Why ‘Halal meat’ is ‘the thin wedge’ of Islamic supremacism

The other day, someone asked me a most interesting question (and, I am paraphrasing heavily):

“If you could wave a magic wand and do one single thing to prevent the loss of our liberties due to Sharia laws creeping into our society, what would it be?”

Without much difficulty, I answered:  “Stop Halal food!”

Well, my questioner had thought I had gone off my rocker.  “You mean to say that with all that is happening, Halal food is your biggest concern?  If they had their way, you’d be wearing a burqa, and all you would waste your one wish on Halal?”

My answer was a most enthusiastic ‘YES!!! But – it would NOT be a waste!”  And I proceeded to explain.  Unfortunately, my explanation had been cut short by the circumstances, so, please, let me complete it here.

First and foremost, I’d like to stress that under Sharia, Islamic jurisprudence, Muslims who live in a non-Muslim land – a country which is not governed by Sharia – are NOT required to eat Halal.

To the contrary:  if Halal food is not available, too difficult to obtain, or (and this is an important one) if maintaining Halal diet would disadvantage Muslims with respect to the Kafirs, then they are permitted to eat non-Halal food.  Allah is most forgiving and if no transgression was intended, then none is incurred.

In addition, if it were to give them an advantage in dealings with the Kafirs, then Muslims are permitted to drink alcohol, eat pork or do anything else that is generally taboo in Islam:  if they are doing it to further the long term goal of spreading Islam, then all is permitted.

Please, do not take my word for it – look it up for yourselves!  The rulings by Islamic authorities on this are numerous and unanimously in agreement with what I wrote.  Rather than be accused of ‘cherry picking’ my evidence by supplying one or two links, I urge you to check for yourself any Sharia authority of your choice:  it will confirm my statement.

Having established why consuming Halal food, especially Halal-slaughtered meat, is not obligatory for our Western Muslims, let me explain why permitting Halal food into our food supply undermines our society.

Yes, it undermines our society, in no uncertain terms.  In this, it is very different from Kosher food…

In order to explain this, I must first explain the relationship between Muslims and Kafirs (Kuffurs) under Sharia.

Under Sharia, all non-Muslims are Kafirs.  Usually translated as ‘unbeliever’ – an emotionally neutral word, the term ‘Kafir’, as used by Muslims, is anything but a ‘neutral term’.  It is a slur with, if possible, even more hate coiled up in it that ‘nigger’, ‘cracker’ and ‘twat’ rolled into one.

Much like some Christians believe that each and every human ‘knows’ Jesus is Christ and Saviour, that atheist also know this but are willfully pretending not to because they wish to sin and/or be evil, so Islam teaches that each and every human being is born a perfect Muslim, with full knowledge and understanding that Allah is the one and only God and the Muhammad is his prophet and that those of us who are not Muslims – are Kafirs – are willfully lying to ourselves and others when we deny Allah and Mohammed and that we are doing it because we are evil.

Thus, the word ‘Kafir’ implies an evil, willfully lying and deceiving person.  The Koran itself tells us that the Kafir is the vilest of all the creatures and warns Muslims not to trust them, take them as friends or even associate with them more than absolutely necessary.  And those are the ‘mild’ verses of the Koran – other verses make the full extermination of all Kafirs a religious duty for all Muslims.

But, let us get back to how this perception of Kafirs relates to Halal food.

There is an Islamic doctrine of ‘najis’ – ‘unclean’.

Many things are unclean:  pigs, dogs, and – yes, Kafirs.  If a Kafir touches a piece of food, they pollute it, making it no longer Halal.

Yet, some Kuffurs are slightly less unclean than others.  Christians and Jews are slightly less ‘unclean’ than the rest of us and therefor it is permitted for them to work on Halal food:  provided that they are only doing the most menial tasks and are directly and at all times watched and supervised by a Muslim.

This has some very important implications for our society.

Only Muslims, Christians and Jews may work in food production, transportation, preparation and sales.

If a Sikh, a Hindu, an atheist or another Kafir works as a waiter who carries a dish from the kitchen to the table, that food has become contaminated and is no longer Halal.

If a school cafeteria food is served by a Buddhist or  a Wiccan or an agnostic, that food would no longer be Halal.

If a nurse who injects a child with a vaccine is a Taoist or a Druid, that vaccine is no longer Halal.

If a truck driver who hauls meat from the slaughter house to the supermarkets is a Zoroastrian or Confucian, that meat is no longer Halal.

You see how this would undermine the rule of law?  Specifically the laws that forbid employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of religion?

How can you have employment equity if only Muslims may have a supervisory role in your food supply and only Muslims, Christians and Jews are eligible to work in the whole field?

And it will not be just limited to the ‘Halal’ food market:  we have seen this in country after country after country!  It is so difficult for companies in the food industry to obtain and maintain ‘Halal’ certification if only one part of their operation is dedicated to the Halal stream that they must make all their food production and supply chains Halal compliant, regardless whether the food is labelled ‘Halal’ or not.

For example, in England, it has been shown that the vast majority of meat sold in stores is Halal-compliant, whether it is labelled as ‘Halal’ or not!

You could be eating Halal-slaughtered meat without knowing it.

And that goes far beyond the unnecessary animal cruelty involved in Halal slaughter…  (Yes, Kosher food is also slaughtered using similar method and Kosher meat is therefore shunned by aware people.  The difference is that Kosher food is always labelled as such and therefore, people have a choice to avoid it if they so wish.  Halal-slaughtered meat is being sold both with Halal labels and without, making it impossible for a consumer to make a choice.)

In addition, Muslim leaders who wish to introduce Halal food into places like hospitals and schools claim that it is the ‘lowest common denominator':  meaning that everyone in society may eat Halal food.

Unfortunately, that is not true.

For example, Sikhs are expressly forbidden to consume Halal food.  (Not just Halal-slaughtered meat, but all food that had, at some point, been Halal.)

So, if a hospital or a school serves Halal food, they are violating Sikhs religious principles.

And while Sikhism explicitly forbids the consumption of Halal food, Christianity implicitly forbids the consumption of Halal meat.

Yes, most Christians are unaware of this – but, they should be.

Both the Old and the New Testament forbid the eating of ‘sacrificial meat’ – that is, meat that has been prayed over to a God other than the Christian one.

Permit me to explain:

Long, long time ago, Pagans would sacrifice animals in Temples in order to gain favour with one God or another.  This ‘sacrificial meat’ would be cooked and served to the ‘common folk’ who would come to the temple. Since many of the poor people could not afford to eat meat on their own, they would flock to the temples for a good meal.

If you think about this, it was a quite good system:  the rich may have been trying to buy favour from the Gods, but they ended up feeding valuable protein to the poor…

And while the people ate the sacrificial meat, the priests and priestesses would proselytize to them, singing the praises and spreading the teachings of their particular deity.

Which was not particularly appreciated by the Jewish and Christian religious leaders…

So, in both the Old and the New Testaments, eating meat sacrificed to other deities was strictly forbidden!

Don’t take my word for it – please, look it up for yourself.    I recommend Acts 15:29  and Acts 21:29 as good starting points.

Yet, food that had been sacrificed to Allah has entered our food supply:  sometimes it is clearly labeled as such (and permits us the choice to avoid it), but at other times, Halal slaughtered meat is sold without any signs indicating so.  What is worse, many public institutions have substituted Halal meat in their food supply without notifying their consumers, without giving their ‘captive consumers’ (hospitals, schools) the option to practice their religion without sin.

In summary:

Not only does ‘Halal-certified food’ contravene our employment laws (the ones that prevent employer from practicing religious prejudice in hiring policies, as Halal food may not be ‘handled’ by members of most religions and by non-religious people in order to maintain its ‘Halal’ certification) and thus undermines the rule of law in our society, inconspicuously labeled Halal food (such as on cans of Cambell’s soup:  a simple crescent moon may not alert a consumer that they are purchasing a ‘Halal’ item) or completely unlabeled Halal meat has crept into our food supply, preventing non-Muslims from freely exercising their religions.

But – and this implication is perhaps even more important to consider – only Sharia adherent Muslims in our society insist on Halal food.  It is precisely these Sharia-adherent Muslims who will seek employment in the ‘Halal food supply’.

Many Muslims have come to Canada precisely to escape Sharia.  These are the Muslims whom we must protect – the moderates in our midst who want nothing more than to live free and be productive members of our society.  Other Muslims have come here with the goal to impose Sharia on our society:  these are not peaceful immigrants but radicals who have arrived as colonists, who believe that it is their duty to impose Sharia on all the people on Earth.

Yet, it is exactly these Sharia adherent Muslims who control Halal certification and manage the Halal-certified food supplies.  As Halal – with or without clear labeling – becomes greater and greater portion of our food supply chain, radical Muslims will gain control over more and more of our food supplies.

Radical Muslims believe themselves to be at war with our society.

Placing them in a position to control greater and greater portions of our food supply mechanism is, in my never-humble-opinion, not a good idea.

The Islamic State declared a New Caliphate: How This Affects Every Muslim in the World

To us, Westerners, it does not seem like a particularly big deal that ISIS/ISIL had pronounced the terrirories it now controls as a Capilhate and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (whatever  previous names he may have been know by) as a Caliph.

All right, let’s analyze  this, one bit at a time…

Al-Baghdadi simply means ‘from Baghdad’.

So, what does Abu Bakr mean?

It is obviously not the man’s birth name but rather a name he adopted in order to fit/further/support/explain the role he perceives himself (and others perceive him) to play.  Or, if you wish, the ‘mantle’ he had assumed.

Who was the original Abu Bakr?

The ‘original’ Abu Bakhr was the very first person outside of Muhammad’s family to become a Muslim – and he was the father of Muhammad’s child bride, Aisha.

To a person who is familiar with the history of early Islam, the above sentence is chock filled with meaning – so much so that a single little article may not do it justice…but, I will try!

The Early history of Islam is imbued with much meaning and allusions to it will convey many layers of meaning to those cognisant of it.  In order to even scratch the surface, I will need to ‘back up’ to the time of Muhammad himself.

Muhammad was born to a pre-eminent Meccan family.  His paternal grandfather was in control of the temple now know as the Kaaba.  It is now the most sacred site in Islam – the direction in which every Muslim prays.  Back then before Muhammad’s ministry, the Kaaba was a temple dedicated to many, many deities worshiped by the pagan Arabs – including the Moon God, Allah.

As the patriarch of the clan, Muhammad’s grandfather controlled access to the Kaaba temple – and much (if not all) of his income was generated from the fees paid by pilgrims who wished to visit the Kaaba.

Muhammad’s father was the son of this ‘gatekeeper’ of the Kaaba.

As a matter of fact, when Muhammad’s grandfather went to purchase Muhammad’s wife for his son, he saw another lovely woman in that family and purchased her for a wife for himself.  Therefore, Muhammed’s father married Muhamed’s mother in the same ceremony as his father married her kinswoman….and it is from this tradition that the tales of Muhammad’s unnaturally long gestation period come from…

Whatever the truth of the story, Muhammad was born long after his mother’s husband’s death – so long, in fact, that some people have questioned his parentage.  It seems that the worry about Muhmmed’s parentage was shared by Muhamed’s paternal grandfather….who refused to acknowledge Muhammed as being of his kin, prompting the teenage Muhammed’s excommunication from Mecca.  It was not until Muhammed’s paternal uncle officially adopted him that Muhammed was permitted to return to Mecca.

Once in Mecca, Muhammed caught the eye of his uncle’s employer, a wealthy widow named Khadija – who eventually married Muhammed.  

Prior to meeting Muhammed, Khadijah was in love with her cousin whom he believed to be the messenger from the one and only God.  Once she saw the young and handsome cattle-boy Muhammed, Khadija realized she was totally wrong and, afer she married Muhammad, she realized that it was really Muhammed who was the true prophet of the one and only God.

It took a few years of persuasion, but, eventually, the young Muhammed believed his wife (the first convert to Islam) that he was, indeed, special and chosen by God to be his Messenger!

Abu Bakhr, a wealthy merchant, was the first person outside the family to believe this and to embrace Muhammed as the prophet of the one and only God – thus becoming the first person outside the family to convert to Islam.  

When Muhammed told him that, in a dream, he was told that he is to marry Abu Bakhr’s six year-old daughter, Abu Bakhr first argued that she is too young, but, submitting to the will of God’s messenger, he eventually agreed.  

Unfortunately, at about the time of the betrothal, Abu Bakhr’s daughter, Aisha, fell ill and all her hair fell out.  So, Muhammed waited until she recovered and her hair grew back in before bedding her.

Aisha remained Muhammed’s favourite wife till his death.

Which is where the traditions ‘break path’, so to say.

BOTH traditions agree that Muhammed was ill, then felt better, lead Friday prayers, went to spent time with Aisha and then died.

According to Sunni Muslims, Muhammed had been poisoned by a Jewish woman who had served him a meal of poisoned mutton right after he had slaughtered her entire family and clan.  The Sunni believe she did this to test if he was just another King (who could be poisoned) or a true prophet (who could not – by the grace of God).  While he survived the immediate attack, the Sunnis believe Muhammed died as an after-effect of this poison.

The Shi’a Muslims, however, believe that being a true prophet of the one and only God, the poison given him by the Jewess as a test did not harm Muhammed at all. Rather, they believe that while Muhammed’s nephew and bodyguard was out of town, sent on a mission by Muhammed, Aisha killed him on the orders of her father, Abu Bakhr, so that he could assume the command of all the Muslims.

Indeed, there were many stories at about this time about faithful men in line to replace Muhammed as the leader of the Muslims being assassinated, one at a time, by the brothers of Aisha, so that her father could assume the reins of power and reign as the next Caliph.

Indeed, the very first war between the Muslims was about Abu Bakhr’s succession of Muhammed as Caliph…

Th Sunnis believe that Abu Bakhr was the rightful heir to Muhammed’s rule.

The Shi’as belive that Abu Bakhr was an usurper who had no right to power, but attempted to assassinate Muhammed’s rightful heirs in order to seize power for himself.

Whatever the truth may have been so many centuries ago is less relevant to today’s events than the traditions of these events, as told by both Shi’a and Sunni Muslims.

Today, considering the legends (and, perhaps, believing them to be true), adopting the name ‘Abu Bakr’ signals to Muslims that this person believes he is the rightful ruler of all of Islam (the Sunni bits, at least) who considers himself to he a true successor of Muhammed, with all that that implies.

Sure, it means death to all Shi’a Muslims as heretics – as well as all other non-orthodox Sunni followers of Islam.  According to this ‘Abu Bakhr tradition’ - anyone who did not acknowledge Abu Bakhr as the rightful successor of Muhammed and all followers of the forms of Islam that sprung from this must be exterminated as heretics, even ore dangerous than outright infidels…

Which means war in the middle east…

So – why is this important to the people outside the middle east?!?!?

It has to do with the very concept of ‘Caliph’.

A ‘Caliph’ is not just the ruler of a particular geographic area.

A ‘Caliph’ is the spiritual and political ruler of every Muslim in the world!

That is agreed upon by all the schools of Sharia – Islamic jurisprudence.

Thus, a Caliph erases the differences between different forms of Islam – regardless of Shi’a, Sunni, Ahmadi or anything else, once there is a proclaimed Caliph, all Muslims owe HIM and ONLY HIM their allegiance and obedience.

Regardless where on Earth they live, what local jurisdictions they are living under:  once there is a Caliph, Sharia dictates all Muslims must obey the Caliph before the laws of the land they happen to be living in.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may only control a small geographic area.  But, by having had himself declared a Caliph, he now commands the loyalty and obedience of all Sharia-adherent Muslims everywhere on this Earth.

THIS is why we, in the West, must draw a very pragmatic distinction between the Muslims who are immigrants to our lands, hoping to escape Sharia (and whom we must protect from their co-religionists) and the settlers/invaders who came here to try to enact Sharia law in our lands and thus make us conquered by Islam.

Make no mistake:  by having declared a Caliphate and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the new Caliph, militant Muslims have, in one move, turned Sharia-adherent Muslims in Western countries into enemy agents, whether they want to be or not!!!

 

Ezra Levant – Charges laid against Calgary anti-Israel thugs, more to come

From Sun News:

From Ezra Levant’s email:

Dear Alexandra,

Today the Calgary Police Service charged three pro-Hamas rioters with assault, and are seeking a fourth suspect.

You’ll remember that disgraceful riot – on July 18th, right outside Calgary’s City Hall, a mob of pro-Palestinian thugs beat up an entire Canadian family while shouting “death to the Jews”.

That was bad enough. But even worse, Calgary’s police were nowhere to be seen. This was right downtown – right outside City Hall. But the police just weren’t there.

For that one moment, it was more like Gaza than Canada – mob rule, not the rule of law.

Calgary’s civic leaders let us down – both the police chief and the mayor downplayed the incident, refusing to call it a riot, and being willfully blind to the anti-Semitic nature of the violence.

So you and I stepped in to fill the gap.

We set up a petition, where literally thousands of Calgarians and other Canadians demanded criminal charges, and a clear denunciation of the riots. It was the largest petition ever received by the Calgary Police Commission.

We raised funds online to hire a lawyer for the riot victims, to help them navigate the police bureaucracy.

We held a massive pro-Canada, pro-Israel, pro-freedom rally on the steps of City Hall – proving that pro-Hamas thugs don’t control the city’s streets.

And, when criminal charges still had not come after two full weeks, we set up a website called www.RiotStoppers.com — based on the Crime Stoppers model. We showed pictures and video of six rioters and offered a $500 reward to anyone who could give us information about their identity.

Within half a day, we received quality tips on four of the suspects that we immediately passed on to police. But we did not make this news public, so as not to tip off the suspects and interfere with the police investigation.

Well, three charges were laid today, and a fourth is expected as soon as tomorrow.

We will continue to hunt for more suspects on our website.

But this is a major step forward in bringing these violent rioters to justice.

I should mention that the two street cops on this file have been exemplary. I’m talking about police who spend their time fighting crime, not playing politics like the chief. They have taken a meticulous approach, and were closing in on these suspects even before we sent in our tips. Our tips merely came from someone sleuthing the Internet – something the police obviously did too.

I’m sure they would have got these suspects. But I’m equally sure that the public message sent by our rally, our petition and us finding the suspect ourselves added positive pressure to the police chief to do the right thing this time – and not sweep this all under the carpet.

So thank you: to Calgary’s finest, for laying the charges. And to Canada’s finest: you, the viewers of the Sun News Network, who have signed the petitions, raised the funds for these projects, and smoked out four of the suspects.

Here’s my special edition of the Source that I taped tonight right after the police laid the charges. And please visit www.RiotStoppers.com. The police haven’t found everyone yet – let’s give them a hand.

Yours gratefully,

Ezra Levant

 

 

 

Who are the ‘moderate Muslims’?

There is a number of questions people have been asking me about Muslims.  I’ve tried to answer some before, but, upon further reflection, there are a few I’d like to re-visit.

Here, I would like to explain why I consider some Muslims to be ‘moderates’ – but not others.

Yes, there are some who do not see the distinction, pointing out that to follow Islam, one would have to skip large bits of the Koran in order to practice a ‘moderate’ version of the faith.  True.  But that is also true of the Bible – Jesus famously claims to bring not peace, but the sword.  And it is not that many generations ago that my paternal grandmothers’ relatives were burned alive by the Jesuits for practicing the ‘wrong’ branch of Christianity.

In other words, it is not the dogma itself that makes a person a ‘moderate':  rather, it is the bits of the dogma that one takes and ‘owns’ and lives by that makes one a ‘moderate’ or not, regardless of the faith/religion (theistic, atheistic or non-theistic alike)/doctrine/dogma.

When it comes to Islam, I see the divide as being between those Muslims who demand official recognition of Sharia (Islamic jurisprudence) and those who do not.

What is Sharia?

Books have been written on this, but, in short, it is ‘Islamic Law’.  There are 4 main Sunni and 4 main Shia schools of Sharia and they do indeed differ in some minor aspects, but, on those bits that they all agree, the ‘Islamic Law’ is unalterable.

Sharia evolved over several centuries.  Scholars studied the Koran, the sayings of their prophet Muhammed and stories about the life of the prophet Muhammed as told by his companions.  None of these were written during the life of Muhammed himself, but rather when many of his companions began dying off and the rest of the Muslims were afraid that his teachings and traditions would be lost, the ruler at the time had all the companions write down all they remembered, gathered all the materials, weeded through them to pick out the ‘most authentic’, recorded those as the only permitted version and had all the rest burned.  A lot like the role the Council of Nicaea had in writing the Bible.

So, for centuries after the Koran and the Sayings and Traditions of Muhammed were written down, jurists would look to the scriptures themselves to see what the proper sentence should be.  Not all jurists read the same things in these texts, yet, still, over the centuries, a body of jurisprudence had indeed been built up from which some rulings emerged as so common as to constitute laws.  The formal collection of these laws is called Sharia.

While it is still being added to (in the form of fatwas, or pronouncements/rulings of learned clerics on legal questions),the major body of it had been codified at around 1100 CE or so – just as the end of the ‘golden age’ of Islamic science came to its end.  Those two are closely connected, because Sharia is very inimical to any form of inquiry, including the scientific one.

It is important to keep in mind that while Sharia is based on early scholars’ reading of Koran and the life of Muhammad, it is not actually the Koran and Sunna itself.

The way Sharia is implemented in various Islamic countries does vary, even if the cores are common to them all:  the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man, her inheritance is half that of a man’s, a woman is a perpetual minor in they eyes of the law so any and all of her property is managed for her by her guardian, and this guardian is also the one who enters into legal contracts on her behalf (including marriage:  under Sharia, a woman is herself not a party to her marrige contract, only her guardian and husband have legal standing in the contract),  apostates must be put to death (though one school of thought says female apostates are only to be under house-arrest for life), and so on.

Many Muslims do not like living under Sharia and its harsh rules – or, at least, the way it is imposed on them from the outside.

Thus, they have come to The West in order to practice Islam according to their own understanding and without the straight jacket jurisprudence that is Sharia.  These are people who are happy to follow our secular laws and impose any additional religious rules onto themselves, from the inside, without compulsion from anyone else.

These are the people I consider ‘moderate Muslims’.

As opposed to the Muslims who want to live under Sharia – but to do so in our lands, in The West.

The problems with this desire are numerous – not the least of which is that in order to retain integrity and social cohesion in a land, one set of rules has to apply equally to each and every citizen.  Equality before the law is such a fundamental cornerstone of our society that to have one class of people ruled by a parallel legal system means it has already been destroyed.

Another problem with Sharia is that it is deeply supremacist.  It sees itself as above all mere man-made laws, and wherever there is a conflict between the two, Sharia demands supremacy.  And since only Islamic scholars are permitted to issue Sharia rulings, permitting Sharia in a country effectively takes the application of law from the hands of trained jurists and places it in the hands of Islamic clerics…which could, indeed be problematic, to say the least.

Did I mention that non-Muslims are not permitted to speak at a Sharia court, even to defend themselves – even though Sharia reserves the right to rule over them?

And then there are the moderate Muslims – the ones who immigrated to the West specifically to get away from Sharia…if we permit it in our lands, they will automatically be subject to it, whether legally (as in Indonesia) or through peer pressure (as in the UK).  Do we not owe them equality under our laws, just like every other citizen?

Though I have barely scratched the surface, I do hope I have demonstrated both that Sharia is incompatible with our governance and that we owe it to the moderate Muslims among us to protect them from it.

Which brings me to the other type of Muslim – the ones who demand Sharia in our lands, under the terms of ‘religious accommodation’, necessarily at the expense of our ‘freedom from religion’.

Sharia is the politico/judicial arm of Islam and not theological teachings.

As such, anyone who wishes for any form of Sharia to be implemented (accommodated is the term used, but due to its supremacist nature, in reality, this ‘accommodation’ requires putting Sharia above our own common laws) in The West is calling not just for freedom of religion, but for the imposition of Islamic law.  And not just for themselves, as an act of private worship, but as something to be imposed on the whole of society because Sharia’s laws extend to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

This, by definition, makes them Islamists and not ‘moderate Muslims’.

To recap:  those Muslims who call for Sharia accommodation/implementation in The West are not moderate Muslims, they are Islamist colonists who ought to be called out as such and resisted, if we want our culture of tolerance preserved.

 

 

 

 

BCF: Calling For Jews To Be Shot Now Legal – Ontario Attorney General

From BlazingCatFur:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

TORONTO, January 31, 2014 — B’nai Brith Canada, the country’s senior Jewish human rights organization, has been informed that the Ontario Attorney General (AG) has not consented to the laying of hate crime charges against Mr. Elias Hazineh. Hazineh, who spoke at the Iranian-inspired Al-Quds Day rally at Queen’s Park to an adoring crowd, was caught on video issuing an ultimatum that Israeli Jews either leave Jerusalem or be shot.

“We are disappointed by the decision not to confront hatred on the streets of Toronto,” said Frank Dimant, CEO, B’nai Brith Canada. “It seems that we have sadly grown accustomed to hearing hateful rhetoric spewed at these pro-Iranian-regime, anti-Israel events. As we have noted, Al-Quds Day, a now annual event, is a route by which Canadians are being exposed to the radical and hateful ideologies of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and the banned terrorist group Hezbollah. 

Don’t get me wrong – I am a ‘free speech absolutist’.

But, as others keep reminding me, we do have laws on the books in Canada that make ‘incitement to violence’ a criminal offense – and ‘incitement to violence against a group protected on either racial or religious grounds’ is not only a ‘simple’ criminal offense but a ‘hate crime’…

….and, when AT THE SAME TIME incitement to violence against ‘Jews’ becomes acceptable and is not acted upon by ‘the authorities’, our society has stopped being decent….or civilized!!!!

Sad, so sad…

Pat Condell: A word to left-wing students

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers