The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Robin Mathews on Academic Freedom & Tony Hall
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Did public servants in the Albert government and the University of Lethbridge conspire with a hostile foreign government to deprive Professor Anthony Hall of his rights to free speech and academic freedom? Robin Mathews, a retired professor of Canadian Studies and English Literature (and spearhead of the Canadianization campaign) recently wrote:

Dear Vice Dean of Law (and) Professor Adams … and interested others ….

The question so forcefully put (vice Dean Adams) by your refusal to reply to my direct and simple questions about the nature of your task in the matter of the Anthony Hall case at the University of Lethbridge (2016-2018) should, I believe, be presented as publicly as it can be:

To begin: your salary is paid by (in fact) the taxpayers of the Province of Alberta and (to a lesser extent) the taxpayers of Canada. You were invited to preside over a Committee of ?Investigation? by members of the Administration of the University of Lethbridge … all of whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayers of the Province of Alberta and (to a lesser extent) the taxpayers of Canada. You were, I believe, paid for your duties involving your work for members of the Administration of the University of Lethbridge: the payment being made, in fact, by the taxpayers of Alberta and (to a lesser extent) the taxpayers of Canada. (The federal government of Canada involves itself in the support of Canadian universities in a number of ways … by means of taxes it gains from the people of Canada.)

Your statement to me that you consider any such work you do (publicly, by public invitation, to fulfill a public end, paid for with public monies,or etc.) as confidential … can only be read as an insult … and, perhaps, as a warning that you see yourself as working within a select and elite group, using monies gained from the taxpayers of Canada to pursue ends that you have no intention of discussing with anyone outside the select and elite group. If so, that is deeply regrettable. I may be wrong in the preceding statements … and if I am, you will have to provide the information necessary to correct my mistake.

As you must know … the whole conflagration that arose around the person of Professor Anthony Hall arose from a viciously anti-Semitic cartoon placed on his Facebook Page (unknown to him) when he was out of the country (Summer 2016). The number of readers of his Facebook Page, we may imagine, was quite limited. But almost within hours, it seems, what might be called Israel government-connected Canadian persons and organizations were not only informed but were making themselves heard in protest to persons in the University of Lethbridge administration and even, apparently, to the Lethbridge Police. (In fact, I believe one or other of those entities contacted the Lethbridge Police the day before the incident, revealing, if that is true, a telepathic/psychic power that must be admired.)

From that very strangeposting arose the conflagration to which I refer: accusing Professor Anthony Hall of anti-Semitic activities and statements. The appearance of the viciously anti-Semitic cartoon on Anthony Hall’s Facebook Page was never investigated by you … or by any authority at the University of Lethbridge. I will admit to you that I believe the anti-Semitic cartoon was placed on Professor Anthony Hall’s Facebook Page by people wishing to fake evidence that could be used against him to make the anti-Semitic accusations to which I refer. And, I believe, that before you heard any accusations of anti-Semitism against Professor Anthony Hall you were absolutely duty-bound to put into action or to insist steps be taken to put into action every attempt possible to find who posted the anti-Semitic cartoon on his Facebook Page in order to entrap him. (Professor Hall had suggested in broadcast – as have many others – that the government of Israel may have been involved in the collapse of the Trade Towers in New York on September 11, 2001. How much that suggestion by him precipitated the ‘placed’ anti-Semitic Cartoon on his Facebook Page … and then the escalating charges of Anti-Semitism … must be left to the judgement of the reader.)

But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that you had an obligation to attempt to find who placed the viciously anti-Semitic cartoon on his Facebook Page, especially because it was used as the prelude to other complaints against him (some of which surfaced in the Committee of Investigation (?) which you chaired.) And … indeed … allegations of anti-Semitism that surfaced in your Committee may have been a part of a programme that began with the Facebook Page Fraud. Though perhaps not the reality of what occurred … an impartial observer might conclude that the complaint against Professor Hall of anti-Semitism was a second step after the planting of the vicious anti-Semitic cartoon. (In fact, I understand that the first time ‘the complaint’ was made to the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Lethbridge University it was rejected as baseless … just as the first time a complaint against Professor Hall was made to Alberta Human Rights by (I believe) the Lethbridge University Board of Governors, it, too, was rejected as baseless. And … it, too … was polished up and intended for re-presentation. (I don’t know if re-presentation was proceeded with. But an objective and unbiased observer might conclude that an intense process was undertaken to involve Professor Hall in anti-Semitic charges…somehow, someway, somewhere….)

Perhaps it is useful to look at the general political atmosphere before your Committee went to work (in 2018). Coming into power for the first time a few years earlier, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau effected a rather strange – apparently not “official” – vote of some kind in the House of Commons in Ottawa. It was a vote to reject what is known as BDS. That is a movement apparently begun by Palestinians asking others to Boycott (goods of), to Divest (investments in …) and to Sanction (with various measures) the State of Israel as a way to discourage it from (what some insist is) its policy to exterminate the Palestinians. Mr. Trudeau wished to gain … and did gain a vote overwhelmingly rejecting support of BDS (with, I believe, NDP support). The leader of the other major Party in Canada. Stephen Harper, around the time, went to visit Israel and, there, he fell into the favour of the president of Israel as if they were children of the same birth mother. In the Green Party … the history is a little messier. In the absence of leader, Elizabeth May, a body of the Greens adopted BDS as the policy of the Green Party. Ms. May went into a state like shock, threatened to resign leadership, met with fellow members, withdrew support for BDS … and tried to work out some face-saving statements of policy…. Plainly, the government of Israel exerted … and perhaps continues to exert … extraordinary influence in governments and political parties of Canada. Indeed, the (then) NDP premier of Alberta, Rachel Notley – with a member of one of the Israel government-connected Canadian organizations by her side – excoriated and attacked Professor Anthony Hall as someone not fitting to teach the young of the Province of Alberta … [thereby, allegedly, she influenced any present or future Inquiry into Professor Hall’s ideas and activities] – a display of intemperance by the premier which was (I believe) as shocking as it was unbecoming….

