Your Daily Nazi: Robert Mccorkill Can't Give His Estate To Nazis

He was the Canadian chemist who wanted to will his collection of ancient coins and other artifacts to The National Alliance, an american Neo-Nazi group.  Richard Warman,  B'nai Brith, and Isabelle Rose Mccorkill teamed up to see if they could put a stop to it.  Today, the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench issued their ruling.  Richard writes of it:

 At paragraph 76, Justice Grant continues his condemnation of the National Alliance in no uncertain terms – “The evidence before the court convinces me that in the case of the NA [National Alliance] the purpose for which it exists is to promote white supremacy through the dissemination of propaganda which incites hatred of various identifiable groups which they deem to be non-white and therefore unworthy. These purposes and the means they advocate to achieve them are criminal in Canada and that is what makes this bequest repugnant.”

I think that Justice Grant’s collective use of provincial human rights law, federal criminal law, and Canada’s obligations under numerous international treaties to block the bequest to the National Alliance shows on how many levels it was contrary to public policy. The welcome intervention of the Attorney-General of New Brunswick through counsel Richard Williams to stop the bequest cleary carried great weight with the court on this issue and they deserve a great vote of thanks for their efforts to defend the public interest.

The full decision, which I have not read yet, can be found here.  When I have I might do another post. Congrats to Richard and everyone else involved.

Elizabeth May Disinvited To Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) Fundraiser

This story has been churning for a week now.  The CJPME disinvite tells it succinctly enough.  For me the most important bit is:

May had accepted CJPME’s invitation to speak at its fundraiser earlier in the fall, and had not indicated any discomfort with CJPME’s policy focus on upholding international law in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Nevertheless, the Jewish Tribune article published November 19 – following an interview with May – quoted her as stating that CJPME maintained an “anti-Israel stance” that she wanted to distance herself from. CJPME immediately contacted May and asked her to correct the article if it misrepresented her stances. In response, May issued a statement on the Green Party website November 27th denying, among other things, that she had called CJPME “anti-Israel.” Nevertheless, two days later the Jewish Tribune published the full transcript and audio recording of the interview, which reveals that May’s “correction” was actually false.

The transcipt and audio in The Jewish Tribune can be found here.  My first and second impressions are that the Trib and CJPME desscribe the situation correctly.  May trashed CPJME in her original interview, then claimed she didn't.  As for CPJME's stance re Israel, or at least the ones at issue,  I have no particular problem with an individual/group boycotting a nation's products as a means of forcing them to alter their behavior, or even an individual/group's pressing their government to enact such a boycott.  And as for the CJPME's  "Disappearing Palestine" ad, well its tough talk, but the Trib is B'nai Brith's paper, and BB has in the past put out stuff that is far more inflammatory.

CIJA On Bill C-31: Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable?

I wrote not too long ago about CIJA's (The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs)  meager response to Bill C-31.   Now The Centre has issued a meatier statement on the legislation.  While its tenor of the backgrounder is, in general,  kissy-assy towards the Harper government,  in the end it concludes:

...there are certain areas where small but significant improvements should be considered by the government:

Clear provisions should be included for how a designated country could be removed from the DCO list should the situation there warrant a re-evaluation;

In our view, DCO refugee applicants should have access to the same health coverage as non-DCO claimants, especially in light of the potential cost savings derived from the shortened processing time established by Bill C-31.

Care should be taken to avoid separating families that are part of an irregular arrival, particularly those with children under 16 who might not be detained with their parents. Once an irregular arrival claimant’s identity and status have been confirmed and they have been concretely determined to be a legitimate refugee, they should be treated the same as all other successful refugee claimants and not subjected to a five year waiting period before they can sponsor their families to join them.

Tone aside, as far as I can tell this puts CIJA more or less on the same page as The Toronto Board of Rabbis, Elie Wiesel , and other critics of the legislation within the Canadian Jewish community.  Certainly in regards to the health coverage enjoyed DCO refugee claimants.  On the topic of claimants from DCO nations that are safe for their majority populations, but unsafe for certain minority groups within the country (example: the Roma in Hungary), CIJA takes a somewhat weaker position, asking for clarification of what needs to happen for a state to move from the DCO to non-DCO list.  And I haven't hear anyone else object to the five year waiting period (although that may be because I haven't paid sufficient attention). 


Still waiting for BB to chime in.  They have remained notably silent over the past month or so.

Refugee Health Cutbacks: Canadian Jewish Groups Respond (Or Not)

Since the negative consequences of Bill C-31 have become apparent over the last month or so--for example,  many refugee claimants will lose access to life-saving drugs such as insulin, and to preventive care--several Jewish organizations have expressed concerns with the law.  They have been especially troubled by those sections of it relating to the prevention of illegitimate refugee claims.  Designating countries like Hungary as "safe" would  make it near impossible for  claims from Hungarian Roma to succeed, even though the country is far from safe for this particular minority group.  And due to their common experiences of persecution during the 2nd World War, the Jewish and Roma communities have often been thought to share an historical bond.


