Every once in a while I read something that epitomizes some aspect of the global war on terror. Since September 12, 2001, disparate leftist movements have evolved into a single anti-everything movement that has grown to include practically every alternative ideology in contemporary Western culture. But it’s still a stale mishmash of cynicism, self-loathing and misanthropy that has no core purpose except to protest.
A December 5, 2005 Canadian court ruling by the Honorable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson in the ongoing extradition case of Hassan Almrei includes a passage that jumps out at the reader as a representative of the odd jumble of ideology and self-loathing that personifies the leftist anti-western movements.
Before I describe the passage, let me give you some background on Almrei. He has a typical profile: Syrian member of a Muslim Brotherhood family, participated in the Afghan jihad and helped lead a terrorist trainging camp. He later entered Canada under questionable immigration circumstances, but was arrested soon after 9-11 due to his connections to several known Al Qaeda members including Raed Hijazi. It gets better. According to the ruling he served as an imam at an Afghan training camp, but was never trained [paragraph 353, page 129]. He “was involved in skirmishes, but not conflicts.” He participated in jihad in Tajikistan, but he “claims that he was not armed or expected to engage in combat. He went on a scouting mission once, and on another occasion a camp was established, but they did not encounter Russians.” [paragraph 354, page 130]
It goes on and on. This guy is a hard-core Afghan Arab, and close associated of senior Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership. Taken this into consideration, the December 5th ruling contains this passage that comes at the end and includes the judge’s response to ongoing requests to release Almrei into the custody of a radical leftist “peace” group, Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada:
 Release on even the most stringent conditions is contingent upon mechanisms being in place to ensure compliance with such conditions. It is here where Mr. Almrei fails. Mr. Almrei has gathered monetary support, some symbolic in nature and some tangible. More than $49,000 (conditional) and $20,500 (cash) has been pledged or paid for the posting of a bond. Of the various sureties, only six have agreed to act in a supervisory capacity. Of these, one resides in Montreal. All are proposing (including Mr. Almrei) that he reside in the home of Dr. Diana Ralph and her wife. The peripheral comment of Dr. Aly Hindy that he is prepared to assist with accommodation, if necessary, cannot be regarded as a specific and concrete plan or proposal.
 I am not satisfied that Dr. Ralph is an acceptable or appropriate surety in the circumstances of this matter. I am sure that Dr. Ralph means well and has Mr. Almrei’s interests at heart. However, she is completely lacking in objectivity.
 Dr. Ralph is a member of the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada. Its purpose is to abolish the security certificate process. She had not met Mr. Almrei when she made her initial offer for him to live with her and her wife. Her offer was made on principle. In contemplation, she set about renovating her home and constructed an apartment in the basement with its own separate entrance. She has recently expended an additional $6,000 to move the counselling office, from the basement to the main area of the house, in anticipation of Mr. Almrei’s arrival.
 The relationship between Dr. Ralph and Mr. Almrei began after she offered her home to him. She testified that she speaks (and has for the last while) to him daily on the telephone and visits him weekly. She sends him books and magazines. She regards him as a son and claims that in many ways, she knows him better than her biological son. It became clear to her, “very quickly”, what a wonderful man he is. When she first met him, he carried some endemic assumptions about Jews, but never treated her badly. He has welcomed Dr. Ralph’s wife as his other mother, and accepts that it is up to God to judge people. Dr. Ralph assesses Mr. Almrei to be totally honest.
 I am not at all satisfied that Dr. Ralph possesses the requisite objectivity or necessary impartiality to stand as the primary supervising surety. She has had no experience with Mr. Almrei except when he was in a highly-regulated and controlled environment. I do not fault her positive and protective views regarding Mr. Almrei, nor do I suggest that a surety must assume a purely neutral attitude. However, I find Dr. Ralph’s judgment to be clouded by her political beliefs. I am not convinced that she appreciates the onerous task that she has offered to assume. For example, when questioned as to her knowledge of the Arabic language, she candidly stated that she did not understand Arabic. However, in her view, it is of no moment because she would not listen in on Mr. Almrei’s telephone calls in any event.
 Dr. Ralph describes herself as a law-abiding citizen except in matters of civil disobedience. She has previously encountered difficulty in this area. I have no idea how she defines the term “civil disobedience”. More importantly, I am not confident that she exhibits respect for the Court, as an institution, given her comments on the hearing of this application (June 28, 2005 transcript, p. 273). Respect for the Court and its orders, in my view, is a condition precent to credible presentation of oneself as a surety. Otherwise, how can the Court be confident that the surety will endeavour to ensure that its orders are honoured. I am not convinced that law enforcement personnel, in the absence of an appropriate surety, can ensure compliance with the Court’s order.
You’ve gotta wonder whether these silly women know that they are willing to house and protect a man who – if tables had been turned – would have slaughtered them without a moment’s remorse. I lose all skill to describe this phenomenon, and can only point to columnist Mark Steyn’s 2001 New Criterion article, “A slyver virus.” And his recent development of the same idea, “It’s the Demography, Stupid:”
Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In "The Survival of Culture," I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen's Counsel. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage "Islamic fundamentalists." "We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves," she complained. "We don't look at our own fundamentalisms."
Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? "One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I'm not sure that's true."
Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people's intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you're nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.
I can’t think of a better example than Dr. Ralph and her oblivious support of a vicious, misogynist murderer.