Powered by Max Banner Ads
On the fifth day of Ezra Levant’s trial things became more interesting – the defendant had the whole day to tell his version of the story. He answered the questions of his lawyer, Iain McKinnon, leading us through the chain of events that followed the most publicized censorship trial in Canada.
Before telling what happened, based on my notes, let me say a word about the media. While the courtroom is filled with Ezra’s supporters, no representatives of the media are present, other than Christie Blatchford. I already wrote about her article, in which she noticed the soft side of the Three Jihad Musketeers.
After the Friday hearing, the venerable Ms. Blatchford published another condescending article mocking the defendant: Ezra Levant insists he’s not a ‘reporter.’ On this, everyone agrees.
“Testifying” doesn’t quite capture the indefatigable Mr. Levant in full flight Friday at Ontario Superior Court in downtown Toronto.
His evidence-in-chief was part soliloquy, part lecture and all theatre, as befits the man who begins his prime-time, five-days-a-week show on Sun TV with a monologue which, as he told Judge Wendy Matheson, once went on so long “we had to cancel the commercials” because it had morphed into a “rant” of an hour.
I find it strange that the target of her snobbish mockery is a person, who has dedicated his life to fight for free speech. Ms. Blatchford apparently has forgotten that in November 2010 she was also silenced at the University of Waterloo, where three students chained themselves on the stage and prevented her from speaking.
Judging from her soft spot for the Maclean’s wannabe censors, it looks to me that in her world a disgusting deed becomes acceptable when done by 3 Muslim “Canucks,” but it is censorship when 3 white students do the same.
And there is another thing – she is condescending, because the Canadian journalism is a small incestuous cast that doesn’t like outsiders. Controversy is frowned upon, unless you find a safe non-existent scandal (like the “robocalls”) or attack an unsophisticated “brute” like Rob Ford, who doesn’t think that the best use of his weekend is to march in a gay parade.
Well, Ezra is the chubby Jewish guy from Calgary, who came out of nowhere and dropped like a stone into the Toronto media puddle. He makes waves and has the wrong political views. Since it is not easy to decide what to do with him, the best course of action is to keep repeating that he is not one of them.
Near the end of the article she weighs on the legal merits of Ezra Levant’s defence:
Mr. MacKinnon told the judge in his opening statement Mr. Levant’s defence is largely that of fair comment — traditionally the defence that is the purview of journalists.
And yet Mr. Levant, by his own admission, is not a journalist. “I’m a commentator, I’m a pundit,” he explained to the judge. “I don’t think in my entire life I’ve ever called myself a reporter.”
And he appears to have considered it Mr. Awan’s responsibility to have contacted him if he had a complaint about what he was writing, when, in fact, most journalists consider it their burden to contact those about whom they’re writing.
Maybe she should’ve consulted somebody before writing this nonsense. Limitation defence is the only one that is the purview of journalists, if the comment appears in a printed newspaper or magazine (3 months in Ontario). The fair comment defence is available to everybody accused of libel.
In their classic book on libel and slander law – Canadian Libel and Slander Actions – Roger D. McConchie and David A. Potts point out that when using the fair comment defence, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the expression is:
“Recognizable by the ordinary reasonable person as comment on a matter of public interest, based upon facts that are true (or facts stated on a privileged occasion) and made honestly and fairly.” (page 337)
A few pages further they clarify the difference between comment and fact, based on Myerson v. Smith’s Weekly Publishing Co., Ltd. (1923), 24 S.R. (N.S.W.) 20:
“To say that a man’s conduct was dishonourable is not comment, it is a statement of fact. To say that he did certain specific things and thus his conduct was dishonourable is a statement of fact coupled with a comment.” (page 339)
As you will see later, when reading Ezra’s testimony, he makes a clear case that under the circumstances, when posting to his blog, he made fair comments on the testimony of Mr. Awan in British Columbia and his previous statements. That was not hard to see behind the alleged “theatrics.” Anybody could’ve made those comments as an opinion about the facts they learned – I fail to see how an interview with Awan could’ve changed those facts.
Ezra Levant continued with his testimony about his first brush with the human rights commissions. ISCC and other groups were involved in the Danish cartoons case. It was directed against him and the magazine. He didn’t expect they were serious. He had to pay the legal expenses himself.
At certain point, he received a settlement offer – Imam Syed Soharwardy offered to write an article on a full page of the magazine, without interference from the editors. On top of that, he wanted to be paid $2,000-$3,000. (Sounds familiar?)
Ezra’s lawyer told him that such an offer was normal and most people used to settle under such circumstances. Ezra didn’t accept the offer. Then he learned that under the Human Rights Code the tribunals had extensive powers, including search and seizure of property, including documents and computers.
At that moment he realized how flawed the system was. The very structure of the human rights commissions had blurry borders of duties – there was no clear distinction between prosecutors, investigators and “judges.”
The result was that after 900 days spent dealing with the case, Imam Syed Soharwardy dropped the claim. Ezra didn’t get anything – there was no option under the Human Rights Code to recover his legal expenses.
He decided not to go quietly. When he was called for an interrogation over the claim, he was told that he could bring only one lawyer and no other people. Surprisingly, they allowed him to film the interrogation. It was a humiliating experience during which the investigator grilled him over his religious and political views.
As soon as he had the video, he uploaded it to YouTube, learning how to use the site in the process. The video soon went viral. It was a huge embarrassment for the HRC.
The interrogation took place in January 2008, two years after the claim was filed. The imam soon dropped the claim, but Ezra didn’t realize that he also filed an ethics claim with the law society of Alberta. He had to deal with it as well.
They dropped the claim because he exposed them. The experience convinced him that he had to continue with the civil liberties activism. He started to cover similar cases on his blog, with the purpose to scrutinize the practices of the human rights commissions.
He found out that many people, who were prosecuted by those commissions, were neo-Nazis, supporters of marginal causes and generally unpopular people, with no access to the media. He published a book (Shakedown), which detailed those experiences – he went to different jurisdictions and discovered many shocking cases.
In it he wanted to emphasize the difference between the normal courts and the kangaroo courts represented by the human rights commissions. The book became a bestseller and was appreciated by people from different sides of the political spectrum.
The idea was to change those human rights commissions. After all that work, the movement took off and eventually the censorship provision, Section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Code, was repealed.
In 2009 he started writing articles for different publications as a freelancer. He also wrote a book about terrorism, dealing with the convicted terrorist Omar Khadr; another one about the Canadian ethical oil and has another one in the making about fracking.
In 2011 Ezra joined Sun News with his own show named The Source. He also started to write a syndicated column for the national Sun newspapers chain. Ezra also received Queen’s Jubilee Medal specifically for his activism on behalf of free speech. The weekend before the trial started, he received the award of the Free Press Society of Denmark.
His TV show deals with controversial political issues. In it he also interviews liberal Muslims who defend free speech.
McKinnon asked about his views on Islam and Muslims.
Ezra said that he has strong views. In high school he had a good friend whom he debated often – Naheed Nenshi. They even formed a debate team – a right-wing Jew and a left-wing Muslim. He got to know many Ismaili Muslims, who according to his impressions were freedom loving and tolerant people. Ezra still admires the Ismaili Islam.
Ezra took part in the campaign of Rahim Jaffer, who became the first Muslim MP in Canada. His whole life he had worked with outstanding Muslims, who have often been attacked by radical Muslims and hated for holding different views. He has learned never to trust people like Mohamed Elmasry, who are bigoted and anti-Semitic. Ezra has studied the Koran and Islam in general, with the major concepts of taqiyya, jihad, etc.
Then the lawyer asked how Ezra learned about the Maclean’s complaint.
He learned like everyone else – after it was reported in the media. Surprisingly, Maclean’s magazine kept the claims secret; the Muslim students were the ones who revealed them.
Several illiberal Muslim organizations suddenly decided to go against a few people involved in the publication of Steyn’s article. Ezra knew that Mark Steyn wasn’t the caricature that Awan created, Mark Steyn isn’t anti-Islamic.
Awan’s approach to Maclean’s was in essence Marxist, he and his group wanted to force a private publication to publish something that suited him, ignoring the independence of the magazine. Ezra also recalled the first time he heard Elmasry speak – it was at a panel, where they appeared together. He was shocked by his anti-Semitic views.
Then he heard Elmasry’s remark at the Michael Coren show, where he stated that everybody in Israel over 18 years old is a fair target for killing by terrorists. It was clear that the whole philosophy of Elmasry depended on hating Jews.
Those anti-Semitic tendencies didn’t go unnoticed – in 2006 the Canadian Islamic Congress was cut off from government funding.
Here McKinnon introduced the transcript of Elmasry’s remarks on the Coren show – October 19, 2004, and another document concerning Emasry’s views about the Israeli apartheid.
Ezra noted that these are tools to delegitimize the State of Israel by using the Holocaust experience in an inappropriate way. When we think of this, even the use of the term anti-Semitism provides too wide interpretation of the phenomenon, which was known before as simple Jew-hate.
McKinnon: Did you write about the complaints themselves?
Yes, Levant covered them from the point that the human rights commissions were created as something progressive, but eventually they were taken over by extremists. In the case of the British Columbia hearing of the complaint against Maclean’s, he had special interest, because that jurisdiction had the craziest decisions. Ezra had to be in the court to observe and learn. He thought he was qualified to cover the event.
His coverage was going directly into his blog.
McKinnon: What did you base your comments on?
Ezra wanted to cover quickly what he saw, especially the procedural issues, which some reporters could find boring or difficult to understand. He also wanted to point out the differences in the operation between a real court and the human rights commissions.
McKinnon: Where did the participants sit?
He didn’t remember every one today. Ezra remembered where he was – in the back, right behind the table where Faisal Joseph and the three students were sitting. He observed the students running around with documents, copying, binding and assisting Mr. Joseph in different ways. Faisal Joseph and Khurrum Awan were the two primary actors in the event.
After the lunch break McKinnon asked a question about the specific techniques of blogging, related to the specific posts that caused the complaint. Why did he call Awan a “serial liar”?
Ezra learned at the hearing that the real story behind the students’ claims was different. For months they claimed that they offered Maclean’s to publish a rebuttal article by a mutually agreeable author, but actually at the meeting they asked for editorial control over the piece. On the stand, under oath, Awan admitted that what he said again and again was not true. The description of that as serial lies applied to the constant repetition of claims that smeared Mr. Whyte and other people involved in the case.
The students were also called “Junior Al Sharptons”. That was reminiscent of the methods Al Sharpton used to extort money. He used to approach different companies accusing them of racism, but then explained that he could drop the charges and stop the campaign if they donated money to one of his foundations. He created a crisis and collected money to resolve it.
McKinnon: What is the meaning of the word “taqiyya”?
Ezra replied that taqiyya is a concept in sharia law, which gives permission to Muslims to use deception in a moment of crisis. The issue was discussed in two expert reports prepared for the both sides (Raymond Ibrahim wrote Ezra Levant’s report), but they were dropped. The essence of taqiyya is that it permits deviation from the principles of Islam, if a Muslim needs to avoid danger.
Then McKinnon gave more examples of using the word “liar” about Awan and Ezra explained how they applied to specific statements by Awan, most of them related to the “mutually agreeable” lie, which they repeated numerous times. And suddenly it was revealed at the trial.
Ezra still maintains that Awan was a “liar” because he misrepresented the demands. He (allegedly) drafted all claims and made Whyte look like a racist.
Maclean’s lawyer Julian Porter read at the trial a letter from the students demanding substantial amount of money. Ezra’s conclusion about the facts revealed is still that Awan is a liar.
A year after the British Columbia hearing, the Toronto Star published a column by Ezra Levant on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Israel policy. The column had nothing to do with the Canadian Islamic Congress and Awan, yet the latter wrote a letter to the editor, in which he attacked Ezra Levant. That shows that Awan tried to engage Ezra by accusing him of being Islamophobic. He never received a personal e-mail from Awan.
McKinnon: You also said that the CIC sent a proxy to the hearing?
Ezra replied that Awan was a TV debater, he drafted the claims, wrote documents, etc.
McKinnon: What was your reference in the blog about soft jihad and lawfare?
Ezra explained the differences between different forms of jihad.
As a result of that fiasco, the CIC and the students involved received very negative reactions in the press. Even the CBC disapproved of their approach. That made Awan change his ways significantly – he moved far away from Toronto to Regina, where he started a career in a non-political field. Then, noted Ezra, he suddenly decided to hire two lawyers at $1,000 per hour on his salary of a junior lawyer and sue him.
Ezra explained why he thought Awan had anti-Semitic views. There was a note he made on the Garth Turner blog. He described Garth Turner’s support for Israel in an inacceptable way – he labeled Turner as behaving as an outpost for the Israeli Likud Party in Canada. Awan was actually saying to an MP that he behaved like a Likud Jew. To support Israel was seen as an act of disloyalty to Canada. That is not different than the conspiracy theory of the Jewish world domination. As a Jew, Ezra found that especially offensive and painful.
The trial continues on Monday with a clash between Ezra Levant and Awan’s lawyers…
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Yesterday I left you with the picture of the supposedly naïve Naseem on the witness stand. Today she continued her testimony. After her we heard from the lawyer of Maclean’s; Ezra Levant started to testify, but had to stop to provide time for the incredible character Greg Felton (who shouldn’t have been there) and the National Post columnist Brian Hutchinson.
The defense strategy of Ruby Shiller Chan Hasan, which presented Awan as a hapless chap, who somehow found himself in the middle of a storm, influenced at least one person. As I mentioned, Christie Blatchford was there yesterday (and today). The supposedly seasoned veteran journalist fell for the trick and wrote a column in the National Post that could’ve made an average romance reader cry.
Awan is a principled fellow too, but back then, with three other Osgoode Hall students, he was also young, naïve and, perhaps, more easily wounded…
Being good Canucks, though, the students wanted first to assure themselves they weren’t being over-sensitive, so they canvassed their friends, and determined they weren’t. Then they asked, “What do we as individuals do?”
Yes, what would those individuals do? There is nothing more Canuckish than bursting into an office to demand publication control and a “donation” of $10,000 over “hurt” feelings:
“We were pretty keen,” Mithoowani said, giggling at the memory. “We were law students.” They planned to handle it as they would a law school presentation: Each would speak about a certain aspect; they would ask for a response piece from a “mutually acceptable author of some prominence,” and discussed asking for a donation from the magazine to a race relations foundation, maybe between $5,000 to $10,000…
“We had assumed,” she said, giggling again, “naively, in our minds, that it would be a bargaining process” and that they’d play it by ear.
And only after that failed attempt to multiculturalize Maclean’s did the crafty trio turn to other means to get their money. Apparently, the gullible Blatchford doesn’t see anything wrong with that picture, because she boldly states her values in the last paragraph:
I’m such a good and proper Canadian that I too would have published those Danish cartoons, just as Ezra Levant did, and I only wish I could write like Mark Steyn, but I’d also be wearing a veil 24/7 if I lived in Quebec, to tell Premier Pauline Marois and the Parti Québécois what I think of their stupid, and racist, “charter of values.”
Charming! Verily, verily I say unto thee – until we have people like Christie to defend with equal zeal the Danish cartoons and the Muslim veil, Canada is going to be an easy target for blokes like Awan and Elmasry.
Let me bring you back to reality. Today Naseem finished her testimony. After the meeting they continued writing letters eventually decided to file a human rights complaint. They had no other choice after being rejected.
A curious detail was the question of Angela Chaisson: What is taqiya? There was no explanation why she asked and follow up when Naseem replied that she didn’t know.
Then she had to answer about the place where Awan sat during the human rights hearing in British Columbia. She didn’t remember.
Iain McKinnon wanted to know who helped to prepare their press releases; they require more than one author. Naseem replied, yes, we did it that way with different people involved. Awan was also involved with drafting press releases sometime. She didn’t remember whether CIC get involved in the press releases.
McKinnon asked again: You worked at the B.C. hearings assisting. Were you aware that the complaint of Elmasry was the same as Awan’s Ontario complaint? No.
You were not involved in creating the Ontario or B.C. complaints? Did you assist Joseph in the preparation? No. I didn’t even communicate with Elmasry.
Then she explained that they didn’t expect the negative backlash from the press and the blogs. Had Maclean’s agreed to meet their demands, they wouldn’t have started the process.
After her Julian Porter (born 1936) was called as a witness. He shattered the version of the events presented by Awan’s group.
He is a lawyer practicing in different areas, like libel and copyright law. He has been acting for Maclean’s for about 25 years, mostly giving advice on potential libel in publications. He participated in the original meeting and had notes from it.
McKinnon asked who else was present at the meeting. Mr. Whyte was there, Porter remembers he said that he would rather go bankrupt than publishing something imposed on him.
McKinnon said that the meeting took place in March 2007. In the beginning of the notes he see the word “CIC” next to the names. Were they linked to the organization?
In a very strange reaction Justice Matheson interrupted him: I am not going to use this evidence.
Julian Porter went through the specific notes that covered the views of the students. Naseem said that Maclean’s was obligated to publish a rebutting article and that wasn’t an issue of legal debate. The article had to be published as is, without changes, written by a well-known Muslim author. Then a substantial donation was required to be made to the Race Relations Foundation. He wasn’t sure whether the word substantial was used.
Next record was that the group would contact the magazine again within a week. If nothing was done, the next step would be the complaint according to the human rights code.
Ken Whyte is in the notes next – he says that journalists have different opinions; this is part of the debate.
Porter says: I remember they wanted a substantial donation.
Then he read more of the notes – why are you not interested in covering the other side; there is no global jihad; the generalizations of Mark Steyn are not acceptable.
Then Naseem states that they are disappointed that Maclean’s doesn’t want to publish other opinions.
Whyte says – we publish only 800 articles per year; we are not a newspaper; you can write letters instead.
The article causes the erosion of the Muslims. Then somebody says that they are going to pursue legal recourse – according to human rights codes in Ontario or British Columbia or the hate speech provisions.
Stephens says – write letters to us. Then Whyte says that he’d rather go out of business than to publish an author he doesn’t approve. Porter remembers that statement very well.
Then for some reason the name of Sacha Trudeau is mentioned in the notes – Porter doesn’t remember why.
McKinnon asked: At the British Columbia hearing did Awan assist Faisal Joseph?
Joseph definitely needed a lot of help from advisors, like Awan who knew all the facts.
Then McKinnon asked if he found it strange that Elmasry didn’t testify. Did Awan stand for Elmasry?
The Judge objected to the question – it was not related to the case facts, it was requiring an opinion from the witness.
McKinnon objected that the question was relevant, because Ezra Levant said that Awan stood for Elmasry. This opinion is important for Ezra Levant’s fair comment defense.
Justice Matheson: that Porter wasn’t a decision maker, but an observer, so his opinion is not relevant in this particular case. It would be like asking a member of the public.
Shiller asked: Your notes – do you agree that they don’t cover everything? And maybe there were different discussions at the meeting? Do you recall Mr. Joseph having other lawyers?
McKinnon objected – we are going through the same opinion fields. The transcript clearly indicates who was there as a lawyer, his impressions are irrelevant.
The Judge agreed that he needed to reframe the question and exclude the impression.
Shiller: There were two young women sitting with Joseph. Do you remember them? Awan was gone from the room after he testified, do you remember that?
Porter: I have no memory of that.
Shiller: The records show that there was a demand for control and domination. Did you consider this to be extortion?
Porter: I found this to be too much. I wasn’t a happy camper.
Shiller: Did you think that they were not just students?
Porter: They were articulate, well organized and put their case eloquently.
McKinnon: How did you decide what should be put in the notes?
Porter: I just tried to keep track of what was being said. I wanted to cover everything, although I may have missed something.
Then Porter left…
After the lunch break Ezra Levant was called to testify. He said he has always been very political. He has written for school newspapers and joined the Reform Party as teenager. In 1997 he went to campaign politically. Then he became an assistant to Preston Manning when he became the leader of the official opposition. That continued for two years.
Then he moved to Toronto and joined the National Post as a member of the editorial board. Worked there for two years.
Before that he wrote for Calgary newspapers as a student in 1994-1995.
Then he became an assistant to Stockwell Day, but the job didn’t last, it was only for 9 days.
After that he moved again to Calgary – still had political ambitions, but the times were difficult, the conservative party was in civil war. When Preston Manning retired, Ezra ran in the by-election in his riding. However, at that time (2002) Stephen Harper became a leader and dropped Ezra – he was looking for someone with experience sure to be elected.
After that he practiced law in a small law firm in Calgary. At approximately the same time he wrote the book “Fight Kyoto.” Then he revived a magazine that has been out of business. A distinguished feature of the new publication was the Beefatorial as an original editorial. The magazine was published every two weeks from 2003 to 2007 and had 48 pages. It shut down because of economics.
In 2005 the world learned about the so-called Danish cartoon case. A magazine asked cartoonists in Denmark to draw cartoons of Mohammed. Many refused, but some replied and 12 cartoons were made. Nothing happened until a few Danish imams went around the world to create problems, while adding 3 extra very offensive cartoons they made.
Still nothing happened until Syria orchestrated mass protests. Those protests spread around. The Western media were scared to show them. As a magazine editor, Ezra waited for somebody to cover that event in Canada. It didn’t happen. So he selected 8 cartoons to include in his news report about the issue.
His magazine braced for the worst and hired a security guard. Still nothing happened. The fallout was mostly positive. Then Ezra Levant was invited to radio debate with a Calgary imam of Pakistani background, who didn’t know about the magazine. The imam called Ezra a terrorist.
The imam later asked the police to arrest Ezra for blasphemy, but of course they refused. Then he went to the human rights commission and filed a complaint. To make his case, on additional sheets he used passages from the Koran as jurisprudence.
After the break, the next witness testified on video from British Columbia – Greg Felton. He introduced himself as an ESL teacher and freelance author and journalist. He has been a columnist for Mohamed Elmasry’s Canadian Charger until 2011.
In 2008 he worked as a writer for Canadian Arab News, publishing a monthly column.
McKinnon: Did you attend in August 2008 a conference on Islamophobia?
Felton: Yes, I attended the conference, gave a speech and was in a panel. I spoke about how the anti-Islamic propaganda is disseminated in a subtle way in the media. Khurrum Awan was among the speakers. He spoke about his case with the human rights commissions, but I have no recollection about the specifics. There was a Canadian Arab News report I wrote.
McKinnon: In it there is a quote, where Awan says that the human rights commissions made political decisions that could go either way. Regardless of the outcome, the cases showed everybody that the cost of attacking Islam just got very high, like $2 million for Maclean’s, and not many people will do it now. Did he tell you this?
Felton: Yes, he said that to me. I called him for a story about the decision. I wrote notes, on which I based the article, but couldn’t find them now.
McKinnon: Did the money amount come from Awan?
Maybe, also from a survey or Elmasry.
Shiller took over: Do you remember your conversation with Awan? No, I relied on my notes, replied Felton.
I have here a few articles published on your website. In one of them you wrote that Obama is black, but he is not going to abolish slavery. Did you write that?
Shiller: You also wrote that Obama has surrounded himself with politicians like the “warmongering whore Hilary Clinton.” You published an article about the Kennedy assassination, which you consider coup d’état.
Here McKinnon objected that this shouldn’t be introduced. Felton was asked to step out until the issue is resolved.
Shiller said that he had articles by Felton about John Kennedy and 9/11, which are important to discuss to establish the nature of his journalistic practices. McKinnon stated that he still doesn’t see the relevance. The Judge agreed with Shiller to release the questions as important to establish credibility.
After connecting with Felton again, Shiller quoted an article stating that the 9/11 events followed the JFK script of government, in which pro-Israeli Jews were involved. Is this something you wrote?
So you checked the facts to come to the conclusion that warmongering Jews did the JFK conspiracy and 9/11?
Shiller then asked if Felton wrote the article “With Leaders Like Netanyahu Israel Doesn’t Need Enemies.” In it is stated that mini-hydrogen bombs actually destroyed the World Trade Center. Felton replied that the destruction with airplanes was impossible. There must’ve been other devices and his analysis concluded that the tool were small hydrogen bombs.
At a conference in Vancouver in 2012 you stated that many Jewish employees in the World Trade Center were not at work on September 11, 2001. They were warned, but nobody warned the rest.
Yes, I said that.
Shiller: Did you also state that Al Qaida doesn’t exist and the WTC attacks were organized by Israel?
Yes, there is no difference between the US and Israeli governments. They had interest in attacking it.
Then McKinnon got involved: Did you interview anybody about the JFK assassination piece?
No, it was an opinion piece, relied Felton.
After the very strange and weird friend of the Canadian Muslim fighters against Islamophobia left the distant room.
The last witness was Brian Hutchinson, a columnist for National Post. In July 2008 he attended the tribunal hearing on Maclean’s in British Columbia. McKinnon asked him why he wrote about Elmasry as being a highly controversial figure. He also wrote about Awan as a protégé of Faisal Joseph, who was about to start work at his firm in London and the three students were assisting Joseph.
The trial continues tomorrow…
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
The third day of Ezra Levant’s trial attracted even more people than yesterday. The courtroom was already full shortly after they opened it. The clerks had to bring more chairs during the first break. The grumpy Mark Steyn spent the day in his corner, resigned to the fact that he had to spend his time listening to the charming Muslim guy, who tried to destroy him seven years ago. Blazingcatfur kept scribbling in his notebook, though from time to time it was difficult to suppress his emotional reactions.
A new addition to the crowd was Christie Blatchford (she said she was working on articles about the trial).
The situation developed according to the “good news-bad news” principle. The good news was that the cross-examination of Khurrum Awan finally finished. The bad news was that after he was done, two other soldiers of Allah bound on eradicating “Islamophobia” – one magazine at a time – took the stand. First we heard from Faisal Joseph, the lawyer for the British Columbia case. Then we enjoyed Naseem Mithoowani, the second member of the unholy Muslim trinity that started the Maclean’s mess.
While on the stand, Awan followed faithfully his defense strategy – to display the mental sharpness of a character from a Polish joke. After listening for a while, it was hard to believe that this guy graduated from law school and even got a job. He looked more and more like some random Parkdale guy kidnapped from the street to be tortured by evil lawyers.
The morning started slowly – Iain McKinnon, Ezra Levant’s lawyer, had to introduce additional documents and give explanations to the judge why he didn’t do it earlier, while at the same time handling the objections of Brian Shiller (Awan’s lawyer). McKinnon showed a letter from CIC’s Mohamed Elmasry, in which he wrote that his organization had a “dedicated legal team” with Awan as part of it. The letter was a correction to an article in National Post.
By now your intuition should tell you what his reaction was – he flatly denied Elmasry’s statement. He never discussed the letter with him and had no idea how his boss came up with the legal team idea. At the same time he admitted that he was well aware of the incorrect publication, but he never read Elmasry’s reply.
McKinnon continued to grill Awan over his credibility on the issue of selecting a mutually agreeable Muslim author to rebuke Steyn in Maclean’s. He quoted letters and press releases from Awan’s group, written and signed by them, in which they write as a collective. Naturally, according to our Islamophobia buster, nothing in them was related to his personal position.
Then McKinnon asked Awan directly whether he was aware that Ezra Levant called him a “liar” based on his flip-flopping over the issue of the mutually agreeable author. Now on the stand he shows similar behaviour.
Awan went into a long monologue about the “liar” term. He supposedly was called that word over his human rights complaints. Then he pointed out at the different meanings and levels of the term liar. It could be used to describe an error or applied derogatorily to a Muslim, who supposedly deceives the unbelievers, or it could indicate fraud.
After that McKinnon continued with questions about the allegedly anti-Semitic positions of CIC. The organization had a press release in 2006, in which they demanded that Hamas and Hezbollah be taken off the terrorist list. Did Awan take part in writing that? The reply was no.
The lawyer said that CIC and the Canadian Arab Federation maintained that both groups should be delisted because the current situation is hypocritical, with Israel committing war crimes against Palestinians. Do you know what Hamas is? Yes, replied Awan.
Then were you aware of their position, being a youth president of CIC? I wasn’t completely aware of it, said Awan.
McKinnon: as a youth president, aren’t you supposed to know the position of CIC? After all, you testified on their behalf at the HRC hearings.
Awan’s answer was refreshingly weird: I provided the testimony as community service on behalf of CIC, not as a member.
After an unsuccessful attempt to get an explanation of what testimony as community service means, McKinnon continued: At the time of the press release were you aware that many countries in the world considered Hamas terrorist organization? And you were aware of the CIC position but didn’t distance yourself?
I wasn’t completely aware of all that, replied the Polish joke character.
McKinnon switched to another area – jihad – asking if Awan ever denounced jihadists publically. Here the dialogue continued back and forth over what jihad and jihadist mean. Awan weaseled his way out by playing with the meaning of the words in the Western media and in Islam. I think McKinnon could’ve handled this part better, but he obviously didn’t have enough knowledge about that Koranic principle.
The next issue were Awan’s statements about Levant and Steyn. He called both racists and Islamophobes and stated in a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star that Ezra Levant was Islamophobic, based on his record.
The reply was that Levant is Islamophobic, because he published cartoons of prophet Mohammed as a suicide bomber. McKinnon objected that at that time the news of those cartoons spread all over the world and Levant published them to illustrate that news.
Awan was stubborn: no, he published them to discredit Muslims.
McKinnon: When you label Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant as Islamophobic, don’t you consider the effects of that on their careers?
No, said Awan, a national magazine was providing a platform for those views. Maclean’s chose to publish Islamophobic material, so we considered them racist, especially after they refused to remedy the situation.
Then McKinnon said that Awan was supposedly emotionally and professionally hurt by the blog posts of Ezra Levant. There were many other articles with similar statements. Why didn’t they have the same effect?
Yes and no, replied Awan. There were other articles, but none matched the degree of Levant’s insults.
McKinnon: But didn’t National Post call you an extortionist? Again, Awan wasn’t aware of such article.
McKinnon tried to emphasize the bright side – newspapers and magazines published flattering articles and editorials about Awan. He was also chosen as one of the 40 best professionals in Saskatchewan under the age of 40. Wasn’t that nice? That’s not relevant, said Awan, I worked hard for it.
As a last act of that ordeal, Brian Shiller came up with the “brilliant” idea to have Awan read a letter from the ex-Premier Dalton McGuinty to CIC, in which the Premier praised the organization and its contributions to multiculturalism and the bettering of the life in Ontario.
It was hilarious to listen how a guy, who tried to ruin free speech, read a letter from another guy (who bankrupted Ontario with his green schemes, corruption and theft), praising the non-existent contributions of an organization with anti-Semitic bias.
Finally, Awan disappeared from the stand.
Faisal Joseph took his place. He was the CIC lawyer who handled the claim in British Columbia. There was a slight delay, because initially he couldn’t decide on what to swear to tell the truth – he said it could be either Bible or Koran, but then he picked a Koran.
His voice was barely audible, but from what I heard it was clear that he maintained the same ironclad defense strategy – Awan was just an insignificant guy, who testified, but had nothing to do with preparation of the case or giving any legal advice. Any document that claimed otherwise was incorrect or misunderstood.
After he left, we listened to Naseem Mithoowani. As I mentioned before, she was one of the trio that started it all.
She was questioned by Angela Chaisson, also from Clayton Ruby’s firm. The lawyer was interested in the initial meeting in the offices of Maclean’s. The three students were concerned about the Mark Steyn articles published in the magazine. Naseem felt that they were an attack against the Muslims as people. She said she wouldn’t have problems if someone attacks Islam as ideology (yeah, right).
They started all that to restore the dignity of the Muslim community. They had no involvement with CIC.
The group went to Maclean’s, where they first asked them to spell their names (she thought that was humiliating). The trio began with their complaint, but the editors interrupted them that Mark Steyn was a popular journalist.
Then the students made their offer – the magazine had to publish an article with the same size by a mutually agreeable pro-Muslim author or donate $5,000-$10,000 to a Muslim charity in order to remedy the damage.
Well, unlike Don Vito Corleone’s offers, the Muslim student offer was something that the magazine could refuse. The trio quickly found itself out of the offices in shock, discussing its options.
Angela Chaisson asked: Did you blackmail Maclean’s and threaten with legal action?
At this point Naseem burst into an uncontrollable loud laughter, not very different from the laughter of Hilary Clinton when she talks about Bill. Not at all, she said, we were shell-shocked and treated in dismissive way, so we started evaluating our options.
At that time the court session ended, so the testimony is continuing tomorrow.
Well, dear readers, what do you think? Imagine that three random students show up at a national magazine and demand editorial control or $10,000. They’ll end up kicked out after a nasty encounter with the security. In our case, they “spontaneously” trigger a series of events that cause huge expenses and nearly destroy the lives of several people.
If you really believe that this is an act of young idealists and not a well thought-out provocation of an organization or organizations, I have a nice piece of swamp land in Florida that you can buy from me.
The trial continues tomorrow…
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Today was the second day of the highly anticipated political trial against Ezra Levant, who is being sued for libel by Khurrum Awan, a Muslim activist and lawyer, best known for his role in the censorship case against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s Magazine.
A major sign that the trial is highly charged and political is the fact that Awan is represented by Brian Shiller from Ruby Shiller Chan Hasan. Clayton Ruby’s glorious team has been involved in a series of such cases, like Paul Magder’s attempt to remove Mayor Rob Ford from office (they lost); another libel case – Foulidis vs. Rob Ford (also lost); apparently they will also represent the alleged child pornographer Benjamin Levin from Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal circle.
Hopefully, Mr. Awan, who alleges that his life was shattered by Ezra’s insensitive remarks, has enough money left to pay for the services of that exclusive firm.
Unfortunately, I missed the first day. Today many supporters of Ezra Levant, including Mark Steyn, filled the small courtroom – there wasn’t enough room for everybody. During the whole day, from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., the court’s time was occupied only by the cross examination of Khurrum Awan.
He was asked a series of questions by his own lawyer Brian Shiller. Awan denied the credibility of a report that was widely circulated a few years ago, originally published by Arab News, where he stated that Maclean’s and Steyn spent $2 million on defense and that will deter others from criticizing Islam in the future. He was apparently misunderstood and misquoted. He didn’t even remember saying anything like that.
Awan’s real goal in filing all those human rights lawsuits was to bring more awareness to Muslim literature and combat “Islamophobia.”
Let me mention here that denial was his strategy during the court proceedings. I remember his cocky interviews on TV, in which he didn’t hide the role he played in achieving that “victory.” Today we saw a poor traumatized guy, who played a very minor role and who can’t even remember what exactly happened during the human rights trials. Unfortunately, that wasn’t a very successful performance.
When asked if it was true that he is involved in lawfare, Awan vehemently denied – there is no such thing; he never had the intention to use lawsuits as weapons. He also was vaguely aware of the statement of Mohammed Elmasry (from the Canadian Islamic Congress, CIC) that everybody in Israel over the age of 18 is a legitimate target.
Awan was just as elusive when his lawyer asked him about the damages he suffered from Ezra Levant’s statements. He was deeply hurt and embarrassed by being called anti-Semitic, because he works with Jewish co-workers. He didn’t elaborate on any negative effects of that.
He similarly answered the question about the lost opportunities – he believed he missed a few chances, but had hard time being specific. Previously, in Google searches for his name, the top pages were related to Ezra’s statements about him and the human rights cases he filed. It is common practice for prospective employers to do similar searches. However, he was unable to tell if those search results hurt him in any way. Today similar results, although not that many, still appear in Google.
His lawyer asked again if those search results prevented certain firms from hiring him. Awan believes that there were such firms, but was unable to name even one. He sent out many applications for work and received responses and was called for interviews – again, he couldn’t provide evidence that the responses were substantially fewer than normal.
Then Shiller inquired why he is suing Ezra Levant. The main reason was to restore his damaged reputation – when Ezra called him a “liar” that potentially hurt his standing with courts, because they won’t take seriously a liar. That situation from his point of view is a substantial damage. He simply wants Ezra to leave him alone, because the current firm he works for is happy with Awan.
And what about the jihadist allegations, asked Shiller. Awan played this piece better – he said it was a very bad accusation for a Muslim. It was humiliating to be called jihadist. At this point he became emotional, stop talking for a moment and I have the feeling that he shed a tear. Then he went on – as a productive member of the society, he was terrified by being looped together with the Boston bomber and Osama bin Laden.
He is disgusted with the jihadists who should be punished in this and the next life. What he does is simple advocacy for Muslim rights and human rights causes, not different from what thousands of other people do.
Then he said again that he needs to take his life back. He was disappointed that there were people, who don’t want to discuss Islam, but go for personal attacks (And you wonder why?! If they discuss it in the wrong way, you’ll sue them.)
Awan made astonishing sacrifices – his intention was to work for free on social causes, but now he had to take a paid job to cover his legal expenses. He has also been called a serial litigator and an affirmative action graduate.
His performance on the stand was astonishingly weak. For all the money they charge, Clayton Ruby’s top-notch law firm should’ve prepared him better. Or maybe simply there was not much to work with…
After that Iain McKinnon took over. As a result of his questions, Awan had to double down on selling his image of a confused law student, who somehow got in the middle of a nasty human rights battle. Since he denied that he played any significant role in the preparation of Elmasry’s case filed in British Columbia, McKinnon grilled Awan for over an hour with comparisons of Elmasry’s document with the one presented by Awan at the Ontario HRC. It turned out in the end that both documents were practically identical.
Again, Awan became confused when asked if he worked for Elmasry and CIC. McKinnon brought up a letter to Jason Kenney from Awan, where he has an electronic signature identifying him as representative of CIC. Awan said again that he was confused at the time and included the wrong signature.
Then McKinnon read testimonies from the British Columbia trial, which identified Awan as a major player in the lawsuit. Again, the plaintiff went out of his way to explain that his involvement was misunderstood.
Ezra’s lawyer continued to dismantle Awan’s defenses – he brought up the coverage of the British Columbia trial by Brian Hutchinson in National Post. In two articles Awan was identified as a person who assisted in the preparation of the case. With annoying predictability Awan tried to project again the image of the little law student, who didn’t have any importance.
After that McKinnon moved to the particulars of the initial confrontation with Maclean’s Magazine. Awan’s group demanded either a space for a large Islamic article or a substantial donation to a Muslim organization. The lawyer asked: in the general sense, wouldn’t such demand be considered shakedown and extortion attempt?
Again and again Awan was misunderstood – that wasn’t extortion at all. His group of students saw the requested donation as a token of support for the Muslims in Canada. Also, providing space for the Muslim point of view in Maclean’s was seen by the group as affirming the free speech principle (It looks like the Muslims have a very odd understanding of free speech.)
Then McKinnon asked Awan if he would’ve proceeded with the charges if the money and publication demands were met. Awan tried very hard to wiggle his way out of that difficult question, but he wasn’t very successful.
The trial continues tomorrow…
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
This article is an open letter and a warning to the residents and the local politicians in Thornhill. Just like individuals, communities sometimes face crossroads, where they have to make choices that cannot be undone. In such situations one has only one chance to avoid irreversible changes.
The issue here is a new real estate development proposed by the shia Muslim Jaffari Centre. To introduce you to its details I chose articles by two eloquent supporters of the project with similar views: the Jewish intellectual Richard M. Landau and the Muslim activist Zafar Bangash, publisher of the Crescent Online magazine.
In his article, soothingly titled – Thornhill: The Kind of Canada I’d Like to Live In – Mr. Landau describes what the project is going to include:
A local Shia Muslim congregation had proposed to erect a 17-storey, 205-unit residence with retail space, along with another 17-storey seniors residence with 100 assisted living units and 61 three-storey condo townhouses near a major intersection. This is a large undertaking and buildings of that height and stature could be potentially dominant architecturally – never mind who occupies them.
Now understand that this suburb of Toronto has a rather interesting cultural history: A few decades ago, the emerging Italian populace moved into part of the community now called Woodbridge. Thornhill became a favourite location for Toronto’s growing Jewish population…
Mr. Bangash’s publication pictures the same ambitious venture:
The Shia Muslim community’s proposal includes one 17-storey, 205-unit residence with retail space along with another 17-storey seniors residence with 100 assisted living units (132 beds) and 61 three-storey common element condo townhouses.
This is impressive – there will be two high-rise buildings inhabited only with Muslims, who have a low income or don’t work at all, with the addition of many townhouses. That for sure is going to change the neighbourhood forever. As of now, the people who live in the area are mostly upper middle class Jews.
It is an economic axiom that whenever high-rise low-income buildings are built in an area, the property values drop like a stone. The increased density, combined with more crime, makes the houses around much less valuable. For most owners the home equity is their main asset and when it drops (without changing the property taxes) that doesn’t bring anything good to anybody.
Mr. Landau, however, tries to convince the scared owners that they should stay calm and carry on. In the beginning of the article he mentioned the Italians who lived there. Then he assures everybody that the Thornhill residents live in a wonderful multicultural society:
Among the communities in Thornhill is a significant Shia Muslim population with mostly Persian, South Asian, African and other roots. In fact, their long-standing Jaffari Islamic Centre famously shared a parking lot with the Jewish congregation of Temple Har Zion next door. It’s been a story of cooperation that many Canadians pointed to with pride.
Further he mentions that the Jaffari Centre would magnanimously allow the locals to use the playing fields and the tennis courts.
While I appreciate his multicultural enthusiasm, his points need a few clarifications. When the Italians moved into the neighbourhood, I am sure that their houses were not dumped all at once by a project of the Catholic Church. They bought or built their houses one by one, merging cultures that are not that different from each other.
Next Mr. Landau gives as an example of peaceful coexistence between Jews and Muslims with the sharing of a parking lot. “It’s been a story of cooperation that many Canadians pointed to with pride.” I wish he was joking, but it seems he is serious. Sharing a parking without fighting and punching each other is a basic sign of civility in Canada. It doesn’t require much of cooperation and it is odd to be proud of it. Or maybe he implies that when you deal with Muslims, event sharing a parking requires some skills?
The assumption that the mullahs will operate tennis courts and share them with Jews sounds like a line from a bad B-movie script.
Mr. Landau is oblivious to the fact that here we are talking a Muslim project, guided by rules and culture that is unlike anything that we have in Canada. Even now, the Jaffari Centre, which is a huge mosque, causes problems – especially when many Muslims show up for prayers. The local residents are often harassed by them with demands to use the driveways to park their cars.
The project is religious in nature and the compact mass of Muslims, who will move in, unlike the other mostly secular groups, is going to act in a strictly Islamic way (more details later). However, pointing out that fact in Canada is a dangerous endeavour. It could bring out the Muslim rage; the wrath of the human rights commissions, and may even label you “Islamophobe.”
As a result of that “tradition,” JDL-Canada, one of the groups that brought awareness to the Muslim development, was attacked almost immediately. Mr. Landau blamed it for spoiling the marvelous project:
But when the condo proposal was brought forward, not all was sweetness and light. Chief among the detractors was the Jewish Defence League (JDL), whose spokesperson was quoted as saying, the said condo complex would “encourage the spread of radical Islam.”
Though its reasoning is specious, it’s actually good the JDL is putting its cards on the table and not speaking in euphemisms or from behind the usual smokescreens.
The second paragraph was printed in the article with very large letters to make it clear how evil JDL-Canada is. Mr. Bangash’s fiery magazine had a much more extreme reaction:
The zionists are nothing if they are not racists. They would even oppose something as harmless as building a seniors’ home if it is for Muslims. This is what the Shia Muslim community is facing in Thornhill, a suburb outside Toronto. Ultimately, the Muslims will succeed because they are acting within their right but the entire episode once again exposes the racism of zionists…
Weinstein leads the Jewish Defence League (JDL), a notorious group of thugs well known for espousing a violent ideology. The group is banned in the US as a terrorist organization but for some mysterious reason, it continues to operate in Canada without hindrance…
Weinstein alleges the condominium project for Muslim seniors will encourage “radical Islam.” Some racists and bigots have also launched an online petition alleging the project would lead to an “influx of Muslims” into the community…
I hesitated whether to include that angry tirade, because other than being vitriolic, almost every word in it provides perfect material for a libel case. JDL in the USA is not banned and is not a terrorist organization. JDL-Canada is one of the few Jewish organizations here that openly confronts Muslim extremist events in a peaceful way.
The problem is that in our media-intense society when an event is not covered it is as if it never happened. Ignoring disturbing trends and movements creates in people and organizations the false security of the proverbial ostrich with his head in the sand. When Islamists are exposed, many of those who ignore them reluctantly pay attention or more often simply try to kill the messenger.
The shia organizations in Canada have quite a lot of skeletons in their closets as a result of their connections with the ayatollahs in Tehran. When one of them is about to take over your neighbourhood, it’s good to know what makes them tick.
Needless to say, the political and religious affiliations of the people who run the Jaffari Centre are disturbing. You can read documents about them and see videos online.
An interesting thing to note is how they define their loyalties. The radical cleric Syed Hassan Mujtaba Rizvi makes his preferences very clear:
“My affiliations are with Iran, because my affiliation with Canada would mean that if in Canada there was something for me to affiliate by, that was given to me by Allah, I should have affiliation with Canada. But when I look towards Allah, and I see that He has affiliation with Iran, has no affiliation with Canada with America, I say: I have affiliation with Iran. Do I have an affiliation with the country that I was born in? No.”
If he were a diplomat from Iran, it wouldn’t have been a problem, but since this is a guy, who is going to control a large group of Muslims about to move into the Jewish neighbourhood, his statement sounds beyond disturbing – especially when you consider the fact that Iran is ruled by a murderous anti-Semitic regime.
Not only does the Jaffari Centre provide spiritual guidance, but it also serves as an educational institution that indoctrinates the youth in the “rich” traditions of Ayatollah Khomeini. Some time ago, the blogger Blazingcatfur uncovered quite a few questionable materials. For example, the text below is from Youth Trip to Iran, a newsletter, which a charity associated with the Centre, ISIJ, sends to members of its youth wing:
“Among his strong statements to the youth, Imam Khamenei said that Marxism and Western Liberal Democracy will not have an appeal and this is evident with the awakening that has taken place in several countries over the last one year. He advised the youth that the awakening is the just the beginning and the youth must remain firm in their objectives of tarnishing the zionist dreams.”
When you consider the fact that the “Zionist dreams” are limited to surviving the aspirations of the populous and aggressive neighbours of Israel, it is clear that the Supreme Leader simply means that Israel should be destroyed. When scores of youth indoctrinated in that murderous ideology move among Jews, I somehow don’t see a potential for interfaith harmony.
The same ideology could be found in the textbooks used by the Jaffari Centre to teach elementary school kids:
“Unlike the beliefs of the ancient Romans, the Jews, and the Nazis, Islam is not restricted to a certain community of a certain race, but is for all human beings and aims at human prosperity and salvation. This divine faith requires all Muslims, guided by the holy precepts and instructions of Islam, to endeavor to rescue the oppressed masses to establish peace and justice, and to acquaint the unaware people of the whole world with Islam and Islamic rules and regulations.” (pg. 71)
End of Jewish Plots and Treacheries
“Ever since the Prophet’s entry into Madina, the treacherous Jews had vehemently opposed him and his Islamic call, evoking memories of their hostility to the previous Prophet, Jesus Christ (a), half a millennium ago. The crafty Jews entered into an alliance with the polytheist Quraish in a bid to stamp out Islam. They conspired to kill Prophet Muhammad [s] despite the fact that he was lenient towards them and had treated them kindly, hoping to convince them of Islam’s truth.
Again, I don’t see how kids who grow up with that hate would live peacefully with Jews. Because of that textbook, the Centre was under investigation for hate speech. As you can expect, they never charged them citing insufficient hatred, although the police admitted that the text wasn’t quite right. Even the most radical Muslims are a protected species under the Human Rights Code.
However, the written propaganda is not the only tool that lets us judge the positions of those organizations. They organize public events and rallies, at which they are not shy to promote their extreme views. And why shouldn’t they? As I mentioned above, the media had consistently ignored them and only because of rare groups like JDL-Canada we are aware of those events.
I’ve had the “privilege” of attending many of those rallies, organized and supported by Shia organizations, including the Jaffari Centre. In the video below you see Zafar Bangash, the staunch supporter of the Muslim real estate project. At a rally to condemn the violence against Shia in Pakistan, he managed to blame the “Zionists” for it and make the case that Iran is the best Islamic country.
Those organizations also sponsor a major anti-Semitic event that takes place every year – the Al-Quds day. Created by Ayatollah Khomeini, it still keeps the hatred against Israel alive. The participants, brought with buses (from the Jaffari Centre as well) are not afraid to make their views known. Here are a few pictures from the 2012 Al-Quds rally.
Later the same year thousands of Muslims were brought to the US Consulate to protest the “blasphemous” YouTube movie that the Obama administration blamed for the events in Benghazi. Again, the school buses brought people that barely could speak English, let alone use a computer to find a video on an English website. There were plenty of “seniors,” who would probably live in the new homes in Thornhill:
They clearly demanded blasphemy laws for Canada. Never mind that the country’s culture is supposed to be based on freedom of speech and discussion. The elderly woman below (who couldn’t read her sign) displayed the simple message that there is no free speech when the “prophet” of Islam is insulted. The police were fine with that.
The guy in the next picture asked that the rogue filmmaker be punished. Another one, standing close to him with a similar sign, when asked by Blazingcatfur what the punishment should be, simply stated that the offender must be killed. That sentiment was shared by many other people at the rally.
Zafar Bangash and a few prominent shia clerics spoke to the crowd affirming the demands for speech control. The movie was created in the USA by an Egyptian, but amazingly the Toronto Muslims still found a way to blame the whole thing on “fascist Israel.”
The 2013 Al-Quds rally exceeded all expectations. It had proud mullahs marching under the picture of Ayatollah Khomeini and signs calling for “liberation” of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
The message again was crystal clear – “free our Jerusalem.” Since Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, to achieve that apparently the Jews must be kicked out.
The Muslim fanatics were so confident that the police around was not going to do anything to stop them, that they openly flashed flags of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, which is actually banned in Canada. Of course, not many people care about that – it is much easier to demonize JDL-Canada.
The anti-Semitic curriculum that I mentioned above obviously played its role to brainwash the kids, because a few of them were allowed to speak. The little mujahedeen below was very passionate about the destruction of the evil Israel.
But that was not all – one of the keynote speakers openly called for the extermination of the Jews in Jerusalem. The crowd cheered him. To the best of my knowledge, no Muslim organization that took part in the rally condemned the speaker Elias Hazineh.
The speech was so outrageous that the police eventually had to investigate the numerous complaints about it. In a shocking decision a few months later, the Attorney General of Ontario refused to file criminal hate speech charges. Let’s forget about anti-Semitism for a moment – here we have a guy, who utters a death threat. He could easily be charged with that crime under the Criminal Code.
However, since the politically correct idiots from our provincial government see Muslims and Jews involved in the incident, they’d rather ignore the crime than risking a few potential votes. In the case with the Muslim curriculum they did the same for the same reasons.
Do you see a pattern here? The radical Muslims are watching. They realize that the spineless government is afraid to mess up with them. Next time they will be bolder.
Those are the people, who are about to move to the Jewish neighbourhood in Thornhill. Of course, not all Muslims are radicals, but the worldwide experience with Islam shows us that the most radical Muslims are in charge due to the authoritarian structure of Islam as a religion and ideology. The moderate reformers (like Tarek Fatah, Raheel Raza, etc. in Canada) are marginal figures at best and don’t have much influence in Islam.
Let me ask the residents of Thornhill: are you willing to take that risk in the name of “multiculturalism”? Accepting radicalized people, who think that Israel is a cancer that must be excised through the extermination of the Jews, is not the best course of action in a Jewish neighbourhood. I wonder how far Muslim kids (like the little mujahedeen above) would go to explain their position to the Jewish kids on the playground.
Of course, there is another option as well – just close your eyes and dismiss all warning signs as malicious propaganda. When the reality strikes, salvage whatever is left from your house’s value and get out.
Eventually, it will be up to the people of Thornhill to decide their fate, but remember – you will get only one chance to make the right decision.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
The other day a friend of mine sent me an article about discussions in the Israeli Knesset, which, though shocking and annoying, could happen only in Israel. The case involves a few Arab members of the Knesset. Before going into the details, let me say a few words about the Israeli Parliament.
It is located in a big building in Jerusalem, with large windows and a lot of bright and sunny spaces. The walls are decorated with beautiful ancient and contemporary art. In the big hall you can observe for hours the huge and magnificent paintings of Marc Chagall. The place is crowded – hundreds of people visit it every day – tourists, soldiers, school children and students.
The young girl, who was our guide, was very upbeat and proud of the Knesset (not only as a building, but also as an institution). She told us that this is the place for heated debates, because, since the election threshold is only 2%, many political parties are elected and they have to work together despite their differences. There are also Arab parties. The Knesset holds a confidence vote every Monday to decide whether the government should continue working or not. Along with the large chamber, which accommodates the 120 MK’s, there are many large committee rooms with signs in Hebrew, Arabic and English.
Everybody knows that Israel is under almost constant threat from its Muslim neighbours and you can feel that in the Knesset. All visitors are checked carefully and every suspicious item is examined thoroughly. The section for visitors in the Knesset chambers is separated with a bulletproof glass (years ago somebody tried to throw a grenade from there).
Despite the security, the danger in the Knesset comes from some of the members, who hold views and ideas that no military detector could handle. They couldn’t smuggle weapons inside, but have enough venom to destroy anything democracy stands for. At the time the Knesset wasn’t in session, so we didn’t get to see any MK’s.
My first encounter with an MK happened a few months later in Toronto, when I had to spend two miserable hours at a Palestinian club listening to Jamal Zahalka, MK from the Muslim Balad party.
He spent most of the time bashing Israel and calling for a third intifada. If he was a member of the parliament in Russia, China or even the USA, he could’ve easily been charged with treason. However, the Israel laws somehow can’t handle that type of people.
The lefties, who came to listen to him, included the usual occupy bums, welfare people passing for artists and a few “progressive” intellectuals (including the notorious Toronto Star Islamist Haroon Siddiqui). It was impossible to miss Noa Shaindlinger, the self-hating Jewess, known for celebrating the murder of Israeli soldiers.
Zahalka said that the Meretz party in Israel supports his cause, however, he avoids close collaboration with them because they are still part of the oppressors.
Fast forward to the article I mentioned in the beginning. It deals with a meeting of one of the numerous commissions of the Knesset – the commission for internal affairs.
The members discussed the proposed expansion of the villages and towns in Galilee. Don’t forget that this is the northern part of Israel, which has never been disputed. However, the Arab MK’s who took part in the discussion were angry – Hana Sweid from Hadash fumed that the Israeli government plans to build “settlements” in Galilee with the purpose of Judaization of the area and changing the demographic balance.
He was immediately supported by Tamar Zandberg from Meretz (no surprise from those traitors): “I am also strongly opposed to building of Jewish settlements in Galilee.” Did she by any chance convert to Islam?
Further the minutes indicate that Yifat Kariv (from Yesh Atid) asked: “But isn’t Galilee a Jewish area?” It was naïve to ask the questions – the Arabs immediately started to yell at her. The treacherous creature named Haneen Zoabi (from Balad) lectured Kariv: “This is about taking over Arab land for racist reasons!”
Her comrade in arms and my old friend – Jamal Zahalka – finished the lecture: “Galilee is ours and the land is ours. We live under an apartheid regime. The Nakba continues to this day.”
Let me mention again that we are not talking here about building houses in Judea and Samaria. This is about Galilee, whose status has never been questioned.
In the first book of the Bible the serpent shows up to tempt Eve using some charm and persuasion. The venomous Arab snakes in the Knesset just jump up and bite, trying to destroy everything the country stands for, with some help from the junior Meretz snakes. And the most unbelievable thing is that the Israeli laws can’t do anything about it.
Is there any doubt what the future of Israel would be, if those people are not confronted?
John Kerry, who has a charming horse face, but is much less intelligent than a donkey, demands that Israel accept whatever he puts on the table, including the 1967 armistice lines as borders. Just like Zahalka, he threatens with a new intifada, if Israel doesn’t submit.
Well after reading about that commission meeting is there any doubt that when the armistice lines become borders, the Arabs will continue with demands for Galilee and the whole Jerusalem? They may generously allow the Jews to live in the Negev, but just temporarily, until they find the strength to push them into the sea.
No matter how the “peacemakers” try to sugar-coat the situation, the reality is clear – every compromise, every inch of surrendered land will bring demands for more.
Centuries ago St. Patrick became famous for driving the snakes out of Ireland. Maybe Israel needs to borrow him to get rid of the Arab vipers crawling in the Knesset.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
As the Toronto municipal elections approach, it is important to take a closer look at the views and ideas of those city politicians, who will want to rule us for another four years. Recently there was an interesting Twitter exchange (involving Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a proud lesbian) about the rampant public nudity at the Toronto gay parade (thanks to the Socialist Studies blog for the find). While the parade is sold as a wholesome family event, the indecent exposure is always covered up by the media.
Before going into details, let me state that I am indifferent about the issue of homosexuality as long as it is limited to an activity between consenting adults in confined spaces like bedrooms, bathhouses, and gay bar washrooms. My only simple request is to leave the kids alone. Unfortunately, at the gay parade that rule is blatantly violated by many homosexuals that shamelessly expose themselves in front of children.
The gay parade has been relentlessly promoted by the organization that controls most schools in Ontario – the Toronto District School Board. Not only do the lefty teachers encourage kids’ participation, but they also have their own float at the parade.
What the TDSB never talks about is the depravity and perversion to which they willingly expose children. Here is what an average kid is going to see while attending the Toronto “feast of gender diversity”:
The most interesting part of that tweet exchange was that the person who challenged Wong-Tam on the homosexual exhibitionism issue was none else but a TDSB trustee – Sam Sotiropoulos. From my personal experience with the TDSB the chance of that happening are slimmer than seeing an UFO land on top of Queen’s Park. TDSB’s relentless promotion of homosexuality brought us the Gay-Straight Alliances and many other things related to them. At a TDSB GSA school conference at OISE last November, the underage kids were handed “transgender survival” booklets published by the Ontario government, which among other things gave them tips on how to survive as tranny hookers:
As trans and genderqueer sex workers, we have a lot on our plate. Transphobia and negative attitudes towards sex work mean that we are at high risk for violence and that we are sometimes turned away from the services and programs we need. It also makes it difficult for us to ask for and find support when we experience violence and harassment.
Sex work is seen as dangerous work and is looked down on, but the work itself isn’t dangerous, wrong or bad. Sex work is illegal and as a result, we do not have the job protections that many other professions have. Without those protections, sex work can put us into dangerous circumstances where we might face violence and harassment.
However, there are things that we can do…
Actually that makes sense – under the wise leadership of the Ontario Lesbian-in-Chief Kathleen Wynne, a faithful disciple of the Grand Crook Dalton McGuinty, the economy is so badly destroyed that a career of a tranny hooker is going to look more and more attractive to the kids.
So when a trustee opposes that, it is nothing short of a miracle.
Kristyn Wong-Tam has been a professional activist for the most of her life – she has paid for web registration of the anti-Semitic group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. She has been a vocal supporter of the Occupy Movement, the occupy bums even said she invited them to Nathan Phillips Square:
She has been a very active force in the gay parade, leading the opening ceremony.
That is why it is so interesting to follow the discussion between her and Sotiropoulos. All he wants is to make her admit that public indecency is not acceptable. Looks like a no brainer – every reasonable person, let alone politician, would agree with something that is held as being so self-evident.
Not so fast – Kristyn Wong-Tam is not your normal reasonable politician.
Sotiropoulos asks her a very simple question – does she agree that public nudity is illegal in Ontario?
Wong-Tam is quick to avoid a reply and takes an odd position – she simply makes it a police issue.
“Call the police if you like,” says the wise Councillor. Boy, she as slippery in handling things as a gerbil soaked in KY Jelly. She knows very well that the police would support any special interest group even when what the group is doing is a violation of the law. Just ask the people from Caledonia, who were beaten and terrorized by Indian thugs with the full support of the police (by the way Wong-Tam was a cheerful supporter of the Idle No More thugs).
Then Wong-Tam becomes quite obnoxious:
“@TorontoPolice meet @TrusteeSam. He is looking for an answer to a very specific question about a select group of Pride parade participants.”
She is trying to be sarcastic, but she forgets the fact that when she runs an event financed by funds extorted from the Toronto taxpayers, she is responsible for curtailing all criminal activity that is going on at that event. Trying to get away with the claim that a “select group” is committing the crime is a ridiculous attempt to avoid responsibility.
“@TrusteeSam Not a lawyer versed in the criminal code nor a police officer. Sure no one else can help you with this one? Cc @TorontoPolice.”
Another pathetic attempt at condescending homosexual sarcasm. This is one of the most disgusting statements ever uttered by a Canadian politician. To claim that she doesn’t know whether it is a crime when a filthy pervert flaunts his dick in front of children, you must be either extremely stupid or extremely deceptive and hypocritical. I hope she won’t claim that this is customary in the Hong Kong culture.
I assume that Wong-Tam is not stupid; otherwise we wouldn’t be enjoying her leadership as a Councillor. She is just being deceptive and playing ignorant. I admire the restrained tone of Sotiropoulos – I am not sure if I would be able to keep calm at this point.
Just like Wong-Tam, I am also an immigrant, but I don’t need a lawyer’s advice to figure out that the homosexual exhibitionists are committing a crime. Browsing through the Criminal Code of Canada it is not hard to find that this is a violation of several statutes:
… / Exposure.
173. (1) Every one who wilfully does an indecent act
(a) in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or
(b) in any place, with intent thereby to insult or offend any person,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Every person who, in any place, for a sexual purpose, exposes his or her genital organs to a person who is under the age of fourteen years is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
[R.S., c.C-34, s.169; R.S.C. 1985 c.19 (3rd Supp.), s.7.]
… / Nude / Consent of Attorney General.
174. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,
(a) is nude in a public place, or
(b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.
[R.S., c.C-34, s.170.]
CAUSING DISTURBANCE, INDECENT EXHIBITION, LOITERING, ETC.
… / Evidence of peace officer.
175. (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place…
Of course, the homosexuals and their patrons from the Toronto police would never charge or condemn the exhibitionists.
Then Wong-Tam finds a very “elegant” way to stop the discussion. She simply runs away crying “Harassment!”
Before that, as a last-ditch effort, she tries to bring in the example of ancient Greece. Very well – I should mention then that in ancient Greece (especially in Sparta) it was perfectly acceptable to rape young boys (with their parents’ consent) as part of that culture. Do the Toronto homosexuals want to resurrect that tradition as well?
After the whiny Wong-Tam runs away crying, Sotiropoulos is forced to make a few conclusions:
Yes, he is right – Toronto politicians approve the indecent exposure and so does the TDSB.
I am glad I am not the only person, who finds that outrageous. This was a long post, but I hope it made you think about a disturbing trend – whitewashing of any homosexual wrongdoing, because that group enjoys special privileges.
Think about it: when Kathleen Wynne was appointed by her cronies to lead the Ontario government, we were subjected to months of propaganda that she was the first “openly gay” Premier, who will bring a new style of responsibility. It turned out she was one of the McGuinty gang, up to her neck in filth and lies, responsible for stealing billions of taxpayers’ money in the gas plant scam. Moreover, as a Minister of Education, she oversaw the development of a new, heavily homosexual, sex school curriculum developed by Benjamin Levin, who is now awaiting trial on charges of allegedly making child pornography. A few days before he was arrested, he was a guest of honour at the gay parade, sitting next to Wynne and Justin Trudeau. And homosexual organizations are still pushing for introduction of that horrible curriculum.
George Smitherman, who squandered a billion of dollars in the eHealth scandal, was never charged. Instead, he ran for Toronto Mayor, supported by every lefty in sight. He and his boyfriend Peloso were allowed to adopt children, although Peloso suffered from acute suicidal form of depression and he eventually killed himself. Did anybody think about the safety of the children? Of course not – the sacred right of the homosexuals to adopt children is supposed to be enforced by all means. And on top of that, Barbara Hall, the head of the Ontario kangaroo human rights courts was their official babysitter. Imagine that – the woman, who has ruined the lives of many people for “violating” the human rights code saw nothing different in that dysfunctional “family.”
Compared to them, Wong-Tam is a small fish, but she enjoys the same privileges.
On the other hand, just by questioning those people, I am exposing myself to criminal charges. When you touch the super extremely vulnerable homosexual ego in an inappropriate way, you are liable under the hate speech provisions. Just ask Bill Whatcott, who was convicted for criticising the homosexual lifestyle, even though his points were factual. The point that mattered to the court was the bruised homosexual feelings.
At the same time, the homosexual politicians can steal, lie and cover up crimes. Am I the only one, who finds this abnormal?
If the citizens of Toronto have at least a drop of decency and self-respect left, they should kick out deceptive politicians like Kristyn Wong-Tam at election time.
I know that the angry homosexuals will do everything to demonize and destroy Sam Sotiropoulos, but we must support people like him, if we want to restore honesty and decency in our city.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Yesterday the standoff between the government and the “progressive forces” in Kiev took a deadly turn. About 40 people were killed, many of them policemen. It was hard to believe the tall tales of the Western media showing the Klitschko people as a bunch of peaceful protesters, when receiving news about them taking over government buildings with force. The situation wasn’t much different from what happened in Cairo, where the armed Muslim Brotherhood squatters were pictured as innocent victims of the evil army. Over the last few months the president Yanukovych made concessions with the rebels, but that was interpreted as a sign of weakness that they could use to overthrow the current government.
The situation is not that easy to explain – neither Klitschko, nor the president Yanukovych are angels. What we are seeing is another act in the drama of forced globalization, which would take every country under the same government umbrella (in this case the European Union). The practical implementation of the idea started with the establishment of the United Nations. I don’t know if even those who started it believe that people can be changed and forget their differences to live in harmony. I suspect that this is some kind of a power grab with little concern about people.
The European Union made some sense in the very beginning, as a trade agreement between the most developed countries on the continent. Then they came up with the delusion that every other country can reach the same level if governed in the same way. Like in a typical utopia, everything looked logical while they ignored the reality of different history, languages, habits, and culture.
The gates of disaster opened wide after the fall of communism. Many people in the former communist countries sincerely believed that with a few quick changes the economy could be turned around bringing the desired prosperity. Western economic “experts” promoted the “shock therapy” to start the change. Francis Fukuyama announced “the end of history” and George Bush Senior promoted ad nauseam “The New World Order.”
Well, after the dust settled, it turned out that the “shock therapy” only destroyed what those countries had and most of what was left went into the hands of shady characters, most of whom worked for the previous regime. The US attempts to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into “modern democratic countries” ended in catastrophe.
All that proved that even the most sinister globalists – capitalist, socialist, communist or any other type – simply couldn’t figure out the complexity of human nature, which resists transformation. The European Union now resembles the monster of Frankenstein, an odd combination of incompatible body parts, kept together by a delirious bureaucratic brain.
But the idea lives – Ukraine is just the latest proof. Actually that was the second attempt to change it. “The Orange Revolution” was played like a Shakespearian drama: with the poisoning of the president Yushchenko, who survived but with disfigured face. Next to him was the beautiful oligarch Yulia Timoshenko, who is now in jail. From the point of view of corruption there was no difference between them and the oligarchs of Putin. However, Yushchenko and Timoshenko wanted to join the EU and that excused everything else. It was not a surprise that they failed.
The second attempt was worse. Now the West is supporting a violent crowd led by a former boxer and it doesn’t care whether the people of Ukraine actually support the Kiev rebels. The blog 1389 provides a good interpretation of the situation:
The Yanukovych government is finally cracking down on the protesters/occupiers/saboteurs. If these protesters actually were Ukrainian nationalists who wanted to keep Ukraine independent and free of outside influences, they might have had a point, but that’s not who they are. Instead they are dead set on dragging Ukraine into the EU, without any consensus in Ukraine to that effect, and without any guarantees on the part of the EU.
These protests have been covertly funded via US-backed NGOs and supported by the EU. The demonstrations are led and staffed by a disreputable and violent assortment of leftists with ties to George Soros (as with the previous “color revolutions”), the Occupy movement, professional anarchists, fascists, neo-Nazis, and other rabble-for-hire. Soros has a personal grudge here: he ousted Yanukovych in a previous “color revolution” (namely, the “Orange Revolution”) and no doubt is furious that Yanukovych was voted legitimately into office once again.
The EU is an evil organization that would strangle freedom in Ukraine and allow an influx of Muslim immigration, just as it has in the rest of Europe. Ukraine doesn’t need to be swept up into the EUSSR. (Nor does Serbia, for that matter)…
Read the rest here.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Justin Trudeau, the federal airhead, who is the grand hope of all freeloaders and Che Guevara-shirt owners to become the next Prime Minister, is the news again. Struggling for years to find a cause that would impress the whole country, he has gone through many transformations. Last summer we saw him hanging out with Ontario’s Chief Pedophile, then he made a cameo in a mosque that no self-respecting person would visit going all the way Muslim dressed in an outrageous garb. It looks that the role of a dedicated pot lover would be his best gig. If he makes everybody smoke marijuana, we may not notice his unmatched ignorance and stupidity as a politician.
One of my favourite sources of clumsy lefty propaganda – Yahoo News – reports that Pothead Justin has been immortalized as the face of rolling cigarette papers.
The author of the article is ecstatic that the papers are flying off the shelves. Finally we have something (at least temporarily) tangible that we can link Justin Trudeau’s legacy to. Now we can watch how his image burns, the way his half-baked political proposals go up in the thin air.
Actually, his followers don’t expect anything more from him. The clever guy, who came up with the idea of the burning Trudeau, is very clear:
“I’m not partial to the Liberals necessarily,” he said. “I just like their pot policy.”
Of course, that’s Trudeau’s base – give them pot and drugs and they’ll forgive you anything he does to screw Canada.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League since 1987, has announced his intention to retire. In a recent interview he talked about the increasing anti-Semitism around the world and specifically in Europe and singled out neo-Nazis, ant-immigrant organizations, etc. Strangely, Islam, one of the worst contributors to the Jew-hating trend, was absent from the interview.
Laura Rosen Cohen wrote a passionate article about the reluctance of leaders like Foxman to notice the huge danger that can easily bring another catastrophe to the world Jewry. I am writing this to share the article, but I would like to add a few of my thoughts.
I remember quite well the controversy surrounding the recognition of the Armenian genocide of 1915 by the US Congress. That was in 2007. At the time ADL and Foxman personally opposed that move. Wikipedia quotes his statement about the issue:
“I don’t think congressional action will help reconcile the issue. The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment,” said Foxman in a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn’t be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress.”
It was a callous statement, especially when coming from the mouth of somebody, who grew up in the middle of the worst genocide of the XX century. Reducing the extermination of 1.5 million people to an issue that should be discussed between Turks and Armenians is inexcusable.
How would the Jews feel if somebody commented about the Holocaust in the same way? “The Germans and Jews need to revisit their past. The (British, American, Russian, Italian, etc.) community shouldn’t be the arbiter of that history, nor should be our parliament.”
I suspect that the whole issue was about appeasing Sultan Erdogan, who was still considered friend of Israel, but covering up the past never ends well, especially when dealing with the perpetually offended Muslims. Following that logic, Germany should’ve never been confronted about Hitler’s crimes. Yet Germany faced its past and worked on eradicating it.
The other problem I have with the ADL is how they help organizations that want to criminalize the criticism of Islam and jihadism. Last year a Canadian Muslim group, previously known as CAIR-CAN and now as NCCM, tried to sabotage the presentations of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer by demonizing them in a letter to the hotel that hosted the event. This year they did the same to Rabbi Daniel Korobkin, who was to be included in Prime Minister’s delegation to Israel, because he took part in the same event.
The funny part was that in his speech the Rabbi went out of his way to show how much he owes to Muslim mentors, which raised quite a few brows. That was not good enough for CAIR-CAN/NCCM. In the letter to Stephen Harper concerning Rabbi Korobkin they wrote:
Ms. Geller and Mr. Spencer are leaders of the anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), which has been described as a “hate group” by respected organizations such as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as by the United States Military.
The SPLC is a well-known “charity” scam, which collects its money through scaring people with neo-Nazi “organizations” so insignificant that even calling them fringe groups will be a gross exaggeration of their influence. At the same time that “watchdog” routinely blackmails Christian organizations and anybody who criticizes militant Islam.
Despite the convictions of many Muslim extremists and terrorists in the USA, you can’t find even one Muslim organization in the SPLC list with the exception of Farrakhan’s black racist circus known as Nation of Islam. The “military source,” quoted by CAIR-CAN/NCCM, is a list compiled by a colonel, which is a carbon copy of the biased SPLC database.
It is very disturbing when a group of Islamists calls an organization “respected” along with the SPLC and a military “expert” who could be wholeheartedly approved by Major Hassan.
The ADL used to be a really respected group fighting anti-Semitism, but demonizing Geller and Spencer, whose only “sin” is that they criticized the Islamic expansion, turns it into a provider of ammunition to the Islamists. The ADL joins the chorus without refuting a single fact of what Geller and Spencer have to say. Needless to say, that adds nothing to the reputation of the ADL.
Many organizations claim to speak for most Jews, but their leaders don’t help in any way by trying hard to avoid the Jew-hating Muslim elephant, which is ready and willing to trample them. Or as Laura Rosen Cohen puts it:
“These leftist extremist liberal Jews can only identify Judenhaas when it comes from the white, political right.
They are absolutely blind to the dangers of jihad, even though they are cognitively aware that there was no “last time” a synagogue in Europe was attacked by a white, Christian “neo-Nazi”.
When Jews, and Jewish children are slaughtered in cold blood in France, they know it was a jihadist perpetrator but they are blind to it. They will not articulate the motivation behind those attacks.
When Turkey simmers with Jew hatred motivated by religion, they will still blame the European white, Christian right.
When Malmo, Sweden becomes inhabitable for Jews, they blame the white, Christian right. It is the rape capital of Europe not because of white, Christian right-wingers-but the facts are irrelevant.
Shame on you, Abraham Foxman. Shame on you.
These Jews are a danger to the Jewish people.
Their denial is so thick and so amoral that it is difficult sometimes to find the words to express my utter disgust and contempt.
By fighting the last war against the German Nazis over and over in their heads, they endanger living Jews. But they will never learn.
It’s so cozy to be a professional Jew, fighting the ghosts of WW2 over and over and never facing the real threats to the Jewish people.”
You can read the rest here.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
The tiny whiny homosexual minority has long ago taken upon itself the “duty” to tell us what we can say and what we should shut up about. The obedient media and the judicial system (especially in Canada) make sure that everybody, who deviates from the orders of the new totalitarians, is ostracized, condemned or fired from work.
Even before the Sochi Winter Olympics started, the homosexuals engaged in a continuous smear campaign against Russia because of its law against homosexual propaganda. The lies that poured out of all media outlets pictured the country as a place, where that lifestyle is prohibited and its practitioners are rounded up for exile to Siberia or even killed. (I am still waiting for their campaigns against the Muslim countries where they are actually killed.)
Anybody, who even jokingly deviates from that narrative, risks quite a lot. A few days ago President Vladimir Putin visited the Canadian Olympic team.
The speedskater Brittany Schussler took a selfie of her with Putin. She posted it later on Twitter joking that she should’ve asked him to be her Valentine. She had no idea about the consequences of her mortal “sin”. Winnipeg News picked up the tweet.
Within minutes, the militant homosexuals attacked her like a pack of rabid wild dogs, shocked that she appeared with the person they hate so much. Brittany sent another tweet to the paper as damage control, but it was too late.
As one of the main online mouthpieces of the homosexual anti-Olympic propaganda, Yahoo News made the story top news to show what happens to those who don’t support the Party line.
They included the attack tweets in the article. As always, those show in a shocking way how petty, mean and vindictive the militant homosexuals are.
According to the first one, Putin is a dictator, who persecutes “lgbt folk.” And of course the obnoxious old coot demands an apology from her – you can’t say anything that the “lgbt folk” doesn’t like.
The next idiot is even worse – he flatly states that Putin is like Hitler. Homosexuals are always sold as intelligent and knowledgeable people, so it is nice to see how stupid some of them are. Comparing somebody with Hitler usually comes when the attacker has no rational arguments left (or never had them to begin with) and just wants to throw a mindless insult.
The third bully throws in even more lies, claiming that many lives have been lost due to the intolerance of Putin. Again, there are no facts, just pure hatred spewed because the homosexual propaganda in Russia has been limited. Shame on McCallum.
The next one is beyond hilarious. That man, woman or whatever it is, goes for the full drama – squealing that he, she or it is ashamed of being Canadian, demanding to stop funding the Olympics. And I am ashamed of having such a whiny creature as my compatriot. Here is the homosexual totalitarianism in its full swing – it shows that the tiny 2% minority has no problem forcing its demented demands on all of us.
As usual, the Yahoo campaign to create artificial outrage over non-existent problems backfired. Yes, there was readers’ outrage, but against the obnoxious homosexual bullies. The majority of the readers hated the attempts to politicize the Olympics and turn the athletes into foot soldiers of the homosexual agenda and tools for forcing it on Russia.
The situations in Russia and Canada are different. Putin prohibited the homosexual propaganda among minors. In Canada (and specifically in Ontario), not only isn’t that propaganda prohibited, but it is also widely distributed in schools with the blessings of the Ministry of Education and the school boards.
Are we better off for that? Last year the TDSB and the University of Toronto organized a Unity Conference promoting the Gay-Straight Alliances – homosexual clubs forced on all public schools. A flyer distributed among the underage participants offered to hook them up with old homosexuals for some “intergenerational” recreation. Knowing that the whole homosexual “culture” revolves around sex, it is unbelievable that the school authorities would expose underage school kids to potential abuse, but if one questions that, he is labeled bigot right away.
Since we don’t have the evil Putin laws, nobody spoils the intergenerational homosexual fun.
Are we better off now? It’s for you to decide.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
York University is a place, where all forms of insanity known to man co-exist in the harmony of pieces of trash in a garbage bin. Supporting Muslim extremism and glorifying trannies at the same time; fighting police presence on campus and whining about sex crime – it’s all there in the same bin.
Today is the Valentine’s Day and I wish I had something nice and uplifting to say about that university. Unfortunately, while looking for something good, I only found more hostile anti-romantic trash.
There is a series of annual events (not only at York University), which revolve around the production of the trashy Vagina Monologues, a play that is supposed to empower women (or should it be “womyn”?). All of those events are centered on the female reproductive organ. Hey, nothing wrong with that, I am just trying to provide tolerant public service by covering the occasion.
Last year one of the vagina activists posted her picture on the event’s promotional Facebook page.
Nothing promotes the academic excellence of York University and illustrates its catchy slogan “This is my time!” better than a grinning girl in a shirt depicting a vagina diagram, who holds a chocolate vagina pop at its anatomically correct position.
It’s not a surprise that next to such wholesome vagina display Facebook found it appropriate to show an ad calling the viewer to click to “See Pics of Mature Women Near You!”
The picture has been posted for a while, but it seems that the vagina business is booming. A newer entry promotes the sale of chocolate vaginas.
“Come buy one of these beauties! $2 for delicious Milk, Dark or White chocolate Vagina Pops!”
Isn’t this a bit discriminatory? The militant feminazis involved in the project have ignored the fact that according to the new rules of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a “transgender woman,” who has decided to keep his/her penis, is still considered a woman. York University doesn’t offer chocolate safe space to “transgender women” with dicks. A heart-warming show of inclusivity would be if the organizers added: “$2 for delicious Milk, Dark or White chocolate Transgender Dick Pops!”
I hope my remark helps the prevention of discrimination.
In academia “sex work” has always been praised as a legitimate career and now even the Supreme Court of Canada has legalized it. From a commercial point a view more money could be made by supplementing the sales of chocolate vaginas with income from renting real vaginas to horny progressive metrosexuals.
I understand that I am pocking at a garbage bin and can’t expect much good at York University, but I have a question about this whole thing.
It’s about feminism. The movement has a long history and it is credited for bringing equality and dignity to women throughout the world (Muslim countries excluded). I have friends who are passionate feminists in the traditional spirit of the movement.
Are the feminazis, who promote those vagina events, trying to mock the feminist movement and turn it into a one-ring circus? The only impression you get from their actions is that after all the success of women in society, science and other fields, they are still nothing more than vaginas. That is demeaning and disgusting.
One of the worst insults targeting a woman is to say “She is such a c**t.” It reduces her to a derogatory description of her sex organ. Now the militant feminists are saying “We all are just vaginas.” I don’t see any difference between the two expressions, other than the use of a medical term in the second one. Nevertheless, the meaning is the same – individuality, intelligence and achievements don’t matter at all, women are reduced to their sex organs. Is this the final message of feminism?
Did I mention that York University is a sewer?
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Islam never fails to prove that it is one of the most violent and intolerant cults on the face of earth (the fact that it is followed by 1 billion people doesn’t make things better). That sorry religion controls the minds and the everyday behaviour of its followers with precision that would be the envy of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.
Islam has an answer and prescriptions for everything. Today, on St. Valentine’s Day, which, aside of its commercialism, is still a day when couples express their love for each other in a romantic way, disgruntled imams and simple Muslim fanatics are quick to declare that there is no joy and romance in Islam. Fights about that infidel day erupt in many places (today there was a huge fight in a Pakistani university over the Valentine’s celebrations, suspiciously both groups involved were exclusively male).
The Muslim fanatics even make their point through videos that YouTube happily distributes. In the video below, a Muslim guy, who looks like a fugitive from the Planet of the Apes, makes a point about the eternal consequences of celebrating the Valentine’s Day (h/t Shobie via BCF).
It seems that the nails that Allah is going to stick into the heads of the unfaithful are already in that guy’s head. There are so many of them that they have left no room for a brain. Watching such degenerates, you may find truth in the statement that Islam is a form of mental retardation.
This is a classic example of an ugly, hairy and miserable guy, who hates himself so much that he is ready to ruin the fun of everybody else. Maybe if he had the chance to get laid, things would’ve been different. Unfortunately, with his particular form of insanity, his only chance of getting laid is if there are unsupervised little boys roaming the neighbourhood. The other more realistic option is finding a herd of friendly goats that could compete for his love.
Could you tell me again why we consider this cult a legitimate religion?
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Riding of Thornhill:
Many of you will know that, on February 4, 2014, a meeting was held at Vaughan City Hall concerning a proposed expansion to the Jaffari Community Centre. The proposal is for the construction of a 30 acre Muslim-only development involving two condominium towers and a number of townhouses for a total of 377 units. The meeting drew an overflow crowd because the issue is of great concern, especially to those living near the proposed development.
A number of concerns have been raised about the development, which reportedly cannot proceed without obtaining special exemptions and approvals from government. The project reportedly would not comply with zoning and planning criteria without the exemptions and approvals. In addition, legitimate concern is being caused by the fact that proponents of the development – Islamic Shia Ithna-Asheri Jama’at of Toronto (“ISIJ”) – initially made it clear that the intention is for a Muslim-only community on a 30 acre site.
Thornhill residents go to the polls this coming Thursday, February 13, 2014 to vote in the provincial by-election for the riding of Thornhill. Concerned voters have written to Freedom Party of Ontario and to Erin Goodwin – Freedom Party’s candidate in Thornhill – asking that we state the party’s position with respect to the issue of the proposed development.
This issue is an important one not only for the riding, but for the precedent it could set for the province. Accordingly, we are writing to ensure that you understand in no uncertain terms Freedom Party’s position on the issue, and the position of Erin Goodwin, Freedom Party’s candidate.
Freedom Party, its leader Paul McKeever, and its candidate Erin Goodwin oppose the granting of exemptions or approvals for the 30-acre development. We oppose it in part because of the many zoning and planning concerns expressed by Thornhill residents who would suffer the consequences – including traffic congestion – were the development to get exemptions and approvals to go ahead.
However, we also share the concerns of those who oppose – or are puzzled by – the Muslim-only nature of the proposed site. Freedom Party is quite aware that the religious leader of the ISIJ is an Imam and author who regards only the laws of Allah – Sharia – to be legitimate law. It would be naive, at the very least, to disregard the exclusive, Muslim-only nature of the proposed development, which we understand to include streets and allowances that would be not private but public lands.
Contrary to the religious leader of the ISIJ, Freedom Party stands opposed to facilitating respect for Sharia law. We advocate respect only for the laws made in our legislatures and courts, by the people, for the life and happiness of all of the children and adults on this good earth, of all religions. We will not support the use of our laws to defend the existence of zones in which the laws made in our legislatures and courts are disregarded or discouraged.
Having made our own position clear, we encourage the Liberal and Progressive Conservative candidates to do the same, because those who remain mute in order to get elected, will remain mute in order to get re-elected.
Erin Goodwin (Freedom Party candidate for the riding of Thornhill)
Paul McKeever (Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario)
For further details, contact:
Paul McKeever, B.Sc.(Hons), M.A., LL.B.
The Toronto media have little time for presenting the views and ideas of Mayor Rob Ford. They hate him so much that when they are not digging any real or imaginary dirt to destroy him, they even try to put down the Canadian flag just because Ford chose to display it on the window of his office instead of the gay rag that everybody at City Hall is willing to impose on the city.
When most of the papers, radio and TV are either controlled or afraid of homosexuals and semi-retarded lefties, there is no other way to make a point except by using the internet that the snobbish elitists still despise. As a result, we now have the Ford Nation channel. completely free from perverts and metrosexuals, who are always too busy to say how awkward, unsophisticated, fat or embarrassing the Mayor is. The people who voted for Ford have very little interest in what the grumpy lefties have to say, but it is hard to ignore them in the mainstream media.
So now you have the chance to hear exactly what the Mayor has to say, without the lefty distortion.
The pathetic Toronto Councillors have found a new way to attack Rob Ford. Apparently the money-grabbing budget voted despite Ford’s objections is not enough to get them the votes they need to keep their positions. Like tiny mice around an elephant, they keep screeching and biting with the hope that they’ll get noticed.
Now they use the latest “controversy” with the homosexual flag raised at City Hall. Mayor Ford correctly observed that it has no place there at this time. If it is supposed to symbolize the protest against the homosexuals’ treatment in Russia, it definitely is missing the mark. In Russia homosexuality is legal and only its propaganda is illegal (unlike Toronto, where homosexual propaganda is official policy of the TDSB). At the same time in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and many African countries homosexuals are treated much worse – yet we never hear a peep from them about those violations.
The Daily Brew (Yahoo’s lefty propaganda blog masked as news) reports that the Mayor’s objection has been met with backlash. Rob Ford has displayed the Canadian flag on his office window and for the leftards that’s the worst thing one can do (after all, we live in Turtle Island). A well-known Toronto Star reporter is quoted:
The Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale further reported that Ford hung a Canadian flag from his office window in protest. Because apparently you can be patriotic or support gay rights. But you can’t be both.
So now the Canadian flag is a target of sarcasm. How long will it take to replace it, along with the city flag, with the homosexual one?
Our old friend Josh Matlow was more than willing to kill the Scarborough subway a few days ago. He was ready to literally throw those people under the bus in the cold. Now we see that his bleeding heart aches for Russia’s homosexuals. He tweets:
I think I’ll cry…
Not to be outdone, Sarah Doucette and Gord Perks are quick to fish for more gay bar votes. They go out of their way to assure the homosexuals how obedient and inclusive they are:
Great, Perks – flying the Rainbow Flag is the only action Norman Kelly has put any thought in after ousting Rob Ford.
But it looks like the winner in this ass-kissing campaign is Paula Fletcher. Not only did she display the homosexual flag, but she also made the effort to take a picture and send it through Tweeter:
“Showing my pride for Canadian athletes at City Hall.” I had no idea that all athletes are homosexuals and the only way to honour them is to hang that odd flag.
The Toronto City Council has become a subsidiary of Barnum & Bailey. While Rob Ford is concerned about saving money, the Councillors, just like circus monkeys, are inventing more and more tricks to get more bananas… I meant gay votes. The way things are going, we may see Perks and Matlow dancing in leather on a float at the “World Pride” parade, after they steal hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to subsidize it.
It is scary to watch how those people are obsessed with such irrelevant things. Could it get any worse?
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Last month Congregation Darchei Noam hosted a lecture by Dr. Mordechai Kedar on the issue of the Jewish refugees in Israel. Dr. Kedar is not only a prominent scholar, but he also served in the IDF intelligence. Being fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, he has an extensive knowledge about the area.
Unlike the “Palestinian” refugees, who have been in the centre of the anti-Israeli propaganda for decades, the issue with the Israeli refugees has been mostly ignored. In the lecture he presented a unique perspective, which dealt mostly with the role of those refugees in building the Jewish unity in Israel.
The problem of the refugees cannot be separated from the issue of the Jewish mindset. The building of the latter started in the late 19th century, long before the Declaration of Independence. The forming the Jewish identity and society in the land of Israel took decades. The IDF’s formation started with the armed self-defence groups established in 1920’s. Petah Tikva, the first new Jewish town was established in 1882, Tel Aviv – in 1909. The process began much earlier than 1948.
The main goal of the Zionist movement was to take the Jews out of exile. The hard job was to make the Jews one nation – Jews came from all places in the world; they spoke different languages; different looks, habits, food, traditions. To blend them into one nation was more difficult than bringing them together in one place.
At the time the Israeli mindset hasn’t fully crystalized yet. The term used for those early newcomers could be translated as “human dust” – they had to learn everything – Jews didn’t have army, other than serving individually, they never fought. The founding fathers had to solve many problems in a very short time. The presence of Jews in Palestine has been challenging – the Arab hostility caused massacres in the 20’s and 30’s, when the Jews had to fight to survive.
The main challenge of the Zionist movement was that it had to take the exile out of the Jews, meaning to create a new mentality, that they are no more Romanian, Polish, Algerian, Moroccan – they are Israeli. That was the goal – you are no more individuals from many countries, but Israelis.
This was human engineering – the goal in the first decades in the 20th century, in order to be ready when the British leave the Mandate. Building the society preceded the independence and it succeeded. The result was tested during the war the Arabs started after the Independence Day when six armies invaded. Israelis had to fight for survival at the price of 6,000 killed, 1% of the population. The victory showed that the nation building succeeded – without the decades of nation building, Israel would’ve failed.
To illustrate his point, Dr. Kedar showed a collection of photos from the “passage” – temporary camps for Jewish refugees – tents, temporary wooden structures, etc. Nothing was supposed to be permanent; the newcomers lived there until they were settled in different areas. It was difficult, because the British left the country underdeveloped. You could buy food only with stamps, there were shortages.
This was a crucial point in his opinion – the “refugee-hood” was not meant to be a profession, unlike among other well-known people. “Olim hadashim,” that was the name Israel used to describe those people, they were not considered refugees, because the refugees by definition are in that situation temporarily, after the turmoil in their lands ends, they are supposed to go back.
Those people were not refugees – they came to become Israelis. Israel provides instant citizenship to all Jews (only a handful of countries have that law, like Germany).
The issue of compensations for the Jewish refugees is often brought up – that was possible in some East European countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but not in the Arab countries. Those are marginal issues – the compensations are minor personal problem compared to the goal of building the prosperity of Israel. Still, there were compensations – Germany was a big financial supporter of Israel, which helped the Germans to clear their conscience after the war.
That approach is reflected in treating the army personnel – in Kedar’s time, the medical problems were treated swiftly, while now there is complicated process for which the army is responsible and the parents often get involved. Before the community needs were more important than those of the individual. For example, the POW problems – you remember how much attention was given to Shalit, while after the 1948 war so many people were missing and that got very little attention in the press. The project of building the country and society overshadowed the individual needs and interests.
Sephardic Jews were considered second-class citizens, because most Zionists came from Russia and they had socialist ideas, demanding that the state be in charge of everything – society, economics, even religion. Many people are not aware of what such a control means. The early Zionist organizations were like this – they even wanted to reform religion as something backward and the new Israelis had to be detached from it. The idea was to eradicate the “shtetl” from the Jewish consciousness. The traditional Jew with black clothes and hat didn’t belong in the new society.
In the kibbutzes they tried to reshape the Judaism into a reflection of the new experience in Israel, the “shtetl” had to be abandoned. With the emerging of Shas party the Sephardic tradition, which wanted to restore the previous glory of Judaism, to a great degree brought back the old Judaism.
The “right to return” is not applicable – no Jew wants to return to Yemen and Morocco. As it was said, the compensations are unrealistic – the Muslim countries are broke, they can’s compensate even their own citizens. Morocco is the only country where there is some stability and Jews live there, but still the compensations are not discussed. Jews have the right to larger compensations than Palestinians, who had smaller properties. Many of those Palestinian “refugees” were not native to the country. They came from different countries, like Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. They went to Palestine to work. The term “Palestinian” Arab didn’t exist before 1948, they were called “Shami” people who live in the East Mediterranean – they are not refugees.
The tribalism is a major problem for those people – there are refugee camps in Nablus and other parts of the “Palestinian territories,” why is that? The answer is that they consider themselves a different tribe or clan and don’t belong in the area, so they are not absorbed. The refugee issue is phoney – they turned that into a profession. How can Arab keep their brethren without electricity and water? They even kill each other.
Israel absorbed all Jews, who came. Dr. Kedar gave an example with his family. When he met his wife, he found out that she grew up in Massachusetts, her father was born in Leipzig, and her mother was from Russia. His parents came from Poland – both families were Ashkenazi, but his daughter married a boy whose parents were from Herat and Bukhara respectively. His younger daughter married a boy whose mother was from Tunisia and his father from Marrakesh, Morocco. This is what happens in Israel – it is a mixture of East and West.
When he wanted to marry, his mother asked him if she could find someone “normal,” meaning Polish. He said – you are invited to my wedding, and she never mentioned this again. It’s really hard to take the exile out of the Jews.
During the Q&A session he was asked for more details on his view about the compensation of the Jewish refugees.
He stated that if there was a way to compensate those Jews, it definitely must be done. In 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus, occupied the northern part and created a state, which no country recognized. Nevertheless, over the years they managed to establish the state, and now de facto there are two states in Cyprus. Thousands of Greeks were expelled from Northern Cyprus – a form of ethnic cleansing – and many of them have documents for their properties. They still have houses there – the Turks are ready to compensate them. But the Greeks want to go back – some took the case to the European court of human rights. The court concluded that if the government wants to compensate, they should accepts that and not return. This is an important precedent, because it was decided by a major court, not some banana republic.
He had an interesting experience at a discussion about the Palestinian refugees at BBC. Dr. Kedar was a guest along with the minister for refugees of the Palestinian Authority and an old Palestinian from a camp in Lebanon, who claimed he had a deed for half of the kibbutz near the Lebanese border. He wanted to forego the property in exchange for just one house in the area. Kedar told him that if he is fully compensated for his property, he would be able to build a palace in the new Palestinian state. The man answered – thousand times no, million times no – the Palestinian state will be an Arab state and there is not a single Arab, who wants to live in an Arab state. This gives you an understanding of the situation in the Middle East. Let’s say that tomorrow Canada declares that every Arab can immigrate – how many Arabs would come here? All of them… The Arab countries are dysfunctional; very few want to live in them.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
During the latest City Council session on January 30, a mighty crew of terminators – Josh Matlow, Kristyn Wong-Tam, Paul Ainslie and a few others – tried to kill the city financing for the proposed Scarborough subway line. Sitting comfortably in the Council hall, I filmed most of the debate and was going to post it online.
It was painful to listen to Matlow’s endless ramblings about why he doesn’t like the project. They revolved about some vague ideas about resolving the congestion of the downtown line, then he confidently stated that the people in Scarborough didn’t need a subway because they had an efficient LRT, which could be expanded.
Councillor Doug Ford confronted him saying that it was unbelievable that Scarborough, with a population of over 600,000 people would not have a subway, while York University would soon have its own subway station. He added that as soon as you get out of downtown and enter Scarborough, you’ll notice that when people wait for public transportation – be it LRT or bus – they do it in the open space, often freezing in the winter. You can see the rest of the debate in the video below.
It didn’t take long to experience for myself Doug Ford’s grim description of the Scarborough transportation problems. A mayoral debate was scheduled for 7 p.m. today at the Scarborough Campus of the University of Toronto.
However, it started snowing last night and continued for the most of the day. Armed with my confidence in the overpaid TTC crews, I left for Scarborough from my downtown station at 5:40 p.m. The trip to Kennedy Station (from where I had to take Matlow’s favourite Scarborough LRT) usually takes less than 35 minutes.
This time it took over an hour – the train stopped twice in the tunnel and even more times in the open areas. I reached the station at 6:50. Frankly, I wasn’t surprised to find out that the LRT – the perfect solution for Scarborough – was out of service. The problem was the snow on the rails that still hasn’t been cleared. The TTC (Toronto’s public transportation company) generously offered shuttle buses to cover the LRT route.
Though advertised as “frequent,” the busses were scarce and overcrowded with long lines of shaking and trembling people waiting in the cold. Considering the fact that I had to take another bus from the last station of the LRT, it was more than clear that I couldn’t make it to the debate before it finishes.
I just hopped in the downtown-bound train – without waiting in the cold. But the people who live in Scarborough didn’t have that choice – they could only wait and wait, exactly the way Doug Ford described it.
If the motions of the Downtown Party succeeded to kill the Scarborough subway, that would surely leave plenty of money to finance: homosexual exhibitionists to expose themselves at the “world pride”; queer anti-Semites; countless overpaid union positions; bicycle lanes; useless grants for useless people, and whatever other weird ideas the twisted minds of the downtown Councillors could conceive. Only one thing is sure – in their elitist world of gay bars, subsidized galleries and latte coffee shops, there is no place for the unwashed masses of Scarborough or their subway.
Isn’t it time to shovel them out of the City Hall, just like today’s snow?
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
Join JDL Canada to oppose Muslim-only Condos in the Heart of Thornhill.
Three 17-story Muslim-only condo buildings proposed by the Jaffari Center (9000 Bathurst Street) are to be built next door to Ner Israel Yeshivah – in Thornhill Woods Community – Say NO to these High Rise buildings.
Attend the public hearing – Tuesday, Feb 4, Vaughan City Hall, 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive, 6:15 pm
Read this important information about the Jaffari Center
“Unlike the beliefs of the ancient Romans, the Jews, and the Nazis, Islam is not restricted to a certain community of certain race, but is for all human beings and aims at human prosperity and salvation.”
- Excerpt from curriculum taught to elementary level Muslim students at the Toronto East End Madrassah, operated by the Jaffari Centre.
Community blacklash builds over a Thornhill Muslim only development.
The family of Prof. Barry Rubin just announced that he died. Though sad, the news wasn’t a surprise. Everybody who knew him also knew that he had been battling cancer for a while. He never hid his condition – on the contrary, on his Facebook page Rubin regularly updated his friends about the progress of his treatment.
He never stopped writing his Rubin Report, a series of insights and political analysis, which appeared in my mail box almost daily. Last year, when he had to undergo a serious chemo treatment, he announced that he had prepared several articles to be published while he was unable to write. A few of them were not polished in the way he would’ve liked it – they contained a few short key points, which nevertheless were provocative and insightful.
I am mentioning this, because I find his life and work fascinating – in a moment when many people would sink into a total despair in the face of imminent death, Barry kept working and writing, brushing aside the fact that he had very little time left. I guess this is a trait possessed by people who follow something bigger than themselves.
I saw him for the first time and listened to his presentation in June 2011, at an event organized by the Speakers Action Group in Toronto.
He shared his vast knowledge of the Middle East. He analyzed the recent political changes in the area and specifically covered the future role that Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon may play. Rubin also discussed the new disastrous policy of the USA under the Obama administration and its potentially negative consequences for Israel.
The hall was packed and everybody was listening carefully to what Barry Rubin had to say.
He leaves an impressive legacy of pro-Israeli activism, scholarship and books. Rubin has been a columnist for The Jerusalem Post for many years. He was also a director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA), and a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya. I hope that GLORIA would continue to develop and expand the work that Rubin did.
Barry Rubin also wrote books, among which are: Israel: An Introduction, The Israel-Arab Reader, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. My personal favourite is his political biography of Yasser Arafat, a brutally honest exposure of one of the founders of the Arab terrorism.
It is sad that we will never see Barry Rubin again, but on the other hand, his contributions and writings will always be with us. And that’s what matters most…
The second day of the budget debates was marked again by the struggle between the money grabbers and those who wanted to save the city some money. Predictably, the second group was presented by Mayor Rob Ford and just a handful of Councillors.
Rob Ford came up with a series of motions, which, if implemented, could’ve saved the city over $60 million. The cuts involved predominantly measures to make the city bureaucracy work more efficiently. There were also proposals to cut some useless services. As an example of efficiency he pointed at his own staff, which managed (after the Council stripped him from power and reduced his budget) to perform efficiently. Ford expected that the other Councillors could reduce their staff budgets to save money and still be efficient.
As you can predict when considering the policies of the current members of the City Council, savings were not at the top of their agenda. The Mayor was interrupted and ridiculed and his motions were mocked.
When the voting started, it was painful to watch how almost all of the savings were rejected by the Councillors, who are usually very generous when they can use other people’s money.
The gravy train, which was successfully re-launched last year, managed to run over Mayor Ford.
It is hard to ignore that and we need to ask ourselves: is this the City Council that has the competency to run the city for the next 4 years? Catering to parasites and unions is not a way to respect the taxpayers.
Here are the highlights from Mayor Ford’s presentation and the voting assassination that followed it:
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
In the history of human stupidity, the BDS movement occupies a very prominent position. The campaign, which supposedly was conceived to speed up the peace process in the Middle East through boycotts and sanctions against Israel, has turned quickly into a sequence of schizophrenic activities hurting equally the Israelis and the “Palestinians.”
Run mostly by academics, NGO activists and plain bums, the BDS movement has always had difficulties reaching out of the bubble where its promoters live and convincing those who live in reality to support their actions.
It is really hard to actually boycott Israeli companies and institutions. Israel has been involved in discoveries, inventions and technologies, which have transformed many fields of the science and industry (while its Muslim neighbours have developed many ways of killing each other and having good time with boys, camels, and goats).
It is hard to boycott Intel or the advanced medical equipment companies, so the trick is to find a company that could be an easy target, like the case of the “victory” over a pretzel company (as described by an Israeli lawyer, who monitors NGO’s):
In one “win” for the BDS campaign, Herzberg described a meeting with a senior executive of an Israeli pretzel company called Bagel Bagel that was owned by Dutch multinational Unilever and relocated its factory in Ariel’s Barcan Industrial Area, over the Green Line, to open another facility in Galil, on the other side.
“He had to tell 150 weeping men that they were about to lose their jobs, in fact that they had lost their jobs, because they were shutting the factory down,” Herzberg said. “Because of a BDS campaign, 150 Palestinian families lost their livelihood. How is that a victory?”
Yes, indeed. Nothing helps the Judea and Samaria Arabs better than stealing their jobs. That will ensure that their only career options will be suicide bomber or terrorist. The sad fact is that for all those years after the start of the “peace process,” the PLO government has done absolutely nothing for its people other than stealing the billions of dollars of aid provided by suckers like the USA, Canada and Japan.
Apparently the producer of soda machines and accessories SodaStream was considered such an easy target, because for a while they have been the object of a very vicious demonizing campaign. Their “sin” has been that they provide jobs to several hundred Arabs in the same area, whom the BDS idiots rather see jobless and destitute:
In fact, in one factory, SodaStream employs 900 people, about half of them Palestinian Arabs, in a Ma’ale Adumim facility that even includes an on-site mosque. But that factory is situated across the Green Line, east of Jerusalem, and is the reason why SodaStream has become a target for the BDS movement, which advocates “boycott, divestment and sanctions” to punish Israeli companies for operating in regions that could be part of a future Palestinian state, and somehow compel the State of Israel to unilaterally resolve the question of Palestinian nationalism.
Although SodaStream is definitely not a corporate giant, its products are widely available in many countries. In Toronto you can buy them in many stores, including Canadian Tire and Best Buy. During an advertising campaign last year, the whole St. George subway station was decorated with their ads.
It was a pleasant surprise to see them in Japan. During my trip there last month, I saw SodaStream products sold at most electronics and appliances store chains.
It appears that the logic of the BDS movement is that the soda making machines of the company are not a unique product, so if they convince people not to buy them, they’ll find alternative products. Other than propaganda materials online, my first encounter with the SodaStream boycotters was on December 1 at a protest against the Negev Dinner in Toronto in honour of Stephen Harper.
The usual crowd of welfare bums from the Ontario Coalition against Poverty (OCAP), communists, Maoists, Idle No More nuts and self-hating Jews, included a few creatures that were targeting specifically the Israeli soda company. It looked like they were giving some pathetic performance, which was supposed to be a satire.
They called the SodaStream product “apartheid water.” The funny part was that they were using two machines, which I suppose they had to buy, so with their purchase the BDS nuts financed the “apartheid company.”
A few months earlier, the pro-Israeli activist Mark Vandermaas organized a counter-protest against a similar event in front of a Canadian Tire store in Hamilton. The Muslim protest was modest, with only a few veiled gargoyles, while his group attracted a larger group of people from different ethnic backgrounds and religions.
I am not sure if Scarlett Johansson was aware of that “tempest in a glass of water” when she decided to promote SodaStream – after all, the most active BDS fanatics are usually fringe groups. According to her statements, it appears that she saw the work as an opportunity to support a company, which builds bridges between the Israelis and the “Palestinians.”
The trouble came from her association with Oxfam, a charity whose ambassador Scarlett has been for the last eight years. It turned out that Oxfam was much more interested in enforcing its political agenda than in providing help for the poor.
She had to end her relationship with the charity, because it didn’t approve the location of a SodaStream factory in an “illegal settlement.” (If they bother to really study international law and history, they’ll find out that there are no illegal Israeli settlements.) Oxfam in this case acts more like a leftist political party than a charity. What charity would lobby that 900 Arabs lose their jobs?
This is not the first case of anti-Israeli hostility shown by Oxfam. In the same article:
Herzberg described a 2003 campaign by Oxfam’s Belgium branch that produced a poster showing an “Israeli orange” dripping with blood to promote an anti-Israel boycott. The caption read, “Israeli fruits have a bitter taste…reject the occupation of Palestine, don’t buy Israeli fruits and vegetables.” NGO Monitor objected to what it deemed its very anti-Semitic “blood libel” overtones.
The “blood libel” is a manifestation of the lowest of the low in anti-Semitism. It is a disgrace that a supposed charity, with an objective to help the poor and destitute, would engage in something like that.
It was good that Scarlett Johansson chose the right path by supporting a company that does good deeds. Often the pressure on celebrities by the aggressive BDS crowd makes them change their minds and take anti-Israeli positions. Such celebrity boycotts give at least little legitimacy and publicity to the fringe BDS movement, even if the celebrity is of questionable nature.
A few years ago, the notorious homosexual film professor from York University – John Greyson – who spent time in an Egyptian jail last year for supporting Hamas, went out of his way to discourage Justin Bieber from performing in Israel. He even made a short (though extremely stupid) movie to make his point. It didn’t work – Bieber went to Israel.
Scarlett Johansson is definitely smarter than Bieber and the phony York professor. I wish we could trade her for those two idiots and the whole staff of Oxfam’s Canadian chapter.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
The annual Al-Quds rally in Toronto has been for years an occasion for the vilest anti-Semites to voice their opinions about the methods of destruction of Israel. They usually have been able to keep their talk out of the realm of the outright hate speech. Last year’s event crossed that line. In addition of openly waving the Hezbollah flag – symbol of a terrorist organization banned in Canada – one of the many hate speakers distinguished himself by asking that the Jews in Israel be shot.
In his vitriolic speech against Israel, Elias Hazineh said:
“They don’t negotiate. And we have been negotiating with them for 65 years. We say, ‘Get out or you are dead.’ We give them two minutes and then we start shooting, and that’s the only way they’ll understand.”
And here is the complete speech:
That sounded like a clear-cut case of hate speech – complete with incitement to murder. The case was refereed to investigation and finally reached the desk of the Ontario Attorney General, who has to certify every prosecution under the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code. Surprisingly, the call to kill Jews turned out to be an insufficient reason to charge Hazineh with hate speech.
Obviously, we have reached the point in Ontario where the vile anti-Semitism is under government protection.
B’nai Brith has issued a press release about the case:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TORONTO, January 31, 2014 — B’nai Brith Canada, the country’s senior Jewish human rights organization, has been informed that the Ontario Attorney General (AG) has not consented to the laying of hate crime charges against Mr. Elias Hazineh. Hazineh, who spoke at the Iranian-inspired Al-Quds Day rally at Queen’s Park to an adoring crowd, was caught on video issuing an ultimatum that Israeli Jews either leave Jerusalem or be shot.
“We are disappointed by the decision not to confront hatred on the streets of Toronto,” said Frank Dimant, CEO, B’nai Brith Canada. “It seems that we have sadly grown accustomed to hearing hateful rhetoric spewed at these pro-Iranian-regime, anti-Israel events. As we have noted, Al-Quds Day, a now annual event, is a route by which Canadians are being exposed to the radical and hateful ideologies of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and the banned terrorist group Hezbollah.
“Having met previously with the Federal Minister of Justice to discuss cross-Canada guidelines for the laying of hate crime charges, we now look forward to meeting with the Ontario AG to gain some insight into their decision-making process on this matter and discuss current provincial guidelines.”
For more information please contact: Sam Eskenasi, Communications Officer at (647) 780-8490 or firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional details and background information about the case, please see Blazingcatfur.
Today was the first day of the City Council debates over the Toronto budget for 2014. After months of discussions in various committees, the Councillors managed to come up with “good” uses for the nearly $10 billion distributed through the budget that is supposed to sustain our city for the next year.
The budget still appears to be balanced and there is even a tiny surplus. However, since the time the Council illegally stripped Mayor Rob Ford from most of his powers, the spirit of common sense and frugality has left the home of our city government. I am sure that among the countless points and paragraphs in the budget there will be more than enough money allocated for useless ventures like financing homosexual anti-Semites; tranny projects; overpaid city workers; bloated bureaucracy; talentless “artists” who hate Canada; illegal immigrants; retarded activists and much more. The category that would be underrepresented and underserved, but nevertheless would foot the bill, are the voiceless taxpayers.
Of course, that is of no concern to the anti-poverty bums, union fat cats and metrosexual pseudo-intellectuals, who dominated the audience in the City Hall chambers.
Regardless of his diminished statute, Rob Ford is still there, still angry and outraged watching how the spending Councillors destroy his efforts. He made his points quite loudly. The laughter and objections that came from time to time from the audience leftards and the irresponsible Councillors showed better than anything else how fast Toronto is sinking.
Here is what Rob Ford said:
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
First on the agenda was a delegate meeting with “Israeli thinkers”.
Mr. Jonathan Medved, CEO of OurCrowd Funding Group delivered a very positive and interesting presentation called “Start up Nation”. He told the delegates that Israel was quickly becoming recognized around the world for the development of high tech business and the country is developing a favourable financial, as well as intellectual market that has enabled the creation of what he referred to as “serial entrepreneurs” – business people who were developing successful, recognized business templates for the development of high-tech start-up ventures. He noted several start-ups that have been purchased by Google and IBM for significant amounts of money and cited that the business climate was very encouraging for a future prosperous economy.
Medved stated that over the past ten years there have been over 900 successful public company exits, many of which have strongly linked the Israeli economy to the American economy. There are over 300 multinational companies that are located in Israel which have further linked Israel strongly to the world economy – and said that in the “life sciences” field, there have been over 700 device company start-ups alone.
He commented that “Europe is addicted to Israeli products” and is one of Israel’s largest trading partners despite it’s boycott rhetoric. Trade with the UK is surging despite it’s fixation on the BDS movement.
Medved further stated that Asian investors are flocking to Israel.
The theme of the presentation concluded that here was a positive future in Israel for high-tech industry.
The second agenda item was a visit to the Palmachim Air Base outside of Tel Aviv.
The delegation was taken on a tour of the Palmachim Air Base and received a briefing on air defence security, specifically the ARROW Missile Defence System. We visited operations control and were briefed on Israel’s defence capabilities for missile attacks that included conventional, ballistic and inter-continental ballistic missiles.
One can only conclude that Israel’s defence capabilities are significant and impressive.
The final item on the agenda was Prime Minister Harper’s address to the Knesset.
Prime Minister Harper was awarded the key to the Knesset on his arrival – a show of great friendship and commitment between the two countries. There was a short private address to the Canadian delegation in the outer lobby and the group then entered the Plenary Hall for the formal address. Prime Minister Harper received a warm welcome from the speaker of the Knesset, Yuli-Yoel Edelstein. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu then took the podium and made a very special welcome to Prime Minister Harper expressing his sincere thanks on behalf of the State of Israel, for Prime Minister Harper’s principled public stand of support for the security of the state. He quipped with Harper about the friendship between these two geographically diverse countries, suggesting that there are streets in Toronto (Yonge Street), that are longer than the State of Israel. Netanyahu’s welcome was riveting and as a Canadian, one could not feel more proud of our Prime Minister and our government.
A further welcome was delivered by opposition MK Isaac Herzog who spoke to the moral courage of Prime Minister Harper for his principled positions.
Prime Minister Harper then addressed the Knesset with what I believe to be one of the most courageous speeches a world leader could make. He stated his unequivocal support for the State of Israel and spoke eloquently of the shared values of the two respective countries and received loud applause and many standing ovations. Despite the fact that he was heckled by two Arab MK’s who chose to leave the session mid-stream, Prime Minister Harper demonstrated himself to be a first class world leader of great moral character and distinguished himself – and Canada – on the world stage with his speech.
As a Canadian of the Jewish faith – one could not be more proud of Prime Minister Harper, and as we left the Knesset I heard person after person suggest that, indeed, he was the moral leader of the west…..specifically in comparison to the charlatan south of the Canadian border.
The event was electrifying.
Julius Suraski, JDL-Canada
The ugly face of Islam keeps popping up in the most unexpected places in Canada. Recently it made its presence visible with a bang at an Aikido dojo in Nova Scotia.
According to the news report, in March, 2012, a male Muslim student showed up at the East Coast Yoshinkan Aikido in Halifax. Right after joining the dojo, he demanded that he be exempted from any physical contact with the female students.
Steve Nickerson, the school’s owner and sensei (lead instructor), agreed, explaining in an email to the National Post, “I believe every person should have an equal opportunity to participate in recreational activities and I would not deny this student access to my classes.”
He didn’t separate the students by gender, but introduced an elaborate system to comply with the Muslim student’s sensitivities. The sensei was watching the pairing and when the Muslim bully was about to pair with a girl, he quickly switched his partner with a boy.
Mr. Nickerson’s son assures us in the same article that the new policy didn’t affect the class in any way. It was an accommodation for the Muslim; the rest of the class trained together normally.
The other problem was that the new student refused to bow. I am not going into details, but in the Japanese culture, part of which Aikido is, it is customary to express respect through bowing. In the dojo that is an expression of humility and reverence to the sensei and your fellow students. The Japanese martial arts are complete systems of spiritual principles and physical interaction, and you can’t just cherry-pick only things you like.
The Muslim claimed that he was forbidden from bowing to anyone but God. Of course, the sensei approved that as well.
Let me see – I think that in Islam Muslims bow to the ass of the person, who is kneeling in front of them in the mosque. It is often said that in Islam the sweetest smell is the breath of a Muslim, who is fasting. If you have ever had a close encounter with such a person, such smell may make you wish you were wearing a mask.
When you are bowing to somebody’s behind, you might be treated to some flatulence, especially if that person has overindulged on kabob with beans, but I guess, since it is happening in a mosque, that would be considered a divine fart. And, as an added bonus, the moment you bang your head on the floor, you’ll get a good whiff of your fellow Muslim’s socks.
Yes, that definitely beats the Japanese style bowing.
Those accommodations (although admired by the human rights commissions) are so ridiculous that I doubt it if Nickerson could be called a real sensei. His behaviour is a disgrace to the title. If his purpose is to ignore the Aikido system in order to accommodate a medieval violent cult, he can cut the crap and teach his students how to beat each other with baseball bats. That is the unfortunate reality in Canada, where even the martial arts are pussified to such an extent that the practitioners would capitulate to every weird demand.
What’s even worse is that even the female students at the dojo didn’t see anything wrong with the way they were treated.
It’s no wonder that in the metrosexual dojo dominated by a Muslim fanatic, the only person with balls turned out to be a 15-year old girl. Sonja Power (now 17) quit a few months after the new policy was introduced, because she was feeling as a “second-class citizen.”
Sonja’s mother approached the instructors and one of them brushed her off with a nice multicultural explanation:
“I tried to explain to her that Steve and all of his students understood the situation and that Steve could not and was not going to turn [the male student] away because of his religious beliefs, just like he had not turned her away for hers.”
Also, in a TV interview Sonja and her mother said that somebody from the dojo told them that such cases will become more and more frequent and they have to get used to that reality.
I can’t imagine anything more disgusting than that capitulation – the Aikido “warriors” are ready to abandon the Canadian values of equality and the principles of their own martial art to accommodate a really barbaric religious view. The most horrifying part is that neither the instructors, nor the students see anything wrong with that. I can see Muslims laughing at the Canadian stupidity.
But that wasn’t everything – one day the Muslim student brought to the dojo Islamist literature to distribute. It was a booklet that I know very well: Islam: From Darkness to Light by Suhail Kapoor. On its pages that ferocious religion shines in its full glory, with advice on how to behave and tips on wife beating.
Nothing surprising here – the Muslim involvement in any group often ends with crude attempts to proselytize the cult.
In defense of the way the owner treated the Muslim student, another Muslim student notes:
“He told us he wanted to welcome him and show him the spirit of aikido,” said student Yosri Al-Kishawi.
What an utter bullshit – the spirit of Aikido doesn’t include treating the girls as second-class creatures; it doesn’t include accepting disrespect to everybody in the dojo as some minor problem.
The spirit of Aikido requires harmony and oneness, respect for friend and foe:
Principle of Oneness
In order to harmonize with the laws of nature, we must first learn to develop and maintain the right attitude of training. We must always keep the attitude of becoming one with every situation. This is an attitude of respect for all things at all times. Regardless of the situation, friend or foe, one must always be ready to harmonize. The right attitude greatly affects the efficiency of the action. It is not how strong, but rather how correct you are that counts. This concept of oneness will make it possible for anyone regardless of age or sex to perform the arts efficiently.
The cult of Islam, which remains frozen in the 7th century realities, has never been big on harmony or respect. It has a very simple principle: do what I say or you’ll lose your head.
Terrorism is not the most frightening feature of Islam. The soft jihad of gradually taking over our everyday lives and institutions is much worse. And even worse is that in most cases, just like the instructors and the students at the Halifax dojo, we are willing to betray voluntarily principles and values that hold our society together to make someone with vicious views feel better in the name of multiculturalism.
Shame on the East Coast Yoshinkan Aikido in Halifax.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
In a new article Moshe Feiglin ponders the reasons for the negotiations between Israel and the “Palestinians.” The Deputy Speaker of the Nineteenth Knesset applies logic to analyzing that decades-old charade, but he still can’t find any benefits that it could bring to his country:
“Everyone is talking about ‘peace’ talks. The basic assumption is that peace talks are supposed to bring peace. The ‘problems’ that ‘peace’ is supposed to solve are common knowledge: There is the security problem, the demographic problem, the problem of Palestinian nationalism competing with Israel over the same piece of land, the international – particularly US- pressure, and some add the economic problem. But even a superficial analysis of the ‘problems’ reveals that none of them are motivating Israel’s ‘peace’ talks.
Peace cannot be defined as the goal of a state. Peace is the result of the proper definition of a state’s goal and the achievement of that goal. If peace is our goal, then it can be achieved more easily in other locations (Australia, or Uganda, for example), by surrendering our sovereignty (what’s so bad about the British flag?) or by assimilation.
Security cannot possibly be the problem we are trying to solve: The more that we progress in the ‘peace process’, the more our national and personal security deteriorates. Suicide bombers were not blowing up buses and restaurants and missiles were not crashing into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem prior to the ‘diplomatic process’. Our cumulative experience proves that our desire for security should distance us from any diplomatic process. If we continue to sacrifice our citizens ‘for the sake of peace’, then security is not what is motivating our participation in the ‘peace’ process.
Demography is not the problem, either. The average Tel-Avivian no longer has fewer children than her neighbor in Ramallah. Just the opposite is true. According to the American Israel Demographic Research Group, if the current birthrates continues in conjunction with a proactive aliyah policy, the Jewish majority in Israel will upgrade from 66% currently to 80% by 2035. In other words, even without a diplomatic process, the Jewish majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – including the Arabs of Judea and Samria – will be 80% within the next 20 years.
‘Palestinian’ nationalism was artificially constructed in response to Zionism. When this land was under Arab sovereignty – Jordanian or Egyptian – the problem did not exist. If Israel would disappear off the map, G-d forbid, ‘Palestinian Nationalism” would disappear with it. On Feb. 18, 1947, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, not an ardent Zionist by any stretch of the imagination, addressed the British parliament to explain why the UK was taking “the question of Palestine,” which was in its care, to the United Nations. He opened by saying that “His Majesty’s government has been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles.” He then goes on to describe the essence of that conflict: “For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.” There isn’t really ‘Palestinian’ nationality. There is the Arab Nation that does not accept Jewish sovereignty over any part of Israel. Thus, solving the (non-existent) ‘Palestinian’ problem will not solve the fundamental conflict; Arab opposition to any Israeli sovereignty. This is also the reason that a ‘Palestinian’ state has not yet been established and will never be established, despite the fact that never in history has a state been offered to any group on a platter more silver than what is being offered to the ‘Palestinians.’ They simply do not want a state…”
You can read the rest at Israpundit.
It is difficult to make sense of the chaotic events in Syria, which have taken the lives of hundreds of thousands and forced millions to leave the country. Not many scholars or journalists could fill the gap in our understanding of that area of the world. Jonathan Spyer is person with a first-hand experience in the history and current politics in the Middle East. Brought to Toronto by the Speakers Action Group, he will speak at a Business Lunch Lecture, titled:
“When The Dust Settles in Damascus: New Realities of The Middle East”
Dr. Jonathan Spyer, the special guest speaker is a Middle East analyst focusing on Syria, Lebanon and Israeli strategic affairs.
He will be joined at the event by Dr. Jack Muskat, as a moderator and the panelists Mike Fegelman, John Thompson, and Sohail Raza.
This promises to be a deep discussion about the conflict in Syria looking at the different players, the rebels, the government, Iran and Hizbolla and its impact on Lebanon, Israel and Iraq – how this will affect the future of the Middle East?
Time of the event: Friday, January 31, 12 noon, doors open at 11:30 am.
The lecture will take place at Bennett Jones LLP, 100 King Street West, corner.
Lunch $25, must have a reservation, dietary laws observed.
Earlier today JDL-Canada organized a picket in front of the CBC headquarters in Toronto. It is self-evident that the generously funded by the government “national broadcaster” is expected to show impartiality in its news coverage. However, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been frequently caught misleading the public, showing ignorance or displaying bias that is hard to justify.
In 2011 after the Breivik murders, at a CBC discussion of the event, the Corporation featured Bill Gillespie, presented as their “security expert”. Trying to picture the Norwegian mass murderer as an element of a wider “right-wing” conspiracy, Mr. Gillespie touched the subject of extremist groups.
He stated with the confidence of an “expert” that: “The Jewish Defence League is a banned terrorist organization in Canada.” Not only was that a lie, but it showed how much of an “effort” CBC puts into the objective coverage of the news.
Today’s event was also a reaction to such casual bias. The CBC anchor Evan Solomon was discussing recently with the Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird the appointment of Vivian Bercovici as Canada’s new ambassador to Israel. The appointment was just announced that day.
As a faithful soldier of CBC, Solomon thought that one of the biggest problems with sending Bercovici to Israel was that she was Jewish:
“Vivian Bercovici is Jewish, so there are going to be some questions. Why not appoint someone who doesn’t even have the perception of any kind of bias (in favor of Israel)?”
Other than showing stunning stupidity, Solomon wasn’t afraid to advocate discrimination against Bercovici, who had to be excluded from that field solely on the basis of her ethnicity. Solomon didn’t elaborate on who should replace her, but following his logic, somebody who hates Israel would be a much more suitable candidate. What about Omar Khadr?
The picketing event took place during the lunch break, so many CBC employees saw the JDL-Canada members and sympathizers standing in front of the building.
There was sign that was difficult to miss:
Yet they all pretended that they didn’t see anything, which was not surprising – the inhabitants of the ivory CBC tower don’t care that much what the masses think, especially when the mainstream Jewish organizations shun the street protests.
Unfortunately, there are times when nothing could replace the street protest. Acting behind the scenes with the hope to change minds is not an effective strategy when working with people convinced that their twisted and biased views are the ultimate truth. Showing up in person and openly stating your disagreement, the way JDL-Canada does, is often the only way to get organizations like CBC out of their self-righteous nirvana and prove to them that not everybody shares their opinions.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com
The Jewish Defence League of Canada announced that they will picket CBC on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:00 noon.
The event will take place at the CBC HEADQUARTERS, 250 Front St. West, Toronto.
The reason for the picket id that the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) Anchor Evan Solomon sparked outrage in questioning the appointment of Vivian Bercovici as Canada’s new ambassador to Israel, due to Bercovici being Jewish. Solomon’s comments came during a live interview with Foreign Minister John Baird on Thursday.
In the interview, mere hours after Bercovici was appointed to her new post, Solomon said to Baird….
“Vivian Bercovici is Jewish, so there are going to be some questions. Why not appoint someone who doesn’t even have the perception of any kind of bias (in favor of Israel)?”
Baird defended the choice, further clearly stating Canada’s position on it’s relationship with Israel and the PA.
Join the JDL-Canada at noon time to express the protest against that outrageous statement, spread by CBC.
For more information, please contact:
JDL Canada | (416) 736-7000 | email@example.com | http://jdl-canada.com/
788 Marlee Ave., Suite 207
Toronto, M6B 3K1