Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, Banned from Canuckistan

Update: Srdja Trifkovic has expanded on this email in an article at the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies: “Emir Ramic, a Jew-Hating Fundamentalist?”

The Jew-Haters of the IRGC (GoV)

In Canada, only the politically correct truth is acceptable

A Bosnian-Muslim propaganda front, calling itself The Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada, demanded to have Dr. Srdja Trifkovic “banned” from speaking at the University of British Columbia on February 24. The ensuing campaign soon escalated into demands to keep  him  out of Canada altogether. The authorities have now obliged. Good dhimmies.
feature photo

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic

On Thursday, March 24, I was denied entry to Canada. After six hours’ detention and sporadic interrogation at Vancouver airport I was escorted to the next flight to Seattle. It turns out I am “inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for being a proscribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6 (3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.”

It appears that my contacts with the Bosnian Serb leaders in the early nineties make me “inadmissible” today. As it happens I was never one of their officials, “senior” or otherwise, but the story has been told often enough (most recentlyin one of my witness testimonies at The Hague War Crimes Tribunal). The immigration officer at Vancouver decided that what was good for The Hague was not good enough for Canada; but her decision evidently had been written somewhere else by someone else well before my arrival. (She was so out of her depth that she asked me if President Vojislav KoÅ¡tunica had been indicted for war crimes.)

I’ve visited Canada some two dozen times since the Bosnian war ended; ironically, one of those visits, in February 2000, was to provide expert testimony before the Canadian House of Commons in Ottawa. Why should the Canadian authorities suddenly decide to keep me out of the country now, and for transparently spurious reasons? Well, because the Muslims told them so. The campaign started when a Bosnian-Muslim propaganda front, calling itself The Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada, demanded to have me “banned” from speaking at the University of British Columbia on February 24. The ensuing campaign soon escalated into demands to keep me out of Canada altogether. The authorities have now obliged.

As Ambassador James Bissett noted last week, what is outrageous is that, over the years, this “Institute” has indulged in the denial of a real genocide in the former Yugoslavia. It has also attempted to blacken the reputation of one of Canada’s most highly respected soldiers by posting (last December 26) “The Shocking Account by Raped Bosniak Women and Criminal Undertakings of Lt. General (Ret.) Lewis Mackenzie”:

During the war in Bosnia, the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo became furious when General Mackenzie—who was representing the UN—was not deceived (as many journalists were) by the blatant propaganda generated by the Muslim side and by his insistence at remaining impartial. In an attempt to have him replaced, the Muslims concocted false charges of rape and misconduct against him. These charges were so obviously fabricated they were summarily dismissed by responsible authorities. As the general was able to prove, he was not even in Bosnia when many of the alleged offences took place. Despite the facts, the “Genocide Institute” continues to slander the good name of General Mackenzie. Its web site contains a long list of so-called rape victims who relate in lurid detail how they were raped … by the Canadian officer. They even claim that during some of these rapes the general was “protected ‘– not by UN troops but by heavily armed “Chetniks.” The stories are so obviously fabricated that to those who know the General personally—as I do—can only wonder at the seriously psychotic nature of individuals who would repeat these lunatic charges.

General Mackenzie is a Canadian so he cannot be deemed “inadmissible,” but who knows what unpleasantness could await him upon arriving in another country with a powerful Muslim lobby. Extradition for trial in Sarajevo? A long and arduous legal battle to prevent such outcome?

Let it be noted that the “Institute for Research of Genocide of Canada” uses for itself the acronym “IRGC.” That acronym is more commonly associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. While conceivably accidental, the coincidence is not altogether inapt. The Canadians will learn, in the fulness of time, the price of kowtowing to these people’s demands. They will become less free with each act of surrender, and the demands will have no end. (source)

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

See All Posts by This Author

Banned in Vancouver?

(Gates of Vienna has the full length article)

When a university president in Canada warns his students that their free speech may have to be abridged, you know that a member of a particularly reviled group has been invited to appear on campus — an Israeli cabinet minister, say, or an American conservative, or an advocate for democracy in Iran, or perhaps an opponent of abortion.

This is what I call the “Free Speech, However…” Syndrome, and it is not confined to Canadian universities. It is endemic across the entire West, in schools, universities, the media, and in general public discourse. The rationale for the syndrome runs something like this:

A university (or school, or news service, or corporation) is a place in which the free market of ideas is crucial. Our society is enriched by the expression of diverse viewpoints, even controversial ones.


Expressions that veer into hate speech or tend to exclude will not be tolerated. Opinions which are hateful, and thus will not be permitted, include:

  • Opposition to Multiculturalism
  • Objections to gay marriage
  • Denial that anthropogenic climate change is significant
  • Opposition to abortion
  • Assertion of biological differences between the sexes (or among “genders”)
  • Investigation of biological differences among different ethnic groups
  • Expressions of patriotism and national pride
  • Criticism of Islam
  • Support for the State of Israel

And so on and so forth.

Included in the forbidden categories of speech is any questioning of the received narrative on what happened in Srebrenica in 1995. If you question the Bosniak take on what happened, doubt that a genocide occurred, or point to the evidence of a propaganda hoax by Bosnian Muslims, you are beyond the pale.

With Srebrenica in mind, President Toope’s formula for “respectful debate” was dusted off in anticipation of an event scheduled to take place today on the campus of UBC Vancouver. Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, a Serbian-American historian and author, was invited to speak by the Serbian Students Association. This would not do, not at all, at least according to a group known as the Institute for the Research of Genocide Canada, which finds “revisionism” on Srebrenica to be completely unacceptable.

As you can see from its website, the Institute for Research of Genocide Canada, despite its token inclusion of the Holocaust, is really only interested in a single “genocide”: the one that the politically correct histories of Yugoslavia have assigned to the Bosnian Serbs with the Bosnian Muslims as victims. No re-examination of what happened in Bosnia during those years is acceptable. The history of the period is now considered as “settled” as the science of global warming.

Read it all, here

You Can Help Dr. Srdja Trifkovic

Canada Feels the Heat

Originally published at Gates of Vienna. Reprinted with permission.

We just received the following message from Dr. Srdja Trifkovic concerning his banishment from Canada on Thursday. He’s asking as many people as possible to protest what happened by writing emails to politicians and the media in Canada:

I am unable to send individual notes to my friends who have been kind enough to express their support after I was refused entry into Canada last Thursday.

Many have kindly offered to help. I would greatly appreciate if you did, not just as a gesture of support for me personally but also in defense of liberty and common decency. If you have a few minutes to spare please send a letter with your comments to:

Please forward this message to anyone else who in your opinion may be willing to help.

Once again, my heartfelt thanks for your help and support.

Srdja Trifkovic

Staff Directory
Embassy of Canada
501 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001

Tel.: 202-682-1740 • Fax: 202-682-7726
Media Inquiries: 202-682-7732
Hours of Operation: Monday – Friday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Office of the Ambassador, Fax: 202-682-7678

  • Gary Doer, Ambassador
    • Jonathan Sauvé, First Secretary and Executive Assistant
    • Virginia Robertson, Personal Assistant
    • Wynne Walper, Finance Coordinator and Social Secretary
    • Chantale Robitaille, Correspondence Coordinator
  • Deborah Lyons, Deputy Head of Mission
    • Pam Vokey, Personal Assistant

Julia Gorin: Anti-jihadists vs. Anti-jihadists: Something Else at Work

Anti-jihadists vs. Anti-jihadists: Something Else at Work
by Julia Gorin

When the scholar and author Srdja Trifkovic was turned back at the Vancouver airport on Feb. 24 — after a Bosnian-Muslim organization called The Institute for Research of Genocide in Canada alerted authorities that a “genocide denier” was within their borders — Greater Islam and its useful idiots saw an opportunity, and pounced.

