L'origine de Bert

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Showing posts with label articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label articles. Show all posts

Monday, March 30, 2026

What Is "Islamophobia"?

Sam Harris | What Is "Islamophobia"?

What is Islamophobia? Someone once said on the Internet, it’s a word “invented by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons,” and that’s not far from the truth. There is no question that the term has been designed to confuse people. Its purpose is to conflate any criticism of Islam, which is a doctrine of religious beliefs, with bigotry against Muslims as people. In fact, it equates secularism itself—the commitment to keeping religion out of our laws and public policy—with hatred. The term is now being widely used in the mainstream media, and it is making it impossible to speak honestly about the consequences of dangerous ideas.

Let’s be clear about what is real here and what is fake: Racism is real. There are white supremacists in America, for instance. And, of course, these imbeciles can be counted upon to hate immigrants from Muslim-majority countries—Arabs, Pakistanis, Somalis, etc.—and to hate them for their superficial characteristics, like the color of their skin. This is detestable. But these people hate non-Muslim immigrants too—for instance, Hindus from India—and for the same reasons. We already have words like “racism” and “xenophobia” to cover this problem.  Inventing a new term like “Islamophobia” doesn’t give us license to say that there is a new form of hatred in the world. 

There is no race of Muslims. Islam is a system of ideas, subscribed to by people of every race and ethnicity. It’s just like Christianity in that regard. Christianity and Islam are both aggressively missionary faiths, and they win converts from everywhere. People criticize Christianity all the time and worry about its political and social influences—but no one confuses this for bigotry against Christians as people. There’s no such thing as “Christophobia.” If you criticize Christianity—and I’ve written an entire book excoriating Christianity—no one accuses you of being a racist against people from Brazil, or Mexico, or Ethiopia, or the Philippines. But even the New York Times will use the term “Islamophobia” as a synonym for racism against Arabs. This is pure delusion and propaganda. There are Christian Arabs. And I could become a Muslim in 5 minutes just by converting to the faith.

How does the term “antisemitism” differ as a concept? Well, we have a 2000-year-old tradition of religiously inspired hatred against Jews, courtesy of Christian theology. But for at least the last 150 years, or so, Jews have been thought of as a distinct race of people, both by those who hate them and, rather often, by Jews themselves. So antisemitism tends to be expressed as a specific form of racism. Antisemites are not focused on what Jews believe, or even on what they do on the basis of their beliefs. Modern antisemites, like Nazis, care about who your mother’s mother’s mother was. Just like racism, antisemitism has become a hatred of people, as people, not because of their beliefs or their behavior, but because of the mere circumstances of their birth.

Why is this different? Well, unlike a person’s race or skin color or country of origin, beliefs can be argued for, and criticized, and changed. And the truth is, we don’t respect people’s beliefs just because they hold them. Beliefs must earn respect. And there is a good reason for this: beliefs are claims about reality and about how human beings should live within it—so they necessarily lead to behaviors, and to values, and laws, and institutions that affect the lives of everyone, whether they share these beliefs or not. Beliefs end marriages and start wars.

Honestly criticizing the doctrine of Islam does not entail bigotry against Arabs or any other group of people. It is not an expression of hatred to notice that specific Islamic ideas—in particular, beliefs about martyrdom, and jihad, and blasphemy, and apostasy—inspire terrible acts of violence. And it’s not an expression of phobia—that is, irrational fear—to notice that violent religious fanatics don’t make good neighbors.

And while every religion has its fanatics, there is only one religion on Earth where even its mainstream members of the faith seek to impose their religious taboos on everyone else. There is only one religion that has made it unsafe for people to criticize it—or indeed, for its own members to leave it. Only Muslims routinely fear for their lives when they decide to leave their religion—and this is true, even in the West. If you doubt this, just read some books or listen to some podcasts by ex-Muslims.

Anyone who wants to draw a cartoon, or write a novel, or stage a play that makes fun of Mormonism is free to do that. In the United States, this freedom is nominally guaranteed by the First Amendment—but that is not, in fact, what guarantees it. The freedom to poke fun at Mormonism is guaranteed by the fact that Mormons don’t tend to murder their critics. They don’t start riots and burn embassies in response to satire.

When The Book of Mormon became the most celebrated musical in the United States, the LDS Church protested by placing ads for their faith in the program. That might have been a wasted effort: but it was also a charming sign of good humor. Yes, there are crazy and dangerous people in every faith—and I often hear from them. But what is true of Mormonism is true of every other religion, with a single exception. Can you imagine staging a similar play about Islam anywhere on Earth? No you cannot—unless you also imagine the creators of that play being hunted for the rest of their lives by religious maniacs. You also have to imagine Muslims by the hundreds of thousands, in dozens of countries, going absolutely berserk.

At this moment in history, there is only one religion that systematically stifles free expression with credible threats of violence. The truth is, we have already lost our First Amendment freedoms with respect to Islam. We lost them decades ago—and anyone who is tempted to cry “Islamophobia” at this point, shares the blame for this. This status quo is intolerable—and, most important, it should be intolerable to Muslims themselves. They should be mortified that their community is so uniquely combustible. So uniquely uncivil. So incapable of self-reflection and self-criticism. So dangerously childish. So desperate to make the whole world it's safe space.

Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—and it is not just extremists—are demanding that all non-Muslims conform to Islamic law. And while they might not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign through the streets of London that reads “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” might still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the thug holding the sign only had more power. Wherever Muslims do have real power, this grotesque promise is always fulfilled. To make a film, or stage a play, or write a novel critical of Islam in any Muslim-majority country, is as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow. There is only one religion on Earth that has normalized this level of fanaticism. And it isn’t an expression of bigotry to notice that this is totally antithetical to everything that civilized people value in the 21st century.

The October 7th attacks in Israel changed the way many of us think about the vulnerability of open societies. They changed the way we think about immigration and failures of assimilation. And they revealed a level of moral confusion in our universities and other institutions that is as astonishing as it is masochistic. We have people who are ostensibly committed to women’s rights, and gay rights, and trans rights, mindlessly supporting people who would hurl them from rooftops or beat them to death with their own hands. It is not a sign of bigotry to notice this hypocrisy and moral confusion for what it is.

It really is possible to be critical of Israel, and to be committed to the political rights of the Palestinian people, without denying the reality of Islamic religious fanaticism—or the threat that it poses not just to Israel, but to open societies everywhere.

There have been nearly 50,000 acts of Islamic terrorism in the last 40 years—and the French group that maintains a database of these attacks considers that to be an undercount. Ninety percent of them have occurred in Muslim countries. Most have nothing to do with Israel or Jews. There have been 82 attacks in France and over 2000 in Pakistan during this period. Do you want France to be more like Pakistan? You just need more jihadists. You just need more people susceptible to becoming jihadists. You just need a wider Muslim community that won’t condemn jihadism, but pretends that the theology that inspires it will be true and perfect until the end of the world. You just need millions of people who will protest Israel for defending itself, or call for the deaths of cartoonists for depicting the prophet Muhammad, and yet not make a peep about the jihadist atrocities that occur daily, all over the world, in the name of their religion.

When hundreds of thousands of people show up in London to condemn Hamas, or the Islamic State, or any specific instance of jihadist savagery, without both-sides-ing anything, then we will know that something has changed. When Muslims by the millions pour into the streets in protest, not over cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, but over the murder of cartoonists by their own religious fanatics, we will know that we’ve made a modicum of progress.

The Muslim world needs to win a war of ideas with itself, and perhaps several civil wars. It has to de-radicalize itself. It has to transform the doctrine of jihad into something far more benign than it is, and it has to stop supporting its religious fanatics when they come into conflict with non-Muslims. This is what’s so toxic: Muslims supporting other Muslims no matter how sociopathic and insane their behavior.

If the Muslim community and the political Left can’t stand against jihadism, it is only a matter of time before their moral blindness leads to rightwing authoritarianism in the West. If secular liberals won’t create secure borders, fascists will. And that is a world that none of us should want to live in.

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, March 28, 2026

They Lied To Us About Having It All, And It's Costing Us Our Children

They Lied To Us About Having It All, And It's Costing Us Our Children
The women who followed every rule, hit every milestone, and built every résumé are now the ones crying in fertility clinic parking lots, and it's time someone said why. 

I was in elementary school the first time I heard it. "Girls can do anything." The poster in my school hallway showed a little girl, fists on hips, staring down the world like it owed her something. "Girl power!" "The future is female." The messaging was everywhere—in my classroom, on merchandise, in the TV shows that told us we were destined for boardrooms, not bassinets.

Love and family? Those were for women who gave up. Who settled. Who betrayed the sisterhood.

I believed it. We all did.

I grew up in the nineties, came of age in the aughts, and hit my twenties during the golden age of the girl boss. Sheryl Sandberg told us to "lean in." Beyoncé sang about running the world. Every magazine cover, every TV show, every commencement speech hammered the same point: your career is your identity. Your womb can wait. Marriage is a trap. Babies are a detour.

So we did what we were told.

We climbed. We hustled. We put off dating "seriously" because who has time for that when there are careers to chase? We dated the wrong men because the right ones wanted families, and families, we were assured, could come later. After the corner office. After the book deal. After we'd become someone.

As I shared in my article last week for Evie, I was twenty-six when I fell in love with a divorced father of three. He was kind, steady, and clear: no more kids. I told myself it was fine. I didn't need to be a mother. I could be the cool stepmom. The career woman who chose differently. I could still be significant. I was very influenced by the modern feminist messaging.

Years passed. Perspectives changed. We realized we were in different life chapters and my fiancé was worried I'd resent him in the future for not giving me children of my own. The relationship ended. Now I'm in my thirties, single, and suddenly, terrifyingly aware that the future I'd dreamed of as a girl might not show up.

Last week the internet lost its mind over Brad Wilcox's piece in Compact. The sociologist laid out the data with the cold precision of a coroner: women who reach thirty without starting a family have roughly a fifty-two percent chance of ever having children. Not great odds. Not the odds we were sold.

The outrage was immediate. "How dare he?" "Misogyny!" "Stop telling women when to have babies!"

But here's the thing no one wants to say out loud: the people sounding the alarm aren't the villains. The villains are the ones who spent decades lying to us.

They lied when they said fertility is a light switch you can flip at thirty-five. They lied when they told us egg freezing was a reasonable Plan B instead of an expensive, low-success Hail Mary. They lied when they painted motherhood as the thing that would limit us instead of the thing that would give us purpose deeper than any title or expensive handbag.

France just did something radical. They're sending letters to every twenty-nine-year-old in the country, men and women, reminding them that biology doesn't negotiate. That the window is real. That "later" has a terrifying habit of becoming "never."

The French are being called fascists for it. I call it mercy, because I've seen what happens when we don't get the memo.

I have a friend who turned forty and decided to freeze her eggs "just in case." At the clinic, the nurse looked at her with something between pity and exhaustion. "Hunny, you should've done this years ago." My friend cried in the parking lot. She'd believed the magazines. The Instagram influencers. The celebrities who announced their first pregnancy at forty-two like it was no big deal. She thought she had time.

Another friend was one of the best editors in Hollywood. By thirty-five she'd won awards, had the big office, the assistant, the recognition. She also had the creeping realization that the life she actually wanted—a husband, kids, Sunday dinners—was slipping away. She started dating men she didn't even like, just to try to make it happen. At thirty-nine, her two-year relationship imploded. She called me in tears. "I put my career first because that's what we were supposed to do. Now yeah, I'm at the top of my game, but I've lost the only thing I actually wanted."

A third friend is in her thirties, married, and has been trying to get pregnant for two years. Every failed round, every negative test, every well-meaning "have you tried relaxing?" from people who don't understand. She said to me, voice cracking, "They lied to us. They told us it would be easy. Why did they lie?"

I hear versions of this story constantly. In DMs. In coffee shops. In the group chats where millennial women gather to compare notes on the lives we were promised versus the ones we're living. The successful ones who cry in their luxury apartments. The now-older ones who froze their eggs and have a slimmer shot at a live birth. The ones who say, "I don't regret my career, but I regret believing it was the only thing that mattered."

And here's the part that makes me uncomfortable to say: I'm in that camp too.

I may still get to be a mother one day. But I'm also a realist. The choices I made—the years I spent telling myself I didn't want children of my own, I'll just be the best stepmom, chasing the wrong kind of significance—might mean that prayer goes unanswered. And that grief is real. It's not theoretical. It's the empty nursery I walk past in my mind every single day.

For years I've spoken out against the female victimhood mentality. I still do. Believing you're doomed because you're a woman is the fastest way to become exactly what you say you are. But if we're going to talk about victims, let's be honest: a generation of women were victims of the most successful propaganda campaign in modern history. We are victims of "girl boss" feminism.

We were told that traditional womanhood was oppression. That wanting a husband and babies was basic. That prioritizing love over status was weak. That our bodies were inconveniences to be managed, not miracles to be celebrated.

And now we're shocked that so many of us are alone, childless, and devastated.

This isn't about shaming women who chose differently. Some women genuinely don't want children, and that's their business. Women having choice was the supposed goal of women's liberation after all. This is about the millions who did want them—who still do—and were never told the truth about what it would cost to wait.

