“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


This CBC story is recklessly false (updated a record three times)

I like the writer, but this story is a pile of anti-Israel horseshit.

In particular:

  • Contrary to what this polemic suggests, ethnic origin was long part of the Criminal Code provision. A big factual error.
  • Supporters of anti-Israel efforts are given lots of space to say whatever the Hell they want. The other side isn’t.
  • The story simply does not back up the shocker of a headline, that the federal government is “threatening” critics of Israel with criminal charges.  The screed is loaded with phrases and words like “could,” “would be,” “if,” “appears,” and so on.  There is no proof, anywhere, that Ottawa has charged a single person or group.
  • And that raises another factual error: to prosecute a hate crime, you first need the approval of the provincial Attorney General – not “Ottawa.”
  • That’s not all.  The CBC piece even alleges that groups and individuals are under illegal surveillance, without offering an iota of proof.

And so on, and so on.

I’m no fan of the leadership of the lead lobbyists for the Canada-Israel cause, to say the least.  They – and their top lobbyist in particular – have alienated many life-long supporters of Israel, like me. I dislike him intensely.

But this CBC tale is unfair and inaccurate, and the CBC should acknowledge as much.

UPDATE: The CBC’s online editor declared I was “wrong” about all of this on Twitter. Then HuffPo let us know that CBC is quietly changing the headline on the story. I should have made a screen cap before CBC disappeared the headline!

UPDATER: And get this – the reporter wasn’t even sourcing Blaney, but some junior departmental spox!

UPDATEST: And look what was still over on NNW! The totally-bogus, totally-inaccurate original headline!

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 3.07.44 PM



39 Responses to “This CBC story is recklessly false (updated a record three times)”

  1. Michael says:

    CBC is clearly exposing its bias. They should remove this false story immediately and apologize for it.

  2. P Brennan says:

    wow ..more quality journalism…

  3. Lance says:

    This is one more nail in the coffin for the CBC. And there have been lots of nails.

    Why would Harper and his most right-wing supporters ever need to actively work now to get rid of the CBC if that is what they want? They are putting themselves out of business.

    • Liam Young says:

      Lance: please remember that the CBC is run by Con stooges who are there for the specific reason of alienating Canadians from the concept of public broadcasting.

  4. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Sell the POS for a buck to Fox News, and put them out of Canadians’ misery once and for all.

    …not to mention saving taxpayers about $30 billion over the next two decades.

  5. doconnor says:

    “Contrary to what this polemic suggests, ethnic origin was long part of the Criminal Code. A big factual error.”

    The article is specially talks about how national origin was added, not ethnic. Since they want to boycott the country of Israel, rather then Jews as defined by ethnicity or religion, it applies.

    “Supporters of anti-Israel efforts are given lots of space to say whatever the Hell they want. The other side isn’t.”

    The other side is the government and their statement is described (which is unusual since the government rarely answers questions it doesn’t like).

    “And that raises another factual error: to prosecute a hate crime, you first need the approval of the provincial Attorney General – not ‘Ottawa.'”

    It specially says, “While the federal government certainly has the authority to assign priorities, such as pursuing certain types of hate speech, to the RCMP, any resulting prosecution would require an assent from a provincial attorney general.” They claim the RCMP is expected to investigate this, but the provincial attorney general still has to approve of charges (which they probably won’t). Just the investigation is often enough to repress their advocacy.

    “That’s not all. The CBC piece even alleges that groups and individuals are under illegal surveillance, without offering an iota of proof.”

    It doesn’t say illegal surveillance. Known the police they probably have observers attending meetings and having undercover operatives trying in infiltrate the organization.

    • sezme says:

      On that last point: “The CBC piece even alleges that groups and individuals are under illegal surveillance, without offering an iota of proof.”

      Actually it quotes one man stating he believes that his group is under surveillance. I don’t see how the CBC alleges that.

      But in any case, did Blaney’s aide not say what she’s quoted as saying? Because to me that pretty much proves the headline of the piece, as long as they weren’t quoting her out of context.

      The point of the piece is not to debate the merits of Israel’s various policies, it’s only to point out that supporters of the Boycott Israel movement are being in some way threatened. How that makes the piece anti-Israel horseshit completely escapes me. I mean, if a group wanted to boycott Spain for some reason and the Canadian government threatened them, I’d care more about the threat of prosecution than that the article gave supporters of Spain a chance to defend themselves.

    • MC says:

      Actually, Warren’s link to the Criminal Code is out of date. Today, it includes both national and ethnic origin. See, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-160.html#h-92

      But this is not evidence of a pro-Israel conspiracy.

      The Canadian Bill of Rights also expressly mentions “national origin” as a protected ground against discrimination. The Canadian Human Rights Code defends against discrimination on grounds of both “national or ethnic origin.” It is not unusual, inordinate or improper for “national origin” to be a protected ground in relation to hate crimes under the Criminal Code.

  6. […] at 10:00 on May 11, 2015 by bigcitylib WK thinks its bullshit, and he’s mostly right.  It would be really, really difficult to use CDN hate-speech laws to go after the BDS […]

  7. bigcitylib says:

    Soemthing very odd about the story, true. But note the comments by J.Sirois. It does look like the gov intent is to deal with BDS movment via hate speech laws.

  8. davie says:

    This looks like a follow up to that extra parliamentary committee a couple of years ago, something Cotler and Kenney cobbled together. It looked to me that MP’s flocked to it like US Congress Reps to a Netanyahu speech. That committee came up with the real horse shit here of claiming that criticism of Israel is ‘The New Anti Semitism.’ Our government, prime minister included, have been to Israel to make tax payer funded deals to help Israel’s economy off set any BDS effects. Canadian tax payers have picked up the tab on countering what civil society in Canada has been attempting.
    It was only a matter of time before this clutch of politicians forced together their supremacist biases with the criminal code.

    Meanwhile, I still don’t buy books from people who pay mercenaries to occupy Palestine. (That must be why the government is panicking.)

  9. Kelly says:

    They would never successfully prosecute anyone under hate speech laws for advocating a boycott of Israel. As much as some people would have you believe, Israel is not a “Jewish State.” Its constitution makes no mention of a Jewish State. The State of Israel is not a religious state and expressly protects freedom of religion. 21% of Israelis are Arab Muslims and another 4% are other citizens who are neither Jewish nor Muslim. Likudniks like Stephen Harper want you to think that Israel is a Jewish State, as does PM Netanyahu, but to agree with them, is to believe a lie. Israel is special in the Middle East especially because it is not a religious state. It is the Jewish homeland, it is the Nation of Israel, but it is not “The Jewish State.” Going after someone under hate laws for advocating a boycott is nonsensical. This is more dog whistle politics, if you ask me.

    • doconnor says:

      “Israel is special in the Middle East especially because it is not a religious state.”

      Lebanon also has no state religion, has religious freedoms and a 40% Christian population.

      • Kelly says:

        Yes, that is true, which is why I said Israel is special (as is Lebanon) but not unique.if only one could say the same about our new best friends Saudi Arabia.

        • MoeL says:

          How else would you interpret “Israel does not have a written constitution”

          “and here before 1982”

          Before 1982 our constitution was effectively the BNA act which was a law of the British parliament (we were once a colony remember). Our parliament could not unilaterally change the act. Israel’s “Basic Laws” on the other hand, were passed and can be altered by the Knesset. I don’t know precisely what the process/formula for changing their “Basic Law” is (maybe you can enlighten me), but if most can be changed by a simple majority in the Knesset, then I think it’s a stretch to say that they are somehow equivalent to a formal constitution.

  10. MoeL says:

    “Its constitution makes no mention of a Jewish State”

    Israel does not have a written constitution. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/Constitution.html#3

    • Kelly says:

      If you mean there is no singular document that formalizes the constitution you are correct but the constitution exists in the form of basic written laws, declarations and court judgements (much like the constitution in the UK and here before 1982. The supreme court in Israel has effectively operated as though Israel were a secular state — as large numbers of Israelis prefer. The minute Israel formally declares itself a Jewish state and were to set limits on the citizenship or status of non jews in Israel, all bets are off.

      • MoeL says:

        Sorry for replying to the wrong thread!!! WK… can you delete my incorrect post

        How else would you interpret “Israel does not have a written constitution”?

        “and here before 1982″

        Before 1982 our constitution was effectively the BNA act which was a law of the British parliament (we were once a colony remember). Our parliament could not unilaterally change the act. Israel’s “Basic Laws” on the other hand, were passed and can be altered by the Knesset. I don’t know precisely what the process/formula for changing their “Basic Law” is (maybe you can enlighten me), but if most can be changed by a simple majority in the Knesset, then I think it’s a stretch to say that they are somehow equivalent to a formal constitution.

  11. Mike Adamson says:

    I’m not particularly a fan of BDS but it is preferrable to violence IMO. My concerns are that the CPC approach to constitutional law wouldn’t rule out such a tactic, “national origin” is not the same as “ethnic origin” and sabre rattling directed at groups whose pockets aren’t very deep seems quite distasteful. I doubt that such legal action would be successful but I’d sure rather see this nipped in then bud than see expensive legal defences borne by groups expressing their views in a nonviolent way.

  12. Liam Young says:

    Part of me wants to see the Cons attempt to actually run with this because it would hopefully ignite a true and real resentment towards their politics.
    The other part of me lives in fear that they will be successful with this BS and they will finally crush any political dissent in Canada.

  13. Poyani says:

    I am Poyan Nahrvar, and I am a notorious Israel-hating nutbar. I deserve your contempt.

  14. Derek Pearce says:

    A bonehead move of a headline by the CBC. But there has to be a discussion about the federal government equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism. That’s some bullshit and it does Israel no favours in the long run. I guess any time anyone states that Israel should dismantle the settlements and stop expansion of them, that statement must be prefaced with “Israel has the right to exist, and the right to exist in peace and security free from violence from it’s neighbours”. Those two ideas must be expressed hand-in-hand in every discussion every time, or you end up with Baird, Blaney et al distorting it into antisemitism. Do Canadians really believe the Conservative line that the United Church or Quakers hate Jews?

  15. The ludicrous policies of Canada’s rabid philosemitic regime is quite embarrassing for those who deny Zionist power. This is becoming comical.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      I just read your comment under Alfalfafield’s article over at his site there, and when added to this comment it looks like we have ourselves a holocaust denier. WK for future reference you’ll want to keep an eye on this one. Sad really, because assholes like you make Harper and Blaney look correct when they equate legitimate criticism of the settlements with flat out anti-Semitic hatred.

  16. […] But it’s not, and that’s what has gotten the CBC in hot water. […]

  17. […] as “analysis” but was not.Canadian journalist Warren Kinsella described Macdonald’s CBC story as “recklessly false” saying in […]

  18. cgh says:

    None of this is surprising. Neil MacDonald has had a hate-on for Israel for years.

  19. […] like Kinsella weighed in, charging that the CBC’s article is way overblown. Kinsella was the source for David Frum’s pooh-poohing of the story on Twitter, which got […]

  20. Murray says:

    I think that Neil MacDonald would be the right reporter to cover ISIS and Hezbollah in Syria

Leave a Reply

*