Canadians Protest Islamic Law Proposal

I was at the London protest on Thursday, 8th Sept.
The organiser had received many phone calls and e-mails from people who had said they would come. In the event, there were only about 15-16 people, mostly men, including a reporter from Canadian television. But it was a work day.

The organisers met with officials from the Commission beforehand and handed them a letter for the Canadian government. They said they were sympathetic.

As hundreds of people sunned themselves a few yards behind us in Grosvenor Square and two policemen stood in front of the Commission building across a wide street, representatives from Sharia.com, the International Committee against Stoning, the British Humanist Association, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and Peter Tatchell made speeches.
There was also a guy from a gay and lesbian association there.

They basically made the same objections to Sharia law that we've all seen here at JW/DW.
They called for separation of state and religion.

Peter Tatchell said allowing Sharia get a foot in the door would be the thin end of the wedge and that the 'voluntary' use of the courts by Islamic women was nonsense, given the multitude of pressures they would be under to use them. One of the humanists cited the case of the woman raped by her father-in-law who was ordered to marry him and treat her husband as her son.

A speaker from nosharia said things had gradually regressed over the last 20 years. He said there was an agenda and thatthe bombings in London and Madrid and the slaughter of Theo van Gogh etc. were all part of the same agenda.

It wrapped up at around 1.30 and I went home. Before I left I spoke to Sohaila, the main organiser, and commented on the lack of women. I asked her where the women's groups and feminists were. She confirmed what we already know, that culture trumps gender, she said she has been called, wait for it, islamophobic. She had been at a meeting recently where Germaine Greer spoke about FGM, saying 'there must be something in it' because so many women practice it.

This is all off the top of my head, unfortunately I didn't take notes and my memory isn't brilliant.

Well, if it is only affecting muslims, I cannot see what is wrong with Sharia, it is part of Islam, so, it makes logical sense to hold any muslim to it.

Sharia would not affect us, so, in the same way that we don't have the moral right to tell gay people how to live their lives, is is ok that we are sticking our noses into the muslim's business?

You cannot protect people from life, and nor should you. Those women want to have limited rights and signed up to this out of their own free will, and despite being having an alternative(as they live in the west), they choose to stick to Islam.

Remember, woman make up 50% of the Umma. I think it is quite patronising to treat them as victims. The only help you can give them is to offer them help to leave Islam, IFF they want to. Helping them whilst they still want to be muslims is not useful to anyone, it is like rationing an alcoholic to one beer a day!

Change has to come from within those people, they need to make their choice and say: no more! You cannot foist it onto them, and, religions never die by discussion, only by getting discarded, and that is a matter of affluence and education.

Making muslims take themselves serious by requiring them to live under Sharia would speed this process of awakening I think.

Imli do you have any idea how hard it is to roll back any islamic 'cultural' advances, once they attach themsleves parasitically to society?

Every Islamic country started with a tiny minority of Muslims. Dhimmitude and jihad simply completed the borg-like assimilation which was started by the original conquest.

The most fundamental aspect of being a nation "under law" is that the law be applied equally to all participants. Even with the acknowledgement that perfect equality is often more of a goal than a practice we understand that human nature and not the institution itself is the impediment to achieving a just society. Allowing certain groups to carve "we're more equal than others" chunks out of the institution weakens that foundation. This is a zero sum game. Either we all live together under the same rule of law or we compete with each other for the greater inluence and privilege.

Carving out privilege for sharia is a terrible, inherently destructive idea.

Imli,

If people want to live under sharia law they should be living in a Islamic state. In the West we have secular societies with the rule of law and laws are supposed to apply equally to everyone. Sharia is a cancer and there is no place for it in the Western world.

Imli:

Re: "Remember, woman make up 50% of the Umma. I think it is quite patronising to treat them as victims."

Read the following and then see if you still agree with your statement. Immigrant women are often cut off from general society through lack of language skills and pressure from husbands and have little control over their lives. They also risk being ostracized from their community.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050908/SHARIA08/TPNational/?query=sharia

Robert:

I attended the Toronto protest. Below is a link to a Globe and Mail report of the event. See also the link above to another Globe and Mail article on why this is a mistake.

By far the best coverage was given by Scaramouche in her blog - scroll down to the bottom. I'm not great at crowd estimating but published reports estimate about 300 - I would have guessed somewhat larger but in that ballpark. The crowd was mostly middle aged women who I would consider decidedly mainstream (although off to the left), either Liberal or soft NDP (socialist). As Scaramouche states, they look like the type who would have marched for women's rights 30 years ago. When I say mainstream, last year's protest was perhaps 75 with the largest contingent being rather strident Trotskyists (seriously). I wonder if McGuinty will take notice as this is one of his core constituencies.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050909/SHARIA09/TPNational/?query=sharia

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050908/SHARIA08/TPNational/?query=sharia

http://www.scaramouche.motime.com/

Johnb sent this to us at Jihad Watch after the rally Thursday. It's his account of Toronto's meeting; and following that is a link to scaramouche's copy. First I'll note my experience of the rally in Vancouver.

My experience in Vancouver, Canada at the Family Law Courts building downtown began by meeeting the organizer, a harried woman in jeans and a pink tee-shirt, Zari Azli, who was trying to tape a sign to a sandwhich board frame. The electrician's tape didn't hold well in the breeze, and the other papers threatened to blow away while her attention was on the poster.

Being there early and alone I scanned the crowd for friends. I was the only one there. A tall thin woman came and stood nervously on the sidewalk above the entrance to the law courts, and when I approached her to ask if she'd come to the rally she said yes, and she thought there would be a crowd. She asked if there was a petition to sign, found one, signed it, and left. I made myself useful fetching the organizer a bottle of water from Starbuck's near-by.

When I returned, there were three or four Iranian men on the sidewalk, one holding out flyers. The passing office workers brushed past without a glance, young women well-dressed and confident, who had nothing but contempt for demonstrators on the sidewalk. Gradually we were joined by others, a couple of speakers from local women's rights groups, a dozen ladies of advanced age, and a corpulent Pakistani male who tried telling me that jihad is a good thing, a great thing, the only thing in his life that's meaningful. Your smiling correspondent was ushered away to the far side of the rally.

In all, with the speakers and the organizer's friends one one side, the demonstrators ran to perhaps a dozen. Of those, one was a young man who took photos, seemed very nice as a person, and didn't express the slightest interest in the meaning of the debate. A couple of young men working in the clerical section of the courthouses came out to soke, expressed some sympathy for the cause, and tossed their butts before going back to move mountains of paperwork to further justice in the nation.

A thin grey-haired man in shorts and a tee-shirt held up a bristol board sign explaining the need for equal Human rights in Canada. He was a bit timid but stood his ground in the background, behind some other people, a bit of a way off. With some prompting he perhaps agreed that those who don't support rights for all don't in truth support rights for anyone.

A speaker, a large white-haired matron spoke out saying that the provincial government of Ontario is "privatising the legal system." In conversation afterward she explained that it's not her rally nor her organization in charge so one would rightly speak to the woman who organized it, but that she hopes I'll remember this issue and vote for her yada yada.

A young woman and her mother held signs and tried to pass out flyers on ths sidewalk as I asked them, and others, if they read at Jihad Watch. In this case we got lucky. Mother knows. None of the others seem to have heard of it(!) Over-all, the crowd of two dozen seemed miserabley uninformed, with the exception of an Iranian woman, slight and gaunt-faced who spoke with a tinge of hysteria in her voice. That pitch of fear and pain alone might have been enough to call attention to the problem of sharia coming to Canada, but the city dwellers kept on walking.

Eventually I met a very pretty young woman on a bicycle at the edge of the group who watched and listened intently, saying that she didn't know much about the issue in detail. That's fine. I think she had the loveliest eyes I've seen in years. She has a delicate face, and her smile is totally winning.

I forget what else happened.

Oh, some other women spoke.

In the end there was little to cheer about in terms of successful public relations. As the rally ended we didn't know about the outcome of the rallies across Europe and the rest of Canada. We were left with the impresion that this was it. Those few people attending the rally drfted off with the promise to show up at other rallies dedicated to the furtherence of women's rights. Until next time there's a specific call for rallying against sharia it seems it's out of sight, out of mind.

In all it was a disappointing turn-out considering the nature of the threat to the nation of Canada as well as to other nations looking for an excuse to impose sharia for the sake of vote-buying of the Muslim bloc.

However, in hindsight one can say it was a success in that there were no incidents of violence, no bomb threats, no terrorist reaction from jihadis infuriated by women asserting their right to protest against the Muslim political agenda. I feel it's an important consideration: the chances of being hurt during a rally such as this are nil due to the nature of Islamic terrorism. Simply, Muslim terrorists are not logical, rational, or coherent in their own minds; all of which means that they cannot seem to plan in advance for an occassion to fight against: a rally at x day isn't likely to come under attack because they cannot plan effectively for that specific action; they seem only able to plan within the scope of their own timetables, to strike whenever they have the means, the will, and the mood; thus, they blow up random trains and buses rather than focusing on anti-Islamic rallies. They can't keep appointments. People are likely safer at a demonstration against Islam than they will be taking their chances on a city bus.

In conclusion, though the turn-out was small, the fact is that it can happen, even if it is small; and that we could, if we so choose, make a rally of our own, and do it globally, organizing it over the Internet. From the first rally to the next we could build up skills required for organizing the next, larger, rally. There are no shortage of issues around which we can organize and gain recruits to take our dismay to the streets. We can do better than those who organized the anti-sharia rally, if not the first time, the next time.
***

Below is a piece on th Toronto rally from johnb:

I attended the Toronto rally today and was pleasantly surprised by the turnout - I would guess in the hundreds - perhaps 300-500. I'm not good at crowd estimating. It was mostly middle aged women (about 2/3 women at least) and I would guess the majority would be either NDP or Liberal voters which is a positive sign. If McGuinty's own constituancy is opposed then perhaps he will notice.

Scaramouche (link below) has an excellent summary of the people attending and the speakers. Last year's rally had about 75-100 people with a large contingent of Trotskyites (no kidding). Today's crowd was much larger and very much mainstream even if on the left-liberal side of things.

There were two Mulim protestors that I saw including one young woman (couldn't tell because of the full burka). No kidding - she had a tiny eye slit and everything else was covered. She claimed to be a convert and was Canadian with Polish ancestry - go figure that one out. Nothing like the zeal of a brainwashed convert. Her story sounds plausible as she spoke with an indistinguishable local accent.

I have some photos if there is any way of posting them.
***
Below is the link to scaramouche:

http://www.scaramouche.motime.com/

Thanks for linking to me. Here's the website of the international effort to stop sharia law in Canada, which has photos of the Toronto protest, and other information (including a link to the infamous Boyd Report, reccommending that the government legally sanction sharia tribunals):

http://www.nosharia.com/

BTW, they estimated the crowd at around 400.

Imli,

Yes, we all aspire to live in a live and let live world. But Islam is different. Islam and it's Sharia law component are cancerous. Once introduced into the host(Canada), it will slowly eat away at the foundations of society until a critical mass is reached and then "checkmate".

Look at what's happening around the world today. Chechnya, Kashmir, The Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, these are some of the more popular Islamist insurgencies going on today where they are either fighting to establish their own Islamic state or are persecuting the non Muslim population. Europe is next on the hit list and Canada won't be far behind if Sharia is introduced even in a limited form.

You are absolutely wrong when you state that Sharia won't affect us. Your innocence and naivety in what you have written is quit breathtaking coming from someone who has and is learning the full horror of what Islam has in store for you and me. I implore you to do more research on this and other anti- Jihadi sites. Go the Ali Sina's site at http://www.faithfreedom.org/ and read what ex-Muslims have to say about Islam and Sharia. Go to Jihadi sites such as http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/english.html and hear from the horse’s mouth what their aims are. Most Muslims now living in the west are unwitting pawns who will be used as foot soldiers when the time comes to deliver the “checkmate” blow by their fascist leaders and the introduction of Sharia is their opening move.

Silvester
That was very interesting. Shame about the low turnout, but as I couldn't go myself I am in no position to speak.
I'm glad the International Committee against Stoning were there.

Imli

The only help you can give them is to offer them help to leave Islam, IFF they want to.

Anyone who tried to help women leave Islam would draw a crowd of bloodthirsty jihadis to his or her door.

The only way for free societies to remain free is to deport enough Muslims to keep them a tiny minority. This isn't easy since women are baby factories, and nothing else, to Islam. Once Muslims have numbers their aggression increases manifold.

Sebastien posted: Every Islamic country started with a tiny minority of Muslims. Dhimmitude and jihad simply completed the borg-like assimilation which was started by the original conquest.

Have any DWers watched Stargate? In this series, the most deadly situation that Stargate command recognises, is capture of the Stargate facility on earth. This situation is termed as "foothold". Once a foothold is established, the Gaulds implant SG personnel with symbiots, who then become mere slaves to the Gauld lord. These cannot be distinguished from normal humans. The takeover then proceeds rapidly. Slavery is the final outcome for all those who succomb. Many planets have suffered this fate. It is for this reason that a "foothold" situation is regarded as the most deadly for human civilisation.

PS: I like Sam Carter.

There can only be one set of laws by which all must abide. To say that one group can arbitrarily be subject to it's own set of laws and not that of common society would isolate that group from society. If Muslims are allowed to set their own laws for women, it will only be a matter of time before they demand that they should not be subject to any of the laws of the country they live in based on the precedent that this ruling would give them. If they don't like the laws of the country they live in they are free to move to a country that has sharia law.

"He said there was an agenda and thatthe bombings in London and Madrid and the slaughter of Theo van Gogh etc. were all part of the same agenda."

The terrorist attacks seem to be having the opposite effect that one would rationally assume they would have: instead of galvanizing the politicians, academics, and media pundits to investigate Islam itself as a possible source of terrorism, the terrorist attacks are actually causing a reverse situation: with each new attack, our politicians, academics, and media pundits

1) become MORE "sensitive" to Muslims

2) try to build MORE "bridges of understanding" with the "religion of peace"

3) become MORE influenced by Muslim advocacy groups whose suspect motives and records they fail to investigate

4) anxiously try to help prevent "backlash" against Muslims

5) articulate criticisms of people who dare to wonder if Islam itself nourishes these attacks

6) label critics of Islam as "racists" and "Islamophobes"

7) help to put institutional and legal apparatus into place which will further faciliate Muslims to engage in al taqiyya and further hinder the critics of Islam (e.g., "religious hate" laws).

Whether this paradoxical effect of continued terrorist attacks is part of a clever plot by Jihadists, or whether it simply reflects the dhimmi stupidity of our culture and Jihadists are wising up to its enormous utility to their overarching cause of Jihad (of which terrorism is just one tool), it doesn't seem to matter.

Dr. Pepper,

This is a direct result of our PC multiculturalist politicians turning into sheep as so eloquently described in Bill Widger's outstanding essay "Tribes". A must read for those who haven't yet. http://www.ejectejecteject.com/ .

Dr Pepper articulates very succinctly exactly what I've been feeling for some time now, but couldn't put into words. Terrorism does work and in exactly the way Dr Pepper says.

Daniel Pipes maintains terrorism sets back Islam's cause and if jihadists just sat back and and let matters take their course they would achieve their aims. There may be some truth in this, but terrorism accelerates the process of islamisation. Dr Pipes should read this post.

I do not think for one moment that jihadists do not understand this seeming paradox. They've had 1400 years of practice and Mohammed's example: if terrorism wasn't effective, it would have been abandoned long ago. They understand the psychology of it and we don't. They know exactly what they are doing.

They understand liberal democracies very well. They are fully aware that we will bend over backwards not to stigmatize the 'moderate muslim' and offer concession after concession so they don't feel victimised, scapegoated or profiled.

What differentiates the dhimmi of today from the dhimmi of yore, are, among other things, liberal guilt and the ideology of multiculturalism. These, maybe more so than the use of threats and bribes (a legitimate use of zakat) in times past facilitate and accelerate islamisation now. Jihadists are counting on this.

(And who is to say that threats and bribes are things of the past and that jihadists today rely solely on dhimmis feeling the moderate muslims' pain? Who can say that certain public figures haven't had their lives or those of their families threatened, or been bribed (two candidates for this spring to my mind)?)

Throughout history, dhimmis have aided and abetted the spread of islam and the consolidation of islamic rule. They're only doing it today for different reasons.

PS
Hi Granny

Dr. Pepper is absolutely right; I noticed this strange phenomenon quite some time ago.

It is getting worse here, but I certainly hope we can do something to ensure that it never gets as ridiculous as it is in Europe. Now that Karen Hughes has been named Ambassador to Islam, I'm afraid the situation will only get worse.

What a waste of money and intellect. There will be no give and take in this situation, only more appeasement of Islam.