|
|
|
|
Author Archives: admin
Satirical English Chanteuse Alison Chabloz Back in Court Monday: The Relentless Zionist Censorship Lobby Want Her Jailed
Satirical English Chanteuse Alison Chabloz Back in Court Monday: The Relentless Zionist Censorship Lobby Want Her Jailed
I am back in court on Monday September 23rd, Chesterfield again, for a retroactive breach trial brought against me by the National Probation Service NPS.
The NPS claims that I breached my Suspended Sentence Prohibited Activity Order – not to post on social media for a year. The ban ended in June.
The NPS will try to persuade District Judge Jonathan Taaffe that my personal website is ‘social media’. During the 12-month ban, I published 50 articles and videos on my website, but disabled all comments, likes, shares, etc. I received no written warning from the NPS during that time, insisting that my website is not ‘social media’ as ‘social media’ requires some form of publicly available interaction, i.e. at least a two-way conversation, which was not the case during the entire period of the ban.
I understand that I was placed retroactively in breach of the PAO because my accusers, militant Zionist NGO and anti free speech ‘charity’, Campaign Against Antisemitism CAA, threatened the NPS with Judicial Review AND that the then Minister of Justice, David Gauke, also applied pressure for me to be retroactively tried.
If I am sentenced to a further prolongation of the PAO, then I will no longer be able to post on Gab, Facebook or even on my own personal website, which is my sole source of income via donations. If I am found guilty, then the conditions of my original sentence would now be even harsher than they were when my suspended sentence was originally imposed.
ALL FOR SINGING SONGS. 🤡 🌍
If you’re in the area, do pop by. It will be an interesting trial during which the authoritarian aims of our puppet government to restrict Internet freedoms will be on full display. Starts 2 p
Press freedom applies to everyone – even The Rebel
Press freedom applies to everyone – even The Rebel
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FRPIRGT475COZFQZTUPSJT7AC4.jpg)
Ezra Levant is the president of The Rebel News Network Ltd.
JEFF MCINTOSH/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Ezra Levant is the president of The Rebel News Network Ltd.
It’s become standard practice for the Liberal government to refuse to accredit me or other reporters from my company, Rebel News, at press conferences. Other right-leaning reporters are banned, too. But, at a recent press conference at Ottawa’s National Arts Centre, during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, there I was, smiling at Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland from the front row.
I had been smuggled into the room by the former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Okay – that sounds more dramatic than it really was. The former director of the CIA is Mr. Pompeo himself. And he didn’t really smuggle me in. But he did let me walk into the news conference as part of his own delegation, which included U.S. journalists. And I doubt he told Ms. Freeland about it.
That’s just as shocking as if it had really been a CIA operation: The only way I was able to attend a news conference by my own government was with the assistance of a foreign government.
It happened in the summer, too, when Ms. Freeland co-hosted a media freedom conference in London along with her then-British counterpart, Jeremy Hunt.
There, Ms. Freeland gave a speech and invited journalists to a question-and-answer session. But her staff singled out two of the seven reporters who showed up and told them they would not be welcome.
There just wasn’t enough room for all seven, they said. The Globe and Mail, CTV, CBC, Global TV and Al Jazeera could come. But the two conservative reporters could not – Andrew Lawton, the former Sun newspaper columnist who now writes for True North Canada; and Sheila Gunn Reid, a reporter for my company, Rebel News.
Mr. Lawton and Ms. Gunn Reid had been accredited by the British government, which organized the conference. Both had crowdfunded their travel from Canada. It was literally a conference about media freedom. But not for journalists with the wrong politics.
The other journalists waiting to talk with Ms. Freeland – including the Al Jazeera reporter – were stunned by her attempt to de-platform Mr. Lawton and Ms. Gunn Reid. And to their credit, they refused to attend the news conference without them.
Faced with a boycott, Ms. Freeland blinked and grudgingly allowed some media freedom at the media freedom conference. Ms. Gunn Reid got to ask her questions. Why had Ms. Freeland asked the UN to ban Ms. Gunn Reid from their conferences? Why had the Liberals refused to respond to her Access to Information requests?
Ms. Freeland’s answer was shocking, especially in juxtaposition to what she had just said in her official speech: “We all need to defend our independent press – even, and perhaps especially, when it criticizes us.”
That’s the script she read when she was onstage with celebrities such as Amal Clooney. But when it was just Canadian reporters, Ms. Freeland let the mask slip.
“You are here asking me a question, and that’s my choice and my decision,” she said. In fact, her choice had been to exclude Ms. Gunn Reid. But do press freedoms really require her permission?
“I do also think that it is important for governments, for countries, for multilateral organizations to be thoughtful about media organizations that are truly independent and truly impartial,” she continued.
Ms. Freeland didn’t explain that accusation. She had no problem inviting Al Jazeera, the state broadcaster of Qatar. Later that day, she privately welcomed the Foreign Minister of Pakistan to the conference – one of the most brutal censors in the world.
Ms. Freeland did not reject censoring journalists. She justified it, if it was “thoughtful.” She ended by accusing Rebel News of being white supremacists.
It’s standard now.
Indeed, the Parliamentary Press Gallery – the reporters’ guild that controls access to many media conferences – has banned us without notice, explanation or any appeal. China’s state broadcaster, Xinhua, is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. But we’re banned.
Not everyone appreciates our point of view. But we clearly speak to many Canadians. Our reporters have been accredited by governments around the world, in places such as Sweden, the Netherlands and India, and even in partly free countries such as Iraq and Morocco. Only Canada has banned us.
I’m not surprised the Liberals don’t like us. We ask prickly questions. But that’s part of our democratic system. If you need help understanding the problem, imagine if former prime minister Stephen Harper had banned liberal journalists from his government events.
Ms. Freeland’s conduct is remarkable given her former career as a journalist.
Liberals need to know how freedom of the press works – it’s a gift you have to give to your opponents, if you want it for yourself.
VOLKSWAGEN COMMERCIAL BANNED IN UK BECAUSE IT SHOWS WOMAN CARING FOR A BABY
VOLKSWAGEN COMMERCIAL BANNED IN UK BECAUSE IT SHOWS WOMAN CARING FOR A BABY
“The ad presented gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm.” The ad shows a scene of a woman and a man in a tent on a cliff face, two male astronauts floating in a spaceship and a male para-athlete with a prosthetic leg doing along jump. At the end of the clip, a woman is seen on a bench next to a pram.
The commercial was banned by the UK Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) after just three people complained, with the ASA asserting that it violated gender stereotyping rules.
Whatcott legal update and commentary on Trudeau’s blackface
Whatcott legal update and commentary on Trudeau’s blackface
by Bill Whatcott » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:14 pm
Canada’s Prime Minister committing no crime, other than not quite growing up when he was 29 years old
Dear Friends,
The last month has been quite busy. I got this e-mail from Mr. Yaniv (the fellow who charged 16 female estheticians with discrimination and dragged them before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) for refusing to wax his “female penis.”)
Jessica Yaniv <jessicayaniv2@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2019, 10:25 PM (4 days ago)
to <BCHumanRightsTribunal@gov.bc.ca,billwhatcott@gmail.com>Hello,
The deadline for the Respondent to provide a response to expedite process was August 26, 2019. I received no response, therefore, I did not reply as per the directions given by the Tribunal. It is now September 16, 2019.
What is the Tribunal’s decision in the matter regarding expediting, given the reasons listed in my application?
Thanks,
Miss Jessica Yaniv
Anyways, the BCHRT in quick fashion (hours after Yaniv sent his e-mail) sent me a mediation agreement to sign, seeing as they would like to see if me and Mr. Yaniv could come up with a mutually acceptable agreement to remedy the alleged loss of dignity he suffered when I briefly mentioned he is a biological male who dragged 16 vulnerable women to the BCHRT during a preaching session in front of the BCHRT during my trial there in December of last year.
Here is the BCHRT mediation agreement they want me to sign. I didn’t sign it yet as I would like the meeting to be face to face and not subject to a confidentiality agreement:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Avrh8Zy7sQqXiBW50qi7_BQq5wN9
Yaniv wants me to pay him $35,000 and my position is I am broke and have no money to pay him, but I will give him the Gospel which is far more valuable free of charge. Whether we can bridge our differences remain to be seen.
