Tag Archives: Canadian Jewish Congress

The Tale of Omar and Helmut — A Call to Action!

Posted on by

The Tale of Omar and Helmut — A Call to Action!

Several decades ago, there was boy named Omar, Omar Khadr to be exact. Omar Khadr was one of the offspring of the Khadr family, Canada’s first family of terrorism — the much married, niqab wearing and mouthy sister Zaynab has featured frequently in this newsletter. Father Ahmed, an Egyptian, was a jihadist and major fundraiser for Osama bin Ladin. He hated Canada as a corrupt society, except as a source of welfare and medicare. At one point, having Canadian citizenship safely in his back pocket, he moved the family to a more congenial religious tyranny in Afghanistan, but not for long. He and several sons, including the then 15-year old Omar went actively jihading — a nice term for committing terrorism — and, in 2002,  got into a firefight with some American soldiers. Papa Ahmed was killed. Young Omar tossed some grenades, killing one U.S. Army Sergeant 1st Class Christopher Speer and a blinding a second U.S. soldier in one eye. Omar was captured and shipped off to Guantanamo. Years passed and he eventually pled guilty to the charges of killing and wounding. The Harper government reluctantly interceded. Omar was cut some slack as a young offender with a vile father. He received eight years and returned to Canada to serve the rest of his sentence. He got early release and, with the ingratitude that is a family tradition, promptly sued the Canadian government. The Islamo-friendly Trudeau regime offered him a secret $10.5-million payment, secret so that the widow of the wounded U.S. soldier could not pre-emptively sue for damages. So, at 32, Omar whose family has been nothing but a drain on this land, swaggers around a free man and multi-millionaire and a great favourite of the fawning CBC.

omar khadr

​

 

Now, back in 1941, as World War II raged around him, there was a 17-year old boy named Helmut, Helmut Oberlander. Helmut Oberlander lived in the Ukraine when German forces invaded. He was Volksdeutche, that is, part of a German minority who had settled there in the 18th century. Young Helmut spoke Russian, Ukrainian and German and, thus, was useful to the German army as a translator. He was seconded to a SD Einheit (Security Unit) of the German Army.  After the war, he went to Germany and trained as a bricklayer and construction engineer. In 1954, he emigrated to Canada and worked for the next few years in the construction trade. In 1958, he formed his own construction company Oberlander Construction and was instrumental in the building explosion in the Kitchener-Waterloo region over the next four decades. Mr. Oberlander was an exemplary and contributing  citizen, paying handsome taxes and employing many people.

​HELMUTH OBERLANDER

 

His legal torment began in 1994, when, in response to persistent Jewish lobbying to refight World War II, the government of the day sought to strip Mr. Oberlander of his citizenship on the basis that he must have lied to obtain entry to Canada as membership in units like the SD Einheit made him ineligible since they were implicated in killing some civilians. However, it was not as simple. It quickly became clear that Mr. Oberlander had committed no war crimes. He was a youthful translator. Potential immigrants were supposed to be asked about their wartime service. So, it is assumed that Mr. Oberlander lied. However, numerous people who immigrated at the time recall that, shortly after the war, RCMP interrogators no longer asked about wartime service but only about membership in the communist party. Could Mr. Oberlander be held responsible for not volunteering information he was not asked for? There is no longer any paper record. The notes from the interviews of the time have long since been destroyed. Indeed, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on Mr. Oberlander’s part. In contrast, there are the 61 years of Mr. Oberlander’s entrepreneurship and contribution to Canada — in other words, evidence of a solid, exemplary, contributing citizen!

 

Why the singleminded obsession with the deportation of this 96 year old man? It’s hard not to draw a parallel with the treatment of ex-terrorist Omar Khadr. Like Mr. Oberlander his wartime actions started when he was what we would now call a “young offender”. But Mr. Oberlander committed no crime; while Mr. Khadr killed an American soldier and partially blinded another. Yet, Canada has bent over backwards for Mr. Khadr, citing his youthful status at the time, and rewarding him with what was to be a secret $10.5-million settlement. Mr. Khadr had contributed nothing to Canada. In contrast, Mr. Oberlander who never committed a crime has made an outstanding contribution to Canada as a model immigrant.

After a 24 year legal battle, German immigrant and highly successful businessman Helmut Oberlander faces deportation from Canada. He has been stripped of his Canadian citizenship and faces removal. His case, with numerous appeals, has wended its way through the courts for almost a quarter of a century, at obscene costs to the Canadian taxpayer, to say nothing of the costs to Mr. Oberlander. While Omar has been the beneficiary of the Islamophilia of the Trudeau government, Helmut has been the victim of the relentless and powerful Jewish lobby that has targetted him for decades in their mania to refight WW II. With disproportionate influence in the media, business and politics, the Jewish lobby, though representing less than one per cent of the population, is powerful while the far more numerous German community is passive, seeking only to work hard and fit in. German bashing, and Helmut certainly is a victim of that, pays political dividends and wins the applause of much of the poodle press.

A crucial moment in the Oberlander ordeal occurred in July, 2001 when then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Elinor Caplan,makes her recommendation to the Governor in Council to revoke Mr. Oberlander’s Canadian Citizenship, which was done. Mrs. Caplan was an outspoken Zionist and had been awarded the Yad Vashem Woman of the year award. In 1999, she had announced that she her role was not to be  “a gatekeeper” as six rusty boatloads of Chinese illegals landed in British Columbia. She invoked the memory of the St. Louis, a ship carrying Jews from Germany in the spring of 1939, which both Canada and the U.S., mired in the huge unemployment of the Great Depression, refused to allow to land. Caplan clearly let her group loyalties cloud her judgement as she was only too glad to try to get rid of one old kraut. Mr. Oberlander appealed to the courts and the battle continued.

A recent article in the Israeli National News (March 6, 2019) reveals the relentless fanaticism of this group’s obsession to deport a productive, contributing citizen whose only crime is having fought on the wrong side in a war nearly three quarters of a century ago! “Last November, after [Helmut Oberlander] lost his fourth appeal against the government’s decision to strip him of his Canadian citizenship, B’nai Brith Canada launched a petition urging Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale to imme

 

ACTION NEEDED!

You might have heard that Helmut Oberlander was not allowed to appeal the decision to take away his
citizenship for the fourth time. Previously, when he appealed, he always won. Now the Canadian
Government changed the rules, and he was turned away from the Appeals Court. (he would have been
allowed to go to the Appeals Court if the Government wouldn’t have blocked it)
This means that the Canadian Government can basically start proceedings to deport him. The whole
thing is a miscarriage of justice, if there is any. This is not a war crimes issue, because Mr. Oberlander
was cleared of that many years ago. it is a basic human rights issue.
In order to stop the Government from deporting him we must act by writing letters to the different
ministers. Can you please help Mr. Oberlander by doing that as soon as possible, because time is
running out. A template of a letter is attached to this email. Please change it slightly so not all letters
look the same. You can find the whole history of the case at

https://www.dkkont.org/files/HistoryOberlander181010.pdf.

 

The best would be if you send your letters by email and follow up with a hard copy by mail.

Below are the addresses of the different ministers the letter should go to.

Email:

Justin.Trudeau@parl.gc.ca

Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca

Bardish.Chagger@parl.gc.ca

Raj.Saini@parl.gc.ca

 

Mailing addresses:

Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,
c/o Office of the Prime Minister,
Prime Minister`s Office; 80 Wellington St., Ottawa, ON.,

K1A 0A2

Honourable Minister Ahmed Hussen,

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship,

House of Commons,

Ottawa, ON.,

 K1A 0A6

 

Honourable Bardish Chagger,

House Leader,

Room 107, Confederation Building,

Ottawa, On.,

K1A 0A6

 

Raj Saini, MP,

House of Commons,

Ottawa, Ontario,

K1A 0A6

  

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , ,

Canada Spiralling Out of Control, 4: Human Rights Legislation (1951-1954) and the End of “British Liberties”

Posted on by

Canada Spiralling Out of Control, 4: Human Rights Legislation (1951-1954) and the End of “British Liberties”

by Ricardo Duchesne
Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI | Part VII | Part VIII

Dominion of Canada bond

The spiral was driven by a set of norms with an in-built radicalizing tendency. This tendency was contained in the supposition that the ethnic inequalities of the world, the wealth of European nations and the poverty of non-European nations, the impoverished status of blacks and aboriginals in the United States and the West generally, were a result of the discriminatory policies, the colonizing and under-developing activities of Europeans, rather than a result of cultural backwardness, differences in aptitudes or geographical lack of resources. If only all humans were granted the same rights to life, liberty, and economic success, the world could be improved drastically in a more egalitarian and prosperous direction.

Fair Employment and Fair Accommodation Practices Acts (1951-1954)

Beginning in the 1940s and through the 1950s, a growing network of groups, academics, media, ethnic associations, and trade unions, operating within a liberal atmosphere, and endorsing a pluralist view of politics, in which the state was seen as just one actor among many others engaged in politics, rather than as the actor in charge of ensuring the collective identity of the nation, pushed for “equal citizenship” and for legislation that would protect the “human rights” of citizens against discrimination. Basing themselves on the UN Charter declaration that every human should have equal rights “‘without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion,” the groups worked tirelessly in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee playing the key roles, to bring legislation in Ontario, then in Canada generally, aimed at ending discrimination in employment, access to public spaces, housing and property ownership.

At first, in the early 1940s, the Canadian Jewish Congress was preoccupied with fighting domestic antisemitism and encouraging toleration and understanding between Jews and Christian groups. But after WWII, Jewish groups decided to go beyond fighting against the perception that they were unassimilable aliens, and instead designed a grand strategy against discrimination generally, through alliances with other liberal and minority organizations. With racism now tied to the actions of Nazis, these groups successfully instilled upon politicians, and the Canadian Anglo elite at large, the view that discriminatory practices were “fascist” and had no place in a liberal nation. By the early 1950s, these liberal groups managed to bring about the Fair Employment and Fair Accommodations Practices Acts (1951-1954), which declared Ontario’s allegiance to the principles of the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights in rendering illegal any discrimination in employment and in access to public spaces in Ontario on grounds of race or creed.

These Acts, and other similar legislative measures, culminated, firstly, in the Canadian Bill of Rights enacted by Parliament on August 10, 1960, which is seen as the earliest expression of human rights law at the federal level, in declaring that all persons in Canada have “right to life, liberty and security.” Secondly, it culminated in the Ontario Human Rights Code, passed June 15, 1962, which prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, ancestry colour, ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation, age and family status.

The End of “British Liberties”

Canadian Flag, 1922-1957
Canadian Flag, 1922-1957

Now, while it can be reasonably argued that these human rights laws were within the bounds of classical liberal discourse in affording minorities the same legal status, in accordance with the principle that all citizens of a nation should be guaranteed equal rights in the eyes of the law, these acts and codes constituted a dramatic alteration in the traditional language of “British liberties” that had prevailed in Canada before WWII.

Before the Second World war, as Ross Lambertson has observed, “there was scant mention of human rights” not just in Canada but in international law. The idea behind the concept of human rights is that all humans enjoy equal natural rights by virtue of belonging to the human race, which is very different from the “British liberties” idea, which emphasizes one’s membership in a British national culture. These liberties included the principle of parliamentary supremacy, as the very keystone of the law and constitution, meaning that matters involving individual rights would be left to Parliament, which is to say that courts would defer to Parliament regarding issues about individual rights. (In Canada, be it noted, there was a plurality of parliaments within the federal-provincial division of powers).

The “British liberties” ensured by Parliament included such principles as fair play, which meant both fairness in the right of Canadian individuals to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and in being treated equal under the law, “no man is above the law,” everyone is subject to the same laws. However, as has been argued by James Walker, such British liberties in Canada as freedom of speech and association “were interpreted to mean the right to declare prejudices openly, to refuse to associate with members of certain groups, including to hire them or to serve them.” Equality under the law did not mean that individuals were obligated to include within their free associations members regardless of race. Freedom of association was understood to include the right to discriminate on grounds of ethnicity, religion, and sex.

But I disagree with the standing argument that the human rights legislation constituted a break with libertarian liberalism, or classical liberalism. The standing argument says that Canadian liberalism before WWII emphasized individual freedoms rather than equal rights of citizenship. However, in my view, it was not simply that minorities were discriminated in their exclusion from restaurants, barber shops and many other public spaces. It was not simply, as Lambertson says, that the “ideal of freedom was accorded a higher importance than the ideal of equality” (p. 377). It was that the liberalism of this day was still ethnocentric, and this is why there were franchise laws that kept aboriginals in reserves and excluded them from the dominant British nation-state, as well as people of other races, through immigration laws that openly declared Asians and blacks to be unsuitable members of an official Canada intended to be British.

Red Ensign, version 1957-1965
Red Ensign, version 1957-1965

One does not have to agree with discriminatory measures to understand that it is wrong to project the libertarianism of today, devoid as it is of any appreciation for the importance of ethnic identity in its notion that we are all the same as individuals with rights, to understand that Canada’s emphasis on its British collective identity was crucial to the making of Canada, and that today Canada stands open to millions of immigrants encouraged to claim this nation as their own, and, therefore, encouraged to impose their own sense of the political, their ow collective tendencies upon a Eurocanadian people prohibited to have any collective identity.

The libertarianism of Canada before WWII, paradoxical as this may seem to us now, was collectivist in its belief that individual rights were rights which emerged from the British people, not from individuals as members of the human race, but from a particular British race, to which other ethnic groups that were White could assimilate but not people from very different races and cultures.

What made the acts and codes revolutionary was not simply that they were supportive of “equality of rights of minorities, at the expense of the libertarian rights of those wanting to exclude them” (p. 213). What made them revolutionary was that a new liberalism was being advocated in direct challenge to the ethnocentric liberalism that prevailed in the past, a more civic-oriented conception of the Canadian nation, based on universal values, was emerging wherein membership in the nation was defined purely in terms of values of equal rights rather than shared heritage, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry. The traditional ethnic nationalism of Canadians was being discredited as racist and illiberal.

In the degree to which this ethnic identity was de-legitimatized, the concept of the political in Canada would be weakened, with Canadians of British and European descent having less recourse to the older argument that it is perfectly within Canada’s political right to decide its ethno-cultural character. Indeed, these legislative changes, which I have only outlined, were the beginning of an accelerating spiral that would bring about ever more radical legislative changes, the end of all immigration restrictions by 1967, the complete redefinition of Canada as a multicultural nation in 1971, and much more.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,