The evening' speakers in high spirits. From left to right: Hans Rustad (Norway), the Swedes Gunnar Sandelin and Ingrid Carlqvist and the Danes Lars Hedegaard and Mikael Jalving. Photo: Steen Raaschou

(COPENHAGEN, 2 February)

“Come and listen to what you will never see, hear or read in the Swedish media.”

This is a quote from the invitation to the Swedish Free Press Society’s first meeting, which took place on 31 January in the City of Malmoe across the bridge from the Danish capital Copenhagen.

That same evening yet another murder and yet another bombing of a police station were added to the seemingly endless cycle of gangland violence in the Southern Swedish city. The number of unsolved murders in Malmoe since last summer now stands at eight and the city has acquired a reputation as the Murder Capital of Northern Europe.

But despite escalating violence and biting cold, 120 people turned up for the meeting, which was held under the watchful eye of about 20 uniformed and armed police in addition to a number of fierce-looking plainclothes agents that were there to protect the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been the target of several assassination attempts.

The Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist – the principal organiser of the event – had ample reason to be satisfied as she bid welcome to the audience and speakers:

“This is a historic meeting,” she said.

“We are here to break some taboos and let’s begin with the biggest one of all – Sweden’s immigration policies.”

Total blackout

As one of the evening’s speakers, the Swedish journalist Gunnar Sandelin, could testify, it is a risky business to write the truth about this national taboo.

In 2008 he wrote a critical piece for the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter under the headline “Journalists impose blackout on immigration”. Since then he has been unable to find a steady job.

The article documented that the vast majority of so-called refugees have no legitimate reason to ask for asylum.

What is really taking place is a hugely expensive, camouflaged immigration. “In addition,” said Sandelin in his Malmoe speech, “we have no knowledge at all about who is entering the country. The great majority come without any identification papers and present the immigration authorities with cooked-up stories.

Many anonymous members of the immigration service are well aware of what is going on. Yet nothing is done.

“This ought to be an obvious issue for Swedish journalists but nobody wants to touch it. They simply impose a blackout when it comes to the entire problem of unregulated mass immigration. Instead they spend their time stigmatizing people who dare speak up. This is not a healthy social climate.”

Sandelin quoted a poll indicating that 90 pct. of the population agree that the Swedish media are not telling the truth about immigration and its consequences.

“Make them weep”

As a former journalist with the state-owned TV channel SVT Sandelin was able to reveal how the channel views its role when it comes to immigration.

At some point he asked his boss why the reporters kept labelling immigrants as refugees when it was evident that they were not.

“My boss informed me that immigrants are weak and that it is therefore the obligation of TV-journalists to be on their side.”

Immigrants had to be presented as so pitiful that viewers would weep.”

According to Gunnar Sandelin, this is a highly ideological issue.

”It used to be the workers who were weak by definition – today it is the immigrants. We are being ruled by a sort of mental Stalinism that determines what roles various social groups must play. As a consequence, people are being misled and kept in the dark as to what is really going on.”

Inequality before the law

The other speakers were two Danes and one Norwegian.

President of the Danish Free Press Society Lars Hedegaard attributed most current threats against free speech to the fact the entire vision of an idyllic multicultural society has unravelled.

“As we can see in city after city and country after country, multiculturalism and cultural relativity have created problems so vast that politicians no longer know how to solve them. Angela Merkel has admitted that the multicultural utopia is off the table and so have David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. But if they cannot solve the problems, they can at least try to prevent people from speaking about them.”

The result, said Lars Hedegaard, is the introduction of so-called “hate speech” and “racism” clauses in the penal codes and an ensuing string of convictions all over Europe. The problem is compounded by the fact that laws against insult are being applied selectively leading to inequality before the law.

“Some people are being punished for saying what the specially favoured – those defined as ‘week’ or righteous – can utter with impunity. In fact, the most favoured can say pretty much whatever they want.”

Hedegaard made a point of stressing that successful integration of immigrants cannot take place in a climate where people are afraid to speak their mind. “Who would integrate into a society that responds to any attack by limiting the rights of its own citizens?” he asked.

“Without free speech we cannot solve the problems of society. We cannot even identify them.”

Cracks in “The Realm of Silence”

The other Danish speaker, journalist and author Mikael Jalving, is quite an expert on Swedish debating culture. He spent most of a year travelling around the country in an attempt to get the Swedes to talk.

It proved difficult. He did, however, manage to collect enough material to write a book entitled “Absolute Sweden” in which he characterises the country as “The Realm of Silence”.

“There is a lot of discussion taking place in Sweden,” he told the audience in Malmoe. “But people rarely debate matters of import. That’s why I’m positively surprised that today we have a Free Press Society here in Malmoe. I wouldn’t have believed that two years ago.”

Sweden wants to be best

Hans Rustad, the editor of the popular Norwegian website Document.no, had also made the trip to Malmoe. He delivered a brief characterisation of Swedish immigration policies as it looks from a Norwegian perspective:

“Viewed from the outside, Sweden seems to have a great need to be the best. You want to be number one in goodness and tolerance, which is why you compete with other countries in the discipline of having the most liberal immigration policy.”

“But in the process you have given up your own identity and that is dangerous. That is why I wish the Swedish Free Press Society success and good luck.”

Brian Lilley exposes a recent attempt to silence Sun TV in the segment below. To see his full blog post which includes the “offending” advertisement which ran on Sun TV, see Brian’s blog post here:

If after watching this segment, you are offended by this most recent attempt to silence Sun TV, please consider sending an email expressing your support for Sun TV’s freedom to speak to the CBSC.

Recently London’s local representative of Sun Media, the one that claims it will cover the stories that others won’t, decided to provide Ingrid Mattson with a full page to promote herself and present her non objective view of a major story in this university town; the installation of an Islamic Chair at Huron College.

A reasonable person would have thought that on a story of this importance, the press would not only be interested in the positive side but look to see if there were any negative aspects to it as well. But as mentioned, on the issue of Islam this press is not reasonable. Many local voices protested not only the establishment of the Chair but the hiring of Ms Mattson in particular.

Thoroughly researched papers and insightful comments were presented to the London Free Press but to no avail. In its wisdom or lack thereof, the editorial staff decided there would be no debate. The public did not have a need to know the possible problems.

As a result of their biased decision not to elaborate on the full story, articles and commentary were provided to Campus Watch and the National Post but to date, no indication of a contrary or concerned point of view has been published or hosted by the London Free Press.

Letters pointing out this refusal of the Free Press to show impartiality and objective journalism have gone unanswered by upper management at Sun’s Corporate headquarters QMI. Clearly we can see where the local paper gets its guide lines from.

In an effort to give voice to the opposing point of view and present all of the facts to the public so they will be completely informed, we at IFPS Canada are honoured to post the rebuttal letter by 31 concerned citizens that the London Free Press refuses to print. In it you will see why they are so concerned that this information be disseminated.

The letter below, in response to the article published in the London Free Press on October 27, 2011 introducing Ingrid Mattson to Londoners, was forwarded to The London Free Press editor along with more supporting documentation, with a request that it be published to balance out their coverage of Mattson’s appointment. That request was denied.

Re: The Bridge Builder, by Jennifer O’Brien, The London Free Press, October 27, 2011

London Free Press submission signed by 31 concerned citizens of London Onario

Once again the London Free Press issues a treacly puff piece regarding the appointment of Ingrid Mattson, past president of the Islamic Society of North America, to the new chair in Islamic studies at Huron University College (HUC). Most of the $2 million in funding for the chair has been raised by the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Free Press reporter Jennifer O’Brien noted that “a small, but vocal group of critics” has argued that the MAC and the IIIT ″have ties to controversial Muslim groups abroad” and ″could influence how Huron designed the courses and chose the chair.”

O’Brien reports that Huron officials and Muslim leaders insisted neither of the above listed claims was true and that the accusations were groundless.

O’Brien made no attempt to contact any of the critics of the Mattson appointment or to independently investigate the validity of their concerns. Had she done so, she would have found that MAC clearly states on its website that it follows the philosophy of Hassan al-Banna, an Islamist who founded the Muslim Brotherhood and called for the eradication of the state of Israel. O’Brien would also have found ample evidence to confirm that the IIIT was founded and has been directed by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. The people who objected to Huron University College taking funds from such Islamist organisations provided a large package of evidentiary documents to HUC to support their concerns and would be more than delighted to provide a similar package to O’Brien or anyone else at the Free Press.

O’Brien neglected to mention the Islamic Centre of Southwestern Ontario, (ICSO) a mosque in London, ON, which also provided financial backing for Mattson’s chair. The ex-imam and president of the ICSO was personally involved in the transfer of funds from his own bank account received from a Gadhafi funded organisation in Libya to the Canadian branch of the World Islamic Call Society (WICS) located right here in London, Ontario. The president and imam of the ICSO was also the head of WICS, Canada. The money from Ghadafi was sent from WICS, London, ON to fund terrorism in the United States and Trinidad. The Canadian Revenue Association withdrew the charitable status of WICS because of this. This story appeared in several newspapers all over Canada earlier this year but even though this was a London-based story, not a hint of it was ever published in the LFP*.

Our concern was not with how Huron designed the Islamic studies courses. It was with the way they would run. We are concerned with academic freedom: the right to criticise, the right to reason and the right to express opinions freely and in an enquiring manner. The reputation of a similar programme at the Hartford Seminary in the USA, in which Ingrid Mattson is a prominent academic, gives ample grounds for having grave doubts about the academic freedom of students who will be enrolled in Islamic studies programmes under her jurisdiction.  Our documentation package provides information on this topic too. Only time will tell if these fears of intolerance and an ideologically conformist class room are misplaced.  The appointment of Ingrid Mattson suggests that the IIIT got its choice candidate so the concern that the person occupying the chair in Islamic studies would be an ideological soulmate of the Islamists who provided the money has already been proven, unfortunately, to be dead on.

Why didn’t Jennifer O’Brien talk to one or more of the people who took a great deal of time and trouble to warn HUC of what it was getting itself into? Was she afraid of what she might find? Does talking to only one side on an important issue conform with the concept of fair and balanced reporting at the Free Press? Does O’Brien know who carried out the due diligence on funding the chair in Islamic studies at HUC? Did this group include some of the  same people who proposed the funding and secured it? Does she know that it took HUC only 1 day to reply to our concerns about the Islamist affiliations of the financial contributors so the college  could not possibly have looked into this serious matter with sufficient care? Does she know that the IIIT is a think tank and not a ″major North American foundation”? In HUC’s appeal to the general public for funds the IIIT was not named so responders did not know that the IIIT was where the money was going to come from. Ms. O’Brien and the LFP, shouldn’t you have asked a lot more questions before writing this piece in which you, to all intents and purposes, accuse dozens of individuals of making inaccurate claims regarding the funding organisations without doing any checking of your own?

*The Ottawa Citizen, which broke this story a few months ago published another article describing the ex-imam of the ICSO’s sorrow at Gadhafi’s death. The new article provides more information than contained in the original one. Reference:“Travel agent who funnelled dictator’s money to terrorists laments death of Gadhafi”, by Gary Dimmock, The Ottawa Citizen, October 20, 2011. The individual in question was the president and imam of the ICSO at the time the charitable status of WICS was revoked.

MODERATED BY: Christine Williams, Producer/Host, CTS-TV

HOLD THIS DATE
Monday, October 24, 2011
7:30 P.M.
Beth David B’nai Israel Beth Am Synagogue
55 Yeomans Road, Toronto

Admission Free

CO-SPONSORSING ORGANIZATIONS
B’nai Brith Canada in association with Advocates for Civil Liberties, Canadian Jewish Civil Rights Association
Christians United for Israel, International Free Press Society, Beth David B’nai Israel Beth Am Synagogue and the Jewish Tribune

For more information, please call B’nai Brith Canada at (416) 633-6224 ext. 112

DOWNLOAD FLYER

When legislation was passed making multiculturalism an “official” characteristic of Canada, the hope was that it would entice immigrants to celebrate their native cultures while adopting the liberal ethos of their new country. But Robert Sibley draws on the views of Muslim scholars, journalists and activists to argue that the 9/11 attacks revealed the flaws and failures of the state-promoted policy.

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is kind of a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.

— Muslim Brotherhood strategic plan for North America, 1991. Discovered in 2004 during an FBI raid on a house in Anandale, Virginia.

A couple of days after the 9/11 attacks, Raheel Raza received a phone call from a minister at the United Church in the Toronto neighbourhood where she lives. The minister wanted Raza to speak at the church that coming Sunday, to say something that might help the congregation understand the horrific events.

“She said her parishioners were terribly upset and she wanted a Muslim to speak to her congregation and I was the Muslim she knew best,” says Raza, recalling that phone call 10 years later. “I didn’t know what to say. What could I tell them? I was as shocked as anybody.”

Nevertheless, Raza, a journalist and activist, accepted the invitation. “But I had to make a choice. Was I going to be an apologist for Islam or was I going to actually address the issue of what was wrong with Islam.”

She chose the latter. That Sunday, Raza stood in the church pulpit and told 250 parishioners that those 19 Muslims who took part in the 9/11 attacks represented a perverse interpretation of Islam, and, yes, that perversion was present in North America as part of a deliberate effort to Islamize the West.

That speaking engagement would the first of many. For the next couple of years, Raza regularly spent Sundays in churches across Ontario, trying to explain this new world of Islamist terrorism that had crashed into Canadians’ lives.

But it was also the beginning of a period of reflection. “9/11 was a turning point for me,” says Raza, the author of Their Jihad … Not My Jihad that argues for Muslims to reclaim their faith from Islamic extremists. “I knew things were happening (in the Muslim community) I didn’t like before 9/11. So the attacks came as a surprise, but not as a total shock. But after the attacks I knew I had to stand up and speak the truth and say, yes, there are problems in Islam. 9/11 brought this whole issue (of Islamist ideology) to the forefront.”

But it’s not just Muslims that need to confront the dark elements of their faith, says Raza. Non-Muslim Canadians, too, must recognize their liberal democratic traditions are threatened, and government-sanctioned multicultural policies make it worse. “When I first landed in Canada and heard the word ‘multiculturalism’ I thought this country was telling me I could enjoy my culture, but at the same time it was my responsibility to adapt and blend into this new culture. It took me a while to realize that official multiculturalism, as promoted by the Canadian government, allowed people to ghettoize themselves. So, I was a multiculti fan until I realized it was doing more harm than good.”

That message is, no doubt, unwelcome to those sold on the beneficence of Canada’s four-decade-old attachment to multiculturalism. Yet it is a message that since 9/11 has acquired considerable resonance for a small group of Muslims attempting to prevent ultraorthodox Muslims from hijacking the faith and using the excuse of multiculturalism to import 7th-century tribal practices into 21st-century Canada.

“Canada is losing out because it drank the Kool-Aid of multiculturalism,” says Salim Mansur, a political scientist at the University of Western Ontario and the author of a newly published book, Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism. “This has profoundly weakened the country in its ability to get new immigrants to adopt Canadian values. The historical legacy of multiculturalism leads many immigrants to no longer make the effort to become Canadian.”

“Some of the practices allowed in the name of multiculturalism are fundamentally in contravention of western values,” says Muslim activist and scholar Farzana Hassan, the author of two books calling for Islam’s reformation, Prophecy and the Fundamentalist Quest of Islam, and Islam, Women and the Challenge of Today. “We have this abusive multiculturalism now, and it has become the West’s Achilles heel.”

Salma Siddiqui, the vice-president of the Canadian Muslim Congress, echoes that argument, saying “multiculturalism is faulty in that it has created conditions that make assimilation (of immigrants) hard. It’s not just failing Muslims immigrants. It’s failing all immigrants.”

Multiculturalism arrived in Canada in 1971. At the height of the Quebec crisis, Pierre Trudeau’s government conceived of multiculturalism as a way to dilute Quebec nationalism and, more generally, to promote tolerance in an increasing pluralistic and diversely populated country — “a feel-good public pronouncement that would do no harm,” as Mansur puts it. Like many theories, no one gave much thought to its long-term practical consequences. And so, in 1988 Brian Mulroney passed legislation making multiculturalism an “official” characteristic of Canada. The political elites hoped multiculturalism would entice immigrants to celebrate their native cultures while adopting the liberal ethos of their new country. (The Liberals, and later the Tories, also regarded multiculturalism as a vote-grabbing mechanism, but that’s another story.)

Instead, multiculturalism morphed into a decidedly anti-western posture. Multicultural theory, at its extreme, asserts that assimilating immigrants from non-western countries is morally wrong because it presumes the superiority of western culture. Assimilation thus amounts to coercion. Liberal societies, the argument went, must accept not only the immigrants but also their cultures. Indeed, the assertion of those immigrants’ cultural values becomes a fundamental right.

For moderate Muslims, that’s a formula for the West’s cultural suicide. The imposition of multicultural policies on a liberal western country like Canada has allowed the importation of cultural ascriptions and practices that are inimical to liberal traditions. And the fact that so many opinion-makers, politicians and otherwise avowedly secular liberals ignore this is, they say, disappointingly credulous and dangerously delusional. Multiculturalism weakens Canada as an open, tolerant, liberal society by granting minority groups opposed to the basic principles of liberal order the “right” to promote their hostility even as they benefit from the society they abuse.

“Multiculturalism is the slippery slope that leads to the acceptance or appeasement of the politics of jihad within a liberal democracy,” says Mansur. “The worm inside the doctrine of multiculturalism is the lie that all cultures are worthy of equal respect and equally embracing of individual freedom and democracy. The concerted assault by the Islamists on the essential and life-affirming values based on individual rights and freedoms is proof of this lie.”

Hassan concurs. “Once the people pushing this (Islamist agenda) are in positions of influence they will make sure that no philosophy or ideology can flourish other than the one they want. I will go so far as to say that if we allow these (illiberal practices) it will eventually spell the demise of western pluralism and western democracy.”

Both Hassan and Mansur have direct experience of this downside of multiculturalism. Indeed, their experience arguably illuminates one of the unthought consequences of multiculturalism.

“Until 9/11 I was still having this debate within myself about being a hyphenated Canadian; you know, was I a Muslim-Canadian or just a Canadian?” says Mansur, who arrived in Canada in the early 1970s from Bangladesh, which, at the time, was riven by ethnic politics. “But there was no ambiguity after 9/11. After 9/11, I was Canadian, full stop.”

But that ‘full-stop’ is difficult to sustain because of the “hyphenated” psychology promoted by multiculturalism. One of the irritating aspects of the multicultural mindset Mansur continues to confront after more than three decades in Canada, and long after having acquired citizenship, is how his fellow citizens, particularly the bureaucrats and document-creators, still insist on identifying him as an “Indo-Canadian.”

“This country keeps telling me I’m a hyphenated Canadian, that I’ll never be a full Canadian because, thanks to multiculturalism, there is no such thing as a full Canadian. I’ve made my life in Canada. But as far as multicultural Canada is concerned, I am something else.”

Hassan’s experience is of a different order, but not unrelated to the abuse of multiculturalism. Earlier this year, during a lecture at the University of British Columbia, she was confronted by Najma Mohammed, the education director of the B.C. Muslim Association’s board of women’s affairs, who denounced her for calling for a law to deny public services to women who wear the body-covering burqa and the face-hiding niqab in public.

Hassan argued such a restriction would not violate the Charter of Rights because such garments are themselves symbols of patriarchal oppression. Nor is wearing them a religious “right” because the Koran does not require them, saying only that women should dress “modestly.” “Muslim women are under tremendous pressure to conform to a particular school of thought in Islam,” Hassan said in her lecture. “It’s all part of the politicization of Islam that is taking place (in Canada and elsewhere), with the niqab and burqa as its most pernicious symbols.”

Ultraorthodox Muslim communities force women from early childhood to cover themselves in one fashion or another, and they grow up knowing no other way to live, according to Hassan. To free them from such garments would be a form of liberation. “Micro-cultures within the diverse cultures of Canada that justify the subjugation on women in this fashion are not equal to cultures that don’t,” she told the audience.

Najma Mohammed liked none of this, saying she was “very insulted” by Hassan’s remarks and that “nobody (was) oppressing me to wear this hijab.” Tellingly, she denounced Hassan for picking a “secular place” like a UBC hall to discuss such issues rather than within the Muslim community. “I represent all the Muslim community here,” Mohammed claimed.

Hassan cast doubt on that claim in refusing to retract her views. “There are women who are being forced into wearing the niqab and hijab,” she said, citing the case of Aqsa Parvez, the 16-year-old Muslim teen strangled to death by her father and brother in Mississauga in 2007 “because she refused to wear the hijab and she wanted to integrate more into Canadian society. This 16-year-old lost her life … so I am not going to go back on what I said. These women are being forced, and no matter what you say, that’s the simple truth about it.”

Hassan says the response to her lecture illustrates just how much Canada has changed in the 10 years since 9/11. A decade ago, who could have imagined anyone advocating a legal ban on clothing, or someone insisting on their right to a body-covering garment? How many people 10 years ago had heard of jihad or Sharia or, indeed, “honour killings” and the practice of polygamy? (“There are at least 100 men in the GTA who openly maintain polygamous marriages,” she says.)

Such questions highlight the problematic nature of burkas or niqabs, says Hassan. Giving them public sanction opens the door to other symbols — and the practices pertaining to those symbols — inimical to liberal society. “The practice of wearing the veil is proliferating in Canada. If we allow it to happen, what sort of society are we creating? If there is acceptance of this sort of thing you change the dynamics of a society and you no longer have a society that upholds the equality of all women.

“People who wear the burqa and people who promote Sharia are some of the most intolerant people. They will demand restrictions of freedom of speech against those who might question or criticize their religion. How can we tolerate intolerance?”

According to Raheel Raza, while the majority of Muslims do not share the Islamist agenda, they have been cowed into silence by an aggressive minority pushing the Islamization of Canada. “People are silenced by fear and intimidation. Criticizing fellow Muslims is akin to criticizing Islam, which is like criticizing the Prophet and the Koran and, therefore, God. This is the kind of brainwashing done on youths.”

Hassan echoes that view, saying that even “skeptical Muslims,” those who no longer believe every word of the Koran is God’s — a “quite significant” number, she says — are afraid to speak against the ultraorthodox agitators. “Many Muslims are afraid to speak out. They love Canada. They love the freedom here, but they are afraid.” But it is not only fear of violence; they also fear ostracism. They want to remain within the fold as “cultural Muslims.”

Silence through fear means the radicals and extremists have a greater opportunity to claim they speak for Muslims as a whole. “I don’t believe in this narrative that they (the Islamists) are a small minority and can be ignored,” says Hassan. “Absolutely not. They are the ones calling for Sharia. They are the ones wanting to put limits on freedom of speech and so many other values that we cherish in the West.”

Muslims promoting extremist views aren’t the voice of Islam, says Salma Siddiqui. Unfortunately, they are often the ones who speak loudest and get the media attention, thus giving non-Muslims a false impression of Islam. “Most Muslims want to have a life where they can live in harmony with others in society. Muslims promoting extreme religious values, or who reject liberal, pluralist values, do not speak for all Canadian Muslims.”

Nonetheless, say moderates, the Islamists are often able through intimidation to promote the most orthodox interpretations of Sharia law, import imams to preach radical jihadist propaganda in the mosques, and even insist on their “right” to ban liquor, music or whatever offends them, in areas with a majoritarian Muslim population.

Canadians, says Mansur, need to openly discuss how the country’s civilizational character as “a secular, liberal, and predominantly Christian” culture “is threatened by open immigration and multiculturalism.” And immigrants, he says, have to accept that “to be Canadian in the fullest sense means to embrace the West and freely assimilate its distinctive culture. Since 9/11 the Muslim population in the West has not shown forthrightness and determination in repudiating Islamism as an ideology that increasingly makes a mockery of Islam as a peaceful religion.”

Raza echoes that view, adding that non-Muslims should reject notions of Islamophobia. “Many Muslims in the West use Islamophobia as a penalty card against free speech whenever there is criticism of Muslims. This reactionary response is stifling dialogue, debate, and discussion — all signs of a healthy thriving democracy. The best thing non-Muslims can do, for themselves and Muslims who genuinely want to be part of Canada, is speak out. Keep the issues alive in the public consciousness to create a critical mass of people who can act to thwart the Islamist infiltration.”

For Raza, the situation is worrisome. She and her husband fled to Canada from Pakistan in 1989 after the regime of then-president Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, under the influence of Saudi Arabian Wahhabists, began imposing more and more religious restrictions and taboos on what until then had been a tolerably free and liberal-oriented society. Raza, a Shia Muslim, and her husband, a Sunni, were suddenly social pariahs, ostracized by both communities. In coming to Canada they thought they’d escaped that kind of bigotry and intolerance.

“We find it ironic that the very ideology we were trying to run away from 23 years ago has followed us to Canada.”

Recommended Reading:

Farzana Hassan, Prophecy and the Fundamentalist Quest of Islam, McFarland, 2008; and Islam, Women and the Challenge of Today, White Knight Publications, 2006.

Salim Mansur, Delectable Lie: A liberal repudiation of multiculturalism, Mantua Books, 2011; The Muddle of Multiculturalism: A liberal critique, Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, 2010; “Immigration and Multiculturalism Undermine Culture and Security in Canada,” in The Effects of Mass Migration, Fraser Institute, 2009.

Raheel Raza, Their Jihad — Not My Jihad, Basileia Books 2005.

Here’s your chance!

“This past July, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney, along with Parliamentary Secretaries Rick Dykstra and Chungsen Leung, launched a series of cross-country consultations on immigration issues.

As part of this process, this online consultation aims to seek your feedback on Canada’s immigration program. We are asking for your input on:

a) the right level of immigration to Canada (how many?), and;
b) the right mix between the three immigrant classes to Canada (economic, family and protected persons).

Should immigration levels be higher? Which of these areas should be a priority? If we raise levels in one of these areas, where should we take less?

A report on the consultations, including a summary of this online consultation questionnaire, will be available on the CIC website in fall 2011 or winter 2012.”

We encourage you to take some time to complete the survey and have your say.

Speech of Geert Wilders in Berlin 9/3/2011

The Threat of Europeanization and the Need to Defend the Nation-State

(By Geert Wilders)

Thank you for inviting me to Berlin. It is an honour to be here in this beautiful city of Berlin. When I was here last year I emphasized how important Germany is for all of us. We all benefit from a healthy, democratic, self-confident Germany.

Much has happened since my last visit. In the Netherlands we were able to achieve many amazing things. We have successfully started to roll back the process of Islamization in the Netherlands.

We have done so in a peaceful way and through the democratic process. Recently, a deranged narcissistic psychopath from Norway committed a horrible crime. In cold blood he murdered nearly eighty innocent fellow citizens. The assassin pretended to be a concerned European. He said that he had committed his atrocity because “It is meaningless to participate in the democratic process.”

But he is wrong! The mass murderer from Oslo murdered and maimed, and he justified his heinous crime by denying – I quote – “that it is remotely possible to change the system democratically.” – end of quote.

But he is wrong! The Oslo murderer falsely claims to be one of us. But he is not one of us. We abhor violence. We are democrats. We believe in peaceful solutions.

The reason why we reject Islam is exactly Islam’s violent nature. We believe in democracy. We fight with the force of our conviction, but we never use violence. Our commitment to truth, human dignity and a just and honourable defence of the West does not allow us to use violence nor to give in to cynicism and despair. We cherish the tradition of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Jelena Bonner, Lech Walesa and Ronald Reagan. These heroes defeated a totalitarian ideology by the power of their conviction and without firing a single shot. As the ex-Muslim and Islam-critic Ali Sina said in a reaction to the Oslo atrocity: “We don’t raise a sword against darkness; we lit a light.”

So it is. We lit the light of the truth. And the truth will set us free.

The truth is that Islam can be successfully fought with democratic means. We do so in the Netherlands. You can do so, too, in Germany! Let me tell you what we have achieved in the Netherlands since my last visit to Berlin, less than one year ago. It will encourage you. What can be done in the Netherlands can also be done in Germany.

My party, the Party for Freedom, which has 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament, supports a minority government of Liberals and Christian-Democrats. We do this in return for measures to restrict immigration, roll back crime, counter cultural relativism, and restore our traditional Western freedoms, such as freedom of speech.

The Party for Freedom has been in this position for less than a year, but we are achieving great things.

We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the face-covering Islamic burkas and the niqabs!

We will restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years!

We are going to strip criminals who have a double nationality and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality!

The Party for Freedom is bringing a message of hope to the Netherlands.

The new policies will place more demands on immigrants.

Integration will not be tailored to different groups anymore.

There will be a tougher approach to immigrants who disobey the law.

Those who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress, will see their access to welfare payments diminished.

We have also achieved that anti-Israeli activities will no longer be funded with Dutch taxes.
So-called humanitarian aid organizations that directly or indirectly support anti-Israel boycotts, divestments and sanctions and that deny Israel’s right to exist will no longer get government funding.

The Dutch government will boycott the United Nation’s Durban III meeting against racial discrimination because it has been transformed into a tribunal for accusations against Israel.
The government will strengthen our political and economic relations with Israel. Investment rather than divestment will be our policies towards Israel.

We stand with Israel. We love Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is part of our civilization.

My friends, what the Party for Freedom has achieved, shows that it can be done. To borrow a phrase from President Obama: Yes, we can! We can stop the islamization of our societies. The Dutch example shows that we can win. David can defeat Goliath!

Last July, the Dutch government even did something which not a single nation has dared to do before. It spoke out firmly against the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is an international organization of 57 Islamic countries, most of them barbaric tyrannies. This OIC constitutes the largest voting bloc in the United Nation. It had criticised the fact that Dutch judges had acquitted me of all charges of group insult and incitement to hatred and discrimination. But the Dutch government made it clear to the OIC that freedom of speech will not be muzzled in the Netherlands. It told the OIC very bluntly: “The Dutch government dissociates itself fully from the request to silence a politician.” – end of quote.
We will never submit to the Islamic OIC bullies!

As you probably know, for almost two years I went through the ordeal of being a suspect in a criminal case. I was dragged to court in Amsterdam on the accusation of hate speech crimes. Last June, this legal charade ended with a full acquittal.

The Dutch people learned through my acquittal that political debate has not been stifled in their country. My acquittal was a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch people also learned that they are allowed to speak critically about Islam. They learned that resistance against Islamization is not a crime. They learned that there is hope and that liberation is near.

My acquittal marks the turning of the tide. Not only in the Netherlands, but in the whole of Europe. It is the first breach of the dyke. We have started the roll-back operation. We have sent a message to the ideologues of Islam: Don’t tread on us!

My acquittal has a significance which far surpasses the Netherlands. It has a meaning for the whole of Europe and the free world. My acquittal marks the end of an evolution whereby our civil liberties in Europe are constantly being restricted in order not to offend Islam and anger Islamic fanatics.

My acquittal legitimizes criticism of Islam. It does so also in Germany and everywhere else.

Indeed, why should you Germans not enjoy the same rights as the Dutch! If peaceful and democratic resistance to Islamization is not a crime in the Netherlands, it should not be a crime in Germany either.

So, here is my message to you: Continue your fight for freedom and freedom of speech!

Do not let your politicians and judges grant you fewer rights than the Dutch!

Do not let yourselves be intimidated by Islamic or leftist opponents who shriek and yell. Do not let yourselves be intimidated by media who claim that a murderer who has lost his belief in the democratic process has anyhow been influenced by us.

My friends, when I visited you last year, even in my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that we would have been able to influence government policies in the way we have done.

That is why I tell you: Never give in to the bullies! Never give up hope. Never despair! You can still turn the tide! One can always turn the tide!

It is true: Germany has been less fortunate than the Netherlands.

When I was here last year, Tilo Sarrazin had just published his book “Deutschland schafft sich ab.” Sarrazin’s book was a bestseller. It hit a nerve. It sold over one-and-a-half million copies. This shows that German society is ripe for change. But politically Sarrazin’s book has changed nothing yet. On the contrary, the German political elite raised the speed of Islamization in Germany. Bundespresident Wulff said “Islam is a part of Germany.” Chancellor Merkel said that multiculturalism is an absolute failure, but she continues to defend Turkey’s entry into the EU. The spread of Islam continues unabated in the German class rooms, on Germany’s streets, through the construction of new mosques, etcetera, etcetera.

Your situation has worsened because you do not have a party – yet – with enough electoral support to influence German politics for the better. Germany needs a rightwing party that is not tainted by ties to neo-Nazis and by anti-Semitism, that is decent and respectable, but also firm.

René Stadtkewitz is working very hard to make Die Freiheit as successful as the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. René, we are here to help you! Because Germany deserves better than what it gets today!

My friends, your country is the political backbone of Europe.

Germany is the most populous country in Europe. Germany is the economic motor of Europe. If Germany is sick, we are all sick.

Last year, I urged you: Stop being ashamed of Germany. It is unfair to reduce German patriotism to national-socialism, just as it is unfair to reduce Russia to Stalinism. Be proud of your country. Only if the Germans have pride in Germany, they will be prepared to stand for Germany and to defend Germany. And you must stand for Germany, just as the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands stands for the Netherlands. We must all stand for the survival of our nation-states because our nation-station states embody the democratic liberties which we enjoy.

Without the nation-state there can be no real national political freedom. That is why we must be good patriots. Patriotism is often branded as fascism. But patriotism is not fascism. On the contrary. Every democrat and defender of freedom must by definition be a patriot. A soul needs a body. The spirit of political liberty cannot flourish outside the body of the nation-state. The nation-state is the political body in which we live. That is why we must preserve and cherish the nation-state. So that we can pass on the liberty and the democracy which we enjoy to our children.

Without a nation-state, without self-governance, without self-determination there can be no security for a people nor preservation of its identity. This was the insight which led the Zionists to re-establish the state of Israel. Theodore Herzl said that there had to be a Jewish state because – I quote – “what we want is a new blossoming of the Jewish spirit.”

Dear friends, we urgently need a new blossoming of the German spirit. For decades, the Germans have been ashamed of themselves. They preferred to be Europeans rather than Germans. And they have paid a heavy price for it. We have all paid a heavy price for it.

Europe is not a nation; it is a cluster of nations. The strength of Europe is its diversity. We are one family but we live in different bodies. Our cultures are branches of a common Judeo-Christian and humanist culture, but we have different national cultural identities. That is how it should be.

Uniformity is a characteristic of Islam, but not of Europe. Islam eradicated the national identities of the peoples it conquered. The Coptic identity of Egypt, the Indian identity of Pakistan, the Assyrian identity of Iraq, the Persian identity of Iran, they were all wiped away, cracked down upon, or discriminated against until this very day. Islam wants all nations replaced by the so-called Ummah, the common identity of the Nation of Islam to which all have to be subservient and into which all national identities have to vanish.

Islam tried to conquer Europe, but never succeeded so far. That is why we Europeans were able to develop our different identities as nation-states. If we want to hold on to these we must stand together against the forces which threaten our identities. Today we are confronted by two dangerous forces: Islamization and Europeanization.

When I was here last year, I spoke at length about the threat of Islam. Today, I want to draw your attention to the threat of Europeanization. By Europeanization I mean the ideology which posits that our sovereign nation-states have to submerge in a pan-European superstate.

The European Union’s Founding Fathers held that in order to avoid a future war in Europe, Europe’s nations, and especially Germany, had to be encapsulated in what the Rome Treaty called “an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.” Robert Schuman said that the EU’s aim was – I quote – “to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.” – end of quote.

The Eurocrats think that nation states in general – and especially Germany, Europe’s largest nation-state – are the problem. They are wrong. The real cause of the Second World War had not been the German nation state – it had been Nazi totalitarianism.

There is nothing wrong with Germany. The cause of the war was the Nazi ideology. The remedy against totalitarianism is not building a superstate. The remedy is introducing more direct forms of democracy at the lowest possible levels. Instead of depriving Germany and other nation-states of their sovereignty, the post-war leaders should have introduced a Swiss-like system in our countries. Small units should have a large degree of local sovereignty. The individual citizen should be given a direct democratic say over his own fate and that of his community.

Instead, the peoples of Europe were robbed of their sovereignty, which was transferred to far-away Brussels. Decisions are now being taken behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats. This is not the kind of government we want!

We want less bureaucracy! We want more democracy!

We want less Europe! We want to hold on to our sovereignty. We want home rule! We want to remain independent and free! We want to be the masters in our own house!

In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty called for a single European currency. The Dutch guilder and the D-mark were sacrificed on the altar of European unification. Helmut Kohl sold this project to the German people as – I quote – “a matter of war or peace.” – end of quote. The euro was presented as “an angel of peace” which the Germans had to sponsor by giving up the mark. During the past six decades German politicians have told the Germans that the nation state, and especially Germany, was so dangerous that it had to be emasculated. The Germans had to become Europeans instead of Germans. To achieve this political project, national and monetary sovereignty was relinquished. Economic and national interests were sacrificed on the political altar of so-called Europeanization.

All the countries which joined the euro lost the power to adjust their currency to their own economic needs. They have all suffered as a consequence. The currency of some countries is undervalued, the currency of others is overvalued; they all have to share in carrying the burden of other countries, even if the latter are suffering from self-inflicted policies, corruption or fraud. The European monetary system has allowed some countries to get a free ride at the expense of others, while those who cheat are in a position to blackmail those who have to foot the bill. This charade has to stop!

The European monetary system is deeply flawed. It is also immoral. As Theodore Herzl said “The character of a people may be ruined by charity.” This applies for those at the receiving end of charity, but also for those who donate it. The so-called pan-European solidarity is literally ruining us! Germany has paid enough for Europe already!

The same applies for the Netherlands. Our citizens do not have to pay the debts of others!
My friends, your party Die Freiheit embodies the best hope for Germany. Because your party is the only party in Germany which has the courage to state loud and clear that countries which cannot pay their debts should leave the euro. I fully agree.

My friends, time is running out. We have to act for the sake of democracy and the future prosperity of our children. The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky warns that rather than preventing war, the European project makes conflicts more likely. He draws a parallel between the EU and the former Soviet Union which also suppressed feelings of national unity. When economy reality defeated the Soviets’ political project, the suppressed feelings of national identity bounced back with a vengeance and destroyed the Union. Bukovksy fears that if we do not stop the European moloch from expanding the same thing might happen in Europe.

The European leaders state that the only way to solve the current crisis is more European governance. They advocate more powers for Brussels. They are wrong. More Europe only makes matters worse. We have to oppose their attempt of further centralization.

We do not want more Europe! The EU lacks democracy, accountability and transparency. That is why we reject it. We want less Europe! Let us hope that next Wednesday the German Constitutional Court protects national sovereignty.

As a national legislator in the Netherlands I experience day by day how little we still have to say about our own fate. We are expected to rubberstamp laws which have been made by the EU Council of Ministers. The 27 EU commissioners convene behind closed doors with their colleagues. They negotiate in secret and then emerge to announce their agreement and present it. That is how the system works.

Recently, your Chancellor, Frau Merkel, went to Paris. Together with President Sarkozy she announced plans for an economic government of the eurozone.

We oppose this. We want the national parliaments to decide about our economic policies. We do not want to spend our taxpayers’ money on eurozone countries, such as Greece. Let those who have cheated us, who have mismanaged their economy or who have foolishly lived beyond their means, take care of themselves.

Moreover, the EU treaties forbid bailouts.

The Party for Freedom opposes every bail out. The Dutch minority government will never be able to count on our support in this regard. Today its wrongheaded euro policies are supported by the europhile leftist parties. I repeat: We will never support the Dutch government’s approval of the bailouts, not even if the government would lose the support of the left.

We have voted, and we will vote, against every plan to bail out other countries. Sovereign countries have to take care of their own needs. That is what sovereignty is about: freedom and the ability to take care of oneself.

Our peoples resent the fact that they have to pay for others. Our peoples resent the permanent alienation of power from their nation-states. They care about their nation because they care about democracy and freedom and the wellbeing of their children. They see their democratic rights and their age-old liberties symbolized in their national flag.

But there is more. National identity also ties an individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture. National identity is also an inclusive identity: It considers everyone to be equal, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people.

