Professor Jordan Peterson declares “Islam is not compatible with democracy” amid Canada’s battle for free speech

JUN 5, 2019 11:05 AM BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

Hungarian leader Viktor Orban and Canada’s Dr. Jordan Peterson met last week and “slammed Illegal Immigration as well as the ideological premise of ‘political correctness which in their view “make sensible public discussions virtually impossible”.

Peterson also said that Islam is not compatible with democracy and the issue is not “allowed to be discussed”, a message which has been repeatedly expressed by Jihad Watch.

Professor Jordan Peterson soared to popularity given his views in support of  intellectual freedoms, free speech and human rights. His latest defense of free speech couldn’t have come at a better time. News emerged in Canada this week that opposition Conservative leader Andrew Scheer threw Tory MP Michael Cooper out of a House of Commons “Justice and Human Rights” committee hearing — examining online hate — after Cooper’s confrontation with a Muslim witness. Jihad Watch covered the story HERE.

The Justin Trudeau government continues its campaign–heavily advised by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (formerly CAIR-CAN)– to “crack down” on free speech in efforts to battle “Islamophobia“, which includes an expensive followup to anti-Islamophobia motion M-103. This Justice and Human Rights Commons committee hearing is an extension of M-103 by all indicators.

Meanwhile, outside of Government efforts remains (for now) the freedom of the people.

In a statement highlighting the nonsensical “Islamophobia” subterfuge, Peterson “recently faced criticism for posing in a picture with a man wearing a T-shirt with the text ‘I’m a proud Islamophobe’, an incident that cost him a fellowship at Cambridge University.”

“Islamophobia” is a term which has no place in any democracy. It is propelled by Organization of Islamic Cooperation initiatives to subvert democracies. Those who force the “Islamophobia” agenda are adamant that the word not be replaced with “anti-Muslim bigotry“, the latter of which would put Muslims on equal ground as any other faith or group. Islamic supremacists seek special treatment and they do it by wielding an invented victimology narrative, all the while covering up the gross abuses committed in the name of Islam globally.

The term “islamophobia” was defined by the National Council of Canadian Muslims as “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.”

Canadian citizens are now being subjected to a government hearing in which some questionable “witnesses” giving so-called “evidence” weigh in to influence the direction of rights and freedoms in Canada. These witnesses impact: what should be said, how it should be said and by whom. These government-selected “expert” witnesses (of which not all are “questionable”) decide for all Canadians on matters which pertain to Canada’s Constitution.

In addition to standing up for Canada’s Judeo-Christian democracy, I personally thank Dr. Jordan Peterson for standing up (among the many others) for me when I faced Liberal government scrutiny for writing and speaking about Islamic supremacist and jihad abuse globally…

I was subsequently fired by the Liberal government from my position as a director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF); a subject that was raised again during this current House of Commons committee hearing on “Justice and Human Rights“. It was raised by ‘witness’, Jasmin Zine, who has “a long record of “Islamophobia” propagandizing”, as Robert Spencer wrote HERE. It is worthwhile to note that the CRRF operates from the Department of Heritage, that same department under which M-103 emerged.

The blame for the ongoing failure to uphold democratic rights and freedoms in Canada (and elsewhere) lies with those who are themselves phobic about being deemed to be ‘racist’ and/or ‘Islamophobic’.  Some populations however are waking up to truth.

A YouGov survey showed in January that nearly half of French and Germans have a perceived clash between Islam and the values of their society; similar attitudes toward Islam were shown to be held by over one-third of Britons and Americans. Moreover, according to the poll, a higher number of Western respondents tend to be particularly critical of Islam, versus other religions such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity.

Hence the rise of the populist movement and the need for real experts who protect the tenets of Judeo-Christian democracy as opposed to the Sharia.

“Dangerous’: Hungarian PM Orban and Jordan Peterson Slam Illegal Immigration During Meeting”, Sputnik News, May 30, 2019:

Both the Hungarian prime minister and Canadian academic are known to be staunch opponents of the uncontrolled illegal migration that has been pouring into the EU since 2015.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban met with Canadian University Professor Jordan Peterson, who was attending the Brain Bar Festival in Budapest, on 30 May to discuss an array of topics. Namely, the two discussed the acute issue of illegal immigration, agreeing that it is both “unnecessary and dangerous”, Hungary today reported, citing Orban’s Assistant Under Secretary Havasi Bertalan.

Orban and Peterson also discussed contemporary political correctness, which in their opinion has made “sensible public discussions” virtually impossible. The two reportedly agreed that political correctness had been invented by a “small, ideologically driven group”.

Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson first shot to fame after refusing to use special pronouns for transgender people, but later became known as a professor with views often at odds with the mainstream, especially when it comes to free speech. He is renowned as a steadfast critic of political correctness, hard-line feminism, Marxism, and post-modernist narratives.

He recently faced criticism for posing in a picture with a man wearing a T-shirt with the text “I’m a proud Islamophobe”….

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/professor-jordan-peterson-declares-islam-is-not-compatible-with-democracy-amid-canadas-battle-for-free-speech?fbclid=IwAR2tUjbwk1jOnC4x0jkJl0aormFK_uJTsgKLddQbAKGKYWqboJap3WnMcQk

“Storming Juno”


Silvia Pecota

Published on Jun 5, 2019

The 1944 D-Day Normandy Invasion During the Second World War, on the 6th of June 1944, the Allies began their liberation of Western Europe by invading German-occupied France at Normandy under the code name Operation OVERLORD. At dawn, the 14,000 men of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division, supported by the 2nd Armoured Brigade landed on their beach, code named JUNO; and by the end of the day had made the farthest gains inland. The Normandy invasion paved the way for a complete Allied Victory culminating in Germany’s unconditional surrender on 8 May, 1945 – VE-Day. This video is a composite of over 20 portraits I created representing the Regiments and Units of the 3rd Canadian Division that landed on Juno Beach on the 6 of June 1944. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opNpXzZJYm0&feature=share

Return of the Biovator by Mark Steyn

The War on Free Speech June 5, 2019

Steyn prepares to enter the belly of the beast

On Tuesday Lindsay Shepherd, John Robson and I gave evidence to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The overall vibe of the event was summed up by this headline:

Official records expunged, video feed cut and witnesses maligned: MPs bent on censoring internet show true colours

To deal with that first point: As noted on Monday, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer yanked vice-chair Michael Cooper from the committee for his unacceptable “insensitivity” to a Muslim witness. In a further outbreak of sensitivity enforcement, on Tuesday morning the committee voted to erase not just Mr Cooper but the entirety of his “insensitive” testimony. Simply as a point of law, it strikes me as a bit iffy to edit live testimony for essentially political reasons: out of solidarity among Her Majesty’s Dominions, Mr Trudeau’s ministry has agreed with Ms Ardern’s in New Zealand that the name of the killer should not be mentioned. Why that should be binding on Opposition members hearing evidence I do not know. Our pal Andrew Lawton notes further inconsistencies.

Still, at the beginning of my opening statement, I put in a word for the “defenestrated” Cooper. There really isn’t much point in chaps like me fighting to get Section 13 repealed if you don’t have a broader culture of free speech – and, with respect to that, conservative leaders who rush to toss you overboard at the hint of anything allegedly “controversial” are a big part of the problem.

Given the fate of Michael Cooper, every other Tory on the committee was on notice. Thus, the next order of business was one of semi-erasure: The Steyn-Shepherd-Robson hearing was scheduled to be televised, but the committee voted instead to make us audio only – and every Conservative went along with it. From the CBC:

Tuesday’s meeting, which heard from free speech activists Mark Steyn, John Robson and Lindsay Shepherd, was initially to be televised, but MPs voted to have it recorded for audio only.

Here’s how that happened:

Once we got on to the witnesses here’s how it was reported (not wholly accurately, in my view) by the Canadian Press:

At one point, Steyn shouted over Toronto Liberal MP Ali Ehsassi, who was asking if Steyn regretted some of the things he’s said publicly about Muslims and Islam.

Steyn admitted that he had made “obnoxious” statements in the past, but refused to discuss controversies that had already been dealt with by human-rights tribunals.

“That’s been adjudicated and I’m in the clear, I beat the rap,” Steyn said.

“I don’t think you were adjudicated as to whether you were obnoxious or you were hurtful,” Ehsassi countered. Steyn again conceded his statements had been hurtful.

During his testimony, Steyn argued against the potential reinstatement of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which governed online hate speech and was repealed through a Conservative MP’s private member’s bill in 2013. He contended that the issues of online hate should be discussed in a space where people regulate themselves, rather than one restricted by laws.

“Free speech is hate speech, and hate speech is free speech,” Steyn said, calling the alternative to free speech “approved speech.”

Indeed. A little more on that from the Catholic press:

“Ultimately free speech is hate speech, and hate speech is free speech,” bestselling author and radio and TV personality Mark Steyn told the committee June 4. “Free speech is for speech you revile. The alternative to free speech is approved speech.”

The question becomes “approved by whom,” Steyn told the committee. “Once it becomes speech approved by the state, approved by formal bodies, it becomes speech approved by the powerful.”

The biggest threat to free speech is “the malign alliance between government and high-tech,” warned Steyn. He described as chilling a recent meeting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participated in with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May sitting opposite the heads of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple – “six woke billionaires” who “regulate the opinion” of billions of people.

“This is far more of a threat than some “pimply-faced neo-Nazi” writing on the Internet “from his mother’s basement in the prairies,” said Steyn, who faced hate speech complaints under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2007 and under similar legislation in two provinces for articles he wrote for Maclean’s magazine about Islam. Steyn and the magazine won, but their legal costs were well over $1 million and $100,000 for Steyn personally. A Conservative private member’s bill repealed Section 13 in 2013 under the Harper government.

Ah, happy days – when my legal bills were a mere six figures. After my American adventures, I’d welcome a new Canadian suit.

And finally the Pajama Boys at Vice:

The event ended with Mark Steyn refusing to apologize for his past statements on Islam and biovating about freedom of speech.

I don’t know what biovating is, but we need more of it. https://www.steynonline.com/9435/return-of-the-biovator?fbclid=IwAR0PnqoXw2PALY7_dAgBM7wY3RYQ3U6Hk4TJnxOiWSzLnUwCIDH58qrIpAQ

Wanting Out of the Group-Think

Tucker Carlson Tonight
June 4, 2019

On Monday’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Mark and Tucker considered Kanye West’s recent interview with David Letterman, and his reluctance to be told what to think. Click below to watch: https://www.steynonline.com/9434/wanting-out-of-the-group-think?fbclid=IwAR0vg2kOxPRTyfDA6tVzs-9aRlojoDEahBv2Rn8H_AffUW-_zEZ37ilLfwk

Martel speaks

“It is a wonder indeed to see the endless hypocrisy of the Left and the self regarding and entitled progressives; it is a gift that never ceases to give.

Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and thus someone who could one day be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He is a man who has never met an enemy of Britain or the West he does not like or make common cause with. He breaks bread with the genocidal Anti-Semites and racists of Hamas and Hezbollah; he tips his Lenin cap at Chavez and latterly Maduro in Venezuela as that benighted, formerly wealthy country totters towards collapse; he is a firmly entrenched supporter of the IRA.


Yet such a moral midget of man somehow proclaims his moral superiority by refusing to break bread with the President of the USA who is on a state visit to London because said incumbent is supposedly “racist”. 

The hypocrisy of the Left.”