Terrorists Can Speak in Canada, Pamela Geller Can’t

canadafreespeechBy Daniel Greenfield:

The Canadian reality is still different than the American reality. And the Canadian reality is different than the European reality. But the gaps between the three are shrinking.

York Regional Police threatened to remove a rabbi as one of the force’s chaplains if he hosted a controversial anti-Islamist speaker at his Thornhill synagogue.

Insp. Ricky Veerappan, of the force’s diversity, equity and inclusion bureau, confirmed he and officers from the service’s hate crimes unit met with Rabbi Mendel Kaplan of the Chabad Flamingo Synagogue on Tuesday.

Veerappan said he told Kaplan that Geller’s speech “would not be endorsed by York Regional Police” and that the rabbi’s role as a force chaplain would be thrown into question if he were to permit the event.

“If he did (host Geller), then we’d have to reassess our relationship with (Kaplan),” Veerappan said. “We serve the needs of the entire community. Some of the stuff that Ms. Geller speaks about runs contrary to the values of York Regional Police and the work we do in engaging our communities.”

Veerappan said a member of York Region’s Muslim community, whom he wouldn’t identify, brought Geller’s scheduled talk to the attention of police.

In March, the University of Toronto hosted controversial Muslim lecturer Tariq Ramadan, who has also spoken in Toronto at the annual Islamic faith conference, Reviving the Islamic Spirit. In October, Pakistani politician Imran Khan, a controversial critic of the U.S. war on terror, spoke in Brampton. Leila Khaled, a Palestinian revolutionary from the 1970s, is set speak at University of British Columbia on May 4.

The rules are fairly straightforward. Muslims are allowed to do anything they like because interfering with them might rile them up. And non-Muslims are only allowed to praise Islam because otherwise Muslims might get riled up.

There is no standard of behavior. Only a security concept that stakes everything on not riling Muslims up.  And that means free speech goes by the wayside.

Obama officials have engaged in similar efforts to silence and even imprison those who burned Korans or made movies offensive to Muslims. Every Western country is falling under the same mandate that conflates national security with not offending Muslims.

In the name of that inoffensiveness, Muslim speakers who promote terrorism are tolerated in order not to offend the Muslims who might otherwise turn to terrorism. And non-Muslims who oppose terrorism are silenced because if they speak, Muslims might turn to terrorism.

This is the upside down world that appeasement has given us where black is white and good is evil.

Read more at Front Page

 

Related articles

Time to Derail the Saudi “Visa Express”

timthumbBy Clare Lopez:

Preferential, fast-lane treatment for Saudi visa applicants should be considered on a reciprocal basis, with verifiable Saudi progress in stopping funding for Wahhabi-Salafist mosque construction; Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated imams; anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-West curriculum materials and jihadi fighters everywhere on Sharia battlefields.

One of the more striking—and worrisome—aspects of the April 2013 Boston Marathon terror attack and the cross-border al-Qa’eda/Iran plot to bomb a passenger railway that runs between New York City and Toronto, Canada is the realization that all four suspects so far identified in the two plots had entered legally into the United States and Canada, respectively. Crossing legally into Western countries targeted for terror attacks, entering immigrant and refugee streams without drawing attention from security services, and blending into existing multicultural communities while establishing personas indistinguishable from those of tens of thousands of other new arrivals, appears to be a tried and true modus operandi for Islamic jihadis. It definitely worked for the fifteen of nineteen 9/11 hijackers who were Saudis.

Given the reality of that threat, brought home yet again to North America with these two latest plots, now is probably not the best time for the current administration to revive the visa program that allowed the Saudi government to help screen visa applicants for fast-track entry into the U.S. And yet, that is exactly what just happened: an agreement between the U.S. and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was reached in January 2013 that would accept Saudi applicants into the Global Entry Trusted Traveler program. Prince Mohammed bin Nayef heads the Saudi Interior Ministry that will screen Saudi applicants when the pilot program begins in 2014. To his credit, bin Nayef has led an internal Saudi crackdown against al-Qa’eda and survived an al-Qa’eda assassination attempt in retaliation. On the other side of the ledger, however, Saudi Arabia is the world’s foremost sponsor of both Islamic jihad and Da’wa [Islamic religious outreach], the source of funding and inspiration for promoters of Islamic Sharia law and anti-Western suicide bombers alike across the globe.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Iran Linked to Al-Qaeda Bomb Plot in Toronto

Canadian Mounted Police Spokesman

Canadian Mounted Police Spokesman

By Ryan Mauro:

Two individuals linked to the Al-Qaeda network in Iran have been arrested in Canada, foiling a plot to derail a train from New York to Toronto. Though Canadian officials and media reports emphasize that there’s no evidence tying the Iranian regime to the plot, the Obama Administration confirmed in 2011 that Iran and Al-Qaeda had a “secret deal.”

“The individuals were receiving support from Al-Qaeda elements located in Iran,” said Royal Canadian Mounted Police official James Malizia.

An anonymous U.S. official influenced press coverage by telling Reuters that the Iranian regime does not protect the Al-Qaeda network in its territory. The official apparently believes the Iranian regime is capable of preventing another Green Revolution but is somehow unable to round up an Al-Qaeda network that the U.S. government has publicly identified.

In July 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department said, “By exposing Iran’s secret deal with al-Qaeda, allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism.” It said that the Al-Qaeda network in Iran serves as a “core pipeline” for the terrorist group to move personnel and resources from the Middle East to South Asia.

The leadership in Iran has been referred to as one of Al-Qaeda’s “Management Councils.” The network has been active in Iran since at least 2005. Al-Qaeda members in Iran are permitted to operate with restrictions. Terrorism expert Peter Bergen said it “was kept more or less under control by the Iranian government, which viewed it with suspicion.”

The U.S. government has sanctioned the two leaders of the Iran-based Al-Qaeda network: Muhsin al-Fadhil and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi. The former took over the network after being released from Iranian detention. Al-Harbi is involved in Internet operations and oversees the movement of Al-Qaeda personnel and supplies to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Curiously, the Saudi national originally questioned for possible involvement in the Boston bombings may be related to Al-Harbi. The Saudi, Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, is also reportedly on a terrorist watch list.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

Related articles:

Two Arrested in al-Qaida-Tied Canadian Rail Plot

article-2313125-196F9556000005DC-459_634x368by IPT News  •  Apr 22, 2013 at 5:25 pm

Amnesty Int’l: Don’t Call Female Genital Mutilation “Barbaric”

281851582_221142755001_100723FGM-3622281By Abigail Esman:

Recently, I penned an article about  an Amnesty International initiative: an art project for which the organization had commissioned artists and designers to address the devastating problem of female genital mutilation, or FGM – using 8,000 paper rose petals.  The petals had been gathered as part of a petition action to bring attention to – and to end – the practice of FGM, and were each signed by a member of the public who participated in the petition.  It was a laudable project, and I said so.

Amnesty responded with great appreciation for my story – but took exception to one detail.  I had  called FGM “barbaric,” and, said an Amnesty official, “we try not to use this word.”  In an e-mail, she explained, “The use of the word ‘barbaric’ suggests that the people who do this are less than human, which isn’t so because they are being led by social pressure which is what needs to be fought. So we avoid using this word to not judge the people.”

Overlooking the fact that “barbaric,” which means simply “uncultured,” “uncivilized,” or “uneducated,” does not quite suggest “less than human,” I could not help but wonder about the “not to judge them” part.  After all, if you set out to change a thing – a behavior, a place, a custom  (and especially if you set out to end it) – haven’t you already implicitly expressed a judgment?  And how is calling a custom, a practice, “barbaric,” conferring a judgment on the people who perform it?

This is the question that occurred to me soon after this exchange as I read about a similar situation in Canada, where, once again, the term “barbaric,” used to describe FGM – as well as honor killings – came under fire.  According to a report in Front Page, “Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word ‘barbaric’ might ‘stigmatize some cultures.’”

Now, perhaps it’s just me, but I can’t think of many things moreundemocratic than censorship of language; but that, apparently, is precisely what the Canadian “New Democratic Party” seeks.

Hearing of Ms. Sims’ remarks, I was reminded of the words of another, wiser politician: former British Home Secretary Michael Howard, who, in defense of artistic freedom, once remarked, “We are uniquely fortunate in these  islands to have the English language. It is no accident that we have had and do have such a profusion of brilliant poets, playwrights, novelist and songwriters.

We must never allow the richness of that language to be diluted by bending the knee to the tyranny of political correctness.”  [Emphasis added, A.E.]

What wonderful words.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Canadian Left Calls for ‘Neutrality’ on Honor Killings & Female Genital Mutilation

clitorectomyBy :

Cultural relativism has reached a new point of absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy.

A recently introduced manual by the Government of Canada intended to teach newcomers about Canadian values and Canadian society has been met with ongoing hostility from left-wing Canadians and politicians over the choice of words in describing female genital mutilation and honor killings. Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word “barbaric” might “stigmatize some cultures.”

Aside from official protestations, everyone can imagine the type of cultural relativist rhetoric that has been used to attack the Conservative government for releasing this guide. The blogosphere has been filled with “liberal-minded” Canadians continuing in the same vein as Ms. Sims, suggesting the term “barbaric” is somehow discriminatory or offensive to a particular group. However, reasoned thought on the matter should conclude on the exact opposite; that it is offensive to those forced to endure such ordeals to call them anything but barbaric. Unfortunately, sensitivity towards this group (as per usual) is ignored.

Taking up the relativist banner was also none other than Justin Trudeau, front-runner for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and son of the infamous Canadian Prime Minister who brought multiculturalist policy to Canada. He attacked the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric,” and suggested that the term was a “pejorative” and that “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Justin Trudeau’s Islamist Revival (counterjihadreport.com)

‘A Stew of Anti-Muslim Bile and Conspiracy-Laden Forecasts’

Picture-10-450x295 (1)By :

At 11:20 a.m. on Feb. 5, Lars Hedegaard answered his door bell to an apparent mailman. Instead of receiving a package, however, the 70-year-old Danish historian and journalist found himself face to face with a would-be assassin about one third his age. The assailant shot him once, narrowly missing his head. The gun locked, Hedegaard wrestled with him, and the young man fled.

Given Hedegaard’s criticism of Islam and his even being taken to court on criminal charges of “hate speech,” the attack reverberated in Denmark and beyond. The Associated Pressreported this incident, which was featured prominently in the British press, including the Guardian, the Daily Mail, and the Spectator, as well as in Canada’s National Post. The Wall Street Journal published an article by him about his experience.

When the New York Times belatedly bestirred itself on Feb. 28 to inform its readership about the assassination attempt, it did not so much report the event itself but an alleged Muslim support for Hedegaard to express himself. As implied by the title of Andrew Higgins’ article, “Danish Opponent of Islam Is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak,” he mainly celebrates Danish Islam: “Muslim groups in the country, which were often criticized during the cartoon furor for not speaking out against violence and even deliberately fanning the flames, raised their voices to condemn the attack on Mr. Hedegaard and support his right to express his views, no matter how odious [emphasis added].” This theme pervades the piece; for example, Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration, is quoted pleased that “the Muslim community is now active in the debate.”

(For a close dissection of this agitprop, see Diana West’s evisceration; and see Andrew Bostom’s analysis for a comparison of Higgins to Walter Duranty, the NYT reporter who whitewashed Stalin’s crimes.)

Secondarily Higgins delegitimizes Hedegaard, my topic here. In addition to the snarky “no matter how odious” reference, Higgins dismisses Hedegaard’s “opinions” as “a stew of anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war” and claims the Dane has “fanned wild conspiracy theories and sometimes veered into calumny.”

These characterizations of Hedegaard’s work are a vicious travesty. A few specifics:

1. What Higgins airily dismisses as Hedegaard’s “opinions” is in fact a substantial oeuvre in several academic books and articles laden with facts and references dealing with Islamic ideology, Muslim history, and Muslim immigration to Denmark. Those books include:

I krigens hus: Islams kolonisering af Vesten [In the House of War: Islam’s colonization of the West] (with Helle Merete Brix and Torben Hansen). Aarhus, Hovedland, 2003

1400 års krigen: Islams strategi, EU og frihedens endeligt [The 1400 Year War: Islam’s strategy, the EU and the demise of freedom] (with Mogens Camre). Odense, Trykkefrihedsselskabets Bibliotek, 2009

Muhammeds piger: Vold, mord og voldtægter i Islams Hus. [Muhammad’s girls: Violence, murder and rape in the House of Islam] Odense, Trykkefrihedsselskabets Bibliotek, 2011

Hedegaard’s major articles include:

“Den 11. september som historie” [September 11 as history] in Helle Merete Brix and Torben Hansen (eds.), Islam i Vesten: På Koranens vej? Copenhagen, Tiderne Skifter, 2002.

“The Growth of Islam in Denmark and the Future of Secularism” in Kurt Almqvist (ed.), The Secular State and Islam in Europe. Stockholm, Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation, 2007

“Free Speech: Its Benefits and Limitations” in Süheyla Kirca and LuEtt Hanson (eds.), Freedom and Prejudice: Approaches to Media and Culture. Istanbul, Bahcesehir University Press, 2008

“De cartoon-jihad en de opkomst van parallelle samenlevingen” [The cartoon jihad and the emergence of parallel societies] in Hans Jansen and Bert Snel (eds.), Eindstrijd: De finale clash tussen het liberale Westen en een traditionele islam. Amsterdam, Uitgiverij Van Praag, 2009

To the best of my knowledge, no one has claimed these writings contain sloppy scholarship or wrong references. As Hedegaard puts it, “I am a university-trained historian and take my craft seriously.” The real criticism of Hedegaard is not about his scholarship – but that he raises difficult and even unpleasant questions.

Read more at Front Page

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Intelligent Multiculturalism – Survival and the Beauty of Openness

blind-multiculturalism-vulnerable-to-invasionBy Citizen Warrior:

Blind multiculturalism and political correctness seem to be the only things  standing in the way of simply adopting what should be commonsense  self-defense: Arresting or deporting those who propose the overthrow of our government (which is apparently happening in the majority of mosques) and stopping all concessions to this relentless band of interlopers (orthodox Muslims).

If you’ve got someone pushing for special concessions regardless of fairness, and who have stated their intentions to usurp  the legitimate government, you would think it a no-brainer to stop them.

The two things that prevent most Westerners from even knowing about this  issue are political correctness and blind multiculturalism. These two  cultural blots prevent politicians from speaking openly and directly  about orthodox Islam. They prevent newspapers and television reporters  from reporting openly and honestly about it, and they even prevent  individual people talking about it among themselves out of fear of  making a social blunder and being considered racist or bigoted.

Of the two, I would say blind multiculturalism is the more important one.  If that’s true, it means the single biggest barrier to being heard by a  significant portion of the population of non-Muslims — the one thing  stopping a widespread public education about Islam — is blind  multiculturalism, so let’s deal with it right now.

Read more

The “Victimology” Subterfuge

Islamophobia is bogusby Christine Williams

To question or discuss Islam, or any religion, is not racism, it is not hate, it is not necessarily meant to “victimize” anyone. One is often left with the impression that if anyone ever felt that Mohammed, or Islam, even might have been insulted, no freedom-loving person can expect to be left in peace ever again. Canada and the West need to declare and defend a pluralistic, democratic approach to rights and freedoms without any shame, and without fear of offending anyone who might try to intimidate their citizens.

Islamists, who have, like many others, found ways of influencing Western democracies, have refined one process in particular, called al Taqiyya [dissimulation], sanctioned to promote Islam to “unbelievers” or “infidels,” if and when considered necessary. The word “Islamophobia,” for instance, has been disguised and misused so frequently that when Westerners merely question Islam, or its role in terrorism, they risk being branded as “Islamophobes” or “racists.” The term “victimology,” in which Islamists perpetually portray Muslims as victims of racism or of “colonialists” or “imperialists,” has also generated impressive results in vanquishing the infidel, and providing Islam an immunity from criticism and satirical depictions. As a result, whenever the subject about Islam is raised, open dialogue, media and public discourse are restricted or shut down out of fear of being branded “Islamophobic” or “racist,” even where no such sentiments may have been present. No other religion even attempts to obtain such blanket immunity.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird drew a line in the sand last spring in a keynote address to the American Jewish Committee Global Forum. He not only declared Canada’s resolute friendship to Israel, but also Canada’s commitment to a foreign policy that protects Canadian interests and promotes Canadian values of human rights, democracy, and freedom. He further avowed that “Canada will not go along to get along.” Yet, despite the Canadian government’s commitment to such values, it is confronted by the practice of al Taqiyya from Islamists, who appear to be using this method to hijack multiculturalism and suppress a key pillar of these freedoms: freedom of speech.

Take, for example, a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens, which stated that certain “barbaric” cultural practices, such as honor killings, would not be tolerated in Canada. In response to this, Liberal MP Justin Trudeau — son of the former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and expected to become the next Liberal party leader — castigated the government by stating that it should not call honor killings “barbaric;” that such language is unacceptable.

However, a man who slaughters his wife in front of their six children before throwing her dismembered head off an apartment rooftop is doing something “barbaric.” The murder of four women, driven into the Rideau Canal near Kingston, Ontario for the sake of so-called honor, and the murder of a  17 year old girl for not wearing a hijab, thereby bringing so-called dishonor to her family, are also acts that are barbaric, just as, in India, before the Raj, the practice of suttee – throwing a widow, live, onto the funeral pyre of her husband for the sake of her “honor” — was barbaric.

Many politicians, however, seem to be competing for votes here and abroad at the expense of the safety and well-being of their citizenry. The words of Islamists frequently seem to be skewed responses to events — pointing to an agenda to promote Shariah Law [Islamic religious law] globally, both through the subjugation of the West and through the delegitimization of Israel, with the ultimate goal of obliterating it.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Justin Trudeau’s Islamist Revival

790_largeby David B. Harris

Nothing says bug-eyed clerical fanaticism more than inviting a hate-spewing Saudi cleric to address your religious revival meeting. But this is part of the under-reported history of the Reviving the Islamic Spirit (RIS) Convention, a conference that Justin Trudeau, a frontrunner in Canada’s Liberal Party leadership race – and son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau – will address this weekend in Montreal. It’s also why moderate Muslims and non-Muslims are aghast at the prospect of Trudeau’s presence legitimizing the conference and some of its notables.