Seriously? A Canadian police outfit in Toronto bullied a rabbi who served as a force chaplain into uninviting Ms. Gellar?
They expressed concern about an upcoming talk to be given by Pamela Geller, a vocal critic of radical Islam. She protested past plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, and has posted anti-Jihad messages in that city’s subway system.
Huh. Ms. Gellar spoke out against jihad. My, that is controversial.
Perhaps somebody should explain to the police that they should release those Via Rail bombers. We wouldn't want to fail the inclusion test, here.
This is just bizarre. It isn't like the rabbi brought in a speaker who had put anti-Tim Horton messages in the subway system. Or to explain why ice hockey sucks. Then the police might have been on to something, value-wise.
But why should opposing the head-lopping Islamist fanatics offend the ordinary Moslems who share Canadian hatred of decapitations while yelling that God is great? Isn't assuming that being anti-jihad will offend all Moslems rather damning of Toronto's Moslems?
And do tell, why exactly did 158 Canadians die in battle in Afghanistan? Neo-Nazis, perhaps? I assume the police force will get right on to purging their force of any Canadian Forces veterans who might have actually killed jihadis in battle. Talk about lack of inclusiveness! That was downright adversarial and judgmental!
But Toronto police are unwilling to hear a woman speak against jihad and radical Islam when 158 Canadian troops died in battle to help defeat jihadis in Afghanistan. That's just freaking special.
I guess it makes sense that there is some worry that Canada's Indian tribes might wage an insurgency that Canadians can't defeat. When I first read that story, I thought that it was just a load of panty-twisting BS. Now, I have to wonder if there is any threat that Canada can face. I mean, if the First People start bombing railroad lines, who are Canadians to deny this is a cultural heritage that must be preserved? Inclusiveness has no limits, right?
Regarding that police leader who successfully stifled free speech n Toronto under the guise of defending Canadian police values, Steyn concluded:
Get lost, creep. In free societies, a constabulary isn’t there to enforce its “values”, it’s there to uphold the law. This man is unfit for his job.
You'd hope. But in practice, the man will probably get a medal and promotion.
UPDATE: Related thoughts:
We live in a country whose leadership, almost twelve years after 9/11, still does not name our enemy. They will do anything but, often to the extent of comic absurdity. Too bad that nonstop uncomfortable head count dampens the levity.
The justification for this extreme bowdlerization by our leadership and mainstream media, I’m assuming, is that to name Islam — and often even radical Islam — as the culprit is to make matters worse, to stir them up.
This attitude is actually racist. By making Islam immune to criticism, you are treating its adherents as if they were children (mere “wogs” in the unattractive parlance of the British Empire), unable to correct or adapt their ideology and join modern civilization. Consciously or unconsciously, you are saying they are just not up to it.
I won't go so far as to say the attitude is racist, but it does make it hard to take them screaming "racism" at those who support using American power to help them escape their Islamist chains that prevent them from entering even the 19th century. If we didn't have national interests at stake, too, the left would have to admit that Iraq and Afghanistan were examples of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), now wouldn't they?
