The veil drops at a meeting of Toronto`s "pro-Palestine" communists, Islamists and Jew-haters

The website Veterans Today and Iran's English-language propaganda service PRESS TV share many things in common. Among them are Holocaust-denial, a penchant for 9-11 conspiracy theories suggesting mental instability, hatred of both Jews and Israel, and a detestation of western civilization.

Eric Walberg

No credible person would allow him or herself to be closely associated with either, so it's no wonder that they both use the same correspondents, including Canada's own lunatic conspiracy theorist Joshua Blakeney, as well as the pro-Islamist creep Eric Walberg.

Toronto's Beit Zatoun, a meeting-place for Marxist, Islamist and anti-Israel cretins operating under the facade of "pro-Palestinian" activism is hosting Walberg tonight. The event is being promoted by the neo-Marxist website rabble.ca, which is published by the spouse of federal NDP Deputy Leader Libby Davies.

Walberg is a hateful 9-11 conspiracy nut who has declared: "Secular Judaism and Christianity either need to self-destruct and rebuild, or disillusioned people from those traditions can embrace Islam. (Norwegian mass-murderer) Breivik and his neocon friends know this deep down. But just as Communism was not an external threat neither is Islam. They both are only threats because they stood/ stand as a beacon of hope for the disillusioned. " and "“we are all Jews now”, i.e., all worshippers of Mammon, promoters of the ego/ self."

Western leftist Israel haters often repeat the lie that it is "Zionism" they want to eliminate but not Jews.

But it doesn't require much looking to see the truth behind the lie they tell.

The Beit Zatoun event tonight will likely only draw the regular small, pathetic assembly of slime that usually frequent the place.

No decent person would go near Beit Zatoun without good reason. But it's important to know what sort of thing goes on there.

UPDATE: Local Khomeinist stooge Zafar Bangash will also be hosting the Jew-hating Walberg at his Islamo-fascist hate hub, the Islamic Society of York Region.

Muslim leader speaks out about Liberal leader Justin Trudeau consorting with Islamists

Salim Ahmad: The problem can be summarized very simply. Justin Trudeau was consorting with those who seek the destruction of Western civilization as a long-term goal of international Islamism, as reflected in the works of Syed Qutb of the Arab Muslim Brotherhood and Syed Maududi in the Indo-Pakistani Jamaat-e-Islami.

Can you imagine Canadian Prime Minister Diefenbaker visiting the offices of the Communist Party offices during the Cold War when it was seeking the destruction of the West and its socio-economic order? Islamism is, in a way, a far more serious political threat to the West as it hides behind the cover of Islam, camouflages its true agenda behind multiculturalism and deceives even the most wise among the politicians by employing disarming smiles and sporting inter-faith demeanor.

We don't know how Justin Trudeau reacted to our denunciation of his flirtation with the ISNA-Canada. He has surrounded himself with Islamists who have ensured the man has no chance of ever meeting secular or liberal Muslims to hear our perspective without him being surrounded by his Saudi-born advisor.

More HERE

h/t Blazing Cat Fur

What if the German Army had overthrown Hitler in 1934?

The removal of duly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has placed western leaders in a moral and practical quandary.

There are other components to democracy than free elections, but that is the foundation from which all other democratic freedoms spring. Morsi, an Islamist who was the candidate of the despicable Muslim Brotherhood was elected in an election that was deemed to be fair.

But there are other elements for a democracy to be democratic and Morsi has routinely stifled them. Free speech and religious freedoms for non-Muslims, aspects of freedom for which the Muslim Brotherhood has no regard, were trounced upon by Morsi's government.

Though bolstered by support from the foolish and ineffectual administration of US President Obama,  Morsi's slip into acting like a democratically elected dictator made him more popular in The White House than it did in Cairo. Massive nightly demonstrations that exceeded those at the end of the reign of Hosni Mubarak were proof of the popular discontent in Egypt.

So what is the appropriate reaction from the US and other western leaders?

Anti-Morsi demonstrators hold a sign in Cairo

Something to remember when considering that is that elections don't always lead to democracy. The other duly elected Muslim Brotherhood government, that of Hamas in Gaza, proves that once in power, Islamists, like fascists before them, will suspend democracy to retain their power for as long as they can hold on to it by force.

Though the so called "Arab Spring" in Egypt happened in the 21st Century, that country was less prepared for democracy than the American Colonies were more than two centuries earlier.

Institutions that are essential to democracy, like an educated population, a healthy system of rival political parties, a constitution that safeguards rights and an independent judiciary are all democratic facets America had in 1776.  The only political organization that was organized for Egypt's "Arab Spring" was the Muslim Brotherhood, which used mosques and madrassas to force-feed subservience to the faithful in a country that is more than 95% Muslim.  Rural Egyptians welcomed Morsi's tyranny of devout Islamism. That same Islamism was a bludgeon to the cosmopolitan citizens of Cairo who have spent the last weeks protesting en masse.

The embarrassing fall-out of the Egyptian coup is that after decades of the west acting superior and lecturing the Muslim world about democracy, the reality is that both they and we are better off if, in Egypt, it takes a time-out.

Morsi is a maniac who adheres to the murderous Muslim Brotherhood creed. Though we seem hypocrites to welcome his removal, what if the same had happened in Germany in 1934?

Adolf Hitler came to power the year before that in a fair election. The last fair election Germany was to have until after the Second World War and the millions of deaths the results of that election eventually caused.

Certainly there would have been an outcry from some quarters in the west if the German Army, seeing Hitler's insanity, had chosen to remove him the year after he was elected. But millions of innocent lives and untold devastation would have been averted if the Wehrmacht had taken such a bold step.

The difference is that we have the benefit of hindsight that the Germans in the 1930's did not.

There are those in the west who are sympathetic to Islamism and are decrying the Egyptian coup because they make the disingenuous claim it is undoing democracy. The fact is that while Egypt may have had an election, they did not have democracy.

The Egypt's military has shown itself in the past to be a mostly responsible steward of power. Hopefully they will use their time with it now to build those institutions needed for a true Egyptian democracy to emerge in the future.

The Enlightened Islamist, Tariq Ramadan at the University of Toronto

Tariq Ramadan is probably the world's best known living Muslim academic since the death of Edward Said.  Last week, he appeared at the University of Toronto to deliver a lecture on ethics and the role of religion in the public sphere.

Asking for indulgence from the crowd gathered in the fully attended lecture theatre in Northrop Frye Hall, he explained he was a bit disoriented, having just arrived from the airport. It was nonetheless a bit surreal to hear Ramadan spend the first five minutes of his talk discussing how various interpretations of the definition of 'human being' make the concept of his talk difficult. It would have more logical to speak of the varying ways people define what is "ethical.," But Ramadan is a philosopher,  whose field of study seeks logic and frequently takes a convoluted path to arrive at it, on those few occasions it actually does. In this instance, defining ethics may have been redundant since, as it eventually became clear, Ramadan sees that definition predetermined for each of us based on our religious affiliation.

"Islamism" conjures mental images of enraged Jihadis whose closed minds are filled with violence and hatred.  Tariq Ramadan is the opposite of that stereotype in every conceivable way. He is a soft-spoken, engaging Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University. Emphasizing the need for religious ethics in public life, he referred to the common ethical cores, but also noted differences in the substance of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

The evening could have been a model for the type of multi-faith approach reasonable academics have extolled for ages.

But there were a few ominous hints in Ramadan's speech that suggested Canadian Muslim reformer Tarek Fatah might not have been far off the mark when he called the Oxford professor "a man committed to the goals of the worldwide Islamic jihad as laid out by his mentor, Sheik Qaradawi, and his father, the Trotsky of world Islamism, Said Ramadan.."

Calling for religious values, and the implication being that meant Islamic religious values in particular, to have a greater role in politics and the public sphere, the philosophical groundwork for Sharia Law's being accepted as a facet of Western multiculturalism is the logical extension.

He will have enablers in the media and among liberal academics who shriek and decry whenever a Christian politician talks about faith-based values, yet these same people embrace Ramadan's aim of increasing Islamic influence in the public sphere.

Ramadan didn't discuss that influence in terms of religious practice, but rather in those of "ethics", but as he noted that the term had different meanings within religions and cultures, religious practice is the most likely explanation for the aspiration he expressed.

Saying he didn't want to change Islam, but "the minds of Muslims", Ramadan, while repudiating violence, held on to fundamentalist tropes such as how the hijab, a head covering meant to enforce modesty among Muslim women, could be "freeing" for them.

From the many hijabs in the audience, as well as the number of questions from students discussing their own experiences as Muslims, the crowd appeared to consist mainly of students from U of T's Muslim Students Association, which co-sponsored the talk.

In response to one of those questions, when discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Ramadan, who implied that the fault was one-sided, with all the "injustice" perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians, said it was not a religious conflict but a political one.

While religion is quite obviously a facet of that conflict, there is also a clear hypocrisy at best in the way Ramadan characterizes it.

Why else would the  treatment of the Palestinians be more of a concern to him than the even worse than the "political" discrimination faced by Palestinians in Lebanon? No honest person discussing the issue of Israel/Palestine doubts for a moment that were both Israelis and Palestinians all Muslims and if the conflict were ethnic rather than religious, the Muslim world would care no more about it than they do about the discrimination faced by Kurds in Turkey, Baha'i and Zoroastrians in Iran, and Shia in Saudi Arabia. All these face brutal oppression at the hands of Muslim governments, among many other examples of such Islamic state-sponsored discrimination.

Though he implied otherwise, it is obvious that Ramadan's interest in the Palestinians is that of a Muslim promoting Muslim interests.

According to Tarek Fatah, Ramadan has said, “We (Muslims) should all be careful not to be colonized by something which is coming from this consumerist society … It should be us, with our understanding of Islam, our principles, colonizing positively the United States of America.”

By promoting that goal with charm, smiles and wit rather than animated proselytising or threats, Ramadan may create an environment more accepting to Islam as a political force in the west. Whether the honesty of his aims are articulated by him or perceived by others remains to be seen.

Montreal child kidnapper Chiheb Battikh was affiliated with Muslim Association of Canada and other Islamist organizations

The kidnapping of a 3-year old child in Montreal on December 19 was well covered by the media. 

On the other hand, the main suspect Chiheb Battikh’s Islamist background and his role within the Muslim Brotherhood local infrastructure have gone unreported since his arrest.  Point de Bascule presents a list of organizations run by Battikh that we have been able to identify so far.

Afghan duo who disrupted solemn Remembrance Day services want to sue Sun News for "defamation"

Two young Afghan-Canadian women who helped disrupt Remembrance day services last November say they want to launch a defamation suit against Sun News. The presumptive grounds is their claim they were libeled when referred to as "Taliban supporters" "Islamists" and "Jihadists."

The pair do however, make it very clear they want NATO and western forces out of Afghanistan.

If NATO, including Canadian forces were to withdraw from Afghanistan, who benefits and who loses?

The obvious answer is that immediate gain would go to the Taliban, the fanatical Islamist terror organization, which would likely regain control of the chaotic Central Asian country. The clear losers would be Afghan women, upon whom the Taliban, during their rule and in areas they control, imposed the most brutal and restrictive controls. The Taliban prevented women from receiving education, from having employment, from going out in public in anything more revealing than a full-body burkah, and from leaving home without permission of a male relative, among other primitive dictates from the catalogue of Islamic totalitarianism.

So it follows to reason that those advocating a NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan are, consciously or not,  acting in the de facto interests of and lending tacit support to the Taliban.

via facebook

Which brings us to a pair of young women who gained notoriety last November for a reprehensible display during Remembrance Day services at Toronto's Old City Hall. Laila Rashdie and Suraia Sahar both insist they are neither Taliban supporters nor Islamists, as they had been described following the incident which they helped to instigate. From their appearance, that claim seems entirely plausible.  Both wear modern western clothing and take advantage of Canada's generous education subsidies to all post-secondary students, privileges they would be deprived of were they living under Taliban control in what they often refer to as their "home country" of Afghanistan.

But by proposing a withdrawal of all foreign troops to Afghanistan, they are advocating for something the Taliban desperately wants so it can seize control in Afghanistan and restore their tyrannical rule.

So how would a modicum of  human and women's rights be preserved in Afghanistan if NATO were to pack up and leave? Ms. Sahar offered the phenomenally simplistic, nonsensical solution of providing education and health care. Things that have improved significantly under NATO's presence and would be eradicated under the Taliban. How women are going to receive these services without a competent armed force to preserve them is something she neglects to delineate because she obviously doesn't have the slightest clue.

What does seem apparent is Ms Sahar and Ms. Rushdie lack the mental acuity to connect rather obvious dots and comprehend that what they advocate serves to support the aims of the hateful Taliban Islamists.

Of course, profound, or even average insight is not something one expects from the sort of people who write things like,

"The ugly side of freedom is the state-run military spectacle supporting the NATO-led imperialist war and occupation in Afghanistan but parading as a false guilt-trip memorial for those who sacrificed to fight for “our” freedoms. Well, just in case you selectively forgot, your parade is and has always been on stolen, occupied, Native land - what about their freedoms to sovereignty and the Afghan peoples for self-determination? What about our freedom of speech which was infringed on when an officer called our message “trash” and “laughable.” We courageously endured a violent and racist crowd calling out: “go back to your country”, "

There's a priceless humor in the irony of the blatant hypocrisy of two women who refer to Afghanistan as their home condemning Canada as a settler colonial society on stolen land and then bitching about people who tell them to "go home". Unfortunately for the duo, understanding that appears to be beyond their cognitive abilities. If they actually believe the idiocy they propound, what are they doing here settling, occupying and stealing land from its rightful owners? If, as they have repeated, Afghanistan is their "home country," shouldn't they stop being occupiers, pack up, and go to a Taliban-occupied part of Afghanistan to experience what Afghan self-determination would actually be like if they got their wish for a NATO withdrawal?

Apparently that's something they want for other unfortunate Afghan women, but not for themselves. Maybe, though hypocrites, they aren't quite as stupid as they sound.

There are plenty of opinions and honest disagreements about the Canadian military role in Afghanistan and anyone has the right to speak out and demonstrate against it. But Remembrance Day services are solemn occasions meant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country and the principles that represents. To choose the particular location and occasion of a Remembrance Day service to insult and demonstrate and intentionally offend those who have come to mourn is callous and disgusting. Anyone who does that, as my friend Michael Coren has observed, is in my opinion no better than the moral troglodytes of the Hillsboro Baptist Church who defile military funerals with their "God hates fags" protest signs.

While writing about their own courage, the pair of hypocrites who claim their free speech was deprived neglected to mention the police were actually protecting them from an angry mob they had riled up with their offensive display.

Rashdie and Sahar protest that they, with their banner, were not the ones shouting slogans during the moment of silence at the service and they were only one of four protest groups their to offend those honoring and mourning lost soldiers. To the casual observer, there would be no distinction between the two dozen or so ragged radicals who were intermingling and shaming themselves on that occasion. And, as a video shows,  the pair certainly enthusiastically participated in foul-mouthed, shrill, shameful hysteria that continued the disruption of the services that day.



The pair tried to justify themselves when they wrote,  

In 2001 we watched the invasion of our home country, Afghanistan. Fast forward 11 years later: Afghanistan is still occupied, and every year on Remembrance Day we are reminded of it. It has become painfully obvious that Remembrance Day is used as a war propaganda tool. If one is going to take offense to our presence, direct your misguided anger at those responsible for why we are taking offense. 

No one has the right to physically attack someone for their opinions. But someone would have to be a complete idiot to go to a service at that nature, provoke the crowd, and not expect such a response. While taking advantage of the freedoms that Canadian soldiers have fought and died to preserve, they came to a memorial to metaphorically spit on the graves of the people who gave them the rights they abused.

Their idiocy continued with:

This is a settler-colonial society, reinforcing itself through racism, which we witnessed at the Remembrance Day ceremony. This is what explains why a handful of racist, white men screamed in our faces to "go back to your country." They believe that they are the rightful owners of this land. We are never accepted as real Canadians in their rigid, exclusionary and alienating cultural terms. We are always deemed as a potential foreign threat especially when we reveal this status quo and hypocrisy. 

Speaking of hypocrisy, the pair, that alternatively posture themselves as either Canadian or Afghan, depending on which suits their needs at the moment,  claim to be "peace activists." It brings to mind the sort of peace activism the late Christopher Hitchens described when he wrote,   "in reality, they are straight out pro-war, but on the other side."  

