I know this is off topic, but I'm interested to know what you think it means to be a Jew. Religious belief? Blood line? Culture?
Let me know when hell freezes over. I'll be answering your question at that particular time.
Canadian politician sues Jewish groups
Fri, 2009-06-26 15:03
#52
Fri, 2009-06-26 15:05
#53
Snert
Sorry - who published a theory that Jews were forewarned?
Evidently Hughes. It's right there, in her own words, in post 18.
I noted that the U.S. disregarded the warnings, but Israeli businesses took them seriously, and (sensibly) vacated the Twin Towers.
Fri, 2009-06-26 15:12
#54
Unionist, why?
Fri, 2009-06-26 15:13
#55
Sorry - who published a theory that Jews were forewarned?
Evidently Hughes. It's right there, in her own words, in post 18.
I noted that the U.S. disregarded the warnings, but Israeli businesses took them seriously, and (sensibly) vacated the Twin Towers.
People who use "Israeli" and "Jewish" interchangeably are generally: 1) Antisemites (because they connect the Jewish people with the crimes of Israel); and 2) Champions of the Israeli mass murderers and war criminals.
Perhaps, though, your comment was just a slip.
You see, the McCarthyite frenzy in this thread would have people believe that Lesley Hughes actually said something negative about Jews - ever in her life. That's the way blood libels work. You whisper, you smear, and you hope enough ignorant fools pick up enough shit to make it stick. That's how Jews became victims of pogroms in the old country. Various people in this thread, like the Farbers and Dimants, have the same dirty modus operandi.
Fri, 2009-06-26 15:21
#56
Snert
Ah. Fair enough. I'm not calling her an "anti-Semite". I'm callling her a kook.
Fri, 2009-06-26 15:53
#57
That's why it is incumbent on progressive Jews, at all times, to condemn and expose these criminals who purport to speak in our name.
Is it a duty as well, for people of Muslim background to denounce extremists who purport to speak for the whole? We've seen that sort of discussion before, where the sensible observations leaned towards the conclusion that it wasn't. Wouldn't a collective responsibility in confronting the liars, here and elsewhere, relieve at least some of the burden?
Fri, 2009-06-26 15:59
#58
Cueball
You are. But then you still can not dispute that there is a factual basis in the public record for each piece of evidence in her piece, including the issue of Israeli businesses being warned, which was reported in Ha'aretz. So who is the kook? All she said was Mossad had advanced information, as did other intelligence agencies (all confirmed in other sources), and they forwarded that to the CIA (at face value we can assume this intelligence forms the basis of Tenant's report to Rice) and then the evidence from the CEO of Odigo, who said they were warned 2 hours before the attack, also based in reporting from a reputable independent source.
Sorry - who published a theory that Jews were forewarned?
Evidently Hughes. It's right there, in her own words, in post 18.
I noted that the U.S. disregarded the warnings, but Israeli businesses took them seriously, and (sensibly) vacated the Twin Towers.
This says "Israeli businesses". Nothing about "the Jews" there at all. What are you on about?
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:13
#59
My problem is that CJC quite carefully noted that they were not inferring she was an anti-Semite. So how can Hughes claim CJC called her an anti-Semite? Bizarre
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:16
#60
That's why it is incumbent on progressive Jews, at all times, to condemn and expose these criminals who purport to speak in our name.Is it a duty as well, for people of Muslim background to denounce extremists who purport to speak for the whole?
No, Slumberjack, I don't speak for others. As a Jew, I have a right to call upon Jews to condemn and expose those who speak in our name and do damage. If I and other Jews are silent or ambiguous when the fraudulent Canadian "JEWISH" Congress and the criminal "state of the JEWS" and Harper and Kenney and others talk about what "JEWS" stand for, then I believe we are complicit. No normal person thinks Osama Bin Laden speaks for Muslims - but, unfortunately, many ordinary people believe that Israel and the CJC and B'nai Brith and the like speak for Jews.
I don't preach to Muslims what they should do. I definitely preach to Jews, Canadians, and Quebeckers what stands they should take - because I am one of them.
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:19
#61
My problem is that CJC quite carefully noted that they were not inferring she was an anti-Semite. So how can Hughes claim CJC called her an anti-Semite? Bizarre
You see how this character operates - it is typical of the McCarthyites. Where did Hughes "claim CJC called her an anti-Semite"? Maybe she did, but do you think this "Winnifred" can find that citation? Never mind about facts - just spew the shit around and hope it sticks.
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:25
#62
I guess the exact same way some others claim her to be an anti-semite. Funny how that works.
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:35
#63
I am not sure that last sentence makes sense, remind...
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:42
#64
remind
Why?
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:49
#65
Cueball
After 4:30 in Toronto. I guess everyone is off shift now.
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:54
#66
remind
LOL cue!
Fri, 2009-06-26 16:56
#67
remind
My problem is that CJC quite carefully noted that they were not inferring she was an anti-Semite. So how can Hughes claim CJC called her an anti-Semite? Bizarre
No they didn't actually carefully note anything, they outright attacked and stated it was her own fault not theirs, eeven though they skewed beyond recognition what she stated in her article. And what is bizarre is the claims that they didn't try and destroy her career, and that some still insist on defaming Hughes, when evidence to the contrary of what they, and you are espousing against her, have been shown to be false.
Fri, 2009-06-26 17:14
#68
My problem is that CJC quite carefully noted that they were not inferring she was an anti-Semite. So how can Hughes claim CJC called her an anti-Semite? Bizarre
Oh really!
As "careful" as the Farber piece was crafted (and I would guess it was run it past lawyers of CJC and Nat Post)--look at it:
First sentence begins:
“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, the1903 antisemitic Czarist Russian forgery, is the cornerstone of the modern twist on the centuries-old calumny alleging a global Jewish power conspiracy...."
The article, ostensibly about the sins of Leslie spends most words on the inextricable link between "jewish conspiracy theory" and antisemitism.
Now, the money shot:
Let’s be clear: CJC has never accused Ms. Hughes of being an antisemite. .... She was damned by her own hand because of her unapologetic association with 9/11 Jewish conspiracy theories.
Now, The only reading of this I can come up with is there was NO NEED for the CJC to call her an antisemite because "she was damned by her own hand" [as one ]"because of her unapologetic association with 9/11 Jewish conspiracy theories."
Thus, they have defined her stance as one and the same as antisemitism, and what talks like a duck... etc.
If someone has a more convincing reading of this piece, Id like to hear it.
Fri, 2009-06-26 17:19
#69
Lesley Hughes has no need to defend herself against the blood libel calumnies of the Farbers, Dimants, SSC, "Winnifred"... She has done nothing wrong. She was vindicated (see above) by scions of the community in Winnipeg, Jewish and non-Jewish, who have worked with her throughout many years. Now she is on the offensive. I wish her luck and offer my support in beating these bastards to the ground.
I am particularly satisfied that the craven Stéphane Dion is politically dead and gone, while she continues to stand up for what is right. History has a way of righting injustice.
Fri, 2009-06-26 17:39
#70
No, Slumberjack, I don't speak for others.....If I and other Jews are silent or ambiguous..... and Harper and Kenney and others talk about what "JEWS" stand for, then I believe we are complicit.Sorry to chop away at the quote down like this, however the logic of determining complicity in what you have put forward can just as easily be applied in other circumstances. Certainly it carries far more weight when dissident views are heard from within, but to determine that it is incumbent upon all to lend their voices towards the endeavour, or else be tarnished by the broad strokes, is exactly the sort of thing to be spoken against in other scenarios. As appreciative as it is, it is only incumbent upon you by choice.
As long as you don't deny my right to call upon fellow Jews to condemn the mass murderers, racists, and war criminals who speak in our name, you can draw whatever other unintended conclusions that you like.
Fri, 2009-06-26 17:40
#71
No, Slumberjack, I don't speak for others.....If I and other Jews are silent or ambiguous..... and Harper and Kenney and others talk about what "JEWS" stand for, then I believe we are complicit.
Sorry to chop away at the quote like this, however the logic of determining complicity in what you have put forward can just as easily be applied in other circumstances. Certainly it carries far more weight when dissident views are heard from within, but to determine that it is incumbent upon all to lend their voices towards the endeavour, or else be tarnished by the broad strokes, is exactly the sort of thing to be spoken against in other scenarios. As appreciative as it is, it is only incumbent upon you by choice.
