Ain't it the truth, B'nai Brith?
"Rights bodies vulnerable to 'political Islam': B'nai Brith: 'Human rights commissions just don't get it,'" by Joseph Brean for the National Post, August 30:
Canada's human rights commissions have shown "a disastrous combination of investigative zeal and substantive ignorance" that has left them vulnerable to abuse by "political Islam," the same ideology that has hijacked the United Nations human rights council, according to B'nai Brith Canada.In a submission to an independent review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission's hate speech mandate, the Jewish human rights group states that "when it comes to this particular threat to human rights, human rights commissions just don't get it."
"Human rights commissions, like generals, are fighting the last war. They do not see new threats until they are overwhelmed by them. If, out of generosity than for no other reason, we should assume ignorance rather than wilful blindness, then the remedy is education and training," reads the report, written by B'nai Brith's senior legal counsel, David Matas.
His central thesis is that political Islam, an ideology that seeks to limit freedoms by marshalling the power of the state in defence of religion, constitutes the gravest threat to Canada's human rights system. He points to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an international Muslim group that "successfully hijacked UN institutions to impose its own radicalized agenda," and to the utter failure of many UN anti-racism initiatives, which have degenerated into outright anti-Semitism.
The Canadian Islamic Congress, which brought three high-profile human rights complaints of Islamophobia against Maclean's magazine, and has close ties to the OIC, did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.
Tarek Fatah, the co-founder of the reform-minded Muslim Canadian Congress, said Canadians are "not at all" aware that Islamists are "using Western law to attack Western values."
"Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have any interest in this. Their effort is to appease these Islamist groups. They don't wish to offend, and therefore the Islamists can walk over and literally blackmail politicians and the liberal intelligentsia into not saying a word about it," he said.
Mr. Fatah described the Islamist strategy as two-fold. Non-Muslim critics of Islam are labelled "Islamophobic," which is equated in the public mind with racism, one of the most serious accusations in civil society. Muslim critics, however, such as Mr. Fatah himself, are labelled "apostates," which he called a "hidden death threat."
It is this context that Canada's human rights commissions have failed to appreciate, the B'nai Brith report says.It singles out Barbara Hall, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for her "egregious" and "appalling" treatment of the complaint against Maclean's, which she dismissed as out of her jurisdiction, but went on to denounce the magazine for racism. Mr. Matas said this "made a human rights threat more acute."
I wonder whether David Matas has been lurking at Bill Warner's 'Centre for the Study of Political Islam'?? It almost sounds like it.
When Mr Spencer's 'Stealth Jihad' comes out, at least one Jewish Canadian poster here should volunteer to buy a copy and present it to David Matas and B'nai Brith Canada.
Keep your ears open. We will know we are getting somewhere when a mainstream journalist, or a politician, somewhere in the non-Muslim world, mentions dhimmitude in public and uses Our Hugh's phraseology to describe it as "a permanent condition of degradation, humiliation and physical insecurity".
It has been quite obvious that those who are serving on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions simply are operating in unchartered territory, but the problem is that they are to ignorant to know it.
There is a danger here that cuts two ways as the pawns in the CHRC try to suppress the right of human expression, and speech. When does being critical of something become hate speech? When is expressing concerns about ideological threats become hate speech? To deny people the right to demonstrate, or express concerns about an ideological threat is to make society even more vulnerable to such impositions.
Islam being fully defined as a religion gives it a protected status which allows it to go almost stealthly about like a trojan horse in our midst. The religious banner that Muslims carry needs to be fully exposed for what it truly is, a complete political system with its own laws (sharia) that is fully intenet on taking over non Muslim lands no matter how long it takes.
You would think that the Canadians above all could see what is happening in Britain with their multicultural bent that is clearly their achilles heal that Muslims are taking full advantage of.
Levant to CHRC: "You should all be fired"
"Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have any interest in this. Their effort is to appease these Islamist groups...."
Therein could lie the death knell of Western civilization!
Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have any interest in this. Their effort is to appease these Islamist groups. They don't wish to offend,
NO THEY WANT THE VOTES OF THESE GROUPS AND THINK THAT TE GROUPS THAT ARE AWARE OF POLITICAL ISLAM HAVE VERY FEW VOTES
Ok, so four Canadians get it: David Matas, Ezra Levant, the ironically-named Tarek Fatah, and Mark Steyn. And yeah, dumbledoresarmy, it sounds like Matas has been hanging around the CSPI. I wish everyone would. Actually, Robery Spencer just had a nice piece posted on there the other day about stealth Jihad at the DNC. I'm sure it's still on the front page.
The report is a start, but David Matas still doesn't get it. To argue that hate speech caused the Holocaust and other genocides is infantile and spurious reasoning. Hitler and others of his ilk suppressed free speech first, then they broadcast the hate speech. The Jews were not permitted to argue against Nazi doctrine. It seems that Canadians are not permitted to argue against Islamic doctrine.
If this report gets people thinking(a long shot now that hockey season is almost here)and questioning their Members of Parliament about free speech and the doctrine of satan and the moon god, it will have served Canada, and the greater West, magnificently.
Canadians must destroy the Human Rights Commissions and unelect every traitor who supports Islam.
As Ezra Levant said: FIRE THEM ALL!
Therein could lie the death knell of Western civilization!
Posted by: Always On Watch
--
The western World is the second-to-last host they can consume.
Once they have established islam in Europe and the Americas productivity will decline and famie will set in.
Then they will have no choice but to attack China Japan and Korea.
Either those three withstand these attacks and dismantle islam once and for all or islam will consume them as it will us.
And then, what do they eat at the ramadan Inn?
What clean water do they drink?
What medicines to heal their ailments?
What spirituality to save their souls?
The islamists are already at war with the Canadians.
Unfortunately, the Canadians haven't figured that out yet.
A convention of American and Canadian political scientists scheduled for Toronto next year may be moved to a US city. Apparently, enough conservative members of the group expressed concern that they couldn't speak openly about the issues without the risk of being targeted for possible prosecution under these bizarre Human Rights Commissions.
Reap what you sow, oh weak-kneed, limp-wristed, "progressive" Canada.
B'nai Brith chickens come home to roost.....
Friday, August 29, 2008
Presented by
B'nai Brith accused of hate speech
Body accuses Manitoba rights commission of withholding facts
Joseph Brean, National Post
Published: Friday, August 29, 2008
B'nai Brith Canada revealed yesterday it is the defendant in a hate speech case at the Manitoba Human Rights Commission that is based on anonymous and vague accusations of Islamophobia and has taken nearly five years to investigate.
"The [Manitoba] Human Rights Commission itself is supposed to be promoting human rights, but in our view in this process it's violating some pretty basic rights: a secret proceeding, a faceless accuser, failure to disclose documents. These are basic procedural rights that are being violated," said David Matas, a prominent human rights lawyer and senior legal counsel to B'nai Brith.
The Jewish human rights group has long been co-operative with and supportive of Canada's human rights commissions, but has recently called for reform to prevent their hijacking as a political platform. This is the first and only time it has been named as a respondent in a hate speech case.
At issue is a conference B'nai Brith sponsored at Winnipeg's city hall in October, 2003, for first responders to acts of terrorism, such as police, firefighters or paramedics.
A central topic was Islamic terrorism, and the presenter was the Higgins Counterterrorism Research Center, a consultancy based in Arlington, Va.
B'nai Brith had a representative there, but did not attend all the sessions, and although it was not publicly advertised, there was no formal security to keep people out.
Four months later, a complaint was filed with the MHRC by Shahina Siddiqui, the Winnipeg-based executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association of the United States and Canada, and a member of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Her complaint alleged a violation of section 18 of the Manitoba Human Rights Act, which prohibits statements that "incite, advocate or counsel discrimination."
"Based on comments from some in attendance that the presentation was biased against Muslims, I conclude that the content of the seminar presented a negative prejudice about Muslims in terms of being probable terrorists. This prejudiced picture would encourage and support racial profiling by first responders and law-enforcement agencies dealing with possible terrorist incidents," the complaint reads.
Ms. Siddiqui did not respond to messages left yesterday at her office and home.
She did not attend the conference, and B'nai Brith has not been told the identities of her informant or informants.
In the ensuing investigation, Mr. Matas said the MHRC provided B'nai Brith with more specific information about "some of the things that might have been said," although not direct quotations or even complete sentences. He did not disclose them, but described them as "a word or two taken out of context."
He said their own investigations failed to turn up anyone who remembered hearing anything discriminatory.
"Who knows? If we had a legitimate complaint where we actually had a whole sentence and we knew who said it and we knew who complained, who knows? Maybe there's something there. Hard to say. It's just shadow boxing in the current context," he said.
In a submission sent today to Richard Moon, a law professor conducting a review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission's hate speech mandate, Mr. Matas said this case has led to violations of the right to full disclosure of evidence, and to face one's accuser.
"We know who's repeating the rumour, but that's all," he said. "We shouldn't be left with 'Somebody heard something' and we've got to answer what they heard."
This year, with the case apparently stalled after four years, the MHRC appointed an independent expert to make a determination on the case, which will inform its decision whether to reject it or send it for a tribunal hearing. Despite repeated requests, Mr. Matas said the MHRC refused to identify that expert.
Patricia Knipe, communications director of MHRC, said all will be revealed in a forthcoming investigation report.
She said investigations usually take nine or 10 months, but can be longer due to complexity of issues or failure of parties to co-operate. Five years is unusual, she said.
She said the MHRC "works within the legislation the government has. So we don't really have an opinion on whether it's good or bad or indifferent."
"We just follow the code as it is legislated now," she said, adding that there are "safeguards all along the way."
"I've read all the articles about the situations and what is being said across the country [about human rights complaints and free speech], and I think everyone has to work out their own solution," she said.
Ezra Levant, a blogger who leads the campaign against human rights commissions, said in an e-mail that B'nai Brith, which has intervened to support hate speech laws in other cases, "has been a party to some of the grossest violations in due process themselves."
"All I can say is: What goes around comes around," he wrote. "It's a bit rich for [B'nai Brith] to discover their love of natural justice now."
jbrean@nationalpost.com
MATAS PLAYING IT BOTH WAYS ??
Mr. Matas said this "made a human rights threat more acute."[National Post Aug. 30]
David Matas is a lawyer from Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada. He was a member of the Amnesty
International Standing Committee on Mandate of the International Executive Committee, 1993-
1999, is Legal Co-ordinator Canadian Section (English speaking branch) 1980 to the present,........
well, what about:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2530.shtml ??
Tarek Fatah, the co-founder of the reform-minded Muslim Canadian Congress, said Canadians are "not at all" aware that Islamists are "using Western law to attack Western values."
If you are Canadian, Mr Fatah, perhaps you should stop referring to "Western Laws" and "Western Vaues". Most Canadians would refer to them as "Our Laws" and "Our values".
Your use of language, Mr Fatah, indicates what you are: a Muslim loyal to the ummah rather than the country you have chosen to live in.
Oh, chill out, Stefcho. Canadian values, in the larger context, ARE an expression of Western Values. And Tarek Fatah is with the good guys. Don't bother to respond, I won't be revisiting this thread.
THIS is what Tarek Fatah and his organization are all about.
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20080410.pdf