IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

What is the most pressing issue facing this country? Canadians say unemployment and jobs

12 months ago

The national issue agenda among Canadians continues to evolve. Economic issues now occupy the top two spots, while concern over healthcare has decreased. What do you think is the most pressing issue facing this country?


comment
Ajax-loader-transparent
Didn't receive confirmation?
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password or use a different email ID
Submitting your comment
Cancel
ABR_GWN 6 months ago
Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy
Shabnam Assadollahi

http://mackenzieinstitute.com/islamic-sharia-law-vs-liberty-equality-and-democracy/

“If you wish to know how civilized a culture is, look at how they treat its women.” Bacha Khan

Treatment of Women Under Sharia Law

If feminism means: “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men, and is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”, why have national feminist organizations in Canada not condemned oppression and atrocities against women living under Islamic Sharia Law?

There has been intensive research and many articles and interviews containing testimonial evidence that women in societies and countries governed by Islamic Sharia Law — a medieval and barbaric legal framework incompatible with modern values and basic human rights – have limited rights and freedoms compared to women in the West.

In countries and societies ruled by Islamic Sharia Law, women essentially have no rights and no equality. Under Sharia Law women have fewer inheritance rights compared to men and lesser status as witnesses. Women in Islamic countries ruled under Sharia Law are subject to harsh penalties for violation of modesty laws and have no choice but follow the modesty laws such as ‘dress modesty’. In Iran modesty law and activities of country’s modesty police has been handed over to Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani’s Ministry of the Interior. 2 Failure to comply with modesty laws has been subject to extreme violence from modesty police in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Sudan.

These violations frequently result in state-sponsored violence against women (even death) in Islamic countries. As well, female foreigners travelling to Islamic countries governed by Sharia Law are advised to dress modestly (wearing the hijab, head cover and Islamic garment) and not travel unaccompanied by a man.

A prime example of such embedded inequality is exemplified in marital relations: a man is entitled to have up to four wives. A husband, in divorcing one of his wives, need only make a declaration in front of an Islamic judge without the woman’s consent or even the requirement of her presence. However, if a woman wishes to divorce her husband, his consent is required. Men are allowed to have “temporary” marriages, a form of legal Islamic prostitution where it can even last less than half an hour – a situation allowed by some religious scholars. Temporary marriage is also known as a “pleasure marriage,” called Mutah which was established within Islam by the Muslim prophet Mohammed himself as a way to reward his jihadists for services rendered to Allah. A report by the Gatestone Institute.3 reveals such occurrences even in the United Kingdom. A minimum marriage age for girls set as young as 12 or 13 is not uncommon in Muslim-majority countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen, to name a few. In Yemen and Afghanistan there are cases where eight-year-old girls died of internal injuries suffered on their wedding night. According to a report by Al Jazeera, 4 “Nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18.”

In Iran, under Sharia Law women are denigrated as second class citizens. Sex outside of the marriage is at times punished by the brutal practice of stoning to death. From the inception of the Islamic republic of Iran in 1979, the women of Iran resisted the Islamic Regime’s introduction of Sharia Law. Iranian women have been demanding changes to the laws that set the legal age of maturity for girls at 13 years old and 15 years old for boys. This means that 13-year-old girls can be married to men decades their senior, with merely the consent of her male guardian, as provided by Article 1041 of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Civil Code.

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s laws limit a girl to receiving only half the inheritance a boy receives. The inheritance that a wife receives from her husband is even less than half. Such laws cannot be condoned by women who, by official counts, occupy 70% of the university seats in Iran.

One case I would like to highlight in order to emphasize the travesty of inequality for women under Sharia is that of Reyhaneh Jabbari. The University student and interior designer, was found guilty of murder in 2009 for killing her rapist in self-defence, and sentenced to death by hanging. She was executed at age 27 after eight years of imprisonment and torture to obtain a confession.

