The Toronto Star is a paper that takes great pleasure in playing fast and loose with the truth. While it purports to be a news service, the fact that it is no better than any propagandist journal that was ever printed in the Soviet Union is provable. You can point to it. Unlike most papers, this reality becomes obvious upon reading just a few issues. And the more you familiarize yourself with the paper, the greater your disgust at its dishonesty, its falsification of facts and the agenda driven manipulations that grace not only its op-eds, but also its front pages on a daily basis.
Years ago, when I lived in Toronto, I was a short time subscriber of the Star. Never before had I seen a paper in which the other side of any issue isn’t only attacked, its points are rendered non-existent. In the narrow minded and false world of the Star there are no conservatives. Unless, that is, there’s a need to incite hatred or disdain among readers. That’s where conservatives make for very useful fodder.
Attacks range from the comical to the obscene. Star columnist Richard Gwyn once opined an entire piece on how Canadian conservatives aren’t Canadian at all. That column, while audacious, was actually mild by the Star’s standards, by which Conservatives have routinely been maligned and falsely ascribed character traits that would be unkind if said of a vampire bat.
The reasons for conservative views are never published. All that the Star will tell its readers is that conservatives are “dangerous,” “extremists,” and so forth (and those are mild examples of what’s written in its pages). In doing so, they refer not to third world revolutionists, but rather to those who espouse opinions that are shared by the majority of Americans, Western Canadians and indeed many Eastern Canadians as well. Simply put, what the Star is doing isn’t just keeping their readers ignorant of any other point of view. Their tactics are fanning the flames of hatred against a large segment of Canadians on a daily basis.
If a conservative were to write of liberals with one iota of the smears, jears and slurs that regularly grace the Star’s hallowed pages, he or she would find themselves in front of a Human Rights Tribunal. Yet in the minds of the Star’s editors, their unending attacks on conservatives are just the way things are.
Liberals who get their opinions of conservatives from news sources such as the Star are as clueless to what we think as were citizens of the Soviet Union of the Western world and of the mechanics of a free market economy. (The Pravda, the Star’s East Block soul mate, routinely described Western countries as places where people are left dying on the street as others pass by and laugh.) And while such one sidedness is not the exclusive domain of the Star, the Star is alone in the viciousness, vindictiveness and obsessive drumbeat of its attacks. What’s more, it also plays fast and loose with hard facts.
One tactic the Star uses is page placement. When a poll, not matter how dubious or singular in nature, shows the Liberals leading in public opinion, you can expect to see it reported as a front page story. By contrast, Conservative leads are relegated much farther to the back. The same is true with regard to favorable and unfavorable news about the respective parties.
This juxtaposition was best seen when Jean Chretien famously offered up what he claimed to be a two year old napkin to show that he had no interest in a golf course that benefited from government funding (official records told a different story than the napkin). That story was sent to the inside pages of the Star. The fact that the then Canadian Alliance, the opposition party, had accepted a perfectly legal anonymous donation was page one news. Yes, the party had passed a resolution that all donations be public, the only party to do so at the time, but an oversight by the opposition involving no impropriety hardly trumps a willfully effected prime ministerial scandal.
But that’s just how Liberals play politics. That’s no excuse, but it’s to be expected. What transpired only shows the Toronto Star to be a non-independent political mouthpiece, a spin paper, not a news source. What’s shocking about the Star is best illustrated by another example that happened in the same year.
When the 2000 intifada broke out among Palestinian militants, much of the world was appalled. It grew worse when innocent children were targeted for assassination by Islamic extremists. The Star, which had long been a ridiculously one sided advocate for the Palestinian side also condemned the baby slaughter, but said that it makes the world not care what happens to either side.
In the Star’s world, Israel’s self defense was as disdainful as the Palestinian targeting of children. And isn’t that the extent of how the radical left views the military, even with regard to measures needed for self defense? They view self protection with disdain and those who engage in it as second class (at best) to the supine quasi-Marxists that make up the so-called intelligentsia, a misnomer with no better meaning of the latter word. In the eyes of the Star, it does not matter that Israel only took possession of the territories in an unprovoked war in which enemies that had attacked it since the first day of its existence sought to wipe it off the face of the map. Nor did it matter that it was Israel, and only Israel, that initiated all peace measures in the hopes of securing a real peace and was the only party to ever give any concessions, wishful acts that were instead viewed as signs of weakness by the terrorists and therefore led to more attacks against the West’s only reliable ally in the Middle East. Israel did what it needed to in its defense.
Although Israel did not start the shootings, defensive actions taken by Western allies are typically viewed with condescension by the Star, that would instead have Israel host a big kumbaya for all sworn enemies surrounding it. This disdain of Western self preservation is also what leads the Star to largely ignore Chinese communist brutality, Chavez’ attacks on individual rights, acts of brutality that are par for the course in fundamentalist Iran and China and Iran’s overtures to Venezuela, which may well be the beginnings of a Cuban Missile Crisis-like situation.
Similarly, the Star has taken great liberties with its nonsensical portrayals of revisionist history. In the run up to the 2006 Canadian election, the Star featured an op-ed penned by a Toronto high school teacher that John. A. MacDonald would be a Liberal if he were alive today. The fact that even the most cursory glance of policy and political philosophy shows that all prime ministers up until St. Laurent were much to the right of today’s Conservatives (with Pearson having the most in common with Harper) was apparently lost on the Star. And par for the course, no opposing op-ed was allowed.
In another case of political spin disguised as journalism, the Star also offered up a pre-election whopper that the Conservative platform would reverse Canada’s social programs to pre 1919 levels. I may not have read all of the CPC platform, but certainly doing away with Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, disability and unemployment benefits would have caught the attention of more than the Star’s hysterical op-ed page.
And it gets worse. Even fallen war heroes are not immune from the Star’s political skew. As Michael Petrou pointed out on Macleans’ blog, just a few weeks ago the Star ran a headline that highlighted the uncle of a fallen soldier’s claim that Afghanistan was a lost war. The Star had interviewed the soldier’s mother, who had mentioned that her son, Cpl. Thomas James Hamilton, believed strongly in the cause and had volunteered for three tours of duty. The Star buried those facts inside the story and ran with the politicized headline instead, giving readers an overall impression that stood in stark contrast to the fallen soldier’s beliefs. Fortunately their online editors had the decency to change the headline for the web.
The Star has also found a creative way to defend their bias. Years ago, after a few short months as a reader, I cancelled my subscription due to their anti-conservative and anti-Israel bias. I told them as much. That got me a letter, supposedly from their publisher, stating that they have no bias as they regularly host a citizen advisory board. The fact that they had such a form letter available was a testament to the fact that more than one person had canceled their subscription for the same reason. But I found the cover/excuse to be an interesting one. To be sure, no one who cancelled their patronage of the paper was invited to take part in the advisory panel. The panel was filled with good likeminded leftists, brainwashed academics (another misnomer) and activists for groups that have little regard for the safety of the Western world. What the publisher was essentially saying was that a room full of leftists and radical activists is the Star’s idea of a diverse group. He didn’t need to send that letter. That much was already apparent from their op-eds (and unfortunately from their “news reporting” as well).
All of the above are pitiful examples of propaganda disguised as journalism. But the magnitude of the Star’s manipulations is most grotesquely displayed in the columns of featured writer Linda McQuaig.
McQuaig writes exclusively about leftist causes. That itself would be fine. But in her defense of logically indefensible positions, she reinvents the rules of math (and just about whatever else she can grasp at). Her end goal is for insane propositions to be taken as fact by readers who don’t care to follow her convoluted reasoning and simply accept her conclusions.
