'We need to get policy makers to do something ... so condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies'

A new report on lawmakers in Canada endorsing a ban on “Islamophobia” warns that it is just a stepping stone to what Islamic supremacists ultimately want.

And how is that known?

The Islamists themselves said so.

At the Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, a writer, lawyer, columnist and political analyst, cited the recent action in Canada’s Parliament.

There, lawmakers approved an anti-Islamophobia motion that states: “Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

The proposal came from Samer Majzoub, the president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, Bergman reported.

“While a motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning ‘all forms of Islamophobia,’ without making the slightest attempt at defining what is meant by ‘Islamophobia,’ can only be described, at best, as alarming,” she wrote.

“What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS ‘does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam’ now to be considered an ‘Islamophobe’?”

The motion in parliament was carried by Thomas Mulcair, the head of the New Democratic Party.

But CIJ News noted some of the values in Islam, include that homosexuality is a major sin, a wife must obey the “commands” of her husband, wife beating is allowed under some conditions, non-Muslims must pay a tax, flogging for public intoxication is appropriate, married adulterers may be stoned to death, apostates deserve execution and possession of slaves is allowed sometimes.

Yahoo News reported the same motion had been defeated, but came up again at the end of October and was approved.

According to the National Council of Canadian Muslims, several acts of Islamophobia occurred after first motion was voted down, such as broken windows at a mosque.

The reporter, June Chua, commented: “The symbolism of it is the biggest impact. It’s meant to stigmatize that hate crime, which is good. It says clearly that attitudes are changing. But I don’t know whether that, at the end of the day, changes peoples’ opinions… I think it’s a tense time.”

But Bergman warned that the movement won’t stop there.

She quoted the “Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub” as her source.

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning,” he said in an interview with the Canadian Muslim Forum.

“We need to continue working politically and socially and with the press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamphobia, but now we do not have to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada’s supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all ethnicities. All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies.”

Noted Bergman: “There were, of course no parallel motions in Canada’s parliament to condemn ‘Christianophobia’ or ‘Judeophobia,’ the latter being much more prevalent that ‘Islamophobia.’ In fact, according to statistics, Jewish Canadians are more than 10 times as likely to be the victim of a hate crime than Muslim Canadians.”

She explained it was this “toxic, politically correct atmosphere” that in the United States “enabled Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to gun down 13 people and to wound 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre in 2009.”

“His former classmate, Lt. Col. Val Vinnell, told Fox News at the time that, despite Hasan’s suspicious behavior, such as giving a presentation justifying suicide bombings, nothing was done about Hasan to see if he might be a security risk.

“Instead, he was treated with kid gloves,” she wrote.