Monday, January 11, 2010

Canada’s Granny-Bomb Threat

The Ranting ManThere’s so much that could be said about this story — and now that I’ve gotten started, I’ll probably end up spluttering and waving my arms and getting red in the face and annoying my significant other.

So I’ll just mention a couple of things. First of all, notice that Canada’s Transportation Minister isn’t a bit embarrassed. He’s proud that Canada’s air security has met its #1 goal, which is… not to discriminate!

No profiling. No racism. No Islamophobia.

That’s what makes it safe for Canadians to fly!

Now, we all know that this woman would have breezed right on through security if she’d been in hijab. So that gave me an idea: all kuffar women should wear hijab when they fly. Maybe Talbot’s and other outlets could introduce a special line of clothing. Call it “Infidel Airport Hijab: designed for the discriminating kafira who doesn’t want to be discriminated against!”

Sure, it would be a little hot and uncomfortable. But think of all the time you’d save standing in line — plus, if anybody did pat you down, you could sue them down to their jockeys for profiling you. It’s win-win.

As for men, they could wear those little Islamo-beanies and carry a copy of the Koran. To make the outfit even more effective, a long bushy beard serves to accessorize it nicely.

“Be arresting — but don’t get arrested!”

Anyway, it’s just a thought. Here’s the story from The Montreal Gazette:

Ottawa Airport Security Terrorize Disabled Granny, 85

OTTAWA — Transportation Minister John Baird was unapologetic Sunday about the invasive search of an 85-year-old woman conducted by security personnel at the Ottawa Airport.

Baird was asked by media Sunday about the treatment of the four-foot-10, 90-pound woman who was travelling from Ottawa to Toronto on Dec. 28. The woman was asked to remove her boots and then unzip her pants. A female inspection officer then poked at her abdomen.
- - - - - - - - -
The woman’s niece, Cynthia Sutcliffe, said that the former federal public servant is now “terrified” of airport security and that the search was “extreme.”

But Baird argued that even people who seem non-threatening cannot be disregarded by security.

“The reality is, as we’ve seen in Iraq, the al-Qaida network has put explosive devices on developmentally disabled adults and then sent them into marketplaces where their bombs were detonated,” Baird said on the Sunday TV show Question Period. “Obviously we have to deal with every concern. I think we should use common sense.”

But Sutcliffe said her aunt’s search doesn’t pass that “common sense” test.

Hat tip: JD.


Fjordman said...

Hey, look on the bright side: They will make Bjørn Stærk very happy. He's in favor of death over discrimination, remember?

Bjørn Stærk said...

Fjordman, are you never under any circumstance willing to tolerate a slight increase of risk to your life to serve a higher principle?

If the answer is that you aren't, then you're right to criticize me. And if the government orders you to censor your views, you will, and if your country goes to war, you hide instead of fight, because principles aren't worth risking anything for.

If, on the other hand, your answer is that you are, then we basically agree, we just disagree on which principles have value.

This seems pretty clear to me.

Anonymous said...

Bjorn, why should I risk my life for a principle I reject to begin with? Since you don't want to discriminate, you should let me live in your house from now on and you should move out. Actually, you should put it on my name and don't expect payment, so that you don't discriminate against people who don't want to pay you for your property and just imagine you got 200 million Euros on it. This is how your principle goes along. If you won't accept it, you're a hypocrite and you don't live your higher principle. Hell, I don't get airline security to begin with. If I want to carry explosives on it, why shouldn't I be allowed to? They discriminate against people carrying explosives. I also think you should marry an obese, retarded and handicapped woman so that you don't discriminate against them by wanting a supermodel. Oh, another thing, why should the cops arrest felons? Our justice system discriminates against people who like committing crime.

If I'd be Swedish and the country would go to war, I wouldn't fight, actually. The government would go to war, government that doesn't represent the wish of my people - ethnic Swedes. Fighting for the cause of a government is utterly moronic, the only thing worth fighting for is your people or your own rights(like freedom of speech, for example).

Dying for anything besides your natural rights or your people is stupid and if you'd be rational, you'd see how sad it is.

Why is discriminating bad to begin with? I really don't get it, considering everyone is doing it and it ensures one's survival. Freedom of association is a natural right, actually, and this includes not wanting to associate with another person for any reason.

Also, people should realize that their own protection isn't the job of the government, but their own and buy a gun. The government's and police's job is to find the people committing crime and prosecute them.

Bjørn Stærk said...

rebelliousvanilla: "Bjorn, why should I risk my life for a principle I reject to begin with? "

Yes, exactly. You shouldn't. That's my whole point. If you do believe in a principle, you also believe it's worth risking something for. That's something we probably all agree on - and that's where Fjordman misunderstood the article he refers to. Which is what I told him the last time he brought this up here. And the one before that. Etc. (Some sort of old grudge going on, I suspect.)

Fjordman said...

Bjørn: As I stated last time, your quote captured the essence of the ongoing Western madness. The story above demonstrates this.

Bjørn Stærk said...

You _use_ the quote to illustrate that point - because you didn't understand the essay. That's unimpressive.

