SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (775)12/4/2004 6:56:18 PM
From: lorne  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224648
 
THE PRETENSE OF U.N. REFORM

By AMIR TAHERI
December 3, 2004 --
nypost.com

A PANEL appointed to study reform of the United Nations has just issued its report, suggesting 101 changes to give the moribund organization a new lease of life. Missing from the recommendations, however, is perhaps the only one that could give reform a real push: the need for a new leadership to preside over a serious program for change.
The omission is not surprising. The panel was composed mostly of the apparatchiki of erstwhile or actual despotic regimes (including the defunct USSR, China and Egypt), plus traditional balance-of-power theorists from the United States and Europe.

Their approach was one of an interior decorator whose remit does not include the crumbling foundations and/or leaking roofs of the building: All he is asked to do is to hide the defects of a decaying edifice. The panel did not delve into the U.N.'s record since its establishment over half a century ago. Nor did it ask the crucial question of whether or not it is still needed.

In their 95-page report, the apparatchiki have done what apparatchiki do: ignored the real problems to focus on imaginary ones. Fearful of issues of substance, they focused on cosmetic change and, being of a bureaucratic culture, recommended the expansion of what is already a huge, inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy.

What is the primordial, if not the only, raison d'etre of the United Nations? To provide a format for the collective security of its members — or, failing that, to guarantee every member's right of self defense.

But how do the apparatchiki deal with that? In a dig against the U.S.-led Coalition's intervention in Iraq, the apparatchiki reject the concept of pre-emptive action, which they have re-baptized as "anticipatory self-defense." The panel, in effect, asks U.N. members to take military action in self-defense only after they have been attacked.

In its typical language of obfuscation, the panel rejects criticism of that position in these terms: "For those impatient with such a response, the answer must be that, in a world full of perceived threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non-intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted."

Go figure!

The panel suggests non-action even in the face of rogue states acquiring nuclear weapons with the intention of using them, either directly or via client terror groups. Patience must be the norm even "where the threat is not imminent but still claimed to be real: for example the acquisition, with allegedly hostile intent, of nuclear-weapons making capability."

But what if collective action is made impossible with a veto, or the threat of veto, in the Security Council, especially by members that might be prompted by illicit interests, for example because they are on-board Saddam Hussein's gravy train? The panel's answer is to increase the Security Council's membership from 15 to 20. But would America, or any other country, feel safer if Egypt and Nigeria joined the council as permanent members?



The panel implicitly recognizes the need for so-called humanitarian military intervention but subjects it to so many preconditions as to render it meaningless. It says: "There is a collective international responsibility to protect, exercisable by the Security Council authorizing military intervention as the last resort in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent."

Under that definition, the interventions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo were illegal: Neither was based on any Security Council resolution. And yet U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan routinely cites both as examples of U.N. success.

By the same definition, the liberation of Iraq was legal because it was based on 12 Security Council resolutions plus the cease-fire documents signed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein. And yet Annan, in a childish attempt at influencing the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, last month claimed the whole thing had been "illegal."

The panel also offers a definition of terrorism, apparently to undermine those already used in U.S., British and other European law.

One thing is certain: The United Nations must either reform or die. This is an organization that failed to prevent genocide in Rwanda and is now failing to stop a similar, though smaller-scale, tragedy in Darfur. It is also the same organization whose blue-helmeted soldiers stood by and watched as the Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995.

And the United Nations is mired in the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal that, having forced one assistant secretary-general, Benon Sevan, into early retirement, has now touched Annan's son Kojo. Annan endorsed the Saddamite gravy train when he visited the despot in Baghdad, exchanged Havana cigars with him, and pronounced him "a statesman with whom we could do business."

We now know what "business" he meant.

The reform must start by asking Annan to step down and allow a new secretary-general, with a new team to establish the truth about the missing $21 billion of Iraqi money. A new secretary-general would then be able to compress the 101 recommendations of the panel into a dozen at most and use them as a framework for an open, inclusive and comprehensive debate on reform.

