by, SHAWN JEFFORDS | QMI AGENCY
h/t Angel Warrior @ Team Networks.net
TORONTO - The Canada Revenue Agency has revoked the charitable status of an Islamic group after it says it distributed over $280,000 to an agency allegedly linked to a terrorist organization in Pakistan.
The CRA announced Friday it will strip the Islamic Society of North America Canada’s Development Foundation of its charitable status.
After a nearly two-year-long audit of its books, the CRA said it found evidence linking the group to an organization that funds a terrorist organization in Pakistan.
“The Government of Canada has made it clear that it will not tolerate the abuse of the registration system for charities to provide any means of support to terrorism,” a press release from the CRA said.
In a 71-page “letter of revocation,” complete with flow charts which illustrate the alleged link between the Canadian group and the Pakistani terrorist group, the agency lays out its case against ISNA.
The CRA audited ISNA’s books for two years between Jan. 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2009. Transactions during that time showed a “funding arrangement” between the group and the Kashmiri Canadian Council/Kashmiri Relief Fund of Canada. That group would send money to the Pakistani-based Relief Organization for Kashmiri Muslims. That group is the charitable arm of Jamaat-e-Islami, a political organization which supports the overthrow of India’s government through the activities of the Hizbul Mujahideen, the CRA release said.
Hizbul Mujahideen is considered a terrorist organization by the European Union and government of India, the CRA said.
Officials with ISNA Canada did not respond to calls and e-mails requesting comment Friday.
But in a July 26 statement on their website, they dispute preliminary findings made by the CRA, calling them “speculative allegations.”
The group says it sent money to Kashmir to help orphans and the needy. It chided another newspaper report for an July story that relied on CRA correspondence that said the money sent by the group “may” have been diverted to terrorists but offered no proof.
“We think it is unhelpful to cast aspersions about support for militant groups on a charity and the law abiding citizens that it serves based on pure speculation,” the statement says.
The ISNA’s American parent organization referred the Toronto Sun to a statement released earlier this year, which distances it from the Canadian branch.
“There has been no links of authority or responsibility between the United States and Canadian organizations for a few decades, despite similarity of names,” the statement said.
Having its charitable status yanked will mean ISNA Canada can no longer issue donation receipts for income tax breaks. The group is also no longer exempt from income tax and may be taxed for the full value of its assets.
In July, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was a guest speaker at a ISNA Canada event. A request for comment to the Liberal Party was not returned by press time.
At the time, Trudeau was slammed by the Muslim Canadian Congress for accepting the invitation.
But Trudeau isn’t the only politician to have addressed the group. In 2008, then multiculturalism minister Jason Kenney praised ISNA Canada at an event. He told the group he looked forward to “a closer dialogue between the Government of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, and the Muslim community in general, ISNA in particular.”
ISNA traces its origins to a meeting of several Muslim student organizations in 1963, at which the Muslim Student Association of the U.S. & Canada (“The MSA”) was formed in January 1963. ISNA regards the MSA’s 1963 convention as its first one, held at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Present-day ISNA was founded in 1982 through a joint effort of four organizations: The Muslim Students Association of the US and Canada (The MSA), Islamic Medical Association (IMA), the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), and the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE) – to create a community-oriented organization due to the changing nature of the growing Muslim community. Many of the leaders of these four founding organizations took leadership roles in the newly-formed ISNA. In 1983, ISNA completed a $21 million ($48,405,947 today) headquarters complex in suburban Indianapolis using funds raised in part from international sources. In 2008, ISNA claimed 4,000 members. On August 30th, 2013, Tahera Ahmad became the first woman to recite the Quran at an ISNA convention, which she did at the 50th annual ISNA convention in front of a mixed-gender audience. 
Editorial Footnote: Any organization that funds terrorism is a part of the terrorist network. Essentially, ISNA is a terrorist organization. They are a branch of the same tree. So, they simply lose their tax exempt status, but are still allowed to exist in our nations? Is funding terrorism not against the law anymore? And, if it is against the law.. where are the criminal charges? Where are the indictments? Why is this organization still allowed to operate within our borders? - s/m @ sharia unveiled
Professor, Dr. Amjad Qourshah (left) in his SS Islaminazi uniform preparing for an armed assault on Coptic Christians. Photo: by, admin.
by, Christopher Collins / The Examiner
On the same day that White House deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest joked about Muslim Brotherhood attacks on Egyptian Coptic Christians, Professor, Amjad Qourshah, an Islamic studies professor at the University of Amman in Jordan, who has ties to the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), went on a tirade of anti-Christian attacks against Egypt‘s Copts on Wednesday, accusing them of burning their own churches.
John Rossomando of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) reported that Qourshah Facebook tirade also included an image of Jesus that is similar in nature, of the 2006 Danish cartoon depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.
The image Qourshah used in this case, shows Jesus with an AK-47 over his shoulder with a bomb halo surrounding his head, saying “Jesus says: ‘Sell your clothes and buy arms.” The caption above the image says: “The way to hypocrisy for the Orthodox Copts.”
IPT was able to translate Qourshah’s rant before the Facebook page with his rant was taken down where he wants the Egyptian army to annihilate the Coptic Christians and rambles on taking Old Testament and New Testament scripture out of context.
Qourshah blamed the Coptic Christians for the violence although news reports from Egyptian bloggers and Christian aid workers contradict his accusations.
Qourshah said, “Where are you, oh hypocrites who claim to love freedom and peace, when you are at the head of sedition. Your channels were the first to call for war, strife and lies… Your chiefs were the first to ignite sectarian strife set fire. Personally, I do not rule out Copts burning their churches themselves to accuse the Muslims in coordination with the heads of the church and the Egyptian security services.”
“Where are you, liberals and secularists throughout the length and breadth of Arab countries on the Copts entering into politics and their chiefs encouraging them to violence and terrorism and urged their followers and the security agencies to murder and vileness?”
Rossomando said, “MAS and fellow Islamist groups, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), have been silent about the violence against Egypt’s Christians by the Muslim Brotherhood. Those groups either have roots in the Muslim Brotherhood or have worked with it. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has similarly been silent.”
ITP reported that on Monday, they were able to obtain a memo from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party that showed a call and approval for the terrorists launch violence against Egypt’s Coptic Christian population and to burn down Christian churches.
The Professor’s verbal attacks come on the heels of a report that President Obama and his administration had to have known that by supporting Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, they aligned themselves with those who murdered foreign tourists in Egypt in 1997.
Yussuf Abdulle (32), Kidnapping, drugging, beating and prostituting young American girls
by, Dana Rebik
WEST SEATTLE — On any given night in Seattle, there are 1,000 young people with no safe place to sleep. It’s estimated that one in three of them will be lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home.
“The next thing you know, they’re in someone’s home who is requiring this of them for a safe place to sleep and from there the dark path begins,” said Melinda Giovengo, Executive Director of YouthCare.
It happened to a 16-year-old girl in West Seattle. She was kicked out of her house and a friend said she could stay with her and 32-year-old Yussuf Abdulle at an apartment in the 8400 block of Delridge Way SW.
Investigators said Abdulle made the girls have sex with different men three to seven times a day and drugged them with marijuana, ecstasy and methamphetamine. The victim told police Abdulle would sleep near the door of the apartment with a gun and told her there would be a price to pay if she tried to leave.
“Guns, beatings, the stories are pretty horrific of what happens to these young people to keep them under the control of these monsters,” Giovengo said. “Our biggest efforts have to be in preventing how young people end up in that situation.”
The 16-year-old was able to get out of the apartment and went to a local hospital for help.
Yussuf Abdulle has been charged with kidnapping and two counts of promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor. He is being held at the King County Jail on $200,000 bail and will be arraigned on May 22.
Giovengo works to get youth off the streets and helped organize the Safe Place program. A young person between the ages of 12 and 17 in need of help can approach any Metro bus driver, who will then make a call to trigger contact with a youth service provider. Runaways can also call 1-800-422-TEEN to find shelter and/or counseling.
In addition to help from Metro drivers, young people in King County have another option if they need help quickly.
“Text 4 HELP” is a National Safe Place service that uses SMS text technology to offer information about the closest location to access immediate help and safety. By texting the word “SAFE” and their current location to 69866, youth can get help within seconds. In the Seattle area, they will be referred to shelters that will provide the assistance they need.
*NOTE: News Video of this story at the link below:
by Soeren Kern
“As one police officer said to me, ‘There isn’t a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited.’ We should start from the assumption that children are being sexually exploited right the way across the country.” — Sue Berelowitz, Deputy Children’s Commissioner for England
A court in London has sentenced seven members of a Muslim child grooming gang based in Oxford to at least 95 years in prison for raping, torturing and trafficking British girls as young as 11.
The high-profile trial was the latest in a rapidly growing list of grooming cases that are forcing politically correct Britons to confront the previously taboo subject of endemic sexual abuse of children by predatory Muslim paedophile gangs.
