RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/467567-un-hypocrisy-on-human-rights-continues

After winning a rigged re-election last year, Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro continues to jail his opponents, violently curtail street protests, strip power from the legislature, and stack the courts with his lackeys.

So, you might wonder why, in recent days, the United Nations General Assembly voted to put Venezuela – which is also where a socialist economy lies in ruins, millions of people continue to flee, and millions more desperately need food, medicine, or other necessities – on its Human Rights Council.

“Electing the oppressive Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro to a human rights council,” Hillel Neuer, who runs the non-profit watchdog UN Watch, observed, “is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief.”

Unfortunately, Venezuela’s selection to the UN’s key human rights body is par for an all-too-common course, one that elevates the world’s greatest human rights violators by ignoring their abuses.

The United Nations was born in the summer of 1945 to – among other purposes outlined in its charter – “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and… to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”

Presumably, the 47-member Human Rights Council is the venue through which the United Nations would most appropriately pursue such lofty goals. Rather than promote human rights, however, the council demeans them by virtue of its membership and its activities.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15053/portugal-populists-chega

André Ventura, leader of Portugal’s new populist party Chega! (Enough!), has said that the traditional parties “no longer respond to the people’s problems” and that he represents “disillusioned Portuguese.” He has called for lowering taxes, strengthening borders and increasing penalties for serious crimes.

Ventura has also called for a public referendum on reforming the Constitution in order to replace the existing parliamentary system with a presidential system that better guarantees the separation of powers. The existing political system, he said, was created by Marxists and fascists after the 1974 revolution in order to share the spoils after four decades of dictatorship. Indeed, the Portuguese Constitution calls for opening up “a path towards a socialist society.”

In the area of ​​foreign policy, Ventura has called for opposing European federalism, safeguarding national sovereignty from encroaching globalism and taking Portugal out of the UN’s Global Compact for Migration. He has called for reinforcing Portugal’s role in NATO, and for fighting against the “hegemonic temptations” of China, Iran and the European Union. He has also called for an “unequivocal commitment” to support the State of Israel and for transferring the Portuguese embassy to Jerusalem.

“If there is a problem with the community, we need to know where they are, who they are, what problems they have. And in Portugal you cannot even talk about it.” — André Ventura.

A Portuguese populist party called Chega! — Enough! — has secured a seat in Parliament, after winning more than 65,000 votes in legislative elections held on October 6. It is the first time that an anti-establishment party has entered Parliament since Portugal became a democracy in 1974.

Chega leader André Ventura, a 36-year-old law professor and television sports personality, campaigned on a theme of law and order and opposition to both political correctness and the imposition of cultural Marxism. He rode a wave of discontent with traditional center-right parties, which in recent years have drifted to the left on domestic and foreign policy issues.

The Socialist Party won the election with 36.3% of the vote, far short of an outright majority. The center-right Social Democrats won 27.8%, the party’s worst result since 1983. Chega, which was founded in March 2019, won 2% of the vote in Lisbon and 1.3% of the vote nationwide.

Political observers agreed that Chega’s result was impressive for a party that is only seven months old, and that Ventura’s entry into Parliament would give Chega greater prominence and media visibility, in addition to financial support.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/no-canada-redux-an-election-autopsy/

The results of the October 21, 2019 election have served to confirm that Canada is a lost cause. Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, a very silly person who likes bobbing around in Indian costumes, praying in mosques robed in a white thawb, and uttering idiocies like “We don’t say mankind, we say peoplekind,” who pranced about in blackface and flaunting a genital banana, and who is guilty of two ethics violations which he wears like a badge of honor, has been re-elected, albeit with a minority government. With 157 seats the Liberals fell 13 short of majority status.

The New Democratic Party continues its course as a socialist aberration that will never die, even if it remains on mental life support; the press tells us it has surged in the polls though, in reality, it lost 15 seats from its previous total of 39. But it remains a player.

The Conservatives topped the Liberals in the popular vote, 34.4 to 33.06, but its 121 seats is testimony to a party that has run out of feet to shoot, owing to a lackluster campaign, a war room with the collective intelligence of a zucchini and a gelatinous leader who should be immediately cashiered, surely a plus for the party, though he has vowed to stay on. Who would replace him is another question entirely.

A major surprise was the performance of the Bloc Québécois, the formerly separatist party that was effectively wiped out in the previous two elections, which crossed the finish line with 32 seats. What its role will be in the new parliament is unclear. The Green Party, a mosh pit of vocal nonentities, managed 3 seats, a historic high, but the environment is still safe from its frenetic meddling. Judy Wilson-Raybould, former Liberal Justice Minister and pro-aboriginal advocate, won re-election as an Independent.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/10/the-flag-of-hong-kon

“Every day, we have to hear about revolution this or revolution that. Where is the Russian Revolution? What about the Chinese or the Cuban? They all failed and societies pay for them to this day. The American Revolution is the one that was founded on individual rights over that of the collective and, rather surprisingly, that is the reason it persists for groups such as those people fighting for their own liberty in Hong Kong.”

Given the political climate, any expression of patriotism—even of the softer varieties—is given the same weight of judgment as was once reserved for bigotry and prejudice. But we had it once. We did have the flag-waving, and the expressions of pride in ones culture, among other things.

I, for example, don’t mind if a quiet but confident culture chooses to forego the outward expressions of passion and belief that come with some of the more dignified forms of patriotism. What I don’t like, however, is what we currently have. What does a society that was once proud of itself look like? A person living in Britain (or most other Western countries) decades ago might’ve struggled to picture such a world. For us it is much easier. We are living it.

As Christopher Hitchens once remarked, ‘There’s nothing more dispiriting than a drooping and neglected flag and nothing more lame than the sudden realization that the number of them so proudly flourished has somehow diminished.’ It is not about the physical act of owning a flag and waving it about, it is what the flag signifies. In Britain,  for those who don’t hate it, it is one of the ways of displaying an appreciation for a country that did more than any other to propel democracy into the furthest parts of the globe.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15051/france-headscarf-hijab-debate

The headscarf is, of course, just a symptom of a deeper problem: many perceive it as an invasion by an outside culture into the public sphere.

This behavior seems to worry many French people, who see it as a direct attack on their culture and identity, and a desire to live separately from the rest of society and according to other values.

Behind those claims, they see the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood or religious ideologies, whose ultimate goal seems to be to propagate these values and impose them on the rest of society.

In the end, however, the commotion created by the growing presence of the Islamic headscarf hides the more fundamental issues of how to deal with the rapidly increasing presence of a foreign culture that seems to keep demanding an ever-larger space in its host society.

France’s Minister of National Education, Jean-Michel Blanquer, has reopened the heated debate on the headscarf.

Since 2004, it is unlawful in France to wear “conspicuously” religious signs or clothing in public schools. The interpretation of the law, as applied by the Ministry of National Education, specifies “the Islamic veil, whatever the name given to it, the [Jewish] kippah or a [Christian] cross of manifestly excessive size” as items that students are prohibited to wear in French state schools.

However, women who are escorting children during school trips are still allowed to wear a hijab. As an increasing number of Muslim women have been doing so, this has disturbed some teachers and parents. They believe that the spirit of the law — that headscarves should be banned from schools — is not being respected.

Recently, Blanquer sparked an outcry by saying that “the veil is not desirable” in French society. He added that this was his conception of “women’s empowerment” and “the practice of women wearing a hijab during school trips should not be encouraged.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/ribat-truth-behind-muslim-enclaves-raymond-ibrahim/

Last March, 2019, Reuters reported that the “Islamic State’s last enclave in eastern Syria” had fallen.  “Its enclave at Baghouz was the last part of the massive territory it suddenly seized in 2014, straddling swathes of Iraq and Syria, where its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a new caliphate.”

While this was welcome news, it also prompted one to wonder: what of all those other Islamic enclaves, those unassimilated ticking time bombs that proliferate throughout the West, which are packed with ISIS-sympathizers, not to mention ISIS members, and which the West largely fails to recognize as such?  I am referring to those many so-called “No-Go Zones”:   Western cities and regions that have effectively become Islamic ghettoes.  There, Sharia is de facto law; Muslims are openly radicalized to hate infidels; non-Muslims, even police, are afraid to enter lest they get mugged, raped, or killed. 

In short, the ISIS worldview continues to proliferate—and not in some distant theater of war, but right smack in the West itself (an internet search for terms such as “no-go zones” and “Muslim enclaves” demonstrates the prevalence of this phenomenon).

Although these enclaves are unique to the modern era, they have precedents in history and even a nomenclature within the Islamic consciousness.

Wherever the jihad was stopped, there, on the border with their infidel neighbors, jihadis formed strongholds, hotbeds of jihadi activities.  These became known as the ribat (رباط), an Arabic word etymologically rooted to the idea of a tight fastening or joining and found in Koran 3:200: “O you who have believed, persevere and endure and remain stationed [رابطوا] and fear Allah that you may be successful.” 

In Islamic history, the ribat referred to the chains of jihadi fortresses erected along and dedicated to raiding the borders of non-Muslims. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/turkey-advertises-its-koranic-ecumenism-andrew-bostom/

Billboards belonging to the traditionalist Muslim Justice and Development Party (AKP) municipality are on public display in Konya, central Turkey, featuring the verbatim text of Koran 5:51 (in accurate Turkish translation). Accompanied by the image of a blood-splattered cross, and star of David, the text simply re-states Koran 5:51:

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya’ to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya’, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong­doers and unjust).

Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai was (d. 1981) a towering modern Muslim religious scholar and philosopher, dubbed a “theosopher.” Allameh [Allamah] Tabatabaei [Tabatabai] University, named in honor of this celebrated authority and “theosopher,” is the largest specialized state social sciences university in Iran and the Middle East, with 17000 students and 500 full-time faculty members. Affirming his continued lofty stature, and relevance, an Iranian national conference was held on May 3, 2012, in Qom, dedicated to “recognizing the interpretative methods and principles used by Allameh [Allamah] Tabatabaee [Tabatabai] in [his Koranic] exegesis.” Tabatabai’s al-Mizān fi tafsir al-Qurʾān “The measure of balance/justly held scales in the interpretation of the Quran,” a 21-volume Arabic opus, is regarded as the most important contemporary Shiite Koranic commentary, and one of the seminal Koranic commentaries of the contemporary era, Sunni, or Shiite.

Tabatabai’s  modern Sunni counterpart is the late Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi (d. 2010). Not only was Tantawi the Grand Imam of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, from 1996 to 2010—the Papal equivalent of Sunni Islam’s Vatican of religious teaching and authority—he was also arguably the most important modern Sunni Koranic commentator of the contemporary era. Tantawi produced a contemporary magnum opus 15-volume Koranic commentary, “al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ lil-Qurʼān al-karīm,” “The Broad Interpretation of The Koran.” He also oversaw the establishment of the largest online resource for Koranic interpretation, ALTAFSIR.COM, which has published ~100 full-text, verse by verse searchable classical & modern commentaries on the Koran, including his own.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15068/erdogan-putin-nato-alarm-bells

These days, the Soviet Union might be no more, but Russia under President Vladimir Putin’s autocratic rule is just as determined to undermine the West and its allies, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to judge by his successful summit with the Russian leader this week at the Black Sea city of Sochi, is proving to be Moscow’s useful idiot in accomplishing these goals.

Earlier in the summer, Mr Erdogan drew heavy criticism from Washington after he did an arms deal with Moscow that enabled Ankara to purchase Russia’s S-400 anti-aircraft missile system, which was specifically designed to shoot down NATO warplanes.

At a time when NATO is reconfiguring its resources to deal with the threat Russia poses to European security, from protecting the Baltic states from Russian aggression to dealing with cyber attacks, the cosy relationship that Mr Erdogan has embarked upon with Moscow can hardly be said to be in NATO’s interests.

Consequently, to my mind NATO would be far stronger, and better-equipped, to deal with its adversaries if it did not have to contend with a fifth columnist state like Turkey operating within its ranks.

With Turkey seemingly intent on forging an ever-closer relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the time has come to give serious consideration to Ankara’s continued membership of the NATO alliance.

When the Turks first became members of NATO back in 1952, it was because their country was seen as a vital bulwark against the Soviet Union. Having Turkey in NATO meant it was easier to monitor the activities of the Soviet Black Sea fleet, and limited Moscow’s ability to spread its tentacles into eastern Europe and the Middle East.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/10/faux-americanization-in-britain

As the Parliament of the United Kingdom descended into chaos and internecine warfare, and Britain’s highest court plunged into the political fray, something became clear, if it wasn’t already: Brexit is not simply a contest over Britain’s future ties to Europe or its future role in the world. It is also an existential struggle over the very nature of the British state and its unwritten constitution. Britain has been brought to the brink, in part, by a process of faux Americanization—the selective adoption of facets of the American system, in some cases the least desirable aspects of the American system. Below are a few important examples of the dynamic.

In 2009, Britain removed its court of final appeal from the House of Lords, and thus the Parliament, to establish a separate high court styled in the American manner as “the Supreme Court.” It was perhaps inevitable, therefore, that courts in the U.K. would increasingly seek to exercise American-style judicial review over the unwritten British constitution. As a result, the principle—established for centuries—that supreme, constitutional authority rests with the Crown-in-Parliament has never been at greater risk.

We have today the spectacle of both Scotland’s Court of Session and the U.K. Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Johnson—really the Queen, acting on his advice—unlawfully prorogued Parliament. The executive, according to these rulings, did not provide proper justification for its actions; by this rationale, the courts alone decide constitutional propriety—not the Crown-in-Parliament, and not the political process.

Cleverly, both courts presented their decisions as protecting Parliament’s interests. No one should be fooled. The judiciary is claiming constitutional authority for itself, in defiance of British precedent, and at the long-term expense of the executive (the prime minister, government, and Crown) and Parliament alike. It is Parliament, after all—in theory, reflecting the will of the people—that empowers a prime minister and a government in the first place. The courts, ignoring the unitary, constitutional principle of the Crown-in-Parliament, instead pretend that the British government is the American one: a system of three, co-equal branches, in which the judiciary makes the final call on any constitutional question.