My friends, we need to give political power back to the nation-state, in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom, in the name of human dignity. By defending the nation-states we defend our own identity. By defending our identity we defend our liberties. By defending our liberty we defend our dignity.

I urge you: Stand up for the nation-state. Be proud of your country!

In his Farewell Address as American President, Ronald Reagan said that the thing he was most proud of in his presidency was – I quote – “the resurgence of national pride that I called, ‘The New Patriotism.’” – end of quote.

Europe needs new patriotisms. Europe needs dozens of new patriotisms. We need True Finns, and True Danes, True Frenchmen, and True Irishmen, True Dutchmen, and, my friends, we need True Germans!

Reagan said that we had to teach our children what our country is, what it stands for and what it represents in the long history of the world. He said that Americans need – I quote – “a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions.”

Reagan’s words apply to us, Europeans, too. We need a resurgence of national pride, a love of country and institutions. Our national parliaments are our democratic institutions. We must defend them.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I have said enough. It is time to act. We must make haste. Time is running out for Germany, for the Netherlands, for all the other great nations of Europe. As Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”.

Here is a short summary of five things which we need to do in order to preserve our freedoms.

First, we must defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. Second, we must end cultural relativism. Our Western culture is far superior to other cultures. Third, we must stop Islamization. More Islam means less freedom. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values. Fourth, we must restore the right to decide about our own money. We should not pay the debts of others. The survival of the euro should not be used as an excuse to reward countries which have shown that they were not worth to belong to the eurozone. Fifth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Our nations are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are the free men and women of the West. We are the true men and women of the West. We do not stand for a superstate. We stand for our own country.

You stand for Germany. I stand for the Netherlands. Others stand for Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, France, Spain, and all these other beautiful freedom-loving nations of Europe. Together we represent the nations of Europe. Together we stand.

We will stand firm. We will survive. We will defend our freedoms. We will remain free.

Thank you very much.

For more information, visit Free Thinking Film Society here

See FTFF President, Fred Litwin on The Source, with Ezra Levant discussing this years festival

LISTINGS

Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011
Room A, Library & Archives
11:00 AM

Sick and Sicker
50 minutes, 2010 United States
Logan Darrow Clements

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Room 156, Library & Archives
12:00 PM

Guilty Until Proven Innocent
52 minutes, 2010 United States
iYAGO Entertainment Group

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Room A, Library & Archives
12:15 PM

Justice for Sergei
62 minutes, The Netherlands
ICU Documentaries

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Main Auditorium, Library & Archives
12:30 PM

Oscar’s Cuba
58 minutes, 2010 United States
In Altum Productions

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Room 156, Library & Archives
1:15 PM

Freedom of What?cott
67 minutes, 2011 Canada

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Room A
1:30 PM
Double Feature

Free or Equal
57 minutes, 2011 United States
Free to Choose Network

Overdose – The Next Financial Crisis
Watch the Trailer
46 minutes, 2010 Sweden

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Main Auditorium, Library & Archives
2:00 PM

Angryphone: The Struggle for Canada in Quebec
75 minutes, 2008 Canada
Jimmy K.

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Room 156, Library & Archives
2:45 PM

The Power of the Powerless
78 minutes, 2009 United States
Agora Productions

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Room A, Library & Archives
4:00 PM

An Inconvenient Tax

Sponsored by the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation
80 minutes, 2011 United States
Observer Productions

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Room 156, Library & Archives
4:30 PM

The 10 Conditions of Love
54 minutes, 2009 Australia
Jeff Daniels

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Bronson Centre, 211 Bronson Avenue
7:00 PM

The Living
73 minutes, 2008, The Ukraine

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Room A, Library & Archives
11:30 AM

Milk War
47 minutes, 2011 Canada
Stornoway Communications
2011 James Beard Award Winner
Best Documentary

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Room 156, Library & Archives
12:00 PM

The Last Jews of Libya
50 minutes, 2007 United States
LionTree Productions

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Main Auditorium, Library & Archives
12:15 PM

Cool It
88 minutes, 2010 United States
Lionsgate

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Room A, Library & Archives
12:30 PM

The Making of a Martyr
Watch the Trailer
58 minutes, 2005 United States
A2B Film Productions

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Room 156, Library & Archives
1:15 PM

1915 The Armenian Genocide
60 minutes, 2010 United States
Medusa Films

November 13, 2011
Main Auditorium, Library & Archives
2:00 PM

The Biases of the CBC
Watch the Trailer
40 minutes
2010 James Cohen & Fred Litwin

November 13, 2011
Room A, Library & Archives
2:15 PM

Ahead of Time: The Ruth Gruber Story
73 minutes, 2009 United States
Reel Inheritance Films

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Room 156, Library & Archives
2:30 PM

3 Billion and Counting
Watch the Trailer
108 minutes, 2010 United States
Frogbite Productions

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Room A, Library & Archives
4:00 PM

Freedom Fighter
81 minutes, 2011 Canada
One World International

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Room 156, Library & Archives
4:45 PM

In the Name of the Family
88 minutes, 2010 Canada, Bishari Productions

Sunday, November 13, 2011
Bronson Centre, 211 Bronson
7:00 PM
Canadian Premiere!

Unmasked: Judeophobia and the Threat to Civilization
2011 United States
Doc Emet Productions

“Dipersico says he speaks his mind, and this has caused him problems”

After writing a book that he says is “a little autobiographical”, Paris Dipersico was attacked by two Muslim men, full story here.

 “After treatment for cuts and bruises, Dipersico said on his publisher’s advice, “I’m taking out some of the graphically sexual stuff,” but not the rest.”

I wonder if it will occur to those who beat him for writing the book that they’ve just given his book (which many would otherwise not have known about) some free publicity?

Visit Amazon.com for the product description.

London Free Press, August 20, 2011

UWO professor of political science and Sun Media columnist Salim Mansur has written a challenging new book, Delectable Lie, which he classifies as “a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism”. The central contention of Delectable Lie is that, “although multiculturalism once seemed a very good idea, at least to politicians and others smitten with the ambition for unity, it is increasingly shown to be a lie — a delectable lie, perhaps, yet a lie nevertheless — that is destructive of the West’s liberal democratic heritage, tradition and values based on individual rights and freedoms.”

In a bid to be inclusive and welcoming to new citizens, Mansur argues, the liberal democracies of the West have developed multiculturalism programs which are founded on the proposition of another lie, that all cultures are equal and readily compatible with one another. It is Mansur’s contention that the various multicultural initiatives put in place in the 1970s as a means by which to minimize the hardships of immigrants by making the break with their country of origin less total — too often leave us not with new committed citizens but with dual citizens, migrant workers and spongers who have no intention of assimilating with the Canadian way of life and sometimes even hold it in contempt and work toward its destruction.

In one of the most fascinating chapters in Delectable Lie, Mansur contrasts the modern experience of immigrating to the West with the old. Prior to the mid-20th century, it was primarily Europeans who settled in Canada, the U.S. and Australia and, Mansur writes, such movement “involved considerable expense for travel by way of trains and ships over many weeks. The decision to make the journey required psychological preparation on the part of immigrants in both leaving their native land with some certainty of never returning, and of anticipating the new country with challenges ahead of settlement and assimilation. An immigrant was mostly brimming with gratitude on arriving in the country of his choice and grateful for the opportunities open to him that did not exist or were denied him in the land of his birth.”

Today those life-altering journeys, increasingly drawn from Third World countries that may not share fundamental Canadian values regarding freedom of speech and worship and the equality of women, can often be made in a day at much less expense — financially, psychically, emotionally. And thanks to developments in global communication, many new Canadians no longer feel the same compulsion once they get here to take up residence in any sense except the physical.

At 173 well-researched and carefully reasoned pages, this is an explosive expose that might have been rejected out of hand as an xenophobic rant if it hadn’t been written by a Muslim who himself emigrated to Canada from “war torn South Asia” in 1974. “In Canada I found safety, support and the opportunity to begin a new life with all the promise my adopted home held forth for me. In time I came to feel uncomfortable with the notion of being a hyphenated Canadian.

The part of me that belonged to the wider Indian culture I inherited at birth without any effort on my part. But the part of me, the much greater part, through the university education I acquired and the air I breathed as I mingled with the people around me at school, in work, and in politics, became by choice and conscious effort Canadian.”

Unlike some commentators who take on these hotly contested issues, Mansur never resorts to cheap shots or dismissive slurs. However wrongheaded he believes the architects of multiculturalism to be, he takes them at their word and respectfully presents their claims before politely and convincingly repudiating them. Mansur does not eviscerate his opponents with the intoxicating glee of a Mark Steyn. And an occasional professorial clunker of a sentence requires a few readings to extract the sense, ie: “This deprecates the consequence that liberal democracy’s core principle of individual freedom is undermined by extending recognition to groups defined through collective identity opposed culturally to it.” But you also don’t set this book down with an uneasy sense that the author has been less than fair to those he disagrees with.

There will be a London book launch for Delectable Lie on Thursday, Sept. 8 at 7 p.m. at the Lamplighter Inn.

Imposed on Europeans by controlling networks such a system emanates from the European Commission whose masters are no other than the political leaders of the European governments. The EU, a mastodon Kafkaesque structure, consuming astronomical sums, often enables European leaders to implement an authoritarian policy escaping people’s awareness. Rivalries for power, ambitions, ideology, oppose Eurocrats to those they disdainfully call “racist, populist, xenophobic” opponents to their globalist Islamophile ideology. Yet there is more than usual policy into these clashes. There is what Wilders calls: the truth, a human moral element.

To understand the tremendous revolution achieved by Geert Wilders, one has to realise that the foundational stone of the Eurabian mind consist of two principles stated in article 22 of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam:

• Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’a.
• Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’a.

Europe, while claiming to defend human rights has, in effect, adopted these principles and obeys a fundamental law of dhimmitude: dhimmis are forbidden on pain of death to propagate ideas considered hostile to Islam. Qadi ‘Iyad (d. 1149), the famous Andalusian Imam, prolific author and scholar, described explicitly blasphemy. It consists in cursing Muhammad, blaming him or attributing imperfection to him, to his religion, whether in the form of a curse, contempt or belittling him or maligning him. He stated that any Jew or Christian who reviled the Prophet should be beheaded or burned, unless he converts. Under the pressure of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Eurabia has adopted these Islamic blasphemy rules.

The dhimmi attitude that has developed among European intellectuals, politicians, and the clergy requires the Western public to conform to one of the basic rules of dhimmitude: the express prohibition on Christians and Jews to criticize Islamic history and doctrine. This means that shari’a law has been imposed on Europeans by their own dhimmi leaders in their outreach to Islam. No wonder that since the 1970s Eurocrats censor any criticism of jihad and incriminate Israel’s right to exist as an aggression, triggering wars and terrorism. The denial of the jihadist current trend by Europe, its compliance to shari’a laws by prosecuting and punishing its own citizens for criticizing them, constitute the basic issues of Wilders trial. By exposing them, he has overturned EU’s policy.

In this tremendous fight for truth, Wilders is not alone. Many sacrificed their position and reputation, many despaired such as the sociologist Jacques Ellul (d. 1994) who saw the return of Nazism in a machinery disguising its Fascist authoritarianism and antisemitism with the words ‘peace, justice, love, human rights’.

Can Wilders and his courageous supporters – each fighting in his own country against their dhimmi leaders – succeed in bringing some morality into a sordid policy of lies, corruption, hate and cowardice? Or could this success for truth be just a moment of light and hope before being crushed? Will Muslims themselves take this opportunity offered by the sacrifices of Wilders and the young anti-racist militants for freedom of speech, to ponder upon their own history of a long genocidal jihad over four continents with its trail of enslavement and dispossession of people? We are waiting to hear them acknowledging that jihadist ideology is criminal and that dhimmitude is a dehumanising oppression.

Now, the world sees the fanatical and revolting persecution of Copts and other Christians in Islamic countries, and the jihadist genocidal hatred against Israel. And Now, Jews, Christians, Hindus and others victims of Islamic wars, who suffered dispossession, apartheid, deportations, humiliations, child abductions – crimes perpetrated altogether within the context of dhimmitude – are hoping for a reconciliation that can only come with Muslim acknowledgement of a criminal supremacist ideology and its rejection.

“I’m incredibly happy with this acquittal on all counts,” Wilders said outside the courtroom.

“It’s not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands. Fortunately you’re allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you’re not muzzled in public debate. An enormous burden has fallen from my shoulders,” he said.

It is certainly good news that after many attempts to find a way to convict Mr. Wilders, the Dutch courts have ultimately  done the right thing.

According to this story from the BBC however, it appears that the plaintiffs will continue to look for a way to criminalize Mr. Wilders’ speech even if they have to seek their redress from the most illegitimate dispensers of justice to be found.

(Lars Hedegaard’s Address to a Meeting of Die Freiheit in Kiel, June 11, 2011)

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for the opportunity to address this important gathering.

To be absolutely frank, I have to admit that I was in grave doubt as to whether I ought to accept your courteous invitation to speak.

As you know, I am the President of the Danish and International Free Press Societies. Both organisations are entirely and exclusively devoted to the protection of free speech. Apart from that, we have no political or religious agenda.

Every member of our organisation is perfectly welcome to say anything he likes and to argue any point he wants to make as long as he does not say or do anything in contravention of free speech. But as an organisation we stick to one issue only: the defence of free speech where ever and by whom ever it is threatened.

So I am not here to heap praise on your party, Die Freiheit, or on your political programme.

I wish you well as I would wish any democratic and freedom-loving (freiheitlich) political party well – in Germany, in Denmark, all over the world.

It may well be argued – and I am prepared to accept this argument – that the struggle for freedom of expression is a political struggle. No doubt the most important political struggle of our time. But once we have agreed on this point, we in The Free Press Society welcome anyone in our midst.

Whether people are socialists, liberals, conservatives, for or against the war in Afghanistan, for or against the European Union, higher or lower taxes, immigration or whatever is of no concern to us.

We have among our members people of many political and religious persuasions – Social Democrats, liberals and conservatives, adherents and opponents of the welfare state etc. We have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists. We get along famously because we have one thing in common: freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is the absolute prerequisite for any other freedom. Without it there can be no democracy, no personal liberty, no rule of law, no equality before the law, no equality between the sexes. In fact no social or scientific progress.

Unfortunately, a growing number of people in our Western societies – and particularly in our governments, in our universities, in the press and among church leaders – think that free speech has become a burden. That it is an affront to the sort of decent and well behaved society they prefer. They think that free speech exists and is encoded in our free and democratic constitutions in order that people may say nice things to each other. In particular, people are not supposed to criticise so-called ethnic minorities, by which they invariably mean Muslim minorities.

According to our ruling elites, any criticism of Islam or of unfettered immigration or of the growing trend in our Western countries towards parallel societies should be seen as racism.

Not only are dissidents called every name in the book and evicted from polite company. Their careers are ruined. They are fired from their jobs. They receive threats. They are beaten up and sometimes killed.

Anyone who thinks that political murders belong in our fascist or communist past should ponder the fate of the two brave Dutchmen Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, who were cut down by political fanatics.

And they should remember what recently happened to the Danish artist Kurt Westergaard and his Swedish colleague Lars Vilks. Fortunately they are still alive but only because they are protected by the security police.

And what crime have Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks committed? They have drawn some pictures!

Think about that! What do you think would have happened if forty years ago, some daring soul had suggested that Islam’s implantation in the West would result in this state of affairs? He would have been ridiculed. People would have said that he was ready for the insane asylum. And if he was a politician, his career would have been cut short. That was precisely what happened to the British Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell when he had warned against the consequences of mass immigration.

And today – as it is becoming clear for all to see unless they shut their eyes – that orthodox Islam is incompatible with free speech, new methods are being employed in order to shut up anyone who will not toe the line.

We have come to a point where the upholders of the official state ideology of multiculturalism and cultural and moral relativism can no longer defend their position in free and open discourse. They have run out of rational arguments as more and more Germans, Dutchmen, Danes, Britons, Italians etc. realise that all cultures are not equal and that some religions and political ideologies are better than others.

So they mobilise the judicial system in order to indict and punish dissidents for what they call “hate speech”.

That is why we have seen criminal trials like the ones against my friends Geert Wilders in Holland and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria and myself in Denmark.

Geert, Elisabeth and I haven’t threatened anyone. We have not incited violence against anyone. We are neither anti-Semites nor racists.

We have simply insisted on our right to criticise a totalitarian ideology that threatens to obliterate everything that Europe and the West have achieved over the past 350 years.

Let me remind you that free speech is not an institution intended to ensure that people speak nicely. Quite the contrary. Freedom of expression exists in order to protect those who make statements that people abhor. Statements that are shocking, outrageous, unheard of and – yes – plain blasphemous.

Whenever I get the chance, I take the liberty of slightly rephrasing something that the incomparable English author George Orwell once remarked: Free speech is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear!

If you are looking for an easy-to-remember definition of freedom of expression, there you have it!

Anyone who takes the trouble to study the history of Western societies, will notice that any new thought, any novel scientific hypothesis or insight, any new idea that has brought our Western civilisation forward has invariably been condemned as outrageous, evil, contrary to common sense and moral decency if not outright blasphemous.

Scientific progress and advancement in human understanding cannot take place outside a climate of free speech. This means that people must have an unlimited right to advance any crazy idea they please. They must be permitted to offend, ridicule and blaspheme.

It is characteristic of every known totalitarian system – in the modern world primarily varieties of Fascism, Communism and Islam – that it will not permit people to make mistakes or deviate from a truth they consider god-given.

The pioneers of the European Scientific Revolution did not evade their share of persecution. In 1616 – 73 years after his death – the Catholic church condemned Copernicus’ heliocentric world picture as heretical. In 1633 the church basically crushed Mediterranean science by forcing Galileo to retract his contention that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Not that it made any difference in the real world – except that the Catholic Church drove serious science out of Italy and the Mediterranean lands and thereby handed the scientific and soon after the economic, political and philosophical lead to countries in Northern and Western Europe.

What distinguishes Europe – and later European societies across the seas – from the Islamic World is the fact that religious orthodoxy and religious stupidity could not survive the onslaught of free thought and free expression.

Let me emphasize that this entire development could not have taken place without critics who insisted on their right to free speech and more precisely without the hard-won freedom to criticize religion, including the right to express opinions that someone would find blasphemous. Let us recall that every major step of social progress – the abolition of royal absolutism and the prerogatives of the nobility and the religious hierarchy, the freeing of the peasants, voting rights for workers, equality for women, the abolition of slavery and apartheid, prohibition against beating servants and children etc. – has invariably been opposed by reactionaries and holy men as offensive to the god-given order. So there is no progress in human society without a relentless struggle against the very concept of blasphemy.

A few days ago, at a church gathering – the so-called Kirchentag – in Dresden, German President Christian Wulff repeated his earlier statement that Islam is a part of Germany and others at the conference said that more should be done to make Muslims feel welcome in Germany.

President Wulff might have enlightened his Christian audience that if Islam is to be a part of Germany, freedom of expression cannot be a part of it. If a political ideology such as Islam, according to which any criticism of the prophet or the Koran is punishable by death, is to be a part of Germany, then obviously free speech will have no place this brave new land.

Your President might have said that Muslims can become a part of Germany to the extent that they distance themselves from the insane political ideology that has crippled every society where it has taken hold over the past 1400 years.

But that was not what he said.

I am not mentioning President Wulff’s statement in order to single out your President or Germany for blame. I mention it because I am sure that you have all noticed what President Wullf said and wondered what it might mean.

We hear the same sentiment repeated by governments and political and church leaders all over the Western world: We have to make room for Islam in Europe, they say. Islam is an enrichment of our culture.

Strangely enough we never hear Muslim leaders either in the West or in the Islamic countries say that more should be done to make Christians, Jews and people of other faiths or without religious faith feel more welcome in the Muslim world.

We never hear governments or religious or political leaders in the Dar al-Islam (The House of Islam) demand that non-Muslims should have the right to assemble without fear, that they should have the right to build churches or synagogues. That they should be permitted to freely express their religious beliefs in public without fear of physical attacks or discrimination. In other words, that they should enjoy freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Instead we hear of endless and very often vicious and violent persecution of non-Muslims all over the Islamic world. In Algeria, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan. From Indonesia in the East to Nigeria in the West.

Soon the last Christians of Iraq will have been driven out. That is after our troops have liberated the country. Some liberation! In Egypt – which is supposed to have carried out a democratic revolution – the 8-10 per cent of the population that still clings to Egypt’s old Christian religion are still being killed, Christian girls are still being kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam and married off to Muslim men, and their families never see them again.

I think that your President and other Western leaders ought to have pondered this before making statements intended to give their citizens a bad conscience because by and large, Muslims are poorly integrated in Western societies.

We live at a time when free speech is under the heaviest attack we have experienced since the Nazis tried to impose their absolutist rule two generations ago.

At a time when we should be exchanging views and information about the real threats to our civilization and whole way of life, Western countries and international organizations are busy trying to shut down free discourse. Hate speech and blasphemy laws are being brushed off or reintroduced as a means to regulate and discipline what may be said.

It seems to me that what is politically correct ought be determined by the electorate when it has had the opportunity to listen to all arguments and every relevant piece of information.

But we are going about it the other way around. First our governments tell us what is politically correct and then they decide what may be said without fear of ostracism or criminal prosecution.

It is about time that we return to the roots of our Judeo-Christian civilization and to the founding fathers of free speech.

Let me quote from a pamphlet published by the Englishman John Milton in 1644. The language may be a bit dated, but the ideas are as fresh and relevant as when they were first penned:

“Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.”

“Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

“[Truth] needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious.”

Milton goes on:

“If we think to regulate printing, thereby to rectify manners, we must regulate all recreations and pastimes, all that is delightful to man. No music must be heard, no song be set or sung, but what is grave and Doric. There must be licensing of dancers, that no gesture, motion, or deportment be taught our youth, but what by their allowance shall be thought honest.”

That was John Milton in 1644 at the time of the English Revolution.

How ironic, how sad, how despicable that 367 years later, we should again be discussing the need to license opinions, to regulate and rectify manners and indeed to place upon ourselves “this iron yoke of outward conformity” – to quote John Milton once again.

For that is precisely what we do when we introduce laws on hate speech and blasphemy, when the state outlaws certain opinions and put people in jail for voicing them.

Where does all this end? As Milton pointed out, there is no end to it.

Next they will be regulating the internet, they will be scouring e-mails for wrong opinions.

They will invade the private sphere and listen in to what people say in their homes or places of work.

For make no mistake. If you regulate what may be said in public, you’ will simply drive the frank exchange of opinions underground. So the logical outcome will be a police state with millions of snooping stasi informers.

We have already seen such cases in Europe.

It is high time that we the people put a stop to this. A society that regulates speech is a society that is unable to solve its problems – let alone identify them.

And such a society is doomed.

This is not the kind of world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

We must do away with speech rules and political correctness.

We must repeal all hate speech and blasphemy laws.

We in the International Free Press Society will commit all our efforts and resources to achieving this objective.

I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I.

I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.

All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.

Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.

We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted.

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.

Every day the armoured cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honourably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine.

I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain.

I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts.

Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial.

This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents.

My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun.

Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands

Franz Kafka said: “one sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark.”

Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands.

Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation.

Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society.

Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen.

Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands. That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms, I say: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilisation.

Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian regime. “Freedom,” said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, “has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.”

Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.

I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty – I cannot do otherwise – to continue to speak.

Thank you.

As pointed out in this excellent commentary by Ezra Levant, Ms Thompson and the NAC (presumably the building itself, its board of directors, the caterers and perhaps even the chairs) couldn’t be fussed to distance themselves from previous “edgy” events held at the NAC but for Geert Wilders, Ms Thompson could not contain her indignation.

Now, it has come to our attention, courtesy of Vlad, that the NAC is hosting a “Cultural Day” under the banner “Iran, Land of Glory”, as reported in MacLeans.ca.

The irony is thicker than Saffron Ice Cream (or, Bastani-e gol-o bolbol, if you prefer to be culturally correct).

We’ve seen plenty of bloggers comment on Ms Thompson’s lack of consistency and now we are awaiting the attention that this will surely get from the main stream media . . .

(fade to black to the sound of chirping crickets . . . )