That seems evident from an article penned by Leila Rushdie in which she wrote:

We should support the Palestinian national fight for liberation against a military super-power threatening the Near East. The Zionist project is founded upon colonialism and genocide of Palestine. Palestine acts in defense to a colonizer that has been viciously taking Palestinian land and lives in one hand while shamelessly claiming peace and negotiations in the other. The comparison maps of Palestine since 1946 till today speak for itself about the intentions of Apartheid Israel: its about land, not peace.

Aside from other apparent idiocies, for so-called peace activists such as Rushdie and Sahar, Western troops fighting against Islamic Jihadists who throw acid in the face of Afghan women who want an education is bad, but Muslim Jihadists who murder Israeli civilians to replace a liberal democracy with an Islamic state is just fine.

But remember, Ms Rushdie and Ms Sahar are not Taliban supporters, Islamists or Jihadis. They just, by remarkable coincidence, share a lot of desired outcomes with them.

Good news from Libya

Massive gathering of protesters and police eject Islamist militias from their headquarters in Bengazi



The bad news is that those militias haven't gone far and are likely biding their time with their structure still intact.

Talking about the depraved union of Canada's socialist left and Islamists

On The Arena with Michael Coren tonight

Some background here




Thanks again to SDAMatt2a for the video!

Some additional background:



and breaking - Prime Minister's office denies reports that a decision has been made to repatriate Omar Khadr

Menzoid talks about unreasonable accommodation

Today's dose of stupid from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Since our tax dollars are helping to subsidize the ridiculous paranoia and vapid concepts disseminated by the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), it's only fair all of us paying for it should derive some benefit.

Fort Stupid on Toronto's Bloor Street

The Institution has entire departments devoted to nonsensical ideas, like that of gender being a psychological construct and that racism is OK for some but not for others, as well as an innumerable slew of crackpot theories, so it's unlikely any yield will ever emerge from OISE advancing the field of Education.

However, at least they can give us some laughs.

Today's amusing bit of stupid from OISE is supplied by Professor Shahrzad Mojab of their "Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Department" (Reading what they produce, I figure the emphasis is on working to get higher than Harold and Kumar).  One of Ms Mojab's areas of focus is women's rights in the less developed parts of the planet.

Now, when it comes to the erosion of women's rights in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, you might come to the natural conclusion that has something to so with the latest spread of Islamism and its repressive misogyny in those regions.  

More fool you then, if Ms Mojab is to be believed. She writes the real culprits are western governments, which are "in concert with large charitable foundations and corporations to actively suppress and dismantle social movements, including the women’s movement."

That's right, you got it; repression of women in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian Territories is is not due to Islamism, but is part of an evil western capitalist conspiracy.  

How silly to think it could be anything else! If you are experiencing  any disbelief of Ms Mojab's assertion, it must undoubtedly be due to the globalizing mind control drugs the capitalists are sneaking into Coca-Cola, so get over it!

It's really all so obvious, as she explains:

"International donors working with the political elites, shifted resources away from the highly political women’s movement toward absorbing women leaders into ministries.  Another shift was removing funding away from organizations whose goals were political transformation and the national liberation struggle toward organizations that fit into the framework of state-building. "

Ah, those clever, wicked capitalists! 

They were using women's groups to support women in underdeveloped countries by helping them attain roles in critical decision making mechanisms like government. Oh, those crafty, devious capitalists! They have devised a sinister plot to assist women by directing funds to enable them to gain leadership roles in their societies rather than by financing Communist or Islamist revolutionary groups! The fiends!

Here's some more hilarious gobbledygook from Perfesser Mojab:

“The Marxist-feminist analytic guides us to relate the suffering and resistance of women in imperialist wars and reconstruction projects to the local/global and particular/universal whole instead of fragmenting or isolating them.  It is often the fracture in this continuous whole which lends itself to culturalist analysis, which is interested in notions of the war of civilizations/religions or privileging the Western ethics and morality over the rest.  My argument is that an anti-imperialist feminist critique is necessary for any interrogation of the continuity of the imperialist project as it is infused with post-conflict reconstruction projects, funding schemes for women’s NGOs, and building peace.  It also helps us to expose the war/peace binaries as two opposites of one unity; the masculine-imperialist peace is the continuation and reappearance of the masculine-imperialist war.  Given this, I insist that feminists need to be cautious and critical of the ways in which the women’s rights agenda benefits from imperialist rule. The point is that the gender agenda attached to masculine-imperialist post-war reconstruction, development, or even peace building, often operates with the approbation and collaboration of many forces within neo-liberal, racist, and patriarchal agenda.”

 (If you have the time you might enjoy reading all of her 4 page paper - it'll just seem like 83-  available through this link.)

Islam vs Islamists

Our friend Tarek Fatah is featured in this documentary that was originally produced for the PBS series America at a Crossroads. PBS executives then tried to suppress the documentary because it didn't fit in with their politically-correct worldview.


Islam vs. Islamists from Tarek Fatah on Vimeo.


h/t Blazing Cat Fur

Is Canada equiped to deal with Islamic radicalism?

Three of Canada's most knowledgeable intelligence analysts had a public discussion on March 28 about Canada's ability to deal with Islamic radicalism coming out of the middle east and from a public security standpoint, the prognosis was less than encouraging.

Ray Boisvert, Assistant Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and Doug Best, the RCMP's National Security Section Head both expressed the fear that "radicalization" was Canada's greatest national security concern. As senior members of government agencies and being consummate professionals, both men had to be circumspect about their language and neither mentioned  "Islam" once. Fortunately, the Mackenzie Institutes's John Thompson was also on the panel assembled by Advocates for Civil Liberties and The Atlantic Council of Canada for their "Canada and the New Middle East" conference in Toronto. Thompson observed that as a private citizen, he did not have similar constraints limiting him to the politically correct and proved that point quickly by saying, "if you look at the history of Islam, they've managed to pick a fight with everyone they've met."

Boisvert and Best reiterated the concern of "lone actors," individual terrorists who act by themselves or in small group being difficult to predict or track. But in a nod to multicultural sensitivities,  Boisvert equated Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who acted on his own based on his own psychotic self-idealization of his being a Knight Templar with Mohammed Merah, the Jihadist murderer of three Jewish children in France earlier this month. The difference that the CSIS official didn't note is that Merah was not acting out a fantasy involving a centuries-dead Crusader Order but of a very much contemporary Islamic philosophy of terrorism in the name of religion. Far from being  independent, Merah travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan to study how to actualize this ideology of murder under the tutelage of a well-structured system.

One of the challenges Canadian multiculturalism faces was articulated by Thompson's observation of a facet of Islamism that Canada has not seen from other communities. Where other communities and cultures have worked towards integrating with Canadian society, Islamists work within their community to try to prevent integration.

Yet the silver lining to all this is that while Islamism presents Canada's greatest security threat, RCMP Superintendent Best noted that eighty percent of the cases where police thwarted Canadian terror rings, the information that foiled them was provided by members of the community. In other words, Canadian Muslims are our best asset in fighting domestic Islamic terror. Thompson provided the explanation for this apparent paradox; mosques are centres of radicalism due to their being controlled and funded in a great many instances by Saudi extremists . The disconnect between Canadian Islamic leaders and the majority of Canadian Muslims is encouraging, but that trend is not absolute and radicalization at mosques does occur.

One of the disappointments encountered by young Canadian Muslims who do become recruited to radical causes abroad is that the reality of being a Islamic fighter is starkly different than the portrayal of an exciting, noble adventure that they are being sold. CSIS' Boisvert compared it to the famous South Park cartoon episode where, after watching the movie Pirates of the Caribbean, Eric Cartman and his friends went off to join Somali pirates, only to find their swashbuckling fantasy bore no resemblance to the depressing, grotty truth of their situation. Unfortunately, in the case of radicalized Canadian Muslims, by the time they find what they have gotten themselves into, they are usually past the point of no return.

Let us hope Canadian multiculturalism has not yet reached the point where we cannot find solutions to the ongoing threats posed by Islamism inside our borders.




Coming soon: How new energy finds will change Canada, the middle east and the world, creating new hope and new conflicts.