Canadian Islamist Groups Lose Charity Status Over Potential Militant Financing

by IPT News  •  Jul 19, 2017

Canadian authorities have stripped two former affiliates of the Islamic Society of North America’s Canada chapter (ISNA-Canada) of their charitable status after discovering financial ties between the Islamic organizations and a Pakistani militant group.

ISNA Islamic Services of Canada and the Canadian Islamic Trust Foundation lost their charity status for “non-compliance” following a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit, according to records acquired by Canada’s Global News.

The CRA discovered several issues during the audit, including evidence that ISNA Islamic Services facilitated donations that may have ended up in the hands of Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), a Kashmir-based militant group. According to the CRA report, the Toronto-based Jami Mosque raised and transferred funds to the ISNA Development Foundation “for remit” to the Relief Organization of Kashmiri Muslims (ROKM), a “charitable arm” associated with HM.

“Given the identified commonalities in directorship between ROKM and Jamaat-e-Islami and the Hizbul Mujahideen executive committee, concerns exist that the funds collected and disbursed as part of this relief fund may have been used to support the political efforts of Jamaat-e-Islami and/or its armed wing Hizbul Mujahideen,” the CRA said.

HM is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union and India. In June, the State Department put HM’s leader, Syed Salahuddin, on its terrorist designations list, citing his threats to train suicide bombers in Kashmir and HM’s responsibility for several deadly terrorist attacks.

This development comes four years after Canadian authorities revoked ISNA Development Foundation’s charity status for similarly raising funds that may have reached militants in Kashmir. In July 2013, the Toronto Star reported that ISNA-Canada may have funneled $280,000 to ROKM.

The 2013 CRA audit found numerous issues within the ISNA Development Foundation, including missing documentation, misleading financial reports, and sending donations abroad to unapproved groups. The ISNA affiliated organization engaged in these activities despite a stated purpose of serving the poor and needy in Canada.

A 2010 CRA audit found that ISNA-Canada itself misused more than $600,000 in donor funds.

A “very small portion … is distributed to the poor and needy and the major portion is spent on the administration of the centre,” concluded the 2010 audit. “Spending for personal expenses out of the charity’s funds is unethical,” the auditor wrote, saying it is “tantamount to misappropriation of funds.”

Former Gitmo inmate to receive $10 million and apology from Canadian government

Omar Khadr smiles as he answers questions during a news conference after being released on bail in Edmonton, Alberta, May 7, 2015. Khadr, a Canadian, was once the youngest prisoner held on terror charges at Guantanamo Bay. REUTERS/Todd Korol

American Thinker, by Rick Moran, July 5, 2017:

A former inmate of the Guantanamo prison camp, returned to Canada in 2015 and then released, will get $10 million from the Canadian government and an apology.

Omar Khadr, the son of a known al-Qaeda terrorist leader, was captured after a firefight in Afghanistan where he threw a grenade killing a US medic and wounding others. These facts are not in dispute. Khadr pleaded guilty to the charges but claimed he was a “child soldier” forced to fight by his father.

Khadr’s lawyer says his client was tortured by the US while he was at Guantanamo, suffering from sleep deprivation and psychological stress. The lawyer also claims that his client was not given adequate medical care.

Globe and Mail:

Mr. Khadr was captured in Afghanistan at the age of 15 in 2002, following a shootout with U.S. troops where he was badly wounded – blinded by shrapnel in one eye and with fist-sized exit wounds in his shoulder and chest.

He was accused of throwing a grenade that killed U.S. army medic Christopher Speer in the firefight and was sent to the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Khadr, now 30, spent more than 10 years in U.S. and Canadian custody, much of that time in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. Once the youngest detainee in Guantanamo, he was transferred to Canada in 2012 after accepting a plea deal.

Mr. Edney has said his client was treated abysmally even though he was a child soldier and his body shattered from wounds. U.S. interrogators subjected him to sleep deprivation and solitary confinement.

Mr. Edney said Mr. Khadr was coerced into fighting by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr – a top al-Qaeda operative until he was killed in a gunfight with Pakistani troops in 2003.

In March, Mr. Khadr underwent a 19-hour operation in an Edmonton hospital to repair his shoulder, which was severely damaged during the firefight with U.S soldiers.

“Nobody advocated for his health whatsoever. Even when he came back to Canada, I raised all those issues with the Correctional Services and of course [former prime minister Stephen] Harper was not interested in hearing anything like that,” Mr. Edney said in an interview last March.

Mr. Khadr was freed on bail in May, 2015, and released under the supervision of Mr. Edney.

He said he would “prove to [Canadians] that I’m a good person.”

From the battlefield to the hospital at Guantanamo, the US military saved this young man’s life. The idea that “nobody advocated for his health” is beyond insult. It is an outright lie.

As for torture, sleep deprivation is defined as torture in the UN convention, but the idea that a 15 year old son of a terrorist was a “child soldier” is ludicrous. The lawyers for Guantanamo inmates are notorious for lying and exaggerating about their clients’ treatment. Everything he says should be checked and double checked for accuracy.

Meanwhile, the widow of the US medic murdered by Khadr as well as a wounded soldier are looking to block the $10 million payment to Khadr.

Daily Caller:

Tabitha Speer, widow of Sgt. Christopher Speer, and Layne Morris are expected to ask the Ontario Superior Court on Wednesday to honor a 2015 Utah civil court order that demanded Khadr pay them $134 million.

“They are trying to get an emergency injunction in a Canadian court to have their award in the United States enforced in Canada,” The Globe and Mail is reporting an unnamed source as saying. “Their desire is to have U.S. courts enforced in Canada, which would mean that any money that goes to Mr. Khadr would go to them.”

Because of the cross-border jurisdictions, it is unlikely that Khadr’s victims will ever see any of the money.

Khadr’s lawyer, Dennis Edney, told the Globe and Mail that he could make no comment on the issue because “that is the arrangement with the government.”

The former Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a hard line on Khadr, refusing to recognize him as a “child soldier” as much of the Canadian media now describes the man who pled guilty to murder.

Harper’s successor, Conservative opposition leader Andrew Scheer, has condemned the potential pay-out to Khadr. He took to Twitter on Tuesday to say, “Canadians know this is wrong. If Omar Khadr is truly sorry for what he did, he’ll give every cent to Tabitha Speer and her two children.” Scheer did not respond to requests from The Daily Caller for further comment.

Rewarding a terrorist for killing Americans hardly sets a good precedent. But the liberal government wants to send a message about Guantanamo regardless of the feelings and sensibilities of a widow with two children and a blinded soldier.

Trudeau and his goverment should be ashamed of themselves – if they were even capable of such emotion.

***

***

Muslim Brotherhood Front Group Seeking Removal of Listing as a “Terrorism Entity”

Gatestone Institute, by Thomas Quiggin, March 27, 2017:

  • The application for judicial review made by IRFAN and Majid also attempts to distance themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood. This seems a bit difficult. Hamas itself was founded as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Article Two of the Hamas Charter.
  • This support for Hamas goes back to at least 1992.

The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) has been listed as a terrorism entity in Canada since 2014. It was also identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group during testimony to the Canadian Senate along with the Muslim Association of Canada, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and Islamic Relief Canada.

The listing as a terrorism entity followed the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) 2011 revocation of their charitable status after a multi-year investigation showed that IRFAN had been funding Hamas, otherwise known as the Muslim Brotherhood in the Palestinian territories. The CRA also made it clear that IRFAN was the successor organization to the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services (JFHS) which had also been funding Hamas. The CRA also observed that IRFAN was deliberately constructed to circumvent the Government of Canada so that it could fund Hamas after the Government of Canada refused to grant the JFHS charitable status.

In December 2016, IRFAN found out that its appeal the Minister of Public Safety to have the terrorism listing lifted was rejected.

On February 24, 2017, IRFAN and its former manager, Rasem Abdel Majid applied to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review of the Minister’s decision to maintain the terrorist entity listing. IRFAN listed 27 different grounds for why its supporters believe the terrorist designation should be lifted. Extracts from the motion state that:

(16) IRFAN-Canada did not directly or indirectly assist HAMAS. (…)

(17) There is no evidence that IRFAN-Canada attempted to advance the goals of HAMAS or any other organization affiliated with HAMAS.

(19) The listing briefing makes various irrelevant references to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Union of Good. (…) There is no evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood controlled any of IRFAN’s partner organizations or beneficiaries.

Unindicted Co-conspirators in a US Based Terrorism Funding Trial

Both IRFAN-Canada and the Canadian based Jerusalem Fund for Human Services (JFHS) were listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Relief Fund terrorism funding trials in the USA, which resulted in multiple convictions.[1] They were listed as the “Jerusalem Fund, aka IRFAN” and were specifically noted as “individuals/entities that are and/or were part of the Global HAMAS financing mechanism.”

Funding Hamas since 1992

In February 2001, IRFAN-Canada assumed the activities and pursuits of the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services (JFHS) according to the Canada Revenue Agency. This included keeping the same General Manager, Rasem Abdel Majid (AKA Abou Basem).[2] The terrorism funding money in question was sent to Hamas.

This support for Hamas goes back to at least 1992. On October 2-3, 1993, five leading members of the U.S. Palestine Committee met at the Marriott Courtyard Hotel in Philadelphia USA for a conference. As it turns out, the meeting was monitored by the FBI, which was already deeply suspicious of the intent of the individuals involved in the meeting. Wiretaps of this meeting were entered into evidence at the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), which resulted in convictions and heavy sentences for funding terrorism. The recipient of the funding was Hamas. At the meeting, the role of the Canadian-based Jerusalem Fund for Human Services was discussed.

A Canadian present at this meeting, Rasem Abdel Majid/Abou Basem discussed the fund-raising for Hamas in Canada, which had already been successful. It should be noted that Rasem Abdel Majid was the manager of the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services as well as being the manager for IRFAN throughout the life span of both organizations. The following conversation which concerned funding for Hamas was wiretapped and placed into evidence[3] at the HLF trial:

Abdel Halim Al Ashqar: We heard about Jerusalem for Human Services but we didn’t hear from our brothers at the (Islamic) Association (for Palestine) about what they do. So, I hope that media and public activism in Canada is mentioned if there is something prepared. It might be first opportunity for some of the brothers to meet people from Canada.

Abdel Halim Al Ashqar …Now, the second question, brother Abou Basem, is for Canada: how much do you raise annually?

Abou Basem: … m. The first half of this year [we raised] 214,000.

Abdel Halim Al Ashqar: [How about] last year?

Abou Basem: This is for ’93. From now until June ’93, we raised 214,000. In 1992 [we raised] 167 for the entire year.

The Muslim Brotherhood Connection

The application for judicial review made by IRFAN and Majid also attempts to distance themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood. This seems a bit difficult. Hamas itself was founded as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Article Two of the Hamas Charter. Additionally, the Holy Land Relief trials also produced a series of judgements which clearly identified Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood has being financially linked to a number of other actors in the funding conspiracy, including the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust. IRFAN/JFHS were listed as unindicted co-conspirators in this trial and were listed as part of the “Global HAMAS financing mechanism.” To round this off, Senate Testimony in Canada noted IRFAN has been a Muslim Brotherhood front group as stated at the outset of this article.

Public Safety Canada

According to a March 9, 2017 article titled “Canadian Charity Fights to Remove ‘Terrorist’ Label,” Public Safety Canada spokeswoman Karine Martel declined to comment on the situation, citing pending litigation. She did state, however, that “The Crown will be participating in that proceeding and addressing the issues raised in court,”

The lawyers representing IRFAN and Rasem Abdel Majid are Yavar Hameed, of Hameed Law of Ottawa and Faisal Mirza of Faisal Mirza Professional Corporation of Mississauga.

Tom Quiggin, a court qualified expert on terrorism and practical intelligence, is based in Canada.

Canada Condemns Islamophobia as 2nd Mosque Hosts Imam Calling for Murdering Jews

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, March 24, 2017:

Keeping your eyes on the great big shiny ball of Muslim victimhood.

The House of Commons voted Thursday afternoon to condemn “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination” but the vote for the controversial M-103 was not unanimous.

Liberals, New Democrats, and Green Party MP Elizabeth May were in favour; most Conservative and all Bloc Quebecois MPs were opposed. The vote was 201 for and 91 against…

The motion was proposed by Iqra Khalid, a first-time MP representing a Mississauga, Ont. riding.

Meanwhile Islamobigotry continues its glorious reign.

A second Montreal mosque hosted an imam offering a speech demonizing Jews and quoting from the Quran to kill them.

In a speech last December at the Dar al-Arkam mosque, Muhammad bin Musa al Nasr described Jews as “the most evil of mankind” and as “human demons,” the CIJNews reported Monday. He then quote from the Quran: at “the end of time … the stone and the tree will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me – come and kill him!’”

The mosque allowed the West Bank-born imam, a prominent member of the hard-line Salafist movement in Jordan, where he lectures at the al-Ahliyya University in Amman, to deliver more than a dozen other speeches as well.

I’m sure this Imam and his Islamic teachings have nothing to do with Islam. Also the second mosque had no problem hosting him despite the controversy over his first appearance. But we’re focusing on what’s important. Not Islamomurderism, but Islamophobia. It might be more tolerant if the House of Commons condemned Islamophilia.

***

Also see:

Canada’s New Blasphemy Laws

Gatestone Institute, by Khadija Khan, March 8, 2017:

  • Although these motions against “Islamophobia” are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.
  • People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.
  • Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

A resolution, M-103, seeking to condemn so-called “Islamophobia,” was introduced a few weeks ago in the peaceful country of Canada by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid in the House of Commons, sparking a controversy.

A similar motion, labelled M-37, was later tabled in the Ontario provincial legislature by MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers on February 23, 2017, and was passed by the provincial parliament.

M-37, like its predecessor, demanded that lawmakers condemn “all forms of Islamophobia” and reaffirm “support for government efforts, through the Anti-Racism Directorate, to address and prevent systemic racism across government policy, programs and services”.

Although these motions are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.

There are, of course, no comparable motions against “Judeophobia” or “Christianophobia”.

Neither motion M-103 nor motion 37 exactly define “Islamophobia,” leaving that to the imagination of the supposed victim(s).

Hardliners who support this form of censorship, and presumably other restrictions required by Islamic sharia law, aim to blur the line between genuine bigotry and criticism of core problems across the Muslim world, such as the murder of apostates and homosexuals, communal hatred, anti-Semitism, violence against women and minors, female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage, unequal legal and inheritance rights for women, stoning, flogging and amputation, and social taboos such as honour killings or right to choose a husband for girls or restrict girls’ education.

Those who present these motions claim that “Islamophobia” is rampant across the country, but seem blind to Islamic sharia law’s endorsement of killing homosexuals, violence against women and minors, atrocities such as those enumerated above, and notions of Muslim supremacy across the planet.

These issues are genuine concerns for millions of Muslims as well as human rights defenders, but are never addressed by those apologists, who always try to present these atrocities as perfectly acceptable “cultural norms”.

People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

Broadly speaking, in the West, where people have the opportunity to stand up against persecution, Muslim extremists seem determined to sell themselves as victims and to get rid of whatever obstacles contradict a clearly expansionist agenda.

Motion M-103 claimed: “Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam”.

Are those who set forth these resolutions oblivious to the clerics who rally hundreds of thousands across the world — organizations such as Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR, ISIS, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Jamat e Islami, Sipah-e-Muhammad, TehrikNifaz-i-FiqahJafaria, JamatudDawa, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-jhangwi, TehrikNifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Islam, Jamiat-ul-Ansar, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Khuddam-i-Islam, Fatah Al Islam (Lebanon), Ansar Al Sharia in Libya, Jabhat Al Nusra (Al-Nusra Front) in Syria, the Haqqani Network in Pakistan and other offshoots of these jihadi movements?

The sales pitch for M-103 was given a pretty façade of human rights concerns, but actually inside was a veiled endorsement of a Muslim supremacist mentality.

While M-103 asks to recognize the need to curb systematic racism and religious discrimination against Muslims, there are no traces of any systematic hatred or racism against Muslims or any religious groups in Canada.

On the contrary, Canada already has laws to curb any discrimination or abuse against individuals or groups. All that is needed is to enforce those laws already on the books.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal Code, carry progressive laws to handle hate crimes or racism. Section 318, 319(1) and 319(2) are specifically designed to deal with such offenses.

Moreover, criticizing any genuine social concerns about a community or belief system is the democratic right of every citizen in a civilized country.

Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

Under Muslim blasphemy laws, such as those being slowly presented to Canada, such deeds are punishable by death or life in prison.

Unfortunately, blasphemy laws are often interpreted as a state’s permission to attack, lynch or destroy non-Muslim minorities, while the attackers are regarded as heroes for their crimes.

Victims of these laws also include critics of this barbarism such as Punjab’s Governor Salmaan Taseer, Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights Shahbaz Bhatti, and often even human rights activists and the victims’ lawyers.

Aren’t we setting up the foundation of such norms in the West on pretense of curbing “Islamophobia”?

For example, a supposedly “infinitesimally small” number of jihadis are capable of shutting the mouths of approximately 200 million people (equivalent to the entire Pakistani population), seemingly forever, by literally killing dissent.

In the last century, the jihadis’ spiritual father, Sayyid Qutb, commissioned Muslims to impose salafist-style Islamic rule on the world by destroying the “infertile West” and eliminating anything non-Muslim.

Qutb’s book, Milestones, would undoubtedly be an eye-opener for those still unaware of what is required of “true” Muslims. The same is true of the writings of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This ideology is clawing its way into very fabric of the West, in places such as Britain, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, America, Australia and France.

It poses an imminent threat to the free world. Free societies will have to pay a heavy price if they choose to ignore the menace of extremism through a policy of appeasement and accommodation.

There is no need for specific laws about “Islamophobia”: it is not even defined. Worse, many extremist clerics also consider as “Islamophobic” any criticism of their jihadism, communal hatred, polygamy and violence against women, minors or possibly anyone else they target.

Canada has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world; please let us keep it that way.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist and commentator.

Canada Moves Forward with Anti-Islamophobia Measures

iqra-khalid-640x480

Breitbart, by Thomas D. Williams, Feb. 26, 2017:

The Canadian Parliament is debating a motion urging the government to “condemn Islamophobia” and “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.”

Motion 103, or M-103 as it is commonly called, was introduced in the House of Commons by Iqra Khalid, a Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) and a Pakistan-born Muslim Canadian.

Not long after an attack on a Quebec mosque in late January, the motion is now being debated in the House of Commons. It calls on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to undertake a study on what the government could do to reduce or eliminate systemic racism including Islamophobia and to present its findings no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of the motion.

The motion has generated passionate debate between supporters and opponents, and has raised at least five serious points of contention.

  1. The motion is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that anti-Muslim sentiment is growing in Canada

Although M-103 summons the government to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear,” its proponents have produced no evidence for the claim that such a public climate is indeed growing.

No statistics were presented to Parliament and no cases of Islamophobia were cited to back up the claim that anti-Muslim violence is on the rise in Canada.

On introducing the motion, Khalid cited strong anti-Muslim sentiment in Canada, alleging that she was “among thousands of Muslims who have been victimized because of hate and fear,” but no further evidence of such victimization was furnished.

  1. The motion fails to identify or define “Islamophobia”

According to Freudian psychology, a phobia is “an overwhelming and unreasonable fear of an object or situation that poses little real danger but provokes anxiety and avoidance.” Properly understood, therefore, a phobia is not just a fear, but an irrational fear that goes far beyond any real possible harm. It is the disproportion between the fear and the danger and the unreasonableness of the dread that characterizes a phobia.

Who will judge what degree of fear is proportionate in this case? Moreover, who will judge which expressions of concern over Islam are motivated by an irrational fear rather than an appropriate prudence?

Conservative MPs have contended that condemning “Islamophobia” without defining it could stifle legitimate debate about controversial issues like sharia law and the niqab.

The problem here is that any discussion of sharia law, the danger of Islamic terrorism or simply the relationship between the Islamic worldview and that of the Judeo-Christian West could easily provoke the accusation of Islamophobia.

Evidence of this can be seen in the way that the other phobia du jour—“homophobia”—is commonly used an as paralyzing insult for anyone who manifests the slightest hesitation to embrace homosexual activity as an unqualified moral good.

  1. The motion threatens to curb free-speech

A number of opponents to M-103 have sustained that the motion threatens free speech by targeting an attitude (“Islamophobia”) rather than a certain sort of illegal behavior. Many have logically deduced that measures aimed at curbing Islamophobia would include pro-Muslim government propaganda encouraging positive views of Islam, along with pressure on individuals not to express negative opinions.

Among Conservative politicians, Brad Trost expressed his fear that the motion would be an instrument of the “thought police in Ottawa.”

Chris Alexander, the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that M-103 is “ground zero” for freedom of speech, not just in Canada “but for the world today.”

  1. The motion illogically prioritizes one sort of religious freedom over others

Although M-103 condemns “all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” it only mentions one by name: “Islamophobia.” The motion refers to Islamophobia twice, while never mentioning anti-Semitism or the need to combat anti-Christian discrimination—which arguably occurs far more often in Canada than victimization of Muslims.

Critics such as Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch have suggested that the motion is singling out Islam for “special treatment” by mentioning it by name while lumping the rest together under the generic title of “religious discrimination.”

  1. The motion falls into the errors of hate-crime and hate-speech legislation

The introduction of hate legislation has undermined the right order of criminal justice by irrationally elevating the human passion of “hate” above other passions such as pride, anger, lust, envy and a host of other possible motives for malfeasance.

A motion like M-103 replicates this wrong-headed legislation by addressing a state of mind—Islamophobia—rather than illegal behavior. Whether or not the motion translates into law, it creates an atmosphere where certain opinions are considered unlawful and others are prohibited.

In traditional jurisprudence, hate only becomes a criminal problem when one’s behavior contravenes the law. When prosecutors investigate motive and premeditation, they do so only to ascertain guilt and the level of personal responsibility involved in a given act. They do not try to measure the quality of the motive.

The matter of criminal law, moreover, is not internal dispositions but external actions.

These and other arguments would suggest that the best way for government to counteract violence against groups or individuals is not by stifling debate or trying to sway public opinion, but by making it clear that certain behavior will not be tolerated, regardless of one’s motives or intentions.

Guess Who Is Helping Islamists to Oppress Women?

Gatestone Institute, by Thomas Quiggin, October 10, 2016:

  • Why Canada’s Minister of Immigration should be accepting an award from an individual whose own organization (ICNA) openly advocates violence against women is not clear. Minister Hajdu, despite her role as Minister for the Status of Women in Canada, has remained silent on this issue despite being made aware of it directly.
  • Not only did the child services department do nothing to help the 1400 girls being raped and forced into prostitution, in fact she (and others) went out of their way to silence anyone who tried to speak out. Rather than face the fact that a problem of mass rape existed, Joyce Thacker played a role in the cover-up.
  • Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau has declared himself to be a “feminist” and says he is committed to increasing the role of women in society. However, he recently visited a gender-segregated mosque in Ottawa, the imam of which is part of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), placed on a list of designated terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates in 2014.
  • Ironically, the City of Ottawa has other mosques which are modern and humanist, but the Prime Minister has never chosen to visit one of them.

Advocating violence against women and other misogynist practices are increasingly being accepted by individuals who identify themselves as “feminists” and “female leaders.”

The process of normalizing Islamist misogyny is well underway while so-called feminists remain silent on issues such as wife beating, child marriages, female genital mutilation and “forced suicides.”

For current feminists, it appears as though political correctness and fantasizing that they are “social justice warriors” outweighs the rights of women, especially brown women.

When it comes to the issue of opposing violence against women, feminists are as silent as beaten wives. Nothing – including the advocacy of wife beating, pedophiliac sex acts with nine-year-old girls and the generalized oppression of women – can draw feminists into the debate on the role of women under the Islamist ideology that is prevalent in Canada and the USA.

Premier Katherine Wynne of Ontario (population 13.6 million) recently visited the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), along with Education Minister Mitzie Hunter. They met on August 26, 2016 with female members of the Islamic Circle North America Sisters (ICNA Canada) in Scarborough. The ICNA directly advocates misogynist positions such as wife beating, the taking of slave girlsand the position that women are, overall, inferior to men. ICNA also notes that Islamic women have been “emancipated” from the obligation of earning their own livelihood. Therefore, women can be kept at home and cannot leave the house without the permission of the husband.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne (center) with ICNA employees. (Image: Twitter/Kathleen Wynne)

Quite alarmingly, the Premier of Ontario did not criticize the organization or its heavily misogynistic beliefs. Rather she publicly claimed to have been “honoured” to have been there. The Minister of Education, Ms Hunter, appears to have remained silent on her views concerning this visit.

The Minister of the Status of Women, Patty Hajdu, for the federal government of Canada does not appear to have any problem with those advocating violence against women, either. Her cabinet colleague, Minister John McCallum, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, received an award for his “outstanding service” from the Canadian Council of Imams. The chairperson of this group is Dr. Iqbal Al-Nadvi, who is also the Amir of ICNA. Why the Minister of Immigration should be accepting an award from an individual whose own organization (ICNA) openly advocates violence against women is not clear. Minister Hajdu, despite her role as Minister for the Status of Women in Canada, has remained silent on this issue despite beingmade aware of it directly.

Mayor Bonnie Crombie of Mississauga has repeated allowed Hizb ut Tahrir (HT), a leading Islamist organization, to use city-owned property in Mississauga to hold conferences. In addition to stating that democracy is not compatible with Islam and that all Canadian soldiers are war criminals, HT is running an education campaign to teach women about “women’s rights.” To HT, women’s rights are a Western concept and Islamic women should be aware of their obligation under sharia law. Ironically, the City of Mississauga withdrew permission (once) for Hizb ut Tahrir to have a meeting on city-owned property. Gerry Townsend, the CEO of Mississauga Living Arts Centre, confirmed the cancellation explaining that “there has been a bit of publicity about this organization.” The meeting, it seems was not cancelled because HT is misogynist or listed as a terrorist group in multiple countries, but rather because of “publicity.” Other meetings carried on without incident.

Member of Parliament Iqra Khalid is another woman who maintains silence in the face of the advocacy of violence against women. Prior to being a Member of Parliament, Ms. Khalid was the head of the Muslim Student Association at York University. In 2015, the same York University Muslim Student Association was handing out books for Islam Awareness Week. According to a book handed out, wife-beating is permissible under certain circumstances and some women enjoy being beaten because they are submissives. Ms. Khalid, who has close ties to the Islamic Society of North America and others, has not spoken out against the violence advocated by her former student association, the ICNA, the ISNA or any other such Islamist organization.

Perhaps the most disturbing example of all, however, is Joyce Thacker of the United Kingdom. She was the £130,000-a-year Strategic Director of the City of Rotherham’s children’s services department for five years. During that time, the ongoing rapes, drugging and enslavement of eleven to fourteen-year-old girls carried on in Rotherham. Not only did the child services department do nothing to help the 1400 girls being raped and forced into prostitution, in fact she (and others) went out of their way to silence anyone who tried to speak out. The reason for the enforced silence over a period of years was later identified in the official UK government report as “institutionalized political correctness.” The rapists were primarily identified as Pakistani/Kashmiri/Muslims and the victims were identified as being primarily white girls. Rather than face the fact that a problem of mass rape on a wartime level existed, Joyce Thacker played a role in the cover-up.

The most interesting role of all, however, is that being played by Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau. He has declared himself to be a “feminist” and says he is committed to increasing the role of women in society. However, he recently visited (September 2016) a gender-segregated mosque in Ottawa. Female Members of Parliament who attended with him had to enter by a side door and sit in the segregated area. The imam of the mosque is part of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), according to the mosque’s own website. This organization was placed on a list of designated terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates in 2014. More interestingly, a review of the teaching and reading material of the mosque in early 2016 revealed a disturbing fact. The study noted that “It is not the presence of extremist literature in the mosque libraries that is worrisome. The problem is that there was nothing but extremist literature in the mosque libraries.”

Worse, the Prime Minister also stated: “…as I look at this beautiful room — sisters upstairs — everyone here, (I see) the diversity we have just within this mosque, within the Islamic community, within the Muslim community in Canada.”

How this be seen as anything other than an attempt at normalizing the segregation of women? Ironically, the City of Ottawa has other mosques which are modern and humanist, but the Prime Minister has never chosen to visit one of them.

What are the possible reasons for such practices whereby feminists and major feminist organizations refuse to speak out on violence against women? Most leading feminists are still white, as are many female leadership figures. Many victims of misogyny and abuse are brown:

  • Brown women, not known to be a voting block, therefore have little to no influence in the corridors of elected power;
  • Women, especially those in positions of power such as Premier Wynne, Minister Hajdu, and Mayor Crombie of Mississauga can be misogynistic notwithstanding that they are female; and
  • In many cases, the forces of political correctness and fantasy of seeing themselves as “Social Justice Warriors” place the rights of Islamist males over the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim females.