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
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
Features
Noah Wyle explains Robby’s controversial behaviour in season two of The Pitt
Noah Wyle believes audiences struggled to accept the changes in Dr. Michael “Robby” Robinavitch during the second season of The Pitt. In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Wyle explained why viewers reacted strongly to the emergency physician’s increasingly difficult behaviour, arguing that audiences often expect their heroes to maintain an unrealistic standard of “purity”.
(Spoiler warning: for anyone who hasn’t yet watched The Pitt, this article contains minor spoilers.)
In season one of the HBO medical drama, Robby was a dedicated doctor whose composure and clinical instincts made him a reliable member of staff. Season two revealed a more troubled side of the character, with grief and deteriorating mental health affecting his relationships with colleagues.
“An interesting American hypocrisy”
Wyle, who also works as a writer, director and executive producer on the show, sees Robby’s behaviour as part of a character journey rather than a sudden departure from the person audiences admired.
He said that viewers often forgive villains who occasionally do something admirable but tend to judge traditionally heroic characters much more harshly when they make mistakes. Wyle described this as “an interesting American hypocrisy”.
Wyle credited executive producer John Wells for encouraging the team to tell Robby’s story honestly.
Gaming and the success of House
Wyle has suggested a potential five- or six-season trajectory for Robby, with the character currently moving from denial towards recognizing his problems and seeking a way forward. Season two was uncomfortable for viewers, as Robby struggled to acknowledge his condition.
The success of The Pitt, particularly if it lasts for that five- or six-season run, may interest game developers. House, another of the most popular TV medical dramas, inspired two games back in its heyday. In 2008, Exelweiss designed a cellphone game for the show, releasing Spanish and English versions. Two years later, Legacy Interactive released a video game based on the series; players acted as House’s diagnostic team to solve five unusual medical cases.
For now, iGaming companies like Casino Days Ontario are more focused on the immensely popular slots themes, such as ancient civilizations, as well as variations on table classics like poker and blackjack.
The Pitt has been credited with reviving the medical drama, after a successful era of shows that included House (a “prickly” take on the format, in the words of one critic) alongside ER, Grey’s Anatomy, and The Good Doctor. That same critic praised The Pitt for showing that TV medical dramas can be “satisfyingly elongated”, which could inspire developers who specialize in RPGs or other long form games.
Season three could change Robby’s relationships
Wyle offered a glimpse of how the next season might develop Robby’s complicated connection with Dr. Langdon.
Their relationship changed after Langdon disappointed his mentor in the first season. Robby was reluctant to welcome him back in season two, leaving the two characters more separated despite their history.
Robby will return to the hospital after spending a couple of months away, potentially confronting embarrassment about his previous conduct and uncertainty about his abilities.
Features
Beyond Likes and Stories: what communication will look like on the next generation of social networks
Today, genuine interaction with other people has become a real luxury. In the age of digitalisation and remote work, many of us simply do not have enough time for meaningful communication. Nevertheless, everyone needs it. The situation is further complicated by the fact that, as we grow older, we inevitably outgrow our usual social circle. And then a natural question arises: where and how can we meet new people? After all, social networks, which were once used precisely for this purpose, are no longer coping with this task. Anyone who remembers the internet of twenty years ago will agree that social networks are changing before our very eyes.
Why traditional social networks are gradually changing the format of communication
Once you start scrolling through the feed on the once hugely popular Instagram, it is very easy to notice the characteristic changes. In the past, the feed consisted of posts from real friends and acquaintances. Users opened the app to see what was new in the lives of the people they followed. And the social network really fulfilled its main purpose — helping people stay connected with one another. Today, however, the Instagram feed is made up of content selected for us by algorithms, and most of it comes from complete strangers. As a result, Instagram and other social networks are gradually ceasing to be simply platforms for communication and are turning into places for content consumption.
User behaviour has changed as well. A few years ago, many people happily shared photos and discussed controversial topics in the comments. Today, more and more users prefer to share personal things in private messages rather than posting them publicly. Overall, there has been a noticeable decline in activity in public discussions. Much more often, people simply send posts to a friend in direct messages instead of joining open discussions.
At the same time, the need to interact with other people has not disappeared. People are looking for platforms where they can not only consume content but also communicate, share experiences, ask questions, and receive meaningful answers. In recent years, Reddit has become particularly popular among users as a place to discuss a wide variety of topics. People are tired of endless recommendation feeds and viral content. If developers want to retain their audience, they must adapt to users’ changing needs.
Artificial intelligence and personalisation: what the new online communication experience will be like
In the past, AI was mainly used to recommend different types of content, such as music, films, and short videos. Today, however, its capabilities are expanding. More and more platforms are introducing smart assistants that will search for and recommend interesting chat partners to users. First and foremost, this is necessary to retain their audience. At the moment, finding like-minded people often feels like a lottery. It can take a great deal of time to find someone who genuinely shares your interests, values, and outlook on life. Artificial intelligence is capable of significantly shortening this process. While platforms previously focused on retaining users through content alone, more and more of them are now placing their emphasis on interaction between users.
Developers are also actively working to make social networks more comfortable and safer places to communicate without unnecessary “noise”. They are gradually introducing technologies capable of recognising toxic behaviour and spam. In the near future, social networks will also feature AI assistants that will improve the quality of communication. For example, they will suggest topics that interest both chat partners, offer advice on how to start a conversation, and recommend how to end it respectfully. All of this should make meeting new people much easier and more effective. It is expected that technology will take care of routine tasks, leaving users with more time for what truly matters.
Video chat and live communication — the next stage in the development of social platforms
Another noticeable transformation is the gradual move away from text messaging. Many of us have become accustomed to communicating through short messages and emojis. Recently, however, user behaviour has begun to change. People are increasingly choosing other forms of interaction, particularly communication in random chats. With each passing year, it becomes more obvious that text messaging, despite all its advantages, is poorly suited to building genuinely close relationships.
The main problem with text is that it conveys only part of the information. When exchanging messages, we cannot see the other person, leaving us to guess the emotional tone behind every message. This often leads to misunderstandings and even arguments over nothing. After all, even the most harmless message can be interpreted in completely different ways. A pause in communication can also become a reason for unnecessary worry. Or the opposite can happen — we begin to create an image of our chat partner in our minds, attributing qualities to them that they do not actually have. Ultimately, this leads to disappointment when it turns out that our chat partner is not at all the person we imagined.
Overall, text messaging often slows down the process of becoming closer. People can spend months exchanging messages without ever deciding to meet in person. As a result, interest gradually fades, and communication itself becomes formal. That is why videochats with strangers are becoming increasingly popular, allowing people to communicate in real time. This is perhaps the greatest advantage of such platforms, as you can immediately see and hear your chat partner. From the very beginning of the conversation, you can understand whether you feel comfortable with each other and whether it is worth continuing the communication.
Among users, the CooMeet video chat is especially popular. It is a service for communicating with strangers, with a particular focus on dating with the opposite sex. Thanks to its gender filter, men always communicate only with girls. As a result, the chances that a random chat with a stranger will lead to something more are very high. Another important advantage of the platform is the confidence that there is a real chat partner on the other side of the screen. While people on social networks can pretend to be anyone by using someone else’s photos or even videos, that is not possible on CooMeet.chat. All girls are required to verify their identity, which means there are no fake profiles or bots on the platform.
Metaverses, virtual spaces, and new forms of presence
The social networks of the future will go far beyond the familiar format. Developers are already actively working on creating fully fledged virtual spaces and metaverses that will transform the very concept of digital presence. In the coming years, we will be able to interact with one another in an incredibly realistic way, even when separated by great distances. Of course, the full implementation of such ambitious projects is still a long way off. However, it is already clear that the technologies of the future will bring people even closer together, rather than pushing them further apart, as is often happening today.
