Canadian Kohail sentenced to beheading in Saudi Arabia. Should Canada intervene?

Twenty three year old Canadian Mohamed Kohail has been found guilty of murder while in Saudi Arabia and faces execution by beheading. His death is imminent and he will likely die for his crime within the coming weeks.

Kohail grew up in Saudi Arabia but moved to Montreal when he was a teenager. He, along with his family moved back to Saudi Arabia temporarily to attend a wedding intending to return to Canada where they own a home. While there, he (Kohail) became involved in a brawl after his brother Sultan, 16, called for his help at a local school where a group of youths armed with knives and clubs accused him of insulting a girl. Mohamed involved himself in the fight intending to defend his brother and after the bloody episode had ended, Syrian Haraki died.

The Kohail brothers were immediately arrested and taken to a prison in Jeddah. Friends and family allege that Kohail was the victim of an unfair investigation and trial. One family friend claims the court ignored important evidence that would have cleared Kohail of the charge against him. Other sources assert that the young man’s lawyers were repeadedly denied access to the courtroom.

Canadian politicians, human rights groups and government agencies are pressing hard to save Mohamed kohail’s life. Amnesty International has since sent a letter addressed to the Saudi ambassador to Canada urging him to intervene in the case, citing very serious concerns regarding the legal process to which the defendant was subjected. The Saudi embassy in Ottawa has not, as of yet, commented.

What is pointedly missing in this case is the lack of concern by Canadian Muslim organizations regarding the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Kohail at Saudi hands and his impeding execution. Certainly one would think that high profile Islamic groups such as CAIR-CAN, the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Islamic Congress, all proponents of fair justice and the improvement in the quality of life for Muslim Canadians here and abroad, would have weighed in on this situation.

Yet none of their sites even mention the Kohail case.

Where are the denouncements and calls for ‘action’ on behalf of a fellow Muslim Canadian? Where are the letters of concern, the protests outside the Saudi embassy and the plethora of media communiques sent to major newspapers? Where are the calls aimed at Saudi officials requesting an investigation into the matter and calling for clemency? Where are the requests asking that Mr. Kohail be returned to Canada? Where are the numerous essays, columns and articles criticizing the Saudi government? Why is there no pressure put upon the Harper government to intervene in this case and repatriate Mr. Kohail by these organizations? And, where is the support for his family in this ordeal?

I have read nothing…….nothing.

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that these groups are simply not concerned with the welfare of a Muslim Canadian such as Mohamed Kohail at all, preferring to concentrate their rabid obsession with asking the Canadian government to repatriate terrorists such as Omar Khadr. Or likely, time spent deeming themselves official intervenors calling for follow-up action on the recent Iacobucci report demanding that Canada apologize and compensate Abdullah Almalki, Ahmed Abon-Elmatti and Muyayyed Nureddin for alleged torture they suffered in Egypt and Syria.

Or maybe they are too busy to help Kohail, finding themselves consumed by their tremendous effort to monitor the alarming rise of Islampohobia in Canada accompanied by vigorous attempts to rid Canadian society of legitimate criticism of Islam via censorship through human rights commission complaints and prosecuting and ridiculing journalists and a Canadian free press. Or maybe they are too bogged down by hours spent constantly involved in heavy lobbying to defend and secure the implementation of sharia law in Canada? 

I believe the neglect of Mohammed Kohail’s case indicates the simplicity of a brotherhood bond with Saudi whabbist principle, a twisted ideology that finds moral acceptability amongst the Islamists in Canada. What is there to rail against when one agrees?

Thirteen year old rape victim Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was stoned to death for adultery on October 27 by a group of fifty men in a stadium in Kismayu, Somalia while 1,000 spectators looked on. Again, nothing denouncing this human tragedy appeared on any of these ‘moderate,’ peace-pushing, justice-for-all sites.

Why the silence?

Is this a tacit agreement in ideology?

Are these the kinds of legitimate questions that are more often than not considered blasphemous and Islampohobic to an extremist Muslim mindset where the priority of offense is to religious sensibility and replaces the collective moral outrage of the murder of a 13 year old rape victim?

