C3RF Member Update - 29 March, 2019
Note: Letter-writing campaign instructions included below
Note: Instructions to consider and sign petition below
New Zealand and a cynical political calculus
Recall that last week’s “update” wondered if the New Zealand atrocity was being co-opted by a “political calculus”. A cynical calculus intent on leveraging the outpouring of shock and sympathy to advance political objectives at the expense of suffering victims and coherent efforts to address the root causes of the massacre. Well, it seems this supposition was correct. This, as certain entities have been quick off the mark to assign blame and propose solutions without so much as a wink and a nod to facts and evidence that have yet to be disclosed. The cause was Islamophobia, of course, and the cure is the unrelenting curtailment of “hate speech” – speech that criticizes any aspect of Islam or promotes Western values and traditions in its stead. One could be forgiven for wondering, aren’t those who use the “Islamophobia” brush to paint a whole population guilty, by definition, of bigotry?
These unsubstantiated cause and effect narratives have now spread from New Zealand to impact jurisdictions further abroad and closer to home.
In the case of New Zealand, Muslim scholars are already calling for a ban on Islamophobia even as publishers ban books by such irreverent non-Muslims as Jordan Peterson. Not to be outdone, Government authorities have busied themselves by moving an errant population from condolence to submission with national broadcasts of the Muslim "call to prayer". Even more than this, politicians are promoting "Headscarf for Harmony" programs that call for both women and men to don the hijab out of respect for Islam. What better way to humiliate a rugby-loving, New Zealander male into a proper state of veneration?
The political calculus further abroad
Governments, authorities and agencies around the world have followed New Zealand’s lead by springing into action to force the Islamophobia narrative and cure. In the UK, a human rights advocate had her Twitter account permanently banned due to criticism of Islam even though her critics continue to spew hatred against her. This type of censorship seems to be in line with the Mayor of London’s belief that “there are limitations to free speech". In the United Nations and in line with stipulations associated with the new, now binding in EU, Global Compact on Migration, authorities have moved to ban "negative narratives" that disparage migration. Not only is it now necessary to put Islam in a space safe from debate, migration patterns that so effectively disperse related populations throughout the West must similarly be protected.
The political calculus closer to home
Meanwhile here in Canada, labour and Islamic groups have banded together to chastise Opposition Leader Scheer for communicating with pipeline proponents. The Conservative Party was battered yet again by a Liberal MP who berated their attempt to host a reception for Baroness Cox from the British House of Lords. The Baroness happens to be a vocal critic of Sharia Law. The Conservatives cancelled in deference to the MP’s observation that free speech was a good thing “within its legal boundaries, but if MPs choose to elevate such outrageous discourse, they need to answer for it”. It would appear that Motion M-103 has changed the freedom of expression landscape in Canada – certainly with regards to debating any aspect of Islam and certainly for our political leaders, in power or not!
The problem with a political calculus that discriminates
It would appear that the Christchurch atrocity is being used to exploit “hate speech” provisions that have been folded into Western legal systems, save perhaps for the United States, over the past several decades. In the more recent Canadian context, these provisions have been further weaponized to provide additional protections to both Islam (Motion M-103) and migration (Global Compact on Migration). Problem is, these protections seem to be one-way streets that favour certain “identifiable groups” and do not benefit the population as a whole.
How else could we have a situation that sees Canadian authorities rail against Islamophobia even as bald-faced messages calling for Jews to be slain by Muslims get free passes. Why the uneven treatment? How could Islamophobia and "white supremacy" take the spotlight off of domestic calls for violence and genocide and worldwide demonstrations of jihadi terror and sharia oppression? How could this happen given the fact that authoritative research from as late as 2011 indicates that 71% of terrorist attacks were Sunni-Salafi-Jihadi, 15% were leftist secular-political-anarchist and 1% were right-wing nationalist. This, even as Christians living in a Muslim country are 143 times more likely to be killed by a Muslim than vice versa. Here we begin to see the wages of such divergent and biased treatments of groups and concerns – social dislocation at the national level.
What's a person to do?
There are some very knowledgeable people who claim that our political leaders are contributing to increased frictions between host and immigrant populations when they appear to favour one while repressing the other. One such individual is David Wood, a Western expert on Sharia Law, who flatly states that he predicted the violence of Christchurch. Indeed, he says it just makes sense that folks will get frustrated when their concerns are shunted aside by negligent or complicit leaders. Hence the Brexit and Trump votes that surprised political elites in the UK and the U.S. respectively. Thing is, the irrationals, like Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant, take these frustrations to deadly ends when they find political discourse to be a disallowed option.
