The Conservative Party and Jason Kenney Exploit Immigrants While Appeasing Base

For anyone following the Reform movement from its inception to it's new transformation under the Conservative Party of Canada banner, hearing them describe themselves as friends of immigrants, is both amusing and chilling.

In the early 1990's, when it was discovered that Neo-Nazis had infiltrated the Party, those ousted claimed not to understand the problem. They had been drawn to Reform because of their anti-immigration policies. According to Al Overfield of the Heritage Front: "The attraction of Reform for Overfield and like-minded persons, he said was that it was strictly white bread, 100 percent white Canadians, really anti-immigration; there was really no difference between those people and them [Heritage Front]."

When Bill Dunphy of the Toronto Sun exposed the fact that Heritage Front leader Wolfgang Droege and four other Heritage Front activists had memberships in Toronto area Reform Party riding associations, Preston Manning expelled the group.

"The expulsion enraged the Heritage Front, which saw the Reform Party's policies as very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, its own. How could a party that went on record opposing immigration policies that "radically alter" Canada's ethnic make-up turn around and shun a group like the Heritage Front, Droege asked, when the Heritage Front supports the very same approach? Privately, spokesmen for B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress admitted that Droege had a good point." (1)

I'm not suggesting that Harper or his Reform Party were neo-Nazis, but their stance on immigration drew in the wrong kind of people and helped to inflame hatred.

So I find it rather curious that the party is running ads that so many Canadians are finding offensive.



What Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe oppose is the incarceration of refugees for up to a year, including women and children.

the National Council of Canadian Tamils has strongly criticized the Conservative ad and demanded it be pulled off the air. "This election ad is xenophobic and borders on racism," said Krisna Saravanamuttu, a council spokesman. It appeals to the "worst instincts of Canadians to score political points and votes."

"It is reminiscent of the political rhetoric used to turn back Sikhs and Hindus on board the Kamagata Maru in 1914, and Jewish refugees on board the MS St. Louis fleeing persecution in 1939," Saravanamuttu said. "In these cases, refugees fleeing persecution were labelled 'criminals' and vilified by politicians appealing to the worst instincts of Canadians to score political points and votes."

And as Bill Tieleman says of the mock ballot employed by the Conservatives in their ads:

... shows three items with checkmarks -- "Strong leadership" and "Lower taxes" (but no mention of Harper and Campbell imposing the Harmonized Sales Tax increase on B.C.), followed by "Tough on human smuggling. Huh? Is that Canada's third most important issue in this election?

The pleasant female voiceover explains that Harper has "taken action to protect our borders -- not from those who are welcome but from human smugglers who take advantage of our generosity." The Conservative ad also shows film of a ship being taken into custody by the Canadian navy. Oh, I see. It's coded language only true Tories understand. But let's unscramble the message: "Conservatives will keep refugees on boats out of Canada."

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out. Last August a ship called the MV Sun Sea carrying 492 Sri Lankans of Tamil origin claiming refugee status after that country's civil war arrived off the B.C. coast. They were detained and questioned. About 39 remain in custody. The year before another ship carrying 76 Tamil passengers, the Ocean Lady, entered B.C. waters. Let's also make a wild guess. The Conservatives have noticed that these refugee claimants were not, shall we say, Scandinavian-looking.

Some things never change. The Conservatives are tapping into the worst of human nature.

Harsha Walia writes in the Vancouver Sun: Federal Elections and Canada's Immigration Policy, reminding us of Kenney's abysmal record on immigration:

A recent United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report indicates that the number of asylum applications to Canada has fallen 30 per cent. The number of refugees granted permanent residence dropped by 25% under Jason Kenney; in fact according to Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s own 2009 report, the number of refugees who had their asylum claims approved dropped by 56% in 2008 from 2005. In 2010, there were 8,466 Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applications made by asylum-seekers facing removal orders. Only 89 were approved.

Instead of immigration and providing refugee status, Kenney has been promoting the migrant worker system. In fact during the three years when Canada saw massive unemployment, Kenney allowed record numbers of migrant workers into the job market.


If we reward this party with another mandate, it means that we accept this new direction and Harper's transformation of Canada will be complete.

Are we really prepared for this?

On May 2, vote and vote wisely.

Sources:

1. Web of Hate: Inside Canada's Far Right Network, By: Warren Kinsella, Harper Collins, 1994, ISBN: 0-00-255074-1, Pg. 243-44

Peter Kent, WikiLeaks and Why we Should be Concerned

During the 2008 election campaign, popular CBC radio personality Leslie Hughes, was running for the Liberal Party in the Winnipeg riding riding of Kildonan—St. Paul, against Conservative incumbent Joy Smith. A close friend of Stockwell Day, Smith had managed his successful Alliance Party leadership contest in 2000, for her area.

The day after the deadline for presenting candidates, the B'Nai Brith launched a formal complaint against Ms Hughes, claiming that in an old blog posting she had suggested that 9/11 was the result of a Jewish conspiracy. And they were supported in their claim by Conservative Peter Kent.

It was all nonsense. I have read the blog posting in question, and there is absolutely nothing in it that could be deemed anti-Semitic. See for yourself. She was only reacting to the "friendly fire" death of 4 Canadian soldiers.

But the media had a field day with it and Stephen Dion had little choice but to ask her to step down. She is now suing both Peter Kent and B'Nai Brith and I hope she nails them to the wall. This was a character assassination that not only cost her the election but her career, as few in the media want to hire her now that she is deemed to be anti-Semitic.

Omar Alghabra

Omar Alghabra was a former Liberal MP for the riding of Mississauga-Erindale, and is a wonderful man. I've had the opportunity to speak with him on-line and he is intelligent, funny and a champion of human rights.

But in 2005, immediately after winning his party's nomination, he was the victim of a smear campaign, in which several people claimed that in his victory speech he commented: "This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam Won!" It wasn't true, and those involved were forced to publicly apologize. But that didn't stop neocon insider Tim Powers from trashing him publicly and calling him anti-Semitic.

Omar lost his seat in 2008 to Alliance party faithful Bob Dechert, but will be running again. I am so pleased. Dechert is a disaster.

Canadian Coalition for Democracies

The Canadian Coalition for Democracies was a group founded to incite hatred against Islamic Canadians, in a large part, by erroneously labelling public figures, anti-Semitic. They also lent support to Ezra Levant in his battle over publishing the horrendous Danish Cartoons.

Peter Kent was a founding member and Tony Clement was head of their Advisory Board. They were extremely pro-Israel:

The CCD generally supported the policies of the Conservative Party government of Stephen Harper, and the organization's leadership has urged its members to view support for the Conservative Party of Canada as equivalent to support for Israel. (Wikipedia)

The group also supported the controversial Falun Gong and a continued Canadian involvement in Afghanistan.

Other members of the group included:

Michael Mostyn: the Director of Government Relations for B'nai Brith Canada. When Ralph Reed, founder of the Christian Coalition, spoke in Canada to drum up support for Stephen Harper, Mostyn was in attendance and he ran unsuccessfully for the party himself.

Rochelle Wilner: past president of B'nai Brith Canada and the Conservative Party's federal candidate for York Centre.

Naresh Raghubeer: founder and former executive director of the of the CDD. In November 2004, the CCD, along with Stockwell Day, held a press conference calling the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) of having links to the terrorist organization Hamas and of providing financial support to them. Subsequently, IRFAN-Canada filed a defamation claim against CCD officials Alastair Gordon and Naresh Raghubeer, as well as against Stockwell Day. IRFAN-Canada firmly held that the accusations were "false and malicious" and, to paraphrase their lawyer, wanted to clear their name from the allegations.

Raminder Singh Gill: Former member of Mike Harris's government, he has ran unsuccessfully for a spot in the Harper caucus. He has however, been given a patronage position under Jason Kenney, where he acts as a citizenship judge. The same citizenship department that says "no Muslims".

David Harris: is a Canadian lawyer and former senior fellow with the CCD. He was chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and has suggested that Canada's immigration policy encourages the use of Canada as a base for terrorists, and has consistently advocated for harsher Canadian laws to combat terrorism. He is an outspoken defender of the Canadian government's use of security certificates to detain terrorism suspects without trial.

Salim Mansur: is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario and a contributor to the conservative blog Proud To Be Canadian, the same blog where American Anne Coulter has found a home. He is also featured on the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West produced by the David Horowitz Freedom Center and ran unsuccessfully for the Canadian Alliance party in 2000.

Peter Kent and Canwest Global

The late media mogul, Izzy Asper, hated the CBC. And he especially hated Neil Macdonald, the CBC's Middle East correspondent from 1998 to 2003, who contradicted his notion of Israel as a victim.

Macdonald was based in Jerusalem for five years, and was not shy about injecting his opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict into his reports. His bosses back in Toronto were supportive. "To suggest that most of the world's media are involved in a conspiracy against Israel, it's just a totally extreme conception on Asper's part," declared Tony Burman, then head of CBC News. "There is something profoundly ironic about being told off about media bias by someone like Izzy Asper." This was a thinly veiled reference to the Aspers' practice of urging their papers to publish company-written editorials that expressed their owner's views ... (1)

And MacDonald was appalled that Asper's employees allowed their boss to engage in the suppression of journalism, which only escalated Asper's attacks against him, though he was not surprised.

"I expect more bullying, more bombast, more ideological, anti-journalistic nonsense. I used to work for the newspapers they now own. Several of my ex-colleagues, still there, tell me they find the Aspers' approach to journalism an embarrassment. But they cannot speak publicly. Thank heavens I can." (1)

And the bias in Asper's papers and television reporting didn't go unnoticed by others.

Asper's diatribe garnered him respect among Canada's Jewish community but condemnation elsewhere. British journalist Robert, Fisk, who writes for the Independent and had been a long-time critic of Israeli policies, labelled Asper's speeches "gutless and repulsive. "These vile slanders," he said, "are familiar to any reporter trying to do his work on the ground in the Middle East. They are made ever more revolting by inaccuracies." Fisk specifically took issue with Asper's interpretation of British-Palestinian history—pointing out that, for example, the expression used in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was "a national home for the Jewish people," rather than a "Jewish State," as Asper had suggested.

More to the point, Asper didn't give a damn. He practised what he preached. Canwest Global was "unabashedly pro-Israel," declared Murdoch Davis, who spent several years as Canwest's Winnipeg-based editor-in-chief. He wasn't kidding. (1)

Eventually after fighting for freedom of the press, many of Izzy's journalists just refused to write anything at all about Israel. Peter C. Newman in his book Izzy, says "At the same time, there was no question that the worst form of censorship in this kind of editorial climate was the self-censorship writers and editors applied to their assignments and their copy, usually by avoiding the subject entirely."

But one Canwest Global media personality and executive, had no problem sticking with Izzy's guidelines. His name: Peter Kent. The same Peter Kent who is now the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Americas, in Stephen Harper's cabinet. The same Stephen Harper who allowed Izzy Asper to help write the foreign policy of his Reform Party, in exchange for his financial and communications support. "Izzy pulled out all the stops on that one. He was prepared to invest his personal time and capital for the cause." (2)

Peter Kent and WikiLeaks

Yesterday, one of the WikiLeak documents revealed that the U.S. was angered at Canada's approach to Cuba. Peter Kent was personally named and his office responded by saying that their party's official policy is to not respond to any of the WikiLeak announcements.

Fine.

But when I hear Peter Kent's name, the only Canadian who is possibly more pro-Israel than Stephen Harper, I pay attention.

And bypassing the mainstream Canadian media, who wouldn't be allowed to pursue the story even if they wanted to, I instead went right to the source for any information regarding Canada and this foreign country. And the Israel Resource Review didn't disappoint.

Peter Kent's Canadian tax payer financed job, has been to protect Israel's interests in Latin America.

Kent noted that “ Canada ... has also represented Israel’s interests in Cuba through its embassy in Havana. There is a 1,500-member Jewish community in Cuba and as Kent said “It’s now possible for Cuban Jews to make aliyah.” ... Canada and Israel are also working together to pressure the government of Argentina to make reparations for the botched investigation of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. Kent said Canadian and Israel also have (sic?) are concerned about involvement of ‘Latin American states with Iran.”

And remember, Kent recently suggested that it was not a matter of if there would be a preemptive strike agaisnt Iran, but when. (3)

Canadians are not anti-Israel, but we are rightfully concerned when our Canadian government consistently puts Israel's interests above those of ours. That is not what we pay them for.

We expect a balanced approach to foreign policy, not a one-sided approach that allows another country to get away with horrendous crimes against humanity.

We have got to start paying attention.

But how sad is it that the only one providing us with information to pay attention to, is an Australian activist?

Sources:

1. Izzy: The Passionate Life and Turbulent Times of Izzy Asper, Canada's Media Mogul, By Peter C. Newman, Harper-Collins, 2008, ISBN: 978-1-55468-089-4, Pg. 254-256

2. Newman, 2008, Pg. 83

3. Canada’s international do-gooder image shattered: Ottawa Loses Bid for UN Security Council, by Eric Walberg, Global Research, October 23, 2010

What are Vic Toews and Jason Kenney Up To Now?

After defunding KAIROS because Charles McVety called them left wing ideologues, the Reformers appear to be playing games once again with another humanitarian aid organization.

They claim to be redirecting funding to put it more in line with 'Canadian Values'?

And did you wonder what those 'Canadian Values' are?

Apparently building courts and prisons in Palestine. What the hell?

How is it our job to be judge, jury and executioner ... in Palestine?

These guys scare the hell out of me. We've got to get the nuts off the hill and the Reformers out of government, because clearly they have no idea what Canadians value. We prefer it be humanitarian aid.

Canada redirects funding for UN relief agency
By Antonia Zerbisias
January 15, 2010

Is Canada pulling the plug on the UN's Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides education, health and other social services in 59 Palestinian refugee camps in the Middle East?

Will UNRWA's Canadian funding be diverted instead to training Palestinian police forces and building courthouses and prisons? That's certainly what was suggested on Wednesday by Treasury Minister Vic Toews in both the Jerusalem Post and a news release from B'nai Brith Canada ....

Why is Stephen Harper Profiling and Stereotyping Jewish-Canadians?

The more I think about these horrendous ten per centers that the Reform Conservatives have been distributing, the angrier I get. Jewish -Canadians have been profiled and stereotyped. Why would he assume that all Jewish-Canadians support his aggressive policies?

This is horrible discrimination. Worse still, it can't even be debated in Parliament because anyone who brings up the subject risks being accused of anti-Semitism. I've never heard anything so outrageous in my life. And Peter Kent getting involved is rich. He and the B'Nai Brith are currently being sued over his little fiasco with Lesley Hughes.

We need to have an open and frank discussion, because it would appear that the Reformers are more concerned with targeting votes than doing what's best for Canada. And I can't believe that Mrs. Peacock's Kindergarten class has missed the obvious.

Anger flares in House over Tory attack flyer
No apologies for pamphlet blasting Liberals on Israel
November 20, 2009

OTTAWA–The federal Conservatives are making no apologies for painting the Liberals as anti-Jewish in the newest wave of attacks on their political rivals.

In fact, they carried on the campaign in the Commons on Thursday, even as former justice minister Irwin Cotler, a Montreal MP and human-rights expert, was formally lodging a protest over the Conservatives' bid to portray Liberals as unfriendly to Israel and Jewish voters in Canada.

"For shame," Cotler said, as he asked Commons Speaker Peter Milliken to rule against the Conservatives' use of taxpayer-financed flyers to target Liberals in ridings with significant Jewish populations. Milliken will rule at a later date.

"There have been bulk mailings not only in my riding but in ridings across this country with identifiable Jewish communities," said Cotler (Mount Royal), whose daughter has served in the Israeli military. "Those bulk mailings did not only contain false and misleading information, they contained information that was slanderous, damaging and prejudicial to the Liberal party and to the performance of each of our individual and collective duties."

The flyers accuse the Liberals of participating in the 2001 United Nations conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, which was controversial because of open anti-Semitism on display. The Conservatives also allege that Liberals support terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas and accuse Michael Ignatieff of being against Israel for talking about "war crimes" during the summer of 2006. (Since when are we not allowed to talk about "war crimes"?)

Pierre Poilievre, parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, stood by the accusations, saying in reply to Cotler's protest: "We as a party have been prepared to defend the positions we have taken and the decisions at which we have arrived. If the member across the way is uncomfortable with the positions that his party has taken, then I would encourage him to speak up against his party when they take those positions."

Cotler was repeatedly heckled through his remarks by Peter Kent, minister of state for foreign affairs. One of Kent's outbursts prompted an angry Ken Dryden (York Centre) – who also spoke out against the attack campaign in the Commons – to shout that Kent, a former TV anchor, should go back to reading a teleprompter.

As well, backbenchers Lois Brown (Newmarket-Aurora) and Candace Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar) spoke in the Commons on Thursday to condemn the Liberals' approach to Israel and Jewish issues.

The attack campaign comes as an all-party coalition into anti-Semitism – founded by Cotler and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney – is holding weekly hearings on Parliament Hill. It is not clear why the Tories have chosen this issue to use as a wedge against Liberals.

Former Liberal MP Omar Alghabra, who plans to try to regain the Mississauga-Erindale seat in the next election, was also targeted in the mailout and he sent out a written condemnation of the tactic. "This irresponsible behaviour of randomly calling people anti-Semitic doesn't help the cause of combatting anti-Semitism. It is even worse when the source is a political party that is in government. Anti-Semitism is real and our society deserves an honest effort to deal with it instead of exploiting it for political gain."

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.

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.