The old PC hands must be watching in horror. The CPC is really just a few years behind the Republicans, it's only a matter of time before the rot takes over the entire party.
I don't actually have a beer hall but am bald and will be raising a Stella or three to the end of s.13.
Justice Minister Rob Nicolson voted in favour of the resolution.
Feet will be held to the fire and, with a little luck, the overbroad, no defence possible, s. 13 will be off the books.
With it, with a bit more luck, will go the people who created a cowboy culture with no rules.
The Free Speech Resolution is a huge step forward in the destruction of a clandestine and out of control branch of government whose abuse of process was far worse than the loony ravings of the dimwits it prosecuted.
The Jackal will howl, Lucy will moan, BCL will burn his bearings with the spin; but in the end all Canadians will be better off without government regulation of speech.
(And thank you for the rest of this reporting Dawg. It is good to read a bit of counter spin out of what is, by definition, a highly partisan event.)
I'm sorry I didn't say goodbye to you properly. I went to say by to Steve and after I had, I turned around and you were gone. It was good meeting with you and chatting, I hope you had a good weekend, and that we'll run into each other soon. Maybe you'll make the trip down to Vancouver for the Liberal Convention.
Dude, that is the best picture of Cthulhu I've seen in awhile. But I always thought he was on our side.
Danielle,
No apology necessary. I was great meeting you too, and I do hope we bump into each other again. Great blogging, btw.
I figured Jay would be in ecstasy over the calling for the repeal of Section 13. You're in good (bad) company Jay, when Neo-Nazi's are being urged to write in to Conservative MP's to urge supporting it. You must be very proud of the company you keep.
I'll bet Harper doesn't touch that resolution with a 10 foot pole however.
Scott, of course I'm pleased. I am not at all thrilled with each and every supporter the Free Speech resolution attracted; but I am delighted that it attracted the support of at least 90% of the delegates to the CPC policy convention.
The whole neo-Nazi smear is getting rather tired don't you think Scott. Defending people's right to free speech does not mean you are defending what they say. I realize that this is the Jackal's favorite lame trope and is therefore echoed by way of knee jerk response. But it would be more interesting to engage in the actual debate rather than the smear.
Jay, the only people who have gotten in trouble are nazi's, homophobic preachers and other associated scum.
That's it.
No one else.
The optics suck and you lot provided the paint and the brush, please don't be all surprised when some of us pick it up and splatter the paint about the place.
Jay,
Free speech is a great thing to have except when it is used to incite hatred, particularly violent hatred.
Violent hatred is what keeps terrorism alive. Jay, where do you draw the line?
Speech which "encourages/demands" acts of violence, should be restricted at the very least. Similarly speech dismissing acts of violence as exceptable is similarly wrong.
Do you agree?
Cameron, which is to ignore Catholic Insight, Steyn and Levant. What you wanted to say is that the only people "convicted" were "nazi's, homophobic preachers and other associated scum". however, just being required to respond to a complaint about something you have written or said creates a significant burden. It also has a profoundly chilling effect.
tdwebsite, we have Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code to deal with incitement. And they have the benefit of requiring a full trial an proof beyond a reasonable doubt with actual rules of evidence. All of which strikes me as appropriate when you propose to deny a person a constitutionally protected right.
Hey, I'm just stating those guys are the biggest supporters of this resolution, because they;d benefit the most from a repeal of S 13, but if you want to make it more relevant to you, the other big supporters of this resolution are far right-wing sites like Free Dominion, Small Dead Animals, and Kathy Shaidle, who don't like the fact they might not be able to smear their favourite target of the month (First Nations being the most common, followed by whatever other visible minority has enraged them over some slight to their views on what it means to be Canadian) without some legal repercussions for their smears.
It's no shock most of the right-wing blogs support this resolution; because a fair # of them engage in the smearing. In my opinion, it has less to do with them opposing "government big brother pounding down on us all and crushing free speech" then it does with them not liking the fact they have to watch how they couch their smears and cant say their vile comments more openly.
This whole business of demonizing people who oppose s. 13 is pretty disturbing and hypocritical. Sure. Support the retention of s. 13 but tying opponents to neo-nazis?
'Left wingers' have been the ones on the forefront of resistance to various illiberal policies like security certificates, military tribunals etc. and they should be praised for that. They have rightly taken the position that 'no matter how rotten someone is they are entitled to the same protections that a liberal society affords just like anyone else'. Presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, proof of intent, etc. are not quaint concepts that can be lightly tossed aside.
Yet the SAME PEOPLE who get all worked up when someone proposes eliminating these protections for accused terrorists switch course when someone is concerned about the lack of procedural protections available for alleged hate mongerers!
