Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Forget Viagra | Main | A Sad Day »

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Quebec intellectuals: Tell Yvonne Ridley to piss off

An open letter from a variety of Quebec thinkers asking the Islamic Congress of Canada (lead by All Israeli’s over the age of 18 are valid terrorist targets Mohamed Elmasry) to dissociate themselves with radical islamist Yvonne Ridley:

“Yvonne Ridley is coming to Montreal and Toronto this September at the invitation of the Islamic Congress of Canada. A British journalist captured by the Taliban in 2001, Yvonne Ridley converted to Islam and took up the faith and cause of her abductors. Her case is strangely evocative of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’.

“A commentator for Britain’s Islam Channel, where she is responsible for political issues, she is a founder and frequent candidate for the Respect Party, a deviant coalition of leftists, fundamentalist Muslims and Islamists. Yvonne Ridley supports, in its essence and entirety, the ideological program of radical Islam and defends even today the very Taliban against which the Canadian Forces is fighting a just and necessary combat.

“Ridley is also the London correspondent for a new television channel created by the Iranian regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Press TV. The channel offers, according to Ridley, ‘…a different perspective from conventional media”. The Internet site of this channel has a section called “Analyses,” where one can find insinuations that the British government orchestrated the recent car bomb attacks on London and Glasgow in order to tarnish the image of Muslims in Great Britain. Ridley claims that she can say what she wants on Press TV.

“Why do the Iranian governmental authorities not stop her from lionizing Abu Hamza al-Masri, the openly Jihadist Imam at London’s Finsbury Park Mosque who Ridley called ‘quite sweet really’. Al-Masri is a fervent partisan of Al-Qaeda and has been detained by British police.

“Why do the Iranian authorities not reprimand her for calling on the British Muslim community to stop co-operating with the police in any security investigation? Why don’t they reproach her for having called Chechan Shamil Basayev, who perpetrated the horrific Beslan school massacre, a ‘martyr’?

“Why do the Iranians not oppose her eulogies to suicide bombers? Why are they not vexed that this ‘journalist’ expresses open sympathy for notorious terrorists, like Jordanian Abu Musad al-Zarqawi?

“Why? Because Yvonne Ridley plays the game for the enemies of the West and the friends of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

“We, the undersigned demand that the Islamic Congress of Canada publicly disassociate itself from Yvonne Ridley and manifest clearly to the Canadian and Quebec public its refusal to offer any form of support — direct or indirect — for Islamist terrorism.” (The Suburban)

Yvonne Ridley was here in Canada before speaking at the Muslim youth conference held in Calgary this past May. She has noted on the broom that her trips to Canada have always been productive and worthwhile. So Yvonne if you come around again take note that I’m not the only Canadian around who thinks you suck.

(c/p Dust my Broom)

Posted by Darcey on August 22, 2007 in Religion | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quebec intellectuals: Tell Yvonne Ridley to piss off:


Yes. Yvonne. In the words of my Quebec friends, Piss off. And, might I add... while you are at it, fall in a vat of boiling snot along with all of your buds and and die there. You snatch.

Posted by: DCM | 2007-08-22 5:14:36 PM

I think she's the only person who makes Taliban Jack seem somewhat rational.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-22 5:39:23 PM

And yet, Dippers will flock to support this Islamofascist's right to be heard.

Posted by: obc | 2007-08-22 5:42:02 PM

I believe in the Freedom of Speech more than Political Correctness so let her do her speech in September.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-22 5:56:00 PM

Freedom of speech does not include the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre.

Speech that includes death threats to some Canadians is not tolerable.

Posted by: obc | 2007-08-22 6:00:39 PM

Enjoy your evening, Roger. Be nice to Epsi, I think she actually wants an exchange of ideas.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-22 6:17:27 PM

Free speech is fine, but if a bunch of screaming, ranting, threatening terrorists set up shop next door to a home, one might be amazed who would change their tune on open ended "free speech". What's the limit?

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-22 6:28:55 PM

You got it, Sounder. I am about at the end of my tether.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-22 6:30:50 PM

I see no reasonable reason as to why this cretin should be allowed to speak in Canada. She is the voice of the enemy; would Tokyo Rose been allowed into the US to speak her crap during WWII? Methinks not.

The problem with unfettered free speech is not that the government isn't regulating the extents of said freedoms, rather that the people using the freedom do not do so in a responsible fashion. They do not always use their right to free speech to better the country; rather, some prefer to use it to undermine the nation. That must stop.

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 7:18:16 PM

So, Hoser, you have appointed yourself as free speech Czar? I have found several here like Winston to be contrary to my belief of what Canada should be. Do I get to ban as well?

Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-22 7:22:12 PM

If a muslim comes in contact with pig fat what happens? When they unknowingly touch a door knob rubbed with Canadian bacon what happens to their ability to go to heaven?

Posted by: truthsayer | 2007-08-22 7:26:01 PM

truthsayer, they then have to kill an infidel to get to heaven.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-22 7:28:07 PM

What's your point, man? Are you saying that this woman is able to contribute something positive to Canada? That you agree with her?

I'm NOT advocating any banning, please try to read through and understand a post before responding.

My point, and I thought it to be kinda easy to understand, was that people should know what is reasonable use of their free speech rights WITHOUT government interference.

Geez, you really are a twat aren't you?

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 7:44:34 PM

....also, I had asked you a simple question a few weeks ago, prefaced with a truism; I noted that, to the average muzzie fundamentalist, you and I and all the usual denizens of this blog are completely alike, all are infidels. What exactly will it take for you acknowledge this TRUTH my friend? One day you or your children may have to choose between kneeling toward mecca or to hang out with your Albertan friends; which would you choose?

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 7:50:14 PM

Hello? Munroe (cue sounds of crickets)? Are you able to illuminate us all, and let us know whom you prefer? Western right wingers, or muzzies whom wish you dead?

Come on, inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 8:04:24 PM

Hoser, this is a free country. The Islamists are free to come to this country, subvert it, convert it, change our ways and culture and if we don't like it, raise jihad.

Some posters on this blog really like that.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-22 8:04:32 PM

Welcome to the rules of the Islamofascist caliphate:

"Rough justice: 80 lashes for 'immoral' Iranian who abused alcohol and had sex"


His face covered by a balaclava, an official brandishing a cane repeatedly lashes the back of a man found guilty of breaking Iran's morality laws.

Two police officers hold the legs of 25-year-old Saeed Ghanbari and another his arms to ensure there is no escape from the punishment of 80 lashes handed down by a religious court.

Traffic was brought to a halt in Qazvin, 90 miles west of the capital Tehran, as more than 1,000 men gathered behind barricades to watch the public flogging.

Some took pictures on mobile telephones, others climbed traffic lights for a better vantage point as Ghanbari was marched to the centre of the square under the watch of blue-uniformed guards carrying machine guns.

A four foot long metal bench was taken from a police van and the convicted man was made to lie on it on his stomach, his fawn checked shirt pulled-up to his shoulders to expose his back and waist.

One police officer held his hands together beneath the bench, two others gripped his legs to ensure there was little movement.

Two police officers stood-by, their faces covered with balaclavas - each to administer 40 lashes.

Both men then lashed Ghanbari, taking the cane back behind their heads to guarantee maximum impact, each stroke leaving a distinctive red mark and bruising on his back.

Several wounds began to bleed.

It was unclear exactly what his offence had been as the country's strict morality laws cover many areas, but it was reported he had been convicted of abusing alcohol and having sex outside of marriage.

The public lashings have been endorsed by the judiciary as a way of deterring alcohol abuse at a time when it is on the increase among young men but some religious leaders are said to be questioning their validity, fearing they have an adverse impact on the country's image abroad.

Although men and women convicted of flouting public morals are routinely flogged in detention centres, public floggings are considered rare.

Human Rights groups say there have been a marked rise in recent months in the number of people sentenced to executions and floggings in Iran.

Amnesty International, which said it is "greatly concerned by continuing human rights abuses in Iran", has highlighted figures revealing 117 people were executed in 2006 with thousands facing floggings.

They included a woman, who had been forced into prostitution as an eight-year-old, receiving 99 lashes because of "acts contrary to chasity."

Earlier this year, a man was flogged after a copy of the Bible was found in his car.

At least 120 executions have been recorded so far this year, according to Amnesty, with two youths under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes among those killed

The latest gruesome pictures have emerged three weeks after there was an outcry over a video of a flogging in a Malaysian jail was posted on the Internet.

The sickening images showed a man being lashed repeatedly on the buttocks until he bled from several wounds.

Posted by: obc | 2007-08-22 8:04:47 PM

In the immortal words of Metallica, "Sad but true".

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 8:07:16 PM

Hoser, and for some posters here, as long as the Islamists speak loudly and publicly about their intentions ( free speech), the better.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-22 8:09:15 PM

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 8:10:43 PM

Sweet, for $40 I can even break bread with the muzzie witch;



-- TICKETS: $40 regular, $20 reduced for students, seniors, etc , $100 for family

For more information and to order tickets on line: http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/dinner/index.php

OR Call 519-745-1242 OR Email Romina >

Anyone up for some fun in Toronto Sept 8?

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 8:17:54 PM

Hate speech should be opposed. Maybe their meetings should be subjected to the same kind of heckling than they have practised at our universities. If they can lean on university administrations to get their way, we should do the same thing.

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-22 8:25:18 PM

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 8:27:03 PM

Uh, where are my comments? I'm not ROGER!