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:12
#72
As long as you don't deny my right to call upon fellow Jews to condemn the mass murderers, racists, and war criminals who speak in our name, you can draw whatever other unintended conclusions that you like.
They weren't conclusions Unionist, just observations. I wouldn't at all imagine from your track record, that you would apply the same burden of denunciation in other areas on record, where we've witnessed various communities or individuals held under suspicion and contempt for being apolitical in feeling no special responsibility to weigh in on the crimes committed by other people who can merely trace their origins to a roughly similar geographical region. As far as I can tell, monolithic descriptions or qualities are generally found within cults and religion, or in the pages of the National Post and the like. Of course you can add your unique voice, and even call upon others, but to determine that it is incumbent, or else...I don't know about that. Well actually I do.
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:16
#73
If I understand those here that try to defend Ms. Hughes, Unionist (of the CJC aren't "Jews" fame) suggests she did nothing wrong. Yet by her own words she repeats an anti-Semitic calumny suggesting that Jews and Israelis were forewarned of the Trade centre attack and refused to warn anyone else condemning them to a horrible death. Can there be anything more detestable than Jews/Israelis protecting themselves while condemning others to die? Had she made even the slightest observation that this was an anti-Semitic calumny then no one hear would be having this discussion. It was only after her remarks were discovered did she try to cover her tracks.
Better minds than mine have explained exactly what that means. Unionist can continue to hold on to his fantasies including his ugly suggestion that people like Farber and those in the CJC don't measure up to his definition of Judaism. In my mind that is just as objectionable as those ultra-Orthodox Jews who refuse to recognize any Jews other than their own kind. They are welcome to each other.
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:18
#74
This is interesting. I have to admit that I thought Lesley Hughes was a "kook" until reading this thread, based on the second-hand press reports I saw. That was sloppy of me. Having read the thread, I see there's plenty of solid information and that she's not a kook at all, but a responsible journalist who admits that she has a point of view, but backs up all her facts scrupulously. I'm appalled at the vilification of her by the CJC and others, and I hope that her lawsuit brings to light the facts and informs thousands more people who read one or two second-hand press reports of her work.
What concerns me is the attempt to destroy careers with lies and slander of the Farber piece quoted above. Every time I read one of his sneak attacks, I am more and more convinced that Farber's part of a dangerous group that is trying to erode freedom of speech and shut down open debate. I hope they lose their shorts in this lawsuit, but I'm not optimistic.
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:26
#75
Better minds than mine have explained exactly what that means.
If it's not too much of an inconvienience, hearing from better minds might just turn out to be the antidote we'd need to counteract the spin induced vertigo.
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:32
#76
Ze, "sneak attack"? Hell he wrote an op-ed in the National Post. Hardly a "sneak attack. And what exactly did he write that was wrong. She wrote what she wrote and refused to retract or even admit it was a calumny against Jews. Im not sure why people don't get this.
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:34
#77
What concerns me is the attempt to destroy careers with lies and slander...
A word of warning...the comments section following this article.
"The neoconservatives have set up in America Thoughtcrime watch committees over professors. Academics who depart from or challenge the neocon line are reported and are subjected to vilification campaigns. Sami Al-Arian, a computer science professor at a Florida University, was destroyed by the US Department of Justice (sic) because he gave the Palestinian side of the story."
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:34
#78
Cueball
Can there be anything more detestable than Jews/Israelis protecting themselves while condemning others to die?
Where did she say anything about Jews. She said Israeli businesses. And nothing more than Yuval Dror asserted in his Ha'retz article based on testimony of the CEO of Odigo.
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:49
#79
Ze, "sneak attack"? Hell he wrote an op-ed in the National Post. Hardly a "sneak attack. And what exactly did he write that was wrong. She wrote what she wrote and refused to retract or even admit it was a calumny against Jews. Im not sure why people don't get this.
I don't "get" that it was a "calumny against Jews" because I read the material Unionist and others have posted, proving that it wasn't. I learned by reading them, so thanks to those who posted them.