The name “Trifkovic” rang a bell in the head of a young writer named Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, who quickly recalled that anti-jihadist Robert Spencer had written supportively of him and his work in the past. Hearing that Trifkovic didn’t buy into the Srebrenica Genocide, al-Tamimi saw a path to killing two birds with one stone. And went digging for dirt.

Soon enough, he found something, or as close to something as one can find on Dr. Trifkovic. What he found was a symposium that Trifkovic had participated in last year on a paleocon website called Alt Right, responding to the question: Is the traditionalist, paleoconservative Right anti-Semitic, as is popularly perceived? The moderator of the panel was a Jewish paleocon named Eugene Girin. Joining Trifkovic was Paul Gottfried, also a Jewish paleocon, and the third panelist was well-known anti-Semitic paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos.

Reading the following paragraphs in the Trifkovic essay, al-Tamimi thought he’d caught the man red-handed in the act of Jew-hating:

It is true, however, that the traditional Right is inevitably antipathetic to certain modes of thought and feeling, to a peculiar Weltanschauung and the resulting forms of public and intra-communal discourse, which are quite properly perceived as specifically Jewish. Historically, Talmudic Judaism’s insistence on the Jews’ racial uniqueness — emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism and on its view of Christians as idolaters — has ensured that a Jew steeped in his own tradition could not view traditional European or American conservatism with sympathy. His tradition was a form of elaborate survival mechanism based on the zero-sum view of a world divided into “us” and “them.” The Gentile was “the Other” ab initio and for ever. In addition, since the late 1800’s the Jews have had a disproportionate impact on a host of intellectual trends and political movements which have fundamentally altered the civilization of Europe and its overseas offspring in a manner deeply detrimental to the family, nation, culture, racial solidarity, social coherence, tradition, morality and faith. Spontaneously or deliberately, those ideas and movements — Marxism (including neoconservatism as the bastard child of Trotskyism), Freudianism, Frankfurt School cultural criticism, Boasian anthropology, etc. — have eroded “the West” to the point where its demographic and cultural survival is uncertain. The erosion is continuing, allegedly in the name of propositional principles and universal values, and it is pursued with escalating ferocity.

All unfortunately true (though one would have preferred the phrase “disproportionately Jewish” to “specifically Jewish” vis-à-vis the kinds of movements my people tend to originate and support). While virgin eyes (mainstream readers and anyone not experienced in sorting out the intricacies and boundaries of what is and isn’t OK to say about Jews) will read the paragraphs as “anti-Semitic,” the views expressed aren’t unlike what I and any number of other Jewish conservatives have written in an effort to tame the Jewish predisposition toward cynicism about, and dismantling of, the traditional values of, yes, white-established societies. Values that every color and creed have been invited to share and benefit from, and which Trifkovic’s article continues to invite Jews to uphold — if one reads the paragraphs that al-Tamimi did not focus on:

In our own time, however, the process of erosion has reached the stage where it is to be expected that increasing numbers of Jews — those who love their own people more than they loath what the traditional Right loves — will realize that, in the long term, their only viable survival strategy is to support the principles and objectives of the traditional Right. To put it bluntly, the survival of the West, which is recognizably Christian in spirit and European in genes, is “objectively” becoming the optimal survival strategy for the Jewish community as a whole, Israel included. (I’ve known several Jews who understand, notably my late friend Sir Alfred Sherman.) In the postmodern mélange of races, cultures and cults still desired by the likes of Abraham Foxman, the narrative of victimhood and its associated claims will carry little weight with the brown, black, and yellow multitudes blissfully devoid of European self-loathing, guilt and shame. The results may easily exceed in ferocity and magnitude the events of 1942-45. It is essential for the Jews to grasp that the survival of European gentile identity and institutions is a sine qua non of their own survival. It is desirable for the traditional Right to overcome its instinctive impulses, historically justified as they are, and to consider this possibility and its implications.

