Clair Lopez at CPAC: Civilization Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA and Canada


clair-lopez-former-cia

Clair Lopez educated listeners about the reality of Islamic Civilization Jihad in action against the USA and Canada at CPAC.

 

JRH 2/27/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Clair Lopez at CPAC: Civilization Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA and Canada

stealth-jihad 

By Baron Bodissey

Originally Gates of Vienna

February 26, 2017

The Counter Jihad Report

 

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert who focuses on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. She is a former career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, and is now a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

 

Ms. Lopez spoke at a CPAC event on Thursday. Below is a video of the brief talk she gave about stealth Islamization and sharia in North America:

 

VIDEO: Claire Lopez FULL SPEECH- CPAC 2017

 

Posted by Right Side Broadcasting

Published on Feb 23, 2017

 

_________________

About The Counter Jihad Report

 

There is an urgent need for the public to become informed about the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. We must demand from our leaders that they become familiar with Islamic Law and jihadist ideology so that our counterterrorism policies can better protect us from this growing threat.

 

This blog is mainly a news aggregating site but also includes an extensive library of resources for studying Islam and networking with other Counter Jihad activists. My goal has been to pull from a variety of the most trusted and reliable sources to educate the public on the counter jihad movement. The many RSS feeds and counterjihad twitter feed in the sidebar are meant to provide a time saving jumping off point to access all the headlines and breaking news.

 

My Interest in Islamic Jihad stems from the 1983 Hezbollah truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in which my cousin, Ken Haas, was killed. Ken left a career as a philosophy professor to work for the CIA and was the Station Chief in Beirut. He and his wife of one year had just finished lunch in Ken’s office at the Embassy and kissed good-bye. She had driven back to their apartment where she heard the explosion. After several agonizing days READ THE REST

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of “Moderate” Islam


Paul Sutliff

A few months ago came upon a LinkedIn post written by Paul Sutliff entitled “Dr. Shafiq vs. Me”. I have to be honest I only partially remember how I came across Mr. Sutliff’s exposé on a Muslim speaker pretending to be a moderate. I had cross posted this LinkedIn article directly after some of my thoughts on the blog post entitled “More Dr. Shafiq & Paul Sutliff Exposes his Taqiyya”. I tell you this for reference reasons. For some reason either Mr. Sutliff or LinkedIn has made the original link I had to Sutliff’s expose (probably the latter) inaccessible with the explanation in a red bar that says, “This discussion is no longer available.” If you’d like to take the time to explore Mr. Sutliff’s LinkedIn profile and search for his writings it would be worth the effort. Shoot guys, if you are LinkedIn user link in with Paul Sutliff.

 

Well what ya know? I took my own advice after writing the previous paragraph remembering that Paul Sutliff posts on a blog as well. An article similar to the LinkedIn report I cross posted is on that blog. The updated title is “Confronting the Islamist, Dr. Shafiq who was asked to speak on ISIS”.

 

Now here’s the reason I’m reprising some thoughts on Paul Sutliff. Yesterday he sent me a promotional email about his new book “Civilization Jihad and the Myth of “Moderate” Islam”. He has it available has an eBook and later in will be available in paperback. Mr. Sutliff knows his stuff when it comes to the deception that is Islam in the Western World. I encourage you to get a hold of this eBook which is being sold (at the title link above) at Amazon for a very reasonable $8.50.

 

Simply to provide some clarity to the book I am cross posting Paul Sutliff’s email followed by the Amazon Book Description and ending with the Amazon bio of Paul Sutliff.

 

JRH 1/13/15

Please Support NCCR

************************

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of “Moderate” Islam

 

Paul SutliffCivilization Jihad & Myth of 'Moderate' Islam bk jk

Sent: 1/12/2015 11:19 AM

 

On Saturday I published my latest book, Civilization Jihad and the Myth of “Moderate” Islam. It is available now as an Ebook. Later this week it will be available in paperback. 