If you don't get why the National Post article above is a nasty piece of slander, read it again and try to imagine yourself in Hughes' shoes. It's clearly character assassination and guilt-by-association stuff. I said "sneak attack" because it reads to me like an effort to smear someone with indirection, repeating "big lie" whisper techniques, and so on, without talking to her or anything. A textbook case of those things, indeed. Apparently on the basis she refused to "retract" something reported in the mainstream press in the UK and Israel.
Like I said, every time I read Farber, I get more and more turned off, more and more appalled, by someone I used to respect from afar for his anti-racist work.
--
"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake
Fri, 2009-06-26 19:03
#80
If you don't get why the National Post article above is a nasty piece of slander.. read it again and try to imagine yourself in Hughes' shoes.
You're assumption here is that Hughes' detractors in this thread are merely uninformed, and if they would just read a little more, they'd have their eureka moment and realize the slanderous lies for what they are.
Fri, 2009-06-26 19:05
#81
Ze what did you learn? Did you learn that Hughes refused to retract anything? Did you learn she wrote the lie about Jews and Israelis leaving the WTC as a result of being warned by the Mossad leaving others to die? Did you learn that Hughes after writing this crap also noted it was a lie? What did you learn?
Fri, 2009-06-26 19:23
#82
Can there be anything more detestable than Jews/Israelis protecting themselves while condemning others to die?Where did she say anything about Jews. She said Israeli businesses. And nothing more than Yuval Dror asserted in his Ha'retz article based on testimony of the CEO of Odigo.
Well, not quite
"Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it."
"and then the evidence from the CEO of Odigo, who said they were warned 2 hours before the attack, also based in reporting from a reputable independent source."
Fri, 2009-06-26 19:29
#83
Jaku is thrilled to repeat filthy lies that Hughes ever mentioned Jews. It shows his nature - the truth isn't scandalous enough for him, so he has to invent and repeat lies.
One good lesson from all this: It is no longer possible to vilify someone just because they attack Israel. Public opinion has begun to understand Israel's criminality. So now you have to say: "oh, when she talks about Israeli businesses, that's code for Jewish". The supporters of Israel are desperate and running scared.
Fri, 2009-06-26 20:39
#84
Can there be anything more detestable than Jews/Israelis protecting themselves while condemning others to die?Where did she say anything about Jews. She said Israeli businesses. And nothing more than Yuval Dror asserted in his Ha'retz article based on testimony of the CEO of Odigo.
Well, not quite
"Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it."
"and then the evidence from the CEO of Odigo, who said they were warned 2 hours before the attack, also based in reporting from a reputable independent source."
I'd pay attention to bekeyne's post Unionist (and his allies). There is still a freight-train sized discrepancy between what Leslie Hughes has claimed, and the evidence that you have presented.
- Leslie said that Israeli buisnesses vacated the WTC one week before the attacks, that many other intelligence agencies warned the CIA AND that this was reported by several reputable organizations.
- You have only managed to come up with one article about a probably coincidental text message to two workers at WTC (who aren't even Jewish or Israeli, and one article about the CIA director warning Rice and Rumseld non-specifically that an Al-Qaeda was preparing an attack against the US. (I know that, that was in the 9/11 commission report)
Leslie Hughes is not anti-semetic, the CJC is wrong to label her as one, but her assertion does appear to be wrong. You haven't prove she was right.
Fri, 2009-06-26 21:03
#85
I never said, nor do I believe, that Lesley Hughes was "right", nor do I care.
She was repeating 12th hand some stuff she had read in various media outlets. I personally have little time for 911 conspiracy theories.
But this story is not about that (despite Cueball's apparent wish to go in that direction). It's about the crushing of a person by powerful forces; the capitulation of the Liberal leadership to that; because the word "Israel" crept into one paragraph of something she wrote in 2002 or so, and she didn't genuflect appropriately. It is, in every respect, parallel to the humiliation of Mable Elmore earlier this year, the sole difference being that Mable was forced to (and agreed to) "apologize" for having wronged the Israel lobby, and having been absolved, was allowed to retain her candidacy.
Fri, 2009-06-26 21:22
#86
Bravo to those of you who have parsed this story and vindicated Lesley Hughes. I too hope she wins against her detractors. Unionist or anyone, can you recommend a solid summary of the work of the Israel lobby In Canada? Trends, key moments, etc.?
Fri, 2009-06-26 22:45
#87
Hughes participates in Winnipeg 911 truth movement event
http://stoplying.ca/articles/07/june/060207joeevent.php
Oh yeah, this woman is all there.....
Fri, 2009-06-26 22:47
#88
Hey, at least she signs her name to her writings, which is more that can be said for you.
Fri, 2009-06-26 22:51
#89
Dr Dawg comments on Hughes non-apology apology
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/09/cherniakian-dilemma.html
Fri, 2009-06-26 23:03
#90
Bravo to those of you who have parsed this story and vindicated Lesley Hughes. I too hope she wins against her detractors. Unionist or anyone, can you recommend a solid summary of the work of the Israel lobby In Canada? Trends, key moments, etc.?
No idea, martin, unfortunately. I think it's a story that's being written daily. Maybe IJV or someone like that can take up the task.
Fri, 2009-06-26 23:14
#91
Unionist can continue to hold on to his fantasies including his ugly suggestion that people like Farber and those in the CJC don't measure up to his definition of Judaism.
Thank you. Farber and the CJC are enemies of the Jewish people. Whether they themselves are Jews is irrelevant to me.
In my mind that is just as objectionable as those ultra-Orthodox Jews who refuse to recognize any Jews other than their own kind.
Gee, so glad to see your all-embracing love for Jews.
By the way, babblers, in case you don't understand Jaku's venom against me and the "ultra-Orthodox", let me clue you in. He measures everything and everyone by whether we support or oppose the Israeli apartheid and war criminal regime. Hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews, whatever their other beliefs, do not recognize Israel as a "Jewish state", and many of those sympathize openly with the struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom. This cannot warm Jaku's heart, and from time to time he just needs to let it all hang out.
Sat, 2009-06-27 01:38
#92
I never said, nor do I believe, that Lesley Hughes was "right", nor do I care.
She was repeating 12th hand some stuff she had read in various media outlets. I personally have little time for 911 conspiracy theories.
But this story is not about that (despite Cueball's apparent wish to go in that direction). It's about the crushing of a person by powerful forces; the capitulation of the Liberal leadership to that; because the word "Israel" crept into one paragraph of something she wrote in 2002 or so, and she didn't genuflect appropriately. It is, in every respect, parallel to the humiliation of Mable Elmore earlier this year, the sole difference being that Mable was forced to (and agreed to) "apologize" for having wronged the Israel lobby, and having been absolved, was allowed to retain her candidacy.
That's fair. I don't even disagree with you.
Sat, 2009-06-27 04:38
#93
Cueball
Dr Dawg comments on Hughes non-apology apology
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/09/cherniakian-dilemma.html
Right. It is not an apology. She didn't write anything anti-semitic.
Sat, 2009-06-27 04:38
#94
Cueball
But this story is not about that (despite Cueball's apparent wish to go in that direction).
You must be talking about someone else. The issue here is wether or not Hughes is actively fabricating false news for the purpose of defamation, and/or that she is a wingnut conspiracy theorist. Esrablishing that she is repeating what she has "read in various media outlets". That is in fact fundamental to her case against Farber, because the public charges made by Farber, revolve around the defamation accussation.
Sat, 2009-06-27 07:34
#95
But this story is not about that (despite Cueball's apparent wish to go in that direction).
You must be talking about someone else. The issue here is wether or not Hughes is actively fabricating false news for the purpose of defamation, and/or that she is a wingnut conspiracy theorist. Esrablishing that she is repeating what she has "read in various media outlets". That is in fact fundamental to her case against Farber, because the public charges made by Farber, revolve around the defamation accussation.
Fine, Cueball. I just thought you were starting to debate the historical accuracy of what Hughes had written, which is a diversion. If you were simply trying to establish that she was reporting on what various media outlets wrote, I have no problem with that. My belief though is that it's time to stop defending Lesley Hughes - many people have ably done that (see the letter I reprinted above and the diverse signatures, including those of the real Jewish community) - and we should now join with her in pointing the finger of accusation against the real villains of this piece - Peter Kent, Bernie Farber, Stéphane Dion (despite his irrelevancy), Stephen Harper, etc.
Sat, 2009-06-27 08:24
#96
Cueball
Well then, if you are going to bother critiquing what I am saying. You might as well read it. For example from post 44:
From the Washington Post story: "There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming."
How could Rice or anyone else act on non-specific information? For years people knew Al Qaeda was a threat, especially after the USS Cole bombing, but what do you do with vague information?
All that aside, for a serious journalist to entertain the notion and publish a demented conspiracy theory that Jews were forewarned, is at best irresponsible and at worst, anti-semitic psychosis.
I am not interested in the veracity of the Washington Post story or what conclusions can be drawn. If you are really interested you can go do the first hand research yourself.
I posed the following: That Hughes was asserting "facts" that were well established in the mainstream press", and that as such she was well within her rights to reprint those facts, right or wrong, based on legitimate news stories. You challenged me on the facts, and asked me for prove that Condeleeza Rice was given advance information. I have established one fact, out of several that have been proposed here.
If you want to check the rest be my guest. But rather than prove you are wrong over and over again, for an afternoon, I will do something else. You can draw your own conclusions about what Rice thought about the facts as presented to her.
Thanks.
ETA: When this goes to trial I am sure Hughes will outline "the facts" based in original copies of the relevant sources and you can review them at that time.
Sat, 2009-06-27 08:26
#97
Leslie Hughes is not anti-semetic, the CJC is wrong to label her as one, but her assertion does appear to be wrong. You haven't prove she was right.
Please show us where the CJC "labael(ed)" Hughes and anti-Semite.
Sat, 2009-06-27 09:13
#98
remind
Exactly cue.
Sat, 2009-06-27 09:42
#99
Dr Dawg comments on Hughes non-apology apology
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/09/cherniakian-dilemma.html
Dr. Dawg is a self-important arrogant snob who does not deserve to be quoted here. I will never forget [url=http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2006/12/last-word-on-abortion.html][col... example of his spirit of left unity and a cherished ally of women[/color][/url]. Not surprising that he got it wrong on Hughes. He always does.
Sat, 2009-06-27 09:47
#100
I think it is obvious that Lesley Hughes has been smeared for her views on 911, the tactics used were to take her words and twist them to make them appear to be other than what they were. It is clear from the letter above that many within the Jewish community in Winnipeg were not taken in by this campaign and continue to support her.
The questions around 911 are not going away, in fact those questions are gaining momentum and credibility around the world.
I congratulate Leslie Hughes for her courage in asking those questions the MSM are unwilling to and I hope she is successful in her pursuit of justice.
Sat, 2009-06-27 09:58
#101
If you don't get why the National Post article above is a nasty piece of slander.. read it again and try to imagine yourself in Hughes' shoes.You're assumption here is that Hughes' detractors in this thread are merely uninformed, and if they would just read a little more, they'd have their eureka moment and realize the slanderous lies for what they are.
My hope, rather than my assumption, I try to be optimistic where possible. But yes, it's clearly wild-eyed optimism to think Jaku has much interest in the truth. Mea culpa. Actually, his style is much like Farber's own in terms of smears that dance up to the line of slander, misdirection, refusal to engage when proved wrong, "big lie" techniques and so on.
Ze what did you learn? Did you learn that Hughes refused to retract anything? Did you learn she wrote the lie about Jews and Israelis leaving the WTC as a result of being warned by the Mossad leaving others to die? Did you learn that Hughes after writing this crap also noted it was a lie? What did you learn?
I learned that she did not retract, because there was nothing I've seen here that needed retraction. I learned that she did [b]not[/b] claim "all Jews" left the WTC, unless you think all Jewish people are "Israeli businesses." She may even be wrong on that, but I learned it's merely a report she repeated from the mainstream media. It's certainly not anti-semitic to state it.
I also learned that you continue to lie about what she said, and now I've learned what Slumberjack pointed out, which is that you're not misinformed but have already made up your mind to believe the lies spread by Farber and co. I'm sorry that saying this enrages you so, but I think you'll find it's a reasonably common reaction among Canadians like me who were misinformed about this case until Hughes took it to court.
--
"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake