When Canada Was a Democracy we Were Able to Ask Questions

What happened to us? I mean seriously, what happened to us?

I came of age in the 1960's and we questioned everything. This questioning gave rise to the civil rights movement and a new approach to looking at the world.

But we've now gone back to the 1950's, where we believe everything our government tells us, even when much of it is absolutely ridiculous; and allow them to make decisions for us, simply because we're obviously too lazy to make them for ourselves.

Even the seemingly progressive thinking George Stroumboulopoulos, is framing his questions to George Galloway in the video above, with the usual rhetoric. In my day Stroumboulopoulos would have been considered a stooge, yet he's now one of the more enlightened in the media.

Now don't get me wrong. I like George. He's certainly a breath of fresh air compared to people like Rex Murphy, but he's got to do better than this.

When Jason Kenney banned George Galloway from visiting Canada, he claimed it was because he sent aid to Palestine, and they are in his estimation terrorists. Yet Kenney spoke at a rally of the Mujahedeen Khalq. When it was pointed out to him that they were on Canada's Terrorist list, he shrugged it off, claiming not to know.

I think he banned Galloway because he spoke out against the war and our involvement in it. This is a government that does not allow dissent. You're with them or against them. If you question the war, you're a 'Taliban dupe'. If you question Israeli aggression, you're anti-Semitic.

Journalist and former CBC personality Lesley Hughes learned this the hard way.

In April 2002, after hearing of the deaths of 4 Canadian soldiers, as a result of so-called 'friendly fire', she sat at her computer and wrote a column encouraging Canadians to seek the truth about our involvement in Afghanistan.

At the time, her column reflected the feelings of many Canadians. We were angry and grief stricken and started looking for answers. Yet six years after this piece was written, born again Reformer Peter Kent, pounced on it; trying to paint Hughes as not only anti-Semitic, but a nut for listening to experts, who had many questions about this so-called 'war on terror'.

Because of Kent's actions and his close ties to the entertainment industry, formally known as the Canadian media, (He was an executive at CanWest Global) the press went nuts. Hughes had been running as a Liberal in the 2008 election, but because of Kent's insanity, she not only was removed from the race, but lost her career in the process.

And all because she wanted us to seek the truth. Oh, the horror!

The irony of course is that, Kent's brother, Arthur, is very outspoken on Afghanistan. In fact, he repeatedly warned this government that they were propping up the corrupt Karzai regime, when it had no legitimacy in that country. He also warned our ambassador about the drug trade, and Karzai's involvement in it; and helped with a video 'Freedom From War'. Is he a 'Taliban dupe'? Hardly.

We are pouring billions and billions of dollars into this war. Money that we don't have, but have to borrow. And we are losing too many of our soldiers. When are we going to start asking questions?

We have got to start to RETHINK AFGHANISTAN!

Truth May be the First Casualty of War, But in 2002 There Was Nothing Casual About Afghanistan

Last week Canada revealed itself once again as a truly unique nation. In a world where dead warriors are commonplace and taken for granted, this country stopped, paid attention, lowered the flags and gave full military honours to four soldiers, who died inexplicably and tragically at the hands of our allies. (Lesley Hughes, April 2002)

On October 7, 2001, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that 'Canada would contribute forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism'. In the aftermath of 9/11, an emotionally charged public was in full support of tracking down those responsible for this devastation and bringing them to justice.

The original commitment was for two years, and then we would be bringing our young men and women home. We may have questioned why it would take that long to track down Osama Bin Laden, the man believed to have engineered the attacks, but few questioned it.

However, on April 18, 2002; everything changed. While conducting a night-time training exercise, an American F-16 jet dropped a laser-guided bomb on a group of Canadian soldiers, killing four and injuring eight others. (dubbed the Tarnak Farm incident).

A nation in shock, mourned the loss of four young men: Sgt. Marc Leger, 29; Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer, 24; Pte. Richard Green, 21 and Pte. Nathan Smith, 26. There was nothing casual about the loss and we rallied in support of their families.

Bill Leger, the father of Sgt. Marc Leger, spoke in reference to Stephen Harper's 2006 decision to ban the media from covering the flag draped coffins of fallen soldiers: "... in 2002 it was a great thing for us to have the media there. It was something that we felt at that time, and still feel the same way, that it was a Canadian thing. It was something that we wanted to show all Canadians what the cost of their liberty is. It's nothing else but that. And it's still heart-warming to see the faces and everything else when people were lined up on the 401, in 2002, all the way from Trenton to Toronto. They wanted to be there. They had to be there. I was told that often, over and over again. And those are the memories that I have, and those are the things that I carry with me all my life."

What a difference almost eight years can make. Yes Harper changed his mind about banning the media, and in fact we now have a 'Highway of Heroes' so that Canadians can grieve and show their respect. That's a good thing, but should never stop our questioning of this war.

In a recent piece: Afghanistan war: Canada's defining event of past decade, By Richard Foot for Canwest; Sgt. Leger's mother is interviewed and her courage to question should be an inspiration to us all.

Ask Claire Leger what the past decade has meant to her, and she'll tell you a story of abiding sorrow.

Her 29-year-old son, Sgt. Marc Leger, was one of the first Canadians to die in Afghanistan. He and three other soldiers were killed in the desert near Kandahar in April, 2002, when a wayward American fighter pilot dropped a bomb on them in the dark.

After the tragedy, Leger and her husband Richard planted four small Canadian flags in the garden of their home near Ottawa, in memory of Marc and his comrades, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer, 24; Pte. Richard Green, 21 and Pte. Nathan Smith, 26.

Seven years later, the Legers haven't sought ''closure'' from their grief. As the war years have ticked by they've maintained a steady vigil, dutifully marking the death of every Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. There are now 133 red-and-white flags crowding the soil of their garden - one family's testament to the sombre toll of a faraway war. Curious children sometimes stop and ask Claire what the flags are for; she gives them honest answers about the sadness of Afghanistan and Canada's sacrifices there.

''Every time I have to go put a little flag in our garden, it feels like I'm burying our son all over again,'' she says. ''I send a card to every family that loses a soldier and I often get a card back, with a picture of their son or daughter.''

''There's less and less attention paid to those who are killed and it's heartbreaking to me,'' says Leger. ''I wish I could share with other families the support we had when Marc died. We were embraced by Canadians. That's what kept me going - I felt people actually cared.''
Leger is a fierce critic of what she considers an unwinnable war, and says Canada's participation has made us ''puppets'' of the Americans.

But what else has changed in this country is our freedom to discuss this war. Any criticism is immediately denounced as supporting terror. People like David Frum, Jason Kenney, Stephen Harper and others, are trying to quiet dissent, not only of the war, but of Israeli aggression in the middle east. We should be kicking and screaming about this.

