Michael Coren, The Jews, And Hollywood

I didn't see it, because its on Sun TV and, lets face it, NOBODY was watching.  But U.S author Shmuley Boteach (his real name) claims Michael Coren told him that the Jews control Hollywood and essentially use it as a base from which to undermine Christianity.  Amazing, if true, how specimens of the modern Right can be so pro-Israel on the one hand and traffic in all the old stereotypes on the other.

Jason Kenny: Minister Of Way Passed Cheap Assed

Let me get this straight. A guy whose department has seen expenses rise 35 per cent on his watch won't cough up $1,000 to cover his own security tab, and so cancels his March 10 speech at York U and implies its the fault of anti-Semites? Sounds like the guy didn't want to go to York (who does?) and speak in front of losers (= 99% of the York Student body--if you're a Dork or can hold a fork you can go to York--I can say that because I'm an alumni). But he wanted to frame his cancellation in terms a little more heroic than "I need to stay home and bathe my hamster".

The Protocols Of The Old Guys In Ottawa

Now that Kady has posted the entire document produced by the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, I think the good Dawg's panicking a bit; this kind of Parliament Hill get together is more likely something done in lieu of legislation rather than as a precursor to it.

In any case, the stuff about Israel is copped almost word-for-word (I think) from the EUMC working definition of anti-semitism, and I suppose bringing Canadian hate laws more closely into line with that working definition would be the most problematic course hinted at (but no more than hinted at) in the document. Mind you, when I read the working definition, its reference to "overall context" softens the impact of much that follows. For example, in context, a comparison of Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany might well be justified (ie not anti-semitic). In addition, countries are routinely compared to Nazi Germany, so I'm not sure how criticizing Israel in like terms would count as dissimilar. Also, you would still get to compare Israel to South Africa (for example: Israel Apartheid Week), and that is the wounding metaphor that folks seem most eager to deploy.

As to actions directed at Canadian campuses, the document commits parliamentarians to:

Working with universities to encourage them to combat antisemitism with the same seriousness with which they confront other forms of hate. Specifically, universities should be invited to define antisemitism clearly, provide specific examples, and enforce conduct codes firmly, while ensuring compliance with freedom of speech and the principle of academic freedom. Universities should use the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism as a basis for education, training and orientation. Indeed, there should be zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind against anyone in the university community on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or political position...

Well, its always nice to get encouragement from your MP, and I personally love invitations, but the document doesn't seem to be demanding much, at least not much that's specific. Which is fine, because I think reports of on-campus anti-semitism have, generally speaking, been overblown in this country.

So, a nothing burger, or no?

PS. Nobody here is talking new legislation, as far as I can tell.

Selley On KAIROS

Heaven only knows what went on here. Maybe it's just general hamhandedness. Maybe they [Kenney et al] hoped the benefits reaped whilst people assumed they'd taken a stand against anti-Semitism and/or for Israel would outweigh the damage reaped by disavowing the idea on a day when everyone's shopping instead of reading the Star. Maybe Ms. Oda really did make the decision on her own, and Mr. Kenney decided he'd try to score some disingenuous points with it in Israel. Whatever happened, it's a complete insult to Canadians' intelligence — and Israelis', come to think of it. And it's proof positive, as if any was needed, that nobody should put any stock in what any Canadian politician says. Ever. About anything.

Well, not Jason Kenney, anyway.

Jason Kenney: I Didn't Say What I Just Said...

...and anyone who says I did is lying. From today's Star:

I did not accuse KAIROS of being anti-Semitic. What I said was that KAIROS has taken "a leadership role in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign (against Israel)."

From the origonal speech (which I have not seen reproduced in its entirety anywhere else). the bolding is mine:

Almost at the same time that Prime Minister Harper was visiting Chabad House in Mumbai, anti-Semitic fanatics in his home city, my home city of Calgary, Alberta were spray painting anti-Semitic graffiti on the Jewish Community Centre, Jewish homes, on public transit installations and indeed, spray painting swastikas on our city’s Holocaust memorial. Some of this graffiti called for the end to the Israeli genocide in Gaza -- "Stop the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

What Prime Minister Harper witnessed in Mumbai, what happened at the same time in Calgary, were practical expressions of the new anti-Semitism. Even though Canada is celebrated around the world as being a successful model of mutual coexistence and tolerance, we too have seen a troubling increase in incidents of anti-Semitism. B’Nai Brith Canada publishes the authoritative registry of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. In 2008, they received reports of 1,135 incidents of anti-Semitic instances, the highest number recorded in 28 years of the study, an increase of 8.9% over 2007.

