Rob Ford for Mayor 2014 Campaign Launched in Toronto

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Thousands of people gathered earlier today at the Toronto Congress Centre to help launch Mayor Rob Ford’s re-election campaign for the 2014 Toronto mayoral race.

Rob Ford speaks

Rob Ford speaks

The event was scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m., but the crowd started to line up shortly after 4 p.m. and by the time the doors opened there were already many people waiting. As with every event involving Rob Ford, the attendees resembled a true rainbow of every race and ethnicity living in Toronto.


It’s 5 o’clock

The first 1,000 people received free t-shirts from the campaign. There were also drinks and food. Since that was also a fundraiser, the organizers had for sale, along with the usual buttons and stickers, a large number of the Rob Ford bobbleheads.




The bobblehead crew


The bobblehead boxes




…and the bobbleheads themselves

There was even a fire truck decorated with Rob Ford’s slogans.


A band played rock music for the most of the evening. The crowd met with applause the great George Chuvalo, who appeared for a few minutes onstage.


George Chuvalo meets Ford Nation

After that Doug Ford, who is the manager of the campaign, talked for a while, introducing the platform of Rob Ford.


Doug Ford speaks


Waiting for Rob Ford


Two of Ford’s fans

Rob Ford made a spectacular entrance – the crowd of supporters, volunteers and security, which surrounded him, was led by a band of bagpipers. It took them some time to reach the scene. His speech was interrupted many times by cries of support.


Rob Ford and Ford Nation


The supporters


In his speech Ford explained that he was determined to run for the mayor’s office again. He didn’t miss the opportunity to take a jibe at the media for throwing mud at him. He expressed the hope that his supporters believe in giving second chances. Ford emphasized that it has been very difficult to fulfill his promises to cut spending at City Hall because of the fierce resistance – however, that was the job that he was elected to do. The respect for the taxpayers was a principle standing above anything else.

He also explained that he served everybody, not the elites or some special interest groups. His message really resonated with the huge crowd.

Unfortunately, I am absolutely sure that the media is going to ignore the event or attempt to present it as some gathering of idiots, who don’t know how excellent the mayoral candidates that the elites have chosen for them are.

In the car on our way back we listened to a radio station covering the event. One of the journalists condescendingly explained that Ford was peddling the same stale message about respect for taxpayers and saving money. The Canadian media class is truly clueless – for most of us saving on taxes is an issue that is always important. If you can’t understand that, you can’t understand Rob Ford’s appeal. The media could peddle any flamboyant candidacy, which could get a standing ovation at a gay bar, but won’t excite anybody who actually works for a living.

Here is a short video with the highlights from the campaign’s launch:


© 2014

JDL-Canada to Protest “Palestinian Political Prisoners” Day on April 17

On Thursday, April 17, 2014, at 4:30 p.m. JDL-Canada and the Toronto Zionist Council organize a joint protest against an event in front of the Israeli Consulate in Toronto – demonstration in support of the “Palestinian political prisoners.”

The Israeli prisons “host” many Arabs, who have been involved in terrorism, murder and other types of violence. As an element of the demonization propaganda against Israel, those criminals have been lauded for decades by PLO and Hamas as “freedom fighters” against the evil “Zionist regime.” They and their families have been paid by those organizations millions of dollars in salaries – a practice which encourages even more terrorism.

Since PLO and Hamas never bothered to develop an economy, all the money for the terrorists comes from gullible foreign donors like Canada, USA, Japan and the European Union.

In an effort to revive the stillborn “peace process” Obama and Kerry shamelessly pressured Israel to release thousands of Arab murderers. The anti-Semitic organizations wholeheartedly support that disgrace.

The event on Thursday is part of a week-long propaganda effort to whitewash the Arab terrorism in Israel. As you can see in their poster below, the series is sponsored by a whole rainbow of anti-Semitic organizations, among which are the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid and Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. The presence of the self-hating idiots from Independent Jewish Voices does nothing to lend legitimacy to the Jew-hating event targeting the people in Israel.


Here is the announcement from the website of JDL-Canada:

APRIL 14, 2014




AT 5:00 PM.






FROM 4:30 PM TO 6:00 PM








For more information please contact:

JDL Canada | (416) 736-7000 | |

788 Marlee Ave., Suite 207

Toronto, M6B 3K1


Toronto Homosexuals Rally in Support of Public Nudity at the Gay Parade

Do you remember when the Toronto District School Board was an institution that took care of the schools and promoted high academic standards and competitiveness among students? If you do, you are probably too old.

For the last two decades that institution had switched its priorities. Academic standards mean nothing. Whether your kid is going to learn something useful that will help in the future development is irrelevant. All that matters now at TDSB is ridiculously formulated social justice; instilling guilt in all kids, who are not coloured enough; helping kids to figure out to which of the nine genders they belong; promoting every imaginable form of sexual perversion under the form of “diversity.”

The homosexual grooming is applied in full force by creating the notorious Gay-Straight Alliances (mandatory for all schools) that promote homosexuality. The annual gay parade is promoted as a major event that is suitable for all students – from kindergarten to the final high school grade. Of course, the homosexuals are free to organize any events with any degree of depravity, as long as they keep the children out, but that is not the case in Toronto.

Due to our corrupt media, nobody takes this seriously to protect the children. The TDSB social engineers simply ignore the issues and try to trample any opinion that is different. It is a miracle that one of trustees raised his voice against that depravity. Sam Sotiropoulos simply asked that the TDSB honour its obligations to children by withdrawing from the gay parade, if it continues to encourage public exhibitionism, which is illegal in Ontario.

However, in the gay-dominated Ontario even such a simple request is considered “homophobic” (children be damned). The homosexual activists organized today a rally against the TDSB meeting, during which he was going to urge them to to withdraw from the parade, if the exhibitionism continues. About 10 people showed up, but he event was covered by every major TV station in Toronto.


It didn’t matter that he was right. It didn’t matter that the homosexual exhibitionists violated several sections of the Criminal Code:



… / 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.

(3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.

[R.S., c.C-34, s.170.]



… / 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,

(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or

(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of a right or by invitation, express or implied.

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a summary conviction court may infer from the evidence of a peace officer relating to the conduct of a person or persons, whether ascertained or not, that a disturbance described in paragraph (1)(a) or (d) was caused or occurred.

[R.S., c.C-34, s.171; 1972, c.13, s.11; 1974-75-76, c.93, s.9.]

Poor Sotiropoulos didn’t know that the Code means nothing in Toronto. It is trumped by a very simple rule: if anything goes against the homosexual agenda, it should be discarded.

That’s what happened today:

A motion to ask the city of Toronto to clarify whether public nudity laws will be enforced at gay pride is voted down. In addition, TDSB education director Donna Quan condones public nudity at the gay pride parade because it has been a tradition at the parade.

A motion to re-affirm the TDSB’s commitment to the gay pride parade is passed. Trustees Sam Sotiropoulos, Harout Manougian, and David Smith opposed it.

It has also been confirmed that the TDSB’s participation in the gay pride parade will cost over $8,000 this year.

Rejoice, Toronto – we will be spending even more money on that monstrosity and the TDSB board overwhelmingly has chosen to support perversion.

© 2014


Ezra Levant on Trial – Day 8 – Closing Time

On April 7, 2014, the lawyers of both sides of Ezra Levant’s libel trial presented their closing arguments.

As you may expect, the lawyer painted quite different pictures of the conflict. In the presentation of Brian Shiller and Angela Chaisson, Khurrum Awan’s lawyers, Ezra Levant emerged as some kind of an evil and malicious game master, who single-handedly decided to destroy the human rights commissions, those bastions of social justice in Canada. In his wicked quest Levant is willing and ready to trample anybody and anything that may stop him. Unfortunately, his victims became the bright student Awan and the distinguished organization Canadian Islamic Congress, which, despite its founder’s statement that Jews in Israel are a fair target for killing, is not anti-Semitic, because its contributions were appreciated by Dalton McGuinty HIMSELF. As a result, Awan’s life was shattered and he allocated half of his family income to start a lawsuit to clear his reputation from the damage done by the devious Ezra.

Iain McKinnon, on the other hand, lacked the passion of Shiller and Chaisson and presented a chronological description of the conflict intended to show that the comments made by Levant were justified.

Brian Shiller started by saying that Ezra Levant may believe that this is a case of freedom of speech, but it is not. The case is about false statements he made about Mr. Awan. From what we learned about Levant’s views, it looks like he thought Awan was involved in several conflicts of interest.

He thought that Awan was a Muslim fundamentalist, who used our court system to advance his goals. Levant tried to distance himself from bigotry and Islamophobia – he testified that he had many Muslim friends. Nenshi, the Mayor of Calgary, was one of them, but that didn’t stop him from calling Nenshi bigoted. The idea that the Muslims are taking over the world and somebody should stop them is racist.

Levant’s second mission is to abolish the human rights commissions. Here he sees again Muslims, who try to use those commissions to achieve their goals. That obsessive attention is seen in the timing of the events: in 2008 Ezra Levant was dealing with his human rights case in Calgary; in March 2008 he wrote a rant on his blog attacking the human rights commission and the lawyer G. Vigna. The rant contained defamatory statements. Three months later he went after Awan.

Levant’s attack on the judicial process in the HRC was based only on Awan’s case with Maclean’s magazine and demanded that they be abolished. He thinks that the commissions are run by leftists and follow no rules.

He has the right to say those things – we live in a democratic and free society, which guarantees free speech even for the most repugnant views. However, the case is not about free speech – it is about whether the statements about Awan are factual.

Awan was an impressive student. Nothing in his writings proves that he is a radical Muslim or an anti-Semite. He didn’t breach the rules of professional conduct. He is not a serial liar.

Ezra Levant relies on the fair comment defense. Levant compared in his writings Awan to Arafat. The latter had different messages to different audiences when he spoke in Arabic or English. Since Awan was doing the same, stated Levant, it was no wonder he couldn’t find a job.

On another occasion Levant called the Muslim students “little Al Sharptons.” He also accused Awan of using taqiyya to deceive non-Muslims in an affirmative language. This is an attack on the whole Muslim community and is racist. The same applies to the remark about the “mutually acceptable” offer for a Muslim author to write a rebuttal in Maclean’s Magazine. When discussing the issue Levant should’ve formulated it differently to be eligible for the fair comment defense.

Another statement was that Awan was a co-counsel for Mohamed Elmasry – Levant stated that as a fact, it was not a comment. He had no reason to make it. Then it gets worse, when speaking about the hearing in British Columbia, Levant called Awan a witness and drew the conclusion that he was in a conflict of interest as a counsel and a witness. This is a statement of fact, but it is not based in reality and thus it is not a fair comment.

Every commentary must be based on facts. From that point of view, conflict of interest is a serious defamation.

Another statement was that Mr. Joseph was going to hire Awan. Joseph had nothing to do with the firm that hired Awan. So the alleged conflict of interest in this case is even worse defamation. The co-counsel accusation was wrong. Levant was incorrect to say that Awan was going to work for Joseph. He could’ve checked the facts.

The anti-Semitism issue – Levant claimed that the CIC was an anti-Semitic organization. He failed to prove that. Awan was not a member of CIC, Levant used that term, which was incorrect. He was the leader of CIC’s youth organization. Levant didn’t say directly that Awan was an anti-Semite, he hinted at it through innuendo.

Ezra Levant called CIC anti-Semitic in his blog and called Awan their protégé, so a reasonable person would conclude that Awan is an anti-Semite. It was false to claim that Felton was a friend of Awan, they met only at the hearing in British Columbia.

Anti-Semitism is a serious accusation, but Levant had no facts to accuse Awan. Hate damages the reputation of a professional – this is an aggravated damage.

Elmasry made the statement about the Jews in Israel as being a fair target for assassination on the Michael Coren show, but he apologized and he is not the defendant here. It is difficult to determine if he is an anti-Semite.

CIC received letters thanking it for its contributions from distinguished public figures. One of them was the Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (at this point the audience burst into laughter; Shiller turned around and said that McGuinty was a Premier for 10 years – that caused a new round of laughter).

True, CIC has said things about taking Hamas and Hezbollah out of the terrorist list, but that’s not all to them, CIC has done many positive things. It is ridiculous to compare CIC to KKK – CIC has no anti-Jewish agenda.

The statement that Awan is a liar – there is no reason to think that he is a liar. Such a statement will create an erroneous impression in a reasonable person. Awan didn’t make any demands for money after the initial meeting. The comparison to Al Sharpton was an unfair accusation – Sharpton used to sue and get money for himself, which in Awan’s case is an unfair comment.

Ezra Levant accused Awan of perjury for allegedly lying on the witness stand in British Columbia. He called Awan a malicious lawyer, which is a very strong statement that makes Awan look outrageous. Levant had the responsibility to correct the record about Awan, but because of his hatred for him he didn’t, especially when you consider his activism against the human rights commissions. So, none of the defences applies her, because we have malicious intent.

The Vigna case shows how he uses people to attack the human right commissions. Presenting Awan as a fascist, anti-Semitic Muslim, who would take over the world and use taqiyya.

The real goal of Ezra Levant was to take down the human rights commissions and he has no regard for the truth. He wants to demonize those commissions.

He had no intention to check the facts and when covering the British Columbia hearing, he typed as fast as possible. Levant should’ve corrected the facts about Awan on his blog.

In the case of his response to Awan’s letter to Toronto Star, Levant published things about Awan out of spite and hatred. This was not an isolated incident – he wrote outrageous things about the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner Jennifer Lynch and also made fun of Awan.

Awan is not a liar and anti-Semite, he worked hard in his career, but he has to clear his name. He wants to challenge the hate and restore his reputation.

Then the second lawyer of Awan – Angela Chaisson – took the stand to address the damage done to her client. The damages that the plaintiff suffered exceeded $100,000. Levant’s publications hurt his reputation. According to her, it was touching to listen to Awan’s testimony about the impact of Levant’s defamation on his life.

Awan will never know how many job offers and opportunities he lost because of Levant’s writings. When you look up Awan’s name in search engines, the results that pop up still paint him as an anti-Semite and a liar. Because of that he wasn’t able to enter the law profession with a clean slate.

Ezra Levant’s outrageous conduct damaged Awan’s reputation even after the lawsuit started. Levant was pursuing a campaign against the human rights commissions and Awan became a part of it.

Because of that it is necessary to award punitive damages as well, as a deterrent from future actions.

Ezra Levant never corrected his errors. He treated Awan differently from other people he wrote about. There was definitely malice in his behaviour. Compared to the damages in the Vigna case (where the amount of $25,000 was awarded), here the situation is much more serious. Awan’s reputation was completely destroyed. He will never have back the years he spent under attack, while trying to clear his name. He even had to put the building of his family on hold to pursue the lawsuit against Levant – one of the family salaries had to go toward covering the legal costs.

That ended the closing statements of Awan’s lawyers.

Iain McKinnon, Ezra Levant’s lawyer, was the next to talk.

He explained that the best way to explain the case was through following the timeline of the events. This approach will show that the comments made by Ezra Levant are justifiable.

In 2004 Awan started his community service at CIC and later he got scholarship from them. He testified on behalf of the organization at the House of Commons on issues like terrorism, same-sex marriage, human rights, etc.

He was so effective that they appointed him a leader of the CIC youth organization. Whether he was a formal CIC member didn’t matter much – he was heavily involved in the work of CIC and the promotion of their platform.

Awan claimed in his testimony that he ended his ties with CIC in 2008, which was not true. In 2009 he was offered an editorial board position in the newly-founded by Elmasry Canadian Charger magazine. He also introduced Elmasry at the magazine’s fundraiser.

When Mohamed Elmasry made his anti-Semitic remarks that every Jew in Israel over 18 is a fair target for murder, the video spread widely. Awan claimed that he had never seen what Elmasry said, which is unconceivable.

In 2006 Elmasry wrote an article, in which he compared the Israeli government policies to the South African apartheid regime. These are facts. They are the basis, on which everybody could determine that CIC and Elmasry held anti-Semitic views. The comment that somebody is an anti-Semite is an opinion that a person draws from the activities of people or organizations.

In 2006 B’nai B’rith issued a press release criticizing Elmasry.

Then CIC issued another press release, which called for removing Hamas and Hezbollah from the Canadian government list of terrorist organizations. Awan said that he never saw that press release, which is also inconceivable. People with such views open themselves to comments expressing honest opinion.

After that the Mclean’s controversy started. In March 2007 the three students demanded editorial control over an issue of the magazine to counter the alleged “Islamophobic” writings published previously. In April 2007 Awan filed a complaint against the magazine with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Soon after that Elmasry filed his complaint with the human rights commission of British Columbia, which is basically identical with the complaint filed by Awan. The latter most likely also wrote the B.C. complaint, which makes him a co-author.

A few months later Elmasry filed the Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint, which was also identical with the original Awan complaint. Again, that makes him an author.

During the proceedings about the complaints, Whyte from Maclean’s stated that the students wanted to publish in the magazine five-page article by author of their choice.

Awan also started a media campaign in 2007, which consisted of series of press releases and letters to newspapers. In a letter to the Globe and Mail, published in December 2007, he mentioned that the students demanded from Maclean’s the publication of an article by a mutually acceptable author. After that more letters followed, stating the “mutually agreeable” claim.

When Ezra Levant called Awan a “serial liar” he was referring to the “mutually agreeable author” claim, which was repeated many times in publications by Awan, but was refuted by Awan himself when he testified at the British Columbia hearing and said it was not true.

At the same hearing Ezra Levant saw Awan assisting Elmasry and Joseph – and his impression might be right. Awan might have sat at the counsel table and the comment by Levant reflects the impression that he assisted Joseph.

Awan was criticized by other journalists and columnists, Ezra Levant wasn’t the only one. Those pieces were published in major newspapers. It is strange that Awan claims that he never saw those publications.

The article by Felton in Canadian Arab News is a similar issue – it quoted Awan saying that the human rights complaints made the costs of criticizing Islam very high. Awan denies that he said those words, yet he never contacted the paper or Felton to correct the inaccuracy. The attempt to discredit the article on the basis that Felton is a conspiracy theorist, who can’t be trusted, is not convincing. There is no reason to doubt that he would cover correctly his conversation with Awan.

Another important issue to determine is the reputation damage done to Awan.

Awan was not always the topic of Levant’s writings – often he was just mentioned in passing. For example, the “little Al Sharptons” remark was a very short part in a paragraph from a post that dealt with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

The same could be said about other charges – on one occasion Levant quoted an Australian blogger about Awan.

When we look at the blog after the British Columbia hearing, it is clear that Awan was mentioned by Levant in very few posts and only in passing. Then for over six months Awan wasn’t mentioned at all. Later Awan was talked about only briefly in Levant’s book “Shakedown.”

Then Awan came back by writing a letter to the Toronto Star in response to an article by Ezra Levant. The article deals with Israel and the Canadian Jewish Congress and briefly mentions Muslim groups that harass people with pro-Jewish views. It didn’t mention Awan at all.

Awan claimed that after the Maclean’s case he kept his head low, yet he wrote a letter about an article, where he is not even cited. His entire letter is about the Maclean’s case – he is poking Ezra Levant, calling his position “Islamophobic” without any proof. So Levant responded in his blog.

Awan is doing the same thing with his lawsuit – he claims that all he wants is peaceful life, yet he brings even more attention to himself and his past.

Awan never contacted Ezra Levant to correct his posts. This is in stark contrast with Maclean’s, where he asked for correction of their position. Ezra Levant has done corrections to his posts when asked. Awan testified that he thought Levant was unreasonable, that’s why he never gave him a chance before launching his libel lawsuit.

Awan said he put his family life on hold for the lawsuit. However, despite the claims, he has been employed by a top law firm, his life hasn’t been destroyed. He even was chosen as one of the 40 promising professionals in Saskatchewan. Nothing of what Ezra Levant wrote about him had impact on Awan’s life.

Ezra Levant’s blog posts have a low reach compared to the publications of the mainstream media. Also, there is no evidence that Awan had job applications denied because of those writings.

In the original claim Awan even stated that he had been shunned by friends over the writings of Levant. He later dropped that statement.

Mr. Shiller said previously that this was like in the Vigna case, but it is incorrect. Vigna was a human rights lawyer and wasn’t involved in public disputes the way Awan was.

Mr. Shiller laso said that Ezra Levant called Awan anti-Semite. McKinnon didn’t think he did, but if he did, he would be right – Awan was closely aligned with an organization that had anti-Semitic views. The issue was not whether he shared their opinions, but that a reasonable person can make the same conclusion after observing his association with such an organization.

That concluded Iain McKinnon’s closing arguments.

Then Brian Shiller took the stand again and addressed emotionally a few issues in MvKinnon’s arguments. Among other remarks, he said that the complaints to the three human rights commissions were identical, because some people chose to copy the Ontario claim, which covered similar issues. Also, the work Awan did for the CIC was a community service mandated by his college.

That was the last presentation by the lawyer, after which the judge left.

I guess now we have to wait patiently for her decision. It is difficult to guess what that decision might be. One thing is sure – Khurrum Awan definitely didn’t experience a catastrophe that destroyed his life. It would be an offense to other real victims, if Justice Matheson takes his claims seriously and convicts Ezra Levant. However, in our politically correct society, where the human rights commissions managed to establish the paradigm that all views held by a member of a minority are unquestionable, it gets harder and harder to get real justice.


© 2014


Shameless: Olivia Chow Relies on Votes from China to Win Toronto Mayoral Election

With the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to say again that I think most Canadian politicians are pathetic vote whores, who could easily trample ethics and decency in the name of getting a few more special interest votes. Just a few days ago Justin Trudeau sent a welcome letter to the anti-Semitic hatemonger Reza Aslan and the organization that invited him to speak.

It is hard to believe it is possible, but Olivia Chow managed to stoop to an even lower level. She didn’t just go to some multicultural ghetto and pander to them her platform; she solicited votes from residents of the People’s Republic of China. Her drive for votes targeted Hong Kong, which, though formally a “special administrative region,” is still part of communist China.

The paper South China Morning Post, which seems to adore their Hong Kong woman in Canada (“…Chow, 57, who is one of Canada’s most prominent ethnic Chinese politicians”), dedicated an article to her plea for votes.

Toronto mayoral candidate Olivia Chow has urged tens of thousands of Torontonians living in Hong Kong to help end the “embarrassment” of having Rob Ford as leader of Canada’s biggest city.

Chow, whose family migrated from Hong Kong to Canada when she was 13, told the South China Morning Post on Tuesday that Toronto residents living in Hong Kong shared the “sense of shame” that came from having a crack-smoking mayor.

The Chinese paper fails to mention that a very large part of the Torontonians share the “sense of shame” from the antics of Jack and Olivia, the happy-go-lucky royal couple of the Canadian socialism, which never found a bizarre social program or stupid progressive cause that was not worthy of wasting taxpayers’ dollars on.

As an old NDP fox Olivia knows exactly what she is doing, there are plenty of votes to be gained in the Chinese megapolis due to our ridiculous election laws:

It is unclear how many Canadians in Hong Kong are eligible to vote in Toronto’s elections. However, a 2010 survey conducted by the Asia Pacific Foundation suggested there were about 295,000 Canadian citizens in the SAR, most of them returnee immigrants. Since a large majority of Hong Kong emigrants settle in either Toronto or Vancouver, a conservative estimate of the number of Torontonians in Hong Kong would reach more than 100,000.

Shame, shame, shame, Olivia…

So Hong Kong has 295,000 Canadian citizens of convenience, who got their passports and quickly disappeared to make money and pay taxes to China. They don’t give a damn about Canada. They will remember our country only if China decides to do something unpleasant in Hong Kong. Then we will hear a lot of whining and demands to be brought back to Canada by the Canadian government. And everything will be paid from the taxes of the people, who still see Canada as their homeland.

How can somebody who lives in Hong Kong be considered “Torontonian”?!?!

How can somebody, who spit on my country and went to live in China, have a say on how to govern Toronto?

When you solicit votes from foreigners, you must promise something in return. And, as a “shrewd” politician, Olivia gives the promise:

Chow said her primary message to potential voters in Hong Kong was that they should participate. “Toronto is your city too. You may want to come back to retire or invest … You want to be proud of your city,” she said.

Olivia, you continue to give away our money to everybody, who shows up at the border. Toronto is NOT their city. So you find it normal that they can come back and take advantage of our social and health services without having contributed a dime into building and financing them.

This is really despicable – I have yet to see a Canadian politician who would actively seek votes from a foreign country.

Olivia, whom do you serve? Canada or China?

If you really love Canada, you must offer a platform that benefits all Canadians, not some foreign entity. You may think Rob Ford is a brute that offends your “highly artistic” personality, but his message is very simple and straightforward and he doesn’t differentiate the voters by ethnicity and doesn’t prostitute himself for votes.

If it is so important to accommodate the Chinese voters, who abandoned Canada, you may consider starting a new political career in Hong Kong. I am sure the Communist Party of China will embrace your vast experience in wealth redistribution.

After the blogger Blazingcatfur made this article public in Canada, many of his readers openly expressed their displeasure with the unethical behavior of Ms. Chow. That didn’t escape the attention of South China Morning Post, which published another article mocking their opinions. (What is more natural than a Chinese newspaper telling Torontonians what to think? And they even threw in an Olivia Chow campaign ad.)

Supporters of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford have lashed out at his Hong Kong-born challenger Olivia Chow, branding her a traitor and “Chairman Chow” after she urged Torontonians living in the SAR to help unseat him…

The backlash came after Chow said in an interview with the South China Morning Post on Thursday that Hong Kong’s numerous Torontonians shared the “sense of shame” that came with having a crack-smoking mayor, and those eligible to vote in October’s municipal elections had the chance to help restore pride to Canada’s biggest city.

“If you’re not filing tax returns as a Canadian resident, then you shouldn’t be able to vote in ANY Canadian election. Sounds as if Ms Chow wants our elections to be decided by outsiders who want the benefits of Canadian citizenship without helping pay the costs of same,” wrote “Frances” on a blog posting titled, “Chairman Chow asks passports of convenience in the South China Morning Post: Help me defeat Rob Ford”.

The posting was accompanied by an image of Chow with a Mao cap photoshopped on her…

Some Twitter users called the left-leaning Chow, 57, a “traitor” and “shameless” for seeking votes from Torontonians living in Hong Kong.

And they get defensive trying to justify her position:

According to Toronto’s election guide, non-resident Canadian citizens are eligible to vote in the October 27 election so long as they or their spouse owns or rents property in the city…

A spokeswoman for the Toronto City Clerk’s office said yesterday that non-resident voters in the municipal polls may cast ballots by appointing a proxy who is an eligible resident voter.

The Chinese stormtroopers didn’t miss this opportunity to trash Canada in the comments to the article. A progressive named “jonfra” noted:

Won’t be long before Chinese would be the majority for the simple reason that Canada is selling to those who can afford it. By your reckoning would it be fair then for a “white” man to run a city council? Remember the “whites” were aggressive invaders not too long ago, who robbed the territory from native Canadians. They still recognised the Queen of England as their Head of State, for crying out loud.

So this is the end game? Taking over Canada by China, the same way the genocidal Chinese government conquered Tibet? With our lousy immigration policy, a Canadian passport is worth very little. It is given to hundreds of thousands, who have no respect for Canada whatsoever.

I sincerely hope that Olivia Chow doesn’t share the opinions of the newspaper and its readers. But she must prove that by stopping her mayoral campaign in China.

Soliciting votes in a foreign country is much more disgraceful than being caught smoking crack…


© 2014


When the Gay Mafia Tripped Over the Fiery Fox

The homosexual bullies claimed another victim in their crusade to eradicate opinions different than their own. Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, was forced to resign. It wasn’t because of some heinous crime that outraged the world. His sin was that years ago he donated $1000 to a foundation that supported the traditional marriage in California (when even Bathhouse Barry, the “first gay president” had the same position). Questioning the ridiculous charade called “gay marriage” now is a major thought crime.

They say that the purpose of the gay movement was achieving equal rights for homosexuals. That goal has been reached long time ago. Now we see the true face of the movement – creating a poisonous atmosphere, where the lives of those who disagree with the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle are made unbearable. Eich was subjected to a vicious internet campaign, which few people could endure.

Among the goals of the campaign was a boycott of the Firefox browser made by Mozilla. It is beyond ridiculous to think that the homosexuals could shut down one of the most popular browsers in the world. However, the real goal is to instil fear.

Blackmail of businesses and people, who hold different views, is the norm. The cases of Chick-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty come to mind, but those are only high-profile cases, there are many more where people have no other choice, but to surrender under the massive pressure. In Canada with the Bill Whatcott decision of the Supreme Court, it is practically illegal to criticize homosexuality. That’s why they are pushing it into the Ontario schools under the guise of the so-called Gay-Straight Alliances.

The homosexual movement uses the same methods for trampling free speech as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The problem is that such methods can’t ensure the longevity of an ideology, if it is foreign to common sense and nature. Homosexuals can practice their lifestyle as much as they like, but it is ridiculous to think that they can force the rest of us to glorify it.

The gay propaganda is in trouble, even if such a die-hard lefty like Bill Maher has his doubts about it. Here is what he said recently during his HBO show:

MAHER: What do you think about the Mozilla CEO having to step down over his donation to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

The Mozilla — which I’m wearing right now, by the way. I didn’t know what Mozilla was. I saw it on my computer, but — it’s Firefox, right? It’s the browser.

So this guy apparently does not want gay people to get married and he had to step down. What do you think of that, the question asks.

FMR. REP. TOM DAVIS (R-VA): Because he gave $1,000 eight years ago and it’s come back to haunt him.

CARRIE SHEFFIELD, FORBES: Well, and he gave it when President Obama was still against gay marriage. So, I don’t think it’s very fair.

MAHER: Good point. Also, I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.


The homosexual activists may be able to realize that their methods don’t win them any supporters. The only result is driving criticism underground and creating even more hatred. The blogger Matt Walsh wrote an excellent post (h/t BCF) telling things as they are. Read it before such blogs are shut down by the rainbow inquisition:

Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity, dear left wing bullies:

You will lose.

I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.

So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example of Brendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.

You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.

You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying.

You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent.

Hey, good for you.

Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.

It won’t last.

You will still lose.

Don’t you people read? Haven’t you learned anything from history? ‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long. Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed.

In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic.

You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion.

You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division.

You showed your hand, and now you’ll lose the game.

It’s inevitable.

Marriage has, had, and always will have, by definition, a certain character and purpose; a character and purpose centered around, above all things, the family. Marriage is the foundation through which a thriving and lasting civilization sees to the propagation of itself. Human beings can only reproduce by means of ‘heterosexuality,’ and this reality sets the ‘heterosexual’ union apart. Marriage is meant to be the context in which this reproduction occurs.

Marriage is many things, but it is also this. And ‘this’ can never be removed from it, no matter the direction of the political winds, or the motion of the shifting sands of public opinion.

Marriage and the family are dimensions of the same whole. They cannot be detached from one another. They, as a whole, as an institution, can only be weakened — not erased or redefined. And so the campaign to protect and strengthen the institution was and is designed to do just that. It was never about ‘legislating love’ or imposing intolerance or ‘discriminating against gay people,’ or any other silly bumper sticker platitude.

You want to be free to love? You are. You always have been.

Heterosexuals don’t claim to monopolize love; only reproduction. Me, I love in many ways and in many directions. I love my wife, yes, and I also love my parents, and my country, and football, and hamburgers. These are all different kinds and degrees of love, yet still love.

You can read the rest here.



I Saw the Future – anti-Semitism – at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario

The march of anti-Semitism on the Canadian campuses continues unobstructed. Its  latest victory took place in McMaster University (Hamilton), where the Muslim anti-Semites and the Israel-hating lefties that control the student union managed to pass a BDS resolution (the fact that there was no quorum was of little significance to them). The movement to Boycott-Divest-Sanction Israel is a poorly veiled attempt to demonize the Jews and their state under the mask of pursuing “social justice.”

It’s main by-product in a university environment is that it makes the lives of the Jewish students difficult. My personal experiences with York University in Toronto show that the hostility and contempt toward those students become the norm in the student organizations. There is no reason to think that the consequences from the McMaster University vote would be any different.

Gary Gerofsky has written a disturbing article, which describes the procedures and the apathy of the main Jewish organization under CIJA control in the community. The publication must’ve hit a nerve, because the site that published it already has received threats. A commenter, who like in a cruel joke is going under the name “Freedom of Speech” remarked:

This is a warning – I have asked the admins of this website to take down this post and they did not respond. I will give it 2 additional days to be taken down or I will have to myself. I mean no harm, but I asked for such a controversial post and disrespectful post to be taken down.

Nothing is a better testimony for the efficiency of Gerofsky’s writing than such vile threats, which want to destroy whatever free speech we have left in Canada. Making the article widely available is the best remedy.

Here is what Gary Gerofsky wrote:

In a gymnasium on the campus of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, which is used for sports, concerts and normally happy and festive events of student life, I saw the future. It was in the form of a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) vote that passed overwhelmingly. The vote passed but will not take effect at this time because they did not get quorum (they needed over 600 students but they had a little over 400). I am told that the pending vote will be passed along to senate where its fate will be in the hands of that body. Regardless, one day soon, as on hundreds of campuses throughout the land, these and similar anti-civilization votes are or will be taking place. They are attended by hundreds of students, a good portion dressed in Islamic attire; some older students who do not appear to be students at all, angrier and more determined than your average Canadian student. Also in attendance are many Muslims and other supporters who are often bussed in by various religious and other groups, churches, unions, etc.

I thought to myself during the proceedings of that meeting that if you presented a bill on beheading, stoning of women, hanging of gays, the implementation of sharia law on campus, female genital mutilation, waging jihad, or crucifixion, this audience would shout their joy and rapture in a similar way at every motion leading to its passage.

Most of the time was spent on procedural matters — what order to address the business at hand. The audience desperately wanted to get to the BDS vote before the meeting of the McMaster Student Union General Assembly was over that evening. I am sure that never before had an MSU meeting garnered such a large and angry audience. The tension in the room was rife with hate and confrontation from those who wanted it passed right away. This was clearly a meeting exposing a fault line on this and other campuses: a tectonic shift of the Islamic community colliding with the weaker, lighter, and more vulnerable individuals opposing the motion. It was no contest and there was never any doubt that this motion would pass.

Throughout the land we are faced with the hate and ignorance that exists within the Jew-hate movement. For anyone who doubts that this is about Jews and not, as they claim, an isolated targeting of Israel, let me tell you that after the vote the students broke out into pandemonium and chants of “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.” Free means free of Jews. Palestine, a country which never existed in fact but is only a name given to a geographical area administered by the British after the Ottoman collapse, is also a fakery of Arab dictators and followers of Hitler during World War II.

There are a few points that I would like to highlight about the events which happened last evening:

It was disturbing that that the Jewish community was kept deliberately uninformed about these proceedings. I learned of it the day of the event from a professor at McMaster. The excuse given was that the students did not want anyone there. A representative from our feckless Jewish Federation was there so they knew but saw fit to keep the community in their usual quiet apathy and silence. There were not any good excuses not to be informed of the important pending vote taking place or any excuse for not making an announcement. I am waiting to see if a report will be generated and circulated by the representative who attended as an observer. Since there is no way to spin the proceedings in a positive light for the sleepy inhabitants of Hamilton, Ontario, I am certain that there will be more cover-up.

What I sense is that the students and faculty do not trust the general public and, consequently, the Jewish Federation, a stronghold of the Left and a confusion of perspectives, just wants it all to go away without a fight. They seem to believe that if you pretend it is not there, it will all disappear. Guess what, it is here to stay and getting worse by the day as jihadists and certain vocal and influential professors dominate campus politics and indoctrinate their easy-to-lead friends. Leftists, including some who use the claim of Jewishness to their advantage while positioned more under the thumb of the United Church, are training these students in political combat and protest and perhaps more, as they show up to these hate-fests with their top people alongside professional protestors.

By the end of the evening, a healthy and strong student who identified himself as a “Palestinian,” with family back home, made a plea on behalf of “Palestinians” to vote for the motion. He used all the buzzwords to make Israel look like an “Apartheid” state and an oppressor and occupier. That was the extent of “discussion,” one-sided as it was, and there was NO DEBATE and nobody to speak on the other side — time was running out and the Islamists were the only ones who got to speak.

In order to prevent the critical 600-student number required for quorum, part of the strategy of those opposing BDS was to leave en masse, which they did. It worked but it was a Pyrrhic and desperate procedural victory that delays the inevitable. I admire those few on council who tried in vain to stop the juggernaut but they did not ask for nor did they receive any community support. When we reach a point in time where such Hitlerian votes begin to take place, it is my assertion that the gloves are off and that is the end of academic niceties. The anti-BDS side must not be afraid of real emotions and real voices spilling over. The voices against Islamic intolerance and hate MUST NOT BE SILENCED ANYMORE!!

The backdrop to this vote comes after years of allowing Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to flourish on campus. This introduction to jihad on campus follows years of speakers, posters, lies, and campaigns of hate accepted as free speech and academic freedom on campuses throughout the land and specifically on the McMaster campus. It comes after years of their “Human Rights and Equity” officer and President(s) addressing every false claim made to silence Jewish professors and students and ignoring every complaint against the anti-Semitic IAW and now BDS. I have been involved in very small ways to alert the President and Provost (past and present) but have been largely ignored. Once when I did get a meeting with the past Provost to bring her up-to-date on the seriousness of campus intolerance, she had a security officer sit by my side — the messenger apparently is to be feared but those conducting political violence and lies go unmolested at McMaster. I was also involved in a small way in presenting an initiative to have the university follow the recommendations of a non-partisan report on anti-Semitism by our government in which campus affairs were specifically mentioned. We were merely asking the President to follow government directives on the issue but we were, after many months of dithering on his part, rebuked and refused. The anti-Semitism initiative was signed by notable community and Canadian Rabbis, professors, and politicians but it has now been ignored and cast into the garbage. From the ashes of that report comes the anti-Semitic BDS campaign.

So now we are left with an even greater chance for jihad and sharia law — domination by Islamists on campus and a willing submission by academics, presidents, the Jewish community and students. Students in particular are mostly unaware of the news of the day (and the lessons of history are a grey, unknown void for most of them). Students are being taught the lessons of victim-hood by people who politically profit from the advance of their false claims. The only people on earth today who are morally considered unworthy of claims of victim-hood, according to the haters, are the Jewish people who, as they were during WWII, are cast into the role of Christ killers (Palestinians and their Christian supporters are using the “Palestinians” as the new Christ to once again punish Jews for the false accusation and deciding to prevent them from living and from taking their rightful place in the community of nations in the free world).

Please read the rest here.

Justin Trudeau Welcomes to Canada the Hatemonger Reza Aslan

Last Saturday the National Council of Canadian Muslims (an entity previously known as CAIR-CAN) held a fundraiser at Westin Harbour Castle in Toronto. It is strange to believe it, but the attendees had to pay a few hundred dollars each to hear Reza Aslan, a foul-mouthed character, who presents himself as a progressive Muslim scholar, but has strong pro-Iranian and anti-Israeli views.

JDL-Canada organized a picket to express disagreement with the presence of the speaker. About twenty members and supporters braved the cold and the wind and gathered near the entrance. At the peaceful protest they carried Canadian, Israeli, and JDL flags, along with a few signs.



JDL-Canada protests


“CAIR Take Your Sharia and Leave!”

The peaceful protest was a far cry from a similar event last year, when Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were invited to speak in Toronto. CAIR-CAN/NCCM went out of its way to blackmail the speakers as some horrible extremists and even sent a threatening letter to the hosting hotel in an attempt to cancel the event. There was nothing peaceful about their protest.


Mark Vandermaas and Julius Suraski


“Pick a Side: Hamas or Peace and Freedom”


The bearded men and the hijab women that passed us by on their way into the hotel, mostly ignored the protest. Just one of the hijabs acknowledged our presence, hissing: “Get a life!”

It was not possible to get in and enjoy the heavenly wisdom of Reza Aslan, but at least somebody got out an interesting document. It contained greeting letters from the NDP leader Tom Mulcair and the Chairman Shiny Pony (a.k.a. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau). They were printed on the both sides of one sheet of paper. For some reason we didn’t see a greeting from Stephen Harper – maybe because CAIR-CAN/NCCM is suing him.


Thomas Mulcair said among other things:

That is why I would like to recognize the National Council of Canadian Muslims for your dedication to building bridges of understanding between Muslims and Canadians of other faiths and for your vigilant pursuit in protection of the human rights and civil liberties in Canada and abroad.


Justin Trudeau managed to outperform Angry Tom:

Since its establishment in 2000, the National Council of Canadian Muslims has been a leading promoter in this country for Muslim human rights and civic engagement. Tonight’s Gala Dinner, featuring Dr. Reza Aslan as guest speaker, seeks to discuss and promote interfaith and intercommunity friendship between Canadian Muslims and their counterparts.

I would like to thank the NCCM for organizing tonight’s dinner, which seeks to foster new and lasting friendships that support Canadian Muslims, as well as strengthens the multicultural fabric of this country. Moving forward, it is essential to have events such as tonight’s, which highlight the historical challenges that Muslim-Canadians have overcome, and the many contributions they have made, and continue to make, to Canada’s landscape.

Such letters are not a surprise. It is a well-known fact that many Canadian politicians are desperate political whores, who would sell their principles in order to gain a few votes. I guess we should consider this normal. The problem is their poor judgement – CAIR-CAN/NCCM and their speaker are hardly the wonderful creatures described in the letters (more about that later)

As Tarek Fatah has observed on several occasions, politicians think that the weirder the members of those ethnic organizations look, the better they represent their “community.” Funny hats, robes like Victorian nightgowns, hijabs and niqabs are trusted more than a Muslim, who dresses like everybody else.

The craftiest politicians even try to blend completely with the community. Last year Justin Trudeau appeared in a mosque in weird Muslim garb and sat among the visitors mumbling the prayers (he might have accidentally converted to Islam while doing that).



Trudeau – Muslim Number One


Just one of the guys


It’s hard to beat that. To catch up, Tom Mulcair will have to shave his moustache and let his beard grow to Islamic size (he still has the time to do it for the next elections).

Let’s get back to the letters. Both Trudeau and Mulcair say that CAIR-CAN/NCCM is building bridges and promoting human rights. I would appreciate it, if they refresh my memory about what specific actions they have taken to strengthen the “multicultural fabric” of Canada.

In an article, explaining why they are suing Harper for libel, in which they try to convince us how important their organization is, they list only one event:

In 2005 we coordinated a national statement by over 120 Canadian Imams representing hundreds of mosques across Canada which denounced terrorism and religious extremism and we subsequently met with former Prime Minister Paul Martin who recognized this initiative.

Well, it has been 9 years from that event. Since then we had the Toronto 18 terrorists, several other terrorist conspiracies, an attempt to introduce sharia in Ontario, successful imposing of Muslim prayers in a Toronto school, though our education system is supposed to be secular, and other events. We have probably over 100 Canadian Muslim fanatics fighting and killing in Syria and other places, who will come back prepared for terrorism. What has CAIR-CAN/NCCM done to tackle those issues?

I remember an event organized by CAIR-CAN/NCCM over a year ago with the “human rights activist” Maher Arar and the ancient Marxist Rick Salutin. It was in defense of the convicted terrorist and murderer Omar Khadr. I guess that there is no specific law prohibiting the support of convicted terrorists, but from a moral point of view such an event is repugnant. But, again, as Justin pointed out, we live in a “multicultural fabric” and in that mix normal morality means nothing. Then there was the event to silence Geller and Spencer and the attempt to present Rabbi Korobkin as a dangerous bigot.

I probably should keep my mouth shut and not ask too many questions, because in the same article CAIR-CAN/NCCM doesn’t hide its contempt for bloggers:

Similarly, fringe bloggers like to trot out innuendo of wrongdoing based on a game of six degrees of separation that would never pass muster in any court of law worth its salt. Most recently, we successfully settled a claim with a full retraction from an Ottawa professor who joined in this sort of smearing.

There is a clear threat hiding behind the flowery use of those English idioms. I have no idea what CAIR-CAN/NCCM considered “smearing” in the case of the “Ottawa professor.” I am somewhat familiar with the statement that brought the libel suit against Harper (and even Her Majesty the Queen got mixed up in the brawl). As a fringe blogger, who should know his place, I am not going to ponder whether the statement is true or not – that’s for the courts to decide.

I just want to figure out a few publicly available facts without “trotting any innuendo of wrongdoing.” Since I and CAIR-CAN/NCCM are fellow threads in the rich tapestry of the Canadian multiculturalism, we can start by finding common ground.

In their letter (dated January 14, 2014) CAIR-CAN/NCCM demanded that Stephen Harper kick out Rabbi Daniel Korobkin from his delegation to Israel. While listing his sins of support for people the organization doesn’t like, they stated the following:

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.

While SPLC is a questionable enterprise specializing in collecting charity money by scaring people, I agree that the Anti-Defamation League is a respected organization – now we have common ground. We can agree that if ADL is respected, their opinions should be credible.

While browsing the ADL reports about extremist organizations and personalities, a few interesting facts popped up. Until recently, a prominent “scholar” named Jamal Badawi was a board member of CAIR-Canada (before they changed their name). He holds quite “unorthodox” views about Jews and Israel:

(The Istanbul Attacks)

“Why don’t we interpret this event as an attempt to improve the ugly image of Israel within the European world’s mind?… Do we see it unlikely that the Jewish terror organizations committed this criminal crime?…

If we want to look for those who committed this crime, we will only find those secret associations and anonymous organizations where the fingers of the international Zionism mingle in order to distort the image of the Arabs and Muslims, having this take the place of the terror image of America and Israel in the minds of the European world”.

Jamal Badawi, “Turkey’s Jews”, Al-Wafd, November 18, 2003

Is there any doubt? The Jews are at the bottom of everything. Badawi is closely associated with an even more sinister character – Sheik Yusuf al Qaradawi, who is a vile anti-Semite and defender of terrorism, as well as a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been already designated as a terrorist organization in Egypt:

Qaradawi is chairman (in absentia) of the Michigan-based Islamic American University (IAU), a subsidiary of MAS, according to information on the MAS Web site. He is also listed by the IAU as a faculty member. The IAU vice-chairman, Jamal Badawi, and IAU’s founder, Salah Sultan, are members of Qaradawi’s International Association of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Both Badawi and Sultan attended a conference in July 2007 honoring Qaradawi and his support for suicide bombing in Israel.

ADL also has a report on CAIR:

CAIR’s credibility as a community relations agency promoting “justice and mutual understanding,” however, is tainted. Founded by leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas affiliated anti-Semitic propaganda organization, CAIR refused for many years to unequivocally condemn by name Hezbollah and Palestinian terror organizations, which the U.S. and international community have condemned and isolated.

On the fifth anniversary of the Madrid bombings in March 2009, CAIR condemned acts of terrorism by groups designated by the U.S. Department of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organizations, acknowledging that Hamas is on that list. The statement, however, did not represent a genuine break from CAIR’s past because it did not address its own historical links to Hamas.

The statement also followed the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, during which evidence was produced by the Federal prosecutors demonstrating that CAIR and its founders were part of a group set up by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas. The trial ended with guilty verdicts on all charges against HLF and five of its officers. In May 2009, they were sentenced to between 15 and 65 years in prison, including 65 years for Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR’s Dallas chapter.

CAIR’s positions are also clear:

While CAIR has denounced an Iranian-sponsored Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran and attacks against Jewish centers in the U.S., its public statements cast Jews and Israelis as corrupt agents who control both foreign and domestic U.S. policy and are responsible for the persecution of Muslims in the U.S. CAIR has also never disassociated itself from the anti-Semitic ideology of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP).

If we were to assume that ADL has done its due diligence regarding Geller’s organization, there is no doubt that their reports about Badawi and CAIR are also credible. Then CAIR-CAN/NCCM should accept the fact that their director and parent organization are hatemongers and extremists.

They may argue that they never knew about the views of Badawi, which would be a weak argument. They may also claim that their organization has nothing to do with CAIR. The latter claim is even more difficult to defend, because there are many documents that prove the link between the US and the Canadian branch of CAIR.

In a CAIR press release about a fundraiser in 2005, CAIR-CAN is described as a “Canada office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.” (click on the picture to enlarge)

cair usa has cair can canada office

On top of that, the event also featured a special message from Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood Hasan al-Bana, and prominent functionary of the terrorist organization. An earlier affidavit, signed by the leader of CAIR-CAN in 2003, states that CAIR has direct control over all activities of its Canadian division.

cair-can affidavit sheema khan

As a fringe blogger, who wants to avoid the wrath of those mighty and aggressive organizations, that may try to silence him, I will leave to you to make your conclusions from these facts.

The question remains – why would our leading politicians associate with an organization, which has so may skeletons in its closet? There are many other decent organizations, like Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Canadian Muslim Congress, etc. that are not afraid to tackle even the most controversial issues. Unfortunately, they are too normal…


After reading all those revelations about the roots and positions of CAIR-CAN/NCCM, it is not surprising that the organization selected a person like Reza Aslan to be its fundraiser speaker. Other than being a scholar, he is also a Muslim political activist in an organization with ties to the Iranian regime:

Aslan is a Board member of the president of the George Soros-funded National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a powerful Iranian lobbying group in Washington, and a foremost enemy of Israel and purveyor of Palestinian jihadist propaganda. Arash Irandoost of the Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran calls NIAC chief Trita Parsi “an intellectually dishonest regime apologist and an unofficial and unregistered lobbyist for the Iranian regime.” According to Irandoost, “Trita Parsi contributes to the regime’s agenda and serves the interests of those in power in the Islamic Republic of Iran, not the Iranians, nor the Iranian-Americans.”

His affiliations determine not only his scholarly positions, but also his political opinions on the developments in the Middle East. In an article in Ahram (via JW), based on an interview with Reza Aslan, the Egyptian journalist Ati Metwaly (who admires Aslan) gives us a glimpse of his opinion about the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood.

He starts with Aslan’s claims that the Muslim Brotherhood in 2009 understood that there was no place for radicalism while in power, so they formed alliances with liberal intellectuals. Those claims turned out to be false, but Aslan still believes in the Brotherhood:

Aslan replies however that time would have forced the Muslim Brotherhood to moderate their understanding of political participation. In our conversation, Aslan concentrated on the removal of Morsi from power and the consequences which according to him Egypt will face:

“…I’m not defending the Muslim Brotherhood. They were corrupt, they were inept. Morsi was an awful president and the MB did a terrible job in the year that they had. Many Egyptians would say that there was never an option [of political success] with the Muslim Brotherhood, that they were in the process of taking complete control over the society, but they [the MB] know that people power in Egypt has the ability to transform the government, to put pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood. The mistake was the whole notion. The military has been 50 years in absolute power in Egypt and one year out of it; [the military] cannot be trusted to be bearers of democracy.”

Yet it is world dominion through a Muslim Caliphate that drives most MB members; it was loudly advocated by Safwat Hegazi among other leading MB figures. In 2009 Hegazi was banned from entry to the UK for promoting hatred and was “considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by glorifying terrorist violence”. His famous statement “Whoever sprays Morsi with water will be sprayed with blood”, made during the June 2013 anti-Morsi protests, echoed on international scale.

For a person who boasts a deep understanding of the political realities in the area, his apparent ignorance about the nature of that organization and its methods looks quite strange. The truth probably is that he is simply an apologist of the Muslim Brotherhood, who hoped against all odds that the terrorist group would entrench itself like the Iranian mullahs and gradually transform the Egyptian society.

His attraction to Muslim theocracy becomes clear in his attempts to make the murderous Iranian regime look better than it is. In an article published in The Atlantic, Reza Aslan makes a funny attempt to describe the former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a misunderstood reformer:

It might seem shocking to both casual and dedicated Iran-watcher that the bombastic Ahmadinejad could, behind Tehran’s closed doors, be playing the reformer. After all, this was the man who, in 2005, generated wide outrage in the West for suggesting that Israel should be “wiped from the map.” But even that case said as much about our limited understanding of him and his context as it did about Ahmadinejad himself. The expression “wipe from the map” means “destroy” in English but not in Farsi. In Farsi, it means not that Israel should be eliminated but that the existing political borders should literally be wiped from a literal map and replaced with those of historic Palestine. That’s still not something likely to win him cheers in U.S. policy circles, but the distinction, which has been largely lost from the West’s understanding of the Iranian president, is important.

It took him a lot of verbal equilibristics to justify the evil Ahmadinejad’s chilling threat to destroy Israel and it still didn’t work. What exactly does that nonsense mean? Isn’t the wiping of the political borders of Israel the end of that country?

After whitewashing Iran, Aslan does the same for the Iranian proxy Hezbollah, which turns out to be a dynamic social organization:

Other supporters argue that Hizballah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon. Despite its ugly side, they say, Hizballah is a multi-faceted organization that also provides social services. “You may think of Hizballah as a terrorist organization, and certainly they have engaged in terrorist acts, but they are also the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon,” writer and Muslim scholar Reza Aslan explained in a 2009 speech.

What do those three organizations that Aslan likes so much have in common? It’s not hard to guess, they all hate Israel and the Jews. From that position Aslan can easily take the next step and attack the “evil masters” in the world.

Recently the American actress of Jewish background Scarlett Johansson became a spokeswoman for the Israeli company SodaStream. Since the latter employs several hundred Arabs from Judea and Samaria (at full salaries and benefits) Johansson immediately became the target of the BDS hyenas. Reza Aslan joined the cackle with his own anti-Semitic tweet, in which he compared Johansson to Hitler.


Reza Aslan is a “fucking idiot.”

I am not being creative here – I am just applying Aslan’s own definition. In an earlier tweet he boldly stated: “I’m going to be as clear as possible. If you compare ANYONE to Hitler for ANY REASON you are a fucking idiot.”



As you can see from other tweets by the same “fucking idiot,” he has the habit to swear at his opponents like a drunken sailor. Is this customary among Muslim scholars? I wonder if that was the best choice of a person to speak to the pious Muslim women in hijabs and their children at the fundraiser.




I am not criticizing CAIR-CAN/NCCM and their choice of speaker. As long as they stay within the frame of the law, they can hold any morally unacceptable views (it will help if they stop trying to tell the Canadians what speakers they can listen to). If they think that such a repulsive Jew-hater like Reza Aslan is good fit for them, I have no comment.

My beef is with the pathetic political whores like Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau. They are either ignorant or deceptive in picking the organizations and personalities to support. It is ridiculous to think that organizations like CAIR-CAN/NCCM advance in any way human rights and civil liberties in Canada. The promotion of people like Reza Aslan only ruins bridges and spreads tension and hostility.


© 2014

The Muslims of America Wage Legal Jihad Against the Christian Action Network

This is another example of how the militant Islam operates in North America. Not only is a violent organization allowed to operate undisturbed in the USA, but they have no problem suing the people, who exposed them in order to silence them (h/t SM Isac):

Gates of Vienna, March 28, 2014:

Jamaat ul-Fuqra (a.k.a the Muslims of America, a.k.a. Muslims of the Americas, a.k.a. Quranic Open University) is an Islamic organization boasts dozens of rural compounds throughout the United States, Canada, and reportedly the Caribbean. It is headed by Sheikh Sayed Mubarik Ali Hasmi Shah Gilani, a Pakistani Sufi, who is persona non grata to the U.S. government and has been forbidden entry to the United States for several decades.

Most of the rank-and-file of Jamaat ul-Fuqra are African Americans, and many of them were recruited in the prison system. According to some accounts, the earliest membership of the organization was made up of defectors from the Nation of Islam who had become disenchanted with Louis Farrakhan and his reluctance to plan for an unconstrained violent jihad against the infidel society and government of the United States.

Back in the 1980s and early ’90s, members of Jamaat ul-Fuqra committed a series of fire-bombings, murders, and other crimes, many of them targeting Hindus. Sheikh Gilani reportedly reined them in later in the 1990s, and most of their crimes since have been confined to non-violent offenses such as money-laundering, welfare fraud, product counterfeiting, and unauthorized trafficking in firearms.


For the past eight years Marty Mawyer of the Christian Action Network has been one of the most stalwart and courageous investigators of Sheikh Gilani and the Muslims of America. Marty has visited and overflown several compounds, and even discovered at least one compound that was previously unknown to the FBI.

Marty’s work has not gone unnoticed by Sheikh Gilani and his American lawyers: the Muslims of America have now filed a $30 million lawsuit against Marty and the Christian Action Network. As we all know, the primary goal of “lawfare” is not to win one’s case, but to bankrupt one’s adversary. The legal jihad by MOA is designed to drain CAN of its funds and force it to give up any further investigation of Jamaat ul-Fuqra…

Read the rest here.

The Gas Plant Criminals of Queen’s Park

Canadians generally have high regard for their politicians. And they are right for the most part – the politicians in our land stay within the frames of the law, despite the occasional transgression like Jean Chretien’s sponsorship scandal, which is almost always forgotten. So far, we haven’t had anything of the magnitude of Kenya Barry, the first US affirmative action president, and his merry gang of progressive Chicago gangsters turned politicians. Their blatant disregard for the Constitution and the laws seems very improbable to be copied in Canada, although the newly-minted Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau promises to become a new Obama with all negative consequences.

However, the latest political developments in Ontario show that our provincial leaders don’t shy away from practices that are the norm in South America or Eastern Europe. The lagging scandal with the closed gas plants in the Oakville area has resurfaced again.


Considering the fact that the media in Ontario would do anything to make that scandal disappear from the public memory, its stubborn presence shows that it is an event unlike anything we have seen before. Started as a “goodwill” gesture to the local voters, who were unhappy to have those gas plants in a residential area, the cancellation was considered a smart move to keep the liberal MPP seats at the “low” price of a few millions of dollars (and stealing those millions from somebody else’s pocket is not a big deal, at least in Ontario).

Apparently the ignorance of the Liberal politicians in all economic matters prevented them from estimating the real costs, which mushroomed to over $1 billion. The Ontario taxpayers were supposed to swallow that as well – as they did after the eHealth scandal, which also cost about $1 billion. Not only wasn’t anybody punished for that crime, but the voters also re-elected the McGuinty government. Moreover, the “architect” of the scandal George Smitherman was supported by most of the media in the 2010 mayoral election as some kind of a homosexual messiah, who will miraculously transform Toronto.

It was clear that the gas plants case was something more serious, because the provincial government started acting in a suspicious and erratic way. Dalton McGuinty, the Father of Ontario, suddenly resigned and after a short inter-party election charade, a new helmsman (or should I say helmswoman) took over. There was nothing new here – Kathleen Wynne belonged to McGuinty’s inner circle. Thanks to her hard work as an education minister, we were blessed with a new sex education program that normalizes perversion (developed under the wise guidance of the alleged pedophile and her close associate, Benjamin Levin).

Again, we were bombarded by the media daily with promises that the new lesbian messiah will bring new, higher standards to the office of the Premier. And we were duped again… Instead of the noble lesbian saviour, we got a McGuinty in drag.

When the investigation of the gas plants cancellation started, it turned out that most of the electronic documents (mostly e-mails) related to the case have been deleted. Not just deleted, but wiped out of the Premier’s office computers in a professional way. That made the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Dr. Ann Cavoukian to sound alarm and accuse the perpetrators of violating the law.

Just a few days ago the unbearable Liberal stench from Queen’s Park reached such proportions that no amount of media Febreze could make it go away. New shocking court documents revealed the details of the alleged crimes committed by the Liberals, involving Dalton McGuinty’s chief of staff David Livingston:

Provincial police allege in unsealed court documents that they believe David Livingston gave an outside tech expert — the boyfriend of a senior staffer — access to 24 computers in the premier’s office.

According to the documents, Livingston sought high-level access to the computers to “wipe clean the hard drives” after McGuinty resigned amid controversy over the costly cancellation of two gas plants.

It’s alleged that during the transition period to Wynne’s administration, Livingston arranged for his executive assistant Wendy Wai to have special access to desktops in the premier’s office, even though she had little knowledge of computers.

Police believe Peter Faist, who wasn’t a government employee, was the person who actually accessed the 24 computers using Wai’s administrative privileges, including Miller’s, Livingston’s and other staffers.

Faist, who police believe is the partner of former deputy chief of staff Laura Miller, was never officially hired by the government and did not undergo the required security screening, the documents say.

According to two staffers in the premier’s office, Faist accessed their computers a few days before Wynne was sworn in, saying he was getting them ready for the next government, police say.

The staffers said they couldn’t log into their computers after Faist left and called IT staff, who said it was clear that system files had been deleted, police allege.


When the Toronto Star traced the infamous Rob Ford video, in which the poor sap was allegedly smoking crack cocaine in his free time, they lauded that “achievement” as the Toronto Watergate. Here we have something worse than Nixon’s Watergate – let’s see how the media are going to treat those revelations. The Ontario government violated every principle of ethics and many laws. Nixon erased 20 minutes from an audio tape and his staff blamed it on his secretary’s accidentally slipping.

Here the Liberal crooks allowed a shady character to enter the Premier’s office and completely erase the hard drives of 24 computers. Could it get any worse than that? Yes, it could.

The next day after the revelations, both top Libranos went into damage control. Wynne put on her most outraged face and at a press conference claimed that she never authorized those actions and didn’t know anything. McGuinty chimed in later with the same claim – he never knew nothin’.

The two scumbags are either too stupid or think that the average voter is ignorant enough to swallow those lies as well. There is nothing more credible than assuring the public that the devious chief of staff hatched a sinister scheme on his own, involving in the process many other people, except Wynne and McGuinty. After being elected three times despite their incompetence, it’s no wonder that the two “leaders” think they could fool the public one more time.

No surprise here – the criminals always try to save their skins. However, the most disgusting part of the scandal is that another politician is willing to support them in their crime.

The provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath is more than willing to support the criminal Liberal government:

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said she finds it “unbelievable” that Wynne didn’t know about what was going on in the premier’s office. But she wouldn’t rule out propping up the Liberals by supporting their budget, as her party has done for the past two years.

So she will stand behind the criminals and help them rob Ontario from even more money. That is as low as it can get. But Horwath doesn’t do that for free. There is something for her in that budget – she knows that she will get tons of money to fund useless programs for the parasites and the unions that vote for her party. Ever since Comrade Bob Rae almost ruined Ontario while being a Premier, the NDP socialists have been busy stealing whatever they can from us.

If after all that the Ontarians don’t rise against Wynne and McGuinty and the rest of the provincial Libranos, they fully deserve all disasters that are coming their way.


© 2014


JDL-Canada to picket the National Council of Muslims: Saturday March 29

JDL Canada will picket and protest the appearance of Dr. Reza Aslan at a fundraising event organized by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (formerly known as CAIR Canada).

The event is going to take place at:


Westin Harbour Castle Hotel, Toronto

Saturday, March 29, 2014 — 6:00 pm


Reza Aslan is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has been established in court as a lobbying group for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Aslan has tried to pass off Iran’s genocidally-minded former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a liberal reformer and has called on the U.S. Government to negotiate with Ahmadinejad himself, as well as with the jihad terror group Hamas.

Iranian-American writer and academic, Reza Aslan, compared Israeli company SodaStream to Adolf Hitler and implied that its newly minted spokesperson, actress Scarlett Johansson, was a Nazi supporter in a tweet that he quickly deleted, following the outrage caused by his anti-Semitic statement.



Here is a link to CBC’s Evan Solomon in a recent interview with NCCM’s Executive Director Ishaan Gardee attempting to explain that organization’s pending litigation against the federal government.

Pamela Geller’s Blog “ATLAS SHRUGS” providing good background information about Reza Aslan.

The Ottawa Citizen has more information about the NCCM/CAIR connection.


Highlights from the 2014 Israel Truth Week Conference

The 2014 edition of the annual Israel Truth Week Conference took place last Sunday in the Lodzer Synagogue in Toronto. The attendance this year was even higher – the hall was full and the staff had to bring more chairs to accommodate all the guests.


Lunch time at the ITW Conference

The speaker line-up of the conference was remarkable and it kept the attention of attendees for a really long time – from 10 a.m. to after 7 p.m. Two main themes were covered by the speakers. The first one included the real facts about Israel from a historical and political point of view. The second main topic was the modern anti-Semitism and the ways to combat it. The event was very well organized, with security provided by JDL-Canada.

A new feature this year was the trade fair, where different organizations and businesses promoted their causes. Among the presenters were Freedom Press, the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research and others.



Tristan Emmanuel (Freedom Press)



Donna Holbrook (International Christian Embassy Jerusalem)

I recorded most of the presentations and will be posting the videos later this week. This post provides only the highlights from the presentations. Ilana Shneider from the Canada-Israel Friendship Association (one of the organizers) made a short introduction, in which she explained why such events are important – confronting the slanderous propaganda against Israel requires knowledge and experience, which could be learned from experts.



Ilana Shneider (CIFA)

This year’s conference was in honour of Howard Grief, a remarkable Israeli legal historian, who wrote the pioneering work The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, a book that placed in public discourse the previously ignored issue of the legal rights of the Jewish people. His nephew Eric Grief shared his memories about the remarkable scholar.


Iris Ehrent (Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel)

Another goal of the conference was to support Israel’s Ambulance Service through the organization Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel. Its administrative co-ordinator Iris Ehrent told us the story of the Israeli emergency services. Not only do they have challenges due to the unique situation in Israel and the constant pressure from militants and terrorists, but they also had to deal with hostility and anti-Semitism (only in 2006 did they become a member of the Red Cross). The ambulance service relies on many volunteers, who often risk their lives helping people during terrorist attacks.


Mark Vandermaas (founder of ITW)

Mark Vandermaas, the founder of the ITW, presented each and every speaker before theirs talks, adding his personal thoughts and comments from his unique perspective of being simultaneously equal rights activist for Caledonia and an outspoken Israel advocate.


Judy Oron

The Israeli-Canadian writer and journalist Judy Oron shared a very touching personal story. After the Ethiopian Jews were transported to Israel over 20 years ago, she accepted in her family a young Ethiopian girl. According to her birth family, her sister was presumed dead in Ethiopia. However, Judy’s adopted daughter suffered from the agonizing thought that her sister was still alive. Judy believed her and went to Ethiopia to look for the missing sister – she found her alive, although the girl was sold into slavery, so she had to buy her out. Once they arrived in Israel, it took years for the girl to recover from the emotional and physical scars. Eventually, the rescued sister decided to share her story with the world. Judy Oron helped her to do so by writing the novel Cry of the Giraffe, which tells her ordeal.


Lt. Col. Jonathan Halevi

After that remarkable story of compassion, the next speaker brought us back into the ugly reality of the Middle East. Lt. Col. (IDF, Ret.) Jonathan Halevi has been monitoring the Arab extremism and terrorism for years. It has been to his advantage that he speaks several of the languages spoken in the Middle East, so he has access to original sources that spread very different information from the sanitized propaganda in English fed to the gullible West. In his presentation he explained the deeply rooted anti-Semitism, which is an integral part of the education in Gaza and the West Bank. The Western educational institutions often are oblivious to the fact that they collaborate with universities controlled by Hamas or Islamic Jihad (as it is the case with the Al-Quds University).


Dimitri Bazos and Aleysha O’Hare


Aleysha and Dimitri with Doris Epstein (Shalom Toronto)

An important perspective on anti-Semitism was provided by Dimitri Bazos and Aleysha O’Hare, both of them students at the University of Toronto. They shared their experience and observations of the anti-Israeli activism on campus. That activism often crosses the line of political criticism and turns into promotion of anti-Jewish initiatives and intimidation of Jewish students at the Canadian universities.



Alan Herman (CIJR)

Alan Herman represented the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, an organization dedicated to studying modern anti-Semitism and popularizing the achievements of Israel and the Jewish people. His topic also dealt with the situation in the Canadian universities. He covered in detail the CIJR program aimed at equipping students with the knowledge and skills to confront effectively anti-Semitism on campus. A co-presenter on the same issue was Amnon Zohar, an Israeli-Canadian entrepreneur, who shared first-hand impressions of campus Jew-hatred, gained after going through the ordeal of studying political science at the notorious York University.

Shobie Kapoor with Jonathan Halevi

Shobie Kapoor with Jonathan Halevi

Shobie Kapoor (from the Canadian Patriotic Society) covered a little-known topic – the Jews in India and the attitude toward them. Although the Jewish minority there has always been small, it has been treated with respect in the Hinduist society. The Hindus and the Jews have the common experience of being persecuted by Islam. Shobie shared the experience of her own family that lived in what before the partition of India was known as Pakistan. Forced to flee, they barely survived the ordeal.


Daniel Amzallag (Paramedic from Magen David Adom)

Daniel Amzallag, a paramedic and trainer, vividly described the challenges that Israel’s ambulance service has to face every day. The Arab hostility often materializes in attacks and terror acts, where the paramedics have to react quickly to save the victims and they often become targets of the terrorists. He gave an emotional testimony of a fatal bomb attack, during which he and other volunteers were injured while taking people to safety.

The afternoon session began on a sad note – we honoured the victims of the Arab-Palestinian terror while watching a video presented by Evgenia and Lev Rachevsky. There were no images in it; just the names of the nearly 2,000 who perished in bombings and shootings rolled on the screen for over two minutes.


Mark Vandermaas (left) with Councillor James Pasternak


For the first time ever a politician addressed the ITW Conference. That was the Toronto City Councillor James Pasternak (Ward 10, York Centre), who praised the initiative of spreading the truth about Israel and explained what the Toronto City Council was doing to combat anti-Semitism.

The next few speakers covered from different angles the issue of the legitimacy of the Jewish state and the ideological clash between Arabs and Israelis on that topic.



Salomon Benzimra

The tireless promoter of the truth about the legality of Israel as a state and author of The Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel, Salomon Benzimra (from Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights), spoke first. He presented a brief review of the documents and events that laid down the legal framework, which made the restoration of the Jewish state possible – from the Balfour Declaration to the San Remo Conference and the creation of the Mandate for Palestine. He also explained how to counter from a logical legal point of view the attempts to attack the validity of those legal rights, which have never been dismissed or overthrown by any international body.



Renanah Goldhar-Gemeiner

Renanah Goldhar-Gemeiner, an Israel land rights activist, has dedicated years of her life to make the Government of Canada aware of the truth about the country and especially about the status of Judea and Samaria. She admitted that although her petition about the issue has been acknowledged, there is still a lot to be done to correct some misleading statements that influence Canada’s position of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict.


Yehidit Shier-Weisberg

Yehidit Shier-Weisberg (from the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel) covered in detail the misrepresentation of the historical facts about Israel, specifically the presence of the Jewish people in those lands for thousands of years, which now many Arabs deny. The same is valid about the name of Palestine, a Roman term describing those lands, which is now used to invent a “country” and portray the Arabs there as “Palestinians”.


Richard Bass

Richard Bass, a lecturer and author of Israel in World Relations: Are Land-for-Peace and Two-State Solutions Practical Strategies for Peace, also traced the historical background of Israel and the conflicts, but his emphasis was on the security of the country. When politicians like Obama speak about resolving the conflict around the “1967 Borders” (which actually are the 1949 Armistice Lines) and are enthusiastically supported by people in Israel and abroad, they don’t really understand what that would mean for the future of Israel.

Through pictures and maps, Bass explained the topography, which would allow the terrorists from the future Palestinian state to reach with rockets any city or village in Israel within a minute from the mountains overseeing Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. All power plants will be vulnerable and the Ben Gurion International Airports should be closed because the airplanes would become an easy target. Under similar circumstances Israel had to shut down a major airport near Jerusalem – the airplanes were shot at frequently by Arab terrorists.

The last segment of the conference covered the practical side of confronting anti-Semitism. That ideology is not spread only in written form, but is also a part of many hostile events, which need to be confronted in real time on the streets.



Meir Weinstein


Meir Weinstein (National Director JDL-Canada) shared alarming facts about the anti-Semitism in Canada. In 1980’s-1990’s he was an active Nazi-hunter and fought against the neo-Nazi anti-Semitism. He thought at the time that after the influence of those groups diminished, he could retire. However, the rise of Muslim organizations influenced by Al-Qaeda, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood gave a new life to Jew-hatred in Canada. The political correctness often paralyzes the attempts to expose and confront those organizations. What is even more disturbing is that major Jewish organizations in Canada downplay or ignore that danger. It is not difficult to see that this policy is not going to appease the anti-Semites – it failed in Europe, which now has the highest level of anti-Semitism since World War II. It is only a matter of time to see the same in Canada.

Mark Vandermaas covered in his presentation the necessity of spreading the truth about Israel. Now the emphasis is on finding solutions to the conflict and in most cases the people involved in that quest either have very vague idea about the historical and legal facts or operate on the basis of outright lies about Israel. It’s no wonder that no reasonable solution could be found. Unless the truth about the legal and historical rights of the Jewish people is understood and accepted universally, there will be no solid foundation for achieving peace and stability in that area of the Middle East.



Gary McHale

Gary McHale, the famous advocate for the rule of law in Caledonia and author of Victory in the No-Go Zone, spoke about the power of the individual resistance against lawlessness using the non-violent methods of Martin Luther King Jr. He gave as an example his struggle in Caledonia, where he started with his wife Christine a confrontation against a seemingly hopeless situation – violent native criminals terrorized the local population for months with the silent support of the OPP, which didn’t want to get involved. Gary managed to attract more supporters and turn the things around using the Canadian laws, which the police ignored.


Gary on the front line in Caledonia

Despite of being arrested 9 times and charged with non-existent crimes, he succeeded to win all his court battles against the highly-paid government lawyers, even without legal education. The Canadian laws provide many opportunities for the individual citizens to affirm and defend their rights – you just need to be aware of them. The same methods could be used to combat anti-Semitism, especially on campus, where currently many groups make the lives of the Jewish students difficult and try to impose anti-Jewish administrative decisions and rules.



The presenters and the volunteers pose for a picture at the end of the conference

Although the conference continued longer than expected and we had to cut a few breaks to accommodate all speakers, the presenters kept the audience’s attention active to the end.

As I mentioned in the beginning, all major presentations will be shown in separate videos. The ITW Conference played again its important role of presenting the facts about Israel and the conflict in the Middle East to even larger audience.


© 2014



Honor Diaries – Abuse Masked as Religion

The issue of the honour killings is one of those sensitive topics that almost everybody is aware of, but is afraid to discuss, mostly due to false religious sensitivities. The fact that somebody could be killed because of violating some outdated ethical norms is difficult to comprehend in the West, yet the media are more than willing to overlook it in the name of “cultural diversity.”

Although the phenomenon has been observed in different religious environments, it happens with disturbing frequency in the Muslim communities. Most of the victims of that crime are women and girls. In many Muslim countries the killers are treated leniently, according to the sharia law, which makes the plight of women even worse.

It is disturbing that after immigrating to Western countries, some Muslims continue to mistreat women and are barely aware of the laws and the principle of equal rights. Often teachers, social workers, police and lawmakers ignore important signs in family conflicts that could help prevent a tragedy.

The recently released documentary – Honor Diaries: Culture Is No Excuse for Abuse – takes a look at that injustice. Through interviews its makers show how by using antiquaeted religious norms many men are trying to impose complete control over the women in their families. On March 30 you will have the chance to see the movie in Canada:


The Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow

in collaboration with Speakers Action Group

and Act! For Canada

announce the Toronto launch and screening of the award-winning documentary

honor diaries

Sunday 30th March 2014 – 10:00 am

Colossus Woodbridge, Famous Players Cineplex

3555 Highway 7 West at Hwy 400, Vaughan, ON L4L 6B1

Cost of admission: $ 10.00 per person*

Presented by: Raheel Raza, President Muslims Facing Tomorrow



“The stories in ‘Honor Diaries’ … will succeed in raising awareness of atrocities happening around the world” LA TIMES.COM/RED EYE REVIEW

“When women suffer in silence, they suffer alone, and their suffering grows. Only when women come together and break the silence can this suffering end.” Comment after the screening at the CHICAGO FILM FESTIVAL

 Supported by: Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations (CPCMO)

Please reserve your seats by contacting 416-505-1613 or and choose one of the following payment options:

  1. Pay at the door – cash only.
  2. Send cheque made out to Muslims Facing Tomorrow to the following address:P.O. Box 41, 4000 Dundas Street WestToronto, ON M6S 2T7


  3. If paying by credit card, make a direct payment through PayPal at:


Russia, Crimea, Jews and the Royal Mess in Ukraine

It seems that the Crimean peninsula is on its way out of Ukraine – yesterday over 90% of its people voted in a referendum to secede.

There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the West as a result of the latest developments. The coup in Kiev, initiated by the “peaceful” street crowds (which for some reason were well armed), wasn’t seen in the area as another glorious expansion of the “Western values.” On the contrary, Russia met it with hostility as an action, which endangers its interests in the region.

As it often happens in times of turmoil, the Jewish issues were brought into the spotlight. After the reports of new anti-Semitic actions in the country, an article in Israel Times – “Will Ukraine’s Real Anti-Semite Please Stand Up” – tries to find an impartial answer. The incidents are blamed on Putin and the Jewish leaders of Ukraine try to downplay the local Jew-hatred. This is a very short-sighted approach.

During its history, including the periods of independence, Ukraine (just like Russia) has had a long record of anti-Semitism. Discrimination and pogroms have been a part of the Jewish life there. That was one of the reasons that the Jews supported the Lenin’s government, which promised equality. As a later reaction, under Stalin, the Ukrainians blamed the Jews for their misfortunes, though Stalin wasn’t fond of the Jews either.

When Hitler invaded Ukraine, many local people took willingly part in the extermination of the Jews. Even in the ideology of the Ukrainian nationalism, anti-Semitism played a major role. The writings of Dmytro Dontsov of the 1920’s eerily resemble the doctrines of Hitler, with the cult of the strong leader and the purity of the nation. Shortly before the invasion, Stepan Bandera formed a government that was willing to collaborate with Hitler. Hitler, however, had different plans for Ukraine and sent Bandera and his comrades to Sachsenhausen. Although nominally a concentration camp, the place was a far cry from Auschwitz or Treblinka. It kept in relatively good conditions people that Hitler thought he could use in the future. Bandera and all his Ukrainians survived the camp.

The purpose of this short historical reference was to show that the simplistic interpretation of history and political reality by media and politicians usually leads to wrong decisions. The narrative that the Western media is selling now is that the freedom-loving people of Ukraine have rebelled and the evil Russia wants to crush their yearnings.

The ugly truth is that no matter how much they yearn for freedom, not much is going to change. The West sees things in a delusional way – if they support hard enough a politician, party or some progressive forces – that would change the country. (They never learned from the fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

The problem is that most of Eastern Europe (with the possible exception of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states) is ruled by a political class, which may create the impression of active political life with many parties. However, the truth is that all those parties have the same goal – enriching themselves through participation in the government. It doesn’t help that among their population the self-reliance principle is not that popular. The vast majority of people wait for a government or an external force to resolve their problems.

It is impossible to have a democratic state without strong economy, which doesn’t depend on government handouts. The vast majority of the Eastern European countries (including the EU members Bulgaria and Romania) lack those conditions.

Ukraine hasn’t developed any industry after the collapse of the Soviet Union. All of its shady billionaires amassed their fortunes from energy deals with Russia. The political and economic structures of Ukraine and Russia are exactly the same.

The “epic” Maidan battle in Kiev was presented in the media as a war between those who want to direct Ukraine to the European Union and the pro-Russian forces. The pro-Western people actually expect that as soon as they swear their allegiance to the European Union, there will be a flood of money, know-how and influence to change their society. That was the delusion in Bulgaria and Romania – they expected that after joining the Union, the poverty and corruption will disappear, as if chased away by Harry Potter’s magic wand.

It didn’t work that way – Bulgaria and Romania are still poor, with corrupt politicians and judges. The only difference is that now they can blame Soros, the Rothschilds, and the Elders of Zion for enslaving them through the Union.

Do the Union politicians think of that when they give false hopes to Ukraine?

There is no way that the European Union could deliver on any of its promises. Compared to Bulgaria and Romania, Ukraine is a huge country. The Union is broke, as the attempt to “save” Greece, another small country, showed. Ukraine doesn’t qualify for membership in any way.

Not only did the EU squander its money on working with countries, which have no chance of reaching the level of its most developed members, but it is also overburdened by illiterate third-world invaders, who would never integrate successfully.



And who is going to lead Ukraine on the “way to Europe”? The picture above shows the most popular politicians, one of whom is going to win the president elections. As you can see, the extremists are not the major danger – the communist and the “Social-Nationalist” are at the bottom.

The trouble is that all main contenders belong to the oligarchic establishment, including the Gas Princess Tymoshenko, who already did time. They are not that different from the ousted president Yanukovich. They all preside over the same unchangeable bureaucracy.

Any financial aid provided to Ukraine by the EU or IMF, which doesn’t go directly to the lenders, will disappear in the deep pockets of the Ukrainian politicians. Actually we have seen that before – do you remember the “Orange Revolution”?

It was all about opposing Russia and turning toward Europe. It brought to power Yushchenko and Tymoshenko. When people realized that their lives didn’t improve, they dropped them and elected Yanukovich. Now they have come around a full circle – turning to Europe again.

You can bet that in two years they’ll be in Kiev again, rioting against the “European traitors.”

There is nothing that the West could do to resolve the Ukrainian problems. The only solution could result from within the Ukrainian society – if it gradually evolves by itself, it may change its corrupt political and economic structure.

Other than throwing tons of money in the Ukrainian black hole, the West is also obsessed with stopping the secession of Crimea. Some even want a military intervention. Again, we see a simplistic approach, which is unlikely to be applied because of the chronic weakness of NATO and the decline of the USA under Obama.

The present Ukrainian state is an artificial formation of several geographic and ethnic regions, some of which have never been a part of Ukraine, like most of the western part and specifically Galicia and Bukovina. The same applies to Crimea, it was a gift to the Ukrainian SSR from Khrushchev. It is no wonder that facing the coming turmoil, the mostly Russian population of the peninsula wants out.

The West has no moral right to interfere after the disgraceful intervention in Kosovo. Based on false information, NATO bombed Belgrade to force Serbia to surrender its province killing in the process hundreds of innocent people. All atrocities of the Albanian Muslim savages against the Serbs were ignored, although many of them came out after the conflict ended.

It’s an ultimate hypocrisy when the same countries want to attack after a referendum for a peaceful separation. Unlike the helpless Serbia, Russia is much tougher and so far nobody has been able to defeat it on its own territory.

A possible angle the West is trying to exploit is the Tatar minority in Crimea. They are the remnants of the people that terrorized for centuries the neighbouring countries (mostly Byzantium, Russia, Bulgaria and Romania). During World War II they actively collaborated with Hitler in the extermination of Jews and Russians, which ended with their deportation after the war.

Now it is reported that if Crimea becomes a part of Russia, many Tatars threaten to launch jihad. There is nothing unusual here – just Muslims doing what they do best: threatening and killing.

It is strange to see Canada getting so involved in the conflict. It is not clear yet what kind of people are in the new Ukrainian government and if they could be trusted at all. Yet we saw Canada’s foreign minister John Baird roaming the square in Kiev with a scarf featuring the Ukrainian flag’s colours.

It mind sound harsh, but the West must solve its problems first, before wasting the money it borrows to interfere in other countries’ affairs. Demonizing Russia doesn’t help either. Putin’s “dictatorship” is farcical at best and he doesn’t have the level of control over the country, which even Brezhnev had during the USSR’s years of decay.

Comparing Putin with Hitler is equally stupid – he has neither the resources, nor the ideology, nor the desire to become the new conqueror of Europe. Just like in the case of Czechoslovakia, all incompatible peoples of Ukraine should be allowed to decide their own future.


© 2014


Ezra Levant on Trial – Day 7 – Diving into the Twilight Zone

The seventh day of Ezra Levant’s political trial was supposed to wrap up the proceedings and wrap up a few issues that needed clarification. As Madam Justice Matheson stated the day before, most of the time had to be allocated to clarifying questions asked by her and the lawyers of both sides.

As a result of his bizarre defense strategy, which he followed while answering the clarifying questions, Khurrum Awan managed to dig himself even deeper into difficult to explain contradictions. Looking and listening to him, I wondered whether I was in a Canadian courtroom or was transported into an episode of Rod Serling’s show, where almost everybody tries to defy logic.

I will go into more details in a minute, but let me first say again a word about that day’s coverage by the Canadian “conservative” press. The only journalist of national prominence writing regularly about the trial – Christie Blatchford – wrote another article.

Obviously, she didn’t find anything worthwhile to write about Day 7, so she went back to the verbal exchange Shiller and Levant had about the late Jennifer Lynch of CHRC. Ms. Blatchford says that Ms. Lynch’s controversial entrapment-style methods were abhorred by Ezra, as pointed out by Mr. Shiller:

“When she accosted me on Parliament Hill back in May, I didn’t recognize her, she is much more haggard and old than her ancient publicity picture. In other words, she surprised me. I think I shook her hand, because I had no idea who that old woman was who approached me. I dearly wish I had known who she was, for I would never have shaken the hand that shook the hands of so many Nazis…”

The interesting thing is that this part of the post was so gratuitously cruel; he had already, earlier in it, nicely dissected Ms. Lynch for her weak defence of her hate-speech-seeking staff.”

Then Ms. Blatchford reveals her sensitive reaction to that post, because she has been treated in the same way due to her appearance. Being a target, she has adopted a different attitude:

“Maybe that’s why I’m sensitive to the naked meanness of it, though it’s not the only reason. The longer I spend in this business, the more I try to adopt the physician’s motto of do no harm, or do as little harm as possible, as my own credo. I fail, of course, because unlike Mr. Levant, who says he writes “a million words a year” and makes only a handful of mistakes, I make a great many, of fact and judgment.”

Christie is damn right that she makes a great many mistakes and doing no harm to Ms. Lynch is one of them. Jennifer Lynch was one of the most disgusting, ghastly and revolting “public servants” in Canada. If it weren’t for people like Levant, and Lynch had her way, Blatchford sooner or later would’ve gotten the short end of the stick of the CHRC censorship policy.

While she complains about the “naked meanness” of the defendant, she makes another mistake earlier in the same article. Discussing a particular point of Mr. Awan’s testimony, Ms. Blatchford notes:

“To Mr. Levant, who is being sued for libel by Mr. Awan, this was the moment when he knew he had the then-law student by the short and curlies.”

At the trial Brian Shiller said a few times that journalists like Ezra Levant should check and verify their statements. Maybe Ms. Blatchford’s compassionate side could follow that advice, instead of choosing the idiom “by the short and curlies.”

The problem is that Mr. Awan is bald (that’s a verified statement of fact). He might be naturally bald or maybe he shaves his head, which makes him a false member of the “bald community,” as Larry David would put it. To keep in line with Mr. Shiller’s directive, I promise to ask Mr. Awan about the reason of his baldness to turn the previous sentence from a fair comment into a statement of fact.

Whatever the reason, I think Mr. Shiller would agree that saying how Ezra holds a bald man “by the curlies” is a cruel joke. That’s in case she means his missing head hair; if she refers to the x-rated version of the idiom, I have no comment. If Ms. Blatchford kept up with the politically correct absurdity of the trial, she could’ve chosen the idiom more carefully.

Unfortunately, after spending a week in court listening to absurd interpretations of words with the purpose to harm Ezra Levant, it is hard to avoid scrutinizing the words of the people who are against him.


The fight over words and their meanings was at the heart of the last session of the court. Ezra Levant took the stand again to respond to his lawyer’s questions.

McKinnon introduced a few documents supporting the allegation that Awan is a serial complainer – a letter to Jason Kenney; a press release with CIC as contact; a letter to the Globe and Mail of 2007 indicating the donation demand, etc. Levant confirmed that he was familiar with them.

Then he asked Levant whether he wrote the words that the three Muslim students are terrorists (asked by Brian Shiller the days before). The words appeared in quotation marks. Levant responded that those were not his words; he was reporting live and referred to another blogger’s writing, that’s why he put the phrase in quotation marks. He added that when Mr. Shiller asked him about that yesterday, he didn’t remember the exact words, but it sounded to him as if he wanted him to own the authorship of the phrase. So Levant wanted once again to make crystal clear that he didn’t write those words.

Another issue raised previously was takiyya. Mr. Shiller referred earlier to two different links to definitions explaining the term. Ezra’s explanation was that at the hearing he quickly googled the word to find a definition. At a later post, he referred to the definition of Daniel Pipes, which was more scholarly.


McKinnon: It was said that you have mentioned Khurrum Awan many times on your website. Did he mention you on his site?

Ezra Levant: Yes, I checked yesterday and found out that on his website my name was mentioned over 20 times.

McKinnon: You also mentioned that Mr. Awan introduced Mr. Elmasry at a Canadian Charger event in 2009. How do you know this fact?

Ezra Levant: A video from the event was posted on YouTube. Mr. Awan was the MC of the event. He spoke highly of Mr. Elmasry.

McKinnon: Do you ever make corrections in your blog, if somebody requests them?

Ezra Levant: I write extensively, about a million words per year, and also have a TV show. I check things, which is a good journalistic practice, but occasionally errors occur. I would correct them, if I am notified. For example, Mr. Warman contacted me once by e-mail about an important mistake, which I promptly corrected. I have very few correction requests on the newspaper and TV side. I have also made apologies a few times. However, when you discuss political issues, you may clash with people, who are political opponents. Such complaints do not necessarily require corrections of apologies. I mentioned Mr. Awan only in reference to the human rights case, then I wrote nothing, and again after his letter to the Toronto Star.

Judge: Clarification about the postings to the blog mentioned in the discovery examination – you said you used first your Blackbury, then computer. Is this the correct way you did it?

Ezra Levant: I cannot remember clearly, but I used both, sometimes it was easier to use the computer because of its keyboard.

After a break, Mr. Awan took the stand. Brian Shiller was about to start asking questions, when the judge warned him that she didn’t want to hear questions that the court has already been through.

Shiller: Why didn’t you contact Mr. Felton to correct the article in Canadian Arab News?

Awan: I was not aware of that newspaper at the time, I saw the quote in Levant’s book, and after that I saw it published on Mr. Felton’s website. At that point I wasn’t sure how to contact Mr. Felton.

Shiller: Mr. Levant testified that you worked for Canadian Charger, is that true?

Awan: False – I never worked for them. I was approached by two professors at Queen’s University, who were the driving force, and they told me they were starting an alternative progressive magazine, which they wanted to model to similar online magazines like They invited me to the editorial board, which I declined for a variety of reasons. Later they requested that I attend a pre-launch fundraiser event, where I was to talk about the alternative progressive media. I also had to introduce several speakers. Later I assisted two individuals to sue the Canadian Charger and Mr. Elmasry, and in 2009 I assisted another organization with their charges against the magazine.

(OK, let’s take a movie break. The Canadian Charger video is still online. In it you can see the enthusiastic Mr. Awan introducing Elmasry as CIC’s “founding father” – Awan in the video has nothing in common with the forgetful amnesiac we saw during the trial. The real attraction in it is Mohamed Elmasry – it is hilarious to watch how he tries to reinvent himself as a progressive online publisher. He is as convincing as an absurd Monty Python character. Yet he finds it necessary to call Awan a hero; express concern about global warming; make fun of Conrad Black and share his “vision” about the online media defeating the printed media. I wonder why he had to start the Maclean’s brouhaha, if he could so easily defeat the magazine online.)

It is hard to explain how after that cozy meeting Awan stabbed Elmasry in the back by helping his enemies sue him, but unfortunately I am not a specialist in Muslim ethics.

Then Mr. Shiller continued: Mr. Levant has made remarks about how you pay your legal costs. How do you cover them?

Awan: At the time when all started, I was about to settle in Saskatchewan, I had $70,000-$80,000 in student debt. My associate salary in Saskatchewan was significantly lower than elsewhere. The first two years, when my wife was a student, we were on a shoestring budget, but my wife worked and we were able to cover our legal expenses. In order to have those two incomes, we had to delay our plans to have a family.

Shiller raised again the question whether Awan was asked to help during the hearing in British Columbia. Naturally, he denied it. He was called to testify and didn’t know the exact time, so he couldn’t move around (the space was tight) and any movement could’ve caused disturbance.

Shiller: Mr. Levant said that the requested donation was mentioned twice – at the initial meeting at Maclean’s and at the press conference.

Awan: There was no donation mentioned at the press conference. It was held only to announce the request for a reasonable response and that was all. In response to a reporter’s question about donation, Mr. Joseph said that the donation was requested at the initial meeting.

Shiller: Do you accept Mr. Levant’s interpretation of your comment on Garth Turner’s site?

Awan: No. I have been active in the community for many years, even before CIC, and in all those years I have never held a view that any position of the Canadian government in support of Israel is inappropriate.

Then McKinnon started questioning Awan.

McKinnon: Would you explain why you didn’t contact Mr. Levant in 2009 to correct the article?

Awan: I don’t recall the exact dates. I didn’t have Google alerts about my name. The Google alerts were about the Maclean’s case.

McKinnon: You said you didn’t want to interfere with Mr. Felton about that error. Why didn’t you contact him to correct what in your opinion was such a glaring error, when you didn’t even say those words?

Awan: I already started the legal proceedings at the time and wasn’t comfortable contacting him.

McKinnon: You don’t sue Levant for Feltman’s words, but for other issues. So you say you didn’t want to interfere with a lawsuit by contacting Mr. Feltman about something you never said?

Awan: There were many, many things Mr. Levant said that I was suing him for.

McKinnon: Was that the same reason that you never contacted Mr. Levant to correct all those issues on his blog before suing?

Awan: The reason for that was that he was calling me different names, like “little Al Sharpton” and others. The second reason was that I knew about many people, who debated with Mr. Levant about the human rights commissions. He trashed them, published their allegations and attacked them further. That’s why I wasn’t interested in communicating with him.

McKinnon: So you didn’t contact him and preferred to sue?

Awan: After the Maclean’s magazine I wanted to go on with my work, but then Mr. Levant referenced me in Shakedown and other publications. Then came his reaction to my letter to the Toronto Star.

McKinnon: That wasn’t my question. I asked that you didn’t contact him to correct the statements in the blog, but chose to sue him instead, is that correct?

Awan: I sued him because Mr. Levant was an irrational commentator and there was no reason to contact him.

McKinnon: So the only reason you didn’t contact him was because he was irrational?

Awan: No, but I have seen him trash other people, like in his comments about the chief commissioners of HRC in British Columbia and Ontario. He was an unreasonable commentator, he called me “an anti-Semitic CIC bastard” and other names. I didn’t expect that he would respond fairly to my objections.

McKinnon: Would you agree that one option to correct somebody’s statement is to contact that person?

Awan: Yes, if that person is a fair and reasonable commentator.

McKinnon: So only if they are fair and reasonable you will contact them, if they are not, the only option is to sue them. Correct?

Awan: No, there were other options, like ignoring them, making conter-comments, sending letters to the editor and others.

McKinnon: But the option you chose was to sue?

Awan: I didn’t find the other options viable in this case. His blogs speak for themselves.

McKinnon: You said you were involved with the Canadian Charger. You mentioned you were approached by the professors with an offer to sit on the editorial board. They did so because you were close to Mr. Elmasry’s point of view to be expressed in the magazine. Correct?

Awan: Not at all. All three students were invited, because we already had experience, to provide checks and balances to the new publication. They were aware that I don’t agree with Mr. Elmasry on a variety of issues.

McKinnon: You would agree with me that people on the editorial boards shape the policies of a publication, right?

Awan: I haven’t been on the editorial board, but assume that’s how it works.

McKinnon: But didn’t they invite all of you, because your views align with the views of Mr. Elmasry?

Awan: No, they recognized us as Muslim activists with progressive views. I declined.

McKinnon: They must’ve explained to you why they invited you.

Awan: I don’t remember the specifics of the discussion. I also went into private practice and wasn’t interested.

McKinnon: I understand, but you seem to remember very well what was said at the testimony and the press conference in 2008, which was earlier.

Awan: There were transcripts from those events.

McKinnon: The Canadian Charger fundraiser – despite your refusal to join the editorial board, they invited you to introduce Mr. Elmasry.

Awan: No, they invited me to introduce several speakers and talk on the alternative progressive media.

McKinnon: And it was you out of anybody else in the entire world, who was chosen to introduce Mr. Elmasry.

Awan: I have no idea why they chose me.

McKinnon: I would suggest that you knew exactly why they chose you – you shared his views and were sympathetic to him and in a close relationship with him. Correct?

Awan: Absolutely not – I was invited because my experience with the Maclean’s complaint made the case that the alternative media are important. I wasn’t close to him – later I provided legal assistance to people who wanted to sue him and the Canadian Charger.

McKinnon: Was Mr. Elmasry aware of that?

Awan: I am not sure.

McKinnon: Are you the counsel on record in the legal cases against Elmasry and the magazine?

Awan: No, in the second case I was asked about the viability of legal action.

McKinnon: So you are not listed on any documents concerning the proceedings?

Awan: No, I am not. There was only a letter sent from the legal firm I worked for.

McKinnon: So it is safe to assume that Mr. Elmasry wasn’t aware of your participation.

Awan: I am not sure.

McKinnon: Both of those cases were filed around 2009?

Awan: Yes.

After a break, the lawyers and the judge decided to schedule the presentation of the final arguments for April 7.

That was the end of it. I will update you in April with the contents of the arguments.

However, I think that there are certain lessons we can learn from this important trial that the mainstream media underestimated. I’ll cover them later this week. Stay tuned…


© 2014


Invitation to Israel Truth Week 2014

The third annual Israel Truth Week conference will take place on March 23 at Lodzer Synagogue (12 Heaton Street, Toronto). You can register for free admission at the event’s website.

ITW poster

The event is a brainchild of the Caledonia equal rights activist Mark Vandermaas. Frustrated with reports about the harassment of Jewish on Canadian campuses because of events happening in Israel, he decided to create an event, where the truth about Israel could be told in an open and impartial way.

From its humble beginning in London (Ontario) the ITW has grown, attracting more participants and speakers and even raising substantial donations for medical charities. This year’s charity is Israel’s ambulance service (through Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel). The interactive nature of the conference, where friends of Israel can mingle and discuss any issues with the speakers, makes it a place to learn more about the most maligned country in the Middle East.

The Israel Truth Week also serves as an antidote to another event – the infamous Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW). The latter is Toronto’s largest “contribution” to the global anti-Semitism. It is difficult to understand the significance of the ITW, if you don’t grasp the magnitude of the IAW annual Israel slander-fest.

The IAW presents an extremely distorted picture of Israel, as seen by the far left, Muslim extremists and the boycott Israel movement. The hatred displayed by those groups is so deep that even while they hide it under the code word “Zionism,” it is very clear that the final goal is the destruction of Israel.

It is true that recently the IAW has been losing its lustre. Many lefty “celebrities” shun it. When I first covered it, it opened with a much fanfare by the lefty super-activist Judy Rebick and the University of Toronto Professor Abigail Bakan. True, both would’ve felt more at home in the Faculty of Scientific Communism of the Patrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University of the USSR in the times of Brezhnev, but they are at least nominally mainstream figures in Canada.

After the Godfather of the movement, Norman Finkelstein, chastised it for its excesses, many academics and politicians tried to distance themselves from the IAW. That created the deceptive impression that the IAW influence is waning. Actually, the vacuum was filled quickly with extremists with no real social standing, who didn’t have the self-restraint of the well-known public figures. Under the right circumstances, such people can cause a lot of damage. (Don’t forget that in the early 1917 Vladimir I. Lenin was a grumpy penniless activist residing in Switzerland.)

A look at the events of this year’s IAW program confirms that trend. A panel dealt with Building the Global BDS movement: Lessons from South Africa, Palestine and Canada, presented by Yusuf Saloojee – the former South African ANC representative in Canada, and Hind Awwad – former Coordinator for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) in Palestine.

They still exploit shamelessly the Holocaust to justify the Arab fight against Israel using the usual not-so-useful idiots, like in Continuity and Resistance: From the Holocaust to Palestine, with Suzanne Weiss – Holocaust survivor and Palestine solidarity activist.

The lefty lunacy was frightening in the discussion about Resisting Settler Colonial States through Global Solidarities and Activist Campaigns, with Carrie Lester – Indigenous rights and environmental activist; Samah Idriss – Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel in Lebanon, Editor of al-Adab and an unidentified speaker from SodaStream Campaign from Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA). It looks like Turtle Island, just like Israel, should be “decolonized.”

They even use the homosexuality as a weapon against the only country in the Middle East that has legalized it: Pinkwashing, Homonationalism and Love under the time of Apartheid, with Zeina Amro – Love Under the Time of Apartheid Campaign, Palestine, and Natalie Kouri-Towe from the notorious Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

The themes of the events and the titles of the participants sound like ramblings of inmates in an insane asylum. However, unlike those inmates, who are safely locked up, the IAW activists are free to roam the streets in Canada. And if they keep repeating their seemingly crazy lies without any opposition, many people could eventually accept them as truth.

That’s why it is so important to support events like the Israel Truth Week, presented by people who have actual knowledge about the history and the political realities of Israel. When you are informed about the facts, it is much easier to confront the lies and deceptions of those who hate the Jews and Israel.

Tomorrow I am going to present the speakers of the Israel Truth Week. None of them has the insane charm of the ragtag crowd behind the IAW, but most have the education and years of experience that would help every attendee understand the truth about the State of Israel and its people.


© 2014


Ezra Levant on Trial – Day 6 – When the Lawyers Attack

The sixth day of the trial of Ezra Levant was marked by the “clash of the titans.” Khurrum Awan’s lawyer cross-examined Ezra Levant. The trial’s importance about the free speech in Canada continues to be underestimated even by the so-called conservative commentators.

Jonathan Kay painted a very optimistic picture in his column:

Prior to 9/11, the government didn’t pry into the violent, extremist views of the people who ran the country’s Arab, Muslim, Sikh and Tamil organization. This was less than a decade ago, yet in Jason Kenney’s Canada it seems part of ancient history. The people who ran these groups — including Elmasry — are now marginal figures, completely ignored by Ottawa and the media. They have been replaced by respectable, mainstream, media-savvy organizations such as the Canadian Arab Institute.

I could’ve respected that opinion, if it came from an alien, who accidentally landed near the stacks of free Toronto Star newspapers at York University and spent a week there. However, when a prominent journalist makes this statement, one could only keep wondering what Kay is smoking.

This is not ancient history. There are plenty of Muslim organizations, which are far from respectable, but still influential. One of them is suing the Prime Minister for libel. We also have our own terrorists – both in Canada and (many more) overseas. I wonder how an expert on conspiracies could miss that?!

Christie Blatchford continued to praise the lovely Muslim students, who trashed Mclean’s. She even proposed a way that could’ve solved the problem:

What’s interesting to me is that I suspect the whole shebang could have been resolved — O! the trees that would have been saved, the billable hours! — had Maclean’s belonged to the Ontario Press Council.

This was the outfit, according to testimony from Naseem Mithoowani, one of the students and a lovely young woman, they had first considered taking their grievance to, but membership is voluntary, and the magazine didn’t belong.

A long time ago, for a number of years, I was a professional member of the council and found it instructive: Member newspapers are bound only to run corrections when the council finds there were mistakes or unfairness, but the process itself – the complainant testifying, being listened to – is inherently cathartic.

That fascinating council appears to be something like a Newspaper Comintern, where wise people like Christie can tell you what your mistakes are and how to be fair. It is frightening to think that she seriously considers the option that three Muslim extortionists could be taken seriously enough to make their case and force that strange body to tell Maclean’s what to do. There is nothing cathartic about that…

As of Mr. Shiller, after listening the whole day to his questions, it was difficult to find a strategy. He looked like a person, who wanted to use complex tools to destroy Ezra Levant’s credibility, but in most cases the attempts backfired. Probably because there were two lawyers against each other and unlike Awan’s, Levant’s strategy didn’t include the option to look stupid and ignorant.

If you don’t find consistency in the questions, maybe Mr. Brian Shiller could explain what he meant.

Mr. Shiller started by discussing the necessity to check all facts when somebody works as a journalist. The same should be applied to bloggers. Then he moved to the issue of the human rights commissions. He wondered why Ezra Levant called them censors and kangaroo courts – after all, they dispense justice.

He also mentioned that Ezra called the commissions stupid and held the opinion that “the kangaroos in British Columbia are illiterate.” Does that mean they can’t read? Ezra’s reply was that most of those qualifications shouldn’t be taken seriously. They rather describe the functional inability of the commissions to resolve conflict regarding human rights.

After that Mr. Shiller asked Ezra who Jennifer Lynch was. Ezra replied that the late Ms. Lynch was the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Shiller added that she was also a chief of staff for Joe Clark and held a high position at RCMP. When he asked the next question, it became clear why he was adding those facts.

Ezra called her “chief censor” and wrote about her in his blog. He described his meeting with her – an odious woman, who looks much older than her official pictures. He hesitated to shake her hand. Mr. Shiller asked for an explanation of that description.

Ezra explained how some of her employees joined neo-Nazi organizations to provoke incriminating responses from them by spreading hate speech on forums, that was against all rules. It is hard to shake the hand of a person who condones such methods.

Shiller added that calling her an old odious woman doesn’t advance free speech. The statement is actually an insult. Levant explained that he wrote down his impression at the time. Not everything one says is for advancement of free speech. He didn’t see what was wrong with his impression.

Then Shiller brought up the conflict between Levant and the Mayor of Calgary Nenshi. Levant stated last week that he liked the Ismaili Islam, yet he called Nenshi an anti-Christian bigot. Ezra explained: Yes, I did so because he kicked out a Christian pastor from the City Hall. I said that the Ismaili Islam is beautiful, I have visited mosques. My argument was with the left-wing mayor of Calgary and has nothing to do with Islam. He asked me if I beat my wife.

Then Mr. Shiller jumped on the Vigna libel case: Justice Smith said about it – making fun of his accent was not a problem, but he found other libelous statements and ordered Levant to pay him $25,000. He had to remove parts of your blog in which you accused him of lying to the CHRC and claimed that he switched records.

Ezra Levant: The latter was not a false statement.

Shiller: Would you agree that reputation is important to everybody, like Vigna, Awan, Elmasry, so they can sue if it is damaged?

Ezra Levant: Yes.

Shiller: And you can sue when your feelings are hurt?

Ezra Levant: No, there is no tort for hurt feelings.

S: But you can claim that you have been embarrassed. And you can sue if anyone calls you a bigot. You can sue for hostility against Muslims?

Ezra’s lawyer, Iain McKinnon, objected that those were legal questions about grounds.

Judge: If he asks about legal grounds you can stand again.

Shiller: You sued 13 people for defamation. There was a suit in 2004 for money misuse. Another one was about being accused of fraud – that was in 2003.

McKinnon objected again – those past lawsuits are irrelevant.

Shiller: No, it’s important to cover them, because Ezra Levant mentions nuisance lawsuits and lawfare.

Ezra Levant: This was not a nuisance lawsuit – I was accused of stealing money and the accusation made it into Calgary Herald.

Then Mr. Shiller brought up more cases, in which Ezra was the accused. All of them have been won by Levant. The oldest issue was a letter Levant wrote in 1998 about wrongdoing of a certain Conservative senator. The party asked him to withdraw the letter and sign and apology, although he still stands by what he wrote.

Mr. Shiller actually wanted to find out the difference between the two types of lawsuits – Awan’s and Levant’s.

Ezra Levant: Awan was a bigot, he was a major figure in a bigoted organization, which included a person like Elmasry. His whole strategy was wrong – if Maclean’s didn’t obey his demands, he was willing to sue. In my case, the lawsuits were about being accused of stealing money – that was settled quickly.

Shiller: Is Awan anti-Semitic? What is your proof for that statement?

Ezra Levant: I don’t have his statements, but if you are a part of an anti-Semitic organization, you can’t claim that you are innocent. It’s like joining KKK and then claim that you joined because you liked the costumes, but didn’t share their ideas.

Shiller: So you can’t show any specific anti-Semitic statements.

(Typical – that was the strategy of denial of everything that Awan did with CIC).

Shiller brought up new aspects of the Awan case: You had a statement about him not being registered as a lawyer in Alberta. You also wondered if he was incompetent.

Ezra Levant: I stated that “the law society site didn’t list him.” I didn’t make my own statement.

Shiller: Wasn’t that your opinion – that he is not registered?

Ezra Levant: No.

After a break Mr. Shiller introduced the Toronto Star letter by Awan. He quoted statements about Ezra Levant accusing HRC of censorship about the cartoons. You called his letter embarrassing, yet it was altered by the editors of the newspaper.

Ezra Levant: I didn’t know at the time what happened.

Shiller: You didn’t investigate the issue. He told you it was altered.

Ezra Levant: Awan had a record of lying.

Shiler: Why didn’t you contact him to verify? As a journalist you are obligated to verify. Awan mentioned the letter in the libel notice, you could’ve corrected your post. So the error was brought to your attention in a timely manner.

Ezra Levant: He didn’t send me the e-mail proving it.

Shiller: But you could’ve investigated it.

Ezra Levant: But he didn’t contact me before the lawsuit.

Then the questions switched again to the role of Awan during the hearing at the British Columbia HRC tribunal: On page 25 in “Shakedown” is mentioned that Awan was called in B.C. to give evidence against Maclean’s. Was it important to get the facts straight? Fact-checking by the publisher?

Ezra Levant: Technically F. Joseph called him as a witness; de facto Awan was more than a witness, he was a junior lawyer, author of the claims. My book is a factual report, while my blog is interpretation. When I wrote about the Porter statement concerning the details about the money demand, I should’ve said it was an oral statement, not a document. It was my mistake.

Shiller: You didn’t see written demand.

Ezra Levant: Again, I would’ve written oral demand.

Then both discussed the records of Awan’s testimony about the money demand. Shiller claimed that Ezra falsely accused Awan of denial.

Then Shiller raised Awan’s co-counsel issue again.

Ezra Levant: That was based on my observations – Awan not only sat there, but did certain work. It is not controversial to say what I see. That case shows my issues with the human rights commissions – they don’t have proper procedures.

Shiller talked again about page 25 of Shakedown.

Ezra Levant: This book is not about him – he is simply mentioned there. At the time I could never imagine that one day the issue about where Awan sat at the hearing will be so important– at the time it wasn’t significant enough to mention. I meant by co-counsel that he was doing many things that a lawyer does, without being appointed to this position. In TV interviews he called himself a complainant.

Shiller: You didn’t produce those interviews as evidence. The same applies to your claims about him drafting the claims.

Ezra Levant: Awan can’t both take credit for the complaint and then deny it 6 years later.

Shiller: At the B.C. hearing, as you said on Friday, Awan was interchangeable with the other students. On day one he testified – do you agree? Then on day two he was also on the stand. After the testimony ended he left. Right?

Ezra Levant: I have to check the time but I observed him there. I don’t recall whether he left.

Shiller: Despite your claim that he was interchangeable, he spent most of the time testifying.

Again and again, the issue about where Awan sat came up.

Ezra Levant: There were pews behind the counsel table, which were filled with journalists. Awan wasn’t sitting with them.

Shiller: But you didn’t mention that in your writings.

Ezra Levant: Nobody thought that this inconsequential detail would come up on trial 6 years later. I am sure he sat at the counsel table.

Shiller: Faisal Joseph has been an officer of court for 30 years and Naseem is a lawyer – did they lie about where Awan sat?

Ezra Levant: I am not saying that, they may not recall correctly. Brian Hutchinson supported my recollection. It is hard to remember such things.

Shiller brought up again the correction about the Toronto Star letter, to which Ezra replied that Awan should’ve contacted him before filing the libel, besides his statement was a fair comment.

After lunch Mr. Shiller continued: You mentioned Jason Kenney’s letter to Awan on Friday. F. Joseph is a Muslim professional who works for HRC and you want to destroy those commissions. You called the students Muslim terrorists – it was a title in your blog.

Ezra Levant: The statement is not true – you are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t see anything like that. Please show me the specific blog posts that verify your statement.

(Shiller didn’t provide that information.)

Shiller: You also attack people involved in the HRC.

Ezra Levant: Only if warranted. That’s activism in action.

Shiller: Do you think you are an expert in running the HRC cases?

Ezra Levant: I have witnessed their work and have been through a case.

Then Mr. Shiller started reading from old documents and comments on how Ezra mocked the kangaroo judges, their stupidity, standing up for the tribunal, etc. He asked Ezra if he agrees about each of the statements. Ezra noted that those are not real judges. The commissioners didn’t understand basic procedures.

Shiller: Was the tribunal really stupid?

Ezra Levant: The made a stupid decisions at that moment.

Shiller: Is Faisal Joseph a bigot?

Ezra Levant: If you work for an organization like CIC, you are definitely a bigot. Faisal Joseph called me an idiot blogger.

Shiller: Is Faisal Joseph an anti-Semite?

Ezra Levant: I have no way to get into his mind to form an opinion, but his client CIC is anti-Semitic.

Shiller: In 2009 you were a member of the Law Society of Alberta. The way you call the HRC names is not civil. Doesn’t the civility requirement apply to you?

Ezra Levant: I have strong opinions, but I have never had serious complaints.

Shiller: You have had several complaints. Can you talk about them?

Ezra Levant: Many complaints were dismissed. I am bound to keep confidential those that are still active. Do you want me to do something unethical? Besides, too many clients of your firm sue me.

(That caused laughter among the audience, but Mr. Shiller didn’t like it that his firm was mentioned.)

Shiller: Do you agree that you painted a whole community with a broad brush?

Ezra Levant: Please be more specific about the question.

Shiller explained with a quote from Ezra’s apology on the gypsy issue, in which he used the brush analogy. Can’t he apply the same to the legal community?

Ezra Levant: They are totally different communities, with different characteristics. The gypsies are an ethnic and cultural community. The legal community is a community of choice.

Shiller: Did you want to destroy Awan’s credibility in your fight to discredit the HRC?

Ezra Levant: Anti-Semitism and credibility are not related – you remember that Elmasry is an engineer.

Shiller: So when you saw that Awan and Felton appeared on the same panel, you considered them friends. Does that make you a friend with Elmasry since you were in a panel with him?

Ezra Levant: I meant that they were friendly, allies, colleagues, etc.

Then Mr. Shiller brought up again the issue of the nuisance lawsuits and lawfare. Ezra mentioned Vigna, saying that he was Ruby’s client. Shiller denied it. Ezra said he could check – Vigna was their client in the last stage of the proceedings. That made Shiller angry and he errupted – don’t ask any more about our clients!

After that Shiller produced a copy of a document he said was from Ezra’s site. Ezra didn’t recall what it was and asked for details. Shiller said it was a video transcript from Ezra’s show. Ezra objected that then it wasn’t from his site, but from Sun News. In it Ezra discusses Ruby’s firm and says that they engage with lefty political causes, mentioning Benjamin Levin’s alleged child molestation case. Shiller mentioned that this is not a political case, but Ezra wanted to discredit the firm by linking it to an alleged child molester.

Ezra objected that Levin is a high profile member of the Liberal Party of Ontario and its government, who is close to Kathleen Wynne, thus the case is political. He again said that the video was not on his site, but on Sun’s.

That caused a heated exchange between Shiller and Levant and the judge had to interfere.

Then Shiller went into some statements about Awan’s financial situation and his ability to pay his legal expenses. Ezra noted that on that issue the two lawyers had a conversation. Shiller didn’t seem to remember it. At that moment Awan approached Shiller and whispered something in his ear. Shiller abruptly withdrew the question.

At that time Shiller was becoming more and more impatient, often interrupting Ezra.

He asked if Awan was anti-Semitic.

Ezra Levant: He was associated with an anti-Semitic organization, but I can’t see in his heart.

Shiller: Did you know that he was never a member of CIC?

Ezra Levant: No, but that’s how he always presented himself.

Shiller: You called him Illiberal Islamic Fascist.

Ezra Levant: I did, the first two words are not offensive, and the third expresses his methods of censorship attempts.

Then Shiller went into the discovery examination transcripts. He stated that at the time Ezra used a milder definition, but today he called Awan fascist.

At the end Shiller totally lost patience and almost slammed a volume on the table…

If you can find a strategy in the above cross-examination, I envy you.

The trial continues tomorrow…


© 2014




Ezra Levant on Trial – Day 5 – Ezra Testifies

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


Ezra Levant on Trial – Day 4

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


Ezra Levant on Trial – Day 3

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


Ezra Levant on Trial – Day 2

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


Thornhill: the Myth of the Friendly Muslim Neighbourhood

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.

One of the cartoons mocking the Jews

One of the cartoons mocking the Jews

A proud Khomeinist poses for a portrait

A proud Khomeinist poses for a portrait

Standard blackmail – “Palestinian genocide”

Standard blackmail – “Palestinian genocide”

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:

Angry Muslim seniors against YouTube

Angry Muslim seniors against YouTube

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.


New Muslim rules for Canada

New Muslim rules for Canada

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.”

Student and senior jointly trash Israel

Student and senior jointly trash 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.


Moderate Muslims with immoderate demands

Moderate Muslims with immoderate demands

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 charming Hezbollah groupies

The charming Hezbollah groupies

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.

The future “warrior”

The future “warrior”

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


Galilee and the Arab Snakes in the Knesset

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.


Intifada Jamal in Toronto

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



Kristyn Wong-Tam Condones the Naked Homosexual Exhibitionists

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.

TDSB - sex depravity as official policy

TDSB – sex depravity as official policy

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”:


Nothing gets them off better than flashing school girls

Nothing gets them off better than flashing school girls


No comment

No comment



Even the babies are not safe


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.


Wong-Tam with one of the gay parade freaks


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.]


… / 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





Globalization Bloodshed in Ukraine

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



Pothead Justin Trudeau – Good for Burning Only

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.

Justin-Trudeau-rolling-paper-packagingThe 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


When Will the Jewish Leaders Notice the Jew-Hating Muslim Elephant?

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

Homosexual Bullies Trash Canadian Olympic Athlete

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.

intergenerational gay project

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




Vaginas for Sale at York University

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


Be My Muslim Valentine

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.


In solidarity with the Valentine-deprived

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