Islamists, Iran, and the RCMP’s “cultural diversity”

A conference on “Just and Sustainable Peace” raises eyebrows in Ottawa


An RCMP “ethnic liaison officer” is urging his colleagues to attend a conference on a “Just and Sustainable Peace” that was organized in part by a Green Party of Canada candidate who believes the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job,” and whose participants include the director general of an NGO that endorses hate-filled stereotypes about Jews. Three academics from Iran are flying in for the event.

Among speakers scheduled to speak at the conference, which will take place in Ottawa on Oct. 28, is Davood Ameri, director general of the Iran-based “Islamic World Peace Forum,” an organization whose website includes cartoons of Israeli soldiers murdering babies, and one of a hook-nosed Jew wearing a top hat full of tiny skulls.

Saied Ameli, identified by conference organizers as dean of the faculty of global studies at Tehran University, is scheduled to attend, as is Elham Aminzadeh, reportedly of Tehran University’s faculty of law, who has praised Iran for what she describes as its efforts to protect women’s rights since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. She was formerly an Iranian parliamentarian and in 2006 claimed stoning sentences were no longer handed down in Iran. They are. A third Iranian academic scheduled to participate is Hassan Hosseini.

Nasir Islam, a professor at the University of Ottawa, is on the program; as is Vern Neufeld Redekop of Saint Paul’s University in Ottawa; Ottawa lawyer Ernest Tannis; and Zijad Delic, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

The conference has been organized by Green Party members who call themselves the “Ottawa Group of Four.” They include Qais Ghanem, a doctor whose posting on the “Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth” reads: “I have, from the outset, believed that the 9/11 horrendous massacre of thousands of innocent civilians could not possibly be the work of a dozen amateur Saudis. Close watching of video clips and reading of lots of expert opinions convinced me further that this is an inside job, or that it was at the very least done with inside help.”

Other members of the group are Paul Maillet, a retired air force colonel; Sylvie Lemieux, who retired from the Canadian Forces as a lieutenant-colonel and then worked in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; and Akbar Manoussi, who was recently hired as chair of “clean energy education” at the Willis College of Business, Health, and Technology in Ottawa.

Manoussi’s Green Party online profile for the 2007 provincial election in Ontario says he is “secretary general” of the “Iranian Scholars Association of Canada” — which appears to exist only in Manoussi’s imagination. His claim prompted nine Iranian-Canadian journalists and academics to write Green Party leader Elizabeth May in 2008 and inform her that they had never heard of the organization.

Manoussi has also identified himself as “director general” of the “Iranian Cultural Centre” in Ottawa, which shares the same address as the Iranian embassy. At least once in the last year he has attended a conference in Iran hosted by the government there and geared toward burnishing the country’s image and attracting foreign investment.

Manoussi is also member of the RCMP’s “cultural diversity committee” in the National Capital Region. According to Sgt. Marc Ménard, a spokesperson for the RCMP, the committee tries to reach out to ethnic communities and build ties between them and the national police force. “It’s about sharing information and helping people, nothing more than that,” he says.

Ménard often sits in on committee meetings and says he was there when Manoussi told RCMP officers involved about the conference he was planning. Manoussi then sent an email to Cpl. Wayne Russett, an RCMP “Aboriginal and Ethnic Liaison Officer,” who is in charge of the committee. Maclean’s has obtained a copy of that email:

“Hello Wayne; Here is an International Peace Conference that I would like to invite you, your colleagues and members of our Cultural Diversity Consultative Committee. Please le me know how many people are attending. I can provide you with a complementary table of six. I can provide the complementary tickets to our group as well.”

Russett forwarded Manoussi’s email to his RCMP colleagues on the committee with the following personal message included:

“Here is an invite to an important conference from Akbar Manoussi. I am already attending this event as a guest of another Community member. Hope to see some of you there.”

In an interview with Maclean’s, organizer Paul Maillet said the conference, which will feature a panel discussion among all participants, will strive to “change the language from one of conflict to one of peace,” and to “create a safe space to bring some people together to start a dialogue.”

Maillet said he didn’t know anything about the Iranian participants, as Akbar Manoussi had chosen and invited them. He said the Iranians were paying their own expenses. He hoped to eliminate the costs of renting a government conference centre in downtown Ottawa by involving a senator or MP. He says Bloc Québécois MP Richard Nadeau was originally booked as a sponsor but canceled due to a scheduling conflict. Nadeau’s office did not respond to an email request for comment from Maclean’s.


Islamists, Iran, and the RCMP’s “cultural diversity”

  1. My God, they have successfully infiltrated us. So this is what CSIS meant when they alleged that there people in various level of governments, universities, and students who are infiltrated by foreign special interest groups whose interests clash with that of Canada's values and interests. What the hell are these people thinking? Why can't they instead have a meeting in Tehran and talk about peace and cultural diversity there (if they are serious about this). Iran is a country that needs a heavy lecture on peace and cultural diversity. And what is going on with our RCMP getting involved in this kind of big CRAP? We will of course remember Green's participation on this kind of thing for the next election.

  2. Are these people from the Green Party for real? Heaven help us if people supporting this mindset ever assume positions of power in this world.

  3. Shorter Petrou: ZOMG! There's going to be a conference attended by people who've said stuff I don't like. Shriiiiiieeeeek!

    Why don't you do something useful for a change. Attend the conference and objectively–if you can manage that–report on it.

    • Do you think your criticism of Petrou's story is fair? It's just a list of facts, not his own opinion.

      I support your idea that he attend the conference and report on it, but your tone is way over the top with sarcasm.

      Do you think he should not have posted this?

      • If you only consider this one column then it does look like I'm being overly sarcastic. But when you consider this type of witch-hunt journalism against Muslims, Arabs and Iranians is Petrou's stock in trade then it doesn't look like I'm being overly sarcastic. And when you consider this type of rubbish is being used to persecute Muslims in this country then it looks like I'm being soft on Petrou.

        • witch-hunt journalism against Muslims, Arabs and Iranians…
          Evidence, please, that Michael has the hate on for all Muslims, Arabs & Iranians, else your retraction of that slur would be most welcome.

          And when you consider this type of rubbish is being used to persecute Muslims in this country…
          Again, evidence, please, that ANYTHING Michael has written has led to the persecution of a single Muslim in Canada, whether such persecution was or was not Michael's intent, else your retraction of that slur would be equally welcome.

          This isn't sarcasm. What it is, is the absence of clear thinking.

          • His REAL friends call him "Mikey."

        • *head shake* You know, I missed the best part of your nonsense: to persecute Muslims in this country

          So let me revise: Evidence please, that a single Muslim in Canada has been persecuted "in this country" in the last, say, fifteen years? You don't even have to bring Petrou up on charges.

          • Evidence please, that a single Muslim in Canada has been persecuted "in this country" in the last, say, fifteen years?

            You're kidding right? It was less than two weeks ago that a Muslim–I can't recall his name–had his invitation to an event revoked by MacKay because he was in charge of an organization that was once led by Elmasry who once said something objectionable. That sort of thing is just the tip of the iceburg.

          • it's icebErg (but perhaps that spelling is too jewish for your taste, Robert).

            you're talking about Delic.

            you mean he was invited and then un-ivnvited???? PERSECUTION!!! OMG!!!! this is just like the holocaust.

          • Alfanerd's third point is expressed as well or better than I would have expressed it. His/her 2nd point is correct, and his/her first made me smile.

            Care to offer any more *cough* EVIDENCE *cough* of persecution of Canadian Muslims?

          • And it goes on. Petrou must be jumping for joy at his handiwork.

            The RCMP have been told to drop any participation in a “peace” conference scheduled for Thursday night in Ottawa.

            The RCMP's “ethnic liaison office” was promoting the event to members of the national force and one of the participants is a member of the Mounties' cultural diversity committee. On Wednesday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told the Mounties to have nothing to do with events promoting hatred.

            Way to go, scumbag.

          • Boo hoo.

            Let me call you and your fellow Iranian government apologists a waaaahmbulance, Robert.

          • If you would be so kind as to look up the definition of the word persecution, Bob, it might help inform your, um, contributions to this discussion.

          • On Wednesday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told the Mounties to have nothing to do with events promoting hatred.

            How is this in any possible way discriminatory? I would hope that our tax dollars are not being spent to promote hatred. You claim that this is persecution – balderdash.
            I guess that blindness to facts and an absolute unwillingness to see the truth are what get you by, eh, Robert?

        • ROGERS PUBLISHING IN-HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL: Well, Michael, I suppose you could sue this McClelland fellow for damages arising from his defamatory falsehoods, but I just don't see how you could win.

          MICHAEL PETROU: You're kidding me! His crap is pretty obviously damaging and full of lies!

          LAWYER: Yeah, but you have to prove damages, which means you would have to actually prove to a judge that somebody somewhere might actually believe the crap he's spewing.

          PETROU: … Oh… good point.

        • Witch hunt? Persecution of Muslims in this country? The only people I am aware of who persecutes without cause are radical muslims and supporters who shouts "kill, kill, death, and more death to infedils" and to those whom they perceived hurt their extremely sensitive onion skin. Is that you Omar Shaban? Are you still here in Canada, the country you hate?

        • Robert, I'm with you all the way. Hook-nosed Jews are unacceptable but hook-nosed Arabs are freedom of speech, freedom of the press? And, what's wrong with hook noses anyway? Petrou's aesthetic sense is as debased as his reasoning. The article is such a rant that it cries out for factual analysis by an objective investigatve reporter. But, what the hell, I'm a Quebecker and we are genetically and culturally corrupt. Welcome all noses!

  4. Isn't it wonderful that in canada people who disagree on these things may both speak their minds, up to the point of hate speech? That if the unthinkable happened and both sides came to blows in the streets the police would, in theory, take measures against people for the extent of their wrong action, not their political or religious beliefs?

  5. I have 33 years in the military and served in an era of peacekeeping. I retired in 2001. I have always believed in the peacekeeping practices of neutrality and talking to all sides. As a matter of fact, for peacekeepers, it is the people for which we have greatest differences that are the most important to talk to, and to create safe spaces where this can happen. The alternative to talk and dialogue is to go down a path of war, killing and suffering. Haven't we had enough killing and hate already? We believe that although we are few, we will not refuse to do what a few can do. What if we can relieve the suffering of even one person? It seems that no matter what good intentions one may have, there are always people far too ready to condemn, obstruct and traffic in suspicion. The language of conflict and hate leads to suffering, the language of peace is to propose a direction that offers hope. I do wonder sometimes about the journalistic standards of this magazine. In the cause of peace. the Group of 4, Paul Maillet colonel (retired), nominated Candidate Green Party of Canada Ottawa Orleans, Web: and web:

    • I appreciate you coming here to address what is written here about your group, but you haven't really addressed the issues but instead just used that tired old "if we can (do something wonderful) for just one person" spiel.

      You don't seem to deny the facts as Petrou has presented them, but want to soft-shoe around with a nice patter of peace.

      I will read what you write about this; please post further. You have a national opportunity to explain the facts as they've been presented, or deny them and show the REAL facts to us reading here.

      • I guess you are implying, "why try" . Well, we beg to differ, we believe not in doing the easy stuff but of taking on the hard and impossible stuff. Sometime wonderful things do happen, even a single life is changed for the better. You should go to a conflict zone sometime.
        I think this is initially an issue of connecting and communication. We are proposing a method “no naming and blaming”, but of exploring what participants can do in the relief of suffering and reduction of conflict. Not what others can do, or not what other countries should do. This is where we start.
        See next message for a continuation of this reply.
        Regards Paul

        • continuation 1
          Our communication rules we hope to advocate are. “In the spirit of shared values, that include the ethic of care for others and the relief of suffering, and the reduction of conflict, we may wish begin by creating a climate of non violent communication, and a language of peace. This involves encouraging and using language that respects the following principles and processes. Principles. Be responsible for your feelings, words and actions. Do not assume that others feel the same way. Make no demands, threats or insults. Do not insist or force others to feel, think or act the way you want. Do not judge either yourself or others. Stay in the present and empathize with yourself and others. We are all connected by feelings and needs. Process. Observe: State facts simply and without judgment. (ie, This is what has happened…) Feelings: State your own feelings without blame or as caused by others. (ie, I feel very concerned. etc) Needs: State your own need respectfully. (ie, I need to be compassionate about this, to do or say something) Request: Make a suggestion or a request. (ie, Are you able to help or do something about this?)

          another continuation

          • last continuation

            Now, I take ownership for my feelings, words and actions regarding this event. The author and others can speak for themselves. It might be instructive to look at the words of this journalist in the light of “non-violent” communication theory. Looks like a textbook example to me. Regards Paul

          • For the record, I do not in any way, shape or form condone cartoons as are alluded to, or any other language of violence or hate. There is enough of that on all sides. Also I believe that there are good people in all countries of the world, in even the most dire conditions of oppression. I have travelled quite extensively in my military career, I assure you. I do not believe in painting all with the actions of some. Our military would be in considerable trouble if the crimes of air force officer, Williams were to be believed as characteristic of the character of the rest of the military, or the torture and killing of a prisoner in Somalia by a Canadian soldier. The fact that we talk to people who some have serious concerns with is why we are doing this. There is no military solution to the current mid east conflict. I am not the first military professional to assert this. We are going down a path of such suffering, that something has to change or I fear for the future. Regards Paul Maillet Group of 4

          • Non-violent communication theory is USELESS against pure islam…

            I want to puke after reading your crap

          • I have to agree with you. Pure Islam communicates via explosives and gunfire.

          • Mr. Maillet, thanks, I think, for your expansive prose. A few questions, if I may, and if you are who you say you are:

            Q1: Are you sure you should not have been running for the transcendentalist party instead of the greens?
            Q2: How do you suppose importing Iranian academics and government types to meet with the RCMP achieves all those wonderful touchy-feely objectives?
            Q3: How do you respond (factually, if you please) to the facts about the membership of your group of four as stated by Mr. Petrou?
            Q4: Will this upcoming, what's the word, event, be open to reporters? Maybe CPAC could tape everything?


