Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Jihad Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jihad Watch. Show all posts

Monday, January 8, 2018

In Canada, Any Religion Can Be Criticized Except Islam. This Is What Happens When Islam Invades A Country.

Canada: Islamist-Leftist-Government Alliance Silences Free Speech

by 
  • "I... make a distinction between those who choose to practice Islam in peace and harmony with others, and those with an agenda to subvert democratic constitutions, demand special privileges over other creeds, and attack innocent people as a supremacist entitlement. It is odd to be removed from a race relations foundation for my private work in criticizing Islam, which is not a race." — Christine Douglass-Williams, Jihad Watch, December 21, 2017.
  • Canada's Motion M-103 puts Islam above all other religions in that any other religion can be discussed openly, criticized openly and even be mocked openly without punishment or state penalty.
  • "The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its 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 other religions." — Muslim Brotherhood Plan for North America.
  • Political Islam espouses the opposite of all I stand for as an activist for human rights for all. I oppose its treatment of women, female genital mutilation (FGM), child brides, killing of gays, goals to obliterate Israel, raping of infidel women, blasphemy laws etc., as any proponent of human rights and those who battle intolerance should.
For writing and warning about political Islam, I was terminated as a director at the federal government's Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF), an agency usually at arms-length from the federal government.
As I wrote at Jihad Watch:
I have been terminated from the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, four months after a threatening letter by Heritage Minister Melanie Joly about my writings on Islam at Jihad Watch,
Joly made good on her threats. The Privy Council has terminated my appointment, despite my years of dedicated commitment to the Foundation, on which I also served as Chair of the Investment Committee, and as a member of the Human Resource and Executive Committees. Why? Because I dared to criticize political Islam on Jihad Watch, and because of My Personal Warning to Icelanders, in which I warned about the deceptive works of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in their infiltration of the West. Their tactics are well documented.
I personally make a distinction between those who choose to practice Islam in peace and harmony with others, and those with an agenda to subvert democratic constitutions, demand special privileges over other creeds, and attack innocent people as a supremacist entitlement. It is odd to be removed from a race relations foundation for my private work in criticizing Islam, which is not a race.
Canadian Press (CP) gave my story balanced coverage. It was run by Post Media outlets, Canoe, The National Post and even Huffington Post. The lengthy Toronto Star story -- "Board member of anti-racism agency fired amid accusations of Islamophobic commentary" -- however featured a number of far-left, pro-Islamist sources; among them: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), CAIR-CAN/NCCM and the Mosaic Institute.
In examining these questionable organizations:
According to the SPLC, "Antifa" is not a hate group but Jihad Watch is, and its Director, Robert Spencer is "one of America's most prolific and vociferous anti-Muslim propagandists". The Washington Examiner described the SPLC as "a fraud and nobody should treat them as responsible actors". Unfortunately the Toronto Star did. Now, the Christian Broadcasting Network has rightly bemoaned that "Merry Christmas and Jesus are appearing on the SPLC's monitoring hate hashtags list." Even the left-leaning Politico asks the question: "has the Southern Poverty Law Center lost its way?"
CAIR-CAN, renamed the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), is an affiliate of the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR). Although it changed its name, it admitted to being the same organization. CAIR is designatedas a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, "placing it in the company of Al Qaeda, Islamic State", and was found to be an unindicted co-conspirator in America's largest terrorism funding trial in its support for Hamas, The Holy Land Foundation trial. CAIR-CAN/NCCM has foisted upon Canada its "Islamophobia" agenda, which is heavily pushed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in order to shut down any criticism of Islam.
CAIR-CAN/NCCM has been involved in the establishment of "anti-Islamophobia" charters in six major Canadian cities and an "Islamophobia" snitch line. CAIR-CAN/ NCCM "sent a formal letter to the government in October", where its executive director, Ihsaan Gardee, said my removal from the CRRF is an "appropriate corrective measure taken by government to address (her) disturbing public record." Back in August, CAIR-CAN/NCCM stated that I had no place on the CRRF, and that they were "confident the federal government will take appropriate action with respect to this matter."
The Mosaic Institute is a little known promotions partner of CAIR-CAN/NCCM with allied "diversity" and "inclusion" initiatives that heavily endorses the "Islamophobia" narrative. The Mosaic Institute also compares the peaceful black civil rights movement to Black Lives Matter. The Mosaic Institute stated that my removal "reflects that the personal behaviors of a board member do actually matter."
Also weighing in was "expert" Amarnath Amarasingam, an ideologue who ignores the worst, unprecedented attacks and assaults by Islamists while asking the question "what about the terrorism of the far right?" He states, "the idea that someone who sits on the Canadian Race Relations Foundation's board would have anything to do with Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer is mind-boggling to me."

