Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Rights and Democracy: Let's go to the video

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 11:19am - 176 Comments

From yesterday’s Power Play with Tom Clark on CTV News Channel, footage of most of the show, featuring Ed Broadbent complaining about the goings-on at Rights and Democracy; Aurel Braun complaining about Ed Broadbent; MPs complaining about Rights and Democracy, except for the Conservative fellow who complains about Paul Dewar; and Mike Robinson and Rick Anderson, rising above the fray. I had believed only Steve Paikin, on the public broadcaster TVO, would be able to devote a full hour to this controversy. Tom Clark is full of surprises.

There was a journalists’ panel at the bottom of the hour, and the guy sitting next to Joel-Denis Bellavance sure had a lot to say, but that doesn’t appear to be part of the online archive.

UPDATE: From the Inkless emailbox, this missive from Ezra Levant.

Hi Paul. In your Power Play segment, you mentioned that the 2007 audit of R&D was leaked to me by Aurel Braun.

In fact, I did not receive it from him. And as you probably know, that audit was reveleaed in a scoop by the National Post’s Graeme Hamilton, based on an access to information request. You can read Hamilton’s original story on the audit here: http://ezralevant.com/Waste%20at%20R%26D.pdf

Cheers.

Ezra

Always happy to reflect other arguments. I’ll note, however, that I can’t find any reference to this later audit, which tells a dramatically different tale, anywhere on Ezra’s site.

Tags: Aurel Braun, Rights and Democracy, Tom Clark

More by Paul Wells

JamesHalifax

I watched that as it happened. Good show, and the look on Ed Broadbents face after receiving that broadside was priceless.

It should also help clarify what is going on in that organization. Bring on the committee's in March!!!
Kat

That guy sitting next to Joel-Denis Bellavance sure did have a lot to say and every time he said something…it was laced with venom. You are some frustrated with the goings-on on this subject.
knick

If recent history is any indication, an external non-partisan enquiry of this issue won't be happening, so it seems fair enough that Clark gave it as full an airing as he could in an hour because it seems to add to the evidence of the Harper 'agenda' for this country. Braun's personal attack on Broadbent only adds to that impression. Who is Braun anyway, and where did he come from? Does he have any real world (i.e. other than academic) credentials? BTW, good on you Paul for taking this on.
Fay

Where Irwin Cotler??? Waiting for his comment. Also wondering why Tom Clark is preventing Ezra Levant from weighing in? Not a debate when both sides are not given equal opportunity. Tax payers deserve to know how our money is wasted!!!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

That's right. If there's any show, anywhere, that doesn't have Ezra as a guest, it's censorship. I hear the Grammys tried to muzzle him the other night too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

He's appearing on Kanye West's new album
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Ya, like Ezra is going to have an unbiased objective view on the issue.

knick

and, Bellavance's comments may have been omitted from the online archive because they were anecdotal and probably libelous.
Anon

"Also wondering why Tom Clark is preventing Ezra Levant from weighing in?"

Are you out of your mind?

wsam

That really suffered by not having Ezra Levant on, spewing his random nonsense and calling anyone he disagrees with an anti-Semite.

What I cannot figure out is: why are the Conservatives lying and in regards to what they are up to?

John W.

Re: What are they up to?
Then there's the mysterious break in.

Kevin

Good point. Only 2 laptops were taken, nothing else of any value whatsoever. Sounds pretty targetted to me.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Tom Clark asked Aurel Braun about past funding for Al Haq by CIDA and Foreign Affairs. I'm curious whether anyone has found evidence of such funding in the last ten years? I found evidence of CIDA funding Al Haq in 1994/95, but I couldn't find confirmation of more recent funding.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

There were some links in the comments to Paul's last post — http://bit.ly/dkS8tr — to CIDA contributions in 2005 and 2006.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Yes, but those were from Al-Haq reports, rather than CIDA or Foreign Affairs reports. I'm curious why it's so hard to find confirmation of the 2005/06 contributions using records from CIDA and Foreign Affairs.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I've got no experience looking through such reports, whereas you seem unafraid, so I'll take your word that it's difficult or thusfar impossible to find confirmation in CIDA or DFAIT material of Al-Haq grants. I'm willing to take Broadbent's word for it, as he seems very plugged in still to R&D; and I don't see why Al-Haq would make it up — if they're wrong, conceivably they were confused about who was who in Canada.

Has anybody called Al Haq or the Israeli HR organisation to get their take on this stuff?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Braun is pretty incoherent. I don't think "shameless" is the word, really, since if you're a complete fanatic you can't really defy your conscience. He's very free with phrases like "total misrepresentation" etc.; basically calls his opponents total liars at every opportunity. If that's what he's like on national TV, I'd like to see what he's like behind closed doors.

So, if I can get this straight, the notional case against Al-Haq boils down to its president being a former member of the PFLP? Is that it?

Blues Clair

Alleged ties…

“Despite acknowledging that denying Jabarin's lawyer access to the 'evidence' against his client may compromise the fairness of the trial, the Court nonetheless upheld the travel ban on the sole basis of the secret 'evidence' that Shawan Jabarin is an active member of a 'terrorist' organisation.”
-FrontLine

“For the past 22 years, the Shin Bet has argued that I am an active member in the Popular Front. During this entire period, I was never tried for this and obviously was never given an opportunity to defend myself against such a charge. Their evidence is secret and classified and is hidden from me and my lawyers. I have been an activist in Al-Haq since 1987, and I am not an activist for the Popular Front,”
- Shawan Jabarin,
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

So, if I can get this straight, the notional case against Al-Haq boils down to its president being a former member of the PFLP? Is that it?

That was the only issue that the Israeli Supreme Court was involved in. They upheld a travel ban on Al Haq president Shawan Jabarin this year, based on Israeli intelligence information that he was a former PFLP member.

Obviously, some pro-Israel groups have made a case against Al Haq based on its alleged "lawfare" practices and other stuff that has nothing to do with the supposed PFLP connection.
JamesHalifax

Jack, if Ed Broadbent is lying, or is "totally misrepresenting" the truth…why shouldn't he be called on it? If Broadbent takes offence, then he can always sue for libel or slander.

If Braun feels he's being forthright when he accuses someone of lying, that is his right. It would now be upon Broadbent to take further action; prove his assertions are correct, or sue the bugger who's accusing him of being a liar.

wsam

So, basically, it is within the bounds of fair argument to say whatever you want about someone. Because if they don't like it they can sue. Ridiculous.

Are you a lawyer? Looking for business? Instead of ambulance chasers, we'd be plagued with argument chasers.

JamesHalifax is an Acadian from Moncton!!

JamesHalifax

C'n'est pas vrai!! (bad spelling proves it)

I'm from Halifax

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Are you trying to participate in civilised discourse, James Halifax? How cute.

JamesHalifax

Sorry Jack, but if I thought civil discourse would make it through your delusions, I would try it more often.

kcm

"Jack, if Ed Broadbent is lying, or is "totally misrepresenting" the truth…why shouldn't he be called on it? If Broadbent takes offence, then he can always sue for libel or slander."

You may make that allegation. It's then incumbent on you[ Braun] to flesh it out. Merely calling someone a liar doesn't make the accused a liar. A more rational person [ or less partisan] than Braun might have stuck with actual attempt to rebut…not make wild assertions.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

I concur with your assessment and we now have Braun and Broadbent alleging that the other has more or less slandered them, as well as numerous other allegations tossed around by Braun in the interview against a number of parties. I am not a big fan of proliferating law suits, but…. i would love to see some of these allegations been made to stand the test of the standards of evidence of legal proceedings to see which allegations wilt.

That is my understanding re the allegations against al Haq as well, with CR's helpful point re 'lawfare'.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Braun is pretty incoherent. I don't think "shameless" is the word, really, since if you're a complete fanatic you can't really defy your conscience."

Zealot. That's the word I'd use.

Dot

Interesting debate.
Dot

If I follow Mr Braun's argument properly, he is suggesting not funding some groups based upon the findings of the Israel Supreme Court. But, what do we know about the Israel Supreme Court? How are its members determined? Does it have an ideological bias? Beats me.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

In Braun's segment, he called the Supreme Court of Israel "left-wing."

Dot

Missed that. I guess that would put him to the right of them, wherever they might fit on the spectrum, if there is one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I think you have to be preeeeetty far to the right to regard the Israeli Supreme Court as a bunch of card-carrying leftists.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Any supposed ideological bias of the Israeli supreme court is irrelevant, since they based their decision entirely on information provided to them by Israeli intelligence.

http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/Shawan-abarin-v.pdf

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Right, so really the notional case boils down to: Mossad asserts that the president of this organisation once belonged to the PFLP, therefore Canada should not help fund that organisation.

JamesHalifax

Jack, why wouldn't the MOSSAD inform their justice system that someone belongs to a dangerous group? CSIS here in Canada certainly has the same obligation to do so.

Why dismiss the Mossad's investigations? Is it because of their "hebrew-ness" that you don't trust them, or do you simply not like intelligence services?

Curious.

Dot

Supreme Court has reviewed secret material, presented ex parte, of behalf of the security authorities, and we have done the same today.

So, the deciding factor is what Israeli intelligence says, untested. hmmm. That West Bank is complex, no doubt about that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Well, it was tested in the sense that the Supreme Court reviewed classified intel and decided that it was compelling. Unless Israeli intelligence was lying to the Israeli Supreme Court, I assume that the Jabarin-PFLP connection is valid.
Dot

This is what I don't get. The ex parte hearings were used to determine if the guy could get a travel permit to receive some award for humanitarian efforts. If the intelligence is so strong that he is a terrorist, why not arrest him?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

He's a former member of a banned organization. I suspect they only arrest current members and former members who have been linked to actual terrorist activities. Caveat: I don't know much about how Israeli intelligence services operate.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

So, in sum: Braun and Levant want to apply stricter criteria to selecting R&D grant recipients than the Israeli police apply to protecting Israeli society.
kcm

I think they might prefer the Israeli Intelligence review those grants.

This is yet another angle. Does Canada have the right to grant to whom it wills, or do we need the permission of Mr Steinberg and the seal of approval of Shin bet?
JamesHalifax

Israeli intelligence servcies are among the worlds best and the most efficient. Know where the bad guys are…..put two in their head with a .22, or spike their cell phone with Semtex and give them a call.

And to note: bad guys = terrorists who have committed murder. They are not a victims groups regardless of what Amnesty International or the Liberal Party says.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

I posted this link around the time it was written on one of Paul's other posts, but will repost given the relevance.

http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2010/01/…

The blog's author, William Schabbas is a very serious man as per his mini bio on the page: William A. Schabas is director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway, where he also holds the professorship in human rights law. He is also a Professor at the University of Warwick School of Law, and professeur associé at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Professor Schabas holds post-graduate degrees in history and in law from universities in Canada. He is the author of eighteen monographs and more than 200 articles dealing with international human rights law and international criminal law. Professor Schabas was a member of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada and a Member of the Royal Irish Academy, and has an LLD honoris causa from Dalhousie University, Halifax.

I have met Schabbas while taking a summer intensive programme at the Irish Centre for Human Rights probably close to decade ago (damn i am getting old) now and have a great deal respect for him. I have never met or even heard of Jabarin prior to this week, nor do i know anyone who does to the best of my knowledge. But, if left to choose between the secret evidence of an intelligence agency or Schabbas' word, I will go with the latter, and that is before even considering the dismal record of intelligence agencies in the era of the war of terror.
kcm

It is remarkable how often, when we do get to see secret evidence, how shabby it is. Witness Arar…apparently his taking a walk in the rain and knowing a suspected fellow Syrian was accounted serious evidence. [ the Syrian community is i believe quite small. The odds of you knowing a good deal of your fellow countrymen quite high] In other wods guilt by association and circunstantial evidence.
JamesHalifax

kcm, when the majority of Mr. Arar's fellow "countrymen" he was seen with are under surveillance for terrorist ties, perhaps it would be best NOT to be seen around them quite so often.

Mr. Arar should have made a few friends that DIDN'T plan to blow anything up. That would have been far less suspicious I suspose.
Holly Stick

This is libellous. I hope Arar sues your hateful butt.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Oh so you are serious.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

so those bias would have influenced how the SC interpreted or reacted to the information put forth?
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Any supposed ideological bias of the Israeli supreme court is irrelevant, since they based their decision entirely on information provided to them by Israeli intelligence. "

Are you being sarcastic?

Anon

I know. Wasn't that cute?

Braun certainly has a flair for the dramatic.
RayK

The Israeli Supreme Court has a record of being somewhat self-critical of Israeli–as many supreme court's do in their respective countries–but it is not left-wing by any reasonable Western standard. It recently ruled that Arab Israeli political parties could be ban from Israeli elections (as they were in the last election).

Dot

My impression of Broadbent was that he was essentially just repeating all the points raised here by Wells, in blogs or print. Anything new he said that you weren't knowledgeable about from here?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

No, nothing new, though he and another former president appear to be Siddiqui's source for the statement that R&D grants to Al-Haq were approved by DFAIT and parallel to CIDA grants. That appeared in Siddiqui's 24 January column before Wells was onto it. Wasn't he also present at one or more of these acrimonious meetings? At the moment, owing to the staff gag order from Braun, Broadbent seems to be acting as spokesman for R&D staff.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I didn't really look through such reports. I just used google queries like the following (cut and paste into google, to see what I mean).

site:http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca "al haq"

Since I wasn't actually poring through documents, it's entirely possible that I missed something that wasn't indexed by search engines.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

They sure love their .pdf's at CIDA, eh? Those are all indexed by Google, though.

Tried the site search with just "haq." Apart from some biblio by people named Haq, and an award named after Mahmoud ul Haq, there's nothing but that 1995 grant you've mentioned before.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'll add that any CIDA funding of Al-Haq over $10,000 since 2004 would show up in these lists, but none does:

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/contrats-con…

Zine

For those who can read french, Le Devoir published today an interesting article linking directly Mr. Braun with the president of NGO Monitor an organisation that sees antisemetism in every critic that is made of the state of Israël. Well at least now everything is clear, Mr. Braun is imposing pro-Israël lobby agenda on what's supposed to be a non-partisan organisation.

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/282286/c…

Anon

"Well at least now everything is clear, Mr. Braun is imposing pro-Israël lobby agenda on what's supposed to be a non-partisan organisation."

That's been clear for a while. What's interesting is how it's being done.

The link between Aurel Braun and NGO Monitor Gerald Steinberg is menitionned here the Devoir article:

"Aurel Braun et Gerald Steinberg se sont croisés au sein de l'organisme Scholars for Peace in the Middle-East. M. Braun accorde à ce point d'importance aux idées de M. Steinberg qu'il l'a invité à venir les présenter à Montréal aux membres du conseil d'administration de Droits et Démocratie, a appris Le Devoir. Le conseil a refusé."

Aurel Braun also served on the board of B'nai Brith.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

I wonder what would happen if someone picked up that Steinberg thread and followed it. Would it lead to the office door of our Immigration Minister?

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

One lawyer (on the VIA train last night) asked why did Braun have to keep repeating he has nothing to hide? Doth protest too much? And, his office was broken into – strange coincidence and it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that "possibly" he arranged to have his own office broken into to protect himself.

Interesting thought.

Kevin

Well, there's lots of speculation out there, some kind of wild. So here's a bit more food for thought. One of the stolen laptops belonged to a "media liaison person", while one of the 3 suspended employees is Charles Vallerand who is "Director of Communications". There are several other media people in their staff list, but still you have to wonder.

kcm

Some one [perhaps a journolist?] should maybe give Vallerand a call to see if that stolen LT is significant in any material way, no?[ nod's as good as a wink eh PW?]

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

Really good work on this Paul. Just got caught up on your posts today, and will watch the Tom Clark stuff tonight.. Thanks,.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

they put the chair of the organization on the show, who is leading the charge, and that is not equal opportunity? Are you Ezra's booking agent? who wrote this talking point?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Also they (properly, I think, because it was so important to give this elusive guest a forum) acceded to Braun's peculiar requests regarding the circumstances of his appearance: He would speak only in response to Broadbent, and not if Broadbent was permitted to respond to him. He forgot to ask that there be no journalist panel at the bottom of the hour, however.

wsam

I will only debate you if I can rebuttal and you cannot.

You say something and then I'll claim you are lying.

These people are embarrassing.

kcm

I see Braun also forgot to mention that 2008 report of Beauregard's that seemed to show some success on cleaning thngs up…what a shocker!

PW: Is it possible to get acess to the transcript that journo's panel, since it's not avaiable on line?I shall of course do batte with Monsieur goole first.

kcm

eh…google…slains a lot really!
kcm

sigh…explains..

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

very interesting Paul. and while it makes me a bit squeamish to cede that much to anyone in a public 'debate', i take your point there was a need to get Braun on the public and accessible record.

A question if you don't mind? the other day in the comments (link to the comment is below) you mentioned that we should "Tune in Monday morning for more news. I've got a .pdf I need to upload for that." was that to do with the suspension w/o pay story or something else?

cheers! and again thanks for all this excellent work!

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/31/rights-and-dem…
knick

That adds a lot to the context that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. Thank god we still have responsible journalism in this country.

BTW Paul, has Braun called you back yet?

knick

oops, just saw farther down the threat he hasn't. Interesting that he's not interested in clearing up any 'misunderstanding' of yesterday's arrangements and such.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Hmm, that seems pretty conclusive; perhaps the reference to CIDA funding was to the 1995 grant?

There remains, of course, the suggestion that R&D funding of Al-Haq was cleared with DFAIT.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Right – I suspect that Haroon Siddiqui was referring to the 1995 funding. Too bad he wasn't more clear about this.

I haven't found any evidence to support his DFAIT suggestion.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I think it unlikely that an R&D staff member talking to Siddiqui would just make stuff up, and there would likely be little evidence of it publicly available. The DFAIT suggestion might have been something as ordinary as R&D's asking DFAIT if Al Haq was on a list of banned organisations, which it isn't.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Good point, but if Cannon's ministry "approved" simply by checking Al Haq against the list of banned organizations, then it seems disingenuous for Siddiqui to have presented this information in the way that he did. ("Al Haq was good enough for CIDA and foreign affairs but not Braun and Co.")

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I took the approval to mean that DFAIT does not ban human rights organisations on the basis of secret Mossad testimony about the past history of those organisations' presidents. This is the basis of the Braun case against Al Haq, no, saying that it's a terrorist organisation? And R&D was coming back and saying, "It's not a terrorist organisation according to DFAIT. We asked them if we were allowed to fund Al Haq and they said yes." Not that disingenuous, I'd say.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I haven't reviewed Braun's case against Al Haq, but I agree with you that the alleged Jabarin-PFLP connection is a pretty flimsy basis for calling Al Haq a "terrorist organization", if that's indeed what Braun called it. I'm not sure if that's the full basis of Braun's case against Al-Haq (I suspect it has more to do with the "lawfare" stuff and the criticism from Braun's ideological soul-mates over at ngo-monitor).

"Disingenuous" was probably too strong a word. It's just too bad that Siddiqui didn't provide more detail and context to support his claims. Also, I've been wondering if there was a CIDA grant to Al-Haq in 2005 that didn't show up in CIDA records because it was too tiny (below $10,000). Someone should really put the question to CIDA directly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I agree there needs to be more footnoting of all this stuff, particularly when Braun has taken to labeling much of the criticism as "total fabrication" etc. and Levant is dropping AS-bombs left and right. Facts are fundamental.

The Al Haq internal audit that Chris Burnett linked to shows a grant from CIDA for $20 000. I wonder why that would not have made the list. Perhaps we could get Mr. Petrou to file an Access to Information request.
wsam

"Facts are fundamental"

I agree absolutely. They will win out in the end.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Yeah, I noticed that too, on Al Haq's 2004 balance sheet as a "Grant Receivable". Promised, but never delivered? Very odd! I agree – let's get Petrou to file that Access to Information request.
kcm

No possibility that cida records have been doctored…widely speculative. But there appears to be a record of sorts at the other end.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

as i said the other day CR, the disclosure reform was introduced in the GofC on grants and contributions in 2005. if this was a 2004 contribution it likely was not required to be disclosed.
kcm

Ah!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

As per my link above, s_n_m, if the $20,000 grant was legit I'd expect it to show up on somewhere on this list:

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/contrats-con…
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

i think the problem is that you are looking at the disclosure of contracts as opposed to the disclosure of grants and contributions, which are a distinct funding mechanism used for different purposes than contracts (essentially contracts purchase goods or serviced delivered to the government; Gs&Cs are like traditional grants, used to support this, that or the other that may provide some benefit to the government, but not exclusively per se).

the requirement for the disclosure on grants, as i was saying, earlier came later (towards the end of 2005) and had a higher financial threshold ($25K as opposed to $10K).

As such, here would be a better place to search

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.ns…

but given the later requirement, and the higher threshold, i suspect you won't find anything, which is not to say it was not legit. you will just need the couple bucks for an ATIP to confirm it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Fair enough. I guess we have no way of knowing whether the <$25k 2005 grant was legit, short of the ATIP. We'll probably find out sooner or later.

Good research, btw!

Dot

Maher Arar.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

good point!

kcm

'Well, it was tested in the sense that the Supreme Court reviewed classified intel and decided that it was compelling'

True…except the true test of "tested' in law is or ought to be, has my legal rep had a chance to cross examine the accusers. Secret evidence is an affront to civillized society. Debatable is if the middle east is quite civillized society. I see they only put a travel ban on, not locked him up…still?

JamesHalifax

Mahar Arar was NOT found to be innocent, regardless of what you have convinced yourself of. He was let go because of a lack of sufficient evidence.

Which by the way, has allowed multitudes of guilty people go free…..as is correct.

It does not however, make one innocent.

Holly Stick

Because Muslim-haters like yourself do not believe in that basic principle of justice: that a person is innocent until proved guilty.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Well, in fairness, he had just been to the dentist.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Update: I still haven't received a call from Aurel Braun.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Out of curiosity: what was that .pdf that you uploaded the other day?
Jan

Be patient, you're probably after Broadbent on his 'return call' list.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Well, you have called him a clown, which might reduce his urgency to chat with you.
JamesHalifax

Why would he respond, Paul?

He probably feels that no matter what he says to you, you will still write what you want in any event. I'm sure it will make a more compelling read, but there is no guarantee Mr. Braun's side will be reflected fairly.

He may be justified in that belief, or he may not be. Until you can convince him you will be fair and balanced, I wouldn't wait by the phone for too long.

Casual Observer

Why Canadian taxpayers are forced to fund these kinds of organizations is ridiculous. And there are hundreds not much different from them, sucking valuable resources from our taxes paid, that could be used for health care, education, or business development. If Canadian taxpayers knew the annual cost of funding these jokes, they would be outraged.

kcm

Hmm, i wonder if R&D has contributed in any useful way towards improving anyones lives?

wsam

It was trying to help Palestinians, which, I take it, was the problem the new board had with R&D.
JamesHalifax

kcm….based on previous reports the folks at R&D greatly improved the live of a select few. Themselves

wellwell

Casual Observer, your share of the cost of R&D this year is 32 cents. That tiny amount, which doesn't even buy you a cup of coffee, contributes to our hard-won good reputation abroad. Good luck achieving a better outcome by spending your 32 cents on heath care (a test tube?), education (a piece of chalk?) or business development (one long distance call?).

Herb

I thought that my disgust with Harper and the Neandercons had bottomed out. Wrong again.

How did this foreign object of partisan truthiness and downright lies ever manage to lodge itself in the Canadian body politic, and how quickly can we get it out?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

I will bet you $20 that even Harper is seriously regretting that decision.

wsam

Exactly.

Down with spending I cannot be bothered to take the time and understand!

kcm

Yeah! My back lane's still not paved. Screw Palestine!

wsam

Ha! That made me laugh.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

On that .pdf:

Probably I should post it anyway. It's an interesting document, but inconclusive. Recall that 47 employees of R&D signed a letter calling for the departure of Braun and two other board members. Then Braun said he doubted the authenticity because he'd seen only an email, then the Star put it at 45. What I got was the original letter, hand-signed by 46 and with an email from the absent 47th agreeing with the contents. So it was 47. But I'm told that, for reasons that would be disputed both ways, not all 47 would sign the letter again if asked. So it confirms the situation two weeks ago and tells us little about the situation now.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

It would be interesting to see.

If 46 signed and the 47th did his best to concur, I think we can lay to rest any lingering suspicion that Ezra Levant tells the truth. From his comment to your Sunday blog post:

Is this real, or a fabrication, like the claim that "all" R&D staff support the mutiny? (Even Siddiqui acknowledged, in a previous article, that at least two of the names on the "unanimous" staff mutiny letter were faked.)

kcm

The Siddiqui acknowledgement is at least checkable, no? i couldn't find it…which signifies zip!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I couldn't find it either, but Paul refers to the Star (perhaps not Siddiqui himself?) putting the number of signatures at 45, which is perhaps what Levant calls its "acknowledging" the forging of signatures.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

There was a Star editorial, I believe, on the subject, which contains the 45 figure. It seems pretty clear that the original 47 signatories has come down by one or two or a few. The situation at R&D is so toxic that the board and staff would never agree about why that's happened. I'm trying to stick to things that are undisputed or for which there's documented evidence (so that if one side disputes the record, they're shown up by the record). Fundamentally contestable questions like, why were there 47 and now 45 (or whatever) signatories are interesting but I can't give you a firm answer.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

That's interesting, and thanks for the rigorous empiricism.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

thanks Paul.
wsam

I'm sure Ezra will admit his error and proceed to work tirelessly to build viable civil institutions in Gaza and the West Bank – something which would help Israel immensely. But which wouldn’t be as emotionally satisfying as hurling charges of anti-Semitism at aid agencies whose members might have once said something slightly critical of Israel.

How do you take a guy like Ezra seriously, when he clearly doesn’t take himself seriously?
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"What I got was the original letter, hand-signed by 46 and with an email from the absent 47th agreeing with the contents. So it was 47."

And I believe that this particular fact is important and goes to the credibility of Braun who is on record in the National Post as saying that he was contacted by some of the 47 and told that they didn't even know about the letter and therefore had not signed it. Braun opened his OpEd with that statement.

Small detail indeed but if he could lie so stupidly about something that can so easily be verified, what does that tell you about the rest of his tale?