The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Bringing Saudi values to Canada, one human rights complaint at a time
Syed Soharwardy, the Saudi-trained imam now preaching in Calgary, is at it again.
Back in 2006, Soharwardy filed a complaint with the Alberta human rights commission because the Western Standard published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. You simply have to read his hand-scrawled complaint -- my favourite part was that those cartoons violated his rights because he was a direct descendant of Mohammed. Uh, I'm not sure if that's considered a legal cause of action back in Saudi Arabia, let alone in Canada. You really have to check it out, here. Our response is here; though I was tempted to make the compelling legal argument that I am a descendant of Moses, I refrained. (I also used a spell-check.)
Soharwardy's first stop was the Calgary Police Service, who gently reminded him that he wasn't back in Saudi anymore, and that police don't settle political differences over here. So he went to the AHRCC, who are much less liberal than gun-toting cops.
Now Soharwardy is mad again -- this time because of some public comments posted to the Western Standard blog on December 2nd, ironically in response to a post by me about radical Muslims using human rights commissions as censors.
Soharwardy says he felt scared by those public comments -- but not scared enough to, say, contact the Western Standard to even ask for them to be taken down. As usual, his first stop was the police who, as usual, turned him away. So off to the human rights commission he goes. Soharwardy's press conference today? Well, we all know that's what genuinely scared people do.
Here's Matthew Johnston's official response on behalf of the new Western Standard.
Rob Breakenridge has a good question: if Soharwardy's own website contains the scary, hateful words that he is complaining to the human rights commission about, is he not "promoting hatred" against Muslims himself? Soharwardy might argue -- if Soharwardy deigned to argue -- that he repeated those bad words only to rebut them. But that's exactly what happened on the Western Standard site -- they were promptly rebutted by another public commenter.
Soharwardy is a lot like Mohamed Elmasry. They each claim to represent enormous numbers of people -- Soharwardy has the "Islamic Supreme Council" and Elmasry has the "Canadian Islamic Congress". But both are actually part-timers (Soharwardy works for IBM; Elmasry is a professor at Waterloo) who have never shown more than a handful of followers -- not that that's ever stopped the media from quoting them obsequiously.
Elmasry and Soharwardy have both said bone-headed, even bigoted, things in the press. Elmasry said any Jew 18 or older in Israel is fair game for a terrorist attack. Soharwardy -- an advocate for bringing sharia law to Canada -- is just plain nutty:
In an interview with the Calgary Herald in August, he termed the Israeli bombings of Lebanon an act of genocide. In the past, he's also accused the United States of committing genocide in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In January 2005, after the devastating tsunami, Soharwardy accused Christian missionaries of kidnapping Muslim children in Indonesia. Last year, he called for a boycott of The Da Vinci Code, calling the film blasphemous.
I blame... the media. Seriously: I blame them for the soft bigotry of low expectations. If Soharwardy and Elmasry were WASPs, the media would ridicule them for their thin skin, and would attack their views as the reactionary fascism that it is. But because they're foreign-born, dark-skinned Muslims who speak with an accent, the media shut off their natural skepticism and forget all of their ideals about free speech -- and their judgment -- because they want to be gentle.
They're not doing Muslims any favours. The media -- and all polite society -- should marginalize the fascists and the radicals, and build up the moderates, like Toronto's outstanding Tarek Fatah, or others like Irshad Manji and Salim Mansur.
Elmasry and Soharwardy actual retard the integration and progress of any Muslims who follow them -- thankfully, a small number. For, instead of teaching them true civics -- such as how to participate in the cut-and-thrust of democratic debate without running to the government -- they teach them to be professional complainers and think of themselves as victims.
Thought experiment: Do you think that Canadian attitudes towards Muslims are enhanced or damaged by the Elmasry-Soharwardy recipe of two parts whining and one part bullying? You don't have to guess -- this Nanos poll has the answer.
Elmasry and Soharwardy are media-hungry radicals -- which is why only the human rights commissions of the world (and doe-eyed journalists) will give them any credit. Constructive Muslim leaders would teach their flock the essence of Western liberal civics -- how to debate and participate, not how to whine, censor and bully. In other words, they should teach Canadian values, and leave the Saudi values behind.
UPDATE: Here's a short video clip from CTV. h/t ZP
Posted by Ezra Levant on December 19, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bringing Saudi values to Canada, one human rights complaint at a time:
"Canada" made a choice to build a mosaic instead of a melting pot. It was a mistake that we may never recover from.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-20 11:32:31 AM
Sandra: Thanks for your comments. No need for anyone to besmirch Islam, as the followers of Islam do great at that themselves. Imagine looking up to Mohammed, who marries 6 year old girls. Really, no wonder Islamic countries are so backward. We westerners do not have to besmirch that religion. It is obviously more than capable of besmirching itself!!! Don't even get me started on the evil commands in the Koran to kill Jews etc.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-12-20 11:56:48 AM
Canadian media recently bragged that Canada has the world's highest immigration rate (per capita).
I as a citizen feel betrayed by politicians who prefer to game their way to power on the immigrant vote instead of representing my interests as a citizen. Same applies to industrial CEOs dependent on cheap labour and the real estate industry maximizing profits during housing shortages. Why is it that young adults/families are burdened by huge mortgages in a country with so much land and a low birth rate? Our GDP numbers are mediocre if discounted by immigration.
Posted by: fred | 2007-12-20 12:13:53 PM
Ship him out. Extradite him. He needs to go live where he can only dream of Human Rights and where wagging his tongue complaining could cost him his tongue.
Jeez, Black Joe, if immigrants are the backbone of this country at this time, how did we ever get to this point? Why do so many wish to come here?
Tell you one thing fella, it's not the "rednecks" who are sitting on their duffs collecting the dole and quaffing beer, it's the exact other end of the spectrum. The line forms on the Left.
It's time to cut the Multi-Culti crap and become Canadians. Religion and culture are purely personal matters and we have all the freedoms and rights needed to live in harmony and with respect for all.
There is only one thing that really has to be earned by all newcomers who are not familiar with our way of life, that is trust.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-12-20 1:15:30 PM
Far be it for me to ever slander the www.religionofpeace.com,but I always thought free speech was a canadian value. As we all know a picture is worth a thousand words,so I submit for your perusal, Unicef's picture of the year for 2007. If this link doesn't work you can just google 'unicef 2007 picture',http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=15144,.Don't they make a smashing couple?
Posted by: wallyj | 2007-12-20 2:18:44 PM
I think what everyone seems to be missing is the economic factor. Immigrants are not lazy, and do not arrive after "all the hard work of farm boys" has been said and done. Your parents, or great grand parents were probably first generation immigrants themselves and probably built either the railway or the roads. And props to the mosaic- it IS Canada...it IS our history...and WHO we are as a nation.
When the Canadian market exploded due to the oil sands and exploration projects in the past decade...all of Western Canada felt the labour shortage.
Alberta and B.C. needed people willing to work our low-skilled, high-paying positions...so they all came from underpaid provinces to the West.
When that wasn't enough (because a lot of unemployed Canadians are simply not willing to get their hands dirty), Service Canada took initiatives to ease the process of bringing in foreign workers - whether they be temporary or permanent.
And of course...Canada offers a fertile ground where you can keep your own cultural identity. I have know idea where these fools come up with their info. Canada has always had an Anglo-Saxon culture that had to learn to live with the French. Aboriginals have been here before either of those. Germans, Dutch, Spanyards, Jews, and various other cultures followed throughout the 1800's. By the time the gold rush reached Canada - numerous East Indian cultures as well as other areas of Asia began to make their way to Canada...to call it home.
Posted by: evilSteve | 2007-12-20 2:20:36 PM
I think a lot of people on both sides of the issue are really missing the point here and exposing themselves as being very intolerant. I think the issue here is that Syed Soharwardy, is a crack pot who abuses the human rights commission. He also happens to be Muslim. And although he uses Islam to justify his insanity, that is no reason to paint all Muslim immigrants with the same brush. An insane individual has used just about every religion out there to justify all sorts of heinous acts in the past. Islam is no different then any of them. Christianity has been used to justify the KKK, but most Christians are good, moderate, accepting people. Some are bigots and are crazy. The same goes for Muslims. The danger occurs when the media seizes upon these deranged individuals and makes it an issue about Muslims wanting to change our society. There are Muslims who do. And they can move to an Islamic country for all I care. I do, however, welcome any Muslim immigrant who is willing to accept that Canadians enjoy free speech and tolerance. Let's realize that most Muslims probably do not feel the same as Soharwardy. Let's treat him like the crazy individual that he is.
Also, Joe Black, go to hell, you elitist bigot.
Posted by: Hungry Joe | 2007-12-20 3:05:03 PM
And in other news from the Muslim world & the Religion of Peace:
"Torture Chamber Found in Iraq"
BAGHDAD - Blood-splotches on walls, chains hanging from a ceiling and swords on the killing floor—the artifacts left a disturbing tale of brutalities inside a suspected al-Qaida in Iraq torture chamber. But there was yet another chilling fact outside the dirt-floor dungeon. Villagers say they knew about the torment but were too intimidated by extremists to tell authorities until now.
"Nearby were nine mass graves containing the remains of 26 people"
Gosh, I hope they weren't waterboarded first.
Yes, but they weren't humiliated with underwear on their heads, now were they, like those "evil" Americans.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-20 3:30:29 PM
obc: Since the U.S. didn't do it, nobody cares! Sad isn't it?
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-12-20 3:48:40 PM
"Albertans are the very best Canadian culture has to offer."
"Canada has always had an Anglo-Saxon culture that had to learn to live with the French."
I'm sorry evilSteve.
Canada was a French Canadian culture that had to accomodate Englishmen. You didnt "had to learn to live with the French", we made you to as a condition to form this country.
I'm not even sure English Canada have a culture of it's own today (a bit of sarcasm there).
Don't get things all messed up. You think it was hard for Anglos to learn to live with French Canadians ? Try the other way around just for fun.
I have to admit I admire the effort from the Canadian population both French and English and also the Native, celà dit.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-20 3:51:22 PM
Culture is as culture does marc. Don't get all high and mighty because French people dress better than Anglos.
Canada is a big place Marc. It wasn't all just one big French colony that the English squatted on. The French hardly set foot on the Prairies. In the part of the Maritimes I grew up in there were no French settlements, ever.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-20 4:10:07 PM
Plains of Abraham, remember?
Posted by: atric | 2007-12-20 4:18:42 PM
Les Plaines d'Abraham...Les plaines d'Abraham...?
Oh yes ! Je me souviens !
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-20 4:59:16 PM
This talk about French and English got me to thinking about our 2 founding countries. Both France and England have allowed large numbers of muslims to immigrate and settle there. How's that working out for them? Has anyone heard of any problems over there? Have the muslims demanded any special privileges?
Posted by: wallyj | 2007-12-20 5:07:32 PM
Are you kidding??? Regular "car-be-cues" take place in France, in addition to regular anti-Semitic instances against Jews and their synagogue & schools.
Londonistan fares little better.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-20 5:14:09 PM
Islam is a CULT. It is not a religion. According to islam allah is the only God. If anyone does not accept that then islam says that he has to be killed. Period !
France and England are repenting for allowing muslims to enter their country. Muslims have destroyed europe. Canadians need to understand that.
Posted by: Simpson | 2007-12-20 5:48:38 PM
Every province, including Alberta and Quebec, finally have the chance to throw off the shackles of centralization set in motion by Trudeau.
The provinces have their defined responsibilities, the Canadian government has it responsibilities.
And, the imam spoken of is a threat to both our cultures.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-12-20 6:09:46 PM
Obc,calm down,step back from the keyboard. It was a rhetorical post. I am surprised that you didn't mention the little inconvenience of moving hospital beds to face mecca 5 times a day. Speaking of mecca,birthplace of mohammud,this islamic paradise that punishes woman for being raped,also does not allow them to drive cars. At the risk of offending females everywhere,has there ever been any studies to see if this measure makes the streets safer?
Posted by: wallyj | 2007-12-20 6:12:29 PM
I could have added medical doctors who drive into airports in Scotland and mass transit bombers, but as you pointed out so well - there is no shortage of examples to cite in Eurabia.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-20 6:16:33 PM
"Muslims have destroyed europe. Canadians need to understand that."
No they don't.
This would be believing naivly in another lie from our illuminated Neo-con friends. What they need to keep in mind is that religions are ideologies from witch extremists wish to control the masses in their favour so beleivers would accept anything comming from those groups. Like most Canadians, I see any religions as potentials threats when it sleeps in the same bed as States or try to influence it. Religious Lobbies should be illegal. End of story.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-20 6:53:35 PM
At least last week the US Congress effectively proclaims Jesus Christ to be our national savior!
Read the details at:
‘Minnesota’s Own Version of “Verjudung,” or How Somali Refugees Threaten Christmas In The Upper Midwest’
“Rudely Stamped,” www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Posted by: Michael Blaine | 2007-12-20 7:17:26 PM
"And, the imam spoken of is a threat to both our cultures."
It's been what ? A year that I sometimes participate on this blog ? Most of the time I have to defend Quebec culture because it dosent fit your religious beliefs or the one of your numerous neo-con friends out here. Of course we know that some Imams can be dangerous and that's why Quebecers (Muslims included) had a festive week last time we've kicked one extremist out of Canada directly to Turkey. The other day, it was the Israel Lobby that tried to paint Quebecers as "right wing extremists" because we've suggest we should reinforce our local language policies, a project not badly received by our English population by-the-way. Back in the days in Quebec, religion was the centre of the worst period regarding our individual liberties.
Sorry mon ami,
I respect you but I know you and I are not partners when my culture is in danger. You're one of those attacking it.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-20 7:33:07 PM
Since I am neither English or Jewish, you have nothing to fear from me.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-12-20 7:37:25 PM
Nice Try Set-You-Free.
I don't fear English nor Jewish, and I know your best half is Jewish. What I see as a threat for our local culture is anyone pushing to change it to fit the beleifs of the religious group they represent (Hard core Catholic Francophones included). I don't fear or having anything against you and I'm sure we would have a lot of fun around a nice -parfumed- coffee, but never I would put the protection of our Culture in your hands and vues. Frankly, I hope you would do the same with me because if not, you're a threat to your own culture as well.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-20 8:11:40 PM
Just on talk radio on The World Tonight 8:10 p.m./ Thurs.
Mathew Johnston from the WS Blog and Seyed Soharwardy have been in touch and sorted things out between them. As it should be, and Kudos to both for getting this done in a timely fashion.
As a result, the protest that was slated for downtown Calgary on Friday has been canceled and S.S. is withdrawing his complaint filed with the federal human rights tribunal.
The AB HRC had stated that this issue was a federal matter, not provincial, so there is no complaint in the AB commission.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-12-20 8:33:26 PM
Interesting. Why cancel the demonstration though? If Mr Sowahardy believes that he had a legit beef,he should go ahead with his media opportunity.What was given up,if anything, to cancel this frivolous lawsuit?
Posted by: wallyj | 2007-12-20 9:09:14 PM
I could never impose any of my beliefs on you.
BTW. My wife is Scottish, not Jewish.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-12-20 10:03:19 PM
"BTW. My wife is Scottish, not Jewish."
Not important. The important part is that you know she's your best half.
"I could never impose any of my beliefs on you."
But having the power to do so, like being inna religious group close the our local government...would you try to influence Quebecers inna way that is more favorable to your views, interest and beleifs ?
Before answering lemme tell you first it would be pretty normal or at least easy. For instance, Quebecers in the federal government like we have today don't belong there. There should be something like 5 people per province who sit at a table to discuss common issues and then go back to their people and look and take a decision on issues. Each provinces decide what is best for them and have the right to accept or refuse to get in a project or not.
There, you have my vues. If I would be near our government I would try to influence them this way. Now imagine if I would be with an important group of interest who thinks like me; able to serously influence our government or taking feild because of our common justice system.
Now imagine my group of interest is very close to some religious authorities...it makes me a powerfull motherfucker right ?
So don't tell me you could never impose any of your personal beleifs on me and fear any lobby who tries to influence our governments in their interests. A government should represent the population who've elected them - not powerfull lobbies with one way interests. How manny regulations would not pass if each provencial populations would be honestly informed and consulted before...
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-21 12:13:02 AM
""BTW. My wife is Scottish, not Jewish."
Of course the facts are not important. Just make a "she's Jewish" accusation to taint any of your comments.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-21 8:11:42 AM
I really tought he told me once that she was Jewish. That was unrelated to the core of my comments and I didnt accused no one of nothing. I was wishing to express the fact that any lobby can interfeer in the decisions a society have to make for itself.
Religious Lobbies, Feminist Lobbies, racist Lobbies, Coorporate lobbies, etc...
They can all really influence our government in ways that don't represent the population and even their best interesets. You're accusing only Muslims; I target any group who's doing too much representing only themselves and not the best interest and desires of the population. It's not only a Muslim Lobby that is a problem - it's every Lobbies and our system.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-21 11:51:02 AM
marc: With our flaws, our system is still the best in the world....unless you know of a better one?
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-12-21 11:58:14 AM
Our system is best for us, but apparently not for everyone. It seems you can't force democracy on certain civilizations, because they don't have any individual structure. I'd be happy to leave most of these countries under dictatorship, and only allow immigrants who are interested in living under our system.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-21 12:02:13 PM
But we have to stay awake of the dangers it can bring and that's exactly what I'm taking about.
Having a system like the one we have is great but we are fools if beleiving blindly it cannot easely become sick and turn against us.
Corporate Lobbies don't represent countries and only their interests. With enough money and influence, it's making regulations we would never accept to let pass without us knowing it. Please tell me what good it can bring to us ?
Same thing with Religious Lobbies. That's all I am Saying.
Democracy ? Yes. The System like we have today ? maybe not. Not as long as powerfull lobbies can decide for the rest of us.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-21 12:17:36 PM
What do you mean by religious lobbies?
Jesus himself said: ‘Render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's.'
Therefore, he was the first (that I know of) to articulate that there is, in fact, a difference in the responsibilities of church and state.
Sorta like in Canada, where there's a jurisdictional difference between federal, provincial and municipal governments.
You are free to believe what you believe, but you are not free to criticize somebody's religious beliefs if you reject those beliefs.
I have my religious beliefs and I believe the knowledge of what religion teaches makes me a better individual. But, I would never say that because you reject an entire area of understanding of human nature that you are a worse person.
It's not up to me to judge, so quit being so defensive.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-12-21 1:19:25 PM
But not if they attack us, or if they give shelter to those who attack us, or if they finance and train those who attack us.
VERY unfortunately the pope of the Roman Catholic Church has criticized America under the logic of the "Just War" theory, regarding the War on Terrorism in Iraq. The last several popes have been Leftists and done utterly catastrophic damage to the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. secretively insinuating homosexuals throughout the Catholic clergy), but their opinion(s) still carry tremendous weight.
In a world of "suitcase bombs" and biological warfare agents, it is not possible to let obvious threatening "nations" (e.g. Iran) just build up the capacity and develop the plans and foment the "public opinion" to attack us, before we recognize and act against the impending threat.
President Bush does almost everything that I could scream and holler about as being wrong and insane and Treasonous, etc. but he did in fact have the responsibility and got the authority and acted very responsibly to address this evil, as, when, where and how he should (and even with the blithering gutless corrupt pope against him).
PS. I'm a regular traditional Roman Catholic, and this situation just kills me regarding the valid need to vent criticism of the popes.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-21 1:27:34 PM
I agree with you on threat containment. You have to strike first. But as long as it's contained there's no point trying to sand blast them with democratic values. They want to live in the stone age. Anyone who doesn't can always escape and move over here. Those ones are welcome.
As for homosexual priests, I have a slightly different take. In the old days mothers could always sense when a son had homo tendancies, and good Catholic women would steer them towards the Priesthood to keep them celebate. This tended to push the ratio of homo Priests much higher than the general population. This, along with the fact that they were pushed into it rather than joining out of their own convictions has created a ticking time bomb in the Catholic Church.
Just a thought.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-21 1:39:53 PM
The "push" by the mothers might have happened, but the Catholic Church WOULD NOT ORDAIN THEM. Lots of fellows would "leave" the Seminary because they were found to have homosexual mental illness (that's an old term, which is way outside of political correctness, and I use it not to "hurt" anyone, but to recognize something which is a burden, not a benefit, and not another aspect of normal).
You must understand that in the Catholic religion EVERYONE is supposed to be celebate unless and until they are married (in a Sacrament which only involves one man and one woman). So, it wasn't the celebacy which was the issue, it was the ability to truly FUNCTION as a priest, which has so much of the characteristic of a head of household that the guy is called "Father" by everyone in the Faith community. Much of this can be ridiculed, but there is great validity to it when legitimately pursued.
For a Catholic young man to "leave" the Seminary was a BIG negative. Religious cultures create tremendous pressures on normal individuals in even modern societies. So I am not too cavalier in my guessing about how easy it is for folks to depart from the ancient Islamic countries and societies.
Consequently, I think we "must" intervene and cause at least one of these snake pits (i.e. Iraq) to move decidedly OUT from the Theocracy into Democracy with individual minority (religious) rights respected, right in the middle of Bhagdad. Then let them get over it over there.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-21 2:30:08 PM
Someone needs to check the blog comments on some of the Muslim Canadian blogs. Hey, someone could just post violent anonymous comments on a Muslim Canadians blog then go to the Human Rights Commission. Given that Muslims consider deception as part of war, it is quite possible that a Muslim posted the genocidal comments in order to then make a complaint against the Western Standard.
Posted by: Elvis Elvis | 2007-12-21 7:26:57 PM
There comes a time when you have to take the high ground. Why bring yourself down to that level? If you stick to your principals it will be hard to "plant" evidence because there will be a pattern of restraint.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-21 7:39:59 PM
well i will go to any islamist celebration if i was asked i live in medicine hat and have never hered of a celibration.but in turn i woul also like to have a muslim people celebrate my christmas so at the end ot this time next year i am better informed on muslim tradition and the muslims are more aware of our tradition. i hava felling we are not really much different that any family this time of year.and offers we east a lot of turky and play games aldults and one grandbaby take care out the in this christmas time or whatever you say this time of year
Posted by: dale brigham | 2007-12-21 11:42:17 PM
There's a picture. Osama chowing down on turkey and stuffing. Hey Omar, pass the cranberries.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-22 12:43:02 AM
I was invited to dinner at my neighbours home in Calgary a couple of times.
The neighbour was from Eritrea and his wife was from Sudan. They said they never ate turkey because it was too dry. Ever meat dish they had was diced and cooked in a sauce for hours.
My wife and I were the only white couple there, another couple was mixed, one white one black.
The Eritreans were amazed we didn't have a problem with the spice levels of their food.
I guess they expected us to fall to the floor choking and gasping for air.
They all claimed to be Greek Orthodox Christians and I asked them about the fishing industry in Eritrea because it bordered on the Red Sea.
They said they never ate fish because it was forbidden in the Bible.
I asked them what they thought of Christ feeding the multitudes at the Sermon on the Mount fish and bread or what they thought of the fact that Jesus' first group of disciples were fishermen and that He had gone fishing with them on the Sea of Galilee or that in the 1st Century Christians would indicate a secret place to gather and worship by drawing a fish on the ground with 2 arcs pointing the way.
I never got an answer.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-22 1:08:59 AM
You almost made your point very well. Until you came off as an arrogant, concieted jerk who obviously hails from down Toronto way. That comes with its own brand of ignorance in some cases.
You're right though, the middle east is coming back to haunt the west for all of its aggression over the last 60 years.
Now go find someone else to pick on...maybe maritimers deserve a little of your caustic insight today.
Posted by: JC | 2007-12-22 9:20:38 AM
here is what i am concerned with. we have rights to protect the minoraty but we have no rights to protect the majoraty.try phoning any govermen office and you will here a former taxi driver. what happens when and it will happen in our life time with imagration and babys being born that we are the minoraty will we still have protection from the majoraty .we as white canadians will be a minoraty in our own country and will be forced to become islamic.as they have shown that there can be only one god ala.this is the plan come here have lots of kids take away our canadian culture replace it with theres and in a few years they will overpopulate canada with there own and they will have a nw country.this has to stop now no more imagration we dont need a big population that only causes us to need more urban sprawl we need less people let canada stay canada not a fourien country
Posted by: home of the free | 2007-12-22 9:32:21 AM
Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission
Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let's consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This "investigation" will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals' claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and moderate Muslims will be pushed towards radicalization. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!
Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia | 2008-01-13 9:04:09 PM
"Officials at the Western Standard say they are bringing in new rules of etiquette for their site."
...what the heck?
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-01-13 10:21:03 PM
Hey Muslim's against Sharia...
This "investigation" will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada.
Well, no. You folks did it by being silent all these years. While the HRC is a gong show, there is no excusing what has passed as silent Islam since 9/11.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-01-13 10:22:47 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.