Luckily, He Didn't Say "Jewish Bankers"

Anti-Israel Green candidate will stay on ballot

In the immediate aftermath of Green party leader Elizabeth May's decision to allow the candidacy of Qais Ghanem to stand, one question remains on the mind of those observing the Green party during this 2008 federal election:

Why, exactly, was John Shavluk's nomination scrubbed?

We've heard the official explanation: Shavluk's apparently anti-semitic remarks were "not consistent with Green party philosophy".

Meanwhile, Ghanem -- a physicist and immigrant from Yemen -- who along with Sylvie Lemieux, Paul Maillet and Akbar Manoussi (collectively, they are known as the "Ottawa group of four"), to sponsor a resolution entitled simply "Palestine". The resolution "calls upon Israel to end its forty-year occupation of all Arab lands without preconditions."

Ghanem has caught flack within the Green party for using a Green party message board to post messages that were "one-sidedly anti-Israel".

For his own part, Ghanem insists that I do not have to record the opposite point of view to every quotation I dig up, for the sake of so-called 'balance,'. The Israeli point of view is voiced non-stop by the North American media which is controlled by a small oligarchy."

Of course, it would be hard to pretend that when Ghanem refers to a "small oligarchy", he isn't referring to media owners such as the Asper family, who own and control Canwest Global.

So long as he doesn't refer to "a small Jewish oligarchy", it would seem, he's treading on safe territory.

Apparently, Ghanem can counter-factually claim that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected despite the fact that Iran has barred nuclear inspectors from its facilities.

So long as Ghanem restrains himself from posting bizarre references to Jewish bankers online, it seems, he's safe, even if such sentiments in his comments seem only thinly veiled.

There is, of course, one other element in play: Ghanem didn't mention 9/11 in the course of his comments.

Of course, he has voiced some rather remarkable views regarding 9/11 on his campaign website:

"2001-Sept-11 The Big Event!

Hijackers were Saudis with box cutters, NONE were Afghans or Iraqis.
2001-Sept-12: (ONE day later) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz declared that Iraq should be attacked!

Here is a list of questions that need answers:
Why was the FBI investigation of hijackers shut down?
Why were military response stand down orders issued?
Why were distracting war games set up on 9/11 of all days?
Why did building 7, not attacked at all, collapse like controlled demolition?"

This is in the course of a post entitled "What are we doing in Afghanistan?"

(Interestingly, he can't quite seem to come to grips with the Taliban's harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.)

Meanwhile, Kevin Potvin wrote an editorial wherein he cheered Bin Laden's escape ("Go Osama go!"), and encouraged Vancouver-area 9/11 "truth"ers to meet with him to discuss the matter. His nomination was rejected.

John Shavluk posted a comment implicating the Americans in a terrorist attack on their own soil upon "[their] shoddily built world bank headquarters", and his nomination was turfed as well.

Meanwhile, Qais Ghanem writes a blog post endorsing the 9/11 "truth" movement and advances resolutions that deny Israel's right to exist, and somehow he's still "within [Green] party policy."

While there's clearly a strong 9/11 "truth" movement within the Green party, it may seem that Elizabeth May really isn't trying to excise that particular demon at all.

From any mainstream party, this would be shocking. Fortunately, this is the Green party we're talking about here. One thing about being a fringe party is that eventually you have to embrace fringe politics, in one way or another.

What is It With the Green Party and 9/11?

Greens pull candidate over controversial remarks

Less than a week before the seventh anniversary of 9/11, the Green party has pulled yet another candidate over some remarks made on the subject.

On Thursday, the party rejected the candidacy of John Shavluk, the party's nominated candidate for Newton-North Delta. At the heart of the issue lie comments made on Enmasse.ca in the course of a post about drug laws, police, the Iraq war, and (that troublesome old topic) 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Courtesy of blogger Robert Jago, the post in question reads as follows:

"… you cops are on borrowed time as far as being the enforcers of bad laws and being used as society’s GOONS.
YOU soon will be seen as relevant again and as important as you used to be ,a pillar of the community. i realize how hard it would be to enforce stupid laws and i know i could not have thrown Rosa Parks from the bus. must be a redneck gene somewhere.

if we want to talk about laws,,why don’t you care that your country started an illegal war in Iraq,,arrest some one you law racists!!!!
everyone knows but you guys whats going to happen and its way over due
hey i heard some guy in Australia knows someone who says he had something to do with your governments complicate attack on your shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters. you know “the 2 towers” (who has the ring i wonder)better invade there too eh,,oh no oil?"

Apparently, John Shavluk isn't quite the kind of person any self-respecting political party (even the Green party) would want representing them. Go figure.

Of course, we've seen this kind of controversy with the Green party before. In fact, we've seen it within the last 18 months.

The Shavluk affair, as it will quickly come to be known in Green party circles, has quickly come to mirror the Kevin Potvin affair (as it has come to be known in Green party circles).

First off, you have a candidate oddly overconfident despite running for a fringe party with barely 5% popular support in the country. Secondly, controversial topics regarding 9/11 (although, for the record, Shavluk was removed due to the seeming anti-semitic nature of some of his remarks). Finally, both individuals seem to be completely unable to be honest -- even with themselves -- on the topic.

Kevin Potvin insisted that his words had somehow been misrepresented, and that he was being slandered by the mainstream media who found The Republic of East Vancouver threatening.

For his own part, Shavluk insists it's an insidious conspiracy against his particular political goals, insisting that the rejection of his nomination is merely intended to undermine his efforts to legalize marijuana. Shavluk reportedly had worked to bring members of the Marijuana party and like-minded members of the NDP over to the Green party.

Both candidates insist that the Green party will somehow be lost without them. Kevin Potvin imagined himself they would be denying themselves their first MP (although the recent defection of former Liberal Blair Wilson should have dispelled that particular fantasy). Shavluk insists "the Green Party are pretty much cutting their legs out beneath them".

Surely, they'll rue the day. And John Shavluk should totally hold his breath while he waits for that to happen.

As for Kevin Potvin, he's made his own views regarding 9/11 crystal clear. Not only was there his "Revolting Confession", but also once participated in a YouTube video in which another individual encouraged people to vote for Potvin based on his views on 9/11 (the video has since been marked as "private" by its creator).

Now, with John Shavluk's candidacy evaporating over some nutty 9/11-related comments, one has to wonder: does the Green party have an official policy regarding the 9/11 "truth" movement?

If not, does it need one? Apparently, it just might.