time we started to turn the law against muslims. use their methods against them lets demand chapels in all airports, holy water fonts. lets sue any muslim that acts suspiciously. let's take out law suits against pro islamic and liberal sites. our response could very well overload the islamic movement in the USA so they would be forced to back down. we need a strong leader like robert to start the ball rolling and organise us into individual groups and cells to conduct these law suits and acts upholding the constitution against the encroachment of islam.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at July 25, 2007 11:11 AM

I have found (living in Canada, but as an American citizen) a strain of anti-democracy here. One of the most notable/obvious indicators of the degree of control by Big Brother is the power given to non-elected (appointed) tribunals. These tribunals can take up a "government cause" and then apply its "principles" (read witch hunt) to unsuspecting Canadian citizens. Thus, one can be summarily hauled up before said tribunal and punished (without, btw, any "civil rights" protections as would be afforded someone in an actual courtroom). These tribunals are these so-called "human rights commissions" found in every province. Thus, if one violates the speech codes (but not sufficiently to warrant an arrest by the police), then one could find oneself summoned to the "human rights board." Anyway, it's creepy.

Posted by: J.S. at July 25, 2007 11:27 AM

The person making the complaint is not Muslim; she was just offended by a poster's comments on a blog.

Taking her complaint to the Human Rights Commission means that, if the complaint proceeds (it is still being examined), all of her legal bills will be paid by the government (taxpayers), no matter the outcome. However, the bloggers in question have to pay all of their own legal fees, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings.

The Human Rights Commission was originally set up to defend human rights issues, for example, when members of a "visible minority" were refused housing on the basis of their skin colour, this gave them some sort of legal recourse.

Now it seems that taxpayers' dollars are being spent to defend someone's "right" not to be offended.

I agree with J.S. (above). Big Brother enforcing a "government cause" is creepy. In Ontario at least, our government institutions tend to be very left-wing.

I used to work for a large board of education and was a witness in an internal investigation. It was a witch-hunt, in reality.

Posted by: Josephine at July 25, 2007 11:53 AM

A lot of Canadian blogs are posting the "offensive" statements on their blogs in solidarity.

Imagine if someone could take Robert Spencer or Charles Johnson, etc., to a government tribunal for comments made by someone else on their blogs.

Posted by: Josephine at July 25, 2007 12:01 PM

In Canada, you're considered intolerant if you say anything negative about gays, AND if you point out how someone else says negative things about gays. Really strange, eh?

Posted by: Bigfoot at July 25, 2007 12:59 PM

Americans are so fortunate to have the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. We must do all we can to prevent any erosion of our liberty.

Posted by: MP at July 25, 2007 1:52 PM

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Canadian television will air a "religious" program by a Pakistani jihadist who calls for extermination of the entire Jewish people, and the director of the program will say their is "nothing wrong with it," but a Canadian is brought up before a commission because he states the simple fact that sharia law calls for the killing of homosexuals? It's time to click our ruby slippers and return to Kansas. This is unbelievable.

Posted by: ikonklast29palms at July 25, 2007 2:20 PM

Even if there weren't really a fire, this ain't a crowded theater.

Amazing that the accuser gets all bills paid by the government, but the blogger has to pay own bills, regardless of whether the complaint succeeds. If the government brings the complaint and fails, the government should have to pay all costs. Maybe that would reign in these troglodytic attempts to silence speech. I thought the oh-so-enlightened bureaucrats understood that the best remedy for bad speech is almost always more speech, not censorship. But the bureaucrats are so trusting of the people, have so much faith in human freedom, and that's why discussion has to be controlled, for our own good, right? Brilliant. Some people don't get the most important things, but they can come up with utopia and fill out forms real well.

Posted by: traeh at July 25, 2007 2:30 PM

"If the government brings the complaint and fails, the government should have to pay all costs." Posted by: traeh

I agree.

Technically, I'm not sure that the government is the one bringing the complaint. The government is footing the bill for any complaint which the commission decides to underwrite.

This commission was intended originally to empower the disempowered (if that's a word).

I personally think that, if a commission or some other body decides that a charge was frivolous or malicious, the complainant should pay out of his/her own pocket for the other person's legal bills. Lawyers are expensive!

The Canadian government is not attacking websites with which it disagrees. An individual is using a system that was set up to help people fight against discrimination because she was offended by some comments she read on a blog.

Flaggman's Canada has links to some radio interviews. (I listened to the Michael Coren interview when it aired on Sunday.)

http://flaggman.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Josephine at July 25, 2007 2:50 PM

A Kamloops City Councilor was fined $1000 for saying that homosexuality was not normal or natural. He apologized but still had to pay or go to the tribunal and face massive court costs, while the complainer would get their costs paid by the government. It is dangerous to have a dissenting opinion from liberalism/socialism/secularism in Canada.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011902.html

Posted by: James Martel at July 25, 2007 6:19 PM

I know the muslim Canadian blogs have more insulting comments then that.....so Conservative Canadians start filing complaints against the muslims sites and blogs.

I have viewed several muslim Canadian blogs and they are violent, hate filled, killing, anti-women, anti-everything sites.

Canadians need to use the same complaint system.

Put the ball back in play, don't sit on the sidelines.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at July 25, 2007 6:28 PM

Look forward to this in 2008 in the USA if Hillary Clinton gets elected. If Obama is her running mate and has a "relapse" back towards Islam, all bets are off regarding Islam.

Posted by: non-redneck at July 25, 2007 6:58 PM

They're doing pretty much the same thing in Malaysia:

http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=6747#nucleus_cf

5.

I tried to post this on Malaysia-Today and somehow found it didn’t take my comment :-)

So I thought I'd leave it here instead.

What a LOAD of CRAP!! You can’t insult the cult of islam [the religion of peace®] but it’s of course OK to insult the other Religions.. the truly PEACEFUL ONES!!

Remind me to AVOID your country for future holidays. I will also avoid buying products from islamic countries.

The HYPOCRISY makes me SICK!!

So allow me to ‘insult’ the ‘prophet’ of the mahometans - who are nothing but lazy crybabies: your ‘prophet’ married a 6yo girl and consummated the marriage when she turned 9yo.

your ‘prophet’ is the ultimate pedopphile.

Of course I forgot - the TRUTH can hardly be an insult.

So here goes: your ‘prophet’ was also a DRUNK! Oh.. the TRUTH rears its ugly head again!!

Damn!! So HARD to INSULT the cult!

Oh I got it!

islam is THEE ‘religion of peace®’.

Now THERE’s an insult!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at July 25, 2007 9:25 PM

If everyone up North is so doggone het up about the things people are supposedly saying because of their "hate", why the heck is the Kuran not censored for the same reason as it contains so many utterly inflammatory, hateful verses about non-Muslims?? Hateful Kuranic teachings include the following teaching: "Jews and Christians are the descendants (sic) of apes and pigs." And, believe us, there's plenty more where THAT came from!.

Muslims have absolutely NOTHING nice to say about anything other than Islam and NOTHING nice to say about anyone other than the followers of Muhammed. Arab-Muslims post the most hateful prose about non-Muslims imaginable. And many of these people actually take action based on these (hateful)internet posts.

Yet curiously, the Canadian Mounted "Hate Police" lets hateful transgressions committed by Muslims go routinely with impunity and the apparent blessings of the Canadian establishment.

Someone might call the Canadians suicidal hypocrites.

Posted by: pythagoras at July 25, 2007 9:52 PM

As a Canadian I have to say I am regularly disappointed with my fellow Canadians. We truly believe that everybody wants to be just like us, and anyone who gets a taste of life in Canada will cease to have differing thoughts.

I know for a fact that is how most of us seem to live here. I'm not saying we're stupid, but as a country we are very naive.

No different than most western countries we genuinely lack a reference point to place Islam in its proper context and seem obsessed with moral relativism.

Now back to the point of this post we in Canada do have freedom of expression, and freedom of opinion amongst other freedoms. What I find interesting here is that in Canada we seem to enforce one freedom over an other.

You cannot say Islam or Muslim's are violent, but you can say Islamists are violent. I find this scary as our own laws are turned against us. What I don't understand is how someone has the constitutional right to an opinion, yet still can be charged with a hate crime for speaking the truth about Islam.

This link is to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#garantie

Posted by: The fanatic at July 25, 2007 10:06 PM

No wonder St. Andrew's is becoming the new McGill.

Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2007 10:12 PM

Pythagoras I have had a discussion on the Quran not long ago with a supervisor at my workplace.

He has a copy of the Quran which he has read, he came to the conclusion that if it wasn't constitutionally protected as religious text it would be outlawed as hate literature.

I can't help but agree, unfortunately that is exactly what our Charter does.

Now can any of our American friends tell me if your Constitution protects the Quran the same way as the Canadian one?

If not how and why has this not been brought up in your courts? I am not trying to deflect blame here, or say that we shouldn't be criticized, but I think our systems are under the same type of assault and we need to find a chink in the armour of this enemy.

Posted by: The fanatic at July 25, 2007 11:12 PM

"...pretty scary things to say." Yes, if you happen to be a Moslem. Submission and democracy are incompatible with Islam as are freedom of speech and equality for women, minorities and other religions.

Posted by: Timur at July 25, 2007 11:13 PM

By the way I should mention that less than 2 weeks ago I was debating with a Muslim on a Vancouver based board about Islam.

As this guy started out with all of the usual lies about Islam, I began by asking him simple questions about his religion that he couldn't answer.

ie: If Islam is truly a religion of peace and tolerance why is Saudi Arabia the birthplace of Islam the only country on earth that doesn't allow other religions to exist?

Well he quickly came back and said I need to watch it as these blogs are monitored and I could be charged with a hate crime.

Now I know this is technically true the chances of it happening are slim. I continued undaunted and he finally stopped posting.

My point is they can threaten all they want, they win when we surrender.

Posted by: The fanatic at July 25, 2007 11:20 PM

All the accused has to do is state that he is a member of a rare religious sect of Gnostic anti-Islamists, and as a minority even more minor than Islam, his religious freedom to criticize his fellow humans (just as Islam is allowed to do in the Koran, Hadiths, etc.) trumps Islam's or any Canadian's taking offense at his "sanctified" diatribes.

Use the "protection of religous speech" provision in Canadian law if there is no equivalent First Amendment freedom of speech right.

Hoist. Petard.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 25, 2007 11:38 PM

Take the point of this article but here's why a lot of gay people don't trust:

"The European Commission quietly approved an agreement this Monday which gives the US Department of Homeland Security unprecedented access to the personal information of anyone on a transatlantic flight, including details of their sexual orientation.

The DHS insists on the right to use the information for disease control, and there are fears that gay passengers may be singled out as possible HIV risks.

The plans involve upgrading information which is already sent by airlines to the DHS on the 4-million-plus Britons who visit the US every year, including payment details, home address and the passengers in-flight meal choice.

The agreement adds 19 possible new categories, including information on ethnic origin, political and philosophical opinions, credit card numbers, trade union membership, sex life and details of the passengers' health.

The information will be provided by passengers when making bookings.

The US is not required to provide this information about its citizens.

Franco Frattini, vice president of the European Commission, said more sensitive information would be filtered out, and only used, "in exceptional cases, and to fight terrorism and other serious crimes."

Peter Hustinx, the European data protection supervisor, wrote to the Commission expressing his 'grave concern' that there is no mechanism for EU citizens to challenge misuse of personal information and that there was no legal precedent.

"Data on EU citizens will be readily available to a broad range of US agencies and there is no limitation to what US authorities are allowed to do with the information," he said, according to The Guardian.

"I have serious doubts whether the outcome of these negotiations will be fully compatible with European fundamental rights, which both the Council and the Commission have stated are non negotiable."

Last week, the European Parliament said it noted that sensitive data will be made available to the DHS and that this data may be used by the DHS in exceptional cases, leading to, "a significant risk of massive profiling and data mining, which is incompatible with basic European principles and is a practice still under discussion in the US Congress."

It emerged over the weekend that neither Hustinx nor the European Parliament knew about the final draft of the plan.

The European Parliament went into recess last week, so most MEPs are on holiday and not available to comment.

In 1987, fear about the spread of AIDS led US officials to require anyone with HIV to declare their status and apply for a special waiver visa.

This led to many people not declaring their status upon arrival. It also meant that no international AIDS conferences could be held on US soil.

Restrictions were lifted in 2006, allowing HIV+ people a 'categorical waiver' similar to the 60 day automatic visas that UK business and tourist visitors receive (all the above from http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-5008.html ) but most gay people still don't know that. The USA and other countries do themselves no favours in the fight against Islam and if we want gays to see Islam as a menace then we have to stop demonising them as if they were Islamic destructors as well.

Why don't gays join us? Simple, really, because they don't trust us - they see themselves, perhaps rightly, as persecuted and any persecuted group looks for allies. It can seem that we are persecuting Muslims (we're not, of course, but it can look that way) so they support Muslims and hope for support in return. They won't get it and we all know that because we here have studied the texts, but gays will never be with us unless we stop hating and persecuting them.

