Iran Lashes Out at Canadian Court Decision to Award $7 Million in Seized Assets to Terror Victims

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham. Photo: Screenshot.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham. Photo: Screenshot.

By Joshua Levitt:

Iran lashed out at a decision by a Canadian court to award $7 million in seized Iranian assets to victims of Iran-backed terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah ,according to Canada’sNational Post on Monday.

“Given the approach of the Canadian government, it is crystal clear that the verdict is politically motivated and such rulings have no legal value,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said on Press TV, cited by the National Post.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency claimed the ruling was based on “the fabricated allegation” that Iran supported terrorist groups, while semi-official state broadcaster FARS said Tehran had reminded “the Ottawa government of its international commitment” to protect diplomatic properties, the newspaper reported.

National Post said that following years of deteriorating relations, Canada severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 2012, expelling all of the Islamic Republic’s diplomats. At the same time, the Canadian government designated Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism, ending their state immunity from lawsuits.

The 2012 Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act permitted victims of terror to seek damages from the state sponsors of their attackers, while the government also amended the State Immunity Act to allow the lawsuits.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled last week that Iranian funds in Canadian bank accounts and two properties in Toronto and Ottawa should be seized and split among terror victims. The newspaper said the judgement came after Iran failed to defend itself in court and sheriffs were ordered to take the Iranian assets. The groundbreaking court decision finalized four lawsuits filed in Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia by terror victims seeking damages from Iran for training, arming and financing Hamas, in Gaza, and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, the National Post said.

Only one of the plaintiffs is a Canadian, Vancouver dentist Sherri Wise, who was severely injured by a Hamas suicide bomber, it said. The others are American terror victims who came to Canada to collect on judgments awarded by U.S. courts.

Read more at The Algemeiner

Litigation Jihad: Hamas-CAIR Canada (NCCM) Sues Harper Government for Libel

By Pamela Geller:

Litigation jihad. The Hamas-tied group CAIR has filed a libel suit against the Harper government.

Before the Canadian Prime Minister’s official visit to Israel earlier this month, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian branch of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), wrote to PM Steven Harper demanding that Rabbi Daniel Korobkin be removed from the PM’s delegation to Israel because the Rabbi attended and spoke briefly at my September talk in Canada.

Their letter charged that both Robert Spencer, who also spoke at that September event, and I “have a lengthy and clear record of promoting anti-Muslim sentiments and demonization.” Video of the event here and here.

Rabbi Korbkin and Pamela Geller at Canada event

Rabbi Korbkin and Pamela Geller at Canada event

In response, the great Prime Minister of Canada set the standard that leaders should follow, most notably Barack Hussein Obama, and ignore these sinister supremacist thugs. Jason MacDonald, Harper’s director of communications, blistered the NCCM: “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas.”

Absurdly, CAIR-Canada filed a lawsuit today against the good Prime Minister’s government. Sharia enforcement. Of course, this publicity stunt will garner these thugs sympathy from the sniveling lapdog media, but I, for one, would love to see the full force of a leading Western government exposing the terror ties of terror-tied groups like CAIR. The United States government successfully prosecuted the previously well-regarded Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation, in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history. CAIR, ISNA, MSA, MSU and over 300 other Muslim groups were named, many designated unindicted co-conspirators. Those prosecutions were scuttled by the treacherous Obama administration under Attorney General Eric Holder.

We know that there is a “mountain of evidence.” Let’s hope that the Obama administration will share it will the Harper administration. Don’t hold your breath. But there are numerous sources.

Discovery in the case will bite these Islamic supremacists. You have to wonder what these jihad enablers are thinking. Does CAIR-Canada think that just because they changed their name last July to the National Council of Muslim that they are fooling anyone?

CAIR has done this before. And lost. The suit was dismissed. CAIR filed a $1.35 million libel suit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR), who called CAIR a “terrorist front organization,” that was “founded by Hamas supporters,” and was working to “make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States.” The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Given the current craven climate, my bet is that they think that the media will aid and abet their propaganda and advance their lies, this time in their jihad against the Harper government.

At a recent CAIR conference,  the CAIR/ISNA Spokeswoman said,  “Media in the US is very gullible…If you have something to say, especially as a Muslim, they’ll come running to you. Take advantage of that!”

CCTV: The National Council of Canadian Muslims is serving the Prime Minister’s Office with a libel notice, claiming that Stephen Harper’s communications director defamed the group in an interview earlier this month.

The NCCM is demanding “an unequivocal apology and retraction of the defamatory words” that Jason MacDonald, Harper’s communications director, used in an interview with Sun News Network on Jan. 16.

The notice quotes the offending statement as: “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to terrorist organization such as Hamas.”

The notice says MacDonald made the statement when asked about the NCCM’s objection to the inclusion of a particular rabbi on Harper’s official delegation to the Middle East.

The council had criticized the inclusion of Rabbi Daniel Korobkin because he introduced American activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who founded the group Stop Islamization of America, at a Toronto event last fall.

In its libel notice, the NCCM says MacDonald’s words “were meant or were understood to mean that NCCM is, gives material support to, and/or is affiliated with a criminal terrorist organization. These words are defamatory per se.”

The document notes that the federal government has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

“The defamatory words were stated maliciously in order to discredit and insult an organization that did nothing other than exercise its constitutional right to freedom of expression to criticize a decision made by the Prime Minister,” the notice states.