Ironically, they claim that the terrorists are after us because they hate our freedoms, so whose freedoms will we hate, if we allow them to strip our freedom to speak our minds?

My opening quote from journalist Lesley Hughes, is an excellent example of how far we've fallen.

Hughes was a popular CBC radio host and respected journalist, who decided to run for the Liberal Party in the 2008 election. But then someone dredged up the 2002 article that the above quote came from, where she discussed the events leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Centre. In the piece, Get the Truth, she simply shared information she had obtained from respected members of the media, which raised questions about the complicity of the Bush Administration in the attacks. It was published right after those four Canadian soldiers had been killed in 'friendly fire', so she challenged her readers to look for the truth behind the War in Afghanistan.

Enter Peter Kent, a former journalist himself, who should have understood 'freedom of the press'. Not our Peter. He used this old story to paint Lesly Hughes as anti-Semitic because of a comment that the Israeli government removed their people from the buildings after a tip. She didn't suggest it was a 'Jewish conspiracy', but just another angle to consider.

Of course the Reformers were careful to plant this story after the candidate replacement deadline had passed, and the negative media reaction left the Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, with little choice but to remove her as a candidate.

Was this a warning to other journalists, to tow the line? Any negative reporting about the war and they could be next? Who knows. They are certainly pretty compliant.

Lesley Hughes is now suing Peter Kent and I hope she nails him to the wall. Because as Edward R. Murrow once stated: "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Holy Schmoley. I think I've Upset Mark Steyn Fans.

Yesterday I posted a piece on Mark Steyn's article that got him hauled before the Human Rights Commission. It was meant to be a continuation of my concern over the power that the Religious Right now have in this country, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.

Canadians seem to be in a stupor, suggesting they will vote for the devil they know. I just want them to know exactly what that might mean.

I do firmly believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which is why I was glad that the charges against Steyn were dropped. He might not be someone I read on a regular basis, and I'm sure he won't lose any sleep over that.

But when Stephen Harper stated that he knew he couldn't simply count on the neo-cons to keep him in power, but had to tap into the wealth and power of the theo-cons, this should raise a lot of red flags, especially with this statement: “The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values,” he said, “so conservatives must do the same. "Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ... " ( Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons, The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, by Marci McDonald, October 2006)

Foreign policy should not be based on a biblical prophesy, and I've outlined this prophesy in several posts. This is something that needs to be debated extensively.

In my post, I did question why the Religious Right rallied behind Mr. Steyn, then linked to a column by Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui , where he claimed; "The subtext here is Muslims." (not in relation to Steyn but Human Rights Commissions)

If this was simply about freedom of speech, then why did they not come to the aid of Lesley Hughes, when she was brutally attacked by Peter Kent, over an article she had written several years ago? Should she not enjoy freedom of speech or freedom of the press? Should I not?

As I have stated in all my postings, this is not about attacking some one's religion. However, once these religious groups enter the political arena, they have to accept that they will be subjected to all aspects of political debate and discourse. They can't use their religion as a shield, and I don't believe they should receive tax breaks as religious organizations, once they cross the line and actively campaign for a single party.

Fundamentalism is absolute, and not open to debate; but the majority of Canadians are not fundamentalists, so where does that leave us, if our Prime Minster and a good portion of his caucus are? If the Religious Right are part of his infrastructure for the 'right-wing revolution', then I have a right to say that I think his architects lack vision and are destroying the Canadian scene.

I Love it When Young People Get Involved

I really like this video and am always encouraged when young people speak their minds. It was also nice about half way in, when the elderly woman in a clear voice, with intellect and compassion; expressed her concerns with what war is doing to the environment and naturally the waste of human life and dignity.

My father gave me the gift of skepticism, and while at times it's been a curse, I can't settle for simple answers to complex questions.

Whether I choose to agree with everything the protesters are saying or not, I admire their courage and determination. They are right to be concerned that Stephen Harper is selling our sovereignty and they are right to be concerned that American soldiers are now allowed to patrol our cities. They are also right to question exactly what the North American Union (NAU), and Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) will mean for their future.

And of course, they should also question the official version of 9/11, as I myself do. I don't want to believe that a government would allow an attack on their own soil to happen just to advance an agenda, but until all the questions are answered, many will never find closure.

The Harper government discourages any kind of independent thinking. Jason Kenney is trying to tell us that any criticism of Israeli aggression can be deemed to be anti-semitism, and therefore a hate crime.

Former Liberal candidate Lesly Hughes wrote an article several years ago after the first deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, and Peter Kent used it against her; trying to paint her as some kind of nut. Now a once respected journalist can't even find work in her field. She's suing him and I hope she throws him into bankruptcy. He should be ashamed. He was once a journalist himself.

Harper not only silences his caucus but is also trying to silence the Canadian people. These guys on the video are funny and passionate and obviously intelligent. I love when they tell Harper to come down so they can place him under citizens arrest, claiming "we promise we won't water board you".

Very comical.

The B'Nai Brith Trivialize Authentic Hate Crimes

Many people, especially politicians, tell us that hate crimes, in particular antisemitism, are on the rise, and reaching epidemic proportions.

However, I believe that since we've narrowed the gap between what is an actual hate crime and political incorrectness, legitimate hate crimes are being trivialized.

One group that is severely clouding the issue, is the B'Nai Brith, who have latched onto the Conservative party of Canada and are using them to push an agenda of anti-Muslim legislation.

Once a faith based group decides to play partisan politics, they leave themselves open to criticism. This is not religious persecution, but legitimate political debate.

The B'Nai Brith is a great organization that does a lot of wonderful things, but they are also political activists, who are now working closely with men like Jason Kenney and Peter Kent, so can no longer use their religion as a shield.

This new antisemitism, simply means any criticism of Israel, or support of the Palestinian people. This is absolutely wrong, on every level imaginable, because when you cry fowl over the trivial, serious racism takes a back seat.

Besides, this is more about islamophobia, then antisemitism.

B'Nai Brith Attacks the Canada Palestine Film Festival ... Again!
To Profess "Neutrality" in the Face of Injustice is to Side with the Oppressor, Says CanPalNet-Winnipeg
October 02, 2005
By Paul Burrows

In a press release dated September 28th, 2005, B'Nai Brith Canada claimed that the 2nd Annual Canada Palestine Film Festival, which opens today at Winnipeg's prestigious Cinematheque theatre, is "about propaganda not art." The implication, of course, is that defending the State of Israel — regardless of its behaviour — can be "objective" and "artistic," whereas criticizing Israel's actual human rights record, or portraying Palestinians as human beings with legitimate claims to self-determination, is by definition "propaganda," or worse: anti-Semitism.

