Sarah Noble – the Crazy Liberal Democrat Tranny Who Wants to Kill All Men

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Meet Sarah Noble – a prominent activist of the British Liberal Democrat Party and a typical representative of the progressive political elites of the dying kingdom, which once ruled a huge part of the world. That creature attracted wide attention when it was revealed that he/she/it has been involved for quite a while in promoting bloodthirsty violence against men. I find it difficult to find the right pronoun to refer to the critter, because according to the Twitter profile of that person – @sarahlicity – here we are dealing with:

Feminist trans dyke. Motherfucking princess. @LGBTLD exec member, @NUS_LGBT Committee member-elect, sex work & equality campaigner, chilihead. Personal account.

2015-04-18 18_13_34-Sarplex City (@sarahlicity) _ Twitter

What a classy practitioner of the King’s English!

Apparently, here we have a case of a mentally unstable guy, who chopped off his penis and testicles and thought that he became a woman. A eunuch with gender identity disorder is still a man, despite of the lack of penis. That won’t be a big deal, if the guy kept his fantasies to himself – the bad part is that he continues to go deeper into his madness and wants to kill all men. Talk about overcompensation! The bloodthirsty urges of Mr. Sarah found their way on his Twitter account over a long period of time (now he deleted many of them, but they have been saved for posterity):

2015-04-18 18_03_30-Sarah Claus (@sarahlicity) _ TweetSaveNormally, I would’ve put up with those rants, because even the mentally deficient trannies have the right to publish their psychotic rants (though criticizing them may land you in jail in the fascist kingdom of political correctness called Great Britain). Can you imagine what would happen, if not a tranny, but a real man wrote something similar against women? The even worse part is that the tranny is an activist of a major political party. According to Breitbart, which broke the story (based on revelations from HEqual  ) Mr. Sarah:

“…sits on the national committees of the LGBT Liberal Democrats and the Secular & Humanist Liberal Democrats. She has also been elected to the executive committee of the National Union of Students’ LGBT wing, which, like the LGBT Lib Dems, has a zero-tolerance attitude towards hate speech.

She is also a former team member of the “Atheism Plus Block Bot”, a twitter program that allows you to block predefined lists of users. The Block Bot’s creators claimed that the program blocks “trolls, abusers, and bigots”, but it faces growing accusations that this is merely a smokescreen for targeting people who offend them, such as the biologist and author Richard Dawkins. In the wake of Noble’s comments, the question of whether the Block Bot is really against all forms of hatred and bigotry is sure to be raised.”

Is it any wonder than the United Kingdom is going down the drain with lightning speed? If bloodthirsty idiots like this demented creature are allowed to determine the policies of a political party, is it any wonder that the Muslims are taking over the country? When the mentally ill become policy-makers, sharia may look like an improvement.

No Western country has escaped that madness – even in Canada deranged perverts like Mr. Noble want to force a perverted school sex education curriculum, which would make kids easy victims of child molesters or totally confuse their minds so they may actually follow the steps of that sex lunacy.

© 2015

Ben Levin’s Sentencing 3 – Saving Mr. Levin

The third day of Ben Levin’s sentencing hearing was taken over entirely by his lawyers Mr. Ruby and Mr. Chan who made submissions with the goal, as one could expect, to reduce his jail time by as much as possible. I don’t blame them – though in this case the majority of people would find their task morally repugnant, the lawyers still try to find holes in the Crown’s case and (at least theoretically) prevent injustice. Downplaying Ben Levin’s perversion is a natural strategy in such a difficult situation, especially when it is impossible to rebuke the facts, which the defendant admitted to be true. It is important to remind the readers that in the beginning everything was denied – Ben Levin pleaded not guilty and Clayton Ruby vowed to fight the charges and exonerate him from wrongdoing. Unfortunately, things were so bad that even a miracle worker couldn’t help.

Despite the efforts of the lawyers, to give credit to the judge, I should mention that she interrupted the defense a few times and challenged their reasoning on a few issues.

During day two the Crown shared with the court the puke-inducing instructions on child bondage coming from the twisted mind of the man who once was Educator #2 of Ontario. It seemed impossible to top that, but the defense managed to do it – they shared the letters of support for Ben Levin. It was beyond comprehension how people could write them. I can think only of two explanations. Maybe some had no idea what he did and supported him to keep their careers just in case if he returned to his old positions at OISE – those are either cowards or ignorant idiots. Those who defended him and knew what he did obviously didn’t care much about the harm he caused and to a great degree shared his mindset.

That confirms once again that the educational system in Canada is dominated by cowards, idiots and perverts, who don’t give a damn what kids or their parents think of them. The aggressive way, in which the new disgraceful sex curriculum is pushed in Ontario despite the vigorous protests of concerned parents, is just another example of how people like Levin still control the education.

Mr. Ruby started by summarizing the situation – Ben Levin pleaded guilty on three counts of sex offenses and the Crown asked for three and a half years in jail, while the defense proposes no more than 2 years. It is true that the offenses are serious, but since no real child was approached and assaulted, a two-year sentence would be more appropriate. Levin didn’t know who he was chatting with and we don’t know if he actually wanted to do all the things he wrote about or if he met that person in Amsterdam. Since a sentence is a punishment for deeds, which are proven beyond reasonable doubt, the sentence must be reduced. Besides, Levin is already 63 years old and jail won’t be a safe place for a person at his age and the type of offenses he committed.

The lawyer continued – Levin has made enormous contributions to the education system in Manitoba and Ontario. That has been confirmed in many letters from Levin’s supporters. Those are not excuses, but lenience is needed to assure proportionality and balanced retribution.

At this point Justice Heather McArthur interrupted Mr. Ruby with a question: if Levin has been so knowledgeable about education and he still got involved in those activities, shouldn’t this be considered an aggravating circumstance?

Ruby tried to counter her by saying that special knowledge doesn’t play a role in this case. After she repeated that as an educator Levin must be better aware of the consequences, Ruby stubbornly held his point that Levin had no special knowledge and didn’t know more than any other person.

The judge kept pushing and pointed out that you don’t need a Ph.D. degree to figure out that abusing children is bad – shouldn’t this be taken into consideration?

Mr. Ruby ended it with the assertion that Levin can’t be punished more than an ordinary guy. Then he moved to the topic of the support letters. His overall impression was that they made a clear point – the members of his family stated that there has never been a hint of bad behaviour; Levin has always been a good person, loving and caring father. This evaluation was seconded in the letters from friends and colleagues – they saw his public service as impeccable, with significant contribution to the education in Manitoba and Ontario. Some agreed that there was dark side to Levin, but there is also plenty of light.

Mr. Ruby found the supportive letters from Levin’s students the most impressive letter collection he has ever seen. They shared their great experiences with him as a professor and many wrote about their high hopes of his rehabilitation, so that he could work again.

(If such people comprise the intellectual elite of Ontario, is it any wonder that the province is a dump ruled by crooks and perverts?)

After he proved the enormous people’s love for Ben Levin, Mr. Ruby switched his attention to the evaluation presented in Dr. Gojer’s report. He emphasized the conclusion that Levin had a satisfying sexual relationship with his wife and never looked for similar activities with children.

The judge interrupted him again with the remark that Levin chatted with the forum members about sex with children and even met one of the members in Amsterdam. Ruby was adamant – there was no evidence of wrongdoing in his actions.

The judge countered with an example – if two people, who collect stamps and don’t know anything else about each other than the shared hobby, meet, it is reasonable to expect that they will discuss stamp collecting. In a similar way, two people, who know each other only through a forum that deals with sex with children, would most likely discuss that topic.

Mr. Ruby objected – those are speculations, the Crown should’ve proven any wrongdoing in Amsterdam beyond reasonable doubt, but they didn’t.

The judge replied that the issue is different – Dr. Gojer insisted that everything Levin did was to fantasize, but the meeting could be used to challenge that conclusion. Though he didn’t change his report, he said that the meeting was disturbing.

Mr. Ruby then said that we don’t know what was discussed at the meeting; it didn’t move Levin beyond the realm of fantasy and no child was present, that’s why Dr. Gojer didn’t change his opinion. It is important to make a distinction regarding the spectrum of activities – from fantasy to real actions. Dr. Gojer had an excellent insight in the mind of the offender. The incest materials are aggravating, but they are still fantasies. The doctor thinks that Levin is a low risk to re-offend and there is no evidence that he will do it again. During the interviews, Levin has shown an excellent emotional insight into his behaviour and he is remorseful. He has never abused his wife and daughters and supports his family and there is no evidence of hands-on offenses. Dr. Gojer recognized the concerns of the Crown about possible real abuse, but concluded that Levin is low risk. Besides, he developed his attraction to children late in life – he started with general sex chat and then moved to child pornography. He took responsibility for his action, but it is still important to note that everything was just fantasy.

Here the judge made another remark – but Levin counselled someone to abuse a child sexually not knowing if he was communicating with a real person. If the woman was real, a real kid could’ve been hurt.

As expected, Mr. Ruby said again that everything was still fantasy.

The judge: but still, that could’ve been an 8-year old girl at the other end.

Mr. Ruby: you need significant harm to a real person to apply that reasoning.

The judge: in the Fisher case (quoted the day before by the Crown) the fantasy defense was rejected in similar circumstances. Here we have a situation, where Levin’s recklessness is very severe.

After a recess, Mr. Ruby continued with a discussion of the Amsterdam meeting. It is true that it was one step further in Levin’s activities, but not significant because no child was present. That was the opinion of Dr. Gojer. Moreover, even the chats were not that important.

The judge interrupted him: but the chats were all about sex.

Mr. Ruby disagreed: not all of them were about sex.

The judge: I didn’t see any evidence to the contrary. None was presented to me.

Mr. Ruby: some of those chats were on Yahoo. The meeting happened by chance – both were passing through Amsterdam. There was no evidence that anything bad happened – the man and his daughter were interviewed by the police in England and his house was searched. No wrongdoing was found. The Crown didn’t mention that during the cross-examination. It is speculative to assume that it was anything more than passing meeting of two people engaged in fantasies. The same applies to Levin’s phone chats – many people engage in phone fantasies. The doctor mentioned in the report that everything was like a play – fantasies must be interesting to keep people’s attention. He also said there that Levin was remorseful, but the Crown didn’t cross-examine him on that.

The remorse is important to bring up, because there is case law about child pornography in relation to the self-awareness of the accused. There are cases of rationalization, when the offenders don’t find anything wrong with liking children.

The judge noted that Dr. Gojer covered the issue of rationalization in Levin’s report.

Mr. Ruby replied that in the case that the doctor quoted the accused clung to his wrong beliefs, while Levin realized that he was wrong. That’s important when considering the sentence; it deserves certain leniency. It is also important to consider his standing in the community – he paid an enormous price for his wrongdoing. He was suspended from his professor’s position. While he was employed, he used to give 4-5 speeches yearly, manage a dozen research projects, etc. All of that disappeared and so did his income; he didn’t want to take salary without working. His name and research was removed from the website of the University of Toronto.

He was shamed publically. The Toronto Sun published negative articles about him. Comments on Facebook and other sites were calling for him to rot in jail, to be hanged, etc. This shows a severe level of shaming and condemnation. Hundreds of angry letters were sent calling him a monster and linking him to the school sex education curriculum – this is stigmatization. All that should be considered – he is responsible for his actions, but the public attacks shouldn’t be ignored. There have been restrictions proposed on his use of phone or internet – that is to be expected, but an academic still needs access to those, otherwise he will be in exile. There should be a balance in the restrictions.

Then Mr. Ruby noted that because of the low number of child pornography images, which Levin possessed, it would be fair to sentence him to the mandatory minimum of 90 days on that count, instead of 6 months. After that he attempted to use the latest decision of the Supreme Court, which struck down the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of firearms. In Levin’s case the minimum is imposed for relatively low-impact offenses, which could increase the standard for other offenders in the future.

After lunch Mr. Ruby continued his attempts to lower the sentence. The sentence for making child pornography should be reduced as well, because Levin wrote a text, which came from his imagination, as opposed to pictures, where real children are abused.

The judge interrupted him: didn’t Dr. Gojer say that written child pornography may expose children to harm if someone follows through?

Naturally, Mr. Ruby had the answer: it still involves less harm. Besides, he wrote only one short story, which is less than what has been seen in other cases – another man received 15 months for a similar offense, but he wrote many more stories.

The judge: what about the sadistic element of the story? Doesn’t it add complications? Shouldn’t we denounce more literature with sadistic treatment of children? That’s common sense – such approach would deter from further offenses.

Mr. Ruby didn’t reply to that and only stated that the 2 years that the defense is seeking should be more than enough to deter and punish him for everything; 3 and a half years would be way too much.

That ended his portion of the submissions and Mr. Chan took over. He stated that though the offenses are serious, they should be placed in context. A person who indulges in rich fantasies is much less likely to engage in action.

The judge noted again: but what if the mother that Levin was communicating with were real and followed his advice, thus hurting the child? He was lucky she was not real, but a police officer. Wouldn’t this make a difference?

After Mr. Chan replied that Levin considered many members of the chat to be fake, he and the judge continued discussing the issue of fantasy and reality in Levin’s online interactions, with Mr. Chan insisting that everything was fantasy.

Following a short recess, Mr. Chan came up with a new twist in the submission – he repeated that the whole sentence should be no longer than 2 years, with some of it served concurrently. The reason is that most of the offenses were committed at the same time and were similar in nature. Even the harm done in each case was similar. The punishment had the same societal interest – defending children from exploitation is the goal of each of the jail times imposed. Besides, he mentioned again, creating child pornography here applies to text; there is no real child exploitation as in movie making.