The notice is a first step toward what could become a formal libel lawsuit, in which the council “will seek damages, interest and costs against you,” referring to Harper and MacDonald.

Stephen Lecce, a spokesperson for the prime minister, told CTV News Tuesday that because “this matter may be the subject of litigation, we have no further comment.”

In the notice, the council says it is an “independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization” that has spent 14 years working on human rights and civil liberties issues and public advocacy on behalf of Canadian Muslims.

The group says MacDonald’s comments “were stated to discredit the NCCM’s reputation and undermine its ability to do its work.”

Read more at PamelaGeller.com - including great backgrounder on CAIR

Canada’s Prime Minister: A Display of Rare Courage

by Salim Mansur:

“It [the new face of anti-Semitism] targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel…. What else can we call criticism that selectively concerns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to exist, to defend itself, while systematically ignoring or excusing the violence and oppression all around it?” — Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

Invited to address the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, did not hold back in expressing his government’s support for the Jewish state as the lonely and beleaguered democracy in the region. As Harper told members of the Knesset, “Israel is the only country in the Middle East which has long anchored itself in the ideals of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. And these are not mere notions. They are the things that, over time and against all odds, have proven to be, over and over again, the only ground in which human rights, political stability and economic prosperity may flourish…. through fire and water, Canada will stand with you.”

 

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (left) introduces Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (center) at the Knesset podium, on Jan. 20, 2014. (Image source: Canada PM’s Office)

Harper’s address was a window into his heart and mind, and the clearest expression without any equivocation of how Canada, under his leadership, sees the bleak situation in the Middle East. It was also a message from leader of one of the G8 countries to member states of the UN, and especially to other Western democracies, that Canada’s embrace of Israel transcends politics and is ethically grounded on moral principles. As Harper stated, “Canada supports Israel fundamentally because it is right to do so,” because “the special relationship between Canada and Israel is rooted in shared values.”

Harper’s recent visit to Israel was his first since being elected prime minister in 2006 at the head of a minority Conservative Party government. His minority government was returned in the 2008 election, and then in May 2011 Harper’s Conservatives finally won a majority in the Canadian parliament. Throughout this period Harper demonstrated an unflinchingly consistent, even politically courageous, support for Israel at home and abroad when such support has been seen by many as unwisely compromising Canada’s even-handed approach in dealing with the problems of the region.

Canada has seen itself for a long time now as a “middle power”, its influence in the world carefully harnessed through its role as a helpful fixer in the UN and other multilateral bodies. This role and the accompanying self-image over the past several decades assumed a default position for Canadian foreign policy when dealing with the developing countries of what until lately was described as the third world. It helped position Canada to be seen as an honest broker between the rich North and the poor South, and in this role Canada’s political leaders through the Cold War years and after found they were regularly praised and courted by a majority of the UN member states. This meant, in time, that Canada’s views on issues that garnered the support of a UN majority were also carefully crafted in part to maintain this position and image, and the diplomacy at work to effect such a result was also domestically resonant with a segment of the public that cared about Canada’s image abroad.

The effectively quasi-permanent majority of the UN is comprised of developing countries of Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and South America. Within this majority stands the Islamic bloc of 57 Arab and Muslim states – all are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – that, in voting together, can either make or break a majority vote at the UN. It is this influence of the OIC and the votes it can deliver that regularly isolates and reprimands Israel at the UN. It was the machinations of the Islamic bloc that led to the notorious passage of the UN General Assembly resolution in November 1975 declaring “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” And though this resolution was revoked in 1991 after the end of the Cold War, the Islamic bloc in the UN yet pulls enough weight in voting numbers for member states to be careful not to alienate it.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Canada Takes Its Place at the Table

000By Caroline Glick:

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

During a press conference with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, an Israeli reporter asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper, “Is Canada paying a price for being so supportive of Israel? Is it possible to support Israel and still have ties to the Arab world?”

This question goes to the heart of what is generally perceived as Israel’s greatest weakness. The Arab boycott of Israel and of countries doing business with Israel has served as one of the most potent weapons in the anti-Israel arsenal for over a generation. Indeed, since the OPEC oil embargo in 1974, it has been the Arabs’ single most powerful weapon in their unceasing campaign for the destruction of the Jewish state.

It was Arab economic bullying that forced African nations to cut their ties with the Jewish state.

It was the Arab use of the oil weapon after the 1973 Yom Kippur War that convinced Western Europe to end its diplomatic support for Israel and throw in with the PLO.

More than anything else, it is the Arab economic boycott of companies that do business with Israel that has eroded Israel’s diplomatic standing over the past two generations and transformed the only human rights respecting democracy in the Middle East into an international pariah.

And yet, under Stephen Harper, as the noose of international isolation is drawn around Israel’s neck more tightly every day, Canada has emerged as an outspoken supporter and defender of the Jewish state.

So in essence, the Israeli reporter’s question to Harper could easily be rephrased as, “Are you crazy?” Harper responded to the question by rejecting its premises – that the Arab world behaves as a bloc, and that standing up for your convictions is a losing proposition when those convictions involve taking unpopular stands.

As he put it, “I wouldn’t want to say there is no price, but my general view of the world is that people respect your view, if you express it appropriately and they understand it’s genuine….The fact of the matter is, Canada has deep relations with many Arab countries…. And frankly [there are] many matters where we probably far more often agree than disagree. So look, I don’t think it’s automatically the view that if you have a particular issue where you disagree, that this needs to rupture relationships irrevocably.”

In other words, what Harper acknowledged was that yes, Canada has lost contracts in some Arab countries due to its support for Israel. But by and large, it hasn’t taken a serious hit.

The obvious follow-up question would have been to ask if Canada gains anything from its support for Israel that can compensate for the economic hits it takes for it.

The answer to that question is yes, Canada, and other countries that support Israel now, when such support is more notable than it was in the past, do gain significantly from their actions. This is true on two levels.

First, economically, Israel is in a far different position than it was 20 years ago. During Harper’s visit, Canada and Israel updated their free trade agreement and signed a number of other agreements enhancing cooperation in multiple fields.

As Netanyahu said, “I think that cooperation makes us both stronger and more prosperous and more secure countries.”

Canada isn’t alone in recognizing the economic potential of good ties with Israel. Consider Norway.

For the past 15 years, Norway has distinguished itself as a trailblazer in the European bid to isolate Israel politically and wage economic warfare against it. Norway was among the first European countries to divest from Israeli companies.

Its trade unions have been leading purveyors of anti-Israel propaganda and economic warfare.

Last fall Norway elected a new conservative government. And under the leadership of Prime Minister Erna Solberg, Norway is seeking to rebuild its ties with Israel. Just after the election, the Israeli embassy in Oslo hosted a meeting of Norwegian and Israeli businessmen. Norway’s new finance minister is interested in cooperation between Norway’s oil industry and Israel’s new natural gas sector.

Norway’s new minister of culture, Thorhild Widvey, held a workshop for 160 Norwegian television producers with Israeli producers who successfully sold Israeli series to the US market.

Disowning the boycott Israel movement, Widvey said, “We don’t see the boycott as an effective tool to promote positive change.”

Today, the economies of the Arab world are collapsing. Fracking technologies are lowering demand for Middle Eastern oil. Political instability is drying up foreign investment and tourism.

And local universities are incapable of producing graduates able to function in the global economy.

As a consequence, the Arabs’ capacity to intimidate governments into rejecting the economic benefits Israel has to offer is steadily decreasing.

Read more at Front Page

Canadian PM Blasts CAIR-Canada for Ties to Hamas

Holy Land

CAIR’s ties to Hamas are fully documented. That is not slander or libel, as CAIR says. Rather, it is the truth that CAIR wants to disguise.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Office of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has responded to criticism from the Canadian affiliate of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) by pointing to its “documented ties” to the Hamas terrorist group.

The organization slammed Prime Minister Harper’s inclusion of Rabbi Daniel Korobkin of Beth Avraham Yoseph Congregation in his trip to Israel because he of his complimentary remarks towards two prominent activists critical of Islamists and sharia law. CAIR labeled them “anti-Muslim” bigots.

“We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas,” repliedHarper’s communications director, Jason MacDonald.

CAIR was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity that was shut down for financing Hamas. Federal prosecutors labeled CAIR an “entity” of the U.S.Muslim Brotherhood’s secret Palestine Committee, a body set up to covertly advance the Hamas agenda.

CAIR’s bid to have the label lifted failed. A federal judge ruled in 2009 that the government provided “ample” evidence linking CAIR to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas network. For example, a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo explicitly identifies CAIR’s predecessor, the Islamic Association for Palestine, as a Brotherhood front.

The FBI officially stopped using CAIR in 2009 as a liaison to the Muslim-American community because of these Hamas links. A September 2013 Justice Department report said the policy’s objective is to “ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support extremist or terrorist ideologies.”

The Canadian branch of CAIR changed its name in July to the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM). Its executive director, Ihsaan Gardee, says that the comment by Harper’s office is “defamatory and libelous.”

CAIR-Canada’s name change does not absolve it of its past. Its name purposely implied it is a branch of CAIR for a good reason: It is a branch of CAIR.

NCCM says, “There was never any operating or funding relationship between CAIR.CAN and CAIR.” Its previous website said, “CAIR-CAN is a fully independent and separate organization from the Washington D.C.-based CAIR, although the two may coordinate on issues of mutual concern.”

This is a game of semantics. All of CAIR’s chapters are registered independently. This is by design. Don’t take my word for it. Look at what one of CAIR’s founders said:

“Registering an organization is easy. I can register 100 organizations in 100 cities in one day,” said CAIR founder Omar Ahmad during a secret 1993 Muslim Brotherhood meeting. It was at this meeting that the need to create CAIR was discussed.

There is plenty of documentation to prove that CAIR-CAN (now NCCM) operates as an organ of CAIR, as collected by the Point De Bascule blog.

Read more at Clarion Project

Separation of Mosque and State: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?

taxiClarion Project:

Muslim employees of a Canadian cab company have refused to take customers with service dogs, in violation of policy. Similar stories have emerged in America with Muslim cab drivers refusing service for a host of sharia-based reasons. Given that the taxi business is highly regulated in both countries and a limited number of licenses are given out by the government, where should the line be drawn between religious and civil rights?

 

 

Steve Emerson interviewed on Sun News – Canadians leaving for Jihad

SunVideo at IPT:

Brian Lilley: We’ve told you in the past about Canadians joining foreign struggles. We’re talking about the international jihad. Now international media are taking note, Israel National News putting out a report the other day saying on Thursday reports were released that a Canadian citizen described only as Abu Abd Al-Rahman was killed in March in the city of Aleppo. Al-Rahman is one of many Canadian and other foreign jihadists journeying to Syria to join the bloodbath. Do we need to be concerned that our international allies are taking note of the growing jihadi movement in Canada? Steven Emerson is with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, joins us now from our studies in Washington. Mr. Emerson, we’ve been taking note of this global trend. How worried should we be that Israel, the United States other allies might be noticing it as well?

Steve Emerson: Well in Canada with the dubious distinction of your Mayor of Toronto with his exception –

Lilley: [Laughs.] Yeah.

Emerson: – Canada is probably the highest contributor of expatriates. That is Canadian citizens, to jihadist movements around the world, with the exception of the United States. There probably are at least 100 Canadians of Islamic origin or converts that have volunteered for the jihad in Syria over the past two years. And the reason that there is concern is that these jihadists not only acquire training overseas and engage in jihad, but are liable, are likely to become radicalized even more than they have been in terms of going over there when they return back to Canada, as we’ve seen in dozens of terrorist plots that have occurred in the last decade in Canada. As a Canadian intelligence report that was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act recently revealed, there are more terrorists per capita in Canada, Islamic terrorists, than there are any place in the world, with the exception of the United States.

Lilley: See and that part is shocking me, given what I read about in terms of a ghettoization of British culture, in terms of certain areas of London being referred to as Londonstan and the radicalization going on there, I would have thought the U.K. would have been far away ahead of both Canada and the U.S. So this is shocking news, not only to me but lots of other Canadians.

Emerson: Well what’s interesting here, you raise an interesting point, because in London and in other parts of Europe, there really has been a radicalization of the communities to the point where there are no-go areas that are Muslim areas only. And there are Muslim patrols that actually attack anybody who is a Westerner or somebody who is dressed in Western attire. This is something a little bit different than in Canada or the United States where you don’t have the same concentration within the communal structure of the radicals, but you do have a radical cultural ideology that is basically, that is proliferating from community, community, and ends up resulting in either lone-wolf plots, that is Islamic terrorist plots that are not directed from without but come from within, or you end up having people volunteer for jihad overseas, which has been dominating, shouldn’t be dominating, but actually has been proliferating in the last decade, particularly in the last three or four years as new jihad fronts have opened up in Al-Shabaab, you know that’s in Africa -

Lilley: Somalia.

Emerson: – in Somalia, that’s in Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq, even in other areas. Even in Europe you’ve seen Americans or North Americans, that is those with Canadian passports, volunteer to carry out plots with their European compatriots, which is a very troubling developing that only witnessed in the last three or four years.

Lilley: OK, so in Canada we have long had ministers, such as former Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, say we don’t have to be as worried about radicalization as they do in places like Europe, whether it’s Germany or Britain, because we’ve had a more successful integration of disparate communities. Should we be buying that line or does the fact that we are such a large contributor to the jihad put that, make that stand out as a bald-faced lie?

Emerson: Well I wouldn’t say it’s a bald-faced lie. There has indeed been more successful integration coupled with the fact that there’s been less of a concentration of jihadist immigration to North America, including Canada and the United States than let’s say in London or let’s say in Belgium or in Germany or Italy, where almost every week there’s a jihadist plot that’s interrupted. But the corollary of this is that there really is a cultural jihad that has not diminished but rather spread in different communities in Canada, in Toronto, in Montreal, in Ottawa, as well as in different parts of the United States. And you’ve seen that in the increase in number of lone-wolf attacks, these are attacks by Islamists who basically decide they’re gonna carry out jihad in the United States or in Canada for the sake of jihad. And if you look at the numbers, the numbers have been increasing actually in the last one-half decade than decreasing. So I think, look, the bottom line is, to the extent that these plots are interdicted and stopped, you know people don’t feel the threat. As soon as one plot is successful, I can guarantee you, all the complacency in the world will stop immediately in Canada or the United States.

Lilley: Alright, Steve great talking to you as always. The Investigative Project on Terrorism. You can find out more from their website. We’ll chat again soon my friend.

Awareness Month for Islamophobia AKA Taqiyya Month

“Liberalism go to hell,” yet liberals are the biggest champions for Islam.

“Liberalism go to hell,” yet liberals are the biggest champions for Islam.

By  Rachel Molschky:

Everyone wants their awareness month these days, and Islam is no exception. As of 2012, Britain has declared November Islamophobia Awareness Month. This comes on the heels of Canada’s Islamic History Month in October. Studying the history of Islam’s conquests, rapes, mass murders, terrorism in general and other violence is actually quite a good idea. If only that were the focus, rather than a “celebration” of the most violent religion on earth.

According to the Muslim Council of Britain, “Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred is reaching worrying heights in Britain, across Europe and globally.” This statement is unsubstantiated. Muslim immigration to the UK is on an astronomical scale, Islam hasmade its way into the public school system, not to mention the existence of government-sponsored Muslim schools, halal food being forced upon non-Muslim British citizens, the increase in the construction of mosques and conversion of churches into mosques, the generous welfare benefits provided to Muslims, which are often abused and are draining the British economy, and the gradual removal of all things religious (such as Christmas decorations) in order to avoid offending Muslims. (The exception is any Muslim religious attire or symbols which are allowed, as Muslims belong to the only religion permitted to be openly observed, even prayers in the streets.) Where pray tell, is the hatred? British society is catering to Islam, not acting out against it.

He’s against the freedom of expression, yet there he is freely expressing himself. Photo Source

He’s against the freedom of expression, yet there he is freely expressing himself.

He’s against the freedom of expression, yet there he is freely expressing himself.

Any anti-Islamic sentiment is based on the government’s insistence of forcing Islam upon its people, displacing the native population with an economically unsustainable amount of immigrants who refuse to assimilate to any degree whatsoever, are largely out of work and living off the government, thereby providing absolutely no benefit to the nation whatsoever, and who follow a religion which teaches them to hate the very nation which has generously opened its borders and government programs to help them. In fact, the gratitude is so nonexistent, these immigrants parade around the streets demanding the law of the land to be replaced with their own laws, screaming for their rights, attempting to force their religion upon others and calling for anyone who insults them to be decapitated. Yet the police protect them, the government gives them handouts and punishes their native population for being upset about being supplanted by a group of people who are now becoming second, third and fourth generation immigrants (rather than first, second or third generation Brits because with the lack of assimilation, they remain more loyal to their ancestors’ homeland than they do to Britain or any other country in the West where they arrive), a people who follow a religion with a set of values drastically clashing with the traditional Judeo-Christian values that are the moral foundation of the native population.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

 

Islamic Thugismo at Work

gBy David Solway:

Recently a close friend received a notice of libel for an article he had written detailing the unsavory ties between a notable Islamic organization and the Muslim Brotherhood. Although most of the evidence adduced in the piece was conclusive, there was a degree of reasonable interpretation based on a number of obscure passages on the organization’s website, which my friend did not hesitate to point out. Some of his language was perhaps intemperate, but not appreciably different from what has been posted and printed in innumerable blogs, websites and political volumes, certainly since 9/11. (See, for example, Miroslav Marinov’s devastating takedown of CAIR-CAN, rebadged as the National Council of Canadian Muslims, on Blog Wrath [1].) The article contained a minor glissando, in which the organization in question was conflated with another radical semblable, since the two groups had worked together on numerous occasions and shared the same notorious board member — a man who had declared his greatest hero to be Hassan al-Banna [2], the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who regarded Hitler as a role model for Muslims. The acronymic error — one site’s alphabetical moniker mixed up with the other’s — was understandable in the circumstances and easily rectified.

Moreover the Islamic website my friend had consulted was under construction, doubtlessly in order for the organization to distance itself from its previous somewhat rancid embodiment. None of this prevented the offended group from retaining a prominent law firm to sue a private citizen of limited means on the shaky grounds of defamation. Within the terms of Canadian defamation law, which massively favor the complainant, a leftist judge would likely find my friend guilty — and leftist judges abound in the country, consciously or unconsciously working in tandem with disputatious Muslim councils and associations. These latter use the laws of our country to make non-Muslims less free, and leftist lawyers and judges enable them to do so. A decision [3] by Canada’s Supreme Court rendered on February 27, 2013, stated that in certain cases truth is no defense in the framework of causing offense to designated minority groups.

Thus, such brawny Muslim organizations and their minions, initiating predatory  defamation suits, are able to flaunt their thugismo with almost total impunity. The same applies to Muslims acting as individuals, whether lawyers, imams or students, amplifying the nuisance factor until it reaches untenable proportions. A human rights suit filed against publisher and journalist Ezra Levant by Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy for reprinting the Danish cartoons in his newspaper, The Western Standard, cost Levant 900 days of litigation, over $100,000 — and The Western Standard. This despite the fact that Soharwardy ultimately withdrew his complaint.

Similarly, a suit lodged by one Mohamed Elmasry, an adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, against Canada’s largest weekly, MacLean’s magazine, for publishing a book excerpt by Mark Steyn about the Islamic threat to the West, led to the predictable result. The suit cost the magazine $2 million despite an eventual acquittal. Nonetheless, it was mission accomplished for the Islamic machine: MacLean’s now steers clear of sensitive Islamic subjects. (See Levant’s Shakedown [4] for an account of these travesties of justice.) Under the peculiar laws governing the status of Canada’s human rights commissions, neither of the plaintiffs had to cough up a cent, enjoying a free ride on the taxpayer’s dime.

Read more at PJ Media

Shahina Siddiqui’s Muslim Contribution to Canada

siddiquiBy :

Last week I called Manitoba’s announcement of Islamic History Month “an extraordinary act of dhimmitude.”

Of course, that’s not what the Chairwoman of Islamic History Month Canada, Shahina Siddiqui, calls it. She says that it is an opportunity for Muslims to “celebrate, inform, educate and share with fellow Canadians the Muslim cultural heritage” in order to “help build a more inclusive, compassionate and multicultural Canada.”

Let’s put aside the fact that for some Canadians, the Muslim cultural heritage, with its appalling record of violence, hatred, bigotry, and barbarity, is something we’d rather not share (for evidence-based  confirmation of this description, consider the work of Bat Ye’orSir Martin GilbertRobert IrwinSteven EmersonEfraim Karsh, and Ibn Warraq). Let’s simply consider Ms. Siddiqui’s own record as an advocate for Islam.

In her personal history as a Muslim spokesperson, Siddiqui is a vivid illustration of a certain kind of Muslim contribution to Canada, of which I offer a few highlights.

Ms. Siddiqui is litigious. In 2004, she was responsible for a lengthy human rights complaint against B’nai Brith Canada for its hosting of an anti-terrorism conference for police, firefighters, and paramedics. Siddiqui lodged the complaint, which was investigated and ultimately dismissed by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, because she felt the B’nai Brith-sponsored event was biased against Muslims. She had not actually attended the workshop, which was given by an internationally respected counter-terrorism organization, but she had spoken to a couple of people who did attend—and felt that in focusing onMuslim terrorism (gasp!), the event promoted hatred.

Given that in our time, Muslims are a majority of those who commit acts of terrorism and that they usually do so specifically in the name of Islam, it is hard to imagine how any legitimate counter-terrorism event could address terrorism without a sustained focus on Islam; nonetheless, Siddiqui took advantage of Canada’s hate speech legislation to hound B’nai Brith into a costly defence, and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, to its everlasting shame, saw fit to pursue the complaint for five years before finally dismissing it for lack of evidence.

This is a Siddiqui modus operandi, it seems, labeling anti-terror activism as “hate propaganda” and seeking to censor it.

Read more at Front Page

Canada’s Growing Islamic Radicalization a Warning Sign

by Abigail R. Esman:

Islamic History Month Comes to Manitoba, Canada

045-1008071838-canadian-muslim-450x327By :

[What will it include?]

A few weeks ago, in an extraordinary act of dhimmitude, Manitoba became the first Canadian province to proclaim October as Islamic History Month, a month designed to recognize the province’s “flourishing Muslim community.” Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Christine Melnick gushed that “In Manitoba we value and cherish our ethnic diversity, to which the Muslim community contributes so richly.”

Also present at the announcement was Shahina Siddiqui, the chairwoman of Islamic History Month Canada (IHMC), founded in 2007 by the notorious Canadian Islamic Congress, whose former President Mohamed Elmasry once refused to retract on public television his statement that all Israelis over age 18 were legitimate targets for terrorist attacks, and who wasted hundreds of thousands of public dollars pursuing a human rights complaint against Maclean’s magazine for publishing articles critical of Islam. None of that aggressive Islamic supremacism was evident in the feel-good tropes trotted out by Siddiqui, who stated in the news release that she and her community “are pleased to celebrate, inform, educate, and share with fellow Canadians the Muslim cultural heritage” in order to build “a more inclusive, compassionate, and multicultural Canada.”

Anyone who has been paying attention to the news over the past few years may well question whether Muslim presence tends to contribute to “compassion” and “inclusivity.” Tell that to the Christians being massacred in Muslim lands across the Middle East or to the European Jews who find themselves, yet again, the target of slurs, vandalism, beatings, and murder because they are unfortunate enough to be living in areas with concentrations of Muslim immigrants. Islam just doesn’t seem to be a religion that produces a lot of compassion.

For those with negative perceptions of Islam, the Manitoba announcement will, if not lay our fears to rest, certainly indicate decisively that Manitoba has now ruled them out of bounds. The Manitoba provincial website proclaims that Islamic History Month is intended to “recognize and celebrate the history and heritage of Muslims.”

One might be forgiven for not realizing that Muslims have made a significant enough contribution to Manitoba to deserve an entire month of celebration. Manitoba’s Muslims number around 9,000, less than 1% of Manitoba’s total population of just over 1.2 million people.

Like most parts of Canada, Manitoba has a relatively multicultural demographic, with many diverse groups who have made substantial contributions to the province’s history. Ukrainians, for example, first arrived in Manitoba in 1891 and constitute, according to the 2006 census, nearly 13% (167,175 people) of the present-day population. This Slavic group forms the backbone of modern Manitoba, having played a significant role in agricultural development as well as in the spheres of business, manufacturing, the trades and professions. As an item on Manitoba history notes, “there are six members of Ukrainian origin sitting in the legislative assembly, one of whom is the speaker of the house, and [Ukrainian-Canadians] have been elected reeves, mayors, councillors, and aldermen in eighteen municipalities.”

Another distinct and vital part of the province are Manitoban Jews, who arrived even earlier than Ukrainians, in 1874. Although their numbers have never been large (they are now, at 16,500, only about 1.3% of the provincial population), and although anti-Semitism created many barriers during their first century in the province, Jews made enormous contributions as farmers, laborers, storekeepers, lawyers, judges, political leaders, teachers, and philanthropists. Neither of these groups is publicly recognized with its own Manitoban month. The fact is that there aren’t enough months in the year to properly acknowledge all the peoples who have made Manitoba what it is, and such attempts at recognition are bound to create bad blood.

In the case of Manitoba’s 9,000 Muslims, it isn’t clear why they deserve special acknowledgement; the announcement does not get past bromides about diversity. A few years ago, a dozen Muslim families in Winnipeg made national headlines for demanding that their children be excused from participating in two mandatory primary-level school programs: music (not part of their culture, they claimed) and physical co-education (not morally acceptable). The same Chair of IHMC, Shahina Siddiqui, then executive director of Islamic Social Services in Winnipeg, was quick to point out in interview that these are a minority of Manitoba’s Muslims. Some Muslims do have a problem with co-education at the higher school levels, she confirmed, and accommodation has been made for them. But there should be no problem with co-education “under the age of puberty.”

Come again? Why should accommodation be made at any time?

And here we get to the heart of the matter: the demand that Muslim cultural traditions and doctrines—even those that run directly counter to Canadian values such as gender equality—take precedence over Canadian laws. Rather than accepting and seeking to become a part of the society to which they have chosen to immigrate, Muslims such as these demand special accommodations and rights—for halal food, single-sex swimming times, special worship spaces, and so on.

Read more at Front Page

Canadian Muslims Protest “Honor Killing” Label As Racist

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News

Freedom Fighters at the 2013 OSCE Human Rights Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, Poland

Gates of Vienna:

The Human Dimension Implementation Meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) convened in Warsaw last week. A team of liberty-loving people from Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, the UK, and the USA was in attendance. They represented the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE-Austria and -Germany), ACT! for America, ACT! for Canada, the Center for Security Policy, the Stresemann Foundation, and Women for Freedom.

A group photo of the core team is below:

oscewarsawteam2013

Back row:

  • Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (Austria), Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE-Germany)
  • Polish representative, International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)
  • UK representative, International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)
  • Alain Wagner (France) , International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)
  • David Erzet (Belgium), International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)
  • Henrik Ræder Clausen (Denmark), International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)
  • Chris Knowles (UK), International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)
  • Felix Strüning (Germany), Stresemann Foundation — A Lobby for Freedom

Front row:

  • Ned May (USA), International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)
  • Stephen Coughlin (USA), Center for Security Policy
  • Valerie Price (Canada), ACT! for Canada
  • Marie-Luise Hoffmann-Polzoni (Germany), Women for Freedom
  • Liz Schmidt (Germany), Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE-Austria)
  • Dave Petteys (USA), ACT! for America 5280 Coalition

The team worked with tireless dedication all week.

******

Henrik R Clausen describes the OSCE as follows:

OSCE, the Organisation for Security and Coorperation in Europe, is an organisation created to follow up on the Helsinki Accords and ensure their full implementation in Europe and related countries. This is a noble purpose, but since organisations like this have an inherent risk to become narrow worlds of professionals, a watchful eye from the public may be useful to uphold the ideals…. OSCE is one of those great, classical organisations that listeners to news know about quite well. Statements and recommendations from OSCE weigh in heavily in political decision-making and it is thus quite an influential organisation. Participants are 56 countries, which includes Europe, Central Asia and North America, as well as large and small NGO’s from the area.

via ICLA:

Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolff, Liz Schmidt, Ned May, and Stephen Coughlin attended the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw this week. They took some time out to appear on Secure Freedom Radio.  The International Civil Liberties Alliance was represented by Ned May.

The radio interviews can be found HERE and are well worth listening to.

Reference was made to the ODIHR side event at which the OSCE’s controversial booklet Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims: Addressing Islamophobia through Education was discussed.  It was noted that this booklet used the word “Islapmophobia” including in its subtitle, but some of those who had put the booklet together were unable to come up with a coherent definition of the term.  As many will realise, the lack of a precise definition will inevitably result in abuse by state authorities and will be used to undermine the basic human rights of those who voice concerns about sharia law.

*********

According to The Center For Security Policy these OSCE meetings “are heavily influenced by Soros funded groups on the one hand and OIC influenced entities on another”. To ensure monitoring of basic rights and freedoms, and to register concerns, “interventions” were formally given on 4 subjects.

The interventions by Stephen Coughlin representing CSP are below. For full coverage and more videos go to Gates Of Vienna and International Civil Liberties Alliance.

———————————————————

OSCE Human Rights Dimension Implementation Meeting

Working Session 1

Tolerance and Non-Discrimination

Warsaw, 23 September 2013

Thank you Mister Moderator,

This intervention concerns the Annotated Agenda that makes generous use of the term “aggressive nationalism”.

CSP would like a clarification of the term “aggressive nationalism.”  Is there such a thing as “non-aggressive nationalism?”  Is any assertion of national identity per se aggressive?

In addition, words such as “racism”, “xenophobia”, “intolerance”, and “discrimination” are biased terms that are not adequately defined.  CSP is of the opinion that their purpose is to shut down debate by stigmatizing, marginalizing, and intimidating people who hold certain opinions.  These words should be avoided unless they can be defined in such a manner that enjoys the consensus of all participants regardless of their political, social and cultural views.

Recommendation to ODIHR and Participating States: To refrain from using these terms until they are precisely and officially defined and accepted by the consensus of all participating groups holding diverse views.

###

Working Session 2

Tolerance and Non-Discrimination

Warsaw, 24 September 2013

Thank you Madam Moderator,

While we appreciate the width and the severity of topics discussed here, the Center for Security Policy sees a need to object to the use of terms, which are undefined, ill defined, or defined by non-OSCE entities and whose purpose is to stigmatize, marginalize, and intimidate those holding dissenting opinions.

Examples include, but are not limited to; “intolerance”, “discrimination”, “racism”, “hate”, “xenophobia”, and “Islamophobia” without reference to any underlying claims or facts.

The use of controversial undefined terms to attack citizens has been a notorious strategy employed by oppressive and totalitarian political regimes seeking to silence dissent.

CSP Recomends that the OSCE and ODIHR suspend this practice until a published definition of terms is provided that meets EU Human Rights and U.S. Civil Rights scrutiny.

Thank you for your time and attention.

 ###

 

Working Session 6

Freedom of Religion or Belief

Warsaw, 26 September 2013

Thank you Madam Moderator,

Center for Security Policy is concerned with how emerging definitions of “incitement” can be open to permissive interpretations that include claims of being incited by the free and open exercise of one’s faith both individually and as a group.  Increasingly, there is a trend to associate incitement with the harsh responses of others that have the effect of blaming the victim for the hostile responses of the abuser.  This cannot be allowed to establish itself as an international legal standard.

Related concerns are expressed with regard to the emerging use of terms like “intolerance” and “discrimination” when applied to the free exercise of one’s faith.

CSP Recommends that the ODIHR ensure that terms like “incitement” not be allowed to have open-ended definitions that can be foreseeably used to cause a chilling effect on what would otherwise be protected speech and faith.

Thank you for your time and attention.

 ###

Working Session 8

Freedom of Assembly & Association

Warsaw, 27 September 2013

Thank you Madam Moderator,

Center for Security Policy

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please note that the right is to assemble peaceably.  I would submit that this was the gold standard when implemented in 1791 and remains so today.  The right to peaceably assemble was put at parity with the other rights enumerated in the First Amendment.

The right to associate includes the right not to associate or not to be compelled to do so.  This simply recognizes that association is itself a form of expression.  Where the state can compel association, it undermines the right.

Rights granted by the state are no rights at all.  Basic rights are capable of being expressed in basic terms.  When the expression of basic rights are recast in tortured language that can only be comprehended by individuals credentialed by elite organizations operating in elite forums, the very nature of what it means to be a basic right loses meaning.  When the citizen loses the ability to maintain subject matter awareness of the very meaning of those basic rights, they are diminished and made subject to those who have the power to influence rarified narratives.  This comes at the cost of those basic rights’ very meaning.  Citizens are becoming increasingly dispossessed of their rights by the very process of making them incomprehensible.

One way of demonstrating the efficacy of “new understandings” of “cutting edge” work being done by “experts” on basic rights such as freedom of expression is that they make reference to a myriad number of forums producing numerous “cutting edge” theories requiring a full-time commitment to monitoring them just to remain aware.

There was a time when basic rights could be expressed in as basic terms as this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is as basic as that.  In more ways than one, it was the gold standard then and remains so today.  Simplicity is inherent in the expression of a basic right.  An indicator that basic rights are at risk is that they have been made subject to such “cutting edge” analysis.  New is not always better.  Cutting edge legal analysis can be used as much to deconstruct one’s rights as to build them up.

CSP Recommends that the ODIHR ensures that the treatment of the expression of basic rights not lose sight of their basic meaning by expressing them in commonly understood language using commonly defined terms.  This includes the right to peaceably assemble.

Thank you for your time and attention.

 

Canada Ditches Obama’s Favorite Terror-Funding Charity

1137_img0_ISNACLogoBy :

Last Friday, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced that it has revoked the charitable status of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Development Foundation, after an audit of its books produced evidence linking it to Pakistani terrorist groups. “The Government of Canada has made it clear that it will not tolerate the abuse of the registration system for charities to provide any means of support to terrorism,” said a CRA press release.

The CRA, which is the Canadian equivalent of the IRS, issued the 71-page “letter of revocation,” after auditing two years’ worth of activity that took place from Jan. 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2009. Complete with flow charts, it detailed funding transactions between the IDF and the Kashmiri Canadian Council/Kashmiri Relief Fund of Canada (KCC/KRFC), a group the CRA considers non-qualified donees under Canada’s Income Tax Act.

The CRA believes the IDF did this for the purpose of relinquishing control of the funds to the KCC/KRFC, who in turn sent money to the Pakistani-based Relief ISNA Development for Kashmiri Muslims (ROKM) for ostensible “relief work” in Kashmir. The IDF supplied official donation receipts to the donors, while it disbursed more than $280,000 to ROKM, either directly, or via KCC/KRFC.

The CRA said the ROKM is the charitable arm of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a political group that contests the legitimacy of the Indian government’s control over the state of Kashmir, to the point of advocating secession. ROKM’s efforts includes activities perpetrated by its armed wing, the Hizbul Mujahideen. The Council of the European Union considers the Hizbul Mujahideen a terrorist organization as does the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, which cites Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 as the basis of that designation.

The foundation “facilitated the transfer of resources that may have been used to support the efforts of a political organization . . . and its armed wing,” the CRA said in a letter sent to the IDF. “Canada’s commitment to combating terrorism extends to preventing organizations with ties to terrorism from benefiting from the tax advantages of charitable registration,” it added.

Acting IDF president G. Nabi Chaudhary disputed the CRA’s contentions. “The money did not go to any groups who were freedom fighters,” he insisted. “We made sure that all of the money the charity sent to those organizations was spent on the needy, to help the misplaced. We had people on the ground who were working with the relief organizations.”

IDF board members contradicted Chaudhary’s assertions. “Once the money left Canada, (the foundation) had no control over the money, how it was spent or what it was to be spent on,” board members said, according to the CRA.

In addition, the charity could not produce any documents for CRS auditors proving otherwise. The only evidence the IDF did produce, photographs purporting to show relief efforts being done on its behalf, were “altered,” according to the tax agency. They conducted a forensic investigation revealing that pictures of men performing relief work in front of an IDF banner had been doctored, specifically the banner itself.

The CRA is conducting other audits of charities affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America Canada. Their efforts were precipitated after a 2011 investigation conducted by Star, a Canadian newspaper, revealed that ISNA mismanaged more than $600,000 in charitable contributions earmarked for the poor. An audit showed that of about $810,777 collected over four years, only $196,460 aided the poor.

Much of it went to affiliated services and businesses, many of which listed ISNA Canada’s long-time secretary general, Mohammad Ashraf, as a director, despite federal laws that forbid charities from spending donations on business activities that do not aid the charity. After running ISNA Canada for 32 years Ashraf was forced to retire in 2011.

Read more at Front Page