Tag Archives: defamation

Trump Derangement Syndrome: The View From My Facebook Account

Anti-White Male Professors Gone Wild

Fake News Media Push ‘Radical Scholars” Buttons

Warning: Extreme Profanity

The bizarre and unfounded allegations of Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford concerning Supreme Court nominee Brent Kavanaugh is causing an acute outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), a particular type of behavioral disorder caused by the nationalistic, politically incorrect, and often irreverent US presidential incumbent.

This specific manifestation of TDS is evidenced as outrage over Kavanaugh’s alleged 36-year-old high school exploits, in contrast to his outstanding academic qualifications and professional achievements. Despite the profuse number of holes in Blasey Ford’s testimony and her deep state pedigree, even the very highly-educated Left embrace her without reservation.

Continue reading Trump Derangement Syndrome: The View From My Facebook Account

0

Alex Jones’ Actual Malice

How a Talk Show Host Can Help Defeat the First Amendment

By James F. Tracy

Beginning in April the parents of children said to have perished in the December 2012 Sandy Hook School massacre have filed defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones (e.g. here, here and here) and others claiming the radio talk show host defamed them by repeatedly stating to his audience that the incident was staged. The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified monetary sum from the defendant, claiming he caused them to be harassed and threatened by parties who share Jones belief that the event was a hoax.

In the event these actions are tried they will in all probability not function as a venue where the veracity of the Sandy Hook event itself can be verified or disproven. Nor will the plaintiffs likely have to provide much if any evidence of harassment or pain and suffering.

The parents’ attorneys assert in one suit that “overwhelming–and indisputable–evidence exists showing what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.” This claim is unanimously (though erroneously) supported by Connecticut State authorities and national news media, and has been accepted as settled fact by a federal judge in Lucyv.Richards.

Alex Jones faces new defamation lawsuit, hires attorney

An open question remains whether the suing parties would need to suppress any countervailing evidence. This is largely because over five years after the Sandy Hook massacre event Jones still routinely exhibits uncertainty on whether or not the shooting was real. It is with this suggestion of “actual malice” that he is setting himself up for an untenable position before a jury.

Sullivanv.NewYorkTimes defined actual malice as a primary requisite for a plaintiff to prevail in bringing a defamation suit. In that famous episode the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement with factual inaccuracies produced by 1960s civil rights advocates and carried in the Times had not been published with actual malice. The court ruled that under the given circumstances the newspaper’s staff did not run the ad either 1) knowing it was false, or 2) with reckless disregard for the truth.

In the cases at hand Jones’ would-be confusion about Sandy Hook began just hours after the alleged shooting itself, when Jones, perhaps anticipating the mixed orientation of his audience toward the incident, expressed confusion over exactly what took place in Newtown. At the same time, and without any real evidence, he used anonymous callers’ observations to label the event a probable “false flag.” This ambiguity would continue for more than five years.

In the months and years thereafter substantial evidence emerged suggesting the “massacre” was probably a FEMA drill overseen by the Obama administration and presented as an actual attack to lay the groundwork for strengthening gun control legislation. Some of this data was compiled in the book edited by Professor Jim Fetzer, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.

Instead of inviting Fetzer on to his radio program following the book’s publication and subsequent censorship by Amazon.com in late 2015, Jones ran in the other direction, actually deleting a story by Infowars writer Adan Salazar from his website and thus in effect joining forces with Amazon to suppress that title’s revelations.

Jones conflicted stance toward Sandy Hook is now even mirrored in his attorney Marc Randazza’s public remarks. “We are going to be mounting a strong First Amendment defense and look forward to this being resolved in a civil and collegial manner,” Jones’ counsel Randazza explained to the New York Times, where he continues to note “that Mr. Jones has ‘a great deal of compassion for these parents.'”

Such a statement suggests how the Sandy Hook official narrative as  defined by the media (and in the minds of any potential jury member) is shared by the defendant himself and his own legal team.

University of Texas law professor David Anderson contends that Jones’ repeated waffling on Sandy Hook makes him especially vulnerable.

What I understand is that he’ll say these things at one point, and then later on, he’ll say, “Of course I know that wasn’t true.” If he says things, and then says he knows it wasn’t true, he’s in trouble. If he consistently says, “I never claimed that to be true,” then he’s probably on more solid ground.

Because Jones’ confusing array of broadcast utterances on Sandy Hook are all a matter of public record it will not be difficult for the “prosecution” to demonstrate Jones’ confusion amounts to a “reckless disregard for truth.”

Further, since Jones’ public persona precedes him and given the fact that jurors are often impressionable and will surely not be avid “Infowarriors,” plaintiffs’ counsel will likely find it easy to depict Jones as a devious and malicious actor. Unfortunately, these are all a jury needs to be fed to affirm the parents’ claims.

Jones’ uncertainty on the Sandy Hook massacre is especially unusual for a figure who is the self-proclaimed “founding father of the 9/11 truth movement,” and who for over two decades been the country’s most prominent “conspiracy theorist.”

Moreover, Jones strongly-voiced political opinions in many areas is what his fans find most appealing. In light of this the broadcaster has waffled so much on Sandy Hook that it’s difficult not to believe that he isn’t a pre-designated foil in a broader play to defeat what’s left of speech freedoms in the United States. It’s at least for certain that Jones is not any truth movement’s most desirable ally.

0

Anthony Hall’s Politically-Motivated Expulsion From Academe

Senior Canadian Professor Offers Insights After Thorough Investigation of How He Was Targeted

Editor’s Note: In the Summer of 2016 Canada’s B’nai Brith began an intense propaganda and lobbying campaign that resulted in Lethbridge University moving to remove Professor Anthony Hall from his tenured position. This began after an unknown party posted a doctored and viciously anti-semitic image on Hall’s Facebook page. The Canadian mass media actively participated in Hall’s public lynching and eventual suspension through a series of false and defamatory reports abetting B’nai Brith’s targeting of Hall. (For previous MHB posts on Hall and U of  Lethbridge click here.)

In the Lethbridge Herald’s 2016 reports of the unfolding controversy the paper helped lead the chorus of outrage against Professor Hall

Further, documents released to Hall under Canada’s freedom of information law reveal how the University of Lethbridge’s president and other public officials bowed to the pressure brought by political groups including B’nai Brith which ultimately led to Hall’s October 2016 suspension. 

What were Hall’s thought crimes? Hall is actively involved in alternative media, rightly questions historically monumental events like the September 11, 2001 attacks and, as a scholar of indigenous movements, has been highly critical of Israel’s decades-long mistreatment of the Palestinian people. In certain respects Hall’s case parallels James Tracy’s, who blogged on matters of public concern and was terminated from his tenured professorship at Florida Atlantic University in early 2016 as a result of intense public pressure following publication of a false and defamatory opinion piece in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Two years after the controversy began, a mainstream Canadian media outlet, the Lethbridge Herald, has provided Hall with a platform to express his side of the episode and ongoing assault on free speech and academic freedom spanning North America. University of Lethbridge officials were given several opportunities to respond but failed to provide anything substantive. The full text of Hall’s discussions with Nick Kuhl of the Lethbridge Herald is reproduced below.

Tony Hall and Lethbridge University (5 parts & follow-up letters) Nick Kuhl
Lethbridge Herald
June 3-8, 2018

Part 1: Hall tells his side of story

In 2016, he was suspended from his position of more than 25 years. A year later he was reinstated.

But there is still uncertainty whether he will ever step foot into a classroom again. So -— University of Lethbridge professor Tony Hall wants his story to be heard.

Hall, a tenured professor who has taught Globalization studies, Native American studies, and liberal education at the U of L since 1990, was suspended without pay in October 2016 over concerns he had contravened Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, including providing a platform for hate speech regarding some of his online activities.

He maintains some of the issues involve academic freedom and he should be allowed to promote his work as he sees fit.

During the next five days, The Herald will be presenting an exclusive special five-part series in which Hall speaks candidly about his experiences of the past nearly two years.

Following is part one of The Herald’s sit-down with Hall.

Herald: “Prof. Hall, in your opinion how did the sequence of events begin two years ago that has engulfed your career of nearly 30 years as a faculty member at the U of L?”

Hall: “Thank you Nick for that question, one that gives me an opening to go to the very origins of the controversy. Before explaining how it all started, however, allow me to remind readers that I was suspended from my professional duties at the University of Lethbridge in early October of 2016. My pay was cut to zero, I was pulled from my teaching in mid-term and I was banned from setting foot on campus.

“All these punitive measures flew in the face of the foundational rules of collegial governance at universities around the world. My suspension without due process violated protections supposedly embodied in my tenured status. My tenured employment as a university professor is woven into the fabric of a collective agreement joining faculty and administration in a two-sided dance of ongoing negotiation. Of what use is tenure if a tenured professor can be pulled from her or his academic duties for giving offence to powerful groups. Isn’t that exactly what the protections of tenure are supposed to guard against?

“No process of outside adjudication preceded my instant suspension. No justification was given other than for U of L President, Michael J. Mahon, to indicate that I might have violated provincial human rights law. In his confidential letter to me of Oct. 3 of 2016, Dr. Mahon announced, “It has been brought to my attention through numerous sources that you are engaging in and have engaged in a series of actions which, on their face, would appear to contravene Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.”

“The suspension added a major new factor to the force of a pre-existing trial by media that began to gather momentum starting late in the summer of 2016. Beginning on Aug. 26 officials at B’nai Brith Canada maliciously associated me with the horrific contents of a vile Facebook item said to have briefly appeared on my former Facebook wall. This posting was executed without my agency, knowledge or consent. The tactic was a virtual equivalent in the era of the internet and social media to having illicit drugs or an explosive device planted on one’s person prior to a police sting operation.

“This Facebook post is said to have appeared and then disappeared on my Facebook wall during the duration of a few hours on Aug. 26. When I first learned of the existence of the Facebook deception in mid-September, I publicly condemned the post’s atrocious contents as running contrary to my fundamental values as a schooled opponent of genocide in all its manifestations.

“The Facebook deception was instrumental in creating the momentum of a campaign to discredit and cripple me professionally, a campaign that continues yet. The Facebook deception quickly plunged me under a cloud of infamy and public shaming. This description here in the Lethbridge Herald is the first time I have been provided with a venue in mainstream media to explain my perspective on what transpired.

“To this day the university administration has yet to address its relationship to the digital operation that created the manufactured crisis within which I was suspended without pay and due process. The object of the deception was clearly to smear my reputation by wrongfully identifying me with the repugnant content of a Photoshopped image together with a vicious text “proclaiming “KILL ALL JEWS NOW! … The Holocaust never happened but it should have.”

“Since the summer of 2017 I am in a position to document many surprising features of this case. I can do so based on letters obtained in response to Freedom of Information requests to the Alberta Ministry of Justice and to the U of L administration. Some of the retrieved letters expose heretofore hidden aspects of the Facebook deception that were deployed with all the destructiveness of a reputational wrecking ball.

“On Aug. 27, the day following the alleged appearance and disappearance of the Facebook post in question, reports identifying me with its reprehensible contents were circulated widely. In documents obtained from the FOIP Office of Alberta’s Justice Ministry I have proof of communication to top officials characterizing the reprehensible Facebook post as being indicative of my true opinions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Copies of a particularly accusatory letter calling for me to be fired went immediately to Dr. Mahon, to the RCMP, to Premier Rachel Notley, to Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley and to Alberta Minister of Advanced Education Marlin Schmidt. The communication sent to these figures slanderously identified me as “an advocate for the murder of Jews.”

“Simultaneously B’nai Brith Canada moved quickly to put the planted Facebook post before Lethbridge and Calgary Police Services with a call that these agencies open investigations. This request was quickly met in the affirmative. I was investigated to see if I would be charged with hate speech and incitement to commit genocide!

“I was indeed investigated by the police who decided not to charge me with a crime. Nevertheless, reports of the police investigation were made to proliferate. B’nai Brith Canada immediately publicized on its website reports of police involvement in my case. My response to this development is to emphasize that I should have been seen not as a possible protagonist in the commission of a crime. On the contrary I was quite clearly the target and victim of an audaciously deceptive Facebook operation.

“The political lobby’s smear operation quickly evolved into a campaign to have me removed from my professorial post. B’nai Brith Canada mounted a petition drive to have me investigated and fired. This objective was apparently embraced and advanced by the university administration as evidenced by its decision to suspend me from my professional duties on Oct. 3 and 4.

“My contention about the nature and purpose of the Facebook deception forms a core argument in the statement of self-defence I recently put before the panel currently investigating this case. At present I am trying to obtain a hearing to develop the oral aspect of my self-defence. For my part in the proceedings I am seeking to include the live testimony of witnesses who will appear before a three-person panel charged to investigate the underlying facts of this matter.

“Due to a court ruling on Sept. 15 of 2017, one that the U of L Board lost and my faculty association won, I am able at last to begin to relate my side of the story in a properly-constituted process. The outlines of this process are set out in provisions in the University of Lethbridge Faculty Handbook and in the terms of a tripartite agreement. This agreement takes the form of a contract signed with me by representatives of both the U of L Board and Faculty Association on Oct. 30 of 2017.

“I have developed the written basis of my self-defence in a 500-page account I have authored and recently submitted to the members of the investigating panel. These panel members are fellow faculty members, two from the U of Alberta and one from the U of Lethbridge. My submission also includes 100 pages of primary source documents, some of which were obtained on my behalf through Freedom of Information inquiries.

“In my estimation that main attribute of the documents obtained through FOIP show a pattern of thick collaboration beginning in the July of 2016 between the university administration and a powerful political lobby. A core unit in this lobby has been B’nai Brith Canada, the lead agency in the Facebook deception mounted against me in the prelude to what many have described as my illegal suspension.”

U of L officials were given the opportunity by The Herald to respond to all of Hall’s direct claims. They provided this statement:

“The University of Lethbridge will not provide any comment on the background or the process currently underway related to Dr. Hall. The process was agreed to by Dr. Hall, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) and the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors. To comment at this time would be inappropriate and irresponsible.”

Part 2: Hall explaines history of suspension

Herald: “Might you briefly summarize for our readers the range of subjects covered in the 500- page defence document?”

Hall: “The document addresses the substance of a complaint against me written on behalf of the Board of Governors. As negotiated in the tripartite agreement, the issuing of the complaint accompanied my reinstatement into my professional duties on campus on Nov. 23 of 2017. One of the tasks I set out to accomplish in authoring the 500-page document was to explain the history of this case prior to the interjection of the recently-selected panel members. Allow me please to explain for readers as I do in the report some key features of the history spanning the period between the Facebook deception and now.

“To explain his actions against me, President Mahon released on Oct. 13 of 2016 the first of what would become a series of published announcements to the ‘University Community.’ Dr. Mahon explained, ‘this action is not focused on Dr. Hall’s published scholarship, driven by complaints of students, or the demands of external advocacy groups. It is focused on his YouTube-based videos and comments in social media that have been characterized as being anti- Semitic, supportive of Holocaust denial and engagement in conspiracy theories.’

“I have come to view the phrases used at the end of this statement as weaponized terms most frequently deployed with the object of trying to terminate or maim the careers especially of public intellectuals. The aim in my case and many others I have examined, is to try to kill the message by delegitimizing the messenger. Open debate is thereby constrained and sometimes crushed. As with Dr. Mahon’s announcement, the weaponized phrases are rarely deployed with clear definitions. Nor are they projected into the public sphere with explicit evidence.

“This way of trying to shut down discussion and debate especially in universities is hugely consequential. Most often this strategy is directed at critics of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians, a category that includes me. Is this kind of public lashing an appropriate tactic to undermine professionally a faculty member with whom a university’s CEO disagrees?

“At the very least, surely there is a particular onus to be more circumspect and linguistically precise when a university president steps onto her or his bully pulpit to let loose weaponized language aimed at blasting an academic reputation to smithereens.

“Dr. Mahon’s reference to the role of YouTube in his effort to justify suspending me outside the terms of the collective agreement almost certainly points to my role in co-hosting with Dr. Kevin Barrett a regular internet broadcast entitled False Flag Weekly News. Between late 2015 and late 2017 I co-hosted a weekly conversation where Dr. Barrett and I regularly addressed about 40 media reports describing current events.

“A particular emphasis in our FFWN commentaries is to evaluate evidence concerning violent events often reported in mainstream media as the independent work of violent Islamic jihadists. Usually these reports indicate that Muslim terrorists act out of no other motivation than religious zealotry and hatred of western freedoms.

“Our sceptical approach to such reportage is framed within a larger interpretation of the role of deception in initiating and waging the Global War on Terror from 2001 until now.

“As many of your readers will be aware, there is a large and many-faceted citizens’ investigation fuelling a popular movement of millions of individuals who do not accept as valid the official narrative of what happened on 9/11.

“Dr. Barrett and I and many of those who regularly watch FFWN share this widespread scepticism. Based on long and focused research, publication and interaction with other investigators, Dr. Barrett and I share a general interpretation of false flag terrorism. While we often disagree on particular points, we agree with a general hypothesis.

“This interpretation posits that a deep state operation replaced the demonology directed at communism in the era of the Cold War with the demonology pointed at Islamic people and religion in the era of the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The purposeful and systematic demonization of Muslims is sometimes identified as the organized promotion of Islamophobia. Flawed interpretations of 9/11 and other subsequent episodes of possible false-flag terrorism can be interpreted as stimulants to Islamophobia.

“The process of helping along the creation of a new enemy has massively empowered those seeking to expand the militarization and police state attributes of the so-called ‘West.’ In the era of the GWOT, Muslim majority countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen have been invaded and largely pulverized with the object of bringing about ‘regime change.’

“This military adventurism has resulted in the murdering, maiming and violent displacement of many millions of indigenous peoples in Eurasia and the Middle East. Worse is yet to come if the extension of the GWOT results in the invasions of Iran and possibly Russia as well. Where is the peace movement when we need it the most? How can the peace movement be effective without evidence-based analysis of the true genesis of the 9/11 wars, of the ongoing GWOT?

“On FFWN we consider, for instance, the U.S. backing in Syria of the al-Qaeda proxy army and its outgrowth in al-Nusra. This backing has been provided with the object of overthrowing the elected Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad. This support for al-Qaeda in Syria replicates the CIA’s support for al-Qaeda in the 1980s when Western intelligence agencies recruited, backed and armed a Muslim proxy army with the object of overthrowing the Soviet-backed puppet regime in Afghanistan. How is it that the U.S. government has been backing the supposed culprits of 9/11 in al-Qaeda’s recent involvement in the clash of hostile armed forces in Syria? What is wrong with this picture?

“In the NATO countries, core polities of ‘the West,’ we face regular episodes of sometimes lethal local violence often attributed to the independent actions of Islamic jihadists in, for instance, Paris, Munich, San Bernardino, Orlando and even Ottawa in October of 2014. We talk about possible scenarios of what really happened on FFWN. Dr. Barrett and I also sometimes present our analysis in written essays, often with the object of trying to challenge the veracity of official narratives. One telling indicator of possible false-flag terrorism is the near instant release of official interpretations formulated well before proper police investigations could have taken place.

“The events of 9/11 offer a paradigmatic example of this phenomenon. The core elements of an interpretation about who did what to whom and why, were offered up almost immediately on the fateful day. The supposed culprits were identified and publicized long before the dust had even settled from the pulverization of three steel-frame skyscrapers in New York struck by two jet airplanes.

“The main outlines of this hastily-formulated official interpretation have been retained to this day despite the sceptical findings of many researchers who do not accept the official narrative as valid. One of these 9/11 sceptics is Prof. David Ray Griffin. Prof. Griffin has authored 11 carefully documented books describing various aspects of the 9/11 crime. Many agree with Prof. Griffin’s assessment that existing evidence does not support the official narrative of the 9/11 crime. This evidence remains incomplete due in part to the obstructions put in the way of proper investigations into what continues to be the most consequential global event of the 21st century.”

U of L officials were given the opportunity by The Herald to respond to all of Hall’s direct claims. They provided this statement:

“The University of Lethbridge will not provide any comment on the background or the process currently underway related to Dr. Hall. The process was agreed to by Dr. Hall, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) and the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors. To comment at this time would be inappropriate and irresponsible.”

Part 3: Role of Human Rights Commission in Tony Hall case

Herald: Can you comment please on the role of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in this case?

Hall: “Sure Nick. I have learned from documents obtained from the Alberta Ministry of Justice’s FOIP Office that in early September of 2016 the Ministry’s ‘Human Rights Commission Group’ was shipped materials pertaining to what I have termed the Facebook deception. This transfer of material happened before I was made aware of the smear campaign against me beginning with highlighting the offensive digital item as if it represented my views.

“On Sept. 1 the president of the Canadian Jewish Civil Rights Association, Bert Raphael Q.C., wrote to Dr. Mahon to assert that the offensive text ‘came from my lips.’ Mr. Raphael added, I would ‘respectfully suggest that such an odious pronouncement would warrant Professor Hall’s dismissal from your University.’

“On seeing these comments, why did not Dr. Mahon contact me immediately to seek my side of the story concerning the offensive digital item? To this day I have not discussed face-to-face this topic or any topic with the elusive Dr. Mahon. Why did Dr. Mahon fail to do due diligence by investigating personally the Facebook episode to assure the safety of faculty, students, administrators and support staff at our school? Did Dr. Mahon fail to contact me personally because he was involved in a plot to keep me in the dark about what was happening for as long as possible?

“The Oct. 3 letter introducing the suspension included an allegation that made oblique reference to the digital item at the heart of the furor. It indicated that my Facebook page was ‘being used for virulent anti-semitic comments.’ Who was using the page in this way? What was the intention of B’nai Brith Canada in wrongfully attributing to me ‘anti-semitic comments’ that I did not author, invite or sanction on my Facebook wall? What prior or subsequent knowledge, if any, did the university administration have of the Facebook deception? Why does the university administration so persistently avoid answering this question, one that I have asked repeatedly?

“Throughout the autumn of 2016 Dr. Mahon made frequent reference to a complaint being prepared by the U of L Board of Governors to be put before the AHRC. When this complaint was submitted in mid-December of 2016 it was accompanied by an announcement that my pay was being restored.

“As indicated on Jan. 17, 2017 in a widely published news story picked up from the Canadian Press, it was B’nai Brith official Amanda Hohmann, not a U of L official, who explained the restoration of pay. Ms. Hohmann explained in the press report, ‘Certainly, we would support anything that means that the complaint would be handled properly and is going to succeedÉ We would hate to see something like this thrown out on a technicality.’

“Why is a B’nai Brith Canada official explaining for the media an internal decision by the university administration about a change in policy concerning the pay of a suspended faculty member? As I see it, this statement on behalf of the University of Lethbridge by a B’nai Brith spokesperson adds to the evidence of an especially close collaboration between the school’s administrative branch and a core agency of a powerful political lobby.

“The preparation of the complaint to the AHRC was apparently developed through a series of secret investigations conducted outside the rules of the collective agreement. Dr. Owen Holmes has recently brought forward a surprising account of these investigations sometimes defined in media reports as ‘internal’ and sometimes identified as ‘external.’ Dr. Holmes, who is now in his 80s, was one of the main founders of the University of Lethbridge. On April 23 Dr. Holmes distributed yet another of his written missives in what he describes ‘as a series of communications intended to encourage all parties to seek early resolution of the issues [this case] has spawned, with copies widely distributed for transparency.’

“In the April 23 item Dr. Holmes wrote, ‘From published materials and miscellaneous incidental sources, I count that over the last couple of years Hall’s professional work has been assessed at least a dozen different times, half within the U of L and half by external bodies that gained intrusive foothold only through the failed trusteeship of a weak and incompetent Board.’ Dr. Holmes added, ‘not one of these operations had a trace of respectability in relation to the fundamentals of academic due process . . . Even Franz Kafka would be impressed.’

“To this day the university administration has not reported to the university community or to ULFA or to me that the board’s original complaint to the AHRC was rejected. The AHRC’s letter of rejection issued on Feb. 13, 2017 contained a number of written reasons I have cited in my 500-page report to the investigating panel. The AHRC’s rejection was authored by AHRC official John Gabriele.

“A second board complaint to the AHRC was subsequently accepted for consideration of the AHRC. I wrote a response to the second complaint but withheld it until Judge Glen H. Poelman’s court ruling of Sept. 15. Judge Poelman’s ruling upheld the Alberta government’s legal capacity to appoint an arbitrator to look into ULFA grievances generated by the original suspension and by subsequent board breaches of my right to privacy.

“After Judge Poelman denied the board’s request for a stay of proceedings and a judicial review of the whole matter, the university administration terminated its relationship with lawyer, Robert W. Thompson of Code Hunter Law Firm in Calgary. The board’s new Edmonton-based lawyer, together with ULFA’s lawyer, Leanne Chahley, then went to work on expediting subsequent procedures resulting in the tripartite agreement of Oct. 30, 2017.

“In this agreement the board agreed to withdraw its second complaint to the AHRC even as ULFA agreed to ask the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) to withdraw its very consequential threat to censure the University of Lethbridge. The sidelining of the AHRC in this matter opened the way to bring the controversy properly within the framework of the collective agreement where it now resides.

“In my view this shift away from the AHRC and towards the workings of the collective agreement at the University of Lethbridge has important positive implications for the shared professional interests of all university faculty members in Canada. While this recent development points in the right direction, however, many fundamental aspects of this case remain unresolved and in some instances in limbo.”

U of L officials were given the opportunity by The Herald to respond to all of Hall’s direct claims. They provided this statement:

“The University of Lethbridge will not provide any comment on the background or the process currently underway related to Dr. Hall. The process was agreed to by Dr. Hall, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) and the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors. To comment at this time would be inappropriate and irresponsible.”

Part 4: Hall maintains key documents relevant to case withheld

Herald: “What do you mean “in limbo”? Can you give me a concrete example?”

Hall: “Yes. One such matter concerns the holding back by the university administration of information that is very relevant to the investigation of this significant series of episodes in the institutional life of the University of Lethbridge.

“In response to our FOIP requests to the university administration we received only limited and often unsatisfactory releases of relevant documents. Many key documents were withheld that would undoubtedly shed more light on a variety of topics relevant to this case. In a dozen different instances university lawyer Scott Harling invoked the rationale of “solicitor-client privilege” to hold back relevant information. What are the implications of such wholesale resort to justifying secrecy in ways that cut against the need for accountability from a public institution funded in significant measure by taxpayers’ dollars.

“The FOIP investigations done on my behalf were carried out by Ken Rubin, an Ottawa-based expert on such matters. Mr. Rubin was contracted by the CAUT to provide this service. In his report to CAUT executive director, David Robinson, Mr. Rubin explained, “The most concerning point in the University of Lethbridge records provided is the lack of much information about [the administration’s] own investigation of HallÉ Incredibly, the records show President Mahon invited four external groups (B’nai Brith et. al.) to consult with Robert Thompson, the university’s [former] external lawyer investigating the Hall case, where they could have legal counsels present. Yet it appears Hall was never consulted or approached, at least there are no records to that effect.

“I can confirm I was not invited to the secret meetings organized by Dr. Mahon and Robert Thompson to discuss with representatives of the outside lobby the matter of my labour relations with the University of Lethbridge. Nor was ULFA informed of, or made party to, these secret meetings. In the primary sources appended to my report to the investigating panel, I have included the letters from Dr. Mahon to officials of the Calgary Jewish Federation (CJF) and the Centre for Israel and Affairs (CIJA).

“The letters of Oct. 20, 2016 were part of the material received from the FOIP Office of the University of Lethbridge. In the letters composed in the immediate aftermath of my suspension, Dr. Mahon proposes to Mathew Godwin of the CIJA and to Jeffrey L. Smith Q.C. of the CJF, ‘if you would like to have legal counsel present, Mr. Thompson would be happy to accommodate this.’

“The text of the letters appeared under the heading, ‘Re: Anthony Hall.’ It is troubling and difficult for me to consider the assumptions underlying the legal construction of this procedure. It makes of me an object, a subject matter – Re: Anthony Hall – rather than a participant in negotiations to determine my own future.

“The understanding seems to be that by suspending me, the U of L board and president excluded me from any requirement even to copy me in correspondence concerning my future. Certainly there was a determination that I was to be excluded from deliberations quite probably directed at terminating my still-unextinguished status as a tenured professor at the University of Lethbridge. Did those who implemented my suspension assume that their actions negated my status even as a citizen as well as a faculty member?

“Silent volumes are spoken by the fact of ULFA’s pre-emption in the process by an external lobby group notwithstanding that the main subject on the table was labour relations with a controversial faculty member. The episode seemingly offers a textbook example of the subordination of a university board to the political machinations of a powerful external lobby. How can vital imperatives of academic freedom be maintained in an educational milieu where powerful external lobbies can sometimes alternate between carrot-and-stick tactics to gain enormous influence over university administrators?

“I suspect that the secret negotiations between the board’s former lawyer and some legal representatives of the Israel lobby in Canada came up with interpretations and perspectives that found their way into the first and second complaints to the AHRC. Some of the substance of these earlier complaints re-appeared in the complaint of Nov. 23 authored by former Acting Dean of Arts and Science, Dr. Michelle Helstein.

“I have my doubts and concerns about the possible ongoing role of the external lobby in this case. Recall that the external lobby introduced its hostility to aspects of my academic work as a tenured professor with a blitzkrieg-style deployment of social media in the Facebook deception initiated on Aug. 26 of 2016. Is there an ongoing involvement of the external lobby still operative in the background of the current proceedings? Is the investigating panel replicating old patterns of stealthy procedure epitomized by the secret lawyers meetings instituted with the label, “Re: Anthony Hall?

“I am attempting to show good faith in the current proceedings. I am doing so by proposing to bring forward witnesses. The witnesses would include one or more of my former students to comment on my teaching if that is to be a topic of investigation.

“In addition I have put forward the name as a witness of Dr. Graeme MacQueen. With a PhD from Harvard, Dr. MacQueen is the founder and first executive director of the Peace Studies program at McMaster University in Ontario.

“In anticipating on March 1 of this year Dr. MacQueen’s possible role as a witness, I wrote,

‘Dr. MacQueen’s scholarly activism as a proponent of peace and as an opponent of militarism in all its many manifestations forms the main connection that originally brought him to 9/11 Studies. His thesis is that, in order to offer a viable resistance to the 9/11 wars, some solid evidence-based analysis of who did what to whom in the originating episode of the Global War on Terror is a necessary condition for the growth and effectiveness of a viable peace movement.’

U of L officials were given the opportunity by The Herald to respond to all of Hall’s direct claims. They provided this statement:

“The University of Lethbridge will not provide any comment on the background or the process currently underway related to Dr. Hall. The process was agreed to by Dr. Hall, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) and the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors. To comment at this time would be inappropriate and irresponsible.”

Part 5: Controversy test case for universities: Hall

Tony Hall, a tenured University of Lethbridge professor who has taught Globalization studies, Native American studies and liberal education at the U of L since 1990, was suspended without pay in October 2016 over concerns he had contravened Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, including providing a platform for hate speech regarding some of his online activities.

Following is the conclusion of The Herald’s recent sit-down with Hall.

Herald: “In summation, Prof. Hall, what do you see as the big issues raised by the contentions between you and the administration of the University of Lethbridge?”

Hall: “I believe this controversy is becoming something of a test case whose outcome will influence how universities will be governed in the future. This case is already setting precedents for institutions of higher learning in Alberta and beyond. These schools of advanced education play vital roles at the very interface between continuity and change in the evolution of our most important civilizational complexes.

“The contentions set in motion by my suspension raise many fundamental questions. For instance, how is it to be decided what can or cannot be the subject of research, publication and pedagogy at universities? How is expertise in various fields of study to be acquired, passed along, certified and applied these days? Who is to decide what academic faculty get hired, retained or dismissed?

“Should limits be set on what can be investigated, discussed, debated, written about and taught in the curriculum? If so, how are these boundaries to be set? By whom and how should these outlines of academic legitimacy be established? Are there checks currently in place to safeguard the integrity of procedures currently used to decide such matters? Are the supposed safeguards adequate to meet the growing incursions of powerful political lobbies?

“All of these questions bear directly on the fundamental issue pertaining to the role of university faculty members and administrators in drawing distinctions between truth and falsehood, between legitimate inquiry and quackery. In this sense universities constitute a kind of high court for such determinations essential to the very viability of free and democratic societies founded on platforms of enlightenment and rationality.

“The pursuit of truth through the application of evidence combined with disciplined reasoning is not the same thing as a popularity contest. Accordingly, it has long since been recognized that there has to be some special protections for qualified university faculty members who may from time to time develop interpretations that are seen as menacing to those in positions of power. These considerations have much to do with the frequency that specialized terms like tenure, academic freedom and peer review come up in my case.

“This contention at the University of Lethbridge is coming to embody the basic dilemmas that often arise when powerful interests line up with the object of trying to silence the message by professionally destroying the messenger. Essential to my self-defence is my conclusion drawn from primary documents that the board of governors of our university has aligned itself too closely with a powerful political lobby that began a systematic attack on my reputation prior to my suspension in October of 2016.

“Then on November 24, 2017, the day after I was reinstated to my professional position, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley joined with the powerful interests calling for my removal from the academy. In public pronouncements Premier Notley condemned both my academic work and my reputation. Premier Notley declared that I “absolutely” should not be “teaching students;” that she sees my views as “repulsive, offensive and not reflective of Alberta.” Our premier said nothing about how she arrived at her conclusions. Could it be that her opinion of me continues to be influenced by the misrepresentation of the Facebook deception funnelled into her office on August 27 of 2016?”

The Herald has not received a response from Premier Rachel Notley’s office regarding comments towards her.

U of L officials were given the opportunity by The Herald to respond to all of Hall’s direct claims. They provided this statement:

“The University of Lethbridge will not provide any comment on the background or the process currently underway related to Dr. Hall. The process was agreed to by Dr. Hall, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) and the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors. To comment at this time would be inappropriate and irresponsible.”

Herald: “Tony, after going over all of this, do you have any final comment, or overarching statement?”

Hall: “I moved to Lethbridge in 1990, January 1st of 1990, to take up my position as associate professor of Native American studies. I moved here, I have joined in the community, I’ve contributed to the life of the community, including The Lethbridge Herald, and the discourse of The Lethbridge Herald, whether it be the Yuan Yi hog plant, or Milton Born With A Tooth and the Oldman Dam, or the free trade area of the Americas, and the controversy that unfolded in 2001, fluoridation, smart meters – I haven’t been shy to try to contribute to the discourse. And sometimes I’ve been unpopular as a result. And sometimes I’ve been popular as a result.

“But, anyway, that’s the nature of discourse in the public sphere. I’ve taken pride in the fact that I can communicate through popular press, in very accessible media, and explain, what might seem to some, complex matters in language that is accessible to people. My really deep commitment to justice for First Nations in Canada, and looking at Indigenous peoples increasingly in a North American context, a Western Hemisphere context, and in a global context, I think it’s not surprising that my attention was drawn to the plight of Palestinians, to the situation in the Middle East, that I read the situation, which involves a very gross disparity of power between a sovereign country, Israel, and a people who have no state, the Palestinians, that there needs to be some equity. And there needs to be some voices raised to people who are suffering in the terms of how power is exercised these days.

“Muslim people after 9/11 have been put in a particularly precarious position and I mean the worldwide community of two billion Muslims, the Islamic religion, Islamic people, Islamic culture, Islamic philosophy. So I’ve lent my voice to drawing attention to that and I see 9/11 and the interpretation of 9/11, and the Global War On Terror, and the way terrorism is depicted; some instances that I think aren’t depicted as they really should be.

“I seek to use my experience as a researcher, my capacity to articulate things in the public milieu; I’ve written for the Globe and Mail, I’ve written for the Toronto Star, I’ve written for the Ottawa Citizen. To me, it is a tactic that I’ve used throughout my academic career to comment on contemporary issues and bring historical interpretations to that cause or to that procedure, to that process. So, to me, False Flag Weekly News fit into that pattern and was a kind of natural for me.

“I would like to see some calm and collegial resolution to this matter. I don’t think that the differences are as radical as some would like them to be. And, of course, I made a commitment to this community. I’m still here and I would like to be able to live in this community and continue to contribute in this community and be understood as having a good intention. People may disagree with my interpretations; I might even irritate some people the way I express myself. But this is how it works in the sphere of ideas and conflicting interpretations. This is what we have universities for.

“Knowing how to agree to disagree is crucial. I think we should embrace that ideal of finding ways to agree to disagree that is essential in the process of advancing liberal education – which the University of Lethbridge apparently stands for.”

Letter from Kurt Schlachter, Chair, University of Lethbridge Board of Governors

Lethbridge Herald, Readers Forum, June 6, 2018, p. A8

Series a one-sided account of complex issue

The University of Lethbridge values the Lethbridge Herald’s important role in covering the significant news and events that happen in our community. Therefore, we were not surprised that our local newspaper has chosen to dedicate some of its resources to covering the story related to Dr. Anthony Hall.

What is disappointing, however, is that the Lethbridge Herald did not apply any journalistic standards in publishing the articles that appeared on June 4 and 5, which are apparently intended to be the first two instalments of a five-part series. These articles are nothing more than an open- ended question followed by an unchallenged response. It was irresponsible of the journalist who authored them to have enabled a on-sided and unfettered account of this complex matter as he did, in which he asks no follow-up questions, seeks no burden of proof, and cites no additional research. Encouraging such statements to be made without so much as a follow-up questions does not meet the basic standards of respectable journalism, and encourages conflict and controversy rather than responsible and respectable discourse.

This concern is compounded by the fact that the very nature of the dispute between the University of Lethbridge and Dr. Hall is inherently confidential, and as such our ability to respond is extremely limited. The process that is currently underway is articulated in the Faculty Handbook, and was initiated as a result of an agreement between the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association, and Dr. Hall himself. The Faculty Handbook clearly articulates a respect for privacy and confidentiality in all its processes. As such, the university will not waiver from abiding by the terms (including confidentiality) outlined in the handbook and in the tri-partite agreement governing the present process.

While we fully support an independent media inquiring about and publicizing issues of civic importance, we question the blatant lack of critical analysis in this series of pieces. By simply posing open-ended questions and publishing the unchallenged responses, our community is left with nothing more than an opinion. Without research, fact-checking, and challenging follow-up questions, there can be no journalistic integrity, which significantly reduces the value of your reporting.

Kurt Schlachter
Chair, University of Lethbridge Board of Governors.

TonyHall’s response to the Schlachter letter (as yet unpublished) 11 June, 2018

To the Editor of the Lethbridge Herald;

In a his June 6 response in the Lethbridge Herald, University of Lethbridge Board of Governors Chair, Kurt E. Schlachter, voiced criticism of the newspaper and its City Editor, Nick Kuhl, for publishing the recent five-part series titled, “Hall tells his side of the story.”

Mr. Schlachter asserted that the LH “did not apply any journalistic standards in publishing the articles.” He also indicated that these articles went to print “without research” and without “fact checking” to address “the burden of proof.”

On the contrary, Mr. Kuhl did much behind-the-scenes preparation for the series. Before our exchanges “on the record,” Mr. Kuhl devoted much of his time in our preliminary discussions to careful readings of the precise texts of many official documents. As we moved through these primary sources, the City Editor sought answers from me to many questions arising from his study of the documentary evidence.

The five-part series introduced much new information into the public domain. Many of the fresh disclosures establish points of reference vital to establishing the factual foundations necessary for a proper and balanced discussion of this ongoing case.

By publishing this previously concealed information, Mr. Kuhl and the Lethbridge Herald fulfilled the highest standards of professional journalism. Mr. Kuhl’s decision to illuminate rather than obfuscate some of the core dynamics of this controversy promises to enable more informed public discourse on the future of higher education in Alberta and beyond.

Many documents that Mr. Kuhl examined came in response to Freedom of Information and Privacy (FOIP) requests directed to the appropriate authorities. The communications brought forward were authored by official sources in the provincial government, university administration and in agencies of the political lobby that has played such an intrusive role in this matter.

Mr. Schlachter advances the case that the dispute at issue here is “inherently confidential.” This comment fails to acknowledge that the University Administration was instrumental in helping to orchestrate a very public media smear campaign directed against my person and reputation. This trial by media was conducted inside and outside the University in ways that were anything but confidential.

This matter only entered its current phase following a court ruling by Judge Glen H. Poelman on 15 Sept. of 2017. In his ruling Judge Poelman conveyed to the Board of Governors that it would need to take part in a properly-constituted investigation within the terms of the U of L’s collective agreement. The Judge made it clear that Board of Governors could not indefinitely favour the external lobby by sidelining ULFA from its rightful role as a primary party in this labour relations dispute. It remains to be seen if the “procedural fairness” provisions referred to in the collective agreement and in the tripartite contract of Oct. 30 2017 will be adhered to in the present stage of this ongoing process.

To summarize, more than a year and a half had elapsed before I was given an opportunity to publish in a mainstream media venue an account highlighting my understanding of this matter. This departure from past practice occurred because Mr. Kuhl took an initiative on behalf of his newspaper to introduce more balance and equity into the slanted media coverage that commenced in June of 2016.

Only now is this matter coming within the procedures outlined in the U of L’s collective agreement. Only now am I able to contribute to public awareness by relating on the record my side of the story. This timing should indicate for the attentive that all previous judgments were premature. Nevertheless, I have no choice but to bear the heavy professional damage already wrought by the onslaught of negative publicity attending the Facebook deception followed by my illegal suspension. Put plainly, because of the University Administration’s aggressions to date, I can never return to the same conditions of employment that prevailed before the intertwined chain of events unfolded between late August and early and early October of 2016. The essence of this initial salvo on my reputation resulted in my being pronounced guilty until proven innocent. Has anything changed in the current process to reverse this perversion of natural justice?

Mr. Schlachter argues that the series “does not meet the basic standards of respectable journalism and encourages conflict and controversy rather than responsible and respectable discourse.” Where was the opening for “responsible discourse” when U of L President Mike Mahon failed to seek out my side of the story amidst all the negative publicity attending the Facebook deception, the manufactured crisis that created the public environment for my subsequent suspension?

Even now, where are the venues for this “responsible and respectable discourse” on the academic freedom case currently unfolding at the University of Lethbridge? Does Mr. Schlachter’s response to the five-part series embody precisely the kind of “encouragement” to “conflict and controversy” that he wrongfully attributes to the officers of the Lethbridge Herald?

Anthony James Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies University of Lethbridge

0

Southern Poverty Law Center Has Lost All Credibility

May Face Additional Lawsuits

Selwyn Duke
The New American
(June 23, 2018)

“SPLC” may not stand for Sneaky Propaganda and Libel Center, but more and more Americans think it should. This is especially true after the organization had to pay a large settlement to an Islamic reformer it falsely labeled an “anti-Muslim extremist,” a victory that has inspired other targeted entities to also consider suing the SPLC.The far left-wing SPLC, or Southern Poverty Law Center, has long played a real-life cross between Santa Claus and Stalin, making a list of who’s naughty or nice and then managing to “gift” those it deems “haters” with stigmatization. Yet the misnamed organization — it has little to do with poverty or law, neither experiencing nor alleviating the former and violating the latter’s spirit — makes a habit of targeting those whose only trespass is, well, disagreeing with the SPLC. I ought to know: I myself was placed on its “HateWatch” page about a decade ago (more on that later).

The problem is that the SPLC has become the media go-to organization for who or what should be considered a “hater,” and being thus labeled can mean censorship by social media; with such media being today’s public square, this can deny the SPLC’s victims (almost always conservatives) a voice.

But one of these victims, finally, has gotten some justice. As National Review reported Monday, the SPLC “has reached a settlement with liberal Islamic reformer Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for wrongly including them on its now-defunct list of ‘anti-Muslim extremists.’”

The SPLC will pay Nawaz and Quilliam $3.375 million, the “result of a lawsuit Nawaz filed in April over his inclusion on the SPLC’s ‘Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,’” National Review further informed.

More…

0