The judge objected that counselling to commit a sex crime has a different societal interest. There is also a problem with metrics – two of the offenses involve two different police officers. There are also two different (though fictional) children involved. That makes the proposal of the defense difficult to accept.

Mr. Chan noted that there are some differences, but the actions of Levin are reasonably similar.

Then the discussion moved to probation and future restrictions. He will be expected to use the internet only under supervision. Levin will be restricted from contacts with children and banned from visiting places with children, though the judge noted that there should be some exceptions, if he goes somewhere with his grandchildren.

Mr. Chan disagreed with some of the restrictions. The offences committed didn’t involve any children, so limiting Levin’s contacts with children is unreasonable. He is not a risk. There were several cases involving hands-on offenders of children, where the court imposed mild restrictions. Levin hasn’t committed any real offenses against children.

The submission of the defense was followed by a few objections of the Crown. They disagreed that the offenses committed by Levin were similar; they were not even committed at the same time but over a period of time. Even the societal impact is different – possessing child pornography benefits the user, while making it harms children.

Finally, Ben Levin took the stand for a short statement. With an emotional and trembling voice he said that he was very sorry for his actions. He participated in activities that harmed children his actions ruined his career and he was ashamed of that. He has already started to work hard on changing himself and has sought help. He will try to do everything he can to repair the damage he caused.

Justice Heather McArthur had the last word – she announced that she would announce the sentence and her reasons for judgment on May 29.

© 2015

Ben Levin’s Sentencing 2 – the Child Sex Grooming Chats

The second day of Ben Levin’s sentencing hearing coincided with a huge rally at Queen’s Park, where thousands of angry parents protested against the perverted sex education curriculum that the Liberal Government is going to force on the Ontario schools next fall. The rally was so big that all newspapers and radio stations had to cover it (they have ignored such rallies in the past).

In a way, I felt guilty that I had to miss that event and instead sit in a half-empty court room with noisy air conditioner, which made it very hard to hear what people were saying. However, it occurred to me that sitting through those lengthy discussions of sex with children, rape fantasies and porn pictures gave me the unique opportunity to peek into the working of the minds of those who designed that curriculum. Ben Levin, as one of its architects, is a fine specimen of the people forming the circle around Kathleen Wynne and their horrific ideas for a new education where parents have no say in issues affecting morality. The horrifying disregard for people’s opinions displayed by Wynne’s clique becomes easier to understand when you see how Levin conducted his activities for years without any fear of getting caught. The same arrogance is displayed in Wynne’s contempt for parents’ opinions and especially in her sinister attempt to present the disagreement as a hatred for the fact that she is lesbian (that’s an old homosexual trick, which usually works in our politically correct society – everybody is scared to death of being called “homophobic”).

Understanding how that high-level perversion works is worth the time spent listening to stories about sickening abuse. In yesterday’s installment I probably shocked many people by including the description of Levin’s child porn picture collection.

Today things will be worse – the whole day was spent on analyzing his “real strength,” his writings in the chat forum, where he was an important figure. The prosecutors read long excerpts from his posts, but I am sure that the mainstream journalists would never publish them. The advantage of being a blogger is that you don’t have to self-censor yourself.

Since today’s post would be more disturbing than yesterday’s, the same warning applies – if you are too sensitive, don’t read it.

The plan today was to present the submissions of the Crown and the defense regarding the sentencing. However, the Crown’s presentation took the whole day (Ben Levin left a huge footprint on the internet). Crown attorney Allison Dellandrea began with a procedural issue. She talked to Justice Heather MacArthur about the numerous letters that she and the main Crown attorney Ms. Garcia received from the public. Many people shared their opinions about Levin and disagreed with his actions, demanding punishment. She urged the judge to ignore the letters, because otherwise justice will turn into a popularity contest. Justice MacArthur acknowledged that she saw such letters and many of them emphasized the stigma suffered by Levin by disgracing his previous high position.

Ms. Dellandrea said again that the public interest in the case is high, but that shouldn’t influence the process of serving justice. Here the judge noted that most of those letters were actually form letters, which mention Levin’s previous position and discuss his role in preparing the new sex education curriculum. The Crown immediately added that there is no evidence that he participated in the creation of the curriculum. In the end the judge admitted that the letters have no relevance, but she mercifully decided to admit them into the court materials.

(I guess the high-level Liberals always win even in court.)

Ms. Dellandrea started her submission with an opinion of the punishment. The Crown considered an appropriate punishment for Ben Levin a jail sentence of 3 years and 6 months. The most serious crime was counselling an adult to commit a sex act with a child, which accounted for 2 years of the proposed sentence.

Then she went through the evidence to justify the proposal. Levin participated for years in a disturbing online forum. He was not an ordinary player, but a leader in discussing issues related to child abuse. He tried to influence women with underage children and even implicated his wife, who had no knowledge about his activities. One of the most dangerous parts of his participation was that he coached other people to commit sado-masochistic sex acts with children – he advocated spanking, bondage, vaginal penetration, etc. It is true that he owned just a few images with child pornography, but his major field of interest were the chats where he expressed himself fully.

A recurring phenomenon in his chats was the desire to hear more about the sex contacts of the participants with their children. An outstanding example were the long conversations he had with a “mother” (actually impersonated by a police officer) who claimed she had a young daughter. The suggestions made by Levin are very graphic – he wants the child to suffer for the sexual gratification of her mother. He advises the latter to pinch child’s nipples, spank her, and if she cries, she must be slapped while the mother yells “Shut up, bitch!” Levin recommends inserting sex toys in child’s body cavities or inserting several fingers in her mouth until she gags. The girl must be tied up regularly to keep her still, preferably with her legs spread, but not too tightly – just until she starts to cry.

After a recess, Ms. Dellandrea discussed some of the opinions in Dr. Gojer’s report (presented yesterday). Levin confessed to him that he met several individuals online and discussed child abuse. His predominant online theme was incest with interest in a few sub-fields: enjoyment of hearing about child abuse; providing direction on how to perform abuse, and describing the forms of sex contacts he claimed he had with his own and other children.

The Crown brought up another chat transcript where Levin discussed incest in a specific family. Comparing it to his own family, he states that he started “playing” with his daughters when they were 12, 13, and 16 years old (and regrets that he didn’t start earlier). He encouraged them to “suck him off.” An aggravating circumstance is the advocacy of child sharing for sex purposes, as he supposedly did with his own daughters. That would expose kids potentially to even more abuse. There are also homosexual tendencies expressed – in the same chat he expresses regret he didn’t have a son, though he boasted that he “played” with boys. He also regrets that his daughters don’t have their own children yet.

In another chat he advises a mother to touch her girl’s vagina while she is asleep. That is supposed to be one of the steps to prepare the girl for rough play. Another suggestion is showing soft porn to the girl and sexualizing her by masturbating in front of her.

After lunch Ms. Dellandrea warned that the material collected from the chats is extensive and it will take time to cover its most important aspects. She continued with another chat with the officer posing as a mother. The “mother” says that she exposes her child to porn. In Crown’s opinion, if what Levin did was just a fantasy, he should’ve stopped the person he was chatting with from doing that and told her that these are just fantasies and she shouldn’t go any further or he could simply break the contact, but he didn’t. On the contrary – in a new chat she tells him that she touched the child’s vagina and Levin tells her: “I want you to play with her and prepare her to be fucked.” In a series of instructions he then tells the mother to masturbate in front of the girl.

The Crown finds additional evidence that Levin didn’t see everything as a fantasy in further conversations. The mother sent picture of her child and also invited Levin to her home “to fuck her” and get acquainted with the daughter, she was even going to clean the house to please “her master.” Levin explained that he couldn’t make it.

Later they discussed the child – the mother claimed that she told her that Levin will be her master and she needs to learn about sex to please him. Then she expresses hesitation – did she go too far, what if the kid tells somebody about what they are doing? Levin calms her down – he says that he had before sex with a 12-year old girl with the consent of her parents. Again, he didn’t pull out of the situation, didn’t show remorse that things have gone too far and the kid could be harmed.

In their final exchange on July 5, 2013, Levin lectured the woman that she needs to obey her master and so does the girl, because he wants to “penetrate her ass.” He was still encouraging the abuse. It is important to note that in his list of the forum users (mentioned yesterday) he didn’t mark the woman as “fake.” He thought she was real.

Ms. Dellandrea mentioned again that a day before Dr. Gojer finalized the report Levin told him that he had a meeting in Amsterdam with one of the forum members. However, despite that significant admission, the doctor still insisted that all activities of Levin were limited to the realm of fantasy. Despite his opinion, a real meeting with another potential child abuser is important.

In the concluding part of the submission the Crown referred to some case law applicable in this situation. A 2007 decision of the New Brunswick court dealt with a certain Mr. Fisher, who was involved in internet sex chat. An officer posed as a mother with child and the accused suggested sex acts with the child. He was arrested and child pornography was found on his computer. His attorney used the fantasy defense, but the court rejected it and emphasized that real harm could result from his actions, moreover, the accused could not be sure that the child didn’t exist; the fantasy operates only to a point. He was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months for counselling an adult to have sex with a child. Levin should get more time than Fisher, because he was involved in more activities.

A similar case happened in Saskatchewan in 2008 – Mr. Houston, with no previous criminal record, was charged with one count of distributing child pornography. He also had over 1000 posts on a site dealing with sex between men and young girls. His posts described violent sex with girls and infants. Again, he used the fantasy defense, with which the prosecution disagreed, because if somebody acted on his writings, a child could be harmed. He also received 18 months for distributing pornography.

In conclusion, she mentioned that the Crown received many letters of support of Levin from family and friends. Many show disbelief, but they still support him – that’s not unusual for the criminally charged. Such letters came also from prominent members of the community. That’s important to the prosecution, they acknowledge the support, but they don’t want to overemphasize it.

The issue of Levin working again in the education is a sensitive one. He should suffer the consequences of his actions, but the backlash of the social media is stigmatizing him. Levin will need counselling. Also, the Crown recommends keeping him from being around children without supervision for 20 years. In the same way it is recommended that he use internet only under supervision for 20 years.

Tomorrow the hearing will continue with the submissions of the defense.

What can I say now?

I don’t know what I find more repulsive – that such despicable pervert like Levin was one of the highest bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education that developed the perverted sex curriculum (with his participation) or that there are still people who will voice their support for a person like him.

It seems that in the self-destructing Ontario of Kathleen Wynne everything is possible.

© 2015

Ben Levin’s Sentencing 1 – Dirty Pictures and Amsterdam Rendezvous

Last month Ben Levin, the former Deputy Minister of Education in the Liberal Government of Ontario, pleaded guilty on several charges related to making and distributing child pornography and counselling an adult to commit a sex act with a child. At the end of the hearing, the judge scheduled the sentencing for April and allocated three days for the new hearing. Today was the first day and judging from the tempo of the proceedings, the hearing may take even longer, because the court managed to deal with only two witnesses.

Ben Levin appeared with his attorneys Mr. Ruby and Mr. Chan. The first person to testify was a police officer from the Child Exploitation Unit of the Toronto police. He investigated Levin and in the process categorized the pornographic images found on his computer. The investigators discovered 79 questionable images, but most of them were temporary automatic downloads. Only 13 images and two short videos were saved and accessible by Levin. The officer brought a disk with the images. The prosecutor Ms. Garcia asked the judge to allow showing the pictures (only to the court). Mr. Ruby objected citing time constraints, but the judge overruled his request. Then he stood behind the officer and looked at the images on the officer’s computer while they were being shown to the judge.

The officer explained that they were located in several folders on Levin’s computer. Before showing each image, he named the folder and the file name and then described the content. He used very formal medical language, which I am going to simplify in order to keep the descriptions short.

WARNING: you can skip the next 5 paragraphs, if they make you feel uncomfortable.

The first batch of images was in the Documents folder. Image #1 depicted a nude pre-pubescent girl lying underneath an adult man having a vaginal intercourse with her. The officer determined the image to be child pornography. Image #2 showed a topless young girl lying on the beach with legs wide spread. #3 was a nude young Caucasian girl with a raised leg. #4 depicted another Caucasian underage girl with the penis of an adult male in her mouth.

The second batch was located in another subfolder of the Documents folder. Image #1 showed two undeveloped half-naked Caucasian girls in bed kissing and embracing each other. #2 included a female child lying on bed in G-string bikini exposing herself in a provocative pose. Image #3 (which was mentioned in paragraph 11 of the Statement of Facts) showed a girl in a provocative pose with an adult woman and a man.

The third folder contained three images. The first one was a female child victim of sex exploitation (that was used in the Crown’s comments to the case). #2 depicted a nude pubescent girl with an exposed vagina. The last image showed two women with a young girl – the child wore a collar with a chain, with the end of the chain held by one of the women.

A fourth folder contained 5 images. #1 was showing an underage girl holding an adult man’s penis ejaculating on her. The second picture depicted two nude Asian children on a bed with an adult male having sex with one of them; three more children are standing in the background and watching. #3 had a woman and girl on a mattress on a floor; the woman is penetrating the girl vaginally with a strap-on dildo. #4 was showing a blindfolded nude girl. The last image showed a young girl in bikini, buttocks facing the camera, with her vagina exposed.

There were also two short videos. The first one (24 seconds) showed a man ejaculating in the mouth of a young girl. The second video (1 minute 40 seconds) featured two young nude girls embracing and touching each other genitally. The judge watched both videos.

After the presentation Mr. Ruby noted that there were over 2,000 pornographic images on Levin’s computer and only a very small portion was classified as child pornography.

When the officer left the stand, it was taken by the expert witness Dr. Julian Gojer, a Toronto psychiatrist, who presented a written report on the condition of Ben Levin.

