Dennis, how did Broadbent suggest this? I don't recall thinking that when I saw the interview.

Oh, and my understanding is that this isn't the first time that liberals or leftists have suggested that the man was a victim of acts done by political opponents.

Frankly, Broadbent's saying this is totally ok. Life's tough, and actions have sets of unintended but generally predictable consequences. Ruining people's careers, and sending them into the courts for redress, and slandering their characters, all have negative effects on the health of those people. Stress and high blood pressure are brutal to middle aged mens' hearts. Can we prove that Braun caused the death? No. But I would think that even Braun knows that this saga took it's toll on Beauregard. The question is not really one of determining causality (which would be to intentionally sidestep the issue), but one of responsibility/blameworthiness. Has Braun acted responsibly, or not?

By the way, I consult for a company whose past CEO had a heart attack less than a week after he got fired in a power play. A case just like this one. Not even kidding.

(This isn't to say that you can't ever fire anyone. Of course you can. But you have to be honest about the consequences of your actions, and if you maliciously slandered someone in order to, say, fire them for political purposes, I think it's pretty hilarious to get all righteous over claims that you had something to do with their heart attack. Pull yourself together – of course you did, or at least might well have).

Broadbent knew he would not have an opportunity to respond to anything Braun said because of the limitations Braun insisted upon for the 'interview', so he had no other choice than take advantage of his only opportunity to make his case.

"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."

Unreal!

Braun insisted Broadbent not be given the chance to reply.

Just like a (Harper) Conservative. Run away!!!

I'm sure Harper is perfectly well informed about the instruments of government that matter, and I concur that he is one of our more intelligent prime ministers. I just dispute that R&D really matters that much in his worldview.

My point about "fanatical self-confidence" was just that these extreme pro-Israel people, of the Braun / Levant type, seem to have lost the ability to reason on this subject. The slightest criticism of Israel is immediately reinterpreted as anti-Semitism, a denial of Israel's right to exist, etc. That seems to me a sign of nothing less than psychosis on this particular issue. One sees it elsewhere on ethnic issues: try convincing a Serb that Kosovo's independence has merit, or the Palestinians that the establishment of Israel had its positive side. Yet one can have a perfectly rational conversation with such people about soccer, or fishing, or tax policy.

I must admit I don't grasp what "lawfare" is in general — it seems like a questionable concept, particularly in this case, since getting the Palestinians to renounce violence and pursue their agenda by peaceful means is what we all want, and the opposite of warfare. But I presume it's the alleged abuse of the legal process in some way or other. On the other hand, from Al Haq's site it seems like it mainly opposes things like the infringement of property rights by the security fence and whatnot: challenging those myriad violations of Palestinian human rights does not strike me as "lawfare" per se: if Israel has grossly violated Palestinian human rights, it will be bombarded by many appeals for redress, unless it is pushed to deny that the Palestinians actually have rights: is that what Braun wants?

I've googled it, and it appears to be a handy way for the pro-Israel side to equate human rights activism with terrorism: "they are but two paws on the same beast" etc. Perhaps you can set me straight. Is the term used in any other context but the "asymmetric" attempts of the powerless to embarrass the powerful?

I like your example of lawfare from NGO-Monitor. If the three Quebec corporations are helping to ethnically cleanse the West Bank, let them answer for it.

They apparently went to court in early October, with the Quebec judge declining jurisdiction. Quite a learned analysis of the case by a Canadian blogger, which I don't pretend to have read through; it seems that, generally speaking, domestic courts are reluctant (except in places like Spain?) to step up and assert their authority over domestic actors on the basis of international law.

France too.

Yet some contend that building illegal settlements is part of a wider project of ethnic cleansing. Have you read Israeli historian Ilan Pappe on The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine?

That contradicts Wells's thesis that these things really do matter to Harper, and are part of the reason why Harper likes being in charge of the government, even if it's a minority government..

I am not sure it does. Wells did not specify whether he thought the instruments (i.e., R&D) or the outcomes (i.e., implanting a more pro-Israel foreign policy in Canada) are what really mattered to Harper.

To the degree I agree with you CR that Harper cares about Israel/Palestine I would suggest he cares more about the outcomes. To the degree that R&D continues to spin into a ridiculous mess like few others during Harper's tenure, it is not apparent to me he cared much about the instrument, or at least clearly not enough.

Rights & Democracy and the people staffing it aren't denying Israel's right to exist.

The useful thing about lawfare as a concept is any piece of legislation, analysis, or legal finding, with which you disagree, is potentially an example of lawfare. Therefore, anything you find disagreeable can be dismissed. Creating an intellectual quagmire.

Obviously institutions do get co-opted. By both the left and the right. That is why attempts to politicize institutions like the court system, the appointment of judges, the civil service and government agencies like Revenue Canada, or Stats Canada, or arms-length NGOs, any institution intended to function in as non-partisan manner as possible, must be guarded against.

Right-wingers and neo-conservatives often accuse UN agencies of practicing lawfare. Such as the Goldstein report which, it is claimed, aims to de-legitimize the Israeli state. I assume Braun and Co. consider Rights & Democracy an important player in the lawfare conspiracy.

Obviously I have been suckered by the fiendish lefties who have used ingenious techniques of lawfare they learned from George Soros at a secret Davos training facility to co-opt the international system.

No worries. Lots of commenters here have made the very same mistake.

I never said they were founded nor unfounded. I'm stating what I saw in the interview.

Then why in the world mention it in the same breath as launching vicious attacks against political opponents? Again, we know why. We know the tactic, and I think it doesn't reflect well on those using it to say the least.

"The government bills that are going down because of prorogation include the repeal of the faint-hope clause that gives lifers a chance of parole after 15 years,"
- Globe and Mail

Right on. I am not with the NDP but there is no excuse for what went on here. This Dennis F fellow seems unhinged.

Optimus Prime disavowed Ms. Copps when she reneged on her GST promise and was forced to resign.

Optimus is now found in the Gerard Kennedy wing of the Liberal Party.

Bumblebee, on the other hand, that's someone with interesting politics.