_____
From: RadicalPress [mailto:radi...@radicalpress.com]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 1:25 AM
To: RADICAL PRESS
Subject: CHRC: Something isn¹t kosher here by FourHorses November 27, 2008
Dear Radical Reader,
First I want to thank Four Horses for putting together this excellent
analysis of how B’nai Brith Canada has, via their persistent lobbying over
the years, orchestrated the implementation of influential legislation now
contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act that is having a devasting effect
upon Canadians in terms of freedom of speech and Internet censorship. Were I
to have written this piece I might have called it “B’nai Brith Canada In
Context: Lobbying for a Self-Chosen Minority”.
What the writer has done here is weave much of the seemingly discordant
B’nai Brith threads into a recognizable and coherent tapestry, one that I
hope readers will recognize for what it is – a concerted , conspiring effort
on the part of the Jewish Lobby here in Canada to create Bolshevik style
legislation which restricts and silences all criticism of both the political
ideology of Zionism and the racist, apartheid practices of the state of
Israel.
As a tapestry it doesn’t present a pretty picture in terms of Canada’s
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our fundamental freedom of
self-expression. Canada’s democratic foundation is being undermined by the
likes of Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.
I’ve known this for a number of years and that is why I am challenging their
motives and their position in this respect. Too many Canadians are still
asleep at the wheel on this issue. They need to wake up before our rights
and freedoms leave the highway and crash and burn.
You can help. Please pass this on.
Shine your Light for Love & Peace & Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
radi...@radicalpress.com
http://www.radicalpress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1267416#1267416
CHRC: Something isn’t kosher here
By Four Horses
November 27, 2008
In another bizarre twist in the CHRC-Free Speech saga, blogger No-Libs takes
Harry Abrams to task.
http://www.no-libs.com/index.php/MyBlog/Thought-Police/Harry-Abrams-F....
html
Abrams is the B.C. regional director for B’nai Brith and has received
notoriety for his successful anti-hate campaign against Doug Collins. Free
Dominion blogger, Maikeru compiled the following summary, in his
post called the Collins Case.
In July 1998 the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada was granted
intervener status in the case brought against Doug Collins by Victoria
businessman, Harry Abrams. Mr. Abrams took both the North
Shore News and Doug Collins to a Human Rights Tribunal because of four
columns written between January and April 1994. Marvin Kurz, National Legal
Counsel and National Co-Chair for the League for Human Rights,
served as the League’s Counsel during the Human Rights Tribunal in July
1998.
This was the second of two human rights complaints lodged against the North
Shore News and Doug Collins. The first complaint was brought by the Canadian
Jewish Congress, but involved a single article criticizing
the Academy Award-winning film, Schindler’s List.
The Tribunal in the Canadian Jewish Congress case upheld the
constitutionality of the law under which the charges had been brought.
However, even though the Tribunal determined the article was “...obviously
antisemitic...” and “presents Jews in a negative light, as powerful
propagandists and profiteers, and depicts, in grossly inaccurate terms, the
extent and victimization in the Holocaust...”, the Tribunal concluded the
column was not antisemitic enough to be considered "hateful" and warranting
action under the B.C. Human Rights Code. The Tribunal also stated the case
“does not carry the same weight as it would in the case where several
publications are the subject of a complaint....”
The second Collins case involved multiple articles on denial of the
Holocaust and Jewish conspiracies. Abrams’ complaint offered that these
articles show a systematic antisemitic pattern in Collins’ writings, which
had a cumulative effect of promoting hatred and contempt towards Jews.
Abrams sought $5000 in damages from both Collins and the North Shore News
for the League for Human Rights’ legal fund, $2000 for his lost time and
expenses, a full apology, and an order that the North.... On February 3,
1999 the B.C. Human Rights Commission ruled against Doug Collins and the
North Shore News. The Commission stated that four of Collins’ articles put
together are likely to expose groups to hatred and contempt. Mr. Collins and
the North Shore News were ordered to pay $2000 to Harry Abrams, not to
publish similar articles, and the North Shore News was ordered to print an
unedited summary of the decision.
source:
Anti-Zionist Complaints
Abrams and B’nai Brith also lodged a complaint with the CHRC against the
Canada-based Peace Earth and Justice News website. The complaint was based
on 18 articles from 2006 on the PEJ News which dealt with their editorial
which contained anti-Israel government policy commentary. Although the
editors, Ingmar Lee and Chris Cook, publicly stood by their positions, they
removed the articles from the website in order to avoid defending the
complaint lodged against them.
Abrams is also noted for his 1999 stance against Canadians who opposed the
boatloads of Chinese illegal immigrants into the country via British
Columbia. This was a hot political topic during its time and one survey
indicated that 90% of Canadians opposed this form of illegal immigration. In
this issue, Abrams said Quote:
“...the issue of the boatloads of illegals is being used to piggyback a
broader xenophobic campaign by Mr. Fromm and others.”
source:
Abrams and B’nai Brith have more recently lodged a complaint with the CHRC
against the website RadicalPress.com. The complainants are contending that
the author, Arthur Topham and his website
http://www.radicalpress.com are promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons
identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel”. Their allegations are
based upon the many articles which published that are critical of political
Zionism and the Israeli state.
Anti-Israel talk is taboo
David Matas, in a B’nai Brith article, quotes Dr. Karen Mock from A Report
on the NGO Forum against Racism, August 28 to September 1, 2001 and the
World Conference Against Racism, August 31st to September 8th,
2001, Durban, South Africa. Quote:
“So, it is anti-Zionism, rather than Zionism, that is a form of racism, a
discriminatory denial to the Jewish people of a generally recognized right,
the right to self determination.
The two most prevalent contemporary forms of antisemitism are Holocaust
denial and anti-Zionism. Each is the attempt to kill the victims of the
Holocaust a second time, Holocaust denial by obliterating their memory,
anti-Zionism by obliterating their legacy.
Of the two, anti-Zionism is the more dangerous, because it is the more
common. Holocaust denial is the preserve of the extreme right, the lunatic
fringe. Anti-Zionism has become widely accepted in large parts of the world.
Eliminationist anti-Zionism is as much a part of the Palestinian culture
today as eliminationist antisemitism was part of the culture of Nazi Germany
before World War II. Israel has become the Jew amongst nations, condemned
for sins it has not committed and targeted for destruction.
It is, of course, legitimate to criticise specific Israeli practices and
policies in the context of a global survey, country by country, of such
practices and policies. The Jewish community does not take the position that
criticism of policies and practices of Israel are beyond bounds. There are
many legitimate criticisms that can be made and are being made every day of
Israeli government policies and practices.
However, when Israel, virtually alone, is the target of such criticism, the
targeting becomes political rather than principled. Selective criticism
directed to Israel, when far worse offender countries are ignored, is a form
of discrimination against both Israel and the Jewish people.”
source
This is an interesting set of points raised by Matas via Mock’s submission.
The Guille Case Reference
In the Warman v Guiile CHRC complaint, Melissa Guille was the webmaster for
the Canadian Heritage Alliance, a political group based in London, Ontario.
One of the claims in the complaint against her was that her
website contained messages that would expose Muslims, amongst others, to
contempt, in violation of section 13. We can read in the ruling that Guille
was guilty of having strong beliefs in Canada. The Tribunal made
sure that Guille’s nationalism was read into the record – a warning to any
other Canadian nationalist out there.
Quote:
“Ms. Guille, the evidence shows, has strong views about her European
heritage and is prepared to fight for its preservation. Ms. Guille testified
that when she refers to the notion of culture, she refers to the European
culture and when referring to the European culture, she is referring to her
family heritage. For her, those who fall under the umbrella of European
heritage are people from different parts of Europe and include people who
have grown up in Europe or whose ancestors are from Europe.
[54] Ms. Guille indicated in her testimony that for her, the European
culture is different from the muslim faith, that, for her, Europe is a
geographic region built up of different races such as Italians. Asked if in
her definition of the European culture, she included people from Africa, Ms.
Guille stated that it did not include Carribean immigrants to England and
added that the latter did not consider themselves as Europeans because they
wanted to hold on to their own cultural heritage.”
The Threat of Political Islam
In its brief to Dr. Richard Moon, for the CHRC commissioned report, B’nai
Brith warned that human rights commissions are unprepared and ill-equipped
to deal with ideological complaints driven by political Islam.
