HOME  DISINFORMATION  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  FARBER  HILBORN  HUNTER  LEISHMAN  MARTIN  MORGAN  RONEN  PRESS  CHRC 
Ukrainian Archive Philo-Semitism Encounters a Snarling Rottweiler
Lubomyr Prytulak to Mary M Gusella   20-Feb-2004
Mary M Gusella, Chief Commissioner
"A ferocious Rottweiler dog in your suburban home will quickly estrange your family from the neighborhood.  For those of us in the Jewish community who cherish friendship with our neighbors, some Jewish organizations have become our Rottweilers.  God help us." � Rabbi Daniel Lapin
Correction: Information is received on 21-Feb-2004 that London, Ontario columnist Rory Leishman is not Jewish as is represented below.

  20 February 2004


Mary M Gusella, Chief Commissioner
Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)
344 Slater Street
Ottawa, ON    K1A 1E1

Re: Ukrainian Archive Philo-Semitism Encounters a Snarling Rottweiler

Dear Ms Gusella:

The several Prytulak letters to representatives of both the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) have already been the vehicle of introducing several Prytulak arguments in reply to the CJC complaint of 07-Nov-2003, the effect of which arguments, in many cases singly and certainly jointly, has been to justify the dismissal of the CJC complaint of "hate messaging" broadcast on the Ukrainian Archive (UKAR) web site at www.ukar.org.  The instant letter presents one further argument, this one being among the most determinative � namely that UKAR does not discriminate on the basis of national or ethnic origin, or religion, and therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) s. 13.

Specifically, even a cursory examination of UKAR will quickly lead to the conclusion that it constitutes, more than anything else, a platform for Jewish authorship, such that if all Jewish material were removed, UKAR would be gutted of its central themes, whereas if the work of all Ukrainian writers were removed, UKAR would be little diminished.

More specifically still, below is a list of the leading 45 Jewish authors which UKAR cites with evident approval, and often with admiration and at considerable length.  The fact that a few of these Jewish writers have been added to UKAR subsequent to Prytulak's 28-Nov-2003 receipt of the CJC complaint is irrelevant, as featuring Jewish writing has been a UKAR characteristic from inception, and the addition of fresh Jewish literature is merely the continuation of a long-standing tradition, and in any case as the CJC complaint demands the closing of UKAR at some future date, then all material on the web site up to the date of possible closure becomes relevant.  The leading instances of UKAR approval of Jewish writers, then, are as follows:

  1. Woody ALLEN


  2. Barbara AMIEL


  3. Hannah ARENDT

    • The Jewish show trial of Michael Seifert   www.ukar.org/radler02.html
      Arendt is given three block quotes in the file above, and is further cited in three other UKAR files

  4. Alan BOROVOY


  5. Dr. Michael BROIDA


  6. Noam CHOMSKY


  7. Martin Regg COHN


  8. Albert EINSTEIN


  9. Dov EITAN


  10. Boas EVRON


  11. Barbara Strauss FEUERLICHT


  12. Norman G. FINKELSTEIN


  13. Seymour E. FREEDMAN

    • Moshe Ronen: Kosher status misrepresentation   www.ukar.org/ronen08.html
    • Seymour E. Freedman is cited also in 16 other UKAR files

  14. Robert I. FRIEDMAN


  15. Harold P. GASTWIRT


  16. Jeffrey GOLDBERG


  17. A. B. GOTTLOBER


  18. Amira HASS


  19. Leo HEIMAN (for translating Dr. Michael Broida)


  20. Raul HILBERG


  21. Bruce JACKSON


  22. Rabbi Dr. Eugen KULLMAN


  23. Bernard LAZARE


  24. Rory LEISHMAN


  25. I. M. LEVITAS


  26. Rabbi David H. LINCOLN


  27. F. Ashe LINCOLN  (who served as the "hon. sec. Anglo-Ukrainian Committee")


  28. Norton MEZVINSKY


  29. Michael NEUMANN


  30. Ruth OKUNEVA


  31. Akiva ORR


  32. Emanuel RINGELBLUM


  33. Philip ROTH


  34. William D. RUBINSTEIN


  35. John SACK


  36. Reb Moshe SHONFELD


  37. Israel SHAHAK


  38. Israel SHAMIR


  39. Yoram SHEFTEL


  40. Max SILVERMAN


  41. Arthur Hays SULZBERGER


  42. Isaiah TRUNK


  43. Bernard D. WEINRYB


  44. William WOLF


  45. Efraim ZUROFF



In addition to the above 45 Jews whose work UKAR displays in varying degrees of prominence, UKAR also lists individuals, many of whom bear Jewish names, whose views on some question or other coincide with those expressed on UKAR, as for example all 27 of the signers of the letter that UKAR attributes primarily to Albert Einstein:

ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ, HANNAH ARENDT, ABRAHAM BRICK, RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO, ALBERT EINSTEIN, HERMAN EISEN, M.D., HAYIM FINEMAN, M. GALLEN, M.D., H.H. HARRIS, ZELIG S. HARRIS, SIDNEY HOOK, FRED KARUSH, BRURIA KAUFMAN, IRMA L. LINDHEIM, NACHMAN MAJSEL, SEYMOUR MELMAN, MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D., HARRY M. ORLINSKY, SAMUEL PITLICK, FRITZ ROHRLICH, LOUIS P. ROCKER, RUTH SAGER, ITZHAK SANKOWSKY, I.J. SHOENBERG, SAMUEL SHUMAN, M. ZNGER, IRMA WOLPE, STEFAN WOLPE.
Albert Einstein writes you www.ukar.org/asper/asper08.html

A second example of UKAR approval of Jews whose individual work is not cited, but whose names are listed, is found among those who signed a petition against the cruelty of Jewish ritual slaughter that was published in the New York Times:

Dr. John Boland, Chief of Radiotherapy, Mt. Sinai Hospital
Dr. Irving Graef, Consultant Physician, Lenox Hill Hospital
Dr. David Gurevitch, Clinical Professor of Rehabilitation, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center
Dr. Maria Morgenstern, Psychiatrist
Dr. Juan Negrin, Attending Neuro-Surgeon, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York Metropolitan Medical Center
Dr. Saul K. Padover, Chairman, Department of Political Science, Graduate School New School for Social Research
Dr. Henry Schwab, Senior Assistant Physician, Metabolic Division, St. Clare's Hospital, Instructor in Medicine, New York Medical College
Rabbi Dr. Eugen Kullman, Department of Religion and Philosophy, New School for Social Research
Elmer and Ruth Berger, Irene Balletta, Gordon and Isabel Brooks, Shepard Coleman, John Cram, Rosita Diaz, Constance Fisher, Regina Frankenberg, Alan Goldberg, Rabbi David Goldberg, John T. Gorman, Dr. and Mrs. L. Gottesman, Gretchen Graef, Fannie Hurst, Mrs. W. E. Josten, Helen Lehman, Alexander and Ellsabeth Lewy, Jacques and Vera Lindon, James A. MacIntosh, Marjorie Mitchell, Juliet Pitt, Theodor Primack, Gene and Helen Rayburn, Wells Richardson, Remi Saunder, Frank Shoenborn, Dorothy Stein, Carole Tauber, Lawrence and Trudy Wilkinson, Gretchen Wyler, and John Zanetti.
Is Jewish ritual slaughter inhumane? www.ukar.org/ronen02.html

To give a third example, UKAR obviously endorses the several Jews cited on the Jews NOT Zionists web page at www.ukar.org/jewsnot1.html, as for example Rabbi Moshe Ber Beck, Professor Jacob I. De Haan zt"l, Naeim Giladi, Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandel ZT"L, Rabbi Zalman Eherenreich, David Yisraeli, and Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum.

What is apparent, then, is that UKAR expresses approval of, and solidarity with, a large number of Jews, from which it follows that it is impossible that the criterion triggering UKAR disapproval is Jewishness.  What must obviously be the case is that UKAR distributes approval and disapproval according to criteria other than national or ethnic origin, or religion.  What UKAR is obviously doing is backing one segment of the Jewish community in its opposition to another segment, and thus UKAR cannot be said to discriminate on the basis of Jewishness.  In fact, a strong argument has already been forwarded to both the CJC and the CHRC that UKAR backs the majority of Jews who are constructive against that segment of their leadership which is destructive, whose worst effect will be to contribute to the disillusionment of the Jewish people with, and to the replacement of, some of that leadership � a normal and valuable political process in which the CHRC has no authorization to meddle, and most certainly which the CHRC has no business attempting to block (this strong argument already forwarded can be found in the Prytulak letter to CJC Chair Ed Morgan of 28-Jan-2004 Canadian Jewish Congress Fanaticism Infects the University of Toronto under the headings "Where's the hatred?" and "A Cancer for Jews?" as well as in the Prytulak letter to Ed Morgan of 12-Feb-2004 Spreading poison about Canadian Jews).  What the above list of UKAR-applauded Jews makes clear is that the CJC complaint is not brought by the Jewish people against a UKAR which works to injure the Jewish people, but rather is a complaint brought by the CJC against a UKAR which works with the Jewish majority to replace CJC leadership.  Even to depict the line between UKAR approval and disapproval as one between the Jewish people and Jewish leadership is not quite accurate, as many if not most � if not all � of the Jews with whom UKAR expresses solidarity either are in positions of official leadership, or else are leaders in the sense that they are influential public figures and opinion makers and trend setters, such that it would be more accurate to say that UKAR supports the bulk of the Jewish people together with the bulk of Jewish leadership against the minority of Jewish leaders who currently occupy the media spotlight and wield most power, such as those presently ensconsed in the CJC.

And it would be presenting a misleading picture of UKAR to portray it as concerned exclusively with upgrading Jewish leadership because in fact What is true in every case above, and most especially the Jewish case, is that UKAR discriminates on the basis of conduct, and reserves its disapproval for misconduct, misbehavior, malfeasance, transgression, duplicity, oppression, crime; and what is also true in every case above is that such disapproval cuts across all national and ethnic and religious boundaries and thus falls outside the jurisdiction of the CHRA; and what must follow from the above is that prosecuting UKAR for "hate messaging" against Jews has no more basis than prosecuting UKAR for "hate messaging" against Catholics or Ukrainians or Americans or Japanese or Germans or the Swiss.  And one further conclusion that follows is that if the CHRC has not been allocating proportionate resources to "hate-messaging" complaints lodged by Catholics, Ukrainians, Americans, Japanese, Germans, and Swiss, it may be in part because all these groups boycot the CHRC because of its flaunted bias and because of their repugnance at collaborating with an institution that sees little virtue in defending truthful utterance.

What exactly does the CHRA say?

The only exposure to hatred or contempt that the CHRA prohibits is one that is by reason of the target's being � in the instant case � Jewish.  Hatred or contempt incited by misconduct clearly is not prohibited.

Prohibited grounds of discrimination      3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

Hate messages      13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

To apply this principle to a specific example, when Morley Safer tells 30 million television viewers that Ukrainians killed thousands of Jews immediately prior to German occupation during WW II, when in fact at that very time it was the Jewish-dominated NKVD that was torturing and killing thousands of Ukrainians, and when UKAR challenges Morley Safer and shows him its evidence and demands to see his, then UKAR is not inciting hatred toward Jews collectively, but is only initiating a historical debate which will invite a loss of trust in Morley Safer's credibility if his evidence proves inadequate or non-existent.  As for the NKVD Jews doing the killing � hatred and contempt might indeed be incited toward them, but as the overwhelming majority of local Jews were not members of the NKVD, and surely regarded the killing with the same horror as non-Jews, then there is no reason that the hatred and contempt should spread to all the Jews of that time and place, and in any case, some NKVD members were not Jews, and the hatred and contempt attaches to these non-Jewish NKVD killers equally � which can be summarized by saying that hatred and contempt attach to killers whatever their nationality, ethnicity, or religion.

