Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Your Daily Nazi: Because You Needed More

...more on Ezra's allegations re the CJC and the Canadian Nazi Party circa 1964. Just when was the 1964 CJC Plenary held? How was the food? Why didn't the CJC continue counter-demonstrations against William John Beattie in 1966 through 1970, when the Cohen Commission recommendations finally became law? What the hell were they thinking? Who are The N3, and how many Jewish community groups are out there? Does every Jew in Canada belong to multiple groups, the way there are in reality only 100 heavy metal musicians and each plays in 20 bands?

Bottom line: Ezra's allegations still don't really hold up.

Plus! Jews spied on Jews:

The Canadian Jewish Congress wasn't only spying on Nazi leader John Beattie in 1965, it was also spying on N3, its own most active critic in the Jewish community. Historian Frank Bialystok, in his book Delayed Impact, quoted a leader of N3 who said that N3 figured this out: "We went to New York to buy a bugging device[to infiltrate the neo-Nazis]... and the equipment picked up Congress's bugging device, so we knew."

You know, every community group I've every been associated with...we did stuff like holding picnics. Now I feel I've missed out.

PS. Oh yeah Ezra's got a new kid so I shall be non-rude to him for 1 (one) day.


Ti-Guy said...

From the Jpost article, at the end:

As CJC Ontario vice-chairman Sydney Harris, now deceased, told Bialystok in Delayed Impact 30 years after the events, that "if we had simply ignored these guys [the Nazis], they would have died... But, unfortunately the Jewish community didn't feel that way. The net result is that we got them all the publicity they wanted through our own actions..."

I've never really believed this and there's no evidence to support it. If extremist groups are motivated mainly by a desire for self-agrandisement and attention, that would be true. But as we know, there is usually an underlying theoretical foundation and a base of "knowledge" (all of it generally irrational) that persuade intelligent people to remain convinced of its correctness and who don't care whether they get attention or not.

The experience in the US demonstrates clearly that ignoring or engaging in robust counter-argumentation doesn't really do anything.

bigcitylib said...

I'm not sure that you can just tell people to ignore them. The response tends to be pretty visceral.

Ti-Guy said...

The recommendation to ignore is usually patronising, in any case. I like to come to my own decisions about when it's time to ignore. Quite often, it just happens one day, for reasons that are not always clear, even to myself. Although it's likely the result of an accumulation of tacit knowledge that leads me to believe that someone is mentally or emotionally unstable., or at best, not really interested in learning anything.

Liona Campbell said...

And in the end, Mr. Levant was just on a rant with no substance. Why did it matter so much to him what CJC had to do to protect its people back in the 1960s? Why did he and his disciples disregard historians who studied the era yet took as gospel the words of neo-Nazi John Beattie?

From this Gentile's perch, it seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Levant would do anything to diminish the CJC. Why? Well I believe he is simply jealous of the history and accomplishments of this organization. For a group which Mr. Levant consistently tells us is meaningless, it attracted the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the NDP and the Leader of the Green party along with the Vice Prime Minister of Israel to its annual convention last month. Not so insignificant is it?

So I do believe that Mr. Levant has to try anything he can to destroy its credibility...even reach back over 40 years. Trouble is most sane people can see right through this tactic and in the end, he diminishes only himself.

buckets said...

it seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Levant would do anything to diminish the CJC. Why? Well I believe he is simply jealous of the history and accomplishments of this organization. Maybe, but I think that this is all part and parcel of his campaign against the HRCs. The CJC supports the HRCs. Therefore, they are smeared, just as every employee and tribunal member must be smeared, including Jessica Lynch, a member of his own party.

bigcitylib said...

But he usually leaves B'nai Brith alone. Also Pro-HRC, but tending more to the Tories otherwise. Don't know if this last fact has anything to do with his attitude.

Ti-Guy said...

I think that this is all part and parcel of his campaign against the HRCs.

Which is, not in fact, a campaign limited strictly to their adjudication of the vanishingly few instances of sec. 13 cases. If we go further back in this issue, Levant, Steyn, Angry White Man #898587 (and a rump of Conservatives) don't believe in using this civil procedure for dealing with issues of discrimination (with respect to housing, employment, commercial services, etc.) at all. At best, they'd prefer they be dealt with through the expensive and inaccessible regular court system. At their most principled (ie. worst), they don't think this is an issue for any state agency or process to be involved in at all.

This bunch has long maintained that the legal remediation of these types of disputes only increases the power of state agencies and leads to a deformation of society in which benefits accrue, not to the truly deserving (ie. themselves, since each one of them is, inarguably, a John Galt) through "merit" but through the endowment of unearned privilege.

Or they're all psychopaths. Not quite sure yet. They all do lie a lot and lie big, and are quite willing to do whatever comes next, two traits that are fundamental to that personality disorder.

Mitka said...

All true but on this Beattie thing it seems to me that Levant simply screwed up. He didn't do his home work and when both the Ontario Jewish archivist (Ellen Sscheinman?) and then Frank Bialystok (who wrote the book on the issue and was Levant's PROOF that CJC did bad) both kicked Levant in the balls and ridiculed his scholarship he saw that he lost this one.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

Buckets hits the essential point, which is sort of being ignored in all this hullabaloo over the CJC.. that the only reason Ezra is even discussing them is their support for hate speech powers of the HRC's.

BCL, you seem a little fixated on Ezra, and, as sometimes happens, it's easier to attack particular person or their version of facts that may be in error than the broader issue, being the core validity (or lack thereof) of their central point.

Is it a good thing to have "hate speech" dealt with under the ambit of HRC's?

The Moon report - somewhat less didactic that what we see coming from the blog world, left side or right - seems to suggest not. Why is that?

Perhaps assurances of free speech are so fundamental and so important to democracy and liberty, that they shouldn't be left to the caprice of HRC's who have questionable training, who have little over-sight, and who are not bound by rules of evidence and due process, developed over centuries, as required in our Judicial System.

Perhaps, as we see the importance of free online communication in Iran, as we see people actually giving their lives for the principals of freedom and democracy, we should be more cautious about what control we hand the state regarding what we say and how we say it.

Just a thought.

Ti-Guy said...

Buckets hits the essential point, which is sort of being ignored in all this hullabaloo over the CJC.. that the only reason Ezra is even discussing them is their support for hate speech powers of the HRC's.

So why is he leaving the B'nai Brith alone, Rob? They've got a complaint against this blogger.

gus williams said...

Sorry Rob, Ti-Guy is quite right. B'nai Brith uses Section 13 far more than does CJC and yet they get a pass. In fact, their head honcho Frank Dimant (an unabashed Tory...wonder why Ezra is so quiet) rarely gets a mention from Levant.

The reasons are clear, jealousy, a view that CJC is more centrist (or as Ezra prefers "extreme leftists) in fact I think he even referred to CJC's Farber as a "Maoist".

Ezra is envious of CJC, its dignity, its respect and he especially has it in for Farber who is one of the most respected Jewish leaders in the country...and Ezra, not so much.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

Honestly.. I think it's probably a personal issue he has with Bernie Farber.. and I do believe that Ezra goes over the edge in making his point. That's why my point isn't to justify "Ezra", it's to discuss the underlying issue which, like him or not, he has brought into mainstream dialogue.

In other words, if we can avoid the hyperbole of the loudest and most public of those making noise, is there something worth considering in what the Moon report suggests.. ie) leave hate speech to police, and perhaps improve their ability to properly prosecute a proper case.

gus williams said...

But Rob, even the CJC (the organization Farber heads) has called for significant changes to Section 13. The problem for me and many others is to get the straight goods.

BCL, Dawg, Buckets, Warren Kinsella even Dr. Richard Moon himself have shown a number of times how Ezra and his cohorts have literally "made things up". And here in this thread BCL gives us ample proof of yet another Ezra attempt at making things up.

Bottom line for me is that we cannot trust what Ezra writes. Is there really a 100% "conviction rate; are there really no rules of evidence in a section 13 hearing; is simply offensive language enough to launch a section 13 hearing; did Richard Warman really write the Anne Cools post (btw this seems to have been thoroughly debunked); did a CHRC staffer really use an innocent citizen's wifi IP address to poost onto Nazi sites (buckests as i recall also debunked this)? There have been so many tall tales that we really don't know the truth. We do know that some stories have definitely been made up so hopefully you understand peoples utter frustration.

Ti-Guy said...

it's to discuss the underlying issue

Which is, in this thread (and in many others) the unsubstantiated assertions, lies, defamation and vilification of the Speech Warriors, not what you would like it to be.

Ease off trying to dominate every discussion, Rob.