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
River Heights home close to school & synagogue
Blending timeless character with thoughtful modern updates, this beautifully maintained River Heights home offers comfort, style, and everyday functionality. Bright living spaces, a finished basement, a private backyard, and a double detached garage make it ideal for families, professionals, or anyone looking to enjoy one of Winnipeg’s most sought-after neighbourhoods. Conveniently located close to schools, parks, cafés, shopping, and everyday amenities, this move-in-ready home is ready for its next chapter.
•
Features
Will the Democratic Socialists of America control the Democratic Party?
By HENRY SREBRNIK On June 23, radical Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates backed by New York mayor Zohran Mamdani won multiple Democratic Party primaries in New York City and elsewhere in the state. They also were victorious in other parts of the country.
The socialist victories in New York far surpassed anyone’s predictions. Who, three years ago, could have predicted that a Muslim anti-Zionist would be elected mayor of a city with 900,000 Jews and would lead insurgents to victories in that party’s primaries in 2026? Yet here we are.
Marxist Third Worldist ideology has moved out of the universities into the polling booths, after campus activism, divestment campaigns, and social media have reinforced an anti-Israeli framework for years. The DSA’s platform states it plainly: It pledges “support for Palestinian self-determination against Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism.”
The mayor, a long-standing DSA member, worked overtime to appear at countless campaign events for a trio of candidates he dubbed “the Team”: Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and Brad Lander. The last two unseated incumbent Democratic congressmen. Mamdani has assembled a coalition in New York City that is capable of elevating like-minded candidates to office.
In the Seventh Congressional District, which straddles northern Brooklyn and southwestern Queens, an open primary to replace retiring progressive Rep. Nydia Velázquez saw State Assembly Member Claire Valdez’s’s defeat Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso. She was even further left than Mamdani himself. In the end, it was not even close: Valdez prevailed with 56.1 per cent of the vote to Reynoso’s 35.8 per cent.
In 2019, Valdez joined the DSA after seeing the rise of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and state senator Julia Salazar, both of whom were elected with the DSA’s help. Valdez emphasized her anti-Israel activism as a key part of her campaign. At events, her staff handed out signs that said “Free Palestine.” She launched her campaign alongside Mahmoud Khalil, a key anti-Israel leader at Columbia University that the Donald Trump administration has tried to deport.
Valdez referred to Israel’s war against Hamas as a “genocide” as early as October 13, 2023. She lambasted police for restraining anti-Israel mobs chanting “Globalize the Intifada” and waving Hezbollah flags outside a Brooklyn synagogue last June. “New Yorkers don’t just have the right to protest the sale of stolen Palestinian land — they have a responsibility to,” she declare. She has repeatedly criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). She also boasted on social media of having “wiped my hand on the American flag.”
In the Thirteenth Congressional District, covering the upper Manhattan neighborhoods of Harlem, Washington Heights, and Morningside Heights and parts of the West Bronx, Darializa Avila Chevalier won a much more startling victory over Rep. Adriano Espaillat, a five-term incumbent Democratic Party power broker and chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Espaillat’s campaign was heavily backed by AIPAC. Chevalier defied expectations and won by gaining 49 per cent to Espaillat’s 46 per cent. She told the crowd at her watch party that she had fought against the “Democratic machine.” Espaillat lost despite the backing of Democratic leaders in Congress and the state, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Julie Menin, speaker of the New York City Council.
When Chevalier, draped in a keffiyeh, first announced her candidacy in November of last year, few outside her immediate circle knew her name. But her message was clear: she presented herself as an organiser working to unite families torn apart by the immigration system and against “what we all know is a genocide in Palestine.”
Chevalier has publicly proclaimed her hatred for Israel, the United States, and “Western civilization” as a whole. She has called for the abolition of prisons, open borders and an end to deportations — even for people convicted of violent crimes. As a student at Columbia University, she was involved in Students for Justice in Palestine. In 2024, she returned to her alma mater to help organize an anti-Israel encampment that was ultimately disbanded by the police.
She co-founded Columbia University Apartheid Divest: “We are Westerners fighting for the eradication of Western Civilization. We stand in full solidarity with every movement for liberation in the Global South. Our intifada is an Internationalist one,” it states.