The Toronto Board of Rabbis has spoken out in an open letter to the PM.  The Montreal Holocaust Centre has also gone public with its objections.  Even noble Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel has  stepped into the fray.  But what of those groups typically seen as speaking for the Canadian Jewish diaspora as a whole?  


Well, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) has issued a statement that comes across as both minimalist and mush-mouthed.  From the Globe article linked above:


Shimon Fogel, the CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said his organization agrees with many of the changes the Conservative government has made to refugee policy and with the goal of preventing bogus claims. But, with regard to the health benefits, “we have some concerns, and we have registered some of them with the government.”

So, in other words, kiss the Roma good-by.  And CIJA's other objections will apparently be  whispered to the relevant government minister behind closed doors where they can be noted and then safely ignored.

B'nai Brith's position on the legislation, on the other hand, is a complete mystery.  They've said nothing in the newspapers or on their website that I can find, and have not (yet) responded to the email I sent them.  Perhaps, however, this story from June 26th offers a clue.  In it, a human rights lawyer named David Matas is quoted at length, as he is representing a number of church groups who have challenged C-31 in court.  And good on him for that.  But not mentioned anywhere in the piece is the fact that Mr. Matas is senior legal counsel to B'nai Brith Canada.  Now, Mr. Matas has done considerable  good work outside of BB, but it nevertheless seems significant to me that in the case of Bill C-31 he has been forced to act without the imprimatur of the organization he is most closely associated with

So why the silence/near-silence from Canada's two most important Jewish organizations?  Well, one can only speculate, and so I would speculate  that they have already been courted by the Harper government in the form of its unrelenting support for Israel.  Here, as in the case of Bill C-304, the government has asked for their silence as a quid pro quo.  To me that sounds like a crummy deal, but it seems one that they have been willing to make.

Bernie Farber At The Kickoff To Ontario Jewish Heritage Month

I was lucky enough to attend the kickoff to Ontario's first Jewish Heritage Month at Beth Torah Synagogue on Monday evening.  Highlights included a choir, the name of which I forget now but they were terrific, Susan Jackman's spirited and funny account of Jewish immigration into T.O., and of course Bernie's speech re the Jewish contribution to the establishment of Ontario's human rights apparatus.

On a related note, B'nai Brith Canada seems to have flipped sides at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and now apparently are in favor of a straight out repeal of Section 13 (the hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act).  Unfortunately, I'm basing this merely on Kady O'Malley's coverage of the meeting.  The transcripts don't appear to be available, and I see nothing on the BB website.  I've emailed them for details, and we'll see if they respond.  In any case, here's a bit I did on the list of  issues re the CHRC and the CHRA that they brought to Richard Moon back in 2008.  Some of these, for example the jurisdiction shopping by complainants among the various  national and provincial commissions, I thought had already been fixed at the administrative level.  So, as I say, I don't know what BB's current set BWCs are.

Your Daily Nazi: Life After Section 13

 A bit of a miscellany this morning.  Firstly, stating the obvious:

Vancouver-based Alan Dutton helped lobby for the 1996 creation of the B.C. Hate Crime Team that brings together law enforcement, Crown prosecutors and provincial bureaucrats to combat hate crimes.

Dutton argues abolishing the law will embolden hatemongers to re-organize and strengthen the white nationalist movement in Canada.

"The danger here is that they're going to believe that they have fertile ground now," said Dutton, who chairs the Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society.

Speaking with B'nai Brith folks at the Lemire hearing, it is pretty clear they think Section 13 is dead via bill C-304 and are trying to work out how to protect the CDN Jewish community through whatever criminal code provisions remain available.  BB CEO Frank Dimant has said as much here.  The problem is that it has been historically difficult to get the police to lay charges, and that (as I understand it) any changes to the code will themselves be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge (more vulnerable than S13, perhaps).

On a slightly different topic, Joe Brean buries the lede in this story:

Neither the analysis by Digital Wyzdom, nor a subsequent one, turned up any evidence that Mr. Warman had written the message at the heart of the [Levant] libel suit.

Levant's defense, and the defense of the other bloggers in the various lawsuits that Richard Warman has brought against them, turned on Warman's having written "The Cools Post".  It was already pretty obvious that he had not; now it is even more so.  These various legal actions are all effectively done, but for the paying out of damages.

CTS TV Dumps Charles McVety

BURLINGTON, ONTARIO – CTS (Crossroads Television System) regrets that Word TV will no longer be broadcast due to its lack of compliance with the CTS Code of Ethics to which Word TV agreed under contract.

