Jul 282011

Flag of NorwayUpon first hearing the news of the bombing and shooting in Norway my first thought, as I’m, sure it was the first thought of many, was that this was yet another attack by Islamists on the West.  We now know of course that the perpetrator, Anders Breivk, was a Norwegian Nationalist.  A Christian, not a Muslim.  What a rarity. How unique.  This hasn’t happened since when, Timothy McVeigh in 1995?

The event lasted just three hours but the political fallout has only just begun.  Over the past few days the pundits, radio talk show hosts, newspaper editors and journalists have all tried to make sense of such a heinous act and they have come down on two sides.  The established liberal media have tried to paint Breivik as a typical member of the burgeoning right wing movement in Europe which they claim is against multiculturalism, islamophobic and nationalistic.  The conservative media, pundits and talk show hosts have immediately taken issue with the labeling of Breivik and have, quite rightly, tried to paint him as a lone criminal not at all representative of those who are in favour of restricting Muslim immigration into traditionally non-Muslim countries.

One of the conservative pundits, Mark Steyn, said it best when he said “So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “islamophobic’ mass murder?”

Quite telling of the double standard of the liberal press is an article in the American Spectator which juxtaposed the headlines of the New York Times for the Norwegian massacre with their headlines of the Ft. Hood massacre in 2009.  To recap, the Ft. Hood massacre was carried out by Muslim Nidal Malik Hasan who described himself as a ‘Solder of Allah’ and shouted “Allahu Akbar” before killing 13 and wounding 29 US servicemen on the Army Base in Texas.

The headlines for the Norwegian Norway massacre are:

“Oslo suspect wrote of fear of Islam and plan for war

“Norway attacks put spotlight on rise of Right-Wing Sentiment in Europe

“Killings in Norway Spotlight anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.

“As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist

Right Wing Extremist is Charged in Norway.

Here are the headlines for the Ft. Hood massacre:

“Army Doctor held in Ft. Hood Rampage

“Mass Shooting at Fort Hood

“Little Evidence of Terror Plot in Base Killings

“Major is arraigned in Fort Hood Killings

The bias is stark.  No mention is ever made by the New York Times of the Ft. Hood mass murderer being Muslim and shouting “Allahu Akbar” before his rampage while within hours of the Norway massacre the perpetrator is labeled as Christian, Right Wing and islamophobic.

The real Islamophobe is the newspaper editor who refuses to mention that a terrorist is a Muslim, Why?  Because he fears retaliation.  He fears Islam.  This makes him the islamophobe.

Unless the West, and the rest of the civilized world, comes to grips with the overwhelming violence committed by Muslims in the name their religion the carnage will continue.  Not the kind of carnage that Anders Brievic inflicted on his young, defenseless victims, which although horrific to contemplate, is an aberration and pales in comparison to the continuing carnage and atrocities carried out daily by Jihadists.

I would ask you all to consider how many deadly Islamist terrorist attacks have occurred worldwide since the 9/11 attacks in 2001.  Don’t count attacks in combat such as in the Afghanistan war.  Don’t count incidents of ordinary crime involving Muslims killing for money or some other non-religious motive.  Only count terrorist acts committed out of religious duty designed specifically to instill terror.

Do you think it might be 10 or 20 or even 100?  As of two days ago there have 17,506 Islamic deadly terrorist attacks worldwide.  Just last week alone there were 40 attacks resulting in 101 deaths and critically injuring 264.  Last month alone there were 184 attacks in 18 countries resulting in 930 murdered and 1,527 critically injured.

This data comes from a web site called thereligionofpeace.com which has kept records of Islamist attacks worldwide since 9/11.  Since Breivik’s attack there have been at least 15 Islamic atrocities committed around the world resulting in 47 deaths, with almost no press coverage in the West.

We in the West seem to have been inured by Muslims killing people.  That is what makes the Norwegian massacre noteworthy.  A white man, a Christian has murdered other white people in a politically motivated bombing and shooting spree.  This is a novelty.  This is news.

When a Muslim does the exact same thing every day all over the world we dismiss it.  The question is why.  What would happen if we publish a You-tube video of the Taliban hanging an 8-year old boy in order to punish his father for not joining their organization?  What would happen in the West if we were inundated daily with pictures and videos of the daily beheadings of infidels like us, of the daily bombings, of the splashing of acid in little girls’ faces for daring to go to school?