The day after the October 7 attack, Chevalier attended an anti-Israel demonstration in Times Square. “I can only say I have been advocating for the human rights of Palestinians for my adult life,” when asked about her attendance at the rally. Chevalier has said that her conversion to Islam was inspired by the Israel-Hamas war. Mamdani celebrated her win, describing Chevalier as a person “of clarity, of conscience and of conviction.”
The war was also on the minds of voters in former Comptroller Brad Lander’s race against another AIPAC-funded incumbent, Rep. Dan Goldman, in New York’s Tenth District, covering lower Manhattan and part of Brooklyn. Both are Jewish, but Goldman has been a steadfast friend of Israel while Lander is the quintessential anti-Zionist and a key faction of his coalition was anti-Israel. It was a contest that laid bare the party’s divisions over the Israel-Gaza war.
At his son Marek’s bris, Lander gave a speech lambasting Israel. “We pray fervently that by the time you read this, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the settlements, the house demolitions, the violence will be history,” which was later reprinted in a 2003 book titled Wrestling with Zion. Lander enjoyed the night’s biggest victory, winning 65.8 per cent of the vote to Goldman’s 34 per cent. Many Democrats have suggested that Lander has proved useful to Mamdani and other leftists who have been accused of antisemitism for singling out the Jewish state for opprobrium.
In the run-up to Election Day, a chain of Brooklyn coffee shops called Poetica posted that it would have barred Goldman entry had they recognized him during a recent visit to their storefront. “We don’t serve racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers,” Poetica declared. “Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.”
At the state level, seven of the eight candidates endorsed by the DSA for the New York State legislature also won their primary elections. One of them is Aber Kawas, a Queens-based community organizer. If she, as expected, wins in November, she will be the first Palestinian woman elected to state office in New York history.
“Were defeated congressmen Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat insufficiently anti-Trump?” asked Will Rahn, a senior editor and writer for The Free Press, rhetorically, in a June 26 column. “Of course not. They lost because they aren’t anti-Israel enough. ‘Free Palestine’ is now the binding issue on the left, the only thing that actually matters.” No matter who you are, how you identify, or what causes you’ve championed, if you refuse to fall in line on Israel, you risk being ostracized from communities you’ve long called home.
For most of the postwar era, support for Israel was one of the least controversial positions in Democratic Party politics. That consensus has not merely weakened; it has collapsed. Once viewed as a righteous anti-colonial cause, Zionism has been reframed by radical thinkers as the ideology of a colonial oppressor of stateless Palestinians. Opposition to Israel is now the litmus test in Democratic Party politics. “There’s a cliff, and we’re heading towards it,” warned Daniel C. Kurtzer, a Princeton University professor who was ambassador to Israel under President George W. Bush.
The DSA has now built an entire ecosystem that runs parallel to the official Democratic apparatus, equipped with their own consultant network, endorsing organizations, donors and even billionaires who back them.
A generation after Pat Buchanan was denounced as an antisemite by all proper liberals for saying things like “Capitol Hill is Israeli-occupied territory,” will the left now embrace him as a “premature antizionist”? Even satire can’t match this.
Think about it: Since October 7, Israel has done what every other country viciously attacked by implacable enemies throughout history has done: It has lashed back in a defensive war. This is a policy that any state that cared for the life of its citizens would have to adopt.
Yet Israel has become the “omnicause.” That’s why antisemitism and antizionism are two sides of the same coin: hatred of Jews. Jews around the world aren’t being attacked because of Israel. Israel is itself being condemned because it’s Jewish.
American Jews have been blindsided by this, as the French writer Simone Rodan-Benzaquen, senior envoy for Europe at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tells us in a brilliant article, “Stand Up,” Tablet, July 6, 2026. “When anti-Jewish hostility arrives wrapped in the language of liberation, antiracism, decolonization, and human rights –when it emerges among allies, colleagues, students, professional peers, or other minority communities — the disorientation is deeper. It is inside the world in which one has built a life. It speaks in familiar accents. It borrows cherished values.”
In “A Profound Question Haunting Jews Today,” New York Times, July 6, 2026, Nicholas Lemann, the former dean of the Columbia University Journalism School, agrees. He writes that for half a century or more, American Jews could achieve, “through being successful, culturally Jewish, Zionist, liberal and not especially observant,” a status that elsewhere has persistently eluded them.
“This set of certainties has evaporated. Today, Israel is the pariah nation of the world, and ‘Zionist’ has become an epithet, something it’s unacceptable to be, at least in progressive circles,” where most Jews have usually found themselves.
So, are the Democrats going to become America’s anti-Israel party? And then what?
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Features
Discover Your Ultimate Smooth at Sets on Corydon: Nanoplasty vs. Keratin vs. Japanese Straightening
Are you ready to wake up with flawless, effortless hair every single day? While standard straightening methods try to fit everyone into the same box, your hair has its own unique structure, strength, and history.
We offer three distinct, state-of-the-art smoothing and straightening systems. Finding the perfect match depends entirely on your hair type, your lifestyle, and your ultimate hair goals.
Here is exactly how they compare so you can choose the path to your most beautiful, resilient hair.
The Treatment Breakdown
1. The Elite Standard: Nanoplasty (Our Premier Selection)
Nanoplasty is a revolutionary, high-technical smoothing treatment that works at a deep cellular level. Using nanotechnology, nutrients and amino acids are deeply integrated right into the hair cortex (the inner core of the hair strand). It heals, seals, and straightens from the inside out without harsh chemicals.
- How it works: It uses an acidic formula triggered by specialized infrared heat to realign the hair bonds. It does not just coat the cuticle; it restructures it while infusing massive hydration.
- The Finish: Ultra-glossy, high-shine, sleek, and straight, while retaining natural movement and zero frizz.
- The Big Benefit: Formulated without formaldehyde or harsh chemicals. There are no fumes, no burning eyes, and you can wash your hair or tie it up the very same day.
- Longevity: Lasts up to 4 to 6 months.
2. The Classic De-Frizzer: Keratin Treatment
The traditional choice for managing unruly texture. Keratin acts like a protective shield, filling in the cracks along a compromised or distressed hair cuticle (the protective outer layer).
- How it works: A liquid keratin formula is sealed into the outer layer of the hair with a flat iron.
- The Finish: Soft, smooth, and incredibly manageable. It reduces curl volume by roughly 50 to 70% and completely deletes frizz, but leaves some of your natural body and bounce.
- The Big Benefit: Ideal for hair that has undergone chemical stress or bleaching. It acts like a temporary protein bandage to restore softness and cut your blow-dry time in half.
- Longevity: Lasts 3 to 4 months, gradually washing out over time.
3. The Permanent Sleek: Japanese Straightening (Thermal Reconditioning)
For those who want absolute, pin-straight hair that defies high humidity and never reverts.
- How it works: This is a permanent chemical process that physically breaks down the internal bonds of the hair, which are then precision-ironed perfectly flat and neutralized to lock in the new shape forever.
- The Finish: Mirror-smooth, pin-straight, glassy hair with zero wave or curl.
- The Big Benefit: It is completely permanent on the hair that is treated. Rain, humidity, and workouts will not change it. Only your new root growth will need touching up.
- Longevity: Permanent (requires root touch-ups every 6 to 9 months).
Which One Is Right For You?
| Feature | Nanoplasty | Keratin Treatment | Japanese Straightening |
| Primary Goal | Deep cellular repair, sleek straightening, intense gloss. | Frizz elimination, volume reduction, softer texture. | Permanent, absolute pin-straight results. |
| Hair Condition | Healthy to moderately sensitized or colored hair. | Highly compromised, bleached, or heat-distressed hair. | Healthy, resistant, coarse, or virgin hair only. |
| Chemical Type | Amino acids & organic acids (No formaldehyde fumes). | Cuticle-coating formulas (May contain standard preservatives). | Traditional alkaline straightening solution. |
| Post-Care Window | Wash or style immediately. No waiting period. | Must wait 48 to 72 hours before washing or tying up. | Must keep completely dry and straight for 48 to 72 hours. |
An Important Note on Hair Integrity: Beautiful hair is healthy hair. Because Japanese Straightening permanently alters the internal architecture of the hair strand, it is completely unsuitable for heavily highlighted, bleached, or fragile hair. If your hair has a history of heavy chemical processing, a customized Nanoplasty or Keratin Treatment will give you the breathtaking, smooth results you want while respecting and preserving the strength of your hair structure.
Let’s curate your perfect look. Book a structural hair analysis with us today, and let’s design a smoothing protocol tailored exactly to your hair’s unique signature.
