Anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism, no matter how hard our genocide-complicit law-violating politicians and judges (including retired), and the Israeli Lobby try to make it.
For decades, I’ve been attacked for exerting my right to freedom of expression opposing hate crimes by Zionists against Palestinians, and trying to get regulation for Encana/Ovintiv’s illegal frac operations in my community.
In 2005 in writing, in response and instead of regulating the criminal company, EUB ruled me to be the criminal without any chance to defend myself (they didn’t even tell me I was on trial until after their judgement). There was no due process, no crimes by me, no arrests, no fingerprinting, no evidence and no chance given to me to retain a lawyer first.
Next, in 2007, after the Alberta gov’t changed EUB to ERCB trying to soften the blow of retired justice Perras finding that EUB “repulsively” spied on innocent citizens and broke the law, a U of C law prof (later rewarded with appointment to the Alberta bench) misused official hearing transcripts and altered reality to suggest I am an Enemy of the State (in an official policy report for gov’t).
In 2009, two men from Steve Harper’s 34 RCMP/police member anti-terrorist squad (created and paid for with public funds to provide free security to the billion dollar profit-raping oil and gas industry in Alberta) invaded my private property trying to terrify me silent (I had just served my legal papers against Encana, AER and the Alberta gov’t).
In 2012, while Alberta gov’t reworked ERCB’s mandate to remove public interest from it (in response to my lawsuit going public) and changing ERCB to AER to befuddle the masses, the regulator’s outside counsel Glenn Solomon lied, named me a terrorist (without any evidence) in their 2012 court filing, claiming thus I had no charter rights. My lawyers at the time told me this was done to prejudice all and any judges against me.
In 2017, in the supreme court of canada’s ruling in Ernst vs AER, I was further defamed by then (now retired) supreme court of Canada Zionist justice Rosalie Abella, who fabricated evidence (aka lied) to rule AER had found me to be a vexatious litigant (years before I filed my lawsuit and changing them finding me to be first a criminal, then terrorist). The worst possible smear a litigant and their case can get, is to be ruled vexatious by a court.
That has not yet been corrected in the ruling; I have yet to receive an apology from AER, Solomon and the courts.
Lastly, in 2018, my lawyers Murray Klippenstein (lead) and Cory Wansless quit, lied, violating the rules of their profession. They withheld my website for nearly a year, and my trust funds for a year, and still have not returned my files and documents to me which I paid for in full, including obscene photocopying charges.
All this harassment and abuse of power in Canada because I spoke out publicly about crimes by frac’ers and their enablers, Alberta gov’t and AER, and crimes by kid-killing land-stealing Harper pal, Bibi Netanyahu (also stealing from Palestinians hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil and gas which must be frac’d which is why I believe Canada’s supreme court pissed on our Charter rights in their ruling on my case).
IDU’s Steve Harper and Benjamin Netanyahu hate our right to freedom of expression and need it taken away, for obvious reasons. This is why I believe Israel’s genocidal politicians and enabling legal types like Ian Cotler want the definition of anti-semitism to include those opposed to genocide and home, land, resource thefts of Palestinians – in other words, those opposed to Zionism, and why genocide-enabling retired justice Abella twists the meaning of antisemitism. All to obliterate our right to freedom of expression to let Israel commit crime after crime with those of us around the world horrified, legally silenced.
The clip below by an American Muslim woman reportedly invaded at her home by the FBI is a must watch, and reminds me of that day Harper’s horrid anti-terrorist RCMP squad arrived at my home, warrant-less, to terrify me.
Harper’s two thugs wanted in my house (I was terrified for my legal files and years of frac documents and data I had accumulated). I refused, saying I didn’t trust them or their surveillance tricks. They told me the RCMP don’t do surveillance. Hogwash.
I still didn’t allow them in. I didn’t record but I took photos, which they were very angry at, telling me I was not allowed to take photos of them, because they were undercover:
The event was terrifying for me, destroyed my sleep for months, which I am sure was Harper and Encana/AER’s intent. I have never felt safe anywhere, since.
In 2012, my home was broken into with nothing stolen, not even my new laptop or the two piles of cash (nearly $1,000 worth in USA and Canadian bills) I had on my dining room table to take with me on a speaking tour in Michigan and New York State. I knew someone had been in my home, because the attic hatch (beside my bedroom) was left open (they either forgot to close it, or left in a hurry).
I’ve always suspected Harper/Encana/AER’s official thugs committed the break in.
Amir Attaran (@email hidden; JavaScript is required)@profamirattaran March 29, 2024:
Seconding this. Never talk to CSIS unless you start the conversation. They can’t force you, though they may threaten.
TheMuslimLawyer@faisalkutty March 28, 2024:
If the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) or police show up to speak with you and you are a citizen then I recommend you politely advise them that you are not interested. If you have information that may assist with keeping society or peole safe then I advise you speak to them only with a lawyer present.
I have done many such meetings especially right after the tragic events of 9/11.
From my experience they are usually fishing expeditions based on guilt by association, profiling or tips from “concerned citizens.”
If you’re not a citizen then I recommend that you consult a lawyer when first approached and they should assess the situation with you.
[Note: Often they will not want to meet with you if you insist that a lawyer must be present].
Hassan Shibly@HassanShibly March 27, 204:
WATCH: FBI visit the home of an American Muslim Woman’s home to question her about her pro-Palestine social media posts after they were flagged by @meta’s @facebook!
What she did right:
- Refuse to speak to them without a lawyer.
- Refuse to let them in her house.
- Record the interaction.
What she did wrong:
- Exit her house. Do not let them in your house if they do not have a warrant but do not exit your house either.
You have the right never to speak to the FBI without a lawyer.
If the FBI contact you contact us at http://MuslimLegal.com for help.
Refer also to:
1979: International terrorism, challenge and response: proceedings of the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism by Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (1979) Edited by Benjamin Netanyahu
“Terrorism – the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians so as to inspire fear – was shown persuasively to be, beyond all nuance and quibble, a moral evil, infecting not only who commit such crimes, but those who, out of malice, ignorance or simple refusal to think, countenance them.”
Source of above quote: Professor Benzion Netanyahu (Bibi’s dad!), from his opening remarks at the 1979 conference proceedings, Edited by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Hey AER! You bullies judged me a terrorist in your official 2012 court filing by Calgary’s lying lawyer Glenn Solomon, without any evidence, trying to scare me silent about Encana’s and your crimes. You couldn’t even get the definition of terrorism right. I’ve never killed anyone, I’ve never tried to either.
AER, you owe me an apology, in writing, and you need to quash your false judgement, and write the courts, including the supreme court of Canada, admitting you and your lawyer lied about me.
Abella needs to apologize to all Palestinians and non Zionists, and to me, too.
2012:
2013: Hey CSIS, farmers are not terrorists, Anti-fracking activists have been labelled a security threat
2013: Petro-state politics prompts CSIS to spy on citizens at alarming rate, FOIs reveal
Yesterday, The Globe and Mail published an article by former Supreme Court justice Rosalie Abella arguing that South Africa’s application to institute proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide is “shameful.” Someone as well-accomplished as Abella should be ashamed to have her name on this article.
Naturally, you’ll wonder what I, a “journalist” to friends and a “blogger” (at best) to enemies, with no hint of a law degree in either case, am doing arguing on a point of law with a former jurist such as Abella. It’s a good question, but there’s a simple answer: Abella’s article almost completely avoids any discussion of the legal issues or facts at hand, and makes a vibes-based case instead — something I feel qualified to refute.
I’ve quoted segments (making up the majority) of Abella’s article in bold below, and responded to each one.
“To me, this case represents an outrageous and cynical abuse of the principles underlying the international legal order that was set up after the Second World War.”
