|Comment on this article!|
Post your answer
|The incredible, shrinking Jewish Left|
|By Norman Lazare on November 30,2009|
George Galloway was not afforded an opportunity to personally purvey his anti_semetic pornography in Canada and I am just sick about it.Frankly, I would be a lot more impressed with the handwringing of left wing Jewery over the refusal to grant a permit to George Galloway, had he not been a paid mouthpiece of the Baathist Regime prior to its end in the spider hole.If the left were a little more vocal over the exclusion of Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking at Concordia and the odious anti-Semetism that is openly tolerated in the groves of academia such as York University, perhaps I might be more catholic in my own outrage. As it is, i see the left , including the jewish left as a hypocritical aggregation that frets about three skinhead neo NAZIs with a computer, but fawns over well financed and organized Islamic thugs.The Jewish left receives the respect from the rest of us that it deserves.Which is not much
|By Sholto Douglas on November 29,2009|
John Gay, yes that does put it in a different light. However Kenney should have seen that the facts would be airbrushed away and pressed his department to provide a more definitive answer. There is something amiss with the law if one's entry is at the whim of the border official you encounter. Galloway, or anyone else, is entitled to know before they embark on a trip to Canada whether they will be allowed in.
To say he would have set a precedent is also questionable. Anyone should be allowed into Canada (or Australia/US/NZ etc) to speak. The condition should be that his events are not used for fundraising, and that he faces immediate deportation should that be breached.
Kalman and par suco - while it was obviously wrong to place the CJC on the wrong side of this argument, that body don't deserve too much sympathy. If Farber came down on the side of free speech this time, it must be a first! Once does not a pattern make.
|By suco on November 29,2009|
Having read Mr. Farber's article that Kalman mentioned I must admit to some disappointment at Mr. Scheinberg's mischaracterization of CJC. While it is clear that CJC supports Canada's hate laws there is absolutely no evidence that it had any communication with the Federal government on the Galloway matter. Quite the contrary Mr. Farber's article clearly stated that he in fact should be permitted to speak.
What was Mr. Scheinberg's motivation for maligning CJC in this manner or was it as kalman Brigs suggested just shoddy research?
|Common sense Kenny|
|By John Gay on November 29,2009|
"yes Kenney might have been technically right in claiming the decision to ban Galloway was a bureaucratic one made by others, but he was politically very inept to let it pass. As someone who had (correctly) weighed in on the absurd behaviour of the HRC’s, he should have seen that banning Galloway would be portrayed as gross hypocrisy. Worse still it was a blunder, giving Galloway massive publicity, and ready ammunition to his supporters’ ill-deserved claims of victimhood."
-But Galloway never was banned from entering Canada; he was told by an official in London that a preliminary assessment of his case suggested he might well be banned by the border official at the point of entry, given his well-publicized funding of Hamas. Galloway then made no real attempt to enter Canada. The appeal to the Canadian court by Galloway's friends was pure media bait, and as the judge rightly decided there was in fact no official decision to refuse entry on which she could pass judgment, let alone reverse. To then suggest that Kenny should have reversed a non-decision is equally incoherent. Should Kenny have written his own preliminary assessment saying that Canadian law against admitting those who support what Canada considers terrorist groups would be waived in Galloway's case?
The "hypocrisy" and "blunder" that you bewail is actually the working of common sense and the rule of law. It is precisely the political nightmare of our times that common sense is routinely depicted by the victimary left as hidebound hypocrisy, complacent, "fascist", etc. THat they are able to do this and get all of the Canadian media to go along with the charges, especially when Israel is the target, is not Kenney's fault and we get no closer to the tactics needed to defend common sense and the rule of law by blaming him. We need to make re-iterating common sense and principle a much more popular pasttime, so that we can fill the media space with countless people saying, variously, Duhh, of course we don't let terroristsand their funders into Canada...
It is when the only thing that matters is "optics", that every decision or non-decision begins to look like an arbitrary selection of a victim by the powers that be. The more you appease the victimary cults, hoping to avoid a fuss, the more victims you must help produce. If Kenney had made an arbitrary pronouncement on Galloway's status, just imagine what might have happened next and next on that slippery slope...
|Canadian Jewry, Israeli actions|
|By Dave Abbey on November 28,2009|
I agree with everything the good Professor Scheinberg said. Right wing Jewish groups' actions in denying free speech to those with whom they disagree are counter to everything our democracy stands for. In fact they go against the traditions of Judaism in my view.
|Galloway and Free speech|
|By Kalman Briggs on November 28,2009|
Thank you John Gay for the specifics on Galloway. I also recall reading an editorial at the time written by Bernie Farber of the CJC which said pretty clearly that as long as Galloway was not breaking Canadian law he should be allowed into Canada. I think Mr. Scheinberg owes CJC an apology for suggesting that it was somehow caught up with trying to keep him out of the country. Sadly it diminishes the rest of what was a fine article.
You see one such serious research error puts everything else written under the microscope. Acknowleging errors helps to give credibility.
|What goes around comes around|
|By Orest Slepokura on November 28,2009|
You wrote: "What goes around seems to usually come around.". To which I would add, often it does so sooner rather than later. A case in point:
When the South African prime minister, John Vorster, made a state visit to Israel in April 1976, it began with a tour of Yad Vashem, Israel's great Holocaust memorial, where the late Yitzhak Rabin invited the onetime Nazi collaborator, unabashed racist, and white supremacist to pay homage to Jews who perished in the Nazi Holocaust. Compared to oft-heard outcries from Jewish groups over even mild whiffs of Holocaust revisionism, no less remarkable was the bland equanimity both Israeli and Diaspora Jews also displayed toward the Vorster visit. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi recalls that [The Israeli Connection, Random House: Toronto, 1987, p.x] "[f]or most Israelis, the Vorster visit was just another state visit by a foreign leader. It did not draw much attention. Most Israelis did not even remember his name, and did not see anything unusual, much less surreal in the scene [an old Nazi diehard invited to mourn the Jewish victims at a Holocaust memorial]: Vorster was just another visiting dignitary being treated to the usual routine." As a onetime Nazi collaborator, John Vorster should, of course, have been arrested and tried once he set foot on Israeli soil - instead he was warmly welcomed by his Jewish hosts. The South African prime minister left Israel four days later, but not before signing several treaties between the Jewish state and Pretoria's apartheid regime. A denouement Leslie and Andrew Cockburn describe in Dangerous Liaison [Stoddart Publishing: Toronto, 1991, pp. 299-300]: "The old Nazi sympathizer came away with bilateral agreements for commercial, military, and nuclear cooperation that would become the basis for future relations between the two countries."
Surely, in the diplomatic context cited above, it would be the failure to criticize Israel after it had so abjectly compromised its dignity that would be tantamount to a kind of anti-Semitism by omission.
|This taints others too|
|By Sholto Douglas on November 27,2009|
Dr Scheinberg, you are repeating what Ezra Levant has long said. Not only does this censorious bent among some Jews reflect badly on their entire community, it also splatters collateral damage onto others.
I once commented on a leftist blog (Dr Dawg’s) that the impulse towards censorship runs much deeper in the left than the right. At University in UK during the Thatcher years, I noticed that there was NEVER a case of a left wing speaker being howled down by conservatives, but woe betide any right wing figure with the temerity to exercise a similar right. The standard sentiment of the howlers was “I believe in free speech, but not for people like him”. This proud tradition has its most egregious manifestation in Canada’s various Human Rights Commissions.
Dawg replied with links to what he said were attempts to silence the left. On examining these accounts one thing became clear – they were all, bar one, perpetrated by Jewish groups. Not only is this at variance to Jewish tradition (and I speak as an Aussie WASP), but in this case it was used smear conservatives in general, who, let’s face it, are innocent bystanders in all this. Those authoritarian Jews could be anywhere on the spectrum, and to attribute their actions to “conservatives” is clearly illogical – but attributed it was.
John Gay, yes Kenney might have been technically right in claiming the decision to ban Galloway was a bureaucratic one made by others, but he was politically very inept to let it pass. As someone who had (correctly) weighed in on the absurd behaviour of the HRC’s, he should have seen that banning Galloway would be portrayed as gross hypocrisy. Worse still it was a blunder, giving Galloway massive publicity, and ready ammunition to his supporters’ ill-deserved claims of victimhood.
|George Galloway wasn't banned|
|By Josephine on November 27,2009|
George Galloway was not banned from entering Canada. See Terry Glavin's report:
|I think you misrepresent the Galloway affair|
|By John Gay on November 27,2009|
While I support you call for Jews to support freedom of speech and to fight the self-righteous who think it their duty to name and silence "hate speech", i think you've got the Galloway affair wrong. See Terry Glavin: http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/04/great-george-galloway-hoax-of-2009-lab.html
|Post a comment|