The Media is the Message - Promising Politician Sues Opposition and Media for Character Assassination

..

Howard Anglin: The smear campaign that took down a promising politician

Anyone concerned about the polarization of our political discourse

should be rooting for Caylan Ford

Author of the article: Howard Anglin, Special to National Post

Publishing date: Dec 22, 2020  

Caylan Ford PHOTO BY LEAH HENNEL/POSTMEDIA

What happened to Caylan Ford 20 months ago, when she was running as a candidate for the United Conservative Party in Alberta, should terrify anyone thinking of running for public office. What has happened to her since should worry the rest of us.

Now, she is finally fighting back. After her candidacy was ended by false accusations that she is racist and a “white supremacist,” she’s suing (for $7m) those she says defamed her, including the Alberta NDP, the CBC and the Toronto Star. Anyone concerned about the polarization of our political discourse should be rooting for her.

The NDP, the CBC, and the Toronto Star are all far-left organizations. I'm inclined to believe that all three operate by the motto that 'the end justifies the means'!

Ford was the kind of candidate parties dream of: a Mandarin-speaking former federal foreign affairs adviser; a campaigner for persecuted minorities with a master’s degree in international relations and another in human rights law from Oxford; a documentary filmmaker; and a locally raised young mother of two. She won a competitive nomination and was poised to defeat the incumbent NDP justice minister in Alberta’s May 2019 election.

Then, less than a month before election day, with a must-win seat in jeopardy, the NDP’s attack machine went into action. An anonymously sourced article in Press Progress, a pro-NDP news website, reported that several years earlier in a private Facebook conversation, Ford had “complained ‘White Supremacist Terrorists’ Are Treated Unfairly,” and “echoed white supremacist rhetoric.” Within minutes, the NDP called on her party to remove her. Under pressure to be a team player, and with little time to react, Ford withdrew rather than cause a distraction. By the next day, it was national news.

Ford knew the hyperbolic claims were not true. She had every reason to believe that, once the storm of the election had passed, she would be clear to tell her side of the story. Fair-minded people would be able to read the full record, the truth would supplant her opponents’ lies and she would be able to move on with her life and her career. That this has still not happened, that she still has not been given a platform to tell her side of the story and try to clear her name, is why her story still matters.

Ford’s resignation did not end the attacks. A CBC headline a few days after stated as fact that she had made “white supremacist comments,” and the leader of the Alberta Liberal party decried her “white supremacist values,” which he said “will sicken decent people across this province.”

The few radio interviews she did to defend herself were quickly pulled offline at the first sign of online pressure and legal threats. As she learned, the news cycle may move on, but the Internet doesn’t forget. Almost two years later, the NDP’s lies stand as the official record and Ford is effectively unemployable. She can’t even venture onto social media without almost immediately being denounced as a Nazi.

Press Progress relied on quotes from an anonymously provided Facebook conversation from 2017. It cited four short excerpts out of what Ford says, and the anonymous source admits, were tens of thousands of words of serious discussion covering a wide range of topics.

No one else besides the source has seen the conversation, including Ford, since 2017. We can’t even know for certain if the quotes were accurate and no one, including Press Progress or the media who wrote about it, can prove it because the source now claims to have deleted the conversation, and has gone to court to oppose Ford’s attempt to get the original data from Facebook.

Even if we accept the decontextualized excerpts at face value, they tell quite a different story than the sensational headlines. Did Ford really say white supremacist terrorists are treated unfairly, as Press Progress had claimed? No. She had been discussing the most effective ways to fight radicalization, including white supremacy, which in prefatory comments she called “odious” and “perverse.”

Specifically, she wrote: “When the perpetrator is an Islamist, the denunciations are intermingled with breathless assurances that they do not represent Islam, that Islam is a religion of peace, etc. And there is a great deal of soul-searching — we ask ourselves in earnest what radicalized these people, how can they be directed to more productive and healthy paths.…

“When the terrorists are white supremacists, that kind of soul-searching or attempts to understand the sources of their radicalization or their perverse moral reasoning is beyond the pale. And anyone who shares even some of their views (e.g. wanting strong borders and immigration control), while rejecting the more odious aspects, is painted with the same brush.… You just don’t have the same attempts to separate the violent terrorists from the wider community of belief.”

