The Media Accountability Project  

---

Dear CFIQ Newsroom:

I’m writing to you on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East regarding the segment that aired at 5:19am last Friday, in which Greg Brady interviewed with Montreal City Councillor Leslie Roberts. I use term “interviewed” advisedly, as an interview normally consists of a vigorous exchange based on substantive questions. Instead, Mr. Brady gave Mr. Roberts a platform from which to say anything he wished regardless of its basis in fact, with no pushback or challenge of any kind.

More specifically, Mr. Roberts asserts that the motion as introduced was “clearly … a manifesto for those who are anti-Semitic in the city of Montreal.” Mr. Brady’s silence essentially conceded the grave charge that the motion’s supporters must be animated by anti-Jewish hate. It is unacceptable that Mr. Brady failed to challenge Mr. Roberts with even a single one of the obvious counter-arguments.

First, the original motion was supported by numerous Jews, including Independent Jewish Voices. Why did Mr. Brady not ask Mr. Roberts whether he considers them antisemitic?

Second, Mr. Roberts claims that motion originally did not mention Hamas in connection with the attack of October 7, 2023. Perhaps Mr. Roberts did not read the original motion, the preamble to which stated, “the attacks committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023 have led to unanimous international condemnation.” It also explicitly stated that neither Jews nor Israelis were responsible for Israel’s actions. Why did Mr. Brady raise none of these obvious rejoinders?

Third, Mr. Roberts claims that pro-Palestinian demonstrators have “recently had effigies of Jewish men hanging on their floats.” This horrific accusation presumably refers to a May 2026 protest that included hanged effigies of US President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Natonal Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. It is simply false to suggest, as Mr. Roberts does, that these were representations of anonymous Jewish men (and therefore threats against the Jewish community). It is legitimate for Mr. Roberts to describe that as being abhorrent, but not as being novel. Protests in Montreal have hanged (or burned) numerous politicians in effigy, including 1970s cabinet minister Claude Forget, US President George W. Bush, premiers Lucien Bouchard and Jean Charest, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Why did Mr. Brady point out none of this?

Fourth, both Messrs. Brady and Roberts clearly find outrageous the original motion’s use of the terms “apartheid” and “genocide,” as if it were a given that only an antisemite could argue such a thing. The original preamble noted that the United Nations and many international and Israeli human rights organizations have made reasoned arguments that those terms describe Israeli policy and actions. It also noted that the International Court of Justice has found Israel guilty of the crime of racial segregation or apartheid and that there is a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. If Mr. Roberts wishes to argue that this is all based on nothing but antisemitism then he is free to do so but why did Mr. Brady fail to raise any of these points?

Fifth, Mr. Roberts make a vague reference to the unanimously-adopted 2022 Montreal City Council motion standing with Ukraine, but then calls this a “pretext” for supporters of the 2026 motion. Mr. Brady fails to challenge this bizarre segue, despite the fact that the Ukraine motion is a recent, unambiguous and uncontroversial precedent for the City of Montreal taking a position on an international conflict (without the benefit of multiple decisions of international tribunals and conclusions of international experts). Why did Mr. Brady fail to ask what the difference is between the two?

It is worth noting that Mr. Brady asserts at the beginning of the segment that the original motion was “going to threaten business, that's certainly to me going to threaten tourism and a bunch of other stuff.” The fear that the motion would carry costs – a fear unsupported, incidentally, by any facts in evidence – apparently takes precedence over the journalistic duty to question a public official and explains Mr. Brady’s total incuriousness in the face of Mr. Robert’s torrent of false or misleading statements.

We call upon you to remind your personnel of their obligation to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the journalistic profession. They must do at least the bare minimum of asking follow up questions of their interview subjects, rather than leaving every last assertion unchallenged. What self-respecting journalist or media outlet could possibly argue that this is asking too much?

Sincerely,

 

Adam Allouba

Media Advocate
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East