A prime example of this is her past assertion that Canada has, in essence, a flat tax. Despite all studies showing that Canadians pay an average of 50% of their revenues in some form of government taxation (income, sales, capital gains, etc.) and despite the even clearer fact that lower income earners pay less and those who earn more pay more, McQuaig single handedly reinvented the laws of arithmetic to argue that all Canadians really pay between 30-35% in taxes. If we do indeed have a flat rate, she argued (the point of her reinventing math in the first place), then any tax cuts would amount to the poor paying the greatest percentage. Of course, both a cursory glance and a substantive look at actual tax rates shows otherwise and even the EU has largely adopted tax cuts as a way to stimulate jobs and investment. But why write the truth when rubbish is a good substitute? After all, the Star won’t report the truth.
Similarly, in various columns, McQuaig has blamed former Premier Mike Harris for today’s young offenders, written that Harper will cut social spending so drastically that, from the way she describes it, he’ll send Canada back to the middle ages (I guess the PMO never got the note) and otherwise fills her columns with tales of vast and abundant conspiracies. Again, if it were a conservative making such claims of the opposite side, the outcry from the left would be audible 100 miles away. Either that or they’d be wholly ignored. No paper would print their unsubstantiated ramblings. No such luck with the Toronto Star.
McQuaig also has another trait. Like so many of the radical left, her sympathies lie with terrorists who she sides with, always, against Israel. There are simply no radical leftist fads or causes celebres that escape her narrow minded world view. Unlike many on her side, she tries to support these fancifully misbegotten notions with logic. As with math, when the logic or facts don’t fit, she invents them or quotes others who do it for her.
No where is there a better example of this than in her latest column, one in which she decries Canada’s support for Israel. (It should be of note that Canada’s support for Taiwan, India or any other allies fighting a dictatorial enemy may also not meet with McQuaig’s approval. But I assume she’ll have to confer with her “professors” before she issues a pronouncement on same one way or another.) Again, she does not find it sufficient to merely state her opinion and move on. In this case too, she must manipulate reality in a way that combines the talents of a communist propaganda minister with those of an acrobatic contortionist.
McQuaig does not once make mention of the 80 rockets that Hamas lobbed into populated areas of Israel. The fact that Israel and Hamas signed a six month truce, which Hamas refused to resign is also ignored. In fact, McQuaig quotes Richard Falk, a man she refers to as a “Jewish-American professor,” as saying that the situation was Israel’s fault for having entered into Gaza a month ago on a military incursion.
The truth is that intermittent attacks coming from Gaza were commonplace even after the ceasefire was signed. Hamas continually broke the terms and conditions throughout its six month duration. Last month, the Israeli Army found that Hamas supporters were digging a tunnel toward Israel that presented a clear security risk. Israel destroyed the tunnel and left.
As her column progresses, her other claims continue to decry incredulity. She blames Israel for sectioning off Gaza. The problem is that Gaza also has an equally long border with Egypt, so Israel could not unilaterally section it off. McQuaig knows this, so she again relies on Falk as the source of her seemingly (as well as actually) incredulous claim. To be sure, Israel did block off Gaza after rocket attacks persisted. But if Gaza was at all reasonable, why would both Israel and Egypt see the need to block it off? Israel still allowed food and vital supplies in, McQuaig’s reference to food shortages (for which she again quotes Falk, as only he and Hamas have made this claim) is unsubstantiated and probably countered by the mere fact that all Hamas fighters have clearly had ample strength and resources to continue fighting over the past few days.
What’s also missing from the picture is that Israel gave the Palestinian Authority in Gaza its autonomy in the hopes that a lasting peace could be cemented. Had they not done so, the Israelis would still be there and there’d be no argument over border crossings. So the argument that Israel has some kind of desire to reenter Gaza is scurrilous. They could have kept it in the first place.
But who is this Richard Falk who McQuaig so relies on, and whose singular claims are taken by McQuaig as fact? Well, a simple google search immediately exposes who Falk is and shows him to be little more than a Hamas mouthpiece, albeit one with other very interesting ties as well.
Falk is a professor emeritus. He is also a Special Rapporteur for the UN. But as Pajama Media’s Ron Radosh succinctly puts it: “Falk’s appointment was made, not surprisingly, by the chairman of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D’escoto Brockman of Nicaragua, the Sandinista liberation theologian who was himself appointed by Daniel Ortega. Throughout D’escoto’s entire career, he has been a left-wing ideologue, whose anti-Americanism is legendary.”
Yes, Nicaragua is on the UN Human Rights Commission, as is Saudi Arabia. They do not designate all appointees, but one prominent Ortega ally found Falk to be just the man for a Special Rapporteur position. Perhaps Father D’escoto is a McQuaig fan too. But aside from being a pal to Ortega’s pals, Falk also has some opinions about Hamas that would shock even their Palestinian counterpart Fatah (which has also engaged in terror and has yet to renounce the “Jerusalem Martyrs Brigade” of suicide bombers with allegiance to Fatah).
Among Falk’s pronouncements is that Hamas should not be branded a terrorist organization (what a man who thinks that an unrenounced past history of targeting infants doesn’t qualify a group as terrorist is doing working for the UN Human Rights Commission is a question best left to them) and that Hamas’ legitimacy is recognized by other Palestinian groups. He also views the suicide bombings and the targeting of civilians as the “right of resistance.” By contrast, he compares the Israelis, (who have taken precaution after precaution not to target civilians, and seek to minimize casualties even when Hamas terrorists barricade themselves in civilian areas – Israel is, again, also the only side ever to have given real concessions) to Nazis.
Yes, Richard Falk may be Jewish, but he’s probably one of the only Jews aside from Meir Lansky to be denied entry into Israel. The reason he was turned back at Ben Gurion airport was due to the fact that even before he started his investigation, he was making the above listed pronouncements and blaming Israel once again for the current crisis. In the words of the Israeli foreign ministry, Falk’s mission was “profoundly distorted and conceived as an anti-Israeli initiative.”
Falk has no first hand knowledge of the situation. In short, not only is a he a Hamas mouthpiece (who, again, makes statements that would even be countered by Abbas), he’s also a fraud. There’s no way he could have known what was happening on the ground. His ridiculous assertions and public statements were made before he arrived, and because of them, he was turned back. Israel has let in scores of international observers, just not elderly professors emeriti who call them Nazis and glorify Hamas terrorists as “resistance fighters.” Even then, they’d have let him in if not for his statements of “fact” before he arrived.
Is that all? Unfortunately not. Falk is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who is sad that the issue did not receive prominence during the presidential election. According to Falk, not only did the US government quite possibly arrange 9/11, Barack Obama should have made it a campaign issue as well!
In other words, McQuaig and the Star (that prints her trash) may as well have used a guy who claims to get his information from a large bunny named Harvey who sits at his left side as their source.
As Falk, with no first hand knowledge of the situation, must have been getting his “information” from Hamas (unless he made it up himself – I’m discounting Harvey from the picture), McQuaig was more than likely quoting Hamas when quoting Falk. And of course, the fact checkers at the Star couldn’t be bothered to notice this. They were probably too busy rereading George Orwell’s 1984, or as the Star might call it “the Employee Training Manual.”
McQuaig ends off her column by sanctimoniously opining that Israel does have a right to defend itself. The only problem for McQuaig, seemingly, is that when it does, it should be mindful of the accusations of an indirectly Ortega appointed Hamas sympathizer. If he suspects impropriety then all defensive measures must stop.
It’s one thing to be a crazy leftist who fumbles with the truth on taxes and spending policy and who views math as her own personal lump of molding clay, ready to twist and contort at her leisure. It’s another thing entirely to print falsehoods in defense of avowed terror organizations that recruit young children to their causes and target infants for slaughter, while smearing those who were attacked and blaming them for it. Yet all those traits fit neatly into the package that is Linda McQuaig.
As for the Star’s consistent pounding of these same views, it’s finally time to call a spade a spade. The anti-Semitism that it and columnists like McQuaig engage in is covert. As in the most recent example: Find one lone radical professor who makes a false claim which decries incredulity and report it as the “statement of a Jewish-American professor,” instead of that of a Marxist and terrorist sympathizer whose views represent the same lunatic fringe that has turned Mideast Studies programs in universities such as Columbia into hotbeds of anti-Semitism.
Promotion of radically leftist myths at the expense of logic is the central mission of the Toronto Star. We get it. But if that’s the case then be upfront about it. There are many liberal and conservative publications that market themselves accordingly. They do not pretend to be unbiased conveyors of news. Their purpose is to share thoughts and opinions. That would be a hard task for an outfit like the Star that is short on facts and long on insults, diatribes and unsubstantiated pronouncements. But that’s no excuse for it to dress itself up as a news organization.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Linda McQuaig's Latest Piece Is Provably False
(The following is the already published portion of the column featured above. It deals specifically with her latest - and perhaps greatest - example of bias and lack of integrity:)
Like many who are familiar with Linda McQuaig, I’ve found the great liberties that she takes with the truth to be startling. McQuaig writes exclusively about leftist causes. That itself would be fine. But in her defense of logically indefensible positions, she has at times reinvented the rules of math and just about whatever else she can grasp at. Her end goal is for insane propositions to be taken as fact by readers who don’t care to follow her convoluted reasoning and simply accept her conclusions.
A prime example of this is her past assertion that Canada has, in essence, a flat tax. Despite all studies showing that Canadians pay an average of 50% of their revenues in some form of government taxation (income, sales, capital gains, etc.) and despite the even clearer fact that lower income earners pay less and those who earn more pay more, McQuaig single handedly reinvented the laws of arithmetic to argue that all Canadians really pay between 30-35% in taxes. If we do indeed have a flat rate, she argued (the point of her reinventing math in the first place), then any tax cuts would amount to the poor paying the greatest percentage. Of course, both a cursory glance and a substantive look at actual tax rates shows otherwise and even the EU has largely adopted tax cuts as a way to stimulate jobs and investment. But why write the truth when absolute rubbish is as good a substitute?
Similarly, in various columns, McQuaig has blamed former Premier Mike Harris for today’s young offenders, written that Harper will cut social spending so drastically that, from the way she describes it, he’ll send Canada back to the middle ages (I guess the PMO never got the note) and otherwise fills her columns with tales of vast and abundant conspiracies. Again, if it were a conservative making such claims of the opposite side, the outcry from the left would be audible 100 miles away. Either that or they’d be wholly ignored. No paper would print their unsubstantiated ramblings.
McQuaig also has another trait. Like so many of the radical left, her sympathies lie with terrorists who she sides with, always, against Israel. There are simply no radical leftist fads or causes celebres that escape her narrow minded world view. Unlike many on her side, she tries to support these fancifully misbegotten notions with logic. As with math, when the logic or facts don’t fit, she invents them or quotes others who do it for her.
No where is there a better example of this than in her latest column, one in which she decries Canada’s support for Israel. (It should be of note that Canada’s support for Taiwan, India or any other allies fighting a dictatorial enemy may also not meet with McQuaig’s approval. But I assume she’ll have to confer with her “professors” before she issues a pronouncement on same one way or another.) Again, she does not find it sufficient to merely state her opinion and move on. In this case too, she must manipulate reality in a way that combines the talents of a communist propaganda minister with those of an acrobatic contortionist.
McQuaig does not once make mention of the 80 rockets that Hamas lobbed into populated areas of Israel. The fact that Israel and Hamas signed a six month truce, which Hamas refused to resign is also ignored. In fact, McQuaig quotes Richard Falk, a man she refers to as a “Jewish-American professor,” as saying that the situation was Israel’s fault for having entered into Gaza a month ago on a military incursion.
The truth is that intermittent attacks coming from Gaza were commonplace even after the ceasefire was signed. Hamas continually broke the terms and conditions throughout its six month duration. Last month, the Israeli Army found that Hamas supporters were digging a tunnel toward Israel that presented a clear security risk. Israel destroyed the tunnel and left.
As her column progresses, her other claims continue to decry incredulity. She blames Israel for sectioning off Gaza. The problem is that Gaza also has an equally long border with Egypt, so Israel could not unilaterally section it off. McQuaig knows this, so she again relies on Falk as the source of her seemingly (as well as actually) incredulous claim. To be sure, Israel did block off Gaza after rocket attacks persisted. But if Gaza was at all reasonable, why would both Israel and Egypt see the need to block it off? Israel still allowed food and vital supplies in, McQuaig’s reference to food shortages (for which she again quotes Falk, as only he and Hamas have made this claim) is unsubstantiated and probably countered by the mere fact that all Hamas fighters have clearly had ample strength and resources to continue fighting over the past few days.
What’s also missing from the picture is that Israel gave the Palestinian Authority in Gaza its autonomy in the hopes that a lasting peace could be cemented. Had they not done so, the Israelis would still be there and there’d be no argument over border crossings. So the argument that Israel has some kind of desire to reenter Gaza is scurrilous. They could have kept it in the first place.
But who is this Richard Falk who McQuaig so relies on, and whose singular claims are taken by McQuaig as fact? Well, a simple google search immediately exposes who Falk is and shows him to be little more than a Hamas mouthpiece, albeit one with other very interesting ties as well.
Falk is a professor emeritus. He is also a Special Rapporteur for the UN. But as Pajama Media’s Ron Radosh succinctly puts it: “Falk’s appointment was made, not surprisingly, by the chairman of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D’escoto Brockman of Nicaragua, the Sandinista liberation theologian who was himself appointed by Daniel Ortega. Throughout D’escoto’s entire career, he has been a left-wing ideologue, whose anti-Americanism is legendary.”
Yes, Nicaragua is on the UN Human Rights Commission, as is Saudi Arabia. They do not designate all appointees, but one prominent Ortega ally found Falk to be just the man for a Special Rapporteur position. Perhaps Father D’escoto is a McQuaig fan too. But aside from being a pal to Ortega’s pals, Falk also has some opinions about Hamas that would shock even their Palestinian counterpart Fatah (which has also engaged in terror and has yet to renounce the “Jerusalem Martyrs Brigade” of suicide bombers with allegiance to Fatah).
Among Falk’s pronouncements is that Hamas should not be branded a terrorist organization (what a man who thinks that an unrenounced past history of targeting infants doesn’t qualify a group as terrorist is doing working for the UN Human Rights Commission is a question best left to them) and that Hamas’ legitimacy is recognized by other Palestinian groups. He also views the suicide bombings and the targeting of civilians as the “right of resistance.” By contrast, he compares the Israelis, (who have taken precaution after precaution not to target civilians, and seek to minimize casualties even when Hamas terrorists barricade themselves in civilian areas – Israel is, again, also the only side ever to have given real concessions) to Nazis.
Yes, Richard Falk may be Jewish, but he’s probably one of the only Jews aside from Meir Lansky to be denied entry into Israel. The reason he was turned back at Ben Gurion airport was due to the fact that even before he started his investigation, he was making the above listed pronouncements and blaming Israel once again for the current crisis. In the words of the Israeli foreign ministry, Falk’s mission was “profoundly distorted and conceived as an anti-Israeli initiative.”
Falk has no first hand knowledge of the situation. In short, not only is a he a Hamas mouthpiece (who, again, makes statements that would even be countered by Abbas), he’s also a fraud. There’s no way he could have known what was happening on the ground. His ridiculous assertions and public statements were made before he arrived, and because of them, he was turned back. Israel has let in scores of international observers, just not elderly professors emeriti who call them Nazis and glorify Hamas terrorists as “resistance fighters.” Even then, they’d have let him in if not for his statements of “fact” before he arrived.
Is that all? Unfortunately not. Falk is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who is sad that the issue did not receive prominence during the presidential election. According to Falk, not only did the US government quite possibly arrange 9/11, Barack Obama should have made it a campaign issue as well!