South Africa’s 84-page document explains why the ICJ is the right body for its case. The application notes: 1) it and Israel are United Nations (est. 1945) members and parties to the Genocide Convention (est. 1948); 2) neither have expressed reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which calls for disputes on matters of genocide between parties to be brought to the ICJ; 3) any party to the Genocide Convention can bring forward a case against another party; 4) as a party to the Genocide Convention, it has an obligation to prevent genocide.
South Africa has made the case that it’s following the rules of the bodies created after the Second World War that both it and Israel agreed to. Abella doesn’t dispute any of this legally. Instead, she implies that South Africa doesn’t have legitimate cause to bring forward this case because nine years ago it failed to arrest the leader of a different nation at the behest of a different court. In other words: irrelevant on a legal basis.
“It is a legal absurdity to suggest that a country [Israel] that is defending itself from genocide [from Hamas] is thereby guilty of genocide.”
South Africa’s application makes a detailed case that Israel is in the process of committing genocide, relying on a variety of sources with a document that contains more than 570 footnotes. It also references many UN bodies and experts that, since mid-October onward, have at minimum expressed concern Israel is committing genocide: 30+ UN Special Rapporteurs; 28+ members of UN Working Groups; the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; the Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights; the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls.
Abella’s argument for her claim that Hamas is perpetrating genocide is that it has supposedly killed Jewish people “because they were Jews.” This is a false assertion on its own, given that Hamas and other Palestinian resistance factions oppose Israel because it is an occupying entity, not because the majority of its citizens are Jewish. Even if true, Abella offers no examples of any scholars, organizations or legal bodies who have concluded that Hamas’s actions on October 7 were genocidal — not just bad, illegal, or even war crimes, but genocidal.
And to go even further, even if that were true, Abella doesn’t cite the part of the Genocide Convention where it says it’s totally cool to commit a genocide if you think someone is trying to make you the victim of one. As South Africa’s application notes, “States parties to the Genocide Convention have ‘expressly confirmed their willingness to consider genocide as a crime under international law which they must prevent and punish independently of the context “of peace” or “of war” in which it takes place.’”
Of course, Abella’s assertion that what Israel is doing in Gaza is merely limited to “defending itself” is debunked in the bulk of South Africa’s report, which argues it has committed at least seven genocidal acts, including: killing Palestinians in large numbers; inflicting conditions of life on Palestinians intended to bring about their destruction as a group; expelling Palestinians from their homes and destroying their residential areas; depriving Palestinians of adequate food, water, medical care, shelter, hygiene, sanitation; destroying Palestinian society; preventing Palestinian births.
“We find ourselves in the perverse situation where a genocidal organization such as Hamas is able to escape legal scrutiny or sanction for committing genocidal acts, while the country that is the intended target of its genocidal intentions is being called upon by the International Court of Justice to defend itself from allegations of genocide.”
The idea that Hamas will escape legal scrutiny or sanction, or has done so in the past, is absurd. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is already investigating Hamas’s actions on October 7, and South Africa’s application mentions the ICC Prosecutor has stated hostage-taking “represents a grave breach to the Geneva Conventions.” Hamas, of course, has also been designated in its entirety as a terrorist organization by six countries (including Canada in 2002) and the whole European Union, meaning that it, as well as those suspected of supporting it abroad, face sanction and legal punishment — unlike the supporters of Israel’s genocidal violence.
I also suspect that any government on the planet would prefer to be in Israel’s situation (facing a legal challenge that may end up meaning little against you in practice even if successful) to that faced by Hamas (the destruction of the land you govern and the people you’re responsible for representing). Hamas has faced far worse consequences than Israel in every way, despite Israel objectively having caused more death and destruction, both now and in the entirety of the existence of Hamas.
“This is an insult to what genocide means, an insult to the perception of the ability of international courts to retain their legitimacy and transcend global politics, and an insult to the memory of all of those on whose behalf the Genocide Convention was created.”
International bodies like the ICJ have been criticized for being undermined by, for example, U.S. dominance preventing it or its allies from facing the punishment that countries in the Global South do. For much of the world, the ICJ taking this application against Israel seriously would likely improve its perception and legitimacy, not undermine it. This is not relevant to the merits of the case, though, nor is Abella’s interpretation.
“History will judge Israel’s response to Hamas’s genocidal attack on Oct. 7 and determine whether the retaliatory measures it took to protect its security were conducted in accordance with the law. That is a legal question that will necessarily balance purpose, cause, effect and context. […] There will inevitably be accountability – if only the world showed the same obsessive interest in holding other countries to legal account.”
Why have a legal system if “history” can do a good enough job judging people, I guess? This is a bizarre statement from someone who has spent the majority of their life in the legal field, including at the highest possible level in Canada as a Supreme Court judge.
Abella is known to lie, including in official rulings, to serve herself and seemingly Zionism rather than to serve “justice.” Bizarre is a perfect way to sum up her genocide enabling writing/judicial work. Zionists lie, a lot. They lie even more than the oil and gas industry and its enablers AER, RCMP and CSIS lie.
The matter before the ICJ is a “legal question” that it is in a place to judge. There is no need to wait for “history.”
South Africa is asking the ICJ to rule that Israel must: stop any actions that breach its obligations under the Genocide Convention; ensure those responsible for these breaches are punished at a national or international level; collect and conserve evidence of the genocide; make reparations to Palestinians; and assure the court and world it won’t do it again.
“History,” meanwhile, is not capable of making rulings that can be enforced at an international level in the way that the ICJ, theoretically, at least, can.
Abella’s implication that the real reason Israel is being brought before the ICJ is antisemitism is shameful, especially given that there’s a case against Russia currently at the ICJ on the same charges, but with the support, thus far, of more countries in the world.
“The unbearable tragedy of war lies in the deaths and suffering of innocent civilians, and there can be no doubt that the deaths and suffering of thousands of civilians in Gaza is an unbearable tragedy. That is why the international community developed a sophisticated set of legal instruments after the Second World War: to prevent, minimize, and sanction global conflicts.”
This is an argument for the ICJ hearing South Africa’s application, not against it.
“Seventy-five years after the birth of the Genocide Convention and of the state of Israel, both of which rose from the ashes of Auschwitz, we find genocide and rape and torture in full and flagrant flight in too many parts of the world. Yet the country that finds itself as the designated avatar of genocide is Israel.”
Again, this is all irrelevant to the merits of the case. “Genocide and rape and torture” occurring outside of Gaza does not justify it within Gaza, and any of the state parties to the Genocide Convention (including Israel) are capable of bringing a case against another party if they believe they are guilty of such acts.
Israel is not the only country being accused of genocide before the ICJ, but, as South Africa’s request for provisional measures to be implemented notes, the brutality and ongoing nature of its actions demands the utmost urgency from international bodies.
It’s also worth noting that the West collectively has provided another alleged victim of genocide at the ICJ with billions of dollars in weapons and other ways to support itself.
Gaza has had no such luck.
“As a lawyer, I find it shameful; as a Jew, I find it heartbreaking; and as the child of Holocaust survivors, I find it unconscionable.”
An esteemed legal figure is setting aside the law for an article based on identity politics, as if her status as a Jewish person or a child of Holocaust survivors is relevant to the merits of the case.
What Abella’s article shows, and what has become so apparent given the support for the genocide in large segments of Israeli society and parts of Jewish communities abroad, is that being the descendants of genocide survivors unfortunately does not guarantee you’ll be opposed to future ones. “Never again,” to a disturbing number of people, seems to mean, “Never again, to us.”
I look forward to seeing South Africa’s application debated on its legal merits.
A few of the comments:
Joan:
This is an excellent, logical rebuttal to Abella’s position and informative rational for the ICJ’s case.
Dr. Patricia Morton:
Professor Emerita, Trent University:
I totally agree that Rosalie Abella’s article castigating South Africa makes no legal sense whatsoever. Clearly the appropriate body to decide upon whether or not Israel is committing acts of genocide is the International Court of Justice.
Rosalie Abella understandably has strong personal feelings about this issue, which she of course has a right to express. But to pretend that she is presenting sound legal arguments is a caricature of justice.
Pearl:
Thank you for your excellent rebuttal. I am also not a lawyer, but I am a Jewish person and the daughter of holocaust survivors, and I find Abella’s arguments shameful. The world is once more standing by while innocents are slaughtered. Not in my name!
Peter to Pearl:
Thankyou for that. I often wonder if many of the militantly unquestioning zionists must be suffering from the intergenerational trauma of the Shoah …….. and, RA, being a 1946-borne refugee might fall into that category. Sad.
Wonderful to see how the coming generation is demonstrating such recovery.
There have always (at least in my 70+ lifetime) been very many Jewish leaders in the global struggle for human rights… and now for Palestine. Respect.
Chris:
A very succinct, well-reasoned rebuttal.
Ryan Hillier:
Well said. Among other things, Abella’s piece rests on the highly questionable notion that Hamas has the structural capacity to carry out a genocide against Israeli citizens. All you have to do is ignore the overwhelming volume of observable evidence to the contrary in order to give credence to this idea. South Africa is doing the world a great service by bringing this case.
Kaitlyn Hatch:
As a fan of the podcast 5-4 who has been looking for similar insightful reflections into the Supreme Court of Canada past and present, THANK YOU for this. Your citations and clear refutation on a legal basis against what is so obviously a disingenuous take is so informative.
The supreme court of Canada’s ruling in Ernst vs AER was 5-4, with lying defamatory Abella the swing judge.
Davide Mastracci:
Thank you! I have heard good things about that podcast but haven’t listened to it yet. Are there any episode in particular you’d suggest?
Kaitlyn Hatch:
Oooo, that’s a tough one. I’ve listened to so many. For the sake of relevance to this piece, their recently unlocked episode called ‘How to Lose Your Job by Supporting Palestine’ is very good.
Albeit hard to listen to, their various episodes about Roe V. Wade in the lead up to it being overturned and just after the overturning are also excellent.
Also, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis as an example of how corrupt the court is given the ruling was made on a theoretical maybe-possibility rather than an actual thing that actually happened, creating a massive loophole for bigots to discriminate unchecked.
valerie losell:
The fact is that the PLO supported black S A’s struggle against oppression since 1948 when both Palestine and S A were subjected to British Colonial violent control ( apartheid system).
Note that Ireland has been calling out Israeli aggression on gaza since early October—- the Irish know british oppression in their dna for the last 1000 years. they sent money to the Chawktah displaced by usa in 1820’s and the Chawktah sent money to help the irish in the great 1840 s famine………Oppressed peoples around the world recognize land grabs through violence and no propaganda is going to cloud that vision
this very important link between S A and Palestine is rarely presented. Nelson Mandela said that Palestine must be part 2 of S A struggle for freedom , and close links between the two countries’ struggle against British crafted oppression has been ongoing for 80 years almost!! yet completely erased from socalled media reporting in the capitalist West where we supposedly cheer for “ freedom”. (which has to win the prize as the word most emptied of meaning this century )
Louise Rolingher:
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but let’s be clear about what happened when. 1948 was the year that an already independent South Africa elected an Afrikaner Nationalist Party (the NP) government that imposed a system they called Apartheid on the majority Black, indigenous population based on the Canadian reserve system for indigenous peoples and the racist policies of the German National Socialists under Hitler. It was also the year of the Nakba, in which a newly formed “Israeli” army swept the British out of power in Palestine and at the same time “removed” at least 700,000 residents of that area who came to think of themselves as Palestinians. The Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch, French and German immigrants who had arrived on the shores of the southern most point of the African continent in the 1600s, were certainly colonizers. And they learned much by rebelling against the British, who replaced them in the 19th century, during what is known as the Boer War (Afrikaners were called Boers by the Brits) having been forced into concentration camps by the then British rulers of the South African colony.
Where both South Africa and the Palestinians find common cause is in the way each was treated by a British successor–the Afrikaners and the Israelis. The systems are not identical but both made second class citizens or even non-citizens and stripped them of the best lands on which they had lived for generations.
Both have oppressed and labeled their oppositions as “terrorists” in order to absolve themselves of guilt for the way they have treated fellow human beings.
If anyone has the moral and legal right to raise the issue of genocide at the ICJ, it is the South Africans and they are going to do so whether or not Justice Abella agrees.
We can only hope they are successful. Too many genocides have gone without adequate recourse since WWII and the Holocaust. My greatest regret is that Canada, not merely Abella, has taken the wrong stand with regard to the court action.Mine too.
valerie losell:
totally agree. details of each system different; core dynamic of violent colonial land theft and subjugation of indigenous population the same. ditto around the world. ALL of north and south America, Pacifica, N Z , Aus. Etc. thats why the indigenous peoples recognize the central dynamic of what is happening in Gaza and are speaking out in our millions
valerie losell;
I think the greatest immediate unintended consequence of the grotesque assault on Gaza by Israel has been to render their very expensive and nefarious campaign to silence BDS for the past twenty years moot.
ha ha —your own evil actions have exposed your endless lies to the world . Thank you to the brave reporters documenting your murderous actions. bless all the dead reporters you have murdered for their sacrifice. not in vain say the ordinary people of the world!
Literally billions of people are now NOT buying Pumas, MacDonalds, Soda Stream, HP products, Sephora, Israeli wines, vacations to Tel Aviv, etc.
your stupid campaign of embedding employment clauses “forbidding boycott “are powerless against people’s individual minds and so far you cant charge someone with a crime for refusing to buy something!!! huge swaths of the world are watching and doing what they can to RESIST.
check out BDS website to see what NoT to buy people. check out Naomi Kleins op ed in guardian
uk on why boycott matters and actually works!!
power is with the 8 billion people who think what israel is doing is WRONG.
I’ve been boycotting Israeli products for decades, and publicly saying so, because of their vicious crimes against Palestinians and others. My boycott is to my detriment because Israelis make excellent products, some which I’d like to buy (e.g. Soda Stream), but don’t.
Dimitrios Raptis:
As a grade school graduate, I think that this contribution of the ex Supreme Court judge Abella is totally false and misleading.
Let us remember that for 75 years now Palestinians have been robbed of their houses and land which were given to citizens of foreign countries, provided they had a ‘’Jewish’’ label.
Their protests were brutally suppressed and most people did not express any concern, until Israelis were killed.
Actually, the most important Jewish priests have been against Zionism and a state discriminating on the basis of their religion, even before the state of Israel was created.
As far as I understand, executing 23.000 (and counting) unarmed people for a maximum of 1300 of your own is against Judaism. Please read the relevant section and judge for yourself.
Leviticus ch 24, articles 19-22. Ref King James edition
Leviticus ch 24, articles 19-22. Ref King James edition
19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he has done, so shall it be done to him;
20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
21. And he that killed a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killed a man, he shall be put to death.
22. Ye shall have one manner in law, as well as for the stranger, as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your God
Sara R:
Thank you for this analysis. I was appalled when I read Justice Abella’s op ed. She used no legal reasoning, no facts related to Israel’s actual actions on Gaza and tries to deflect any responsibility of Israel as a so-called OECD country to follow the post-WW2 rules of war. Random bombing, zero military strategy, starvation, dehydration as tactics of war and a global silencing of dissent and information on what is happening in Gaza.
Let’s not forget that more journalist have been killed in Gaza in first 70 days of this war than all 6 years of WW2.
Also, I looked up Hamas policy document of 2017 “A Document of General Principles & Policies”.
It actually is clear that it is not against Jewish people and has no genocidal intent toward Jewish people, as Justice Abella claims. It is resisting Israeli occupation.
Check it out: https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf
And the following sections from that document clearly state that (section 16 & 17):
- Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
- Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.
***
