I have had private exchanges with Andre Oboler (I respect his area of expertise) via email, and yes I still have them, but due to my sense of propriety, they will remain off line. However, my emails to him addressing his many failed understandings of Islam, and his epic fail efforts in casting those of us standing for real human rights and western civilization, are my property alone, and I can do whatever I like with them.
NOTE: They are all available after the fold.
July 3, 2014 • Islam Exposed • Leave a reply
BY ADINA KUTNICKI AND LISA MICHELLE
The primary mission of The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), and respectively its CEO Mr. Andre Oboler, has been to counter anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and replacement geography, as is exemplified by his prior body of work. Many were under the impression that this was his primary mission.
Yet, recently, Mr. Oboler, on behalf of OHPI, has shifted his focus to also include “Islamophobia.” To do so, he is collaborating with the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV), which is clearly established in the Acknowledgements section of his December 10, 2013 OHPI report, Islamophobia on the Internet: The Growth of Online Hate Targeting Muslims, and is confirmed in its Foreword by the ICV Secretary, Ghaith Krayem.
Meanwhile, Mr. Oboler has continuously targeted as “Islamophobic” a pro-Israel Facebook page, Islam Exposed, and its administrators, who are dedicated to protecting Muslims from Islamic/Shariah law inspired terror and raising public awareness about it. As is exhibited by the following video, however, there is a glaring conflict of interest between this, his previous goal to combat antisemitism, and his association with ICV, which has consistently backed terrorist groups and lodged public attacks against Israel and the Jewish people.
It’s my opinion that where islam is concerned, Andre Oboler is grossly outside his area of expertise, being in great need of reeducating himself on the basics of Islam minus the mind numbing Islamic apologetics.
1st reply to Andre Oboler
Dear Andre, With all due respect.
One of the chief mistakes in the report that I can see straight away, is your treatment of Islam (and its followers), as being the adherents to an ideology that is ”just like any other religion”, this is a fallacy. Philosopher Sam Harris has is it correct in his demonstrating the differences between belief systems that fall under the umbrella of ”organized religion”, with his comparison of Thai kick boxing to badminton. Both are classified as a ”sport” but the comparison between the two ends there. One is a high contact sport, the other is obviously not. 
Your report attempts to differentiate between ”vilification of Muslims” and defamation of religion, then it goes on to record activities such as criticism of Halal certification as a de facto example of ”vilification”, though the people speaking out against halal, do so, mostly from the justified fear that proceeds go to fund the jihad.[2.] Also, the examples used (pictures) simplistically depict (much like the OIC uses in on its own ”Islamophobia” watch site) anti-Muslim sentiment, void of any context of why these people perceive Muslim immigration as a de facto threat. I’m reminded as to how the media/think tanks regularly depict Israeli sentiment vis-a-vis the Palestinians, without providing a scintilla of context.
Average citizens spotting massive transformations of their local areas and their way of life, want to put a stop to what they see as their justifiable fears, Islamization, this is something that your report could never accurately relate, because it would then cease to being a report on ”Muslim vilification’. It would be condemned by the OIC as ”Islamofauxbia”. No doubt there are many who cross the line in rudeness, and support of physical violence is never to be condoned, but there are many aspects of Islamization that has to broached, that would fall under the rubric of your over simplified and expansive label of ”vilification of Muslims”.
All ideologies run the gambit of the public market place of ideas, and yes, Islam as is Christianity, are not above being made fun of, and yes at times mocked (you might call it vilified, but so it goes with subjective labels). What you propose Andre, takes us back centuries, back to pre-enlightenment days, where the rights of the gods were of more value than the rights than man. What you propose with your (well meaning) report, is anti-free speech in it’s darkest form, and will only serve to empower those who seek to control debate. The best disinfectant is the light of day, not less discourse, but more of it. This I fear will only be used by those who seek to gain most from our ignorance and western values of fair play. Islam is not here to ”co’exist” but to dominate. You’ll be hard pressed to find any example of Islam in retreat outside of military defeat.