For more information on Mohamed El Mazry (The Egyptian) search this website. He is a classic.
what a surprise, the muslim brotherhood leader, can’t keep his brothers hands of Christian necks…
AFP – Gunmen opened fire on the home of a Coptic Christian in the Sinai peninsula on Saturday, hours after a visit by President Mohamed Morsi to reassure Christian residents they would not be targeted again.
Gunmen “used automatic weapons when they opened fire on the house of a Coptic resident of Rafah hours after the president left,” a security official told AFP.
There were no reports of casualties, he said.
Witnesses told AFP three gunmen in a car fired on the house of Magdi Niruz before fleeing the scene.
Morsi had visited the Sinai peninsula on Friday to meet with and reassure families who fled Rafah to El-Arish after receiving death threats.
This “will not happen again,” Morsi told a group of local Bedouin tribal chiefs and other residents of El-Arish.
“Your security is our security,” he said.
“What happened is an individual case which represents neither Egypt nor its children, Muslim or Christian. It’s crime for which the perpetrators must be held responsible,” MENA quoted Morsi as saying.
According to residents and officials in Rafah, on the border with Gaza, Christian families fled to El-Arish about 30 kilometres (19 miles) away after having received death threats from Islamists.
Leaflets were circulated in Rafah demanding that the Coptic community leave or be killed, residents said. A shop owned by a Coptic family was subsequently machine-gunned.
Egypt’s Christians, who make up six to 10 percent of the country’s population of 82 million, have regularly complained of discrimination and marginalisation.
They have also been the target of numerous sectarian attacks.
Ottawa Imam and token president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, (I say token as Mohamed El Masry’s name, writing and influence was felt long after he was supposed to be gone) was invited and then un-invited to speak at Canada’s DND because his illiberal and extreme views and the views of his organization was exposed. He then did this damage control video. I hope this undoes it at least a little. Delic is An anaesthetist. He would have us believe that he does not want sharia law in Canada and that he holds other groups as equals. A closer look may show otherwise.
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….”
“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.”
“What exactly did Elmasry say and, even if he did say it, does it deserve this kind of response?”
MacKay pulls plug on imam’s speech at defence HQ
OTTAWA — A speech at National Defence headquarters by the outspoken executive director of the Canadian Islamic Congress has been cancelled due to his organization’s “extremist views.”
A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Imam Zijad Delic was scheduled to make an address as part of Islamic Heritage Month on Oct. 4 but that MacKay decided to cancel the event.
“The Canadian Islamic Congress has declared that Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets of suicide bombers,” spokesman Jay Paxton said in an email to Global National.
“These types of comments don’t support Islamic Heritage, they simply divide Canadians, promulgate hate and they have no place in Monday’s celebrations.”
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.
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 →
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
Joseph Brean, National Post Published: Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A professor at the University of Guelph describes 9/11 as a “planned demolition” run by Americans.
Western media have a “spiteful policy” toward Iran of inventing “fraudulent” news to “increase false national expectation” and “encourage disturbance,” according to the cultural attache in the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Hamid Mohammadi said media deception has caused hatred and fear of Muslims by presenting the “false belief that religion is incapable of running a country” and that Iran is therefore illegitimate. He said the result has been political “position changing” by Western countries against Muslims.
He quoted an “American thinker,” whose name did not come clearly through his strong accent, to the effect that “future wars are in the hands of the media, and their words are more effective than bullets.”
Somehow, his brief scripted remarks were among the least controversial at a conference about the “Media War on Islam” on Sunday night at a Toronto-area Islamic centre, in which 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. Continue Reading →
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.
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.”
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.
Some purport that the Fort Hood killer Major Hasan is a poor unfortunate, a victim of a peculiar psychosis, a stress related, mind- disorienting affliction. Meanwhile, Islamists have been quick to deny Hasan’s connection to Islamic extremism. They defensively apply their stock response that ‘endless crimes are committed by non-Muslims against others regularly’ and imply a biased media coverage. In typical fashion, The Canadian Charger writes under a headline banner:
It’s wrong to blame Muslims for what criminals do
`Aside from the fact that he is a psychiatrist and he was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan, there was little other information about Major Hasan. What conclusion will the majority of people draw from this coverage of a tragedy?
