Elmasry emerges from hiding, cites the Jewish Congress for support

Mohamed Elmasry, the Jew-hating president-for-life of the Canadian Islamic Congress, somehow managed to get an Op-Ed in his hometown paper, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. I hear it's part of a series devoted to "marginalized voices". I understand that David Duke will have a column next week.

Let's point out the usual lies in Elmasry's column. Here's one:

...four Canadian Muslim law students launched human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine with respect to its October 2006 article, The Future Belongs to Islam, written by Mark Steyn. The Canadian Islamic Congress, of which I am president, acted as a facilitator.

That's a lie, of course. Those students were PR puppets; the actual "style of cause" of the suits was Elmasry vs. Rogers. It's a useful lie, because it allows Elmasry to avoid direct contact with the press, other than through scripted Op-Eds, for fear he'll be asked about his comments approving the murder of Jews.

Here's another lie:

On March 30, 2007, the law students met with Maclean's senior editors and proposed that the magazine publish a balanced response to Steyn's article from a mutually acceptable source.

The response was that Maclean's "would rather go bankrupt."

That, too, is a convenient lie. As I reported from the courtroom of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Khurrum Awan, one of Elmasry's PR puppets, admitted under oath many, many, many, many, many, many times that the CIC never asked Maclean's for an article to be published, written by a "mutually acceptable source". It was to be an author of the CIC's own choosing. Their claim of wanting a "mutually acceptable" writer was a lie, a PR trick, to make them seem slightly less unreasonable.

Either way -- mutually acceptable choice or not -- it was still an outrageous shakedown, a violation of Maclean's property rights and freedom of the press, and quite possibly extortion. The fact that Elmasry still lies about it is not surprising -- a man who justifies of the murder of Jews wouldn't blink at merely lying. What's surprising is that the K-W Record would publish such exposed lies, to their own discredit.

Elmasry's last comment is instructive:

Nevertheless, media attacks against the complainants, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the human rights commissions have continued, non-stop since the case against Maclean's was made public earlier this year.

He's right on that one. The Canadian Islamic Congress has received near-universal condemnation in the media for its shakedown and prosecution of Maclean's. Elmasry would like to ascribe that to "Islamophobia". Uh, no. It's not that he's Muslim that makes us feel "hatred and contempt" for him. It's that he's a fascist, a censor, a bully and a destroyer of our liberties. The fact that he does so in the name of all Canadian Muslims (the actual sign on the court room in the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing read "Mohamed Elmasry on behalf of Muslims in British Columbia") is a pity, though, for, no doubt, many people watching Elmasry's hijacking of our legal system in the name of Islam would indeed feel antipathy towards not just Elmasry, but to Islam and even B.C. Muslims. How unfair to them, when it was a lone bigot from Ontario who instigated that trial, illegitimately using the name of all Muslims.

But I cannot end this post without agreeing with Elmasry on a particular point: he argues that his fascist approach to censoring his opponents was not invented by him. It was built by Canada's Official Jews, especially by his friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress. He writes:

In 1998, someone representing Canadian Jews filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Commission against North Shore News columnist Doug Collins. The commission ordered Collins to pay $2,000 in damages to the complainant for "injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect." The commission also ordered the North Shore News to cease publishing statements that expose Jews "to hatred and contempt."

A lawyer with the Canadian Jewish Congress was quoted by the Jewish Independent on Dec. 21, 2001, saying the decision reflects Canadian legal precedents which recognize that certain types of speech are not legally permissible, especially if they are seen to cause public harm.

I regret that Elmasry is correct on that point. Bernie "Burny" Farber has long argued for the right to censor one's political and religious opponents. That he has done so in the name of all Jews is a scandal, and one that all Canadian Jews are paying for with their reputations.

Farber has about as much democratic legitimacy to speak for "the Jews" as Elmasry has to speak for "the Muslims". Both of them share a love for the bullying power of the state; both of them would rather gag their opponents than debate them; both of them are eroding our Canadian values with their own soft fascism; both of them are bringing the public name of their religions into disrepute.

The difference is that Elmasry knows exactly what he's doing: using Burny Farber as a "useful idiot", a PR cover, just like Elmasry used Khurrum Awan as a useful cover. The end game is the gagging of opposition to radical Islam. What luck for Elmasry that he has a damned fool like Burny Farber to take the flak for him.