So, we have a situation where good folks are dismissed out of hand and called names for their questions and critiques. Perhaps the powers that be are not as concerned about their votes as they are for others. One C3RF member saw this bias as dangerous and contributing to social division so she wrote relevant authorities to call for a level playing field. She demanded that those who profess, not just hatred but, incitement to violence and genocide be taken to task. She demanded that responsible leaders stop pandering to masked people in black and that all be secured so that they might use their voices and their right to free expression. Here’s a rendition of her letter. Use it as you see fit and write to the addressees annotated if you share her concerns.
Dear Prime Minister,
In the Prime Minister's speech, Friday, 15 March, 2019, the Prime Minister concluded by saying that “Hate has no place anywhere. We must all confront Islamophobia and work to create a world in which all people—no matter their faith, where they live, or where they were born—can feel safe and secure.”
Why did the Prime Minister use the word, “Islamophobia”? The attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, by a possible White Supremacist, may have resulted from his hatred of Muslims but this is different than Islamophobia which is a ‘fear of Islam’ and attempts to silence anyone critical of Islam.
If the Prime Minister wanted to stop hatred and show compassion he should have focused on: “all people, no matter their faith, or where they live or were born should feel safe and secure where they live, in New Zealand or especially in our country Canada.”
Mr. Prime Minister, if you are really sincere that you wish to confront hate “anywhere”, why not start with the most egregious form of hatred – the incitement of violence and even genocide and do so by demanding:
that EVERY IMAM in Canada in EVERY MOSQUE in CANADA AGREE IMMEDIATELY - to omitting from the (Friday) prayer the calls for the murder of “Kuffar” (infidels);
that all universities and colleges / libraries protect the rights of those whose ideas neither call for genocide nor violence but reflect the views of others so that all views might be respected;
that from every provincial Ministry of Education, from every University (Chancellor, Provost, Board), College, High School, dedicate themselves to securing their environs from violent groups that threaten the free speech rights of all students in their charge; and
that every university protect all students and offer support that forever invalidates the excuse that “their safety can’t be assured”!
As for Friday prayers that call for the murder of “Kuffar”, across Canada (and around the world), many mosques include the Juma’a: it is an optional, specific, ritual supplication (led by Imams) prior to formal Friday community prayer.
In the supplication, the prayer to Allah is to grant “Muslims victory over the ‘Qawm al-Kafiroon,’” the Arabic phrase that lumps all non-Muslims — Jews, Hindus, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists and Sikhs — into one derogatory category, the “Kuffar”, or non-Muslims.
I look forward to your reply,
Address, Postal Code
See article by Tarek Fatah:
See statement by the Prime Minister on terrorist attack on two mosques in New Zealand:
Thanks for your participation in this. Please BCC email@example.com so I can follow and please consider using your own thoughts, ideas and wording as they will be most effective
On a related matter - a petition to consider and sign
STOP ISRAEL HATE has initiated a petition targeting the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg - Board President Tyler Blashko and 3 others
They are very concerned that an invited speaker and panel participant at the SPCW event “Sorry Not Sorry”, Linda Sarsour, is not aligned with the organization’s stated community values and responsibilities to students and the community. The petition requests that Ms. Sarsour be disinvited. You may consider related information and sign the petition here.
We need your continued support
Please note that efforts aimed at preserving the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians are not without cost. For those of you who have recently contributed to our coffers, thank you very much. We cannot continue to operate and progress such initiatives without such aid. The funds you so generously donate go directly into campaigning, events, bookkeeping, technology costs and legal advice. When these basic services are met, we use excess funding to assist other groups in advancing the cause of Canadian individual rights within a strong and free Canada. We also contribute to related legal proceedings, such as the Ottawa Public Library fight, and charitable activities when able. Please consider a one-time donation or a monthly contribution. Monthly donations, no matter how small, even $5/month, help us plan our finances in advance and provide us with greater flexibility.
And while you're considering making a difference, please follow C3RF on on Twitter, on Facebook and on our web site and share with friends our great content and a realistic outlook on the continuing battle for Charter Rights in Canada. You can also join our Twitter feed here.
Major Russ Cooper (Ret'd)