THE charity watchdog fears tens of thousands of pounds donated to a British Islamic charity that operates in Syria could have ended up in the hands of Islamic State (ISIS) fanatics, it can be exclusively revealed
Express.co.uk has also found ALL British charities offering funding and aid to victims of war in terror hotspots, such as Syria, Iraq, and other conflict zones, are being forensically probed by the Charity Commission, amid growing fears the cash they raise could inadvertently end up lining the pockets of ISIS brutes and other jihadist groups once it arrives in affected regions.
There is also growing concern that UK individuals wishing to join terror groups such as ISIS overseas could infiltrate such charities in order to provide a legitimate cover for their travel plans
Earlier this week we revealed official Charity Commission inquiries have begun into two other Islamic west-London based charities.
Now it can be revealed that Masoom, an all-woman charity based in Leyton, east London, is also being probed by the watchdog.
A spokesperson confirmed it "opened a statutory inquiry into Masoom" last month.
They added: "The charity’s objects include providing relief and assistance to people in any part of the world who are the victims of war, natural disaster, trouble or catastrophe. The charity has operated in Pakistan, Syria and Gaza.
"The trustees were unable to provide records to evidence expenditure of over £129,000.
"The funds were spent overseas during a period of two years between 2013 and 2015. The concerns were so serious that the Commission immediately exercised its legal powers to direct the trustees to undertake specific action in respect of this and to address other regulatory concerns identified.
Express.co.uk called a mobile number used to promote the charity and a woman who answered said she was a Masoom trustee, but refused to give her name.
However, she did agree to answer questions, and she denied there had been any wrongdoing, but said the charity had temporally ceased fund-raising until the outcome of the inquiry.
She also insisted the organisation would account for all money it had spent overseas, which had gone to help refugees in affected countries.
Israel Arab Knesset Member Trips up: Blesses Jews on Tanakh Day for Ownership of Temple Mount
MK Ahmad Tibi of The Joint Arab List
This past week, the Israeli Knesset or parliament recognized Tanakh Day.
Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions: Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence Ta
On Tanakh Day, MK Ahmad Tibi of the Joint Arab List, a Doctor by profession, strode to the rostrum to give a teaching from the Tanakh excoriating his Israeli Jewish colleagues for not following the tradition set by King David defying Ha Shem’s dictate to “seize Jebusite lands”, instead paying a full price for a threshing floor, which according to Chronicles was Mount Moriah, the site of what is known as the Temple Mount. The obvious ploy by Tibi was to use the Tanakh to admonish Israel for alleged occupation of Palestinian lands including alleged Muslim provenance of the Temple Mount, the flashpoint of the current Palestinian violent uprising seeking to kill Jews. Problem is that Tibi according a Jewish colleague in the Knesset screwed up. Instead of cursing, he ended up blessing ancient Jewish figures in the Tanakh.
Our colleagues at Gates of Vienna and Vlad Tepes translated Tibi’s remarks and those of the Knesset member who revealed Tibi’s faux pas, misreading of the ‘text’ and in process confirming Jewish ownership of the Temple Mount.
Watch the Vladtepes You Tube video of Tibi’s presentation and then read the translated transcript and
Rebuttal by MK Yinon Magal posted on his Facebook page:
MK Ahmad Tibi came to curse but ended up blessing us.
Yesterday, in honor of the upcoming “Tanakh Day” he gave a speech in the Knesset, trying to compare today’s Jews and the Jews from the Bible.
Out of all Tanakh stories, Tibi chose the one about King David’s purchase of Arvana’s goren (threshing floor).
The story was supposed to show how the mighty King David refused to rob a non-Jew of his property (in contrast to what the modern Jews routinely do to Palestinians, according to Mr. Tibi).
The King insisted on paying the Jebusite owner full price for the place, which Tibi said was somewhere in Galilee, Israel’s north.
Well, maybe the honorable MK is not aware of this, but the place, purchased by King David for a just and full price, is none other than the Temple Mount.
Here is the quote from Chronicles:
“Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.”
I want to remind you, for starters,
of the story about King David,
when God told him that in order to stop a plague,
he had to build an altar in a certain place.
David went there, it was in Galilee,
and discovered that the place belonged to Arvana the Jebusite,
one of the minorities.
