knowledge transfers.

Is this going to happen? A rhetorical question.

EU politicians would tell you they haven’t got enough money to maintain their military and, besides, NATO isn’t that rich of an uncle as it used to be any longer, either. Pray tell, they would demand, where else are we going to get the finances to maintain our own defence? We’re taxing our own citizens beyond acceptable levels as it is.

Here’s a logical follow-up question: maintaining your defence means that you’re defending your sovereignty. Except, it seems everything the EU stands for is dismantling individual (and sovereign) European countries. So, how can you explain that contradiction?

Here’s the answer you’d get: silence. Overwhelmingly deafening silence.

The crux of the matter is that to maintain their military, EU countries are supporting someone who’s getting more and more aggressive. Putin relies on the shortsightedness of EU politicians because he knows he can.

To sum up: EU politicians are undermining their own security while helping a new Hitler along the way. In addition, some of the countries that have common borders with Russia (including some EU members) will lose their faith in EU’s ability to defend them against somebody who’s got that same military hardware (and software) as EU has. Where they will go to get their own weaponry is anybody’s guess. China? Korea? South Africa? Israel?

And where’s the U.S. on this list? you may ask. Nowhere is the answer. The Europeans mostly seem to share Putin’s assessment of America’s current administration. That’s one of the very few things they share with him.

Meanwhile, Putin will continue to test EU’s policy of appeasement and profit. It’s going to be his gain and, eventually, his trump card.

If you start digging a hole, you should stop digging once you’re inside, Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas say.

The question is: do the French and the Germans realize they’ve dug a hole that now has not only them, but their alleged EU allies inside, too?

Where is Karel Čapek’s Mr. X now when we need him?

And would we wake up and start listening to him?

Islamists desecrate military graves. When will we stand up to these bullies?

Islamists desecrated an Allied cemetery near Tobruk recently.

Have you ever heard about it in mainstream media? Have you ever read about it in mainstream media? Have you ever seen it in mainstream media?

Most of you will say this is the first time you read about it.

You might have read a story or two in the British press: it was British graves, after all. But not much.

Here’s your chance to see (and hear) it: http://www.youtube.com/embed/RtgbvotqVFE?rel=0.

Now that you’ve seen and heard it, here are the questions again: Have you ever heard about it in mainstream media? Have you ever read about it in mainstream media? Have you ever seen it in mainstream media?

And an additional question: have you ever heard, read or seen a word of concern, not to mention protest, from any of the so-called civilized governments of what we still call (inertia, perhaps?) civilized countries?

The only government to raise an eyebrow was the one in London, England. Again, it was British graves, after all. But even so, an eyebrow up, saying “tut-tut,” just doesn’t cut it.

Other than that, the answer to all of the above questions is no. A shocking and alarming no.

But why?

Have we all gone scared excrement-less (to use a polite version of a well-known comparison) that someone might say we’re racist? That we lack basic tolerance? That the graves are in Libya and what are they doing there, anyway? That is wasn’t the Libyans’ war, after all?

During the Second World War, Tobruk was in Italian hands. Italy, at the time, was an openly fascist country, allied with an openly national-socialist Germany.

Tobruk was then (still is, in fact) a strategically located port. Those who held Tobruk would have an upper hand in military operations on the African continent. Having that upper hand was important for a number of reasons: access to raw materials, control over sea-lanes, to name but a couple.

No wonder the Allies fought for and won the control of Tobruk. The Germans, perfectly aware of the place’s importance, sent an elite army to win the port (and the peninsula) back. Deutsches Afrika Korps under Lieutenant-General Erwin Rommel pushed the Allies out. So pleased was Rommel’s commander-in-chief, Adolf Hitler, he would bestow the rank of Generalfeldmarschall upon him, making Rommel the youngest officer holding such a high rank in the history of the German military.

The Allies fought back and re-captured the region in what has become known as the Second Battle of El-Alamein.

It was one of the major turning points that would lead to the defeat of Hitler’s Germany.

So far as the Islamic population in the area (but not only there) is concerned, Hitler should have won the war. He was, so far as they are concerned, a swell guy and if he had any shortcomings at all, it would be that he hadn’t done away with the Jews altogether.

This is no imaginative conclusion. This is what these people state on record.

And yet, instead of trying to enforce humanity, Western lumpenintelligentsia (see definition of lumpenproletariat for explanation) is all agog over what they call Arab spring. A war, that is, on existing governments in those regions.

