Thursday, September 4, 2008

You can tell you're a real party when...

... people start digging up dirt on your candidates.

John Shavluk will not be a Green candidate

NEW GLASGOW – The Green Party has announced that John Shavluk will not be the candidate for the party in Newton—North Delta, following revelations that he made comments in 2006 on an online discussion forum that could be construed as anti-Semitic.

“Respect for diversity is a fundamental principle of the Green Party,” said leader Elizabeth May. “We condemn anti-Semitism and our members work to encourage respectful dialogue, diversity, peace and cooperation.”

Kudos to David Akin for giving credit where credit's due - to a blogger who picked this up when none of Akin's colleagues did. And for displaying just the right mix of amusement and disgust at Robert McClelland's comments insisting that someone explain to him exactly what's racist about the term "Jewish world bank".

I recommended teh Google (actually, "Zionist world bank" works even better).

It's quite fascinating to go in and read the original context of this and other comments that Shavluk has made. In fact, it's remotely possible that the "Jewish world bank" comment really was some sort of attempt at irony or sarcasm or... I dunno. Something. Unfortunately, it's impossible to discern his intent because the man's writings are all rambling, incoherent and borderline illiterate. One would think that that alone would disqualify him from running for public office.

Oh, yeah - and he's a 9/11 Truther. Groan.

The Green Party of Canada has struggled with the paradox of being both left-wing and right-wing ever since the Harris regime, so I suppose the idea of an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist who supports legalized marijuana appearing among their ranks isn't quite as bizarre as it might first appear. I also suspect this won't be the last time this sort of thing surfaces. But kudos to May for dealing with swiftly and efficiently.


  1. What's disgusting about asking why the statement is anti-semitic? It seems to me that if you're going to fling around such a politically charged accusation you should at the very least be able to clearly explain why you consider the statement to be anti-semitic. Otherwise you're engaging in nothing more than a witch hunt in which the accusation alone is the only evidence required to substantiate the charge.

    By the way, he didn't refer to a Jewish world bank, he described the World Trade Center buildings as a Jewish world bank. There is a big difference.

  2. Sigh. Ok.

    The term "Jewish world bank" or "Zionist world bank" refers to one aspect of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory called the 'Zionist Occupation Government' (ZOG). This theory holds that the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and other similar organizations are secretly run by ZOG as a part of their efforts to impose their own "New World Order".

    This rather elaborate conspiracy theory has grown even more elaborate since the attacks on the World Trade Center, and racist organizations such as Stormfront, JewWatch and others are more than happy to blame 9/11 on a Jewish conspiracy.

    Why? What does Shavluk say he meant?