After meeting Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a member of the Iranian Intelligence Service, while having coffee one day, her whole life changed forever. Overhearing her phone conversation about her work, he convinced her to meet with him for advice on renovating his office. When he picked her up for their scheduled appointment he instead took her to a rundown house, brought her inside and locked the door telling her she could not escape, then attempted to give her a drink with sedatives so he could rape her. After a struggle she stabbed his shoulder and managed to escape. Regardless of an international outcry and a petition 5 of over 200,000 signatures, proper testimony, evidence, and confession by authorities privately to Reyhaneh that Morteza’s murder was actually set up by them for political reasons, Reyhaneh became their scapegoat, was convicted of the murder by stabbing, and received her sentence.

I was one of four campaigners to stop Reyhaneh’s execution which had been brought to our attention by her family. Our group launched a petition and collected more than 200,000 signatures. We gave media interviews, organized worldwide events and through our campaign, the international community had supported our campaign and tried to pressure the Iranian officials to stop her execution. Unfortunately, the barbaric and undemocratic practices of Sharia Law under the Islamic constitution in Iran allowed this unjust action by the Iran regime. Reyhaneh Jabbari was executed October 25, 2014.

Aside from the notorious executions of Iranian political dissidents, sexual violence is also routinely committed by the Islamic regime in Iran: Rape and gang rape by prison guards and interrogators is a common practice in the Islamic regime’s prisons. In Iranian prisons, it is common for young girls and virgins to be raped, even, as a final indignity, right before being executed. A disturbing finding of a U.N. Report of the Economic and Social Council was that virgin women condemned to death were forcibly and temporary married to officials on the eve of their execution. This continues to be a horrible reality that many women live with every single day in the prisons of Iran.

Officials would rape these women so that they would not be virgins when they die. There is a sinister and malign religious dogma behind this practice: According to the Iranian regime’s Islamic belief system, a Muslim woman who dies a virgin goes to heaven and therefore, they do not permit female political dissidents to be killed without first getting raped and losing their virginity to Iranian officials prior to their execution, to prevent their receiving a heavenly reward.

Iranian Ayatollah Mesbah has declared 6 that if a woman is sentenced to be executed, “raping her would be as rewarding as going to Mecca on the Hajj-Islamic Pilgrimage.” However, he noted that even if she was not given a death penalty, “raping her will be as rewarding as going on a Karbala pilgrimage.” No doubt this Ayatollah is a theocratic savage.

Iranian women have suffered much due to Sharia Law: A 16-year-old girl 7 was hanged for having had sexual relations with a 50-year-old married taxi driver. Under Islamic law in Iran, the cheating husband would be executed by the reprehensible act of stoning; however, he was not punished. Yet, 16-year-old Atefeh Sahaaleh was executed.

Closer to home, according to American gynaecologists Kavita Shah Arora and Allan Jacob, female genital mutilation should be legal in its mildest forms. They say “procedures that slightly changed the look of a girl’s genitalia without damaging them were comparable to male circumcision or cosmetic procedures in Western countries like labiaplasty.” The two American gynaecologists have stated that countries which have banned female genital mutilation (FGM) should allow less invasive practices such as small surgical nicks to girls’ genitalia as a compromise. CBC Canada 8 This proposal was strongly criticized by activists against FGM where they stated that it would undermine global efforts to eradicate the internationally condemned barbaric practice.

According to a report published by CIJ News, 9 “Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, a Canadian and Toronto-based Muslim scholar clarifies the Islamic Law regarding the popular practice in Muslim countries of circumcising the girls. Bilal Philips asserts that Islam prohibits female genital mutilation, but permits female circumcision, which is a “slight” cut that does not affect the ability of women to achieve sexual satisfaction.”

At least 200 million girls and women have been subjected to FGM in over 30 countries, according to U.N. estimates. (For reference, please see the slide show and the Petition 10 concerning FGM in Somalia.)

In Iran, women have resisted for 37 years these very Sharia Laws that are now being incorporated in the West in the name of ‘multiculturalism.’

Activism Against Sharia Law

A few Muslim Feminists have different opinions about the interpretations of Sharia law oppressing women and argue that it has no basis in Islam and basically consists of man-made interpretations of the Qur’anic texts. “I argue that Muslim family laws are the products of sociocultural assumptions and juristic reasoning about the nature of relations between men and women. In other words, they are ‘man-made’ juristic constructs, shaped by the social, cultural and political conditions within which Islam’s sacred texts are understood and turned into law.” 11

One Muslim imam who is defending violence against women in the name of Islamic law states that laws protecting women from violence are un-Islamic. 12

Maryam Namazie, an outstanding Iranian Feminist from the UK who is an outspoken activist against Sharia law said 13 in a recent speech: “For me, ‘Islamic feminism’ is an oxymoron like ‘Islamic human rights;’ they are antithetical to each other. If there are better laws for women in some countries where Islam plays a role, it is not because of Islam but because of secular movements calling for the separation of religion from the state and its laws. Why must Maryam Namazie take on the left in her critiques of Islamic extremism?” In an interview podcasted by Feminist Current, 14 “Namaze who is an atheist, a leftist, a feminist, a critic of Islamic extremism, and co-founder of the British Council of Ex-Muslims is routinely attacked and disallowed a platform — not only by Islamic groups, but by feminists and leftists, who call her Islamophobic.” Is there an explanation for why feminists and leftists take this stance?

‘Women on The Front Line’ is a documentary film 15 written and produced by Sheema Kalbasi​, an award-winning eminent Iranian-American filmmaker and poet. This documentary, about life under Sharia Law, unveils injustice and focuses on women fighting for equality and freedom in Iran.

Iranian Canadian Homa Arjmand has experienced life under Law in Iran 16 where she was arrested and many of her friends either arrested or executed under Islamic law in Iran. “In 1989 Homa, her husband and their two small children escaped by a grueling trip on horseback through the mountains. Today, she lives in a suburb northeast of Toronto. Her job is helping immigrant Muslim women in distress. And now she is battling the arrival of Sharia Law in Canada.”

In an interview given to Jerusalem Online 18, Iranian-Canadians Dr. Sima Goel, author of Fleeing the Hijab, Dr. Avideh Motmaen-Far and I explained the plight of Iranian women after Rouhani’s presidency under Islamic law and Iran’s discriminatory laws against women under Islamic Penal Code where woman’s testimony in court is half that of a man’s and a woman’s life is half that of a man’s. I was imprisoned as a teenager in Iran’s most notorious Evin prison 19 and paid the price for not accepting the Sharia Law which enforced by the Khomeinist regime.

I was in my early teens when Khomeini came into power. Overnight, all women, including elementary school girls, were forced to cover their bodies from head to toe and were ordered to only wear dark colors.

We were no longer allowed to attend school with the opposite sex. Our once- praised school curriculum was now replaced by Arabic and Islamic studies, including the Quran, which most of us simply loathed. It was at this time that I had an awakening and started my activism. I was robbed of my teen years by a radical regime that sought to force its values on the masses by devastating force. My childhood memories were replaced by a reality created by a regime where women were now treated as second class citizens, and even the most mundane detail of our lives was strictly controlled by the regime’s Revolutionary Guards Forces and morality police.

Like most teenagers in high school, I spoke my mind about the changes that were happening in my country. In a modern society, teenagers attend school, openly spend time with friends, listen to their favorite music and do all the things that teenagers do. I was arrested by five very large, heavy-set guards. I remember distinctly four vehicles that came to our house to take me away, a 16 year-old girl who barely weighed 90 pounds. The terror I experienced may be unfathomable to the Western imagination, but this was to be my reality for the next 18 months.

In my young mind full of trust, I did not think that a simple conversation — having an opinion and simply expressing it — would put my life in danger. As a teenager, I never considered the possibility of being tortured and that I would be reminded of this torture every time I would look in the mirror and see the scar on my face, a result of being beaten with a very heavy piece of iron while being interrogated. As a teenager, I did not consider that my life would be forever changed.

The United Nations supports equal rights for women and in November 2011 adopted 20 a new campaign aimed at ending violence against women. The UN Declaration 21 of Human Rights includes equal rights for women and calls on Islamic countries to follow these regulations. But the Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement in March 2013 22 condemning this UN declaration for violating Islamic Sharia Law principles.

In The Name Of ‘Multiculturalism’

The West, instead of fighting against Shariah Law, standing in solidarity with the victims of Islamist oppression and enabling the integration of Muslims into the West, is actually defending misogyny in the name of standing up for the perceived underdog: Even the possibility that Sharia Law could supplant or become part of a two-tiered legal system is a strong indicator that multiculturalism is a huge failure.

It is very important to remember that the entire foundation of multiculturalism was based on the theory that, if we allowed immigrants to keep their culture, (multiculturalism) would end after their generation: their children would obviously want to be Western and would neatly adopt our societal norms. We didn’t count on radical or fundamentalist Islam and closed or isolated Islamic communities that intentionally separate themselves from the rest of society in order to preserve and grow their culture.

Eliminating this type of injustice will only happen if we exert inescapable pressure on local, national, and international governments and organizations. Rights and freedoms are never given, they are taken. Although these rights are inherent, they are not freely honoured, and so strife and relentless effort is the only way to emerge victorious from the ashes of defeat. With the love, dedication and help of people—not men, not women, but human beings—gender equality will be the prevalent principle by which all humanity will abide.

Over the years the mandates of women’s organizations have changed. They started in the 1920s fighting for basic rights in a male-dominated society and in the 1970s fighting for equal rights in the workplace. More recently, with the change of focus from the advancement of women – to networking and supportive fellowship – there seems to have arisen a false sense of security that our right to equality is now static and no longer fragile.

Mass immigration from countries with political and social regimes that increasingly subjugate women creates a highly-visible minority community of women whose understanding of their role is very different than our own North American and western standard. With little to no feminist activity for nearly two generations, our women’s organizations are ill-equipped to stand up for our own culture, to insist on integration and egalitarianism, and speak out against Sharia Law. Instead, they have been groomed to support and nurture the perceived underdog, not realizing that the underdog is now actually us.

Most women’s organizations do not support Sharia Law, and are placing their faith in our government to ensure that it doesn’t pass into fruition by political action or by political stealth. Without a strong feminist backbone or experience strategizing unified messages of assertion, they are extremely uncomfortable speaking out against the political culture of this wave of women, and instead default to being “nice”, “accommodating”, and aligning themselves with the perceived “misunderstood” newcomers. As the newcomers praise them for their understanding and kindness, the women’s organizations feel that they are being “diverse”, “open minded” and “helpful”. They don’t have the capacity to see the big picture, so they focus on the one being shown to them instead.

To defenders of human rights, such as myself, it never occurred that radical or fundamental Islam whose ethics are anathema to ours, would be welcomed by a Canadian government. We have been brainwashed by the concept of “diversity’ and “political correctness” to the point that we can’t find a women’s organization to stand up and take a hard line of Sharia. They’re not used to it. Rather they are used to bending over backwards to accommodate minority groups.

According to a petition 23 written by the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), Canada was reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in July 2015. The Committee was assessing Canada’s compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. “The Human Rights Committee has highlighted violations of Women’s Covenant- protected human rights that may result from state-imposed regulations on the clothing women wear in public. It specifically includes among the rights endangered by such regulations, a woman’s rights to freedom of religion, to manifest in public her religious beliefs, and to be considered equal before courts and tribunals.” In their petition FAFIA protests attacks on the rights of Muslim women and states: “Feminists understand well that patriarchy demands or encourages women, depending on differing religions or cultures, to either cover or uncover our bodies, or parts of our bodies. We do not all agree about the implications for equality of covering or uncovering. But we women need to control our own bodies, including what we wear, rather than being dictated to by political leaders, and being punished by losing access to our human rights.”

National Canadian front feminist organizations do little to prevent violence caused by Shari’a Law. Take the Ottawa Hijab Day 25, World Hijab Day 26, where such “Feminist” organizations encourage non-Muslims to try on the Islamic covering, almost promoting it. Then there is the attempt to make the hijab a fashion statement by designers and having hijab-wearing dolls for young girls.

Muslim Canadian author, Suhail Kapoor in his book, Balancing Life and Beyond, 27 advocates that within the tenets of Islam, it is permissible to “lightly” strike your spouse if she exhibits serious moral misconduct. In a chapter entitled “Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?” Kapoor outlines the circumstances under which it is appropriate for a man to punish his wife using “light” slaps on the wrist with a small wooden stick.” In a statement to QMI Agency (March 12, 2013) Suhail Kapoor said the permission to reprint his book was granted by the Ottawa-Centre MPP, Yasir Naqvi’s office. (MPP Naqvi is a Pakistani born Canadian and the Ontario Liberal Government House Leader. Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.)

The UN, the world’s most powerful human rights defender NGO, is affiliated with the dictatorships and human rights basket cases in its leadership roles and positions that entail responsibilities diametrically opposed to their qualifications. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is also an adviser or affiliated with many of these commissions. Their view of Human Rights is based on Sharia Law and of course it’s not the same as our understanding of Human Rights and Gender Equality. 28

As a defender and advocate for human rights, I strongly condemn Islamic Sharia Law which is opposed to democracy, having the ultimate purpose to destroy liberty and dominate the world.
ABR_GWN 6 months ago
Islamic Jihad

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/21/pamela-geller-hamas-tied-cairs-islamophobia-jihad/

In the wake of every jihad attack comes the second attack: first comes the violence, then the public shaming of anyone who opposes jihad terror. The myth of “Islamophobia” is the second attack when jihadis kill. It’s not merely a deflection and distraction to avoid discussion of Islamic texts and teachings that call for slaughter; “Islamophobia” propaganda cripples law enforcement efforts and shuts down counter terror programs. The FBI dropped an investigation of Mateen because he said his coworkers (who reported him) were “Islamophobic.”

On page 75 of my book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance, I explain the sinister orgins of the thought-crushing device, “Islamophobia”:
The very word “Islamophobia” is a fictional construct, as journalist Claire Berlinski explains, “The neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia….Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. ‘This loathsome term,’ he writes, ‘is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.’”85

Discover the Networks reports, “Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, ‘Islamophobia’ did not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11.”
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” Adolf Hitler said that. Der Fuhrer would be impressed.
CAIR, which has been designated a terror group by the United Arab Emirates and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial for funneling charitable contributions to Hamas, equates Islamophobia in America with “what happened to the Jews.”

This from a viciously anti-Semitic group that demonizes Israel at any and every turn. Further, the comparison is even more outrageous in light of the fact that during World War II, the Islamic world was aligned with Hitler and worked with the Nazis to keep the Jewish people from returning to their homeland, then known as the British Mandate of Palestine. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, lived in Berlin during the war,made broadcasts for the Nazis exhorting Muslim Arabs to kill Jews, recruited a Muslim SS division, and was responsible for the deaths of 400,000 Jewish women and children.

CAIR relentlessly attacks the few of us who dare to stand against the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth. They go after the donors, decrying the “millions” that have supposedly been donated to counter-jihad work over the past 10 years. This from a group that has received countless more millions from the Saudis.
How many millions did CAIR and the University of California Berkeley spend to produce this vicious, defamatory piece of filth? There is big money — much from the Middle East— funding these subversive, Islamic groups to destroy our freedoms and murder the reputations of patriots who stand in defense of freedom.
You might think that in the wake of the Orlando jihad massacre, Muslim groups would have created an action plan to teach against the ideology that gave rise to the massacre. Instead, they double down on the “Islamophobia” myth.

This report cites bogus statistics, using media reports that the Muslim groups themselves supplied to the media. How wonderful for them. Manipulating the leftist media is like giving candy to a baby. No mention is made of the jihad mass murder attempt in Garland, Texas, the subsequent Boston beheading plot targeting me, or the jihad attacks in San Bernardino or Chattanooga. Nor is there any mention of the Key West jihad bomb plot or any of the many other jihad plots that have been foiled over the past few years.
As for Orlando, CAIR mentions it only to say they don’t know what the motives were for the attack. As if there were any doubt.
At the press conference, CAIR’s Corey Saylor spread more lies, saying that sharia has two objectives: to better mankind, not just Muslims, and to avert harm from all people, not just Muslims. He did not, of course, mention that sharia mandates discrimination against and the denial of basic rights to Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims under the rule of Muslims.

This report heralds CAIR’s new strategy. Its old strategy was demonizing and “delegitimizing” voices opposed to jihad terror, and they’re still doing that, trying to fool the public into thinking that “Islamophobes” represent a movement as ugly as the KKK.
But clearly that wasn’t enough for CAIR. Now they’re engaging more energetically than ever in deception, as evidenced by Saylor’s lies about sharia. They’re also standing with subversive groups such as the violent, terrorist-worshiping Black Lives Matter, and getting an ever-compliant media to cover their cynical media stunts, such as handing out water bottles in Flint, Michigan. They’re also working to “enhance public sector impact” by registering Muslims to vote and getting Muslims to run for office.

CAIR: cynical, deceptive, subversive, and insidious – with numerous lapdogs in the media eager to retail their lies not a week after scores of Americans were murdered in cold blood in the cause of Islam.

Pamela Geller
ABR_GWN 6 months ago
Islamic Jihad

Did the Muslim Brotherhood invent the term “Islamophobia”?
AUGUST 27, 2012 4:45 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/did-the-muslim-brotherhood-invent-the-term-islamophobia

The Brotherhood has certainly seized and run with the term in order to intimidate critics of jihad and Islamic supremacism into silence, but it looks as if the term “Islamophobia” is much older than Claire Berlinski claims.

Cheradenine Zakalwe here traces it to the 1990s, and it is possible, also, that the term goes back even farther than the 1990s sources that Zakalwe quotes. According to the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner, “At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term ‘Islamophobia’ formed in analogy to ‘xenophobia’. The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist. This term, which is worthy of totalitarian propaganda, is deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief system or its faithful adherents around the world.”

Whether it comes from the 1970s or 1990s, it is clear that Claire Berlinski was quite careless here, and her contention that the Ikhwan invented “Islamophobia” simply ludicrous. I have indeed repeated this claim in the past, as I did not previously have any reason to doubt its accuracy, but I will not be repeating it again. With Leftists and Islamic supremacists always poised to pounce on any inaccuracy (and perceived inaccuracy, and anything they can twist to look like an inaccuracy), it is imperative for counter-jihad writers to be far more scrupulous and careful than this.
ABR_GWN 6 months ago
Islamic Jihad

Six Canadian cities sign a charter against “Islamophobia”
JULY 6, 2016 5:06 PM BY CHRISTINE WILLIAMS
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/six-canadian-cities-sign-a-charter-against-islamophobia

The incidence of “Islamophobic” hate crimes is said to be rising, and in response, six Canadian cities have endorsed a charter against “Islamophobia,” vowing to eliminate such hate crimes. A bad move.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly CAIR-CAN, drafted the charter. CAIR was deemed an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in the history of the United States — the Holy Land Foundation trial — during which the carefully calculated Muslim Brotherhood plan for North America was unveiled, with full partnership from so-called mainstream Muslim groups.

This “Islamophobia” business is a dangerous victimology narrative used by stealth jihadists to serve an agenda, as proclaimed by a former representative of the International Institute for Islamic Thought who was present at the inception of the use of this term. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad stated about “Islamophobia”:

“This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”

As a Maclean’s article indicates, Muslims across Canada “have reason to feel concerned about how they are perceived when other Canadians identify them by their religion.” Yet it is worth contemplating a comparison: such attitudes are not the case with regard to other religions in which high numbers of “visible minority” adherents are to be found, such as Sikhism and Hinduism.

Hate crime statistics against Muslims compiled by the FBI for 2013 show that anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for a meager 13.7 percent of such crimes, compared with such incidents against other groups deemed to be targeted, despite the long time exaggeration about “Islamophobia”; for example, the FBI identified that of religious bias hate crimes, 60.3 percent were committed against Jews, and of racial bias hate crimes, 66.5 percent were against blacks or African Americans.

There is a likely reason for this current-day lack of trust against Muslims, which Maclean’s pinpoints but suggests no possible motive for. These bad attitudes and attacks against Muslims correlate with the attacks by Islamic jihadists against the West. Each time a jihadist launches an attack in Europe, Britain or on North American soil, random attacks against Muslims increase, which, as often noted here, are never justified.

We do not hear about Sikhs and Hindus creating detailed plans to stealthily conquer the West, or calling for the killing and subjugation of infidels globally; nor do we hear about these groups making the top rankings of persecution lists against innocent Christians, or sanctioning charters to obliterate a state – as we see in the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Fatah charters against the state of Israel. Islamic jihadists have declared war on the West and Israel, and the West is without a plan to resist it. Instead, Western authorities are facilitating the jihadist agenda. As the historian, journalist and President of the Free Press Society, Lars Hedegaard, put it in a Gatestone Institute article:

“Right now there is an ever-widening gap between the people and their rulers……As long as we in the West are not prepared to take Muslims at their word when they claim to be waging bloody jihad because it is their religious obligation, we have no chance of repelling the current onslaught on the West.”

Hedegaard continues with a dire warning:

“Western societies are based on an implied contract between the sovereign and the people: The sovereign — the king, the president, the government — promises to uphold law and order, protect his people from violence and foreign encroachment and apprehend and punish criminals. In exchange, the citizens promise not to take the law into their own hands. It follows that if the state fails to uphold its part of this social bargain, then the right — indeed the obligation — to protect oneself, one’s family, neighbors and the community, returns to the citizens.”

It is an injustice and against human rights to attack innocent Muslims, but Western so-called sovereigns are partially to blame for this injustice, as these “sovereigns” and their cowardly water carriers continue to fail the people.

The incidence of “Islamophobia” has been low — even though inflated by stealth jihadists before the Paris and Brussels attacks, before the jihad massacre at the Pulse, and also before the influx of Muslim refugees into Europe, which led to a host of crimes. All of these were followed by increased incidents of hate crimes against Muslims.

Now that the jihadist assault on the West is intensifying, sadly, the incidence of hate crimes against Muslim innocents will logically increase, not because of racism or any kind of phobia, but due to legitimate fear, frustration and anger at the failure of the “sovereigns” to protect their own people, who elected them to do just that.

If racism against Muslims is to be tackled, then the first step is to do away with the word “Islamophobia” and deal with the problem holistically and/or realistically as a human rights issue. There is no actual phobia against Muslims, as a phobia is an irrational, imagined threat. But stealth jihadists can be guaranteed to continue employing the victimology subterfuge by forcing this “loathsome term,” “Islamophobia,” down the throats of Westerners, as unjustified vigilante retaliation against innocent Muslims increases in proportion with attacks from violent jihadists against Westerners.
sandi 8 months ago
Who is doing what, when and how and for whom in healthcare? Does anyone really have a handle on the bureaucracy? It is simply not understandable to the average public why disparities exist across boundaries and I am specifically concerned with cancer. Doctors are not happy ans stressed. Nurses are complaining. The list is endless. Someone, somewhere at some point has to have to the power to change and buzz words like in Ontario 'Patients First' is not 'doing it'. Decades of issues.
Amy 11 months ago
As someone who has been directly affected by job losses in the oil and gas industry, #1 on my list of concerns is jobs. Infrastructure projects that increase our ability to get goods to market should be a priority for everyone. #2 on my list is the corruption in politics. #3 would be the increase in taxes we will be facing in the coming years. Canada is in a tail-spin and it sure won't be the Liberal government that will stop it.
Jason Diceman 12 months ago
I think "transit infrastructure" would come out quite high in cities, if given as an option.
Les Anderson 12 months ago
I am fed up with the political biases of our medias and shoddy reporting of the news. To my way of thinking now days, the mainstream media and our tax funded media outlets are like street hookers that will do whatever is asked as long as they are offered money. Where is the seemingly long lost integrity of digging for the truth and baring it to the public, regardless of the political stripe? When did public censorship become the norm of our publicly funded media?
KoKoKoKwe 12 months ago
I agree with your statement -- the press does not reflect me and my household. Once, the media told us they had to speak to us as if we had no more than a Grade 8 education. Lately it is more clear to me that it is the other way around and I am often astounded by the superficiality and even childishness in reporting--more like gossip at times than journalism. I sometimes cringe hearing a posed question.
Winter 12 months ago
It is interesting to see that those topics that make the most headlines, like immigration control, are not as important to the daily lives of Canadians as the media would like you to believe. In the end, our homes, our families and our financial stability have been and remain significantly more important.