Posted tagged ‘Islamisation of Canada’

Canada: PM Trudeau meeting with former Taliban captive raising questions

January 6, 2018

Canada: PM Trudeau meeting with former Taliban captive raising questions, Jihad Watch

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau’s “meeting with returned captive Joshua Boyle and his family was questionable when first revealed last month.”

Every day like clockwork, even when he’s on vacation, the Prime Minister’s Office kicks out Justin Trudeau’s itinerary.” December 18th was no different. The “itinerary listed Trudeau’s attendance at the new chief justice’s swearing-in ceremony and a chat with Quebec civic politicians,” but Trudeau did a little more than that. He went for a meeting with freed hostage Joshua Boyle and his family. Boyle and his wife were kidnapped by a Taliban-linked group and held captive in Afghanistan for years. Their children were born in captivity.

Boyle is said to have requested a meeting with Trudeau, and enough information was on the table for Trudeau to decline such a meeting. He at least knew that Boyle was:

A guy roaming dangerous territory [Taliban] with pregnant wife in tow; a guy once married to the jihad-supporting sister of Omar Khadr; a father who named his deceased daughter Martyr

None of this stopped Trudeau, but why would it, considering his record? Trudeau visited a gender-segregated mosque with terror connections; he paid out 10.5 million dollars of taxpayer money to jihadist Omar Khadr for being too roughly treated at Gitmo; and Islamic State jihadists are welcomed into Canada by Trudeau. He bumbled out a whimsical justification to this welcome in Parliament under pressing questions by Opposition leader Andrew Scheer:

“But we also have methods of de-emphasizing or de-programming people who want to harm our society, and those are some things we have to move forward on.”

Yet the Trudeau government has not even been “tracking interventions” with returning Islamic State fighters.

Trudeau was also recently found to have violated four sections of Canada’s Conflict of Interest Act over visits to the Aga Khan’s residence. It was uncovered in the Ethics Commissioner’s report:

Not only did Mr. Trudeau and his family vacation at the Aga Khan’s residence last Christmas, the Trudeaus travelled to the private island for another Christmas holiday in 2014. It also said Mr. Trudeau’s wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, took a separate vacation there in March, 2016.

Back to the Trudeau meeting with Boyle: it is being described by many, including in the headline below, as “lousy judgement,” which seems to be a pattern with Canada’s Prime Minister — as well as dubious ethics — but along with this, he has a pattern of eyebrow-raising sympathies toward jihadists.

It looks much worse now, as Boyle faces 15 charges, include eight counts of assault, two counts of unlawful confinement and one count of misleading police for alleged crimes that occurred almost immediately upon his return to Canada in October.

 

“EDITORIAL: Trudeau’s Boyle meeting showed lousy judgment,” by Lyle Aspinall, Toronto Sun, January 3, 2018:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Dec. 19 meeting with returned captive Joshua Boyle and his family was questionable when first revealed last month.

Boyle’s past associations, pronouncements and his stated reasons for taking his pregnant wife to a Taliban-controlled war zone in Afghanistan – on a backpacking trip – should have raised concern.

It looks much worse now, as Boyle faces 15 charges, include eight counts of assault, two counts of unlawful confinement and one count of misleading police for alleged crimes that occurred almost immediately upon his return to Canada in October, though none have been proven in court.

While the Liberal government is usually eager to promote their celebrity PM, news of the Boyle meeting came via the family’s Twitter  account. The Prime Minister’s Office confirmed it happened, but refused comment citing privacy reasons…..

The added fact he’s the ex-husband of Omar Khadr’s sister Zaynab, part of Canada’s most notorious terror family, also disturbed Canadians.

Given such reasonable apprehensions, was this really someone who should have been granted a private audience with the PM? Of course not. It displayed astonishingly lousy judgment.

Making matters worse, Trudeau’s meeting with Boyle likely took place while his police investigation was underway.

Did the PMO know this? They won’t say and declined comment because of the ongoing criminal trial.

But as Senator Vern White, a former Ottawa Police Chief, told the Sun, there is only one system where names under investigation are logged so if Trudeau’s security detail ran his name it should have come up.

This seems to suggest they either didn’t run a check on a man for whom many questions still linger or they did run it and the PM met with him anyway.

It’s hard to say which is worse.

What can be said without any doubt is the Boyle family meeting was just the latest in a series of decisions by our PM that profoundly call his judgment into question.

Canada: Muslim students spread virulent Jew-hatred at McMaster University

December 15, 2017

Canada: Muslim students spread virulent Jew-hatred at McMaster University, Jihad Watch

Anti-Israel students at McMaster University in (Hamilton) Ontario, Canada have published multiple social media posts praising Adolf Hitler, demonizing Jews, and glorifying terrorist organizations….Dozens of individuals affiliated with the campus group Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) published incendiary comments on Jews and Israel in recent years

Three years ago, McMaster’s “Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights” group (aka Students for Justice in Palestine) ran a loathsome event on the campus in Hamilton called “’Hug a Terrorist,” right after the jihad attack on Parliament that killed 24-year-old Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, who was from Hamilton. Cirillo was gunned down and murdered as he stood guard at the National War Memorial in Ottawa. The SPHR also “gained notoriety after instigating a riot at Concordia, that forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel a speech scheduled for September 9, 2002.”

The hatred against Jews now being demonstrated at McMaster University in Hamilton by members affiliated with the SPHR is shocking and appalling.

Tweets included:

  • “I honestly wish I was born at the time of the second world war just to see the genius, Hitler, at work.”
  • “everytime I read about Hitler, I fall in love all over again.”
  • “The only Religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the Prophet Muhammad…..Where is hitler when u need one?’ I literally ask this every day…..hitler did more than just kill. He was also a great leader & role model to many. And all governments kill innocent people everyday.”
  • “hitler should have took you all….Arabs and Muslims who refer to our enemies as ‘Jews’ rather than ZIONISTS make a bad image for the rest of us
  • “Palestine is occupied by the most despicable nation on the face of the Earth.”

This is not by any stretch “free speech.” It is blatant incitement to violence. This degree of hatred and celebration of mass murder of the Jewish people would not be tolerated by McMaster administrators had it been toward Muslims or blacks — and should not be — so the SPHR should be shut down on campus, as any KKK group or Nazi group would likely be. McMaster university administration released a statement about “equity and inclusion,” condemned the anti-semitic statements, and announced that it was reviewing them.

To watch “Jew Hate at McMaster” video, click HERE.

A followup article was then published by the Algemeiner “that included a statement from the McMaster chapter of Hillel and one from B’nai Brith Canada, decrying the hateful posts and calling on the university to take action.”

SPHR member Nadera Masad was unrepentant and resolute in her hate as she responded:

“The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist. Add that to my profile…. I keep saying, we need to cleanse the world of creatures such as these dirty white Americans…..Add this to my canary profile.”

She then deleted her Twitter account.

For far too long, virulent Islamic anti-semitism has been tolerated on certain university campuses. This serves to embolden and strengthen hate groups.  To condemn them may be good for optics, but without appropriate followup action, it is ineffective. Such groups should be disbanded.

“Anti-Israel Students Spread Jew Hatred at McMaster University: ‘Hitler Should Have Took You All’”, by Shiri Moshe, Algemiener, December 12, 2017:

Anti-Israel students at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada have published multiple social media posts praising Adolf Hitler, demonizing Jews, and glorifying terrorist organizations, The Algemeiner has learned.

Dozens of individuals affiliated with the campus group Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) published incendiary comments on Jews and Israel in recent years — among them the “openly anti-Semitic Mac SPHR students” Rawan Qaddoura, Esra Bengizi and Nadera Masad, the anonymous watchdog group Canary Mission charged in a new report.

According to screenshots obtained by Canary Mission, Qaddoura — a political science and economics major who unsuccessfully ran for the SPHR presidency in 2016 — tweeted in September 2012, “i just don’t like jews lol #sorrynotsorry”

On August 2013, she wrote, “‘@judeZAdude: The whole world is controlled by Zionist Jews and until you understand that, life will never make sense.’”

Qaddoura also repeatedly praised Hitler, tweeting in January 2012, “I honestly wish I was born at the time of the second world war just to see the genius, Hitler, at work.”

She doubled down on these sentiments in June 2013, writing, “everytime I read about Hitler, I fall in love all over again.”

Qaddoura’s invective against Jews and admiration of Hitler — which extended to tweets demonizing Israel and Zionism — echoed that of fellow McMaster student Bengizi, who identified herself in August 2016 as a fourth year “double majoring in English & French.”

On July 2015, Bengizi tweeted a photo of Hitler — captioned with heart emojis — alongside the fake quote, “The only Religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the Prophet Muhammad.”

A year earlier, she wrote, “‘@KMKurd: Where is hitler when u need one?’ I literally ask this every day.” On the same Twitter thread, she added, “hitler did more than just kill. He was also a great leader & role model to many. And all governments kill innocent people everyday.”

Bengizi’s admiration of Hitler sometimes accompanied tweets that were explicitly antagonistic towards Jews. “I’m actually going to the rule the world and get rid of anyone who doesn’t have basic common sense or if you’re yahoodi [Jewish] #QueenE,” she tweeted on May 2014. Bengizi praised Hitler as “so intelligent” later on the same thread.

A tweet published by Esra Bengizi in May 2014. Photo: Canary Mission.

These sentiments were shared by SPHR activist Masad, who tweets under the handle “ArabHummus.”

“Hitler was on to something… #SorryNotSorry,” she tweeted in April 2012. A year earlier, Masad wrote, “the reason i kept some jews alive is so i can show you why i killed them in the first place. –Hitler.”

“hitler should have took you all,” she tweeted in November 2011.
Masad has argued that she only hates Zionists, rather than all Jews, claiming in October 2015, “Arabs and Muslims who refer to our enemies as ‘Jews’ rather than ZIONISTS make a bad image for the rest of us. We’re not racist, stop.”

Yet Masad — who in April proclaimed, “Death to America and white people” — has shared dozens of tweets containing explicitly antisemitic rhetoric. As recently as March, she wrote, “‘Gods chosen people’ lmfaoooo oh you mean god chose you to kindle hell fire with.. Tru.”

In May 2012, Masad tweeted, “I suspect my french teacher of being a jew cause I saw her picking up a penny off the floor yesterday.” That August, she prayed, “Yel3an il yahood [Curse the Jews]-amen.”

A tweet published by Nadera Masad in March. Photo: Canary Mission.

“#icanttrustyouif you’re a jew,” she charged on May 2011. A month earlier, she wrote, “#pleaseshutupif you’re an israeli jew. Your opinion does not matter nor count and you belong in a cave.”

She also frequently expressed her desire to violently harm Jews and Zionists.

“@mindohmarmatter looool it’s okay I’ll kill yahood [jews] with it, it’s all good :D,” she tweeted in April 2013.

“#ICantGoOneDayWithout having the urge to punch a zionist in the face,” she wrote on May 2012, days after tweeting, “#IfOnlyICould beat the s**t out of every zionist I see.”

Masad has accordingly praised Palestinian terrorists, sharing a picture of hijacker Leila Khaled — a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — with a machine gun in March 2016. “This is THE Queen of all Queens,” Masad wrote.

The PFLP is a terrorist organization blacklisted by Canada, the United States, Israel, and the European Union, among others. The group has claimed credit for multiple lethal attacks against civilians, including a 2014 massacre at a Jerusalem synagogue in which six Israelis were killed.

Khaled and the PFLP have similarly been idolized by 2017 SPHR president Lina Assi.

Assi, a self-described Marxist-Leninist majoring in labor studies and political science, tweeted a photo in May of PFLP members aiming assault rifles at an effigy of President Donald Trump, with the caption, “PFLP! This is how we Palestinian Marxist-Leninists do, folks!”…….

The following day, Assi posted a screenshot from a sermon delivered by a member of the Gaza-based terrorist group Hamas, who claimed that “Palestine is occupied by the most despicable nation on the face of the Earth.”

In December, she emphasized the importance of giving “credit to Hezbollah, Syria, [North Korea] and Iran in providing material support, military training and safe havens for PFLP organizing.”

A tweet published by Lina Assi in July 2014. Photo: Canary Mission.

SPHR is an autonomous chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine — a leading anti-Zionist group that promotes the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel at North American universities. At McMaster, SPHR organizes “Israeli Apartheid Week” and spearheaded the passage of a BDS resolution by the school’s student union in 2015.

Canary Mission said that the result of its investigation into McMaster SPHR “comes as no shock,” considering it’s “the same sort of anti-Semitic invective we have come to expect from SJP chapters across the United States.”

“We believe the only right thing for McMaster U administration to do,” the group added, “is to condemn, investigate and take action against these students and against SPHR, in order to show that McMaster is in fact a safe environment for Jewish students on campus.”

McMaster SPHR and university spokespersons did not immediately respond to The Algemeiner‘s requests for comments.

Why is Canada Cutting Checks to Suspected Terrorists?

December 4, 2017

Why is Canada Cutting Checks to Suspected Terrorists? Investigative Project on Terrorism, Scott Newark, December 4, 2017

The fall of ISIS on the battlefield means a likelihood of both returning Canadian jihadis and Canadian jihadis arrested and detained abroad. Accordingly, Canada needs a comprehensive strategy of options for international interactions where Canadians are detained abroad on terrorism investigations or charges.

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

It began in 2007 after a lengthy, expensive and mostly closed-door inquiry the led to a $10.5 million payoff to Maher Arar. Arar was a joint Canadian-Syrian citizen under pre-9/11 investigation by the RCMP and others regarding his activities and associations related to Islamist terrorism.

Despite being aware of the investigation, Arar left Canada in 2002 for extended international travel and was detained when he flew into New York. He then was transferred by U.S. officials to Syria. He subsequently claimed he was tortured because of information provided by Canadian officials.

Canadians learned last month that their government awarded $31.25 million to three of Arar’s associates who were also under RCMP and U.S. terrorism investigations – Abdullak Almalki, Abou el Maati and Muayyed Nurredin – to settle their civil lawsuit. Like Arar, the essence of their complaint was alleged misconduct or inaction by Canadian authorities after they had chosen to travel abroad and were detained and interrogated by Syrian, and in El Maati’s case, Egyptian authorities. Also like Arar, they claimed to have been tortured, and alleged their mistreatment was aided by inappropriate information sharing by Canadian officials with their foreign counterparts. A subsequent mostly-closed door judicial inquiry found instances of their Charter rights being violated by the actions or inactions of Canadian officials.

In July, the Canadian government announced it settled a civil suit brought by convicted Islamist terrorist Omar Khadr. His claim appears to have been based on Canadian officials interviewing him twice in 2002 while at Guantanamo Bay after having been captured following a deadly firefight in Afghanistan. Khadr also complained that Canadian officials provided copies of his interviews to U.S. officials even though it is now clear that the U.S. had already recorded the conversations.

In all three of these cases, the Canadian government provided no clear factual rationale as to why it chose to settle the cases behind closed doors. There has also been no explanation as to whether the Canadian security officials had a factual justification for their actions. In fact, both judicial inquiries expressly chose not to examine the conduct of the terror suspects involved and whether it may explain their overseas detention and interrogation. Also, none of the individuals were subjected to cross-examination, which is not exactly the best way to achieve a properly informed outcome.

Given this, it’s not surprising that more “victims” are emerging. Djamel Ameziane, an Algerian resident who was a bogus refugee claimant linked to would-be Millennium bomber Ahmad Ressam, was removed from Canada in 2000. He was captured by U.S. forces in Pakistan after 9/11 and held in Guantanamo Bay, where he became friends with Omar Khadr. His complaint against Canada was that, like Khadr, he was interviewed by Canadian officials twice. By remarkable coincidence, Ameziane has filed a civil lawsuit against Canada from Algeria where he now safely resides, and he is represented by one of Omar Khadr’s lawyers. I wonder if Omar got a finder’s fee?

Late last month, CBC News reported that former Calgary residents Yacine Meziane and Abderrahmane Ghanem have publicly complained that CSIS ripped up their lives by providing Middle Eastern officials with information about their undisputed association with several young men who left Canada to join ISIS in Syria. Both were detained and interrogated and are now back in Canada airing their complaints.

Add to that the case of Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy, the 19-year-old Canadian awaiting sentencing for a foiled terrorist plot in New York City. He too has just retained one of Omar Khadr’s lawyers. Are civil suits against Canada for damages on the horizon in these cases?

Add to this the current reality of the UK resident, with dual UK and Canadian citizenship, “Jihad Jack” (Letts) and the three Canadian young women who have been captured and detained in Syria and Iraq following the collapse of ISIS, where local officials allege they were supporting the terrorist group. There already are calls for Canadian intervention and thus it is necessary to ask what the appropriate and required actions by Canadian officials are in these cases and what will, no doubt, be others that will follow.

Canada urgently needs an effective strategy to clarify how its national security enforcement and intelligence officials deal with foreign governments relating to Canadians, or persons linked to Canada, who are involved in terrorism related investigations. This will be no easy task because the scope of activities involved ranges from information sharing to travel alerts to foreign post arrest involvement and intervention. Further, as the nature of the terrorist threat evolves, so do the necessary counter terrorism actions, including interactions with foreign governments and agencies, for which there is no single model.

The above noted court and inquiry and closed-door government civil settlements/payoffs where Charter violations and civil liability have been admitted also demonstrate the need for a modernized strategy to avoid the after the fact, politicized approach currently in place.

These various decisions and actions have created a maze of potentially conflicting ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ for our national security, intelligence and diplomatic officials. The federal government’s repeated refusal to fight the lawsuits and instead throw its officials under the bus is also dangerous, as it can create a risk aversion culture within these organizations for people who are literally on the front lines of protecting Canadian national security.

So, what’s needed?

First, there needs to be express statutory authorization for defined interactions and information sharing by designated Canadian officials on terrorism cases with international entities. Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale appeared to recognize this need during his recent testimony before committee, which is encouraging.

Second, there should be a statutory approval process in advance, including restrictions and required reporting after the fact. This is a function that specially designated federal court justices could perform. A recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling in a case involving warrantless seizure of internet data confirms that advanced judicial authorization can convert what would otherwise be a Charter breach into a Charter compliant activity. This model needs to be followed.

Targeted amendments to Bill C-59, which is currently before Parliament, could be the vehicle for this result to be achieved.

The fall of ISIS on the battlefield means a likelihood of both returning Canadian jihadis and Canadian jihadis arrested and detained abroad. Accordingly, Canada needs a comprehensive strategy of options for international interactions where Canadians are detained abroad on terrorism investigations or charges. This should include:

· Expanding the use of post-conviction transfers back to Canada under the International Transfer of Offenders Act (used in Omar Khadr case) to allow the imposed sentence to be served in Canada and subject to Canadian law;

· Expanding the possibility of extraditing more people back to Canada for prosecution pursuant to the Extradition Act while concurrently ensuring that admissible evidence for prosecution in Canada can be obtained;

· Establishing a process for Canadians detained abroad to access specially approved Canadian legal counsel to protect detainee’s rights and ensure that statements given to support repatriation are admissible in case resolution on return is achieved; and

· Promoting repatriation of detainees by foreign governments without criminal prosecution in appropriate cases, upon agreement to enter into s. 810.011 supervision orders on return to Canada.

These are complex issues that require an operationally informed proactive strategy that will be effective and Charter compliant. While this won’t be easy, the current government needs to make it a priority because the problems are not going away. And cutting checks is not the answer.

Scott Newark is a former Alberta Crown Prosecutor who has also served as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, Vice Chair of the Ontario Office for Victims of Crime, Director of Operations for Investigative Project on Terrorism and as a Security Policy Advisor to the governments of Ontario and Canada. He is currently an Adjunct Professor in the TRSS Program in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University

Canadian Judge in Marital Sexual Assault Case Places Cultural Practices Above the Law

November 8, 2017

Canadian Judge in Marital Sexual Assault Case Places Cultural Practices Above the Law, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Scott Newark, November 8, 2017

The question that now needs to be asked is whether the Provincial Crown (which has jurisdiction) will appeal this decision to confirm that Canadian secular law, which prohibits sexual contact without consent, including for married women, prevails over a cultural or religious practice that mandates a woman’s consent to sex as a condition of marriage.

And will our self-described feminist federal government urge its provincial counterpart to launch this important appeal with the full support of the federal Crown as an intervenor in the case?

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

Thanks to excellent reporting by Andrew Duffy of the Ottawa Citizen, Canadians recently learned of a disturbing decision from Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith that acquitted a man of sexual assault against his former wife because the man and his then-wife believed that their religion and culture entitled him to have sex with her whether she consented or not.

The decision is especially alarming as it is based on a presumption that Canada’s clear criminal law that requires actual consent to sexual contact is somehow superseded by a cultural or religious belief. Further, the ruling undermines specific protections enacted in Canadian law that protect women, including those who are married, from non-consensual sexual contact.

The ruling also ignores the long standing Canadian legal principle that ignorance of the law is not a criminal defense. In summary, the ruling appears to place religious and cultural beliefs above the laws of Canada.

The identities of the people involved are withheld under Canadian law, ironically to protect the victims, but the rationale for the decision is discernible and can be commented on which is what Andrew Duffy’s column carefully did. In essence, the judge concluded that although the sexual contact was done without the wife’s actual consent, the Crown had failed to prove that the accused had the required criminal intent (mens rea) because of the religious cultural belief he possessed.

His wife was a Palestinian Muslim who came to Canada in 1989 with her parents at age 19. Three years later, she entered into an arranged, but not forced, marriage in Gaza with a man who was also a Palestinian Muslim. The newlyweds returned to Canada and started a family.

Justice Smith concluded that both the accused and victim believed that under their religion and culture, the wife was obliged to have sex with her husband when he wanted, regardless of whether she agreed.

“I find that the accused probably had sex with his wife on many occasions without her specific consent,” Smith said, “as both he and she believed that he had the right to do so.”

The incident that was the basis of the charge occurred in 2002. The wife said that her husband grabbed her by the wrist, pulled her onto the couch, pulled down her pants and had sex with her even though she asked him three separate times to stop. She testified that she only learned that this was a crime in Canada in 2013 after the marriage ended and she spoke with police about child access issues when she revealed details of their past marriage. Based on that information, the police laid the sexual assault charge and the Crown Prosecutor’s office agreed it should proceed to trial.

The husband denied the allegations, but the judge expressly said he disbelieved his evidence, while he believed the wife’s evidence who he found credible as a witness who gave straightforward answers. Conversely, he found the accused to be argumentative and evasive as a witness, and he rejected his account as not believable.

The decision is remarkably brief, and it fails to address existing Canadian criminal law which expressly requires consent for sexual contact (s.273.1) and defines circumstances where consent does not exist including:

(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity;

Further, the ruling does not address s. 278 of the Criminal Code which specifically requires sexual consent from a spouse.

The judge does not address or even mention the s.19 ignorance of the law is no excuse issue and simply concluded that the Crown had failed to prove the husband’s criminal intent. So even though he believed the wife, he dismissed the charge against the ex-husband.

The judge seems to have concluded that ignorance of applicable Canadian law, or a belief that a religious or cultural practice supersedes secular criminal law, is a defense to what is the clear crime of sexual assault.

His failure to consider existing relevant Criminal Code provisions is further grounds for an appeal, as ignoring the law is also not acceptable judicial conduct.

The question that now needs to be asked is whether the Provincial Crown (which has jurisdiction) will appeal this decision to confirm that Canadian secular law, which prohibits sexual contact without consent, including for married women, prevails over a cultural or religious practice that mandates a woman’s consent to sex as a condition of marriage.

And will our self-described feminist federal government urge its provincial counterpart to launch this important appeal with the full support of the federal Crown as an intervenor in the case?

Justice Smith made his ruling Oct. 17. That means the attorney general has about a week to lift the cone of silence on this important ruling and announce the filing of an appeal on behalf of the people of Ontario, and indeed Canada, to confirm that the secular law of Canada still applies to all residents of our country.

Scott Newark is a former Alberta Crown Prosecutor who has also served as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, Vice Chair of the Ontario Office for Victims of Crime, Director of Operations for Investigative Project on Terrorism and as a Security Policy Advisor to the governments of Ontario and Canada. He is currently an Adjunct Professor in the TRSS Program in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

Trudeau government to revise Canada’s citizenship test, no longer ban ‘barbaric cultural practices’ or require a job

July 25, 2017

Trudeau government to revise Canada’s citizenship test, no longer ban ‘barbaric cultural practices’ or require a job, American ThinkerThomas Lifson, July 25, 2017

Respecting the human rights of others (unless they are indigenous peoples) is optional!  I wonder how Canada’s homosexuals and Jews feel about this?  Both groups trend progressive.  How many will bite their tongues and go along with the dogma?

Canadians might want to pay attention to Germany, Sweden, Belgium, and other European countries that have welcomed masses of Muslims purporting to be refugees and think carefully about what their government is proposing to do to Canada.

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

Justin Trudeau’s government is redefining what it means to be a Canadian, and in the process, he appears to be opening the door for the Islamization of our northern neighbor.  The Canadian press has obtained a copy of a draft of a new study guide for Canada’s citizenship test, which defines what it means to be  Canadian.

Unsurprisingly, given his progressive inclinations, Justin Trudeau’s government apparently does not want to be judgmental about things like female genital mutilation, honor killings, and the need to get a job if you want to come in and be a Canadian.  Judgmentalism is reserved for the Yankees to the south, apparently.

Respecting treaties with Indigenous Peoples, paying taxes and filling out the census are listed as mandatory obligations of Canadian citizenship in a draft version of a new study guide for the citizenship exam.

The working copy obtained by The Canadian Press suggests the federal government has completely overhauled the book used by prospective Canadians to prepare for the test.

The current “Discover Canada” guide dates back to 2011 when the previous Conservative government did its own overhaul designed to provide more information on Canadian values and history.

Some of the Conservatives’ insertions attracted controversy, including increased detail about the War of 1812 and a warning that certain “barbaric cultural practices,” such as honour killings and female genital mutilation, are crimes in Canada.

Getting rid of both those elements was what former Liberal Immigration Minister John McCallum had in mind when he said early in 2016 that the book was up for a rewrite. But although work has been underway for over a year, there’s no date set for publication of a final version.

In the draft version, the reference to barbaric cultural practices is gone, as is the inclusion of getting a job as one of the responsibilities of citizenship.

The “refugees” overwhelming Western European countries also mostly reject jobs, despite the fact that most are young men of military or working age.  They also tend to reject other elements of integrating and becoming self-sufficient, as Breitbart reported:

The Swedish government has found that only between three and four percent of newly arrived migrants with a poor standard of education have any interest in attending further schooling or training.

The new report, which comes from the Swedish Employment Service, shows that only three to four percent of migrants who have come to Sweden in the last two years have shown interest in attending classes to develop their education.

Annie Rubensson, integration and establishment manager at the Employment Service said that the figures could greatly impact migrants chances of employment Sveriges Radioreports.

“This means that their chances of getting a job drops significantly,” Rubensson said adding, “we are working hard to motivate and we will strengthen our efforts in the guidance to inform about what is required in the Swedish labour market.”

The Canadian draft has other things in mind when it discusses requirements of immigrants:

Instead, the proposed new guide breaks down the responsibilities of citizenship into two categories: voluntary and mandatory.

Voluntary responsibilities are listed as respecting the human rights of others, understanding official bilingualism and participating in the political process.

Obeying the law, serving on a jury, paying taxes, filling out the census and respecting treaties with Indigenous Peoples are mandatory.

Respecting the human rights of others (unless they are indigenous peoples) is optional!  I wonder how Canada’s homosexuals and Jews feel about this?  Both groups trend progressive.  How many will bite their tongues and go along with the dogma?

Canadians might want to pay attention to Germany, Sweden, Belgium, and other European countries that have welcomed masses of Muslims purporting to be refugees and think carefully about what their government is proposing to do to Canada.

A Slap in the Face to Democracy: Canada’s “Anti-Islamophobia” Motion

May 9, 2017

A Slap in the Face to Democracy: Canada’s “Anti-Islamophobia” Motion, Gatestone InstituteRuthie Blum, May 9, 2017

(Please see also, Tarek Fatah on M-103: “Replace the word Islamophobia with Islamofascism”. — DM)

“While the NCCM’s open letter does not directly call for Sharia law or the criminalization of criticism of Islam, it does advance the notion that the famously tolerant nation of Canada must set up anti-racism directorates in each province to track instances of Islamophobia, institute a mandatory course on systemic racism for Canadian high school students, and train its police officers to use bias-neutral policing.” — Josh Lieblein, The Daily Caller.

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning… so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies,” wrote Samer Majzoub, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate of the Canadian Muslim Forum — presumably meaning that the next steps are to make it binding.

“The objective of Jihad… warrants that one must struggle against Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (polytheism) and the worship of falsehood in all its forms. Jihad has to continue until this objective is achieved.” — ICNA Canada website.

Growing concern in Canada over liberal policies benefitting Muslim extremists sheds light on why an “anti-Islamophobia” bill — proposed in the wake of the deadly January 17 Quebec City mosque attack and approved by parliament on March 23 — spurred such heated controversy there.

Motion 103, tabled by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid, a Muslim representing Mississauga-Erin Mills, calls on the Canadian government to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” Because the bill makes no mention of any other religious group targeted by bigots, it was opposed by most Conservative Party politicians and a majority of the public.

Ahead of what would turn out to be a 201-91 vote in favor of the motion, a petition was circulated asking MPs not to support it. According to the petition, Motion 103 would “lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of Canada.”

The petition further stated:

“…criticism of Islam would constitute a speech crime in Canada.

“This motion uses the term ‘islamophobia’ without defining it, and without substantiating that there is in fact any such widespread problem in Canada.

“This will lead to ideologically-driven overreach and enforcement against alternative points of view—including mature, reasoned criticisms of Islam.

  • “Criticism of the treatment of women in Islamic-majority Middle Eastern countries could be criminalized;
  • “It could be a punishable offense to speak out against the Mustlim Brotherhood, or to denounce radical Imams who want to enact Sharia law in Canada;
  • “Criticism or depiction of Muhammad could be punishable by law;
  • “Schools that teach the history of Islam’s violent conquests could be fined—or worse.

“That kind of content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory censorship is unacceptable in a Western liberal democracy.”

Meanwhile, citizens bemoaning what they view as the increasing radicalization of Muslim communities in Canada, due largely to the unfettered immigration policies of the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, took to the streets of Toronto, Ottawa and other cities to denounce the bill. This response took place in spite of its being non-binding.

A closer look at Motion 103’s initiator, supporters and other respected Muslim figures in Canada, however, indicates that there is cause for worry.

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies,” wrote Samer Majzoub, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate of the Canadian Muslim Forum — presumably meaning that the next steps are to make it binding.

According to Islamist Watch’s Josh Lieblein, writing in The Daily Caller:

” …Khalid is a former President of York University’s Muslim Students Association, a student group with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, Omar Alghabra is a former director of the Canadian Arab Federation, an association that has published statements in support of terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

“M103’s supporters in the Muslim community have questionable ties of their own. It has been reported that Samer Majzoub was the manager of a Montreal private school that received a $70,761 donation from the Kuwait embassy, while the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) – formerly the Canadian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Council on American-Islamic Relationspublished an open letter linking M103 to a wide-ranging campaign aimed at reducing systemic racism and Islamophobia in Canada.

“While the NCCM’s open letter does not directly call for Sharia law or the criminalization of criticism of Islam, it does advance the notion that the famously tolerant nation of Canada must set up anti-racism directorates in each province to track instances of Islamophobia, institute a mandatory course on systemic racism for Canadian high school students, and train its police officers to use bias-neutral policing.”

This attempt to turn free speech on its head in Canada is in keeping with the teachings of the country’s top Muslim cleric, Iqbal Al-Nadvi, chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, president of the Canadian branch of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim chaplain of the Canadian army.

ICNA is an organization that strives “to build an Exemplary Canadian Muslim Community” by “total submission to Him [Allah] and through the propagation of true and universal message of Islam,” according to Jonathan D. Halevi.

Al-Nadvi, he pointed out, has openly quoted the Islamic Prophet Muhammed asserting, “Jihad will continue till the Day of Judgment.”

Canada’s top Muslim cleric, Iqbal Al-Nadvi, who is chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, president of the Canadian branch of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim chaplain of the Canadian army, has openly quoted the Islamic Prophet Muhammed asserting, “Jihad will continue till the Day of Judgment.” (Image source: ICNA video screenshot)

ICNA Canada’s website states:

“The objective of Jihad… warrants that one must struggle against Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (polytheism) and the worship of falsehood in all its forms. Jihad has to continue until this objective is achieved.”

In a piece for Gatestone Institute last October, Canadian terrorism expert Thomas Quiggin pointed to the enabling of, and contribution to, the rise of Islamic radicalism by Prime Minister Trudeau himself. According to Quiggin, Trudeau lauded a mosque in Ottawa, whose imam is part of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, an organization that was placed on the United Arab Emirates list of designated terrorist organizations in 2014. Trudeau called the mosque a shining example of “diversity… within the Muslim community in Canada.”

Two months later, during the days prior to and following the Quebec City mosque attack, a survey revealed that more than half of the citizens of Canada and Quebec consider the presence of Muslims to be a security concern. An even greater majority said they support some form of vetting of immigrants to test their appreciation for Canadian values, and believe that immigrants should integrate into and adopt Canadian culture once they settle in the country.

In this context, the passage by the Canadian Liberal Party establishment of Motion 103, pushed and backed by influential Muslims with radical records, was a slap in the face to democracy — just as its opponents have been claiming.

Landlord ordered to pay Muslim tenants $12k for failing to accommodate their religious practices

April 28, 2017

Landlord ordered to pay Muslim tenants $12k for failing to accommodate their religious practices, CIJ News, Ilana Shneider, April 27, 2017

Muslim couple in Toronto. Photo: CIJnew

An adjudicator with the Human Rights Tribunal awarded a Muslim couple $12,000 because of the couple’s claim that their Christian landlord discriminated against them based on their creed, failed to accommodate their religious practices and harassed them by creating a “poisoned housing environment”.

Over the course of two days, the Tribunal’s adjudicator, Jo-Anne Pickel, heard testimony from both sides, and on April 19, 2017, she ruled that the landlord, John Alabi, must pay $12,000 to Walid Madkour and Heba Ismail. In addition, the landlord must take the e-learning module on the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s website called “Human Rights in Rental Housing”.

The tenants had originally asked for $20,000. The landlord denied any discrimination.

Background:

The couple, who immigrated from Egypt to Montreal and later to Toronto, and who identify as Arab Muslims, testified that they practice their religion by praying five times a day. According to the husband, the prayers take between 7-10 minutes if he prays alone and up to 15 minutes if he prays with his wife. The couple prayed in the bedroom of the apartment they rented from the landlord because the bedroom was the cleanest room in the apartment. According to the couple, it is important to pray in a clean area that is free of any contamination, including any discharge from humans or animals.

According to the wife, a person cannot be absolutely certain that he or she did not step on discharge from animals or humans while walking outside. For this reason, according to the couple, practicing Muslims must remove their footwear when they pray.

The couple also testified that if someone interrupts their prayers, they lose focus and their prayers are “damaged”. The wife also said that if she was not at home or near a mosque, she would pray in her car as she always carried her prayer mat with her.

The wife, who has been wearing a hijab for approximately 20 years (since she was 13 years old), believes that she has the religious obligation to cover her hair and body in certain circumstances and that a woman should not be seen with her body or hair uncovered by men who are not blood relatives or their husbands.

The couple, who moved to Toronto in December, 2014, rented an apartment from the landlord, which was located in the same house where he lives. Approximately two months later, in February of 2015, after several disputes over apartment temperature, use of the internet, and the couple’s request for a quiet environment after 10 p.m., the landlord terminated the couple’s lease by mutual agreement and notified the couple that he will begin showing the apartment to prospective tenants after giving them notice 24 hours in advance, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The husband then requested an additional “heads up” an hour before the showing in case he and his wife were “sleeping or whatever” and when the landlord replied that he had the right to show the apartment any time between 8 am and 8 pm, the husband replied that the landlord knew he and his wife were Muslim and had certain rules concerning what women wear.

The husband informed the landlord that if he came to show the apartment, he would need to wait at the door until the couple “got prepared”, and if there were any problems, the police would be the couple’s “last resort for such racism and violation of our civil rights”, to which the landlord texted: “Welcome to Ontario Canada”.

The wife testified that on January 29, 2015 she heard someone making a loud noise by pounding a shovel outside her apartment for about 15 to 20 minutes. She said she became scared because the landlord had never shoveled snow outside the apartment door before. The husband called the police because he was “concerned about the situation”. The police mediated the situation and the parties agreed that as a “courtesy”, the landlord will send the husband a text message 5 minutes before a showing, in addition to the 24-hour notice required under the Act.

On February 6, 2015, the husband added another element to the request for the second notice: he told the landlord that the couple prayed four times during the day, that each prayer took between 8 to 10 minutes, and that was one of the reasons he needed notice shortly before the viewing.

After a two-day testimony, the adjudicator ruled that:

  • The landlord failed to provide notice in addition to the 24-hour notice required under the Act before entering the apartment with prospective tenants, in order to enable the couple to finish their prayers. The adjudicator felt that the landlord’s refusal to provide notice other than the statutory notice had an “adverse effect” on the couple and “discriminated against the applicants on the basis of creed”.
  • The landlord made the couple feel “uncomfortable” and demonstrated religious discrimination when he failed to remove his shoes in the couple’s apartment after the couple explained to the adjudicator that “if someone wore outdoor shoes in their prayer space, they would have to wash the space several times to cleanse it”.
  • The landlord failed to notify the couple by text shortly before showing the apartment to prospective tenants, even though the couple had explained to him the reason for the requesting the second notice is because they pray at the apartment four times each day and each prayer takes between 8-10 minutes.
  • The landlord made “loud pounding” noises when shovelling snow outside, which the adjudicator felt were “at least partially related to the applicants’ request for accommodation”.
  • The landlord’s “Welcome to Ontario, Canada” text offended the couple. Even though the landlord explained that the comment was made in a completely different context, namely the difference between landlord and tenant law in Ontario and Quebec (where the couple lived prior to moving to Ontario), the adjudicator found that by including the word “Canada” in the text, the landlord was at least in part communicating to the couple that somehow they would have to adjust their religious practices or expectations regarding accommodation request. The adjudicator found the “Ontario, Canada” comment to be “linked to the applicants’ creed and/or place of origin”.
  • The couple wanted to admit into evidence a joke about a devout Arab Muslim which the landlord shared on his Facebook page. Even though the landlord explained that the only reason he shared the joke was because he found it funny, the Tribunal adjudicator felt it was “relevant to discerning his views on religiously-based accommodation requests by Muslims”.

According to the adjudicator, the tenants were “merely making simple requests for the accommodation of their religious practices” and did not attempt to “impose their way of life” on the landlord.

She accepted the couple’s claims that they felt “humiliated, disrespected and insulted” by the landlord’s actions, and the husband experienced “stress, loss of appetite and tiredness” because living in the apartment was “like living in a nightmare”.

The adjudicator took into consideration the wife’s claim that she was intimidated by the landlord’s “general demeanor”, such as failing to take off his outdoor shoes in their apartment.

She generally found the couple to be “more credible” than the landlord and preferred the couple’s evidence over the landlord’s due to inconsistencies of his evidence.

The adjudicator felt that the couple have a “sincere belief that women must wear modest attire around men who are not blood relatives or their husbands” and their special accommodation requests were sincere.

The couple were awarded $12,000 as compensation “for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.