How I Became a Banned Author in Canada

Islamic racism and bigotry, in the very heart of the West.

The following article was supplied to Scragged by Howard Rotberg about a startling series of events that changed his life.  He has asked us to publish it.

A quiet Sunday afternoon at the Chapters store in Waterloo, Ontario. (Chapters is Canada's monopoly book retailer with 73% of the retail book market - ed)  A nice, relaxed informal lecture to a small group about The Second Catastrophe, my new novel.

I had just started talking about why I had written the book - about how, after the failure of the Oslo process, and Arafat's rejection of Barak's generous offer for a two-state solution at Camp David II, the Palestinians had started the Second Intifada. I mentioned how disappointed a lot of us were to see that Arafat apparently did not want a state alongside Israel, but one in place of Israel.

That was a mistake.

I now realize that I was in Canada, where only politically correct speech is protected.

I was in Canada, the land of cultural relativism, where the most important value is tolerance. Criticizing any other country or culture is a breach of the now distorted policy of multiculturalism. Now, I would pay the price.

If I had only known how big a price.

A young man came in and sat in the second row. He picked up a copy of my book from the table, took a perfunctory look at it, and started interrupting me.

"You think all Muslims are terrorists," he asserted.

"I do not," I replied, as categorically as possible.

"Well, that's what your book says," he retorted.

It looked to me as if he had just taken a few glances at it, so I replied: "Have you read my book?" He paused and then said, "Part."

I decided not to take him seriously and I continued. Another mistake.

Suddenly a man appeared, standing off to my left, and started into a rant. It was something about how the Americans and the Israelis are the real terrorists, and that democracy is really fascist. He was scary.

University of Waterloo Professor Dennis Stoutenburg was there and tried to calm the man.

"Sir, this is a lecture. Why don't you sit down and listen?"

Another mistake.

The first man identified himself as a Palestinian, and the second as a Kurdish Iraqi.

Then they took turns talking - and talking. It was apparent that they were not going to let me speak any more. They had decided to take over my lecture.

The Palestinian was shouting something about how the Israelis kill five Palestinians a day. Some audience members had heard enough.

"Be quiet and let the author continue with his lecture; he has the right to give his lecture," said one audience member.

"He has no right to lecture if he is going to say things in support of Israel," said the Palestinian. His words cut me like a knife.

Then the Iraqi started in. Again someone pleaded with him to be quiet so I could lecture. Then came the words that still ring in my ears: "He's a f****** Jew."

Up to this point there had been no store employees sitting in on the lecture. A couple had earlier come by and stood at the periphery of the seats for a few minutes each. One of them, a young woman, was wearing a hajav, the head-covering worn by many Muslim women.

That was the end of the lecture. I said something to the effect that I would not be called a "f****** Jew" at my lecture. The store manager came over to me and told me not to swear. I told him that I was the one being sworn at; he said that it didn't matter. He gathered up the books on the table and escorted me to his office at the back.

"I want you to call the Police." I said.

"What for?" he replied.

"Because these totalitarians just stopped my right to lecture, and are swearing at me, and who knows what they will do next?" I said.

"I don't have the number," he claimed.

I couldn't believe this. "Try 911," I suggested.

Professor Stoutenburg and his wife Laura, who teaches English at Conestoga College, came by to see if I was all right. I wasn't. I was in a state of shock.

Stoutenburg said he had just finished talking to the store employee with the hajav. "She is a Palestinian," he added. "I think she knew the protestors."

Finally, the police officer indicated he was ready to talk to me and any witnesses. He had been interviewing the protestors outside.

"Do you know that one fellow stopped my lecture, and then called me a "f****** Jew," I said.

Apparently he didn't know, because he began to jot down the derogatory expression.

"I hope you are going to charge them," I said.

"Well, I have investigated, and the only thing I could really charge them with would be causing a disturbance, but I decided to let them go, with a warning not to come back to this store."

I was incredulous. He had let them go before talking to me and some of the witnesses, like the Stoutenburgs.

"Do you mean that it's not a crime to use Gestapo tactics to break up a lecture and tell the author that he is a "f****** Jew?" I said.

The constable looked as if he would rather be somewhere else. "Well, we get 2 or 3 racial slurs a day in Kitchener-Waterloo; I can't charge everybody," he replied.

"But don't you see a difference between a racial slur used in a dispute over a traffic accident, and one used to silence an author at a lecture he was invited to give by Chapters?"

"I can't give you any special treatment because you are an author," he said with what sounded a lot like sarcasm.

I was in shock. I said to him, "Don't you understand what it is like for a Jewish author whose grandparents were gassed in Auschwitz to be called a 'f****** Jew' at a lecture?"

He looked at me blankly.

Then I understood. I said, "You don't know what Auschwitz was, right?" He didn't say anything.

I asked him to escort me to my car, for my safety. When we got outside, there was a man milling around, who looked to me like he might be of Middle Eastern background. The officer just climbed into his cruiser.

"Aren't you going to escort me to my car?" I asked.

He started his car. "I can see what happens from over here," he replied.

That evening Mantua Books, my publisher, issued a press release saying they regretted to announce the cancellation of my speaking engagements at Chapters/Indigo, including the previously advertised events at the Ancaster store on May 30 and the Ottawa store on June 13.

The release went on to say that Mantua was NOT giving in to inflammatory tactics, but were trying to protect the author from physical harm and not inconvenience and annoy Chapters/Indigo and its customers when it came to heckling and racial/religious slurs.

In the meantime, Mantua Books said they would endeavour to find more secure forums for me to lecture, where they can provide the necessary level of security for my physical safety, and where they can provide personnel who can eject those whose purpose is not to engage in free and open debate but to silence those with whom they disagree.

Another mistake. My publisher had not precleared the wording of the press release with the director of public relations at Chapters. Sorya Ingrid Gaulin, the PR director, went ballistic.

She called me and said it was improper for my publisher to issue a media release before going over it with her. I said that it was up to my publisher, and that I didn't think my publisher's release had been in any way critical of Chapters.

Then she lowered the boom: "I heard you said some things at the lecture just as objectionable as what was said to you. We are going to issue our own press release, and you may not be happy with what it says."

"What are you alleging that I said?" I was shocked, to say the least.

"Racist things."

"What do you mean, exactly?" I asked.

"I heard that you said that all Muslims are terrorists!"

I was sinking deeper into my state of shock. All I could say was: "I definitely did not say that. If you put out a press release with such nonsense, I will sue to protect my reputation." I hung up.

She issued her press release all right. Suddenly, I was in an Orwellian world where the victim of racism was now the racist. The press release apologized for any "inappropriate behaviour and. racist comments both from the guest author and some of the attendees at this particular event."

