Canada’s Effort to Criminalize Criticism of Israel

Israel’s siege of Gaza has made it a “closed zone” – no access, no exit, cut off from the world. By attempting to shut down criticism of Israel’s practices, Canadian supporters of the government of Israel are creating another “closed zone” in Canada – in which criticism, open debate, and freedom of expression will not be allowed.

Read The Rest Here

Canadian Judge Torpedoes 'Hate Speech' Ruling

EDMONTON — A Court of Queen's Bench judge has ruled an anti-gay letter written by a former Alberta pastor in 2002 was not a hate crime and is allowed under freedom of speech.

Justice E.C. Wilson overturned a 2008 ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter by Stephen Boissoin that was published in the Red Deer Advocate broke provincial law.

At the time, the commission said it may even have played a role in the beating of a gay teenager two weeks after it was published.

The commission had ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.

Neither order can now be enforced, as Wilson declared them "unlawful or unconstitutional."

The letter carried the headline "Homosexual agenda wicked" and suggested gays were as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.

Boissoin had argued he was simply commenting on government policy by criticizing homosexuality being portrayed positively in the public school curriculum.

On Thursday, Boissoin said he was thrilled with the judge's ruling, calling it a victory for "freedom of speech and religious expression in Canada."

At the time he wrote the letter, Boissoin was a pastor with the Concerned Christian Coalition. He now works in the housing industry.

Lund, who is now a professor at the University of Calgary, said he was disappointed.

"I really think this is a step backwards for our province," he said in an email to The Canadian Press.

"In my view, the judge's ruling sets such strict standards for hate speech that this section is rendered all but unenforceable.

"I'm hopeful that Albertans hope to keep our communities inclusive and respectful for all people, but this ruling certainly offers no assistance in this regard. If the language contained in the letter does not meet the threshold of hateful, I am not certain what possibly would."

The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a free-speech advocacy group, issued a news release saying it was pleased with Thursday's ruling.

"Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to a expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years is still on the books," said executive director John Carpay.

That law, the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, says no one shall publish a statement that is likely "to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt" because of their sexual orientation.

"In spite of today's court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint," said Carpay.

"No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive."

Source: CTV News

Writers call for probe into human rights commission

Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn appeared before the justice committee on Monday, asking for a probe into the Canadian Human Rights Commission. (CBC)

Two writers appeared before the justice committee on Monday, repeating their call for a repeal of a controversial section of the Human Rights Act, and asking for a probe into the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are also calling for the elimination of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which allows the commission to investigate allegations of hate speech.

"I think a very practical, doable thing for this committee and for Parliament would be to repeal Section 13 of the Human Rights Act altogether, to leave any hate speech prosecutions to the Criminal Code with its proper checks and balances, and frankly, to bring in a forensic audit to the Human Rights Commission to examine the allegations that I have made," Levant told the commission.

Levant is alleging that employees of the commission belong to neo-Nazi organizations, an accusation he made in July in a National Post column.

Some committee members, like New Democrat MP Joe Comartin, seemed incredulous at the accusation.

"I think I like everybody sitting at this table are at some disadvantage, Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn, in terms of the accusations that you're making against members of the commission and their staff."

Levant offered to give MPs documents to back his accusations and come back to testify once they had read them.

Levant was subject of a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission under the act for reprinting the provocative Danish Muhammad cartoons in his magazine in 2006. He published the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in the now defunct Western Standard, arguing that they were "the central fact in the largest news story of the month."

A complaint was launched by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Steyn for an article he wrote titled "The Future Belongs to Islam" and posted on the magazine's website in October 2006.

The article, an excerpt of a book authored by Steyn, talks about Islam being a threat to North American institutions and values. It used statistics to show higher birth rates plus immigration mean Muslims will outnumber followers of other religions in Western Europe.

Both complaints were eventually dismissed.

But Levant and Steyn argue that they should not have been investigated in the first place.

Steyn said it is hard to defend against a complaint to the human rights commission.

"Truth is no defence, so you can make a statement, every aspect of which is factually accurate, and if certain people decide they are going to be offended by it, the factual accuracy of that is irrelevant."

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh asked why they were recommending the abolition of Section 13, instead of amending it.

"So you believe there then should be nothing between absolute free speech and the Criminal Code provisions?" he asked.

But Steyn said society can deal with hate speech.

"I prefer social disapproval, activist parents, a school board firing, to a law restricting what individuals can say and think."

Source: CBC.CA

B'NAI B'RITH CANADA ~ HARDWIRING HATRED INTO THE CANADIAN PSYCHE

Is Your Government Breeding Bolsheviks?

B’nai Brith’s brazen attempt

to hardwire Hatred and Censorship

into the Canadian Psyche

By Arthur Topham

August 7, 2009

In his 2006 book, The Synagogue of Satan, the British writer Andrew C. Hitchcock has a lot to say about the house of Rothschild. In fact his book is a revelation of our times; the chronology of a crime syndicate that began in 1760 when Mayer Amschel Bauer took over his father’s money lending business in Frankfurt, Germany and changed his name from Bauer to Rothschild, a German word meaning “Red Shield” and hung the symbolic hexagram that now adorns the Israeli flag above his door.

The last 250 years is basically a record of the Rothschild’s devastating effects upon the people and the planet; one that has now brought our 20th Century civilization to the brink of either global disaster, or, should we awake in time to this imminent end and act accordingly, the final dismantling and dissolution of this infamous house of hell that’s been the root cause of humanity’s discontent for the past two and a half centuries.

Andrew Hitchcock’s book[1] in some respects parallel’s the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in that it too is a road map like the Protocols only one that can lead us out of the wasteland of the present times rather than further into a gloomy and foreboding Big Brother future such as the Protocols reveal.

While Hitchcock’s first and foremost purpose is to document the accomplished deeds of this Rothschild house of horror as they pertain to global finance, politics and media, his particular expose of the secret masonic society of B’nai Brith, one of the many Rothschild enterprises designed to assist in its agenda for world domination, should be of special interest to Canadians; especially those Canadians who have managed to break free to some degree from the mind-numbing influence of the Rothschild~controlled mainstream media and are relatively able to view, somewhat objectively, the ongoing machinations of this organization; one initially set up and funded in order to present to the world a viewpoint fundamentally Talmudic, cabalistic and atheistic in scope, nature and purpose.

Prime Minister attends the B’nai Brith Canada 2006 Award of Merit Dinner

In the USA when Americans think of B’nai Brith they automatically think of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) the now powerful, aggressive arm of B’nai Brith International originally formed in 1913 by the Rothschild Jews in reaction to a Jewish business man who was convicted of raping and murdering one of his young employees and actually put in jail for his crime.*

This was considered an outrage by the then nascent Zionists and so they conspired to come up with an organization that would eventually become the Goliath of gutter journalism, spewing forth volumes of vituperative slander and malignant lies upon any individual, group or organization that ever dared to challenge the tendentious tenets of the Rothschild empire.

Noam Chomsky,"The ADL is one of the ugliest, most powerful pressure groups in the U.S."

I believe Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it rather succinctly when he once described the ADL as “…one of the ugliest, most powerful pressure groups in the U.S…. Its primary commitment is to use any technique, however dishonest and disgraceful, in order to defame and silence and destroy anybody who dares to criticize the Holy State (’Israel’).”

But of course here in Canada, we being the more genteel, tea drinking members of the British colonies, were presented with yet another apparently benign version of this same organization operating under the simple title of B’nai Brith Canada. Projecting the face of an honorable, distinguished, responsible and worthy service-oriented organization their website discreetly states:

B’nai Brith Canada is the independent voice of the Jewish community, representing its interests nationwide to government, NGO’s and the wider Canadian public.

Since 1875, it has been respected for its groundbreaking work on matters relating to antisemitism, racism and human rights, its strong advocacy on the pressing issues of the day, and the important social services it provides.

The organization is maintained through the generosity of grassroots Canadians who value its independence and integrity, as well as its non-partisan, inclusive approach. [all bold is mine. A.T.]

A sampling of B’nai Brith’s agencies and programs “designed to assist the community and foster goodwill and understanding amongst all Canadians” consists of the following:

* League for Human Rights [the agency which filed the current section 13 “hate crime” complaint against RadicalPress.com. A.T.]