I must be misinformed by a lying and ignorant world media reporting these horrors, as I am told repeatedly that Islam treats women, Muslims and all people with equality and dignity. The real bastards of such women’s oppression apparently are Western nations, as I’ve learned from reading an insightful essay entitled the liberation of women on the Canadian Islamic Congress website written by Mr. Canadian Peace and Justice himself Dr. Elmasry. 

I do believe that Canada should intervene on behalf of Mohamed Kohail. I also believe that Canadians need to work far harder to show strong objection to the moral depravity of a Saudi social, cultural and legal system and to shame others like it, that continue to perpetuate such brutality, bigotry and backwardness. I also believe that countries which deploy the systematic and regular murder of rape victims accused of the crime of adultery should be criticized internationally as rogue establishments, unworthy of respect. Any group which supports, justifies, condones or excuses such extremism either openly or by silent applause should be condemned and ridiculed.

While Canadian Kohail awaits his execution and Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow lays dead, Islamism in it’s most perverse and hypocritical state continues in Canada. 

 

Grace

Having an opinion in Canada still a crime. doubly so if its based on fact.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

From The Redwing Report

Canadian Human Rights Commission Ignores Parliamentary Immunity

Jim Pankiw, a former Saskatchewan MP, is being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for criticizing programs and privileges available to Saskatchewan aboriginals and not to non-aboriginals.

In 2002, 2003, and 2004, Jim Pankiw, then a member of Parliament, distributed a series of three brochures to his constituents. The brochures criticized special fishing and hunting privileges, hiring quotas, sentencing circles, and tax exemptions for aboriginals.

The mailouts contained slogans such as “Stop Indian Crime” and “It’s Clear Who the Racists Are” and criticized the federal government’s “two-tiered justice system …” which essentially gives Indians a “Get out of jail card”. He said at his hearing last week (week of October 20, ‘08) that he was referring to Section 718-2e of the Criminal Code, which states, “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.”

Mr. Pankiw’s mailouts were a reaction to many factors concerning Saskatchewan aboriginals, including the fact that, while only 9% of Saskatchewan population consists of Aboriginal people, they are responsible for just over half the crime in the province.

He objects to affirmative action programs that give Indian firms special preferences when bidding on some federal contracts. He calls the “Transition Programs” offered by the University of Saskatchewan “race-based discrimination” because they discriminate against qualified white applicants. Mr. Pankiw testified that he knows of a woman who was denied entrance into law school because all remaining seats were reserved for aboriginal applicants.

When the brochures landed in Saskatchewan mailboxes, nine Aboriginals promptly hauled Mr. Pankiw before the CHRC and charged him with discrimination and “stirring up negative feelings toward aboriginals”.

One must bear in mind that the charges brought against Mr. Pankiw by the CHRC are for acts that are neither illegal nor unconstitutional. The 1990 Supreme Court’s ruling stipulated that the only complaints human rights commissions could accept had to involve evil hate messages. Although “stirring up negative feelings toward aboriginals” does not, by any definition, qualify as evil, the CHRC deemed this complaint legitimate.

And irony upon irony, in June of this year, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Pankiw’s application to appeal a Federal Court ruling that refused to exempt him from the human rights investigation.

If the tribunal finds Pankiw guilty – and it is virtually certain that it will, it could order him to pay up to $20,000 to the complainants for “pain and suffering” and, if it decides that he acted willfully or recklessly, could double the fine. If he refuses to pay the fines, he will likely be sent to prison.

This man broke no laws. His words, however distasteful to some, are protected by our constitution, which guarantees our right to free speech and opinion. As an MP, his words are also protected by Parliamentary immunity.

He did not slander or libel any person or any group. His words criticized a system of entrenched privilege enjoyed by a specific group of people, aboriginals, and which are not available to other Canadian citizens.

We must bear in mind that the federal government is complicit in prosecuting Mr. Pankiw based on the ludicrous notion that “stirring up negative feelings…” is a crime.

The denial of freedom of speech in Canada has become a growth industry.

Ongoing struggle of Ezra Levant.

