The Iranian Facebook plot

Meir Weinstein, leader of the Canadian branch of the extremist Jewish Defence League, isn't happy.

A recent post of mine revealed a Facebook friendship between our new junior foreign minister, Peter Kent, and Meir Weinstein, the leader of the Canadian branch of the extremist Jewish Defence League. Weinstein's Facebook site indicated that he was a member of a Facebook group charmingly called מוות לערבים--Death to Arabs (screenshot here). The story was picked up by Rabble and then, without attribution, by NOW Magazine (scroll down).

Almost immediately, Kent de-friended Weinstein. And now Weinstein is trying to de-friend Death to Arabs.

It's quite a tale, so listen up, but keep your tinfoil handy. And hold your nose: we're going to visit the public forum section of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, another extremist organization upon whose executive board Peter Kent sits--or sat. (We can't say for sure whether Kent stepped down after his recent election, because CCD has disabled its "who we are" page.)

Weinstein has just caught wind of all this. Here's what he's posted over at CCD:

I am in Israel right now. I arrived on Friday. I just learned about the different write up concerning Peter Kent. Let me state the facts. I live in his riding and I voted for him. It seems Haters of Jews do not think I have the right to vote or have access to my MP. I do have that right.

Collecting himself, he posted a second message:

I just sent an complaint to the editor of Rabble and I will speak to my lawyers. It has just come to my attention that facebook allows heads of groups on facebook to change the name of their group at will with out your knowledge. This was done in my case with a specific intention. And that intention is to plant 'evidence' that I somehow just hate Arabs. This is a LIE most likely fabricated by those that serve the interest of Radical Iran as proxie [sic] agents. I have never ever uttered a racist comment about anyone. I will find the source of this fabrication.

Now, I am frankly impressed that Iran has the capacity to micromanage on a global scale to the point that its "proxie agents" have been assigned to smear a fairly obscure Canadian JDL leader by suggesting that he is anti-Arab--the nerve!--but I am even more impressed by its abilities to manipulate Facebook to its ends.

What Weinstein is suggesting happened is this:

First, some Iranian agents cleverly set a trap for him, by creating a fake Facebook group, called Never Again! or something similar, and sending him an invitation to join. The fly ventured into the spider's parlour, and signed up.

Snap! The trap was sprung. The "proxie agents" immediately re-named the group "Death to Arabs," in Hebrew, to make Weinstein look bad. And Weinstein's own Facebook page was altered as well, somehow without his noticing.

Then a Jewish peace activist, who has made no secret of his dislike for Weinstein and the JDL, was alerted, no doubt by the "proxie agents." He got in touch with me--or maybe it was those "proxie agents" all along--and I was duped into putting up a post (or possibly I'm a "proxie agent" too). The rest is history. With possible litigation to follow.

Now there are, as it happens, several Facebook groups with the Death to Arabs theme. Perhaps they're all snares set by the Iranians; perhaps they all had different, innocuous names to begin with. The one at the top of the list, by the way, uses the JDL logo. It's a closed group--no public access. (It may not be the one that showed up on Weinstein's page, though, because its name is in English, not Hebrew. Who knows?*)

So how about that Facebook group name-change trick, which alters the name on your own Facebook page too, without you even being aware of it! Just think of the possibilities. "Kathy Shaidle Fan Club" becomes, overnight, a fetish group called "Nazis in Naugahyde." "Stephen Harper Is My Leader" is transmogrified into "Hitler Was Way Cool." Not that I would for a moment suggest such Internet abuse, even in fun.

The endless possibilities for net-japery suggested here, however, may be a mere pipedream. A commenter named David posts at CCD:

How exactly do you change the name of a facebook group Meir? I've looked and there's no function that allows you to do that. You actually cannot change the name of a facebook group. I know because I tried to do it a few months ago for a group whose real world name had changed. I even messaged Facebook administration and you know what they said back in December?

"Facebook no longer accepts requests for group name changes. The name changes were confusing to people and sometimes caused individuals to be in groups that they would have never signed up for. If you would like to have a different name for your group, you can create a new group from the Groups page. Before you do this, please be sure to delete the original group so we don't have duplicates. To do that, remove all members of the group and then remove yourself. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks for contacting Facebook,

Amit
User Operations
Facebook"

Sorry Meir, but you'll have to come up with a better lie.

Darn. All I have to look forward to now is Weinstein's Statement of Claim.

*UPDATE: I am now informed that this is the Facebook group in question, which Weinstein joined on January 18.

Peter Kent's Facebook friend

As noted in an earlier post, our new junior foreign minister Peter Kent was in the news again recently, shrilly demanding that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez do something, pronto, about a vicious attack on a Caracas synagogue.

Just who is Peter Kent, again? I have noted before that he's got some rather questionable associations. And now a Jewish peace activist informs me b/c that Kent has been palling around with at least one other known extremist. He's got the screenshots to prove it, too.

Meet Meir Weinstein, aka Meir Halevi, the Canadian Director of the Jewish Defense League. The JDL was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane.

Weinstein and our junior foreign minister are Facebook friends.

Weinstein is also a member of a Facebook group called מוות לערבים (Death To Arabs).

Lovely.

My source writes:

The JDL merited mention in the FBI's Terrorism 2000/2001 report after leader Irv Rubin and his aide, Earl Krugel "were arrested as they were in the final stages of planning attacks against the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California, and the local office of U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa." They were both convicted and died in prison - Rubin committed suicide; Krugel was murdered.

