*gasp*
Anti-dhimmitude at work.

This explains why muslims fear women so much.

Posted by: Crusader at June 16, 2008 7:41 AM

"You work from a false assumption, Mr. Siddiqui: that hate is bad.

Sometimes hatred is justified, even a duty." --

Kathy Shaidle.

Well, yeah! Hello! I've expressed those exact sentiments many times here on JW. Hate is a valid and important human emotion. If we didn't have hate, we'd have to love, or be indifferent to, or merely dislike, Nazis and child molesters and serial killers? HELLO MOONBAT PEOPLE! WAKE UP TO THE IMPORTANCE OF HATE IN OUR BRUTAL, CRUEL, AND IMPERFECT HUMAN WORLD. In which there are many things worthy of being hated.

Brava, Kathy!

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 7:47 AM

Love this exchange, too:

"UPDATE:

Siddiqui writes back:

U r entitled to your views.

Thanks for reading.

I respond:

Actually Mr. Siddiqui, I am NOT entitled to my views, according to Canada's Human Rights Commissions, and according to you yourself, in the column you just typed.

I can be fined tens of thousands of dollars for my views -- just ask Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. That is a funny kind of "entitlement."

God, you're an dimwit.

If that is the best you can do in terms of reply, it really does make me wonder why you still have a column in the Star and I do not."

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 7:51 AM

I didn't know Canadians can run for president.

Posted by: payingattention at June 16, 2008 7:55 AM

If anyone cares to stand up for Kathy Shaidle, here is Haroon Siddiqui's "Toronto Star" e-mail address:

hsiddiq@thestar.ca

I'm going to simply say, "Brava, Kathy Shaidle! You are right! Thanks for speaking out!"

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 7:56 AM

"To pretend otherwise is to perform the intellectual equivalent of hiding Nazis in your attic during World War II."

Well said!

When the little boy cries wolf, more often that not, there is a wolf.

Posted by: tanstaafl at June 16, 2008 8:08 AM

Darcy

I took your advice there and sent him something to make him read until he got to the point.

Posted by: payingattention at June 16, 2008 8:09 AM

I think that the right position is:
love the sinner, hate the sin.

It is not Nazis, Jews, Muslims that we should personally hate, but actions or the world view of their community leaders. It is ideological "hate" speech. Liberals could be everyday found guilty of hate speech against conservatives. And vice versa. Hate speech is: because belong to the social group of Muslims/liberals/conservatives/Germans/Jews, I want to lynch you. But it's not hate speech to convince people that different ideas of those people, how to run our common affairs are not optimal. Or that they are hurtful. Let people vote on these ideas.

This is why we have sovereign states. People should form the system of government they like and live according to the rules of their societies. The basic rule of the Western world is democracy - that every group should be given a voice and some representation in the government. The problem really is, that some movements are inherently undemocratic. This is to say, that the whole system of government should be changed - as opposed to normal political process where only policies are changed.

Is Muslims in our societies want to change the constitutions of our states - let they do it how it is usually prescribed: by getting support of 2/3 of people, by open dialog and presentation of arguments. And voting.

Let the people of the West vote for sharia. But don't let the "living constitutions" of Western states be changed illegally.

Posted by: johnsawyer at June 16, 2008 8:17 AM

On the other hand, why don't we organize a referendum, on which we would ask voters, whether they support:
* amputations for theft,
* stoning for adultery
* hijab for women
* death penalty for apostasy.

If people support those propositions, they come into force. Otherwise they stay illegal.

The interesting by product, especially of "death penalty for apostasy" would be the legal challenges of such propositions and the development of body of law, dealing with cases.

Posted by: johnsawyer at June 16, 2008 8:29 AM

Kathy Shaidle here:

Thanks to all of you for your comments and encouragement.

I tossed off that post in a rage yesterday and it is now traveling all over the web! Guess I've struck a nerve -- in a good way.

Let's hope Haroon Siddiqui decides to file a "crime complaint" against me with Canada's "Human Rights" Commissions.

I'm already being sued -- along with Ezra Levant and other Canadian conservative bloggers -- for daring to criticize the Human Rights Commissions fascist tactics, which include entrapment and telecommunications fraud.

Another legal problem couldn't make much difference at this point :-)

Anyhow: thanks again for your support. The struggle up here gets depressing -- not to mention dangerous and expensive -- at times, but your encouragement keeps us all going for another day.

God bless,

Kathy Shaidle
FiveFeetOfFury.com

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at June 16, 2008 8:42 AM

Hi Kathy!

You're a Canadian hero just like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. I hope you continue fighting against the Islamization of Canada!

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 8:48 AM

No one pulls the wool over Kathy Shaidle's eyes.

Folks, Of Feet of Fury is a good read every single day.

Posted by: Sounder at June 16, 2008 9:18 AM

Kathy

You are my hero. Thomas Paine could not hold a candle to you!

Posted by: pismopal at June 16, 2008 9:21 AM

Sorry, my link above should read: Five Feet of Fury

Posted by: Sounder at June 16, 2008 9:30 AM

"Is [sic] Muslims in our societies want to change the constitutions of our states - let they [sic] do it how it is usually prescribed: by getting support of 2/3 of people, by open dialog and presentation of arguments. And voting.

Posted by: johnsawyer

Mr. Sawyer,

To address your point about a 2/3 majority vote, have you noticed the tremendous influx of Muslim immigrants and assylum-seekers to the Western world, just lately? Every year over one million people enter this country (the US) illegally. Many of them are Muslims.

It has become fashionable to grant these already-lawbreakers amnesty, since the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (formerly known as the INS) is too overwhelmed to track down illegals and send them home, and won't allow Border Patrol to enforce the law.

How long do you reckon it will be before, through copious breeding on multiple wives, importation of "extended family", conversion of criminals and other losers, anchor babies, and seditious tweaking of local and state laws through spurious lawsuits, that the 2/3 majority will be Muslims? They may be illegal, now, but it won't be long before this country goes on to the next logical step beyond unearned amnesty, to the granting of automatic citizenship.

Muslims are not now, never were, and never will be "people of the West". They are Muslims first. Ask them, if you don't believe me.

Posted by: Abscedere at June 16, 2008 9:41 AM

I am really confused. I thought that the Jews were the new Nazis. And I also thought that the Holocaust was a myth, so what did the Nazis even do? Isn't this what all the elites around the world have been saying? Somebody clarify this for me.

P.S. In case anyone can't tell, this is meant to be sarcasm.

Posted by: Balrog at June 16, 2008 10:17 AM

Well I guess she told him...

From above: Is Muslims in our societies want to change the constitutions of our states - let they do it how it is usually prescribed: by getting support of 2/3 of people, by open dialog and presentation of arguments. And voting.

Vote jihad...The American way...Immigrate, multiply like jackrabbits, get the vote, take over.
There is no 'easy' way to prevent this long term.
Obama as President will make long term shorter.
If someone, or something, does not throw a monkey wrench into those gears, infidels will be voted out of power. All the wars and all the dead hero's of freedom, will be for nothing...Allah knows best...
God I hate Allah...is that hate speech?

I read the Elders book...It's more boring than the Quran, if that's possible. And every bit as repetitious.

Posted by: duh_swami at June 16, 2008 10:56 AM

Key word: "radical Muslims". How do you define the term? If you think that radicalism is limited to a certain group of terrorists, it makes sense to neutrallize them along with their ideology. On the other hand, if you think the term "moderate Muslims" is a redundancy and favor eliminating 1 bil people, you are a Hitler type.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at June 16, 2008 1:45 PM

"All the wars and all the dead hero's of freedom, will be for nothing..."

Good post duh_swami,with one exception,those "dead hero's of freedom" from all ages shouldn't be measured by what future generations would or wouldn't do with that hard earned freedom. The task before them was their measuring stick. Each generation must overcome their own demons and conflicts and should they fail,it's the future,as opposed to the past,which would be at the utmost peril.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at June 16, 2008 2:19 PM

My point is: Love the siner, hate the sin.

The siners (ill people) need to be healed from the sin (illness).

So, love the moslems, hate islam (kind of sin)!! Moslems are good people, they only need to be cured from their islamic endoctrination. We must love our neighbours.

What is our strategy to cure them from islam?

Posted by: Coaltaxopeuh at June 16, 2008 3:39 PM

You don't mean to say that the Toronto Star actually printed that? I couldn't even get them to print a letter suggesting, with reasons, that sodomites ought not to be ordained in a Christian church.

Good on Kathy Shaidle, and, little as I like it, good on the Toronto Star. As for Haroon Siddiqui...

Posted by: Novalis at June 16, 2008 3:52 PM

As for Haroon Siddiqui...

Posted by: Novalis at June 16, 2008 3:52 PM

He needs to live in an Islamic country. What's the matter, Haroon, an Islamic country isn't good enough for you? Don't you love Islam? And your false prophet and pagan moon deity?

*

God I hate Allah...is that hate speech? --duh swami.

Swami, you can hate anything you want to - from broccoli to "Allah."

Myself, I love a dish of steamed broccoli!

But, I HATE "Allah" the Murder-god pagan deity that doesn't exist! Yet, somehow (i.e. Mohammed) the non-existent god says to Kill US All!

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 4:12 PM

Dear Kathy:

The difference between you and Mr. Siddiqui is that you care about Truth and facts. Mr. Siddiqui is a polemicist and apologist for Islam. He does not care about Truth or facts but making Islam appear in the best light.

Your discussion with him reminds me so much of a recent interview I read with the historian, Benny Morris. As you may know, Mr. Morris is noted for his ground-breaking historical work which documented the expulsions of people made by the Israeli forces in 1948. That work made him the darling of the Left and the "Palestinians". However, he has since determined that the Muslims are actually guided by a religious imperative in their never-ending goal of "driving the Jews into the sea". That determination has now made him the hated enemy of the Left and the "Palestinians". But I digress. What he says in the interview I mentioned which applies to your discussion with Mr. Siddiqui is as follows:

"Myself and several other young Israeli historians were dubbed revisionists and commonly assumed to be doves. But what brought me to my conclusions about 1948 were the facts, not my political views. Con­trary to current historiographic discourse I believe there is such a thing as the Truth—what, why and how things happened—and I've always sought it in my research. If I've since come to a much bleaker opinion about the possibility of reconciliation be­tween Jews and Palestinians—many would now call me a hawk—it is also because of that research."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/136085

Encapsulated in the quotation above is the difference between you and Mr. Morris and Mr. Siddiqui: you and Mr. Morris believe "... there is such a thing as the Truth ...." Mr. Siddiqui does not care about the Truth. All he cares about is trying to convince other people that his points of view regarding Islam, politics and anything else he cares about are the correct ones and that all other points of view on those issues are incorrect.

Keep up the good work, Kathy. Don't pay any attention to the Sheeple.

Posted by: Mentat at June 16, 2008 5:05 PM

Key word: "radical Muslims". How do you define the term? If you think that radicalism is limited to a certain group of terrorists, it makes sense to neutrallize them along with their ideology. On the other hand, if you think the term "moderate Muslims" is a redundancy and favor eliminating 1 bil people, you are a Hitler type.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at June 16, 2008 1:45 PM

Oh, brother. Can it, Shlomo. The "Hitler types" are Mohammedans - they "favor" eliminating US. It's in the Qur'an all over the place, Shlomo. Hey - are you Jewish? Don't you know you're referred to as an "ape and pig" in the Qur'an?

The 2nd most read book in the illiterate Mohammedan countries is "Mein Kampf." Yep, they sure are "Hitler types." Indeed, they LOVE Hitler, just as they love their 7th century Hitler, Mohammed, the Mass-Murderer of Jews and Christians.

Shlomo - you're stupid.

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 5:29 PM

Oh, and the so-called "moderate Muslims," Shlomo? They are Covert Sympathizers.

Why don't you give your tiny little mind a workout and read "The West's Last Chance," by Tony Blankley.

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 5:32 PM

Millions of us want to know: why do so many Muslims do things like that, Mr. Siddiqui?

And why don't more of your fellow Muslims condemn them, loudly, publicly..." -- Kathy Shaidle

Because they are Covert Sympathizers.