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 8:28:04 PM

Even Roger isn't Roger! He's Ali.


Posted by: obc | 2007-08-22 8:30:06 PM

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-22 8:32:04 PM

Every time I hear someone say that I (we) should be more tolerant,understanding and respectful of Islam, I ask them if they have ever watched a stoning or a beheading.Of course,they have not,and most never will because they prefer to be ignorant of the extremely brutal side of these barbarians. I will never accept,tolerate or understand a religion that is based on creating a sub-class of humans. I would rather die drinking with a "red-neck" Albertan than live in a country ruled by religious zealots that have no regard for life.

Posted by: wallyj | 2007-08-22 10:32:46 PM

Alberta culture,
Is the best,

Contains more meat,
Than all the rest,

So buy your gal,
A hog today,

And watch her chase,
Terrorists a-way!


You know, I can understand why it is terrorists and their sympathizers want to have their own religion, and live in their shitty little countries, but I do not understand why it is they would want to come to Canada, and share the streets with people who relish in the freedom of eating bacon.

Someone ought to tell them, they ain't gonna trade bacon for anything!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-22 10:36:31 PM

And ROGER, there is no such thing as a major issue in Israel, over pork. The major issue is keeping the terrorists out, so Jews can live and be Jews on Jewish lands--lands recognized in the Koran and belonging to the Jewish people.

Then again, you want to eat pork, you can--in Canada. You can go whole-hog if you want to, and no one will stop you. In fact, I hear that it makes a good barrel cleaner, as long as there is no salt in it. Now, I would not eat it myself--but then again, I like to watch my wasteline--if you know what I mean?

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-22 10:40:15 PM


The difference is that over there, the authorities participate in child abuse, wife abuse, mysogyny and worse--over here, those monsters have broken the law. Society here has been designed by ladies and gentlemen, who are considering loving-kindness--over there, it is shame, humiliation, horror and sufferring, as mainstream standard--to control whole populations.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-22 10:43:31 PM


I keep kosher. But heck, I bet you breathed it in, and loved every minute of it! You'ld choose bacon over halal every day of the week--especially during ramaiden--when you bath in it for religious purposes.

I hear that they say that when you guys get over here, that pork is as good as a camel. Well? Is that true?

You sound like a BCer--which explains everything--there's all kinds in BC, and some are good, and some are like you, nothing but terrorist sympathizers!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-22 10:47:20 PM


Memri has videotapes of Imams saying that it is OK to cut off girls genitalia. There are many countries where it is a pratice. If it were against practice, no one would do it--but they advocate it.

According to the UN, it is the number one health issue of women, in those countries, where it is practiced. And, it is practiced on children, and is child abuse.

And how about the mass executions of girls? Like Iran? Where over ten thousand girls were killed, between the age of ten and 16, just because they did not want to wear the head scarf.

And, beating women, is considered a man' right over there--where it is considered therapy.

Also, the stonings--where if a woman looks at some guy, who is not her relative, they kill her--to somehow, protect her honour. Oh, like killing her, is respecting her and not abuse?

And the authorities that sit back and say it is OK?

And how about the rules about rapes, where women are not permitted to have a say about what happenned to them, unless they have these guys say that it happenned? If a woman has no men backing her, her word is nothing! She is then accussed of adultry, and whipped or executed, or whatever.

You want more ROGER? There is more.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-22 10:53:31 PM


Where I come from, speaking my mind, is totally permisseable. Clearly, a woman with a mind, pisses you off royally--wow, who would have known.

And clown like you are not permitted to judge women, because you are not a gentleman--in fact, you are the opposite. Hey, I am prepared to reinstate john into gentlemanhood, just because in comparison to you, his problem is his lack of knowledge and maturity--whereas yours is total ugliness, down to your very core.

And when it comes to someone professing a religion, that hurts others, well, the line is drawn, as that is not a religion, but a dangerous ideology.

Furthermore, you come on this site, and speak like the material between your head has been damaged from too much pressure on the frontal lobe. You treat people like you are a pig in a china shop--and then you think you have the right to judge others?

Of course, you ahve the right to open your mouth, and then put your foot so far inside, we can measure your shoe size, while you prostrate yourself.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-22 10:58:31 PM

Lady, please just ignore such idiots, especially this nutter. To-morrow morning there will be no traces of his posts.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-08-23 12:54:21 AM

"Quebec intellectuals"
Yeah right !
"a variety of Quebec thinkers"
What variety ??


Richard Bastien : http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=84

Germain Belzile and Jean-Charles Chebat are both from the Hayek institute who openly says their goal is to fight any ideas from the Left.

Claude Marc Bourge, Jean-Philippe Martini, Jean Renaud, and Maurice G Dantec (openly Zionist); are all from « La revue Égards » witch makes the Western Standard to look like the junior league of Neo-cons.

Julia Coriat is fuming after Yakov M. Rabkin for writing that the Jews from Mtl are not Zionists. If one can read french: http://www.amitiesquebec-israel.org/mediasfr.htm#karim. She’s also known for suing Radio-Canada after they’ve pass something from the BBC regarding Israel nuclear program.

Marc Lebuis: Only targeting Muslims on web site “Point de bascule”.

Eric Le Ray : http://www.radio-shalom.ca/showanimateur.php?ID=1050

Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-23 2:06:22 AM

Try #3:

Hello? Munroe (cue sounds of crickets)? Are you able to illuminate us all, and let us know whom you prefer? Western right wingers, or muzzies whom wish you dead?

Come on, inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-08-23 3:09:48 AM


Neo-cons is not a word. The word is neoconservative!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-23 10:52:54 AM

yes, mom.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-23 11:47:14 AM

I figure that there is a fine line that divides treason from freedom of speech. This old ho comes to Mtl and gives her hate speech... that is OK.

But what happens if she contributes to the radicalization of some of society? And that radicalization leads to the deterioration of that society?

You have to get a "court of law" to prove it... prove the unprovable. We're hooped whichever we we turn. So this is the impasse.

This is why I suggested she be immersed in nasal ejecta, because it is frustrating to see these creeps getting away with their thinly veiled attempts to bring our country down.

Posted by: DCM | 2007-08-23 12:40:07 PM

She is worse than those poor slobs born into Islam, because she knows better and still converted. I say she should not be allowed in due to her prior behavioor. She poses a risk to our national security.

If they allow her in, then I hope someone shows up and pelts her with bacon and does not allow her to speak. After all if Netanyahu is unable to speak at a Canadian University due to poor mannered palis' terrorist sympathizers, then why should she be able to speak here?

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-08-23 12:52:28 PM

I've heard somewhere that when Muslims are on the path of war...they elect a woman.
Maybe we have our bitch right here...


Extremism is always ugly.
Just like those ugly "thinkers" up there who reprensent nothing but Quebec.


Hi Mark,
Hockey, the only true religion, will start in 3 weeks. Looking foward to make fun of your new coach.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-23 12:57:12 PM

marc: My new coach? You mean the Flames? Sorry, mon buddy but I'm not exactly a die hard Flames fan...just a die-hard Habs hater!

I used to be a Bruins fan, thanks to the greatest player ever, Bobby Orr. Since his retirememt, my interest in hockey has wavered, but I still hate the Habs! :)

I'm afraid that you Habs fans are turning into what us Red Sox fans used to be until 2004...good luck anyway. Who is the Habs Babe Ruth, because it may be 86 years before they win again! :)

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-08-24 10:22:50 AM

Can understand why u hate the Habs so much.
...speaking of winning.

Red sox ? What's that ?
A horehouse in old Boston ?
Yeah, heard form you by Éric Gagné. Worst than Mtl fans, he says.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-24 2:42:31 PM

Ah, he loves it in Beantown. He likes having more fans come to the game than he can hold in his house, unlike in Montreal where rumor has it they used to have major league baseball, but no support. :)

Who is the Habs Babe Ruth? 1993 was the last year they won the Stanley Cup, right? Then what happened? Who did they get rid of that has cursed them? :)

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-08-24 3:05:40 PM


Day useta had baiseball in Monreul.

But dey dinna wanted to support becuzz not enuff French Canadian on the roster.

Da'ts duh most importtant ting, about French player. Whu givva dam about Canadian.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-08-24 3:30:32 PM

Yeah "Set-you-free", we speak funny down here...


What you want me to say "set-you-free"...?
Not gonna apologies because we only produce the best...


you're not seriously want to compare that crowd...

With this...

Come on now.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-24 5:07:13 PM

SYF, I'd love to see you debate Marc in his first language - racist!

Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-24 5:33:32 PM

...face to face.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-24 6:35:10 PM

"1993 was the last year they won the Stanley Cup, right? Then what happened?"

You tell me...

Guy Carbonneau (Captain), Patrick Roy, André Racicot, Rob Ramage, Kirk Muller, Mike Keane,
Kevin Haller, Paul DiPietro, John LeClair, Denis Savard, Benoît Brunet, Brian Bellows, Lyle Odelein, Vincent Damphousse, Gary Leeman, Mathieu Schneider, Eric Desjardins, Jesse Bélanger, Ed Ronan, Mario Roberge, Donald Dufresne, Todd Ewen, Sean Hill, Patrice Brisebois, Gilbert Dionne, Stephan Lebeau, Jean-Jacques Daigneault.


Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-24 7:41:21 PM


Even though I'm not a member of the master race and nowhere near the self-congratulatory French Canadian, I thank you for your vote of confidence.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-08-24 7:46:16 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.