STFU! From one Jew in America to another Muslim-sympathizing, self-hating leftist Jew in Quebec

Unknown7Keep allying yourself with your own worst enemy – Muslims. You’ll get no sympathy when you find yourself on the receiving end of the same kind of hatred, distrust, and suspicion that Muslims in Canada and around the world have worked so hard to earn for themselves.

CJ News  Muslims are the real target of the proposed charter of Quebec values, while kippot and turbans are “collateral damage” in the provincial government’s plan to eliminate religious symbols from the public service, a McGill University law professor says. (Yes, they ARE! And other religious groups are willing to suffer a little if it means eliminating the Islamic supremacism that burqas and niqabs represent)


Speaking Oct. 20 at a panel discussion on the issue at Temple Emanu-El-Beth Sholom, Daniel Weinstock said Islamophobia is “the elephant in the room” in the push to secularize Quebec. (‘Islamophobia’ is not an elephant in the room, because fear of Islam is justified and the people of Quebec have taken the necessary steps to do something about it)

“We are not at the centre [of this debate], but as Jews, according to our ethical tradition, we have to stand up resolutely for our Muslim brothers and sisters,” Weinstock said, receiving widespread applause. (You are not at the center of this but you are going to make sure to push yourselves into the center of it. Muslims are your enemy. Read the quran to see how many times Islam repeats its hatred for Jews and commands Jews to be killed)


Weinstock, who was an adviser to the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accommodation and until 2012 was head of the Université de Montréal’s Research Centre on Ethics for many years, said the charter is “a response to a problem that does not exist and has no sign of becoming one in the near future” – and “a fairly extreme” response at that. (You are not only ignorant, you are dangerous)

Weinstock is optimistic the charter will not go forward. He sees “deep fissures” starting to appear among its three main proponents: “laïcité [church-state separation] perfectionists,” who not only want the state to be neutral, but to help everyone get over religion; feminists, and nationalists who think the sovereignty movement has become too inclusive. (ONLY because suicidal schmucks like you are stirring the pot)


If the charter, as now envisioned, did become law, Weinstock thinks it would not “pass constitutional scrutiny.” “The government is playing a dangerous electoral game,” he said. “I think it may be underestimating how much Quebecers are attached to the values in the charters, both federal and Quebec’s own. I think they are more sensitive to these issues than the government gives them credit for.”

Fellow panelist Leila Bedeir, of the Collective des féministes musulmanes du Québec, concurred: “Let’s call a spade a spade. It’s Islamophobia,” and in particular a fear of visible Muslim women. (Fear of Muslims is not Islamophobia, it is protection from a domestic enemy)


The Vanier College teacher, who was not wearing a hijab, said the government has “hijacked the equality of the sexes for its political goals.” (Burqas hijack the equality of sexes) “Muslim women have become the principle threat to the secular nature of Quebec society, to the nation,” she said, and the target of fear of a community that has rapidly grown to more than 200,000 people, an increase of 500 per cent in 20 years. (They ARE)

“If the bill passes or not, the damage is done,” she said. “Those who are different will not feel like an integral part of society unless they erase everything about themselves and assimilate.” (That’s the idea. Muslims are not Canadians, they are Muslims first and foremost. And as soon as they can overbreed their way to a majority, your religions will cease to exist. Look at Egypt, Lebanon, Syria)


But, it’s a double-edged sword, Bedeir suggested. Muslims like herself who are not visible and are engaged in public life are “accused of being infiltrators, of trying to Islamicize institutions, of pushing a pro-hijab agenda.” To be labelled an Islamist, as she has been, certainly discourages civic involvement at the very least and can be ruinous, said Bedeir. (That’s the idea)