 

This book begins with the explosive truth that the Muslim Brotherhood have declared war against the USA and Canada and have been actively carrying it out since. In 2007 the declaration of war against the USA and Canada became public, however many politicians have refused to even acknowledge this enemy.  The White House has even claimed they are non-violent. So this book addresses the following:

 

1. The violent history of a Moderate Muslim group (aka the Muslim Brotherhood)

 

2. Is Jihad Islamic?

 

3. What is civilization jihad and how is it being carried out?

 

4. Civilization Jihad on Colleges

 

5. Civilization Jihad on Public Schools

 

6. Civilization Jihad on Society

 

7. Civilization Jihad on Government

 

http://www.amazon.com/Civilization-Jihad-Myth-Moderate-Islam-ebook/dp/B00S3426BG

 

Paul Sutliff,
Teacher/Writer

 

“To achieve a dream you must race towards your goal!”

+++++++++++++++++++

Book Description

Amazon.com

Publication Date: January 9, 2015

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of “Moderate” Islam: This book starts off with the declaration of war by the Muslim Brotherhood against North America found in the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum of the North American Muslim Brotherhood. The book examines how this unrecognized enemy has a violent history and whether Jihad is Islamic. The book then looks at their term Civilization Jihad and examines how it is currently being waged in North America on four different levels: College, Public Schools, Society and Government.

 

________________

Amazon’s Paul Sutliff Page

 

Paul Sutliff was born and raised in Rochester, NY. He is. an educator and a writer. He says he is only an awakened Patriot to what is happening around him. Paul first started to look into the Muslim Brotherhood after one of their groups gave the college where he earned his MSED $500,000. It took only a short bit of research to realize that a former Catholic college had opened its doors to an enemy of the United States.

Paul now gives speeches and does radio hoping to awaken America to an enemy that now works in every branch of the US government.

____________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights


HRC on Free Speech Punishment

 

Apparently Canada is growing closer and closer to the EU rule of law paradigm of punishing Free Speech that is truthful in its criticism of Islam due to the Left thinking of multicultural diversity. Elsa Schieder continues her report on the issue which follows her report on Canadian Free Speech persecution of Ezra Levant.

 

(To my fellow Americans: In case you are unaware I’m letting you know that Canada is officially a bi-lingual nation. Both English and French are the official languages of Canada. This largely due to Britain conquering French Canada in the 1700s from France. French Canadians have proudly retained their culture primarily in the Province of Quebec. This explains the French references used by Elsa that Canada is currently dealing with.)

 

JRH 12/8/14

Please Support NCCR

************************

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

 

By Elsa Schieder

Sent: 12/7/2014 8:42 PM

World Truth Summit Update

 

Last week I wrote about a judgment, in Canada, against Ezra Levant.

 

This week, there’s the threat of another attack on freedom of speech in Canada. It’s from the “commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse” – the commission of human rights and youth rights. A nice name. But the head of the commission is proposing legislation to further curb freedom of speech. There’s already lots of legislation in place. The additional legislation would go further: one could make a complaint even if one isn’t any particular victim and can’t show that any particular person has been hurt. (In French, “on n’a pas besoin d’être une victime particularisée et de le démontrer.”)

 

For those of you who speak French, here’s a link, including to an interview with the head of the commission:

 

http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html

***[Blog Editor: I posting the Google Translation to the French in the above link. There is a video which I am not including largely because I do not speak French. If you speak French and wish to listen, you’ll have to use the above link.]

 

I listened to the interview and once more felt: the world has gone upside down. “Anything you say may be used against you.” Watch out!

 

As usual, there’s no indication that, if the legislation goes through, those making the charges will need to pay anything, even if charges are shown to be frivolous, ungrounded, or even malicious. On the other hand, those defending themselves against charges will need to pay.

 

“Oh Canada, glorious and free.” Those words are part of the Canadian national anthem. Not appropriate with the legislation which is already in place, and even less appropriate with the proposed further legislation against freedom of speech.

 

 

Then, in case any of you should feel like wishing someone else Merry Christmas, here is Islamic cleric Abu Musaab Akkar:

 

“Saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is worse than fornication, drinking alcohol, and killing someone.”

 

His comments are available in many places, including:

 

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/04/according-muslim-saying-merry-christmas-worse-committing-murder/ 

 

Of course, according to the politically correct, all cultures are equal (including the one of the above cleric) and who are we to judge? It seems we are to ignore that the cleric is judging that saying Merry Christmas is worse than killing someone. But perhaps, in the weird world of the politically correct, the cleric is somehow entitled to judge, while for some inexplicable reason, we are not.

 

What do we do? How to show the absurdity of such opinions? Lots of us are trying to figure out the answers.

 

Here’s a politically correct guide to opinions about kittens. It starts:

 

All kittens are equal.

All kittens are not equal.

All opinions about

kittens are equal.

One must not judge

opinions about kittens.

Who are we to judge

if all kittens are equal?

Except Israeli kittens …

http://elsasblog.com/logical-fallacy-in-politically-correct-thinking.html

 

I will end with Professor Emeritus Joan Wiggins on politically correct people vs. human rights people.

 

But first, now or later, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and whatever else you may enjoy celebrating.

 

All the best,

 

Elsa

 

Promo Photo Joan Wiggins

Joan Wiggins - PC vs Pro-Human Rights promo

 

___________________

***[Blog Editor: Here is the Google Translation to English of the link http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html.]

 

Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

12/04/2014

Poste de veille [Post standby]

 

After two terrorist attacks, the Quebec Human Rights Commission proposes to limit the freedom of expression. One comes to believe that terrorism is an effective weapon: freedom back, and Sharia advance.

 

However, the Islamists should avoid too excited because censorship can be a double-edged weapon.

 

The Premier of Quebec Philippe Couillard announced recently the formation of a group of representatives of the Muslim community to “fight against youth radicalization and the rise of Islamophobia.”

 

As part of the fight against Islamophobia, President of the Commission on Human Rights of Quebec, Jacques Frémont, recommends * to add to the Charter of Rights a new provision that would prohibit “public incitement to hatred “to groups protected against discrimination. However, criticism of Islam is equated with “hate speech” by Islamists.

 

In an interview with Radio-Canada, Jacques Frémont   justified the relevance of limiting freedom of expression, relying in particular on the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada on a case to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, and on the UN Recommendations:

 

This new provision “would allow victims including about hate crimes and making complaints, and possibly receive compensation, if any.

 

“With Article 10.1 of the Charter, which recognizes the right to equality without discrimination or harassment, “it is necessary that the injury is personal and individual, that is to say, it needs to be a victim who comes and who demonstrates the victim, she was assigned, and is entitled to damages, and then section 10.1 is used for this purpose.

 

“Now it is clear that with the new provision we offer, such as when there is a web site that raves, which has about the hatred of incentives in relation to particular groups, think of Muslim groups we saw some of the sites currently no sufficient interest to be present with us and make the request. With the new provision, then, there is a way for us to investigate (ourselves, even if there is no person who shows up) and for a person who, for example, if the site web is Muslim, and it was a francophone Quebec person francophone Quebec person could come forward and make a complaint. “

 

The new provision “is much more general public incitement to hatred on a prohibited ground of discrimination. So you do not need to be a victim and particularized to demonstrate. “

 

“What we propose is a remedy that does not currently exist. If we had been complaints over anti-Muslim websites, for example (as we had in), we must reject the current situation – whereas now, if we had this provision there could accept them and move forward. “

 

“It is clear that what is being proposed, it has to be attached to discrimination, harassment and exploitation. These are the three criteria. “

 

“We, it was inspired by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, because ultimately, it is the freedom of expression that is in question. And as human rights commission, freedom of expression is very important, so it should not restrict unduly. But the Supreme Court tells us that in cases of discrimination, harassment or exploitation, we can move forward. It is legitimate and what is legitimate for the provinces to act in that field. “

 

“There is a recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly, the High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights, which is exactly in the same direction. And from what I understand in dispatches in the newspapers, even the Supreme Court of the United States, now when we speak, is ready to challenge for First Amendment when it comes to hate speech.

