Graeme Hamilton’s National Post story is so sloppily written that it refutes itself. Hamilton writes melodramatically that “in the darker corners of the web…alt-right voices cling to the flimsiest evidence to suggest Canadian authorities are covering up what was actually an Islamist attack.” One of those alleged “alt-right voices” is me: “Robert Spencer of the Jihad Watch web site drew on courtroom sketches to imply that the man who was charged Tuesday was not the same one arrested Monday.” I never said that: here is the original post, you can see for yourself. All I said was that he was bald in arrest photos and had a full head of hair in courtroom sketches, suggesting that Canadian authorities were covering something up. But did I say they were covering up what Hamilton calls an “Islamist attack”? No. In fact, I said that it was “likely that this was not a jihad attack,” and Hamilton even quotes me saying this.
So he quotes me saying this was not a jihad attack in an article in which he uses me as Exhibit A in a story about how the “alt-right” is claiming this was a jihad attack. That’s not just sloppy journalism. That’s malicious dishonesty.
And then there is the “alt-right” label. I find it odd to be termed “alt-right,” as I’ve been publishing articles and books since the 1990s, and I never heard the term “alt-right” until 2016. I guess I got grandfathered in to the “alt-right” movement. But since this term is usually used to refer to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, I wrote to Hamilton asking for a public retraction and apology.
Hamilton shot back an email dripping with condescension and contempt, in which he said:
I refer you to the Oxford Dictionaries definition of alt-right https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/alt-right. Oxford defines the alt-right as “an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content.” That is the sense of the term that I had in mind in writing my story yesterday. And whatever you may think of “journalists,” I assure you that my goal in everything I write is to be as clear and concise as possible, not to adhere to some code discernible to select readers.
Now, aside from the fact that virtually everyone uses “alt-right” as shorthand for “white supremacist neo-Nazi,” and not in the way Oxford defines the term, I don’t fit into the Oxford definition of the term, either. “Extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints” — which of my viewpoints are “extreme conservative or reactionary”? Is it my contention that societies should protect and defend the principles of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law? It is likely that Hamilton has in mind my observation that Islam is not a religion of peace: despite its obvious and demonstrable truth, this idea has been so stigmatized and demonized by the likes of Hamilton and his ilk that it is today the third rail in American politics — to touch it is death. But that doesn’t make it any less true, or any more “conservative or reactionary.”
Another part of the Oxford definition of “alt-right” is that it is “characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics.” When did I reject mainstream politics? Have I called for the overthrow of the U.S. government? Hostage-taking at embassies? In reality, I have repeatedly told people to vote, and to try to influence their elected representatives to take a more realistic approach to the jihad threat. That’s a rejection of mainstream politics? This is sheer fantasy, as well as defamation.
Finally, the “alt-right,” says Oxford, is characterized by “the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content.”
“Deliberately” controversial? No, Mr. Hamilton. Nothing I’ve ever said or written should be remotely controversial, if the world were willing to face the uncomfortable truths that “journalists” such as Graeme Hamilton would prefer to ignore or obfuscate.
In the Toronto van attack case, I stand by what I said: it is odd that the attacker had hair the day after he was photographed as bald. I have no explanation. I wish Canadian authorities would have enough respect for their people to provide one. But to claim that I was thereby stating that this was a jihad attack while quoting me saying it wasn’t a jihad attack isn’t remotely journalism by any standard.
The National Post used to be a decent publication. I published some articles there myself, years ago. But more recently it has retreated from its former willingness to tell the truth about the jihad threat into the fictions and fantasies of the dominant Leftist media. If it had any journalistic integrity left, it would retract this article and fire Graeme Hamilton. But it will do neither, because it does not.
“Alt-right uses flimsy evidence to fuel jihad conspiracy theory in Toronto van attack,” by Graeme Hamilton, National Post, April 25, 2018:
When a van plowed into pedestrians over a long stretch of Toronto sidewalk Monday, many immediately assumed it was the work of a terrorist following in the tracks of lone-wolf jihadists in Europe and the United States.
A portrait has since emerged of the accused, Alek Minassian, as someone motivated not by radical Islam but more likely by sexual frustration and social awkwardness.
Yet in the darker corners of the web, where conspiracy theories take hold, alt-right voices cling to the flimsiest evidence to suggest Canadian authorities are covering up what was actually an Islamist attack.
