How is it that the branch office of a group a US court found participated in funding terror isn't linked to terror?

The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) is the Canadian branch office of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, a group was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Terror financing trial, that secured multiple convictions.

From NCCM's website

NCCM is threatening to sue Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his spokesman Jason MacDonald for libel when the latter referred to them with: "We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas."

As noted in Robert Sibley's blog at Ottawa Citizen: "In 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge A. Solis ruled that there was “ample evidence”: that CAIR participated in a “criminal conspiracy” led by the Holy Land Foundation, which was Hamas’s key fundraising agency in the United States."

So perhaps someone could explain how that is not a link to the terrorist group Hamas, because to me the link seems rather obvious.

Formerly known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations - Canada (CAIR-CAN), as of today, the NCCM still redirects visitors to its website back to its old CAIR-CAN site. CAIR-CAN leaders have denied an operational link between it and the US home office. But as Sibley recounts from research done by the Quebec-based blog Point de Bascule:

In 2003, (former CAIR-CAN leader Sheema) Khan swore an affidavit for the Ontario Supreme Court in connection with a trademark dispute. In the affidavit Khan, (former CSIS Straegic Planning Head David) Harris testified, “states categorically that CAIR-CAN is under the direction and control of the American CAIR organization.” Moreover, Khan, while a senior official of CAIR-CAN, also served on the board of CAIR.

Furthermore, one of CAIR-CAN's long-serving Board members was the notorious Jamal Badawi, who as of today is still listed as a Board member on the CAIR-CAN website.  An Egyptian-born Muslim cleric and former professor at St. Mary's University in Halifax, Badawi was listed on The Muslim Brotherhood's shura council in a document entered as evidence in the Holy Land Terror Trial.  Badawi has endorsed suicide bombings and according to investigative journalist Patrick Poole, "was a featured speaker at a conference in Qatar honoring Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi, where Badawi shared the speaker’s podium with Khaled Mishaal, the head of Hamas and a designated terrorist by both the U.S. and Canada."

Terror-supporter Badawi is still
listed on CAIR-CAN's Board

Poole also reports that Badawi "sits on the board of directors of Qaradawi’s International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS), which just a few months after its founding in 2004 issued a fatwa authorizing the killing of American troops in Iraq."

The NCCM and its media cheering-section like The Toronto Star are trotting out supporters for the Muslim group including virtually unknown organizations like The Canadian Association of Jews and Muslims (CAJM). The idea of friendship between religious groups is as laudable as the idea that Jews and Muslims in Canada should be divided over government foreign policy is tragic. However there is a certain type of ostrich-like idiocy that certain self-described progressives will engage in so that they can deny some harsh realities, and CAJM's co-chair Barbara Landau is part of that sad strain.

In 2012, Landau was a judge at the North American Muslim Foundation's speech competition on the topic of  "anti-Semitism and Islamophobia." One observer, Sarah Margles, a member of a "progressive" synagogue that participated as observers of the contest, reported on a blog post that she has since deleted (but was recorded by the blog Sassy Wire):

 "Almost all the speeches were misguided about anti-Semitism. Most of them said it was something that happened in the Holocaust but has ended. The most egregious speech quoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if it were true. Many talked about Jewish money and power."

Despite two attempts to reach her for comment following exposure of the incident, Landau would not respond to discuss the matter with me.

In certain quarters of Islamist communities, anti-Semitism is so ingrained that even when professing to oppose it, they invoke anti-Semitc canards. The response of people who have been programmed to think they are "progressive" is to negate of deny that any group that claims to be "oppressed" can commit a wrong. Instead, like bizarre groups like "Queers Against Israeli Apartheid" which makes common cause with Islamists who would happily see them stoned to death because of their sexual orientation, "progressive" Jews frequently serve as enablers to extremists who have cheered on those who would commit a genocide against Jews in Israel.

Canadians who detest Stephen Harper, both in politics and the media,  who boast about being "progressive" will leap upon any excuse to demonize the Prime Minister and his government.  Many, without knowing any of the details of the NCCM's background, have instinctively sided with the Muslim group in hope the matter will embarrass Stephen Harper. What is more likely is that people siding with NCCM will embarrass themselves.

