Islamophobia lecture: Mohammed Elmasry, Khurrum Awan, and Derrick O'Keefe joined by publicly unannounced additional speaker: Greg Felton

UPDATE: Don't miss the report on this event from Elane at Dust My Broom. It really completes the sad picture.
-----------------

Last night, a friend of Covenant Zone went to hear a Canadian Islamic Congress-sponsored seminar on "Islamophobia"(pdf of poster) at a Burnaby Sunni mosque, Masjid Alsalaam, featuring: 1) Canadian Islamic Congress head, Mohammed Elmasry; 2)Elmasry's now famous young protege in the invoking "human rights" to punish "hate speech" game, Khurrum Awan; 3) devoted anti-"Zionist", radical leftist, rabble.ca editor, NDPer, and public school teacher, Derrick O'Keefe. They were joined by a surprise additional speaker, not mentioned in the pre-talk publicity: the Judeophobic (Felton would insist on "anti-Zionist") conspiracy theorist extraordinaire (his books are thick!), Greg Felton.

Now our friend arrived at the talk late, and missed the introductory remarks and at least half of Mohammed Elmasry, the first speaker's, address. What's more our friend reported that the four speakers all rambled on in an "unprofessional" and unengaging speaking manner and so he was not able to maintain full attention. So, his report on the evening, based on written notes given verbally, over the phone, to the present writer (who organizes the notes for coherency and adds only a few comments of his own, drawing on his questioning of our friend about the event), is somewhat schematic in nature. While our friend tried to capture the speakers' more memorable words in his notes, he cannot always be sure of the exact words used.

Nonetheless, my friend has been careful to report only what he recalls being said, and without any conscious literary license. He is disgusted at what he witnessed from the speakers, but he wants to report honestly.

The recently built Burnaby mosque impressed our friend with its clean modern look, and with its fine wood paneling. The large central room of the mosque had an internal divider and the meeting was held on one side so that when the meeting took a break for prayers most people left the one side and crossed the divider into the other. Our friend counted the audience at about 140. He estimated that about 120-125 of these were Muslims judging from the number who went to pray. The women sat on the right of the room, the men on the left. There were about 80 men and 60 women. Almost all ages were represented from young children to the relatively elderly. The women almost all covered their heads, but in general the dress, manner, and speech of the audience was rather Westernized. The crowd seemed temperate in their general disposition. They did not seem widely impressed by the speakers. Not all audience members applauded each speaker and the applause was lukewarm, polite but not enthusiastic. There was no kind of "gatekeeping" being done, no one trying to appear vigilant about outsiders; our friend felt welcome and was politely shown where to sit upon his late arrival. At the end of the speaking, an impressive table of food was laid out and all were invited to partake, though the woman who was apparently chairing the event suggested the ladies defer to the men and let them get food first.

Mohammed Elmasry

Given his late arrival, our friend had little to say about Elmasry's talk. What he could tell me was that Elmasry was, at one point, emphasizing the importance of Muslims knowing their Koran and Hadith, and the history of their faith, in order to know how to respond to the allegedly widespread "Islamophobia" of the contemporary West, and to stand firm in their faith. It seems to have been implied that someone well-educated in matters Islamic will find it easier to deal with critics. One might have thought that more knowledge might also lead to doubts or a respect for how much is unknowable and uncertain to the truly learned person, hence the need for a humble faith; but this was not apparently how Elmasry approached the question.

Derrick O'Keefe

The next speaker was Derrick Okeefe who began by noting that he is writing a book with Afghan politician Malalai Joya. He also tried to impress the crowd with his credentials by noting how he had attended the Cairo conference against imperialism and zionism (I'm not sure what year O'Keefe attended) which was for him a wonderful experience. He joked how he had been honoured to be smeared by people back in Canada (apparently those who think hanging out with Hezbollah and Hamas types is a mark of political shame and moral and intellectual failure).

O'Keefe told some story about an immigrant woman in France who was refused citizenship for "lack of assimilation", or something like that. O'Keefe then implied that Muslims might fear a similar fate in Canada in future. He went on to discuss the public debate recently unfolded in Quebec over what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" of immigrant cultural differences, again implying this debate was a threat to Muslims, a sign of Western Islamophobia of which, he declared, we have recently witnessed a wave. Nonetheless O'Keefe thinks "progressives", among whom he counts himself, are in the majority in Canada. Thus, it seems to have been implied, the Islamophobic wave must be explained as something that a powerful minority promotes.

Without being explicitly Judeophobic, O'Keefe complained about media complicity in this Islamophobia, claiming that much of the Canadian media is in the hands of two or three families. (For non-Canadian readers, this should be taken as in large part a reference to the Jewish Asper family.) He complained that one can't raise money in Canada for a popular political party like Hezbollah, which gets labelled terrorist by the government. He complained about Canadian General Rick Hillier referring to the Taleban in Afghanistan as murderers and scumbags. O'Keefe made some comment about writers using a defense of "satire" as an excuse for their Islamophobia. One supposes he meant Mark Steyn. O'Keefe apparently doesn't like Irshad Manji and made some attempt at a joke about Canada having lost her to the United States. He slagged Terry Glavin and suggested there are no shortage of writers who will tell "them" (the Islamophobes? the ignorant Canadians?) what they want to hear.

Khurrum Awan

Khurrum Awan began his talk by making some kind of apology that confused our friend. He referred to some memo he had received from his employer and suggested this was an explanation for why, despite having come all the way from Ontario, he was not as prepared to speak as he might have been.

It seems Awan told something of the story he has often told in the Canadian media and kangaroo courts about his fight against Maclean's magazine. He began by claiming there had been some long history of hate speech in Maclean's and in the National Post so that he and some law school friends decided to do something about it after counting 22 Islamophobic articles in Maclean's penned by Mark Steyn and by Barbara Amiel who is Conrad Black's wife, he desired to point out.

Our friend's mind was elsewhere when he heard Awan complaining about some writer's comment about "sheep shaggers" but those words jolted him and brought thoughts of Awan's apparent lack of concern for the young ears and perhaps the sensitivities of the women in the audience. Awan also made some sex-related comment about Aisha, the Prophet's bride, but unfortunately the logic or point in invoking this story was lost on our friend.

Awan claimed that the celebrated writer, Oriana Fallaci, whom he compared to Ernst Zundel, had been cited by some UN body for hate speech. He called Mark Steyn names along the lines of rightwing Muslim-hating bigot.

Awan said Maclean's magazine had refused to treat with him and his aggrieved lawschool friends when they first complained about the "Islamophobic" articles, because Maclean's just assumed they would go away if ignored. They didn't know Khurrum Awan, apparently.

He also said the Canadian Muslims had Jewish people to thank for going after North Vancouver columnist, Doug Collins, showing that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal could be used to sanction hate speech. Muslims like himself, he implied, were only doing what Jews had already done. This no doubt explains why he feels somewhat upset at the waves of criticism he and his fellow "sock puppets" have received.

Awan complained about certain well known journalists for their bigotry: our friend remembers mention of the names Margaret Wente, Christopher Hitchens, Christie Blatchford, Daniel Pipes; David Warren was mentioned as not quite as bad. Referring to "right wing" writers he made some comment like "all of you know what kind of people they are".

He suggested that in response people should write letters to the editor. If the letters are not published people should complain to the press councils, though that wouldn't work with reprobate publications like Maclean's that are not a member of any press council.

Awan declared the Canadian criminal law useless for going after hate speech. Apparently the legal test to prove criminal hate speech is demanding; and so there needs to be an easier way to shut up what Awan considers to be hate mongers.

So Muslims have to mobilize politically. British Columbia Muslims should go after the media - particularly the one company that apparently controls so much of it. And they should threaten to punish the government with their votes and voices if it thinks to dismantle the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

Awan tried to get some symbolic credit for the sixteen or seventeen thousand dollars that he said he and his young law school friends have spent in pursuing Maclean's; and he bragged that they had cost Maclean's two million dollars in legal expenses and lost circulation. He said that "we" need your help; and he called on the audience to give money to help fight Islamophobia.

Greg Felton

Then came Greg Felton who spoke for about 10 minutes, about half the time of the other, pre-announced speakers. I was quite interested to ask my friend if Felton had been introduced so as to give some sense to the audience of his public reputation and his peculiar capacity for writing thick books explaining how the United State of America has been progressively taken over by the "Zionist lobby" over the course of modern history, or peculiar essays on how the Ashkenazi Jews are not actually descendants of the Biblical Hebrews but of some central Asian tribe that converted to Judaism for relatively recent benefit, and whose claims to a homeland in Israel are thus bogus.

However, it turns out Felton was simply introduced as an "extra speaker", and as a friend, by Dr. Naiyer Habib, Elmasry's mostly silent partner in the recent kangaroo court prosecution of Maclean's magazine at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Only Felton's writing about the Maclean's/Mark Steyn affair and his attacks on "right wingers" who are attacking the various Canadian Human Rights Commissions were highlighted in his introduction. But in the course of his comments, Felton did make some apparently self-referential remark about how if you want an investigation into what happened on 9/11, they call you a conspiracy nut. (Poor Greg has been called worse than that!)

