Is the column on-line anywhere?

probably. Google The Moncton Times and Tribune. then ask for Dec. 11. I'm not sure how much it shows - so I'm not sure whether a guest column would appear. If it does, it's on page D7.

It helps to know some of the background. The Irving Family owns just about everything in NB. They have a long history of ruthlessness. Down here, you will never see a public word of criticism of anything they do. In fact, most people will not discuss them at all if more than one other person is present (really.) People are really quite scared.

In the column, Irving's whole concern is with business. He and his summit never once mentioned concerns about poverty or the elderly. On taxation, his sole expressed concern is in keeping taxes down for big business.

He also dumps full blame for any fiscal problems on the governments of New Brunswick, nicely ignoring the fact that the Irvings have effectively controlled every government New Brunswick has had for over fifty years.

Graeme, I heard a CBC radio interview with whoever is the N.B. education minister who said they spent a lot of time in the province working on the curriculum to ensure kids get the best chances of "success" which I gathered meant involving businesses in curriculum design to churn out employable clones. As you know, John Ralston Saul has for some time banged on about the rise of corporate fascism (a la Mussolini) in Canada... and today I heard the OECD evaluations of educational attainment in Canada do NOT include aboriginal or arctic schools...

We are getting screwed. Our kids are getting betrayed. Are they being taught to think critically and creatively, to value beauty, resourcefulness and originality, to be independent-minded, justice-minded citizens of a free and fortunate country, and to regard education as tooling up for LIFE, or does "success"  mean something else to "educators" these days... 

Teachers hate what's going on in NB schools. What's happening is business gets to set standards (using scientifically invalid tests to measure the quality of schools and teachers.) At the same time, business leaders are putting on pressure to cut education budgets that are already far too low. Any education minister in the province is in that job because big business wants him there. There aim in the schools is not to produce anything in particular, but to get private hands onto as much of the education budget as possible.

Despite the cowardliness of government (and of the general public) and despite the budget cuts, the schools still manage to do a good job. But the strain is too great. Soon, it will collapse - as it  has in the US under the same influences.

But New Brunswickers are the most scared people I've ever seen. You can feel the power of big business, especially the Irving family, every day in this province. And  you can feel the feart of challenging them. And, of course, you have the almost absolute control of the Irvings over all New Brunswick news media.

Corporate fascism is very much on the rise in Canada and the US. I seriously think the days of even superficial democracy in the US arre numbered. In New Brunswick, it never really existed. This province has its history of robber barons going back to the days of the timber trade.

I have some experience with the government of New Brunswick and also the influence of the Irving family. Below you will notice two items from my New Brunswick file. The picture was circulated at a meeting of the Woolastook presbytery. I explained my involvement with the resistance efforts of diverse social and political persons and associations. I wondered if the United Church might not become at least a little involved at a practical level. The conversation was closed when a member of the executive stated she could have nothing to do with any social or symbolic action that called into question the integrity of the Irving family. Her son was employed by the Irvings and the speaker felt strongly that no action ought to be taken as the Irving family brought great blessing to the province and its people. Below the picture is a small video taken by a street activist, Charles LeBlanc, who happened to be passing by while I was engaged in a symbolic action at the New Brunswick Legislature. I also include a link to a media project produced by a resistance collective in the Province.

http://www.nbmediacoop.org/

The United Church will do nothing. New Brunswickers will do nothing. irving can get away with anything, and people just stand around with their faces hanging out. It's always been that way. But don't anybody feel smug. The Irvings have been showing interest in Harper as a kindred soul.

 Still can't find the article.  "Moncton Times and Tribune" brings up only a "Moncton Times and Transcript."

So I entered "Irving" in the search box.  Whoa!   Four page-loads before I got to December 7 but I did not see anything written by an Irving.   If those page-loads mean anything, they are sure in the news a lot!

The name Irving in connection with New Brunswick does ring a vague bell, but I am on the opposite coast in Victoria so I can't really comment intelligently except to say, clearly this family has a lot of influence if can be mentioned that many times in the newspaper.

The family owns all the newspapers in New Brunwick. It also owns most of the timber land - much of it a gift from the government. It has been the key financial supporter of every government in NB since at least 1950. It owns a whole range of companies, and is the largest employer in the province. It also was a big contributor to the federal Liberals (I knew the federal Liberal bagman.)  Now it shows a good deal of interest in Harper.  It also has a record of ruthlessness. And it is one of the handful of multi-billionaire families in Canada.

The column was on page D7. The date was Saturday, December 11.

And I apologize. You're quite right. The paper is The Moncton Times and Transcript. All of the papers in NB are under firm control of the Irvings, and are quite dreadful. Certainly the worst I have seen in Canada.

There are five or six posts on the Irving column in my blog:

http:/www.themonctongrimes-dripdrain@blogspot.com

(Ii hope that's right. you can also google The Moncton Times and Transcript - Good and Bad Graeme Decarie           That should bring it up near the top of the first page.

I still have my own copy of the column before me. Perhaps I can figure out a way to post it to the thread.

Graeme, the McCains became a family empire with the assistance of bagloads of grants from federal Liberal governments, as reported by the Toronto Star about 20 or 30 years ago.  Is there a connection between the McCains and the Irvings?  I know about Irving Oil, Lumber, etc., having gone to the Atlantic School of Theology, and from readings over 4 decades.

graeme

Your blog, you forgot a slash :

http://www.themonctongrimes-dripdrain@blogspot.com

I knew Maritimers who said the very same things you are saying about Irving and N.B.

Your blog again, no need to join or log in to read it. This is the url you should give out because some people don't want to join or sign up to read it. Its public. I joined some blog of yours, I don't see my name Genevieve. Oh, I just checked. I'm a follower.

GeoFee

Cool Video!

You've got balls ......Go...Man....Go ......!!!!!

Edit

graeme here's your other blog. I log out which is why my name didn't  show I guess. I'm logged in now.

I still can't find the article but the picture is becoming clearer.  Sounds like a tailor-made set-up for some pretty big-time corruption.

EasternOrthodox

Whatever, I feel so badly for the Irvings . They are now only the 3rd. richest  family  in Canada.

Quote:

The McCains and the Irvings and the Ganongs and a few other families run the place. That's why the maritimes, relatively poor in Canadian terms, have some stunningly rich families. They personally act as though they were aristocratic rulers. I'm sure they believe they are. Both the provincial Liberals and Conservatives get the greater part of their money from corporate donors and wealthy individuals. Both parties are really the same. NBers change theiir vote a bit for one or the other every election. In almost a hundred and fifty years, they still haven't caught on. And , yes, corruption and manipulation are big time.

Stardust, you're way ahead of me on computer savvy. I feel like a child with my first pencil sharpener in comparison to you.

I actually have two blogs - which may both pop up when you log in. One I started for no particular reason except to be more general, and called it Graeme the Chatterer. It was a mistake. I really don't have the time for two blogs.

Interestingly, my blog on New Brunswick fascism is getting quite a following from Germany.

Beshpin, I never asked you to believe me. I presented arguments. What  you believe is none of my business.

Why should I care?

Well, for a start, Besh, Graeme takes a rather more thorough look at the world around him than you seem to. He is articulate, informed and open. He enters into discussion and has interesting things to say. He can be a grinch at times, even a bit obsessive, but it's usually the result of provocation. Whether he is "right" on this or that particular position is something we can knock around by discussing it and, whether he is right or wrong, we can learn from his insights, experience and awareness.

Believing each other (or not) and being determined to always be "right" is not a hekpful starting point for what's normally considered a discussion. A discussion really calls for a measure of vulnerability. The only vulnerabilities you exhibit here seem to be your moluscan wit and your plumbic  vivacity... so, in the event of someone noticing you, he or she has little acknowledgement to offer that doesn't sound like a dump.

You have my sympathy. Forgive me if I often overlook your posts. It's so often the only way I can think of to avoid rudeness of a more hurtful sort.

 Graeme: the scary thing is the fascism seems to appeal to so many "younger" Canadians -- the discipline, the cops' aggression at the G20, the neglect of issues around aboriginal and poverty... Harper's high-handed erosion of democracy... it all seems to promise order and certainty... the polls as well as the plight of many in this counry suggest that a lot of Canadians like it that way.

It's only when fascism REALLY kicks in that people get surprised by it's self-destructive brutality. then it's too late.

That's why I expect  the US to drift into fascism in the not too distant future. Faith in both parties has been destroyed. Americans are looking for an il duce. So, apparently, are Canadians.

I worry about the world my children are gorwing into.

Graeme

I am beginning to see why you might be a little paranoid.  The situation there does not sound too good.  Any books you could recommend?

It sounds not so much fascist as kind of feudal, Lord of the Manor with the peasants.   But I confess to knowing very little about it but I am open to learning.

Graeme... Fascists do such great uniforms! And they can be so populist... it is VERY scary when things seem to take two steps towards fascism and only one step back... and it's happening more and more frequently.

I think you're right about the American desire for a Duce... and, if they find one, I can see this "security perimeter" crap and Harper's willingness to hand Canadian dossiers and personal information over willy-nilly to the U.S. -- with our Privacy commissioner as the perceived "enemy" in all this -- leading quite quickly to the total loss of our poltical self-determination: then it'll be tanks over the border with a lot of Candaians cheering them on.

Then, one day, we will wake up in a failed state. You might want to look at:

www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/904905--border-security-talks-with-u-s-fan-sovereignty-concerns

McDonald's book is a good read. She has traced the assorted threads by which the emergent Conservative agenda is given energy and substance. There is a broad Evangelical Fundamental move towards the recovery of what they consider a primary Canadian vision and vocation. This is given in the Psalm's: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea," which is a rallying text for diverse interests joined in a common cause. The book identifies the key players, including persons such as Jimmy Pattison, a man of great influence and a key promoter and supporter of the "Alpha" program. At or near the centre we find the abiding influence and anticipation of Stockwell Day, whom some consider annointed to great purpose in our day. Mr. Day is a supporter of another book concerned with the rise of the Christian right.

The book in question is subtitled: "A Prophetic Call and Research On The Righteous Foundations of Canada." The author is Faytene C. Kryskow. Her thesis is made plain in this representative statement:

Thinking these things I am grateful for the intercessions of Hannah Arendt, whose "Responsibility and Judgement" clearly articulates the banal incursion of evil, insidious and innocuous, till the tipping point; where its essential character is brought into the light of day.

Another interesting read is: "America, Fascism and God: Sermons from a Heretical Preacher", by Davidson Loehr. Here is a link to a bit of info about the man and the book:

LINK

Our history shaped by faith? John A. was a drunk, and made himself rich by serving big business. Wilfrid Laurier was different only in being temperate. Mackenzie King was a religious fanatic who admired Hitler, and would not allow Jews into Canada to escape theholocause. Mulroney was - well - deviant.

Would Stockwell Day be thinking of J.S.Woodsworth, the most thoroughly Christian man in our history? Somehow, I doubt it.

OE - you have to range over a variety of news sources on the web. El Haaretz for Israel. The Guardian and The Indiependent for Britain. Then there's a web site called - damn - I have to think of its name and get back to you. It's run by a rather odd man and, like any source, even the best of them, should be treated with caution - but it makes a point of publishing stories most of the mainstream media never carry. And I've known more than a few of them to turn out to be true. Oh, Information Clearing House. Google it. The best military and middle east columnist you can get in Canadian papers is Gwyinne Dyer. The best on Canadian affairs is The Globe's Jeffrey Simpson.  There's a web site I used to write for until I realized it would prominently display columns by far right wing "think tanks", but would not publish anything critical of such "think tanks". That's when I decided to spend my retirement years to write the whole truth for a change, using my own blog. (all news media put limitations on the truth. I learned that in thousands of appearances on air and in print.)  Still, with the exception of the propaganda it publishes for right wing think tanks, this opinion site can be quite interesting.  google The Mark News.

 FROM ALTERNET:

Are Right-Wing Libertarian Internet Trolls Getting Paid to Dumb Down Online Conversations?

By George Monbiot, Comment Is Free
Posted on December 15, 2010, Printed on December 15, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/

They are the online equivalent of enclosure riots: the rick-burning, fence-toppling protests by English peasants losing their rights to the land. When MasterCard, Visa, Paypal and Amazon tried to shut WikiLeaks out of the cyber-commons, an army of hackers responded by trying to smash their way into these great estates and pull down their fences.

In the Wikileaks punch-up the commoners appear to have the upper hand. But it’s just one battle. There’s a wider cyberwar being fought, of which you hear much less. And in most cases the landlords, with the help of a mercenary army, are winning.

I’m not talking here about threats to net neutrality and the danger of a two-tier internet developing, though these are real. I’m talking about the daily attempts to control and influence content in the interests of the state and corporations: attempts in which money talks.

The weapon used by both state and corporate players is a technique known as astroturfing. An astroturf campaign is one that mimics spontaneous grassroots mobilizations, but which has in reality been organized. Anyone writing a comment piece in Mandarin critical of the Chinese government, for example, is likely to be bombarded with abuse by people purporting to be ordinary citizens, upset by the slurs against their country.

But many of them aren’t upset: they are members of the 50 Cent Party, so-called because one Chinese government agency pays 5 mao (half a yuan) for every post its tame commenters write. Teams of these sock-puppets are hired by party leaders to drown out critical voices and derail intelligent debates.

I first came across online astroturfing in 2002, when the investigators Andy Rowell and Jonathan Matthews looked into a series of comments made by two people calling themselves Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek. They had launched ferocious attacks, across several internet forums, against a scientist whose research suggested that Mexican corn had been widely contaminated by GM pollen.

Rowell and Matthews found that one of the messages Mary Murphy had sent came from a domain owned by the Bivings Group, a PR company specializing in internet lobbying. An article on the Bivings website explained that “there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organization is directly involved … Message boards, chat rooms, and listservs are a great way to anonymously monitor what is being said. Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party."

The Bivings site also quoted a senior executive from the biotech corporation Monsanto, thanking the PR firm for its “outstanding work”. When a Bivings executive was challenged by Newsnight, he admitted that the “Mary Murphy” email was sent by someone “working for Bivings” or “clients using our services”. Rowell and Matthews then discovered that the IP address on Andura Smetacek’s messages was assigned to Monsanto’s headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri(9). There’s a nice twist to this story. AstroTurf TM - real fake grass - was developed and patented by Monsanto.

Reading comment threads on the Guardian’s sites and elsewhere on the web, two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues in which there’s little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilized than debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions: such as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These are often characterized by amazing levels of abuse and disruption.

Articles about the environment are hit harder by such tactics than any others. I love debate, and I often wade into the threads beneath my columns. But it’s a depressing experience, as instead of contesting the issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard me with infantile abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often you discredit it. This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible - which appears to be the point.

The second pattern is the strong association between this tactic and a certain set of views: pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation. Both traditional conservatives and traditional progressives tend be more willing to discuss an issue than these right-wing libertarians, many of whom seek instead to shut down debate.

So what’s going on? I’m not suggesting that most of the people trying to derail these discussions are paid to do so, though I would be surprised if none were. I’m suggesting that some of the efforts to prevent intelligence from blooming seem to be organized, and that neither website hosts nor other commenters know how to respond.

For his film (Astro)Turf Wars, Taki Oldham secretly recorded a training session organized by a rightwing libertarian group called American Majority. The trainer, Austin James, was instructing Tea Party members on how to “manipulate the medium”. This is what he told them:

“Here’s what I do. I get on Amazon; I type in “Liberal Books”. I go through and I say “one star, one star, one star”. The flipside is you go to a conservative/ libertarian whatever, go to their products and give them five stars. … This is where your kids get information: Rotten Tomatoes, Flixster. These are places where you can rate movies. So when you type in “Movies on Healthcare”, I don’t want Michael Moore’s to come up, so I always give it bad ratings. I spend about 30 minutes a day, just click, click, click, click. … If there’s a place to comment, a place to rate, a place to share information, you have to do it. That’s how you control the online dialogue and give our ideas a fighting chance.”

Over 75% of the funding for American Majority, which hosted this training session, comes from the Sam Adams Alliance. In 2008, the year in which American Majority was founded, 88% of the alliance’s money came from a single donation, of $3.7m(13). A group which trains rightwing libertarians to distort online democratic processes, in other words, was set up with funding from a person or company with a very large wallet.

The internet is a remarkable gift, which has granted us one of the greatest democratic opportunities since universal suffrage. We’re in danger of losing this global commons as it comes under assault from an army of trolls and flacks, many of them covertly organised or trained. The question for all of us - the Guardian, other websites, everyone who benefits from this resource - is what we intend to do about it. It’s time we fought back and reclaimed the internet for what it does best: exploring issues, testing ideas, opening the debate.

George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

© 2010 Comment Is Free All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/

Thanks for the tips GeoFee and Mike.  I read the article Mike quotes with interest.

It does seem like a new form of warfare has developed with the Internet.   All sort of issues are arising that didn't even exist in the Stone Age (prior to the mid nineties or so). and the Monbiot article brings up a host of good points.   Fascinating just from a sociological point of view.

I will have to think about this some more before I can make any intelligent comment aside from:  we aren't going to put the Internet genie back in the bottle.  

It makes me feel old.  How the heck did we get through the seventies and eighties without the Internet?

I look at my children, and wonder that. I spent my childhood in a world of radio and books, then deplored the damage done to kids by TV. Now, I see my children so absorbed by computers that they rarely watch TV.

No, we certanly won't be able to put the genie back into the bottle. We can only wonder who it will grant wishes to.

Return of fascism?  IMO it never left, just evolved.

As-salaamu alaikm

-Omni

I once existed in a facist state:  it was called public education; chiefly, high school.

HAH! For six years, I was one of the school goons for Il Duce. (grades 7to11).

About the so-called "astro-turfing"--I don't agree that this is something done mainly by right-wings libertarians.   There are plenty of anti-corporate, anti-establishment commentators on the web (at every forum and site where messages can be left) who make intelligent discussion impossible by engaging in  name calling and entering false information, etc.   There is plenty of this sort of thing on all sides of every issue. 

 I often read news and comments at the CBC website. The topics which get the most comments seem to be:

political corruption - this always engenders a lot of angry comments, as it should

anything about police misbehaviour (lots of people seem to hate the police)

anything about violent criminals - lots of anger out there about perceived weak justice system in Canada.  If the criminal and victim are not the same race, this adds another dimension and more comments.  Often CBC tries to hide information about race.

anything about Christianity always gets lots of snide comments from atheists who parrot their hero Richard Dawkins.  There are even atheists who regularly insult commentators who make comments such as "they are in my prayers", or "God be with them" on sad stories about tragedy.   The CBC rarely allows comments on stories involving religions other than Christianity. 

anything to do with immigration gets a lot of comments- lots of vitriol and name-calling all around.  The stories on CBC that garnered more comments than any other that I have seen were about the boat load of Tamils arriving in Victoria last summer.   People of every race and ethnicity  were outraged, including many immigrants who had come to Canada the legal way.   A group of  Tamils and some Euro-Canadian liberals made comments deriding the outraged folks and calling them names (racist, bigot, etc)   It was about an 80 - 20 split, with 80%  against the Tamils.  I'm surprised CBC let the comments remain open, since they usually close down comments on stories involving immigrants in an unflattering light.

I haven't noticed a lot of comments of stories involving climate change, corporations, etc.    

mely, unlike you I have worked thirty years for both public and private radio and TV, and for private newspapers. You don't know what  you're talking about.

It's quite true the CBC plays down some issues. That's because they're afraid of annoying people like Harper, and getting their budget cut.k Contrary to popular myth which is soaked up by the gullible, it is the right that sometimes forces CBC into misleading journalism.

At its worst, the CBC is still miles ahead of private news media in quality of news. Private news sources, including the sainted Globe, routinely lie and distort the news. And they routinely refuse to carry stories that make private business look bad.

Let me guess. Do you think Reader's Digest is leftist? Possibly Moslem? (I've often written for them, too.)

I'm not sure how your response is linked to my post Graeme.  My post was about comments posted by the public at CBC website.  I was observing what sort of topics get the most posts.    

Here's a blast from the past.

mely - you were hitting the CBC because you (incorrectly) percieve it as left wing or liberal (whatever you mean by those words.) I pointed out the situation is far worse with private sources.

Reader's Digest won't touch anything that might offend the right wing. Many of its article have a right wing slant that is plain silly. (They referred, tor exampe, to Al Jazeera as the most hated newspaper in the world. That is absurd. The world does not consist entirely of the US. Al Jazeera is one of the world's most respected news services - expecially by most professional jounalists. What it's hated by is the American far right, and by North Americans who have never read it. That is nowhere close to most of the world.

MacLean's magazine is only slightly better.

The National Post is even worse than Reader's Digest.

Private radio in North America is mostly trivia and raving demagogues.

 I didn't say a blessed thing about  CBC being left wing.  You must be having delusions.  Or, since CBC is in fact left-wing, you were just anticipating that I was going to say it. 

And I was right. that's why you chose CBC . You have all kinds of prejudices, and you waste your life in a frenzy of looking for proof of them. And you will accept any nonsense as proof.

I know you didn't say anything about CBC belng left wing. I said you perceived it as left wing. And I was right. Read  your post carefully. It admits I was right.

You're a riot, mely.

Graeme you have all kinds of prejudices, and you waste your life in a frenzy of looking for proof of them. And you will accept any nonsense as proof.

You're a riot, Graeme!

By the way, what do you mean "that is why I chose CBC"?  Chose it for what?  I have been reading news there for years, but it is certainly not the only place I read news.  Anyone who thinks CBC is not biased isn't very perceptive. 

mely, learn to read - both my posts and y ou're own. I never said CBC had no biases. I have done hundreds of broadcasts for it - so it is possible I know more about it than you do. What I said is it does not have a liberal or left wing bias. (Of course, that won't bother you because you have no idea what either term means.)

You said, "in fact, CBC is left wing". You wrote that. Before that, I had said "I said I perceieved of you as thinking it was left wing." And my perception was right.

No, I didn't say that. Learn to read. Are they usinig comic books now for psych courses?

Didn't Paul Linebarger ('Cordwainer Smith') discover that comics are the best way to transmit information?

Graeme, I have a challenge for you.  See if you can go a few days without making any insulting or sarcastic posts. 

The sort of bias CBC shows is demonstrated by comparing the following two stories, both about the same incident.  In this example, it is BBC, not CBC, that shows its bias by selectively withholding information. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339665/Mother-cuts-heart-daughter-4-listens-recording-Koran-ritual-killing.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12024621

beshpin, I'm not implying anything. But if you must know, in my many years in broadcasting, my experience was that CBC backed off from stories only when they might be objectionable to right wing politicians, big business, and the Canadian Council of CEOs. Oh, and when they might offend Quebec separatists. When I became vice-president of the English rights association in Quebec, CBC fired me, and I went to private radio (which had a different set of biases.)  CBC also got nervous if I ever mentioned neo conservative think tanks. In that respect it was really not much different from private radio.

Mely - learn something about journalism. A good journalism tells what happened. He or she does not imply things for the person's religion, colour, weight or political views. If religion had a role in this, the BBC will publicize  the religion when the police decide that it was a factor. That's called ethical journalism.

The source showing bias here is the Daily Mail (never one of Britain's great newspapers.) The Daily Mail implies to gullible people (naming no names) that this is common moslem behaviour - just as a announcing a black man raped a girl is like announcing that this is the sort of then most Blacks do.

When I was in my early journalism years, I knew people who wrote for the supermaket tabs, and we would sit around joking about making up the most sensational headlines for gullible readers. One of the boys came up with "Black Negro preacher attacks six-year old boy." Actually, I learned that's the way that many of those tabs get written. They'[re made up to scandalzie people who want to be scandalized. The Daily Mail is just a step above that category.

Oh, how about Eastern Orthodox and United Church family found eating Baptist children?

No Graeme, that is not ethical journalism.  That is censorship.  The Daily Mail article certainly did NOT imply that the incident is common Muslim behaviour.   You are imagining things, as usual.   

Deliberately and systematically hiding from the public the ethnicity of people involved in crime is censorship, pure and simple.  Notice that if a white person is the criminal and a non-white person is the victim, no attempt is made to disguise this fact.  In fact it is often highlighted.  However, if the situation is reversed, it is hushed up.   This has been happening in Europe a lot.  But sometimes politically incorrect truths get out.  Sweden and Norway are pretty keen on having a free press, for example,

"The study was widely quoted in Swedish press. “The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past year is part of a ‘war against the Swedes’,” said one newspaper report.

“This is the explanation given by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds when questioned about why they only rob native Swedes, in interviews with Petra Åkesson for her thesis in sociology. ‘I read a report about young robbers in Stockholm and Malmö and wanted to know why they rob other youths. It usually does not involve a lot of money’, she said. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, both individually and in groups.

“Almost 90 percent of all robberies reported to the police were committed by gangs, not individuals. ‘When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.’ This argument was repeated several times.

“‘Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.’ The boys explain, laughingly, that ‘there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing; you feel satisfied and happy; it feels as if you’ve succeeded; it simply feels good.

“‘It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy. We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.’ The immigrant youth regard the Swedes as stupid and cowardly: ‘The Swedes don’t do anything; they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.

“The young robbers do not plan their crimes: ‘No, we just see some Swedes that look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them.’” "

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543

Oslo Muslims Six Times More Likely to Rape

Norway's most important paper Aftenposten ran a story earlier this week saying that 65% of the rape crimes in Oslo were committed by foreigners, even though they only represent a mere 23% of the population in the Norwegian capital. The article was prompted by a call by the Rape Commission (Voldtektsutvalget) to the imams to put rapes and the attitude against women on the agenda.

Foreigners are six times more likely to figure in crime statistics concerning rapes in Oslo. During the first two months of this year sixteen rapes and rape attempts have been committed, and the three men the police are looking for in connection with four of those cases have one thing in common: they all have a Muslim background. Especially Somalis and Iraqis seem to be well represented in the statistics.

Even though the article doesn't do much more than quote some simple basic facts, it was nevertheless a bit controversial. The social democratic minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen reacted quickly to condemn the tone of the article since it made a link between rapes and Muslims. According to him, asking the imams for help is wrong, «because we don't ask Norwegian bishops for help either when a Norwegian rapes somebody». Apparently the minister had not noticed that the debate had started precisely because of the huge number of Muslims in the rape statistics. And I wouldn't even dare to suggest he could have another agenda than trying to reduce the number of rapes in the Norwegian capital.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1937

The press and governments  in Canada are much too polite and politically correct to give us any statistics about crime and race.  But there is this:

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/wanted-recherches/mur-meu/index-eng.htm

Your anecdote proves nothing. You have a habit of generalizing from single instances.

And, incidentally, I have not only worked in jouranlism, but have TAUGHT journalism ethics and writing to working journalists. I think I probably know more than you do about journalism ethics.

How often have you seen a story announcing that a member of the United Church or Baptist Church or an RC or a Jew got arrested for a bank robbery? I knew some of Montreal's more notable criminals. Some were quite observant Christians. Never saw that mentioned in a newspaper, though. Nor does a newspaper normally say White Man murders Child.

Now, if it were the case that a Baptist or and RC robbed a bank BECAUSE he was Baptist or RC, then you report it.

In this case, the BBC will report the person's religion or colour or overweight or politics  IF and WHEN it has reason to believe this was a cause of the killing. To do that BEFORE it has such a connection is unethical.

The report in the Daily Mail was intended to be anti-moslem, and intended to appeal to people who are prejudiced against Moslems. And, as you have proved by posting it, it worked.

Sorry, you experience with journalism doesn't impress me in regards to this matter, since the problem of political correctness seems to be endemic throughout the media. 

So you are saying that if the woman had killed her daughter and cut out her heart while reading bible verses, and after playing recorded bible verses at full volume, that wouldn't shouldn't have been mentioned.  That interesting fact would have been censured by the BBC?  Sorry, I don't believe that.

CBC seemed quite happy to report on the religious aspects of the Andrea Yates case.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/01/06/yates050106.html

So did BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5218692.stm

Mely, are you aware of hearsay testimony and why it is not allowed in a court of law?

Can you spot the hearsay testimony in the Daily Mail article?  Can you spot why the testimony in the CBC and BBC articles would not be considered hearsay?

LB

Sight before hearsay.    

     Danish Proverb