I post below the newest entry of his blog. Its more than good its important. Ezra is fighting what is at the very root of Islamic supremacism in the western world. Irrational leftism. Those who would remove our most basic freedoms and rights using craftily worded excuses and ‘explanations’ to try and make decent people buy in to their reasoning in the interest of ‘fairness’. Islam merely uses the vihicle designed by the left and purchased by us in union packaging. After reading this article read back to the posts Ezra has made since he resumed blogging around Oct. 15th. well worth it. Also, if you are in a position to donate to his legal fund please do so. anything from $10.00 on up I am sure will be appreciated and go to a good cause. His struggle truly is the struggle of all western peoples with an interest in taking back rational values and a society that remembers what rights actually mean.

Eeyore for Vlad

Another day, another lawsuit by a bully in the “human rights” industry trying to shut me up. I’m not sure why those geniuses think this one will gag me, when the previous 19 suits haven’t.

This latest lawsuit comes from the disgraced Liberal lobbyist, Warren Kinsella. You can see his statement of claim here.

I received it when I was on my blogging hiatus in September, so I haven’t posted it until now. I filed my statement of defence earlier this month, which you can see here.

It’s a frivolous suit, but it will cost me money to defend against all the same. It’s a SLAPP suit – strategic litigation against public participation. The public participation is my criticism of Canada’s abusive human rights commissions. It’s the same reason why Kinsella filed two law society complaints against me, trying to get me disbarred.

Continue Reading →

A few related stories of note.

This first link is from Ezra levants blog. The current story on it illustrates among other things, the dangers of selective enforcement. Canada’s HRC’s act with total impunity from real jurisprudence. Worse, they use highly ‘agendized’ interpretations of rules to selectively act against those with whom the HRC personnel disagree with politically.

I cannot overstate the importance of this for free and democratic societies. Government agencies MUST adhere to principles of fairness in law. It is one of the main things which distinguish western civilization from tyrannies and tin pot dictatorships.

Here is a story from Malaysia showing how Iran applied pressure to prevent a Nobel Peace Prize winner from speaking at an event about human rights within Iran. The double standard may be evident to readers of this blog but is the danger it represents?

This link shows fabricated hate crimes by the Muslim community to achieve political power and silence critics of Islam’s systemic actual hate crimes against pretty much all non Muslims as Koran obliges followers to do.

So we see a pattern here in all these links I hope. These are not exceptions or isolated cases. These are merely a few easily discovered events from recent news. Its crucial that people begin to understand the tactics being used to undermine free democratic and yes, classically liberal societies. Miracles of history. May we please not be victims of the success of them by forgetting who and what we had to fight to achieve them.

Calgary Herald on Mark Steyn Macleans CHR case

Being acquitted by a pretend court must be something like being found healthy by a pretend doctor.

Both exercises might make you wonder what the point was in the first place and why the authority to render such verdicts was granted at all. Little solace, then, is to be found in what on the surface seems to be a reassuring declaration.

Such concerns abound in the aftermath of the “not guilty” verdict handed down Friday by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the case against Maclean’s magazine.


The magazine has essentially been awarded retroactive state approval to run, as it did two years ago, an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone.

Little consolation to Maclean’s, mind you, which has no means by which to recoup its legal costs.

The case, brought forth by the Canadian Islamic Congress, has become a flash point for the debate over freedom of expression and freedom of the press. It’s not just that Mark Steyn should be free to say or write what he so chooses, it’s that Maclean’s should be free to publish what it chooses.

But it’s about much more than that — it’s about whether we truly are a secular society and what we take that to mean.

Continue Reading →

Canada’s CBC. More than partizan, is hate speech

From an article on the CBC website one can see they do not like the Republican party much. Fair enough news organizations pick sides all the time, and sometimes for excellent reasons and sometimes for less excellent ones. But CBC’s Heather Mallick goes past Partizanship, itself questionable as the CBC is Canadian and its rather unneighborly to speak this harshly about your best friend’s politics and population, or at least the one half you don’t like, this goes to raw, illegal in Canada as we see daily from the various CHRC’s, hate speech. Raw, simple hate.