That is the harsh, coldly objective intellectual rigor I’ve come to expect from Dr. Trifkovic, who sees no winners here: ‘YES, those on the traditionalist Right are anti-Semitic. YES, they have reason to be. But NO, they shouldn’t be — and here’s why they need to get over their Jew-grudges.’ The article is a call for the traditionalist, often anti-Semitic paleocon Right to recognize Jews as allies against the forces of barbarity. It’s the likes of Theodoracopulos and readers who think as he does that Trifkovic’s article was admonishing, along with Jews.

It’s not reading that would be palatable to the mainstream, but conservative readers — including Jewish conservatives — are known to have a slightly higher tolerance for truth, even when Jews don’t come out smelling like roses. Indeed, there was actually very little there to seize on.

Trifkovic concerns himself with Jewish and Israeli survival. That’s more than can be said of other paleocons, too many of whom — not unlike too many liberals — have convinced themselves that Jews are the problem with jihad, and let the Muslims off the hook, often defending them. Unhindered by such biased mental blocks, Trifkovic does not have it in for Israel, as his maligned symposium contribution and a lifetime of work make clear. That’s in contrast to Buchananites, for example — Buchanan being someone who gets invited onto mainstream outlets including “The Daily Show” and who is published by Creators Syndicate.

Indeed, Trifkovic perceives a recipe for Israeli and Jewish survival better than most Jews do. He also warns of a threat that’s quite under-appreciated by Jews as they try to nestle up to other minorities, who reject the idea of Jews belonging in the same endangered category (as the Jon Stewart-Rick Sanchez fight demonstrated). And who, separately, have no affinity for Israel.

. . . . continue reading . . . .

2 thoughts on “Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, Banned from Canuckistan”

  1. Biting the Hand


    Last Wednesday Arid Uka, an ethnic Albanian whose parents emigrated from Kosovo to Germany forty years ago, opened fire on a bus at Frankfurt Airport, killing two American soldiers and wounding two others. If Mr. Uka’s gun hadn’t jammed, the death toll would probably have been significantly higher.

    The media did everything they could to camouflage the ethnicity of the shooter and paper over his connections to radical Islam. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Uka’s relatives in Kosovo and Germany did not cooperate with the “narrative”, and provided details of the assassin’s devout feelings about Islam and his recent radicalization.

    By Friday the news of Arid Uka’s confession had been leaked to the press, including his statement that he had planned to kill American soldiers for the sake of his Islamic convictions. The only fallback position left to the media and Western governments was that the attack was the work of an isolated zealot, with no connection to terrorist networks or organized jihad. That’s pretty thin gruel, but it’s all they have left.

    If Arid Uka had been paying attention and following the narrative, he would have been grateful to the United States government and NATO. Under two successive Presidents, Serbia was bombed into submission and then forcibly deprived of the province of Kosovo. Contrary to the American government’s earlier promises, and in violation of international treaties, it promoted Kosovo as a sovereign state and recognized its “independence”.

    So why would a German-born Albanian with ancestors from Kosovo have declared violent jihad against American soldiers? If he had followed the narrative, he would surely have known that the American military was the best friend Kosovo ever had.

    Now let’s take a look at what happened to the Serbs.

    When Yugoslavia collapsed in 1991, the United States and NATO, especially Germany, sided against ethnic Serbs in every conflict that followed. The “international community” stood by and did nothing while thousands upon thousands of Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Krajina in Croatia.

    When a three-cornered civil war broke out in Bosnia, the Western powers demonized the Bosnian Serbs and made the “Bosniaks” — the Muslims of Bosnia — their special favorites, accepting at face value all Muslim claims of “genocide” and sweeping under the rug any evidence of the atrocities committed by Muslims against Serbs. Suspects brought before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague were mostly Bosnian Serbs.

    Then a few years later came the American bombing of Serbia as a response to the latter’s actions in Kosovo. The later outcry over the “illegal” war in Iraq was deeply ironic, considering that the United States had had no UN backing for the operation in Serbia, which was mounted against a sovereign state whose actions, however one might view them, were conducted entirely within its internationally recognized borders. With the same justification the USA could have bombed China over its actions in Tibet, or Britain over Northern Ireland. Instead it picked the Serbs as an easy target in order to throw a low-cost bone to the Saudis.

