Author Archives: Grace

The would-be King of Queen

Posted on by

It may be one thing to poke spirited fun at the present Queen of England over a frosty brew at the local pub, but quite another to call for her moral and legal sentencing as a homicidal, genocidal murderer. Nevertheless, Anjem Choudary, Britain’s most prominent example of a gross failure of human decency unzips himself as the would-be King to beat all Queens. I would have loved to see him go head to head with Elizabeth 1st; the horse-riding bastard child who would eventually propel her people to unite against the Spanish Armada to defend England, set free those in jail deeming them rightful defenders of their land and light a-torch England’s shores to defend and instill the principle of democracy:

My loving people, we have been persuaded by some, that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear; I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects. And therefore I am come amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor and my blood, even the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble and worthy subject; not doubting by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and by your valor in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.

Elizabeth I of England – 1588

Islamist Choudary goes on to preach ” She is the one who applauds her sons and daughters to go out and massacre hundreds of thousands of innocent people”– words spoken while bilking on handouts at the hands of the British taxpayer.

FANATICS led by a sponging Islamic extremist enraged MPs yesterday by publicly demanding the Queen is prosecuted – for GENOCIDE.

Rabble-rouser Anjem Choudary’s cohorts accused British troops of wiping out the civilian population in Afghanistan and said it was Her Majesty’s fault because she is “the head of this country”.

Anjem Choudary

Extremist … Anjem Choudary

In an internet rant to fellow extremist Muslims, they declare: “She is the one who applauds her sons and daughters to go out and massacre hundreds and thousands of innocent people.

“Shouldn’t she be tried for genocide and the extermination of a nation?” The fanatics insist: “Yes.” Labour MP Andrew Dismore said of the shameful attack that appeared on a website linked to Choudary: “Never mind calling for the prosecution of the Queen.

“The Queen should prosecute HIM. It’s about time he was busted.”

Our Boys ... doing their job

Our Boys … doing their job

Fellow MP Patrick Mercer – chairman of the Commons counter- terrorism sub-committee – branded it an “insult to our monarch.”

The ex-soldier stormed: “We must recognise Mr Choudary’s words for what they are – weapons being wielded by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

“This is the next phase of an enemy operation in our country.”

———————-

Would his sermon not aptly apply to much of the Muslim world and carried beyond, where it is commonplace to exact strife and brutality upon innocents in the name of Islam? Choudary in all of his cowardice and postured holy stance would no doubt have been swallowed whole by the past Elizabeth, a thought unbearable to a Muslim extremist, especially at the hands of a woman.

If the Queen is to be admonished for anything, it would stem from the forget fullness of the warrior words of a Queen past, stern and brandished by a fierce virtue and loyal duty to her land and people; the young, red-headed Queen who would have proudly and fearlessly stood up in the face of such thuggery, mockery, contempt and brutishness.

“Let tyrants fear; I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects……….”

Getting the story straight and the art of misdirection

Posted on by

I thought I would juxtapose these two editorial pieces to illustrate how the intentional misuse of the words racism, bigotry, intolerance and discrimination have become useful distractions from the truth in any matter pertaining to Muslim violence. This is a deliberate strategy by Islamists and sadly by extension, some thoughtful but misguided people trapped in the relativist rabbit hole to avoid any and all legitimate reporting on Islamic extremism. It would appear that they would rather hide behind terms that were once reserved for real, not mythical instances of cruelty leveled at innocents by ignorant, bigoted thugs than confront the obvious hate crimes played out most often against each other, within their own communities.

The first is written by Dolores Chew and Farha Najah Hussain published in the Montreal Gazette. Both women are members of the Montreal based South Asian Women’s Community Centre. Let me say that I understand their call to end violence against all women, but to insist that honour killings have no connection to Islam is false. Worse, to label the media as a bunch of rabble-rousing racists for reporting such tragedies with obligatory honesty is simply wrong.

The second piece written by Leonard Stern in the Ottawa Citizen directly confronts the issue displayed in the first. So, not only does the media have to cover such violence, but too often have to write a story about the story, explaining the necessity for well, writing the first story with the inclusion of the facts.

———

Patriarchy and violence against women exist in all societies

Media are wrong to focus on ‘honour killing’ as reason for violence

By DOLORES CHEW and FARHA NAJAH HUSSAIN, The GazetteJuly 28, 2009

Immigrant and Muslim women are often put in a paralyzing position when violence occurs against such women in Canada.

This position is a result of the media’s misunderstanding of how patriarchy manifests itself in societies around the world, including North America. This misunderstand forces us and our communities to fight the racism in media reports and readers’ commentaries when we should otherwise be facing the challenge of eliminating all forms of control and violence against women and children.

First, we would like to extend our sympathies to those who are grieving the loss of their friends, family and community members – Zainab Shafia, Sahari Shafia, Geeti Shafia and Rona Amir Mohammad.

And although Mohammad Shafia, Tooba Mohammad Yahya and Hamed Shafia have been charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, they have been convicted of nothing, so it is important to speak generally about the issue of violence against women and children.

Gender violence must be analyzed comprehensively, not viewed as a “cultural problem” among certain communities. If a white man kills his partner and/or children, he is seen as a murderer and a “bad apple.” But when non-whites and non-Christians kill, the crime is often called an “honour killing” and entire communities and cultures are labelled as “backward.”

We agree with the statement of Alia Hogben of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women: “Violence against women is endemic in societies where men wield control over women’s lives” and that patriarchal thinking is not limited to the Middle East and Asia. Indeed, as Adeema Niazi of the Toronto-based Afghan Women’s Organization states: “Violence against women exists everywhere.”

This violence includes the actions by partners or family members who think they can control the lives of women and children.

We would like to address the false premise in the Canwest News Service article. “Western freedoms a source of family conflict,” (Gazette, July 24). The article quotes Dianna Nammi saying that children of immigrants who grow up in Western nations take certain freedoms for granted, and this can lead to conflict with their parents.

Nammi states that when moving to another country, parents bring with them culture, traditions and religion and they “are choosing to show the worst part of that, and the worst and criminal part of that is controlling women.”

As an immigrant and a child of immigrants, we feel this assumes that women in other parts of the world are merely victims, not three-dimensional humans fighting to live dignified lives based on justice. Women all over the world are struggling against patriarchal violence.

In Canada, for example, aboriginal women continue to demand justice for more than 500 missing native women. In Afghanistan, women are fighting gender violence within family and local political structures as well as fighting against the violence caused by a foreign invasion.

It is wrong to think that the clash between parents and children is a simple matter of Western-influenced immigrant children vs. their backward parents. Inter-generational differences and conflict are not confined to any region or culture. Around the world, youths are in conflict with their parents about how to live their lives. This is nothing new.

As members of the South Asian Women’s Community Centre, we are no strangers to violence against women. The SAWCC, family and friends have been demanding justice for Milia, a young woman of Bangladeshi origin, who was murdered in Angrignon Park more than 10 years ago. The murder has never been solved. SAWCC has also held commemoration events for the Polytechnique women murdered by Marc Lépine as well as participated in countless campaigns demanding an end to violence against women and children.

It is important that the media stop resorting to stereotypes and clichés. Instead, they should analyze gender violence from an anti-racist and anti-patriarchal perspective to contribute effectively to discussions concerning patriarchal violence.

Dolores Chew is a founding member and Farha Najah Hussain is a member of the Montreal based South Asian Women’s Community Centre.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
——————

Politically incorrect, but honest

By Leonard Stern, The Ottawa CitizenAugust 1, 2009 5:04 AM

Muslim leaders have long cried foul when the media highlight the religious affiliation of suicide terrorists. Murders of all kinds happen every day and news reports don’t note which perpetrators attended a Methodist church or which were baptized Catholic. Why the double standard for Muslims?

The religion of those such as the 9/11 hijackers was — is — relevant because, in their minds, the crimes were religious acts. It’s impossible to ignore the Islamic dimension of crimes that are executed in the name of Islam. To pretend that the shared religious identity of al-Qaeda operatives is coincidence would be absurd.

Now it’s fair to ask the media at least to make clear that while terrorists see themselves as holy warriors, they might not represent true Islam. But that’s not what some Muslim leaders are asking. The Islamic Society of North America wants to abandon altogether any mention of the Muslim aspect. “We should just call them criminals,” said Muneer Fareed, the Islamic Society’s spokesman. The Canadian Islamic Congress has likewise referred to the “myth of ‘Islamic’ Terrorism.”

The legitimacy of the term “Islamic terrorism,” to denote terrorism committed in the name of Islam, is easy to defend. But in other criminal cases, it’s trickier to explore the relevance of culture, race, religion or national origin.

This is an issue journalists, police and politicians struggle with all the time. Much of the gun violence in Toronto, for example, is apparently connected to the black community, often Jamaican-Canadian, whose members comprise a disproportionate number of both victims and assailants. But for a long time you wouldn’t have known this from any public discussion about crime in Toronto.

Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente broke the taboo after the 2005 Boxing Day shooting death of Jane Creba, the 15-year-old who got caught in the crossfire between warring gangs. Wente said it was ridiculous that amid all the handwringing over Toronto’s unsafe streets, “the word ‘Jamaica’ can’t be found … even though police will tell you off the record that 80 per cent or more of the city’s gun crime is Jamaican-related.”

The downside of acknowledging these cultural connections is that doing so can unfairly tar an entire community and perpetuate stereotypes. I’m sure Wente got grief for her column.

But covering them up also incurs costs. First, it’s dishonest. Politicians and social activists who pretend that these shootings are just expressions of generic “youth violence,” when everyone knows otherwise, lose credibility. Secondly, it’s impossible to fix a problem when you deny it exists.

Resources are finite, and need to be directed where most needed. A Caribbean-Canadian growing up at Jane and Finch in Toronto is more vulnerable to gang influences, and therefore in greater need of interventions, than a Korean-Canadian teenager in Markham. A young Muslim in Mississauga is more likely to encounter images of militant Islam than his Italian-Canadian counterpart living around Dufferin Street.

Of course bad people can incubate in any community, but cultural or ethnic groups have particular vulnerabilities. It shouldn’t be forbidden to say so. As one who has always emphasized the Islamic dimension of suicide terrorism, I recently received a gloating letter from someone hoping to catch me in an inconsistency. The writer was under the impression that I would naturally object to news reports mentioning the Jewishness of Bernie Madoff, the Wall Street swindler.

Actually, if I had been the reporter to break the Madoff story, I’d have not only highlighted the Jewish connection, I’d have put it in the lead. Heck, I’d make it the headline. Sure it’s a little different from the issue of Islam and terrorism — Madoff wasn’t expressing an article of religious faith in defrauding people. But Madoff operated within a defined ethnic network, the monied Jewish community of New York, which is why police classified his escapade as a crime of “affinity.”

The crime was made possible because Madoff exploited his position as a big shot — a macher — in that network. I mentioned earlier that we shouldn’t be afraid to say that ethno-cultural groups have particular vulnerabilities. Madoff was as sleazy as they come but his perceived ability to make money conferred on him much status in the Jewish world, which he took advantage of.

Although financial misbehaviour is an equal opportunity vice, rabbis and others who teach Jewish ethics are not out of line to worry that the accumulation of Ivan Boeskys, Michael Milkens and Bernie Madoffs eventually points to misplaced values in some corners of the Jewish community.

Right now there’s a debate whether to situate honour killings in a Muslim context. Some people want simply to place these murders in the catch-all category of “domestic violence.” I suppose that it would be politically convenient for multiculturalists to de-Islamicize honour killings, but it sure won’t do much towards actually stopping them.

Leonard Stern is the Citizen’s editorial pages editor.

E-mail: ls****@****************st.com

Time to disband Canada’s biased HRC’s

Posted on by

Canada’s Human Right’s Tribunals are a farce and should be disbanded–for good.  Lorne Gunter writes in today’s National Post of how the nation’s ‘out-of-control human right’s commissions have become far more biased than the very people they accuse of bigotry’.  The following case is just one more example of how these quasi courts have ‘damaged the ancient concepts of the guilty mind and reasonable doubt’.

Phony courts, phony racism

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Friday, July 31, 2009

As if more proof were needed of how out-of-control Canada’s human-rights commissions have become, and what a threat they pose to impartial justice, along comes the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s ruling last month against Michael Shaw, a white Toronto police officer.

In the spring of 2005, Constable Shaw was patrolling the Bridal Path–a singularly wealthy Toronto neighbourhood composed of large mansions on sprawling multi-acre estates. Ronald Phipps, a black man, was criss-crossing a street in the Bridal Path, delivering letters in substitute for the regular mail carrier, who was away.

Even though Mr. Phipps was wearing a Canada Post uniform and carrying two official mail satchels, the officer thought his behaviour was unusual. For instance, Mr. Phipps returned to a home at which he had already delivered mail, and retrieved it.

So the officer followed Mr. Phipps for a short distance, then asked him for some identification. He ran his name through police computers, thanked him for his cooperation and sent him on his way. He also verified Mr. Phipps’ identity with a regular letter-carrier he knew in the area, a carrier who happened to be white.

From this series of events, Mr. Phipps gleaned that he had been racially profiled. He filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and, in June, adjudicator Kaye Joachim determined that the fact that Mr. Phipps “was an African-Canadian in an affluent neighbourhood was a factor, a significant factor, and probably the predominant factor, whether consciously or unconsciously, in Const. Shaw’s actions.” He found the officer guilty of discrimination.

Mr. Phipps admits that Const. Shaw never insulted him. He was not detained, not even briefly, nor was he arrested. He was asked for ID, thanked for producing it and permitted to go about his business. He was not tasered or struck with a club. No racial slurs were hurled at him.

He claims that since the incident he has been teased mercilessly by his co-workers. But that is their misbehaviour, not Const. Shaw’s.

He claims that since the incident, he has had trouble sleeping, has lost weight and is having difficulty fulfilling his second job as a personal trainer — all because a police officer asked him to produce some ID four years ago.

“This was always broader than Const. Shaw,” he told the Toronto Star (a newspaper that has made a self-parodic fetish of splashing this — and other insubstantial accusations of racism — on its front page). His comments make him sound like someone with a bigger cause in mind from the start, someone who may just have been waiting for a chance to lodge a complaint.

The most disturbing aspect of the case is the way the adjudicator, Mr. Joachim, has damaged the ancient concepts of the guilty mind and reasonable doubt.

While he could find no evidence that Const. Shaw knowingly discriminated against Mr. Phipps, the adjudicator said no evidence of intent was needed. Whether “consciously or unconsciously,” the policeman had offended Mr. Phipps by his actions; he had caused the letter-carrier to feel discriminated against and that was enough.

———–

Guilt, now, apparently is solely in the mind of the complainant. No one needs to prove you had intent to discriminate, that you had a guilty mind. The minute a rights charge is levelled, it is up to you to establish your innocence.

And forget about “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Mr. Joachim found that “on the balance of probabilities,” Const. Shaw was guilty.

While a rights tribunal does not purport to be a real court, both are in the business of fact-finding, and the adjudication of rights and wrongs –and so must both be judged on that basis. Mr. Joachim’s assertion is similar to a Crown prosecutor arguing (and a judge accepting) the notion that a black man, or an aboriginal, immigrant or poor person, should be convicted of such-and-such a crime, even in the absence of conclusive evidence, because he is probably guilty.

Rights commissions were set up to be simple forums for settling discrimination complaints. They were never intended to be taxpayer-funded cudgels with which activists and grievers may beat their enemies without the expense of a court case, and without the need to follow the normal rules of due process.

As this case helps demonstrate, Canada’s human-rights commissions are horribly biased–far more biased than the people they accuse of bigotry –and need to be disbanded.

lg*****@**aw.ca

To the women of Iran

Posted on by

Today in Ottawa, local talk radio host Lowell Green devoted his program to the women of Iran. The ongoing protests on the streets of Tehran continue to make headline news around the world, with swelling numbers of Iranian women leading the charge against the oppressive regime.  This was a very important show as Green called upon Canadian women to phone in with words of encouragement, support and solidarity; to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hundreds of courageous women who continue to protest in sheer defiance of the many mullahs, clerics and ayatollahs in the name of freedom and reform.  His phone lines were jammed with callers offering support.

Canadian women have been given the opportunity to express support directly to the women of Iran. Increasingly the young women of Iran are at the vanguard of this protest and as Mr. Green says, “these women are the new face of Iran”. I urge you to listen to this broadcast and to send these words of encouragement to as many people as possible, particularly to those in Iran who are struggling against tremendous odds.

[kaltura-widget wid=”up31xt0gps” width=”410″ height=”364″ addpermission=”3″ editpermission=”3″ /]

The dishonour of honour: how a Canadian courtroom has supplanted it’s vitrue with sharia.

Posted on by

I’m certain many by now are familiar with the ongoing trial of Hasibullah Sidiqi, the now 23 year old man charged with two counts of first degree murder for the brutal slaying of his sister Khatera and her fiance in September of 2006. After a night out of dinner and a movie, the pair were gunned down as they sat in her car at the Elmvale Shopping Centre. Khatera was pronounced dead at the scene and Feroz Mangul died ten days later in hospital.

Hasibullah Sadiqi has been accused of the crimes and is on trial in a Canadian courtroom. This case is not one to determine Sadiqi’s guilt or innocence but one rather to determine whether or not his charge(s) could be whittled down to manslaughter, a ruling which would carry a lighter sentence. The defense will argue the complex issue of provocation on Mr. Sadiqi’s behalf essentially bringing forward sharia as a defensive measure, while the Crown will advance these murders as honour killings.

It is not unusual for a defense team to bring forward what many would deem repugnant defense arguments; in fact it is their job to defend their client to the best of their ability including introducing outrageous platforms. It is also not unusual to advance religious ideology or cultural tradition as a defensive measure to attempt to mitigate a sentence. In 2004 the B.C Court of Appeal heard a similar case of a man who murdered his wife for defying Sikh principles, ultimately to his loss. So then, we should not be entirely surprised that a Canadian court could now be entertained by such an open defense of sharia.

But having said that and not long ago, we were assured that sharia law in Ontario ( and by extension Canada) would be squashed. The provincial government loudly condemned such an outrageous prospect, an outcome guided mainly by Muslim women. Yet here we find a case before the court in full, frontal swing. While Mr. Sadiqi’s defense will attempt to deliver the notion of provocation, the Crown will denounce honour killing as morally bankrupt; a foreign practice anathema to Canadian values.  Underlying both arguments is the core issue which we can no longer stretch to avoid: sharia law is at play in Canada. Have we somehow normalized sharia by simply allowing the legal argument to proceed as a valid, defensive measure in the courtroom? Have we somehow legitimized a cultural absurdity and allowed a foreign ill to compete en par with our set values? Is this another awful end-result of a failing and out-dated multicultural project?

Consider this: Hasibullah Sadiqi came to Canada in 1986 with his parents from Afghanistan when he was five months old. Yet despite being raised in an environment of opportunity, equality and tolerance, he assumed the misogynistic watch-man post over his two sisters at the apparent grooming of his father. What was happening in Canada in 1986?– the World Exposition opened in Vancouver, Brian Mulroney was Canada’s 18th Prime Minister, Top Gun was the highest grossing film of the year and Madonna and the Vatican were at odds over Papa Don’t Preach. Pretty benign stuff. What was happening in Afghanistan in 1986? The continuation of age-old tribal feuding, war, corruption, oppression, violence, religious intolerance and the never-ending subjucation of women. Same old stuff.

Is this the proud heritage and loving legacy that Hasibullah’s father imported and imparted to his Canadian son? Is this the pious model by which Sadiqi chose to valiantly defend on September 19 only to end his sister’s life in it’s honour? Why didn’t Hasibullah assimilate to a country that would have gladly provided him every avenue for success, enrichment and freedom? Why would he betroth himself to a distant nation he never knew? Why was his sister’s healthy independance considered such a profound mark of distain to the family’s good sensibility that she would have to pay recompense with a bullet in her head?

Many questions, but perhaps all things considered it is time to ask. After all, it was this same “profound attachment to his heritage” as he has claimed, that was the motivating factor which led him to confront his ‘shameful’ sister and her fiance with a loaded .44 magnum. And it is this same attachment to cultural heritage that lawyers now find themselves either courting or denouncing in an Ottawa courtroom and the same imported legacy by which the public has the right and duty to openly scrutinize. If Mr. Sadiqi calls upon sharia as a cultural defense in a Canadian court, then surely Canadians would be within their purview to alternatively denounce sharia as a cultural offence.

Canadian law is specific; first degree murder requires a sentence of life in prison. We can argue as we have time time and again, that the system may be unjust through the provision of leniency via common plea bargaining. But we cannot afford to alter so readily the constitutional guarantee that all people are considered equal before the law, nor can we dismiss the disastrous outcome this specific case may indeed secure in it’s potential of creating a two-tier system. If the defense is successful on behalf of Sadiqi, our most cherished of values will have been demoted in a backward step toward a primitive rank.

Mr. Sadiqi’s attachment to  his Afghani cultural heritage does not deserve special consideration in a Canadian court any more than my Irish heritage does. If we are to uphold this most important of Canadian values, we can do nothing less than judge Sadiqi as we would any other Canadian. Khatera Sidiqi, Feroz Mangul and Canada deserve nothing less.

For more in-depth coverage please follow daily articles at Ottawa Citizen.com and other posts related to this story on Vlad.

Education increasing in Afghanistan

Posted on by

If there is one reason for Canadians to value our presence in Afghanistan it would be this one. Gloria Galloway writes for the Globe and Mail of the steady increase in school enrolment despite continued threats of death, dismemberment and mutilation of children by the Taliban. At the Mirwais Mina high school where students and their teachers were sprayed in the face with battery acid last November, enrolment has increased. Initially students stayed away immediately following the attacks but now nearly all have returned. Attendance has increased from 800 pupils to 1300 in one year.

It would seem that the combined efforts of  parents, school officials, Canadian and NATO troops are providing the Taliban with an lesson of their own; education is important and threats of danger and even death will not stop children from attending school.

Hajim Anwar, director of education in Kandahar province is frustrated by those who claim little progress has been made in the Afghan education system. ” There is good education and the education is increasing, not decreasing” he said. Parents are resolved in their desire to bring better lives to their children through schooling. Yet most of the spike in attendance is due to the increasing number of boys going to school with many girls still being denied the opportunity as gender discrimination remains the prominent factor in the lives of Afghanis. Hopefully, this gender disparity will decrease as more schools with a rounded and balanced cirriculum open and Taliban inspired madrasses are challenged as the only marker of learning.

Galloway banned from entering Canada

Posted on by

George Galloway, controversial British MP has been banned from entering Canada due to national security concerns. He had been slated to deliver a series of speeches in three Canadian cities entitled ” George Galloway Speaks on Resisting Imperialism from Gaza to Khandahar”.  The invitation was at the behest of Canadian peace organizations, namely the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War and the event was billed as a fundraiser for humanitarian supplies for Gaza and Afghanistan.  Government officials referred to section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act citing concerns of a possible breach as the reason for barring  Mr. Galloway’s entry. The section reads:

34(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for,

(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

(c) engaging in terrorism

(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada or;

(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

Find the entire act here.

Alykhan Velshi, spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said border security officials found Galloway inadmissible under at least one subsection of the immigration law dealing with terrorism and support for terrorist organizations. Galloway has been accused of openly supporting and aiding both Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups that Canada has listed as terrorist organizations. A fiery opponent to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a mouth-piece for anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiment, Galloway is no stranger to controversy.

In May of 2006 during an interview with Piers Morgan of GQ magazine, Galloway was asked whether a suicide bomb attack directed at Tony Blair with ” no other casualties” would be morally justifiable ” as revenge for the war on Iraq”. He answered that yes it would, and although he would not call for it, if it happened it would be of a whole different moral order to the events of 7/7.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said it would be an outrage if the British MP were denied entry for what he might say about the war, but conceded there could be a legitimate security concern, a concern he would support as an acting responsible public official. ” He can come to Canada and talk rubbish all day long as far as I’m concerned, he told reporters, but if there’s a security threat, that’s another matter”. Predictably, the NDP denounced the government’s decision outright, claiming it as an example of the government to limit free speech of political opponents.

Velshi wrote: ” The Minister will not provide special treatment to a man who brags about giving financial support to Hamas, a banned terrorist organization in Canada. I’m sure Mr. Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won’t be one of them”.

Galloway intends to challenge the department’s decision in Federal Court. ” We’ll be in court soon to try and overturn this” he said.

Personally I couldn’t care less if Galloway comes to spew his rhetoric. In fact, I and I suppose many others would welcome the opportunity to challenge his facts, ideas and claims. I do care however that the government of Canada does what it has been duly elected to administer:  the assurance that the safety and security of all citizens continues to be the priority. And this, I believe they have done.

Islamists 1; Canada 0

Posted on by

Yesterday a Canadian terrorist was sentenced to 15.5 years for his involvement in a plot with a British terror cell to conspire to kill civilians in England. Momin Khawaja received no better than a slap on the wrist, a verdict which has outraged the Canadian public. Here is the coverage from the Ottawa Citizen.

This case was an opportunity for Canada to exact severe punishment against Khawaja as it was the first trial to prosecute an individual under Canada’s newly developed anti-terror legislation. It failed miserably to not only punish him for his crime(s) but to send a firm message to other would-be jihadists that Canada will not tolerate terrorism. Considering that he has already served 5 years in detention he is eligible for parole in another 5, and in all probability will be able to walk free in 2014.  In addition to his light sentence, other aspects of this case are very troubling. Why for example was he not charged with high treason? One of the mitigating aspects of his trial was his intention to kill Canadian and NATO forces in Afghanistan; this was an undisputed fact by both the Crown and his defense team. Section 46 of the Canadian criminal code clearly identifies sedition and treason, a criminal act by which Khawaja had clearly involved himself yet he was not charged under this section. Why?

Another interesting fact concerning this case is the questionable involvement of his family. Both of his parents claim that he was a softhearted boy, a thoughtful lad. His mother had hoped that her son would receive time served and was planning a homecoming dinner complete with a movie night. ” We still pray and hope he get’s out,”  his mother says additionally hoping her son will appeal the conviction. When asked of the terror plot, she scoffed ” those dirty things”.

Yet crates of ammunition, ak-47’s stashed under his bed, a human target plastered on the home’s basement wall pock-marked with projectiles, electronic detonating devices in-the-works sprawled across the living room and taped conversations with British jihadists were all found by police. Why was his family not charged with aiding and abetting terrorism? Surely they would have had to have known of their son’s involvement. I don’t know of any mother or father oblivious enough not to see ak-47’s under their son’s bed or inquiring of the hi-fi-digimonster electronic apparatus cluttering the parlour.

It is an outrage that Judge Rutherford would sentence this man to such a pithy sentence. This is akin to giving a troublesome little boy a time out in the corner for breaking a lamp or pulling some prized dahlias from the garden. Below are the addresses of both the Department of Justice and the Canadian Minister of Justice for anyone wishing to ask that the crown appeal this decision:

Department of Justice: www.justice.gc.ca

Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice, Ni****@*****gc.ca

Despite the expert opinion, this is a case shuffled badly to the wayside only to be filed under absolute negligence.  All reason and the primary consideration for the safety of Canadians and innocents abroad has been waived in favour of a weak justice system with little motivation to convict terrorists. Islamists 1; Canada 0.

widow sentenced to 40 lashes for accepting bread

Posted on by

Khamisa Sawadi, a 75 year old widow living in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months imprisonment for ‘mingling’ with two young men who are not relatives. She had asked them to deliver to her home five loaves of bread. After delivering the baked goods her nephew and his business partner were arrested by the religious police and were also sentenced to lashes and jail time.

This is sharia law in progress.

Meanwhile, there has been virtual silence from Canadian human rights activists and feminist organizations. Judy Rebbick, queen of Canadian gender equality is too busy writing  foolish claims that Israel Aparthied Week in Canada is not an anti-Semitic hate fest to be bothered by the fact that whabbists would cart a senior to a post and lash her, I would suspect, to death.

She is a widow. She is 75. She asked for bread. I invite the lefties, namely the feminist organizations and the NDP (who would have the Alberta oil sands shut down so we could pump more money to our Saudi friends) and any moderate Muslim organizations in Canada to openly denounce these actions. Hmmmm. I’m still waiting for the denouncements for the brutal murder of Daniel Pearl, and the slaughter of school children in Beslan. For those who want to continue chattering on of the qualities of cultural relativism, go ahead. For those who are prepared to stand up to sharia, please contact the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Ottawa or the nearest whabbist centre near you.

Democracy in Afghanistan

Posted on by

The idea that democracy is a foreign ideal perpetrated on the people of Afghanistan by outsiders is a misconception writes Khorshied Samad in the March 7 edition of the Ottawa Citizen. On the eve of International Women’s day, the wife to the Afghanistan ambassador to Canada and former correspondent and Kabul bureau chief for Fox news is clear in her assessment on democracy in the war torn and much troubled country: “while Afghans remain critical of some aspects of the NATO mission over the past eight years, they believe in further developing democratic values and structures as a safeguard against extremism and injustice that are considered universal threats”.

Samad continues to write: ” the misconception that democracy is alien to Afghanistan’s society is wrong. Afghan women fought for and achieved certain important rights prior to the Taliban”. In fact, the 1964 Afghan constitution recognized men and women as equal citizens under the law with equal rights and women were active in all professional fields until the Taliban takeover. Now, ” the volatile security situation and certain archaic norms continue to put pressure on women and limit women’s and girl’s roles in public life, denying them the full enjoyment of their rights. Human right’s violations including domestic violence, rape, child marriage and honour killings are still reported”.

” Increasing U.S. military forces and reinforcing NATO coalition troops are a necessary strategy, especially during an election year, in overcoming the Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgency plaguing Southeastern Afghanistan”. Samad believes that military action is not the sole solution to Afghan’s reformation. To ensure that Afghanistan does not fall into failed state status, focused nation-building and reconstruction which would allow for the seeds of democratic values to flourish must  be implemented by outside efforts. ” This is necessary to ensure that a healthy civil society can grow and develop, protecting such ideals as freedom of speech and equal rights for all citizens, which are upheld in the 2004 Afghan constitution. Afghans do not want to abandon these accomplishments”.

What is there to dispute? How can there be opposition to the will, testament and hope of the ordinary Afghani?

We are told time and again that culture is relative and that we have to allow for this relativity; to understand the actions of these cultures within the context of the modern world. That is fine, insofar as we can strive to make those allowances. But by the same token, we surely cannot see this culture effectively understanding or applying the necessary responsibilities required to establish a true democracy in the modern sense, Taliban or not.  The overall illiteracy rate is astonishing despite apparent strides in eduation. Afghanistan guarantees women equal rights and a quarter of the parliamentary and provincial council seats yet few candidates are women. Girls are forced into hiding for seeking an open education and their teachers either beaten or killed. Does Khorshied Samad consider the abundant failings of an ancient culture incapable in it’s ability to realize the obligations and responsibilities that democracy demands a fruitful stride? Is there any recognition of the loss of troops in aiding this seemingly endless transition? What role does the Afghan government play in the perpetual dysfunction of a nation constantly on the brink of collapse and it’s failure to acknowledge women as full persons?

Today Canada realized it’s 112th troop lost. A good friend of mine stated that if we don’t go into Afghanistan to win, then one soldier’s life lost is one too many; if we go to win, then 10,000 lost is very few.

“As we celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8, we are reminded that Afghanistan still has much work ahead. Hopefully with the continued support of the international community its young, fragile democracy will flourish so the Afghan people can become truly self-sufficient, live in peace and security and with hope for the future” Samad writes and I couldn’t agree more. We can hope that this fragile democracy finds it’s surest footing and lasting promise first and foremost from the Afghani people themselves supported not by outside forces but by it’s own government committed to a future of stability, equality and peace.

shariah justice; a contradiction in terms

Posted on by

Vladtepes has decided to install a regular series on shariah. We felt it important to do so since there is some confusion surrounding the term itself;  it’s meaning, application, extension, foundation, history and narrative. Proponents of it in the west would have us believe it to be nothing more than a benign set of Islamic  judiciary laws dealing primarily with marriage and divorce, yet closer inspection reveals it’s all encompassing and immutable reality. Sharia must be understood in terms of it’s entirety and the far reaching implications and consequences it bears.

Shariah is the body of Islamic religious law, the legal framework by which all aspects of life are regulated based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence. It deals with all aspects of daily life; politics, economics, banking, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues. It is also the antithises of liberal secularism, a set of religiously pious and absurd constructs unparalelled in it’s opposition to democratic principle and fundamentals. The Muslim Brotherhood describes shariah as ” the real effective way out of all sufferings and problems”.

Patrick Poole of Frontpage magazine wrote in May 2006 of the discovery of the Muslim Brotherhood’s twenty-one year old document known as “The Project”. The contents clearly point to an intentional, long term and multi-pronged approach, a manifesto written to fulfill their desired plan of ‘cultural invasion’ to aid in the conquest of the west. The MBH established in 1928, is arguably one of the older organizations during modern times which has devoted itself in the re-radicalization process, with offshoot groups such as al-Qaeda and Hamas actively participating in jihad on it’s behalf. It clings to the credo: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”. Keeping this in mind, their endorsement of sharia isn’t exactly the mark of sterling rationale or collective sanity but is an ever faithful testament to their dangerous mandate of supremacy and domination, shariah sanctioned of course.

In 2004, Canada had been tested in terms of the proposed adoption of Islamic law. Syed Mumtaz Ali, the lawyer and shariah advocate who sought it’s implementation gleefully stated ” every act of your life is to be governed by shariah. If you are not obeying the law, you are not a Muslim.” He was referring clearly to the laws of Islam and not of Canadian law. Although the proposal was smacked down due in large part to national and international objection and it’s inclusion as a parallel system rejected, his statement offered us a glimpse of shariah reality.  Islam is shariah and shariah is Islam.

Of those opposing the creeping implementation of shariah two groups immediately come to mind. The first, Women Against Shariah are of the view that Islamic law cannot be allowed to flourish in any way. By virtue of it’s inherent discrimination of non-Muslims, appalling record of human rights abuses and open violations of equality it (shariah) calls for immediate ridicule and eventual abandonment. Women Against Shariah’s description is succinct:

“it is our position that shariah law imposes second class status on women and is incompatible with the standards of liberal western societies and the basic principles of human rights that include equality under the law and the protection of individual freedoms. The sharia code mandates the complete authority of men and women, including the control of their movement, education, marital options, clothing, bodies, place of residence and all other aspects of their existence. Further, it calls for the beating, punishment and murder of women who do not comply with shariah requirements.” Women Against Sharia’s mission is “to prevent and outlaw the imposition of shariah law in the United States for both Muslim and American women as either a parallel legal system or a replacement for existing laws”.

The second, Muslims Against Shariah, is an Islamic reform movement. This group strives to educate Muslims of the dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and the need for reform, to instruct non-Muslims of the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists and to reinforce the truth that increasingly moderate Muslims are also the targets of Islamic terror. Both organizations are solid in their committments and provide numerous articles relaying the oppression and cruelty that accompany shariah. Both are also brave in their refusal to be coerced and dominated by a centuries old legal system unfit for the 21st century.

Writing for American Thinker, James Arlandson writes one of the best articles I have come across on shariah. “Top ten reasons why shariah is bad for all societies” is a must read for anyone wishing to understand this complex issue. His writing is thorough, with well documented articles, quotations from the Quran and hadith and classical legal opinion. Also included are supporting articles which examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse that is cited.

I do believe that shariah is bad for all societies. I also believe that to support Muslims who fully understand it’s horror is not only an act of compassion but one of absolute necessity. Shallow excuses of inaction will only lead to more gratuitous cruelty, stifling oppression, religious decadence and death in the name of Islam.

Durban lite: Israel apartheid week

Posted on by

March 1 through to 8, 2009, is Israel Apartheid Week, the fifth annual event of it’s kind organized to bring awareness to the plight of Arabs and Muslims world wide, persecuted at the hands of the great Zionist entity, Israel. Over forty universities will hold seminars, dialogues and discussions inviting guest speakers to illuminate students of the ongoing injustice and discriminatory practices of Israel. Sounds fine. Nice. Informative.

Many would presume this event as benign and nothing but a registered, legitimate forum to counter severe bias and discrimination. What an opportunity for a young thinking man or woman to oppose such terrific injustice and perpetual hardship and to flex their intillectual bicepts in the world of geo-politics. It is easy to latch onto a cause, any cause, especially if it is distant enough to cushion any real responsibility. It is even easier when university administrators and student bodies lie in absolute apathy, paving the road for extremist ideology to flourish. And easier still when young bloods are culled to swallow extremist rhetoric by foreign influenced agencies. 

Israel Apartheid Week is anything but benign. Like the Durban conferences,  which both Canada and the United States have seen fit to abandon realizing it to be THE festival of hatred, IAW seeks to annually undermine Israel at every opportunity, de-legitimize it’s right to defend itself at the hands of terrorist assault and aggression and seeks to deny Islam’s participation as a political, religious and warring aggressor. While the Durban conferences denouce Jews as a sub-human group worthy of abuse and seeks to condemn open criticism of religion, Israel Apartheid Week seems a spawned copy of the anti-Semitic and anti free expression propaganda machine, seduced into action by Canadian Arab and Muslim organizations loudmouthing on behalf of their instructors abroad. In 2008 school children were invited by both the CAF and the CIC to write essays for a cash prize on the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’ as part of the celebration of Canadian Islamic History Month, held every October. Coincidence perhaps?

National Post columnist Craig Offman writes an article detailing the heightened tensions between Arab/Muslim and Jewish students on Canadian university campuses. Jewish students are warned of increasing threats of violence and police probes have been launched into instances of campus racism. It would seem to me that Canadian universities have become a flourishing platform which mirrors a broader based coalition of anti-Semitic and Islamist nations intent upon importing radicalism, excusing terror and promoting intolerance.

I would wonder what the cushioned, left world reaction would be to the hosting of say, an annual Islamic Terrorism Week?

Grace

Jew hating, CUPE style

Posted on by
Cartoon from the National Post Online

Cartoon from the National Post Online

University workers within CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, have passed a motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel. Union members from at least one Toronto university plan to pressure their school to slice any financial ties with the Jewish state. The committee representing  the union’s university workers call on the union to create an education campaign on what proponents claim is Israel’s apartheid practices against Palestine.

CUPE president Sid Ryan said ” we want to do what we can in a peaceful way to end the occupation of Palestine”.  He would also like to investigate ties between Canadian universities and Israel. Jewish groups and some of CUPE’s own unions oppose the motion. “ Here we have a situation where a once proud nation has sunk so low as to have a small group put forward a motion that is, on it’s face, bigoted, discriminatory and anti-Jewish” said chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber.

Ryan’s latest statement and overall sentiment sound eerily familiar; much akin to the anti-Semitic sentiment and rhetoric that have so frequently appeared in essay and op-ed form on the Canadian Islamic Congress website. Note also, the union support given to such groups. Colonialization, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, persecution, the Zionist regime and genocide are all phrases popular with one of Canada’s most prominent Islamist propaganda machines; the CIC. Is this culture collusion? and if so, what’s in it for Sid? Perverted notoriety? or could the shared sentiment and solidarity be fuelled by the atrophied Troubles that may have followed him from the old sod just as failure, intolerance and bigotry have followed and shaped the radical Islam? This alliance may prove to be a sympathetic match made in heaven, with soul mates content in a common legitimization of bigotry fuelled by untold ignorance, arrogance and marked error.

CUPE has no business in Jew hating and anti-Semitism it is not an industry by which it should be affiliating or defining itself. Besides, it is well dominated by Islamist groups flourishing in this nation without the need of further assistance. Mr. Ryan also has no business collecting dues from a union populace whose majority wish to distance themselves from such hatefulness. Universities are places of higher learning  and should not be pimped out as platforms for Islamic radicals, Arab thugs and leftist goons to peddle their extremism. CUPE’s motion is a disgrace not an act of solidarity.

Grace

muslim cleric in chicago addresses domestic violence; fails to cite honour killings

Posted on by

The following is the text of a sermon delivered in a Chicago mosque where domestic violence within the Muslim community, a particular issue of concern is addressed. The Imam speaks directly of the brutal murder of the wife of moderate Bridges t.v. founder Hassan and condemns this brutal act connecting it to the increasing level of domestic violence within the Muslim community. Although he attempts to expunge his Muslim community of violence, he fails to address the fact that this form of violence is specific to Islam in the form of honour killing. He does however make reference to this term at the end of the sermon.

There can be no doubt that cultural aspects play a significant role in these murders. Domestic violence in western culture, as haenous as it is, rarely results in death in comparison. Honour killings however, portray a much different scenario. These killings are often premeditated with the compliance of family members and are sanctioned as a cultural and religious restoration of a good, family name. The shame of a woman’s illicit act, whatever it may be or however it is perceived by family, extended relatives and community, combined with the will to restore the honour of family forms a toxic mix of sanctioned violence. This is a recurring theme in these murders.

For many western apologists of Islam both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, it is a difficult if not impossible task to equate the slaying of a woman with Islam. But the Quaran itself in the absence of any central authority, is open to a multitude of interpretation, with every crackpot misogynist weighing in on the instruction and edict on the value of a woman’s life.

Guest speaker at the Chicago mosque Hesham Hassaballa states; ” Domestic violence may well indeed trancend race, culture, colour and religion. It is a scourge that contaminates very society and socioeconomic status. It is a stain on the human condition and to blame Islam for it is totally unfair”. I agree with him. It is a scourge, but what the good Imam fails to recognize or if he does recognize fails to address, is the import of sharia, and it’s religious and cultural sanctioned deficit for women. Honour killings are simply not the same as domestic violence crimes. Violence against a woman is a criminal act, yet an honour killing holds the separate component of religious and cultural relevance, a relevance inherant to Islam often excused by the community and swept under the cultural relativist carpet.

I presume the Imam at the Chicago mosque did his best to dissuade the wife beaters and any would be honour killers in his congegation to re-think their wayward ways and to seek the guidance of the prophet muhammed and Allah. I’m also certain that this same Imam believes that there is no difference between domestic violence and honour killing. But many, including myself, are growing weary and impatient with half-hearted lectures and weak proclamations; we now insist on the direct denouncement of sharia and it’s refusal as a legitimate form of counsel and religious edict. Denial is indeed deadly, Mr. Hassaballa.  Until a strong denouncement is made and sharia rejected, honour killings will continue to masquerade as domestic violence.

Grace