In other words, McQuaig and may as well have used a guy who claims to get his information from a large bunny named Harvey who sits at his left side as their source.
As Falk, with no first hand knowledge of the situation, must have been getting his “information” from Hamas (unless he made it up himself – I’m discounting Harvey from the picture), McQuaig was more than likely quoting Hamas when quoting Falk. And of course, there was no need for her to run a basic fact. Not when you’re using George Orwell’s 1984 as a journalists’ training manual.
McQuaig ends off her column by sanctimoniously opining that Israel does have a right to defend itself. The only problem for McQuaig, seemingly, is that when it does, it should be mindful of the accusations of an indirectly Ortega appointed Hamas sympathizer. If he suspects impropriety then all defensive measures must stop.
The spin and, honestly, the anti-Semitism that columnists like McQuaig engage in is covert. As in the most recent example: Find one lone radical professor who makes a false claim which decries incredulity and report it as the “statement of a Jewish-American professor,” instead of that of a Marxist and terrorist sympathizer whose views represent the same lunatic fringe that has turned Mideast Studies programs in universities such as Columbia into hotbeds of anti-Semitism.
It’s one thing to be a crazy leftist who fumbles with the truth on taxes and spending policy and who views math as her own personal lump of molding clay, ready to twist and contort at her leisure. It’s another thing entirely to print falsehoods in defense of avowed terror organizations that recruit young children to their causes and target infants for slaughter, while smearing those who were attacked and blaming them for it. Yet all those traits fit neatly into the package that is Linda McQuaig.
Like many who are familiar with Linda McQuaig, I’ve found the great liberties that she takes with the truth to be startling. McQuaig writes exclusively about leftist causes. That itself would be fine. But in her defense of logically indefensible positions, she has at times reinvented the rules of math and just about whatever else she can grasp at. Her end goal is for insane propositions to be taken as fact by readers who don’t care to follow her convoluted reasoning and simply accept her conclusions.
A prime example of this is her past assertion that Canada has, in essence, a flat tax. Despite all studies showing that Canadians pay an average of 50% of their revenues in some form of government taxation (income, sales, capital gains, etc.) and despite the even clearer fact that lower income earners pay less and those who earn more pay more, McQuaig single handedly reinvented the laws of arithmetic to argue that all Canadians really pay between 30-35% in taxes. If we do indeed have a flat rate, she argued (the point of her reinventing math in the first place), then any tax cuts would amount to the poor paying the greatest percentage. Of course, both a cursory glance and a substantive look at actual tax rates shows otherwise and even the EU has largely adopted tax cuts as a way to stimulate jobs and investment. But why write the truth when absolute rubbish is as good a substitute?
Similarly, in various columns, McQuaig has blamed former Premier Mike Harris for today’s young offenders, written that Harper will cut social spending so drastically that, from the way she describes it, he’ll send Canada back to the middle ages (I guess the PMO never got the note) and otherwise fills her columns with tales of vast and abundant conspiracies. Again, if it were a conservative making such claims of the opposite side, the outcry from the left would be audible 100 miles away. Either that or they’d be wholly ignored. No paper would print their unsubstantiated ramblings.
McQuaig also has another trait. Like so many of the radical left, her sympathies lie with terrorists who she sides with, always, against Israel. There are simply no radical leftist fads or causes celebres that escape her narrow minded world view. Unlike many on her side, she tries to support these fancifully misbegotten notions with logic. As with math, when the logic or facts don’t fit, she invents them or quotes others who do it for her.
No where is there a better example of this than in her latest column, one in which she decries Canada’s support for Israel. (It should be of note that Canada’s support for Taiwan, India or any other allies fighting a dictatorial enemy may also not meet with McQuaig’s approval. But I assume she’ll have to confer with her “professors” before she issues a pronouncement on same one way or another.) Again, she does not find it sufficient to merely state her opinion and move on. In this case too, she must manipulate reality in a way that combines the talents of a communist propaganda minister with those of an acrobatic contortionist.
McQuaig does not once make mention of the 80 rockets that Hamas lobbed into populated areas of Israel. The fact that Israel and Hamas signed a six month truce, which Hamas refused to resign is also ignored. In fact, McQuaig quotes Richard Falk, a man she refers to as a “Jewish-American professor,” as saying that the situation was Israel’s fault for having entered into Gaza a month ago on a military incursion.
The truth is that intermittent attacks coming from Gaza were commonplace even after the ceasefire was signed. Hamas continually broke the terms and conditions throughout its six month duration. Last month, the Israeli Army found that Hamas supporters were digging a tunnel toward Israel that presented a clear security risk. Israel destroyed the tunnel and left.
As her column progresses, her other claims continue to decry incredulity. She blames Israel for sectioning off Gaza. The problem is that Gaza also has an equally long border with Egypt, so Israel could not unilaterally section it off. McQuaig knows this, so she again relies on Falk as the source of her seemingly (as well as actually) incredulous claim. To be sure, Israel did block off Gaza after rocket attacks persisted. But if Gaza was at all reasonable, why would both Israel and Egypt see the need to block it off? Israel still allowed food and vital supplies in, McQuaig’s reference to food shortages (for which she again quotes Falk, as only he and Hamas have made this claim) is unsubstantiated and probably countered by the mere fact that all Hamas fighters have clearly had ample strength and resources to continue fighting over the past few days.
What’s also missing from the picture is that Israel gave the Palestinian Authority in Gaza its autonomy in the hopes that a lasting peace could be cemented. Had they not done so, the Israelis would still be there and there’d be no argument over border crossings. So the argument that Israel has some kind of desire to reenter Gaza is scurrilous. They could have kept it in the first place.
But who is this Richard Falk who McQuaig so relies on, and whose singular claims are taken by McQuaig as fact? Well, a simple google search immediately exposes who Falk is and shows him to be little more than a Hamas mouthpiece, albeit one with other very interesting ties as well.
Falk is a professor emeritus. He is also a Special Rapporteur for the UN. But as Pajama Media’s Ron Radosh succinctly puts it: “Falk’s appointment was made, not surprisingly, by the chairman of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D’escoto Brockman of Nicaragua, the Sandinista liberation theologian who was himself appointed by Daniel Ortega. Throughout D’escoto’s entire career, he has been a left-wing ideologue, whose anti-Americanism is legendary.”
Yes, Nicaragua is on the UN Human Rights Commission, as is Saudi Arabia. They do not designate all appointees, but one prominent Ortega ally found Falk to be just the man for a Special Rapporteur position. Perhaps Father D’escoto is a McQuaig fan too. But aside from being a pal to Ortega’s pals, Falk also has some opinions about Hamas that would shock even their Palestinian counterpart Fatah (which has also engaged in terror and has yet to renounce the “Jerusalem Martyrs Brigade” of suicide bombers with allegiance to Fatah).
Among Falk’s pronouncements is that Hamas should not be branded a terrorist organization (what a man who thinks that an unrenounced past history of targeting infants doesn’t qualify a group as terrorist is doing working for the UN Human Rights Commission is a question best left to them) and that Hamas’ legitimacy is recognized by other Palestinian groups. He also views the suicide bombings and the targeting of civilians as the “right of resistance.” By contrast, he compares the Israelis, (who have taken precaution after precaution not to target civilians, and seek to minimize casualties even when Hamas terrorists barricade themselves in civilian areas – Israel is, again, also the only side ever to have given real concessions) to Nazis.
Yes, Richard Falk may be Jewish, but he’s probably one of the only Jews aside from Meir Lansky to be denied entry into Israel. The reason he was turned back at Ben Gurion airport was due to the fact that even before he started his investigation, he was making the above listed pronouncements and blaming Israel once again for the current crisis. In the words of the Israeli foreign ministry, Falk’s mission was “profoundly distorted and conceived as an anti-Israeli initiative.”
Falk has no first hand knowledge of the situation. In short, not only is a he a Hamas mouthpiece (who, again, makes statements that would even be countered by Abbas), he’s also a fraud. There’s no way he could have known what was happening on the ground. His ridiculous assertions and public statements were made before he arrived, and because of them, he was turned back. Israel has let in scores of international observers, just not elderly professors emeriti who call them Nazis and glorify Hamas terrorists as “resistance fighters.” Even then, they’d have let him in if not for his statements of “fact” before he arrived.
Is that all? Unfortunately not. Falk is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who is sad that the issue did not receive prominence during the presidential election. According to Falk, not only did the US government quite possibly arrange 9/11, Barack Obama should have made it a campaign issue as well!
In other words, McQuaig and may as well have used a guy who claims to get his information from a large bunny named Harvey who sits at his left side as their source.
As Falk, with no first hand knowledge of the situation, must have been getting his “information” from Hamas (unless he made it up himself – I’m discounting Harvey from the picture), McQuaig was more than likely quoting Hamas when quoting Falk. And of course, there was no need for her to run a basic fact. Not when you’re using George Orwell’s 1984 as a journalists’ training manual.
McQuaig ends off her column by sanctimoniously opining that Israel does have a right to defend itself. The only problem for McQuaig, seemingly, is that when it does, it should be mindful of the accusations of an indirectly Ortega appointed Hamas sympathizer. If he suspects impropriety then all defensive measures must stop.
The spin and, honestly, the anti-Semitism that columnists like McQuaig engage in is covert. As in the most recent example: Find one lone radical professor who makes a false claim which decries incredulity and report it as the “statement of a Jewish-American professor,” instead of that of a Marxist and terrorist sympathizer whose views represent the same lunatic fringe that has turned Mideast Studies programs in universities such as Columbia into hotbeds of anti-Semitism.
It’s one thing to be a crazy leftist who fumbles with the truth on taxes and spending policy and who views math as her own personal lump of molding clay, ready to twist and contort at her leisure. It’s another thing entirely to print falsehoods in defense of avowed terror organizations that recruit young children to their causes and target infants for slaughter, while smearing those who were attacked and blaming them for it. Yet all those traits fit neatly into the package that is Linda McQuaig.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Dion & Layton - The Destruction of Canada’s Economy at the Hands of Opportunists
Markets do not love uncertainty. They do not gravitate toward it. In fact, they abhor it. At the beginning of this decade, the Western world watched on in horror as Argentina collapsed under a series what seemed to be Governments of the Week. When stability returned, so did much of the Argentine economy, though of course the previous instability still took its toll. Now, as we head toward the close of this decade, Canada's economy may well become undone, not because of underlying economic factors (as was partially the case with Argentina), but because of a climate of political instability brought about by a small group of power hungry individuals who in the past week have shown just how little they care for the welfare of the nation.
(Canada Free Press, Dec. 2)
Canada’s economy is diverse and heavily bolstered by natural resources that are true staples of economic activity. Canada, as a nation, has the potential to be resilient even in times of worldwide economic crises. Diverse regions of the country are, in turn, an energy powerhouse, a prime resource of pulp and paper, a plentiful bastion of vital food supplies and a warehouse of precious metals. If political stability continues, Canada can be a rare light during what may be dark financial years for the West. That’s if other countries have faith in the stability of the government that they are trading and negotiating with.
The Liberals, NDP and the Bloc originally spoke of establishing their proposed junta for a minimum of two and a half years. The Bloc then decided to sign on for only 18 months. If history is to provide any true indicators, as history so invariably does, of such a coalition’s longevity, six months should be considered an optimistic stretch. After all, it won’t take much for the Liberals to resort to the arrogant tactics that so alienated the NDP from them in the past, Jack Layton is hardly a bedrock of stability and the Bloc may last mere weeks, if not days, with Dion before it decides that his Maytime replacement can’t come soon enough.
At the height of absurdity is he Liberals’ claim that the Conservatives ignored the demands of the economy. How? By asking all federal parties to forego taxpayer subsidies, a move that would have hurt their own party the most?! And in case anyone has any doubt as to the nature of this blatantly Machiavellian grab at power, the Conservatives were willing to meet all of the Liberal economic demands to avoid what will no doubt be the ensuing economic chaos. The answer they received: “Sorry, no thanks, we’re power hungry!”
Political turmoil doesn’t bolster the value of a nation's currency, it ruins it, causing mass inflation at home. Political turmoil isn’t conducive to the negotiation of needed treaties, it precludes them from coming about. Political turmoil doesn’t strengthen Canada’s voice in international affairs, it all but renders it impotent on the world stage. And as is always the case during an economic meltdown, the damage will be most felt by the middle class. Canadians must ask themselves: Is all this worth going through just to give Dion his coveted title of Prime Minister and Liberals their coveted “entitlement” to power?
Stephane Dion has been openly musing about bringing down the government since Oct. 14th and Jack Layton spent part of this summer attending dirty trick seminars hosted by Howard Dean, a fact that we were recently reminded of in a piece by Judi McLeod. Their plans are not in Canada’s interest and Canadians should not be forced to pay the price.
Today, Judi McLeod and Arthur Weinreb wrote a Canada Free Press op-ed on why the Tories must call an election. They make a compelling case. It is also vital to Canada’s economic interest that this suggestion be acted upon.
(Canada Free Press, Dec. 2)
Rescuing Democracy While Standing Up to Liberal Fraud Artists
In case anyone’s forgotten why the Liberal Party of Canada is so despised, to the point that its campaign airplane was dubbed “Air-o-gant” during the their most recent era of dominance by the usually sympathetic and ideologically paired media, Jean Chretien is back to remind us. What’s more, he’s brought along Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae to boot, in a move that will forever tarnish, if not altogether ruin, their political reputations.
There was no doubt that Stephane Dion was up to something right after the election. When he heard that he’d lost it actually came as a surprise to him. The fact that his defeat was as much of a surprise as that of Joe Clark (or Jimmy Carter’s for US readers) in 1980 did nothing to soften the blow. He may have been the only one in the country to be dumbfounded, but he was dumbfounded nonetheless.
At the time, I expected him to try to mull over a non-confidence motion against the federal budget in February, be talked out of it by his caucus (as they’d threaten to withhold support), and move on. This would have been an insane move in and of itself, but he all but said that this was his plan, as smacking of desperation as it may be. But the stunt he pulled today is truly surprising for the magnitude of its depravity. It’s one thing to be desperate. It’s another to be clinically insane.
Now, just six weeks after garnering the lowest percentage of the vote in Liberal history, Dion is trying to unseat what is only the second Conservative government to win back to back mandates since 1962. What’s more, it’s not going to work in his favor. Even if he succeeds, the Bloc has demanded that Rae or Ignatieff be named leader before any coalition deal is executed. Thankfully for those two, Jean Chretien’s back to push through their scheme and personally anoint one of the two to take the place of Dion with or without the latter’s agreement; a sad fate for this escapade’s most notable instigator.
So the Liberals are not only willing to usurp the will of the people just six weeks after an election. (Hey, what else is new?) They’re also willing to silence the voices of their own party members, those who actually pay for the privilege, without whom the Liberal Party would be forced to apply to their Democratic cousins in the US Congress for a chunk of the bailout. The membership will not get a chance to elect their leader. Why, there’s Jean Chretien for that. It kind of reminds one of how Chretien ran the country for a decade.
And if that’s all they were doing it would be bad enough. But this is the Liberal Party of Canada we’re talking about. So wait, there’s more!
The non-confidence motion being tabled offers the following reason for the overthrow of the recently reelected Tories: “The government’s failure to recognize the seriousness of Canada’s economic situation and its failure in particular to present any credible plan to stimulate the Canadian economy.” Now that’s just Liberal-speak. Here’s the true reason. All of the opposition parties, all leftists by the way, are mad that the Tories want to cut the $1.95 per vote of the public’s money that each party gets to spend according to their political heart’s desire. It doesn’t matter that the Tories, who received the greatest share of votes, are hurting themselves first and foremost by doing so. The pampered members of the leftist elite are upset that their perks are getting cut too. That’s what happens when you try to take back a lollypop that’s been snatched by a baby, literally.
So as the Tories try to do the fiscally responsible thing, and cut back public funding to all parties, cutting more from their own coffers than from the funding of any other party, the others cry, scream and holler that it’s the Tories who don’t understand the “seriousness of Canada’s economic situation.” What exactly does that mean? That the Tories don’t understand how Liberal, NDP, Bloc and even some unelected Green politicians (yes, the Greens still get money even though they don’t have any seats) are having a harder time affording luxury yacht cruises and five course steak dinners? Oh, the horror. That’s definitely worth overturning the will of the people for. If only they knew how bad things really were.
On a serious note, here’s what Prime Minister Harper needs to do:
As for the Liberals, what does the Ignatieff camp have to say about their leading role in the latest blatant attempt to usurp democracy and not just cancel out the votes of the Canadian public, but even take the decision making power away from grassroots members of their own party?
Well this is just a tidbit from an Ignatieff campaign email that discusses the current fiasco. It reads: “Save Canada’s Democracy - Stephen Harper is trying to undermine Canada’s fair and open political system. Take action now!” Now that’s someone on pot calling the kettle a drug addict. Either that, or it’s just more Liberal-speak.
(Canada Free Press, Nov. 28)
There was no doubt that Stephane Dion was up to something right after the election. When he heard that he’d lost it actually came as a surprise to him. The fact that his defeat was as much of a surprise as that of Joe Clark (or Jimmy Carter’s for US readers) in 1980 did nothing to soften the blow. He may have been the only one in the country to be dumbfounded, but he was dumbfounded nonetheless.
At the time, I expected him to try to mull over a non-confidence motion against the federal budget in February, be talked out of it by his caucus (as they’d threaten to withhold support), and move on. This would have been an insane move in and of itself, but he all but said that this was his plan, as smacking of desperation as it may be. But the stunt he pulled today is truly surprising for the magnitude of its depravity. It’s one thing to be desperate. It’s another to be clinically insane.
Now, just six weeks after garnering the lowest percentage of the vote in Liberal history, Dion is trying to unseat what is only the second Conservative government to win back to back mandates since 1962. What’s more, it’s not going to work in his favor. Even if he succeeds, the Bloc has demanded that Rae or Ignatieff be named leader before any coalition deal is executed. Thankfully for those two, Jean Chretien’s back to push through their scheme and personally anoint one of the two to take the place of Dion with or without the latter’s agreement; a sad fate for this escapade’s most notable instigator.
So the Liberals are not only willing to usurp the will of the people just six weeks after an election. (Hey, what else is new?) They’re also willing to silence the voices of their own party members, those who actually pay for the privilege, without whom the Liberal Party would be forced to apply to their Democratic cousins in the US Congress for a chunk of the bailout. The membership will not get a chance to elect their leader. Why, there’s Jean Chretien for that. It kind of reminds one of how Chretien ran the country for a decade.
And if that’s all they were doing it would be bad enough. But this is the Liberal Party of Canada we’re talking about. So wait, there’s more!
The non-confidence motion being tabled offers the following reason for the overthrow of the recently reelected Tories: “The government’s failure to recognize the seriousness of Canada’s economic situation and its failure in particular to present any credible plan to stimulate the Canadian economy.” Now that’s just Liberal-speak. Here’s the true reason. All of the opposition parties, all leftists by the way, are mad that the Tories want to cut the $1.95 per vote of the public’s money that each party gets to spend according to their political heart’s desire. It doesn’t matter that the Tories, who received the greatest share of votes, are hurting themselves first and foremost by doing so. The pampered members of the leftist elite are upset that their perks are getting cut too. That’s what happens when you try to take back a lollypop that’s been snatched by a baby, literally.
So as the Tories try to do the fiscally responsible thing, and cut back public funding to all parties, cutting more from their own coffers than from the funding of any other party, the others cry, scream and holler that it’s the Tories who don’t understand the “seriousness of Canada’s economic situation.” What exactly does that mean? That the Tories don’t understand how Liberal, NDP, Bloc and even some unelected Green politicians (yes, the Greens still get money even though they don’t have any seats) are having a harder time affording luxury yacht cruises and five course steak dinners? Oh, the horror. That’s definitely worth overturning the will of the people for. If only they knew how bad things really were.
On a serious note, here’s what Prime Minister Harper needs to do:
- Decry the usurpation of Canada’s democracy at the hands of a few greedy pols. Put them on defense. They don’t want to tarnish their brand forever, so maybe they wont act.
- Use procedural moves, even call new elections if necessary “to avoid the opposition’s usurpation of Canada’s democracy for the narrow interests of a handful of politicians.” (Use that line - It’s the truth, and it’s good for a few seats too.)
- Develop some of the suggestions outlined in Lessons for Canada’s Conservatives – Building a Lasting Base – a strong and lasting base will be needed to alert public opinion to the magnitude of the insanity now underway in the nation’s Capital. The piece also contains some crucial policy suggestions that will be needed to build a large base of reasonable voters.
As for the Liberals, what does the Ignatieff camp have to say about their leading role in the latest blatant attempt to usurp democracy and not just cancel out the votes of the Canadian public, but even take the decision making power away from grassroots members of their own party?
Well this is just a tidbit from an Ignatieff campaign email that discusses the current fiasco. It reads: “Save Canada’s Democracy - Stephen Harper is trying to undermine Canada’s fair and open political system. Take action now!” Now that’s someone on pot calling the kettle a drug addict. Either that, or it’s just more Liberal-speak.
(Canada Free Press, Nov. 28)
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Lessons for Canada’s Conservatives – Building a Lasting Base
As Conservatives in
Consider the Mulroney years. Even the Liberals eventually realized that from a policy standpoint, the plat
But none of the above stopped the venomous hatred of the left from being spewed at him. His government, much as is the case with any administration not deemed worthy of endorsement by the left, was set aside
The same phenomenon of all out media attack turning into baseless public loathing was seen more recently in the recent American elections. While Canadian Conservatives, overall, have more differences than similarities with American conservatism, both are the same in one regard (one that they share with British Tories and indeed with the conservative movements of all Western countries): Intense and constant opposition on the part of the left with complete complicity on the part of the media.
Liberals do not temper criticism of American conservatives with acknowledgement that conservative policy has kept the country safe
The media onslaught of the Mulroney years and the over the top criticism of American conservatives (to the point of ridiculous insinuations that offend logic if said of anyone short of Pol Pot) took its toll on public perception. And what is painfully evident is that it doesn’t matter how right or left leaning the conservatives in question are. Your plat
If coverage of the Conservative convention is any hint, the media masses are at it again. Every party holds strategic meetings and unless their members are insane, those meetings are held behind closed doors. It’s what prevents minute by minute internal debate possibly peppered with insults from being reported on the Obama, Clinton, McCain, You Name It campaigns. It’s what prevents any strategy session from being twisted to sound like a gathering of
It doesn’t matter that at the same time as the media is trying to portray the entire event as a closed door session, they somehow manage to report on every aspect of the floor debate, where key policy is
But Conservatives need to point this out. They need to call a spade a spade, a Liberal lacking, and a reporter a hypocrite.
Countering a media onslaught requires more than this. Even if the party constantly calls out every case of media idiocy, they who control the message are more powerful. Direct addresses to the nation works somewhat, but must be extremely limited, especially in a country where such messages are not the norm.
Conservatives need to do much more if they are not to suffer the same fate that they have met be
· Whenever a pressing issue arises, do find a way to address the public directly. While few will take kindly to their primetime programming or sports game being interrupted, many would be willing to watch at a time when relatively little else is on. Do this in tandem with a radio address. You won’t get most people, but you will get many. Far more will be aware (and will share your points with their friends) than are now. As well, the media will be harder pressed not to ignore your side of the issue. After all, there’s only so much distortion that can be done repeatedly to publicly aired press conferences. If mass distortion does take place, appeal to the public to watch one
· Shock the nation – Look
· *This one is key – Mobilize a grassroots movement of supporters to refute the insanity of the other side. Get them to spread key counterpoints to their friends and to local media. This is done more easily today than ever be
The last point needs to be comprised of several activities:
- Organize lists of supporters by riding. Call them (direct contact is needed, and this task can be accomplished by riding boards, with national direction) and ask each of them to learn the reasons
- Provide each person recruited by their riding board with a list of emails (or submission websites) to their local print, radio and TV media. Include contact in
- Concentrate this ef
- Reach out to college students and
- Reach out to all ethnic groups individually. Start a dialogue with their leaders and explain how Conservative solutions are best
Conservatives have to cultivate a broad base of supporters who understand the reason
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Why Conservative Policies are Better for the Middle Class
People can’t affo rd to fall prey to false rhetoric, no matter how favored it is by the mainstream media or how often it is repeated. When it comes to a nation’s economic future, facts must dictate one’s choices.
When it comes to what’s best
By contrast, the failed plat
Here’s why:
On the simplest level: when you bite the hand that feeds the economy, you bite the hand that feeds the economy. In other words, when you tax small business excessively, you prevent this sector from being able to hire workers or develop/distribute products that would fuel the economy. Tax rates that are low allow businesses to hire workers, pay them satisfactorily (a key element in getting good results) and reinvest in product development, which in turn fuels more jobs and overall business.
Take unemployment numbers as a measure of economic effectiveness. The
It’s time to stop believing hype and to examine the facts as they are and as they work in any economy.
Which brings us to the Dion Liberals:
The Chretien and Martin governments had the results of both the
The Chretien Liberals knew what they were handed, and they knew well enough to leave things alone. Dion would make no such “mistake.”
Stephen Dion is by far the most radically left leader the Liberals have ever had. He is also among the most clueless on the economy. What’s worse, unlike past leaders who recognized their lack of knowledge in this area, and deferred to more qualified ministers in this area, Dion fails to acknowledge his own limitations. And such a failure would no doubt be fraught with disaster.
Which is why it’s important to encourage one’s friends to vote
Overcoming Illusion with Reality
On another note, the Conservative’s biggest problems are PR, i.e. public perception. Prime Minister Harper has done much since he took office to defuse this perception, but the idea that Conservatives are only “good
The only real way to overcome this is to educate, to clearly and succinctly explain the benefits of Conservative policy and how the Conservatives do in fact look out
Still, new and bold actions will speak louder still. If Conservatives want to rebrand their image, and shock the Liberals in so doing, they will propose, and run on, each of the
- Implementing financial literacy education in high schools, so that teens know the difference between responsible use of credit and wasteful spending and the tangible benefits that good credit and accumulating savings can mean in their lives. Such a course should also cover how to balance a checkbook, when to buy, lease or finance a car, the difference between safe and risky investments and clearly outline the real benefits of staying in school and avoiding crime.
- Implementing a life skills training course
- Promotion of an alternative sentencing program that re
The above proposals will show the Conservatives to be the most cognizant party and the only one with fresh ideas that truly benefit society. This is change public misperceptions and embodies the spirit of good government.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Black and Radler, Victims of Fitzgeraldian Injustice – And They Should be Pardoned
Imagine if someone operated a business in a certain country according to the laws of its land and then decided to take their company public in another country with similar rules and regulations. In doing so, they made sure to follow all statutes and laws listed on the books, that precluded nothing about business practices that were the norm in their native land, although somewhat less common in their new one, uncommon but not illegal.
Then imagine that a prosecutor with a history of seeking high profile indictments decided to charge the company owners for acting against the interest of the shareholders (even though they were unaffected by the business dealings, none of which broke any written laws or precedents or caused them any actual harm). As a result they were threatened with prison sentences.
The above scenario is preposterous, but, unfortunately, you can stop imagining. It is exactly what happened in the Conrad Black and David Radler cases. The situation is egregious and needs to be rectified.
For those who want a basic overview of what transpired, read the italicized text. For those who are already familiar with the miscarriage of justice, feel free to skip this part:
The main issue of contention was that Conrad Black and associates received payment for non-compete agreements instead of bonuses. Being that they lived and filed taxes in Canada, these non-compete payments were tax free. They are often used in Canada for this very reason.
There is no law against payment for a non-compete agreement in the United States (they are just subject to taxation in the US, an issue that was not violated by Black or Radler, making them uncommon but not by any means illegal), yet Black and his business partners were charged for receiving non-compete payments instead of bonuses. The prosecution lost its ridiculous case on most of the non-competes, but won on one non-compete in which Black and Radler agreed not to compete against another company that they owned.
Now, on face value, agreeing not to compete against another company you own seems over the top. But in actuality it has a very specific meaning:
A) It prevents one company, with one group of staff, from competing against the company with other interested parties.
B) It lasts longer than the time you sell the first company – In other words, Conrad Black and David Radler are still bound not to compete against newspapers they no longer hold ownership in precisely because they signed the agreement that prosecutors characterized as ruthless and a farce.
C) Identical deals have been done almost regularly in Canada and have always been allowed and there is no law against it in the United States.
Although several members of the jury leaned toward acquittal, they formed a compromise, something that is the antithesis of the principal of unanimous verdict. Those who favored conviction seemed to do so without regard for the case, with intense bias against corporate executives in general (which is unfair to those like Black and Radler, who stewarded their corporations well and earned much for the shareholders until baseless allegations and a hostile takeover ate the equity, none of which was caused by Black or by his associates).
On one day one of the members stormed out of the jury room angry, while other members were seen leaving their deliberations in groups. Most egregious of all, one of those pushing conviction said that her mind was made up when she her Black complain about shareholder sentiments.
Now, an executive who’s doing a good job will receive many complaints, many of which generally express anger over the fact that he didn’t do something that would have been detrimental to the company in the long term, even if it seems like a good idea at first glance. His frustrations are akin to a manager venting about employee complaints, a customer service rep expressing dismay at a large number of customer complaints or any other position in which one hears negative reaction from the public, even concerning matters that are beyond their control. I’m not saying that we should pity executives. I am saying that their occasional frustration at the number of complaints, often made without analyzing the issues, will naturally lead to frustration.
The tape showing Conrad Black’s frustration, which had nothing to do with the criminal charges against him, but was simply shown by the prosecution to inflame some of the jurors. To even allow it into evidence, the prosecution claimed that the tape supported a tendency relating charges that he was later acquitted of. But while the tape showed no lawbreaking, it did bias the jury with regard to the case in general. At least one juror, by her own admission (in interviews after the verdict), convicted based on a disdain for Black resulting from this tape and frustration at shareholders. She used this to convict him of charges not relating to the tape. That is wrong and an injustice. It needs to be corrected.
The same juror raised another troubling issue. The judge clearly instructed the jury that in order to convict on obstruction, they needed to decide with certainty which investigation Black had allegedly obstructed. But in the same interview days after the verdict, the juror admitted that she hadn’t (and implied that neither had most of the jury). This was a clear violation of the judge’s instructions. It was a violation of legal tenets used to determine innocence or guilt. Yet it was done, and it needs to be corrected.
The decision of the jury wrongheaded and judge had to throw out one of the convictions as there was no possible way that one of the defendants had committed the wrong the jury had convicted him of. This too shows that the jury engaged in faulty reasoning and is another reason that their entire verdict should be scrutinized. It seems that the Illinois judge was unaware of the Toronto Star interview in which the juror tacitly admitted bias and disregard for jury instructions. Had she known I can only hope that she would have vacated the ruling.
That admission may only be that of one juror, but even if she weren’t expressing the sentiments of many of the others, as most certainly seems to be the case, a unanimous verdict is needed in establishment of guilt and in this case, her actions negate that. For this reason justice demands that Black and his associates, including David Radler, who pled guilty to avoid the jury bias that appeared all too likely and that resulted in the above errors, should never have been convicted. They should certainly not suffer for having committed no actual crime. Such suffering is inhumane.
There is a compelling reason for Black, Radler and associates to be pardoned. Justice demands it. Patrick Fitzgerald has prosecuted numerous high profile cases with the flimsiest of evidence and has built his reputation on same. Even the most vocal Bush critics, as well as numerous former prosecutors, were amazed that White House aide Libby was charged while Richard Armitage freely admitted that he was the leaker (acting on his own accord and not breaking any formal laws, as Plame was not a covert foreign agent within 5 years of the leak). Jurors who convicted Libby felt that Fitzgerald could not get his target so he found someone, anyone he could reach, to keep what was a high profile case going. One even asked that Libby be pardoned (which he was not, having so far only received a commutation).
Yet Fitzgerald’s penchant for high profile cases in which he turns and twists facts, as was seen in the Black case, has gone unchallenged. Light needs to be shed on his actions and the harm that they have caused. The President, by rightly showing a pattern and exposing Fitzgerald’s tactics will also shed light on the Libby case. He needs to do the right thing and prevent innocent such as Mssrs. Black and Radler from going to prison based on emotional manipulations of the jury in a case where no crime was committed.
Conrad Black and David Radler, in their journalistic careers, have done more to improve relations between the US and Canada than anyone else. They have fought vigorously for freedom of the press. But most of all, they committed no crime. They should petition the President to do the right thing and right the egregious wrong brought on by a grandstanding attorney who has harmed many people in his rise to fame. Regardless of what they do, the President should do the right thing and pardon them, preventing needless human suffering that is uncalled for in this case.
Then imagine that a prosecutor with a history of seeking high profile indictments decided to charge the company owners for acting against the interest of the shareholders (even though they were unaffected by the business dealings, none of which broke any written laws or precedents or caused them any actual harm). As a result they were threatened with prison sentences.
The above scenario is preposterous, but, unfortunately, you can stop imagining. It is exactly what happened in the Conrad Black and David Radler cases. The situation is egregious and needs to be rectified.
For those who want a basic overview of what transpired, read the italicized text. For those who are already familiar with the miscarriage of justice, feel free to skip this part:
The main issue of contention was that Conrad Black and associates received payment for non-compete agreements instead of bonuses. Being that they lived and filed taxes in Canada, these non-compete payments were tax free. They are often used in Canada for this very reason.
There is no law against payment for a non-compete agreement in the United States (they are just subject to taxation in the US, an issue that was not violated by Black or Radler, making them uncommon but not by any means illegal), yet Black and his business partners were charged for receiving non-compete payments instead of bonuses. The prosecution lost its ridiculous case on most of the non-competes, but won on one non-compete in which Black and Radler agreed not to compete against another company that they owned.
Now, on face value, agreeing not to compete against another company you own seems over the top. But in actuality it has a very specific meaning:
A) It prevents one company, with one group of staff, from competing against the company with other interested parties.
B) It lasts longer than the time you sell the first company – In other words, Conrad Black and David Radler are still bound not to compete against newspapers they no longer hold ownership in precisely because they signed the agreement that prosecutors characterized as ruthless and a farce.
C) Identical deals have been done almost regularly in Canada and have always been allowed and there is no law against it in the United States.
Although several members of the jury leaned toward acquittal, they formed a compromise, something that is the antithesis of the principal of unanimous verdict. Those who favored conviction seemed to do so without regard for the case, with intense bias against corporate executives in general (which is unfair to those like Black and Radler, who stewarded their corporations well and earned much for the shareholders until baseless allegations and a hostile takeover ate the equity, none of which was caused by Black or by his associates).
On one day one of the members stormed out of the jury room angry, while other members were seen leaving their deliberations in groups. Most egregious of all, one of those pushing conviction said that her mind was made up when she her Black complain about shareholder sentiments.
Now, an executive who’s doing a good job will receive many complaints, many of which generally express anger over the fact that he didn’t do something that would have been detrimental to the company in the long term, even if it seems like a good idea at first glance. His frustrations are akin to a manager venting about employee complaints, a customer service rep expressing dismay at a large number of customer complaints or any other position in which one hears negative reaction from the public, even concerning matters that are beyond their control. I’m not saying that we should pity executives. I am saying that their occasional frustration at the number of complaints, often made without analyzing the issues, will naturally lead to frustration.
The tape showing Conrad Black’s frustration, which had nothing to do with the criminal charges against him, but was simply shown by the prosecution to inflame some of the jurors. To even allow it into evidence, the prosecution claimed that the tape supported a tendency relating charges that he was later acquitted of. But while the tape showed no lawbreaking, it did bias the jury with regard to the case in general. At least one juror, by her own admission (in interviews after the verdict), convicted based on a disdain for Black resulting from this tape and frustration at shareholders. She used this to convict him of charges not relating to the tape. That is wrong and an injustice. It needs to be corrected.
The same juror raised another troubling issue. The judge clearly instructed the jury that in order to convict on obstruction, they needed to decide with certainty which investigation Black had allegedly obstructed. But in the same interview days after the verdict, the juror admitted that she hadn’t (and implied that neither had most of the jury). This was a clear violation of the judge’s instructions. It was a violation of legal tenets used to determine innocence or guilt. Yet it was done, and it needs to be corrected.
The decision of the jury wrongheaded and judge had to throw out one of the convictions as there was no possible way that one of the defendants had committed the wrong the jury had convicted him of. This too shows that the jury engaged in faulty reasoning and is another reason that their entire verdict should be scrutinized. It seems that the Illinois judge was unaware of the Toronto Star interview in which the juror tacitly admitted bias and disregard for jury instructions. Had she known I can only hope that she would have vacated the ruling.
That admission may only be that of one juror, but even if she weren’t expressing the sentiments of many of the others, as most certainly seems to be the case, a unanimous verdict is needed in establishment of guilt and in this case, her actions negate that. For this reason justice demands that Black and his associates, including David Radler, who pled guilty to avoid the jury bias that appeared all too likely and that resulted in the above errors, should never have been convicted. They should certainly not suffer for having committed no actual crime. Such suffering is inhumane.
There is a compelling reason for Black, Radler and associates to be pardoned. Justice demands it. Patrick Fitzgerald has prosecuted numerous high profile cases with the flimsiest of evidence and has built his reputation on same. Even the most vocal Bush critics, as well as numerous former prosecutors, were amazed that White House aide Libby was charged while Richard Armitage freely admitted that he was the leaker (acting on his own accord and not breaking any formal laws, as Plame was not a covert foreign agent within 5 years of the leak). Jurors who convicted Libby felt that Fitzgerald could not get his target so he found someone, anyone he could reach, to keep what was a high profile case going. One even asked that Libby be pardoned (which he was not, having so far only received a commutation).
Yet Fitzgerald’s penchant for high profile cases in which he turns and twists facts, as was seen in the Black case, has gone unchallenged. Light needs to be shed on his actions and the harm that they have caused. The President, by rightly showing a pattern and exposing Fitzgerald’s tactics will also shed light on the Libby case. He needs to do the right thing and prevent innocent such as Mssrs. Black and Radler from going to prison based on emotional manipulations of the jury in a case where no crime was committed.
Conrad Black and David Radler, in their journalistic careers, have done more to improve relations between the US and Canada than anyone else. They have fought vigorously for freedom of the press. But most of all, they committed no crime. They should petition the President to do the right thing and right the egregious wrong brought on by a grandstanding attorney who has harmed many people in his rise to fame. Regardless of what they do, the President should do the right thing and pardon them, preventing needless human suffering that is uncalled for in this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)