On Tuesday afternoon, Robert Spencer of the Jihad Watch web site drew on courtroom sketches to imply that the man who was charged Tuesday was not the same one arrested Monday. The key for him was that the sketches showed the suspect with hair while the man arrested had appeared bald.
“Was Minassian supplied a toupee in court today? . . . Was he wearing a bald wig yesterday? Or are authorities once again not being honest with us?” Spencer wrote.
“Again, I’m not saying that this is necessarily a jihad attack. But as oddities such as these court sketches multiply, we have to wonder what the Canadian authorities are trying to hide. And what else are authorities hiding when jihad attacks occur?”
In an earlier post, Spencer had written that it is “likely that this was not a jihad attack.” But after being asked on Twitter Wednesday whether he thought the man arrested and the man in court were different people, he replied, “I have no idea. But something very odd is going on.”
The internet provides fertile ground for those inclined to see a jihadi in every corner and a false flag on every ship. American mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Parkland have been fodder for conspiracy theorists, and Canada is not immune….
jihad3tracker says
Please choose a contact path to this guy and let him know what you think of his ethical standard for accurate reporting. You can also include some reality regarding Islam essential tool — jihad.
Rarely says
Why would he comment on Jihad when there is no evidence the two are related (other than a white rental van)?
Elizabeth Lawson says
Graeme Hamilton appears ro seek fame – even if he has to resort to lying ( a typical strategy of the screaming left) insulting, and mischaracterizing a man so very much his senior in academic excellence, integrity, forthrightness and decency. NO Mr. Hamilton, you will NOT enhance your lacklustre reportage, or job, by your shallow attack against this fine man. He is a Conservative thinker – like so many on the side of rational, reasoned thinking – which assets no one can accuse you of.
Don Corrigan says
Some journalists shud only write once in a while. Their resignation letter or their total apology for biased reportage
Terry Gain says
The National Post was a great newspaper when founded by Conrad Black but it has since descended into the same mediocre Islamophilic pit occupied by The Toronto Star and The Globe & Mail. The NP did a hatchet job on Kellie Leitch because she had the courage and common sense to suggest that potential immigrants to Canada be vetted for whether they accepted Canadian values and would therefore be likely to integrate. It’s as if these PC morons are incapable of understanding Islamic doctrine and history or even observing what is now taking place in Europe.
Graeme Hamilton has no problem smearing and lying about Robert Spencer but doesn’t have the intelligence or courage to tell the truth about Islam’s history of conquest or the doctrine that mandates conquest.
Linda says
This is the sad state of Canadian media. When a big story like the “van attack” does happen, they can only report bits and pieces of it that are acceptable to the government narrative, yet, when anyone else objectively reports on the details of the story, they have to make a mountain out of a mole hill to get a story out of that report. Otherwise, they’d have no story at all to write about.
Rarely says
Wouldn’t you prefer “bits and pieces” as they go along to waiting a few months for the final report?
Are you suggesting JW has more details than the MSM?
Linda says
It looks as though the police are the only ones in Canada that you can still trust to tell the truth. They will get to the bottom of this. I definitely do not like politicians like Trudeau making statements before police investigations and court cases are over. (Apparently, Trudeau doesn’t know any better, though.) He hasn’t said anything this time but on numerous other cases, he’d jump right in there trying to influence the results.
I really don’t care whether it’s bits and pieces or a final report. I want news I can trust. If the whole country is just based on Trudeau’s propaganda, we might as well close up shop right now.
I do have a higher opinion of JW than the MSM because I do not think that Robert Spencer has any stake in telling us anything but the truth, whereas the MSM has all kinds of ulterior motives. Robert Spencer is beyond reproach; the MSM is not.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Linda.
Linda says
Graeme Hamilton, you are such a LIAR!
Westcoastjohnny says
The National Post was once a conservative voice in Canada, but has been morphing into something more like the Huffington Post for several years now. Only the columns by Rex Murphy and Barbara Kay are now actually conservative in tone. George Jonas is now long gone (deceased). Kelly McParland and Robert Fulford are OK, but have become somewhat annoying with their anti-Trump obsessions. The newer writers, especially in the arts & entertainment section are terrible, they might as well be SJWs, which I suspect they are.
Then there is Richard Warnica who did a disgusting 2 page hatchet job on Ezra Levant recently. The original National Post is dead.