The Global Terrorism Database lists 51 incidents associated with the JDL (go to http://209.232.239.37/gtd1/Default.aspx and enter "Jewish Defense League" - with an s in defense- in the search engine). See also the JDL's profile in the National Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism's database (Weinstein/Halevi was an associate of Irv Rubin's - they were arrested together inspecting the post-arson damage to Ernst Zundel's bunker in Toronto a decade or so ago). Weinstein/Halevi was also a spokesperson for the banned Kach movement (which is on Canada's list of terrorist organizations) and defended the organization in the North American press following the Baruch Goldstein massacre.

ADL's backgrounder on the JDL is here.

Politics make strange bedfellows, so the old saw runs. In this case, though, it seems that bedfellows are making increasingly strange politics.

And, in the editorial rooms of the corporate media, you can still hear a pin drop.

UPDATE: (February 6) Kent appears to have de-friended Weinstein.

Peter Kent earns his stripes

Readers may remember my earlier posts about Peter Kent, currently the MP for Toronto Thornhill, and an executive member of the extremist anti-Muslim organization Coalition for Democracies.

Kent is now Stephen Harper's junior foreign affairs minister, and he has lost no time in pursuing his agenda. He blames the shelling of a UN school by Israeli forces on Hamas rather than the folks actually doing the shelling. Here is what he has to say, as reported in the Globe and Mail, and note the weasel-wording, which I have highlighted:

Canada's junior foreign minister, Peter Kent, said that despite sketchy details on the school strike, it is clear that Hamas “bears the full responsibility for the deepening humanitarian tragedy.

“We really don't have complete details yet, other than the fact that we know that Hamas has made a habit of using civilians and civilian infrastructure as shields for their terrorist activities, and that would seem to be the case again today,” he said in an interview.

He added: “In many ways, Hamas behaves as if they are trying to have more of their people killed to make a terrible terrorist point.”

How nice to have this shill speaking in our name on the international stage. As he will again, no doubt, while the civilian death toll in Gaza continues to mount.

Quotations from Peter Kent's CCD

Buckets has a twelfth question for Peter Kent. Now let's pluck a few more statements from the bubbling stew of extremism that is the "Canadian Coalition for Democracies," on whose Board the Conservative candidate for Thornhill sits:

• Islam and the terrorism it promotes must be religated [sic] to the ash bin of history, much like what we had to do with National Socialism in Europe in the last century. --Naresh Raghubeer, CCD Executive Director [NB: This quote was subsequently taken down by CCD--presumably the mask slipped just a tad too far--but nothing disappears entirely on the Internet. --DD]
  
  
• Just by looking around the world, who could be blamed for concluding that Islam is a savage, barbaric, primitive, cruel, despotic religion... --Alistair Gordon, CCD President*
  
  
• Maoists, Muslims - small minds, big ideas, no humanity. Interesting how Canada kowtows both to the Muslim world and to Mao's China, while marginalizing those who should be our natural allies... -- Alastair Gordon, CCD President**
  
  
• Louise Arbour - Islamist mouthpiece at the UN ... When you thought Canada's unprincipled foreign policy, based primarily on being anti-American, could not sink any lower, we have the idiotic statements of Canada's own Louise Arbour... -- Alastair Gordon, CCD President
  
  
• There are all sorts of things that one cannot do on an airplane, including push-ups in the aisle and yoga. If these imams are so devout and pious, then it is their duty to avoid travel if it interferes with their piety. It is not the duty of the traveling public or airline operators to accomodate their rituals, especially when their own safety is at risk. --Alastair Gordon, CCD President [The imams in question were praying in the airport, not on a plane. --DD]
  
  
• Well, it looks to me like Sid Ryan [the President of CUPE Ontario] just confirmed that CUPE's boycott of Israel is plain, old fashioned Jew-hatred, not unlike that of his socialist mentors, the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of Germany. --Alastair Gordon, CCD President
  

There you have it. The religion of Islam is "primitive" and "barbaric," and should disappear from the earth. Respected jurist Louise Arbour is an "Islamist mouthpiece." CUPE's Sid Ryan is a Nazi.

Thirteenth question: Does Kent, a member of CCD's Executive Committee, endorse these extremist statements by his fellow CCD executive members?

[H/t Canadian Observer]

_____________
*There seems to have been a little judicious housecleaning over at CCD Central. This quotation no longer appears at CCD, but is quoted here. Readers who are interested will be able to find a message numbered 8319.shtml with an indicated follow-up by Gordon that has been removed. The next message is 8321.shtml.

**Another message down the memory hole. This was once message 2429.shtml. Message 2428.shtml still exists, as does message 2430.shtml. Gordon's missing words are quoted here.

Genocide on the hustings [bumped]

The operatives of the "big tent" parties--the Liberals and Conservatives--have been busy flinging unidentified substances at the Greens and the NDP for harbouring candidates of odd and unsavoury views. The latest one of these to drop is Andrew McKeever, whose misogynist and pro-war comments finally forced his resignation. He'll never be missed--at least by me.

But these same operatives are strangely silent when some of their own are exposed. Take Liberal candidate for York Centre, Ken Dryden. Please.

Ken wants to seal off Gaza, the largest open-air prison in the world. Here he is, on the record:

In front of a split audience in the sanctuary of the Beth Emeth synagogue on Wilmington...the ex-hockey guy’s eyes hardened as he advocated no truck or trade with the “terrorists” in the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.

Then he offered this shocker: “Stop all aid that flows into Gaza. While that may seem a harsh measure that will hurt Palestinian civilians… it is the right thing to do at this time.”

[H/t Alison via PSA]

80% of Gazans rely on humanitarian assistance to survive. The implications of Dryden's words are very clear. We have heard no howls of outrage by Jason Cherniak as yet. Maxed out, Jason?

Dryden joins Conservative hopeful in Thornhill, Peter Kent, an executive official of an extremist anti-Muslim organization, Canadian Coalition for Democracies. His colleagues there have called for bombing Iran and wiping Islam from the face of the earth. "Muslims," declares his CCD President, Alastair Gordon, have "small minds" and "no humanity."

The article in Toronto's NOW magazine continues:

One reason the Liberals probably won’t pay a price for the Tories’ dedicated loyalty to the Israeli government is that the Grits hold exactly the same position now. Aside from Michael Ignatieff’s musing – and then step-down – about Israel committing “war crimes” in Lebanon, the Libs’ policy has generally morphed from bipartisan to Israel-positive.

Sure, Dryden did some hand-wringing at the meeting about how awful it is that Canada is no longer seen as the exponent of diplomacy and the honest broker it once was.

But as even B’nai Brith exec VP Frank Dimant admits, the parties have no real differences. Dimant points to his friend Irwin Cotler, the Lib MP for Mount Royal and former justice minister, as a case in point.

“His positioning on Middle East and Jewish issues in general is very close today to where the Conservative party is,” says Dimant, described by Embassy Magazine as one of the top foreign policy influencers in Ottawa.

But this consensus on Israel is a worry, says former ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker, particularly because of international law. “We tend to accept the argument that Israel is a democracy – ‘Who are we to criticize what the Israelis do? [Whatever] the Palestinians do is ipso facto wrong’ – I’m thinking of Hamas. This is not an approach that leads anywhere except to more deadlock.”

But pushing for a more complex view of the Mideast isn’t for the faint of heart. Steve Scheinberg, a retired Concordia history prof and Canadian Friends of Peace Now activist, laments that his group lacks the resources to lobby politicians for a view counter to mainstream Jewish orgs.

“I don’t think the Conservatives are that interested in the Middle East per se,” he says. “What I think they are interested in is winning some Jewish votes and money.” [Emphases added. --DD]

Vile comments and questionable associations might be seen as mere political pandering, in other words. But I have no reason to think that the personal beliefs of Ken Dryden are not in sync with his public utterances, nor that those of Peter Kent are in opposition to the organization that he helps to lead.

There is a further issue here, however--perhaps the key one--that needs to be spelled out. Do Liberals and Conservatives really think that the significant complement of Jewish voters in York Centre will be swayed by calls for crimes against humanity? Is the Thornhill candidate's leadership position in an extremist organization expected to appeal to them? Do these voters, en bloc, want to starve a civilian population to death, or throw Islam into the rubbish-bin of history, or bomb Iran?

Isn't this selling Jewish voters a little short, in fact--indeed, a lot short? Isn't the implicit assumption that Jewish electors lack humanity and tolerance--anti-Semitic? Come on, Cherniak, get on this. We can't clean up the darker corners of the establishment parties all by ourselves.

UPDATE: Cherniak responds. He suggests that a "Canadian hero" like Dryden is untouchable, even when he advocates crimes against humanity. Thanks for standing up, Jason.

UPPERDATE: (October 7) The Canadian Arab Federation and the National Post weigh in.

UPPESTDATE: (October 7) And so does Ken Dryden. (H/t commenter Mordechai)

Hire lerning at UNB

A learned professor at UNB named David Murrell went after me today after a wag posted a message on the mephitic Canadian Coalition for Democracies site yesterday and forged my name to it. (That's twice in one week: the other forgery appeared on a bogus site called Shaidle is a racist. Luckily these things are fairly easily exposed.)

In any case, he checked out a recent post of mine about Peter Kent, and wrote a post of his own entitled: "Dr. Dawg criticizes Peter Kent for his denouncing of synagogue vandalizim." Here are a couple of extracts:

Dr. Dawg, in this rather facile post, conjures up the hypothetical situation of multi-syngogue vandalism taking place in this country -- and that Canadiaans would resent other countries criticisng us for anti-Ssemitic acts going on in this country....

Dr. Dawg's posts are a classic example of "soft", left-wing based anti-Semitism. That is, the voice opposition to criticism of anti-Setmic acts.

He followed this up with a post bearing the title: "Sorry! The mispelled (sic) word is 'vandalism.'"

Tomorrow, presumably, he's back in the classroom.

Ten questions for Peter Kent, CPC candidate for Thornhill

Dear Peter Kent:

Given your position on the Board of the far-right "Canadian Coalition for Democracies":

1) Do you support the CCD's lobbying for diplomatic and economic ties with the Indian state of Gujurat, where rioters, with government complicity, murdered, raped and dispossessed tens of thousands of Muslims, and where schoolchildren are taught to admire Adolf Hitler?

2) Did you endorse the CCD's position in favour of firing Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, for chairing a meeting that awarded an Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler?

3) Do you believe, with the CCD, that "many" Members of Parliament are "apologists for terrorists who celebrate the killing and maiming of men, women, and children?"

4) If yes, who are these Parliamentarians?

5) Do you endorse the smearing of David Suzuki by your president, Alistair Gordon, and his irresponsible retailing of the anti-environmentalist lie that a DDT ban killed millions in sub-Saharan Africa?

6) As a member of the CCD Board, what role did you play in the attempted character assassination of Liberal MP Omar Alghabra in 2005--for which your organization later had to apologize and retract?

7) Do you believe, with your colleague David Harris, that Muslim terrorists have infiltrated the FBI and CIA, the State Department, the U.S. Muslim military chaplain corps, the White House, Homeland Security, the U.S. Air Force, Guantanamo, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons--and in Canada, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Quebec NDP?

8) Do you take the view, as your colleague Salim Mansour does, that Canada should walk out of the UN?

9) Do you believe that veiled Muslim women at the polls might be engaging in criminal acts including suicide bombing, as a CCD press release suggests? (Are you aware that the current provisions of the Canada Elections Act permit such women to vote without unveiling, so long as they are not relying on photo ID as proof of identity?)

10) Do you support the bombing of Iran, like your colleague David Harris?

A Conservative candidate's unsavoury connection

In my typically even-handed way, I now turn to the Conservative candidate for Thornhill, Peter Kent, who happens to be a senior member of an outfit called the Canadian Coalition for Democracies.

What is the CCD?

It's a group that appears to enjoy fomenting anti-Muslim hysteria. The organization even sucked in that indefatigable anti-Muslim campaigner and promoter of campus snitch lines, Daniel Pipes. Pipes was forced to retract comments he made about Liberal MP Omar Alghabra, which had been based upon misinformation received from CCD. (Pipes refers in his screed to Ezra Levant's further smears of Alghabra, which I dealt with some time ago, and makes additional defamatory remarks that need not concern us here.)

CCD's legal counsel has been none other than David Harris, whose inflammatory anti-Muslim commentary is notorious in its own right, and who has recently been fussing out loud about "out-of-control immigration." Harris was in the news last year making some credulous public comments about a hilariously silly "bugged money" story emanating from the US Defence Security Service.

Here is part of CCD's statement of purpose:

At CCD, we believe that our foreign policy should reflect our respect for life and liberty. If we want peace, we must support beleaguered allies who share our Canadian values. Instead, many in our past governments have made it their career to condemn and criticize the United States and Israel, while being apologists for terrorists who celebrate the killing and maiming of men, women, and children. [emphasis mine --DD]

CCD does not name those "many" in previous Canadian governments who have "been apologists for terrorists." But this kind of shrill, defamatory, McCarthyite rhetoric is par for the course. Check out these CCD media topics for yourselves, and take particular note of the often hateful rhetoric in which they are couched.

Does Peter Kent's association with this extremist group merit some attention from bloggers and the media--and from Muslims in the Thornhill riding?

[Thx to Firebrand for the suggestion.]

UPDATE: Reader Buckets reminds us that CCD was one of the infamous "42 organizations" demanding the firing of Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for chairing the committee that awarded the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler. Read all about that bogus complaint here.

UPPERDATE: A reader pointed me to this press release from CCD (David Harris, again), urging political and diplomatic relations with the Indian state of Gujurat. Why Gujurat? Could it have anything to do with the militant anti-Islamism of the government there--documented by Human Rights Watch?

¡Hola, Canada!

Picture this. A Jewish cemetery in Ottawa is vandalized. And a synagogue in Montreal. And another in Richmond. And another in Moncton. And now one in Edmonton.

The President of, say, Chile, issues a condemnation, and demands that the Canadian government do something immediately to stop this rash of attacks. And Israel denounces Canada, claiming that such incidents could only happen with "the approval of authorities at the highest level of the state."

It's an interesting little thought-experiment. Our first reaction might be to wonder why far-off Chile is even involving itself in these domestic incidents. Our second might to be speculate about possible shortages of tinfoil in Israel.

But somehow the same bizarre scenario makes perfect sense in reverse, as we continue to be conditioned by media commentators and right-wing politicians.

A synagogue is vandalized in Caracas. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez denounces the act in no uncertain terms, while mischievously suggesting that his opposition might be to blame. He has recently sent the Israeli Ambassador packing because of Israel's recent assault on Gaza. Now Israel says that the Venezuelan state is behind the attack on the synagogue.

Those inclined to disapprove of Chávez put their usual two and two together: opposition to Israeli policies = anti-Semitism. Therefore the vandals (who clearly are anti-Semitic) acted with Chávez' personal approval. Something like that.

Our new junior foreign minister Peter "all Israel, all the time" Kent swings into action. (Recall his involvement with the shady Canadian Coalition for Democracies.) An occurrence of vandalism in another country, which that country is quite well equipped to handle, warrants an obviously politically-motivated outburst on the international stage from a Canadian minister.

I do hope that President Chávez, known for his sense of humour, takes a moment from celebrating his tenth year in power to hold our Prime Minister publicly accountable for the rash of anti-Semitic acts that have been taking place across Canada under his watch. Does anti-Semitism pervade the highest levels of our state? Do Peter Kent and Stephen Harper protest maybe a tad too much?

As Kent so succinctly puts it, "The scourge of hate-filled bigotry must be confronted and rejected whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head." Best start in our own backyard, perhaps?

UPDATE: (February 9) Commenter greenmamba notes that arrests have been made. Eleven suspects have been rounded up--including seven police officers, and a person reportedly working security at the synagogue. Stay tuned.

Israel Derangement Syndrome

Having put up a few articles critical of Israel, I've been accused of IDS from time to time--by commenters who tend to be pro-Israel in their views. Indeed, some of the friskier among them have taken to following me around the blogosphere, noisily denouncing me. One over-the-top BC blogger (no link here) went so far as to accuse me of being an apologist for the Blood Libel.

But in an era where even Jews critical of Israel state policy are called anti-Semites, none of that should surprise anyone.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to loom large in public commentary, and is an obvious priority for the Harper government. Stephen Harper himself considers criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic. A Parliamentary "coalition" is hard at work paving the way for the eventual criminalization of such criticism. Campus hoaxes add fuel to the fire. And lobby pressure to shut down dissent continues, incessantly, remorselessly.

Israel Derangement Syndrome? I've been responding to it.

Today I learn that the junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter Kent, has effectively committed Canada to war in the Middle East if Israel is attacked. No such bilateral arrangement, to my knowledge, exists with any other country in the world.

We'd better have a national debate about this new move, and sooner rather than later. Its implications are grave. One wonders, for example: would the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, in which all inhabitants of Southern Lebanon were considered legitimate Israel Defence Forces targets, have put Canada at war with Lebanon under this new policy? After all, the fighting began with a minor border skirmish initiated by Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, a display of photographs of Gaza by Israeli and Palestinian photographers, sponsored by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, has been abruptly ordered out of the Cinéma du Parc, a repertory house in Montreal, by the owners of the building. From the CJPME news release:

On Monday, Feb. 15th, the critically acclaimed Human Drama in Gaza Photo Exposition in Montreal was threatened with closure by Gestion Redbourne PDP Inc., the real estate management firm owning the property housing the Exposition. A legal representative of Redbourne, Lieba Shell, sent an email late in the day to the exposition host, Cinema du Parc, ordering the removal of the exposition and threatening legal action if the exposition were not taken down by evening. Cinema du Parc and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) – the producer of the exposition – asserted through their legal advisor, Mark H. Arnold,that such threats from Redbourne were not lawful.

Human Drama in Gaza was launched in mid-January, and received very positive reviews in several media. Redbourne, however, demanded the removal of the exposition based on a paragraph in the lease that Cinema du Parc has with Redbourne relating to "purely cinemagraphic use" of the premises. Arnold, however, asserted that the cinema’s hosting of a photo exposition would very much constitute cinemagraphic use of the premises. Officials with Cinema du Parc also pointed out that the cinema has hosted dozens of photo expositions in the past several years, and has never had a complaint from Redbourne, the landlord.

The corporate media have not even bothered to report this latest instance of meddling and muzzling. It's just not news anymore.

It's good to see that Cinéma du Parc is standing its ground. I wish them luck. Those who want to protest may send a letter to the building owners (ignore the prepared screed and use your own words). But in Canada, 2010, I can't help feeling that it's a bit like using a toothpick to stop a flood.

UPDATE: (February 20) Redbourne has backed off, and the show will go on. [via Filasteen]

That a-word

Yes, "anti-Semitism"—again. But that silencing weapon in the capable hands of the new McCarthyists is firing paintballs these days, not bullets.

This weekend I was accused of it by a professor at UNB because I had been critical of Peter Kent's unseemly intervention in the matter of the recent attack on a Caracas synagogue. Then commenter Jay Currie accused commenter "psa" of it--read the thread for yourself and weep. (Don't feel badly, "psa": Currie has called me an anti-Semite too.) Now CUPE-Ontario is in the news again for passing a resolution in support of institutional boycotts and divestment campaigns against the state of Israel. And Warren Kinsella is all over that one:

With this move, they have embraced bigotry and anti-Semitism. That is so obvious, it isn't even worth debating, now.

As some of you have observed, however, I'm not into small talk about bigotry. I prefer action. I think we need to show CUPE there are consequences for this one.

First, actively seek to decertify the union, as it has arguably violated its own charter and organized labour charters to which it is a signatory. Second, petition for the termination of collective agreements entered into between CUPE and post-secondary institutions, on the grounds that publicly-funded institutions are not permitted to have contractual relations with entities which actively discriminate. Finally, bring human rights code complaints against them, in as many jurisdictions as possible, because that is the best and most logical forum to confront an outrage like this one.

The resolution reads:

CUPE Ontario will:

1. With Palestine solidarity and human rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices.

2. Support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

3. Call on CUPE National to commit to research into Canadian involvement in the occupation and call on the CLC to join us in lobbying against the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state and call for the immediate dismantling of the wall.

Because:
· The Israeli Apartheid Wall has been condemned and determined illegal under international law.
· Over 170 Palestinian political parties, unions and other organization including the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions issued a call in July 2005 for a global campaign of boycotts and divestment against Israel similar to those imposed against South African Apartheid.
· CUPE BC has firmly and vocally condemned the occupation of Palestine and have initiated an education campaign about the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state.

This resolution, as it turns out, has gained support from people who might be somewhat surprised to learn that they are bigots and anti-Semites.

There has been, of course, inflamed rhetoric on both sides when the Middle East is the subject of discussion: there have been too many statements made in anger. But again, there is little even-handedness in the criticism that follows. Over-the-top references to Israel's actions in Gaza as a "holocaust," for example, have been denounced as "anti-Semitic." But, of course, it's only "anti-Semitic" if we do it. An Israeli Deputy* Minister of Defence can threaten a "bigger holocaust" in Gaza, and the Usual Suspects fall all over themselves trying to parse his words. (What part of "shoah" do they fail to understand?)

I don't want to delve once more into the evolution of the term. I really can't add much to what I have written here and here. The device has proven, in the recent past, to be very effective in stifling debate and putting critics of Israel on the defensive. But at this point its overuse has rendered it nearly meaningless--it's devolved, in fact, into little more than a synonym for "poopy-head."

Meanwhile there are real anti-Semites around, who need that label hung around their necks like an anchor. Such as the person who has recorded this sort of thing:

Lest your mind automatically reject the words of Hitler out of some political reflexive habit, remember that he witnessed the decline and fall of another multi-cultural state, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, so he knows what he's taking [sic] about...

And:

Here it is, the book you've been waiting for [Holocaust-denier Michael A. Hoffman II's "The Great Holocaust Trial" --DD] that summarizes the entire career of the most persecuted book publisher in the world, from his childhood to his latest activism, German-Canadian revisionist Ernst Zundel.

But the author in question is, alas, untouchable.

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

ERRATUM: The resolution quoted above is Resolution 50, no less controversial at the time, but passed in May, 2006. The resolution just adopted is described as an "adjunct" to Resolution 50. While I have not located the exact text, it focuses upon collaborative research on weaponry. As reported:

CUPE university workers will be urged to examine the education and research ties of their own institutions with ones in Israel. If members learn their universities collaborate with Israeli universities engaged in weapons research, they are encouraged — but not forced — to mount a boycott campaign.

Ryan said CUPE will also investigate whether its pension plans are investing in companies developing weapons in Israel which could be used against the Palestinians.

Resolution 50 contains no anti-Semitic language, although one can see why it gave rise to some heated debate by partisans on all sides of the debate on the Middle East. The present resolution, however, seems even further removed from anything that could reasonably be called "anti-Semitism."
_____________________
*Reader shlemazl notes that the official in question was not the Minister of Defence, but the Deputy Minister.

Israel attacks flotilla bound for Gaza

Hours after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was presented with this Toronto Maple Leafs jersey in Toronto, Israeli commandos dropped from helicopters onto the lead vessel of a six ship international aid flotilla bound for Gaza and opened fire.

Israeli Radio is reporting 16 to 19 killed with 30 injured and confirms the flotilla was in international waters.

According to AFP, "the Israeli military censor ordered a block on all information regarding those injured or killed during the storming of the ship."

The six ships bearing 10,000 tons of supplies and over 600 activists from 40 countries, including 86 year old Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, are now being towed to Ashod.

I was watching a Turkish TV live feed from the lead vessel until it went off the air. I couldn't understand what anyone was saying except for a voice shouting in English that they were in international waters and a woman calling for help for the wounded. The live footage is now being rebroadcast at the same link with commentary in English.

But back to the jersey photo op. Netanyahu says Israel has never had a better friend than Canada and thanked Steve today for being "an unwavering friend of Israel."

Too true. Canada was the first country in the world to boycott Gaza for electing Hamas. When Israel bombed Lebanon in 2008 killing 1400, Steve called Israel's actions "measured". A Canadian killed when Israel shelled UN offices went unremarked by our government. We support the Wall at the UN. Peter Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, has more than once stated on his website that "an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada." We have cut off funding to humanitarian groups like Kairos and UNRWA who have been sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, and replaced members on the board of the once independent group Rights and Democracy with pro-Israel hawks. Canada had the largest delegation at last year's Conference on Anti-Semitism in Israel and provides nearly twice the Canadian forces to man the borders of Gaza as does the United States. We have our own McCarthyite Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism and banned George Galloway from Canada. Con MPs have sent out flyers to their constituents suggesting that Liberals are soft on anti-Semitism, the definition of which has now been expanded to include any criticism of Israel, following the lead of our prime minister who has accused MPs of anti-Semitism in the House of Commons. Last month the Ethics Commissioner reported that Israel is the top destination of choice for MPs seeking junkets abroad paid for by outside organizations, and Ontario Premier McGuinty is there now drumming up trade. Two years ago Israel and Canada signed what it pleases Israel's Ministry of Public Security to describe on their website as a pact on "cooperation in home land security and counter terrorism issues."

BFF

Against this complicity by our own government in the three-year-old Israeli blockade of Gaza, we must raise our voices in support of international law. We must no longer allow our government to speak in our name here.

Witness Gaza. Witness. Gaza.

AP coverage of the Gazan school shelling [updated]

For those who read only the first two paragraphs of a news story:

GAZA, Gaza Strip — Israeli mortar shells struck outside a UN school where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge Tuesday, killing at least 30 people — many of them children whose parents wailed in grief at a hospital filled with dead and wounded.

The Israeli army said its soldiers came under fire from militants hiding in the school and responded. It accused Gaza's Hamas rulers of "cynically" using civilians as human shields. Residents confirmed the account, saying militants were seen staging attacks from the area. [emphasis added --DD]

Thirteen paragraphs down:

Two neighbourhood residents confirmed the Israeli account, saying a group of militants fired mortars from a street near the school, then fled into a crowd of people in the streets. Israel then opened fire.

Note: "a street near" the school. And then: "a group of militants...fled into a crowd...Israel then opened fire."

Doesn't exactly pass the smell test, does it? (Here's a somewhat different take. And a video.) The IDF make a claim, which is allegedly "confirmed" by (two) nearby residents, except that they don't confirm the claim at all.

Has there been a little judicious editing at the Globe and Mail, which carried this story?* Because the two reporters who share the by-line aren't exactly biased towards the official Israeli position. Ibrahim Barzak is a Gazan stringer for Associated Press, and his stuff doesn't flatter the IDF. Steve Weizman, for his part, has been slagged by the pro-Israel CAMERA propagandists for alleged anti-Israel bias. His reportage from the West Bank has exposed the murderous behaviour of Israeli settlers there, and more recently he covered the banning of foreign journalists from Gaza by the Israeli government.

I'll go with the "judicious editing" hypothesis. Comments welcome as always.

UPDATE: Other versions of the same Barzak/Weizman story, with some interesting differences.

*UPPERDATE: Damian Penny has blogged on this as well, although we don't agree on our conclusions. What I find odd is that his lengthy quotation contains the "confirmed the Israeli account" wording--but the YahooNews version of the Barzak/Weizman story, to which he links, does not.

Could it be that the "judicious editing" was done by an AP editor--and that re-editing has been done since by other news editors picking up the AP feed, who have noticed the same inconsistency?

UPPESTDATE: (January 9) Two readers point me to an under-reported retraction, by Israeli authorities, that the IDF had come under fire from the school. This may explain the inconsistent AP story, being further (circumstantial) evidence that a meddling AP editor did a hasty re-write, which was then picked up uncritically by some (e.g., the Globe & Mail) and re-re-written by others. And it also indicates that UN schools are indeed being targeted. Three, in fact, have been shelled by the IDF to date.

Earlier video footage released by the IDF that supposedly indicated firing from within the school was taken in 2007.

As I noted above, there's not much in the media that corrects the initial claim that Hamas militants were in the school. Nor from outspoken Conservative politicians and right-wing bloggers. What do you have to say now, Peter Kent? Damian?

Later that day: Damian responds.

Dr.Dawg endorses the NDP

[If anonymous editorialists can get away with this stuff, my last-minute endorsement is just as authoritative and probably will be just as effective --DD]

The only serious choice for electors on Tuesday is Jack Layton's NDP. We (that's the royal "we": Marie Ève is on her own here) say this after considerable soul-searching and a critical examination of what each party has to offer. Given that we're smarter than the Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail, more principled than the Toronto Star, and a lot nicer than the National Post, we expect that our endorsement will enjoy a serious reception.

It's not that we believe that Jack Layton is the perfect leader. He sometimes appears too interested in scoring debating points, and at other times the "light and lively" label might, with some reason, be applied. But knowing Jack as we do, we would indeed buy a used car from this man, and drive it with confidence down the highway to the future.

True, he has not been tested with the responsibilities of government, except at the municipal level. But we can think of another candidate in another election campaign in another country who has similar experience, and is considered to be a serious contender for the second and even the top office in the land. Lack of government experience should never--repeat, never--be a bar to high office. Indeed, such experience can be a positive disadvantage: the wiles and tricks of governmental back-room dealings have poisoned the political culture of the established parties in Canada, and, when allowed to erupt into public consciousness, have offended the nation.

As a former Metro Toronto councillor, leader of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, and Member of Parliament, Jack brings a seasoned career of political activism to the table, and a team of candidates who, by and large, are no worse than the candidates of other parties. For every slur about alleged "Islamists" or "truthers" flung at individual NDP candidates, too often without any foundation at all, the NDP could point to the extremist connections of, for example, Conservative hopeful Peter Kent and the far-right Coalition for Canadian Democracies, in which he holds executive office. Provincially, NDP governments have ruled responsibly, and--with the notable exception of a certain now-Liberal candidate--have handled the financial side of the job with prudence, without tearing up labour union contracts to do so.

More importantly, however, the NDP has a human face, and it isn't ashamed to show it. The Conservative Party tries to appeal to the inner stockbroker; the Greens court small entrepreneurs who want a different type of conservatism. The Bloc makes its pitch to narrow regional interests that the québécois themselves have long outgrown, and the Liberals chat up anyone who's listening. Only the NDP actually stands consistently for people--ordinary, working people and their families.

Whether this includes bolstering health care by hiring more doctors and nurses and investing in cancer research, or offering a Child Benefit and a children's nutritional plan to hard-pressed working households, or investing in social housing, or protecting the environment with measures that are easily understandable and will work, the NDP has a detailed, well-thought-out platform.

The NDP stands foursquare against so-called "social conservatism" and the smoldering bigotry in some Canadian backwaters that has been fanned into flame by the Harper conservatives. The latter want small, non-intrusive government--unless it comes to women's reproductive choice and people with a non-heterosexual orientation. They want everyone who comes to live in Canada to be just like them--a frankly horrifying prospect. The NDP recognizes the importance and the desirability of immigration and diversity, and believes that every citizen of this country, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity, is a first-class citizen.

The NDP will also put some substance behind Harper's empty and self-serving "apology" to our First Nations, with a comprehensive plan to invest in aboriginal and Métis education, health, and skills training. And it will put an end to Canada's shame on the international stage by signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In foreign policy, Canada will chart an independent course, not merely wait for signals from the White House. In the Middle East, the NDP will work for solutions, rather than turning Canada into a blind adherent for one side of that many-sided conflict. As for our foreign military adventures, which even Stephen Harper has by now thought better about, the NDP will return our military to peacekeeping roles and defending our sovereignty in the Arctic.

But more important than any of these specifics is vision. The NDP is only party that looks forward--not backward like the Conservatives and the Bloc, not nervously everywhere like the Liberals, and not merely with a focus on the environment, as important as that is, like the Greens.

It's not that the NDP has a completely unclouded view of what is to come--but that's to be welcomed. We have had our fill of blueprints and grand schemes over the past century. Nor, if the NDP comes to power, can we be certain that it, too, will avoid opportunistic betrayals of people and principles, as the Bob Rae government in Ontario so amply demonstrated. Rather, the NDP offers us hope--possibilities for ordinary citizens to be heard, be involved and be effective.

The NDP will modernize our electoral system so that every vote counts. It will abolish that expensive house of patronage known as the Senate. It will implement legislation to force would-be floor-crossers in the House of Commons to resign first and run in a by-election. It will look for a non-confrontational, cooperative partnership between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

The NDP will also make government more accountable--by strengthening the Access to Information Act, enforcing the abandoned provisions of the Accountability Act, and establishing rules and guidelines for ethical behaviour by government, parties and politicians.

In a time of economic crisis and a worsening democratic deficit, we do not need more of what we've had for two years--autocratic micromanaging, secrecy, attacks on independent government watchdogs, and an ideological agenda borrowed from the extremist wing of the US Republican Party. Nor do we need the "what do we do now?" approach of the Liberals, never seeking solutions on behalf of Canadians as a whole, but looking only and always for advantage and power for itself. The NDP has a more workable and effective environmental platform than the Green Party, and a more inclusive view of Canada than the insular and out-of-date Bloc Québécois.

The NDP is not all things to all people, and it does not offer either a perfect leader or perfect policies. But Jack Layton and his team can be trusted to get the big things right. In the midst of current global uncertainty we need not only strong and thoughtful leadership, but the ability to empathize with the Canadian public--and to listen. We need, in other words, a humane approach as well as a hard-headed one. Only the NDP offers both of these qualities to an alienated electorate. Tomorrow, vote not just for change, but for change that could make a difference.

Human rights on Remembrance Day

This year is the 60th anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international covenant that grew directly out of the world's experience of Nazism. It was an agreement among states that every state is responsible--obligated, in fact--to uphold the human rights of its citizenry.

Here is the Preamble, in full:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

In my naivete, I would have thought that marking the end of World War II by laying a wreath to commemorate this important anniversary was a no-brainer. Jennifer Lynch, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did so today.

But there was protest--from the Usual Suspects.

Here's Ezra Levant. Be sure to read the comments from his braying acolytes. And here's Jay Currie, twice. Read the comments there as well.

The mask appears to have slipped a little too far this time. In fairness, Levant himself has never concealed the fact that he want to abolish Human Rights Commissions outright. The extremist Canadian Coalition for Democracies, of which newly minted Conservative MP Peter Kent is an executive member, echoes this. So does "free speech" advocate Paul Fromm, a prominent Canadian fascist who is a "sustaining member" of the white supremacist Stormfront website, and Marc Lemire, past head of the neo-Nazi Heritage Front.

Most of the other Speech Warriors, however, have presented their fight in narrower terms: they have claimed that their problem is specifically the language and the enforcement of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and similar sections of provincial and territorial human rights legislation--the hate speech provisions. They have raised at times heart-rending arguments on behalf of assorted homophobes and neo-Nazis, all based, they have declared, solely on the principle of freedom of speech. I've been prepared, albeit with some degree of scepticism, to accept the bona fides of at least a few of the Warriors in this respect.

But a somewhat wider agenda has now come into view. What is at stake here is human rights, period. The very notion that the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission should lay a wreath in the name of the human rights that the Allies fought and died for--Nazism standing for the absolute negation of those rights--has got them up in arms. Disgraceful, they whine. It's political, they hiss. But both of these adjectives, it seems to me, far more appropriately belong to them.

My father was a young lieutenant during WWII, heading up the 1st Canadian Calibration Troop. He was at the Falaise Gap, taking refuge in a quarry with several hundred other soldiers as bombs rained down--from American forces, four miles off-target. He lived to tell the tale, and he went on to become a specialist in operations research with the Defence Research Board.

If he were alive to read some of this muck--whether it's the gender fascism in evidence at Dust My Broom or the shrill cacophony of opposition to laying a wreath in commemoration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--he would be appalled by it.

Indeed, he might well wonder if 1945 marked the decisive victory that he had believed it to be. "Lest we forget" is the motto that every schoolchild knows: we must remember, not only those who died in battle, but why they fought. But there are those among us for whom forgetting is not only an option, but a priority. Using the excuse of "free speech," they stand against everything my father and his comrades fought for. On this national day of remembrance--shame on them.

That liberal CBC

Guest editorial from Rick Salutin:

Consider the CBC, where David’s late mother reigned, and which Harperites accuse of being left and Liberal. Should leftists defend the CBC? Hell, no, they should attack it – for being so far to the right.

Look at CBC’s prestige political panel: two of three members are Andrew Coyne, of hard-right Maclean’s, and Allan Gregg, who polls for Preston Manning to show how right-wing Canada now is. Its chief pundit is Rex Murphy, now also at the National Post.

Take former journalists in the Harper government, like minister Peter Kent and senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin – they all had serious CBC careers. Is CBC training right-wing media agents? The case is at least as strong as the Pakistani Taliban being behind the Times Square bomber.

The only Liberal media senator is Jim Munson, who came from CTV! CTV is now where I go for left-wing analysis. CBC management is so daft they may believe they are left because Harperites say so, prompting them to add even more conservative stuff, as they drift ever further to the right, at some point passing David Frum, still standing still, like ships in the ideological night.

Indeed, so eager is the CBC brass to please its overlords that it skirted hiring rules to bring the loathesome Kory Teneycke on board.

The CBC left-wing? Compared to what? Time to throw a brick through the Overton Window.

UPDATE: Reader Les Miller invites us to share the paranoia.

Marooned off-white Canadians: next!

That would be Abdihakim Mohamed. Check out today's audio clip from CBC's The Current.

He's been marooned in Kenya for three years--thanks to that same Canadian High Commission in Nairobi that's been in the news recently. Yup, Mohamed's an "impostor," too. Passport photo. You know the routine.

But now, by no coincidence, bloodied officials have decided that maybe he is who he is. Since the first CBC clip on Mohamed aired a few weeks ago, they have approached Mohamed's mother, Anab Issa Mohammed. Her Ottawa lawyer, Jean Lash, sounds optimistic. Wheels seem to be moving.

Earlier on, it was quite a different story. Abdihakim Mohamed had offered up his DNA, just like Suaad Hagi Muhamed, but no one seemed very interested. Instead, Passport Canada officials, with casual bureaucratic brutality, asked his frantic mother to tell them who he really was.

The CBC's request for interviews was refused by Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, his Parliamentary Secretary Deepak Obhrai and Peter Kent, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs. The usual lordly arrogance we have come to expect of Harper's ministers? Quite possibly, but more likely at this point it's simply a case of avoiding the public view. To be fair, if I were those people at the moment I'd be scrambling for cover as well.

Mohamed, too, like Suaad Hagi Mohamud and Abousfian Abdelrazik, has had the benefit of media advocacy. But, as I've asked before, how many more exiles out there have not?