          • And who are YOU, Mr. madeyoulook? Why don't we let CPAC tape YOU?

          • I'm just someone with some questions to ask. You seem to have a problem with someone asking questions. Perhaps you could share in a little more useful detail what your objections are.

            Blog Central and Intense Debate are pretty good repositories of my thoughts, questions and ideas for public consumption. I doubt that CPAC would be terribly interested in engaging in duplication.

            But, hey, thanks for stopping by.

          • You're an anonymous creep making fun of a 33-year veteran of the Canadian Forces.

          • Gee, KR, that's the nicest thing you've ever said about me. I should feel special, since it may well be the nicest thing you've ever said about anybody.

          • Yeah, only real sourpusses think you're a d*ck, aren't you lucky.

          • …says the anonymous creep

          • Wow, I won't speak for myl, but I so don't read his comments to Maillet that way.

          • my comment
            q1 the greens have values I believe in.
            q2 It is only a start. The alternative is more conflict.
            q3 I have stated the aims of the G4, the relief of suffering and the reduction of conlfict. it is a false conclusion to attribute the feelings, actions or words or web sites, of any that we choose to talk to, as condoned or endorsed by the group of 4. we are all each responsible for our own feelings, words and actions.
            q4 yes to all. CBC is sending a cameraman and reporter for example. We are totally transparent.
            Paul Maillet

          • Thank you, sir.

            Q2, cont'd.: My specific question pertained to the RCMP (a Canadian domestic police force), and Iranian representatives. Where in that specific collection of individuals is there any conflict to be addressed and neutralized. please?

          • You are correct. Iran is an external foreign affairs issue on one level. On another level, many people of Persian ethnicity live in Canada as citizens and have for generations. The RCMP have a stake in what kind of country we are, as we live a diverse country with large numbers of people in many diverse faiths and religious beliefs. It is up to them how they wish contribute or respond.

          • On another level, many people of Persian ethnicity live in Canada…

            Then permit me to offer an unequivocal OBJECTION to the sweeping generalization that it takes representatives from Tehran to tell our Canadian police force(s) how to interact with Canadians of Iranian origin. This is a collosal failure in understanding that Canadians of Iranian origin (a) can — and should — bloody well speak for themselves, and (b) have most specifically renounced any claim to representation by Iranian authorities by, you know, leaving Iran and not going back.

            You do not strike me as a bumbling fool, so I conclude that you knew that already. So I must ask for an honest answer: What, really, is your motive for bringing Iranian government representatives into Canada?

          • I completely agree with what I think and understand that you are implying. They are not here to tell our police forces anything. These people are here to speak about their own feelings, actions and words and take ownership. Iranian-Canadians can and do speak for themselves. Iran does not speak for Iranian Canadians. Our real motive is not a secret. It is to try a little diplomacy in the relief of suffering and the reduction of conflict. To talk on this subject. Nothing more.

          • Which brings the merry-go-round right back to what ANYBODY hopes to achieve by putting the RCMP at the same Ottawa table as folks from Iran who are either intimately aware, or deathly afraid, maybe both, of the Revolutionary Guard.

            You have just agreed that your first attempt to answer that was nonsensical. Would you care to try again?

          • Mr. Maillet? Are you still there? The question before us is how anyone thinking straight can discern the potential for "relief of suffering and reduction of conflict" by getting Mounties and Iranian delegates together at an Ottawa conference.

            Who is suffering? How will you relieve it with this meeting? Which conflict? How will this meeting reduce it? Sir?

          • Uh-oh, Mr. Maillet must have turned in for the night. At least I hope so, and that no head just exploded out Orleans way.

            Can ANYONE associated with this planned get-together, or supporting its objectives, take a stab at my questions?

          • I, as well, appreciate you posting here to 'air your side'. Takes guts.

            I do feel thought, that your ideas (or the organization that you are quoting from) border on pathetic.
            "Do not judge either yourself or others"- let me guess – every idea has equal merit – even if that idea is to kill all Jews? – Before you respond, remember, no judging.
            The rest of it reads like a 60's "why can't we all just get along" speech. I agree that dialogue is of the utmost importance, but to treat as equal people who are full of hate is absurd. It misses the basic fact that some people want the elimination of all opposing thoughts or values (or, religion, as a totally abstract example). They will sit with you and use you as far as they can, and then on to the next ploy. You cannot talk to people who are brainwashed.

          • Well, I will say that not one of the panelists advocated killing all Jews. Remember that non violent communication discourages attributing feeling words and actions of one to another. Guilt by attribution is really unworthy of you. There is a big difference between the people of Iran and the regime. To paint one for the words of another is wrong and only fuels the conflict and hatred out there. These were academics who were told to speak for themselves (not Iran not the regime) and if you can read between the lines they are in a very difficult position. We were all tried in the press, an avalanche of emails and phone calls before a word was spoken. You make sweeping generalizations about brainwashing without even hearing them. What is it you really want? Death, suffering? Would a vicious war assuage the fear and anger? I choose in my own way to take a risk, fully understanding that many possible agendas exist, but that this is a door to communicate something. You will not like the alternative that is coming if the region becomes loaded with nuclear weapons. We can have this dialogue, now or later, but I assure you, we will have one at some point, and we will wish we had started earlier..

          • Paul,
            Thanks for replying.
            As you can see, I didn't say that any of the panelists advocate the killing of Jews. I only used that idea to show the naivety of your 'don't judge' policy. Obviously, if someone says that they want all Jews dead, we can judge them by their words. I have never read, nor did I intend to say that any of the panelists support this idea.
            When it comes to the brainwashing, again, I wasn't speaking of anyone specifically. I was only commenting on the limitations of dialogue. If someone is brought up in a family and society that believes a certain way, I would be hard pressed to believe a round table discussion will change anything they believe. Here I will mention Islam. It is a religion that, with the words of its own book, allows for the propagation of hate. Admittedly, not all Muslims believe the 'hate and kill' aspects of it, but that it can, and is, being promoted that way is apparent.

          • …..
            Omar Khadr's mother is a perfect example. We don't need talk; we need a true ‘Canadian Identity' – not a multicultural stew. People who come to Canada should become Canadians, and we should have a system that ejects them if they refuse to follow the values of the land. We don't need to look elsewhere to figure out how to structure our society.
            Am I concerned of nukes in that area of the world. Yes. Do I think talking to them will change their minds – no. I might be misquoting, but I think that the article states that some of the panelists believe that 9-11 was an inside job. People who are deranged are not people that can be reasoned with.
            I agree with madeyoulook also – there is absolutely no reason for the RCMP to meet with these folks. (At least on one that would benefit Canadians.)

          • In that case, thank you very much .. we have some shared values and perceptions. Good luck to us all.

  6. If it is people with whom one has great differences that one must talk to, then one would think it would do to state your own opinions with regards to these speakers. Where do you disagree with some of the Iranian visitors for example? And if it is, as you say, important to establish dialogue, then were are representatives of alternative viewpoints, for example, Iranians opposed to their regimes, supporters of Israel or those supporting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
    The absence of such dissenting voices, I would think, make it MORE incumbent upon you to define whether you stand with these speakers- and if you do, then this is not a dialogue at all, but as the writer suggests, an Iranian propaganda festival.
    I can understand the RCMPs point of view in wanting to hear from these speakers simply to learn whether they are extremists or dangerous, and how influential they are in Canada. But for Canadian politicians who expect support at a national level to invite them to speak without any dissenting view is more than an implied support for the speakers.

    • Errr, this was meant to be in response to Paul Maillet. Pardon any confusion.
      Mr. Maillet I'd certainly like to hear your views if you have the time.

      • I think the point is about the role that one chooses to assume as a peacekeeper. In order to facilitate dialogue, a position of neutrality is useful. There is not much to be gained in being argumentative or accusative. My belief is in seeking the relief of suffering and the reduction of conflict. That is quite clear. The methodology is to seek an understanding of human values related to this, agree on the facts of suffering and conflict, and jointly apply the values to the situation and see what we can do. You seem to want me to go down the road of confrontation rather that reconciliation. I stand for peace and will talk to anyone towards that end. It is a dilemma for sure, which has priority, the ethic of justice or the ethic of care. My views on this are quite clear in Web: The RCMP, the military and CSIS are quite welcome I assure you.
        Regards Paul Maillet group of 4.

    • We will have an audience with which different viewpoints can be explored in a manner characterized by "non-violent" communication.. This is intended to be a two way conversation.

      • Paul,

        To Dave's question: Who will be a panelist that opposes the Iranian regime? Please provide a name, not some flowery speech about what this meeting hopes to accomplish.
        By not answering most of the questions thrown your way, you are leaving people to form their own answers. I know the more I read of what you say, the more I dislike it.
        Many people in history have used peace as their rallying cry. To be blunt – if Hitler had won, and now controlled the whole world – we might have peace. Peace at what cost? Be careful what you wish for – if peace is your ultimate goal – you just might get it.
        I would like peace as well, but not at the expense of freedom and liberty. These ideas are unknown to some folks.

        • I guess I will have to repeat myself. Non violent communication is not meant to be one of opposition but of sharing views regards peace in this case. You want names who speak for the west and others, me, Mr Tannis, Dr Islam (Pakistan), Dr Brown from the UN, Dr V Redekop. We reduced the Iranian speakers to three. We speak for our points of view. We all provided different approaches. We listen, we debate.

          I do not want peace at the expense of human rights. I believe in Gandhi's philosophy and Martin Luther King's approach. Others can take a different path and I wish them luck. I am concerned that I am condemned for trying this route?

          PS I cannot answer all questions as I do not have the time, but I will do the best I can. You realize that i am under a lot of pressure here. I have learned one thing: not many good deeds or intentions seem to go unpunished these day. Goes with the territory I suppose.

  7. continuation …
    Our communication rules we hope to advocate are. “In the spirit of shared values, that include the ethic of care for others and the relief of suffering, and the reduction of conflict, we may wish begin by creating a climate of non violent communication, and a language of peace. This involves encouraging and using language that respects the following principles and processes. Principles. Be responsible for your feelings, words and actions. Do not assume that others feel the same way. Make no demands, threats or insults. Do not insist or force others to feel, think or act the way you want. Do not judge either yourself or others. Stay in the present and empathize with yourself and others. We are all connected by feelings and needs. Process. Observe: State facts simply and without judgment. (ie, This is what has happened…) Feelings: State your own feelings without blame or as caused by others. (ie, I feel very concerned. etc) Needs: State your own need respectfully. (ie, I need to be compassionate about this, to do or say something) Request: Make a suggestion or a request. (ie, Are you able to help or do something about this?)

    another continuation required

    • garbage

    • If you don't take a stand for something, you'll stand for anything!
      Gee would you use the same logic dealing with the Nazis during the holocaust?
      Yeah, don't judge anything or anyone and let them walk all over you!
      No wonder the Islamofacists love hanging with guys like you!

  8. another continuation, last one

    Now, I take ownership for my feelings, words and actions article. The author and others can speak for themselves. It might be instructive to look at the words of this journalist in the light of “non-violent” communication theory. Looks like a textbook example to me. Regards Paul

    • puke

  9. Does Petrou have nothing better to blog about than what Iranian whackjob is up to what? (Of course, his buddy Paul will be along shortly to praise another "scoop.") What a waste of time and talent. Nobody gives a flying f!@#.

    • From what I can see here, you seem to care enough about this article to complain about it, and about Petrou. I move that YOU give a flying f!@#.

      • Logic FAIL. I care about Petrou (who is a good young writer), ergo I wish he would give up this stupid Iran hobbyhorse and move on to reality.

        • I find Petrou's efforts interesting and worthwhile.

          I would bet that Cpl. Russett wouldn't know an Iranian stooge from a potato without the help of someone like Petrou.

          And while it's important to listen to diverse views, the RCMP have more important things to do than listen to a bunch of brain addled truthers.

          There are many more credible muslims in the community who should be the focus of any RCMP outreach activity.

          PS Petrou writes about a lot of other topics. I have his book on Canadians in the Spanish Civil War, which is well worth picking up.

        • No, you dont care about Petrou – you're upset that he doesnt toe to your ideology, that's different. If you're not interested in this subject matter, go somewhere you whiny little twit.

          There are a whole bunch of articles on this site i dont care about. You know what I do? This will blow your freaking mind away: I dont read them.

        • On my part? I didn't make an about-face on the subject of Mr. Petrou's work. If you don't care about the article and related articles on this subject, maybe you shouldn't comment on them.

          • Oooh, logic fail again! Only comment on stuff you love! Brilliant!

          • Actually – not a logic fail. You never claimed that you didn't like the writing – you claimed that no ome cares, and it is a waste of time. To point out that you showed interest by reading it AND commenting on it is pretty funny.

    • That is because they are being paid to do it. And they are making good money.

      • LOL, yeah they're ROLLING in it.

  10. Just another good example of Lizzie and the kind of loonies the Green Party attracts. Cheers

  11. Please. Grow up.

    • Sheesh. Hey GOV, don't let Nurse Ratched discover that you found your way onto the hospital's computer!

  12. Quite the fanbase Petrou's got here.

  13. I just looked at ALL the cartoons on Davood Ameri's site.

    These cartoons make me feel sick. It is deeply disturbing to know that Ameri will be in Canada. I believe Paul Maillet has good intension, but I'm afraid he is being duped by these Iranians. After looking at the cartoons I don't think there is any hope of reasoning with these people.

    • The cartoons do tend to make the KKK look tolerant i comparison.

    • Melykin,

      I think you might be missing the point. Paul is not being duped. They are just trying to put a wolf in sheeps clothing. They are trying to help sell the Iranian ideas to Canadians, and in turn affect our government's policy.
      You have to read between the lines to capture the whole truth. Why do you think Paul keeps answering with massively long responses that answer nothing?
      You don't have to scratch deep beneath the surface of someone who thinks 9-11 was done by Americans (with directions from Jews) to see what they are really after.

    • BTW, thanks for the links to the 'peace' site with the 'non judgemental' cartoon. Yup – these people are willing to listen.

