God save the Jews from Bernie Farber

Canada's former top official Jew is looking pretty goofy these days.

It's not that Bernie Farber doesn't mean well.

It's not that he isn't a supporter of Israel.

It's just the guy is so clueless, and so narcissistically intent on trying to look like a 'human rights' champion, that he'll get in bed with all sorts these days.

But give Bernie a break.

He used to be the big Jew on campus. Then, he got the shove when the Official Jewish organization he headed, the Canadian Jewish Congress, was dissolved and most of its advocacy functions absorbed into the new Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Right after that, the voters of Thornhill resoundingly rejected him when he ran as a Liberal for the Provincial legislature in that heavily Jewish riding.

So with the professional Jewish thing not working out so well, Bernie had to turn to greener pastures. Hey, a guy's gotta eat!

These days, Bernie is pushing the fake narrative of a "genocide" against Canada's First Nations and sucking up to the likes of she of the phony-hunger strike, the corrupt Indian Chief Theresa Spence.

But having been turfed out of the Canadian Jewish Congress gig evidently taught Bernie not to put all his eggs in one basket, so he has been busying himself with still other grievances to monger. Those being on behalf of the Gypsy* community.

In so doing, Bernie is getting mixed up with the kind of people that begs the question, "just what is wrong with that doofus?"

Bernie's latest showcase to advertise what a hell of a guy Bernie is has him on a panel discussing the documentary Never Come Back alongside the film's director, Karl Nerenberg. Human Rights hero Bernie and Nerenberg will discuss the purported  plight of Canada's Gypsy refugee claimants.

And just who is Bernie's new pal Karl Nerenberg?

He's the Ottawa correspondent for the fanatically anti-Israel website rabble.ca.

The same rabble.ca which has billed itself the "official media sponsor" of both the anti-Semitic hate fest Israeli Apartheid Week and the not-so-Jew-friendly Sea Hitler Gaza Boat.

This evening of intellectual stimulation will take place September 22 at the "progressive" (read flaky) Toronto synagogue Temple Emanu-El.

Rather than their self-serving pontificating about refugee law reform, it would be far more interesting if the Q&A were to field some questions about the implicit Jew-hate of the outlet for which Nerenberg works. It would be enlightening to hear him explain why he takes a consistently disparaging and cynical tone towards the Jewish state whenever he writes about it for rabble. Or perhaps he might elucidate about exactly what he meant when he wrote, "The Conservatives focused on Mount Royal as part of their "Jewish strategy," a strategy that won them a number of seats in Toronto.  " and  "the Conservatives have managed to attract Jewish votes with a policy that is -- to a fault -- blindly uncritical of Israel and everything its government does. "

Bernie and Temple Emamu-El's embrace of Karl Nerenberg should make for an evening to anticipate, and I
anticipate the best description of it would be: nauseating.

           ---- ------                      ------ ------                                     ---- ------

*Despite what a handful of self-promoting revisionists in the Gypsy community and their politically correct pals may lead you to believe, the Gypsies are a diverse community and not all of them identify as Roma. There are many who are proud to remain and be called Gypsies.

Bernie Farber's cognitive impairment

This is going to be one of those supercilious, parochial pieces referring to a blog piece written about still another blog posting, so if you're on-board for something as superfluous, keep reading...

The Huffington Post just published an article by the former head of the now defunct Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber, who is also a failed Liberal Party candidate for a seat in Ontario's provincial legislature.

Farber's article is all about taking issue with another Huff Po piece written by Frank Dimant, the current head of the Jewish advocacy organization B'nai Brith. In Dimant's piece, he notes that Canadian Jewish voter sentiment has moved from the Liberal Party to the Conservatives in the last few years, largely, he asserts, on the basis of the Harper government's strong support for Israel.

Among other prognostications, Dimant wrote that "There is already a movement that wants to neutralize Jewish support for the Conservative Party and the mantra is that all three parties have the same agenda regarding Israel, a two-state solution, so why do we have to support the Conservatives? In a well-orchestrated campaign we will soon begin to see a new Jewish agenda being proposed by some, which will advocate that Jewish community adjust its focus to Aboriginal issues, child poverty, health care and social housing."

Apparently very sensitive to criticism of the Liberal party and the potential shift against Israel it will take if his choice for leader takes the helm, Farber lashed out at Dimant, accusing the B'nai Brith head of launching an "attack on Canadian Jews who would dare identify themselves as Liberals."  

It doesn't require a particularly close reading of Dimant's article to observe that no such attack is there, only a challenge to Conservatives to retain the Jewish vote and noting the politicized environment within that community.

Distorting things further, Farber spends a great deal of ink regarding his assertion that Dimant "insinuates that there is something "new" about Canadian Jews taking an interest in Aboriginal issues, child poverty and social housing. "

For Farber to actually be correct, it would necessitate the term "adjust its focus" meaning the same thing as beginning something "new."

He then digresses into the Jewish community's interest in social justice as manifested in Aboriginal rights, social housing, etc. All that is good and fine, but as is not uncommon for him, Farber completely missed (or obfuscated) the point of the matter.

It is no secret that an interest in Israel and its well-being is of major importance to a large segment of Canadian Jews. But that interest is certainly not to the exclusion of other concerns, and Dimant's point was that the Liberals in the Jewish community would be trying to readjust priorities in order to serve the party's electoral interests. A point that Farber's piece seems to unwittingly confirm.

Interestingly, Dimant even didn't challenge the idea that the "mantra" of all parties is to take an equal stand on Israel, though the facts would suggest otherwise. The Conservatives have taken a strong, unequivocally pro-Israel stance, the New Democrats have two Deputy Leaders, Libby Davies and Megan Leslie, who are openly hostile to Israel, and the Liberal Party falls somewhere in between, although perhaps leaning slightly towards Israel more than the Palestinian side.

But as Mitch Wolfe described in yet another Huff Po piece, that may change significantly assuming Justin Trudeau, whom Farber has endorsed,  becomes the Liberal Party leader. Under Trudeau, there is every indication the Liberals will be even less favorable to the Jewish state. Justin Trudeau's brother Alexandre, who has the distinction of being his sibling's senior policy adviser, has cooperated with Iran's state propaganda service to make a pro-Iran, anti-Israel documentary, which clearly reflects his sentiments on the middle east situation.

Perhaps Bernie wanted to garner favor with his political party by changing the subject to deflect from his party selling Israel down the river. On the other hand, maybe he simply didn't understand Dimant's article.

The latter may indeed be the explanation. Last month on twitter, Farber implied opposition to a Toronto City Council motion giving amnesty to illegal immigrants was "racist." When I challenged him on that, his responses became incoherent, suggesting he didn't actually understand the issues he was discussing.

Bernie has every right to extol the supposed virtues of his political party and his chosen candidate. He has every right to promote the Liberal Party and his candidate as being the best choice for Canadian voters, though many would disagree. But Farber is perceived by some as a spokesperson for, and representative of Canada's Jewish community. This is very problematic when someone who has such little apparent regard for free speech is being presented as a community leader. He may represent the Liberal Party and the Justin Trudeau faction within it, but the only Jew on whose behalf Bernie Farber speaks is Bernie Farber.

Provincial Liberal candidate Farber politically exploits sister-in-law`s death against husband`s wishes.

Bernie Farber, the former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, has been the default spokesperson the Toronto media has utilized for comment on issues related to the Jewish community for so long, he has become known as "The King of the Jews" in some circles.

An affable, decent fellow, Bernie has a right to his personal opinions, just like any other Canadian. But a number of people in the Jewish community, very few of whom have any direct involvement with the Canadian Jewish Congress, have taken umbrage at the idea that Bernie represents them.

Farber has been a major proponent of Hate Speech laws that restrict expressions of criticism directed at ethnic groups. But these laws are used selectively and only apply to `sanctioned` groups. Hate speech laws and the quasi-judicial Human Rights Commissions, staffed with appointees unqualified to make judiciary decisions, are being used against critics of radical ideologies that have used the fog of multiculturalism to obscure their undemocratic, racist, misogynist agendas.

With the Canadian Jewish Congress about to be folded into an umbrella group of Jewish community organizations, Farber has taken a leave of absence to run in Thornhill as the candidate for the Liberal party in the upcoming provincial election.

It appears Bernie`s presumption for speaking for others without their consent has run him into hot water again. Writing in Shalom Life, Faber criticises Tim Hudak, the leader of the provincial Opposition, trying to tie him to Health Care policies enacted by former Conservative Premier Mike Harris. Farber goes so far as to suggest the cancer-related death of his sister-in law in 2003, was related to Harris`policies and resulting poor hospital service when he wrote:

"my sister-in-law, suffering from breast cancer, found herself caught in the mire of Conservative hospital closures, nursing lay-offs and other cuts specifically to the cancer care sector. Joanne passed away in 2003. Had she been diagnosed today, with all the newly-funded resources in Ontario cancer care, with hospitals back up and running, with over 11,500 full time nurses now hired or re-hired, her chances of survival would have increased dramatically."

Farber should have checked with his sister-in-law`s husband first.

Commenting on Farbers`opinion piece, Michael Robitaille responded:

The sister-in-law Bernie Farber wrote about in this article was my wife. Contrary to what Bernie states, my wife Joanne received excellent health care at every level during her over 3 year struggle with cancer. From the staff at Credit Valley Hospital to Princess Margaret Hospital to Toronto Western Hospital, she received speedy, professional and excellent care. I honestly can't say anything negative in the overall treatment Joanne received. Sadly, Joanne succumbed to cancer but I want to state categorically, her death from cancer had nothing to do with any lack of health care or any deficiencies in her care. I find it callous, cold-hearted and opportunistic for Bernie Faber to use Joanne's death for political gain. Joanne is missed by me and my son Jack everyday and it is a shame to have her struggle with cancer thrown around like a political football by a candidate who knows better.

          Michael Robitaille

Between this and the resurfacing of his referring to his party leader as a `fear-mongerer`, Farber`s campaign is off to a less than auspiciuos start.

h/t Sassy Wire

No-longer chic spoof mag desperately tries to regain relevance with soft anti-Semitism

If you hear a discussion about the spoof magazine Adbusters, the thing people would find most surprising is that it's still around.

The magazine, founded in 1989, garnered attention for itself with irreverent ad spoofs in its early days. Their alleged point is something that they call "culture jamming," a term that has failed to enter the popular lexicon and would leave anyone who hasn't committed the collected works of Naomi Klein to memory scratching their heads. The term is a description of altering something (i.e. an advertisement) and spoofing it in a near identical form to reverse its meaning. It may have eluded the geniuses at Adbusters that the word "irony" already covers most of what they intend to do, but it's so much cooler when you can take credit for originating a catch-phrase. In this case, as in so much else, they failed. Cowabunga, ad dudes!

If there's anything media hates more than being despised, it's being ignored. Right now, Adbusters is trying to promote a worldwide boycott of Starbucks. I wasn't even aware of that until I checked their website today, which is an indication of what global reach Adbusters has.

So in that vein, one sure-fire and acceptable way to get admiration for yourself from the radical leftist community, while incurring contempt from the mainstream, is to engage in soft anti-Semitism. Then, when reasonable people express outrage, you can say how your free speech is being denied, even though it isn't. If the Adbusters geniuses wanted to find out about real attempts at the denial of free speech in Canada, they could ask Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn, who were hauled before our kangaroo-court "Human Rights" commissions at great expense because of respectively publishing cartoons depicting a dead middle eastern warlord and for critiquing the influence of Islam on Western culture. Both cases were dismissed after considerable cost and inconvenience to the defendants.

But back to Adbusters. In 2006, they decided to identify supporters of the Iraq war and put down 50 names with special indicators of the Jewish ones. I didn't see the issue, so I can't say whether they used little yellow stars of David for that or not.

But in keeping with the Nazi theme, this time, the sad, irrelevant characters at Adbusters have now decided to use a motif that radical, discredited Islamists and anti-Semites have attempted for quite some time by comparing the Gaza strip to the Warsaw ghetto. Only the most puerile minds who are either moral imbeciles or have a less-than-superficial understanding of the history and circumstances of the Warsaw Ghetto would suggest any similarity to Israel's reaction to attacks from Gaza. The contradictions are too innumerable to list, but the most basic and obvious is that unlike Hamas re: Israel, the Jews of Europe had not pledged to eliminate Germany. They were not launching rockets at German civilians, there weren't luxury malls and hotels and vacation beaches in the Warsaw Ghetto. The people of Gaza were not relocated there from conquered areas, but are the indicginous population, and the Warsaw Ghetto saw its population annihilated, whereas the population of Gaza has at least tripled due to births since 1967.

But the people at Adbusters either aren't interested in facts or are too stupid to process them correctly.

Which accounts for their current spurious complaint about "censorship" regarding the Canadian Jewish Congress's call to have people alert outlets that are selling Adbusters that their content is anti-Semitic.

What the CJC has asked is for  "community members to take a moment to see if their local bookstore or newsstand sells the magazine, to show the clerk or the owner the offensive material and to tell them that “this is anti-Semitic and shameful.”

Based on this, Shoppers Drug Mart has decided to pull its distribution of Adbusters. That's not censorship, it's using economic influence to express oneself. No one is denying Adbusters the right to publish. The CJC hasn't pulled Adbusters in front of an HRC, although they have as much grounds to do so as those who were offended by Mohammed cartoons.

What is very funny about this situation is that the dimwits at Adbusters who are advocating the "worldwide boycott of Starbucks" are decrying a boycott directed at them. I guess they missed the irony of that, or should I say, "culture jamming?"

No, "culture jamming" sounds like a term only an idiot would use. Let's stick to "irony".