In other words, Ford contrasted earnest and constructive attempts to disassociate Islamist radicalization from mainstream Islam with the counterproductive tendency to portray white supremacists as part of a spectrum of conservative opinion. She thinks this is a problem. Many experts in fighting radicalization would agree.

And had she really “echoed white nationalist rhetoric”? Hardly. She had, as noted, called white supremacy an odious and perverse ideology. But when her then-friend asked for her feelings on Europe’s “demographic replacement” — that is, the effect of high levels of international migration to compensate for low birth rates and an aging population — she expressed sadness at the potential for violence and inter-ethnic strife, as well as the loss of local cultures and diversity under the homogenizing pressures of globalization.

Ford recalls that she and her then-friend (himself the son of Ismaili immigrants) had used the phrase “white peoples” while recognizing that it was imperfect shorthand, and that earlier she had said it is not a term she would use herself. She also recalls explaining why she thought that essentializing people by race was unhelpful and even immoral.

But, never thinking her private words would be scrutinized out of context, she used the term in this sentence, which her former friend anonymously leaked: “I am somehow saddened by the demographic replacement of white peoples in their homelands — more in Europe than in America — partly because it’s clear it will not be a peaceful transition and partly because the loss of demographic diversity in the human race is sad.”

The missing context is key: Ford had previously said that this was imprecise language she didn’t endorse herself. She also remembers expressing sadness at the loss of other ethnic and cultural traditions, whether as a result of the assimilation and subjugation of Indigenous peoples in North America, or in the Tibetan plateau. Her former friend or Press Progress left out those parts of the conversation.

If Ford erred, it was in not using scare quotes or another way to mark her distance from the terms “demographic replacement” or “white peoples.” But this was a long private conversation carried on over several weeks between two people using mutually understood terms. One cannot expect the scrupulous repeated qualifications of formal public writing. She certainly never expected her words would be scrutinized out of context by people not party to the conversation who had never met or spoken with her, and used to destroy her career.

It’s certainly possible that Ford’s explanation might not convince everyone, but the problem is that she has never even been given that chance. That is the injustice of cancel culture: it silences its targets and blocks the ears of those who have rushed to judgment; it is a one-sided star chamber prosecution that proceeds swiftly and ruthlessly.

The NDP’s campaign to distort her comments into something far more heinous — conflating the use of the public policy term “demographic replacement” with neo-Nazi demagoguery about a “great replacement” conspiracy — was transparently cynical. There was nothing in Ford’s career defending persecuted minorities (see her documentary on Falun Gong slave labour in China) to support that extreme inference.

All the benefit of the doubt should have weighed in Ford’s favour, but once the smear was out, it was too good to check. The CBC and most other media outlets displayed no more scruple or skepticism over cherry-picked, dubiously sourced quotes than the Twitter mob.

I didn’t know Caylan Ford before the mob came for her. I reached out after, because it seemed few others had. Having met her, I can say that, if she is a white supremacist, then I’m a Bolshevik. Alberta and Canada could have used her experience and her thoughtful voice. Our politics is coarser and dumber without her.

She deserved better than the ochlocratic injustice of social media and we, the public, deserved better than the careless credulity of many mainstream media outlets. Until that wrong is righted — in court, but more importantly in the court of public opinion — her fate will give good men and women a reason to shun politics, and our society will be the poorer for it.

National Post

Howard Anglin was formerly principal secretary to the premier of Alberta and deputy chief of staff to prime minister Stephen Harper. He is currently doing post-graduate research in law at Oxford University. 

It's not unusual to hear an unsubstantiated story on Mainstream Media one day, and the next day referred to as fact. MSM needs to be sued much more often so, perhaps, they will become a little more responsible for the crap they feed the country.

OPCW Chief Made False Claims to Denigrate Douma Whistleblower and Justify Bombing

The Grayzone has obtained documents exposing numerous falsehoods and misleading claims by OPCW Director General Fernando Arias to degrade the reputation of Douma whistleblower Ian Henderson

By Aaron Mate

The Grayzone

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has made false and misleading statements about two veteran inspectors who challenged a cover-up of their investigation in Syria, leaked documents show. The inspectors probed an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Syrian city of Douma in April 2018, and later objected when their evidence was suppressed. 

Documents obtained by The Grayzone reveal that OPCW leaders have engaged in a pattern of deception that minimized the inspectors’ senior roles in the Douma mission and diminished the prestige they enjoyed within the world’s top chemical weapons watchdog. 

OPCW Director General Fernando Arias has claimed that the first inspector, South African chemical engineering and ballistics expert Ian Henderson, “was not a member” of the Douma investigative team and only played a “minor supporting role.” 

However, contemporaneous communications from the OPCW’s Douma Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) directly contradict Arias. They show that Henderson was indeed a Douma team member, and that OPCW leadership directed him to lead its most critical inspections. They also show that Arias, rather than acknowledge that Henderson was an FFM member, offered up a false explanation for why Henderson was in Syria at the time of the probe. 

Arias has also disingenuously minimized the role of the second inspector, known only to the public as “Inspector B.” This will be examined in part two of this article. 

The OPCW’s investigation was triggered when extremist anti-Syrian government militants and Western states accused the Syrian army of dropping gas cylinders on two buildings in Douma, killing dozens of civilians. The U.S., France, and Britain bombed Syrian government targets days later, asserting their right to enforce the chemical weapons “red line.” (And before anyone from the OPCW was able to make it to the site to investigate). After a nearly year-long investigation, the OPCW issued a final report in March 2019 that claimed “reasonable grounds” existed to believe that a chlorine attack occurred. 

However, a trove of leaked documents has shown that the OPCW leadership suppressed and manipulated evidence that undermined the allegation against the Syrian military. The first of such leaks was an engineering assessment authored by Henderson that concluded that the gas cylinders in Douma were likely “manually placed.” 

That conclusion suggested the incident was staged on the ground by the armed militants who controlled Douma at the time. Additional leaks later revealed that Inspector B protested the censorship of critical evidence and toxicology reports, as well as the manipulation of chemical samples and witness statements. 

Henderson and B also complained that OPCW leaders excluded all of the Douma investigators except for one paramedic from a so-called “core” team that wrote the organization’s final report. 

In response to the scandal, OPCW Director General Arias convened an inquiry into the Henderson leak and unveiled its findings in February 2020. In a bid to strip Henderson and Inspector B of credibility, Arias and the inquiry team painted the two as rogue actors with only peripheral roles.

Evidence obtained by The Grayzone reveals that Arias’ characterization of the two inspectors was inaccurate, and contradicted by facts OPCW officials kept private. 

“ODG is happy if the visits to the cylinders and hospital are led by Ian Henderson”

Arias and the inquiry team have asserted that Ian Henderson was not an official participant in the Douma investigation. Henderson, they claimed, “was not a member of the FFM” [Fact-Finding Mission], and instead merely “accompanied the FFM to certain sites of interest” in a “minor supporting role.” 

Contemporaneous OPCW documents undermine this characterization, revealing that the OPCW leadership disingenuously minimized Henderson’s involvement by issuing false statements and omitting key facts about his real role.

An April 2018 letter obtained by The Grayzone shows that while it was headed by Arias’ predecessor, the OPCW’s Office of Director General (ODG) specifically requested that Henderson lead inspections at three high-priority locations in Douma. The letter, an operations communication relaying instructions from OPCW headquarters, instructed the Douma team to visit the two locations where the gas cylinders were found; the hospital where a video was filmed of alleged gas attack victims; and a fourth, redacted location. 

“…ODG is happy,” the letter instructed, “if the visits to the cylinders and hospital are led by Ian Henderson.” 

Extract from an OPCW communiqué on behalf of the Director General’s Office.

The April 2018 directive by OPCW leadership for Henderson to lead the inspections at three of the investigation’s most critical and sensitive locations was completely at odds with the claims by organization leadership that Henderson merely “accompanied the FFM to certain sites of interest,” and “assisted” in a “minor supporting role.” 