Christine Douglass-Williams. (Image source: theDoveTV video screenshot)

The Toronto Star article about my "firing" illustrates a concerning portrait of how far the Muslim Brotherhood has managed to weave its way into Liberal/leftist policy circles:
Tom Quiggin, a former military intelligence officer and a court-appointed expert on jihadist terrorism in Canadian courts, documents a troubling trend in Canada, such as the bullying of a Sun Media Journalist, Anthony Furey; Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's passion in battling "Islamophobia;" his pro-Islamist sympathies in welcoming back foreign Islamic State fighters; and tabling an anti-islamophobia motion M-103 in parliament.
Motion M-103 can be traced to troubling, influential players in Canada with historic links to the Muslim Brotherhood. As Quiggin writes:
"Douglass-Williams' firing is worrying as it emanates from the Canadian Heritage Ministry – the same ministry which is holding hearings into the anti-Islamophobia Motion M103....the firing does not occur in isolation and should be seen in a specific context. Canada has an Islamic supremacist entryist problem in government... anyone who speaks out against this support for the cause of political Islam will be silenced by the Government of Canada as it moves towards a greater acceptance of Islamic extremism and violence."
When repeated calls to incorporate the term "anti-Muslim bigotry" in Canada's plan to "eliminate all forms of racism" was presented as an alternative to "Islamophobia", it was flatly rejected. Canada's influential Jewish advocacy group, CIJA stated:
"We stand in solidarity with the Muslim community against anti-Muslim bigotry...Words matter. We believe the wording of M-103 is flawed. Specifically, we are concerned with the word 'Islamophobia' because it is misleading, ambiguous, and politically charged."
Words indeed matter, "Islamophobia", unlike "anti-Muslim bigotry" is a word that is intended to beat down critics of Islam, is heavily pushed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in its efforts to criminalize criticism of Islam.
This wished-for criminalization -- complete with jail terms, fines or even death sentences -- includes prosecuting those who sound the alarm against the spread of Islamism and jihad terror. This is the essence of M-103, which is a "slap in the face to democracy." Such resolutions pose a grave danger to the freedoms of Canadian citizens and destabilizes the future of the country, not to mention its relations to the United States.
According to the Muslim Brotherhood plan for North America:
"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its 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 other religions."
Canada's Motion M-103 puts Islam above all other religions in that any other religion can be discussed openly, criticized openly and even be mocked openly without punishment or state penalty.
The infiltration detailed in the Muslim Brotherhood plan requires the participation of Western partners, and the racism industry has been the seat of its efforts. Pro-Islamist groups have managed to brand "Islamophobia" (including criticism of political Islam) as a form of "racism" and hate. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Trudeau declares that "we have a problem with Islamophobia in Canada", although Canada has a much bigger problem with anti-Semitism, followed by anti-black and anti-gay hate crimes.
Motion M-103 has become a wall of divide, mostly along partisan lines. Many who support M-103 claim that it is just a harmless "anti-racism" motion and cast opponents to it as racist and "Islamophobic". Critics, however, consider that M-103 usurps democratic rights and freedoms and imposes sharia values in which Islam will not, and must not, be criticized. The Toronto Sun also points out how M-103 Heritage Department committee hearings turned to "prosecution" and "censorship" of those who criticize Islam. Rebel Media, for instance, was cited as a possible target.
A "bombshell" revelation recently exposed an alliance between far leftist radicals and ISIS/al-Qaeda jihadists. Former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine and best-selling author, Edward Klein, uncovered in his book, All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump, "an FBI field report about the collusion between American anti-Trump radicals and foreign ISIS/al-Qaeda operatives." While this uncovers an extreme alliance between the "left" and Islamists, there are varying degrees to this troubling partnership. There seems to be a strong tendency for leftists to sympathize with and facilitate Islamists. In Canada, for example:
The Conservative Party sought to defund terrorist-linked groups, strip citizenshipfrom terrorists, implement a zero tolerance policy on "barbaric cultural practices", overwhelmingly voted against the passing of "anti-Islamophobia" Motion M103 and shut down Iran's embassy in Ottawa. The Liberal Party, conversely, has repealed the Conservative provision to strip the citizenship of terrorists, erased useof the phrase "barbaric cultural practices" and introduced the anti-Islamophobia motion M-103 that referenced the Conservatives as "Islamophobic". Trudeau has defended returning ISIS fighters with a stunning personal passion, while under tough questioning by Conservative opposition leader Andrew Scheer in Parliament.
It is also worthwhile to highlight that an article by the Toronto Star entitled, "Canadians need to do a better job of calling out racist language and actions", outed a "working relationship" between the Toronto Star, the Mosaic Institute and the NCCM/CAIR-CAN. In a panel, these three organizations assembled together and criticized Donald Trump, the late conservative Toronto mayor Rob Ford, Conservative Party politician Kelley Leitch, Steve Bannon and "white supremacy".
In a registered letter dated July 27, 2017, which eventually led to my termination of duties on the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, Heritage Minister Melanie Joly wrote to me:
"I have become aware of language used in your online articles and blogs that appear to be inappropriate and inconsistent with the CRRF mandate vision of promoting diversity and inclusion, and respect for democracy".
Joly cited three specific articles:
In each of these articles, I overtly explain and highlight the actions of Islamic supremacists and supremacism, and the dangers they pose to democracy.
I found it particularly troubling and peculiar that Joly would accuse me of violating the CRRF mandate of promoting diversity, inclusion and respect for democracy when this is precisely what I did in my dedicated duties at CRRF. Outside of the CRRF, I do the same routinely in my writings. Political Islam espouses the opposite of all I stand for as an activist for human rights for all. I oppose its treatment of women, female genital mutilation (FGM), child brides, killing of gays, goals to obliterate Israel, raping of infidel women, blasphemy laws etc., as any proponent of human rights and those who battle intolerance should.
Christine Douglass-Williams is author of the book The Challenge of Modernizing Islam. She is also an international award-winning broadcast journalist, regular writer for Jihad Watch and past external advisor to the former Office of Religious Freedom in Canada.
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Liberals Don't Need Proof To Deny Free Speech

Stanford University's Duplicitous Morality Police

by 
  • Two Stanford administrators present -- Nanci Howe, associate dean and director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate director of student affairs -- not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out, but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.
  • The reason for having to smear Robert Spencer was clear. Portraying him as someone who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him banned from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet no student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to produce as "proof" of Spencer's incitement was the same libelous blurb on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
  • What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating three deadly attacks.
It is no surprise that students at Stanford University disrupted best-selling author Robert Spencer's lecture on November 14. Given the lead-up to his talk -- "Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam: An Honest Discussion" -- the scenario was scripted in advance, with the encouragement and support of the school's administration.
As soon as the Stanford College Republicans invited Spencer, founder of the website Jihad Watch, to speak on campus -- as part of the Fred. R. Allen Freedom Lecture Series, sponsored by the Young America's Foundation -- a concerted campaign was launched to prevent him from being allowed to set foot on the premises. Stanford students, faculty members and administrators published a steady stream of articles in the student publications the Stanford Daily and Stanford Review, claiming not only that Spencer was unqualified to speak to them -- despite frequently addressing FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, military, and other government groups for years -- but also pronounced that his presence threatened Muslim students on campus; that he enabled anti-Semitism; that his message deprived Muslims of "personhood;" and that he was endangering students by replying to their attacks on his website.
When that effort failed, they employed other means to intimidate Spencer and the students who wished to hear what he had to say. Not only did hundreds of protesters cause a disturbance outside the venue, but another 150 entered the auditorium, played Arabic music loudly to drown out what Spencer was saying, and then staged a mass walk-out minutes after the event began.
Two Stanford administrators present -- Nanci Howe, associate dean and director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate director of student affairs -- not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out, but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.


According to one report of the event, published in the Stanford Review the following day:
"[T]he protest was a deliberate attempt to block students from engaging with Spencer in any capacity. If you personally do not wish to engage with the man, fine, power to you. But preventing others from doing so is shameful."

Stanford University associate dean and director of student affairs, Nanci Howe (front left), pats on the back a woman who is walking out of Robert Spencer's speech in protest.