Ashley says
Toronto’s Police Chief Mark Saunders says law enforcement is working collaboratively on a local and federal level to put all the pieces together.
“We are looking very strong into what the exact motive or motivation was for this particular incident to take place and at the end of the day we will have a fulsome answer and we’ll have a fulsome account as to what the conclusion of this is,” said Saunders.
http://www.mynews13.com//fl/orlando/national-international/2018/04/24/police-looking-for-motive-behind-toronto-van-attack-that-left-10-dead.html
Well, where’s that promised fulsome answer and account? What’s the conclusion?
The latest is that Minassion was targeting women during the attack. Not a single witness attests to this. Minassion was swerving side to side mowing down people as furiously as he could at a high rate of speed.
But the narrative that he targeted women fits in with the nifty misogyny motive…
Topposter says
What the left is too daft to realize, is that the alt-Right is Left. As far as I know alt-Right was coined by Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi. We all know that Nazi’s are Left-Wing, despite decades of Nazi’s being labelled as Right Wing. Sorry, there is absolutely nothing about Nazi-ism that is congruent with Right Wing ideology in any way shape or form. Right Wing is Individualism. Left Wing is Sate-ism. Nazi’s were Stateists. It’s really very simple.
Rarely says
Nazis are left wing? Interesting. And just on what evidence do you base this assertion?
Mike says
How about their name: National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Also Hitler has been quoted as repeatedly referring to Nazism being Socialism. And he is the expert on Naziism.
Terry Gain says
Rarely
Nazis is short for National Socialist. You are rarely intelligent.
Rarely says
If I called you a chair would that make you a chair?
topposter says
I already alluded to it above. Perhaps you can explain how rounding up people of a particular religious heritage and putting them in death camps is consistent with smaller government, self reliance and supremacy of the individual? Of course Nazi’s were left wing. Calling you a chair doesn’t make you a chair, but if you’re made of wood with four decorative legs supporting a flat platform molded to comfortably fit a human posterior, covered in plush satin lined cushion with 5 exact matches sitting under a grand table, you’re a chair. Calling a Nazi right wing? No, doesn’t fit. You just take it for granted because you’ve heard it repeated so many times. The left calls everything bad right wing. It’s tired and boring.
Left Coast says
How about the FACTS ?
NAZI = National SOCIALIST Workers Party . . . perhaps might offer a CLUE !
“The description “Far-Right” is a great misnomer for the successors of Hitler in modern-day Germany. As we will see below, modern-day German neo-Nazis are demonstrably just as Leftist as Hitler was. So are American, British and Australian neo-Nazis also Leftist in any sense?
They are pre-war Leftists, just as Hitler was. They are a relic in the modern world of thinking that was once common on the Left but no longer is. They are a hangover from the past in every sense. They are antisemitic just as Hitler was. They are racial supremacists just as Hitler was. They are advocates of discipline just as Hitler was. They are advocates of national unity just as Hitler was. They glorify war just as Hitler did etc. And all those things that Hitler advocated were also advocated among the prewar American Left.”
Left Coast says
How about the words of Hitler himself . . . . .
“Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
(Both quotes above are from Hermann Rauschning in Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940, also called The Voice of Destruction.
The NAZIs were also buds with the Mufti of Jerusalem . . .
In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches….The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely….the Jews….” Hitler replied:
gravenimage says
Good post.
CogitoErgoSum says
The question is: Why is the man in the videos bald while the court sketches show the accused as a man with a full head of hair? Robert Spencer was asking that question. I couldn’t find Hamilton’s answer. Instead of answering the question he resorted to a personal attack on Mr. Spencer’s integrity. Just answer the question, Mr. Hamilton, that is, if you have any integrity.
H says
Here is the picture of the man in the court. He has very thin hair, not a full head of hair:
http://torontosun.com/news/crime/warmington-accused-van-killer-says-in-jail-that-he-wanted-to-be-shot-witness
Xero_G says
Journalists today need not be accurate or honest – so long as their story perpetuates the narrative of the left, it will earn kudos during Upper East-side cocktail parties. In this case, it doesn’t even matter whether the writer is referring to Richard Spencer or Robert Spencer, the narrative is constant, so why sweat the details?
Charles A Williams says
Graeme Hamilton and people like him are myopic with an exaggerated sense of self virtue. They cannot see historic trends that may encompass decades or centuries. They live for the now without regard for future consequences or ideological proclivities. He is right that the Jihad is not an immediate threat. If you look at the numbers the statistics don’t pan out. What Greame fails to understand is that demographic shifts are like glaciers. They move slowly but the end results are predictable. One can observe in the body of historic reference the slow burn of the Christians of the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, Anatolia, Constantinople, or the Zoroastrians of Persia, or the Buddhists of Bactria, North India, Bangladesh, or the Hindu of Pakistan…etc… Islam is a theological totalitarian ideology that poses as a religion when weak, then as an aggressive theological state when the numbers grow. The proclivities are in the texts and in observable history. The one way nature of immigration and tolerance should be a clue to Mr Hamilton, but the truth seems to be invisible in light of his shallow sense of virtue. Indeed tolerance is a virtue I might agree, but so is examination and expectation and sometimes they conflict. Examination means that we read and understand the underwritten ideology of those we import as out new neighbors. I doubt Mr Hamilton has a clue about Islam, its history, or the extinct cultures in its wake.
DogOnPorch says
Anything not Liberal/NDP is “alt-Right”…according to them, at least.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Maybe it’s time to lawyer-up.
On the bright side, it’s a sign that JW is having a marked effect on public opinion when the MSM takes aim.
PRCS says
Two items from Hamilton’s article which degrade his journalistic credibility.
1. “Alt-right”. A fadish term which will–likely–be replaced by some other trendy term.
2. “Radical Islam”. I do wonder if he can explain how that differs from the Islam of Qur’an and Sunnah.
mortimer says
Yes, PRCS, quite. I would bet good money that Graeme has not read the Koran, Sira or Bukhari, that he does not know they are the PRIMARY SOURCE TEXTS of Islam and that he hasn’t a CLUE what’s in them. In spite of his TOTAL lacuna of knowledge, he PREPOSTEROUSLY presents himself as an expert.
mortimer says
INACCURATE ! Graeme Hamilton, National Post, April 25, 2018.
Ha, ha, ha, trying too hard to defend Islam.
There is no argument with which to defend Islam.
Rarely says
When I first heard of the attack (within an hour) I concluded it most likely to be a muslim incident. Furthermore, the simple fact that the story was posted on JIHAD WATCH implies that JW’s editors also believed there to be a relationship.
It did not take long for a serious doubt to arise vis-a-vie it being associated with islam. I backtracked on my earlier assumptions in a post or two on JW. Robert Spencer likewise expressed serious doubts about the van attack’s real causes. That should have changed the attitude of the comments on JW. It did not. All sorts of ridiculous conspiracy and cover-up theories kept blooming. This was especially so after RS pointed out the hairline discrepancy which has many reasonable explanations.
We now have criticism of the Canadian media and police authorities for not explaining the hair issue. It may only be an issue on JW. In any event I am absolutely certain that they have better things to do.
How does the writing of the article require a special knowledge of the tenets of islam? A person doesn’t have to study Jewish theocracy before recognising someone else’s anti-semitism.
It still may be related to islam and jihad (although everything we know from the reports out show otherwise) we must rely on the proficiency of the authorities examining this and being held to account by the media. I see that as being a cornerstone of democracy.
Too many people commenting on this website are much too eager to ascribe every bad event to islam and any denial to be a conspiracy or cover-up.
Robert Spencer may or may not be super far right (I do not suggest he is) but there can be little doubt that many who comment on this site are.
BTW. Naziism/neo-Naziism IS a far right ideology. However the far left is beginning to act as close minded and violent. The far right and far left were responsible for more than 100,000,000 deaths in the 20th century.
All too often I have seen people who disagree with ANYTHING on this site as being called super left wingers. muslim apologists and the like. Similarly, the very far left considers anyone who doesn’t buy into their ENTIRE agenda as being far right. What’s the difference???
Try not to be so paranoid folks.
Ashley says
It still may be related to islam and jihad (although everything we know from the reports out show otherwise) we must rely on the proficiency of the authorities examining this and being held to account by the media. I see that as being a cornerstone of democracy.
________________
Glad you stated this, Rarely.
Sounds like we all, including you, had an initial knee-jerk reaction this was jihad. We don’t have a motive. If no motive can be established we cannot entirely rule out jihad. Robert at least stated it might not be an act of jihad. Hamilton nevertheless jumped all over Robert.
