babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Rachel Marsden, and white supremacist comments in the Telegraph

Even keel
Offline
Joined: Jul 10 2009

Anyone seen this article?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/rachelmarsden/100012709/vancouvers-2010-winter-olympics-are-peddling-a-politically-correct-fantasy/

 

"Forget the 2016 Rio Olympics – there’s a more pressing issue to address: Who is fighting to ensure that the immigrants of European descent are adequately represented at next year’s Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games?

I’m talking about the people who can be credited for turning the city from a giant wilderness into the budding metropolis of today. The place, and indeed the whole of my country, Canada, was pretty third-worldish until the English, French, and various other Europeans arrived and started planning and building infrastructure and government, and teaching the natives discipline, order, and capitalism. Canada or the USA without European immigrants would look somewhat like Africa."

 

Who is Rachel and how is she allowed to publish her articles?


Comments

remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

Did ya google her?


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

rightwing airhead fox news pinhead


marzo
Offline
Joined: Feb 14 2006

It's called free expression.  Media companies can choose not to hire her or publish her articles.  People can choose to ignore her or to criticize her.  I think that the legal limits to free expression are threats, slander, or inciting hate towards an identifiable group.  If somebody wants to take legal action against her on this basis they can try.

 


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

Thank you!


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

I thought  so myself and was in process of editing it when you saw it.


Even keel
Offline
Joined: Jul 10 2009

marzo wrote:

It's called free expression.  Media companies can choose not to hire her or publish her articles.  People can choose to ignore her or to criticize her.  I think that the legal limits to free expression are threats, slander, or inciting hate towards an identifiable group.  If somebody wants to take legal action against her on this basis they can try.

 

 

Well, duh, I just think it's crazy that a newspaper *would* publish such rubbish.


stellersjay
Offline
Joined: Sep 19 2009

OP, your link doesn’t work.  Try this instead: http://tinyurl.com/ya6mqlq

Nice to see a local girl make good. Why, she's gone all the way from stalker to raver.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

marzo wrote:

It's called free expression.  Media companies can choose not to hire her or publish her articles.  People can choose to ignore her or to criticize her.  I think that the legal limits to free expression are threats, slander, or inciting hate towards an identifiable group.  If somebody wants to take legal action against her on this basis they can try.

That seems incongruous, especially given that we're talking about the United Kingdom, where science writers are sued - and incur huge legal expenses - for suggesting that chiropractic is a pile of crap.

Racism would seem to enjoy more legal protection than science.

Being discussed here:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/chiropractic-association-...

 


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

What did she WANT as a mascot?  Ernst Zundel in jackboots?

 


-=+=-
Offline
Joined: Oct 10 2004

Holy crap.  That's just straight-up white supremacy.


What a freak.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

self-delete.  Decided I didn't really want to go there.


munroe
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2007

Ahhh, Rachel is just angling to be the key note speaker at the next British National Party Convention.   Maybe there is a Mosley in her background.... I seem to recall brown is her favourite colour.


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Could we bump up her google count just a little more? No doubt she just loves this stuff.


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

What are you really saying Heywood?

Are the Cons worried that she will reflect badly upon them, so you want to keep her google count down and this story buried? ;)


kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

I think  she is a nasty but irrelevant racist misogynist woman and hardly worth discussing.  That she is given a bully girl pulpit says more about the MSM in America than her.


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

remind wrote:

What are you really saying Heywood?

Are the Cons worried that she will reflect badly upon them, so you want to keep her google count down and this story buried? ;)

You caught me. It's true....we hang on her every word. She is like a GOD to us! ;)


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Heywood, please tell us more "inner circle" Conservative party secrets!


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

Think she, the blue wave Olympic uniforms for workers, and the HBC's ripping off FN's fiasco should be front and centre on google.

The comments to her story are very indicative of the Con mindset, that she feeds. Hope she keeps it up actually.


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

Goddess you mean heywood? ;)


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

remind wrote:

Goddess you mean heywood? ;)

Goddamn I mean.

Other CP inner circle secrets.

1. There is no inner circle. There is only an inner dodecahedron.

2. We win because we sacrifice virgins to the goddess mother earth at midnight during a blue moon. Kenny is next.

 


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Heywood wrote:
 We win because we sacrifice virgins to the goddess mother earth at midnight during a blue moon. Kenny is next.

Doesn't sound very Christian to me. Surprised

Laughing


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

3. We only pretend to be Christian. We worship Gaia, and Ba'al.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

No you don't. You worship green slips of paper with George Washington's portrait. Most cons would sell there own children, birthright, and national identity for one. In fact, they're doing so as I type.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Unionist wrote:

marzo wrote:

It's called free expression.  Media companies can choose not to hire her or publish her articles.  People can choose to ignore her or to criticize her.  I think that the legal limits to free expression are threats, slander, or inciting hate towards an identifiable group.  If somebody wants to take legal action against her on this basis they can try.

That seems incongruous, especially given that we're talking about the United Kingdom, where science writers are sued - and incur huge legal expenses - for suggesting that chiropractic is a pile of crap.

Racism would seem to enjoy more legal protection than science.

 

 

Or actual journalism ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporti...


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Frustrated Mess wrote:

No you don't. You worship green slips of paper with George Washington's portrait. Most cons would sell there own children, birthright, and national identity for one. In fact, they're doing so as I type.

What's going on? Are you feeling confrontational today?


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

Oh....I thought he was speaking the truth, and being authentic....


quantum
Offline
Joined: Mar 24 2009

liberals like money too and lots of it.


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

remind wrote:

Oh....I thought he was speaking the truth, and being authentic....

How would he know about my shrine to the sawbuck in my basement unless he's been in......HEY....HE"S THE STALKER! Finally, I know.


kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

quantum wrote:

liberals like money too and lots of it.

Reminds me of a soap commercial.  Can you tell the difference I can't tell the difference. Yup you are right they are greedy bastards too. Capitalist are as capitalists do.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

Really the thread title should have read:  Rachel Marsden, Harper supporter and campaign worker, makes white supremist commentary in the Telegraph.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments