Tuesday digest II

- Muslim Canadian Congress leader Tarek Fatah is confusing the usual journalistic antics with racism, while more frighteningly, Scarborough imam Aly Hindy said that the ringleader of the group of suspects was able to carry on with his incitements to hatred and violence within the community, and unmolested by the authorities, "(s)imply because there was no terrorist activities".

How can he be in such denial of the obvious?

Of course, he also says that "there is nothing wrong with multiculturalism" in this online discussion hosted by the Globe and Mail. I think there's a fair bit wrong with multiculturalism, actually, when some people want to kill others in the name of their own cultural supremacy. Thankfully, there are individuals like Hussein Hamdani, also part of the online discussion linked to above, who are trying to moderate the excesses of Islamic leaders like Hindy. Unfortunately, Hamdani will probably never have as much influence on his community as Hindy does now for reasons which I've outlined in other posts.

Of course, this problem of displacement, alienation and injustice would all just disappear if only Palestinians had their own homeland. Right?

Right.

- Iran is expressing some optimism that there may be a breakthrough in talks aimed at curbing plutonium development in that country. Why? Because the US has said they'll give the mullahcracy nuclear technology (!) if they change course. Now I'm no rocket scientist, but I would think that offering nuke know-how to a country who you want to prevent from getting the bomb doesn't make a lot of sense. And what happened to the White House which refused to negotiate with terrorists? It would be a lot better to look for an opening on the ground rather than sit across the table from Ahmedinejad.

- Looks like W's attempt at a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is about to fail.

I'm against gay marriage for a couple of reasons. First, it cannot possibly be procreative in either spirit or practical reality, and so will never be a substitute for the traditional familty structure. Secondly, if society said that two moms or two dads are as good as a mom and a dad, we would be negating the importance of motherhood and fatherhood in the raising of kids. Sure, families take a number of forms these days, but for the government to legally endorse an "anything will do" approach is a dishonest form of moral relativist equivalency to which we should not aspire. Deep down, we all know that a stable environment with two parents of the opposite gender is the best framework for kids to be socialized so that they have the best possible chance at attaining success and developing a healthy sense of self-esteem.

All that said, I find Krauthammer's analysis fascinating. Clearly, he's more a democrat than he is a social conservative, something I don't think Dennis Prager could say about himself.

As to how to deal with this issue, in Canada, I think it's pretty much settled even though our PM has said that he's going to bring it to Parliament once again this fall in a free vote. There is a chance that the House may vote to overturn C-38, but I don't think that the Liberal-dominated Senate would allow it to pass. This will be a true test of Canadians' democratic impulses, given that the Liberal cabinet that passed C-38 was whipped. There's an argument to be made (with some merit, in my view) that "rights" should override the mob, even though I seem to have more trust in our elected representatives than does the average Court Party supporter down at the faculty lounge at your local university. I think our PM just wishes this issue would go away, but he's snookered because so many Tory activists are looking to be rid of C-38.

For conservatives, the gay marriage issue poses a tough challenge intellectually. Does being a libertarian mean that you can't care about the sanctity of the opposite sex, two-parent family? And does being a social conservative mean that you don't care about the democratic right of the populace to express themselves? For me, unabashed libertarianism can too easily be used as a justification for liscentiousness and self-indulgence, while so-cons are far too absolute.

- Staying close to home, first, ad exec Jean Brault was found guilty of fraud and now the same thing has happened to disgraced former public servant Chuick Guité in the wake of the sponsorship scandal.

I'd like to know when political operatives from the Liberal Party in Quebec are going to have to face criminal charges.

- Returning south of the border, fun article here on the 10 Dems that Republicans should fear the most in '08. However, they'll probably screw it up by choking on their own obsession with liberalism.

- Finally, Hitchens tries to change the channel on Haditha. Not a good enough explanation for me, personally, although it's always fun to bash those who are hoping beyond hope for America to pull another Vietnam and pull out, head hung low and tail between its legs.