By God’s decree, he had to seize the land, which belonged to the Jebusite,
in order to stop the plague.
The Jebusite fell to the ground as soon as he saw the king enter his yard,
and David bowed back.
The king asked how much Jebusite wanted for his land,
and Arvana said: “Take it for free!”
He was one of the minorities, you see, and David was the king.
The Jebusite was afraid; he was shaking in fear.
He said: “Take it , no charge!”
David insisted that he would pay more than the land was worth.
Jebusite wanted to give it to the king free of charge.
In those days, it was a very humane thing to do!
God said to the King: “Seize the land!”
The king said: “Man has rights.
I will make a lawful purchase.”
Modern Jews are not the Jews of old.
The reference is only to those on this side.
Maybe a little to this side, too, after yesterday.
I wish that all those claiming to be part of King David’s legacy,
but stealing Palestinians’ land, would learn this story.
2 Writers, Publisher Stabbed, Shot in Attack in Bangladesh
Muslims asserting their "religious right" not to be subjected to contrary opinions, what else? NYTimes:
DHAKA, Bangladesh — Two writers and a publisher were stabbed and shot Saturday at a publishing house in Bangladesh's capital, police said.
The attack in Dhaka comes amid fears about the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh. At least four atheist bloggers have been murdered in the impoverished country this year.
Three men entered the office of the publishing house, Shudhdhoswar, and attacked the writers and the publisher, said police officer Abdullah Al Mamun.
Local police chief Jamal Uddin Meer said the assailants then locked the wounded men inside the office before escaping. "We had to break the lock to recover them," Meer said.
The publisher, Ahmed Rahim Tutul, was a close friend of Bangladeshi-American blogger and writer Avijit Roy, who was hacked to death on the Dhaka University campus while walking with his wife in February. Tutul was also the publisher of Roy's books.
The two writers who were attacked Saturday were identified by police as Ranadeep Basu and Tareque Rahim.
All three were hospitalized, and Tutul was in critical condition, Meer said.
No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack. The local Islamist group Ansarullah Bangla Team had claimed the blogger killings.
Earlier this month, a bombing targeted Bangladesh's Shiite Muslims. An Italian aid worker and a Japanese agricultural worker were also killed in separate attacks. The Islamic State group claimed all three of those attacks, but Bangladesh's government rejected that the extremist Sunni militant group had any presence in the country.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won $240,000 in damages for two Muslim truck drivers after it sued their former employer for religious discrimination for firing the drivers for refusing to make beer deliveries.
The EEOC said that Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated their religious rights by refusing to accommodate their objections to delivering alcoholic beverages.
"EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices," EEOC General Counsel David Lopez announced Thursday. "This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance."
Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin’s Legacy: 20 Years After His Assassination
This weekend there will be many commemorations and discussions on the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, an extremist who killed him following a massive Peace rally in Tel Aviv on November 4, 1995. Thoughts linger about why Rabin’s security detail was absent when by chance Amir shot him three times.
Controversy surrounds Rabin’s assassination in this 20th year given incitement by the Palestinian leaders triggering the current wave of violence bordering on the brink of a Third Intifada, or “uprising”. There were remarks by Israeli President Rivlin about throwing the key away keeping his assassin in prison for life. That triggered a response from Amir’s brother Hagai who was arrested by Israeli police accused of inciting violence. Former UK Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks revealed a letter he received posthumously from Rabin extolling the patriotism of religious nationalist Zionists.
The left commemorates Rabin’s assassination as both a personal loss to the Jewish nation and demise of the peace process. A peace effort virtually dead in the current context of what we have taken to call the al Quds or Jerusalem Intifada. An uprising fomented by PA President Abbas of PLO-Fatah-PLO, Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza, Sheikh Hassan Youssef in the West Bank and jailed Sheikh Raed Salah of the northern Branch of the Islamic Movement. Then there was the complicity of the United Arab List Members of the Knesset like Gattis, Tibi, Aymen and Zoabi riling Israel Muslims to act in solidarity with their Palestinian brothers.
Friedman’s bottom line or tachlis is: “As Israel prepares to mark 20 years to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, society is no longer willing to risk a Palestinian state.” He notes the rise of Palestinian terrorism following the Oslo accords in the run up to Rabin’s assassination:
The mood of the religious Zionist community during the summer of 1995 reflected palpable, heart-stopping panic? and not only because of murderous Palestinian attacks.
More than 100 Israelis were killed between the day Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, and the night Rabin was gunned down by a Jewish assassin two years and two months later. But the fear in the right-wing community was far deeper than immediate questions of life and death.
Rather, the right wing sector was gripped by a nearly apocalyptic fury that the end of Israel as an independent, Jewish country was at hand. The then opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu furiously denounced the Oslo process, arguing that the PLO was an unrepentant terror group that would use any Israeli concessions to better its offensive capabilities.
Friedman contrasts the view of the left saying, “On the left I don’t think anyone has rethought the ultimate answer to our conflict with the Palestinians”. He concludes citing former foreign and defense minister Moshe Arens, saying, “Most Israelis today understand the security risk that a Palestinian State would bring about, and they aren’t willing to take the risk.”
Glick’s tachlis in her Rabin commemorative Jerusalem Post commentary is, “Rather than learn from his record, Israel has spent the past 20 years distorting his record.” In her Facebook page, she noted, “the original essay appears in a collection of essays published last week by the Rabin Center in conjunction with Am Oved publishing house. It is titled Three shots and twenty years, and is edited by Prof. Anita Shapira and Nurit Cohen-Levinovsky.”
Glick recounts the Oslo Accords were signed on a sun –splashed lawn at the White House on September 13, 1993 orchestrated by host former President Clinton. After tentative handshakes among Arafat, Peres and diffident Rabin, Arafat flew off to South Africa and spoke of Jihad with Israel instead of peaceful cooperation. Even in the run up to Rabin’s assassination in November 1995, increasing Palestinian terror incidents occurred. They gave rise to skepticism and differences between Rabin and Peres, about whether the peace process should have been abrogated.
Her remarks underline the real intent of Arafat and the Palestinian leaders who returned in 1994 from Tunis:
In other words, Oslo didn’t fail because Rabin was killed. Oslo failed – and continues to fail – because it was based on false assumptions about the Palestinians and the nature of their conflict with Israel.
Aside from the faith it placed in Arafat as a peacemaker, Oslo assumed that the absence of peace owed to the absence of a Palestinian state and was therefore Israel’s fault. If Israel would just give the PLO sufficient lands to make it happy, then there would be peace.
Shlomo Ben-Ami served as foreign minister when the Oslo process ended with the Second Intifada following the breakdown of negotiations at Camp David in July 2000. He said, that assumption was also wrong. The Palestinians were never interested in settling their dispute with Israel on any terms.
As Ben-Ami explained to Ha aretz in September 2000, “Arafat’s concession vis-à-vis Israel [at Oslo] was a formal concession. Morally and conceptually, he didn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. He doesn’t accept the idea of two states for two peoples. Neither he nor the Palestinian national movements accept us... More than they want a state of their own, they want to spit out our state.”
In other words, Oslo was never a peace process, because the Palestinians saw it not as a means to build their own national homeland but as a means to destroy Israel.
Glick notes what Rabin’s daughter Dalia said about his attitude towards the Oslo process:
By the eve of his murder, due to mounting Palestinian terrorism, Rabin was seriously considering abrogating the Oslo process entirely.
In an interview on the 15th anniversary of her father’s murder, Dalia Rabin explained that her father was on the verge of canceling the deal and turning back the clock.
In her words, “People who were close to my father told me that on the eve of his assassination he considered ending the Oslo process. He wasn’t a blind man who sprinted forward.”
Glick suggests that Rabin conceived a final deal with the Palestinians along the lines of the 1967 Yigal Allon Peace Plan:
Rabin believed that the end-state of the peace process would involve an autonomous Palestinian governing authority rather than a state presiding over around half of Judea and Samaria and a large part of Gaza.
Jerusalem, in his view, would remain united under sole Israeli sovereignty. The Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza would remain in place. Israel would maintain its control over the areas not ceded to the Palestinians, including the international borders with Egypt and Jordan, in perpetuity.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Rabin’s vision of a final deal looked much more like current Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) diplomatic plan than the Labor Party’s position.
Our usually astute European observer of developments in Israel and Turkey said that Peres had rejected the original Allon peace plan. Further, that Peres had orchestrated the Oslo negotiations behind Rabin’s back with operatives like Yossi Beilin, who headed the Israeli negotiating team; MKs Haim Oron (Meretz), Amram Mitzna (Labor) and Avraham Burg (Labor).
Abbas is able to succeed at the UN in part because Israel refuses to acknowledge that there never was a peace process. Arafat lied to us, and to the world, about his intentions, and we lied to ourselves about the nature of the Palestinian war against us. So long as we continue to play along with this tired charade, we will be unable to conceive and implement a diplomatic defense that is coherent and effective against the mountains of lies and murder on which the PLO has based its war against Israel for the past 55 years.
Israel contributes to the PLO’s diplomatic success at the UN because it refuses to do what Rabin recognized was necessary 20 years ago.Rather than learn from his record, Israel has spent the past 20 years distorting his record.
The time has come to do justice to Rabin and end the Oslo process once and for all.
Since the founding of the Jewish state in 1948, Evangelical Protestants in the United States have been regarded—with good reason—as Israel’s most reliable supporters. In 2008, Jody C. Baumgartner and a number of other researchers reported that Evangelicals are “more likely than other Americans to have sympathy for Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians and to agree that the United States should take Israel’s side more often in the Middle East.”1 More recently, a poll conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust indicated that Evangelicals are more likely than other American Jews to believe that God gave the land to the Jewish people.2
In addition to the belief that God’s promises endure forever, much Evangelical support for Israel is motivated by an understanding of the religious component of Arab hostility toward Israel. Evangelicals, Baumgartner and her colleagues reported, are “significantly more likely than other Americans to agree that Islam is a more violent religion than Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism.”3 Other factors related to Evangelical support for Israel include an adherence to premillenial dispensationalism (an eschatology that posits that the return of the Jews to their homeland is a precursor to the return of Jesus Christ),4 gratitude to the Jewish people for their scriptures, and remorse over the Holocaust.5
From the Zionist perspective, Evangelical support for Israel is a good thing. It is not, however, an unalloyed good, because a growing number of Americans regard Evangelicals with suspicion and contempt. Anti-Israel activists take advantage of this contempt in their effort to portray support for Israel as a regressive and retrograde cause.
Nevertheless, this community represents a significant segment of the American population and the American voting public.6 Its members devote time, energy, and money to pro-Israel activism, as witnessed by the growth of such organizations as Christians United for Israel,7 the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Connection, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews—all of which rely on Evangelical support.
Robert O. Smith, author of a recent book on Christian Zionism More Desired than Our Owne Salvation: The Roots of Christian Zionism (Oxford University Press, 2013), may be overstating the point only mildly when he writes, “The most conspicuous contribution evangelical politics have made to American life is the promotion of unwavering U.S. support for the state of Israel.”8
Despite this support for Israel, there are unmistakable signs that anti-Israel activism is gaining traction within evangelical Protestantism in the United States, particularly in its megachurch segment. A coalition of supersessionist theologians, liberal activists, and Palestinian Christians is reaching out—with increasing effectiveness—to young adults who have become disaffected from the Evangelical community into which they are born. As a result, the institutions of American Evangelicalism, like mainline Protestantism before it, are becoming persistent and vocal sources of anti-Israel messaging on the American scene.
An unmistakable increase in anti-Zionist activism is taking place against the backdrop of demographic and ideological shifts in American Evangelicalism. Older Evangelicals who were alive during the Holocaust or who were witness to Israel’s creation in 1948 and Arab efforts to destroy the Jewish state in 1967 and 1973 are dying off and being replaced by a younger generation of churchgoers who lack first-hand knowledge of this history and who, as a result, are willing to give a sympathetic hearing to anti-Israel narratives, no matter how distorted. Concomitant with these demographic changes is the embarrassment over Evangelicalism’s reputation for its affiliation with the American Right. As a result, the U.S. evangelical community is shifting to the center from its traditional place on the political and theological right.
David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, offered this warning to Jim Fletcher, a journalist who has documented the growth of anti-Zionism in the evangelical community: “Anti-Israel activists are making surprising inroads into the evangelical community, especially among the Millennial generation. They are telling lies about Israel. But their lies are hitting the right moral notes and they are making progress. We ignore them at our peril.”9
In sum, American Evangelicalism is no longer the bulwark of support for Israel it once was.
The question presented to observers is how this turn of events came about. For decades, the underlying circumstances of the Arab-Israeli conflict have not changed substantively. Arab and Muslim hostility toward Israel and Jews—one of the primary drivers of the conflict—has not diminished, but rather increased in recent years. Violence against Christians has also gotten worse in Muslim-majority countries throughout the world, indicating what would happen to Jews should they lose their state.
Moreover, Israel remains a beacon for human rights in the Middle East, treating its enemies, dissidents, minorities and its own citizens—women especially—with greater respect than every other country or political regime in the region. Israel has proven itself to be an astounding success, while its adversaries have proven unable to adapt to the modern world. And despite all this, we are confronted with a growing movement within American Evangelism that assails Israel while apologizing for its enemies. What is going on here?
It is fruitless to seek an explanation for this turn of events in the Middle East itself. Only a close look at recent events in American society will help us understand this anti-Zionist drift in the Evangelical community. As it turns out, anti-Zionism is an adaptive response to changes in American society that threaten to isolate Evangelicals in the United States from their compatriots—and the movement’s leaders from its young people. Young Evangelicals—and leaders who seek their support—embrace anti-Zionism as a way of signaling that they are not the Bible-thumping fundamentalists of yore.
The results of the Canadian general election are now graven in stone and Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party has been given a decisive majority. Canadians have opted for change without stopping to consider that change is by no means an unalloyed good. The “hope and change” that Obama promised the American people has led the country into an abyss of debt, racial conflict, open-border chaos, destructive initiatives like global warming legislation, alliances with genocidal enemies, alienation of political friends, and a state of international weakness that would be risible were it not so devastating. America allowed itself to be seduced by a charismatic interloper with spotty credentials, a pro-Muslim bias, hard-left sympathies, and no accomplishments worth mentioning.
It appears that Canada has followed suit, electing an aureate nonentity whose CV would in any sane society have generated howls of laughter or stunned disbelief. “Spectacularly unqualified,” as a PJM commenter posted, Trudeau studied environmental geography at McGill University and engineering at the Université de Montréal—but failed to complete degrees in either discipline. Among his other triumphs, which apparently earned the confidence of the electorate, Trudeau was a snow board instructor, a camp counselor, a white water rafting instructor, and a substitute drama teacher. Even a farcical billet like community organizing would have been more impressive.
Trudeau’s record on the long campaign trail and since his election is no less demoralizing. Having said in an interview that he could understand the movement for Quebec separation from Canada under the politics of Stephen Harper, total bilge given Harper’s recognition of Quebec as “a nation within a united Canada” (much like the status of Bavaria in modern Germany), he was shortly forced to walk back his gaffe. His reaching out to the problematic but vote-rich Muslim constituencies is equally depressing: unvetted Muslim immigration, including 25,000 “Syrian” migrants by Christmas, and the welcoming of niqab-garbed candidates for citizenship. The Supreme Court of Canada has conspired with Trudeau’s Liberals and against Stephen Harper’s Conservatives by allowing Pakistani immigrant Zunera Ishaq to swear the oath of citizenship wearing a mask, thus setting a dismal precedent. Information has just surfaced that Ishaq is a member of the notorious terrorist group Jamaat-e-Islami, but this will not ruffle Trudeau’s elaborate hair-do.
The burlesque continues. Trudeau, whom Al Jazeeracalls “Canada’s agent for change,” objected to the word “barbaric” in a citizenship study guide describing certain unsavory Muslim practices like honor killings (once again having to walk back a blunder in a transparent attempt at damage control); engaged in a closed-door colloquy at an Islamic mosque in Regina and was photographed, swathed in a white garments, praying at yet another mosque; explained the Boston Marathon bombing as essentially our fault: “There is no question,” he pontificated, “that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society”; vowed to revoke Bill C-24 which provided for the stripping of Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism, and to weaken the anti-terrorist Bill C-51; and will end Canada’s military involvement in the mission against ISIS. Israel, too, will once more face Liberal disapproval and lose one of its few friends at the United Nations. Alexandre (Sacha) Trudeau, producer of pro-Palestinian, pro-Iranian and anti-Israel “documentaries,” figured as a political advisor in his brother’s electoral campaign. No accident there.
As if this were not enough, Justin expressed a hankering for Chinese-style autocratic government and the economic efficiency of “basic dictatorship,” which calls to mind the Trudeau family love affair with Fidel Castro. An environmental purist, he has bought into the global warming deception and is set to cancel the Northern Gateway Pipeline essential to Canada’s prosperity and especially western Canada’s bottom line. He is, in short, Canada’s Obama, and the nation, like the U.S., will rue the day it put so reckless and inept a driver behind the wheel of national policy. All we need do is wait upon the sequel of his tenure to bring home the fiasco we have wrought: more spending, more debt, more taxes, more unemployment, more crony climatism, more socialism, and more Muslims—infallible recipes for cultural decay and national insolvency.
Stephen Harper may have been a flawed prime minister who did not take sufficient advantage of the majority administration he enjoyed. In my estimation, he left much to be delivered. He did reduce the budget of the left-wing propaganda network, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), by 10%, but should have had the courage to engineer its privatization, as Brian Lilley argued in his fact-packed CBC Exposed. (The description of the book’s contents is accurate: “From reporting driven by vendettas to outright biases against conservatives, gun owners, Israel and any other group that doesn’t fit their vision of Canada, CBC Exposed is a call to action to rein in this broadcasting giant.”) Harper might have taken a more determined stand against Canada’s so-called Human Rights Commissions, politically correct, Soviet-style shadow courts favorable to grievance mongers, Muslims and Social Justice Warriors, that do not admit countervailing evidence, and that rarely if ever lose a case. When I consulted Harper on the issue, he argued that he had no jurisdiction in provincial matters. To his credit, he brought pressure to bear on the national tribunal, which managed to defuse its malign influence, but the anti-democratic provincial bodies continue to flourish. He refused to touch the abortion debate. His mode of governing was too authoritarian for many.
But Harper has been vilified past any conception of good sense and common decency. Pre-election signs and placards attacked “Harperman” for his “crimes”—whatever these might have been. More surprisingly, conservatives, too, have denounced the Conservative Party for utterly trivial or tendentious reasons. Pundit John Robeson, for example, declared he could not vote for the Conservatives owing to their “unprincipled cynicism” in pledging to make a home renovation tax credit permanent—a very minor affair—which I and others like me would certainly have appreciated. Self-published author Fred Litwin, who calls himself a conservative, found he could not vote his party, reckoning that it had exploited “the niqab issue to energize a faction of the Conservative activist base…causing deep divisions in Canada about Muslims” and for spreading “the vilest of lies …about Syrian refugees generally.” Such claptrap almost defies belief.
Then there is well-known columnist Andrew Coyne, who defends Harper against his literary accusers while condemning him for his manifold “sins,” which include shutting out the media and “virtually every other institution of democratic accountability.” Coyne does not seem to recognize that such “institutions” have become so profoundly compromised by leftist bias and anti-Conservative screechiness that they themselves are no longer democratically accountable.
Jonathan Kay, a former editor at the supposedly conservative oriented National Post and a respected columnist, saw no conflict of interest in acting as editorial assistant for Trudeau’s memoir Common Ground. It was “just a paycheque,” Kay explained in an article titled “The Justin Trudeau I Can’t Forget,” before going on to justify his involvement in the Trudeau project with subsequent insights into Trudeau’s “difference,” his having to deal with “maternal rejection” and the “emotional pain” of being “parched of mother’s milk.” What is there left to say after writing such tripe, but Kay soldiers on undaunted. Despite Little Lord Fauntleroy’s difficult childhood, we’re informed, “He’s someone who desperately wants to do the right thing.”
After having read some of Trudeau’s stump texts, I find it hard to believe he would be remotely capable of writing a book on his own steam, but be that as it may, I’m sure Kay’s editorial assistance, in whatever form it might have assumed, would have been welcomed. Kay, whose conservative colors remind me of Robeson’s and Litwin’s, reveals his allegiance in the conclusion to the article.”If election day ends with Justin Trudeau delivering a concession speech, it’ll be a hard thing for me to watch.” Kay’s puff job was, in my view, disgraceful, but very much in line with the conservative backsliding that further prejudiced Harper’s re-election prospects. For a more measured and principled account of Trudeau’s capacities, one can consult Paul Tuns’ The Dauphin, detailing the rise of a self-indulgent and pampered epigone plainly unfit for high office.
A pre-election exchange with an acquaintance of mine was typical of popular sentiment. Harper was non grata and unvoteable-for, but my acquaintance knew next to nothing about the party’s policies and platform. A responsible citizen does not vote personality (Harper) or looks (Trudeau); he or she votes policy. My interlocutor, a member of the musician/artistic community, may have anticipated the far larger government handouts he could expect from the Liberals.
Notwithstanding the smear campaign, Harper was on the whole a decent leader with sound moral instincts and, with a master’s degree in economics—a degree he actually completed—a leader with fiscal savvy. Let us review some of his legislative accomplishments. As blogger Jeremy Swanson points out (personal communication), the Conservative government got us through one of the worst financial crises since the Great Depression. The government reduced the GST by two percentage points, a 30% reduction on a universal value-added tax. It introduced pension splitting for retirees, a boon for both husband and wife. It instituted tax free savings accounts, which benefits anyone willing to save. It negotiated a number of international trade deals which will stand us in good stead in years to come. And Harper stood four square in favor of Israel, a country threatened with extinction by the vast Islamic surround, and the only democracy in the Middle East. He has much to be proud of.
Trudeau, on the other hand, had little to go on but the Trudeau family name—his father, the flamboyant former PM Pierre Trudeau, was as close to a media celebrity as a Canadian politician could be, but bequeathed us a massive debt we are still paying off thirty years later. Justin could also ride on his youthful appearance and his wavy hair, befitting the appellation that journalist Ezra Levant bestowed upon him: Shiny Pony. Jen Gerson in the National Postnotes how the international press, commenting on “his yummy body and ‘long flowing locks,’” has fallen for the Trudeau glamour, its “cringe-worthy copy…accompanied by shirtless photos” from the days he was shedding for a boxing match and a Ladies Night event. Gerson quotes The Independent’s Victoria Richards’ giddy fascination with Trudeau’s “long flowing locks [and] his pro-abortion, feminist, climate-changing supporting liberal credentials. But it was mostly the boxing shots. And the hair.” Gerson astutely concludes that such swooning transports expose “the hollowness of the left’s obsession with Trudeau” when the real issue is Trudeau’s pandering to his political class, his opportunistic adoption of all the fashionable causes of the day, and the $6.5 billion in cuts he will need to fulfill his promises.
Justin and Canada are a match made in ideological heaven. People want big government, subsidies for perceived marginal groups and progressivist organizations, and lots of social programs, at the cost of individual autonomy and entrepreneurial self-reliance—thus joining a ubiquitous trend that is gradually devitalizing the western world as it moves toward growing welfarism and entitlement largesse.
Many Canadians will wake up one day to learn they are living in the Socialist Republic of Canada in which many of the rights we have taken for granted will be abridged. We are already part way there. After all, this is a country whose Supreme Court has ruled that truth is no defense in cases where vulnerable groups or individuals feel subject to “hate speech”: “Truthful statements,” it has deposed, “can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.” The suppression of “truthful statements,” that is, the impairment of freedom of speech, is a toothing-stone in the socialist wall erected against the life of a democratic society. And, as previously mentioned, our misnamed Human Rights Commissions are in the business of quashing truth, evidence and legal defense in deference to socially approved grievance covens. Under the duplicitous rubrics of “diversity” and “equality,” we will find ourselves increasingly subject to judicial activism, collectivist legislation, exposure to libel claims (I speak from experience), regulatory intrusions, the erosion of traditional usages—in effect, the attack on liberty as we have come to know it, the dwindling of the individual’s scope for thought, expression and action. All this will be fine with Justin. For we have taken the classical liberal out of the contemporary Liberal.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber famously referred to American voters as stupid; the Canadian electorate, which has now installed Trudeau in 24 Sussex Drive, is no different, its collective IQ hovering around the numerical designation of the residential address.