Kinsella slams Blatchford over hateful Rehtaeh Article


Mowich
#1
Warren Kinsella: Christie Blatchford's Column on Rehtaeh is Hateful Garbage

Rehtaeh Parsons: There may never be a case against the alleged rapists | Full Comment | National Post
 
Zipperfish
#2
Kinsella fell right into Blatchford's trap. This is her speciality--having, and causing outrage. The more outrage, the better for her.
 
Mowich
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Kinsella fell right into Blatchford's trap. This is her speciality--having, and causing outrage. The more outrage, the better for her.

I highly doubt Christie was waiting for him to do so, and to be fair what she had to say about both the victim and boys who allegedly raped her was, IMO, an indictment of neither.
 
captain morgan
+1
#4
I didn't see Blatchford's article as hateful or repugnant.... She simply asked some fundamental questions and took the unpopular view of the perspective from the accused's position.
 
Mowich
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I didn't see Blatchford's article as hateful or repugnant.... She simply asked some fundamental questions and took the unpopular view of the perspective from the accused's position.

Just so, Captain.
 
captain morgan
#6
I did find it interesting that Kinsella was sooo upset on Blatchford taking that position, especially in light of his shenanigans with the Human Rights Tribunals over the years.

Kinda makes me wonder if he's setting up the NP and Blatchford for an expensive trip to the kangaroo courts
 
Mowich
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I did find it interesting that Kinsella was sooo upset on Blatchford taking that position, especially in light of his shenanigans with the Human Rights Tribunals over the years.

Kinda makes me wonder if he's setting up the NP and Blatchford for an expensive trip to the kangaroo courts

Do you really think he has a leg to stand on, Captain? After all this is Kinsella, the Libs wunderkind - not that he seems to have been of any help what-so-ever to them lately.
 
Zipperfish
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I didn't see Blatchford's article as hateful or repugnant.... She simply asked some fundamental questions and took the unpopular view of the perspective from the accused's position.

Exactly, that's what Blatchford does--take the unpopualr view. "In latest news, smoking now good for you..." kind of hting. That's her scht8ick. I would imagine a political/media animal like Kinsella, would have known that.

She has no sources, but gossip columnists rarely do. She knows almost nothing of the law, but--again--gossip columnists rarely do. It is geared to evoking an emotional response, not to be true.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Do you really think he has a leg to stand on, Captain? After all this is Kinsella, the Libs wunderkind - not that he seems to have been of any help what-so-ever to them lately.

Oh, now I get it. Sorry, I hadn't noticed you were just another political hack. Nothing to do with anything expcet which party is wearing red and which one is wearing blue. How boring.
 
Colpy
+2
#9
1. The boys are innocent until proven guilty.

2. A 15 year old CAN consent to anyone within 5 years of her age. That is the LAW.

3. The RCMP were perfectly correct, if she was coherent, laughing, naked on a bed with two guys, and refused to leave, a conviction would be impossible.

And rightfully so.

Kinsella is supposedly a lawyer, he should have been well aware of those points.
Well, I guess nobody ever claimed he was a competent lawyer.......

Congrats to Blatchford for having the guts to buck the torch-and pitchfork crowd mentality in this case.

All that said, the bloody lowlifes should have left the poor girl alone afterward......she was 15, and should never have been tortured for some bad decisions. We've all made them.

If my kids had been involved in this in any way when they were teens, they would have been oh so sorry. Except to support the unfortunate Ms. Parsons, which I am sure both would have done.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+4
#10  Top Rated Post
Christie Blatchford is one of the most experienced, balanced, well spoken, and written reporters in the press today. She has walked with Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan outside the wire and during firefights, she has worked the crime reporting section for more than a few National Newspapers.

I find it laughable when a mouthpiece for the Left like Warren Kinsella goes on the attack.

Her account is of the facts involving the case. Facts are a little different than knee jerk reactions by politicians and while the individuals involved may well have done what was implied the justice system is bound by evidence. Lack thereof is what Blatchford points out. She is neither condoning or apologizing for the alleged four, but showing how political expediency tries to override the justice system.

Warren Kinsella's editorial in the Huffington Post is filled with opinion and little else. I would say it's right up there with Bill OReilly, chock full of self righteous glib that attempts to provoke rather than invoke.

He calls her column Hateful Garbage? Really? The only one I see slinging around the hate is Kinsella with his fascist statement then immediate retraction. If Christie Blatchford is not a fascist, why the comparison Warren Baby?.

Sounds a lot like OReilly or Savage or some other Zealot be they left or right.
 
Zipperfish
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post


2. A 15 year old CAN consent to anyone within 5 years of her age. That is the LAW.

Not if she's drunk, All Caps warrior.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Christie Blatchford is one of the most experienced, balanced, well spoken, and written reporters in the press today. She has walked with Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan outside the wire and during firefights, she has worked the crime reporting section for more than a few National Newspapers.

Objective...not really. Opinion writers are rarely objective. Blatchford is no exception. They are there to give their opinion. "More than a few national newspapers"??? There's only two in Canada. D'oh!
Last edited by Zipperfish; Apr 29th, 2013 at 09:01 PM..
 
Colpy
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Not if she's drunk, All Caps warrior.



You missed this:

"..........if she was coherent , laughing, naked on a bed with two guys, and refused to leave............"
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Objective...not really. Opinion writers are rarely objective. Blatchford is no exception. They are there to give their opinion. "More than a few national newspapers"??? There's only two in Canada. D'oh!

That's the best response you got eh.

I stand corrected: More than a few Major Newspapers , two being The National Post and the Globe and Mail.

Other than that, do you have anything of substance to dispute about what she wrote or are you so far up Kinsella's *** licking the polyps in his colon that your alter ego "Homer Simpson" can only articulate a hardy D'oh?
 
Zipperfish
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

You missed this:

"..........if she was coherent , laughing, naked on a bed with two guys, and refused to leave............"

if.

And if she was FUBAR she can't consent to sex.
 
Colpy
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

if.

And if she was FUBAR she can't consent to sex.

Yes....but considering the boys are innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor would have to prove she was FUBAR.

Good luck.
 
Zipperfish
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

That's the best response you got eh.

I stand corrected: More than a few Major Newspapers , two being The National Post and the Globe and Mail.

Other than that, do you have anything of substance to dispute about what she wrote or are you so far up Kinsella's *** licking the polyps in his colon that your alter ego "Homer Simpson" can only articulate a hardy D'oh?

Yes, I believe the issue of substance I was offering is that Blatchford, like most current affair opinion writers, is hardly "objective." If they were objective, people wouldn't read them. Objective is boring. Controversey sells.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Yes....but considering the boys are innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor would have to prove she was FUBAR.

Good luck.

Exactly. So the original point being you were wrong. A 15 year old cannot always consent to sex. And how do you know that the boys were within five years anyway?

There was alcohol at the party, apparently, so it's exactly beyond the realm of possibility that she was drunk.. The thing the RCMP don't tell folks is that this happens everywhere every weekend. Teenager has too much to drink and gets passed around by the lads. The advent of social media provides a digital trace, so people are more aware now.

I don't think it's a case, as you indicate, of boys being boys. Frankly, I find that idea reprehensible. I have a duaghter, so I have a different view. Personally I'd like to see them go to jail for rape if they took advantage of a drunk girl and then spread the pictures on social media.
 
Colpy
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post



Exactly. So the original point being you were wrong. A 15 year old cannot always consent to sex. And how do you know that the boys were within five years anyway?

.

Now we are splitting hais, but if that's the way you wanna go.......I said she CAN consent to sex, that does not mean she MUST or that she WILL or that even she CAN in all circumstances....it means that Kinsella's denial of the POSSIBILITY of her consent is BS.

Which WAS my POINT.



Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

I don't think it's a case, as you indicate, of boys being boys. Frankly, I find that idea reprehensible. I have a duaghter, so I have a different view. Personally I'd like to see them go to jail for rape if they took advantage of a drunk girl and then spread the pictures on social media.

