Ingoma y’Abega ishingiye kubwami bw’ikinyoma irwanya abashoramali!!!

Ingoma y’Abega ishingiye kubwami bw’ikinyoma irwanya abashoramali!!!

Mironko Francois Xavier ni umwe mu banyenganda b’ikubitiro b’Abanyarwanda Mu Rwanda, kuwa Kabiri w’iki cyumweru, radiyo yanyu Ijwi ry’Amerika yatangaje inkuru y’ifungwa ry’umuhungu w’umunyemari Mironko Francois Xavier, umunyarwanda watangije uruganda rwa mbere More »

Ubuhanuzi: ibiroli by’Isamariya bizatangira saa sita z’amanywa,mu masaha ya nimunsi,byimukire muri gakondo birare inkera kuzageza mu gitondo!!!

Ubuhanuzi: ibiroli by’Isamariya bizatangira saa sita z’amanywa,mu masaha ya nimunsi,byimukire muri gakondo birare inkera kuzageza mu gitondo!!!

Leta y’ Uburundi iremeje urupfu rwa Perezida Nkurunziza. Ayandi makuru ni mu kanya Burundi Government URGENT: Le Gouvernement de la République du Burundi annonce avec une très grande tristesse le décès inopiné More »

File number irigukora umurimo!!!

File number irigukora umurimo!!!

Kuki u Rwanda Rwirukanye Abadiplomate b’Ababiligi Babiri? Leta y’u Rwanda iherutse kwirukana abadiplomate b’Ububiligi bariri ku mpamvu zitarasobanuka neza. Abo badiplomate bakoraga muri ambasade y’icyo gihugu mu Rwanda, Xavier Foolebouct, wari umujyanama More »

Ububiligi Bwasobanuye uko Bwavanye Abadiplomate Babwo mu Rwanda

Ububiligi Bwasobanuye uko Bwavanye Abadiplomate Babwo mu Rwanda

Abadiplomate b’Ababirigi bavanywe mu Rwanda Leta y’u Bubiligi yemeje ko yahamagaje abadiplomate bayo babiri bari i Kigali ibisabwe na Leta y’u Rwanda. Kuri uyu wa kabiri, Ijwi ry’Amerika ryatangaje inkuru y’abadiplomate b’Ababiligi More »

ONU/UN mu ntambara yo kurwanya ibinyoma kuri Covid-19

ONU/UN mu ntambara yo kurwanya ibinyoma kuri Covid-19

Umuryango w’Abibumbye-ONU/UN, watangaje ko ugiye gutangira urugamba rwo kubeshyuza cyangwa se kunyomoza amakuru y’ibinyoma atangazwa ku ndwara ya Covid-19, aho kenshi hakoreshwa imbuga nkoranyambaga. More »

 

Change Is Coming and Change Can Be Good by Shoshana Bryen

  • Palestinian statehood demands should be taken seriously only within the context of bilateral negotiations with the government of Israel. American attention should be paid to the non-democratic excesses of Palestinian leadership.
  • U.S. economic support and general support for the Palestinian Authority should be attached to improvements in press freedom, human rights and economic opportunity supported by the PA government.

President-elect Trump’s choice of David Friedman as Ambassador to Israel appears to be an excellent decision. It has already brought howls of protest from people invested heavily in the Oslo and subsequent accords, the “peace process” and the concept of the United States as an “evenhanded” broker between Israelis and Palestinians. Friedman, an Oslo-skeptic, has said he believes that, “Notwithstanding ‘agreements’ reached at Camp David, Oslo, Wye Plantation and elsewhere, neither Yasser Arafat nor Mahmoud Abbas ever had any intentions to observe the minimal conditions required of a two-state solution.”

On the other hand, he said of Israel that he would work “tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries,” correcting the relationship between two democratic, transparent, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, free market, countries — one large and one small. Israel goes from an impediment to American interests in the Middle East to a partner in a vital region — innovative, experienced, and successful.

