Censor in Chief can’t tell the difference between a blog post and a letter
The coward Lynch flew allthe way to Dublin to tell the CBA just how mean people were being to her and she “also read out a graphic anonymous letter she received stating that she should be shot dead.”
I’ve FOIed for this “letter” as did Marc Lemire and what he got was a blog entry from (the apparently defunct) overthrow.com suggesting that someone should shoot “Jessica Lynch”.
Now a) this was not a death threat, b) it was not a “letter”.
So was the coward Lynch confusing a blog post with a letter or was she just making stuff up?
Might be a question for a Menber of the Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights to ask the woman if she ever deigns to appear before them.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Jenny was playing that same “we’re in fear of our lives” schtick as that serenity fellow pulled at the Tribunal hearing over a blog post also from the US. Wonder if the same bunch of rent-a-thugs who escorted the complainant to the washroom will patrol outside the ladies room for Jenny when she breaks for lunch?
A Taser Guard for the Czarina, maybe?
October 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
My prediction: Jenny will never appear before the committee.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I think it’s been pointed out to you before, Jay, that the author of that email (note the word “mail” buried in there) is a violent neo-Nazi who is now in the slammer, partly thanks to Richard Warman. Small world, eh?
But when you can spin a blogpost out of nothing while knowing the facts is quite…remarkable, and I’m biting my tongue here, believe me. I send “letters” by email all the time. Is that really the kind of “Twenty Questions” you folks want to play? Pathetic.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
To be fair to Ms. Lynch, it may be the reporter assigned to the newspaper story, not Ms. Lynch, who couldn’t tell the difference between a blog post and a letter.
According to the prepared for delivery text of Ms. Lynch’s whiny CBA speech in Dublin, she was supposed to say “and here is a sample of just one threat directed at me…” There’s nothing in the speech about whether this “threat” was in a letter or an even-then-defunct blog entry by some nobody in the U.S. (See page 23 of the Access to Information request materials sent to Marc Lemire) One could see how a reporter could jump to conclusions that the threat was in a letter, not a blog post.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Dawg, you write “I think it’s been pointed out to you before, Jay, that the author of that email (note the word “mail” buried in there) is a violent neo-Nazi” while Jenny said that the threat was anonymous. And the disclosure made of the “letter” was, in fact, a post on the blog I cite.
So far as I can see the disclosed blog post is anonymous. How are you getting to your assertion that he or she is a “violent neo-Nazi”. Do you have information which I do not?
(And Dawg, a blog post is not an email nor is it a “letter”)
October 8th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Jay –
I don’t think there’s any question the overthrow.com website and blog belonged to Bill White, a white supremacist from Virginia. He could have let someone else have posting privileges on the site’s blog, but unless proven otherwise, the post should be assumed to be his. One charge of his indictment was for a death threat he allegedly made about Mr. Warman on that website.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
cinyc, thank you for that information. I was not aware of it and now I am.
It is still not a “letter” per the story. It was posted a year and a bit before the coward Lynch brought it up. And, if as you say, it was from a site with a known author then it was not anonymous as Lynch maintained. Plus, it was not a threat, it was an opinion expressed rather crudely.
October 9th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I think it’s been pointed out elsewhere that the fellow to whom Ms. Lynch owes partial thanks is currently under CHRC investigation – in part due comments he posted on various websites under various pseudonyms.
Small world indeed…
October 9th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Does it seem coincidence or more, that one blogger who had repeated referred to Lynch and Co. as fascists, received a visit from the horsemen a few weeks ago, arising from a complaint lodged by the CHRC? Considering the timing, that was just shortly after instigators started rattling Jenny’s cage about her Dublin speech and about the same time a couple ungrateful agitators filed FOI requests.
.
Since we are talking about the CHRC, we can use the term “likely”. What is the likelihood that these events are connected and a patsy was needed to shore up the speech given in Dublin, by identifying and lodging a police complaint against one of those far right wing bloggers?
.
Answer: – a lot more likely than the 1-in-6-million chance that someone might have read that AIDS post by Lemire and felt vilified.
October 10th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Heh. Naming no names, the fellow in question thinks that Paul Fromm is a reasonable man, and has made violent threats himself.
There’s a hilarious and lengthy thread over at FreeDo now about the Marc Lemire question, including copious character assassination of yours truly. It has gotten to the point that the Heritage Front is indignantly defended as “not neo-Nazi,” ditto Paul Fromm, and, no doubt, David Duke, innocent by association.
It’s about time for the question to be posed, “Well, OK then, who is a ‘neo-Nazi?’” Knowing these jokers as I do, I think the response would likely be “Richard Warman. Oh, and Warren Kinsella. And that Dawg guy.”
A bit OT, but I see more and more of your regulars here, Jay, indulging over there in that little semantic game—”Fascist? You’re the Fascist.” It’s a fool’s task, but as a partisan in these culture wars, I guess I should be urging you all on—while wondering what the hell you think you’re achieving.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:29 am
But Cinyc – there have also been suggestions that the posts were planted (sound familiar) and in fact Bill WHITE, like Grant Bristow, was a law enforcement mole and informant (AKA Secret Squirrel).
White is alledged to have lost it and Warman nor Farber (only in their minds and CV) had anything to do with his downfall. WHITE threatened a JUDGE in real time thus = BOOM.
October 10th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Crap, Dudley. Warman was a witness at White’s trial.
October 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Dawg, I find the whole “neo-Nazi” trope largely unilluminating. While I am happy to concede that there were – and perhaps still are – some Nazi sympathizers in Canada (and not on the Feds payroll) I don’t think these people have very much influence.
There may also be a slightly larger group of white supremacists who are not, strictly speaking, neo-Nazis at all. Misguided as such people are I can’t see much threat from them.
Now, if you want to find real, red blooded, anti-Semites you really need to check out assorted imams and various radical mosques. Or parades down Younge Street. Or the York University campus during Israel Apartheid week.
While it is safe to chase basement Nazis whose illiterate scrawls frighten no one and who keyboard bigotry is offensive but not dangerous, that misses the larger menace. Large numbers of fervently anti-Semitic immigrants who are unashamed to quote the Koran and yell “Death to the Jews” in broad daylight.
And, guess what, the CHRC has already demonstrated that such people will not be brought before the Tribunal no matter what they write. (Proving just what a waste of time s. 13 is when it comes to actual hate speech.)
October 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Jay…do you have some indication that Ms. Lynch referred to the communication in questions as a “letter”? Neither you nor the link you provide quote her as making the “error” you seem to think justifies a post: the term “letter” is used by the author of the report, and not by Ms. Lynch.
Do you have a link that actually quotes her as referring to the shooting threat as a “letter
?
October 10th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
No, no Dr. Doo – we all know that indeed he was a witness. He and Bernie were threatened from afar. Convenient too!
Scary. :) BUT, If you paid attention in class, White’s possible role as an FBI “agent provocateur” was also mentioned in one of the CHRT transcripts so will leave it to you and your Poodle to find it.
How an individual with neo-nazi membership made it across the border is surprising but then that is before it all became clear. And the role of the ARA in the Heritage Front Affair (along with their membership) is still unclear as they refused to do their duty and testify in front of the SIRC. Wonder why that might have been?
October 10th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
white supremacists who are not, strictly speaking, neo-Nazis at all
Wow. Talk about a distinction without a difference.
October 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
balbulican, you are quite right that I am relying on the reporter. It would be interesting to have a transcript of the coward Lynch’s pathetic presentation.
However, that would not change the fact that the material provided in response to the FOI request is not a threat.
October 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“I am relying on the reporter.”
Not quite. You are, for no apparent reason, attributing the reporter’s statement to Ms. Lynch. May I respectfully draw your attention to the title of your post, which appears to be a complete fabrication?
October 10th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Dawg, it is surely possible to imagine a white supremacists who are not anti-Semitic, and I can easily imagine neo-Nazis who are not white supremacists (think Hamas and its supporters).
October 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
balb, the reporter wrote one thing, her speaking notes indicate another, a transcript would confirm one way or another…in any case, it is not a threat and whould not have been characterized as one. But that’s ok because the silly woman also is more than willing to put words into (well actually take them out) of Mark Steyn’s mouth to further her “poor little me” meme.
Revolting.
