1. Moshe said:

Mr. Belman does not surprise me in the least. It is a sad commentary that the majority of the Jews living in Canada belong to the "Sheeple" Synagogue, content to trust the police to defend them and their communities, prone to gasp and clutch their heart at a mention of a Jew who would defend himself, much less be armed when doing so.

These are the precise attitudes which enabled the Holocaust. Now, they want to defend the rights of terrorists to be terrorists. I could write a volume but suffice it to suggest that Mr. Belman practice this song: "Bhaaaa Baaaa Baaaa". Chorus: Don't make waves, leave them alone, they can't be terrorists. Who can say what a terrorist is, we best be careful with a definition of the word. Don't make them mad at us and maybe, they will not kill us.

Yes, Mr. Belman and all of his ilk who are more concerned about being “Politically Correct" than defending their fellow Jews, are good little "Sheeple”… Baaaa, Baaaa, Baaaa! I have a word for these poor people, - “Judenrat”! (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/judenrat.html)

(Oh, and anyone who fails to recognize that radical Islam is the greatest threat to Western Civilization in modern time, needs to do their homework or they are suffering from the "Ostrich syndrome".)

Bill Maniaci
Dir., Intelligence & Security
Jewish D

2. Josef Klein - Canada said:

Dismissing Whelan's arguments as "pure bullshit", may make Belman feel better; however, it does not contribute one iota of understanding to those who may be influenced by Whelan's arguments. …

Whelan's arguments are based on current truths, recent history and impeccable logic. Unfortunately they are, for the most part, also based on a rather superficial, or possibly a cynical, understanding of recent history. Time does not permit me to take most of Whelan's points and show their weakness, but I can choose one to give the reader an idea of how the others may be rebutted. …

Whelan asks - "What I fail to understand is that the Jewish people in Nazi Germany were racially profiled; they were tattooed, rounded up and detained as suspects. They were imprisoned and then murdered by the state, because in the eyes of the Nazis they were a threat to the German way of life. …

Yet your witnesses are supporting a similar atmosphere in Canada." …

Whelan implicitly makes two fundamental errors in this one question. What Whelan does not mention is whether or not, in her opinion, Hitler was correct in his assessment of the effect of Jews on German culture. By not pointing out that Hitler's thinking was faulty, Whelan risks more than just being accused of subscribing to Hitler’s opinion. It is critical to her argument to clarify whether or not Hitler was correct in his assessment of the dangers of Jews to the existence of Germany. One need only consider that Jews are a tiny portion of the world’s and Germany’s population, there are 1.3 billion Muslims, and they are one of the fastest growing groups in the world. Thus the comparison she makes is not even as close as apples to oranges, when it comes to the potential harm that the larger group can do. …

If she were to look into the official teachings of the Jewish religion as compared to the Muslim religion, she would immediately notice that terrorism is not only approved of by Islam, but it is an obligation of Muslims to teach it to their children and use it against anyone whom they believe is not following the teachings of their prophet. There is no such dogma in Judaism. The Jews were never an existential threat to Germans, nor to Christians. However, substantial fractions of practicing Muslims, by their own admission, either represent such a threat or support those that do. …

The two religions cannot be compared, especially when it comes to incitement of their followers to terror. In fact for the definition of terror, which she so desperately seeks, she only needs to read the Quran. It is all there, what it is, as well as when, how and against whom to use terror. …

With regard to the second error in that same question: Neither of the Jewish groups that made a presentation to the Senators, nor any other Jewish group I am aware of, advocates applying Nazi terror methods against Muslims or any other group. Jewish groups are aware of the similarities between Nazi behaviour and Islamic Fundamentalist behavior and wish to bring this alarming similarity to the attention of Canadian Law Makers. …

Does Whelan imply that she would welcome a resurgence of Nazism in Canada, because by deliberately ignoring the similarity of the threat to democracy of Nazism and Islamic Fundamentalism she has become a de facto supporter of the self-same intolerance built into Islamic Fundamentalism and its intention to subjugate Canadians to Islamic law and wipe out every other religion? …

Yes, there are similarities between the Nazi treatment of Jews in Occupied Europe of 1939-44 and the current treatment of Islamists in Western Democracies, but while those similarities should be studied, debated and not be ignored; only the maliciously inclined would argue that they are morally and effectively equivalent.

3. Ted Belman said:

Moshe

What are you smokin? The entire post is the letter from Catherine Whelan Costen. I hold her and her views in utter contempt. I made that clear by referring to her "arguments as "total crap" and "bullshit".

You don't know me or what I stand for. I and my ilk are standing in the frontlines doing battle with political correctness and propaganda everyday. You owe me an apology

4. Ted Belman said:

Josef

You're absolutely right. I simply disparaged the arguments by using strong expletives rather then by taking each argument to task as you did one.

Her arguments are sophistry, ie plausible but fallacious. Her arguments are not, as you put it, "based on current truths, recent history and impeccable logic". I don't give them that much credit. At least you go on to say, "Unfortunately they are, for the most part, also based on a rather superficial, or possibly a cynical, understanding of recent history." I prefer to say they are a distortion of recent history.

You give her much to much credit when you treat her as well meaning but just in error. I think otherwise.

I went to the internet site for the Canadian Action Party for whom she writes and learned that it is anti-American, anti-globalization, anti-NAFTA (free trade), anti-World Bank, anti-IMF, pro-economic nationalism and finally in favour of "cooperating fully with the global family of nations." excedpt I might add , the USA. To my mind that makes them a left wing socialist party. They are against the war on terror.

In one posted article OTTAWA CEMENTS U.S. HEGEMONY OVER CANADA - 9/11 THE PRETEXT
by Ken Fernandez , B.C.L, Ll.B., President of the Quebec Wing of the Canadian Action Party and CAP candidate St Laurent-Cartierville, he writes ," As the fourth anniversary of 9/11 approached in the year 2005, many of us were still wondering what precisely happened on that terrifying day. (That alone says volumes) What is certain, is that the official story, the “party line” emanating from Washington, and faithfully repeated by Ottawa, has been glibly trotted out in the complete absence of any shred of supporting proof, (and I thought it was very clear what happened on that day and who was responsible.) while the overwhelming body of evidence pointing to the tragic events of 9/11 as having been carefully orchestrated by what some consider to be the most powerful people in the world (My God, he is blaming it on the Jews. You know "the most powerful people on earth".), have been entirely ignored, and those who [attempt to]bring it to light, are either ignored in the cacaphony of hysteria and deception, or are branded “conspiracy theorists”. "

And this guy is a Member of Parliament. Heaven help us.

As for the author of this letter, she, like her party, spouts the leftist line believing that America or the Jews is the enemy and not the Islamists.

Now let's see what she has to say.

"The declaration, (as suggested in your meeting) of "the glorification of terrorism" to be seen as illegal, is in fact an infringement on freedom of expression. How can one have a glorification of terrorism when no agreement has been arrived at as to how "terrorism" is to be defined? There are horrific acts carried out by groups seeking many things that fly in the face of the status quo and usually these acts are a reaction...

The concept of glorification of an undefined word is ludicrous. The very word "terror" when applied to political concepts creates what it claims to eradicate."

The only place where "terrorism" can't be defined is in the UN, the Islamic world and in and in the hearts and minds of "root causes" Left. She implies that one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter so it is OK to glorify freedom fighters and this shouldn't be made illegal. To do so is another form of terrorism she argues. In effect she implies that blowing up buses may be justified and therefore to outlaw the glorification of such acts would be not only a denial of free speech but a denial of the rightness of the cause and an act of terror in itself. Like I said "bullshit".

The issue is not whether "freedom fighters" are acceptable but whether what they do in support of their cause is acceptable. If a freedom fighter blows up a bus killing many for the purpose of instilling fear, he is a terrorist. What's so hard to understand or to define. Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Council, once said on National television that it was OK to kill any Israeli over the age of 18 because none of them are "innocent". You see everyone accepts that terrorism is killing innocent people but the difference of opinion is on who is classified as "innocent". Hitler thought that no Jew was "innocent" and the Islamists are not far behind.

She writes " Freedom of expression is a basic human emotion." Is she referring to the "glorification of terror" or the act of terror.

She is against making "incitement to hatred" illegal because it would be too difficult to draw the line between all acts which appeal to the emotions and acts which amount to "incitement to hatred". The job of the law is to draw the line. No different here.

She asks "How can a person be a suspected terrorist, when we are unable to define terrorism?". Nonsense. If someone is suspected of doing us harm he is a "suspected terrorist". What has the definition of terrorism got to do with that. Perhaps she thinks that some Canadians aren't "innocent" and therefore legitimate targets thereby removing the intended harm doers from the category of "terrorist".

In response to the concern for Jewish victims of terrorism in Canada she says "some might argue that the present state of affairs is terrorizing the Muslim community." She equates the killing of Jews in Canada or the burning of synagoges with the proposed security laws as they affect Muslims. How ludicrous.

"The tone of the meeting indicated that the restrictions being imposed on Canadians is to protect one special interest group while sacrificing the rest. Where are the Catholic, Baptist, Muslim and non-denominational groups? The legislations implies a government attempting to harness people’s emotions. If a crime is committed it should be investigated. The motivation for the crime should not create more weight. If a person is murdered, the loss of life is the issue, not whether they were hated. The perpetrator should be arrested, charged, stand trial, and if found guilty, be sentenced appropriately. The restrictions presented in these Bills are creating victims of us all!"

There is so much in this paragraph that is simply appalling. Are we not in the business of protecting people even if they are Jews. For her crimes should be investigated and not prevented. She also suggests that a crime is a crime regardless of the motivation behind it. The courts always consider motivation in classifying a crime ie first or second degree murder, on in meting out punishment.

I'll let you do the rest.

5. BobW said:

From: "a neighbor to the South";

For private citizen use, a well-developed definition for "terrorism" did get developed with Canadian citizen participation. It related to the aircraft hijackings of the 1970s and 1980s. Air Canada's pilots participated in developing the definition.

Forgot most of this and my notes are scattered around here (everything is); the International Airline Pilots Association had to confront terrorism with the difficult issue about those who seize a civil aircraft to escape from eg Castro's Cuba (I am not addressing Catherine Whelen Costen's view on the government in Cuba.). Reviewing how the Ray Ban crowd addressed terrorism will give insight into how to handle many of the terrorist situations of today.

Reading "the root causes of chaos" shows that NAFTA is working. She qualifies for political office down here in the South under a free flow of labor provision.

Kol tuv,
BobW

6. Bill Narvey said:

Ted, Ms. Catherine Whelan Costen's letter to the Senate Special Committee on the Anti-Terrorism Act which takes issue with the submissions by David Matas (B'Nai Brith Canada) and Ed Morgan (Canadian Jewish Congress) was featured in Dr. Elmasry's Friday Bulletin for October 21st, 2005 put out by the Canadian Islamic Congress and in that regard, it says a lot about her and about Dr. Elamsry and his Canadian Islamic Congress.

Though she makes many points, the following I think summarizes Ms. Costen's thinking:

1. Canadians enjoy the right to freedom of speech. The limit on freedom of speech, that being the dissemination and incitement of hatred cannot be defined or truly understood.

2. Terrorism is not capable of definition because terrorism to one person is not necessarily terrorism another. Legislation therefore that seeks to deal with the indefinable has and will wrongly and unjustly deprive Canadians of their rights.

3. Jews support for anti-terrorism legislation and wanting the laws on dissemination and incitement of hatred to be enforced, unfairly are directed at Muslims.

4. Anti-terrorism legislation was enacted as an emotional reaction to 9/11, 7/7 and the like as opposed to having been enacted in reaction to realities.

5. There is no evidence that Canada's anti-terrorism laws are preventing terrorism.

6. The conclusion Ms. Whelan comes to is that anti-terrorism laws are terrorizing Canadians by taking away Canadians' freedoms and in the result, those laws should be rescinded.

It is interesting how Ms. Costen weaves into her submission that the Jews for standing up for their right not to be offended or threatened by Muslims is turned around that the Jews in doing so offend and threaten Muslims. We have however seen that before from various Muslim groups and their supporters.

I have no doubt that point was an especially delicious morsel for Dr. Elmasry who would like nothing better than to see the playing field cleared of all obstacles in the way of his version of the Muslim agenda vis a vis not only the Jews, but all of non-Muslim Canada and so he would naturally applaud Ms. Whelan as his "useful idiot".

A bowel, unsettled by infection produces diarrhea.

Ms. Costen suffers from a mind unsettled by infection and her submission is figuratively nothing but diarrhea with all the usual characteristics that it is spewed out, discolors and clouds the medium into which it falls, lacks cohesiveness, coherence and form and it smells bad.

No wonder Dr. Elmasry finds Ms. Costen's views so appealing.

7. georg von mecklenburg said:

Ms. Costens arguments do prove some points. In my limited analysis it seems that she is ointing out the fact that to single out one group in an attempt to halt terror is just plain wrong. I think her references were made towards the Japanese and Germans who were unfairly placed in Canadian and American Concentration Camps simply because they were of German or Japanese origin. Would we do the same to all Moslems simply because there is a war on terrorism going on and they are a part of the war? I think not.

8. Ted Belman said:

George, this time you are being ridiculous. Profiling is effective because it focuses resources on the most probable candidates. No one is suggesting internment so why raise it.

9. Josef Klein - Canada said:

Ted, regarding my "rebuttal" you said "You give her much to [sic] much credit when you treat her as well meaning but just in error. I think otherwise."

Ted, you never pointed out exactly what I said that leads you believe this. I don't agree with you on this point and the words which I used to describe her behaviour and arguments prove it, these include: Maliciously inclined; superficial; cynical; subscribing to Hitler's opinion; and de facto supporter of the self-same intolerance. I just didn't put all these words in to the same sentence, until now.

The best way to win a debate is to first give your opponent the benefit of acknowledging what they did right, before incrementally bringing their attention to what they got wrong. The best way to start a fight is to ignore this rule.

10. BobW said:

Shalom Georg and all readers,

Ref: Georg's Comment No. 7
Re: "..American concentration camps"

The US camps where many US citizens and residents were interned were not expresions of Jeffersonian democracy. They represent a negative aspect of US history.

They were not in any way comparable to the Nazi's Dachu, Flossenberg, Gross Rosen or Ravensbruck.

I write this because of this site's specialization and because many arrive here who do not have English as a first language. For our purposes, there can be no comparison as to the US detention camps and what the Nazis ran.

Again, the US camps set up were a national disgrace. They still remain a blot on US history and should remain in the history books. Still, they did not even come close to the Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen Nazi concentration camps.

Wasn't familiar with the Canadian centers. Can anyone amplify? Thanks in advance.

Kol tuv,
Bob

11. Ted Belman said:

Joseph

You were sensetive with respect to my criticism. First of all I acknowledged the validity of your critism of me and went on to correct the de3ficiency. Secondly I took issue with certain words in the second paragraph but did acknowledge that you stepped back from the same words.

I just thought that in choosing these words you gave her too much credit. The rest of your arguments are well made and correct. But you couldn't resist softening your criticism with the following "Whelan implicitly makes two fundamental errors in this one question. What Whelan does not mention is whether or not, in her opinion, Hitler was correct in his assessment of the effect of Jews on German culture. By not pointing out that Hitler's thinking was faulty, Whelan risks more than just being accused of subscribing to Hitler’s opinion." This was in response to her saying "What I fail to understand is that the Jewish people in Nazi Germany were racially profiled; they were tattooed, rounded up and detained as suspects. They were imprisoned and then murdered by the state, because in the eyes of the Nazis they were a threat to the German way of life." She obviously feels the crime is selection or profiling irrespective on whether they are a threat. She equates what Canada wants to do in the way of profiling with what the Nazis did to the Jews. She equates the Muslim condition here with the Jewish condition there and she equates the proposed legislation here with what the Nazis did there. On both accounts she is outrageous.

What difference does it make what she thinks of Hitler, she is still outrageous. She is saying Hitler was wrong to do so and so is the Canadian government. It is a favorite tactic of the Left and especially the anti-semitic left to compare practices they don't like, especially Jewish practices with Nazi practices. Had she not made the "error" she would still be wrong. This is what I was reacting to when I said you give here too much.