So, having now read all of your posts on last Thursday’s program, I thought I’d do what I could in this space to shed some light on how we do what we do.
Apologies for the length, but given the interest in this program, I want to be as thorough and transparent as I can be.
The most frequently asked question you wanted answered was, how did Kathy Shaidle get on The Agenda?
Some of you thought she was an extremist who had no business being there. Others among you --- whether you agreed or disagreed with her --- felt she had a right to be there, in the interests of free speech.
So here’s the background.
Every debate you see on The Agenda happens because one of our producers pitches an idea that the executive producer, Dan Dunsky, and I like.
Every Monday, we have a 90-minute editorial pitch meeting, after which, Dan and I go into his office and decide which ideas the program will proceed with.
Thursdays are a little different, insofar as the program ideas are generated not by our producers, but rather by you, on our website.
Our “Your Agenda” Thursdays producer Stavros Rougas monitors the conversations that take place online, then tells Dan and me what topics are provoking the best discussions online.
In the leadup to last Thursday, there was clearly a lot of interest in the advertising campaign being mounted on Toronto’s transit system by proponents of atheism.
This was, to say the least, rather novel for our province. Unprecedented might be a better description. And The Agenda has often tackled issues having to do with religion in the past (remember our “Five Days of Faith” series). So Dan and I gave that topic the green light.
Because Stavros’ wife was due to have a baby at any moment, another producer, Meredith Martin, who, along with producer Sandra Gionas, had also raised the “atheist bus” issue at an earlier story meeting, graciously agreed to fill the breech and produce the program.
At that point (and this happens with every debate, usually within a week of the air date), Dan, the producer, and I will meet to make sure we’re all on the same page. What’s the program about? What elements do we need to hit? What ground do we have to ensure we cover?
This meeting is very much focused on the content we want to have debated, and how to structure the discussion. Sometimes, if the producer asks for advice (or if Dan and I have an idea we want to share), we’ll discuss possible guests, but not always.
Frankly, I can’t remember whether Kathy Shaidle’s name came up as a potential guest in our 3-way meeting. I do remember suggesting Rob Buckman myself. I think I also suggested Jordan Peterson from the U of T. Meredith suggested Justin Trottier and Gretta Vosper.
But here’s the thing: if Kathy Shaidle’s name did come up in that meeting, it wouldn’t have raised any alarm bells. Kathy had been a guest on The Agenda in the past, and on our previous current affairs offering, Studio 2, several times. She had always been a respectful, opinionated guest. In any event, some time between the end of that meeting and “show day,” Meredith made the decision to book Kathy. Based on her research and her conversations with Kathy, Meredith did mention to Dan that Kathy had strongly-held beliefs but, as this program was focused on atheism, that discussion focused on her comments in this arena, and no other. Therefore, none of us – not Meredith, Dan, or I – had any reason to revisit the decision to have her on the program.
Until Warren Kinsella entered the story.
It was with a considerable amount of surprise that I received an email from Warren, the public affairs consultant and Liberal Party operative, the day our program was set to air.
Warren has been a guest on The Agenda several times, and, in fact, had been a guest with Kathy Shaidle on The Agenda in 2007.
Warren told me that he planned to blog about our “outrageous decision” to “give Kathy Shaidle a platform, and for provincial tax dollars to indirectly fund same.”
He asked whether we had any comment to make and whether Kathy was being paid to appear (she wasn’t).
Warren then included in his private email to me a lengthy list of things Kathy had said about other ethnic groups, mainly Muslims.
Here's what he sent, alleging Shaidle had said or written all of these things:
· On Islam: "...your religion is f-----g retarded...ungrateful beligerent foreign savages...These are people who love watching beheading videos on the internet...A sick, sick religion. Basically Scientology with bombs. Pathetic whiny losers."
· On Muslim and Pakistani immigrants: "Muslims...most of them can't even read...What we really need to do is stop immigration from Pakistan and other crazy Muslim countries filled with illiterate, violent tribal peasants..."
· On Muslim children: they are “parasites.”
· On a group of Muslim students who object to some statements by Mark Steyn: they are “motherf-----g parasites.”
· On Muslims: "Muslims always have to be on top, in reverse proportion to their ability to do anything with competence or creativity."
· On Indians: they are “parasites” who “extorted tax dollars [for] booze, smokes and junk food. Not to mention free everything else, including university educations they don't bother getting.”
· On blacks: “…there is nothing ‘compelling’ about a black man impregnating a white woman. In more than one Toronto neighbourhood, that's what they call Saturday night.”
· On the only people who can get excited about Barack Obama: “black, stupid or both.”
· On Jamaicans: “Just think of how much Jamaican immigrants contribute to our culture and economy: monotonous, illiterate music that all sounds the same, filthy hairstyles, those little tricoloured Rasta doohickies.”
· On the blacks of New Orleans: they are “pathetic losers” who cannot have their IQs raised “a single point.”
· On the poor: they are poor because they are “too lazy and stupid to a) finish high school and/or b) keep their pants on.…I don’t care about the poor. They’re no more real than Bigfoot.”
· On AIDS: “From the beginning, AIDS activism has been more about mainstreaming the gay "lifestyle" than saving lives.”
· On Sikhs: "Backward foreigners [who] shit on hand that feeds them...Unable to invent their own iconic product due to too much time spent worshipping monkeys and cows, setting women on fire and obsessing over imperceptible differences in each other's skin colour..."
· On blind people: "Giving blind people real jobs...is not working out."
· On Chinese: "[They are] spitting and shooting snot on the sidewalk...throwing broken crates of rotten bock choy all over Spadina Avenue [and] eating dubious, illegal foodstuffs" [and cause SARS.]
* * *
I told Warren that if he was looking for an official comment from the program, it should come from our communications department or our executive producer, so I forwarded Warren’s email to Dan.
Later that same day, I received another email from Warren informing me that he was emailing the Minister of Education to ask her to pressure us to “unbook” Kathy Shaidle, and that if we didn’t, there would be significant consequences for TVO and The Agenda. He did, indeed, email the Minister.
Well, now we’ve got a different story, right? Now, it’s no longer a story about the appropriateness of our choosing Kathy to appear on the program. Now it’s a story about a well known Liberal Party operative threatening us (with what? We didn’t know) unless we did what he said.
That’s a very different story and as a result, we naturally refused to “unbook” Kathy. We do not take our marching orders on whom to put on or take off our television program from anyone, but most assuredly, not from partisan political operatives with personal grudges (Warren’s tangle with Kathy, I’ve learned, goes back awhile).
So if Warren’s ultimate goal was to deprive Kathy of a “platform,” his approach failed spectacularly.
Throughout the course of the day, Warren and I emailed back and forth a few times. Much to my surprise, I found my private emails to him quoted on his blog. I found that to be a violation of etiquette and surprising for someone who, I would imagine, understands the value of private conversation.
The show went ahead. Kathy Shaidle didn’t insult Muslims – or anyone else. Some viewers have suggested she appeared angry and defensive but she was not the ogre Warren demanded we take off the public’s airwaves.
After the program, I emailed Warren once again, offering to talk to him at his convenience about the day’s events. He declined, saying “the damage has been done.” What that damage was, he didn’t say.
At this point, I was unclear as to whether my efforts to communicate with Warren were really about resolving a difference of opinion, or simply providing content for his blog.
So there you have it. Shaidle, Kinsella and more, better explained, I hope.
Questions, comments welcome.
I recognize that inviting controversial people attracts viewers, but, except for her one comment about Obama being a Marxist professor, I don't think she even added color to the discussion. Even the Marxist comment is tired, as Shaidle and her blogging buddies have been tossing that around for a long time, more recently throwing in Stalin and Hitler, along with Marx, to commemorate Obama's visit to Ottawa.
I suppose TVO cannot simply be honest on this one, but, really, to say Shaidle was invited for intelligent discussion is the type of lying one expects to see coming from the PMO these days, not from TVO. I hope this will not become a trend. If you are sticking to that response, could you point out one single thing that Shaidle said that you thought contributed to intelligent debate and justified her invitation?
posted by sable on 21 February 2009 at 8:25 AM
This isn't about some Liberal Party operative with an axe to grind. This is about the poor decision-making that leads a tax-payer funded public broadcaster to booking an extremist bigot and self-admitted purveyor of hate to speak on an issue for which she is completely unqualified.
In any case, you have shed not one bit of light on how Ms. Shaidle ended up on The Agenda, but have continued to present this as a political issue, when it is more substantive than that.
posted by Lou on 21 February 2009 at 9:01 AM
I had no problem with Shaidle's participation in this discussion. Much of what she said seemed harmless. The Obama-marxist reference was ridiculous, but it did serve to highlight the the bizarre thinking of many on the fundamentalist right in the US. This whole controversy around Shaidle strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. Get a life for heaven's sake, Warren! Come down to earth.
posted by Boris on 21 February 2009 at 9:15 AM
On behalf of Canada's social conservatives let me express my shock and disbelief that Mr. Paikin would have Ms. Shaidle appear on TVO.
While we support Ms. Shaidle's freedom of expression and TVO's commitment to a broad spectrum of opinion she certainly represents the paleo-conservative point of view.
Which raises the following question:
Mr. Paikin, are you a barbarian?
Heeeheeeheee, we've been waiting for months to ask you that Steve. In all seriousness, maybe in the next election debate you host a better question to ask might be "are Liberals censors?" Because Liberal operative\registered lobbyist Warren admits on his blog he is an censor, his exact words, if you google it yourself, are, quote, "First, I am a censor". Is this not somewhat newsworthy? That Liberals want to selectively criminalize speech in order to persecute their political opponents?