Felton also spoke about the "reasonable accommodation" debate as some kind of threat to Muslims. He made some complaint about how antisemitism is a prejudice held by some marginal class, while anti-Muslim prejudice is a social norm. He went on to make some half-understood comment about Zionists and anti-Muslim hate mongers.

He mentioned that it was ironic that Judeophobic Doug Collins, or Collins' prosecution, had enabled Khurrum Awan in the latter's BC Human Rights Tribunal fight.

He spoke of "genocide" in Palestine. He called the media an attack monster. He claimed that the goal of some Islamophobes was to turn Muslims who complained into some kind of violent rabble so that the Islamophobes could turn around and say "see, we told you so". So, Felton implied, using the Human Rights Commissions to attack Islamophobes was the right approach.

Questions from the floor

Then came four questions from the floor. A microphone had been set up at the back of the room. The questions were described by our friend as "loaded" (i.e. sympathetic to the speakers) and rambling, despite a call to avoid speech making. Our friend summed up the questions thus:

1) Why is the media one-sided? Awan responded and used the National Post as his example. They have an agenda. 4/5 of what they write is to serve their owners' agenda. Only 1/5 represents the views of minorities. He called on people to write letters, lobby, take legal action, to fight this agenda. It may have been at this point that he called the radical leftist O'Keefe, whom our friend believes to be a publicly declared atheist, a "brother". Our friend remained confused throughout the evening by a question at the top of his mind: why are Muslims hanging out with highly secular Western atheists with nihilist "values"? (The arguments made at this blog about the growing left-Islamist alliance, and the central role of Israel and America hatred in this, have not apparently fully convinced. Then again, it could be that there are few other people this cast of characters can call on to back each other up in a public forum.)

2) Why didn't "we" complain when Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded? Elmasry replied that "we" did complain, vociferously, but no one (presumably in the media or goverment) paid attention. This was taken to be a call for financial support.

3) Why don't we have a blog for our media? O'Keefe replied that this was an important suggestion. Felton chipped in that blogs are replacing newspapers.

4) Why can't we start a paper on the internet? Elmasry replied that we need lots of dollars for that.

--------------------
I will defer to later the question of why or if Mohammed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress and frequent spokesperson for Islam in the Canadian media wanted to appear before a largely Muslim public with Greg Felton, not to mention Derrick O'Keefe. For now, I will leave that speculation to readers. Of course, it seems that Felton was not entirey desired, to the extent his name never made it on the public promotional material for the evening. Was Felton just a late addition, or was he intentionally left off the publicity material because his presence, while deemed of value to the Muslim public, might nonetheless attract the kind of public outrage that befell the Vancouver Public Library for giving Felton a forum during "freedom to read week"?

Islamophobia

Thanks to Walker for this piece.

From an interview with Michael Crichton, Wired Magazine. Sep/Oct 1993:

The tendency to characterize people's beliefs - instead of focusing on their actions - is one of the true abuses of the power of the media. Look how quickly Kimba Woods was transformed from respected jurist to Playboy bunny; just as I went from author to racist Japan-basher. In my case, what was striking was how many journalists applied the Japan-bashing label, without appearing to have read my book. The hazards of this practice became clear in a few months, when the Columbia Journalism Review reported last December that the term "Japan-bashing" was invented by an American public relations flack at the Japan Economic Institute, a Japanese lobbying organization. The term was promoted as a way to stifle debate, including legitimate debate, on relations with Japan. The man who coined the phrase said: "Anyone who uses that term is my intellectual dupe."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/mediasaurus.html?pg=4&topic=

"Islamophobia."

A reminder of who is leading the fight against freedom of expression

What follows is an excerpt from the Speech of Secretary General at the thirty-fifth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, given on June 18th:

Honourable Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

In face of the adverse and mounting phenomenon of Islamophobia in the West, we placed this issue at the top of our priorities and preoccupations, while conducting a large-scale world-wide effort to confront it at four levels:

First: The official level of countries and governments of the West, where this phenomenon is rampant and wide-spread. We have exhorted the officials in these countries to assume their inherent legal responsibilities in order to stem this illegal trend in conformity with international and domestic laws which prohibit discrimination based on incitement to hatred towards individuals or groups because of their religion, race, or other grounds.