Two months have passed. I have written to or spoken with most of the civil rights organizations in Canada, most of the Jewish organizations in Canada, and the organizations that serve the interests of authors. Some ignore my letters, some call back with messages of empathy, some even say they are investigating. But to date, not one organization has published a statement, in a newsletter, in a press release, or by verbal statement to the media, expressing dismay at what has happened to me, at what has happened to freedom of expression, at what has happened to someone who dares support Israel, at what has happened or not happened in the police investigation.

I have had a lot of support from individuals on Internet sites. I have had no official support from any organizations to date, Jewish or non-Jewish, except from PenCanada (which says it wrote a letter requesting Chapters to reschedule the lecture - which letter Chapters President Heather Reisman denies receiving) and the Canadian Coalition for Democracies. Three newspapers saw fit to report the incident. One (the Kitchener-Waterloo Record) portrayed it as a "scrap" with competing claims of who was the racist. Until this article in the Jewish Tribune, only one newspaper (the Globe and Mail) has thus far carried an opinion piece (by Professor Emeritus Herbert Lefcourt) warning that allowing this to happen unchallenged is conducive to the "slippery slope" where it is much easier for the next incident to happen.

Professor Lefcourt was right. In June, someone wrote in to the Public Forum message board of the website for the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, a message board where quite a few people had posted messages of concern over the incident. This person used the name of a reputable Jewish family in Waterloo, and in broken English, wrote that he/she was in attendance at my "reading" (if he had been there, he would have known it was a lecture not a reading), that he was Jewish, and that I am a "hypocritical evil little bigot," a "rascist (sic) scum" and then the clincher; he claims that in response to my being sworn at, I had said, "This just proves that all Arabs and Muslims deserve to die."

The Canadian Coalition for Democracies, to its credit, is undertaking a court application to require Rogers, the Internet provider for the computer from which this message was sent, to disclose the name of its customer.

The awful irony for me is that my book, The Second Catastrophe, is in part about a Canadian professor who writes a book about Israel, and then gets in trouble after giving a lecture at his university. Most of the lecture is completely unassailable, but in one small portion he gets a little loose with his wording. The lecture takes place in early 2002, the peak of the suicide bombings. He asks what are Israel's options when faced with these almost daily attacks. I have him state: "(One) suggestion is to create a series of impenetrable fences and buffer zones, essentially to keep the animals in the zoo."

Of course, the next day, the novels Anti-Israel student newspaper runs a big headline: "Zionist professor calls Palestinians (animals in the zoo)."

The poor professor pays dearly for his slightly inappropriate wording. He is charged with offences against the university's Human Rights Code, which makes it an offence to demonstrate bias against an ethnic, religious or national group, and an offence to make statements that would reasonably cause some students to think a professor is biased against them.

However, as much as I think about what I have said, or what I have written, I can never find the words that are inappropriate or find any words that are racist. Maybe I should not have repeated the 'f' word, even to admonish someone else for using it. But a racist I am not.

I have met my Waterloo, and I don't like it.

Postscript

After this article was written, we continued with the Court Application.  I was aided by Alastair Gordon of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, who was quite upset that his organization's internet public message forum should be used for the posting of the message with the terrible allegation against me.

The family name used by the person making the post was the name of a reputable Jewish family in Waterloo, who were well known to me.  In fact the gentleman is the son of Dutch Jewish Holocaust survivors.  I asked him if he knew of anyone in his family with the first name given on the posting.  His response was interesting.  He was sure that there is no such person in North America with that name.  He said that since his family had been mostly wiped out in the Holocaust, he had made it a hobby to look for other people with his family name, in the hope of someday finding some relatives.  With the internet of course it is far easier to make these searches than it used to be.  He told me with some confidence that there could not be a person with that name in Canada, and that the name was probably made up.

Thanks to the footprints that everyone unwittingly leaves in cyberspace, and the pro bono legal services generously provided by Toronto law firm Weir Foulds LLP, the Court Order referred to above was successfully obtained.

What we found out when Rogers made disclosure was truly fascinating, and enlightening.  At the same time it was truly frightening.  The Internet subscriber from whose computer the posting originated was identified as Ms. Howaida Wahdan of Waterloo at an address listed in directory assistance under the name of Mr. Elsayed Khedr.  The address was a few doors away from the Jewish family whose name appeared on the posting!

The Jewish family whose name was "stolen" for purposes of the nefarious internet posting were well acquainted with the Wahdan/Khedr family.  In fact, up until recently, their children had played together! For some reason, the Jewish family told me, the Khedr child had stopped coming around to their house, just about the time of the posting!

The Jewish family told me that Ms. Wahdan is the wife of Elsayed Khedr, that they are well-to-do Palestinians, and that Mr. Khedr is an Engineer, working often in Egypt, while Ms. Wahdan looks after the children in Canada.

In today's world, there are some Islamists who will riot and kill over a political cartoon.  I am not pleased that Chapters has falsely accused me in print of making anti-Muslim "racist" comments.  I am even more upset when it is alleged in print that I said "all Muslims and Arabs must die".  This could be dangerous to my life.

Does anybody care about all the lying going on?  Does anybody care about the danger to Canadian authors?

In the meantime, Mantua Books brought a Court Action in Small Claims Court claiming damages as a result of Chapters' actions and words, based on their employees actions and words, which hurt their author's credibility and damaged Mantua financially.

Something very odd happened during the course of the litigation.  Chapters/Indigo had returned all of my books shortly after I demanded a retraction from them for calling me a "racist".  They had been carrying 7 copies per store, and some stores in the bigger cities had already sold out their allotment.  Yet the vice-president who wrote Mantua Books said they were returning ALL of the books due to "slow sales".  This was a bit odd, because normally they would first reduce their inventory down to 1 or 2 from 7, or would carry it only in the stores where it was selling well.  The really odd thing that happened was that during the Israel-Hezbollah War, the flagship Indigo store at Bay and Bloor in Toronto suddenly ordered 30 copies from the publisher, perhaps not knowing about the "ban" on the book.  Usually orders from Chapters/Indigo are done centrally, but it seems individual stores have the ability to make their own orders.  The publisher mentioned the order to the lawyer for Indigo, but did not hear anything right away, so went ahead and shipped the 30 copies.

These were not placed as part of a special display, but rather all placed back in the stacks of fiction indexed by author's last name.  Mantua then advertised in a newspaper ad that the book was available at that store.  But by the time purchaser's came to the store, someone at Indigo/Chapters found out about this order of the "banned book" and instructed someone at the store to remove all copies, so that when purchasers inquired, first store staff had no idea what happened to all the books, and then they were told to offer customers coupons if they wanted to buy a different book.

