Galloway sues Jason Kenney, Bernie Farber, Frank Dimant for libel
British MP Galloway says he'll sue Kenney, Jewish groups for libel
In a release Friday, George Galloway said he has given formal notice of the libel action to Kenney, Kenney's spokesman Alykhan Velshi, the Canadian Jewish Congress, CJC's chief executive Bernie Farber, CJC co-president Sylvain Abitbol and B'nai Brith Canada CEO Frank Dimant.
"I welcome robust criticism, but the comments made about me crossed the line," Galloway, an outspoken supporter of the Palestinian cause, said in a statement Friday released by his Canadian lawyer.
Comments
And curiously why is Galloway not suing the National Post and other media for carrying the alleged libels? One of the alleged libels was actually in an op-ed editorial that one must assume the NP had lawyered before it was printed.
Two reasons:
- Canwest is bankrupt. By the time this case gets to trial (and it will) Canwest will no longer exist. What is the point?
- Canwest employs columnists, not journalists. Journalists write news stories based on information comes from a reliable source and can be verified by a second reliable source. Columnists, on the other hand, only need an opinion and a style of writing that is mostly entertaining. A columnist only needs to verify their opinion with the editor. At the National Post, it is also useful if you're good at prosaic drive-by character asassinations.
What other media organizations did you have in mind? The CBC, The Wiinnipeg Free Press, The Toronto Star and, uh ... oh yeah, the Globe and Mail?
______________________
Looking for an honest man
(I didn't vote for them, by the way, yet they seem to be able to rule over me),
It's called democracy
Actually, I called the almost-coalition a giant step towards democracy. And screeching fascists called it a 'coup' - as they held a coup of their very own.
This is not democracy.
You sue people for libel on matters of principle....
Your statement, as usual, is nonsense.
The list of reasons people or corporations sue for libel is very long indeed and "principle" may, but often doesn't, have anything to do with it.
The estimation of cost/benefit (not exclusively monitary) of bringing suit is always considered.
Didn't Galloway notoriously demand that the Home Secretary (responsible for, among other things, immigration and 'anti-terrorism') bar Jean Marie Le Pen from travelling to Britain?
This little factoid is the grain of salt with which to take any of Galloway's pronouncements about being hard done by. Galloway clearly believes in one set of rules for him and one for everyone else.
Only the thickest of the thick are still using that one Snert. Jean Marie Le Pen has been convicted of racism or inciting racial hatred at least six times. He is into holocaust denial and a dictionary definition of xenophobia. Comparing Galloway to Le Pen is defamatory, you know, and not fair comment unless your defence is stupidty.
______________________
Looking for an honest man
I have come to the conclusion that Snert is actually some kind of troll/bot designed by some 14 year old, because it doesn't matter how many times you cast your arguement in different context, or give him new information he comes back to the same point over and over again. Usually it is based in an arguement that attacks hypocrisy and uses a strawman, For example, in this case the strawman is that Galloway has ever said he supports the absolute freedome of speech, and that the exclusion of Galloway was based in a case against hate-speech made against Galloway.
What is interesting about this straw creation is that neither arguements are true. No one has said that Galloway engaged in hate speech, like La Pen, and ther reason he was barred was because of his supposed links to terrorist organizations, nor had Galloway ever advocated for the absolute right of freedom of speech, in cases of defamation and hate speech. Galloway has actually been quite consistent on this point. Snert is on treasure Island, searching for jewels that are not there.
But creating a troll/bot that creates not just one, but indeed two strawmen is truly a piece of programming genius.
You sue people for libel on matters of principle....
Your statement, as usual, is nonsense.
The list of reasons people or corporations sue for libel is very long indeed and "principle" may, but often doesn't, have anything to do with it.
The estimation of cost/benefit (not exclusively monitary) of bringing suit is always considered.
Because the media reported Kenney's remarks as news, without endorsing them?
I am not sure why he didn't name that street thug from the Jewish Defence League.
at least cbc said Hamas was 'elected'
Yes, I saw that.
glad you're awake Cueball.
Seemed to me that was probably copped straight from the press release, and someone failed to put quotes around it. That is how out of place it was. A mistake. Shit happens, you know?
Good for him, but is he suing Kenney personally or the government of canada?
hopefully both
Yay George! I think he's quite a remarkable guy. I hope he sues the pants off Kenney, however disturbing that image may be.
I read a few stories and googled "Galloway, terrorism", this will be a tough case for Galloway to proceed with.
From what I have seen and despite Mr. Galloway's best intentions he has made common cause with Hamas branded by Canadian law as a terrorist group. There is one clip I saw on youtube of Mr. Galloway giving stacks of cash to Hamas leaders then daring any government to charge him. From that point on people can make "fair comment" on his connections to terrorism.
In fact in a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada defamation defences have become much more accepted, especially those on fair comment http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c5e9c58e-33ae-47e...
You should state your name here so that he can sue the pants off you too.
And what exactly would he sue me for? For claiming he has a weak case? For pointing out a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that gives wide berth to fair comment? For noting that he has made common cause with a group Canada has labeled as terrorist? And what is your name?
reconsidered.
You should state your name here so that he can sue the pants off you too.
But Unionist, she is only using the same evidence as Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress and Meir Weinstein of the Jewish Defence League used to convince Jason Kenny and Rob Nicholson to ban Galloway.
Or maybe she got her information from Canada's mainstream media like the Vancouver Sun, a jewel in the crown of Izzy Asper's propoganda machine.
There is one clip I saw on youtube
Ah yes, YouTube, the source of all truth. Have you also found evidence of the Easter Bunny Winny?
You could also include that in your next appeal to the Supreme Court. I saw a video on YouTube and they accept that kind of thing now.
------------------------------
Looking for an honest man
So you are saying that the Easter Bunny made this up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYFGIbaabTU
I know this makes Mr. Galloway,s case a huge problem. But this and many more videos of Galloway with Hamas are all over.
Winnifred I fail to understand your point.
We've had threads about this on babble; yes Galloway supports Hamas and gave money to Hamas. So? What part of they are the elected government is so hard to understand?
Except for the overly dramatic theatre of it all, how is this different than foreign aid given through official channels? All politicians love a photo-op, and Galloway was not trying to hide in any way whatsoever. I will admit that the bags of money were a bit over the top, but that seems to be Galloway's style. Whatever.
If you don't like Galloway, fine. You won't find many people agreeing with you, but the issue of "whether he supports Hamas" is not the problem.
And, "I saw it on YouTube" is equivalent to "I read it on wikipedia". Both sites are great for clips and information about t.v. shows and pop culture references. Moving to the real world, they can lose their "authority" on the topic.
Winnifred supports Israel. She has never yet posted on any other topic nor with any other perspective. I wouldn't have a serious debate with her about whether Galloway's lawsuit will succeed or not (and I think it's a pretty secondary issue in itself). What puzzles me is why, with this singular interest and viewpoint, she would wish to post on a left-wing discussion board.
Pretty obvious, IMV, as it is always about managing the message, and conceptual frameworks.
"What part of they are the elected government is so hard to understand?"
The part that says that Canada doesnt recognize Hamas as the elected government but has instead labeled Hamas as a terrorist group. Hence the fair comment legal defence.
And Unionist, yes I post on Middle East matters and am a member of Canadian Friends of Peace Now. I also belong to the NDP and was at one time part of the woman's caucus. However I understand that as far as you are concerned even those clearly on the left that support Israel and a two-state solution cannot be progressive. You are welcome to your view which I believe is divisive.
Oh so because our Terra Fighting cons labeled them as such you agree. the case will be very tough when the US did not follow suit with a banning of George. If any country would be having fits it is them, so I fail to see how a unilateral declaration without the consent of the house makes them a terrorist group. Like George said himself. Who else than the ruling government should he have given the aid package to? The IDF maybe I am sure they would have made sure it was properly distributed.....back at their barracks.
Sadly, given Canada's appalling human rights record with respect to Aboriginal people, Canada has no moral or political authority to decree or declare what country or elected government is recognized as legitimate.
The US didn't recognize the government of Chile. And I have the same argument for their moral authority or lack thereof.
Winnifred, it's about money and power. We the regular people get caught up in trivial things like politics, human rights violations, legal torture and genocide. As long as we yammer away and don't actually do anything the governments continue to do what they wish.
That's why Galloway's a threat. A politician that goes against the politic of the dominant voice of the day? By his actions, not just words? Shut him down!
I'm not sure why you have such trouble here. The issue is one of legal fair comment and public interest. In the BC case the woman defamed by Raif Meir was not a Nazi or with the KKK. However the Court ruled that his was fair comment with nowhere near the evidence here.
While one can make an argument as to whether or not Hamas should be considered a terrorist group, for the sake of any libel action it matters not a whit. In Canada our democratically elected govenment has made a determination that Hamas is a terrorist group. Therefore any Canadian can make fair comment linking anyone to terrorism who gives money to a group like Hamas.
The Court will not deal with the fact that the govenement designated hamas as terrorist. It is simply put irrelelvant. Its a done deal and its reasonable for the average canadian to accept the designation given that it is government policy. You really need to understand that this is a legal matter and not one of politics. It is a matter of what a fair reasonable person will conclude based on what's out there.
Galloway is not suing these people for keeping him out of canada. He is suing them for claiming exactly what the government has claimed he has been doing; making common cause with a terrorist group. All fair comment within the law.
And, "I saw it on YouTube" is equivalent to "I read it on wikipedia".
There are very different Maysie. I'm not saying Wikipedia is the final authoirty but I'm inclined to trust it more than the media these days.
But YouTube? Way too much amateur propoganda garbage. It really bugs me how journalists quote this as a source now.
_______________________
Looking for an honest man
Not being a lawyer I don't know what "fair comment" is. If it means people can say what they like about Galloway and his links to terrorism, um, that's going on. Go anywhere else online and IRL and you will find your position reflected back in myriad ways. I'm not arguing that people must not talk about GG in such a way. I'm arguing that I don't support their reasons why, and I've outlined my position fairly clearly.
As for people accepting something just because it's government policy, well, historically many things have been government policy that today we would say was appalling (legalized slavery, only white men of the upper classes can vote just to name two). It's harder while living in the historical moment to see and name inequities and injustices. Some people can see them, and some can't.
Diogenes, don't get me started on wikipedia. Talk about amateur propaganda garbage.
In a nutshell Maysie, Galloway will have to prove that Kenney et al knowingly made false accusations with absolutely no basis. In other words out of malice, in order to succeed.
The Court (right or wrong) will have no interest in hearing arguments about whether or not Hamas ought to be designated a Terrorist group. The defendants only need to show that they had a basis from which to comment that is recognized as legitimate. A democratically elected government fits that bill. You may not agree and maybe weeks, months or years from now Hamas will be proven to be angels. Doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not there was a reasonable basis for the comments to be made. I hope that is helpful.
The two fundamental injustices here are: 1. That Galloway was excluded from Canada, whatever the pretext. 2. That Canada has a law prohibiting support for Hamas (and Hezbollah).
I hail Galloway for fighting back against those who support Israeli crimes and suppress free speech, whether he wins this particular lawsuit or not. The legalities about libel are of limited interest to me.
I understand you better now unionist but this thread seems to be about Galloway's libel accusaqtions and that is what I am commenting on.
I understand you better now unionist but this thread seems to be about Galloway's libel accusaqtions and that is what I am commenting on.
Why not comment on his exclusion from Canada?
What would his exclusion have to do with his libel case?
What would his exclusion have to do with his libel case?
Who said it had anything to do with the libel case? I was just asking Winnifred a question.
I think the legalities of the libel issue are pretty well exhausted here. The more important question is the overall crusade against any speech denouncing Israeli crimes - Kenney teaming with the CJC and BB to decry it as antisemitic in many forums (Galloway is just one example), and now attempts to suppress it by using the "terrorist" designation of Hamas. Galloway is an ally in fighting this offensive. His lawsuit in and of itself is a private affair of little interest. But as a piece of the overall, it is worth mentioning. It is an example of using typical CJC and BB (and ADL and AIPAC) tactics in reverse.
A couple of thoughts.
First, it was stupid to ban Galloway. However, contrary to what unionist has written it did not hamper his ability to get his message across. Probably helped it.
And again contary to what unionist has written, this thread is about Galloway suing various people for libel. If he wants to discuss the free speech issue again he should start another thread.
Lastly, seems pretty clear to me from a layperson's perspective, that Galloway's notice of libel is just another attempt at getting himself and his ideas into the media. There seems to be very little doubt that the case is extremely weak if not altogether frivolous.
"What part of they are the elected government is so hard to understand?"
The part that says that Canada doesnt recognize Hamas as the elected government but has instead labeled Hamas as a terrorist group. Hence the fair comment legal defence.
Actually, Canada does recognize that Hamas is the elected government of the PA, it was precisely because Hamas was so elected that it cut off aid to the PA. Had it not recognized this election, then there would be no basis for cutting off aid, and sanctioning the PA.
In a nutshell Maysie, Galloway will have to prove that Kenney et al knowingly made false accusations with absolutely no basis. In other words out of malice, in order to succeed.
I am sure Galloway would be more than happy if the court were to rule that they unknowingly made false accussations and forced them to appologize.
Cueball, you are really nose-stretching here and I think you are doing it with a wink and a nod. No matter what people may think of Galloway or Kenney, on the matter of this alleged libel Galloway is on very shaky ground. For a guy who so triumphs free speech though you gotta wonder.
Who said anything about the absolute right of freedom of speech? Galloway. No. In fact he stridently opposes the right of hate-mongerers to pedal their crap. There is a difference between that, and manipulating the immigration laws in order to stifle speech that otherwise would be entirely lawful.
This is indeed the point, Terrorism legislation, not the hate speech act was used in this case. If the government wanted to bar Galloway on the latter grounds, they could have made that case. They didn't because there is no such hate speech case against Galloway, and they know it.
Galloway is barred from Canada, and you have the nerve to accuse him of not championing free speech, because he sues your friend Bernie Farber for hatemongering fascistic statements like these:
One assumes Farber was in good health and sober when he made these statements, however hard that may be to believe.
By the way, I didn't make this shit up - here is the source.
Funny kind of looks like libel doesn't it.
Libel. Yes. Outright libelous smears.
"This is indeed the point, Terrorism legislation, not the hate speech act was used in this case. If the government wanted to bar Galloway on the latter grounds, they could have made that case. They didn't because there is no such hate speech case against Galloway, and they know it."
Well in fact no case was made because Galloway never tried to enter Canada. He actually never attempted to determine if in fact he would have not been granted entry. And then he would have had the right to challenge the finding. He chose not to do so.
As for the alleged libels, the problem is Galloway has and continues to make common cause with Hamas, a terrorist group as defined by Canadian law. From that point which is an absolute fact, anyone is free to provide fair comment. If in fact Galloway never consorted with or gave support to Hamas the libel allegations would hold water. That's the point that some here seem unable to grasp. The reference made by a poster here to the Raif Meir case in the SCC underlines this fair comment right and the extremely wide latitude given by the Courts today.
Well in fact no case was made because Galloway never tried to enter Canada.
Explain that fine legal point to the judge:
Judge denies Galloway's bid to enter Canada
Didn't Galloway notoriously demand that the Home Secretary (responsible for, among other things, immigration and 'anti-terrorism') bar Jean Marie Le Pen from travelling to Britain?
This little factoid is the grain of salt with which to take any of Galloway's pronouncements about being hard done by. Galloway clearly believes in one set of rules for him and one for everyone else.
Galloway is barred from Canada, and you have the nerve to accuse him of not championing free speech, because he sues your friend Bernie Farber for hatemongering fascistic statements like these:
Well, I certainly don't consider FARBER a friend of free speech. But neither is Galloway. He worked to bar Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering Britain, then complained when kenney et al barred him from Canada. Wilders took his denial of entry to speak in Britain as an atrocious attack on free expression. Meanwhile, he has a bill before the dutch parliament to outlaw the Koran. Everyone loves free speech for themselves and is very quick to deny it to their opponents.
Excuse me, Snert and SSC, I don't believe in "free speech" for hatemongers, and I never said Galloway did either. He does not. And I would hope neither of you do either. I simply mocked Jaku's "nerve" for launching this accusation against someone who was barred from entering Canada to give a speech - and where no one has accused Galloway of hatemongering. So your exposés of Galloway's fight against fascists and racists and Islamophobes are a bit misplaced. He is to be praised for those stands.
Britain has its own laws against hate speech, Unionist. There's really no need to find someone "guilty" of them before they open their mouths.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Galloway's bleating fell on deaf ears, and Le Pen was permitted to enter the country, with a stern warning not to agitate, or spread hatred while there. I see no record of his arrest for violating this warning (and the law) so any argument that Le Pen "was definitely going to" spread hatred are clearly off the mark. What crime happened? What crime would have therefore been prevented by barring him, besides the crime of people having a different, perfectly legal opinion from yours?
I don't believe in "free speech" for hatemongers, but I believe that we have laws to cover that after it happens. Surely you're not arguing that we should "pre-emptively" use those laws, are you?
And while we're here, lets not forget that both Le Pen and Wilders are also "democratically elected" members of Parliament. Which, I suppose, just goes to show how little "democratically elected" means. But if it's supposed to mean something then I would expect it would mean something in the context of whether a person is or is not barred from entering a country.
Excuse me, Snert and SSC, I don't believe in "free speech" for hatemongers,
Unionist, I seem to recall (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you and I being on the same page after the "hate speech" charges were dropped against David Ahenekew. So I'm confused by your last statement. I don't know about you, but I consider Ahenekew a "hatemonger". I also support his right to spew his nonsense so long as he's not actually instigating violence. I don't agree with Wilders or galloway on much and consider both of them publicty-seeking clowns but I don't find inherent harm in letting them speak and find it reprehensible that either of them would be barred from giving a speech.
Ahenakew has warped and repulsive views about Jews. He also stupidly let those get "on the record" with a reporter that knew what he was doing. He has never engaged in hate speech. He is guilty of no crime.
Le Pen and Wilders are hatemongers. I don't believe in "free speech" for some of the things they say. That's what I said. I never said they should be banned, not banned, charged, denied entry... I have no comment about other countries' laws in that regard.
Galloway is not a hatemonger. He is falsely accused of supporting terrorism. He is falsely accused (by some hatemongers) of spreading antisemitism. And, SSC, he was never barred from giving a speech. He was denied entry to Canada under ridiculous and false grounds, which have not yet been tested in court (the court dealt only with his request for an injunction, and it failed because he couldn't show "irreparable harm").
But you've read the filthy garbage that Farber wrote about him. I'm not suggested Farber broke any law. He may, however, have maliciously told falsehoods and affected Galloway's reputation. As I said, I have little interest in that private matter. I have more interest in what Jason Kenney and his government, along with the CJC and BB, are doing to suppress criticism of Israel by labelling it "antisemitic" and now "pro-terrorist". That represents a serious danger to our democracy.
It seems to me the serious danger to our democracy may have started about 40 years ago when the CJC helped organize neo-Nazis by putting a paid agent provacteur in place, perhaps in order to get hate speech laws (section 13) into place.
Well in fact no case was made because Galloway never tried to enter Canada.
Explain that fine legal point to the judge:
Judge denies Galloway's bid to enter Canada
Remind, talk about libel, I would be careful about making this accusation (funnily enough it is coming from rightwing ideologue Ezra Levant) that CJC helped fund the Canadian Nazi party in the 1960s. It is a proveable lie. Perhaps you should read this and offer your own apology.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/helped+stop+Canadian+Nazis/1560300/sto...
Well in fact no case was made because Galloway never tried to enter Canada.
Explain that fine legal point to the judge:
Judge denies Galloway's bid to enter Canada
Wrong. Here is what the court was asked to decide::
The Applicants request an order restraining the Respondent from denying the Applicant George Galloway entry to Canada or, in the alternative, an order directing the Respondent to allow him to enter Canada from the United States pending determination of this Application and leave and for judicial review of the Respondents' decision declaring him inadmissible to Canada.
I'm not sure why you're claiming that Galloway didn't try to enter Canada. If you mean he didn't dodge a hail of bullets after the court declined the application, then I understand your point.
Ahenakew has warped and repulsive views about Jews. He also stupidly let those get "on the record" with a reporter that knew what he was doing. He has never engaged in hate speech. He is guilty of no crime.
Let me just see if I can get this straight, Unionist: Ahenekew may be a hateful person with hateful views who made hateful remarks but his INTENTION was not to "promote" hate. So, if he had made his remarks in a speech to 500 people or published them in a pamphlet to be sent out, then he should be prosecuted for spreading hate but in this case, he simply said stupid things to a reporter so the "dissemination" aspect doesn't apply? Is that essentially your position?
No, that's not essentially my position. My position is essentially what I said, and which you quoted.
Well in fact no case was made because Galloway never tried to enter Canada.
Explain that fine legal point to the judge:
Judge denies Galloway's bid to enter Canada
Wrong. Here is what the court was asked to decide::
The Applicants request an order restraining the Respondent from denying the Applicant George Galloway entry to Canada or, in the alternative, an order directing the Respondent to allow him to enter Canada from the United States pending determination of this Application and leave and for judicial review of the Respondents' decision declaring him inadmissible to Canada.
I'm not sure why you're claiming that Galloway didn't try to enter Canada. If you mean he didn't dodge a hail of bullets after the court declined the application, then I understand your point.
"The Judge was only asked to decide if the CBSA had the right to to bar his entry. This was an injunction asking that Galloway not be stopped by CBSA if he CHOSE to enter Canada. The Judge refused to issue that injunction". Thank you
Practise this in front of a mirror: "You were right. I was wrong. Let's move on." Or, carry right on. It's really your choice. The fact remains that we have a problem in this country - which is, draconian government measures aimed at suppressing the exposure of Israeli crimes against humanity. I think I know where you stand on that issue, thanks.
No, that's not essentially my position. My position is essentially what I said, and which you quoted.
What I'm trying to get straight is that you don't think Ahenekew should be charged with hate speech (I agree) or consider him a hatemonger but you DO consider Wilders to be one and the only difference seems to be that Wilders deliberately dissemiantes his speech to large audiences through films, speeches, etc. whereas Ahenekew made his remarks to one reporter.
No, that's not essentially my position. My position is essentially what I said, and which you quoted.
What I'm trying to get straight is that you don't think Ahenekew should be charged with hate speech (I agree) or consider him a hatemonger but you DO consider Wilders to be one and the only difference seems to be that Wilders deliberately dissemiantes his speech to large audiences through films, speeches, etc. whereas Ahenekew made his remarks to one reporter.
But Ahenakew also made a speech, which prompted the reporter to ask him questions. Here's the relevant part of the speech:
"But ah, the Germans used to tell me, and I got to know them well because I played soccer against them and with them and so forth. But they used to tell me that you guys are blessed. What we know about the Indians in Canada. They are blessed. But that blessing is being destroyed by the, by your immigrants that are going over there. Especially the Jews, they say, you know. The Second World War was created by the Jews, they say, you know. The Second World War was created by the Jews and the Third World War, whatever it is, right now the war that war ... that wages on Israel, in the Arab countries, I was there too. But there's gonna be a war because the Israelis and the "Bushies", you know, the bully, the bully, the ah, the bigot and so forth in the United States that tells you that if you're not with me, you're against me."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/helped+stop+Canadian+Nazis/1560300/story.html
na, will pass on that apology and reprint this, as perhaps you do not realize, it is also from the Ottawa Citizen, doubt that Levant after his recent hassels would state anything libelous in respect to the CJC.
In a letter to the editor in the Citizen last week, the CJC's current co-president, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, called my book's description of the CJC's role "fiction." He said all the CJC did for the Nazis was buy them a bottle of rum.
It's true that the CJC did buy drinks for Nazis in the 1960s. That's pretty strange in itself, and I'd like to hear more of Rabbi Bulka's thoughts on spending Jewish charitable donations that way. But the CJC did a lot more than that: they hired an ex-cop named John Garrity to go to work for the Canadian Nazi Party.
Garrity helped organize that rag-tag band of losers, though they never amounted to anything except for fodder for the press.
There were only a dozen active Nazis when Garrity joined them and they weren't really a political party. He called them "harmless misfits," and they were -- their leader, John Beattie, was a nervous, gaunt, unemployed 24-year-old clerk who spent much of his time dodging angry Jews who tried to beat him up. (One of Garrity's jobs was to help Beattie escape street fights.)
Garrity brought more than just rum to the Nazis. He brought with him pretty much the only organizational talent the group had. They put him in charge of membership. Garrity called himself the "Heinrich Himmler" of the party, and a "Nazi leader for the Jewish Congress."
I'd like Rabbi Bulka's thoughts on that, too.
Of course, Garrity helped his paymasters at the CJC, too, giving them information about the names of party members and donors. And when Garrity finally quit the Nazis, he wrote a tell-all about his adventure in Maclean's magazine.
Garrity larded that report with personal insults toward Beattie and the Nazis. But he did acknowledge that they had never done, or even contemplated doing, anything illegal. All of the violence he witnessed was directed at Beattie, usually by Jewish vigilantes. "Sadly, it is the ... anti-Nazi extremists who, in their attempts to destroy Beattie, provide him with most of the publicity he craves. If it weren't for the riots and the assaults and the public protest meetings they hold, there'd be no real news in Beattie," Garrity wrote.
And that is the importance of this story and why I put it in my book about human rights commissions. Beattie hadn't done anything illegal. He was just a loser who believed in a discredited ideology. But the CJC wanted to bring in political censorship laws and I believe they needed to build up the threat to persuade Parliament to abridge Canada's freedom of speech.
Garrity puffed up a group of Nazi nobodies into a national menace, first through organizational support and then through spectacular media publicity. And, sure enough, Parliament enacted section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which censors offensive speech.
That's become a pattern. Twenty years after the Canadian Nazi Party vanished, CSIS, Canada's spy agency, inserted an operative named Grant Bristow into another rag-tag racist group called the Heritage Front.
Unlike Garrity, Bristow didn't play second-fiddle.
He became the boss, turning the Heritage Front into Canada's leading white supremacist group. This time it wasn't just Jewish money that was spent propping up neo-Nazis -- all taxpayers paid for it.
Which brings us to the present day -- and back to Rabbi Bulka and the section 13 censorship law. Canada's largest customer of section 13 is Richard Warman, who has been the complainant in all but two cases heard by the tribunal this decade. The CJC was so impressed that they gave Warman an award.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Nazis+best+simply+ignored/1536856/stor...
Fascinating, the reluctance of people to talk about the topic.
Ahenakew, hate speech, Nazis...
Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney, Bernie Farber, and Frank Dimant would be thrilled at the inability of leftists to focus on their crimes. Yet, there is a serious danger facing this country in the form of McCarthyite vilification and fascist suppression of any speech which exposes the murderous crimes of apartheid Israel. It must be addressed and defeated.
I agree and it started long ago and has progressed to today.
But Remind, Historian Scheinberg totally and with facts not make believe, refuted Ezra's contention. I fail to understand why you would take the word of a sophist like Ezra Levant who Professor Richard Moon himself exposed as a person who "makes things up".
"Prof. Moon targeted Ezra Levant in particular, whose blog is a clearinghouse for skepticism of human rights law, and who claimed the day before Prof. Moon's report was released that it had been "redacted by Jennifer Lynch," the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "The claim was false," Prof. Moon told the all-party panel. "I was given complete independence, and when my report was released the following day and recommended the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the falsity of Levant's claim was obvious. He had just made it up. He thought he knew what I would say and he sought to discredit the report in advance by attacking me and the commission rather than the arguments I might make."
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1271435
Mr. Levant does not deserve any support here. I am shocked you seem to revere him.
Mr. Levant does not deserve any support here. I am shocked you seem to revere him.
Look over here. No, wait, look over there! Hey, look at this! Now you see it, now you don't!!
I do not revere him, actually can't stand the guy, but IMV he is not about to go writing libel and citing Maclean's while doing so, considering what he was just put through. And he is correct at least about 1 thing, repeal section 13.
I
Ahenakew has warped and repulsive views about Jews. He also stupidly let those get "on the record" with a reporter that knew what he was doing. He has never engaged in hate speech. He is guilty of no crime.
Let me just see if I can get this straight, Unionist: Ahenekew may be a hateful person with hateful views who made hateful remarks but his INTENTION was not to "promote" hate. So, if he had made his remarks in a speech to 500 people or published them in a pamphlet to be sent out, then he should be prosecuted for spreading hate but in this case, he simply said stupid things to a reporter so the "dissemination" aspect doesn't apply? Is that essentially your position?
Absolutely right. The ridiculous assertion that we should prosecute every single person who ever engages in bigotted speech, whatever the context, is the alternative to what you are saying. Ahenekew made the mistake of thinking his comments were off the record, just like every single 14 year old who accuses another 14 year old of "jewing" him or her at marbles or Warcraft believes they are speaking off the record. Half of Canadians would be facing court actions if we were to apply such standards to promoting hate, and not just antisemetism, but numerous other would be going down for their bigoted views about Pakistanis and Arabs, black people, Native people and so on.
Promoting hate is a serious charge and your loosey goosey definition is real "cultural revolution" stuff.
Anyway, can the modertors please end this thread drift, the Galloway case has nothing to do with hate speech. He has never been accused of any such thing, nor is it relevant.
Remind have you at least read Dr. Scheinberg's evisceration of Mr. Levant? Do you seriously believe that Ezra Levant has more knowledge on this matter than the Chief Jewish archivist in Canada?
This is also off topic. The issue is Kenney et al, and their libelous statments.
Thanks in advance.
Yeah, like I have the power to end thread drift. (feel free to discuss)
winnifred, what I read in your link, backed Levant up actually, as opposed to calling libel. Perhaps Levant overly used rhetoric, but the Chief historian equally tried to soft soap things, IMV.
It definitely wasn't an eviceration by any scope.
As such, I see a midway point between the 2 recounts of CJC actions in the 60's.
Now as to the interference that the CJC et al played in government actions regarding Galloway, and the imminent libel law suits, I hope the hell Galloway sues the Canadian government too and not just Kenney.
Well frankly, given that no one has ever discussed remotely the idea that Galloway could or should be charged under the hate crimes legislation, this amounts to a form of trolling IMO. If people want to discuss the Ezra Lavant, hate crimes legislation etc, they should be advised to start a thread on it, rather than messing up one that is not at all about that. You do have the power to advise people to stay on topic.
ala
Jesus Cueball, you earn the prize of the week for diverting a thread, and it's only Monday. I have NO idea how you ended up where you got based on what Fidel posted, and I have NO interest in seeing it debated further. Commas and conjunctions. Lordy!
Can we please go back to discussing the original post which is actually kind of interesting? If you two have a particular appetite for pursuing your longstanding personal vendetta, take it to email or one of those chat room thingies my kids use.
This is about libel, Galloway, Kenney immigration and terrorism legislation.
Why is it about immigration?
Well, that at least is within the ballpark of the issue. It is patently obvious that the whole discourse around hate-crimes and galloway is purely about poisoning the pond, and smearing him through association, and nothing more. Why even has it come up? There has been no legal contest on this point, at all. Taking it seriously is just playing ball in the wrong field.
No one has even offered up an offending Galloway statement.
Yes I do. So where are you hanging your prize?
Cue, as is so often the case except when it isn't, is right. This has bugger all to do with hate speech, a criminal matter anyway, and seems to be a private suite for libel.
Unless I missed it, I don't see where Galloway says just what the offending remarks were. Without that, it's kind of hard to weigh the merits of anything, and be other than speculative. People have said a lot of negative things about the guy, most of which probably come under fair comment, but maybe he caught some rightious soul going over the line. I kind of hope so. Or maybe he's just blustering. He does that you know.
You don't get it. Rub your glasses and read again. The idea is not that Galloway is accusing Kenney et al for Hate speech, but that he was barred from Canada because of issues of freedom of speech and how his speeches contravene Canada's hate speech legislation, and that was the reason for him being barred.
Hate speech doesnt enter into it, exactly. So why is it even being discussed. Its a civil matter of libel revolving around the decision of the immigration department to pre-emptively send Galloway a letter saying he would not be allowed to enter Canada.
Unionist offered up statements from Bernie Farber where Farber essentially says that Galloway supported the Mubai attacks, and is one of the one of the "world's strongest supporters of international terrorism". Libel. clearly to me, maybe not to you.
No he is suing them for libel
Talk about parse the sentence day, yes:
"Its a civil matter of libel revolving around the decision of the immigration department to pre-emptively send Galloway a letter saying he would not be allowed to enter Canada."
Statments by Kenney Farber and co. were all offered as comment on the letter sent by immigration telling Galloway he likely would be allowed entry. That is how immigration comes into it.
The ridiculous assertion that we should prosecute every single person who ever engages in bigotted speech, whatever the context, is the alternative to what you are saying. Ahenekew made the mistake of thinking his comments were off the record, just like every single 14 year old who accuses another 14 year old of "jewing" him or her at marbles or Warcraft believes they are speaking off the record......Promoting hate is a serious charge and your loosey goosey definition is real "cultural revolution" stuff.
Speaking of 'loosey goosey,' 14 year olds are generally not publicly recognized leaders sporting the Order of Canada, whose words under normal circumstances can carry some measure of significance. It's a dubious comparison IMV which unfairly minimizes the comments to the level of a schoolyard, when it was far more than that.
It is a ridiculous comparison. And just so meant. When will the upcoming prosecutions be made against various Tory MP's or past members of the reform party who have used their public office to offer similarlly common-place bigotry, even when speaking on the record? An appology is all that is required, if that. Half of Canada's monuments to its clearly bigoted historic figures would likewise have to be torn down, and their publications repressed for fear of promoting commonplace bigotry.
Where is the official disclaimer on the web page for the government archives wherein Mackenzie King opines about his admiration for Adolph Hitler? Are the government archives promoting bigotry by openly, and without comment, offering up King's diaries?
Sounds like a good start to me.
Diversion. Why would anyone want to re-argue the pathetic case of Ahenakew in the context of this story? Cueball is right.
Cueball bought it up.
Perhap Canadians should launch a law suit against them (not Kenney of course) to for poltical interference, if Galloway wins his suit? Are they registered lobbyists?
Cueball bought it up.
No I did not. I was responding to the debate between SCC and Unionist. Thread derailment succeful.
Perhap Canadians should launch a law suit against them (not Kenney of course) to for poltical interference, if Galloway wins his suit? Are they registered lobbyists?
Something like that is certainly warranted.
Cueball bought it up.
No I did not. I was responding to the debate between SCC and Unionist. Thread derailment succeful.
My 2.5 line rejoinder to SCC was a "debate"? Oh well.
Well, he doubtless thought he was debating. But we all have our own cherished dellusions.
winnifred, what I read in your link, backed Levant up actually, as opposed to calling libel. Perhaps Levant overly used rhetoric, but the Chief historian equally tried to soft soap things, IMV.
It definitely wasn't an eviceration by any scope.
As such, I see a midway point between the 2 recounts of CJC actions in the 60's.
Now as to the interference that the CJC et al played in government actions regarding Galloway, and the imminent libel law suits, I hope the hell Galloway sues the Canadian government too and not just Kenney.
As for the alleged libel, one mo' time...given Galloway's links to Hamas and Hizbollah, 2 recognized terrorist groups by almost all western countries, any comment linking Galloway to terrorism is fair comment. Even some statements that may seem over-the-top, witness the SCC decision on the Raif Meir case. He called an evangelical christian who made a homophobic statement a member of the KKK and a Nazi, way extreme but the SCC upheld this speech as fair comment. With Galloway there is ample proof of his links to terrorist groups. With this woman there were no links at all to the KKK or Nazis. Get it?
Tony Blair recently had meetings with Hexboallah, we going to bar him too for "links" to terrorist organizations?
How about members of families whose relatives have "links" with "terrorist" organization because some of them voted for Hamas. Maybe just deport all the Palestinians just to be sure.
I have noticed that you "thought crime" proponents are very fond of trotting out arguements based on abstract "linkages" based on determinations made about the "objective" criminality of an organization or group of "linked" persons, seperate from any specific criminal charge, or proven conspiracy to commit a criminal act.
Winnifred has never posted once without excusing Israeli mass murderers and slandering the Palestinian cause. Not once. Winnifred calls Hezbollah "terrorist", but fails to understand that Hezbollah wiped Israel's criminal ass not once, but twice - when they threw them and their SLA allies out of Lebanon, and again when they emerged stronger and more popular after the second-last genocidal onslaught by Israel against an Arab neighbour. Winnifred's friends are in deep shit, which is why s/he comes here to mouthe Likudist talking points - and incompetently at that. S/he still thinks Galloway didn't try to enter Canada. The talking points don't cover this situation. What, o what, shall I do? <sob>
Actually, that is slighly of the mark, she did make the following comment about pop music:
I particularly enjoyed Bruce, Will-I-am and it was great to see and hear Herbie Hancock and Stevie Wonder. John Mellencamp was a welcome piece as well.
On this thread about Obama's Inauguration Concert
Winnifred they put a paid provocatuer in place who did screening and membership drives. I call this organizing and he was paid to do so:
From the historian's account:
But Mr. Levant's most triumphant "proof" of the CJC's role in organizing the Nazis was Garrity's self-description as the "Heinrich Himmler" of the party. It's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. Here is how Garrity described his role: "I was chosen secret-service chief, with the job of checking applicants for membership. Later I did check about 15 prospective members, and turned down those who seemed intelligent and therefore dangerous."
And I find this a very incongruous statement , if they had a national profile and were something, then Garrity would have feared them, eh, he didn't.
Moreover, there was apparently 2 people in said party, Beattie and Stanley, plus Garrity, and he added up to 15 more members, it is conveinently left out how many were actually turned away, and I say that is growing a party eh?! 2 people does not a party make and had there been no infiltration, IMV, they most likely would not have gone anywhere but into nothing, given the drunken picture the historian and Garrity paint of the 2, and the actual goings on in the late 60's, and early 70's, that pretty much ignored anything but sex, drugs, rock and roll, and the anti-war movement here in Canada.
And again we come back to the fact Garrity was paid to be there and do what he did, and to feed information to the CJC, so he was paid to check out prospective memberships by the CJC, had he not been paid to be there finding prospective members, well....a much different history may have come to pass in respect to the 2 person Nazi Party and Canadian hate laws.
It is amazing to me that you cannot see the soft soaping by the hsitorian, which again is in part embodied in this statement:
The decision made by CJC to hire John Garrity to infiltrate Beattie's group must be seen within this context. While CJC already favoured a legislative approach to dealing with the issues of hate and hate propaganda, Bialystok's research indicates that then-CJC executive director Ben Kayfetz and Ontario vice-chair Sydney Harris were far more concerned with the growing activity of the neo-Nazis than building a case for amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada.
As an historian, I recognize that facts can sometimes support more than one interpretation.
How could there have been growing activity, there was 2 members, I repeat 2 members, of said party. And who were the alleged right wing anti-communist orgs/people in Canada? Diefenbaker or Stansfield?
As for this other comment by the historian; "Garrity's work destroyed the Canadian Nazi Party" it is hilarious, as by her own words there was no Nazi Party, just 2 people fledgling along until Garrity came upon the scene, afraid of those "uncounted" others out there in society, and then he added about 15 more. Wow a whole 17 people.
Now I am not going to go into this any further, as it is derailing from the libel topic, and I only brought it up to indicate there could be, not saying there is, a history, that has gone unnoticed, of the CJC interfering in Canadian politics, directly to suit their agenda, going back 40+ years.
I have read accounts that back up the fact that there were almost 2 dozen Nazis who use to Goose step in Allen Gardens. My Uncle was there and he has told me much about the time. All is perspective from the time . Dr. Scheinberg has stated quite correctly that one cannot make reasonable conclusions from the comforts and distance of 2009.
At that time and at that moment in that time these nazis were seen as a real and potential danger. Garrity kept it from growing into the threat it could have become. Paying him to do this is simply not the same as claiming, as has Levant, that the Jewish Congress "bankrolled" the Canadian nazi Party. That is the point I read winnifred making and its pretty clear.
I too am having trouble Remind with your support of Levant. He made up the story that the Jewish Congress funded the nazi party and you are defending that and by extention Levant.
Wasn't Galloway also supposed to be suing CTV?
Britain has just released a list of 16 people they have banned from entering their country:
From The Independent (Check Drudge for links)
Radio talk show host Michael Savage, Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe are on the list released today.
Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, the former leaders of a violent Russian skinhead gang which committed 20 racially motivated murders, are also banned from coming to Britain. Both are currently in prison.
Making up the rest of the 16 named by the Home Office today are preachers Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi and Amir Siddique, Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), murderer and Hezbollah terrorist Samir Al Quntar and Kashmiri terror group leader Nasr Javed.
World Net Daily reports Savage is considering legal action for defamation...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97127
Here we go again!
And curiously why is Galloway not suing the National Post and other media for carrying the alleged libels? One of the alleged libels was actually in an op-ed editorial that one must assume the NP had lawyered before it was printed.
From what I have seen and despite Mr. Galloway's best intentions he has made common cause with Hamas branded by Canadian law as a terrorist group. There is one clip I saw on youtube of Mr. Galloway giving stacks of cash to Hamas leaders then daring any government to charge him. From that point on people can make "fair comment" on his connections to terrorism.
By your definition, and by that of the Canadian government (I didn't vote for them, by the way, yet they seem to be able to rule over me), those of us who support resistance to the colonial occupation of Palestine have common cause with Hamas and Hezbollah, and are therefore also terrorists.
One question that never seems to be asked in these discussions is why Hamas and Hezbollah are considered illegal, yet the main perpetrator of violence and terror in the region is given our government's unqualified support.
And curiously why is Galloway not suing the National Post and other media for carrying the alleged libels? One of the alleged libels was actually in an op-ed editorial that one must assume the NP had lawyered before it was printed.
Two reasons:
What other media organizations did you have in mind? The CBC, The Wiinnipeg Free Press, The Toronto Star and, uh ... oh yeah, the Globe and Mail?
______________________
Looking for an honest man
(I didn't vote for them, by the way, yet they seem to be able to rule over me),
It's called democracy