The Liberal party platform last election called for the expansion of "hate speech" laws to include women, meaning that if you were to say, oh, I don't know, a female member of parliament would rather be home "baking cookies", you might find yourself facing hate crime charges, or at least a human right complaint that would cost thousands of dollars to defend. I think that would have been a more meaningful topic for a debate question than "are Conservatives barbarians?"
Kudos for having Shaidle on the show, kudos for providing a platform for feedback, but if the media, including TVO, were a little more aggressive in dealing with censorious Liberals such as Mr. Kinsella maybe they wouldn't be so bold in throwing their political weight around in the first place.
posted by MikeStonebreaker on 21 February 2009 at 10:23 AM
"Kathy Shaidle didn’t insult Muslims – or anyone else."
I beg to differ. At one point Kathy Shaidle tried to vilify atheists by linking them to Stalin's atrocities. As an atheist I find it very insulting when guttersnipes like Shaidle try to pin responsibility for the murder of tens of millions of people on my non belief in God.
Aside from that, everything Kathy Shaidle says is either derogatory, hypocritical, misleading or intellectually shallow and she openly takes pride in presenting herself this way. None of these qualities make her a suitable guest for The Agenda.
posted by Robert McClelland on 21 February 2009 at 10:50 AM
You mentioned that, "Kathy Shaidle didn’t insult Muslims – or anyone else. Some viewers have suggested she appeared angry and defensive but she was not the ogre Warren demanded we take off the public’s airwaves."
--
I'm an atheist and I don't mind being offended or insulted. What I do find most disgraceful is having Kathy Shaidle on as a guest on a day when you are NOT talking about racism OR white supremacy. TVO, by NOT allowing her views to be publicly challenged you are sugar-coating her and promoting her (disingenuously) as an individual with just as valid points-of-view as any other guest. TVO, you are implying to Ontarians that there is nothing wrong with being a racist. That if you are a racist then society will accept you just like we accept people with political differences. There is a difference between believing in differing political philosophies and UNJUSTLY discriminating against people based on their race, religion, and/or ethnicity! Kathy Shaidle has crossed the line!
--
I respect free speech! But this is NOT what free speech is about! Please remember, there is a huge difference between respecting free speech and giving people with racist views a publicly-funded provincial platform! And worst of all, no one on the show challenged her racist views. Just like we expect doctors promoting drugs to fully disclose their corporate connections, we need guests providing their comments of societies/individuals to fully disclose their racist views. Her racist views invalidate her commentary on societies/individuals!
--
Mr. Paikin, are you going to invite her in the future as well and still continue to NOT challenge her racist views? Is that the essence of free speech to you, Mr. Paikin?
posted by OneWorld on 21 February 2009 at 12:06 PM
This post starts out with Mr. Kinsella's response. If there is an original post by Mr. Paiken, it is not showing up on my browser, even though your earlier posts do. I'd like to be able to read the justification, if it exists.
posted by sable on 21 February 2009 at 12:48 PM
I contacted the Minister responsible, as I clearly noted in the first sentence, as a citizen. I do not lose my rights to object to TVO's bad editorial judgment simply because I am, as you say, a "Liberal Party operative."
That's funny... Just the other week warren put a $1,000 bounty on the head of an anonymous blogger who suggested that Warren's "employers" be made aware of the growing public displeasure with Warren's own "bad editorial judgment".
Kudos to the Agenda for not backing down.
Note to Mike Stonebreaker; You don't speak on behalf of "social conservatives". You speak on behalf of yourself. Nothing more, nothing less...
posted by Richard Evans on 21 February 2009 at 12:59 PM
So you know Shaidle and consider her a thoughtful, informed participant. Okay. That surprised me a great deal. But, I don't know much about you and I just learned a lot more.
posted by sable on 21 February 2009 at 1:09 PM
Whether or not Kinsella's tactics were appropriate isn't really the issue. That truly is between TVO and WK. The real issue, with all due respect, is why TVO put Shaidle on the air. Warren wasn't the only person upset by the decision, and not the only blogger who wrote about it. Unfortunately, Paikin's post seems to suggest that, at the end of the day, Shaidle appeared because the good folks at The Agenda didn't want to cave to Kinsella's strong-arming. That's not very compelling.
To say that Shaidle didn't offend anyone during the program is disingenuous. Just because she didn't spew some of the hateful phrases she's allegedly written online doesn't mean she's not offending people. It's like inviting the head of the KKK on a knitting show and pretending that, as long as he talks about yarn and stitches, no one will mind that he's a bigot off camera.
You give Shaidle legitimacy and credibility by putting her on air. You tell the Ontario public that, in TVO's opinion, Shaidle's views matter. That bolsters her reputation off-camera and diminishes TVO's reputation in the process.
You could avoid this kind of blunder in the future by selecting guests who have valuable information to share with the audience. As a viewer, I don't need to agree with every guest, I just want to learn something or see a new, legitimate, point of view. Shaidle offered neither, and that's the real issue.
posted by Partisan Hobo on 21 February 2009 at 3:29 PM
Steve,
I'm certainly not a fan of Shaidle's extremist views but I wouldn't go as far as saying she should be persona non grata. I saw your show on atheism and there is a much better reason not to have had her as a guest - she really had nothing to say that was of any interest. Shaidle was clearly out of her depths when it came to having any sort of intellectual discussion on atheism, religion, or free speech - she was spoke the least of any of the guests, didn't seem to know what to say in response to the arguments being made by Dr. Buckman or any of the other panelists and could only must a rather bizarre comment about President Obama that left everyone on the panel bewildered. You can see the moment on Dr Buckman's face where the thought "she's out of her tree, there's really nothing to talk to this person about" crossed his mind.
There are a number of interesting people you could have had as guests who could have far better carried the can for the "religious conservative" cause - Father Raymond DeSouza who is a columnist at the National Post comes to mind.
Shaidle has nothing of weight to add to the discussion. The most she can contribute is a sense of alarmism and sensationalism and if that's what you're looking for you might have well have asked Rachel Marsden or Ann Coulter on.
posted by edward bay on 21 February 2009 at 3:41 PM
Apologies for my copy editing errors above.
If I can make an additional point - I think the Agenda would be better off not to have intellectual lightweights such as Shaidle or, for that matter, Warren Kinsella, on the program anymore. And please, please, no more Adam Daifallah - he hasn't had anything interesting to say since he told Michael Coren "the jury is still out" on WMDs a year or so into the Iraq war.
posted by edward bay on 21 February 2009 at 3:53 PM
As I am certain Mr. Paikin is aware few of the complainants against Ms. Shaidles appearance on the Agenda are in fact regular viewers. It was right of him to stand up to Kinsellas attempted smear job of Ms. Shaidle.
So obsessive is Kinsella's self-destructive hatred for Kathy Shaidle that he is blind to the fact that he consorts with the uh, what's the polite term again? Oh yes the anti-zionists of the left in order to pursue his petty vendetta, all the while employed by the CJC. It speaks to the fact that Kinsella has so few real allies otherwise. This would be mortally embarassing for anyone of right mind, but we are dealing with the Kinsella here.
Yesterday Warren Kinsella ran a piece in which he claims Ms. Shaidle - a staunchly Pro-Israel blogger is ok discriminating against Jews. That's how desperate Kinsella has become. He now resorts to outright lies. Shaidle merely lends support to the libertarian stance that the market place of ideas will deal far more effectively with discrimination than any other solution. Warren may be either too stupid or too blinded by hatred to make that distinction, but I suspect he simply chooses to lie.
You may read about this further here:
http://tinyurl.com/az5clq
Poor Warren how sad.
posted by Blazingcatfur on 21 February 2009 at 5:38 PM
I enjoy her honesty and her openess, she does not pretend to be someone she isn't something Kinsella appears to do? I also note that the usual radical leftwingers came here to smear Kathy. It's truely pathetic what the so called Liberal Party has evolved into, censorship, screeching racist at anyone who doesn't espouse their nonsensical socialists' clap trap. The mewling left see racism, bigotry and hate under every bush, it's rather sickening to watch the usual suspects against Free Speech smear her whilst patting Kinsella on the back for trying to have her censored because he doesn't like her opinion.
Not liking someone's opinion is now a justifiable reason to have that person removed and censored? Tyranny seems to be the new policies and ideology of the left how utterly pathetic is that? I expect nothing less of Kinsella, he's a legend in his own mind but a mere fleck of lice in my mind.
The fact that this conversation is happening frightens me censorship and banning Kathy today who in the future? The attempt to have her removed was a personal attack, nothing less nothing more. Will the usual leftwingers be screening future participants on your program in future? Because allowing them to decide who gets to debate is surrendering to their bullying tactics using drive by smears.
They can dish it out sadly they can't take a return volley, tiss a sad fact of life.
posted by Renorosie on 21 February 2009 at 5:44 PM
While not endorsing Warren Kinsella's tactics in this matter, in my view you appear to pat yourself on the back because KS didn't insult Muslims on your show.
The implication one can draw is that the Agenda will host anyone, notwithstanding unconscionable prior expressions in the public domain and fairly thin qualifications to be a guest (see comments from Edward Bay above), as long as (a) they don't actually repeat the expressions notified to you on air or otherwise behave boorishly and (b) they've been previously booked on the Agenda and thus receive a free pass going forward.
What's done is done. I'd like to know what TVO has learned from this, and how it will shape future choices with respect to guests.
posted by dowlingm on 21 February 2009 at 6:03 PM
dowlingm, I ask you to read this post by Deborah Gyapong, http://tinyurl.com/b6upqq or this one by Mark Steyn, http://tinyurl.com/bpv3nv. This will I hope do much to help you understand why Ms. Shaidle is held in such high regard by so many.
Shaidles style may not be to your liking but I assure you she is a valued voice to many.
posted by Blazingcatfur on 21 February 2009 at 6:41 PM
Congratulations Steve on your handling of this matter. Your decision to deal with this in an open and forthright manner in a public forum allows people to form their own opinions instead of relying on the spin of a professional political operative.
posted by BBS on 21 February 2009 at 7:00 PM
Well Steve Paikin, what you have witnessed is an attempted jack booting by Warren Kinsella. Kinsella is a self admitted censor who likens himself to talking the walk but in reality fails to walk the talk. The righteous one tries to expunge Shaidle for her so called 'bigoted' comments on her blog by taking out of context snippets and posting same on his own blog and more than once at that. It is a regular occurrence. This is "Mr. Words Matter" Kinsella fueling the fire with ongoing publication of the very words he claims he despises. Read his blog. You will not find one single day where he doesn't smear or nearly libel someone. Who you ask? Well anyone who doesn't hold the same views as himself. Mainly conservatives. If Kinsella had his way, he would have us all injected with the same opinions and no debate ever and you Mr. Paiken, and those like you, would be out of a job. No need you see when we all think 'the same'. Now offense is in the eyes of the beholder. Kinsella offends people every day on his blog, me included, and I'm sure he thinks it cute. Try it the other way around and you're a Nazi bigot. Now Shaidle speaks out very aggressively with extreme "tongue in cheek" and controversial and shocking statements, all the while purposely turning the tables on the extreme political correctness that is strangling our society and our western civilization. Kinsella is preaching tolerance and responsible speech, (by liberal only rules) in fact censorship, PC speech and all that, although you would never believe it entirely by reading his own blog. So he labels Shaidle a bigot and expects you Steve Paikin and TVO to jump on the band wagon without a whimper and fall in line with his liberal views or be punished for it. Let me say this. While the Hamas supporters were marching in Canadian cities recently, calling for Jews to go to the ovens cause 'Hitler didn't do a good enough job', the 'bigot' Shaidle was out there in the street with the pro-Israel crowd listening to the incoming volley of hatred and genocidal wishes from these other 'highly valued' and 'tolerant' Canadians and reporting on it. Kinsella although he supports Israel, let there be no doubt, was no where to be seen. No where. Neither did he condemn it on his blog. Shaidle did. Oooooooohhh! that mouthy Shaidle! Kinsella, the more righteous than thou one, did manage to post a video on his blog, disparaging Chinese Canadians, much to their horror. He was not serious. He thought he was making a joke I'm sure. Guess who stood up for him. The evil Shaidle, oops! I mean the 'wicked witch of the east' as Warren calls her all the time. Warren Kinsella has no room for the opinion or views of anyone except those who toe the Liberal Party line, his line, the approved multi-culti line, being that Liberals are the only tolerant ones in this country, whatever tolerance means these days. Do 'Hitler and ovens' qualify? By the way, Steve, did he ask you for the name of your Lawyer yet?
posted by TerryG on 21 February 2009 at 7:59 PM
I have read the litany of "excerpts" that Mr Kinsella posted concerning Kathy Shaidle. I had not realized before this, that Mr Kinsella was a neo-dada deconstructivista artist. But his letter of complaint at the head of this column indicates that he is also a petulant whiny brat that thrashes out in a temper trantrum if he doesn't get his way. Simply put -- Mr Kinsella is a cry baby by an order of magnitude.
posted by Wally Keeler on 21 February 2009 at 8:02 PM
Trupeers of Covenant Zone wrote this. You may read it in its entirety here: http://tinyurl.com/bat7zh
Kinsella likes to portray himself as a defender of multiculti values, and of Canadian Jews against hate speech. He also styles himself a fan of Barack Obama. I wonder how he is coming to terms with the latest revelations of Obama's antisemitic tendencies (see here, here and here). I point this out just to point vaguely to the paradoxes of our times that may be driving Kinsella in his five inches of fury: the revelation that left-liberal political correctness and its accompanying "human rights" discourse turns out, when fully revealed, to be antisemitic. Kathy knows this, she knows that PC is anti-freedom which is part of the reason I guess she makes such a show of being politically incorrect in an attempt to wake us up to the real nature and cause of freedom. Yes, there are places and times when we are pushed closer to freedom, not oppression, by being called school-yard names. But try telling that to the Human Rights Commission. Kathy may not always be in touch with those places and times, but those who would pressure TV producers to ban her will probably never know how to judge in anything other than a blind self-righteousness. They certainly won't let others think for themselves and provide the feedback we all need to overcome our delusions.
posted by Blazingcatfur on 21 February 2009 at 8:38 PM
Jonathan Kay National Post: I love it: Steve Paikin makes a pathetic mockery of an Ignatieff crony's crude attempt to censor TVO
...Now, it turns out there's another reason to respect Paikin: He stands up to windbag bullies who attempt to censor his show — even windbag bullies who work for Michael Ignatieff and try to pull strings with higher-up in the Ontario government...
Here's the Link: http://tinyurl.com/angsxf
posted by Blazingcatfur on 21 February 2009 at 8:59 PM
Warren Kinsella has lost his last marble. He has become paranoid. If he can't censor someone, he sues them, accuses them before an HRC or assassinates their character on his blog.
Steve Paikin can NEVER be said to be partisan and has ALWAYS upheld the most unimpeachable manner of moderating a discussion.
Kinsella's attempts to sully Paikin may actually be a great thing: whatever shred of credibility Kinsella may have had left in the political arena may have just vanished. Good riddance!
posted by Chuck80 on 21 February 2009 at 9:39 PM
Mr. Paikin, I hope you and your staff continue to be the ones to decide who appears on your program. Mr. Kinsella's argument that a taxpayer-funded channel should invite only those people whose views are acceptable to him is ludicrous.
Does Mr. Kinsella hold another taxpayer-funded network, the CBC, to the same standard? Its guests and experts are often from the left side of the political spectrum, which could explain his probable approval of guests booked to appear on CBC programs.
Who appointed Mr. Kinsella as the public arbiter of who is an acceptable member of a panel, anyway? When did that appointment take place?
I rarely agree with much of what Ms. Shaidle writes, nor do I appreciate her writing style, which is what led me quite a while ago to remove the bookmark to her blogsite from my computer. Likewise, I removed the bookmark to Mr. Kinsella's blog for the very same reasons.
I would thus suggest that Mr. Kinsella do something similar. Whenever he hears of Ms. Shaidle's participation on programs such as The Agenda, I urge Mr. Kinsella to use that handy thingy that comes with the TV - the remote - to change the channel. His virginal ears will thus be spared whatever offending POV Ms. Shaidle might express. And, other adults will get to choose whether to watch the program or not.
posted by Gabby in QC on 22 February 2009 at 2:02 AM
I fully support TVOs decision to have Kathy Shaidle on your show.
Warren, didn't your mother teach you to play fair, and that you would not always get your way. Warren hates Shaidle because she truly believes in free speech. As is very obvious by his latest behaviour, Warren seeks to stamp out speech that does not follow his elitist, politically correct attitude.
posted by Madman on 22 February 2009 at 3:17 AM
Mr. Paiken, I suggest you address what you want to say to Kinsella to him, and show other Canadians a bit of respect by answering our concerns. Why Shaidle?
Is it because you are waiting for slips like the one that shows contempt for the US president by dismissing him as a Marxist Professor? Other than that, her comments could have come from almost anyone who wasn't very articulate, intellectually curious, or thoughtful and viewed non-Christians as "others". Even bigots can guard their words for an hour, but it is the slips, like the Marxist Professor, which shows their true colours. Is that what you are aiming for? That if you keep putting Shaidle on, one day she is going to spew something hateful about Muslims, gays, or blacks on your show? And then what?
posted by sable on 22 February 2009 at 4:39 AM
How about sticking to the point, which is why someone like Shaidle should be on a show about atheism and religion.
posted by sable on 22 February 2009 at 4:47 AM
Here we go again. Liberals threaten and insult whenever they choose to and the "left" just doesn't seem to care. This isn't the first time a journalist has been threatened by a Liberal operative for not going along with their agenda - remember on Mike Duffy how he called the Liberal guest to task for threatening him during a break? Kinsella is all about dirty politics and attacks. This is the creep that used Barney the dinosaur to insult Stockwell Day's religious beliefs. The left wing has zero tolerance for democracy and free speech. Their primary method of operation is to ban whatever they don't like, outlaw anything they disagree with and threaten people who voice an opinion they dislike. Their unwillingness to tolerate differences in views and opinions (all MUST conform to their political correctness agenda) is well known and Kinsella has been their attack dog on many issues. His style to to insult, belittle and blatantly lie about the issue so as to discredit the victim of his attacks; Liberals smile and quietly chuckle at his antics. This time, the victim is standing up to his attacker; I am sure the Provincial Liberals will find a way to punish TVO for this impertinence.
posted by Ron from Ottawa on 22 February 2009 at 8:27 AM
Although not a Christian Fundamentalist, the lowest point I've seen in Canadian politics was in the interview Kinsella did with the Barney doll. If that wasn't insulting and mockery to someone's religion then I don't know what is.
Now the same man is using third party victimization to promote some kind of Canadian Liberal Party Fairness Doctrine. His outrage might be given more respect if he was a member of the automatically offended group.
It's disturbing to wonder what our country would be like with this man back in power - truth squads, Barb Hall internet police, Queens University conversation monitors. Liberals are never so outraged as when someone disagrees with them. Freedom of speech seems only to apply to them and all others requires their suppression.
