The incidence of “Islamophobic” hate crimes is said to be rising, and in response, six Canadian cities have endorsed a charter against “Islamophobia,” vowing to eliminate such hate crimes. A bad move.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly CAIR-CAN, drafted the charter. CAIR was deemed an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in the history of the United States — the Holy Land Foundation trial — during which the carefully calculated Muslim Brotherhood plan for North America was unveiled, with full partnership from so-called mainstream Muslim groups.

This “Islamophobia” business is a dangerous victimology narrative used by stealth jihadists to serve an agenda, as proclaimed by a former representative of the International Institute for Islamic Thought who was present at the inception of the use of this term. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad stated about “Islamophobia”:

“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.”

As a Maclean’s article indicates, Muslims across Canada “have reason to feel concerned about how they are perceived when other Canadians identify them by their religion.” Yet it is worth contemplating a comparison: such attitudes are not the case with regard to other religions in which high numbers of “visible minority” adherents are to be found, such as Sikhism and Hinduism.

Hate crime statistics against Muslims compiled by the FBI for 2013 show that anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for a meager 13.7 percent of such crimes, compared with such incidents against other groups deemed to be targeted, despite the long time exaggeration about “Islamophobia”; for example, the FBI identified that of religious bias hate crimes, 60.3 percent were committed against Jews, and of racial bias hate crimes, 66.5 percent were against blacks or African Americans.

There is a likely reason for this current-day lack of trust against Muslims, which Maclean’s pinpoints but suggests no possible motive for. These bad attitudes and attacks against Muslims correlate with the attacks by Islamic jihadists against the West. Each time a jihadist launches an attack in Europe, Britain or on North American soil, random attacks against Muslims increase, which, as often noted here, are never justified.

We do not hear about Sikhs and Hindus creating detailed plans to stealthily conquer the West, or calling for the killing and subjugation of infidels globally; nor do we hear about these groups making the top rankings of persecution lists against innocent Christians, or sanctioning charters to obliterate a state – as we see in the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Fatah charters against the state of Israel. Islamic jihadists have declared war on the West and Israel, and the West is without a plan to resist it. Instead, Western authorities are facilitating the jihadist agenda. As the historian, journalist and President of the Free Press Society, Lars Hedegaard, put it in a Gatestone Institute article:

“Right now there is an ever-widening gap between the people and their rulers……As long as we in the West are not prepared to take Muslims at their word when they claim to be waging bloody jihad because it is their religious obligation, we have no chance of repelling the current onslaught on the West.”

Hedegaard continues with a dire warning:

“Western societies are based on an implied contract between the sovereign and the people: The sovereign — the king, the president, the government — promises to uphold law and order, protect his people from violence and foreign encroachment and apprehend and punish criminals. In exchange, the citizens promise not to take the law into their own hands. It follows that if the state fails to uphold its part of this social bargain, then the right — indeed the obligation — to protect oneself, one’s family, neighbors and the community, returns to the citizens.”

It is an injustice and against human rights to attack innocent Muslims, but Western so-called sovereigns are partially to blame for this injustice, as these “sovereigns” and their cowardly water carriers continue to fail the people.

The incidence of “Islamophobia” has been low — even though inflated by stealth jihadists before the Paris and Brussels attacks, before the jihad massacre at the Pulse, and also before the influx of Muslim refugees into Europe, which led to a host of crimes. All of these were followed by increased incidents of hate crimes against Muslims.

Now that the jihadist assault on the West is intensifying, sadly, the incidence of hate crimes against Muslim innocents will logically increase, not because of racism or any kind of phobia, but due to legitimate fear, frustration and anger at the failure of the “sovereigns” to protect their own people, who elected them to do just that.

If racism against Muslims is to be tackled, then the first step is to do away with the word “Islamophobia” and deal with the problem holistically and/or realistically as a human rights issue. There is no actual phobia against Muslims, as a phobia is an irrational, imagined threat. But stealth jihadists can be guaranteed to continue employing the victimology subterfuge by forcing this “loathsome term,” “Islamophobia,” down the throats of Westerners, as unjustified vigilante retaliation against innocent Muslims increases in proportion with attacks from violent jihadists against Westerners.

“Calgary among 6 Canadian cities to sign charter against Islamophobia”, by Ayesha Clough, CBC News, July 4, 2016: