JDL sues Canadian Arab Federation for libel

quote:By Tribune Staff
TORONTO – Meir Weinstein, (aka Meir Halevi), head of the Jewish Defence League (JDL) in Canada, is suing the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) for publicizing statements referring to him and his organization as “right-wing terrorists,” “racists” and “supremacists.”

quote:The statements Weinstein took issue with were included in an article written by Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) and posted on the CAF web site, which removed it after being served notice.

According to Boudjenane, the article was submitted by SPHR, and if there’s any question of libel, it should be directed against that organization.

The SPHR story said it “stands shoulder to shoulder with our Black brothers and sisters who have suffered a terrorist attack” on its offices in February. Drawing a direct correlation between the alleged terrorist event and the JDL, it said that “during events held by Black and Palestinian students, around 50 JDL members harassed students attending the lecture with without police interference. This sent a message to the JDL and other Jewish supremacist individuals that it is acceptable to target visible minorities in our cities.”

quote:“We are certainly aware of the lawsuit. We think that the allegations made by the Canadian Arab Federation in their press release were motivated by a desire to bring discredit on the entire Jewish community,” declared Len Rudner, regional director, Ontario Canadian Jewish Congress.

Jewish Tribune

[ 11 March 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

I suspect the suit will not extend past the letter. While I think SPHR rushed to judgement by implying that because the JDL had demonstrated at Ryerson they must be responsible for an arson that occurred several days later the claims that the JDL is actually saying they'll sue over (“right-wing terrorists,” “racists” and “supremacists") fall under fair comment; particularly when you look at this backgrounder from the ADL which details a long list of bombings and attempted bombings by the JDL going back several decades not to mention the fact that JDL leader Irv Rubin committed suicide in prison after pleading guilty to a botched plot to bomb a mosque and assassinate a US Congressman. Actually, he botched his suicide attempt too and lingered, brain dead, on life support for several days though how they could tell the difference between Rubin brain dead and Rubin not brain dead is beyond me.

I guess the JDL will also be suing the FBI for calling it a "violent extremist Jewish organization", listing it in its Terrorism 2000/2001 report and referring to its activities as "terrorist". The JDL is also listed in the Department of Homeland Security funded MIPT Terrorism Database which refers to "the group’s terrorist campaign".

Meir Halevi Weinstein may claim that his JDL Canada has nothing to do with the bad JDL in the US - though if he does he'll have to explain his long personal association with both Meir Kahane and Irv Rubin and the fact that the US JDL lists the Canadian JDL as a "chapter" on its website, and the fact that Meir's weekly (and often illiterate) rantings are featured on the US JDL website. He'll also have to explain his former role as the Canadian spokesman for Kach/Kahane Chai, a group listed on the Canadian Department of Public Safety's list of terrorist entities.

What I find surprising is that the CJC has once again failed the test and has declined an opportunity to condemn or even criticize the JDL preferring instead to, evidently, take its side against CAF. Quite shameful, really, particularly when compared to the strong stance the ADL has taken against the JDL. What was Len Rudner thinking? If the Jewish Tribune misquoted him will Rudner post a correction and condemnation on the CJC website?

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

Aren't these the same assholes who were calling Muslim Ryerson students "Nazis" when they went to a recent campus event?

I thought so.

Yes but, ohara, the JDL *isn't* threatening to sue over the arson inference (at least not according to what I've read - though I haven't seen the actual letter so this may have been misreported) - they are evidently threatening to sue over assertions that they are “right-wing terrorists,” “racists” and “supremacists.” Indeed, Weinstein's press release on the lawsuit, which I have read in full, didn't say *anything* about the arson allegation and objected only to the above three characterizations:

quote:Attention News Editors:

Meir Weinstein of the Jewish Defence League of Canada sues the Canadian Arab Federation

TORONTO, March 5 /CNW/ - On Wednesday March 5th 2008, Meir Weinstein, the National Director of the Jewish Defence League of Canada served notice to Khaled Mouammar, the President of the Canadian Arab Federation that he is exercising all his rights under the libel and slander act.

Statements pertaining to Meir Weinstein, the National Director of the Jewish Defence League of Canada, posted on the website of the Canadian Arab Federation are considered libellous and slanderous.

This action is being brought about by a vicious fabrication, in which the Jewish Defence League of Canada and its leader Meir Weinstein have been described as right wing terrorists, racists and supremacists.

Press release

Given the links I provided in my earlier post and the JDL's long history of violence do you think these three terms are incorrect in regards to the JDL? Weinstein used to be the spokesman in Canada for Kahane Chai/Kach. Is this not a terrorist group? If not, then why are they listed as such by Canada's Department of Public Safety?