Granted, existing governments in those regions would have a long ways to go to begin resembling anything coming close to modern democratic governments. The question whether anything of the kind would be possible to achieve within this century is quite legitimate. But it still does not mean that we should automatically give standing ovation, including material support, to all those who oppose them.

Western lumpenintelligentsia (again, see definition of lumpenproletariat for explanation) ignores such minor things like that those in opposition to existing governments are Islamic fundamentalists of all stripes and shades. Their fierce opposition to their governments is based on the fear that those existing governments are becoming too westernized, meaning, by extension, that they begin resembling democracy too closely for comfort.

Lies legitimized

We now live in an era of political correctness, which, for all reasons and purposes, is just unabashed censorship. It goes so far as to call, for example, Mark Twain or William Shakespeare racists. One wonders quite often whether any of those accusers have ever read Twain or Shakespeare, but that’s another matter.

This era of political correctness makes it easy to silence those whose views do not conform to the politically correct mantra. An accusation of any of the “reactionary” –isms will suffice. And if you happen to point out to any of the supporters of political correctness that they are indulging in censorship, they would call you all kinds of names, usually not even knowing what those names mean.

So, if you happen to say that what the Islamists are doing in desecrating soldiers’ graves is abominable, the answer would come back that it wasn’t their war in the first place.

Guess what: it was. As mentioned above, these fellows were Hitler’s supporters. Should any of the politically correct crowd ask, “So what?” a reality seminar in a former Nazi concentration camp would be useful. Preferrably with actors dressed as SS thugs, with the inmate knowing her or his next stop would be an extermination camp.

Of course, these Islamists just happen to be also the same gang that objects to having Olympic arena built in a spot that they claim used to be a burial area for the fallen Muslim soldiers of wars two centuries ago.

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. Literal translation from the Latin: What is legitimate for Jove (Jupiter), is not legitimate for the ox. In simpler words: Gods may do what cattle may not. Even simpler: it’s all about double standard.

So, as a double standard, it is fine and dandy for persons of Muslim persuasion to try to stone to death a girl in Belgium just because she’s not wearing the appropriate clothing. The fact the girl in question was NOT Arab meant nothing. It is fine and dandy for Muslim organizations to demand that the Ontario government introduce Sharia laws for the Muslim community, and those who oppose this (calling it insanity, among other epithets) are labelled as racists. It is fine and dandy for a major Muslim organization to be on internationally recognized lists of terrorist supporters, but when a Canadian government official as much as mentions it, they threaten they would take him (and the rest of the government) to court to have it withdrawn. It is fine and dandy for a major Canadian newspaper to publish a cartoon that describes the country’s prime minister as an Israeli lackey just because he told Israeli parliament (the Knesset) that Canada is and will remain Israel’s ally.

Why are you objecting to have a mosque built just round the corner from the former World Trade Center in New York? So what that it is precisely the place Muslim fanatics changed into a mountain of smouldering ruins on the fateful September 11 day. Don’t the Muslims have a right to pray wherever they please?

How many would stand up and say: no, absolutely not? And this is not about our intolerance, this is about their intolerance, and the ruins bear witness to that. (And never mind the tastelessness of it all.)

So, what should we have done about the Libyan Muslims who desecrated the military graves in Tobruk?

On the first instinct, we should have them identified from the video, taken to a public square and flogged a hundred score lashes on their naked bottoms. Not only for the pain, but for the humiliation, also. And females should do the flogging: widows, daughters and granddaughters of those whose graves were desecrated. Just to drive the message home.

This would be a perfect solution on the second instinct, too.

The third instinct suggests this would be nice, but it wouldn’t be the way to go.

How about taking these people to Nazi concentration camp and treat them just the lumpenintelligentsia that eggs them on would be treated: daily beatings by actors dressed up as SS thugs, and knowledge of extermination that awaits them? Putting the shoe on the other foot, so to speak?

One thing is for sure: keeping silent about atrocious behaviour by the Islamist population makes our world a dangerous place to be.

We should all stand up and let those people know we won’t tolerate it. You can’t stop bullying by hiding somewhere in a corner.

And that’s precisely who these guys are. Bullies.

We should be ashamed of letting them feel they can get away with it.

Police officers wearing hijabs? What’s next? Burkas for police dogs?

The word “uniform” has one meaning, and one meaning only. Does this require spelling out?

Seems Edmonton Police Service would do well checking out a dictionary or some basic thesaurus, available in any public library.