The 18-week trial drew unwelcome attention to the sordid reality that police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media have for decades downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated against British children because they were afraid of being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism.
|The seven members of the Oxford child grooming gang who were found guilty (clockwise from top left): Kamar Jamil, Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar, and Zeeshan Ahmed.
According to government estimates that are believed to be “just the tip of the iceberg,” at least 2,500 British children have so far been confirmed to be victims of grooming gangs, and another 20,000 children are at risk of sexual exploitation. At least 27 police forces are currently investigating 54 alleged child grooming gangs across England and Wales.
Judge Peter Rook, who presided over the trial that ended on June 27 at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales (aka the Old Bailey), sentenced five of the men to life in prison and ordered them to serve a minimum of between 12 and 20 years before becoming eligible for parole.
Rook said the severity of the jail terms — which are longer than those in other high-profile grooming cases such as those in Rochdale, Derby and Telford — were meant to send a message to abusers that they would be targeted and brought to justice.
After reading the sentence, Rook said the men — who are from Pakistan and Eritrea (see profiles here) — had committed “a series of sexual crimes of the utmost depravity” and had targeted “young girls because they were vulnerable, underage and out of control.”
The ringleaders of the gang, brothers Akhtar Dogar, 32, and Anjum Dogar, 31, were given life sentences and were told by the judge that they had been found guilty of “exceptionally grave crimes.” They are to remain in prison for a minimum of 17 years before becoming eligible for parole.
A second pair of brothers, Bassam Karrar, 33, and Mohammed Karrar, 38, were also given life sentences. Mohammed Karrar was given a minimum sentence of 20 years for the “dreadful offenses” he committed against the girls, including one child whom he branded with the letter “M” for Mohammed. He began pimping the girl when she was only 11, and forced her to have a backstreet abortion when she was 12.
In graphic testimony, one of the victims told the court that Mohammed Karrar would charge men £500 ($750) to have sex with her. They would take her to homes in High Wycombe where she would be subjected to gang rapes, incidents that she described as “torture sex.” The men would tie her up and gag her mouth with a ball to stop her cries from being heard. The men would play out abuse fantasies; sometimes she was left bleeding for days afterwards.
In one of her few acts of defiance, she threatened Mohammed Karrar with his own lock knife as he was preparing to rape her; he knocked her out with a metal baseball bat.
Mohammed’s younger brother, Bassam Karrar, who was found guilty of brutally raping and attacking a 14-year-old girl while he was high on cocaine, was ordered to serve a minimum of 15 years.
Kamar Jamil, 27, was jailed for life with a minimum term of 12 years. Assad Hussain, 32, and Zeeshan Ahmed, 28, were both jailed for seven years.
The six victims who gave evidence were aged between 11 and 15 when the abuse took place. They were plied with drugs and alcohol, repeatedly raped, sold and trafficked as prostitutes, all at a time during which when they were supposedly in the safekeeping of local authorities.
The trial — details of which were so disturbing that jury members were excused from ever having to sit on a jury again — exposed years of failings by Thames Valley police and Oxford social services. The court heard that the girls were abused between 2004 and 2012 and that police were told about the crimes as early as 2006, that they were contacted at least six times by victims, but failed to act.
The mother of Girl “A” said the police and social services had failed to protect the girls and made her and other family members feel as if they were overreacting. She said: “I can recall countless incidents when I have been upset and frustrated by various professional bodies.”
The mother of Girl “C” told the British newspaper The Guardian that she had begged social services staff to rescue her daughter from the rape gang. She said that her daughter’s abusers had threatened to cut the girl’s face off and promised to slit the throats of her family members. She said that they had been forced to leave their home after the men had threatened to decapitate family members.
Despite irrefutable evidence that the girls were being sexually abused, no one — according to a report published by the House of Commons on June 5 — acted to draw all the facts together, apparently due to fears by police and social workers that they would be accused of racism against Muslims.
The report, “Child Sexual Exploitation and the Response to Localized Grooming,” states: “Evidence presented to us suggests that there is a model of localized grooming of Pakistani-heritage men targeting young White girls. This must be acknowledged by official agencies, who we were concerned to hear in some areas of particular community tension, had reportedly been slow to draw attention to the issue for fear of affecting community cohesion. The condemnation from those communities of this vile crime should demonstrate that there is no excuse for tip-toeing around this issue. It is important that police, social workers and others be able to raise their concerns freely, without fear of being labelled racist.”
These allegations have been confirmed by the imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, Taj Hargey, who says race and religion are inextricably linked to the spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men are targeting under-age white girls.
Writing in the Daily Mail on May 15, Hargey states: “Apart from its sheer depravity, what also depresses me about this case is the widespread refusal to face up to its hard realities. The fact is that the vicious activities of the Oxford ring are bound up with religion and race: religion, because all the perpetrators, though they had different nationalities, were Muslim; and race, because they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases.”
“But as so often in fearful, politically correct modern Britain,” Hargey continues, “there is a craven unwillingness to face up to this reality. Commentators and politicians tip-toe around it, hiding behind weasel words. … Part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes. Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.”
According to Hargey, “Another sign of the cowardly approach to these horrors is the constant reference to the criminals as ‘Asians’ rather than as ‘Muslims.’ In this context, Asian is a completely meaningless term. The men were not from China, or India or Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh. They were all from either Pakistan or Eritrea, which is, in fact, in East Africa rather than Asia.”
He also says the grooming rings in Britain are actually being promoted by imams who encourage followers to believe that white women deserve to be “punished.” He writes that Muslims in Britain “have been drip-fed for years [with] a far less uplifting doctrine, one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt. In the misguided orthodoxy that now prevails in many mosques, including several of those in Oxford, men are unfortunately taught that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority.”
Hargey points to a telling incident in the trial when it was revealed that Mohammed Karrar branded one of the girls with an “M,” as if she were a cow. He writes, “‘Now, if you have sex with someone else, he’ll know that you belong to me,’ said this criminal, highlighting an attitude where women are seen as nothing more than personal property. The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers. Their dress code, from mini-skirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behavior by being exploited and degraded.”
According to the British Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, “We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg now. For too long it was something of a taboo issue in this country, little spoken about, little appreciated, little acknowledged or dealt with.” He also said the grooming cases raise “very troubling questions about the attitude of the perpetrators, all but one of whom were from Pakistani backgrounds, towards white girls. Nothing is gained by shying away from that.”
During a recent House of Commons hearing on “Child Sexual Exploitation and the Response to Localized Grooming” the Deputy Children’s Commissioner for England, Sue Berelowitz, said: “What I am uncovering is that sexual exploitation of children is happening all over the country. As one police officer who was the lead in a very big investigation in a very lovely, leafy, rural part of the country said to me: ‘There isn’t a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited.’ The evidence that has come to the fore during the course of my inquiry is that that, unfortunately, appears to be the case.”
Berelowitz continued: “We should start from the assumption that children are being sexually exploited right the way across the country. In urban, rural and metropolitan areas, I have hard evidence of children being sexually exploited. That is part of what is going on in some parts of our country. It is very sadistic. It is very violent. It is very ugly.”
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14 King James (KJV)
By Ryan Mauro
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, is hard at work developing interfaith political alliances. Of these partnerships, Baptist leaders have proven to be among the tightest.
In its latest newsletter, ISNA promotes an article by Rev. Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty. Walker boasts of how his organization stood with ISNA against “misguided congressional investigations of terrorism focused only on Islam.”
The ISNA official that Walker specifically references as a friend is Sayyid Syeed, former ISNA Secretary-General and current director of its Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances. In 2006, he was recordedstating, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”
This comment is less surprising when you consider ISNA’s background. A1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memoidentifies it as one of its fronts for its “kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” The federal government acknowledged ISNA as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity when it designated the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a “charity” housed inside ISNA. The group continues topromote Sharia.
The Baptist Joint Committee’s website showcases a suit against the NYPD for its intelligence-gathering program by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has connections to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network. The complaint states that the NYPD “imposed an unwarranted badge of suspicion and stigma on law-abiding Muslim New Yorkers.”
In its latest magazine, ISNA attacks the NYPD and makes the ludicrous statement that “Muslim terrorism is not a threat after 9/11.” Walker likewise downplays the threat, saying that although Islamic terrorism “must be resisted with all our might,” he guesses that “99.99%” of Muslim-Americans are patriotic and opposed to extremism.
Unfortunately, polls show there is a formidable Islamist minority. In a 2011 Pew poll, five percent viewed Al-Qaeda very or somewhat favorably. Another 11% said they only viewed the terrorist group “somewhat unfavorably.” Another 14% chose not to answer the question.
Walker provides a review of some of the defining moments in ISNA’s courtship of Baptists. ISNA’s Syeed helped put together the first National Baptist-Muslim Dialogue in Boston in January 2009. One of the leaders was Dr. Roy Medley, General Secretary of American Baptist Churches USA. Other involved groups included the Alliance of Baptists, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Baptist World Alliance. According to ISNA, about 100 Baptist and Muslim leaders participated.
The second National Baptist-Muslim Dialogue sponsored by ISNA was held in December 2012, partially paid for with a grant from the Boston Baptist Social Union. Other sponsors included American Baptist Churches USA, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the Alliance of Baptists, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the Lott Carey Foreign Mission Society and the Andover Newton Theological School.
Over 75 Baptist and Muslim leaders took part. Obama Administration officials even came: Rashad Hussain, the U.S. Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook, Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom.
ISNA’s website lists three Baptist groups as official interfaith partners:American Baptist Churches USA, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Progressive National Baptist Convention. All three also belong to the ISNA-allied interfaith coalition named the Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign. When ISNA officials recently met with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, the Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign was highlighted as one of their top achievements.
ISNA has leveraged its interfaith relationships as a tool to paint its critics as anti-Muslim bigots. On January 15, ISNA sponsored an event about the “Islamophobia Network” at the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, D.C. One of the speakers was Rev. Dennis Wiley, co-pastor of the Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ.
ISNA took action when four members of Congress (Reps. Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland and Rooney) wrote well-documented letters requesting investigations into the relationships between the U.S. government and Brotherhood-linked groups and individuals. ISNA and its allies went into overdrive, generating heaps of negative media coverage of them.
One of the ways they accomplished this was through their interfaith partners. A coalition of 43 interfaith groups wrote a public letter on July 26, 2012 defending ISNA, Muslim Advocates and the Muslim Public Affairs Council of having “long-standing histories of positive and committed work to strengthen the United States of America.”
The coalition said that the letters “betray our foundational religious freedoms.” They vowed, “We will not stand idly by and allow our country to revive federal investigations into innocent individuals based on their religious adherence.”
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty was one of the signatories. The supposedly non-political dialogue with ISNA had political benefits.
This is only a small taste of what’s going on around the country.
editorial footnote: Below are just a few of the “Pseudo-Christian” FAKE Churches in America today and some of the organizations they are partnering with. They are traitors to the faith and betrayers of the one Lord thy God. Nothing but hypocrites and heretics. If you belong to any of these “pseudo-Christian churches” or organizations below, we highly recommend you leave them immediately. They will slowly but assuredly lead you down the path of Islamic submission and servitude. Find yourself a True Messianic Temple that follows the teachings of the First Century Church as our Lord thy God instructed. Your spirit will experience an awakening that you never knew existed.
African American Ministers Leadership Council, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, Islamic Networks Group, Islamic Society of North America, Muslim Public Affairs Council, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, People for the American Way Foundation, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Queens Federation of Churches, Rabbis for Human Rights-North America, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Secular Coalition for America, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Sikh Coalition, Sojourners, Southern Poverty Law Center, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society.
By, Michael Woods, Postmedia News
A contentious section of Canadian human rights law, long criticized by free-speech advocates as overly restrictive and tantamount to censorship, is gone for good.
A private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the so-called “hate speech provision,” passed in the Senate this week. Its passage means the part of Canadian human rights law that permitted rights complaints to the federal Human Rights Commission for “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet” will soon be history.
The bill from Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth passed in the House of Commons last summer, but needed Senate approval. It has received royal assent and will take effect after a one-year phase-in period.
An “ecstatic” Storseth said the bill, which he says had wide support across ideological lines and diverse religious groups, repeals a “flawed piece of legislation” and he called Canada’s human rights tribunal “a quasi-judicial, secretive body that takes away your natural rights as a Canadian.”
“(Section 13) had actually stopped being used as a shield, as I think it was intended, to protect civil liberties, and started being used as a sword against Canadians, and it’s because it was a poorly-written piece of legislation in the first place,” he said.
Various human rights lawyers and groups such as the Canadian Bar Association say Section 13 is an important tool in helping to curb hate speech, and that removing it would lead to the proliferation of such speech on the Internet.
But critics of Section 13 said it enabled censorship on the Internet, and are calling its repeal a victory for free speech.
“We’re pleased with the repeal,” said Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), who testified before a Senate committee on the topic.
Zwibel said Section 13 had “some serious problems from a freedom of expression perspective.”
“We don’t want there to be a chill on speech that is controversial but not necessarily hateful,” she said. “We felt that given the impact that it has on freedom of expression, and given that it hasn’t really proven to be a very effective method for dealing with discrimination, that it shouldn’t be on the books anymore . . . We really encourage countering hateful speech, rather than trying to censor it.”
Zwibel, at the CCLA, also said there’s not a lot of good evidence that marginalized groups have used the statute to curb discrimination.
“Section 13 is not something that minority groups were already embracing and making use of,” she said, noting that a large majority of the tribunal cases “were brought by a single individual.”
That person is Ottawa-based human rights lawyer Richard Warman, who has brought 16 successful Section 13 complaints before the human rights tribunal against neo-Nazis and white supremacists since 2001.
On Thursday, Warman said Section 13 had helped sideline neo-Nazis from the Internet because of its power to obtain cease-and-desist orders from Canada’s human rights tribunal and enforce them through the courts.
“Virtually every other Western democracy has these kinds of civil law controls on hate speech,” Warman said. “Now, Canada just moves one large step further out of line from realizing that these kinds of controls are necessary and imperative.”
Producing and disseminating hate speech remains a crime in Canada, but regulating it will fall to the courts, not to human rights tribunals. Under the Criminal Code, spreading hate against identifiable groups can carry up to a two-year prison sentence.
The bill from Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth passed the House of Commons last summer. Photograph by: Handout, Postmedia News
But Conservative Sen. Nancy Ruth noted that while any citizen can file a human rights complaint, criminal charges for hate speech require the attorney general’s approval.
She said she left the Senate “heartbroken” after the bill passed, saying it creates a gap regarding discrimination based on sex, age and disabled people.
“This is a victory for hate speech. To remove protection from disadvantaged groups in society . . . this is a protection for hate speech,” she said, accusing the Conservative senators who voted for the bill of “tribal loyalty.”
“It is not about freedom of expression. It’s about freedom to hate, in my opinion.”
Warman also said institutional barriers make it “virtually impossible” to convince police to lay criminal charges for hate speech on the Internet.
However, Storseth said the government has committed to “buffing up the Criminal Code to ensure that these types of groups would not be left open to hate speech.”
Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri - United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
by, Daniel Greenfield
Obama has announced the appointment of Azizah al-Hibri to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Al-Hibri (full name, Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri) is a Muslim professor and the granddaughter of a Sheikh, who claims that the Koran inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founders and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.
Appointing a Muslim scholar to a commission on international religious freedom is only justifiable if that scholar recognized that much of the injustice in the world originates from Islamic law. But Al-Hibri has made her career whitewashing Islamic law and even presenting it as superior to American law.
While she has been called a reformer, her call in 2001 for a return to the fundamentals echoes Wahhabi rhetoric. Rather than examining the incompatibilities of Islamic law and the modern world, and urging the appropriate adjustments, as genuine reformers have done, Al-Hibri instead builds myths that uphold the Islamist agenda.
According to Al-Hibri “Islamic fiqh is deeper and better than Western codes of law”. She favorably compares Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accept blood money bribes to excuse a murder, to the “impersonal and powerful” American justice system.
Al-Hibri is often billed as a Muslim feminist, but she is equally hypocritical on women’s rights. Rather than conceding that Islamic law discriminates against women, she whitewashes its discriminatory treatment of women, arguing that guardianship is meant to protect “inexperienced women”.
Rather than trying to bring Islam in line with the modern world, Azizah Al-Hibri pushes for the modern world to be brought in line with Islam. Rather than reforming Islam, it is America that she would like to reform to Islamic standards.
Placing a woman who believes that American law is inferior to that of the Koran on an American commission to promote international religious freedom perverts the purpose of the commission and promotes religious tyranny instead.
Given a forum to call for reform, Al-Hibri unerringly insists that there is nothing to reform. At the UN, Al-Hibri expressed outrage that the Koran, which “established acceptance of others, now needed to be defended” and insisted that Islam “guaranteed freedom of thought”.
Listening to her defend Mohammed’s tyranny as an early form of democracy at the UN is a reminder of the era when Soviet representatives to the UN angrily defended their record on human rights and insisted that there is no freedom outside of Communism.
In Al-Hibri’s distorted history, the wave of genocides and conquests that turned the multicultural Middle-East into a desert of brutality governed by minor variations of Islamic ideology, was actually a wave of enlightenment. The massacres of the region’s Jews and the purge of all other religions from the area never occurred in Al-Habri’s history book.
Revisionist history of this kind would be dangerous even if it were not coming from a woman in a position to influence opinion leaders.
The twin approaches of the Islamist narrative may be described as the Caliph Omar bridge. When the Muslim armies of the Caliph reached the great Library of Alexandria, he decreed that it should be burned, for if the library’s scrolls held the same ideas as the Koran they were redundant, and if they opposed the Koran, they were heretical.
While some Islamists attack the United States Constitution as a heretical document and Western Civilization as worthless– others more cleverly represent the Constitution as an inferior version of the Koran and Western Civilization as derivative of Islamic civilization. Either way they must burn along with the Library of Alexandria.
But the second approach is more seductive. Rather than launching a direct attack, it seeks to construct a bridge that connects Islam and the West. But the structure of the bridge is only a more insidious form of attack.
These bridge builders don’t come bearing a torch, rather an argument that since American law is derived from Islam, it must ‘revert’ to the higher standards of Islamic law. By contrasting the reality of American law with an ideal version of Islamic law that does not exist anywhere in the world, they manage to make the system that protects human rights seem shabby, while the system that represses women and minorities appears noble and righteous.
That is the kind of revisionist history that Al-Hibri traffics in, creating a noble Islamic creed contrasted with a flawed American system.
Al-Hibri appears to transmute the rhetoric of Islamism into sweet music to progressive ears, and her associations only reinforce that image. She served on the advisory board of Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, defended it in print against accusations of extremism and made joint appearances with Alamoudi even after his statements in support of terrorism.
In 1995 she even testified at a congressional hearing against the Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Act’s ability to cut off funds to terrorist groups, because, “it gives the President the ability to designate, with no effective recourse, certain groups as terrorist”.
The America Muslim Council, whose national advisory board Al-Hibri sat on, had reason to fear that portion of the act. Some years later the AMC would be caught encouraging donations to the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, both charities affiliated with terrorists.
In the early days of 2001, Al-Hibri traveled to the Afghan border and criticized the Western press for “sensationalizing” Taliban atrocities and using them “as an opportunity to attack Islam”. After the attacks of September 11, she cautioned against bombing Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets during Ramadan. And that same year she defended Wahhabism as part of Islam’s “religious diversity” and its “marketplace of ideas”.
Al-Hibri appeared at an ISNA panel two months ago to call on Obama to stand up for Muslims against their American critics. And her insistence that no Muslim country practices true Sharia law appears to echo a familiar Islamist slogan. When the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed bringing Sharia to the UK, Al-Hibri gave an approving quote. Last year at the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association she called for a “a council of scholars” to serve as a central authority on Islam for the United States.
Azizah Al-Hibri’s feminist credentials rest heavily on Karamah, an organization of Muslim women lawyers, primarily funded by her brother Ibrahim El-Hibri and nephew Fuad El-Hibri’s “El-Hibri Charitable Foundation”.
The El-Hibri clan are a curious footnote in the War on Terror. Ibrahim El-Hibri had made a fortune doing business with Saudi Arabia. His company dominates the manufacture of the anthrax vaccine and suspicions have been raised by the Wall Street Journal about leaks from their company into the hands of terrorists. Regardless of all that, there is something ironic in Azizah Al-Hibri’s feminist organization being funded by her brother’s charitable trust with a board of trustees that includes two male members of the family, but not her.
Another donor to Karamah was Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of the famously progressive Saudi royal family. A kingdom well known for promoting feminism and women’s rights, which no doubt in between banning women from driving cars and distributing such feminist tracts as “Women Who Deserve To Go To Hell” funds organizations that empower women. Rather than organizations that put a faux feminist face on the Islamic repression of women.
Yet the oddest moment in Al-Hibri’s career of promoting Islamic law in the United States may have come when before Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, she actually wrote an article discussing how a sitting President of the United States might be tried under Islamic law.
“Had the President been testifying in an Islamic court, he would not have been placed in this terrible predicament in the first instance,” Al-Hibri wrote. As an added bonus, to Bill, she added that under Islamic law, it would be his accusers “would be punished for committing the crime of qathf”.
In a further reminder of the Islamic commitment to freedom of speech; “Others who violated his privacy and broadcast his behavior are guilty and, if not repentant, are punishable.” We can only guess if this involved stoning Matt Drudge.
Al-Hibri went on to point out that four witnesses to the crime were lacking. The same law that makes it so easy for gang rapists to accuse their victim of adultery, while leaving her helpless to defend against the charges.
Then she wrote, “Coming from a religious background, the President may have understood the religious significance of penetration and hence avoided it.” Clearly Bill Clinton wasn’t just the nation’s first Black president. He was also its first Muslim president.
