NATIONAL POST SLAMS BNAI BRITH'S ANNUAL AUDIT OF ANTI-SEMITIC INCIDENTS AS BOGUS SCI

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 01 March 2010 07:22

*National Post Slams Bnai Brith's Annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents as Bogus Science* For years, CAFE has criticized the press's gullability when each Spring the League for Human Rights of B'nai publishes its Annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents. It's always the same, anti[-Semitism is burning across the land. The Nazis are back. Anti[-Semitism is rising. Always crying wolf. It doesn't matter that Stephen Harper might just as well be the Honnourable Member from Tel Aviv. He's just announced that "anb attack on Israel is an attack on Canada." He is a complete Israel-Firster. Nevertheless, to hear B'nai Brith, anti-Semitism is soaring. And they have the statistics to prove it. Or do they? Their "statistics" are scientifically worthless. An |"anti-Semitic" incident includes everything from a broken window or firebomb at a synagogue (very rare) to a bit of grafitti on a wall or a posting critical of Israel on the Internet. It's encouraging to see, after 15 years of our criticism, of B'nai Brith's dodgy "audit" that the National Post has finally caught on and is auditing the auditors. Paul Fromm Director Canadian Association for Free Expression One size doesn't fit all National Post Published: Thursday, February 25, 2010 Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2609507 The greatest flaw in B'nai Brith's annual audit of alleged anti-Semitic attacks on Canadian Jews and Jewish institutions is that it lumps the entirely trivial in with the truly appalling. An Internet blog posting blaming Jews for the H1N1 pandemic, for instance, is given equal importance alongside repeated death threats made to a rabbi. An 11-year-old boy "caught passing anti-Semitic notes at school" is seen as on a par with a man who pulled a knife on a Jewish father and his son while hurling racist epithets at them. This fact alone makes B'nai Brith's final tally -- 1,264 anti-Semitic "incidents" in 2009 -- largely meaningless. This newspaper alone gets dozens of hateful spam emails from random bigots every week. That sort of thing is inevitable in a country of more than 30 million people. If we were to "report" all of these episodes to B'nai Brith, the organization's tally could easily double, or even triple. But that wouldn't mean that anti-Semitic hatred "is on the rise," as the group claims every year. If B'nai Brith wants Canadians to appreciate the importance of the information in its 28-year-old census of anti-Jewish attacks, it has to stop using this one-size-fits-all approach, and begin highlighting the relatively small number of truly alarming assaults. Raising the hue and cry over the desecration of a cemetery is sensible. Raising the hue and cry because adolescent classmates haze each other with juvenile religious taunts is not. Jews themselves often speak of one another in terms that closely resemble anti-Semitism. The radical left-wing activists at the Toronto-based group "Independent Jewish Voices," for instance, have promoted blood libels against Israeli troops that resemble the worst species of anti-Semitic Palestinian propaganda. Should those episodes be included in B'nai Brith's report, too? Like a lot of groups, B'nai Brith spends a lot of ink promoting itself and seeking donations. In this spirit, it boasts that Statistics Canada and other "authoritative sources around the world" view its audit as "the single most credible study of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism and patterns of prejudice in Canada." But as with any victimization study, no matter how "authoritative," it is based on self-reported incidents. B'nai Brith says its statistics show "a more than fivefold increase in [anti-Semitic] incidents over the past decade." What it really shows is a fivefold increase in the number of people willing to call B'nai Brith about their bad experiences --in large part thanks to the group's own heavy investment in its own brand: As annual audits such as this become better known, they will attract more and more callers, driving up the statistics even if no more episodes take place than in the previous year. Similarly, the number of hate speech complaints observed likely reflects a technological expansion of the number of places hateful speech can be uttered. Five years ago, few Canadians used Facebook. Now, millions do. A single anti-Semitic status update from a single bigot can attract dozens of follow-up responses. Every one of them counts as an anti-Semitic "episode" according to B'nai Brith's dilatory calculus. It is true that violence in the Middle East has led to an increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric in some contexts, particularly on Canadian campuses. But B'nai Brith's claim that anti-Semitism in this country is a widespread and rising problem flies in the face of reality. This is probably the least anti-Semitic country in the entire world -- including Israel -- and it becomes more tolerant, not less, with every passing year. B'nai Brith does all sorts of fine work. But its survey of anti-Semitic incidents shouldn't blindly group all attacks together, regardless of their severity. Instead of scaring Jews into thinking that they are living in a state of anti-Semitic siege, B'nai Brith should update its mandate and methods to reflect the tolerant Canadian reality.

 

A NEW APPROACH TO THE INDIAN QUESTION

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 27 February 2010 09:51

[image: cid:83FB06A5-AA38-4C55-BD20-C5E0284D82AA] *Chief Clarence Louie Osoyoos BC speaking in Northern Alberta :* ** ** A NEW APPROACH TO THE INDIAN QUESTION Speaking to a large aboriginal conference and some of the attendees, including a few who hold high office, have straggled in. *'I can't stand people who are late, he says into the microphone. Indian Time doesn't cut it. '* *Some giggle, but no one is quite sure how far he is going to go. Just sit back and listen:* * * *'My first rule for success is Show up on time.'* *'My No. 2 rule for success is follow Rule No. 1.'* *'If your life sucks, it's because you suck.'* *'Quit your sniffling.'* *'Join the real world. Go to school, or get a job.'* *'Get off of welfare. Get off your butt.'* *He pauses, seeming to gauge whether he dare, then does.* *'People often say to me, How you doin'? Geez I'm working with Indians what do you think?'* *Now they are openly laughing ... applauding. Clarence Louie is everything that was advertised and more.* *'Our ancestors worked for a living, he says. So should you.'* *He is, fortunately, aboriginal himself. If someone else stood up and said these things - the white columnist standing there with his mouth open, for example - you'd be seen as a racist. Instead, Chief Clarence Louie is seen, increasingly, as one of the most interesting and innovative native leaders in the country even though he avoids national politics.* *He has come here to Fort McMurray because the aboriginal community needs, desperately, to start talking about economic development and what all this multibillion-dollar oil madness might mean, for good and for bad.* *Clarence Louie is chief and CEO of the Osoyoos Band in British Columbia's South Okanagan. He is 44 years old, though he looks like he would have been an infant when he began his remarkable 20-year-run as chief. He took a band that had been declared bankrupt and taken over by Indian Affairs and he has turned in into an inspiration.* *In 2000, the band set a goal of becoming self-sufficient in five years. They're there.* *The Osoyoos, 332 strong, own, among other things, a vineyard, a winery, a golf course and a tourist resort, and they are partners in the Baldy Mountain ski development. They have more businesses per capita than any other first nation in Canada .* *There are not only enough jobs for everyone, there are so many jobs being created that there are now members of 13 other tribal communities working for the Osoyoos. The little band contributes $40-million a year to the area economy.* *Chief Louie is tough. He is as proud of the fact that his band fires its own people as well as hires them. He has his mottos posted throughout the Rez. He believes there is no such thing as consensus, that there will always be those who disagree. And, he says, he is milquetoast compared to his own mother when it comes to how today's lazy aboriginal youth, almost exclusively male, should be dealt with.* *Rent a plane, she told him, and fly them all to Iraq . Dump 'em off and all the ones who make it back are keepers. Right on, Mom.* *The message he has brought here to the Chipewyan, Dene and Cree who live around the oil sands is equally direct: 'Get involved, create jobs and meaningful jobs, not just window dressing for the oil companies.'* *'The biggest employer,' he says, 'shouldn't be the band office.'* *He also says the time has come to get over it. 'No more whining about 100-year-old failed experiments.' 'No foolishly looking to the Queen to protect rights.'* *Louie says aboriginals here and along the Mackenzie Valley should not look at any sharing in development as rocking-chair money but as investment opportunity to create sustainable businesses. He wants them to move beyond entry-level jobs to real jobs they earn all the way to the boardrooms. He wants to see business manners develop: showing up on time, working extra hours. The business lunch, he says, should be drive through, and then right back at it.* *'You're going to lose your language and culture faster in poverty than you will in economic development', he says to those who say he is ignoring tradition.* *Tough talk, at times shocking talk given the audience, but on this day in this community, they took it and, judging by the response, they loved it.* *Eighty per cent like what I have to say, Louie says, twenty per cent don't. I always say to the 20 per cent, 'Get over it.' 'Chances are you're never going to see me again and I'm never going to see you again.' 'Get some counseling.'* *The first step, he says, is all about leadership. He prides himself on being a stay-home chief who looks after the potholes in his own backyard and wastes no time running around fighting 100-year-old battles.* *'The biggest challenge will be how you treat your own people.'* *'Blaming government? That time is over.'*

 

MARC LEMIRE FILES AT THE FEDERAL COURT TO OPPOSE INTERNET CENSORSHIP BY THE MISNAMED

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 27 February 2010 09:51

*Marc Lemire files at the Federal Court to oppose Internet * *censorship by the misnamed Canadian "Human Rights" Commission* * * *http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/feb23-2010_Lemire_Factum_at_FC.html* Cross-Posted: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/02/marc -lemire-files-at-federal-court-to.html http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/2010/02/marc -lemire-files-at-federal-court-to.html On February 15, 2010, Marc Lemire filed his Memorandum of Fact and Law, which documents the ravenous censorship and corruption of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. *Lemire's Memorandum of Fact and Law<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/motions/20100215-FC_Factum.pdf> * *As filed at the Federal Court of Canada* Summary of Lemire's submissions to the Federal Court: - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal reached the proper decision<http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0>to find Sec. 13 and 54 unconstitutional - The Tribunal made the correct decision to look at “*the real and factual context in which s. 13 existed”.* - The evidence showed beyond doubt that s. 13(1) is not used in a remedial fashion - CHRC shares information with Police (and never informs the victims), which is an infringement on the rights of Canadians - Even the Tribunal doesn’t see Sec. 13 as remedial and routinely makes orders which are “*symbolic*” value as a “*public denunciation*” of the respondent’s actions. This imports the moral condemnation and stigma which *Taylor *believed was absent from human rights legislation. - When the Human Rights Act was established it was directed to telephone hotlines, and Bell Canada received "common carrier" status and thus could not be harassed. Yet in the Internet age, ISPs do not have "common carrier" status and thus are subjected to on-going harassment campaigns and threats of legal action to disconnect customers. · Internet is a democratizing medium which allows public discourse by people who previously had no means to participate meaningfully in public debates or issues. · Newspapers, radio and TV stations and magazines are published on the Internet so that any limitation on freedom of expression on the Internet includes limitations on freedom of the media and the press · By failing to provide the basic defences of fair comment, responsible journalism, truth and lack of intent to s. 13(1), in a communications context where the press and media publish daily, the provision is no longer a reasonable limit on freedom of expression including that of the press. · Failure to provide the defence of Truth makes Section 13 fail meet the proportionality test of section 1 of the *Charter*. · "hate" is subjective and vague. It is a subjective human emotion and has no place in law · So-called "hate" speech does not cause any “psychological distress” or harm in those voluntarily exposed to it on the Internet. · Canada has a general population that deals well with expression, values the right to expression and does not experience the harm that is said to justify s.13(1). Canadians overwhelmingly prefer open debate, not censorship. The National Post did a good summary<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/02/national-post-internet-rendered-hate.html>of Lemire's submissions to the Federal Court<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/motions/20100215-FC_Factum.pdf> . <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_X24iO8Ixh9k/S4NkcoFi1RI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/Z9ZfwrbPhmc/s1600-h/20100222+-+NationalPost+-+Internet+Rendered+hate+law+outdated_Page_1.jpg> <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_X24iO8Ixh9k/S4Nkdiz4bxI/AAAAAAAAAZY/VeTa91K98Oc/s1600-h/20100222+-+NationalPost+-+Internet+Rendered+hate+law+outdated_Page_2.jpg> *[Click to enlarge]* *Background:* In September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was an unconstitutional violation of Canada's Charter of Rights. The Tribunal ruled that: [290] Thus, following the reasoning of Justice Dickson, at 933,one can no longer say that the *absence of intent in s. 13(1)* “raises no problem of minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously upon the s. 2(*b*) freedom of expression so as to make intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and democratic society. On this basis, *I find that the Oakes minimum impairment test has not been satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1 of the Charter*. *c) Conclusions with respect to the claim of infringement on the freedom of expression * [295] For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(*b*) of the *Charter*, and that *this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.* ------------------------------ [279] This question, however, is not what is relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 *Charter *rights are necessarily triggered). *The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in Taylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society*, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the *Charter*. ------------------------------ *V. CONCLUSION * I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the *Act *in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the *AIDS Secrets *article. *However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. *Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see *Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)*, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), *I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him* (see *Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin*, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7). *See full decision [here<http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0> ]* On January 25, 2010, using tax-payers money, the Canadian Human Rights Commission challenged the *Lemire decision<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/09/statement-by-marc-lemire-on-tribunals.html> *, which found that the thought control legislation of the Canadian Human Rights Act was unconstitutional<http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0>and a violation of the Charter guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and thought. [See: *Canadian "Human Rights" Censors file at the Federal Court of Canada to keep their precious censorship <http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan25-2010_chrc_files_factum_at_fc.html>*