Comments on: Rights and Democracy: "There is no foundation for a debate over process"

By: mesmer

mesmer — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:22:49 +0000

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!

By: mesmer

mesmer — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:51:15 +0000

It is clear now that 'the new anti-semitism' is precisely this equating of criticism of Israel with 'anti-semitism'.
Witness KAIROS.

By: s_c_f

s_c_f — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:09:43 +0000

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:59:06 +0000

well done to you both!

By: Canuckistanian

Canuckistanian — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:00:35 +0000

Yowsa! I swear this wasn't anything like B'nai Brith summer camp ;-)

By: Canuckistanian

Canuckistanian — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:51:55 +0000

who did Siddiqui defame in reporting a 7-6 vote?

By: wsam

wsam — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:12:18 +0000

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.

By: wsam

wsam — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:04:42 +0000

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.

By: JamesHalifax

JamesHalifax — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:23:52 +0000

It's fine to be an ideologue, I just with they would pay for it out of their own pockets….not mine.

By: DerekPearce

DerekPearce — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:19:22 +0000

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.

By: JamesHalifax

JamesHalifax — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:17:46 +0000

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.

By: JamesHalifax

JamesHalifax — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:14:17 +0000

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?

By: Bartolomeo

Bartolomeo — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:34:19 +0000

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.

By: sprite1949

sprite1949 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:09:29 +0000

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?

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:38:17 +0000

Go hang a salami – I'm a lasagna hog!

…no wait, that's not right….

I concede the top spot to you.

By: danby

danby — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:26:01 +0000

Lonely Tylenol?

By: Joops

Joops — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:44:47 +0000

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.

By: Style

Style — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:09:50 +0000

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.

By: Anon

Anon — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:13:03 +0000

"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.

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:50:22 +0000

Eh, Canada had an ache?

By: danby

danby — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:24:59 +0000

Truly. Once riled, Canadians will suffer

no lemon, no melon

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:08:50 +0000

Well, if a PM manages to achieve it the proper Canadian response is

Here so long? No loser, eh?

By: Jenn_

Jenn_ — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:57:27 +0000

"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)

By: Jenn_

Jenn_ — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:49:15 +0000

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?

By: danby

danby — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:48:42 +0000

LOL! But not to worry. I am a conscientious Canadian and I always

Rise to vote, sir

By: danby

danby — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:45:21 +0000

The Supreme Court? They are but a clowder of

senile felines

borne of the partisan will to

stack cats

By: kcm

kcm — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:27:38 +0000

Perhaps there were more than vote, perhaps Siddqi spke to someone else who was there…nothing in this farce is very clear at all.

By: kcm

kcm — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:18:30 +0000

Thanks Sis. Always a fan of Dyers…i still believe his series "War" was the most interesting and original contribution around at the time.

By: MDospital

MDospital — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:49:29 +0000

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!

By: PolJunkie

PolJunkie — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:14:35 +0000

"A lot of lefties seem to be registered on these boards. Just saying."

Who talks like that?

By: Holly Stick

Holly Stick — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:32:29 +0000

Wente generally gets the treatment she deserves; eyerolling and indifference to her ill-informed opinions.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:07:59 +0000

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.

By: Inkless

Inkless — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:56:36 +0000

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.

By: Gaunilon

Gaunilon — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:53:44 +0000

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..

By: Toporious Tony

Toporious Tony — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:44:19 +0000

"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.

By: Inkless

Inkless — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:21:40 +0000

That was Christie Blatchford, not Wente, that I wrote about. But that was such a good try, by your standards.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:18:24 +0000

"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.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:03:43 +0000

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.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:59:10 +0000

I'll second DP's correction.

By: SisyphusThis

SisyphusThis — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:25:19 +0000

From a "professional" journalist, albeit one of the "disappeared" ... http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%...

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:16:45 +0000

Wow! How naive am i. I've always simply assumed that BB was a straight jewish advocacy organization – is that officially sanctioned?

By: s_c_f

s_c_f — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:07:10 +0000

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?

By: s_c_f

s_c_f — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:02:08 +0000

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.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:58:20 +0000

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.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:56:14 +0000

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.