|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| Controversy erupts over Elmasry remarks |
Contributed by: saforrest on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 08:38 AM CDT
|
UW electrical and computer engineering professor Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, created a firestorm of controversy this past weekend after statements he made during a televised panel discussion last week, suggesting that any adult Israeli citizen could be considered a legitimate target for Palestinian attacks.
Along with fellow panelists Irfan Syed, Peter Merrifield, and a representative of B'nai Brith, Elmasry had been invited onto an October 19 live panel discussion on The Michael Coren Show to discuss the topic of "What is a terrorist?". A Toronto Star article from Saturday reports Elmasry's comments as the following:
When asked whether "anyone over the age of 18 in Israel is a valid target," Elmasry replied: "Anybody above 18 is part of the (Israeli) army."
The show's moderator followed with another question: "Anyone in Israel, irrespective of gender, over the age of 18 is a valid target?"
"Yes, I would say," Elmasry responded.
Reaction to the comments
The remarks received widespread attention after they were published in an editorial entitled "Hamas's Canadian Cheerleader" in Friday's National Post. Since this time, they have been met with considerable criticism in both Canadian and foreign media.
Ed Morgan, president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, stated that "right-thinking Canadians should be as appalled as we are at this. It's up to the community -- both Muslims and the community at large -- to condemn this kind of thinking." Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, condemned the remarks, saying that "...to believe all Israelis are targets is the height of hypocrisy." Fellow panelist Irfan Syed, chair of the Muslim Lawyers Association, stated in Saturday's Globe and Mail that "his comments taken at their plain meaning are unacceptable. They are not the position of our faith and do a disservice to both his organization's work and the Muslim community interests in general." Canada.com reported on Saturday that the federal government was reviewing the tapes.
Elmasry's response
In an interview 'Israelis legitimate targets, Canadian Muslim says' printed in the Globe and Mail on Saturday, Elmasry reiterated some of his remarks, claiming that "Israel has a people's army and a draft and therefore they should be considered legitimate targets. They are part of the occupying power, and Palestinians consider them targets for suicide bombers as well as other means, [...] It's similar to any political struggle where there is an occupying force and occupied people. For example, the Algerians against the French, the Greeks against the Turks, the French [resistance] against the Germans. You have to put it in that context . . . the occupied are using every means available to them including low-tech weapons such as rocket attacks."
A release issued Sunday by the Canadian Islamic Congress described the remarks as "regrettable and misunderstood" and quoted Elmasry as saying that he "sincerely regret(s) that my comments were misunderstood and, as a result, caused offense." It stated that he has never condoned "the widely-held Palestinian view that any form of armed resistance against civilians that includes suicide bombing constitutes a legitimate military operation against the Israeli occupation, and not a terrorist activity" and that he was expressing "not his own views -- but those of a significant segment of Palestinians under occupation."
UW press release
On Sunday afternoon, UW released a public statement in reponse to Elmasry's remarks. The text of the statement is the following:
The University of Waterloo is a pluralistic, publicly supported university that
is an inclusive, tolerant community.
David Johnston president of the University of Waterloo stated today that he
concludes the statement attributed to Prof. Elmasry is abhorrent and conflicts with the University’s values. The University expects that the important principle of freedom of speech will be responsibly exercised by members of its community.
References
edit: Professor Elmasry's field was incorrectly identified, this has been corrected.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 10:03 AM CDT |
| Professor Elmasry is a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, not Computer Science. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Ying on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 04:43 PM CDT |
You know what? All people from Israel and Palestine who can't get along should be shipped off to a moon colony that we construct for them. We can arm both sides and let them duke it out.
Hopefully they would annihilate each other to smitherines. We really don't need people with such inhumane views living on our planet.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ..... on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 10:38 PM CDT |
Violence Begets Violence
by Mohamed Elmasry
(Saturday 09 October 2004)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A Palestinian with no hope for the future, whose house and life have been bulldozed, who has suffered the death of one or more of his loved ones, is a ticking human bomb. He has nothing more to lose."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Thursday night explosion which rocked the Hilton hotel in the Egyptian Taba resort on the Red Sea killed more than 30 people and injured more than 150, mostly Israelis.
