This summer, the most pressing issue on the mind of Republicans, specifically Sarah Palin and her wing of the Tea Party has been the construction of an Islamic centre in Manhattan. In reference to the construction of this building, the term “Ground-Zero Mosque” has been applied, though that term is an incredible misnomer. The facility known as Park51, or originally the Cordoba House, is a far cry from a mosque, it is more akin to a Muslim “YMCA”: a facility complete with an auditorium, gym, swimming pool, art studio, a September 11 memorial, and finally a prayer space. Organizers say that is modeled on the Jewish community centre in New York known as 92nd Street Y.   Park 51 is equidistance from “Ground-Zero” as other mosques in the area.

The project is being spear headed by Fesial-Abdul Rauf and Sharif El-Gamal, with a large portion of funding coming from Saudi billionaire and international investor (he has the 2nd largest share of Fox News’ parent company News Corp) Al-Waleed bin Talal. Both Rauf and El-Gamal are followers of the Sufi sect of Islam, and Bin Talal has a notable record of distancing himself from the House of Saud and investing in movements to repair relations between the West and the Islamic world.

Those in opposition to Park51 have carefully avoided the facts and constructed their own narrative regarding the building. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and a motley crew of other American politicians and pundits would have the public believe something along the lines that the Muslim community is conspiring to build their temple on top of the cavity left by the World Trade Center. These same leaders then further suggest that this said temple would have ties to islamofacist cells such as Al-Queda, and would radicalize a new generation home grown terrorists.  While this makes for a convenient talking point, it ignores the actuality of the situation. Sunnis see the Sufis as apostates, and without a doubt the radical Sunnis view them as they do homosexuals, Jews, and general infidels – worthy of the death penalty. To actual Islamic terrorists, Park51 is merely another institution of “The Great Satan”.

Currently,  America’s national debt set to surpass GDP in 2012, the unemployment rate is climbing, her troops are pulling out of a woefully unprepared Iraq leaving the country set to be pushed into the Iranian sphere of influence, and the best Republican politicians can do is call the President’s rather dismissive stance on the Park51 issue “deeply troubling” and “pandering to Radical Islam” (as Newt Gringrich put it). Barrack Obama’s expansion of government is pathological to the health of the American economy, as well as sovereignty of the country, and the outcry from the Republican Party is nearly limited to an eccentric Congressman from Texas. This issue has been manufactured by the Republicans and seized by their rank-and-file and some simpletons in the Tea Party as a distraction from the real issues facing America today.

It is questionable as to why property rights in Manhattan are being addressed by Washington politicos in lieu of the real issues facing America. A recent theme in American punditry is that “Restoring Honour” is requisite to restoring America as a recent Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin hosted rally beseeched. More rational analysis from Christopher Hitchens in Slate Magazine refuted the tutelage presented by the duo, labelling the spectacle as merely “expressions of pathos and insecurity”.

Hitchens has it right: the insecurity of the American people and their temporary loss of acumen and sanity is the reason why the issue of Park 51 is being debated at a national level, and not more pertinent affairs . In the spirit of American tolerance Park 51 should be built but to reiterate the project’s former namesake of Cordobian co-existence  so should Greg Gutfeld’s (whom I had the pleasure of meeting in February), host of Fox News’ Red Eye, neighbouring Islamic gay bar.

For America to regain her self confidence, she needs to put her domestic affairs back together. As the election of Barack Obama, and the rise of the socio-political movement known as the Tea Party both have shown, populism in the political area is not the answer. When America finally realizes that the threat to her piety and honour are imaginary, she can begin to address the real issues that lay at hand.

The Economist ran an interesting piece on their blog where they surveyed the reaction of the Arab press to the issue. It is certainly an interesting read. Here are some highlights.

Abu Zaid Al-Hilali of Islam Today opines:

“I think it is not wise to build a mosque near the ruins of the World Trade Center. I hope those Muslims, who call for building the mosque, learn to accept others’ opinions and open up to the world for the benefit of Da’wa (Islamic call) and in order to attract non-Muslims. We have to have broader views of issues, instead of perceiving everything as ‘either with us or against us’. We have to follow the Prophet’s footsteps (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) in dealing with people whether they were Muslims or infidels. We cannot allow insignificant ideas occupy our thinking without realizing the potential benefits gained from any act or movement.”

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, a columnist for the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat international newspaper which is owned by Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, writes:

“The truth is that building a mosque near the site of the twin towers, which were destroyed in September 11, is a strange story because the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and we heard about it only recently when controversy about the issue emerged in the US between supporters and opponents; most of them were non-Muslim Americans! Muslims never demanded to have any building, neither do those who are angry from Muslims want the mosque, and this is one of the few times in which the opposite sides agree. In spite of that, the controversy raged and reached newspapers, and major TV programs. Demonstrators took off to the streets and posters were plastered on New York buses calling people to stand against building the mosque and reminding them with the 9/11 events. It is a strange battle indeed!”

And finally, Salama Ahmed Salama, a moderate Egyptian columnist for the newspaper Al-Shorouk argues that:

I do not think that President Barack Obama’s intervention supporting the construction of a mosque and Islamic centre near the site of the World Trade Centre in New York… was prudent or wise for several reasons. While it was based on the principle of defending freedom of worship in America and the rights of Muslims to practise their religion, the fallout from the campaigns inciting hatred against Muslims will be greater than the symbolic significance of his decision. […]

In my opinion, it is better for the Muslims of New York to build their mosque somewhere else, far away from this American commotion and harm. Muslim groups are already beginning to complain of growing American hostility towards them….

Clearly this issue is more complicated than the Tea Party makes it out to be.  The narrative that the Tea Party projects on this issue is one that shows their lack of understanding for the nature of world politics, and highlights their ignorance. While I believe that their opposition to reckless government spending is legitimate, which has its roots in Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign, the socio-political movement that they have evolved into is a step in the wrong direction.

While I support the construction of this center on the basis of private property rights, I still find it interesting that the developers are using a name that is an allusion to the Caliphate of Cordoba.

However, some students at our fair campus feel exempt from completing the time honoured traditions of academia that the rest of us have to. Instead, they produce “pirate radio”.

It is questionable as to why these students have chosen radio as their medium of choice. During the medium consumption shift of the last decade, radio has fared the worst and has seen a dramatic decrease in its listenership. In the age of blogs, podcasting, and twitter it seems asinine that a medium which is going through a death knell in the mainstream would be picked as a venue for their discourse.

The Arts section of last week’s issue of The Peak documented the term project of one particular facet of pseudo-academia, the Women’s Studies class known as Pirate Writing: Radiophonic Strategies of Feminist Consciousness. In this article the author proudly extols the apparent cerebral synthesis of the class: demonstrating the linguistic legerdemain of “disobeying CRTC standards” or “dissing Stephen Harper”. According to the department chair of the Women’s Studies faculty, Catherine Murray, and ringleader of this broadcasting cabal, Pirate radio is currently of the utmost importance to society because dissent and alternative ideas are under challenge.

Murray’s statement epitomizes the disconnect that third-wave feminists, the ideology that Women’s Studies “scholars” subscribe to, have with reality. The discipline forgoes the use of qualitative and quantitative methods and cherry picks its political philosophy (all avant garde) to manufacture a narrative that is far removed from reality. Their methods do not produce a framework where the empirical is carefully with the metaphysical and epistemological.

A perfect example of the factual disconnect between the narrative that the third-wave feminists found in the Women’s Studies faculty and Women’s centre present and reality is in the issue of abortion. The third-wave feminists will claim that the anti abortion movement is mostly comprised of males, and rooted in misogyny. This narrative that they have created discards the fact that the so-called matriarch of the anti abortion movement, Jane Roe (whose real name is Norma McCorvey), is now the leading champion of the pro life movement in the United States.

Applying the term academia to Women’s Studies does disservice to the term itself. The purpose of a post secondary education is to be exposed to a broad range of ideas and use this knowledge to think critically about the world. Feminism and the Women’s movement is discussed at length within the realm of Political Science and Sociology as part of a study in liberation politics. In these two disciplines the issue is analyzed through the lens of social science not political activism.

The majority of the world’s publications save for the Western Standard, engaged in self censorship and did not publish these cartoons. Some claimed that it was out of respect for Islam (though many had no qualms about publishing photos of Piss Christ), while others refused to publish it out of concerns for their own safety. An episode of South Park brilliantly skewered the hypocrisy of the situation; a few frames of the prophet Mohammed were censored by Comedy Central while a scene of Jesus Christ defecating was considered acceptable grounds for broadcast.

The fervour of this issue seemed to burn itself out over the next few years, with the brief exception of an incident in 2008 when a number of Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoons in solidarity to protest the threats to freedom. However in 2010 this issue seemed to ignite itself again with another episode of South Park and the subsequent event entitled “Draw Muhammad Day”. The SFU Skeptics club decided to host an iteration of this event on campus, which quickly devolved into a shouting match, which some Muslims on campus such as Nergiz Abi dubbed an exercise in hatred and racism.

I read Ms. Abi’s opinion article on the event with a great deal of amusement: it was a scattergun mixture of logical fallacies and downright fiction. I was shocked that Ms Abi thought that any criticism of Islam is inherently “racist”, not realizing that Islam is a proselytizing religion that actively seeks to recruit members of any race. Clearly Ms. Abi has not heard of the African American group The Nation of Islam, blonde haired and blue eyed Jihad Jane, or the Chinese Uyghur people.  It would be ignorant to say that Islamic Fascism is not a threat, and imbecilic to ascribe it to a specific racial group.

While it is foolish to directly impute this modern era of terrorism to what less intelligent members of society colloquially label “the brown people”, it is ignorant to say that a perversion of a religion is not at fault. It should also be noted that this religion holds the distinction of being the largest in the world. These two factors considered makes satire and criticism of the religion a fair, even a healthy and progressive activity. Religious social change spawns from the harshest of criticism, Luther’s Nighty-Five Theses being a pressing example.

Examining the issue at a larger scale it is possible to see that the reactionary movement against the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad is symptomatic of a larger issue: the refusal of the Muslim community to take responsibility of actions of their own. There aren’t any large scale demonstrations by Muslims protesting Islamic Fascism, yet when a cartoon is published lampooning their prophet the community seems to turn against its publishers and purveyors with claims of hatred and “racism”. This seems to have become a sort of existential hypocrisy.

On a side note, What groups like the Skeptics club have gotten wrong is the assertion that hatred is a theistic endeavour. A tour of the seemingly secular homophobes clad in Ed Hardy shirts on the Granville Strip, or the under-educated and over armed minutemen who pride themselves in protecting America’s borders against the ”wetback” incursion would disprove this. Religion does not foster hatred, though hatred can certainly fester within it.

One could question why the candidates would bother with the political motions, as none of the positions were contested, and not all the positions were filled — an accurate gauge of the level of resident’s disinterest in the association.

The defence that the RHA will take is that they are open to solving the problems of residence, provided that a student makes the effort to approach them with the problem. This modus operandi is inherently flawed, as anyone living within the confines of Residence, including the executive of the RHA, should be well aware of the plethora of problems that plague our domicile. Showers don’t work, bathrooms are mouldy, kitchens are in disarray, and critical building maintenance gets continually pushed back. Maintenance requests to fix these problems are largely ignored, and on the odd occasion they are filled in anything but a timely matter.

The incompetence of the administering body of Residence and the maladroitness of their appointed agents, the community advisors, has been the fodder for the opinions section of The Peak for years now. It would be expected that one year, a fresh RHA executive would try and fulfill their mandate of “[ensuring] the accountability of the Department of Residence and Housing and Residence Life.” However, with the exception of their claims of “liaising with Residence administration to resolve such issues as the ISP switchover and the implementation of the Towers check-in tables last year,” this directive has largely fallen unto the wayside.

Instead, the association uses the money they collect from residents every term, approximately $14,500 from the $10 RHA fee each undergraduate resident pays per term, to put on a handful of events of which five or six dozen students attend at most. Unlike other campus groups which are funded by levies, such as the SFPIRG or The Peak, there is no opt-out clause (however unlike SFPIRG, the RHA promises regular audits).

While the tax that residents pay perhaps isn’t being misappropriated, there seems something inherently wrong about ignoring the major issues that face residents and dedicating resources to marginally attended social events; it’s akin to applying a band-aid where stitches are required.

Examining SFU’s student-power structure as a whole, one could postulate that the politics of the RHA’s decemvirate are simply symptomatic of a larger problem at SFU. An example can be found with the SFSS. Little work has been done to address the problems of an unprofitable Food and Beverage Services arm, the lingering Canadian Federation of Students lawsuit, or an unfinished Collective Agreement.

Instead, the current board seems fixated on manufacturing a legacy, whether it be through unnecessary and expensive renovations of the Highland Pub, or organizing an attempt to get SFU a morsel of mention in the Guinness World Book of Records. It seems inherently wrong that SFU’s politicians like to fixate on the inconsequential instead of the importunate.

The solution to this problem is simple: eliminate the age old trope of the “concerned student” and replace it with results. While some might find it in vogue to create a spectacle of “doing something,” in the end if no fruition is garnished then the motions themselves were meaningless.

I have hopes that incoming-president Godson and her motley crew will break from the current trend of SFU politicos. If time proves me right, we will eventually find solutions to our myriad of problems.

Originally published in the April 12, 2010 issue of The Peak.

Take Back Your School is reporting on a particularly brutal attack by a band of Islamic thugs against Nick Bergamini, the VP-Student Issues at Carleton, and

his Israeli room mate.

From Take Back Your School:

Tonight I went out to the bars downtown. It was a great night with my roommate Mark Klibanov. Around 1:45am, as we were leaving the bar, and we heard the shout of “Zionist” in Arabic. As it stands now, we weren’t sure if the shouts were directed at myself, a known a supporer of Israel, or Mark, an actual Israeli.

Quickly, we both responded that yes we were Zionists. All of a sudden we were surrounded by 10-15 men who began to shout at us in Arabic. We tried to back out and run away. All of a sudden, I was struck in the back of the head. I’m not sure if it was a fist, a rock or a pipe but it left me dazed and bleeding.

We quickly ran back to the bar and stood beside the bouncers. The crowd of anti-Israel thugs dispersed.

*UPDATE* – The police were contacted. The Ottawa Citizen is working on a story, as are a few other mainstream media outlets. Thank you all for your links and support.

*UPDATE* – Nick Bergamini will be a phone-in guest on the Michael Coren Show tomorrow night! (6:00 PM ET, CTS)

The original article is here.

http://takebackyourschool.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/the-cost-of-supporting-israel/

I think immigration reform can argue for itself.

“A little late, but a tiny bit of digging found that Ellen Ocran – the psycho-looking spaz from all the Ann Coulter protest pics in Ottawa – is on the government payroll!

Countless news stories last week referred to her as a concerned University of Ottawa student. A simple GEDS search however reveals that she works for Pat Martin – NDP member for Winnipeg Centre!”

Read more here!

http://takebackyourschool.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/ellen-ocran-busted/#comments

Last night, the notorious American loudmouth pundit Ann Coulter came to the University of Ottawa as part of a three campus tour of Canada. Unfortunately for the packed auditorium that was eagerly awaiting her arrival, and Ezra Levant who was set to introduce her, the event had to be cancelled due to the ‘security concerns’ of Coulter’s bodyguard and the campus security staff present. The reason for the cancellation was a crowd numbering in the hundreds who were protesting Coulter’s presence on campus had begun to get violent, and had barricaded the doors to the auditorium preventing anyone from entering or leaving.

Days before Coulter was scheduled to come to the University, the student’s federation on the campus (Canadian Federation of Students local 41) made it quite clear that the vociferous vixen would not be welcome on campus. Seamus Wolfe, the federation’s president, went as far as to say that the “federation does not support Ann Coulter speaking on our campus”. Wolfe continued to say that Coulter has a “history of hate speech”, and someone who “spreads hate is not welcome on campus”.

This presents an interesting hypocrisy. Wolfe and his motley crew of CFS hacks who sought to ban Coulter from campus, had no problem hosting the Israeli Apartheid Week – an Orwellian exercise of ‘two minutes hate’. They chose to endorse an event which demonizes Jewish students over the actions of the Israeli government, an event which has been condemned by the entire Ontario Legislature, over a speech from a bestselling American author and internationally syndicated columnist. It would be difficult to argue anything except for this had to do with a strong disdain for Ms Coulter and her politics, as opposed to a genuine concern for keeping “bigotry” and “hate speech” off campus.

But why not give Ann Coulter a venue? The harridan lacks any sort of intellectual authority; let that be exposed through discourse and discussion. Instead these protests, organized by CFS and OPIRG (the half-wit cousin of SFPIRG) supporters have created the narrative that Coulter desires: she can now paint herself as a martyr, a proverbial Joan of Arc being burned not by ecclesiologists but by the “liberals” which are always the object of her ridicule.

This incident with Coulter epitomizes what is wrong with contemporary political discourse on campus. One side will systematically attempt to deny the other a venue to express their ideas. While most of Coulter’s rhetoric is of the cerebral equivalent to graffiti found in the bathroom of a northern Alberta truck stop, it still should be given setting if only to expose its utter ludicracy. Deliberate censorship, by institution or crowd, is entirely antithetical to the purpose of post-secondary academe. It creates a real irony of the term “liberal education”.

On a side note, if Coulter came to speak at SFU, I wonder what kind of response she would get? Considering the level of student engagement, quantified by the five percent turnout at our recent election, I don’t even suspect a middling collection of SFPIRG “associate members” would show up. So much for our radical campus.

It was hard for me to believe that the SFPIRG, or the groups that they funded were in any way “non-partisan”. My reasoning was since they enthusiastically support the “Resist 2010″ and “No 2010″ groups, they would have no problem supporting a group that sought to investigate the numerous positive effects of the Olympics.

When I asked this question to the presenter in class, she mumbled something about going to the website and filling out an application. So I did just that. And earlier today, I received this email in response:

Hi Sam,

Thank you for applying to the SFPIRG Donations Fund. The Donations
Committee has met and reviewed your application. As we received many strong
applications and the proposed project does not fall within our mandate of
social or environmental justice organizing, we are unable to support this
project at this time.

Best regards,
SFPIRG Donations Committee

I also thought for the hell of it I would apply to them to get some funding for my trip to the Conservative Political Action Conference. After all, they claim they would work with any ideology. And if they were to fund me, it would render my argument that they are an “ideological clique” moot.

Whoops

Hi Sam,

Thank you for applying for the SFPIRG Donations Fund. The Donations
Committee has met and reviewed your application to attend the Conservative
Political Action Conference in Washington DC. As the application does not
fall within our mandate, we are unable to provide a donation to attend the
event.

Best regards,
SFPIRG Donations Committee

I would like to iterate, and deeply emphasize one point: I support your right to exist. While my political views are my own, I support political discourse and groups of like minded individuals to promote their agenda and further their causes. I strongly believe that the group which came to the AGM, which should be noted was an ideological motley crew, would echo my point. I would never engage in some pseudo-McCarthyist tactics to ostracize those who hold differing opinions; I might attack your beliefs but I would never attack you for having them.

That being said, what united this group that came to the SFPIRG’s AGM was the strong belief that something was rotten in our fair university. The SFPIRG is funded by the public purse, as such they are expected to abide by a set of standards that will ensure that there are no misappropriations of funds and the group is actually delivering on its mandate. The financial statement that was presented at the AGM would prove otherwise.

According to the financial documents presented at the AGM, the SFPIRG spent $130,233 in 2009 on salaries and benefits and $19,735 on “Office and Administration”. Despite this enormous expenditure, SFPIRG administrators could only give a ballpark figure of the number of students that actually use the services. Consider that many SFU programs are currently suffering financially in the current economic climate, and Department Student Unions, which thousands of students are currently involved in, get only $600 each semester in funding. The SFPIRG received $196,802 in student fees in 2009, $149,965 of which they spent on “Salaries and Benefits” and “Office and Administration”, which leaves a grand total of $46,387 to spend on the resources for students—of course, after subtracting the $11,313 they donate to social justice organizations completely unaffiliated with SFU, which leaves us with $35,524.

It is important to note that the SFPIRG attached a statement to their financial records stating that “We have not performed an audit or a review engagement in respect of these financial statements and, accordingly, we express no assurance thereon. Readers are cautioned that these statements may not be appropriate for their purposes.” SFPIRG states that this (along with an appointed as opposed to elected board of directors) is commonplace for “non-profit organizations”, apparently forgetting that the vast majority of non-profit organizations secure their funds through donation, not through student levies.

The SFPIRG often compares themselves to The Peak in terms of operational structure. However,  The Peak Publications Society undergoes a yearly audit to ensure that funds are not being fraudulently mismanaged or misappropriated.

At other AGMs (such as The Peak’s), Roberts Rules of Order are employed to ensure the meeting proceeds fairly and democratically. These rules are employed so the meetings have structure and are not run at the whims of the board and chair under the guise of “consensus”.

We’ve tried talking to you SFPIRG, as we are concerned about what you do with our money. However you don’t return our calls, and you answer our emails ambiguously. You hold board meetings, yet refuse to turn over the minutes (any other group on campus will do that upon request). And when we show up to your board meetings you engage in ad-hominem attacks and threaten us with violence. In fact, one of your supports went as far as to follow a student from the meeting to the bus stop and threatened with assault.

So what we want is, as you might put it, social change. Stop the dishonesty, and  conduct a forensic audit. Fire your overpaid staff members and replace them with students paid by a modest stipend. Promote social and environmental justice, and not the interests of your staff and non elected board members.

Just act honestly.

Regards,

Sam Reynolds