Muslims really hate it when the truth about Islam is learned by the Infidels before the Muslims can attack.

Posted by: pulsar182 at June 28, 2008 6:44 AM

Hilarious:

Ezra Levant smuggles out news from the People’s Democratic Republic of Canada:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_jokes_in_canada/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 28, 2008 8:34 AM

Citizens of the Western world should work back from the results. When the British government decides that it cannot deport Abu Qatada, identified as a leader of Al Qaeda in Britain, because he might be ill-treated in Jordan, and further decides that it cannot put him in prison, but can only confine him to electronic-bracelet life in a $1.6 million dollar home, on a leafy street, in a well-off neighborhood, with his wife and five little Abu Qatadas (who will grow up, speak English perfectly, know the lay of the land and the ways of the locals, and each become far more of a threat to Infidel laws and rights and customs and freedoms than their clumsy thick-accented father ever could have been), all paid for by the British taxpayer, and that outrage is hardly alone, then it is the law, or those in charge of administering the law, or both, that need to be changed.

It is the same in Canada, or in particular Canadian provinces. The human type, the mental type, who participates in, who enthusiastically endores, inquisitorial efforts of this kind, who does not see what a farce, what an invitation to a beheading, this kind of thing is, and who, furthermore, we have every right to suspect are the kind of people who would be the first to support Muslim demands, at the U.N. and elsewhere, for a ban on "Islamophobia" which means, of course, as interpreted, a ban on intelligent analysis and discussion of the texts, tenets, attitudes, of Islam, and of the source, goals, and means of Jihad, pursued world-wide by Muslims, for the world-wide Jihad is merely the sum of all the local Jihads, against non-Muslims already living in a state of permanent imperilment in the Muslim-ruled lands, and against non-Muslim states that dare to continue to exist, such as Israel, that has in Muslim eyes no such conceivable right, or states whose citizens, as is becoming more common eve in Western Europe and North America, do not always yield, but start to resist Muslim demands by the Muslims who have so foolishly and negligently been allowed to come in, and settle deep within what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines of Dar al-Harb -- in which case, these demands continue to be pressed, for changes here, in schools (a special room for prayers, a special table in the cafeteria, special versions of textbooks designed to meet Muslim ideas of how Islam is to be presented, in a direct attempt to dictate how history, and the truth, are presented in order to "improve" the image of Islam), in workplaces (again, those prayer-rooms, or that special dispensation for the five daily prayers, and other accommodations that clearly interfere with work, such as checkout clerks refusing to handle pork products, or ever sully themselves by any even accidental physical contact with Infidels --say, in handing back change, and you, reader can fill out the page here with your own examples.

Those who participated in, and eagerly supported, the comedy of would-be terrors, that is the bureaucratic state, attempting to terrorize the sensible Steyn, Levant and others, are the ones who should now -- oh, not be brought up for inverstigation and the show-trial that they favor, but have their powers limited, and they themeslves made mock of, in every possible forum, in the Canadian equivalent of Saturday Night Live and other shows, with all kinds of mock trials put on (the kind in which 9.5 and 9.29 and 3.11 and other parts of the Qur'an are read out, or in which the cwaziest Hadith are read out, and then mock charges are brought, until it is revealed that what was read was not a cruel parody of Islam, but nothing but Islam itself. That's the way to teach Infidel publics about what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira -- and the more they know, the more they find out about Islam, but not from the espositos and the rest of the Saudi-funded army, or such camp-followers as Karen Armstrong, the better.

Posted by: Hugh at June 28, 2008 8:42 AM

They're worked up over Islamophobia.

And here's me getting a wee bit upset over the Infidelophobia of the death cult.

Posted by: Hedgehog at June 28, 2008 9:11 AM

If I read the OHRC Website correctly, they have simply chosen to not deal with this kind of complaint anymore and in the future but instead just turn it over to the Human Rights Tribunal from now on.

Posted by: Mackie at June 28, 2008 9:14 AM

Islamophobia its formal, legally tested definition, is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a lavishly-funded organ of the European Union. Based in Vienna, this body diligently tracks the instances of "Islamophobia" all over the Old Continent and summarizes them in its reports. The Monitoring Center's definition of Islamophobia includes eight salient features:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and "other."
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

Posted by: Mr.Fitnah at June 28, 2008 9:50 AM

Whoa! Who knew? I'm Islamophobic!

I meet all the criteria listed above except #7. Muslims choose to not assimilate into other cultures, thereby ensuring their exclusion from the mainstream culture. IOW, the Mohammedans do this to their own selves.

Every other point is exactly the truth about Islam.

Posted by: darcy at June 28, 2008 10:00 AM

Finally! Some good news! Not perfect news, but good, nonetheless.

Posted by: Always On Watch at June 28, 2008 10:37 AM

"1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and "other."
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology."

Change 'is seen' to 'is' and we have the truth. It's like saying back in the 30s that Nazism 'is seen' as 1-5. These people at EUMC are misanthropic self loathing losers. I had the misfortune of being acquainted with a leading figure in this treacherous organisation and she was a truly antipathetic character with zero interpersonal skills and someone who indeed had divorced herself from the human race falling back into complete isolation and alienation from others in her private life. The only engagement with the world was through the ideological axe-grinding at EUMC...a very negative engagement indeed. I believe many individuals on the left who detest their own culture and ally themselves with barbarians, exhibit the same lonely and coldly detached characteristics, cutting themselves off from warm human contact.And I repeat, this woman was an influential and significant figure in EUMC. And I know for sure she would happily limit free speech, ban and punish so-called 'hate speech' and outlaw blasphemy. Dangerous people.

Posted by: johndoe at June 28, 2008 11:03 AM

from above: When the truth spreads "Islamophobia," maybe it's time for a bit of introspection.

Islamophobia actually means that far to many infidels are are investigating Islam in depth. A phenomena never before encountered by Islam
There have always been a handful of infidels who studied Islam and wrote about it, but only since the internet, have this many non believers been exposed to, not just the texts and tenants of Islam, but to what it's submitters say, and do about it, and are revolted. The truth is revolting, and 'that' is Islamophobia. 'Know the truth and the truth will set you free'. Free from what? Free from the truth.
The Islamic hysteria over this, is that muslims are also exposed to infidel revelations, and some muslims may 'look', apostate and become Islamophobic themselves. This is like a spreading virus in Islam, a truth serum turning muslims into Islamophobes.
A horror movie for Islam. Mohammad never had to put up with the internet, and mail was slow in those days. We need more Islamophobia, not less...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 28, 2008 12:21 PM

I am a total free speech advocate. Don't any free speech advocates up north have any moxie? This is censorship pure and simple. Screw Muslim and their precious feelings!

Posted by: Dumbo at June 28, 2008 1:16 PM

Slightly off topic: Hey, it’s unmoderated, so stone me.

I’d like to introduce the topic ‘Spread the Word’. It seems to me that virtually everyone registered on this site is in violent agreement regarding his or her principles about jihad and Islamification. So I say, take that energy and enlighten someone who doesn’t understand that the western world is under siege. What the regular guy can do is be a gatekeeper against the spread of silent jihad. Most of the folks I talk to don’t know anything about what the Koran says or understand how sharia works. So they don’t recognize jihad when a Muslim private school starts using public funds, or hate crime laws are promoted, or free speech is punished in Canada. I believe that if I can reach a few regular guys and open their eyes, I’ve potentially created gatekeepers.

It can be an interesting conversation to instigate, trying to figure out another persons mindset. Risky to do at work. I’ve been asking friends, neighbors, and co-workers what they thought about jihad, or just telling them that I’ve been reading a lot about it lately. Just trying to start dialog. Remember my topic; ‘Spread the Word’.

-My best friend knew more than I thought he would about the issues and he’s squared away.
-The one neighbor I talked to had no light behind his eyes. He asked me if I meant the Arabs, or the guys with turbans, and finally he realized that – yeah, I was talking about the terrorists. I decided my neighbor might be a bit too uncomplicated to be a gatekeeper against silent jihad.
-I started the conversation a coworker who I know pretty well, and when I found him interested in the information I’d been getting from JW he asked for the link and I sent it to him. ‘Spread the Word’.

Then I started the dialog with my young friend who’s painting my car. What a liberal he turned out to be. He expressed that he felt news in the U.S. is censored, that the U.S. does things in the ME that we are not allowed to know about and implied that justifies what the Muslims do. We debated for about an hour and a half and if we weren’t friends it would have easily turned into an argument. Remember that I’m not trying to create crusaders, just enlighten folks so as to staunch Islamification.

Success! The next day when I saw this friend he handed me a printout of this article by Joseph Farah that he’d found at World Net Daily.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33898

The article covers essentially all of the talking points I had used in our debate and a good bit more. And he’s coming around to realize it’s true. He told me he’d like to learn more about it. ‘Spread the Word’.

Posted by: Richard at June 28, 2008 1:29 PM

If I read the OHRC Website correctly, they have simply chosen to not deal with this kind of complaint anymore and in the future but instead just turn it over to the Human Rights Tribunal from now on.

OHRC is the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
It dismissed the complaint some time ago on the grounds that the Ontario legislation does not apply to publications.

The Globe and Mail article linked to here refers to a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca. However, I have been unable to find anything about this decisio on the CHRC web site.

Posted by: billposer at June 28, 2008 1:52 PM

Although I can't find it on the CHRC site, the CHRC decision is available on the McLeans web site: http://www.macleans.ca/multimedia/pdf/CHRC.pdf.

Posted by: billposer at June 28, 2008 2:04 PM

Someone once told me the reason Canada does not have the death penalty is because Canadians are more cultured than Americans, and don't need that deterrent.
I can see what that 'culture' is doing to them.
Human rights Commission is a joke, where are Stynes human rights? Look what kind of baskets the lunatics are weaving. The US and other western countries are just as bad, if not worse.
At least there are a few Canadians left that are not fools, actually quite a number, but where are their voices? 1984 is finally getting here. It's a little late but now we have ministries of peace that wage war, where the Dept of Education trains warriors, and western leaders try to convince us that there really is a man in the moon, and he really does eat cheese. We need to throw the bums out. Throw em all, throw em all, the good and the bad, the large and the small. Clean house on all who would force us into a mold made in their image, Islamic or otherwise.
But we keep electing these people. Obama may well be the next and largest mistake...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 28, 2008 3:49 PM

There is hope for Canada. Anti-Christian bigot Rafe Mair once a defamation case against him when he compared Christians who hold to the traditional teaching (homosexuality is a sin) on sexuality to Nazis.

Whether the court ruling applies to the Human Rights Tribunals is suspect since there are no real rules for the tribunals. It does however give hope to those who challenge these tribunals in the higher courts.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080628.BCMAIR28/TPStory/National

Posted by: James Martel at June 28, 2008 10:07 PM

The CHRC chose to not review the case because it was too politically charged, not because it is the right thing to do. Look up Friar de Valk and see that he has done nothing different than express his religious views. I recommend that everyone read Ezra Levant's blog. He goes into some detail on this.

To summarize what others have said, the CHRC decided not to review the case as a matter of political survival. If they had, they'd have been up against a multi-billion dollar corporation that also owns radio and TV stations. Politically, it would have been suicide.

Fire. Them. All.

Posted by: Canadian Christian at July 2, 2008 1:28 PM