Tag Archives: Islamophobia

Toronto Cops Investigate Ezra Levant for “Hate” for Criticizing Palestinian Supporters

Posted on by
atch   Listen   Take Action Shop   Donate  
Toronto Cops Investigate Ezra Levant for “Hate” for Criticizing Palestinian Supporters

[Last fall, Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw, announced that the Toronto Police Service was upping it’s thought control unit,  oops, “hate squad” from 8 to 36 officers. What a woke waste of manpower. There are almost daily gang shootings, mostly of Blacks by Blacks, many unsolved, but hey, divert manpower to thought control. Well, the hate squad has laboured mightily and come up with a potential criminal — EZRA LEVANT. Last Thursday, Mr. Levant received the annual George Jonas Free Speech Award in Toronto from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom. Now, he’s under investigation for the use of a sound truck going around Toronto criticizing the many pro-Palestinian protests since October 7. The cops suspect “Islamophobia” If charged under Sec. 319, Canada’s notoriousd”hate law,” A conviction could see Ezra Levant jailed for two yea. Ironically, the “hate law” was introduced after three decades of lobbying and pressure by the Canadian Jewish Congress. Ezra Levant is Jewish. — Paul Fromm]

, I’ve got some breaking news — it’s another censorship battle, probably our biggest one ever. I need your help to save free speech in Canada. The Toronto police are officially investigating Rebel News for running ads by local community activists on our Rebel News billboard truck. The ads were created by a group called “Canadians Opposed to the Occupation of our Streets and Campuses.” It’s a bit of a mouthful, but it tells you everything: they’re against the pro-Hamas gangs that have been running wild across Canada. The advertisers are anonymous because they know they’d face retaliation for speaking out — that’s how bad things are these days

. I think I know why people feel so desperate that they’re taking out anonymous ads on our trucks. They feel completely abandoned and ignored by the institutions they rely on. They want to speak out — because no one is speaking for them. I know the feeling — the reason we bought the truck in the first place is because all the truck companies we used to work with tell us they’re too scared to criticize Hamas, because they’re worried their trucks will be attacked and their drivers could be injured.

The ads just show actual footage of what the pro-Hamas gangs are doing to Toronto — including committing real crimes ignored by the police and politicians. In the case of this particular ad, the images included pro-Hamas gangs shutting down the streets in downtown Toronto. Toronto Police declared that the ads are “Islamophobic” and suggested that a hate crime had been committed. A crime!

Toronto police don’t think the pro-Hamas street gangs themselves are committing hate crimes. They think the ad we ran on our truck is a hate crime. It’s actually pretty serious. If convicted for “hate speech” I could be jailed for up to two years just for running that ad. And don’t think they won’t try — our Rebel News reporters have been arrested by Toronto police several times just for asking Hamas supporters questions. The police hate us because we’re not silent and obedient, which is what they’ve told the Jewish community to be. I’ve hired a lawyer and we’re going to fight. Because this is Canada, not Gaza.

We still have free speech here, for now. We’ve set up a special website at www.SaveTheTruck.com. But it’s really about more than this truck. It’s about cancel culture. And the weaponization of hate speech laws. And two-tier policing. In the case today, we were running the ads for another group of loyal Canadian citizens who felt totally abandoned by the police and politicians. Real Canadians don’t shoot schools or take over campuses. They run ads on our truck. It’s called free speech — you can look it up in our Charter of Rights. I’ve been fighting against censorship my whole life. I’m not going to stop now.

There is a crime wave in Toronto, and it’s not ads from scared citizens worried about Hamas gangs. It’s the Hamas gangs themselves. I’m going fight this like hell — you know I will. We’re going to take the truck out again. Because I’m a free man in a free country — at least for now. I have broken no laws.

And if the Toronto police think they can bully us into silence, well, bring it on. I still believe enough in our country and even our courts to know that this trumped-up censorship will not stand. Police should be embarrassed they’re investigating the messenger, instead of understanding the message. I was born and raised in Canada, and so was my dad, and so was his dad, all the way back to 1903. This country is built on free speech, and I’ll be damned if some Hamas thugs, and their obedient shills in Trudeau’s police force, can scare me into silence. If you want to support me, go to www.SaveTheTruck.com. You won’t just be saving the truck or saving me — you’ll be saving freedom of speech in our great country. Thank you for helping us fight back. Yours truly, Ezra Levant

A Powerful Open Letter to Pierre Poilievre on Free Speech — Hope He Takes it to Heart

Posted on by

A Powerful Open Letter to Pierre Poilievre on Free Speech — Hope He Takes it to Heart

Dear Pierre,

I hope you are keeping well. The rights of Canadians to freely hold and express beliefs are being eroded at an alarming speed under the Trudeau government. Some of its recent decisions even require that Canadians renounce their most deeply held moral convictions and express opinions they disagree with.

In 2018, the Liberal government denied summer job funding to organizations, including charities, that would not sign an attestation supporting abortion. It also passed bill C-16 as part of a trend to force Canadians to express support for the existence of various gender identities beyond the biological categories of male and female, and to use pronouns demanded by those who identify with these other genders.

In addition to these assaults on conscience,
the government launched a series of regulatory attacks on free speech on the internet and is pressuring social media companies, which are already censoring speech that isn’t politically correct, to crack down even more. It is also considering bringing back Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This hate speech provision was repealed by the Conservative government in 2013 because it was being used arbitrarily to censor statements that offended some people on the internet.

In what appears to be a first step towards restricting our right to criticize some religions,
it adopted M-103, a motion that condemns religious discrimination but only specifically mentions one religion, Islam, and without defining the term “islamophobia.”

Finally, on university campuses, a growing number of faculty and administrators—those who should be fighting for open debate of controversial ideas—have become aggressive advocates for censorship.

History and social scientific research show that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, when maximally protected, advance the intellectual life of a nation, foster greater ideological diversity and societal understanding, and nurture other freedoms necessary for a successful democracy.

This is why Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees citizens freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

What some people find politically incorrect, offensive or even hateful cannot serve as the
legal basis for discrimination and censorship. Canadians should be able to enjoy maximum freedom of conscience and expression as guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter.

As the presumed front runner in the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election,
as well as an individual who claims to support individual liberty and personal freedom, I believe that you should commit to publicly supporting the following policies:

  1. Restrict the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to expression which explicitly advocates the use of force against identifiable groups or persons based on protected criteria such as religion, race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation.
  2. Repeal any existing legislation or regulation curtailing free speech on the internet and prevent the reinstatement of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Repeal C-16, M-103, C-10,
    and C-36. Ensure that Canadians can exercise their freedom of conscience to its fullest extent as it is intended under the Charter and are not discriminated against because of their moral convictions.
  3. Repeal Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
  4. Withhold federal funding from any post-secondary institution shown to be violating the freedom of expression of its students or faculty.

Best,
Gila Kibner, MA

The Rage of Anti-White “Wokeism”: Ontario NDP Sees “Islamophobia” as he Worst Sin Possible — Throws Longtime NDP MPP Out of Caucus for A Facebook Post He May Never Have Made

Posted on by

The Rage of Anti-White “Wokeism”: Ontario NDP Sees “Islamophobia” as he Worst Sin Possible — Throws Longtime NDP MPP Out of Caucus for A Facebook Post He May Never Have Made

During the 2018 Ontario provincial election,the far-left Ontario NDP stood behind their candidate in Scarborough–Agincourt, Tasleem Riaz, a Muslim woman, who denied allegedly posting a pro-Hitler meme on her Facebook timeline at some point in the past. 


The Facebook post features a quote that is commonly attributed to Hitler overlaid over a photo of the tyrannical despot giving a Nazi salute to a gathered crowd. A title above the image reads, “The Ruler said about Rule.” 
The phrase below it — “If you don’t like a rule … just follow it … reach on the top … and change the rule,” is attributed to Hitler, though there’s no direct historical evidence the Nazi leader ever uttered it. 


In a statement at the time, Riaz said that she was “horrified that an inappropriate meme was on my Facebook page” and that she cannot understand how it happened. 


“I don’t recall sharing it in 2013 — and at no point in my life would I have done so intentionally,” she continued.  
“I am an interfaith advocate, and I have devoted my life to interfaith religious tolerance and freedom. I work closely with the Jewish, Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Muslim communities in my neighbourhood. In every way, I find Hitler, the hate he spewed, and the genocide he committed to be abhorrent.”


Case closed. Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath gave Riaz the benefit of the doubt. Riaz was believed when she claimed that her Facebook account must have been “hacked”, and the offending meme posted to make her look bad.

Fast forward to 2022. Ontario is set to have another provincial election on June 2. The opposition Ontario NDP is riding high in the polls.


A longtime incumbent Ontario MPP, Paul Miller, is expelled from the party’s caucus at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario this week, after being  accused of being a member of a Facebook group called ‘Worldwide Coalition Against Islam’


Like Ms Riaz, Mr Miller likewise denies ever having committed a moral offence on Facebook.
“I have never posted anything on Twitter or Facebook. Frankly, I’m not that great at the internet”, Miller said. “I have done absolutely nothing wrong”


Unlike, Ms Riaz though, Mr Miller has not been given the benefit of the doubt. He has been kicked out of the Ontario NDP as both a member and a legislator. 


Ms Riaz is a ‘woman of colour’ and a Muslim,so she is automatically the victim in the eyes of the politically correct, ‘woke’, liberal-left,no matter what she says or does. 


Mr Miller is a white male, and thus automatically guilty in the eyes of the politically correct, ‘woke’, liberal-left, no matter what he says or does. 


White leftists like Andrea Horwath worship at the altar of minority pandering, ‘wokeness’, post-modernism, post-structuralism, and while guilt. 


There is increasing no place for White Men on the liberal-left of the political spectrum.Even genuine leftwing union types like Paul Miller are increasingly persona non grata. 
Furthermore, Andrea Horwath is also simply too scared about offending both Ontario’s growing Muslim population (which has been doubling in size every decade since 1991) as well as the feral ‘woke’ mob, to have taken the same action against Ms Riaz in 2018 as she has against Mr Miller in 2022. 


For Andrea Horwath and the Ontario NDP,throwing White Men under the proverbial bus is just the cost of doing politics in Canada during our present Faustian age. 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tasleem-riaz-andrea-horwath-ndp-facebook-1.4677603
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ousted-mpp-paul-miller-belonged-to-islamophobic-facebook-group-ontario-ndp-says
Gary Werfhorst 

Canadian Anti-Hate Network Applauds Facebook Censors for Purging “Old Stock Canadian”

Posted on by

Canadian Anti-Hate Network Applauds Facebook Censors for Purging “Old Stock Canadian”

A long-standing anti-immigration and overtly racist series of social media channels successfully cultivated a following of over 32,000 Facebook users through unabashedly anti-Muslim, anti-2SLGBTQ+, conspiratorial ready-to-share content. The “Old Stock Canadian” page has finally been removed, seemingly as a result of our sending a media request to Facebook for this story.

Started in 2016, the moderators of Old Stock Canadian never had much success outside the social giant, though the Facebook Page proved itself a resilient source of hate content that outlasted many of its ilk. 

“Friends, it seems the TRUTH was too much to bear so Liberal FARCEbook took us off their platform,” wrote an admin on a little visited website associated with the page. “Well over 36,000 members will now be looking for a new home. Hopefully, they will find it here on this website.

“In the meantime, we will retool and look to other platforms as well where our conservative voice will be heard again.”

On Twitter and Instagram, as well as their website, they have a minimal following. Many of their website posts have just a single view, according to the site’s own counters. 

“We removed the Old Stock Canadians Page for violating our Community Standards. We will continue to monitor and take action in line with our policies and strongly encourage people to use all available reporting and blocking tools,“ a representative from Facebook told the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.

“Old Stock Canadians” is a phrase that has been popular among white supremacists and Canadian nationalists since Prime Minister Steven Harper used it during a leadership debate in 2015.

“We do not offer them [refugees] a better health care plan than the ordinary Canadian receives, said Harper. “I think that’s something that new and existing and old stock Canadians agree with.”

The statement caused a minor stir at the time, as many begged the question, what is an old stock Canadian? Harper would later clarify he meant Canadians whose families had been in Canada for more than one generation. The Conservatives tried to move on from the gaffe and their opponents decried it as a dog-whistle. 

Much like “White Boy Summer” has become the white power dog whistle of 2021, the phrase “old stock Canadian” quickly was adopted as a self-signifier in far-right Canadian circles, and continues to be used. It, for example, was often used in the propaganda of groups like ID Canada. 

Source: Twitter 

The now-removed Facebook page and still active Twitter account for Old Stock Canadian trade in a variety of similarly styled memes. Typically yellow block letters and carrying messages that target everyone from members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, conspiracy theories around COVID-19, anti-Muslim sentiment, and more.  

“Liberals universities like Dalhousie are no longer institutes of learning but rather, create racially motivated radicalism,” reads a caption added to a picture promoting diversity at a Halifax university. “Case in point, if we tried to dismantle non-white privilege, matriarchy and homosexism, what do you think would happen? Besides the massive demonstrations that would befall us.”

Some of the content is political in nature, targeting left and centre-left politicians, but the most animus is reserved for Muslims and immigrants. 

“Islamophobia is a liberal narrative intended to deflect from the real concern of radical Islamic fundamentalists intent in destroying us infidels,” a pinned post under the section “Islamophobia” reads on the page’s counterpart website. “A movement that has gained momentum in recent decades within several Muslim nations. Islamic fundamentalists oppose the infiltration of secular and westernizing influences and seek to institute Islamic law, including strict codes of behaviour. In other words, sharia law which oppresses women to become the slaves of this male-dominated cult.”

Other sections target 2SLGBTQ+ people, with post titles like “Young Girls Are Transgendering At Alarming Rates,” “Gender Dysphoria Has Gone Mad,” and, simply, “Cancel Pride.”

Members of the now-defunct Facebook page included people like William “Damien Maje” Majeau who was previously the subject of reports for filming people, including children, coming to and from an Alberta mosque during the early stages of the pandemic. He returned earlier this year to take more photographs. 

Members of the Northern Guard, an east coast centred biker-style hate group are also followers. This includes founder Nick Gallant and member Ed Jamnisek, who produces Kevin Johnston’s live stream show. Gallant has generally tried to extricate Northern Guard from accusations of hate and racism. Early in the group’s founding, however, he appeared on a podcast in 2018 and stated he would be “pushing that white nationalism,” according to the ARC Collective.

Updated to include comment from Facebook.

Liberals Plan to Introduce More Internet Censorship: Note: It’s Political or Religious Opinions They’re Targetting

Posted on by

Canadian government to introduce online “hate speech” regulations in early 2021

Canada’s ruling Liberal Party has made tackling online “hate speech” a major priority.

If you’re tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

The Canadian government plans to introduce “comprehensive” regulations that target “hate speech” on social media platforms.

The regulations will reportedly be tabled in 2021 and are being introduced “to promote a safer and more inclusive online environment.”

A briefing note on the new regulations from Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s department stated:

“We are working to introduce regulations to reduce the spread of illegal content, including hate speech, in order to promote a safer and more inclusive online environment. We want to protect Canadians online.”

The briefing added that: “Social media platforms can also be used to threaten, intimidate, bully and harass people, or used to promote racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, misogynist and homophobic views that target communities, put people’s safety and risk and undermine Canada’s social cohesion or democracy.”

Before winning reelection in 2019, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party made tackling online hate speech a major priority and proposed giving social media platforms a 24-hour deadline to remove hate speech or face “significant financial penalties.”

Last September, the Canadian government doubled down on its threat to regulate online hate speech with Canada’s Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Catherine McKenna, warning: “We don’t have to regulate everything but if you can’t regulate yourselves, governments will.” One day later, the Canadian government promised to “redouble its effort by taking action on online hate.”

Trudeau has also expressed conflicting views on free speech. In October, he compared drawing Muhammed cartoons to “yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre” and said there are “limits” to free speech after a terrorist attack in France where a teacher was beheaded after showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons that depict the Prophet Mohammed.

After facing heavy criticism, Trudeau then backtracked on these anti-free speech comments and stated: “I think it is more important to continue to defend freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Our artists help us to reflect and challenge our views, and they contribute to our society.”

Critics have warned that online hate speech laws pose a threat to free speech because they risk criminalizing and jailing people for expressing controversial views.

But these warnings have largely fallen on deaf ears with Canada being just one of several countries to propose or introduce hate speech laws and regulations over the last few months.

For example, Scotland’s controversial “hate crime” bill, which would sanction the possession of “inflammatory media” and “problematic” social media posts, is looking increasingly likely to pass. And Norway recently passed a new law under which people can be jailed for hate speech in private conversations.If you’re tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

UK: The Push to End Free Speech

Posted on by

UK: The Push to End Free Speech

by Judith Bergman

  • “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.

People’s Party of Canada Will Repeal Much of the “Hate Law” — Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code & Law Giving Special Privileges to the Transgendered (C-16)

Posted on by

Issue

The rights of Canadians to freely hold and express beliefs are being eroded at an alarming speed under the Trudeau government. Some of its recent decisions even require that Canadians renounce their most deeply held moral convictions and express opinions they disagree with.

In 2018, the Liberal government denied summer job funding to organizations, including charities, that would not sign an attestation supporting abortion. It also passed bill C-16 as part of a trend to force Canadians to express support for the existence of various gender identities beyond the biological categories of male and female, and to use pronouns demanded by those who identify with these other genders.

In addition to these assaults on conscience, the government launched a series of regulatory attacks on free speech on the internet and is pressuring social media companies, which are already censoring speech that isn’t politically correct, to crack down even more. It is also considering bringing back Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This hate speech provision was repealed by the Conservative government in 2013 because it was being used arbitrarily to censor statements that offended some people on the internet.

In what appears to be a first step towards restricting our right to criticize some religions, it adopted M-103, a motion that condemns religious discrimination but only specifically mentions one religion, Islam, and without defining the term “islamophobia.”

Finally, on university campuses, a growing number of faculty and administrators—those who should be fighting for open debate of controversial ideas—have become aggressive advocates for censorship.

Facts

History and social scientific research show that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, when maximally protected, advance the intellectual life of a nation, foster greater ideological diversity and societal understanding, and nurture other freedoms necessary for a successful democracy.

This is why Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees citizens freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

Our Plan

What some people find politically incorrect, offensive or even hateful cannot serve as the legal basis for discrimination and censorship. Canadians should be able to enjoy maximum freedom of conscience and expression as guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter.

A People’s Party Government will:

  • Restrict the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to expression which explicitly advocates the use of force against identifiable groups or persons based on protected criteria such as religion, race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation.
  • Repeal any existing legislation or regulation curtailing free speech on the internet and prevent the reinstatement of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • Repeal C-16 and M-103.
  • Ensure that Canadians can exercise their freedom of conscience to its fullest extent as it is intended under the Charter and are not discriminated against because of their moral convictions.
  • Withhold federal funding from any post-secondary institution shown to be violating the freedom of expression of its students or faculty.

Terrible Decision By Conservatives To Remove Salim Mansur Creates New Opening For Bernier

Posted on by

Terrible Decision By Conservatives To Remove Salim Mansur Creates New Opening For Bernier

NewsSpencerFernando23

Surrendering to pressure from the Liberal elites will only encourage more pressure. They can never be appeased.

Salim Mansur is a devout Canadian Muslim who has courageously spoke out against radical Islamism.

Mansur is a highly-respected professor, and has even been invited by Conservatives to testify on Parliament Hill about the threat of radical Islamism.

Mansur won the nomination to be the Conservative candidate in the riding of London North-Centre.

However, the Conservative Party has since disqualified him from running – without even letting party members in the area decide.

“I’m disappointed with CPC disallowing my candidacy, yet hopeful conservatives will persevere. I’ll have more to say about this & my role in 2019 election. Thanks to all for love & support. This setback won’t derail me to help rescue our Canada from Islamism & Globalism.”

He was told in an email that his candidacy was ‘disallowed.’

According to a report by Andrew Lawton for the True North Centre, “No reason was provided in the email, but Mansur told me in a brief interview that Conservative leader Andrew Scheer’s campaign manager, Hamish Marshall, advised him last week of the party’s concerns with Mansur’s past writing and public speaking on Islamism and the politics of radical Muslims, which Marshall said will likely be portrayed by Liberals and others as Islamophobic, and become disruptive to the party’s national campaign.”

If that is the reason, it’s a disgrace.

The whole point of being a leader is having the ability to persuade people and push back against falsehoods. So, if the Liberals call Mansur ‘Islamophobic’ (which is obviously absurd considering that Mansur is himself Muslim), then Scheer should simply push back and say “Mansur is a proud Canadian-Muslim who is fighting against extremism and terrorism.”

Then, Scheer should put Trudeau on the defensive by saying “Justin Trudeau must answer for his association with people like Joshua Boyle, Trudeau must answer for his plan to let ISIS terrorists back into our country, and Trudeau must explain why the Liberals are attacking a courageous Canadian Muslim instead of fighting against the anti-LGBT, anti-women agenda of radical Islamists.”

It would be so easy to put the Liberals on the defensive and stand up for Mansur.

But instead, the Conservatives simply booted him.

It’s weakness, and that weakness will only encourage more attacks from the Liberals.

As Cosmin Dzsurdzsa wrote in the Post Millennial, “The Conservatives will be accused of Islamophobia either way. There really is no way around it. In fact, the Liberals will likely pull out their full arsenal of phobias to fling at Conservatives. This decision won’t mitigate the persistence or the frequency of such smears. It should be clear from the recent elections in Alberta and before that in Ontario, that the left will invent reasons to accuse their opponents of all sorts of vile things if they can’t find any readily available. For the CPC to think that this might save them a headache is just naivete or self-delusion.”

This move sends a dangerous message to brave Canadian Muslims who are speaking out against extremism. If even Canada’s top Conservative party won’t stand up for them, then who will?

It’s demoralizing for the Conservative Base, and it’s a massive mistake.

It also creates an opening for People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier.

While Bernier has been struggling in the polls as his party gets off the ground, the Conservatives’ rejection of Mansur plays exactly into what he’s been saying about some Conservatives being far too willing to bow down to Liberal-style political correctness.

Here’s what Bernier said on Twitter:

“The Tories have rejected the candidacy of highly respected Prof. @SalimMansurLNC, a critic of islamism, for fear of being called islamophobic by Liberals. Can you trust Andrew Scheer to defend Canadian values? Is he willing to do *anything* to gain power?”

There will certainly be some justifiably-angry Conservatives who will consider the People’s Party more now because of the brutal error of getting rid of Mansur.

The Conservatives under Scheer have gotten many things right, particularly their willingness to confront Communist China, build up our military, and reverse Trudeau’s destructive and unity-destroying economic policies.

That said, their lack of toughness and fear of attacks led them to meekly surrender to the Liberals and remove Mansur and that mistake could cost them votes at Election time.

Canada needs people like Salim Mansur in our political leadership.

As a result, the decision must be reversed, and the Conservatives need to adopt the attitude of simply focusing all their attacks and attention on Trudeau’s pathetic and dangerous failures, rather than surrendering to the sickness of political correctness.

Spencer Fernando