Wednesday, April 02, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
The actions taken in recent weeks against these foreign students and academics, many of them highly accomplished in their fields, have raised questions about why federal authorities are singling them out, and what role outside groups like Canary Mission are playing in identifying targets for deportation.The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has said that it does not rely on lists from Canary Mission, and some of the students who’ve been targeted by federal agents do not appear on any of the lists.Yet some of them do. And immigration lawyers and experts point to coincidences that suggest to them that the information circulated by Canary Mission and another pro-Israel group, Betar, may be providing road maps for ICE enforcement actions.
... Canary Mission, asked if it had shared information on potential deportation targets with federal authorities, said that it had not. “Our investigations of anti-U.S. and antisemitic extremists are all publicly available on our website,” the group said in a statement.
Jonathan Wallace, a lawyer representing one of the seven “deportable” people posted on Canary Mission’s “Uncovering Foreign Nationals” web page, called the group a “predator in the ecosystem that we’re living in right now.” Critics say the lists amount to doxxing, the publishing of private information about someone with malicious intent.
According to documents filed in a lawsuit against Columbia, Dr. Abdou was doxxed by Canary Mission.
Canary Mission's website, along with its mission and methodology, is public. It never publishes private information on the people it writes about. Every piece of information on the site about these individuals is public - their own writings, their own LinkedIn profiles, photos of them in public protests. The Canary Mission site is extraordinarily careful to document everything it says.
The NYT doesn't fact check the "doxxing" lie, even though it easily could. Because better to quote biased "experts" and a lawsuit that does not need to be truthful than to do actual reporting.
In 2018, the Middle East Studies Association, an academic group, published a report, “Exposing Canary Mission,” that compared the group’s tactics to the Red Scare of the 1950s, when the government targeted those purportedly engaged in Communist subversion. The report also accused the organization of “misinformation, omissions, quotations taken out of context and allegations based on guilt by association.”
Again, the New York Times reporters can check whether this is true themselves. They can look through the site and find on their own examples of misinformation or quotes out of context. But instead of doing journalism, it chooses instead to quote a rabidly anti-Israel group that supports boycotting Israel as an unbiased "academic group." They can link to the Ethics section of Canary Mission and let readers decide for themselves whether the site is doing anything unethical.
But they don't. And they won't.
Then the newspaper of record adds more innuendo:
Details about Canary Mission’s leadership, origins and funding are murky, with a few exceptions.
The group has not sought tax-exempt status in the United States, meaning that, unlike most American nonprofit organizations, it does not file disclosure statements about its leadership and budget with the federal government. It also does not list a physical address.
Unlike anti-Israel organizations that claim tax exempt status and spread hate on the American taxpayers' dime, Canary Mission does not seek tax benefits. The NYT suggests that there is something wrong with the organization that does not rip off Americans, that does everything legally and above-board, whose methods and veracity can be independently checked and verified.
Canary Mission cares far more about the truth and ethics than the New York Times does.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy
