To read, perchance to comprehend— that is the question
August, 19, 2008

Pardon my peculiar rendition of Hamlet’s soliloquy, but it’s the best way to sum up the bizarre reactions to my Aug. 11 column: “Human Rights Tribunals neither good nor bad—just necessary, unfortunately.”

I don’t usually publish responses—good, bad or moronic—but I’m making an exception in this case to illustrate not only the pervasive anti-intellectualism that passes for informed debate in the media, but also to show how inept the zionist propaganda machine has become.

We have seen official vilification of dissent before, e.g.: the Catholic Church’s persecution and mass murder of independent thinkers (heretics); the Soviet Union’s persecution of anti-communist intellectuals; and the U.S.’s persecution of left-wing dissenters during the Red Scare hysteria of the late 1940s and early 1950s. These events are all officially recognized as repressions that do not reflect our democratic traditions.

Today, though, critics of Israel and critics of pro-Israel media mouthpieces are the targets of a new anti-intellectualism, one that meets with broad approval. Anyone who dissents from the official zionist narrative, or who holds the zionist media accountable to ethical standards, can expect to be defamed and have his arguments deliberately misrepresented.

As an example of the preceding, I'd like to share some of the responses I received:

Unclear on the concept
Despite the headline of my Aug. 11 column and the final paragraph where I said “human rights commissions are as much a force for censorship as they are for freedom,” I have been assailed for having written a blanket defence of these commissions.

Roy Eappen wrote: “Your thesis is absolutely wrong. The HRCs have become a force for censorship and should be eliminated. The nanny state has no business using these quasi judicial organs to silence speech.”

Er, that’s not my thesis, and I clearly stated that I believed the HRCs to be a force for censorship. My thesis is that the Maclean’s statement attacking the Ontario Human Rights Commission in the name of free expression was fraudulent because it:

a) failed to distinguish irresponsible speech from responsible speech;
b) misrepresented the defamation case as a free speech case; and
c) represented a smear against human rights commissions to divert attention from the issue of defamation.

The last point is most important. Like Mark Steyn and Maclean’s, Roy seems intent on perpetuating this diversion, since the arguments I make clearly are not important to him. If they were, Roy would likely have said something about them.

Human Rights Commissions and “anti-Semitism" [sic]
Truth be told, I do not support human rights commissions. We would be better off without them. In my previous writing I have described at length how they can turn into politically motivated star chambers, where harebrained claims of harassment are treated seriously and innocent people can be persecuted just for who they are.

To the extent that I defended the OHRC at all, I did so because a) the attack against it was malicious and irrelevant, and b) because the comments of chief commissioner Barbara Hall had merit and were pertinent to the case. Because the anti-Muslim mendacity militia cannot tolerate or respect criticism, the defamation case against Maclean’s had to be torqued into a generic rant against the commission.

The most malicious and febrile example of this came from a blogger calling herself “blazingcatfur.” She has previously partaken in amplifying the libelous, defamatory attacks upon me from Terry Glavin, and seems to have no other purpose than to defame any critic of Israel. Her immaturity and lack of cognitive functions can be seen in this inanity-filled screed “With friends like these... you know the Canadian Human Rights Commissions are toast, toast, toast”

“Warren Kinsella can add a new ally to his dream team of Canadian Human Rights Commission and Section 13(1) supporters. The Lying Jackals current roster is comprised of Mohamed “Every adult Jew a legitimate target” ElMasry, the Lying Sock Puppets, Haroon “Never met an Islamist I couldn't apologise for” Siddiqui, Syed “Taqiyya” Soharwardy and of course Burnie “Let's give the Islamists a big hug” Farber of the CJC.

“Say hello to Warren's newest little friend, none other than Greg “I'm not an anti-semite” Felton. Felton is the “Plan 9 from Outer Space” of the er “Anti-Zionist” crowd and author of “The Host & the Parasite”, which details Greg's fascination with his favourite topic - THE JOOO'S, JOOOWISH CONSPIRACIES, & for good measure, THE JOOOISH LOBBY.”

Note the gratuitous malice, childish name-calling and absence of maturity. Note also how the knee-jerk libel “anti-Semitism” is thrown in. The need to defame me is so critical to this person that making an ass of herself is not a concern.


In a similar vein (varicose, presumably), John Vossos wrote: “I just read your pro Islamic anti Jewish piece. You are neither good nor bad, just ugly. Well, bad too. Your ilk is at the receiving end of a back lash that is only just beginning.”

When I asked how my piece could be considered “pro Islamic anti Jewish” he said he read between the lines. Ah! Like Glavin, barfingcatfur, and legions of other cognitively impaired shills John had to read anti-Jewish sentiment into my column in order to condemn me.

Adding inanity to insult on this score is the website, where criticism of neo-con dogmata is called—get this!— “liberal fascism.” My column is filed under the heading “Jihadi News.” Jihad, in one sense, means a voluntary defensive struggle or exertion to evict a non-Muslim invader from Muslim land. Jihadi means “fighting” or “military.” Obviously there is a martial subtext to my column that I never noticed.

So, there you have it: reaction to my column consists of misrepresentations of my views on human rights commissions, fraudulent imputations of anti-Jewish sentiment, and infantile name-calling—all because I exposed the bankruptcy of Maclean’s defence of free expression.

Conspicuously, none of the above-mentioned esteemed individuals stated any objection to the B’nai Brith-led debasement of B.C.’s human rights legislation.

Roderick Ross’s response to my column sums up the intellectual rigour of those who fear open debate: “Greg, I don't like what you have to say, and I want my government to censor you.”

I’m always happy to see my detractors prove my point, but I will be happier when this new Dark Age comes to an end.