"There is really only one logical conclusion, that the demonstrator is not “calling for Jihad” in a political sense, but rather referring to someone named Jihad or Jehad."
January 10, 2024
Rob Roberts, National Post
Rahim Mohamed, National Post
Dear Alex Ballingall and Donovan Vincent,
I’m writing to alert you to a glaring issue with a recent op-ed, “Handcuffs for journalists, double-doubles for jihadists,” published January 9, 2024.
The title uses the word “jihadists” in reference to a demonstrator who used the word during the infamous cop coffee delivery video. “(A man standing next to the caffeine-starved demonstrator can be heard uttering the word ‘jihad’),” the article states. “Handcuffs for journalists; double-doubles for jihadists,” it continues.
However, the video clearly shows a demonstrator speaking to someone on the other side of the police line, uttering “Jihad” calmly in someone’s direction while pointing at them.
There is really only one logical conclusion, that the demonstrator is not “calling for Jihad” in a political sense, but rather referring to someone named Jihad or Jehad.
The demonstrator who uses the word is even speaking to a police officer about his friend who was stuck on the wrong side of the police line due to a misunderstanding, and the police officer was on his way to talk to the lost friend, but while the officer was trying to figure out exactly who it was, the demonstrator in question pointed and said “Jihad,” all but confirming this was someone named Jihad.
As such, the headline is based on a total fabrication. Op-eds must be based on facts, and this clearly does not meet that standard. Calling demonstrators “jihadists” because that is someone's name is an alarming practice, even for the National Post.
Director of Media Advocacy, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East