More on the mosqueteria- Canadian Islamist groups praise TDSB for taking a ‘principled’, sharia stand.

It should come as little surprise that Canadian Islamist groups are gushing with glee over the Toronto District School Board’s decision to play host to the illegal cafeteria-cum- mosque, it’s travelling Imam and the gender apartheid, Muslim menses ban set-up at Valley Park Middle School in Toronto. I especially love their references to the importance of human rights.

It appears the legal beagles over at the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association must have opted to appear for Friday prayer instead of attending the classes which directly reference sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing equality and gender equality respectively. Continue Reading →

RCMP outreach or outrage?

Several years ago the RCMP developed a variety of outreach divisions designed specifically to engage members of minority communities in Canada. One such division, The National Security Community Outreach program, was created to ‘ensure that all persons are treated with equality and respect’, a fundamental component of RCMP national security criminal investigations. ” The protection of our national security requires the awareness and involvement of all citizens. We encourage invitations to meet with community groups and welcome opportunities to work more closely with cultural and ethnic community representatives”.

Sounds good. What responsible police force wouldn’t want to strive to provide to all an opportunity to become informed of their rights and freedoms as well as the activities the RCMP undertakes to protect them? And certainly befitting to the present day climate of political correctness, diversity, outreach, dialogue and round table discussions appear apropos. The trouble is, whose sitting at the round tables?

In February 2007, ‘The Cross-Country Roundtable on Security’ was held in Toronto hosted by both the RCMP and CSIS. It was a raucous affair, complete with attendees that should never have been invited, or the uninvited told to leave. Among the cultural and ethnic community representatives in attendance was none other than controversial Imam Aly-Hindy of the Salaheddin mosque in suburban Toronto. Imam Aly- Hindy boasts of openly performing polygamous marriages, illegal in Canada. In a May, 2009 National Post Full Comment, columnist John Turley-Ewart writes:

‘Hindy is using polygamy as a proxy for his fundamentalist version of Islam, something he wants to see legitimized in Canadian society as a whole. It is part of an attempt at empire building, a bid that if successful will enhance his influence within the Muslim community and demonstrate that Ontario and Canada is too ignorant and too afraid of Islam to uphold its own laws. He has admitted as much, challenging Ontario’s government to dare stop him. “If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that.”

He took advantage of the outreach event by complaining that six Muslims did not obtain security clearance for sensitive government jobs. Hindy’s mosque made headlines this week when the National Post learned that Salaheddin has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Middle East donors since 2009. The mosque is described by the RCMP as a “focal point for Toronto Islamic radicals” and by the New York Police Department as a “known radical mosque”. Hindy said that by securing overseas funds the mosque was “preserving Muslim culture”.

The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) also made an appearance at the Sheraton Hotel. This group formed in 1967, represents the interests of Arab Canadians with respect to the formulation of public policy in Canada. With over 40 member organizations, it seeks to ‘combat hate and racism’, is vocal against what it perceives to be anti-Arab and anti-Muslim activities and issues position papers to the government on it’s policies in South Asia and it’s domestic immigration affairs. It also boasts of promoting the richness of Muslim and Arab culture. Not a group to sit idly by, it appears to seek out controversy. It too complained, primarily about Canada’s Mid East policies and the Muslim ‘brothers’ being deported for terrorism.

This past week the now defunded and ostracized CAF appeared at ” Exposing Israeli Apartheid and the Violation of Palestinian Rights” held at the University of Toronto. The groups president Khaled Mouammar took no time at all to vent his hatred for Canada and the mistreatment his organization has suffered under the Conservative government. Mr. Mouammar finds respect illusive; it may have something to do with the fact that he called Immigration Minister Jason Kenney a “professional whore” and insisted on flying the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah at a rally in Toronto. In addition to Mr. Kenney’s decision to review or eliminate funding to the group, he further stated ” We should not be rewarding those who express views that are contrary to Canada’s best liberal values of tolerance and mutual respect”.

Last August, one day after RCMP investigators searched the homes of three arrested terror suspects, it’s outreach office in Ottawa called a swift meeting of the cultural diversity consultative committee to apologize to local Muslims. They felt it necessary to apologize that the bust had taken place during Ramadan. More than a dozen meetings were held with Muslim groups including visits to mosques, community centres and several meals to break the Ramadan fast. It’s difficult to determine which groups were in attendance, however representatives from the Tamil, Sikh, Asian, Jewish, Muslim and First Nations communities were present. The Canadian Islamic Congress carries on it’s web site an article claiming the apology ‘never happened’ despite claims to the contrary. Nazira Naz Tareen writes:

“At no time was an apology asked for by anyone present, nor was one given by any officer of the RCMP or the Ottawa Police. One question raised during the presentation was: “Since the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP had been investigating the three (detained) individuals for over a year, why were the arrests not made before or after Ramadan?” When one of the officers from the panel explained the reason, all of us accepted the answer as reasonable in the circumstances”.

” To show support to our Muslim brothers and sisters during Ramadan, there will be no food or or drink during this most important meeting. The meeting is for one hour only, in order to observe prayer time and the breaking of the fast during Ramadan”, wrote Cpl. Wayne Russett, the RCMP’s aboriginal and ethnic liaison officer in Ottawa. Prime Minister Harper responded to the apology given by saying “”In fairness this is an operational matter for the RCMP and I wouldn’t pretend to know all the details and aspects of the story. But the general approach that this government would expect to see (from law enforcement agencies) is that the law, our important laws, are enforced every day of the year.”

In October of last year, the RCMP was told to drop the extreme event billed as “Just and Sustainable Peace- A Global Challenge”. The ‘peace conference’ was promoted by the ethnic liaison office to members of the national force, with one of the participants a member of the cultural diversity committee. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews stated ” Let me be clear. Canada’s national police force must have no involvement in any event organized by those who promote extremism or hatred”. “As soon as I learned about this event, I asked the RCMP to explain its involvement. I have asked it to immediately cease any participation”. The listed speakers included Davood Ameri of The Islamic World Peace Forum, a group whose website contains graphic anti-Semitic cartoons, complete with articles calling the United States a terrorist state and several professors from the University of Tehran closely linked to the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The moderator for this event was Imam Zijad Delic of the Canadian Islamic Congress. His speaking engagement at the Department of National Defence was cancelled earlier in the month after Defence Minister Peter MacKay deemed both Zelic and his outfit extremist.

Community Outreach Program (COP) was created by the RCMP INSET in May of 2005 to prevent terrorism through the engagement of partners in all sections of society. Law enforcement agencies and security officials are increasingly coming under scrutiny, bombarded by Islamic activist groups intent to ensure that ‘fairness and justice is afforded to Muslims’, as if it were denied them and given instead to all others. CAIR-CAN has made it their goal to breathe life into exaggerated claims of rampant and escalating Islamophobia, to the point of creating publications and kits. The Ramadan kit is boasted in CAIR-CAN’s Annual Review 2007 as an essential in any Canadian Muslim media activist’s toolbox. Over 100 copies of The Educators Guide to Islamic Religious Practice were ordered by one school board and over 400 ‘Know Your Rights’ booklets sent to one conference. Similar guides for journalists, employers and health care providers are revamped with a new look with one also written for correctional services and the law enforcement community. CAIR-CAN works to “foster an accurate understanding and greater appreciation of Islam in Canadian society through community education and outreach”. It states it’s full independence from its sister organization, Washington based CAIR, although “the two coordinate on areas of mutual concern”.

A document found on the RCMP website entitled “Words Make Worlds” is designed to “stimulate discussion among RCMP members along with their counterparts in other agencies, particularly with regard to the need for a common language to describe terrorism adequately”. The introduction continues to say “Just as critical is the need for a comprehensive understanding of the process of radicalization and the manner in which we may intervene”. Much of what is written leaves one with an adequate sense of the reality pertaining to radicalization and the issues and observations the author suggests surround it. Yet when referring to the distinction between Islam and Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood appears as a rather benign, quasi-secret society:

“It’s (MB) founders and chief ideologues were predominantly anti-Western and tended to characterize Islamic political aspirations as fundamentally counter to democracy. Increasingly however, the Brotherhood has repudiated radicalism and adopted a gradualist perspective which, while not aligned to Western democratic principles, (the Brotherhood is linked to Hamas for example) is more positively oriented toward them. Few members of the Muslim Brotherhood espouse terrorism and in many Muslim countries they have served as voices of moderation, channeling people away from violence and toward legitimate political and charitable activities”.

A more moderate appearance by the Muslim Brotherhood may be true, but only insofar as it’s tactics may have changed to suit present circumstances. It’s strategy remains the same. The significance of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s oft- violent offshoot entity, should not be relegated to mere parentheses, especially considering Canada has placed the organization on its list of terrorist groups. Likewise, the Muslim Brotherhood’s continued aspiration of settlement through non-violent means should not be downplayed, as a failure to recognize the inroads already made in response to Al-Ikhwan’s settlement process deliberately or otherwise, aids in the maintenance and endurance of it’s core objective.

Remaining true to it’s original goal, the Muslim Brotherhood clearly states:

The process of settlement of Islam is a “Civilization-Jihadist” process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

It’s difficult to determine whether these representatives are invited to various outreach events specifically and on a regular, repeat basis or whether they respond to a more general, open invitation. If CAIR-CAN, the CIC and the CAF are on speed-dial, do the authorities presume they have something beneficial to contribute? Or is the influence and outreach the other way around? Salma Siddiqui, vice president of the Muslim Canadian Congress says the notion that Muslims need special treatment or that their religious sensibilities need to be addressed is patronizing. She adds that police diversity outreach committees should be dismantled. Tarek Fatah, author and open critic of radical outfits, agrees. He asserts too many Canadian institutions are crumbling beneath the pressures of political correctness and are making themselves susceptible to infiltration by extremists. Ikhwan should not be setting the agenda for security services. Outreach or outrage?

Grace for Vladtepesblog.

CIC’s Islamic History Month Canada? Not on my dime.

Vlad Op-Ed

The affair concerning the barred Imam and DND is fast becoming even more mired in controversy and confusion. Imam Zijad Delic has remarked in a purely defensive move there is no truth to the allegation, adding it compromises Canada’s interests and the well being of our troops in Afghanistan. Mrs. Valiante, president of the CIC, called Mr. MacKay’s decision a crass attempt to pander to the far-right, evangelical base of the Conservative party by smearing the representatives of Muslim and Arab communities.

Meanwhile, Mr. MacKay defended his position in the House, reiterating that his decision was based on the fact that the Canadian Islamic Congress is deemed an extreme outfit whose sentiments are not welcome. Jason Kenney referenced the group in a 2009 speech in which he said it is part of an ongoing review. We are warned time and again by both security experts and moderate Muslim groups of the increasing infiltration of government departments by those actively seeking to impose Islamist standards. Yet despite this, celebrations of Islamic History Month went ahead at DND even without the Imam.

Those critical of MacKay’s decision are calling for an inquiry. I agree there should be one; but chances are not for the same reasons. I have no quarrel with this government’s approach to combating extremism as a matter of fact, I support the initiatives. But, I do want to know why Islamic History Month Canada, the creation of a publicly known extremist group, continues on it’s traveling road show every year.

