Vladtepes has already written on the story detailing the current trial of Montrealer Said Namouh (Ashraf to his jihadist, online community). His defence lawyer claims that while his client’s actions may seem repugnant to thousands, he was simply exercising his right to freedom of expression and religion. And although other trials similarly seeking to prosecute jihadists in Canadian courtrooms, this one indeed stands apart for the simple reason that religion is the biggest component of the defence and the aspect by which Canada’s charter will be challenged and the court will ultimately rule.
Tirelessly, the accused worked to ensure the messages of global jihad were widely available to like minded jihadists over the internet. Point blank executions of westerners, suicide bombings, bomb making tips and threats to western governments were all part of the collected works of this Islamic terrorist intended to increase the daily, international quota of haters, bigots, and religious crackpots. Said Namouh clearly displays all the hatred Islam can muster; proudly and without apology.
Defence lawyer Rene Duval does not contest Namouh’s online jihad or even the fact that he received accolades from his terrorist peers for a service well done. In fact Mr. Duval will try to successfully argue on behalf of his client that this, as distasteful as it is, is Ashraf’s right: to wage jihad and incite mass murder under freedom of religion. ” Where do you draw the line?” Duval asks.
It is time that Canadians came face to face with Islam’s evil twin and thanks to both Namouh and Duval, we finally have the opportunity to smack it down with the full force of the law, contesting every derilict, toting Allah’s will in a bomb-laden napsack, a rigged cell phone or a computer disc as the psychopaths they clearly are. Online jihad? Mass murder? And I thought Tom Cruise was a nutbar for giving Katie a matching set of cast iron pans as a wedding gift.
So, where do we draw the line? How far should freedom of religion extend? I would presume that Duval has missed one valuable aspect of his argument: the sacred cow of cultural relativity. Whatever shithole nation Namouth hailed, chances are likely that his frame of mind is quite normal and exhalted amongst the jihadi freedom fighting set. I’m hoping Mr. Duval brings this cultural relative aspect to his defence case, as we could kill two birds with one stone.
I for one would like to answer Rene Duval’s question. We draw the line at the incitement of violence against others in the name of Islam; the plotting for it, the call to arms on it’s behalf, the moral indecency of those that support it’s agenda, the apologies and financing made in it’s name, the pious notion of Muslim supremacy, the freedom to abuse western democratic institutions and the overt bigotry, hatred, and intolerance of non-Muslims and small m Muslims alike.
Said Mamouh’s trial will no doubt prompt Muslim activists and other Islamic organizations to contort like never before as this trial is the first high profile Canadian case to cite religious belief as a defence in a terrorism case. The pushers of jihad as an Islamic, benign inner struggle will have to work double time to set this record straight and no longer will they be able to manipulate the mass as readily or easily; Ashraf and his lawyer contend Islam as the primary defendant. Islamophobia? not. Arabaphobia? not. Muslim bashing? not. A zionist media? not. Freedom of religion? maybe. Terrorism? yes. It will be an interesting case to follow.
Grace