Tuesday, March 22, 2005

When the hate speech law comes, this site is SO banned 

For those of you who aren't aware, the Labour Government's chief PC commissar, Diane Yates, is leading a Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate the possibility of enacting "hate speech laws".

Renewing my faith in the sensibility of the New Zealand people (to be distinguished from their PC overlords), the public response was quick and certain. A pat on the back to all those making submissions, from left and right, religious and secular, of all ethnicities, for putting the kibosh on this horrendous attack on free speech and democracy.

New Zealand already has a law against inciting racial disharmony -- section 61 of the Human Rights Act. The committee wanted to extend the protection to religion and sexual orientation, among other criteria. Now, I am a religious person, but religions are fundamentally ideologies and belief system. They should be protected no more than other belief systems. In any event, our jhadi friends are keen to use such laws to protect criticism of their little global take-over project. I have blogged about this already. The right to free speech is not a luxury, but often a necessity of survival.

Anyway, I have decided to celebrate this, with... HATE SPEECH! Designated victim: the Labour government. Visit Prime Minister Helen Clark's own blog "Popular and Competent". A recent item about Islam is a doozy...

Monday, March 21, 2005

Bolton at the UN, Wolfowitz at the World Bank: am I dreaming? 

Big news recently has been made of two major appointments to international bodies made by US President George W Bush.

First, Bolton, a longtime diplomate who is following in the footsteps of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in eschewing diplomatic politesse for straight truths. He famously said that if the 38-floor UN building in Manhattan lost 10 floors, noone would notice. Regarding Iran, he said:
The European arguments against the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act demonstrate that "some Europeans have never lost faith in appeasement as a way of life. It is clear that Iran is cynically manipulating gullible (or equally cynical) Europeans to advance its development of weapons of mass destruction.
Remember: this guy is a diplomat. It is almost too good to be true.
Mark Steyn writes a beautiful column on Bush's boldness:
The New York Times wondered what Mr Bush’s next appointment would be: "Donald Rumsfeld to negotiate a new set of Geneva conventions? Martha Stewart to run the Securities and Exchange Commission?"
Okay, I get the hang of this game. Sending John Bolton to be UN ambassador is like ...putting Sudan and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission. Or letting Saddam’s Iraq chair the UN conference on disarmament. Or sending a bunch of child-sex fiends to man UN operations in the Congo. And the Central African Republic. And Sierra Leone, and Burundi, Liberia, Haiti, Kosovo, and pretty much everywhere else. All of which happened without the UN fetishists running around shrieking hysterically. Why should America be the only country not to enjoy an uproarious joke at the UN’s expense?
Again, Steyn has the lines. Take that, Kofi.

And Wolfowitz, "Darth Vader", the Holy Grail of the Neocon-conspiracy-theory types, the guy with a Jewish sounding name who unashamedly suggested invading Iraq even before 9-11, is heading the leading development agency for the 3rd World.


Victor Davis Hanson on "Bushitler" 

I have already blogged a number of times on the fatuous and simply ignorant comparisons between the US President and Hitler (may his name and memory be obliterated). Military historian Victor Davis Hanson articulates it very well:

In fact, what do Linda Ronstadt, Harold Pinter, Scott Ritter, Ted Rall, and George Soros all have in common? The same thing that unites Fidel Castro, the European street, the Iranians, and North Koreans: an evocation of some aspects of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany to deprecate President Bush in connection with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read it.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Who is a bigger pacifist wussy: Kofi Annan or Miguel Moratinos? 

It's a toughie, I must ask.

Kofi, UN Secretary General (scion of a proud heritage that included Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim) has decided that the US must "recognise Hezbollah", whatever that means. No reciprocal need for Hezbollah to recognise America, of course. Funny that Americans don't like Hezbollah. I mean, all they did was murder 241 American peacekeepers... not to mention murder more than 200 innocent Jews in Buenos Aires, and who knows how many in Israel. But Hezbollah has a political wing, and a cable TV channel, so they must be OK.

But, Kofi has a challenger for pathetic weeny of the year: Miguel Moratinos. The Spanish Foreign Minister, fresh from ensuring that Hezbollah won't make the EU terror list, wants Hamas taken off the list. Why? Have Hamas finally made the decision to accept a Jewish state and a negotiated solution? Well, not quite. Actually, they still want to push the Jews into the sea (read their lovely charter here). But, if they promise Uncle Miguel to lay off the suicide bombing for a while, at least inside the Green Line, then Europe will stop pretending that they disapprove of them.

Miguel, you are a taint on the honour on the land of El Cid and paella.

Kofi, we already knew what you were like.

So: readers -- who would you rather kick sand in the face of?

Monday, March 07, 2005

Lebanese: Why I am not an Arab 

Louis-Noel Bar-Levhannon is a Lebanese academic residing in America. Erudite, and compelling, here he makes the case for a Lebanese identity, separate from the Arab world.

He also articulates why it is not really write to lump everybody from Casablanca to Karbala under the same nomer:
But who are the “Arabs”, and what is the “Arab World”?
This is a thorny question to which there isn’t one clearly defined or satisfying answer. I can understand that the labels “Arab World” or “Arab” can be soothing to some who believe that Arab nationalism or Arabness are valid identity markers; but the terms themselves are loaded, misleading, ambiguous, abstract, and false, not to mention grotesque oversimplifications of a political ethnic and cultural realm that is anything but uniform and homogeneous, let alone exclusively Arab (to merit a comprehensive “Arab” label)..
The labels “Arab” and “Arab World” presuppose an Arabic cultural, ethnic, and national monolith, and assign it to a geographic area that is anything but monocultural. Those labels also (smugly) presume that the Arab/Muslim expansion (7th century) happened in a vacuum, or that the cultures that it overwhelmed were somehow expunged and replaced. That is why, although infinitely flattered (not) when referred to as an “Arab”, I as a Lebanese, see myself in completely different terms that often disclaim and reject any forms of putative Arabness (or Frenchness for that matter, given that French is as much a “native” language for me, as are “Arabic” and the Lebanese “vernacular”.) I happen to believe that the Arabic language is NOT the sole property of the “Arabs”, just as the French language is not the property of the French.

He also explains why Ba'athism (and its feudin' cousin, Nasserite pan-Arab nationalism) cannot be divorced from Islam, quoting Professor Landis of Oklahoma:
The whole notion of a “secular” Ba`th [the main political exponent of Arabism and Arab nationalism. L-N,] needs correcting. Ba`thism is often referred to as a secular movement and non-religious version of Arab nationalism, but this just isn’t true... Ba`thism [...] is a transcendent faith [i.e. a secular form of Islam, L-N]. Both the founders of Ba`thist thought, Michel `Aflaq (Greek Orthodox Syrian) and Zaki al-Arsuzi (Alawite Muslim), discovered early in their careers that their party would never appeal to the broad masses of the Sunni heartland without making it perfectly clear that Ba`thism was not secular or based on earthly truths. They both insisted that Ba`thism was part and parcel of the Islamic worldview embraced by most Syrians. `Aflaq was so adamant about placating Muslim and religious sensibilities that he became known among his friends as Muhammad `Aflaq (and indeed he converted to Islam before his death). His genius lay in his ability to align Ba`thism with Islam.

As a Christian, and an exponent of western country, can he accept an Arab identity that crushes all before it?

An interesting question. Lebanon has a chance to choose its Levantine, Phoenecian heritage -- live at peace and liberty, pursue trade, and again become the "Paris of the Middle East". Let's hope they make the choice, and succeed.

Kicking out Ba'thist Assad is a great first step.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?