In their press release, B'Nai Brith legal counsel David Matas repeats his annual claim that "the very title of this year's festival, 'Occupation Will Still Be Televised,' denotes an attitude that is a priori prejudicial and harmful to Israel, and blatantly misrepresents the facts on the ground."

Never mind the fact that many Israelis, including the "refusenik" soldiers interviewed in the Israeli documentary "On the Objection Front," believe that it is the Occupation itself that is "prejudicial and harmful to Israel." But David Matas is clearly implying by this sentence that there is no such thing as "an Israeli occupation," a statement that flies in the face of aggressive Israeli colonization and military rule in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem since 1967, not to mention 38 years of United Nations resolutions (going back to Resolution 242), and repeated violations of assorted international legal covenants, including (but not limited to) the Geneva Conventions, which specifically prohibit the transfer of "settlers" into occupied territory.

It is clear that it is Matas himself who has little real knowledge of the "facts on the ground" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and little awareness of (or concern about) the human rights abuses of the Israeli State.

David Matas goes on to decry the fact that "a public venue [Cinematheque] is being used to host an event that has as its raison d'etre the promotion of vicious anti-Israel propaganda." Interestingly, this past year when Concordia University balked at hosting a speaking engagement with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Matas (on behalf of B'Nai Brith Canada) threatened legal action against the university administration for not allowing that "public institution" to be used by local Zionist groups to advance their political agenda.

It is crystal clear from these two examples that David Matas is a hypocrite when it comes to Israel-Palestine. Evidently, he does not care one iota about a "public institution" hosting talks or events about the Israel-Palestine conflict, so long as Matas agrees with the content. It is also clear from such examples that Matas — representing a human rights group that is only concerned about certain kinds of victims, and unwilling to consider the possibility that Israel can do wrong - has a clear conflict of interest when it comes to advancing the cause of human rights.

Whether Israel engages in massive human rights violations or war crimes is an empirical question — not a matter of faith or definition. Matas should know better, as he has done good work related to human rights and immigration in other areas.

B'nai Brith is correct about one thing: we do not claim to be "neutral." It is our view that to profess "neutrality" in the face of injustice, is to side with the oppressor. This is an elementary moral truism, whether we are talking about Israel-Palestine, or Apartheid South Africa, or the Nazi occupation of Poland, or for that matter, historical and ongoing Canadian colonialism and treatment of First Nations peoples.

And no, we are not suggesting "equivalency" through the use of such comparisons. We are rejecting the myth of "neutrality" and the mindless calls for "balance" that plague any discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

We agree with Canadian historian Irving Abella (author of the classic book "None is Too Many") when he scoffed at a CBC journalist for suggesting that they needed to find someone to represent "the other side" in the debate about Zundel and Holocaust denial. Abella rightly exclaimed: "What's to be said for the other side? The other side was the killing side!" Palestine is not Nazi Germany, but serious human rights violations are occurring, and Palestinians are slowly being dispossessed of their ancestral homeland in the name of ethnic-religious exclusivity.

Abella's principled indignation at the notion that "balance" requires a forum for someone to defend military occupation and ethnic cleansing, is a universal moral principle that B'Nai Brith Canada has yet to grasp.

In an article in the September 29th Winnipeg Sun, Pat St. Germain states that even using the adjectives "brutal and illegal" to describe Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands "doesn't suggest organizers are wide open to debate." Germain also lets Matas dominate the article, with a brief sound byte in the middle by one of CanPalNet's members.

In this article, Matas once again admits to having not seen 95% of the festival's content, and completely mischaracterizes Michel Khleifi's award-winning feature "Wedding in Galilee" as a film that "blames Israel for the impotence of Palestinian men." (Last year, he admitted on CBC radio that he had not seen any of the films he was attacking.) He also re-hashes his tired refrain that "Resistance is a code word for endorsing terrorism, and Occupation is a code word for Israel should not be there." (See Pat St. Germain, "Palestine Film Fest Slammed," Winnipeg Sun, Sept. 29, 2005, p.28)

But "resistance" is not a code word justifying "terror" as Matas suggests. It is true that "resistance" can be both violent and nonviolent. But even "armed struggle" against a foreign occupation is a right guaranteed under international law — so long as it does not violate the Geneva Conventions itself.

Targeting civilians is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, not to mention immoral and generally counter-productive. Our organization opposes all forms of terrorism, whether they are committed by non-state actors like Palestinian suicide bombers, or by the military of a country like Israel. David Matas clearly only opposes terrorism that is directed at Israeli civilians. Our organization is categorically opposed to terrorism, regardless of the perpetrator or the victim.

More to the point about the Canada Palestine Film Festival, however, is that the films themselves do not even promote armed resistance to Israel of any kind, discriminating or non-discriminating - though one of the documentaries ("Women in Struggle") does interview Palestinian women who have engaged in armed resistance.

Most of the films we have shown in the past, and are showing this year, offer example after example of nonviolent resistance: simply going outside to buy groceries during curfew, trying to cross checkpoints to get to school, or violating foreign military decrees prohibiting the building of homes, or the harvesting of crops, on land that has been owned by one's family for generations, even centuries. These are all examples of what we mean by "resistance." Matas would know this if he actually bothered to watch the films before condemning them.

For those who want to know what the Canada Palestine Film Festival is actually about, and who might care to view some of the film submissions before they condemn them, the festival aims in part to raise awareness about the nature of Israel's brutal military occupation, and the daily reality for ordinary Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, or within Israel proper.

We try to include films by Palestinians, as well as by Jewish Israelis, that don't typically get shown in Canada, or films that offer critical perspectives that you won't see or hear in the mainstream, corporate media. The festival is about letting such marginal voices speak for themselves, and letting Winnipeggers decide what to do with that information.

We do not necessarily agree with everything that is argued or said by the filmmakers, or their subjects, in the films we choose to screen. But we do think they are nevertheless worth seeing, discussing, and debating in public forums, in universities, in churches and synagogues, and in people's homes, and that grappling with such perspectives is a necessary prerequisite for understanding the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict, not to mention achieving a meaningful, lasting, and just peace in the Middle East.

Finally, I think it is important to re-emphasize that Palestinians are no less entitled to cultural, artistic, aesthetic, cinematic, and yes, political expression than any other people on the planet.

Apparently, there are people and organizations who think otherwise, and who believe that any and all criticism of the State of Israel is either "anti-Semitic" or a defence of terrorism. This is complete and utter rubbish. Thankfully, increasing numbers of people in Winnipeg, Canada, and around the world (including more and more members of the Jewish community in both Israel and the diaspora, who are saying "Not in My Name" to occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing) ... thankfully, such people are beginning to lose patience with the bullying tactics of Israel's apologists. They are beginning to lose patience with the threats and all-too-common charges of "anti-Semitism" from those, like David Matas, who cannot handle criticism of their favoured State.

