Muhammed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress just can’t sit still. No doubt stung by the fact that he is now considered one of the nation’s consummate losers by having failed to succeed in all three Human Right’s Commission cases launched against Maclean’s magazine, he is now on a fresh, new mission. The biggest boil on the backside of Canada’s media butt may have been lanced, but it continues to fester.
“The first point that I did learn from this exercise is that Islamophobia is alive and well in Canada, in the media and also in politics,” he said. ” In all of this, we’ve been victimized”.
Since filing the complaints in three Canadian jurisdictions, Elmasry reflected that he made the right decision, taking full credit for sparking the debate and the ensuing massive public outcry. Yet, not one to miss an opportunity to blame others for his failure, he squarely cited inappropriate pressure by the media and politicians for the commission’s wrong decisions.
Elmasry seeks to lobby the government and to glean support from what he refers to as the “sympathetic ears in Parliament” to create a National Media Council, similar to the existing Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The Council would oversee print and online media. Ostensibly, this group would provide an outlet for complaints and a forum for fairness and professionalism. The recent failure behind him, combined with renewed vigor, a beefed up ego and legal beagles in tow, his intention is to demand restrictions on what his organization considers a foul media.
Who exactly would define fairness and professionalism? The experts at the CIC and their league of Islamist cohorts? When we factor in the reality that an entire section of Dr. Elmasry’s web site is devoted to monitoring the media and endlessly scouring for perceived Islamophobic sentiment, this proposal is a frightening notion. His ideal of ‘hate-free free-speech’ is a preposterous idea that would discriminate against the reporting of the facts, the news and ultimately, the truth.
Consider this. In a lengthy document, the CIC has listed terminology that they believe should be discouraged and eventually removed from any reporting concerning terrorism or fundamentalism. Any journalist, reporter, writer or editor from any Canadian news outlet would be left condemned and deemed a bigoted rogue for using any of the listed offensive terms. Here is a partial list of offensive words the CIC considered as of 2002, as ‘anti-Islamic’, descriptions that are offensive to Muslims and by extension, Islam:
Armed Islamic group, Canadian-based Islamic extremist, Islamic regime, Islamic dictatorship, extremism, fighters, fundamentalists, hard-liner, insurgency, insurgent, suicide bomber, terrorist, terrorist cell, Islamic organization, Islamic government, activist and rebel. I believe these words used alone without the accompanying tags of Islam or Muslim may be o.k…..? The CIC would conclude that the inclusion of these descriptions would be the workings of a racist media whose only motivation is to create and foster cultural and ethnic disharmony and to victimize yet once again, Canada’s Muslim community. Reporting the facts is apparently a secondary hobby for the nation’s news outlets.
Is it hateful to describe a person who has just set off a bomb in a crowded bazar aimed at innocents while screaming Allahu Akbar! an Islamic terrorist? Is it hateful to label an imam of a mosque who degrades western values and openly discourages the breaking of Canada’s laws an Islamic fundamentalist? Or, should future news headlines instead read:
“Some unnamed, not-a-white guy with a bomb kills 30. We cannot comment further. The sensitivity for, well-being of and protection for his identity, community, religion, culture and traditions must be maintained”. Or,
“Some unnamed, not-a-white guy in an unnamed building makes up his own rules. We cannot comment further. The sensitivity for, well-being of and protection for his identity, community, religion, culture and traditions must be maintained”.
I can in fact, use the term ‘white’ in these ludicrous headlines, since Elmasry asserts that offending white people is not as serious as offending minorities, particularly Muslims, because the white majority is “anchored”. “If somebody makes a joke that you’re white, who cares? he quips.
Another segment in the lengthy analysis reads: “Anti-Islam in the media feeds ‘Image Distortion Disorder’ “. The CIC contends ‘ the distorted perception that Islam condones and encourages violence is largely created by the media and it leads to societal anxiety among Canadians. It is particularly dangerous in Canada within it’s multi-ethnic, multi-faith and multi-cultural populations and invariably leads to discrimination, hate-mongering, acts of vandalism and false accusations by the authorities’.
Wait. Canada’s entire population consists of multi-ethnic, multi-faith and multi-cultural people. Are we to conclude then that all Canadians suffer from Image Distortion Disorder?
Let me ask you this: if you cover dog shit with candied sprinkles, is it still dog shit?
In western nations Islamists work diligently to ensure that under no circumstances should Islam be connected to terrorism or extremism, an aim whose purpose lies solely in the unyielding desire for the distortion of fact. In short, the truth must become a lie and the lie must become a truth. The creation of a National Media Council would be a welcome addition in this endeavor. So would sharia.
I have heard many claim that groups like the CIC want to stifle free speech. Others claim they want to shut it down. I disagree. They have no intention of shutting down an existing press that they would gladly control. They do intend however, to manipulate the public into believing they have been so ridiculed, demeaned and targeted that additional restrictions on print and online media are necessary, with of course, the aid and guidance of a panel of Islamic experts… such as themselves. Additionally, a government seal of approval from the “sympathetic ear” crowd on Parliament Hill would help things along quite nicely. Extremism then would simply be inheriting an already well functioning institution, one to be re-fashioned, re-tooled and tweaked to suit radical Islam and the realities of sharia. There would be no stifling of free speech as long as the merits of Islam and the benevolence of the prophet were the priority. Any discourse deemed un-Islamic would simply not be tolerated. Welcome to Saudi Arabia.
Back to the candied dog shit. Dr. Elmasry also plans to lobby for a review of media concentration, ( I assume concentration refers to the ownership of Canada’s news outlets by Jews), calling it ” the antithesis of democracy”. Of course his famous statement of 2004 regarding Israelis as legitimate targets of terrorism was misunderstood, a mistake on the part of infidel ignorance. (I probably misunderstood the above white comment too).
The CIC I believe, is an organization obsessed with creating and promoting victimhood within the Muslim community. They and other groups of their ilk, are nothing more than political activist organizations working steadily on behalf of sharia. If, as Mr. Elmasry boasts that he indeed does represent 70% of Canadian Muslims, which may or may not be the case, then the majority are being represented by a fanatic of tremendous proportion and equal danger; a disservice to them far more damaging than any descriptions of terror or Islam.
“I don’t want the media to be a public relations arm for the Canadian Islamic Congress. It’s unrealistic. Or to promote Islam. Or to promote Muslim causes. Or to be a propaganda tool for the XYZ issue. What I want is for them to be fair” Professor Elmasry states.
Candied sprinkles anyone?