For immediate release: PROF DAVID NOBLE SUES ISRAEL LOBBY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This 25 million dollar lawsuit for defamation and conspiracy, filed in
Ottawa on November 15, will be served Tuesday November 21. Defendants
include the private corporate entity York University Foundation, pro-Israel
lobbying and fundraising organizations Hillel of Greater Toronto, the United
Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto, and the Canadian Jewish
Congress, Ontario, and their agents.
They are accused of trying to harm, silence, and malign York University
Professor David F. Noble because of his critical investigations into
external influences on Canada’s third-largest public university. Summarizing
the significance of this lawsuit, professor Noble stated: “In an effort to
suppress my inquiries, publicly destroy my reputation, and isolate me from
my peers, the defendants launched the most vile kind of personal attack -
attempting to stigmatize a Jewish man as an anti-semite – because I dared
examine and expose their pernicious activities. These rich and powerful
people pretend to be friends of higher learning but are in fact its worst
enemies. They think they have bought themselves a university. They haven’t.”
For more information, contact David Noble at 416-736-2100 ext 30126, or
416-778-6927.
Court File No.:
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DAVID FRANKLIN NOBLE
Plaintiff
-and-
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE YORK UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION 2001, THE YORK
UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION 2001, PAUL EDWARD MARCUS, LORNA MARSDEN, HILLEL OF GREATER TORONTO, HILLEL AT YORK UNIVERSITY, DORI BORSHIOV, ZAC KAYE,
TALIA KLEIN, TILLY SHAMES, CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS (ONTARIO REGION), JOEL RICHLER, UNITED JEWISH APPEAL OF GREATER TORONTO
Defendants
November 22, 2006 at 10:02 am
You think York University is “the Jewish lobby”? Talk about paranoia!
November 22, 2006 at 10:13 am
Who said “Jewish lobby?”
November 22, 2006 at 10:55 am
Jason,
Who does the “you” in your comment refer to? We made no claims that anyone is the Jewish Lobby. That title came off the wire. You will notice that neither we nor it appears Nobel made such a claim. Besides given you and Kinsella were not named in the suit we are pretty sure it is not the “Jewish Lobby”.
November 22, 2006 at 10:59 am
No, Ti-Guy, it says “Israel Lobby” like this one, only here in Canada.
And Jason, you should perhaps give this a read, especially the part where it says:
Call it a good thing or a bad thing, call it influence, help, a back-channel, requests, or a lobby. Call it anything you like; just don’t pretend that it is a fantasy.
November 22, 2006 at 11:07 am
Well Jason, on what premise do you justify ridiculing the plaintiff? Are you better informed on the matter than Prof Noble himself? Do you have information pertaining to the case that he isn’t aware of? If so, please share to justify your pomp.
Or is this just a mindless knee jerk reaction to anything negative towards the Israeli lobby?
November 22, 2006 at 11:36 am
I do not think Jason was ridiculing Nobel. Rather I think he was saying that the title of the article was innacurate because there is no way that the defendants as enumerated could possibly be the full extent of the Lobby.
November 22, 2006 at 1:08 pm
The term “lobby” itself is a difficult term, since we have both legal (and regulated) lobbies and informal lobbies. It’ll be interesting in this case to see all the ethics involved here…that is, if the mainstream media isn’t too cowed to report on it. I’m sure Kinsella is sharpening his claws as we speak.
November 22, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Lets just call Kinsella the “Hammer of Neoconservatism” in Canada. Giving him claws makes him sound too subtle.
November 22, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Claws make him sound “catty.” Which is exactly what he is. I don’t think Kinsella is much into the whole package of neoconservatism…just that locus of activity that represents American corporate interests that promote Israel as a representative of those interests in the Middle East.
In the end, it’s all about money. Those mortgages on expensive property in The Beaches…they must be paid, after all.
November 22, 2006 at 5:52 pm
At the end of the day the two values you list are the core of neoconservatism in Canada. If you drop the latter you get the liberal party platform. One wonders why Cherniak has not made the switch.
November 22, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Seriously, nobody should be confused. Noble never said “Jewish lobby”. Rather, he is alleging that York is run by the Zionist lobby. What that has to do with Jews … you should draw you own inferences.
