Tag Archives: politics

Canada: Islamist Showdown

By Pamela Geller

I am scheduled to speak in Markham, Ontario along with my colleague Robert Spencer Tuesday evening. Apparently the opposition couldn’t get the police to do their dirty work this time, as they did last spring, when members of the York Regional Police force strongarmed a rabbi into canceling my scheduled talk at his synagogue. That talk went on as scheduled in a different venue, and now that those cops are under investigation, Muslim Brotherhood proxies are trying to get Spencer and me banned from Canada now.

In connection with my earlier police-induced cancellation, Mark Steyn pointed out that Canadian officials have turned a blind eye to real preachers of hate: “Pamela Geller, tireless campaigner against Islamic imperialism (and a lady I had the honor of being introduced by at CPAC a few years back), was scheduled to give a speech at a Toronto synagogue on May 13. Miss Geller is not a convicted terrorist or terrorism-supporter or someone who argues for the execution of all homosexuals. If she were, she could speak at any Canadian venue with impunity.”

As always, the media eagerly carries water for Islamic supremacists and Sharia thugs. Nevertheless, every time it happens, it’s astounding. The Huffington Post carried a Canadian Press story about this “controversy” over the upcoming talk, with the headline “Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer Toronto Talk Flagged By Canadian Muslim Leaders.” The story said: “The National Council of Canadian Muslims worries Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer will spread ‘hate and misinformation’ about the Islamic faith when they speak at a Toronto-area hotel Tuesday evening, the group’s executive director said.”

Our talk has been “flagged by Canadian Muslim leaders” who are worried that we will spread “hate and misinformation.” “Canadian Muslim leaders”? “Hate and misinformation?” Actually, the group that is complaining, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, was up until recently known as CAIR-Canada. It is still the Canadian branch of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The NCCN is not “Canadian Muslim leaders,” it’s Hamas-CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding trial.

And even if they were legitimate “Muslim leaders,” what moral authority does that give them? Osama bin Laden was a Muslim leader, as was Anwar al-Awlaki, and as are Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Morsi, and Anjem Choudary. It is not Spencer and I, but “Muslim leaders” like these who are the ones who are really spreading hate. Their bigotry and racism is real, the human toll incalculable.

Truth is now hate. And what misinformation exactly do I spread? I merely quote devout Muslims. Fighting for freedom, equality for all and individual rights is “hate and misinformation?” Only under the Sharia. But that’s how far down the rabbit hole the media and the culture have crawled.

Here’s a video of my previous talk in Canada that these vicious thugs tried to shut down. Where’s the hate?
And they didn’t just “flag” our talk: these brutes and thugs are attempting to destroy freedom of speech and impose the blasphemy laws under Islamic law.

Why aren’t these Muslim organizations denouncing the hundreds of jihadist groups that are waging holy war across the world? Why isn’t this Muslim group that is so intent on keeping our message from reaching Canada taking on jihadists across the world?

And why aren’t I called for comment on stories like this, instead of their always being a completely one-sided presentation of the views of the enemies of freedom? Why isn’t Robert Spencer given an opportunity to respond to the defamation and lies from these friends and allies of the Muslim Brotherhood groups that are waging jihad across the world? Why do these thugs have such unfettered access to the press, while those who are defending freedom never can get a fair hearing?

The outrageous media double standard has to end. Free people must not stand idly by while our most basic, fundamental freedoms are silently seized and destroyed.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here.

The Long-Term Prospects of the Syria Deal

@MaxBoot

You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief in Washington over Syria’s apparent acceptance of a Russian plan to dismantle its chemical weapons. This offers the Obama administration an obvious out from what looked to be a losing vote to authorize military action against Bashar Assad. But is it a real out or a mirage?

It’s impossible to say for sure, without knowing the details of the “workable, precise, and concrete” plan that Russia has vowed to produce. But there is certainly room for considerable skepticism given what we know about the duplicity of the Syrian regime, Russia’s determination to keep that regime in power at all costs, and the ineffectuality of UN forces in the past.

Start with the obvious question: how will the destruction of the Syrian chemical arsenal work anyway?

The language coming from the Syrians and Russians suggests that Syria’s arsenal will not be moved out of the country. Rather, UN inspectors are somehow supposed to take control of tons of chemical agents in the middle of a war zone. It is unclear what then follows–will the inspectors somehow have to incinerate tons of these agents safely or will they simply camp out around the chemical-weapons sites indefinitely?

How this works, in practice, is almost impossible to imagine. Western intelligence agencies do not even know where all of Assad’s chemical-weapons stockpiles are located. Remember how much trouble UN inspectors had in verifying Saddam Hussein’s compliance with UN resolutions in the 1990s? The difficulties will increase ten-fold in Syria where the chemical-weapons arsenal is scattered across a large, dangerous battlefield. Saddam, it turns out, didn’t really have WMD; Assad does, and they won’t be easy to find.

The only way that Syria might fulfill its obligation to disarm is if it faces a credible threat of military action. Will Russia agree to a Chapter VII resolution at the United Nations that would authorize military action to compel Syrian compliance? Doubtful, but possible. Even if the UN does authorize action, what are the odds that Obama will act given the bipartisan resistance in Congress to any strikes? The House and possibly the Senate as well were already set to reject the authorization for the use of force. This “deal” is being peddled as a way to avoid a vote altogether. But if the U.S. is not seen as willing to strike Syria, what incentive does Assad have to comply with the terms of any disarmament deal? The most likely scenario is that Assad will agree to something in principle and then fudge on the implementation, knowing that Washington will have lost interest by that point.

The best thing that can be said in favor of the Russian deal is that it does offer an alternative to the immediate humiliation of Congress repudiating the president and refusing to authorize Syrian action. But the Russia resolution–unless it turns out to be unexpectedly binding–offers instead the prospect of a longer, more drawn-out strategic defeat in which Assad remains in power, keeps slaughtering his own people, and probably keeps at least part of his chemical-weapons arsenal.