On the $104 million dollar lawsuit we are heading to appeal court soon where a judge will decide if I have to reveal the names of my friends who helped me launch the Gospel guerilla operation against the Toronto homosexual shame parade in 2016. My position to the courts is much the same as it was last year and the year before that. I’m broke and I have no money to give them, if they take stuff by force of a court order, my second hand furniture, second hand car, whatever they find in my bank account, etc…. I have no power to stop them.
As for my friends, I believe it would be a sin to reveal their names and I prefer to sit in jail indefinitely rather than do it. Some of them have dependants and all of them have modest means to defend themselves against this lawsuit. They did nothing wrong in helping with my charitable Gospel stunt, so it is my duty to do what I can to shield them.
On the criminal hate crime case, we will be going to trial on January 6, 2020. I believe the trial is going to be held in the Ontario Superior Court at 361 University Park Ave, Toronto. How long the trial will last I am unsure. The lawyer I have representing me on this case is now John Rosen.
As for the election,
I was blessed to spend last weekend helping the Scarborough Christian Heritage Party (CHP) candidate Mark Theodoru collect signatures so he could run. Over the course of an hour or so we collected signatures standing in front of a condo complex in the far east end of Scarborough. The people we asked were mostly Muslim and East Indian. Most declined to sign Mark’s nomination papers, but some did and they were mostly polite and friendly.
One Muslim fellow is quite memorable and I had an interesting conversation with him. The Muslim appeared to me to be either Pakistani or Bangladeshi and he smelled of alcohol and was somewhat inebriated. Our conversation went like this:
Me: “Will you sign Mark Theodoru’s nomination papers so he can run in your riding this election?”
Intoxicated Muslim: “What party is he with?”
Me: “Christian Heritage Party”
Intoxicated Muslim: “What do you think about Muslims?”
Me: “Muslims are human beings”
Intoxicated Muslim: “Do you think returning ISIS fighters should be pardoned?”
Me: “No, I don’t believe returning ISIS fighters should be pardoned, they should stand trial for their crimes”
Intoxicated Muslim: “Sorry, if you do not support a pardon for returning ISIS fighters than I can’t sign your nomination paper”
With that the intoxicated Muslim handed me my clipboard and pen back and walked off. I was a little startled by the candid opinion of my intoxicated Muslim friend, but quickly I got into conversations with other riding residents and the intoxicated, apparently ISIS supporting, Muslim was out of sight and out of mind.
Ten minutes later the intoxicated Muslim came back, grabbed my clipboard and pen from me and asked:
Intoxicated Muslim: “What is your opinion on Syria?”
Me: “I am speaking for myself and not the party. I don’t think the United States belongs there.”
Intoxicated Muslim: “What about Russia?”
Me: “Actually, I personally think the Russians have done more good in Syria than the Americans.”
The intoxicated Muslim abruptly shoves my clipboard and pen at me again and proclaims: “I was thinking about signing your sheet, but for sure I can’t now!”
With that the intoxicated Muslim storms off down the sidewalk and is soon out of sight again.
Mark was observing the spectacle in awe and I just looked and Mark and shrugged my shoulders and said “I can’t make everyone happy” and got back to work engaging passerby again.
Five minutes later the intoxicated Muslim showed up again roughly telling me, “give my that clipboard” and before I could respond he grabbed my clipboard and pen.
Intoxicated Muslim: “I’m going to sign your paper. Where do I sign???!!!”
Me: “right here, and please print your name and address and then sign”
The intoxicated Muslim correctly gave his name and address with some help and then he handed back my pen and clipboard and said: “I’m pro-Israel”
and walked off…..
Me and Mark looked at eachother again, wondered where “I’m pro-Israel” came from and then got back to our work….
As for my riding I have no CHP candidate to vote for, so after talking to my People’s Party of Canada (PPC) candidate, I got a few names in my riding for his nomination paper and informed him I will be voting for him. While the PPC lacks an understanding of Canada’s need to repent and turn back to the God who created us, the party at least believes moral issues can be discussed and Christians can run and be themselves without being thrown out of the party every time the media says “boo,” unlike the so-called Conservative Party.
Disturbingly, two Conservative MP’s have publicly endorsed the “Morgane Oger Foundation” and one Calgary Conservative Member of Parliament, Michelle Rempel, hosted a fundraiser for the foundation last year. The sole purpose of the Morgane Oger Foundation as far as I can tell is to prosecute Canadians who publicly disagree with Oger’s (and apparently Rempel’s) warped ideas about gender. The PPC is the only party besides the CHP that has the courage to allow their members to question whether children should be force fed propaganda in grade school about being able to switch their gender. Scheer on the other hand has disqualified candidates this election for publicly saying children should not be forced fed transgender propaganda in our public schools. The Conservatives moved too far away from their conservative roots for me to vote for them. While my first loyalty is with the CHP and their Godly vision for Canada and I am happy to be helping my friend Mark with his campaign in Scarborough, in my riding I have decided the PPC is at least conservative enough and tolerant enough of Christians that I can vote for them in good conscience without feeling I wasted my vote….
Now here’s my thoughts eight days into Canada’s Federal Election campaign:
Whatcott thoughts on Day 8 of Canada’s election campaign
Speaking as a Canadian, I don’t actually care if my Prime Minister wore a blackface, or a brownface, or any other coloured face, at some party twenty years ago. It is well known Trudeau is a party boy who to this day has never grown up. Trudeau was and continues to be ill prepared to lead the country and as Prime Minister he is frankly incompetent.
Putting on costumes depicting Arabians, blacks, or natives, is as far as I can tell harmless. The two Sikhs in the above picture don’t seem too traumatized by Justin Trudeau’s costume and the fact Justin is posing and smiling with them leads me to to conclude our Prime Minister probably wasn’t harbouring malicious Ku Klux Klan thoughts that day. The fact this is Justin’s behaviour that set off a media storm causes me to shake my head in wonder.
Canada’s national media being the near homogenous partisan Liberal hacks they are, I fully expect they will quit covering this story as soon as they feel they can and they will likely create a faux scandal and attribute it to the conservative leaders (Scheer, Bernier) in the coming days. I don’t actually feel sorry for Trudeau getting roasted for his silly costume mind you. Trudeau after all is a disingenuous “feminist,” “anti-racist,” “progressive;” the sort who would thump his chest in faux outrage and demand a conservative resign if a similar twenty year old photo surfaced of the said conservative wearing a “racist” costume at some long forgotten party. I don’t like the mob frenzy that the media whips up with these so-called “racist” twenty year old incidents, but if we must endure the media mob, I suppose if Trudeau is the one targeted by it, that is some sort of justice at least.
Actual bigotry by Trudeau that has mobilized me to work against his re-election this election season would be his government’s decree that Canadian businesses, charities, and non-profits who were unwilling to sign a statement of support for abortion, same sex marriage, and gender identity, would be ineligable to partake in the Summer Jobs Program. Of course this decree targeted businesses and charities run by conservative Christians, as we are the ones who would be unable to sign such a statement of support. The media is all good with that sort of actual bigotry that caused harm to pro-life/pro-family Canadian taxpayers, who were forced to pay for the program but were barred from participating in it because of their moral and religious values.
Trudeau early in his Prime Ministership once candidly told a Baptist pastor “Evangelical Christians are the worst part of Canadian society.” Once again Trudeau displayed actual bigotry and said this while sitting in office. The mainstream media while sanctimoniously beating their chest about silly decades old costumes is silent about this.
The SNC Lavalin affair is so serious it should have forced the Prime Minister to resign and face criminal prosecution, but the media is already not covering this scandal. For those who don’t know what this scandal is, our Prime Minister was tape recorded pressuring his former Justice Minister to terminate a proper criminal prosecution against a Quebec engineering company known as SNC Lavalin for corruption and get them a deferred prosecution deal. The Justice Minister refused to do such a thing as it would be illegal and unethical to do that as the corruption was serious and involved billions of dollars in illegally obtained construction contracts. Trudeau then fired the Justice Minister for doing her job honestly and the now former Justice Minister blew the whistle on Trudeau and provided the taped convesations she had with him which clearly exposed our Prime Minister committing a criminal offense by pressuring her to drop the criminal proceeding against a company that donates money to the Liberal Party and hires employees in the Prime Minister’s riding.
This next reason to not vote for Trudeau while maybe not criminal like SNC Lavalin, is still bad. The Prime Minister has allowed hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to cross Canada’s border and collect benefits. The sheer scale of Trudeau’s open border policy (legal and illegal) has aggravated the already severe tax strain on working Canadians and has exacerbated an affordable housing crises in all Canadian cities. Canadians who are homeless are far more visable now than ten years ago.
The Prime Minister is a chronic attender of “gay” pride parades and Trudeau added gender identity to our nation’s hate crime legislation meaning we can be criminally prosecuted if we criticize cross dressing now. The Prime Minister also added gender identity to the nation’s human rights code forcing biological women to share bathrooms, sports competitions, and federal prisons with biological men.
The next reason to not vote for Trudeau might be criminal as I can see no rational reason for our government to wave their own tariffs and give the work to China (a hostile nation who is illegally holding two Canadians in detention) without a bidding process. But we will never know what sort of corruption enabled China to build our LNG plants and dump their steel on us as the national media is silent and not investigating or asking questions. Trudeau’s government has waived tariffs and is allowing China to dump $42 billion dollars worth of their cheap and highly subsidized steal on Canada to make our LNG plants in BC. Worse yet, the Chinese are not even sending us raw steel, but rather fabricated steel as they are making our LNG plants in China. The components of the LNG plants will be made by module in Chinese factories and shipped by boat from China to Canada. This decision by the Liberal cabinet will deprive Canada of more than 60,000 jobs as we have the steel mills and trades to provide the product and do the work, but Canadian businesses were not even allowed to bid.
The Liberals harmed our oil industry with carbon taxes, government mandated gender analysis, and onerus red tape that has made it impossible to get oil projects built or product shipped to market. Hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs are gone in BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan due to Liberal ideological hatred of our natural resource sector.
The Prime Minister has spent multiple millions of Canadian tax dollars promoting abortion in third world countries that don’t want it.
These are the reasons (and many more) why I won’t vote for Justin Trudeau. As for his childish 20 year old make up stunt that the national media is in a frenzy over? I don’t care……
“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Ephesians 4:5,6
An Alberta Supporter Blasts Hamilton City Council for Not Letting Paul Fromm Speak
An Alberta Supporter Blasts Hamilton City Council for Not Letting Paul Fromm Speak
Dear mayor and council members
I am writing you all to make known my disgust in denying Paul Fromm 5 minutes speaking time that I understand is allotted to delegates.
Contrary to the belief of the HCCI, Paul Fromm is not ‘full of hate’ and speaks for millions of good, law abiding Canadians on the legitimate concerns for the future our Canada.
Ive read the letter by Kojo Damptey, and looked at the HCCI website and he/they are the last thing that is inclusive. Appeasing these intolerant, special interest groups is like allowing the classroom bully to take over the classroom.
You may just disregard this email , but please take a few minutes to read this article from 2009.
RMG
Update on Political Prisoner Arthur Topham?
Update on Political Prisoner Arthur Topham?
Basically, I can’t tell you anything! Mr. Topham and his publishing company Radical Press were in court Monday, facing “breach of probation” charges after a conviction three years ago under Canada’s notorious, minority-inspired “hate law”. The B.C. Hate Squad wants him sent to jail. Mr. Topham is gagged by his probation order. Canada’s free speech hating courts are abusing this man, but I can’t tell you “nuffin”. A private message from Mr. Topham indicates that the case will continue later this month. Why not shoot this brave, outspoken many a few dollars. 
https://gogetfunding.com/radical-press-publisher-arthur-topham-arrested-for-alleged-breach-of-probation/
UK: The Push to End Free Speech
UK: The Push to End Free Speech
- “We are concerned that the definition… could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states. There is also a risk it could also undermine counter-terrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism.” — Martin Hewitt, Chair, National Police Chiefs’ Council.
- Islam represents an idea, not a nationality or an ethnicity. The conventional purpose of most hate-speech laws is to protect people from hatred, not ideas.
- The new proposed definition would criminalize criticism of Islam. Considering the origins of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, that is probably the whole point.
- “[A]n alternative definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred should be specific and narrow. It should focus on addressing bigotry directed at individuals, and avoid censoring debate or freedom of expression on religion. Finally, a comprehensive definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred must take intra-Muslim hatred into account to protect those who want to speak freely or express themselves differently.” — Nikita Malik, Forbes, May 20, 2019.
 Martin Hewitt, Chair of Britain’s National Police Chiefs’ Council, recently said: “We are concerned that the definition… could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions… There is also a risk it could also undermine counter-terrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism.” (Photo by Anthony Devlin – WPA Pool / Getty Images) |
In April 2018, Britain’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims began work on establishing a “working definition of Islamophobia that can be widely accepted by Muslims, political parties and the government”.
In December 2018, the group concluded its work with a “Report on the inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia / anti-Muslim hatred.” The report defines “Islamophobia” as a form of racism, conflating religion with ethnic origin or nationality: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”[1]
The report, furthermore, claims that a definition of Islamophobia is “instrumental” to “the political will and institutional determination to tackle it.”
Most political parties, including Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Conservatives, have adopted the broadened definition of Islamophobia, but it has not been adopted by the government. According to a government spokesperson:
“We are conscious that the [all-party parliamentary group’s] proposed definition has not been broadly accepted – unlike the IHRA definition of antisemitism before it was adopted by the UK government and other international organisations and governments. This is a matter that needs further careful consideration.”
The National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents the leaders of law enforcement in England and Wales, have also expressed concern with the broadened definition. Its chair, Martin Hewitt, said:
“We take all reports of hate crime very seriously and will investigate them thoroughly. However, we have some concerns about the proposed definition of Islamophobia made by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. We are concerned that the definition is too broad as currently drafted, could cause confusion for officers enforcing it and could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states. There is also a risk it could also undermine counter-terrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism”.
Richard Walton, a former head of Counter-Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police, wrote:
“Adopting the definition would hand the initiative to those who have been trying to dismantle the Government’s Countering Violent Extremism programme for years; it is no surprise to see many of those same campaigners and radical groups have been closely involved in the APPG’s work in developing the definition (as authors or sources)… how could the police or anyone else disprove that they had targeted an expression of ‘perceived Muslimness’?…
“If the Government accepts the APPG definition of Islamophobia, all of these [anti-terrorism] powers are more likely to be challenged by anti-Prevent campaigners and their supporters who would seek to label police officers ‘Islamophobic’ (and, therefore, racist)…
“… Whole government departments, the entire police service, intelligence agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), judiciary and HM Prison and Probation Service could be branded and labelled ‘institutionally Islamophobic’ by anti-Prevent campaign groups. It would be an allegation that would be impossible to refute, owing to the indistinct and imprecise nature of the APPG definition…”
Similarly, the UK government, according to a Buzzfeed report, is concerned that defining Islamophobia as a form of racism “could mean people who criticise aspects of Islam might be prosecuted under discrimination laws.”
The UK government is right, of course. Islam represents an idea, not a nationality or an ethnicity. The conventional purpose of most hate-speech laws is to protect people from hatred, not ideas. The new proposed definition would criminalize criticism of Islam.
Considering the origins of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, that is probably the whole point. The APPG on British Muslims, according to its website, was established in July 2017. The organization is chaired by MPs Anna Soubry and Wes Streeting and is meant to build on the work of a former APPG: the APPG on Islamophobia. That came into existence as the result of a meeting at the House of Commons in March 2010, hosted by, among others, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) — the largest Muslim organization in the UK, and that claims to be representative of British Muslims. It is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood[2]. By November 2010, after the APPG on Islamophobia had been formed, it quickly ran into trouble. The Muslim organization that was appointed as its secretariat turned out to be the Muslim extremist organization iENGAGE, which has since changed its name to MEND[3]. Both MEND and the Muslim Council of Britain are among the many organizations and individuals that contributed written evidence[4] to the report on a definition of Islamophobia.
Wes Streeting, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, recently criticized the government’s refusal to adopt the new definition:
“What we’re up against goes wider than anti-Muslim hatred. It is structural, often unconscious, bias…It is particularly disappointing to see a noisy chorus of vocal opposition making arguments in bad faith that accuse us of trying to use the term Islamophobia to shut down criticism of Islam and introduce blasphemy laws by the back door. In fact, our report makes it crystal clear that our definition does not preclude criticism of Islam or Islamic theology. God, if you believe in such a thing, doesn’t need protection from criticism.”
Streeting appears to pretend that Islam allows either criticism of Allah and Mohammed, or free choice of religion.
That is not the case: Sharia law prohibits questioning, seeming to regard it as a form of blasphemy:
“O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur’an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.” [Qur’an 5:101, Sahih International translation]
“A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.” [Qur’an 5:102, Sahih International translation]
The prohibition against questioning also seems why several Muslim organizations, such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), fight for the introduction of blasphemy laws in the West, to prevent questioning Islam.
The proposed definition also does not take into account the threats ex-Muslims receive from Muslims (here, here, here and here), and how the definition would only make life more difficult for those Muslims who dare to leave or speak out. According to Nikita Malik, writing in Forbes:
“The term Islamophobia has a broad meaning that can easily be used to restrict free and fair discussion about the Islamic religion and Islamist extremism. Instead, an alternative definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred should be specific and narrow. It should focus on addressing bigotry directed at individuals, and avoid censoring debate or freedom of expression on religion. Finally, a comprehensive definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred must take intra-Muslim hatred into account to protect those who want to speak freely or express themselves differently.”
Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
[1] Report on the inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia / anti-Muslim hatred, p 11 and p 50.
[2] A 2015 UK government report found that the Muslim Brotherhood “played an important role in establishing and then running the Muslim Council of Britain”.
[3] MEND is also known as an extremist Muslim organization.
[4] Report on the inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia / anti-Muslim hatred, p 61.
Vancouver Communists Threaten Protests Against Maxime Bernier’s Rally, September 25, 2019
Demonstration against Maxime Bernier and the Far-Right
Public
-
Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:30 PM – 10 PM PDTNext Week11–18°C Partly Cloudy
-
Hellenic Community of Vancouver
4500 Arbutus Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6J 4A2 -
Hosted by Revolutionary Communist Party – Vancouver
Join the Revolutionary Communist Party – Vancouver, the Revolutionary Student Movement – Vancouver, and other anti-fascists in a demonstration against Maxime Bernier, the People’s Party of Canada, and their fascist goons.
Maxime Bernier, the leader of the far-right People’s Party of Canada, will be hosting a rally to gain support for his election. Bernier’s colonial, transphobic, nationalist, and anti-environmentalist rhetoric has called fascists from across Canada toward his party. Members of the Proud Boys, the Soldiers of Odin, and even Vancouver’s local neo-Nazi, Brian Ruhe, have all pledged their support to the PPC and are attempting to use the party as a Trojan horse for their own fascistic agendas.
The Hellenic Community of Vancouver will be hosting this event at their location. Back in March they were planning on hosting two white supremacists, Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern until the backlash they faced from the community forced them to cancel. They clearly did not learn anything from the last time because now they are back at it again. If it makes you mad that the Hellenic Community of Vancouver is hosting another far-right event on their property we encourage you to get in contact with them directly and voice your anger.
Phone: 604-266-7148
Email: contact@helleniccommunity.org, outreach@helleniccommunity.org, alexandra@helleniccommunity.org
FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/HellenicVancity/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/HellenicVanCity
Let the Hellenic Community of Vancouver know we will not allow them to bring the far-right into our communities!
Paul Fromm Complains About Anti-Racist Canada Cyber Thuggery & Doxing of Canadian Nationalist Party Members
Paul Fromm Complains About Anti-Racist Canada Cyber Thuggery & Doxing of Canadian Nationalist Party Members
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;
Website http://cafe.nfshost.com
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
September 16, 2019
Elections Canada.
Dear Sirs:
On July 15, I spoke to a “Michael” in your office and filed a formal complaint asking for an investigation of threats made by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to publicize the names of persons who joined the Canadian Nationalist Party in order for them to receive certification by Elections Canada as a recognized political party. I warned that these threats were being circulated on the Internet to intimidate those who had signed in the hopes that they would withdraw their signatures.
I had been advised that such use of public information was illegal. The names of signators were to be used “for election purposes” — that is, to challenge their validity — not for doxing or intimidation purposes. These threats, I warned, constituted voter intimidation and cyberspace thuggery.
It has now been three months since my complaint and I have received no acknowledgement, let alone any response.
I phoned Elections Canada again today seeking to speak to your legal department. I was told they were unavailable. I explained the newest development and again wish to lodge a formal complaint.
On Sunday, September 15, the threats became reality. The Canadian Nationalist Party is now a duly registered Canadian political party. A website, Anti Racist Canada,blogspot.com, http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-cnp-eligible-for-official-party.html whose cowardly authors are, of course, anonymous posted the first two of 250 names of those who had signed up as members. They stated:
“The next article will contain a list of names and cities/towns of individuals who signed the forms that allowed the registration of the far-right Canadian Nationalist Party; we won’t publish the addresses however. .. . These are public documents that every citizen can access and Canadians do have a right to know who in their community has supported the registration of this far-right party.
I won’t be posting many images of the forms in the upcoming article but as a bit of a preview I will post these two. Readers won’t be surprised by what they see.”
The “I” in this article is anonymous. The first two names published were mine and a gentleman from Saskatchewan.
I again ask for an investigation and determination whether this clear effort to target people for exercizing their democratic rights for election purposes violates the Canada Elections Act.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Fromm
Director
Canadian Association for Free Expression
p.s. I enclose my original complaint for your reference.
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;
Website http://cafe.nfshost.com
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
July 15, 2019
Elections Canada.
Dear Sirs:
Today I filed a verbal complaint with one of your employees, Michael by name. I now wish to make this a formal complaint.
It has come to our attention that a group calling itself the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, with a website by the same name, has declared its intention to widely publicize the names and address of the 250 who will have signed as members of the Canadian Nationalist Party, when it obtains formal registration as a political party
In their July 10 statement this group of anti-democratic fanatics stated: “The Canadian Anti-Hate Network will publish the names of 250 members of the neo-Nazi Canadian Nationalist Party if they are successful in becoming a registered political party. We plan to publish these names and their cities of residence as soon as they become public, and will encourage local media to run stories naming neo-Nazi supporters in their communities. … This kind of naming and shaming is part of our mandate of exposing hate groups to make sure communities are well-informed, and to ensure that there are significant, nonviolent social consequences for supporting hate groups.”
This ugly bullying threat is libellous, as well. We have studied the platform of the Canadian Nationalist Party and found that the group would more accurately be described as traditional Canadians and populists, not National Socialist wannabees. CAHN, who boasts longtime anti-free speech campaigners like Bernie Farber and Richard Warman as board members, seeks to intimidate citizens from their right to vote as they choose. Furthermore, even if the aims of the party were national socialist in nature, they still have every right to exist and campaign.
Canadian Anti-Hate Network Board member Evan Balgord, a former assistant to Toronto’s Mayor John Tory, enthused: “Employer concerns are a natural consequence of supporting a neo-Nazi party. Practically, however, we won’t have the time to research 250 individuals. Local media might. I’d note they can avoid that consequence by emailing Elections Canada and withdrawing their support. – Evan”
Then, as a further step to interfere with the secret ballot and the right of citizens to freely choose the party they prefer, the CAHN offers a carrot: “If any of members of the Canadian Nationalist Party want to avoid being named and facing the social consequences of supporting a neo-Nazi party, they can email Elections Canada at info@elections.ca to withdraw their support.”
The threatening tactics of the CAHN are no different than posting goons armed with clubs outside polling stations reminding voters not to vote the “wrong” way.
We call upon Elections Canada to investigate the campaign by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to intimidate voters and further to take all available action against the goons of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. We may have reason to fear foreign interference in the Canadian election process but it is clear that there are some domestic forces seeking to do the same thing.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Fromm
Director