Links Index

Previous Page



Next Page

LinksPile 12


re:troop fatalities in iraq

~US Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,875

Published: 11/25/07, 7:25 PM EDT

By The Associated Press

(AP) - As of Sunday, Nov. 25, 2007, at least 3,875 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,157 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

The AP count is three higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Nov. 23 at 10 a.m. EST.

The British military has reported 173 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.


The latest deaths reported by the military:

_ No deaths reported.


The latest identifications reported by the military:

No identifications reported.


On the Net: ~


re:syria agrees to meet

~Syria Agrees to Attend Mideast Summit

Published: 11/25/07, 10:05 PM EDT


WASHINGTON (AP) - Arab holdout Syria agreed Sunday to attend a Mideast peace conference called by President Bush to restart talks to resolve the six-decade conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, yet expectations for the summit remained low. The two sides came to Washington without agreeing on basic terms for their negotiations.

Bush invited the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to separate meetings at the White House on Monday to prepare for the centerpiece of his Mideast gathering - an all-day session Tuesday in Annapolis, Md. It is to be the only time that Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meet together, and their three-way handshake is expected to be the conference's symbolic high point. Bush closes the U.S. effort with a second set of separate Israeli and Palestinian meetings at the White House on Wednesday.

"The broad attendance at this conference by regional states and other key international participants demonstrates the international resolve to seize this important opportunity to advance freedom and peace in the Middle East," Bush said in a statement Sunday.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her deputy for the Mideast region, still trying to write a framework for talks that their U.S. hosts had hoped would be complete by now. Rice's spokesman said the last-minute work is not surprising.

"We're confident there will be a document and we'll get to Annapolis in good shape on that," but bargaining may well continue behind the scenes during the session Tuesday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in an interview.

"It will memorialize their common understandings to this point," and look ahead to negotiations the two sides expect to begin in earnest after the session, McCormack told The Associated Press.

Separately, Palestinian negotiators Ahmed Qureia and Saeb Erekat met with Tzipi Livni, Israel's lead negotiator, for unscheduled talks Sunday evening. Asked if they were optimistic about the prospect for reaching a consensus on a joint declaration, Qureia replied, "You don't meet if you're not optimistic."

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch also met with Palestinian negotiators Sunday in an attempt to reach a breakthrough, a member of the Palestinian delegation said.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the joint statement was not as important as it might have seemed when it was first broached. The two sides took the unexpected step of seeking negotiations, and the declaration no longer needed to serve as a vehicle to prod them to do so, Hadley said.

"If we get something, if they can agree on some things as an input to the negotiations, that would be fine," Hadley said. "But I think it is really no longer on the critical path to a successful conference."

The Bush administration, which has largely taken a hands-off approach to the nitty-gritty of Mideast peacemaking until now, says the goal is to set up an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israeli and Palestinian leaders have said they want to do that by the time Bush leaves office in January 2009. While there are widespread doubts in the administration about that time line, Rice has said she is game to try.

"This is not a negotiation session, it is to launch negotiations," Hadley said.

Hadley said that during his address to the conference Tuesday, Bush will make clear that the Mideast peace process has his support, and that it is a top priority for the rest of his time in office. But he is not expected to use his speech to advance any of his own ideas on how to achieve that by wading into the issues that have kept the parties bitterly divided.

The conference is meant to draw Arab and other outside backing for what will be difficult negotiations. The idea is also to let Arab states have their say alongside Bush, making it more difficult for them to complain that Washington is not doing enough or is not listening to good advice from those closest to the conflict.

Syria, which borders Israel and has no diplomatic relations with the Jewish state, gave Washington a partial victory Sunday by agreeing to send a lower-level envoy to the session. Syria wants to raise the question of the Golan Heights, strategic territory Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 war. The U.S. hosts and Israel have agreed, at least tacitly, to listen.

Other major Arab states whose participation was considered essential had decided on Friday to send their top diplomats.

As 16 Arab nations and the Arab League prepared to sit down with Israel for the first time in more than a decade, Israel's ambassador to Washington said what Arab leaders say and do after the conference can change the bitter atmosphere in the Middle East.

"Annapolis is about two things," Ambassador Sallai Meridor said in an interview. Foremost is furthering direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians "and the other thing it is important for is creating international and Arab support for this process," Meridor said. "We hope the Arabs will come and come with a spirit of peace."

Israel's Foreign Minister Livni suggested that a lack of Arab backing contributed to the failure of the last round of talks. That effort collapsed in bloodshed in the waning days of the Clinton administration in early 2001.

The Arab world, Livni told reporters en route to Washington, "should stop sitting on the fence."

"There isn't a single Palestinian who can reach an agreement without Arab support," she said. "That's one of the lessons we learned seven years ago." But, Livni added, "it is not the role of the Arab world to define the terms of the negotiations or take part in them."

Whatever joint agreement the Israelis and Palestinians present at Annapolis will be a starting point and is likely to sketch only vague bargaining terms.

The big questions that have doomed previous peace efforts, such as the borders of a Palestinian state, the status of disputed Jerusalem and the rights of Palestinians and their descendants to return to homes in what is now Israel, would come later.

Palestinian negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo said Palestinians hoped to work out a joint document, but that an agreement was not essential because of assurances received in the U.S. invitation to the conference.

That invitation, he said, "includes all the terms of reference for the future negotiation" and "confirms that both sides are committed" to putting in place the peace process. "This is enough to launch negotiations after the conference."


Associated Press writers Amy Teibel, Mohammed Daraghmeh and Ben Feller contributed to this report.~


re:iran continues to hold to a 'belligerant stance'

Iran Says UN Sanctions Invalid

Published: 11/23/07, 12:25 PM EDT


VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran on Friday rejected U.N. sanctions because of its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment as invalid and warned its enemies to expect a wave of resistance if they increase pressure on Tehran to mothball the program.

The comments from Tehran and Vienna, at the end of a two-day meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board, reflected the chasm between the views of Iran and the West on what Iran needs to do to escape further U.N. punishment.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the chief Iranian delegate to the IAEA, said Security Council resolutions demanding a stop to the activity have "no legal basis."

He accused Washington of making "a political issue" of what he maintained was a program only meant to produce electricity by falsely warning of the "threat of Iran's plutonium nuclear weapon."

"Allegations ... (of) Iran's clandestine and non-peaceful activities are now proved to be baseless," he said.

In Tehran, Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, warned against growing pressure on his country in comments obliquely directed toward Washington.

"The ocean of the Iranian nation may sometimes look calm but if it becomes stormy it will create tsunamis," Jafari said.

"Enemies should know that if the Iranian nation appears patient with their plots and pressures, this is just the calm before storm," he said, adding that the country was "ready to respond to all enemy plots."

The United States has said it is pursuing diplomatic options with Tehran for now, but has not ruled out military action as a way to halt the country's nuclear program which it claims is a cover for developing weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying it seeks only to generate nuclear power with the technology.

Iran is running 3,000 declared centrifuges - sufficient to produce enough material for a nuclear warhead within 1 1/2 years if Tehran chose to.

The IAEA meeting focused on a report from agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei outlining the progress of an investigation of past suspicious Iranian nuclear activities.

The report gives Tehran mixed marks. It suggests that as far as the agency can determine, Iran has told the truth about black market purchases of centrifuge technology used to enrich uranium.

But it points out the IAEA will be unable to assess the present state of Iran's centrifuge development unless the Iranians restore fuller inspection rights to U.N. experts and says it cannot draw a definite conclusion on whether some activities had possible military aspects.

The Islamic Republic asserts it is fully cooperating with the IAEA investigation, and says once that is finished, Iran will have met all obligations regarding its nuclear program.

But the United States and key European nations as well as Canada, Australia and Japan contend Iran's cooperation has been spotty, and they insist it must obey a Security Council order to suspend enrichment.

On Thursday, chief U.S. delegate Gregory L. Schulte charged that Iran was repeating past foot-dragging - "promises of full cooperation under international pressure, selective cooperation and backsliding when the pressure comes off."

Noting that the IAEA's latest report says the agency "knows less and less" about Tehran's nuclear activities ... including whether or not it is for exclusively peaceful purposes," Schulte accused Iran of using "delay tactics" in hopes of staving off new sanctions.

To reporters, he said Iran continues "to move forward in violation of Security Council resolutions with the pursuit of technologies that can be used to build nuclear weapons." He said the council should impose further sanctions unless Iran fulfills all obligations.

