Unequal Rights of Protest and Counter-Protests in Toronto : Canadian Jews' Right of Assembly vs 'pro-Palestinian' Right to Violent Hate-Mongering

"The organizers and some of the other students had come early. I heard yelling behind me. I turned around and I saw two men charge at me. One of them was wielding a drill bit."

"[The masked individuals were yelling], Death to the IDF. Arrest him. War criminal. Kill him. Get him."

"I was talking about the war, explaining that it is not a genocide. We [the IDF] differentiate between combatants and civilians."

"[Soldiers] have been killed in battle because they spent extra time trying to differentiate between combatants [who mingle among the civilians for protective covering] and civilians. This is our policy."

Jonathen Kartem, Israeli-American Israel Defense Forces reservist

 

"Jonathan is standing there like a superhero, literally blocking them. It was a very chaotic scene."

"They weren't even relenting once the police got there. They were desperate to get in and hurt us. They were there for a purpose."

"There was no opportunity to de-escalate, have a conversation."

"They were hitting the police officers. They were striking the police. They were trying to break through the police barricade."

Shoshanah OFlaherty 

 

"Too often, there is no room for true freedom of expression on university campuses [or apparently in relation to TMU, even off-campus] unless the expression adheres to anti-Israel orthodoxy."

Criminal lawyer Mark Sandler 

IDF veteran Jonathan Karten pushes trespassing protester out of the room

 

 It was an event slated for downtown Toronto on November 5 hosted by Students Supporting Israel who had invited two IDF reservists to address the gathering, explaining the conflict in Gaza and the actions of the Israel Defense Forces. Toronto Metropolitan University, where the Students Supporting Israel are registered had refused them a venue at the last minute, so the event took place off campus. Which didn't stop anti-Israel, Palestine supporters from crashing the event, masked and keffiyeh-clad, shouting their usual invectives.

 

Guest speaker Jonathan Karten was taken aback at the intensity and violence of the invaders. The event was not known to any outside the membership of the hosting group, but somehow pro-Palestinian campus groups became aware and called for action against the private discussion. Before he really knew how to interpret what was happening, Karten found himself surrounded by people dressed in black, their gender and identities obscured. As he attempted to hold the glass door leading to the room where the all-female members of the SSI group were cowering, the glass was shattered and he sustained deep injuries to a forearm.

 

When Karten's partner OFlaherty dialled 911 the first responder seemed oblivious to the seriousness of the call. "This is a very serious, dangerous situation. You need to get people here immediately. This is not a protest, this is a lynching", she told the first responder. One of the female students with SSI was so fearful during the shouting and violence she suffered an epileptic attack (as a result of a chronic condition) and ended up in hospital. Others hid under tables while more protesters attempted to breach the barrier provided by Karten. 

 

When police arrived, in an effort to restore order while being physically attacked by the protesters, five were arrested, charged with forcible entry, unlawful assembly, obstructing a peace officer, and assaulting a peace officer. A sixth person was arrested on November 12, after a search for the individual who had smashed the glass door to the event venue. A search warrant was executed on his residence, and 26-year-old Qabil Ibrahim was charged and arrested for forcible entry, mischief, assault, and unlawful assembly while masked. 

 

IDF veteran Jonathan Karten, one of the scheduled speakers, tries to reason with a protester who sneaked into the venue before the event started

 

 Ibrahim had been previously arrested in April. A video of a protest outside the Israeli Consulate in Toronto showed him climbing onto scaffolding to set an Israeli flag on fire after dousing it with an accelerant. He scurried away from the area, and others were left with the job of putting out the flames. At the November 5 event, after he had smashed the glass door, he swiftly fled the scene there too. Obviously a committed 'protester', but one that having committed physical violence, loses no time in departing the scene of the crime.

 

Police, explained Karten, had been unable to close he main building doors while protesters continued to force their way inside. "So I went down and I helped the two police officers that were trying to close the doors." More officers soon arrived, but those already in position "were all standing around downstairs, inside, when the threat was outside and so were the attackers." Then he suggested that more men were needed outside. "But they didn't seem interested in dispersing the crowd. I think maybe they were waiting for even more men to come before they would be willing to go outside." 

 

Police push out protesters to secure the building

 

 Widespread concern with respect to the way police officers respond to the constant violence targeting Jews in the city for over two years was partially addressed by Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association, on a radio show. He spoke of the hard work during difficult circumstances by Toronto police. He went out of his way to ask Jewish Torontonians not to blame the officers. In his view, any blame rests with the chief of police, Myron Demkiw, and other law enforcement and political leaders. 

 

And it is true, the miserably formidable pair of Mayor Olivia Chow and Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw, tolerate the violence imposed by pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas protesters on the streets of Toronto.

 

Clearer guidelines and rules for police and demonstrators would go a long way to solving some of the problems seen where no response at all to violent demonstrations simply encourage following events to become even more violent. Toronto police have become notorious for standing by and appearing to protect protesters, while informing Jewish anti-protesters that they must move away because their presence irritates the protesters and has the effect of ramping up the level of antagonism.

Pro-Hamas mobs that march through residential streets where Jews just happen to live are incited and provoked by the presence of Jews, so they are advised to make themselves scarce. Stay in their homes and remain mute and oblivious to the protesters who scream at them to 'go back to Poland', or shout 'Final Solution', else they will be held responsible for any escalation that may occur as a result of their irritating presence that irks the protesters. 

An anti-Israel activist sprays lighter fluid on a burning Israeli flag atop wooden scaffolding during a march in downtown Toronto on Friday, April 4 2025. Qabil Ibrahim, 26, of Toronto faces arson charges Courtesy X/Leviathan

 

"Officers are fearful of making decisions because they'll be blamed for decisions that aren't supported [by police brass."

"[What is needed are clear guidelines and rules for both police officers and demonstrators. Officers are] certainly not going to put themselves into a position where they're only going to be thrown under the bus if the wrong decision is made."

Clayton Campbell, president, Toronto Police Association 

What?!?! Men Can Never Be Women...?

