On Nov. 24, 2010 I received notification that I was to be the recipient of the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship after being nominated by the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the University of Lethbridge. I was jubilated to be awarded such a prestigious scholarship which has helped to fund my M.A. thesis research, the working title of which is The Origins of the Global War on Terror: Academic Debates and Interpretive Controversies. By Nov. 25, the National Post's editor Jonathan Kay was whipping up vigilantism against my funding calling on "the taxpayers of Alberta" to recognize this gross injustice.
Mr. Kay also admonished my thesis supervisor Professor Anthony Hall, stating: "as long as he keeps it [9/11 Studies] out of the classroom, he's free to believe in whatever [. . .] he likes." This was a curious decree from the editorial offices of the National Post; if the conflicting interpretations of the most seminal event in contemporary history are not to be broached in the classrooms of Canadian universities, where can they be?
History departments dedicate much time and energy to analyzing the origins of historic wars such as WWI and WWII. Why should we shy away from questioning the origins of the Global War on Terror? Mr. Kay's article backfired. I was actually quite pleased that Mr. Kay cited the passage from my letter of intent which legitimizes rather than discredits the academic field of 9/11 studies.
I don't think any serious intellectual would join Mr. Kay and his co-thinkers at Maclean's On Campus -- the latter of whom used my scholarship as a case study to argue that universities should be fully privatized -- and designate my research proposal unworthy of modest public funding. A key flaw in Mr. Kay's hit-piece on 9/11 studies was his failure to distinguish between being skeptical about the official story of 9/11 and positing speculative alternative theories -- two wholly disparate undertakings. After quoting from my letter of intent, Mr. Kay spread the falsehood that I had already come to the conclusion that "the 9/11 attacks were staged by Washington."
To be sure, I could speculate about what I think might have transpired on 9/11, but I would do so outside the parameters of my rather circumscribed graduate thesis and would not invoke "Washington" as the generalized culprit. I think it is more constructive to identify individuals such as Richard Cheney or Larry Silverstein who ought to be brought before a court of law and asked some hard and probing questions.
John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 Commission stated in his book The Ground Truth that "At some level of the government, at some point in time [. . .] there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened [on 9/11]." If even the senior council to the 9/11 Commission doesn't purport that we have an authoritative account of what happened on 9/11 one becomes anxious to fathom exactly which narrative of 9/11 Jonathan Kay and the National Post are the custodians of.
Most significantly, Mr. Kay failed to disclose in his attack on my 9/11 studies that he himself is being externally-funded to pursue 9/11 research and is about to publish a book entitled Among the Truthers. One can surmise that Mr. Kay is getting paid more than $7,714 to pursue his 9/11 research. If Mr. Kay was a sincere 9/11 researcher, interested in the triumph of fact over fiction, he would relish the prospect of academics playing devil's advocate by attempting to confute the U.S. government's claims which he, unlike the senior council to the 9/11 Commission, so vociferously defends.
Instead, he propounds that 9/11 skepticism be kept out of the classroom and suggests that public money should not be channeled towards such research. Mr. Kay's attempt to delegitimate 9/11 studies, sending the message to Canadian academics that they will be chastised in the public square if they dare to participate in such research, could be conceived of as a kind of fatwa. Where are the Salman Rushdie supporters now? Or do such individuals only endorse free speech when it is used to indict rather than exculpate Muslims?
Interestingly, Mr. Kay is associated with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies which was described by journalist Jeffrey Blankfort as "One of the most influential and powerful of the Zionist lobbies which changed its name and sprung into action immediately after 9/11." Furthermore, Among the Truthers is published by HarperCollins, which is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's empire.
Is Mr. Kay being sponsored to attempt to discredit and diminish the findings of the ballooning groups of citizen and professional investigators who are aware that the official story of 9/11 doesn't stand up to evidence-based scrutiny? How will Mr. Kay reconcile the implausible official story with the scientific evidence brought forth by the more than 1,200 architects and engineers who have been drawing attention particularly to the collapse of WTC Building seven which collapsed at near freefall speed having been hit by no plane on 9/11? Is the peer-reviewed scholarship contained for example in the Journal of 9/11 Studies to be dismissed merely as the crazed postulations of "conspiracy theorists" who need to be put in their place by Mr. Kay and his colleagues at the National Post -- the personifications of impartiality, reason and empiricism?
In Mr. Kay's other book The Volunteer: A Canadian's Secret Life in the Mossad we are offered the following psychobabble in which Westerners' "instinct," rather than their subjection to propaganda and psyops, is invoked to explain their support for the unlawful 9/11 wars:
"The worldwide awakening of militant Islam [. . .] explains the intense devotion exhibited by many Westerners [. . .] to Israel's cause: they instinctively see in the state a microcosm of the civilized world's struggle against a murderous ideology and the men who embrace it [. . . such] nihilistic killers struck the United States on 9/11."
If it is the case that "militant Islam [. . .] struck the United States on 9/11," the burden of proof rests with Mr. Kay who owes it to his readership to provide evidence that the 19 alleged hijackers were fuelled by a devotion to the tenets of the holy Quran and that they actually boarded the planes on 9/11.
As many involved in genuine 9/11 studies have noted, there were many reliable reports of the alleged hijackers engaging in un-Islamic activities prior to 9/11. Moreover, when the flight manifests were released indicating the names of the passengers on the four hijacked planes, none of the alleged hijackers' names were listed. Moreover, a number of the alleged hijackers turned up alive. The U.K.'s Telegraph made contact with two of the alleged hijackers and published interviews with them post-9/11.
If Mr. Kay wishes to propagate a theory about 19 conspiratorial adherents to "militant Islam" striking the United States he should demonstrate that such individuals were indeed Islamist militants and that they boarded the planes on 9/11. In his tenth 9/11-related book Cognitive Infiltration Professor David Ray Griffin opines: "Besides not being devout Muslims, the "hijackers" were evidently not even on the airliners [. . .] if the alleged hijackers had purchased tickets and boarded the flights, as the official story has it, their names would have been on the manifests."
Albert Einstein once said "condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." Just as it took supporters of truth and justice to defend Jennifer Peto's acclaimed thesis on hegemonic Nazi holocaust education and Zionist racism from those who besmirched her as an anti-Semite without investigating her claims first, so it will take such supporters of evidence-based research to push back against the inevitable disinformation and smear campaign my thesis will command once it is published.
Although the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the University of Lethbridge seems to be supportive of my thesis -- as it was them who nominated me for the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship -- it is undoubtedly the case that some, maybe a majority, condemn without investigation skepticism about the official story of 9/11. In this vein, one professor at my university implied I was an "asshole" when I asked a critical question at a lecture delivered by pseudo-skeptic Michael Shermer who had spuriously compared 9/11 skeptics to Nazi holocaust deniers and UFO spotters. Having said this, I am fortunate enough to have allies within the University of Lethbridge who do not condemn without investigation and who are themselves highly indisposed to believe the state-sponsored version of history vis-à-vis 9/11.
Professor Anthony Hall, my graduate studies supervisor has recently written an encyclopedic peer-reviewed text entitled Earth into Property in which he examines the intellectual debates surrounding 9/11, situating them within the broader context of global history. Professor Hall's and the other 9/11 scholars' formidable and principled research is resilient enough to weather Mr. Kay's Fox-news style evangelism against those heretics who display skepticism towards the 9/11 sacred myth.
I suspect Mr. Kay's angst with the vast 9/11 scholarship stems from its potential to demystify the propaganda encouraging Canadians to risk their lives and limbs for what Mr. Kay calls "Israel's cause" as microcosm of the supposed "civilized world's struggle" against the largely imagined threat posed by "militant Islam."
Mr. Kay proselytizes for a kind of modern day "white man's burden" based as much on mythology and fantastic claims as that advocated by Rudyard Kipling towards the end of the 19th century. I hope my forthcoming M.A. thesis will contribute to countering this nefarious project.
Joshua Blakeney is a freelance journalist and activist originally from Surrey, U.K. living in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Joshua was the Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge from September 2009 to October 2010. Joshua earned a B.A. in Sociology from the University of Lethbridge, graduating with distinction in April 2010. He is currently studying for a M.A. at the University of Lethbridge.
Scanning the list of comments, I have an observation.
Letting a page of supportive comments degenerate into mudslinging and name-calling involving 'Zionists' and 'slomos', not only does the discussion of controlled demolition and culpability no good whatsoever, it smacks of Cointelpro tactics and 'planting troublemakers'.
Is 'bloated fish' arguing with himself or a compatriot in an effort to make the discussion appear ridiculous ?
Interesting times, indeed.
Terrific article, Josh! As a university instructor and expert on the Arab and Islamic worlds who has been blacklisted from teaching due to my interpretation of 9/11 http://www.truthjihad.com/wikisources.htm I applaud you for risking your career in this critically important fight for truth.
"You are looking at the problem from the wrong end: you are trying to connect the dots to a puzzle you think you've already solved, but in so doing, fail to look at the dots you are intentionally neglecting to connect."~bloated fish
Now this is, along with the rest of your post allegorical chatter blended with dodging and distraction. Why is that? If you cannot address specifics with other than brushing them of with theoretical banter then what is your object here? In debate there are very elementary rules in 101. One of the base/foundational rules is; It is not a mistake to have a strong opinion. The mistake is in having nothing else. wwBefore going to law school , mr. Kay earned himself a Bachelor's and Master's degree. The focus of both is conveniently left out of his wikipedia info. According to this site (linked below), both of the aforementioned degrees are in Metallurgical Engineering. Writing a book with uncanny knowledge of Mossad, with a nice backround in metallurgy? The slings and arrows of the accuser only serve to hide the skeletons in the closet.
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...
That's what they all say...Dude.
hybridrogue: Sorry, I'm just a dude. The only political affiliation I have is with the GPC.
It is obvious to me that our bloated fish is a shill from the Cass Sustien cognative dis team.
Arguing with him/her/it will only lead down the tunnel to Wonderland.
As a long time researcher into 9/11 I have crossed swords with many of the verbose individuals, and find it nothing more than fencing with the Jabberwacky.
\\ll//
First off, building seven contained significant intelligence materiel and it would not surprise me (even though I do not believe this) that in the event of an emergency evacuation, building 7 was configured to be destroyed. Also, anyone who knows anything of complex systems knows that you cannot predict what the consequence of an input would be (ie, modern planes loaded with fuel) unless you've already tried it out a few times (which no one did.)
I also could go as far as debating the possibility that Republicans engaged in willful ignorance in an effort to hastily encourage an enemy attack on US soil -- maybe even solely for the nefarious purpose of self-enrichment. But to say it was planned and performed as in inside job, likening it to what -- the reichstag? I don't think this is the same class. A single idiot can burn down a wooden building. The number of accessories who would have to have been tagged after an "inside-job 9/11" would be enormous, and ridiculous.
I also can easily believe that misnaming hijackers could be due to ignorance, haste, or even just antogonization. Who really knows? Not I, and I really don't care.
Also, Netanyahu can say what he wants in retrospect. It's easy to spin things afterward even if it's untrue, but more so when dominos happen to fall in your favour. It doesn't counter the fact that it would be incredibly risky for Isreal to put so many eggs in such a crazy basket and hope that they wouldn't get caught. It's JUST INSANE.
The patriot act was written before 9/11, so what? Newton/Leibniz both invented calculus as soon as it become topical. It doesn't surprise me that neo-cons wanted to float a patriot act starting in the mid or early 90s even.
And a string of very likely coincidences does not, in totality, prove an unlikely circumstance that can be used to justify a faith in the otherwise unproven.
What is surprising, or rather, not so much surprising as it is annoying, is that this inanity paints socialist minded individuals into the crazy corner, where I assure you, they don't want to be. I'd like to be in the corner with critically thinking individuals. You are looking at the problem from the wrong end: you are trying to connect the dots to a puzzle you think you've already solved, but in so doing, fail to look at the dots you are intentionally neglecting to connect.
@ bloated fish
your post is wrong on so many levels its almost comical. i think you've been watching too much 24. History is filled with false flag terrorism, it starts every war. The War on Terror is no different.
The guy that confessed to masterminding 911 looks retarded and was tortured 183 times in a month before he "confessed", a textbook patsy.
The anthrax attacks we're an "inside job" and part of the 911 fascist coup. The Patriot Act ? written before as they knew it would be needed post 911.
The War on Terror is the wet dream for the military industrial complex. I guess whatever it takes to believe the Bush Fairy Tale. Even though the 911 Commissioners themselves are now on record saying they never got to the bottom of what really happened. Let's not ruffle any feathers and ask any questions, ie How did WTC 7 drop at free fall speed ? how did all the structural support fail at the exact same time ?
Many of the neo cons that drafted the PNAC document we're dual Israeli citizens, they openly talked about what needed to happen to Keep America Strong and Rebuilding its defences, ie.. Keep a dominate US in the middle east to be a big stiick for Israei ,......a massive attack like Pearl Harbor was mentioned as being necessary to swing public opinion, BEFORE 911,
Netanyahu is on record stating how 911 was good for israel
http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-go...
Cheney's Haliburton and friends made obscene profits, it was a win win. they needed something massive as laid out in the PNAC roadmap, a car bomb wasnt going to justify hundreds of thousands of US troops occupying and building bases across Eurasia.
911 gave them that justification, they had the means. the motive and provided the cover up.
Bravo, Blakeney! Elegante riposte to the National Post, rabble.ca! This introduction to both of you has made me a fan. Surely university scholars should be free of "fatwas" and immune from taboos. May Rabble's "news for the rest of us" become the news for MOST of us. Best wishes from south of the border!
This is why Kay is right to kill the hydra as soon as possible. There is no evidence that Israel was in any way involved. It is also highly illogical. Israel benefits from stability, and 9/11 was the exact opposite of that. The amount of risk associated with such an operation is so unbelievably unpredictable that no one could properly reason that it would be a worthwhile endeavour.
On the flip side, if you command a small group of crazies and want to make a name for your Islamofascist terrorist group, 9/11 is a guaranteed win.
Now, for those who argue that 9/11 was an inside (ie, U.S.) job, that's even less likely. The US does not need to plan such an event. All they need to do is to antagonize its enemies and destroy all the precautionary infrastructure by placing cronies at their helms. (Which is sort of what Bush did -- although I think he was just incompetent and greedy.)
Long story short: You don't need to plan fake terrorist attacks when you are actively thwarting them on a weekly basis. You simply have to become apathetic to them and one will succeed. THAT IS THE KEY POINT YOU ARE MISSING. This is why conspiracy theorists make no sense here.
The function of scholarship is to discover truth. When there is, furthermore, the opportunity of discovering significant truth, then that is valuable scholarship. There are enough unanswered questions about the incidents of 9-11-01 to justify thousands of scholarly studies, not to mention a new, real official investigation with subpoena powers. The government and mainstream media story of 9-11 has been used to justify two major wars, countless acts of government-sponsored terrorism, torture, and losses or abridgements of civil liberties. Studies of the events of 9-11 need to be strongly encouraged, not villified. The future of this planet, quite literally, depends on this.
Like the Mafia is a subset of Italians, there seems to be a Jewish crime network who have primary responsibilities for designing, committing and covering up 9-11 with the Jewish domination of media and Hollywood.
This "Zionist Elephant In The Room" is, heretofore, a taboo topic. Yet, many are becoming emboldened to speak the obvious of Zionist neocon and Israeli involvement in perpetrating 9-11.
Our ReDiscover911.com Development Group are among the courageous pioneers who proclaim boldly and clearly the Zionist deceivers' connections to 9-11. A handful of names give the clues to WHO DID 911 and continue the cover-up: Zakheim, Zelikow, Wolfowitz, Silverstein, Judge Hellerstein, Judge Lehner, Chertoff, McKasey, Tenet, Mueller, Kristol--the list is very long.
9-11 largely sealed a coup de etat in the U.S. The success of these lies of Biblical proportions is realized by watching the documentary 911MISSINGLINKS.com
RICO (racketeering) statutes should be brought to bear against this Jewish network. The connections are easily researched. Start with the above names and the complicit media moguls.
We will succeed to the degree that we are willing to confront pure evil--peacefully.
All together now...
Thank you, Joshua. I find it incredible that anyone would not support studies of the most important event to occur, worldwide, in the last decade, much less in the recent history of the US. There is so much evidence we were not told the truth about events that, despite occurring a decade ago, have changed the entire world forever. Shame on anyone claiming to be an intellectual for questioning your right to question. Just ask the Family Members Steering Committee, how many of their questions were asked but not answered. They have a right to know, as does the world. People are dying by the hundreds of thousands and even millions, and basic human rights and constitutional rights have been trampled in the name of the global war on terror.
The 9/11 Commission itself admits they were not told the truth and that their mission was set up to fail. The world clearly needs a new investigation. We owe that to ourselves and future generations, and most of all to the victims, both from the day of and ongoing.
Shame on this supposed journalist for his censorship of seekers of the truth. He shall not prevail.
Well done Josh. It is not often a student manages to get support for analysis of this topic. There is of course no doubt the topic is of vital importance - if the official narrative is wrong, it must have led to many wrong decisons being made with grave consequences.
Of course you will encounter opposition. Some of this comes from people who have not looked at the evidence and will not look, because they are sure that "they couldn't have done it". Some comes from people who know perfectly well that there are flaws in the official story but think they will fit in better with colleagues and employers if they don't mention it. Jonathan Kay must be in that class.
This is not the place to go into a lengthy discussion of evidence that leads one to suspect that the official reports have short-changed the public. There are good places where you can find the evidence clearly set out. Here is one very easy to understand site dealing with the Science of 9/11. The discussion is clear and all assertions are backed up by peer reviewed papers.
BRAVO to YOU Josh Blakeney
I was pleasanty surprised to read your article about 9/11. I personally feel that issues (and there are many) that cause the most controversy are the ones that should be required for a student to disseminate. In the course I developed (a work always in progress) I had to present issues in such a way that I would not influence students through MY opinions. My course, called Foundations of Critical Thinking has the student picking a topic within a list of several "controversial" subjects. The student is required to investigate no less than 5 sources, documented of course, then present their findings in front of the class. Then they take questions from myself and any of their peers in class. This puts the owness on that student to draw their own conclusion. This is also a fantastic method of getting other students to continue their own investigations on any topic of interest heard from the other student presentations.
I really look forward to reading more about 9/11 issues as you represent the minority in jouralistic integrity as evidence speaks loud and clear. Thank you Josh!!!
Bravo. Thanks for speaking up. Seriously, this issue is The Issue. It all comes back to 9-11--the excuse for endless war, the PATRIOT Act, spying on Americans and bankrupting the USA. Yet you see Bill Maher on TV, who seems to be otherwise very sane and politically astute, assaulting 9-11 Truth on his show. Perhaps Maher should watch this 30-second video featuring Ed Asner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmmHoa_CLW8
Seriously, after you see the side by side comparison of WTC building 7 and a controlled demolition, that's it, it's all over. That's why they never show the Building 7 collapse on TV. Personally, I think it's just too hard for a lot of people to even conceive. They just cannot wrap their heads around the sheer magnitude and evilness of the deception.
Anyway, great story, and keep up the great work. Reposting on FB.
Kudos to Rabble for not continuing to shut down debate on the central political reality of our times;
WTF exactly did happen on that day ?
Who attacked us ?
Are the calls coming from inside the house ?
"As many involved in genuine 9/11 studies have noted, there were many reliable
reports of the alleged hijackers engaging in un-Islamic activities prior to 9/11.
Moreover, when the flight manifests were released indicating the names of the
passengers on the four hijacked planes, none of the alleged hijackers' names were
listed."
This is why Mr. Kay succeeds where you fail. It is common among Jihadist apologizers to say that anyone doing anything that makes Islam look bad in the face of Westerners (in this case) was in fact perpetrated by fake Muslims, or Muslim poseurs.
The typical M.O. is always the same: no one anywhere is Muslim enough to be a real Muslim. Saudi Arabia? No, that's not a Muslim nation. Iran? No, that's not a Muslim nation. Libya? Heck no! This strategy was taken straight out of a holocaust denier's playbook. To Muslims, the Arab League is a nacent caliphate, but to everyone else, these nations are un-islamic in one way or another.
Sorry, Mr. Kay does not have to identify the hijackers, it is clear that the hijackers were motivated by Islam's adherents. Exactly who all of them were or what they precisely believed is not relevent. 9/11 was not an inside job, and it wasn't brought about some other democratic nation. Your criticism serves merely as distraction from the obvious motivation.
I believe that Albertans have the right to decide what they fund and what they don't, and clearly your viewpoint of 9/11 is politically associated. If made aware of what you are asking them to fund, and empowering them to voice their opinion to government, you know very well what the conclusion would be.
i will be sharing your article, well done.I was disgusted by the hit piece against you by the (former?) MOSSAD Fairy Tale teller. This is what i wrote him, never got a response for some reason as he has responded to me in the past.
Dear Jonathan,
On Nov 25, 2010 you wrote another one of your diatribe's against the University of Lethbridge, Professor Anthony Hall , Grad Student Josh Blakeney and the millions of citizens around the planet that no longer believe Dick Cheney and Philip Zelikows 911 Conspiracy Theory.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/25/university-of-lethbridge-...
Using such words as "conspiracy theorists, truthers and Trutherdom" you smugly implied that anyone who questions the Bush White House version of the 911 attacks is insane, and that basically , the University of Lethbridge should ban Prof . Hall and Joshua Blakeny from taking up further academic studies of the controversial issue.
Well Jonathan, this issue is not going away anytime soon, the calls for a new investigation growing stronger by the day. Too many people have died and continue to die to "just move on".
Only after 7 years was NIST able to explain the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, via a new phenomena they discovered which has failed to appear ever since.
This is important to those of us familiar with the subsquent blazing infernos in Madrid,Venuezuela and China that burnt steel structured buildings down to their cores and still remained standing.
I'm not suppose to believe my own eyes Jonathan ?
Why didnt this building fall into it's footprint or collapse ?
Jonathan,
Even the 911 Commissioners themselves doubt their own commission results and are now stating that they were underfunded and stonewalled, " insane" is not wanting to find out exactly what happened on 911
Who else remembers that Sen. Max Cleland quit the 911 Commission because he said it was a scam and that the Bush White House was playing coverup ? This is fact.
To some of us it appeared that you , Jonathan Kay, a "journalist" had just declared a fatwa against sanity, reason and truth on a national media outlet.
Anyone watching the WTC 7 collapse has sane and reasonable questions , as do over 1400 Architects and Engineers who have looked at that collapse.
Reading such unsophisticated spin and lazy words from a paid journalist/propagandist was disappointing but not surprising, many people now think you're a farce, facebook and the web anyway.
Personally speaking , i don't think you're a joke at all, i think you're a guy that has a big soapbox and with that comes responsibility. A big responsibility to your country, it is Canada right ?
Once in a while you write some reasonable things but lately you've been a little off .
Your career as a journalist is going to suffer if you keep writing 911 hit pieces and marketing cancer scanners to a public that is in the middle of a mass awakening.
Maybe one day you will return to writing stories like your last novel.
The Volunteer: A Canadian's Secret Life in the Mossad
( Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #51,888 in Books)
http://www.amazon.ca/Volunteer-Canadians-Secret-Life-Mossad/dp/077107777...
I should read this book of yours, sounds interesting....a Canadian secretly working for the Mossad.....the reviews say it was authentic, like the writer's knew of the inner workings of the MOSSAD.
Very interesting stuff Mr Kay, a treasonous Canadian working in secret for the best interests of a foreign country. Very interesting.
Anyway enough of 911 for now, your upcoming book on "truthers" will provide more than enough opportunity to continue that discussion,
I am writing you today to inform you that a great opportunity is in front of you,
An opportunity to prove to the people calling you a joke across Canada that you're a good person and a real journalist, not a soul-less media whore, not a hypocritical Pentagon/Mossad Parrot.
Recently University of Calgary Professor (and former advisor to Steven Harper) Tom Flanagan broke Canadian Law as well as all sense of decency and disgraced our country ,
By now i am sure you're well aware that Mr Flanagan,a tenured Professor went on television calling for the assassination of WikiLeaks whistleblower Julian Assange.
The complicit mainstream corporate media is now spending more time on Assange's broken condom than anything that these leaks have revealed. Not surprising. Jonathan, you should prove that your better than the average media shill and focus on what the documents are revealing, besides Assange is merely filling the the horrendous void left by the current media whores who are unable to tell any real truths as they survive on advertising dollars, or in some cases, are merely Cass Sunstein ~ Operation Mockingbird types.
This man should not be poisoning young minds with the idea that assassinations of whistleblowers is acceptable in Canada.
This is your opportunity to take a stand against another Canadian Professor, unfortunately for you and your base, this one is conservative one but who cares, your Jonathan Kay, a real journalist, not a hypocritical establishment bootlicker.
Does Jonathan Kay support the murder of journalists ? or will Jonathan Kay do the right thing and go at Tom Flanagan ever harder than he went at Prof Tony Hall. or is Jonathan Kay going to remain silent on Tom Flanigan and expose himself as a one sided hypocrite ?
One Albertan University is facilitating whistleblowers while another one is facilitating the assassination of whistleblowers.
Surely there is a story there.
In other words, the University of Calgary — and, through the province of Alberta’s funding arrangements, the taxpayers of Alberta — are paying a US Draft dodger (Flanagan) to spew his vile, chickenhawk opinions on our national airwaves disgracing our country and going against everything Canadians stand for
Does anyone else see a problem with that ?
DJ BALL
Vancouver BC