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
posted by Ockham on 22 February 2009 at 8:31 AM
Bravo Steve, for your adept and fair handling of this delicate situation. TVO can and should have whoever it wants on The Agenda. The primary purpose of the show, as far as I know, is to inform the viewers and that is why I watch it regularly. Informing viewers includes having people participate who have opinions, even strong ones, even controversial ones, on issues of the day - and TVO does this admirably. I say good on you and TVO, and I look forward to seeing controversial people on in the future.
posted by Terry on 22 February 2009 at 8:46 AM
...Obama is a marxist. 98% of his policies are straight out of the communist manifesto. Don't believe me? Download a copy and read it for yourself. Obama was also a "professor". He was the senior lecturer, in constitutional law, at the U of Chicago where he taught courses on due process and equal protection. Don't believe me? His resume is posted on-line for all to see... "professor" + "marxist" = "marxist professor"
Shaidle's slip wasn't a "slip at all. It was fact. Had you shelved your hatred and blind adherence to the tao-of-catsella for a wee bit and actually paid attention to what's going on around you, you'd have known that.
You ask, sable, why they put Shaidle on the show. Mr. Paikin replied; (paraphrased) "That she's been on the show before and she's been a good guest without any problems."
Beyond that, she's a respected author, columnist and Catholic (relapsed) who's been writing on religious/social/political issues for the past 8 years. Why shouldn't The Agenda have her on? Because Kinsella told you that she's "racist? Yeah, well, Kinsella has a poor track record when it comes to telling the truth and you need to check your premise, sable. Do some research instead of lapping up Kinsella's drool. Kathy Shaidle is no more racist than Martin Luther King Jr.
posted by Richard Evans on 22 February 2009 at 8:55 AM
It is quite refreshing to see that in this era of yellow journalism and utter absence of integrity of most of those in either the print or television media that occasionally there is one who displays courage and integrity in the field of journalism. Mr. Pakin I salute you. I have never heard Ms. Shaidle speak or read any of her works so I cannot speak directly to her purported bigotry but I think that if there are any true Liberals posting on this site, not those who would rather sweep possible controversial figures like Shaidle under the run to foment and grow like a fungus in the dark, but those who would rather give racists the rope to hang themselves and wither the clear light of day in the manner employed by Patrick Watson on ‘This Hour has Seven Days’ then read what I sent to Mr. Kinsella below and post your reply to him on his blog. Also I urge you pursue your Liberal Party representative to have Kinsella severely and publically reprimanded in order to support for that most Liberal of notions “FREE SPEECH”.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kinsella,
I recently read a story in the National Post on the run in you had with Steve Paikin over Kathy Shaidle's appearance on his show. Now as someone who has been a life long Liberal supporter, and admittedly one who has had little to no exposure to Kathy Shaidle or her purported views, I find your attempts to censor her appearance then threaten Mr. Pakin with censure unsettling at best. If I were to provide my real feelings on this subject I would be ranting here for several hundred paragraphs peppered with expletives and derogatory remarks on your fascistic attempt to quash free speech and abuse your power as well as the utter lack of integrity and character that such pathetic and bureaucratic pontificating and pulpit thumping speak to.
I hope that the Liberal party, at both the Federal and Provincial level, are wise enough and have the vision to see how your little attempt at a pissing contest, and the fact that it is now out in the public eye, has and will likely continue to UDERMINE their credibility and unnecessarily provides another load of ammunition to Harper and the rest of those pardon the pun, PC THUGS (Read Progressive Conservative), to continue and possibly consolidate their naked grab for power. Yes Mr. Kinsella the damage has bee done, not by the appearance of a controversial figure on a news debate show that was created to air out and discuss controversial topics, but by you and your childish attempt to use your power and influence to get back on what is, as described by Mr. Pakin, apparently a personal grievance. This sort of conduct is what allowed the Harper brigade the opening they needed to usurp power, and even manipulate that facts and prorogue Parliament last fall when they weren’t going to get their way and it’s this sort of conduct that will cause use to be saddles with their inane and sightless leadership for the foreseeable future . If the Liberal party ever expects to regain the reigns of this nation they are going to have to clean house of petty self seeking, self serving, self satisfied, self important, low brow, grasping rat-bastards. That being said, the Liberal Party at both the federal and provincial levels should publicly disavow any future association with you and do so in the harshest terms possible. Thoughtless idiots like you Kinsella were made for throwing under busses and I will do what ever I can to bring this to the attention of the Liberal Party leadership at both the provincial and federal levels.
posted by Angryphone Canadian on 22 February 2009 at 9:46 AM
I'm not going to argue the point that the President of the USA is a Marxist and a Communist. I know that is all over Shaidle's, SDA and other blogging Tories sites, but it is ridiculous.
As to Obama being a professor at one time, so what? He is now President. You don't refer to Harper as a lobbyist, do you? Also, using the description "Professor" as a slur, is drivel.
As to Shaidle being on the show because she was on the show previously -- I didn't see her previously. I only saw her this time. She displayed no intellectual curiousity, and, in fact, the opposite - she displayed a closed mind which was not interested in learning (as evidenced by her not wanting to listen to the US President because he had at one time been a professor and such). She showed no depth and added nothing to the program. If her earlier appearances were similar, one has to question Mr. Paikin's judgement.
As to Shaidle being racist - I've only visited her blog a few times and found anti-muslim bigotry, where she smears all Muslims, as well as the remark about not nuking Japan enough the day she was appearing on TVO. I don't need you or Paikin or Kinsella either defending her views or denouncing them.
Her appearance on TVO showed me why such bigotry might be on her web pages. Shaidle appears to have a closed mind and a limited perspective, which might be why she finds it difficult to view people of different religions or races as individual people. However, I'm actually not that interested in why Shaidle likes to spew garbage on her site.
What I do find interesting is that Mr. Paikin seems more interested in addressing one person, Kinsella, than he is in all the posters and letter writers who expressed opinions. Unlike Kinsella, I have come around to thinking it is fine for Mr. Paikin to have Shaidle on his show. It gave me some insight into why she might run the type of blog she does.
Again, I saw no evidence of the type of intellect that would justify repeat appearances. If all Mr. Paikin looks for is guests who won't get him into trouble, that is a very low bar. Since Shaidle does not seem inclined to repeat on TVO the things she writes on her blog, she would seem to meet that low bar.
posted by sable on 22 February 2009 at 10:01 AM
Please stand your ground, Mr. Paikin. Do not engage Mr. Kinsella any further, as he is a bully. Do not offer even the smallest of compromises as it will be presented as a victory on Mr. Kinsella's website. As usual you have carried yourself with fairness and integrity and that has been twisted by the conniving and unscrupulous Mr. Kinsella. Hopefully someday he will be put in his place once and for all, but for now just ignore him - he is truly not worthy of your attention.
posted by Tuck on 22 February 2009 at 10:38 AM
Once again I am impressed by Mr. Paikin's ability to raise my opinion of public broadcasting. Shaidle's comments are taken out of context through kinsellas' cut and paste, but, regardless, since when does some liberal hack determine program content? He's welcome to voice an opinion, but that's never enough for kinsella, whose influence seems to be escaping like air from an old party balloon. And for those who agree with his opinion, well, that's fine, but do you really want political party affiliates telling you who you'll watch and listen to?
posted by spence utah on 22 February 2009 at 10:51 AM
Kathy Shaidle uses over the top language, but in doing so keeps the rest of us real. Are we really not expressing our views because that is what we actually believe or know to be true or are we conforming to the current p.c. status and we don't want to be dragged in front of the Kinsella's of the world - who bully, threaten lawsuits, call people ignorant idiots and if you are a woman you get much, much worse. We silence ourselves around issues that require critical and open discussion (Islam is not the religion of peace, Indian reserves are dysfunctional, there really only is a small majority of people who believe in abortion 100% of the time etc. etc.) - but all those topics are deemed 'off limits' by the political correct police - who are for the most part on the left side of the political spectrum. The consequence is that we continue to spend public money on things that don't matter and on programs and services that don't work, but are approved by the p.c. crowd, etc. etc. So thank you Kathy and thank you TVO.
posted by Yeah for free speech on 22 February 2009 at 10:57 AM
I'm not going to argue the point that the President of the USA is a Marxist and a Communist. I know that is all over Shaidle's, SDA and other blogging Tories sites, but it is ridiculous.
I'm not asking you to argue the point. You've obviously never read the communist manifesto or any other writings by Marx, Stalin, Necchi(sp?) or the like and to expect you to debate on those grounds wouldn't be fair. I only requested that you do some reading. Horse. Water. Drink. It's all up to you...
posted by Richard Evans on 22 February 2009 at 11:03 AM
The comments are interesting. The left defines itself by demanding an explanation of why a guest on a TV show they don't like appeared on it. To my mind, its a great argument for the banning of state run and paid for media altogether. Deregulate TV to the point where anyone can have any channel and any guest. A word of advice to all, if you do not like what you see on TV change the channel, turn it off, start your own TV show. A variant perhaps on 'if thine eye offends thee'? While I do respect the host a great deal for not bowing down to government pressure, this pressure itself is a serious alarm for all of us. There is no excuse for a political party member to use authority to censure what we may or may not hear. And those who defend Shaidle miss the point IMO. Whether she is correct or not about Obama, opposition is what makes governments good ones. Bush certainly had no shortage of opposition from Ontario media. Remember, levers of power are only useful when people you like are holding them. Much like a machine gun
posted by Eeyore on 22 February 2009 at 11:16 AM
As to Shaidle being on the show because she was on the show previously -- I didn't see her previously. I only saw her this time.
And the world revolves around you? If you haven't seen something before, it never existed or was irrelevant? Narcissist much?
Shaidle appears to have a closed mind and a limited perspective, which might be why she finds it difficult to view people of different religions or races as individual people.
Had you actually paid attention to Shaidle's writings, you'd have seen that she holds the individual in high esteem while denouncing cultural failures - be they religious (all religions) or political. She takes the individual to account for allowing said failings, yes but it's the individual that has the power to change the culture.
What I do find interesting is that Mr. Paikin seems more interested in addressing one person, Kinsella, than he is in all the posters and letter writers who expressed opinions.
Had kinsella not gone on his own personal jihad against TVO and Shaidle, you wouldn't be commenting here now. Kinsella started the ruckus. He started the petitions. He sent the e-mails to his Liberal pals at the leg and the executives at TVO... Kinsella effectively made himself the defacto leader of your little rabble. Is it not appropriate that he, himself be addressed in the response? Would it have made you feel better if Mr. Paikin added a "Dear sable..." to the title of the above post?
Again, I saw no evidence of the type of intellect that would justify repeat appearances.
That's your opinion. Others disagree. Join a support group...
posted by Richard Evans on 22 February 2009 at 11:24 AM
Steve, I have been and still am a fan of yours and I have the utmost respect for you. I admire you greatly.
However, I just don't understand how a public figure like yourself could type something to anyone over the internet and assume that it would be kept private. Especially a politically savy pro such as yourself. I am not condoning the printing of you comments by any means, but you must be more careful in the future. It is too easy to get overly comfortable with e-mail and other internet communications.
Still a fan. Stay safe Steve.
posted by InKingston on 22 February 2009 at 11:29 AM
"If the Liberal party ever expects to regain the reigns of this nation they are going to have to clean house of petty self seeking, self serving, self satisfied, self important, low brow, grasping rat-bastards."
posted by Angryphone Canadian on 22 February 2009 at 9:46 AM"
Angry,
You pretty much described everyone in the Liberal Party. Never have I seen such a display of 'spoiled child' politics as I see now ... with Kinsella riding point on that trend.
Kudos to Steve P for running his own show. I for one read Shaidle's blog daily and I am in agreement with much of what she says. Those who sound alarm bells and extend warnings to the oh-so distracted public are often vilified because what they say is uncomfortable.
I can tell you that life is going to get a lot more uncomfortable if folks like Kinsella are ever in charge. Watch for the change of attitude in the USA when the majority of people realize that Obama's policies fail and cause more harm and loss of freedoms.
Watch how 'uncomfortable' our society continues to become as Shaidles' warning about the Islamic Jihad becomes more a reality in the Western world.
My beef is not religious. I am atheist. Common sense and logic tell me that Shaidle is on the right track. People like Kinsella are dangerous to freedom, period.
Kinsella has many illusions, one of them is that he is a musician. Listen to his alleged band whose childish name I cannot state in this forum as it is an expletive. ... Go from there.
You be the judge of this man's lack of good sense. I am grateful the Liberal Party keeps a poster boy like this up front.
posted by Jack West on 22 February 2009 at 12:07 PM
Steve Paikin: "We do not take our marching orders on whom to put on or take off our television program from anyone, but most assuredly, not from partisan political operatives with personal grudges."
That's really all anyone needs to understand. If Kinsella is so horribly "offended" by seeing Shaidle's face on TVO, then he should change the channel.
It's laughable that Kinsella, who slurred the Chinese Canadian community with his catmeat joke, has the nerve to call someone else a racist. Hey, pot ... kettle!
Kinsella's attempt to censor TVO's choice of guests reminds me of the sock puppets' attempt to force Macleans to bow to their will. What's next? An HRC complaint by Warren?
posted by SJT on 22 February 2009 at 12:59 PM
Steve, as much as I do not care for the guest, your refusal to back down from this bully speaks volumes of your integrity. That topic needs a guest like John Stackhouse. http://www.johnstackhouse.com/
Shaidle would have been better suited for a blog type topic. It truly is scary when a political operative would have been able to vetoe a show like yours. You did the right thing!!!
posted by Tjeerd on 22 February 2009 at 1:08 PM
You know you're doing the right thing when a guy that writes memos to his boss praising the likes of Chuck Guite and Alphonse Gaglianno writes memos against you.
Kathy Shaidle was terrific , more of her and less Liberal Party fascists please.
posted by icefisherman on 22 February 2009 at 1:24 PM
Steve: A slightly off-center guest is, as you probably hoped with the Shaidle choice, a good choice because it gives an 'outside the box' expansion to the discussion. A good example of this enhancement is your inclusion of a science fiction writer on the show segment discussing the effects of technology on the brain or 'i-brain'. He was fantastic--- because he was intelligent, focused on topic, and coherent. You may have hoped that Shaidle would provide the extreme -religious angle for the discussion. She apparently holds the views which should have given that bias for the viewer to see. Unfortunately, she seemed unable to focus on topic (Obama?? Marx??), is not particularily coherent, and doesn't come across as intelligent. It is important for participants in a discussion to realize that argument is not debate. There is an intellectual distinction that differentiates the good shows from the ho-hum shows (and the good blogs from the not so good). Please continue to try to bring together a balance of all perspectives on your topics. If a guest doesn't bring the illumination that you hoped for, don't take it personally. One does one's best and hopes it works. If it doesn't? At least you tried.
posted by Gwendolyn on 22 February 2009 at 2:00 PM
Some people just don't get it - this blog posting is NOT about whether you liked what Shaidle had to say during her appearance on The Agenda, or whether you like Shaidle at all, for that matter.
This blog's post IS about whether an individual with a personal grudge has any right to try to force TVO to cancel a proposed guest's appearance.
Do try to stay on topic.
posted by SJT on 22 February 2009 at 2:36 PM
I wrote to TVO asking why Shaidle was picked for the show, as she didn't seem like she would add anything to an intellectual discussion about atheism, as TVO had suggested. I got the same form reply that everyone received.
I personally don't care what Kinsella wrote or what Mr. Paikin has to say to Kinsella. I'm interested in why TVO thinks Shaidle added intellectually to this show. My understanding is Mr. Paikin's post above is his answer to me and others who asked about this. The whole Kinsella thing is a side issue to me.
posted by sable on 22 February 2009 at 2:56 PM
Mr. Paikin says in his opening post:
"The most frequently asked question you wanted answered was, how did Kathy Shaidle get on The Agenda? "
That is what he is addressing. That is what we are discussing - whether the response actually answers our concerns (for those of us who had concerns). If you didn't have any concerns, feel free to give TVO a pat on the back, but this post is really to address posters and viewers concerns.
posted by sable on 22 February 2009 at 3:02 PM
Google those two and you'll discover that both are obsessed with Warren Kinsella (among other things). And Richard Evans is a known online pest from Alberta.
Frankly, I think "The Agenda" is wasting time and resources on this web 2.0 distraction. Get back to public broadcasting and spending more time finding better guests than Kathy Shaidle and stop providing venues for known online kooks and loonies.
posted by Lou on 22 February 2009 at 3:17 PM
Obsessed? Hardly. Kinsella sets himself up for a public himiliation and we just report it. It's great fun.
posted by Blazingcatfur on 22 February 2009 at 4:05 PM
A comment poster from ALBERTA!!! Everybody run before you get Alberta cooties!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaa!
Good Grief...
Unfortunately, Lou is correct. I live in Alberta. I hope it's ok that I steal from the OT taxpayer by watching episodes of The Agenda on-line. Lou's also correct that I have more than just a passing interest in Warren Kinsella. As one of those "free-speecher" types, I like to keep tabs on the censors. As his most recent stunt clearly indicates, Warren's a censor.
I feel so ashamed... Actually, come to think of it, no I don't...
posted by Richard Evans on 22 February 2009 at 4:15 PM
We can debate the merits of Kathy Shaidle all day. Frankly, I found her a bit out of place in this topic, and she has had better appearances (she did look angry).
But that's not the issue.
Why on earth is a prominent member of a political figure's "war room" trying to control who shows up on public TV? This is an outrage! Surely there are some ethics rules that have been breached here. If Ignatieff becomes prime minister, will he permit his underlings to try to censor contradictory opinions?
An investigation is required here. Is such conduct to be accepted, or it is to be reprimanded publicly so it cannot happen again?
posted by Jack3 on 22 February 2009 at 4:33 PM
I feel also obliged to say that right now the only TV news personality I have any respect for is Mr. Paikin. Not just because of this, but based on a long history of taking on controversial topics and handling them in an evenhanded manner.
If he were on CBC, I might start watching that again.
Well. No. On second thought... no chance. But The Agenda is a regular on my schedule.
posted by Jack3 on 22 February 2009 at 4:37 PM
Kudos to Mr.Paikin with his response to Gilligan we can say he has now had a Mike Duffy Moment (recall during a previous election when a liberal hack (during camera break)had tried to cajole the Ol Duff to go easy on the liberals and Duff consequently called him out on camera). That my friends is integrity Mike had it and now Mr. Paikin. Keep up the good work TVO.
posted by OV in the Vallet on 22 February 2009 at 4:38 PM
TVO should not even exist as a station. There is no room in a truly free society for state-run media. Period.
Kathy Shaidle is likely ill. Very likely willfully so.
That said, kudos to Paikin. His style does not thrill me, nor do most of the topics his show tackles. But let's be honest: he makes a genuine effort to air ideas, and to do so from a truly wide open small-l liberal standpoint. We, especially in Canada, can not ask for more than that. That other Ontarian crazy, Michael Coren, also makes the same effort.
Despite what I think of Shaidle -- and I rarely do, lumping her in with other such loons as the frequently entertaining Ezra Levant -- I will defend her right to say what she thinks without sanction from the state or statist goons like the insufferable sociopath, Warren Kinsella (sue me, Warren).
But the real issue here is Warren Kinsella. This clown must be marginalized. Pressure must be brought to bear on Ignatieff, or any other participant in the Canadian public square, to fire him.
Warren Kinsella wants not only to take away Kathy Shaidle's right to free speech. He wants to take it away from people who think like her. He wants to take it away from her opponents, to deny us the opportunity to lay the smack down on her in public. He wants to deny all other Canadians who don't know the issue and who have not yet made up their minds, the opportunity to become informed and form opinions. Kinsella wants to take away the ability of TVO and any other media operation to create entertaining, informative and controversial programming. And he wants to do it at your expense: at the expense of your tax dollars and your rights and freedoms. He wants you to fund your own oppression because he is a frightened hater and manipulative control freak and coward. And I won't apologize for being so blunt.
If Kathy Shaidle were to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow, I would not mourn her absence. But I would truly celebrate the disappearance of the most loathsome, Mickey Mouse Machiavellian, mealy mouthed, cowardly, corrupt and vile actor on the Canadian political and media stage we have yet witnessed.
posted by Vasco on 22 February 2009 at 5:22 PM
Stop referring to Kinsella as Gilligan. What other adorable child hood characters and memories to you want to taint by association with vile, evil, political sleaze?
posted by Vasco on 22 February 2009 at 5:26 PM
Can a senate seat be far behind?
posted by sable on 22 February 2009 at 7:07 PM
Get back to public broadcasting and spending more time finding better guests than Kathy Shaidle and stop providing venues for known online kooks and loonies.
Either that, or Mr. Paikin could have Kathy Shaidle back to do a show on "Is Obama a Communist?" It seems that she and her supporters think so and she is obviously an expert on the topic. The other side could be represented by a someone from the Communist party. Mr. Paikin would not even have to involve any Liberals.
posted by sable on 22 February 2009 at 8:34 PM
I believe this is the second time a member of the Liberal Party has tried to intimidate a member of the press. Is this what freedom of speech will be like in Iggy Stardust's Canada, the freedom to say anything that Kinsella approves of? Freedom for Canadians to say anything that been pre-approved by the Liberal Party of Canada? No wonder Stephane Dion thought he had a right to a half a dozen tries to answer a simple question.
posted by watchful on 22 February 2009 at 9:21 PM
Although I'm no fan of Liberal Ignatieff, he does impress me as a person of character and of good reputation. He also apparently wants to be PM of this country. What I find quite a curiosity is how or why he would want someone like Kinsella anywhere near him or his campaign to become PM. Such an association can never turn out for the good of Ignatieff, IMHO.
posted by Terry on 22 February 2009 at 9:34 PM
Steve do a show with them both.
posted by ExGrunt on 22 February 2009 at 10:57 PM
I can only imagine the outrage if a Conservative backroom hack tried to bully and threaten the CBC into dropping a guest.
Why does Kinsella get a free pass for doing the same thing?
posted by john g on 23 February 2009 at 12:27 AM
Shaidle VS Kinsella or Kinsella VS Levant Steve do a show with them both.
Okay, fine, put Kinsella on. I say run both Shaidle and Levant against Kinsella. I don't know Kinsella but if he is a Liberal, I'm sure he doesn't think Obama is a Communist. Both Shaidle and Levant have written that he is a Communist (as well as a lot of nasty things about him and his supporters who they view as stupid, dirty, morons, and too many atheists).
Yes, please put Shaidle and Levant on your show to defend the outrageous slurs they spread across the internet about Obama and his supporters. Don't worry about balance - just let Kinsella alone defend the view that Obama is not the evil communist that Shaidle and Levant say he is.
At least in this case, you would be putting Shaidle on for something she has written numerous times about and has clearly stated her views. Let her publicly defend all her outrageous statements about Obama and his supporters. Don't just use her on your show for things which she has no particular expertise in, so that she can sit there quietyly acting like someone disconnected from what she spends her life doing - spewing garbage about others. Make her defend that garbage.
posted by sable on 23 February 2009 at 6:26 AM
Steve:
You done good! Whether you know it or not, you have now entered the brave new world of Free Speech Chill. Kinsella is just the more obvious example of the shakedown that Levant, Shaidle, and thousands of lesser known Canadians are warning is coming. You now have a dog in this fight as well. To read so many of these negative cries for censorship is truly revealing. There are lots of examples of guests on you show that I find objectionable - Ali Hindi is one such example. Some of it like Hindi is sheer buffoonery. There is even the soft buffoonery of PC leftists like Professor Rinaldo Walcott. I totally disagree with them. They are the real racists because their racism is hidden, and more dangerous. I love to watch these people. I don't want them censored. We need to see what they think. I disagree with them. I would never ever counsel you to censor them, I would never campaign for a public ban from your show. I would never pressure you or issue threats of political consequences. Therein lies the difference between a truly conservative ethic and the shrivled whining nanny ethic of the PC liberal left. Kudos for standing your ground, Steve.
posted by sapbrdg on 23 February 2009 at 7:40 AM
Dear Steve:
I have stayed out of the fray on this one...until now.
You write that:
So if Warren’s ultimate goal was to deprive Kathy of a “platform,” his approach failed spectacularly.
Yes Steve, and if your goal was to provide a platform to a woman who's stated goal is to gain publicity for her racist views and her right to express them, you have succeeded just a spectacularly. The comments attributed to Shaidle by Warren and provided to you are not 'alleged', they were made and are easily confirmed. She will tell you herself that she made them and that she is proud to have done so.
So, the story here is not a long standing battle between political operatives (what party does Shaidle represent?). The story is that you and your producers knowingly allowed an avowed racist to be a guest on your show.
While Shaidle may not have had the opportunity to promote her racism on your show per se, she has certainly been able to do so since due in large part to the added profile you have given her. If any doubt of this remains a quick visit to her website will remove it. Among other things, she writes that:
I've been TRYING to get a "hate speech" complaint for years now, by purposefully saying politically incorrect things about every ethnic group, including my own, on this blog...
After all, such a complaint would be great publicity for me and would help me get a lot of donations and sell a ton of books.
You have been duped Steve. Shaidle has used you as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. Thanks to you she has more resources to spread her views to the rest of the world, many of whom don't know how wrong she is. Thanks to you she is in a better position to make life more difficult for homosexuals, Muslims, Blacks, Chinese, Sikhs, anyone who is different than her really.
Spend five minutes on the internet looking at the bloggers and others who have written so favourably about your decision. You are their new champion. Go back and look at what these people have written in the past...
That is the story here -- not that a Liberal spokesperson tried to tell you who you can and can't have on your show. Try as you might to paint it as such, this is not about freedom of the press. Kinsella, and many others I might add, warned you of Shaidle's views and what she stood for -- which you admit you were not previously aware of.
Knowing all of this, you had Shaidle on your show anyway. That is the story here.
posted by Maxwell's House on 23 February 2009 at 10:00 AM
Kinsella suggested on his blog, in the absence of any information whatsoever, that TVO paid Kathy Shaidle to appear. You refuted that point in your post above.
Has the Agenda ever paid Warren Kinsella for one of his appearances? If as you say Kinsella has been a guest on the Agenda several times before, shouldn't he know very well from experience if the Agenda pays guests to appear?
If Kinsella was never paid to appear, then his suggestion on his blog that you presumably paid Shaidle to appear is maliciously untrue and was designed only to fan the flames of controversy, and he well knew it. And if that's the case, you should not let that stand.
posted by john g on 23 February 2009 at 10:15 AM
I wish I had seen the show in question. Perhaps you can bring WK and KS back and let them have it out... call it "reality TV". Maybe we can all vote on who should win this p***ing contest. :-((
posted by Wolf AKA IAMSOUP on 23 February 2009 at 10:31 AM
Excellent post.
posted by sable on 23 February 2009 at 10:39 AM
Maxwell's House quoted Shaidle:
"I've been TRYING to get a "hate speech" complaint for years now, by purposefully saying politically incorrect things about every ethnic group, including my own, on this blog... After all, such a complaint would be great publicity for me and would help me get a lot of donations and sell a ton of books."
Not that it will do much good... for it will inevitably be lost on the humourlessness of the liberal mind... but it's called irony. it exposes the conspicuousness of false perceptions... in this case the big bogey of "racism" a huge growth industry presently adding to the rot in Western thought.
Further, Deborah Gyapong wrote on Feb 20:
"How come I and thousands of her (Shaidle's) readers know that when she writes the retards headline she is engaging in self-described "Seventh Grade name-calling" and that she does not for a moment believe all Arabs are violent retards? It's a kind of performance art. It's definitely not meant for the literal-minded... You know why I want to defend Kathy Shaidle? Because she helps keep me honest about whether my civility really is a choice and not a blind or fearful conformity to the pressures of political correctness. She helps me to think about where I might be influenced by group think and the progressive air we breathe in Ottawa. She reminds me of where the line is between kindness and weakness."
Fair evaluation I think.
posted by sapbrdg on 23 February 2009 at 10:44 AM
The real story Maxwell House are the PC thugs who seek to silence opponents. Shaidle is the Canary in the Coal mine. Her polemics are designed to provoke the outrage that brings the censors out from under their rocks. She has courage and her voice is necessary and valued. If you don't like her style - don't read her, thats what free people do - they make choices. They don't threaten to silence opponents.
posted by Blazingcatfur on 23 February 2009 at 10:45 AM
I certainly don't like Shaidle and don't read her, and Mr. Paikin can invite who ever he wants - from flat earthers to holocaust deniers to racists. Just, if he is trying to pass some of these off as intelligent experts instead of what they are, we are free to let him know what we think.
posted by sable on 23 February 2009 at 11:04 AM
It is good to see you are beginning to turn around on this. Because at 6:20 you stated... "DON't just use her on your show for things which she has no particular expertise in, so that she can sit there quietly acting like someone disconnected from what she spends her life doing - spewing garbage about others." NOW you say AT 11:04 ... "Mr. Paikin can invite who ever he wants ...we are free to let him know what we think." That's the spirit! You are beginning to understand that free speech is a normative value and that prohibition to expression of that speech is the odiousness that we should all deplore. The terrain between the two, normative free-speech value and the anti-value prohibition and jihad against free-speech, is the terrain where you and I can disagree wholeheartedly.
posted by sapbrdg on 23 February 2009 at 11:30 AM
Everyone else is decent.
posted by Chuck80 on 23 February 2009 at 11:45 AM
La Shaidle can have her free speech. TVO can invite whomever it wants on its shows.
But 'free speech' does not mean 'consequence free speech' no matter what the likes of Blazingcatfur and Dick Evans want to believe.
So, if TVO, supported by tax-payer money, gives Kathy Shaidle a platform, they can. If they give her a platform that legitimizes her unduly by not challenging her hateful beliefs, but by glossing over them, then they are free to do that too.
And Warren Kinsella is free to try to get her off the show.
And other folks can question TVO's judgment in booking such a guest for such a show, just as they would question the booking of an auto mechanic for a show about rocket engines.
And as a result of that, people who do not wish their tax dollars go to giving an unapologetic racist legitimacy by pretending she is an expert and not challenging her beliefs, are free to demand that TVO not do it in the future.
They are free to stop donating to TVO because of it. They are free to express their own opinions about the odious Shaidle in any way they see fit and to complain to whomever they wish.
They are free to demand that their tax dollars not be used this way.
This whole thing has been nothing but an exercise in the very freedom Evans, Blazingcatfur and their ilk would happily take away from everyone else. They want the freedom to openly hate, but don't want anyone else the freedom to say or do anything about it.
Take what actions you want and say what you want. Just don't be surprised when doing so has unpleasant consequences.
TVO lost viewers and subscribers because of this poorly thought out choice to have Shaidle on, in that particular show. Shaidle showed how utterly idiotic she is and has had her vile beliefs exposed to a wider audience than the echo-chamber rubes she is currently trying to pan-handle money from (do you think CRA knows about this).
And each will have to live with those consequences whether they like them or not.
Bottom line, it was a bad idea to give Shaidle any legitimacy. TVO made its choice and now will have to live with it.
posted by RationalMike on 23 February 2009 at 11:59 AM
This whole thing has been nothing but an exercise in the very freedom Evans, Blazingcatfur and their ilk would happily take away from everyone else. They want the freedom to openly hate, but don't want anyone else the freedom to say or do anything about it.
Not quite Mike. You and Kinsella are free to say whatever you wish, as am I. Where I have a problem is when individuals like yourselves attempt to use the powers of the state to silence opinions you don't like. That's exactly what Kinsella attempted when he embarked on his little jihad against Shaidle and TVO. By all respects, Warren appears to have used his political contacts, as a Liberal political operative, to apply government pressure to an at-arms-length crown corporation. That's a big no-no.
posted by Richard Evans on 23 February 2009 at 12:43 PM
Amazing, you manage to get everything wrong, proving you should rightfully only be called Mike. TVO did not grant legitimacy to Shaidle, she has earned her well deserved respect by fighting for free speech against PC tyranny.
posted by Blazingcatfur on 23 February 2009 at 1:04 PM
Stating that Mr. Paiken can invite whoever he wants is stating the obvious. I was responding to someone who was suggesting detractors wanted to stop Mr. Paiken from putting Shaidle on the show. I think it is despicable to have Shaidle on and imply that she is there to add intelligent, informed debate on atheism. However, I think Mr. Paiken should be allowed to do despicable things. When I say "don't do this", I mean I disagree with doing this, but I don't mean it should be banned or outlawed.
posted by sable on 23 February 2009 at 1:32 PM
RationalMike: I won't attempt to call you clueless, not yet anyway. Let's just say you are missing the point. Your auto mechanic/rocket engines analogy is utterly weak. It is your OPINION that Shaidle had nothing to offer on the show... fair enough. Others don't see it that way. You see ... your mistake is in elevating your false perception of your opponent's content with the timbre of your moral outrage. Shaidle has lots to offer, you just don't like it. It is interesting to observe the wild-eyed invective, name calling, ad hand hominem biliousness that characterizes those who band together in their moral outrage. Hence ... the calls for the campaign Kinsella initiated. You have yet to "clue in" to the fact that the "unapologetic racist" as you so lovingly charge has, a specific agenda. An agenda to expose the acceptable "hatreds" of the PC collectivity... the racism charges being just one of many. The race baiting obsession is so consistently rammed down the throats of anyone in society willing to call the bluff of PC zealots. If you were capable of subtlety, you would see this point. Oh, and by the way... contrary to losing viewers, how much do you want to bet that The Agenda's viewership will skyrocket should Paikin invite Shaidle on again.
posted by sapbrdg on 23 February 2009 at 2:01 PM
... and no controversy without some people getting upset. Good work TVO, this what journalism is all about and it's why I watch. Appearing on a talk show doesn't automatically give you credibility. I recall a previous Agenda episode with people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy. I thought they were wrong before the show, and after watching I now have several more reasons to think they're wrong.
posted by Steve A on 23 February 2009 at 2:25 PM
I bet you could do a whole week on free speech, political correctness, and censorship.
posted by Jeff on 23 February 2009 at 3:16 PM
Kinsella's dynamic example has inspired me to promise to take action in the event that you ever again interview those wacko 9/11 conspiracy theorists or that repulsive Ali Hindi guy.
I will write a protest to my MP and MPP.
Only one small potential hitch: My representatives are both pretty sane guys and they will likely (and correctly) tell me to go piss up a rope!
posted by Political Junkie on 23 February 2009 at 3:56 PM
This whole 'episode/event' has been surreal!
1. Ms. Shaidle has, for decades (I think) written for various Christian publications, and is well known for this. She has a loyal readership, both when writing as a Christian, as well as being the 'grand dame' of the Canadian blogosphere. She is also an accomplished poet in her own right.
Ms. Shaidle clearly represents the views of a particular minority of Christians - a minority of Christians which feels more and more marginalized by our society. This makes her 'qualified' to comment on matters regarding Christianity, Atheism and the evolution of our society.
Not only that, it is only responsible that Mr. Paikin include her voice in this debate: while I most vociferously disagree with her point of view on Atheism, Mr. Paikin's job is not to show me people who agree with me - or with any single segment of the population (even if dressed up in different shades of the same opinion). We watch the CBC for that...
To the contrary - I expect him to present a variety of views from the community, so that we can all learn what people outside our immediate social circle think about 'stuff'!
So, thank you for doing this.
But, the more important issue here is the 'Warren Kinsella'/'censorship' angle. While Mr. Kinsella, in his comment, says he 'made no threat', I do think that his actions were definitely threatening. It had a bit of the 'don't give her the ball or I'll tell the teacher' feel about it ('don't give her the platform to speak or I'll write a letter to the Minister of Education').
Specifically, he stated 'there will be consequences' because TVO and Mr. Paikin had not given in to his demands right away.
If he had done it as an individual citizen, it would have been a petulant threat. Perhaps an empty threat, but a petulant threat nonetheless.
The fact remains that he is known as being 'influential' with the Liberal Government, having been their strategist during the last election. It is possible that the Minister in question (and other Ministers, to boot) think they 'owe Mr. Kinsella their seats', as it was his skills that helped get them elected.
It is difficult to believe that Mr. Kinsella's letter to the Minister would be regarded as a 'letter from a regular citizen'! And, it is even more difficult to believe that Mr. Kinsella thinks it would - why else would he feel so confident in saying 'there will be consequences'?
This definite threat has a very, very sinister tone.
If there ARE any consequences, we should all become very, very afraid - remember what happens when the government controls the media...
posted by Xanthippa on 23 February 2009 at 6:03 PM
Sources reveal Non-Disclosure Agreement in place. Departure has nothing to do with Jackals Jihad against 5feetOfFury we assure you.
posted by Blazingcatfur on 23 February 2009 at 7:00 PM
Sources reveal Non-Disclosure Agreement in place. Departure has nothing to do with Jackals Jihad against 5feetOfFury we assure you.
http://tinyurl.com/d8j4mq
posted by Blazingcatfur on 23 February 2009 at 7:02 PM
Steve, just a quick word from one of your loyal viewers. You did nothing wrong, in fact I'm proud of the fact you brought this contemptible attempt to intimidate your show into the public arena. I will continue to support you.
posted by Mike on 23 February 2009 at 8:00 PM
"Spend five minutes on the internet looking at the bloggers and others who have written so favourably about your decision. You are their new champion. Go back and look at what these people have written in the past..."
This poster is correct, Mr. Paikin. You are the bigots' new hero.
posted by Lou on 23 February 2009 at 11:15 PM
Is the Lying Jackals silence a sign that his previous Jihad was simply a bizarre personal vendetta that blew up in his face?
Oh yea, no question.
http://tinyurl.com/d8j4mq
posted by Blazingcatfur on 23 February 2009 at 11:33 PM
Everyone who gets involved in the tangles between Warren Kinsella and the inflammatory bloggers he has a strange love for engaging with ends up looking bad. It's not worth it--just ignore them all.
FWIW, I agree with you that even if you were considering removing Shaidle you were right to decide not to after an adviser (former adviser?) to the Premier called the Minister of Education. A bad segment, if it was one, is worth enduring for that principle. And whatever Warren says, the reality is that when you get too involved in politics you really are disqualified from writing/calling folks you know to get them to help you settle personal scores.
posted by Grahaman on 24 February 2009 at 2:22 AM
I could recite of litany of things Chappelle has said that would make WK's Shaidle litany sound like a girl guide's diary. For god's sake (oops, sorry) he portrays a crackhead who will do anything, and I mean anything, for crack. I know Bravo is private sector, but these are the public airwaves. Call the CRTC!! Ohh..... too bad the CRTC is federal government, and the Conservatives are in power. But then again Bravo is part of NBC, which is based in the U.S., where the Democrats are in power... couldn't somebody use their CBC contacts in the U.S. Democratic Party (since the first is the broadcast wing of the second) to lean on NBC to lean on Bravo? Chappelle must be stopped!! Think of the children!!
posted by Steve A on 24 February 2009 at 10:58 AM
Where have the Lying Jackal supporters gone?
It's disgusting that he even attempted this jackboot move. Liberal supporters should be very, very afraid; no Canadians should be afraid that this man gives a potential leader of this country any form of advise. I would vote for Taliban jack long before I ever voted liberal.
This is Canada and if supporters of terrorist organizations are allowed to speak freely in this country - then shouldn't Kathy have that same right?
WK makes racist jokes, then sluffs it off as a "bad joke" pleading to people that they "know him". Then proceeds to slag off Chinese members of parliament. He sues people faster then A - Rod can jack another steroid.
How the man can even try to portray himself as "liberal" is any ones guess.
However he is entitled to his "opinions" just to bad he doesn't feel that way about others.
posted by ExGrunt on 24 February 2009 at 4:50 PM
I watched the show and was surprised at the vitriol exhibited by Ms Shaidle. I found some of it amusing, specifically the reference to 'libeling' Christians because I believe Ms Shaidle has been on the wrong end of a libel suit herself. Her insistence that atheism is a 'left-wing' fad was silly, since atheism has been around a lot longer than left and right wings have.
She came across as bitter, ill-informed, scared and way out of her depth. She also seemed to just be knee-jerking the talking points and stance of extreme fundamentalist Americans.
When she said 'we' thought the US election was a culture war, well, that was obvious from the blog posts made by Canada's wannabe GOP supporters. Fine. However, when she said 'we' meant Conservatives, I took umbrage. I usually, but not always, vote Conservative although I'm liberal in outlook. Certainly provincially, the Progressive Conservatives are more liberal than the McGuinty 'Liberals'.
I'm afraid a lot of these people who spew vitriol and repeat knee-jerk talking points don't accept separation of church and state.
Freedom of religion means freedom from religion.
In spite of all the above, I'm glad she was on the show. She made a great foil for the reasonable atheists on the other side of the table. Jordan Peterson's performance was disappointing that night because it was obvious he was very uncomfortable with the idea that people can live full, happy, moral lives without worrying about supernatural beings.
At least he wasn't making a fool of himself though, as I felt Ms Shaidle was.
You go, Steve! You've got the best public affairs show out there. I've been a fan for many years and will be for many more to come.
Selma Mulvey
posted by Caveat on 24 February 2009 at 6:36 PM
How pathetic! So many of those defending freedom of speech in this dialogue seem to have forgotten what the program was initially set to discuss: Should the atheist bus ads be permitted to run? If Shaidle’s freedom of speech is so vital and important, why are those same rights being denied in many parts of the country for those that support the running of the atheist bus ads? Both Shaidle and Peterson want to deny the rights of others, while still demanding their own rights be respected. I hated that this program’s outcome got side tracked to be all about Shaidle, Kinsella, TVO and Steve Paiken. The core issue of the rights of non-believers v/s the rights of the established institutionalized religions to advertise their beliefs in public was not addressed. To me that meant this program was a failure, despite the fact that it sparked so much discussion. Perhaps the topic of the bus ads should appear again on a future program because it certainly did not get dealt with yet on "The Agenda".
posted by to be deleted on 25 February 2009 at 3:59 PM
I only watched part of the show, which was enough for me. Did Shaidle really argue against the atheist ads being displayed? [Please don't make me watch more of her to know the answer.]
Yes, it is ridiculous that some cities are refusing to run the ads after having run various religious ads. Ridiculous, but not surprising. In Ontario, our MPs now sit through two religious prayers a day and have refused, so far, to allow any words from atheists or agnostics.
posted by sable on 25 February 2009 at 4:48 PM
Come on Golden Horseshoe, since when are we commenters required to stay only within the narrow parameters of the original topic? This is free-form discussion, not taxonomy. Besides, the February 12 topic has been covered before, with your point of view represented (though ineptly, in my opinion) when Richard Dawkins appeared. It is represented frequently during Bill Maher's frequent appearances on Larry King Live. I paid to see Religulous, which is basically a two-hour funny version of the bus ad.
posted by Steve A on 25 February 2009 at 4:55 PM
can you summarize what Shaidle said about the ads and whether they should run or not? I only caught her Marxist professor stuff.
posted by sable on 25 February 2009 at 5:22 PM
Our friend sable has made no less than 18 comments in this thread expressing her moral outrage and indignation at Shaidle's supposed lack of intelligence during the show, and only now, within her last 2 comments, does she indicate that she couldn't have been bothered to actually "watch" the whole episode...
Frig me if I'm wrong but right now I'm willing to bet dollars to dog-nuts that "sable" is either married to, or employed by, Warren Kinsella...
That's too damned funny!!!
posted by Richard Evans on 25 February 2009 at 8:07 PM
The above chirp should read "13 comments" as opposed to "18 comments"... I inadvertently included the comments sable made in the previous 2 threads on this topic... My Bad!
posted by Richard Evans on 25 February 2009 at 8:16 PM
how much shaidle do you need to watch? I heard her dismiss Obama and interpret some statement she disagreed with (about sensationalizing/religionizing recent near deaths) as trying to suppress her point of view. Neither made any clear point as far as I could tell, but showed her own emotional response to Obama and other points of view. What I didn't see was if Shaidle thought the bus ads should not run.
posted by sable on 26 February 2009 at 8:29 AM
So sable, is it Shaidles comment about Obama that has your knickers in a knot. Is it a problem with her being of a different political persuassion. Are you married to the lying Jackal? Are you pissed that large media outlets are starting to realize that some individuals only want to control what folks here or see, and maybe that scares you?
I humbly await your reply.
posted by Madman on 27 February 2009 at 7:02 PM
Steve: I have always found you to be fair. Now I respect you. I have an idea, have only 2 guests: Kathy Shaidle and Warren Kinsella, one on one with you as the moderator. There are many topics they could discuss, mostly the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. Advertise that and you will have bigger ratings than CSI repeats. Or anything else in Canada. I hope you will consider it.
After all, if he bullied you and bullies her all the time, wouldn't it be great for a great human rights activist such as himself and spokesman for the Liberal War Room of Canada, to actually come out and bully all of you and all of us in person, rather than in lawsuits according to his bowel or any other problems that day. I, immediately offer my apology to Warren Kinsella, because I would not wanting him questioning my bowel habits. Sorry Warren. Mea Culpa.
Your interview with Mark Steyn and the Sock Puppets was terrific. We watched it twice. Make sure you let us know when you have Mark Steyn back.
Glad you didn't give in. Freedom of Speech in Canada has been relegated to kitchen tables. My 7th generation ancestors and veterans of wars are turning over in their graves.
posted by Freeforever on 05 March 2009 at 10:49 PM
For the sake of posterity.
posted by Lou on 29 December 2009 at 3:01 AM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Throughout my years at TVO, viewers have stayed in touch with me through letters, cards, faxes, emails, and phone calls. Here's another option: my blog. Through this forum, I'll let you in on some of what goes on behind the scenes of The Agenda. And I hope you'll send me your thoughts and constructive criticism on how we're doing as well.
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
MY RESPONSE
Steve, your posting is disingenuous. Some would say it is worse.
1. If our correspondence was personal, why did you immediately forward it to others within TVO? Why did you quote it, in its entirety, on the TVO website, without permission?
2. A reading of my emails to you, which - as noted, you posted -will reveal no "threats." It was me - and, as you well know - many, many other people, reacting to TVO's big mistake. That is, its decision to provide a platform to a proud racist, one with no expertise in the subject-matter, and who in fact had suggested on her web site you "disinvite" her.
3. I contacted the Minister responsible, as I clearly noted in the first sentence, as a citizen. I do not lose my rights to object to TVO's bad editorial judgment simply because I am, as you say, a "Liberal Party operative."
4. Shaidle's words speak for themselves. The fact that you brought her on again without doing a quick Google search is awful; the fact that you brought her on anyway, after being supplied with many cited examples of her statements, is far worse.
5. I don't need content for my web site. Perhaps you do, however, which now explains why you lobbied me to place a link to your blog on my web site.
I wrote to you a few days ago to try and persuade you to avoid making a mistake. I write to you now to continue to object to the decision that was made - and to object to the fact that you are clearly attempting to make something else, or someone else, the story.
When the story, again, is the stupid decision TVO made.
Sincerely,
Warren
posted by Warren Kinsella on 21 February 2009 at 7:04 AM