    Over the last twenty years America has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the best friend the Muslims in the Balkans have ever had, at least since the Turks departed. We have done grievous and deadly harm, mostly to the Serbs, in order to achieve that dubious distinction. By all rights, our soldiers should be subjected to repeated terrorist attacks carried out by angry Serbs.

    But it doesn’t work that way. No Serbs have become international terrorists to revenge themselves on Americans or Germans. That job is left to our friends the Muslims, and in this case a Muslim whose parents hail from what is now the organ-smuggling, child-pimping, heroin-trafficking independent state of Kosovo.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Writing in Chronicles, Dr. Srdja “Banned from Canada” Trifkovic has some choice words to say about this week’s events in Frankfurt:

    Blowback: “Kosovars” Strike Again
    by Srdja Trifkovic

    The jihadist murder of two American servicemen by a “Kosovar”-Albanian Muslim at Frankfurt Airport on March 2 combines the fruits of the United States’ criminally misguided Balkan policy over the past two decades and of Europe’s suicidal immigration policy since the 1960’s. While it is probably too late to have either of them reversed, hope springs eternal: the deaths of two young Americans should remind us of where we stand with “Kosovars” in particular and Jihadist infiltrators into the Western world in general.

    Kosovo’s Albanians we know from the news fall into two categories. One group consists of “Kosova’s” pro-Western, secular, democratic leaders with whom Hillary Clinton feels “honored to be friends and partners.” They are also, as the Western powers have known all along, mass murderers and organ harvesters, starting with “Prime Minister” Hashim Thaci. They are Europe’s leading drug smugglers, arms and people traffickers. They are among the world’s richest Mafia bosses — er, “controversial tycoons” — like “President” Behgjet Pacolli. They run the most lawless, violent, depraved entity in today’s Europe.

    Another group of media-visible Kosovo Albanians are Islamic terrorists like Arid Uka who was shouting Allahu Akbar! and Jihad, Jihad! as he opened fire in Frankfurt. This was an act of Islamic terrorism, of course, but the German authorities tried to pretend, at first, that this episode of Sudden Jihad Syndrome had nothing to do with terrorism.

    Frankfurt Airport was the scene of yet another instance of what I’ve described as the Kosovo Blowback. In May 2007 four Albanian Muslims from Kosovo, plus a Turk and a Jordanian, were arrested for conspiring to attack Fort Dix and “to kill as many soldiers as possible” (U.S. Attorney’s Office). The mainstream media were reluctant to name them as Albanians but referred to them as immigrants from the former Yugoslavia.


    It is to be expected that, in the same spirit, Frankfurt will be spun by the mainstream media and Thaci’s friends and enablers — such as Mrs. Clinton — as follows:

    Lone gunman, perhaps deranged, or traumatized by “Serbian crimes against his people.”
    Kosovo Albanians are shocked, express grief and horror, eternal love for America.
    CAIR & Co. condemn the attack, warn against Islamophobia and hasty conclusions.
    This isolated incident does not reflect in any way on the nature of the “Kosovar” society.
    Even less does it justify questioning Kosovo’s “right to independence,” which is absolute.

    We have been assured by successive U.S. administrations that Kosovo’s Albanians are largely secular. Thaci’s enablers insist that even when they desecrate and destroy Christian churches, they do it for reasons of “revenge” against the Serbs rather than Islam. When these Albanian “secularists” reveal themselves as Islamic terrorists, the episode is dismissed as untypical…

    Read the rest in Chronicles.

    I’d like to think that this week’s incident will make more Americans aware of our deadly errors in the Balkans, but such an outcome is highly improbable.

    For that to happen, on the liberal side, St. Bill “Feel Your Pain” Clinton would have to be de-canonized.

    Then conservatives would have to take a deep breath and acknowledge that the foreign policy of George W. Bush was seriously flawed and vehemently pro-Islamic.

    Neither of these things is likely to happen. We all need to be prepared for America’s disastrous policy in the Balkans to continue along the road to perdition.

    Even worse, we must prepare ourselves for the possibility that America will side with the Muslims in the inevitable conflict to come, when indigenous Europeans finally decide to reverse the Islamization of their countries.

    I hope I’m wrong about all this, but if present trends continue, this is the only outcome we can expect.

  2. Trifkovic: PC Self-Censorship at the American Foreign Policy Council

    PC Self-Censorship at the American Foreign Policy Council
    by Srdja Trifkovic

    The decision by Comedy Central, the television channel owned by MTV Networks, to censor an episode of “South Park” that alluded unflatteringly to Muhammad, and the terrifying case of Molly Norris, a cartoonist forced into hiding here in the United States for “insulting the Prophet,” are but two recent examples of how successfully the Muslims have instilled terror into the hearts of American unbelievers (as commanded by the Koran, 8:12). In Europe the situation is even worse, of course, and ranges from the ritual slaughter of Theo van Gogh in Holland and the terrorizing of the Muhammad cartoonist in Denmark to the sorry spectacle of kowtowing to Muslim demands everywhere.

    The bacillus of deferring to the sensibilities of Islamist “activists” and their Western abettors has started infecting even those who purport to inform the world about “the nature of the contemporary Islamist threat around the world and on the current activities of radical Islamist movements worldwide.” It is in sorrow rather than anger that I am compelled to present the facts of a recent example.

    In early February I was approached by the American Foreign Policy Council to write a 4-5,000 word entry on Bosnia for their World Almanac of Islamism – self-described as “a comprehensive resource designed to track the rise or decline of radical Islam on a national, regional and global level.” The article was to be divided into four sections covering some key aspects of the problem. The honorarium offered was a symbolic $500 for a task of this magnitude. I nevertheless accepted because I believed the endeavor eminently worthy of support and the institution behind it reliable to see it through professionally and objectively. I saw the project as a long overdue antidote to John Esposito’s mendacious Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. I wrote the article (attached at the end) and sent it to the AFPC on April 11.

    On the morning of April 12 they called me to say that the editorial board had several concerns about certain turns of phrase and my treatment of some specific points, and indicating that they would be sending me a list of suggested edits shortly. I told them that I would deal with the matter as soon as I get the file. A few hours later, however, they called me to inform me that the Board had just decided not to publish the article at all. No satisfactory explanation was offered.

    The cat was soon out of the bag, however; Washington is a small place. On April 14 I learned from two different yet equally reliable sources close to the institution in question that the problem was not with the article but with me. One person on their team had done some background research on me and presented the board with two supposedly incriminating quotes which were deemed so outlandish that they disqualified me as an acceptable author of the Chapter:

    1. “Islam is inherently aggressive, racist, violent, and intolerant.”
    2. “Islam has been for the past thousand years a gigantic grinder that turns its adherents into intellectual and moral cripples.”

    Some rhetorical flourish of the second quote apart, the substance of both statements is elementary to anyone seeking to educate the public about the nature of the threat. If they make their author unpublishable, by the same token many names infinitely more prominent than mine are presumably verboten at the AFPC. De Tocqueville is beyond the pale for writing, “I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad.” Or Winston Churchill for exclaiming, “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy… No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” Or Bernard Lewis for stating that “unbelievers, slaves, and women are considered fundamentally inferior to other groups of people under Islamic law.”

    In subsequent contacts initiated by the AFPC and ostensibly aimed at finding a mutually acceptable solution to the issue my various suggestions were rejected. On a peripheral note, particularly galling was their offer to pay me the $500 even though the article was not published. It merely added insult to injury.

    This whole affair is a paradigmatic case of dhimmitudinal self-censorship at its worst. Its implications are dire and eminently predictable.

    . . . . continue reading . . . .

Comments are closed.