Thankfully, audience-goers at last year's first Canada Palestine Film Festival were not intimidated, and feedback from people who actually bothered to watch the films was almost universally positive. Honest, ordinary Canadians are beginning to open their eyes to the fact that there are serious issues of human rights, dignity, self-determination, and liberation that need addressing in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Regardless of how loud the hysteria, how prevalent the non-sequiturs, and how thick the mud and name-calling hurled by the likes of David Matas and B'Nai Brith, the truth about Israel's actual behaviour is evident to those who care to see. Like it or not, Mr. Matas, the Occupation will still be televised.

Paul Burrows is a member of the Canada Palestine Support Network (Winnipeg), ISM-Winnipeg, and an organizer with the Canada Palestine Film Festival.

Ironically, this government keeps telling us that Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying for our freedom, while they try to take it away. We are smart enough to know that there are two sides to every story, and have the right to know both sides, and decide for ourselves who's right and who's wrong.

If we have to fight so hard to learn 'the other side', it only serves to make us suspicious and could result in the opposite reaction to one they're trying to shove down our throats. Jason Kenney or Peter Kent don't speak for me; they don't think for me; and Stephen Harper is not my Prime Minister.

Tory Caucus Upset With Both Lisa Raitt and Joy Smith

Members of the Conservative caucus feel that Lisa Raitt should use a different kind of tape the next time she opens her mouth, but also agree with her concerns over backbencher Joy Smith.

Smith is now part of a controversy over irregularities during the 2008 election campaign, that has resulted in a lawsuit against Peter Kent and several Jewish organizations.

It is not a religious matter, however, but a political one, that has some people wondering what was behind the whole fiasco.

As a strong social conservative and longtime friend and supporter of Stockwell Day, the Conservatives pulled out all the stops to make sure she held onto her seat.

However, in the infamous tape that Lisa Raitt's assistant accidentally turned on during a road trip, we learned that Raitt was surprised that Joy Smith was allowed to present a bill that should have been the responsibility of a high ranking cabinet minister, and not a backbencher. Apparently, other members of the Party agree with her.

Raitt's shot at Manitoba MP Joy Smith caught on tape
Winnipeg Free Press
By: Mia Rabson
June 9, 2009

OTTAWA - A Winnipeg Conservative MP who was among the targets of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt caught on tape is keeping her opinions of the incident to herself.

Joy Smith, the MP from Kildonan-St. Paul, said Tuesday she would not comment about the tape.

The tape of Raitt, having a conversation with her director of communications, Jasmine MacDonnell, was made accidentally while the two were in a car on a trip to British Columbia in January.

The tape recorder was later forgotten by MacDonnell in a media office on Parliament Hill. She said she would come back for it, but it was never retrieved. Last week when MacDonnell resigned after leaving secret government documents at another media office in Ottawa, Steve Maher, a reporter from the Halifax Chronicle Herald, listened to it.

Raitt makes disparaging remarks about both Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and Smith.

Raitt said Smith had made a bad move by introducing a private member's bill to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for human trafficking of children.

"Speaking of career-limiting moves, I’m in shock that that MP, Joy Smith, brought forward private member’s legislation on human trafficking," Raitt says on the tape.

Smith had just introduced the bill that week.

"She’s on Canada AM. And the reason being is that there’s no way any of us should be introducing anything around justice issues or finance issues right now. You just can’t touch those two things."

It was widely known among Conservatives that bills dealing with justice or finance issues were to be introduced by cabinet only, as justice and the economy are the pillars of this government.

At least one Conservative however suggested Raitt's comments about Smith reflected what a lot of people in the caucus thought then.

However the legislation has done quite well, has received a lot of attention and got the backing from the NDP and the Liberals. It passed a parliamentary committee Monday and if there is not an election in the interim, it has a good chance to pass through the house and the Senate this fall, and become law before the Olympics in Vancouver next winter.

Many fear the Olympics will draw human traffickers in large numbers.

The bill also has served, albeit in a very small way to boost Conservative esteem in Quebec, where the party is faltering badly.

Quebec, particularly the Montreal area, is considered one of the hot beds of human trafficking in Canada and a lot of non-governmental organizations and the police are dismayed the Bloc Quebecois are voting against Smith's bill.

Recent polls have the Conservatives with very little support in Quebec, severely affecting the party's chance to ever form a majority government.

Smith has a personal stake in another part of the Raitt tape controversy as well.

Raitt, in discussing the problems at the Chalk River nuclear reactor and the resulting the shortage of isotopes for cancer tests, appeared excited at the prospect the issue would help her career and said the issue was "sexy" because it involved "radioactive leaks" and "cancer".

Smith's husband is battling cancer.

The comments about the Chalk River are likely to be the biggest problem for Raitt, who so far has kept her job in spite of the controversy.

One Conservative said most people in the party seem upset by the comments. "You don't do this to further one's career," said the source.

A poll conducted by the Winnipeg Free Press, asking if readers thought that Lisa Raitt should resign, revealed that 73% of respondents felt that she should.

More Postings on Lisa Raitt:

1. Garth Turner Must Think He's Died and Gone to Heaven

2. Lisa Raitt Accuses Jim Prentice of Pandering to Oilfields

3. Harper's Misuse of Tapes is Coming Back to Bite Him

4. Lisa Raitt's Apology is as Empty as Her Head. WARNING: RANT IN PROGRESS!

5. Lisa Raitt Thinks Isotope Shortage is Sexy. Is She Kidding Me?

6. Will Jasmine MacDonnell Get the Last Laugh?

7. The Isotope Crisis Reveals More Conservative Deceit

8. Lisa Raitt Digs For Gold in Taxpayers Wallet

9. Don't Criticize Lisa Raitt or She'll Sue

10. Careless Lisa Raitt Passes the Buck

11. Canada For Sale and Has Lisa Raitt Got a Deal For You

12. Lisa Raitt Says "Not Now Dear, I've Got a Headache"

13. Lisa Raitt Not Yet Done Screwing Up it Would Seem

14. A Dying Man's Letter to Lisa Raitt. Cancer is Not Sexy!

Peter Kent Kicks Up His Heels Over Lesley Hughes' Demise, But Not For Long

The late Billy Graham said: "When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost."

I believe Peter Kent still has his wealth and probably his health, but can never regain his character.

This once respected media personality has reduced himself to the level of the other so-called Conservatives, who put staying in power above human decency.

His role in the character assassination of former Liberal candidate, Lesley Hughes, will certainly put him in the Conservative/Reform/Alliance/Party's (or C.R.A.P.) Hall of Fame. Right there with Jason Kenney, Stockwell Day, etc., etc.

