December 23, 2002
> A segment in a typically biased CBC program, CBC News: Sunday dealt with two young British Columbia women who went to Iraq to show solidarity with the Iraqi people in the probable upcoming war. In a cursory glance at the segment, it appears to be balanced. Co-host Evan Solomon asks the question at the beginning, "Are they doing the right thing or are they playing into the hands of Saddam Hussein?" A short part of the segment shows the women buying their plane tickets and being seen off at the airport. They speak, but are not questioned or challenged by the interviewer. No one would think of challenging the do-gooders.
The remainder of the segment was taken up with an interview by co-host Carole MacNeil, of Neil Gardiner of the U.S. Heritage Foundation. The Foundation was described as a "conservative" think tank, which is correct but the CBC would never describe a "liberal" think tank as such. Liberal think tanks aren’t really liberal--they’re normal.
The "interview" wasn’t so much an interview as it was an opportunity for MacNeil to put her views forward. She defended the two who are offering themselves to the government of Iraq as human shields in the event of a war.
CM: What would you have them do instead (of acting as human shields).
According to the question MacNeil seems to think that there is nothing else that these two women can do to show their solidarity with the Iraqi people. Gardiner pointed out that they are free to demonstrate and express their opinion in Canada without going to Iraq.
CM: But, at the same time, they are expressing political opinion and a political opinion that is somewhat supported by facts. They want to say no to the war in Iraq which I would say falls in the part of political opinion and no to economic sanctions citing that the people of Iraq--the civilians of Iraq have been hurt by the sanctions and maybe hurt or killed in a potential war.
These women can’t act as human shields unless there is a war so the entire interview is predicated on a war taking place. MacNeil can’t seem to understand that although they have a right to the expression of their political opinion, using themselves as human shields in an attempt to prevent or discourage the U.S. and its allies from waging war goes beyond the mere expression of that opinion. This is why when Gardiner said that if they do act as human shields, they should be investigated for treason. MacNeil had to ask why. She was blinded by her sympathy not only for the two B.C. residents but for Iraq.
Gardiner further stated that if they were to act as human shields, that fact would not prevent the allies from bombing a target that they decided to attack. To that, MacNeil stated:
CM: Now let me…well, I don’t know about that, you know, how bold would it be to not be shown mercy by allied bombers and I take that to mean on your part that they wouldn’t care if there were human shields or not they would go ahead and bomb the facilities if they deem them to be a threat or to stand in the way of a regime change in Iraq. Is that what you’re saying?
Now, Gardiner appeared to be a bright guy but he wasn’t using language that was difficult to understand. That was what he was saying because that’s exactly what he said. To paraphrase it, the United States is not going to spend billions of dollars, incur the wrath of several countries and put military men and women in harm’s way, only to be deterred by a couple of little girls from B.C.
As stated previously, it wasn’t an interview--it was a debate. And no matter who you agree with, Neil Gardiner won hands down. For Martha MacNeil, alleged interviewer, being a human shield is a good thing.
Harold was wrong
Harold Hossein, one of the two meteorologists that 680 News brags about having, predicted that Toronto would be hit by between 10-20 cm of snow on the evening and night of December 13. It turned out the temperature was well above freezing and little, if any, rain fell. Hossein’s forecast was so far off the mark that even other weather sources were saying that it wasn’t going to snow that evening although one forecaster predicted it.
Now there can be several reasons why the forecast was wrong. (a.) he doesn’t have a clue as to what he’s doing; (b.) he was busy and never got around to doing a proper forecast so he guessed; or, (c.) weather forecasting is not an exact science and mistakes sometimes happen.
If you picked (c ) you may want to consider that if accurate forecasts can’t be made to predict whether or not a large snowstorm is going to take place the next day, why is it that the media, when speaking of global warming, always state what the temperature will be, to the nearest tenth of a degree, in the year 2100?
Arthur Weinreb is a lawyer and author and Associate Editor of Canadafreepress.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement