by Christine Williams
Islamists, who have, like many others, found ways of influencing Western democracies, have refined one process in particular, called al Taqiyya [dissimulation], sanctioned to promote Islam to “unbelievers” or “infidels,” if and when considered necessary. The word “Islamophobia,” for instance, has been disguised and misused so frequently that when Westerners merely question Islam, or its role in terrorism, they risk being branded as “Islamophobes” or “racists.” The term “victimology,” in which Islamists perpetually portray Muslims as victims of racism or of “colonialists” or “imperialists,” has also generated impressive results in vanquishing the infidel, and providing Islam an immunity from criticism and satirical depictions. As a result, whenever the subject about Islam is raised, open dialogue, media and public discourse are restricted or shut down out of fear of being branded “Islamophobic” or “racist,” even where no such sentiments may have been present. No other religion even attempts to obtain such blanket immunity.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird drew a line in the sand last spring in a keynote address to the American Jewish Committee Global Forum. He not only declared Canada’s resolute friendship to Israel, but also Canada’s commitment to a foreign policy that protects Canadian interests and promotes Canadian values of human rights, democracy, and freedom. He further avowed that “Canada will not go along to get along.” Yet, despite the Canadian government’s commitment to such values, it is confronted by the practice of al Taqiyyafrom Islamists, who appear to be using this method to hijack multiculturalism and suppress a key pillar of these freedoms: freedom of speech.
Take, for example, a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens, which stated that certain “barbaric” cultural practices, such as honor killings, would not be tolerated in Canada. In response to this, Liberal MP Justin Trudeau — son of the former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and expected to become the next Liberal party leader — castigated the government by stating that it should not call honor killings “barbaric;” that such language is unacceptable.
However, a man who slaughters his wife in front of their six children before throwing her dismembered head off an apartment rooftop is doing something “barbaric.” The murder of four women, driven into the Rideau Canal near Kingston, Ontario for the sake of so-called honor, and the murder of a 17 year old girl for not wearing a hijab, thereby bringing so-called dishonor to her family, are also acts that are barbaric, just as, in India, before the Raj, the practice of suttee — throwing a widow, live, onto the funeral pyre of her husband for the sake of her “honor” — was barbaric.
Many politicians, however, seem to be competing for votes here and abroad at the expense of the safety and well-being of their citizenry. The words of Islamists frequently seem to be skewed responses to events — pointing to an agenda to promote Shariah Law [Islamic religious law] globally, both through the subjugation of the West and through the delegitimization of Israel, with the ultimate goal of obliterating it.
The last part of this agenda was exposed in recent times in Durban, South Africa at the 2001 United Nations World Conference against Racism, which quickly deteriorated into a hate-fest for racism – specifically against Jews, under the label of “Zionists.”…
….Canadian Imam Zafar Bangash provides an example of the ideologies that have seeped in domestically and become virtually commonplace among Canadians and in the U.S. As director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, Bangash — virulently anti-Semitic and anti-West — once called for an Islamic revolution from a mall just north of Toronto. He has also referred to “that black man in the white house who can’t say no to those Zionist parasites.”
Despite his spread of biased ideologies, he and his strong following — domestically and internationally are quick to brand any criticism of such ideologies as “Islamophobic.”
To protect all free speech, in the autumn of 2011, Conservative MP Brian Storseth introduced a ground-breaking Private Members Bill (Bill C-304). It repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which had banned hate speech over the Internet or by telephone. The bill in effect stripped the authority of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions to investigate online hate speech, as well as the commissions’ authority to remove these websites if they are found in violation. Storseth, in his presentation to the House of Commons, called freedom of speech “a fundamental principle in our democracy and one which Canadians have fought and died for, for over a century,” as well as a freedom on which all other freedoms are built. He continued a step further in a call to all his countrymen: “This is not a fight that one Canadian can take on himself, but rather an issue that all Canadians must engage in vigorously.”
As a multicultural nation under a Conservative government, Canada is emphatically resisting going the way ofEurope, but still it runs a serious risk, all the more with politicians such as Justin Trudeau. France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe, has seen, largely from the promotion of extremist ideologies by Islamist preachers, the increasing radicalization of Muslims. The French population is now concerned about the growth of a parallel society — not a peace-loving one, but one where threats, violence and oppression are commonplace. In Germany, according to a new survey, “the image of Islam” is “devastating.” As Canada continues to honor human rights and equality for all, it would to do well to adopt a consistent, unapologetic stance in the face of anyone manipulating political correctness.