On The Media, Journalism, And The Willingness To Support it

It has been a tough month for journalism.

Reports of mass layoffs and (select) publication suspensions at Postmedia engulfed the twitterverse late Monday afternoon, the second such round of job cuts for Postmedia, who earlier this month opted to close their wire service, returning to the content produced by the Canadian Press.

It was just weeks ago that Globe & Mail was asking staff to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave in an effort to curb expenses over the summer months.

And now that both Postmedia and the Globe & Mail plan to erect a paywall around a given portion of their content, similar to the one successfully implemented by the New York Times, the predictably vacuous back and forth between the stalwarts of ‘new’ and ‘old’ media has again erupted.

Now, it’s hardly a secret that I’m a media/news junkie; addicted to information, advocating for quality journalism. The reasons for which I stumbled into the realm of politics/media I have never widely discussed. And for the purpose of this post, will continue to refrain from doing. In the wake of Monday’s news, however, I wanted to take moment to briefly touch on my experience with the industry, including the people whom I have come to admire, respect, and in some cases, to know as friends.

It was 2005 that I suddenly found myself with hours upon hours of vacant time (previously occupied by a gruelling training schedule (35 hours/week), work (20 hours/week), and school) and I was in desperate need of a distraction. Or more importantly, a purpose.

Having always had an interest in politics and the media/journalism, I used my circumstances as an excuse to immerse myself in both, and pursue a curiosity I had previously sidelined when I opted for a an academic path more closely related to my athletic career.

Admittedly, when I began my quest to discover as much as I could about the world of journalism and how the media worked, I held a certain level of disdain toward ‘the MSM’, and a few organizations in particular – one of which happened to be Canwest, now known as Postmedia.

Due to my ignorance at the time, I based my view of an entire organization on the workings of  a handful of asinine columnists/editorial writers who’d managed to infuriate me on a daily basis (Gunter, Corbella, Martinuk, to name a few). However, once I had sufficiently acquainted myself with the various sources (and platforms) of information, I began to look at Canwest (Postmedia), and ‘the MSM’ as a whole, in a different way. Rather than associating a given piece of written work with a given media chain (which, as a neophyte, I had foolishly been doing), I instead focused on who was doing the writing. (Quite the ‘revelation’, I know … )

I compiled a list of editors, columnists, and reporters whose work I most enjoyed, who I found to be the greatest source of information and informed analysis/commentary. In doing so, I quickly shed the stereotypical view of ‘the MSM’ as overly biased and/or untrustworthy, and found a good number of those on my ‘favourites’ list were those at Canwest (Postmedia).

I closely followed the work of my ‘favourites’ for years, using what they had written on a given matter as a base from which to embark on hours of research on the issue at hand, for no reason (aside from the ongoing glut of time to fill) other than to satiate my desire to learn about that with which I was unfamiliar. I gained an appreciation of the amount of work required for a single piece of (exceptional) writing, and though I still followed (and supported) various ‘non MSM’ news sites/writers, I began to value the content produced by the traditional print media/journalists at an entirely different level.

I joined twitter during that period as well, and it (obviously) became my network of choice, providing the ability to share what I had read with others, the chance to discuss/debate issues with experts on various matters, and the opportunity connect with the very people whose work I’d followed for years.

Shortly thereafter, I wanted to begin writing about politics and the media (and eventually did, via this blog) but felt like an impostor of sorts; I had no formal journalistic training (read: no J-school), and as far as I was concerned, had no business in the area whatsoever. But with the help of some fine political bloggers and journalists who’d embraced me on twitter, I mustered up the courage to begin to write publicly.

Not that I was (or am, for that matter) particularly good at it, mind you, but I was confident in my ability to research and seemed able to find the words necessary to form seemingly coherent finished products.

And much to my surprise (and delight), I wasn’t mocked; wasn’t shunned by the political/journo community for not being ‘one of them.’ In fact, I received many messages of encouragement, and as the years pressed on and death was no longer the final prognosis, I found I had a new passion outside of the life I had previously known, and the very ‘MSM’ I found suspect back in 2005 had not only become my most trusted source of information (and wicked smart analysis), but a handful of those journalists had offered advice/guidance. Others, friendship.

In addition to the remarkable work they do and the unparalleled in quality content they have a hand in producing, those in print media are some of the finest people I’ve had the fortune of getting to know.

It’s for these reasons that I’m more than willing do my part in keeping their industry alive.

I subscribe to my local Postmedia paper (Calgary Herald), and pay an additional monthly fee to access Postmedia archives. I do the same with the Globe and Mail (Globe Plus), and the Toronto Star. I subscribe to numerous political magazines/weeklies as well, including The Hill Times, Embassy Mag, and Maclean’s, and U.S. publications Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, The Nation, and Mother Jones. (Yes, I still consume news at a ridiculous rate. I very much enjoy it, though don’t quite have the glut of time I relied on to do so before.)

People are quick to complain when the media (in their view) fails to do its job. However, it’s those same people are the least willing to pitch in and ensure there are journalists employed to do the job they are demanding be done.

In my view, there is no question as to the importance of journalism in the traditional sense. That standard of journalism costs money.  Though I don’t have the solution for what ails the industry, I will continue to do my part in sustaining it for as long as it’s around, and hope others will soon come to the same conclusion.

9/11 – A Decade Later

Take this opportunity to educate yourself of the facts surrounding the rise of Radical Islam, Neo-Conservatism, and the Politics of Fear. It may change the way you view the attacks of September 11, the subsequent “war on terror,” and the never-ending wars in the Middle East.

For those largely unfamiliar American Politics, you’ll be surprised to learn how long notorious figures of the George W.Bush administration, namely Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, have been on the political scene.

The BBC Documentary Series: The Power Of Nightmares 

Part 1 -  “Baby it’s Cold Outside“

Part 2 –  “The Phantom Victory”

Part 3 – “The Shadows in the Cave”

Summary/explainer courtesy of CBC’s The Passionate Eye:

Part 1 – Baby It’s Cold Outside

Sayyed Qutb: Father of Radical Islam
In the 1950s Sayyed Qutb, an Egyptian civil servant was sent to the U.S. to learn about its public education system. As he traveled around the county, Qutb became increasingly disgusted by what he felt was the selfish and materialistic nature of American life.

When he returned to Egypt, Qutb turned into a revolutionary. Determined to find some way to control the forces of selfish individualism that he saw in America, he envisioned an Arab society where Islam would play a more central role. He became an influential spokesperson in the Muslim Brotherhood but was jailed after some of its members attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Nasser.

In prison a more radical Qutb wrote several books which argued that extreme measures, including deception and even violence, could be justified in an effort to restore shared moral values to society. He was executed in 1966 for treason in Egypt. But his ideas lived on and formed the basis of the radical Islamist movement.

Leo Strauss: A Neo-Conservative
At the same time Leo Strauss, an American professor of political philosophy, also came to see western liberalism as corrosive to morality and to society. Like Qutb, Strauss believed that individual freedoms threatened to tear apart the values which held society together. He taught his students that politicians should assert powerful and inspiring myths – like religion or the myth of the nation – that everyone could believe in.

A group of young students, including Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama and William Kristol studied Strauss’ ideas and formed a loose group in Washington which became known as the neo-conservatives. They set out to create a myth of America as a unique nation whose destiny was to battle against evil in the world.

Both Qutb and Strauss were idealists whose ideas were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay.

Two Movements
By creating an alliance with the growing Christian fundamentalist movement in America the neo-conservatives rose to power during the Reagan administration. Senior American civil servants and politicians came to believe their view that the Soviet Union was an evil force against which the U.S. should be presented as a force for good.

The neo-conservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision and created a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see. They used anti-communist propaganda which included Donald Rumsfeld’s over-estimation of Soviet military technology and the William Casey led CIA assertion that various terrorist organizations were backed by the Soviet Union to further their cause.

At the same time, the Islamists faced a refusal of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to “see the truth”. Underground Islamic leaders like Ayman Zawahiri, who would become a mentor to Osama bin Laden, ordered the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in an attempt to shock the masses into seeing their version of reality.

Afghanistan: A Battleground 

In 1979, Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan. War in this remote country marked the beginning of key battleground in the Cold War and an extraordinary alliance between radical Islamists in Afghanistan and around the world and the neo-conservatives in the U.S.

Washington provided money and arms including Stinger missiles capable of shooting down Soviet helicopters. But it was Islamic Mujahideen fighters who would fire them. Among the many radical Islamists drawn to Afghanistan was a young, wealthy Saudi called Osama Bin Laden. Long before 9/11, he was seen by neo-conservatives in Washington as one of their foot soldiers, helping fight America’s cause.

After nearly 10 years of fighting, Soviet troops pulled out of Afghanistan and shortly afterwards, their own government collapsed.

Both the neo-conservatives and the Islamists believed that it is they who defeated the “evil empire” and now had the power to transform the world.

Part 2 –  The Phantom Victory

The neo-conservatives – determined to push on with their agenda – were convinced that there were other evil regimes that needed to be conquered in order to spread democracy. So they turned their focus to Saddam Hussein, who had just invaded Kuwait. But at the end of the first Gulf War, President Reagan was not in power and the neo-conservatives no longer had a leader that shared their vision. Once Kuwait was secured, President George HW Bush called a halt to the fighting.

The neo-conservatives turned to the religious right and began a campaign to bring moral and religious issues back into the center of conservative politics. And they invented a new enemy, Bill Clinton, focusing on the scandal surrounding him and Monica Lewinsky.

Meanwhile, the Islamists descended into a cycle of violence and terror to persuade people to follow them. They launched attacks against the leaders of the Arab world – in Egypt and Algeria – to overthrow what they believed were corrupt regimes. Then they began using bloody terrorist attacks to shock ordinary people into rising up.

But both groups failed in their revolutions. The neo-conservatives did not succeed in their attempt to impeach Bill Clinton because polls showed that Americans simply didn’t care about the moral issues involved. And the Islamists – lacking the popular support to topple regimes across the Arab world – returned to Afghanistan.

Defeated, the Islamists formed a new strategy. In the late 1990s Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and a follower of Sayyid Qutb, paid the Taliban to allow them to recruit and train Islamist fighters for attacks on a new enemy – the U.S. The new jihad would be against the source of corruption itself.

Zawahiri and bin Laden began to implement their new strategy in the late 90′s. Suicide bombings outside American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania attracted the attention of the West. And the neo-conservatives now had a new phantom enemy.

Then bin Laden funded a plan first proposed by an Islamic militant, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. On September 11th, 2001 19 hijackers brought down the World Trade Center, killed thousands of Americans and shocked the world.

But the attacks had another dramatic effect: they brought the neo-conservative agenda back into the forefront.

Part 3 – The Shadows in the Cave

In the wake of the shock and panic created by the devastating attack on the World Trade Center, the neo-conservatives reconstructed the radical Islamists in the image of their last evil enemy, the Soviet Union.

They created a sinister web of terror run by Osama bin Laden from his lair in Afghanistan. And they were able to convince George W. Bush to begin a “War on Terror”.

The war in Afghanistan removed bin Laden’s main source of recruits, but the U.S. military and the Northern Alliance also captured and killed many people in the Taliban camps that had nothing to do with bin Laden’s goal.

The story circulated that bin Laden and the core of al-Qaeda had retreated to a complex in Tora Bora, but an exhaustive search revealed no sign of an underground fortress.

The arrests of various groups of suspected terrorists in the U.S. following the September 11 attacks failed to find any substantial evidence of terrorist sleeper cells. Similarly, in the UK, arrests under new terrorism laws have resulted in only three convictions of Islamists, all for fundraising or possessing Islamist literature.

Much of the media coverage of potential terrorist attacks also became highly speculative and sensational. There were reports that al-Qaeda was poised to use a radiological weapon, referred to as a “dirty bomb”, which would kill thousands of people. But nuclear scientists argued that this was a false threat. They said that a “dirty bomb” wouldn’t kill many people from fallout because the radioactive material would be spread thinly by any explosion.

Still, the neo-conservatives had found they could use the threat of Islamist terrorism and claimed that they had found hidden links between al-Qaeda and their old enemy, Saddam Hussein. Iraq became an important enemy against which to unite the U.S., and other politicians such as Tony Blair who wanted to play an important role in protecting their countries from attack.

Politicians and counter-terrorist agents have decided that they must be pro-active in imagining the worst possible attacks and in stopping those who seem likely to carry out attacks. They are convinced that it’s the only way to save the world from a looming catastrophe.

Further viewing: 2011 Maddow/Engel Documentary - Day Of Destruction, Decade of War 

Great reads:

This Is What War Looks Like – The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks took photojournalist Kate Brooks to Afghanistan and Pakistan to cover the fall of the Taliban.

Those Who Face Death  - Photojournalist Kate Brooks spent the decade after 9/11 photographing the U.S. military struggles and political upheaval in the Greater Middle East. The following collection is from her time in Iraq in 2003-2004.

Fareed Zakaria –  Reflections on 9/11 and its aftermath
Juan ColeA tale of two Afghan Leaders, before and after 9/11
Noam Chomsky - The Imperial Mentality and 9/11
Foreign Policy Mag - The Black Hole of 9/11
A Television News ArchiveUnderstanding 9/11
Foreign Policy MagThe 9/11 Anniversary Reader: FAIL edition
Foreign Policy Mag9/11 from Arab Shores
Globe & Mail – The Muslim world’s 9/11 generation emerges from a long shadow 
Al JazeeraThe Decade of 9/11: war without end
SlateTrutherism 2011: The Rise and Fall of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Doug SaundersAl-Qaeda’s zealots of yesteryear turning to politics, democracy
The NationThe Years Since 9/11: A Lost Decade
Mother JonesPatriot Acts
Paul KrugmanThe Years of Shame 
The AtlanticThe Soldier and the Rap Star: A Tale of Two Post-9/11 Students 
Michael Ignatieff9/11 and the age of sovereign failure 
Daily Mail UKThe 9/11 victims America Wants To Forget – the 200 jumpers who’ve been ‘airbrushed from history’
Alternet“I Stayed to Fight” — Being a Muslim Immigrant in Post 9/11 America 
ReutersDecade after 9/11, Afghans languish in Pakistan 
The Independent9/11 lost decade: The American dream, and the missing years 
Reuters Iraq: Victim or beneficiary of September 11 attacks?
Washington PostPublic sees wars in Iraq, Afghanistan as least effective means of reducing terrorism 
New York TimesOne 9/11 tally – 3.3 Trillion 


On TV:

National Geographic Channel9/11 and the American Dream  (Phenominal footage of the day’s events)
Raw Story Paul Simon performs ‘The Sound of Silence’ at Ground Zero

Sounds:

Eminem – Mosh

Sun News Network: Let The (Incredibly Lazy) Astroturfing Begin!

It has been fascinating to watch the Conservative campaign strategy evolve over the past two weeks; working in tandem with Sun TV in a quest to secure a Harper majority, and to destroy the opposition leaders.

Aside from the standard issued talking points submitted by the Conservative war room and subsequently written into Sun TV scripts, the Tories are running a co-ordinated effort with their Sun Media counterparts as they try desperately to reach that magical number of 155 seats.

Take for instance, week number one (April 18-22) where the focus was entirely on Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party, and the ‘threat’ of a coalition:

Brian Lilley, on Ignatieff and the Liberals:

“Michael Igantieff wants to be in power, but do we know where he stands?  He has flipped and flopped on so many big issues that it’s tough to know.  Look at his parliamentary record. Look at where he and his party stands. A quick glance shows that they would bring about a national daycare program to raise your kids for you, and they’d regulate what you can do with your own children by outlawing spanking and any use of force.

Now that part’s important.

Any use of force would be illegal. That could include making it illegal for you to strap your two year old, your wiggly two year old, into their car seat against their will … no parent would be allowed to strap their screming kid into a mini van.

The Liberlas would also expand ‘harm reduction sites’ from Vancouver to other major cities across Canada. What does that mean? Government sanctioned (drug) shooting galleries in a neighbourhood near you.

Oh, and convicts in jail? They’ll get ‘harm reduction’ as well. That’s right, free smack for junkies in jail and a needle exchange program to administer illegal drugs in Canada’s prisons.”

Note, that the ‘harm reduction site’ Lilley despises so much refers to Insite, Vancouver’s safe injection site which Harper has been fighting to have shut down despite clear, scientific, evidence the program saves lives.

You can listen to Lilley, Adler, and Levant discussing this issue, and alternatives  to Insite (such as dumping drug addicts in a deserted place – yes that what Lilley actually proposes), BY CLICKING HERE.

(Let’s not forget Lilley’s “Exclusive: Ignatieff planned the Iraq war!” fabrication, which made star appearance during their first week on the air.)

Enter the weekend, a monumental surge in the polls by Jack Layton and the NDP, and a shift in strategy for week number two (April 25-29), the week of Sun Media’s “Layton caught in Bawdy house!” smear campaign.

Charles Adler, on Layton and the NDP (April 26):

“Jack Layton’s resemblence to Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou – it’s uncanny, both in appearance, and in policy.

NDP love for big government has the potential to turn Canada into the next Greece, with a top heave public sector that could break the neck of the economy. This prospect is scaring a lot of citizens of Adler Nation.

From Peter in Port Rowan, Ontario, he says ‘in my youth I lived in Communist East Germany and we had to adore Vladimir Lenin – now I see a remarkable physical likeness in Layton to Lenin – their socialist policies are pretty close also. De we really want that kind of a Country? God help us and do not let this come to pass.’

Wait a minute … Jack Layton, George Papandreou, Vladimir Lenin – it’s getting a little eerie, don’t you think? Three men, three moustaches, three power alley hair-do’s …”

“Layton doesn’t need 100 (seats) to become Prime Minister. He could do it with fewer than 80. What are the consequences of a coalition led either by the NDP or by the Liberals? David Frum made that clear last night, said that Harper would not govern if he get’s a minority. And the premise is, if Harper doesn’t get the magic 155 seat total, Jack — with the help of Igantieff and Duceppe — Jack could move into 24 Sussex with Olivia.

The ‘Stop Jack’ campaign, in the next few days, may proove meaningless if the blood is already in the water.”

Adler and his favourite (not-an-actual) Liberal Dan Donovan, on Layton (April 29):

Adler – “At this point, what’s most important, I think you and I could agree, what’s most important is not having the NDP at 24 Sussex, I think that’s what’s crucial. So here’s my question to you: If the Liberals end up in the number three spot as now appears likely, if they’re number three will they be willing to do some sort of deal with Stephen Harper, to give the Country as much stability as possible, and to keep Jack and Olivia out of 24 Sussex? I think that’s the question tonight that most people are most interested in pursuing.”

Donovan – “We’ve agreed and disagreed on many things over the past year, but I think one thing we both can agree on is that Jack Layton would be an absolute calamity for this country, and I think a lot of Liberals, like myself, who want reform in the party and want us to reach further and do things better do not see a Jack Layton led coalition.”

Take note of Adler’s statement from April 26: “The ‘Stop Jack’ campaign, in the next few days, may proove meaningless if the blood is already in the water.”

Two days later, on April 28, the domain www.liberalsforharper.ca was registered, and the ‘stop Layton’ Astroturf campaign was officially launched. That evening, Stephen Taylor, director of the National Citizen’s Coalition (NCC), wondered aloud if there were “Liberals out there who would rather vote for Harper than see Jack Layton form any sort of government.”

On the morning of April 29, Taylor introduced liberalsforharper.ca to the public for the first time, feigning ignorance of its origin in the process.

That evening Adler spent a good portion of his show promoting the liberalsforharper.ca cause (as detailed above),  building on a plea he issued to readers earlier in the day:

 “A few years back, (Ignatieff) cracked a few standing beside Stephane Dion. There is very little doubt that when the clock strikes 12 on Monday night, the party of Chretien and Trudeau will have struck out, finishing No. 3 for the first time ever. The big question on Tuesday morning will be, how does the Grit family deal with sickly Uncle Grit?

On Tuesday morning, Dr. Stephen Harper must scrub up, then go into the operating room.

The PM needs to find the right scalpel to save Uncle Grit’s life. If he can find a way to give Michael Ignatieff a shred of dignity, he might be able to prevent Ignatieff from seeking revenge by cutting a deal with Jack Layton, making the NDP leader prime minister.

There is a coalition government in Britain today. It was formed by the party that got the most seats with the party that got the third-most. It was formed by the Conservatives and Liberals. Do we still have a British parliamentary system?

Suck it up boys. The country is surely worth it.”

On April 30, Harper himself began trumpeting the liberalsforharper.ca strategy, both on the campaign trail and through the media, telling the Toronto Star,

“I believe that as the choice becomes clear … a lot of traditional, Liberal, moderate voters, are going to look and going to say that the Conservative platform — and where the Conservative Party is taking the economy — is a hell of a lot closer to what I think than what the NDP has in its platform …”

“I think a lot of Liberals who understand that, are going to think twice and I think ultimately, rather than follow their party blindly down an alley toward the kind of merger with the NDP that Mr. Ignatieff mused about, I think they will take a hard look at voting for this (Conservative) party, and I welcome that.”

As Canadians head to the polls in what, by all accounts, promises to be an historic election, it’ll be interesting to see how the partnership bewteen the Conservatives, Sun Media, and the NCC continues to unfold.

If Harper fails to get his majority, you can be sure Sun Media will be urging Liberals to ‘do the responsible thing’ and ‘save the country from Layton,’ knowing full well a full merger between the Liberals and the NDP is a very real possibility.

And if that happens, the prospect of a Conservative government completely evaporates, not only for the current election cycle, but quite possibly well into the future.

Cross-posted at rabble.ca 

Below is an actual picture from Adler’s show, comparing Layton to Lenin

Sun News Network: Because Facts Have A Well Known Liberal Bias

“Folks, this is gonna be a thing.” ~ Sun TV host Theo Caldwell

Sun News Network, a channel brought to by its own sense of self importance, is the epitome of pseudo-journalism comprised of (self professed) semi-literate on-air personalities with the combined intellectual curiosity of failed Vice Presidential candidate and former half-term Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.

Irresponsible at best, the inherent lack of journalistic integrity is an insult not only to the many well-established, credible, hard working news organizations across the country, but to Canadians who’ve come to expect both accuracy and honesty in reporting.

Simply put, Sun TV is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Conservative Party of Canada, the National Citizen’s Coalition, and the Canadian network of industry funded, Right-leaning ‘think tanks’ dedicated to promoting a given agenda.

Modeling itself after Fox News – ‘Hard News’ in the morning and throughout the afternoon, followed by “Straight Talk” opinion programming during prime time evening hours – it’s hardly surprising that like their southern counterparts, there is little to distinguish between the two.

Take for instance ‘Straight Talker’ and host of Byline, Brian Lilley.

Three days into its network debut, Sun TV’s ‘Hard News’ team began the day with an “exclusive” report from Lilley, who suggested Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was “on the front lines of (the Iraq War) pre-invasion planning.”

‘Hard News’ host Neelam Verma dedicated her entire two-hour show to covering the “bombshell” report, often wondering aloud whether Canadians “know the REAL Michael Ignatieff.”

Joining Verma in “exposing Ignatieff” was Lilley himself, along with Sun TV’s ‘Hard News’ analysts Brigitte Pellerin (wife of Sun Media columnist & Sun TV contributor John Robson, and founder of Canada’s anti-choice movement Pro Woman Life,) and Alex Mihailovich.

Among the notable statement to arise from the two hour assault on reality:

Lilley:  “Ignatieff was on the front lines of pre-invasion planning … his own words show he was intimately involved.”

Verma:  “This is really important information right before the election.”

Pellerin: (noting Ignatieff professed to have been on the sidelines) “Why do I feel this Bill Clintonian debate here by the meaning of sidelines? Really!”

“This new information shows that indeed he was on the front lines. His role was in the pre invasion planning.”