The data is brutal. Fertility declines sharply after thirty. Miscarriage rates climb. The chance of abnormalities skyrockets. Yes, there are miracles. Yes, science can do incredible things. But miracles aren't a business model. And "you can have it all" was never a promise. It was a sales pitch.

I'm tired of watching my friends mourn the children they'll never hold. I'm tired of the gaslighting that says pointing this out is "anti-woman." Telling women the biological reality of their own bodies isn't misogyny. It's the opposite. It's love. It's the kind of love our mothers and grandmothers used to give before we decided feelings mattered more than facts and self, status, money, and power mattered more than nurturing others.

We owe the next generation better. We owe them the truth that career is wonderful but it will never love you back. That status is fleeting but loving your children is eternal. That the most significant thing most of us will ever do isn't closing a deal or becoming famous—it's raising human beings who know they are loved.

We owe them the warning we never got: the window is real. The clock is ticking. And no amount of girl-boss mantras can stop it.

If France can send letters, we can at least start telling the truth in our culture. In our schools. In our families. In the conversations with our younger sisters and nieces and the girls scrolling TikTok and Instagram thinking they have forever.

Because they don't. And neither did we.

It's not too late to change the story. But it is late. Later than we were ever told. And the women waking up in their thirties and forties with empty arms and full résumés deserve to hear, finally, what no one had the courage to say when it still could have made a difference: We were manipulated and lied to.

And the cost could be our children.

Thursday, March 26, 2026

The judge who helped Liberals build a race-based sentencing regime

The judge who helped Liberals build a race-based sentencing regime
As a lawyer, Faisal Mirza pushed judges to adopt racial reasoning. Now on the bench, he uses that reasoning to toss out evidence

There is a judge on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice whose signature move is letting violent men walk free because of racism. One of the architects of race-based sentencing, his name is Faisal Mirza, and he was appointed to the bench by former prime minister Justin Trudeau in 2022.

Mirza’s flourish of race-based acquittals is not a case of a judge gone rogue: indeed, it’s perfectly on-brand. He was writing about the need for more racial considerations in the Canadian justice system in 2001, before he even became a lawyer. Back then, he argued in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal that mandatory minimum sentences for drug and weapons offences would be racist because of the disproportionate impact they’d have on Black people.

Toronto police, he asserted, were racist because of the arrest statistics they produced: in 1988, Black individuals comprised 51 per cent of drug arrests, 82 per cent of mugging arrests and 55 per cent of purse snatching arrests. This, he said, was evidence of over-targeting. He concluded that more mandatory minimums would exacerbate the effect, because the threat of being convicted on a charge with a guaranteed jail term would disproportionately pressure Black accused persons to make plea deals and forfeit the opportunity to expose racist police at trial.

This became a career pursuit. When the Supreme Court was deciding whether to strike down the mandatory minimum for illegally possessing a loaded firearm in 2014, he argued as an intervener in the case that its disproportionate impact on Black individuals needed to be taken into account. The court ultimately ruled that this mandatory minimum was unconstitutional.

In 2018, Mirza laid the foundation for Ontario’s racial sentencing regime. He was the defence lawyer of Kevin Morris, a Black man who was convicted of various firearms offences. They were lucky to draw the hyper-progressive, destructively lenient Shaun Nakatsuru for a judge. Mirza filed two racial context reports about Morris and Black people as evidence, and the judge emphatically agreed to consider them. He settled on a 15-month sentence to account for the racial factors, even though three years was considered the starting point. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal made racial considerations in sentencing the province-wide rule in 2021.

In 2019, he was also an intervening lawyer in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Le, advocating for racial considerations in assessing the legality of police searches, which the court agreed with.

In 2020, he co-launched a non-profit that wrote pre-sentence reports for non-white criminals, and for Black offenders in particular. It started as an optional service that defence lawyers could use, but it became essential in 2021, when the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered the province’s judges to give racial discounts to Black offenders if the individual’s criminal conduct could be somehow connected to racism and its nebulous cousin, “systemic racism.” For that work, and for its contributions to the anti-racism movement, it won two federal government grants totalling $780,000.

It was also in 2021 that Mirza, while representing the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, succeeded in convincing the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to adopt racial sentencing in the case of R. v. Anderson. The court quoted his submissions: “It is time that the distinct mistreatment of Black people in society be given its due recognition in criminal sentencing.”

Mirza was rewarded by the feds with a judicial seat in 2022. Now a judge on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, he’s able to put his principles into practice.

In 2024, Mirza decided the case of a middle-aged Indigenous man who sexually abused his girlfriend’s daughter between the ages 11 of 13 by forcibly kissing her, fondling her breasts and genitals, and sexually assaulting her with his mouth. The Crown asked for a sentence between 4.5 and 5.5 years, but after Mirza considered the impact of colonialism and racism, he settled on three years.

In 2025, Mirza presided over the case of a Jamaican-Canadian pimp with a history of criminal activity who trafficked a semi-homeless Indigenous woman. He pegged the starting point for the sentence at five years, but shaved a year off to address the man’s personal circumstances — primarily racism, which cumulatively put the offender at “higher risk for negative decisions and involvement in crime.”

It was around that time that Mirza started throwing evidence out because of “racism.” In one case, police had detained the occupants of a car idling in a sketchy motel parking lot at 3 a.m. whose licence plate had been flagged by the gang unit. Police repeatedly asked him to exit the vehicle for a sobriety check, and the man — who was actually wanted for a stabbing at Tim Horton’s weeks earlier — refused; police broke his window, and when he still refused to exit, they tased him. After a struggle to subdue the man, during which he tried to put the vehicle in gear, police found a loaded firearm on the ground next to the driver’s side. This triggered a search of the car that turned up cocaine. The man was on a no-weapons order.

Mirza went on to rule that police actions constituted “racist mistreatment,” and excluded all evidence, from questioning to the loaded gun. The car was associated with a black male and gang “flags,” which the judge found to be the reason for arrest; the officers didn’t immediately identify the man (in Mirza’s view, they jumped to a racist conclusion); the officers behaved as if the vehicle’s occupant was dangerous (not unreasonable, considering it was gang-flagged with tinted windows, and not incorrect, considering the loaded gun). Mirza also chastized the police for not reading the man his rights as he resisted arrest (though it’s appropriate to wait until the situation is under control).

The arrest still deserved scrutiny, but Mirza’s diagnosis of racism tilted the calculation of whether to exclude evidence strongly in the accused’s favour: “When a court finds racial profiling or racist mistreatment the evidence must be excluded.”

In January, Mirza issued another judgment tossing out evidence for men caught possessing loaded firearms on the basis of racism. In that case, a victim had reported being robbed by two Black men in a red BMW, possibly with a gun, and provided the licence plate number and the robbers’ associated address. Police found the car in the parking lot of that address and towed it away for investigation. As another officer went to the building superintendent’s office in hopes of finding the owner, and soon enough, the owner came to the office with two companions, hoping to track down his car.

The officer, outnumbered, tried to detain the men on suspicion of robbery. The owner tried to run off, and in the ensuing scramble, a loaded handgun fell from his waistband. The officer held the man on the ground until backup arrived, but did not read him his rights in that time — a fatal delay for the case, in the eyes of the judge.

The whole interaction, he found, was tainted by racism: the officer “decided to dominate the Applicant physically and disregard of his rights because he was Black,” he wrote, downplaying the dangerous situation and the description-matching suspects.

To his credit, there have been instances where Mirza refrained from applying a racial discount, and from tossing out evidence because of racism, but it doesn’t excuse the other times when he let his biases reign. It’s undeniable that he has a habit of projecting racism in assessing any interaction with the state and undermining public safety with his assumptions. One day, it’s going to end up getting someone hurt — if it hasn’t already.

Wednesday, March 25, 2026

Carney’s middle-power mirage

Carney’s middle-power mirage: Stephen Nagy in Canadian Affairs
The prime minister’s assertion of middle powers’ power sounds elegant but is detached from geopolitical realities

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent address at Australia’s Lowy Institute offered a comforting vision for Canadians.

He spoke of a coalition of middle powers operating through “variable geometry” — whereby subsets of nations work together on specific issues of mutual interest without full alignment on other matters. He described a “values-based realism” that could collectively shape the international order.

It is an elegant diplomatic framework. Unfortunately, it is also fundamentally detached from the geopolitical realities of the 2020s.

Carney’s strategy rests on three flawed premises: a misunderstanding of what a middle power can actually achieve in today’s bipolar system, a misdiagnosis of Donald Trump as the primary source of Canada’s strategic woes, and a dangerous naiveté regarding the nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

If Canada is to survive the coming decades, it must abandon the comfortable mythology of its Pearsonian past and confront the harsh structural realities of the present.

First, Carney’s reliance on a middle-power coalition to counter superpower hegemony is an exercise in multipolar delusion. As international relations scholar C. Raja Mohan notes, the idea that power is diffusing into a manageable multipolar order is a mirage.

