Blog about politics (mideast and pro-Israel, Canadian and local Montreal), world events, and random thoughts.

""

The World I Know is updated on a semi-regular basis by segacs.

Think I'm the greatest thing since chocolate-covered strawberries? Think I'm certifiably insane? E-mail me at segacs2.at.yahoo.ca.

Buy me a present! Visit my Amazon Wish List.

Frequently asked questions about me and this blog.

Atom site feed

Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of segacs's world i know.

---

<< List
Jewish Bloggers
Join >>

 
7:20 PM
Canadians showed their support and friendship for our neighbours to the south today, as 1,000 people attended a pro-US rally in Toronto. Speakers included Ontario Premier Ernie Eves, and Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper:

''Canadians, friends of America - that is who we as Canadians are,'' Eves told the crowd.

''Our American neighbours, our friends, our colleagues, our Allies have always supported us, they've protected us, they've helped us and they've stood by us and now we should be standing by them.''

Harper thanked the crowd for ''opening your hearts'' and ''saying to our friends in the United States of America, you are our ally, our neighbour, and our best friend in the whole wide world.

''And when your brave men and women give their lives for freedom and democracy we are not neutral,'' Harper said.

''We do not stand on the sidelines; we're for the disarmament of Saddam and the liberation of the people of Iraq.''

Of course, the counter-protestors and hecklers showed up. And the crowd was likely smaller than anticipated due to a freezing-rain storm, and Toronto's preoccupation with the outbreak of SARS.

Still, one can hope that this pro-US movement will gain some momentum. We'll know it's a true success when there's a pro-US rally in Montreal (hah!).

Update: The Toronto Star has more, including a photo. And Friends of America, the organizer of the rally, has a link on its website to an online petition that Canadians can sign to show their support for the U.S.

Second update: See lots more pictures at InstaPundit.

|

 
11:00 AM
Well, this is a bald threat if I've ever heard one: The SPHR and other activist groups are threatening a protest that will "make the September 9 protest look like nothing" in order to voice their displeasure with the election of Evolution to the CSU:

In an attempt to send a message to the both the administration and to already beleaguered students, activist groups are planning to stage a massive protest, one prominent student politician tells me. At issue is the policy of the new Executive to put activism second and academics first. The act of civil disobedience will apparently "make the September 9 protest look like nothing. They will take over the entire Hall Building." What's more, people will be flown in from outside of the country "to do the dirty work."

My source, who has strong contacts with many student associations (including the SPHR), assures me that this protest will take place sometime in the early fall, and that it will "show that only CSU slates that support activism will be able to maintain order at Concordia." "People should have voted for Clean Slate," he says, "because they support activism. The message is that Concordia is about activism."

This is the way these people operate. They hail democracy as long as it works in their favour. But if students democratically elect people they disagree with, they try to blackmail the students by threatening violence.

Absolutely disgusting. Not too surprising, though.

(Via Wordniness).

Update: Having posted this on the Link's website, in a response by Adam Slater, he seems to suggest that this may not be true. Well, I can't confirm or deny it one way or the other. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But, like I wrote in response to Mr. Slater, there's only one way to find out: if there's a riot in September, then I guess it's true. Although I'm sure the SPHR cronies will maintain that "the Zionists started it", like they did after September 9th.

|

 
9:36 AM
The CJC is reporting that the Canadian government has finally listed the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade as a terrorist organization: (link not yet active)

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise the House that the government has listed seven more entities pursuant to the Criminal Code and under the Anti-terrorism Act.

The newly listed entities are as follows: Jemaah Islamiah; Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan; Basque Homeland and Liberty; Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade; Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia; United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia; and National Liberation Army.

This listing is a public confirmation that these entities are engaged in terrorist activity. The consequences are severe, not only for terrorists but for those who support them. It is now a crime to knowingly participate in, contribute to, or facilitate the activities of these entities. Any person or group that is listed may have its assets seized and forfeited. Those who deal with the property or finances of these entities are subject to severe penalties, including up to 10 years' imprisonment.

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, as most of you know, is the "militant" wing of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement.

Update: Here's a link to the story.

|

 
2:00 PM
Some encouraging news, for a change: Israeli and Palestinian youngsters are learning about diplomacy at an Israeli mock U.N. conference:

Ramzi Sfeir, a 17-year-old from the Palestinian village of Bet Jalla, never believed that Palestinians and Israelis could agree on anything.

But after he was offered a chance to sit at a mock negotiating table with Jewish Israelis his own age, he says that many of his preconceived notions just faded away.

"I learned that you can talk without fighting," he said, after participating in a model United Nations in Israel, aimed at teaching diplomacy skills to youth. "I also learned that Jews have convictions we can't change and that Judaism is like a nationality for them. [The Jewish participants] also came to understand us better."

Though there are hundreds of model UN programs in countries around the world, Israel is one of the only Middle East nations to host one; and is the only one with a special committee that brings Israelis and Palestinians together to negotiate regional issues.

This won't create peace in the middle east. But it seems to be an extremely valuable step, because unlike other left-wing efforts to "bring together" Jewish and Arabic kids and teens in Israel, this one doesn't shy away from the thorny political issues. Instead, it gives the participants a forum to attack them head-on, but in a non-violent, diplomatic way.

There are no miracle solutions. Only baby steps. This seems like a good one.

|

 
12:59 PM
A group of students from the high school down the street from me got to miss class time to protest the war in Iraq. Understandably, parents are incensed - but, in my opinion, for the wrong reason:

Theresa Leblanc was appalled to learn that her daughter spent her time in art class on Monday at École secondaire Des Sources making anti-war posters while students were ridiculing U.S. President George W. Bush.

Then when she heard the posters were for an anti-war march that would take place during school hours, she hit the roof.

"I'm just up in arms," said Leblanc, who has a nephew in the U.S. marines, fighting in Iraq.

"This is such a lack of respect. You can have a debate but it's another thing to have a demonstration like this during school time. It's appalling."

Another parent, who didn't want to be named, said she was also furious when one of her two daughters said she had been forced to make posters.

She, too, was unhappy about a demonstration during school time. "My girls missed physics and French - that's more important than a march."

It's not as though it's a big sacrifice for most high school students to miss class time. We used to invent any reason we could think of, from play practices to charity walkathons, all in effort to spend as few hours as possible behind a desk.

But this crosses the line, since it is essentially pressuring the students into all thinking the same way. While the Gazette reports that "students who didn't want to participate in the march had the option of attending a debate on the Iraqi situation", I bet I know exactly what form that so-called "debate" took.

I'm sure there were students who wanted to demonstrate because they read up on the issues and formed educated political opinions. But I'm also sure that there were equally as many who did not. Consider the following quote by one of the organizers:

"I'm against killing innocent people," said Grade 11 student Ruba Al Karan. "Saddam (Hussein) did a lot of stupid things but Bush is no better."

Other students spoke of U.S.-bashing going on while the students used their time in art class to draw up posters.

High school can be a difficult time for students with dissenting opinions. There's an incredible amount of pressure to follow the crowd. Not to mention, about half the students at the school had probably never taken a history course in their lives. Students are entitled to their opinions, but this was incredibly inappropriate.

|

 
4:46 PM
The National Post fisks Robert Fisk. Well, okay, it's not really a fisking. It's more of a direct attack on his credibility and views:

But it's his moral certitude that seems, in a way, most enviable. He never lacks a strong opinion, and it's always the same: Whatever goes wrong in the Middle East, he blames the Americans and the Israelis.

If an Arab nation commits some outrage, that's because Washington supports Arab dictators. If Palestinians kill, it's because Israel stole their land. He dislikes Yassir Arafat ("corrupt, vain little despot") but believes he's Israel's fault because Israel helped create the Palestinian Authority and brought in Arafat "as a colonial governor" to control his people.

[Most journalists are biased, but Fisk paints himself into a particularly narrow corner. He has one subject and only about two opinions, which he expresses with an abundance of sneering pride and a total absence of nuance. He loves recalling Israel's occupation of Lebanon (which he covered) but usually neglects to mention that the army went there to silence the artillery that was bombarding Israel.

At any moment, apparently, Fisk's brain contains several pre-packaged articles, lacking only specifics. When something happens, he fills in the blanks. On Sept. 11, 2001, he happened to be on a plane as the news broke. No problem. He phoned his office and dictated a piece blaming America. It sounded just like every other Fisk piece.

[ . . . ]

Fisk claims to feel sympathy for the Arabs, but it's the sympathy of condescension. To him the Arabs have no responsibility for their destiny. They are all pawns of the West. And sometimes he writes as if he personally carried on his shoulders the guilt of the West.

Nothing we haven't all said before about Fisk at one time or another, but the National Post is a major national publication. Read the whole thing.

|

 
10:45 AM
The Canadian Jewish News also has more on the suppression of Jewish students' rights at Carleton.

|

 
10:40 AM
And in an interesting twist: the Concordia administration has asked the Quebec government to de-certify the CSU:

[Lowy] said Concordia has approached the ministries of education and justice to strip the CSU of its certification because it has not acted in the interests of the undergraduates it represents.

[ . . . ]

Quebec, he said, is the only province that permits student governments to be certified like labour unions. This status allows the CSU a great deal of autonomy, he said. It obliges the university to collect dues from students and turn them over to the CSU to use as it wishes. Currently, the CSU has $1.3 million at its disposal.

With Evolution's victory in the CSU electons last Friday, this point may be seemingly moot. After all, a moderate slate has been elected, that will likely protect the interests of students without imposing a radical agenda like the past four years' CFS-backed executives. So why bother trying to de-certify?

Well, the simple answer is that this is just one election. A year of peace will be very nice at Concordia, but there's nothing to stop the Left from gearing up and getting right back into power next year. I'm sure they're already strategizing as we speak. A CSU with drastically-reduced power may reduce Evolution's power this year - but it would also ensure that the system was a lot less prone to abuse in the future. So hey, sounds like a good idea to me!

Sure, the Left will cry foul as it always does, and accuse the adminsitration of trying to strip students of their legitimate rights to representation. But I bet that, with the exception of the radicals, nobody would ever miss the CSU and its ridiculous amount of power. When a union does more harm than good for its members, then what exactly is the point?

Update - 04/20/03: These reports appear to be erroneous as Lowy now claims he did not, in fact, ask the government to de-certify the CSU:

"The administration has not asked the government to de-certify the union," he said. "Two years ago, when we were having trouble with the union, we put in a request that the four ministries responsible for accreditation look at the CSU. We felt [the CSU] were going beyond their mandate. We never asked them to de-certify." Lowy maintains that the Quebec government decided against investigating the CSU two years ago, and the administration has never asked again.

That's really too bad. At the very least, the government ought to review the expansive amounts of power given to student unions to ensure that, ultimately, they are accountable to someone.

|

 
10:57 PM
Politically-correct racism?

You know, I'm getting really tired of people who analyse or critique political races, institutions, or policies by claiming that "there aren't enough minorities". I'm not talking about situations in which minorities are excluded or systematically discriminated against. Rather, I'm referring to instances where a person is given a position, an award, or an advantage specifically for being a member of a minority group. Not only is this "politically-correct", but it's considered very politically incorrect to criticize this practice.

A while back, I ranted about affirmative action. But right now, the issue at hand is the debate over minority candidates in politics. In today's Gazette, an opinion piece by Don MacPherson criticized the three parties running in the upcoming Quebec provincial election for having an insufficient number of minority candidates:

As a result, the linguistic, cultural or ethnic minorities are consistently underrepresented in the National Assembly. While 19 per cent of Quebecers had mother tongues other than French at the 2001 census, non-francophones held less than half that proportion of the seats in the last legislature. When the legislature was dissolved for the April 14 election, minority members held only 11 seats out of 124, (there was one vacancy) or nine per cent.

The Quebec parties aren't the only ones facing criticism. The CSU elections at Concordia have come under fire for having too few minority candidates. Prior to the election, slates were interviewed on their opinions on diversity. And in an editorial in the Link, racism is cited as a factor in last week's election, in which the presidential candidates in all the slates running for executive happened to be Caucasian. The conclusion drawn was that "systematic racism against Arabs and Muslims" kept many of them from being elected.

A comment posted in response implied that the CSU will inadequately represent students because of the racial background of many of its members.

Might be shrill, but the article gets it partly right - this CSU is about the colour of rice pudding with a couple of raisins in it. Not really an improvement over the last batch, raisin-wise.

Nevermind Arabs - where are all the other non-whites in this most diverse of schools?

I posted the following comment in response:

All of you, are you even listening to yourselves?

That a group of seemingly educated, intelligent, reasonable people could claim to be opposed to racism, and yet spend an entire thread judging people by the colour of their skin baffles me beyond belief!

Does the fact that Natalie Pomerleau is white make her less capable of doing the job? Or Youri Cormier? Or Adam Slater, for that matter?

There is far, far too much "token"-ism in politics already. Political parties run their "token" minority candidates in order to appear diverse, and it's starting to get far out of hand.

Here's a new idea: why not *gasp!* vote for people based on their platforms? Their ideas? Their competence, their experience, and their ability to do a good job?

Nobody stopped minority candidates from running - in fact, they were encouraged! I'll also note that the most recent three CSU presidents (including the president-elect) were women: Natalie Pomerleau, Sabine Friesinger, and Sabrina Stea. Should men cry gender discrimination?

You claim to be against racism. And yet which one of us here is making judgements based on the colour of a person's skin? Think about that for a moment.

Every time a party is blasted for having inadequate minority representation, this only serves to encourage token-ism all that much more.

Maybe we ought to pass a law barring any photos from being disclosed of a candidate, or even preventing his or her name from being released. We should get presented with platforms and candidate CVs, listed under "Candidate #1", "Candidate #2", and so on. Maybe that's the only way to ensure that people vote for someone based on competency, not racism.

But, since this isn't likely to be implemented anytime soon, shouldn't we do everything in our power to eliminate racism from elections? And this includes judging parties and candidates based on skin colour. To me, doing so is nothing more than politically-correct racism.

|

 
10:14 PM
Meryl Yourish has the latest on the Palestinians, Israel's "supposed" partner for peace:

The Jerusalem Post has stories about how the Palestinian Authority's representative at the UN Human Rights Convention publicly called for Israel's destruction and made disgusting comparisons to Nazism, UNRWA was implicated once again in aiding and abetting terorrism, and Palestinians named a square in Jenin after the suicide bomber who killed 4 U.S. troops in Iraq. And all that in the past two days!

But sure, Israel should just give them whatever they want, and make nice, and all will work itself out. Yeah, right.

|

 
10:08 PM
The blog was experiencing technical difficulties most of today. They should hopefully be all resolved now. Thank you for your patience.

|

 
9:54 AM
CSU electon update:

The final totals are in. Some uncounted tally sheets widened Evolution's victory margin to nearly 1,300 votes. Here are the final counts for executive:

Evolution, Not Revolution: 2533
Clean Slate: 1241
Renaissance Concordia: 312
New Vision: 152
Free Thinker's Parliament: 102

The counts for council, senate, and board of governers candidates are also up.

A few interesting notes:

• Hillel activist Naomi Sarna was elected to council with 60 more votes than her brother Noah, a co-president of Hillel, who was not.
  
  
• And speaking of Noahs who are Hillel presidents, Noah Joseph was elected to one of two Board of Governer seats with five more votes than Sobia Virk, who is famous for having refused to attend a BoG meeting last year as an objection to the fact that alcohol was being served.
  
  
• Laith Marouf, SPHR activist and general pain in Hillel's side, had the second-to-least number of votes for Arts and Science council. However, his buddy Trish McIntosh, a pro-Palestinian activist who wears a keffiyah, had the most votes in the same race. Hmmm, I wonder if he'll sue her for stealing his votes?
  
  
• CEO Stephen Herman claims that between 4,600 and 4,700 students voted, which is about 40-45% more than the previous record turnout. Way to go! There are no counts for spoiled ballots announced, but adding up all the votes for executive comes to a grand total of 4,340 votes, so we know that at least that many votes were cast.
  
  
• Also note that more people voted for Evolution than the entire number of people who voted in some past CSU elections.

One last thing: today being April Fool's Day, reports that the election has been annulled are a prank. And not a particularly inspired prank at that. Just in case you were wondering - or panicking. To clarify, the election has not been annulled.

|

 
10:34 PM
And onto more important topics: I'm taking an unofficial poll. Chocolate or caramel?

So far among the friends I've surveyed, it's 11 for chocolate, 4 for caramel. You can use the comments to vote.

|

 
10:29 PM
A story in Ha'aretz by Amiram Barakat features an interview with David Harris, executive director of the AJC, in which he claims that the war in Iraq will end up costing Israel:

The leaders of American Jewish organizations are increasingly concerned the United States' "debt" to its allies in Europe will be repaid at Israel's expense, sooner than Jerusalem would even like to think about.

[ . . . ]

In other countries, this same rule results in the opposite outcome, and by this, Harris obviously means France and Belgium, where hostility to Israel is in direct proportion to hostility to the U.S. These countries are working against Israel in the pan-European arena. Harris feels that Britain and Spain are working to harden the American positions toward the government of Israel, primarily as they relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Leaders of the Jewish organizations in the United States - Harris included - place sole responsibility for President Bush's March 16 "road map speech" on this group.

"The question that nagged at them after Bush's speech was 'Why now?'" says Harris. "Why, at the height of a war in Iraq, does the road map have to be put on the table? Does it mean Washington is caving in to pressure from our European allies? Does it mean that Washington, even if unintentionally, consents to allow the impression to be made that there is a connection between the situation in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Personally, based on my acquaintance with the president, the vice president and the national security adviser, I do not believe they see it that way."

It's tempting to write this off a a typical leftist tactic of looking solely at the consequences to evaluate the ethics of a situation. In other words, if the argument is that outsting Saddam is good for Israel, then pro-Israel people should support the war, and if the argument is that it's bad for Israel, then the opposite should be true.

That, however, negates the existance of a right and wrong. And that's a dangerous trap - one that Harris, it should be noted, has avoided falling into. He's not taking a position on the war in Iraq; he's making a statement, an observation if you will, about the potential dangers of its outcome. And I think it would be blind of us not to examine these things, within the context that states that it shouldn't affect current policy in Iraq, of course.

The US has pissed off much of Europe with this war in Iraq. That's a given. A lot of Europe may be looking for some sort of reconciliation, and it's a very realistic possibility that Israel will once again get the short end of the stick. The minute the United States moves in and starts forcing reforms and agreements down the throats of two parties clearly not ready or able to accept them, the situation's bound to worsen. Start forcing Israel to make security concessions, and a lot less of those suicide attacks will be prevented. Start forcing the Palestinians to play nice, and more will be attracted to the terror groups who offer them an outlet for their true feelings.

But I'm not convinced that it will play out like that. Bush did take office determined not to repeat Clinton's mistakes, after all. Harris makes some valid points about the new geopolitical stage, but I think that it's far from a foregone conclusion that Israel will lose out here.

|

 
10:13 PM
Kudos to the commentators!

Under each message on my blog is that little link that says "comments". Well, it's usually there - Haloscan has been kinda unreliable lately. But there are a few people here who have taken up the offer, and I have to give credit where it's due. There are some really intelligent people making really insightful comments. To some of you regulars, you should start your own blog.

Sure, there are some really dumb ones as well. There are plenty that I disagree with. But at least there's (for the most part) informed debate going on, and not just a bunch of name-calling.

Of course, now that I bring this up, some idiot will probably decide to troll me just for the fun of it. I know I'm tempting them bigtime. But I think that credit should go where it's due. So if you're here reading what I have to say, have a look at what some of them are saying as well.

|

 
5:30 PM
Tex is clearly misinformed about Quebec separatism. He's posted a link on his blog calling for Quebec independance. What are they putting in the water down under, anyway? (via Damian Penny.)

|

 
12:20 PM
Speaking of SPHR, they appear to be moving ahead with their agenda, unfazed by their massive loss in the CSU elections. In what they're calling the "Karameh Campaign", they're planning on issuing "demands" to Concordia's administration.

Most of this seems pretty transparent. The constant use of "war criminal" is an attempt to slander Benjamin Netanyahu with a false allegation that they know they cannot prove. Their reference to the "criminalization of dissent" flies in the face of evidence that conclusively states that what they are engaging in is, in fact, the politicization of criminal activity. Their "demand" that charges and sanctions be removed from the rioters is nothing short of a joke (incidentally, if you have not yet signed the petition to bring these criminals to justice, please do so!)

The "inquiry into racism" was already called for by the CSU, which gives some insight into its true motives. However, with the old CSU out and the new CSU coming in, it will hopefully end up being more of an opportunity to raise discussion points, rather than a witch-hunt against the "Zionists" and the administration.

As for the third point, normally, students can use space to hold events, and a police presence wouldn't be necessary if SPHR didn't insist on turning these events into violent clashes.

Their "principles" are equally transparent: Their standard calls against the "criminalization of dissent" and the "discrimination against refugees". Their reference to "civil disobediance" would be all very well and good, except for their stubborn conviction that smashing windows and beating up people in kippas consists of "civil" disobediance. And note their use of "in Palestine" - um, last I checked, Palestine isn't a country.

Finally, perhaps most offensive is their attempt to re-define "anti-Semitism" as meaning "racism against both Arabs and Jews". That is a racist attempt to twist two thousand years of history around and turn the Arabs into the innocent victims. There's no such thing as a "semitic" race - that's an invention of racists. Antisemitism means racism against Jews. Don't like it? Write to the publishers of the dictionary. Nobody's denying them the right to protect against other forms of racism, including anti-Arab racism. But their twisting of the term antisemitism enables them to claim to be against antisemitism, when in truth they're perpetrating it.

SPHR is looking for groups to "endorse" these demands before presenting them to the university. Hah! If you'd like to let these jokers know what you truly think of them, you can send them an e-mail to express yourself.

Update: I've removed the actual text of their "demands" and "principles" from my site, because I realized it could be mis-construed that I was actually promoting the damned thing. Of course, as nothing is further from the truth, I took it down to avoid confusion, but I left the link up so that you can read it and see for yourself what they're up to.

|

 
11:10 AM
SPHR strikes again - at Carleton University:

Up until recently, Carleton has been more known for its party atmosphere than its politics. But then SPHR started a chapter there.

This latest controversy centers around the SPHR exhibit entitled "Carleton under Occupation". The disgusting display included a mock graveyard with a huge banner reading "Made in Israel", as well as SPHR members pretending to be Israeli soldiers setting up a "checkpoint" and hassling students for ID as they walked by. You may recall that a nearly-identical exhibit was staged at Concordia last year - my sense is they probably took the exact same display materials and set them up at Carleton.

Initially, the Carleton administration did not want to allow this exhibit to take place. SPHR began its usual howling about having its freedoms trampled upon, and at some point, the university caved and the display took place as scheduled.

But now, it turns out (surprise, surprise) that the rights of Jewish students to peacefully protest this display were shut down. In a news release sent out by Hillel / the Jewish Student Association at Carleton, it was described how students weren't even permitted to so much as speak out against SPHR's exhibit:

Four Jewish students arrived at Bakers Lounge in the University Centre at 10:15 A.M. with signs informing people of the real reason and need for checkpoints (e.g. "Checkpoints help ensure the safety of civilians"). Immediately upon entering Bakers Lounge they were greeted by the Dean of Students, the Head of Security for Carleton and the incoming President of the Carleton Univeristy Students Association and they were told that they were not permitted to display their signs. After much arguing and trying to win the right to silently protest the SPHR event, they ultimately had no choice but to give up (under threat of having security evict them). The Jewish students then decided to stand near the "checkpoint" area and cheer the "Israeli" soldiers on, thanking them for doing their job of securing the safety of citizens. As soon as the first student did this (very calmly saying " Check those people well. Thank you for keeping citizens safe"), a Carleton security guard approached him and told him he could not say anything or he would be removed from the campus!!

After three hours of being silenced and back and forth arguing, the students were finally told that they could talk but that they would be closely watched for any signs of "provocation". Clearly, yesterday was a sad day for Carleton University. It seems the hallowed right to freedom of expression is selectively applied in what is clearly a discriminatory manner. This is an intolerable situation and cannot continue.

At this point, my info is secondhand, so I'd be interested in hearing from people who were actually there about what went on. However, having seen the same exhibit last year at Concordia, I can certainly understand the desire of Jewish students to protest. If it was like the Concordia one, even students normally uninvolved in politics were overwhelmingly saying that SPHR had crossed the line - especially since at Concordia the exhibit was staged immediately after the Passover suicide bombing in Netanya that killed thirty people. The mock graveyard paying homage to terrorists while ignoring the true victims was not only tasteless, it was deliberately provocative.

And even more typical was SPHR's tactic of demanding freedom of speech for its own viewpoint - through threats and intimidation, if necessary - while simultaneously preventing its opponents from exercising those same freedoms. We saw it with the Concordia Netanyahu riots, we saw it with the attempt to prevent an Israeli journalist from speaking at UQÀM, we saw it in the attempt to prevent Daniel Pipes from speaking at York. It seems that, according to SPHR, freedom of speech only applies to people they agree with.

(Hat tip: Steven)

|

 
7:42 PM
More terror in Israel, as a suicide bomber in Netanya wounds at least thirty people, many of them severely.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack. The organization's secretary, Dr. Ramadan Shallah, spoke to Qatar-based Al Jazeera satellite television in Damascus, saying: "This is our way of showing solidarity with the people of Iraq. " The bombing, he added, was a "gift to the heroic Iraqi people" of Iraq and that Islamic Jihad had sent volunteers for suicide missions to Baghdad.

No matter how many times this stuff happens, it still makes me sick.

|

 
4:17 PM
Oh shut up! Today's Gazette had a nearly full-page opinion piece by Michael "Bush shure is stoopid" Moore. Here's the original link from the Los Angeles Times.

In the lengthy, self-serving drivel, Moore claims that his "mistake" (yeah, right!) was caused because he went to church the morning before the Oscars, causing him to want to cleanse his soul by saying what he truly believes, about how wrong the war truly is because people die in war, yadda yadda yadda. He went on to exhaustively try to explain why he chose to come out with his anti-American rantings at the Oscar ceremony.

We already know why he said it! I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Moore craves attention possibly more than anyone I know. This doesn't exactly make him unique in Hollywood, but it's fairly clear that his book and movie sales and popularity are at an all-time high thanks to the media attention he got with his speech. And he's not exactly humble about it either:

My book "Stupid White Men" still sits at No. 1 on the bestseller list (it's been on that list now for 53 weeks and is the largest-selling nonfiction book of the year). "Bowling for Columbine" has broken all box-office records for a documentary. My Web site is now getting up to 20 million hits a day (more than the White House's site).

The trouble with people like Moore is that they crave fame so much that they'll say or do just about anything to get in the spotlight. Moore isn't following the dictates of his conscience, he's following the dictates of the media who are looking for a juicy story. If he'd thought that making a pro-war speech at the Oscars would have made him more famous, he'd have done that, too.

My favourite part was this:

We are continually bombarded with one fictitious story after another from the Bush White House. And that is why it is important that filmmakers make nonfiction, so that all the little lies can be exposed and the public informed. An uninformed public in a democracy is a sure-fire way to end up with little or no democracy at all.

Yeah, I guess that's why your films are so "factual", right Mikey?

|

 
3:50 PM
Zionist time . . . doh!

This one's old news, but I was talking Jon about how England changed their clocks today, which may have caused his opponents to be no-shows at a football game, which his team then won by default. I laughed, and couldn't help but think of these guys, 1999 Darwin Award winners:

5 September 1999, Jerusalem - In most parts of the world, the switch away from Daylight Saving Time proceeds smoothly. But the time change raised havoc with Palestinian terrorists this year.

Israel insisted on a premature switch from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time to accommodate a week of pre-sunrise prayers. Palestinians refused to live on "Zionist Time." Two weeks of scheduling havoc ensued. Nobody knew the "correct" time.

At precisely 5:30pm on Sunday, two coordinated car bombs exploded in different cities, killing three terrorists who were transporting the bombs. It was initially believed that the devices had been detonated prematurely by klutzy amateurs. A closer look revealed the truth behind the explosions.

The bombs had been prepared in a Palestine-controlled area, and set to detonate on Daylight Saving Time. But the confused drivers had already switched to Standard Time. When they picked up the bombs, they neglected to ask whose watch was used to set the timing mechanism. As a result, the cars were still en-route when the explosives detonated, delivering the terrorists to their untimely demises.

Somehow I can't work up too much sympathy for that one.

|

 
3:21 AM
And now for a really important issue: Where do the missing socks go? (via Rick Hiebert).

|

 
3:07 AM
Canadians rally to support U.S. Today, several pro-American and pro-war in Iraq rallies were held across Canada, the largest of which in Ottawa attracted over 5,000 people:

(Peter) Goldring said the fact that people were marching in favor of the United States on Saturday showed that a "silent majority" actually supported the war.

"We do have a new world reality following Sept. 11, and the new world reality says that we must go to root out terrorism," he said.

More rallies are scheduled for next week, including a massive one in downtown Toronto on Friday. It's about time that we Canadians spoke out in support of our friend and ally south of the border, who keeps doing our dirty work for us time and time again while we keep our noses clean and then criticize them.

|

 
3:02 AM
Here's a real shocker (insert sarcasm): The International Solidary Movement is harbouring terrorists:

Israeli troops raided the West Bank offices of the International Solidarity Movement on Thursday and seized a wanted member of the militant Islamic Jihad group, the army said.

The army said the man was being sheltered in the Jenin offices of the Palestinian-backed peace group whose members often act as human shields, placing themselves between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians.

Apart from Rachel Corrie, who the ISM calls its "first official martyr" (I wonder what she would do with 72 virgins?), other members of the ISM include some familiar names from Concordia, including many past and present members of the CSU.

|