Saturday, November 11, 2017

Canadian University Fascists Libel Jordan Peterson

From the Ottawa Citizen/National Post, 11 November, 2017, P.#NP3 and here:



Christie Blatchford: Thought police strike again as Wilfrid Laurier grad student is chastised for showing Jordan Peterson video

Her supervising professor told her that by showing the video to her 'Canadian Communication in Context' class, 'it basically was like … neutrally playing a speech by Hitler …'


NP Explained: Jordan Peterson gender pronoun position





Friday, November 10, 2017

Libs Make New "Law:" First, Before Your Trial Starts, Prove You're NOT Guilty!

This not only reverses the onus of proof to GUILTY UNTIL NEVER PROVEN INNOCENT, where one has to "prove a negative" (where the accuser doesn't have to provide any evidence of your guilt, but you are expected to try and disprove their allegations, in an endless fishing "expedition" scenario) but it also demands that you provide your evidence to the judge before the trial begins, so he or she can decide if it's valid enough to be presented in court, or if he or she should disqualify it in advance!

And also note that none of the idiot "experts" quoted here (the Canadian Bar Association or Canada's Liberal Government 'Justice' Minister) has noticed that this makes their new "law" into an entirely illegal crime!

From here, and here:



Sexual assault bill gets few changes from MPs, despite lawyers' concerns over 'reverse disclosure'

Defence lawyers repeatedly told the committee that Bill C-51 effectively removes their ability to expose inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence




Bill C-51, introduced last spring by the government and widely regarded as a response to the 2016 Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial.Mark Blinch/The Canadian Press/File


Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Check out today's TAQUIYYA MOMENT, brought to you by the concerned Muslimas at the leftist Ottawa Citizen (PA11, and online, here):

Notable quotes: ("NO COERCION OF ANYONE IN ISLAM!")

"nor is there anything within Islamic teachings that would condone such coercion of one’s family members, or of anyone at all. Using “honour” to describe such cases only results in further stereotyping of Muslim or racialized households as particularly backwards, barbaric and uncivilized. The laws describing violence against women already cover exactly what these cases involve, making it redundant to create a whole new category based on false assumptions that particular communities have specific tendencies to commit specific types of crime."

No 'honour' in violence against women

We (i.e: you ) must change how we (you) speak, (about us muslims - CAPISCE?)
say Amira Elghawaby and Manaal Farooqi






Farooqi and Elghawaby: Nothing honourable about violence against women




Police watch as Mohammed Shafia, left, and his son Hamed arrive for court in Kingston in 2011. The two were part of an "honour kililng" plot against four of their female family members. Is the use of the term "honour" in relation to violence either accurate or useful? Ian MacAlpine / Ian MacAlpine/ The Whig-Standard


Survivors of gender-based violence need to be believed and supported. They also need society to describe the harm they experience with appropriate language. Yet time and again, violence against Muslim women is framed as “honour-based,” further stigmatizing victims and the wider communities to which they belong.

So the muslim communities' own deliberate stigmatizing of their women somehow victimizes them?!

It’s time for this to stop.

Recently, news emerged that a young Muslim woman in Gatineau had filed a complaint of domestic abuse against her father. The police called it “honour-based” violence. There is nothing honourable at all about the alleged actions of her father, nor is there anything within Islamic teachings that would condone such coercion of one’s family members, or of anyone at all.

What blatant lies. The Ottawa Citizen's printing your obvious lies shows them as complicit criminals.

Using “honour” to describe such cases only results in further stereotyping of Muslim or racialized households as particularly backwards, barbaric and uncivilized. It’s a failure to recognize that patriarchy, and the varieties of violence often associated with it, is a global phenomenon that exists among all communities. Violence against women is universally about power and control.

Right. Exactly like Muhammad himself wanted it to be - and for all time, as his God's command, too!

The laws describing violence against women already cover exactly what these cases involve, making it redundant to create a whole new category based on false assumptions that particular communities have specific tendencies to commit specific types of crime.

'False assumptions' about muslims' holy Qur'an-mandates to murder straying women for honour?!

The case of alleged abuse in Gatineau has already been used as fodder by those opposed to religious freedom for women who wear niqab.

It's not a case of restricting religious freedom, it's only the 'right' of a slave to wear her slave-collar!

In one particularly illogical argument, one columnist went as far as to suggest that defending the rights of Muslim women to wear whatever they want would actually silence any Muslim girl who might be experiencing abuse about her own wardrobe choices.

On the contrary, labelling violence against women as honour-based could actually deter victims from reporting it, for a variety of reasons: They might believe they were deserving of such treatment, or might fear stigmatizing their entire family or community if they were to speak up.

Or maybe as you damned-well know, they already do know their culture's expectations of them now!

Violence against women is a societal norm we need to disrupt. Every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner, according to the Canadian Women’s Foundation. Additionally, research shows that seven in 10 people who experience family violence are young girls and women. This includes women who are killed because their partners fear they will commit, or have committed, adultery.

I think you forgot to mention the other obvious conclusion from that research: that muslims did it all.

One case in Ottawa involved a man named Marc Hutt who was convicted in 2013 of brutally killing his wife.

And, apparently, it's also the ONLY case you could dredge up where a non-muslim white guy did it - otherwise you'd be still going on and on like gang-busters with your list of evil white misogynists.

Despite having the hallmarks of an honour killing, according to a definition by Human Rights Watch, the term never entered the discourse, observed educator and columnist Aisha Sherazi. One has to wonder if it was because the perpetrator wasn’t from a stereotypical ethnic background.
Creating arbitrary categories of gendered violence won’t solve this problem. Victims must be at the centre of our preoccupation with addressing violence. That includes using language that is fair and avoids scapegoating. This isn’t only a question of semantics: Language can affect public policy as well. The previous government spent five times more money to address “honour crimes” or “harmful cultural practices” in one year than it did addressing violence against Indigenous women, despite the high numbers of missing and murdered women from these communities.

Maybe because the conflation of all "Missing" with "Murdered" indigenous women is a problem which is both solely caused by and only effects the native perpetrators and victims themselves, not to mention the percentage of same exactly matches the percentage of missing and murdered NON-native women elsewhere, too? Because police solved over 70%of the "murdered" ones, and found they had all been murdered on their own reservations by their own people, and not by Evil Whitey.

Also, muslims are responsible for 100% of all so-called 'honour' murders everywhere on Earth, simply because their own crime-culture mandates it in their very own crime-manual, the Qur'an!

Journalists and lawyers at the New York Times recently discussed how they have been describing the explosive allegations of sexual abuse and assault by powerful men in Hollywood. “Using an evocative phrase or term to describe certain behavior may make for more interesting reading, but it may also suggest more than we know,” wrote Christina Koningisor, the Times’s First Amendment fellow, in exploring why some terms are chosen over others. In the case of so-called honour-based violence, using the term sensationalizes rather than describes the actions involved.

Law enforcement shouldn’t label such acts this way at all, nor should journalists go along with this faulty script.

Let’s call violence against women by its name and focus on eradicating it from all communities.

So - let's ignore the specifics of muslim-driven violence against everyone, especially against their own women, in favour of continuing to ignore the much greater unprovoked violence by men against other men, by pretending that only a general state of men's violence against women exists. Got it!

;-)

Amira Elghawaby is a journalist and human rights advocate in Ottawa.

She's also a blatant LIAR shilling for islamic slavery and the oppression of women everywhere.

Manaal Farooqi is a community organizer working on issues of violence against women.

"Community Organizers" as we know, are also known as activist extortionists and racial dividers (see Obama, B. Hussein, as the most recent and infamous prime example of same)!

;-)