Anyway, later, after legal threats, Indigo put the books back on the shelves, but the original customers who were attracted by the ad, were not aware of that.  But regardless, of the 30 books, ordered, and without any further advertising, at least 25 were sold.  This was despite Chapters' website stating that the book was unavailable at any of their stores, which was of course, untrue.  Obviously there was a large market for the book, especially during that war.

As part of the law suit we finally got to see the written statements of Chapters' staff.  Here is the original 2004 statement of the part time employee at Chapters Book Store in Waterloo:


"I went to see the author signing fifteen minutes into it and when I got closer to the area, I heard voices that became louder and louder.  I saw two people in the audience, one calmly stating basic facts to the author, the other yelling out, 'What are you . a f***ing Jew?' only to have the author yell back, 'A f***ing Jew?  This only proves that Middle Eastern people are terrorists.'  From there the yelling progressed, eventually reaching a point where the managers asked the audience members to leave, and the author gave up and stepped into their office.

"For a person to come into my workplace and insult and judge me in such a manner without him knowing anything about me is absurd.  According to him, when walking down the street, I should be avoided at all times because my skin is darker and I wear a headscarf.  I am aware that the man in the audience should not have cursed at all given the atmosphere. Nonetheless, the author, as a professional and as a representative of what books the company holds should have controlled himself against saying such piercing words.  It was uncalled for, rude and worst of all it was racial discrimination.

"What frustrates me most about this whole scenario is the fact that both customers and employees alike had to witness something so hateful towards those of Middle Eastern descent.  At one of the most difficult times to be of a visible minority for Arab and Muslim people, it was completely unjust for him to generalize the way that he did.  I also noticed that he kept repeating the word 'they' and 'them' like we were some vicious robots that act, think and speak alike with one brain. Even if it was for a split second that someone looked at me and thought, 'So she's a terrorist?' that is one split second too much.  I have never in my life done anything to intentionally hurt anyone, and to be accused of being one that intentionally inflicts pain upon others is hurtful and untrue.  It seems as if my genetic makeup caused him to automatically make an unfair assumption.  And that is racism at its worst."


Note that the allegation made against me verbally at the beginning of all this was that I said that "all Muslims are terrorists", but by the time the part time employee had to reduce it to writing it was changed to "this only proves that all Middle Easterners are terrorists".  Of course, I did not say that, but even had I done so, a claim that all "Middle Easterners" are something or other would be not racist, but just plain stupid, since Middle Easterners include white Jews, brown Jews, black Jews, Coptic Christians, Armenian Orthodox Christians, Bahais, Druze and various Muslims.

Here is the bookstore clerk's retraction obtained just prior to the start of trial, this week.   I have agreed to only post it and not make further comments:

1. At the presentation given by Mr. Rotberg on Sunday, May 16, 2004, I observed two individuals arrive part way through his presentation and commence interrupting him, to which he responded.  The Iraqi Kurdish individual then called Mr. Rotberg a "f*****g Jew", which was completely inappropriate and very offensive.

2. Mr. Rotberg stated that he would not be called that slur and he repeated this slur several times himself, as if he could not believe it had been used.  I then heard him say something further, in response, concerning Middle Easterners and terrorism.

3. I cannot say with certainty that my written statement contained a completely verbatim transcription of Mr. Rotberg's comment, which he would have made in the heat of the moment.  I wrote down my belief and understanding of what I thought I heard him say.  He was understandably upset at the time and these comments all happened in a matter of a few seconds.  It is possible that I may have misunderstood what he intended to say.

4. Any dispute between Mr. Rotberg and myself as to the precise content and meaning of his words, and the beliefs they reflect, could easily be attributed to our respective life experiences and built-in biases, as people of Jewish and Palestinian backgrounds.  The events of that day are not evidence that either one of us is racist.  Well-intentioned people of different backgrounds occasionally mis-communicate.

5. In exchange for the Terms of Settlement dated August 27, 2008, between me and Mantua Books, I disclaim any and all legal rights against Mantua Books and Howard Rotberg that have arisen to date.


And so, by the time of this settlement, the allegation was further downgraded to the allegation that I said "something further, in response, concerning Middle Easterners and terrorism."

So, the monopoly book chain in Canada called me a racist, then banned all my books because I said "something" concerning Middle Easterners and terrorism in response to hecklers taking over my lecture with no protest by their employees and in response to being called a "f*****g Jew".

The actual Small Claims Court proceeding was a farce, because the rules of the Small Claims Court allow the defendant to file affidavits of people who do not have to appear in Court and be cross examined before the Court.  We were successful in collecting the money owed for the books sold (Indigo paid up after the Claim was started) but in Court the Judge would not hold Indigo responsible for the actions of its employee who stood by smiling as the lecture was taken over by Islamists.

While the Court had some adverse things to say about Indigo and we achieved payment of the amount owing to us, which Indigo had withheld for a year, incredibly blaming "computer problems" for non-payment, the Court rejected the most important matter of Indigo's liability in negligence for actions and non-actions of their employees.

Unfortunately, the Court absolved Indigo from anything that happened before the Manager came back to the lecture after hearing the commotion.  The Court said that "what occurred was a rapid escalation, a sudden conflagration which culminated within a matter of minutes".  It appears that we did not make our case that Indigo was negligent in allowing the take-over of an author lecture by extremists who announced, in the presence of at least one Indigo employee, that they would not allow the author to talk.   We did not make our case that this take-over of the lecture happened before the "rapid escalation", which, in the view of the Court, Indigo managers handled properly in their conduct to the guest author.

The result was that Indigo was held not to have breached a common law duty to protect its guest author from verbal assault and racist taunts.

While the Court found that the guest author "presented as an intelligent man with a passion for civic and community involvement", with "many commendable civic and community activities", the Court found that the guest author, in yelling out that he would not be called a "f*****g Jew" was as blameworthy as those who called him a "f*****g Jew" and stopped his right to lecture at a location where he had been invited to speak.   Perhaps it was a waste of time to sue the bookstore.   Of course, we wouldn't have bothered if the police would have agreed to charge the hecklers with the offense of causing a disturbance.

One of the things that bothered me most was that no civil rights organizations would honour my request to ask the police to reconsider their quick determination not to lay criminal charges for "causing a disturbance" (easier to prove than a charge of hate crime).  When I was quoted in the Canadian Jewish News bemoaning that fact, the director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, who I had known for years and had unsuccessfully asked for assistance, got angry.  He then in print said that he had no knowledge of what happened in the store, that the Congress was not an "investigative" organization (notwithstanding that I had offered him written and sworn affidavits from audience members, and most immorally of all, that he had "every confidence" in the Waterloo Police Force.

This was after I requested an investigation by a detective.  The detective assigned, a woman named Detective Dietrich, treating me with the utmost sarcasm and finally told me that I should stop bothering the police about the incident or she would find something to charge me with!

I no longer feel that I have freedom of expression in the country to which I have given so much.  I practiced law with a stellar record for 20 years, I participated in community and volunteer organizations, often in a leadership position, I donated money to charities, I wrote for a number of different newspapers and magazines, wrote four books, set up a publishing company for authors whose works were too politically incorrect for mainstream publishers, raised three children, and I am an award-winning developer of affordable housing for low income working people in converted heritage buildings in various cities in Southern Ontario, and lecture widely on the topic of affordable housing.  But when I think of myself as a Canadian citizen, all I can think about is how I am a "f*****g Jew".

This article was reprinted from a different site. Commentary may be added.  Read other Scragged.com articles by Guest Editorial or other articles on Foreign Affairs.
Reader Comments
We are all free, some are just more free than others.

If your race is below another race on the totem pole of public perception you are free to denigrate that 'better off' race. Its a sad world we live in.

Best luck to the author in the future, keep fighting, for all our sakes.
November 17, 2009 9:23 AM
Jews are scorned simply because they have succeeded at business, historically. People hate those that do well. It is sad but true.
November 17, 2009 9:41 AM
One cannot negotiate with thugs- is that not the Israeli credo throughout the years?
Hindsight is better than no sight, thus when confronted with insanity or intimidation, one must take off the gloves, mindful that the world is watching.
To Mr Rothberg- naiveté is not a virtue, and perhaps Canada's reputation as being polite is sullied by accusations- thus your story was not be believed at any rate, no matter the truth.
I am sorry for you.

November 17, 2009 10:06 AM
i have been burned by the canadian thought police also. you have several choices. the one i took was to move out.
November 17, 2009 10:47 AM
@Ben

It's not something so simple as "they have succeeded at business". The reason why the Jewish people are so reviled throughout history is because they are God's chosen people, selected out of His good grace and not because they were great in their own right.

Until the end of time, a sinful world will continue to find reasons to hate Jews and Christians not because they're historically successful but because they hate God and hate His children.

To the author, it is an incredible shame that you were a victim of the Canadian thought police and weren't really given a fair chance in the justice system for the wrongs that were perpetrated against you. It amazes me how the instigator is given little more than a slap on the wrist while the victim is berated and punished for being victimized. Come to America, we'll treat you better hopefully.
November 17, 2009 12:50 PM
Mr. Rotberg,

I am not surprised that the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the so-called human rights advocacy groups did not come to your aid. They have given up, in the name of appearing politically correct, and volunteered to be the dhimmi. They all refuse to stand up to provocation of any sort if it comes from an Islamic source.

It seems they are happy to be lead as lambs to the slaughter. For if we do not fight Islamist extremism, we encourage it and they become emboldened. Just look at what is happening in Europe. The authorities are paralyzed with paroxysms of fear when they try to consider how to handle the rise of extremism among the followers of Sharia. In the UK, parts of some cities have even been annexed by Pakistani Mulsim emigres, and declared no go zones for whites. Even the police services are wary of entering them.

I have no problem with any Muslim quietly practicing their faith, just as I would wish to be left to practice mine. I do, however, have a problem with the new face of Islam in the West. It is one of extremism, and uses what many now call lawfare to bludgeon us into conferring upon them special rights and privileges not enjoyed by the rest of us. The next step, as they see it is to impose Sharia. We MUST not allow this to go unchecked.

Oh, and I bet I know who invited that nice Kurd and nice Palestinian to your lecture. A certain hijab wearing, Palestinian employee comes to mind.

Good luck Sir, and God Bless.

Hagbard
November 17, 2009 12:59 PM
This is a really scary story. Thank you for posting this and telling us all what happened.
November 17, 2009 1:01 PM
The wheels of Political Islam were in motion from the moment you took the stage to talk about your book, and the Political Islamists used every dirty trick in the book to besmirch your name. Be proud in the end you defeated the Islamists, never give them the power to silence your voice. The next time they want to chant feffing Jew perhaps someone will stand up and confront the slimy cowards.
November 17, 2009 1:26 PM
It IS astounding that there were that many protesters at what amounts to a fairly small, fairly unheard of writer. Perhaps Pat Robertson was right when he said Islam isn't a religion, it's a political movement. Was Rotberg a victim of organized religion or politics?
November 17, 2009 1:44 PM
Unfreaking believable!

How can 3 muslim bigots, a politically correct chain of book stores & a dumb cop render laws concerning free speech, truth, honesty and integrity in this country mute.

Is this only happening in Canada? Not on your life. It's happening in all democratic western nations with an influx of muslim immigration.

November 17, 2009 2:51 PM
as mark steyn has so eloquently put it in america alone, islam is using our laws and our lefty cowards to promote their hate filled agenda.
we must unite or we will be destroyed without firing a shot.
November 17, 2009 5:42 PM
Mr. Rotberg, a terrible, terrible story! I don't know if you have read "The Soul of a Lion" by Alice von Hildebrand. It is about the life of her husband, Dietrich, who was a Catholic professor/theologian, critic of Hitler, in Germany during the NAZI era. Your story reminds me of an event described in the book. Almost the exact same thing happened to him during a lecture he tried to give at his university. If I remember correctly, a friendly policeman (if only you had that!)shielded him and escorted him out. I am not sure he was even allowed to begin his lecture- but that is not important. What is important is that you are exactly correct in your assessment of this as NAZI behavior. This was being done to critics of Hitler all over Germany at the time. I cannot believe that your policeman was ignorant of the slaughter that ensued! Von Hildebrand had to flee for his life and ended up in the USA. Like all of us whose parents came to North America fleeing tyranny, we are horrified to see it has followed us to our door steps.
November 17, 2009 7:04 PM
Thanks so much for the supportive comments. Just to let you know, I have not stopped writing. My new book, TOLERism: The Ideology Revealed (Mantua Books) is being launched in Toronto this Sunday. I also have a website (www.howardrotberg.ca) and a blog, http://secondgenerationradical.blogmatrix.com/
If Chapters won't sell my books, other stores will and you can get them from Amazon.com and online from the publisher at mantua2003@hotmail.com
But I no longer feel quite at home in Canada, which is sad. I am a lawyer and a developer of affordable housing for low income working people, as well as a writer, but all that I have done for the community has been washed away by the Canadian "tolerance" for those who hate our way of life and our freedoms.
November 17, 2009 8:17 PM
As the colonization of this Country continues we pay legally Jizra to become their slaves. While the drug multiculturalism make way for the toxin Political correctness. Suicide by cultural stupidity. Where it as a badge of honor Mr. Rotberg. Your in the company of hero's. Well said by the way!

Danegeld

by Rudyard Kipling

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:

"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
November 17, 2009 9:16 PM
Mr. Rotberg:
Your narrative brings into sharp focus my own abortive experience with indigo/chapters and the Canadian Human Rights Buro. I'll try to paste in the finding of this august body at the end of this message.
I had filed a formal complaint under extant federal and provincial hate-literature provisions. My supporting evidence consisted of all the standard surah from mein koranf which we on our side by now know by heart - "jews/christians apes and pigs, kill the infidels, impose jizya etc., etc."
We live in a country the state broadcasting network of which presents no prime-time programming featuring judaism, catholocism, protestantism, hinduism, buddhism, ba'hai or humanism, but which trips over itself in its haste to rush into production the ever so warm, fuzzy and cuddly "little mosque on the prairie."
George Orwell would have loved this!
Best regards,
j.
Date Issued: February 20, 2009
File: 6387
Indexed as: Simpson v. Indigo Books, 2009 BCHRT 75
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
B E T W E E N:
John Simpson
COMPLAINANT
A N D:
Indigo Books & Music Inc., operating as Chapters
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR PRELIMINARY DECISION
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
Tribunal Member:
Barbara Humphreys
On his own behalf:
John Simpson
Counsel for the Respondent:
Kathleen Flynn
1. Introduction
[1] John Simpson purchased a copy of the Koran at Indigo Books & Music Inc., operating as Chapters ("Chapters"). Mr. Simpson filed a complaint under s. 7 of the Human Rights Code in which he alleged that certain verses of the Koran discriminate on the basis of religion.
[2] Section 7 reads:
(1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.
[3] After receiving the complaint, the Tribunal wrote the parties, stating that it was considering dismissing the complaint under s. 27(1)(d), which reads:
(1) A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or without a hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or panel determines that any of the following apply:
(d) proceeding with the complaint or that part of the complaint would not
(i) benefit the person, group or class alleged to have been discriminated against, or
(ii) further the purposes of this Code.
[4] The Tribunal gave the parties the opportunity to make submissions on the issue of whether proceeding with the complaint would further the purposes of the Code.
1
2. Decision
[5] For the following reasons, I have dismissed the complaint.
3. Reasons
[6] Section 3 states:
The purposes of this Code are as follows:
(a) to foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia;
(b) to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights;
(c) to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(d) to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(e) to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this Code.
[7] Any alleged discriminatory publication must be considered in the context of those purposes. The Koran, the central religious text of Islam, has existed for more than 1300 years. Further, Mr. Simpson does not state that the verses in question have had any adverse impact on him. He alleges an adverse impact on Christians and Jews, but he did not file a representative complaint on behalf of another person or a group or class of persons under s. 21(4).
[8] In these circumstances, proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code. I exercise my discretion to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(d)(ii).
Barbara Humphreys, Tribunal Member
2
November 18, 2009 5:00 AM
Mr Rotberg,
Please keep your hopes up.
People are realising that islam fights with all weapons available to it. You have come up against one of them: lawfare.
And one more thought came to mind: the low-cost housing that you make will mostly benefit middle-eastern immigrants to Canada. :(
November 18, 2009 6:16 AM
No hurting meant & with no bias towards any religion. We denounce holocaust as well as the genocide of Palestinians. We, in Islam believe in the Torah and the Bible and the latest edition of God's (ALLAH) book, namely the Quran. It preaches peace but Jihad against exploitation of even one single Muslim in any corner of the world. The same is being practiced even today in other religions also. 'Terrorism' has to be defined by the UNO (WITH NO VETO POWER WITH ANY MEMBER).This is need of the day. By now All 'Haves' do realize that one suicide bomber from 'Have Nots'(In shear frustration and helplessness) is as dangerous and effective as a multi Million $ missile built in the 'Haves' world for firing in the 'Have not's world. Mr.Rotberg will keep on tasting this hatred as long as injustice prevails. The world Conscious will have to address the root cause of the problem in its total perspective.Exploitation of all kinds must end for all to live in peace!
November 18, 2009 9:53 AM
I feel very sorry for your unpleasant experience. And, I know exactly how you felt at police indifference. It seems police across Ontario have their own agenda even though we, the taxpayers, employ them. Several years ago, at a local Chapters store, my wife was rudely shaken physically by an employee telling her the store was closing and it was time to leave. She complained to the Manager of the store that physically shaking a customer amounted to assault and, therefore, police ought to be called. Needless to say, the store did nothing. When we privately complained to the police, a so-called officer "investigated" and then asked my wife "what do you want us to do?". My wife said "you are the officer of the law, you can decide what to do". At this, the clown (that is what I can call him) became agitated and told my wife "OK, I will think about it and may be come back and charge you". I could not believe my ears when I heard this from my wife later! I wanted to sue the pants off of this "officer" but my wife was so frightened that she did not allow me to proceed further. This is the state of "law enforcement" in Ontario.
November 18, 2009 1:08 PM
So the police force and the entire staff management and customers of a major bookseller chain all conspired against you? Colour me skeptical.
November 18, 2009 4:58 PM
Readers might be interested to see what happened to Jared Taylor when he tried to give a lecture in Halifax, Canada, that the local yahoos considered politically incorrect. They certainly don't believe in freedom of speech north of the border.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz3BuqTQdMc
November 18, 2009 7:44 PM
BREAKING! APOSTATE NONIE DARWISH CANCELED AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND PRINCETON DUE TO MUSLIM PRESSURE

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

AS well, Robert Spencer was attacked. Seems America isn't free anymore as well.
Where losing folks.
November 18, 2009 9:47 PM
Hellow! Hellow! Hellow! Anybody there ? Who may interact to my comments of 6:16 AM.Why we don't brainstorm on the root causes?COME ON PLEASE!
November 19, 2009 11:43 AM
Ok, Mr. PURI, let's brainstorm on the root causes, by consulting the Koran.

Slay them [infidels] wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter... Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. - 2:191, 193

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123

Last but not least:

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

And what do we see? Sure enough, Muslims obeying the commands of Allah and Muhammed as given in the Koran.
November 19, 2009 12:11 PM
Before replying I may introduce myself to Mr. Patience that I am a 69 years old Hydro Power Engineer who is working as a freelance consultant in private Sector. I very humbly and honestly confess that I am neither a religious scholar nor a very good practicing Muslim (Allah may forgive me and give me strength to become a really good one).I had given comments on the basis of my general concept of Islam and cursory reading of translation of Quran (Not 'Koran').First time ever I am prompted by you Mr. Patience to do some research work. I have referred Holy Quran with English translation by Marmaduke Pickthall. It appears you have also referred the same. My reply to your remarks is as below:-
Have a heart Mr. Patience & quote the complete verses, rather than picking selective parts to mould translation of your own choice. Complete verse 2:191 is:-
And slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not against them at the Inviolable Place until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there), then slay them, such is the reward of disbelievers. With verse 2:191 kindly read 2:190, in which Allah says:-
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not the aggressors.
Complete translation of verse 2:193 is:-
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.
As regards 2:216, yes War fare (not fighting) is ordained for us, but when? Under which circumstances? Refer 2:190 please.
5:54 seems to be miss quoted. Reference is to those 'who becometh a renegade from his religion', not to Jews and Christians.
8:67 It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land .I have read and reread this Surah Al-Anfal, "The Spoils" i.e., property in war, which belongs to the theocratic State. The revelation of this Surah was just after the first battle of Badre. 'Made slaughter' means fought against kafirs (non believers); only when they impose war on Muslims. Beholding unbelievers as captives when they do not declare war (By trap or attacking a caravan) is not allowed in Islam.
I will earnestly request Mr. Patience to go through following verses from the same Surah.
8:61 And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it.
8:72 Honor the treaty (with Jews, Al-Hudeybiyeh or truce with Quresh?) even if comes in the way of support to oppressed Believers.
9:123 Surah 9 contains only 121 verses...
48:25 "Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another". It's not 'Muslims' but Allah who is harsh against the unbelievers, and merciful to believers; unbelievers earn Allah's anger (1:7)
Last but not the least
Quran says:-
2:4 and who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad PBUH) and that which was revealed before thee (Torah, Bible)
109:1 Say O disbelievers! :2 I worship not that which ye worship :3 Nor worship ye that which I worship :4 And I will not worship that which ye worship :5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship :6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
Mr. Patience after this submission, there won't be two opinions (unless there is a naked bias) that Islam does not preach bloodshed of Ibne Adam. It allows fight (Jihad) only for self defense, against aggression, oppression, unjustice, for rights, for freedom. ISLAM EQUATES UNDUE KILLING OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO KILLING OF HUMANITY.
December 25, 2009 3:14 PM
Thank you for your response, Mr. PURI, and I will try to answer you with both the respect and honesty you deserve.

First, I should point out that it really does not matter what I think the Koran means, because it's not my holy book - and I will stick with that spelling because it's the conventionally-used one in English, so as to avoid confusing other readers.

What matters is what you and other Muslims believe the Koran commands them to do. And you cannot argue with the clear fact that a vast number of Muslims, most particularly al Qaeda but also the leadership of Iraq, Hamas, and factions in Turkey, Indonesia, and elsewhere do interpret the Koran the same way as it looks to me. They view their religious duty as killing infidels, and have said so in word and deed countless times.

The world would be a far, far better place if all Muslims felt as you do, and it would be wonderful if you were able to convince your co-religionists that your view is the correct one. When so-called Christians use the Bible to justify murder, the rest of the Christians immediately repudiate them, and are the first to call for their punishment. You can see this in action in the United States, when occasionally an extremist murders an abortion doctor. Now, most devout Christians view abortion as murder - but killing an abortionist is also murder and not allowed. Rather than support the murderer, Christians help the police arrest him and lock him up.

When Muslims commit acts of terrorist and violence, in contrast, you don't find the vast majority of peaceful Muslims condemning them and helping the police catch them. Instead, they assist, hide, and make excuses for the murderers. That is not the sort of behavior that would make non-Muslims think that Islam is peaceful.

You also did say one deeply disturbing thing, and I quote:

"5:54 seems to be miss quoted. Reference is to those 'who becometh a renegade from his religion', not to Jews and Christians."

Let us assume that you are correct, and that the Koran is not commanding Muslims to kill Jews and Christians, but only ex-Muslim apostates. That is still not a doctrine that can be accepted in civilized society. A fundamental principle of religious liberty is that EACH INDIVIDUAL can choose for THEMSELVES what to believe, or not. It's perfectly acceptable to believe that God will punish unbelievers or apostates; the problem is believing that God commands you to do the punishing on his behalf, in this life.

The fact that you, as a generally peaceable Muslim, still appear to be citing the Koran as commanding the abuse of individuals who wish to leave Islam and believe something else, is an excellent example of why the religion of Islam as currently practiced is deeply problematic to world society.

Can you clarify your belief regarding conversion and evangelism by non-Islamic religions?
December 25, 2009 9:03 PM
Mr. Puri:
As a westernized applied science professional,you must necessarily be guided by the scientific method and hence prepared to acknowledge the weight of empirical evidence; please consider the following arguments:
Conceding, for purposes of this debate only, that "Christians and Jews are apes and pigs" in reality means something other than "Christians and Jews are apes and pigs," and that neither does "kill the infidels" really mean "kill the infidels," please respond to the following points:
1) There are 57 islamic states; not one of them is a democracy (and don't propose either Indonesia or Turkey, which, while nominally democratic, are nevertheless subservient to sharia in every particular, as evidenced by the wholesale oppression and slaughter of the kufr in both these countries.)
2) In each of these 57 fiefedoms which worship the great paedophile, women, if considered citizens at all, are second class citizens, and enjoy none of the freedom, equality and respect afforded them in the free world.
3) In our tolerant and democratic countries, you moslems are free to build your mosques and practice your (in my view) misguided faith without persecution or oppression, while Egyptian Copts, Iranian Ba'hai, Catholics, Protestants and Jews are slaughtered to the tune of 150,000 per year in countries guided by the religion ofpeace.
4)The overwhelming majority of islamic women has suffered genital mutilation at the hands of your disgusting religious practitioners. How can you possibly justify such a barbaric and misogynous practice? For the average hard working and responsible person, sexual gratification is virtually the only available and affordable source of intimacy, pleasure and true relaxation. How dare these warped mullahs and ayatolas deny this Divine gift to 50% of the world's population?
Charles Martel, we need you more than ever.
December 26, 2009 3:39 AM
There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
January 7, 2010 6:16 AM
As a Christian who has studied Islam for 20 years and evangelized to Muslims in Toronto for 10 years I have come to a few conclusions. First I would say that the deity that Muslims call god is not the God of Israel even though Muhammad said he was. Further, this so called prophet of Islam "Muhammad" is nothing more than a deceiver a liar and an Antichrist. This is not based on my personal thoughts but rather what the Holy Bible says in the New Testament about Muhammad and men like him.
Secondly, because of these beliefs, "my religious convictions", I have been spit at swore at and my life has been threatened by Muslims many times. But the God Israel is my salvation and my shield. I have seen the anger up close by what many would consider "moderate Muslims". This reaction is typical in any Islamic society when you do not agree with the teachings of Islam. The response is, for the better part from the Islamic community, one of severe aggressiveness and extreme hostility.
Finally I would like to add that if anyone would like to confirm this hostility one only need to check into the terrible persecution that is going on today against Christians in any and all Islamic societies around the world today. Many of the Islamic people, the Islamic government, the Islamic police, all play a part in the unfair treatment against Christians and all NON Muslims in the world today. WHY? Because these are the ways and teachings of Islam. If you say something bad against Islam, even if it is your religious convictions, you will be hunted down and tormented and possibly murdered or forced to leave your home. We have seen it time and time again.
I was arrested in Canada back in 1997 for hating Muslims and found guilty. I was then forced to serve in the Islamic society to do my community service in stead of prison. When I went to serve at a Mosque in Mississauga Ontario my supervisor told me that I would not be licking stamps or painting walls, Instaed I would be required to sit in a small room with Islamic teachers and would be taught about Islam. If of course I said anything bad about Islam, my supervisor said, or the prophet I would be sent back to prison. This is called indoctrination of Islam and it goes on all the time in Islamic societies around the world where the children are kidnapped from their parents and then forced to learn and memorize the Quran. But one does not expect to hear of such things in Canada. All this because Muslim students were being allowed to pray in a Toronto Public School during class time and Christians, Buddhists, Jews or any other religious belief was not allowed to or even to walk in the halls with any other religious book. Muslim students even were allowed to hand out English translations of the Quran in School any time and also could invite other students to miss class in order to go to the gym to pray and worship Allah the Moon god of Islam.
In closing I would like to say that I do not hate Muslims. I could not it is against what Jesus teaches us. But I hate Islam and its barbaric teachings because it deceives men and leads them away from the true God of Israel.
This Islamic aggression will continue ladies and gentlemen until we stand our ground for our freedoms to religious convictions and our freedoms of free speech. If we continue to fear like cowards, like chapters has done, then we will continue to lose ground and our children and grand children will be forced into serving Islam and will have no freedoms to follow any faith no matter what it may be. BOYCOTT Chapters on the grounds of free speech.
My Canada is a free Canada for all men.
Mark Harding
tcsnews@wightman.ca
January 28, 2010 8:07 PM
Please view the Utube video below to see what occurred at Univ Of Cal Irvine last week when the Israeli Ambassador to the US was invited to speak there. Yes, this was peaceful but ask yourself just how long will it remain that way as these two cultures between to clash now in our own country.

Please read and see the video below. I was at UC Irvine on Monday evening and have no words to explain just how scary and saddening the situation was. It took close to an hour before the mob left the room.

We need as many people to watch this video as possible.

We have over 8,000 views in just 24 hours and if we can get it up to 25,000 it will be newsworthy. The more attention this issue receives, the better.

The Muslim students made a huge mistake at UC Irvine on February 8th, and the administration is going to need to figure out how they intend to secure free speech at UC Irvine.

All eyes are on UC Irvine right now. This is an issue for campuses around the world. Please join this effort and help us get the word out widely.
Thank you...dahlia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w96UR79TBw

Israel Ambassador Oren Defends Free Speech at UC Irvine
By now you probably know that Muslim students tried to silence Israel's U.S. Ambassador Michael Oren when he spoke at UC Irvine's Pacific Ballroom on Monday afternoon, February 8.

Ambassador Oren had come to share his historical and personal perspective on the U.S.-Israel relationship. An author, professor of history, and diplomat, Ambassador Oren is politically centrist and regarded as an expert on many issues of vital interest today. But the Muslim students were determined to silence him, deny him the right to free speech, and deny the audience the right to have civil, intellectual discourse at UCI.

The Muslim students had carefully planned their tactics. Shortly before the event began, large numbers of them gathered for prayers outside the Ballroom. They then entered and scattered throughout the room in order to disrupt the speech from different locations. They did. After every few of Ambassador Oren's sentences, a student would stand up and scream unintelligibly at him while the other students involved raucously clapped and howled. The student whose turn it was to disturb the event would then walk proudly out of the Ballroom, escorted by police, while glaring at the understandably upset and frustrated audience of over 500 people who had come to hear the Ambassador's remarks.

After at least ten interruptions, the uncivilized demonstrators marched outside to a spot closest to the wall of the Ballroom. From there, they shouted more slogans, hoping they could continue to disrupt the event. But they could not.
The Muslim students angered the audience and embarrassed the UCI administration. They ignored pleas and reprimands from UCI officials who took the microphone. They ignored Ambassador Oren's request that he be granted the civil hospitality due to a guest of the University. They ignored his urging that they raise their concerns during the Q and A.

The good news is that Ambassador Oren refused to be silenced. He had come to UCI to share his thoughts and did not abandon his right to free speech even as dozens of students coordinated this hostile demonstration. With his elegant manner, he remained calm, and stood his ground. He stood up for free speech.

There are lessons to be learned from this event. The University will need to identify the participating students and decide what consequences they will suffer for their uncivilized behavior. The organizers of the protest were seen coordinating the screams from their seats by text messaging on their cell phones, and the Muslim Student Union president may have been among the eleven arrested for disrupting the event. The UCI administration will need to consider sanctions for the MSU since it was clear to everyone in the audience that the MSU had orchestrated the raucous effort to prevent free speech.

Every speaker can learn from Ambassador Oren's example. Whether the speaker is a U.S. General, an academic, or a representative from another country, his or her right to free speech may very well be challenged. We have seen this pattern spread throughout the U.S., especially this past year. Just a few hours before Professor Oren's event, Israel's Senior Legal Advisor, Daniel Taub, had spoken at the UCLA Law School, and also faced a disruptive demonstration. Like Ambassador Oren, Mr. Taub responded with calm, dignity, and a sincere invitation to the demonstrators that they ask questions during the Q and A. Instead, they, too, refused to cooperate, and marched out, escorted by the police.

The main lesson from Ambassador Oren is that we must stand up with dignity and eloquence for free speech. If we do not, if speakers give up and walk off the stage, we risk sacrificing the civil dialogue essential to education and a bedrock of American values.
February 20, 2010 1:26 PM
January 7, 2011 9:55 AM
January 7, 2011 11:27 AM

May I absolutely second what Howard has said. I was treated in a similar high-handed, contemptuous manner by the RCMP in Burnaby.
A scabby group of thugs calling themselves MAWO (Mobilization Against War and Occupation) held a meeting at my local library to protest the 'shock troop' arrests, and absolute innocence of the 'Toronto 17'alleged terrorists, arrested on June 2, 2006. I had followed a trail of their illegally attached posters, removing them as I went. I showed them to a librarian, and pointed to two more on the library's doors;as any infringement of any law negates use of the library facilities. But the librarian wasn't interested. Did I mention that the ENTIRE Burnaby city council and mayor are card carrying NDP (= über democrats) members.
I then tried to enter the meeting room, but the door was held closed by one Ivan Donald Drury, then MAWO's factotum, and acting pit-bull. He opened the door and said that I couldn't come in as it was a private meeting, and they had paid for the room, two more lies from him. As I again tried to open the door he shoved me in the chest, and I shouted that it was a public meeting. The RCMP came after one hour, unfortunately I left after a half hour for an ESL teaching appointment. Later that evening, on my answering machine, I received a five minute harangue from an RCMP corporal, tongue lashing me about THEIR right to free speech. He informed that HE could have arrested me and charged me with disturbing the peace, but that HE was letting me go. No word about MY rights to attend a PUBLIC meeting at my library, because he hadn't even spoken to me.

MAWO is all about professional protesting of anything western/Israeli, and they vigorously brown-nose anything moslem/arabic/terrorist. They say NOTHING about, Burma, Darfur, Tibet or the DPRK.

This is part of Drury's mea culpa from this: http://ivandrury.wordpress.com/fire-this-time-criticism/public-letter-on-ivan-drurys-break-with-fire-this-time/

"... I had visited many mosques in the Lower Mainland. When this contact began to introduce me to people as “Abbas”... I proceeded to attend prayers, go through the motions,...When anyone asked me if I was Muslim, I’d say, as though ashamed, “No…but I’m interested in Islam.” But when occasionally I was introduced as a “convert,” I would not correct people."

And here is a comment from macleans.ca:

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/03/12/what-i-did-in-the-revolution-and-why-im-sorry/

Despite the library's rules, barring use of its rooms by lawbreakers (even bylaws) NOTHING has ever been done about it.
Oh, did I mention that the ENTIRE Burnaby city council and mayor are card carrying NDP (= neo-communist) members.

September 20, 2011 2:38 PM

i'm an american living within a 4-hour drive of canada, but ordinarily i don't get up north to visit very often. i'm a voracious reader and prefer reading a book to reading a computer display (despite loving programming, too). there isn't a lot that i can do to help (because nobody running the State listens to rationality down here, either), but i will be sure to *NEVER* make any purchases, on the web or in-person, from Chapters. most retailers understand money, so i will also be visiting their website to leave a message letting them know that their stupid behavior has alienated a potential customer who also fully intends to spread the word to avoid Chapters.

November 27, 2015 10:49 AM

"If My Islamic Teacher says that the "Word of God" is Creator (which means Jesus is Creator), then they must become Christians"

Who is Jesus, to a Muslim?


The name "Jesus" is in the Quran. Why is the name of someone who exists in the Christian world (after all, the word "Christian" does come from "Christ") even mentioned in the Quran?

Now, a typical Muslim believes that Jesus Christ is not God. God is only Allah. They believe Allah never got married. So there were no sons for Allah. And they say that Jesus is not God. So, to Muslims, Jesus is just another prophet.

For a Muslim to learn who Jesus is, he can read the entire Quran: all 114 Chapters, all 6,666 verses in the Quran and just look for anything that talks about Jesus. Or, he can just read this little summary.

The name of the Prophet Muhammad is mentioned in 4 separate places. But the name of Jesus? You will find his name mentioned much more often, in 25 different places.

Being an Islamic Quran, this appears odd. Why does the Quran give more preference to Jesus?

Mariam, Mother of God


And another thing: You won't see the Prophet Muhammad's mother's name, or his wife's name, or any of his children's names. But you will see one woman's name mentioned in the Quran: Jesus' mother, Mariam.

In fact, the name of the Holy Quran Chapter 3, is, "Family of Mariam." And the Holy Quran Chapter 19, is actually named just "Mariam."

So just what is it that the Quran says about Mariam, the mother of Jesus? In the Holy Quran Chapter 3, Verses 34 onwards, it says that Mary was born without original sin, that she never committed any sin in her life, that she was ever virgin.

In Chapter 50, Verse 23, it says that she went to Heaven with her physical body. Even the Assumption is written in the Holy Quran.

The 'Prophet' Jesus

And now about Jesus. When you read Chapter 3, Verses 45 to 55, there are 10 points which the Quran makes about Him.

The first three things Quran does is to give the three names for Jesus: "Word of God", "Spirit of God", "Jesus Christ".

Then the Quran says that Jesus started talking when he was still very small, just two days after his birth, in fact.

The Quran then says that Jesus created a live bird using only mud. He had taken some mud and formed a bird. When He breathed into it, it became a live bird. So the Quran reveals that Jesus can give life; He gave life to mud, clay.

And then the Quran says that Jesus cured a man born blind, and a man with leprosy, etc. And not only that, the Quran says that Jesus gave life to dead people; that Jesus went to heaven; that He is still alive and He will come again.

Muhammad, Compared with Jesus

Now compare all this with what the Quran says about the Prophet Muhammad. It says that the Prophet Muhammed is not the Word of God; is not the Spirit of God; never spoke when he was 2 days old; never created any bird with mud; never cured any sick people; never raised any dead people; and that the Prophet Muhammad, himself, died. And according to Islam, he is not alive and he will not come back.

So there's a lot of difference between these two prophets. Muslims don't call Jesus, "God". Muslims consider Jesus to be just a prophet. But, according to the Quran, Jesus must be a prophet greater than Muhammad.

If Muslims Believe the 'Word of God' is the Creator, then Muslims Must become Christians

So now, ask your teacher of Islam, "Teacher, how did God create the universe?" If he is a knowledgeable teacher, he should say something to the effect of, "God created the universe through The Word." As in, through actual speech. Then the question becomes, "Is the "The Word" The Creator, or a creation?" He must be clear. The question? Whether the Word of God is Creator or creation.

The Quran says that Jesus is Word of God. If your Islamic teacher says that the Word of God is the Creator, which will mean that Jesus is the Creator, then Muslims must become Christians.

November 27, 2015 11:34 AM

Unfortunately, the cowardly PC police will always take the word of the self-appointed, "victims", of discrimination. This allows them to act like animals. It's hard to believe that a nation descended from England would act in such a cowardly and intellectually dishonest manner, but look at the UK today and you will see the same kind of cowardice. In the UK, they allowed the gang rape of young English girls, forceful prostituting these young victims and the cops did nothing. This rape, called "grooming" was accomplished in plain view. If this isn't cowardice, nothing is. How can you allow your young daughters to be gang raped and do nothing? The same thing is happening in all of the Scandinavian nations, Finland and now Germany. The police and the PC politicians have done everything to cover up for the perpetrators.

Tourism is going to die in Europe and the UK. I didn't think that Canada would go down that cowardly route, but apparently have, so they will also begin to die, as a tourist place.

January 19, 2016 10:47 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...