Wow!
Congratulations to Monte Solberg’s “steel in the spine of the Canadian conservative blogosphere” Kate McMillan on becoming the most vile right whinger of all time. This stunt has surpassed even those of Malkin and Coulter. Now let’s see if you can take the heat.
For those of you who aren’t up to speed yet, this is what has transpired. This photo was sent to Warren Kinsella and he published it on his blog. This of course is supposed to be someone’s tattoo received in a Nazi death camp.
But the photo turns out to have been photoshopped and the prank revealed by Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals. The number in the photo above, is actually the registration number of Kate’s motorcycle.
I’m simply at a loss as to what to say to such a vile stunt. It is–at the very least to Jews–the equivalent of pissing on a war memorial; a notorious event that inspired Kate herself to call for violence against the perpetrators.
Unsurprisingly, self appointed free speech martyr and con artist Ezra Levant has already begun Kate’s defense. But then why wouldn’t he. This sort of vulgarity is after all, what he’s fighting for.
Update: No surprise here, but Kathy Shaidle and Jay Currie have also leapt to Kate’s defense.
Damian Penny on the other hand says Kate has crossed the line. His commenters however…
Update II: The Phantom Observer, and Aaron Wudrick have joined in to defend Kate’s vileness.
Christian Conservative, like Damian Penny, thinks Kate has crossed the line. His commenters, also like Penny’s, however…
Omar Soliman rightfully believes this supports his earlier opinions regarding the right whingers and their fight for vulgarity.
Update III: Buckdog and Jason Cherniak weigh in on Kate’s vileness. Warren Kinsella has some opinions from his readers.
Update IV: Canadian Cynic has discovered the email containing the photoshopped picture originated from a domain owned by Richard Evans. Whether the two planned this vile stunt together is unknown at this point.
Update V: Richard Evans has confirmed that he is the person who sent the email to Warren. Still no word on whether or not he planned this stunt with Kate.
Unrepentant Old Hippie asks the question: “And what if Robert McClelland had done it?”
Well considering the right whingers revved up the engine of the hatemobile and have kept it running for 4 years over nothing more than the title of one of my posts, I suspect I might now be dodging real bullets from one or more of these hatemongers.
Is that KKKate’s arm in the photo? Looks awfully…er…pigmented. I always knew she was mulata.
Had *you* pulled this stunt back when Kinsella was misrepresenting your “fuck the Jews” post (which I don’t remember too many free speech warriors defending) I might have found have found it somewhat inspired…or something. Coming from KKKate, it’s just low-class fraud and in very bad taste.
Robert:
Please clarify that I never claimed that the original e-mail came from Richard Evans, only that Richard Evans appears to be a participant in the creation or administration of the domain terleski7.com, nothing more. That doesn’t mean he had anything to do with this “prank” or whether he even knew about it. It’s just mildly amusing to observe that, when you dig deep enough, it seems to be the same vile examples of human beings at the bottom of that particular right-wing barrel.
Done, CC. But Evans himself has now confirmed it.
I’m constantly amazed by how utterly stupid Jay Currie is. From Warren’s link (from an email Currie sent him):
Jay Currie: Kate is not a bigot. You accuse her of using this badge of our collective shame as a joke while you were perfectly prepared to use it to bolster your political position. Kate’s brilliant hoax had a broader point - it put you into the same position as the poor chumps gulled by the CHRC online “investigators”. I hope it will make you think about such tactics. And, while you are thinking, consider what constitutes the greatest threat to the Jews and to the West in the modern world. Rather than hunting decrepit old camp guards and pathetic neo-Nazi losers, let’s take a really close look at militant Islam’s Jew hatred.
Not a bigot? Brilliant hoax? Gulled chumps?
Is Jay Currie really a lawyer? He’s a simpleton with a big mouth.
Please modify your post to show that Mr.Wudrick indeed finds the episode revolting.
Lots of crying going on here. Kate’s hoax is initially revolting. Scratch the surface and the brilliance of the hoax reveals itself. She reveals Warren’s desperate ego and ignorance all in one shot. It’s actually sort of touching, his desire to be a champion of holocaust survivors. For “progressives” in general, how often have they trivialised the Holocaust with their easy and careless reference to the Twentieth Century’s most notorious progrom?
1) Have not practiced in years….
2) I have been defending our host’s “fuck the jews” comment for coon’s ages.
“Western liberals and libertarians have to get serious about recognizing that free speech includes offensive speech. Robert McClelland rather infamously put up a post entitled “Fuck the Jews”. Offensive, certainly; but well within the bounds of conversation.” jay currie
It’s actually sort of touching, his desire to be a champion of holocaust survivors.
God help me, I have to defend Kinsella…
Matt…Kinsella wrote a book examining neo-nazism and far-right hate groups in Canada (Web of Hate, first published, 1996). This isn’t something he just dallied into as a self-agrandising lark.
For “progressives” in general, how often have they trivialised the Holocaust with their easy and careless reference to the Twentieth Century’s most notorious progrom?
What are you referring to and do you have an example?
Ti-guy,
Here’s (http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/02/liberal-party-speaks-out-on-keith.html) a whole discussion where lefties use the Nazi ruse to try and disqualify the point of free-speechers and here is another: http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/02/its-not-nazi-comparison-rob-its-real.html.
My point is that left-wingers seem to be stuck on using nazis, kkk and the like to make their point. There actions are just as low as Kate’s hoax seems to be. The true crimes of true nazis are horrific and real. The worst her hoax could be considered is offensive and in bad taste, just like the left’s use of nazis to disqualify everyone they disagree with. So, when you think about it, Kate’s hoax isn’t all that bad. Just business as usual. Maybe it follows the tradition of most comedy. Everybody from Richard Pryor using the n-word to the Simpsons and their never-ending parade of stereotypes. Indeed, it makes her point quite succintly. Sort of giving out a taste of Warren’s own medicine.
While I have your attention, Ti-guy, I noticed the other day you called yourself a conservative. So you do admit that todays cons are truly liberal? I won’t argue with that. Labels are overrated.
My point is that left-wingers seem to be stuck on using nazis, kkk and the like to make their point.
Of course they are.
I’m not re-hashing that here, Matt. If you had responded specifically to the questions about your very specific assertions, we’d have a discussion.
As far as the free speech/neo nazi associations…they’re being made because actual, self-confessed, well-documented neo-nazis (Lemire, Fromm) are popping up in defense of Steyn and Levant. And I’ve always asserted that KKKate is a neo-nazi…at the very least, a white supremacist.
The web of hate, in other words.
Sorry. The evidence is even more compelling than that which suggests the Al-Qaeda Global Network of Islamic Jihad (or whatever it’s called this week), at this point.
I noticed the other day you called yourself a conservative. So you do admit that todays cons are truly liberal?
Not in the least. Conservatism is a reflection of individual behaviour. Liberalism focuses the analysis at the collective level. Even political conservatives understand that.
Matt, darling, that was no ruse. The fact is–and its one its taken about a week for at least some on your side of the fence to grasp–is that the one measurable, concrete effect of the repeal of Section 13 will be that it will become easier for real Nazis to recruit and organize in Canada. And Paul Fromm does not endorse the repeal of Section 13 because he is in favor of Free Speech. Or at least, if you are willing to see blacks and jews deported or sterilized (which is a common sentiment at Stormfront) I don’t see how your free speech principles can be said to run too deep.
By the way, I have suggested that Blogging Tories should boot Kate off their blog role. And am also going to call Ezra out on it tomorrow. After all, he is big on combatting racism through more free speech. He owes folks a denuciation at least, or is a hypocrite.
A pox on both their houses.
Just a quick note: I have been defending Robert’s right to say what he likes, regardless of how odious, for years:
It’s beyond bad taste and I imagine, and hope, she’ll soon find herself very very isolated.
However, I’m almost as repulsed by the eagerness with which Kinsella was willing (is willing) to use the suffering of the Holocaust to promote himself and whatever asinine arguments he’s making at the moment.
Let’s not let this pathetic man become a hero because an even more pathetic woman chose to argue with him.
Nobody is making out like Warren is a hero in all this.
He’s merely the victim of a tasteless con by two con-artists who thought it would be fun to impersonate a holocaust survivor for shits and giggles to “get at” the guy.
Now that the fit has hit the shan the backpeddling about how this CON was not offensive in the least has begun full bore from the winged monkey brigade who don’t seem to understand that MOST NORMAL PEOPLE IN CANADA would find the action of impersonating a holocaust survivor for ANY REASON to be completely and totally repugnant.
You know what I really love about Kate though is that she never apologizes or stops to think for a minute about how she comes across to people outside of her little blogging kingdom. Correction… She is cunning and careful about making comments that skate right up to the line of hate-speech without going over.
It’s a pattern with her that she seems addicted to this kind of political pornography. This little stunt of hers is simply the flavour of this month. If it’s not Angolans, or African Canadians, or Aboriginals or Immigrants or Muslims or Japanese people.,… it’s some other group of people that she likes to villify and demonize.
Notice how Kate carefully culls articles and adds very little of her OWN commentary to the stuff that she recycles for popular consumption. The real trick is she gets her low-life scum fans in the comments sections to say the things that she is afraid to come out and say for herself. It’s actually very clever.
However in this case it’s going to be hard for her to walk this off and pretend like anything that Warren Kinsella did justified her and Richards con of impersonation/representation of a holocaust survivor to further a flame war with somebody.
This time she has stepped way way way over the line and more than a few people are looking at her with new eyes.
Just a quick note: I have been defending Robert’s right to say what he likes, regardless of how odious, for years:
Oh, big deal. It’s the easiest thing in the world. Why don’t you give “making credible assertions” a shot, for change?
Jay Currie is someone who believes Noam Chomsky is an apologist for Holocaust deniers. Talk about being completely ignorant of the one issue one is focussed on.
Let’s not forget that Kate McMillan is a Conservative Party activist, and not just a Blogging Tory, as evidenced by this old pic:
http://www.katewerk.com/temp/trail.jpg
What does the Conservative Party of Canada say about its most prominent blogger and activist sending around fake Holocaust tattoo photos as a joke?
“What does the Conservative Party of Canada say about its most prominent blogger and activist sending around fake Holocaust tattoo photos as a joke?”
Gee, I don’t know - what do vegetarians everywhere have to say about the fact that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian!? Are they endorsing his views? Are they legitimizing his ideology? Etc etc etc.
Give it up.
Are they endorsing his views?
Well, Aaron. The Conservative Party of Canada has in fact endorsed the views of Kate McMillan and other Blogging Tories on numerous occasions. The second link in my post leads to one example.
What a tawdry episode. I think MWM’s comment really nails it.
Well, Aaron. The Conservative Party of Canada has in fact endorsed the views of Kate McMillan and other Blogging Tories on numerous occasions. The second link in my post leads to one example.
“Yes, but that’s just Monte Solberg. He’s not the whole Conservative Party,” Aaron would say. And if you bring up example after example of Conservative opinion leaders either refusing to distance themselves from those who claim to speak on their behalf, or in fact engage directly in the type of rhetoric the Blogging Tories present (recent examples of which, since the gagging of Conservative MP’s, are harder to find), Aaron could go on, until you’ve covered every single Conservative…at which point Aaron will say “well, I’m a libertarian anyway.”
Conservative endorsement of these crappy people (and their crappy ideas) should come back to haunt them.
Robert,
I’ve been reading your posts subsequent to this one as well as some of your recent comments on others blogs. I take it that you think the commenters on SDA are to be chastised for expressing bigotry. I think if I have it right you also question the judgement of the blogger there for allowing such comments to be posted without criticism from the blogger.
While I do not think that any commenter here has gone as far as the commenters there, I think it’s pretty much agreed that you have a regular commenter who has on more than one occasion expressed what he/she would agree are “unflattering” stereotypical views of an identifiable group in our Canadian community. In some cases that commenter has linked to sites that I would characterize as highly questionable.
I’m conscious of the fact that in the past I may have joined the discussion in a heavy handed way so I’m trying hard to ask the question in a way that is fair and non-accusatory. While I have the very strong sense that your commenter’s views do not represent your views, I’m still curious as to why you let him/her do his thing here without criticism, especially if you think that some comments on SDA deserve criticism. Is it about operating a free speech zone on your own blog? Is it payback for those who unfairly and immorally characterize all critics of Israel as anti-Semites? Are you making a distinction between clear expressions of hatred on SDA and views that you judge to be more political (and thereby protected) than hateful? Or is he/she simply someone who is known to you in real life who you view as a decent person and whose comments are somehow misunderstood or mischaracterized?
I ask because if it’s wrong for SDA commenters to express bigotry in the case of aboriginals, Muslims or other groups, it’s not clear to me why the expression of negative group stereotypes regarding Jewish Canadians is any different.
I think if I have it right you also question the judgement of the blogger there for allowing such comments to be posted without criticism from the blogger.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. While I do think SDA’s commenters are repulsive I rarely if ever mention them. And the reason I don’t mention them is that except for a few established non blogging commenters, there’s no way to verify whether or not one of them is an agent provacateur.
“there’s no way to verify whether or not one of them is an agent provacateur.”…
Or kate in disguise… which might be the same thing. If I were a Liberal strategist I would have so much fun with Kate’s association with the CPOC…
It would be extra special fun. Really! I think Kinsella even went so far as to say Kate was a Liberal Election Time advertisement that screamed to be made,