Monthly Archives: August 2011

Grassroots Activism Works!


In early 2008, in one of the first grassroots activism efforts launched by ACT! for America, we helped bring nationwide exposure to a taxpayer-funded charter school that was clearly engaging in unlawful Islamic proselytizing in the school.

ACT! for America members contacted the Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota elected officials, even the ACLU, demanding action.

Guy Rodgers, ACT! for America Executive Director, talked to a top official at the Minnesota Department of Education, who assured him they would investigate—and they did. Their investigation resulted in two citations against the school.

In 2009 the ACLU did get involved, filing suit against the school alleging improper promotion of religion in a taxpayer-funded facility. So much for those claiming this was a right-wing vendetta against the school.

The report below provides the latest on this issue—TiZA has filed for bankruptcy.

The lesson here? Grassroots activism works.


TiZA school’s future falls to
bankruptcy court

By Mila Koumpilova
Updated: 07/25/2011 11:23:31 PM CDT

Weeks after it ceased to exist in the eyes of the state, a metro-area charter school is making a case for its survival in bankruptcy court.

The Inver Grove Heights-based Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy filed for bankruptcy June 30, a day before it found itself lacking the state-approved overseer it needs to continue operation. The school since has asked the bankruptcy judge for permission to continue paying employees' salaries and benefits, stressing the value of saving its successful academic program.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the court to allow its 2-year-old federal lawsuit against the academy to move toward a resolution. The ACLU accused TiZA of promoting religion. The school has denied those charges, arguing it merely accommodated its primarily Muslim students.

These developments leave TiZA attorneys with a delicate balance to strike: They are championing the school's survival as they argue that its likely demise makes the ACLU lawsuit moot.

"How can TiZA adjust its religious accommodation policies if it doesn't exist anymore?" asked Shamus O'Meara, the school's lead counsel. "It's pretty nonsensical to try to push those claims forward."

At the start of this month, TiZA's overseer – the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Islamic Relief USA – became ineligible to continue its role because of a new charter school law that bans out-of-state overseers. Islamic Relief and the state were co-defendants in the ACLU lawsuit before settling out of court.

The state Education Department turned down an application by Twin Cities nonprofit Novation to take over as TiZA's overseer.

TiZA filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which allows an organization to restructure and continue to exist. In court filings, the academy touts the high test scores and other achievements of its overwhelmingly low-income minority students.

"The continued operation of TiZA saves a successful program for the development of students," records say.

And to continue to operate, the school said, it needs to hang onto its staff of about 60. The school, which lists a monthly payroll of about $143,000, is asking the judge to allow it to continue paying its teachers and other employees over the summer.

An attorney for U.S. Trustee Habbo Fokkena argued against granting that request. The ability of the school to reopen in the fall is "clearly in dispute," wrote the attorney, Michael Fadlovich.

He especially objects to a severance clause in employment offers made in the weeks and months before the school filed for bankruptcy: If the school is forced to close, the offers said, employees would receive four months' salary – a liability of about $438,500 by his estimate.

Mark Kalla, TiZA's bankruptcy attorney, did not return a call seeking comment.

TiZA's Executive Director Asad Zaman said the school hasn't worked out a survival plan. Its leaders and legal team still are weighing a court appeal of the Education Department's rejection of Novation's application.

Zaman said he does not plan to re-invent TiZA as a private school, which would require lining up significant private resources.

O'Meara, the school's counsel, is more pessimistic. He said many TiZA employees scattered over the summer, and many students have requested their academic records so they can transfer to other schools.

"The reality is there isn't anyone to fill that school any more," O'Meara said. Meanwhile, the ACLU, the state and Islamic Relief have asked the bankruptcy court to lift a freeze on all legal actions that went into effect automatically when TiZA filed for bankruptcy.

For one thing, the state and Islamic Relief want to pursue repayment of more than $1.7 million in legal expenses that the federal court ruled TiZA should cover. The ACLU is seeking closure in the long-running case, which still is scheduled for trial in November.

Peter Lancaster, lead counsel for the ACLU, said the trial is unlikely with TiZA closed. Lancaster said the ACLU realizes it might not be able to get TiZA to repay millions in state aid or cover the group's own legal fees even as he questioned why TiZA had not yet filed information on its assets.

But Lancaster said the ACLU still hopes the court will approve the ACLU's settlement with the state and thus unseal records marked confidential during the lawsuit's investigative phase.

"The single most important thing we still hope to accomplish is the release of that information to the public," Lancaster said.

Lancaster and his team have argued the documents release would be "highly useful" to the bankruptcy court as well, throwing light on TiZA's financial dealings.

TiZA and its attorneys have called the issue of the settlement documents a misleading publicity stunt by the ACLU.

Judge Robert Kressel, who presided over the bankruptcy case of former auto mogul Denny Hecker, will rule on the various motions in coming weeks.

Deafening Silence Greets Toronto Honour Killing

TORONTO – Another honour killing in our midst and the silence is deafening.


Shaher Bano Shahdady was just 21, a young mother who wanted to live her Canadian life as a free Canadian woman. And for that, she was strangled to death in front of her toddler.


From the Baloch region of Pakistan, she came to Toronto as a little girl. At 14, her father, Mullah Abdul Ghafoor, sent her back to Pakistan to study at a religious fundamentalist madrassa and a few years later she was forced into an arranged marriage with her first cousin.


But her precious son was her ticket back home.


Complications in her pregnancy allowed her to return to Toronto. Her baby was born with a serious heart defect that eventually required a transplant, but at least she was back in Canada. Shahdady was a devoted mother, her friends say, and while she lived with her strict religious family in Scarborough, she managed to escape through Facebook where she chatted with friends and administered a Baloch entertainment page that had 6,000 members.


She began to change, friends say. Shahdady no longer wanted to wear a burka that covered her face and body but would don just the hijab head scarf instead. She’d registered at the Adult Learning Centre to work on her high school diploma this fall and was hoping to one day realize her dream of becoming a doctor.


“All her friends were finishing college or university and getting good jobs and she felt she was being left behind,” explains family friend Zaffar Baloch. “She wanted to throw away the veil and live an ordinary independent life of a woman.”


But she had to sponsor her husband here and his arrival in May forced her back into the cage she had struggled so long to escape. He wanted her to wear a burka, to stay away from Facebook, to put aside any plans she had of resuming a secular education.


“She rebelled,” explains Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “With the help of social services, she got an apartment for herself and her son. She was leaving her husband and asking for a divorce. How dare she? It would dishonour everyone.”


She and her son moved out July 1. After just three weeks of freedom, she was dead.


Between 1 and 2 a.m. on July 22, neighbours in the building at 3131 Eglinton Ave. E. heard the shrill screaming of a child that went on for 15 minutes. And then silence. More than 15 hours later, Shahdady’s distraught father discovered his 2-year-old grandson alone in the apartment with his daughter’s dead body. She had been strangled on her bed.


Her estranged husband Abdul Malik Rustam, 27, turned himself in to police the next morning. He’s been charged with first-degree murder.


“Absolutely, it was an honour killing,” contends Fatah. “This is the fundamental issue here that no one wants to address. Nobody wants to tell Muslim men that women are not their possessions. It’s about women’s sexuality and men who say they own the franchise to it.”


Toronto Police refuse to confirm that. Maybe all the facts aren’t in yet. Or maybe it’s just not politically correct. “She decided to separate from the marriage and it’s alleged that he killed her,” says spokesman Tony Vella.


“This was clearly an honour killing,” the American Friends of Balochistan said in a statement. “No woman deserves to die in the way Shaher Bano Shahdady died.”


They have launched a Facebook group — Justice 4 Shaher Bano Shahdady Campaign, USA & Canada — that states: “All men and women are born equal. Period. There should be no honour killing. Period. There should be no forced marriage. Period. Women should have the right to be on Facebook.  Period. There must be no child bride.  Period.”


Those are fundamental rights that are so basic — and yet they remain alien to far too many who come to this country from other cultures. And our silence means more women like Shahdady are destined to die.


by Michele Mandel ,Toronto Sun

First posted: Thursday, August 4, 2011 6:34:40 EDT PM


Read Mandel Wednesday through Saturday.



Britain Broken by Melanie Phillips


So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.


The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals,  national identity, enforcement of the drugs laws and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.


Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as right-wing nutters who wanted to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age.


Now we can see what they have brought about in the unprecedented and horrific scenes of mob violence, with homes and businesses going up in flames, and epidemic looting.


Clearly, there is some as yet unidentified direction and co-ordination behind the anarchy. But what is so notable and distressing is that, after the first day when adults were clearly involved, this mayhem has been carried out in the main by teenagers and children, some as young as eight.


