"[Kathy Shaidle] is a purveyor of some of the most offensive racial stereotypes I have ever read,"Bernie Farber
Chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress
1 day ago
Here's the London Free Press this morning:
She has called Muslims "pathetic, whiny losers" who practise "a sick,
sick religion."
She has accused Asians of spreading disease in Toronto, disparaged natives and blacks, and suggested the poor "are no more real than Bigfoot."
Now, controversial right-wing blogger Kathy Shaidle may be coming to London...
The invitation to Shaidle by some members of the city's Jewish community has alarmed anti-racism activists and provided fresh ammunition to the country's heavyweight politicos over freedom of speech.
"She is a purveyor of some of the most offensive racial stereotypes I have ever read," Bernie Farber, head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said yesterday.
Any regular readers of this web site won't be surprised by any of the offensive racial stereotypes conjured up, day after day, by Kathy Shaidle. I've documented plenty of examples of her bigotry. So have others; it's all there in Google.
What Shaidle says, sadly, isn't surprising anymore. What is surprising is this: why have reputable organizations recently considered it acceptable to give legitimacy to her brand of hate? More than that - why have these organizations actually defended her bigotry?
There are three.
One is Steve Paikin's TVO. On his TVO blog, Paikin said that Shaidle is “respectful, opinionated.” Even after learning about her racist “opinions,” even after many, many taxpayers objected, Paikin insisted on having her on his show. That’s his right, I suppose. As taxpayers, it is equally our right to object to that.
Another example is found with a prominent Jewish advocacy organization (which I cannot name due to anticipated legal action). I have seen a statement from the organization's chief lobbyist in which he blithely dismisses the concerns about Shaidle – even after it is specifically brought to his attention that the infamous blogger calls Sikhs “backward foreigners” and Muslim children “parasites” – and in which he says “he would proceed” with a decision to invite Shaidle on an all-expenses-paid junket. According to her, “they're determined to have me be part of it.”
The third example, and most seriously, is the governing Conservative Party of Canada. In recent days, MPs Lois Brown, Daryl Kramp and others have angrily defended Shaidle in the House of Commons. Brown has even said it was "outrageous" to simply object to giving a platform to someone who calls Muslims and natives "parasites." As Shaidle does.
Is that what Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party thinks, now? That it is “outrageous” to protest calling Muslims and native Canadians “parasites?” What do Wajid Khan and Leona Aglukkaq think about that?
When I spoke to the London Free Press reporter yesterday, I said that it was simply tragic that a writer with Kathy Shaidle’s early promise would embrace bumper-sticker racism, in exchange for some web traffic, and to facilitate the sales of a couple self-published books.
What is even more tragic, however, is that reputable people and organizations have chosen to give her legitimacy. By doing so, they diminish their own reputations – and that, of course, is the greatest tragedy of all.