[...]

So how have we addressed these growing incidents of anti-Semitism? Well first of all, on the domestic level, our government has worked with the Jewish community to begin a program of recognizing our own history of official anti-Semitism.

[...]

We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti-Semitism.

We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott. And we’re receiving a lot of criticism for these decisions. I can’t recall how many times I’ve been sued for some of the decisions that we have taken, but we believe that we’ve done these things for the right reasons and we stand by these decisions.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Incidentally, I don't think any of the Calgary hate messages that Kenney mentions rose to the level of eloquence of "Stop the Israeli genocide in Gaza." Too many words. ARC has a good post on this.

PS. MP Rick Dykstra also has a copy of the entire speech at his website.

Left Or Right: Whose More Anti-Semitic?

Now here is an interesting survey, and its summarized in the pie graphs below:An intelligent if somewhat academic discussion ensues on Crooked Timbers, with a certain amount of shock and disbelief among progressives there. A lot of questioning of methodology and so forth. One commentor ventures the following rather strong statement:

Here is an entirely sober, but also very politically incorrect, opinion: a large fraction of this discrepancy between Democrats and Republicans can be explained by the significantly larger fraction of Democrats who are black. There is a strong, persistent, and relatively unabashed level of animosity in the black community toward Jews. (The animosity flows the other way, too.)

I find it telling that, despite discussing cross-tabs on educational attainment and party affiliation, the article never once dares to mention race.

One theory I occasionally entertain is that 9/11 brought about a sea-change in attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinian resistance, and this has had a spillover effect on attitudes towards Jews in general, primarily among the American/Canadian Right.

Before that date it seemed easier to argue that the Palestinians were entitled to their intifada, even when this involved the employment of suicide bombers. Afterwards, after being on the other end of a series of suicide attacks, a larger segment of the U.S. Republicans (and maybe Candian Conservatives?) are likely to have a visceral, negative response to such arguments. Pro-Israel sentiment has therefore generalized to Pro-Jewish sentiment.

FWIW, obviously.

Did "Terror Expert" Plant Radical Comments On Muslim Forum, Sucker U.K. Sun?

A bit of a quick one here, so check out "Leave Amy Alone" for context.

It is starting to look as though freelance U.K. "terror expert" Glen Jarvey placed a story re radical Muslims threatening prominent U.K. Jews in the U.K. Sun by writing up the inflammatory content that he's warning everyone about himself. A nifty bit of on-line research here seems to tell the tale.

This reminds me of something, but I can't think of what...

Note: the fact Mr. Jarvey apparently has links to this guy does not help his credibility.

More here.

Leave Amy Alone

FEARS grew last night that hate-filled Islamic extremists are drawing up a “hit list” of Britain’s leading Jews — bringing the Middle East conflict terrifyingly close to home.

TV’s The Apprentice boss Sir Alan Sugar and Amy Winehouse record producer Mark Ronson are among prominent names discussed on [ummah.com] a fanatics’ website.

That's from the U.K. Sun. On the other hand, Ummah strikes back in a news release:

The quotes that the article carries are from a thread on Ummah Forums entitled, "Compile a list of those who support Israel". In the very first post, which sets out the theme and purpose of the thread, the user "Saladin1970" encourages other members to aid in compiling a list of British people who support Israel. He writes, "It would bebeneficial to start compiling a list so that we can write polite letters reminding them of the injustices of Israel and to stop supporting Israel." Later in the thread, the user "Abuislam" asks if any names and addresses have been posted up yet in . Further along the discussion still, the original user suggests that rather than contacting those listed directly, it may be a better idea to contact Muslim organizations and individuals involved with them and encourage them to boycott said individuals.

Clearly, most people will realize that this thread is about a peaceful form of campaigning against the state of Israel by writing "polite"letters to well-known and wealthy supporters of the state asking them to withdraw that support and encouraging Muslims not to do business work with them until they do.

And they link to the original thread which, in its current state at least, seems pretty mild stuff, calling at its most furious for demonstrations outside of businesses sympathetic to the Israeli cause, which may be ill considered or not but was legal the last time I looked.

Also, an interesting turn at the end:

This is the Thread which triggered the Headline in The Sun News Paper Today

I can confirm that the User "AbuIslam" who is posing as a Muslim on this forum is in fact a freelance Journalist by the name of "Richard Tims" who registered on this forum to twist what the original Intent of this thread was for and to make Muslims look bad.

Abuislam Deliberated added comments on this thread which made is as if this thread was intended to cause harm to names that were mentioned

This has been confirmed from his IP address and Email addresses has he used on this forum and previous usernames

Whatever, leave Amy out of this stuff. She's got enough problems with her fella'.


PS. Interesting how "Amy Winehouse record producer Mark Ronson" becomes Amy herself in all subsequent news stories. The media must die. It stands in the way of truth.

I SPANK YOU, Catholic Insight, I SPANK YOU SPANK YOU SPANK YOU!!!

Yesterday I noted that Catholic Insight was employing its Freedom of Speechiness to make a anti-semitic remarks in regards to OHRC lawyer Michael Gottheil, who ruled in a Human Rights case involving the Christian Horizons ministry:

Well, Five Feet of Fat Chick got wind of this, e-mailed the boyzz at CI and told them that a "far left blogger" (That's me! That's gotta be me, right?) had picked up the original wording and holy fuck they'd better make a change! So within a few hours we get:

The OHRC’s anti-Christian atheist adjudicator, Michael Gottheil, referred often in his ruling to the principle of “balancing competing rights,” but he decided that CH had no religious rights because it was not involved in just serving the interests of its Evangelical religious adherents. “The primary object and mission of Christian Horizons is to provide care and support for individuals who have developmental disabilities, without regard to their creed,” he wrote. “Christian Horizons is not a religious institution whose purpose is to ‘form the hearts and minds’ of its residents in the ways of faith of the organization.”

TOO LATE! fellas, I got the screen cap and I got the google cache, and they're are going to your minders at Heritage Canada, to Scott Shortcliff, the Director [of] Periodical Publishing Policy and Programs, whose been reading your magazine every month to make sure this kind of garbage doesn't slip through while you're sucking up federal tax dollars. And I'm telling him that he oughtta cancel your PAP subsidy. Yes, that's right! TAKE AWAY YOUR FREE GOVERNMENT STAMPS!

By the time I'm done with you clowns you'll beg for the language cops!

Give 'Em Free Speech And They Use It To Wax Anti-Semitic

Fresh from dodging their own problems with Canadian Human Rights Commissions, Catholic Insight discusses the case of Christian Horizons, an "Evangelical Christian Ministry that provides care and residential services to...developmentally disabled individuals" , who recently got nailed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for terminating an employee a Lesbian employee:

The OHRC’s Jewish adjudicator, Michael Gottheil, referred often in his ruling to the principle of “balancing competing rights,” but he decided that CH had no religious rights because it was not involved in just serving the interests of its Evangelical religious adherents.

What, one might well ask, does Mr. Gottheil's Jewishness have to do with his ruling? And how, one might also ask, did the staff at CI determine said Jewishness? I have been unable to locate material on the Net where Mr. Gottheil owns up to any religious/racial affiliations. Perhaps the lads at CI can just sense Semitic blood. Some people, apparently, can.

H/T to RB.

How Long Before Kinsella Shows Up and Denounces Someone?

Having read both Cherniak's post and McClelland's original post, I would say that McClelland eventually did the right thing when he put the boots to arthurdecco. It is also ironic (a point Cherniak seems to miss) that the intent of McClelland's piece was to expose some anti-Semitic remarks made by Rev. Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network.

Mitigating factors aside, it is clear that anti-Semitic remarks were made in the comments section of McClellands blog, some (arguably) by McClelland himself. Since my understanding is that McLelland is to the Blogging Dippers what Cherniak is to Liblogs (roughly speaking, McLelland "owns" the site), demanding that he step down is like demanding that the stars fall from the sky. There's no point to it. I would, however, suggest to McClelland that he offer something in the line of an apology. Everyone says dumb things occasionally (or allows them to be said in one's presence), and the best thing to do is own up and move on.

And if you do feel like slagging off some ethnic or national group, pick a relatively powerless one, like the Ystonians. There aren't many around, and most of those that are look like they grew up next to Chernobyl. They're reedier than the English! So if you see any you can usually out-run them and, failing that, they can't throw much of a punch.

The thing I'd like to know is: where's that conflict buzzard Kinsella? Shouldn't he be flapping around making free with the denunciations?