Would the cops have been called in if she had ripped a Bible? My latest in FrontPage:
Global News reported Sunday that “Peel Regional Police say they are investigating an incident as ‘hate-motivated’ after a woman can be seen on video at a Mississauga Islamic centre appearing to tear the pages of a Qur’an and putting the pages on cars while calling the religious text ‘Satanic.’” So apparently now it’s a crime in Canada to rip the Qur’an, and even to think ill of it.
This is not the most effective way to call attention to the exhortations to violence and hatred that are within the Qur’an. It allows the Muslims at the Dar Al-Tawheed Islamic Centre, where this incident took place, to play the role of the victim, which they are doing to the hilt in the wake of this incident, and which we have seen that Muslim spokesmen are all too eager to play — victimhood, after all, is currency in today’s society.
Still, if someone hostile to Christianity had torn pages of the New Testament and left them on car windshields at a church, would he or she be charged with a “hate crime”? I doubt it. The churchgoers might see this person as obnoxious, and a nuisance, and then they’d take the paper off their windshields and drive away. I’ve witnessed supporters of the late Tony Alamo, a preacher who believed that the Catholic Church was the source of all evil, leaving anti-Catholic leaflets on the windshields of cars parked at a Catholic church. No one was charged with a “hate crime,” and the churchgoers just shrugged it off.
Is tearing up a book a crime? Is leaving paper on someone’s car a crime? The only crime here is that the woman who did this, an ex-Muslim named Sandra Solomon, is protesting against a protected victim group that is eager to seize upon anything that it can portray as a “hate crime,” so as to buttress its claims to be victims of widespread “Islamophobia,” persecution and harassment, and thus in need of special consideration and accommodation.
So — Sandra Solomon was rude and obnoxious. She called the Qur’an a “Satanic, evil book.” She said other Islamic books were “garbage.” This is all reported in this article as if it is evidence of a crime. But is thinking negatively about the Qur’an and Islam really a crime in Canada? It may be: after the passage of the “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103, there is no certainty that Canada guarantees the freedom of speech. But disliking the Qur’an and Islam, and tearing the Qur’an, are actually only crimes under Islamic law. Is Canada now adopting Sharia blasphemy laws? We shall see, in the way Canadian authorities treat this case.
What we know now is that police “are looking into the complaints and are treating the incidents as ‘hate-motivated.’”
What if it is? The idea that “hate” is a “crime” is ridiculous. The Qur’an is full of hatred toward unbelievers, “the most vile of created beings” (98:6). But if that passage is ever recited in a mosque in Canada, will the Muslim who recited it be arrested on suspicion that the recitation was “hate-motivated”? Of course not. Look at Ayman Elkasrawy, the Toronto imam who prayed that Allah would kill the Jews. Was he arrested on suspicion of making “hate-motivated” remarks? Of course not. The Toronto Star ran a long puff piece on him, trying to explain away his remarks, and that was that. Will the Toronto Star run a long puff piece on Sandra Solomon, explaining away her actions? Of course not.
See, there’s hate and there’s hate. Good hate and bad hate. Leftists and Islamic supremacists are among the most hateful people I’ve ever encountered: in my interactions with people such as Reza Aslan, Nathan Lean, Qasim Rashid, Khaleel Mohammed and others, I’ve found them to be arrogant, rude, and hate-filled to an appalling degree — to a degree that I thought at first would interfere with their public personas as being exponents of “tolerance” and such. I was naive. Leftists and Muslim spokesmen can be as vile, vicious, insulting and threatening as they want, and nothing happens, no one cares, because their hates are approved by their colleagues among the political and media elites. Their hate is good. “Hate speech” can only be spoken by foes of the agenda of those elites. Likewise with “hate crimes” — they can only be committed by foes of jihad terror and others who are outside the bounds of acceptable discourse.
“Hate speech” and “hate crime” laws are, therefore, tools of the powerful that they use to silence the powerless, and to demonize, marginalize and destroy their critics, so that they can continue to be the powerful. They don’t really have anything to do with actual “hate” at all.
Barbara says
All she did is litter.
Andy says
Sandra Solomon is a very brave women and I wish we had more people like her who have experienced Islam first hand and escaped it. Thank God!
Can we talk about Islam without being accused of a hate crime!
Stop being Politically Correct!
underbed cat says
I would love to see her interviewed in the U.S. on national news stations, her educating message wakes up many.
Andy says
Trudeau is Getting Desperate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYjt91CS6Aw
Justin Trudeau fails Canada & Canadians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHwPMEfCpao
Andy says
Trudeau, The Dumbest Prime Minister in History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UNEyYka5Uo
J D S says
I’ll stop rippin up Korans when all mosques are turned into Baptist Churches.
underbed cat says
Honest Ali you know that would be seen as offensive to muslims from the mosque and worst by entering a mosque during prayers however in both cases no one was injured physically….quite different than a jihadist entering a church and forcing their message of active violence as seen in the ME and Europe and countries on the invasion list. No iman will debate her message, they can’t deny what is written.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“The truth can never be hate speech.” – Tommy Robinson.
Robin says
Good to see that TR is now up there with Sir Albert Einstein as one of those authorised to imprimatur self-evident truths as authentically true.
gravenimage says
Tommy Robinson is a brave man.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
And still, the world is full of countries that have “hate speech” laws that do not allow for the defense of the truth. So the self-evident needs to be stated out loud. And who better than a man who took a lot of shots when he did tell the truth. No degrees needed.
RichardL says
First, Albert Einstein was never knighted and would, as a non-Commonwealth citizen, not be eligible to use the title Sir. Second, he was a philosopher whose relationship with facts was a little bit more sophisticated than facts are facts. When, immediately after getting the Nobel Prize, it was pointed out that his central tenet (nothing travels faster than light) was counterfactual, he said it was spooky action at a distance, spukhafte Geisterwirkung.
If we simply say that it is self-evident that islam is evil, we might as well shut up.
J D S says
If one is knowledge of the Koran and hadath one will find that “self”, after reading these, will find it “self”evident that Islam is most evil.
Learning Islam says
Islam: • Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
Apparently all opposition to the Islamic dogma of Supremacy, misogyny, violence, prejudice and deceit is actually racism, phobic and now “sexist”.
Any Muslim may carry out the death sentence or even decide independently that it is blasphemy. There is no punishment for a vigilante who defends Islam and punishes a imagined blasphemer.
Totalitarian systems: The fact that criticism of Islam is penalized in many muslim countries just shows that Islam is a totalitarian system. If western civilization still stands for human rights and liberty then it has to fight islamic totalitarism, otherwise Islamic totalitarism will slowly erode western freedoms.
in Muslim countries, promoting genocide is OK if MUSLIMS DO IT. MULLAHS OPENLY and PUBLICLY CALL FOR GENOCIDE.
Totalitarian systems: The fact that criticism of Islam is penalized in many muslim countries just shows that Islam is a totalitarian system. If western civilization still stands for human rights and liberty then it has to fight islamic totalitarism, otherwise Islamic totalitarism will slowly erode western freedoms.
How has Islam accomplished the trick of turning any criticism, denunciation or rejection of one of the most evil and savage men to have ever lived into a crime or a “phobia”? A 7th Century barbarian somehow becomes immune from disapproval in the 21st Century?
The answer is violence, the threat of violence and deceit on a massive scale, aided and abetted by the complacence and “progressive” virtue seeking that now plagues our societies.
The Cult of Islam has nearly succeeded in turning morality upside down and will be victorious unless we wake up to reality very soon.
anyone in doubt has to do is READ only chapters 2 to 9 of Muhammad’s Quran and watch the repeated mass slaughter of unarmed innocent European, American, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Iraqi etc. civilians by Muslims proclaiming they are doing the butchery to PLEASE their demonic god Allah
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
I’ve come to believe that the reason she puts a page from the Koran with one of her pamphlets on the windshield of these cars in the parking lot of a mosque is to get the attention of the Mohammadan who owns/drives the car. She knows that the Mohammadan cannot disregard this page from “holy book” and must deal with it respectfully. He or she cannot take it off the windshield, throw it on the ground and drive away. This fact would increase the likelihood of the Mohammadan reading her pamphlet and take note (in anger or not). Smart.
She also did it because for so long she has been talking about the hijrah with no one taking note. Tearing a Koran gets lots of attention. Smart.
If she goes into the mosque under the invitation of dawah and asks for a debate then that’s even smarter.
Learning Islam says
Muhammad: The Eye Gouging “Prophet” u-tube video
Published on 6 Apr 2017
Many people believe Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was a righteous and peaceful person. The average person today (ie: one who hasn’t really read the Quran for themselves or looked into other acceptable Islamic sources) ignorantly believes that “nowhere in the Quran” did Allah command Muhammad or his followers to behead, kill or hate people. Well… according to the Quran and other authentic Islamic sources, Muhammad not only hated and killed his enemies and those who disagreed with him, but he also blinded the eyes of those who committed apostasy, and those who were of the “disbelievers” (ie: anyone who wasn’t Muslim). And Muhammad did all these evil and ungodly acts all in the name of his god “Allah”.
My name is Hossein
Youtube Channel: 1nemind
Category Education Licence Standard YouTube Licence
Cruelty like this is NEVER morally justifiable, no matter WHAT crimes were committed. Muhammad’s shocking brutality, which he displayed over and over again, is yet more proof that he was NOT called by God
Muhammad as portrayed in the sira and ahadith was simply a human MONSTER. The only reason that Muslims fail to see this is because their leaders have taught them to AVOID thinking about Islam objectively and critically.
the first biography of Muhammad, by the devout muslim Ibn Ishaq:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq
If you read the biography, you will understand why so-called “extremists” do what they do (they are copying Muhammad), and why so many muslims are leaving Islam now they are finding out the truth.
Muhammad orders his son-in-law Ali, to behead Al-Nadr bin al-Harith on page 136.
Muhammad says that those who follow him will be given paradise; those who refuse will be slaughtered and sent to hell on page 222
Muhammad affirms that those who do not follow him will be slaughtered
On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:
Abu jahl said to them: “Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell.” The apostle [Muhammad] came out to them with a handful of dust saying: “I do say that.”
List of 43 Incidents When Mohammed Ordered or Supported KILLING
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by mohammed
Linda says
The concept of critical thinking is not respected in Islam. Muslims are told what they’re expected to believe and it ends there. There is no examination of ideas. Imams wouldn’t know how to debate Sandra Solomon’s points even if they wanted to. Not only that, but she has to bring another woman with her. In Islam, a woman is half of a man.
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer: Sharia Canada: Police Investigating After Ex-Muslim Rips Qur’an
………………….
Grotesque. She has *every right* to rip up a Qur’an that she owns. The worst she should be charged with is littering.
Ewanda says
I like the point that it was Sandra’s own Koran that she removed pages from, not the Mosque’s nor from a library.
Today is Good Friday and maybe there are Muslims who read Jihad Watch. It was Jesus on the cross not Judas or some avatar. Judas led Roman soldiers and officials of the Temple to the Garden to point out Jesus. When did Judas become Jesus? … in front of all those witnesses? For those who say Jesus was not crucified and did not rise from the dead on the third day, why would his followers want to go to THEIR deaths if their leader obviously backed out of the ultimate proof that He was who He said He was?
The apostles were in disarray at losing their teacher and leader. They were on the verge of all going back to their homes to reflect on the last 3 years. Something extraordinary happened to them after the death of Jesus to not only unite them as a unit but also inspired them to go to the ends of the Earth,- to far away, unknown places without the physical presence of Jesus to accompany them. Jesus appeared to them in the flesh but with the scars of the injuries he had suffered when crucified.
They were not promised war booty, nor sex slaves, nor even safety. The message of love and peace that they carried put them in danger.
Nor were they threatened that if they didn’t believe in the message, they would be put to death.
Notice that when the leader of Islam died, so many left and wanted to leave that the Wars of Apostasy produced a death toll of 30 thousand to finally convince everyone that Islam was there to stay and you cannot leave it.
That is what actually happens when an unjust message is spread by the sword.
People wanted peace and back to a normal way of life which is what Jesus’ teachings reflect – the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Golden Rule, the works of corporal mercy (like visiting prisoners, administering to the sick, etc.) and most of all the Greatest Commandment to Love everyone.
Terry Gain says
Bless you Ewanda. Christianity was spread by the Word. Islam was spread by the sword. Spreading this truth is essential if we are to resist being conquered by Islam.
UNCLE VLADDI says
ISLAM, ISLAM, UBER ALLES!
And …. “HATE SPEECH!”? What’s that all about – HURT FEEWINGS!?
All anti-hurt-feelings “laws” are only put forth by literal psychopaths, who pretend that “feelings HURT!”
i.e: that fear CAUSES pain, simply by being a vague, general memory of past specific pains, future-projected.
Psychopaths are all criminal hypocrites who CHOOSE to experience ALL emotions – even soft ones like sadness and sympathy – AS pains, and so also pretend they then have a “right” to counter-attack others for “causing” them!
But as physiologists, psychiatrists and psychologists know, pain is quickly forgotten, by default, in humans.
It’s why some of us don’t learn from mistakes, sometimes not even by direct, “hot-stove” scenario incidents!
Therefore, all claims of others’ words or deeds making people “uncomfortable” and “causing trauma,” are false.
At the very most, they are subjective and unprovable, (and further: not permanent, as one can be acclimated or habituated to any non-physical damage-caused ‘pains,’ including all normal and abnormal fears) and as such, one cannot attack innocent others in advance by making “laws” to prohibit their free expressions, just because they *might* at some future time, in some unknown place, cause some sort of emotional “offense” to persons unknown.
Any and all attempts to do so are subjective hypocrisy, claiming only one’s own chosen group has any real rights, while everyone else only has the responsibility to be enslaved to them, and no rights of self-defense against it.
Therefore any and all such “laws” are crimes, in attacking innocents first: so those making them are criminals.
….
“The whole concept of “hate speech” (laws against hurt feelings) is political correctness run amok, a leftist anti-free-speech tool that provides an unlimited excuse to shut down and punish anyone who openly disagrees with establishment dicta. Every totalitarian state has similar laws designed to protect the rulers. Such laws have no place in a free society.”
– Patrick1984 –
….
But Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Virginia v. Black (2003), Snyder v. Phelps (2011) These SCOTUS cases show that unpopular speech is still protected speech.
SO: What is “hate-speech” and why should it be considered a crime if it’s NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)?
If it’s not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech – or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one’s life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating – then it’s THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of ‘hurt feelings!’ So it isn’t objectively “offensive,” but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively “offended” by their victims being notified about THEIR offenses!
Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, all criminals will resort to using emotive ‘arguments’ to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) can be relied on to try to criminalize hurt feelings and to make offending people, (i.e: the criminals, by accusing them of their crimes) illegal, too!
ALL “Hate-Speech Laws” ARE CRIMES!
“Progressive” criminals – who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims’ rights – pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).
So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!
Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?
NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.
Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed – that’s just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts – but because it’s fraudulent slander.
Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!
Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!
Chantal says
The Canadian Bill of Rights is very clear: “The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian
Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of
the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;”
There is no hate crime; there is no Islam mentioned; Islam does not exist in our Canadian Laws.
David Smilt says
The Koran deserves to be ripped up. Anti-Christian bigots all of them.
Proud Anti-Islam says
To Sandra Solomon: Please do not be afraid to speak up against the evilness of Islam to people. I know that you are a very brave and courageous human being. Please continue to fight against Islam and you will win.May God of Heaven bless you very richly.
underbed cat says
In the current Canada, truth is hate speech according to Islam’s sharia law, deception rules because the policy makers have not read the Quran or know the political side and will disparage anyone trying to educate the policy makers who think that the Quran is only peaceful, since imans repeat the peaceful sura’s and hide the next line that calls for the death of infidels or non believers. Muslim advisers and in any government other than an Islamic Republics they are very quick and clever to rise to political offices and make decisions hazardous to the population of Canada or the country they came as a refugee with a plan. However they won’t understand it if they run around blind, but that is the entire goal, and will use jihad terror as a method to instill fear at the same time it is presents a humanitarian face to achieve the goal. In the U.S. it hides under religious diversity. The truth of the doctrine insulates it self by threats of death for leaving and forbidden any discussion or inquiry of the goal. A catch 22 perhaps.
Billy Chickens says
Hooray for Sandra Solomon….because yes, Islam is Satanic and Muslims do worship the devil.
Tjhawk says
I probably won’t do this because it would require reading the koran again, but does anybody know of a redacted version of the koran? Go through it with a black sharpie and black out the verses that would be considered hateful or discriminatory by any objective standard. Black out all the repetitious bull shiite about how allah is merciful and knows all etc.
I might read a redacted koran, but I really don’t think I could get through the complete koran again. I think one could get through a redacted koran in an hour.
R Cole says
Curious that the new definition of Islamophobia is someone who has a dislike for Islam. Opening the door for ex-Muslims to be arrested as they would be in the Islamic world, for leaving Islam and making their renunciation of the faith public.
These anti-hate laws were never meant to be about fairness, but about control.
We have to look at the cultural Marxism of the Left, and their coalition of “oppressed” minorities, of which Islam is included. Even as in the Muslim world, Islam is one of the most oppressive ideologies on earth.
What Is Cultural Marxism
https://youtu.be/Fn0P_wCB7T8
The intention of this new-Marxism is to dissolve everything that binds western society together to form a glorious socialist state. [On top of the graves of the 100 million slaughtered last time socialism was tried.] The hate speech laws that have emerged it, were never meant to be used against those who fall within the coalition of victims. In the name of “tolerance”, it is supremacist in its own right, it creates a legal system where the law can be justifiably applied unequally. It forms a new class of people who are forced to live under a western dhimmitude, [who according to Koran 9:29 must be fought until they feel themselves subdued.] Unless of course, you convert to the party line of cultural Marxism and you’ll be free to openly joke or advocate for “White Genocide” and for antisemitism and the annihilation of the Jews, without consequence.
The Birth Of Cultural Marxism: How The “Frankfurt School” Changed America
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-12/birth-cultural-marxism-how-frankfurt-school-changed-america
The family unit, western culture, and beliefs, one’s identity, our basic freedoms are all under attack. And any speech or expression supporting these becomes hate speech. The attack on “maleness” is one of them. Where we are told, under threat of being expelled from polite society or the workplace, the difference between a lion and a lioness is nurture rather than nature. To this end, the Southern Poverty Law Center has created a new “hate” category for “male supremacy.” Such that those men who get the strong urge to putter around in the garage on the weekends may have to do so in secret or be accused of committing a hate crime.
The Few Leftwing Radicals
But you are right to wonder how well this Leftist social Marxist engineering is working to change minds. A recent poll conducted in every EU member nation found that 78% of people objected to mass immigration and wanted tighter border control. And 70% thought mass Islamic immigration was of a particular concern, with only 8% of respondents saying to was not.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/29/survey-78-percent-europeans-want-tighter-control-borders/
It’s beginning to look like the Left’s long march through the institutions is proving fruitless. And this is where in a democratic setting, hate speech laws could prove beneficial to them. They can thereby criminalize the opposition. They can effectively hold 80% of the population hostage to their position, with these seemingly innocuous anti-hate laws. And make no mistake the radical Left’s intention is to hijack and destroy western society as we know it.