Infuriating: Brian Lilley’s Conversation With Crazy Luam Kidane

First heard of this story from Blazing Cat Fur yesterday. Since SDAMatt2 has since posted the video, I feel it necessary to weigh in.

SunTV’s Brian Lilley is overly patient while dealing with Luam Kidane, who is not only ill-informed and irrational, but downright offensive. Instead of simply calling Luam and her group, No One Is Illegal, crazy (which they are), I want to examine what she said and why it’s so irrational.

To start off, No One Is Illegal is a radical leftist group that started in Germany as No Person Is Illegal (Kein mensch ist illegal). Since its beginning, the group has spread to the United Kingdom and Canada, where they have joined with other Marxist/anarchist groups and marched against various “wrongs” like capitalism. To give you a hint at how radical this group is, here is their list of demands from the No One Is Illegal Toronto website.

We Demand:

• An end to all deportations and detentions
• The implementation of a full and inclusive regularization program for all non-status people
• Access without fear to essential services for all undocumented people
• The recognition of indigenous sovereignty
• An end to the exploitation of temporary workers
• An end to all imperialist wars and occupations
• An end to the use of Security Certificates and secret trials

It is the fourth demand, “the recognition of indigenous sovereignty,” that is particularly troubling, especially due to Luam’s use of the term Turtle Island.

For those who don’t know what Turtle Island refers to, it is the term used by Northeastern Woodland Native American tribes for the continent of North America.Aboriginal sovereigntists use this term in justifying their claim to North America, stating that they are the original and rightful owners of this land. The best example of this is the 2006 occupation of Caledonia. Aboriginal protesters, through the threat of violence, held the people of Caledonia hostage, demanding that their claim to the small town be recognized. By using the term Turtle Island, Luam and No One Is Illegal are making it clear that they believe that the aboriginals are the only people with a rightful claim to this land. This is why she and her group don’t recognize Canada as a legitimate state, as it is an “occupying state on colonized land.” This also means that they don’t recognize Canadian laws or the enforcement of them by an “illegitimate state,” which would explain why Luam refused to accept Brian’s explanation of legal and illegal immigration.

So, according to Luam and No One Is Illegal, who is to blame for this injustice? White supremacists. , According to them, not only did we seize this land from the aboriginal people, but we continue to exploit non-Europeans who come to Canada, and those around the world, through are racist policies. As Charles Krauthammer said, “accusations of racism is the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel.” Despite evidence to the contrary, like the facts presented by Brian concerning Canada’s immigration policies, Luam refuses to accept that this illegitimate state, which is supposedly inherently white supremacist, could be anything but racist. This is also why she refused to answer Brian’s question about whether or not she uses public services. As Luam explained, it isn’t the state, but exploited minorities, who aren’t accepted as Canadians, which provide the services Canadian tax dollars pay for. According to the Public Service of Canada’s own numbers, the vast majority of its employees are of European decent (12.2% being either aboriginal or another self-identified visible minority). Knowing this, why would white supremacists exploit their own people? It’s not clear as Luam refused to explain her rational for this claim. What is clear, however, is that she and No One Is Illegal are racist towards those of European decent. How else does one explain Luam’s hateful rant about white supremacists and the damage they are doing around the world?

Aside from her racist rhetoric about Canada being a “white supremacist society,” “an occupying state on colonized land,” Luam’s responses (if you can call them that) demonstrates how irrational she is. At the start of the interview, she demands that Brian define his the terms he is using while failing to define her own. All we hear from her is empty rhetoric about “human rights,” “justice,” “dignity” and “respect.” Why didn’t Luam define these terms before using them? Considering the anti-capitalist nature of this group, as well as its obsession with indigenous sovereignty, it’s fair to assume that this is coded language for wealth and land redistribution.

Also, as Brian himself pointed out, how is it possible for an anti-sovereignty group to support indigenous sovereignty? The former position states that anyone can live anywhere they want since border shouldn’t exist, while the latter leads to the exclusion of non-natives from native lands which have defined borders. Luam then further complicates this by saying that only those who resist the occupation of Turtle Island and stand in solidarity with the aboriginal people are afforded this right. Considering the treatment of non-natives on reserves, something which made national headlines when the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake’s attempted to expel non-natives from the Kahnawake reserve last year, I doubt an aboriginal-controlled Turtle Island would be as accepting of immigration as Canada has shown itself to be.

Suffice to say. Luam Kidane and No One Is Illegal have not only shown themselves to be radical, but also dangerous. I agree with Robert at small dead animals that this anarchist group will likely turn to violence in order to achieve their stated goals, especially since this group is dedicated to achieving “justice,” regardless of what is legal or illegal, as Luam herself said. Brian Lilley showed considerable restraint by allowing Luam ramble on irrationally. If I were in his place, I wouldn’t have been so polite to such a hateful and misguided twit. Pathetic…

Attention Seeker Embarrassed: LSU Flag Burning a Stunt

Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s blog jumped on this story earlier today, so I figured I would give it a look. Here’s the announcement of the event from Andrea Gallo at The Daily Reveille, the student newspaper of Louisiana State University (LSU).

Benjamin Haas, communication studies graduate student, will burn an American flag tomorrow at noon on the Parade Ground as part of a peaceful protest, according to Cody Wells, Student Government president.

Wells said Haas is exercising his First Amendment right to burn the flag. The burning comes nearly a week after Isaac Eslava was taken into custody after cutting down and burning the American flag flying over the War Memorial and stealing the University flag.

Wells said Haas went through University procedure to host tomorrow’s protest, and he also went through the procedure to organize a “peaceful assembly in response to recent flag burnings.”

“We’re going to respect his First Amendment right to burn our American flag,” Wells said.

He added he and others will then “exercise our own First Amendment rights” by holding their own ceremony.

Tomorrow at 1 p.m., Wells is organizing a ceremony to say the pledge of allegiance and sing the national anthem. Wells said he has a trumpet player lined up for the ceremony and he hopes he will have cadets there.

Though Wells is the SG president, he said his assembly is not related to or sponsored by SG, but by him “as an individual.”

If you want to know more about Isaac Eslava, I recommend Weasel Zippers’ post. Suffice to say, Benjamin Haas, the student behind today’s event, probably wasn’t expecting this kind of reaction from the student body. Thanks to Aurelius at Pundit Press for the videos.

and…

Does this mean that the crowd managed, through their protest, kept this misfit from burning an American flag? It would certainly seem that way, but this story isn’t over yet. Here’s the transcript of Haas’ speech.

Funny Facebook said that there were only going to be 64 of you. I initially began this flag burning protest to define due process for students and suspected terrorists alike, to call on LSU and universities across the country to defend basic human rights and avoid putting students into the criminal justice system when it can be taken care of internally.

Solidarity means standing with those who are treated as guilty until proven innocent, instead of the other way around. That’s what freedom is, standing with those who express their constitutional rights in ways that may be unpopular, especially the accused and the marginalized no matter the consequences.

In the name of peace, there will be no flag burning today. This country and the flag that flies over it stands for freedom, democracy, love, peace and the ability to question our government.

It turns out the whole event was a stunt, and not a well-planned one at that. Instead of getting his message across, Haas has now become an outcast on campus for his apparent display of disloyalty to the United States of America. He should have realized that with pro-American sentiment being high since the death of Osama bin Laden last week, defending a twit who burned a flag and defaced the LSU War Memorial in front of a group of flag-waving patriots wasn’t a bright idea. Would it have been better if American’s weren’t still celebrating the terrorist leader’s death? Definitely, but even then I have a hard time believing that a generally left-leaning student body would turn out in large numbers to protest the arrest of this criminal. Anti-Americanism only goes so far, and Eslava’s crimes were well-beyond what most Americans, let alone law enforcement, believe is an acceptable form of protest.

Benjamin Haas could have saved himself this humiliation, and everyone else a lot of time and trouble, if his protest wasn’t so public. Spouting tired rhetoric about due process is one thing, but it takes a real desperate attention seeker to deliberately inflame passions to get a point across. Twit…

UPDATE: Hot Air’s Allahpundit is now weighing in on this story. Aside from angry chants, students protesting Benjamin Haas’ event were throwing water balloons at him and were becoming pretty aggressive. I have no doubt that Haas feared for his safety, but, once again, what did he expect? His fake flag burning came shortly after bin Laden’s death, and with patriotic feelings running high across the country, the reaction to his apparent display of disloyalty to the United States of America would be extreme harsh.

What does that say about free speech in America? Not much. I think Allahpundit has this wrong. It’s a mistake to believe that a constitutionally guaranteed right would allow someone to say or do something offensive, but not allow someone else to be offended and protest that offensive statement or action. Unlike Michelle Malkin and others who’s events are interrupted by angry protesters who prevent them speaking, Haas had police protection and was able to deliver his speech, despite the loud chants of protesters. Those protesting his event might have crossed the line by throwing water balloons, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to be at his event and protest.

Benjamin Haas isn’t a martyr for free speech. He’s just an attention seeker who’s poorly planned stunt backfired. Pathetic…

Hallow Victory: Osama bin Laden Dead

The breaking news is that Osama bin Laden, terrorist mastermind has been confirmed dead. Here’s the CNN footage of Barack Obama’s announcement via SDAMatt2.