Mihailovich:  “I keep hearing over and over ‘compassion’ coming out of (Ignatieff’s) mouth and how compassionate he is and how Liberals are about compassion … Ignatieff himself was in the war room. He was in the background. He was planning this stuff out. He was helping the US build towards a war.”

“Ignatieff was involved with the US government planning the Iraq war – that’s the bottom line …. Ignatieff was in on the Iraq war”

“I have a document here; This isn’t written by Ignatieff but this is from one of the centers that he chaired, looking at civilian body count and what would be acceptable. Now these are not words of compassion, in my eyes. This is something far beyond. This is cold and constantly it is something these guys in the back room do to go forward, and he was a part of this … Now all of a sudden he’s a peacknik of sorts and he’s compassionate? Like, really!”

Pellerin:  “This is going to be a revelation for a lot of Canadians for how deeply involved Ignatieff was in these ‘cold calculations.’ “

“You can bet the term ‘flip flop’ will be used a lot today, and in the coming days. This is really damaging info.”

“Will the real Michael Ignatieff please stand up?”

Verma:  “Do you think it will have an impact on how Canadians vote?”

Mihailovich:  “I hope it does.”

“The amount of flip-flopping we’re seeing here is unprecedented.”

Where Verma’s morning show left off, subsequent ‘Hard News’ programs picked up, delivering eleven straight hours of fomented outrage, which was then followed by five ‘Straight Talk’ hours of rhetorical hyperbole.

Given the amount of time, and effort, dedicated solely to the coverage of Lilley’s “earth shattering investigative journalism,” one would assume the accusations regarding Ignatieff’s involvement in the Iraq war were unequivocal; that the article was thoroughly vetted and meticulously fact checked, as is standard procedure with all credible news organizations.

Of course, that would require Sun Media (Quebecor/QMI) to be either credible or a news organization, neither of which it qualifies as.

Within hours of the report saturating the Sun TV airwaves, respected journalist Glen McGregor put Lilley to shame by swiftly, and thoroughly, disproving the entire premise of his piece.

Following a run down of the facts regarding Ignatieff and his activities with the Carr Center for Human Rights, including listing multiple NGO’s in attendance for the “Understanding Collateral Damage” conference, McGregor levels the following blow:

“If the Sun was unaware these groups also participated in ‘invasion planning,’ that’s just shoddy reporting. It took me four minutes to find the participants list on the Carr Center website.

If the Sun knew and chose not to include this fact in the story, readers can draw their own conclusions about the integrity of the reporter and his news organization.”

Ouch.

Ironically, “Hard News” personality Krista Erickson hosts a ‘Media Monitor’ segment with Lilley wherein they heap criticism on other media personalities; the first one taking place two days after Lilley’s failed attempt at investigative reporting.

In the category, “Barefaced Bias”, Lilley scolds the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge for his interview  with Ignatieff versus his interview with Stephen Harper.

Lilley: “the tone was different … with Ignatieff it was relaxed, it was sitting back, it was in his studio; it was cordial. There was a much more aggressive nature with Stephen Harper than there was with Michael Ignatieff. (Mansbridge) constantly interrupted him … Harper is constantly interrupted.”

Assuming Lilley watched both interviews, he had to have known, as was explained by Mansbridge at the beginning of each, it was the politicians who chose the manner in which to be interviewed. Ignatieff was “relaxed, sitting back, in studio” because he chose the “in studio” option. Harper, on the other hand, selected “location of choice,” his choice being to stand awkwardly inside a minor Hockey arena.

Lilley’s suggestion that Harper was “constantly interrupted” by Mansbridge is countered by observations made by respected journalist, and national editor of Maclean’s magazine, Andrew Coyne:

It’s telling that in interviews Harper simply talks through and over questions he does not wish to answer. The interviewer asks a question. Harper talks around it. So the interviewer tries to follow up. At that point most (people) yield long enough to at least listen to the question. Harper does not. He just ploughs on. He won’t take the cue. Saw that (with) Mansbridge, now (with) FriesenCan’t recall whether he was always that way, or only since becoming (Prime Minister). But that absolute refusal to yield the floor is not incidental.

Next, Lilley names Tonda MacCharles of the Toronto Star as the “Sloppiest Story” of the week, referring to her coverage of controversial remarks made by Conservative candidate Brad Trost about the funding status of funding of Planned Parenthood.

Lilley claims MacCharles “failed to contact the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London, England,” claiming he did, and was told “the election got in the way” of their funding and “there’s no problem with the Harper government.”

Had Lilley bothered to read past the first paragraph of the article, he’d have come across this:

“William Stairs, chief of staff in Oda’s ministerial office said in an email to the Star late Wednesday that despite Trost’s claim, no decision has yet been made on Planned Parenthood’s application because CIDA is ‘still reviewing the file.’

Brad Trost did not respond to the Star’s queries.

Ryan Sparrow, spokesman for the national Conservative campaign, responded late Wednesday via email, and did not deny that the group had been turned down.

He said only: ‘We base funding decisions on the quality of the proposals we receive. We are proud of our international assistance record and we are proud of the results that have been accomplished under our Conservative government.’

CIDA had not yet responded to the Star’s questions on the Planned Parenthood’s funding applications.”

In light of recent reports which detail Planned Parenthood’s struggle with the Harper Government, it begs the question whether Lilley spoke with the organization at all.

Elizabeth Payne of Postmedia writes:

“In 2010, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper was getting kudos for putting maternal health on the international radar screen, Canada, for the first time in 40 years, provided no money to support an organization which is one of the world’s biggest health providers to vulnerable women.

As a result, International Planned Parenthood Federation was forced to draw on reserve dollars and had to make cuts to some technical services to make up a $6-million shortfall, officials at the organization’s London office confirmed.”

So, that’s journalism : 2 -  Lilley: 0.

Evidently, the Sun News Network can’t even accurately consume the news, let alone report on it. It’s a woefully inadequate, amateurish parody of itself, destined to fail miserably once viewers have to start paying subscription fees.

It will, however, be interesting to see who the ‘champions of the free market’ point the finger at following when they meet their inevitable demise.

George Soros? The ‘homosexual agenda’? Muslims? Frank Graves? The Human Right’s Commissions?

Ah,who am I kidding? They’ll blame the CBC.

Cross-posted at rabble.ca

Ezra Levant vs Reality – A Prelude To Fox News North

The battle between supporters and opponents of Sun TV News – the Fox News style channel headed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former communications director Kory Teneycke – reached new heights when members of the ‘Fox News North’ team took issue with a growing online petition urging the CRTC to reject Quebecor’s (QMI) request to “make it mandatory for cable and satellite networks to provide access to the channel ‘for a maximum period of three years to effectively expose and promote its programming to viewers across Canada’.”

In an article entitled Anti-Sun TV News campaign in U.S., Sun Media (QMI)’s Brian Lilley alleges the petition is the work of “a group of left-wing Americans supporting interests in Canada that don’t want to see competition in news broadcasting … backed by MoveOn.org a lobby group that has taken millions of dollars from currency speculator George Soros.”

What followed is known as the “saga of the Great Sun TV Petition,” in which Teneycke, fellow Sun Media (QMI) personality Ezra Levant, and Conservative blogger/activist and founder of the BloggingTories.ca Stephen Taylor, took to twitter to express their ‘outrage’, as ‘someone‘ spammed the petition with the names of journalists, actors, and fictional characters, and simultaneously penned an editorial about “why Canada needs Sun TV News.”

In their co-ordinated effort, Teneycke, Levant, and Taylor not only attacked Avaaz.org - a global online advocacy community whose co-founder and Executive Director, Ricken Patel, happens to be Canadian – as a foreign operation, but specifically, and repeatedly, refer to George Soros – a progressive philanthropist who is despised by Right Wing America.

By connecting Soros to the Avaaz petition, Lilley, Levant, Taylor, and Tenycke aim to stoke fear in their followers who, more often than not, are avid consumers of extreme Right Wing media such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart (BigGovernment.com), Pamela Gellar (AtlasShrugs.com), WorldNetDaily.com, and Judi McLeod (Canadafreepress.com).

Soros can be found at the centre of nearly every conspiracy concocted by the aforementioned, widely discredited media sources, who’ve alleged:

Soros is a Nazi Collaborator
Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block: Soros
Obama-Soros Blueprint For US Surrender To Islam
Soros’ New World Order
Soros is Obama’s Secret Boss
The Oil Spill Was An Obama-Soros Act Of War Against The United States
Soros Is The Anti-Christ
Soros is The Biggest Enemy Of Freedom
Soros And Obama: Crime Inc.

As if on cue, Levant – who spent the summer of 1994 in Washington, D.C., in an internship arranged by the Right Wing Charles G. Koch Foundation Summer Fellow Program – used his Sunday Sun column to import the ‘Soros is scary’ propaganda from his conspiracy theorist counterparts in the U.S.

In his piece Moral hollowness at work, Levant claims Soros, a Hungarian Jew born in 1930, survived the holocaust by ‘collaborating with the Nazis.’

“First he worked for the Judenrat,” writes Levant. “That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.”

This oft repeated ‘nazi collaborator’ smear is taken from the pages of The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, a thoroughly discredited book written by right-wing pundits David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

Levant’s fictitious claim that Soros “collaborated with the nazis” and “worked for the Judenrat,” is based wholly on unsourced allegations, originating in The Shadow Party, and echoed by Right Wing pundits.

Moving on, Levant writes:

“(Soros’ father) hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let (Soros) live with him. (Soros) helped the official confiscate property from Jews.

By collaborating with the Nazis, (Soros) survived the Holocaust. He turned on other Jews to spare himself.

How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Has it kept him up at night?

Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? ‘Not at all,’ Soros answered.

‘No feeling of guilt?’ asked Kroft. ‘No,’ said Soros. ‘There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.’

A Nazi would steal the Jews’ property anyways. So why not him?”

The assertion that Soros confiscated property of other Jews – including the imaginary interview Levant creates by cropping and rearranging portions of the actual 60 Minutes Soros interview – was debunked years ago, when the 60 Minutes interview was first selectively edited by conservative columnist Martin Peretz.

As evidenced by the unedited portion of the interview, the conversation between Kroft and Soros bears little semblance to the version scribed by Levant:

Kroft: You’re a Hungarian Jew …

Soros:Mm-hmm.

Kroft: … who escaped the Holocaust …

Soros: Mm-hmm.

Kroft: … by posing as a Christian.

Soros: Right.

Kroft: And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.

Kroft: In what way?

Soros: That one should think ahead. One should understand that — and anticipate events and when, when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a — a very personal threat of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

Kroft: I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Soros: Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t … you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.

Kroft: No feeling of guilt?

Soros: No.

Kroft: For example, that, ‘I’m Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be these, I should be there.’ None of that?

Soros: Well, of course, … I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in the markets — that is I weren’t there — of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would – would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

As they say, context is everything.

Soros had ‘no feeling of guilt’ because the property was going to be taken whether he was standing by watching, pretending to be the Christian Godson of an employee of Hungary’s Ministry of Agriculture, or whether he was among the Jews apprehended by the Nazis.

He did not, himself, take any property, nor did he condone it. He was an adolescent who watched it happen; who was powerless in the face of certain death; who could have done nothing to stop what he witnessed.

The remainder of Levant’s article plays out in the same fashion; inaccurate claims, misattributed quotes, baseless allegations.

Borrowing again from the Right Wing blogosphere, Levant claims “(Soros) called the world’s financial crisis ‘the culmination of my life’s work’.”

Had Levant bothered to locate the original source of this claim, he’d have learned the entire article has since been pulled, and replaced with a statement acknowledging that Soros “in fact made no such comment.”

The article reaches an ultimate low, however, when Levant invokes Soros’ dead mother, stating “he is a man who boasted he offered to help his mother commit suicide. Apparently he didn’t see enough death in Hungary.”

This repulsive attack reveals far more about Levant than it does Soros; Especially given that, in full context, Soros in no way ‘boasts’ about offering to help his mother end her life.

In 1994 at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Soros reflected on the experience of dying and bereavement in America while endorsing the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.

In his address, Soros explained how he “chose the problem of dying” as an area promote a better understanding “because of some very personal experiences in connection with the death of my parents, both of whom I was very devoted to and loved dearly.”

“My father died at home in 1963. He was terminally ill. Although he agreed to an operation, he didn’t particularly want to survive it because he was afraid that the combination of the illness and the operation would invade and destroy his autonomy as a human being. Unfortunately, that in fact is what happened. After the operation he had very little time left. I’m afraid I kind of wrote him off at that point. I was there when he died, yet I let him die alone. I could see him, but I wasn’t at his bedside. The day after he died I went into the office. I didn’t talk about my fathers death. So I kind of denied his dying, I certainly didn’t participate in it. Afterwards, I read Kubler-Ross and learned that I might have maintained contact with him if I tried. Had I read Kubler-Ross earlier I would have probably held his hand, because I did love him. I just didn’t know that it might make a difference. I forgave myself because I did not know any better

My mothers death was more recent. She had joined the Hemlock Society and had at hand a means of doing away with herself. I asked her if she needed my help; I offered it, although I wasn’t particularly keen to do it. But I would have helped her because I felt that I owed it to her. At the point of decision, however, she did not want to take her own life, and I’m glad she didn’t. Her decision gave the family a chance to rally around and be there as she prepared to die. And this time we did maintain good contact right to the end.”

Hooray for context.

Before ending this piece of fiction disguised as an article, Levant labels Soros as a “sociopath” who “has turned his attention to Canada” using “one of his front groups, called Avaaz” to petition the CRTC to reject “Sun Media’s license for a TV news channel.”

“The petition is a fraud!” Levant rages. “And the whole campaign is run out of New York.”

Cue the scary music for Levant’s grand finale:

“Do you think Soros should determine what you can watch on TV? Do you think that decision should be made in New York? Is our freedom of speech just another trinket for him to buy and sell? Hasn’t Soros silenced enough voices in his life?”

Really, Ezra?  “Hasn’t Soros silenced enough voices in his life?”

Classy.

As stated earlier, Avaaz is a global operation. Launched in 2007 with the intent to “organize citizens everywhere to help close the gap between the world we have and the world most people want,” Avaaz “has grown to 5.5 million members from every country on earth, becoming the largest global web movement in history.”

Being a global operation, Canadians are able to launch petitions for Canadian interests; Decisions “made in New York?” Not at all.

So where exactly does Soros factor into this debate?

He doesn’t.

Despite the repeated assertions of the contrary, Avaaz is not a “front group” for Soros, and by all accounts (excluding the unproven claims saturating conservative websites), Soros is, in no way, involved with this organization.

But why let facts get in the way of a good story, eh Levant?

After all, it helps draw attention away from reports of last year’s New York lunch date between Prime Minister Harper, Teneycke (driving force behind Sun TV News, who was still Harper’s director of communications at the time), News Corp. (parent company of Fox News) chairman Rupert Murdoch, and Fox News president Roger Ailes.

Though they’re (now) claiming not to be a Canadian version of Fox News, the ‘journalism‘ exhibited future Sun TV News host Ezra Levant provides a clear example of what Canadians can expect from Teneycke’s tabloid news organization, post ideological purge.

Fair and Balanced.” “We Report, You Decide.” “Hard NewsStraight Talk.”

They distort, you comply.

The CRTC wants to hear from the public regarding Sun TV News’ application. Make your voice heard in a single click!

You can also weigh in by signing the Avaaz.org petition.

Cross-posted at rabble.ca

—-

Two updates:

First, Kory Teneycke has resigned from Sun Media (QMI) as an RCMP investigation into the spamming of the Avaaz.org petition edges closer to him. (Replacing Teneycke is former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s spokesman, Luc Lavoie — so it’s one Tory insider for another.

*Note – as of January 2011, Teneycke is officially back in the saddle at Sun Media (QMI) *

Second, George Soros is threatening to sue Sun Media (QMI) - which includes Levant.

HERE is a snippet of Levant’s twitter attacks on Soros, and HERE is a snippet of Levant’s attacks on me following the publication of this article.

—–

Update – Saturday September 18, 1:00 am

Sun Media (QMI) and Levant issue a retraction and apology for Levant’s column:

On September 5, 2010, a column by Ezra Levant contained false statements about George Soros and his conduct as a young teenager in Nazi-occupied Hungary.

Upon receiving a letter of complaint from Mr. Soros’s legal counsel on September 13, 2010, Sun Media Corporation always intended to publish a retraction and apology for this column. Despite constant efforts on both sides, Sun Media and Mr. Soros’s counsel were unable to reach agreement on the content of a retraction.

The management of Sun Media wishes to state that there is no basis for the statements in the column and they should not have been made.

Sun Media, this newspaper and Ezra Levant retract the statements made in the column and unreservedly apologize to Mr. Soros for the distress and harm this column may have caused to him.

Levant, Coulter Protect Free Speech

The rules laid out for attendees of the Coulter event in Calgary demonstrate who’s ‘free speech’ Ezra Levant, Ann Coulter, and event sponsors International Free Press Society are seeking to defend…their own.

Levant and Coulter both hide behind the guise of ‘free speech’ to justify their slander, bigotry, and blatant racism.
There is a difference between ‘free speech’ and ‘hate speech.’ Sadly, neither one of these neo-conservatives seems to be able to distinguish between the two.

Cross-posted at www.rabble.ca

Fomented Outrage And Phoney Censorship

Ezra Levant, the self described expert on free speech in Canada, is Outraged! over the cancelation of Ann Coulter‘s scheduled Tuesday appearance at the University of Ottawa.

Levant’s been busy on twitter, Facebook, TV and radio, desperately trying to sell the public his version of events and paint himself and Coulter as hapless victims of ‘left wing censorship.’ Take, for example, the conversation between Levant and Rob Breakenridge, just hours after the event was cancelled:

Levant: “It’s been a terrible night for our reputation as a freedom loving nation . The University of Ottawa, which is one of two of the Universities in our Nation’s capital, with the cameras of the world rolling, showed that when it comes to freedom of speech for controversial views, for dissenting views, there is no room in Canadian academia, or at least at the University of Ottawa, and it was an embarrassing night. It was an international embarrassment and frankly it’s contrary to our Canadian values. In Canada, we believe in freedom of speech even for views that we don’t like, but at U of O, they had a more closed minded approach that I think is a great shame”

Breakenridge: “You know, I mean it’s unbelievable. Just out of curiosity, I know the University of Ottawa is one of the campuses that holds this odious Israeli Apartheid week each year. You can go look at the speakers who spoke this year, the speakers who spoke last year; there’s some pretty radical and nasty anti Israel folks being brought into speak at the University. The student establishment’s OK with that. Even the pro Israel students are OK. They understand free speech. It’s unbelievable what happens when someone shows up who politically incorrect or who’s views run afoul of this student establishment, we saw tonight.”

Levant: “You’re right. I was there I was in the room. We had hired so many private security guards because the University insisted that we do at our own expense, where as when left wing speakers come in they are never asked to pay for their own security, and yet with all the private security and all the police, the police made the determination that 2000 people outside who had whipped each other up on facebook saying lets bring thing to throw at her, let’s tar and feather her, the police made a decision that is was dangerous, it was unsafe to proceed with the event and that the public and the speaker were at risk of physical jeopardy, and I want to ask you listeners Rob, does that sound like Canada to you?
“…Here at the University of Ottawa, the vice president set a totally different tone he sent a letter basically to Ann Coulter that if she dared attend, she was at risk of being charged with a crime, and while all these young cuffs looked to the vice president said ‘oh you set the tone, so it’s OK to try and keep a speaker off campus, so it;s OK to make subtle threats’ and they got the message and they did exactly what that vice president did, the basically followed his instructions they added a degree of menace to it…if I was a University of Ottawa alumnus tonight I’d be deeply ashamed of my school.”

Breakenridge: “Yeah, we’ll it’s an embarrassment for this school, it’s an embarrassment as you say in many ways for this Country. Now from what I’ve read, I read of tables being knocked over, I read of fire alarms being pulled, I mean everything they could resort to to stop this from happening. Now what were you seeing? what did you hear about?”

Levant: “…We were inside, we were a little bit worried, we knew that security had called the event off, we knew that it was unsafe for ann coulter but we did not make that announcement for some period of time until we could confirm that we had a safe way out, there was about 150 people in the room at that time so we didn’t want to cause a panic by letting them know that the violent protestors had blocked the front doors, I mean that’s not something you announce to 150 people so we just sort of waited…”

“But you know, In a way Rob, let me look at the silver lining here, the purpose of this free speech tour sponsored by the international free press society, was to demonstrate what freedom of speech looks like in action, and it’s ironic that it took an american commentator to expose the weaknesses in Canada’s free speech. And although it’s terrible that the speech was cancelled and that the threat of violence is unacceptable, in a way it proved our whole point that when it comes to freedom of speech, that Canada has fallen a long way down…It’s not just that they destroyed Ann Coulter’s right to speak, it’s that they destroyed 450 Canadians right to listen.”

“Maybe some people would agree with her, maybe some people would disagree with her. But they’ll never have that right to make up their own mind because a bunch of thugs shut the whole thing down, that is so un canadian, and for that to happen with smiling face of Francois Houle, the vice president beaming over everything, is disgusting…Let’s show that Calgary cares about freedom, even if Ottawa doesn’t. I think we can prove on Thursday that Alberta and Calgary are strong and free we’re not like Ottawa, rotting and censorious.”

It’s a shame that Levant doesn’t share the same dedication to accuracy as he does to freedom of speech; Perhaps he wouldn’t come across as such a blatant liar. The fact is that the entire fiasco was likely pre planned to drum up publicity for Thursday’s event in Calgary, and give Levant and Coulter a reason to file a frivolous complaint with the Canadian Human Right Commission they so despise. Even the ‘Coulter in Canada’ website has been updated with the screaming banner ‘Cancelled – Free Speech Suppressed‘ across the Ottawa event.

From the urgent and utter hysteria coming from the Coulter and Levant camp, you’d assume they must have been legitimately wronged. In this instance, however, the facts simply don’t support their arguments.

Just as he did in the radio interview, Levant claimed on twitter that “Cops advised that proceeding with Coulter event in face of protesters would be dangerous to her and the crowd…Police officer tonight at Coulter event, faced with 2,000 screaming protesters, ‘we cannot guarantee her safety.’…Sgt. Dan Beauchamp on shutting down Coulter event: ‘it’s a public safety issue.’”

Every one of these assertions is utter nonsense.

The CBC’s Kady O’Mally reports that “it was not the police who ‘shut it down.’ I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was HER security team that made the decision to call off the event. ‘We gave her options’ — including, he said, to ‘find a bigger venue’ — but “they opted to cancel … It’s not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision.”

O’Mally also debunks the claim of ’2000 screaming protesters,’ noting that “the number of protesters (has) been variously estimated between a few dozen to 200,” an attendee asserting that “at no time was there any evidence of physical threat. To the extent that there were safety issues, it was because you had 600 people coming out for a talk and the organizers had absolutely no logistical plan to handle it. People annoyed like they get annoyed waiting to get into a jammed hockey game. But no ‘threat’ environment.”

It’s ironic that an event purported to be about free speech and media bias, had barred media from entering the venue. The statement Levant gave to the semi filled auditorium before they evacuated, chastising the University of Ottawa for ‘censorship,’ adding “a fish rots from the head down,” is also rather comical. In essence, Levant is chastising himself, Coulter, and the Conservatives who organized the event; After all they are the ones who ultimately nixed the event, censoring themselves in the process.

No matter how vile or inflammatory she is, Coulter has every right to speak in Canada; One doesn’t have to be intelligent or credible in order to run their mouth, as demonstrated by the existence of Fox News Channel (where Coulter is a frequent contributor.)

I personally welcome the opportunity for Coulter to share her ‘wisdom’ with Canadians, if only to demonstrate just how ignorant she truly is.

Cross-posted at rabble.ca