It was another poignant event for me, as a Canadian of Egyptian origin, and it brought memories.
But, first, this tragedy immediately brought death, destruction and misery to so many people and it will also affect millions of Egyptians who make a living in the tourist industry, in Sinai and all across Egypt as the peak tourist season is as about to start.
There were no immediate claims of responsibility, but an Egyptian government spokesman linked the blasts to the Israeli military operations against the Palestinians in the neighboring Gaza Strip, where 84 Palestinians have been killed recently.
A Palestinian spokesman, however, told Al-Jazeera television no Palestinian factions were responsible for the explosion.
I stayed at the same hotel two years ago, enjoying the beautiful Red Sea underwater wonders and gazing at three nearby countries – Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
The hotel is almost a stand alone in the Sinai desert peninsula fronting the red sea. It is a quiet place at night where tourists relax after a day of scuba diving and snorkeling. Most of the tourists are Israelis, both Jews and Arabs. The currency exchange rates make the place very attractive to them.
One night I engaged in a conversation with an Israeli Jew, "What do you Jews want from us Arabs and Muslims?" He encouraged me to continue with a smile, "We Muslims took care of you Jews when you were persecuted following the Spanish Inquisition and following the Russian persecutions. Do you think that now, with the help of the U.S., you can wipe out the Palestinians, then the Arabs and then the Muslims?"
The conversation did not go too far.
But only two weeks ago I met with Uri Davis, a Palestinian Jew, as he describes himself, while he was on a Canadian speaking tour. Professor Davis is an author of books on the apartheid Israeli policies. Mainstream Canadian media completely ignored this remarkable man's message because it is not acceptable to the elite of Canadian Jews.
But Davis has a short answer to my blunt question "What do the Jews really want from the Palestinians, and from the rest of us; Arabs and Muslims?" He said it is greed that motivates the Zionists to follow an aggressive violent policy towards the Palestinians.
They want it all – the land and they want the peace. They want to be the masters enslaving the Palestinians. This, he said, explains the apartheid wall, the daily killing of Palestinian men, women and children by the Israeli army, and the hidden apartheid legislation aiming for a Jewish dominated Israel, with Jews only as first-class citizens.
But violence begets violence. A Palestinian with no hope for the future, whose house and life have been bulldozed, who has suffered the death of one or more of his loved ones, is a ticking human bomb. He has nothing more to lose.
Israeli Jews spend more than 10% of their adult life serving Israel’s people army subjugating Palestinian civilians and bulldozing their houses in occupied Gaza and the West Bank. In the process of numerous military operations under the pretext to "root out terrorists" Israeli soldiers have themselves become killing machines – to defend Jews living in illegal Jewish-only settlements on occupied Palestinian lands.
But the day will come when the blood of a Palestinian will be as valuable as the blood of a Jew. The day will come when the cries of a Palestinian mother grieving her lost child are heard as loudly and clearly as that of a Jewish mother who also lost a child.
The day will come when Western media treat as equally newsworthy the killing of Palestinian children over many days of terror as much as the killing of the same number of Jewish children in one moment of terror.
The day will come when western politicians, especially Americans, realize who are the aggressors and who are the victims in this conflict and stop believing that Israel can do no wrong.
And the day will come when Jews everywhere will go back to their early 1800's conviction that the aggressive Zionist ideology is not good for any Jew.
Only then will violence no longer beget violence and only then will peace come to Jews and Palestinians alike. I hope and pray that I will witness that day soon, or at least in my life time.
Source:
by courtesy & © 2004 Mohamed Elmasry
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kenneth Rose on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:03 AM CDT |
The Jewish Students' Association has issued a press release available at
jewishstudentsassociation.org/documents/elmasry.cgi
regarding the intolerable statements recently made by Dr. Elmasry.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Skippy on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 03:17 PM CDT |
People are always so quick to say "I can say whatever I want, it's freedom of expression/speech" but they don't realize that there can be/are consequences to what they say, even legal ones such as defamation and libel.
Just an example, but if you go on the news badmouthing your employer while saying you are currently employed by them, your employer can fire you. Plain and simple.
If you go on the news and represent yourself as an academic official, use the prestige of your position at the university to warrant your "expert" opinion time and time again to make political opinions known and to forward your religious agenda, I don't think it is unreasonable for your employer to eventually step in and reprimand you.
Remember, this is the same guy advocating prohibition on campus in the media recently. Which brings be to my other point, when does an professor in engineering become an expert in the psychosocial effects of alcohol consumption? I could understand a sociology professor, a psychology professor, but a professor of electrical and computer engineering? Which engineering course is that one?
This guy definately needs the slap on the wrist to put him in line, there are better ways to get your point out there and approved by society by means other than looking like a raving anti-semite in the media and making the University of Waterloo look like its okay with this guy running around like an idiot.
But then again, this is all just my own opinion.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: saforrest on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 12:42 PM CDT |
Yesterday, at 7:00 p.m., UW announced an invesigation into Elmasry's comments:
newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4192
Following is the text of statement:
WATERLOO, Ont. -- President David Johnston advised the University of Waterloo Board of Governors today:
Following on the comments made by Prof. Mohamed Elmasry while a guest of the Michael Coren Show, in accordance with University policy, the Dean of Science, George Dixon, will conduct a careful and thorough investigation.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Al Gore on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:45 PM CDT |
The man sounds like he is a terrorist. I issue a personal challenge to all terrorists to JUST BRING IT.
Any of you who hate the USA and promote terrorism you don't belong here so I am giving you the opportunity to leave, and if you don't, you will be sorry.
So, all you anti-USA, anti-bush, advocates who run their mouth about how Bush is a terrorist cause you see you cousins and family who fornicate with camels getting their asses blown off by F22's, know your role and shut your mouth.
You are lucky that canada's half-assed liberal government let you into this country in the first place.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: 60 on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 01:58 PM CDT |
| We might as well condemn christmas and easter because they are religion-specific. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: 60 on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:26 PM CDT |
I have difficulty understand why it is of importance for Elmasry to be punished for expressing views. Everyone is entitled to their own interpretations of a given statement. In fact a statement is only its interpretation. I interpret him as follows: "it is difficult to find a good solution to the jew-arab conflict, where a good solution is defined as a method that convinces both sides that they receive what they deserve with no risk the opposition fooling them." As such, I wholeheartedly agree that viewpoint.
When interpretd as above, there isn't much content -- and even less controversy -- in his statement. Many peole are outraged -- but that is because they choose a violent interpretation. Should those people with a violent interpretation be punished for thinking violent thoughts? What rights do anyone have that justifies their violent considerations more than anyone elses?
From my personal perspective ( I am one asian, to put things in context), I think all individuals involved in the jew/palestine conflict are guilty. They have failed to behave responsibly because they are causing problems for the rest of the world. I think they should all be punished to discourage such an event from actively repeated in the future. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Al Gore on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:51 PM CDT |
You are correct John,
that is why i support you.
TERRORISTS WILL ALL DIE!!!!!!!!!![ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rocky on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 02:53 PM CDT |
"Guh?" wtf is "Guh"? Is that chinglish?
learn english! don't they teach that before you come over here.
Why don't you drink a big tall glass of SHUT UP JUICE!!1[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Foubert on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:11 PM CDT |
It's great to see people debating and all. However, some of the comments being made seem a little too... I don't know, discriminatory?
Yes, everybody has the freedom to speech. However, just as Dr. Elmasry has used this freedom beyond rationale, some of you are doing the same.
If you want to argue on a policy you believe in, why don't you practice what you preach? We don't need "Shut up juice" and more hate-inciting words than what Dr. Elmasry has suggested.
---
"A fool is one who has to say something. A wiseman is one who has something to say." -- Plato[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: 60 on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:29 PM CDT |
"Israel has a people's army and a draft and therefore they should be considered legitimate targets."
Those are his opinions -- no one is actively forcing anyone else accept anything. Granted, someone might agree with some statement like 'Israel has a people's army and a draft but they should be not be considered legitimate targets anyways.' However, I don't think they should try to force it upon others; we can contemplate on making it illegal to (believe | reject) certain things -- but we shouldn't do it.
There is no harm in Elmasry expressing whatever views he wishes, if they cause no harm. (By the way, I am not in engineering, nor do I know who Elmasry is before this.) A previous post mentioned that he should take responsibility for his speech. However, Elmasry did not appear as an ECE professor of the University of Waterloo -- so I don't think there is justification for him to step down.
I think that we should demonstrate more maturity by being very specific about what we talk about as we argue. If you believe a certain belief is correct, then you should justify it sufficiently, and make things as concise as possible.
Consider JSA's statement, for example: "An academic institution has no place for the blatant intolerance that has been asserted by Elmasry." What does academic institution have anything to do with ethnic intolerance? Do only people in academic institutions exercise tolerance? Also, why is "blatant" tolerance implied to better than subtle-tolerance ? I suspect the words are there simply to raise an emotional response on behalf of the reader.
In conclusion, I would like to express my sincerest cynicism for the demagogue style of argumentation present in much of argument so far. In particular, I am annoyed by the flood of identical arguments.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: 49 on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 03:51 PM CDT |
A war is a war... You do your endeavour to try to reclaim what you believe yours... And I think both side has enough evidence (historical documents) to prove the ownership of the lands.
If your homeland of more than 1000 years was taken from you by force... What would you do? I am not supporting suicide bomb or any form of killing. But it is obvious that there is no easy resolution to stop the killing. In fact, no one is really sure there is one or not. Maybe UN can go in and kill everyone in that area so future strives can be prevented?
Different parties have different views and intepretations on such issue. I do believe those who suicide bombed fits the description of martyers in their religion.
US troops have killed enough "anyone 18+", in fact they killed enough of 18- in Iraq to win the war. Are US troops not terrorists to Iraqis?
History is written by the stronger (the survived duh). I don't think "terrorists" would be "terrorists" if they are strong enough to fight..
When a war starts, its a nation against a nation so everyone who belongs to that nation is a part of war, whether on battlefield or in a supportive role. Reduction of enemy force in all possible ways is merely a strategy of war...
I believe Dr. Elmasry had a logically correct and imho valid point. I would say the way he delivered teh point is somewhat inappropriate, and thus caused him so much trouble..[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Foubert on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 05:44 PM CDT |
Thing is, even as CIC (I being Islamic), he still shouldn't be promoting that violence, no matter what race he is. If he's Palestinian, then it makes him look a lot worse, doesn't it?
---
"A fool is one who has to say something. A wiseman is one who has something to say." -- Plato[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: .. on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 06:25 PM CDT |
| I think UW should look into message boards like those of WLU. www.clublaurier.com > or something. Where you have to create an account to post. This would be much more conducive to more intelligent debates on these topics. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: David Mandelzys on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:10 PM CDT |
"I think this point was discussed...
I am not sure if you still think he actaully meant the legitimate target thing or not...
To be honest, if I hold that view I would not speak it publicly... I don't think anyoen in their right mind would do so... "
Professor Elmasry seems to have meant what he said which is that any Israeli above the age of 18 is a legitimate target for violence. He was quite clear and furthermore, even if you take his apology at face value, he hasn't as of yet given any real indication that he does not agree with the belief that has been attributed to him which he could have done by comming out and condemning it. Also note he has neglected to provide this condemnation despite the public backlash. Putting the pieces together this seems like a good sign he believes what he said.
If I were an Israeli student in his class I would certainly feel uncomfortable and I think that would be perfectly legitimate given what Prof. Elmasry has said.
Furthermore I think Israeli's on our campus in general would have the right to object to what was said by an established faculty member and someone who has sway on university life.
These concerns are legitimate and I am glad that the administration is taking steps to address them.
