Rant of the Week

Are You Scared Yet? and Lucky George

 

On the CBC tonight, members of the mosque where Qayyum Abdul Jamal sometimes led prayer services and taught reported that he made inflammatory and "extreme" comments.  Among other things, he said that Canadian forces were in Afghanistan to rape Moslem women.  He  criticized any involvement with politics because most politics involves corruption.  He thought movies and television were filled with sinful ideas and images.

He almost sounds like Dr. James Dobson.

What was missing from these several accounts of Jamal's teachings was any mention of violence, or an advocacy of violence against Canadian targets. 

It's not unreasonable to believe that he wouldn't make such statements in public.  But it is also very striking that the CBC decided to broadcast this piece.  Why is the CBC trying to help the prosecution?  Where is journalistic objectivity? Where is even one astute reporter to point out that many extremely conservative Christians and right wing militia groups in the U.S. have been making similarly contemptible speeches for years, but we haven't seen many of them rounded up?  They have, for example, called critics of the Iraqi war "traitors".  They have called pro-choice activists "murderers".  They have had even harsher words for rock musicians and film-makers. 

One of the pieces of evidence against the seventeen "terrorists" is their participation in training exercises held in  wilderness areas north of Toronto, allegedly with real bullets. 

In California, there is a valley where gun enthusiasts can legally shoot off as many guns as frequently as they wish.  In fact, the range is polluted with tens of thousands of casings-- and beer cans and fast food wrappers.  They can also go to rifle-ranges in almost any city in America, and they can carry the loaded gun, concealed,  to and from the range in most states.

Ah-- but they aren't threatening to actually go out and kill anyone.  Maybe.  Or is it just that we assume that white people carrying loaded weapons around are okay, even if a few white people do end up committing murders, whereas Moslems doing the same thing are presumed to be terrorists.

Did the U.S. make any effort to infiltrate and control militia groups in the U.S. after Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing?  

The hype and hysteria about this case is unbelievable. 

The saddest part is that even the reporters who occasionally toss in a phrase like "of course, they haven't been convicted" act as if overwhelming proof has been offered that there was a real plot and that these suspects were actually intending to carry it out.

Peculiarly, some of the members of this group are charged with belonging to a terrorist organization, while it is admitted that they had no connection to Al Qaeda.  By inference, it seems they had no connection to any outside terrorist organization at all.  In this case, the government appears to be saying they are guilty of belonging to a group of which they are guilty of belonging to.  I'm trying to figure out if the government is really that stupid-- okay, I hear a chorus of people saying, no, no, they can't be-- or if there is some angle on this that makes sense.  How do you prove in court that they belonged to a terrorist organization?  By showing that they were intending to act like a terrorist organization.  But then you will have to show that they actually were plotting to commit terrorist acts.  If you have proof of that, then you don't need the charge that they belonged to a terrorist organization.  You could simply charge them with conspiracy.

I suspect that when the dust settles, we will hear about some young, emotional Moslem men who said stupid things and dreamed of joining the battle against the decadent culture in which they lived, but didn't actually have any definite plans for attacking anything or anyone. 

I suspect we'll find out that the ammonium nitrate for the bomb was not only provided by the RCMP, but may even have been suggested.

Someone says to me, how can you say that before all the facts are in?  I say, you're right.  People shouldn't make those kinds of hysterical charges until they know more facts about what actually is going on.

Just as public officials should stop congratulating themselves and each other on having stopped a terrorist attack when they have yet to prove that any such attack was really being planned.

All contents © 2006 Bill Van Dyk