In March, the NCCM is having a $200-a-seat fundraiser featuring the American-Iranian writer Reza Aslan.  Only a few days ago, Aslan insinuated the beautiful Hollywood movie star Scarlett Johansson was the equivalent of a Nazi supporter for being the spokesperson for the Israeli soft drink maker SodaStream.

Anyone who thinks that aligning themselves with a the local branch of a co-conspirator in Hamas terror-funding and people who promote extremist, bigoted hate and invective could find that the backfire taints them for a very long time.

More conspiracy theory lunacy from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education's new "Social Justice" Chair

If you pay attention, you'll notice a pattern to the way that concepts are frequently expressed by Marxist ideologues such as Abigail Bakan, the new "Social Justice" Department Chair at University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

A supposed maxim will be forwarded based not on verifiable facts, but on opinions rooted in antiquated, Marxist axioms. Then, to "prove" it,  few if any actual supporting facts will be offered. Instead you will hear quotations of the unsubstantiated opinions of people who share the same views as her.

For example, to prove that Israel is an "apartheid state" she may offer that Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter consider Israel is an "apartheid" state.

Forget for a moment Jimmy Carter having expressly said there is nothing resembling apartheid in Israel proper, or that Tutu holds weird, somewhat anti-Semitic views and his outlook on Israel is shaped by factors other than that nation's actual policies.

According to Ms Bakan's dysfunctional logical processes, one has to accept that that something means whatever Desmond Tutu says it means. But then, naturally, only on those occasions when Tutu's opinions align with those of Abigail Bakan and whatever the current Marxist zeitgeist allows.

If this resembles a description of the way conspiracy theorists look at everything, there's good reason for it. Abigail Bakan is a conspiracy theorist; one who makes a living promoting a fallacious, ridiculous,and malign version of global events.

In a speech she made at Lakehead University that was loaded with uniformed, paranoid assertions predicated on her own extremist ideological prejudices, she discussed, among other matters, the primary campaign of Jesse Jackson in the 1980's.

As an example of the power of the dreaded American capitalist elite, she offered that Jackson "ran for President in 1984 and 1988 and at that point his presidency (sic) was withdrawn on the grounds that the Democratic Party would likely split if they put forward a black American candidate. That the party itself couldn't tolerate that type of, just visible diversity. So racism interacts with capitalism..."

Anyone who was an adult while Jesse Jackson ran for the Democratic Party nomination will be aware of a very different reality than the one claimed by OISE's Social Justice Chair Bakan.

Jesse Jackson did well in early primaries and caucuses. But he was eventually defeated not by an elite who forced him out because of a racist conspiracy, but the rather straightforward fact that Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis eventually trounced Jackson in open, democratic primary voting and gained enough delegates to win his party's presidential nomination. Among the other candidates Dukakis defeated for the 1988 nomination were Al Gore and Joe Biden.

The fact that the Democrats hadn't named a presidential nominee who never held elected office, such as Jackson, since 1904 when Alton Parker was defeated by Teddy Roosevelt, may have escaped her attention. Or perhaps it's a result of an inability to process information that doesn't coincide with her conspiratorial obsessions.

Whatever the reason, university students, the bulk of whom were not even born when the father of George W. Bush defeated Dukakis for the presidency and whose knowledge of American history is minimal, could easily unquestioningly accept the twisted interpretation put forward by an authority figure like Bakan.

Imagine a generation of students being guided by Abigail Bakan, who is on the editorial board of a website called The Canadian Charger that routinely publishes demented 9-11conspiracy theories.

In Ms Bakan's deranged, conspiracy riddled outlook, the election of Barack Obama was the means by which the ruling capitalist elites planed to replace racism against African Americans with "Islamophobia."  In Ms Bakan's mind, the magazine The Economist exists to provide a discourse by elites "maintaining and sustaining American and global imperialism."

Her lunatic assertions are too long to list, but you get the idea.

The world may be terrifying if one believes the idiocies fostered by Ms Bakan. But what should be even more terrifying is that the University of Toronto has given her a substantial platform to proselytize those idiocies as dogma to impressionable students.

Femen leader chosen as inspiration for French stamp - Islamic outrage ensues

Only two days after Femen movement leader Inna Shevchenko was chosen as one of the inspirations for France's new official stamp, the controversial Ukrainian activist, known for her topless protests has sparked an outcry on Twitter for a July 9 tweet where she slams the holy month of Ramadan and Islam. 

The tweet in question was discovered on July 16, a day after Shevchenko was chosen as the first foreign woman to represent the incarnation of Marianne, one of France's national emblems.

On July 9, Shevchenko tweeted: "What can be more stupid than Ramadan? What can be more uglier then [sic] this religion?"

Islamists upset with topless feminists of Femen

The values of Islam and those of the western world are in many ways in stark conflict with each other.

It explains a lot of why contemporary Islamists and Marxists often make common cause. Both have disdain for individual rights and freedoms, no respect for free speech (other than their own), and of course there's the whole 'killing people who don't agree with you' thing, of which those two totalitarian ideologies have long and storied histories.

In fairness, Islam isn't the only religion to have gone through such a phase. Christianity was much the same during the Middle Ages. But of concern is the fact that Islamists today are behaving the way The Inquisition did five hundred years ago.

If criticism of the totalitarian aspects of Islam is "Islamophobia", then Islamophobia is going to be a growth industry. But like Nazism and Marxism, Islamism is going to have its advocates. What makes Islamists particularly disgusting is the way they claim to be victims when they are criticized for seeking out and victimizing innocent people.

A "Muslim feminist," if that isn't too much of an oxymoron to grasp, has written a condemnation of the theatrical and rather ridiculous feminist group Femen. There is much to criticize Femen about in the idiotic way they behave during their protests, but the issues they address are legitimate concerns about women's rights. And nowhere are women's rights given less status than in countries ruled by Islamic law.

Hajer Nali's article Femen's Islam-Bashing Disregards Muslim Feminism in Women's Enews makes the disingenuous apologies for Islamism under the guise of "Muslim feminism" all the more apparent. Tunisian Islamists have called for the death of Tunisian Femen activist Amina Tyler for posting a topless picture of herself with "My body in mine, nobody's honor" written on her torso. What stood out in Nali's article about this was her comment, "Extremists called for her to be stoned to death, which is condemnable."   

Those last three words are indicative of Islamists' perfidy; "which is condemnible." In civilized countries, we don't need to make a special point that it is wrong to want to stone a women to death, particularly just for posting a topless picture of herself with a slogan asserting her own rights.

Why would Ms Nali feel compelled to add that, especially in a western publication?

Did she want to reinforce that, unlike other Muslim feminists who thought it was fine to stone Amina Tyler to death for her topless statement, she didn't agree with that sentiment? Was it to instruct those of us, or perhaps her co-religionists, who want to kill Tyler that we should not? Or was it an insincere but perfunctory nod to western, liberal sensibilities?

What is more of concern is that in a publication in a country where Sharia Law is practiced, "which is condemnible"  would likely be replaced by ":which is demanded by the honor of Islam, and should be carried out immediately."

That is something we should be afraid of, and we should do everything in our power to prevent from spreading over here.

More than a year after his death, Communist idiots are still infuriated Christopher Hitchens turned his back on them

From a review of The Trial of Christopher Hitchens in the moronic, neo-Marxist website rabble.ca, published by the same-sex spouse of NDP Deputy Leader Libby Davies:

Immediately after the September 11 attacks, he spoke of caution, of not veering into overreaction, yet soon he was picking fights with anyone who dared question U.S. reaction or even contextualize the attacks as "Anti-American" or worse. His early smears of Noam Chomsky and many others allowed for the entry -- even into some quarters of the Left for a short time -- of talk of loyalty and patriotism.

Hitchens became the patron saint of what some came to call "The Decent Left," those who signed the "Euston Manifesto."  Seymour’s first book, The Liberal Defence of Murder, gives a history and analysis of this tendency, and is well worth the read.  But Hitchens went far beyond even the "decent left" in his calls for civilizational warfare, his shocking and even genocidal Islamophobia (stating that he refused to share a planet with this "enemy"), even, tragically, his disavowal of his early and stalwart anti-Zionism.

The review is peppered with the predictable vapid Marxist jargon; reactionary, comrades,  revolutionary socialism, McCarthyist and so on...

It reeks of the unintentionally self-parodying, hysterical outrage that only a stupid western Marxist could muster.

The "Victimology" Subterfuge

To question or discuss Islam, or any religion, is not racism, it is not hate, it is not necessarily meant to "victimize" anyone. One is often left with the impression that if anyone ever felt that Mohammed, or Islam, even might have been insulted, no freedom-loving person can expect to be left in peace ever again. Canada and the West need to declare and defend a pluralistic, democratic approach to rights and freedoms without any shame, and without fear of offending anyone who might try to intimidate their citizens.

Islamists, who have, like many others, found ways of influencing Western democracies, have refined one process in particular, called al Taqiyya [dissimulation], sanctioned to promote Islam to "unbelievers" or "infidels," if and when considered necessary. The word "Islamophobia," for instance, has been disguised and misused so frequently that when Westerners merely question Islam, or its role in terrorism, they risk being branded as "Islamophobes" or "racists." The term "victimology," in which Islamists perpetually portray Muslims as victims of racism or of "colonialists" or "imperialists," has also generated impressive results in vanquishing the infidel, and providing Islam an immunity from criticism and satirical depictions. As a result, whenever the subject about Islam is raised, open dialogue, media and public discourse are restricted or shut down out of fear of being branded "Islamophobic" or "racist," even where no such sentiments may have been present. No other religion even attempts to obtain such blanket immunity.

More at Gatestone Institute's website

Phyllis Chesler: The Marxist Mission to Destroy Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The feminism I once championed — and still do — was first taken over by Marxists and subsequently “Stalinized.” It was then conquered again by Islamists and “Palestinianized.” I and a handful of others maintained honorable minority positions on a host of issues. In time, women no longer mattered as much to many feminists — at least, not as much as Edward Said’s Arab men of color did. The Arab men were more fashionable victims who had not only been formerly “colonized” but who, to this day, are still being “occupied” by allegedly “apartheid”–intentioned Jews.

While most of my generation of feminists have long ago retired, died, fallen ill, or have continued to rest visibly on their own earliest laurels, I continue to champion universalist values and to resist the death-grip of multicultural relativism.

But my cohort have influenced the media. Thus, I am not at all surprised to see that Deborah Scroggins has just written a book titled Wanted Women: Faith, Lies, and the War on Terror: The Lives of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Aafiya Siddiqui. Truly, she has got to be kidding. Alas, I am afraid that she is serious.

The rest of Chesler's review is at PJ Media

Here is the link to the New York Times review of Scroggins' mindless screed.  Even the reviewer, who seems to buy in to Scroggin's vapid central premise that anyone opposed to radical Islam is a bigot, realizes that the biographer sounds somewhat demented for demonstrating sympathies to an aspirant mass-murderer while reviling a peaceful intellectual. But language is always a good indicator of thought and the Times' reviewer Dwight Garner betrays his thinking by using the term "genital cutting." What he really means is Islamic-influenced genital mutilation, but uses the politically correct terminology because "mutilation" suggests a value judgement that discriminates against those Muslims who think their daughters' clitorises should be chopped off so that they are less likely to be promiscuous.

Sort of like those people who, for the same reason, are afraid to call Honor Killings "barbaric cultural practices."

h/t Dodo Can Spell

Michael Coren: Canada is not Switzerland

So why is it some Canadians want to emasculate our military, pretend we are not who we are, and create this revised, foolish history of the country as a North American Switzerland, sitting out conflicts no matter how obvious the necessity of intervention?

It is not because they want peace and pacifism; it is because they want neutrality and, ultimately, the triumph of our enemies.

We saw this during the Cold War when, in the guise of peacefulness, various fellow travellers and leftist agitators actually wanted the Soviets to dominate.

Today we see something similar in the struggle against Islamofascism.

From special interest groups, to writers at the Toronto Star, to commentators on the CBC, we are drenched by waves of anti-American propaganda, explaining the war on terror is a costly failure, and we should be the honest broker in all this and not take sides.

If only we understood Islam, we are told by patronizing dullards, all would become clear.

Well, I do understand Islam, and the Middle East, and unlike these extremists I also understand the U.S.

It’s not about Canada taking sides, it’s about Canada being Canada.

The whole article is at The Sun

Human Rights Commissions push for "deeper equality" translates to the eradication of Canadian culture

"Women should be able to wear whatever they want and men should shut up about it" was  the line that got the most applause at the public consultation on Human Rights and the Law held by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the University of Toronto on Wednesday evening. But the irony was that despite the feminist overtones of the statement, Winnifred Sullivan, the  Director of the Law, Religion, and Culture at the State University of New York seemed to be alluding to women's right to wear hijabs, niqabs and face veils during citizenship oaths -garments used to subjugate and de-sexualize women.

And this outspoken advocacy for cultural diversity rights by feminists seemed confined to the interests of immigrants in the west, since there is no commensurate movement by them to fight for the rights of women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan to wear mini skirts or appear in public without a hijab. This is essence is the direction that Human Rights Commissions in Canada are pushing towards, a cultural relativism they describe as "deeper equality" which would eradicate the last vestiges of the traditions that built the institutions and laws that gave birth to western tolerance and freedoms.

One of the night's speakers, David Seljak, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Waterloo reminded the audience that Canada is a secular society with elements of the Christian traditions that the country was founded upon, such as a seven day work week and Christian public holidays like Christmas and Good Friday. The implied goal of a deeply equal society would be to eliminate such traditions so that newcomers who are altering Canadian demographics have a greater stake in society.

What was not discussed during the evening, moderated by Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Barbara Hall, were the failings of multiculturalism.The opposite was true. Professor Seljak barely concealed his disdain for the Canadian government's efforts to retain elements of the national culture by restricting alien garb in certain situations, such as niqabs in voting booths and criminal trials.

When westerners go to eastern countries with the expectation that the natives would allow and adapt to our cultural practices, it was usually proceeded by a military conquest and came in the form of imperialism and colonialism that the "progressives" in our society despise. Yet they are enthusiastic supporters of a reverse form of cultural imperialism that lets foreigners come to Canada and expect the majority culture to change to accommodate the minority.

There is a big difference between tolerance and restructuring. It doesn't harm Canadians or diminish Canadian traditions to allow a Muslim woman to wear a hijab or a Sikh to wear a Turban, or to let someone take a vacation day on their religious holiday. But advocates for the idea that no culture is superior to another are following through with its corollary; that our culture therefore is not special nor is it particularly worth preserving.

Millions of Canadians who remain oblivious to what Human Rights Commissions want to accomplish in this area would be deeply disturbed by the cultural suicide they want us to commit in the name of Deeper Equality. Another irony is that the people who are so willing to abandon to cultures that bear little resemblance to Canada's have been so anxious to protect it from infusions of American culture, from which ours is almost indistinguishable.

America was on the minds of a few people at Wednesday's consultation. Ali Mallah, a former Canadian Arab Federation, NDP and CUPE vice president and a fixture at anti-Israel protests who is a vocal supporter of terrorist groups like Hezbollah, was there, his unkempt appearance making him  look like a caricature of a union goon.  Speaking in a heavily accented, lisping voice, he got up to make a speech in which he pompously pontificated about  Canadians "occupying native land." Mallah was obviously more interested in the appearence of, rather than genuine, empathy for "occupied" Natives. Since unlike those of us who were born in Canada, Mallah traveled here as an adult from half way around the world to become a Canadian occupying native land, and to the best of my knowledge, hasn't given any back to them. He railed against the Islamophobia of "right-wing Christians" in the United States whom he compared to being "equal in hate to bin Laden." Mallah failed to note any right-wing Christians beheading apostates in America or strapping explosives to themselves to murder scores of heathen children, but those are mere details.

Rather than reaffirm Mallah's paranoia and hyperbole about Islamophobia, panelist Sullivan indeed corrected him. She pointed out that it wasn't just the right wing, but all segments of American society that are Islamophobic. Take that Ali, that'll teach you to bad mouth the "right wingers."

There was one question in the Q & A at the end of the night that stymied the panelists. In fact, it seemed to send their brains into a tizzy the way that a logical contradiction on the old Star Trek TV show caused a computer to overload. They refused to answer when I asked how Human Rights Commissions dealing with religious tolerance can deal with intolerant religious practices that promote the subjugation of women and the persecution of Gays. They were rendered speechless at having to contend with the idea of an oppressed group trampling on the legitimate rights of other people.

