Posted tagged ‘Canadian anti-Islamophobia law’

New Blasphemy Laws for Canada?

June 15, 2017

New Blasphemy Laws for Canada? Clarion ProjectShabnam Assadollahi, June 15, 2017

Wikimedia Commons/Carlos Latuff)

Criticizing Islam in Canada should not be illegal or disliking it should not be classified as a phobia. A “phobia” is a type of mental disorder. Isn’t the “Islamophobia” motion, which was unanimously passed by the Canadian government and calls for limiting the rights of Canadians to criticize Islam, contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What is the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then?

The definition of Islamophobia from a Google search is “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.” What exactly has the Parliament of Canada made a motion against? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Mohammed? Criticism and condemnation of the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with radical Islamic ideology? Petitioning against those Canadians who condemn Sharia law? If Canadians criticize Islam or convert from Islam, will they now be considered “Islamophobes” by Canada?

What’s next? Sending Iran and Hamas type morality police to the doorsteps of Canadians critical of Islam, while radical imams in the country continue to spew openly hateful and radical ideas in schools and mosques? What about Canadians who are suspicious of others plotting possible terrorist activities – will they be afraid to report it to authorities in case they are wrong?

The motion (M-103) which the Canadian government recently passed was initiated on June 8, 2016, by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. It condemns Islamophobia in “all” forms.

The details of the motion, which was sponsored by a member of parliament from the Liberal party, are extremely sketchy to say the least. The motion states:

“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

It seems that many Western politicians, the mainstream media and our intellectual elites use the term “Islamophobia” without even knowing what is in Islam. There might be a lot of things about which one could be rationally “phobic,” or simply fearful of, in Islam.

For example, political Islam is known to be an ideology that produces Islamist terrorists. Islamic Republic of Iran is a prime example of it.

Since Trudeau Liberals came to power, Canadians have been constantly reminded that to speak negatively about Islam is supposedly acting as a fear-mongering, racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobe.”

Yet, many people are rightfully afraid of harm coming to them from Islamic (sharia law) and radical or political Islam. I am a living example of one who has experienced harm from radical Islam.

I was imprisoned at age 16 by the Iranian regime for simply expressing my disagreement with their policies (which now might be viewed as Islamophobic in Canada). They held me prisoner for 18 months in their notorious Evin Prison; I miraculously escaped the murder and rape I heard about every day in that dark place.

Read Shabnam Asadollahi’s story here

The memories of my imprisonment still haunt me. And the regime’s threats still follow me today in Canada. Therefore, I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam. To call my fear a phobia, an irrational fear, lacks compassion and fails to recognize the true reality of the present danger living close to me once again.

It was reported that the highest commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards recently said they would soon kill all dissidents living abroad. That means I am on their hit list.

People are jittery about radical Islam and sharia law for many justifiable reasons: They look at how shariais practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, by the Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram.

The Islamic Cairo Declaration of 1990, written as a direct refutation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all human rights are defined under Islamic sharia law. Therefore, beheading, stoning, flogging, slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, amputations and a woman’s worth considered half of a man’s are all human rights.

Is that what we want for or in Canada? Or in any country?

To those of us who have experienced Islamic Sharia law first-hand, protecting Western values – free speech, common law, equal justice under the law, democratic (“man-made”) governance; individual freedoms, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, to name just a few – is indeed a cause for concern. Every single one of them is contradicted by Islamic Sharia law or radical Islam.

Why should it be against the law to outspokenly disagree with aspects of a different political ideology, religion or culture? Especially if it outspokenly threatens one’s own?

It is interesting to note that there are no comparable terms for other religions, such as Christianophobia or Judeophobia that define a dislike or prejudice against Christianity, Judaism or the Judeo-Christian worldview.

What is true is that Christians and Jews would never be allowed to call for a similar motion in any Middle Eastern country in the world.

While M-103 has been stirring in our halls of government, there is also another trend sweeping through these same halls to rid the Canadian Charter of obsolete, unconstitutional or redundant laws, thanks to other Liberal MPs.

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, the liberals unveiled Bill C-51 that would clean up the Canadian Criminal Code. This Bill would remove the outdated blasphemy law that has existed in Canada since 1892. Government feels this would clean up old law that isn’t consistent with freedom of speech and religion in Canada.

Strangely, C-51 and M-103 seem to contradict one another. While M-103 condemns Islamophobia in all forms, including speaking against Islam, C-51 is loosening law to allow anyone to freely express themselves concerning anyone’s religion without fear of reprisal or imprisonment. Will C-51 only apply to every religion except Islam?

“Intolerance of Intolerance” is the de-facto blasphemy law of the secular state. Is the Government of Canada scrapping one blasphemy law, only to replace it with another?

A complete version of this article appeared on Mackenzie Institute.

Tarek Fatah on M-103: “Replace the word Islamophobia with Islamofascism”

May 7, 2017

Tarek Fatah on M-103: “Replace the word Islamophobia with Islamofascism” CIJ News, May 7, 2017

Tarek Fatah. Photo screenshot YouTube Mobile TV

I have to say one thing clear that if my holy book says cut off the hands of someone and the left foot I do not accept that. If somebody wants to say you can say that, I said it. I will not accept it because I do not believe that even the Quran was collected according to the revelations that it was revealed, the Quran as it was revealed does not exist. And I willing to talk to anyone who says that, it is, but seriously why can’t we discuss this? That is what M-103 is about. That when I say what I just said I should be charged with the crime of Islamophobia, which is a code word to say the crime of apostasy, which is the code word for the word blasphemy, and punishment that is beheading as Muslims it is a job to make sure that laughter is stopped. 

**********************

On Sunday, April 9, 2017 a panel of prominent Muslim journalists and activists presented their arguments against Motion 103, also known as the anti-Islamophobia motion.

The “Muslims Against M-103” panel featuring Tarek Fatah, Tahir Gora, Asif Javaid and Shaan Taseer, titled took place at the Royal Banquet Hall, 185 Statesman Drive in Mississauga, Ontario.

In his speech, Tarek Fatah, a Canadian writer, broadcaster, secularist and liberal activist who founded the Muslim Canadian Congress, emphasized the duty upon moderate Muslims to fight M-103 to defend the Western civilization from the radicals who adhere to extremist Islamic ideology. The following are excerpts from Fatah’s speech:

Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. The point is that there are a million Muslims who came to Canada because they had a fear of IslamWe live in a world where the stark reality that from all over the Muslim world not a single Muslim goes to a Muslim country.

There are 6 million Syrian refugees and not one of them wants to go to Saudi Arabia. It’s right next door. It’s right next door. No ESL process [meaning no need to learn foreign language]…

Who killed Muslims? Muslims. Who killed through, the Sarin gas attacks? Muslims threw it on Muslims. Had Syria had M-103 resolution, I swear by the Great Allah, nobody would have been killed… Five years of slaughter and you blame it on who? America… You killed and slaughtered Prophet’s Mohammad’s own family and you’re lecturing Canadians about Islamophobia?…

They have been killing Muslims ever-since the Prophet died. The first wars of Islam are called the wars of apostasy. Anyone who said: I don’t understand how this guy became the new Caliph of Islam. He said: Oh you don’t think I should be the Caliph of Islam. No sir, I don’t know who you are. Well, kill him.