Once the debate is concluded, the new secretary-general should appoint a panel of political, academic and cultural leaders, and not apparatchiki, to devise a serious, non-bureaucratic, reform agenda.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (775)12/4/2004 9:00:41 PM
From: lorne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224648
 
Ya gotta be real careful what you say about moslums in Canada.....

Punishment includes
Islam indoctrination
Canadian to resume hate-crimes sentence under Muslim direction
worldnetdaily.com
October 31, 2002

An Ontario man convicted of promoting hatred against Muslims says his community-service sentence has included indoctrination into Islam.

After losing an appeal to Canada's Supreme Court on Oct. 17, Mark Harding must resume his sentence of two years probation and 340 hours of community service under the direction of Mohammad Ashraf, general secretary of the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ont.

Harding, 47, said he had one session under Ashraf in 1998 before an appeal process stayed the sentence.

Ashraf, according to Harding, said that instead of licking stamps and stuffing envelopes, "it would be better if you learned about Islam."

The cleric made it clear, Harding recalled in an interview with WorldNetDaily, that during the sessions nothing negative could be said about Islam or its prophet, Muhammad.

"He said he was my supervisor, and if I didn't follow what he said, he would send me back to jail," recounted Harding, who had been prevented from speaking publicly about his case under a gag order.

Harding was convicted in 1998 on federal hate-crimes charges stemming from a June 1997 incident in which he distributed pamphlets outside a public high school, Weston Collegiate Institute in Toronto. Harding – who said that until that point he spent most of his time evangelizing Muslims – was protesting the school's policy of setting aside a room for Muslim students to pray during school hours.

In one of his pamphlets, Harding listed atrocities committed by Muslims in foreign lands to back his assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims.

The pamphlet said: "The Muslims who commit these crimes are no different than the Muslim believers living here in Toronto. Their beliefs are based on the Quran. They sound peaceful, but underneath their false sheep's clothing are raging wolves seeking whom they may devour. And Toronto is definitely on their hit list."

"The point I was trying to make is you shouldn't have a violent religion like Islam allowed in a school when Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism is not allowed," he told WND.

Harding, an evangelical Protestant, insists he has love rather than hatred toward Muslims and wants to see them go to heaven.

A lawyer for Harding, Jasmine Akbaralli, says she is trying to obtain permission for her client to serve out his sentence in an Islamic community closer to his current home in Chesley, Ont., north of Toronto and about a three-hour drive from the Islamic Society of North America.

The plea is based on humanitarian grounds, she said, due to her client's poor health.

Harding said he has suffered four heart attacks since 1997, and he and his wife and two children are penniless because his health has prevented him from maintaining his trade as a cabinetmaker.

Akbaralli said she would not comment on Harding's previous experience with Ashraf, noting that she was not representing him at the time. Calls to Ashraf and others at the Islamic Society of North America on Tuesday and Wednesday were not returned.

Understanding Islam

During his 1998 session with Ashraf, Harding was told to read a book called Towards Understanding Islam, by Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi.

On page 12 of the book, Harding noted, it gives a description of a "kafir," or infidel, a person who does not follow Islam.

"Such a man ... will spread confusion and disorder on the earth," the book says. "He will without the least compunction, shed blood, violate other men's rights, be cruel to them, and create disorder and destruction in the world. His perverted thoughts and ambitions, his blurred vision and disturbed scale of values, and his evil-spelling activities would make life bitter for him and for all around him."

"It was obvious that he intended to make sure I understood that I was a kafir," Harding said of Ashraf.

Harding's 1998 conviction on three counts of willfully promoting hatred was commended by Canadian Muslims.

"The verdict sends a message to Christians, Muslims and Jews that personal views of that nature can't be allowed in a public forum," said Shahina Siddiqui, coordinator of community relations and social services for the Manitoba Islamic Association, in a report by the Canadian evangelical publication Christian Week. "There's a fine line between freedom of expression and hatred. Harding crossed that line."

Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said after the verdict that "spreading hate is against Canadian values and against Canadian law, and it doesn't matter the group that is victimized."

The verdict was not a suppression of free speech, Elmasry insisted, according to Alberta Report magazine, arguing that he would not consider scholarly books in the library that criticize Islam to be hate literature. Harding "is just trying to stereotype and put out hate literature, and he was found guilty by the courts," he said.

Harding asserted at the time that he meant to criticize only Islamic terrorists, not all Muslims. But he added that faithful Muslims will always engage in jihad, or holy war, against non-Muslims because it is required by Islamic teachings.

Many Muslim scholars in North America argue that jihad essentially means "struggle" and is not necessarily violent.

But Harding said that after his case became public, he no longer felt safe, due to threats from Muslims. When he entered court for the first time for his trial, he required police protection as a large crowd of Muslims gathered, with some chanting, "Infidels, you will burn in hell."

Harding said he received many death threats among more than 3,000 hate-filled calls that came to his answering service in 1997. Similar calls were received by police and the Ontario attorney general, he said.

"I had a call from someone who said they were from (Louis) Farrakhan's (Nation of Islam) group, and they were going to break my legs," he said. "Another caller said he would rip out my testicles."

The Islamic Society of North America in Canada, where Harding is required to fulfill his community service, describes itself as a "broad-based unity of Muslims and Islamic organizations committed to the mission and movement of Islam: nurturing a way of life in the light of the guidance from the Quran and Sunnah for establishing a vibrant presence of Muslims in Canada."

The organization shares facilities with the Canadian Council on Islamic Relations, an affiliate of the controversial Council on Islamic-American Relations, or CAIR, in Washington, D.C.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Star Tribune. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Hate crimes

Judge Sidney B. Linden's 1998 ruling against Harding was based on Canada's genocide and hate-crimes law. The judge determined he was guilty of "false allegations about the adherents of Islam calculated to arouse fear and hatred of them in all non-Muslim people."

The law bars a public statement that "willfully promotes hatred" against groups "distinguished by color, race, religion or ethnic origin." The code has an article that excuses statements expressed in "good faith," including religious expression. But the trial judge found that Harding had either "tried to incite hatred or was willfully blind to it," according to lawyer Akbaralli.

Canadian Christian groups are fighting a bill reinstated this month by a homosexual parliament member that would add "sexual orientation" as a protected category in the hate-crimes statutes. Known previously as bill C-415, it is now registered as C-250.

Evangelicals have supported Harding in principle, though many have signaled their opposition to his aggressive tactics or have expressed reservations.

Harding said he's received support from Christians who immigrated to Canada from Muslim countries, where minority religions experience discrimination and persecution.

"I have a lot of Pakistani and Egyptian friends helping me through this because they understand what Islam is all about," he said. "When they heard about me in the news, they called to offer their support."



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (775)12/6/2004 9:18:50 AM
From: cirrus  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224648
 
Why do so many "conservatives" have a hard time understanding that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11? Why do so many "conservatives" accept Bush's flip-flop - when there were no WMD to be found the war against Saddam's WMD morphed into a war on terror?

Over 50,000 Americans gave their last full measure of devotion in Viet Nam because our leaders had us believing that North Viet Nam was a grave threat to America. Was it? Tell me, Ann... what would have happened if America had responded to Ho Chi Minh's ovatures in the 1950's and supported the Vietnamese drive for independence instead of backing French colonialism?

The loyalty of the American soldier is without question. The competence of his leader is certainly questonable.

Over 3,000 U.S. civilians died on 9/11/2001 as well....many Americans tend to forget the aforementioned is the primary reason why it has been necessary for numerous courageous members of our all-volunteer fighting forces to give their last full measure of devotion for their country. Why do so many Liberals have a problem understanding that there are actually sterling quality individuals who consider it worthwhile to fight(& die if necessary) for their beloved nation??