Non-Muslims shoot multitudes of people regularly – especially in America – but the perpetrators’ religious affiliations seldom becomes a focal point of media coverage.
Eric Rudolph and a significant number of others, bombed abortion clinics in the U.S., claiming to be good Christians, fulfilling God’s will.
One, two buckle my shoe! Here is another perfect attempt at Islamist slight of hand:
‘While the Obama administration has refrained from using “Islamic” when referring to terrorism, the Fort Hood massacre is providing fodder for talk and radio shows, and websites which exploit such isolated incidents to ratchet up Islamophobia’. CC.
Thankfully there are others who do not rely on such bullshit in their assessment of a killer intent on murdering as many innocents as possible in the name of Allah through jihad.
From The Ottawa Sun
“The massacre in Fort Hood, Texas, was an act in the war the Islamists declared some three decades ago against America, the great Satan in particular, and the west in general”.
Jihad sparked accused Fort Hood killer
By SALIM MANSUR
Last Updated: 14th November 2009, 2:40am
The massacre in Fort Hood, Texas, was an act in the war the Islamists declared some three decades ago against America, the great Satan in particular, and the west in general.
At what point in his life Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan — 39 years of age, Muslim by birth to a Palestinian-American immigrant family and a psychiatrist serving in the U.S. military — became in his own mind a loyal soldier of the global Islamist jihad (war) is highly relevant as are other details of his private life in piecing together the psychological profile of this accused mass murderer.
It seems there can be no mistaking that Nidal Hasan went out as an Islamist warrior to kill as many infidels before he found his martyrdom.
A majority of Americans and most people in the west for any number of reasons, including multiculturalism and political correctness, are dismissive of the view that a war is being waged against them by a segment of the global Muslim population that seemingly has no political standing anywhere in the world.
This would not be the first time the liberal fallacy — the idea that since war is irrational, no rational people will deliberately ignite war — endangers a country against those dedicated to the politics of violence, as are the Islamists in our time.
Islamist terrorism is not an alien off-shoot within Muslim history. It is instead a mutation of a violent strain of Muslim religious thought and practice that might be traced back to the earliest years of Islam.
The basis of Islamism is in the binary thinking of its proponents, that the world is divided into two warring halves — those who accept the fundamentals of Islam and act upon them to establish society accordingly and those who reject Islam.
In recent years, such thinking resurfaced in political movements within the Muslim world which oppose the secular and liberal values of the modern world.
Henchmen for Islamists, religion is politics and national identity and the purpose of their jihad until victory or death is to establish in the here and now Islamic rule associated with Muhammad and his companions in the first decades of the 7th century Arabia.
In achieving this goal, the Islamists are prepared to use any means. The world is witnessing the Islamist version of political authority in Iran under the ayatollahs and their henchmen, in Saudi Arabia under the compact of a tribal dynasty and the fanatic Wahhabi sect of Islam and got a glimpse of it in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
America, with Israel in tow as the little Satan, stands in the path of the Islamists. For Islamists, defeating the two Satans means driving them out of the Middle East.
Those Muslims who repudiate Islamism on the basis of their faith and their views on politics are considered apostates by Islamists and are to be hunted down as they did with president Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan.
Nidal Hasan acted on his Islamist belief as did the 19 Arab-Muslim terrorists on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. He should be considered a war criminal and not a tragic victim of some mental illness and what he did was treason against his country.
From the National Post.
Jonathan Kay, National Post Published: Monday, August 24, 2009
This just in from former Canadian Islamic Congress chief Mohamed Elmasry: Islamic slavery wasn’t all that bad.
Writing in The Canadian Charger — a newly formed internet-based grab bag of anti-Western articles published by hard-left Canadian activists — Elmasry works hard to distinguish the evils of Christian slavery from the purportedly enlightened race-mixing that resulted from its Islamic equivalent.
Some snippets: “Islam, with no church, teaches that all humans, irrespective of their gender, skin col-our and ethnic origin are capable of doing good; there is no original sin. The One God is the Lord of all, not of special people or tribe[s] … Islam and Africa have made something of each other that is quite extraordinary … Islam teaches that slaves, who were then the result of wars, Africans or not, should be treated well and set free as soon as possible … Islam also teaches that slaves can buy their freedom in-kind. Thus many of them excelled to be teachers and even scholars … Islam teaches a slave is a victim of circumstances who should be helped to be free and treated fairly in the mean time. Trading in slaves is a sin. This is in contrast to the teachings of the Bible, ‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling.'” … The Arab Muslims called Africans Zanji (hence the island of Zanjibar or Zanzibar), Habashi (from Habasha, Arabic for Ethiopian) or Sudani (Arabic for black). Such
Elmasry’s theme is that Islamic slavery was an enlightened exercise in regional
names “were not derogatory but simply ethnographic … Some [slaves] achieved high rank and status …” And so on.
The basic theme is that Islamic slavery — to the extent it was bad at all (and it’s not really clear that Elmasry thinks it was) — was an enlightened, almost consensual, win-win exercise in regional multiculturalism. In his characteristically absurd elevation of Islam over Christianity, he makes no mention of the fact that religious Christians led the abolition movement in the West — while slavery persisted wholesale in the Arab world until late in the 20th century, and still survives in parts of Islamic Africa, including Sudan. Indeed, one wonders what the Christian tribes-people from southern Sudan who have been abducted, forcibly converted to Islam and enslaved by Arab Muslims in recent years would make of Elmasry’s historical fantasies.
It’s amazing, isn’t it? Our Christian leaders seem to do nothing but apologize these days — for every historical sin under the sun. But here you have a man who recently led the most prominent Muslim activist group in Canada, and he thinks it’s just dandy that his Arab forebears colonized and enslaved great swathes of Africa over the course of many centuries — a colonial situation that essentially persists in Sudan and regions of the Maghreb.
Remember this the next time Elmasry or one of his fellow travelers denounces Western “imperialism.”
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.
Below is a rather excellent and long overdue expose and dissection of the Canadian wolf in sheep’s clothing. Dr. Mohamed El Masry. You may remember Moe from his appearance on Michael Coren which you can see here on vlad if you start the third frame down in this link. In any case, the good Baron over at Gates of Vienna does a rather excellent job at exposing the fallacies upon fallacies that is how El Masry made a living for years as head of the CIC or Canadian Islamic Congress. Settle back and enjoy:
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Islamophobia Machine
by Baron Bodissey
Mohamed Elmasry is an imam and a Canadian university professor. He’s somewhat of an activist on behalf of his Muslim faith, and writes occasional op-eds for the Canadian media. From time to time he has been known to butt heads with the kuffar — notably with Ezra Levant over Dr. Elmasry’s attitude towards Jews.
The good doctor’s most notorious public expression of opinion occurred when he appeared on Michael Coren’s television show on Oct. 19, 2004. He asserted on camera that every adult Jew in Israel was a fair target for Palestinian terrorists.
Afterwards, during the resulting controversy, he claimed that he didn’t say any such thing. When that didn’t work, he maintained that his words had been misrepresented, distorted, and taken out of context, and employed various other rationalizations and disclaimers, but to no avail.
Here’s a partial transcript of the program in question:
Elmasry: … and totally innocent people, obviously, is the children. But they are not innocent if they are part of a population which is total population of Israel is part of the army… From 18 on, they are part of the soldiers, even if they have civilian clothes. Coren: So if Israeli children are killed, that is a valid use of military force by Palestinians? Elmasry: No, they are not valid… Coren: So what are you saying? Elmasry: I’m saying that it has to be totally innocent, OK? Totally innocent are the children, obviously, OK? But they are not innocent if the army [inaudible] in civilian clothes, OK? Coren: What about women? Elmasry: The same, if they are women in the army… Coren: Anyone over the age of 18 in Israel is a valid target. Elmasry: Anybody above 18 is a part of the Israeli army… Coren: So everyone in Israel and anyone and everyone in Israel, irrespective of gender, over the age of 18 is a valid target? Elmasry: Yes, I would say.
The pressure against him became so intense that Dr. Elmasry offered to resign as a spokesman for the Canadian Islamic Congress. But his resignation was not accepted, and he continues to speak on behalf of the group.
With that in mind, here’s the Mohamed Elmasry’s latest essay, as published last week in The Georgia Straight, with my comments interpolated:
The Islamophobia machine is a new growth industry
By Mohamed Elmasry
Just as some Jews betrayed their coreligionists by aiding the Nazi propaganda machine before and during WWII, today there are Muslims just as eagerly and effectively helping the Islamophobia industry to stereotype and marginalize their brothers and sisters of the faith. These Muslims are very much appreciated and celebrated by those who stand to benefit from the promotion of Islamophobia; in fact, they are in such demand that the hate-and-fear industry can’t find enough of them.
OK, we’re off to a good start here. It’s a familiar meme: Muslims in the West face the same threat today from their host societies that Jews did in the 1930s. The Muslims are the new Jews, and the Islamophobes who object to them are the same as the Nazis.
As has often been pointed out, there are holes in this argument big enough to ride a camel through.
Continue Reading →
Muhammed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress just can’t sit still. No doubt stung by the fact that he is now considered one of the nation’s consummate losers by having failed to succeed in all three Human Right’s Commission cases launched against Maclean’s magazine, he is now on a fresh, new mission. The biggest boil on the backside of Canada’s media butt may have been lanced, but it continues to fester.
“The first point that I did learn from this exercise is that Islamophobia is alive and well in Canada, in the media and also in politics,” he said. ” In all of this, we’ve been victimized”.
Since filing the complaints in three Canadian jurisdictions, Elmasry reflected that he made the right decision, taking full credit for sparking the debate and the ensuing massive public outcry. Yet, not one to miss an opportunity to blame others for his failure, he squarely cited inappropriate pressure by the media and politicians for the commission’s wrong decisions.
Elmasry seeks to lobby the government and to glean support from what he refers to as the “sympathetic ears in Parliament” to create a National Media Council, similar to the existing Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The Council would oversee print and online media. Ostensibly, this group would provide an outlet for complaints and a forum for fairness and professionalism. The recent failure behind him, combined with renewed vigor, a beefed up ego and legal beagles in tow, his intention is to demand restrictions on what his organization considers a foul media.
Who exactly would define fairness and professionalism? The experts at the CIC and their league of Islamist cohorts? When we factor in the reality that an entire section of Dr. Elmasry’s web site is devoted to monitoring the media and endlessly scouring for perceived Islamophobic sentiment, this proposal is a frightening notion. His ideal of ‘hate-free free-speech’ is a preposterous idea that would discriminate against the reporting of the facts, the news and ultimately, the truth.
Consider this. In a lengthy document, the CIC has listed terminology that they believe should be discouraged and eventually removed from any reporting concerning terrorism or fundamentalism. Any journalist, reporter, writer or editor from any Canadian news outlet would be left condemned and deemed a bigoted rogue for using any of the listed offensive terms. Here is a partial list of offensive words the CIC considered as of 2002, as ‘anti-Islamic’, descriptions that are offensive to Muslims and by extension, Islam:
Armed Islamic group, Canadian-based Islamic extremist, Islamic regime, Islamic dictatorship, extremism, fighters, fundamentalists, hard-liner, insurgency, insurgent, suicide bomber, terrorist, terrorist cell, Islamic organization, Islamic government, activist and rebel. I believe these words used alone without the accompanying tags of Islam or Muslim may be o.k…..? The CIC would conclude that the inclusion of these descriptions would be the workings of a racist media whose only motivation is to create and foster cultural and ethnic disharmony and to victimize yet once again, Canada’s Muslim community. Reporting the facts is apparently a secondary hobby for the nation’s news outlets.
Is it hateful to describe a person who has just set off a bomb in a crowded bazar aimed at innocents while screaming Allahu Akbar! an Islamic terrorist? Is it hateful to label an imam of a mosque who degrades western values and openly discourages the breaking of Canada’s laws an Islamic fundamentalist? Or, should future news headlines instead read:
“Some unnamed, not-a-white guy with a bomb kills 30. We cannot comment further. The sensitivity for, well-being of and protection for his identity, community, religion, culture and traditions must be maintained”. Or,
“Some unnamed, not-a-white guy in an unnamed building makes up his own rules. We cannot comment further. The sensitivity for, well-being of and protection for his identity, community, religion, culture and traditions must be maintained”.
I can in fact, use the term ‘white’ in these ludicrous headlines, since Elmasry asserts that offending white people is not as serious as offending minorities, particularly Muslims, because the white majority is “anchored”. “If somebody makes a joke that you’re white, who cares? he quips.
Another segment in the lengthy analysis reads: “Anti-Islam in the media feeds ‘Image Distortion Disorder’ “. The CIC contends ‘ the distorted perception that Islam condones and encourages violence is largely created by the media and it leads to societal anxiety among Canadians. It is particularly dangerous in Canada within it’s multi-ethnic, multi-faith and multi-cultural populations and invariably leads to discrimination, hate-mongering, acts of vandalism and false accusations by the authorities’.
Wait. Canada’s entire population consists of multi-ethnic, multi-faith and multi-cultural people. Are we to conclude then that all Canadians suffer from Image Distortion Disorder?
Let me ask you this: if you cover dog shit with candied sprinkles, is it still dog shit?
In western nations Islamists work diligently to ensure that under no circumstances should Islam be connected to terrorism or extremism, an aim whose purpose lies solely in the unyielding desire for the distortion of fact. In short, the truth must become a lie and the lie must become a truth. The creation of a National Media Council would be a welcome addition in this endeavor. So would sharia.
I have heard many claim that groups like the CIC want to stifle free speech. Others claim they want to shut it down. I disagree. They have no intention of shutting down an existing press that they would gladly control. They do intend however, to manipulate the public into believing they have been so ridiculed, demeaned and targeted that additional restrictions on print and online media are necessary, with of course, the aid and guidance of a panel of Islamic experts… such as themselves. Additionally, a government seal of approval from the “sympathetic ear” crowd on Parliament Hill would help things along quite nicely. Extremism then would simply be inheriting an already well functioning institution, one to be re-fashioned, re-tooled and tweaked to suit radical Islam and the realities of sharia. There would be no stifling of free speech as long as the merits of Islam and the benevolence of the prophet were the priority. Any discourse deemed un-Islamic would simply not be tolerated. Welcome to Saudi Arabia.
Back to the candied dog shit. Dr. Elmasry also plans to lobby for a review of media concentration, ( I assume concentration refers to the ownership of Canada’s news outlets by Jews), calling it ” the antithesis of democracy”. Of course his famous statement of 2004 regarding Israelis as legitimate targets of terrorism was misunderstood, a mistake on the part of infidel ignorance. (I probably misunderstood the above white comment too).
The CIC I believe, is an organization obsessed with creating and promoting victimhood within the Muslim community. They and other groups of their ilk, are nothing more than political activist organizations working steadily on behalf of sharia. If, as Mr. Elmasry boasts that he indeed does represent 70% of Canadian Muslims, which may or may not be the case, then the majority are being represented by a fanatic of tremendous proportion and equal danger; a disservice to them far more damaging than any descriptions of terror or Islam.
“I don’t want the media to be a public relations arm for the Canadian Islamic Congress. It’s unrealistic. Or to promote Islam. Or to promote Muslim causes. Or to be a propaganda tool for the XYZ issue. What I want is for them to be fair” Professor Elmasry states.
Candied sprinkles anyone?
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.
Below is a National Post story quoting Mohamed El Masry about the dismissal of the McCleans and Mark Steyn complaint by the Canadian Human Rights Commission which El Masry filed.
While on the surface it may to some appear somewhat reasonable it should be noted that the CIC’s own website, one which fosters hatred and intolerance of Jews, Israeli’s (Elmasri is the man who said any Israeli over 18 was a legitimate target of terrorism does not allow comments and provides no email links to contact them whatsoever. Mohamed Elmasy is the worst kind of hypocrite. He does not wish to have equal voice he wishes to crush any dissenting voice by any means he can. He wishes to force private media to not expose his lies or oppose his agenda but to reflect them as his demands on McCleans magazine demonstrates. The CIC recently sponsored an essay contest where the ground rules where to include a number of preconceived historical lies about the history of the state of Israel as an example. He is a classic soft Jihadi and perhaps more as the prime minister of Canada has steadfastly refused to meet with him. (Way to go Stephen Harper!)