Why?

Apparently, in the name of cultural tolerance, it’s now looking at how to introduce hijab as an option to police uniform.

One wishes to have their issues. And Rothschild’s money, too.

So, here are the facts: those who say it’s all about cultural tolerance (multiculturalism, that is) are lying through their teeth beyond belief.

What we are talking about is a religious symbol. Indeed, religion is a matter of culture and tradition, but that doesn’t change the basics: hijab (and other such headgear) symbolizes a woman’s position in society as dictated by a religion.

A mild reminder: that religion was written by males, and that female position just happens to be subservient to male position.

The tragic thing is that more often than not, the crowd that vigorously supports multiculturalism happens to be the same crowd that fights (with similar vigour) for equality of sexes. Not realizing that you can’t have it all.

There should be one simple rule: if you are an officer of the law, you must keep your religion at home. In fact, that rule should extend to all public servants. The same holds true for crosses, stars of David, hijabs, turbans, Sikh knives and whatnot. None of it should be allowed as part of a police officer’s uniform. And neither has any of it any place in a government office, at any level. Period.

That Edmonton Police Service even has an Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit speaks volumes about its misguided approach. We have laws on the books that quite specifically say that we are all equal. To be organizing such hugely superfluous departments is an exercise in attempting to create more jobs, to put it very mildly. And never mind such minor diversions as that those who occupy those jobs keep using so-called static figures, not real-life statistics (numbers, that is, that are dynamic, meaning they change as life changes). The idea is to justify their existence. Using this kind of propaganda babble is an insult to the meanest intelligence.

An Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit representative, Natasha Goudar, is on the record as saying her group has been working with Muslim communities, including Imams, about what she termed were cultural implications and requirements.

An aside: define Imam, will you? A community leader, generally, and a religious authority, more specifically.

“One of the big concerns for them was an educational element to the introduction of the hijab. They didn’t want to just bring it in and have it sit on a shelf,” Goudar said.

Canada is a land of compromise, so, this is how it would look: the head scarf would be black in colour, and sit underneath the standard-issue Edmonton police hat.

It’s the same nonsense as allowing RCMP officers to wear turbans, as the federal government did in 1990.

It seems that Quebec is indeed a distinct society, judging at least by its proposed Quebec Charter of Values. It would forbid Quebec’s public employees from wearing visible religious symbols – including hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes and larger-than-average crucifixes.

In this case, three cheers for Quebec and its distinctiveness.

We’ve stepped on a slippery slope here. So slippery, that an Edmonton Catholic Schools Board’s brochure features as one of its illustrations a girl wearing a hijab. Asked what that is supposed to mean, a board spokesthingie said this was to demonstrate the all-inclusive character of schools in its jurisdiction. Considering one of Islam’s publicly stated goals is to do away with Christianity (that happens to include Catholicism) and with Christians, this all-inclusiveness seems to be going one way only.

While not calling for Crusades or anything even similar to them, the basic rule of new citizenship should make a comeback, and fast. The rule is straightforward enough: you came to Canada, and it was your voluntary choice. Nobody forced you to come here, and nobody’s forcing you to stay.

Canada has been built on certain principles. Call them cultural, traditional, religious, whatever combination thereof, but here they are spelt out: they are Judeo-Christian (whatever THAT is supposed to mean).

If you want respect, you have to give respect, first. By trying to impose your preferences upon something that you had elected to join in the first place, you’re doing no such thing.

You want to practice your religion? By all means. But do not try to force it upon others.

Your young women can’t join a police force because they feel wearing hijab is a major responsibility? Fine: you simply can’t have it all. If your women still believe that hijab symbolizes something, and if they do not care that they are giving up their rights, that would be their problem.

Yes, some of them would have preferred to drop the hijab and live as they please. Alas, their own men (fathers, husbands, brothers, the lot) threaten their lives for such transgressions. Speaking of which: and when somebody mentions this strange state of affairs in advertisements on Edmonton’s city buses, a councillor sees fit to impose crude censorship on such ads and have them pulled.

Multiculturalism denies the truth that we’re all different in the name of equal rights for everybody.

We’re not all equal. And no, all cultures are NOT equal, either. Female circumcision, anybody? Honour killing, perhaps?

Edmonton Police Service should, first and foremost, rid itself of its Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit and spend the money thus saved on better policing.

And those who are cheering this of kind of multicultural nonsense on, should go straight back to school and learn the meaning of the word: uniform.