Quebec City Mosque Attack: Future Discourse Will be Dominated by Far-Right Bigots and Leftist Jihad Denialists

Two sides...  

Two sides...

... of the same problem

... of the same problem


There is nothing quite as effective as a developing story regarding a terrorist incident to smoke out people’s true political agendas.

On Sunday night, six people were killed at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre by a lone gunman. Or was it two gunmen? In the immediate aftermath, there were conflicting reports on the matter, although as of Monday afternoon, it appears that the Quebec City authorities have finally concluded that indeed only one man was the perpetrator.

In any case, as of Sunday night, regardless of the fact that no concrete facts had yet been established about this horrendous incident, the usual suspects on both the right and the left were out in full force pushing their own theories and agendas.

“Islamophobia! White supremacy! Trump!” shouted the left.

In a New York Times article from Sunday evening, the paper was quick to mention that this same mosque had been the victim of Islamophobic bigotry in June 2016, when a pig’s head was left on its doorstep. In an article from today, the same paper noted that other minor Islamophobic incidents had been committed in Canada in recent months.

The aim, clearly, was to immediately establish a link between the Mosque shootings and Islamophobia, before any firm facts had been established.

Also on Sunday evening (again, before any facts had been established), Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quick to put forth similar theories, stating that, “this was a group of innocents targeted for practicing their faith… Make no mistake: this was a terrorist attack.” Was this statement meant to nudge us into assuming that the killer(s) was an anti-Islam bigot? I shall let you decide for yourself.

Trudeau is cute

Trudeau is cute


New York City mayor Bill de Blasio went on a Twitter offensive on Sunday evening with similarly non-neutral insinuations about the causes of the Quebec mosque attack:

Assumptions before facts had emerged

Assumptions before facts had emerged


Moving to the right, the assumptions and battle cries were no less fatuous. “Jihad! Muslim-on-Muslim barbarity! Sectarian violence!” they reflexively shouted.

These sentiments were fueled by emerging reports on Monday morning that one of the “two” gunmen was a Moroccan national by the name of Mohamed el Khadir. This turned out to be false- el Khadir was merely a witness. Adding to the right’s excitement were alleged claims by some eyewitnesses that the gunman had shouted “Allahu Akbar” during the massacre.

Predictably, the anti-Islam brigade was hailing this as a vindication of their suspicions that Jihad, rather than Islamophobia, was responsible for this attack.

The anti-Trudeau: This tweet was left up hours after it had been established that the individual of Moroccan origin was no longer a suspect

The anti-Trudeau: This tweet was left up hours after it had been established that the individual of Moroccan origin was no longer a suspect

Geller loves jumping to conclusions as well  

Geller loves jumping to conclusions as well

Tommy Robinson retweeted this, probably as he was orgasming

Tommy Robinson retweeted this, probably as he was orgasming


Firstly, what is most troubling about this entire spectacle is that it has revealed a penchant for people on both sides of the political spectrum to engage in what I call the “reverse scientific method.” That is to say, there is a tendency for seemingly-informed people to draw certain conclusions first and only then to scrape together pieces of evidence in support of this conclusion after the fact.

This flies in the face of what we were all taught as 13-year-olds in science class: collect the evidence first (and, if need be, patiently wait until it emerges), and only then start to draw conclusions based on this evidence.

Secondly, this incident has revealed a deeply troubling erosion of the ostensibly nuanced political center in dictating the narrative on such issues. The Left (of which the New York Times, Trudeau, and de Blasio are all a part), will reflexively see Islamophobia as the primary problem plaguing our societies. The right (Geller, Robinson, and Fox News) will deem radical Islam to be the primary problem.

Now, as of Monday afternoon, it turns out that the prime suspect in this shooting is a Canadian national by the name of Alexandre Bissonnette. It appears, based on his social media activity, that he is a supporter of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. He was known to troll various refugee-supporting Facebook groups as well as Feminist organizations.

Hence, as it turns out, the left will probably end up being correct about this particular incident. Expect days of declarations about how there is now “definitive proof” that Islamophobia is a far larger threat than is Islamism.

Of course, this would totally ignore the fact that terrorist attacks on Muslims are most frequently committed by… fellow Muslims. The recent attack on a Shia market in Pakistan, and the attack on a Shia mosque in Kabul are but two examples of this phenomenon. Closer to home, in March of 2016, an Ahmadi Muslim by the name of Asad Shah was stabbed to death in his Glasgow shop by a Sunni extremist.

Asad Shah was killed by a fellow Muslim in Glasgow because he apparently "insulted Islam."

Asad Shah was killed by a fellow Muslim in Glasgow because he apparently "insulted Islam."


This is not to say that the right was correct to assume that this particular incident was conducted by Islamists or Jihadists. And yes, far-right Islamophobic hate crime is certainly a problem we face today. However, Islamism and Jihad are also very real problems. So let us not yield to the extremists on both sides of the debate who only acknowledge one side of the problem.

2016 Has Been a Horrible Year for the Left

2016 might be the worst year for the political left in recent memory. Let us now examine the highlights: 


These scenes in Germany are not nearly as common as they were in 2015

These scenes in Germany are not nearly as common as they were in 2015


Perhaps the biggest news story to greet us in the New Year was that of the mass-scale sex attacks that occurred in Cologne and other European cities on New Year’s Eve. By July of this year, over six hundred women (600!) have come out stating that they had been sexually assaulted in Cologne on that one night alone.

Perhaps most shamefully, out of fear of perpetuating cultural stereotypes, the authorities in Cologne declined to admit that the vast majority, if not all, of the perpetrators were recently-arrived asylum seekers from the Muslim world. The Cologne prosecutor had to publicly come out and admit that the perpetrators were indeed recently-arrived asylum-seekers, mostly from North Africa..

The Cologne chief of police was suspended, and the mayor ridiculed after she victim-blamed the victims, stating that women should keep an “arm’s length” from groups of men. Incidentally, one wonders if she meant “all men,” or men from one particular culture.

Perhaps one of the more shocking cases of sex crimes was in October when a 19-year-old German girl was raped and drowned on her way home from a party by an Afghan asylum seeker.

This year has also seen numerous terrorist attacks by asylum seekers and refugees. In Germany, a Syrian asylum-seeker conducted the first suicide bombing that the nation had ever experienced on its own soil. In another attack, an “Afghan asylum-seeker” (who was probably Pakistani and not a legitimate asylum-seeker at all), decided to start hacking at people on a German train.

In Brussels, the airport and metro were blown up by Muslim immigrants to Europe, some of whom had re-entered Europe among migrants.

In June, Omar Mateen, the son of an Afghan immigrant to the United States, shot dead 49 people in a LGBT Orlando nightclub.

In September, Ahmad Khan Rahami, the son of an Afghan asylum-seeker, set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey, injuring dozens.

In December, a Somali asylum-seeker drove a car into a large group of people before starting to knife them on the Ohio State University campus.

And, most recently, just days before Christmas, a Tunisian asylum-seeker drove a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12.


In light of the numerous crimes committed by migrants this past year, it seems odd that the left has been determined to censor viewpoints critical of Angela Merkel’s immigration policies.

In September, Angela Merkel was caught speaking to Mark Zuckerberg off-the-record about the need to curtail Facebook posts that criticized her migration policies. Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative when asked whether Facebook was “working on this.”

Angie: "Pssst... how can I make people less aware of the scale of my blunder?" Zuck: "Say no more fam!" 

Angie: "Pssst... how can I make people less aware of the scale of my blunder?"
Zuck: "Say no more fam!" 


In April, Merkel allowed the prosecution of Jan Boehmermann, a young German comedian, who made a certain crass joke about President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, and a goat. Apparently, Merkel felt it was more important to appease a foreign dictator than to allow for the freedom of expression in her own country.

And speaking of Facebook, the technology group has been accused this year of censoring conservative news stories in favor of left-wing ones.

The left has, in 2016, tried to silence Trump supporters as well. In a widely-shared video on social media, a student wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat is harassed by fellow students who claim that it amounts to “hate language.”

In another, a different man wearing the same hat is physically intimidated by a group of Black Lives Matter protestors in New York City.





During the months leading up to the June 23rd referendum on Britain’s membership within the European Union, the left-leaning mainstream media pelted us with claims that Brexit was racist, xenophobic, economically calamitous, and a sure catalyst for new wars amongst European nations.

Of course, as it happened, the UK economy has done quite well since Brexit, and no wars between European nations have occurred.

Critics will insist that as Brexit has still not formally transpired (which requires Britain to invoke Article 50 of the European Union Treaty), we still do not know what might happen. Sure. But so far, so good.

Trump’s Election




This was the big one of 2016. Hardly anyone, be it on the left or the right, had foreseen the elevation of the world’s loudest mouth to the President of the United States of America.

Writing in the Guardian, author Thomas Frank made an eloquent case in favor of the idea that liberals had put Trump in the White House.

Following Trump’s election, New York Times Company chairman Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. had to issue a mea culpa on behalf of the left-leaning paper’s reporting of the Trump phenomenon. In the letter, he admitted that the New York Times had to now rededicate itself to reporting on America and the world, “honestly.”

Moreover, it is interesting to note just how many voters who had backed Obama in 2012 switched to Trump in 2016. This rendered claims of all Trump supporters being “racists,” and, “deplorables,” to be fundamentally untrue.

The hyperbole clouding any discussion of Trump in the lead-up to this election has truly been, “deplorable.” On the evening of the election, left-wing Al Jazeera journalist and terrorist apologist-in-chief Mehdi Hasan posted the following startling tweet:

No, you are wrong, Mehdi

No, you are wrong, Mehdi


At once, he equated Trump’s so-called “extremism” with the extremism of certain Muslim countries in which democracy doesn’t exist, pluralism doesn’t exist, free speech doesn’t exist, secularism doesn’t exist, minority rights don’t exist, and people are routinely punished with beheadings, stonings, public hangings, and cross-amputations.

If Mr. Hasan truly believes that Trump’s victory will lead to the same degree of oppression as we witness in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Islamic State, all perspective and reason has truly been lost.




Although the disastrous and corrosive Western policies regarding Syria aren’t limited to the political left, they certainly were heavily pushed by the Obama administration and by Hillary Clinton, his Democratic successor-to-be (or so they believed).

By standing in stark opposition to Assad and Putin, the West boxed itself into a corner by constantly searching for an illusory, “third way,” that entailed a peaceful resolution to the conflict that did not involve either ISIS or Assad.

This naivety was evident to many of us, who saw the Western-backed “moderate rebels” for what they really were: murderous head-chopping Jihadists.

Hence, throughout this entire fiasco, the West was keen to arm and finance various groups of Islamist thugs, many with ties to Al Qaeda, rather than assist in letting the secular dictator Assad regain control of Syria.

It can be argued that if Assad, Putin, and Obama had fought on the same side from the get-go, the Syrian conflict would have come to an end months prior, thereby saving thousands of innocent lives.

The hand-wringers on the left were truly an unbearable embarrassment throughout the entire Syrian civil war, accusing Assad of war crimes on a daily basis without providing any viable alternative to his rule. The left simply could not grasp the fact that peace under a dictatorship was much preferable to life under theocracy.

It seems that the left didn’t learn any recent lessons about deposing Middle Eastern dictators, be it Hussein, Gaddafi, or Mubarak. It seems that the left didn’t learn any lessons about arming Islamist rebels, either (the mujahedeen in Afghanistan for example, who later turned on the West in the form of the Taliban and Al Qaeda).


Here's to 2017, folks!

What Are We to Do About Migrants Who Don't Have Passports?

Anis Amri, prime suspect for the Berlin truck attack, didn't have a passport when German authorities tried to deport him

Anis Amri, prime suspect for the Berlin truck attack, didn't have a passport when German authorities tried to deport him


It has been revealed today that the man suspected of flattening dozens of Berliners on Monday with a truck, killing twelve, was a Tunisian migrant who arrived in Germany in July 2015.

Anis Amri (pictured above), arrived in Europe via Italy in 2012, but like so many others, chose to not be content with Italy as a final destination, and was determined to instead reside in Germany. One supposes that he would have also liked a cheeseburger and fries to go along with such generous treatment on the part of Europeans.

The most striking thing about Mr. Amri’s case is the fact that German authorities, as early as January 2016, had deemed him to be a threat. As a result, calls were made for his deportation. Incidentally, one wonders why he was not deported simply because he was Tunisian, and therefore not coming from a country at war.

Yet nonetheless, Mr. Amri’s perceived terrorist threat was what catalyzed calls for his deportation. But although authorities tried to deport him back to Tunisia, they couldn’t. This is because Mr. Amri, like so many others entering Europe, did not have a passport at the time.

The German Federal Police estimated that in the Spring of 2016, around 80% of migrants entering Germany did not have passports to prove their identities. Apparently, Mr. Amri was part of this very category.

Now, what does a country do with people who arrive without documentation? How can a country prove or disprove their claims that they are Syrian, or any other nationality, for that matter?

And most importantly, if a certain migrant is deemed a threat to public safety, how can a country deport this individual if he or she does not have a passport? Where does one deport this person to?

And in the case of Anis Amri, who was known to be Tunisian, what incentive does Tunisia have to take a potential criminal back into its territory? It would seem quite predictable that Tunisia would resort to the claim that as Mr. Amri didn’t have a passport, he couldn’t re-enter Tunisia.

Now, how do we prevent such situations from arising in the first place? It would seem completely logical to me that the only way to mitigate these instances is to insist that asylum cases are processed offshore, so that illegitimate asylum applicants don’t eventually get to roam free in Europe. Remember, these are people who have no greater of a right to be in Europe than do any other people on the planet (legitimate asylum-seekers aside).

Australia has devised such a system, to great effect. And despite the wailing and howling of the left, Australia has succeeded in drastically reducing the number of illegal arrivals onto its shores.

If Europe wants to prevent further atrocities such as Monday’s attack on the Berlin Christmas market, it will have no choice but to do a thorough rethink of its strategy to deal with mass migration.

Most importantly, the continent must be prepared to fend off criticism from the sanctimonious, outrage-mongering left. For too much is at stake, as was laid bare on Monday evening in Berlin. And Europe cannot afford a repeat of such a tragedy.