Monthly Archives: February 2013

Its Time to Stop Funding Cultural Marxism

CAIR argues that “At the same time Canadian taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize speech which aims to denigrate and undermine Canadian values and threaten social cohesion.”

Is that not what Canadian taxpayers do when their tax money is conscripted to finance CBC Pravda? An institution that aims to denigrate and undermine Canadian values and threaten social cohesion by its promotion of Official Multiculturalism and so-called “cultural diversity”—which ironically acts a shield for a growing Islamic monoculture? Is that not what Canadian taxpayers do when union bureaucrats use tax-deductible union dues to finance pro-Palestinian activism and propaganda, or support the separatist Parti Quebecois? Is that not also what Canadian taxpayers do when mass-immigration-friendly environmental groups make fraudulent use of charitable tax law to aid the NDP, the Greens and the Liberals by attacking the Harper government?

Canadian taxpayers know all about having to subdize other peoples’ ideologies. The ideologies founded on a hatred for Western civilization and the European values which have shaped our country. Ideologies which can be seen as a subset of cultural relativism, or as we now call it, Cultural Marxism.

We are at war. And make no mistake about it, our enemies do not want to debate with us—-they want to SILENCE us. Criminalizing speech in the name of “tolerance” and “cohesion” is an Orwellian feat of such oxymoronic proportions that it would be the subject of hilarity were it not so dangerous.

The truth is, home-grown Canadian Cultural Marxism —fed by our tax dollars—was raised in an intellectual hot-house. The One-Party Classroom. It cannot survive a debate or a level playing field. That is why they must gag us. We are the generation that escaped the gauntlet of college and high school indoctrination. We have a memory of Canada as it once was—before the social engineers commandeered it.

We know that the “history” they teach now is GARBAGE. We know that our European heritage, and those who brought it to our land, and cultivated it with the same industry that they cultivated our soil, is a source of PRIDE, not shame. We are tired of apologies made in our name. We will continue the fight to restore free speech to this country and take Canada back. To do less would be to betray the generations that came before us, especially the generation that went to Normandy to fight a totalitarian ideology modelled in many respects on Islam—which lterally means “submission”.

That is why Hitler admired this “religion”. He knew what Mohammed knew. To achieve his goal, he must first practice to deceive. His principal weapon was our need—the need of people of good faith in the Western democracies—to believe in his good intentions and promises. He exploited our willingness to deceive ourselves—anything to avoid war. It was our fatal mistake then, and it is our fatal mistake now in the face of Islamification.

Fatal—-unless we fight back.





Canadian citizens were actively involved in some of the most spectacular terrorist attacks overseas in recent months, including a bombing in Bulgaria that killed Israeli tourists and the massive hostage-taking at a gas facility in Algeria.

Stopping that terrorism before it happens, and punishing those terrorists after it does, should be our top priority. But there is something symbolic that we need to do as well.

Devinder Shory, a Conservative MP from Calgary, has introduced a private member's bill, C-425, that would strip terrorists who are dual citizens of their Canadian citizenship.

It seems like a trivial sanction to apply to a murderer. To the terrorist himself, losing Canadian citizenship has no moral pain – jihadists do not acknowledge the sovereignty of a secular constitutional democracy. They only believe in a theocratic caliphate, whose constitution is the Qur'an.

But to the rest of us, citizenship is enormously important. It isn't just a mailing address or a place to get free health care. It's a symbol of our loyalty and affiliation. It's our larger family and culture.

It's fitting and touching that such a bill would be put forward by Shory, an immigrant himself – it's a love letter to Canada, a statement of his own gratitude to our country. It's a signal that Canada isn't just another hotel; it's not a random or transient destination.

Shory's bill has another provision that rewards would-be immigrants who go above and beyond in their support for Canada.

C-425 says anyone who signs up for a three-year tour of duty with our Canadian Forces can get a year shaved off their residency requirements to become a citizen.

The bill is a private member's bill, but it has recently received public support from Jason Kenney, the immigration minister. Kenney knows loyalty is important in new immigrants.

But it's also important to prove that loyalty to the rest of Canadians, in order to maintain public support for immigration.

By taking a hard line against the handful of lawbreaking immigrants, from terrorists to queue-jumpers, Kenney maintains support for the majority of immigrants who are law-abiding.

The symbolism is why this bill is important.

And it is why Canada's left-wing parties are opposed to this bill.

The NDP's caucus chair, Peter Julian, opposes the bill. But he won't come right out and say it. Asked by Sun Media if he thinks terrorists should keep their Canadian citizenship, Julian said, "No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the practice of this government has been to put forward legislation that sometimes goes too far."

That's a non-answer. C-425 is very brief. The part about stripping a terrorist of his citizenship is less than 100 words. Why can't the NDP bring themselves to say whether they support it or not?

No matter. We already know the answer. The NDP and the Liberals are the Omar Khadr party.

They have talked more and lobbied more for that convicted terrorist than for anyone else in the past decade.

Former NDP candidate Judy Rebick actually compared Khadr to Nelson Mandela. And they've done everything they could to pressure Ottawa into bringing Khadr back to Canada.

Where do you think they stand on stripping terrorists of their citizenship?

You know where they stand. They hate the idea. They're just too cowardly to say it on camera. You always hear the left saying they support our troops, they just don't support the war.

That's a lie. Canada's left wing doesn't support the war on terror, and they don't support our troops doing the fighting and dying, either.

What's crazy is they won't even support innocent civilians who are the intended victims of these terrorists, by stripping terrorists of their citizenship.

If you agree and urge the Government to move quickly and pass legislation to strip convicted terrorists of their Canadian citizenship please sign the petition at

CAIR-CAN'S opposition to Mosquebuster Speech

CAIR-CAN’s opposition to ‘mosquebuster’ speech still smacks of indirect intimidation


Posted by:
Robert Sibley's Ideas & Consequences

I’m sure everyone knows the old saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Well, the sentiment might make a worthy motto for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) in its attempts to stymie those who question extremist Islam.

CAIR-CAN, it appears, would like Canadians to believe it has discovered the virtues of tolerance, inclusiveness, diversity and, most marvelous of all, freedom of thought and speech. Nonetheless, the organization wanted the Ottawa Public Library to cancel a Monday night speech by British “mosquebuster” Gavin Boby, the founder of group devoted to “resisting the tide of Islam” in the United Kingdom. Boby uses legal processes and municipal bylaws to help Britons who don’t want mosques built in their neighbourhoods. He’s apparently been quite successful.

Naturally, CAIR-CAN objects to such ideas. What’s interesting, though, is how the organization presents its opposition. To be sure, it still tosses around words and phrases meant to shut down debate or intimidate those who challenge it; you know, words such as “Islamophobic” and “anti-Muslim hate-monger.” But in this particular case it is also casting itself in a politically correct mode.

CAIR-CAN says it recognizes Boby’s right to speak his mind, but is only opposed to his using a public, taxpayer-supported venue to give his speech.

“What we take issue with is the fact that he’s being afforded a subsidized venue as a soapbox for his message,” said CAIR-CAN executive director Ihsaan Gardee. “Canadian Muslims shouldn’t be asked to help foot the bill for somebody who is sending a message that basically denigrates them.

“We would be taking this exact same position if it was somebody coming to speak about preventing synagogues or gurdwaras being built.”

That’s rich. Such obfuscation. Such hypocrisy. Non-Muslim pay taxes, too. What if they want to hear the mosquebuster speech? CAIR-CAN doesn’t seem to recognize that free speech applies to all regardless of their taxing demographic.

Besides, perhaps CAIR-CAN officials have forgotten that they supported the Revising the Islamic Spirit convention in Toronto in December by denouncing commentators who referred to the conference as Islamist and accused non-Muslim speakers of implicitly lending support to Islamic radicalism. Such “Islamophobic vitriol aimed at marginalizing and vilifying Muslims,” the organization said.

That’s a debatable judgment, but the thing I want to note is that the 2012 RIS convention was held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, which, as far as I know ,was funded in on fashion of another by taxpayers. Like I said, such hypocrisy.

But what I really admire about CAIR-CAN’s tactics is the rhetorical sleight-of-hand to cast itself as a champion of free speech. This just doesn’t mesh with its history.

Consider some background on CAIR-CAN, courtesy 2011 testimony by security analyst David Harris before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Harris, director of the International and Terrorist Intelligence Program at INSIGNIS Strategic Research, has been honoured internationally for his work as a counterterrorism expert.

He pointed out to the Senators that CAIR-CAN is the Canadian wing of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only funded by Saudi Arabian sources, but has been named by the U.S. Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator connected to the “largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation criminal prosecution.” He noted that the prosecution “achieved numerous convictions.”

Furthermore, CAIR-CAN, along with its parent organization, is named as a defendant in the New York City 9/11 lawsuit involving the family of John P. O’Neill, the FBI counterterrorism agent killed in the World Trade Centre attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

CAIR-CAN sometimes gives the appearance of takes its marching orders from its American parent, said Harris, pointing out that under its first chair, Sheema Khan, CAIR-CAN, like U.S. organization, launched various unsuccessful ‘libel lawfare’ suits against those who questioned the group’s activities or motives.

Specifically, Harris reminded the Senators of the “libel lawfare jihad” when CAIR and CAIR-CAN sued various Canadian and American journalists and commentators who questioned the history and agenda of the two affiliated groups. The intent of the lawsuits was “to silence questions about CAIR and CAIR-CAN,” Harris told the committee.

According to Harris, several of CAIR’s senior staff, as well as others connected to the organization, have been convicted and imprisoned for terrorism-related offences. American security experts have described the organization as “Hamas front group an a Muslim Brotherhood front organization.” (See attached articles below.)

Of course, Harris noted, CAIR-CAN associates have repeatedly asserted that their organization is independent of the American group, with its own board of directors and Canadian incorporation. This claim is was contradicted, however, by Sheema Khan who, in 2003, swore an affidavit for the Ontario Supreme Court in connection with a trademark dispute. In the affidavit Khan “states categorically that CAIR-CAN is under the direction and control of the American CAIR organization.” Moreover, Khan, while a senior official of CAIR-CAN, also served on the board of CAIR.

Some journalists have questioned CAIR-CAN’s affiliations, Harris noted, referring to a 2006 article by David Frum that pointed out that 70 per cent of CAIR-CAN revenues went to CAIR.

Muslims, too, have also questioned CAIR-CAN’s bona fides. Author Tarek Fatah, in a 2008 article in the Calgary Herald, observed that CAIR and CAIR-CAN “seem to sing from the same jihadi hymn book.”

Given this backstory, it is not unreasonable to question CAIR-CAN’s motives and agenda in wanting to block Boby’s speech. Certainly, you have to give the group credit for its politically correct chutzpah in trying to come across as ever so respectful of Western values. In raising the taxpayers-shouldn’t-have-to-pay argument, in contrast to the usual anti- anti-Muslim rhetoric, CAIR-CAN gives the appearance of being, well, Canadian. That said, the group’s efforts to block Boby’s speech, its willingness to play the Islamic victimhood card – “exaggerated claims of persecution of Muslims,” as Harris puts it — still smacks of indirect intimidation. And that’s unCanadian, and yet another attempt to play Canadians as suckers.

As of this writing, library officials have stood their ground against CAIR-CAN’s objections. Presumably, Ottawa police will show similar fortitude and be on hand to ensure there is no direct intimidation of those who want to hear Boby’s speech. They, too, are taxpayers and should be able to practise another long-entrenched Western principle that CAIR-CAN may not comprehend: Freedom of assembly.

If CAIR-CAN really wants to demonstrate its devotion to western values it should start criticizing Saudi Arabia for not allowing churches and synagogues in Mecca and Medina.

Related articles