Meanwhile, another event took place on campus -- "Stanford Against Spencer: A Rally Against Islamophobia" -- timed to coincide with Spencer's talk. In the Facebook invitation to the rally, the "coalition of concerned students and organizations that formed in response" to Spencer's lecture referred to him falsely as a "self-proclaimed Islamophobe and co-founder of two known hate groups," while lambasting him for responding on his blog to the barrage of defamation to which he had been subjected by Stanford students and faculty during the past few weeks.
In "An open letter to the College Republicans regarding Robert Spencer," printed in the Stanford Daily on November 8 -- penned by a "coalition of concerned student groups" -- Spencer is accused of being "an established Islamophobe, and "Islamophobia" is described as:
"more than just anti-Muslim sentiment, [but] institutionalized through U.S. foreign policy (the ongoing "war on terror") and immigration policy (Trump's xenophobic Muslim ban), extending its violent impact on people from and in Muslim-majority countries."
In other words, supporting the eradication of global terrorism constitutes "Islamophobia" in the eyes of the signatories of the letter, all far-left organizations -- such as Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Queer Liberation, Students Against Militarism, Student And Labor Alliance and Students for the Liberation of All People -- known for their radical views and responsible for the often violent curtailing of the free speech of anyone who disagrees with their politics at universities across the United States.
Furthermore, to justify their call on fellow students not to "engage with [Spencer], even if you are critical of [his views], because engaging in a conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction," the authors of the letter referred to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as their key source of information. The SPLC, which has been discredited widely for its left-wing biasand unreliable designation of conservative groups on its "hate list," was also quoted by a Pakistani Muslim student at Stanford, who wrote about being "afraid" as a scarf-wearing Muslim on campus. Of course, this is ludicrous, as no Muslim has ever been harmed on the Stanford campus, while in the student's native Pakistan, Christians are persecuted by Muslims on a daily basis.
The reason for having to smear Spencer was clear. Portraying him as someone who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him banned from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet no student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to produce as "proof" of Spencer's incitement was the same libelous blurb on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
This did not prevent four graduate students (three of them doctoral candidates) -- Joshua De Leon, Umniya Najaer, Jason Beckman, and Jamie M. Fine – from complaining that Spencer had "endangered" the life of a student, by exposing a video of the boy tearing down posters advertising the lecture. The claim was completely nonsensical, of course. In the first place, the student was the one who shared a video of himself on Snapchat removing the posters; Spencer merely re-posted the clip. Secondly, as Spencer responded to the barrage of criticism he received for this:
"I have never called for or condoned violence against any individual. If this Stanford fascist is harmed by anyone, it would be a disgrace, and the perpetrator should be prosecuted. However, [he] is not really in any danger. The College Republicans at Stanford are not neo-Nazis, contrary to the defamation in this latest Stanford Daily piece. Nor am I..."
What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating three deadly attacks.
The May 25 event -- "Dignity Hunger Strike: Aarab Barghouti on Palestinian Political Prisoners' Demands for Dignity" -- was hosted by the Stanford chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and co-sponsored by many of the same organizations that protested Spencer's November 14 appearance: Jewish Voice for Peace, STATIC magazine, International Socialist Organization, Students Against Militarism, Student And Labor Alliance and Students for the Liberation of All Peoples.
It is noteworthy that one Jewish student senator at the school told the Stanford Daily why he supported giving a platform to the son of a convicted terrorist, the point of whose lecture was to blame Israel for the alleged plight of hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners:
"In the interest of full transparency, I am personally very deeply concerned with the content of [Barghouti's] speech, but I need to make sure that I afford equal access to freedom of speech to groups, even those who I deeply disagree with."
The irony did not escape Spencer, who pointed out:
"There was no uproar when Aarab Barghouti spoke at Stanford. No calls for cancellation or boycott. No statements from administrators offering support to students who found Barghouti's presence disturbing. No protests. No safe spaces opened. No hysterical attacks on Barghouti in the Stanford Daily. No calls by dorm staff to report students who put up posters advertising Barghouti's event.
"Likewise, when the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] co-hosted an event at Stanford featuring Mads Gilbert, who supports the 9/11 jihad attacks that murdered 3,000 people, no one at Stanford got hysterical and called for cancellation, boycott, punishment of the students supporting the event, etc."
Yet Stanford's vice provost for student affairs, Susie Brubaker-Cole, and its dean for religious life, Jane Shaw, wrote a blog to reassure the anti-Spencer students that, in spite of the university's "commitment to freedom of expression," it is
"compelled to call out the fact that Mr. Spencer has a track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims, contradicting our university's values of inclusion and respect for all peoples and faiths. We acknowledge the emotional impact of Mr. Spencer's visit on university community members, and we are actively developing supports for the Muslim community before and after his visit."
In conclusion, they said:
"We also recognize that anti-Muslim racism and other forms of bigotry are systemic and require long-range and comprehensive approaches. We reaffirm our support for the Muslim community, and ask all to stand with us in speaking out for a mutually supportive society where all experience care and respect."
It is a travesty that Stanford's administration has no compunction about asserting that Spencer "has a track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims," and that "anti-Muslim racism [is] systemic." Spencer's work focuses on the way in which jihadists use the Koran and other Islamic teachings to justify terrorism and incite Muslims to violence. This is something that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should at least wish to learn about, if not embrace; they certainly should not view it as an affront.
As for the claim that "anti-Muslim racism" is rampant: the only places in the world where Muslims are slaughtered for the way in which they adhere to Islam, or are deemed not to practice it properly, are dominated by Muslims. Anyone teaching or attending an institution of higher learning as illustrious as Stanford should know that.
Ruthie Blum is the author of "To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the 'Arab Spring.'"
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)