Ignorant monkey child

aspiring internet troll and conspiracy theorist

Reading between the lines of Jagmeet Singh

I’ve noticed, recently, that Jagmeet Singh’s campaign has started to profess the same confidence the candidate himself expresses; the same kind of confidence that the mainstream media took to when it became known that Singh would run to become the next leader of the NDP. I remember wondering whether Singh would be expected to return favours for such coverage. I like to consider the issue of Palestinian human rights a litmus test, personally, and I was happy to hear Jagmeet oppose a vicious anti-BDS motion some time ago. But it doesn’t feel right that Jagmeet Singh puff pieces keep getting pumped out, because everybody knows how the media reports on those who intend to challenge Israel’s status quo. 

Perhaps Singh isn’t a total fake, but clearly he’s in a position where temptation and power could override his moral integrity. Should one not wonder about his trustworthiness when he received an endorsement from the foreign affairs critic with a history of pandering to the JNF? Or when one of his advisors is apparently some sort of conservative hawk? There’s this defensiveness from Singh supporters that he is not to be compared to Justin Trudeau. As anyone can tell, Trudeau insults the intelligence of his critics and poses for pictures with those others who couldn’t be bothered. Singh, similarly, Tweets solidarity with the people of Gaza on one day, and is endorsed by a pro-Israel ally the next. Meanwhile he rides bikes in unbuttoned shirts and brags about being the only NDP leadership candidate who can draw crowds big enough to win a federal election. Maybe I’ll just spell it out: I think he’s insulting peoples’ intelligence. 

CJPME released surveys by NDP leadership candidates. I lucked out with an early scoop to find that the report only confirms what is blatantly clear about this next leadership election. Angus’s heart is in the right place, but his suggested foreign policy regarding the middle east does not go far enough. Caron, tellingly has been courted by blatant Israel apartheid apologists (and meanwhile testifies that religion and state should be separate). 

And then there’s Singh. For each question, there is a scale of 1-5, from which a candidate could choose to indicate their level of support for the issue or policy. Niki, for example, chose 5 to demonstrate that she believes the Canadian government should “take steps to support BDS.” Meanwhile Jagmeet Singh could not even be bothered to pick a number to show how strongly he felt about the issues. In fact, these are some of his responses to questions asked in the survey….

On whether he supports BDS, Jagmeet Singh concludes: “I am open to considering the use of sanctions in response to human rights violations.”

On sanctioning Israel’s illegal settlements, Jagmeet is “also open to considering a ban” on imported goods. 

On solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, “I would consider supporting the use of targeting sanctions against Israel.”

(Note that these are not all of the questions and answers, and he did write his support for Palestinians’ human rights and cultural development. What I’m trying to get at is, it’s easier said than done, and if he’s serious, he should tell us how he’ll get it done.)

Is being “open to considering” confidence-inducing? In fact, in some comments sections, whoever answered for Jagmeet (because honestly maybe he didn’t even bother to fill it out himself) didn’t even end their sentence with a period. Bad grammar and a disregard for the survey’s request for candidates to pick between 1-5 to demonstrate their feelings towards issues? Is Jagmeet Singh taking Palestine solidarity activists seriously or is he just being used to split the vote on the left–or worse? Look at Niki Ashton–she isn’t “open to considering” anything. She knows who the oppressor is in the Israel-Palestine conflict and she supports BDS. Jagmeet seems to promise that he’ll come through on contentious issues such as this, but here, he’s hesitant to put forth concrete policies. That makes me suspicious, and gives me even more of a reason to vote for the more genuine candidate. 

Should the GPC penalize members who deny cause for BDS and reject importance of progressive foreign policy?

Look folks, this party has become a charade in the past few months (no offense). I may be as active as I can be, but make no mistake, that’s because civilization might hit its boiling point in my lifetime and I want to know that I at least tried. The whole internal fight between the GPC membership would be pointless if not for the persistent and smart efforts of those few fearless moral people who have managed to steer the party onto the progressive path of impartial and honest dialogue (thanks, by the way). 

It can’t come as a shock to anybody that has been witness to the zionist regime’s ongoing massacre of the Palestinian people that Israel’s apologists will always accuse the Palestinian people and the advocates of their basic human rights of what they (the zionist regime) are in fact guilty of. Anyone who complains that Israel ethnically cleanses a country and collectively punishes those indigenous people who have not yet been exterminated is called an anti-semite. Those who state the fact that the zionist regime’s settlements are a war crime are then accused by war criminals to be war criminals who are calling for the genocide of Jews.

The “Inclusive Action Group” seemingly created by members of the GPC members falls into this category. This phoney inclusive action group claims to consist of grassroots individuals—just watch as they staunchly oppose a grassroots movement that is on pace to help bring justice to those being oppressed by the most racist and right-wing regime on the planet. BDS, these frauds claim, “discriminates based on national origin.” Herein lies the tenants of the BDS grassroots movement targeted at Israel: Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194. 

Since BDS targets oppressive policy and actions, such as those which are defined to be illegal under international law, then BDS is in fact not discriminating against national origin. It is simply requesting that international law be upheld while human rights are granted. Therein lies the absurd irony—that it is the zionist regime which undoubtedly discriminates based on national origin—especially that of the Palestinian.

BDS “imposes collective punishment on all Israelis”—the trademark of Israel apologists. Many of my fellow GPC members who support Palestinian human rights seem to think that these zionist apologists are harmless misinformed people. But when they so audaciously make claims like “BDS collectively punishes all Israelis,” it becomes increasingly possible that these people know very well what they’re doing—they’re helping the oppressor. The zionist regime clearly collectively punishes the Palestinian population. Palestinians are refused their human rights in order to sustain the fake Jewish majority of the anti-semitic self proclaimed “Jewish state.”

BDS seeks to “import the Middle East conflict into Canada by illegitimately targeting businesses, universities, and civil society institutions.” The same BDS which was targeted at South Africa? When one side militarily occupies the other and colonizes their land, BDS is hardly illegitimate. 

Canada already imports Middle Eastern conflict in its complicity in Israel’s crimes against humanity. I pray we don’t have terrorist attacks in Canada (or anywhere), but Canada’s status-quo policy on Israel is what creates terror. The more friends and family killed by Israel with permission from its allies like Canada, the more terrorists there will be. It’s simple logic and it can be applied to all those affected by American hegemony and proxy militaristic states. 

This pathetic inclusive action group “believes in dialogue, not discrimination.” Dialogue about anything other than Israel’s abhorrent behaviour to non-white Jews, and discrimination only against those who support Palestinian human rights. This Israel lobby sham wants “a party focused on serious policies, not personal agendas,” because it’s wrong for Canada’s Green Party to care about its citizens who are affected by Canada’s tacit support for the barbaric zionist regime (sarcasm).  “We expect our party to show openness, not exclusion”—it’s just that the GPC should not discuss the ethical and moral imperative for Palestinian human rights and an end to zionist oppression. The only people excluded should be those who question Israel in its current rogue state. 

If someone denies the Holocaust, they get booted from the party (with good reason, obviously). If someone says something anti-semitic or racist, they also get booted. Even if somebody says something that’s actually not anti-semitic, but makes the powerful anti-semites of today upset, they’ll get the damn boot. The point is, if some GPC members are outright lying that “BDS collectively punishes all Israelis,” and that BDS “discriminates against national origin,” then they too, should also get the boot. I know it’s not going to happen, considering the damn leader her fucking self opposed official party policy and then threatened to quit her job on national TV because Israel lobby cowards will have to end their apartheid system within the next decade.

The pro-Israel will get its voice in the GPC, because we need to hear all sides, no doubt. Because there are two sides to every issue. But here’s the thing: there’s no two sides to a military occupation; there’s the occupied people, and the occupier. There’s no two sides to an apartheid policy—there’s those being oppressed, and those oppressing. 

In order to even think about becoming a respectable party again, the GPC must find a way to stand firm against the ridiculous antics of its fanatical pro-Israel minority. I’ll just say it—this isn’t the party for them. This isn’t some “one issue pro-Israel party.” This is the Green Party, where we strive to address climate change, and promote justice, human rights, and equality for all. There’s no cap on what the GPC can achieve—and there shouldn’t be. This is why the GPC embraces BDS. It is the one issue many elites demand utmost firmness on—the white nationalist ethnocentric state must live on. 

Justin Trudeau is a cartoon character

With his endless personas, Justin Trudeau has turned out to be the silliest of characters, one that could easily be featured on the adult animated show South Park. It’s impossible to actually hate him because he’s so silly. In fact, despite the bad things he’s done, I still imagine I could enjoy a few minutes of talking with him.

It was oddly totally accepted when Trudeau and his supporters, at around the time that he was elected, openly professed that they were not interested in discussing any long term issues. The focus, according to Trudeau himself, was explaining to Canadians what his Liberal government would achieve for them immediately. Trudeau was referring probably mostly to the legalization of marijuana—and that, by the looks of it, will take close to three years to complete, just in time for the next election, where Trudeau will point at this relatively recent victory to garner most of the same supporters from the last election. Furthermore, the legalization of pot could lead to greater apathy and less resistance from the average Canadian citizen who probably smokes pot. 

At this point in a Justin Trudeau compilation, Trudeau flexes his acting muscles to exemplify himself as a true and pure Canadian patriot. For Trudeau, it is presupposed that he loves Canada and that Canada loves him. It is also presupposed that Canada is supremely tolerant; that it of all the nations knows how to handle “cold winters in the mountains,” Trudeau’s figurative summary for what Syrian refugees are experiencing. 

At this Eid celebration dinner, Trudeau’s speech was beyond rehearsed—the slow even pace with which he spoke; the tone he used throughout, which was that of a rich child indignant at Canada’s multicultural societies’ dissatisfaction. When he was heckled by an angry Arab in the crowd, who undoubtedly realized that Justin Trudeau was offering peace in only words at this event (while his party and the rest of the government enabled the total opposite of what was said), Trudeau powerfully spoke over him: “I offer you peace, brother. Peace.” Trudeau said that there could never be a military solution to the Palestinian issue. This was his method of developing a non-violent stance for this speech. Meanwhile, the reality is that the zionist regime is doing exactly that—militarily occupying the Palestinian people, who do not have a military, and are technically considered sub human, without rights. The Prime Minister’s expectation that Canadians will blindly believe his benevolent words while situations stay the same is insulting.

Trudeau’s performances are at another level. Take his brief scientific comments on computers, binary systems, and quantum physics—he is capable of speaking with conviction even though he’s stupid. This time he was a genius, impressively having memorized his explanation and delivering it flawlessly for his audience, and thereby garnering widespread media acclamation.

The times when it doesn’t go his way, Trudeau will stammer along with an “ah” and an “um” and some head movement, and will offer a non-answer. And some of his media performances ring hollow—not even funny in the stupid sense. Like his opening of the press gallery dinner: “Hey, boys,” an indicator of his overall arrogance in the presence of his peers, who to him, might as well be his high school gym class. Even worse so was his groping of his wife’s buttocks (not that that’s overly offensive or anything—it’s simply bad comedy). The fact that the ruling party must host a stand up segment starring their oblivious puppet leader and his singing wife should not sit well with anybody. A government acting in accordance with corporate interests can’t be allowed to get by with bad jokes.

Canada’s politicians have it easy because they never have to answer for the real problems on national television. The Prime Minister will sooner be asked who his favourite comic book character is or if he’s a feminist before being asked about the oppressive military operations of his allies. Trudeau is an expert liar, and so he fits into this cataclysm perfectly. He claims to be an advocate for people’s rights—except for the people who don’t have rights. He’s a show put forth by an expert public relations industry. He struggles to answer questions, and the way he speaks and acts in public with his never ending jubilance and enthusiasm and head movements will continue to make him a silly character. Perhaps it is that silliness which keeps most Canadians from seething at his nonsense and uselessness. I, for example, can see right through Justin Trudeau, and it makes me sad and disappointed. But, he makes me laugh because of how stupid funny he is. Are the video compilations on YouTube of Justin Trudeau apologizing one hundred times not funny? Of his taking part of every single cultural event and butchering foreign languages? And deeming himself a feminist? Are the ridiculous contradictions that he makes not funny? What about when he pronounced the word “heir” as “hair”? His facial expressions and the way he dances and boxes—he’s flamboyant with bad balance, and it’s even more magnified when his hair is so long that it bounces around his head.

Millennials are starting to despise Justin Trudeau. He was heckled not too long ago. They were screaming that he was like Harper, and he replied that his government was trying to have open dialogue with the people, which is somewhat true since Harper was a borderline fascist, but the Liberals will not be having open discussions with the public about the real problems which are controversial only because of the political and economic entities who say so (with all their financial might). 

There was one millennial in the audience who refused to ask his question because he was certain Trudeau would interrupt him. This appeared to be more so cold feet on the citizen’s part, and yet Trudeau took full advantage in his masterful manipulation of the crowd. “Ask your question, brother,” Trudeau said, “you have the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a question. Ask, brother.”

The issue with the Liberals’ alleged transparency is that Trudeau doesn’t answer questions. He couldn’t even answer a question about Americans moving to Canada if Trump was elected. He states the obvious—that there will never be peace to conflicts through military actions, and yet he sells weapons to human rights violators. He will then call himself a feminist while those weapons are used to murder men, women, and children. Trudeau thinks that because of how happy and energetic and friendly he is to local Canadians, he can call himself a progressive.  He is a walking contradiction with a fragile ego that swerves between having to answer questions because either he doesn’t know the answers, or the solutions to those problem will never truly be addressed by Canada’s shadow government.

Trudeau’s success and popularity, hopefully, will diminish. Meanwhile, it’s smooth sailing for those in control of the Canadian government. No one in power is even remotely considering a political transformation. The GPC leader, E. May, seems to be consistently caught in the background of televised Justin Trudeau moments throughout the years—they are colleagues, and friends. Her head is cocked cutely and perfectly at President Obama in a photo included with her personal platform, where she vows to “roll back” a grassroots led policy democratically passed by her own party. The expression of eternal friendship and loyalty etches across E. May’s persona as she greets Obama. Canadians know no justice or fairness while stuck in this media-fabricated cartoon reality, and Justin Trudeau and his political peers’ roles are at their peak. It’s been suggested that the leaders of nations are practically money launderers. In addition to that, Justin Trudeau and many of his colleagues are clowns. Will this silly circus ever end? 


The GPC should not politely debate fanatical zionists

Ending zionism may not be every GPC member’s top priority, nor does it have to be. On the other hand, it should be considered acceptable for a GPC member to be fully devoted to Palestinian human rights advocacy. It’s been suggested that one-issue voters have highjacked the GPC, but this is merely an interpretation by the powerful and the easily swayed who refuse to open their eyes to mankind’s impending doom. It could be interpreted, also and in contrast, that Palestinian human rights advocacy and the resistance against zionist apartheid draws people to a political party because this is an issue that has not been addressed in any meaningful way in the past several decades. Even the slightest inclination of a Federal party aiming for impartial foreign policy is enough to garner support from the millions of Canadians who have been led to a state of apathetic hopelessness—the Canadian government says Palestinians are terrorists and zionists are benign, and that’s that. Israel is a democracy, they say, the only democracy that militarily occupies people and places refugees from surrounding unstable nations into modern day concentration camps, while everyday zionist politicians hurl racist rhetoric which incites a predominantly racist Israeli society into, for example, deeming that the execution of a motionless Palestinian is morally acceptable. 

GPC members are not doing themselves favours by politely telling zionist fanatics—yes, zionist fanatics—that they are willing to discuss with them their occupation denial in typical Canadian fashion—with their permission, and of course willing to cease the debate at the request of the zionist fanatic(s) in question if it gets too much for said fanatic to handle. God forbid zionism’s apologists be prodded out of their deluded mental comfort zone by facts. You see, words are more harmful than racist politicians and militarized aggression and collective punishment.

The membership so nicely accepts the anti-BDS crowd at their town halls; they let them have time with the mic, and the zionist spokespersons then speak with such conviction, maybe enough to distort what’s really going on to the general public. These people, of course, have access to prominent media companies. The anti-BDS are even permitted to state their unjustifiable arguments without much of a response back at these town halls. “Tell me of any nation that upholds the rule of law as much as Israel does,” they hurl, without even the slightest retort on how remarkably stupid such a statement is. Recently, GPC members commented on a zionist fanatic’s Facebook post which aimed to shut down a BDS town hall meeting. The zionist fanatics in question openly denied the existence of the military occupation of Palestine. They even went so far as to compare Israel’s war crimes with what’s happening in Syria. This will be a go-to tactic for the mentally impaired radicals that have somehow wound up justifying to themselves that the wholesale slaughter of children is a non-issue because “Israel just wants to defend itself, and after all, Israel is the only bonafide white supremacist country in the world. Just leave us be.” “The Holocaust happened,” they say, “and so the Jews have fled some place else, where they should be permitted to massacre and colonize with impunity. Look at Syria,” they go on, like Israel lobby robots, “and the Syrians that are being admitted to other nations. Why is it that the Jews cannot live atop the blood and bones of Palestinians in peace?”

Obviously Syrian refugees have not set up camp and militarily occupied millions of people in Europe and America, but this is besides the point to the zionist fanatics. Syrian refugees, last time I checked, do not consist of militias that massacre civilian villages and usurp land. Millions of people around the world are not being coerced out of their communities and cities due to the refugee crisis. 

Discussions with these fanatics gets out of hand fast. The reason for this is that Israel’s supporters are so absurd in their arguments and their lack of counterarguments. Many people now are thankfully aware that the zionist cause is indeed barbaric and morally indefensible. The arguments quickly become people screaming in frustration because one side cannot even acknowledge the points of the other, and not because they don’t want to, but because they logically cannot. It’s impossible to posit sound arguments to defend what the zionist regime has done and continues to do. It’s been demonstrated even at the GPC federal elite level, with E. May supporting former soldiers’ attempts at ending the occupation over the grassroots BDS movement, and the anti-BDS speakers at debates twiddling their thumbs searching for non-existent reasons why BDS should not be supported by the GPC. 

Being polite to these people is the wrong thing to do because they do not address the facts that expose the racist zionist regime. They deny the occupation—which is unquestionably and internationally regarded as a factual event which is ongoing. The other arguments they pose also insult the intelligence of those whom kindly reply to such rhetoric. These people, the fanatical zionists, don’t intend to see reason or to change their ways. GPC members trying to hash it out nicely actually gives these people the upper hand. They aren’t going to budge, ever, and they’ve had the ability to keep Canadian citizens mostly blind to how the Canadian government has become a tool for zionism, and they’re going to continue to try to beat the progressive revolution in Canadian politics. 

Being nice isn’t going to solve anything. But what will? Maybe it’ll be the millennials who save society with their annoying polemic complaining and rejection of pedantry from critics. The problems the world is facing are so glaring. It’s a non-argument when it comes to Israel in its current state; no modern day regime should militarily occupy and collectively punish millions, effectively colonizing them.

No, zionist fanatics, you are not being taken seriously. And nobody’s going to have a polite debate with you, because the atrocities which you support are indefensible. 

GPC membership vs the Federal Leadership Elite: What’s at stake, and is it already too late?

Justin Trudeau has finally come out and hinted that electoral reform isn’t his priority anymore, now that the evil Conservatives have been ousted. Perhaps Trudeau’s abandonment of more of his election pledges could steer the current GPC leadership in a less frantic direction. It is being posited that FPTP strongly relates to the status-quo, and human rights advocates as well as environmentalists inherently challenge the status-quo, do they not? 

Being forced to squabble with the GPC Federal elite also is an example of the status-quo. It is a waste of time, and wasting time is a very useful tactic employed by those who are really in power. If the GPC cannot become a progressive party by the next election (or the election after that, and so on), there will not be any chance to meaningfully resist the status-quo. Try as she might on electoral reform, but E. May is being gamed, and in turn, the membership is being gamed by E. May. She’s being used to waste the GPC membership’s time. The shadow government would easily prefer another rigged losing effort from E. May, rather than risk the membership electing someone with much less of an inclination to take lobbyists and the sort to heart. Has E. May not already indicated that she does not even enjoy her position? And a critical thinker with even the mildest paranoia might discern that the Liberal leadership is so far in cruise control—the most handsome Prime Minister in a hundred years with the gender equal and ethnically diverse cabinet; the media exploitation of feminism; the shirtless pictures. The Liberals are not some beacon of progressiveness. The shadow government of Canada does not intend to implement electoral reform, lest the millions of Canadians with foreign policy concerns be sincerely represented.

The status-quo is an important concept to be fully aware of. It is what the GPC’s current divisiveness, instigated by E. May and the Israel lobby, is really all about.

The GPC can exist; it can have powerful policies on climate change; it can offer mild observations about some hostilities in the middle east (namely the OPT), such as believing in the farce that is a two state solution, and whichever other dull rhetoric employed by this, the status-quo. The membership, though, must get past the federal leader if it is to pass a policy that holds Israel accountable for its brutal occupation. How is it that the GPC can attempt to chase down electoral reform while being the most climate change driven party, and yet cannot pass the mildest version of the BDS policy possible? The obvious answer lies in BDS being the only tangible and non-violent strategy to mitigate zionist oppression, and any more mention of BDS, especially in a staunchly pro-Israel Canada, will force Israel to end its apartheid regime faster. The more complex answer is that without progressively fighting for the human rights of the most beleaguered, the GPC will never be capable of implementing such policies that conflict with corporate interests. Only in 2016 was the American Green Party able to finally gain some measure of popularity. While she is still a long shot to win, Jill Stein and her party’s platform would not be nearly as convincing if she were not explaining that her party would boycott not only Israel, but all human rights abusers, while opposing the neoconservative expansionist agenda in the middle east. 

To offer some proof that meaningful actions that grant human rights for Palestinians is enshrined in every sense of progressiveness, here is a quote from an email released by WikiLeaks, which was sent to Mr. Podesta from Charles Bane Jr:

“I’m a lifelong Democrat, but I’m repulsed by the BDS movement that has become, in too many minds, a tenet of progressive orthodoxy. As extreme as the most conservative may be, the right wing is unswerving in its support of Israel, and shows no tolerance for anti-Semitism. I understand fully that the PM of Israel is an opportunist, and unsavory. But the larger reality is that the BDS movement, popular among  academics, would be gaining adherents no matter who was PM. This is fundamentally wrong. It needs to be addressed as a moral issue and the Secretary, would, in my opinion, reap the benefits of being (as we both know her to be) unequivocally pro- Israel in voters’ minds.”

Indeed, the noted quote is from an email sent to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, but it offers a glimpse into the minds of people who would certainly be against electoral reform, or practically anything that would offer a more precise and just representation of the people as well as a sustainable and peaceful future for all.

The GPC does not currently function with the intention of ever winning. The advocacy of Palestinian human rights, however, changes that, because then the GPC would be the only party that does not strongly vouch for corporate interests. The colonization of Palestine by European settlers, which was an anti-Semitic scheme plotted by the wealthiest of bankers, shares a common connection with corporate interests. These are the same corporate interests that led to the Iraq invasion and the nonchalant creation of Isis. An American proxy state in the the Middle East that operates with impunity creates an atmosphere that is helpful for corporate interests—weapons, war, oil. Even worse so is that the zionist regime has shown to its allies, like the KSA, that it is so far possible to commit war crimes with impunity, and the more war crimes committed by various actors, the more impossible it will ever be to hold a specific actor accountable.

Most of what’s really happening is not being disclosed to Canadians. This is common knowledge to critical thinkers involved with politics. To take a recent example, the CBC published some impartial pieces about Trudeau’s weapons dealings and his back-peddle on electoral reform: “The Canadian government is far more secretive than the Americans about such matters… Canada quietly rewrote the rules governing the export of arms to other countries. No longer do such exports hinge on whether the recipient nation is a human rights abuser.” 

More: “‘The wording was changed to reflect the reality of how these things have always worked,’ says Thomas Juneau, a former DND strategic analyst who now teaches international affairs at the University of Ottawa. ‘We pretend that we’re boy scouts, but a lot of what we do is not different from what other countries do. If that sounds like a definition of hypocrisy, well, there you are. You’d be hard-pressed to find any significant Canadian statements about the war in Yemen. Canada doesn’t want to be seen to be criticizing an ally and good customer, and at the same time doesn’t want to be seen as closely associated with it. The middle ground, then, is silence.'”

These somewhat objective assessments, if comprehended fully, should jar Justin Trudeau loyalists and the naive people who take the Prime Minister’s charm at face value. Trudeau would love if, for his entire leadership, he could brag about how nice Canadians are, and other cliches that Canadian leaders so often use to diverge from the real issues at hand.  

 Trudeau has explained that Canada cannot just become a “banana republic,” so he must sell billions of weapons to human rights violators. E. May has condemned the injustices against Palestinians and the settlement building, but that is as far as she will go. The justification for why Canada subsidizes oppression is a politician’s chore. They would prefer to broadcast nonsense to millions of Canadians about how a grassroots movement is very bad, and that militarily occupied people are invisible. Here’s a hint: if a powerful politician is making an effort to demonize a grassroots civil movement, somebody’s trying to hide something. 

What the members of the GPC have indicated with the mild BDS policy is that it’s about time meaningful steps are taken. The GPC members do not want to continue paying lip service for human rights violators. The GPC members care not only about the environment and electoral reform, but about human rights violations, equal rights, wars and invasions. The GPC cannot offer a progressive platform without having a progressive foreign policy, and a progressive foreign policy cannot transpire without the confrontation of Palestinian human rights, as well as standing up for all other nations which are being bombarded by America’s allies and exploiters. 

The GPC and its leadership must be fully aware that the tragic predicaments in the middle east are connected to climate change. The conflict in this region is predominantly for resources like oil—for fracking and building pipelines—as well as for cashing in on weapons sales to mercenaries and nations. 

It is my paranoid assessment that if E. May is not removed or replaced soon, the path would be paved for the Liberals to easily continue a marijuana-legalization-highlighted Justin Trudeau Canadian-nice-guy demagoguery on behalf of those elites worried sick that Palestinian human rights should be a tenant of progressiveness. 

The appointed Israel apologist on demand for a recent debate on BDS, Jean Luc-Cook, embarrassingly stammered repeatedly about “the dirty side of politics”—that the media and lobbyist pressure and attacks are reason for the GPC not to get involved with human rights advocacy. The reality is probably closer to the opposite. Thousands of people have contacted the GPC with support for the BDS policy, and town halls are predominantly filled with moral human beings awaiting a progressive party. 

Rather, a GPC that cannot confront Canada’s atrocious foreign policy record offers continued irrelevancy—just another option to divide and conquer the masses. 

Israel is governed by the most right wing fanatical regime in the world, it’s current Prime Minister having won his election primarily because of racist tactics, as summed up in yet another leaked email: “Just as patterns of immigration are moving the US left, patterns of immigration are moving Israel right. I have never seen anything like Bibi’s furious surge to the right in the last 4 days. Nothing like it in America. He had robo-calls calling the President ‘Hussein Obama, the Muslim,’ he had ads saying the Arabs will vote in droves… All the smart guys in Tel Aviv thought Bibi was having a nervous breakdown. In the US you could never get away with those kind of racist appeals. But, man, did it work.”

At the pace the GPC is going, the next Canadian election will not offer meaningful change, and the world will continue to be pulled in an irreversible catastrophic direction with the assistance of the Canadian government. It may already be too late, and so the GPC must act swiftly, if it is to act at all, which might mean that more immediate and organized measures must be taken to elect a federal leader that will represent his or her membership more than special interests.

A response to E. May’s email begging for votes

Dear E. May:

As a member of the GPC, I am disgusted at the strategy and actions you have taken since the August convention, where a mild version of BDS was adopted through a natural and democratic process. If this policy had not passed, everybody knows that you would not be causing the ruckus you are causing now on behalf of the Israel lobby. 

I will not be voting against roberts rules, and I and many other GPC members will not be cooperative in your scheme to overturn the BDS policy, or water it down (it cannot be watered down, as it has been already to the highest degree possible). It is clear that the Israel lobby will not allow any supportive reference to BDS within Canadian politics, as it would draw more attention to the disgusting and atrocious war crimes that the inherently racist and barbaric zionist regime commits on a daily basis. The Israel lobby, however, is out of luck, since Canadians are well equipped and not easily controlled by their ethnocratic politics, like you and the rest of the Canadian politicians are. 

I hope you are aware that many of the GPC members like myself are totally unhappy with your actions and statements thus far. We do not intend on making this situation easy for yourself and the Israel lobbyists who you and all Canadian politicians serve in secrecy. I am a younger person, but I can see many older folks in the GPC are disgusted with what you are doing, and are working hard to have the BDS policy pass yet again in December.

I sincerely hope that in the near future you will no longer be the leader of the GPC. Rather than take advantage of this rare opportunity of the vacuum on the Left in Canadian politics, you have chosen to serve Israel in its perpetual war to preserve the status quo. While Canada awaits its Jill Stein or Jeremy Corbyn to steer Canadians to a sustainable future, you are busy pandering to zionist shills who continue an expansionist agenda in the middle east, causing a refugee crisis while battling for regional dominance to ensure more fracking and pipeline building. Your actions are incredibly hypocritical considering your stance on climate change. Climate change and the Israel expansionist agenda are related. Canadians cannot sincerely support a cleaner environment while its politicians continue to remain complicit in war and oppression in the middle east where more fracking and pipeline building is set to occur. Let us not forget that the entire situation in Syria is due to the US and Israel’s disdain for Syria’s leadership possibly building a pipeline in coordination with Russia’s interests, rather than America’s. Furthermore, for many years now, there has been a zionist plot to rearrange the middle east in relation to Israel’s regional dominance and strategic interests. This is unacceptable and is steering our planet in an irreversible direction which will result in a habitat unfit for human beings to live in.

In summation: Israel’s continuos collective punishment and military occupation will be ending. Your criticisms of Israel amount to nothing, just as the Obama administration’s does, because empty words give Israel the green light. You cannot criticize Israel and then go ahead and overturn a BDS policy that your membership democratically voted for, and then say that this isn’t the way to get Israel to abide by international law. This IS the way, the only way, and your resistance against this grassroots BDS movement shows your true colours. 

Maybe you will end up booting me from the party, but I cannot wait until a real progressive leader is at the helm of the GPC. 

Will Canada continue to be a tool for Zionism?

Elizabeth May is a victim, just like everyone else. She isn’t being droned to death, nor are her family members being executed in the streets. But, she has stated that she doesn’t even enjoy her job as a politician, yet here she is, still politicizing, with an unenjoyable goal and a deadline. Since humanity is reaching its boiling point; and since this planet will become unfitting for children and grandchildren to live healthily; and because of the capitalist catastrophe, which values a monetary system more than the actual habitat of mankind; and because there are organizations rising up to really drive change—and because the window is so short until it’s too late…. Isn’t it time for Canadians to question, clarify, and alter detrimental government operations, lest Canada continues upon its neoconservative foreign policy agenda of arms dealings and Israel’s regional dominance?

What is it that Canada’s “elites” want over the next half decade or more? This word, “elites,” has become cliche, and if one wanted to, they could be pedantic at the use of it. Not anybody can simply put forth all of the evidence in the world that there are “elites.” The “elites” in Canada are very well hidden, more so than in other nations, especially the USA. In Canada, they aren’t out in the open, except when donating millions of dollars to universities, for example, only to then revoke such luxuriousness at the hint of anything related to the advocacy of Palestinian human rights.

Did you know that they’re working on space travel that could cover distances fast enough so that it would take a mere two days to reach Mars? Maybe these “elites” are prepared for what comes next. All of the ordinary people, however, will be dead by the time space colonization begins—by Earthlings, that is—or, they’ll be left to die on Earth once all of the oil has been extracted from underground.

The success of Zionist lobbying in Canada is not totally undocumented. Here’s an excerpt from a piece by an investigative journalist, who provides a concrete report on some of the elites that operate out of Canada:

“One special interest group in particular that has considerable pull on Ottawa is the Zionist lobby. This lobby is not only comprised of dozens of powerful pro-Israel pressure groups such as B’nai B’rith Canada, Canada-Israel Committee and the Canadian Jewish Public Affairs Committee, but is also made up of powerful Jewish financial tycoons and media owners who are actively involved in pro-Israel campaigning and lobbying. Author Yves Engler documented the extensive reach and breadth of these Zionist forces in his book Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid. For example, the prominent Toronto Jewish couple Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz, the primary shareholders of Chapters/Indigo, have been deeply engaged in pro-Israel activities in Canada. They even run a charity called “Heseg Foundation for Lone Soldiers,” which provides scholarship money to Canadian Jews who join and fight in the Israeli military. […] In 2005, then-Bank of Montreal President Tony Comper, an outspoken pro-Zionist fanatic, formed a group called FAST (Fighting Anti-Semitism Together), which prides itself as “a coalition of non-Jewish Canadian business and community leaders who have vowed to speak out against anti-Semitism.” Most of the leaders of Canada’s major banks and corporations are members of the group, showcasing their subservience to Canada’s Zionist elite.”

The theory that the establishment rules in such a grotesque manner is not at all absurd. It’s unfortunate that the masses are subject to intense brainwashing and a wicked marketing scheme meant to ensure that people think that purchasing products will find them happiness. 

Shouldn’t some alarm bells be sounded when the leader of a federal party publicly admits that she does not enjoy her job as a politician, yet stays on as leader? She said that it turned out that people liked her, and didn’t want her to go. Which people could Elizabeth May be referring to? Because the millions of Canadians waiting for a political party that is not bought off like the rest of them sure aren’t begging her to stay. The answer lies in who would stand to lose if there was a new leader. The green party has a much  greater chance than the NDP for example of electing a moral human being who believes in international laws and human rights and realizes that a proper foreign policy is also tantamount to a healthy environment. 

Creating a sustainable environment and a healthier planet without human rights violators and wars and pollution cannot be achieved if the “elites” are to get what they want. If the GPC cannot fearlessly adopt a courageous foreign policy platform—like those adopted in the USA and the UK—then it will essentially continue to be irrelevant. This is precisely the point, however, since the “elites” would prefer it that way. If Elizabeth May stays on as the GPC leader for years to come, she will be dragging down the party in the polls, in total contrast to how the GPC would perform in the polls if progressiveness were to be sincerely shown by the federal party leader as well as the entire party ideally. 

The resistance of today against the establishment will decide the future. It is easy to see that what those ruling Canada would prefer to happen is for all of the federal parties to be promising to constantly be Israel’s greatest ally, a situation where Justin Trudeau’s neoliberal faux progressive politics is the worst-case scenario. The “elites” don’t want the Green Party to have a real leader like how there are other real leaders in other nations. Canada is a developed nation with immense power both politically and economically, and it has so far awarded Israel among other human rights violators with total impunity and support. That changing would hurt everyone who has the most money—the banks, the media, the big businesses. 

It doesn’t sound like May’s bosses are letting her resign—not just yet. Israel lobbyists and their financiers would be in grave danger of the political vacuum on the left producing a candidate that could thwart Trudeau’s charm. May’s job and actions are about achieving the status quo now. That’s all that she is good for to those who accuse her of being an alcoholic and an anti-semite if she doesn’t agree to comply with their ethnocentric agenda. May is a pawn for the “elites” in their fight to maintain the status quo. 

Why Elizabeth May should resign, and why it’s okay for one to say so

As a millennial—a term I don’t really use, but will in this case for practical purposes—and as a member of the Canadian Green Party, I have the allegedly harsh opinion that Elizabeth May should resign as soon as possible. It appears that my extreme opinion has garnered critiques saying that I am being rude, per say, or that one should not resort to blatant calls for resignation.

The obvious reason why one can call for May’s resignation is that those who oppose such meanness are expressing their opinions, and so, one in the first place has the right to express their opinions. But, for the sake of conviction, I believe that the facts alone point to a grim conclusion where the liberties of Canadians in favour of the BDS movement are on the verge of being infringed upon.

Let us first consider the factual evidence as published by Huffington Post and Ricochet. First, from Woodley’s article: “In an online vote prior to the convention, 58.5 per cent of Greens supported the BDS resolution. At the convention itself, the BDS resolution passed overwhelmingly on the floor. In an imperfect internal survey launched by the Green Party after the convention — with May threatening to resign over the BDS resolution — only 44 per cent of members recommended repealing the resolution. So, in fact, none of these polls support May’s recent assertion that the ‘vast majority’ of Greens are with her on this issue.”

As per the rules and constitution of the Green Party, the mildest possible BDS motion was democratically passed. There was an outcry that rules were to blame for this, for who could ever offer consequences for Israel while it violates human rights and builds illegal settlements? It was in fact Elizabeth May who supported these rules, however, and she would never have criticized the rules had the motion failed. Some opponents also claim that a majority of the members did not take part in the vote(s), and therefore the outcome is some fluke. Oddly enough, this is how all motions for the party are passed—with a majority of members not participating.

May has also publically declared (directly to me on Twitter, for example) that a “majority of members want the motion reconsidered.” This is factually false. Under 20% of the members even responded to the survey May ordered be sent requesting the motion be reconsidered. One of the recently fired Shadow Cabinet members of the Green Party, Dimitri Lascaris, outlines Elizabeth May’s disingenuous and anti-democratic actions thus far during her post-convention strategy:

“Promptly after the BDS resolution’s adoption at the Green Party of Canada convention in Ottawa, our leader and only Parliamentarian, Elizabeth May, threatened in national media to resign over it. Immediately following that threat, the party sent members an online survey. […] There are many deficiencies in this survey, including that less than 20 per cent of the party’s members responded to it. Perhaps its greatest flaw, however, is that it was disseminated immediately following May’s threat of resignation, which almost certainly meant that many of those who responded by expressing opposition to the BDS resolution were acting out of fear that the party was about to lose its leader, and were not expressing genuine opposition to the concept of BDS. Despite all of this, 56 per cent of the respondents did not say that they wanted the BDS policy to be repealed. If anything, this is a powerful indication of the degree to which the grassroots of the Green Party of Canada support the limited use of BDS to bring an end to Israel’s interminable and unconscionable occupation.”

May has so far resisted the natural democratic will of the GPC. Prominent Israel Lobby groups, meanwhile, brag in media publications that they have succeeded in persuading May to sack certain important members of the party. May has also outright lied that a majority of members voted to review the BDS motion, when less than twenty percent of members even replied to the survey, and in fact a majority of those who did respond did not even state they wanted the policy repealed. May has even threatened to resign from her position over the BDS policy. If May’s actions are anything to be judged by, surely she should indeed resign, and if her leadership is to be at all salvageable, her December meeting will be cancelled immediately and the Green Party will move forward defending the motions its members have democratically passed.

An essay on lobby groups and think tanks

“[In Canada] There are some 5,000 active lobbyists working at any given time, and around 25,000 that have registered since 1988. The number of lobbyists over the course of a year — many will deregister as soon as they’ve finished work for a company or organization. 

The Lobbying Act is rife with loopholes, making it very difficult for citizens to keep track of when and with whom corporations and organizations are meeting.”


It has been suggested in recent years that corporations and political and economic elites use their financial advantages; the ability to own a newspaper, or a television channel, or a sports team–maybe a sports league–or maybe just pro sports? Because these are the things that are so far essential to society–the sports, the internet, the technology, the coveted resources like oil.

Creating a space where the lobbyists work to achieve a reality for the billionaires they are financed by. Every gigantic corporation would have this type of chore, to lobby the politicians and societal structures into holding certain stances or making specific things legal or illegal or accessible and so forth. It seems apparent, though, that many of these big businesses merge their interests; they find that they have similar challenges, and so they bulk up and operate in a much more gigantic manner.

To take a modern day example, here we have the Israel lobby admitting for the zillionth time that it sponsors and values the mercenaries which Isis consists of:

“According to a think tank that does contract work for NATO and the Israeli government, the West should not destroy ISIS, the fascist Islamist extremist group that is committing genocide and ethnically cleansing minority groups in Syria and Iraq.

Head of a right-wing think tank says the existence of Isis serves a ‘strategic purpose’ in the West’s interests?”

The fact that these rich racist heartless people are hindering the livelihood and equality of all human beings, even killing animals and spreading catastrophe into the climate, is undeniably an ugly plague upon humanity. The fight for freedom against the status quo continues.

Alleged news stories feature words like “activists” or “millennials” in a derogatory sense. You know, those people who care about human rights, and will have you believe that the world is this corrupt evil place, and that everything you’ve been led to believe is propaganda…. 

Justin Trudeau’s national campaign co-chair said this, after being caught providing detailed advice to TransCanada on how to lobby the next Liberal government: “I have always conducted my business openly and in full accordance with the rules.”

What this old man did wasn’t even considered illegal! According to these criminals who govern us, these made up rules that lobbyists and legislatures and fake congresses create are all that matter. The outcomes don’t matter. What happens afterwards to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, doesn’t matter. The stranglehold continues to be initiated and constant.

The Canadian government is a lot more hush hush than the US, where practically everything is out in the open with the police executing black people in the streets, and the government being blatantly corrupt with moguls headlining newspapers, about donations in the one hundred millions to presidential candidates, as if that is any indication for justice and democracy. George Bush and Dick Cheney et al aren’t remotely frightened that they will ever be held accountable for their crimes.

In Canada, the newspapers are censored and a vast majority of them are owned by the same corporation. Justin Trudeau is legitimately just as bad as Harper other than legalizing pot and apparently heroine to help those with addiction problems lose their addiction in a manageable manner. While certain Canadians live in their deluded fantasy lands that Canada should not interfere with anything internationally and should focus on itself, it is an actual reality that Canada has and will continue to have an elaborate foreign policy that is rarely broadcasted for the public to see, and when it is, the comments section of said piece is mostly bullying by stupid people and/or the lobbyists themselves.

Canada consistently supports the Western agenda, led by America and Israel, pulling the rest of NATO in an irreversible direction. Canada continues to be a tool for the Zionist European Jewish ethnocracy which continues to colonize atop the blood and bones of recently massacred indigenous Palestinian people. Meanwhile, Israel continues its expansionist agenda in the middle east. It has an easy job, all things considered, because everyone does most of the dirty work for it. All Israel has to do is treat wounded Isis fighters from time to time, and provide weapons and air strikes against those fighting against Isis.  

To conclude with another excerpt from Walt and Mearsheimers “The Israel Lobby“:

“The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel.

Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party’s expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups – such as Jewish Voice for Peace – strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say: “This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics said that ‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.’

Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich, advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as ‘irresponsible’: ‘There is,’ his critics said, ‘absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related policies … of Israel.’ Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced that ‘the word “pressure” is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.’

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997,Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. ANational Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters.

The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.”

The questions remain: is this practice ethical, or moral? And should it be legal? If you ask me, every lobby group should be monitored much more closely. Those which pretend to be philanthropic in nature yet assist in maintaining military occupation and outright world wide aggression should no longer be permitted to legally operate. The dealings between politicians and lobbyists–especially in the case of pay for play–must be totally transparent, lest millions of dollars be used to sway political leaderships on critical issues in favour of corporations. 

It seems to make sense, that lobby groups exist, given reality. But they should not be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want. In other words, they should not be able to achieve the goals of the gangster zionist state; they should not be able to cause wars and instability and murder government leaderships; they should not be able to access and sell oil, or to fight for regional dominance where the oil is coveted and where the zionist state oppresses its inhabitants and neighbours.

The lobbyists must pay for what they have done. And it is my intention that they will. 

An open letter to Elizabeth May, leader of the Canadian greens

Dear Elizabeth, 

Your party recently added the grassroots BDS movement to its official policy. This was a response to the continued settler colonialism perpetuated by the Zionist regime of Israel. Within Canada, there is a tremendous stranglehold of politicians in major parties by the institutionalized and powerful pro-Israel lobby, documented at great length for its dominance all across the world, including America and Europe.

The Green Party Justice Critic was incredibly clear and concise in the official policy, without a mention of the ancient religion of Judaism which predates the creation of Israel in 1948 by Zionism, which was practiced intentionally in European settler colonial fashion, dating back to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which arranged for Zionist militias to invade Palestine (decades later); Palestine, which was home to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, who lived in peace, was indeed ethnically cleansed by the Zionist regime, and the plot for there to be a Jewish colony in the middle east has taken place and developed, all at the unneeded expense of the Palestinians’ basic human rights.

We are no longer living in the 1800s or the 20th or 21st centuries. Colonization is not justifiable, although it has majorly occurred throughout history. It’s 2016, and Israel is still colonizing Palestine within the context of the aforementioned and abhorrent Zionist scheme.

Not only is the zionist concept offensive in the way it presupposes that Jews from Europe and all across the world need to live in modern day Israel, which brutally occupies Palestinians and leaves them without human rights, but this Zionist ideology in principle is inherently racist. To follow up with this fact, Israel is not even a Jewish state. It is not even a democratic state, either. To imply that it is would be factually incorrect, because there are millions of Palestinians living there, they are just regarded as sub human by the Zionist regime, whose alleged politicians explain that non-white Jewish people are a demographic threat. 

Rogel Alpher writes in Haaretz:

“The only way to preserve Israeli control over Judea and Samaria and simultaneously maintain Israel’s standing as a Jewish and democratic country is to make the Palestinians disappear, to cause them to evaporate. If there are no Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, Israel will indeed be Jewish and democratic. But there are Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. They are not going to evaporate. That is also a simple fact.

As of November 2015, Israel is not a Jewish state. I don’t understand how there can be any argument over this statement. In the areas under Israel’s control, which include of course East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, Israel is a binational state, because two nations inhabit it. This is a simple fact. True, official Israeli sovereignty does not extend over Judea and Samaria, but Judea and Samaria are under Israeli occupation.

If the term occupation irritates you, for purposes of discussion we can replace it with “control” – freedom of action by the Israel Defense Forces throughout Judea and Samaria is the proof of Israeli control over these areas.

It [Israel] encourages “provocative” people – those who merely want to state simple facts – to be quiet lest something bad happen to them, or to leave the country.

Not only is Israel for all intents and purposes a binational state, it is also for all intents and purposes an apartheid state, because it deprives the Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria of their basic rights. Jewish Israeli citizens live in complete blindness. They repress the simple fact that Israel is a binational state imposing an apartheid regime over the Palestinian people living in areas under its control. They continue to think of it as a Jewish and democratic state.”

Miss May, since your party endorsed BDS, you have stated to the corporate media that you oppose BDS, and that you are disappointed in your party. You are quoted here:

“We had a very abbreviated debate and a very quick vote that left me breathless. I’m going away for the first week off I’ve had off since Christmas and I will be doing a lot of reflecting. It’s only been since the convention that I’ve been wondering what’s the best way to get this position reversed so that in the next election Green Party candidates across Canada are not facing a complete distraction of an issue.”

Your statements are understandable, as it is clear the pro-Israel lobby in Canada is using the media to smear you, as well as the party. However, I must question a leader not standing up for what a majority of voters of the party democratically voted for. What kind of message does this send to your party? To your colleagues, even?

While justice is a long and hard task at hand, who better to guide the greens than you? A seasoned politician, who, the media says, is at the end of her rope? Do you have much to lose, according to your critics? You know what it’s like–being them–so you should know how to defeat them, theoretically.

While the corporate media slanders your party, and while members of your party would now be officially detained and deported upon their arrival to Israel or the occupied West Bank, you are doing exactly what the lobbyists and the media want you to do. You are telling the media that you’re going to step down to trigger another convention sooner to try to “reverse” this policy.

While the green parties in other major nations fully support BDS and condemn Zionist terrorism, you consider making it possible for their to be a coup, of sorts, in this green party, and to have some sellout politician elected by the Israel lobby to cash in on a new position as head of the green party. This new leader will obviously smear BDS and be an apologist for Zionism, and then many of your party members will vomit in disgust before resigning from the party. 

One of my main questions to Elizabeth May is, is this really something to be proud of?

When hard working people in important positions make a change–a change in businesses, athletic clubs, political positions–they are said to become invigorated with the vitality–the chance to start anew, like Mike Babcock said after switching NHL teams from Detroit to Toronto. 

What I’m getting at here is this: Canadian citizens don’t have anyone like Jill Stein or Jeremy Corbyn to vote for. Past green party leaders have even been staunch supporters of Israel. Let’s face it, Canadian politics is a sham. It’s either the Liberals or the Conservatives getting elected, with the NDP even embarrassingly booting members for offering sympathies to Palestinians in an effort to garner more support from the Israel lobby and the media. 

Miss May, I challenge you to respond to the media in a way that really does get everyone talking, not just the pundits and the rich and the ignorant and the manipulated. If you defended your party like a leader should, you’d gain respect from your own party ahead of an election, as well as otherwise apathetic voters like me. Does the Canadian government not recognize that its foreign policy causes depression, not only for the people being oppressed in the middle east, but for Canadians as well, of many nationalities, for how disregarded they are in the news and by politicians, and for how their relatives are being killed, or might be killed, or how they cannot travel safely to visit loved ones?

The Justice Critic clearly indicated facts in the policy, and lobbyists are allergic to facts:

“When Palestine was partitioned in 1947, the U.N. allocated approximately 1/3 of Palestinian territory to the Palestinian people, although they constituted approximately 2/3 of the population.

Since 1947, the Palestinian people have never exercised true sovereignty over the territory the U.N. had allocated to them. Moreover, due primarily to Israeli settlement construction in the OPT, the land Palestinians occupy has shrunk dramatically since 1947.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits occupying powers from transferring parts of their own civilian population to territory they occupy. Accordingly, the U.N. Security Council has declared that Israeli settlements in the OPT constitute “a flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Moreover, in a 2004 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s settlements have been established in breach of international law.

Despite the clear illegality of Israeli settlements in the OPT, Israel has continued to construct and expand such settlements up to the current time and has given no indication that it will cease doing so in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the current Israeli Prime Minister has made numerous statements that raise serious questions as to his commitment to a two-state solution. Thus, Palestinians’ prospects for achieving a sovereign Palestinian state through bilateral negotiations with Israel are remote.”

Elizabeth May, instead of fearing the Israel lobby, why not take full advantage of your party’s enthusiasm for justice? Jill Stein, America’s Green Party candidate for President, is much more outspoken about all issues, especially on foreign policy regarding wars in the middle east for gas, as well as America’s tacit support of Israel’s perpetual extermination of the Palestinian people. In Britain and Ireland, for example, politicians speak out against Zionist crimes, without fear from the Israel lobby.

Justin Trudeau has proven to be part of the old boys’ club, totally uninterested in halting arms sales, or holding Israel accountable for war crimes. Israel has been grooming Trudeau for a while, clearly, for his glorious position of prime minister.

You, on the other hand, have a chance to further yourself in your chosen profession, while yes, challenging powerful members of the government, and not being scared sick of the goddamn corrupt media, which is so censored and framed in a way that makes young minds not question the issues of today whatsoever. 

Canada does not have someone who is going to lead who’s not going to be a corrupt fear monger that helps subsidize oppression. Trudeau isn’t doing anything about the climate, and he is a staunch supporter of Israel. He’s more focused on his own family and career than any major human rights issue. In fact, he’s more worried about how to frack more, and make pro-Israel lobbyists not venomously harass and coerce and secretly bribe the government to provide complete support for the military occupation of Palestine. 

This is your chance to do something special, not just for everybody being oppressed, but for yourself, also. Can you not see Jill Stein across the border being endorsed by Dr. West, artists like Immortal Technique, and many others? Can you not see the Black Lives Matter movement’s emergence so strongly in the United States, outrightly condemning Israel for apartheid and genocide?

The tides are turning on this issue. This can be used in your favour to garner support from the people. So far there have been whispers that you should resign. Please do not allow yourself to be ousted by somebody more corporate and cooperative with lobby groups. Rather, I ask that you come out swinging–draw attention to yourself, talk about the revolution that really is happening, and how you’re going to further it along.

The lobby groups are threatening you, true. But maybe it’s time to fight back. I’m sure a politician can find a way to prove to a blind society how evil and corrupt the people controlling the news are. You have an entire party at your disposal, and a just establishment needs to be won over. These institutions like B’nai Brith are complicit in the mass murder of indigenous Palestinians, and the continued destruction of their homes and lives. The fake philanthropists that preside over these lobby groups should be prosecuted immediately. 

In summation, Elizabeth May, I wish you the best of luck and I wholeheartedly hope that you become more outspoken, not just about the crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians, but about all foreign policy issues, as well as the corruption within capitalism, and how to be part of an Earth that is not going to make mankind extinct over time because of the pollution resulting from global industrialization.

You cannot be selective about fighting injustice. Everybody in the world should have basic human rights. No nation should be exploited, and no democratically elected leaderships should be ousted by America and its allies. Enough is enough. Canadians want change. This is your chance. Don’t be afraid. Make the most of it–it could be the best choice you ever made.