JUNE 30, 2019 BY ROBERT SPENCER
And the world yawns, because the victims are Christians, and Christians are not classified among the political and media elites’ favored victim groups.
“Nigerians describe horrors of Fulani atrocities: ‘There is a genocide going on,’” by Samuel Smith, Christian Post, June 14, 2019:
WASHINGTON — Nigerians from predominantly Christian tribes in Nigeria visited the United States this week to share how their tribes are now “homeless” and “sleeping under the skies” after recent massacres at the hands of Fulani radicals and unwanted actions taken by the government.
Two members from the Adara community, a majority Christian ethnic group in Southern Kaduna state, shared their experiences during a panel event sponsored by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation that also featured persecuted Nigerians from other parts of the country.
Alheri Magaji, the daughter of the current leader of the Adara Chiefdom, told the audience about how her ethnic group suffered vicious attacks carried out from mid-February through April this year that left about 400 dead and displaced thousands in her community.
“Right now my tribe is nonexistent legally,” Magaji explained. “Part of the reason why I am here is to try to get my land back. That is who I am. That is my identity. That is what makes me. My people are stranded. They are literally sleeping under the skies on the floor [with] no houses, no food, nothing. It is not about relief materials and how much we can donate. It’s about holding the government accountable.”
As previously reported, a series of Fulani attacks were carried out in Adara communities in the Kajuru local government area in a span of a few weeks by suspected Fulani radicals. Along with the hundreds of lives taken, countless buildings were burned and destroyed.
Fulani herdsmen, many of which are Muslim, are a nomadic ethnic group found in West and Central Africa. While conflict between Fulani herdsmen and farmers in Nigeria has been ongoing for decades, Magaji and other panelists explained that attacks launched by Fulani radicals in the last few years are more atrocious than the farmer-herder conflicts that came before.
“I spoke to a woman whose limbs were cut off. She had four kids and was nine months pregnant,” Magaji recalled. “Fulani herdsmen came to a Kajuru town in February, about 400 of them with AK-47s. They came at around 6:30 a.m. They spoke Adara. They came in with war songs. They were singing songs that translate into ‘the owners of the land have come. It’s time for settlers to leave.’”
“We have 2-month-old babies, 6-month-old babies, babies in the bellies turned from their mother’s womb and slaughtered like animals, like chickens,” she continued. “We are here today to beg the U.S. government and for the world to hear our story.”
By the time the series of Fulani attacks occurred this past spring, the Adara tribe had already been pushed into a state of uncertainty. Magaji said last May that the Kaduna government passed a measure to split the Adara chiefdom and create a Fulani Muslim emirate in Kajuru.
The Adara community detested such a proposal. Magaji added that the Adara chief was kidnapped last Oct. 19 and murdered about a week later even though a ransom was paid for his release.
“It was when the chief died that the elders in our land realized that the governor … [said that] Adara Christians are now under a Muslim Hausa-Fulani emirate,” she explained. “It is so ridiculous that it was already signed into law and nobody knew about it. For a governor to make that kind of law in the first place without the people of the land knowing about it is illegal and unjust.”
Magaji said that the elders of her community tried to pressure the government but “nobody would listen.”
“When they realized that nobody was going to listen to them, they took the matter to court,” she explained. “A week after the civil case started in court, my dad and eight other elders were arrested and thrown into prison for no reason.”
Magaji said the state government blamed the Adara elders for the death of 66 Fulani herdsmen that were killed in February 2019.
“The problem we have with the statement the governor made is that on the 10th of February, 11 Adarra people were killed,” she said. “The government didn’t say anything about it even when the leaders of the community officially made statements.”…
Magaji fears that the Adara tribe will end up going “extinct.”
“The government takes over and does whatever it wants to do,” she added. “It’s a plan that if it is not [halted] right now, it’s going to be terrible for the world at large. There is a genocide going on. Every morning we wake up to different stories.”..
8 hrs ·
Please read this Townhall column and watch the embedded video on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).
This video is 15 minutes in length and very effective.
Going on to nearly twenty years after 9/11, the West continues to be doing head in the sand routine with the MB. In Canada, as in much of Europe, the mainstream parties and the media continue to be in full appeasement mode of the MB.
We Canadians, who understand where appeasement of MB, a global totalitarian movement disguised as a religion, finally leads everyone to, as we have witnessed before, have a duty and an obligation to our country and to our children.
We need to promise to ourselves, as Canadians, that we turn this 2019 election into a referendum on Globalism and Islamism — that we reject any and all forms of appeasement when it comes to the MB and its various tentacles in our society, and that we reject any party in this election that continue to be delusional about MB and its objectives.
Arwen~ Canadians especially need to watch this…highly recommend!
Published on Jun 28, 2019
Showing how Canadians’ freedom of conscience and speech has been eroded under Trudeau’s Liberals, David M. Haskell discusses the People’s Party’s plan for restoring those fundamental freedoms. The Liberals’ abortion attestation, Bill C-16, M -103, and other issues are also highlighted as is Andrew Scheer’s refusal to stand up for conservatives’ right to free expression.
On our nation’s birthday, let’s give thanks for the labours and love of all those preceding generations which brought us to Canada 2019
June 28, 2019
It’s the July 1st Canada Day weekend. It should be a great time.
I presume our government is agreeable to the idea of celebrating the country it heads. That caution springs from the tepid and uninspiring performance it gave on the landmark occasion of our 150th anniversary. Any other nation, at peace, prosperous, with an earned reputation for good will in foreign relations and moderation at home, would have put on a show to shame Olympic spectacles and blasted Hosannas to the globe.
But either through a kind of careless meekness or perhaps a vague fear of being too showily patriotic (an emotion many shun as unenlightened these days) the government turned what should have been a birthday party for the ages into a frigid pantomime, something with less buzz than an after-party for the Geminis or (shudder) the annual Parliamentary Press Gallery dinner. Hardly a few have noted the Raptors’ (a team staffed by Americans, winning an American title) recent victory party as the “real” celebration we didn’t have two years back. A columnist in “the other place” put it very finely: “Everyone was feeling part of something big. Canada’s 150th birthday was a church tea compared with this blowout.”
Will it be better this time? We’ll see.
The official celebrations are announced as revolving around the now familiar — or too familiar — triune of “multiculturalism, diversity and inclusion.” Which is fine as far as it goes, though a careful reading of these three rhetorical epaulets will reveal each is a function of the other and the three are conceptually but one. A deeper consideration might suggest that to locate or identify these particular three attitudes or virtues as synonymous with Canada, or the central feature of Canadian identity, is a self-regarding delusion. Is Toronto meaningfully more diverse than London or New York?
A high-sounding regard for diversity and inclusion is now the banner boast of most Western countries, and some not of the West. The same is true of every bland corporate mission statement, and virtually every muttering from our universities is crowded with numb prose professing their unshakeable devotion to “a diverse environment” and an “inclusive approach” to whatever it is they are misteaching these days. In other words, far from “owning” diversity and inclusion and their parent multiculturalism, or from all three being distinctly and exclusively Canadian, they have become more or less virtue sign-posts in everything from advertising and social media to institutions of every pretentious stripe over half the globe.
So if we are going to celebrate Canada’s birthday, let’s consider grounding the celebrations in the present actualities of the country, of the land, people and common culture, and, even more, in the labours and love of all those preceding generations that brought us to Canada 2019.
We’re only in a position where we can effuse about our superior virtues, because absent our comforts, absent our wealth, absent our security, earlier Canadians offered their “blood, toil, tears and sweat” to labours beyond our capacity, and in conditions we will (hopefully) never taste, in fashioning this country. They were as much the artisans of our present good fortune as those craftsmen who worked in stone, ages before there was a Canada, to give Europe its cathedrals.
It was they who delivered the heritage of accomplishment for which on every July 1st we give thanks for, they who evolved the civil code, that manner we have in dealing with and thinking of our fellow Canadians, that we take such pride in. The latter-day penchant for frequent historical apologies is troublesome, especially if it is not at least occasionally played against the recognition of how much of the mixed past was right and honourable. In fact, we might ask how much of this apologetic streak is built on the arrogant presumption that if it had been “us” back then — us being the tolerant and inclusive and enlightened Canadians of 2019 — we could never have acted like “them.” Here’s a thought: them are us.
We could do with a dose of modesty about our current progressive moment, and a little more reverence, or at least respect, to the many, many moments that preceded it.
A Canada Day celebration, thoughtfully conceived, would be something of a festival of thanksgiving for all the good things, brave actions and enduring fortitude it took to bring Canada to its 21st-century heights. It would, naturally, count our heroes, but fix equally on the nameless labourers, farmers, loggers, traders, fishermen, and emphatically the mothers of our pioneers. How greatly the women of early Canada, with all the challenges and deprivations of their time, helped knit our common values and inspirited our civic ethos, is beyond measurement, but it is not therefore beyond present day regard and celebration.
Diversity is a fine thing in itself, but it is nothing without a precedent commonality — what some might call a core identity. Canada Day is a day for the all of us, for the elements we share in common, for the endeavours and themes that bind us as a country. Our current fixation on groups and sub-groups, on sexual and political and ethnic divisions and subdivisions, on portioning out rights based on various and multiplying identity factions (a product of multiculturalism that is ironically the very contradiction of it) weakens and is even hostile to genuine commonality. What unites a citizenry is all the more important for a country when its constituent elements are so various and disparate.
Nothing comes from nothing, as Lear, trembling toward dotage, remarked. Twenty-first-century Canada did not just fall from the air. It did not arrive out of a void. It was built, built over time, with millions of unrecorded transactions and interactions, conscious and unconscious, from farm to Parliament. The nation is a sum product of all that went before the present moment, or, as we should say more elegantly, an inheritance. And it is the inheritance we celebrate on Canada Day.
All of our celebrated national composure, the tolerance and regard for our neighbours, the ambition to set an example to the world, that is an inheritance, too, a moral inheritance that constitutes — there is no need to fear the phrase — the soul of this country. Canada is, despite all flaws and faults, more bent towards good than its opposite, more given to generosity than meanness, capable of a fitting remorse for sins past, but mindful that the larger entries in the ledger go to the finer side of things. Happy Canada Day.
Published:June 28, 2019
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is not going to win the Oct. 21 election if he’s running scared of Liberal fear-mongering about Islamophobia by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
An indication that’s happening is the party’s recent veto, without explanation, of Salim Mansur from seeking the Conservative nomination in London North Centre.
I’ve known Mansur for 15 years and was his editor when he was a longtime columnist for the Toronto Sun.
He’s a scholar and a gentleman, now retired, after a distinguished career of more than three decades as an associate professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario.
He has been a supporter of Canada’s conservative movement through its darkest hours — including the 1993 election when the Progressive Conservative party was reduced to two seats.
He ran for the Canadian Alliance in London West in 2000, losing to the Liberal incumbent, and supported the unite-the-right movement spearheaded by former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper.
Mansur’s speeches and published works have appeared widely, including his 2011 award-winning book, Delectable Lie: A liberal repudiation of multiculturalism, for which I wrote one of the cover blurbs, calling Mansur “a brilliant academic and thought-provoking journalist” who “explains what liberal democracy really means, and why the protection of individual rights that lies at its heart is under constant assault from the group think mentality of state-imposed multiculturalism.”
Born in Calcutta, India, Mansur is a practising Muslim and a fierce critic of radical Islam.
He believes the damage Trudeau and the Liberals are doing to Canada through their support of “the twin forces of globalism and Islamism” must be reversed and that “we must not be intimidated by political correctness to express our hopes and fears for our country.”
“You and I as Conservatives” he wrote during his aborted campaign to win the Tory nomination, “disagree with Justin Trudeau and his Liberals in the manner in which they are ideologically motivated to change Canada, not for the better, nor in keeping true to those values that made our country an exemplar of civility and decency in a much-troubled world.”
He expressed concern in 2012 before Parliament’s committee on citizenship and immigration about “the flow of immigration into Canada from around the world, and in particular the flow from Muslim countries, mean(ing) a pouring in of numbers into a liberal society … from cultures at best non-liberal.”
He called this “an unprecedented challenge to liberal societies, such as ours, when there is no demand placed on immigrants any longer to assimilate into the founding liberal values of the country to which they have immigrated.”
Mansur, in my view, would have been an ideal candidate for the Conservatives in Liberal-held London Centre North, because he wasn’t running out of ego or expectation of easy victory. He was running because of his principles.
While there has been no official explanation for why the Conservative party hierarchy disqualified his candidacy, Mansur says he was told by senior party sources that the Scheer campaign was worried his record of speeches and writings would open him to attacks of Islamophobia by the Liberals and it didn’t want Scheer distracted by them.
The Conservative party declined comment when I contacted them about disqualifying Mansur.
Given their rejection, he’d be a natural for Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party.
If that happens, it will be because the Conservative hierarchy lacks all conviction about what it claims are its political principles. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-scheer-and-conservatives-running-scared?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0egZ__bXUM7NsGvT2YvjtBuexOiNe3TtduInEjisOOofthSwTQiAPvWbM#Echobox=1561767697
“It is tempting to play the progressives/left/self regarding liberals at their own shallow little game and use their own methods to shut down their rantings, their unfunny and vicious comedy, their lectures: yes, it is tempting but sometimes it is better not to succumb to such temptation.
We are better than they are, with their thin skins; their forensically arrived at identities; their religious devotion to “diversity; their love of democracy when it serves their purpose but which become “populism” when it does not; and heir abuse of opponents when they are incapable of bringing cogent argument to the table..
We are better. We should not play them with their rules; we should park the tanks of our ideas on their lawns and cut them down to size without mercy or restraint, argument by argument, identity by identity, self assumed virtue by virtue. .
Arwen~ A very timely word and exhortation by Martel.
THE DANGEROUS EQUATION OF ISLAMOPHOBIA WITH ANTISEMITISM
The Somali-born congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who has made a number of antisemitic remarks, is currently embroiled in controversy over her marriage history. When claims against her of bigamy and immigration fraud first emerged in 2016, Omar accused the journalists involved of “Islamophobia.”
Omar has also made a claim being heard more and more: that Muslims are called antisemites only because they are Muslim. In other words, anyone who calls out Muslim antisemitism is Islamophobic.
This twisted claim is a way of making Muslim antisemitism unsayable.
The claim is being heard alongside the message that Islamophobia is the equivalent of antisemitism — an equation made by the leadership of Britain’s Jewish community as well. This is dismaying because it’s a morally bankrupt and dangerous equivalence.
While some people are truly prejudiced against Muslims — just as some hate or fear anyone not like themselves — Islamophobia was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood as a way of silencing legitimate discussion of any fault in the Islamic world.
A relentless campaign is currently being waged to outlaw Islamophobia in the West — and thereby shut down that vital discussion. The United Nations is working with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to prohibit all speech that Muslims consider offensive.
A few days ago, Pakistan ramped up the pressure. Backing the U.N.’s initiative, Pakistan’s ambassador Maleeha Lodhi said Islamophobia was “today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other.’ ”
This is totally untrue. Apart from the fact that Islam is not a race but a religion, the true hatred of “the other” that really is most prevalent today is antisemitism. And those principally spreading this poison are the political left in tandem with the Muslim world.
In Britain, the Labour Party is convulsed by epidemic, eye-watering antisemitism among its members. A detailed survey last year from the University of Oslo found that in Scandinavia, Germany, Britain and France, most antisemitic violence is being perpetrated by Muslims.
This is broadly unsayable because of the terror of being labeled Islamophobic, the taunt deployed against anyone who calls out Muslim antisemitism. That’s why this week’s declaration by U.N. secretary-general António Guterres that he would “continue to call out antisemitic racism and other forms of hatred,” but who is also poised to ban all criticism of Islam under precisely that umbrella, is dangerous cant.
For Muslim antisemitism is fueling and legitimizing western antisemitism and its contemporary mutations: anti-Zionism, and the demonization and delegitimization of Israel. The refusal to criticize Muslims means that the frenzied discourse of anti-Jewish hatred coursing through the Islamic world, consisting of blood libels, unhinged conspiracy theories and paranoid fantasies, has become normalized in broader western society.
Muslim ideologues state openly that what motivates them above all is their hatred not just of Israel, but the Jews.
The leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has said: “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.”
Earlier this month, Iraqi cleric Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin said on Iraqi TV that the Koran focuses on the Jews as much as it does because they’re the “sworn enemy” of the Muslims.
The Palestinian Arabs pump out psychotic, Nazi-style libels and calumnies against Jews. At the end of last year, a preacher said typically on Palestinian Authority TV that the Jews “expose their fangs whenever they get the chance… always fighting, always scheming and always plotting against humanity…”
The stifling effect of the Islamophobia-equals-antisemitism trope, however, means few appreciate that the concept of Islamophobia is itself fundamentally anti-Jew.
That’s because Islamophobia, like much Muslim discourse, is based on an appropriation and inversion of Jewish experience and precepts.
The Islamists invented “Islamophobia” because they wanted to gain what they (wrongly) thought were the benefits to the Jews of antisemitism—protection from criticism. That’s why they claim an equivalence between the two.
But the great difference is that antisemitism is true prejudice because the Jews are innocent of the grotesque misdeeds attributed to them. By contrast, while many Muslims are decent people who wouldn’t harm a fly, Islam is an all-too real, historic source of oppression, fanatical violence and colonialist wars.
Time and again, Muslim thinking appropriates and inverts Jewish experience in order to demonize Israel and the Jews.
The Jews are the only people for whom the land of Israel was ever their national kingdom, hundreds of years before Islam was even founded. Yet Muslims say (preposterously) that they are the indigenous people of the land.
Gaza’s Islamist warlords commit war crimes by targeting Israeli civilians. Yet Muslims say Israel is guilty of war crimes, even though the IDF go to heroic lengths not to kill Arab civilians and achieve a ratio of killing civilians relative to fighters three or four times better than the ratio achieved by American or British forces in their own wars.
Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab lands; yet Muslims claim Israel is ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, a ludicrous assertion given that the Arab population in the disputed territories and Gaza has increased more than fourfold since 1948.
Israel gives all Jews the right of return to Israel; Muslims claim a “right of return” not to their own putative state of Palestine, but to Israel. They even claim that the Palestinians are the world’s “new Jews.”
In Britain, a campaign by the former Conservative party chairman Baroness Warsi to outlaw Islamophobia is falsely accusing the Conservative party of institutional Islamophobia and Islamophobia-denial. This is clearly an attempt by British Muslims to appropriate for themselves the moral high ground now supposedly occupied by British Jews as a result of the unaddressed antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Anti-Jewish appropriation and inversion are fundamental to Islam. One reason why the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is anathema is that Islam teaches that the real, authentic Jews are… the Muslims. Thus, Osama bin Laden declared in his Letter to the American People:
“It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed… If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.”
Since pious Muslims believe that Islam is perfect and everything else is the province of the devil, Muslim aggression against Jews and others becomes self-defense while defense against it becomes aggression.
All espousing the Palestinian cause go along with this surreal appropriation and inversion agenda. In turn, it plays directly into the post-modern discourse of the West where lies are believed as truth and truth disdained as lies in accordance with the dogma of secular ideologies from multiculturalism to environmentalism.
Like Islam, these ideologies are also premised upon the perfection of the world, agendas which brook no dissent and which demand that heretics be destroyed.
If you feel you are living in a terrifying, discombobulating and sinister hall of mirrors over antisemitism, Israel and Islamophobia, this is why.
All religions need critical engagement. In this moment of history, that need is pressing in the world of Islam
June 27, 2019
Some time back I was booking a flight and had an option to fly EgyptAir, with a connection in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The times were convenient and the price right. I declined and found another option.
Why? Because I would not want, even as a mere stopover, to be in Saudi Arabia without prior guarantees from the government that I would not be subject to imprisonment or worse because I am a Christian.
If I were made of sterner stuff, I suppose I might welcome the chance to minister as a fellow prisoner to those Filipino and Indian “guest” workers caught praying and thrown into an extra-judicial jail, perhaps never to be heard of again. But I am not, and so opted to give Jeddah a pass.
Now is that Islamophobic? I suppose yes, in that I would be afraid for life and liberty because in Saudi Arabia a certain form of Islam is practiced and given sanction by the state. To put it another way, I would be happy to connect in Johannesburg but not Jeddah, and the reason is related to the latter being in an Islamic country.
Yet, I would also be happy to connect in Jakarta, in the world’s most populous Muslim country, so maybe I am not Islamophobic after all. And I would be happy to visit India, where there are more Muslims than in Saudi Arabia.
Is it Islamophobic for a Catholic priest not to stop over in Saudi Arabia? What if there were mechanical problems and we were required to leave the airport to stay overnight in a hotel? In a country where carrying a bible or a rosary can get you thrown into religious jail? Where Catholic priests have to minister incognito, like the worst days of Elizabethan England? Whoops, did I just reveal a latent Anglicanophobia? I might be a simmering cauldron of bigotry.
Of course it’s not Islamophobic. Christians are quite right to be circumspect of Wahhabi Islam as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia and exported to the world in various murderous guises.
All of which is brought to mind by the federal government’s new “anti-racism” strategy. The program grew out of a controversy some years ago over M-103, an anti-Islamophobia motion in Parliament. So the strategy includes an Islam component, perhaps not pro-Islam but at least anti-anti-Islam. It’s aimed at protecting Canadian Muslims from harassment and discrimination.
It’s tiresome to point out that Islam is not a race, despite the government’s determination to treat it like one. It would be possible to harbour prejudice against Arabs and be fiercely pro-Muslim, as the majority of Muslims live east of the Persian Gulf and in parts of Africa, outside the Arab world. But leave the confusion of race and religion for another day.
It’s a mistake to treat Islam itself as if it were a monolithic thing, an undifferentiated block approaching two billion people. Islam is a many-differentiated thing. Saudi Wahhabis and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Toronto are not the same.
That’s the problem with the definition of Islamophobia adopted by the anti-racism strategy. It includes “racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial proﬁling, Islamophobia can lead to viewing and treating Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.”
Is it anti-Muslim prejudice to say that all Muslims constitute a security threat? Yes. Is it discrimination to direct acts of hostility toward followers of Islam in general? Yes.
But the house of Islam has many rooms, and not all of them are filled with sun-dappled butterflies. The same would be true of Christianity. But it is not bigotry to consider that. For example, while Toronto is proud to host the Aga Khan Museum, it would be rather a different matter to build the Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab Museum in Canada.
All religions need critical engagement. In this moment of history, that need is pressing in the world of Islam. Muslims, after all, pay the most lethal price for jihadist violence. Yet the government’s strategy takes a dim view of any critical look at Islam, which would actually put a great number of important Muslim voices offside.
I have profited over the years from many fruitful encounters with Muslims, both in Canada and overseas. Given the type of Muslims who are typically willing to engage in Christian-Muslim encounters, it is quite common to hear complaints about Islamist extremism from them, long before any non-Muslim raises the matter.
It is quite likely that, like many federal strategies, nothing much will be accomplished by this anti-racism strategy. But if it is effective, it should not prevent a critical engagement, theological and otherwise, with the world of Islam, both lights and shadows. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-de-souza-canadas-anti-racism-strategy-needs-to-redefine-islamophobia?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0p3qZHIqZBrr8uq9yEiZch1U59cu5k9163E5fULQF71IWmFLkMxy5nHfs#comments-area
Statement from Salim Mansur
June 26, 2019
Over nine months ago, I made the decision to seek the Conservative Party of Canada’s nomination in London North Centre, and submitted my paperwork with a $1000 deposit, as required, to the Party’s headquarters.
In November, the Party’s Regional Organizer told me that I could launch my campaign, and that all of my papers were in order.
On June 10, I received notice from the Conservative Party of Canada’s Executive Director that my candidacy had been “disallowed” for reasons not specified. This email told me I had a right to appeal my disallowance to the Party’s National Council. I took a few days to speak with my family, friends, supporters and campaign team. I submitted my appeal by email on June 15. On June 17, my appeal was rejected because 24 hours had elapsed from receipt of the disallowance notice.
On June 20, the party announced the nomination race in London North Centre. This notice of nomination contest, released after the party formally disallowed my candidacy, has removed any doubt that the party had decided right at the outset that I would not be allowed to contest the nomination.
I was prepared to accept the result of losing a nomination, or losing the election. It is harder for me to accept that London North Centre members, who have donated their time and money and purchased memberships in support of me over the last nine months, will be denied their democratic right to choose their candidate.
Canada is at a crossroads. The twin forces of globalism and Islamism will unalterably change the culture and politics of our beloved Canada.
The damage that Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party have already done cries out for reversal. By disallowing my candidacy the Conservative party has indicated it will not even address the fundamental challenge Canadians face that globalism and Islamism together represents to us, and our children, during the 2019 election.
I am consulting with my team how I may serve best my country at this time so critical in Canada’s history, and shortly I will make known our decision.