I did not say it was a case of "boys being boys", nor did I insinuate that, or anything even close.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

I agree, if she was incoherent, and they can prove it, sexual assault charges are necessary.
 
Zipperfish
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

I agree, if she was incoherent, and they can prove it, sexual assault charges are necessary.

then we're agreed i'd say.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Yes, I believe the issue of substance I was offering is that Blatchford, like most current affair opinion writers, is hardly "objective." If they were objective, people wouldn't read them. Objective is boring. Controversey sells.

What was controversial about what she wrote? She did not fall down on either side. She simply stated the facts of the case.
 
Zipperfish
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

What was controversial about what she wrote? She did not fall down on either side. She simply stated the facts of the case.

She simply stated the facts of the case? Ever read a court summation. They state the facts of the case in there. Quite boring, really, for all but the most spectacular of cases. Anyone "just stating the facts" wouldn't be writing for a newspaper--a national newspaper no less.

What I read is mainly a bunch of unsourced claims. The same sort of unsourced claims that Colby was complaining about, except from another vantage point. The girl claimed she was raped. The boys claimed she was begging for it. Two unsubstantiated claims. Two points of view.

The fact that you agree with her demonstrates your own bias. It's the same as left-wingers watching Michael Moore and thinking they are getting the straight dope, or right wingers watching Sun News and thinking they are getting fair and balanced reporting. Clearly you are more sympathetic to the boys point of view.

Frankly, I'm glad they have to reinvestigate. I don't really see the down side. If there's still no case, then there's no case. If something was missed, then it may be picked up. They are bound to know more after this investigation. Even if there isn't enough for criminal charges, it could inform civil proceedings.

My own thoughts are this thing happens all the time. Like getting your house broken into. The cops show up more or less to take the report. They're not exactly dusting the place for prints. I'm OK with some heat getting put on investigative agencies for this. Rape is a lot more serious than a B&E. It's coing out of the closet more now, with socail media. There's ben quite a few cases lately.
Last edited by Zipperfish; Apr 30th, 2013 at 01:06 AM..
 
captain morgan
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Do you really think he has a leg to stand on, Captain? After all this is Kinsella, the Libs wunderkind - not that he seems to have been of any help what-so-ever to them lately.



I don't think that his tantrum will have any kind of positive results for him, but we'll have to wait and see.

I think that Kinsella is leveraging the age-old strategy of being the squeaky wheel in hopes of getting back into the light and being relevant... Likely won't happen though

 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

She simply stated the facts of the case? Ever read a court summation. They state the facts of the case in there. Quite boring, really, for all but the most spectacular of cases. Anyone "just stating the facts" wouldn't be writing for a newspaper--a national newspaper no less.

Okay whatever you were trying to convey above made little if no sense.

Quote:

What I read is mainly a bunch of unsourced claims. The same sort of unsourced claims that Colby was complaining about, except from another vantage point. The girl claimed she was raped. The boys claimed she was begging for it. Two unsubstantiated claims. Two points of view.

No sources? How do you know there were no sources? You see we have this little law in this country we call liable and even if Christie Blatchford were a loose cannon (which she is not) her editor let alone the National Post wouldn't let it go that far unless she had suitable sources. Otherwise they could end up facing a huge lawsuit.

Quote:

The fact that you agree with her demonstrates your own bias. It's the same as left-wingers watching Michael Moore and thinking they are getting the straight dope, or right wingers watching Sun News and thinking they are getting fair and balanced reporting. Clearly you are more sympathetic to the boys point of view.

Agree with what? Blatchford wrote about the facts surrounding the case. The reason the police didn't lay charges. If anything your bias is what is at play here. None of us were there. The police did not have the evidence to go to court. Sad but true.

Quote:

Frankly, I'm glad they have to reinvestigate. I don't really see the down side. If there's still no case, then there's no case. If something was missed, then it may be picked up. They are bound to know more after this investigation. Even if there isn't enough for criminal charges, it could inform civil proceedings.