  14. As can be seen, Macleans is more and more looking like the stormfront. That is a real progress.

  15. Loose weight , you have toxins in your brain too!

  16. I thought there was free speech in Canada? what happened to free speech , why some people including the writer is loosing sleep about some people expressing themselves?

    • losing sleep about this being paid for by taxpayers, having members of the RCMP there, as well as member of parliment. IT then has less to do with free seach, and more to do with 'what is their agenda'?
      Nothing wrong with them haveing a 'hate in' disguised by a 'love in', but we do have to know how it will effect Canadians. Ignorance is not bliss.

  17. Heres a better title for the article:
    "FEAR, PROPOGANDA, and the RCMP proactively reaching out to communities"

    This article does a great job of spreading fear and islamophobia from an implied Iranian conspiracy. Petrou's slanderous targeting and attempted character assasinations blatantly display his bias and alterior motivations behind his writing. This is not an article simply stating facts. It is a calculated ploy to create a boogeyman and raise the alarm, perfectly in line with right-wing scare tactic policy.
    Adding in that Petrou has specifically targeted Mr. Manoussi with 2 previous baseless articles, I give you an A+ for fearmongering propoganda Mikey! Can't wait to read what you come up with next…

    • islam is being exposed… perhaps you are ignorant… or a takiyya spweing muslim

    • So what did Petrou say that was incorrect? I seem to miss the part where you dash his ideas on the rocks.

  18. In spite of the many opinions to the contrary, there is no Islamic active propaganda in the civilized world. The reason is rather simple: these last few years, Leftists efforts notwithstanding, Islam's reputation reached level ZERO and will not move upwards this millenium. Maybe the next or the one after, if it is still around and kicking. If not … too bad.

    • Islam's reputation might be at zero, but that does not mean that people will not try to push it's agenda. Heck, in Hollywood they say that there is no such thing as bad publicity. :)
      While the general poplulation seems to have lost their stomach for 'tolerating' Islamic beliefs, that does not mean that government officials and agencies are not ripe of the picking. This meeting just proves that, and hat's off to Petrou for letting the light in.
      If you will notice, you wern't invited – but members of the RCMP were. :)


    a true-believer Muslim is a radical.
    A back-slidden Muslim that doesn't care about Islam is a moderate.
    What self-respecting believer of anything would listen to a back-slidden believer of same religion????

    So it seems logical to reach out to the radicals.

    But there is no logical argument, no diplomactic negotiation, monetary bribe or military threat in the world that can change a true-believer's faith.

  20. What Mr Michael Petrou has not told his readers here is that he is a senior editor/moderator at forum using a pseudo-name. Everything he writes should be looked at those parameters. People should go to stormfront forum and discover him for themselves there, it would be really enlightening and fun.

    • Excuse me? You seriously damage whatever point you are trying to make with slander like that.

    • And I know FOR A FACT that YOU SIMON are the Executive Director of the local chapter of NAMBLA. There, how's that for debate? Feel like we're accomplishing dialogue here?

      • What makes me laugh is that Simon has a higher score for that comment than for mine above. I don't give a crap about the points per se, but perhaps parody is lost on some?

  21. “The Green-Green Flag of Our Own”

    “Color blindness or color vision deficiency is the decreased ability to perceive differences between some of the colors that others can distinguish. It is most often of genetic nature, but may also occur because of eye, nerve, or brain damage, or exposure to certain chemicals.”

    Color green is the color of Islamic flag. I am wondering whether the leadership of the Green Party of Canada have developed or inherited “political color blindness". It reminds me of the "Berlin Conference".

    Note: The “Berlin Conference” under the pretext of "Iran After the Elections" Conference was a three-day “social and cultural conference on reform in Iran” organized by the Heinrich Böll Foundation , (with support of Green Party and Social Democratic party of Germany), and held in Berlin on April 7 and 8, 2000. The conference was part of “Dialogue of Civilizations” in promotion of Islamic regime as a “reformed and moderate government”. The conference was notable for its disruption by anti-Islamic-regime Iranian exiles.

  22. If these people are really intent on peace and diversity, it is curioser to note that the Iranian speakers they have invited are not really noted for such undertaking. Why not invite noted moderate muslim canadians to speak in this event? Has the RCMP been successfully infiltrated by Islamist propagandists? As an organization which has access to investigative resources, why are not they careful on the associations of the people they hire and those they invited? Are there special interest group working inside the RCMP taking advantage, by using this organization as an Islamist propaganda tool?

    • You had me up to and including "Why not invite moderate Muslim Canadians" but then lost me with your Mounties-are-full-of-Manchurian-candidates paranoia. Get a grip.

  23. Ethnic liaison officer.

    I think that's kind of like a "cultural facilitator", but it pays a little better. Not quite at the level of a "diversity specialist", mind you, but certainly more job security than an "inclusiveness consultant".

    Though I suppose the fact that I would ever cast aspersions on such worthy career choices just demonstrates how badly I need another round of sensitivity training. They ought to be grateful. It's guys like me who keep the above-noted specialists employed.

  24. “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.”
    -Martin Luther King, Jr

  25. This is yet another proove how badly this poor country is damaged by post-trudeaupian apologetic ideology.
    RCMP (paid by tax payers $$$) supports islamic propaganda and political twist coming from Green Party (regardlss of how useless and pathetic this party is).
    Europe is already awakening and changes its rules to avoing islamization, while Canada behaves like a frog in slowly boiling water….so sad.

    • Some pundit or other remarked just this week, and I concur: Trudeau's been out of power for over 25 years and dead for 10, and still you can't get over him?

  26. Dialogue with militant Muslims: "Great religion you got there." "Yup, great religion we got here." The international & Canadian Left got used to weasel-words and denial & aiding/ abetting evil as they explained away Russian & Chinese Imperialism in Korea, Eastern Europe, Africa, Central America, Vietnam, Cambodia, North America and elsewhere 1925-2010. The names have changed, but the useful if sincere idiocy remains. Aggressive Islamists want to enslave the West under sharia law, by any means necessary– preferably peacefully. Why is that so impossible to imagine or comprehend, especially since they fess up to it amongst themselves? Mohamed Elmasry's CIC, ISNA-CAN,CAIR-CAN, The Muslim Students Association– all approve or are motivated or affiliated with The Muslim Brotherhood program for a one-world Islamic superstate, via aggressive Islamic self-assertion & expansion against a weak and uncertain West.…

    • In half of those places– Central America, Vietnam, and Cambodia– the US was the imperialist actor. Now then, the Americans were fighting the Cold War and that's great, the West won, but your use of those places is just factually incorrect.

      • Read your history, Mr. Pearce: Russia bought & paid for Mao & the Chinese 'revolution'; China pushed Russia into supporting their Korea adventure, partly to bully Stalin & Co. into giving China more industry & weapons; Mao wanted to be able to hurt the Americans directly without starting a direct war, and entangled them ever more in Vietnam, by funding that 'revolution'. That is, the Chinese started it, planned it, and supported it (like Russia & Cuba, except Che got carried away and wanted WW3). That led to Cambodia & Laos. The Russian international subversion machine was second to none– and via Cuba and through money to the unpopular Sandinistas, sought to create more unrest in America's backyard. America is/ was an imperial power.. but I'd rather them than Mao or Stalin.. or their successors.

  27. The Koran and Islam teaches that non-Muslims are heretics and must be converted or killed off. This is not just the radical bunch speaking. ALL Muslim would believe this. Sooo – as one has said recently, they speak softly to your face, but inwardly they are cursing you. This may not sound pleasant, but what else should we believe. Peace would only be on their terms.
    All this is NOT a secret.. Where are our Parliamentarians and what is being done about our immigration policy? Surely we have the right to say who can stay within our borders.

    • If only you knew the Holy Bible as well as you seem to know the Koran.

  28. Actually it is quite funny . For 40 years I have believed that the seeds of it's destruction are contained within the very democracy we swear we uphold. The political correctness, the constructs of the sociologists and the UCLA Berkeley left overs..the wooly headed fuzzy thinking ditzoids from academe .. have essentially brought Zebra Mussels to our shores, and they're on the land . Like Sigourney Weaver's pet, they're now bursting out of the chest cavity of Canada with the blood and offal dripping from their carnivorous maws, and you all stood aside since 1965 or so and let it happen! Marvelous. As far as I am concerned you deserve it. You bathed in the waters of moral and ethical relativism (we're all equal only different) and now you're reaping the harvest. It's a shame you had "Cassandra's" around all this time but you just wouldn;t listen. Some of you on here still think it'll work out. When? How far will you go? You don;t have an identity anymore, so, what next? What other outrage is required?

    • You should act, Matt. Posting on the internet isn't enough. Your fear compels you to act!

  29. The Canadian media in its post 9-11 reincarnation, has moved so far to the right that it has lost any semblance of objectivity.
    The writer perpetuates the media stereotype of Muslims as the bad guys or evil. He presumes evil intent of all Muslims from the outset. He further assumes that the Official 9-11 storyline as rubber-stamped by the 9-11 Commission is fact – completely ignoring all the holes in the WTC collapse story brought forward by the `Widows of 9-11` & Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
    If this writer was at all to be objective he should have attended the conference first & written his article later.
    It would be nice to hear from those who attended the Oct 28th conference.

  30. Nothing in the world is more dangerous than religion of any type … they are all based on ancient ignorance and modern stupidity. Where are the atheists when we need them?