At no point in this surreal article did Al-Hibri acknowledge that adultery is a crime punishable by death or vicious corporal punishment in much of the Muslim world. Instead she used a congressional investigation into presidential malfeasance to misrepresent Islamic law, which lashes or stones adulterers to death, as a more liberal code.
What can such a woman offer to the cause of international religious freedom? Only Obama and Bill know.
Azizah al-Hibri, Founder and Chair of Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights; Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Professor at the T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond.
by, Robert Spencer
Note also his words about jihad, quoting Muhammad: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify la illaha illa Allah [there is no god but Allah].”
And Qadhi says: “The life and property of a mushrik [one who worships others besides Allah] holds no value in the state of jihad….which means if they don’t sayla illaha illa Allah, their lives and property are halal” — that is, permitted to be taken by the Muslims.
Qadhi is an imam in Memphis. He is also Dean of Academic Affairs at the Al-Maghrib Institute. He is a hafiz — that is, he has memorized the entire Qur’an. He has an M.A. in the Islamic Creed and a B.A. in Islamic Sciences from Islamic University of Medina, as well as a master’s and a doctorate in Islamic Studies from Yale.
How is it, then, that he misunderstands jihad so spectacularly that he sounds like a greasy Islamophobe?
(Video thanks to Americans for Peace and Tolerance.)
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
That question was forwarded to a person that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his forwarded reply:
Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. Quran 5:51
Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually – no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both “good” Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish….it’s still the truth.
- Obama defends the Muslim Brotherhood instead of the Egyptian Citizens who seek freedom.
- Obama financially supports the Muslim Brotherhood and supplies them with jets and tanks.
- Obama financially supports the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria.
- Barack Hussein Obama is the world’s most dangerous terrorist.
As demonstrations and revolts swept the Muslim world during Obama’s first term, he was enthusiastic. He had encouraging words for the “Arab Spring” demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia, and even gave military assistance to their Libyan counterparts. During the third and last debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and Obama sparred over which could express support for the Syrian rebels (who are dominated by Islamic jihadists) more strongly, and as Obama’s second term began, his administration was inching ever closer to military aid for those rebels. Yet there have now been three large-scale demonstrations in Muslim countries that Obama did not support – and those three exceptions are extraordinarily revealing about his disposition, as well as his policy, toward Islam.
The three pro-democracy revolts that Obama refused to support were arguably the only two that were genuinely worthy of the pro-democracy label: the demonstrations against the Islamic regime in Iran in 2009, the anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations in Egypt in winter 2013, and the pro-secularism demonstrations in Turkey in recent weeks. There is a common thread between these three that distinguishes them from all the others: in Egypt in late 2012 and early 2013, as well as in Iran in 2009, the demonstrators were protesting against Islamic states; in Turkey, they were protesting against the Erdogan regime that is working hard now to establish an Islamic state. All the other demonstrations were not against pro-Sharia forces, but were led by pro-Sharia forces, and led to the establishment of Islamic states. To be sure, the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 contained many pro-Sharia elements that simply objected to the way the Islamic Republic was enforcing Sharia, but they also included many who wanted to reestablish the relatively secular society that prevailed under the last Shah. Whether the Sharia or the democratic forces would have won out in the end is a question that will never be answered – in no small part thanks to Barack Obama.
It appears the word is out. This is a banner in Tahrir Square in Egypt accurately acknowledging Obama.
In every case Barack Obama has been consistent: in response to the demonstrations and uprisings in the Islamic world, he has without exception acted in the service of Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia regimes. For whatever complex of personal affinity and political calculation, he has steered the United States, in the words of the Egyptian newspaper Rose el-Youssef, “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Maybe he thinks, as Daniel Greenfield has posited, that he can end jihad terror against the West by allowing Muslim states to achieve their heart’s desire: reestablishment of the caliphate. In any case, in one of the most shameful episodes of his entire shameful tenure, now American troops will be deployed in service of the Muslim Brotherhood, to put down pro-democracy protestors in Egypt.
“Riot Control Training,” from KCENTV.com, June 20 (thanks to Maxwell):
(KCEN) — A group of soldiers are preparing for their deployment to Egypt with riot training on post.
They’re planning ahead for violent protests or riots and the possibility of protecting the country’s border with Israel.
Soldiers encountered Molotov cocktails and other dangerous items in the training.
Lt. Matthew Wilkinson says, “Just what I’ve seen over the course of the past week than we were a week ago.”
PFC Perez Alexander says, “We want to be as professional as possible… Know what we’re doing.”
They wrap up training today before preparing to ship out in the near future.