Does anyone else find it ironic that Noble is suing various groups to censor their speech, on the grounds that their public criticism of him amounts to censure? In Noble’s upside-down world, more speech == less speech…
November 22, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Nobel did not say Zionist either he said Israeli. Although violent Zionist would have been perhaps a better description as there are many Israeli’s that are not violent Zionists. So we take your point.
There is nothing ironic about using libel and slander law. Freedom of speech is protected to a point. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a crime. The real irony here is that Kinsella and co are big supporters of anti-hate speech legislation. So presumably they too know that there are reasonable limits to freedom of expression.
November 22, 2006 at 11:20 pm
I don’t know who you mean by “we”. I don’t know how you have concluded that the groups named are violent ones — if they were of Noble’s ilk, I guess they would sue you for stating it. I am a bit surprised at your argument that SLAPPs (that’s where you sue someone for defamation, in order to muzzle them) don’t exist; that’s quite incorrect. And Noble is not suing on the basis of hate speech legislation.
November 23, 2006 at 12:43 am
No Nobel’s group would write an article about it and not call you something you are not i.e. an anti Semite for opposing the current actions of the Israeli state. You would not want to say that ernst zundell was having his freedom of speech taken away would you? Nor should you say that Nobel is using SLAPP’s to silence others. The groups who felt he was wrong in his characterization of their activities simply could have refuted it. Instead they choose to lie and call him an anti-semite. But hey you seem to want to have your cake and eat it to so keep spinning.
December 14, 2006 at 3:12 am
Sorry for the long delay — exams. Your rebuttal makes little sense.
First you assert that the argument that David F. Noble’s flyer was racist, is hate speech à la Ernst Zundel — but not even David Noble thinks that, as he is suing on the basis of libel and not hate speech. He doesn’t think that because it doesn’t have any air of reality to it at all — go read the Criminal Code provisions on hate speech, a truly exceptional remedy, to educate it.
Then you assert that Nobel is not using strategic libel attacks to silent others, as the others that he is suing improperly criticized him by attacking his arguments as “antisemitic” rather than using the words you would hvae preferred. You like to call arguments you disagree with “lies”, and assert that those who make them should be hauled into court — that is, silenced. And then you go accusing others of doing that very silencing … through the act of doing too much talking!
At the end of the day, it is quite simple. He distributed a flyer. They rebutted with a press release. Rather than refuting, as you say you prefer, he is suing for a lot of money. Your solution to this inconvenient point is to talk about “spinning”, rather than address the points at hand. Your choice — but you are not very convincing.
December 14, 2006 at 4:41 am
I can’t make sense of your post. Nowhere did I assert that Nobel’s flyer was racist. What I said was that we recognize in law limits to freedom of speach : both in the case of hate speech and in the case of defamation. The courts will ultimately decide if the admin and hillel defamed him. But I know the man and he is no anti-semite so they were lying whether that lie amounts to defamation is the providence of the courts. Why did they not just call him anti-Israeli state, anti extreme zionism, or anti-bad state policies I do not know. Email them and ask.
December 17, 2006 at 7:25 pm
You write: “But I know the man and he is no anti-semite so they were lying whether that lie amounts to defamation is the providence of the courts.”
I’m afraid you’re confusing two things. One is criticism of someone’s actions, viz.: “Your actions are racist, Goodwin Ginger.” (Note: this was example. Please do not sue me.) The other is name-calling, viz.: “That Goodwin Ginger, he’s a real racist.” (Note: this was example. Please do not sue me.)
You ask why they did not form their criticism in a way that you find more pleasing. Fortunately, in this country we still have free speech, and so we are not forced to conform to your ideals of what is the politically “right” way of criticising.
December 18, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Serge, you keep missing the damned point. Makes me think that I’m about to waste my time.
Now remember Serge, I understand well the difference between a criticism and calling someone a name (i.e. the difference between you having said idiotic things and you being an idiot (for what its worth I suspect both a true, and you can sue me if you like)). In either case you commit defamation if either your criticism or the name you used have no basis in fact (why I’ve invited your suit) AND they are intended to do, or have the effect of doing, harm to someone’s reputation, their ability to earn a living. Get it? How York’s comments were conjugated/framed is besides the point, particularly given that Noble’s currency is his criticism. And remember, context is everything – there is a difference between calling someone an idiot (again, you) and calling someone and/or labeling their thought anti-semitic.
Talk about politically ‘right’. I wonder who your overlords are. Hopefully the same people who graded your exams, else you’re going get shite grades.