The first below is presented my appeal from the previous decision of the Press Council with the first words: "The Council wishes to remind all of the often reiterated principle that no one, (but Mr. Asper), has an absolute right of access to the pages of a journal or the airwaves of a radio or television station.":

 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - --

 

Montreal, August 3, 2003

 

 

Att:                   Mr.Michael Roy, Mr. Robert Matlais and the other members of the CPQ

                        Conseil de Presse du Quebec, 1000, rue Fulum,  Montreal H3K 3L7,   Fax: 973-4434

Dossier:            200-01-044, Slawomir Poplawski c, The McGill Reporter (M.Haldane – editor)

Subject:            Request for a revision of the previous verdict

 

On July 9, 2003 I received an English translation of decision number 2003-01-044 of the Conseil de Presse du Quebec (CPQ). The decision reveals sweeping changes to the character of this organisation since its inception in 1973.

 

The topic of the litigation discussed in the decision may seem uninteresting, since it concerns the case of a generally unknown author who claims to have been censored by a similarly unknown internal university paper printed by the administration for the employees. However, the verdict is of interest due to a question of principle. We learn from the verdict that the CPQ, established over 30 years ago to solve ethical dilemmas, has recently become a tool of oppression, protecting the selfish aims of the forces of monopoly in the media. To add insult to injury, the CPQ becomes more arrogant every day about their ¡°visionary¡± goals, which in fact would lead to the organization playing its part in the domination and indoctrination of the public.  These goals are being pursued with the awareness that there is little fear of serious challenge, since in fact the CPQ itself is trying to control access to the media(*) even at the lowest level (only 4000 printed copies for the Reporter).  This situation also leads to careful self-censoring on the part of those journalists and editors who have not been fired.  These impressions of the changes to the CPQ¡¯s character should be shared with the majority of journalists, since they have inside knowledge and presumably see events more objectively than the public.  Let's hope that the CPQ administrators will accept the proposed consultations and even promote them, since it will boost social awareness of the LPQ¡¯s existence and eventually will stimulate much-needed discussion.

 

The decision makes use of a general principle that is, to me, even more intriguing: it seems to be based on the claim that at a time when over 80% of the Canadian media is owned by only one family, the CPQ has become essentially irrelevant.  This principle is formulated after analysing the recent decision of the CPQ and will surely be the source of much fruitful discussion later. In particular I think we need to discuss a new constitution or set of guidelines for this body, which would more accurately represent our common sense of what is morally and ethically good in the media, even in the current atmosphere of globalization.

 

It was a wise idea to create this private organization in 1973 to represent the mosaic of media owners as well as the professionals working for them. The noble objective of the CPQ was to protect basic values in the decentralized, diverse and fiercely competitive media market.  At the time, forming such a body was the best solution to protect our freedom and the development of democracy.  The only guarantee of balance and fairness in the organization was the rule that there be a large group of different (and proportionally weighted) representatives. Naming the CPQ as a "tribunal d'honneur" boosted the morale of these delegates.

 

Unfortunately, the context is very different today, since we now face an unforeseen monopoly in the Canadian media. Even under the assumption of proportional representation, the owner of the monopoly is now entitled to supervise the work of 80% of the present CPQ representatives.  [Two years ago this media baron made a public statement concerning his Gazette's journalists (among others), threatening them with termination if they continued to oppose his newly implemented editorial policies.  The CPQ was not able to prevent this attempt to manipulate a group of the journalists it is pledged to support. The journalists¡¯ well-intentioned spirit was finally broken by the power (and money) of the CanWest Corporation.  In this new context, where we encounter the threat of displacing people from work because of their different political views, we are reminded of the policies used in Palestine to control a politically distinct people, and can begin to identify a practice that I call "palestinization."] (these bold sentences are censored by the CPQ in its web-published verdict)

 