Here’s a Quran… it is not in the compilation as it was revealed. I’m saying it to the record… It is not in the way Allah revealed it to the Prophet Mohammad. It was compiled in a way by the third Caliph who burnt 300 Qurans. Was he an Islamophobe? Othman [bin Affan]… he just got murdered but other Muslims. Before him Omar, the Caliph, he too got murdered and then came Mohammad’s cousin Ali, one of the biggest intellectuals of the Islamic world. He was praying Friday prayers. One of the guys came saying I don’t like him. Killed. He died…

The only Muslim politician of character that this country has ever elected is [MPP] Fatima Houda-Pepin who was deputy speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, who got all parties in Quebec into a unanimous motion to ban Sharia [Islamic Law] for all times in the province of Quebec. That’s my kind of Muslim. That’s the type of Muslim we are. When we were fighting against Sharia [Islamic Law] in 2005 there was nobody with us. We were only five or six people… We defeated Sharia [Islamic Law] and got it banned in Ontario by being straightforward not hateful and sticking to our principles…

The game has just begun. We will make sure, and as God is my witness, we will not let this become law in this form… I promise you this. Even if we have just one person, we will lock ourselves to the gates of Parliament and asked them to replace the word Islamophobia with the word Islamofascism

The last fighters who defeated who defeated Hitler came from Stalin’s Muslim armies from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan who fought in Stalingrad and then defeated. Those are the Muslims who want here. The people who love Hitler want them out of here. Now and if you want to call me an Islamophobe, Praise be to Allah, I am. Yes I am.

I have to say one thing clear that if my holy book says cut off the hands of someone and the left foot I do not accept that. If somebody wants to say you can say that, I said it. I will not accept it because I do not believe that even the Quran was collected according to the revelations that it was revealed, the Quran as it was revealed does not exist. And I willing to talk to anyone who says that, it is, but seriously why can’t we discuss this? That is what M-103 is about. That when I say what I just said I should be charged with the crime of Islamophobia, which is a code word to say the crime of apostasy, which is the code word for the word blasphemy, and punishment that is beheading as Muslims it is a job to make sure that laughter is stopped. That the people creating this mess in the world are confronted but not with hate. Mahatma Gandhi’s ways are still alive today.

We have to fight hate and not with that Christian love that you talk about, you know, let’s have an interfaith talk. No, resolute, straightforward, secular, absolutely Rousseau, Karl Marx, Adam Smith and the whole of what that comes from Western civilization, from Socrates to Aristotle. We are the product of Western civilization. We are not the product of any other civilization. We invented the aircraft, insulin, vaccination, microphone, iPhones, even the damn paper. Because the Quran was written on skins and bones till we got paper from the Persians and the Greeks. Islam owes a lot to Eastern Orthodox Church, to the Zoroastrians and to the Hindus.

And it [Islam] is fundamentally Judaism planted on a pagan culture. If we cannot accept that we are doomed as a Muslim community, and no amount of M103s will ever be able to stop the tide that I have seen in anger coming up during the Dutch elections, doing the Swiss elections, during the Indian elections. We have Muslim women in burqas voted against their husbands advice…

 

Before and After Sharia Law: A cautionary tale

April 23, 2017

Before and After Sharia Law: A cautionary tale, Rebel Media via YouTube, April 23, 2017

(Please see also, San Diego School District Pushes CAIR-Assisted ‘Anti-Islamophobia’ Plan and Sharia-Advocate Sarsour to Give Graduation Address at CUNY. Worried yet? — DM)

 

When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It

March 27, 2017

When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, March 27, 2017

(Please see also, No Truth Please, We’re British. — DM)

Thanks to the Canadian Parliament and their lack of curiosity about a deeply opaque but ambitious word (“Islamophobia”), the Canadian press and public will have to stop certain inquiries into the truth about the events of our time. Who — apart from the good legislators of Canada — could possibly believe that the world will benefit from such censoring? And at such a time as this? To adopt a well-known expression: those whom the gods would destroy they first make ignorant.

Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by?

Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim?

Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?

The Canadian government suffers from many things. Among them is bad timing.

On Thursday of last week, the Canadian Parliament voted through a blasphemy law specifically designed to protect Islam. As Al-Jazeera was happy to report on Friday, the previous day’s vote condemned “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” The non-binding motion that the Parliament passed also requested that a Parliamentary committee should launch a study to look at how to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia”. The motion passed by 201 votes to 91.

It is just as well for those 201 Canadian legislators that they were debating all this in their distinguished national Parliament rather than the mother of all Parliaments. For had these legislators been in the House of Commons in Westminster, their thoughts may have taken on a sharper focus.

For one day earlier, the British House of Commons lived through an example of rampant Islamism rather than “Islamophobia”. And although nobody in Westminster decided to turn into a crazy Muslim-hating bigot, they did manage to see what a hateful Muslim bigot could do when armed with the simple weapons of a knife and a motor vehicle.

The Canadian Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who introduced the motion in Canada, proclaimed that the introduction of a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Canada was needed because “We need to continue to build those bridges among Canadians, and this is just one way that we can do this.” Hours before she said that, one of Khalid’s co-religionists was using a bridge built more than a hundred and fifty years earlier for a very different purpose.

Khalid Masood of Birmingham chose to use an older bridge to drive at high speed into crowds of Londoners and tourists. On his rampage, he managed to injure people from 11 countries. He succeeded in killing Kurt Cochran, an American on holiday in London with his wife to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. He also killed Aysha Frade, a British national of Spanish and Cypriot descent who had been walking across Westminster Bridge to pick up her two young daughters from school. He also killed Leslie Rhodes, a 75-year old retired window-cleaner, described by a neighbour, who sat at his bedside in hospital as he died, as “the nicest man you ever met.”

After this carnage, so similar to the vehicle attacks in recent years in Germany, Israel and France, the 52-year old Khalid Masood ran at the Houses of Parliament and stabbed to death Police Constable Keith Palmer, 48. As all this unfolded, the Houses of Parliament in Westminster were put into lockdown. As with the Islamist attack on the Parliament building at Ottawa in 2014, the assailant got disturbingly close to the very centre of power in the land before being shot dead.

After deliberately driving a car into crowds of people in London last week, Khalid Masood crashed the vehicle into the fence surrounding Parliament, and stabbed a police officer to death. (Image source: Sky News video screenshot)

So, we come to the central problem of what the Canadian Parliament did at the same time that the British Parliament was being assaulted. What are we allowed to say about this? Or at least what would we be allowed to say in Canada?

So far, we know that the perpetrator of the London attack was a 52-year old convert to Islam who appeared to have been influenced by Wahhabism, but whose particular aims or intentions remain, for the time-being, unknown. Unlike the murderers of British soldier Lee Rigby in 2013 (one of whom carried on his person a note to his children with numerous Quranic references explaining why he was doing what he was doing, and why it was right) Khalid Masood appears to have left no note. Nor has any suicide-video yet emerged.

But it is not unreasonable to speculate that he was motivated or inspired by ISIS. The group has claimed his attack for their side of the terror ledger and the style of the attack certainly conforms to the type called for by the group. But beyond this, what are we allowed to say? Or what would we be allowed to say in Canada?

Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by? The question must linger. It must be hovering over the mind of many a Canadian journalist as they ponder the terrorist attacks that have previously taken place in their country and wonder how they would go about reporting an attack such as that in Westminster last week.

Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim? Would they be allowed to say that he was a convert? Would they be allowed to mention the Wahhabi point? Or would this tread into the realm of the “Islamophobia”. Let us assume that they would be allowed to mention these things in print. Would they be allowed to go any farther? Would they be allowed to ponder in opinion columns or quote people in reportage who said that Masood and indeed ISIS had not got their ideas from nowhere? Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion, which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?

History suggests that when the law makes it illegal to tell the truth, a reliable portion of people can be called upon to lie. So it has been in the past. And so it will be with Canada. So it would be anywhere once the law became an opponent of truth rather than the protector of it.

Thanks to the Canadian Parliament and their lack of curiosity about a deeply opaque but ambitious word (“Islamophobia”), the Canadian press and public will have to stop certain inquiries into the truth about the events of our time. Who — apart from the good legislators of Canada — could possibly believe that the world will benefit from such censoring? And at such a time as this? To adopt a well-known expression: those whom the gods would destroy they first make ignorant.