The idea that they should not steal other people's property, or beat up and rob passers-by, appears to be as weird and outlandish to them as the suggestion that they should fly to the moon.


These youths feel absolutely entitled to go 'on the rob' and steal whatever they want. Indeed, they are incredulous that anyone should suggest they might pass up such an opportunity.


What has been fuelling all this is not poverty, as has so predictably been claimed, but moral collapse. What we have been experiencing is a complete breakdown of civilised behaviour among children and young people straight out of William Golding's seminal novel about childhood savagery, Lord of The Flies.


There has been much bewildered talk about 'feral' children, and desperate calls upon their parents to keep them in at night and to ask them about any stolen goods they are bringing home. As if there were responsible parents in such homes! We are not merely up against  feral children, but feral parents.


Of course these parents know their children are out on the streets. Of course they see them staggering back with what they have looted.  But either they are too drunk or drugged or otherwise out of it to care, or else they are helping themselves to the proceeds, too.


As David Cameron observed yesterday, there are clearly pockets of society that are not just broken, but sick.


The causes of this sickness are many and complex. But three things can be said with certainty: every one of them is the fault of the liberal intelligentsia; every one of them was instituted or exacerbated by the Labour government; and at the very heart of these problems lies the breakdown of the family.


For most of these children come from lone-mother households. And the single most crucial factor behind all this mayhem is the willed removal of the most important thing that socialises children and turns them from feral savages into civilised

citizens: a father who is a fully committed member of the family unit.


Of course there are many lone parents who do a tremendous job. But we're talking here about widespread social collapse. And there are whole areas of Britain, white as well as black, where committed fathers are a wholly unknown phenomenon.


In such areas, successive generations are being brought up only by mothers, through whose houses pass transitory males by whom these women have yet more children – and who inevitably repeat the pattern of lone and dysfunctional parenting.


The result is fatherless boys who are consumed by an existential rage and desperate emotional need, and who take out the damage done to them by lashing out from infancy at everyone around them.


Such children inhabit what is effectively a different world from the rest of society. It's a world without any boundaries or rules. A world of emotional and physical chaos.


A world where a child responds to the slightest setback or disagreement by resorting to violence. A world where the parent is unwilling or incapable of providing the loving and disciplined framework that a child needs in order to thrive.


Yet instead of lone parenthood being regarded as a tragedy for individuals, and a catastrophe for society, it has been redefined as a 'right'.


When Labour came to power in 1997, it set about systematically destroying not just the traditional family but the very idea that married parents were better for children than any other arrangement.


Instead, it introduced the sexual free-for-all of 'lifestyle choice'; claimed that the idea of the male breadwinner was a sexist anachronism; and told girls that they could, and should, go it alone as mothers.


This was the outcome of the shattering defeat of Tony Blair, in the two years or so after he came to power, at the hands of the ultra-feminists and apostles of non-judgmentalism in his Cabinet and party who were determined, above all, to destroy the traditional nuclear family.


Blair stood virtually alone against them, and lost.


One of these ultra-feminist wreckers was Harriet Harman. The other night, she was on TV preposterously suggesting that cuts in educational allowances or youth workers had something to do with young people torching and looting shops, robbing and leaving people for dead in the streets.


But Harman was one of the principal forces in the Labour government behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers. If anyone should be blamed for bringing about the conditions which have led to these appalling scenes in our cities, it is surely Ms Harman.


And this breaking of the family was further condoned, rewarded and encouraged by  the Welfare State, which conceives of need solely in terms of absence of money,  and which accordingly subsidises lone parenthood and the destructive behaviour that fatherlessness brings in its train.


Welfare dependency further created the entitlement culture that the looters so egregiously display. It taught them that the world owed them a living. It taught them that their actions had no consequences. And it taught them that the world revolved around themselves.


The result of this toxic combination of welfare and non-judgmentalism was an explosion of elective lone parenthood and dysfunctional behaviour transmitted down through the generations at the very bottom of the social heap – creating, in effect, a class apart.


Once, children would have been rescued from their disadvantaged backgrounds by schools which gave them not just an education but structure and purpose to their lives.


But the liberal intelligentsia destroyed that escape route, too. For its onslaught upon marriage – the bedrock institution of society – with a tax system that penalises married couples with a wife who doesn't work, was replicated by an onslaught upon the understanding and very identity of that society. Instead of transmitting knowledge to children, teaching was deemed to be an attack upon a child's autonomy and self-esteem.


Thus it was that teachers adopted the 'child-centred' approach, which expected children not only to learn for themselves but also to decide for themselves about behaviour such as sexual morality or drug-taking.


The outcome was that children were left illiterate and innumerate and unable to think. Abandoned to wander through the world without any guidance, they predictably ended up without any moral compass.


All of this was compounded still further by the disaster of multiculturalism – the doctrine which held that no culture could be considered superior to any other because that was 'racist'.


That meant children were no longer taught about the nation in which they lived, and about its culture. So not only were they left in ignorance of their own society, but any attachment to a shared and over-arching culture was deliberately shattered.


Bottom of Form


Instead of forging social bonds, multiculturalism dissolved them – and introduced instead a primitive war of all against all, in which the strongest groups would destroy the weak.


Closely related to this was 'victim culture', in which all minority groups were regarded as victims of the majority. So any bad behaviour by them was excused and blamed on the majority.


In similar vein, all criminal wrongdoing was excused on the basis that the criminal couldn't help himself, as he was the victim of circumstances such as poverty, unemployment, or as yet illusory cuts in public spending.


The human rights of the criminal became seen as more important than the safety and security of his victims. Punishment became a dirty word. So the entire criminal justice system turned into a sick joke, with young hoodlums walking off with community sentences or Asbos (antisocial behaviour orders) which they held in total contempt.


Mr Cameron has declared that all those convicted of violent disorder in these riots will go to prison. Really? Isn't it more likely that they will end up on some community penalty which will see them taken on trips to Alton Towers to make up for their disadvantaged upbringing? This is the normal response of our sentimentalised and  addle-brained criminal justice officials.


In short, what we have seen unfolding before our horrified gaze over the past four days in Britain is the true legacy of the Labour years.


The social and moral breakdown behind the riots was deliberately willed upon Britain by Left-wing politicians and other middle-class ideologues who wrap their utter contempt for the poor in the mantle of 'progressive' non-judgmentalism.


These are the people who — against the evidence of a mountain of empirical research — hurl execrations at anyone who suggests that lone parenthood is, in general, a catastrophe for children (and a disaster for women); who promote drug liberalisation, oppose selective education (while paying for private tutors for their own children) and call those who oppose unlimited immigration and multiculturalism 'racists'.


And the real victims of these people 'who know best' are always those at the bottom of the social heap, who possess neither the money nor the social or intellectual  resources to cushion them against the most catastrophic effects of such nonsense.


Britain was once an ordered society that was the envy of the world — the most civilised, the most gentle and law-abiding.


Can Broken Britain be put together again? David Cameron is commendably talking tough: but will he have the stomach for tough action?


Will he, for example, remove the incentives to girls and women to have babies outside marriage? Will he dismantle the concept of entitlement from the Welfare State?


Will he vigorously enforce the drug laws? Will he end the kid-glove treatment of 'victim groups', and hold them to account for their behaviour in exactly the same way as everyone else?


Repairing this terrible damage also means, dare I say it, a return to the energetic transmission of Biblical morality.


Anyone heard from the Archbishop of Canterbury about the riots? Anyone care to guess what he will eventually say about them? Quite.


When church leaders stop prattling like soft-headed social workers and start preaching, once again, the moral concepts that underlie our civilisation, and when our political leaders decide to oppose the culture war that has been waged against that civilisation rather than supinely acquiescing in its destruction, then – and only then – will we start to get to grips with this terrible problem.


Until then, within the smouldering embers of our smashed and burned-out cities, we can only look upon the ruins of the Britain we have so dearly loved; the Britain that once led the world towards civilisation, but is now so tragically leading the way out.


Melanie Phillips

August 11, 2011

Jason Kenney responds to Amnesty International


This is an excellent reply from Jason Kenney to Amnesty International whose concern over war criminals is blatantly misguided and symptomatic of their moral decay and demise.

 Response to Open Letter from Amnesty International

August 9, 2011


Dear Mr Neve and Mrs Vaugrante,


I must confess that my first reaction upon reading your open letter to Minister Toews and myself was one of surprise and joy.  For your organization to muster its formidable powers of suasion against the orderly and innoxious proceedings of the Canadian immigration system must mean that the world’s most truculent regimes have discharged their last political prisoners and advocates of democracy are free to march in the streets of Tehran and Pyongyang.  I have since learned this is not the case, leaving me puzzled as to why Amnesty International (AI) would waste its time and resources opposing the legal deportation of war criminals and serious human rights violators from Canada


When I joined AI in high school, it was to defend the rights of political dissidents like Andrei Sakharov and to oppose brutal regimes, including those still doing bloody business in Iran and North Korea.  I am disappointed to learn you are now squandering the moral authority accrued in those campaigns on targeting one of the most generous immigration systems in the world, and protesting the actions of Canadian public servants applying rules and laws that far exceed our international obligations.


I will take your points in order.  You begin by expressing “concern” that the government published the names and photos of individuals “who have been accused of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity who are believed to be residing in Canada.”  Let me pause here to correct a common misconception, one shared by many in the press.  These men are not merely “accused” or “alleged” human rights violators; the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) does not make allegations or accusations – it makes formal findings of fact and its decisions may be appealed to the federal courts.  Every one of these men was found to be inadmissible to Canada under section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  This means that the IRB found that “there are reasonable grounds to believe” that each of these men committed “an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act,” i.e., they were complicit in genocide, crimes against humanity or a war crime.  These findings were based on evidence – including, in many cases, voluntary admissions – after formal proceedings during which these men had the right to be represented by counsel.


You are further “concerned that the initiative does not conform to Canada’s obligations with respect to human rights and international justice.”  Poppycock.  The due process these individuals have already been afforded exceeds both the requirements of the Charter and Canada’s international treaty obligations.  Individuals are not lightly or easily deported in Canada; it typically involves multiple levels of review and appeal and can take years or even decades.  Casually asserting that this generous system violates “human rights and international justice,” without elaboration or specific citations, is sloppy and irresponsible.  In fact, this is precisely the slander you wrongly accuse the government of directing at the deportees.  More troubling, it dilutes the meaning of the words “human rights and international justice,” the moral authority of which is threatened by such reckless imprecision and promiscuous misapplication by self-proclaimed “human rights” organizations.

You correctly note that these men have “been found ineligible for entry into Canada on the basis of these accusations, and have been ordered deported” (though the snide preface “apparently” is unnecessary and unworthy), but you object that “the details about the nature, basis or seriousness of the accusations against them have [not] been made public.”  This is not entirely true and, where true, not fair.


Where the individuals have made their records public, either voluntarily or in federal court, the details of their cases are well known.  For example, we know that one of the 30 men still at large, Jose Domingo Malaga Arica, admitted to participating in helicopter raids on villages in which women and children were machine-gunned indiscriminately and to transporting accused criminals to be tortured.  We know this because his federal court record is public.  However, in cases where no exception to the Privacy Act applies, the government has not revealed such detailed information.  What would AI’s reaction be if we did?  I think I can guess from your demand at the end of your letter that we do more to “safeguard” the “privacy” of these scofflaws.  You can’t have it both ways: you can’t protest that we have not revealed enough information about these men at the same time you oppose our identifying them at all.  Is it your position that the Canadian public does not deserve to know that these men are hiding among us unless or until each of them has signed a privacy waiver allowing details of their complicity in crimes against humanity to be made public?  If so, I respectfully disagree.  I believe the Canadian public deserves better.


You also complain that we have chosen to deport these men, instead of trying them for war crimes or crimes against humanity.  Our primary duty as a government is to protect Canada and Canadians.  Deporting these men discharges this duty and ensures Canada will not become a sanctuary for international war criminals and serious human rights abusers.  We are not obligated to conduct full-blown trials, at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, to prosecute every inadmissible individual for crimes committed in distant countries, often decades ago.  In addition to the extraordinary time and cost this would require, it would burden an already-strained legal system and clog our courts with foreign criminals.  Moreover, in many cases the lack of accessible evidence, local witnesses and a meaningful connexion between Canada and the crimes committed would make prosecution a quixotic proposition.  That said, where an individual is the subject of a warrant from a foreign court or tribunal, we will consider turning him over to the appropriate authorities.  Our preeminent goal, however, is defending Canada and upholding the integrity of our immigration system by enforcing these outstanding deportation orders. 


On one point, at least, I am pleased to be able to allay your concerns.  You fear that these individuals “might be at risk of serious human rights violations,” such as “torture, extrajudicial execution or enforced disappearance,” when they are returned to their home countries.  As you know, every one of these men is entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), which ensures that Canada complies with its existing treaty obligations and does not refoule even the worst of offenders to face “torture, extrajudicial execution or enforced disappearance.”  They are also entitled to apply for judicial review by the federal courts of a negative PRRA decision, providing for multiple layers of protection.


Finally, you claim to be “concerned about the fact that these cases have been so widely publicized” given the “reputational harm” it may cause these men and the hypothetical risk it may impose on them or their relatives.  No doubt such exquisitely burnished sympathy does you credit.  However, as a former AI member, may I suggest that ostentatious hand-wringing over the good name of war criminals and human rights violators may sit uneasily with those AI members who, perhaps naively, believe your compassion should be reserved for their victims.


The Canadian public understandably wants war criminals and human rights violators kept out of Canada.  When they sneak in or escape before they can be sent home, the public wants us to find them and remove them.  Not coincidentally, this is also what the law requires.  Your calls for more time, more process, more deference and more protection for war criminals and serious human rights violators, by contrast, come across as self-congratulatory moral preening.  I have listened to your concerns, and, frankly, I prefer the common sense of the people and the law. 




The Hon. Jason Kenney, M.P., P.C.


We encourage you to write and show your support for Mr. Kenney.  We need more members of parliament to have the courage and fortitude to stand up and work towards protecting Canadian citizens over war criminals and human rights violators.


Reminder of Rally


Rally Monday August 8th at 6.30pm at the Toronto District School Board at 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto


Multi-Faith Coalition against

 Islamic Prayer in Toronto Schools





RAHEEL RAZA of the MUSLIM CANADIAN CONGRESS will speak against Islamic Prayers in Schools and Gender Apartheid in Canada.


This rally is organized by The CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY OF CANADA, part of the Multi-Faith Coalition against Islamic Prayers in Toronto Schools protesting against Islamic Prayers in TDSB Schools on Monday, August 8th at 6.30 pm. along with Coalition partners: JEWISH DEFENCE LEAGUE of CANADA, HINDU ADVOCACY GROUP, SENTINAL GROUP CHRISTIAN MISSION, and COSTA CHRISTIAN MISSION.



Murders spark fears of honour killings

Murders spark fears of honour killings

Tristin Hopper, National Post, With Files From Postmedia News · Aug. 2, 2011 | Last Updated: Aug. 2, 2011 3:06 AM ET

Abdul Malik Rustam had been in Canada for only two months before his wife, Shaher Bano Shahdady, rented a Toronto apartment of her own. Around midnight on July 22, police say, Mr. Rustam found his way in and strangled her. Neighbours reported hearing a child’s screams for 15 minutes, and then silence. Ms. Shahdady’s father discovered her body the next day. According to Toronto police, the couple’s two-yearold son had been left alone with Ms. Shahdady’s body for more than 12 hours.

Six days later, in the Vancouver suburb of Surrey, 24year-old Ravinder Bhangu was seated at her desk at Sach Di Awaaz, a Punjabi-English newspaper. Just before 11 a.m., Ms. Bhangu’s estranged husband, Sunny Bhangu, allegedly strode through the door with an axe and drove it into Ms. Bhangu as she was attempting to flee, screaming "Save me! Save me!" News photographer Narinder Nayar jumped in to intervene, but was fought off with a meat cleaver, suffering light injuries. Ms. Bhangu "died on the spot," said a witness.

In both cases, sources within Canada‘s South Asian communities fear the murders carry the distinctive marks of honour killings. In both cases, the husbands turned themselves into police and have been charged with first-degree murder.

Honour killings are different from standard cases of domestic violence, in that the killings are carried out in order to "cleanse" a family name of perceived dishonour.

The practice remains relatively rare in Canada, although experts agree there is an "upward trend" in Canadian instances of honour-based violence.

Between 2002 and 2010, Canada experienced 13 cases of honourbased murders, according to a 2010 report for the federal government by Amin Muhammad, a psychiatrist at Memorial University in St. John’s, N.L.

Ms. Shahdady was raised in Canada, but in her late teens was sent to Pakistan by her father. At 18, she was wedded to Mr. Rustam in an arranged marriage. Due to complications in a subsequent pregnancy, she came back to Canada to give birth. Medical problems with her son compelled her to stay in Canada for another year so he could receive a heart transplant. In May, Ms. Shahdady sponsored her husband to immigrate to Canada.

Community members report that Ms. Shahdady was initially happy with her husband’s arrival, but the two quickly began to clash. "She saw her friends in the community going to college, university, getting good jobs – and that’s the kind of independent life she wanted for herself and for her child," says Zaffar Baloch, a friend of the family who comes from the Baloch region of Pakistan. "This husband, people say he was against her going to school."

Mr. Rustam was also reportedly irked by Ms. Shahdady’s use of Facebook, where, under a pen name, she was an administrator for a page on Baloch culture.

On July 1, Ms. Shahdady moved out of her parents’ house and into a Scarborough apartment. "She wanted nothing to do with her husband," says Mr. Baloch.

Immediately following the murder, Mr. Baloch and others gathered at the home of Ms. Shahdady’s father, Mullah Abdul Ghafoor, when the police arrived looking to interview him and search the room previously shared by Ms. Shahdady, 21, and Mr. Rustam, 27.

It is "possible" Ms. Shahdady’s murder was an honour killing, says Mr. Baloch, president of the Baloch Human Rights Council of Canada. "But there is still much we don’t know…. For instance, we don’t know anything about her husband," he says.

Not much is known about Ms. Shahdady or her sisters, either. "Because of her father’s religious beliefs, the family was very much secluded from large gatherings," he says.

Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, last week called Ms. Shahdady’s murder an "honour killing of the worst sort."

"She had thrown off her burka, and through social assistance got this new apartment and custody of her child," says Mr. Fatah.

Like Ms. Shahdady, Ms. Bhangu had been separated from her husband.

She had told friends of marital problems and moved in with her aunt two or three months ago, according to several friends who spoke with The Vancouver Sun. "You can say that it was an honour killing," journalist Sukhminder Cheema, who spoke to witnesses after the killing, told The Province newspaper.

The alleged murderer was on site when police arrived on the scene. He made "no attempt to flee," said a witness.

"She never used to talk too much. One day I said, ‘Why did you move to your auntie’s house?’ and she cried, but didn’t say much to me. I didn’t find myself very comfortable to ask further," Baljinder Gill, a good friend of Ms. Bhangu, told Postmedia.

Together with Ms. Gill, Ms. Bhangu taught folk dancing classes at Surrey‘s Shan-E-Punjab Arts Club. "It’s going to be a big shock for those kids," Ms. Gill told Postmedia through tears. "I don’t know how we’re going to tell them." Following the breakup of her marriage, Ms. Bhangu had reportedly been making plans to return to India.

Last July, Minister for the Status of Women Rona Ambrose announced a plan to introduce an honour-killingspecific amendment to the Criminal Code. The suggestion was quickly shot down by the Justice Department.

"An intentional killing is murder, regardless of the motive," said Justice Department spokeswoman Pamela Stephens at the time.

The most recent edition of Discover Canada, a federal government guide issued to all new Canadian immigrants, is harsh in its condemnation of culturally sanctioned domestic violence.

"Canada‘s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings,’ female genital mutilation or other gender-based violence," it reads.





Islamophilia & Judeophobia

Islamophilia and Judeophobia

Posted by David Solway Bio ↓ on Aug 2nd, 2011

In a BBC interview on January 4, 2008, the senior prelate of the Church of England, Rowan Williams, argued in favour of recognizing certain aspects of Sharia law, which in any case “seems unavoidable,” and that Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.” Indeed, the rise of Sharia courts in Britain, part of an effort to turn various British cities into Islamic states as promoted by the Islamic Emirates Project, is gathering momentum daily. The UK is riddled with “Sharia law enforcement zones” and, according to Soeren Kern, a senior analyst of the Groupo de Estudios Estratégicos in Madrid, with as many as 85 Sharia courts. Kern cites Bangladeshi-born Lutfur Rahman, mayor of Tower Hamlets in East London, who is “dedicated to changing the ‘very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed…from ignorance to Islam’.” And this state of affairs is, for the most part, winked at by the authorities. Recently, when about-to-be-married Tommy Robinson, head of the English Defence League, walked into an alleged Muslim ambush in East London during his stag night, he and his friends were taken into custody while the “violent Muslim youths” were allowed to go free. The police admitted that the orders to arrest Robinson and his group “had come from above.” The U.K. is no longer OK.

It actually looks as if Sweden might predecease the U.K. as a viable, sovereign Western democracy as it hurtles into the Islamic abyss. Pat Condell has delivered a chilling account of the advanced state of the country’s Islamic plummet which should be consulted by anyone who still believes that coddling the Islamic demographic is a sign of enlightened thinking, social justice and the benefits of unmonitored diversity. We see the same love affair with Islam and multiculturalism being pursued in Denmark, Austria and Holland where prominent individuals are prosecuted on the grounds of “hate speech” for warning against the Islamic aim to subvert the liberal traditions of these countries. Norway is rapidly becoming a kind of earthly Jannah for Muslim immigrants (Arabic for the heavenly garden, or Paradise). In other countries, such as France and Germany, love is plainly alloyed with fear; nevertheless, parties seeking votes in the many Muslim enclaves that chequer the social and political landscape will continue to “make nice.”

What is occurring in Europe is by no means an isolated phenomenon. Events there will soon be appearing in an American theatre near you and, indeed, they already have. One need only consider the possible—perhaps likely—erection of a mosque in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero; jihadist recruitment among the Somali community in various states, primarily Minnesota; the planning and execution of terrorist assaults on American soil and against military installations, the latest attempt being the plot by Nasser Abdo to attack Fort Hood once again; the effective lobbying and propaganda efforts by radical Muslim organizations like CAIR and ISNA; the spread of Muslim influence on university campuses around the country; the president’s policy of outreach to the Muslim world, including the infamous “apology tour,” the appointment of Islamic ideologue Dalia Mogahed to the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and the formal recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood as a partner in dialogue; the media with few exceptions promoting the Muslim agenda, rarely identifying jihadists as Muslims but as “lone gunmen” or “of Asian origin,” and going soft on the threat of Sharia law; and much more.

We recall that when Nidal Malik Hasan, who was also an army major, shot thirteen unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood, then-chief of staff Mike Mullen worried about a possible anti-Muslim backlash!


The counterinsurgency doctrine (COIN) put in place in Afghanistan, ostensibly to win the “hearts and minds” of the local people, has resulted in the needless deaths of American soldiers whose operations are severely hampered on the field of battle. As Diana West, author of The Death of the Grown-Up, observes: “When the fear of giving offense to the local Islamic community (by shooting Taliban or wearing body armor) trumps self-preservation…we know the military’s dhimmitude is complete.” Clearly, the military is catering not only to Afghan villagers but to the growing Islamic constituency on American soil.

The Islamic fact is solidly entrenched in the U.S. and continues to bore its way ever more deeply into the body politic, with the collusion of the Democratic administration, a significant portion of the judiciary, the press, the army, and the vociferous left-wing intelligentsia. The European experience is being imported wholesale into the country. Pointing this out is quickly denounced as Islamophobia. The truth is that significant elements in the country have succumbed to an epidemic of Islamophilia.

Corresponding to this love-in with Islam—schmoozing with terrorists, to quote Aaron Klein—we note the demonization of Israel in the mainstream media, the court of public opinion, the European Union, the United Nations, the majority of NGOs and the current American administration. This is a sign not only of collective bad faith, international hypocrisy, millennial prejudice and pure malevolence, but quite simply of massive intellectual derangement. It is facilitated by a refusal to sift the historical facts from the welter of lies and disinformation that deliberately cloud the historical and political context, the dismissal of the provisions of international law and, once again, the abandonment of reason.

The same can be said of Holocaust denial, which is in many quarters becoming a form of political chic. Joseph Klein points to its latest manifestation in Norway—the home of former Nazi sympathizers Vidkun Quisling and Knut Hamsun, and quite possibly the most reprehensibly antisemitic country in the western world—where Labor Party lawmaker Anders Mathisen claims that “there is no evidence the gas chambers and mass graves existed.” Norwegian ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje, is not much better, deploring the recent terror rampage in Oslo but somehow understanding Palestinian terror inflicted on Israelis as a result of the so-called “occupation.”

One expects this kind of drivel from out-and-out lunatics, but when members of the governing elite of a democratic country feel free to go on record denying what the historical archive has established with absolute authority—that the Holocaust actually did take place or that the Jewish community in the Holy Land was victimized by terrorism a century before the word “occupation” ever arose to addle the minds of hypocrites and ignoramuses—it is clear that reason has been gravely imperiled. Nonetheless, as Alan Dershowitz deplores, “they will persist in their bigoted view.” For the Norwegians have a long and “sordid history of complicity with all forms of bigotry ranging from the anti-Semitic Nazis to anti-Semitic Hamas.”

This mammoth aberration goes hand in hand, in almost every European country and “progressivist” America, with the privileging of the falsely irredentist Palestinian “narrative” that a mere modicum of applied research would categorically expose as a fiction. The isolation of Israel as an apartheid state is another preposterous distortion. Apartheid is in fact an institutional practice in Muslim countries, as exemplified by the concept of dhimmitude founded in surah 9:29 of the Koran which stipulates “submission” of non-Muslims “until…they feel themselves subdued.” The treatment of democratic Israel as a pariah state is, in the last analysis, another instance of the Western proclivity to side with the Islamic world.

Again, Norway furnishes an emblematic instance of the West’s venereal attachment to Islam and its tandem resilement of Israel and Jews. With respect to dietary laws, for example, Jewish ritual slaughter (shechita) is forbidden. Muslim ritual slaughter (dhabiha) is permitted. What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. Admittedly, many will regard this illustration as of rather minor import, dealing with a non-mainstream cultural practice and pertaining to only one country, but it serves to clarify a panoptic attitude. Jews tend to be regarded with suspicion and Israel is denounced as a colonial predator, especially by the Europeans. Islam, by the same token, is treated with kid gloves, inflammatory imams are allowed to preach, recruit and call for jihad, municipal districts are permitted to be governed as Islamic mini-states, critics of Islam are hauled into court, and pushback is limited to certain sartorial prohibitions that count for little in the larger scheme of things. America, too, is not exempt. As the Muslim campaign accelerates, Dearborn will not be confined to Michigan.

What we are really witnessing in Europe, the U.S., and its outriders in Canada and Australia—the synoptic West—is the doleful spectacle of a civilization in denial, a myopic civilization that in most of its cultural and political centers will not recognize it is under attack and that seems haplessly incapable of mounting meaningful resistance, let alone launching a counter-attack against an apocalyptically-inspired enemy to ensure its own preservation—what Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism designates as “the self-absorbed delusions of the Eurocentric imagination” refusing to understand that “a liberal society must be, when challenged, a warlike society; or it will not endure.” The turn against Israel is merely another expression of the West’s complicity in its own demise, for Israel is not only the ancient home of the Jewish people to which it is legally and historically entitled, it is the fount of the West’s moral and cultural inheritance, and a tributary source of the West’s civilizing imperative.

Between Islamophilia and Judeophobia falls the shadow.






Articles in Newsletter – July 29, 2011:


(1)          What Did The Norwegian Murderer Think?

(2)          The 5 Big Lies Told About Oslo Shooter Anders Breivik.

(3)          Response from Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

(4)          Congressman Peter King Continues Radicalization Hearings.

(5)          Letter to The Tennessean re Nashville ACT Chapter.

(6)   The Launching of a new Canadian Magazine, “The Canadian Observer”. 

What Did the Norwegian Murderer Think?

by Phyllis Chesler Israel National News July 25, 2011

The author strongly condemns the murder, but challenges the grieving Norwegian government and intelligentsia to do something effective about their own failed multi-cultural policies.

I condemn mass murder and the slaughter of unarmed civilian innocents.

Therefore, I condemn the shocking Norwegian-on-Norwegian, infidel-on-infidel, mainly Caucasian-on-Caucasian massacres carried out by Anders Behring Breivik—just as I have condemned the mass murders of Jewish, Israeli, Hindu, European, and American civilians carried out by Muslim Islamist terrorists.

Please note: Breivik may have feared and despised the refusal of first, second, and third generation Muslim-Norwegian immigrants to become Europeans, to embrace Enlightenment values—but he killed the children of those Norwegians who, in his opinion, were enabling Muslims to set up separatist and hostile enclaves in Norway.

Will this terrify the multi-culturalists as much as Islamism has? Will Breivik’s dastardly, dreadful action lead to policies which will finally begin to deal with issues such as female genital mutilation, polygamy, forced marriage, and honor killings on Norwegian soil? His constitutes only one terrorist attack and perhaps the first of its kind.

We must remember that in the name of Islam, Muslim Islamists have perpetrated thousands of terrorist attacks, both on their own people and on civilian infidels.

My esteemed colleague, Barry Rubin, writes that "There have been over 10,000 Islamist terrorist attacks, many of them against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and others. The number of such attacks against Muslims in the West or indeed in the world is perhaps one percent of that number."

Also, historically, in the name of Islam, jihadists have colonized vast territories in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and India. They have persecuted, enslaved, exiled, or murdered the indigenous infidels who once lived there and either destroyed their holy sites or transformed them into grand and gracious mosques.

Nevertheless, Western political leaders, the media, and the professoriate have focused only on Western imperialism, racism, and historical slavery and have absolutely refused to focus on Muslim imperialism, racism and historical and contemporary slavery.

Meanwhile, the steady penetration of Islamic gender and religious apartheid continues apace in the West, especially in Europe, including in Norway.

The left-leaning multi-culturalists and "progressives" in Norway have refused to help endangered Muslim girls and women in their midst; the Norwegian government has refused to limit forced marriages to illiterate home country cousins, nor have they effectively intervened in matters of domestic violence when the perpetrator was Muslim as was his victims.

The fearless Hege Storhaug, has written an excellent book, now (2011) in English, on this very subject. It is titled "But The Greatest of These is Freedom. The Consequences of Immigration in Europe." Together with Rita Karlsson, Storhaug runs Human Rights Service an online website and think tank.

The kinds of leftists and multi-culturalists whose children Breivik fiendishly chose to massacre, are the kinds of leftists who persuaded the Norwegian government to stop funding this excellent website. They were accused of being…"Islamophobic." Storhaug and Karlsson are feminists, the sane kind. They want to extend the rights of freedom to every citizen of Europe and Norway but their own politically correct government and intelligentsia tried to defeat them by de-funding their efforts.

Storhaug paints a bleak but accurate picture.

The majority of Muslim immigrants to Norway are Pakistanis. In general, Muslim immigrants often outnumber native Norwegian children in school. She writes:

"In a typical classroom, a grand total of five Norwegian pupils may be expected to do the job of integrating no fewer than fifteen immigrant children – a virtually impossible task. Many grandchildren of immigrants start their first day of school without the slightest knowledge of the Norwegian language or Norwegian culture."

Native Norwegians have learned to live cautiously. Gay couples dare not hold hands in public in parts of Oslo. Since the 2006 bombing of Norwegian embassies (due to a Norwegian publication of the Mohammed cartoons), Norwegians have not dared to "say anything critical or negative about Islam…such comments are reserved for safe, private conversations."

In Storhaug’s view, "marriage is at the heart of the immigration policy challenge, because marriage is the main route to Norway." It is the way to immigrate and to obtain Norwegian citizenship as well. About 75 percent of all those who immigrate to Norway come through "so-called reunification with persons in Norway." And, about 75 percent of the first-generation (and second-generation!) Pakistani-Norwegian immigrants "married in Pakistan." And, between 30-60 percent of these marriages are between cousins. The cost to the European and Norwegian state is considerable. She refers to a British study which indicated

"a high rate of deformities among newborn babies of Pakistanis. The Pakistani population accounts for 3.4 percent of the country’s births, but fully 30 percent of the birth defects among newborns occur in children of parents with Pakistani origins."

Honor killings of Muslim girls and women are epidemic in Europe as is polygamy. Storhaug mentions a pattern in which Norwegian-Pakistani men immigrate with multiple wives whom they subsequently divorce under Norwegian law after which they marry new wives and bring them over from Pakistan. Again, Norway serves as the "financial base" for such human rights violations.

Storhaug describes the customarily heartless way in which Muslim Pakistani women are treated by their families. For example:

"Mina was…given a ‘choice’ among three cousins was pressured to choose a particular one – the one who had the weakest position on the marriage market, because he hadn’t been to school and was darker than most people in a region where dark skin is equated with low status and ugliness. This young man, according to Ahmed, was the one who most desperately needed a visa to the West. In the end, therefore, he was the one who got Mina – a human being reduced to the status of a living visa."

Storhaug analyzes the normalized paranoia that characterizes many Pakistani Muslim families. There is no privacy—privacy, which might lead to forbidden thoughts or acts, is viewed suspiciously. The slightest disobedience might lead to a beating or an honor killing.

Storhaug cites a similar problem in Denmark where "fewer than half of the non-Western immigrants…had jobs. Non-Western immigrants accounted for about five percent of Denmark‘s population, but received just under 40 percent of its social budget." Storhaug quotes Poul C. Matthiessen, Danish professor of demography:

"Historically, this is the first time that Denmark has experienced a wave of immigration by people who are explicitly antagonistic to Danish values and norms…all earlier immigrant groups…right up to the mid 1970s, had adjusted quickly to Danish norms and values. This included Dutch farmers in the 1500s, French Huguenots in the 1600s, Swedish and Polish workers in the 1800s, Jewish refugees from Russia around the year 1900, and Chileans in the 1970s."

According to Storhaug, "government officials who are supposed to help immigrant women enter the work force have instead formed an ‘unholy alliance’ with those women’s husbands. The husbands want the women to stay home, keep house, and raise children; and the employment counselors don’t want to harass the women by trying to push them into jobs, since their chances of finding employment are poor anyway. So instead they arrange for the women to take hobby-like courses in subjects like food preparation and needlework. Far from bringing them closer to the work force, these courses ensure that they won’t neglect their domestic duties. The government, in short, has made a compromise; it keeps Muslim women busy within their husbands’ strict boundaries and ignores their need to develop into skilled workers – and active citizens."

Storhaug, like myself and a handful of other feminists, are all haunted by the Western feminist silence about Islamic gender apartheid in the West. She explains that silence succinctly and accurately.

"The feminists are obsessed with their own ethnic Norwegian causes: longer maternity leave, shorter work days for the same pay – in short, everything that can give them a better life, materially and socially. At the same time, many of the classical feminists appear to be old socialists blinded by the multicultural dream – a dream, alas, that has led them to accept the oppression of women in sizable segments of the population."

Some radical Islamists and their enablers are now blaming the Israeli Mossad for Breivik’s actions. Others are blaming the anti-jihadist websites and thinkers whom Breivik apparently read. Will they now blame those feminists who have exposed the penetration of Islamic gender and religious apartheid into the West, especially into Norway?

Allow me to repeat myself: I condemn the mass murder of innocent and unarmed civilians no matter what the cause.

But I hereby challenge the grieving Norwegian government and intelligentsia to do something effective about their own failed multi-cultural policies and not use the tragic event as yet another opportunity to silence legitimate discourse and dissent.

The 5 Biggest Lies Told about Oslo Shooter Anders Breivik

The discussion about the Norway massacre has been corrupted with politicized falsehoods and wishful thinking. July 27, 2011 – 10:31 am – by Phyllis Chesler

5. We Can Blame Breivik’s Violence on Being Abandoned by His Father.

Many male children survive being abandoned by their fathers very well. Some do not. Norway’s Anders Breivik shares a startling similarity to Australia’s Julian Assange. The two men possess a paranoid worldview and the capacity to exact vengeance. They both have “problems with authority,” to put it mildly.

But there is something else they share. When both men were one-year-olds, their biological fathers left. In Assange’s case, he had a stepfather until he was eight years old, followed by a second stepfather. When he was eleven years old, Assange and his half-brother began living in hiding and on the run with their biological mother. This lasted for five years as part of a custody battle.

In Breivik’s case, his father, Jens Breivik, an elite Norwegian diplomat (!!!), left when he was one year old. He rarely saw Anders, and when Anders thereafter tried to meet with him, his biological father rebuffed him.

One really cannot diagnose from afar and yet some (not all) father-wounded sons, which is something I wrote about in my book About Men, scapegoat women because they are angry at the fathers who have abandoned them. Assange has been accused of being sexually violent towards women. Some father-wounded sons are close to their mothers (as Breivik clearly may be), but inside they are at war with themselves. They struggle with repressed homosexual desire which is really a desire to be close to a loving and protective father and to be a “man.” Some father-wounded sons may also super-identify with concepts of collective male strength, e.g., with Knights Templar, etc. precisely because they have no strong identification with their own fathers.

Breivik is overly concerned with “masculinity,” with what he views negatively as the feminist influence — even takeover — of Norway. He wants strong macho men to be the ones to fight off Muslim-on-infidel rapists and does not view women as capable of defending themselves. He views women as too peaceful and submissive to fight real wars. (I wish women were so peaceful). Further, he blames feminism for making men too weak to fight wars as well.

4. Breivik Is Crazy.

Men kill, men steal, men torture, men concoct evil plots — men run concentration camps — and, at the same time, seem perfectly “normal,” “ordinary.” They are logical, lucid, functional, and, in the case of certain Nazis, also love music, their families, their pets. Men — women too, but in different ways — who commit cruel and evil deeds are nevertheless members of the human race. Animals do not behave this way.

Breivik got up every day, washed, ate, got dressed, and “went to work.” For years, he worked as an equity trader, as the director of a software company, and as a farmer. His real “work” consisted of planning this massacre. He saved money. He read books and articles. He wrote a (partly plagiarized) manifesto that is rather well written.

Unlike the Unabomber, Breivik was not a loner. He got out. He socialized. True, he still lived at home with his mother…

Breivik knew and probably still knows right from wrong. He knew that he was making a political statement, a horrendously bloody political statement, one that in his view was meant to save Norway from destruction at the hands of barbarian invaders — an act that was perhaps meant to teach appeasement-minded Norwegian leaders that violence now awaits them on either side.

As a former forensic psychologist and as someone who has been consulted by lawyers over the years many times, in my expert opinion (one rendered from afar), Breivik is more than sane enough to stand trial. He is also a violent, evil, sociopathic man. Men who rape their children, men who beat their wives, rapists in general, tend to pass most mental health tests and are spookily indistinguishable from the rest of the population.

Breivik does not hear voices, he has not repeatedly attempted suicide, he is not unwashed, unshaven; he probably eats. Just today, his lawyer said that Breivik takes drugs to “stay strong, efficient, and awake.” If these drugs include amphetamines and steroids, they could certainly put him at a dangerous remove from caring about the consequences of his actions.

However, as a writer, an intellectual, a human rights activist, a feminist, as a human being — and as one of the many anti-jihadist writers whose work Breivik cites, I cannot fathom how someone can spend a single second, no less 90 minutes, calmly and coolly shooting unarmed teenagers down or blowing government officials and innocent civilians sky high. And this is precisely what Breivik did.

3. Breivik’s Zionism Is Fused with Fascism, Proving that for Today’s Neo-Nazis the Muslims Are “the new Jews.”

According to The Daily Beast, Breivik is a typical neo-Nazi who, rather strangely, paradoxically, is also a Zionist. By definition, neo-Nazis and other fascists are not Zionists. In The Daily Beast’s opinion, “Islamophobia” is what currently unites European fascists/neo-Nazis and their allegedly “Nazi” leaning Israeli counterparts. However, Israel is not a “Nazi” state and it does not have an “apartheid” wall; it is a security fence, built only after Muslim Palestinian terrorists launched many thousands of attacks against unarmed Israeli civilians.

I have written many articles and a book, The New Anti-Semitism, which explain that Zionism does not equal racism; rather, today, anti-Zionism equals racism. Zionism is the liberation movement of a persecuted and oppressed people who are currently being demonized for daring to exist and to defend themselves. Israel, however imperfect, is still the only democracy in the Middle East and remains America’s only stable ally in that region.

Of course, The Daily Beast found a Jewish author to pen this claptrap, someone who just happens to have written a book about right-wing Christianity. Such ideologues are the first to condemn Judaism and Christianity as misogynist — but give a real Hail Mary pass to Islam.

The Israeli Mossad is not behind Breivik’s dastardly attacks, nor were they behind 9/11. Ironically, the Norwegian teenagers were being indoctrinated into anti-Israel activism on their idyllic island. There are many photos which show them holding banners saying, “Boycott Israel,” “Break the Siege of Gaza,” and “Tear Down the Apartheid Wall.”

However, this is standard fare all over the world today, and the Mossad is not gunning people down over it.

2. Right-Wing Massacres Are the Same as Islamist Jihadic Massacres.

From the moment news of this horrendous tragedy was known, everyone briefly assumed that jihadists had attacked Norway. Some Islamist group even took credit for the massacre. However, soon enough, it became clear that an ethnic Norwegian was the killer. Immediately, the blogosphere got busy. Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post was hounded as an “Islamophobe” for having been mistaken along with the rest of us.

On the one hand, we have the oft-trotted out Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber (who killed three people over a period of twenty years and whose manifesto Breivik partly copied); Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in Oklahoma;  Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 Muslims at prayer in the hotly disputed Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron; and now Breivik.

Kaczynski was not religious, nor was McVeigh and nor is Breivik.

Two high-profile school massacres (Columbine and Virginia Tech) were committed by bullied oddballs and by a raving schizophrenic. The 1989 Montreal massacre of 14 female engineering students had been undertaken by an angry, totally sane man of Algerian descent whose father abused him and battered his mother. He had failed the entrance exam, and his manhood was shamed. He was found with a “feminist” hit list in his possession.

And then we have Islamic or Islamist jihad which has launched more than ten thousand, probably at least fifteen thousand terrorist attacks against other Muslims, and against infidels (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists) — especially against innocent and unarmed Israeli civilians. According to my esteemed colleague Barry Rubin, “The number of such attacks against Muslims in the West or indeed in the world is perhaps one percent of that number.”

Also, historically, in the name of Islam, jihadists have colonized vast territories in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and India. They have persecuted, enslaved, exiled, or murdered the indigenous infidels who once lived there and either destroyed their holy sites or transformed them into grand and gracious mosques.

Nevertheless, Western political leaders, the media, and the professoriate have focused only on Western imperialism, racism, and historical slavery and have absolutely refused to focus on Muslim imperialism, racism, and historical and contemporary slavery.

Meanwhile, the steady penetration of Islamic gender and religious apartheid continues apace in the West, especially in Europe, including in Norway.

Comparing the four or five attacks launched by evil, paranoid, insane, or isolated individuals with the jihadists of 9/11, 3/11 (Madrid), 7/7 (London), 11/26 (Mumbai), the kidnapping of American embassy personnel in Khomeini’s Teheran or the jihadic attacks against American embassies abroad long before 9/11, plus the thousands of unsuccessful and hundreds of successful suicide terrorist attempts against Israeli civilians in the last decade — an assault which continues to this day — is illogical and unacceptable. We all stand in long lines at airports and remove our shoes. We are subjected to intense body searches. This is all due to the global threat of jihadic violence against the world’s unarmed civilians.

How quickly we forget.

1. The Anti-Jihad Bloggers and Intellectuals Are Responsible.

The Norwegian government’s refusal to deal with the reality of hostile, separatist, un-assimilated, and violent Muslim enclaves in its midst is what finally forced Breivik’s hand. The proof is that Breivik did not murder Muslims. His was a mainly Caucasian-on-Caucasian, infidel-on-infidel, Norwegian-on-Norwegian massacre. Breivik turned on what he viewed as a fifth column, the Norwegian elite. They had the power to insist that Muslim immigrants speak Norwegian and embrace European Enlightenment values. They refused to do so. His message to Norway’s “progressives” is chillingly clear. Their teenage children, already well indoctrinated, will not live to carry out what Breivik viewed as their parents’ failed multi-cultural policies.

Writers work with words; killers write in blood. Breivik could have read all our anti-jihadic work. Like the Dutchman, Geert Wilders, he could have run for public office or launched an educational campaign. True, he would have had to live with being demonized as a racist and criminally sued; ironically, Breivik’s violent approach has led to a similar outcome. Breivik could have made a film about the normalized violence against Muslim-European girls and women at the hands of their families or about the honor killing of Muslim-Norwegian women— but Breivik might have risked the Dutchman Theo van Gogh’s fate and been butchered by an Islamist. Breivik could have penned some fairly innocuous “Mohammed” cartoons, as the Swede Lars Vilks did — but he would have had to live in hiding and with round the clock security. Or, like Lars Langballe, a Danish parliamentarian, he could have spoken his truth and been prosecuted for “hate speech,” just as Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was in Austria.

There are other ways to “run with” the anti-jihadic expose of how Islamic gender and religious apartheid has penetrated Europe, why this is important, and what is at stake.

Response from our recent speaker, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, one of the people referred to in Breivik’s Manifesto:


I condemn in the strongest possible terms the terror attacks that took place in Oslo and on Utøya Island on July 23, 2011. There are no excuses for this wicked atrocity, nor can it be relativized. I extend my sympathies to the Norwegian people and especially to the relatives and friends of the dead. I mourn with the survivors.

I very much regret that this psychopathic killer believed he had to make reference to my beliefs in his 1,500-page manifesto. I can hardly defend myself against such wrongful exploitation, but those who know me and hear what I say in my public appearances know very well that I reject any form of violence.

However, if well-founded criticism is blamed for those attacks, aren’t the critics of Olof Palme to blame for his murder?

Did Mahatma Gandhi’s critics kill him, or did the killer himself bear individual responsibility?

Were the critics of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy to blame for the murder of the crown prince, and consequently responsible for the outbreak of World War I?

I am a woman of words, and I have nothing to do with violence, which I categorically reject. In addition, I reject all worldviews that justify the use of violence. In this rejection, I do not care whether the ideology commands its power with the help of guns or swords.”

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, MA



In spite of the above horrific attack in Oslo, the very brave Congressman Peter King continues:

King Opens Third Committee on Homeland Security Hearing on Radicalization, Focusing on al Shabaab

Washington, D.C. (Wednesday, July 27, 2011) – This morning, U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, convenes the hearing entitled “Al Shabaab: Recruitment and Radicalization within the Muslim American Community and the Threat to the Homeland.” The prepared opening statement of Chairman King follows:

“Good morning. Today, we hold the third in a series of hearings on radicalization in the Muslim-American community.

Our focus is the result of a lengthy investigation the Committee has conducted into the threat the U.S. homeland faces from al-Shabaab, the Somalia affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and Anwar al-Aulaqi’s al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

The Committee has been briefed by intelligence agencies and we have interviewed dozens of experts on al-Shabaab.

I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. They have some of the most extensive insights into the problems uncovered by our Committee’s investigation and we are grateful they are sharing their knowledge.

You will hear how al-Shabaab, who bin Laden called “One of the most important armies” of Islam, is engaged in an ongoing, successful effort to recruit and radicalize dozens of Muslim-American jihadis, who pose a direct threat to the U.S.

Some argue that al-Shabaab is only a Somali problem, and that the group will never strike outside of the Horn of Africa region.

That kind of thinking is a glaring example of what the 9/11 Commission called a failure of imagination.

With al-Shabaab’s large cadre of American jihadis and unquestionable ties to al-Qaeda, particularly its alliance with AQAP, we must face the reality that al-Shabaab is a growing threat to our homeland.

Our investigation into this threat has led to alarming findings: Notably, that al-Shabaab has successfully recruited and radicalized more than 40 Muslim-Americans and 20 Canadians, who have joined the terror group inside Somalia.

Of those, at least 15 Americans and 3 Canadians are believed to have been killed fighting with al-Shabaab, the Committee has learned.

Not al-Qaeda, nor any of its other affiliates, have come close to drawing so many Muslim-Americans and Westerners to jihad.

Three Muslim-Americans became suicide bombers, such as Shirwa Ahmed from Minneapolis — the first confirmed American suicide bomber in our history.

There also are radicalized converts like al-Shabaab commander Omar Hammami who was raised a Baptist in Alabama, and who has repeatedly threatened the U.S. homeland.

Three American al-Shabaab fighters have been arrested after returning home and one was collared in the Netherlands.

Other radicalized Muslims have been arrested in the U.S. and Canada before they reached Somalia, which is now much easier to get to for jihad than Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Yemen.

But as many as two-dozen Muslim-Americans with al-Shabaab — who in many cases were trained by top al-Qaeda leaders — remain unaccounted for.

The Committee found that al-Shabaab-related federal prosecutions for funding, recruiting and attempting to join al-Shabaab are the largest number and most significant upward trend in homegrown terror cases filed by the Justice Department over the past two years.

At least 38 cases have been unsealed since 2009 in Minnesota, Ohio, California, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Virginia and Texas.

Al-Shabaab is recruiting inside American mosques in Somali communities like Minneapolis and San Diego, according to the Justice Department.

This month, an al-Shabaab recruiter pleaded guilty to recruiting a large group of Muslims in Minneapolis, “At mosques,” and without any known protest by mosque leaders. A top al-Shabaab leader in Somalia supervised this recruiting.

One Minnesotan recruited was suicide bomber Shirwa Ahmed whose 2008 attack in northern Somalia sent a shockwave of alarm through U.S. homeland security agencies, because of its implications.

Another would-be bomber from Minneapolis was shot and killed in Mogadishu by peacekeeping troops on May 30, moments before detonating his suicide vest.

When one cleric spoke out against al-Shabaab inside the Minneapolis mosque where many of the missing young Somali-American men had once worshipped, he was physically assaulted, according to police.

For those still skeptical that there are still jihadi sympathizers inside that community, it’s worth mentioning that the Committee learned of the mosque assault when an audiotape of the incident was posted on overseas jihadi Internet forums before authorities in Minneapolis even knew about the incident.

There is an enormous amount of travel by Somali-Americans between U.S. cities and East Africa. While most of this travel is legitimate senior U.S. counterterror officials have told the Committee they are very concerned about individuals they have not identified who have fallen in with al-Shabaab during trips to Somalia, who could return to the U.S. undetected.

They fear an al-Shabaab fighter operating under law enforcement’s radar – someone l
ike a Zazi, a Shahzad, an Abdulmutallab – may attempt an attack here.

It is deeply troubling that from the very beginning, the Muslim-Americans in Somalia were trained by top al-Qaeda operatives, including several who were tied to Yemen’s al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is now generally considered our biggest homeland threat.

Al-Shabaab operative Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame was charged this month for doing weapons deals and explosives training with AQAP in Yemen, and to, “Provide AQAP with material support including… personnel.”

Al-Shabaab has long harbored top al-Qaeda leaders, such as the mastermind of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa, who was gunned down this month in Somalia after a 13-year manhunt.

Al-Shabaab has paraded in Somalia in support of AQAP and sent fighters to battle the weakened Yemeni government this year — as well as flying the battle flag of al-Qaeda-in-IRAQ.

Finally, an al-Shabaab bombing in neighboring Uganda one year ago that targeted Westerners killed 74 people including one American.

President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has said the Administration remains, quote, “Vigilant that al-Shabaab may expand its focus from fighting to control Somalia to plotting to attack the U.S. homeland.”

That convinced me of the necessity to launch a careful examination of that threat.

Dozens of experts the Committee interviewed agreed this threat is real, and that al-Shabaab leaders’ public calls for attacks against America — including in retaliation for killing bin Laden — must be taken seriously.

With a large group of Muslim-Americans willing to die as “martyrs,” and a strong operational partnership with al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and in Yemen, al-Shabaab now has more capability than ever to strike the U.S. homeland.

We look forwarding to hearing more about the rising al-Shabaab threat from our exceptional witnesses, as well as the Minority’s distinguished witness.

Finally, I note that certain elements of the politically correct media—most egregiously the vacuous ideologues at the New York Times—are shamelessly attempting to exploit the horrific tragedy in Norway to cause me to refocus these hearings away from Muslim-American radicalization.

If they had even a semblance of intellectual honesty the Times and the others would know and admit that there is no equivalency in the threat to our homeland from a deranged gunman and the international terror apparatus of al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are recruiting people in this country and have murdered thousands of Americans in their jihad attacks.

Let me make this clear to the New York Times and their acolytes in the politically correct, moral equivalency media–I will not back down from holding these hearings. I will continue to hold these hearings so long as I am the Chairman of this Committee.

Apart from all the strategic and moral reasons why these hearings are vital to our security, they are liberating and empowering to the many Muslim-Americans who have been intimidated by leaders in their own communities and are now able to come forward.

I also owe it to all the friends, neighbors, and constituents I lost on September 11th. I will not back down.”

Source:  ACT! For America Newsletter, July 27, 2011


A letter written to The Tennessean in response to Bob Smietana’s article on the ACT! for America chapter in Nashville:


Islamic ideology threatens U.S. belief system

Bob Smietana misses the entire point in his July 10 article, "Anti-Islam group finds fertile ground in Nashville." The opposition is not to local Muslims. The opposition is to Islamic supremacist ideology.

The Quran is a political document that is diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution. The Quran is written into the political constitutions of every Islamic nation in the world as controlling law, usually to the exclusion of other law. Even the constitution of Iraq, where thousands of American lives have been lost to make the Iraqi people "free," says, "Islam is the official religion of the State, and it is a fundamental source of legislation: No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."


Some of our laws that "contradict the established provisions of Islam" include such annoyances – under Islamic dogma – as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury and separation of church and state.


Yet, Smietana brands anyone who would point out such rational and incontrovertible facts as "anti-Islam." He made an issue of the fact that Bill French, aka Bill Warner, founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, "doesn’t speak Arabic." Bob didn’t mention, though, that 90 percent of the Muslim world doesn’t speak Arabic, either. Most of the imams or Muslim religious leaders, in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, where the majority of world’s Muslims live, rely on translations into their native languages for any real understanding of Islam, something Smietana fails to understand.


Smietana also made an issue of the fact that French has "no formal training in Islamic studies," but Bob himself has no formal training in politics, so, by his own "standards," he tries to walk where he has no place to stand, because the Quran and the Sunnah are political documents. The entire non-issue exposes the poverty of Smietana’s smears. Since when does the free exercise of speech in this nation require the blessing of academic elitists? It doesn’t take a degree in pathology to recognize death.

Even so, French has a doctoral degree in physics, so he is eminently more qualified to apply scientific methodology to an empirical analysis of the totalitarian theocracy of Islam than is Smietana.

Smietana’s tunnel vision on "local Muslims" ignores the hundreds of millions of people all over the world who have fallen victim to Islamic imperialism. Muslim masses of the world are the first victims of Islamic hegemony and bigotry. He ignores the fact that, unlike in other religions, reformation in Islam is impossible.


He ignores the fact that separation of church and state is impossible under Islamic law, and he ignores the fact that 57 Islamic nations are united under the charter of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in advocating the overthrow of Israel and the "liberation" of Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian nation.


Magazine aims to renew Judeo-Christian underpinning of Canadian culture

Written by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News Wednesday, 29 June 2011 09:17

A new culturally conservative Canadian quarterly, The Canadian Observer, has been launched by an Ottawa-based think tank.

A new culturally conservative Canadian quarterly, The Canadian Observer, has been launched by an Ottawa-based think tank.

OTTAWA – An Ottawa-based think tank has launched Canadian Observer, a culturally conservative Canadian quarterly its editor hopes will engage Catholic readers.

“The culture has turned against Christians generally,” said Richard Bastien, a Catholic and retired economist who is a senior research fellow at the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. Bastien also represents the Catholic Civil Rights League in the National Capital Region. 

The centre’s president, Joseph Ben-Ami, is the magazine’s publisher.

“We are constantly being challenged by various aspects of the culture and we must respond to that challenge by showing abandoning certain beliefs and practices will lead to chaos,” said Bastien.

“What we are defending through this magazine is not just particular policies or ideas, it’s a certain understanding of civilization — Judeo-Christian civilization.”

Bastien said he hoped the magazine would provide an antidote to the “utopian ideology that crops up everywhere, including in some Christian circles.”

“The state is being vested with some of the functions that were legitimately assumed by the Church or by religious organizations in the past,” he said. “People now turn to the state to be told what is right and what is wrong. That’s dangerous.”

Bastien used the role of the family as an example. 

“We are being told increasingly by the dominant culture that a society is made up of individuals and we should be concerned almost solely about individuals. The fact is the basic unit of society is the family and there’s a need for recognition of that in our laws and in our general practices.”

The magazine features articles by authors from a range of faith perspectives: Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim. In that respect, it resembles the American magazine First Things, founded by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus.

“I jokingly say that it’s a Canadian First Things-lite,” said Bastien. “But First Things is written mainly by scholars. This magazine will include contributions from scholars but it is not a magazine for scholars. It’s for the educated lay person.”

In the inaugural Spring 2011 edition, Ben-Ami writes about how the magazine Cité Libre, founded in Quebec by Pierre Trudeau and like-minded political thinkers in 1950, provided a platform “for the development and dissemination of left-wing ideas that were not in vogue at the time” but that eventually spawned the Quiet Revolution. Ben-Ami said the goal for Canadian Observer is to “provide a similar platform for the development of conservative ideas in the areas of culture, politics and public affairs.”

Bastien said the magazine will give prominence to cultural issues because culture is “the driving force behind politics.”

“Canadian Observer is pro-faith, pro-family and pro-life,” he said. “It assumes that there are objective moral standards and takes a critical view of modern liberalism, understood as the political expression of moral relativism.” 

The magazine will be open to a range of political views, he said, and will focus on the renewal of Canadian values. The first issue features writing by Bastien, National Post columnist Barbara Kay, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada research and communications manager Andrea Mrozek, University of Ottawa English literature professor Dominic Manganiello and University of Western Ontario political scientist and Sun Media columnist Salim Mansur.

A free PDF copy of the magazine can be downloaded at


NDP PARTY LEADER JACK LAYTON (excerpt from a Globe & Mail editorial, entitled “The Personification of Courage and Grace”)

“Long after the political tussles of this year’s federal election have been forgotten, Jack Layton’s courage and grace in leading his party when he was suffering from cancer will be recalled, and will inspire.… In his obvious love of politics, Mr. Layton is a match for any other leader. It comes across as an expression of love of life, which is why, perhaps, Canadians feel they know Mr. Layton in a way they may not know other political leaders. And it is why his illness is a reminder that, in a democracy, what unites us is much more important than disagreements over policies.… When he said on Monday he will step aside until September, to focus on his fight [against cancer], he was like one of those hockey players, one of the very grittiest, who is knocked down and is struggling to rise, and the announcer says, ‘If he’s down, you know he’s hurting real bad.’ All Canadians stand behind him in hoping he is back in September, or at some later date, to lead his party again.…”

We at ACT! For Canada pray for a speedy and full recovery for Mr. Layton.






The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.