What happened to the CJC?

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

I am sorry. The position of the Canadian government is that Galloway IS a terrorist, as evidenced that he handed an Hamas official 48,000 dollars. This assertion is patently absurd. Its an obvious abuse of the legal premise, and such tendentious abuses of legality are entirely in the nature of the rule of the NSDAP.

Galloway is a terrorist Eliezer? You agree with this? Even better, the basis of this complaint comes from a person who we both know is a former associate of a terrorist organization. As a Canadian, and as a democrat you are going to mince words about the"technical legality" of this decision and Farber's support for it?

And Farber's hypocrisy and betrayal of principle is entirely in keeping with the thread about "what happened to the CJC" not only because he is the Executive Director of the organization, but because he has largely been the prime mover in turning it into what it is today: a moral farce.

johnpauljones

Who knew one man was so very powerful. I am in awe of the power and ifluence of the man the myth the legend known as farber.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, think about it this way JPJ. The democrat in Farber new what to say right off the bat, and his first stated opinion was right on the money, regardless of what Farber thinks of Galloway and his "friends". And then he "changed his mind" and allowed ideology to pervert principles, as we now see. And that is truly sad.

Jaku

1. Cueball, I have tried to find an example of where the Canadian government has called Galloway a "terrorist" and have been unable to find any. Please point me in the right direction. Thanks

2. I read Mr. Farber's article in the National Post

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/20/bernie-m-farber-a-friend-of-terrorism-is-coming-to-canada.aspx

To me it seemed pretty clear "George Galloway has every right to speak here in Canada, no matter how offensive most Canadians would find his views and actions. But he does not have the right to raise funds for terrorist causes while on our shores. He does not have the right to promote terrorism or incite hatred."

This op-ed came out before the government made its decision on Galloway and Farber it seems was hedging his bets. He did write that he didn't have the right to promote terrorism and that is why he was kept out of Canada. In a way Farber was rather spot on in his knowledge and assesment of Galloway.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Its in the court documents. Go look. At the injunction hearing the Justice even asked the lawyer from the government if he could produce any evidence that Galloway is a terrorist. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Here is the letter from immigration, specifically outlining the terms of section 34 of the immigration act:

Original Letter

You guys are really stepping in some deep legal doggy doo doo here by supporting this allegation.

Jaku

Cueball, this letter only reiterates what section 34 states. Nowhere do I read Mr. Orr referring to Galloway as a terrorist. Im sorry but you are stretching yourself out of all proportion here.

Secondly I am not supporting any allegation of him being a terrorist and I don't think Mr. Farber is either. I have Googled this till I'm blue in the face and cannot find even one instance where Mr. Farber calls Galloway a "terrorist". He certainly refers to the Canadian government's law and points out quite correctly as Eliezer has made clear that Galloway has provided cash to Hamas a recognized terrorist group in Canada and many other places.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The reason that section 34 is included with the letter is because section 34 is the portion of the act that Mr. Orr is reffering too as a basis of rejecting Mr. Galloway. Orr is asserting in his letter that giving cash to Hamas is evidence that section 34 is pertinent.

If Orr does not think that giving this money to Hamas does not qualify under section 34, section 34 would not be reffered to. Orr refers to no other part of the act. Section 34 is the precise part of the act referred to here, and by the government lawyer at the injunction hearing, which I attended. The same hearing where Justice Martinieau asked the lawyer for immigration: "is there any evidence that you can present to me that shows that Mr. Galloway, is a terrorist."

This is a pile of shit. It stinks. In law and in libel one must be very careful about the implication of things.

Cueball Cueball's picture

No. Immigration called Mr. Galloway a terrorist, otherwise section 34 would not apply, and there would be no basis for not admitting him.

Jaku

So you agree that no government official or Mr. Farber ever called Galloway a terrorist. As for anything else Im not sure why you are evn arguing. Our anti-terrorist law has delegated Hamas a terrorist group. Farber truthfully claims that Galloway is giving money to Hamas. You and Galloway may want to believe that Hamas is the duly elected government in Gaza, that's fine but until Canada removes Hamas from the terrorist list it remains exactly what it is...a terrorist group. It is then not libelous for Farber or anyone else of which there are many (and just check the blogosphere including MSM newspaper blogs)to truthfully claim that Galloway gives cash to a terrorist group. Truth in this country is a clear defence as is fair comment. Both rule here.

Here is an interesting interview with Terry Glavin on this very issue. I know some here do not like Mr. Glavin or his views but on this matter he seems to explain it very well.

http://emedia.am770chqr.com/podcasts/worldtonightreduxmar31.mp3 

Jaku

 

Cueball, its a letter outlining Section 34 which has broad interpretations. Since Galloway never attempted to come into Canada we don't know what that interpretation would have been . There was no hearing. Bottom line:

"There are none so blind as those who will not see; there are none so deaf as those who will not hear"

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am glad you are getting it finally. In the first case you said the idea that Mr. Galloway was a terrorist is overblown (your word), and now you are saying that the interpretation that immigration is using to apply section 34, dealing with espionage, harm, engaging in terrorism, overthrowing a democratic state is exraordinarly broad.

So broad it is an obvious flagrant violation of the letter and the spirit of the law in order to effect a political end.

aka Mycroft

I don't see much difference these days between the CJC and the Bnai Brith. As we saw with the Galloway affair, even when they try to take a nuanced stance (Galloway bad but he should be able to speak) they are quick to ditch it and move further to the right if they see themselves being outflanked. This is not the mark of either a progressive or a principled organization.

contrarianna

Eliezer Zusken wrote:
The CJC is still far more progressive than any other mainstream Jewish organization and despite its support for Harper (and you can understand it to a degree. Harper has been good in confronting anti-Semitism)... 

This is false.
Only if you support the deception that criticism of Israel = anti Semitism can you believe that Harper has been "good in confronting anti-Semitism".

Harper has probably done more than any politician in Canadian history to increase "anti-Semitism"  by confusing what anti-Semitism means, in conjunction with his unquestioning support of Israel's actions.
He has, in effect,  expanded the ranks of "anti-Semitism" to include anyone with a conscience who publicly questions Israel's criminal policies.

Jaku

Cueball wrote:

I am glad you are getting it finally. In the first case you said the idea that Mr. Galloway was a terrorist is overblown (your word), and now you are saying that the interpretation that immigration is using to apply section 34, dealing with espionage, harm, engaging in terrorism, overthrowing a democratic state is exraordinarly broad.

So broad it is an obvious flagrant violation of the letter and the spirit of the law in order to effect a political end.

Says you. There has been no determination of this so it remains the law...whether you like it or not.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

"I do not understand why you want to argue law."

Then why do so many here insist on arguing like lawyers? Sorting out the fly-shit from the pepper, citing article 34 like a bunch of crazed evangelists quoting the Bible.

Bernie Farber and the Canadian media have defamed Galloway by labeling an act of charity as an act of terrorism.  All we hear about is the bag of money handed to the Prime Minister of Gaza!  Search the media for the full details of Viva Palestina. There are none.

Search for media stories on the crazy remarks made by Weinstein. There are none (except maybe in England and on this site).

You argue that Hamas is a terrorist organization.  But it is also the elected Government of Gaza. Search for stories that mention that. Few and far between.

Hamas is no threat to anyone anywhere in the world excepting Israel.  Yeah, we all know about the 4000 rocket propelled mortars that have been launched at Israel over the last couple of years; but compared to the 1300 killed and 5400 wounded in Gaza over 3 weeks from Operation Cast Lead a few months ago, it begs the question "what is a terrorist?" or perhaps "Why is Hamas the terorrist here."  Israel is the far bigger threat to Hamas and Gaza than the other way around. And the larger obstacle to peace (my opinion).

But these arguments miss the point.  There has been a horrible breech of trust here. Freedom of speech has been denied. An honest man with good intentions  has been demonized for what is, by and large, a humanitarian effort. We have compromised a sacred principle, freedom of speech, and justified it by arguing on grounds of "national security" and "points of law".  Our media, which has the responsibility to report a balanced story because of it's ability to shape public opinion, has utterly failed in this duty of care.

To those who argue law, who argue national security - I have this to say: I am a Canadian though I do not live there now.  I have always been proud to say I'm from Canada. We are different from you know who, and for good reasons. We can think for ourselves and the world has come to recognize this. But that is changing.

I'm not crazy about travelling but I married a traveller so I travel. The world is an amazing place. The Canadian flag on my backpack has always been a badge of honour and an advantage.

But now? To be honest, it has become a bit of an embarassment and a bit of a concern.  I certainly do not feel any safer. This turn of events is so misguided, so wrong. The stories that emerge of Canadians abroad that have been either abandoned or screwed over by their own government are frightening.

Our politicians are missing in action on this issue, and this seems to be the only place where it is still being debated.

So stop arguing like lawyers and start talking like Canadians!

Jaku

You tell us to stop arguing like lawyers and yet you make absurd claims. No one was libeled. How can Galloway have been libeled when when Canada has determined that Hamas is a terrorist group?? Farber and the Canadian media and at leeast four major bloggers have all said the same thing; Galloway by giving money to Hamas supports what Canada has labeled a terrorist group. This is not a libel but a reflection on the law of the land.

You Diogenes and others do not like the law, I get it. However the fact you don't like the law does not translate to Farber libeling Galloway. Advocate to change the damn law if you don't like it but your protestations are beginning to look very silly. We are a country of laws. Galloway and you not liking the law doesnt mean you can ignore it.

I mean if someone robbed a bank and you didnt like the fact that robbing banks was against the law people would rightly look at you askance. Moreso if you were to write that John Doe simply took some money from a bank and if anyone claims he robbed it he should be sued for libel. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

More banality.

Please lay out for me, precisely which one of the conditions stipulated in section 34 Galloway has breached, and how.

Eliezer Zusken

Cueball, I know you are much smarter than this. No one is talking about whether or not Section 34 was violated. The issue has always been one of alleged libel. The government of Canada under its anti-terrorism provisions has placed ALL of Hamas on the terrorist list. Therefore anyone, CJC, CTV, you me , we can legitimately claim that if Galloway gave cash to Hamas, by Canadian law he gave it to a terrorist group. No libel. Get it?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

George Bush is a war criminal, and personally responsible for causing the bankruptcy of the western world. But he was welcomed by the Yanqui fifth column in Calgary and carefully protected from embarrassment by his fascist friends in Ottawa.

How dare you suggest that there is any law or principle behind their actions? There is only hatred of the other, fear of discovery and their naked lust for and worship of power.

 

al-Qa'bong

aka Mycroft wrote:

 Farber has a penchant for letting his rhetoric get the better of him and I think this time it could cost him.


 

[I think not. - Michelle]

Quote:
I've noticed that since the outcry over the Lebanon operation in 2006, Farber and the CJC have moved further and further into the arms of the Conservative party. 

There used to be quite a few internet photos of Farmer palling around with Stockwell Day back in the Alliance/Reform days.

Eliezer Zusken

I would be interested in seeing those photos. Other than political advocacy I can't imagine why Farber would "pal around" with Day.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
FM, you and some of your friends are so blinded by your ideology you simply refuse to see the law. Hell you don't have to like the law ,. You can even damn well ignore it or like most anarchists pretend it doesn't even exist. That will not change the fact that Canadian law has relegated Hamas a terrorist organization. Galloway has delivered, by his own account, tens of thousands of dollars to this terrorist organization. Thus Farber has in no way stated anything about Galloway that is contrary to Canadian law. You can continue to dance your dream dance and flounder in the dark but the law is the law .

Oh, please, it is racist and supremacist ideology of Zionism that has you blinded. If Farber had said that Galloway handed over money to a democratically elected government that Canada's government has labeled "terrorist", it would have ended there. But Farber accused Galloway of sypporting terrorism and that is a lie and it is slanderous. There is a distinction. Thus, under Canada's laws, Galloway has a case of slander againts both CTV and the apologist. And I hope he takes him for all he has.

Stop trying to play to the so-called law that is politically inspired and enforced and therefore illegitimate. Under Canada's law everyone in Hamas is a criminal even the local councillor who has never seen a weapon but helps teh homeless, while men and women who murder in cold blood Palestinian women and children, and who promote their murderous culture with t-shirst, are "our allies". Fuck off.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Eliezer Zusken wrote:

Cueball, I know you are much smarter than this. No one is talking about whether or not Section 34 was violated. The issue has always been one of alleged libel. The government of Canada under its anti-terrorism provisions has placed ALL of Hamas on the terrorist list. Therefore anyone, CJC, CTV, you me , we can legitimately claim that if Galloway gave cash to Hamas, by Canadian law he gave it to a terrorist group. No libel. Get it?