Anonymous said...

We have to assume here the lady was not Muslim, because the article says nothing about it. In that case, the search might have been necessary.

On the other hand, if she was Muslim, her niece would probably have complained about "Islamophobia", and we would have been duly informed.

"We all know that this woman would have breezed right on through security if she’d been in hijab." (Baron)

Quite possibly. And that raises an interesting question, which I have not seen asked anywhere.

Following the Detroit bombing, various authorities have contemplated / decided to put up so-called "naked scanners" in airports. If published photographs are to be believed, such devices really allow security personnel to watch naked pictures of travellers, down to penises and... breasts.

So how comes nobody has asked the obvious : what will happen when a fully-veiled Muslim woman will present herself to such a machine, in tow of her husband ?

The answer is equally obvious :

1. Hell will be raised about "religion" not allowing this.

2. After much "anger" about "disrespect" of "Muslim sensitivities", a bunch of "moderate Muslim community leaders" will make a huge concession to Western unbelievers by accepting that Muslim women be scanned... by Muslim female security agents.

Now you can relax, and contemplate the economic and security implications of this.

Chechar said...

@ “He’s proud that Canada’s air security has met its #1 goal, which is… not to discriminate!

I have said over and over that to understand the current crisis one must first to identify the new paradigm’s first commandment (which Larry Auster identified, as excerpted here). Once the commandment of the new secularized religion (which unholy trinity is race, gender and sexual orientation) is identified, intellectual dissidence becomes possible.

Not before...

P.S. Bjørn: At least I must thank you for your civility and that you are willing to discuss the issues. I have lost two Swede friends (see e.g., my last YouTube video and the blog entry below it) because these Swedes don’t want to read anything but Leftist literature (which always sides with the immigrants).

Kai said...

I personally am outraged at this. We know who is causing the problem. We know where they come from. We have fairly good intelligence as to who they are, or what "profile" they fit. Why are we kidding ourselves by saying that making everyone endure the same labourious procedures will make us all safe? We need to profile. Discrimination is not always bad. Often it is good. We all do it everyday without even noticing. And if profiling for specific individuals that meet the criteria we already have will keep us safe, lets do it and make every one else's lives a little easier.

God damned commies have ruined the world.

lily said...


I believe that profiling will be implemented sooner or later, given the completely obvious nature of the logic behind this demand on the one hand, and the slow but steady rise of the right all over Europe, on the other hand.

I have seen this happening in Austria last fall. There were elections in the disctrict of Vorarlberg where the center right and far right got 75% together out of a pool of 5 or 6 parties. The nationwide socialist party thereupon announced a "change of course" (which sadly didn't happen), but they at least confirmed later that they would re-evaluate the fears of the population.

Same thing here in France: Sarkozy is a real clown sometimes (he tried to put his 23 old son in charge of one of Europe's economically most powerful regions (EPAD, La Défense), but he will also win the elections in 2012, because he has a very capable prime minister (François Fillon) and a very outspoken interior minister (Brice Hortefeux, quote: "if there is one they are ok, but if there are many, there is trouble", directed more or less unveiled at the muslim population).

Fact is that more and more people are utterly fed up with the non-discrimination mumbo jumbo of an increasingly hysterical left, or at least parts of it. More and more people understand the nature of Islam and the catastrophic consequences of the presence of millions and millions of uneducated, assimilation resisting people from pre-modern cultures, and the left simply cannot afford to loose many more elections.

In short: the extreme left agents within the left are still too strong to allow for reasonable politics, therefore the right will continue to rise and I am pretty sure that within 5 years we will see profiling being put in place.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I see in today's newsthread that an Israeli has finally raised the issue of Muslimas in naked scanners.

Regarding the French Minister of Interior Hortefeux, he is not at all outspoken against Muslims, and neither is the rest of the government, or President Sarkozy.

His quotation "If there is one it is ok, but if there are many, there is trouble" was unofficial, made in jest, semi-private, and when it was caught by a TV camera and provoked a scandal, he quickly backtracked, pretended he had not said it, then pretended it was about too many photographs being taken, then that it was about too many Frenchmen originating from the Auvergne region.

All of which were very obviously outright lies. Such cowardice does not bode well.

The signs of dhimmitude are all over the place. Minister for immigration, integration and national identity Eric Besson, who is a former Socialist, has just said, in front of an immigrant audience, right in the middle of a Muslim suburb next to Paris :

"France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it's a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There are no indigenous French, there is only a France made out of miscegenation."

How more insulting can you get towards the French people and their history ? How contemptible is that ?

Traitor, traitor, traitor !

Anonymous said...

Robert, that's horrifying. That socialist idiot would have ended his career here for saying that.

Chechar, what you describe is cognitive dissonance. I'm finishing my consumer behaviour class and I was always interest in psychology and the ignoring of facts that disprove what you believe, while trying to find hype that confirms what you believe in is called cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous said...

Rebellious Vanilla :

"That socialist idiot would have ended his career here for saying that."

Please give me a ray of hope and tell me what country that would be (this is a very international blog...).

Regarding the attitude of the French government, I will also say this : on the website of Le Figaro newspaper, all readers' comments attempting to crtiticise Islam, Muslims or Arabs are systematically censored before publication.

I, and many others, have been the victim of what is obviously, by now, a deliberate policy.

Le Figaro, which is one of France's main dailies, has always been a right-wing newspaper.

It is also considered, by most serious observers, to be Sarkozy's government's mouthpiece.

Chechar said...

Robert: Please explain us why there’s no revolution in France with traitors like this? (Well: actually it’s hard to explain save saying that westerners have indeed become crazy, “Pods” as Seiyo put it.) This is the horribler statement I’ve heard from a French politician—ever. The level of self-hatred is unconceivable, and reminds me Bill Clinton’s statement in front of an Arab audience last year that it’s very positive that whites will no longer be the majority in the U.S. Surely Fjordman must be morally right when he states that these traitors will have to be squashed after the forthcoming crash. But are there signs already of an uprising against this treasonous regime, I mean, at least in the form of voting for a real opposition?

Armance said...

"France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it's a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There are no indigenous French, there is only a France made out of miscegenation."

This quotation proves the wisdom of Dante's Inferno, where traitors are punished in the last circle of hell - worse than murderers and thieves, worse than any criminals living on earth. It also proves eloquently why the concept of "high treason" came into existence. Where is the guillotine when you need it?

Chechar said...

@ “Where is the guillotine when you need it?”

For the moment I am afraid that only in our minds...

Fjordman said...

Robert Marchenoir: Do you have a link to that quote? I would really, really like to have it.

Anonymous said...

Fjordman :

Here is the original report of Eric Besson's quotation : Le Parisien (in French).

Le Parisien is a working-class / lower-middle-class quality national newspaper. It's mostly politically neutral, with a center-right leaning if you really must name one. It does not campaign against Islamisation, any more than the other mainstream newspapers. However, it's one of the rare places in the French MSM where everyday signs of non-terrorist jihad are not systematically covered up.

This was a suprise appearance by Eric Besson, in a public library at La Courneuve. He was invited by Collectif Banlieues Respect, an immigrants NGO. His arrival was unannounced, there was no visible police presence, and only 30-odd people were in the audience, mainly Arabs and Africans.

Le Parisien quotes some Moroccans in the audience who were "pleased to see the minister of immigration come to La Courneuve", and said "they had learned a lot". (Yeah ; me too. I have just learned that I don't exist...)

However, even such a grotesque abasement from a member of the government was not enough to satisfy the professional subversives from the local Muslim intellocracy and political mafia.

According to Le Parisien, Nacira Guenif, who teaches sociology at Paris XIII university, said that Eric Besson "did not answer the questions that were put to him". And city councillor Khaled Benlafkih dismissed the whole event as a "media stunt".

You can also read the 871 comments (at the time of writing) on the patriotic website François de Souche, which picked up the quotation, lost down the 8th paragraph of Le Parisien article. The headline at François de Souche reads : "Eric Besson : the French people does not exist".

Chechar :

This is by no means an incitment, but, objectively speaking, the French revolutionaries who guillotined thousands of royals, nobles and clerics during the Terror had much, much less motives for doing so compared to such a statement by Eric Besson.

"Please explain us why there’s no revolution in France with traitors like this."

Dozens of pages could be filled to answer that question, and thousands have already been. Some reasons are French-specific, other not.

I'll just offer one. The French do not lack a rebellious streak. On the contrary. On the evening of Nicolas Sarkozy's election, "demonstrators" smashed the front door of my building, just to notify their displeasure. However, this rebellious streak is of an egotistical nature.

In other terms, the French have dubious morals. Yes, that's a pretty sweeping statement. And yes, I'm French.

"Are there signs already of an uprising against this treasonous regime, I mean, at least in the form of voting for a real opposition ?"

No. We don't have a real opposition. However, one never knows. Nobody had anticipated the result of the Swiss referendum on minarets. The far-right Front National could get an unexpected boost at the next regional elections, although it is mired in internal dissent and financial difficulties.

Tomrrow on national television France 2, there is a debate planned between Eric Besson and Marine Le Pen, daughter and designated heir of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the Front National.

Marine Le Pen is trying to give her party a more mainstream image, untainted by past colonial memories and anti-semitic trends.

It will be interesting to follow. Unless, of course, the management of France 2 gives in to the SNJ-CGT union of journalists, which has asked for the debate to be... banned. On the grounds of anticipated "racism", of course.

That's French "journalists" for you.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...


The Bjørn Staerk essay illustrates the paradox of terrorism, to modify individual behavior or value structures due to the fear or threat of death is a concession to the very terror you are attempting to defeat.

The danger is that individual freedom is curtailed not only by islamists but by the totalitarianism of security. The currency of the war on terror was reminted by the neoliberals it is the two sides of the same coin, the totalitarianism of islam on one plain and neoliberal totalitarianism on the reverse plain.

Stereotypical profiling is a nonsense that can be circumvented by an 85 year old woman or a 20 year old white British convert, not to subject such individuals to profiling would defeat the exercise.