Separately, Britain, France and Germany expressed concern about a recent IAEA conclusion that Iran purchased black market nuclear technology meant for Libya's military nuclear program. "This does not help reassure us," their statement said.

"We cannot accept that the knowledge of the agency in Iran is diminishing," said the statement, read by chief French delegate Francois-Xavier Deniau. "We cannot ... (accept) that Iran refuses to bend to the demands of the council and that it violates the resolutions of the Security Council."

Continued Iranian defiance means the world "has to draw conclusions at the Security Council level," the statement added, alluding to further sanctions.~




re:anti-discrimination video,,discriminates against 'white males',,white mans complaints sloughed off

~Supple said he raised concerns about the video during his diversity-training class, and met with city officials and was brushed off in both instances.~


re:chavez's neighbor has good perspective to talk

~Chavez to Freeze Relations With Colombia

Published: 11/25/07, 9:25 PM EDT


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez said Sunday he is putting relations with Colombia "in the freezer" after its president ended the Venezuelan leader's role mediating with leftist rebels in the neighboring country.

The announcement drew a strong rebuke from Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who said Chavez's actions suggest he wants to see a "terrorist government" run by leftist rebels in Bogota. Uribe also suggested Chavez might be looking to stir up conflict to boost his image ahead of a referendum on constitutional changes next weekend.

The spat was the bitterest yet between Chavez and the U.S.-allied Uribe, who have sought to cultivate cordial ties despite deep ideological differences.

It could have serious economic consequences. The two countries are major commercial partners, with $4.1 billion in trade last year, about two-thirds of that in Colombian exports to Venezuela.

Neither leader announced any concrete plan, but Chavez said economic relations will be hurt as a result of Uribe's actions, which he called "a spit in the face."

"I declare before the world that I'm putting relations with Colombia in the freezer because I've completely lost confidence with everyone in the Colombian government," Chavez said in a televised speech. He said he was convinced Uribe's government does not want peace.

Chavez was responding to Uribe's decision Wednesday to end his role mediating preliminary talks with Colombian guerrillas, aimed at negotiating a prisoner swap to free rebel-held hostages, including three Americans. Uribe said through a spokesman that Chavez broke the conditions of his involvement by directly contacting the chief of Colombia's army.

On Sunday, Uribe appeared to question Chavez's motives in the process.

"Your words, your attitudes, give the impression that you aren't interested in peace in Colombia, but rather that Colombia be a victim of a terrorist government of the FARC" rebels, Uribe said at a townhall meeting in the town of Calamar.

Uribe suggested Chavez's harsh criticism of his government might be part of an attempt to build public support before Sunday's referendum on changes to Venezuela's constitution, which would allow Chavez run for re-election indefinitely.

Uribe also suggested Chavez might be trying to spread his socialist ideology beyond Venezuela's borders, an effort he said would "make no headway" in Colombia.

The confrontation marks a sharp change for two leaders who have often appeared together smiling. Just last month, the two inaugurated a natural gas pipeline between their countries, pledging to boost ties.

But addressing Cabinet ministers and military officials on Sunday, Chavez warned Colombian businesses in Venezuela and Venezuelans in Colombia to "be alert."

"Commercial relations, all of that is going to be harmed. It's lamentable," he said.

Chavez began mediating between the Colombian government and rebels in August, in a new push to free hostages held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, better known as FARC. Prisoners include three U.S. military contractors and Ingrid Betancourt, a French-Colombian seized in 2002 while campaigning for Colombia's presidency.

Chavez said he was particularly irked that Uribe announced his decision to end his mediation role through official statements, instead of contacting the Venezuelan leader directly.

"I think Colombia deserves another president, it deserves a better president," he said.

The diplomatic spat comes amid another dispute with Spain that could affect Spanish businesses with major investments in Venezuela. Chavez has demanded Spanish King Juan Carlos apologize for telling him to shut up publicly during a recent summit in Chile.

Chavez said the situation with Colombia is similar: "It's like the case of Spain: Until the king of Spain apologizes, I'm freezing relations with Spain."

Uribe replied: "President Chavez, the truth is you can't set fire to the continent like you do, talking one day against Spain, the next day against the United States. ... You can't mistreat the continent, lighting it up like you do, and speaking of imperialism when you - based on your budget - want to create an empire."


Associated Press writer Toby Muse in Bogota, Colombia, contributed to this report.~



re:a look at islamic violence by D.Pipes


• 1989 — Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses" prompts Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a death edict against him and his publishers, on the grounds that the book "is against Islam, the prophet, and the Koran." Subsequent rioting leads to more than 20 deaths, mostly in India.

• 1997 — The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to remove a 1930s frieze that decorates the main court chamber and shows Muhammad as a lawgiver; the Council on American-Islamic Relations makes an issue of this, leading to riots and injuries in India.

• 2002 — The American evangelical leader Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a "terrorist," leading to church burnings and at least 10 deaths in India.

• 2005 — An incorrect story in Newsweek reports that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, "in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Koran down a toilet." The article is picked up by the Pakistani cricketer and politician Imran Khan and prompts protests around the Muslim world, leading to at least 15 deaths.

• February 2006 — The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes 12 cartoons of Muhammad, spurring a Palestinian Arab imam in Copenhagen, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, to excite Muslim opinion against the Danish government. He succeeds so well that hundreds die, mostly in Nigeria.

• September 2006 — Pope Benedict XVI quotes a Byzantine emperor's views that what is new in Islam is "evil and inhuman," prompting the firebombing of churches and the murder of several Christians.

These six rounds show a near-doubling in frequency: eight years between the first and second rounds, then five, then three, one, and ½.



What rouses Muslim crowds and what does not is somewhat unpredictable. "The Satanic Verses" was not nearly as offensive to Muslim sensibilities as a host of other writings, medieval, modern, and contemporary. Other American evangelists have said worse things than Rev. Falwell did about Muhammad. (The Southern preacher Jerry Vines called the Muslim prophet "a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives" without violence ensuing).Why did the Norwegian preacher Runar Søgaard's deeming Muhammad "a confused pedophile" remain a local dispute while the Danish cartoons went global?

One answer is that Islamists with international reach (Ayatollah Khomeini, CAIR, Mr. Khan, Imam Abu Laban) usually play a key role in transforming a general sense of displeasure into an operational fury. If no Islamist agitates, the issue stays relatively quiet.



The extent of the violence is even more unpredictable. One could not anticipate the cartoons causing the most fatalities and the pope's remarks the fewest. And why so much violence in India?

These incidents also spotlight a total lack of reciprocity by Muslims. The Saudi government bans Bibles, crosses, and Stars of David, and Muslims routinely publish disgusting cartoons of Jews.

No conspiracy lies behind these six rounds of inflammation and aggression, but, examined in retrospect, they coalesce and form a single, prolonged campaign of intimidation, with more sure to come.



Hey,,Dmitri here's the main page:

re:immigration laws


An illegal entrant is anyone who comes here but does not fall under one of these:


Sec. 204. [8 U.S.C. 1154]

An illegal entrant is also (as in addition to meeting the above criteria) anyone here who does not fill out one,,or many of these forms:

To obtain a drivers lisence,,one must be a legal citizen or have an adequate visa,,and provide proof,,which would require one of the above forms.

Here's a pdf with all the states requirements compiled as of 04 by the National Immigration Law Center,,feel fre to scan,browse and seek it for any which doesn't.

Here's their index page,,go check it out.

But they use pdf's a lot.

I ain't too fond of those.

BUT here is a direct answer for your question:

(as of 97)

1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses


With all due respect to all on this planet,,

The DANG-DInGIE American

aka,, The Evil White Man



re:immigration law offenses (97)

1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.

Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).

Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.

Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.

COMMENT: Further discussion of offenses defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) is set forth in Chapter 3 of Immigration Law, published as part of the Office of Legal Education's Litigation Series, and as part of the USABook computer library.


October 1997 Criminal Resource Manual 1907





re:similisexuals and laws based against non similisexuals


re:religious parity laws or a bias in them 'exposed'

Freedom of conscience debated in Ontario

Christians support right of printer to refuse homosexual group's business


If this is so:

~"The argument of separating the person from the behavior is their concept," insisted Kim Vance, president of Ottawa-based EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.

"In reality they are the same thing," Vance said in a WND interview. "That's language that they use to justify [opposition], but it's language that we don't agree with."


Then it also applies to 'drug users','ax murderers','child molesters' AND heterosexuals AND religious adherents.

IOW,,under that ideaology,,,to oppose a 'religious person' or a 'heterosexual' is equal to 'opposing a similisexual'.

So how come the simili's can 'lord' it over other groups whose 'speech,,which is behavior' is such an integral part of THEIR 'persona'?


Man forced to learn about Islam as punishment for telling truth,,tells truth about what he learned of how The Koran teaches hate for non Muslims.

Posted: October 31, 2002

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore

© 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."~


Bible verses regarded as hate literature

Court rules Scripture exposed homosexuals to ridicule

Posted: February 18, 2003

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore

© 2003

Certain passages of the Bible can be construed as hate literature if placed in a particular context, according to a Canadian provincial court.

The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province's human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.

Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper

A columnist noted in the Edmonton Journal last week that the Dec. 11 ruling generated virtually no news stories and "not a single editorial."

Imagine "the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Quran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book's more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper," wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta, daily.

Under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages of 1,500 Canadian dollars to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.

The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the commission ruled that the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owens's religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred, ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation."

The ad's theme was that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. It listed the references to four Bible passages, Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 on the left side. An equal sign was placed between the verse references and a drawing of two males holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol – a red circle with a diagonal bar.

Owens, an evangelical Christian and corrections officer, said his ad was "a Christian response" to Homosexual Pride Week.

"I put the biblical references, but not the actual verses, so the ad would become interactive," he told the National Catholic Register after the 2001 ruling. "I figured somebody would have to look them up in the Bible first, or if they didn't have a Bible, they'd have to find one."

Leviticus 20:13, says, according to the New International Version, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

"Owens denies that, as a Christian, he wants homosexuals put to death, as some inferred from the biblical passages," the Catholic paper said. He believes, however, that "eternal salvation is at stake," both for those engaging in homosexual acts and for himself, if he fails to inform them about "what God says about their behavior."

Exposure to hatred

Justice J. Barclay wrote in his opinion that the human-rights panel "was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule."

"When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace," Barclay said. "In other words, the biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."

In the 2001 ruling, Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry commissioner Valerie Watson emphasized that the panel was not banning parts of the Bible. She wrote that the offense was the combination of the symbol and the biblical references. Owens, in fact, published an ad in 2001, without complaint, that quoted the full text of the passages he cited in the offending 1997 ad.

But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association sides with Christian groups that criticize the panel for stifling free speech. Opponents of the ruling say it illustrates the dangers of a bill currently in Parliament, C-250, that would add "sexual orientation" as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate crimes legislation.

That legislation would make criminals of people like Owens and others who have been charged under provincial human rights panels, they argue.

Two years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's request.

In 1998, an Ontario man was convicted of hate crimes for an incident in which he distributed pamphlets about Islam outside a high school. In one of the pamphlets, defendant Mark Harding listed atrocities committed in the name of Islam in foreign lands to back his assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims.

Janet Epp Buckingham, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, says cases like this are worrisome precedents that an expanded hate law could build upon, reported the Hamilton, Ontario, Spectator newspaper.

"Mark Harding really went overboard," Epp Buckingham said. "He said some quite nasty things about Muslims – that they are really violent overseas and that Muslims in Canada are the same and people need to be careful of them.

"But the court almost ignored the religious exemption," she said. "Harding himself said he wasn't trying to incite violence against Muslims. But the court said he did promote violence and hatred against Muslims and therefore the exemption doesn't apply, that it was not a good faith expression of religion."

She said that, at the very least, Bill C-250 could place a significant chill over the Christian community and, at worst, it could cause undue restrictions on religious expression. -


re:bell on islamists in america

~American Islamic lobby

gets out the vote

Expert: 'Ultimately they want to make the U.S. a Muslim country'

Posted: February 21, 2002

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore

© 2002

A controversial American Islamic advocacy group has planned a voter registration drive to coincide with the upcoming Muslim holiday at the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleged to have ties to terrorist groups such as Hamas, says "our goal, insha'Allah (if Allah wills), is to register more than 100,000 new Muslim voters over the next eight months."

CAIR is urging Islamic communities to sign up Muslim voters at festivals that follow Eid ul-Adha prayers, held on Feb. 22 or 23, depending on the new moon. The holiday commemorates what Muslims believe was the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael at God's command.

Some observers of CAIR and similar organizations insist that while these groups have a right to lobby just as any other public interest, their aims are suspect.

"They may not admit it, but ultimately they want to make the U.S. a Muslim country," Steven Emerson, a leading anti-terrorism specialist, told WorldNetDaily.

"In the interim they want to acquire as much political power as possible to push their agenda, to be afforded legitimacy by political officials," Emerson said. "So this (voter drive) is part and parcel of their campaign."

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."

Hooper noted in the interview that Muslims aren't allowed to take over the U.S. and other governments. "What we fight for here and in the remainder of the world is to practice our beliefs," he said.

Calls to CAIR and Hooper's office by WorldNetDaily were not returned.

Emerson notes that Abdulrahman Alamoudi, then-executive director of the American Muslim Council, said at a conference by the Islamic Association for Palestine in December 1996 that the United States will become a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years.

Emerson was a staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a journalist for U.S. News & World Report and CNN. In a CAIR editorial published on its website, Hooper called Emerson "the attack dog of the extremist wing of America's pro-Israel lobby."

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a statement on the voter drive that "recent events and new government policies have served to spur already growing political participation by American Muslims."

"We have an obligation, because of the Islamic duty of 'enjoining good and prohibiting evil,' to make our voices heard on a number of important issues," Awad said. "Voting, at both the local and national level, is the best way to accomplish that goal."

Awad once worked for the Islamic Association of Palestine, considered by U.S. intelligence officials to be a front group for Hamas operating in the United States. While acknowledging Awad's former affiliation, Hooper has denied any connection between CAIR and IAP.

But CAIR recently rallied to the defense of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development – a U.S.-based group accused of channeling funds to Hamas – arguing that President Bush's decision to freeze their assets could give the impression that "there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."

Emerson cites as evidence of CAIR's affinity for Hamas "their co-sponsorship of conferences calling for the death of Jews, statements on behalf of Hamas leaders, statements defending Iran and the Sudan and sponsorship of hate rallies where attacks on America are made."

Alamoudi, the former AMC director, was quoted at a Washington, D.C. rally, Oct. 28, 2000, saying: "I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah."

CAIR seeks to underscore its political clout by citing a figure of about 7 million Muslims in the United States, but recent counts have come up with a much lower total. An evaluation of current estimates, conducted by Howard Fienberg and Iain Murray of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Statistical Assessment Service, concluded there are about 2 million U.S. Muslims. A recent study commissioned by the American Jewish Committee puts the number between 1.9 million and 2.8 million.

CAIR and other groups such as the AMC, American Muslim Alliance and Muslim Public Affairs Council, helped get out the vote during the 2000 election. Their top issues included opposition to racial profiling and the use of secret evidence against people suspected of terrorist activity.

The groups claimed their support of Bush put him in office, but an exit poll by the Detroit News showed 66 percent of Muslims in Michigan voted for Al Gore. Muslims are heavily concentrated in Detroit and other major metropolitan areas including New York, Chicago and Southern California.

Arab-American pollster John Zogby estimates that U.S. Muslims are about 30 percent African-American, 20 percent Pakistani, 15 percent Arab American and 13 percent Indian. About 20 percent come from Iran, Turkey, Africa and Asia.

While most Muslims in the U.S. might not share CAIR's views or even know about the organization, adding 100,000 Muslim voters would give the group more clout to carry out its political agenda, Emerson said.

"I think we've already seen some of that in terms of what has happened over the last few years," he said, "when Hollywood studios change the scripts to take out any references to militant Islamic terrorists, or when school boards actually excise books from the curriculum because CAIR says they are deemed harmful to 'Islam,' or if counterterrorism laws are not enforced because of the fear that this is going to be anti-Muslim."

Emerson said that before Sept. 11 there was a strong move in Congress to stop the use of classified evidence in deportations of terrorists.

"They had been gaining a lot of momentum abetted by the naivete of the media," Emerson said.~





Links : Pile : 12

Prev Page

Links Pile

My Blog


Next Page

Roy Harbin


The Evil White Man

The Staks

Roy L. Harbin