Update: Ezra responds to comments from a well-wisher:... Maher Arar, the huckster who lied his way into $10.5 million of our tax dollars, has had less luck with the U.S. legal system than he had with ours. A U.S. appeals court threw out his nuisance claim against the U.S. government.
... had Arar actually gone to trial here, his case would have been thrown out, too. Arar's testimony would have been torn to shreds...
... Arar did not have good luck with our legal system. He had good luck with a politicized inquiry that bore his name -- the Arar Inquiry -- but in which he never testified. Of course he didn't: he doesn't want to answer questions.
Ezra Levant[,] You need to be sued right into the poorhouse. You need be be sued so your parents are living on the street. You need to be sued so your grandchildren will still be making payments.
Ezra's reply: I take it you think I'm defaming Arar. But truth is a defence. Have you bothered to look into the facts of his case? From his gun; to his lies about being whipped with a thick cord; to his refusal to be examined by an independent physician, etc., etc.? Do you really think a man who made out like a bandit would risk all of that by putting himself through litigation? And I mean real litigation, where he would actually have to answer questions, not fake litigation, such as a human rights commission, or his laughable "inquiry" in which he didn't even testify. Are you so naive as to think he'd jeopardize his life of luxury for that? Of course he wouldn't. He doesn't want to lose a lawsuit, to pay his lawyers and mine. And, more importantly, he doesn't want to lose the myth he has created: that he is a victim.
.jpg)
.jpg)
14 comments:
Does anyone have an answer to this question. My wife is a dual citizen and has been told many times that when entering a country she will be treated as a citizen of the country whose passport and/or visa was used to gain entry. My understanding is that this is commonly applied internationaly.
It is then important to know what passport was he using at the time. If it was a Syrian passport, then the Americans would have been following generally accepted procedures in sending him to Syria. If not, then there might be an issue.
I have never been able to find out what passport was being used at the time? Does anyone know?
Why yes Richard, we do know.
The Passport was Canadian.
A little something called research could help both you and JR.
http://www.maherarar.ca/cms/images/uploads/Arar_Complaint_FINAL.pdf
One of Arar's biggest claims in seeking compensation was that he had been subjected to torture by the Syrians - a claim that was endlessly and uncritically played up by the media. But we have no evidence of this. We have only Arar's word for it.
From the inquiry report:
Fortunately, the purely physical effects of the [alleged] torture suffered by Mr. Arar have mostly proven to be short-lived...
... Dr. Gruner reports that when he first examined Mr. Arar there were few physical signs of torture.
By the time Dr. Gruner saw Mr. Arar, the latter had been spared from torture as a part of interrogation for many months. What is more, Mr. Arar told me that during his detention in Sednaya Prison he had been able to “regain his physical shape.”
Much of Arar's story is similarly lacking in evidence. Hence, as Ezra maintains, the "case" would have failed in court had it made it there. Politics kept it out.
JR, when you post a comment and quote a section of the report, you should "quote" it correctly. The word "alleged" in parenthesis is not in the report, which means it was added by you! That is not a correct quote then, as the link you posted shows. Please refrain from adding commentary to quotes, it dilutes your argument to nothingness.
"Much of Arar's story is similarly lacking in evidence."
No it isn't, you liar.
There is one point that is true and irrefutable. And that is that when a person resorts to name calling all it shows is a lack of intelligence and a lack of a credible argument. The opposing view wins by default.
It is a fact that no serious investigative journalism took place with the Arar file.
"when a person resorts to name calling all it shows is a lack of intelligence and a lack of a credible argument. The opposing view wins by default."
You're talking about Ezra, right?
Richard, so I guess Ezra Levant lacks credible arguments, and is in fact not a serious investigative journalist (re: ("Maher Arar is a liar")
So - I win by default?
"It is a fact that no serious investigative journalism took place with the Arar file."
How would you know? You weren't even aware of one of the first details of this story that came to light years ago that is now a well-established matter of fact, that Arar had been travelling with his Canadian passport.
That you weren't paying attention is no one's fault but your own.
There's also been too little investigative journalism on what exactly is motivating Ezra Levant's campaign against Maher Arar. Does that mean there should be?
My question to those who do not believe that any serious research was done in this case. Do you think that Mr. Harper would part with a penny that he did not have to? Do you think that this government that so vilified Arar would not hesitate to crush him in court if they could?
"...we have no evidence of this. We have only Arar's word for it"
" Dr. Gruner reports that when he first examined Mr. Arar there were few physical signs of torture."
Maybe your time would be better spent expanding your vocabulary to include 3 letter words like "few".
"So - I win by default?"
richard's an wingnut idiot, so he loses by default.
KEvron
It seems that Arar has some loopy supporters who like to troll for commentary on his "case". Ezra's article has attracted a few and he has responded to some. I liked this exchange:
Ezra Levant[,] You need to be sued right into the poorhouse. You need be be sued so your parents are living on the street. You need to be sued so your grandchildren will still be making payments.
Ezra's reply: I take it you think I'm defaming Arar. But truth is a defence. Have you bothered to look into the facts of his case? From his gun; to his lies about being whipped with a thick cord; to his refusal to be examined by an independent physician, etc., etc.? Do you really think a man who made out like a bandit would risk all of that by putting himself through litigation? And I mean real litigation, where he would actually have to answer questions, not fake litigation, such as a human rights commission, or his laughable "inquiry" in which he didn't even testify.
Are you so naive as to think he'd jeopardize his life of luxury for that?
Of course he wouldn't. He doesn't want to lose a lawsuit, to pay his lawyers and mine. And, more importantly, he doesn't want to lose the myth he has created: that he is a victim.
All ...
Being locked up in a dank rat-infested dark cell with a thin mat to sleep on, regularly threatened and interrogated, separated from children and wife, with no likelihood of return to them is the main torture that Arar spoke of. He was clear that physical torture only happened in the earliest part of his incarceration, and the syrians transferred him to a much better prison and allowed him exercise and recuperation before sending him back to Canada. All the same, he came back gaunt and fragile looking (check the press coverage, if you'd like). He was also clear that he met others, like Almalki, who were clearly treated worse.
Ezra Levant just has a hate on for muslims who have the whiff of anything other than bay street on them. He is the biggest lier, translating "applied for a gun permit" which is common, legal, and is quite commonly done by conservative voters into "gun nut" and "...his gun", despite the fact that Arar never had a gun ... just the legal right to acquire one if he wanted to (he let the permit lapse after a few years without purchasing one). I, for one, would have wanted one too if I had lived in a rougher area of Montreal at the time ... and I would have bought one too.
Ezra also lies about Arar's refusal to be examined ... he was examined (see that portion of the official inquiry). He just wasn't examined by Ezra's personal proctologist, that's all.
What's more, all the areas where Ezra has "doubts" are covered in the inquiry... the problem is that most of the inquiry was held "in camera" and most of the testimony was redacted due to the fears of CSIS and RCMP regarding "secrecy". Arar has been very plain on the record that he wants the full inquiry transcripts published, not just what passed through censors.
That's because he has nothing to hide. To those of you who have doubts, join with Arar to call for the entire transcripts to be made available ... otherwise, just keep making things up out of happy ignorance.
Ezra Levant likes to blow hot air, but it is sad to see him lie outright, as he clearly does. Maybe lawyers can't help it ... a tool of the profession that they can't put down. Probably doesn't even know when he's doing it and when he's not.
Ezra has his own myth going: that he's a victim of lawsuits that try to shut him up when he excecises his right "to be offensive" (he reserves that right, as should we all). However, just try to publish something that portrays Ezra in a dim light, and watch the lawsuit happen ... he has been quite busy in this respect in the past, but I assume that in his new role an martyr of free speech, he'll be a fair bit more restrained until his book sales slow.
Post a Comment