Rights and Democracy board member David Matas was good enough to send along this new text about the dispute at the Montreal organization. (Today’s Globe story is one place you could go to get caught up on the controversy so far.) It’s a rather bold attempt to persuade everyone that there’s no reason to fuss. I’ll be writing more about Rights and Democracy this weekend. But first, since Matas is much better about getting back to me than Aurel Braun has been, it’s only fair to give him his say. What follows are Matas’s words, not mine:
Reframing
(A comment on the media controversy surrounding Rights and Democracy)
by David Matas
Remy Beauregard, the former president of Rights and Democracy, died of a heart attack the night of January 7, 2010. Some of the staff of Rights and Democracy in the name of all of them released a letter dated January 11, 2010 calling on the leadership of the Board of Directors to resign, accusing them of harassment of the former president. The accusation of harassment was directed against the chair and vice-chair of the Board, Aurel Braun and Jacques Gauthier, and the chair of the audit and finance committee, Elliot Tepper.
The letter did not indicate what was the activity of the Board members which caused concern. The fact that the charge was levied against the leadership of the Board indicated that in substance the issue was rather about the role of the Board. The letter itself hinted at this, accusing the three of having a “complete misunderstanding of your role as Directors”.
What the understanding of the staff was of this role, the letter did not indicate. Presumably the staff thought that the Board should be less hands on in directing Rights and Democracy than the leadership of the Board thought it should be. That, despite the charge of harassment, seemed to be the substance of the dispute.
The statute of Rights and Democracy gives authority over the conduct and management of the affairs of the institution to the Board [section 21(g)]. The Rights and Democracy press officer Charles Vallerand sent a letter to the Globe and Mail, published January 16, attempting to explain the nature of the dispute between the Board leadership and the staff. In that letter, he referred to the independence of the institution.
It is most unusual for the staff of any organization to ask its leadership, those responsible for conduct and management of its affairs, to resign, and to justify that request by asserting independence. What to the staff seemed to be harassment by the Board leadership may have been no more than Board resistance to rejection by staff of accountability to the Board.
Whatever the subject matter of this dispute, one thing was clear. There was no dispute over policy. The editorial to which Charles Vallerand responded indicated that the dispute between the Board and staff was over policy. Vallerand wrote: “this is not the problem”.
A dispute over the role of a board arrives in a context. Where there is agreement in substance, there is no foundation for a debate over process. Debates about process flare up in the context of disagreements over substance.
There was, at one time, between the Board and the staff, a policy debate, about whether the institution should have given grants immediately after the Gaza war to three non-governmental organizations – Al Haq, Al Mezan, and B’Tselem – to document human rights violations occurring in the Gaza strip. The dispute about the role of the Board evolved in the context of a dispute about those grants.
However, by the time Remy Beauregard died, that policy dispute had been resolved. The day before Beauregard died, the Board passed a motion repudiating the grants. The vote was nine in favour and one abstention. None opposed. Beauregard not only voted in favour of repudiation; he spoke for the motion saying “we could have done our homework better”. All that remained in dispute was the manner in which both sides had acted in resolving this policy disagreement.
Yet, a sequence of politicians, editorialists and commentators have reframed the dispute about the role of the Board of Rights and Democracy as a political dispute. The staff charge levied against the Board leadership that it did not have an understanding of their role as directors instead became a polemical charge levied against the Conservative government that it had stacked the Board to pursue a right wing pro-Israel agenda.
For anti-Conservative polemicists, the dispute remained a disagreement over the three grants to Al Haq, Al Mezan and B’Tselem, despite the fact that this dispute had been resolved within Rights and Democracy. For these polemicists, those grants were rightly made. And, so their reasoning went, the Conservative government was wrong to insert its people onto the Board to reverse the decision on those grants.
Because, by the time the Board/staff dispute had become public, the Board and the staff agreed on policy, the facts could not sustain this characterization of the dispute. That, though, did not stop the polemicists. Their attitude seemed to be, if the facts are not on our side, so much the worse for the facts. A sequence of opinions concocted facts to sustain the line polemicists had developed.
For example, Haroon Siddiqui, in an opinion piece published in the Toronto Star, January 31, 2010 under the heading “How the Harperites ambushed the rights agency” wrote that the Board “voted 7-6 to repudiate the three grants”. A vote of 7 to 6 for repudiation sustained a story line that recent Tory appointees to the Board were bringing to the Board the Tory’s pro-Israel agenda. So that was the assertion, in spite of the fact that the vote was nine to none with one abstention.
Moreover, Siddiqui when he wrote about the 7-6 vote, knew it not to be true. I had written an analysis of the controversy in Rights and Democracy where I recounted the repudiation vote. In my analysis, I pointed out that the motion had passed handily and that Beauregard had voted in favour of the repudiation motion. I sent my analysis to Siddiqui by e-mail. He responded on January 27 by thanking me and indicating he had already read my analysis on a website.
Yet, four days later he wrote an opinion piece suggesting that the Board/staff dispute over the three grants remained alive and that the change in policy was the result of a Harper “hostile takeover” of the Board. Those imaginary facts fit better into the opinion he wanted to express than the real facts. So the imaginary facts prevailed.
In a similar vein, Ish Theilheimer, at the website PublicValues.ca, wrote that the letter from the staff asking three Board members to resign was directed not to the leadership of the Board, but rather to a trio he characterized as recent political appointees – myself, Michael Van Pelt, and Jacques Gauthier. Yet, Jacques Gauthier was appointed to the Board two years ago.
Michael Van Pelt and I are the new appointees. The January Board meeting was our first. The staff did not ask us to resign. The Theilheimer commentary which criticized the Harper government for using the appointments process to pursue an ultra conservative agenda both quoted and had a link to an article by Maclean’s reporter Paul Wells. That Wells article stated correctly who the three targeted Board members were.
So again here we have an imaginary fact, which the writer knew to be false, being using to buttress an opinion which the real facts could not sustain. The suggestion of a hostile political takeover is more compelling if the staff resignation demand is directed to the new members. The narrative Theilheimer wanted to build is that the staff today still support funding for the three organizations but the Government does not; so the Government appointed people to reverse the funding policy.
Michael Van Pelt was described in this Theilheimer article as an evangelist, which he decidedly is not. This false description added colour to the political narrative the author was trying to build. So the fact that Van Pelt is not an evangelist just went by the wayside.
The sole fact mentioned about Jacques Gauthier is that he had written a thesis that Jerusalem belonged to Israel at international law. Pushing Gauthier’s appointment to the Board forward two years gave support to the thesis that the Tories were stacking the Board with members who had a narrow Middle East agenda.
Ed Broadbent, in a letter to the National Post dated January 26, 2010, wrote that recent appointments to the Board “were clearly intended to pursue the government’s political agenda”. Yet, it is not so clear.
For one, the repudiation motion was mine alone, though once I presented it, it was seconded and then adopted. No one suggested the motion to me, directly or indirectly, either in the Government or on the Board. By the time of the January Board meeting, the three grants had been long since disbursed and the money long since spent. The resolution was functionally superfluous, which is probably why no one else bothered. I have never had any conversations with anyone in the government about anything to do with Rights and Democracy, either in the Department of Foreign Affairs, or in the Privy Council or in the Office of the Prime Minister, other than a one sentence query from Foreign Affairs, before I was appointed, asking whether I would accept an appointment to the Board.
Second, much has been made of the fact that I am a volunteer lawyer for B’nai Brith Canada. Almost completely ignored is the fact that I am a member of the Liberal Party, a past candidate for the Party in three federal elections, in 1979, 1980 and 1984, a member of the Party’s national policy committee for five years, between 1973 and 1978 and a member of its election platform committee for the 1980 election. Ed Broadbent may not have known all these details. But he is familiar enough with the Canadian political landscape to know that I have no interest in furthering the Conservative Party’s political agenda.
My own guess, for what it is worth, is that my appointment to the Board had nothing to do with either my affiliation with B’nai Brith or the Liberal Party and everything to do with the fact that I had served on the Board for two prior terms, between 1997 and 2003. The Board, by the time I was appointed, had degenerated into controversy on the role of the Board and the Government, I believe, wanted a person on the Board with prior experience.
The motivation for the appointment of Michael Van Pelt was, as far as I can tell, similar. Van Pelt is a person with a good deal of organizational experience, wise in the ways of board/management relations.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Al Haq, Al Mezan and B’Tselem have gained a reputation for their method of operation – develop a theory first, in their case “Israel is to blame” and then twist or invent the facts to fit the theory. The current round of polemicist attacks on the Tories seems inspired by this method of operation. If the facts cannot sustain their theory – a Conservative party hostile takeover of Rights and Democracy to pursue a right wing ideological agenda – then the facts must be changed to fit the theory.
As a Liberal, I am not averse to attacks on the Tories. All I would say to Broadbent, Siddiqui, Theilheimer and others is, stick to the facts.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
David Matas is a Winnipeg lawyer.
Print
Comment
To balance out Matas et al, shouldn't the government also appoint a volunteer lawyer for an organization sympathetic to the Palestinians. Maybe that's what's led to the "stacking the Board" charge. A taxpayer-funded organization should have balanced representation, should it not?
The problem with Matas' account is that it is now juxtaposed to that of Braun who most certainly made this dispute about the grants given to the three human rights groups.
And frankly, after seeing Frank Dimant's interview on CBC, it has tainted my view of Matas. I personally had no idea that B'nai Brith was that extreme in its views.
At least Matas has enough sense to attempt to reframe the debate. Sounds like damage control after Braun's jaw-dropping performance on CTV.
Anon asked,
"To balance out Matas et al, shouldn't the government also appoint a volunteer lawyer for an organization sympathetic to the Palestinians"
Who do you suggest?
Hamas?
Hezbollah?
Someone from the CBC?
For anti-Conservative polemicists, the dispute remained a disagreement over the three grants to Al Haq, Al Mezan and B’Tselem, despite the fact that this dispute had been resolved within Rights and Democracy.
This is a fundamental question of fact, and a fuller account of Beauregard's last meeting will establish whether David Matas is here correcting the record in a way that genuinely defuses the whole affair — or whether he is being entirely disingenuous.
It seems to me incredible that a lawyer would go on record as accusing journalists of intentionally ignoring facts, if he were not 100% sure he were right. This letter is highly actionable, by the Star for one, if it is not totally true.
On the other hand, it seems incredible to me that 95% or 100% of R&D staff would sign a letter of protest by hand, go to the wall in terms of op-ed's, suspensions, leaks, etc., if there is literally nothing to this story and everyone is getting so upset about nothing.
It is very difficult to reconcile these two points of incredulity of mine. Somebody here is flat-out lying.
You may be guilty yourself of ignoring a fundamental characteristic of human nature. Ten witnesses to the same event can give ten different accounts of what happened, and all sincerely believe that they're telling the truth. In other words, facts are often in the eyes of the beholder, especially when politics and ideology are involved.
I heartily agree, except about my guilt. But don't we have a real question of fact here?
I don't see how this particular fact can be distorted by politics or ideology in the eye of any beholder. Was the decision to cancel funding to the three groups all but unanimous (as Matas says) and (as Matas implies if he does not state) non-acrimonious, or (as we've heard elsewhere) the explosive finale to a bitter battle?
They simply can't both be right about this central question, no matter how they interpreted it in their own minds: either
OK. Well, according to this letter, Siddiqui thanked Matas for his clarification on the vote, yet persisted to characterize the entire affair as one of divisive partisanship. As far as I can tell, Siddiqui afterwards doesn't persist in the 7-6 account, but does persist with what it's supposed to signify.
Generally speaking, it's my understanding of human nature that people don't go public to repudiate other people's accounts unless they have some facts on their side. Matas insists on the 9-1 vote count. Don't see Siddiqui doing the same with his count.
But, then again, this is SO convoluted. Maybe they're not even talking about the same vote. Who knows?
Again I agree & must backtrack somewhat from my Clash of the Absolutes scenario. It's just possible that both parties are discussing different incidents (a 7-6 vote and a 9-1 vote inter alia) in good faith and that there are many more vectors here than meet the eye. What is certain is that no version thusfar seems to account for all factors.
Matas insists on the 9-1 vote count. Don't see Siddiqui doing the same with his count.
It will be interesting to see Siddiqui's response.
"David Matas is spinning this in a way that will see him excluded from all civilised society for the rest of his life as a total and unabashed liar. "
We can do that? This is huge! I'm making a list now – I assume there's some sort of form to fill out? :)
I'm afraid the kicker is "civilised society." I would have thought that someone like Peter MacKay, who broke his sword word (as sworn on paper), would have been treated thereafter as nothing more than canaille, but he's had a long and successful career since then. I fear it follows that much of our society, including most of our media, laughs at the obligation civilised people are under to tell the truth.
I'm surprised that you're not more supportive of a strong, strong Liberal Party of Canada stalwart like Matas and his Liberal record of Liberal (if illiberal) Liberalness.
