Posted on 10/25/2004 5:33:12 AM PDT by Clive
Years ago, Jim Keegstra was charged with and convicted of the crime of spreading hatred. It was a seemingly endless case, working its way up to the Supreme Court.
It cost millions of tax dollars, and more than that, was an energetic expression of the government's opposition to racial and religious discord. Libertarians were rightly upset that speech -- no matter how vile -- could be criminalized. But a precedent was set, along with a message.
Fast forward to the present: News out of Vancouver is the imam of the major mosque there, one Younus Kathrada, has been whipping up his congregants each week with anti-Semitic hatred that would make Keegstra sound positively like a Zionist.
Like Keegstra, Kathrada called Jews names -- "we are dealing with a people ... the brothers of the monkeys and the swine ... whose treachery is well known." Calling Jews brothers of monkeys and swine sounds like a schoolyard taunt more than high argument, but his point was clear. And just in case it wasn't, Kathrada made it clearer still: His sermons repeatedly called for the killing of Jews.
Poor old Keegstra. All he ever did was call the Jews power-hungry money-grubbers, and he was convicted of a crime. Kathrada whips up his congregants into a Jew-baiting frenzy -- and tells them to go and actually kill someone -- and he remains free.
There's some evidence that his Muslim acolytes actually followed his instructions, too. Rudwan Khalil Abubaker, who attended Kathrada's mosque, was in a fire-fight with Russian troops in Chechnya earlier this year. At least he took his violence outside of Vancouver.
The question remains: Why was Keegstra's offensive but non-violent anti-Semitism taken to the Supreme Court, but Kathrada's is tolerated with impunity?
Kathrada doesn't just call for the death of Jews. He slams Muslims who dare to believe in peaceful co-existence -- you know, Ottawa's dream of multiculturalism. Kathrada claims such Muslims aren't real Muslims, and no truce with Jews can ever be had.
Kathrada also uses his tax-exempt mosque to trumpet the cause of Hamas, a notorious terrorist group responsible for countless suicide bombings.
Why hasn't Kathrada been charged with a hate crime? Why haven't he and his mosque been charged under Canada's new anti-terrorism laws for promoting and aiding terrorist groups like Hamas? (To date, not a single charge has been laid under this law.)
The answer is obvious. It's easy to pick on a politically incorrect country bumpkin like Jim Keegstra. Some dumb white guy making dumb remarks about Jews -- go get 'em. There's not a well-funded, politically correct Dumb Guy Defence Committee ready to roll for his defence.
But ever since 9/11, liberals throughout the West have decided an anti-Arab backlash would be worse than Arab terrorism itself. So true risks like Kathrada are ignored, in the name of not making a fuss. The liberal thinking is that charging someone like Kathrada would only give a bad name to all Muslims.
Of course, it would do the opposite -- it would point out that not all Muslims are in league with such terror tactics, and that the few who are will be rooted out.
Not charging the handful of Muslims who are haters is like not charging the handful of Italians who are part of the Mafia -- it is a misguided act of political correctness. The majority of Muslims -- we hope -- do not support Kathrada. He should be made an example of, not have excuses made for him. Justice calls for it.
And that invalidates the rest of the long list?
Uh huh.
Nice try though.
If we don't destroy Islam then it will destroy us. They don't worship God only the devil.
Nope. Keep reading. It's not that long a list once you get rid of the "majority of muslims" talk.
That figure is low. It should be around 20%, or twice that number; Still probably low.
Polls in Islamic countries where it's OK to ask such questions yield a figure of over 80%. Even if here in the far west it's only half of that, that is still a whopping 40%+.
20% is quite a reasonable estimate.
"150 million identify themselves as islamists, bent on destroying all that is no muslim. These are the muslims who are suicide bombers, bomb makers, murderers and terror strategists."
"It should be around 20%, or twice that number; Still probably low."
Really? Where's the link to that figure?
"Polls in Islamic countries where it's OK to ask such questions yield a figure of over 80%"
Where do you get this stuff? Who's doing the polling? Are they being asked by radical fundamentalists in front of their neighbors? I'd like to see the sources of your polls and figures.
There is no single link, so I refuse to play that game. Articles about polls in Islamic countries are easily found; there are dozens.
That is an ineffective tactic with me, and I won't waste my time. I find a link, you dismiss the source. I find another link and suddenly we're discussing links, instead of daily muslim Mass Murder.
I omitted the most dangerous sector of the world population, those who are not muslims but are apologists and enablers by allowing the farce of islams religiousity to continue.
Free Republic does not have enough server space to list the factual history of islams murderous nature. On the other hand, the head of a pin will hold all of the facts supporting that islam is peaceful.
"most dangerous sector of the world population, those who are not muslims but are apologists and enablers by allowing the farce of islams religiousity to continue."
You're including President Bush in that group.
I see you are 'NUCONVERT'....does that mean you have recently converted to the Muslim faith?
I do acknowledge that it is likely dangerous for them to speak out, because they are not part of a majority.
I have no doubt that there are Muslims who condemn this violence, but they never (at least that I have heard, but I could be wrong) come forward and actually condemn those writings in the Quoran which command the violence.
How are we to know, for instance, if the very guy speaking out against the violence is not holding meetings in his basement planning an attack in a movie theatre for next year? There is nobody on earth, given what the Muslims have in the "holy" writings, can guarantee this to me. It is for this reason, I do not trust them. I am not going to do anything to them. I am polite and respectful to the Muslims with whom I have dealings, my son has a Muslim friend who is welcome here, etc., but I don't trust the community as a whole.
Case in point. This man has been speaking in this mosque for some time now. Why has this gone on? Would not a peace-loving congregation mob this guy the first time he opened his mouth spewing forth hatred? Come on. These people listen to this stuff all the time. They may not go out and bomb innocent people, but they are not fighting those preaching hatred. The congregation is just as guilty as their hate-filled leader.
I am also reminded of the young Muslim who served with the American military. Probably one of these quiet, peaceful, moderate Muslims...right up until he threw the gernade into the tent of his fellow soldiers. He was just following the written law of the Quoran.
Remember what they say...any nation not under Islamic law is considered an enemy.
If you want to completely trust people who support this rhetoric in any way, shape, or form, feel free. But I will not be so naive.
30+ years of terrorism do however. During the same 30+ years I have seen muslims in the street protesting the actions of islamic terrorist exactly 0 times. FACT
I converted to follow Christ because I believe him to be who he said he is, because I need a gracious Savior, because there's no salvation apart from him, because I need his Holy Spirit to help me follow him.
This isn't a rhetorical question: why did you convert to Islam?
You got that right Publius. It is like arguing with a democrap, it is a verbal game of Wack-O-Mole. As soon as you hit one another pops up.
Spot on, JiC. No Muslim apologists need apply at my door. The entire cult Islam geared toward taking over the world and forming an Islamic Caliphate, while conquering and killing all infidels.
The so-called 'moderate' Muslims will tacitly fund and support their murderous Islamic organizations' terrorist acts. And they'd nod approvingly while your or my throats were being cut and our heads placed upon our backs.
Islam is the problem. Islam must be destroyed; containment doesn't work.
The answer is indeed obvious, but this isn't it. "Anti-hate" laws aren't about stopping "hate", they're about preventing whites from opposing their dispossesion. They are about political power not social peace. They are classic laws of colonialism designed to keep the natives from revolting. Thus, there is no double standard here, the laws are functioning as intended.
I am not muslim.
"A Muslim merely wants you dead."
And you are what? You merely want muslims dead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.