 

“In other words, there is a movement across the world is to respond to that hate speech of this kind are not acceptable in any society whatsoever.

 

“It’s when you have about generals, hateful general, incitement to hatred, etc. where there no casualties particularized, the group in general who is a victim – – that’s what we aim by this provision.”

 

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

 

Mr. Frémont refers to the case of William Whatcott (judgment of 27 February 2013), a Christian from Saskatchewan who had distributed pamphlets disparaging homosexuality, and was convicted of incitement to hatred of homosexuals.

 

Mario Roy had spoken in an editorial in La Presse in 2011, before the Supreme Court rendered its judgment. Roy placed the lawsuit against Whatcott in the context of the arrival in Montreal at the invitation of a Muslim student association at Concordia University, Muslim preachers known for advocating the criminalization of homosexuality.

 

If the Charter of Rights is changed according to the terms described by Mr. Fremont, homosexuals will be available to the new provisions against this type of preachers and those who invite them (student associations, mosques, etc.). The favorable Islamist censorship could see that this is a double edged sword.

 

Case to be heard by the US Supreme Court

 

The cause to which referred Mr. Frémont is Anthony Elonis case, which at first sight seems somewhat related to proposed amendments to the Charter of Rights. CBC summarizes well the cause:

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States has heard the arguments of both parties in the case of Anthony Elonis, a resident of Pennsylvania, which was found to have threatened to kill his ex-wife.

 

The man had displayed particular, on Facebook, a “poem” particularly violent in the place of his former wife. (… )

 

The Supreme Court must now determine whether these publications Mr. Elonis are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

 

UN Recommendation

 

When Mr. Frémont speaks of a recommendation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights along the lines of a limit on freedom of expression, it refers to the Istanbul Process, which is nothing but a result of the continuous efforts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for over ten years in order to prohibit “defamation of religions” in international law. This is a modern version of blasphemy.

 

In analyzing the “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process, Nina Shea reports on the conference held in Washington with the OIC in order to implement UN resolutions on the pretext to fight “religious intolerance” threaten to lead to the suppression of any criticism of Islam and Sharia. The Washington meeting was planned in Istanbul, hence the name “Istanbul Process”.

 

Sectarian rivalries within Islam

 

The proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights could also be used by sectarian Muslims against peaceful Muslims. For example, the United Kingdom, Fadak TV satellite channel founded by a Shiite anti-Khomeini shiraziste, which promotes the freedom to criticize religions, is the subject of an investigation of the British regulatory authorities to “hate propaganda “following complaints from Sunnis and Khomeinists.

 

Federally, Ottawa is considering criminalizing the glorification of terrorism

 

According to the Press:

 

The federal Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, considering to pass a law that would make crime to applaud a terrorist act.

 

The law in the UK is tackling the “encouragement of terrorism”. This “encouragement” direct or indirect, is illegal. A person guilty of this crime may be assessed up to seven years imprisonment.

 

Civil liberties groups, the United Kingdom, are worried.

 

Initiatives to limit freedom of expression are worrying. Islamists seek to roll back the freedoms in the West, and particular freedom of expression, the foundation of democracy. A government that advocates censorship makes them a dangerous concession. In fact, one could almost say that it encourages terrorism, because after two attacks, Quebec wants to limit criticism of Islam. Or if you cannot criticize Islam is that already lives under Sharia law. What is the message? The message is that terrorism is an effective weapon: it pushed back the freedom of expression and advance the Sharia.

 

If Ottawa gives up his plan to punish advocating terrorism, we risk ending up in an absurd situation: the glorification of terrorism would be legal, but criticism of Islam which terrorists claim may be illegal.

 

The federal government had a provision similar to the one proposed by the Human Rights Commission, namely Article 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the person who gave the Canadian Human Rights Commission, investigative powers over “speech hate “online. Ottawa repealed this article, which was misused. These abuses are explained in an editorial in the National Post and a section of Lorne Gunter’s Edmonton Sun.

 

* I have commented out the Human Rights Commission, the relevant extract of memory on the proposal to amend the Charter of Rights.

 

See also:

 

Dossier: Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

 

 

The “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process

 

 

USA: the “Istanbul Process” is a bad idea

 

 

USA: State Department against Freedom of Expression

 

 

The OIC recovery efforts for the criminalization of defamation of religions

 

 

The International Humanist and Ethical Union laws against the “defamation of religions”

 

 

GB: A Shiite Sheikh shiraziste advocates for the right to criticize Islam

 

 

Canada: The Rights Commission loses his powers of censure

 

 

Canada: A bill abolishing censorship powers of the human rights commission

 

[Blog Editor: running a spell check on the Google Translation]

________________________________

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

 

From Elsa Schieder of World Truth Summit

_________________________

Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

In French: Vers une interdiction de critiquer l’islam au Québec?

 

Poste de veille [Post standby] Homepage

 

WHAT! Legal Jihad against Ezra Levant Successful, BUT …


Ezra Levant

Ezra Levant
 
 
John R. Houk
© December 1, 2014
 
If you are not already cognizant about the terms Legal Jihad and Lawfare you should study up.
 
Lawfare: The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War
 
 
Lawfare denotes “the use of the law as a weapon of war”** or, more specifically, the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends.
 
It consists of the negative manipulation of international and national human rights laws to accomplish purposes other than, or contrary to, those for which they were originally enacted.
 
Lawfare is also evident in the manipulation of domestic legal systems (by state and non-state parties) to implement laws inconsistent with general principles of liberal democracy.
 
The principles underlying lawfare are also present in glaring failures to apply human rights law and in the disproportionate and biased application of the law.
 
Modern-day lawfare has five goals:
    
1. To silence and punish free speech about issues of national security and public concern;
    
2. To delegitimize the sovereignty of democratic states;
    
3. To frustrate and hinder the ability of democracies to fight against and defeat terrorism;
    
4. To confuse laws of armed conflict with human rights law; and
    
5. To prevent the application of human rights law in situations where it is needed the most.
 
READ ENTIRETY (Lawfare: The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War; The Lawfare Project)
 
If this Lawfare Project explanation piques your interest you should check out the PDF ‘“LEGAL JIHAD”: HOW ISLAMIST LAWFARE TACTICS ARE TARGETING FREE SPEECH’ Brooke Goldstein and Aaron Eitan Meyer published in 2009.
 
Now I encouraged you to read up on Legal Jihad due to an update email from Elsa Schieder in relation to the World Truth Summit which brings in Counterjihad speakers and writers addressing the threat of Muslim jihadi terrorists to the Western World.
 
Elsa is identifying a Canadian victim of Legal Jihad in Ezra Levant. Mr. Levant was sued by the Radical Muslim Khurrum Awan for publicly calling him an Antisemite. AND the Canadian Courts actually agreed with Awan that Mr. Levant made a defamatory accusation against him. It didn’t matter to the Canadian Judge that Awan was the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC – See Also HERE). The CIC is a virulently Antisemitic organization that at the very least offers support for Islamic terrorists who demand the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews.
 
So this how this cross post is going to work. First I’m posting Elsa’s email then I’m following that with Ezra Levant plea for funds to appeal the Canadian dhimmi Judge that failed to connect Antisemitism with Khurrum Awan who has been in the upper levels of leadership in the Radical Islamic Jew-hating CIC.
 
JRH 12/1/14

Please Support NCCR

************************
The Judgement against Ezra Levant, and Politically Correct Nuttiness
 
By Elsa Schieder
Sent: 11/29/2014 11:50 AM
Sent as World Truth Summit Update
 
Do I have any news or thoughts I’d especially like to share?  Today, with the sun glinting on the snow, the temperature outside at minus 10, the existence of a force like Islam seems impossible. But I know it’s around, with an ideology against the freedoms I value.
 
This week, on November 27, I got an email from Ezra Levant of Sun News, letting me know that he had just “lost a defamation lawsuit … brought by Khurrum Awan, the former youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.” Ezra called Awan an anti-Semite. On what basis? “Awan was, at one time, the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, an anti-Semitic organization. At the time Awan was its youth president, the CIC was led by a notorious anti-Semite, Mohamed Elmasry. Elmasry famously went on national TV** to state that any adult in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorism. The CIC has publicly called for the legalization of anti-Semitic terrorist groups.”
 
However, all that wasn’t evidence enough. Ezra has been called upon to pay 80,000 plus court costs.
 
On what basis? “The judge ruled that it is defamatory to call the former youth president of an anti-Semitic organization, anti-Semitic.” Why? Because Awan denied it in court, and said “he never knew about his organization’s infamous misconduct.”
 
Ezra is appealing. Good. As for the ruling, I find it utterly appalling. Here’s where you can contribute to Ezra’s legal costs:
 
I’d say we urgently need a Freedom Community!
 
 
Another thought. Sometimes it feels urgent to DO SOMETHING about Islam. After all, 125,000 Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims over the past year. Women used as sex slaves.
 
And sometimes it feels: time to slow down, time to pace yourself. After all, they’ve had 1400 years. Most of us are just starting to understand what we are dealing with.
 
First, it takes most of us (me, anyway) years to come to anything like a full understanding of political Islam with its plan to conquer the world – to dominate or slaughter those it labels kafirs, to slaughter those it labels atheists, polytheists, apostates. It takes most of us years to understand how far the tentacles of political Islam reach – into text books, government, the media.
 
And then there are the politically correct. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. WHAT FOLLOWS IS UTTER NUTTINESS. They hold: all opinions are equal; morality is relative. Yet they denounce Israel as an apartheid state. But if all opinions are equal, then they should equally accept that Israel is not an apartheid state – but they don’t. Instead they tend to foam at the mouth at the suggestion. Likewise, they shrug off that Saudi Arabia is an apartheid state – going against their own position, that all opinions are equal, and morality is relative, and we must not judge. Instead, they’re harshly judgemental of Israel – going against their own supposed stance on “all cultures are equal.”
 
As I said, this is all utter nuttiness. But it takes most of us a long time to figure out just how nutty it is – and longer to figure out how to get through to people who hold: All positions are equal, as long as they’re whatever I believe.
 
 
All the best to all of us who care and dare – to think and to speak.
 
Elsa
 
PS. There are also bits of sunshine here and there, not only right outside my window. In Montreal, there have recently been 2 excellent speakers – Nitsana Darshan-Leitner (Bankrupting Islam, One Lawsuit at a Time) and Bill Warner (Why We Are Afraid and A Voice for the Voiceless).
 
Then, at 7:30 pm, Monday, Dec 1, there will be a third speaker,
Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMag (Ruby Foos Hotel, 7655 Decarie Blvd).
 
For more info, you can email: valerieprice@sympatico.ca
 
 
PPS. By the way, why isn’t the site for The Freedom Community already up and running? It will include a membership site, where members can contact each other, and interact. That takes a lot of technical work. There are also loads of other questions, quite everyday, but they still take time – like, what will be the image on top? You can see the current image here:
 
 
PPPS. Here’s another question we’ve been dealing with: in how many languages will the site be available? That’s not decided. There will be at least 3: English, French and German. If you speak another language, and want to get involved, please let us know.
 
** Elmasry famously went on national TV:
 
Published by AlohaSnackbar01
Published: Mar 11, 2014
 
Now that the testimony phase of the Khurrum Awan/Ezra Levant libel suit is over, I thought I’d re-up this little clip of Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress from the old Michael Coren Show many years ago – Sun News Network has been using a copy from one of my old suspended Youtube accounts – here’s a new copy for ya boys!

==========================
The following shamelessly stolen from

http://eyecrazy.blogspot.ca/

 
========================
As a reminder, Awan was the Youth President of the CIC while its founder, Elmasry, was its head. The CIC is hardly a gigantic organization. it has and had only a handful of permanent staffers, and any reasonable person could draw obvious inferences about whether or not the Youth President of that small organization would have substantial dealings with the President. Though Awan has claimed he was unaware of the antisemitic stances of the CIC, he was its Youth President shortly after Elmasry, as its head, had become nationally infamous for declaring, on television in 2004, that he believed any Israeli civilian over the age of 18 was a valid target for murder while excusing terrorist suicide bombings as “a means to an end.”

There was more testimony today that was as plausible as Awan’s denial that he was unaware of the antisemitic support for terrorist groups by the CIC, for which he served as a political advocacy organizer. In court today, Awan denied that he was close to Elmasry despite agreeing to introduce his former alleged mentor at a fundraising event for the latter’s news magazine website, The Canadian Charger. The fundraiser occurred after Awan READ THE REST

 
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’ve lost my lawsuit. But I’m going to appeal. Here’s why.
 
By Ezra Levant
November 28, 2014
 
Today I lost the lawsuit against me brought by Khurrum Awan, the former youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.
 
You can read the full ruling here. The judge awarded Awan a whopping $80,000 plus legal costs.
 
I am reviewing the technical aspects of the ruling with my lawyer. But there is something terrifying, buried in this ruling, that I already know I simply must appeal — all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
 
On paragraph 166 of the decision, the judge ruled that calling Awan an anti-Semite is defamatory, and that’s one of the reasons I lost, and have to pay him so much money.
 
Decision Against Ezra Levant Paragraph-166 
 
But Awan was, at one time, the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, an anti-Semitic organization. At the time Awan was its youth president, the CIC was led by a notorious anti-Semite, Mohamed Elmasry. Elmasry famously went on national TV to state that any adult in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorism. The CIC has publicly called for the legalization of anti-Semitic terrorist groups.
 
And yet the judge ruled that it is defamatory to call the former youth president of an anti-Semitic organization, anti-Semitic. Because he denied it in court, and said he never knew about his organization’s infamous misconduct.
 
This should concern anyone who is worried about radical Islam, the right to criticize it, and the right to call out anti-Semitism in the public square.
 
If this judgment stands, anyone who dares to challenge members of Muslim extremist groups on the basis of their affiliation with such groups is at risk of costly lawsuits — and all the member of the anti-Semitic group needs to do is to deny that they share the beliefs of their organizations that they work hard to promote, or say they had no clue their anti-Semitic group was anti-Semitic.
 
If this ruling is allowed to stand, it will hinder anyone who campaigns against anti-Semitism — any Jewish group, any pro-Israel group, even anyone who criticizes radical Islam.
 
This ruling doesn’t just affect my rights. It’s a setback for freedom for everyone.
 
The comments in question were written on my personal blog six years ago, and so I’m footing the legal bills for this fight myself. The cost of the appeal will surely be at least $30,000 — and I’ve got to come up with that right now. If you share my belief that we cannot let this ruling stand please help me appeal this case now, by clicking here to contribute to my legal costs.
 
Yours gratefully,
 
Ezra Levant
___________________
WHAT! Legal Jihad against Ezra Levant Successful, BUT …
John R. Houk
© December 1, 2014
___________________
The Judgement against Ezra Levant, and Politically Correct Nuttiness
 
World Truth SummitELSA, TRUTH SLEUTH
__________________
I’ve lost my lawsuit. But I’m going to appeal. Here’s why.
 
 
 

Honor Killings Reported by Sun News Canada


WalidShoebat.com found this remarkably honest news video from Canada’s Sun News with the subject of Honor Killing in Canada. Talking about Honor Killing is quite remarkable in a nation like Canada in which one can be prosecuted for inciting hate actions for speaking the truth about Islam.

 

 

JRH 8/9/11