The two cylinders were undoubtedly the mission’s most important inspections: it was at these locations that the alleged chemical weapons attack took place, and the cylinders were the alleged means of delivery. The fact that Henderson was tasked with leading the inspection of the alleged crime scene shows that OPCW leaders did not see him as playing a “minor supporting role,” but a major leadership one. 

“Ian HENDERSON | FFM”

If Henderson was “not a member” of the Douma Fact Finding Mission, as Arias now claims, why did his predecessor’s office specifically request that Henderson lead three inspections at the mission’s most important locations? The answer is that Arias had made another false statement: a second leaked OPCW document from the Douma mission explicitly listed Henderson as an FFM member. 

The document obtained by The Grayzone is a sensitive security-planning memorandum, known as a CONOPS (Concept of Operations). It detailed the operational and security arrangements for one of the FFM’s location visits in Douma. On a page outlining the OPCW’s “Mission Personnel” and their roles, Henderson is listed, next to the title, “FFM.” 

Extract from an OPCW CONOPS document listing Ian Henderson as a member of the FFM in Douma. The Grayzone has viewed the document to confirm its authenticity but is only publishing this extract due to the sensitive nature of the document for UN security operations.

“INSPECTOR HENDERSON, IAN WILL BE PART OF THE TEAM”

In trying to justify his current claim that Henderson was not an FFM member, Arias has adduced the fact that Henderson’s “name is not included in the mandates issued for FFM deployments signed by my predecessor.” But Arias’ account distorts the actual timeline of events and omits other OPCW documents.

As Henderson has previously noted publicly, he was not included in the initial OPCW “mandate,” because at that point he was on a separate mission in Nepal. Upon his return, Henderson was immediately assigned to the FFM team in Douma. The Syrian government was then notified that Henderson was joining the mission – a communication that Arias has conveniently ignored. 

The Grayzone has obtained an “F038” notification document advising the Syrian government that Henderson is joining the Douma mission as a member of the FFM team. “PLEASE NOTE THAT INSPECTOR HENDERSON, IAN WILL BE PART OF THE TEAM CONDUCTING THE TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT VISITS,” the communiqué reads. Henderson is also listed as the newly added member of a 7-person “LIST OF INSPECTORS.”  

Extract from an OPCW notification to the Syrian government adding Ian Henderson to the FFM team of inspectors in Douma.

Why Henderson was in Douma

Rather than acknowledge the documented fact that Henderson was a member of the FFM tasked with leading some of its most high-priority and sensitive operations, the OPCW has offered an unusual explanation for his presence in Douma. 

The OPCW leadership has attributed Henderson’s on-the-ground involvement to happenstance, the result of his already being in Syria anyway. “[Henderson] provided support to the FFM team investigating the Douma incident since he was at the command post in Damascus at the relevant time,” the OPCW’s inquiry stated. [emphasis added]  “It is customary for the inspector serving at the command post to provide assistance to the FFM.” 

But an OPCW document obtained by The Grayzone shows that Henderson only took over the Damascus command post after the Douma FFM mission had finished its deployment. On May 3rd 2018 – two days after Henderson and the FFM wrapped up 10 days of inspections in Douma – the OPCW’s Damascus mission recorded that Henderson had taken control. 

OPCW document acknowledging that Ian Henderson has taken over the OPCW’s Command Post in Damascus on May 3rd – two days after the end of the Douma FFM’s mission.

“Our best ITL… used for the most complex and sensitive missions”

In addition to making false statements about Henderson’s role in the Douma FFM, Arias and the OPCW inquiry have also made several denigrating statements about the inspector’s standing within the organization that omitted important facts.

In a February 2020 letter published by The Grayzone, Henderson confronted Arias for making “underhanded” and “demeaning” comments that falsely minimized his experience and seniority within the OPCW. Henderson served with the organization since its inception, first from June 1997 to December 2005, and then for a second tenure from June 2016 to May 2019. 

Arias said that Henderson was “eventually… promoted to Team Leader,” when in fact he was among the first group of Inspection Team Leaders (ITLs) to be appointed at the P-5 level – the OPCW’s most senior designation for an inspector. Arias has also claimed that Henderson “was rehired at a lower level” upon his return in June 2016, when in fact, at that point, the P-5 designation for OPCW ITLs no longer existed due to budgetary decisions.

Annual performance appraisals and letters obtained by The Grayzone also reveal that Henderson was highly regarded within the organization. In 2005, the Director of the OPCW’s Inspectorate Division – which oversees all of the organization’s global inspections – wrote that “in all of Mr. Henderson’s annual appraisal reports” during his OPCW tenure, he had received “the highest rating possible.” 

The Director added: “In my opinion, I consider that Mr. Henderson is one of the best of our Inspection Team Leaders… Being one of the best Inspection Team Leaders, Mr. Henderson is aware that he can expect to be selected to lead the most demanding and sensitive assignments.”  

In 2018, an OPCW manager described Henderson as having “a wealth of knowledge,” whose “negotiation talent paired with his technical knowledge and skill make him an asset.” The previous year, a manager lauded Henderson for having “contributed to CBCP [Capacity Building and Contingency Planning Cell] cell achievements significantly.” The manager particularly praised Henderson for “leading and participation” in sensitive contingency operations, including the OPCW’s inspection of Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) in 2017.

Who went rogue?

In his letter to Arias, Henderson invoked his and Inspector B’s lengthy, celebrated tenures inside the OPCW. “We are long-serving and dedicated OPCW supporters,” Henderson wrote. “We both have reams of documents such as performance appraisals, emails, letters of commendation and others, that reflect a history of service at the highest level in terms of qualifications, skills, expertise, leadership, integrity and professionalism throughout our time at the OPCW.”

“Does this not place the efforts by some to smear our reputations, on questionable ground?” he continued. “As a manager, as the highest official in the Organisation, does this not lead to the question: Why would a pair of the top Inspection Team Leaders, both with impeccable records… suddenly ‘go rogue’?”

The documentary evidence that Henderson played a leading role in the Douma investigation – and that Arias has made false statements to the contrary – adds new salience to those questions. It also raises an inverse question for Arias: why has the OPCW Director General falsified Henderson’s role in the Douma investigation?  

New (4th) OPCW Whistleblower Slams ‘Abhorrent Mistreatment’ of Douma Investigators

A fourth OPCW whistleblower has emerged to defend the two veteran inspectors who challenged a cover-up of the chemical weapons probe in Douma, Syria. The new whistleblower lamented that other staffers have been “frightened into silence.” 

By Aaron Mate

The Grayzone

A new Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) whistleblower has surfaced in response to a malicious and factually flawed attack by OPCW leadership on two veteran inspectors who challenged the official story of an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government in Douma. 

In a statement provided to The Grayzone, the new OPCW whistleblower described being “horrified” by the “abhorrent … mistreatment” of the inspectors. The new whistleblower also warned of a climate of intimidation designed to keep other staffers “frightened into silence.”

The official is now the fourth OPCW whistleblower to air serious concerns about the chemical watch dog’s Douma probe. The Grayzone has independently verified the official’s identity and status with the OPCW, and granted them anonymity to protect them from potential retaliation.

The first two whistleblowers – the inspectors – are veteran OPCW experts and team leaders who deployed to Syria in April 2018. A third staffer has dissented from the official version of events, but declined to make their views public out of fear that they and their family would be harmed.

The findings by the first two whistleblowing inspectors severely undermined allegations by Western nations and Syrian opposition groups that the Syrian government carried out a chemical attack in Douma.

However, OPCW leadership excluded their scientific work, re-wrote their initial report, and barred them from adding any further input to the investigation. The inspectors’ evidence and the high-level campaign to bury it came to light through a series of leaks that began in May 2019. OPCW leadership has retaliated against the two by falsely portrayed them as rogue actors with only minor roles in the investigation and incomplete information.

The statement by the new OPCW whistleblower forcefully defends the inspectors and denounces the campaign by organization leadership to destroy their reputations.