And could you please point out one recent statement by the CJC criticising the JDL? All I've found is Adler's quote defending them.

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
Yes but, ohara, the JDL *isn't* threatening to sue over the arson inference (at least not according to what I've read - though I haven't seen the actual letter so this may have been misreported) - they are evidently threatening to sue over assertions that they are “right-wing terrorists,” “racists” and “supremacists.” Indeed, Weinstein's press release on the lawsuit, which I have read in full, didn't say *anything* about the arson allegation and objected only to the above three characterizations:

Press release

Given the links I provided in my earlier post and the JDL's long history of violence do you think these three terms are incorrect in regards to the JDL? Weinstein used to be the spokesman in Canada for Kahane Chai/Kach. Is this not a terrorist group? If not, then why are they listed as such by Canada's Department of Public Safety?

And could you please point out one recent statement by the CJC criticising the JDL? All I've found is Adler's quote defending them.

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

I am no lawyer, but despite your links I think that Mouammar and the others, in order to argue a truth defence, will have to show that Weinstein is directly involved in "terrorist" activities. I have checked with a libel lawyer friend and he backs this up. That's why I say that they may be in some hot water

Note Meir Halevi is Meir Weinstein's pseudonym

quote:Funding is centered in the US
Steve Fainaru, Globe Staff
1240 words
14 March 1994
The Boston Globe
City Edition

Kach and Kahane Chai, Jewish extremist groups banned Sunday by the Israeli government, maintain offices and extensive fund-raising networks in the United States that have provided money, members, and, some say, arms to the Israeli settlements.

A spokesman for Kach, which raises nearly 80 percent of its funds in the United States, said last week in Jerusalem that the group had funneled all its money into U.S. bank accounts for fear the Israeli accounts would be frozen.

U.S. laws do not specifically ban fund-raising by groups believed to be involved in terrorist activity, a State Department spokeswoman said Sunday. However, an interagency group has been formed to look into whether the laws can be strengthened.

"All options are being considered," said Julie Reside of the State Department.

Donations to Kach, estimated at $100,000 annually, pay for vehicles, security patrols, and even sophisticated radio scanners that enable members to evade the military when carrying out operations in the territories, say U.S. and Israeli terrorism analysts.

The money is but a trickle of the estimated $1 billion in private donations _ nearly all from mainstream groups such as the United Jewish Appeal and the Jewish Communal Fund of New York _ that pour into Israel from the United States each year for education, construction, and other peaceful uses.

Sunday's Cabinet decision to ban the groups touched off a demonstration by members of Kahane Chai in front of the Israeli Consulate in New York. Mike Guzofsky, associate director of the group, called the move "an obscenity" and said he feared the Clinton administration would take action against the groups in the United States.

Asked how Kach would be affected by the Israeli government's action, Meir Halevi, an organization spokesman, said: "If anything, it will increase support. There are many . . . who were borderline supporters of the organization who have now come over the fence. This government is trying to silence any opposition. What occurred in Hebron is now turning into a blood libel. This was the action of one, and all are being made to blame."

quote:Mosque attack threatens talks Arafat blames Rabin for massacre
CANADIAN PRESS
654 words
26 February 1994
Kitchener-Waterloo Record
Final
A1
English
Copyright (c) 1994 Kitchener-Waterloo Record.

TUNIS -- "That's not enough. Condemnation and regret are not enough," Arafat responded to Rabin in English, said an Arab ambassador who was in the PLO leader's office when he took the call.

"We need specific measures" to disarm the settlers, the ambassador, who spoke on condition of anonymity, quoted Arafat as saying.

In an interview, Arafat said the Israel-Palestinian peace agreement lost credibility after the massacre.

"The whole peace process has lost its credibility after what has been done," Arafat said in an interview with NBC Nightly News.

"It is not me who has delayed the implementation of the peace process. It is Rabin," said Arafat.

The gunman killed at least 48 Arabs in the mosque, firing an automatic rifle and throwing grenades as worshippers knelt in prayer. Witnesses said he was beaten to death by enraged worshippers.

Police identified the man as Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a physician from the Kiryat Arba settlement who moved to Israel 11 years ago from New York.

The massacre ignited riots throughout the occupied lands.

The Palestine Liberation Organization put the casualty toll at 63 dead and said up to 30 settlers were involved in the slaughter at the Ibrahim Mosque, built over the site revered as the tomb of the prophet Abraham.

Soldiers killed at least 12 Palestinians in protests after the carnage, the biggest single killing of Arabs since Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.

The massacre raised fears that peace talks between the PLO and Israel could be derailed, but U.S. President Bill Clinton said the parties agreed to pursue negotiations in Washington.

