The Green Light Committee considered the application of Mr. Edward Corrigan to be a
Qualified Nomination Contestant for the Liberal Party of Canada in the federal riding of
London-Fanshawe. After very careful consideration of Mr. Ed Corrigan s application the
Green Light Committee decided on June 22, 2007 to red light Mr. Corrigan.

In its review of Mr. Corrigan s application, the Green Light Committee was mindful of
the 2007 Rules for the Province of Ontario for the Selection of Candidates for the Liberal
Party of Canada. In particular, the Committee paid special attention the provisions below
to guide them in their consideration of his application:

6.3 It is a continuing condition of status as a Qualified Nomination Contestant that a
Nomination Contestant, either before or subsequent to approval, consent to any
and all background check(s) that the Ontario Campaign Chair considers to be
appropriate to have undertaken, in the best political interests of the Liberal Party
of Canada. Such background checks may include, but are not limited, the release
of criminal and military service records. The results of such background checks
shall be kept confidential by the Ontario Campaign Chair, unless, based upon
information contained therein, he, she or they conclude that it is not in the interest
of the Liberal Party of Canada that Qualified Nomination Contestant Status be
granted and upon such determination, the affected candidate claims it to have
been made without good reason. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Ontario
Campaign Chair may, upon receiving potentially negative or questionable
information as a result of such background check, disclose such information to the
National Campaign Chair and to the Leader in order to consult upon a decision,
but those individuals shall not make further disclosure of such information, expect
in accordance with the foregoing.

Schedule A

3. Recommend approval of nomination contestants based upon discretionary evaluation
on the following criteria, as well as such other criteria as may be set out in writing by the
Ontario Campaign Co-Chairs:

Background checks
Financial affairs
Any ethical questions or concerns
History of contribution to the commitment and/or participation in public life
Whether the candidacy assists in achieving or exceeding the target of 33% female
candidates
Whether the candidate has a demonstrated history of Commitment to the Liberal
Party of Canada
Whether the candidate has knowingly breached any material provision of the
Constitution and Rules of the Liberal Party of Canada, including rules for the
selection of candidates, and the Constitution and Rules of the Liberal Party ofCanada (Ontario), in particular, but not limited to situations where such breach
has the potential to influence the outcome of a nomination contest.

 

The decision was a difficult one. The Committee acknowledges that broad, diverse and even controversial ideas are a necessary component to a flourishing democratic society.

The Committee also recognizes that controversial speech is a protected right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is in this context that we want to be clear that our focus was not the content of Mr. Corrigan s ideas, rather the manner in which they were advanced. It is necessary to repeat this important point. The Committee wants to make it clear that it was not the substance of Mr. Corrigan s ideas that were the subject of concern and ultimately, the basis for rejecting his application, but the manner in which his ideas were expressed by him.

The Committee is concerned that despite abject concern, the Liberal Party of Canada and its leader would be obliged to respond and perhaps even defend Mr. Corrigan s right to express his views in the manner in which he has done so over the past two decades. In all the circumstances, we believe it appropriate to exercise our discretion to decline to recommend that he be green lighted.

The Committee reviewed many articles submitted by Mr. Corrigan himself in his
application and many others available on the internet. Mr. Corrigan has written many academic articles over the past twenty five years concerning Zionism and the State of Israel. Our review of articles submitted by him and those on the website focused on the language he uses to express his ideas. Below is a sample of quotes from his works that the Committee perceived as using very extreme and inflammatory language. This is not an exhaustive list because Mr. Corrigan is prolific; however it is representative of the type of extremist language found in his articles. We have included the full title of the work and/or website link so that any concerns about its context maybe addressed if necessary.

In an article, Munich, the Travesty published in the Washington Post on January 13, 2006, Charles Krauthammer, a well known Zionist and regular Post Columnist, attacks Steven Spielberg s movie for presenting several glimpses of the Palestinian perspective. Krauthammer and other critics of Spielberg's movie continuously repeat discredited Zionist mythology, distort history, ignore inconvenient facts and hide Zionist terrorism, the raping of
Palestinians, the massacres, the theft of land and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians with the creation of the Jewish state in 1948.

This theft of land [creation of state of Israel] was based on a dubious claim that European Jewish settlers had a claim on Palestine based on alleged presence 2000 years ago...

 

Your Comments

canpalnet-ottawa.org