Mea Culpa
A few days ago I posted a comment to Dawg’s blog which written by a woman named Diana Ralph. The document can be found here. Sue, then Gus then Mordechai told me the claims in the document, particularily the claim that
“Ed Morgan, the outgoing CJC president and Bernie Farber, the CEO proudly listed their top accomplishments: – Trying to make criticism of Israel or Zionism illegal as a hate crime”
were not true.
I called Ms. Ralph, twice. Each time leaving a message with my number. She has not called back.
I also called Bernie Farber.
We had a great chat. In the course of which he flatly denied ever having said such a thing. And he pointed out that the meeting was open to the press and that the Ottawa Citizen was represented.
Rightly, I believe, he stated, “It would be crazy for me to say such a thing”.
I believe him. And I believe not just because it would have been crazy but also because the CJC has been very clear about its view that criticism of Israeli policy was fair ball and that the only issue for the CJC was when people denied the right of a Jewish state to exist.
I made a stupid mistake. The mistake was in believing the writing of a woman whose views, as I dug more deeply, are profoundly anti-Zionist and brutally anti-Israel. This is exactly the sort of “progressive” person who, in virtually any other circumstance, I would distrust to my bones.
And here is my real error: I cited her writing because it fit my own narrative in the particular thread I was arguing. I let my desire to make a point cloud my inherent skepticism about “progressives” writing about Israel. I was simply unwilling to believe that anyone would “just make stuff up” about a public meeting attended by several hundred people.
And I was wrong.
I want to apologize to Bernie Farber and Professor Ed Morgan for taking Diana Ralph’s written word for it. I should have checked and I didn’t.
I am cross posting this to the Dawg so the people there receive the same apology.
Now, if Ms. Ralph has something to say, she has my number.
I doubt she will.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:16 am
You be a good man, mon…...
November 21st, 2008 at 8:39 am
She has never responded to my enquiries as yet which is why I have referred to her claims as suspect left wing hyperbole and allegations.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:22 am
Jay, this was an honest and sensitive post. It is exactly the kind of post I expect from people who are decent and rational thinkers. I hope others could follow your example of rational thought and decent posting.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Jay, just saw this. I too retract my rather uncomplimentary comments about you. You have demonstrated the difference between a rightwing blogger who understands honest debate and others like Ezra Levant who prefer bullying as a means to an end. Congrats for a truly honest and important mea culpa.
Also I was really impressed that you actually called Farber. Could you elaborate just a bit on what that was like. The only real view some have of this man is what Ezra and his buddies have painted; evil incarnate basically. Seems from your brief description of the chat you had with him that he was somewhat different than Ezra would have us believe.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Thanks Mordechai. Farber and I spoke for roughly twenty minutes. We discussed the CJC plenary, the governance of the CJC and the assertions of Ms. Ralph. We chatted about his appearance on the Coren show and the fact that, just like Mike Brock, he found that the show didn’t manage to get as far into the real issues surrounding s.13 as he would have preferred.
As I suspect you already know, Mordechai, Farber is a very engaging guy. I had a good chat and will stay in touch with him. It’s too bad that he seems so firmly locked into the retention of s. 13 with all of the corruption it has created. If ever there was someone who could do well countering hate speech with more speech this seems to be the guy. Instead he seems to want to excuse misconduct and prefers – according to today’s Post – that misconduct never see the light of day.
Which, I have to admit, confuses me. It seems to me that if Farber and the CJC really want to keep s.13 they should be leading the charge for a full judicial inquiry into the activities of the staffers and ex-staffers who have brought it and the CHRC into such disrepute. Farber’s greatest strength, which was manifest in our conversation, is his commitment to civility. Too bad he doesn’t recognize that by defending a rogue agency he undercuts that strength.
That said, I suspect that if Farber had the misbehavior of the CHRC outlined to him in a factual way he would be entirely capable of recognizing the extent of the rot. He might well understand that the roots of that rot are in the CHRA itself and in the total lack of management control exercised over the hate speech section. Properly briefed Farber might well join Ezra in demanding that the government Fire. Them. All.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“Instead he seems to want to excuse misconduct and prefers – according to today’s Post – that misconduct never see the light of day.”
Jay, I don’t believe for a moment that Farber meant what you believe. He was talking about the fact that the woman whose wifi was allegedly hacked should not have had her name blurted out by Lemire. Here is the quote:
“Mr. Farber said it might have been “ideal” if the CHRC had managed to prevent Mr. Lemire from eliciting the woman’s name in the first place, but that the investigation was in the end a “healthy process” to demonstrate that the commission behaves within the confines of the law.”
Poor sentence construction to be sure but its clear he meant the “eliciting” of the woman’s name not as you suggest an attempt to skuttle the investigation.
I of course disagree with your position on section 13(1) and look forward to a very healthy discussion with you after Prof. Moon reports on Monday. Glad it all went well and thanks for dispelling the myths and mischaracterizations by others against Mr. Farber.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
““ideal” if the CHRC had managed to prevent Mr. Lemire from eliciting the woman’s name in the first place”
The woman’s name came up in the testimony of a Bell Canada employee. lemire wanted to know who was posting using the Jadewarr account. Which was a very legitimate question. The answer was not expected.
The “investigation” was apparently scuttled as the result of the RCMP concluding it could not get evidence in the US. And, apparently, the RCMP killed the investigation on its own without referring it to the Crown. Which is, in itself, more than a little suspicious in the absence of clearly exculpatory evidence.
The Moon report – given the confines of his investigation and his internal appointment – may be interesting and may provide a basis for an interesting discussion. But I’m not holding my breath. An independent, judicial, investigation is what is required here. All the more so now that the horsemen have punted.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
As a “progressive” person you should have no problem trusting, I take it by “’progressive’ person” you really meant lying liar pants or some other such construct.
But a very good and honourable post and, more importantly, deed.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 am
“The woman’s name came up in the testimony of a Bell Canada employee. lemire wanted to know who was posting using the Jadewarr account. Which was a very legitimate question. The answer was not expected.”
I agree and that seems to be part of the issue. Her name should have been protected under the privacy act. Hence now the Privacy Commissioner is also investigating. I believe it was the privacy issue around the release of the name that Farber was referring to. The actual name was never needed just the allegation that the CHRC “hacked a woman’s wifi would have been plenty. Now an innocent woman has been named contrary to the privacy act.