What happened to the CJC?

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.

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, 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.

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

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"

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.

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.

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, 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?

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.

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.

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?)

"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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, [email protected], 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?

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.

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.