* Anti-Hate Desk

* Annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents

* Institute for International Affairs

* Canadian Israel Public Affairs Committee (CIPAC)

* Government Relations Office

* Communications Department

* Legal Desk

* Campus Outreach Program

* Young Leadership Development Groups

* Network of B’nai Brith Lodges

* Jewish Canada Information Service

Meanwhile, back at the ranch though, this well-concealed Rothschild front organization is mainly focused, as one can see from its list of agencies and objectives, on fulfilling the very same mandate as its American cousin, the ADL; that is, stifling and smothering any and all criticism of the Rothschild agenda for silence and slavery of the masses under its profound and poignant program for global hegemony in all matters related to the human experience.

In the case of Canada, we’re now witnessing both the long term machinations and the desired effects of this organization in the current battle building between the forces for Internet repression and anti-free speech and the counter forces slowly beginning to realize the ultimate aim of Canada’s mendacious desire to sustain the shocking, repulsive piece of human rights legislation known as Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is becoming abundantly clear to more and more Canadians who spend time online and in the blogosphere, B’nai Brith Canada’s open agenda as a Rothschild sentinel and watchdog is to heavily influence our federal government’s position with respect to the racist state policies of Israel and it’s program for genocide of the Palestinian people of the Middle East which also includes stealing more and more Arab territory for its own people and purpose.

As such, B’nai Brith Canada has been instrumental in forcing into the lives of all free Canadians what those of us in the fight for free speech now recognize as the one primary tool being used to silence critical debate of either the actions of the state of Israel or any other relevant discussions concerning the nature of the Rothschild cabal and its political ideology known as Zionism.

This current repressive law de jour is known amongst those in the free speech movement as section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and in typical Zionist style, i.e. using deception of the general public as its Mossadic modus operandi.

B’nai Brith Canada has been instrumental in working the crowds of politicians and law makers and using their influential power of the purse combined with their sycophantic lackeys and supporters in the Zionist media to slowly and surely entrench into Canadian culture the stereotypical, fundamental precepts that eventually lead to a nation of mind-controlled morons who ultimately cannot distinguish truth from deception or freedom from slavery.

As the former writer, journalist and founder of Greenpeace International Robert Hunter once remarked in his profound and prophetic book, The Storming of the Mind, we’ve been conditioned to live in “comfortable concentration camps” and think of ourselves as free, independent human beings.

Of course B’nai Brith Canada with all the candour of a condor will automatically begin to shriek and hiss and bear its fangs accusing this writer of being “anti-Semitic” and a “hater of Jews and citizens of Israel” and whatever other epithet that they can dredge out from their mindless, memorized plethora of programmed slander they’re so adept at adopting whenever someone calls them on their ongoing commission of crimes against the majority of the gentile population of Canada.

But before listening and falling prey to their endless anagrams of hex-like hatred I would caution Canadians to pause and consider what Mr. Hitchcock has to say about how B’nai Brith concocted their plan to instill these false beliefs into the minds of young and old Canadians alike.

Referring to Andrew Hitchcock’s chronology for the year 1988 he tells us:

“The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), initiate a nationwide competition for law students to draft anti-hate legislation designed to protect minority groups. [read Zionist Jews. A.T.]

That competition is won by a man named, Joseph Ribakoff, whose proposals stipulate that not only must hate motivated violence be banned, but any words which stimulate: suspicion; friction; hate; and possible violence, must also be criminalized.

This ADL prize-winning paper suggests that not only should state-agencies [ read Canada’s Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. A.T.] monitor and restrict free speech in general, but they should also censor all films that criticize identifiable groups [unless of course they happen to be the popular ones the Jews hate the most like the Germans (Nazis) and the Muslims and the Christians. A.T.]

Furthermore, even if the person making the statement can justify it, for example Christians criticizing homosexuality because the Bible expressly forbids it, Ribakoff asserts that the truth is to be no defense in court.

The only proof a court will need in order to secure a conviction of hate speech is that something has been said, and a minority group or member of such group has felt emotionally damaged as a result of such criticism.

[This is practically verbatim the text contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 13. and currently being used by Harry Abrams and the BBC to charge me and RadicalPress.com with “hate” crimes. A.T.]

Therefore, under these proposals which the ADL will have forced into law all over the world less than 15 years later, through their bought and paid for politicians and media, Jesus Christ would have been arrested as a hate criminal.

This law is designed to protect the Rothschild conspiracy from being revealed in that if you criticize the Rothschild’s criminal cabal, you will be targeted as anti-Semitic, and thus risk imprisonment [and/or steep fines and a loss of your website and a reputation as a hatemonger. A.T.].

It is also interesting to note say, for example, a Rabbi torches his synagogue to collect insurance money because it is in need of repair, as opposed to someone else perpetrating the crime who was found to have an interest in anti-establishment media, the later would receive a stiffer sentence for the same act.”

To conclude I will only say that as one can easily see the ADL’s plans have taken firm root in the collective mind of Canadians thanks to decades of collaborating between the mainstream Rothschild media and the politicians who, due to their own brainwashing, have lent their ignorant albeit earnest support to the Zionist effort to instill in us all these false concepts of “hatred” and “contempt”.

The final result of all of this shady, unscrupulous sabotage of Canada’s civic and federal laws is, of course, a burgeoning bureaucracy of Zionist created Bolsheviks who’ve been placidly and surreptitiously placed in these ‘quasi-judicial” entities known to us as “human rights” commissions and tribunals.

Their primary purpose is to enforce the agenda of the Rothschild’s synogogue of satan upon an unwary and uniformed public; one misinformed for so long that they are for all intents of purpose unable now to grasp the full import of what is happening to their former legal right to the fundamental freedoms all Canadians once trusted in and enjoyed.

****************************************

* He was originally sentenced to be hung but that was reduced to life in prison thanks to the efforts of influential Jews of the time. The outrage of the non-Jewish community was so great that one of the gentle Gentiles managed to infiltrate the prison and perform the dastardly deed thus satisfying justice.

[1] Andrew Carrington Hitchcock invites you to contact him at: andrewcarringtonhitchcock@hotmail.com or go to his website: http://www.thesynagogueofsatan.com

**********************************

Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He is currently involved in a free speech battle with the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

He is also in extremely dire need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship as he is not able to work during this period of intense litigation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome.

Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a “DONATE” button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.

Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995

Thanks to Snippits and Snappits where I first read this post. Check her out!
Source: Snippits and Snappits

CRIMINALIZING CRITISCIM OF ISRAEL IN CANADA

OK CANADIANS, LISTEN UP AND READ THIS PLEASE. THIS EFFECTS NOT ONLY US BUT OUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

Here is a copy of the Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) submission to the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism. It is well worth reading and should be distributed widely. See note below also regarding how to make a submission to the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism. See: Objections to criminalizing the CPCCA definition of anti-Semitism

Independent Jewish Voices (Canada)
submission to the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition
to Combat Anti-Semitism

Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) represents Canadian Jews who share a strong commitment to social justice and universal human rights. We especially promote justice, ethics, and humanity in Israel and Palestine, as well as in Canada.

IJV offers a range of Jewish perspectives which differ from those of the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith, the Canada-Israel Committee, and the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, all of which encourage the view that Judaism and uncritical support for Israeli policies and practices are synonymous.

IJV has chapters in seven cities across Canada (Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and Vancouver) and members in many other Canadian cities.

As Jews, we take true anti-Semitism ~ that is, discrimination and attacks on Jews and Judaism ~ very seriously. However, we reject the false assumptions on which the CPCCA and its efforts are based:

Despite protestations to the contrary, the CPCCA conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism: The CPCCA claims that its purpose is not "really about limiting legitimate criticism of the State of Israel." However its web site says that "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel are inherently antisemitic."

IJV believes that this statement is part of an organized attempt on the part of partisans of Israel to conflate the call for the dismantling of repressive Israeli institutions and ending repressive Israeli practices regarding Palestinians with the physical destruction of the Jewish population of Israel.

The London Declaration states "We are alarmed at the resurrection of the old language of prejudice and its modern manifestations ~ in rhetoric and political action ~ against Jews, Jewish belief and practice and the State of Israel." This is another conflation of criticism of Israel with prejudice against Jews. Our organization is actively involved in the former, while we are adamantly opposed to the latter. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

Independent Jewish Voices includes a broad spectrum of opinion on this issue, ranging from strongly Zionist to strongly anti-Zionist. This diversity of views enriches and deepens our understanding.

As Jews, we hold that free speech includes the right of all people to openly discuss their views on all matters related to the political reality in Israel, including whether or not they should support an ethnocratic state which privileges Jews by imposing brutal discrimination and deploys indiscriminate violence against its indigenous population as well as against its neighbours.

The CPCCA asserts without foundation that "the extent and severity of antisemitism is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War

." There is no evidence of any significant rise in anti-Semitism in Canada or elsewhere. In fact, as Globe and Mail columnist Michael Valpy reported in March 2004, an extensive survey on anti-Semitic attitudes by the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy found very low levels of anti-Semitism.

We find it very revealing that the CJC chose not to publish this survey and put off our requests for copies of the results. Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League’s 2002 survey of U.S. anti-Semitic attitudes found an almost steady decline in the proportion of Americans who are anti-Semitic from 29% in 1964, to 20% in 1992, to 12% in 1998, with a slight rise to 17% in 2002 ~ just after the massacre that Israeli forces carried out at the Palestinian city of Jenin.

The 2002 ADL survey found that the majority of Americans hold highly positive attitudes toward Jews, and that it was concerns over Israeli war crimes that were generating anti-Semitic attitudes.1

Even these studies are flawed, however, because they confuse individual prejudice with institutionally oppressive anti-Semitism. As Jason Kunin points out, "it's important to distinguish between prejudice and oppression. Prejudice is simply an opinion based on limited information or stereotypes. Everyone has prejudices.

We all have some opinions based on incomplete information….Prejudice can exist at both an ideological level (e.g. "white people are ignorant and mean") and at an individual level (e.g. "I won't vote for that white politician"), but unless that prejudice can also translate into institutional practices that marginalize or exclude, then that prejudice is not oppression but merely a prejudice.

Given the current reality of global white supremacy, neither of the examples I have given above have the potential to oppress." On that basis, he concludes, "Anti-Semitism, pervasive and deadly only a couple generations ago, is no longer a form of oppression."2

What is unprecedented is not the level of anti-Semitism in the world, but rather the rising level of international outrage over Israel’s actions. To reiterate, this is not anti-Semitism, but rather a legitimate, growing expression of concern and moral outrage.

According to the drafters of this initiative, there is a pressing need to respond to what they characterize as the "new anti-Semitism," in which "anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-Semitism." IJV believes that it is legitimate for critics of Israel’s behaviour to describe it as a system of apartheid and to deny the legitimacy of any state that engages in such practices. This is not anti-Semitism of any kind, new or old.

The CPCCA alleges that Canadian Jewish students are particularly ridiculed and intimidated for being Jewish

. For example, its press release claims "Jewish students are being threatened and intimidated to the point that they are not able to express themselves, or are even fearful to wear a Jewish skull cap or star around their necks."

IJV has co-sponsored and participated in a broad range of activities critical of Israeli abuses of Palestinian rights, including Israel Apartheid Week events, tours conducted by the Palestinian Human Rights organization Al Haq, locally-based tours of the Palestinian town of Bi’lin, and demonstrations against the horrific Israeli assault on the people of Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.

In all those events, pro-Israeli Jewish students as well as Jews generally were welcomed and their comments treated respectfully. By contrast, YouTube has captured a number of incidents in which pro-Israel students barged into demonstrations critical of Israel or mounted provocative counter demonstrations, using the heated arguments with Palestinians and their supporters that their interventions generated as evidence that they were being "intimidated and threatened."3

These were not cases of Jews being attacked for their Judaism, but Palestinians and their supporters arguing back forcefully against belligerent Zionist students trying to suppress their freedom of speech.

Unlike those organizations which seek to stifle open debate about this and related subjects by labelling those who oppose their views as anti-Semitic and seek to punish them for expressing them, IJV actively promotes the rights of all individuals to express themselves freely and without threat of sanction.

By launching such an inquiry, the CPCCA implies that existing human rights mechanisms are not sufficient to address actual incidents of anti-Semitism in Canada.

The Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith have been trying for years to broaden the definition of "hate crimes" to include criticism of Israel. So far, thankfully, they have been unsuccessful.

