CAST Continues Protest at JBS Swift Plant in Greeley: Tribune Op Ed misleads public on Sharia Threat
Sharia Law is Treason Shift Change at JBS Swift Plant Greeley, Co.
CAST organizers of last Saturday’s protest across from the JBS Swift plant continued their efforts yesterday.Twin brothers Marty and Mike Gale who spearheaded the formation ofColoradans Against Sharia Task Force (CAST) showed up at the shift change of the JBS Swift plant yesterday to hand out flyers against Somali-imposed Sharia compliance of Ramadan-the month long observance occurs shortly on August 21st.Note the pictures of the shift change and especially a new protest sign “Sharia Law is Treason.”
Mike Gale sent an email explaining what motivated them to do this reprieve and the reactions of plant workers leaving the JBS Swift plant.
Eric Brandt, billed as a”world traveler, free thinker and philosopher” had an opinion column. “Is Faith Forcing our Hands?” in the Greeley Tribune today. He criticized Islam, Christianity and religious belief in general. He accused conservative Christianity as being the moral equivalent of the Taliban.
Marty and I went back to the packing house today during shift change. We didn't need a permit until we reach 12 people. We prepared some signs and handed out flyers.
The Shift change was packed. Most of the Hispanics supported us and one Somali yelled at us. Next time we’ll move closer to the parking lot entrance to hand out flyers as the cars will be stopped in the traffic leaving the plant.
The Brandtcolumn in the Greeley Tribune may have explained the skimpy coverage of last Saturday’s CAST protest as it was laced with divisive opinion and patent disinformation.
Here were some excerpts:
Islam doesn't seek to integrate with society any more than water integrates with oil. In the United Kingdom, a dentist refuses to treat women unless they don appropriate head coverings. In Canada, a doctor refuses to treat lesbians. Elsewhere people are fined, imprisoned or executed for questioning religious authority. Some claim Islam is a peaceful religion. While many passages of the Quran teach love and forgiveness, you can't cherry-pick and ignore the passages that demand killing infidels. Totalitarian, oppressive and intolerant practices of Islam are un-American. Political acts impregnating American law with Islamic tenets are treasonous.
On the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County Virginia
Recently, Fairfax, Va., officials granted an Islamic school (Islamic Saudi Academy or ISA) permission to expand. Outraged local Christians promised to punish those officials — thus tearing down the wall between church and state. Gays and abortion doctors are brutalized ad nauseam by fundamentalists. More than 900 anti-Semitic hate crimes are reported each year to the FBI — unlikely committed by Jews or atheists.
Moral equivalence of Conservative Christians as Taliban and religious freedom views
The Taliban is alive and well in the United States. They have infiltrated businesses and governments. They have infected politicians, crucified opposition, perverted legislative decisions, and espoused fascist ideologies and imposed a moratorium on brains. They don't call themselves the Taliban in America; they call themselves “right-wing Christians.” Oppressive and intolerant practices are un-American and treasonous.
Religious freedom is only guaranteed when government is protected from it. Contrary to advertisements misquoting Founding Fathers, this is not a Christian nation. The Congress and President John Adams were clear signing the Treaty of Tripoli (1797): “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion ….” We are a secular nation. Any attempts to pervert our laws and Constitution for religious ends are Taliban-style treason.
We have no quarrel with Brandt’s characterization of Islam. We disagree with his cant equating conservative Christians with the Taliban, disinformation about the ISA and lapse in what Founding Father, Second President John Adams views were about Islam. Brandt chose instead, as did President Obama in his Cairo speech to signify that the 1796 Treaty with the Barbary Beys in North Africa indicated that America was not a Judeo Christian nation, but in Brandt’s views, a secular one.Actually both Adams and Jefferson would have been classified as deists, believers in Providence.
Conservative Christians are entitled to their own views, but they are not the Taliban bent on imposing Sharia on women, preventing the education of young girls and murdering Christians as evidenced by what has been perpetrated in Pakistan and Afghanistan.The Islamic School in Fairfax, Virginia, the ISA, that Brandt refers to is a private academy run by the Wahhabist conservative doctrine supported by the Royal Saudi Embassy.The ISA has been criticized in several reports by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom for Islamic study texts espousing hate towards Jews, Christians, secularists like Brandt and suggesting that murder of Christians, Jews, apostates and gays under Sharia is lawful.The evidence of that danger is reflected in the quartet of ISA graduates who became Jihadis in America, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Ahmed Abu Ali, an American born graduate and 1999 valedictorian of the ISA was recently resentenced at a federal court hearing to life in prison for his attempt in a plot to assassinate former President Bush.Another graduate and Saudi national was arrested at Tampa airport in May for carrying a seven inch butcher knife on board a flight.Two other ISA graduates were detained and ejected from entry to Israel given their mission to become suicide bombers. The irate citizens of Fairfax county had every right to suggest that perhaps the County Board of Supervisors should be voted out of office at the next election given their recent approval by a thin margin of expansion of the hate-filled ISA. . That is, after all the American way under our federal and state Constitutions.
Brandt and President Obama overlook the views of Second President John Adams when he and Third President Jefferson, who waged a covert war against the Barbary Beys in Tripoli to free enslaved American sailors in 1805, met the Tripolitan Ambassador in London Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, in 1786.Note this observation of Adams and Jefferson on Islam in their report:
…that it [Islam] was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
So, Mr. Brandt, the CAST protesters have every right to be concerned about Somali-Imposed Sharia in Greeley. And so should you.
Pew Poll Pakistan: 78% favor death for those who leave Islam, 83% favor stoning adulterers
The main spin of this poll is to show how average Pakistanis do not support the Taliban and al Qaeda, but nevertheless, they do support Islamic punishments. The pollsters can't seem to figure that out - maybe it has something to do with the education of girls. They're not sure, so they throw that in there. The Pakistani public also overwhelmingly views India as their major threat and views China very favorably. (Thanks to Jeffrey Imm):
Support for Severe Laws
One of the ironies in the survey is the extent to which Pakistanis embrace some of the severe laws associated with the Taliban and al Qaeda, even as they reject Islamic extremism and these extremist groups. The new poll finds broad support for harsh punishments: 78% favor death for those who leave Islam; 80% favor whippings and cutting off hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and 83% favor stoning adulterers.
Pakistani public opinion departs significantly from the Taliban on the issues of girls' education and extremist violence. As many as 87% of Pakistanis believe it is equally important for boys and girls to be educated. The poll also finds that support for suicide bombing that targets civilians in defense of Islam remains very low. Only 5% of Pakistani Muslims believe these kinds of attacks can often or sometimes be justified; as recently as 2004 roughly four-in-ten (41%) held this view. Fully 87% now say such attacks can never be justified – the highest percentage among the Muslim publics included in the 2009 survey.
Concerns About India
Long-running concerns about India are also reflected in the poll. The dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir is cited as a major problem facing the country by no fewer than 88%. And growing worries about extremism notwithstanding, more Pakistanis judge India as a very serious threat to the nation (69%) than regard the Taliban (57%) or al Qaeda (41%) as very serious threats. Most Pakistanis see the U.S. as on the wrong side of this issue: by a margin of 54% to 4% the U.S. is seen as favoring India over Pakistan.
While fears about India persist, Pakistanis express overwhelmingly positive opinions about another Asian giant – 84% have a favorable view of China and 80% consider China a partner to their country.
The J Street political action committee has received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans, as well as from several individuals connected to organizations doing Palestinian and Iranian issues advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Additionally, at least two State Department officials connected to Middle East issues have donated to the PAC, which gives money to candidates for US Congress supported by J Street. The organization describes itself as a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby pushing for more American involvement and diplomacy in resolving the Middle East conflict.
Arab and Muslim donors are extremely rare for other organizations that describe themselves as supporters of Israel as J Street does, Jewish leaders at organizations across the political spectrum told The Jerusalem Post. Because most of these other organizations are not PACs, however, US law does not require them to release their donor lists. J Street's non-PAC arm also does not release a complete list of contributors.
J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami estimated the amount of Arab and Muslim donors to be a very small percentage - at most 3 percent - of the organization's thousands of contributors. But he said that such supporters show the broad appeal of J Street's message and its commitment to coexistence.
"I think it is a terrific thing for Israel for us to be able to expand the tent of people who are willing to be considered pro-Israel and willing to support Israel through J Street," he said. "One of the ways that we're trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel is that you actually don't need to be anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian to be pro-Israel." ...
The Obama Administration Wilfully Ignores What Happened In Ramallah
Gazan and West Bank ‘leaders’ come clean, but Obama is still playing
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | A central pillar of the Obama
administration's Middle East policy paradigm was shattered at the
Fatah conference in Bethlehem — but don't expect the White House to
At the conference, Fatah's supposedly feuding old guard and young
guard were united in their refusal to reach an accommodation with
Israel. Both old and young endorsed the use of terrorism against
Israel. Both embraced the Aksa Martyrs Brigade terror group as a full-
fledged Fatah organization.
Both demanded that all Jews be expelled from Judea, Samaria and
Jerusalem ahead of the establishment of a Jew-free Palestinian state.
Both claimed that any settlement with Israel be preceded by an Israeli
withdrawal to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and by Israel's
destruction as a Jewish state through its acceptance of millions of
foreign-born hostile Arabs as immigrants within its truncated borders.
Both demanded that all terrorists be released from Israeli prisons as
a precondition for "peace" talks with Israel.
Both accused Israel of murdering Yassir Arafat.
Both approved building a strategic alliance with Iran.
In staking out these extremist positions, both Fatah's old guard and
its younger generation of leaders demonstrated that Fatah's goal today
is the same as it has been since the its founding in 1959: Liberating
Palestine (from the river to the sea) by wiping Israel off the map.
Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas's decision to remove both his own mask and
that of his organization should cause the Netanyahu government to
reassess its current policies towards the group. For the past four
months, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government have
quietly barred all Jewish construction in eastern, northern and
southern Jerusalem neighborhoods as well as in Judea and Samaria. The
government's unofficial policy has been implemented in the hopes of
pleasing the Obama administration which argues that by barring Jewish
building, Israel will encourage the Fatah-controlled Palestinian
Authority to moderate its policies and so engender an atmosphere
conducive to a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian conflict with
Israel. The Fatah conference put paid that fiction.
Fatah's message to the Netanyahu government is important. But even
more important is the message it conveys to the Obama administration.
For Netanyahu, the Fatah gathering bore out his prior assessment that
the group is a wolf in sheep's clothing. For US President Barack
Obama, the message of the Fatah conclave was that his administration's
assumptions not only about Fatah, but about terrorists and terror-
supporting regimes in general are completely wrong.
For the Obama administration Fatah was supposed to be the poster child
for moderate terrorists. Fatah was supposed to be the prototype of the
noble terrorist organization that really just wants respect. It was
supposed to be the group that proved the central contention of the
Obama White House's strategy for dealing with terror, namely, that all
terrorists want is to be appeased.
But over the past week in Bethlehem Fatah's leaders said they will not
be appeased. To the international community whose billions of dollars
in aid money and boundless good will and political support they have
pocketed over the past decade and a half they sent a clear message.
They remain an implacable terror group devoted to the physical
annihilation of Israel.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already making clear that
it is incapable of accepting this basic truth. As Abbas and his
cronies were exposing their true nature in Bethlehem, Obama's
counterterrorism advisor John Brennan was giving a speech in
Washington where he demonstrated the administration's ideological
Speaking before the Center for Strategic and International Studies
last Thursday, Brennan declared that appeasing terrorists and terror
supporting regimes and societies by bowing to their political demands
is the central plank of the administration's counterterror strategy.
As he put it, "Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics
used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate
needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to
To this end, Brennan stressed that for the Obama administration, the
now-discredited Fatah model of conferring political legitimacy and
funding on terrorists in a bid to transform them into good citizens
must be implemented for every terror group in the world except al
Qaida. In furtherance of this goal, the US government will no longer
refer to America's fight against terror a "war on terror" and it will
no longer refer to the enemy it fights as "jihadists" or the cause for
which these "violent extremists" fight a "jihad."
As Brennan explained it, referring to terrorists as terrorists is
unacceptable because doing so sets the US against terror supporting
regimes that the Obama administration believes are all amenable to
appeasement. And referring to Islamic terrorists as jihadists gives
the jihadists the "right" to define what jihad is. Since the Obama
administration perceives itself as a greater authority on Islamic law
and tradition than the likes of Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri,
Ayatollah Khomeini, Khaled Mashal and their fellow jihadists
worldwide, Brennan unhesitatingly asserted that "'Jihad'… means to
purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal."
Building on the false Fatah model of appeasable terrorists, Brennan
indicated that the Obama administration believes that Hizbullah is
well on its way to becoming a respectable political actor. As he sees
it, simply by participating in Lebanon's political process, the
Iranian proxy has earned the right to be viewed as a legitimate
political force. Brennan cited the fact that in addition to active
terrorist elements, Hizbullah members today include "members of
parliament, in the cabinet; [and] there are lawyers, doctors, others
who are part of the Hizbullah organization" as a reason to celebrate
the group. He further claimed that Hizbullah members who are not
actively involved in terrorism "are in fact renouncing that type of
terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political
process in a very legitimate fashion."
As the Jerusalem Post's Barry Rubin argued, Brennan's assessment of
Hizbullah is not merely factually wrong. It also exposes a deep
misunderstanding of why Hizbullah entered the Lebanese political fray
— and why Hamas entered the Palestinian political fray — in the first
place. Brennan's analysis is factually wrong because at no point has
any Hizbullah member ever condemned or in any way criticized its
paramilitary or terror cadres. To the contrary, Hizbullah's non-
military personnel have gone on record repeatedly praising their
terror brethren and have expressed disappointment that they are not
among the movement's fighters.
Like Hamas — which Brennan in the past has expressed support for
recognizing — Hizbullah entered Lebanese politics with the intention
of taking over the country. It wishes to control Lebanon both to
protect its military forces, and to advance its jihadist aim of
spreading the Iranian revolution and destroying Israel. Like Hamas,
Hizbullah's political empowerment has not moderated it. It has
strengthened its military arm and made it politically impossible for
its domestic rivals to oppose its war against Israel, its ties to Iran
and Syria and its independent military force.
Unfortunately, as Brennan made clear last Thursday, the Obama
administration is intellectually wed to the notion that terrorists
like Hassan Nasrallah, and terror supporting regimes like Bashar
Assad's Syria and his overlords in Iran just want to be accepted by
the West. They cannot accept any evidence to the contrary.
This week the Obama administration dispatched senior military
officials to Damascus for yet another round of friendly talks with the
Iranian satellite. According to media citations of Pentagon and State
Department officials, the administration is looking to cut a deal
where in exchange for Syrian agreement to curtail its support for
jihadists in Iraq, the US will put pressure on Israel to surrender the
Golan Heights to Syria.
As for Iran, the administration has officially given the mullahs until
next month to decide whether they are interested in negotiating a deal
with the US regarding their nuclear program. Although Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton and her colleagues in the administration are
beginning to acknowledge that Iran will not meet their deadline, the
administration has no Plan B.
The White House continues to oppose placing additional sanctions on
Iran. State Department officials said this week that they fear that
additional sanctions — including widely supported Congressional bills
that would limit refined petroleum imports to Iran — would cause the
Iranian public to rally around the regime. The fact that the Iranian
public is in large part now begging Western countries to reject the
legitimacy of the regime has made no impact on the Obama
administration. Indeed, top US officials are unanimous in their
willingness to accept Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the legitimate president
of Iran. Appeasement remains the only option the administration is
willing to consider.
The Obama administration's unswerving efforts to accommodate
terrorists and terror supporting regimes wherever they are to be found
demonstrates that for the administration, appeasement is not a tactic
for achieving US policy aims. Appeasing terrorists and regimes that
support them is the aim of US policy.
All of this makes clear that in spite of its reasonable desire to
reach a deal with the Obama White House, the Netanyahu government must
abandon any plans to do so. The Jerusalem Post reported this week that
the government is now negotiating a six-month extension of its
unofficial ban on Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria
with US officials. These negotiations must be ended immediately.
Indeed, the proper response to the Fatah conference is for the
government to announce that it is approving all building requests it
has held up for the past four months. It should also declare that from
now on it will treat all requests for building permits in Judea and
Samaria and Jerusalem in the same manner that it treats such requests
from everywhere else in the country.
The Obama administration's devotion to appeasement shows that even if
it wished to reward Israel in some way for going along with a
construction freeze, it has nothing to offer. The only play in its
game book is further concessions to terrorists and regimes that
sponsor them. A settlement freeze will lead to a demand to accept a
Lebanese "unity" government where Hizbullah reigns supreme, or a
Palestinian "unity" government that paves the way for Hamas's
international legitimization. An Israeli willingness to discriminate
against Jews in Jerusalem will lead to a further demand that Israel
cede the Golan Heights to Damascus, and accept Iran as a nuclear power.
For the Obama administration there is but one way of looking at
terrorists: Just as Fatah can be appeased, so the mullahs can be
Fatah's message that it will not be appeased is a message the Obama
administration will never receive.
"I think it is a terrific thing for Israel for us to be able to expand the tent of people who are willing to be considered pro-Israel and willing to support Israel through J Street" [from a proud and happy Jeremy Ben-Ami, director of J Street, quoted here]
Ah, the Big Tent. Under the Big Top of the J Street circus, the "tent of people who are willing to be considered pro-Israel" has always consisted, in the main, of self-declared Jewish "supporters" of israel who know nothing, or very little, of the Islam-propmpted insistence that the Infidel nation-state of Israel disappear, but who think, because they are Jewish and therefore, they tell themselves, "want the best for Israel, they are exempt from the requirement to actually find out about Islam, to actually learn the details of what Islam inculcates, and what the Arabs have made clear, in 1920, in 1930, in 1948, in 1956, in 1967, in 1973, and in all the peace-processing that has gone on, in such manic and hopeless fashion, since, and led to only one thing: a dimidiated Israel, now almost reduced to what Abba Eban called "the lines of Auschwitz" with -- if J Street has its sweetly-sinister way -- will soon be achieved, and Arab and Muslim minds and hearts and appetites will not be sated, but whetted, for more, until nothing of that Infidel nation-state remains. What makes the Musilm Arabs work for Israel's disappearance -- through "peace treaties" if necessary, as a Milestone Along The Way it includes those who either are malevolently inclined toward Israel, but are of the Slow-Jihadist schools.
But now J Street, and the assorted ben-amis associated with it, are delighted to expand that Big Tent still further, so that it now includes, is supported by, those who are not naive or ignorant of Islam, but who see the best way to achieve that peace that passeth understanding -- the understanding of all those who have grasped the meaning, and menace, of Islam, not only in regard to Israel, but in Western Europe (where the instruments of Jihad are not, at this point, primarily those of terrorism or other forms of violence), in India, in Thailand, in the Philippines, in the Sudan, in Nigeria, dappertutto. No, those who focus so narrowly on Israel may think they can continue to avoid the subject of Islam, at the heart of the war being made on Israel -- but Muslim aggression, Muslim Jihad conducted through the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest in Europe are already changing minds, clearing heads, in imperilled Western Europe, and in Israel, despite the best efforts of so many on Israeli radio and television, and of course all those columnists in Ha'aretz, not to mention the terminally naive novelists whose stock in trade is, necessarily, the complexity of individuals, especially those with complicated personal lives, and not -- as political thought requires -- an understanding of the power of Total Belief-Systems on large masses, which is why assorted grossmans and ozes can be admired by some as novelists, but as guides to understanding the war being made on Israel are useful only as representatives of a certain kind of wilful intellectual folly.
Yes, that J Street tent is so big, so very big, that even those who do not wish Israel well, those Arabs and Muslims who are not naive (as are many of the Jewish supporters), and know exactly how useful J Street is, not to make Israel safer (as the ben-amis piously claim) but to put further pressure on Israel so that it will not be able to withstand demands that are historically without justification, cruel, and reckless -- but are now accepted, apparently, by many in the Obama Administration.
And these Arabs and Muslims, who are not nearly as innocent of reality as are the Jewish supporters of J Street, do not wish Israel well. At best they are indifferent to what will happen if Israel is forced back into something like the Armistice Lines of 1949 (which are the pre-June 1967 lines). But more likely, they know, and look forward to, the slow collapse of Israel within those impossible-to-defend lines, as the people of Israel become more and more demoralized, and Arab pressure continues, diplomatic, economic (including denial of water from the aquifers under the "West Bank"), and of course militarily, for Israel would no longer control the Jordan Valley and the historic invasion route from the east, and the minimal strategic depth that the "West Bank" provides would be gone. All of Israel's airfields would be within reach of hand-held weapons.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration appears already to have joined J Street, and only members of Congress will be able to restrain those people, ignorant or malevolent, who spout something like the ben-ami-robert-malley-rashid-khalidi line that is apparently so attractive to that self-assured charmer so dangerously ignorant of Islam, Barack Obama. The reason for the Obama Administration focussing on putting pressure on Israel is that it is just as confused, just as ignorant, as was the Bush Adjministration. Obama has no idea exactly what will be achieved, what could be achieved, by continuing to squander -- this time in Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than Iraq -- American lives, money, materiel and morale -- all the while, of course, refusing to see the most pressing problem, which is that of Islam in Europe, with the danger to the historic West -- which "Historic West" is not important to Obama, whose lifelong fascination with his own biography and what it all means turns him away far more completely from a deep interest in, and identification with, Europe and all that Europeans have created and achieved, including that cisatlantic political achievement, the United States of America, a child not of the world, as Obama may allow himself to think, but of Europe.
And while you are at it, read, and watch, and listen, to the Presidential campaign of Elmo Tanner at NER. Despite the last election, he is gearing up for 2012. Elmo Tanner's Medal of Freedom choices will be announced soon.
It's all here, preserved for posterity, along with some torn bits of bunting, and railroad schedules, and a campaign button, and a handful of black-and-white photographs:
There is certainly a look of grim satisfaction on the face of Mrs Gunn, restorer of busts and corrector of ill-shaped noses. You name it, she'll fill it in, no questions asked and "no parafine used" (h/t David Thompson):
It is five years since my father died. I thought I would get over it, but I haven’t. This is not a plea for sympathy — I’m fine, all’s well — but simply an observation, a report. Unusually for a man of 54 I had never, before Dad’s death, lost anyone close; and I had no idea what to expect.
I guessed, though, that the experience would not differ from other violent emotional traumas: first the shock, then a blank aftershock; then busy-ness — displacement activity; then perhaps a relapsing into grief. And after that and over many years a slow but steady process of what sensitive people might call ‘healing’ and the rest of us would call getting over it.
It took me perhaps a couple of years to begin fully to understand, with an intensity that grew, that the world had changed when he died; that there was still a big gap where he had been; and that it was not closing over.
And now, five years later, I see clearly that it never will. Now never a week passes — hardly a day — when I do not remember him: see a shoreline and think how he would have liked to walk there; hear some Brahms and remember that he liked Brahms; spot an ocean liner and recall how he would have wanted to take a pointless photograph of it; read an item of news about technological innovation or some new advance in engineering, and think how interested he would be to know of it. Not only in the night, now, but during the day, even at busy times, and at happy times, he enters my imagination, a welcome guest.
Quite simply, he has left a space that will never be filled; therefore he is, paradoxically, still here because the space is still here, and I can feel it all the time. The gap Dad left is not a vacuum, a void, a soft area of low pressure to be filled. The gap is hard-edged, chiselled by him into my life, measured by his worth, and ineradicable.
With this realisation has come another: that this sorrow is not itself a cause for sorrow. Regret is not a cause for regret. We ought to be sorry. We ought to regret. Death is not a ‘wound’ to be ‘healed’ or a ‘scar’ to ‘fade’. Once someone has been in the world, they have always been in the world; and once they have gone their absence will be in the world forever, part of the world; in Dad’s case part of mine. This is a good thing.
How foolish, then, is all this talk of ‘getting over’ death. How empty, how wrong-headed the exhortations we make to those who love us that they should try not to miss us when we’re gone. Why not? You do miss someone you love, don’t you, when they’re gone? How self-negating is the wish that others should not feel sad when they remember us. Of course they should feel sad! They can’t talk to us any more.
This September it will be five years since my father died, and I couldn't agree more.
MP segregated from wife at Muslim wedding walks out
I read this in the Eastern Daily Press this morning but I have gone to the local paper the East London Advertiser for their report. GOVERNMENT Minister Jim Fitzpatrick has spoken out after he and his wife were refused entry as a couple to attend a wedding at the London Muslim Centre.
He is accusing the centre of imposing ‘stricter’ segregation rules than before, after he and his GP wife Sheila were directed to separate rooms for men and women.
Mr Fitzpatrick, the local MP for Poplar & Canning Town in London’s East End, had been invited to attend a constituent’s wedding on Sunday, unaware that men and women would be segregated.
He blamed the Islamic Forum of Europe which is based in the same building.
“The stranglehold influence of the Islamic Forum is present more than ever before,” Mr Fitzpatrick told the East London Advertiser on Monday. “We are trying to build social cohesion in a community—but this is not the way forward.”
The Forum adheres to Shariah law while describing itself as “helping to develop the Muslim community and benefit the wider society.”
The London Muslim Centre, which is next to the East London Mosque in Whitechapel, insists it has always had separate men and women at weddings.
But Mr Fitzpatrick, Minister for Food and Farming, has been to a string of weddings and events at the centre and says he has seen a change in rules in recent months which most of East London’s Muslim community do not want.
The centre’s website states that “free mixing” is not permitted in weddings.
The Islamic Forum insists the centre has its own proceedings and regulations and gets advice from the imam. Their spokesman said: “Those who get married at the centre are religious people and you will find any Muslim centre you go to has segregation.” While I think that Mr Fitzgerald was quite right not to stay where his wife was not welcome not everyone agrees. Ghastly Georgie Galloway thinks his behaviour was an insult. Mr Galloway called his walk-out a “disgusting insult, cynically motivated by political opportunism.”
He said: “If you don’t want to go to a Muslim wedding, don’t go. But don’t turn up and then carry out a wholly artificial politically motivated stunt."
He added: “I am amazed and astounded by this behaviour by a Government minister who represents a very substantial Muslim minority in his constituency. I honestly did not think anyone could stoop so low. Fitzpatrick really has got down in the gutter in his increasingly desperate attempt to hold onto his Parliamentary seat.”
Mr Galloway is challenging Mr Fitzpatrick for the redrawn constituency of Poplar & Limehouse at the next General Election. Mr Fitzpatrick is obviously thinking not just of his non Muslim constitutents who do not want to see sharia law practised in their town, but the Muslim ones who have personal reasons for not wanting to live under a greater stranglehold of sharia.
Regular readers and contributors of New English Review must surely get frustrated from time to time when trying to post comments. You are asked to re-type the letters and numbers in a picture, but sometimes it won't take them, and unless you have copied your comment to the clipboard, it is gone forever. You try again and only four characters come up, which is a good clue that your next attempt will fail. So you back off - reculer pour mieux sauter - and try again, painfully slowly, only to find you have "timed out".
Our system is rather primitive, but it is better than nothing. Rebecca and Esmerelda will recall spending hours deleting spam from some Italian porno-spambot, and at least it has stopped that. Spambots who try to visit NER are clearly deterred by our little test and give up.
Some spambots must be getting quite clever, though, and determined as the Sleeping Beauty's prince. I visited Standpoint just now and found this above the comments form:
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
What a piece of work is a man, who knows his aniq from his iwoteja. No robot, as yet, would be able to understand the question and pick gocumu, but it's surely just a matter of time. And as the questions get harder, perhaps the best spambots will overtake the dopier humans. The questions will end up being as hard as Hugh's quizzes, and only Hugh, the ghost of Nabokov and the cleverest robot in the universe will be able to post comments.
I was struck by the third word, wipobax. It sounds like a wet wipe for the manbot, not needed by the spambot.