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 5:36 PM

Go get 'em tiger!

Posted by: DaveMate at June 16, 2008 5:56 PM

Go get 'em tiger!

Posted by: DaveMate at June 16, 2008 5:56 PM

ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 6:05 PM

Maybe just to clarify my position and probably a position of quite a lot of posters on JW:

I really don't mind Islam and Muslims. But if they come to my country, they have to live according to our laws. If they don't like the laws, let them change the laws by democratic means. If they don't like democracy, let them change the constitution, but by democratic means.

But winning elections is needed to make laws. To change constitution, you need 2/3 majority and maybe some other conditions (referendum,...)

If they want to live under sharia, let them go to Saudi or Iran. Or introduce constitutional arguments.

I think that legalism might actually be the winning strategy against islam.

If they want to curtail free speech, let them get support for a constitutional amendment, allowing free speech, but banning it when defaming the prophet.

But remember, hate speech is against a group of people, not against an individual or an ideology. You can "defame" Stalin, you can defame communism, but calls for unlawful actions against the communists are not and should not be allowed (eg. inciting lynching).

Posted by: johnsawyer at June 16, 2008 6:47 PM

I put up this story and the link to it on the Daily Mirror messageboards, but I notice that it has been removed. Meanwhile threads like this http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=4910 are allowed to fester on those boards. Of course, leftists hate facing the truth if it runs counter to their dogmas.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at June 16, 2008 7:06 PM

johnsawyer

Are you okay then with Mohammedans immigrating and breeding themselves into a majority and then replacing John Hancock with Mohammed?

I'm not!

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 16, 2008 7:12 PM

"But if they come to my country they have to live according to our laws."
-from a posting above

For the time being,but the central duty for every Muslim is to struggle against,in any manner readily available,the world of the dar-al-harb.
This shall not change,however the dar-al-harb does.

"If they want to live under Sharia,let them go to Saudi or Iran."

Just doesn't jive with the living model to be emulated for all time. The mandate is to absorb so that none remain to oppose allah and his apostle till the last day. In much the manner of a virus. Should any legal footholds be provided as you suggest,the situation will come to a boil immediately in a form of severe civil strife manifested right down to a basic everyday level when the new "stormtroopers",armed with a newly constitutional sharia mandate,try to force my girlfriend to put something over that bikini in public,for starters. Then ya' won't even tell where "it" comes from.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at June 16, 2008 7:49 PM

"If they want to curtail free speech,let them get support for a constitutional amendment,allowing free speech,but banning it when defaming the prophet."

So two separate governing rules of law after all there mate. And I thought Jim CROW was gone at least for my lifetime. Hope I'm right.

Come to think of it,wasn't Alexander called a prophet and warmonger,yet united different worlds toward some semblance of a common future,yet isn't revered as a prophet to be emulated in war. Strange contrast.

Posted by: kafir world at June 16, 2008 8:04 PM

I have crossed swords with Canada's foremost Islamist on many occasions. He never answers questions directly and whenever beaten by a sound, cogent argument, he simply reverts to the fact i am entitled to my opinion.

In fact, i have asked Haroon on several occasions to please devote a few columns to refuting the jihadists interpretation of the quran and hadiths. He never had the decency to respond. How fitting.

If you penetrate the subtext of his columns, it is easy to see the wolf in sheeps clothing and is up there with Hooper and the other unindicted co-conspirators.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at June 16, 2008 9:28 PM

I sent an email to Mr. Siddiqui with Kathy Shaidle's name in the subject, along with the following incredibly appropriate quote I found regarding freedom:

The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.
John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Posted by: jhimmi at June 16, 2008 10:32 PM

http://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/rodgersandhammersteinssouthpacific/youvegottobecarefullytaught.htm

"South Pacific" won some Tonys last night. Must be a wicked jihadi plot, ya think?

Sorry Kathie, niether you nor Islam will ever make me see hatred as a virtue. I was raised better than that.

Posted by: skevin at June 16, 2008 11:00 PM

Oh, she is very good.

Posted by: carpediadem at June 17, 2008 2:31 AM