We also have the voice of Frank Dimant of B’nai Brith. On Dimant’s blog,
“Frankly Speaking”, a press release from August 29, 2008 is rather
revealing. The title of Dimant’s press release post is “Canadian
institutions vulnerable to threat of political Islam”. The post goes on to
inform the public that B'nai Brith has warned the CHRC of the threat of
political Islam. Dimant is rather interesting here:
In the brief, the Jewish human rights organization raises as a matter of
priority its concerns that human rights commissions are unprepared and
ill-equipped to deal with ideological complaints driven by political Islam.
Quote:
“We have arrived at an important crossroads in the functioning of human
rights commissions and their mandate to combat hatred,” said Frank Dimant,
Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada. “B’nai Brith Canada is
uniquely placed to offer insights into the strengths and failures of the
commission system, as an organization that is both the target of a complaint
in Manitoba and as a human rights organization that has consistently valued
human rights commissions for their important historical role in fighting
hatred.
It is high time that the human rights community, at home and abroad,
recognize the dangers posed by political Islam.”
B’nai Brith faces human rights complaints
B’nai Brith was the subject of a complaint by Shahina Siddiqui, executive
director of the Islamic Social Service Association of the United States and
Canada, following an October 2003 conference in Winnipeg hosted by B’nai
Brith for first responders to terrorist attacks. The complaint, filed with
the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC), alleged comments made at the
meeting were biased against Muslims.
Bnai Brith also faces a second human rights complaint, lodged by an
anonymous complainant, regarding alleged vile and hateful material posted on
their website, used to generate donations to fight hate.
Accomplishments
Blazing Cat Fur blogger posted comments from Ed Morgan, the outgoing CJC
president and Bernie Farber, the CEO proudly listed their top
accomplishments:
Quote:
“Trying to make criticism of Israel or Zionism illegal as a hate crime
http://www.necef.org/index_files/page0021.htm “
CHRC on the anti-zionism issue
In File # 20071016, the case against the Radical Press, the investigator for
the CHRC is Sandy Kozak. This is the same individual who investigated the
Steyn/Macleans complaint and the same individual whose name was raised in
the Marc Lemire constitutional challenge and the same investigator in the
Steyn/Macleans case. The CHRC investigator’s report can be found here:
Report from CHRC Investigations Division Re: Abrams/B’nai Brith Complaint
against RadicalPress.com http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=821
Quote:
“The issue in this complaint is whether the respondent communicated or
caused to be communicated, by way of the internet, material that is likely
to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis
of religion and national or ethnic origin.”
What is interesting to note is the qualifier reported by the investigator:
Quote:
“A review of the website shows that, although some other information is
present, the website focuses on the subject of “Zionism”.
The respondent defends that his publications and writings are not
anti-Semitic, but commentary on Zionism, which he claims is a political
movement. This raises a lot of issues as does the nature of the complaint.
Is discussion (or criticism in this case) of Zionism considered hate speech?
The investigator has differentiated anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism. Abrams
and B’nai Brith, the complainants, maintain that this is offensive to Jews
and to citizens of Israel. Abrams also maintains that B’nai Brith is the
voice of Jews in Canada.
In her investigative report, Kozak incorporates the “Hallmarks of Hate” in
paragraph 18 of her analysis. The envelope is pushed forward here. Kozak
incorporates the “Hallmarks of Hate”.
Quote:
“the Tribunal identified a number of “hallmarks” of material that is likely
to expose persons to hatred or contempt, based on the emerging body of
section 13 jurisprudence.”
Kozak’s statement below, is rather revealing:
Quote:
“the material appears to meet the criteria for hatred and contempt as
outlined in the case law and therefore appears to be likely to expose Jewish
persons to hatred and contempt.”
It is interesting to note that these Hallmarks of Hate were provided via the
CHRC’s expert witness, Dr. Karen Mock, and incorporated into the CHRC’s
“Emerging Jurisprudence”. It is also interesting to note that Dr. Mock was
formerly an executive with B’nai Brith.
The CHRC claims this article by WWII war hero Doug Collins "exposes Jews to
hatred or contempt".
This article was written by the late Doug Collins in 2001. Doug Collins is a
WWII war hero and a life long defender of freedom of speech.
Quote:
FREEDOM IS AS FREEDOM DOESN'T
By Doug Collins
April 4, 2001
The sinister attacks now taking place on freedom of speech in the Western
world are applauded rather than condemned, thanks mainly to the media and
lickspittle politicians. At the same time, everyone pays lip service to
freedom. It is what Disraeli called "organized hypocrisy".
There are two subjects that figure large on the "verboten" list: race and
the holocaust. You are free to be "anti-racist", of course, and you are free
to back the official version of the holocaust. But if you believe that
immigration can destroy your country, or that Jewish deaths numbered
anything less than the six million, take cover.
Canada ranks high in the kingdom of such political correctness. Books
frowned on by pressure groups like the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai
Brith are banned; Ernst Zundel and his lawyer are denied access to
the Parliament buildings in Ottawa (by unanimous consent of our MPs!); and
dissidents can be hauled before kangaroo courts called human rights
tribunals for having "hurt the feelings" of Jews and immigrants.
Hate laws are anti-free-speech laws. Which is why they figure in our
Criminal Code. And we now never see them criticized in the mainstream media,
owing partly to increasing Jewish control. But they also reflect the spirit
of the times.
For a fascinating account of what is going on world-wide, read "Return to
the Dark Ages," an article in the March issue of American Renaissance
magazine (AR). In Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, Poland, Austria
and Lithuania the Jewish Holocaust has become the one historical event on
which people can be compelled to agree. Prison, exile or massive fines face
those who disagree.
"Today in Europe," it states, "there are laws as bad as anything George
Orwell could have imagined." Facts are irrelevant, and certain things may
not be said whether they are true or false....It is a tyranny of the left
practised by the very people who professed shock at the tactics of Joe
McCarthy.
Hundreds of people have fallen foul of that tyranny but, contrary to what
happened when McCarthy was on the loose, their fate does not much interest
our liberal watchdogs. On the contrary, such victims are usually denounced
as Nazis, neo-Nazis, Fascists, "white supremacists", and so on.
A prime example is that of Germar Rudolf, a young German with a doctorate in
chemistry who tested the "gas chambers" at Birkenau and concluded that they
could not have been used for mass executions. He was
dismissed from the prestigious Max Planck Institute and sentenced to 14
months in prison. He fled to England, where Jewish groups have sought his
extradition to Germany, and is now seeking political asylum in the
U.S. I recall that news items in the Conrad Black-owned Telegraph newspapers
in London denounced him as a Nazi in hiding. With no shred of evidence.
Switzerland has become no better than Germany. It embraced "holocaust
denial" censorship in 1995 and is now sending offenders to jail or forcing
them into exile. According to AR, there have been 200 trials and 100
sentences in that country since then.
Juergen Graf, a highly qualified teacher who wrote a revisionist book, was
sentenced to 15 months. His publisher got a year, even though the book was
published before the law came into effect. As is the case in Germany, their
lawyers could not defend them properly without themselves being prosecuted
for "denial". Graf fled to Iran and is now lecturing in Iranian
universities.
In France, Bridget Bardot has become a "hate criminal". Not for anything she
said about the Jews, but because, as an animal lover, she opposes the ritual
slaughter of sheep by French Muslims. She also complained that France is
being invaded by an "overpopulation of foreigners".
Canada gets some attention in the article. We now have "a nearly 20-year
tradition of censorship", with Ernst Zuendel being our "most famous thought
criminal".
As most of us know, Zuendel has faced a long drawn-out human rights hearing
involving Jewish complaints about a web site that bears his name but is run
from the U.S. How's that for stretching things! But elasticity doesn't worry
the chairman of the tribunal. Nor does the truth. As he has stated, "The
truth is not an issue before us.The sole issue is whether such
communications are LIKELY to expose a person or persons to hatred or
contempt."
Censorship is on the march in Europe and is licking at our own [U.S.]
borders, states AR, and "the real shame is how so few people are willing to
oppose this clampdown on freedom".
Quite. They'd rather have another beer.
AR is available at P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124. Tel: 703-716-0900,
Fax 703-716-0932.
Canadian Foreign Policy
In the Jewish Tribune, the Embassy Magazine is featured which names a B’nai
Brith executive one of 40 key Canadian foreign policy influencers:
Quote:
OTTAWA – B’nai Brith Canada Executive Vice President Frank Dimant is among a
list of 40 people who have been identified by Embassy Magazine, Canada’s
foreign policy newsweekly, in its Oct.10 issue, as key players
working on or influencing government policy when it comes to foreign
affairs, trade, security, defence, development and immigration. According to
the article, B’nai Brith Canada and Dimant were listed because the
pro-Jewish and Israeli lobbies have gained major prominence under the
Conservative government, and critics say this is coming out in Canadian
policy at the United Nations, not to mention last year’s war in Lebanon.
Sources say B’nai Brith, and, by extension, Dimant are the biggest winners.
source:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:6xGKvpKKD0gJ:www.jewishtribune.ca...
e/PDF/jt181007.pdf+harry+abrams+b%27nai+brith&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=63&gl=ca
The Jewish Exemption
Ezra Levant wrote on his blog
Quote:
“I've been acquitted.
This was a perfect scientific experiment. You see, I had republished, word
for word, the very same "hate speech" that Rev. Stephen Boissoin had
published six years ago in Alberta. Rev. Boissoin was found by both the
Alberta HRC and the CHRC to be guilty of hate speech.
So I controlled all the variables but one.
I published the exact same words Rev. Boissoin used.
I published the words in the exact same jurisdiction that Rev. Boissoin did
-- in Alberta.
I published them in contravention of the exact same laws that Rev. Boissoin
did -- the Stalinist human rights acts.
And a complaint was brought against me, just as it was against Rev.
Boissoin.
Only one thing was different. Rev. Boissoin is Christian. I'm Jewish.”
source
Levant also wrote:
Quote:
The Jewish Conspiracy
“I think that most conspiracy theories are merely attempts by people to seem
more clever than they are -- or certainly more clever than everybody else.
They're also a handy way to blame cosmic forces for one's own problems or
misfortunes.
Jews have long been at the center of many conspiracy theories.
Including the conspiracy theory that Jews want to censor the speech of their
critics.
Unfortunately, on that last one, the Official Jews seem eager to everything
possible to make that conspiracy theory seem real.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission's "hate squad" has plenty of Jews, from
Harvey Goldberg, to Ian Fine. Irwin Cotler, also Jewish, was a Justice
Minister who eagerly prosecuted many hate speech cases. And, of course, many
of the section 13 hate speech cases are packed with Jewish interveners --
the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
That's a lot of Jews. And even Athanasios Hadjis, the Greek tribunal chair,
was in a formal political coalition with the CJC before his appointment.”
source:
Challenging the CHRC on Political Bias
Lawyer Doug Christie challenged CHRT Chair Hadjis and CHRC Senior Policy
Advisor Goldberg, on a demonstrable political bias existing at the CHRC.
Quote:
“4931
MR. CHRISTIE: Actually, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the question of
the constitutional validity of certain pieces of legislation. This is a
person having authoritative control over the administration of that
legislation
and if, in fact, a demonstrable political bias could be demonstrated.”
Many of the documents were withheld and buried by CHRC lawyer, Giacomo
Vigna. This was documented in the Free Dominion post
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=99988 CHRC files –
Goldberg Files Part VI
Taking Harry to task
Returning to our main topic here of No-Libs taking Harry Abrams to task,
No-Libs has posted as interesting exchange featuring Harry Abrams.
Quote:
“Imagine my lack of surprise when I read the following (on an e-mail tip):
Justin Trottier, president of the Freethought Association of Canada, was
assaulted March 28, at approximately 1am, and is claiming that his assault
should be considered a hate crime.
Trottier and a colleague were putting up posters for an upcoming lecture
by Victor Stenger, author of God: The Failed Hypothesis, when a man whom
they thought was interested in their event approached.
“When we looked back and we saw him he was having quite the chuckle
about the nature of the event,” Trottier said. “He took a kind of offense to
it and threw the poster on the ground and sort of joked about it. Then he
left the building.”
According to Trottier, when the man had left the building Trottier
yelled, “Why don’t you at least recycle the poster?” which caused the man
and his friend outside to start laughing and pointing at Trottier and his
colleague.
Approximately 20 minutes later the assailant and his friend came back,
said Trottier, and the friend asked, “’What did you say to my friend
before?’ and I told him just what I said about recycling the poster and he’s
like, ‘I don’t think that’s what you said. I think you said that you can
believe what you want and I can believe what I want.’”
