To citizens, friends and commentators to Jihad Watch: I sincerely thank those of you who have supported me in the unjust targeting of my personal writings for Jihad Watch, which I have written in my pursuit of human rights for all, justice for all, and the expectation of the pursuit of tolerance from all. Many of you called my being targeted downright “inflammatory.” I was impressed with the Canadian Press’s fairness, in the determination of its reporter and editor to get my view in, despite my taking issue with the National Council of Canadian Muslims, Amira Elghawaby, being quoted, as I explain in this article. This was my full statement submitted to the Canadian Press, as I gave my permission for the reporter to decide what to take from it.

STATEMENT TO CANADIAN PRESS To: Stephanie Levitz

From: Christine Douglass-Williams My own personal writings on Jihad Watch are most compatible with my on-record, highly dedicated work on the Canadian Race Relations board since 2013. I serve and have the greatest respect for its pure, original mandate of human rights for all. I speak here of my own accord, not on behalf of the Foundation in any shape or form. It is not racist to oppose the jihadist-Islamist agenda. Any efforts currently against me in my private work are an unjust, agenda-driven and a cruel attempt to intimidate me for my distaste for all supremacist agendas. I am pro-Muslim and pro-human rights, which is why I wrote my book on The Challenge of Modernizing Islam, featuring prominent Muslims, revelations of their personal faith, and their remarkable efforts toward human rights; among them includes the founder of the Koranist sect in Egypt who suffered, was thrown in jail, tortured and eventually exiled to America. He warns about the same “fanatics” that have arrived in America. I am also an advisor to Muslims Facing Tomorrow, a Canadian progressive human rights Muslim group. I am appalled at Islamist intolerance and murder today of non-Muslims and even their fellow Muslims who strive toward human rights. I was also — relatively speaking — appalled as a child in the 60’s and early 70’s about the racism that I and other visible minorities experienced by many whites of that era. In our era, the worst global violators of human rights are now Islamists, eg. FGM, honor killings, black slavery, violent persecution of Christians and other minorities; stoning, beheadings, execution for adultery, apostasy and being gay; the wide-spread rape of infidel women across Europe–including thousands of UK “white girls” being called “meat” and “trash” by Islamist rape gangs; massive jihad attacks against those who are of another creed and/or culture and a supremacist view by Islamists above other creeds, even attempting to shut down democratic free speech to suit an agenda. White supremacists indeed still need to be cracked down on. The trouble is that our Western culture only adequately recognizes racism if it is white people against another group. To me, this dismal minimalizing of human rights abuses by Islamists—most of whom are not white– is troubling and it is also an insulting demonstration of a widespread bigotry of low expectations of visible minority perpetrators. I support diversity and responsible immigration. We have come a long way in diverse, multicultural Canada and the tides have changed, to heights that I would not have imagined. My book differentiates between Islamists and human rights-respecting Muslims who strive to live peaceably and equally among Westerners. They ask for no special favors and advocate for the separation of mosque and state; they condemn Islamism, and stand against human rights abuses committed in the name of their religion, sometimes at great personal risk. The West has evolved into bastions of human rights and unfortunately not every immigrant is respecting of that evolution and Canada’s constitution, but many wish to dredge up past, long atoned for abuses and ignore current-day mass human rights abuses. All lives matter and the majority of Canadians of all races and creeds can see straight through the noise of agendas. If the racism industry cannot come to promote equality for all without fear of unjust reprisals, we have a very bad problem. I support equality of all and human rights for all.

So here you have it: my writings at Jihad Watch are apparently deemed by some to be at odds with the constitution, human rights and equality for all. How peculiar.

Another point provided in the Canadian Press article that I also found to be strange was the reference to “concerns about the post circulating among her fellow board members.” This is no fault of the Canadian Press, as the reporter meticulously quoted sources; but to clarify a pertinent point: at the time of the post, we had only one other active board member besides me, and I am confident that she did not complain to anyone. The other board members consisted only of the Chairman, the Co-Chair and the spokesperson, none of whom expressed to me any concerns about any of my posts other than the Chairman, who notified me that there were concerns, however, emerging from the Heritage Department. This was due to a complaint that came in from a social justice warrior with a reputation for dangerous incitement who was living in Iceland, after a speech I delivered there (mentioned in the article below). His reputation was made known to the Heritage Department, as I submitted a letter through the Chair that was written by the main Icelandic organizer who hosted the event at which Robert Spencer and I spoke. The Chairman told me afterward that the letter had helped.

To provide a little insight and background that may shed some light on the climate in which this apparent “conflict” over my writings for Jihad Watch thrived:

In May, The Lawfare Project, a non-profit legal think tank based in New York City, issued a troubling statement and sent out emails — which I received — questioning a “Canadian Interfaith Conversation’s decision to include pro-Islamists” in an upcoming conference. The Lawfare Project’s Director and Attorney at Law, Brooke Goldstein, called this “an embarrassment to Canada’s interfaith community.” An embarrassment it was. Among those “pro-Islamists” was Amira Elghawaby, the same woman who indicted me in the Canadian Press article, saying of me:

For a federal appointee to be writing for hateful websites, denying the existence of Islamophobia and calling for the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of a minority community is contrary to everything the Canada Race Relations Foundation stands for and to the values enshrined in the charter.

While Elghawaby defames me, the Lawfare Project points out troubling, verifiable information about Elghawaby herself which provides insights about her possible motives in stating such untruths about me:

In light of the character of Ms. Alghawaby, the Lawfare Project highlighted “with dismay” the “apparent failure of ethical due diligence of the Canadian Interfaith Conversation (CIC) in the course of planning the CIC’s pending conference in Ottawa….titled ‘Our Whole Society: Religion & Citizenship at Canada’s 150th,’ the conference and its failings appear to be the shared responsibility of the CIC and its ‘Our Whole Society partner organizations’ , the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, and Cardus.”

By this point, I was receiving public emails (understandably) querying about why the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was taking part in such an event. I referred them to the organization’s Chairman, who made it clear that he did not support any form of “pro-Islamist” agenda. As an insider, a rift in values was becoming clear to me, and the subsequent witch-hunt by the Heritage Department against me was a confirmation. This rift was also evident at a prior Award of Excellence conference that was held by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation in October, where slamming white people carte blanche for past sins and current sins of racism was the in-your-face rhetoric; and as expected, during breakout sessions, “Islamophobia” was a main concern. During an on-stage session, an Afro-Canadian lady finally noted that it was blacks and Jews who still suffered the most hate, so why the constant emphasis on “Islamophobia”?

The racism against whites and against Jews, and the exoneration of Islamic supremacists from the murder and intolerance of which they are guilty around the world has been increasing to the point of of creepiness. How could any human rights advocate ignore headlines such as “Protesters outside mosque where imam prayed for killing of unbelievers could face hate crime charges.” That’s right, the protestors, not the hate preacher. Other headlines that are ignored by the anti-racism industry: UK Muslim rape gang: “All white women are good for one thing, for men like me to f*** and use as trash”; “Al Qaeda urges lone wolves to target whites, to avoid ‘hate crime’ label”. B’nai Brith Canada reports about pure anti-Zionist hatred on the “Best of the Worst at the Toronto Al-Quds Day Rally.” These are but a few headlines among scores of others that are daily highlighted on Jihad Watch, taken from a variety of news sources.

My original statement to the Canadian Press highlights other instances of intolerance, practices of gender inequality, murder of gays, etc. So why is concern about the victims of these supremacist abuses not part of the anti-racism industry — an industry that has now embraced Islam as a “race”? If it is understood now that anti-racism has broadened to include intolerance of both creed and race, then why are Islamic supremacists exempt from scrutiny?

The answer is plain and simple and dreadfully apparent in the Rotherham scandal in the UK, where authorities turned a blind eye to the most heinous sex abuses against young girls. It was because they did not want to appear “Islamophobic.” No one wants to appear “Islamophobic.” The West is brainwashed and living in fear of being branded racist, and has had “Islamophobia” drives repeatedly and continually rammed down the throats of citizens, unchallenged, in the face of the worst abuses and threats from Islamic supremacists, which range from an enforced social stigmatization and lawfare to physical violence.

Denis MacShane, MP for Rotherham between 1994 to 2012, “admitted to the BBC’s World At One that ‘there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat,’” while an inquiry was told that “influential Pakistani councillors acted as barriers to communication on grooming issues.” Front line workers say “the town hall told them to keep quiet about the ethnicity of the perpetrators in the interests of ‘community cohesion.’”

A pro-Islamist once told me during a live TV show at breaktime: “Us brown people have to stick together.” I believe that all peace-loving and tolerant people should be sticking together regardless of color and creed. All instances of supremacy, which includes Islamic supremacy, white supremacy, black supremacy (Nation of Islam, in which Louis Farrakhan characterizes Jews as “Satanic”), should be confronted for a better society.

Genuine anti-Muslim bigotry should be condemned to the fullest extent, but Islamic supremacism also needs to be confronted and condemned for the sake of the mammoth tally of victims, globally and in the West.

My open letter to Icelanders, which is mentioned in the Canadian Press, was translated and published in Iceland’s largest newspaper, the Morgunbladid. Icelanders were indeed in trouble, as one of its trusted imams was Ahmad Sedeeq, who was precisely was the kind of Islamic supremacist I warned about. Not only was I alerted that his organization — The Islamic Cultural Center in Iceland, the second-largest Muslim community in Iceland — was funded by Saudi petrodollars, but Sedeeq later claimed that the London Bridge jihad attacks were staged by police. People were mowed over and then stabbed to death, but he claimed it was all staged.

The welcoming people of Iceland were surprised that Islamic supremacy was in their midst, along with a surrounding shield of those who supported them. Unfortunately, their wake-up call was the poisoning of Robert Spencer, from which the country is still somewhat reeling, legally and emotionally. The picture in this post was snapped at a radio station following an interview I did the morning right after Mr. Spencer’s poisoning, after the bodyguard, an organizer and I spent the entire night with him in hospital. He was in rough shape.

Violent jihad attacks continue in the West, while the Muslim Brotherhood has meticulously outlined its detailed plan for North America, part of which states:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.

It is much easier and may feel more realistic to turn a blind eye to this threat, which involves a hijacking of the democratic process, but the threat is very real. Freedom of the press and free speech are hallmarks of democracy. Mockers and satirists have a right to offend, but not actually to incite violence. The widespread “anti-Islamophobia” drives that have seized the West are a disquieting phenomenon, as they seek to beat down any criticism, including justifiable criticism, as reported routinely by Jihad Watch. A former imam and member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, discussed the “Islamophobia” canard and states:

This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.

Canada’s Department of Heritage is attempting to beat me down although I am an avid supporter of equality for all and human rights for all. The Heritage Department in Canada is the very department from which the anti-Islamophobia Motion M103 emerged; I discuss its disconcerting origins and implications here. Alghawaby, on the other hand, fervently supports, promotes and defends M103 here.

As Robert Spencer states in his post about this:

Are there actually Muslims who posture as moderate when they actually aren’t? Consider the imam Fawaz Damra was known in the Cleveland area “as a voice of moderate, mainstream Islam.” He “was often seen at public events with politicians and leaders of other faiths, including several prayer services after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.” Meanwhile, he was “disparaging Jews in Arabic as ‘pigs and monkeys’ and raising money for the killing of Jews by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”

One of the cardinal services of my book The Challenge of Modernizing Islam is that, after defending why I support this ancient-to-modern-day reformist movement, it educates readers about Muslims who posture as moderate, while they wage a campaign of war against those who report on the global atrocities being committed against innocent people simply because those innocent people are of another faith and belief system.

Through this process, my hope is that justice and kindness can be served with victims in mind; recognizing that all brands of supremacism — with in today’s world Islamic supremacism tops the charts in victimizing innocents — needs to be addressed by the racism industry and by Western governments.

“Federal appointee to race relations board under scrutiny for writings on Islam”, by Stephanie Levitz, Canadian Press, August 20, 2017: