Impressing Jason Kenney


The Canadian Arab Federation  is suing Jason Kenney.

They want their money back. Glen McGregor has the details.

Filed under:

Impressing Jason Kenney

  1. Just so we’re clear, they don’t want $2 million of Jason Kenney’s money. They want $2 million of our money. Yes, Kenney’s name is on the writ but we all have a dog in this fight.

    • You should apply for intervenor status on that basis, on this and every other case in which the government is a party.

    • And since it isn’t Jason Kenney’s money, what their opinion is of Jason Kenney, should have no bearing on their eligibility for funding.

      • Agreed but we are dealing with politicians not adults. Perhaps if Danny played a little nicer he would get more out of the Feds. I think McGuinty has shifted strategies here. It’s no different for the CAF – calling the minister a “professional whore” probably wasn’t the wisest move.

        As an aside, in Canada anyway, is their a distinction between professional and amateur whores?

        • Typo! Is ‘THERE’ a distinction….sigh.

        • “Amateur whore” would be an oxymoron, wouldn’t it?

          • That’s what I thought too. Or in a place where prostitution is illegal, are they are all amateurs?

            Maybe Kenney agrees that he is a whore, but fancies himself more of a dabbling amateur than a professional — and that’s what really bothered him. I don’t know.

            Anyway, it’s clearly an important problem for me to spend time considering.

        • “..if Danny played nicer……”?!?!?!?!
          It was Harper who unilaterally scrapped the 2005 Offshore Revenue Agreement – breaking a legal contract between NFLD and Canada as well as Harper’s own election promise.
          The guy killed two birds with one stone on that one.

          • Michael – you are missing the point. Are the people of Newfoundland better off with Harper and Williams being enemies or trying to get along?

            I agree that Harper screwed the people of Newfoundland. I just don’t think Williams’ strategy is working. The Conservatives seem to be a sensitive bunch.

        • I agree with John that “amateur whore” would appear to be an oxymoron.

          However, perhaps we’re all reading “professional whore” incorrectly. Perhaps it was meant as a COMPLIMENT; i.e. all politicians are whores, but Kenney is a whore who displays a certain high level of professionalism.

          • Good point!

            Perhaps MinJK will realize this and tweet out a ‘thank you’.

          • They think that Kenney is a puppet of the shadowy Zionist conspiracy – you know, those “Elders” who control all the money as well as the Western governments. Perhaps they also think that Kenney is accepting bribes from Israel, hence the “whore” comment.

  2. Cutting funding to a program that helps new Canadians learn the language because of a public insult from someone at the association?

    Go after the people insulting Kenney (if there has been a crime) not English language courses… that is just counterproductive to everyone’s interest. Civil courts could also handle this; rather than political interference.

    • I’m not sure any court can handle this. Minister’s have almost limitless discretion in what they choose to fund.

      • Agreed. If you’re a nonprofit organization feeding from the public purse, it’s not like you can just sue the government to get funding. You’re not “entitled” to a single dime from the taxpayers.

        • I thought they were suing because the government was breaking an agreement. Depending on how the agreement is worded, it would eliminate ministerial discretion would it not? And it really would be more of an agreement in law than an entitlement.

          I’m more interesting in an Immigration Minister reducing language training at a time his public statements reflect his view that immigrant applicants need better language skills in English or French. What about the people already here who need assistance learning the language? It isn’t like they can get high enough paying jobs to cover language training, and without language training, it’s harder to get a higher paying job…

          • There are other Muslim organizations who assist Muslim immigrants with jobs and language training, without subjecting them to thinly veiled hate speech.

          • Your right in that an actual contract for the provision of services would be a contract where if the government breaches the other party could sue for damages. to the extent its a funding decision it’s really not actionable, but an actual contract involved in carrying out the details of the decision would be.

          • Mike T. – well at least the details will come out in a preliminary hearing (assuming things go that far).

            Critical reasoning – how slippery is that slope? If it is hate speech, ministerial funding decisions aren’t the best way to deal with it, wouldn’t you agree? What prevents a minister from making such decisions because of critical speech of the government? What prevents a minister from making such decisions because of lobbying efforts by other interest/minority groups opposed to the other?

          • Nick, no interest group is entitled to public funding. The burden of proof is with the interest group – it most demonstrate that it is a worthy recipient of taxpayer dollars.

            If the president of such a group is so lacking in judgment that he hurls inflammatory personal attacks at the minister responsible for funding him, he probably also lacks the judgment to spend taxpayer dollars effectively.

  3. Khaled Mouammar, president of the CAF, called Kenney a “professional whore” for supporting Israel. Classic case of biting the hand that feeds you.

  4. What wonderful people.

    We should give them as much public funding as they want, IMO.

  5. Actually, the reason cited by Kenney for cutting their funding is that he accuses the organisation of anti-Semitism.

    That’s an easy one to throw to a pro-Palestinian organisation, isn’t it?

  6. I’m beginning to get quite uncomfortable with this government’s Israel-at-any-cost position these days. First the CAF is anti-semite and now Galloway is a terrorist.

    Who’s next?

    • When we send tanks rolling through Lebanon with the IDF, then you can say “Israel at any costs”. And I was under the impression that, while Galloway’s anti-Israel stance is his best-known one, he was more being kept out for actively rooting for the Taliban to blow holes in Canadian soldiers.

      • Where did Galloway say that? Just asking.

        • As far as I can tell, he didn’t. I had a specific Youtube clip of him in mind (search for “George Galloway Defends Afghan Fighters at Islam Peace Event” – I’d link but I bet it wouldn’t work) but he didn’t actually say what I remembered him saying about hoping the Taliban kicks out the western invaders.

          I retract my statement and offer my sincere apologies to Mr. Galloway and his family.

          • I’m sure Galloway is mollified.
            Actually i’ve only just started paying attention to Galloway. I can understand why some are wary of the man – he’s very persuasive and has a natural gift of the gab, and that wonderful dry scots wit helps. He may be utterly wrong, but i strongly object to my govt deciding who’s opinion i may hear, and interpreting anti-terrorism laws so broadly, that sending George a get well card could bring down the wrath of that little knee biter Kenney.

      • If you read the Toronto Star article, it would appear that Kenney dispatched his comm team soon after receiving the letter from JDL. He had them draft media lines.

        Where I come from, we call this being at someone’s beck and call, ok?

        As for the Taliban lover accusation being leveled at Galloway, according to this government, the entire Opposing side of the House of Commons also carries this label. So you’ll have to excuse me for taking this one with a grain of salt.

        Just like providing medical aid to palestinians doesn’t constitute terrorism in my book, opposing the Afghan war doesn’t make one a Taliban supporter either.

      • he was more being kept out for actively rooting for the Taliban to blow holes in Canadian soldiers…

        Well, he’s definitely not being kept out for that, since I’m not sure that would constitute grounds for inadmissibility under Canadian law, and the CBSA is citing a specific law in assessing Galloway’s supposed inadmissibility.

        Here are the reasons someone can be deemed inadmissible from the section of the IRPA that the government claims Galloway’s been found inadmissible under:

        (a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

        (b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

        (c) engaging in terrorism;

        (d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

        (e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

        (f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

        So, even if one feels Galloway SHOULD be banned for his opinions/statements, the government (through the CBSA… through the High Commission) is claiming that he’s being banned either for “engaging in terrorism” or “being a danger to the security of Canada” or, “being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts {of terrorism, sedition or treason]”.

        Now, I’m of the opinion that if the legislation was intended to equate the funding of a group like Hamas with “engaging in terrorism” or “being a ‘member’ of said group” then the legislation needs to be reworded, because that’s not what it says now. I also happen to think that it’s ludicrous to argue that Galloway is a “danger to the security of Canada” by virtue of having supplied such funding and support, given that the U.S. and Israel don’t seem to feel he poses a danger to THEIR national security by virtue of having done so.

        Clearly the government doesn’t agree though.

    • Some of the CAF leaders have made intolerant statements that really are beyond the pale. There is a fine line, and CAF execs have crossed it many times. They have even criticized the more moderate Muslim Canadian Congress for being “house negros”. Antisemitism is alive and well within this organization, although they are usually careful about using the term “Zionists” instead of “Jews” to escape the scrutiny of the Human Rights Commission.


      • Critical reasoning, I thought your link was going to show examples of those anti-semitic statements you are referring to.

        Given this government’s penchant to characterize anyone who oppose their views as Taliban supporters or terrorists or traitors or seditionists, nothing that comes from Kenney’s mouth holds any credibility as far as I’m concerned.

        I don’t know enough about CAF to determine whether they are anti-semites. I’m just telling you that being accused of such by the likes of Kenney is not enough to convince me of their guilt.

        • PolJunkie, fair enough. If Kenney lacks credibility on this issue he has no-one to blame but himself.

  7. Why does the government fund specific groups like this anyway? Why don’t they put the funding into an ESL or FSL program rather than giving it to various identity groups?

  8. Kenney’s a little boy, someone called him a name, now they can’t play with public money anymore. Is that what we expect of ministers? He hasn’t the courage to really call them out. So he’s going to cut off funding to language courses. God this govt is puerile!

    • kc, if you read some of the crazy rants by the leaders of this organization, I’m sure you’d agree that they don’t deserve public funding – especially when there are so many worthy Muslim organizations out there who could use the money instead.

      • If that’s the case, than come out and make yr case [Kenney] Have some courage. These guys would rather hide behind chicken shit lies, that no-one believes anyway. Like that border guards gonna make a decision on the admissability of Galloway. Yeesh!!

  9. Just why was this ethnic group delivering government services? That is the the job of government. When the government farms that job out to ethnic groups, the leaders of those groups assume inflated importance in the eyes of their clientele. Do we want immigrants to identify with Canada and its government or with ethnic leaders who often have agendas of their own? Letting others deliver important government services to newcomers is a funny way to build a nation.

    Let the buggers sue. A minister of the Crown surely has discretion on how he distrbutes public funds.

    • “A [insert Harper Cabinet Minister name here] is an alimentary canal with a loud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other.”

      — Hat tip to Ronald Reagan

    • Oh man, we are gonna have a few good laughs in five years’ time.

Sign in to comment.