UKAR addressing Morley Safer, then, was occasioned not by his being Jewish, but by his being mendacious and defamatory.  Had a Japanese Shintoist read the offending lines into the 60 Minutes cameras on 23-Oct-1994 instead of Morley Safer, then UKAR would have protested the Japanese Shintoist even though he was not Jewish.  Or, had Morley Safer not broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom that evening, but some other story, then Lubomyr Prytulak would have watched him as contentedly as he had been watching him for years previously (being at the time a loyal 60 Minutes fan) without feeling any need to attack Safer even though Prytulak was aware during all those tranquil years that Safer was Jewish.  It is absolutely clear, then, that the trigger for UKAR writing to, and about, Morley Safer was his unprofessional and unconscionable and despicable conduct, and not his Jewishness.

Pretty much the same can be said of every other individual who is criticized on UKAR.  Lubomyr Prytulak has watched a hundred Jewish broadcasters and read a hundred Jewish writers without feeling the slightest impulse to confront them; and when he does confront anyone, it is always on account of that someone's provocative transgression and not on account of his nationality or ethnicity or religion.  To the question of whether UKAR exposes Jews to hatred, the answer is that UKAR exposes miscreants to discredit.

Now if UKAR's critiquing Morley Safer for his defamation encourages some emotionally-labile reader of the UKAR critique to hate Safer rather than merely to lose respect for him, and if it further provokes some irrational reader to hate Jews instead of merely hating Morley Safer or merely hating those who like Safer are guilty of defamation, and if the CHRC decides that the existence of even a little such intemperate or irrational emotion does define the UKAR critique as "hate messaging," then the result will be that all Jews will be given CHRC protection from criticism, which will have two consequences devastating to Jews:  (1) It will elicit widespread and profound resentment of Jews for enjoying a privilege unavailable to any other group.  (2) That privilege will in reality be a curse, as protection from criticism is corrupting, and opens the floodgates to misconduct.  Such a CHRC course would produce a situation that is both escalating and explosive, with CJC leadership increasingly misbehaving, and the Jewish and non-Jewish public increasingly frustrated at being forbidden to protest this misbehavior.  CHRC prohibition of criticism of any Jew, then, would be placing a powder keg underneath the Jewish people, and waving a burning torch near the keg, all the while expecting credit for having quelled discrimination and having enforced domestic tranquility.

A note on the English language

Does such UKAR usage of the adjective "Jewish" as the following attach indiscriminate or collective blame to all Jews, as for example in the following instances?

The answer is that the expressions potentially objected to as above constitute standard English usage, and to which there exists no practical alternative, and that invite no misunderstanding or confusion except for a factitious misunderstanding and confusion that is professed by minds bent on mischief.  By way of explanation, I find CNN � and everybody � commonly referring to the "American occupation" of Iraq, with nobody objecting that in fact only an infinitesimal proportion of all Americans are actually in Iraq, or are directly involved in the occupation of Iraq, and with nobody objecting that a substantial proportion of Americans are even opposed to any occupation of Iraq � and with nobody objecting that therefore it is unjust to defame all Americans as occupiers of Iraq by speaking of an "American occupation."  Nobody raises any of these objections because everybody understands that "American occupation" is very far from meaning that every last American in the world is presently in Iraq or supports the occupation of Iraq.  And, in any case if anyone did wish to relieve Americans of any undeserved collective blame that a careless choice of words might be inviting, what could he do?  What is the practical alternative?  How should the following CNN sentence by re-written so as to approach angelic inoffensiveness: "Residents of the Iraqi capital have seen a huge surge in street crimes since the American occupation."  When some practical alternative is proposed for this or any of the other cases, it will be considered; if no practical alternative can be imagined, opposition to standard English usage should be withdrawn.

Following the same line of reasoning, on the question of Jewish show trials, a Google search readily finds reference to, for example, "Russian show trials," and where everyone understands that these were implemented by only an infinitesimal proportion of the Russian people that occupied positions within Russia's totalitarian dictatorship, and may have been planned and commanded by as little as a single Russian, and in fact may have been commanded by a Georgian who at the time ruled Russia, and may in fact have been profoundly detested and feared by almost all Russians.  And yet despite all this, standard English usage calls these trials "Russian show trials."  Most relevant here, the expression "Russian show trials" does not affix blame to the Russian people, and does not incite hatred toward the Russian people, and in fact invites sympathy toward the Russian people.  In the same way, the expression "Jewish show trials" is understood to involve only an infinitesimal proportion of the Jewish people, and does not affix blame to the Jewish people collectively, and does not incite hatred toward the Jewish people (though the sympathy that is invited by the Jewish show trials goes less to the Jewish people collectively than to the victims, who happen to not be Jewish).

Pursuing the question of the Jewish Conquest of the Slavs, one finds reference to, for example, the "Japanese conquest of Corregidor" even though this conquest involved the direct participation of only an infinitesimal proportion of all Japanese, and may have been planned and ordered by only a handful of Japanese, or even by one Japanese, and for all we know might have been disapproved of by many Japanese people had they learned of it at the time, and might be disapproved of by many Japanese people today.  Nevertheless, standard English usage calls this the "Japanese conquest of Corregidor," with it appears neither confusion nor objection emanating from any direction.

Pursuing the question of Jewish War Crimes, one quickly discovers that practically every other people have had their name similarly slotted, and where it is clear to all that, say, "American war crimes" are committed not by all Americans equally, but rather by an infinitesimal minority of Americans, and with the disapproval and detestation of the majority of Americans, and where such clear understanding precludes anyone jumping to the false conclusion that "American war crimes" refers to the war crimes of each and every American.

And pursuing the question of the Jewish Supermarket Tax, one finds that the tax that ignited the Boston Tea Party in 1773 is referred to as the "British Tea Tax," even though the vast majority of the British people were not involved in the tea trade, and in no way participated in either the legislation or the gathering of the tea tax, and did not share in its revenues, and were probably even unaware of its existence, and if they had been made aware, might well have disapproved.  And yet the English language properly designates this tax as the "British Tea Tax," and the world is too sensible to offer the objection that this offensive expression indiscriminately stigmatizes all Britons for a tax that they individually were not responsible for and had nothing to do with.  And by the same reasoning, the expression "Jewish supermarket tax" is compatible with the vast majority of the Jewish people in no way participating in its planning or imposition, and in no way sharing in its revenues, and in fact being largely unaware of its existence, and possibly disapproving upon learning of it, and the expression "Jewish supermarket tax" does not remove the perception of Jews being among the chief victims of the tax.

This same linguistic phenomenon is ubiquitous.  Thus, Neil Gabler writing the best-selling "An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Created Hollywood" led no one to conclude that all, or a majority, or even as much as one percent of world Jewry, or of American Jewry, created Hollywood.  Rather, everyone understood that the title was justified by a preponderance of the key players having been Jewish, and such opposite facts as that some Jews might never watch movies of any origin, while other Jews might boycott Hollywood movies in particular, or whatever, would be irrelevant.  Paralleling the "How the Jews Created Hollywood" book, and sheltering under the same justification, are books such as "How the Irish Saved Civilization," "How The British Occupied Bengal," "How the French Lost America," "How the Russians Invented Baseball," and "George Washington, Spymaster: How the Americans Outspied the British and Won the Revolutionary War."  In every case, the whole simply stands for the part, and the CHRC would venture onto untenable ground were it to attempt to outlaw synecdoche.

The linguistic question, then, boils down to whether the Canadian government intends to prosecute those who would speak of Jews using the same standard English that is used when speaking of every other people.

UKAR has been explicit in placing blame not on the Jewish people, but on that portion of Jewish leadership which is destructive

The placing of blame not on the Jewish people, but on oppressive and exploitative leadership which victimizes Jews and non-Jews alike, has been emphasized on the pages of UKAR over many years.  Thus, that the Jewish people are not the perpetrators of the Jewish Supermarket tax, but are its victims even more than non-Jews, has been broadcast for more than three years and eight months in the statement below:

In the poisoning of Rabbi Avraham Cohen and his daughter in Lviv, we were presented with a case in which the kosher tax revenues were not distributed among Jews evenly, but rather were delivered to "five Jewish notables of the town."  The bulk of the Jewish people, then, were neither the implementers of the kosher tax, nor the beneficiaries � they were the resisting victims.  I wonder if you would care to comment on the possibility that the same applies to the kosher tax today � that is, that it benefits only a few "Jewish notables of the town," and that its chief victims are the Jewish people?
Lubomyr Prytulak to Moshe Ronen, Rabbi Avraham Cohen poisoned in Lviv, 09-Jun-2000  www.ukar.org/ronen13.html

And that the Jewish people cannot be blamed collectively for the evil elements in their midst, and that there exists solidarity between non-Jews and the majority of Jews in wishing to cast out evil elements from the Jewish midst, was highlighted on the pages of UKAR approaching six years ago in the posting concerning Warsaw's 1905 Alphonsenpogrom:

This pogrom was conducted by respectable Jews against criminal or destructive Jews because the latter were tarnishing the image of all Jews.  This brings to mind the realization that events that may conventionally be depicted as Jewish-Slavic friction in fact may not divide participants cleanly along ethnic lines, but rather that the very elements within Jewish society that Slavs might object to might also be objected to by the majority of Jews.  Perhaps, then, the friction is at least sometimes not one of Christians against Jews, but rather Christians allied with the vast majority of Jews who are respectable against the minority of Jews who are destructive.
07-Apr-1998  Alphonsenpogrom: Unique or universal?  www.ukar.org/women02.html

The same theme has been echoed throughout the pages of UKAR from its inception � namely, that UKAR sides with the majority of good Jews against a minority of bad Jews, as for example:

Responsible Jews and Non-Jews Oppose Irresponsible Jews

It cannot escape our attention that foremost among those challenging the disinformation in the Liberators are the apparently-Jewish writer Jeffrey Goldberg, and possibly-Jewish historians at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.  This reinforces a point introduced earlier in the Ukrainian Archive during the discussion of Warsaw's 1905 Alphonsenpogrom, to the effect that what may be taken at first glance to be an expression of antagonism toward Jews may in reality be an expression of opposition by responsible Jews and non-Jews alike against irresponsible elements among Jews, and that it is the responsible Jews themselves who may be in the vanguard of the attack against irresponsible Jews.

We have seen this to be the case repeatedly, not only during Warsaw's Alphonsenpogrom, but in many prominent incidents � for example, Israeli defense attorney Yoram Sheftel must be given a large share of the credit for exposing the duplicity and incompetence of the Israeli justice system, and thereby saving the life of John Demjanjuk, a case in which other Jews such as Phoenix attorney William J. Wolf also played leading and heroic roles.  The prominent role played by responsible Jews in opposing irresponsible Jews should not be surprising � the irresponsible Jews injure all Jews because their irresponsibility attaches in popular thinking to Jews generally, and thus serves to smear the good name of all Jews.

Important to note in the Liberators case, then, is that the friction does not divide cleanly along ethnic lines.  The Liberators, and the many other cases before us, do not illustrate Jews clashing with anti-Semites � rather, they illustrate the irresponsible clashing with the responsible, the disseminators of disinformation clashing with the upholders of truth.
Jeffrey Goldberg, The Liberation that Wasn't, Globe and Mail, 06-Feb-1993  www.ukar.org/goldbe01.html

And UKAR drives the same point home yet again in the 28-Jan-2004 letter Canadian Jewish Congress Fanaticism Infects the University of Toronto to CJC Chair, Ed Morgan � that blame is directed toward individuals, and toward groups like the CJC, for their misdeeds; and that blame is not attached to the Jewish people collectively for the simple reason that the misdeeds complained of were not perpetrated by the Jewish people collectively; and that UKAR never complains in isolation, but always in solidarity with Jews complaining of the same misdeeds:

My answer is that in the case of Evron's "non-historical and easily refutable commentaries on the Holocaust," retraction or refutation will lead to some heated emotion � but not toward the Jewish people collectively, because the Jewish people collectively are not the authors of the vast hoax, they are the victims.  That is, every Jew that I have ever addressed on the subject of the Jewish holocaust or WW II war crimes has demonstrated an ignorance of being duped as profound as that enjoyed by all other people.  It is clear that Jews collectively have been both the targets and the victims of the deception, and that they have suffered profoundly from being deceived.  The emotion that I envision, then, will be in the nature not of hatred but of righteous indignation on the part of the Jewish people against the leaders that have duped them.  I offer for your consideration the very viable hypothesis that Canadian Jewish Congress leaders are right to anticipate that a continuation of what they call "holocaust denial" (and what others recognize as the objective and scholarly study of history) will lead to an eruption, but they are disingenuous in disclosing who it is they expect will erupt, and against whom they expect that eruption will be aimed.  What the Jewish leaders pretend to expect is an eruption of Nazis against Jews, but what they truly expect and truly fear is an eruption of Jews against their own leadership, the effect of which eruption will be to sweep the hate propagandists among them from office, and will be to install a new generation of Jewish leaders.
Ed Morgan, Canadian Jewish Congress Fanaticism Infects the University of Toronto, 28-Jan-2004  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan02.html

Canadian Jewish Congress leadership does have a real grievance against UKAR, but it is not a grievance that can serve as the ground for a complaint under the CHRA, and it is not a grievance that can win redress before any tribunal.  The grievance is that CJC leadership is threatened with replacement as a result of a loss of confidence felt by an expanding coalition which includes UKAR together with a majority of the Jewish people.

The Canadian Jewish Congress has become Canada's snarling Rottweiler

In its instant complaint to the CHRC, the Canadian Jewish Congress has abandoned its role of representing the Jewish people and attempting to get along, and has instead assumed a role which Rabbi Daniel Lapin likens to that of a snarling Rottweiler:

I consider it crucially important for Christians to know that not all Jews are in agreement with their self-appointed spokesmen.  Most American Jews, experiencing warm and gracious interactions each day with their Christian fellow-citizens, would feel awkward trying to explain why so many Jewish organizations seem focused on an agenda hostile to Judeo-Christian values.  Many individual Jews have shared with me their embarrassment that groups, ostensibly representing them, attack Passion but are silent about depraved entertainment that encourages killing cops and brutalizing women.  Citing artistic freedom, Jewish groups helped protect sacrilegious exhibits such as the anti-Christian feces extravaganza presented by the Brooklyn Museum four years ago.  One can hardly blame Christians for assuming that Jews feel artistic freedom is important only when exercised by those hostile toward Christianity.  However, this is not how all Jews feel.  [...]  The actions of these Jewish organizations sadly suggest that they are in the grip of a hatred for Christianity that is only harming Jews.  [...]  It is strange that Jewish organizations, purporting to protect Jews, think that insulting allies is the preferred way to carry out that mandate.  A ferocious Rottweiler dog in your suburban home will quickly estrange your family from the neighborhood.  For those of us in the Jewish community who cherish friendship with our neighbors, some Jewish organizations have become our Rottweilers.  God help us.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, President, Toward Tradition, Why Mel Owes One To The Jews, 12-Feb-2004 www.towardtradition.org/article_Passion_Feb_2004.htm


Yours truly,




Lubomyr Prytulak

cc:

Irving ABELLA, National Honourary President, CJC, Department of History, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON  M3J 1P3
Bernie FARBER, Executive Director, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2
Ed MORGAN, Chair, CJC, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 84 Queen's Park, Toronto, ON  M5S 2C5
Moshe RONEN, Chair Board of Governors, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2
Len RUDNER, Director of Community Relations, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2
HOME  DISINFORMATION  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  FARBER  HILBORN  HUNTER  LEISHMAN  MARTIN  MORGAN  RONEN  PRESS  CHRC