Every time someone takes a stand against illiberal policies aimed at combating terrorism some right wing bonehead accuses you of of 'pallin around with terrorists' and being a 'terrorist sympathizer'. How are you any better when you associate opponents of s. 13 with neo-nazis? Short answer: You're not.
Im sorry. I find some of the commentary on minorities that emerges from certain blogging tories, etc. to be vile and disgusting. But the proper place to deal with it is in the criminal courts with due process! Hate is a criminal matter, not an administrative matter.
Who cares if neo-nazis are supporting this initiative? Does the fact that terrorists support repealing security certificates, military tribunals ,etc. delegitimize those causes? No it doesnt.
Jay said, "..just being required to respond to a complaint about something you have written or said creates a significant burden..."
No kidding. The thing is, as I've said repeatedly, that burden is far greater - twenty times greater -- if one is faced with a vexatious defamation complaint than with a dodgy human rights complaint. As will be confirmed by those defendants Levant sued for suggesting that he ran the Muslim cartoons for less than noble reasons.
But then defamation suits are acceptable to Jay and Ezra and Rex Murphy, who uniformly insist that the future of democracy hangs on the question of whether or not bigots, nazis and other race warriors can attack groups of people without consequence and not on whether our Prime Minister should be able to pursue a defamation action against his political opponents.
Scott, that's a bit better.
The allegedly neo-Nazi people you cite are by no means the biggest supporters of this resolution.
People like Ezra, Mark Steyn, Kate, Kathy, me, Nick Packwood, daily bayonet and so on have far more readers than the silly white guys in basements ever have had or will have. And we have been on this for over a year.
But here is the philosophical point - if I decide to write a post on the relative crime rates of First Nations and non-First Nations people in say Saskatchewan is that a smear? What if I write it as an illustration of the failure of the paternalistic practices of the Department of Indian Affairs? Or if I write it as an illustration of cultural failure? Smear?
Pointing out that one group in society has a greater rate of criminal activity than another could, arguably, be likely to cause hatred of that group. Which, if it was posted online, could be the subject of a complaint under s. 13.
Note, as the law stands it does not matter why I publish something, if that something is true or if I am quoting someone else. All are potentially hate speech under s.13
Which is why this section must be repealed. It is so badly drafted that it is impossible to predict what speech may fall under it and impossible to defend a particular utterance by pointing to context or truth.
That makes it bad law. It is bad law when applied to basement dwelling losers or to magazines which publish the news or to magazine columnists who publish quotations from imams.
Worse, once the complaint is filed a respondent can be subjected to warrantless search and seizure, investigation using illegal or unethical methods and the need to produce a defence where no defence is possible.
And should it go before a Tribunal there are very few rules of procedure which are actually followed, the rules of evidence are routinely ignored, the right of the respondent to cross exam witness is reduced or restricted, document production is routinely denied or delayed and, every once in a while just for fun, the Commission cowboys just flat out refuse to answer questions they are asked under cross examination. That is when they are not trying to invoke Canada Evidence Act public interest immunity which is generally reserved for CSIS and undercover cops.
S. 13 is vague, over broad and administered corruptly. It must go and the hate speech unit of the CHRC with it.
For real hate speech we have the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code - we do not need this kangaroo court.
It seems we agree on Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code which deal with criminal incitement.
Perhaps better titled slander against a group.
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: Hate Provisions was used to stop the Manitoba Knights of the Klu Klux Klan from playing recorded hate messages attacking Jews, recent immigrants and others.
Some believe the message that Jews are subhuman, really just pigs and monkeys. Some up hold that Ayans are a superior race.
Do these message incite violent hate? Yes, but it is harder to draw the direct connection between the hate and acts of violence. Because these messages may lack words of direct incitement.
If you believe slander is an offence against an individual.
You must also believe slander is an office against a group.
Jay is, as usual, being disingenuous as to the range of speech captured by s.13 and its equivalents. The law is clear that "hate" and "contempt" are extremes of expression, forms of expression that suggest that the groups targetted lack any redeeming value. While it may be possible to file a complaint about less severe forms of speech -- just as it is possible to file a vexatious libel suit or bring an unfounded criminal complaint -- no tribunal has - or will - find a breach of the act for anything like Jay suggests.
As for the rest of the nonsense, it's the same ill-informed nonsense that the rest of the speechers have been spouting for the last year. And constant repetition of the same lies and misinformation hasn't made any of it more accurate.
Is section 13 being miss applied to cases where hateful slander is not involved?
But slander against a group, "person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination", is a serious slander offence.
tw, after Taylor (which the CHRC has recently found to be rather useful) we have some assurance that the Tribunal will not find a breach of the Act absent proof of hatred or contempt. However, even after Taylor if I were to post a comparison between First Nations' and non-first nations' crime rates in Saskachewan I could well be accused of publishing material likely to cause hatred or contempt. What would my defences be? Well, none. Truth does not count. Context does not count. Intention does not count.
(But it does help if you have a sufficiently big profile so as to be a bit indigestible.)
tdwebsite, defamation in general is about an individual's good reputation. It is unclear to me how a group can have a reputation. (Let's face it, there are good WASPs and bad WASPs, smart women and dumb women, honest gays and dishonest gays.)
Jay
being a bit disingenuous there.
The law has long recognised that companies can be treated as a legal entity, thus releasing individuals from their responsibilities. If a company has a legal identity then a group can have a legal identity and tra laa companies can sue to protect their good name and reputation.
Sooo yes groups have a reputation and frequently go to court to protect it.
Let's be honest here most righties think that being able to protect yourself against smears is the sole privilege of the rich. They just hate it when somebody tries to allow the rest of us some means to defend ourselves.
Also Dawg, I'm a bald headed dude who drinks in beer halls, but I'm also an immigrant who is a liberal so I guess I'm the target of everybody's disdain.
Jay unless you conform to the lefty way of thinking you are subversive and must be assimilated. No dissension is allowed.
The most intolerant people are found on the left. Tribe and BCL are actually NDP stalinists, its obvious by their rhetoric.
Just live your life and have fun, party it up and fuck the leftards telling how to think...
Colin, I enjoy the challenge...It's more fun and instructive than posting at righty sites.
harebell, bald guys, drinking in beerhalls, in Canada....we're not making this up.
A corporation's legal identity makes it a legal person. It is possible for non-corporate entities - societies and the like to gain legal personhood. So there could be an Association of bald guys. That association might well have the right to sue if it was defamed. But that is different from a protected group which has no status as a legal person.
(And tw, please spare us your erudition on the finer points of incorporation and legal personhood - this is a comment not an opinion letter.)
"(Let's face it, there are good WASPs and bad WASPs, smart women and dumb women, honest gays and dishonest gays.)"
I take condolences in this comment. It is seems you do understand that "groups" can be subjected to hateful slander. 
)
.... what should be done ... when this happens is the question ...
I don't believe pretending that repeatedly published intentionally hateful slander directed at a group is acceptable.
Jay, I actually enjoyed this too.
Colin, I have found the same when talking in Tory blogs, Unless you conform to the "right" way of thinking you are subversive and must be assimilated. No dissension is allowed. )
@bigcitylib
Ahem, that is a rather robust and altogether too healthy Cthulhu for us purists who prefer the festering jellylike pussbag version. Just sayin.
Jay,
You and the speechers seem to have missed the difference between being accused of something and being found liable for something. Having persuaded yourselves that the "process in the punishment" - a glib phrase which could apply to all legal proceedings -- you argue that it is better that a thousand guilty men go free rather than a single innocent person face annoying questions or a complaint.
The folks you and yours have held out as free speech marytrs - Pankiw, Steyn, Levant - have suffered the great injustice of being asked a few questions during investigations of complaints filed against them. If those complaints have gone to hearing, it is because, in the case of Steyn and the BCHRT, the respondents lawyer hasn't taken obvious steps to bring the proceeding to an end. And before you start telling about Ezra's $100,000 legal bill to respond to the AHRC investigation, let me say once again that that number is a fantasy and the Levant has ignored repeatedly calls to prove his ridiculous claim.
Your suggestion that libel law only protects individuals, because "only individual can have a reputation" flies in the face of history. Groups can and do have reputations and the individual members of those groups experience the consequences of changes to those reputations daily. While we have not amended the law of libel and slander through legislation to account for that reality - as we surely could - we have recognized that certain extreme forms of expressions have severe enough consequences that members of those groups should have some recourse against those who would defame them. Hence s. 13.
This remedy is not as extensive as that available to a plaintiff in a defamation action, nor does it carry with it the presumptions that favour the plaintiff in such actions. But to you and yours, it is a step too far if it means folks can't smear muslims, indians and fags to their hearts content.
Meanwhile, our Prime Minister is suing the leading opposition party for defamation. And you folks think this is just jake.
Leftards?
Wheeee!
Colin, my Dad, my Mom (rip), my mom-in-law, my cousin, many of my friends all hold views that are far to the right of mine. I don't think any of them are Nazis. Your premice is a flawed, idiotic talking point best confined to SDA or fd.
"This whole business of demonizing people who oppose s. 13 is pretty disturbing and hypocritical. Sure. Support the retention of s. 13 but tying opponents to neo-nazis? "
This is too cute by half. KC tell me you havent read your nfriends' own blogs? The demonization by BCF, Levant, 5 feet of fury, Scaramouche, Jay, I'm sure there are many more dwarf any alleged demonization by Dawg and others.
Ezra has resorted to bullying, namecalling, hissey fits of hysteria, slander, libel,against decent people like Leo Adler of the Simon Wiesnthal Centre, Bernie Farber of the Jewish Congress, David Matas of B'nai Brith, Warren Kinsella, virtually anyone who has taken a supportive position on Section 13.
They have engaged in true demonization and its only a little odd that most of these folks are Jewish. yes yes I know Ezra is jewish too but a Jew that makes nice-nice with neo-Nazis is always suspect in my books. Hell as I recall even Meir Weinstein, head of the ultra right JDL went after Ezra on that ugly right wing blog, CCD, for his neo-Nazi associations.
Sorry folks if anyone or any group needs a reality check its Ezra and his cave-dwellers.
Sue, "demonization" of what or who...OK I admit it I have cute nicknames for a few of the players WK=Lying Jackal, Richard Warmen="Lucy", Mohammedan law students="sockpuppets", Jennifer Lynch="trout" and I occasionally characterize the more heavy handed tactics of the CHRC as Chekist; but I don't reflexively call anyone who supports the CHRC a neo-Stalinist.
For the dwindling band of CHRC supporters the "Nazi supporter" smear is virtually automatic. Which makes them look like idiots because they are effectively saying that people in PEN, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the BCCLA are Nazi supporters.
Thanks for the link to Mondragon. It's good to see progressive activists at last making the important food-politics connections, including those among ecology, economics, feminism, human liberation in general, and animal liberation.
Jay, I'm not saying you're a nazi supporter, only that you are supporting the end of a process that only effects Nazis and homophobes.
cameron, it effects anyone who puts pen to paper or pixel to screen. If someone is offended they can launch a complaint. In BC and soon Ontario there will be no screen, its off to the Tribunal with you.
To give an example which I suspect the Dawg would find objectionable at the June 17 2007 Plenary of the CJC Burny Farber reported on the years accomplishments:
"Ed Morgan, the outgoing CJC president and Bernie Farber, the CEO proudly listed their top accomplishments:
- Trying to make criticism of Israel or Zionism illegal as a hate crime"
diana ralph
So when Dawg goes on one of his pro-Palestinian rants he might very well be committing a hate crime if Burny has his way.
This is about Free Speech - which should be everybody's fundamental right even when they say things we disagree with or find hateful.
Sue - I didnt say the s. 13 abolitionists werent demonizing anyone. In fact I cant stand Ezra and his goons. Shaidle particularly makes me sick.
But two wrongs dont make a right and Im not ideological enough to be a hypocrite. The demonization has cut both ways. As someone who sees a line where free speech must yield but supports kicking the issue of hate speech back to criminal courts I dont appreciate being associated with neo-nazis. There are lots of moderate groups and individuals who dont particularly care for the filth that Shaidle & Co. spew but have concerns about allowing an administrative tribunal to de facto convict a person for hate speech a low evidentiary standard, and relaxed rules of evidence.
Wow quite a disingenuous post. You talk about how intolerant and 'homophobic' it all was and completely fail to mention the launching of Fred Litwin's gay conservative group "Gay Dominion" of which you are fully aware. I can see why you are opposed to truth being a defense. You never use it.
James:
Perhaps you should take a look at my post of a few days ago. I'm fed up, quite frankly, with trolls peeing on my carpet, and I don't propose to tolerate them at my place any longer.
I asked Fred how many were in his group. He told me, IIRC, that he'd had one enquiry up to that point. I've written him to clarify: I'll be mentioning Gay Dominion, in any case, when I draft my final piece. But for now: I described events precisely as they unfolded. If gay folks can find warmth and solace in that crowd, more power to them, I say. I'm sure there are people who stand next to Harper for warmth, too.
In the meantime, mind your manners or you're out of here.
No worries John I'll take the initiative and be out of here. As expected, diversity of opinion not the kind of diversity you prefer.
Oh for gods sake, he runs down what he saw, you call him a liar ( rudely) and then when he tells you he's going to cover the subject you want him to talk about but asks you to be polite what do you do?
You whine about "diversity of opinion". What opinion? You called him a liar. Was that your opinion?
This from Jay:
"cameron, it effects anyone who puts pen to paper or pixel to screen. If someone is offended they can launch a complaint. In BC and soon Ontario there will be no screen, its off to the Tribunal with you.
To give an example which I suspect the Dawg would find objectionable at the June 17 2007 Plenary of the CJC Burny Farber reported on the years accomplishments:
"Ed Morgan, the outgoing CJC president and Bernie Farber, the CEO proudly listed their top accomplishments:
- Trying to make criticism of Israel or Zionism illegal as a hate crime"
diana ralph
So when Dawg goes on one of his pro-Palestinian rants he might very well be committing a hate crime if Burny has his way.
This is about Free Speech - which should be everybody's fundamental right even when they say things we disagree with or find hateful.
Jay Currie | Homepage | 11.16.08 - 8:36 pm | # "
Jay seems to get it wrong more often than naught. On his own site he claimed that Bernie Farber and Warren Kinsella demanded to be on the Michael Coren show (this Tuesday on Human Rights Commissions). That led to Coren himself responding to Jay that this was a complete fabrication (its all there on Currie's site to see).
Now we have jay quoting "sources" that Ed Morgan and Bernie Farber claimed at last year's CJC Plenary that they wanted to "make criticism of Israel or Zionism illegal as a hate crime".
I have no idea who diane Ralph (the women whose article Currie quotes)is but I can tell you that not a word of it is true. It is sheer lunacy. I was at the Plenary and no such comments were ever made either by Farber or Morgan.
Jay seems to have taken his debating lessons from people like Ezra and Shaidle, if you don't have the facts well simply make them up. Or go find someone else who has made them up and without fact checking quote it as true. Clever but devious and frankly reprehensible.
Cameron: Dawg runs down what he saw.
You know, like Conservatives eating babies.
So much for the civility Dawg claims to savor.
Discussion here is as brutally partisan and superficial as the worst of the right-side blogs so frequently criticized. Boiled down to its essence, this site is a propaganda organ for the NDP. Demonize the right; demonize the right at all costs.
A while back, Dawg said: "People can be as snarky and smart-ass here as they wish, just so long as they moderate their language and debate in good faith." (I believe he was targeting Ti-Guy types who limit their input to vicious ad hominems.)
James reminded this echo-chamber's denizens that the blanket claim of CPC members being homophobic might not match all of the facts available. (He could have added that condemning all CPC members based on the possible faults of a few is the very definition of "discrimination".)
James' reward? Being labelled a troll. Very hard to deny the conclusion that disagreement with Dawg and his acolytes makes one a troll.
Given that (for example) Jay Currie spends almost as much time here as at his own place, and Mark Collins is a frequent visitor, and the boyz at Right or Wrong Radio have had free reign here, etc., etc., the claim that this place is an "echo-chamber" is patent nonsense.
But we all know what a troll is, and James fits the mold.
I expect people here to debate in good faith. Lying about what I've actually posted ("the blanket claim of CPC members being homophobic") is not a good way to begin. Just saying.
Sue:
I found it hard to believe that Bernie Farber and Ed Morgan would have been quite so...bald, about things. I haven't had a chance to track down the reporter in question, but that sounded a little off, even to this "pro-Palestinian ranter."
"no tribunal has - or will - find a breach of the act for anything like Jay suggests."
Who pays for their defense?
I would much rather have my day in court.
Why did you not report the fact that the speaker who was in favour of the "melting pot" was an ethnic minority?
Dawg, I think you and I may differ on the manner in which we deal with Middle East issues but trust me on this one; in fact I have heard Farber state quite publically that criticism of Israeli policy is something to be supported and properly discussed. I suppose like me he draws the line at those who would wish to dismantle the Jewish state (but alas we have discussed this here all too often).
All this only to remind your readers of my original point, that being the tactics used by the right wing bloggers of bending, twisting and yes even ignoring the truth. It is far easier to make up your own facts. When caught, as was Jay Currie by no one less than Coren himself, he brushes it off with a mere "thanks for the clarification". We should do a lot more confrontation every time these guys (and women) tell fibs.
Wayne:
The speaker I was referring to opposedthe melting-pot concept. I believe he was the only person to use that term. His ethnicity, it seems to me, is irrelevant in any case.
Well Sue, I shall track down Ms. Ralph - who judging from what I have found so far is not someone I would normally trust to tell me it is dark at midnight and I will get back to you.
I would have said hello, if I had seen you Dr Dawg.
OK, Sue I have done a bit of checking and a) found this Ralph's account of the CJC meeting posted in a number of lefty sort of sites on the net, b) found no material other than your assertion, which suggests Ralph got her facts wrong.
