Our Times 3

Censorship in Canada? Vanessa Beeley’s talks on Syria

Media War Zones

Vanessa Beeley is a British journalist who was invited to Canada in the fall of 2019 to present talks in seven cities on the conflict in Syria. The sponsors of her speaking tour were several anti-war groups, including the Geopolitical Economy Research Group, the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, and Peace Alliance in Winnipeg.

Beeley is an independent journalist and photographer who has worked extensively in the Middle East, including dangerous zones in Gaza, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. In 2017 she was a finalist for the prestigious Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. In 2018 the British National Council for the Training of Journalists named her as one of the 238 most respected journalists in the UK. In 2019 she was one of the recipients of the Serena Shim Award for uncompromising integrity in journalism.

Over a number of years, at considerable risk to her life, Beeley has travelled to Syria on several occasions to report on the conflict between the Syrian army and a variety of forces, largely foreign mercenaries, who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government. A United Nations report has stated that more than 40,000 foreign fighters from 110 countries may have travelled to Syria and Iraq to join terrorist groups.

In the course of her first-hand research on Syria, Beeley has also obtained information on the operations of the White Helmets, a supposedly “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” force dedicated to saving the lives of Syrian citizens in war zones.

In her various ensuing publications, with extensive documentation and photographic evidence, she has presented a compelling account of what is occurring in Syria. Fortunately, she is not alone in presenting such information. There are several other journalists who have done almost comparable first-hand accounts. These include Canada’s Eva Bartlett, and American journalists Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek and Anya Parampil.

Vanessa Beeley

Because the reports of these few investigative journalists vary dramatically from what is presented by the mainstream media in the United States, Canada and much of Europe, a malicious and concerted campaign has developed to malign and discredit these journalists, largely in the interests of US foreign policy regarding Syria. For so-called “experts” and journalists who provide media cover to Syria’s jihadist insurgency, the three American journalists had crossed a line. The ensuing character assassination campaign against the three American “rogue” journalists has been revealed in reportage by MintPress News.

These three journalists point out that a number of Western reporters have gone to Islamist-held regions in Syria and then presented views that the terrorists are justified in trying to overthrow the Syrian government. Because of this, Anya Parampil states that it is critically important to report on the life of ordinary Syrians not under terrorist control. According to Parampil:

This group of Syrians represents the vast majority of the country, despite the fact that we never hear from them in corporate media. It is my job, as a U.S. journalist with the privilege of working independently, to visit countries and speak to people impacted by the policies of Washington, particularly those who are excluded from the mainstream narrative. Unless we hear from these people, the U.S. public will be more willing to support military and economic war against the Syrian people. That is why CNN and other outlets act as though they’re invisible. The media has been weaponized against the Syrian people.

Max Blumenthal commented: “My ability to convey this reality back to the U.S. public was apparently such a threat to an unusually vocal echo chamber of regime-change fanatics that I was branded a Nazi … Their attacks were part and parcel of the Western campaign to isolate Syrians from the rest of the world, and all because their government held off a multi-billion dollar proxy war that would have transformed their country into an even more harrowing version of Libya if it had succeeded.”

As for Beeley, as soon as her Canada speaking tour was announced, Huffington Post was alerted and in short order two highly defamatory articles on her appeared. The Post reporters, Emilie Clavel and Chris York, who have never been to Syria, present the standard mainstream media accusation that President Assad heads “the 21st century’s most murderous regime” and was basically responsible for the war and for the bulk of the casualties. To support their views, they rely on other writers who claim “Beeley was the Syrian conflict’s goddess of propaganda.”

Beeley was scheduled to speak at the University of Montreal; when some criticism was voiced, a University spokesperson stated that “a university is a place of debates and one of its cornerstones is academic freedom.” Yet, after the defamatory reports about Beeley came out, her talk was cancelled. The Post’s Chris York tweeted that “The University of Montreal has cancelled a planned talk by Vanessa Beeley after it was pointed out that she is a conspiracy theorist, not a journalist.” Strange that after a US publication’s blatant propaganda attack on an experienced war correspondent, the University of Montreal now appears not to be a place of “academic freedom.”

After Montreal, Beeley was scheduled to speak in Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Mississauga, Regina and Winnipeg. Despite concerted de-platforming efforts in all these cities, she did manage to present her talks. It was only in Montreal, Hamilton and Winnipeg that it was necessary to secure alternate venues because of the pressure to block her presentations.

Beeley’s speaking tour ended in Winnipeg, and here she was denied a venue, at short notice, not only at the University of Winnipeg but also at the Winnipeg Millennium Library. On investigation, it turns out that the senior administration at the university had not been informed of Beeley’s talk, so the decision to deny a venue was made at some lower level, without proper authorization. As such, it would be unfair to blame the university for this matter.

In the case of the Millennium Library, a senior spokesperson stated that Beeley’s proposed talk “would not comply with [the library’s] guidelines.” When pressed on the matter, the spokesperson said that in his personal opinion the contents of the proposed talk could be construed as “hate speech” and as such Beeley would not be permitted to speak there.

Beeley was finally booked to give her talk on December 12, with practically no public notice, at the Winnipeg Chilean Association on Burrows Avenue.

I find it ironic that people writing in the comfort and safety at their desks in the US, UK and Canada about the war in Syria and the White Helmets are given more credence by officials in some public institutions than journalists such as Beeley and others who actually go to Syria to see the situation first-hand.

I attended Beeley’s highly informative session in Winnipeg and had a discussion with her before and after the talk. Her hour-long presentation was fully documented and supported by appropriate photographs. For anyone to criticize her presentation as “hate speech” is preposterous. It is a profound pity that Canadian university students and a wider section of the public were prevented from hearing her perspective.

I have always had a keen interest in foreign affairs and during my years of teaching at the University of Winnipeg, my courses often involved such matters. Since my retirement, I have had more time to devote to what is going on in the world. As such, during these years I have written and published a wide range of articles on a variety of issues, including matters involving Syria and the White Helmets.

In the case of the White Helmets, I immediately discovered that they operated only in areas held by Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra terrorist forces – and nowhere else in Syria. This being the case, how could they claim to be “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” when they were nowhere to be found in the rest of Syria?

The White Helmets organization was created and funded by US and British efforts back in March of 2013, with an initial input of $23 million by USAID (US Agency for International Development). Since then they’ve received over $100 million, including at least CDN$7.5 million. Max Blumenthal has explored in some detail the various funding resources and relationships that the White Helmets draw on, mostly in the US and Europe. Overall, the CIA has spent over $1 billion on arming and training the so-called Syrian “rebels” who in actuality constitute a variety of Al-Qaeda forces.

A disturbing aspect of the White Helmets is their close association with Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra forces. In several cases their headquarters are in the same building with these terrorist groups. Videos are also available that show their gross disrespect for the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers (several White Helmets were filmed giving the victory sign while standing on a heap of dead Syrian soldiers on the way to being dumped in the trash).

If the White Helmets devoted their activities solely to save the lives of people caught up in war zones, that would be commendable and beyond reproach, but that is not the case. A major part of their activities is devoted to media reports and public relations, and it seems that this is what draws a significant portion of their funding while constituting the primary reason for their creation. In fact, it appears the White Helmets use search and rescue activities as a cover-up to demonize Syrian President Assad and help terrorists overthrow the Syrian government.

As renowned journalist John Pilger put it, the White Helmets are a “propaganda construct,” an Al-Qaeda support group, whose prime purpose is to try to put a veneer of respectability on the vile head-chopping terrorists in Syria.

Given all this, I was astounded to discover that in the late summer of 2016, the federal NDP had recommended to the federal government that Canada should nominate the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize. In response to this I wrote an open letter to the NDP denouncing their ill-considered proposal. Fortunately, Stéphane Dion, our Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, ignored their request. My open letter was posted by Canadian Dimension and it was later reposted on two other sites.

Then in the summer of 2018 Canada announced that it would take in a sizeable number of White Helmets just before the terrorist area in which they operated was recaptured by the Syrian army. I wrote an article denouncing this questionable course of action.

I discussed how Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and a former member of the CIA, in a detailed article stated that at the present time there is no bigger fraud than the story of the White Helmets. The story that’s been put forth is that with the Syrian army closing in on the last White Helmet affiliates still fighting in the country, the Israeli government, aided by the US, “staged an emergency humanitarian evacuation” of 800 White Helmet members, including their families, to Israel and then on to Jordan. Pleas were then put forth to resettle them in the US, Britain, Germany and other countries.

Near the end of 2015 I wrote an article that presented the background on the various terrorist groups, going back to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. I will cite a concluding paragraph:

When ISIS beheaded two American journalists, there was outrage and denunciation throughout the West, but when the same ISIS beheaded hundreds of Syrian soldiers, and meticulously filmed these war crimes, this was hardly reported anywhere. In addition, almost from the very beginning of the Syrian tragedy, al-Qaeda groups have been killing and torturing not only soldiers but police, government workers and officials, journalists, Christian church people, aid workers, women and children, as well as suicide bombings in market places. All this was covered up in the mainstream media, and when the Syrian government correctly denounced this as terrorism, this was ignored or denounced as “Assad’s propaganda.”

Being aware of this background, nothing that Beeley stated in her talk surprised me. What she stated was just an update to what I had already known. What was new to me was her account of the recent death of James Le Mesurier, a former British military officer, who founded the White Helmets in 2014. He was found dead in Istanbul this past November 11 and it is still uncertain if he was murdered or if he committed suicide. Almost immediately afterwards, Beeley wrote a lengthy and well-researched article about his mysterious death. I would like to include a reference to this, especially as an example of the quality of Beeley’s research and writing style. And yet this is the person who is accused of presenting hate speech and not worthy of being heard.

The thought has occurred to me that since my views on Syria and the White Helmets are identical to those of Beeley, suppose I proposed to give a talk at a Canadian university or public library. Would I, as a retired professor and senior scholar, be blocked in the way that Beeley was? Given the precedent of what happened to her, why should I be treated any differently?

Frankly, I can hardly believe what has happened. To me it is outrageous that a person of Beeley’s credibility as an investigative journalist and the author of a wide range of superbly documented articles and books should be barred from presenting a talk on a critically important subject at a Canadian university or a public library. What has happened to our supposed “freedom of speech”?

John Ryan, Ph.D., is a retired professor of geography and a senior scholar at the University of Winnipeg.

Responses to John Ryan’s column

I was disturbed to read John Ryan’s uncritical defence of Vanessa Beeley on the CD site. Although I disagree with attempts to deny her a platform, her support for the reactionary Assad regime and her antisemitic criticism of Zionism—qualitatively different from anti-racist and anti-colonial criticism of Zionism!—are abhorrent.

Beeley’s views and associations are well documented in articles featured in the New Statesman and on

David Camfield, Winnipeg


In the course of writing my article I had seen and read both of the articles that David Camfield had submitted to you, so this is not something new to me. I saw no reason to refer to them in my article. They, like a series of others, were an attempt to discredit Vanessa Beeley’s efforts to portray what she had actually observed first-hand during the course of her travels in Syria.

If David Camfield had made the effort to hear her presentation in Winnipeg he may have come away with a different view of her journalistic abilities. She talked about what she saw in the cities, towns and countryside in Syria, including close-up views of on-going battle zones. She discussed the nature of the various terrorist forces, and the fact that the White Helmets operated only in terrorist-held areas. While she talked she showed photos on a large screen of scenes in Syria. Afterwards, there was an interesting question and answer period. Overall, it was a highly informative session. What she had to say was not much different from what Robert Fisk told us earlier this fall. So what was all this hue and cry about Beeley presenting “hate speech”? This is absolute rubbish and nonsense. It is this that troubled me and caused me to write the article, with emphasis on the attempt at censorship in Canada.

Very little of what Vanessa Beeley said was new to me. Right from the beginning in 2011 I have tried to keep as well informed as possible on the situation in Syria. The problem is that the search for truth, especially now, can be manipulated. Most people rely on the mainstream media and as such they are sucked in by constant propaganda. But even on the Internet, there are sites just as bad as mainstream media. So one has to be very careful.

The mainstream media constantly keeps referring to the “reactionary Assad regime”, but in reality reasonably objective reporting reveals that most people in Syria at the present time are supportive of the Assad government. Admittedly, in the past it was different. On the basis of the 1973 constitution, Syria had a one party state and the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party was legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties were allowed, they were legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party.

The new Syrian constitution of 2012, approved in a referendum (with a 57% turnout and 89% support), introduced a democratic multi-party system. The new constitution forbids any discrimination on the grounds of sex, origin, religion or language. On the basis of this new system, an election was held in June of 2014. Out of 250 seats in their parliament, Assad’s Ba’ath Party won 168 seats and the 8 other parties got 82 seats. The terrorists tried to disrupt the election by shelling polling stations and all government-controlled areas. There were observers from more than 30 countries, but as would be expected, the USA and all its supporters did not recognize the validity of the election.

With the new electoral system and because the Syrian government, with the help of Russia, has largely defeated Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and other terrorist forces, reasonably objective reports indicate that most people in Syria support their government. Given that, who are we to complain about a so-called “reactionary Assad regime”? The alternative to the current secular government would be the head-chopping terrorists and their Wahhabi fanatical religion. Would that somehow be better? Surely it is up to the Syrian people to decide on the nature of their government.

David’s first link in his note is this: “An Investigation Into Red-Brown Alliances: Third Positionism, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, And The Western Left”, Posted By Anonymous on February 1, 2018.

Yes, “Posted by Anonymous”. Given the context of this article, it could very well have been written by the CIA or Mossad, especially since there is hardly any mention of the USA, Israel or Saudi Arabia. And who would go to the trouble of finding the names of people on various committees, boards and organizations in various countries, other than what could to be likely.

Before writing my article I initially read only the section dealing with Vanessa Beeley, but now I’ve gone through this long tedious harangue. Almost every progressive writer is denounced as an anti-Semite, a fascist or a conspiracy theorist! As we should recall, the term “conspiracy theorist” was concocted and activated by the CIA to try to denounce and discredit anyone who questioned the Warren Report on the assassination of President Kennedy. And since then this has been used extensively to try to dismiss and discredit anyone who questions so-called official dogma. This harangue is filled with such denunciations.

To give you an idea of what I am getting at, I will list a partial number of the names of a range of journalists and political activists that this “source” denounces or tries to ridicule or “expose” as anti-Semites, fascists or conspiracy theorists.

What amazed me is that this list includes the two most prominent members and co-founders of Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: Ray McGovern and William Binney.

It also tries to put under suspicion The Nation whose editor Katrina vanden Heuvel and her husband Stephen Cohen (eminent specialist on Russia), saying that they have “allowed for fringe views which align with the far-right networks close to Russian fascists to be platformed on its website, such as supporting Russian involvement in Syria, supporting and defending Vladimir Putin.”

Also listed are Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich who travelled to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad (and did not denounce him).

Ramsey Clark is denounced as a strange figure, having served as Attorney General under the administration of US president Lyndon Johnson, but who then tried to defend Slobodan Milosevic.

Journalists or political figures who are accused of being anti-Semites, fascists or conspiracy theorists: James Petras, William Engdahl, Webster Tarley, Kevin Barrett, Sara Flounders, Dennis Halliday (a former United Nations official), George Galloway, John Kiriakou, Paul Craig Roberts, Srda Trifkovic, Christopher Black, Gregory Elich, Tim Anderson, Pepe Escobar, Peter Ford (former UK Ambassador to Syria), Jim Jatras (former US diplomat), Rick Sterling, Gilad Atzmon, Abby Martin, Max Blumenthal, Stephen Gowans, Jimmy Dore, Gilbert Doctorow, Robert Parry (the late founder and editor of Consortium News), Mother Agnes Mariam of the Cross, Mairead Maguire, Michel Chossudovsky and his Global Research, Canada’s Eva Bartlett, and of course Vanessa Beeley. Even Winnipeg’s Alan Freeman and Radhika Desai are on the list!

Strangely, Cy Gonick and Canadian Dimension somehow aren’t there!

So given this wide range of journalists, I thought it was a bit of an honour for Vanessa Beeley to be “listed”.

As for David’s second listing for additional “evidence” on Vanessa Beeley, the author of this, Oz Katerji, is an unashamed propagandist and active supporter of Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra terrorists. Strangely, he’s been given access to speak in a variety of prominent UK venues. Take a look at this site for a full exposé on this person.

Given all this, I make no apologies for what I have written in my article. Furthermore, my main intent in writing my article was to bring attention to the sudden strange appearance of attempted censorship at Canadian universities and public institutions.

John Ryan, Winnipeg


Fernwood 2021/22 leaderboard

Browse the Archive