Let’s play a now common thought experiement out. Take away republican and say, oh African Americans Jews or Muslims and see how long this post lasts before its taken down, widely condemned by all sides and the author arrested.

Let’s pull a paragraph oh, almost at random and see how it plays out…

“It’s possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. They’re unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously.”

So, instead of Republican men lets put in any protected or in fashion group shall we? Try black women for fun. OK it doesn’t work perfectly but you get the idea. This kind of hyperbole published against any other group in Canada would be illegal.

Now of course I do not think it should be. My issue here is not the content so much as the fact that its published on the CBC website which is the official Canadian Government broadcasting company. One which has been taken over by leftist partisan forces, unions nad special interest none of which represent the typical Canadian working person.

The second one has to do with specifically why i believe in freedom of speech.

I am not aware of any example in history where laws which restrict freedom of speech have not been enforced selectively. Specifically When a government decides what it is and is not alright to express it never follows the intent no matter how noble it was meant at the time. Even the Germans had laws governing what one could say about groups before Hitler used them to his particular advantage. It always gets enforced based on the agenda of those who have access to the machinery of power. We see it in the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and their flagrant assault on conservatives, Christians and anyone not seen as a privileged group

Meanwhile, Muslims preach death to jews and infidels, preach forced servitude to women, violate the letter and spirit of Canada’s hate laws often five times a day in mosques. The HRC’s have never filed a charge agianst them and the CBC’s reaction? Make an awful weekly TV show called ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’ intended to make all who object to the Islamification of Canada seem weak stupid racist toothless idiots.

If hate speech laws worked then we could solve all problems with a strike of the pen in Parliament. But as they not only do not work but usually turn viciously on all who are not a favored group I say the CBC should be charged with a hate crime for this piece of brown journalism (like yellow journalism but comes from the back end of the writer) or we should abandon these laws for the feel good dangerous nonsense they are.

That and of course Canada’s National Broadcasting corporation has no business writing foreign policy and it could be mistaken for such as it is Canada’s official mouthpiece.

Ezra Levant speaks to the HRC on the matter of the Danish Cartoons

It seems as if wordpress doesnt save articles back from a year or so ago so I felt it was necessary to re post Ezra’s most excellent and even important response to the Human Rights Commission of Alberta when asked questions that no man in a free state should ever be asked by his government.

Ezra Levant charged again by CHRC.

have been hit with another human rights complaint

siren.gifsiren.gifsiren.gifRob Wells is the Fred Phelps of the gay rights lobby.

Phelps, as readers will know, is the former award-winning civil rights activist who just snapped about 25 years ago. Now he pickets funerals, holding up signs saying things like “God hates fags”.

Wells is pretty much the same, but without the noble past. And he switches Phelps’s routine around a little: he protests outside churches, for months on end, slandering Catholics. He actually dresses his vehicle with anti-Christian hate messages, equating Catholics with Nazis, and drives around looking for people to offend. I wouldn’t be surprised if he does funerals, like Phelps does.

Come to think of it, Wells could use the same posters as Phelps, with just a little re-arranging: “Fags hate God”. But that’s probably not vile enough for Wells, the garbage-mouthed fool who thought the bumper sticker “F*CK HARPER” was the height of political eloquence.

The fact is, it’s Phelps and Wells who are the haters.

Which is why it’s such an honour that the latest human rights complaint filed against me is by Rob Wells.

You can read a copy of the complaint here, filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I received word of this complaint just last week.

It’s not Wells’s first time using the CHRC to prosecute his hatred for Christians. They’re a perfect fit for each other, Wells and the CHRC. Wells drives around town, uttering anti-Christian filth; the CHRC staff surf around the Internet, publishing racist and anti-gay filth. It’s surprising that the CHRC hasn’t hired Wells to be one of their online hatemongers – he could do what he loves, and get paid for it.

Continue Reading →

Alberta’s HRC’s breaks Canadian freedom of information laws. Refuses order to show documents it generates

Amazing. Canada’s HRC’s which already feel they are above the law in many respects now refuses to comply with Canada’s freedom of information act.

From Ezra Levant’s blog…

I haven’t seen any public report about it yet, but a journalist at CTV told me that the radical Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities, part of the Saudi values coalition that hauled me to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, has threatened to appeal my acquittal on “hate speech” charges for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in 2006.

I think it’s probably just tough talk on their part — it reminds me of an Arab friend of mine who told me that, as a conscript in the Egyptian army, he was taught that their disastrous defeat in the 1967 Six Day War was actually a great victory over Israel. That’s the radical Muslim way — rechristen (can I say that?) defeats as great victories. Anything to save face, anything to avoid dealing with dissonant reality.

Continue Reading →

Excelent audio interview with Ezra Levant from CFRA

Aug. 7th interview with Ezra Levant on the hollow victory he received from the Alberta Human rights commissions. I must tell you, when Mark Steyn wrote his article about how he hopes that he and Mcleans Magazine loses in the HRC, I thought that Mark may have outsmarted himself. The HRC’s are just barely smart enough to recognize the truth in Steyn’s argument that winning for them would likely incite Canadians to force our government to end the reign of error and censorship they enjoy at taxpayer expense.

Clearly those officious stuffed shirts at the HRC read Steyn’s article, realized the truth of it and allowed the first acquittal they have EVER DONE in their entire history. Remember, up to now, The HRC’s of Canada have a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CONVICTION RATE

Please click more to hear this excellent interview with Ezra

Continue Reading →

Ezra aquited. HRC smart enough to know when to quit. Shame about that really.

Punished first, acquitted later
By Ezra Levant on August 6, 2008 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (30) | Trackback

fMy lawyers have just received a copy of a letter from the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissing the complaint of “discrimination” filed against me by the radical Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities. They had complained that by publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the Western Standard in February 2006, I had engaged in an illegal act.

Their complaint was identical to the one filed earlier by an anti-Semitic imam named Syed Soharwardy. Soharwardy abandoned his complaint this spring. You can see Soharwardy’s complaint here; it named both me and the magazine. The Edmonton complaint named just the magazine. My initial legal response is here.

The two complaints cost Alberta taxpayers in excess of $500,000 and, according to access to information documents, involved no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats. What a scam – on the part of the complainants, who were able to wage “lawfare” against an infidel without paying a cent; and on the part of the HRC, as a make-work project.

Fire. Them. All.

Continue Reading →

Ezra Levant: B’nai Brith re thinks its love of Canada’s HRC’s

siren.gifsiren.gifThis is definitely a two-siren blog post.

The B’nai Brith, historically one of the most partisan supporters of Canada’s human rights commissions, has made a dramatic break from the human rights industry, “urgently” calling for a “major overhaul” of Canada’s human rights commissions. You can read the full text of their press release on the subject here.

The B’nai Brith is Canada’s oldest and largest Jewish service club, dating back to 1875.

Frank Dimant, the Executive Vice-President of BB, said “we have to ensure that commissions do not become abusers of the very human rights they are charged with protecting” — a clear shot at the HRCs’ continuous violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well as their well-documented procedural abuses and corruption. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, is now under four different investigations, including by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

David Matas, BB’s senior legal counsel, was also quoted in their press release, pointing to several illegal and abusive traits of HRCs, including that the same complaints can be filed with multiple HRCs, as was done by the anti-Semitic Canadian Islamic Congress in their complaints against Maclean’s magazine and Mark Steyn. According to Matas, “Commissions cannot become avenues of harassment in which complaints are simultaneously made in several jurisdictions. The remedy is to introduce rules that will allow for one jurisdiction only.”

Matas also suggested deep re-education for the HRCs’ corrupt censors, accusing them of ignorance and anachronism. “The remedy for ignorance is education and training. Investigators must be required to undertake compulsory in-house courses that meet these needs. They must always be able to distinguish between hate and protected political speech,” he added. That’s a pretty clear shot at political censors like Richard Warman and Dean Steacy, the latter of whom actually testified that free speech is not a Canadian value — despite its entrenchment as a “fundamental freedom” in our Charter of Rights, our Bill of Rights, and our inherited unwritten U.K. constitutional corpus.

