Nah, he's referring to the Jew Controlled media and assumes that all Jews will follow some party line.
If asked for proof he'll point to Canwest. (I've recently found 2 examples of The Citizen spinning ME news stories to vilify Israel. My guess is it's staff reaction to the pro-Israel editorial stance that probably is handed down from W.)
greenmamba you gotta get with the lingo man, it's not "Jews", it's "Joooos";)
Posted at 2008-04-25 09:29:14 [PermaLink]meanwhile, back in Toronto . . .
"Naeem Muhammad Khan wants everyone to "Support Our Troops," but he's not talking about the Canadian Forces in Kandahar.
From his apartment in Toronto, Mr. Khan has been posting messages on the Internet calling Osama bin Laden a "hero" and "champion of Islam."
The 23-year-old fundamentalist's online logo combines the black Taliban flag and the outline of an AK-47 above the "Support Our Troops" slogan.
Between sips of iced coffee at Tim Hortons, Mr. Khan explained that he is a supporter of the Taliban, as well as other armed Islamic groups.
" 'Support our Troops' means supporting the mujahideen [Muslim soldiers of God] who are fighting for their freedom and rights against illegal occupation in many, many places over the world like Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine and Somalia," he said later in an e-mail.
Views like these are becoming increasingly common in Western countries, Canada included, and they are worrying to governments concerned about radicalism and violence.
Mr. Khan is an Islamist, not a terrorist, but what most disturbs moderate Muslims are his harsh comments about those who do not subscribe to fundamentalist beliefs.
In his online postings, Mr. Khan calls Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji and other moderates "apostates," and says that under Islamic law, the punishment for apostasy is death. The same goes for those who insult Islam.
"Behead her!!! And make a nice video and post it on YouTube," he writes about one "Islam basher." As for "Jews who support Zionism and Israel … since they are killing Palestinians … killing them is not bad … they deserve to die."
[External Link]id=469477
Seems like evidence for the Defense, Fred. How can that NOT be "hate" mongering?[External Link]
Posted at 2008-04-25 10:39:55 [PermaLink]Never had any of my comments published at the website of the Candian Islamic Congress. The only people who are published are those who agree with or praise Elmasry.
Interesting that Elmasry seems to be President for Life of the CIC. Wonder who his model for that is.
Mo-Ham-MAD elamsry had a Comment on his CIC website where he attacks a Radio show for "Islamophobia" and hurls allegation at the Show Host as a bigot and anti-arab that needs sensitivity training about Islam.
But when I send an e-mail to the Station manager to question this claim I discovered that the CRTC dealt with it and the Host was absolved from any bias against a Muslim caller that hung-up the phone to hear his answer and he did not get cut-off by the Host.
But the caller didn't file the complaint , the CIC and Elmasry did and the CIC has ties to CAIR-Canada that is a Chapter of the USA CAIR that is now linked to terrorism financing and has Nehad Awad who is a Palestinian freedom fighter from the old verion of Hamas.
Awad is seen in a photo with Hezballah flags
being waved as he spew his hatred in the USA , Mr.Awad was also on CTV to lay claim to supporting Maher Arar and his Palestinian wife , Awad was happy for the $12million that Arar got for the Racial-profiling and Islamophobia in canada after 9/11 .
But the Inquiry exposed Arar's second home near the Boston Airport around 2000 and that he was caught trying to smuggle a LapTop into canada and refused to give the PassWord for Agent to check it , also the RCMP found Hard-Drives and Data disc hidden in Arar's Ottawa house with the walls and attic .
CAIR coached Arar to not help canada with finding terrorist in canada, Arar then fled canada with his wife and kids to live with his wifes relatives in Tunisia , but the Police were moving in on her relative who had ties to the Muslim brotherhood , Maher Arar is documented in the Inquiry as fleeing Tunisia by himself to attempt to enter the USA at JFK where CAIR has a office near by and and seemed a bit odd .
Arar's own website details how he was refused entry and that only Jordan would take him back on a return flight , Arar's original lawsuit for $30 million was against Jordan and Syria for allowing Arab kidnappers to grab him in Jordan and torture him befor driving him to Syria .
When Arar's lawsuit was tossed on November of 2003 , CAIR and the NDP backed Arar's new Financial-Jihad to Sue us canadian's for $400 million dollars for what Jordan did .
We were played for fools and the NDP even used Arar's wife in a Ottawa election for the Anti-USA/Israel vote , just imagine Arar getting the $400 million while his wife sits as a NDP MP and Jack Layton orders the party to vote for a Budget bill to approve the $400 million that the NDP would no doubt get a chunk of it via "Donations" for CAIR,Arar,and the CIC once Maher doeld out the cash to the Pro-hamas Org.'s .
Last February 14th it was CAIR that sponsored a Arar-Victory dinner to raise money in canada for "Justice and peace" to stop racial profiling , the NDP,Bloc,and Liberals were there as usefull idiots with no clue to why Mohammad Elmasry and Sheema Khan from CAIR were also at the event.
Ottawa U got a Donation from the Arar's and oddly enough the same Departments getting the money had the heads of them testify at the Arar inquiry to re-enforce that they believe Arar was Tortured even without one piece of evidence or verbal evidence from Arar.
The HRC and the SCOC will one day change their tunes when Islamists start bombing Coutrooms over cases where "Terrorists" have lied about Torture by the bog bad USA and no one believes them anymore.
3 more buddies of CAIR and the Arar's are now trying to get the same "Cash-4-Life" deal for Allegation of the same treatment by Syria that canada is somehow to blame for their globetrotting misfortunes.
Elamsry has the right to live anywhere on earth and yet stays her to bitch and whine about Injustice , amazing how these type of Muslims never get angry enough to leave this hell-hole called canada .
"Behead her!!! And make a nice video and post it on YouTube," he writes about one "Islam basher."
Umm. . . Aren't death threats supposed to be illegal?
BTW
It was shortly after the Jihad at the Montreal school-where Gamil Ghrabi slaughtered females for Allah and then killed himself to be in paradise
with Mohammed and Allah-that maher Arar applied for a Gun Permit which I bet the NDP and his Wife never knew about , maher lived in Montreal at the time and then moved to Ottawa where he suddenly fell in love and had kids to assure his Citizenship Application would keep him in canada even with any criminal past .
That's when he linked up with a know Jihadist Mosque in Boston and had a second home where he left his wife and kids the First time befor he left them in Tunisia the second time to fly alone into the USA .
Can you see a pattern here folks , the 1st ever canada to be charge with terrorism was at the same Mosque in Ottawa that Arar attended , and CAIR coached him to not help canada with a Terror cell at that Mosque but the RCMP caught Momin Khawaja anyway for his Fertilized Bomb connection.
It's all in the Inquiry records but the media never cared about the truth , even the CBC purged their archives or any "Terrorism" or "Muslim" words for the 9/11 reports , as if islam had nothin g to do with 9/11 and it was just bi-sexual/swedish/midget/amish/Red-Heads with anger issues over the Joooooooo's .
Any comments about UWO shutting down a pro-Palestinian student group--after losing four similar cases at the Ontario Human Rights Commission?
[External Link]
Come on, speech warriors, at least *try* to be consistent.
Oooh, another interesting interpretation of free speech - a university student council may not deratify a club which has, among other things a "pro-Palestinian" stance (whatever that means) for any reason whatsoever.
Nice deflection, for sufficiently demented values of 'nice'. Also, good work parroting the linked article's whine about systemic repression thanks to cases filed (and won, now there's a shock) with the OHRC, oh, twenty-one years ago.
Your principled concern about free speech on university campuses is noted. Who the hell do I call now? David Horowitz?
Posted at 2008-04-25 19:28:51 [PermaLink]Roger - every now and again you show up spinning fantastic stories about Maher Arar. I wouldn't want to pronounce on their (or your) veracity, but as you are the only source I have ever seen for them, I will ask again for a link to something other than an allegation. Please be specific - "it's in the transcript" does not encourage me to view a thousand or so pages of testimony, particularly when I think it's bullshit from the get-go.
Thanks in advance,
Deaner
I can't find anything on PRIG (love that acronym) but here's an older blog entry on the previous deratified club (admittedly from a conservative blogger):
[External Link]
Ellie:
It's "PIRG" (Public Interest Research Group). It seems that the UWO has a bit of a rep for speech suppression:
[External Link]
(Crispytoast will note that the de-ratification of another pro-Palestinian club happened in 2006.)
The article uses both PIRG and PRIG, but since they consistently spelled it PRIG 3 times in the second paragraph I decided to use that spelling. They seriously need a copy editor.
Posted at 2008-04-26 07:54:04 [PermaLink]BlazingCatFur has a long post on that Canadian Dimension article, Dawg, and it is not flattering to any side.
Personally, I think it would help if ElMo would stop acting like an "Islamo", never mind a fascist. After all, the Koran does say the Qur'an describes Jews as "the greatest enemies of Muslims," "people who will listen to any lie" and "most greedy of this life."
It's always comforting to reflect on the fate of useful idiots like dawg as the islamofascist forces gain influence.
Posted at 2008-04-26 09:13:17 [PermaLink]"...these systems are free only to those who own them..."
Something is free to someone who paid for it.
Welcome to the mind of Elmasry. What a twisted, dingy place.
Hey Dawg,
you are wasting your time with this lot here.Free speech to them means only one thing.Vilifying Islam and Muslims.But they are quick to take offence when there is the slightest criticism of Israel or Zionists.It is clear where their sympathies lie.
It is a bit rich to accuse El Masry of being a Fascist when this site links to lunatics like Shaidle.
Free speech means vilifying anyone you want to vilify. It also means everyone else is free to call you vile in turn.
Posted at 2008-04-26 10:58:41 [PermaLink]Dear Aj:
Please provide evidence that I have ever "taken offense when there is the slightest criticism of Israel or Zionism."
Since you finally figured out what hyperlinks are, this should come easier for you than it once might have.
I'd also appreciate evidence of my "fascism" and "lunacy", esp. since both accusations are libelous (to take a page from one of your progressive colleagues!)
;-)
PS: If muslims don't want to be vilified it would be helpful if they stopped killing people in the name of Islam. Just a thought!
Hey dawg and assjuhail; I assume you're both in Canada. By your tone and comments it seems you aren't happy here, because the savage, backward death cult"religion" you embrace gets criticized publicly. No one is forcing you to remain. Feel free to take your families and yourselves back to whereever you or your sponsors came from. Best of luck to you, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Posted at 2008-04-26 11:39:08 [PermaLink]Alas, Jim, Dawg doesn't have the excuse of being a radical Muslim to excuse his goofiness.
He's a dhimmi through and through.
Gosh, and here I was just raising a free speech issue on the UWO campus. Wrong place, I guess.
Posted at 2008-04-26 12:02:17 [PermaLink]Dawg, free speech infers dispute with another's postion or statement. If you are seeking an echo chamber, yes, this is the wrong place. If your position is indefensible, then free speech will seem to suck. I have'nt noticed you being shut out of making comments, just shut down by more intelligent rational ones. And KS, it seems to me that one needs not be a "radical' muslim to spew goofiness. As Steyn has commented, "there may be moderate muslims, there is no moderate islam".
Posted at 2008-04-26 12:31:57 [PermaLink]Give Dawg the choice between Israel and any of the freedom loving Islamic States, and see which country he picks.
Posted at 2008-04-26 12:37:57 [PermaLink]"Gosh, and here I was just raising a free speech issue on the UWO campus"
If, in fact, it IS a free speech issue, Dawg. I have not seen any explanation from the UWO student organization (the CSU, I believe it is called), other than their statement to the PIRG that they were disbanded for failure to observe their obligations to the CSU, including financial control and reporting, and organization and control of the group's activities. The link commonly cited in connection with this story is to Judy Rebbick claiming (to paraphrase) that 'no reason was provided.' It may be that the CSU statement was inadequate, and that PIRG members and organizers would realistically have no idea in what way they were deficient, or it may be that they (and presumably Ms Rebbick) simply *didn't like* the reasons, irrespective of their validity. I trust you can understand the distinction, and also understand that simply claiming "no reason / explanation given" is entirely self-serving. At this point, I don't think we know enough to accept that this is a free speech issue, rather than one of simple governance and observation of the established rules for student organizations on the UWO campus.
As I commented at BCF's site, I am reluctant to accept prior OHRC decisions as establishing a pattern of discrimination or past bias, given the high quality of investigation, reasoning, and decision-making that such bodies show. If (and that is a big one), it can be shown that the PIRG has been treated differently than other student organizations, or that rules are applied more strictly to them (and similar groups) than to other campus groups, then you have a point - such arbitrary actions cannot be tolerated, and the PIRG should be reinstated with an apology; like any other citizens, the PIRG members should be free to make vile and idiotic statement in public. In that case, the CSU leaders who made this decision should be questioned, and perhaps removed from office. Otherwise, we have no issue.
JimN:
Are you drunk?
Deaner:
There's a bit of a history of this sort of thing at UWO. This is the third pro-Palestinian club they have gone after--the last was de-affiliated in 2006. More at my place.
Dawg - it is *possible* that CSU targets pro-Pali clubs. It is also *possible* that pro-Pali clubs (or the members thereof) consistently fail to abide by the rules that apply to campus organizations - and, of course, the two are not mutually exclusive. At this point, I don't believe that we know enough to determine the degree to which each are occurring.
Posted at 2008-04-26 14:03:07 [PermaLink]Deaner:
There are some good links in my article on the subject. It seems that women's and gay clubs have felt the wrath of the USC as well. Maybe it's all coincidence, though, or Arabs, gays and women just can't handle club finances.
"Your principled concern about free speech on university campuses is noted."
Show me the free speech issue. Shutting down a campus club which violates the rules governing its existence is not a free speech issue. If they didn't violate any rules and are being shut down merely due to the fact that the are odious to the university, then you actually would have a rare point. Unfortunately for you, there is no indication that that is the case. That you bring it up in a blaze of self-righteous indignation, hurling about, as is your wont, accusations of hypocrisy, in a post about Elmasry's inability to understand what free speech means is pleasingly ironic, since you seem to be pretty confused yourself.
Crispytoast:
There is a long, long background of suppression of student clubs at UWO. Unless you are going to advance the hypothesis that gays, women and supporters of Palestinian rights are all incapable of following club rules--and, knowing you, I wouldn't be utterly shocked if you did--it is obvious that something is rotten at that university, and has been for quite a while.
I don't believe I used the word "hypocrisy," by the way, but I've long since ceased to expect accuracy from you. "Inconsistency" is what I'm talking about. Not to mention willful ignorance.
Dawg has a point if you think nazis and xtian-religious-dogmatists get a free airing then you have got to allow the views of islamic-religo-loons too.
Sucks doesn't it JimN when other forms of dogmatic lunacy ring so close to your own.It should make you think, but clearly it doesn't.
"Leave if you don't like it here"... really? That's still a valid argument? Shame your descendants could not hear the voices of the native Canadians all those years ago.
Dawg,
Maybe they're trying "balance" shutting down an anti-woman and anti-gay Islamist group by also shutting down a woman's group and a gay group.
Or, seriously, maybe the only thing these groups have in common is that they didn't follow the rules.
Dawg - I had a look at one of your links - the one about the "apartheid wall" demonstration and subsequent de-registration of the club that sponsored it. If the statements made in the interview are an accurate representation of the events, then the student governance structure at UWO is broken. Further, in that instance some participants in the student government took advantage of the deficiency to shut down what should be acceptable speech on the UWO campus. There does not seem to be an effective review process for executive decisions - in effect a Supreme Court - that would ensure that established rules are both observed and applied fairly and consistently. As I said above, if it can be shown that the PIRG was treated differently than other similar campus organizations, then the leaders of the student government should be questioned on that point, and perhaps removed from office. The sad deficiency in the student government model is that it does not appear that there is a mechanism for such a review.
In a legislative body with virtually 100% forced turnover within four or five years, I am not sure how much institutional memory survives - so I am not willing to say that this instance of de-registering PIRG is a further manifestation of anti-Pali sentiments of four and ten years ago, although it *could* be. To the extent there *is* an institutional memory, I suspect that it is "hey, we can shut down whatever we don't like" - and that is troubling on a University campus, no matter the transient definition of 'what is not liked' (it's troubling *anywhere* - but some of us have the quaint notion that a University should encourage both free speech and an understanding of how our society works).
We can assume that the interview with the President of SPHR does not accurately represent what happened.
However, turning to something that might be debated...
decardno says that events like the "apartheid wall" "should be acceptable speech on the UWO campus."
I tend to think not. Although the SPHR doesn't itself call for terrorism, it does defend Palestinian "resistance," which means nothing other than the indiscriminate murder of Jews.
Secondly, the SPHR's purpose is to destroy Israel, and aligns itself with explicitly antisemitic and genocidal organizations such as Hamas.
Thirdly, the SPHR "apartheid wall" demonstration manifested its hatred through accusing Israel of conducting "genocide" against the Palestinians.
In as much as this bears even less relation to reality than the Apartheid canard, I read the SPHR’s accusation of genocide as – at best – a defence of what they know full well that Hamas intends and, at worst, as a projection of their own desires.
Jewish students on campus felt intimidated and rightly so.
It's not a question of free speech. It's a question of whether the UWO should provide SPHC with a venue. It shouldn't - no more that it should provide a venue for the Klu Klux Klan.
"We can assume that the interview with the President of SPHR does not accurately represent what happened."
Perhaps not - but he makes specific allegations of fact, like prior approval for the "apartheid wall" demonstration, and a post-event de-registration without recourse, and with their appeal arguments censored by the Clubs Policy Committee. Presumably, such allegations are a matter of record, and can be fact-checked. If his statements are true, then there is a problem with the way the USC conducts itself.
"It's not a question of free speech. It's a question of whether the UWO should provide SPHC with a venue."
Bullshit. Campus organizations that espouse causes you dislike (and I can't think of many I dislike more than PIRG or SPHC) have the same right to organize, to use student-owned facilities, and to speak freely as organizations that you approve of. If the USC allows use of their facilities by any group with a political interest (and that definition can be stretched pretty far) then they have to allow all of them (subject to criminal restrictions on calls to violence, etc) - otherwise we are just setting up a situation where control of the USC allows control of speech; who gets to speak is determined by who won the last round of elections. I find that to be intolerable - and depending on whose ox was being gored, I suspect you would, too. Imagine if the USC position was that pro-Israel groups were unacceptable because Arab or Palestinian students "felt intimidated and rightly so" - would you still feel that this was merely an issue of whether to provide a venue? Would you still feel that the USC response was appropriate?
dcardno,
The UWO certainly does not have a policy of letting just any political organization do what they want so long as they stay on the right side of the law.
They wouldn't allow an event that appeared racist, homophobic, or misogynist. Nor would they allow a "we hate Italy" event...
Given that they do restrict speech on campus in order to maintain an atmosphere in which students feel comfortable, I think the "apartheid wall" event would be an obvious candidate.
That said, my preferred solution would be to allow any speech so long as it was legal and so long as it was off to the side somewhere so that students can ignore it and go about their business undisturbed by someone screaming at them about baby killers - or whatever.
University like to provide a 'safe' space for various groups, so that they will not be intimidated by others. Therefore Jews or Israelis should be protected from those who want to destroy Israel or advocate the killing of Israelis or Jews, the same would apply to Tibetans who feel threatened by Chinese,Christians threatened by Muslims or nutty lefties and so on.
Posted at 2008-04-27 19:44:51 [PermaLink]Stephen - you realize that this is a recipe for "no commentary on current events on campus," don't you? If all I need to shut down an annoying voice is to claim to "feel threatened" then threatened I will be.
Posted at 2008-04-27 20:02:23 [PermaLink]