October 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
So…you have no basis whatsoever for your assertion that Ms. Lynch “...can’t tell the difference between a blog post and a letter”, and you’re scrambling to refocus the point of your post.
Sometimes the honest thing to do is just concede you’re wrong, you know.
October 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
balb, we’d have to know what the poor dear actually said in Dublin before concluding that my hed was wrong. Speaking notes often differ from the speech delivered and we have at least one person who heard “letter”.
October 10th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Well Jay, as of this weekend – there still is no entry on the CHRC site as to her Speech nor of the Expenses related to it or her Jordan connection.
Do you get the feeling that there is something rather odd?
October 10th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
“balb, we’d have to know what the poor dear actually said in Dublin before concluding that my hed was wrong. Speaking notes often differ from the speech delivered and we have at least one person who heard “letter”.”
Jay, we have NO-ONE who claims to have heard “letter”. We have a reporter of some sort who used that word, without quotation marks, to describe the communication; the reporter does not attribute that phrase to Ms. Lynch.
Your headline is dishonest. It’s a bit disappointing that you don’t seem to understand that.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:01 am
balb, I’ve written the reporter to see what his recollection is.
That said, it is still not a threat.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:45 am
I guess there’s a reason you continue to rebut a point I haven’t made, but I can’t fathom it. My point has to do with the fact that you published an insult on the basis of nothing, and you’re now scrambling to find someone who may remember it the way you need them to.
I think the Evil Mainstream Media may still have a few lessons to pass on before they hand the torch over the bloggers of the world. ;)
October 11th, 2009 at 11:45 am
balb, I published based on Peter O’Neil’s report of the speech to which I have referred you. Which is not to say he might not have got it wrong. So I’ve asked him via his editor.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Thanks, Jay. Keep us posted.
(Now, an evil MSM output would remove the unsubstantiated headline until your groundless assumption was verified. But I understand standards are different in this brave new world of citizen “journalism”.)
October 12th, 2009 at 9:14 am
The ‘evil mainstream media method’ of correction: – page 4 bottom left corner Friday edition-
“Censor in Chief can tell difference between blogpost and letter”
October 12th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Heh. Well, that would be more than we’re seeing so far here, maikeru.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Once more with feeling: until proven otherwise I am going with O’Neill’s story but I have written him. And you are still missing the larger point that this was not a threat.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Once more, with amusement:
– O’Neill used the word “letter”, without quotes or attribution. You’re the only person to attribute that terminology to Ms. Lynch. O’Neill did not. That’s your fabrication.
– I understand your scramble to reframe your post so that the “larger point” is the degree of threat inherent in wish that someone should be shot. However, may I respectfully refer you to your title ?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
balb, the quote from O’Neill’s report is “also read out a graphic anonymous letter she received stating that she should be shot dead.” If there is an error here it is O’Neill’s. But maybe he will enlighten us in due course.
Out of interest, do you see the quoted material as a threat?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
balbulican, surely you mean ‘less’ than here, when it comes to examination of the import of the missive itself, and the purpose behind such inclusion in a brief/speech to a CBA meeting in Ireland (another of the ‘official’ organizations Canadians rely upon for their personal freedoms – if not their tourist dollars)...
October 12th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“balb, the quote from O’Neill’s report is “also read out a graphic anonymous letter she received stating that she should be shot dead.””
Quite, Jay. O’Neill used the word “letter”. He is not quoting Lynch. You know those squiggly little things that come in twos, like the ones preceding the word ‘balb’ at the beginning of this comment? He didn’t use those. You have attributed the use of the term to Lynch. Wrong.
What mystifies me is why you don’t simply say “that’s right, my bad”, and put your misleading title on hold. Can’t tell whether it’s just bravado, or whether you authentically don’t get it.
“Out of interest, do you see the quoted material as a threat?”
No, not really.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I see it as threatening—the casual invocation of violence. A direct threat? No. But such things don’t have to be direct to be intimidating.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Maybe i am just a simpleton, but what constitutes a threat? Does this nationally broadcast statement by Chris Matthews?:
“You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?”
If Chris is only encouraging it and not actually threatening, then can not the same be said about this particular instance where the writer suggested that someone else should shoot “Jessica Lynch”?
Just curious is all