Of course it also puts him in the media hall of shame with other fallen comrades, like Mike Duffy and Steve Murphy, but I doubt he really cares.

Duffy got a senate seat, Murphy got the back seat and Joy Smith held onto her seat. His job was done.

I've been doing a little research in what was behind the story of a lawsuit launched against Conservative Peter Kent and several Jewish organizations, by Ms. Hughes, and what I found out is abysmal, and something that never should have been allowed to happen in a free country.

The B'Nai Brith and Peter Kent, waiting until it was too late for the Liberals to find a replacement for her, 'exposed' an old article she had written, then twisted it in one of the most convoluted ways imaginable, to paint her as antisemitic and possibly insane. She is neither.

But click here and you'll see Petie boy, another Conservative demon, Jason Kenney, and their partners in this debacle, the B'Nai Brith. The caption with the photo reads: "Dancing up a storm at recent Embassy of Poland and B’nai Brith Canada event were (from the left): Klezmer Band singer Floralove Katz; Polish Ambassador Piotr Ogrodzinski; Thornhill MP Peter Kent; Michael Mostyn, B’nai Brith’s national director of public affairs; Wladyslaw Lizon, president of the Polish Canadian Congress, and Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney." The next time you see these guys together will be in a court of law where they'll have to kick up some cash. Shameful.

And they celebrated here.

And Here The caption under the photo of Stephen Harper with the aproned lasses reads: 'Bubbies for Harper. Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper with Conservative Rochelle Wilner, a past president of B’nai Brith Canada, surrounded by Jewish grandmothers.'

Remember B'Nai Brith is not a religious organization in the true sense, but a political activist group that does not represent the interests of the majority of the Jewish People. Mazel Tov!

Other Postings on Peter Kent:

The B'Nai Brith Trivialize Authentic Hate Crimes

Media Complicit in Viscous Attack on Lesley Hughes

Lesley Hughes Was Not the First Victim of the B'Nai Brith

Lesley Hughes is Not Antisemitic. No Way, No How.

The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth

I'm so Disappointed in Peter Kent and His Views on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Family Squabbles With a Twist: Arthur and Peter Kent

Media Complicit in Viscous Attack on Lesley Hughes

When the B'Nai Brith and Peter Kent launched their attack on Winnipeg Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes, the media went nuts.

But not in protest as they should have to protect 'freedom of the press', but instead fed like sharks on the carcass of honest journalism.

Hmmm ... journalism ... now that's a stretch.

But they're not all so devoid of fact finding:

Hughes not anti-Semitic
Peter H. Markesteyn
Winnipeg
Media smear campaign

Having known Lesley Hughes professionally and personally for over 25 years, I wish to state that she has not a grain of anti-Semitism in her.

The mainstream media reports on the Stephane Dion firing of Lesley Hughes, the former Liberal candidate in Kildonan-St. Paul, fill all the offensive reporting criteria of which we have become so used to.

For example, instead of addressing the issues, the reporter, Dan Lett, uses name-calling tactics in his Sept. 27 article titled, "Altar of Google ravenous for sacrifices". Lett writes that Hughes has "curious views" and is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist."

Lett doesn't stop there, he takes a swipe also at Barrie Zwicker and those who question the "official 9/11 conspiracy story of record", calling them "infamous". Lett, unlike Hughes and Zwicker, however, never addresses the as yet unanswered questions and unreported and under-reported information surrounding 9/11 which the mainstream media has so far meticulously ignored. For doing her job as a journalist and reporting the news Hughes is now the victim of a smear campaign. The WFP, or any other paper, should not be able to smear journalists reputations just because they report the facts people don’t want to hear.

Sadly, Dan Lett's article wasn't the worst:

National Post Editorial Board: Goodbye to Lesley Hughes
September 27, 2008,
by Kelly McParland

Stéphane Dion was right to jettison Lesley Hughes, the Liberal candidate in the Winnipeg riding of Kildonan-St. Paul. Her poisonous views have no place in a major Canadian party.

Ms. Hughes, a former CBC radio host who until recently edited the socialist magazine Canadian Dimension, is sympathetic to the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. “Truthers,” as they are known, believe the downing of New York’s World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001 was the result of a vast plot by the Israeli secret service, or the CIA, or both.

In a 2002 column, Ms. Hughes wrote that the shock and sorrow portrayed by “corporate media, privately owned newspapers, television and radio chains” following the 9/11 attacks “was hard to swallow, coming from the same media that … couldn’t wait to send young Canadians into a war on terrorism.”

Without citing specific examples, she insisted the CIA (which she claimed gets its “strategies and directions” from Wall Street, which itself is “heavily dependent on laundered drug money”) had “foreknowledge” of the al-Qaeda attacks. She also insisted the attacks were possible only through “the complicity of highly placed officials in the U.S. government.”

Ms. Hughes then went on to repeat a variation of the Internet canard that legions of Jews avoided death in the Twin Towers because the Mossad knew the attacks were coming and warned them: “Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it.”

As recently as last year, Ms. Hughes was still peddling her preposterous views, appearing on a panel in Winnipeg with notorious 9/11 denier Barry Zwicker and others. Good riddance to this woman. Her consolation: Now that she has been bounced from the Liberal campaign, she will have plenty of time to find the “real killers” behind 9/11.There are some who claim Tory Calgary Centre MP Lee Richardson should also be bounced, for saying to a Calgary weekly newspaper that immigrants are behind most of that city’s crime. “Look who’s committing the crimes,” he said. “They’re not the kid who grew up next door.”

Well, in many cases, they are the kids from next door. That, in part, is what Mr. Richardson’s own party’s youth-crime strategy is all about -- putting a little deterrent into the criminal justice system so ordinary kids don’t go astray in such numbers.

But Mr. Richardson was referring specifically to the recent rash of fatal shootings and stabbings in Calgary, most of which, according to Calgary police, are related to gangs with such names as FOB and FOB Killers. (FOB stands for Fresh Off the Boat -- a derogatory reference to immigrants that, like other taboo words, has been appropriated by those it purports to describe.) In August, Calgary police conducted 25 raids on FOB hangouts, netting 14 suspects who face more than 100 charges for drug and gun possession, car theft, robbery and a variety of other crimes.

Which is to say, there was a grain of truth behind Mr. Richardson’s ill-chosen remarks. As such, they were hardly in the same league as Ms. Hughes’ rantings. His indiscretion wasn’t severe enough to merit expulsion. The same can’t be said, however, for Bev Collins, who is now running as the NDP candidate in Cariboo-Prince George. Here’s what Ms. Collins has said about the possibility of another major terrorist attack in the United States: “Bush is losing his support base faster than he can say al-Qaida. Now officials are warning their fellow Americans and the world that Cheney and friends are planning to launch a 9/11-style attack on American soil within the coming months to bring about martial law and keep their hold on power.”

Even more damning was Collins’ participation in a creepy 2007 9/11 “truth” conference in Vancouver, at which various experts presented evidence to show that the World Trade Center was blown up from within.

Yet unlike Stéphane Dion, NDP leader Jack Layton has so far refused to cleanse his candidate ranks of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Why? Is it because, unlike Ms. Hughes, Ms. Collins has aimed her ludicrous theories only at the United States, and not at Israel? (looks whose being antisemitic now) Or does the NDP simply regard such theories as Ms. Collins’ to be acceptable?

Either way, Canadians should be offended. If Mr. Layton wants to convince Canadians that the NDP is a truly mainstream party, he must strike Bev Collins from his candidate list.

Kelly McParland is an idiot. There is a growing number of intelligent and well educated people who are questioning the official explanation of the comedy of errors, believing that to be the tinfoil hat in the room.

Obviously he either didn't read Ms Hughes' article, because she never suggests that legions of Jews knew of the attacks, only that the Israeli intelligence agency had warned the U.S. several weeks before the attack; or he has a problem with comprehension. Not a good trait for a journalist.

Or maybe he just paraphrased Peter Kent (before picking up his pay cheque? I'm just saying. Conservative Lee Richardson is a saint for suggesting that all crime is committed by immigrants, but a journalist is discredited for reporting alternative theories to 9/11).

She did offer an explanation, but really didn't need to. I read her article and she did nothing wrong. If we condemn every reporter for presenting things we don't want to hear, why bother having an independant media at all.

Lesley Hughes responds
October 1st 2008
By Lesley Hughes

Six years ago, I wrote a column which examined evidence that the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan may have been motivated by the drive for oil and drug profits.

As background, I reported that the intelligence agencies of Germany, Israel and Russia all warned the CIA that the attacks of Sept. 11 were coming, a fact also reported in the London Telegraph, the Jerusalem Post, and on Fox News. I noted that the U.S. disregarded the warnings, but Israeli businesses took them seriously, and (sensibly) vacated the Twin Towers.

The Canadian Jewish Congress seems to have assumed that I am one of those who subscribe to a bizarre conspiracy theory that the world’s Jews were responsible for 9-11, a ludicrous idea I have never supported.

As a result of the Congress’s assumption, I have been slandered as an odious anti-Semite, a claim accepted by the prime minister, by the leader of the opposition, and the nation’s media. I have also been labelled an extremist nutbar who has promoted, rather than investigated, the possibility that 9-11 was an inside job. As a result, the voters of Kildonan-St. Paul have no Liberal candidate, and a narrower debate before electing their MP.

One hopes journalists will be asking two questions: 1) Who benefits from this hysteria? 2) Is it still possible for journalists to do the work of journalism, which is to “challenge the official story” in an atmosphere of fear and ridicule?

I have a third question. Will Kelly McParland or Dan Lett ever grow a pair?

Lesley Hughes Was Not the First Victim of the B'Nai Brith

The French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte once said: "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet." Of course he also said: "Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich", though I suppose both quotes are relevant.

Like the U.S. Republicans, the Conservative party of Canada has latched onto religious and quasi religious groups like a baby to .... well never mind ... you get the picture.

To keep track of all the churches, para churches and non-profit organizations that prop up what passes for Tory these days, you'd need the equivalent of a debt clock, that is constantly in motion.

Once you track down one nefarious group, ten more rear their ugly heads, and you get lost in a cycle of deceit.

Now don't get me wrong. I have no problem with any religion that promotes human decency, and can even be tolerant to those that don't.

But once those religions cross the line into politics, they are fair game for political debate. It absolutely has to be that way before this government completely destroys our country.

This brings us to the Lesley Hughes' lawsuit against Peter Kent and the B'Nai Brith, who in may ways are one and the same.

Lesley Hughes, however, was not the first political candidate targeted by the B'Nai Brith.

B'Nai Brith Canada tells Liberals to dump star candidate
July 24, 2007

B'Nai Brith Canada has asked Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to remove new star candidate Jocelyn Coulon from an upcoming byelection in Montreal's Outremont riding because of his past stance on Israel. It says Coulon has a "well-documented anti-Israel bias," including sympathy for Hamas, that is "out of step with current Liberal policy."

But of course, there's more to the story:

B'nai Brith is too quick to brand people as anti-Israel
Rights organization is guilty of overkill and risks undermining its own mission
JOSEE LEGAULT,
The Gazette
July 27 2007

Courtesy of the Quebec chapter of B'nai Brith, there's a very strange controversy brewing in the federal riding of Outremont where a by-election is due this fall.

B'nai Brith fired off a strongly worded press release demanding Liberal leader St?phane Dion dump his handpicked candidate, respected international relations expert Jocelyn Coulon, whom Dion wants as his foreign affairs minister should he ever form a government.

The human rights watchdog says Coulon has a "well-documented anti-Israel bias," a "hostile attitude toward Israel," "anti-U.S. rhetoric" and that his calls for the end of the isolation of Hamas "ought to disqualify him."

According to this week's West End Chronicle, Morse Moghrabi, B'nai Brith's legal counsel for Quebec, warned, in an email to B'nai Brith leadership, that Coulon "is a subtle individual with very pro-Arab/pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel/anti-American/anti-West views."

Steven Slomovitch, also of B'nai Brith, is quoted as saying Coulon's views are "obviously a grave concern to the Jewish people."

It is perhaps the last sentence that contains B'nai Brith's main problem here. It is growing increasingly tiresome to have that organization sound as if it speaks for the "Jewish people," among whom there is a much greater variety of viewpoints than there is at B'nai Brith. Regarding Coulon, it's important to note the Quebec-Israel Committee was quick to voice its disagreement with B'nai Brith.

But it's also troubling to see B'nai Brith act in a way that can undermine high-profile people's reputations by making an unfounded case against those it says are anti-Israel. Others have expressed views that B'nai Brith has labelled as anti-Semitic, xenophobic, intolerant, and so on.

Anyone who has read Coulon's columns, whether they agree with him or not, would need a very fertile imagination to brand his opinions as anti-Israel.

Last June, B'nai Brith also went after Serge Chapleau, La Presse's brilliant cartoonist. It called his cartoon of Mario Dumont dressed as a Hasid "grossly offensive" and a reminder of "the worst anti-Semitic ravings." To call this accusation false is an understatement.

In December 2000, Yves Michaud also got a taste of B'nai Brith's medicine. Saying that he had peppered an interview to CKAC with "insults against Jews," it also asked then-Premier Lucien Bouchard to dump him as a potential Parti Quebecois candidate for the riding of Mercier.

