{"id":53341,"date":"2025-06-01T15:29:54","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T23:29:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=53341"},"modified":"2025-06-01T15:29:54","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T23:29:54","slug":"yves-engler-update-zionists-use-of-legal-system-to-attack-critics-fails-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2025\/06\/01\/yves-engler-update-zionists-use-of-legal-system-to-attack-critics-fails-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Yves Engler Update: Zionist’s Use of Legal System To Attack Critics Fails Again"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Yves Engler\u2019s website<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Dahlia Kurtz suffered two more blows in her bid to target critics of her genocidal Jewish supremacism. The Zionist influencer\u2019s bid to reprimand the lawyer representing me and a senator who defended me failed.<\/p>\n

A year ago Kurtz went to the police claiming harassment because I criticized her violent, racist, social media posts. After opening, closing and then reopening the file against me a Montreal police investigator laid charges and sought to impose a condition of release restricting my ability to mention Kurtz\u2019s name. I spent five days in jail in a successful effort to defeat that condition.<\/p>\n

On the day of my condition hearing lawyer John Philpot criticized Kurtz\u2019s authoritarian, anti-Palestinian, politics. In response Kurtz complained to the Barreau du Qu\u00e9bec. On Monday they rendered their decision, noting:<\/p>\n

\u201cWithout delving into the history of the matter involving you that led to this request for an inquiry, we will summarize the most relevant points. It appears that you are a plaintiff involved in Mr. Yves Gabriel Engler\u2019s case (No. 500- 01-280416-253) before the Court of Qu\u00e9bec, Criminal and Penal Division. Me Philpot is representing Mr. Engler in the case.<\/p>\n

\u201cA release hearing was held on February 24, 2025. Me Philpot\u2019s client was released under an order that includes, in particular, a condition not to contact you. Me Philpot made statements to the media that same day. For the purposes of our inquiry, we took cognizance of the information and documents that we obtained from both you and Me Philpot. We understand from the communications you sent us that you are claiming that Me Philpot indicated to the media that you are a liar and that he used your name publicly to defame you and incite harassment, hate, aggression and violence against you. You point out that, in doing so, he is going out and re-victimizing you to the media. You add that in his second statement, Me Philpot claimed that you \u201chate Palestinian children \u2013 amongst many other defamatory and egregious statements that incite hate and aggression towards you<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs part of our inquiry, we carefully listened to the recordings you sent us, namely the aforementioned statements that Me Philpot made to the media. We also obtained and listened to the recording of the release hearing held on February 24, 2025. In addition, we obtained explanations from Me Philpot\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cWe further note that he mentioned the following in a second interview: \u201c[W]hat they wanted Yves to do, to not to do, was to discuss this case about this woman, who many of us criticize, they don\u2019t want to discuss it on social [inaudible] [\u2026] okay, in other words, whether she is a fascist [\u2026], she is a zionist, she is campaigning for Israel, she hates Palestinians, hates Palestiniens (sic<\/em>) children [\u2026] \u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cHaving listened to all of the recordings obtained, we cannot conclude that Me Philpot\u2019s comments \u2013 <\/em>how he worded them and the precise context in which he made them \u2013 <\/em>would be considered disrespectful, rude or lacking in moderation, or that they could constitute derogatory comments that contravene his obligations of professional conduct in the way that you described\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cGiven the above, we are of the opinion that there is no evidence that Me Philpot contravened his obligations of professional conduct in any way. On the basis of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that Me John Roderick Philpot contravened the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers<\/em>. Accordingly, we must inform you that no disciplinary complaint will be lodged against him before the Disciplinary Council of the Barreau du Qu\u00e9bec.\u201d<\/p>\n

In her bid to suppress freedom of expression, Kurtz also filed a complaint<\/a> with the Senate ethics officer against British Columbia Senator Yuen Pau Woo who criticized my imprisonment. That frivolous complaint was also turned down with the Senate Ethics Officer determining there was no basis on which to pursue an investigation into the complaint against Woo.<\/p>\n

I expect the prosecution to ultimately drop the charges against me. They simply cannot want to embarrass themselves by having Dahlia Kurtz testify in front of a judge.<\/p>\n

Support Yves\u2019 work. Donate Now.<\/a><\/p>\n

Yves Engler is the author of <\/em>Stand on Guard for Whom? <\/em>A People\u2019s History of the Canadian Military<\/a> and twelve other books<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Yves Engler\u2019s website. Dahlia Kurtz suffered two more blows in her bid to target critics of her genocidal Jewish supremacism. The Zionist influencer\u2019s bid to reprimand the lawyer representing me and a senator who defended me failed. A year ago Kurtz went to the police claiming harassment because I criticized her violent, racist, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":244,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[1315],"class_list":["post-53341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53341","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/244"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53341"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53341\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":53358,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53341\/revisions\/53358"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53341"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=53341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}