As an added bonus, he is legal counsel to arguably the most anti-free speech organization in Canadian history, Bnai Brith; no love for this scourge of the "speechies", as you and your comrades refer derisively to Canadians who support freedom of expression?
He's Liberal, which is to say grossly illiberal, of course, and he hates free speech; what more could you as a Liberal supporter possibly ask from a R&D appointee?
Hmm, something does not compute here…
What doesn't compute is your frontal lobe. I could not care less what somebody's political affiliations are and I am am vehemently pro-free speech (though I have no opinion about B'nai Brith's stance on free speech, of which I know nothing).
"of which I know nothing"
Pipe down, Colonel Klink, even by Liberal standards this is odious weaseling.
See, this is why everyone hates you, you're grotesquely and childishly dishonest, much like the elaborate Appearance of the Great Spirit rituals that the Natives used to perform to weasel out of various commitments to Jacques Cartier as recounted in the narrative of his second voyage. You know the ones I'm talking about.
You most certainly are not pro-free speech, as you support a profoundly anti-free speech authoritarian-left coalition which in the most recent election explicitly campaigned to *expand* the persecution of Bad Speech, as well as the brutally oppressive McGuinty junta, which has actually encouraged and solicited Bad Speech complaints from special interest groups and has an actual goal of expanding by a factor of ten the use of kangaroo courts. You are an oppressive authoritarian who supports an oppressive authoritarian regime in waiting.
Wow… (backs slowly out of the room…)
I do believe our Surrealist friend from last year has resurfaced.
Ranting ad hominem never wins
Luv the way you claim Matas' claims are actionable, while the original accusations, by Siddiqui, are not. Very funny. Lies are fine, but objecting to the lies? Call a lawyer!
I don't think anyone is purposefully lying, I think everyone is trying to figure out exactly what these various RD people are upset about, which has been difficult to tell so far.
who did Siddiqui defame in reporting a 7-6 vote?
?
While we dig deep and hard to scour this issue for controversy,
its interesting how the biggest issue of our day (AGW) has recieved scant attention, now that appears to have imploded.
Except for Margart Wente, who appears to be asking for another collective rebuke by her left leaning media colleagues, for daring to shed (old) media light on the near daily startling revelations.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-...
Interesting that virtually all information (which given any other "correct" major issue/movement/scandal showing a huge power structure coming apart at the seams would be headline grabbing…then again, this is no hidden wafer) is coming from non-leftist editorials,
rather than the actual…you know…."news".
Now, onto arcane rights issues and flogging our 105th prorogation under the guise that it is the first (democracy destroying) time such a procedure has been engaged.
While I agree that msm is not reporting global warming issues very well, this is wrong place to make your complaint. Without scouring very hard at all, you see Steyn's Credibility Is Melting is most read article at Macleans at the moment.
You are also complaining about prorogue issue on a thread that has nothing to do with proroguing. Wells, and a couple of others, are covering a topic that is not generally covered in msm and it has nothing to do with horse race/ who's up, who's down coverage we get elsewhere in msm.
While I agree that msm is not reporting global warming issues very well, this is wrong place to make your complaint. Without scouring very hard at all, you see Steyn's Credibility Is Melting is most read article at Macleans at the moment.
You are also complaining about prorogue issue on a thread that has nothing to do with proroguing. Wells, and a couple of others, are covering a topic that is not generally covered in msm and it has nothing to do with horse race/ who's up, who's down coverage we get elsewhere in msm.
I covered this ground before, but my point is directly related to this post. True I chose not to go down the road the author wishes me to go down, but rather used the point for the purposes of juxtaposition. If folks don't want to read it, they don't have to. If they disagree, that's great.
But comment control with the purpose of pointing the discussion in one direction seems unseemly. More concerning is the fact that the myriad of random Harper bashing statements (or other "correct" topics) complete with links to alternate articles that have nothing to do with main post, not only are not rebuked, they freely form the substance of lively (sometimes piling-on) discussions on this blog. Though perhaps that point is always "on topic" here at Macleans blog.
Finally, Paul Wells is a good author to address the point to, given his lengthy article some time ago on Wente and the media rebuke she recieved from the pack on her stance on the Afghan detainee issue.
I agree that the subject of your first post was way off-topic and I can't see why you posted it.
I'll also note that in addition to Maclean's coverage, Climate-gate, it's origins and aftershocks have been the subject of numerous articles in the Guardian this week.
That was Christie Blatchford, not Wente, that I wrote about. But that was such a good try, by your standards.
Yes, my apologies. Query whether Wente will now suffer the same fate. Not sure what standards, or lack thereof you're referring to. As a non-profesional, non journalist regular joe who simply offers up thoughts, I'm not sure what 'standard' there is.
As for the SUBSTANCE of my point, as usual folks seem reluctant to go near it, content instead to hurl subtle or not-so-subtle insults or ortherwise demand that the point not be made.
Back to the standards point, one would think that "professional" journalists who have headlined AGW on countless occaisions, overtly declaring the settledness of the subject, may be somehow obliged to revisit the subject, at a minimum to correct the record, or better yet…to provide some semblance of balance.
Yes, yes, we must be careful to apply rigourous standards to blog post comment boards.
Matas is my new hero!
Anyone who takes Siddiqui and Broadbent to the woodshed is, even if he is a Liberal, someone I have a lot of time for.
[polldaddy 2658340 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2658340/ polldaddy]
heh
Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?
My palindrome is bigger than yours ;)
Easy tiger. The important thing is to have a palindrome that grows to full size when the need arises. As it were. If you will. Which we all hope you won't, at least not in public.
A man, a plan, a canal, Panama!
LOL! But not to worry. I am a conscientious Canadian and I always
Rise to vote, sir
Dear Jack. Wonderful man!
Can you provide me with a link to that template…..
Thanks, Wabbit! To create it, I just hit "Add poll," at the top right of the text area we comment in; the direct link is http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2658340/ .
Was it you who did that mocking sonnet/poem (I don't know the difference) on my blogging style awhile back? I think it was. That was bloody good, almost spit my soup out of my nose
Thanks! I think I was just reading your comment and noticing that it was mainly in iambic rhythm (weak STRONG weak STRONG etc.) and just tweaked it here and there to make it work. You know I am a student of your oeuvre.
My apologies biff, I meant to thumb you up and thumbed down by mistake….. I can't help but think I phrased that poorly……… :)
Wait, are you not a troll, then?
Assuming that you yourself selected one of the pledge options, you've already broken your own pledge, for I've seen you reply to a troll on this page, and I don't mean biff.
Look, I've kept down to four my list of commenters here whose typings I simply vote down without even reading. That in itself I consider Herculean, and it's cruel of you to ask more of me.
So Matas is basically saying "Nothing to see here folks! Move along now!" Didn't work too well for Prorogation II, did it? Nor for the Harper government coverup of detainee torture.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Al Haq, Al Mezan and B'Tselem have gained a reputation for their method of operation – develop a theory first, in their case Israel is to blame and then twist or invent the facts to fit the theory."
Next up – Matas will argue that Operation Cast Lead was a military "incursion" for defensive purposes.
But, thank you for the full disclosure Mr. Matas. That fact that you are a 3 time failed candidate gives one hope that the Canadian electorate do make wise choices from time to time.
It is not surprising that a lawyer would put forth the motion to "repudiate" grants to one Israeli and two Palestinian NGO groups that had the temerity to be critical of Israel. But the fact that you are a lawyer for B'nai Brith, one of the most repulsive, racist organizations in Canada, says volumes of the content of your character. Did you have anything to do with this piece of trash?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DfCoy_kQh08/SvimLqkykHI...
I rest my case.
Wow! How naive am i. I've always simply assumed that BB was a straight jewish advocacy organization – is that officially sanctioned?
Yowsa! I swear this wasn't anything like B'nai Brith summer camp ;-)
"Whatever the subject matter of this dispute, one thing was clear. There was no dispute over policy." – Matas
I guess Matas didn't watch Aurel Brown's appearance on Power Play, then. Braun sure had a lot to say about those Palestinian NGOs!
My thoughts exactly.
You know, I'm just wondering who would click thumbs up to a post that's pretty much a three word thumbs up to another post.
A lot of lefties seem to be registered on these boards. Just saying.
"A lot of lefties seem to be registered on these boards. Just saying."
Who talks like that?
I'm not sure. But I WROTE it, and don't quite understand your problem with it.
And now we've got the lefties clicking thumbs down on my posts. I love it! lol
Rational people who are not blind to the obvious. Whatever one thinks of the issue, it is plain to see that there are a number of people rushing to click a thumbs down to anyone who is open to a point of view different from Broadbent and Siddiqui.
If the vote count he's talking about is correct, and even the president himself turned against the policy of donating to these groups, then it wasn't about policy, was it? Everyone was in agreement with Braun that these groups are odious and undeserving of our tax dollars.
And, if that's correct, then it is indeed the Broadbents and Siddiquis that inserted ideology into this after the fact, isn't it?
"And, if that's correct, then it is indeed the Broadbents and Siddiquis that inserted ideology into this after the fact, isn't it?"
Which indeed supports the argument that it is probably NOT correct, since these gentlemen are not idealogues.
Let's see, the former was the leader of the country's left-wing party, the latter is a left-wing columnist. Next.
Have you considered the possibility that some rightwingers might be idealogues and that some leftwinger might not be idealogues?
OK, can someone help me out with math? If Matas says the January 7th vote was 9 in favour, with one abstaining, that's ten people, right? But is this not the same board meeting where two members of the board, Sima Samar and Payam Akhavan, quit and left in disgust? And also the same meeting where Guido Riveros Franck's seat on the board was not extended? Were all thirteen members of the board at the meeting? Siddiqui's '7 to 6' vote would suggest there were 13 board members in attendance. Or was this vote held after Samar and Akhavan left? Because that would leave 11 members in the room. Which still doesn't explain the vote of 9 people with 1 abstention, unless they did not permit Riveros Franck to vote.
So: how many were at the meeting, how many people left the meeting, and was the vote held after those people left? Or were two votes held – one before Samar and Akhavan departed, and one after – which would explain the discrepancy between Siddiqui and Matas's numbers?
I totally missed the fact that one of them has a vote of 13 board members occurring, and the other refers to a vote of 10 board members.
That is weird.
Very interesting…
Very good point. So where's Ezra? Didn't anyone leak him the minutes of the meeting yet?
So, let me see. Matas, a lawyer and a recipient of the Order of Canada, was in the room, voted and says one figure. But Siddiqi was not there, and yet says another. Uhhhh. I wonder which of the two a sane person would be more inclined to believe? What a great dilemma!
Perhaps there were more than vote, perhaps Siddqi spke to someone else who was there…nothing in this farce is very clear at all.
Sima Samar, a doctor, internationally renowned human rights campaigner and ALSO a recipient of the Order of Canada, was ALSO in the room and was one of Siddiqui's sources (read his columns). So, as a sane person myself, I'm inclined to believe that you did not answer my question. Thanks for trying, though.
While the media obsesses over the squabbles of this particular board of directors, I try to bear in mind that boards are not above the law and that this writer’s lobbying about process could signal that a legal review of this board’s actions is needed.
Forget it Matas. Don't believe you for a minute. Your liberal attachments a 100 years ago mean nothing. A lot may have happened to change your colours in that time period that are not being revealed here. The majority of Canadians want our style to remain as it was in the past, looking fairly at both sides of the situation. What I truly don't understand is why after so many centuries of brutal persecution suffered by the Jews around the world, why do they now relish the role of persecutor?
That's unfair hyperbole. Just as those who wrongly equate criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism are disingenuous, so is your "Jews relish the role of persecutor now" rhetoric. It this kind of stuff that gives the likes of Braun (or federal Tories for that matter) fuel for his hyper-partisan fire. You may want to rephrase what you've typed there.
"You may want to rephrase what you've typed there. "
Just change "Jews" to "Indigenous People" or something like that, sprite 1949 and no one will notice or care.
No, I stand by what I say. There are, as well, many Jewish people who abhor what the Israeli government is doing. The inability to resolve the issues has long gone past being absurd. Just how much blood on both sides must be shed before a compromise can be found? When will justice and compassion be victor over power and politics?
The fact that you've now distinguished between "Jewish people" and "the Israeli government" illustrates the first point that there is a difference. That difference is important both in combating anti-Semitism and working toward peace.
It is clear now that 'the new anti-semitism' is precisely this equating of criticism of Israel with 'anti-semitism'.
Witness KAIROS.
Exactly right and to the point.
I'll second DP's correction.
Could Mr. Matas explain the resignation of the two board members and the firing of a third, and the depictable treatment by the current Board of Mr Beauregard and the three managers now suspended. Mr Matas could be a liberal, however, his first allegiance is for the B'nai Brith agenda of suppressing any critic of the Israeli actions.
I'll admit to be a little confused. I thought i was following fairly closely – obviously not. I had no idea Beauregard supported a vote to repudiate those funds. Frankly it makes no sense, given his problems with the board. Hopefully PW can help to throw a little more light on this.
The rather sketchy version as it was put to me, three long weeks ago, was that in the end, Beauregard was saying, essentially, "All right, the mess this has created has not been worth any benefit the three $10,000 grants could have caused. It wasn't worth it and I wouldn't do it again." That's obviously not a direct quote; it's my attempt to sum up his thinking as it was explained to me by his colleagues. His vote to repudiate the grants would be consistent with this. Bear in mind the months that separated the grants from the repudiation, and the long string of events (chronicled in my first print column about this mess) that took place during those months.
Thanks Paul. I see that does not translate into Beauregard supported the vote, so what's all the fuss about anyway. Context is something Matas and others are fairly selective with.
.http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomm...
It seems i wasn't paying attention though…this only took a minute to find. Again pretty selective context.
Absolutely. What I want to know is why Mr. Matas felt the need to make the motion. I will accept that he thought it up all by himself–but why? As he says, the money had long been spent and, since the debate over policy had been settled, presumably they wouldn't be giving any more to those three organizations. So why, when you;ve already won the battle, do you need to humiliate all of the still-serving board members that voted to fund these groups? Am I missing something?
Maybe Matas was trying to get Braun to shut up about these three small grants and move on to more appropriate business for a Director? Micro-managing past grants particularly in the apparently aggressive way Braun has, must have sucked a lot of life out of board meetings.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Al Haq, Al Mezan and B’Tselem have gained a reputation for their method of operation – develop a theory first, in their case “Israel is to blame” and then twist or invent the facts to fit the theory"
Matas seems to be saying i can't be biased i'm a liberal – then we come to this! He's entitled to believe whatever he wants. But i suspect this view is shared by every new board member, which does rather undermine his arguement th govt wasn't stacking the board. Frankly i find Braun more honest, he at least makes no pretense at being objective or non-partisan. Surely this is the nub of the problem for the objecting board members and staffers…these guys are projecting their bias into R&D ; a view they clearly don't share, not withstanding this 9-1 vote. And that may be just fine if it's open the process is legit…but let's stop with the attempt at objectivity Mr Matas.
I guess the Geuzenpenning doesn't agree with Matas or Braun either.
AL Haq and B'TSelem we're both awarded this "Dutch award given to persons or organizations who have fought for democracy and against dictatorship, racism and discrimination" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geuzenpenning) only months ago.
Other individuals and organisations who have won the award (and hence, one assumes, have some similarity in "method of operation"):
Vaclev Havel
Anne Frank Foundation
Human Rights Watch
Amnesty International
Not bad company.
Same story: criticise Israel, for anything, and, even if you're Jewish, you'll be labeled anti-Semitic.
This kind of rubbish *creates* anti-Semitism!
"Where there is agreement in substance, there is no foundation for a debate over process"
I just witnessed one of these. Having done so, what a ridiculous statement!
For example, we can agree in substance that overly polluting cars shouldn't be allowed on our streets. Now tell me, is absolutely everyone fine with the process of the DriveClean program?
(That wasn't what our process debate was about, BTW)
Well, he's already had a chance to respond after Matas corrected him in private. So, I think it will be interesting to see if Siddiqui responds after being publicly called on it.
Furthermore, I'm sure there are other ways of finding out what the specific vote count was, if it hasn't been done already.
I'll also note that you already came pretty close to calling Matas an unabashed liar, while not doing the same for Siddiqui.
Can't one lie in a completely civilized manner, yet tell the truth like a brute?
I'm deliberately not calling Matas a liar: I'm just saying that he's really ratcheting up the stakes and the facts should be known first and will be decisive when they are.
Siddiqui was not a witness to goings on within the organisation; he's reporting what others tell him. If he has gone with a version of events that contradicts Matas's, that doesn't make him a liar, though if it turns out Matas is correct it does seem that whoever has been informing Siddiqui has been lying.
Perhaps it depends on the civilisation? In ours, lying is forbidden, or used to be.
Crystal meth destroys lives.
I think people who adhere to one wing or another are generally ideologues.
However, it's been my experience — and you're proving it on here again — that ideologues on the left pretend to be otherwise.
Nevertheless, regardless of Broadbent's or Siddiqui's political background, nothing disqualifies them from inserting ideology or partisanship into this specific incident. Although Broadbent's certainly has a partisan background, and Siddiqui's writings certainly reveal an ideological one.
Indeed, I think both men have been hollering and screaming about ideology and partisanship in this case – all in defence of some groups that appear to be undeserving of our tax dollars, too.
It's been my experience here that you call people idealogues because you disagree with them and not because you know whether or not they are idealogues, since you do not appear to understand what the word 'idealogue' means.
How can any civilization forbid lying? Anyhow, I think your definition of civilized is off.
One can still lie even if not a direct witness to events. And, in effect, that's what Matas' accusation against Siddiqui seems to be; that he deliberately falsified the vote count.
Just found it curious that you were quick to put one in the possible liar category, but not the other.
But ideology has nothing to do with any of this, does it.
You tell me, Dennis. If you want to think Siddiqui would have full possession of the facts and still deliberately lie about Matas's claims, you go right ahead with that little conspiracy theory.
It's too embarrassing to try and explain to an adult why lying is wrong.
Not according to Liberal received wisdom, which says that meth – or was it coke? I forget which – is part of a healthy lifestyle and that its manufacturers should receive tax credits instead of jail sentences. Remind me which party Rebagliatti is running for again?
Getting back to my original question, its been public knowledge for at least 4 decades that Bnai Brith, of which your Liberal pal Matas is cousel, has been, with the CJC, unquestionably the most anti-free speech organization in Canada.
So again, I ask: what exactly is the problem with Matas? You seemed to like him fine when he was advocating a system which imprisons Canadians for 9 months at a time for criticizing "multiculturalism" (which the presiding judge, who is now in charge of the CRTC as it happens, took as a code word for Jews) on the internet, as happened in R. vs. Winnicki.
He hates freedom – literally, and seriously – and is a Liberal; isn't that what you look for in your patronage appointments?
I just find it curious that you find Matas capable of such, but not Siddiqui. Interesting.
They do that a lot, believe me.
No, but slyly insinuating them is so much fun,apparently.
Well, one's a journalist and the other is a publicist. Siddiqui's job depends on his reputation; a publicist has no reputation, all he does is manage his client's.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else, namely everybody you don't like all at once. I don't have the training, and you don't have the money, for extensive public psychotherapy, so let's just call it even.
Why do you keep on misspelling a word that is spelled correctly by Dennis for you, then to top it off you actually claim he does not know the meaning of a word you are unable to spell?
It's fine to be an ideologue, I just with they would pay for it out of their own pockets….not mine.
From a "professional" journalist, albeit one of the "disappeared" …
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%...
Wente generally gets the treatment she deserves; eyerolling and indifference to her ill-informed opinions.
Ah yes, but let's not forget that your rights as a Canadian are subject to the whims of the Supreme Court.
"Do nine men interpret?" "Nine men," I nod..
Thanks Sis. Always a fan of Dyers…i still believe his series "War" was the most interesting and original contribution around at the time.
The Supreme Court? They are but a clowder of
senile felines
borne of the partisan will to
stack cats
Well, if a PM manages to achieve it the proper Canadian response is
Here so long? No loser, eh?
Truly. Once riled, Canadians will suffer
no lemon, no melon
Eh, Canada had an ache?
Lonely Tylenol?
Go hang a salami – I'm a lasagna hog!
…no wait, that's not right….
I concede the top spot to you.
Hello!!!…..it's HAROON SIDDIQUI.
The kind of people that take him and the STAR seriously, are the same types who think George Bush and the Mossad are behind 911.
So you categorically dismiss long-standing Star journalist Haroon Siddiqui on the basis, not that he believes Mossad planned Sept 11th, but on the basis that people who read his column believe Sept 11th was an inside job.
I agree. I hope you are consistent in your logic and refuse to take the right seriously on foreign policy. Evidence of their incompetent thinking is even more tangible than with Siddiqui. The line is direct. Actual, prominent right wingers, including many politicians and prominent journalists thought invading Iraq was a good idea. Not just their readership.
Even Canadian right-wingers bought this crap. Remember the pro-Bush protests in Calgary?
The right-wing actively and loudly supported the worst strategic blunder in US history, an obvious one at that – so when it comes to foreign affairs they should be ignored.
Is not Mark Steyn one of the most read right-wing journalists?
If you can dismiss Siddiqui on the basis of his readership you must be equally able to dismiss the entire right wing because of the failure of its ideas.
Because Canadians should be seen not heard.
Just get back to hauling water and cutting wood. We humble people shouldn't worry about the problems of the big grand world.
well done to you both!