I first asked you what you were tasked with as head of the Committee struck in the Anthony Hall matter; and I asked you how the other two members of the Committee were chosen. You refusedto give me any information …. That is the reason I wonder/and wondered if you consider/considered yourself a member of an Unaccountable Elite in Alberta…. I still wonder if that is the case … and I believe the people to whom I am sending this message will have the same number of questions and uncertainties that I have….


Robin Mathews

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Censorship 
Hide 5 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tony Hall says:

    I appreciate seeing in this venue Robin Mathews well conceived open letter to University of Alberta Law Professor, Dr. Eric Adams. The subject matter of Robin’s letter provides a case study among many others demonstrating the failure of the academy to put the quest for truth and understanding above political expediency and successful fund raising. The implications of this pervasive failure in the academy is slowly but surely making its way into venues of public discourse.

    One of the precedents set in transforming universities into pawns of powerful lobbies, including the Israel lobby, has been set by the continuing failure of academic institutions to protect realms of multi-faceted academic research and publication on the 9/11 debacle. The failure of our societies to come to terms with the deeper content and meanings of that debacle have resulted in multiple military invasions abroad, many police state and surveillance state intrusions at home. These hostile intrusions at home are now being extended and enlarged in the name of combatting the new coronavirus.

    As demonstrated by the University of Lethbridge case and by many other cases of a similar nature, university administrations and faculty associations have generally not been up to the challenge of protecting the kind of safe academic environments necessary for investigating war propaganda during a time of many US-led military invasions of Muslim-majority countries. The necessary conditions have simply not been safeguarded that would have allowed for systematic testing of the thesis on which I was working when I was suddenly suspended and pulled from the classroom in mid-term in the autumn of 2016. Without any due process this tenured full professor was forbidden to set foot on campus and stripped of all pay based, in part, on unsubstantiated and unarbitrated adminstrative assertions that my academic work on 9/11 was anti-Semitic.

    The systematic failure of most university administrations to be supportive of faculty members skeptical of the official 9/11 narrative helped establish a dangerous precedent. This tainted precedent has been heavily built upon so that institutions of higher learning are, with some rare exceptions, decidedly not places where free and open debate is protected, even in the case of professional exchanges among tenured colleagues. Surely the unwillingness of our universities to safeguard even minimal standards of academic debate on controversial subjects undermines the necessary conditions for the identification of sound, empirically-verifiable conclusions in many many fields.

    The tragedy of this development is being put on full display by the COVID-19 fiasco. Those who are attentive will notice that the likes of multibillionaire Bill Gates have been handed the keys to academic palaces where data is concocted with the goal of shaping events to conform with possibly preconceived agendas like multiple lockdowns that collectively produce a dire economic crash felt profoundly across the world.

    As we can now see, the prestige still attending sometimes bought-and-paid-for university research can create false justifications for the imposition of many draconian measures. These may include the resort to compulsory vaccines imposed universally without the safeguard of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials; imposed without the legal possibility that the recipients of the forced vaccinations can sue the indemnified manufacturers for dangerous products that may well harbor serious injuries to health. The huge but repressed scandals in the deeply corrupt vaccination industry extend in many ways to the badly tarnished integrity of many universities where the allure of external funding regularly triumphs over all else.

  2. Thomasina says:

    I’m so sorry for what you’ve had to go through, Professor Hall. Whoever did this to you feels entitled, superior. Machiavellian.

    The authorities should have immediately traced where that cartoon post originated from. Why wasn’t this done? Couldn’t they still do that? I’m sure there is a record of it.

    The masks we are currently wearing on our faces almost seem to symbolize the stifling of free speech. What a corrupt world we live in! Keep speaking out, and take care.

    • Replies: @Swiss Reader
  3. @Thomasina

    Free speech doesn’t entail freedom from consequences but only freedom from governmental persecution.

    If an organization recognizes that an idea promoted by some individual A hurts its image, regardless of whether or not individual A has actually promoted them, then it’s a rational move for any organization to quickly discard of individual A. Doesn’t take much brain to see that. Conservatives love at-will employment. They stop loving it the moment it’s used against their own kind. Sounds familiar?

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  4. Thomasina says:
    @Swiss Reader

    Actually I have no problem with a “private” organization firing someone who hurts their image. They’re selling a product or a service; they need to protect it.

    I would also have no problem with a private university, say a religious university, spelling out what could and could not be taught, and then firing anyone who stepped over the line. It’s their dime.

    But a university receiving public money has no business firing a professor who opens up for discussion the events of 9/11. As long as he presents all of the facts (and let’s please allow this), what has he done wrong? And even if he states his own opinion (oh, the horror!), it doesn’t mean people are going to agree with him. It just opens the class up for a fruitful debate. I’ve had all sorts of knowledgeable people tell me their opinions, and I don’t agree with them at all.

    Universities are for discovery, enlightenment, truth, things the paranoid Left are currently fighting against. Paranoid to the point of dictating what “truth” can be taught and what can’t.

    The Left love at-will truth. They stop loving it the moment it’s used against their own kind. Sound familiar?

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  5. @Thomasina

    The left used to defend free speech and academic freedom. What happened?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS