Features
Former Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes pens her version of what happened to her in 2008 when she was accused of being an antisemite
By BERNIE BELLAN How many times are we going to revisit a story that has already received more than ample coverage within the pages of this newspaper – especially a story which one might have thought had been put to rest long ago?
The answer, in the case of Lesley Hughes, who achieved a level of notoriety in 2008 when she was unceremoniously turfed as the Liberal candidate in the federal riding of Kildonan-St. Paul during that year’s election, is: at least one more time.
The reason is that Hughes has just recently published a short book, titled “The Dead Candidate’s Report”, in which she offers her version of the events surrounding her forced exit as the federal Liberal candidate for the riding of Kildonan-St. Paul during the 2008 election, and the ensuing damage, both to her career as a journalist and her personal life as a result of that forced exit.
Looking back over our past coverage of the Hughes story, I see that we’ve run three previous articles about what happened: In July 1, 2009, we ran a story by Myron Love which I titled “Hughes Sues Jews”, in which Myron reported that “Last fall, Federal Liberal hopeful Lesley Hughes generated national headlines when it was revealed that she wrote an article in the Winnipeg Sun on May 5, 2002, alleging that the Israeli, American, German and Russian intelligence agencies all had advance warning of the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.”
(Ed. note: Hughes’ exact words, with reference to advance Israeli knowledge of the attacks, were: “Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3,000 Americans working there were not so lucky.”
In that article, Hughes indicated she was quoting internet journalist Mike Ruppert who, she notes in her recently published book, “The Dead Candidate’s Report”, “claimed to have two independent sources about the move” but whose “sources were sealed forever when he allegedly committed suicide in 2014.”
In her book, Hughes admits that “a later explanation for the move was that the existing firm had decided to leave months earlier, breaking their lease as a routine cost of business.”)
Myron’s 2009 article went on to note that Hughes “also posted the article on a United Church of Canada website.
“As a result of the revelation, the former CBC broadcaster (she co-hosted the CBC Winnipeg morning show for a number of years) was forced to step down as the Liberal candidate for Kildonan-St. Paul. (She ran as an independent in the October election and finished a distant third.)
“Now Hughes is back in the news with a lawsuit she has filed against federal cabinet minister Peter Kent, the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith Canada, as well as Frank Dimant, BBC’s executive vice-president, CJC co-presidents Rabbi Reuven Bulka and Sylvain Abitbol, and Bernie Farber, the CJC’s former CEO.
“Hughes filed the suit in Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench on June 16. She alleges that the defendants ‘made untrue and defamatory accusations’ that she is anti-Semitic. She charges that senior members of B’nai Brith and the CJC went to see then Liberal leader Stephane Dion on September 25, with her 2002 article and persuaded Dion to drop her as a candidate on the grounds that she was anti-Semitic and ‘unfit to hold public office.
“In her lawsuit, she quotes a press release issued on September 27 by B’nai Brith’s Dimant in which he charges that Hughes has a ‘record of anti-Semitism’.”
In February 2013 Myron reported on a settlement reached between Hughes and the defendants to her lawsuit:
“This past week it was revealed that Hughes reached out-of-court settlements with the parties to her lawsuits.
“Following is an excerpt from a publication of joint statement issued by the parties concerned:
“ ‘Journalist Lesley Hughes, Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and Peter Kent MP (Thornhill) wish to clarify comments that each made during the 2008 Federal Election campaign regarding an article written by Lesley Hughes in 2002, in which she re-published statements that made presumptions of an anti-Semitic nature in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre.
‘Ms. Hughes was dismissed as a Liberal candidate in the election after the 2002 article was raised in the media.
‘During the election Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and Peter Kent each raised concerns about statements in the 2002 article which repeated false allegations that Israel or Israeli tenants were forewarned of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and did not warn others. Comments made by Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and Peter Kent were published in the media and Ms. Hughes filed a defamation claim in respect of the comments.
‘Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada, and Peter Kent accept that Ms. Hughes does not condone the use of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories by racist groups to support anti-Semitism of any nature. They therefore acknowledge and agree that Ms. Hughes is not an anti-Semite. In fact, Ms. Hughes has been an advocate of human rights through three decades as a journalist and teacher.
‘Ms. Hughes confirms that she has and will continue to be a strong supporter of the work of any individual or group who exposes false public statements that might do harm to the Jewish community, and more specifically that are anti-Semitic and racist.
‘Ms. Hughes joins with Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada, and Peter Kent in strongly condemning anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They find anti-Semitism and all forms of racism, to be deeply contemptible behavior.’ “
Then, in December 2015, in that year’s Chanukah issue we reprinted an excerpt from a forthcoming book by Hughes, in which she offered further background to the story. Hughes had contacted us, asking whether we would run the story verbatim, including this headline: “An Enemy of the Jews”. We agreed to that and ran the story in its entirety (It ran over five different pages. You can still read the entire story on our website. Simply enter the names “Lesley Hughes” in our search engine and you will find the entire December 9, 2015 issue in which Hughes’ piece appears.)
Now, all this may seem like quite a long preamble to a book review, but I thought it necessary to put what follows into a certain context. Given that Lesley Hughes has been adamant in protesting her innocence over the charge that she was anti-Semitic – and I have no doubt of the unfairness of that charge, given the fact that we have bent over backwards to treat her fairly within this newspaper, I wonder if there really is any further need to comment on a story that has gone on for so long.
But, when we ran a story in our last issue about another defamation lawsuit that had also been settled and in which B’nai Brith had been named as a defendant, I thought the juxtaposition of the two cases reflects poorly on B’nai Brith Canada – and its occasional willingness to engage in over the top criticism.
The most recent case had to do with an article B’nai Brith had published about former Green Party candidate (and more recently, a contestant for the party’s leadership), Dimitri Lascaris.
(I should also note that in September 2018 I did an interview with Dimitri Lascaris which can still be accessed on Youtube, although I admit it’s not easy to find. As much as Lascaris is decidedly critical of Israeli policies toward Palestinians, by no means would I describe him as “an advocate on behalf of terrorists”, which is what B’nai Brith did.)
The reason I thought it important to note that B’nai Brith has now settled lawsuits with two different individuals who had filed libel lawsuits against the organization is that it illustrates the danger involved in labeling someone either “anti-Semitic”, as was B’nai Brith’s allegation about Hughes, or “an advocate on behalf of terrorists”, as was the case with B’nai Brith’s allegation about Lascaris.
Regardless what one may have thought about what Lesley Hughes had written in the particular article which ended up causing her so much grief, or what Dimitri Lascaris’s record is with regard to criticizing Israel, one should be very careful when it comes to accusing individuals either of being “anti-Semitic” or “advocates on behalf of terrorists”, especially when those individuals are Canadian citizens and have recourse to the courts here.
With all that in mind, is there anything new in Lesley Hughes’ recently published book,
“The Dead Candidate’s Report”, which is a very short read at only 107 pages (including appendices)?
On the website for her book, Hughes describes it as “a memoir of my 2008 run for parliament, my defamation as an anti-semite and conspiracy monger, and the lawsuit that cleared me of all accusations”. Unfortunately, due to the terms of the settlement agreement reached between Hughes and the defendants to her lawsuit, she is not allowed to discuss the terms of settlement.
What she does discuss, at great length, is the devastating consequences that her being forced to withdraw as the Liberal candidate for Kildonan-St. Paul had, both on her personal life and career – when she was shunned by many of her former colleagues in the media, along with many other individuals with whom she had developed relationships over her many years as a commentator and radio host, including many Jewish friends.
Leaving aside the mistake Hughes may have made in repeating a since debunked claim that Israelis had prior knowledge of the attack on the World Trade Centre, what followed was certainly devastating for Hughes.
Even when she was vindicated in a court of law and the defendants to her lawsuit apologized for having labeled her an antisemite, as she was about to discover, news of the defendants’ apologies and retractions of the charge was generally ignored within the mainstream media.
As Hughes writes, “When confronted by personal and professional devastation in 2008, at least I was able to turn to an overpriced, self-serving legal system. I have won back my reputation, by way of a lawsuit, but there is no remedy for the unyielding non-coverage of my vindication. No consequences. No accountability. No more action to be taken.”
For Lesley Hughes, at least, while the lessons she may have learned about the dangers inherent in taking any sort of a controversial position in public may have been salutary indeed, what does her experience have to say about anyone else who may be contemplating entering into politics – or who may already be involved in politics?
I certainly wouldn’t be the first to point out the dangers that exist for just about anyone who may have ever tweeted or posted to Facebook anything the least bit controversial. In 2016 this paper itself played an instrumental role in raising awareness of overtly anti-Semitic tweets that had been posted by a doctor by the name of Hussam Azzam, and which had been scrubbed from his Twitter feed – but not before someone who had been monitoring Azzam’s tweets had taken screenshots of them – and ended up giving me those screenshots.
Subsequently Assam was fired as the Chief Medical Officer at St. Boniface Hospital.
So, I’m well aware of the power even a small newspaper such as this can have in affecting the careers – and ultimately the lives, of individuals. In Lesley Hughes’ case, the likelihood is that her controversial columns about 9/11 conspiracies might well have gone ignored for the most part (although she does acknowledge that a column which she wrote for two Winnipeg weekly newspapers in 2002 about 9/11 in which she suggested that the United States brought about the attacks upon itself by its past behaviour did elicit some very angry responses from a great many readers of those papers), had she not inserted a suggestion that Israelis had foreknowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Centre, she would probably have been allowed to remain a Liberal candidate in 2008.
It was only because a blogger (whom she doesn’t identify in her book, but whom we identified as “The Black Rod”, a very well known blogger here who has a record of important scoops over the years) decided, in 2008, to publicize an article Hughes had written in 2002, that Hughes’ was cast into political and personal purgatory.
And, as we have just seen in the most recent federal election, it doesn’t take all that much to have candidates forced to remove themselves as candidates for political office. I think in particular of an NDP candidate by the name of Dan Osborne who, as a teenager tweeted at Oprah Winfrey (of all people), “was Auschwitz a real place?”
Who knows what the context was for that seemingly silly question, but let’s be honest: Is asking that question, especially by a young person who may simply be ignorant, in and of itself anti-Semitic or is it perhaps simply an indication of ignorance on the questioner’s part? But, as I’m sure Lesley Hughes can explain to Mr. Osborne: You can’t be too careful these days in posting anything that might potentially be used some day to cause great embarrassment to you. And, once you’ve been shamed in public, there’s no getting back your reputation, no matter all the apologies and retractions you might end up receiving.
Features
Are Niche and Unconventional Relationships Monopolizing the Dating World?
The question assumes a battle being waged and lost. It assumes that something fringe has crept into the center and pushed everything else aside. But the dating world has never operated as a single system with uniform rules. People have always sorted themselves according to preference, circumstance, and opportunity. What has changed is the visibility of that sorting and the tools available to execute it.
Online dating generated $10.28 billion globally in 2024. By 2033, projections put that figure at $19.33 billion. A market of that size does not serve one type of person or one type of relationship. It serves demand, and demand has always been fragmented. The apps and platforms we see now simply make that fragmentation visible in ways that provoke commentary.
Relationship Preferences
Niche dating platforms now account for nearly 30 percent of the online dating market, and projections suggest they could hold 42 percent of market share by 2028. This growth reflects how people are sorting themselves into categories that fit their actual lives.
Some want a sugar relationship, others seek partners within specific religious or cultural groups, and still others look for connections based on hobbies or lifestyle choices. The old model of casting a wide net has given way to something more targeted.
A YouGov poll found 55 percent of Americans prefer complete monogamy, while 34 percent describe their ideal relationship as something other than monogamous. About 21 percent of unmarried Americans have tried consensual non-monogamy at some point. These numbers do not suggest a takeover. They suggest a population with varied preferences now has platforms that accommodate those preferences openly rather than forcing everyone into the same structure.
The Numbers Tell a Different Story
Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy receive substantial attention in media coverage and on social platforms. The actual practice rate sits between 4% and 5% of the American population. That figure has remained relatively stable even as public awareness has increased. Being aware of something and participating in it are separate behaviors.
A 2020 YouGov poll reported that 43% of millennials describe their ideal relationship as non-monogamous. Ideals and actions do not always align. People answer surveys about what sounds appealing in theory. They then make decisions based on their specific circumstances, available partners, and emotional capacity. The gap between stated preference and lived reality is substantial.
Where Young People Are Looking
Gen Z accounts for more than 50% of Hinge users. According to a 2025 survey by The Knot, over 50% of engaged couples met through dating apps. These platforms have become primary infrastructure for forming relationships. They are not replacing traditional dating; they are the context in which traditional dating now occurs.
Younger users encounter more relationship styles on these platforms because the platforms allow for it. Someone seeking a conventional monogamous partnership will still find that option readily available. The presence of other options does not eliminate this possibility. It adds to the menu.
Monopoly Implies Exclusion
The framing of the original question suggests that niche relationships might be crowding out mainstream ones. Monopoly means one entity controls a market to the exclusion of competitors. Nothing in the current data supports that characterization.
Mainstream dating apps serve millions of users seeking conventional relationships. These apps have added features to accommodate other preferences, but their core user base remains people looking for monogamous partnerships. The addition of new categories does not subtract from existing ones. Someone filtering for a specific religion or hobby does not prevent another person from using the same platform without those filters.
What Actually Changed
Two things happened. First, apps built segmentation into their business models because segmentation increases user satisfaction. People find what they want faster when they can specify their preferences. Second, social acceptance expanded for certain relationship types that previously operated in private or faced stigma.
Neither of these developments amounts to a monopoly. They amount to market differentiation and cultural acknowledgment. A person seeking a sugar arrangement and a person seeking marriage can both use apps built for their respective purposes. They are not competing for the same resources.
The Perception Problem
Media coverage tends toward novelty. A story about millions of people using apps to find conventional relationships does not generate engagement. A story about unconventional relationship types generates clicks, comments, and shares. This creates a perception gap between how often something is discussed and how often it actually occurs.
The 4% to 5% practicing polyamory receive disproportionate coverage relative to the 55% who prefer complete monogamy. The coverage is not wrong, but it creates an impression of prevalence that exceeds reality.
Where This Leaves Us
Niche relationships are not monopolizing dating. They are becoming more visible and more accommodated by platforms that benefit from serving specific needs. The majority of people seeking relationships still want conventional arrangements, and they still find them through the same channels.
The dating world is larger than it was before. It contains more explicit options. It allows people to state preferences that once required inference or luck. None of this constitutes a takeover. It constitutes an expansion. The space for one type of relationship did not shrink to make room for another. The total space grew.
Features
Matthew Lazar doing his part to help keep Israelis safe in a time of war
By MYRON LOVE It is well known – or at least it should be – that while Israel puts a high value of protecting the lives of its citizens, the Jewish state’s Islamic enemies celebrate death. The single most glaring difference between the opposing sides can be seen in the differing approach to building bomb shelters to protect their populations.
Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah have invested untold billions of dollars over the past 20 years in building underground tunnels to protect their fighters while leaving their “civilian” populations exposed to Israeli bombs, not only has Israel built a highly sophisticated anti-missile system but also the leadership has invested heavily in making sure that most Israelis have access to bomb shelters – wherever they are – in war time.
While Israel’s bomb shelter program is comprehensive, there are still gaps – gaps which Dr. Matthew Lazar is doing his bit to help reduce.
The Winnipeg born-and raised pediatrician -who is most likely best known to readers as a former mohel – is the president of Project Life Initiatives – the Canadian branch of Israel-based Operation Lifeshield whose mission is to provide bomb shelters for threatened Israeli communities.
Lazar actually got in on the ground floor – so to speak. It was a cousin of his, Rabbi Shmuel Bowman, Operation Lifeshield’s executive director, who – in 2006 – founded the organization.
“Shmuel was one of a small group of American olim and Israelis who were visiting the Galilee during the second Lebanon war in 2006 and found themselves under rocket attack – along with thousands of others – with no place to go,” recounts Lazar, who has two daughters living in Israel. “They decided to take action. I was one of the people Shmuel approached to become an Operation Lifeshield volunteer.
Since the founding of Lifeshield, Lazar reports, over 1,000 shelters have been deployed in Israel. The number of new shelter orders since October 7, 2023 is 149.
He further notes that while the largest share of Operation Lifeshield’s funding comes from American donors, there has been good support for the organization across Canada as well.
One of the major donors in Winnipeg is the Christian Zionist organization, Christian Friends of Israel (FOI) Canada which, in September, as part of its second annual “Stand With Israel Support” evening – presented Lazar and Operation Lifeshield with a cheque for $30,000 toward construction of a bomb shelter for the Yasmin kindergarten in the Binyamina Regional Council in Northern Israel.
Lazar reports that to date the total number of shelters donated by Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry (globally) is over 100.
Lazar notes that the head office for Project Life Initiatives is – not surprisingly – in Toronto. “We communicate by telephone, text and Zoom,” he says.
He observes that – as he is still a full time pediatrician – he isn’t able to visit Israel nearly as often as he would like to. He manages to go every couple of years and always makes a point of visiting some of Operation Lifeshield’s projects.
(He adds that his wife, Nola, gets to Israel two or three times a year – not only to visit family, but also in her role as president of Mercaz Canada – the Canadian Conservative movement’s Zionist arm.)
“This is something I have been able to do to help safeguard Israelis,” Lazar says of his work for Operation Lifeshield. “This is a wonderful thing we are doing. I am glad to be of help. ”
Features
Patterns of Erasure: Genocide in Nazi Europe and Canada
By LIRON FYNE When we think of the word genocide, our minds often jump to the Holocaust, the mass-scale, systemic government-led murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, whose unprecedented scale and methods led to the very term ‘genocide’ being coined. On January 27th, 2026, we will bow our heads for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 80th year of remembrance.
Less frequently do we connect genocidal intent to the campaign against Indigenous peoples in Canada; the forced displacement, cultural destruction, and systematic killing that sought to erase Indigenous peoples. The genocide conducted by the Nazis and the genocidal intent of the Canadian government, though each unique in scale, motive, and implementation, share many conceptual similarities. Both were driven by ideologies of racial superiority, executed through governmental precision, and justified by the perpetrators as a moral mission.
At their core rests the concept of dehumanization. In Nazi Germany, Jews were viewed as subhuman, contaminated, and a threat to the ‘Aryan’ race. In Canada, Indigenous peoples were represented as obstacles to ‘progress’ and seen as hurdles to a Christian, Eurocentric nation. These ideas, this dehumanization, turned human beings into problems to be solved. Adolf Hitler called it the ‘Jewish question,’ leading to an official policy in 1942 called the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question,’ whereas Canadian officials called it the ‘Indian problem.’ The language is similar, a belief that one group’s existence endangers the destiny of another. The methods of extermination differed in practice and outcome, but the language of intent resembles one another.
The Holocaust’s concentration camps and carefully engineered gas chambers were designed for efficient, industrial-scale killing, resulting in mass murder. The well-organized plan of systematic degradation, deadly riots, brutal camp conditions, and designated killing centres were only a few of the ways the Nazis worked to eliminate the Jews. The Canadian government’s weapons were policy, assimilation and abandonment. Such as the Indian Act, reserves, and residential schools, which were all meant to ‘kill the Indian in the child,’ cutting generations off from their languages, families, and cultures. Thousands of Indigenous children died in residential schools, buried in unmarked graves near schools that called themselves places of learning. Both systems were backed by either religion or ideology; Nazi ideology brought together racist eugenic policies and virulent antisemitism, while Canada’s genocidal intent was supported by Christian Protestantism claiming to save Indigenous souls by erasing their heritage.
The Holocaust was a six-year campaign of complete industrialized extermination, mass murder with a mechanized intent, on a scale that remains historically unique. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes Canada’s indigenous genocide as a cultural one that unfolded over centuries through assimilation and the destruction of indigenous languages and identities. The Holocaust ended with the liberation of the camps and a global recognition of the atrocities committed. However, the generational trauma and dehumanization of antisemitism carry on. For Indigenous peoples in Canada, the effects of the genocidal intent continue to this day, visible in displacement, poverty, and intergenerational trauma. While these histories differ in form and timeline, both are rooted in dehumanization and the belief that some lives are worth less than others.
A disturbing similarity lies in the aftermath: silence and denial. The Holocaust forced the world to confront the atrocity with the vow of ‘Never Again,’ which has now been unearthed and reformed as ‘Never Again is Now,’ after the October 7th, 2023, massacre by Hamas. The largest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the denial of the atrocities committed on October 7th, highlight the same Holocaust denial we see rising around the world. In Canada, for decades, the genocidal intent was hidden behind narratives of kindness and social progress. Only in recent years, through survivor testimony for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the discovery of unmarked graves, has the truth gained recognition. But acknowledgment without justice risks repeating the same patterns of erasure.
Comparing these atrocities committed is not about comparing pain or scale; it is about understanding the shared systems that enabled them. Both demonstrate how racism, superiority, and dehumanization can be used to justify the destruction of human beings. Remembering is not enough in Canada. True remembrance demands accountability, land restitution, reparations, and education that confronts Canada’s ongoing colonial legacy. When we say ‘Never Again is Now’, we hold collective action to combat antisemitism in all forms. The same applies to Truth & Reconciliation; it must be more than a slogan; we must apply action to Truth & ReconciliACTION.
Liron Fyne is a 12th-grade student at Gray Academy of Jewish Education in Winnipeg. They are currently a Kenneth Leventhal High School Intern at StandWithUs Canada, a non-profit education organization that combats antisemitism.