Perhaps you have minutes of the meeting Sue or could point me to a lawsuit filed against Ralph for just making this stuff up.
It appears that a number of Quebec members of the CJC were concerned with the by-law amendment 67 which Ralph quotes Casper Bloom, legal counsel to the Quebec Region as describing as, “Directors electing directors isn’t democratic.”
I'll keep digging.
Change Now! So civility is calling your host a liar?
Parties at your house must rock.
Roy:
I'm actually surprised that I didn't see you, although I heard you speaking a couple of times. Your mic was out of view of the media tables.
Sue, just to update, I am now in touch with Dr. Ralph's office and anticipate speaking with her over the course of the day.
"OK, Sue I have done a bit of checking and a) found this Ralph's account of the CJC meeting posted in a number of lefty sort of sites on the net, b) found no material other than your assertion, which suggests Ralph got her facts wrong.
Perhaps you have minutes of the meeting Sue or could point me to a lawsuit filed against Ralph for just making this stuff up.
It appears that a number of Quebec members of the CJC were concerned with the by-law amendment 67 which Ralph quotes Casper Bloom, legal counsel to the Quebec Region as describing as, “Directors electing directors isn’t democratic.”
I'll keep digging."
Speaking to her is meaningless in my books. The only time Farber spoke was at the AGM. Those minutes were available at the last AGM in June. I read them (I am a member in good standing of CJC) and I can tell you no such statement appears since it never happened.
CJC is not in the habit of suing people for better or worse. Look at the libel it puts up with regarding Ezra. Ralph is seen as small potatoes and anyone who knows Farber (as you noted yourself) has to know he isn't stupid enough to claim that he is trying to get criticsm of Zionism and Israel covered under our hate laws. This is a lie I tell you.
Dawg why don't you just call Farber yourself at the CJC and ask him? Or email him.
As for the the other matters pertaining to Bylaw 67 contrary again to what Ralph wrote Bylaw 67 was shared with all members of CJC prior to being discussed at the Plenary. I received it as did every other member. Again another lie. In fact as I recall Ralph had this originally published in a lefty Jewish magazine out of Vancouver called Outlook. CJC responded to it and debunked a whole bunch of Ralph's claims. See if you can find it. If I can I will post it here as well.
Well Sue, I would be interested in seeing the minutes (although minutes have been known to reflect the "sense" of a meeting rather than all that was said.) And a rebuttal would be interesting as well.
Dr. Ralph has not called back as yet. If I don't hear from her today I'll try her again tomorrow.
I have to say I find it unlikely that if Ralph was just making this stuff up she would be as specific as she was. "Although CJC staff guarded the floor microphones to prevent ACJC delegates from speaking, Abe Weizfeld, the Administrative Secretary of ACJC, tried to shout out his objections to the legality of the vote. Bernie Farber, himself and two other CJC staff rushed off the stage to silence him and threatened to expel him from the room." It would take a good deal of chutzpah to fabricate this from whole cloth.
But I'll see what Ralph says and try to check with Casper Bloom and Manny Shacter. As for Farber...well he's a pal of the Lying Jackal's so I fear his version of events - any events - is just a tiny bit tainted. If Dawg wants to call him, hey, it's his blog.
Dawg and Jay:
I can verify what Sue posted. I too (along with about 700 others) was at the plenary in question so let me deal with some of the crap in this Ralph piece.
1. I know Abie quite well and I also know the rules of the plenary which were distributed and vocalized. Observers (like Abie) were not permitted a voice. Only plenary delegates (about 600 people) were permitted to ask questions. However Abie was permitted by the Chair to ask his question. But Abie being what Abie is he refused to relinquish the floor and became somewhat verbally, shall we say persistent. He was asked on numerous occasions to sit down. He didn't. Farber warned him (quite rightly in my view since he was being belligerent) to sit down or be escorted from the premises. Funny how Ms. Ralph left that part out. Oh BTW did you know that Abie Wiesfeld was kicked out of ACJC?
2. Neither Farber nor Morgan EVER suggested that they wanted to try and make critics of Israel or Zionism face hate crime charges. This can only come from the fertile mind of someone who has an axe to grind. Farber is one of Canada's leading experts on hate crime and the law. There is just no way he would ever say such a stupid and ignorant thing. Professor Ed Morgan is one of Canada's most eminent constitutional experts do you think he would countenance such crap or say it himself in front of 700 people including the media? Get real Jay.
3. Just to show you how off-base Ralph was here is another doozy she wrote in this piece. She claimed that an anti divestment motion passed at the annual meeting of the United Church of Canada "largely because many Jews supported it."
Now isn't that a hoot? For starters delegates to the United Church convention weren't Jewish. Yes I know that's hard to believe they were in fact Christian, big surprise there. I guess the same way it would be a big surprise to figure that delegates to the CJC plenary were Jews. Interestingly enough the motion passed because United Church delegates supported it. Like at the CJC plenary non-delegates could attend the convention only as observers. They couldn't even mingle on the floor with the delegates (unlike the CJC plenary) and were prevented from both speaking to motions and voting.
There is much more factual nonsense in Ralph’s piece and some of my response I borrowed from the letter that Sue mentioned appeared in Outlook to which I have a subscription. If I can find someone to scan it I will try to post it here.
Btw there were hundreds at this plenary hopefully others who were there could speak up as well. I will ask a few others I know to do so though they aren’t terribly computer literate.
All in all, Ralph just had it wrong. She has her own agenda Jay (one I would think you would vehemently oppose) and Dawg you are smart enough to understand that Farber and Morgan just are not idiots. That's it believe whatever you want but the truth has been expressed here by at least two who were there.
I find it hard to believe that Morgan and Farber would say such a thing--it does sound "translated" to me. I might have my suspicions about what they might prefer to see in their ideal world, but this story is "out there."
It occurs to me that some of the stuff floating around about the CJC and BB--and I'm no fan of either--would be considered frankly anti-Semitic if uttered by someone other than Ezra Levant. But that raises, once again, the issue of whether a Jew can be anti-Semitic, and I'm coming down with a cold.
Dawg, its been "out there" for a while and most people who know anything about CJC have simply discounted it. No mainstream media has picked it up. I haven't seen it other than, interestingly enough, either on the kooky knuckle-dragger blogsites like Blazingcatfur (oy) or on hard left sites. It always amazes even amuses me that these two diametrically opposed societal groups would find common cause in believing a story like this.
Mordechai, hate, even more than politics, makes for strange bed fellows.
Mordechai, I very much appreciate your comments (and yes, indeed, my checking suggests Dr. Ralph is exactly the sorrt of person who I deeply distrust.)
Here's the problem: Ralph's version has been out for a year. Before I referred to it I looked around pretty hard to find a refutation or at least material which illuminated the plenary. Could not find any. Which is not the same as saying it does not exist.
Your remarks are very helpful in the regard; but what would be more useful still are the minutes of the meeting and any refutations of Ralph you can root out.
You see Mordechai, the statement you make about Ralph somehow thinking that Jews were in attendance at the United Church meeting is just a spin too far for your credibility. Ralph didn't say Jews voted on the divesment motion, she wrote
"- Opposing the United Church’s divestment motion (They didn’t mention that the motion actually passed, largely because many Jews supported it.)"
Not quite the same thing.
Did Ralph just make stuff up? I have a call into her and will ask her just that. But I would be very interested in hearing Casper Bloom and Manny Shacter on what occurred at the meeting. They were contrary the motion, apparently, but are not at all in Ralph's camp.
Cameron, it is really annoying to have people popping up and accusing people who, in good faith, support free speech, of hating. Some supporters of free speech on some topics are certainly less than nice; but that is the nature of free speech. It is not always nice. That does not make it hateful or the people who support free speech haters.
Jay wrote, "- Opposing the United Church’s divestment motion (They didn’t mention that the motion actually passed, largely because many Jews supported it.)"
Not quite the same thing.
Did Ralph just make stuff up? I have a call into her and will ask her just that. But I would be very interested in hearing Casper Bloom and Manny Shacter on what occurred at the meeting. They were contrary the motion, apparently, but are not at all in Ralph's camp."
Jay, Im not sure what it takes for you to understand so let me try one last time.
I urge you to speak with Casper Bloom and Manny Schacter. I know they were at this plenary and I know they opposed Bylaw 67. However it did pass. That said Bylaw 67 had nada to do with Ralph's ridiculous assertions. I am quite sure both Mr. Bloom and Mr. Schacter will verify the events as both Sue and I have written.
Secondly, can you tell me exactly how "Jews" influenced over 400 delegates attending the General Council of the United Church of Canada? Can you explain how these "Jews", not permitted on the floor, not permitted to question any resolutions, somehow twisted the arms of the majority of delegates to vote against divestment. You see Jay it is Ralph who is creating these images of Jews influencing Christians but offers no proof and you just buy into it. Either you are totally ignorant or you want to believe it’s true. Neither bodes well.
As for the minutes, they are not mine to post. They are the minutes of an organization. All I can tell you is that there is no mention of Ralph's allegations.
In relation to why CJC didn't respond to Ralph well I haven't a clue. Perhaps since other than Outlook Magazine it never got published in hard copy anywhere other than the blogosphere and then only within edgy left circles,CJC just chose to ignore it. There was a response once it appeared in Outlook but that doesn't appease you (I'm beginning to wonder here Jay), not sure what will.
By the way interestingly enough if you go onto the CJC website you will find that both the Canadian Jewish News and the Ottawa Citizen were present at the same plenary as was Ms. Ralph. Reports were written about the Bylaw 67 issue but not a word on Ralph's allegations. Surely had people like Morgan and Farber actually made those statements I'd say reporters would have noticed.
Jay, why don't you also call Farber or are you afraid of the truth?
Jay is being very quiet. Not surprising but what about you good Doctor? Has Ms. Ralph called you back? Did she insist that Farber and Morgan made those dumb comments?
I think we should put this to rest and let readers know that Ralph was not being truthful.
Sue:
I didn't call Ralph--Jay has, I believe, a call in to her.
Sue and Mordechai:
Perhaps you might want to venture over to my post on Gaza to see what someone called "Emile" has to say. Seems I'm an anti-Semite.
I will but I too would like to get some closure here first.
No luck with Ralph today. I'll give her another shot tomorrow.
just so we are clear, Mordechai, my reading of the United Church thing is that the Church apparently passed the resolution because they believed - rightly or wrongly - that some (not all) Jews supported it. Which would square up with Ralph's lefty views on Israel. (Which as you know or should know, I do not, to put it mildly, share.)
And to be clearer, I'm not sure what you hope to get from Ralph. Why are you afraid to call Bernie Farber? In my books if he refuses to call you back then your point about Ralph's ridiculous claim holds more water. All Ralph will do is stand by her statement. Big deal.
Hey Jay, still no luck huh? And still in fear of calling Farber. Let me make it easy for you, here is the phone number of the CJC, 416-635-2883. Let us know what he says.
Dr. Dawg what about you. As I recall you too repeated Ms. Ralphs allegations against Farber and Morgan. Have you verified any of this with Farber?
As I recall you too repeated Ms. Ralphs allegations against Farber and Morgan.
I did? I must be having a senior's moment. Can you show me where I did this?
mordechai, just off the phone with Farber. No return call from Ralph. I'll be writing it up over at my place tomorrow whether she calls or not.
Well, shoot, Jay, don't keep us in suspense here!
I really do think Ralph should have a shot before I write it up.
No word from Ralph...this posted to my site a moment ago:
--------
A few days ago I posted a comment to Dawg's blog which written by a woman named Diana Ralph. The document can be found here. Sue, then Gus then Mordechai told me the claims in the document, particularily the claim that
"Ed Morgan, the outgoing CJC president and Bernie Farber, the CEO proudly listed their top accomplishments:
- Trying to make criticism of Israel or Zionism illegal as a hate crime"
were not true.
I called Ms. Ralph, twice. Each time leaving a message with my number. She has not called back.
I also called Bernie Farber.
We had a great chat. In the course of which he flatly denied ever having said such a thing. And he pointed out that the meeting was open to the press and that the Ottawa Citizen was represented.
Rightly, I believe, he stated, "It would be crazy for me to say such a thing".
I believe him. And I believe not just because it would have been crazy but also because the CJC has been very clear about its view that criticism of Israeli policy was fair ball and that the only issue for the CJC was when people denied the right of a Jewish state to exist.
I made a stupid mistake. The mistake was in believing the writing of a woman whose views, as I dug more deeply, are profoundly anti-Zionist and brutally anti-Israel. This is exactly the sort of "progressive" person who, in virtually any other circumstance, I would distrust to my bones.
And here is my real error: I cited her writing because it fit my own narrative in the particular thread I was arguing. I let my desire to make a point cloud my inherent skepticism about "progressives" writing about Israel. I was simply unwilling to believe that anyone would "just make stuff up" about a public meeting attended by several hundred people.
And I was wrong.
I want to apologize to Bernie Farber and Professor Ed Morgan for taking Diana Ralph's written word for it. I should have checked and I didn't.
I am cross posting this to the Dawg so the people there receive the same apology.
Now, if Ms. Ralph has something to say, she has my number.
I doubt she will.
WOW!!! Jay this is one of the most cogent pieces you have ever written. I think it should act as a cautionary tale when dealing with allegations from a second or third party.
Good for you for speaking with Farber. People are asking, did he bite your head off? Was he pleasnat or was he the monster that Ezra and BCF paint him? Is he approachable...come on give us all the sordid details
Sue, sordid details - puppy in blender sorts of lurid tales - are over at my place.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
