Friday, May 06, 2005
Michael Coren in yesterday's National Post (May 5, 2005) blames the Crusades on the Muslims, he says they started it by invading the holy land and starting wars with Europe. But I find this conclusion rather unfair and quite arbitrarily chosen. If Coren is looking for a cause to crusade his pen through paper, why stop with the Muslims? Why not blame the Israelites for invading Jericho in the first place - better yet, blame God for delivering the Holy Land to the Israelites, catapulting mankind into an endless series of seriously passionate skirmishes over a ridiculously small tract of land. Perhaps this is more accurately the truth about the Crusades - God started it.
The one group Christians hated even more than the Muslims are fellow Christians. Millennia of experience attest that the Christian's zeal for barbarous hatred toward fellow Christians has always been much worse than for anyone else. When Pope Urban II declared the first crusade with the words, "Men of God, men chosen and blessed among all, combine your forces!" he was saying "quiet down, violently happy princes, and stop your infighting; for God's sake you're Christian, men; here, focus your energies on something else and go play in the backyard." Trying to solve the bloodlust of princes, I think, is more accurately the truth about the Crusades.
A most disgusting line of questioning. This is not hard hitting journalism. This is simply terrible journalism. Jeremy Paxman ought to be fired for this.
"For anyone who missed it overnight, the tussle between George Galloway and Jeremy Paxman was one of the highlights, which came shortly after his victory over Labour's Oona King."
JP: We're joined now from his count in Bethnal Green and Bow by George Galloway. Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
GG: What a preposterous question. I know it's very late in the night, but wouldn't you be better starting by congratulating me for one of the most sensational election results in modern history?
JP: Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
GG: I'm not - Jeremy - move on to your next question.
JP: You're not answering that one?
GG: No because I don't believe that people get elected because of the colour of their skin. I believe people get elected because of their record and because of their policies. So move on to your next question.
JP: Are you proud -
GG: Because I've got a lot of people who want to speak to me.
JP: - You -
GG: If you ask that question again, I'm going, I warn you now.
JP: Don't try and threaten me Mr Galloway, please.
GG: You're the one who's trying to badger me.
JP: I'm not trying to badger you, I'm merely trying to ask if you're proud at having driven out of Parliament one of the very few black women there, a woman you accuse of having on her conscience 100,000 people.
GG: Oh well there's no doubt about that one. There's absolutely no doubt that all those New Labour MPs who voted for Mr Blair and Mr Bush's war have on their hands the blood of 100,000 people in Iraq, many of them British soldiers, many of them American soldiers, most of them Iraqis and that's a more important issue than the colour of her skin.
JP: Absolutely, because you then went on to say "including a lot of women who had blacker faces than her"
GG: Absolutely right, absolutely right. So don't try and tell me I should feel guilty about one of the most sensational election results in modern electoral history.
JP: I put it to you Mr Galloway that Nick Raynsford had you to a T when he said you were a "demagogue".
JP: Nick Raynsford. You know who I mean? Nick Raynsford. Labour MP?
GG: No, I don't know who you mean.
JP: Never heard of him.
GG: I've never heard of Nick Raynsford, no.
JP: What else haven't you heard of?
GG: Well, I've been in Parliament a long time...
JP: He was a Parliamentary colleague of yours until very recently.
GG: Well, most of them just blend one into the other, Jeremy, they're largely a spineless, a supine bunch.
JP: Have you ever heard of Tony Banks?
GG: Yes I have, yes.
JP: Right, Tony Banks was sitting here five minutes ago, and he said that you were behaving inexcusably, that you had deliberately chosen to go to that part of London and to exploit the latent racial tensions there.
GG: You are actually conducting one of the most - even by your standards - one of the most absurd interviews I have ever participated in. I have just won an election. Can you find it within yourself to recognise that fact? To recognise the fact that the people of Bethnal Green and Bow chose me this evening. Why are you insulting them?
JP: I'm not insulting them, I'm not insulting you
GG: You are insulting them, they chose me just a few minutes ago. Can't you find it within yourself even to congratulate me on this victory?
JP: Congratulations, Mr Galloway.
GG: Thank you very much indeed. [Waves, removes microphone]
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Despite many of the varied poll results, the gap definately is closing between the CONS and the LIBS. Here is my aggregate tracking chart over the past few weeks:
- The gap between the LIBS and CONS seems to be attributed to the week off where the Liberals were throwing away money and CONS canvassing the community.
- The Bloc are actually rising. They have risen a percentage point and a half nationally -- no easy feat for a provincial party.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
In this case, a young woman who does not wish to have a blood transfusion is being forced to. In fact, the woman fled from BC to Ontario in order to escape the order. Now, the judge is forcing the woman back to BC for treatment.
This appears prima facie against the Charter of Rights section 6(2):
Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the rightIt sounds like this right of living in Ontario is abrogated.
- a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
- b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
She is not breaking any law by refusing blood transfusions, to my knowledge. In fact, she may exit and leave Canada to New York under Section 6(1) to get cancer treatment without blood transfusions.
It appears really insane (pardon the pun) that people who are deemed ineligible to make decisions for themselves are really the victims. That is, insane people and young adults, are at the mercy of doctors, who may circumvent religious beliefs.
What are doctors going to say next? Perhaps they will find something wrong with circumcision and stop Jews and other faiths from practicing it.