“The mistreatment of two highly regarded and accomplished professionals can only be described as abhorrent,” the OPCW official wrote. “I fully support their endeavours, in that it is for the greater good and not for personal gain or in the name of any political agenda. They are in fact trying to protect the integrity of the organisation which has been hijacked and brought into shameful disrepute.”

One of the two whistleblowing former inspectors has been identified publicly. He is Ian Henderson, a 12-year veteran of the organization and weapons expert. Henderson led on-the-ground inspections in Douma and conducted a detailed engineering study of gas cylinders found at the scene. He concluded that the cylinders were likely “manually placed” rather than being dropped by air – a finding that suggests the attack was staged on the ground by the militants who controlled Douma at the time.

The OPCW buried Henderson’s study and released a final report that echoed the version put forward by the US Department of State and British Foreign Ministry, strongly implying that the cylinders were dropped by the Syrian military.

The second inspector has not identified themself, and is known only as Inspector B. This person is a 16-year OPCW veteran who coordinated the OPCW team’s scientific and technical activities in Douma and was the chief author of the main report – until OPCW leaders seized control of the investigation and rewrote its findings.

In remarks last month, OPCW Director-General General Fernando Arias dismissed the pair’s scientific work as “erroneous, uninformed, and wrong,” and insisted that they “could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence.”

In letters published by The Grayzone, the inspectors rebutted Arias’ claims and argued, in B’s words, that they in fact “could never accept that a scientific investigation is not backed by science.”

The new OPCW whistleblower stood by the inspectors. “It is quite unbelievable that valid scientific concerns are being brazenly ignored in favour of a predetermined narrative,” they wrote. “The lack of transparency in an investigative process with such enormous ramifications is frightful.”

The official went on to suggest that fear of retaliation is preventing more OPCW officials from coming forward. “I am one of many who were stunned and frightened into silence by the reality how the organisation operates,” the official wrote. “The threat of personal harm is not an illusion, or else many others would have spoken out by now.” The official does not provide additional details.

Another OPCW veteran, who served in a senior role but no longer works at the organization, has also warned of severe threats to their security. In a letter published by The Grayzone, the former senior OPCW official expressed alarm about a cover-up of the Douma probe and of the intimidation of dissenting voices. The former official described their tenure at the OPCW as “the most stressful and unpleasant ones of my life,” and voiced concern that “they will not hesitate to do harm to me and my family.”

In their rebuttal letter to Arias, Inspector B complained that Arias’ public statements have left “so many obvious clues, that anyone within the Organisation (and among many delegations) would have no doubt as to [the whistleblower’s] identities. Such recklessness has created a serious safety concern.”

According to the inspectors, a delegation of US officials visited the OPCW to apply “unacceptable pressure” on the Douma team to place blame on the Syrian government for a chemical attack that might not have happened at all. 

Both Henderson and Inspector B have called on Arias to allow for a transparent, scientific hearing where all of the suppressed evidence and studies can be heard. In their statement, the new OPCW whistleblower echoed the inspectors’ demand.

“The lack of transparency in an investigative process with such enormous ramifications is frightful,” the official wrote. “The allegations of the two gentlemen urgently need to be thoroughly investigated and the functionality of the organisation restored.”

Full text of statement on Douma scandal from new OPCW whistleblower is available on the Grayzone

Antisemitism Raising Its Ugly Head in Massachusetts Public School

The Newton School district is punishing students who's parents exposed their pro-jihad curriculum

A state education department found that a school district and School Committee Chair retaliated against a student because of her parent’s complaint about inaccurate and biased materials.

Concerned parents and students voiced concern over Islamic propaganda found in anti-Israel texts in Newton schools including “The Arab World Studies Notebook,” which claims that Israeli soldiers murdered hundreds of Palestinian nurses in Israeli prisons; “A Muslim Primer,” which claims that astronaut Neil Armstrong converted to Islam, but that the anti-Muslim U.S. government warned him “to keep his new religion to himself or he could be fired” from his government job; “Flashpoints: Guide to World History,” which asserts that Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel, and that Jerusalem is the capital of “Palestine”; and other materials.

Newton School Superintendent David Fleischman “tried to charge the taxpayers $1,600” for a list of the anti-Israel teaching materials, while Newton School Committee Chair Matt Hills “told staff not to let citizens see the offending materials,” according to the ads. Fleischman and Hills both did not immediately return requests from comment from JNS.org.

“The retaliation by school officials against a child because of a parent’s legitimate complaints about biased and deceptive class materials is outrageous”, said Evan Jacobi, president of the group Parents for Excellence in Newton Schools (PENS).

“Their goal is to further intimidate  parents who object to their children being told that biased and grossly inaccurate material is true.”

Politely contact the school.  The school is not feeling any pressure, and we’re told school administrators are not planning to change a thing.  I know it’s Saturday, but do it and put it on your list to do on Monday. The poison being rammed down our children’s throats in the cause of Islam is unconscionable. It’s the grooming of SS youth, circa 2015.

The school Contact PENS President Evan Jacobi at NewtonExcellence@gmail.com for more information.Newton Mayor Setti Warren, phone number 617 796 1100, email swarren@newtonma.gov

Email messages sent to schoolcommittee@newton.k12.ma.us will be forwarded to the entire School Committee. To contact specific members visit their Contact Us section.

The committee can also be contacted by mail at:
Newton School Committee
100 Walnut Street, Newton MA 02460.

Telephone messages can be taken at 617-559-6110.

Matt Hills: Chair: matt_hills@newton.k12.ma.us
Telephone messages can be taken at 617-559-6110.

Members can be contacted individually, find contact information on their members page.

IMPORTANT: All correspondence to both schoolcommittee@newton.k12.ma.us and standard mail address will be automatically forwarded to each member of the Committee. Please keep in mind that E-mail created or received by the School Committee is a public record and subject to the requirements of the Public Records Law. G.L.c.66.

A state education department found that a school district and School Committee Chair retaliated against a student because of her parent’s complaint about inaccurate and biased materials.

The decision by the Massachusetts agency found that the Newton Public Schools (NPS)  and School Committee Chair Matthew Hills sent confidential information about the student and her family to local media, which published it. The media entities – a newspaper and a blog – also published false claims that the parent was associated with anti-Muslim groups.

The student’s family said that both the newspaper and blog knew that the family had previously been stalked and that publishing the false allegations put them in danger. They also stated they suffered emotional distress and other harm due to the district’s actions.

Parents and education groups have accused the school of distributing inaccurate and anti-Israel material, resulting in the removal of several widely used resources. One resource, the Arab World Studies Notebook, has been been subject to intense criticism by education groups and removed from other school districts.

The district also removed a website and whited out a textbook’s claim that the Catholic church was “reconsidering polygamy as a Christian option”.Parents’ complaint are supported by organizations including the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, StandWithUs, and Zionist Organization of America.

Last September, the education research organization Verity Educate issued a report on materials used in NPS history classes. The report found numerous inaccurate and deceptive material, including altered primary source documents. It also found substantial anti-Israel bias, including material described as ‘neutral’ which had been prepared by anti-Israel activists.

The district denies that any bias or inaccuracies exist. Officials also told parents that they would ‘never’ read the report issued by Verity Educate or any other organization and that parents upset about deceptive or racist class material “should find another school for their children”.

“The retaliation by school officials against a child because of a parent’s legitimate complaints about biased and deceptive class materials is outrageous”, said Evan Jacobi, president of the group Parents for Excellence in Newton Schools (PENS). “Their goal is to further intimidate  parents who object to their children being told that biased and grossly inaccurate material is true.”

Hills was also found to have violated state Open Meeting law several times in 2014 in an attempt to cover up a plagarized speech given by Newton Superintendent David Fleishman, and advised Fleishman and others to violate state and federal law by withholding documents from responses to public records requests. No sanctions have been imposed on Hills for these violations.

Contact PENS President Evan Jacobi at NewtonExcellence@gmail.com for more information. - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/01/massachusetts-school-retaliates-against-student-for-parents-opposition-to-pro-islam-anti-israel-propaganda.html/#sthash.sqvKUQaq.dpuf