The international system remains strictly defined by the comprehensive power of the United States and China. While Carney correctly notes that the combined GDP of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Canada rivals that of the U.S., this economic weight does not translate into unified geopolitical gravity.

As I have argued, middle powers are currently trapped in a classic prisoner’s dilemma.

When faced with American tariffs or Chinese economic coercion, middle powers do not unite in “variable geometry.” They scramble for bilateral accommodations. We saw this when South Korea, Japan and the EU rushed to secure their own tariff exemptions with Washington rather than mounting a coordinated defence.

The notion of 21st-century middle-power independence is increasingly fictional. Without the hard power to back it up, the ability to “convene” and “set agendas” is meaningless.

Second, Carney’s framework subtly scapegoats Donald Trump’s transactionalism for Canada’s vulnerabilities. Dealing with Trump is undoubtedly difficult, but Trump did not create Canada’s problems; he merely exposed them.

Canada’s strategic crisis is entirely self-inflicted, the result of decades of deep-seated complacency.

For generations, Ottawa has coasted on a “security discount” provided by its geographic proximity to the United States.

While Washington underwrote continental defence, Canada allowed its military spending to languish at roughly 1.3 per cent of GDP, utterly unprepared for the Trump administration’s new five per cent “Hague Commitment” standard.

Furthermore, Canada’s vulnerabilities extend to its economic foundations.

As economist Mike Moffatt has highlighted, Canada’s global performance rankings are in freefall, plagued by stagnant GDP per capita and a chronic housing crisis that predates the current U.S. administration.

When Carney warns that “a country that can’t feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options,” he is inadvertently indicting his own government’s legacy. Canada currently fields a woefully inadequate number of icebreakers to defend its Arctic sovereignty, leaving a gaping hole in NORAD’s northern flank that Russia and China are eager to exploit.

Washington’s pressure on Canada is not merely Trumpian bullying; it is a rational response to an ally that has become a security liability.

Finally, Carney’s assertion that Canada can manage China through “selective engagement” and a mutual understanding of “no surprises” borders on strategic malpractice. As I have warned, Beijing does not view increased trade as a destination; it views it as leverage banked for the next dispute.

To believe that Canada can compartmentalize its relationship with Beijing — cooperating on trade while politely disagreeing on security — is to fall victim to what former Japanese Ambassador Shingo Yamagami calls “China magic.”

The CCP operates under a doctrine of civil-military fusion, where economic policy, internal security, and propaganda are seamlessly integrated. Multiple public inquiries and CSIS intelligence assessments have definitively proven that China views Canada as a permissive environment for cognitive warfare.

Beijing has systematically engaged in transnational repression against diaspora communities, elite capture of Canadian politicians, and the theft of intellectual property from Canadian research institutions. This is the “borrowed knife” strategy in action: exploiting Canada’s openness, multiculturalism, and desire to be an “honest broker” to undermine Canadian sovereignty from within.

Engaging in “friendly consultation” with a regime that operates illegal police stations on Canadian soil and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens for 1,019 days is not values-based realism. It is appeasement.

If Canada wants to protect its sovereignty, it cannot rely on the variable geometry of middle-power networking. It must practice what I call “hardened engagement.”

This requires massive, sustained investments in defense and Arctic infrastructure, comprehensive foreign influence transparency legislation, and the ruthless elimination of vulnerabilities in our critical supply chains.

Canada’s problem is not that the rules-based order is changing; it is that we have refused to pay the entry fee for the new one. Until Ottawa stops hiding behind diplomatic buzzwords and starts building genuine national capacity, we will remain at the mercy of the giants.

 

Monday, March 23, 2026

The Evidence Is Clear: Hamas Abused the Press Vest — 10 Indisputable Cases ("Journalists" in Gaza)

Aizenberg on X: "The Evidence Is Clear: Hamas Abused the Press Vest — 10 Indisputable Cases"

One of the most widely disseminated about the war in Gaza is that more than have been killed by the IDF in what could amount to a grave war crime. The figures most frequently cited come from the (CPJ), whose is widely used by outlets and . These claims have helped shape the that Israel has systematically targeted innocent reporters and media workers.
Israel has this narrative, stating that many of the individuals described as journalists, and certainly all individuals , were in fact , Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), or other militant groups. These claims were consistently . Yet , including research by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, that 60% of those described as “journalists” or “media personnel” had documented ties to militant organizations. Additional cases have emerged in recent weeks.
In recent months, a growing body of information has begun to substantiate Israel’s claims. As militant groups and other organizations themselves have published and to fallen fighters, numerous individuals previously described as journalists have been openly acknowledged as members of Hamas, PIJ, or other armed factions. Importantly, these identifications come not from Israeli statements or evidence but from militant organizations and sources inside Gaza themselves. This article presents ten clear cases of individuals still listed by the CPJ as innocent journalists where the evidence shows otherwise.
This emerging evidence should prompt serious skepticism toward the prevailing narrative that Israel systematically targets innocent journalists and should compel the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) to reassess its methodology in Gaza. Its heavy reliance on local sources, combined with the categorical dismissal of Israeli evidence, has repeatedly produced inaccurate classifications. These revelations should force a major reckoning. As militant groups themselves identify many of these supposed journalists as fighters and commanders, those who reflexively dismissed Israeli claims must now confront the possibility that the narrative they promoted was deeply flawed. A credible accounting of journalist fatalities requires correcting these errors.
Below are 10 of at least 35 documented cases in which individuals widely described as journalists were in fact combatants from Hamas and other groups. The evidence in these cases does not rely on Israeli claims, though accepting those claims would add dozens more. Instead, it comes from the militant organizations themselves and from local martyr notices and social media tributes, making these identifications difficult to dispute. Note: For simplicity the title refers to Hamas, but several of the cases documented below involve members of other militant groups.
Yacoup Al-Borsh يعقوب عبد الكريم مصطفى البرش (ID 803505668, Age 33) 
Yacoup Al-Borsh was killed on November 13, 2023, in an IDF airstrike on his family home in Jabalia. The , citing and family members, described Yacoup as a journalist for family-owned Namaa Radio and . However, extensive evidence shows a different picture. The Al-Borsh family has close ties to Hamas leadership. A relative, Dr. Muneer Al-Borsh, is of Gaza’s Hamas-run Ministry of Health. Yacoup himself was a Hamas combatant. Numerous posts and identify him as a fighter and “mujahid,” and photos and a show him armed and in military uniform. Yacoup Al-Borsh is among the most extensively documented cases of a supposed “journalist” who was in fact a Hamas combatant.
 
Mahdi Al-Mamluk مهدي حسن محمد المملوك (ID 801389321, Age 38)
Mahdi Al-Mamluk was killed on November 11, 2024, in an airstrike near Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. , Al-Mamluk worked as a broadcast engineer for PIJ-affiliated channel Al-Quds Al-Youm TV and had been reporting on the siege of the hospital. However, PIJ itself later revealed a different reality. In an official publication of its military commanders killed in the war, PIJ identified as one of its senior members. While CPJ cited colleagues who claimed he was merely “supervising coverage of the war and the people’s suffering,” PIJ’s own admission shows that this supposed civilian media worker was in fact a senior combatant. The case also exposes a recurring flaw in CPJ research: its routine reliance on family members and locals to establish civilian or journalistic status, despite the Gazans face if they reveal that the dead were combatants. As this case demonstrates, such accounts often prove misleading once militant groups themselves publish their martyr lists.
Rizq Abu Shakian رزق باسم رزق أبو شكيان (ID 402921084, Age 26)
Rizq Abu Shakian was killed on July 6, 2024, in an Israeli airstrike on his home in Nuseirat, central Gaza. , Abu Shakian worked as a media worker for the "pro-Hamas Palestine Now Agency." CPJ cited comments from his wife and a colleague who claimed he was simply “dedicated to his work,” presenting him as an innocent journalist killed in his home. However, Hamas-affiliated Telegram channels later revealed a different reality. A and memorial identify Abu Shakian as a fighter in Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades and commemorate him as a “mujahid.” As in other cases, the portrayal of Abu Shakian as an innocent journalist relied heavily on testimony from family members and local colleagues—sources that often prove unreliable once militant groups themselves publish their martyrdom records and internal acknowledgments.
Mustafa Bahr مصطفى خضر عبد بحر (ID 802817890, Age 32)
Mustafa Bahr was killed on March 31, 2024, in an apparent Israeli airstrike near the Kuwait Roundabout in Gaza City. , Bahr was a reporter and co-founder of the Palestine Breaking News website. However, from the day of his death and in early 2026 identified him as a combatant, a “mujahid commander.” Various mourning posters and tributes confirmed that he had served as a special operations commander in , part of the . A depicts him in uniform participating in military exercises. Despite the extensive identifying his , CPJ has continued to include Bahr on its list of journalists killed in Gaza. Mustafa's brother Abdul Rahman Bahr, another so-called , was likewise a combatant killed in action and profiled next.
Abdul Rahman Bahr عبد الرحمن خضر عبد بحر (ID 407866896, Age 22)
Abdul Rahman Bahr, the brother of Mustafa Bahr profiled previously, was killed on October 6, 2024, in an apparent drone strike in Gaza City. Bahr also worked for the Palestine Breaking News website. However, posts published the same day praised Bahr as a “mujahid who was “advancing, not retreating,” and mourning posters identified him as a “mujahid martyr.” On February 15, 2025, the of the Al-Omari Mosque in Jabalia issued a memorial poster referencing “Al-Aqsa Flood” and depicting Bahr as an armed "mujahid" fighter. While and others claim that Mustafa and Abdul Bahr were innocent brothers in the media business, it was really a cover for the primary family business: the military. They were both killed in action.
Amr Abu Odeh عمرو ناهض عبد الرحمن أبو عوده (ID 404320996, Age 25)
Amr Abu Odeh was killed on October 13, 2024, in an apparent drone strike in the Al-Shati area of Gaza City. , Odeh worked as a freelance for Andalou Agency and Reuters. However, following his death describe him as a “mujahid,” “one of the heroes of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades,” and a member of the Hanoun Battalion. also show him armed and wearing military fatigues, indicating that the individual presented by the CPJ as an innocent media worker was killed in action as a Hamas terrorist.
Bilal Rajab بلال محمد رباح رجب (ID 403012818, Age 27)
Bilal Rajab was killed on November 1, 2024, in an apparent in the Al-Firas market area of Gaza City. , Rajab worked as a camera operator for the PIJ–affiliated Al-Quds Al-Youm TV. However, a military from a militant related Telegram channel and shared by his brother confirmed that Rajab was a member of Saraya al-Quds, the armed wing of PIJ, serving in the Shuja'iyya Battalion of the Gaza Brigade. Rajab is depicted in a indicating that yet another individual presented as an innocent media worker was in fact a combatant killed in action.
Ahmed Abu Sharia أحمد يوسف شحادة أبو شريعه (ID 803771385, Age 31)
Abu Sharia was killed on November 19, 2024, in an apparent IDF tank strike on his home. According to his father, Abu Sharia was killed together with a cousin in the same attack. , Abu Sharia worked as a freelance photographer for outlets such as Iran’s Tasnim News Agency. The CPJ interviewed his father who said Ahmed worked "to convey the truth about what was happening in Gaza"—but not the truth about his status as a senior combatant. Three days after his death the Mujahideen Brigades acknowledged Abu Sharia on their as a field commander in the organization. Ahmed's 16-year-old cousin Omar Ahmed Attia Abu Sharia (ID 426301396) was killed alongside him and was similarly of the Mujahideen Brigades. So according to the group's own admissions, the IDF did not target and kill a journalist and an innocent child but two combatants from a .
Jamal Al-Faqaawi جمال عارف سالم الفقعاوي (ID 402220396, Age 27)
Jamal Al-Faqaawi on October 25, 2023, in an apparent IDF airstrike on his family home in Khan Younis. , Al-Faqaawi worked as a freelancer for the PIJ–affiliated Mithaq Media Foundation. However, mourning his death described Al-Faqaawi as a “martyr fighter” and depicted him in military uniform. on Telegram channels dedicated to PIJ / Saraya al-Quds military content also featured him alongside the inverted triangle symbol, a marker commonly used to denote attacks on Israeli forces. These records indicate that the individual presented as an was a PIJ .
Maisara Ahmed Salah ميسرة أحمد صلاح صلاح (ID 407934363, Age 22) 
Maisara Ahmed Salah on November 30, 2024, in an apparent drone strike near the Awni al-Harthani School in Beit Lahia. , Salah worked as a video editor and freelancer for Quds News Network. However, multiple martyr posters and indicate that Salah was also a Hamas operative. He is identified as a member of the Khulafa (Caliphs) Battalion in Jabalia, and reports indicate he joined an Al-Qassam Brigades “Saqr” unit that infiltrated Israel on October 7. Several images show Salah armed and wearing military fatigues, and one notice describes him as a “mujahid martyr” of the Khulafa Battalion. A eulogy posted by his brother on Instagram referred to him as “the heroic Qassami mujahid.”
This article is in large part based on the research and analysis by The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, , and other sources.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes