Canada: Jews most targeted for hate crimes, hate crimes against Muslims decrease

“Jews also were the most targeted religious group, followed by Catholics and Muslims, despite perceptions of a rise in Islamophobia.”

Indeed, Canada has an “anti-Islamophobia” motion and increasing restrictions on the freedom of speech regarding examination of how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. But there is no “anti-anti-Semitism” motion. Now, why is that?


“Jews minority most targeted by hate crimes in Canada,” Arutz Sheva, November 29, 2017 (thanks to DNHG):

JTA – Jews were the most targeted minority group for hate crimes in Canada in 2016, according to data released by Statistics Canada, the country’s main numbers-keeper.

According to “Police-Reported Hate Crime, 2016,” released Tuesday, Jews were victimized 221 times, up from 178 the previous year, a rise of more than 20 percent. Blacks were next at 214 incidents and those victimized due to sexual orientation, 176.

Jews also were the most targeted religious group, followed by Catholics and Muslims, despite perceptions of a rise in Islamophobia. Hate crimes against Muslims and Catholics declined in 2016 compared to the previous year.

Police reported a total of 1,409 hate crimes in Canada in 2016, 47 more than in 2015.

“While Canada remains one of the best countries in the world to be a minority, anti-Semitism and hate in all forms persist in the margins of society,” said Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

“We are alarmed by the overall increase in hate crime, the increasingly violent nature of these crimes, and the spike in incidents targeting the Jewish community,” he said.

Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre expressed similar sentiments.

“Just this past month, we have witnessed swastikas being drawn on numerous buildings and even in front of a Jewish school north of Toronto,” CEO Avi Benlolo told The Canadian Jewish News.

Before Donald Trump Used ‘Racist Slur’ Word ‘Pocahontas,’ Bill Maher Did Without Elizabeth Warren Objecting

Elizabeth Warren responded to the president’s “Pocahontas” poke by calling it “racist” and sending out a fundraising appeal pleading with donors to strike back at a “bully.” But when talk-show host Bill Maher made the same quip, the Massachusetts senator merely made a point about the popularity of progressivism.

“They don’t like you, Pocahontas,” the comic said to Warren’s face on Real Time with Bill Maher earlier this year. The liberal audience laughed hysterically.

Warren neither lectured the laughers nor scolded the joker. She did not respond with a fundraising letter or denounce Maher’s “racist” speech on national television. Warren, as a Deadline Hollywood article noted in April, simply ignored the quip. She paused before continuing to make her point after the laughter died down.

The nickname stems from Warren’s discredited claims of Native American ancestry. She listed herself in academic directories as a minority professor despite her blonde hair, blue eyes, and pale complexion. Critics argue that this falsehood led the Rutgers Law graduate to a position on the faculty of Harvard Law.

Warren’s insistence that Trump voters liked her and her issues prompted an incredulous Maher to issue the “Pocahontas” retort on HBO in April. Warren then doubled down on her point that Trump voters embrace progressive taxation, Social Security, stringent regulations of financial institutions, and a host of other liberal ideas. “America — Democrats, Republicans, independents, libertarians, vegetarians — Americans, by about 2-to-1, are with us on that,” Warren maintained.  “The progressive agenda is America’s agenda. We cannot forget that and we cannot apologize.”

On Monday, Trump used the same moniker to mock Warren.

“We have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago,” Donald Trump joked in the presence of World War II Navajo code talkers in the Oval Office. “They call her ‘Pocahontas.’”

The senator reacted differently than she did to Bill Maher. Warren labeled the word a “racist slur” and “the very worst of gutter politics” when Donald Trump uttered it.


Beating wives if they refuse sex is OK, according to books in Britain’s Islamic schools

similar books are available at the islamic booth at dundas sqaure infront of city tv who refuse to report on them


“Beating wives if they refuse sex is OK, according to books in Britain’s Islamic schools”, RT News, November 28, 2017:

Books that sanction domestic violence and say women should never refuse their husbands sex are among a series of sexist materials that inspectors have found in Britain’s Islamic schools. The education watchdog has compiled a file of the worst examples.

The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) discovered a book in a school library entitled ‘Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell’, which said it was wrong for wives to show “ingratitude to their husband” or “have tall ambitions,” according to the Times. It also detailed “mischievous” females who are a “trial for men.” In its pages, pupils are told: “In the beginning of the 20th century, a movement for the freedom of women was launched with the basic objective of driving women towards aberrant ways.”

Another school Ofsted visited encouraged children to read a text that contrasted the “noble women of the East” who protects her modesty by wearing a veil, while the “internally torn woman of the West” attracts men and leaves her home to hang around in cinemas and cafés.

Other materials claimed that in a Muslim marriage “the wife is not allowed to refuse sex to her husband” or “leave the house where she lives without his permission.” Boys and girls were also taught that “the man by way of correction can also beat her.” Work marked by teachers stated that women had a responsibility “only to bear children and bring them up as Muslims.”

The social attitudes contained in the library books appear to have filtered through to children’s work. Ofsted inspectors found a student answered on a worksheet suggesting women have a responsibility “only to bear children and bring them up as Muslims” while men should be “protectors of women.” In a box headed “daily life and relationships” the pupil had written that men are “physically stronger” and women are “emotionally weaker.” The worksheet was covered in approving red ticks from the teacher.

Ofsted said the books and writings made for “uncomfortable reading.” It added that the material it collected was out of step with mainstream Muslim thinking, and came from maintained schools as well as independent faith schools and unregistered schools.

The education watchdog took issue in particular with primary schools which allow girls as young as four to wear the hijab. It said there is a “growing concern” about the trend. Inspectors are now planning to question Muslim girls who wear the hijab at primary school, because most Islamic teaching does not require girls to cover their heads until they reach puberty…


Beating wives if they refuse sex is OK, according to books in Britain’s Islamic schools

The unexamined repressive brutality of male feminists.

The unexamined repressive brutality of male feminists.


Robert McCain writes about a column in The New York Times that is chock full of male feminist angst. All of these horrible men who are being outed as horrible men who chase after women! Oh the humanities!

Is this masochistic self-flagellation necessary? Is it really true that, because of what we’ve learned about Weinstein, et al., men are now “forced” to admit that their sexuality is “ugly and dangerous”? Are all men perpetrators of “implicit brutality”?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; all of these men who are being outed as not very nice guys all have one thing in common – they are left wing progressive “enlightened men”. Male feminists in other words.

From the column in question:

Through sheer bulk, the string of revelations about men from Bill Cosby to Roger Ailes to Harvey Weinstein to Louis C.K. to Al Franken and, this week, to Charlie Rose and John Lasseter, have forced men to confront what they hate to think about most: the nature of men in general. This time the accusations aren’t against some freak geography teacher, some frat running amok in a Southern college town. They’re against men of all different varieties, in different industries, with different sensibilities, bound together, solely, by the grotesquerie of their sexuality.

They want you to think that these men are all of different varieties, but they’re not. You may as well stick the title of male feminist before each of their names, and I have no doubt that each and every one of them voted for Hillary! These men are a self-fulfilling prophecy for the left. They went along with all of the progressive platitudes in the hope that this would enable them to finally get laid on a regular basis. Men only become ‘male feminists’ or some other prog abomination in order to fulfill an urgency to get laid. When this doesn’t eventuate for them, (because you never listen to what a woman says she wants on such a subject), then their desperation propels them to other less salacious methods of sexual fulfillment.

The writer, one Stephen Marche, claims that male sexuality is inherently brutal. What he means by that is normal and healthy male sexuality that is unpolluted by progressive feminist doctrine. These men are insanely jealous of men who get laid without sucking up to women. As a result when their own are caught behaving badly then this is a wonderful opportunity for them to smear normal masculinity as a whole.

How do I know that this Stephen Marche is a whimpering beta male that is racked by jealousy? Let’s have a look at a couple of passages from his article.

The men I know don’t actively discuss changing sexual norms. We gossip and surmise: Who is a criminal and who isn’t? Which of the creeps whom we know are out there will fall this week? Beyond the gossip, there is a fog of the past that is better not to penetrate.

I have never before seen the term gossip associated with men. This passage is a dead giveaway that Marche and all of his male friends are repressed, frustrated, beta chumps. And at heart every one of them are secretly jubilant with each of their own who falls to the frenzied lust to find more perpetrators of sexual misdeeds. One more falling is one less competitor which is vitally important when you are so inept in the sexual market stakes.

A healthy sexual existence requires a continuing education, and men have the opposite. A healthy sexual existence requires a continuing education, and men have the opposite. There is sex education for boys, but once you leave school the traditional demands on masculinity return: show no vulnerability, solve your own problems. Men deal with their nature alone, and apart. Ignorance and misprision are the norms.

The first sentence is a falsehood that is presented as fact. The rest is a misdirection to place blame for progressive men’s failings at the feet of traditional masculinity. But these men who have been implicated did nothing of the kind. They took the progressive route of sharing their feelings, showing their vulnerabilities, and getting in touch with their emotions that feminists demanded of them. And it led them down the path of immense sexual failure and frustration. So what is Marche’s solution to this big problem?

I’m not asking for male consciousness-raising groups; let’s start with a basic understanding that masculinity is a subject worth thinking about. That alone would be an immense step forward. If you want to be a civilized man, you have to consider what you are. Pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be, cannot help. It is not morality but culture — accepting our monstrosity, reckoning with it — that can save us. If anything can.

He is correct, but not as he intended. The actual monstrosity is distorted and twisted masculinity – male feminists just like him. These are the men who are being exposed. Pretending to be a sensitive new age guy as feminists demanded will only cause you a world of misery. Their only solution is to stop listening to women and start making a real man of themselves.

But as long as they participate in male “gossip groups” then I just can’t see that happening.

Why Do Men Have Unwanted Sex? It’s Not Just Gender Expectations, New Research Finds–its-not-just-gender-expectations–.html


Men have unwanted sex with women in order to conform to gender expectations and to avoid uncomfortable interactions finds new research by an NYU sociologist.


Men have unwanted sex with women in order to conform to gender expectations and to avoid uncomfortable interactions finds new research by a New York University sociologist.

“Although women experience a higher burden of sexual assault and harassment, heterosexual men also report unwanted sex,” says the study’s author, Jessie Ford, a doctoral candidate in NYU’s Department of Sociology. “My findings indicate men are motivated to have unwanted sex through a process where they try to avoid embarrassing themselves or their partner and seek to behave in interpretable ways. In particular, men consent to unwanted sex because accepting all opportunities for sexual activity is a widely accepted way to perform masculinity.”

“There is also a tendency—one that likely applies to women as well as to men—that once a sexual interaction starts with a partner who seems to want sex, the desire to keep the exchange on an even keel eventually facilitates unwanted sex,” she adds.

In her study, which appears in the journal Social Forces (Oxford University Press), Ford interviewed 39 racially diverse college men who reported having unwanted sex with a woman. Interview times ranged from 45 minutes to two hours. During interviews, respondents were asked explicitly about how the unwanted sex unfolded and what made this experience unwanted.

Their explanations for having unwanted sex centered on their broader ideas about gender, which revealed the following: how men were expected to act; what men were expected to want; and what actions might make men lose face with their partner or others.

“I think it’s an undercurrent to my thought-making…that guys are supposed to enjoy sexual intercourse under any circumstances,” said one student.

“(T)here is this social pressure that men like sex a lot and women can choose yes or no,” explained another. “So, I guess it makes you unmanly if you don’t want to have sex.”

“When a girl comes on to you, you’re just like ‘ok, I’ll accept this’ because that almost never happens, in my experience at least,” described a third. “So, I guess that was a lot of why I went ahead with it.”

More broadly, Ford concludes, men simply aim to keep interactions smooth and avoid awkwardness—which can mean engaging in unwanted sex.

“When describing sex, these men did not talk about uncontrollable biological urges or powerful female seductresses so much as they described a normative commitment to keep the interaction going smoothly,” Ford recounts.

When asked why he didn’t stop a sexual encounter, one respondent said, “She might think I was a little strange…Like she got rejected…I think she would feel weird or surprised.”

Notably, only eight out of 39 men reported being intoxicated when they had unwanted sex.

“What allows a man to save face or make sense is substantially informed by gender,” Ford concludes. “Moreover, men conduct their sex lives in the shadow of presumed gendered reputational consequences. They fear ridicule if stories are told portraying them as the kind of man who declines sex with an attractive woman.”

“However, what’s striking is that, although these college men’s experiences involve sex, which we sometimes assume to be a largely biologically driven affair, these men report deploying the same tactics for the same reasons that a person tries to keep the banter going when talking to someone at a dinner party,” she adds. “People try to fulfill interactional expectations, even when the cost is high.”