B'nai Brith interviews Lucy Warman - A Triumph of Hypocrisy!
Like the CJC, B'Nai Brith simply cannot be taken seriously any longer when it comes to an honest discussion of Section 13 (1), this interview with Lucy Warman ends their last shred of credibility. The article regurgitates the same tired tripe the illiberal censors have offered up all along, replete with self serving historical ignorance and near magical sins of omission.
The state of Frank Dimants Union of Hypocrites is this: B'nai Brith got caught off guard when the tables were turned and the Islamists filed a CHRC complaint against them. As the result B'nai Brith now seeks to modify Section 13 (1) and train the CHRC to recognize the Islamist threat and thus ensure that it remains their private censorship club along with their buddies at the CJC.
This is the Monster your Censorship creates Frankie, it has no place in Canada: Election signs removed by Police on orders of Liberal Candidate and the Canadian Jewish Congress.
The next day I read a press release from Marc Garneau, Liberal candidate in the riding where he joins the Canadian Jewish Congress in denouncing the election campaign of the Communist Party of Canada, and alleges that my signs ‘may be’ illegal because of their content !"
....
Sorry Frankie, the days of the CHRC being the members only Basement Nazi Hunt Club are over, but don't despair they won't be turned into Club Sharia either, we won't let them.
Frank Dimant if your reading , have a look at the conclusion Law Professor Ed Morgan, former National President of the CJC, has reached on the matter of Free Speech: Fighting Bad Speech with Good Speech has turned out to be the right way to go.
Here's a taste of Lucy's idea of justice:
The constitutional challenge is “a pure abuse of process,” Warman said. “It’s the same people using the same lawyers making the same constitutional arguments they’ve already lost” many years ago during the complaint against hatemonger Ernst Zundel.
That's Rich Lucy, Real Rich comin from you ;)
The clueless interviewing the ruthless, lovely!
What a triumph of hypocrisy!
It must be difficult now that it seems clear the government is not moving on Section 13. B'nai Brith has the ear of the Conservatives and must have found out that the PM has no intention of dealing with this. So quicker than you can spit Frank and his gang shifted gears and decided to support the PM. That's my thinking here.
Sound reasoning, but the fat lady aint sung yet;) You forget where EZ has been the last 40 days;)
I havent forgotten hasnt he been in a jail cell in Manheim (oops that's the other "EZ"...Ernst Zundel)....actually that is more to my point. I don't think Ezra has made much of a dent there. A friend in Thornhill where Peter Kent won a great victory over the Liberals tells me that kent wouldn't endorse any changes to our hate laws. Neither the Libs or the NDP (or the Bloc for that matter) will move on this...it just aint gonna happen.
Kent's position is no surprise. EZ was well received by the PC caucus.
Kent is heading to a serious Cabinet post...not one Cabinet member has opined on Section 13; keep the faith BCF but don't get choked up when you see nuthin happenin...hate to say it but Ezra seems more puff(in) than hardball
The universe will unfold...
ah Muscocamoca - John Baird has sent out many letters to constituants indicating that he and the PM agree to a review.
The "interview" with "Lucy" has been the funniest puff piece since Joe McCarthy.
Poor "Lucy" - as indicated over in the Western Standard - is desperately trying to keep his fearless crime/nazi hunter reputation in tact dispite some more recent comments even by the CHR Tribunals suggesting perhaps a lack of truthfulness, misleading and confusing statements.
But it is all fine for the CJC and BB. Truth need not be a requirement. As for most extreme left-wingers/Marxists = "The ends justify the means".
The article just made me angry. It was as if Warman wrote his own propaganda piece - it was truly distorted and deceitful.
I talked to Peter Kent during the election and he implied that they needed a majority and couldn't run on an "anti-human rights" ticket. He seemed to be saying that Section 13 is anti-democratic and it needed to go.
When I told him that CJC/BB do not speak for any Jews I know, he told me that he was hearing the same feeling from Jewish constituents over and over again. When I saw the picture with him and Bernie and Frank I thought I'd be sick - but he is a politican. And if he fights against Section 13 than I don't care who he's photographed with.
Kent sympathises and whether he will bow to political expedience remains to be seen. He is to be considered an ally. Frany Dimants heart is in the right place regarding the Islamists but he really should read Ed Morgans piece.
B'nai Brith quotes from Melissa Guille's anti-Semitic rants that Warman complained to CHRC about. Maybe now Warman will lodge a complaint against B'nai Brith.
Heh, wonder if he would;)
"But it is all fine for the CJC and BB. Truth need not be a requirement. As for most extreme left-wingers/Marxists = "The ends justify the means".
This is just plain stupid. Suggesting CJC and B'nai Brith are Marxists is like calling BCF a flaming Liberal Dion puppet.
Second politicians are politicians. I live in Kent's riding and I asked him point blank about the hate laws and he couldn't have been more direct, he told me that the Consevative government has NO plans to shelve our hate laws. I gave him arguments from our chats online but on this he was clear. BTW without prompting he lauded CJC and Bnai Brith as "good friends". What can it all mean?
What can it all mean? Nothing. A politician is apt to say anything.
Anonymous - Peter Kent gave me a different answer. Now that he's been in office for a week, I think it's time to make appointments, go in, and let him know what his constituents expect from him.
"people are saying your neighbours should be murdered on the basis of their race or religion"
Anyone who can be manipulated with such hackneyed delusional hyperbole are far too xenophobic to be comfortable in a free society.
Re: muscocamoca postulations on CPC's cold feet.
The idea that CPC will not run with this section 13 reform because of BB collusion is unlikely.
Protecting free speech is a motherhood and maple syrup issue for conservatives and it gives Harper a chance to throw a bone to his support base.
The BB-CPC association didn't deliver any substantial voter base to the CPC from the constituency which BB is allegedly influential. (No Thornhill was not "delivered" to CPC, It was going to go Conservative anyway as the LPC is a spent [and bankrupt] political vehicle)
I think the wiser Conservative party apparatchiks know that the BB and CJC are largely hollow vessels with no voting block they can "deliver" in return for influence brokering. All these NGO mouthpieces have is some dwindling gratuitous MSM space to rant.
There is far more political currency in rewarding the loyal conservative base with a free speech protection omnibus act (quietly containing the defacto repeal of section 13) than the piffling trouble HRC sycophant blowhards can make with their waning validity in the media.
Sorry I disagree completely. Check the numbers in York Center where Dryden who won last time by over 10,000 this time he squeaked by with a plurality of 1800 and then Volpe's riding in Toronto he won last time by almost 12,000 and this time edged out Joe Oliver in a real tight race. Similar numbers have been found right across Jewish ridings.
And Thornhill was won by Kaids last time by a huge plurality this time Kent took it by over 5000. The poll numbers will show that in Jewish areas of the riding it went overhelmingly Tory. You have no idea what you are babbling about!!
My son lives in Markham (actually though part of the T'hill riding)he actually voted for Kent based on his promise to protect Canada's hate laws and his strong support for other Jewish causes. So it seems that Mr. Kent is either saying what people want to hear (a Conservative doing that...Never!!!) or there is no intention of dealing with this matter (more than likely)...methinks CJC and B'nai Brith may have a titch more clout than some here give them credit for.
"The poll numbers will show that in Jewish areas of the riding it went overhelmingly Tory. You have no idea what you are babbling about!!"
And you are attempting to attribute polling wins to NGO influence/partisan ground work in these ridings which never materialized or was non existent.
Someone is talking out their tuchus and it isn't me.
Anonymous above, I worked for the Tories during this latest campaign in the GTA. We have done the analysis, Kent's margin of victory can only be attributed to the Jewish vote in southern Thornhill. Phone polling we have conducted pointed to the fact that Jewish NGOs, had a significant role in their decision.
I am hearing very distinct refutations of your contention Chapel from sources much closer to the action.
I saw 60 people lined up to vote at the advance polls in Thornhill before the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. (And they weren't there to vote for Susan Kadis.) The "Jewish NGO's" might want to take credit for that but they are, as usual, irrelevant.
"Phone polling we have conducted pointed to the fact that Jewish NGOs, had a significant role in their decision."
BS! No identified, branded political party would poll on such a blatant collusinary basis. The legal and political liabilities are suicidal.
"We" must be "you" and the sample size must be restricted to the four schlubs in your canasta khevre.
Seriously you must think I'm new at this.
>>