Second: The level of major international organizations, such as the United Nations General Assembly in New York or the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as organisations concerned with Dialogue among Civilizations, or inter-religious and interfaith dialogue.

Third: Renowned academic institutions, intellectual and research centers, and think-tank circles.

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film Fitna? we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Robert Spencer has his analysis of the speech here:

It is telling that when Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC think of “defending the image of Islam,” they don’t mean working in Muslim communities to combat the influence of the jihad ideology or Islamic supremacism among Muslims worldwide. They don’t have in mind developing any large scale initiatives to combat Osama bin Laden’s version of Islam, and to teach Muslims how to resist the jihadist appeal. The organization hasn’t ever acknowledged the obvious fact that it could end “Islamophobia” right away by rejecting Islam’s doctrines of violence, supremacism and conquest and moving strongly against those Muslims who are acting upon those doctrines.

Instead, they have made themselves the enemies of honest men like Mark Steyn who have called attention to this supremacist agenda. They will be working with American policymakers to restrict free speech -- that is, honest discussion of the elements of Islam that the jihadists use to justify their actions and gain recruits.

Can honest discussion really be outlawed? You bet it can. As long as free people do nothing to stop it from happening. As the OIC presses American politicians to use anti-discrimination and hate speech laws to “stem this illegal trend,” we need to stand up now with Mark Steyn and all the others who are on the front lines of this battle, and tell them that what they’re doing to Steyn in Canada must never happen here. We must tell our elected officials to stop this outrage, resist OIC lobbying, and reaffirm in no uncertain terms our commitment to free speech -- particularly now, when so much depends on our being able to speak with honesty about the nature of the jihadist threat, and so many powerful entities want to make sure we do not do so.

So much depends on this -- possibly even including our survival as a free people.

See also Spencer on the UN's moves agains freedom of expression.

So, let us in Canada not forget that Mohammed Elmasry is a sockpuppet too.

Meanwhile, Dutch companies are caving in to blackmail and "condemning" Geert Wilders' film Fitna (brief analysis by Fjordman).

"Islamophobic" Dutch gays swing to the Right

Multicultural civil war grows in Holland as "islamophobic" Dutch gays respond to homophobic muslim immigrants, in a contest making strange bedfellows out of "right-wing" politicians and Dutch libertines.

A gay activist interviewed in the article named Frank van Dalen does much to reveal the dishonesty and arrogance preventing us so often from moving towards a less violent accommodation of opposite beliefs. If the article is representing his statements in a trustworthy context, he comes across as an unsympathetically self-deluded thinker. It cautions us all to be honest in formulating our opinions of others, and to value truth when seeking a balance between looking for the legitimate good in people, and yet still seeing what is really there...

Translated, [faithfully, I hope, by myself, despite dubious help from babel fish], from the left-leaning 360 degree magazine's website, we can read of Insecurity and immigration: dutch gays caught in a bind :

...
The picture postcard of an open and tolerant Amsterdam is increasingly fading: a month does not go by without the national gay organization COC not reporting at least one, even two or three homophobic aggressions. According to police statistics, it is already up to 31 since the beginning of the year. And the incidents do not proceed any old place: "When there is violence, or more often still, provocation or intimidation, it is most of the time in the gay districts, on our streets", explains Frank van Dalen, president of the COC. However, in Amsterdam as in other large cities of the Netherlands, it is the young people of arabic-muslim origin, in particular the moroccans of the second or third generation who are singled out. An ethnic dimension which weighs very heavy in the current political climate.

While incivilities, violence and confrontations between young people of foreign origin and the police make the media headlines, the crisis of Dutch identity is also playing out in the background of demographic upheavals. Indeed, according to official projections, the muslim populations should form the majority of the large cities of the country within three years. "All political discussions are centered on these questions of integration of the moroccans and of religions", summarizes Philippe Esnault, a Genevan long living in Amsterdam.
"All these speeches do not reassure the homosexuals, who are taking refuge in populist rhetoric in order to protect their gains."

In fact, the massive rallying of homosexuals to the populist right, had just been predicted by a survey of the magazine Gay Krant, which foresees a [political issue?] for the local “iron lady", Rita Verdonk, ex-minister known for for her xenophobic declarations and her tough stands regarding immigration. The politician has started a new movement baptized Trots op Nederland ("Proud of the Netherlands"). "She is the homosexuals’ diva", says Laurent Chambon, French sociologist and elected Labour official in Amsterdam, with amusement. "Because of her, homosexuals on the right are coming out of the closet."

In a style inaugurated by the gay tribune Pim Fortuyn who was assassinated in 2002, Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders, the other leader of the populist right-wing, became masters of the art of waving the scarecrow of Islamism after each incident implicating young people of muslim origin. A technique which works on gays at least as well as upon the rest of the population. "There is islamophobia among gays, I would have preferred that it is not the case, but it is a fact", concedes Frank van Dalen.

Frank van Dalen is not easily deceived on the motives which push the youths to attack homosexuals: "I believe that islam hardly plays any role in it. In truth, it is a question of social position, lack of education and of group behavior... the young people simply use it [islam] as an excuse." For Laurent Chambon, the phenomenon is the symptom of a more general malady, which has nothing specific to do with homosexuals. It particularly fits within a territorial dimension, because of the privatization of the municipal real estate, driving out the lower classes from the downtown area. "If the young morrocans come to play the strong arm in the center it is also because themselves, or their close relations, have just been elbowed out of it, sometimes with brutality, in order to make room for white bobos", he explains. "Gays are the first [targets?] because they are perceived as weak [links?]... In that, they pay the price for their visibility... "

This rise of insecurity coincides with a fall of vitality in the local gay scene. A decline that many Amsterdam citizens interpret as the sign that a "moral blanket" is falling upon the city, as bars close and restrictions multiply. Some put forth even the hypothesis that the parties in power (Labour and Christian Democrats) would benefit from the current tensions in order to “clean up” the gay scene, and to roll back certain gains of the homosexual community.

A vision that the COC president contests, for whom there is not any doubt that the authorities support gays, more than ever. "For the first time, the struggle against homophobia has been integrated in the coalition program. We have a minister of State in charge of the dossier and a more important budget to improve measures in education ", explains Frank van Dalen.

The reinforcement of educational measures for diversity are only a single part of the demands of the Dutch gay movement, which call for draconian measures of repression. It thus obtained an increase on required penalties for offences of a homophobic character. Last June, the COC even proposed the installation of a perimeter prohibiting known delinquents around the gay district. Immediately labeled the "gay ghetto", the idea caused an outcry. It measures in any case the confusion of the [gay and lesbian] community vis-a-vis this new phenomenon.

In response to requests from the gay community, the Amsterdam police force innovated by assigning gay and lesbian officers at heart of a special liaison unit, the Homonetwerk, which informs the remainder of the police force about the [gay and lesbian] community and encourages the victims of aggression to come forward with charges. ...

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I can't help but read this story as another example of how humility is such an essential component to searching for truth. Can a lifelong atheist not question their certainties about whether they truly do understand religious motivation? Can a die-hard socialist not push aside their own financial obsessions long enough to succeed in imagining something other than money alone as the motivating force behind any choice of behavior?
How authoritatively can we each see the unseen in our lives, to what degree can one man claim to sufficiently understand another, as difference after difference separate their personal experiences, further separating their common frames of reference?

Can the besieged Frank van Dalen really believe he knows what is in the heart of the thugs that repeatedly assault his friends? Is he honestly reporting on what is in his **own** heart, is he being honest with himself, when he claims that the "young people" are simply "...using islam as an excuse"...!?! What does that even mean, anyway; is he promoting the politically incorrect blasphemy that islam is a religion condoning violence, and that young muslims are using this as a license to indulge in all-too-typical adolescent urges to be violent? Does he have the courage of his convictions to follow links of one thought to another, or do his thoughts trespass into a "no-go zone" of the mind? For if the youth were indeed using islam as an "excuse" for their violent homophobia, what does that suggest should be the fate of islam itself in the tolerant Netherlands..? Where does he disagree with Rita Verdonk?

Silently missing from the discussion, as usual in these articles, are what the violent moroccan youths themselves think. In their mind, are they beating up gays because of an oppressively "unfair" distribution of capital?
Why deign to ask them, I suppose, when experts already portend to "know" what the youth believe......

Echoes of Dag

Good ideas have a way of cropping up in more than one place at once, since intellectual life is inherently a social pursuit, all romantic ideas of the lone genius aside. Here's Gil Bailie (with that great cartoon) sounding a lot like Dag. It's enraging stuff, but now is the time to get sufficiently enraged, while remaining lucid and sharp, mentally free of apocalyptic or utopian "solutions", that we can get enough people aware that we need to change our political culture and make it more in line with reality, lest our little debates about when it is acceptable to be rude and violent get lost in the storm that will follow the "victory" of those who think it is appropriate to preach anti-Western courses on "Islamophobia" in our universities.