“I insisted that’s not what I said and he insisted that was what I said
and that went on for about two minutes.”
After calling the appropriate authorities, Trottier said he was asked to
apologise to the man within two minutes because they were not going to wait
for the authorities to come. “Basically I held my ground and the guy who had
originally thrown the poster down comes up…he slaps me a couple of times in
the face and says, ‘Watch your smart mouth,’ so I grabbed his hand and told
him to stop it and that’s when he did the headbutting with his hat and then
he left and that was basically it.”
Regarding his injuries, Trottier said, “It wasn’t too serious, I’ve been
recovering pretty well.” The headbutting resulted in a cut on Trottier’s
nose.
According to Trottier, the Freethought Association of Canada is treating
this as a serious incident that should be regarded as a hate crime, and are
disgusted at some of the media attention that his incident has received from
other papers.
“They joked about our belief system. They had 20 minutes to premeditate
the attack, [but] the police were saying it was just an escalation from a
verbal dispute but that wasn’t it at all. There was no verbal dispute. They
waited 20 minutes and then they decided that they wanted to come,” he said.
“They were very smart about it.”
Regarding the Varsity’s editorial, “Trottier makes a poor martyr”—which
disputed Trottier’s claims and suggested that his claims are a result of
hurt pride—Trottier said, “I couldn’t even make sense of their editorial.”
The feeling he got out of it was that they acknowledged that the incident
might have stemmed from him being an atheist “but so what, that doesn’t
qualify as a hate crime, you should get used to getting punched or
something…that was the feeling I got out of that.”
Harry Abrams of the Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society
said that this incident does not qualify as a hate crime.
“A hate crime happens when someone is on the receiving end of abuse for
the things about themselves that they cannot change,” he said. “[Trottier]
really should expect that some lumps should come his way sooner or later
over not just taking this position but for promoting that point of view
rightly or wrongly.
“I don’t think [atheism] is caught by the Canadian Constitution in terms
of being a protected minority.”
He added that perhaps if Trottier had apologised, the assault could
potentially have been avoided. “He possibly had a way out of this thing and
chose to be confrontational rather than apologetic or something
consolatory.”
(emphasis mine)
This needs a proper deconstruction...
"A hate crime happens when someone is on the receiving end of abuse for
the things about themselves that they cannot change..."
The last time I checked, practicing Judaism was a voluntary act. In fact, I
know a woman who renounced Judaism and became a Christian. If Harry really
feels this way, how can he file hate crime complaints against folks who
speak ill of Jews? Is Harry saying, through his actions and words that his
choice is protected but yours isn't? Is harry a hypocrite as well as a
fascist?
"[Trottier] really should expect that some lumps should come his way
sooner or later over not just taking this position but for promoting that
point of view rightly or wrongly"
Expect some lumps? What the heck? How fast would Harry be on the phone to
the police if someone said; "That Jew really should expect that some lumps
should come his way sooner or later over not just taking this position but
for promoting that point of view rightly or wrongly."? Based on his aparent
history, ol' Harry would be all over the "Hate Crimes Squad" like stink on a
turd. Why does Harry think that his demographic should be protected from
violence while others aren't? Oh wait... His answer is below...
"I don’t think [atheism] is caught by the Canadian Constitution in terms
of being a protected minority."
I see... Only "listed minorities" are to be protected from violence...
Right...
"He added that perhaps if Trottier had apologised, the assault could
potentially have been avoided. “He possibly had a way out of this thing and
chose to be confrontational rather than apologetic or something
consolatory.”"
Here's a question or four for Harry: (rant)Harry, do you feel that you have
to apologize for your personal choice of being a Jew, in order to avoid
violence? If not, why do you ask that of others? Are you retarded? Do you
have some sort of short-circuit that makes you think that your personal
choice has somehow made you superior to the rest of us?(/rant)
We have a number of reference points
We can compare:
1) the Guille Canadian Heritage Alliance website’s position on Canada’s
heritage, culture and its fight for preservation to Dr. Mock’s position on
Israel’s heritage, culture and its fight for preservation;
2) Harry Abram’s 1999 position criticizing Canadians opposed to illegal boat
immigration against the the Guille Canadian Heritage Alliance website’s
position against the Dr. Mock’s position on Israel’s heritage;
3) the Guille Canadian Heritage Alliance website’s position on Muslims vs
the Frank Dimant – B’nai Brith position that Canadian institutions
vulnerable to threat of political Islam;
4) the Frank Dimant – B’nai Brith position that Canadian institutions
vulnerable to threat of political Islam vs the Shahina Siddiqui complaint
against B’nai Brith;
5) the Harry Abrams – B’nai Brith complaint against the Peace Earth and
Justice News website for anti-Israel commentary;
6) the Harry Abrams – B’nai Brith complaint against the Radical Press for
comments against Israel vs Dr. Mock’s position on Israel’s heritage vs Ed
Morgan and Bernie Farber CJC’s accomplishment claims of trying to
make criticism of Israel or Zionism illegal as a hate crime;
7) the Kozak CHRC report that the Radical Press engages in anti-zionism
rhetoric against the Shahina Siddiqui complaint against B’nai Brith against
Ed Morgan and Bernie Farber’s comments;
8 ) the Harry Abrams comments that the atheist should have been more
apologetic and consolatory rather than defending [his faith] and expected to
take his lumps;
9 ) the Levant exposé of his Jewish Exemption vs his exposé of the Jewish
Conspiracy;
10 ) the Levant exposés vs Doug Christie’s examination that documents were
withheld vs Christie’s position of political bias at the CHRC;
11) the CHRC’s position that the Doug Collins article was anti-Semitic vs
Christie’s position of political bias at the CHRC;
12 ) Christie’s position of political bias at the CHRC vs B’nai Brith
executive one of 40 key Canadian foreign policy influencers;
13 ) and finally we can compare Simon Fothergill’s statements at the Lemire
constitutional challenge hearings, where we learned from Fothergill that
there is no such thing as a wholely truthful statement and it’s OK if some
people say something but maybe not OK if others say the same thing.
Is there bias ?
I leave you with Doug Christie’s powerful comment:
Quote:
“... either the beginning of the end of freedom in a real way or the end of
the beginning of the reclamation of freedom in this country...”
- Doug Christie
------------
*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only ***
CAVEAT LECTOR ***
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. NOTE: Some links
may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser.
Please check <http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr> http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr
<http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2>
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2 for more
real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email
all posts)
free book download: <http://www.lulu.com/content/165077>
http://www.lulu.com/content/165077 or
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/165000/165077/21/print/165077.pdf
<http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames>
http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames
http://blogs.albawaba.com/Alexanderjames/page/links
http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999
*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes
only. *** Welcome to Real News Edited excerpts, non-partisan,
pro-truth-honesty-peace, and anti-war-lies-crime. The purpose is to expose
corruptions, frauds, deceptions, lies, criminal plans, cover-ups and
free-speech silencing by powerful people in governments, foundations,
corporations and media, which are done using the name of democracy, human
rights, false interpretations of religions, cults, occults, patriotism,
economy, business, media, elections, justice, charity, etc., and are used to
trick the public into hatred & wars and out of their lives, money and
freedoms, while the propaganda we are subjected to makes us believe that we
have evolved to where such things cannot happen [remember slavery,
apartheid…]. Please share what you learn with others who do not have access
to the internet. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Stop the hatred that is
used to promote the dehumanization of the victims of predatory
aggressions;spread the truth;free your mind from being a Zioncon occupied
territory of the neo-feudal lords by rejecting the mainstream news
propaganda. Caution: real news may induce a kind of schizophrenia because it
provides a true vision of reality which is so different from the one we are
presented by the mass media spins. Latest real infonews available at
alternate news. ***** Check whatreallyhappened.com, inforwars.com, whtt.org,
savethemales.ca & other alternative news sites for latest news flashes. In
Truth We Trust! The opinions expressed herein contain positions and
viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the recipient, disseminator or
others mentioned in the information. These are offered as a means to
stimulate dialogue and discussion.
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency
(NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do
this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse,
nor protection.......... IF anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail
is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955 Disclaimer
Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire &
are all intended for entertainment and amusement only.
To be removed from the list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"
To receive email at another address, please reply with subject line “CHANGE”
To receive email, please reply with "WEEKLY"
|