It doesn't matter how much we tell gay people that Muslims want to kill them if it seems to them that we want to eradicate them also. It's the old 'my enemy's enemy must be my friend' thing.

If we want the support of the gay community then we have to persuade them that the things we say about Islam are correct and that we will tolerate them AS EQUALS under the law. It's that last part that many find they can't do and it's our failure to see them AS EQUALS under the law that drives them into the arms of our, and their, enemy. Any minority group denied equal legal rights would probably behave in exactly the same way.

Posted by: Jonathan Ralbrooke at July 26, 2007 12:01 AM

Jonathan Ralbrooke thanks for the interesting perspective. I do believe that gays may have had a difficult time in society at some point, but from someone who lives in Canada and watches gay rights being trumped as the most important topic in this country I have a different perspective.

I think a lot of negatives towards the gay community during the AIDS scare were unfortunate, but we can't overlook the fact that the disease still is overwhelmingly attached to the gay community.

As for gays being persecuted I don't think that really is the case. I for one happen to work directly with 4 lesbians, one which was married under the gay rights laws here.

I've had many frank discussions with them on these topics and have found them to be quite open to dialogue. I believed that everybody in this country who works and pays taxes should have the right to marry and pass on their wealth to a loved one. However in the case of gay marriage I am against it, I believe Civil Unions should be done which give you all the rights of marriage. My reasoning for this is that we are now entering a realm where a religion such as Christianity could be forced to perform marriages in a ceremony the Church believes is a sin.

I know I will draw the ire of some here, but no where does the bible, or did Christ say slay the homosexual, it is one thing to believe something is a sin, and another to persecute for it.

The bottom line here is you already have all the rights of equals, but we still see many in your community side with those who want you dead.

For me this does not add up, I know in the US things are a little different, but in Canada the attitude in the gay community doesn't sound any different.

Posted by: The fanatic at July 26, 2007 1:19 AM

Ah, The fanatic, I see that you understand the complexity of the issue. I am not gay myself but, like you, have many gay friends and colleagues. I, too, still wonder why so many gay people identify with the believers in Islam (most of whom would cheerfully kill them) and my last post was merely an attempt to reason my way through the issue.

I don't happen to think that Chritianity has any right to assert that gay relationships are sinful - but then, there are as many readings of our sacred texts as there are Christians and, given our Christ given tolerance today, this is really the least of our, or their, worries.

Islam is, however, a real threat to them and to us. Perhaps our persecution of gay people in the past is partly to blame for why so many of them now turn against us - memories of persecution are a long time in the dying and western gay people have only the memories of our persecution and obviously have no memory of Islamic hatred.

But we need their support if we are to maintain our politically free societies, so, yes, we all must, as you do, continue to talk to them. You said "I've had many frank discussions with them on these topics and have found them to be quite open to dialogue" and this is excellent. Keep up the dialogue. They, and other minorities, must be brought to be aware of what they could lose if Islam becomes dominant in our societies.

Never mind that, think what we could lose!

We need all the allies that we can muster - even gay people.

Posted by: Jonathan Ralbrooke at July 26, 2007 1:38 AM

Jonathan and Fanatic

Good points. As a feminist with many gay friends, I have good success talking to friends about the threat of islam. I think it's time some people on this site stopped attacking 'feminists' and 'gays' for being universally passive on the issue. How about really inviting people from my side of the political spectrum here, instead? Feminist passivity re islamism is simply not true - who do people think are trying to eliminate FGM?

Jonathan, once people can replace "that we will tolerate them AS EQUALS under the law" with "that we will *see* them AS EQUALS under the law", this site might be closer to getting more of the 'centre-left' on board.

Posted by: Lili at July 26, 2007 4:13 AM

Why do people make such sweeping generalisations that all gays are with the muslims. I'm gay and I fully believe Islam is the biggest threat to our society and the world. I tell people this on a regular basis. As for any gay comunity, I'm not part of it. I have no interest in segregating myself and only socialising with other people who are gay. My sexuality isn't so important I need to make an entire culture out of it. I'm attracted to men and that's it. When I have been to gay clubs I have found them to be places full of fickle people who only want to talk about the lives of people like Paris Hilton or David and Victoria Beckham. That's why there are many people like me who want nothing to do with it. You just don't hear about them so much. And don't think it's just the gays. Mainstream society is obsessed with the culture of celebrity gossip, that's the problem. People don't discuss important things anymore. Virtually every post here is about straight people believing that Islam is no threat to us, but when the post is specifically about gays, everyone seems to forget this. Luckily I'm not so much part of mainstream society either. I go to rock clubs, where nobody has any interest in celebrity gossip.

There are other groups here that get generalised. Particularly the British. I'm constantly hearing how the British believe everything we're told about Islam. Why do you think this is actually true? We don't believe it. We're sick of being told that Islam is a religion of peace everytime they try to blow us up. We don't assume Americans believe the stories they're told so why do you believe this about us? I'm also at University. Another group that is generalised here. I have been drinking in a pub with one of my teachers, and told him my opinions about Islam. He told me he felt exactly the same. He just had to be careful who he said it to. We discussed it quite loudly surrounded by a pub full of people and nobody came over to tell us we were being "Islamophobic", because anyone who knows anything about the subject feels exactly the same.

My point is, you shouldn't make assumptions about any group of people as if it's true for everyone.

Posted by: calum at July 26, 2007 8:17 AM

"lol, homosexuals defending muslims? Idiots. It's the same thing with the feminists, they defend muslims too."
Posted by: EliasAlucard

EliasAlucard -- It's interesting that you made this comment on this particular thread because one of the comments that is being investigated on the Free Dominion website is similar to yours and just as innocuous.

Posted by: Josephine at July 26, 2007 4:23 PM

Islam doesnot approve of murdering homosexual for being homosexual but only for rapeing boys and giels and non-homosexual man abd woman or for other crinibal act only. Pakistian court of law sentence than bis-sexual man to death for rapeing than murdering over 100 boys and girls. Than anti-Islamist bigot told him that Pakistan murder bis-sexual for no reason I show him the Palkistan newpaper story about the trial in they court of law.
He said it he did yhose crimes he got what he merit
for his action. Pakistian criminal court have the right to put certain criminal to death for they crimes. Historal Islamist societry where very tolant of bis-sexual and both man and woman homosexual as long as they didit along themself. In America there are many cases of Christian murdering homosexual.
The case of mosques being firebomd in America as reported by CAIR are real HATE CRIME BEING INVESTAKE
BY THE FBI AND POLICE AS REAL HATE CRIMES. It just that some of you hatehonger refuse to see them as criminal act. You must read the offical tranlare Koran not one tranlate in the 15 or 16th century by hatefill christian.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at July 26, 2007 9:39 PM

I agree with you, Lili. This shouldn't be a right-wing or a left-wing site but should be as Mr. Spencer intended it and named it - JihadWatch. I have read here for some time and I have to say that I have no idea of Mr. Spencer's opinions, assuming that he has formulated any, on feminism, homosexuality, social practices and a whole range of other issues - but I do have a very clear idea of his opinions, assertions and academic and reasoned points on and about Jihad and Islam. He has stuck to the point, and cogently at that, and he has strenuously resisted the temptation to broadly politicise this site. We commenters have done so often, of course and he and his Board have frequently allowed us to do so. But none the less, I defy anyone to tell me Mr. Spencer's political affiliation - outwith the subjects of the Jihad and Islam, that is.

Hello Calum. It's good to see an openly gay person here. The last one I read here was Dominic but he is gone from us. You make good points and I agree with you. Keep up the good work and always represent your point of view. My gay friends and colleagues all sound like you.

Hey, do I know you?!

Posted by: Jonathan Ralbrooke at July 26, 2007 11:06 PM

Defender of Islam here is a direct quote from the late Ayatollah Khomeini on having sex with infants. Yeah your religion is very progressive isn't it? In Iran if you admit to having homosexual relations you get executed, but if you're a pedophile it's all good.

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.
However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is
harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.
This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives".
(Arabic Source - 12th item under the title "Ketabonnekah")

Now you make a statement that many Christians murder homosexuals in western countries all the time. Where do you get this from, does the bible command Christians to seek out homosexuals and kill them in his name? Did Jesus ever support violence? Your crocodile tears for the poor treatment of homosexuals is actually quite amusing.

Tell us another tall tale.

Posted by: The fanatic at July 27, 2007 12:34 AM

I think things here are even worse than what I feared. I stumbled across this by accident, it happened last week in Vancouver's Playland amusement park.

Muslim Day at Playland, now I know the fight is over here in Canada, sorry but I think I'm going to be sick.

http://www.pakcan.com/

Posted by: The fanatic at July 27, 2007 2:48 AM