UPDATED: The end of Western civilization is here (VIDEO)

I don't want readers to think of me as one of those street-corner preachers, wearing a hair shirt and holding a sign saying "The end of the world is coming!" But, as I wrote in  "Not only the Vatican opposes woke gender ideology" (WWW 20/11/25), the end of our world -- of our Western (i.e. Christian) civilization -- is what the One-Worlders, including many Catholic hierarchs, are planning for us and pushing on us. 

Their replacement will be a New World Order of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in which all cultures are equal -- some more so than yours, dear reader -- and Christianity is replaced by the New World Religion of secular humanism, in which believers are their own gods and define their own morality. (Offer void where prohibited by Sharia law.)

The latest episode of Anthony Stine's Return to Tradition vlog, a priest who lost everything speaking the truth to the Church, has a new warning about the end of the Christian age.

Mr. Stine seems to assume that his followers already know of Father Donald Kloster. For those who don't, Fr. Kloster is a priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport CT, and a very traditional Catholic. Reader who would like to see and hear him are recommended to click here to see "What Vatican II Did and Did Not Do".

UPDATE AND WOW!!! (added at 1237 FMT): "State Dept. Warns Mass Migration an ‘Existential Threat’ to Western Civilization", Breitbart News, 22/11/25. The first two paragraphs:

"The United States government has warned that mass migration represents an 'existential threat' to Western civilization and has warned Europe against the continuing open borders policies and the creation of two-tier justice systems that favour foreigners over native populations. 

In a shot across the bow against the open borders ideology that has taken hold in the halls of power in many Western European capitals, the U.S. State Department urged its allies 'to take bold action and defend citizens against the threats posed by mass migration.'"

The "war on women": it's real, but not where they tell you it is

UPDATED: Don't celebrate too soon!

Assad is an evil bastard, to be sure, and richly deserves a fate worse than living in exile in Moscow... in the winter. Hey, it could be Ottawa! 

But what do we know about Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the leaders of the so-called revolution? Only that they are a jihadist group once linked to al-Qaeda, now rebranding themselves as "moderate Muslims" -- an oxymoron if ever there was one.

If you're a Christian or a Jew, or "the wrong kind of Muslim", anywhere in the Middle East, don't just stand by... brace yourself! Worse is yet to come.

UPDATE ADDED @ 1630: No sooner said than done! Breitbart News has a report, quoting the New York Times, that Syrian rebels who overthrew the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad on Sunday are executing their opponents, imposing Islamic sharia law, and threatening non-Muslim minorities, including the Kurdish population in the north. 

Videos are circulating on social media showing Syrian rebels killing people associated with the regime, some of whom may have been part of the state security services, and others who appear to have been ordinary employees.

Islamic State forces on Tuesday killed 54 people in the Homs region in central Syria who had been part of the Syrian government’s military and fled during the collapse of the Assad regime, according to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, a British-based monitoring group.

The killings highlight the chaos in Syria as various rebel factions operate in different regions. One video also shows thousands of smashed bottles of liquor at the duty free store of the Damascus airport, where Islamist rebels apparently enforced the Islamic ban on alcohol by force, as Islamists did in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Let's not hear "I didn't see that coming" from Western leaders like Senile Joe and the Governor of the Great State of Canada.

Can Muslims integrate into western societies? The French say NON!

"Face à l'islam, les Français s'inquiètent" - That's the unsurprising headline on a report in Le Journal du Dimanche (= Sunday Journal) on a recent survey conducted by pollsters IFOP (French Institute of Public Opinions). It means "Confronted by Islam, the French are getting worried." No kidding!

The IFOP poll showed that 61% of French people think that Islamism is "incompatible with the values of French society." That's a rise of 8% over the number who thought that when asked in 2018. The polling firm was investigating the "worrying" rise and influence of Islamism in France, and its manifestations in many aspects of public life, particularly in the public display of such symbols of Islam as the wearing of the niqab (veil) and burqa (complete head-to-toe body covering). (If you're not sure of the difference, click here for Walt's explanation.)

Another manifestation of the Islamization of France (and all of western Europe) is the increasing number of schools where Islam, including the law of Sharia, is taught. According to the IFOP survey, 80% of pensioners, 69% of workers, 70% of employers, and even 55% of left-wing voters expressed concern about this. According to another IFOP survey, nearly half (46%) of foreign-born Muslim immigrants want France to replace its legal system with Sharia law. That point of view is supported by 18% of Islamists born in France.

On this and other questions on the accommodation of Muslims, the poll noted a strong difference of opinion between between left and right. About 55% of the supporters of the leftist group France Insumisa and the Socialist Party defended Muslim worship, while 85% of the supporters of Marine Le Pen's National Rally agreed with the statement that "Islamism is incompatible with the values of French society."

The survey results add to those compiled last month by international global consulting firm IPSOS, which revealed that 60% of French people saw as a threat the already massive but still growing number of immigrants arriving as a result of President Emmanuel Macron's open border policy. "More than one in two French (60%) see migrants as a threat," the survey data said, and 65% "think that welcoming them will not improve the country's situation. 45% of French people think that "the arrival of migrants deprives French people of social services," it added, noting that "the idea that French people should be given priority in the allocation of jobs has increased in France over the past three years."

The people of France seem pretty clued in about the threat to their society posed by the influx of alien immigrants and "refugees". The people of Québec have also figured it out. See "Québec to require immigrant wannabes to pass values test", WWW 31/10/19. Whether the realization comes too late to keep the Muslim tails from wagging the French and Québécois dogs doesn't bear thinking about. President Trump has moved to stop or at least limit Muslim immigration. Canada's Islamophile Prime Minister? Hah!

VIDEO CENSORED BY YOU TUBE: When the Islamists seize power (warning from an Imam), posted by Sandra Solomon

FREEDOM OF SPEECH? WHAT'S THAT? It didn't even take the thought police at YouTube a full day to take down Sandra Solomon's video, even though all it contained was a rant by an Islamic extremist imam. I think I'll leave the window there, as mute testimony to the power of the pro-Islamist forces in our (((controlled media))).

This short (less than 2-minute) video was posted to YouTube by Sandra Solomon -- a Canuck who delights in poking the Trudeau bear -- as a warning to Canadians (and other Westerns) about what's in store for our countries if Islamic extremists game our democratic system to get their hands on the levers of power. Listen up, as Sheikh Ahmed Badran speaks of how Islam and Sharia law will be imposed on us infidels, and non-Muslims will never again be allowed to be rule over followers of the Prophet.



The videos Ms Solomon has posted on her YouTube channel, Voice of Solomon, have been condemned by the Canadian Broadcorping Castration and other agents of correct thinking for being "Islamophobic". Indeed, another YouTube video showing evidence of an imam claiming that if Mr Socks is re-elected, he will institute Sharia law, the legal code of Islam, based on the Quran, has already been "disappeared". Look out Sandra! M-103 is in force!

But the foolish Westerners who keep urging us to let the Muslims take over our countries were too late to stop the video from spreading. Before being removed from YouTube, it had over 50,000 views, and had been posted on at least three different Facebook, where it has already received nearly 200,000 likes, and has been shared more than 7000 times.

Footnote: Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, will unveil his fledgling party's immigration policy on July 24th in Mississauga ON -- a city in which white, native-born Canadians are already a minority and new mosques are going up in every neighbourhood. We'll have video ASAP.

No country for queers!

His Royal Highness Hassanal Bolkiah, sultan of the tiny but oil-rich state of Brunei, in southeast Asia, is a good Muslim, very keen to follow as closely as possible the moral code of Islam, the basis of Sharia law. Being the ruler, Sultan Hassanal has not just the will but the power to impose his strict beliefs on his country. And so it comes to pass that new Islamic criminal laws take effect in Brunei today, punishing gay sex and adultery by stoning offenders to death.

The penalties were provided for under new sections of Brunei's Shariah Penal Code, instituted by Sultan Hassanal in 2014 to bolster the influence of Islam in the oil-rich monarchy of around 430,000 people, two-thirds of whom are Muslim. Even before 2014, homosexuality was punishable by a jail term of up to 10 years. The first stage of the Shariah Penal Code included fines or jail for offences such as pregnancy out of wedlock or failing to pray on Fridays. The second stage raises the bar considerably.

Those found guilty of gay sex could be stoned to death or whipped. Adulterers risk death by stoning too, while thieves face amputation of a right hand on their first offence and a left foot on their second. The new laws apply to everyone, including children and foreigners, even if they are kafirs (read: non-Muslims = infidels). So if you're into deviant sex of any kind, or even normal sex outside a marital relationship, you'd do well to take Brunei off your list of the 100 places you want to visit before you die.

The usual gang of non-Muslim celebrities are in full cry against the new laws. Ignoring the fact that the law of Brunei is none of the business of Westerners, the likes of George Clooney, Elton John and (of course) Ellen DeGeneres have been vocal in opposition to the new laws, calling for a boycott of hotels in the USA and Europe with ties to Sultan Hassanal. Mr Clooney asks, "Are we really going to help fund the murder of innocent citizens?" While you can't shame "murderous regimes", he wrote in Deadline Hollywood, "you can shame the banks, the financiers and the institutions that do business with them."

Pro-queer politicos in Germany, France, the UK and (of course) Canada -- even the USA -- expressed "deep concern" about Brunei's new laws. In Brunei itself, there has been no vocal opposition to the new penalties. That could be because the sultan rules as head of state with full executive authority to do whatever he thinks is right. And what he thinks is right is pretty clear. Sultan Hassanal, who has reigned since 1967, has previously said the Penal Code should be regarded as a form of "special guidance" from God and would be "part of the great history of Brunei."

Walt explains motive for the New Zealand attacks on Muslims

New Zealand! Whoda thunk it? Check any list of World's Most Boring Countries and you'll find New Zealand right up there in the top three with places like Canada and Norway. Nothing ever happened in New Zealand, until yesterday. And then...

In the NZ city of Christchurch, at least three white people, one of them an Australian, staged attacks on two mosques during Friday prayers, killing 49 Muslims and wounding nearly two dozen more. At least one of the attacks was live-streamed on social media. The Authorities, normally reluctant to characterize such occurrences when shouts of "Allahu akbar!" are heard, were quick to denounce yesterday's attacks as "right-wing extremist terrorism".

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described the "incident" as "one of New Zealand's darkest days." Clichés about "thoughts and prayers" were immediately uttered by Paragons of Virtue (TM) around the world, including even President Trump. Police have asked mosques across the island nation to close, as a precautionary measure.

Three suspects are in custody, according to Inspector Knacker. One of them -- the Australian -- has been charged with murder. Now it's time to ask the Big Question: Why did they do it? Is it simple Islamophobia -- fear and loathing of Islam and followers of the Prophet? Walt thinks there's more to it... and, at the same time, less.

What we are seeing, today in New Zealand previously in Québec and other Western countries, is the extreme expression of anti-immigrant backlash. It didn't have to be Muslim immigrants. It could have been Hindus (like the Sri Lankan Tamils) or Christians (like the mostly Catholic Venezuelans who are flooding into Colombia) or Jews (like the so-called "black Jews" who are migrating from Africa to their "homeland" in Israel).

People who are the majority population of any country don't like the feeling of being invaded by hordes of aliens from shitholes, particularly when those aliens seem intent on bring their shit -- shit culture, shit habits, shit work ethic, etc -- with them.

Think, for example, about Sharia law -- the Islamic "justice" that punishes adultery by stoning and homosexuality by castration or even execution. Think about the Islamic culture that not only allows but encourages husbands and fathers to murder their wives and daughters for bringing dishonour on the family, e.g. by wearing blue jeans or not wearing Islamic head-covers. It's not hard to understand why citizens of Western countries say, "If you want to live in a place where those customs are normal, why don't you go back where you came from?!"

I don't condone the killing of innocent people, no matter whether it's four dozen Muslims or the 1000s of Christians killed by Islamic jihadists in the Middle East as well as Europe and countries of the West. But I do understand where the killers are coming from, so to speak.

What I don't understand is why hordes of Muslims are flooding into New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA. I mean... I understand it in the sense of, if I lived in a shithole like Pakistan, I'd try to worm my way into the USA too, especially if I didn't have to give up my religion and way of life.

But I don't understand why people would go where they are obviously not welcome. The signs, like the one illustrating this post, are there to be seen. Maybe attacks like yesterday's are just some misguided people's way of making the message even more plain.

Footnote: Seems I'm not the only one who had these thoughts. Today's Telegraph quotes Australian senator Fraser Anning as blaming the Christchurch terror attack on the "increasing Muslim presence" in Australia and New Zealand. "I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman," he said. "However, while this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence. The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place."

Guest editorial: Embrace liberty, get rid of the hijab!

Walt likes to make readers aware of important dates and events -- things you should know so that you can make the proper adjustments to your view of the world. In particular, you must think some more about the Religion of Peace (TM) and how our society should embrace it, and all followers of the Prophet Mohammed, including (without limiting the generality of the foregoing) ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the Taliban. M-103.

You will hear more about being nice to Muslims on February 1st, which the powers that be (you know who they are) have decreed to be World Hijab Day. Seriously. Not making this up. The good folks at Dr. Rich Swier's blog have submitted an editorial which Walt is pleased to post below.

The mission of World Hijab Day (February 1st) is to allegedly make non-Muslims aware of the societal response to Muslim women who wear a hijab. Perhaps Muslim women feel uncomfortable wearing the hijab in public because they know that millions of Americans see the hijab as exemplifying one of many harsh tenets of Sharia law that oppress women.

The hijab has replaced the pink triangle as the progressive left’s top symbol of diversity. However, tens of millions of Americans including thousands of Muslim women view the hijab as a symbol of Islamist, misogynistic repression. Nearly sixty percent of Muslims in America do not wear the hijab according to Pew Research published by NPR on April 21, 2011.

Some scholars of Islam teach that the Quran does not mandate the hijab. The hijab was invented and mandated by Mussah Sadr, an Iranian mullah, in the 1970s, 1300 years after the Quran was written. Sadr issued a Sharia edict that required women to wear the hijab to allegedly prevent their rape. Women In The World media published an article on September 15, 2015 titled “The day 100,000 Iranian women protested the head scarf.” The article displayed a seldom-seen collection of photographs, shot in Tehran in 1979, of thousands of women who are not wearing hijabs or other oppressive attire prior to Sadr enforcing Iran’s new Islamist hijab law.

British Muslim Qanta Ahmed wrote on March 18, 2017 in The Spectator UK: “As a Muslim, I strongly support the right to ban the veil. At last, the European Court of Justice has made a stand for European values. Rigid interpretations of the veil are a recent invention. They’re derived not from the Quran or early Islamic tradition but from a misogyny which claims a false basis in the divine.”

The same Sharia law that dictates women must wear the hijab also advocates harsh discipline (abuse) of wives, genital mutilation of girls and honor killing of allegedly dishonorable females. Hopefully, Muslim women will embrace the fullness of the liberty that is extended to them by the United States Constitution by doffing the oppressive hijab as most other Muslim women have done in America as well as take a stand against the harsh Sharia tenets that oppress them.

Further reading (and watching): "'Ordinary Muslim' sez banning the burqa makes sense", WWW 18/1/19.

Headlines from the Islamic kingdom of Britain

Queen Elizabeth II may still be alive, but the government which rules Once-great Britain in her name has pretty much abdicated in favour of Islamist fanatics intent on turning the septic isle into an Islamic republic, complete with Sharia law. Do you doubt it? Cast your eyes on a few headlines from the British tabloid press.

The person who put together this montage asks "When will we wake up?" Walt suggests this answer: You ARE awake. This is not a dream. It's too late now...

Down the road to Canuckistan: Trudeau gives C$23M to Islamists

Agent 6 has recommended [more than once! Ed.] that I follow Tarek Fatah in Canada's Sun newspapers. I don't do so religiously [because the Sun has a paywall? Ed.], but I have a look occasionally to read some uncommon common sense from a follower of the Prophet. And Mr Fatah often picks up a story which is neglected or censored by the lamestream media for reasons of political correctness or... wait for it... M-103. Case in point: "Islamic Relief and other Islamist groups to receive $23M", in the Toronto Sun, 3/7/18.

Motion 103 (M-103), it will be remembered [If not, use the search tool to find previous references on WWW. Ed.] was a supposedly non-binding motion in the 42nd Parliament of Canuckistan, stating that the members of the House of Commons called on the Government of Canada (Just In Trudeau, Prop.) to condemn Islamophobia in Canada. It also called on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to carry out a study on how racism and religious discrimination can be reduced and collect data on hate crimes. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, pictured with her Dear Leader. Ms Khalid, an immigrant from south Asia, was elected in a riding where the majority of voters hail from... wait for it... south Asia.

Mr Fatah reports that on the afternoon of June 27th, while most of Canada was at work or dozing in the sun, Ms Khalid called a sparsely-attended presser in her constituency office (Parliament being conveniently taking a summer break) to announce that Junior's alleged government was going to pour an additional C$23,000,000 (over $17 million in real money) down the rathole that passes for its multiculturalism program.

With no (((controlled media))) among the two dozen or so Pakistani-Canadians in attendance to ask any questions, Ms Khalid boasted that her "hard work has resulted into tangible action." And, she said, among the groups who will receive yet more Canuck taxpayers' dollars are:
- The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), a former branch of the US-based Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) that was named in 2008 as an unindicted co-conspirator connected to the largest terror-funding trial in American history.
- Islamic Relief, a worldwide charity accused by Middle East Forum, Israel and even the United Arab Emirates of links to Islamist extremism.

Mr Fatah admits there is no solid record that the Canadian arms of these two organizations have contributed to current "problematic behaviour" (read: terrorism). All the same, Mr Fatah and his Sun colleague Farzana Hassan, as well as other Muslim critics of Islamism, have been warning ever since the motion was introduced that M-103 was much more than the victimhood culture of guilt being forced onto ordinary Canadians.

On June 27th, Mr Fatah writes, the anti-Islamists [Notice he didn't say "Islamophobes"! Ed.] saw their fears come true. While Islamists will receive millions to conduct their Sharia agenda in Canada, Muslim critics of jihad, polygamy, FGM and Sharia have been left on their own to fight global Islamofascism.

Dear reader, you can follow the link above to find out what Ms Khalid had to say in response to questions from Mr Fatah. [Spoiler alert! Nothing! Ed.] I leave you with this excellent meme which I scraped from a blog I do read regularly: Blazing Cat Fur.

Wife of Muslim blogger jailed in Saudi Arabia becomes Canadian citizen, calls for burqa ban

This morning, an intereting story appeared on the news website of Canada's Global TV, but not on the state-owned CBC News site. For Canucks who only have access to the Canadian Broadcorping Castration, Walt will précis the story. You can figure out for yourself why the CBC didn't run it.

Here (at right) you see a Muslim lady by the name of Ensaf Haidar, who, along with her three children, celebrated Canada Day (July 1st) by becoming a citizen of Canuckistan. She is married to Raif Badawi, depicted in the poster at left. Mr Badawi, who lived in Saudi Arabia, had the temerity to publish a blog -- always a dangerous avocation -- which was found by the Saudi princes to have "insulted Islam through electronic channels" -- a heinous offence under Sharia law.

Mr Badawi got a fair trial (under Sharia law, of course) and was condemned to seven years in prison and 600 lashes. The prosecutors thought that a mere slap on the wrist -- or back, perhaps -- and appealed. The sentence was later raised to 10 years in prison, 1000 lashes and a monetary fine. Three years after her husband was slapped into the Saudi dungeons, Ms Haidar and her children fled the ultra-Islamic kingdom and took refuge in Sherbrooke, QC, from where she has been campaigning hard for his release. Her pleas for the assistance of "Mr Socks" and his government have so far fallen on deaf ears.

Ms Haidar used the occasion of becoming a Canuck to post on Twitter a suggestion to Ontario's incoming premier, Doug Ford, that he follow the lead of la Belle Province outlaw the wearing in government settings, schools, banks, hospitals and public transportation of the burqa and the niqab -- Islamic head coverings that mask the wearer's face.

Quebec's Bill 62, which came into law in October but has yet to be fully implemented owing to the obstruction of liberal activist judges, doesn't specifically mention burqas or niqabs, but forbids people from covering their faces while providing and receiving public services. Similar laws have been enacted in France, the Netherlands, and Denmark.

In a statement to Global News, Ms Haidar said she wanted to use her first day as a Canadian citizen to raise awareness about the plight of women forced to abide by Sharia, or traditional Islamic law.

"As a Canadian who was born in Saudi Arabia under laws of Sharia where human rights are non-existent, I realised the power mysognist [sic] men [have] over powerless women with no rights. As a refugee in Québec and Canada I have noticed the fast growth of Islamist groups loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Saudi clergy imposing the Burqa and enforcing Niqab on girls and women as political flags to mark jihadi territory.

"Nowhere in Islam is a woman required to cover her face. This is medievalist mysoginy [sic] that treats women as animals and property of men and shamed into attire that befits slavery, not humanity. It is for this reason that on the first day as a Canadian I have raised the issue of banning the Burqa and Niqab in Ontario as I feel Premier Ford is a man who will listen to my plea and end the war by deception being waged by Islamists against Canadian values."

Anyone who can figure out why this story has not appeared on CBC News is invited to write the answer on the back of a postage stamp and send it to Walt at the usual address.

Further reading: "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10 -- still one of Walt's most-viewed posts!

Politically incorrect Denmark bans burqa, niqab

Denmark today joined Austria, France and Belgium in deciding to ban garments that cover the face, including Islamic veils such as the niqab or burqa. The law, popularly -- and that's the right word! -- known as the "Burqa Ban", was approved by the Danish parliament by a vote of 75 to 30, with 74 members absent or abstaining.

The centre-right governing coalition says the law is not aimed at any particular religion. Similar to Bill 62, a modified version of the Charter of Québec values, enacted by the Québec National Assembly last fall, it is directed at the dress worn by some conservative Muslim women, which partially or fully covers the face. It doesn't prohibit hijabs, headscarves, turbans or the Jewish kippa.

The law allows people to cover their face when there is a “recognizable purpose” like cold weather or complying with other legal requirements, such as using motorcycle helmets under Danish traffic rules. First-time offenders risk a fine of $200 . Repeat offences could trigger fines of up to $2060 or a jail sentence of up to six months.

One provision that's different from laws in place elsewhere in Europe is that anyone forcing a person to wear garments covering the face by using threats or physical force can be fined or face up to two years in prison. This provision is superfluous, IMHO, because everyone knows that under Sharia law, women are completely free to make up their own minds about what to wear or not wear. To suggest otherwise is clearly Islamophobic!

Further reading:
"Strong Majority of Brits Back Burqa Ban", Breitbart News, 31/5/18. Spoiler alert! "A significant [perecentage of Britons polled] said Islam, in general, is not compatible with the British way of life." Well, DUH!
"Why the Danes are the happiest people in the world", WWW 17/3/2016.

Returned "captive" of Taliban embarrasses Canuck Prime Minister

Meet former Taliban "hostage" Joshua Boyle, seen here with his hijab-covered wife and their three surviving children, while visiting their newfound friend, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his Ottawa office just before Christmas. Here's why this photo may turn out to be a photo bomb for Canada's most famous Islamophile.

Back in 2012, Mr Boyle, who is Canadian, decided to take his American wife, Caitlan Coleman, on a short walk through the Hindu Kush. Well, almost. For reasons as yet unexplained, the couple decided to enjoy a backpacking holiday through beautiful Afghanistan. While enjoying the scenic and other delights [Not opium, shurely! Ed.] of the armpit of the world, the Boyles were taken hostage the Haqqani network, an Islamic terrorist group linked to the Taliban. And there in Afghanistan they stayed, unable to escape (or so Mr Boyle says) for some five years.

Mr Boyle has said the couple was "helping ordinary villagers" [With what? Ed.] in a Taliban-controlled area of Afghanistan when they were seized. He told Canadian Press that conditions during their five-year ordeal changed over time as the family was shuffled back and forth among "at least three" prisons. He described the first as "remarkably barbaric", the second as more comfortable and the third as a place of violence in which he and his wife were frequently separated and beaten.

At the time they were seized, Ms Coleman was pregnant. Mr Boyle said their captors raped her, causing her to miscarry. In an interview with ABC News, Ms Coleman recalled that guards dragged her husband from their cell, and one of them threw her on the ground, shouting, "I will kill you, I will kill you!" before assaulting her. The couple had the three children shown in the picture while in captivity.

The Boyle family were freed by a daring rescue mission last October. Mr Boyle said they were in the trunk of their captors' car in Pakistan near the Afghan border when Pakistani troops rescued them. A gun battle ensued, he said, though details of what exactly happened were not made clear. Mr Boyle said the fight left all five kidnappers dead and himself injured with shrapnel. Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Canada, Tariq Azim Khan, told the CBC there was a "clash" between the Taliban and the Pakistan troops, which included gunfire. He said he did not know how many were killed.

So Mr Boyle and his family were freed, after spending five years as the guests -- willing or otherwise -- of Islamic terrorists. Some countries do not put out the "welcome home" sign for their nationals who may have become radicalized by an extended sojourn with the jihadis. Some go so far as to kill suspected sympathizers before they can return. The policy of Canada's Liberal government is, of course, quite the opposite. Canadians who have gone to the sandpit to join the other side, but then changed their mind, are to be welcomed with open arms, and sometimes open chequebooks, so that they may be "rehabilitated" and "reintegrated into society". See "Canadian ISIS fighters to be welcomed home, 'reintegrated' into society", WWW 18/11/17.

Mr Boyle declined an offer from the US Navy to take him and his family back home, for fear (we were invited to infer) that he would be detained for questioning about his involvement with the Islamic terrorists. Not a very good business decision, IMHO, for if he'd been incarcerated in Gitmo or elsewhere, he would have qualified for the Canadian government's $10 million payout and an apology for being mean to Muslims. Anyhoo, the Boyles eventually arrived in Canada, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer, where a great fuss was made over them, complete with media appearances and photo ops with Mr Selfie, in the prime ministerial office no less.

That was in 2017. Now it's 2018 and on New Year's Day Canuck police arrested Mr Boyle on no fewer than 15 charges relating to several incidents that are alleged to have taken place in the months since he and his family were rescued from terrorists and repatriated to Canada. The charges include eight counts of assault, two counts of sexual assault, one count of uttering a death threat, two counts of unlawful confinement, and one count of forcing an individual to ingest a noxious substance (the sleep-inducing anti-depressant Trazodone). According to court documents, Mr Boyle also faces one count of misleading a peace officer by trying to convince them that another individual was suicidal in order to divert suspicion from himself.

A bail hearing is set for this morning and Global News reports that Mr Boyle's mother (!) is among those scheduled to appear in an Ottawa court. Agent 3, who is covering the proceedings for us, says the usual publication ban will prevent the release names of the victim(s). If the "incidents" turn out to be domestic in nature (3 writes), it will be interesting to see whether any defence related to Mr Boyle's religion is raised. Devout Muslims, and the Sharia law by which they live, don't take a terribly serious view of rape (just sayin') in the context of conjugal relations. Another possible defence (3 continues) could be that old standby, PTSD. Stay tuned.

Footnote: The (((controlled Canadian meeja))) managed to report this story of kidnapping and rape by Islamic terrorists yesterday evening without once using either of the words "Muslim" or "Islam". Motion M-103 is in effect! See the first two paragraphs of yesterday's post on WWW.

Another footnote: Before marrying Caitlan Coleman, Joshua Boyle was married to Zaynab Khadr, sister of Omar Khadr, found guilty of the murder of a US Army Sgt. Chris Speir and made a multi-millionaire by Prime Minister Trudeau II. See "Canada to pay Muslim terrorist C$10.5 million for killing US soldier", WWW 6/7/17. It is not clear whether Mr Boyle's marriage to Ms Khadr was dissolved by a Canadian court or by the Islamic practice of saying "I divorce you!" three times in front of witnesses.

Further reading: "PMO should've known about Boyle, says former top cop", by Anthony Furey in the Toronto Sun, 3/1/18.

Here come da judge!

Three cheers and a tiger for Judge Roy Moore!!! To no-one's surprise (except perhaps the Republican establishment), the firebrand former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court soundly defeated Senator Luther Strange in a special primary runoff yesterday.

Since Alabama is about as solidly Republican as it's possible to be, Judge Moore's election to the United States Senate in December is now just a formality.

The New York Times calls the outcome of the closely watched race "a humbling blow to President Trump and other party leaders days after the president pleaded with voters in the state to back Mr. Strange." It is not.

To be sure, Judge Moore was opposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican grandees who have opposed and obstructed President Trump. What was strange (pun intended) was Mr Trump's endorsement of Senator Strange. It's never easy to read the President's mind, but I think we can put this down to loyalty. During his short term in the upper house of Congress, Senator Strange was a strong supporter of the President, voting the right way as and when required. The President's endorsement recognized that.

But... a couple of days ago President Trump uttered an aside -- almost a throw-away line -- to the effect that his endorsement of Judge Moore might have been a mistake. I don't think it was. I think (and I am waiting for Scott Adams to say something similar) that Mr Trump gave Senator Strange his stamp of approval knowing that doing so would: a) placate the Republican establishment and show himself to be a team player, b) confuse the progressives and snowflakes who can't imagine voting for anyone that Mr Trump likes, and c) fire up the populists and hard right (Hello, Steve Bannon!) and make them work even harder to get Judge Moore elected. Which is exactly what happened!

To me, the selection of Judge Roy Moore bodes well for the future of the USA since it shows that voters are not as concerned as the liberals, SJWs and lamestream media... not to mention the United States Supreme Court... about the separation of church and state. Judge Moore stood up for Christian values -- the values on which America was founded -- on issues such as "gay marriage". In 2014, in an interview with AP, he declared, "The moral foundation of our country is under attack," and that the "government has become oppressive, and judges are warping the law."

Judge Moore is also famous for his refusal to remove from his courtroom a plaque showing the Ten Commandments. (The statue shown in the picture came later.) He told the Montgomery Advertiser that his intention in hanging the plaque was to indicate the importance of the laws given by God to man. It was not his intention to create controversy, he said, but "I wanted to establish the moral foundation of our law."

What is law but the expression of a set of principles and beliefs? Certain things are right; certain things are wrong. The question to be answered is which set of principles and beliefs should have the force of law in our society.

Do you want to live your life according to the customs and practices of Islam? Then you have no problem with Sharia law (but see "Sharia Law: Saudi king pardons gang-rape victim", WWW 26/9/17). Do you think the code of laws which govern our daily behaviour should have no reference to any religious creed? What you want then, is a legal code based on secular humanism, which is just as much a religion (belief system) for the liberals and progressives as Islam is for the Muslims or Christianity for traditional Catholics and evangelical Protestants.

Judge Moore stands for and stands up for the old-time religion, the Christian values on which the USA was founded, which, if restored to their rightful place in its courts and legislatures can indeed Make America Great Again. God bless him!

VIDEO: Sharia Law: Saudi king pardons gang-rape victim

The (not very carefully) hidden agenda of the Liberals and SJWs who are trying to push Motion M-103 through the Canadian parliament is to make Sharia Law "acceptable". "We're not trying to make it the law of the land," they say, "only to allow it to be used in Sharia courts to govern the lives of Muslims." Got it? Who could argue with that? "Islamophobes", that's who. If you think there's something wrong with that idea -- shame on you! -- you'd better not say so or write so, publicly, because we'll sic the PC police on ya!

On the other hand, if you agree with the premise, and are willing to allow your Muslim neighbours to submit themselves to Sharia Law, if that's what they want, as long as it doesn't apply to you, consider the following true story, told by Rex Murphy in one of his newspaper columns, nearly ten years ago. (I'm paraphrasing and editing a bit here, for the sake of brevity.)

"Saudi king pardons gang-rape victim" has to be one of the oddest sentences ever written. It simply does not compute. We do not know a world in which gang-rape victims are the ones seeking or receiving pardons, from Saudi kings or other potentates. We know instead a world where those who have endured the near-unendurable torments and dehumanizing outrages of gang rape inspire the most profound sympathy and concern.

the headline springs from the story of a most unfortunate 19-year-old who was charged with the "crime" of being in a car with a man who was not a relative, when both were set upon by seven men, both raped -- she most violently, for two hours -- by all seven, and more than once. She was reduced to numbness, shock and near-suicide and suffered horrific psychological and physical trauma.

But in the world of Saudi Arabia's sharia jurisprudence, the gang-raped 19-year-old had to appear before her Islamic judges and be tried for the crime of sitting in a car with a man. At first, her sentence was considered lenient -- a mere ninety lashes and some months in jail.

She had both the dignity and simple force of character to protest this monstrous verdict, with the help of a lawyer of some courage and resource. For the temerity of appealing a mindless and barbaric sentence, she had her sentence increased to two hundred lashes. And six months in jail, presumably necessary to give the stripes from the whip time to turn into scars.

The world at large found this excessive and, to be truthful, both odd and cruel too, beyond even the odd and cruel bounds of the ancient codes that, sadly, are still imposed on so many of the women of so many countries. The king of Saudi Arabia must have felt the wave of revulsion and contempt that followed on the world's press coverage of this outrage, and thus is came to pass that a 19-year-old who had been raped, shamed and tormented by seven men was relieved of the further shame and torment of two hundred lashes and incarceration for half a year of her young life. But "King pardons gang-rape victim" remains an atrocious declaration, a simultaneously absurd and mean statement.

The apologists for the extreme forms of Islam [Is there any other form? Ed.] should read and rererad this cautionary tale and ask themselves if they would really, really be comfortable having Sharia law -- notice I didn't say "justice" -- meted out by the mullahs to their neighbours, even if they are Muslims and feel bound to submit to it. Is this consistent with the Western (add "Christian" if you like) values for which those people came to Europe and North America? Is there any reason, any reason at all why we should change our values, our culture, our society to accommodate the barbaric rules and practices of Islam? Well? Is there?!

If words aren't enough to convince you there's something wrong with the idea of making Sharia law the law of the land, here's a video that might persuade you. It's not Saudi Arabia, but the province of Aceh, Indonesia, where Sharia is the law of the land. It was posted just over a year ago.



Further reading: I found the column by Rex Murphy, adapted and quoted above, in a compilation of his writings called Canada and Other Matters of Opinion (Doubleday Canada 2009). Highly recommended.

VIDEO: Dom the Conservative tells the terrible truth about Islam

There is so much on the Internet -- on YouTube alone -- that it's virtually impossible to search for something without stumbling onto something else. The surfeit of material -- some of which is immaterial [Geddit? Ed.] -- means, sadly, that some good stuff gets lost in the shuffle.

A Kardashian says something stupid, and millions of people bust their index fingers clicking on the video. But when an astoundingly beautiful woman tells the plain truth about the dangers of radical Islam, does anyone pay attention? Judging by the number of likes and dislikes for this one, apparently not. Mind you, it's only been on YouTube since June 27th, so maybe it just hasn't been much noticed.

Walt will help that out by directing your attention to Dom the Conservative, who has something to say that the liberals and "moderate Muslims" -- an oxymoron if ever there was one -- won't like. Excuse the crappy sound, please, and listen up!

The "racist" card isn't Trump any more

Following the Orlando massacre, Donald Trump called for a temporary ban on immigration from all places who support or tolerate the Islamic terrorists who have declared themselves the enemies of America and its allies. He didn't name any countries in particular, but Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Syria spring to mind, along with several others. What do these states have in common? Islam is their official religion, and they are governed by Muslims, some of them according to Sharia law.

For suggesting that it might be a good idea not to admit into the USA people who might have an axe to grind -- so to speak -- Mr Trump was immediately and stridently called a racist. Ho hum. Does that matter to anyone, in the light of what's happened in Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris, Brussels, etc etc? A growing number of Americans seem to be saying, "If this be racism, make the most of it."

At least, that's what Scott "Dilbert" Adams found when he did a little polling on Twitter today.

If I were Hellery Clinton, I wouldn't count on the racism card to be the ace of trumps any more.

Footnote: In the comments section, "CatherineEarnshaw" posted this editorial cartoon, which I think pretty much sums up the approach of la Clinton, the Prez and the lamestream media.

VIDEO: Bill Maher calls BS on "shared values" with Muslims

Chrystia Freeland is your archtypical limousine liberal. She is the daughter of privilege, a member of Canada's elite, the Member of Parliament for one of Toronto's wealthiest areas. A darling of the Canuck lamestream media, she was recruited by Justin Trudeau and promised a seat at the cabinet table if his Liberal Party won last fall's election. Which they did. And now she's Canada's Minister of Trade.

As such, she gets to swan around the world preaching the benefits of globalization, free trade agreements and (of course) helping all the poor people of the Third World. Canadians learned only today that Ms Freeloader was in Manila on November 19th, just two weeks after the new government was sworn in, while it was pushing for the resettlement of 25,000 refugees in the Great Not-so-white North. She had a government Challenger -- excellent planes, by the way -- standing by to take her home, but instead booked herself through LAX, charging Canuck taxpayers nearly C$20,000 ($15,600 in real money) for a to Hollywood.

Why? So she could appear on the HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher! During Question Period in the Canadaian House of Commons today, Conservative MP Blane Calkins called her appearance "a vanity interview". She took part, along with Senator Angus King Jr (Ind., Maine), in a discussion on how liberals rush to defend Syrian refugees and Muslims without acknowledging that many embrace a value set that is not shared with most Americans. In Mr. Maher's opinion, "This idea that somehow we do share values, that all religions are alike, is bullshit, and we need to call it bullshit." Check it out...

VIDEO: Ezra Levant tours the mean Muslim streets of Eurabia

One of Walt's favourite bloggers/pundits/whatever is Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media. Having stood up to the socialist government of his home province, Alberta, who wanted to shut him up by declaring him a "non-journalist", Mr. Levant is doing a series on the effects of Muslim mass migration on Europe. The "Million Muslim March" is what he calls it. In this video, he interviews Muslim men in Malmo, Sweden, a city the Muslims have turned into "New Somalia" in just 20 years. Prepare to be outraged, not so much by the attitudes of the Muslim layabouts, but by the willful blindness to reality of the Swedish woman who speaks in the second part of the video.



By the way... there's a commercial in there for a "Rebel Cruise". Sail the seas with Ezra and like-minded folks. Who knew? I'd be tempted to go, if only I didn't get seasick. I'm a great believer in terra firma; the more firmer, the less terror.

"Sharia police" patrol German streets, with court approval

My first post this morning foresaw some headlines which might appear in Canadian newspapers 15 years hence. One of them read: Brampton schoolgirl expelled for not wearing a burqa: Sharia law to be strictly enforced. So that's Canada's future? Maybe, but in Germany it's the present!

Don't believe me? Check out this report on the BBC News website. A German court has ruled that Islamists who patrolled the streets of Wuppertal wearing vests identifying them as "Shariah police" didn't break the law and won't be prosecuted.

Nine Salafists -- Islamic extremists -- were arrested in September 2014 after patrolling streets in the western German city, telling passers-by not to frequent discos, casinos or bars. The group also carried notices proclaiming in English a "Sharia Controlled Zone". The notices spelled out prohibitions like those in force in some Arab countries, outlawing alcohol, drugs, gambling, music and concerts, pornography and prostitution.

The "Wuppertal Nine" (as the lamestream media will surely start calling them) included Sven Lau, a convert to Islam and preacher, whose passport was seized this year after he visited Syria and a photo surfaced, showing him posing on a tank, with a Kalashnikov rifle slung around his neck.

Herr Lau, who has already spent some time in prison, is suspected of trying to recruit Muslims to join jihadists fighting in Syria/Iraq. He told the court he had gone to war-torn Syria in 2013 on a humanitarian mission. [Possibly to identify "refugees" suitable for importation to Canada? Ed.]

The appearance of the Salafists at night in Wuppertal triggered sharp criticism in Germany, after a film of their "patrol" appeared on YouTube. [Ed., have you found this?] [Not yet. Ed.] However, the court said they had not violated laws on the wearing of uniforms and public gatherings that were enacted after the fall of the Third Reich to protect the public from just this sort of intimidation.