"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Canada Free Press Threatened With Jail for Supporting Bush!

"Bush the butcher not welcome in Ottawa" screams the headline. Bush is being compared with Hitler. They are spinning the news against Bush and against America for choosing to re-elect the person they most despise.

Instead of freeing Iraq from the oppression of Saddam whose total number of murdered under his hand and at his direction is estimated in the hundreds of thousands and who stole millions of dollars from the "Oil for Food Program" to pay for Palestinian suicide bombers, Bush and America are seen as oppressors and murderers.

And if you don't agree with them you are threatened with incarceration.:

By your tone, and obvious despisal of the anti-Bush protestors, you and your free press is no more independent and fair than the corporate owned media.  If you and your editors want to affiliate yourself with them, and should you have any say in Bush's visit here, as such you and your colleagues could be personally liable to prosecution under the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act by virtue of section 21 of the Canadian Criminal Code, for crimes so serious that they are punishable in Canada by up to life imprisonment.

The Canadian law is specific:

2001 2001 provides as follows:

35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for

(a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;

Paragraph 2 of section 35 allows for exceptions to be made for other classes of inadmissible foreign nationals 'who satisf[y] the Minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest.' However, these exceptions specifically do not apply to those who have committed acts constituting offences referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

Section 6 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act incorporates by reference all international crimes against humanity and war crimes, and, explicitly, all crimes enumerated in Articles 7 and 8(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Section 7 of the Act places special responsibility on 'military commanders' and other 'superiors' for crimes committed by their subordinates that they knew of, or were criminally negligent in failing to know of, and with respect to which they did not take necessary and reasonable steps to prevent.

Section 33 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifically provides that

'facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur.'

What is the evidence?

The evidence is the "chain of memoranda from the President and White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, now Attorney General, that led to the use of torture by the US Armed Forces. These memoranda clearly establish the President' culpability for the torture used on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. We also refer to to the many careful reports prepared by respected human rights organizations, journalists and scholars and also to recent decisions by US Courts, some of which are referenced in our letter to the Prime Minister and others we have listed below. These clearly provide far more than 'reasonable grounds to believe' in President Bush's legal and moral responsibility for the gravest crimes under numerous provisions of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

Who are these scholars and journalists? To which recent U.S. Courts' decisions do they refer? What about these "reputable human rights organizations?" Where is the evidence that prisoners were tortured in either Guantanamo or Abu Grahib? They don't provide any specific evidence or instances to back up their claims.

The policy of the Government of Canada is unequivocal. Canada will not be a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or other reprehensible acts.

Will President Bush be excluded as a pariah because we are fighting a war in which no one else is willing to participate? Have the Islamists so poisoned the well that, as long as America continues not to participate in the socialists' consensus-style government and, as long as America takes unilateral action against nihilists that not only want to destroy us, but want to take over the world that no justification for self-defense is possible? Will Bush and America end up in the world's dock at The Hague?

It appears that the socialist-Islamo-fascist spin is working overtime to condemn Bush and America for having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Socialism and to thwart the will of the Islamists that have convinced the United Nations, another socialist organization, that those refusing to bow to their will should be put in the dock.

Another famous figure presently in the dock for Crimes Against Humanity is Slobodan Milosevic who is accused of ethnic cleansing against Yugoslav Muslims. We were all aghast to learn that Serbs wanted Muslims out of their country and were taking the trouble to remove them. Certainly it seemed like a war crime at the time.

We were ignorant of the facts. We never knew the lessons of history. We were ignorant of the history of the clash of Islam and the West, and of the history of the Balkans. Yugoslavia was located on the cutting edge, at the point where Islam and the West came together centuries ago. What made the clash contemporary and pressing was the insertion of trouble-making Islamists that stirred up the ethnic Albanian residents to demand their Muslim rights under Sha'ria. Serbs knew the consequences of such a demand for they had undergone a prolonged struggle to be able to live in peace with Muslims, but as long as Muslims didn't press for more than their share, and as long as Muslims didn't demand Sha'ria.

Muslims demanded more for they were longing for a separate country and were tired of the humiliation of living under the thumb of the majority Serbian Christians. The United States and NATO were drawn in to save the day for the downtrodden Muslims, giving them what they wanted, a country of their own. Ironically, they also wanted Serbia and later got part of it. Serb president, Milosevic was later taken into custody and is on trial in The Hague.

Is Milosevic really a war criminal for attempting to do what many Europeans now long to do: drive out trouble making Muslims before things get out further out of hand? Although I know he's not an angel and I don't respect his tactics of mass murder, I understand the impetus for his behavior.

Europeans now know what Milosevic knew and have learned the hard way that Muslims don't want integration into European society; they want to be charge of European society. They want dhimmis to support them economically and socially, or they want them dead. Certainly many Europeans now understand what the Serbs were trying to achieve by removing Muslims from their midst. Milosevic and the Serbs knew all along that Muslim on the move are predatory against their neighbors and that Sha'ria is a sentence of slavery for all non-Muslims. Perhaps we owe the Serbs an apology for our ignorance and stupidity. Would they have Draconian steps if other Europeans had backed them against the Muslim menace? Instead of mass murder, my advice to them would have been to send them back to Albania and construct and man a large wall!

Europeans didn't heed the warnings of history any more than are the Canadians that are pressing forward with the charge of war crimes against Bush and America. There is no lock on stupidity. There is plenty to go around. However, highly educated attorneys that are also stupid are dangerous and should be locked away from their safety and ours. Whose agenda are they serving? Certainly their objective isn't to preserve freedom and liberty as they vociferously and verbosely profess. I will give you two guesses, and they both begin with "I."


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home