Senior Komeito lawmaker concerned about Abe’s Constitution remarks



A senior lawmaker of the Komeito party, the junior partner in Japan’s ruling coalition, on Thursday expressed concern over Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s desire to amend the Constitution while he is in office.

“We are worried that Abe’s eagerness could give opposition parties now in disarray over their policies a rallying point and that his comments could be exploited” in the House of Councillors election this summer, said Yoshio Urushibara, Komeito’s central secretariat chief, at a press conference.

His remarks came after Abe, the Liberal Democratic Party chief, told parliament Wednesday that he wants to amend the Constitution “while in office.”

Abe’s second three-year term as LDP president will expire in September 2018.

Under Article 96 of the Constitution, revisions to the charter can be proposed by at least two-thirds of members of each chamber of the Diet and must be approved by a majority in a referendum.

The LDP and Komeito control a two-thirds majority in the 475-seat House of Representatives, the more powerful lower chamber of parliament, but only a majority in the 242-member upper house.

Urushibara said he thinks that Abe was “speaking in general” about the Constitution as LDP chief and that there was “nothing wrong” with the premier’s speech.

“The Constitution could well be aging so we need to make it match with modern times,” Urushibara said.


Toronto Imam: Muslims did not carry out Charlie Hebdo and 9-11 attacks


Shaykh Said Rageah (الشيخ سعيد راجح) was born in Somalia and in the late 80sn moved to North America. Rageah has a Bachelor’s in Islamic studies and a Masters in Shari’ah and he has had several posts over the years, including: founder of Masjid Huda in Montreal and Masjid Aya in Maryland, advisor for Muslim Youth magazine, and member in the Aqsa Association.

He is also the founder of both Muslim Magazine and Al Aqsa Association, and served as the Chaplain at both the University of Calgary and the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT). He served as an Imam at the Abu Hurairah Mosque in Toronto, the Chairman for the Journey of Faith Conference and as an instructor for the AlMaghrib Institute.

In a speech at Sakinah Community Centre (the video was published on January 28, 2015) Rageah argued that the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo satire magazine in Paris (January 7, 2015) were not carried out by Muslims and said that the allegations in this case are similar to those which were heard after the 9-11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. The following is a an excerpt of Rageah’s speech(26:03-27:51):

“The United Nations received 55 thousands images of what happened to some of the Muslims in Syria, but they didn’t do anything about [it].

“But one person, three people, eight people, 12 people, all the people die, you have 50 presidents, 50 coming together, locking arms, marching. Is that for humanity? No (لا).

“I don’t believe, by the way, for the record, I don’t believe [that] Muslims did that. It does not make any sense and it is not for you to accuse us. It is not for the Muslims to say: we did it.

“I don’t believe a bit that Muslims have anything to do with that, because, Glory be to Allah (سبحان الله‎), September 11 [2001], the building melted, but they found a Saudi passport, Allah willed it (ما شاء الله). What a miracle!

“You know here [in the case of Charlie Hebdo attack] they kill, you know, people, but miraculously the guys are so intelligent to assassinate 12 people, but he was so dumb to leave his document in the car? Allah willed it (ما شاء الله), May Allah bless you (تبارك الله).

“I mean, the amateur, you know, thief knows how to clear his mess and it is so unique that the media has files of these people, that the President of the country [France’s François Hollande], 45 minutes, he’s on the scene. He is not afraid that some of these cars are already bombed, you know, you know, is he not afraid? Is does not make any sense. But I dare a Muslim to say: we did it, because we did not.”


In 2008 Rageah was a speaker at the Islamic Awareness Week, which is held every year in Canadian campuses. At the end of his speech which dealt with methods to propagate Islam (Daawah), Rageah was asked how to answer questions regarding terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. The following is the transcript of Rageah’s answers:

“You should stay away from it, you should stay away from it, because if you open that subject it is an argument, it is a crazy argument, and I think that at this point most of the people in the West, in the West, most of them understand that what happened in September 11 [2001] was not a work of Muslims.”

[Question regarding the claim of responsibility taken by an Islamic organization].

“Well, in this case, actually, you can always refer them to websites, like which are done and designed by non-Muslim Americans like, the other side, they will explain to them in a way that maybe to hear from you they will not accept it.

“That what I did with my father in law. My father in law and the brother in law and especially the mother, they think that Muslims are terrorists and this, and when they hear from a non-Muslim explaining the situation that the plane in the Pentagon is not a work of a plane, they’re thus accepting this, but they did not accept this from me, nor from their daughter. they accept it from someone else. So you can always refer that to the websites that they made and the history that they talked about it way before it happened.”

In a speech at Assalam Mosque in Ottawa in 2012, Rageah called Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper “the enemy of Islam” because “he is the man who said… [that] the threat of this country [Canada] is Islamism.”

In previous speech (February 2012) at the University of Waterloo as part of the Islamic Awareness Week organized by the local Muslim Students Association (MSA) and partially funded by the university, Rageahimplicitly justified the death penalty for apostates and those who insult the prophets.

See also:

Toronto Imam: Muslims should hire only Muslims; do business only with Muslims

Canadian Imam visiting Sweden: refugees should spread Islam in hosting country

Music is the recitation of the devil,” warns Toronto Imam

Quebec court case could open door to unofficial religious marriages

Quebec court case could open door to unofficial religious marriages

QUEBEC — Provincial opposition parties say they are worried by a recent Quebec Superior Court decision that seems to suggest people can wed in a religious ceremony without committing to the legal obligations of marriage.

On Feb. 2, Superior Court Justice Christiane Alary ruled against a man asking the court to declare Quebec’s marriage law unconstitutional for infringing his rights to freedom of religion and equality under the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights.

Mr. X, an accountant, got married in a Catholic religious ceremony in 2001 and is now seeking a divorce.

He argued his Baptist faith required him to marry in order to live with a partner. Mr. X claimed that since people who are not religious have the option of living together in a common-law relationship, religious people should be able to get married in a religious ceremony without submitting to the economic obligations of marriage.

Alary rejected his arguments, but her reasons for doing so have raised a storm of controversy.

In the court case, Quebec’s Attorney General stated “a member of the clergy can celebrate a religious marriage in conformity with (the person’s) faith, without the marriage necessarily having civil consequences. In that case, even if the spouses are married religiously, the civil authorities simply do not recognize their status as married people.”

Alary agreed, saying that a member of the clergy who performs a wedding is not necessarily obliged to notify civil authorities.

That interpretation set off a political firestorm this week, with opposition members warning that allowing religious marriages to have no civil consequences could open the door to forced marriages and other abuses.

“This is very worrisome and we are asking the minister to really clarify and answer all the questions that we’ve been asking for the last couple of days concerning where that parallel system could lead us,” said PQ justice critic Véronique Hivon.

“Marriages have to be given civil effects — this is what section 118 of the civil code is all about,” she said.

On Tuesday, Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée told Le Devoir newspaper there is such a thing as a “spiritual” union that isn’t considered a “real” marriage in the legal sense.

In a statement Tuesday, she clarified her comments. “People who celebrate a marriage in Quebec must declare it to the Directeur de l’état civil. Celebrations that do not respect the Civil Code … are not marriages and are not recognized as such by the Directeur de l’état civil,” she said.

But Hivon said Vallée’s statement did not lay concerns to rest.

“I’m not satisfied at all — there were no clarifications,” she said.

Alain Roy, president of the Comité consultatif sur le droit de la famille, a committee tasked by the Quebec justice department with proposing reforms for family law, charged that Quebec was creating “two categories of marriage.”

Quebec’s council on the status of women also weighed in, saying all married couples should be subject to the same rules. The protection that marriage offers — the splitting of assets and alimony — was one of the great victories of the feminist movement, said council president Julie Miville-Dechêne.

Hivon warned the issue opens the door to “a parallel religious system” offering “no protection whatsoever for the spouse, but at the same time in her community she could be seen as somebody already married, so you could have all the stigmatization of someone married, repudiated by her husband, without any protection.”

She called on the government to set up a non-partisan parliamentary commission on family law issues, similar to the one held on assisted suicide.

Coalition Avenir Québec justice critic Simon Jolin-Barrette said the minister’s position opens the door to clandestine or forced marriages.

“It is irresponsible, dangerous and contrary to law and order,” he said.

“For years, the Civil Code has always been interpreted the same way, why? To assure the protection of Quebec values, the protection of equality between men and women,” he said.

“What we’re seeing is that the Liberals can’t put their pants on and say, ‘In Quebec, a religious marriage has civil consequences’ because they don’t want to displease their electoral base.”

Vallée said she would not comment further, as the case is now being appealed.

Canadian editor denies praising jihad against civilians; here are the facts


Mohamad Hisham Khalifeh (محمد هشام خليفة), a Canadian of Lebanese descent, is the founder, CEO and Editor in Chief of Al Forqan Newspaper‎ (جريدة الفرقان) printed in Windsor, Ontario and distributedin Windsor, London and Detroit.

Following CIJnews report on Khalifeh’s editorial lauding the Palestinian knife attacks aimed Israeli Jews as a “sacred duty of jihad”, the Jewish human rights organization B’nai Brith Canada urged the Ontario government to “launch a full investigation of the paper and particularly the offensive editorial.”

When asked to comment on this issue by the Windsor Star (March 3, 2016), Khalifeh was quoted as saying the following: That’s not correct. It wasn’t said in that phrase. The editorial was saying we support Palestinians resisting the Israeli occupation. That’s the main thing… We don’t support any terror attacks on civilians,” Khalifeh said. “But we do support all kinds of resistance.”


more at

Republican governor protects right of disturbed boys to mingle with naked girls

If a Republican governor is liberal on economic issues, as they frequently are, we say, “Well, at least they’re conservative on social issues!” But if they only pay lip service to opposing abortion and gay marriage, we still can say, “Well, they still aren’t a wacko democrat!’

But then what do you say about a Republican governor who vetoes a bill which would have kept mentally ill boys out of girls’ bathrooms?

The Republican governor of South Dakota on Tuesday vetoed a bill that would have restricted bathroom access for transgender students and made the state the first to adopt such a measure.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard put out a statement late in the day saying that the bill did “not address any pressing issue” facing the state, and that it would have put schools in the “difficult position of following state law while knowing it openly invites federal litigation.”

So, at the same time,

1) There is no issue.

and yet,

2) There is the threat of federal litigation.

Well, if there is the threat of litigation, there is an issue. The fact is that the federal Dept of Education has been suing schools who don’t let mentally ill boys go into girls’ bathrooms.

The Obama administration has held that Title IX includes protections for transgender youths, and the Education Department has threatened legal action against districts in Illinois and California that tried to restrict restroom or locker room use

“If and when these rare situations arise, I believe local school officials are best positioned to address them,” Mr. Daugaard wrote in a letter to lawmakers announcing his decision.

How can they address them if they are sued by the federal government?

“Instead of encouraging local solutions, this bill broadly regulates in a manner that invites conflict and litigation, diverting energy and resources from the education of the children of this state.”

Forcing schools to defend themselves from these lawsuits is what diverts energy and resources.

“Now the state also realizes that I’m a human being, too,” said Thomas Lewis, a high school senior in Sioux Falls who is transgender and spoke against the bill.
“Thomas” is not only a human being, but also is a mentally ill girl who undoubtedly causes problems getting naked with boys in locker rooms.

“Governor Daugaard chose to do the right thing and veto this outrageous legislation attacking transgender kids,” said Chad Griffin

“Attacking” transgendered kids? What about defending the rights of normal kids?

Even a Republican, even in South Dakota, they are afraid to stand up for decency. What use is the Republican party to anyone?