Tuesday, December 27, 2005

It's time for the rest of the CBC election roundtable to resign.


Given that, as Dr. Dawg writes over here, the CBC caved in to Kate McMillan's threat to sue for libel, I think the rest of the roundtable have an obligation, out of pure principle, to resign in protest.

After listening to right wingers yap incessantly about how their views are being "censored" or similar rubbish like that, it's the height of hypocrisy for one of their own to use legal threats to clamp down on a fellow roundtabler.

So ... Marcie, Glyn, Alan and Liam ... I realize this is your 15 minutes of fame and a wickedly appealing forum to reach a larger audience. But, really, at this point, you need to do the right thing and walk off the set. Now.

MY SYMPATHIES: It's been suggested here and in a number of other places that it's really asking a bit much for the rest of the CBC Election Roundtable to resign. After all, what would that accomplish, they'd just fill those spots with other people who would be possibly worse, this is a great opportunity for those other four columnists to get some experience and perhaps move on to bigger and better things, etc., etc.

Sorry, I don't buy any of that as a defense.

As I read it, when that round table was first established, it was going to represent a variety of voices from across the ideological spectrum -- journalistic "peers" as it were, all with something to say and being given the opportunity to say it. Well, it didn't work out that way, did it?

Far from those round table members being co-equal, we now know who's running the show -- given Kate McMillan's ability to censor one of the other members, we know that Kate is the "alpha male" of the bunch and the rest of the group is (pardon the vulgarity here) her collection of bitches.

The credibility of that entire group pretty much vanished when Kate got her way. It means that, regardless of how much one likes to read Marcie's work, one will always wonder if she's having to hold back to avoid another legal threat, and the same goes for all of the other members. And it's not just Kate that they might be worried about.

Now that Kate's proved that intimidation works, what's to stop, say, Monte Solberg from putting in a call to the CBC to put a little pressure on a piece he doesn't like? We already know that legal threats work, we just don't know who else is going to get the idea.

I sympathize with the rest of the round table in that this is something that they really want to do, and that it's a nice source of income and that it's good experience and all the rest of that. But let's face it -- the credibility is gone. It disappeared the instant Kate McMillan strong-armed the CBC, and the CBC folded.

It's over, folks. It was over the moment you saw what happened and accepted it. Time to move on, and take your dignity and credibility with you.

16 comments:

Erik Sorenson said...

Seems strange to me that Robert (My Blagh) and Doug (Canadian Cynic) are frothing at the mouth over a bogus incident that they obviously enjoy perpetuating and amplifying. Things must really be dismal for Liberal prospects to see all this frothing going on.

For readers interested in the truth, the Indian Residential School comment that Doug & Robert like to refer to is, as usual, taken out of context. So let's deal with facts, not loose slurs and invective.

The actual exchange between Kate (of SDA) and nutbar Meaghan Walker-Willians (MWW in posts) ... that produced "the quotes" is here:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2004/12/normans_spectat_9.html

Read all the thread. Note that even Norman Spector got involved in the thread a couple of times.

Now, since Kate's writings are well known, as is her sda site, let's focus on MWW. I don't want to duplicate work that has already been done, so let's look at what Kate found. Nice lucid post:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002682.html

When you are reading that page, follow a couple of the links, particularly MWW's copy-cat SDA 2.0 site. Obviously MWW has a "hate-on", and I see it's not only for Kate, but the rest of Canada, the constitution, and all things non-aboriginal.

So that's what Doug and Robert are writing about, and are having a fit over ... and urging their readers to take to the streets against this poor injured MWW.

Make your own conclusions, after you read about the reality.

CC said...

1) "Doug"? Who's "Doug"?

2) As a followup to 1), given that I clearly choose to post anonymously, it's pretty classless to refer to me by any proper name whatsoever, don't you think? Even if it's the wrong one.

And, yes, you can apologize for that monumental lapse of etiquette any time now.

Erik Sorenson said...

My bad. I apologize.

Now, let's switch channels back to the post I made minus, of course, the "Doug" word.

CC said...

OK. Now let me correct a number of fallacies in your comment.

1) I'm not urging anyone to take to the streets. I'm simply suggesting that, since Kate McMillan has actually threatened legal action against a fellow roundtabler and (at least from what I can tell) forced her to amend her post, this absolutely amounts to censorship and the rest of the roundtable should resign in protest.

I'm not advocating torching the CBC or anything, so let's not get carried away.

2) Regarding your statement, 'Obviously MWW has a "hate-on", and I see it's not only for Kate, but the rest of Canada, the constitution, and all things non-aboriginal.' That is so clearly a nonsensical generalization that no one here is going to take it seriously.

3) Regardless of how nasty Kate and Meaghan want to be with one another, for Kate to pull out the threat of a libel lawsuit is massively raising the bar when it comes to trying to shut up one's critics.

So for you to refer to this as a "bogus incident" is idiotic in the extreme. The ideological Right is constantly carping about being "censored" when no such thing is happening.

But now, when you really do have an example of actual censorship, it's puzzling how you then write it off as "bogus."

It must be nice to have such malleable principles, yes?

Glyn (Zaphod) Evans said...

Maybe Kate should just pretend to be as tough as she talks. If she doesn't want somethign she says brought up then she shouldn't say it in the first place.

Also, as part of the agreement, CBC does have the right to edit any post they deem offensive, or overly contentious. It was one of the initial terms we all received. They only edit spelling, grammar ans style otherwise. Obviously when someone decides to start whining about sueing everyone, they must act.

Frankly, I don't care about the links. I think most thinking folks know where Kate is coming from half the time anyways. I mean, look at the half baked conspiracy she recently helped think up. Maybe Paul Martin should SUE HER FOR LIBEL. Besides the point, this gig is supposed to pay for my car repairs...

Friggin childish if you ask me... and I have been asked, I just haven't wrote anywhere except here.

Now I need some coffee. I have been out of it for several days and apparently, I have to waste my morning catching up on this issue.

Dr. Dawg said...

So the worst that can be said about Meaghan is that she quoted Kate out of context? (That's a matter of opinion, btw: using notions of residential schools and incarceration when talking to a First Nations person, even if this is merely to achieve a vulgar rhetorical effect, is pretty damned cheap and tasteless.)

And for even daring to link to Meaghan's post, Kate threatens a third party, a co-commentator on CBC's Round Table, with a libel suit?

Good grief, which of these two has been over the top over the past couple of days?

Erik Sorenson said...

OK, now that we have talked about the issue sensibly and sanely, without once having to resort to hysteria, let's turn to the real issues in this election:

- Shape of the Canadian federation

- Aboriginal, Innui and Metis care and dignity

- Provincial-Federal jurisdictions and tax points (sub-title: let's put our healthcare, pension, eldercare, homelessness, housing and daycare houses in order)

On our respective blogs, of course. Rather than pursuing flights of fancy, real or otherwise.

I'll leave out good governance as a general issue. I think the CPC has that covered off well in their platform. The Libs obviously need to go back to school on it.

Couldn't refuse a parting shot.

Cheers, Erik

HisHighness said...

Damn right, I've said stupid stuff before and I took my lumps (The Sheila Copps still being a Liberal leaps to mind)

Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

Hi Erik,

Have you ever read my Somena Media blog.

Why don't you?

Go read the archives going back to 1999 - where I have documented my efforts, and that of other Aboriginals to force accountability in Indian Act Government and the Department of Indian Affairs.

Let me guess...

You have never read a single thing about me, other than what KATE has written. You have formed your conclusions about who I am, based on the half-baked conclusions that Kate McMillan has posted on Small Dead Animals.

You have no idea that I worked with Canadian Alliance Indian Affairs Critic Reed Ellery, That I worked with Tanis Fiss of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation... That I am regularly in touch with Gordon Gibson of the Fraser Institute... That I co-founded one of the FIRST Accountability watch-dog groups for Indian Act Governments in the Country....

No.... none of this is important to you... You just read Kate, and you believe every single lie that she has written - including the criminal defamatory libel wherein she has attempted to infer that I sexually abused my son, that I regularly neglect my children. Where she has incited harrassment, by urging people to call my husband and my family members, even after my husband had responded to her telling her to back off.

But by all means - you go right ahead and defend the Blogging Tory Queen. You keep on, keeping on.

It speaks so well of Blogging Tories and Conservatives when they refuse to investigate these things for themselves, and instead rely upon other people to do their thinking for them.

You might want to check out some of the comments on the Somena Media blog - particularly by Andrew at Bound by Gravity.

Andrew is somebody whom I have a great deal of respect for. He does not agree with your assessment at all - and that's because Andrew has taken the time to politely and honestly ask me questions, engage me, and have a reason-based discussion about these events and Aboriginal issues.

I used to be very sympathetic to the Conservative Party Eric, but after a year of watching people like you, and Kate McMillan -- I absolutley loathe the Conservative Party of Canada and all that it represents.

One Andrew Anderson, As good, decent and honest as he may be does make up for the 100 or so yahoos that permeate the on-line conservative community.

Best of luck to you Eric.
You and your party are going to need it.

The CPC Big Tent just grows smaller and smaller, every single day.

Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

CC,

I would say that this is not a good move for them. I don't know what their aspirations are... but getting this job is good for their resume, and it is something they can use later to find future work in journalism and writing.

I don't think it speaks poorly of their character if they stick with the job. The CBC will just replace them with new people, who will toe the line... and so what will be accomplished?

Now... perhaps a better thing would be to ask CBC journalists outside of the Rountable if they think this was a reasonable action to take, and get their opinion on the matter.

As new hirelings of CBC, these 4 other bloggers don't have much pull -- but long time CBCers may take issue with this sort of thing.

I don't know. It's hard to say.
One blogger has taken to writing to the CBC Administration asking about it - and that's perhaps another tact to take.

eugene plawiuk said...

Ah poor Kate she can dish it out but can't take it. So she is following the Warren Kinsella school of silencing critics with libel slap suits. WK is a lawyer Kate is just spiteful and her claim would never stand up in a court of law, as blogs are Fair Comment...and she knows, thats what protects her from being sued.

Mike said...

Erik,

Nice reference in your initial post, but if you had been around this part of the blogshpere for more than a week, you'd know that dear Kate is nortorious for editing comments and entries at her blog in order to make them more palitable or to make incriminating things disappear. That's why MWW has screen shots of the evidence, taken at the time (and a simple histogram of the jpeg or BMP will indicate if it has been tampered with BTW) of the postings.

If you have read anything by MWW or her former psuedonym Edward T Bear, you would know that she is intelligent, articulate, logical and bitting. But she is also truthful.

Remember, truth is a defence in Libel and slander...

I may not agree in anyway with her libertarian leanings, but I respect Meaghan Walker-Williams because she has been forthcoming and truthful. Kate is running scared.

Of course, feel free just to blindly defend a known racist and idiot, simply because she is buddies with Monte Solberg and a blog standard bearer for the CPC. We wouldn't want you to think for yourself or anything.

lance said...

MWW: This wasn't about being journalists. This was about getting the pulse of Canadians from the majorities of perspective.

Besides, cough, hate crime, cough Delisle RCMP.

Glass houses.

Cheers,
lance

who lives in Delisle.

Jason Cherniak said...

I'm not sure what I think of this. I do know, however, that CTV chose to ignore Werner's complaints with me. I think the problem here is really that CBC had no guts. They should have told Kate that if she did not like it, then she could quit the roundtable.

That said, if I were one of the others, I would not quit. What is the principle here? If anything, I would begin writing about how Kate overreacted and try to force her to quit. If the others quit and she remains, then she wins.

Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

*cough* Lance...

The report to the RCMP In Delisle *cough* was about Kate posting a message trying to imply that I was engaged in sexual impropriety with my son - which is criminal defamatory libel.

*cough*

Do you not understand the difference?

Or do you think that it's perfectly fine for your friend Kate to run around smearing people with false allegations of sexual abuse?

Just wondering.

See Ianism's letter about it.

Anonymous said...

"given Kate McMillan's ability to censor one of the other members, we know that Kate is the "alpha male" of the bunch and the rest of the group is (pardon the vulgarity here) her collection of bitches."

CC-
better watch out with the mysogynist talk, it is only giving her more support.

First of all the use of the word "censor" is way out of line.
Nothing has been censored, it has been discussed and settled. Clearly you do not care for the decision,but that does not allow you to misrepresent the issue.

Second, your comments betray an ager toward women that leads readers to believe your biggest problem with the situation is that a girl is pissing in your sandbox.

The entire post is childish, and beneath you.