He was cross-examined by Mr. Ruby, who started with asking many questions about Dr. Gojer’s qualifications and experience. He stated that over the years he had prepared many reports on the state of mind and possible treatment of sex offenders (he estimated the number of about 100 per year).

He testified that he spent a long time with Levin, interviewing him, and also interviewed his wife, many of the conversations were done by phone. Mr. Ruby wanted to know if in such a situation the patient could manipulate the doctor. Dr. Gojer said that this was difficult, since in this case they already had a statement of facts.

His diagnosis was that Ben Levin had sexual interest in children, but there was no evidence that he was interested in actually dealing with them in person. Still, he displayed pedophilic behaviour. Many pedophiles develop their urges in puberty, but there is no simple answer for a variety of reasons. Having fantasies is common and they usually don’t affect the behaviour and don’t force the person to act on them. This is pedophilic disorder as opposed to actual pedophilia. Such condition could be treated. Levin is not hands-on offender – though he had sadistic fantasies, his collection of child pornography was very small; he relied on his fantasies.

At the same time, he advised another person to commit sex act with a children, so that’s not the lowest behavioral danger in the spectrum. Such advise had the potential to cause real harm to a child.

Mr. Ruby wanted to know the spectrum of risk for Levin to re-offend. Dr. Gojer estimated that the risk was low – Levin was remorseful and he was aware that he hurt his family. There is no hands-on risk of offense. Having fantasies is common in many fields of life and is displayed by many people (like in violent games) without affecting their behaviour. Though in rare cases fantasies could cause violence, removing them in treatment may have worse consequences, because they often are substitute for real violence.

Answering Ruby’s question about the role of Levin’s wife and daughters in the case, Dr. Gojer noted that he never abused them and domestically was a non-violent individual. His children were part of his fantasies, but he never took action. Besides, he developed pedophilic tendencies late in life. Commenting on the small number of child porn images, the doctor observed that many pedophiles are not visually stimulated, but just like Levin, derive gratification from chats with other people. He didn’t show a tendency to switch to actual sex contacts.

I am skipping quite a few moments of the exchange, because Mr. Ruby kept asking questions, whose answers revolved around the supposedly harmless nature of Levin’s fantasies (as he saw them) and the possibility that his fantasy urges could be easily controlled and treated.

At certain point Dr. Gojer justified Levin’s problems with difficult childhood (one of his parents died early); he also suffered from erectile dysfunction and had to work on self-acceptance. Those factors would diminish the risk even further.

Mr. Ruby then said that Levin could get a possible jail sentence of two years. Dr. Gojer found that reasonable – Levin is not anti-social, he was affected by the media exposure and wants that the people learn from his mistakes. He is already attending counselling. It is necessary to develop a flexible treatment plan depending on his progress. (The discussion on these issues also went on for a while.)

Finally, Mr. Ruby finished and the prosecutor Ms. Garcia started her own cross-examination. Her strategy was to find holes in the estimates and evaluations presented in Dr. Gojer’s report. That wasn’t difficult.

She started by saying that the opinions and conclusions in the report depend on facts presented by the defendant and as such they could be manipulated. Though the doctor received from the Crown the statement of facts, Levin could distort them with the information and opinions presented by him in the interviews. Ms. Garcia observed that according to the report, Levin stated that he had no interest in child pornography; he came upon it during sex chats online. He also said that he had a passing interest and used to masturbate on that. He developed an interest three years ago, but compared to his life, that period of infatuation was short. She then asked if the doctor could confirm that Levin didn’t have a deep-rooted interest in child pornography and had no contact with children. Dr. Gojer confirmed that this was his conclusion after the interviews.

However, Ms. Garcia stated that his family, which was not involved in his activities, didn’t know anything about his urges and fantasies; he managed to deceive them. The doctor replied that those were private fantasies that Levin didn’t share.

She then said that he had many online chats with the undercover officers, in which he discussed sex acts with children. He even asked for pictures of children. That’s important. Then she revealed a new fact, which became known only the day before this hearing – Levin actually met in Amsterdam a member of the chat group, a father with a young daughter from England. This goes beyond fantasy. In Levin’s case we have a person who misrepresents the facts – he also had phone conversations with members, which is a step forward. Then he met the man in Amsterdam and they discussed past child sexual abuse.

Dr. Gojer noted that there was no actual child involved in the interaction. Ms. Garcia countered again that the actions went beyond fantasy and asked if the doctor challenged Levin over the case. He said no, because for a real sex offense a real person is needed.

After a recess, Ms. Garcia asked if Levin shared with the doctor the Amsterdam experience. He didn’t recall any details; he thought the experience was fantasy. He checked his notes, but couldn’t find anything entered earlier. He just learned about the meeting, but didn’t think it was important, because no abuse took place. Besides, he didn’t have time to note that in the report.

Then Ms. Garcia brought up the chat transcripts, where Levin discussed at length the man from England whom he met and even included a family picture. He claimed he met the family and specifically mentioned the young daughter, noting that she arouses him with the words “I feel like fucking her.” And then he said that he and the father “perved together.” Isn’t that a significant exchange? Dr. Gojer replied with his standard phrase that everything was a fantasy.

The man Levin met in Amsterdam sent him a picture of the family and the names and ages of the children matched those discussed by Levin in the chat. Levin also discussed the father’s desire to have sex with his children. Ms. Garcia’s next question was about the information Levin shared online, especially about his family (like their names), isn’t that real? Yes, said the doctor, but he also shared fantasies.

However, he spoke about abusing his children and implicated his wife as a participant. It was all fantasy, said the doctor, and added that getting the wife involved is not necessarily significant.

After that they discussed the nature of pedophilia and its presence in Levin’s behaviour, repeating quite a lot of the Ruby-Gojer discussion, with Dr. Gojer insisting on the fantasy element. The discussion continued even after a new recess.

Then Ms. Garcia wanted to know whether Levin was aware that he was involved in potentially harmful for children behaviour. He is a very intelligent person and was an educator, who worked with children – wasn’t he aware of the harm? The doctor’s opinion was that Levin was involved in distortion, which even intelligent people could use to justify their behaviour.

The prosecutor asked again if Dr. Gojer explained to Levin the harm of his actions. He replied that Levin was aware of it, but chose to engage anyway. The judge added another question – if the doctor spoke to Levin about the photos where real children are abused. The doctor’s reply was that Levin was minimizing that to subconscious level.

Another document was mentioned by Ms. Garcia – the list of chat members’ profiles maintained by Levin, where he marked some of them as “fake.” In her opinion, it confirmed that not all chats that Levin had were fantasies – he was probably ready to get engaged in contacts with the real members.

At this point Mr. Ruby interrupted the conversation and introduced a notice from the Norwich police in England – they just searched the house of the man Levin met in Amsterdam and didn’t plan to lay charges. Then he asked the doctor a few questions about Levin’s contacts with that man. Dr. Gojer confirmed that in his opinion the incident wasn’t that important and he was not going to change his report because of it.

That concluded the cross-examination of Dr. Gojer.

The hearing continues tomorrow.


© 2015

JDL-Canada to Protest in Toronto against Supporters of the PFLP Terrorists

JDL-Canada is going to hold a counter-protest in Toronto:

Friday  April 17th at 5:30 pm–7:00 pm
Israel Consulate, 180 Bloor Street West, Toronto

It is in response of an event organized by the supporters of the terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) who are holding a protest at the Israeli Consulate in Toronto on Friday April 17th at 6:00 pm. 

The focus of the ‘rally’ is PFLP leader Khalida Jarrar who was recently arrested by the IDF for terror activities. This is a quote from a recent interview with her: “Let all Palestinians share in the popular resistance. It includes everything, stones, molotov cocktails, the boycotting Israel, organising yourself in cooperatives. People’s creativity is much richer than anything I will say to you.”

It should be remembered that the PFLP claimed credit for the Har Nof terror attack in November when Rabbis were hacked to death with butcher knives.

The Jewish Defence League of Canada will hold a counter protest against these PFLP supporters and members. Their counter protest will last one hour and will allow those that keep the Shabbat enough time, because candle lighting time is 7:45pm.

Raise the flags of Canada and Israel. And loudly proclaim Israel is a Jewish State. Click here to join.

I had the “pleasure” of meeting Ms. Jarrar’s daughter Yafa Jarrar during an anti-Semitic rally in 2013. A worthy heir of her terrorist mother, Jarrar Jr. took advantage of the Canadian hospitality to trash our country as a “colonial project”. It seems that is a pattern among Muslims. You can see her talking in the video below (after another demented Muslim, who wants to open the Canadian borders to anybody who shows up):

Mark Harding Has Passed Away



Earlier today, shortly before leaving for the night Orthodox Easter mass at our church, we found out that Mark Harding has passed away on Friday. It was devastating news – Mark was a dear friend, compassionate Christian, great conversationalist and nothing could ever stop him from helping others. At this point it is difficult, or rather impossible, to overcome the pain and write something about his life. Maybe in a few days I will do it in detail.

Let me just say now that what shortened his life and caused his untimely death was his passion to help others. He was one of the first Christian ministers to see the threat of the militant Islam. He didn’t hate Muslims – he saw them as misguided souls in a need of help to get out of their trap. Some of them loved him back and appreciated his efforts, others, and they were the majority, hated him and did everything in their power to destroy him. In 1997, through the efforts of the Muslim fanatics, he was convicted for “hate speech” over criticizing Islam. He was the first significant casualty of the Muslim barbarism in Canada. After his conviction, he was sent for “re-education” to the terrorists of ISNA – the sinister Muslim organization that was caught later financing Muslim terrorism in Pakistan.

The trial ruined his health, but he continued his work with quiet dignity, trying to look into the future instead of lamenting over the past. He was a good man who is survived by a loving family and many friends.


Mark Hardin and friends – in support of Israel



Mark Harding at a rally in support of the Iraqi Christians


Mark Harding with Rob Ford

Mark Harding with his friend Sharon

Mark Harding with his friend Sharon

© 2015

Happy Orthodox Easter!



Happy Orthodox Easter to all readers and friends!

We just came back from the midnight service marking the resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The weather had mercy on us – the horrible cold that gripped Toronto the entire winter is slowly moving away and even the wind and the rain stopped, so we were able to walk around the church at midnight in peace and our lit candles survived the walk. Below you can see pictures from the church, just moments before the service was resumed after midnight.

Not everything was good – shortly before leaving for the church, we received the horrible news that our friend Mark Harding had passed away on Friday. It was a devastating news – he was one of the first victims of the militant Islam in Canada; he was persecuted by Muslim fanatics and their enablers for years. At least we could light candles and pray for his soul at the church.


Another Alleged TDSB Child Pornographer Arrested in Toronto



Meet “coachperv” – that’s the online alias used by the latest addition to the illustrious gallery of sex perverts produced by the flagship organization that controls the education in Toronto. The TDSB has always been active in promoting homosexuality and other “non-traditional” sex practices in their education materials. They are about to implement a new sex curriculum designed in part by the already convicted child pornographer Ben Levin.

The newest alleged member of the “club” has a long history of teaching at TDSB institutions and I am sure that gradually we will learn more about that glorious career. The Toronto Police press release provides us with more details about the alleged crimes (though alleged, they are still despicable and bear a striking resemblance to what Ben Levin did):

On Friday, March 27, 2015, the Toronto Police Sex Crimes Unit – Child Exploitation Section executed a search warrant. A man was arrested during the execution of the warrant.

It is alleged that:

– a man was accessing and saving child sexual abuse images and videos

– the man was authoring child sexual abuse stories for public consumption

Brian Mallette, 50, of Toronto, has been arrested and charged with:

1) two counts of Possession Child Pornography
2) Access Child Pornography

He appeared in court at College Park on Friday, March 27, 2015, 10 a.m., room 501.

He was employed as an occasional teacher with the Toronto District School Board since 2002. He has worked for extended periods at Earl Haig Secondary School, Northern Secondary School and Forest Hill Collegiate Institute. He was also a part-time tutor.

He uses the online handle “coachperv.”

Police believe there may be more victims.

And here he is:

NRPlease check the press release – the police are looking for any additional information about possible victims that Mr. Mallette may have.

Corporate Bums and Temporary Foreign Workers against Canada



One of the few right decisions about the Canadian economy was the recent implementation by the Conservative federal government of time limits for the temporary foreign workers who come to Canada. Starting from April 1, their stay will be fixed at four years – everybody who has exceeded that term will have to leave the country and re-apply a few years later.

I wish I could credit the good will of the Conservatives to support the unemployed Canadian citizens, but alas, this change came only after a big scandal involving corporations and their thirst for cheap labour. A case that brought attention to the situation a few months ago involved the Royal Bank of Canada, one of our largest financial institutions, which concocted a scheme to replace low-level clerks with foreign workers at lower salaries. Of course, everything was perfectly legal and supported by the government laws and policies. That opened a can of worms that still stinks.

Most people in Canada were under the impression that the country imports only skilled workers and specialists, who can’t be found in the country. It suddenly turned out that the policy was a disgusting lie – many businesses and large corporations brought in low-skilled foreign workers to fill positions, for which there are plenty of Canadians with the same qualifications.

Naturally, they didn’t do that out of a desire to elevate Third World people from their poverty – the reasons were more practical and not that noble. The newcomers were expected to work for scab wages, much lower than what the Canadians were expecting. Low labour costs transform into higher profits and more mansions, yachts and pricey cars for the owners and the CEO’s.

One may expect that the trade unions and the lefty “social justice” warriors would be up in arms against that robbery of the Canadian workers. Incredibly, they didn’t react that way. The Left organized numerous protests to try to keep the foreign workers in Canada, oblivious to the fact that the measure hurts the working people. Organizations like “No One Is Illegal” – a collection of demented bums, often quoted by the Toronto Star, who want open borders while considering the Indians supreme masters of Canada (sorry, Turtle Island) – organized noisy protests condemning the callous decision. They conveniently ignored the fact that the large corporations are the ultimate beneficiaries of the status quo.

The CBC journalists jumped on the same bandwagon, trying to make all of us feel guilty:

“A Calgary immigration lawyer says changes to the temporary foreign workers program could affect everyday Albertans as early as this week.

“You might find that your service is diminished. You go to a Tim Hortons and all of sudden your lineup doubles,” said Peter Wong of Caron & Partners LLP.

Wong has dozens of clients who — come Wednesday — could be forced to get on a plane and go home.

“They’re scared; they can’t sleep at night,” said Wong.”

Hand me the tissue, Mr. Wong, I am going to cry! The immigration lawyers are some of the lowest in the profession – the immorality of depriving Canadians from work when foreigners are imported indiscriminately, is beyond their grasp. So that’s how Tim Hortons has become one of the largest food corporations in the world with billionaire owners. Here is a novel idea, Timmy – why don’t you pay normal wages that would attract Canadian people instead of importing all those foreigners? And that’s quite a threat – if we don’t let them in, the waiting lines will double.

And to show the “devastating consequences” of the cold-hearted Conservative decision, the CBC throws in the obligatory sob story:

That will be too late for Michele Quiyan, who works at a fast-food restaurant in Calgary and sends almost her entire paycheque home to her family in Manila every month.

“My son and husband were deeply dreaming about living here, in Canada,” a tearful Quiyan told CBC Calgary.

Her colleague, Alvin Sacluti has been working in the city for nearly eight years and also faces deportation in the next few weeks.

“We are still praying. We are still hopeful,” said Sacluti.

Wong says there are very few options for TFWs like Quiyan and Sacluti, except to apply for another four-year permit and wait to be formally rejected from Ottawa.

He says legally, they do not have to leave the country until they receive that letter.

Surely, Mr. Wong knows how to circumvent the law legally. And why not – the “dreamers” are paying for that. And probably many other parasitic organizations operating in that field are already lobbying Justin Trudeau to let anybody who desires so to stay in Canada.

The idea of a government in a democratic country is to serve and protect its citizens, not to take in everybody who shows up at the door, but, in Justin’s dreamy world, there are no bad people and no one is illegal…

© 2015

Facing Anti-Semitism – Israel Advocacy Training in Toronto



The unprecedented rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and North America is a troubling phenomenon. Even the most optimistic Polyannas among the Jews and their supporters now grudgingly admit that something must be wrong. This is not the crude anti-Semitism of Adolf Hitler, which pictured the Jews as degenerates, who don’t deserve to live, on the contrary – the new anti-Semitism is more sophisticated. It allows the Jews to exist (as long as they behave as expected), but it masks itself as a concern for “social justice” and “equality” and rejects on that ground the Jewish national ideology and the policies of Israel. The feasibility of the Jewish state is questioned and the only solution to the conflicts in the area is seen in surrender and creating one or two states, where Jews and Arabs will live together as a big happy family.

The worst part is that many believe in these utopian dreams – if only Israel frees a few more Arab terrorists from its jails or gives away another big piece of land or introduces even stricter controls over the Jews walking on Temple Mount, the harmony they yearn for would be within their reach. Though those delusions are shared by the Israeli Left, their most ardent proponents are Westerners, who know very little about the brutal realities of the Middle East. Of course, there are also those who know the reality very well, but deliberately try to destroy Israel through weakening the country. Regardless of the motivation, both groups will eventually cause the same result – and it won’t be different from what Hitler did.

During the last couple of years, we have witnessed the horrific consequences of the brutal forces of Islam unleashed by the “Arab Spring.” Hundreds of thousands of Christians, Yazidis and even other Muslims have been exterminated or misplaced. We don’t hear about killed Jews, because those have been killed or expelled from most Muslim countries long time ago and Israel, with its experience in self-defence, is a nut that even the most fanatical Muslim barbarians would find impossible to crack.

In the times when the Jews in Western Europe are persecuted and even killed, the demise of Israel would mean that we may witness a catastrophe comparable with what happened during World War II. Under such conditions, the attacks against Israel – military or ideological – become more and more obviously part of an overall anti-Semitic strategy.

That makes the defense of Israel important, not just for the Jews, but also for all who don’t want to live in a world dominated by chaos and barbarism. Part of that defense is the advocacy on behalf of Israel with the purpose to confront the piles of lies and deception about the country.

Such advocacy training was held last Sunday at the Village Shul in Toronto, organized by Robert Walker.


Robert Walker

It was a long event, which took seven hour of the afternoon – from 2 to 9 p.m. – and included activists with first-hand experience in those issues.

The first speaker was Richard Bass, who is a teacher of philosophy and author of the book “Israel in World Relations,” which presents a comprehensive historical analysis of the Jewish state and its place among other countries. I listened to him for the first time last year at the Mark Vandermaas’ Israel Truth Week Conference. Bass discussed at the time the flaws of the two-state solution from political and geographical point of view (I should post the video of it).

In this presentation he discussed his new Israel advocacy initiative – he created a course taught at schools called “Israel Palestine for Critical Thinkers” (he noted that he used the term Palestine as a traditional descriptive name of the area and not in the sense used by the supporters of the “one state” solution). The course is supposed to provide Israel advocates with philosophical and logical background when they face critics of Israel.

In his view, it is important to evaluate the claims of those critics and determine whether they are based on facts or purely on emotions. You can have a discussion only if a person’s claims are based on facts (even if incomplete or misrepresented). It is important to clarify that point before starting the discussion and reach some common ground on the issue of what both sides consider to be a fact (theological, historical, etc.). If the person’s position is based on emotion or an irrational belief, there is no point to argue, it would be a waste of time.

Ricard Bass gave an example with an article of the Palestinian high court judge Taysir Tamimi, who claimed that the Jews have no historical ties with Jerusalem. He has given the same example to many audiences and in many cases, while they intuitively know that it is not true, they have difficulties refuting it with specific facts. The statement could be questioned through many approaches, like the Torah, records of contemporary historians, archeological artifacts or even the Koran itself – if the Jews had never lived in Jerusalem, that jeopardizes many statements and rules in the Koran, which are closely related to the universally accepted Jewish history. The important part is to choose your approach according to the opponent’s way of thinking.


Richard Bass

The second speaker was Mark Vandermaas – a veteran from the Caledonia struggle for the rule of law, where, along with Gary McHale, he opposed an illegal occupation by native extremists supported by the police. He is also the founder of the Israel Truth Week. His presentation at the training covered the Mandate for Palestine, with which the British were entrusted by the League of Nations in 1922 and its purpose was to prepare the land for establishing a Jewish state or a national home for the Jews (as it was also called in the Balfour Declaration).

He called this important document “land title deed” of the Jewish people, which recognized internationally their rights over the land of Israel. Though the document is often ignored, it is still valid and hasn’t been refuted or invalidated by any organization. It gives the Jews the right to consider themselves owners of the lands west of River Jordan. Several countries in Africa, Asia and Polynesia had been created as a result of such mandates, so denying the same right of the Jewish people is based on anti-Semitism.

Mark’s presentation was divided into two parts – first he covered the mandate and the legal rights and in the second part (in the end of the training) he explained in detail how to use the information to affirm Israel’s position and refute the claims that the Jews are occupiers in their land. It is necessary to make that knowledge sink into the minds of people before trying to find a solution to the current problems in the Middle East.


Mark Vandermaas

The schedule was quite busy – after Mark’s talk we had a short break and then had to choose among three presentations in three different locations – Frank Dimant (Christians United for Israel Canada, on how to be a trustworthy advocate), Sara Zeldman (from The E-Marketing Maven, on social media advocacy). I attended the third one – Meryle Kates from StandWithUs Canada, which was about one of my favourite themes, the campus anti-Semitism and advocacy. Over all the years I have been writing about the topic, I have witnessed first-hand those problems at the Toronto universities. My prime never-ending source of material has always been York University, which is a microcosm showing clearly what’s wrong with the Canadian academia.


Meryle Kates (right) with Zina Rakhamilova

One of the goals of StandWithUs is to combat the campus anti-Semitism through education and popularize the achievements of the Jewish state, which is not an easy task considering the enormous efforts of campus Muslim and leftist organizations to distort and mar the image of Israel. In the picture below you see the booklets, cards and other materials that are published and distributed by the organization, in addition to organizing lectures, conferences and other similar events.

Israel-Advocacy-Stand-with-Us-MaterialsMeryle brought with her two students – Zina Rakhamilova (who already graduated), who is a campus coordinator of StandWithUs, and another one who shall remain unnamed, because he is still attending York University. They both covered in detail the profoundly anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic atmosphere at the university, which makes the lives of the Jewish students difficult. It is customary that the Student Union doesn’t allow Jewish students at meetings where Israel-related issues are discussed. Not surprisingly, many members of the audience were shocked – they had no idea that such things could happen in Canada.

One of Zina’s examples of intimidation was a huge painting placed in a common area, which shows a young Palestinian clutching a rock behind his back, ready to throw it against the “aggressor.” Naturally, he is wearing a scarf with a small map showing the whole Israel as a Palestinian territory. Oddly enough, the artist sees that as an expression of “justice” and “peace” (the Arabs must have strange values).

anti-jewish-art-york-universityI remember the painting very well – at one of my visits in late 2013 a few Jewish students took me to the common area to see it. It is an area controlled by the Student Union, so the administration claims that they can’t do anything about it – it is a free speech issue. The place is always crowded due to the many fast food joints in that part of the building. You can’t find pork there; in fact it is common to see scary Muslimas dressed in black sitting at the tables, who lift their face masks from below with greasy fingers to put in their mouths pieces of Popeye’s halal chicken.

Talking of Muslimas, last month the Muslim Student Association (a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood) held a Muslim awareness week at York University.

Bear in mind that the purpose of the event was to make Islam look attractive. Yet the best they could come up with was a bunch of Muslim girls dressed like unemployed ninjas handing out the booklet “Women in Islam.” As you can see in my post about the event, that notorious booklet provides valuable tips on how to discipline unruly wives by beating them.


The friendly face of Islam at York University

Canadian universities have deteriorated, haven’t they? Once the forefront of progress, now they are places where primitive barbarians promote their misogynist propaganda. I am sure that at York the phrase “primitive barbarians” would be deemed “racist.” But what other description could you apply to people, who go against every Canadian value? And in that environment the Jews have it worse, because they are despised and destined for extermination in the Muslim end times (see Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176).

After another break, we had the pleasure to hear the keynote speaker of the event – Ezra Levant. His trademark manner of discussing even the most controversial issues openly and boldly, without a hint of political correctness, kept the audience captive for nearly an hour.


Ezra Levant is about to speak

You can watch the whole presentation in the video below, but let me just mention that Levant covered a wide array of issues, all revolving around Islam, anti-Semitism and their misrepresentation in the media. He bluntly stated that the “media party” stubbornly refuses to identify the Muslim extremism as one of the main causes of the new anti-Semitism. The lack of action has made the situation in Europe, especially in France, almost hopeless. The least we can do is to screen the Muslims immigrating to Canada for extremist connections.

After a break, we had again three different speakers in three locations – Christine Williams (International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, on Christian Zionists and anti-Zionists); Steve McDonald (The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, on tips for pro-Israel communication). I went to the third one – Georganne Burke (The Pathway Group, on how to lobby for Israel). She covered the practical details of lobbying politicians and organizations on Jewish issues. It’s quite a complicated process, where you need to watch how you are dressed; what kind of smile you show; matching your message to the personality and interests of the specific politician, etc.

The next speaker was Vivienne Ziner, an activist involved in many organizations (but at the training she represented the Israeli news agency Tazpit). She gave a really passionate speech, which she started by reading her son’s very interesting essay “Zionism is Humanism”:

“Many try to depict Zionism as a worldwide conspiracy, using the same primitive Anti-Semitic rhetoric used in the blood libels, the pogroms and the Holocaust and masquerading it behind a new façade. Many try to posit that Zionism is an imperialist and colonialist movement which revolves around an underlying desire for more and more land to be absorbed into the borders of Israel. Any empirical evidence completely substantiates the contrary; Israel’s borders have only shrunk over the years. In fact, Zionists are not interested in more land but in having their land respected. They are tired of the double standards, of the disputes pertaining to their homeland’s legitimacy and their right to inhabit it. They want boundaries they can feel secure within and they want to stop being bombarded with rockets by one of several terrorist organizations who simply feel the need to maintain the popular Jew-hating image that they have gained so much traction with.”


Vivienne Ziner

She had a few harsh words for those who avoid being involved in important issues and this let the destructive anti-Semitic forces advance with little resistance.

She was followed by the unexpected appearance of Reverend Majed El-Shafie, an internationally known Christian activist, who just came from Iraq. He visited the turbulent area to find ways to save Yazidi women and girls from violence and death with the help of the Canadian government.


Reverend Majed El-Shafie

The next speaker was the psychologist from Yale University Rimma Teper, who covered the psychological basis of persuasion and its relation to advocacy. Through examples of various psychological experiments, she outlined the effective methods of persuading people to accept your point of view. The message must be tailored to the way of thinking and the life experience of the person you are communicating with.


Rimma Teper

As I mentioned earlier, Mark Vandermaas concluded the training with the second part of his presentation on how to use practically the facts about the Mandate for Palestine to affirm their rights over the land of Israel.

It was a truly good event, where the over 200 attendees learned many things that they will be using in the future.

© 2015

1 2 3 4 86