This investigation remains fluid…
Indiana Tom says
Naziism/neo-Naziism IS a far right ideology.
Just remember, Nazi is National SOCIALISM. Hitler was once in the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and before that the The German Workers’ Party. Mussolini is the classic example of Communism and Fascism being the same thing as he was both.
Rarely says
Don’t let the name confuse the situation. A check of history and definitions will clarify it…as if it really matters.
TL says
I checked history years ago and learned that Hitler was contemptuous of Christianity in a country where Christianity had ancient and deep roots. Furthermore, Hitler was fond of socially disruptive secular projects like the Autobahnen and uninterested in rolling back the centralization of political power arranged by international socialists following the Great War, so called. Of course, the NSDAP had no interest whatsoever in restoring the Kaiserreich.
Left Coast says
Why don’t we ask the Creator of fascism what it is ? ? ?
“Fascism” is a term that was originally coined by the Italian dictator Mussolini to describe his adaptation of Marxism to the conditions of Italy after World War I. Mussolini’s Italian Fascism was a nationalist form of extreme socialism whereas Trotskyism was/is a internationalist form of extreme socialism — with Leninism being somewhere in between.”
Terry Gain says
I have posted the following comment at National Post under Graeme Hamilton’s article.
Terry Gain Osgoode Hall
Of course most of us assumed this was an act of A Jihadist. You had a middle eastern man running over innocent people in with a rented truck. Why would you assume anything else given the history of these types of attacks. But Robert Spencer was more reticent than most. He waited for the evidence to emerge. Spencer did note that the sketches did not appear to depict the man arrested the previous day. Graeme Hamilton doesn’t explain why but uses the opportunity to take cheap shots at Spencer and claim that he is alt right.Spencer is no such thing. Spencer is a scholar of Islam and should be respected for the depth of his knowledge and his moderation. Spencer is today’s Churchill. The name calling of Hamilton is juvenile and ignorant.
——–
Mr. Spencer, thank you for everything you do.
Rarely says
Good post.
Ashley says
+1, Terry!
Linda says
Thanks for telling him Terry.
Indiana Tom says
Oxford defines the alt-right as “an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content.”
Loose description.
Sounds like me and several million other people in this country.
Indiana Tom says
Any Libertarian or libertarian would fall under this definition.
Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, George Orwell, Kurt Vonnegut, Joseph Heller, Eric Remarquee, and many other authors might fall under this header if one substituted general media for online media.
Topposter says
I can’t believe Oxford would publish such drivel, I guess the lefty loonies have infiltrated effectively. Sounds like a typical Cultural Marxist definition of “everyone who doesn’t fall in line with my viewpoint, and therefore is bad”.
NewWorldParty says
I think Oxford’s and Robert Spencer’s definition of “alt-right” are inaccurate.
Alt-right is mainly referring to a group of people who do not want to become a minority in their country.
The West should worry more about the left than the right, as it has gone EXTREMELY to the LEFT, so much so that there is NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT-WING PARTY. Even Republicans, conservatives and Trump are left of center.
The proof of this is with these facts:
1. There are so many left wing policies that all Western governments need to steal billions/trillions from children every year, in order to pay for them. No true right wing party would steal from children, or steal from Peter to give to Paul.
2. Bernie Sanders, who praised and was the second coming of Hugo Chavez, was so popular that he almost became a presidential nominee, even though socialism destroys countries such as Venezuela. (Watch: Feel The Bern In Venezuela – “What’s Wrong With Socialism?” …Nothing, If You Like Eating Rats” https://youtu.be/OJqR7RVywJ0 and “You Won’t Believe What We Saw In Socialist Venezuela” https://youtu.be/UOQb7Y5QVO8)
3. Immigration policy is so liberal that only Western nations are turning themselves into minorities. No non-Western nation is doing this. All non-Western countries are more “alt-right” than Western countries. Try to imagine the Japanese becoming a minority in Tokyo. Try to imagine the Chinese becoming a minority in Shanghai. Try to imagine the Arabs becoming a minority in Riyadh. Nobody would ever let blacks become a minority in South Africa. Even Mexico, which rejects immigrants from Latin America, but takes immigrants from Spain and deports more illegal aliens on a per capita basis, is more alt-right than the U.S. (https://youtu.be/OeqzbalS9v8) Yet, white Brits have become a minority in London. White Canadians have become a minority in Toronto and Vancouver. Whites have become a minority in LA, Detroit and Miami. Whites are destined to become minorities in the U.S. and Canada in a few decades.
The media LIES when they call any group “right” in the West.
Rarely says
Another Spencer, Herbert, once wrote:
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation”.
i.e. before you start showing contempt for me for saying Nazism is right wing check out the historians who put the label on. It would be very surprising if you found one noted historian who classifies them otherwise. Then you can shift your contempt to them.
BTW. Himmler and Hitler are not reliable historical sources.
tim gallagher says
If people would only wake up and face the truth and speak the truth about Islam and the danger it represents. And Robert Spencer spends his time trying wake people up. I agree with Robert’s quote above, “Nothing I’ve ever said or written should be remotely controversial, if the world were willing to face the uncomfortable truths that “journalists” such as Hamilton would prefer to ignore or obfuscate.” Robert should wear the criticism of people like Hamiltton like a badge of honour. If you ever find people like Hamilton agreeing with you then you know you’re on the wrong track.I don’t know about this Toronto incident one way or another . But I’m sure Robert is on the right track almost all of the time and is on the side of the good, fighting against evil forces and the “journalists” who run a protection racket for the evil forces. Brush off people like Hamilton and others like him like the tiny little gnats that they are. They are part of the crowd who still just refuse to face up to the truth about Islam and spend their time trying to defend it. In my opinion, everyone should have woken up by now. You’re doing great and important work, Robert.
Terry Gain says
Hear hear. And good for you Tim Gallagher for being a stand up guy who does not hide behind a pseudonym.
tim gallagher says
Thanks, Terry. Believe me I’m not a very courageous person, so I hope using my name doesn’t get me into trouble, because we all know we are dealing with some vicious people who can’t stand people with views that are different to their views. Probably, if I was younger, I’d bother to use a pseudonym or alias, or whatever, but, as an old guy of around seventy years old, I guess I just can’t be bothered. I like that term “stand up guy”, so thanks for that compliment. I think people should be allowed to express different opinions, but, of course, some groups won’t allow that freedom of speech.. They hate that freedom. People should try to stay safe so I’m fine with people using pseudonyms. They shouldn’t have to do so but, alas, we inhabit a world with many vicious people in it.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear, Tim!
H says
Robert, here is the picture of the guy in the court from Toronto Sun. he looks very much like the picture taken during the arrest:
https://postmediatorontosun.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/capture42-e1524702018992.jpg
Norger says
I generally admire Robert Spencer’s work very much but thought this was a bit of a reach; that he was reading too much into the difference between a courtroom sketch and an arrest photo, neither of which were of particularly good quality.
That said, the major point he was making was absolutely true—that the authorities and the MSM go out of their way to obscure the theological underpinnings of Islamic terror, to the point of being intentionally misleading. There are many, many, many examples of this, from the US Army’s “investigation” and report of Nidal Hassan’s jihad attack at Fort Hood (“workplace violence”), the Dept of Justice’s selective editing of the publicly released transcript of Omar Mateen’s 911 call from the Pulse nightclub to omit (or change) references to “Allah” and ISIS. And the MSM marches in lockstep with the authorities every time, invariably asserting bogus confusion as to the “true” motives of the Fort Hood shooter, the St. Cloud MN mall stabber, the Boston Marathon bombers, etc. etc. etc.
The bottom line is that Graeme Hamilton’s assertion that Robert Spencer is “alt right” demonstrates that Hamilton has no absolutely substantive knowledge about Islam. It’s a cheap, non-substantive ad hominem attack. If Mr. Hamilton is so certain of his moral superiority he should engage with Spencer on a substantive level about Islam and expose Spencer once and for all as an “alt right” bigot. I guarantee that won’t ever happen.
Ashley says
1!
Terry Gain says
Hamilton won’t engage Robert Spencer because Robert would wipe the floor with him. Thank you for a great comment.
David says
Well said. Imams and other supposedly well informed Muslims avoid debate with RS for the same reasons those with balloons avoid sharp pointy objects.