Why is the press afraid of telling the truth and letting us see the horrors of this cultural war we are in.  Why?  Because it would fly in the face of their cherished beliefs that all cultures are the same.  That we can all just get along if we only held hands in some grassy meadow and sang Kumbaya.  Well we can’t.

People like Breivik must be brought to justice for their actions.  The light of day should be shed on his motives, as much as they can be determined.  But just as we do with Breivik we must also do to the thousands upon thousands of Muslim Breiviks of the world who continue to kill and maim in the name of politics and religion.  Every death of an innocent is tragic and must be accounted for whether he is a white-skinned Christian child in Norway or a dark skinned Muslim child in Darfur.  The killing of innocents must stop and all terrorists, whatever their religion, their politics, or their skin colour, must be held accountable for their actions.  If the press and the other media refuse to do it then who will?

(Originally air on Just Right #210, July 28, 2011)

Jul 072011

When the king of Rome established his Senate 2,700 years ago it was a triple E Senate…Elected, Effective and Equal, the very style of a Senate many would like to see here in Canada.  The first Senators of Rome may have been appointed by King Romulus but subsequent Senators were elected by the tribal Curia,   100 Senators from each of the three founding tribes of Rome so it was equal in makeup based on region, and of course it was to gradually become effective, to such an extent that it elected, as a body, the new King once the previous King died.

Over time the Roman Senate went from a triple E senate to an unelected, unequal, and ineffective institution.  It became a body of appointed nobles, some of whom passed on the membership in the Senate to their offspring, who had little power under the Divine Emperors and no longer were elected by the people based on region.  In many respects Canada’s present day Senate more closely resembles the Senate of Rome just before its fall.  However, we can learn from history and benefit from the mistakes of the Romans.

1) Elected.  Although constitutionally Senators must be appointed by the Prime Minister the Upper Chamber will become more of an elected body as individual provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan hold elections for their Senators.  A Prime Minister who refuses to appoint based on the provinces list of elected Senators risks unpopularity and accusations of favoritism.

2) Effective. The effectiveness of the Senate is constrained for a number of reasons, constitutionally of course it cannot propose money or appropriation Bills, but more importantly the Senate respects the fact that since the members are not elected they should not overturn any legislation brought to the Chamber from the elected Lower House.  Once elected this impediment to effectiveness will be removed and Senators will have as much electoral authority as members of the House of Commons.

2) Equal.  Currently our 105 Senators are chosen to represent the regions of the country.  The West, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes each have 24 Senators, Newfoundland and Labrador has 6 and the Territories each have one.  While this is obviously not perfectly equal, it is an attempt to fill the red chamber with a relatively equal number of Senators from the broader regions of the country.  An ideal makeup would obviously be an exact number of Senators representing each province rather than a greater region.  Representation by province would fit with an elected Senate as provinces, not regions, hold elections.  Also, Canada is a confederation of provinces, not regions and as such each province should be equally represented in the Senate exactly as is done in the United States.

Recently there have been calls, usually from the NDP and other socialists, to abolish the Senate.  This is because the House of Commons is a battle ground of competing ideologies.  Just the kind of place socialists could take control of.  Currently the primary incentive to follow party whips is the benefit derived from running in subsequent elections under a party banner with the resources only a party machine can offer.  This loyalty to party is diminished if the opportunity for re-election is removed.  To this end Senators could sit for longer terms, perhaps 10 years, and be restricted to serving only one term.

My colleague Bob Metz has come up with a tongue-in-cheek yet novel suggestion.  Why don’t we reform the Senate and abolish the House of Commons?  I think suggestion has some merit.

Before Confederation, as it is today, each of the Provinces, Colonies and the Dominion of Newfoundland had their own elected Parliaments, most even having an Upper Chamber called a Legislative Council.  In these houses laws are made reflecting most of what is also debated in our House of Commons.  Why should the Federal House of Commons be discussing, education, health care or even energy issues when these matters are constitutionally a provincial jurisdiction?  Why should the federal Lower House be entering into treaties with other nations when such decisions should be made in an Upper House which is more accurately representative of the confederated Colonies, Provinces and the Dominion of Newfoundland?

Most (or it could probably argued all) of the decision making that goes on in the House of Commons could either more appropriately be discussed in the individual Houses of each Province, or in an elected federal Senate.  When involving matters not of a national matter the debate could be decided in each province.  If the matter involves the nation as a whole, then the Senate would be the more appropriate chamber for discussion since the nation is more properly defined as a confederation of 10 provinces rather than a great amorphous mob of 35 million people.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right #207, July 7, 2011.)