,
16 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I understand why Cooper had to, and should have, apologized for saying a witness to a parliamentary committee should be ashamed of himself, given that the witness did not conduct himself in an unparliamentary fashion, simply testified before a committee which is what witnesses do
But beyond that, what is the issue here? Let's go over what created the controversy. Faisal Khan Suri, the president of the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council said the following:
“The evidence from Bissonette’s computer showed he repeatedly sought content about anti-immigrant, alt-right and conservative commentators, mass murderers, U.S. President Donald Trump, and about Muslims, immigrants living in Quebec,” Suri said.
This statement clearly implies "conservative commentators" regardless of their views, are anti-immigrant, alt-right and that they influence mass murderers who kill innocent people on the basis of religion. (Bissonette's innocent victims were praying in a mosque when he attacked.)
In response, Moore said: 'I take great umbrage with your defamatory comments to try to link conservatism with violent and extremist attacks. They have no foundation. They are defamatory. And they diminish your credibility as a witness.'
That may be a harsh response to Suri's testimony but in the context of what Suri said, it is a legitimate point to make, regardless of whether one agrees with what Moore said or with what Suri said.
Moore then read a passage from N.Z. terrorist Brendon Tarrant's 74-page manifesto (Tarrant also murdered innocent Muslims at prayer)— which has been banned in N.Z -- in which he said the social & political values of China were close to his own & he rejected "conservatism."
Thus he was responding to a witness' suggestion conservative commentary in general contributes to terrorism, with an example where this was possibly not the case, raising the point that the motives of terrorists are complex and cannot be simplistically reduced to any one factor.
Moore was also attacked for quoting the manifesto since it is 'banned' in N.Z. which is absurd to begin with, and especially in Moore's case because he was quoting it for a relevant reason.
Moore was certainly rude to the witness and he should not have personalized his comments or insulted or demeaned him. That said, MPs are rude to witnesses all the time.
Here is an example where Liberals MPs on a parliamentary committee were rude and insulting to my Sun Media colleague @TarekFatah where none ever apologized or were disciplined or demoted by @JustinTrudeau as @AndrewScheer has now down in Moore's case. torontosun.com/2017/09/26/tre…
Aside from the double standard demonstrated in this controversy by the Liberals -- hardly anything new -- conservatives have every right to refute anyone who suggests that mainstream conservative commentary prompts people to become terrorists.
Does anti-Israel commentary by the left, for example, prompt terrorist attacks on Israelis and Jews? Does anti-police commentary result in people going out and murdering police officers. Or in the real world, are the motives of terrorists complex and the result of many factors?
Put another way, is correlation the same as causation? Of course not.
Finally, conservatives need to develop a backbone when liberals attack them as bigots and racists and stop bending their knees when it happens, none of which removes the responsibility of all commentators REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS to unfairly link any group to terrorism
And just to demonstrate that we all make mistakes, as my friend @michaeltaube points out, I incorrectly referred to Michael Cooper (@Cooper4SAE) by the wrong last name in several of these tweets and I apologize to him for that.
