{"id":16093,"date":"2007-04-19T12:28:52","date_gmt":"2007-04-19T15:28:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/?page_id=16093"},"modified":"2026-06-06T10:58:20","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T13:58:20","slug":"001-transcript","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/001-transcript","title":{"rendered":"001 – Transcript"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just Right Episode 001<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Air Date: <\/b>April 19, 2007<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Host: <\/b>Bob Metz<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Station Disclaimer:<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span>
\nThe views expressed in this program are those of the participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of 94.9 CHRW.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Bob Metz:<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span>
\nWell, I never thought I\u2019d be sitting here again at this seat. Welcome! It\u2019s Bob Metz on what I hope to be the first of many shows of the first edition of what I want to call Just Right. After almost 10 years of being on a Wednesday program called Left, Right, and Center, as those of you who are regular listeners to the Jim Chapman show here on CHRW know, Jim retired from radio last week, and I thought I was going to be retiring right along with him. But I have been offered a rare and quite unexpected opportunity to continue voicing what I think is a point of view that is exceedingly rare anywhere in politics and humanities, and that\u2019s basically what I call my philosophy of freedom. So we\u2019re in test phase.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Testing, testing. I don\u2019t know whether the format of the show will be what it is today. I certainly have some interesting ideas of what I\u2019d like to do with the show. I want to make it clear, no, it\u2019s not right wing, it\u2019s just right, because for me the philosophy of freedom is just right, and I\u2019m hoping during this period of time to do some frank talk on the issues of our day, expanding on the base of subjects that basically we limited ourselves to in Left, Right, and Center.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What I\u2019d like to do in terms of Just Right is talk about news, views, commentary, and opinion, and entertainment as well, which I think is a very important aspect of basically how philosophy and ideas get out into society. It\u2019s the TV shows we watch, it\u2019s what we see. TV really, there is not much talk about what happens on TV.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You get movie reviews a lot, but I\u2019d like to do a little bit more with respect to television and stuff. I won\u2019t get a chance to do too much of that today, but if you haven\u2019t seen the show Drive, which just started last week, I got a prediction to make about that show. I think it\u2019s going to be the next Lost, the next Heroes or so, and I think it\u2019s going to give them a good run for their money, because I don\u2019t know how many of you know about the show. It just started, debuted last week. Interesting change in television these days. They\u2019re giving us sort of the cerebral, not linear shows like Lost. I guarantee the race in Drive is to the drivers what the island in Lost is to the people on that island.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s not really what it is. And the good news is they started playing the episodes in order. That\u2019s really good, which they did not do with Firefly, which was Nathan Fillion\u2019s previous show, which was just a brilliant show. But unfortunately, the people who aired it and marketed it played them all in wrong order. They played the second episode first.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

They played the first episode twelfth, and then they played a few other episodes out of order, and they wondered why the fans weren\u2019t tuning in. But anyways, those of you who\u2019ve ever seen Firefly, by the way, there\u2019s a show you want to see too. It\u2019s actually a science fiction, but I would call it a science fiction for people who might not even like science fiction. By that, I mean, if I was to describe the show in any way, I\u2019d call it an outer space western. There are no aliens, no beaming, none of that stuff you see on Star Trek. It\u2019s just pretty well down to earth. Downright gunslinging, six shooters, horses, the odd laser beam, but nothing more technological than what you get today. But what a brilliant concept.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Probably talk about that sometime in the future. But talking about TV shows and the reviews and how they affect this, and what they\u2019re really all about is almost a mirror of society in terms of politics and religion and all those fundamental personal issues that are so much of a part of everything. Yes, I\u2019m going to have a right bias on this show. I want to make it clear that bias is not prejudice. It\u2019s not doctrinaire. It\u2019s not necessarily ideologue.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s just basically a point of view. I have been everywhere on the political spectrum, so to speak. And with that, I think I want to make it clear what exactly it is that I do mean by left and right, and why I say that I don\u2019t really think I\u2019m right wing, but I don\u2019t mind the label right without the wing on it.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To me, left and right wing are basically the same thing, and I have to give you a couple of examples on that. I remember back in \u201997 when Jim Chapman first called me, and he said, Bob, come on in. We\u2019re going to do a show. We\u2019re going to call it Left, Right, and Center.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You, me, and Jeff Schlemmer will pop in and do the show. And I honestly thought when I was going in that I was going to be the guy in the center. And I was surprised that when I arrived, I was the guy on the right, because I kind of always saw myself in the center. I didn\u2019t see myself as a right winger, that\u2019s for sure, because my opinions certainly don\u2019t coincide with the right wing, as most people understand it. My political and philosophical awareness didn\u2019t even begin until I was well into my late 20s. I voted for all the major parties at one time. Yes, even NDP, believe it or not. And by the time I got seriously involved in political activity, I had all but ceased voting. I wasn\u2019t even voting anymore. But got involved quite inadvertently.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s a story I\u2019ll tell sometime in the future. But to give you an idea of why I don\u2019t see myself as left or right, a couple of typical examples. Issue of abortion, for example. I\u2019m in favor of freedom of choice in abortion, believe it or not, but that\u2019s not considered a right wing basic kind of view. The right wing wants to basically ban abortion. The left wing, on the other hand, isn\u2019t satisfied with freedom of choice in abortion. They want free abortions. So they want all the people who don\u2019t even agree with abortion to pay for it, and thus they create a conflict that will never go away. Whereas me, who thinks he\u2019s sitting in the center, is saying, I won\u2019t ban and I won\u2019t subsidize, but nobody\u2019s happy with that. And that\u2019s why you get this constant battle. To me, the answer is always freedom. Same with Sunday shopping.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

That was an issue, believe it or not, Ontario\u2019s only had Sunday shopping for a little over a decade, thanks to me, by the way, and a group of people that together with Freedom Party, Paul Magder, the Toronto furrier, Marc Emery went to jail for it. But it\u2019s really funny, I never ever got so much hate mail and just bad feelings directed towards me. Guess from where? From the right wing. On the right wing on Sunday shopping, I remember I did a show in Brantford, and boy, I never got more abusive people calling in than I ever saw in my life. Just telling me about how we need our religious day of rest, even businesses called in saying, oh no, if my neighbor opens, I got to open. Just saw an article in the paper the other day talking about how business now covets the Sunday shopping day.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And I\u2019m thinking, boy, how funny it is. And on the left side, of course, labor always wants labor protections. Oh, you\u2019re going to work on the Sunday and blah, blah, blah. I say treat Sunday as far as the law is concerned, like every other day of the week. If you\u2019re religious, then that\u2019s your conviction. You can\u2019t be putting it on to other people. Pornography, the same kind of thing.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019m talking a little more about that today. The left wing, they want to ban it for feminist reasons. The right wing, they want to ban it for religious reasons. And I say freedom of speech. I just don\u2019t share that view of pornography.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019ll get into that a lot deeper because of the issue that\u2019s arisen here on campus. But from my point of view, all of Canada\u2019s and Ontario\u2019s officially registered parties are on the left. Certainly left and right wings are both left in terms of how I look at it. Liberal, Conservative, PC, NDP, Green, all of them. They are left wing parties in a very real sense, in the sense\u2014not left wing, sorry, but left. And I\u2019m going to explain what I mean by that. You\u2019ve heard that saying, maybe, if you\u2019re not a lefty when you\u2019re young, you haven\u2019t got a heart, and if you\u2019re still a lefty in your 40s, you haven\u2019t got a mind. But there\u2019s some truth to that. And I certainly wasn\u2019t aware of what I was saying when I was a so-called lefty. So I want to put left and right have actual ideological absolute perspectives that do not change.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been in this business for over 20 years now. And if I was going to break them down, here\u2019s how I would do it. I\u2019m going to do it once by comparison, and then once again by list, and then I\u2019ll show you why I\u2019m on the one side of the issue. If you go back far enough in history, left and right, you can start with Plato on the left and Aristotle on the right. Plato, some of you are going to really object to these terms, but you\u2019ve got to consider them in context. On the left, you have unreality, basically, mind over matter. On the right, you have reality, matter over mind. In other words, Aristotle and Plato, you still always argue about Plato would say, well, reality\u2019s not really what\u2019s here.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s out there in the ether. There\u2019s a supernatural dimension, and from that came all kinds of religious beliefs and everything. Whereas Aristotle was saying, it doesn\u2019t matter what your mind thinks, reality doesn\u2019t change whether you\u2019re here or not. The earth is still going to be here. The laws of physics still operate the same.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It has nothing to do with your mind, and that\u2019s what we mean by matter over mind. The left is basically whim. The right is reason.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Not left and right wing, remember now. The left is involuntary. The right is voluntary. The left is no or limited choice. The right is freedom of choice. The left is social justice.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The right is individual justice. The left is anti-science or into junk science. The right is into science. The left is into government-controlled economies, whereas the right is into economic freedom. The left is into force to implement all the above of the things that are on the left, and the right is into persuasion and consent and freedom of speech and association. The left is into statism, which means the state is superior to the individual. The right is into freedom. The left is into group rights, inequality as in egalitarianism, no right to individual self-defense.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The right is into individual rights, equality under the law, the right to self-defense. The left is quite bluntly, and I\u2019m going to demonstrate that today, very intolerant, whereas the right is quite respectful and tolerant. So that\u2019s basically, when I say I\u2019m right, here\u2019s what I basically mean, and here\u2019s what I mean by left. Left is unreality. It\u2019s whim. It means involuntary.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

No choice. It\u2019s blaming others for the action. Social justice means blaming the environment instead of the person who actually did something. It\u2019s anti-science. It\u2019s government-controlled. It\u2019s force. It\u2019s statism. Group rights and intolerance. That\u2019s what the left is, and whether it\u2019s a conservative on the left or a liberal on the left, it doesn\u2019t matter. They all share these ideas. You look at the major parties, and every one of those words applies. On the right, reality, reason, volunteerism, freedom of choice, individual justice, science, economic freedom, personal freedom, individual rights, respect and tolerance. So that\u2019s what I mean when I say that I\u2019m right, and that\u2019s why I want to make this show about just being right.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And just because it may be a law too, doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s right. Now, before we come back from the break, from the commercials coming up, I\u2019m going to get into something a little controversial. It affects the campus here.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It affects basically all of us, in fact, and it has to do with that Gazette spoof that just doesn\u2019t want to go away. So when we return, we\u2019ll talk about our April Fool\u2019s joke that was on everyone. Yeah, we\u2019re back, and you\u2019re listening to Bob Metz on Just Right, the first broadcast of Just Right. It is Thursday, April the 19th, a beautiful sunny day in London. Probably the spring is now coming on, which is probably a good backdrop to the next subject I have to get into, because folks, I\u2019ve got to tell you, I\u2019ve been listening to the debate I saw in the article in the London Free Press about the Gazette chief apologizes for spoof. Now, a spoof, folks. It\u2019s a spoof. It\u2019s supposed to laugh at it.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s supposed to be funny. I\u2019m reading this article here in the London Free Press, and I want to get back into this in a very much deeper way, because there\u2019s some arguments behind us that just spill onto a number of issues that are just permeating our society, particularly when it comes to violence from everything unhockeyed, violence against women. But I\u2019m going to start off with this article in the London Free Press. Looks like the battle is already lost from the way this article has the battle for free speech I\u2019m referring to here.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I notice that\u2026 oh, by the way, I do have to say that I have not actually seen this spoof myself, and everything I\u2019m going to say about it is less about the spoof itself than about people\u2019s reaction to it. I\u2019m sure I\u2019m going to get to see this sometime, and I have a feeling it\u2019s probably going to be a little soft, and maybe not as analytical as I might be today, but nevertheless, freedom of speech is an issue. Now, I know I\u2019m on the university campus, and in the absolute sense, freedom of speech isn\u2019t an issue, because, hey, this is private property, okay, this isn\u2019t the public forum. The University of Western Ontario is private property, and he who pays the piper calls the tune.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s as simple as that. If Grant, the producer here, or DJ Soudzolten wants to haul me out of here right now for expressing what is most definitely a minority opinion, he has every right to do so. I\u2019m here at his invitation, and I\u2019ve got no more authority than what they allow me to do here. But, okay, so let\u2019s take that as a given, and now let\u2019s pretend we\u2019re in a free society, and on a university campus where we\u2019re supposed to have a free exchange of ideas and opinions, and where just about anything goes, and let\u2019s play it within the context of free speech. There were very many disturbing things discussed about this spoof. Now, we flat out apologize, said, I guess, Fab Dolan on behalf of the Gazette, and apparently as a result of this, the Gazette will operate with a Code of Ethics by September 1, with editors receiving sensitivity training, a complaints procedure will be established, and a process for removing editors by student plebiscite will be implemented.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Wow! In the context of a free society, we call that fascism, and that\u2019s what it is. I can just imagine 90% of the people don\u2019t agree with you, so you can\u2019t say what you want to say. And of course there were offensive things in this, at least as I see them described. I\u2019m not even sure if it was a political cartoon, or if it was a picture, or if it was a written article, because in the Free Press article, they kind of screwed around that issue. They say the article contained content about London police chief Murray Faulkner raping a student with a night stick. Now, that sounds pretty offensive and is pretty ridiculous, but when I first saw that, the first thing that it brought to mind was Faulkner\u2019s comments in the London Free Press, and I go back to October 7, 2006, Ian Gillespie\u2019s article, where he did an article regarding Murray Faulkner\u2019s comments on how our cultural concept of manliness has become twisted into a vision of power, control, and dominance, and this distortion is contributing to violence. And basically just jumped on the old violence against women bandwagon, which is not even an issue. I was talking on the show earlier how even violence is a false issue.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s not an issue at all. I noticed in the paper it also said some speakers at an event last Friday night where they were taking the editors to task, I guess, criticized the student newspaper for a recent history of sexist, racist, and homophobic articles, citing examples of such stories. Well, it strikes me that maybe that\u2019s what they\u2019re really after and not the spoof, because, and of course what they want is concrete policies to put an end to sexism, which means the force of law. We\u2019re going to resort to the violent force of law to fight violence and stuff like this.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But here\u2019s a funny thing. The mayor, she writes a letter and she says that the hateful content of this article, which blatantly trivializes violence, condones rape, and abuses women, and defames the good name of London\u2019s police chief. Yeah, okay, it\u2019s in bad taste.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I haven\u2019t seen it yet. I\u2019m going to take your word on it. It is. But that\u2019s what a spoof is. A spoof is something that trivializes what it spoofs. If you\u2019re going to spoof a James Bond movie, you\u2019re going to trivialize a James Bond movie.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You\u2019re going to make everything they do on that movie seem ridiculous, seem stupid, seem silly. It\u2019s called humor. And humor affects different people in totally different ways. But basically what\u2019s at stake here is the thou shalt not criticize my cause kind of a mentality, and that\u2019s really what\u2019s happening here.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But anyways, I\u2019m very concerned about the intellectual environment on campus, on any campus, and this campus is no exception. Tuned into this very time slot on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday this week, just to see what the kids were saying and what was happening. I heard Mario Sercelli and Ian Morrison talking about the spoof edition on Monday, and I\u2019m talking about the Gazette and the Take Back the Night thing, which supposedly, and this is their word, they said it pissed off a lot of people who were not exactly identified.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And Mario Sercelli remarked that with power comes responsibility. This is going to get us into trouble. People will react.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Yeah, good heavens, they might write a letter to the editor or something. But this whole thing of offending people is becoming a disease in our country. You remember Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me? Well, there\u2019s a new philosophy that says, yeah, names will hurt me when that wasn\u2019t even what the original rhyme meant. What the original rhyme meant was sticks and stones will break my bones, but names cannot break my bones. It\u2019s a physical thing.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s about physical force. If you don\u2019t like where you are, you remove yourself from that environment. That\u2019s why we have private property and things like that. Then again, on Tuesday April\u2019s show, there was a panel discussion, which I found very disturbing. Some of the, and these are innocent people making innocent comments.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I remember I used to be in this category, but it\u2019s interesting. Someone was saying they want to fire the editor of the Gazette. And then saying it\u2019s not censorship. It\u2019s about bad management. It\u2019s about bad business.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Well, I got news for you. It is censorship. If it was about bad business or management, you wouldn\u2019t have waited for an event like this to occur.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And it\u2019s the kind of thing that is an ongoing thing. It has nothing to do with the content per se. Another panelist referred to some female editor who had views that 90% of the student body rejected. And she said, it\u2019s not satire to pick on minorities or minority institutions. Well, that\u2019s really interesting because people pick on me all the time and they pick on freedom and they pick on a lot of minorities and a lot of individuals. But here was one that really bothered me. Somebody, one of the participants, I don\u2019t know who it was, said, we live in a rape culture where rape is acceptable for control.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Well, what can I say to that? Got an article here. December 11th, 2006, National Post, top of the page. Islamists rally against rule that reduces burden of proof on rape victims. Quote, Thousands of Islamist protesters demonstrated in southern Pakistan yesterday against a new law that reduces the burden of proof on rape victims by allowing them to seek justice without the need for four male witnesses. Some 10,000 supporters of Islamist parties, most of them bearded, chanted slogans of down with women protection law. And this was reported by Reuters on the National Post again, December 11th. Now I can guarantee you that that country doesn\u2019t have freedom of speech and doesn\u2019t allow pornography and things like that.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And makes you wonder which societies are these people talking about? Violence against women is not a new phenomenon. It\u2019s been here on the planet Earth for centuries, for millennia. In Canada, well, first of all, men and women, slavery wasn\u2019t even abolished in Canada or Britain until August 23rd, 1833. Women were not even considered persons in Canada until October 18, 1929. So women have come a long way. And I believe women\u2019s rights, I believe in freedom of choice and abortion and all those things, but I don\u2019t believe in censoring people because they have a different point of view.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And quite often what we see here is a confusion of sexism with sexuality, and that too is another tragedy. Then there was yesterday\u2019s show. It was April 18th. Yesterday, Megan Walker was on. Megan Walker and I go back a long way. We\u2019ve debated over at CJBK when she was a host with husband Morris Delacosta for quite a while. I\u2019ve been in public forums debating her, and basically, boy, do we come from the opposite side of the spectrum. But it\u2019s interesting what she had to say yesterday. When somebody comes out and says governments on all levels are not giving this issue the priority that it deserves, and that the most dangerous place for a woman to be is in her own home, that\u2019s a pretty outrageous statement to make.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I mean, what is the danger in the home? Well, of course, it\u2019s that there\u2019s a man there, and they\u2019re always denying that the feminist movement is anti-male, is anti-this, is anti-that. Well, I want to see if that\u2019s really true. Let\u2019s take an investigation of what really it is about. But let\u2019s go through some of the things that Megan was talking about yesterday. Basically, of course, she\u2019s after money. She wants money. She wants money to provide her service.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And I\u2019m not going to speak to the service. I totally accept the argument that she made that, yes, violence, spousal violence is a little different from what would you call an odd act of violence that\u2019s just in the public, for example, because if somebody assaults you on the street, you\u2019re not going to go home to that person that night, or you don\u2019t share a property with them or anything, and that\u2019s understandable. And I think mechanisms like that should be in place. But to attach to that tragedy, this whole agenda of what is going on, what they have loosely defined as feminism is a little disturbing because I\u2019ll explain what I mean by that by carrying on. Now this is Megan\u2019s comment on the spoof article here at Western yesterday. She says, I\u2019ve really been following what\u2019s been going on at the University with the Gazette spoof article and was disappointed and wrote a letter to the editor and attended a meeting Friday, she said. And there she says she heard two basic views, basically. Then she said that one of the views was that the students are just students and they make mistakes and we should give them some slack. And Megan\u2019s response was that she expects so much more from students, particularly I expect students to be consistent with the human rights code and not do anything that would incite hatred or misogyny, which I believe that article did. That\u2019s Megan speaking. So it\u2019s interesting that she expects more from students than from adults because I thought the maturity process went the other way around, but I guess in her way of thinking it goes backwards. You get more maturity when you\u2019re young and you lose it when you get older, at least maybe that\u2019s what she\u2019s trying to demonstrate.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But it\u2019s interesting. She talks about what it really is to be a feminist and ending violence and abuse against women and equality for women. You don\u2019t have to create equality for women, just create equality for everybody.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And then it gets countered in, but they always exclude the other side of the equation. Anyways, I\u2019m going to take a break for a sec, get back to some specifics to tell you why I\u2019m saying what I\u2019m saying. Back in a minute.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We\u2019re back. Carrying on with this Western spoof here, Jackie in the control room just gave me a copy of the article. It is just a written article.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I haven\u2019t read it yet, but I\u2019ll get to that and maybe give you my comments the next time I\u2019m in on what I actually think about the article itself. But yesterday\u2019s comment or yesterday\u2019s discussion here on in this time slot basically was about feminism and I heard a lot of talk about people trying to define feminism, what feminism is and what it isn\u2019t. And one of the hosts there, one of the people on the panelists said and I quote, the whole idea of identifying yourself as a feminist, it\u2019s a word that carries just so much weight it can through the years sort of change a little bit and it\u2019s personal. I think it\u2019s sort of like spirituality. It\u2019s a personal thing and is defined only by you. Your feminism is a personal thing. And I think once we carry that, decide that, then it\u2019s easier to say that I\u2019m a feminist instead of people thinking that it means all of these things, that you\u2019re a man-hater, that you\u2019re a lesbian. And then Walker responds, Megan Walker, that yes, it\u2019s interesting that people do identify you as a feminist as being a man-hater, a lesbian or any other derogatory term or light they can place you in and that\u2019s what we call backlash. Well, here I am, the backlash. I didn\u2019t think I was backlash. I thought I always thought this way. I wasn\u2019t really reacting to anything.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But I didn\u2019t know lesbian was a derogatory term either but didn\u2019t look at that. But anyways, I\u2019ve got a quote for you here. And it\u2019s a very disturbing quote and I\u2019m going to quote it and it\u2019s from a book called Take Back the Night. Page 148, page 149, and Take Back the Night, edited by Laura Lederer. And that was from an essay by Andrea Dworkin in an essay called Why So-Called Radical Men Love and Need Pornography, which is a strange thing to say. Another essay, same book, quote, page 85, Take Back the Night, quote, that only by overthrowing this society will the violence against women cease and I am prepared to use violence against an ideology that says that women are inferior to men and I\u2019m prepared to fight against a government in the capitalistic economic system which strengthens such an ideology. Well, my goodness, did you hear what I just said about left and right and all that stuff?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And here she\u2019s saying that all those values on the right will strengthen an ideology of violence against women. It\u2019s just so absurd. And then the same author refers to the striking examples of China and Cuba where pornography and the exploitation of women as prostitutes have been virtually eliminated.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Unbelievable that they can say stuff like that. And where capitalism has been overthrown by workers\u2019 socialist revolutions. Totalitarianism to these feminists seems to be a small price to pay for fighting their sexual exploitation.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So you can see why there\u2019s a big fight over defining feminism. How do you distance yourself from that trash, which I thought was thrown in the garbage decades ago? I didn\u2019t think anybody thought like that anymore. Until yesterday I hear that we live in this rape culture.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This is an absurdity. Then another one, she says, another one of the, this is not Megan Walker talking, but someone else on the panel. Quote, well, Stephen Lewis is really pointing out that where he wants all the money to go to women and women\u2019s charities in Africa, and he\u2019s telling the world that it\u2019s women who are going to make the world better.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And he\u2019s so right, end quote. And I\u2019m thinking, what is this? Is this vaginal intelligence of some sort?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Or what do you, how can somebody\u2019s sexual organs possibly determine whether they are capable of understanding the principles on which a better society works? This is absurdity. This is the stuff that I thought we were supposed to be fighting.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Not going around and, women\u2019s studies. Man, oh man, what is this all about? Tell me this is not man-hating. And tell me it\u2019s not misogyny in reverse. Tell me it\u2019s not inciting hatred and a disrespect for a whole half of the human race. It\u2019s just unbelievable.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And they just carry on as though they\u2019re in their little world and the rest of the world has to go right along with them and believe everything they say. The other thing too is they want to work, quote, and here\u2019s a term I heard yesterday, the goal of ending violence against women. Not going to happen, folks. You can\u2019t end violence.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You can\u2019t prevent it. Violence is a consequence of a conflict. And conflicts are natural. They happen all the time. Violence is not an issue.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What is an issue is justice and justice is for everybody, not just women and men. I was stunned. If I had just turned on the radio and heard Megan Walker talking yesterday when she said, quote, and so although this horrendous, horrible thing happened up here at the university, end quote, I would have thought she was talking about Virginia Tech. But no, she\u2019s talking about a spoof on campus. And I just wonder what words would she have used to describe the horrendous and horrible thing that happened at Virginia Tech?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Probably wouldn\u2019t talk about it because it\u2019s not like the incident in Montreal, is it? Talk about prejudice, narrow-minded people. Then there\u2019s their favorite. Favorite, oh, I\u2019ve heard this for 20 years, desensitization. We\u2019ve got to, people are desensitized.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You hear Dr. Peter Jaffe in town talking about this constantly. People are getting insensitive to all sorts of things. Well, I\u2019m all for desensitization, quite frankly. I don\u2019t know what they mean by desensitization, but personally, I think desensitization is necessary for survival, especially in extreme or emergency situations. If you\u2019re in, say, a war situation, the bombs are falling around you, you better not be sensitive to blood and guts. You better get your butt moving or you\u2019re not going to be able to react. People who are too sensitive are paralyzed into inaction, and that\u2019s why they want to sensitize you. So that they can threaten you with this lightest thing. Oh, you hurt my feelings.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Oh, I can\u2019t say that. We\u2019re going to have a panel. We\u2019ll vote on it. We\u2019ll do this.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We\u2019ll do that. And in the process, they destroy everything that they\u2019ve earned in the last century. Feminists are sensitive.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Anybody is sensitive if they believe something that they can\u2019t properly, intellectually or morally defend in a public forum. So instead of resorting to persuasion, they resort to force. And we\u2019ll use the human rights code. We\u2019ll use the law. We\u2019ll use censorship. Oh, it\u2019s not censorship.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

No, it\u2019s not censorship. All these wonderful anti-violence people, I tell you. I have to desensitize myself just to read a bloody newspaper. If I allowed myself to become sensitive to all the horror and the suffering and irrationality that I have to look at daily in the newspaper, I\u2019d be a basket case. One of the things that affects me the most personally is it just drives me emotionally, drives me, it bothers me for days whenever I hear about the death of a child. It doesn\u2019t matter whose kid it is, because we all share in that pain, don\u2019t we? There\u2019s been a lot of school bus accidents for some reason lately, just tragedies. And I don\u2019t know the person.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know the child involved. And it sticks with you for days. You go, God, I hope that never happens to me. And you can just see the pain. And if you let every one of these events in life get to you and you become too sensitive to all of them, you\u2019re not doing yourself much good. And you\u2019re not going to be able to act. Sensitive people don\u2019t act.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

They\u2019re the ones that sit back and take it. So sensitivity training, I don\u2019t know about that. Being held responsible for the feelings of others is just an outrageous and positively evil concept, I think. There are objective grounds for things that you shouldn\u2019t say in a given forum, especially on private property where the rules are all spelled out in advance. But anything I could say at any time could upset somebody and make them feel bad.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Am I supposed to be held legally responsible for someone I don\u2019t even know? I don\u2019t know their values. I don\u2019t know their experience. They have a certain feeling that they relate to me.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know. When people scream about you\u2019re being insensitive, what they really mean is that they want you to pay attention to them and to their needs and to their issues. And if you aren\u2019t responding the way they want you to, or God forbid you should actually disagree, well out come the feminist calls of appeals to the Human Rights Commission, to the criminal code to censoring to the law, and all sorts of rules and regulations that fit into their way of thinking things. So hello, it\u2019s a spoof, eh? Come on, folks, it\u2019s a spoof.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And even if it weren\u2019t, even if it weren\u2019t, I don\u2019t think I would have any different point of view. Now, I heard Megan Walker also on the news item on another radio station in the news earlier in the week, calling for a public apology and sensitivity training for the editors of the Gazette. I\u2019ve always called Megan Walker London\u2019s own jihadist for feminism, and she knows all about a public apology. So let me tell you, she was forced to make one to me on CJBK Radio two summers ago and something I said offended her. And then she went on a diatribe on the radio show when I wasn\u2019t on the air, calling me all kinds of nasty names and saying that I shouldn\u2019t be allowed to say this, that, and the other thing. Well, the joke was on her. It turns out it wasn\u2019t me that said those things.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It was her hubby Morris Delacosta. But I was the guy that got blamed for saying it. And so she tossed a whole bunch of verbal abuse my way. I alerted the station. I said, hey, I didn\u2019t say this. And never implied this.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It was Morris. And I can see the spousal relationship there. I must have been an interesting day. But anyway, she spent 20 minutes apologizing to me on the air for the things that she called me.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I won\u2019t even go into that. But we saw her in action again in the London-North by-election, where she accused both the Liberal candidate, Glenn Pearson, the Conservative candidate and former London Mayor, Diane Haskett, of everything from racism to sexism and just made a mockery out of the whole political process in that London-North riding. And I think that had a lot to do with Elizabeth May\u2019s victory for the Greens. I mean, the Greens are going rah, rah, rah. And in fact, maybe they should be talking about Megan Walker and cleaning up her act and being maybe a little more respectful and polite of people who disagree with her because it works two ways. You want freedom of speech, you\u2019ve got to give it to other people. And it\u2019s an absolute. There\u2019s no, oh, we\u2019ll have some little bit of freedom of speech for some people and not for others. That\u2019s not freedom of speech at all. It\u2019s a switch.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s on or off. There\u2019s no middle position. And so I guess the lesson of all of this in terms of at least the feminist movement and the whole speech movement is that before you go apologizing for offending someone, be certain you know who that someone is and that you aren\u2019t just playing into the hands of some extremist agenda that just wants to silence the opposition. That\u2019s what it\u2019s all about. When they start yelling at you, they just want you to shut up. They\u2019re basically saying, you can\u2019t criticize my cause.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You can\u2019t criticize what I\u2019m saying. One would think that after all the outrage about freedom of the press and that whole Dutch political cartoon that we\u2019d be much quicker to spot our own local jihadists who want to just shut up any criticism of what they do or of the morality on which they act. When I come back after the ad, going to get into another side issue on this, and I think you need to hear a little history on this too, and that\u2019s about the issue of pornography itself, and we shall return in one moment. Back in the mid-1980s, I think, roughly around \u201985, \u201986, that was about the period I started getting involved in politics, and one of the first things we were called upon to do was to address the federal government\u2019s committee. It was called the Fraser Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, and it did a roadshow here in London and around the country, taking in public opinion and stuff like this, which was very interesting. I got a headline at the time in the Free Press for pointing out the fact that as they were going around taking opinions on pornography and prostitution, the legislation that they were taking the opinions for was already being tabled in Parliament on the very day that we were making submissions, but so obviously, like every roadshow the government runs, they make up their mind first, and they send out the roadshow to get everybody to agree with them, and then they say that they did it because everybody agreed with them. But concurrently at the same time, October \u201984, there were US Senate subcommittee hearings on pornography, and ironically what came out of all these things in the long term was a tremendous liberalization of pornography laws. We were far more restrictive with pornography back then, and I think that was a great thing, a great thing for the emancipation of women in so many ways to take what was a seedy, terrible underground operation and at least let it go above ground. It\u2019s become commonplace.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You can turn in on Showcase, watch a Showcase on any given Friday or Saturday night, the stuff they have on there wasn\u2019t allowed at the downtown cinemas here 20 years ago. What was very interesting is that the battle, of course, against pornography was constantly going on, and one of the icons of the anti-porn movement at that time was the late Linda Marchiano, otherwise known as Linda Lovelace, who became very popularized through the movie Deep Throat, which of course has become an icon of sorts too. The term has even become a political one used in matters of, well, kind of spy stuff and stuff like this. But the big issue at the time, I know a lot of people still think this is true, that Linda Lovelace was forced to do porn and all that stuff, because that\u2019s what the media was saying, and there was a book she put out after her movie, it was called Ordeal. But unlike everyone else who talked about it and said, oh, how terrible the porn industry is, I actually picked the book up and I read it, and it was not a story about the pornography industry as the people in the public were saying. I remember in the Toronto Sun, I know about this because of course I addressed the committee, I\u2019m pulling my notes out, and I wrote an article back in the 80s to which I\u2019m referring, and out of the Toronto Sun, March 20th, 1981, there was a quote from Linda Lovelace that said, when you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped. It is a crime that that movie is still showing.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There was a gun to my head the entire time, end quote. Now that\u2019s what she said in the Toronto Sun, and at least at that time, and of course she was being manipulated by all kinds of people who were making an issue out of it, but I actually picked up the book to find out the book Ordeal, which was the book to which everyone was referring to at the time, and I read the thing, and it told a completely different story. First of all, yeah, Linda Lovelace had an ordeal, but it wasn\u2019t in the porn industry.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It began oddly enough with her mother, and let me quote from the book here, where Lovelace\u2019s ordeal apparently began at a very early age, quote, when I was four years old, my mother started beating me. First with a belt, later with the buckle of the belt, she would hit me for the smallest thing. One time she sent me down to the drugstore for nose drops, and I came back with the wrong brand. I was only 11, and she hit me with a broomstick for that mistake. She said I would have gotten the right bottle if I didn\u2019t have my mind on boys so much.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Boys, that was a laugh. Boys were the last thing on my mind. No one ever told me anything about sex.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Only one message ever came through clearly, sex was bad, end quote. Now that\u2019s actually in her book. So what does she do after this? She escapes her mother. She meets up with a guy who is her husband slash, I guess, entertainment promoter, but she went into a life of prostitution, and that\u2019s where her real ordeal began, and she hooked up with a guy named Chuck Traynor, and led this life of prostitution, which was not too pleasant for anything I have heard. And, but through this guy, she got a contact and started, got this opportunity to do something in the porn industry.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And of course, that was the movie Deep Throat that became so fascinating, or so popular and well fascinating in a way too, because listen to what she actually said in her book, not in the Toronto Sun, but in her actual book Ordeal about her experience on the set of this movie, quote. Something was happening to me, something strange. It had to do with the fact that Nolan was treating me like garbage. And maybe it was just a chemistry of being part of a group. For the first time in many months, I was thrown in with other people, other people who weren\u2019t perverted and threatening.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I became part of a group. I began to ease up. I was laughing along with the rest of them. And I thought my face would break.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I hadn\u2019t laughed, really laughed in so long that my face had to carve new smile lines. And no one was asking me to do anything I didn\u2019t want to do, end quote. Okay. And that\u2019s what she says in her book. And then out in public when later, a religious group got a hold of her. She\u2019s going out and saying, well, you\u2019re watching me being raped.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I had a gun to my head the whole time. In fact, actually, during that whole time, there was a lot of controversy about Linda Lovelace being in the porn industry. I know that Larry Flynt of Hustler magazine was totally opposed to her being there. And many people in the industry spoke out against her being there because they said, no, she doesn\u2019t belong here. She\u2019s not one of us.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

She\u2019s not our culture, not our lifestyle. But in any event, Deep Throat said Linda Lovelace, Marchiano in retrospect became for her both a low point and a salvation. It was really the fame that was created by the popularity of the movie that proved to be her avenue of escape from that life that she said that she didn\u2019t like.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And of course, her horrible relationship with Chuck Traynor and her mother, who was not a man, but a woman. Okay. So you can see how people bend and twist the truth and even what they themselves are saying about things. If you want to see the real spousal violence incidents, thanks to Ian Gillespie for providing some of these, reciting a few surveys, just looking here from 1999 to 2004, there were about 654,000 violent spousal incidents against women and about 546,000 against men.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And that\u2019s almost like even in a way. And they said an estimated 7% of women and 6% of men encountered some form of violence by a current or previous spouse or common law partner. Another research, that women are found at least as likely to instigate violence as men. I mean, this stuff is all over the place. So you\u2019ve got a lot of propagandists out there.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t let them tell you what to think and what to do and what to say about anything when it really comes down to that. Press freedom is so important. If you do not have the right to disagree with people, you don\u2019t live in a free society anymore. So keep that in mind. And remember that when one person\u2019s rights are violated, every person\u2019s rights are violated.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There\u2019s no such thing as freedom of speech for Bill and not for Jane and not for Mary or freedom of speech for somebody, one person and not for the other. Anyways, that\u2019s all I\u2019ve got to say about that particular issue. Just one of those things that\u2019s never going to go away, I don\u2019t think. I\u2019m sure there\u2019s going to be some feedback perhaps on this issue.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And that\u2019s about it. I\u2019m getting a signal there now. Are we almost getting ready to wind up there, Jackie? Don\u2019t know whether I\u2019ll be back next week. I don\u2019t know if I\u2019m going to be back in this time slot. Don\u2019t know what the show is going to be. Don\u2019t know if I\u2019ll be here Wednesday or whatever day or even if everything\u2019s going to be different next week.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But you\u2019ll be the first to know by tuning in again roughly during this time spot here. By the way, just one quick thought to leave with you. I was sitting in the dentist\u2019s office the other day and I read this true and false thing about a whole bunch of unrelated things.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And one of the questions said, what do you think? True or false? Do turtles age? I found out that they don\u2019t age. Turtles do not age. They only die of misfortune and of disease.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

When they are mature, they do not age. And I\u2019m wondering, why aren\u2019t there a whole bunch of turtle institutes from coast to coast across the country? Why aren\u2019t we studying this phenomenon? I realize they\u2019re cold-blooded animals, but I had no idea. Is that actually true? I have a hard time believing that.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And if it is, how come we don\u2019t know much more about it? Anyways, just a thought to leave with you before we go. And if we see you again next week, all the better. Take care and mind how you go, as Jim Chapman would have said. And God bless. Take care.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Just Right Episode 001 Air Date: April 19, 2007 Host: Bob Metz Station Disclaimer: The views expressed in this program are those of the participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of 94.9 CHRW. Bob Metz: Well, I never thought I\u2019d be sitting here again at this seat. Welcome! It\u2019s Bob Metz on what [Continue Reading]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-16093","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16093"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16093\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16832,"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16093\/revisions\/16832"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/justrightmedia.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}