"[Libraries] have always supported vulnerable communities by welcoming and creating space for different perspectives, rather than through censorship."
"One of our core responsibilities is to safeguard and facilitate access to constitutionally protected expressions of knowledge, imagination, ideas and opinion, including those which some individuals and groups consider unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable."
"Another is to make available our public spaces and services to individuals and groups without discrimination."
Vickery Bowles, Toronto head librarian

"A woman is a female. That's it. And if you are born male there is no way to become female. It's simply not biologically possible."
"And beyond that, why would a male ever NEED to 'become female'? I mean, by all means, be yourself, dress how you like, express yourself as you wish, in ways that make  you feel good and authentic. Push back against gender stereotypes."
"But why that would demand one is literally the opposite sex, I do not know. 'Woman' is not simply a set of stereotypes, an outfit, a feeling. There is nothing wrong with being male or being a male who rejects masculinity."
"But it is ridiculous to say that if you reject gender stereotypes you are literally no longer male."
Meghan Murphy, feminist writer, columnist, blogger, activist

 Meghan Murphy on gender identity Oct. 29, 2019. Chris Young/The Canadian Press

"Murphy asserts publicly and repeatedly that trans women cannot be women and will always be men."
"This is a denial of the lives, experiences, and identities of trans people. It is a crude, hateful and hurtful assertion."
"It says that the existence of trans people is invalid and that therefore their human rights are up for public debate."
Pride Toronto

"Those who want to disseminate hate speech today know that they can misrepresent, then weaponize the phrase 'freedom of speech' in order to get what they want: an audience and space to speak to and then mobilize that audience against marginalized communities."
Petition

Transgender rights activists outside a Toronto Public Library branch where writer Meghan Murphy spoke at an event on Oct. 29, 2019.  Chris Young/The Canadian Press

A feminist activist whose understanding of biology is vastly at odds with those in the 'progressive' wing of society who fulminate against a realistic interpretation of sexual identity citing nature and biology as their guide, is labelled a hate-monger. Well, that's par for the course when clear-headed reality bumps headstrong against those who insist that if a man rejects his malehood and opts to consider himself a herself instead, his decision, his appearance, his behaviour, his expectations and his entitlements to 'hers' recognition without question and without typical pronouns be not only respected but lionized as the new reality.

Meghan Murphy, with her master's degree in gender sexuality and women's studies -- with her focus on "women in the media and the medicalization of sex", has become the new enemy of the LGBTQ2 community, joining Jordan Peterson and others of his presumed sociopathic ilk, spewing hatred because they simply speak of the realities of nature's selection in gender and sex endowments. Ms. Murphy achieved notoriety by testifying against a Canadian law, Bill C-16, adding gender identity and expression to the prohibited grounds list of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As far as she is concerned, realistically, empowering transgenderism, disempowers women's rights. That men who decide to inform the world that they are not really men, but women, and entitled to be viewed as such, and entitled as well with their exceptional status, to compete against women in elite sports competitions despite their obviously male genetic inheritance of greater strength, victimizes women in that arena. Men claiming to be women insist on entry to women's washrooms, prisons, and any safe-from-harassment areas women claim as their own.

More latterly Ms. Murphy engaged in an exchange with the ultimate transvestite, a Vancouver resident by the name of Jonathan Yaniv, a flamboyant narcissist who calls himself Jessica Yaniv, with a high-profile presence on the Internet, as a coarsely provocative, rude bully whose interest in young girls and online exchanges with them discussing intimate body parts should alert anyone to the fact that this man is practising a particular type of perverse social indiscretion. Highlighted when he brought serial human rights discrimination claims against immigrant southeast Asian women working out of their homes as estheticians,

He made a practise of contacting these vulnerable women to enquire about the availability of Brazilian waxing, casually dropping the head-splitter that 'she' was in possession of male genitals and a male body, with the expectation that this would not be an issue of contention. The women were frightened and refused the request once aware that it was a man requesting such an intimate service they were not prepared to provide. One after another, this disgustingly unprincipled man filed complaints against the women, putting them out of business, and threatening them.

Jessica Yaniv Courtesy Jessica Yaniv

There were seven complaints in all, seven impoverished women whom this man targeted and terrorized. Ms. Murphy became involved and in so doing revealed much publicly about this man's female status and the incomprehensible reality that he had an ardent following supporting his wretched complaints against those whom he had chosen to serially hound as a male predator championing his rights as a woman.  Fortunately, B.C. Human Rights Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau found that Yaniv had been deceptive on numerous occasions, targeting small businesses for financial gain "or to punish certain ethnic groups which she perceives as hostile to the rights of LGBTQ+ people." Complaints dismissed.

And while 'Jessica' Yaniv has contrived to convince the gullible that he is a she and entitled to be viewed as such, and not the unsavoury clod that he really is, his feed on Twitter is protected, while Meghan Murphy suffered the indignity of having her Twitter account withdrawn, in line with the social media site's hate and harassment policy in support of the transgendered. Yaniv permitted to continue spewing his special brand of filth, and Ms. Murphy's free speech rights utterly curtailed.

Ms. Murphy has responded to invitations to speak to others who share with her convictions that appall the LGBTQ2 community, withholding full support of their harassment techniques against the segment of the public that fails to fall all over itself in admiration and support of their aggressive tactics attempting to socially and politically marginalize those they view as their detractors. Accusing them of hateful propaganda, of inciting to violence, when nothing could be further from the truth. A substantial but silent proportion of society merely shrugs while withholding personal involvement.

But they are seen as guilty of transphobia and labelled as 'haters'. An engagement to speak at a branch of the Toronto public library has seen a campaign unfold of raging anger at the accommodation given to allow Ms. Murphy to air her beliefs and opinions as an activist feminist with ample experience in her field of study and her professional life. Petitions to the library denouncing their decision to allow Ms. Murphy a public platform, and exhorting the library to reverse its decision appear to have gone nowhere.

Other than that the library is now written off as a participant in the Toronto Gay Pride parade, just as occurred in Vancouver when a library branch there was open to having Ms. Murphy speak to a similar gathering that has failed to be subservient to the demands of the LGBTQ2 community for total commitment to their cause, and they too were banned from Gay Pride Vancouver's parade. Oh, the pain of it all, the indignity of being denied the opportunity to appear as a happy banner-flaunting supporter of the LGBTQ2 community. We can live with it.

"A scrotum is different than a vulva — regardless of the gender of the person it is attached to."
"Given the difference in techniques, training, and physical body parts, it is not appropriate to lump both together under the broader  rubric of “genital waxing”, or — as Ms. Yaniv argues — 'genital waxing for women'."
B.C. Human Rights Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau 

Fit for Pride

"[The] externally-booked event prompted UBC community members to express their views on freedom of expression and academic freedom, and ask questions around the university’s commitment to equity and inclusion."
"[The university remains] deeply committed to the principles of equity, diversity, inclusion. [It acknowledges some community members were] personally affected [by the event]."
"UBC remains committed to finding more ways to maintain a respectful environment for everyone in our community."
University of British Columbia vice-president academic, Andrew Szeri

UBC has been barred from the 2019 Vancouver Pride Parade after hosting what the Pride society describes as a "transphobic" speaker.   Simon Little / Global News

How, a logical mind might ask, can someone who identifies as a  transgender male be labelled "transphobic" by the LGBTQ2 community. Jenn Smith describes himself as an 'activist', and he campaigns, as a "transgender-identified male", through speaking engagements and published articles on the deleterious effects on society of "the dangers" of "transgender ideology". On June 23 Jenn Smith spoke on "The Erosion of Freedom: How Transgender Politics in School and Society is Undermining Our Freedom and Harming Women & Children"; the venue was UBC.

Jenn Smith, who identifies as a transgender man, has caused controversy across B.C. for recent anti-SOGI events. (Jenn Smith)

This did not sit well with Vancouver Pride, who warns groups and institutions that if they wish to be viewed as friendly to the LGBTQ2+ community and enjoy the privileges of a valued supporter of said community, they must submit to strict guidelines. The Vancouver Pride Society has taken the drastic step of 'disinviting' UBC from a presence at the Vancouver Pride Parade; due punishment for its indiscretion in permitting a 'transphobic' transgender male to air his rejection of the social climate that surrenders to the demands of the transgender community, introducing young children to trans identity at school.

The Society takes its entitlements seriously. It is on the constant lookout for "any recent homophobic or transphobic events and the institutional response", which led in this instance to disallowing the university to attend Pride events since it had dropped below Pride's minimum score enabling parade participation. While the university's invitation to attend the parade has been withdrawn, the generous offer to permit students, employees and faculty as individuals to march in the parade was extended; in other words disavowing their links to the university in favour of attending the parade.

"We reject applications every year. But not usually once they've been accepted and ready to go in the parade, in this instance."
"There was significant commentary and requests from the queer and trans community on campus and also other community groups for UBC to cancel the event."
"We definitely want to send a message to UBC and to other organizations as well."
"It's probably going to be disappointing for some people and to that I say: we're holding your organization, your university, to be accountable to make changes."

Andrea Arnot, executive director, Vancouver Pride Society

Participants in Vancouver's Pride Parade in 2016. UBC won't be marching this year. (Lien Yeung/CBC)

Well, several weeks have passed since Vancouver Pride disciplined UBC, forbidding them the privilege of marching in the Vancouver Pride Parade. And now, UBC has company; sitting in the penalty box with them is the Vancouver Public Library. Which failed to exercise its discretionary intelligence by permitting "transphobic hate speech" on their premises. A violation of the B.C. Human Rights Code, they thundered. And it's true the B.C. Human Rights Commission has certain standards of protection of human rights in favour of Pride.

But in accusing the library of hosting feminist activist Meghan Murphy whom Pride considers a purveyor of "transphobic hate speech" and where, they claimed "During this event five speakers asserted that transwomen are not women and should not be treated as women", they made their point. To which the detested feminist Meghan Murphy responded: "No one on the panel said anything derogatory, hateful or discriminatory about trans-identified people". Which goes to show how little an earnest critic knows of the trans community to whom any doubts as to the eligibility of a male to claim womanhood or vice versa is impermissibly violent.

 "To frame my speech, which advocates explicitly for women's rights, as well as for free speech, democracy, and the importance of public debate about policy and legislation impacting us all, as 'transphobic', dangerous, or 'discriminatory', is absolutely inaccurate." Innocently naive; the temper of the times mitigates against such dangerous thought as opposite opinions and reasonable debate, much less the airing of any opinions contradicting the 'settled question' of the authenticity of gender fluidity.

In theory universities and libraries have been bastions of free speech, arenas of intelligent discussion where students are exposed to all aspects by which any given topic may be viewed, questioned and determined on the basis of cerebral functioning and an open mind. Back to the B.C. Human Rights Code; it entertains discriminatory publication issues, not free and open debates. And nor have either Meghan Murphy, feminist activist, nor Jenn Smith, anti Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity activist been found guilty by law of "hate speech". 

At an earlier event where Meghan Murphy rented a room at the Vancouver Public Library, Vancouver Pride objected as well at that time. In response, VPL chief librarian Christina de Castell issued a statement to the effect that the library is "not endorsing, or hosting this event" and that it has "zero tolerance for discrimination and does not agree with the views of the Feminist Current" founded by Ms. Murphy. The library permitted the event to proceed in reflection of its "commitment to free speech and intellectual freedom".

"As such, we will not refuse to rent to an individual or organization simply because they are discussing controversial topics or views, even those we find offensive."
"We seek to be a welcoming place for all, and actively find ways to support the trans, gender variant and two-spirit communities."

The Vancouver Public Library's central branch has held LGBT events, such as this Pride display in 2013.

   Photo:  Charlie Smith

Social Platforms Manipulating the Social Contract

"Because this is a trans individual they are untouchable ... they are allowed to mock and taunt me about my biology, they can say whatever crude things they want. But when it comes to me wanting to take a shot back at that person and wanting to stand up for myself -- or for my womanhood so to speak -- I am permanently kicked off."
"The private corporation [Twitter] is allowed to censor speech, sure, but I think it's a matter of looking at what they are censoring."
"There's always these people who celebrate when someone is banned from a social media platform. Your instincts should not be to celebrate when someone you don't like is vaporized, because now  you're not challenging your own ideas, you're not facing any opposition, it just turns into an echo chamber."
Lindsay Shepherd, free speech activist

When Lindsay Shepherd was still part of the student body at Wilfred Laurier University, she was also a teaching assistant. She had been inspired, as a free-speech activist, to admire the resistance of University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson who had posted a number of YouTube videos arguing among other things the absurdity of a legislated set of pronouns to be used when addressing the lesbian and transgender population. During one of her lectures she had played a video of a TVO interview on a popular show, The Agenda interviewing Dr. Peterson.

This interview was post-reaction to adding gender identity to the Canadian Human Rights Act. At the height of the controversy two years ago, Dr. Peterson explained his aversion as a psychologist to political correctness in the issue of transgender and LGBTQ2 rights: non-gendered pronouns — especially ones that have been created like “ze” and “zir” — which he said "compel the use of a particular kind of ideological language ... For me, personally, that’s the sticking point. I think that’s dangerous language. I don’t trust the people who formulated it. And I’m not going to be their mouthpiece because I know what they’re like."

Lindsey Shepherd, subsequent to airing the video of the interview with Dr. Peterson, was called to a disciplinary meeting with three of the university's top administrators who belittled her, intimidated her and accused her of being 'transphobic' in introducing a class of first-year undergrads to Dr. Peterson's position as a way to pique their interest in examining issues from a total perspective. She had the presence of mind to record the entire event with her supervisor and two other faculty administrators and when she made it public a storm of controversy enveloped her just as it had Dr. Peterson.

People gathering for a rally in support of Lindsay Shepherd on the campus of Wilfrid Laurier University, November 24, 2017.  Photo: Cole Burston

She has made headlines again, two years later, as a free-speech advocate and activist for having been permanently banned from Twitter this week which has censored her sympathies and expressions in a dispute between herself and a transgender woman, Jessica Yaniv. Ms. Yaniv, who also considers him/herself an activist on the opposite spectrum to Lindsay Shepherd had rudely disparaged Lindsay who responded to a nasty provocation. The great minds at Twitter adjudicating the issue exiled Lindsay but not the transgendered person whose defamatory, disgusting comments warranted discipline.

"I heard @realDonaldTrump is building a wall inside of your uterus aka your 'reproductive abnormality' hopefully the wall works as intended", tweeted Yaniv, and Shepherd responded: "Of course, he thinks reproductive issues are something to be mocked. This is how men who don't have functional romantic relationships speak. But ... I guess that's kinda what you are!", she responded. "At least I have a uterus, you fat ugly man."

And it is this exchange, with the emphasis on the response, not the provocation, that motivated Twitter to ban Lindsay Shepherd from their platform. This kind of action by Twitter in response to opinions and sentiments posted by platform users that Twitter hierarchy considers on the right spectrum of the political and social arena, is all too common and increasingly dramatically emphasized by actions to eliminate the presence of those they consider to be 'right-wing'.

Yaniv describes herself on Twitter as an LGBTQ2SIA and human rights activist, and it was not evidently seen by the platform seen as necessarily proportional to banish the transgender 'activist', yet imperative that the 'right-wing' activist be neutralized. And nor is Lindsay Shepherd the only Twitter user that Yaniv has been instrumental in having banned from Twitter. Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy's account suffered a similar fate when she tweeted comments such as "men aren't women".

Jessica Yaniv‏ @trustednerd Jun 16

One proud lesbian. I'll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter

Pronoun Sensitive Authoritarianism

"Because the logic underlying the arguments is that ... biological sex, gender identity and gender expression vary independently [happens to be] absolutely contradicted by the data. It has become unmoored from the underlying reality [representing] all interpretation."
"Well, if it's all interpretation it's not distinguishable from fashion."
"I started to understand the role that ideology played in these underlying horrors of the 20th century and that put me deep into the study of the psychology of religion and that's really what happened."
"I've had a number of clients who have been bullied into states of mental uncertainty by their politically correct peers."
University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, psychologist, author, intellectual, iconoclast

Jordan Peterson, a University of Toronto professor who refuses to use gender neutral pronouns, participates in a heated discussion with some students at the university's downtown campus.  (Eduardo Lima / METRO NEWS)

Professor Peterson has no love of pretension and demandingly entitled social blackmail engaged in by gender-confused, alt-gender and all other individuals who refuse to conform to their biologically determined sex, pouting and blaming general society for their lack of acceptance as "normal but different", a group that includes so many alternates to the binary relationships of nature-conventional male and female, that he has risked his professional standing by taking a deliberate stand to express his denial and frustration with the issues of political correctness in the tender matter of gender.

It is most certainly worth asking the question: when did social sanity fly out the door to become a mass psychosis genuflecting to the petulance and accusations coming out of the alt-gender community? The answer may very well be when society surrendered to guilt over never having in the past, taken the situation seriously and using the issue as a topic for light-hearted incredulity. And, of course, much, much worse in less polite and politic, diplomacy-absent portions of society. When, then, society opened the window to increasingly absurdly dysfunctional socially-gendered demands and took them seriously.

Sex and gender, in fact, are private matters. And as such have no loudly, glaringly visible place in the social arena. In the sense that what happens in the bedrooms of the nation should remain there, discreetly, behind locked doors. As in who, really, cares? Do your own thing. Enjoy it, take pleasure in it, keep it to yourselves, don't flaunt it, because no one is interested. Of course under the new, open and accepting mind-bending social aura, what was once viewed as an absurd circus is now viewed as a respected sideshow, and gay parades are vaunted and lauded as a symbol of society's accepting manner.

Where once people paid admission to enter circus sideshows, they now flock to downtown streets of towns and cities in the Western world to show their grovelling support for the garish display of rude and nasty costuming and behaviour that once was guaranteed to bring embarrassment and shame to the minds and hearts of ordinary people. Ordinary people have now become aficionados of coarse and offensive behaviour in public, chuckling with appreciation at the bizarre and the wretched display of sexual license gone frantically insane.

Professor Peterson alleges none of this; he is an academic, a diplomat though his detractors would deny that, who simply insists on making a distinction between the absurd and the acceptable. Language in particular matters to him very particularly, and when language is contorted unreasonably and made effectively meaningless on the assertively loud whims of a minority he finds it unacceptably offensive. He advocates for simple, intelligent and workable language to defy the chaos of reworking society, subordinating it to a juvenile whim, complicating human inter-communication.

"One of the things I've come to understand is that the central functional axiom of Western civilization is that language ... is the process that keeps chaos and order in balance ... and that when [language is] corrupted, we careen into chaos or pathological order." Not for him the efficacy of appeasing the demands of the LGBTQIA community or communities by surrendering to the dire necessity not to continue hurting their tender feelings by committing to their non-binary gender pronouns. "The people who made these words are possessed by ideology and not to be trusted", he claims.

"We're going to have 31 different classes of pronouns? No, we're not. It's just not possible. People can't do that. Our language doesn't allow for that; we can't remember that; what if we make a mistake?" In New York City, evidently 31 gender identities and expressions have now been formally recognized. From "bi-gendered" to "agender", "gender-gifted" to "genderbender", and how about "genderfluid"? To make light of these demands is to insult those who count upon the goodwill and weak spines of those unwilling to be identified as philosophically Philistine.

"Part of it, apart from the untenability, is that ... you actually don't have the right to demand that of someone. You know that every individual is surrounded by the mass of humanity. And the mass of humanity is to be categorized in the fastest and simplest manner possible because you can't do it any other way. We use 'he' and 'she', and we use 'they' when there's more than one person, and we do that for purposes of simplicity of interaction. And for you to come to say, 'You have to mark me out as singularly special in the manner that I require and you have to remember it, no, it's like, no, you can't ask that of me, because you're actually not singularly special."

Michael Peake/Postmedia/File     Professor Jordan Peterson claims that the University of Toronto is attempting to transform its human resources department into "a politically correct institution."

His colleagues at University of Toronto are scandalized. He received two warning letters, one from the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences which Dr. Peterson identifies as "an exemplar of Orwellian doublespeak", reminding him that the university is engaged in protecting the issue of gender neutrality, as gender identity and expression are now protected classes in the human rights code. The arts dean wrote of the university stance on free speech to be defended, and a paragraph later felt the need to impose a limit on free speech emanating from Dr. Peterson.

When Good People Grievously Err

"Most Canadians and Westerners are unaware of instructions drilled into the impressionable minds of Muslim boys at a very early age in schools by mullahs, or religious teachers. They are taught that idolatry or associating a partner with Allah (shirk) unbelief (kufr), and apostasy (ridda) are crimes against God deserving of death, and that it is obligatory on Muslims to execute this punishment. They are taught any rule of law apart from Sharia is sinful and illegitimate, and that it is obligatory on Muslims to establish Sharia rule wherever they can and persist in the effort until the whole world eventually submits."
"The result of such teaching, and the culture that perpetuates it, is the ideology of jihad that glorifies terrorism as the cult of martyrdom."
Salim Mansur, professor, Western University, London, Ontario

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot   Two Muslim women demonstrate against the proposed Quebec charter of values outside the legislature in Quebec City.

It was with a sigh of relief that Quebec elected a Liberal government and threw out the separatist Parti Quebecois and its agendas to destroy the unity of the Canadian confederation. A new man came on the scene, a reasonable man who believed in equality and in federation, a doctor by profession who would lead Quebec back into union with the other provinces and put a stop to the uneasy relationship his province has agitated toward for decades.

But now the Quebec government of Liberal Premier Philippe Couillard has brought forward new legislation that would stifle free speech. Bill 59 is a perverse bit of legislation, as inimical to free democratic values as Bill 101 has been in banishing English in the province. Bill 59 would make it illegal, through a proposal made real initiated by the Quebec Human Rights commission, to bring lawsuits against any who engage in "hate speech".

Hate speech is defined in this context as criticism of Islam. The Conference of Islamic Cooperation must be chortling with satisfaction, if they know of this new initiative in Quebec. Where the Parti Quebecois made strides to bring into law the illegality of wearing conspicuous religious symbols for civil servants serving the public, Quebec's Liberal party has gone to the opposite extreme. The Conference of Islamic Cooperation has been attempting for years to have the United Nations declare that criticism of Islam represents a criminal, human rights offence in its obvious "Islamophobia".

No other religion in the world would have this distinction of being universally protected against criticism. Coincidentally, no other religion in the world has roiled the international community with its calls to jihad and its spread of global terror. No other religion in the world has been responsible for the countless bloodthirsty deaths of its own, from Africa to South Asia to the Middle East. No other religion in the world is guilty of inciting its own faithful to flee the countries where sectarian, minority ethnic and tribal oppression and conflict makes migrants and refugees of their own.

Professor Mansur speaks on behalf of Muslims who have fled the oppression and repression and human rights violations common in Muslim majority countries for haven elsewhere, where democracy and equality rights benefit all equally under the law. Those Muslims who are appalled when the strictures of Islamist values and Islamist Sharia law have followed them and taunt them and once again imfringe on their lives.

Premier Couillard states that Muslim terrorism is a response to criticism of Islam. Believing that if criticism becomes unlawful then terrorism will cease to be a problem; jihadists will no longer have a reason to spread their brand of violence across the world. President of the Quebec Human Rights commission, Jacques Fremont, has stated publicly his intention to sue any who "write against ... the Islamic religion ... on a website or on a Facebook page." Effectively joining ranks with repressive countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Iran.


This alarms Professor Mansur, an outspoken critic of fundamentalist Islam. "As a Canadian, I know the values of freedom and democracy are indispensable for the world of Islam if it eventually makes the transition from closed to open society. These values, especially freedom of speech, have to be vigorously defended and taught to immigrants from Muslim countries to embrace as citizens of a liberal democracy."

"...In Bangladesh bloggers have been hacked to death for practising free speech. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, and across the Middle East freedom of speech and freedom of religion are repressed with lashings, crucifixions, imprisonments and beheadings. This is why Bill 59 is not merely a diminution of liberal democracy. It is worse It is a betrayal of those Muslim immigrants and refugees in Quebec who came seeking freedom and democracy. And it is an abject capitulation in appeasing those Muslims who cling to the values of a closed society and fear, like rulers of the OIC countries."

Getting On With It

"We were deluged by phone calls and messages from across the country, almost unanimously outraged by the cancellation or postponement. [screening of American Sniper]. Members of our faculty, staff, students and alumni, as well as members of our State's legislature, voiced their dismay with UMD's abridgement of this constitutional right."
"A fundamental commitment of any university is to the principle that ideas and opinions that any of us might oppose or find unwelcome or even offensive should be openly and vigorously discussed, not suppressed. [It] is also the responsibility of a university to nurture -- via education and outreach -- an ethos of civility, inclusion, and mutual respect."
Wallace D. Loh, president, University of Maryland

This April 6, 2012, photo, shows Chris Kyle, a former Navy SEAL and author of the book “American Sniper,” in Midlothian, Tex. (Paul Moseley/the Fort Worth Star-Telegram via AP)

The issue is a familiar one. Muslims protesting, attempting to block anything in the media that they interpret as being critical of Islam. Just as over a hundred American writers, members of PEN, felt it incumbent on their sense of political correctness to criticize the decision to honour Charlie Hebdo for its courageous presentation of what it construes as the method whereby it chooses to prick the violence behind Islam, in the face of dire threats, and just as Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad unleashed a collective swell of outraged violence world-wide from Muslims, the scheduled screening of a popular film was cancelled as a result of sanctimonious protests.

Sanctimonious, just as the popularity of hissing "Islamophobia" whenever reports in the news media focus on endemic, vicious violence emanating from dedicated Islamist jihadis wreaking misery and bloodbaths throughout the world, has Muslim student leaders labelling the biographical war drama focusing on Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL, in the hunt for al-Qaeda leaders, as being -- heavens-to-Betsy! -- stereotypical, offensive and violent. By evoking the image of a counter-offensive professional security group as offensively violent, inferring there is no reason to admire the courage and determination it takes to defend against bloody depredations by Islamist jihadis.

Whose major focus is, after all, protecting the human rights of all people, against the unappeasably violent hatred and searing dedication to annihilating all those who defy Islam. But since the focus is on the carnage mounted on the world stage by Medieval-era assassins who triumphantly cry out "Allahu Akbar!", as they bloodily assault the innocent, it sullies the reputation of Islam to bring attention to the obvious. In the process doing harm to the tender sensibilities and self-esteem of campus student Muslims.

American Sniper was set to screen in early May on the university campus by Student Entertainment Events, an independent student group on the campus of the University of Maryland. Until the Muslim Student Association brought SEE's attention to the fact that the MSA considers the film anti-Muslim. The response was swift and fully understanding of plaintive sensitivities; cancellation of the May screening with a notation that it would be screened at a later date, when a full panel debate could be arranged to follow the screening of the 'tainted' film.

When word was spread of the cancellation, the press picked it up, stressing the university's failure to respect the right of free expression. The controversy couldn't be ignored, and it wasn't. It couldn't because there were so many outraged protests that SEE had withdrawn the film for its original screening, reflexively surrendering to political correctness over the free right of expression. And the university's president responded by expressing "tremendous pride in the conduct of our students . . . MSA members were right to speak up for what they believe in. They deserve our admiration.


"I also applaud the student leaders of SEE for listening to the concerns of their fellow students Their decision to reschedule the screening so a constructive dialogue could be held marks the exercise of free speech and a sensitivity to campus values of respect and inclusion." And since two student campus groups, the College Republicans and the College Democrats felt a different solution was called for, arranging to rent a theatre for an American Sniper screening, with a panel discussion to follow, President Loh admired them too.



"I am proud of our College Republicans and College Democrats, working together, despite differences in philosophy and doctrine, is a laudable example for us all", he complimented through his all-inclusive, rose-coloured glasses. Except that differences in philosophy and doctrine have little to do with the universality in Western social life and culture that holds that freedom of speech and expression is an unabraded right that must be protected as a core value.

There are more than enough issues that not everyone agrees with, just as there are modes of entertainment whose expression is not to everyone's taste, and issues of celebratory admiration for U.S. Service members risking everything in the battle against terrorists, that can be engaged in and indulged in, or not, depending on one's perspective. Those valuing the dedication and courage of skilled professionals whose work it is to defend liberty and life, would enjoy the film.

Those who view it through the lens of a religion which has spawned the groups that viciously take life, and who refuse to recognize the connection, have the right not to view the film; they do not have the right to blockade it. By emphasizing hurt feelings and categorizing themselves as vulnerable, they have successfully manipulated the compassion of those who are sensitive to slights imposed on others, as opposed to those who impose death sentences on others.

Satirical Journalism

"Today, I think it is important to choose what we want.  It is out of the question that our colleagues died for nothing, that they be censored after their death, that we not continue to produce satirical journalism as we always have, or that we submit to those who make deals with crime and terrorism to silence us."
"If we start to accept that those who share the same country with us, who have the same citizenship, if we accept that they will not be ruled by the same things as us, but we will abandon them to their traditions ... it is the beginning of the end."
"I think it is a debate that is necessary today, including in Quebec, because free and democratic countries have always thought they were not subject to religion, but in reality, we are realizing today that it is important to adopt laws that protect our freedom. That is the issue."
"Zineb El-Rhazoui, journalist, Charlie Hebdo

Ryan Remiorz / THE CANADIAN PRESS    Zineb El-Rhazoui, a journalist with Charlie Hebdo, says all western nations must choose a side in the fight against religious fundamentalism. “When we find ourselves in such an emergency situation, we have to choose our camp. Are we for freedom or for something else?" she asked.

Any religious tradition, points out Ms. El-Rhazoui, that maintains a female "doesn't have the same rights, [that] it is shocking in her community if she wears that [the hijab], or if she says certain opinions, or if she drinks a glass or wine, or if she has a boyfriend" represents an affront to humanity and basic human rights. The Quebec discourse she briefly mentions was an attempt by the-then ruling provincial political party to remove any religious symbols from public view; that no individual employed by any government agency would be permitted to wear a religion-distinguishing symbol.

Visiting Quebec, invited by a pro-secularist group, the Collectif citoyen pour l'egalite et la laicite, she asked rhetorically: "Are we for freedom or for something else." She had missed the January 7 terrorist attacks that left 12 of her colleagues at Charlie Hebdo, two French police, and five other Parisians of Jewish extraction dead. She had been visiting her native country, Morocco at the time.

Muslims, she stated, must learn that satire spares no one, no movement, no ideology, no religion. They must learn to take criticism in their stride, no less than the bitterly wry humour of a caricature highlighting what Islam now represents in the minds of many who see Islamists citing their pious reverence of the Prophet Mohammad, using bombs to convince and persuade non-believing kuffars that Islam is the religion of peace and brotherhood.

In view of what she has experienced, in the company she has kept, viewing the crass hypocrisy of Muslims in repeating ad infinitum that Islam is a 'religion of peace' in the face of ongoing and repeated atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, Ms. El-Rhazoui finds herself in complete harmony with Quebec's proposed 'charter of values' barring public-sector workers like teachers, health-care workers, police, lawyers from wearing a Muslim head scarf or Jewish kippa.

The hijab, she pointed out from her perspective, is a symbol of the subjugation of women, and as such should be banned for wear by government employees. As for the "useful idiots" that abound in Western societies whose forgiving position on Islamist atrocities, citing presumed provocations on the part of the West as arguable reasons for inciting pay-back, their unintentional aid to the fundamentalists through their tolerant views are despicable.

That tolerance could lead to a threat to Western freedoms. "Civilization", she said, "will be finished". She pointed out with more than a hint of irony how it was that Charlie Hebdo struggled financially to continue its existence, even requesting of French President Francois Hollande, a subsidy to maintain itself. Now, she points out, millions of euros have been pouring in; assistance of a financial nature that bore too dear a price.

Canadian Freedom of Speech

The international community is aghast at the carnage that Islamists wreaked in Paris in the past several days. From the commando-style attack on the news offices of Charlie Hebdo, to the murders of several police officers, to the hostage-taking at the kosher supermarket, a total of some twenty innocent people were killed, one a Muslim police officer; journalists, cartoonists, innocent bystanders and of course in the end, the Islamist jihadis were themselves martyred as per their wishes.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was the result of the virulent offence that fundamentalist Islamists and not-so-fundamentalist Muslims alike take when they view their sacred symbols being mocked. They need not, in fact, be made objects of scorn to begin with, the very notion that one could sketch a likeness of Prophet Mohammed is enough to send Muslims into paroxysms of mindless rage and violence.

The second attack in Paris was by a collaborative pair of Muslims, colleagues of the pair of French-born Muslims of Algerian extraction who had conducted the atrocity at the news office, and their target was representative of Islamist hatred for Jews. Islamists are bidden through their Salafist fanaticism and their Wahhabist clerics to hate just about anything that isn't pure Islam, and anyone who doesn't worship as they do, including other Muslims.

It seems obvious enough that the most basic value held dear in Western democratic liberal societies is that of free speech, signifying the kind of liberty that is unknown in countries dominated by Islamic tyrannies. In the West free speech is held up as the banner under which democratic values are demonstrated leading to all the other freedoms we value as our cultural heritage and social contract guaranteeing our human rights.

Still, free speech goes only so far before we pull back and declare it to slip the forbidden boundary into hate speech. The trajectory from free speech to hate speech is not all that well defined; but we do recognize it when we hear or see it and to qualify as hate speech it has to be really hateful; not questioning but condemning in the most explicit and denigrating terms. We are so proud of our upholding of free speech that we use it as a symbol of all that makes us superior in our freedoms to those people living under oppressive tyrannies.

Eric Brazau was handed a one year jail term for denouncing the Koran on a Toronto subway   YouTube

Yet in Toronto, a man who is considered a social crank with an agenda, but perhaps is not, who publicly condemns Islam, and who took it upon himself to launch what he termed a 'social experiment' by enlisting the aid of two acquaintances to harangue people using the Toronto subway has been convicted of hate speech, and imprisoned. His intention, this man whose name is Eric Brazau, to provoke among subway passengers a debate about Islam.

Needless to say, among those peopling the subway station there were Muslims as well as non-Muslims, and a young Muslim student approached Mr. Brazau to protest that he had come to Canada to escape that kind of controversy; he "left my country to come to a peaceful place". The peaceful place that is Canada has been somewhat less peaceful with the entrance of Muslims on quite the populous scale, some of whom have intrigued to jihad, planning atrocities that were apprehended.

Which appears to be Mr. Brazau's point; he engaged with people in loud, argumentative conversations relating to how he perceived the Koran, Islam, and Muslims. Annoying subway passengers hugely, no doubt. He was charged, his experiment to provoke debate among riders come to an end. The Israeli colours and Israeli flag he and his friends were decked out in, while denouncing Islam and the Koran concluded by authorities.

Ontario Court Judge Gerald Lapkin convicted Mr. Brazau of breach of the peace, causing a disturbance and breaching probation on an earlier hate-mongering conviction. "You had a ticket to ride", said the justice, "Not a pass to harass". Sounds like the judge was a bit of a smart-ass himself, in fact. Amazingly, the judge handed down a total sentence of 20 months for the three convictions, leaving this man behind bars for a year since he had already served time in pre-trial custody.

So much for civil guarantees of freedom of expression. Social pests pay dearly for their transgressions within society, harassing subway riders. Particularly with the no-go subject of Islamism, because these are people, this demographic that we embrace, that are emphatically sensitive about being linked with the Islam that dominates the terrorist conversation at home and abroad.

 

Arab Atheist Blogger Reveals PA Rights Violations

Blogger arrested by PA for ten months over his religious views who finally fled for France speaks out over the abuse and ongoing fears.

By Ari Yashar

First Publish: 12/8/2014, 10:50 PM

PA Security Force beats protester

Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90

 

In a detailed example of the rampant human rights abuses committed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), atheist blogger Waleed Al Husseini detailed the ordeals he suffered for expressing his opinions online on Monday.

In an article entitled "What It's Like to Be an Atheist in Palestine" published on The Daily Beast, Al Husseini described how he spent ten months behind PA bars over his atheist blogging.

"I used to run a blog in Arabic called “Nour Alakl” and ran a satirical Facebook page under the pseudonym 'Allah.' But in October 2010, Palestinian security forces stormed into an Internet cafe and arrested me," wrote Al Husseini. "Until then, I had been under the impression that I had a right to freedom of speech and to the freedom of belief. But in jail, I was told that my online statements about religion and Islam were illegal."

The blogger went on to detail "I was beaten by prison guards who demanded to know who had made me write against Islam. In their minds, I could only say these things as the result of some plot, some conspiracy. The idea that I might simply want to express my independent thoughts was alien to them."

Al Husseini stated "the 10 months I spent in Palestinian prison were the worse of my life. I faced constant pressure to retract my statements. I was told they had removed my blog and that I must apologize for publishing it. Even once I was freed, I was told I should never again use the Internet, nor meet with the media."

Even after being released, Al Husseini reports suffering harassment by the PA Security Forces, being interrogated and detained without cause. He also noted that he received death threats.

"My views, however, cannot be changed by a prison sentence or by persecution. I still believe that Islam often stands in opposition to human rights and women’s rights," wrote Al Husseini, adding that the Koran demands death for non-believers. "Many Muslims may...interpret Islam in a more moderate way, but I cannot accept this religion myself. That is what my conscience tells me."

In analyzing his own arrest, Al Husseini remarked "whose fault was it that I was treated so unjustly? Islam is religion, but it is also a culture. Certainly some people simply cannot stand to live alongside someone who does not conform to their views."

Al Husseini decided to flee PA rule in the Judea and Samaria region, leaving for Jordan on a visa from the French embassy and from there moving to Paris where he is applying for asylum - six months later he is still waiting for resolution.

"I am now effectively in exile. I am living alone in a foreign city, cut off from friends and family, all because of my words," wrote Al Husseini. "I still do not feel safe. If I cannot stay here, and if I am not protected, then there’s a chance the Palestinian Authority will arrest me again. ...Sadly, laws throughout the Middle East - from North Africa to the Gulf - limit the rights of religious minorities and non-believers."

In this context of Middle Eastern repression, it is worth noting that Israel's laws do ensure freedoms of expression and belief for all minorities, despite the false accusations to the contrary that are often thrown against the Jewish state.

In conclusion, the blogger wrote "the international community should do more to protect the plight of these people. There are many of us who need to talk and be reached out to, even if we use fake Facebook accounts for our safety. We must express our thoughts and ourselves. We simply must be allowed this basic freedom."

Tolerating the Intolerant

"If Muslim immigrants lagged so far behind even other immigrant groups, then wasn't it possible that one of the reasons could be Islam? Islam influences every aspect of believers' lives. Women are denied their social and economic rights in the name of Islam, and ignorant women bring up ignorant children. Sons brought up watching their mother being beaten will use violence. Why was it racist to ask this question? Why was it antiracist to indulge people's attachment to their old ideas and perpetuate this misery? The passive, Insh'Allah attitude so prevalent in Islam -- "if Allah wills it" -- couldn't this also be said to affect people's energy and their will to change and improve the world? If you believe that Allah predestines all, and life on earth is simply a waiting room for the Hereafter, does that belief have no links to the fatalism that so often reinforces poverty?"
"The Dutch government registered the number of drug-related killings and traffic accidents every year, but not the number of honor killings, because no Dutch official wanted to recognize that this kind of murder happened on a regular basis."
"Even Amnesty International didn't keep statistics on how many women around the world were victims of honor killings. They could tell you how many men were imprisoned and tortured, but they couldn't keep tabs on the number of women flogged in public for fornication, or executed for adultery. That wasn't their subject."
"When I approached Theo [van Gogh] to help me make Submission, I had three messages to get across. First, men, and even women, may look up and speak to Allah: it is possible for believers to have a dialogue with God and look closely at Him. Second, the rigid interpretation of the Quran in Islam today causes intolerable misery for women. Through globalization, more and more people who hold these ideas have traveled to Europe with the women they own and brutalize, and it is no longer possible for Europeans and other Westerners to pretend that severe violations of human rights occur only far away. The third message is the film's final phrase: "I may no longer submit". It is possible to free oneself -- to adapt one's faith, to examine it critically, and to think about the degree to which that faith is itself at the root of oppression."
"I am told that Submission is too aggressive a film. Its criticism of Islam is apparently too painful for Muslims to bear. Tell me, how much more painful is it to be these women, trapped in that cage?"
Excerpted from Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali

In this Monday, Feb. 5, 2007 photo, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, writer of the film "Submission," which criticized the treatment of women in traditional Islam and led to the murder of Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh, talks to a reporter in New York. Brandeis University in Massachusetts is taking heat from some of its own about plans to give an honorary degree to Ali, who has made comments critical of Islam. Photo: Shiho Fukada, AP 

"[Ms. Ali is a] compelling public figure and advocate for women's rights. That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values."
Brandeis University, Massachusetts, statement of explanation

"What was initially intended as an honour has now devolved into a moment of shaming. [What is] deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles. I can only wish the Class of 2014 the best of luck -- and hope that they will go forth to be better advocates for free expression and free thought than their alma mater."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, women's rights advocate

Ms. Ali, well recognized internationally for her strenuous attempts to inform the world of Islam's excesses, its inner-directed violence against women, and its outer-directed violence against non-Muslims, has been seen as a warning beacon, her quiet, firm voice that of someone who has been exposed to all that it means to be Muslim, and found it sadly wanting. She claimed in a 2007 interview that Islam requires "defeat" in all its forms.

"I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars." Islam, she stresses, is not the religion that the West desperately tries to be open-minded and 'fair' in judging, preferring to believe that "Islam is peace and tolerance", to what their ears and their eyes inform them on a daily basis, through the jihad waged against the faithful of Islam by other Muslims, and through the jihad terrorizing the West through its threats and violent attacks.

Brandeis University had invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak at the university's May 18 commencement, and at that time to receive an honorary degree in social justice. A strange thing happened on the way to that forum, the university administration now states it was "not aware" of Ms. Ali's "controversial" campaign to inform the world of Islam's true face. It was no longer prepared to award her an honorary degree. How inexpressibly sad. More, how disgustingly outrageous.

How is it even remotely possible that the bright lights comprising the academic community at Brandeis might have been innocently unaware of her ten-year, hugely acclaimed campaign for women's rights, and the mission she has set herself to ensure that Islam is truly understood for what it represents? It is, of course, not possible. It is, however, more than possible that pressure from within succeeded in persuading the university to backtrack.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced to flee Amsterdam and her position as a member of the Dutch Parliament when Theo van Gogh was butchered by an Islamist fundamentalist and she became the next target for vengeful Muslims worshipping the religion of peace and tolerance. She now resides in the U.S. and has done so for the past six years, where she founded the AHA Foundation, striving to combat female genital mutilation, honour killings and sharia law victimizing women.

"There is no moderate Islam", she has stated. "There are Muslims who are passive, who don't all follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it." It is a message that Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch also delivers, and it seems rather unlikely that Brandeis University will anytime soon honour him with an invitation to address the university, capping it off with an honorary degree in Islamic studies, though he would qualify.

Over 85 of the 350 Brandeis faculty members signed a letter asking the university to remove Ms. Ali from the list of honorary degree recipients. An online petition created by Brandeis students days ago has been supported by over six thousand signatures. "We see this decision as a personal attack on Brandeis' Muslim students, and as minorities at a predominately white, Jewish university, many of us feel isolated and unwelcomed", the university's student newspaper editorialized in a statement by the Brandeis Muslim Students Association.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the U.S.'s largest Muslim advocacy group, also had their say: "It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honour someone with such openly hateful views", stated spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. Of course when it comes to organizing university student groups to mobilize against Israel through Boycott and Sanctions actions, and slandering the country as an apartheid regime, slaughtering Palestinian children, CAIR is up there front and centre.

They have no scruples about advancing the agenda of Islamist political ideology, quite comfortable with the Western penchant for guilt and scruples adhering to visions of fairness and the rule of accommodating oneself to the pluralist views of others through self-abnegating overtures of tolerance and accommodation, even when such obsequiousness results in self-harm.

Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali.