Sun Sued Again!

Here is the grovelling apology:

“A column published in The Sun on November 14, 2012, and an interview that same day on Sun News expressed opinions of Tarek Fatah about a demonstration by the two of you during the November 11, 2012 Remembrance Day Service at Old City Hall, Toronto.

“We acknowledge that your shouts of protest did not occur during the Service’s two-minutes of silence honouring the deaths of members of Canada’s military but only after the police took your banner. As well, you have represented to us that neither of you are Taliban supporters, Islamists or Jihadis, and we accept your word on this.”

Read the rest through the link.

Tarek Fatah Is Naive: Social Media Is Not The New Public Space

...it is owned by private individuals, and you are allowed to stay there on not at their pleasure.  I remember when my younger brother and his pals got banned from hanging at the mall next to their high-school during lunch hour.  They weren't buying enough stuff, and their presence frightened other shoppers.  They thought that was public space too.  Certainly it was the only interesting place for them to go at lunch.  But they were rudely disabused of the notion.  And, frankly, suggesting that Mark Zuckerberg  move to China is beyond ironic.   The ability to boot somebody off your private property is central to a free society, not its contrary.

Gruending On The Breivik Killings And "The Right"

 Dennis Gruending weighs in elegantly here.

My view: if right-wing pundits like Steyn, and Tarrek Fatah, and Pam Geller aren't nuts, then Brevik's actions are sane.  If dark-skinned Islamo-fascists really have infiltrated all levels of society--the police, the armed forces, the various political parties, the media, the public school system--then why wouldn't staging some sort of armed revolt be perfectly in order?  If "leftists" like those kids on that island, or folks like myself, really are covering up for such terrorists, then isn't a bullet pretty much what we deserve (as indeed Michael Coren suggested)?

Now, of course these "thinkers" are nuts.  And, at some level, Mark Steyn (for example)  probably realizes he's spooning up boob-bait for the yokels that purchase his books.  But I suppose the coin is good.  The problem is with readers--like Breivik--who take Steyn's various theories more seriously than he does, and have the "courage" to act from Mr. Steyn's apparent convictions. 

Steyn, Fatah, Geller, Coren, Mansur--these people "set the table" for folks like Brevik.  That is their measure of responsibility.

Tarek Fatah: I Have No Proof

An update on the Tarek Fatah/NAMF dust-up that was supposed to have occured last Saturday, before Fatah withdrew, citing "personal safety" among other reasons:

The moderator was changed shortly before the event was to begin, angering Mr. Fatah, who described the audience as “hostile.” His associates with the Muslim Canadian Congress — a grassroots organization Mr. Fatah helped found — then requested one of their replacement moderators be called in, angering Farooq Khan, executive director of NAMF, who described MCC members as full of “hyperbole and imaginary fear.”

At around 6 p.m., Mr. Fatah said he was warned by police of threats to his safety, though he added he has no proof.

“I did not feel comfortable there,” he said.

For their part, neither Mr. Khan nor Staff Sergeant Jim Qualtrough at Toronto’s 42 Division said they were aware of any safety concerns or threats. Staff Sergeant Qualtrough said that “as far as the police are concerned, nothing happened at that location Saturday night.”

The incident also generated this piece in the Jewish Tribune, which I found somewhat disappointing in that it basically regurgitates Tarek's side of the story, and doesn't deal with some of the wilder accusations he made afterwards.

PS. The phrase "shortly before" in the above means two days, as it has become clear that Karen Mock, the original moderator, announced she was pulling out on Thursday evening, and everyone involved, Mr. Fatah included, knew as much by Friday morning.

Tarek Fatah Lays The Blame On Liberal Party Of Canada

So, on Saturday night "Moderate Muslim" Tarek Fatah was supposed to debate Imam Sheharyar Shaikh of the North American Muslim Foundation on the topic of "Does Secular Liberalism Exemplify the Qur'an and Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him)". The debate did not go off; Tarek refused to attend, citing threats to his safety and a number of other concerns. You can read the original statement from the MCC (Muslim Congress of Canada) here (bolded).

I should say that a number of the claims made in the statement justifying Tarek's withdrawal from the debate appear on the face of it to be untrue. For example, the MCC claim that "the off-duty policemen NAMF had hired for security, had been withdrawn" appears to be false. Or at least, here is a picture of three muscly young fellows wearing jackets that say "Security". They are definitely present in the auditorium, and appear to be police (although their shoulder patches aren't quite the same as those of the T.O. police). Note: Tarek now appears to be suggesting the three are Islamists impersonating police. For another example, the MCC official statement says that another reason Tarek refused to appear was that "no video cameras would be allowed inside the hall". After I pointed out a picture of one of these forbidden video cameras to Tarek, he amended the claim and pointed me to this NAMF news release, which specifically forbids cameras on tripods due to limited space. Hardly a deal breaker or a sign of Insurgent Islamism, as far as I can tell.

But Tarek was just getting warmed up

So this sounds like Tarek is accusing the federal Liberal Party of Canada of approaching Karen Mock and asking her to bow-out of the event, an interpretation that is supported by this further response, which fingers MP Anthony Rota as the cause of Ms. Mock's withdrawal.

It will be interesting to see how this story evolves over the next couple of days. There were apparently some media present at the event, although no MSM stories that I can see as yet.

PS. The entire thread I'm excerpting from Tarek's FB page is here.

Naema's Husband Speaks

His English isn't particularly good, and this has drawn ridicule from the fat chick's elderly husband, among others. But his arguments are not entirely mad or unreasonable either.

And Tarek Fatah, in suggesting that Niqab wearing women are either oppressed or radical Islamists, is being by far the bigger dick-head, though in perfect English!

Ryan Doyle Replaces Dumped Michael Coren On CFRB

From Tarek Fatah's Facebook page:

Tarek Fatah survived the storm at CFRB and will continue to co-host the 3-4PM hour with Ryan Doyle. Stay tuned.

Ryan who? And is he more or less fucked up in the head than Michael Coren?

Tarek Fatah's Name Disappears From Silly Article

Yesterday, an article appeared on the website of The American Thinker entitled "The Islamist Role in the 2008 Canadian Elections", and authored, apparently, by "Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah". By yesterday afternoon, however, Fatah's name had disappeared from the article's header, leaving Ms. Raza sole responsibility for the piece. By evening, his name had also been pulled from the version of the article present on the Islamist Watch site. Furthermore, Mr. Fatah showed up in the comments section of this blog, essentially disowning the piece, and wondering how I might have come to "associate" it with him.

Well, I have changed the attribution in the original post but, in answer to Mr. Fatah's question, as noted above (and as you can see from the screen capture below), the original attribution was based on the fact that Mr. Fatah was originally given as co-author.

Interesting, too, I think, in that Raza and Fatah are shown as co-authors of a number of articles previously published, for example here and here.

What the real story behind the cock-up is I have no idea, but I would note that "The Islamist Role...":

1) suggests a "Taliban-style overthrow" of North America is "unlikely, in the short term". Good news, that.

2) suggests that Rahim Jaffer lost out among Muslim voters because he was not ugly enough.

I wouldn't want my name attached to such a piece of crap either.

Facebook Group Targets Fatah And Other Moderate Muslims

As annoying as I occasionally find Tarak Fatah he does, as a self-proclaimed Moderate Muslim, put up with a whole other level of bullshit. Witness the group "Remember The Enemies Muslims!!!" (which appears to have already been given the hook by Facebook).

Garry Wise has the good dope, but in short the group's purpose was/is to

... identify the apostates and People who Abused our Religion. These people have disrespected Islam not through intellect but through words of abuse. We can answer criticism, we can take criticism but we can not take abuse. All those who were responsible will be exposed and their profiles and pictures will be made available, besides them modernist and secular Muslims who want to westernize Islam according to their own interpretation which directly conflicts with established interpretation of Muhammad(saw).This will be done so that Muslims can identify their Enemies!!

As Mr. Wise points out, the site generally uses a "strong, if non-violent tone", but includes these rather nasty photo-exposés (see above) of the Muslim "enemies" who have attracted the site-owners' wrath. One is immediately reminded of the "wanted posters" far-Right anti-abortion groups in the U.S. have used to target abortion providers.

It would be interesting if the people behind this RTEM!!! are directly indebted to their Christian Fundy counterparts for the idea.

Remember The Enemies Muslims!!! raises a fascinating question in light of the recent travails faced by Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Macleans Magazine at the hands of the CHRC. To paraphrase a question Mr. Wise puts, if a Canadian human rights tribunal chose to investigate a complaint by any of the photographed individuals or by members of the moderate Muslim community against the people behind RTEM!!!, would the same people who have been defending Mark Steyn defend RTEM!!!? It should be particularly fascinating question for Mr. Fatah himself, who has strongly defended Mr. Steyn and Macleans.

So what's the story, Tarak? Get over here and lay on some political nuance.

And what about Mr. Steyn himself? Would he defend RTEM!!!'s right to free expression? After all, he's never seemed to have a problem with Christian extremists.

Jaffer Takes A Stand; Fatah Jumps The Shark

Finally someone from the federal Tories (Alberta MP Rahim Jaffer, himself a Muslim) has spoken up re the latest Quebec Hijab incident, wherein a girls' Tae Kwon Do team was banned from participating for wearing the offending garments. Jaffir says:

"There seems to be a little bit of over-sensitivity against the hijab," Jaffer said. "We've seen this more and more over the last little while. And it's unfortunate that that sort of attitude is developing – especially when this is the week that we're celebrating the anniversary of the Charter."

In response, Tarek Fatah goes apeshit:

Rahim Jaffer should have read the website of the Mosque that had sent these young girls to the TaeKwonDoo competition.

The Montreal mosque that hosts these young pre-teen TaeKwonDoo girls, says on its webiste that taking off the Hijab is to invite rape and risk becoming unwed mothers!

[...]

Is this what Rahim Jaffer, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and all bleeding heart liberals are supporting? Why didn't even one media outlet or MP from any party protest the garbage being dished out by these apologists of the Hezbollah in Canada?

[...]

What sort of sick minds would tell a 10-year old girl that she could be raped if she took off her hijab. This is the garbage that is being forced on to young girls, as young as 5 years of age. Is this a matter of 'choice' ? In my opinion, it is hate and bigotry being forced on young minds.

Where are Canada's feminists and women's groups? Why are they all silent as Canadian women who do not cover their heads are referred to as 'unpaid prostitutes'?

The symbolism of the hijab is disturbing to alot of people, myself included. But is Mr. Fatah then suggesting that the tournament organizers, who had the unfortunate girls banned from competing, were attempting to act in their best interests? Acting to "free" them from oppression? That seems very unlikely and in fact faintly ridiculous. And just as we do not find physical assault to be acceptable even where it "knocks some sense" into the person under assault, we should not find what happened in Quebec acceptable, no matter what we think of the hijab's cultural implications. Two wrongs, Mr. Fatah, do not make a right.