"Plus he did not say you are a legitimate target to him, but to a portion of Palestinians. And... would you consider some race a legitimate target if they have taken your homeland that has passed down from ancestors for more than 1000 years with force? " (forgot to put this in quotations in the first response)
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is certainly more complex then you portray it, and it is my belief that racism in any form is not justified. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: saforrest on Wednesday, October 27 2004 @ 10:15 PM CDT |
Today's Toronto Star includes an editorial entitled Elmasry must resign:
Editorial: Elmasry must resign[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: David Mandelzys on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 12:00 AM CDT |
Quote from the Article:
"Today, Judaism is the only major world religion totally programmed by a political ideology, Zionism. In fact, Zionism itself has become the religion of many Jews. Only a century ago, Zionists made up just three percent of the Jewish population. Now, it is non-Zionist Jews who make up the minority three percent among Jews."
Where exactly does he get this 3% figure from? Why is he saying that Judaism is "totally programmed" by Zionism? As a Jew and opposed to the occupation, I always thought there was more to my religion, guess all the holidays, traditions, values, morals, wisdom, insight and everything else that Judaism means to me was a scham (sarcasm).
Full Text below
www.ottawamuslim.net/Newsarticles/feature_almisry_neo-zionism.htm
IS IT TIME FOR NEO-ZIONISM?
By: Mohamed Elmasry, President CIC
July 3, 2002
There is good news and bad news for Palestinians. The good news is that their struggle for freedom will end with the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The bad news is that this will likely not happen for a very long time.
However, this good and bad news for Palestinians is the same for Israelis -- in that death, destruction and misery will continue to plague both peoples for the foreseeable future.
The fact that Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza must end sooner or later is based on reading and understanding human history. Every occupation of one nation by another is destined to end -- some after only a few years, others after centuries of oppression. But end it must.
During every occupation, one group of people is overpowered by the military might of another. Oppression of the conquered by the conquerors follows, often causing prolonged loss of life, cultural destruction and pervasive misery. But history was, and still is, on the side of those who struggle against great odds to end unjust occupations. Among others, we have the examples of the Irish versus the British, Greeks versus the Turks, Algerians versus the French, French versus the Germans, and so on.
But the Palestinian struggle for independence is being obstructed because neither of the two powers that hold the keys to its resolution -- Israel and the United States -- are ready to end the occupation. Yet both governments have demonstrated in the past that they have the power to change things and could use it. For example, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon after some 20 years of occupation. And in 1956 America demanded that Israeli forces withdraw from the Sinai soon after Israel, Britain and France invaded Egypt.
Today, however, the American and the Israeli governments are not ready to end the occupation of Palestinian land. And this is really bad news for both Palestinians and Israelis.
President Bush's plan is that the Palestinian National Authority must enact a sweeping process of internal reform -- including the elimination of corruption, the establishment of a democratic free-market economy, a separate judiciary, and an autonomous legislature -- before even thinking of reopening serious negotiations. But for what? To gain only a provisional, second-class statehood?
If a Political Science 101 student were to submit the latest Bush plan as an assignment on how to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he or she would deserve a failing grade. Even a superficial analysis reveals that this plan is built on little more than chopped logic and an appalling ignorance of history. A failing grade would certainly be in order for asking Palestinians to create the ideal institutions of a highly developed country before they even have a state -- an achievement Bush's America cannot begin to claim.
Worse still, the U.S. president insists -- without naming him -- that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat must go. "It may be refreshing to hear a U.S. president come clean in his conviction that he has the right to pick other nations' leaders, but this demand exposes fully the vacuousness of Bush's thinking," said a recent British commentator.
More diligent research and attentive reading of history would suggest a totally different plan to achieve peace with justice, not only for Palestinians and Israelis, but for all people of the Middle East and beyond.
A crucial beginning would be Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza back to its June 4, 1967 borders.
But that's not all: this should be achieved within the context of a Neo-Zionism -- a new political ideology fit for the 21st century, not
the 19th. This new ideology would replace "let us work for what is right for the Jews" with "let us work for what is right."
Today, Judaism is the only major world religion totally programmed by a political ideology, Zionism. In fact, Zionism itself has become the religion of many Jews. Only a century ago, Zionists made up just three percent of the Jewish population. Now, it is non-Zionist Jews who make up the minority three percent among Jews.
The history of Zionism goes back to 1882 and developed as a result of anti-Jewish violence in Russia. An organization called "The Lovers of Zion" came into being then, with its first headquarters in Odessa. It raised little interest at first among European and British Jews, who were content and well-integrated into society.
The first Zionist congress was held at Basle, in Switzerland, on August 29, 1897 and resulted in the declaration of two key objectives. Firstly, Zionists would promote Jewish "colonization" in Palestine. Secondly, they would work to unite Jews worldwide so as to foster Jewish national sentiment and consciousness. The first objective received far more publicity than the second.
It is essential to remember that Zionism was conceived during an age of imperialism, when all of Europe thought along these lines. Ethnically, Jews were largely European, and Zionists made their plans in complete disregard of the "natives" then living in Palestine. Unfortunately, Zionism still retains its colonialist mentality today.
Zionists consider every Jew in the world to be automatically a citizen of Israel. But if most of the world's Jews suddenly decided to live there, they would also have to overrun all of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, liquidating their current inhabitants, just to provide enough room for the exploding population.
In Israel, it may be argued, Zionism has simply planned a larger and better European ghetto, where Jews can remain isolated, segregated from the rest of Palestine, Asia and the Middle East. This is reflected in a study earlier this year by the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, which found that some 46 percent of Israel's Jewish citizens favor transferring Palestinians out of the occupied territories, while 31 percent favor transferring Israeli Arabs right out of the country.
Drawn as they are from all over the world, Israelis -- particularly the majority Zionists -- do not see themselves as Asian, Oriental, or even Middle Eastern, so full ethnic integration is not a high priority. But the Zionists do not want this either.
[Mohamed Elmasry, a University of Waterloo professor, is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.
The opinions of contributors whose work appears on this site, are solely those of the authors.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Raynard Finch on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 12:50 AM CDT |
| If I do, I'm going to walk up to him and tell him that people with his views aren't welcome on this campus and he should pack up and move somewhere else. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Raynard Finch on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 08:37 AM CDT |
| Hmmm.. Took him almost a full week to apologize. What a joke. How sorry do you really think he is? [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Shocked on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 07:50 PM CDT |
Islamic Congress refuses Elmasry's resignation
Anti-semitic furor
Chris Wattie
National Post
October 28, 2004
A Canadian Muslim group has refused to accept the resignation of its embattled president for telling a television talk show that all adult Israelis are legitimate terrorist targets.
Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, has been criticized by Jewish groups, politicians and other Canadian Muslim organizations for declaring on The Michael Coren Show last week that any Israeli older than 18 was a legitimate target, "even if they have civilian clothes."
Spokesmen for the group did not return repeated telephone calls yesterday, but the congress issued a news release saying its board of directors did not believe Dr. Elmasry should resign over his remarks.
"Dr. Elmasry is one of Canada's most respected and prolific Muslim writers," the group's statement read. "One unintentional mistake does not wipe out an exemplary record of more than 30 years."
After an emergency closed-door meeting on Tuesday, the congress accepted a formal apology from Dr. Elmasry, but rejected his offer to resign.
Meanwhile, police are investigating whether his comments fall under hate crime legislation. Dr. Elmasry, who is a professor of computer engineering at the University of Waterloo, is also under review by the university for his statements.
The congress said in its statement it has been "overwhelmed" by telephone calls, e-mails and letters expressing support for the group and Dr. Elmasry.
But Ed Morgan, national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the decision to allow Dr. Elmasry to remain at the helm of the Canadian Islamic Congress will render the group irrelevant.
"It is impossible to tell who the Canadian Islamic Congress represents and whether it has any more depth than Professor Elmasry and a few of his colleagues," Mr. Morgan said. "Almost all other Muslim and Arab Canadian community groups have disparaged and disavowed Dr. Elmasry."
The Canadian Coalition for Democracies yesterday called on the federal government to begin an RCMP investigation of Dr. Elmasry's comments.
"Hate and murder are not Canadian values," Naresh Raghubeer, director of the group, said in a news release. "The time has come for Prime Minister Paul Martin and his government to lead by example and denounce the comments."
The Egyptian-born professor has said his comments were misunderstood but, according to the congress, offered a formal apology to the group's board of directors this week.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
|
|
