Email Exchange Between CBC and Public Safety Department Spokesperson on BDS Prosecutions

Please break the story of kathy Schaumburg whom is an American Ciizen living in cental Switzerland. Please ask around & help. Lets not let another innocent civillian be attacked by us government cyber hscking. By the way, did I mention they are researching my oen mind#nsa#nasa#usgovernment. Project lapse one decade and counting. I am afraid, please help. Most Sincerely, Kathy Aileen Schaumburg DOB May 24, 1969

This is of a piece with the Harper government’s ongoing persecution of Omar Khadr, their warmongering, their rewriting of our history to emphasize militarism, etc. etc. A vile and malevolent dictatorship in what was a flawed but often admired country. Thank you for keeping this in the public’s view. Harper might get in again and another few years and our country will be done in entirely.

What is vile is that my tax dollars pay for Neil’s salary. That is a hate-crime against tax-payers.

In 2003 ‘O Canada’ sailed full steam into The Yehuda Triangle
(New York – London – Tel Aviv)
and out sailed Zio-America Jr.

So, the method of protest exalted by famed non-violence activists such as Dr. King, and Gandhi, is now deemed an act of hatred. What of sanctions and embargo? Oh wait…. we don’t do that to Israel.

I am a Canadian Crown Prosecutor. None of the cited Criminal Code provisions would come close to touching a BDS advocate in particular, or one critical of Israel in general. Besides not having a reasonable likelihood of conviction, it is obviously not in the public interest to punish such dissent. Harper’s credibility in the criminal law world was never particularly strong, and his public support is in terminal decline; his party’s recent drubbing in the Alberta Provincial Elections suggest that this type of gerrymandering won’t continue in the near future.

Our government thinks it hateful if we control (or advocate) how our money is spent based on political concerns.

They can start by rounding up Harper’s cabinet, then. They’ve levied staunch sanctions and rhetoric against Russia – by the logic being applied to BDS, this must be blatant Russophic discrimination.

The charge of “anti-semitism” and general reluctance to even use the word “Jew” are both part of an effort to control criticism of Israel and, frankly, Jewish power. Not only will the Lobby control legislators at least concerning Israel but they will see to it that any assault on that control is itself disallowed and criminal. The last thing the Lobby wants is for Canadians to understand (1) Jews have oppressed and devastated another people for one hundred years and (2) Jews control much of the government and opinion setting in the country. Criminalizing boycotts of Israel — when the World Jewish Congress used such boycott against “Germans” in 1933 — is the most egregious and forthright display of such power. This is good because the public can see how control is effected, who is doing it, and can begin to question the Palestine narrative provided by that same power over the past 70 years at least. Truth be told — anyone parading around as an acknowledged “Zionist” should be jailed for the long string of real crimes committed by his group.

So no explanation of what “zero tolerance” means?

Boycotting Israel is a Hate Speech? How about asking for sanctions instead?

Would they say the same about Boycotting Russia?

Sounds like the Harper BDS fatwa has gone awry, Glenn.

Q: Why isn’t the priminister and his posse in jail because they promote hatred of Muslims all the time.

A: The Suprem Court drastically curbed the power of the hate speech laws. See here.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

But it isn’t like harper doesn’t have people who support his opinions and policies.
http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2012/08/08/the-day-canadas-white-supremacists-saluted-stephen-harper/

FWIW, empirically, CBC will pull comments that differ too far from “legitimate opinion” on Israel:

Friday 8 May 2015 I replied (truncated to fit comment-length constraints) to http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-enright-files-israeli-palestinian-relations-1.3059790 regarding an interview by Michael Enright (who I usually find reasonable) of Ari Shavit (who I don’t) as follows (hope this renders correctly):

> Enright and Shavit are correct regarding [the need for] a Palestinian Mandela (~26 min into the audio[1]), though not as they imagine.

> The ANC pursued nonviolent protest (à la Tolstoy and Gandhi) for its first 50 years, but was efficiently and brutally suppressed by the Afrikaner apartheid regime. After the 1960 Sharpeville massacre, Nelson Mandela (et al) founded the ANC’s military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK)[2]. The following 30 years of armed struggle–sabotage, terrorism, and regional war (with the important assistance of the Soviets, Vietnamese, and especially Cubans)–forced the apartheid regime to sue for peace, despite the military assistance of its Israeli allies[3]. Listeners with an interest in social change generally and South African apartheid [specifically] should listen to Gillian Slovo’s 5 May 2015 LSE lecture[4] regarding these facts.

> Contra Enright, Shavit, and (I suspect) Levy, the Jewish people have no more right to a state than do the Afrikaners, Kurds, Pashtun, or many other stateless nations. Much less did European powers have the right to repay the Jewish people for centuries of European oppression of Jews (culminating in the Holocaust) by giving them Palestinian land. Palestinians do indeed need a new Mandela to overthrow Israeli apartheid[5] and create a single, democratic state in Palestine, “from the river to the sea.”

> [1]: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/ideas_20150504_56711.mp3
> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe , http://www.anc.org.za/themes.php?t=Umkhonto%20we%20Sizwe
> [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93South_Africa_relations
> [4]: http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=3062
> [5]: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/6/after_palestine_overcomes_us_israeli_pressure

My comment was visible as given for a few hours. Later, it was visible with a red rectangle containing text like (from memory) “Content is disabled” above it. However it is currently gone from that page. It may be available somehow from viafoura.com (which, IIUC, manages CBC comments) but that’s just my speculation.

Calling for a boycott is not necessarily an act of hate. I’m a very literal person and I expect laws to be interpreted in the most literal way possible. People can choose to and encourage others to boycott an organization in an effort to change the behavior of that organization but in doing so it doesn’t necessarily indicate that anyone hates anyone. It would seem that none of the statutes listed in the article apply. The only fear is that the authorities will invent a new and wider definition of hate. As a separate issue the whole idea of hate crimes is ridiculous but like so much other legislation being ridiculous is not a barrier to enactment.

The judges are still pretty independent in Canada. Harper and Blaney and the so-called Conservative government would be hard-pressed to find one who would actually convict someone of hate speech for merely advocating a boycott of Israel or Israeli business. They would require something closer to incitement of violence toward an identifiable group (listed in the charter of rights). To be sure, religion is included in that list, but the Israeli state is not a religion, nor is Israeli business. The judges can tell the difference, although many so-called Conservatives seem incapable of it.

On the other hand, these people are quite adept at harassment, vilification, and creating a chill. That’s what it’s all about…making people afraid to speak up.

If one votes a legislator out of office because the voter hates the legislators religious bias that would be a hate crime………

This story well illustrates the folly of “hate speech” laws. What constitutes “hate speech” all depends on what political faction is in power. From my perspective, groups that want to wipe Israel off the map, like the BDS groups, are the personification of hate speech. On the other hand, some people think that calling rioters, looters and arsonists “thugs” is hate speech. As they say, your mileage may vary. That’s why free speech protections admit of no exceptions for so-called “hate speech.”

shocking to see how the zio mafia has brought the canadian federal government under their discipline.

First, israheili intel is running a worldwide propaganda op with
its agents planting stories about “rising tide of anti semitism”. but
it is all a lie, just propaganda designed to get sympathy for the “poor
jews, i.e. zionist thugs” who are committing mass murder in gaza. Just google: rising
tide of anti semitism…………you can see the operation for yourself.

Second, see the link below for an example of the zio mafia trying to turn legitimate ciritism of israheil into a crime. under their definition saying “that sure was horrible of israheil to mass kill all those kids last summer” or “israheil killng all those kids in gaza reminded me of the warsaw ghetto” would be hate speech and therefore a crime.

,
http://www.amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CNES-Report.pdf

Take it from me, a Canadian: Harper is indeed up to his armpits in Islamophobia. He is a Christian Zionist, and his party (christian and non-christian) backs him on this ideology — and not only his party but the Liberals and NDP are also in support.

Fact is, the Israel lobby in Canada, which didn’t exist in any influential form until Harper came to power, has shriveled the genitals of every parliamentarian except Green Party leader Elizabeth May that it can actually get away with demanding and getting legislation grounded in “the new antisemitism” — even though in every other civilized nation “the new antisemitism” was discredited a few years ago.

wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code). “Identifiable group” includes any section of the public distinguished by, among other characteristics, religion or national or ethnic origin.

The way this could be interpreted is incredibly broad. Under these laws a substantial portion of ordinary political speech in the US would be deemed “hate speech.” Consider, for example, calling black demonstrators “thugs”, or the way immigrants are talked about, not to mention Muslims generally.