If the CPQ cannot address even such blatant, narrow-minded and nasty attempts to control our community life, it seems that there is no longer any chance that the "tribunal d'honneur" can operate freely and democratically. We know a priori that money combined with influence cannot coexist with the subtle human notion of honour.   Given these conditions we should expect all the CPQ members to publicly announce their resignation – but they are still well paid and thus can reconcile these changing circumstances with their consciences.  The CPQ¡¯s website, http://www.conseildepresse.qc.ca/, paints a seemingly ethical picture of the CPQ's mission, objectives and their methods of functioning. Unfortunately it is unrealistic to expect these to be even partially respected today.  In an extreme comparison, but probably needed for us to see a sharper picture of the whole situation, the CPQ's continued work reminds us of the collaborationist Vichy government in Nazi-occupied France, which contrasted so sharply with the true spirit of honour that had helped the Resistance to survive harsh repression.  Unfortunately, such ethical resistance requires more determination, sacrifices and internal honesty than collaboration. It is not a coincidence that the monopolized media methodically devalues these very virtues, which are a threat to its existence.  At times of globalization, or rather (as we might say with respect to the media) "Goebbels-ization" (see http://www.spop.addr.com/conc.jpg), the CPQ's previously declared honourable mission cannot be continued. Let's assume that their members will be spurred on to deeper reflection when they read the facts below regarding the manifest contradictions in their own logic.

 

A few years ago, while the CPQ still publicly professed the spirit of their honourable media ¡°mission,¡± I contested The Gazette's publication of a column featuring racist and antisocial remarks by Mordecai Richler.  The CPQ argued in its verdict "that the media have a duty to present as wide a variety of views as possible.¡± Indeed, the CPQ backed up this decision by obliging the Gazette to print the citing from above about the need for ¡°diversity.¡± In the decision I am contesting today (2003-01-044  -delivered to me on July 09, 2003) the CPQ starts right out by saying: "The Council wishes to remind all of the often reiterated principle that no one has an absolute right of access to the pages of a journal or the airwaves of a radio or television station."  Such words ought to be music to the ears of our Media King – who does in fact have such access!

The comments included with the CPQ¡¯s verdict carefully avoid citing the second sentence of the statement from the McGill Reporter¡¯s editor (http://mesnouvelles.branchez-vous.com/communiques/cnw/PUB/2003/06/c4312.html), who states: "Therefore, as a private publication, I'm not sure if (this paper) falls under the mandate of the Conseil de Presse do Quebec." The printed version of the CPQ¡¯s verdict meticulously omits this arrogant comment, which comes from a neophyte editor at McGill who is already beginning to mimic Mr. Asper. The plaintiff later directly contests the above-stated opinion, but his supporting arguments are also omitted in the printed and web-posted CPQ decision. Thus the verdict implicitly confers moral license for the arrogant treatment of lower-ranking workers by McGill notables. It reflects the same situation in the nation¡¯s media, with the opportunist CPQ trying to be consistent only on their own terms, or rather, in the hope of being approved of by the true mentor. Doesn¡¯t this attitude also represent the mentality of our King, Mr. Asper? 

All the citations in the text above that have been put in a square bold bracket [¡¦] are fragments of the plaintiff¡¯s reply, which have been carefully removed or rather censored by the CPQ in their published decision (http://mesnnouvelles ¡¦ ). These elements played a main role in showing the mechanisms of "Palestinization¡± at McGill (http://www.spop.addr.com/OPEN3xy.htm or http://hackenbush.org/hackenblog/blogives/00000205.htm) by the previous principal, Mr. Shapiro, and reflect Mr. Asper¡¯s similar strategy of internal psychological terror toward his poor journalists. -Shouldn¡¯t we treat this elimination of the bold fragments in the square brackets from the Conseil¡¯s site as proof that Mr. Asper's spirit haunts the work of the CPQ? 

I do not know how it is exactly inside the CanWest Corporation, but Mr. Bernard Shapiro from McGill University publicly promoted an anonymous student's letter denouncing a professor. The CPQ seems in its verdict to accept this act as normal nowadays, even when perpetrated by a University official. This institutional context also represents an important motive behind my letter submitted to the McGill Reporter. The CPQ shouldn¡¯t ignore the need to analyse the whole context, because to do so is to avoid the duty to provide the expected ethical expertise about this important issue in the verdict. It is especially imperative today when the forces of globalization encourage informers with astronomically high rewards. This comes along with invasions of the weakest countries after twisting information in the monopolized media and devaluating human dignity, while simultaneously boosting the importance of their money in many dimensions of our lives. Is the CPQ already brainwashed by the power (and money) of the CanWest Corporation?

Let¡¯s hope that all the missing key elements will be included in the finally revised verdict, as requested.

 

Regards,

 

Slawomir Poplawski

 

P.S. It is very illogical for the CPQ to state in the verdict that my submissions were ¡° regularly published" as the "tribunal d'honneur" was investigating exclusively Ms. Haldane¡¯s policies as a chief editor from 2002 who had never published the author¡¯s submissions.  The policy of openness the CPQ claims for publishing critical views can only be reasonably seen as in evidence for a brief period from 1998 until end of year 2001 when a more ethical editor was in charge, and when the author¡¯s submissions were published.

 

P.P.S. Similarly twisted (and displaying logical contradictions) is a statement clearly trying to hide the questionable policies of the principal, Mr. B. Shapiro.  It is about the omitted correspondence with him that was provided for the CPQ and proving his full awareness about all the submissions (censored later) that exposed some dark corners at McGill. People with honour accept criticism and treat it as a challenging opportunity to clear some doubts with their responses, but apparently not Mr. Shapiro-http://www.spop.addr.com/shar2.htm

 

(*) – a new motto for the CPQ: "The Council wishes to remind all of the often reiterated principle that no one, (but Mr. Asper), has an absolute right of access to the pages of a journal or the airwaves of a radio or television station."

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is the first response for a letter written by The Reporter¡¯s editor:

 

Montreal, March 27, 2003

 

Mounsier Robert MATLAIS

Conseil de Presse Du Quebec

1000, rue Fullum

Montreal H3K 3L7   Fax:973-4434

 

Dossier 2003-01-044

Slawomir Poplawski  c.  The McGill Reporter (M.Haldane - editor)

 

 

Mounsier,

I am not sure if Ms.Haldane¡¯s is allowed to understand my previous letter as her response omits most of the raised questions.   This approach is quite explicit, but let¡¯s focus our attention toward more general aspects.

 

Fortunately or unfortunately, but almost the all press in Canada is private.  In this situation, Ms.Haldane¡¯s suggestions that Reporter is supposed to be excluded from being verified as a unique private paper sounds intriguing.  This is not a nonsense statement but rather an attempt of diverting our attention from the main motive of my complaint that was pointing out the presence of undemocratic and unethical rules in a work of "McGill Reporter", and not only.   It seems that the editor is strictly instructed to behave in this way by her supervisors trying to hide from the public a real situation at McGill where some costly royal traditions mixed with the bazaar rules are adopted at the accelerated speed since April 2002.  This is hard to believe that this young person starting to work at the University can be so provocative, putting down others and not answering letters directed to the editorial board just from the beginning.

 

Exactly in April 2002 the previously very active editor of ¡°The Reporter¡± who was publishing many of my letters (with the last one from December 2001 that caused the Vice-principal¡¯s brutal intervention against me at my department in a style of Nazi pacification of free thinking Germans at times of the early 30¡¯s) was abruptly and totally silenced.  Ms.Haldane has taken his position and since that time many unusual things are happening at McGill.   At first, it was the Principal¡¯s attempt of introducing a dictatorial recognition for the anonymous letters at McGill and Ms. Haldane was protecting him by not publishing the critical comments.  In the fall we had a Byzantium style seminar dedicated to Mr. B.Shapiro.  Ms. Haldane was once more protecting our community from any critical voice in her ¡°Reporter¡± about the extreme servility and a high cost of this propaganda.   Ms. Haldane¡¯s role as the information guard for the principals is reaching the highest note almost four weeks ago.   It was during her interview with the new Principal and soon after she is not allowing publishing a critical voice about the unprecedented lavish installation at McGill with many other questionable aspects.  Instead, she is establishing a never seen before and more expensive color print for ¡°Reporter¡±.   Now, we can see more clearly that the arranged nomination of Ms.Haldane as a docile editor at times of announcing the new principal was not accidental and it represents a negotiated before the extra bonus beside a much higher salary for the latest McGill top brass nominated behind the closed door in the April 2002.

 

Ms.Haldane represents a perfect model to analyze ¡°in situ¡± typical behavior of some people that with their unrestrained opportunism are creating so many axes of devil in the modern world.   With a help of her example we have now a chance to present dangerous mechanisms in human behavior and attitudes that are degenerating many democratic achievements of the Western culture.   By looking at her we can understand better for example people in Iraq with their ¡°love¡± to their leaders. At this moment I would like to introduce a hypothesis (to provoke eventually later a good discussion starting from this press trial) that in our culture we are seeing forcefully introduced the worshiped influence of money&power together with the supporting them bazaar traditions from some quite differently oriented cultures.  Only this hypothesis can so far explain quite closely, but without a chance of verifying it when shared publicly, the presented strange developments at McGill.  It can be found in my: ¡°Letter to Mr.Shapiro¡± from May 2002,  ¡°Open letter to BoG¡± from November 2002 and recently in ¡°Open letter to Mrs. Blum¡± that are still totally censored by ¡°The Reporter¡± without any explanations.

 

The problem is that recently we have each day more people mimicking Ms.Haldane's questionable ethically behavior at McGill.   Those people are changing this institution a lot in the recent years in a way very similar to the trends plaguing the modern world.   We can explain these phenomena by using the expression ¡°Local policies at McGill reflect the world¡± for a search in the Google.  The answer is a ¡°Palestinization¡±(*) of people.

At this moment we should look at a bigger frame for this situation that can eventually provoke some people in our society for deeper reflections about a submissive indoctrination of a growing number of people by the overwhelming power.  This power, and the only naked power with many social manipulations are the main driving force behind a well-known term ¡°Global-ization¡± that destroys our humanity today.  This word can be used as a universal formula that after being substituted by some certain names develops a clearer picture about their role in magnifying more some questionable elements of human behavior.   It seems that that the word ¡°Globalization¡± is summarizing the influence of such words as: monopolization, indoctrination, unification, sterilization, pacification, standardization, CocaCola-ization, McDonald-ization, Hollywood-ization, CNN-ization, Stalin-ization, Saddam-ization, Bush-ization, ¨ù McGill Principal-ization and Ms.Haldanes-ization.  This is picturing of the self-induced chain reaction that in very different combinations is reaching, soon or later, the closest circles around each individual and causing some deepest changes even in their personalities.

 

At this moment I want to express my understanding of a difficult situation in which Ms. Haldane is placed.  Even with her best intentions, she is not able to change much in a situation where ¡°Local policies at McGill reflect the world¡± what means the well-implemented policy of "palestinization".  In a case of the local "Gazette" from some months ago we had a whole group of honestly thinking journalists, but their good motivated spirit was broken by a power and money of only a few people from the Can West Corporation.  These relatively brave people were not helped much by even a big publicity and an intervention of the Conseil de Presse Du Quebec.  Finally, they were broken not by policy or army but the already implanted consumerism in our brainwashed minds.  Their arguments for giving up and well assumed by the arrogant owners of almost 80% of Canadian media were very prosaic: "We gave mortgages and cards to pay".

 

In the case of McGill our poor Ms.Haldane instead of facing one owner is seeing the whole block of perfectly networked people that are able to drain our public budget with the highest salaries.  On top of that they are using autocratically a lot of public money to promote more their own image instead of being focused on a humble servicing educational sector of our society.  This is a special category of people who with their uncontested positions and immune from critics - by our "Dear free/objective press" - are boosting each day more the own feelings of being very special and above others.  When not watched closely, these people are implementing a terrorist policy for our educational/health budgets.  It is seen when they push for the McGill super-hospital and private McGill University that will be super-expensive and available for super-people at the end of super-globalized world.  The world with the super-arrogant a new class of aristocracy not only "renting" their money for the ruled majority when is well behaving, but also projecting their thoughts by the exclusively owned media/entertainment industry.

 

Regards,

 

Slawomir Poplawski

 

Suggestions:

I have a proposal for your Conseil de Presse Du Quebec to open a website were the all dossiers are stored with the whole (scanned documentation) and the public can screen it with a searching facility.  A total cost of programming it is about a few thousands dollars and I can arrange the willing to do it specialists.  It would add an extra power and respect for your honorable institution at times where the arrogance cultivated behind the closed doors and the manipulated public is still triumphing.

 

(*) - Let's promote more this expression that would make easier to unite different people, in different countries and different cultures.   In general, the term ¡°palestinization¡± perfectly describes a full spectrum of very arrogant methods that are used to globalize this world on many platforms.   We should look at this name not only in a reference to the literal/brutal killings but also when analyzing a more subtle indoctrination of our minds by the corporate media in our supposedly very democratic/free Western countries.   Only in this wide perspective people can understand better the common motives fueled by the extreme greed and arrogance that are stuffing the empty space created by the promoted today egocentrism - without love and respect for others.  This ¡°palestinization¡± phrase was used to describe some very strange developments in my McGill University (Montreal, Canada) that is recognized as the best university (or almost) in this country.   So far no students, professors and the staff members in this very praised country have not protested for using this shocking expression.  It seems that they can find elements of palestinization in their ostensibly the cleanest environment.  This is a place where nobody is killed or starving and the majority have only problems with a temptation of eating too much.  It does not need much of imagination to realize what much more worse for the people is ¡°cooking¡± in another places.

 

Let¡¯s share our very own experiences of feeling to be ¡°Palestinized¡± in many dimensions of our lives because only after this we can truly understand and help better for those suffering more in this world. 

Probably, we should feel encouraged to open for example a website ¡°Palestinized souls of the modern world¡± where people can share their own experiences with a hope of finding a common platform that can rebuild our optimism about the future.  Let¡¯s do it a.s.a.p. and everyone is welcomed to propose the own formula or contact me for doing it together.

 

-        - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -

This is the first letter to the Press Council:

 

Montreal, January 25 2003

 

Mounsier Robert MATLAIS

Conseil de Presse Du Quebec

1000, rue Fullum

Montreal H3K 3L7 ,  Fax:973-4434

 

 

Dear Mr. Matlais,

Following our recent telephone conversation I am attaching some parts of my correspondence (*) with Ms. Maeve Haldane (Editor, The McGill Reporter) and Mr. Bernard Shapiro (the former Principal of McGill).

 

This correspondence (enc. 4-5) is connected with my three letters questioning some very strange and undemocratic developments at McGill.  My concerns were presented as one opinion piece and two letters for publication in The Reporter.

Unfortunately, the material was censored without reasons or answers, showing that the two people mentioned above have been blocking from The McGill Reporter anything that is uncomfortable for the Administration. I am hoping that your intervention can correct this situation.

 

In my opinion, The McGill Reporter should not be treated as a pawn of the administration, offering journalists lucrative jobs in a very poor market in exchange for unlimited loyalty.  Ms. Haldane, with very restricted journalistic experience and credits was nominated as the editor just before my material for publication was delivered to her.

This University is not a private company printing its own internal magazine, but is a public institution financed to 80% by the taxpayers.  It is supposed to be a role model for society at large.  If we tolerate in universities dictatorial values and the existence of cliques, then society cannot reduce corruption in governments, political parties and many publicly funded institutions.

 

My first letter (enc.3) from the end of April 2002 questioned the totalitarian side of Mr. Bernard Shapiro: He promoted the sending of anonymous letters in the university environment.  I intended this to be published in the "Letters" column, advertised as open to the readers on the second page of the paper (enc.1).  My second letter for publishing (also in enc.3) made some general conclusions about the situation at McGill. This type of opinion piece is also formally "welcomed" for "members of the community" (also in enc.1).

 

In both cases, the written pieces were first simply ignored. Only after my loud complaints (an open letter to ¡°The Reporter¡± – enc.3) did I get any response, but it did not show any effort toward printing my letters.  This response of Ms. Haldane was reduced to some general words about shortening the text but without saying details for the final size limitation.  In fact, my second delivery of this material in August 2002 (I was ¡°advised¡± that it could be published after the summer break and after the May rush) today remains totally neglected without any explanation.

 

A good example of the peculiar new habits in this paper is its treatment of my last letter from the end of November 2002 (enc.4), in which I discuss the servility of McGill¡¯s top administrators using a form of an opened letter: The Editor still has not replied.

 

This is a typical example of social manipulations by people in top positions (look at my correspondence with Mr.B.Shapiro – enc.5).  The most common practice among some tricky leaders is the promotion of less trained or qualified subordinates to some key positions below them. This usually guarantees extreme servility.  The clearest picture of these mechanisms is in our political life, with some genius ministers becoming the top labour experts, and soon afterwards mastering the health or culture sectors. I could go on as everybody can provide many more of the own observations.

 

 

 

Exactly the same "miracle" happened in April 2002, when a freshly-hired Ms. Haldane became the top Editor of The Reporter.  She openly admitted her poor writing and editorial qualifications (see enc.2 - her intro text from September 2002 presented after four months in the editor position).  So far this lady has only showed her talents as the adoring interviewer of the Principal, and as the arrogant censor of other people¡¯s opinions.

 

We must protect freedom of expression. It is one way of preventing the decay of democracy.

I hope that your press court has a similar perspective, and in its verdict can send a strong message to our educational circles.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Slawomir Poplawski

 

Enc. 5 documents (16 pages)

 

2312 Centre #21

H3K 1J7 Montreal, PQ

 

(*) - I think that this part of my correspondence is clearly presenting the whole situation, but I am ready to provide more materials if the McGill administration will try "to play with the facts".