37 thoughts on “Ottawa Joins the Ummah”

1. Can’t the government provide security?

   If not, what good are they?

   • Why so dismissive? Do you have a son or daughter pulling security at a Muslim-threatened event? Would you want them to die for it? The Garland police were lucky.

     Yes, free speech is being curtailed by terror, but we have to rethink the consequences of Islam in effect closing the public square…this isn’t ‘ripe’ yet. I mean the situation of sharia law vs constitutional free expression. And in Canada yet, which already has lawfare curbs in place.

     • Well then give me a gun and I will go and stand security so your children don’t. Someone has to do it. Someone has to stand up. If not now then later when it will be too late and your children will be forced into a grand war against jihadism that will reach our borders even as it has swept up so much of the world already. It all makes me think of Churchill’s repeated warnings about threats to liberty all through the 1930s and then it was too late and how many young men died as a result?

       • All agreed, I’ll come with you.

     • Dymphna,
       As someone who worked in public safety for twenty-nine years, the men and women wearing uniforms and carrying firearms, are not thinking about their mother’s wishes. If they had done that, there would be no military or police. What they are thinking about (if their heads are in the right place) is securing the public’s safety and their rights. Those rights are always secured by blood. Some things are worth the sacrifice.
       Surrender is dhimmitude. Never surrender.

     • “Would you want them to die for it? ”

       I’d prefer them to kill for it, but if necessary, and this sounds cold, that is what they are for.

     • “Why so dismissive? Do you have a son or daughter pulling security at a Muslim-threatened event? Would you want them to die for it? The Garland police were lucky.”

       Two things. First, the Garland police were not “lucky”. They were armed and dangerous with every kind of body armor and rifle in their inventory, they had an MRAP armored vehicle on scene, and they were trained up and ready to rumble with the two schmucks who showed up.

       Second, and perhaps more important. Your sons and daughters “pulling security” are not there to protect the rights to free speech of the people attending the event. They are there enforcing the victim disarmament laws. They are making sure its a nice safe Gun Free Zone so that the nice terrorists don’t have to deal with the mean Free Speech people shooting back.

       If it wasn’t for the cops “protecting” these events, no terrorist would dare come within a mile of it.

2. If terrorists are allowed this kind of control, things are going to get even more dangerous.

   • Agreed, but to what extent are governments willing to risk the kind of mayhem jihadists love?? That’s a tough call.

     • But surely, whatever the cost, if they are not confronted now, things are only going to become worse as muslims gain in number and increase their level of antagonistic mayhem due entirely to our giving in on all levels.

       Churchill did indeed see islam very clearly, sad that so many westerners WILL not.

3. And so, the Civil Contract as defined by any of the contractualist theoretics breaks down, what good is a state if it cannot protect its integrity and that of its community? what good is a state if it cannot protect its people? it is not about provoking them, eventually we will reach a point where our mere existence will be a provocation to attacks… but if the Government is too afraid of a few nutjobs to the point that it curtails Freedom of Speech to stop them from making mayhem (it will work as well as Giving Hitler a free hand in Czechoslovakia worked for everyone later) instead of actively engaging in protecting it (a task they are very much capable to perform if only they had the will to do so…)

   • It might have a different aspect if the “nutjobs” begin to threaten traditional Canadian observances. The cartoon project doesn’t meet that level of importance, though it might in other places. I can think of an example where Canadians would not be cowed – observances of Canada Day might be one. The risk has to be seen as “worthy” to a given state or polity or its citizens. The freedom to draw cartoons doesn’t make it, though it could be seen by some as an erosion of liberty…strategists will need to come up with something that people feel committed to maintaining.

     • And I can think of ways one might turn the tables. Some years back a group of people began putting hijab costumes on iconic statues – e.g., the Mermaid. That was a humorous and disturbing series of events. It takes a group committed to thinking of turning perceptions upside down, but in such a way that others aren’t put at risk.

       Maintaining liberty in the face of “nutjobs” requires rigorous thinking and dedication.

       • I still think the Dearborn T-Shirt Project (see front, back) is the way to go. If the media were to refer to this shirt as “provocative”, it would rip the sheep costume off the Islamic wolf, from the point of the average member of the general public.

         • I’d be a little too tempted to wear that shirt backwards, myself. Would that be wrong?

       • Rigorous thinking and dedication to what? While they have their place in formulating overall strategic goals, neither of them will stop bullets, knives or bombs. Men, and women, willing to use violence of action is what maintains liberty.

       • And again the jihadis beat us by shutting us up.

         “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” It appears they also read Sun Tzu.

     • The day that would get the hackles collectively raised coast to coast of my countrymen would be Remembrance Day. It’s the one day where even the hardest left-winger is cowed into sullen silence, because the overwhelming majority of Canadians revere our troops. Not even the NDP dare say anything negative about November 11th.

       Speaking of the NDP, if this is the cowardice and censorship happening under Harper, someone who I consider to be one of the few Western leaders not completely sold out to Islam, then what kind of nightmare is Canada going to face under Trudeau, or worse, Mulcair?

       This leaves a chilling precedent. Nathan Cirillo died guarding one of our most sacred symbols, and now just a few months later, we cave into the ideology that killed him.

       Disgusting.

       • To paraphrase out fellow Canadian, Mark Steyn, there is a hole in the heart of western societies (to say that it’s secularism is over simplistic, but there’s something to that explanation.) I am very afraid that this hole is particularly gaping in the case of Canada, for whatever reasons.

         I fear that we simply do not have the inner strength and will necessary to resist the attack that we, like all western countries, are under. I pray that I am wrong….

         • I thought Mr. Steyn became an American, living in New Hampshire?? Maybe I mis-read his move some years back.

           Edit: The B tells me that Mr. Steyn is still waiting for his green card. I wonder why but the B doesn’t know. Why can’t he have one of the spaces being left by fleeing Americans?

     • I think it is important to fight to retain and exercise every speck of freedom–every molecule–because our goal is to always increase its domain.

     • I don’t agree with this approach. If I sent a letter threatening to kill someone “unimportant” as opposed to threatening death and mayhem during a day of “traditional Canadian observance” (such as Canada Day as you say), I ought to be ignored as a mere “nut-job”? I don’t believe the law is worded in this fashion. And the chances are that I would not be ignored by the authorities. After all who is to determine whether a threat is “important” or “unimportant”.
       In this instance you have taken on the role of that person, and frankly I find your approach unacceptable, to say the least; kind of like the approach of Bill O’Reilly and other conservatives who were against what Pamella Geller did, and for essentially the same reasons.

4. There is one solution to this curtailment of freedom in the free world – deport this muslim [epithets] to their choice on one the 57 muslim [vile places of abode] where they can practice their sharia. It is time that we have this discussion.

   • No this discussion will NOT happen. Do you really think such a discussion will take place in the US, the same country which has relected Obama into the Mosque-House? Do you think this discussion will happen in EU parliament, the same one wanting to give asylum to so many aliens flooding the southern EU member states? Such a discussion, these days, will never happen. That ship sailed long ago.

5. As Mark Steyn wrote – security concerns are the new “shut up”…

6. Welcome to “Mawali” status. This is the term used for client states and peoples.

7. There is clearly yet more stress in this stress-strain curve.

   This then proceeds to the snap….

8. Every concession heartens these barbarians, so not pushing back fuels their attacks on our way of life. EVERY Muslim is a problem, as was EVERY Nazi. It’s the doctrine, stupid!

   • Exactly, it’s a well established pattern of behavior of successful conquest (as described eloquently by William J. Federer )

     • I tried to watch this. He really has a good presentation information. However, 99% of the slides he is clicking on to explain his points are not seen, which takes away from his delivery as he is obviously looking over at them as he clicks on them. I’d love to see his map of the Islamic cities coming soon to Britain. He rattled them off so fast I didn’t get all of them.

       And no one but a native American with VERY sharp hearing could ever understand him the first time through. His voice is on fast forward. The few maps he showed were excellent.

       What a shame the delivery is on a speed train. He must have been limited to a set amount of time by whoever made the video. After 15 minutes, I noticed his lecture was triggering my PTSD as I ran to catch up repeatedly. Not even stopping and going back helped.

       I wonder what he’d sound like on half-speed?

       • Totally agree about his incredible rapid fire delivery of details/facts – way too fast!
         He does repeatedly mention some videos at that lecture as well as in the description below the video…the links to which hint at intention of such rapid fire delivery…”AmericanMinute”. Now imagine how different our circumstances would be if every student would have been familiarized sufficiently to recite these details as second nature and without hesitation by the time they graduated high school!

         Published on Jan 18, 2013
         In 1793, Muslim Barbary pirates captured the U.S. cargo ship Polly. The ship was plundered and the crew was imprisoned. The Muslim captain justified their brutal treatment: “for your history and superstition in believing in a man who was crucified by the Jews and disregarding the true doctrine of God’s last and greatest prophet, Mohammed.”

         What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an – A History of Islam & the United States by Dr. Bill Federer link

         Islamic Conquest-Past & Present -A Captivating 5-part DVD series link

         “The precept of the Qur’an is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God… The vanquished may purchase their lives by the payment of tribute…” John Quincy Adams

         Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use No Copyright Infringement intended

9. I do not agree with the statement that the importance of the event is critical to deciding whether it will be held or not. Eventually, the violence of the critics will increase and the barrier for protection or toleration will be moved further up the sand. Eventually, there will be only one or two events allowed critical of Islam each year.

   At the Garland event, security was VERY tight. We were all searched before entering, admission was by prepaid ticket only, and there were layers of security, including police tactical units with armor and automatic weapons.

   Of course, if the two jihadis had gotten past the first layer of security, I might have been treated to an automatic weapons gunfight over my head.

   I don’t believe the government should be a neutral party in freedom-of-speech cases. The security forces might demand that instead of being held out in the open air, vulnerable to any sniper in a radius of a mile, that the event be held in a secure, protected area. That is very different from quietly scotching the event with no public announcement and no appeal. There are too many things done quietly under the table by the government nowadays. If the government has the money for sending foreign aid, it has the money to take the initiative to protect bedrock freedoms of its citizens.

   Once a few events like the cartoon exhibitions are held with full government security, the bar will be raised, and more publications will actually make the cartoons available. On the other hand, if events are shut down because they are judged to be not significant or not important enough, publications will get the message that they’re too small to protect, and will act accordingly.

   I can think of worse ways to die than in a fight for freedom of expression.

   • Well said!

   • But that’s the Canadian way. Remember during the Revolution, the Loyalists moved to Canada to get away from the fighting. The Quakers stayed put but were permitted to refuse to join the fray as long as they contributed to it. Ben Franklin complained about how hard they could be to deal with but he admired them.

     The Loyalists wanted the protection of England. That was an honest assessment, even as it required sacrifice for them to up and move to a colder, harder place. They didn’t think the poorly equipped rebels could ever win.

     Canadians are lovers, not fighters. Islam hates lovers so those Northers have a tough row to hoe, esp if Baby Doc Trudeau takes over the reins.

   • >”Eventually, there will be only one or two events allowed critical of Islam each year.”

     Eventually…

     …I think this will be seen as an overly optimistic assessment, if we don’t put our foot down right now, à laPamela Geller and Geert Wilders.

     If
     a.) Qur’an 9:5, the Verse of the Sword, and the other 108 verses commanding violence against, or superiority over, kuffar, were well-known in the Western world, and

     b.) this knowledge were integrated with memory of the centuries of bloodshed and slave-raids that our ancestors suffered, whether the ancestors in question be Europeans, Africans, South Asians, etc., and

     c.) an understanding that preachers in mosques in places like Phoenix, Boston, Sydney, and Birmingham were calling for the same violence and supremacism today, and

     d.) that this lethal trio were all that is necessary to understand the otherwise inexplicable attacks of 9/11, the London Underground, Madrid, Mumbai, the Boston Marathon, the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, the Lindt chocolate shop, the Canadian Parliament, Charlie Hebdo, the Paris Jewish delicatessen, Garland, the Buenos Aires Israeli embassy, the Buenos Aires Jewish community center, etc., etc., ad nauseum, …

     …then the West would change its current governing elites and start solving the problem now.

     The jihadists and their theological mentors understand this dynamic very well. That is why they are pushing so hard on the information war, as hard as they push on anything.

     Their information game and public relations game have been stellar over the past 40 years.

     They are now pushing to nip freedom of speech in the bud. And that is why we must nip their effort in the bud, pronto.

10. There were no terrorist threats and no one heard from any potentially offended muslims. This was the Canadian government shutting down the event because they opposed it.

11. Governments in the west have surrendered to the mad dog that is Islam for fear of a) losing immigrant votes at every election and b) losing lives due to terrorist attack. Creeping sharia is one result of this madness to ignore the terrorists among us in favour of valuing our tolerance for other beliefs.

    Well, until Muslims reject jihad and accept other beliefs, we should ban Islam as a subversive Arab supremacist cult with merely political aims.

    Enough is enough. Do we need another 1,000 9/11s and thousands more victims before governments wake up to see that Islam is a terrorist organization and always has been? Millions of victims of the Islamic expansion from the first day to today are testament to that sobering fact.

    Ban Islam now, or forever face an Islamic future.

Comments are closed.