Ibadah and Sabaya: new words of the day

Vincent J. Curtis

31 Aug 15

The New York Times news service circulated a news report from Rukmini Callimachi that was picked up and published by my hometown newspaper on 29 Aug 15.  The article was entitled, “ISIS and the theology of rape.”

The subheadline read, "The Islamic State claims the Qur'an allows them to sexually assault those who do not believe, and have enshrined the practice of rape in its core tenets."

Below are some extracts:

“In the moments before he raped a 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin.  Because the teenaged girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Qur’an not only gave him the right to rape her, it condoned it, he insisted.”

“He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever.  He said that by raping me he is drawing closer to God.”

“He kept telling me this is ibadah,” she said, using a term from Islamic scripture meaning worship.  He said that raping me is his prayer to God.  I said to him, ‘what you are doing to me is wrong, and it will not bring you closer to God.’  And he said, ‘No, it’s allowed.  It’s halal.’”

“For two months, F was held inside the Galaxy hall.  ‘They laughed and jeered at us, saying, “You are our sabaya.”  I didn’t know what that word meant’, she said.  Later on, the local Islamic State leader explained it meant slave.”

“[Cole Bunzel, a scholar of Islamic theology at Princeton University] points to the corpus of Islamic jurisprudence, which continues into the modern era and which he says includes detailed rules for the treatment of slaves.  “There is a great deal of scripture that sanctions slavery….You can argue that it is no longer relevant and has fallen into abeyance.  ISIS would argue that these institutions need to be revived, because that is what the Prophet and his companions did.”

-30-

Slowly, they are catching up to Hillary

Vincent J. Curtis

26 Aug 15

Slowly, the media are catching up to Hillary.  As mentioned in a previous post, Hillary was not only a consumer of classified information, she was a generator of classified information as Secretary of State.  So far, the media have only focused on the material she consumed as Secretary, not on the information she generated, such a consultation with her staff.

The item below, taken from a Foxnews report of 25 Aug 15, shows that my earlier point that a generator of classified information has a responsibility to classify the material immediately upon its generation is slowly beginning to dawn on others.

That 2009 order, EO 13526, lays out the rules for "classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security information." It states that the authority to declassify rests with the intelligence agency that originated the information.

"Information shall be declassified or downgraded by … the official who authorized the original classification ... [or] the originator's current successor," the order says.

The practice outlined above means that the generator of classified information has the responsibility and the authority to classify it and to declassify it.  That would include the Secretary of State when she generates classified information.

How can a Secretary of State generate classified information?  Obviously, her advice to the president on topics of immediate concern are either secret or top secret.  Her consultations with staff are likewise secret or top secret regardless of their substance.  If those consultations are substantive, they show the direction of thought of the Administration on sensitive matters.  If non-substantive, they provide foreign intelligence agencies with material against which to check and cross-check codebreaking and other matters that could be tell-tale.

For example, her seemingly innocent forwarding to her staff of Sidney Blumenthal's intelligence report with the notation to "look at this" places an importance upon a document that would not otherwise have been taken seriously by a foreign intelligence agency.  It would also show that Mr. Blumenthal is a person still close to Mrs. Clinton, and a possible point of exploitation.  Feeding Mr. Blumenthal false intelligence could be a way of influencing Mrs. Clinton in future matters, especially if the intelligence seems to confirm one of her prejudices.

Thus there is no reason whatsoever for Hillary Clinton to have used a server outside of the secure system used by the U.S. government.

It is only a matter of time before the media start asking questions about the classified information she generated, as well as that she consumed.  For the moment, the possession of classified documents from other agencies may be enough to bring her down; but her generation of classified material may become a point of contention also.

-30-

Duffy Trial is Prosecutorial Excess

Vincent J. Curtis

20 Aug 15

Does anyone in this country remember the quaint, 19^th century concept of “an agreement between gentlemen?”

Senator Mike Duffy, a gentleman in a respectable position, finds himself financially embarrassed.  Another gentlemen, Nigel Wright, Esq, a man of considerable financial means, helps Senator Duffy out of his predicament.  The alleged loss to the Canadian treasury caused by Senator Duffy's reconsidered expenses is made good, and a potential political problem is fixed.

Where is the criminality here?  Where is there even scandal?  The taxpayers lost no money.

Does anybody seriously think that Senator Duffy is going to vote the party line in the Senate, or help the Conservative party more than he already was as a result of his private arrangement with Mr. Wright?  Hardly.

I do not see how Prime Minister Harper gets drawn into this.  Harper used to belong to the Reform Party, which famously called for a Triple-E Senate, Equal, Elected, and Effective.  Having to appoint people of eminence to an unreformed Senate still goes with the job of Prime Minister, however much Harper might find it distasteful; and in 2006, the year Harper appointed him, Mike Duffy was well thought of.

It seems to me the case against Senator Duffy is one of prurience and of prosecutorial excess.  In a previous age, Senator Duffy would be chastened by his fellow Senators for the transgressions of propriety they viewed he engaged in.

The case of Senator Duffy is one for the Senate to deal with internally.  This is at best a political matter dealt with by political means; it is not a Federal case.

If the prosecution loses in the Duffy trial, as it ought to on the grounds of reasonable doubt, Duffy has a right to feel vindicated instead of chastened.

I do not understand how the Senate or the Minster of Justice allowed the third branch of government to involve itself in this political matter.  The entire caucus of the New Democrat Party defrauded the House of Commons expense fund, and the caucus members are now personally on the hook for repaying the Treasury tens of thousands of dollars each.  Surely this is a scandal equal to that of the Duffy affair.  But no prosecutor came in to investigate and put the Leader of the Opposition Tom Mulcair on trial.  This matter was handled internally by the House of Commons.

-30-

Flacking for the Liberal Party

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Aug 15

My hometown newspaper published an opinion piece by Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Toronto Star acts an organ of the Liberal party.  This column is of that genre, but this piece went a little too far in scaremongering.

Often, it is hard to tell the difference between a Toronto Star columnist and a flack for the Liberal Party.

Such is the case of Thomas Walkom.  In his columned headlined, “Harper has shown dislike for CPP, too” Walkom makes worrisome noises about the fate of the CPP should Harper be returned as Prime Minister.  One can infer from Walkom that Harper would shut down the CPP, perhaps leaving current and soon-to-be recipients of the CPP in the lurch.  Needlessly frightening the elderly is bad enough, but Walkom is flat wrong on all counts.

Too lazy to call the Conservative campaign or look things up on the Internet, he would have discovered a few things that would have spoiled his column had he bothered.  The fact is that Harper moved to ensure the solvency of the CPP.

Had Walkom done some research he would have found that on 26 May 2015 the Conservative government announced that the CPP would be adjusted to accept voluntary expansion of the CPP.  A person wishing receive a greater CPP payment in retirement can voluntarily pay more into the plan during their working career.  This is not the move of a government intent on eliminating the CPP.

The voluntary expansion of CPP idea meets Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne’s call for a provincial pension plan.  Unless you believe that Ontarians are children who need more government coercion in order to save for retirement.

The difference between Harper and Wynne is that Harper believes and expects adults to act like adults, whereas Wynne believes most adults are too irresponsible to look after themselves.

Walkom evidently buys into Wynne’s elitist assumption that government knows best.

Flacking for a political party, Walkom is not one to let facts get in the way of a story line during an election.
-30-

P.S.  A couple of points.  The tactic of frightening pensioners was employed by the Democratic party against Republican Newt Gingrich in the late 1990's.  Gingrich proposed a voluntary alternative to Social Security that would be so good to the younger generation that Social Security would wither away.  The wither away comment was taken out of context, and employed in a fear-mongering campaign that ended Gingrich's proposal.  So the tactic of scaring old people unnecessarily is well-known and effective.

P.P.S.  The proposed voluntary additional contributions to CPP points out the folly of relying too heavily on pension plans for retirement.  The pension dies with the pensioner, and if a person died at aged 66, then all those additional contributions stay in the plan for someone else instead of staying in the estate of the pensioner, as would happen had he contributed to an RRSP instead.  A diversified retirement portfolio would not rely too heavily on government pensions.

If not a provincial plan, then what?

Vincent J. Curtis

13 Aug 15

My hometown newspaper published an editorial of today's date in which they argued that Harper was bad because he would not cooperate with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in creating an Ontario pension plan.  The case was based upon straightforward special pleading.  Special pleading occurs when the arguer says that his case should be accepted because he is special.  Below is a response.

The editorial today was a straightforward case of special pleading.  The arguments put forward by Kathleen Wynne, which The Spectator supports, are not privileged.  Wynne may have a majority, but as of this date, so does Harper.

The people with some business sense, which would include the Harper government, say the Ontario pension plan scheme would be a job-killer because she would be adding a further payroll tax.  That argument should be respected, or at least countered with something.  If it is respected, then The Spectator should argue why, nevertheless, it should be implemented anyway.

The Spectator put down Harper’s objections to another public pension plan as sheer ideology.  Well, expanding the power of government is an ideological commitment in itself, and adding a payroll tax to redistribute twenty years from now adds to the power of government.

The Spectator apparently is satisfied with treating people like children who cannot look after themselves.  It may well be true that most people are like children who cannot look after themselves, but it takes an elitist to say that you know better and you know what is in their best interests.

The way The Spectator put the problem - if not this, then what? - reveals an ideological commitment to larger government.  Before 1966, families, churches and charities handled the aged indigent.  More government doesn’t have to be the answer to everything.  And it is not obvious that indigence is a problem for the aged.

Already, we have RRSPs, tax free savings accounts, and other tax shelters intended to encourage people to save for retirement.  You seem to feel that coercion is necessary.

I view Wynne’s pension proposal as a back-door tax increase.  The beauty of it is that she gets to borrow money from the new plan to pay for her green infrastructure program, and twenty years from now she won’t be the premier responsible for making good on her promises of pension payments.

What we will get is another fiscally unsound government program that will eat up the budgets of governments yet to come.

You don’t have a democracy when adults are treated like children.  People simply have to act responsibly, and the consequences of making poor choices in life, and real examples of not accepting responsibility for oneself, provide reasons for acting responsibly throughout one’s life.
-30-

Ranked Balloting: Here we go again!

Vincent J. Curtis

24 July 15

My hometown newspaper ran an article concerning so-called ranked balloting.  It purports to be a fairer way of electing representatives, and the advocates want the method demonstrated in Ontario municipal elections.  Ontario has been here before, and it is the same group that went down in flames four years ago that are trying again.  The defeat four years ago was about as decisive as you can get, and the method lost on the merits, i.e. on the intellectual argument.  I know this because I started the anti-MPRR ball rolling, at the request of my wife.

Below are remarks directed at the latest effort by meddlesome do-gooders who won't take "get lost" for an answer.

It was only a couple of elections ago that Ontario pronounced upon mixed member proportional representation, a scheme similar to ranked balloting.  MMPR went down to decisive defeat, 60 % against, 40 % in favor: a shocking loss since nearly the entire political establishment favored it at the time.  Now we are seeing the same idea being presented through the back door.

The advocates for replacing our current method of plurality election lack the decency of waiting a generation for trying again, or at least coming up with better arguments.  What is the point of holding elections when people don’t respect the results?

Plurality election, in which he who has the most votes wins, has been employed in the English-speaking world since the first call of Parliament in the 13^th century.  It has been with us so long that the method doesn’t have a name; being the only kind in its genus it has never needed one.  It is accepted.  “First-past-the-post” is a pejoriative, term of ridicule.  Plurality election is the proper term.

Ranked balloting, MMPR, and the like are solutions to a non-problem.  Nobody doubts that the winner by plurality is the winner.  So, what is this question about results being not-democratic?  Everybody accepts the outcome of plurality election, and you can't get more legitimate than that.

Not getting too far into the metaphysical weeds, if plurality election is undemocratic, then “ranked balloting”, MMPR, and the like are means of burying the fallacy they purport to eliminate.  If plurality election is undemocratic, the results of ranked balloting are still undemocratic.  The winner of a ranked ballot was nobody’s first choice!  All we get with ranked balloting is the result of plurality election put through a mathematical formula.  (Let me have control of the formula, and I'll shut up about it!)

Gauzy new means of elections carry exactly the same alleged problem they are advocated to solve; they just bury the problem differently.  Therefore, it is better to stick with the simple, the tried and the true.

And while we are at it let’s start calling our current means of election “plurality election”, rather than “first-past-the-post” election, the latter being a partisan term.

-30-

As an afterthought: a democracy has no means of defending itself from a fanatical minority, who can keep renewing the struggle.  Eventually, democracy tires of resistance and surrenders to fanaticism.  Then, there is no going back.  I am worried about resistance to MPRR wearing out.  MPRR and the like are bad ideas.