And the rest, as they say, is history. Two days later, the National Assembly adopted unanimously a shameful motion of censure against Michaud. Bouchard resigned on Jan. 11, jumping at the chance to dump the PQ and present himself as a paragon of tolerance against what he now saw as his party's xenophobic tendencies.

In its press release applauding Bouchard for fighting the PQ's "sectarian and intolerant" attitude, B'nai Brith referred to Michaud's "manifestations of xenophobia and intolerance."

To be sure, B'nai Brith has the freedom of expression. If it disagrees with some of Coulon's views, it can debate with him. But freedom of expression also carries the notion of responsibility.

Is it responsible to keep making these kinds of accusations without firm evidence or to try to keep honest citizens out of politics by calling on their leaders to axe them?

It not only risks hurting reputations needlessly - and a reputation is a precious thing in life. It can also have dire impact on careers. This is not a game. This is serious stuff. When B'nai Brith publishes its annual report on anti-Semitic incidents in Canada, it names people, sometimes with no reason, including respected journalists, without weighing the possible consequences.

When it does this, B'nai Brith also helps trivialize the real thing. Words have meaning. Being anti-Israel means something, so does being xenophobic, anti-Semitic, intolerant or racist.

By crying wolf, using such grave words when they're not warranted, we risk missing the real thing when it does rear its ugly head.

Lesley Hughes was also not the first poltical candidate wrongly accused by the B'Nai Brith to sue:

B'nai B'rith Canada: With malice aforethought
Winnipeg Free Press
November 26, 1987

In 1984, while running for election to the Canadian Parliament as a Conservative Party candidate (this would be the Progressive Conservative Party, not the Reform/Alliance Conservative Party), Winnipeg schoolteacher Luba Fedorkiw, discovered, to her utter amazement, that B'nai B'rith Canada, a major so-called Jewish "anti-defamation" organization, had circulated an internal memo which accused the candidate of "Jew-baiting."

This allegation was subsequently repeated in the Winnipeg Sun, and the resulting defamation cost her the election. Luba Fedorkiw sued B'nai B'rith Canada for libel, with the result that she was eventually awarded $175,000 in actual damages and $225,000 in punitive damages against the organization.

And another viewpoint from an American scholar on Ms. Fedorkiw:

An American Professor Responds to a 'Jewish Activist'

Another example of behavior by Jewish organizations that tends to chill free expression involved the Canadian teacher Luba Fedorkiw. Running for the Canadian Parliament in 1984, she "discovered to her utter amazement that B'nai B'rith Canada ... had circulated an internal memo which accused her of 'Jew-baiting!'" (L. Wilcox, 1996, pp. 81-82). The allegation was repeated in the Winnipeg Sun along with the assertion that she was being investigated by B'nai B'rith on suspicion of anti-Semitism. The resulting defamation cost her the election to David Orlikow, and subjected her to malicious harassment.

According to Ms. Fedorkiw, when the investigation was publicized, she received obscene and harassing telephone calls, a swastika was spray-painted on her campaign office, and a number of her political supporters withdrew their backing. She sued for libel and won a $400,000 judgment on the basis that a claim that she had said her opponent was "controlled by the Jews" was not true.

This new attack on journalists is unprececedeted. We've seen in with the way that the Conservatives cherry picked articles written by Michael Ignatieff, to launch Karl Rove style attack ads.

I'm surprised that Peter Kent, who himself was once a journalist, would stoop to such tactics. He should know about things like 'freedom of the press' and 'freedom of speech'.

So B'Nai Brith cries wolf and Peter Kent cries 'yeah'. I cry 'enough is enough'. I want my country back.

Lesley Hughes is Not Antisemitic. No Way, No How.

After reading a small blurb in our local paper about a lawsuit launched against Conservative Peter Kent and several Jewish organizations, by former Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes; I knew there had to be more to the story.

And there was.

The Conservatives have proven time and again that they will stop at nothing to gain and maintain power. From their criminal assault on French Canadians and the truth, during the parliamentary crisis; to buying seats and silence; they are an orange jumpsuit away from living out their dream of a law and order state - from the inside.

But one of their main focuses during the last two campaigns has been on what they refer to as 'soft seats'.

Kildonan–St Paul (Winnipeg), has always been a swing riding, and one they felt was critical to hold. Joy Smith, the Conservative incumbent, has been a long-time Stockwell Day supporter and was the Manitoba organizer for his bid for leadership of the Alliance Party (now calling themselves Conservatives). She is a social conservative with strong views against same-sex marriage, even breaking down in tears during one debate, so they needed to keep her on their team.

On the other hand, Lesley Hughes was a popular CBC radio host and respected journalist, who had always been an advocate for the less fortunate members of society. She also had a large number of supporters, who were eager to have her voice in Ottawa.

But then the unthinkable happened. Someone dredged up an old article she had written in 2002, discussing the events leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Centre. As a journalist, she was sharing the information she had obtained from respected members of the media, which raised questions about the complicity of the Bush Administration.

It was published right after four Canadian soldiers had been killed in 'friendly fire', so she challenged her readers to look for the truth behind the War in Afghanistan. A good journalist does not just report news but also encourages their followers to enter into debate.

Lesly Hughes was a good journalist.

The Conservatives were careful to plant this story after the candidate replacement deadline had passed, and the negative media reaction left the Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, with little choice but to remove her as a Liberal candidate. Perhaps if he'd had a little more time to investigate the nonsense, he would have stood behind her, but Peter Kent made sure that wouldn't happen.

The very next day he posted a diatribe on his website, accusing her of all sorts. He wanted to make sure that not only would Ms Hughes not win the election (she remained in the race as an independent), but that the Liberal brand would be poisoned, not only by his antisemitic accusations, but by the backlash from her supporters.

It worked.

In an online readers poll, the Winnipeg Free Press asked: "Do you think Liberal leader Stephane Dion was right to turf Lesley Hughes over 9/11 conspiracy writings?" Of the 2,469 readers who responded, 73 percent said "No."

In the article in question, which I have posted in it's entirety here, the only mention of Jews at all was in this paragraph:

"German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August. Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3000 Americans working there were not so lucky."

Hughes is crediting the Israeli intelligence agency with attempting to warn the Americans of an impending attack on the Twin Towers, while ensuring that their own people were safe. What in the hell is antisemitic about that?

These new cries of any criticism of Israel as being hate crimes is absurd. Jason Kenney is using it to justify cutting funding to Arab-Canadians, and paint a picture of all Muslims as being terrorists. It's insane.

Now the career of a once respected journalist and radio personality is ruined, simply because the Canadian media and much of the Canadian public, believe that she is a whack job. I can assure you she is not, and the Liberal Party of Canada suffered a great loss, while the Conservative Party of Canada continues to destroy real Canadian values.

I hope she wins her lawsuit.

The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth

German poet and novelist, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, wrote: "It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it".

During the 2008 election campaign, a rather bizarre story came out of Winnipeg, Manitoba, concerning Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes, who was being accused of antisemitism.

What made the case even more bizarre was the involvement of Peter Kent, the Conservative MP representing a large, predominantly Jewish riding (IN ONTARIO!!!), and a close friend of the B'Nai Brith, one of the groups who lodged the complaint against Ms. Hughes.

Since there are few investigative reporters these days, unless they're uncovering a bogus nanny-gate scandal; I did a little bit of research on my own, curious thing that I am, and have discovered that this was more political then political correctness. Why else would they wait until the candidate replacement deadline had passed before forcing Dion's hand, and then make such a big splash about Liberals hating Jews, or some such nonsense?

I'm going to post a few related stories that all connect, even though on the surface they appear to be unrelated; but first to the article that got this former journalist in hot water (written in 2002).

Get the Truth -by Lesley Hughes

Last week Canada revealed itself once again as a truly unique nation. In a world where dead warriors are commonplace and taken for granted, this country stopped, paid attention, lowered the flags and gave full military honours to four soldiers, who died inexplicably and tragically at the hands of our allies. (Yet four years later Harper refused to honour Canada's fallen soldiers)

We all felt the shock and the sorrow. The corporate media, privately owned newspapers, television and radio chains lingered especially on the pain and dignity of their survivors.

This was hard to swallow, coming from the same media that, in a fit of Me-Too-ism, couldn't wait to send young Canadians into a war on terrorism, which they hardly bothered to investigate; the same media that show every willingness to sacrifice more lives and families without pausing to confront the most basic question Canadians want answered about Afghanistan. What, exactly, are we doing there? (ironically at about the time that the complaints were lodged against Ms. Hughes six years later, Canadians are still wondering what we're doing there)

Truth may have been the casualty of war in former ages, but this war is different. While major media busy themselves waving flags, a global network of independent journalists, who have no interests to protect, no secrets to hide, are tracking and documenting its development on a daily basis.

Among the best: the Web site The Emperor's New Clothes (www.tenc.net) and Mike Ruppert, editor and publisher of From the Wilderness newsletter out of California (www.copvcia.com) .

Using and sharing only published and sourced news stories from world media, and official documents of various governments either leaked or available under freedom of information acts, these journalists have assembled a disturbing picture, which suggests CIA foreknowledge and complicity of highly placed officials in the U.S. government around the attacks on the World Trade Center Sept. 11.

Many official sources are claiming to have warned the American intelligence community, which spends $30 billion a year gathering information, about the attacks on the twin towers on that heartbreaking day.

German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August. Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3000 Americans working there were not so lucky.

(I have to stop here because the above is the paragraph that was used to call her antisemitic. She does not suggest that the Jewish people were behind the attack, only that Israeli intelligence had warned the Bush Administration weeks prior to the attack, and since it looked like nothing was being done in the U.S., Israel was not about to let their people be victimized, just in case the reports were true.

This doesn't make them complicit, only wise. If they hadn't vacated their offices they would have been accused of knowing the attack was imminent but doing nothing to protect their people. She can be called anti-American (a stretch), or anti-war, but definitely not antisemitic.)

Her story continues:

Ironically, the stock market was also warning anyone who cared to notice that something peculiar was afoot: in the week prior to Sept. 11, unknown speculator(s) were suddenly betting that the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines were going to fall in value; the trades were placed through Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm formerly managed by Buzzy-Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.

So far, no one has been bold enough to claim $2.5 million in profits. No serious search for the speculator is under way.

More important to Canadians, the facts uncovered by Internet journalism suggest that the war in Afghanistan has little to do with the attacks of Sept.11; that it's the result of lengthy failed negotiations between American businessmen and the Taliban over access to drugs and oil.

Mike Ruppert, a former LAPD narcotics officer turned journalist, maintains that Wall Street, (from whom the CIA gets its strategists and directions) is heavily dependent on laundered drug money, which helps keep the Fortune 500 and the stock market afloat. The IMF recently estimated that about $1.5 trillion goes through the world's banks every year, at least $500 billion of it from drugs.

His documents show that in January, 2001, the Taliban destroyed their opium crops, which normally supply 70 per cent of the world's heroin. In May, the U.S. gave the Taliban $43 Million in mysterious aid. Sept. 11 was a turning point.

The U.S. bombed, invaded, captured the Taliban, and opium farms are now back in business. The Financial Times has reported that the next harvest will be a record breaking 4,500 tonnes, much of it headed to the U.S.A.

Ruppert and others have tracked the progress of an urgent pipeline, which American oilmen have been trying to build through Afghanistan since 1991. They stated publicly that they could not do it without a sympathetic Afghan government in place. Newly installed prime minister Hamid Karzai is a former employee of Unocal Oil.

Negotiations on the Central Asian pipeline resumed in October and an agreement to proceed with it was announced in February.

Ruppert also notes that Osama Bin Laden was treated for his chronic kidney disease at the American Hospital in Dubai last summer. Although wanted for the bombing of two U.S. embassies and eligible for execution by American agents, he flew away undisturbed. The sole coverage of these events in Canada has come from Barrie Zwicker, media critic at Vision TV.

If the work of Internet journalists is correct, then the war is neither a holy war, not a grand clash of civilizations between East and West, and our soldiers were lost to us and to their families to keep drugs and oil profits flowing in the U.S.

Until we know the truth, we should refuse to add one more Canadian body to the pile of dead in Afghanistan. Not one. Canada should get the truth or get out.

Lesley Hughes is a freelance writer and broadcaster in Winnipeg. Reprinted with permission. Since Lesley’s column on May 1, the mainstream media have at last also "discovered" elements of this deeper, more sinister, story.

Since that article was written, many books have been published, agreeing with Lesley Hughes and all of the intelligent and insightful people she has mentioned. These were not her musings but a simple attempt by a caring journalist to encourage Canadians to question the needless deaths of our soldiers.

When Harper changed our mission, the death toll has risen significantly, and yet today we are still putting our fingers in our ears and chanting "la la la la la la la la"

I recently read the book, 9/11 and American empire: Intellectuals speak out / edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, and in it they go even further, suggesting that if the Bush Administration did not directly instigate the attacks, they at least allowed them to happen to further their agenda. The evidence is overwhelming and we owe it to ourselves to at least open our minds to the possibility.

Remember the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour? Not a surprise as It turns out.

The wonderful Helen Thomas, who was a member of the White House press corps for sixty years, recently made a comment about journalists today. She suggested that they lack the gift of skepticism. Well apparently, so do we.