Finally, Matas called for costs to be awarded against clear nuisance litigants, like the CIC and the Jew-bashing imam Syed Soharwardy, who simply walked away from his Alberta HRC complaint about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, after saddling taxpayers with $500,000 in costs, and me with nearly $100,000 in costs (another, identical complaint, continues against me.)

Matas said: “Costs must be levied against those whose clear aim is to abuse the system by launching attacks designed to harass bona fide respondents. This would be a deterrent against those who deliberately seek to hijack and corrupt the human rights system in pursuit of their own ideological bent.”

Again, you can see the entire release here.

This is enormous, because it ends the false unanimity amongst Canada’s “Official Jews” in support of HRCs. As I’ve written here, most real Jews are not for censorship; it’s just the personal obsession of a few “Professional Jews”, like Bernie “Burny” Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Leo Adler of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

It’s not surprising to me that B’nai Brith was the first to bolt the troika of Jewish groups that has turned a blind eye to the HRCs’ corruption. As I wrote several months ago, as the HRCs continue to beclown themselves in the public square, those who are allied with them will start to incur political damage, especially with this Conservative government. (The CJC, with its impeccable Liberal connections, doesn’t much care.) But I don’t think the B’nai Brith’s about-face was done to please the government; I think it was done in response to the B’nai Brith’s own constituency: grassroots, severely normal, Canadian Jews.

Unlike the CJC, and certainly the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the B’nai Brith actually has active members, and local branches across the country, made up of volunteers. They’re like the Jewish Rotary Club — normal. They’re not a hot-house of professional political lobbyists like Burny, who has his own political agenda, and is using the CJC’s name and reputation to prosecute his own hobby-horses. Grassroots Jews know that the real threat in 2008 isn’t a handful of teenaged kids talking tough about being Nazis in some website fantasy — really, the political equivalent to an online fantasy role playing video game. The real threat is a wave of radical Islam both internationally and here in Canada — including the CJC’s new ally, the Canadian Islamic Congress. The B’nai Brith understands — as David Matas makes crystal clear — that the Canadian Islamic Congress is an illiberal, abusive, human rights-violating enemy of Canada and enemy of the Jews. The CJC? Well, the CJC’s newest legal committee member, Warren Kinsella, actually gave help and advice to the Canadian Islamic Congress. I’m guessing that if a B’nai Brith officer tried that, he’d be fired the next day.

I am excited that the B’nai Brith has so publicly broken ranks with the rest of the Professional Jews, and has clearly accused not only the Canadian Islamic Congress of harrassment, but has taken pretty dead aim at the CHRC and its investigators, too.

But, even amidst my enthusiasm, I must still acknowledge some depressing realities:

1. The B’nai Brith remains an intervenor against Mark Lemire in the Warman v. Lemire nuisance suits\ that is clearly as abusive as anything the Canadian Islamic Congress has filed;

2. In that Lemire case, the B’nai Brith’s lawyers have conducted themselves in lock-step with the CJC and the CHRC, including supporting the section 13 thought crimes provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

3. The B’nai Brith has stopped short of calling for the abolition of section 13. In other words, they have not taken that final step of realizing that censorship is not a Jewish value, it’s not healthy for a liberal democracy, and it has only served to discredit the B’nai Brith — and make anti-Semitic nobodies into glamourous international celebrities.

Still, this is a huge step — the first and hardest step. The B’nai Brith has announced today that they no longer drink the human rights industry kool-aid. They’re not going to continue turning a blind eye to the corruption and abuse that’s rampant in the industry.

I expect two things will happen:

1. The human rights industry will respond with execration, demonizing B’nai Brith and Dimant and — as Kinsella usually does — accusing them of being supporters of Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. I know that sounds nuts, but ad hominem attacks are really all the intellectually bankrupt HRC industry has left.

2. I also expect that real Jews, normal Jews, grassroots Jews, Jews who lead normal lives — as opposed to the Official Jews, the Jews Who are Jews for a Living — will respond with enthusiasm, and that the B’nai Brith will attract both money and people away from the CJC.

I hope that the B’nai Brith will find its new path so rewarding — intellectually, morally and politically — that it will, in time, take the final step and acknowledge that the section 13 “thought crimes” law is unsalvageable, and should be abolished altogether.

Why don’t you take a moment and send Frank Dimant, BB’s boss, a letter of encouragement. Understand how hard it must have been for him to repudiate decades of collusion with the human rights industry. Wish him well in the weeks ahead, when he’ll be abused by his spurned lovers in the HRCs, and the dhimmis in the CJC. And tell him that he speaks for Canadians — Jewish and Gentile — and for Canadian (and Jewish) values of true civil rights much more than the corrupt poseurs at the HRCs.

You can e-mail Dimant here.

Ezra defines Canada in a nutshell

From Ezra’s blog

The tale of two hate crimes

In 1979, John Taylor was the first Canadian convicted of “hate speech” offences under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Taylor, a kooky Nazi sympathizer, set up a phone answering machine with anti-Semitic messages on it, and handed out pamphlets telling people to call. He was convicted, and when he refused to change his answering machine message, he was sentenced to a year in jail. Taylor — then in his seventies — served nine months. Here’s the Wikipedia entry on him, which is more or less accurate.

So nine months in the clink for… having a rude answering machine message.

Fast forward to 2006. A Muslim immigrant named Mustafa Taj approached four teenagers at a subway station in Calgary. He demanded of them, “who’s Jewish?” When sixteen-year-old Nichola Cordata said “me”, Taj said “I’m Muslim and hate Jews” and slapped her face and pulled her hair. Cordata’s friends tried to help, and they were beaten, and one was thrown on the train tracks. Taj called Cordata a “Jewish piece of crap”.

Continue Reading →

Ezra Levant to US congress. A pithy and important speech and some cold warnings as a foreward

From Ezra Levants own blog:

Levant to Congress: put Canada on the watch list of human rights abusers
By Ezra Levant on July 11, 2008 8:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (77) | Trackback (1)

I had the pleasure of making a presentation as an expert witness to the U.S. Congress’s bi-partisan human rights caucus today.

I didn’t count, but I’d estimate that there were over 100 people there. I met quite a few readers of my blog, and even a donor to my legal defence fund — what a warm welcome in a far away city! There were a surprising number of journalists, including Luiza Savage, Maclean’s magazine’s Washington Bureau Chief. And there were a lot of religious liberty NGOs, including those from the Bahai, Hindu and Buddhist communities — including several in bright orange monk’s robes.

As a Canadian, I had forgotten that, in the U.S., every Congressman (and certainly every Senator) has their own foreign policy staff. Many such advisors were present, as well as lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice, the House Justice Committee, and the State Department.

My fellow panellists were impressive, especially the Turkish scholar whose specialty was documenting the treatment of apostates in Muslim countries, and the State Department lawyer who is the point-person in response to the international diplomatic campaign to have criticism of Islam criminalized. And — very usefully — the second secretary of the Pakistani Embassy was there. It was very striking to hear, directly from the source, the plans that Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world have when it comes to censoring their critics through the twisting of Western legal apparatuses. It was like getting a glimpse at the other team’s playbook — and having our worst fears confirmed. Frankly, I was surprised that she showed up.

I’ll get into more details in a later post; it was a fascinating discussion, and the question-and-answer session was particularly clarifying. But for now, allow me to post my prepared comments. I’ve put in bold a few of my favourite comments. If I had to think of my most important suggestion, it would be for the U.S. Congress to add Canada to its watch list of countries that abuse human rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. What do you think?

Continue Reading →

Ezra Levant on CTV this is fucking UNREAL please watch

I have to ask the question:

If its illegal to wear a Nazi symbol, and they take your children away cause you let them wear one, how are we different from the Nazi’s?

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/spreading-hate/#clip64624

The lawyer who opposes Levant on this clip demonstrates the traits of every political despot in history in this man’s humble opinion

Eeyore