The CPCCA is just the latest in this attempt to attack free speech and silence criticism of the Israeli government’s oppressive and illegal policies. It is our view that Canada’s existing human rights commissions and criminal code are more than sufficient to deal with actual incidents of anti-Semitism.

The CPCCA implies that those critical of Israeli policies are calling for "the destruction of the State of Israel and its inhabitants."

This tendentious position holds that because of the Holocaust, Jews must have a Jewish state in order to be secure, and that anyone who is critical of the Jewish state and its behaviour must therefore support the destruction of the Jewish people. This is nothing more than classic fear-mongering, designed to divert attention from illegal and unethical policies carried out by the Israeli government. Thankfully, it is carrying less and less weight over time, thanks to its overuse by apologists for Israel.

To be critical of Israeli policies or even to challenge the legitimacy of the existence of a Jewish state is not equivalent to calling for the physical destruction of the State, or advocating genocide against Israeli citizens.

By far the strongest military power in the region, Israel is in no danger of physical destruction. All of its neighbours, with the exception of Iraq, have recognized the state of Israel, and the two main Palestinian political factions, Fatah and Hamas have also recognized the state of Israel Fatah explicitly and Hamas implicitly.

Contrary to the Coalition’s contention that there is a new, virulent form of anti-Semitism spreading across the world, what is new is the unprecedented level of organizing, particularly on campuses, in response to Israel and its actions.

Of particular importance with respect to this issue has been the rise of the organization known as the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, which engages in the kinds of activities that the members of the CPCCA appear determined to stamp out. CAIA’s purpose is to focus attention on the plight of Palestinians living in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and to generate action to combat what it characterizes as the system of apartheid that exists there.

Discussion about and disagreement over the appropriateness of the term "apartheid" as a descriptor for Israel and the regime that it has created in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is completely legitimate. Our organization has endorsed CAIA and has members who have actively participated in it.

We categorically reject any attempt to describe the activities of CAIA as anti-Semitic and draw the Coalition’s attention to CAIA’s basis of unity, which contains the explicit statement that "We oppose all forms of racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism."

The CPCCA ignores the far greater incidence of hate crimes and discrimination imposed on racialized people in Canada and particularly the racial profiling policies, as well as discrimination against and stereotyping of Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians that is being actively promoted by the governments of Canada, Israel and other western countries in the name of national security.

In Canada, Muslims and Arabs have been subjected to official no fly lists, intrusive surveillance, extraordinary rendition and torture when they travel abroad, and imprisoned without charges under Security Certificates at home.

As the case of Suaad Hagi Mohamud demonstrates, the Canadian government treats our Muslim citizens in a clearly discriminatory manner, often failing to provide them with the same kinds of protections that other Canadians expect as a matter of course when they are abroad.

Largely as a result of the grotesquely ill-conceived "war on terror," racist abuse of and discrimination against Canadian Muslims and Arabs is increasing dramatically. An extensive inquiry into the experiences of Muslim students conducted by the Canadian Federation of Students in 2007 found that many had experienced serious and frequent harassment and abuse both on and off campus.4 There is no similar evidence for the CPCCA’s claim that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Canada.

In summary, it is our view that what is really involved here despite repeated disavowals is an attempt to label criticism of Israel and its behaviour as well as organized efforts to change them as anti-Semitism and to criminalize both.

This Coalition is an illegitimate endeavour. We condemn it for what it is: an effort to whitewash Israeli behaviour and to protect it from both scrutiny and organized opposition.

Signed:

Diana Ralph

Sid Shniad

Co-chairs

Please consider sending a submission to the committee to help ensure that it will not be used to try to silence support for the Palestinians. The deadline is the end of August. Coalition members emails are below.

To Mario Silva, Chair Committee of Inquiry

and to Scott Reid, M.P. and Chair

The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism
440-C Centre Block, House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Phone: 613-947-2277 Fax: 613-947-2278 Email: info@cpcca.ca

Reids@parl.gc.ca 613-947-2277

Chair: Mario Silva silvam@parl.gc.ca
Vice- Chair Scott Reid Reids@parl.gc.ca
Hon Carolyn Bennett BenneC@parl.gc.ca
Lois Brown Brown.L@parl.gc.ca
Hon Ken Dryden DrydeK@parl.gc.ca
Raymonde Folco FolcoR@parl.gc.ca
Hon Hedy Fry FryH@parl.gc.ca
Randy Hoback Hoback.R@parl.gc.ca
Hon Peter Kent Kent.P@parl.gc.ca
Pat Martin MartiPD@parl.gc.ca
Joyce Murray MurraJ@parl.gc.ca
Hon Anita Neville ThilaE@parl.gc.ca
Éve-Mary Thaï Thi Lac ThilaE@parl.gc.ca
Tim Uppal Uppal.T@parl.gc.ca
Judy Wasylycia-Leis WasylJ@parl.gc.ca
Jeff Watson WatsoJ@parl.gc.ca

Thanks to Snippits and Snappits where we first read this post. Check out her Blog below.

Source: Snippits and Snappits: CRIMINALIZING CRITISCIM OF ISRAEL IN CANADA

It's a great day for freedom of speech

Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did something its never done in its 32-year history. It acquitted somebody of "hate speech" charges. Until now, the tribunal had a 100% conviction rate.

In a 107-page ruling, tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis didn't just throw out the case against Marc Lemire, he threw out the law, too, calling it an infringement of the free speech guarantees of the Charter of Rights.

Hadjis is no wild-eyed civil libertarian. In the recent past, he himself has convicted people under this same law. And, before Jean Chretien appointed him to the tribunal, Hadjis was the boss of one of Montreal's largest multicultural lobby groups, which thrived on ethnic identity politics. But even Hadjis has had enough of the human rights industry and their fetish for political correctness. He ruled that allowing Canadian citizens to express offensive ideas is preferable to living under a government that prosecutes people for expressing those ideas.

Hate-speech law violates Charter rights, tribunal rules

A federal law governing hate speech violates Canadians' charter rights to freedom of expression, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.

The development could give more ammunition to those who complain that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which refers cases to the tribunal, is engaging in censorship by attempting to restrict what people say on the Internet.

The decision, released in Ottawa Wednesday, also seems to call into question whether the tribunal should be involved at all in policing online content through Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

“This case raises questions about the substance of the law itself,” said Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. “This will only build the momentum for another examination of how we approach this.”

At issue was a complaint lodged with the tribunal against Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org. Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman alleged that the messages posted on the site were discriminatory and exposed minority groups to “hatred and contempt,” key language under Section 13 of the law.

Mr. Lemire responded by requesting that the law be “declared inoperative” because it is inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis agreed. He wrote in the ruling that the law was originally intended to be “remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature,” rather than a means to hand out penalties.

Section 13 defines it as “discriminatory” for an individual or group “to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated … any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” based on characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on.

Advocates call the law a necessary control on hate speech in an age where the Internet makes the spread of messages easier and faster. Opponents say it's censorship and has no place in a free society.

The tribunal's decision, which will likely be appealed, is not binding beyond Mr. Lemire's case. However, it moves the debate forward, said University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon.

“It creates a new situation in which all the different legal and political actors have to think about what their response is,” Prof. Moon said.

In 2008, Prof. Moon wrote a report for the CHRC about the role of Section 13 in the Internet age that said the law should be repealed. He wrote that Internet use means that “any attempt to exclude all racial or other prejudice from the public discourse would require extraordinary intervention by the state.”

But Mr. Warman, who brought the case, disagrees.

“There is no unlimited right to speech,” he said. “The fact is, this was a hate website and it attracted hate.”

Mr. Warman cited postings by a visitor to freedomsite.org that, in a separate case, the tribunal called “as vile as one can imagine and not only discriminatory, but threatening to the victims.”

Mr. Lemire said webmasters are not responsible for content on message boards.

“It's not for the state to … decide what beliefs we can have,” he said. “People shouldn't be put through a six-year-long hearing even if they're Nazis, even if they're communists, even if they're racists.”

Bernie Farber, the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said all hate speech is a potential trigger.

“Racist war, from the ethnic cleansing in Cambodia, to the Balkans, to Darfur, to the Holocaust, did not start in a vacuum,” he said.

“Hateful words do have an effect. … The Internet cannot and should not be a wild frontier where anything goes.”

Source: The Globe and Mail

Canadian Human Rights Commission Horror Stories - Steven Boissoin