I view it for what it is. Sure I may be more sympathetic and understanding of the contenxt of in which it was said (that from the perspective of war between peoples), but I am not going to validate those beliefs nor suggest they should be spoken on television. I don’t think Michael Coren was even-handed in his approach and he knew he could exploit Elmasry’s poor PR skills, or lack thereof, and elicit an out of context response. Conduct a newspapers search and look at all the stuff Coren has had to say over the years. Nevertheless, it shouldn’t have been said but it is not truly indicative of Elmasry’s views of Jewish people. Elmasry does not support terrorism and does not accept much needed funding from outside of Canada so not to spark any suspicions of any sort and to remain totally Canadian.

I don’t know how and where your comment relates to my thought but to me that just shows how every Muslim has to respond to every action unrelated to them personally and for any argument they bring forward and every position they take. I haven’t made a mention of my religious affiliation and I pose a thought somewhat favourable to Muslims and the left, and I’m responding about Elmasry, go figure.

And bravely using your first name and all.

And, (he says having checked) not actually written at all.

Jay Currie is a drug-addled moron. He is a liar and a cheat. Every sensible person should be made aware of this hideously deranged person.

First off, this is just not true and your phrasing could be re-written to be less offensive and stereotypical and more precise to emphasize your own point. More importantly, don’t you think if some of the far-right would stop crying wolf and making these stereotypical allegations on a daily basis the Canadian public would be better off so if and when these types of events transpire they won’t write it off as the radical right simply concocting another cock and bull story?

You have this perpetual battle with one side defending itself (rightfully so as the generalizations are just not applicable, sorry) against the the fears of the other; naturally society is going to be more reluctant and more careful not to offend the side absorbing the attack out of sheer empathy. Thus, in effect you guys are attenuating your own message by spreading it carelessly and haphazardly and thus doing society an injustice. How’s that for a thought?

Assuming it to be true, surely you can’t believe most people working for and supporting HRCs and general members of our reasonably intelligent society would actually be against calling out a religious institution for plotting to hurt or destroy Canada’s well-being?

First I think they are distancing themselves politically from Farber’s extremist views that free speech be castrated for his peace of mind and second, I think the BB is trying to divert attention from the root cause of the problem.

The CHRC issues of misuse as a political censorship tool and malfeasant abuser of charter legal process will not stop with some fiddling with the commission regulations. The cause is the CHR act section 13 (1). As long as it stands unreformed the potential for misuse and charter breech is there.

The BB were cheerleaders for 13(1)’s inception and use. Frankly, I reflect the opinion of another poster to Ezra’s site in that the only way the BB can regain its credibility with free speech and civil liberty advocates is to openly apologize for what they did to Doug Collins and join the fight to repeal 13(1).