Last week, its producer and host, Dr. Charles McVety erroneously communicated that CTS was being pressured to censor Word TV; these comments are inaccurate and misleading. The fact is that Word TV failed to keep its agreement to comply with the CTS Code of Ethics and indicated a refusal to comply in the future. Unfortunately, numerous attempts by CTS to work with Dr. McVety were unsuccessful.

What's the phrase--goodbye to bad rubbish. My own prediction: McVety winds up on Fox News North.

PS. Looks Frank Dimant and B'nail Brith are on-side with McVety.

B'nai Brith Wants Book Removed

B’nai Brith Canada calls for removal of anti-Israel propaganda from recommended reading list for school children

TORONTO, March 25, 2010 – B’nai Brith Canada has called for the removal of The Shepherd's Granddaughter, a vehemently anti-Israel book targeting students in grades seven and eight, from the recommended reading list of Ontario public school libraries. The one-sided work of fiction, which demonizes the Jewish State and was brought to B’nai Brith Canada’s attention by a concerned parent, is currently being recommended by teachers and librarians in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB).

I have no idea what this book is about. FWIW, here's the Quill & Quire profile. And here's a review from CM magazine. Whoopsie! I see the issue: the book "presents events from the Palestinian perspective."

BURN IT! BURN IT!

Mind you, BB is fine with Ann Coulter.

Quick Notes On The KAIROS Funding Cuts

The Star article mentions "anti-Semitism"--code here for criticizing Israel--as Minister Kenney's justification for the cuts. Note that the main charge:

"We have de-funded organizations, most recently, like KAIROS who are taking a leadership role in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign" against Israel, [Kenney] told the Global Forum for combatting anti-Semitism.

...is denied by KAIROS executive director Mary Corkery here:

Corkery, who said she was shocked by Kenney’s comment, said her group has been critical of some of Israel’s actions but has not supported a boycott.

Furthermore, the notion that KAIROS might have had questionable unacceptable political leanings is rather belied by the very good reviews that Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), its funding body, has given it over the years, including February of this year.

The 2nd article above from the T.O. Sun hints at who the Tories might be pandering to with this decision: B'nai Brith and Charles McVety's gang at the Canadian Christian College. Both organizations have targeted KAIROS for years now. Here's a recent clip of McVety denouncing the group as "leftist ideologues".

This, plus KAIROS criticism of Alberta tar sands development, probably left them cruisin for a bruisin.

Will B'nai Brith ReFeed Teh Crazy?

Well, they say they're going to.

Canadians welcome anti-radical Islam ad, B’nai Brith vows more to come

One hopes this is just butt-covering bluster designed to facilitate a retreat from this travesty of demagoguery and sub-standard graphic design. If BB does decide to run further inflammatory adverts, one can only hope they make them less like the kind of thing a teenage punk-band might produce with glue-sticks, scissors, and a cheap photocopier.

Talk to them about that, Harry Abrams.

More On Now Infamous B'nai Brith Ad!

From Dawg's comments forgot to buy tinfoil writes:

This ad annoys me, too, but for different reasons: the typography, the images, the colour scheme. It's hard to discuss anything reasonably when the fires of Hell are burning in the lower right corner. This is not an appeal to reason. If you like demagoguery, you'll love this ad.

Exactly. And I am not sure what the trigger is supposed to be. What (recent?) historical event brought this ad about? Nor am I sure what specific political outcome it sets out to achieve, beyond lowering the discourse. BB has always been a bit too right for me on several issues, but I've always assumed they were a class act.

Its also butt ugly, like somebody puked on the page. I sincerely hope the ad agency of my good friend Harry Abrams wasn't behind it.

Finally, the argument that its about radical Muslim groups and not Muslims is like the argument that its about Zionists/Israel and not Jews. Both are valid in theory, but can be abused in practice. This ad says nothing concrete or useful about a Canadian response to domestic terrorism (or anything else). It looks like its saying that they (Muslim radicals) are everywhere, so be afraid.

See infamous BB ad here.

Stay Classy B'nai Brith

From, believe it or not, the Nov. 9 paper edition of the National Post:

Two things. 1) National Post wants, no needs your money, and will run anything, anything that you want to stick in those vast stretches of unpurchased ad space within its pages. 2) I have no idea what BB is trying to accomplish with this other than to spend alot of money creating some really poorly designed adverts throwing insults at our local Muslim population. Are they still pissed over that thing with the Higgins Counterterrorism Research Centre and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission? I mean seriously: is this supposed to stiffen somebody's spine re the Afgh. mission? I have no idea.

Larger version here.

A special greeting for SDA readers here.

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

B'nai Brith's efforts to shut down the "Israel/Palestine: mapping models of statehood and prospects for peace" conference seem to have hit a rough patch. Lawyers might have become involved:

Statement regarding the Conference at York University Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace

On June 12, 2009, B'nai Brith Canada issued a community alert through its listserv Jewish Canada regarding the conference. The alert set out a list of concerns including a claim that the conference would be hosting Holocaust deniers. This particular concern arose from a quote regarding Holocaust denial attributed to Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifada, one of the presenters and a member of the conference’s advisory committee. The quote was found by our student intern on current live websites.

It has since come to our attention that this quote was and continues to be erroneously attributed to Mr. Abunimah by such websites. The quote that we attributed to Mr. Abunimah appears in an article written by somebody wholly different than him and in no way associated with him. On learning this, we immediately corrected our records and documents, removed the mistaken information from our website and notified the universities involved. This statement is also being sent over JewishCanada.

B'nai Brith Canada regrets this specific error and apologizes to Mr. Abunimah, the conference organizers, York University, Queen’s University, and the other sponsors and funders for any confusion or distress that this mistaken attribution may have caused.

In our June 12 alert we also state that the conference was hosting presenters who “advocate for the destruction of the Jewish state,” “reject compromise” and “justify terrorism” as well as raising concern of the conference’s overall anti-Israel thrust. These concerns still stand. We arrived at these concerns as a result of quotations taken from statements made by conference presenters. The conference organizers have raised concern that these quotations were taken out of context. We will be posting links to the full text of the articles containing the quotations cited therein on our website http://www.bnaibrith.ca/files/action_alert.htm so that the public can judge the full context of the quotations and the statements from which they were taken for themselves.

- This statement must be quoted in its entirety

If you follow the links, which our student intern apparently did not do, the original quote was almost certainly discovered here, which attributes this piece to Mr. Abunimah. But the piece in question is pretty clearly labelled "By Khalid Amayreh".

Always clicky the linky, as they say.

Incidentally, the "Discover the Networks: A Guide to the Political Left" website also has this entry for Barack Obama in which the whole "Obama is a Muslim" myth is rehashed.

Ahh, the marvelous intertubes! I hope BB employed a few other data sources.

Christie Gets His Say

Doug Christie has been granted "interested party status" in the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith, Abrams, Harry v. Topham, Arthur case now before the CHRT. This one is interesting for two reasons: 1st) it is to my knowledge the last section 13 case on the Tribunal's schedule, and 2nd) Topham, and his Radical Press, are probably good examples of what is called "Left Anti-Semitism" (note picture above from the 1960s/early 70s, I believe), which is to say that it is untrue that the CHRC/CHRT exclusively targets Christians/Conservatives.

The RP itself is a mixture of endless pages of boring drivel, interspersed with some quite barbaric material. Indeed, there is a slight stench of madness about Mr. Topham.

B'nai Brith On HRC's: A Mixed Bag

Just a few quick notes on B'nai Brith's presentation to Richard Moon, the University of Windsor law professor who was appointed to make recommendations as to the direction the CHRC should take re Internet Hate Speech in Canada.

First, the good. B'nai Brith's practical recommendations are, for the most part, common-sense. For example, it does not seem fair that complaints can be pursued in multiple jurisdictions. As BB writes:

The ability to make several complaints at once in different jurisdictions against the same target means that the complaint power can be used as a way of harassing the object of the complaint. That avenue of harassment needs to be cut off. Complaints should be heard in one forum only. The appropriate forum should be the one with the most substantial connection to the complaint and the parties. No other jurisdiction should have the power to entertain essentially the same complaint.

Perhaps the question of awarding costs to successful defendants is a little more problematic , esp. in light of the Maclean's Magazine case where the refusal to negotiate with complainants, and the legal costs resulting from this refusal, can largely be seen as a stunt, a desperate attempt to bump up sales by embracing cheap controversy and pandering to Canada's far right fringe. Here and elsewhere, where the out-sized sums spent on defending a complaint amount to a kind of business investment on the part of the defendant, should such behavior be rewarded?

However, where I think the B'nai Brith report really disappoints is in the way it draws analogies between the complainants in the Macleans and Western Standard cases and some world-wild conspiracy on the part of "Political Islam"... the way it swallows the Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant koolaid, in other words.

Put briefly (and to give just a single example), whatever the ultimate strength of his case against the Western Standard, there is no question in my mind that Syed Soharwardy was correct when he wrote that the Western Standard "mis-used the Freedom of the press to create hatred against Canadian Muslims", and that his complaint was a response to this and not a move within some vast international conspiracy by Islamic militants.

And I think B'nai Brith Council David Matas, who wrote their presentation to Dr. Moon, probably should have made himself aware of the context around and fallout from Mr. Soharwardy's complaint, which included calls for Muslim Genocide on the Western Standard Blog, and generated a police investigation as well as eventual apologies from the WS editors. I realize that it would have been unpleasant for Mr. Matas to stick his head down that particular sewer, but I think it would have made him a little more aware of what was really at stake.

Read the entire report here.