I have no issue with them taking a second look. I am a bit apprehensive about them introducing laws regarding the internet. We have enough issues with kangaroo courts like the HRC going after comedians and web posters on internet forums who don't have the good sense to change the channel.

Quote:

My own thoughts are this thing happens all the time. Like getting your house broken into. The cops show up more or less to take the report. They're not exactly dusting the place for prints. I'm OK with some heat getting put on investigative agencies for this. Rape is a lot more serious than a B&E. It's coing out of the closet more now, with socail media. There's ben quite a few cases lately.

For as long as I've been alive kids have been cruel. This is nothing new, it's just a different venue. What needs to happen here is parents need to have an open frank discussion with their kids about the pitfalls of drinking to excess and sexual assault. As to what happened to this poor girl, it is a sad state of affairs, but there are already laws in place.

Regarding Blatchford's column: I saw nothing wrong with it. As to Kinsella's slam: Knee jerk - calling to the mob - garbage.
 
karrie
+2
#23
I feel that while the boys deserve an article pointing out that they have had no charges pressed, let alone a trial, they didn't need to publish a mock trial via an op/ed piece. Especially when Rehtaeh is not around to testify as to her own experience and character.

There are things about it that require hard questions and difficult conversations.

What I DO know about the case, is the character of the young men, who published porn of the young woman, and participated in community wide harassment of her from that point on. That makes the innocent act hard to swallow, and is why people are screaming for a trial. Because where there is smoke, there is fire.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I feel that while the boys deserve an article pointing out that they have had no charges pressed, let alone a trial, they didn't need to publish a mock trial via an op/ed piece. Especially when Rehtaeh is not around to testify as to her own experience and character.

There are things about it that require hard questions and difficult conversations.

What I DO know about the case, is the character of the young men, who published porn of the young woman, and participated in community wide harassment of her from that point on. That makes the innocent act hard to swallow, and is why people are screaming for a trial. Because where there is smoke, there is fire.

As long as there are people who briing this to the public eye it will be scrutinized. As it should.
 
Jonny_C
+2
#25
The whole thing is sad and more than unfortunate, but I don't see reason for Kinsella's outrage. It seems to me that his column is more offensive than Blatchford's, if her column can be defined as offensive in the first place.

I think the best comment so far in this thread has been this one, by Colpy...

"Congrats to Blatchford for having the guts to buck the torch-and pitchfork crowd mentality in this case.
All that said, the bloody lowlifes should have left the poor girl alone afterward......she was 15, and should never have been tortured for some bad decisions. We've all made them."
 
Zipperfish
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Okay whatever you were trying to convey above made little if no sense.

I re-read it and it made sense to me. Perhaps you lack the requisite neurons.


Quote:

Agree with what? Blatchford wrote about the facts surrounding the case. The
reason the police didn't lay charges. If anything your bias is what is at play
here. None of us were there. The police did not have the evidence to go to
court. Sad but true.

Yes, I can tell you're all choked up about it. There are lots of facts surrounding the case. Blatchford picked some, and ignored others to suit her point of view. This is what opinion columnists do.


Quote:

I have no issue with them taking a second look. I am a bit apprehensive about
them introducing laws regarding the internet. We have enough issues with
kangaroo courts like the HRC going after comedians and web posters on internet
forums who don't have the good sense to change the channel.

I agree. A thoughtful approach is called for. We have to stop online bullies. I can think of four similar cases in the last year.


Quote:

Regarding Blatchford's column: I saw nothing wrong with it. As to Kinsella's slam: Knee jerk - calling to the mob - garbage.

Two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned. "The punditocracy" I've heard it called.

Quote: Originally Posted by Jonny_C View Post

The whole thing is sad and more than unfortunate, but I don't see reason for Kinsella's outrage. It seems to me that his column is more offensive than Blatchford's, if her column can be defined as offensive in the first place.

I think the best comment so far in this thread has been this one, by Colpy...

"Congrats to Blatchford for having the guts to buck the torch-and pitchfork crowd mentality in this case.
All that said, the bloody lowlifes should have left the poor girl alone afterward......she was 15, and should never have been tortured for some bad decisions. We've all made them."

Not on the same page here. You take issue with people who automatically that Rehtaeh was raped, and th4en you automatically assume she she just "made a bad decision." Same thing. In one case they want to lynch the alleged perpetrators, in the others the boys were just being boys and she was drunk and horny.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#27
The time has come to treat these cases seriously. Yes she participated but the fact is she is
only fifteen and this should be front and center. These little punks deserve what they get
period. There should be a trial, and if they bullied her into this state there should be a charge
for that. Blatchford said some things I don't agree with. does that make them hateful? i
suppose it depends on who reads what she said. Officially no, she does point out the problems
and short comings of our society and that can be stressful, hateful and frustrating. Is that her
fault no. I have never been a fan of the National Post. They did not post a hate filled article in
my opinion. Why can we not, put our energies to fixing the problem with the law rather than
debating the message of the messenger?
 
Zipperfish
#28
Quote:


Why can we not, put our energies to fixing the problem with the law rather
than
debating the message of the messenger?

This!
 
Colpy
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

The time has come to treat these cases seriously. Yes she participated but the fact is she is
only fifteen and this should be front and center. These little punks deserve what they get
period. There should be a trial, and if they bullied her into this state there should be a charge
for that. Blatchford said some things I don't agree with. does that make them hateful? i
suppose it depends on who reads what she said. Officially no, she does point out the problems
and short comings of our society and that can be stressful, hateful and frustrating. Is that her
fault no. I have never been a fan of the National Post. They did not post a hate filled article in
my opinion. Why can we not, put our energies to fixing the problem with the law rather than
debating the message of the messenger?

:The little punks" are minors too...... and have not been convicted of anything.

What, exactly, is the problem with the law??
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

I re-read it and it made sense to me. Perhaps you lack the requisite neurons.

Of course it made sense to you. You are the idiot who wrote it and pushed submit reply.

Quote:

Yes, I can tell you're all choked up about it. There are lots of facts surrounding the case. Blatchford picked some, and ignored others to suit her point of view. This is what opinion columnists do.

You really are an idiot. From another thread:
Quote:

I read the article and it sounds like the Justice System failed this girl. As to the bullying that followed the sexual assault: This is a new way of conducting business, but bullying is nothing new. I remember young ladies who were identified as ****s, often unjustly, and bullying has always been a part of our society. Perhaps if we did not protect the privacy of young people who conduct themselves in such a disgusting way and published their names it might work as a deterrent. I don't know that new laws regarding the internet and privacy are going to stop the age old mob mentality of singling out a weak individual and victimizing them.

As to Blatchford cherry picking information to suit her needs. What didn't she use? And please, remember to give us your sources.

Quote:

Not on the same page here. You take issue with people who automatically that Rehtaeh was raped, and th4en you automatically assume she she just "made a bad decision." Same thing. In one case they want to lynch the alleged perpetrators, in the others the boys were just being boys and she was drunk and horny.

I live in a Country where people are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Your view is of the Mob mentality and nothing beats a good lynching. This harkens back to the same mentality that destroyed the lives of Duke Lacrosse Team in 2006 where the alleged rapist were tried and convicted before they saw the inside of a courtroom and were found innocent after the alleged victim was found to be lying. Or how about the ongoing George Zimmerman case?

Very sorry this girl killed herself. I don't know if she was raped or had consensual sex, I do know that the taking of her own life does not trump the justice system in Canada. I have no issue with a second look, I have huge issue with destroying the lives of boys who quite possibly may be innocent of that which they are accused.

The different page we are on is that I am not jumping to conclusions, how as you are.
Last edited by Retired_Can_Soldier; Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:17 PM..
 

Similar Threads

58
Poll: Which is more hateful?
by petros | Jan 19th, 2013
10
Hateful chatter behind the veil
by sanch | Jul 5th, 2006
10
Senate Speaker: Hon. NoŽl Kinsella
by FiveParadox | Feb 9th, 2006