Posted on 05/30/2005 5:40:18 AM PDT by fanfan
Note to readers: It is important to read right to the end of this column.
"Jewish activists capturing Tory races," screamed the front page headline in Friday's Globe and Mail newspaper.
The article that followed was just as breathless. These Jews represented a "political penetration" of the Tory party by people who take a "hard line." These Jews had "ties" to Jewish "groups." And this was not achieved through normal democracy, but by rabbis "persuading" their flocks to join the party.Out of 308 riding associations, the Globe only found eight in which Jews were candidates. But still they called it "a large number" and "an unfortunate turn" for the party, especially a party trying to shuck off accusations of a "hidden agenda."
The Globe found a Gentile politician who lost a nomination contest and served up just the right tone of worry.
"It begins to hijack the other agendas that parties have," said a candidate who lost to a Jew, a Jew who was "recommended" in his synagogue, a Jew with his own agenda, not the Tory agenda. He doesn't have anything against Jews. He is just worried that these Jews "probably can't get elected because they certainly don't represent any mainstream population view."
Other, less tolerant people are "extremely concerned," reported the Globe, but were unwilling to make their comments on the record, perhaps for fear of offending their Jewish friends. These critics "wished the party leaders had been more involved in the nominations." No one claims that the votes weren't fairly won by these Jews, so the "involvement" desired is clear: quotas limiting the number of Jewish candidates.
Canadian universities limited Jewish medical students until the 1950s, so why not limit Jewish candidates in 2005? Measured by their percentage of the population, Jews should make do with three seats, not eight. And those eight are just the Jews we know about -- MPs with names like Goldring or Strahl or Solberg could be Jews, too. Especially Monte Solberg.
One of the rabbis told the Globe he would "make no apologies" for his actions. Another "expresses no uneasiness." This was reported by the Globe because it is remarkable. Rarely have Jewish elders been so open about their protocols. The Globe explained why its readers should be uneasy -- one of the Jews was a past-president of a Jewish charity; another was the executive director of a Jewish anti-defamation organization for two years in the 1990s. Another one "has been" a leader at a community synagogue in Burnaby. These aren't just quiet Jews. They're the kind who talk too loud in restaurants and wear gaudy jewelry.
That front page article led to a column by a prominent Globe columnist who has, for several weeks, been running an inquisition into the religion of Tory candidates. On Friday, he apologized -- a week earlier he had said one Tory candidate bragged on his website that he was running a "Jewish law firm." The columnist admitted the website didn't say that. But since that candidate had mentioned elsewhere that "prayer [was] being practised by the partners," the point still stood -- fake but accurate, as Dan Rather might say. The columnist went on to expose other Jewish candidates who had hidden their real identities in their campaign brochures.
Oh, have I been writing "Jews?" I didn't mean to. The Globe would never write such things about Jews. No, the stories quoted above did run in the Globe -- except the word "Jew" here appeared as the word "Christian" in the Globe, "rabbi" was "pastor" and "synagogue" was "church." Look it up for yourself.
Shouldn't bigotry against Christians be just as unacceptable as bigotry against Jews?
Speaking of agenda - The Globe is the WORST offender. A northern version of The New York Times.
First, reports of Al Qaeda actually training operatives in Canada. Then yesterday the Globe and Mail reported that Christians have infiltrated the ranks of the Conservative Party.
I know, we vowed that this could never happen in Canada, but now as many as eight Christians have weasled their way into CPC nominations. Yes I say WEASLED because apparently some of them recruited members of their church, or should I say cult, to vote for them in nominations. So much for democracy.
I guess Christians have a right to their views, but pluralism has its limits.
Look we're happy that these Christians let us use their buildings to get married, baptised and buried, but getting involved in politics? Personally I think Christians are fine in their place, but when they expect that people will actually vote for them...well that is just downright uppity.
The Globe report even tied some of their kind to the promotion of traditional marriage! Where does this weirdness end?
Will we soon be treated to the spectacle of people who pull vegetables out of the ground by the roots and then scald them in pots of boiling water?
What has happened to Canada? Like I say plurality is good as far as it goes, but having different opinions, What's up with that?
OMG!!! That's about all I can say. No wonder Ontario cares not a wit about corruption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.