Hours after the dawn attack in the mosque, it was still not clear exactly how many were killed.

Arafat said the massacre was a result of a conspiracy involving the Israeli army but did not elaborate.

"What has been done has not been done by one person," said Arafat, who said no one person could kill the dozens of people who died in the shooting.

Arafat called for a UN Security Council meeting to discuss the killings and a response by the world body.

Islamic states at the UN called for an immediate meeting of the Security Council to investigate the massacre.

A statement issued by envoys from the 51-member Organization of the Islamic Conference urged "those behind this cowardly attack should be brought to justice."

The statement was issued as Security Council members were consulting privately on what action to take.

The Security Council deferred any action on the massacre until this afternoon to allow time for consultations on whether to issue a statement of condemnation or a formal resolution.

Arab and Jewish groups in Canada were quick to respond to the killings.

Meir Halevi, Canadian spokesman for Israel's Kach movement -- to which gunman Baruch Goldstein belonged -- said: "Our organization does not condemn the attack. It condemns the Israeli government for not providing adequate protection for settlers."

Halevi said the Kach movement does not encourage such attacks but wants all people who belong to "terrorist organizations," including the PLO, expelled from Israel.

So he is publicly known to have associated with the terrorist group Kach and to have acted as its North American spokesman. In a libel case he will have to disclose exactly what his involvement was with Kach as well as the JDL, he'll have to answer questions about various activities he's participated in his varied career, what meetings he's attended, what funds he's raised, who he gave the money to and what that money was used for.

If he loses the case (which is absolutely certain) he will not only be responsible for the opposing side's legal costs but also quite possibly for other damages plus he will expose much of his life he wants to keep hidden to the public and the police.

Meir Weinstein is a stupid, ignorant and vain man, but is he really that stupid?

Maybe.

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

AKAmycroft, there is nothing in the above post which makes Meir Weinstein a terrorist. He was never charged with a criminal act of terrorism. In 1994, Kach was not on a terror list, is he still a spokesperson for Kach today? Has he committed any act in Canada for which he or his Canadian group has been labeled as terrorist or criminal?

I can only assume you speak without much knowledge of libel law. I do as well that is why I tend to check with friends who work in this field. Yours may be more wishful thinking that this case has no merit. Indeed despite my dislike of JDL and CAF my feeling is that there is a case here and a pretty good one. Perhaps Jeff House or other lawyers can weigh in.

quote:Originally posted by ohara:
AKAmycroft, there is nothing in the above post which makes Meir Weinstein a terrorist. He was never charged with a criminal act of terrorism. In 1994, Kach was not on a terror list, is he still a spokesperson for Kach today? Has he committed any act in Canada for which he or his Canadian group has been labeled as terrorist or criminal?

But if he was say, standing next to a terrorist, at a public event would it be moral to blow him up with the terrorist?

It always amazes me akaMycroft that you have this unending desire to bring the cjc into any thread you think it can fit and I mean ANY thread.

This is about a law suit being filed by the jdl. Rudner im sure was told by his lawyers to be careful about anything he said given potential legal action. That said, really aka its time to let go of the cjc your a big boy now.

I can't comment on CJC since I am not CJC but I will say and it pains me to have to say this.

It really pains me to say this. But I am waiting for SPHR and CAF to provide evidence that JDL did it or issue a retraction.

In fact I have been waiting since they issued the first release.

If people want to attack the JDL their is more than enough ammo out there. But this was a drive by smear campaign.

What if Hillel at York had accused someone of the vandalism. Would we just shrug it off?

Accurate ohara, accurate. If Rudner couldn't say anything bad about the JDL, he shouldn't have said anything at all.

So, when are we going to get some criticism of the JDL from the CJC. For that matter, when are we going to get some criticism from you that's stronger then "they aren't my cup of tea" or "I'm no fan of the JDL"?

Good advice petsy, thank you.

Same as you guys

Ok, let's set aside the CJC's coddling of the JDL and return to my last point:

Weinstein remained a spokesperson for Kach after it was banned in Israel in 1994 as a terrorist group in the aftermath of Baruch Goldstein's massacreRead the Boston Globe article carefully - Kach is banned as terrorist - days later Weinstein remains their spokesman.

So I ask again, ohara, if you are the spokesman for a terrorist group, what does that make you?

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

There were many IRA people from its so-called political wing that came to both Canada and the USA often even though the IRA itself was labeled a terrorist group.

Look Mycroft, I understand that you want to go to bat for the CAF but this is a really strong case against them. I will take the word of a libel lawyer than your desires to defend your friends any day.