Bezelel says
Oxfords is actually defining urban slang now? Alternative is a word, Right is a word. Alt right is not proper word. Beyond that the Left has been taking liberty with definitions for years now. Mainstream Politics? That is conditional. Shouldn’t Main stream American politics be adherent to the Constitution? Yet under the hussein oboa regime the main stream of practiced politics were void constitutional boundaries.
Anyway was the murderer Bald or not? Odd, very very odd.
jewdog says
It’s all name calling with no substance. Utterly worthless.
Granddaddy says
This guy is just grabbing at anything he can use. Someone should tell him to grow up.
duh swami says
I could care less what this left leaning jerk Hamilton has to say. He’s a dime a dozen,,,What has this cretin ever done for America? Noting…
Mark Swan says
Absolutely duh swami.
Green Infidel says
In many Islamic communities, it’s a far-left thing to be anti-Islam. See Canada’s own Tarek Fatah, who has praised Marx while criticising the RoP. Or Salman Rushdie. Is he,and other far-leftists like him, alt-right too? Or is that term now reseved for infidels who criticise Islam? I could point to a few leftist/liberals there too. Like Sam Harris and Bill Maher. Alas, those anti-Republican leftists are now seenby some as “alt-right” too…
Norger says
Indeed. I consider myself a liberal, and I don’t understand how someone who claims to support liberal values can defend Islam. If you support: freedom of speech, freedom to choose one’s own religion (or lack thereof), gender equality, gay rights, secular government … then Islam is 100% diametrically opposed to everything for which you claim to stand. As I’ve heard Bill Maher say several times in debating leftist apologists for Islam, “I’m the liberal in this discussion.” A major part of the problem is that most liberals just can’t or won’t wrap their head around what Islamic theology actually teaches.
.
Green Infidel says
“extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints”
Care to define such terms? “Extreme” is always a subjective term – while “reactionary” is most often used in places like Soviet Union, and by far-left groups.
“characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content.”
So now, anyone who rejects the mainstream and uses online media to do it (who uses online media these days – apart from everyone?!) can be called an “extreme conservstive reactionary” and hence alt-right, and hence be lumped in with the likes of Richard Spencer, and (almost) Adolf Hitler… convenient?
WorkingClassPost says
I never quite understood what alt-right meant.
To me it was the Alternative Right, i.e. the sort of Right wing politics that was acceptable to those not from that side of the political divide, but as always, the term was quickly hijacked to mean extreme Right, but we already have far-Right and a host of other derogatory terms for conservative viewpoints, so why another?
Clearly, the effort is to imply that everything Right is wrong, and everything Left is right..
Anyway, if opposing civilizational destruction is what the Right do, then you’d better count me in as part of the rel-Right.
https://primaryaccount.blogspot.co.uk/p/ctl-alt-rel.html
Janice Disher says
It sounds like Graeme Hamilton should be write for the Toronto Star instead.
Mungo Jack says
No one has asked him how much they pay him to promote the already proven lies of the islamst radicals ?
Politicianophobia says
Maybe Mr. Hamilton would be interested in writing an article and explain to me, an older Canadian why we have M-103 in Canada and at the same time we have men like Egyptian, Islamic, theologian, Omar Abdulkafi, a keynote speaker at the Muslim Family Conference, allowed to speak in Canada. A man who is known for his racists remarks, calling Jews monkeys, pigs, and aggressors of filth.
or perhaps he can explain to me why Imam Mazim Abdul-Adhim, Canadian head of the terrorists group Hibtz ut-Tharir, living in London, Ontario, has been allowed, for many years now, to call for a caliphate in Canada. Replacing Canadian law with Shari’ah law, is that not overthrowing the government? Should he not be charged with sedition or treason and deported back to Iraq? I do hope he will have some answers for me since men and women on the M-103 committee and many, many politicians have never answered me.
Newspapers are closing their doors because people can no longer depend on the press for honesty. There are too many people in media acting like collaborators.
As for the van attack in Toronto, anytime someone does such a hateful act, it is terror. Will Canadians ever know the real truth–I highly doubt it.
I no longer read newspapers or watch CBC or CTV, I discovered a long time ago people like Mr. Hamilton would rather attack a man like Robert Spencer, for having an opinion that does not fit his line of thought.
Linda says
That’s an interesting post. I still try to get the news (just in case the world ends, I might want to know about it), but I take anything any of the Canadian media says with healthy skepticism. I didn’t know that someone was openly calling for a caliphate in Canada before. OMG! See all the things you learn on Jihad Watch that you wouldn’t otherwise hear about? We might get the truth about the “van attack” from the police when they’re finished their investigation, whenever that may be.
Politicianophobia says
Linda google Imam Mazim Abdul-Adhim, he has been allowed to spew his crap online for years. Many other Imams in Canada are calling for Shari’ah law in Canada, we Canadians are not supposed to say anything about Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood started the Muslim Student Association, I think in 1968. Iqra Khalid was the head of the Muslim Student Association at York university. Just stating facts.
Linda says
I know about Iqra Khalid’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and if her M-103 is enacted, that’ll be the start of blasphemy laws in Canada. I know that wherever Muslims are, the Ummah is also there, but I didn’t know about Imam Mazim Abdul-Adhim in particular. I will google him. Thanks!
David says
As usual, the comments range from the astute to the kind of “my god is better than your god” mundane. I am a long time reader JW. I respect RS’s scholarship and enjoy his witty writing style. I concur that attacks on his views often demonstrate absurd ignorance and are sometimes libelous, but I am not surprised. Why? Because he regularly derides all those who don’t sufficiently condemn Islam as leftist without any further definition of that term. One shouldn’t be surprised when someone who considers himself a leftist tries to strike back – even by firing blanks. But this nasty crossfire doesn’t have to be.
First, it is patently tautological to define as “leftist” (or liberal/progressive) anyone who fails to sufficiently condemn Islamic ideology without regard for their other political views while concomitantly labeling as a leftist anyone who doesn’t sufficiently condemn Islamic ideology again without regard to their other political views.
Quite apart from this tautology common to the pages of JW, it should be self-evident that the vitriolic usage of right/left labels is of little value in resolving political issues. This is so because these labels are almost always limited to one’s position on purely social issues without any consideration of governmental, economic or fiscal policy. I have long maintained that RS is unnecessarily antagonizing a huge part of the population by deriding those who may identify as left/liberal/progressive and who have yet to learn about the utter abrogation of human rights, civil rights and contemporary “western” values inherent in Islam. (By “western” I simply mean little more than the establishment of a democratic republic form of government as opposed to theocracy.)
Dear Mr Spencer, I implore you. Please refrain from deriding those who have yet to comprehend the issues. There are many so-called leftists, liberals, and progressives who do support you and many more who would if you didn’t antagonize them. Continue to write, speak, and educate. Stay on the high road (but don’t be shy about using your legal team to retaliate against those who slander you).
Sincerely yours,
One who supports higher taxes on the rich especially the capital gains tax, but also limits on welfare: the death penalty; the right of a woman to choose; Trump’s ban on immigration presently pending before the US Sup Ct (even a broken clock is right 2x per day). Gee, I wonder whether I am lefty, righty or ambidextrous….but what I do know is that I abhor the Islamic ideology as any thinking woman or man should.
Norger says
Before I read your comment, I made a point similar to one of yours: many liberals just can’t or won’t wrap their head around the reality of Islamic theology.
Shane says
Oxford’s definition is a sickening example of leftist totalitarianism. It’s basically defining alt-right unilaterally to make all people who arn’t far left into Nazis. The alt-right is defined by antisemitism, that’s a simple fact, anyone who knows anything about them knows that. Oxford did some great evil in that definition. Both to all real Jews and to all conservatives. Really every conservative on the planet should call them out over it. It’s seriously Orwellian.
Everyone on earth who uses the term, or is a member of it, is using it to mean one thing, and Oxford pulling a Theresa May or Obama, is defining it to destroy a natural and non extreme group of ideas. Like judicial activists, to control who has power, forever, right or wrong. The institutional left has gall and all institutions, and are using them with no shame. No one uses alt-right in that manner, nor has anyone ever (except leftists who are doing it to make all non leftists into Nazis.)
They should, to be fair, define Maoism or the followers of Pol Pot, as any liberal, or a form of reactionary liberalism. I thought not.
ZM says
Hamilton is getting pilloried in the FB comments section of his NP article, for his anti-conservative bias, and for his disregard of facts.
Linda says
Good!
gravenimage says
Thanks, ZM.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY0FzicdYD0
gravenimage says
National Post “journalist” Graeme Hamilton defames Robert Spencer as “alt-right,” refuses to retract
……………………
Disgusting, but not surprising.