The tolerant Middle East

Guess which Middle Eastern cities hold massive Gay Pride parades every year? That would be Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Tel Aviv's parade was held on June 3:

Tens of thousands of people attended Tel Aviv’s annual Gay Pride Parade Friday afternoon, carrying colorful banners calling for equality.

“Being gay is ‘shaveh’ [worthwhile/ equal],” read the poster above the stage at Meir Park, where the parade began.

The event kicked off with a celebratory party in the park, complete with dancers, singers and drag queens.

Police closed streets along the parade route and near the beach, as the procession and street party got under way.

Organizers said that up to 100,000 people took part in the parade, but police put the number at some 70,000.

Police reported no unusual incidents of violence, and the parade concluded peacefully.

Jerusalem's event takes place today. Though not without controversy, specifically protests from the Orthodox Jewish community, it is expected to draw 5 000 people:

More than 5,000 marchers are expected to participate in Jerusalem’s 10th annual Gay Pride Parade on Thursday afternoon.

Open House Executive Director, Yonatan Gher, called Thursday a “combined social struggle,” which will have at least three distinct protests imbuing the city with the air of social fervor. Indeed, protesters will include the doctors marching towards Jerusalem, students and families camped out in tents across the city, and thousands of gay-rights activists marching downtown.

He estimated that the gay pride parade could almost double – from 4,000 participants last year to 7,000 participants this year – given the revolutionary vibe of the capital.

Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, the gay activists who marched in Toronto's Pride Parade last year, take note: the country you are so vehemently trying to delegitimize is the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live openly and free from state harrassment. Your embarrassing protest would be better directed at Iran:

On Sunday, November 13 [2005], the semi-official Tehran daily Kayhan reported that the Iranian government publicly hung two men, Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A. (25 years old), in the Shahid Bahonar Square of the northern town of Gorgan.

The government reportedly executed the two men for the crime of "lavat." Iran’s shari`a-based penal code defines lavat as penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts between men. Iranian law punishes all penetrative sexual acts between adult men with the death penalty. Non-penetrative sexual acts between men are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are punished with death. Sexual acts between women, which are defined differently, are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are also punished with death.

“The execution of two men for consensual sexual activity is an outrage,” said Jessica Stern, researcher with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “The Iranian government’s persecution of gay men flouts international human rights standards.”

In addition to the two executions last week, there have been other cases of persecution and execution of gay men in Iran in recent years.

• In September 2003, police arrested a group of men at a private gathering in one of their homes in Shiraz and held them in detention for several days. According to Amir, one of the men arrested, police tortured the men to obtain confessions. The judiciary charged five of the defendants with “participation in a corrupt gathering” and fined them.
• In June 2004, undercover police agents in Shiraz arranged meetings with men through Internet chatrooms and then arrested them. Police held Amir, a 21-year-old, in detention for a week, during which time they repeatedly tortured him. The judicial authorities in Shiraz sentenced him to 175 lashes, 100 of which were administered immediately. Following his arrest, security officials subjected Amir to regular surveillance and periodic arrests. From July 2005 until he fled the country later in the year, police threatened Amir with imminent execution.

• On March 15, 2005, the daily newspaper Etemaad reported that the Tehran Criminal Court sentenced two men to death following the discovery of a video showing them engaged in homosexual acts. According to the paper, one of the men confessed that he had shot the video as a precaution in case his partner withdrew the financial support he had been providing in return for sex. In response to the man’s confession, his partner was summoned to the authorities and both men were sentenced to death. As the death penalty was pronounced against both men, it appears to have been based on their sexual activity.

“These abuses have created an atmosphere of terror for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people throughout Iran,” said Stern. “But arrest, torture and execution are not limited to gays and lesbians. Any group of people deemed ‘immoral’ becomes subject to state-sanctioned persecution and even murder.”

Queers Against Iranian Terror anyone?

[crickets chirping]

Alberta Tories Get a Thumbs Up from Toronto "Big City Liberal"

Well.  As the saying goes, "politics makes for strange bed fellows".

And today, we see the so-called bastion of conservatism, the PC Party of Alberta, getting an effective "thumps up" from Big City Liberal in Toronto, Ontario - commenting on the recent polls showing that the gains of the Wild Rose Alliance have been lost since the announcement of the leadership change.

My response?

Good news, for you BCL, because the Alberta Tories would be considered quite left of the B.C. Liberals.. and would be very comfortable sharing a bed with Dalton McGuinty.

Good news for "conservative" Albertans? Not so much.

The bottom line is that the Liberal Party of Alberta, who has toyed for years about changing their name - doesn't realize that it's already happened.

They didn't exactly change their name - but their members slowly, over time, became the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.

It's a funny thing - because I voted for Turner, Chretien and Martin - so I'm no hard-core Tory -but after working with the PC party for years, I've become very uncomfortable with the idea of a government who pretends to be one thing and then does something completely different.

I guess, the bottom line, is the party lacks integrity.

Right now - the leading candidate is Gary Mar. A man who abused his position by handing out an untendered contract to a former aid who was never asked to produce any evidence that he actually did any work. He collected the money, but gave nothing back to show why.

And as a result, Gary was sort of shuffled off to a plum post in Washington, D.C., only to come back now like nothing ever happened.

It's pretty disconcerting, I think.

Though, unfortunately, not very surprising.  Oil prices are up, as is the price of real estate in Calgary - and the real truth is most voters in Alberta are happy to have an incompetent government as long as they are personally comfortable.   Personally, I think over the long-haul, Danielle Smith offers the best opportunity to actually change the face of government to the best interests of all Albertans.

Though, in speaking with him at some length, it wouldn't necessarily break my heart if Ted Morton won the leadership either.

Both Danielle and Ted see the downside of bloated bureaucracy and complacent MLA's who typically do little more than nod their head at their senior administrators more interested in expanding government power than allowing Albertans the freedom to succeed where other Provinces and countries fail under the yoke of an overly intrusive government.

My own concern is in Ted, we see one man in a sea of small "l" liberals - the Allison Redford types - whose only involvement in the PC Party is because their goals could never be met if they ran under the Liberal banner.

September 11, 2001 - 10 Years After

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks - I've been asked to contribute my thoughts and impressions of that event to Canada.com - and not being one to turn down an opportunity to share my thoughts and opinions, I sat down and set to page my own thoughts of how that event struck me, 10 years after...

September 11, 2001 was a beautiful day at Moyie Lake.

The sun was warm and the sky was blue with not so much as a ripple on the lake’s clear waters.  It was, in a word - a perfect day.

Moyie is a small mountain lake about half-way between Creston and Cranbrook, British Columbia - which is to say, it's a little ways from any major city - about a five hour drive southwest of Calgary.

So, then, on a Tuesday after the Labour Day weekend, the Lake was almost deserted.

Most of the day was spent walking the shores of the lake, going for a quick swim, and then sharing a few beers at the camp site.  My tent-mate was a former girlfriend – and while we were no longer dating – we  enjoyed each other’s company enough to feel comfortable sharing a few days at the Lake.  Getting away from the world for a few days.

That evening, we turned in after solving the problems of the world around a campfire.  A light sleeper, a few hours later,  I stepped outside the tent and was amazed by the clarity of the stars.  They were stunningly bright - and I climbed back in the tent and woke up Tammy telling her to come look.  Like silly children - we dragged the air mattress out of the tent and actually took it down to the beach - lying on our backs - staring up at the night sky - every so often catching a shooting star - simply gazing in silence at the wonder of the universe.

It was an amazing night. 

Next morning - the camp manager came by our site - and delivered some wood - and I still remember exactly what he said to me, "That was quite a day yesterday, wasn't it?"

I responded, "Yeah - it was a beautiful day, not many of those left."

He looked at me, sort of odd, and then said, "You really don't know what happened yesterday?  The terrorists flew planes into the twin towers - they're all gone."

And then, he left.

We assumed he was crazy or exaggerating.. but quickly tried to find a radio station in the truck.  And it was then that our mountain reverie was shattered.

We didn't say too much - we started to pack up, and then made our way back home - listening to the reports of the attacks on the World Trade Centres.  The emotional contrast from a mere 12 hours earlier was, well, stunning.   I was just numb.  After Tammy dropped me off at my house  I sat in bed  at four in the afternoon, and watched CNN, with image after image of the falling of the towers.

And I wondered about why?  And how?  And I think I had a feeling that I probably hadn't felt since I was 6 years old and learned there was no Santa.  I felt innocence lost.  Isn't that stupid?  I was a 39 year old lawyer practicing divorce law - I thought I was as cynical as anyone could be.  And yet - after that event, I realized that up until that point - I was still an innocent.  I truly didn’t understand that evil existed among us.  I thought everything in the world made sense.

And then it just didn't.

That's my story of September 11, 2001.  A story of shattered innocence of a jaded divorce lawyer – who sat in bed the next day, his eyes filled with tears as he watched 3,000 people die, over and over and over again. 

And then  time passed by.  And I learned to still find joy in my life, in my family, in my wife (Tammy is still a friend - but we don't go camping anymore).  I have learned to have faith that most people are good and decent if you give them a chance.  But I don't have illusions anymore.  There is a pure evil in this world - there are people who will do things that to normal human beings - that even to animals - would be unheard of.    But contrary to what they would like to believe – I don’t fear them – and, I think, the great majority of the world don’t either.  They haven’t struck “terror” into our hearts – just wisdom.

That we are better than them.  That they will never succeed – and, in fact, their own souls are the only things truly lost as a result of those acts.  They are cowards and little mice of men – who have tried to be bigger by taking the lives of people who are so much more than they are.

They have failed.  And they will always fail. Whether they are the great losers of history who momentarily motivated countrymen  to follow them, like Hitler or Stalin – or the little scuttling crab sort of losers like Osama Bin Laden – they will always be judged, in time, as losers.  Because to motivate lasting change, history has shown that a leader must deliver a vision of peace and freedom.

People may, momentarily, run away from a storm.  But they will seek and search out peace on a clear mountain lake under a sun-drenched sky.

Curious about the Selective Curiosity Regarding Right-Wing Terrorist

Only the most ignorant and psychotic can have any feelings other than outrage and disgust over the killings last week in Oslo.

No question.

And for those of us on the right side of politics, it behooves us to be wary of those who would seek to identify with some of our goals or concerns, and bastardize those into a psychotic justification to use violence against others in the effort to achieve those goals.

There is no more dangerous enemy than the enemy among us.

However.

That being said - I have some curiosity over the driving curiosity of the press and the liberal blogging world into the "influences" on this latest terrorist act. 

In particular, Big City Liberal has been obsessed of late with trying to identify the people the terrorist in Oslo claims as his influences.  Not to suggest, for a moment, that the examination of the cause of this violence isn't completely appropriate - but if you search his archives for things like Taliban and Al Qaeda, there is a curious lack of curiosity about what motivates Islamic terrorists - particularly as compared to his insatiable curiosity over the source of this most recent act.

So I was curious - and posted the following comment on his blog:

Just curious BCL.

You have an impressive drive to try and root out the influences which lead idiot to an act of psychotic violence.

To be sure - the need to protect innocents from the acts of any terrorist is a worthy effort - particularly when almost 80 people are murdered in support of a "cause".

And yet.

As I search your archives, I don't see anything close to that curiosity in wondering about the sort of people who influenced:

- the attacks on September 11,2001 killing 3000 people;

- the people who influenced the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 killing 164 and wounding 308

- the U.S. Embassy bombings in east Africa where over 200 people were murdered and over 4000 were wounded

- the Beslan school massacre in 2004 where over 380 people died, including 176 children;

- the 2007 Yazdi suicide bombings in Iraq where 796 people were killed and 1,562 people were wounded;

- the Cinema Rex fire attack in 1978 in Abadan, Iran, killing over 400 individuals;

- the 1998 Lockerbie bombings where 270 people were killed.

- and so on, and so on, and so on..

Should we be concerned over what brought about the Oslo killings?  You bet your ass..  but it seems to me we might.. and I'm just spit-balling here.. we MIGHT want to also consider that MAYBE.. just MAYBE we might want to wonder about what brought about the killings of the other few thousand people in the past few decades.

Progressive Politics: Creating Casey Anthony

Casey Anthony : The Poster-Child for Progressive Politics

Well.

Yesterday, I'm sitting in court waiting for my client's matter to be called up.

And as I sit there, a matter comes before the Judge where a woman is seeking to avoid paying court ordered child support for her two children living with their father.

And - as I look back in the gallery - I see her.  Looking all "cougar-chic" in her workout wear - I'd peg her in her early-30's.

So.

Anyway.

Here's the thing.

She has two children, and then leaves a marriage, leaving the children in the full-time care of their father.  Which is fine.  Maybe - as it becomes apparent - it's in their best interests. 

But the problem is, she doesn't want to provide reasonable support for her children and she wants relief from arrears of support that have accumulated.

Why?

Well - as the story is provided to the court - it becomes apparent that shortly after leaving her two children, paying relatively marginal support as it was, she entered into another relationship, had another baby, and then quickly left that child's father too - because of "serious domestic abuse".

And so, as the sad tale goes, she finds herself residing full-time in a women's shelter - and, according to her lawyer, "is not allowed to have a job" for the next 6 months as a condition of her living there.

So - she can't pay support you see, because she is on social assistance.

Really.

Lady - you brought two children into this world - and as it was, you weren't providing reasonably for their financial needs - and decided to get into an ill-conceived relationship with an apparently abusive boyfriend, and, to make everything a little bit better, you decided to have ANOTHER child that you can't afford to support.

Lovely.

THIS is what progressive politics breeds.  Literally.

Consider for a moment:

• She was in court with a free lawyer;
• After giving birth to two children - she not only was not out seeking to improve her ability to support them - she engaged in an ill-considered relationship with another idiot, and made yet another baby that she has no apparent ability to support.
• She is living on social assistance, and has brought another child in the world who is also being supported on social assistance.
• She's living in a residence subsidized by others.
• She's coming to court - using tax-payer funded facilities - judges, clerks, court room and all - seeking to utilize those facilities to help her avoid her financial responsibilities for her oldest two children.
• And - one assumes - she will be seeking yet further subsized legal assistance, and court services - and then government-paid-for Maintenance Enforcement to collect support from father #2.

What's wrong with this picture?

And who gets to pay for this?

Mostly average Canadians.  The people who DO hold down jobs, the people who DO support their own children, the people who DO NOT regularly go to Court and use up government resources to help them avoid the direct consequences of their own poorly-considered choices.

Pathetic.

And if the theories of Pavlov and Skinner have any validity at all - society is effectively conditioning us towards worse behavior. 

When people do the "right things" - IE) support themselves and their families - they receive no reward from our broader society - not even a little pat on the back or a thank-you.

When people do the "wrong things" - IE) refuse to support themselves and their families - they receive untold benefits from the broader society.

It almost seems like a sucker-play to  to the "right thing" - except for this pesky thing called "integrity" and "self-respect".  Of course - in the drive to make sure that there are no "losers" in the rat-race called life - progressives are doing their best to assure that we water-down the impact of these factors as well.

Lest we look down at middle-aged cougars messing up their lives at OUR expense.

People like, oh, say, Casey Anthony.

I mean - she's someone's child.  Have some compassion.