With friends like the lads at C2C Journal, does Collin May need enemies?
C2C Journal is the right-wing publication associated with the national nuisance formerly known as the Manning Centre.
Mr. May, of course, is the new Chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which owing to his 2009 literary contribution to the aforementioned publication is doomed to be known throughout his tenure in that position as the controversial chief of the AHRC.
Mr. May’s leadership of the commission is controversial because of the revelation by The Progress Report a few days before he officially took office that a review he wrote for C2C Journal 13 years ago appeared to be an enthusiastic endorsement of a book has been fairly described as denigrating Islam.
The report of this unfortunate situation by The Progress Report, which as its name suggests is a publication with a progressive point of view, resulted in many people expressing the reasonable opinion Mr. May had disqualified himself from being able to do his new job properly however much his opinions may have changed over the years.
After all, rather like Caesar’s wife, the leader of a rights commission must be seen to be completely without bias.
Naturally, this concern was completely ignored by the United Conservative Party Government, which went ahead and appointed Mr. May a few days later.
At that point, things quietened down. A week, after all, is a long time in politics, and there’s a shocking new revelation about the front-running candidate to lead the UCP almost every day.
Things likely would have stayed quiet had Mr. May’s friends at C2C Journal been able to resist the temptation to publish a whiny attack on his critics that raises the man’s personal relationships, which are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand and ought to remain that way.
Nobody’s business or not, however, apparently the Journal’s editors thought this was such a devastating countercheck it would shut up the entire woke left once and for all. Accordingly, they repeated it three times – in the article, a pull-quote, and the caption under a photo borrowed from the 1978 remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
I guess the body snatchee in the photo, played by Donald Sutherland, was supposed to represent the dangers of woke cancel culture, a perennial obsession of the North American far right despite the plethora of publications like C2C Journal on hand to defend their culture war tactics.
“The Editors” referenced in the byline – identified at the end of the story as being the magazine’s editor in chief and senior features editor – even huffed that Mr. May’s personal life was “mentioned nowhere in any of the accusations made against him.”
Well, of course it wasn’t! For one thing, it was almost certainly unknown to most people who commented on the review, and it was nobody’s business anyway.
The rest of the arguments in the editorial were predictable and can be fairly described as sophomoric.
It begins by suggesting none of the critics of Mr. May’s article had actually read it. This is categorically false in at least one instance.
Claiming that the book reviewed by Mr. May “was widely regarded as an important, if controversial, work of scholarship,” the editorial asserts the book’s author, Israeli professor Efraim Karsh, was no crank. A cursory Google search reveals problems with this statement. Certainly critics at the time described Prof. Efraim Karsh as, if not a crank, at least someone whose scholarship was politically motivated.
The editorial asserts Mr. May was merely describing the author’s thesis, as would any reviewer of an academic book, and therefore he must not be held liable for the content conveyed. This, it is fair to argue, is misdirection. Mr. May’s review enthusiastically endorsed virtually all of Prof. Karsh’s arguments.
The editorialists complain that Islamophobic attacks are not technically racist on the grounds that, like Christianity, Islam is a religion with adherents of many races. True. But never mind that, in Canada, for demographic reasons such attacks usually are racist nonetheless. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge that common motivation for Islamophobia.
And finally, C2C Journal argues criticism of Mr. May is of no value because it was made by woke snowflakes, self-described progressives, and even known NDP members, “with the CBC acting as useful idiots,” whose “game here is evidently to score cheap political points.”
Criticizing Mr. May for his past words, the authors assert, is an “overt act of political bullying.”
This is utter pish-posh. The views of an office holder are obviously directly relevant to his suitability for the job.
The authors bemoan “the habit of picking through old and often obscure utterances of public or semi-public figures with the singular goal of finding something that might be considered problematic today, and with which they and/or their employers can be humiliated, damaged or even destroyed, is today running rampant.”
This is nonsense too, and of course the operatives of the political right are no slouches themselves when it comes to uncovering and misrepresenting things written in the past by their political foes.
Nothing has changed as a result C2C Journal’s defence of Mr. May and his appointment.
The irrelevant details of his personal life notwithstanding, he remains an unsuitable candidate for the important position he occupies.
Interesting that the C2C defence of Mr May seems, well a bit defensive. It probably would have been a better strategy for them to say nothing on this, as they are not objective here, and just hope the controversy died down on its own, but they can’t seem to help themselves. The criticism of Mr May seems to have hit a raw nerve.
I am not that familiar with the C2C Journal, maybe it is trying to portray itself as some sort of publication for intelligent debate. However if so, the sophomoric name calling defeats this intention. With the references to woke and snowflake, it reminds me of Alberta Report on a bad day, which had a long list of disparaging names for those it did not agree with. I realize this sort of thing seems the fashion in some conservative circles these days, but it also comes across as petty, mean spirited and immature. So in that spirit, perhaps in the future they will resurrect one of Byfield’s go to names – Femi Nazi, and just jump the shark.
The criticism of Mr May is valid. He was chosen to run the human rights commission, not the cattle commission. So, either it was either a careless choice or a choice made by someone who didn’t care. It reflects badly on those who made the choice and people will wonder about Mr May’s views and how they may affect how he carries out this sensitive job. It is also not a strong defense to trott out “the some of my friends are …” defense that used to be the weak go to defense for people who said dumb racist sounding things. I believe the era for using that has passed.
So in the end, while the C2C Journal might think they are helping Mr May, they really are not. Their weak arguments and juvenile approach are also not helping their cause.
Yes, I suppose C2C would be appalled at Joe Fraser, Director and CEO of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. Mr May will no doubt meet him if there are such things as national meetings of the heads of provincial Human Rights directors. No doubt they’ll swap war stories and become fast friends. Our guy down east has a history of working for decades in the fields of disabilities and labour standards, and is as woke as you can get while not being all white. Not the sort of lad that the hairy armpit scratchers of Alberta would like at all. Jeepers, he might have actual empathy for the downtrodden, and we can’t have that in the land of Preston Manning, now can we?
https://humanrights.novascotia.ca/director-and-ceo
Mind you, our new PC premier has begun to show his Doug Ford spots and discovered heretofore unknown and untapped executive talents among his personal acquaintances, tapping them for big pay provincial jobs. The Health Authority head has been a complete bust so far after only 9 months on the job, and the new guys are likely to want to compete with that. All in the name of efficiency, says premier Tim Houston. Same old Con story, likely the same old lack of results, the Con game never ceases when there’s a trough of public money to liberate from its surly bonds. Mining of public monies has replaced entrepreneurship among Cons nationwide. It’s so much easier to slurp than actually doing something useful. For examples of the latest trend, look no further than harper, scheer, kenney and pepe the Con king-in-waiting – not a one of them has ever had a real job, but found the parasitical career of lifelong “public service” quite rewarding, considering the perks, pension and expense accounts. Be against government by being a permanent member of it, yeah, that’s the ticket! And all you have to do is to stand up and bray like a jackass pretending to be on the average citizen’s side and talk efficiency. Boy, did I miss that free ride opportunity in my own career planning! Too late now.
” … stand up and bray like a jackass pretending to be on the average citizen’s side … ”
This could include our Senator, who despises the civil service – publicly, with a scowl and a slur.
“C2C’s unabashed bias is in favour of free markets, democratic governance and individual liberty. They strive for balance, fairness and accuracy in their reporting and commentary. ” C2C Journal, from the link provided above.
OK, we’re not off to a good start here with this oxymoron!
I wonder when C2C will run an editorial on how disgusting it is to use irrelevant and ancient “black face” photos against our Prime Minister.
Canadian conservatives’ legendary lack of self awareness prevents them from seeing their own utter hypocrisy. Sadly, for them, most voters see through their grifts and scams.
It goes like this: the authors argue that May cannot possibly be racist because he is gay and went to Harvard. How can an educated gay man be racist?
This reminds me of a Premier who never went to Harvard, but is a raving homophobe, even though he is certainly a homosexual. But that can’t be can it?
Further question: is outing gay adults a thing in Alberta now? I didn’t get that memo. I thought that outing sexual orientation was only allowed for children in schools.
Well done bs. I purposely avoided reading the C2C piece because DJC told us the points raised are about “personal relationships, which are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand and ought to remain that way.” I don’t want to even look at irrelevant trash, but I guess you fixed that because you decided to advertise it. My first thought was WTH would bs do that? Well I concluded that it’s because you think it’s relevant and want to spread the C2C message. Is that it?
Mickey: You raise a very good point. I gave some serious thought to rejecting that comment, but allowed it on the grounds that the outing had been done by C2C Journal, and that anyone who followed the link would see what they said. Since Mr. May was their former correspondent, it is possible they said this with his permission, as though as the tone of my post suggests, I think this is unlikely. Regardless, the C2C article would have been improved by not including the line. It still would have been sophomoric, but perhaps not quite as painfully so. DJC
“the national nuisance formerly known as the Manning Centre” – what a wonderful epithet – thank you
So many on the political right really come across as insecure high school debate team members, looking to score with their gweebish peers.
I find it interesting and amusing that these freedom fighters and persecuted religious “victims” need their legal bills subsidized by Canadian taxpayers.
I’m sure ole Presto is chuckling over that grift.
The astonishingly good remark of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1979) is a fascinating look at what happens when group-think is taken to its ultimate level and conclusion. So, what happens when there is no escaping the hive mind of “Wokeism”? Well, for one thing, understand the origins of the term Woke. It comes from the Lead Belly song “Stay Woke”, which is a reference to the common instances where black men are arrested on false claims and then, usually, lynched. As Lead Belly pointed out in his song, to “Stay Woke” means to be always wary of whites and their intentions, because they are often not revealed to be. In other, white notions of equity are invariably not equal where skin colour is concerned.
Now that Woke has been co-opted by white (racists) who are determined to protect their privilege at any (ANY) cost, they have made it a pejorative to be used against progressives. At this point, it can be readily agreed that whites have no shame for anything they do and they are determined to harm everyone.
So, let’s restore the climatic scene from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, where Donald Sutherland’s character screams out. He is persecuting no one; he is speaking a warning. Stay Woke.
You’re jumping right over top of the fact that “denigrating” Islam or ANY religion is reasonable. All are based on ideas around MYTH after all and Islam is arguably the worst in a bad field; praying five times a day gives some clues why, along with women covered in shame (literally), beheading, suicide bombing, the Taliban, ISIS, etc. But since 911 there has been this nervous zeal to avoid “Islamophobia” when it’s actually entirely reasonable in light of the aforementioned, and can be seen as an accommodation to actual, rational fear, the utterly natural reaction to the crazy, kamikaze men in the Taliban and ISIS. Obviously individual people who have been indoctrinated are not the issue but the doctrines of Islam ARE, just as with Catholicism currently regarding the Pope’s apology. He seems a jolly, kind old man, but the doctrines he upholds are appalling, and there has been unprecedented pushback during his visit. In this context the Catholic church comes off as the first and worst “old boys’ club” based on the first and worst “big lie.” We need much more of this, not less, as in #TRUTH.
While some of your points have merit, it’s wrong to associate suicide bombing with any particular religion or religious doctrine at all. It is a tactic adopted by militants facing a stronger force and has been used by all kinds, including Christians and atheistic communists. Likewise, while ISIS was unquestionably a terrorist organization, the Taliban was principally a resistance movement against the occupation of Afghanistan by a foreign military force. No one in the west ever had anything to fear from the Taliban. The same thing can’t be said of the U.S. Air Force. Just ask the Serbs.
So, at least one person critiquing the book review probably read it? What a rousing endorsement. With friends like AP, who needs enemies. As to the rest of your arguments, if that’s what you get out of reading the c2c review, your political blinders are inhibiting blood flow.