Recently two Canadian Muslim terrorists (both converts to Islam) committed heinous attacks, resulting in the deaths of two soldiers – Patrice Vincent and Nathan Cirillo. It’s amusing that since then the mainstream media had been busy downplaying the Islamic element in both cases. We are also bombarded with interviews of whiny Muslims, complaining how hard the attacks have been on them because of the potential “backlash” (there is never concern for the soldiers).
You may guess that the opinions of the people on the other side, who are concerned with the safety of their families under the danger of Muslim extremism, are not that popular in the media. Of course – such opinions threaten to stain the rich tapestry of the Canadian multiculturalism. Saving the latter is more important than a few dead soldiers.
But things are much worse than that – the media is not the only force involved in the cover-up. The judicial system is also part of it. And I don’t mean the Human Rights Commissions, those kangaroo courts run by ignorant but vicious activists, which are the Canadian version of the Spanish Inquisition. I mean the real courts, headed by supposedly wise judges, expected to disperse justice for the benefit of all Canadians. Do they do a good job?
How about letting somebody rot in jail for three months without trial for criticizing Islam?
That’s what happened to Eric Brazau. He was arrested on July 30, 2014, and he is still in jail. Brazau is an outspoken critic of Islam. He sees it as a violent ideology, built on the Koran, which is a grave danger to Canada. He is not against individual Muslims, but he thinks that they should make a stand and oppose that false religion, otherwise they are aiding and abetting it. Brazau is definitely not a Sunday school teacher material – he could be abrasive and insistent in discussing the issues of Islam, but don’t we all in Canada have the right to free speech?
Wrong – on the way of free speech stand the dreadful “hate speech” provisions of the Criminal Code. They are vague and allow to be applied by the judges based on their personal views and preferences. Brazau is one of the most prominent victims of those laws – because of them, in the last three years he has spent 380 days in jail (almost 13 months) and that doesn’t include the last three months.
On July 30, 2014, Eric Brazau was on the Toronto subway. He is very talkative and usually starts conversations with the passengers, which in many cases leads to discussing Islam and terrorism. Naturally, most Muslims go berserk when their religion is criticized. However, the downtown politically correct crowd is even worse – they feel that they must defend to death any exotic religion or cult (Christianity is fair game to them).
After the conversation became too heated, somebody (not Brazau) pressed the alarm button for reporting incidents, even though there was no incident. That button stops the train at the next station and TTC (Toronto transit) officers show up to investigate. Instead of dismissing the “incident” and scolding the person for pushing the button, the officer ordered Brazau to leave. He refused with the objection that he did nothing wrong and can’t be kicked out for having a conversation. Then the police were called. Even though he didn’t resist, they dragged him out of the train and pinned him to the ground. Below you see stills from video footage, which we obtained from an eyewitness. Looking at the pictures, you may think that the police have just caught Paul Bernardo or other serial killer.
I have been following his case – this incident comes a few months after he was convicted of spreading “hate speech” in April of 2014. More on this case later. After the arrest I was notified by his friends that he will have a bail hearing on August 11, 2014. The Crown was very aggressive in making the case for keeping him in jail – he was considered an agitator with dangerous views, who could be a danger to society. They were considering charging him with mischief, disturbance and spreading hate speech. They also claimed that the two people, who were going to post the bail, were incapable of controlling him.
Brazau’s lawyer argued that he had already spent 13 days in jail. What happened on the subway was a minor incident and if necessary, he could be ordered to stay away from the subway. In the end, the judge sided with the Crown, saying that she was concerned with Brazau’s “hate speech” record and thought that he could be detained on security grounds. The bail was denied.
More than a month later the Crown dropped the “hate speech” charge. No surprise in that – it was ridiculous to even consider it in this case. There was no way it could stand in court (though it could turn into a glaring testimony for the pro-Muslim bias of the courts). However, mentioning it at the bail hearing helped keep Brazau in jail.
The move was supposed to crush his spirit – he didn’t do anything wrong, but was forced to share the jail space with real criminals awaiting trial, like murderers, burglars, people involved in assault, etc. That was a common tactic applied to dissidents in the Soviet Union.
I have been corresponding with him and you can see one of his letters below (reproduced with his permission). It is possible to use in jail many items as weapons, so the inmates are allowed to use only pencils for writing. Brazau has been pressured to plead guilty for mischief to shorten his stay in jail. He refuses and that’s why he is still there, three months after his arrest.
All of Brazau’s troubles began when he started distributing a flyer with cartoons ridiculing Islam (I can’t show it due to publication ban). The drawings were not worse than anything that Muslims publish against Jews, but in Canada Islam has a special elevated status. The flyer started a chain of events not unlike those in Franz Kafka’s novel “The Trial,” where Josef K. was charged with an unknown crime, which gradually ruined his life. In Brazau’s case, the initial charges mushroomed into various bail violations (like using a computer at an internet café), which gradually added up to 380 days spent in jail. Legal experts think that he was treated unfairly and he is appealing the case. (Everything is so complicated that it needs to be covered in a separate article.)
In the pictures below you see one of the occasions when he was arrested during the ordeal in 2013 – he does his trademark imam shtick, which makes fun of Islam. But for the stupid white people in downtown Toronto there is nothing funny about offending their favourite religion. The police share their opinion, which caused Brazau’s arrest.
I attended the sentencing in April this year. While listening to the judge, explaining why Eric Brazau was such a danger, it became painfully obvious why the “hate speech” laws must be abolished as soon as possible.
The Crown had requested 6 months jail for his hate crime and 3 months consecutive for criminal harassment (because he took several pictures of a Muslim on the street), in addition he also asked for 3-year probation.
Then the judge stated that he found the maximum sentence of 6 months justifiable, because Brazau was a hatemonger, who distributed hate literature, in which he expressed his repugnant views and abused his right to freedom of speech. The sentence should serve as a deterrent. The complications here came from Brazau’s refusal to change his ways.
Then he moved to the sentencing – he quoted the different goals of sentencing in different cases. One of its most important purposes is restraint. As the judge saw the reasons for the conviction, Brazau not only vilified Muslims and their religion, but he was insensitive to them, he was not interested in a dispassionate debate. He thinks that Muslims are involved in terrorism and spousal abuse. There is a case law to justify that sentence. The judge compared the case with anti-Semitic and white supremacist convictions from the near past, where 6-month sentences were imposed, and took into consideration the unrepentant demeanor of Brazau.
Listening to the judge, you could think that Brazau didn’t hand out a single flyer, but was distributing the whole propaganda library of Dr. Goebbels. And I had no idea that free speech is good only in a “dispassionate debate.” Maybe Brazau had to invite Muslims for baklava and Turkish coffee before discussing Islam.
That twisted logic is scary – it shows how those laws are used to suffocate any criticism of a protected ideology. It borders on sharia, the Islamic judicial system, whose main pillar is the ban on criticising Islam and its founder. The last I checked, Canada is still an independent country and not a colony of Saudi Arabia.
I would grudgingly admit the necessity of those laws, if they were applied fairly against anything that is considered “hate speech.” However, that’s not the case – so far not a single Muslim has been charged in Canada with “hate speech,” though it is common in Muslim publications, rallies and opinions of imams.
Last year a cartoon was published in Meshwar, a Canadian newspaper associated with the anti-Semitic group Palestine House. It shows a Jew eating a dead Arab boy and drinking blood:
The “blood libel” is one of the most disgusting anti-Semitic slanders. The editors refused to apologize and the Attorney General of Ontario didn’t file “hate speech” charges. Is this cartoon what the judge calls “dispassionate debate”? (The information about this came from the blog of the journalist and security expert Jonathan Halevi, who follows that type of propaganda.)
At last year’s Al-Quds rally (an anti-Semitic event calling for the destruction of Israel) one of the keynote speakers called for killing the Jews:
“We have to give them an ultimatum. You have to leave Jerusalem. You have to leave Palestine and the people of Palestine who have been waiting in refugee camps in Lebanon, in Syria, in Egypt and in Jordan must have their right to return to their homes. We cannot bring people from Russia and from Europe to live in the home that my grandfather built. It’s unacceptable. It is not justice. And we will restore justice.
I want to remind you of how police works. When somebody tries to rob a bank the police get in, they don’t negotiate and we have been negotiating with them for 65 years We say get out or you are dead. We give them two minutes and then we start shooting and that’s the only way they’ll understand.”
You can see the whole speech here.
A complaint was filed with the Attorney General, but he refused to lay charges and, unlike Brazau, the speaker didn’t spend a day in jail.
At the same rally Hezbollah flags were flown and children were used to display offensive cartoons.
In 2012 thousands of raging Muslims gathered in front of the US Consulate demanding blasphemy laws for Canada and death for a filmmaker, who made a movie “offensive” to Islam.
Did the police pin down any of those people? Not at all, they just smiled and chased away photographers who came too close to the Muslim fanatics.
The problem is that when the authorities are lenient to the jihadi ideology and jail its critics, the Muslims naturally assume that they can do whatever they want with impunity. And the distance from hostile Islamic ideology to acts of terrorism is very short.
After the attack against the Parliament in Ottawa, the RCMP admitted that they are aware of over 90 potentially dangerous Muslim extremists, including the two who committed the acts of terror. They even arrested and released them at certain point. However, they don’t have the resources to monitor all of them.
I see, but the Ontario authorities obviously have the resources to keep an innocent man in jail for three months without trial. His only crime is that he criticized Islam.
The Muslims are free to spread hatred and sue everybody, who “offends” their destructive cult.
Why don’t we change the name of Canada to Pakistan?
© 2014 Blogwrath.com