I want to know why my tax dollars funded it’s launch with an appearance at the Ottawa Police Station last Friday and why Kingston became the first Ontarian city in 2007 to proclaim CIC’s Islamic History Month a yearly event, signed by proclamation by its mayor. I want to know why it would be seen as suitable, that last years IHMC’s theme revolved around ‘Islamic solutions to finance’; an introduction to sharia finance/banking alternatives in Canada. I want to know why on October 25, a portion of my taxes will fund a contest for Muslim school children to participate in a contest for this year’s theme ‘Islam and the Environment’ to be held at Dalton’s Queen’s Park while my family struggles to pay him more in increased taxes for his costly eco-initiatives.

But most of all I want to know this: why do our government officials (of all parties) continue to host the CIC’s advancement of Islamist standards through their creation of Islamic History Month to any degree while simultaneously denouncing extremism? We’re seeking outreach with the wrong folks and are mistaken if we believe such bridge building efforts are not in fact, sharia compliant.

Follow up: Canadian Islamic Congress’ “People’s Man” speech cancelled at Department of National Defence

Three days ago, we posted the article, “What the Hell is going on at DND?” reporting on BlazingCatFur’s excellent exposure that the Canadian Islamic Congress’s Imam Zijad Delic would be delivering a scheduled speech at Ottawa’s Department of National Defence in celebration of Islamic History Month. Yesterday we followed up with another article, ” Balzingcatfur Gets Results! MacKay Cancels DND speech by Canadian Islamic Congress”. It appears that the CIC’s front and center Imam will not be permitted to deliver his speech after all, as the Defence Minister has cited the organization as an extremist one with sentiments that should neither be welcomed or shared as part of Islamic Heritage.

Good news travels fast as both the Ottawa Citizen and the National Post have today published the latest in the story. But others are not so thrilled and see little cause for celebration in what blazingcatfur aptly describes as ” a small victory in a long war”.

Typically when Islamist extremism is exposed, apologists on its behalf trip over themselves to “set the record straight”.  One such example comes to us through the Montreal Muslim News’s Ottawa based Yahya’s blog on life, politics, religion, culture, etc. The author of ” Peter MacKay’s Cancellation of Imam Zijad Delic’s Speech is Deplorable and Counter-Productive” seems to waver between predictable Muslim outrage and palsied victimization that such a decision would be made. He writes:

” We now live in an  age of collective punishment. One person holds an objectionable view or makes a controversial statement and anyone associated with that person in anyway is also found to be guilty. We call this guilt by association and most right thinking people consider it to be totally unfair….”

Of course he is referring to the public statement made in October of 2004 by then president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry in which he stated that all Israelis over the age of eighteen are legitimate targets for terrorism.

“Delic has totally distanced himself from Elmasry’s statements and has categorically declared that “Muslims totally forbid suicide bombing.”  Delic further stated that Elmasry was speaking on his own and not on behalf of CIC”. “Of course CIC doesn’t agree. There are many leaders who speak and they don’t speak on behalf of everybody. They just speak,” Delic said. “Muslims totally forbid suicide bombing.”

For guilt by association to be argued responsibly and with any measure of success, one would have to deliver the facts; that the organization in question has firmly and unequivocally denounced this infamous remark as extreme and non-representative of their position and does not consider Elmasry a beneficial ally in their bridge building efforts. Six years after the Coren event, I have yet to find any facts that bear this out, delivering without exception or conditions the separation between the CIC, it’s ‘People Man’ Delic and Elmasry.
It’s impossible to say whether the relationship remains up close and personal or whether he is viewed as the family’s creepy, weird, distant uncle to be invited to dinner only when the occasion suits, to be defended because he is part of the clan. But whether close or not, there is a continued alliance.
Shortly after the Coren affair, there was no CIC site denouncement of Elmasry’s statement to be found, instead a vehement defense on his behalf. “THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE! the site screeched in good measured denial of the doctor’s very public comment. They lambasted the media for reporting on it, and in response announced their initiation of a law suit against certain media organizations for defamation. Another article published on the site entitled ‘Defend Mohamed Elmasry” of November 10, 2004, opens with the charge that Dr. Elmasry has been “the target of an intense and unrelenting media campaign calling for his resignation as head of the CIC.. ” They further added:
“What exactly did Elmasry say and, even if he did say it, does it deserve this kind of response?”
followed by a link to a full transcript of the show available from…….. the Montreal Muslim News. Of course it deserved ‘that kind’ of response just as now, both the CIC and Imam Delic deserve the scrutiny they face. As a point man for an organization that has clearly been established as a supporter of Islamist standards in Canada, it should come as no surprise to anyone least of all Imam Delic that he should be held responsible for his organization’s views. If you’re going to sign up to be the guy that gives speeches then you have to be prepared to answer for what your group believes. Considering that Mohamed Elmasry continues to appear on the list of ‘who’s who at the CIC and his articles continue to be published on their site, this could quite possibly set a new record for the shortest distance measured.
Below is the video of Mohamed Elmasry on the Michael Coren show. Apparently we don’t need to be aided by the transcript from the Montreal Muslim News to hear what he said. As for my own view, this indeed is a small victory in a long war, one that is fought as bravely on the home front as it is overseas. Thank you to blazingcatfur for their northern exposure.

Religion of Peace, also religion of Cooperation

Montreal Muslim News instructs Canadian_Muslims not to cooperate with authorities in terror probe. Thanks to Grace and to Blazing Cat Fur for bringing this to my attention.

From Blazing Cat Fur:

Ottawa Terror Muslims Update: Let the Muslim Backlash Begin! instructs members in non-cooperation with authorities

A reader, who shall remain nameless lest he be “Muslim Backlashed”, received this e-mail instructional from Read it carefully, unless I missed something this is not an appeal for cooperation with authorities nor is it a denunciation of jihadi terror. It is in fact a call to the Muslim Community to circle the wagons and act according to a specific agenda that speaks more to a cover up than cooperation.

Salam Alaikum,

Ater speaking to representatives of 2 of the accused in the case they have given this instruction.

1.Do not speak to the media. Refer them to the lawyers of the defendants
2.Do not talk about the case or the defendants in detail even in private. It is more than likely that some people are under surveillance and anything could be used against the defendants. This is of CRITICAL importance. Do not send emails, post on facebook, twitter etc… about the defendants.
3.If at any point our support is needed we will be informed but for now we must sit tight.
4.Make Du’a
5.There will be some letters circulated asking to ensure the case is fair and transparent – you can act up on these letters.

This is of the utmost importance please try to respect these rules.

Salam, Continue Reading →

Canadian Islamic Congress’ regional director slams Quebec’s niqab ban as ‘inflammatory’ to Muslims

The following is an article written by the regional director of the Canadian Islamic Congress on Quebec’s legislation forbidding Muslim women from wearing the niqab while requiring public services. The CIC (Mohamed Elmasry’s old stomping ground), continues to work diligently to ensure sharia law finds it’s ‘cultural’ place in Canada.

From The Saskatoon Star Pheonix

Quebec decision on niqab sends troubling signal

By Dr. Ahmed Shoker, The StarPhoenix

April 8, 2010

Following is the viewpoint of Shoker, a professor of medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, past-president of the Islamic association of Saskatoon and regional director of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Premier Jean Charest’s government in Quebec recently announced its commitment to secularism and gender equality, and proposed legislation that essentially bans the niqab — a full-veil covering worn by a few Muslim women — from all government bodies.

Under common Islamic interpretations this bill is unnecessary. The government’s move is inflammatory, and let me tell you why.

In Islam, it is a divine inscription that adult women should, as do Muslim men in other ways, exercise modesty in public places. They are expected to cover their beauty, which includes either wearing the commonly seen veil that covers the hair but not the face, or (in accordance with a minority of scholars) a niqab that covers both the hair and face. Continue Reading →

Conspiracies, Islamist propaganda headline Toronto conference

The Christmas Day underwear bomber was described as the tool of an Israeli plot; Barack Obama was referred to as “Mr. Black Man”; al-Qaeda was called “the figment of the imagination of the West”; and a video was shown that mocked 9/11 by putting the Muppet Show logo over slow-motion footage of the second plane’s impact, with screams of terror for audio.

From The National Post

Conspiracies, propaganda top agenda at Islam summit

‘Media War’

Joseph Brean, National Post Published: Tuesday, February 16, 2010

PLEASE donate to Ezra. This is ALL our fight.

The article below is taken verbatim from Ezra Levant’s website here: Please click on over and donate anything you can at all. This is not just his fight. This is the Canadian version of the Geert Wilders trial. Donating to Ezra, is truly fighting for all of us.


By Ezra Levant on January 21, 2010 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments

Khurrum Awan of the anti-Semitic Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has finally filed his nuisance lawsuit against me, as he threatened to do last summer. You can see it here.

Awan’s jihad: lawfare

Awan is the shakedown artist who targeted Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine with three human rights complaints in 2008, for Steyn’s political offence of criticizing radical Islam. Awan lost those suits, and his demand to censor Maclean’s was rejected, but he still managed to waste a lot of Maclean’s money – and even more taxpayers’ money, too.

That’s Awan’s strategy: abuse our courts to bully his opponents. It’s a shocking thing for a lawyer to admit to, but Awan isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. As he told an anti-Semitic meeting in British Columbia a while back, he was proud to have “cost Maclean’s two million dollars in legal expenses and lost circulation.” Awan’s friend, the notorious anti-Semite Greg Felton, approvingly quotes Awan saying “we attained out strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material”.

So it’s not about justice. It’s not about “human rights”. It’s about abusing our legal system to punish his enemies.

Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine were first. And now I’m next in line.

This is the soft jihad of “lawfare”, the strategy where anti-Western radicals use our own laws to attack us, rather than pantybombs or shoebombs.

It’s Awan’s little jihad. And because I’ve criticized him (and the human rights commissions he hijacked), he’s coming for me now.

What kind of people are Awan and the CIC?

I won’t go through Awan’s entire history again; if you’re interested, I’d encourage you to read my biography of him when he first threatened me, last summer. But here are a few highlights.

Awan was the president of the CIC’s youth wing, loyally standing by the CIC’s president, Mohammed Elmasry, when he declared on national TV that every adult Israeli was a legitimate target for a terrorist attack.

You can watch that clip here, courtesy of SDA Matt:

Elmasry’s the kind of guy who puts the KKK in klassy.

For years Awan was Elmasry’s mini-me. But he moved out from under Elmasry’s shadow when he became the PR front man for the CIC’s human rights nuisance suits against Steyn and Maclean’s.

Awan was not actually the complainant in those complaints. He was one of Elmasry’s sock puppets, a ventriloquist dummy for Elmasry’s attack on the Canadian values of freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Elmasry needed puppets, because he had damaged his own reputation so badly with his televised comments. But here’s an interview where Elmasry boasts that Awan was little more than Elmasry’s stooge. And Awan was only too happy to comply.

Elmasry was smart enough not to sue in real court. Not Awan.

But even Elmasry wasn’t stupid enough to sue Maclean’s in defamation court, where truth is a defence. And though he whined when I wrote this about him, he was smart enough not to sue.

Which is why I’m looking forward so much to Awan’s trial. He isn’t smart enough not to sue.

Khurrum Awan and Mohamed Elmasry hurt their reputations by attacking Maclean’s – and the Canadian value of freedom. They were almost universally denounced.

They lost their human rights complaints, but they weren’t stuck with Maclean’s legal bills as they would have been in real court. And they never really underwent any true scrutiny – unlike in real courts, they escaped any meaningful examination of their own foul conduct.

Awan is about to find out that real courts are a lot more even-handed than the kangaroo courts he manipulated.

Another junk lawsuit

Let’s take a quick look through his nuisance lawsuit together.

The first thing to note are the dates. Awan is suing me for my in-the-courthouse reports on the CIC’s human rights complaints, back in June of 2008. But he didn’t bother to serve a libel notice on me until July of 2009, more than a year later. And then it took him nearly another six months to serve the suit itself, which my lawyer received over Christmas.

That’s 18 months after I wrote what I wrote. Which shows Awan’s strategy: this isn’t about correcting the record in a timely manner. It’s about punishing a political opponent.

The next interesting thing in the suit is that Awan describes himself as a lawyer. But a quick glance at the Law Society’s website shows that he is not in fact registered to practice law. I wonder why that is. After all, he was articling at Lerner’s, the same firm as Faisal Joseph, the lead CIC lawyer suing Maclean’s. Why didn’t Joseph keep him on? Competence? Politics? Not enough business? I’m quite curious. Aren’t you? I’m excited that I’ll learn about it in open court.

Awan’s lawyer in this lawsuit is Brian Shiller, the same lawyer representing Richard Warman and Warren Kinsella in their nuisance lawsuits against me (and many others they’ve targeted for silencing, including Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan and Free Dominion). Awan, Warman and Kinsella are all part of the same censorship cabal.

I’ve pointed out some of Shiller’s hilarious legal drafting errors in the past, and this lawsuit is no different. See paragraph 4: he manages to misspell the word Maclean’s (he writes it with a capital l) and to write the plural of Muslim as “Muslim’s” – with an apostrophe. Those aren’t important errors, of course. But they go to the sloppiness of Shiller’s work. But when you’re filing nuisance suits, it’s good enough.

Khurrum Awan is a serial liar

The main thrust of Awan’s suit is that I call him a liar. Well, he is a liar – and it was all revealed that day in court, when I wrote about it. Awan and his fellow sock puppets had repeatedly told the public that they had asked Maclean’s to publish a lengthy pro-Muslim essay, to rebut an article by Steyn, and that the rebuttal would be written by a “mutually acceptable” author. But under cross-examination by Maclean’s lawyer, Julian Porter, Awan admitted he had never asked Maclean’s to run a “mutually acceptable” article – he had demanded that they run a piece written by someone solely of the CIC’s choosing. The “mutually acceptable” thing was a lie told to the media, designed to make Awan and the CIC look more reasonable to the public. Here’s what I wrote when that lie was exposed on June 3, 2008. It’s a blog entry called Khurrum Awan is a serial liar:

Julian Porter himself was at the meeting where Khurrum Awan and his junior Al Sharptons tried to shake down Ken Whyte and Maclean’s for cash and a cover story.

Porter asked Awan point blank if the CIC’s proposed “counter-article” was to be “mutually acceptable” to Whyte or of the CIC’s own choosing.

After obfuscating for a few rounds, Awan acknowledged that he never in fact offered a “mutually acceptable” article — that was simply an after-the-fact lie, a little bit of taqqiya that Awan et al. has told the press.

Awan admitted that he made no such offer of a mutually acceptable author. It was to be the CIC’s own choice.

For an example of just how often Awan told that lie, let me recommend to you Colby Cosh’s notes on the subject.

That’s the bulk of Awan’s case. But let me point out one other little quirk: at paragraph 26, Awan claims that he “has been shunned by former friends” because of my blogging. That’s fascinating. I can hardly wait to learn the details about those friends – who they are, what they thought of Awan before they read my blog, how they decided to “shun” Awan afterwards, and what exactly it was that caused the change: Awan’s actions, or my blogging about his actions. (Do you think he’ll actually name names, or do you think he’ll mumble and crumble, like he did under Porter’s cross-examination in 2008?)

Awan’s lawsuit is for $50,000 plus costs. It’s not an enormous amount of money, but it will probably cost me $50,000 just to defend against it, plus a week at trial in another city.

Let’s go on the offensive. (They hate that!)

But here’s a question that has me pretty excited: can we turn lemons into lemonade here? By that I mean, instead of just fighting this lawsuit passively, what if I could use it to go on the offensive, and really root around inside the Canadian Islamic Congress, and expose their anti-Semitic, anti-Canadian ways? The trial will be partly about what I’ve written — no problem. But it will equally be about Awan’s reputation, and that of the CIC. It will give me a chance to ask Awan questions he’s never been asked before, and to see documents he’s never had to disclose before.

I’ll be able to expose the CIC for the venomous outfit that it is. I can picture spending at least an hour talking with Awan about his organization’s call for the decriminalization of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups.

My friends, I don’t like being sued. But I have to tell you, of all the junk lawsuits thrown at me because of my campaign for free speech – and there have been plenty – this one is in some ways the most important. If I handle this one right, I can expose the true nature of the CIC and the radical Islamist, pro-terrorist groups in Canada with whom Awan has consorted.

Let me quote a Jew now, just because it will irritate Awan. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote nearly 100 years ago, “publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” I’m going to bring some klieg lights to trial on this one.

I believe that nothing will disinfect our public square better than scrutiny and publicity of how illiberal Islamic fascists are waging war against our values. I hope that the lasting impact of this trial will be the complete and final detonation of the CIC’s credibility.

Bring it on.

Can you help me, please?

As I mentioned, this lawsuit will probably cost me $50,000 to fight. And it’s just one of many suits and complaints that the same cabal has hit me with, again and again.

Over the past two years I’ve been hit with three human rights complaints, over twenty complaints to the law society and this is the fifth defamation suit. That’s 28 suits and complaints. And they’re all junk lawsuits – SLAPP suits designed to shut me up.

I won the three human rights cases, and the first twenty law society complaints have all been dismissed. So far I have a perfect track record: 23 out of 23. Unfortunately, even if you win these sorts of nuisance complaints, you don’t get your legal costs back, so it’s been expensive.

If you’d like to help me, I’d appreciate it. It’s expensive fighting two dozen legal fights, even if they are junk. I think that a “normal” person would try to get out of a lawsuit like this – make a settlement, withdraw from the public square, and don’t criticize radical Islam or censorship anymore. But I don’t want to submit like that – I want to use this lawsuit to expose the truth about Awan and the CIC. And I certainly don’t want this suit to change what I say or do in my life, especially my ability to criticize radical Islam and its politically correct allies.

If you believe in fighting back against these bullies, please help me out. You can chip in by PayPal, by clicking on the button below. If you’d prefer to send in a cheque by snail mail, that’s great. Please make cheques payable to my lawyer:

“Christopher Ashby in Trust”

Attn: Ezra Levant defence fund

Suite 1013, 8 King Street East

Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1B5

Thank you very much. I promise to fight this battle all the way to the end.

“I am not a registered non-profit organization. Donations are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.”

****To donate to Ezra please follow this link and scroll to the bottom of the article****

This seems like a good spot to repost this amazing moment from a speech by a Canadian Prof. of law, and former candidate for the federal N.D.P. party.

Bomb-sniffing dogs on Vancouver transit worry Muslim leader

I have an idea! Don’t wear a bomb on to a subway. See that’s the thing. Muslims are objecting to bomb-sniffing dogs cause Muslims have the same pathological hatred for dogs as they do for anything good in this world. But the solution for them is so easy. Don’t wear a bomb or any explosives and no dog will slobber all over you. Then, there is the annoying use of the term ‘have to’ as if people choosing to obey seventh century arbitrary religious edicts actually constitute something one has to do, in a manner that requires others to accommodate them. A person with a heart condition has to take medication or they will die. Tiger Woods has to by an entire orchid farm or greenhouse if he wants to keep his marriage intact. But a Muslim doesn’t HAVE to wash after he is near a dog. He just feels he should or it effects the degree to which his prayers are received, by someone for whom there is no evidence ever existed.

Eeyore for Vlad

From the CBC by way of Gates of Vienna:

Passengers stepping off the SkyTrain could soon be greeted by explosive-sniffing dog patrols.Passengers stepping off the SkyTrain could soon be greeted by explosive-sniffing dog patrols. (Mike Laanela/CBC)Specially trained bomb-sniffing dogs might soon be patrolling Metro Vancouver’s buses and SkyTrains just in time for the Olympics, but that has some Muslims concerned.

The Metro Vancouver Transit Police Service is in the process of selecting the handlers and dogs that will be part of the two-year pilot project, said deputy chief George Beattie.

Once the teams are trained, the dogs will work on the entire transit system, including buses, SkyTrains and SeaBus ferries.

But the idea of being sniffed up and down by a slobbery pooch — no matter how well trained — has already raised concerns among some members of Metro Vancouver’s Muslim community.

Some devout Muslims consider dogs to be unclean animals and try to avoid any contact with them. Some Muslim cab drivers in Vancouver have even refused to take guide dogs in their vehicles and will call for a second vehicle to take the fare instead.

Shawket Hassan, the vice-president of the B.C. Muslim Association, says he wants to make sure the dogs will not touch passengers during searches, which could lead to problems, particularly for Muslims heading to a mosque to pray.

“If they touch the body, then there is a probability they will leave some saliva on the clothes,” said Hassan.

‘If I am going to the mosque and pray … and I have this saliva on my body … I have to go and change or clean.’ — Shawket Hassan, vice-president of the B.C. Muslim Association Continue Reading →

Canadian Islamist group against the crushing of section 13; HRC

The Canadian Islamic Congress one of Canada’s preeminent Islamist groups, fears the crushing of section 13 as legislated within the nations’ Human Rights Commission(s). Why does this outfit wring their hands in such despair? Could it be that the absence of such a provision would severely curb their ability to launch potential, future law-fare complaints against those who legitimately criticize radical Islam?

It may be worth noting that the CIC’s former boss Mohammed Elmasry has since ‘retired’ from the CIC feeling no doubt a bit quirky and f—– up at his public, national smack-down as prominent, Islamist agent provacateur. In believing ‘Canada deserves better media coverage’ than that by which ‘the Zionist controlled media’ could offer, he has since launched the Canadian Charger this past July; (tip: leg, thigh, butt and hip weighters required to muck about in the Pond of CC bullocks). Wahida Valiante now in charge of the CIC, has managed to only slightly and selectively tighten the taps on the flow of her groups’ overt, Islamist operational exercise in Canada, replacing Elmasry with a slightly friendlier, but no less menacing face.

I would be interested to know if there is anyone who could confirm any “false and inflammatory’ allegation(s) quoted from MP Ander’s distributed material found in the paragraph highlighted below. So far I can find no falsehood as 1, 2 and 3 are true. If one can do so, I will gladly buy a pulled pork sandwich and a pint on your behalf, in support of The International Free Press Society.


CIC latest media communique, Sept. 17, 2009.

Canadian Islamic Congress Cautions Against Legalizing Hate Speech In Canada


The Canadian Islamic Congress issued a warning today about the disturbing use of discriminatory language and misleading statements in campaign pamphlets by Calgary MP Rob Anders.

The pamphlets, issued to Calgary West constituents, relate to the anti-hate powers of the Federal Human Rights Commission. The CIC finds this material to be inflammatory and factually misleading.

“When any politician targets a minority group with disinformation or misleading statements in order to score points with a perceived majority electorate, this needs to be challenged by all Canadians, not only the targeted groups,” said CIC National President Mrs. Wahida Valiante.

Mr. Anders’ pamphlets, which urge constituents to support his efforts to delete the anti-hate protections enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, “cross the line of fair comment to unfairly target Canadian Muslims with inflammatory and factually false material,” continued Mrs. Valiante.

“MP Anders’ distortion of the anti-discrimination work undertaken by human rights commissions in this country highlights the efforts of some Conservative MPs to undermine institutions that protect equality rights and multiculturalism in Canada.”

The false and inflammatory allegations (quoted from MP Anders’ distributed materials) include:

1. “Under section 13 of the so-called “Human Rights” code, Canadians have been prosecuted for holding personal beliefs which offend radical Muslim Imams…” 2. Did you know … it is now illegal to hold opinions that offend radical Muslim activists.” 3. Did you know … In 2007, best selling Canadian author, Mark Steyn, was hauled before the Human Rights Commission. His crime — writing about the dangers of radical Islam. Muslim activists took offence with Mr. Steyn’s writing and lodged ‘human rights’ complaints against him.”

In response to the above excerpts, and similar sentiments voiced by Mr. Anders and his supporters, CIC National Executive Director Imam Dr. Zijad Delic continued:

“In Canada it is not illegal to publish controversial opinions or materials which are subjectively offensive. What the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits is the publication of material that is hateful,” he explained.

Dr. Delic also emphasized that MP Anders’ singling out of complaints filed only by Muslim Canadians — in a context where all minorities have availed themselves of the same anti-hate protections — raises troubling questions about the Conservatives’ views on which Canadians deserve legal protection … and which, by inference, do not.

“The Harper government’s treatment of Mr. Abousfian Abdelraziq and Ms. Suaad Hagi Mohamud, to mention only two recent examples, has already raised concerns about two-tier citizenship,” Dr. Delic noted. “Now it seems some Conservative MPs also believe that not all communities are entitled to file human rights complaints.”

“With an election on the horizon, all Canadians must be extremely mindful of Conservative attempts to undermine equality rights in Canada and to erode the concept of official multiculturalism that made Canada what it is today,” Mrs. Valiante concluded.

Ezra Levant on Ottawa’s CFRA

In this, never before seen, interview with Ezra Levant he speaks eloquently on Canada’s so called ‘Human Rights Commissions’ and other subjects that should be of concern to all freedom minded peoples. Watch and comment.


Link: Ezra Levant on CFRA April 25 09

Galloway and supporters are hypocrites

By Rob Breakenridge, For The Calgary HeraldMarch 31, 2009

As the nation’s media waited with bated breath, a federal court judge ruled Monday that controversial British MP George Galloway would not be coming into Canada.

However, in a somewhat-less-ridiculous world, whether some blowhard Brit addressed a few dozen radical antiwar types would matter not a whit.

Indeed, visits to Canada by Galloway in 2005 and 2006 warranted scant attention, and a speech just last week in New York drew only about 100 people –including the Canadian reporters who were there because of this controversy.

At least according to this judge, Ottawa’s decision to deny Galloway entry into Canada was legally correct, but it was also a needless decision and, frankly, the wrong one.

This is more about the rights of those Canadians who invited him here to speak: freedom of speech obviously entails the freedom to hear.

Justice Luc Martineau was right to say that “non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter . . . Canada,”– but Galloway is no “threat” beyond the queasiness one might feel after listening to him. Although Galloway’s defenders are in the right here, their sudden zeal for freedom of speech seems to me to be very sudden indeed.

In fact, many of Galloway’s supporters–including his biggest fan (himself) –ought to avoid the words “free speech” altogether, be-cause we can easily see how spectacularly uncommitted they are to the very notion. Continue Reading →

Which Canadian Government department is the most incompetent at managing Islamic terrorism

Heritage Canukistan?
by Farzana Hassan
for IPT News
March 23, 2009

Things are heating up in the sweepstakes for the most incompetent department of Canadian government to face Islamic radicalism. For a while, bets were on Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board, which, for 11 years, had the president of the extremist-sympathizing Canadian Arab Federation – big on Hamas and Hizballah – on its board. His job there was to decide who was too dangerous to let into the country.

But now “Heritage Canada,” a Canadian government department whose bid for the title is made with the help of the Calgary-based independent Centre for Faith and the Media (CFM) has jumped in the fray.

Heritage Canada pushes a multiculturalism agenda, and the CFM seems to be a one-employee outfit with a volunteer Board of Directors of sympathetic religious people – with one exception. Positioning itself as a link and information clearinghouse between journalists and religious communities, CFM has been decisive in moving Heritage Canada into committing blunders.

The current fiasco started when Heritage Canada funded the Centre to start something called “The Muslim Project.” This initiative involves a series of cross-Canada “roundtables” prominently displaying CFM’s sole paid employee, Executive Director Richelle Wiseman, as moderator. The end-product? A “study” of media portrayals of Muslims and Islam in Canada, due out within the next year or so.

Heritage Canada bureaucrats would have known something could go wrong with a Muslim-oriented project dealing with this subject if they’d only looked at a “journalist’s guide” to Islam on the sponsoring CFM’s website. The Islam “guide,” which was pulled from the site last month, recommended that Canadian reporters seek out the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as an authoritative source of information about Muslims and Islam. CAIR, of course, is the Washington, DC radical-Islamist organization that is funded by the Saudis and qualified by the US Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial. A parade of its senior officials and affiliated people has made its way into penitentiaries on criminal charges and an FBI agent testified that it was a front organization for Hamas.

The Islam guide was copyrighted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada (CAIR-CAN), the Canadian chapter of CAIR. It isn’t clear whether Canadian bureaucrats were confused by CAIR-CAN’s usual disinformation about “distancing” itself from CAIR – which then-CAIR-CAN Chair Sheema Khan acknowledged in a sworn December 2003 affidavit was her chapter’s mother organization. No one can figure out whether Heritage Canada and the Centre for Faith and the Media “interfaithers” knew that CAIR-CAN refuses to name and condemn the Hamas, Hizballah and other killers placed by Canada’s own government on a list of banned terror groups. Or that CAIR-CAN is a defendant in a 9/11 New York lawsuit. Or that CAIR – including CAIR-CAN – had been responsible for all-out attacks, through the use of “silencing” libel lawsuits, on the constitutional rights of virtually any Canadian and American media that dared to ask about the organizations’ links and agendas. This looks like a pretty weak “partner” for a Centre that aims to help the media.

Much worse was to follow, and it indeed appears that the CFM’s Muslim Project might be substantially in the hands of those who would be most reviled by moderate members of the very Canadian faith community in whose name the Centre hopes to work. A review of available roundtable announcements and other evidence, for example, makes the case. One gets the impression that an intimate and symbiotic relationship seems to have developed between the well-meaning, but apparently unaware CFM, and CAIR-CAN.

One example suffices. Among several public roundtables featuring CAIR-CAN operatives was a “media training” session in Montreal. The event consisted of the CFM Executive Director as moderator, and three panelists: CAIR-CAN Executive Director Ihsaan Gardee, Sameer Zuberi – somewhat misleadingly advertised in one source as a human rights advocate and student – and a cleric named Sikander Hashmi. Elsewhere, Zuberi was better known only weeks before as CAIR-CAN’s communications coordinator and “human rights” advocate. Meanwhile, Hashmi was described as a “freelance journalist and Imam”; his very few internet articles include one slavishly quoting from a CAIR-CAN communications officer … Sameer Zuberi. There couldn’t have been much for CFM moderator Wiseman to “moderate” as she sat in the middle of this hard-line trio.

Add to this the fact that the sole Muslim Director on the CFM Board was Nova Scotia-based Dr. Jamal Badawi – or had been until the entire list of CFM board members was yanked and “went to black” on about March 17, 2009, as rumours of strange links had the Centre in a swirl. There is also the disturbing fact that Badawi is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial, as is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), on whose executive he sits. He has also been on the board of directors of CAIR-CAN.

This mess has several serious implications.

First, under cover of a multi-religious, if essentially Christian institute, CAIR-CAN is being permitted to project itself as “moderate.” Its representatives pontificate as “Muslim leaders” – to use CFM’s website terminology – at taxpayer-supported public roundtables that even include media representatives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Canadian Television Network. With roundtables targeting journalists and journalism schools, Heritage Canada, through the CFM, is inadvertently allowing the Canadian wing of a US unindicted co-conspirator to groom the present and future generation of journalists. In the process, they are squeezing off the stage those few moderate Canadian Muslims who have been determined enough to stand up to the CAIR-CANs and ISNAs of North America.

Second, the Wahabbi lobby, of which CAIR-CAN and ISNA are prominent members, has led in radical and unjustified efforts to portray Canadian Muslims as victims of mass-prejudice and bigotry. Ignoring the objections of the moderate Muslim Canadian Congress and solid law-enforcement statistics that refute such advocacy, these organizations push this destructive myth, regardless of the resulting risk to social cohesion, of alienating Muslim youth, of undermining security and quieting responsible debate about extremism. Needless to say, such claims are used to rationalize emotional and never-ending demands for state-sponsored privileges that are rightly withheld from other religious communities.

It is a good guess that CAIR-CAN’s endgame is a Centre for Faith and the Media “study” that certifies, once and for all, the truth of the contrived word “Islamophobia” and the victimhood of Canadian Muslims – particularly at the hands of media. This outcome would put further pressure on journalists to watch their step, especially in the context of Canada’s free speech-repressing “human-rights” commissions whose excesses have been revealed in the Maclean’s – Mark Steyn case. Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsmagazine, found itself under siege for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s bestselling America Alone. The radical Canadian Islamic Congress laid formal complaints before human rights commissions in various Canadian jurisdictions, multiplying the costs to the magazine of defending – successfully, as it turned out – against this doubtful use of quasi-judicial administrative systems.

Consistent with attempts of the international Organization of Islamic Conference to impose, through the United Nations, worldwide Sharia blasphemy norms, an Islamist-influenced CFM report would set the stage for further attempts to bring Canadian reporters and others into line.

Thus might Heritage Canada’s government money and an unsuspecting media center be maneuvered to constrain media freedom and the free flow of ideas. It might even bring a reprise of the embarrassing – and one hopes, long dead – immediate post-9/11 experience of watching members of the tactless Royal Canadian Mounted Police National Security outreach unit, completely unschooled in issues of radical Islam, quoting in public briefings from CAIR-CAN’s own deceptive “victimhood” material.

There are also implications, here, for citizens’ ability to rely on well-meaning religious and quasi-religious institutions in interfaith matters. For the most part, the CFM board that has overseen these developments has consisted of a range of distinguished, highly-intelligent and honourable Canadians, from former Alberta legislator Jocelyn Burgener and respected Calgary Herald journalist Licia Corbella, to religion writer Joe Woodard and the Canadian Readers Digest’s Peter Stockland. But, in the end, the organization has been used as a welcome mat for radical Islamism.

Neither is Heritage Canada or the Centre for Faith and the Media alone. Canada’s Manning Centre, another respected institution, scurried along to join the post-9/11 penchant for interfaith outreach. Led by conservative political icon Preston Manning, but without apparent familiarity with difficult Islamist issues, the Manning Centre established an interfaith unit that stumbled. At last report, the Manning Centre had given a special place in its consultations to associates of the Islamic Society of North America, and the resulting embarrassment cannot be far behind.

Given current trends in the Canadian government and NGO sector, there will be a great deal of embarrassment to go around.

Farzana Hassan is a Toronto-based freelance writer and author of “Prophecy and the Fundamentalist Quest.” She is the former president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, an organization representing progressive and secular Muslims. She can be reached at

Concerned people are invited to contact  the Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore and request this get the attention it deserves.

Durban lite: Israel apartheid week

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?


Jew hating, CUPE style

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.