Council of European Canadians Is Not a “White Supremacist” Group

In the last two days, the lying media in Canada, in unison with conservative candidate Michael Chong, and political consultant Warren Kinsella, have referred to the Council of European Canadians as a “white supremacist” group. This is a term increasingly used by the left and right wing establishment to condemn ideas and groups it cannot handle through open debate, empirical use of facts, and logically constructed arguments.

Having diminished the impact of the word “racist” through nauseous overuse, the establishment has now decided to double down with an even more extremist term which they cannot even define.

For the record, the Council of European Canadians is not a “white supremacist” organization, has never called itself as such and does not believe in the supremacy of any racial group over any other. What it does believe is:

  • that Canada as a nation was founded by Europeans pioneers and settlers, the majority of whom were born in the soil of Canada;
  • that the Multiculturalism Act of 1988 affords all citizens in Canada the right to protect and enhance their ethno-cultural identity;
  • that it is natural and normal for humans to identify with their ethno-cultural group because identity is a fundamental psychological need among humans, a view that is central to multicultural theory developed by Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka;
  • that Europeans are the only ethnic group in the world that are prohibited from identifying themselves ethnically but are, to the contrary, expected to celebrate the ethnic identity of non-Europeans right inside their own homelands;
  • that mass immigration has been imposed upon Eurocanadians without their democratic consent by elites on the right and the left in an atmosphere of totalitarian control, of which the use of the label “white supremacist” is yet another example.

This label was first used by Michael Chong in the Conservative leadership debate in Moncton this past Tuesday evening. Speaking of Leitch’s team, Chong said:

They insist that it’s not race-baiting or anti-immigrant, but just yesterday, their campaign was endorsed by a white supremacist group called the Council of European Canadians.

This statement is wrong on all counts; in its designation of CEC as “white supremacist,” in its extremist claim that CEC is “anti-immigrant,” and in its false claim that CEC endorsed Leitch’s candidacy.

Frank Hilliard did write an article for CEC arguing that, however imperfect Leitch may be, she deserved serious attention as a candidate expressing views congenial with the views of some of the CEC writers and many of the readers of our webzine. The things Hilliard found attractive about Leitch are aligned with what millions of Canadians also like about her: she is very qualified to be Prime Minister, certainly far more qualified than Justin; she is “pro-life,” her policies would “screen out Islamist terrorists,” “put a pause on Muslim immigration very similar to the new policy in the United States.”

Althia Raj, in the Huffington Post Canada, placed Chong’s statement with a video at the center of her story and then went further calling Frank Hilliard a “white supremacist” without any evidence. Raj is obviously the quintessential conformist who uses whatever words the establishment requires journalists to use without even knowing what they mean. Had Raj been interested in learning about racial supremacism, she might have told her readers about India, the most racist country in the world with an institutionalized system of apartheid against darker Indians, with whiter Indians who look like Raj, standing at the top of the caste ranking.

The top racist countries in the world are in the Third World. We Eurocanadians have every reason to be wary of million upon millions of immigrants coming from racist countries. This reality is posing an enormous threat to our anti-racist Canadian values, which we at CEC endorse.

Warren Kinsella, who has managed a career out of using extremely juvenile labels against Canadians who think differently from him, and has a blog called “The War Room” which reads as if it were “The Cuck Room,” makes the incredibly stupid statement that the Council of European Canadians believes that non-White immigrants are not human, even though half of our writers are immigrants, and some are not White.

But rather than waste time with a self-absorbed mediocrity who writes in the third person, and always employs labels as substitutes for arguments, referring to CEC in a few lines as “racist,” “far-Right,” “neo-Nazi,” “Stormfront,” “Ku Klux Klan,” let us close here with some empirical polling evidence showing that Canadians do welcome Leitch’s (and Trump’s) immigration proposals, in tandem with the views of the Council of European Canadians:

  1. In this poll, as reported in September 10, 2016, the majority agree we should screen immigrants for anti-Canadian values: “Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for ‘anti-Canadian’.” This preference for immigrants who are more inclined to accept Canadian values holds across the political spectrum: “Conservative supporters with 87 per cent backing the idea and just 8 per cent opposed compared to 57 per cent support among Liberals and 59 per cent for New Democrat voters.”
  2. Canadians are also concerned about opening our borders to Syrian refugees. According to a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute: “More than 70 per cent of Canadians don’t support the federal government taking in more than 25,000 Syrian refugees, according to a new poll…Two in five respondents think Canada should stop taking in Syrian refugees immediately.”
  3. Even more, they agree that legal immigration should be cut in the future: In a survey conducted in 2013: “When asked whether ‘less immigration’ or ‘more immigration’ would lead ‘to a better future 25 years from now,’ 61.7 per cent of Canadians said less immigration would be preferable, compared to 34.4 per cent who said more immigration would result in a better Canada.”

This is what CEC is all about; evidence, historical accuracy, decency, honor for our forefathers, scholarly debate and expression of liberal democratic values.


Threats to freedom of speech in Canada – Please sign this petition

Recently a group of vocal parents orchestrated a campaign targeting a Markham elementary school principal (Ghada Sadaka), for sharing her personal opinions on Facebook posts perceived by them as Islamophobic comments.

A close scrutiny of the Facebooks posts indicates clearly that The Principal of the school was appealing to the non-radicals to exercise their right of freedom of speech, guaranteed by The Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada, by raising the following key question:“Where are the moderate Muslims every time acts of violence ,perpetrated by religious radicals against innocent civilians, claim dozens of victims attacked simply because they think differently, dress differently, adhere to different religious values, and venerate freedom of speech?”

We strongly believe in what Mohandas Ghandi said decades ago: “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.”

We urge decision makers who are investigating the allegations made by Muslim parents, that the errors promoted by vocal parents determined to destroy the future of a school principal, cannot become a yardstick to measure truth simply because the very same parents have managed to propagate the error via a biased media dedicated to political correctness.

We the silent majority urge all decision makers to defend the most valuable freedom we Canadians have-Freedom of Speech, and repeat to every religious fanatic who cannot tolerate freedom of speech the following statement:

“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, July 1, 1960, House of Commons

Please sign this petition if you support freedom of speech and you don’t want your fundamental freedoms to be eroded by religious fanaticism.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                     

2 December 2016


(Washington, D.C.): Since its founding in 1993, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has presented itself publicly as a benign Muslim American “civil rights organization.”  From that time to this, however, the United States government has known that CAIR actually is an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise: Hamas, a group officially designated since 1994 as a terrorist organization.

Evidence of CAIR’s true character as a U.S.-based instrument for political warfare and fundraising for Hamas – and the federal government’s certain knowledge of the truth – did not come to light until the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history: the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation prosecution.  In the course of that trial, FBI Agent Laura Burns testified about, and helped explain, the transcripts of wiretap surveillance conducted in the course of two planning sessions leading up to the organizational meeting of CAIR held in Philadelphia in October 1993 and during the meeting itself.  Specifically, she presented proof that CAIR’s mission was to assist “Sister Samah,” its founders’ hardly opaque code-name for Hamas, as the prospect of its terror designation loomed.

Annotated highlights of the CAIR transcripts are now available for the first time, complete with relevant excerpts from Agent Burns’ testimony, in the latest product of the Center for Security Policy’s “Muslim Brotherhood Archival Series”: CAIR Is Hamas: How the U.S. Government Proved that the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism. As with the first two publications in this series – “An Explanatory Memorandum”: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words, this new product from CSP Press is making accessible original source material together with professional analysis concerning the inner workings of the network the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in America for more than fifty years for the stated purpose of “destroying Western civilization from within.”[1]

Upon the release of CAIR is Hamas, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:

The production of this proof of CAIR’s jihadist nature is especially timely as legislatures in states around the country are considering resolutions seeking to discourage their agencies from interacting with this Hamas front and as the U.S. Congress considers legislation calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. CAIR is Hamas should be required reading for lawmakers, other officials at every level of government, the press and ordinary Americans misperceiving CAIR’s true jihadist and subversive nature.

CAIR is Hamas is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at As with all editions of the Archival Series, this one can also be downloaded for free at

[1] From the Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America (see “An Explanatory Memorandum,” p. 16,

About The Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit

For more information contact:

Kyle Shideler



When reaching out to the Muslim community, choose your ambassadors carefully

Crime Prevention Ottawa (CPO) was founded in 2004 to develop strategies for enhancing community safety, addressing problems like violence against women, neighbourhood gangs, abuse of the disabled and hate crimes.

Between January and November of this year, according to Staff Sergeant Dave Zackrias of the Diversity and Race Relations Unit (DRR) of the Ottawa Police Service (OPS), there have been 64 reported hate incidents targeting blacks, LGBT, Jews and Muslims. The majority were “mischief,” mostly graffiti of offensive words and symbols, or “harassment,” shouted or Internet hate speech. Notably, there were very few reports of two or more people engaging in a verbal confrontation. There were two cases of physical assault. Altogether hate crimes constituted a virtually violence-free 0.02 per cent of all Ottawa police-reported crimes.

To an epidemiologist these figures would indicate a basically healthy and inclusive society. And yet, in spite of their proportionately low numbers, of the four public events CPO mounted in 2016, two have been dedicated to hate crimes, with both, unfortunately, featuring a failure of due diligence regarding Muslim representation.

On June 15, CPO organized a public education program, “Why Faith-Based Crime Prevention Matters,” with a panel of two Christians and one Muslim. No Jewish representation, even though Jews, one third as numerous as Muslims in Canada, are eight times more likely to be targets of faith-related hate than Muslims.

The Muslim panelist was Imam Zijad Delic, a poor choice. Delic’s scheduled 2010 appearance at the Department of National Defence for an Islamic-related event was cancelled by the Harper government owing to his Islamist affiliations. As national helmsman of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), Delic oversaw a 2007 Montreal speaking invitation to Taliban apologist Yvonne Ridley (I was there; she boasted of her collaboration with Hezbollah). Delic also provided leadership to the CIC’s shariah lobby, as well as supporting the Organization of Islamic Conference’s speech-chilling “blasphemy” initiative to criminalize criticism of Islam.

In the CPO’s first mass mailing Nov 10 regarding their second event last Friday, “Addressing Hate Crimes: Creating a Safe City for All,” there was no Jewish representation noted, only black, LGBT and Muslim, the latter in the person of Amira Elghawaby, communications director of NCCM/CAIR.CAN. I use both her organization’s old and new acronyms together to remind readers that the National Council of Canadian Muslims is a 2013 cosmetic name change only from their previous handle, CAIR.CAN. Court documents identified CAIR.CAN as the Canadian chapter of the U.S. Islamist organization CAIR, the latter linked by the FBI to the Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in the U.S., and still considered unsuitable by them as “an appropriate liaison partner” for any government outreach. To the confusion of some specialists and despite this history, NCCM/CAIR.CAN now insists that it has “no strong and/or continuing link to CAIR.”

CPO’s next mailing, Nov. 17, included panelist Bernie Farber, a former Jewish community spokesperson. (On Nov. 19, I submitted a media query to CPO concerning the temporal hiatus, after which Farber was suddenly elevated to keynote status.)

Now B’nai Brith is the organization that normally deals with Jewish hate crimes. And according to CEO Michael Mostyn, “It’s a disappointing and puzzling decision for Ottawa to partner with NCCM (formerly known as CAIR-Canada) on this event, given that their colleagues in other law-enforcement agencies such as the RCMP and Durham police have distanced themselves from the group in the past … There are certainly less controversial organizations that the Ottawa police can choose to partner with at these sorts of events.”

Last week’s panel also caught the attention of Syed Raza of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow (MFT), a group with no Islamist baggage — quite the contrary; it denounces political Islam and promotes Islamic reform to meet contemporary rights standards — which would make an ideal partner for collaboration with any tax-funded agency. Raza is quoted in an article critical of the CPO event by the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s IPT News: “We find (NCCM/CAIR.CAN’s) activities at best shady and misleading for the Muslim population of Canada.”

But, Raza added, Crime Prevention Ottawa and Ottawa police show little interest in opening their outreach to more diverse Muslim views, so cozily entwined are they with NCCM/CAIR.CAN. CPO, for example, consists of only three people, one of whom, Sharmaarke Abdullahi, according to his bio on the Canadian Arab Institute site, has previously worked with the NCCM.

Cultural groups can derive legitimacy and moral authority from association with law enforcement agencies and community safety organizations, who should therefore be highly selective in their choice of partnerships. NCCM/CAIR.CAN has a history of threatening legal action against those who level charges of worrisome connections against them. Elghawaby confirmed to me that her group is still engaged in a libel suit against Stephen Harper’s communications director for publicly implying NCCM/CAIR.CAN has ties to Hamas. Unless and until NCCM/CAIR.CAN makes full public disclosure of the evidentiary materials in that case, CPO should avoid collaborating with them or any group encumbered with an ambiguous history and associations.