It is worthwhile to review the parameters of the Oslo Process, negotiated in 1993 without the participation of the U.S., but adopted formally by President Clinton, because its underlying assumptions are about to be challenged.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. President Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accord signing ceremony on September 13, 1993. It is worthwhile to review the parameters of the Oslo Process, negotiated without the participation of the U.S., but adopted formally by President Clinton, because its underlying assumptions are about to be challenged. (Image source: Vince Musi / The White House)

The idea was that Israel would give and the Palestinians would give. Israel would get legitimacy and security (not an indefinable “peace”) and the Palestinians would get a state, or something just short of a state. But Oslo was based on two unproven assumptions:

  • That Palestinians would be satisfied with a split, West Bank/Gaza state squeezed between a hostile Israel and a more hostile Jordan, and not demand land west of the Green Line, i.e., “pre-67 Israel”; and
  • There was a price Israel, the United States, and Europe could pay to the Palestinians that would overcome any remaining Palestinian objection to Jewish sovereignty in the region.

Israel’s “gives” were concrete — withdrawing from Palestinian cities on the West Bank; permitting the establishment of a Palestinian “police force” that has morphed into an army; tolerating textbooks produced by the Palestinian Authority (PA) for children that are ahistorical and contain incendiary material; providing water, electricity and sewage for which the Palestinians are supposed to pay but do not; removing Israeli communities from Gaza; and more. The Palestinian “gives” were rhetorical, but even the rhetorical “gives” were elusive:

  • Changes to the Palestinian Covenant to which Arafat agreed but were never ratified or made.
  • The renunciation of violence, which was mocked by the so-called “intifada” and the Hamas rocket wars against Israel. The U.S. generally waves off Israeli objections to violent and anti-Semitic Palestinian rhetoric and complains about what it incorrectly calls Israel’s “disproportionate” response to the rocket wars.
  • The Palestinians’ refusal to sign “end of conflict/end of claims” — meaning that whatever agreement established the Palestinians state would be the last Palestinian claim on Israeli territory. This was specifically rejected by Mahmoud Abbas

By comparison, the Israel-Egypt Camp David Accords (the opening for which was also a surprise to the American government) were different because the United States was the patron of both countries, allowing President Carter to approach both from a position of strength. Israel’s “gives” included the entire Sinai. Sadat’s biggest, and essential, “give” was his appearance at Israel’s Knesset, formally acknowledging the legitimacy of the Jewish State, followed by agreement to demilitarize the Sinai. Yes, after Sadat was assassinated, it was for decades a cold peace, but Egypt’s exit from the circle of hostility made it possible for Jordan to sign a peace with Israel as well.

Almost 40 years later, the Jordan-Israel-Egypt axis works brilliantly.

Oslo, however, did not work. The last 23 years of “peace processing” and on-and-off “peace talks,” included periodic open warfare initiated by the Palestinians. It also included warfare among Palestinian factions, Palestinian veneration of violence against Jews and of the perpetrators of that violence, and the absence of any democratic evolution among the Palestinians. The Obama administration generally imputed this to “settlements” and insufficient Israeli input. Hillary Clinton called Israel “lacking in generosity and empathy for oppressed Palestinians.” Secretary of State Kerry opined that the “peace process” faltered because, “People in Israel aren’t waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity.”

While President Obama and Kerry have said there is no progress to be made at this time, their preferred path has been to freeze the situation in place — or at least freeze Israel in place. That way, if the Palestinians are some day ready to meet their obligations (or at least meet with the Israeli Prime Minister), they can start from where the Arabs left off in 1948 with no penalty. For example, land east of the 1949 Armistice Line should remain as empty of Jews as possible so a future Palestinian state can be Jew-free; “settlements” are therefore illegitimate. The descendants of Palestinian refugees of 1948/49 should retain refugee status and their demand to live in parts of Israel from which their grandparents and great-grandparents claim to have fled. Jerusalem, the eastern part of which was occupied illegally by Jordan in 1949, should remain frozen as “East” and “West” so the Palestinians can believe the city could be redivided; certainly the American Embassy cannot move even to the western side.

To enforce its position, the Obama Administration has threatened to withhold its traditional veto of anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council.

Instead of pushing Israel harder and giving the Palestinians a free pass, it would make more sense to lower the priority of Palestinian statehood in the context of Middle East politics and widespread warfare. Palestinian statehood demands should be taken seriously only within the context of bilateral negotiations with the government of Israel. American attention should be paid to the non-democratic excesses of Palestinian leadership — and U.S. economic support and general support for the Palestinian Authority should be attached to improvements in press freedom, human rights and economic opportunity supported by the PA government.

Perhaps in the next administration; perhaps by the next Ambassador.

Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center.

Censoring You to ‘Protect’ You by Douglas Murray

  • The editor of The Vanguard at Portland State University decided that it was more important to cover up a story than to break it, more important to evade truths than to expose them, and more important to treat students — and the wider world — as children rather than thinking sentient adults able to make up their own minds.

  • That students such as Andy Ngo exist is reason for considerable optimism. So long as there are even a few people left who are willing to ask the questions that need asking and willing to tell people about the answers they hear — however uncomfortable they may seem right now — all cannot possibly be lost.
  • Indeed, it is imaginable, that with examples such as this, students in America could be reminded not only that truth will always triumph over lies, but that the current trend of ignorance and censorship might one day soon begin to be turned around.

In the culture-wars currently rocking US campuses, the enemies of free speech have plenty of tools on their side. Many of these would appear to be advantages. For instance the employment of violence, thuggery and intimidation against those who disagree are generally effective ways to prevent people hearing things you do not want them to hear. As are the subtler but more regularly employed tactics for shutting people down, such a “no-platforming” people or getting them disinvited after they have been invited, should the speaker’s views not accord 100% with those of their would-be censors. As also noted in this space before, many of the people who campaign to limit what American students can learn also have the short-term advantage of being willing to lie without compunction and cover over facts whenever they emerge.

The important point here, however, is that word “short-term”. In the long run, those who wish to cover over a contrary opinion, or even inconvenient facts, are unlikely to succeed. Adults tend to be capable of more discernment and initiative than the aspirant-nannies believe them to be, and the effects will always tend to show. Take, for example, events in Portland, Oregon, last month.

In April, a gathering took place at the Portland State University. The occasion was billed as an interfaith panel and was given the title, “Challenging Misperceptions.” As this is an era when perceptions, as well as misperceptions, of religion are perhaps unusually common, there might be some sense in holding such a discussion, even in the knowledge that it is likely to be hampered — as interfaith get-togethers usually are — by the necessity of dwelling on things that do not matter and focussing attention away from all things that do. Thus, by the end of an average interfaith event, it can generally be agreed upon that there are certain dietary laws that certain religions have in common, some agreement on the existence of historical figures and an insistence that religion is the answer to most problems of our world. Fortunately, at Portland, there were some people in the audience who appear to have been happy to avoid this sort of boilerplate.

A young woman raised her hand and asked the Muslim student on the panel about a specific verse in the Koran which would appear to approve killing non-Muslims (Possible verses might have included Qur’an: 8:12; 22:19-22; 2:191-193; 9.5; 9:29). The Muslim student replied:

“I can confidently tell you, when the Koran says an innocent life, it means an innocent life, regardless of the faith, the race, like, whatever you can think about as a characteristic.”

This had the potential to develop into an interesting, or at the very least, an interestingly evasive answer. And so a young student there, named Andy Ngo, who also worked for the university’s student newspaper, The Vanguard, got out his phone and began recording. The Muslim student on the panel went on to say:

“And some, this, that you’re referring to, killing non-Muslims, that [to be a non-believer] is only considered a crime when the country’s law, the country is based on Koranic law – that means there is no other law than the Koran. In that case, you’re given the liberty to leave the country, you can go in a different country, I’m not gonna sugarcoat it. So you can go in a different country, but in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave].”

All of this is an admirably more complete answer than tends to be given at such affairs. All of this is also theologically strong. Speaking about the attitudes of the Islamic faith towards apostasy a few years ago, no less an authority than Yusuf al-Qaradawi said that if Muslims had got rid of the punishments for apostasy, “Islam would not exist today”. It is a striking admission, and one which would appear to suggest an awareness that the religion’s innate appeal is not as great as is often alleged.

The young reporter who captured this segment of video proceeded to share it on his Twitter account. This is the sort of thing journalists often do if they are at a public event and someone says something of interest. The alternatives (that journalists hope never to attend anything interesting, or attend events that are interesting but choose to keep their discoveries private) are not models for success in the profession.

In the days immediately following the event, a couple of websites picked up the story. Shortly afterwards, Andy Ngo was called in for a meeting at his student newspaper and told by the editor-in-chief that his behaviour was “predatory” and “reckless” and that he had put the life of the Muslim student and that student’s family at risk. So far as anyone knows, nothing has happened to either the Muslim student or his family. Despite much flame-fanning by “Defenders of Minorities”, America does not seem to be in the middle of a lynching season for religious minorities, even though these moralists often appear to wish it otherwise. Nevertheless, “health and safety” and “minimising harm” are, as Mark Steyn has observed, the new “shut up”. Where once someone would invite you just to “shut up”, today they can appeal to the possibility that a non-existent lynch-mob might show up to murder anyone whose cause the censor of the day happens to be trying to protect.

At any rate, while the Muslim student and his family are, of course, fine, the young journalist who reported his words was fired. The editor of The Vanguard at Portland State University decided that it was more important to cover up a story than to break it, more important to evade truths than to expose them, and more important to treat Portland students — and the wider world — as children rather than thinking adults able to make up their own minds.

The account of The Vanguard is a typical display of student cowardice and American academic dishonour. The report, nevertheless, should also stand as a demonstration of American hope. That students such as Andy Ngo exist is reason for considerable optimism. So long as there are even a few people left who are willing to ask the questions that need asking and willing to tell people about the answers they hear — however uncomfortable they may seem right now — all cannot possibly be lost. Indeed, it is imaginable, that with examples such as his, students in America could be reminded not only that truth will always triumph over lies, but that the current trend of ignorance and censorship might one day soon begin to be turned around.

Portland, Oregon. (Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images)

Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.

Celebrating Terrorism, Palestinian Style by Khaled Abu Toameh

  • The Palestinian jubilation over yesterday’s terror bombing in Jerusalem, the first of its kind since the suicide bombings during the Second Intifada more than a decade ago, is yet another reminder of the growing radicalization among Palestinians.

  • The major obstacle to peace with Israel remains the absence of education for peace with Israel. In fact, it is safe to say that there never was a real attempt on the part of Palestinian leaders and factions to prepare their people for peace with Israel. On the contrary, the message they send to their people remains extremely anti-Israel.
  • This casts doubt on the Palestinian leadership’s and people’s willingness to move toward peace and coexistence with Israel.

Shortly after the Jerusalem bus terror explosion attack on April 18, a number of Palestinian factions rushed to issue statements applauding the “heroic operation” and urging Palestinians to pursue the path of armed struggle against Israel.

The Palestinian jubilation over the terror attack, the first of its kind since the suicide bombings during the Second Intifada more than a decade ago, is yet another reminder of the growing radicalization among Palestinians. This radicalization is mostly attributed to the ongoing anti-Israel incitement and indoctrination by various Palestinian factions and leaders.

Not surprisingly, the first Palestinian group to applaud the Jerusalem bus attack was Hamas.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said that his movement “welcomes the Jerusalem operation and considers it a natural response to Israeli crimes, especially extra-judicial executions and the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

The Hamas spokesman was in fact echoing similar charges made by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who declared that Palestinians will not allow Jews to be “defiling the Aqsa Mosque with their filthy feet.”

How can anyone blame Hamas for making such accusations against Jews when Abbas, Israel’s peace partner, was the first to come out against tours by Jews to the Temple Mount? It is worth mentioning that Abbas’s allegations came only a few weeks before the eruption of the “Knife Intifada” in early October.

Another Hamas leader, Hussar Badran, also praised the terror attack. He said his movement was determined to pursue the resistance to “expel the occupation from our Palestinian lands.”

When Hamas leaders talk about “expelling the occupation from the Palestinian lands,” they mean that Israel should be eliminated and replaced with an Islamist empire.

On Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV, broadcaster Mohamed Hamed was so happy and excited to hear about the Jerusalem terror attack that he decided to salute the perpetrators.

Other Palestinians who are not necessarily Hamas supporters took to social media to praise the terror attack and call for more. On Twitter, many Palestinian activists created hashtags called #Bus12 and #TheRoofoftheBusGoesFlying to celebrate the terror attack.

Reflecting the state of jubilation over the Jerusalem terror attack, Palestinian cartoonists quickly joined the chorus of those celebrating the “heroic operation” against Israeli civilians. One of them, Omayya Juha, responded quickly by drawing a cartoon featuring a Palestinian woman celebrating the terror attack by ululating and handing out candies.

Palestinian cartoonist Omayya Juha celebrated the April 18 terrorist bombing of a Jerusalem bus by quickly drawing a cartoon featuring a Palestinian woman celebrating the terror attack by ululating and handing out candies in front of the burned-out bus.

Within hours of the attack, Palestinian factions seemed to be competing with each other over who would issue the most supportive statement of the terror explosion. Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) reacted by issuing separate statements applauding the Jerusalem bus blast. They said it marked a “qualitative development” in the intifada. The two groups vowed to continue killing Israelis as part of an effort to “escalate” the intifada. Later, another group called the Popular Resistance Committees issued its own statement in which it threatened “more painful strikes against the Zionist enemy.”

Even Abbas’s Fatah faction went to great pains to justify the terror attack. In an initial response to the attack, Fatah spokesman Ra’fat Elayan used Hamas’s words to comment on the bus blast: “This is a natural response to Israeli practices against our people, including arrests, killings and recurring incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

Later in the evening, there were reports that some Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip, took to the streets to express their joy over the terror attack.

The public statements of the Palestinian leaders and groups after the Jerusalem terror attack are yet another sign of how they continue to incite their people against Israel. These are the type of statements that prompt Palestinian men and women to grab a knife (or in this case an explosive device) and set out to kill the first Jew they run into.

The major obstacle to peace with Israel remains the absence of education for peace with Israel. In fact, it is safe to say that there never was a real attempt on the part of Palestinian leaders and factions to prepare their people for peace with Israel. On the contrary, the message they send to their people remains extremely anti-Israel.

The incitement, threats and fiery rhetoric will only lead to more violence. For now, all indications are that the Palestinians are headed towards upgrading the “Knife Intifada” to a wave of bombings against civilian targets inside Israel. Judging from the reactions of the various Palestinian factions and activists, support for terror attacks against Israel is so widespread among Palestinians that they are prepared to celebrate the bombing of a bus carrying civilians. This casts doubt on the Palestinian leadership’s and people’s willingness to move toward peace and coexistence with Israel.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based Jerusalem.

Canada: Who, Please, Are We Helping? by Sohail Raza

  • At this fraught time in the history of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism, it is important that Canadian authorities — especially the police and security services — not inadvertently confer legitimacy and credibility on organizations and individuals whose histories and associations raise legitimate questions about their ideological background, links and agendas.

  • According to a US court, “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” Under Canadian and US law, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization.
  • In July 2013, CAIR-CAN announced its change of name to the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), some specialists regarding this as a way of masking the connection to CAIR or to its history as part of CAIR
  • Like its American mother organization, NCCM/CAIR-CAN has on occasion been thought to embrace a victimhood narrative that risks alienating Muslims in general — and Muslim youth, in particular — from their non-Muslim fellow citizens. The propagating of the word “Islamophobia” has been regarded as especially unhelpful, and condemned by some as a means of silencing Muslims and non-Muslims who would warn of the growing hazards of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism.

At this fraught time in the history of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism, it is important that Canadian public authorities — especially the police and security services — not inadvertently confer legitimacy and credibility on organizations and individuals whose histories and associations raise legitimate questions about their ideological background, links and agendas.

One way in which authorities unintentionally assist in building the credibility of undeserving groups and individuals is by sponsoring and attending meetings and events involving such persons and organizations. It is therefore important for those in positions of authority to acquit themselves properly of their responsibility to meet due diligence obligations, when it comes to screening those involved in such events.

On April 10, 2016, police acknowledged that it had been an error to invite a controversial Muslim Group, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), to an event organized by the Council’s Communications Director, Ms. Amira Elghawaby, and attended by the Durham Regional Police Service and the Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. The event, on March 31, 2016, was described as a workshop, “Human Differences: Islamophobia,” and was to be attended by employees of the Regional Municipality of Durham.

There are many, including the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow (MFT), who strongly believe that the NCCM is an unsuitable connection for Durham Regional Police Services and Durham Region to maintain, and to have participated in a public, tax-funded proceeding.

In this regard, various, apparently credible, sources have made claims and observations along the following lines:

The National Council of Canadian Muslims was established as the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Canada, CAIR-CAN, CAIR.CAN), the Canadian chapter of the American-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR, a Saudi-funded organization that was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful Holy Land Foundation prosecution, often described as the biggest terror-funding trial in United States history. Despite the court’s misgivings about the government’s having made the designation public, the court upheld the unindicted co-conspirator designation imposed on CAIR.

According to a US court, “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” Under Canadian and US law, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization.

Several CAIR-connected personnel, including its national civil liberties’ coordinator, were sent to prison following terrorism-related convictions.

In 2003, CAIR-CAN founding Chair Dr. Sheema Khan stated under oath that CAIR-CAN was under the direction and control of the US-based CAIR mother organization.

In July 2013, CAIR-CAN announced its change of name to the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), some specialists regarding this as a way of masking the connection to CAIR or to its history as part of CAIR; a CAIR-CAN July 6, 2013 news release quoting NCCM/CAIR-CAN Executive Director Ihsaan Gardee as saying “We remain the same organization our constituents and partners have come to rely on,” is now unavailable at its original NCCM/CAIR-CAN website URL. Continuity in senior CAIR-CAN and NCCM ranks is evident, including in the presence of Mr. Ihsaan Gardee and Ms. Amira Elghawaby in NCCM/CAIR-CAN.

NCCM/CAIR-CAN has maintained significant involvement with the Reviving the Islamic Spirit (RIS) annual conventions, at least some of which have involved presentations by individuals known for radical views. Among a number of other troubling people featured at RIS conventions, was William W. Baker, sometimes referred to as a neo-Nazi and who had reportedly favoured “the creation of a united Christian-Muslim front against Jews and other groups.”

Another was India’s Dr. Zakir Naik, about whose divisive ideological extremism a Muslim scholar asserted, “in India, Sunnis and Shias have joined together against the destructive efforts of Zakir Naik”.

It has recently been reported that “Dr Naik suggested that Muslims men may rape their slave,” — “a disturbing echo,” wrote a journalist, “of the doctrines of the Middle East’s Islamic State insurgency.” The appearance of some public officials, including a now-disgraced former RCMP Commissioner, at RIS conventions, has been attributed by some to politics, failures of due diligence and other such lapses.

A long-term CAIR-CAN official was Dr. Jamal Badawi, a former member of the Muslim Association of Canada board, who was himself named a US unindicted co-conspirator and was on the executive of the US Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an American unindicted co-conspirator organization. He has been alleged to support polygamy and to have publicly advocated light physical punishment for misbehaving wives.

NCCM/CAIR-CAN, along with the controversial Islamic Social Services Association, put together what they characterized as a counter-radicalization handbook, United Against Terrorism, that recommended hardline clerics. Despite public objections and a last-minute RCMP withdrawal from the project on grounds of the handbook’s “adversarial” qualities, the handbook has since been distributed, possibly by NCCM/CAIR-CAN-linked operatives, without the removal of RCMP’s name and logo. The RCMP was criticized for having made the NCCM/CAIR-CAN connection in the first place.

Responding to a 2014 NCCM/CAIR-CAN letter to Prime Minister Harper, Harper’s communications director said, “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas.” NCCM/CAIR-CAN denies any suggestion of inappropriate behavior or connections on its part, and, after some delay, sued in libel in the matter. Those being sued eventually made a motion requesting further disclosure about NCCM/CAIR-CAN’s background. On December 2, 2015, Madam Justice Liza Sheard of the Superior Court of Ontario followed up, writing of the detailed nature of the defence’s position:

… defence describes the incorporation of the plaintiff and its name change on June 24, 2013; it makes specific reference to the connection or relationship between CAIR-CAN and CAIR; it sets out details of its allegation connecting the plaintiff with the 2007 litigation in United States of America v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development et al. …; it provides details for its allegation that a director of the plaintiff corporation were named on the U.S. Government List of Unindicted Co-conspirators; it sets detailed allegations that this and another director were also board members of an association that openly endorsed Hamas; it sets out details of the Canada Revenue Agency declining to grant charitable registration of another organization, the Jerusalem fund for human services; and that CRA [Canada Revenue Agency] has identified it as providing part of a support network for Hamas.

On the basis of this, among other, considerations, Justice Sheard ordered NCCM/CAIR-CAN to produce further information. The outcome of the broader legal case is yet to be decided.

Like its American mother organization, NCCM/CAIR-CAN has on occasion been thought to take a somewhat exaggerated, divisive view of the position of Muslims in society, an approach said to embrace a victimhood narrative that risks alienating Muslims in general – and Muslim youth, in particular – from their non-Muslim fellow citizens. The propagating of the word “Islamophobia” has been regarded as especially unhelpful, and condemned by some as a means of silencing Muslims and non-Muslims who would warn of the growing hazards of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism.

Concerns have been raised about the possible propensity of NCCM/CAIR-CAN, primarily during its “CAIR-CAN” phase, to share its CAIR mother organization’s tendency to launch libel suits that it later would agree to dismiss. To some critics, this might imply constitutionally ambiguous attempts to employ what is sometimes called “libel lawfare” in efforts to silence those asking questions about NCCM/CAIR-CAN.

It should be observed that the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow is unaware of any formal attempt by NCCM/CAIR-CAN to condemn, publicly and by name, CAIR and those persons connected to CAIR who have been convicted of terrorism-linked offences. Nor is it known whether NCCM/CAIR-CAN might open its financial and other books and records for public examination, in order to clarify certain issues and the nature of relationships. MFT cautions that, consistent with due diligence examinations of any organization, endorsements of NCCM/CAIR-CAN by persons and organizations, including human rights personalities, should be scrutinized rigorously. This, in order to comprehend whether endorsements reflect a detailed understanding of the origins, history, background and connections of NCCM/CAIR-CAN, and whether those endorsing may be, or perceive themselves to be, compromised by earlier dealings with the group.

To its credit, the Durham Regional Police Service, asserted that this error had been made by the Police Service’s outreach committee. The Chief undertook to guard against any repetition of this or similar errors; proper due-diligence assessments would be conducted for events significantly involving the Durham Regional Police Service, so that inappropriate interests would not be inadvertently legitimized by association with the Service.

Given the importance in contemporary Canada of ensuring that official public outreach to Muslim communities involve only reliable representatives of moderate Canadian Islam — especially as models for Canadian Muslim youth — the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow respectfully requested that the Durham Regional Police Service and Durham Region immediately cease involvement with the National Council of Canadian Muslims and its officials.

Sohail Raza is a consultant involved in exposing radicalization and has appeared as an expert witness before the Government of Canada’s Senate hearing on Radicalization.

Canada: Sold to the Highest Foreign Bidder by Shabnam Assadollahi

  • In April, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that ISIS supporters have the right to defend their freedom, and was reported to have referred to Evangelical Christians as the “worst part of Canadian society.” These remarks came after is after he remained silent when Jewish centers received bomb threats, and despite Canada’s imams regularly calling for the annihilation of Jews.

  • Even more disturbing is a technical loophole in the Canada Elections Act. The law allows foreign entities to make contributions to Canadian candidates. This means that players such as Iran or Saudi Arabia will be able to further their agendas through a particular politician, as long as they pump him with funds for six months and a day prior to his official bid for office.

A journalist was taken to task recently for calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau an inelegant name during a press conference. In response, Josh Sigurdson justified his behavior in a YouTube video:

“The state-run media got to ask [Trudeau] questions — pre-screened ones, at that… How is it journalism to ask pre-selected questions of a politician? Restricting opposition, restricting free speech… pretending to stand for women while sending money to governments and dictatorships who stone women to death for driving and kill gays … that is the definition of scumbag.”

Although many might not have used that exact word to describe Trudeau, one might sympathize with the sentiment behind it.

As a Canadian citizen who was born in Iran and watched my country come under the Islamist regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini, it is not hard to spot a tyrant. It is not hard for Trudeau, either, apparently. Three years ago, as head of the opposition, he told a group of women in Toronto: “There is a level of admiration that I actually have for China, because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime…”

More recently, last November, Trudeau issued a statement about the death of Fidel Castro; he called the former Cuban dictator “remarkable” and a “larger than life leader who served his people.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said three years go: “There is a level of admiration that I actually have for China, because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.” In November, he called Fidel Castro “remarkable” and a “larger than life leader who served his people.” (Image source: U.S. Air Force)

After taking over the leadership of the country, Trudeau not only withdrew Canada’s participation from the U.S.-led bombing of ISIS strongholds in Iraq and Syria, but months later — a day after the March 22, 2016 Brussels suicide bombings that left 32 innocent people dead — he announced that Canada was “not at war with ISIS.”

This April, Trudeau said that ISIS supporters have the right to defend their freedom, and was reported to have referred to Evangelical Christians as the “worst part of Canadian society.” These remarks came after is after he remained silent when Jewish centers received bomb threats and when the country’s imams regularly call for the annihilation of Jews. Trudeau, in March, slammed a video posted to YouTube that offered a $1,000 reward for recordings of Muslim students at schools in a district of Ontario that were “spewing hate speech” during Friday prayer. “Canadians have understood that our differences are a source of strength, not a source of weakness,” Trudeau said at a press conference, after the release of the video. Prime Minister Trudeau has been supportive of Muslim prayers in the secular school board, where prayers and students preaching and will be unsupervised.

Prime Minister Trudeau has also been trying to change the rules of the Commons to fit his schedule and strip the opposition of its power to hold him accountable, interim leader Rona Ambrose charged. Apparently he has been trying to limit the ability of the opposition to debate him in Parliament prior to the passage of proposed bills.

Even more disturbing is a technical loophole in the Canada Elections Act, now being brought to the fore by Trudeau’s camp. The law allows foreign entities to make contributions to Canadian candidates. This means that players such as Iran or Saudi Arabia will be able to further their agendas through a particular politician, as long as they pump him with funds for six months and a day prior to his official bid for office.

With the entrance into the country of thousands of illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers with criminal records — thanks to the increasingly dictatorial policies of Trudeau and his Liberal Party strongmen — this legal loophole leaves Canada wide open to extreme political change, and not for the better.

Shabnam Assadollahi is an award-winning human rights advocate, public speaker, freelance writer and journalist.

Page 425 of 460
1 423 424 425 426 427 460
Skip to toolbar