Unless Canadians are willing to participate in their democracy and speak out against the destruction of Canadian vales and traditions, having their rights trampled on is something we may see more and more of in the near future.

Harper condemns attacks on Gatineau Mosque

A Gatineau mosque bore the scars of hateful graffiti this morning after its facade was spray painted with Stars of David and offensive anti-Arab and Muslim messages and cars were smashed in the facility's parking lot.  This is only the most trecent in a spate of such attacks in that area.

Prime Minister Harper and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center of Canada both condemned the anti-Muslim and racist vandalism.

This deplorable act reflects an unusual new chapter in senseless racist symbolism. Racially motivated vandals paint emblems representing something their victims would find offensive or ones that identify them for targeting. In the early days of Hitler's Germany before the destruction switched from property to people, Jewish stores were painted with swastikas to offend and Stars of David to identify.

During the current upheavals in the Arab world, various sides paint Stars of David on depictions of their enemies. In Egypt and Libya respectively, opposition parties showed pictures of Hosni Mubarak and Mouamar Gaddafi with Jewish stars drawn on them. The implication being that being a Jew or allied with Jews is the most offensive thing that can be said about a Muslim.

And now we're seeing it here in Canada.

Islamist website Canadian Charger reports North American Muslim Foundation Director has never heard of Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia

"Mr. Levant cites comments by Imam Abdullah Hakim Quick – an honoured guest in a recent series of lectures at NAMF – as an example of extremist views being propagated by NAMF.

Mr. Khan agrees that Imam Quick said that Islam's position on homosexuality is that they should be put to death, but Mr. Khan said Imam Quick's remarks were taken out of context. He said he was responding to a question as to what would be the punishment in an Islamic state, and Mr. Khan added that there are no Islamic states in the world today. "

The excerpt above is from Islamist, 9-11 conspiracist website, The Canadian Charger, founded by former Canadian Islamic Congress President Mohamed Elmasry, that was contained in an article meant to slam author and Sun TV host, Ezra Levant.

In the Canadian Charger report titled, Ezra Levant smears Islam and Muslims, North American Muslim Foundation Director Farooq Khan was attempting to deny Levant's accusation that his organization spreads hate. If The Canadian Charger's account is accurate, then it not only confirmed Levant's contention, but made Khan look like a disingenuous ignoramus in the process.

One of the good things about telling the truth is that you don't have to keep track of your lies.

Anyone who reads a newspaper knows that there indeed are Islamic states in the world today. They even have "Islamic" in their countries' official names, such as The Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is bizarre that the director of the NAMF would claim such countries don't exist. But then, anyone with experience with a certain type of arrogance knows that when some people are caught in a difficult situation, they will say anything that pops in their head, no matter how incredible.

But there is something even more insidious about the dishonesty of Farooq Khan and the enablers and apologists at The Canadian Charger, who want to defend hate by trying to label those who expose it as "Islamophobes." The fact is that the state-killing of Gays in Islamic countries is not hypothetical. It is tragically real and ongoing.

Islamic republics and countries where Islamic laws are in place, such as Yemen, Sudan and Saudi Arabia still maintain the death penalty against people whose only crime is their sexual orientation. Iran has executed at least 4000 people for homosexuality since the Khomeini Revolution in 1979.

By lying about and denying the genuine homophobia in Islamic states, The North American Muslim Society and The Canadian Charger not only mangle what little credibility they may have, but perpetuate prejudice against Gays in Muslim communities and Islamic countries by failing to address its reality.



video h/t MuniMula

Suspect arrested in murder of Hamilton Head Shop Owner: Iran attributes murder to wave of Canadian Islamophobia

In May of last year, Elham Dashtirahmatabadi, was found critically injured inside High Times — a book, Internet and drug paraphernalia store she owned with her husband at 187 King St. E. — by a police officer who was flagged down by two customers.

Her death from the injuries was ruled a homicide.

A suspect was arrested for this crime recently which, along with the murders of two other Iranian nationals, is attributed by Iran's state-controlled  media as part of  "a new wave of Islamophobia" in Canada.

It's a rather unusual claim, given that the suspects in one of those murders were Arabs, but not atypical of the irrational Iranian press.