Part Two
See Part One here

You think the Rupert Murdoch/News of the World story is about corruption in media and government?  You know nothing.  In Canada, the state actually owns and legally protects and then funds a media behemoth which not only reports news, including political news, does its own news-y polls, and so on, but also has editorial opinions about the news, which they (or more accurately, Canadian taxpayers) pay for.  And the government appoints the people who run the outfit.  There is no issue of “church and state” in Canada.  But media and state? It’s rampant. And it’s arguably more dangerous than any confluence of Christianity, or God, and government.  And of course it’s an abomination.

So on the more serious side of the Rupert Murdock pie-ing incident, I wondered why supposedly serious (even if they are surreptitiously left-wing) news outfits like the state-owned media called the CBC (or what in Canada they call “the Mother Corp” with only the slightest hint of nervous laughter about the mother of all examples of their growing government and nanny-statism),  they breathlessly cover the Murdoch story as a serious story (Murdoch owns the private “right-wing” Fox News dontcha know!), but then allow countless comments like this one to be posted at its illegitimate child-like web site:
The comment reads: "Pie in the FACE!! sweeeeet he should get one of those everyday for the rest of his life...." -- a comment from an apparent violence-advocating CBC fan. And the CBC "moderates" comments, and accepted this one. (I reported it to them as something I saw as advocating violence, but they left it there anyway.)

The “Mother Corp” CBC and its so-called moderators should have listened to their own mommy, or perhaps the pc term is co-parents, also known as the Canadian Constitution and the rule of law (that document begins: “Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…”).  Oops  — God too?  Well there’s a third parent there then, isn’t there?  Crickies.  How modern.  Anyway the CBC’s own reporting from previous years provides a clue even they can understand:

Pie throwers tossed suspended sentences — Nov 10, 2000

Two men who attacked [Liberal Party] Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Stephane Dion with cream pies have been found guilty of assault.

Patrick Robert and Benoit Foisy have been given six-month suspended sentences for the May 1999 creaming.

The judge also told each man to perform 50 hours of community work and to stay away from Dion.

The judge says the pair had criminal intent.

Well perhaps like all child-like delinquents, the CBC believe the law “isn’t the boss of them.”  So then maybe like so many of today’s self-esteemed and ever-entitled children, the Mother Corp’s own Rules are the boss of them.   Here’s some select excerpts from those Rules:

What is and isn’t acceptable?

  • Be civil.
  • When you are writing about legal issues, remember that people are innocent until proven guilty (that may mean using words such as “allegedly”).

Always avoid:

  • Personal attacks and defamatory statements.
  • Threats or suggesting committing a criminal act.
  • Insensitive comments regarding the death or injury of private individuals, especially children.

If you violate any of these rules, then your comment will not be posted and your account may be suspended.

FURTHERMORE, the rules say, in true massive government politburo style, that the rules are themselves subject to the official terms of use policies… (“The above rules are a summary of our guidelines. For more details, read the CBC’s official Submissions Policy.”)

OK let’s bother with that since as a taxpayer I paid someone to write it up…

(ii) post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libellous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, including, without limitation, any Submission constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, provincial, national or international law or regulation;

(iv) post or transmit any Submission that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual, could be harmful to minors, harasses or advocates harassment of another person, provides material that exploits people under the age of 18 in a sexual or violent manner, provides instructional information about illegal activities, including, without limitation, the making or buying of illegal weapons;

[… etc]

So possibly the comment didn’t break the actual letter of the law, or the CBC’s own Rules, nor even their official Submissions Policy. I’m not even sure. I’d need a lawyer. But I think it’s a pretty easy call if I were a moderator — or sane.  Especially if I’m working on the taxpayer’s dime at a state-owned, state-run media behemoth paid for by taxpayers.

Hey I wonder  —  if it happens again and the 80-year-old Murdoch or somebody else dies as a result of all the violent mayhem, will the CBC will hold itself partly responsible, and make a determined and yet gratuitous mention of their possible complicity in the violence and death approximately 800 times, as per the breathless stories in the liberal media about how Sarah Palin, because she once wrote something about “cross-hairs,” was partly responsible for the shooting of Democratic congressman Giffords!  Yup I’m so sure!

Meanwhile, did ya hear the one about George Soros and Rachel Maddow being lunged at and pied in the face by a conservative activist  —  or to use one of the liberals’ and their liberal media’s own extremely offensive and bigoted slurs, by a “tea bagger”?  No. No, you did not. And if you did, it would not be treated as a joke, I assure you, except the part about calling them “tea baggers.”  Nor would joking about that particular violence be tolerated at the CBC, I’m quite sure.

For my part, I’m only humored  —  albeit cynically  —  about the fact that while the inquisitive big-government MPs sat on their asses watching the violence unfold against The Evil Corporate Leaders (all of the MPs in my view sat there but for one female, who did actually rise up out of her seat), it was Rupert Murdoch’s tiny wife, clad in a cute pink outfit and heels, who instantly jumped to the defense of the unsuspecting husband, and landed what appeared to be a solid right upon the useful idiot’s vacuous head.  Full seconds later, a London bobby shuffled up to help control the attacker. Male MPs sitting there… watching it unfold.  The committee chairman later apologized, and that, was that.  No inquiry.  End of story.

Should also see Media Mogul Charged with First Degree Murdoch Ann Coulter’s July 20 2011 column which is related,
and (as referred in Part 1), her It’s only funny until someone loses a pie (2005 column)