What did happened? Thanks to bloggers like Hot Air’s Allahpundit, we now know a lot more now than we did when the announcement was made. Contrary to popular and widely held belief, bin Laden wasn’t hiding in a cave, but living in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. This begs the question, how much assistance did the Pakistanis give the terrorist leader? If this administration knows, they aren’t telling. As indicated by last night’s address, the White House is treating Pakistan as an ally who assisted them in this endeavor. Doing otherwise could create a international incident, especially since former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, are saying this operation violated the sovereignty of Pakistan. Here’s a video clip via John Sexton at Hot Air.

It would have been better if a Pakistani special service group conducted the mission? Not at all. As the latest WikiLeaks document dump demonstrates, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) couldn’t be trusted (hat-tip to Hot Air’s Allahpundit).

…One detainee, Saber Lal Melma, an Afghan whom the US described as a probable facilitator for al-Qaeda, allegedly worked with the ISID to help members flee Afghanistan after the American bombing began in October 2001.

His US military Guantanamo Bay detainee file, obtained by Wikileaks and seen by The Daily Telegraph, claims he allegedly passed the al-Qaeda Arabs to Pakistani security forces who then smuggled them across the border into Pakistan.

He was also overheard “bragging about a time when the ISID sent a military unit into Afghanistan, posing as civilians to fight along side the Taliban against US forces”…

Could it be that this was simply a radical faction within the ISI? Maybe, but Pakistan will have to explain why bin Laden was found in a secure compound in Abbottabad.

How did the Americans find Osama? The irony is that Obama’s achievement was due to the policies put in place by his predecessor, George W. Bush, that he opposed. The intelligence gathered at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and secret CIA prisons, using enhanced interrogation techniques, was crucial to locating the terrorist leader. I happen to agree with Mark Levin on this, that Obama owes Dick Cheney and apology (hat-tip to uffdemega52 for the audio).

It was during the previous administration that the key intelligence, more specifically the name of Osama’s courier, for this operation was gained. Does this mean a change in this administration’s counter terrorism strategy? Maybe, but I doubt it. That would require, at the least, an acknowledgement of the success of the Bush administration’s policies, and I don’t see this White House doing that.

What does this mean for the War on Terror? Not much. The truth is that bin Laden has been little more than a figurehead for the last few years. It is good that he has finally been killed, but his death doesn’t mark the end of al-Qaeda, let alone Islamic terrorism. The one who has been organizing the latest string of attacks was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda leader based in Yemen. If the United States was able to get him as well, then we might see, at the least, a significant short-term drop in terrorist activities. So what’s the benefit of killing bin Laden then? The most important benefit is that it reminds terrorist leaders that no matter where they hide, they will be found and brought to justice. Could this lead to a temporary drop in terrorist activities? Perhaps, but that has yet to be seen. We will have to wait and see what impact, in any, bin Laden’s death will have on both al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism.

What does this mean for Obama? Depends who you talk to. Democrats will claim that their weak and confused approach worked. If they had their way, the Guantanmo Bay detention facility, along with the secret CIA prisons, would have been closed. Republicans on the other hand will correctly point out that it was under George W. Bush that Osama was forced from Afghanistan, where he could no longer command his followers, and it was Bush policies that Obama continued that led to this victory. Does that mean Obama doesn’t deserve credit? Of course not. Despite past statements and his harsh criticism of the previous administration’s handling of the War on Terror, Obama showed real leadership in allowing this operation to go ahead. He gave this mission the go ahead knowing that many of his supporters would attack him for not only violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, but ordering the execution of a terrorist leader. That won’t sit well with the radical anti-war left, led by Cindy Sheehan, who doesn’t believe Osama is actually dead (hat-tip to Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw).

As for the inevitable question about how this will help Obama’s re-election chances, it’s unsure. In my opinion, Osama’s death is little more than a political achievement for a failing president. With the economy still struggling to recover and gas prices spiking, it’s unlikely voters will re-elect Obama because of this achievement. Let’s not forget that George H.W. Bush soundly defeated Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War, only to be defeated by Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election. There will be a bounce in his approval ratings, as the polls are showing now (hat-tip to Karl at Hot Air), but it will only be temporary as bin Laden’s death will be of little comfort to voters looking to pay the bills. This may win him a few votes come the next presidential election, but far from the amount needed to secure a second term.

In the end, this is very much a hallow victory. It is an important achieve for the War on Terror, but not as important as many would believe. Osama bin Laden will be replaced and the terrorist campaign against the West will continue. The United States and its allies must remain vigilant and not naively believe that this marks the end of the War on Terror. This was only one battle in the never-ending war against Islamic extremism.