Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Ron Paul on the reaction of the House to the bailout vote | Main | Nancy Pelosi's pre-vote speech »

Monday, September 29, 2008

More on Lesley Hughes

I'd like to thank both Matthew and Peter for inviting me to blog here at the 'Shotgun'.

I am an academic and spend most of my time thinking about the 18th century, so it'll be nice to engage in a dialogue about issues that are a little more recent.

I posted yesterday about Warren Kinsella's equation of 9/11 'truther' Lesley Hughes with Ezra Levant.

And then I heard this little gem from former NDP Premier Howard Pauley on CBC's 'The House':

"The Lesley Hughes item disappoints me a great deal because she is not anti-semitic . . ." (at about the 28:00 minute mark on podcast version)

Poor Lesley Hughes, unfairly accused of anti-semitism when all she did was claim that Israeli businessmen knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. Not to mention that the U.S. government was complicit in the murder of its own citizens.

Did the host, Kathleen Petty, or his fellow ex-politicos (Grant Devine and David Peterson) call him on it?

Nope. In fact, Devine, the conservative, though that by firing Hughes, the Liberals were being too "pure."

Strange days indeed.

Posted by Craig Yirush on September 29, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010534dffdc8970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Lesley Hughes:

Comments

"Let that one sink in for a second or two. Ezra defends the free speech rights of individuals he strongly disagrees with.

And what does that make him? Why a Nazi of course. As well as the moral equivalent of someone who thinks that those who died on 9/11 were murdered by their own governments, with, of course, the complicity of the 'Jews'.

Ezra doesn't need me to defend him from Kinsella, especially since nobody who cares about honesty or political principle takes the self-described 'ass-kicker' seriously anymore. But the flawed logic at the heart of Kinsella's argument illustrates how much work still needs to be done to defend free speech in Canada".

Hmm Craig if thats true what you say? then can you tell me why Ezra is suing me for $100,000 for writing a letter he did not approve of to Calgary's FFWD newspaper.
Thats right $100,000 for a letter, so please do explain that to me.

Posted by: Merle | 2008-09-29 8:33:02 PM


Craig,
Its common in politics to torpedo any one you can on the least premise. We've seen that over and over. What's new is how everyone near the target is scrambling for cover rather than sticking by their party and its members as they might have done in the past. The Political Esprit de Corps seems to have faded.
A sign of turbulent times? These people are all worried about their jobs now that the whole system looks a little shakier every day, and will not tolerate any controversy whatsoever from their members. The message seems to be, Tow the party line or your out. Great system.

Posted by: Jc | 2008-09-29 10:05:10 PM


Fair enough, JC. We should stick by our principles and so should political parties - for example, I think that the CPC was wring to dump Chris Reid for expressing clearly conservative ideas.
But do you really think that Lesley Hughes' views were acceptable?
And even if you do, the Liberal Party has a right to decide who it wants to run for them.

Merle - I find your comment puzzling. I was making a point about the principle of free speech. If Ezra is in fact suing you unfairly then you should win in court. In any case, being litigious is not the same thing as being a censor.

Posted by: Craig | 2008-09-29 11:04:21 PM


Fair enough, JC. We should stick by our principles and so should political parties - for example, I think that the CPC was wring to dump Chris Reid for expressing clearly conservative ideas.
But do you really think that Lesley Hughes' views were acceptable?
And even if you do, the Liberal Party has a right to decide who it wants to run for them.
Posted by: Craig | 29-Sep-08 11:04:21 PM

Agreed. Still though, it does tend to limit our choices as voters (I think) when party members are unable to speak their minds. The party's tune becomes dull and droning. I'd like to see some more "creativity and brainstorming" going on out there...Oh wait a minute, I'm way off track here, We're still talking about politicians right? :)

I'm an ex PC and a born again Libertarian Craig.
I think they're pretty much all criminals anyway.
Some are just more obvious than others.
Have a good day.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-29 11:10:54 PM



I fnd it most repugnant, that when one discloses jewish corruption,one is classified
anti-semitic. As a unwiting subject of covert
CIA MK-ULTRA manchurian candidate developmental
research by Dr. Harold J. Hoffman, of the Toronto
Hospital for Sick Children, I am informed by lawyers in Toronto, that justice will not prevail,
since Dr. Hoffman is jewish. Here we have approx. 1500-5000 children who have been exploited, yet because it was a jewish doctor who
breached the criminal code, medical child abuse is acceptable in Canada. Is'nt that a bitch.
Thank god Hoffman is dead.
Terry Parker
http://www.geocities.com/terryparkerjr/

Posted by: Terry Parker | 2008-10-02 4:08:07 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.