The Burning Stupid of Canada's Extreme Left

From the same people who brought you the insidious Ollie North/Taliban conspiracy theory comes this recent gem in which John Baglow, aka "Dr Dawg", takes issue with a less recent National Post Full Comment blogpost by Raphael Alexander.

In the post, Raphael renews the call for the trial of Omar Khadr to begin:

"Seven years in prison without trial is certainly a lengthy incarceration without due process, and I am concerned that we may never get to see Omar Khadr’s day in court."

What emerges as so distasteful however, is the notion that Alexander would think that Khadr is likely guilty:"

...This is still a man 22 years of age who, if released in the next few years, would still have his entire life to make amends with his fellow Canadian citizens, to whom he has brought shame and embarrassment"

"Seven years without trial -- and still guilty," Baglow complains.

Which leads one to ask themselves this question:

What, precisely, do John Baglow and company think Omar Khadr was doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Enjoying tea and crumpets?

One really does wonder. Because, as Mike from (Ir)Rational Reasons seems to indicate, they really may have no clue whatsoever:

"Raph does not even entertain the possibility that Omar is not guilty of the crime his is accused of and is the victim of his circumstances - brought to Afghanistan by his father at a young age and brought up in that environment.

Its simple: if he is guilty of an actual crime, produce the evidence and convict him. Now. Otherwise, bring him home and let him go. Now."

Apparently, in the mind of Mike -- and one wonders how many share his particularly fevered and hazardous way of thinking -- a "not guilty" verdict in a trial means that Omar Khadr walks free immediately.

And if a judge were particularly reckless with Canadian national security, that very well may be the case.

After all, Canadians know full well what Omar Khadr was doing in Afghanistan -- or, rather, what Ahmed Said Khadr was doing on the many occasions when he had his family overseas. In 2003, Ahmed, a known Al Qaida financier, was killed in a firefight in Pakistan.

He was continuing to indoctrinate his children in his militant Islamic religious beliefs, and involving them in militant Islamic groups. In 2002, Ahmed Khadr sent Omar with a band of Arab Muslims who associated Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Al Qaida leader.

Ahmed Khadr had a habit of putting his sons into warzones that should disquiet even the most unscrupulous "peace" activist -- the kind of "peace" activist that have often been willing to participate in rallies with the Khadrs. Not only did Ahmed Khadr expose Omar to the rigours of warfare, but his son Abdul Karim Khadr was paralyzed during the same firefight in which Ahmed himself was killed.

Omar Khadr is a child soldier -- not simply a child soldier, but a child terrorist soldier. And that makes his prospect of immediate release far cloudier than Mike is giving it credit for.

Demobilizing child soldiers is a long and arduous process. Child soldiers need to be provided with education and psychiatric care. The rehabilitation of Omar Khadr would only be further complicated by the fact that his enlistment as a child soldier was also a gross act of child abuse -- even though he and his family may not recognize it.

To turn Khadr loose into the public would be allowing a ticking time bomb to go free. While Mike is close to spot-on when he notes the resentment that comes with seven years of imprisonment without trial -- only another reason why said detention is a miscarriage of justice -- but to credit that with any militancy is to ignore his family history, and ignore what his father indoctrinated him in, and subjected him to.

Considering Mike's long and far-from-rational history of lunacy, one should be far from surprised to find that he has so little grasp of these concepts.

That he can't conceive of the very real possibility -- even likelihood -- that a child soldier indoctrinated in Islamic militancy could be dangerous is just another example of the burning stupidity of Canada's far left.

What's Good for the Goose...

...Must Be Good for the Gander

Many Canadians concerned with the recent lionization of the Tamil Tigers and demonization of the Sri Lankan government's attempts to defeat them have taken note of Liberal MP Gurbax Singh Malhi's appearance at a pro-Tiger rally in Toronto.

Raphael Alexander has picked this ball up. In a post on the National Post's Full Comment blog Alexander writes:

"By appearing at a rally on Parliament Hill surrounded by militant terrorist flags of the LTTE, Mr. Malhi has taken a stand shoulder-to-shoulder with an organization that is officially banned in Canada as a terrorist group. In a speech made before the crowd, the Liberal MP has compromised the priorities of a Canadian Parliamentarian by saying that the Tamils are fighting 'for a right cause'. Apparently the decision to address the crowd was impromptu; Mr. Malhi says he was just 'passing by' when he spotted the rally and decided to join in. Perhaps Mr. Malhi would be wise to recall that civilians have been killed in both sides of this struggle, and that by defending the actions of a terrorist organization he gives undue validity to them, however unintentional on his part."

Alexander's commentary wouldn't seem terribly unreasonable.

But then one also has to remember that a similar episode happened to Conservative MP Jason Kenney, who in 2006 addressed rally supporting the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

The NCRI is the political arm of the Mujahidin-i-Khalq. This group has been on the list of terrorist groups prohibited from operating in Canada. It was added to that list in 2005.

Like Malhi, Kenney claimed he was just passing the rally and decided to join in spontaneously.

"Canadian people would stand in solidarity with the Iranian people in their wish for respect for human dignity and human rights and democracy," Kenney told the 2006 rally. Not that different from Malhi's comments to the Tiger rally.

Moreover, Kenney would later claim that he had pursued due diligence in regards to the matter, contradicting his earlier claims of ignorance in regards to the matter.

Kenney, a Parliamentary Secretary at the time, continued to serve after the incident. After enduring a brief Liberal barrage in Parliament, Kenney moved on to eventually become Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Multiculturalism -- a marked promotion from the lower echelons of cabinet.

Alexander isn't unreasonable to expect that Malhi should have considered the civilian deaths caused by both sides of the Sri Lankan conflict. But Mujahidin-i-Khalq has caused civilian deaths as well.

To demand an extraordinary act of repentance from Malhi would be unreasonable. If Kenney can walk away from his mistake and become a cabinet minister, Malhi can walk away free as well.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dust My Broom - "Video: Liberal MP Speaks at Tamil Tiger Rally"

Why Not Bother With Bloggers?

John Bowman wonders "Why Bother With Bloggers?"

In a recent article on CBC Blogwatch John Bowman asks "why bother with bloggers?"

At first glimpse, it actually seems like a fair question. Bowman explains why:

"Why should CBCNews.ca have a blog called Blog Watch that blogs about what's happening on the blogs? What's the point?

Blogs and the internet, we're told, contribute to a "cult of the amateur" that threatens professional media and our very culture. (I've written here about how blogs can perpetuate a falsehood that would never stand up to the scrutiny of a watchful news editor.)

Blogs, we read, are full of ephemeral knee-jerk reactions, free of anything resembling a well-thought-out argument, their words obsolete as soon as their writers click "Publish."

Bloggers are vile, we're told, spewing forth personal insults at anyone they disagree with (although Raphael, no fan of some of the more radical right-wing blogs, curiously fails to provide even one example from among the Blogging Tory ranks of this practice).

And you only have to read through a few pages of YouTube comments or a short series of flames and counter-flames between two bloggers before you're tempted to throw up your hands, rip the Ethernet cable out of the back of your computer and use it for more something more productive, like playing Lemmings all day."

As much as we may hate to admit it, all of these things are true -- to some extent.

Whilt the myth that more and more people are getting their news primarily from blogs doesn't necessarily pan out to be true, it is true that a fair number of people do, and furthermore, turn to blogs to engage with the news, posting their opinions and debating the news with others.

There's a demonstrated home in the blogosphere for those who rush to judgement on various issues -- and even those who strive to be more disciplined can often be hasty -- or allow their particular ideological bent to cloud themselves from the issue (witness some of the heady enthusiasm surrounding the Karlheniz Schreiber non-story).

Bloggers stoop to lows that no journalist who had to worry about professional credibility would dare. And they'll battle one another nearly to the death, sometimes over the silliest things.

We as bloggers -- or citizen journalists -- can't pretend these things don't happen.

"So, why bother?"

Why indeed?

"It's hard for me to write a defence of blogging that doesn't sound trite ("news as conversation," "wisdom of the crowds," etc.) like so many that are out there. The Wall Street Journal ran a very good piece by Peggy Noonan three years ago arguing that journalists should embrace blogs because they perform a public service.

I've told people around the newsroom here that the point of Blog Watch is to find stories originating in the blogs that haven't made it to the wires or the news desk yet.

I hope that it will also be a place to find opinions expressed in the blogs that you might not hear in the (*sigh*) main-stream media. I won't repeat anything vile, but I might feature well-reasoned opinions from bloggers who have at other times expressed views that some might consider objectionable. (CBC.ca has published writing, for example, from both Kate McMillan and Kathy Shaidle.)"

While some bloggers do manage to break stories that the mainstream media doesn't, or focus on stories that the mainstream media largely ignores -- ranging from the recent scandle over apparent CBC/Liberal party collusion this past year is a prime example to the more common muckraking of Matt Drudge -- the real strength of blogs is the wider range of opinions on offer.

Bloggers have the advantage of being able to air their opinions without having to worry about the political bent or editorial policy of a particular publication. The kind of freedom bloggers enjoy can be as much an advantage as a liability.

"Blogs aren't moderated or censored. There's no House of Commons Speaker standing and muttering for order. Most of the time, there aren't even advertisers you can threaten with a boycott. There's no CRTC to complain to if you find something offensive, although it seems like some people think the Human Rights Commission is the place to take their complaints.

Blogs are as free as free speech can get, with everything that entails. It ain't pretty a lot of the time, but it's definitely worth paying some attention to."

Freedom of speech is fairly important, but it's important to recognize the dark side of that freedom.

Freedom of speech, when combined with the kind of anonymity that allows for unscrupulous individuals to dodge responsibility can be extremely dangerous, and damaging to political discourse.

Consider the case (predictably) of Canadian Cynic -- whom Bowman necessarily alludes to when mentioning Raphael Alexander's recent "Why are bloggers so vile?" post.

This is a guy who, when he isn't attacking the mothers of dead soldiers, wishing for the deaths of political pundits or excusing the tasering of university students combs the blogosphere in search of people to attack with petulant, childish insults and ad hominem attacks (which otherwise are considered libelous).

Occasionally he even posts the home addresses of political opponents -- all the while insisting that he be allowed to maintain his anonymity so he may be protected from reprisals from his opponents.

Why bother with bloggers? Freedom of speech is a good enough reason.

The depth of opinion which is otherwise unavailable is another good reason.

But one of the best reasons is that it can remind one of the human ugliness that we occasionally like to believe doesn't exist, and only realize exists when we're confronted with it: such as when an individual thinks it's acceptable to renege on an offer to donate money to charity in order to trump a political opponent.

Blogs can serve as a reminder that human beings are imperfect, mostly because bloggers have the freedom to be imperfect.