Nieuw

When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It

  • Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by?
  • Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim?
  • Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?

The Canadian government suffers from many things. Among them is bad timing.

On Thursday of last week, the Canadian Parliament voted through a blasphemy law specifically designed to protect Islam. As Al-Jazeera was happy to report on Friday, the previous day’s vote condemned “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” The non-binding motion that the Parliament passed also requested that a Parliamentary committee should launch a study to look at how to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia”. The motion passed by 201 votes to 91.

It is just as well for those 201 Canadian legislators that they were debating all this in their distinguished national Parliament rather than the mother of all Parliaments. For had these legislators been in the House of Commons in Westminster, their thoughts may have taken on a sharper focus.

For one day earlier, the British House of Commons lived through an example of rampant Islamism rather than “Islamophobia”. And although nobody in Westminster decided to turn into a crazy Muslim-hating bigot, they did manage to see what a hateful Muslim bigot could do when armed with the simple weapons of a knife and a motor vehicle.

The Canadian Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who introduced the motion in Canada, proclaimed that the introduction of a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Canada was needed because “We need to continue to build those bridges among Canadians, and this is just one way that we can do this.” Hours before she said that, one of Khalid’s co-religionists was using a bridge built more than a hundred and fifty years earlier for a very different purpose.

Khalid Masood of Birmingham chose to use an older bridge to drive at high speed into crowds of Londoners and tourists. On his rampage, he managed to injure people from 11 countries. He succeeded in killing Kurt Cochran, an American on holiday in London with his wife to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. He also killed Aysha Frade, a British national of Spanish and Cypriot descent who had been walking across Westminster Bridge to pick up her two young daughters from school. He also killed Leslie Rhodes, a 75-year old retired window-cleaner, described by a neighbour, who sat at his bedside in hospital as he died, as “the nicest man you ever met.”

After this carnage, so similar to the vehicle attacks in recent years in Germany, Israel and France, the 52-year old Khalid Masood ran at the Houses of Parliament and stabbed to death Police Constable Keith Palmer, 48. As all this unfolded, the Houses of Parliament in Westminster were put into lockdown. As with the Islamist attack on the Parliament building at Ottawa in 2014, the assailant got disturbingly close to the very centre of power in the land before being shot dead.

After deliberately driving a car into crowds of people in London last week, Khalid Masood crashed the vehicle into the fence surrounding Parliament, and stabbed a police officer to death. (Image source: Sky News video screenshot)

So, we come to the central problem of what the Canadian Parliament did at the same time that the British Parliament was being assaulted. What are we allowed to say about this? Or at least what would we be allowed to say in Canada?…

readmore>>
gatestoneinstitute
Also published on Zeepertje.com

Doe mee met 7.703 andere volgers

De redactie van deze site modereert niet de reacties op voorhand, opdat u openlijk en direct met elkaar kunt discussiëren. U bent zelf verantwoordelijk voor wat u schrijft in het reactieveld. Het recht om de wet te overtreden, het oproepen tot moord, doodsverwensingen en dergelijke, is echter voorbehouden aan de redactie. Als we dan toch voor de rechter moeten verschijnen, staan we daar liever zelf dan dat we gedwongen worden uw e-mail-adres en IP-nummer af te geven onder bedreiging van overheidsgeweld. Dus houd je een beetje in of wees creatief.

About Zeepertje (1301 Articles)
When you're scared of jumping, you'll never get anywhere... I'm a Kafir, a crusader against the most evil ideology islam. I have in depth knowledge and that's the reason I resist and reject islam, I will bash and smash it, in every possible way at every possible moment to every possible person. I gather and therefore expose all news on islam or islam-related news on the 2017 initiated site ZEEPERTJE.COM Please join and feel free to react. Fight islam for it's the evil of our time, evil trying to dominate and kill democracy, kill all freedom of speech and freedom of religion... Islam means annihilation of all that is non-islamic, just always remember this!

1 Comment on When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It

  1. polrderboy // maart 27, 2017 om 19:07 //

    Moslimbroeder Erdogan vandaag:
    “Europa ervaart een onwetendheid die doet denken aan de pre islamitische periode.”
    http://aa.com.tr/en/politics/daesh-ypg-feto-hurt-muslims-most-says-erdogan/780764

    Logisch dat het parlement in Canada de islamitische verlichting en haar sharia met die islamofobie wet poogt te beschermen tegen de massa’s achterlijke holbewoners, haar Canadese burgers.

    Liked by 1 persoon

Reageer ook

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s

%d bloggers liken dit: