Today Quebec’s French-language La Presse features a lengthy hit piece by “journalist” and hard-Left propagandist Marc Thibodeau, entitled “La femme de Raif Badawi liée à un auteur ‘extrémiste,’” that is, “Raif Badawi’s wife linked to ‘extremist’ author.” Badawi is the Saudi writer who is imprisoned there for insulting Islam; Thibodeau doesn’t see fit to include the fact in his headline, but his wife actually has a name, Ensaf Haidar.
The “extremist author” in question is, of course, me. Thibodeau and La Presse are stooping so low as to try to defame Ensaf Haidar and besmirch her cause of trying to get her husband freed, because she had the temerity to meet with me recently, despite my being on the SPLC/CAIR list of people with whom one must not associate, or else.
My interaction with Thibodeau was a classic example of how Leftist propagandist “journalists” play fast and loose with the facts and omit inconvenient details in order to force incidents into their cookie-cutter narrative. It is also a classic example of the Left playing the Alinskyite game of isolating and destroying one target, and then using their success as a weapon to isolate and destroy another. I’ve been defamed by the Left and Islamic supremacist groups for years; but why is Thibodeau targeting Ensaf Haidar? Is she too inconvenient in illustrating, by her husband’s plight, the inhumanity of Sharia speech restrictions which Thibodeau and his ilk are working so hard to bring to the West?
I could tell from his first email to me that Thibodeau’s pen was sweating blood, but I tried to reason with him anyway, and to get him to realize that the only effect his piece could have would be that an innocent man would continue to suffer in prison, and could end up dying there. Like any good fascist, Thibodeau was undaunted. He followed the Brownshirts’ example: dissenters must be defamed and destroyed, whatever the cost. If you don’t read French, put Thibodeau’s article through an online translator and note how much of what I tell him he ignores: he gives the impression that the SPLC and CAIR are neutral authorities; he takes their view of my work as axiomatically true, without questioning either their motives or their accuracy; he shows no awareness of or interest in any legitimate reason why someone might oppose jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others, and takes for granted that to do so is “bigoted” and “hateful”; and he is blithely indifferent to the possibility that his work could result in the murder of an innocent man (or two, if some Antifa Leftist takes his smearing of me as an “extremist” seriously and decides to finish his work).
I’ve talked with a great many establishment media journalists over the years, and they’re pretty much all as arrogant as they are clueless, and not intelligent enough even to realize that the Left party line might not always be infallibly correct. But Marc Thibodeau is easily one of the worst ever. Any legitimate news organization would fire him for this piece; instead, he will probably be given a raise.
1. Thibodeau to Spencer:
I’d like to know what was the purpose of your meeting with Mrs Haidar in Washington? Her lawyer, Irwin Cotler, says he was not aware that this meeting had been planned during the tour.
Did you initiate this meeting with Mrs Haidar? Could you indicate for how long you’ve known her and in which circumstances you initially met or made contact? I saw she describes you as «her hero» in one of your online exchanges.
Mrs Haidar indicated online that she can «confirm» after meeting with you that «islamophobia is a big lie invented by Islamists in the west to intimidate and silence people who speak the truth about Sharia law». Do you share this analysis? If so, why? There is a debate on this issue in Quebec, where the prime minister was recently caught up in a controversy after stating that there is no islamophobia.
Thank you for your time,
Marc Thibodeau
2. Spencer to Thibodeau
1. To discuss the plight of her husband in prison in Saudi Arabia and ways to call attention to the human rights abuses involved in his case. I was not aware that a meeting with Mr. Cotler was planned during this tour.
2. No, I did not initiate the meeting. I came into contact with her some time after she began working for her husband’s freedom. I am honored by her characterization, although it is a bit generous; it is a refreshing change from the years of libel, false claims and false charges, and defamation I have received from groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and innumerable media reporters.
3. Yes, I agree with Ms. Haidar. “Islamophobia” is a propaganda neologism designed to intimidate people into thinking it is somehow “hateful” or “bigoted” to oppose jihad mass murder and the Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. It was chosen by the Muslim Brotherhood organization known as the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) in the 1990s in order to stifle criticism of jihad terror, according to former IIIT operative Abdur-Rahman Muhammad. The controversy in Quebec stems from the deliberate conflation of two phenomena that are actually quite disparate and unrelated to one another: vigilante attacks upon innocent Muslims, which are never justified under any circumstances, and honest analysis of how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam in order to justify violence and oppression. The purveyors of the “Islamophobia” myth try to shut down and discredit that analysis by conflating it with the vigilante violence, falsely claiming that such analysis leads inevitably to such vigilante attacks. The Quebec Premier was criticized by ill-intentioned and dishonest journalists, of which there are a great many, who decided to represent his words as some kind of denial that there was ever violence against innocent Muslims, which obviously was not what he was saying.
3. Thibodeau to Spencer:
Thank you for the answers.
SPLC and CAIR continue to describe you as an extremist that encourages hate towards muslims in general rather than jihadis in particular. What do you think of the way they characterize you? What is, in your assessment, their motivation for doing this?
Their analysis mentions various issues, including the fact you were banned from entering the UK in 2012. Also that your writings were referenced «dozens of times» by Anders Behring Breivik in his manifesto. I’ve read that you consider the UK acted like a «quasi Islamic state» in deciding to deny you access. Also that the Breivik references are similar to Charles Manson quoting the Beatles and that they give no indication of the value of your work on jihadism. Does this reflect the outlook you have today on these incidents?
4. Spencer to Thibodeau:
1. I think it’s outright libel, and neither you or they can produce a single quote from me encouraging any kind of hate toward anyone. I am looking into legal avenues against them. As for their motivation, the SPLC’s Mark Potok said in a speech a few years ago that the SPLC’s intention in labeling groups “hate groups” was to destroy them. The SPLC is an attack machine to defame, destroy, and silence those who dissent from its agenda.
2. In reality, I was banned from the UK in 2013. You can read the letter to me from the UK Home Office here: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/06/britain-capitulates-to-jihad. In it, you will note that I was banned for saying that Islam has doctrines of warfare against unbelievers. That is a readily demonstrable, easily provable fact; see, for example, here: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/pope-francis-authentic-islam-and-the-proper-reading-of-the-koran-are-opposed-to-every-form-of-violen
In other words, I wasn’t banned for “extremism” or “hate speech,” I was banned for enunciating an unwelcome fact. Meanwhile, the UK government doesn’t have the best track record in this regard. Just days after I was banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said: “Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”
And Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain.
The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.”
Theresa May’s government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country.
I don’t know where you are getting that quote from me saying that Britain acted like a “quasi Islamic state” in banning me. I don’t recall saying that, but I suppose it’s possible. Please supply your source. In any case, I believe the UK government is so avid to appease its restive Muslim population that they have a bad record of letting in jihadis and banning foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression. That’s not acting like a quasi-Islamic state, that’s acting like a foolish, short-sighted, fearful, and appeasement-minded state.
As for Breivik, he incorporated the full text of a documentary I appeared in in 2002 into his “manifesto.” No one knows where he got it, as the text had never been published and was not online, and it is unlikely that a non-native speaker of English sat down and flawlessly transcribed a two-hour documentary himself. But in any case, every time I speak in that documentary, which is often, my name appears. That means he mentioned me often, yes. But when you say that my writings were referenced dozens of times by Breivik, you’re giving the impression that I was calling for violence such as his attack, and therefore am complicit in it. In reality, I have never called for, or condoned, or approved of any violence. The SPLC doesn’t mention it, but Breivik in his “manifesto” actually criticizes me and others for NOT calling for violence. You will then say, “Well, yes, but your hate drove him to violence.” At that point I would challenge you to produce any example of this hate. He committed a horrific act of violence and appeared to agree with me on some things, although given the fact that he praised al-Qaeda and said they (not I) had inspired him to be violent, and expressed willingness to work with Hamas, there really isn’t much congruence between his world view and mine. Does his act discredit my work? I am calling attention to an obviously genuine threat: there have been over 34,000 jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. If any point of view was discredited when some madman acted violently and did so supposedly in the name of that point of view, then socialism, communism, and pretty much everything else would also be discredited, no? So yes, I do think that to claim that I incited Breivik to violence is like claiming that the Beatles incited Manson to violence. Those who make this claim are trying to destroy my work on false pretenses. Floyd Corkins planned mass murder at the Family Research Council offices because the SPLC told him the FRC was a “hate group.” Does that mean the SPLC incited Corkins and is responsible for his violence? I’m sure you don’t think so; we’ll see how willing you are to be fair and consistent in my case.
Ensaf’s husband is in prison for having the wrong opinions, and could be killed there. Consider what you are enabling when you try to defame her by association with me.
5. Spencer to Thibodeau:
By the way, when you invoke CAIR against me, are you planning to note these facts? CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas.
6. Thibodeau to Spencer:
Sir,
Thank you for your comments. I will evidently reflect them in my piece.
Could you be more specific about the circumstances in which you initially started to exchange with Mrs Haidar? I’d particularly like to know if you reached out to her or vice versa. I’d also like to know if a third person introduced you to her. If i understand well from your previous response regarding the meeting in Washington, Mrs Haidar initiated it. Or was it somebody else?
Some people who know Mrs Haidar have suggested that you may be hoping to use her to burnish your image or forward your ideas on islam. I’d like to know what your think of this.
Marc Thibodeau
7. Spencer to Thibodeau:
I don’t as a rule contact people I don’t know. She reached out to me. A third person did not introduce us. Ms. Haidar initiated the meeting in Washington.
At Jihad Watch I was reporting on Raif Badawi’s case long before Ms. Haidar came to Canada or that I ever thought I would meet her. Those who suggest this kind of exploitation on my part are those who, like you, think there is something wrong and disreputable about reporting accurately about the contents of Islamic texts, and about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. Despite constant defamation from your colleagues and friends, I do not share that view, and thus do not believe it necessary to take steps either to burnish my image or to forward my “ideas of Islam,” which in fact consist of nothing more than the actual teachings of Islam as recorded in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and as those teachings have been lived out throughout its 1400-year history. See my books The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, The Truth About Muhammad, and The History of Jihad.
8. Thibodeau to Spencer:
Thank you for your response.
No Fear says
I wish to state that Robert Spencer is one of my heroes. The others are Kurt Godel, Prof Joseph Campbell and Alan Turing.
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
A HERO TO EX-MUSLIMS? Shouldn’t Marc Thibodeau ask himself that question? Why would Mrs. Badawi (Ensaf Haidar … an ex-Muslim) consider Robert Spencer (a non-Muslim critic of Islam and defender of ex-Muslims) her hero?
Did I just answer the question?
Hey, Thibodeau! Her husband is in jail and being savagely beaten for criticizing Islam. DON’T YOU THINK THE REAL ‘EXTREMISTS’ are in Saudi Arabia?
In November 2018, Mr. Turki Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Jasser (Saudi journalist) died after being tortured while in detention, the New Khaleej reported.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181105-saudi-journalist-tortured-to-death-in-prison/
Mr. Thibodeau, who are the ‘EXTREMISTS’ here?
dan christensen says
You missed Charles Darwin, William Shakespeare or Dr. Johnson.
No Fear says
DanC, all good. 🙂
maddymappo says
Don’t lose heart. There is a story about the famed Rabbi Akiva who when he was a shepherd already at 40 years of age observed drops of water falling on stones. The persistent drops of water eventually bore holes in the stone. He wondered, if his heart eventually be softened to learn the Torah? Hopefully your words will eventually bore little holes into the hearts and minds of the fascists. Hopefully, before it is too late.
maddymappo says
correction, the name is Rabbi Akiba
John McCall says
I greatly admire him as well.
ntesdorf says
Robert Spencer, a centre of the road ‘extremist’ continually seeking the Truth.
mortimer says
The Saudis who persecuted, imprisoned, beat and beheaded critics of Islam are the ‘EXTREMISTS’.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/26/18000880/jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-mbs-dissidents-imprisoned
While the world focuses on Khashoggi, dozens of journalists and activists in Saudi Arabia are still behind bars
Saudi Arabia repressed free speech in the past, but under MBS things have gotten a whole lot worse.
By Alexia Underwoodalexia.underwood@vox.com Updated Oct 26, 2018, 2:42pm EDT
Phil Copson says
Whether Ms Haidar contacted Robert Spencer / Robert contacted Ms Haidar, or whether a third party introduced them is irrelevant; the only reason that Thibodeau is sniffing round like a hyena on heat for a possible “third party” is because he’s desperate for another victim to attack.
Terry Gain says
Close. He’s desperate to find a reason to justify an attack on Robert Spencer.
gravenimage says
True, Phil and Terry.
OT to Phil–did you get my email?
Michael Garant says
La Presse is one of many ”federal gouvernment subsidized” propaganda machines also comprising; ”gesca communications” that faithfully reproduce La Presse articles, the state televison network Radio Canada and the CBC. All these paid for with monies from our income taxes…..La Presse was even given ”non profit” status by the Trudeau liberals, thus they can issue taxe deductions receipts for contributions to the platform. It has always been a propaganda machine for the federal gouvernment. Therefore it isn’t suprising that they act as usefull idiots pushing the agenda of our greatest usefull idiot of all; Peewee JustinTrudeau .
mortimer says
Thanks. Americans and many Canadians don’t reason the Trudeau globalists have established official government propaganda in most of the media. However, there are signs that real Canadian journalists are turning against them one by one.
Carol the 1st says
Mr. Spencer went to a lot of trouble trying to ‘reach’ this journalist, and that’s to be admired.
A Canadian has just started a petition against UN interference and objectives. E-2012 (UNITED NATIONS) has been backed by Maxime Bernier. The first line begins:
“The Canada Constitution Act 1867 to 1982 proclaims the right of Canadian Citizens to benefit from, and the duty of the Government of Canada to provide, “Peace, Order and Good Government” and makes no provision for abdication of that duty to supra-national bodies;”
Canadians are being GREATLY URGEDto sign by one of Bernier’s greatest admirers – Frank Vaughan:
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2012
and for more detail:
BREAKING!! – Maxime Bernier Moves To END UN Domination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOOsP1SyOTE
Ren says
There are plenty of liberal leftists in Quebec. Don’t be surprised.
Wellington says
Another clueless Westerner paving the way for what Islam intends for us all. My God man, do you, one Marc Thibodeau, even know that to this very day every major school of Islamic theology, both Sunni and Shiite, condones death for a Muslim who converts to another religion and also condones the raping of non-Muslim women, which latter sanctioning is to be found in Suras 4, 23, 33 and 70 of the Koran?
This is beyond pathetic by you. It is also dangerous and stupid. So, thank you, Marc Thibodeau, for being yet another useless idiot and demonstrating your indefensible ignorance.
Hey, here’s a test if you’re reading this, Mr. Thibodeau, i.e., think what you know about Islam compared to Robert Spencer. Oh yeah.
Would you be willing to meet him in a debate about Islam? I say that you would be too cowardly to do so and will take the ordinary leftist route of just dismissing Spencer as a hater. It’s the easy way out by leftists nowadays but it would be great if you did not take this easy way out (but you will).
Give it a shot. In which case you will prove, indubitably, to those who really know what Islam intends for us all (which would include Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell, John Quincy Adams and Oriana Fallaci, among so many others who comprehended the totalitarian nature of the Islamic religion) that you are just another nothing posting nothings about intrepid persons like Robert Spencer, all the while smug in your massively ignorant self-assurance.
Terry Gain says
Most journalists in western democracies are clueless about Islam because few of us have the wisdom and courage to make the argument that Islam is not a religion.
Wellington, how dare you attack a great Abrahamic religion. What is the matter with you?
Wellington says
Never, Terry, here at JW, have I argued that Islam is a “great Abrahamic religion.” Indeed, over the many decades I taught history, and having come to the conclusion by around 1980 that Islam was the “odd man out” among the major religions of the world, I often referred to Islam as a “major religion” but made a point of never referring to it as a “great religion,” contra Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, et al.
I am not religious and deal in probabilities. I think it was probable that mankind would get a religion or two that worked wonderfully well with the democratic tenets invented by the ancient Greeks. Mankind did get two such religions, Judaism and Christianity, which because of their emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual, accord quite well with democracy. I also think it was probable, not a given but probable, that mankind would get a couple of religions or more that were subtle, not a threat to liberty, but which did not accord the individual as much importance as Judaism and Christianity have. Mankind did get such religions, Hinduism and Buddhism being examples. Finally, I also think it was probable, again not a given but likely, that mankind would get a major religion which was evil. Mankind did. Mankind got Islam. Where other people see fate, I see probabilities. I also think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Religions, ALL religions, make extraordinary claims without ever providing extraordinary evidence. This is one of many reasons why I am not religious.
You see, Terry, and this is what you miss so much, it is the iniquity of Islam, not its status as a religion or not, which is the key to conquering it and thwarting its designs. Here in America, being an admirer of Nazism and being a Neo-Nazi is perfectly legal, though a horrible choice, and thus Nazism and its adherents are rightfully consigned to the extreme margins of society all the while freedom is not restricted by making Nazism illegal. If only this were to occur to Islam, seen as a religion but overwhelmingly as a malevolent religion. Should this happen, there would be no need to go into the abstract, tedious, legal dead-end and useless debate of whether Islam is a religion. It’s all about the malevolence of Islam, Terry, not its status. And even if it were declared not a religion (this I assure you won’t happen and you don’t get this either), IT WOULD STILL BE LEGAL as are Nazism, the KKK, anarchism and Marxism. So, you would score a technical point which would bring you no true gain.
It’s the evil, Terry, not the status. Please learn this. And at the very least don’t set up another straw man, e.g. that I have ever contended that Islam is a “great Abrahamic religion,” and then knock it down. Either the Islamic Allah is a perversion of the Judeo-Christian conception of the deity or it is an entirely different deity pretending to be the Judeo-Christian deity. Whichever, it’s a rotten fictional deity and I have never here at JW raised it to the level of the Jewish and Christian conception of a ubiquitous, omniscient, omnipotent and moral cosmic being. Hell, Zeus, with all his faults, has far more merit than does Allah.
I trust I have written enough on this matter for now. Take care and know that we share something in common, i.e., that Islam is simply awful. This much I think we can agree upon. Nice to end a communication on a diplomatic note, no?
Terry Gain says
Wellington
Your approach isn’t working. You give Islam an impregnable honor and status it doesn’t deserve.
mortimer says
Kudos to Wellington for a beautiful and powerful testimony to the humanistic worth of the individual. Islam denies that any individual person is more than a slave.
I assume that Terry was trying to be facetious, but failed in the attempt. His ‘humor’ was did not come across. (He should have written ‘sarc/off or such like.)
It is, of course, CORRECT to observe that Islam is not actually ‘ABRAHMIC’ at all. Islam merely ‘USES’ the Abraham story to give a gloss of verisimiltude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative … an obviously manmade plagiarism and a very stupid one since it is filled with errors and discrepancies.
The Abraham of the Koran is as dissimilar to the Abraham of Genesis as the duplicate humans of the film ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ are dissimilar to their original human models. The alien copies of real Earthlings are merely shells without the emotional and spiritual qualities of the original human model.
Mohammed’s version of Abraham hasn’t the same personality as the Abraham of Genesis.
It is for that reason, a clueless error to assume that Abraham in Genesis and Ibrahim in the Koran are the same person.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Dear Wellington:
Re: “Islam” … ” would be as legal as Nazism, the KKK, anarchism and Marxism.”
They are all might-makes-right crime-gangs, and, as such, are already technically all illegal.
They endorse gang-based extortion (and permanent extortion is called “SLAVERY” which is illegal) and endorsing and advocating from crimes (“incitement”) is also already illegal. Being a member of a crime-gang is also already illegal (“RICO”) simply because, even if one has committed no other specific crime beyond one’s general gang membership, one re-presents the inherent violent extortive threat the gang presents.
Crime is most simply defined as attacking (thereby innocent) other people first.
What we have here, isn’t a case of free speech – which is, again, limited to non-threats, and in which fraud (including sub-categories of fraud, such as slander and libel) is prohibited – but of a lack of will in “our leaders” to accept the contractual responsibilities that come with the right to their paychecks, pensions, perks, and powers – to act against such threats.
– V –
Wellington says
UNCLE VLADDI: No, you are wrong. These belief systems and organizations are not technically illegal per the First Amendment. They exist here in America (e.g., the KKK) and those who belong to such a belief system or organization can believe whatever they want BUT they cannot ACT upon many of the things they would like to act upon (e.g., the KKK burning a cross on a black property owner’s home). It’s a matter of belief (which is essentially completely protected) versus action (which in sundry instances is not protected). The same can be said of Islam. For instance, its requirement of death for apostasy. Muslims have the right to believe this should happen to a fellow Muslim who converts to, say, Christianity, but they had better not act upon it because in America it would be murder.
What I have wanted all along is a much greater realization that Islam is as iniquitous as the KKK, Neo-Nazism, Marxism, etc. Certainly far more Americans have a negative view of Islam than they did just twenty-five years ago (left-wing publications like the Huffington Post and Washington Post have recently claimed a drop by Americans respecting a negative view of Mo’s creed per their polling but I am quite dubious here—even their polling shows 30% of Democrats still have an unfavorable view of Islam and around 75% of Republicans do), but it is still not enough, with the elites in the media, academia and the political realm really lagging behind here. Once Islam is placed (better eventually be) with Neo-Nazism, Marxism, anarchism, NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), the KKK, et al., then it can remain legal but it will fittingly be despised by a vast majority and consigned to the extreme margins of American society. Just like the KKK and Neo-Nazism, et al. are. Long way to go though.
Anyway, this is the law in America as I just described it. You should learn it.
gravenimage says
Terry, calling a religion evil is not in any way honoring it.
Stefan Jetchick says
I live here in Soviet Quebekistan. Marc Thibodeau is unfortunately “normal” (statistically speaking, i.e. most journalists here are like him). If you have time to kill, you can read up on more local madness on my web site.
gravenimage says
Yes–this is all too common.
Terry Gain says
As someone who has been visiting this site daily for at least 5 years, I have no hesitation in saying that Robert Spencer is an extremist.
He is extremely knowledgeable about Islam. In fact, more knowledgeable than anyone, except perhaps Christian Prince.
He is extremely reasonable.
He is extremely fair, always distinguishing between Muslims and Islam.
He has an extremely kind and humble nature, who gladly suffers fools.
Robert Spencer is today’s Churchill, without the drink and smoke.
mortimer says
Thibodeau (I assume) was sent on a seek and destroy mission by a higher-up and he fulfilled his mission.
Thibodeau used SPLC as his source and he likely didn’t look into it deeply because he was on a deadline.
The current government of Canada is in bed with the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD and so I would guess that the ‘HIT’ came from one of the JIHADISTS in the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT CLOSE to Jihadi Justin the Apostate PM of Canada … the most over-rated and underqualified PM in Canadian history.
J D.S says
Just another thorn in the side of “juniors” Canada!
Lydia Church says
You know how the saying goes.
“If you have made the devil’s ‘hit list,’ you have made God’s honor roll!”
(Well, at least now you have heard it since I just ‘coined’ it!)
UNCLE VLADDI says
Her lawyer, Irwin Cotler, is as libtarded as they come, too:
He was Canada’s liberal party justice minister!
He’s one of those self-hating Jews.
strats4ever says
Follow up article by Thibodeau in La Presse (linked to English translation) – https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201902/25/01-5216118-ensaf-haidar-dit-etre-injustement-diabolisee-.php&xid=17259,15700002,15700021,15700186,15700190,15700248,15700253&usg=ALkJrhjKdvk77ASJycfbEtqMIvUSel4XEw
Ensaf Haider advises “she would hold the daily responsible for “any harm” to her safety, that of her children or that of her husband”. Also contains a “new” ignoramus opining that Robert is a far-right islamopobe.
dan christensen says
Marc Thibodeau is clearly attempting to trap Robert Spencer into committing some logical error, exposing himself by self-contradiction; but it is Marc who is revealing his true purpose. Marc is not just another curious soul, he is deliberately trying to pose leading questions.
Such as:
Are you, or have you ever been a member of a nazi party?
Why do you hate all muslims, because a few muslims are bad boys?
How often do you beat your wife?
This last question is more relevant to ask any muslim male – not a Christian – because beating of wives is mandatory in Sharia law.
Alain Faubert says
La Presse in the Quebec French-speaking press is the flagship of Multiculturalist globalism. And I remind you all that outside USA globalism is basically a RIGHTIST movement. And for multiculturalists whether they are leftist SJWs or Globalist rightists, Islam is ALWAYS above critics! Doctrinal Islamophilia is now a STANDARD for political correctness.