Section 34 upon which the government case rests is clear. Please offer me an opinion on how any of those things discussed in Section 34 are being applied and upon what evidence, and how that evidence supports the application of section 34.

Hoodeet

Galloway made a good point in his speech:  If Gaza had been hit by a natural disaster (e.g., earthquake or tsunami), the whole world would have sent aid, no questions asked.  But we are not allowed to send reconstruction and emergency aid to Gaza residents when the damage was  done by Israel's attacks, which was worse than a natural disaster.   And, as Galloway pointed out, were those in the British aid convoy supposed to run around Gaza looking for opposition party members through whom to distribute the aid?  Hamas is the de facto governing party and it had the only effective functioning organization through which to distribute the aid.

The UN was there, but look what happened to their warehouse!

So let's tune out the pro-Zionist noise, please, whether it's coming from Mr. Zusken or Mr. Farber or Mr. Harper or Ms Livni (what is the difference, I ask?)

 

 

 

fogbrella

Jaku wrote:

You tell us to stop arguing like lawyers and yet you make absurd claims. No one was libeled. How can Galloway have been libeled when when Canada has determined that Hamas is a terrorist group??

 

man that's pure legal backwash yer playing with there

okay, here's a lawyerly comeboack: How did Canada determine "that Hamas is a terrorist group?

And does that determination also therefore seek to deny the people - who are, whether the govt of Canada likes the org or not, democratically represented by Hamas - food, medicine and the necessities of life?

 

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

"You tell us to stop arguing like lawyers and yet you make absurd claims"

Sir,

And what absurd claims have I made?

Yes, I don't like this law - Hamas is a terrorist organization because somebody says it is. It's a bit subjective don't you think? Why Hamas and not Israel? Hamas is also the elected government of Gaza. Can an elected government also be a terrorist organization? When questions like this are valid, then application of all laws must be considered. Maybe Sec. 34 (sigh, talking like a lawyer now) is an invalid law that flys in the face of other laws that will override it.

You argue that money handed to Hamas is the fait accompli but disregard the context. What options did Galloway have?

It's like charging the bus driver who hit a pedestrian to avoid going over a cliff with vehicular manslaughter. He may have saved himself and everyone on the bus, but somebody got killed.  The only twist is the bus was full of convicts and the pedestrian was the mayor. You are now calling the bus driver a self serving killer and claiming the law is the law.

Kenny first banned Galloway because of his views on Afghanistan. When he realized this would not fly, he changed the story to Galloway supporting Hamas.  It is clear that the JDL was supplying the information on which this decision was based. It is also clear that Kenny was directing this action, though he denied this with the ridiculous assertion that he has "extraordinary powers" to overide the decision of CBSA officials but choose not to.  What a crock of bullshit.

We have a lying poilitcian applying a bad law in a ham-fisted manner for purely political purposes. And we have a media that reports only one side of the story and marshalls it's writers to support this lynch mob mentality.

I am a little weary of hearing "This is NOT a Freedom of Speech issue! This is about the laws of this country, this about national security!".

I do not feel any safer because of these laws and their application. We prevent a British Member of Parliament from coming to our country to speak to a peace activist group sponsored by a christian church?

We have Canadian citizens in Guantanamo Bay, Sudan, the US, and around the world that the government does not give a damn about. If I ever happen to find myself in a situation in a foreign country and I need help from my government, I now realize that any help might be highly conditional on my point of view.

So, are any of these claims or points of view absurd?

remind remind's picture

Jaku wrote:
To me it seemed pretty clear "George Galloway has every right to speak here in Canada, no matter how offensive most Canadians would find his views and actions. But he does not have the right to raise funds for terrorist causes while on our shores. He does not have the right to promote terrorism or incite hatred."

This op-ed came out before the government made its decision on Galloway and Farber it seems was hedging his bets. He did write that he didn't have the right to promote terrorism and that is why he was kept out of Canada. In a way Farber was rather spot on in his knowledge and assesment of Galloway.

Weasel words, and nothing more. For one to believe that he was not being labelled a terrorist, one would have to believe non-terrorits raised money for terrorists orgs. FFS. Get a grip on reality and stop trying to spew nonsense. I hope Galloway sues Farber and the CTV until they have nothing.

Oh, actually there is more, Farber apparently not content to pretend he speaks on behalf of all Canadian Jews, he now apparently thinks he  has a right to speak on behalf of  "most" Canadians and you see nothing wrong with that either.

 

Jaku

I just love the way you suggest we ignore Canadian law as though its illegitimate.

remind remind's picture

red herring,  and failure to address rebuttal to the points made against your statement.

aka Mycroft

Jaku wrote:

I just love the way you suggest we ignore Canadian law as though its illegitimate.

I love the way you're misrepresenting the court's decision which was on the *injunction* motion and not on the admissiability of Galloway to Canada. In fact, the court did not rule on whether the government was correct and stated explicitly that there were "serious issues" to be adjudicated but that these could be done through the court appeal process and an emergency injunction was not required. In fact, the judge commented on the paucity of evidence produced by the government to support its case.

Jaku

I never once mentioned the injunction or the Court decision

Cueball Cueball's picture

Yes, well if you had you would have had no excuse for having no legs to stand on in this discussion. You should fix that.

Jaku

Cueball wrote:

Yes, well if you had you would have had no excuse for having no legs to stand on in this discussion. You should fix that.

This is truly a bizarre post

Cueball Cueball's picture

I'll explain:

1) Immigration has a position on not letting Galloway under section 34

2) Farber supports that position on not letting Galloway in under section 34

3) Therefore, it is pathetic to defend Farber's support of the governement position on grounds other than those that the government is applying in section 34.

4) the courts have indicated that they think the application of section 34 by the government in this case may be very dubious.

5) Trying to pretend that Farber can say that this is a proper legal application of section 34, on grounds other than those stated by the government is not a legal defence of the arguement. It is evasion, as is your support for Farber's support of its legality, as is ignoring the statements made by the court, which directly apply to the governments use of section 34 in this case, whatever other things you or Farber may be saying about Galloway are completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the court statement.

aka Mycroft

Jaku wrote:

I never once mentioned the injunction or the Court decision

Then you have no basis for your comments about how the law is to be interpreted and no explanation for why the judge agreed with Galloway's lawyers that there were "serious issues" that needed adjuidation.

Eliezer Zusken

Mycroft, the issue Jaku was discussing had nothing to do with the injunction. It had to do with Galloway's ridiculous statement that he was suing Farber for claiming that Galloway funds terrroist groups like Hamas. On that Galloway is (as usual) out to lunch. As long as Canadian law recognizes Hamas as a terrorist group (and while you don't like it the law could care less) Farber stated a fact.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
aka Mycroft wrote:
 
 Farber has a penchant for letting his rhetoric get the better of him and I think this time it could cost him.  

[I think not. - Michelle]
I didn't even mention any of his pseudonyms. Besides, he posted here for a while under his real name didn't he?

al-Qa'bong

Eliezer Zusken wrote:

 As long as Canadian law recognizes Hamas as a terrorist group (and while you don't like it the law could care less) Farber stated a fact.

 

And yet JDL terrorists have the ear of Canadian cabinet ministers.

 

 

 

Eliezer Zusken

I do not want to be put in a position of defending the JDL. I disgaree with their tactics and philosophy. Their embrace of Kahane is a disgrace.

With that, its true that the FBI has made note of the JDL as a "terrorist" threat in the USA. Last I looked Canada was still a sovereign nation. Have CSIS made a similar designation of the JDL here in Canada? Has the JDL here in Canada been listed as a terrorist group ? You see we have our own laws here and in Canada Hamas is designated as a terrorist group. The JDL has no such designation. Lobby to change these laws if you wish but to suggest they don't exist or have no force or effect because you disagree with them is just silly.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Oh. Ok so someone who is in Hamas Canada might not be a terrorist after all, even if they have the same name, and have links to, visit with, have coffee with, have the same charter, and send money too (maybe) Hamas Gaza. You mean criminality should devolve to the individuals direct culpability, and not just general association?  I agree.

I am glad you are finally seeing the point. That is precisely what is wrong with Section 34 and how it is applied in this case.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Eliezer Zusken wrote:

Mycroft, the issue Jaku was discussing had nothing to do with the injunction. It had to do with Galloway's ridiculous statement that he was suing Farber for claiming that Galloway funds terrroist groups like Hamas. On that Galloway is (as usual) out to lunch. As long as Canadian law recognizes Hamas as a terrorist group (and while you don't like it the law could care less) Farber stated a fact.

Does Canadian law recognize the government of Palestine as a terrorist group? Because there is a difference between a donation to the government for the people of Palestine, and one to a particular political party - as many here have explained many times now.

Was a donation to help the people of Quebec during the 1998 ice storm simply a donation to fund separatists?

aka Mycroft

Eliezer Zusken wrote:

I do not want to be put in a position of defending the JDL.

Eliezer (ohara?), then why are you doing it so readily?

Quote:

I disgaree with their tactics and philosophy. Their embrace of Kahane is a disgrace.

With that, its true that the FBI has made note of the JDL as a "terrorist" threat in the USA. Last I looked Canada was still a sovereign nation. Have CSIS made a similar designation of the JDL here in Canada? Has the JDL here in Canada been listed as a terrorist group ? You see we have our own laws here and in Canada Hamas is designated as a terrorist group. The JDL has no such designation. Lobby to change these laws if you wish but to suggest they don't exist or have no force or effect because you disagree with them is just silly.

JDL Canada is a "chapter" (that's the term they use) of the JDL. Check this page of the jdl.org website Indeed, the JDL Canada email address, jdlcanada@jdl.org, is part of the jdl.org domain name. And they sure sound like the same organization in this Jewish Press report. How are they separate organizations Eliezer?

I know Weinstein's standard response to people who bring up JDL terrorism is "oh, that's the American group, we have nothing to do with them". What I don't understand is why anyone would be stupid enough to believe him when he says that.

And Eliezer, if you won't acknowledge that the JDL Canada is a terrorist group will you at least ackowledge that a) they are terrorist apologists due to their attitdues towards terrorism by KACH and the JDL? b) they are a hate group?

Or does your denial extend to even excusing them this?

remind remind's picture

Excellent point aka, after all, all chapters o,f  let's take for example, the Hell Angels, are recognized by law, as being one organization.

St. Paul's Prog...

aka Mycroft wrote:
JDL Canada is a "chapter" (that's the term they use) of the JDL.
Check this page of the jdl.org website Indeed, the JDL Canada email address, jdlcanada@jdl.org, is part of the jdl.org domain name. And they sure sound like the same organization in this Jewish Press report. How are they separate organizations Eliezer?

I know Weinstein's standard response to people who bring up JDL terrorism is "oh, that's the American group, we have nothing to do with them". What I don't understand is why anyone would be stupid enough to believe him when he says that.

And Eliezer, if you won't acknowledge that the JDL Canada is a terrorist group will you at least ackowledge that a) they are terrorist apologists due to their attitdues towards terrorism by KACH and the JDL? b) they are a hate group?

I'll answer a definite yes to a) and b).  If they're not on the government's terrorist list, they should be.

St. Paul's Prog...

josh wrote:
I've noticed that since the outcry over the Lebanon operation in 2006, Farber and the CJC have moved further and further into the arms of the Conservative party.

I think you might be right.  The CJC's stance on the Tories drawing from "Jewish lists" was also shameful.  Farber used to be a progressive.  Either his views have changed, or he is essentially no longer in charge.

Eliezer Zusken

St> Paul's Progressive I agree that the JDL's embrace of Kahane puts it into the racist fringe. I however am a person of law. JDL has no designation in Canada as a terrorist group.

On Farber, he has been consistant in reflecting the Jewish mainstream. That has always been his job. I heard him speak last year in Toronto on Jewish poverty needs and if his is the approach taken by CJC its more progressive than many other social advocacy groups.

 

remind remind's picture

Eliezer Zusken wrote:
I however am a person of law.
  really? How then as a "person of the law", do you feel about the laws that Israel is breaking? Are you lobbying our government to disassociate from its "new and improved" ties with Israel, given the fact that they make all Canadians complicit in the law breaking and crimes that Israel is committing?

aka Mycroft

Eliezer Zusken wrote:

St> Paul's Progressive I agree that the JDL's embrace of Kahane puts it into the racist fringe.

And where does CJC's embrace of JDL put it? Ditto Bnai Brith.

aka Mycroft

BTW, while I know we don't out the real identities of babble posters is it ok to question whether or not a current babble poster used to post under another pseudonym? Would a moderator be able to compare the IPs for ohara and Eliezer who sound more and more alike every day?

Pages

Topic locked