Well, I assure you that I am deeply, deeply sorry to have chosen a Chinese word rather than an English one.

And incidentally, if the most the Chinese have to worry about is a nearly-broke college student using some disagreeable word choice in his complaint that a newspaper columnist should not presume to speak on behalf of all of his fellow compatriots outside the capital, then they’re a lot better off than I thought they were.

“What columnists do is project their own opinions onto the electorate as a way of legitimizing how they feel, or to justify their cynicism. And I am allowed to state my opinion on why I think that is foolish. And you are allowed to express your opinion that I am foolish.”

Totally agree.

Stating a columnists opinion is “foolish” is freedom.
Stating a columnists opinion is not their “place” is what happens in China.

“He is allowed to express his opinion on how Canadians generally feel, columnists do this almost every day, sometimes backing it up with polls. Now because you disagree with it, you state its not his “place”.”

What columnists do is project their own opinions onto the electorate as a way of legitimizing how they feel, or to justify their cynicism. And I am allowed to state my opinion on why I think that is foolish. And you are allowed to express your opinion that I am foolish.

So far we seem to be very far away from anything Orwellian.

He is allowed to express his opinion on how Canadians generally feel, columnists do this almost every day, sometimes backing it up with polls. Now because you disagree with it, you state its not his “place”.

That mindset can become Orwellian.

Thanks for the criticism, but perhaps you’re misunderstanding what I’m trying to say (or perhaps I just didn’t express it clearly). My point is that Ibbitson speaks for himself: not for other Canadians. He is free to express his opinion and I in no way suggested that he should not do so.

This has nothing to do with media control or leftist conspiracies to obtain the latter. Your paranoia is absurd, and, frankly, your suggestion that criticism of columnists’ willingness to downplay torture is mere leftist “irritation” says more about you than it does about me.

“it’s not Ibbitson’s place to make that decision”

Ibbitson is a columnist, it is his place to express an opinion.

Ibbitson is merely saying that most Canadians are not going to lose sleep over roughed up detainees that may have tried to kill our soldiers.

Now, as a columnist,he is not allowed to express his opinion?

Oh how the left get irritated when they do not have 100% media control, 80% is not good enough.

It’s also a pretty disturbing maneuver on his part, to support the government like that. The role of the media is not (or at least should not) be to downplay crimes committed by the government.

I heard another pundit express the same sentiment yesterday. Yet, judging by the 1000′s of comments that are being made daily on the Globe and CBC websites, it really looks like Canadians DO care about human rights and upholding our obligations under international and Canadian law.

This is absolutely NOT an inside the Queensway issue. It goes to the very heart of our Canadian identity. Like others who love this country, I want to be able to hold my head up and really believe we at least try to do the right thing. Harper wants to gamble that voters are willing to ignore human rights abuses and violations of int’l and Cdn law? Bring it on.

Another point that I have not noticed mentioned much today is that Natancyzk’s reversal now causes a huge problem for Hillier and Gauthier who had both summarily dismissed Colvin’s claim of torture in 2006 as “ludicrous”. In fact, it raises the obvious question why both of these Generals did not know something that was already in the public record or were they intentionally or otherwise misleading the public?

The most obvious possible answer is that a cover-up was attempted with claims of no credible evidence of torture in 2006, while great efforts were made to suppress public and opposition MPs’ access to the memos/reports. There are lots of evidence that can possibly be cited to support this.

Natancyzk’s aboutface also raises a few more interesting questions:

(a) Is Natancyzk refusing to play along either because he realized he had been misled by the previous military brass or did something just happen to make him change his mind and tell the truth?

(b) Were witnesses coached to tell the same, and as it has turned out, unsubstantiated story of no credible evidence of torture in 2006?

(c) What is the role of the Justice Dept in this — why are they claiming that the MPs do not have a right to see the unredacted memos/reports?

One thing for sure, Natancyzk at least for whatever reason, hopefully because of the right reasons, has shown he respects the truth, albeit belatedly.