In publishing the 911 calls and accompanying story by Paul Palango, Frank Magazine decisively proves the RCMP is lying about what happened during the April 18th-19th, 2020 Nova Scotia Massacres. From the first 911 call at 10:01p.m., RCMP knew Gabriel Wortman was driving an RCMP car and murdering civilians. That these facts were concisely reported, during the first three calls, caused a question to present itself to the RCMP and civilians alike: “What do we do?” It was an important question for both parties as the RCMP maintained:
This was over an hour after Jamie Blair called 911 to report her neighbor, she identifies as a denturist, that drives RCMP cars, had shot her husband who was lying face down on the deck. She went out to check and a man was coming back on the deck with a big gun. That call gets cut off.
At this point, RCMP know Gabriel Wortman is using an RCMP uniform, RCMP cruiser and is murdering civilians. They have known this, now, for over 10 hours. We know because after the murders of Jamie Blair and Greg Blair, their sons made it to a neighbor's house using a trail between the properties, after one of them retrieved a cell phone from their murdered father's pocket. This neighbor, Lisa McCully, escorts the Blair’s children to the basement with her children. She goes outside and is murdered by Wortman. At 10:16 p.m., a call is made by the Blair's 12 year old son, who reports to 911 there is a crazy man burning down his own garage, this man came over to their house, murdered their parents and was burning down their house. The 12 year old confirms the critical information that a neighbor is murdering civilians and driving a police car.
A third call is made to 911 at 10:25p.m., Andrew MacDonald reports he see's a house on fire down the road, he drives over to check and says its a big garage that belongs to a neighbor. After identifying multiple fires in the community, he identifies there's a police officer in a driveway. Andrew Macdonald indicates, a police officer is driving up to meet him in police car. Andrew is heard saying “hi”, then there’s a loud gunshot, followed by screaming and the sound of a vehicle accelerating. Andrew can be heard yelling he’s been shot by his neighbor Gabe.
The RCMP, after a few tweets, meant more to obscure information than to convey it, finally deign to tweet:
This is over 12 hours after the RCMP have known Gabriel Wortman is murdering civilians while driving an RCMP cruiser and wearing an RCMP uniform. By the time RCMP release this information, for many it is too late. They have been murdered by the man from the RCMP car, hours after the police force meant to protect them has known.
What ought to have happened is straight forward. Civilians, media and journalists needed to come together, show outrage and demand something, anything be done. How can anyone trust RCMP that have lied so egregiously for over a year? The only real question is: How to deal with the RCMP in Nova Scotia?
Instead and with stultifying predictability, what happened was a frenzied reaction by a herd of thin skinned reactionaries. They think their offense should be a hindering component on the freedom of others, up to the suppression of journalism itself.
Hundreds of Facebook comments called Frank a disgraceful, sensationalist and hateful media outlet. Amongst the usual complaints, was presented the idea that Frank, even knowing the recordings true, shouldn't have released them.
Here is one of the most dangerous forms of attack on free speech, in full blossom: The extreme humanitarian principle. This suggests that because someone, somewhere is offended, this is somehow an excuse to limit freedom. As if offense and emotion are an open invitation to commit evil and censorious acts, self assured in your own rectitude, while seeking to limit the freedoms of others to speak or hear. Attempts to erode other's statutory rights to speak or hear, based on one's own offense, are claiming morality while repudiating it. A debouched and repugnant display.
To fully understand, we must reflect on what a liberal democracy, like Canada, is. Many people come to the conclusion, because we live in a democratic society, which champions diversity, that limiting free speech, as to not offend some groups, is a rational choice. Only the antithesis of that sentiment is true. The more there is a multiplicity of beliefs, the more diversity of expression there needs to be for people to freely express themselves in society. Citizens exercising their right to free expression, in which all ideas jostle against one another and go through the triple filter of public scrutiny, debate and criticism, is the quickest way to promote the advancement of human knowledge. It allows for diversity of beliefs and opinions, represented within a multitude of groups, to be expressed and debated. When the opposite is true, what Flemming Rose has called “A tyranny of silence” begins to reign. A culture of correctitude and orthodoxy where free speech withers.
The strength in multicultural society bases itself on the market place of ideas which never attempts to eliminate prejudice. It matches partiality against bias, preconception against bigotry and uses public criticism, evaluation and skepticism as a scale to weigh and decide to keep or discard ideas based on worth and merit. The marketplace rewards some with respect when they have credence and punishes others with ridicule, shame and mockery when the ideas don't hold up to critical analysis. This is the only process that leads to the disenthrallment of civilians from authorities, such as police, politicians or governments dictating reality. Attempts to eliminate partiality, hate and prejudice are quixotic and only serve to give central government, priests and a variety of charlatans, whoever happens to have amassed the most power, the ability to enforce their own orthodoxy full of bigotry. In democratic societies that fight for free expression, our responsibility is to get along only to the degree of nonviolence. People who mix-up words and violence, they are due no consideration. Words are not violence, not a “spray of bullets”, as one Frank critic claimed on Facebook. This is taking a pulpit to preach moral obscenity and tosh, which is easily taken advantage of by more dishonest people. Those more unscrupulous and willing to take advantage of those less sophisticated than themselves.
Until this point, the RCMP have employed the Russian propaganda technique, “The Fire hose of falsehoods”, a vast deluge of disinformation along multiple media channels in a repetitive stentorian manner, that lacks commitment to regularity or truth (The false changing timeline). It is meant to bulldoze, mystify and distract but there is no attempt at serving the story. The propaganda is produced in Brobdingnagian proportions and distributed along all forms of communication: Image, text, audio. Promulgated by all forms of broadcast: television, radio, podcast, internet, mainstream news. The voluntary slaves of power use langue de bois to attack and undermine views or hypothesis contrary to RCMP interest. Endless forms, most treacherous and most subtle, have been and are being employed.
Agents of misinformation such as Greg Mercer who wrote:
"Since she was charged, Ms. Banfield, who is also suing the gunman’s estate, has become a divisive figure among those affected by the shooting. She’s been caught up in a complicated knot of conspiracy theories spread by amateur web sleuths who are convinced police aren’t telling the whole story about her involvement. Much of their speculation focuses on the RCMP and the government, but many are also public in their suspicions of Ms. Banfield."
“Conspiracy theorist”, by which he means, anyone who disagrees. The problem was then, and is now, that "conspiracy theorist" implies the rejection of generally accepted facts. One simply isn't a conspiracy theorist for rejecting sacrosanct liturgy.
Truly ambitious agents of misinformation, such as Sarah Ritchie, reported these comments within seconds of one another, before the dead were done being counted:
Wortman is not an RCMP member
As of right now, we have no idea how many victims there may be, or what condition they are in
An impressive feat of divination to know with certainty that a man in an RCMP uniform and RCMP cruiser is not a member of the RCMP before the bodies of his victims are counted, but moving on.
Later she suppresses Lisa Banfield's name and suppresses Leon Joudrey’s testimony, all to protect Lisa Banfield, who no one knows for certain is innocent or not.
Agents of misinformation such as Chris Lambie wrote about his source who told him a fairy tale:
Big police brain, smart, he’s just switched on, he’s just squared away, challenged Wortman and “boom they're heroes”
Whatever that is meant to be about.
By now, everyone has their own favorite example. Many variations of these megaphone/gramophones of orthodoxy have made themselves known. We'll avoid naming them all here and leave that for other columns. Other, more timid, species of smurf use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Discord, YouTube and other platforms. The avalanche of deception is meant to cause a Gresham's law of ideas, where bad ideas flourish, not because of good evidence, rather the level of messages coming from multiple sources fortifies believability. Especially when different outlets utilize different arguments in support of the same conclusion. Sources and stories can be presented in such a way that important aspects of a story are drowned out.
To cut through a blizzard of multi-sourced propaganda, designed to protect the RCMP image for as long as possible, a ringing bell was necessary, to get over the din and clamour. The 911 recordings served that purpose.
A wayward mob of civilians were so incited by news, they attacked a news outlet reporting on a worthy subject in service of the public interest. The opportunists and liars that caused the police failure were fast to stoke outrage in one of the most transparent things they have done yet:
The so called servants of the law have taken the job of policing and criticising journalists, in an attempt to brow beat the news into claptrap. Years ago, the RCMP told news agencies not to ask questions about confidential informants in relation to the E-Pirate case. As always, it's a bullying intimidation tactic and attack against free press. When police tell journalists what questions to ask or what expression is proper there is a chilling effect. To frame journalism, critical of police accountability and transparency, as a immoral attack on civilians shows Lee Bergerman demonstrates a disgraceful disregard for ethics, her job and role in society. She is not a priest. She is supposed to serve the law and remain impartial on subjects of journalism. Her behavior suggests, on some level, she has become unmeasured.
Such, such was the wrath, many civilians made inadvertent attacks on their own right to free speech. They were glad to help the RCMP’s illiberal attempt to censor Frank magazine. In their ire, critics of Frank made attacks on free expression, the way a trigger stacked dog in a thunderstorm may bite it's own tail.
Turned against their interests by those with more sophistry and cant. They feel entitled because someone, somewhere is offended or feels upset and they conflate that idea with being harmed. It is a tactic employed by those that feel a certain way, but cannot articulate thoughts enough to convince anyone. When criticism is framed as harm, one simply doesn't respond to criticism. It hints at what ought to be a secondary concern. One that most people fail to expose: those that view words as harm, are a short step from the idea there is no difference between words and violence. A review of the comments on Frank’s Facebook post regarding the release of the 911 calls reveals many people view news as harm committed against others and freely express the idea that violence in return is justified.
A quote worth consideration here, by free speech advocate Jonathan Rauch:
Being offended is part of how we learn, if you can't offend people then you can’t criticize people. If you can't criticize people and ideas then there is absolutely no way to figure out what ideas are good and what ideas are bad. Almost every authority in human history that has tried to enforce one orthodoxy or another, first has got it wrong and second has been well intentioned. Whenever anyone tells you: “I've got it right, I've got the one true answer and everyone else is wrong and I'm going to enforce it” that person is not only a menace to freedom but more important a menace to human thriving and human knowledge.
CBC, Global, The NS Attorney General and The Minister of Justice was looking into the leak, The MCC that doesn't support journalism and requests them removed, Bergerman who whined the "release is 'disgraceful' the Colchester County Councillors that castigate Frank Magazine; Lisa Patton, Marie Benoit, and Tom Taggart can all be safely lumped into the category of totalitarian, teeth gritting bigots that feed off the conniption of others. The only real investigation ought to be how these petty tyrants ended up as county councillors. Instead of defending liberalism, they descend into wide-eyed fundamentalism and certitude against an entire segment of the population. In short, they make buffoons of themselves and embrace illiberalism for high minded reasons employed by advocates of censorship everywhere and destroy their own credibility.
Frank magazine's name, flaunted banner and title are “Frank”. They use satire, humor and hard hitting news to, among other things, criticize those in power. They are very Frank, point out the news and make fun of everyone. They are treasured by their readers. Frank is something in particular and has an essence that is part of what it is. Frank is Frank and that appeals to a subsection of people interested in real news. Those that read Frank want to live with the risk that they don't perceive enough yet, that they haven't comprehended enough yet, that they never know enough, they thirstily drink the news hoping for a future swallow of knowledge and wisdom. They wouldn’t want Frank to be any other way. Readers of Frank determine for themselves, they are capable of discerning what writing is detrimental and who is the detrimental writer, they decide themselves what the hazardous consequences are going to be by predicting the future based on minutiae. The readers of Frank and advocates of free speech decide they will make these decisions for themselves, no one else is expert enough to make those decisions on their behalf. They decide for themselves what they can read, they decide for themselves to hear what they might have to hear, to know what they might have to know, in case they might need to know it. Those that claim transcripts or parts of recordings are "enough" are bullheads, full of certitude, attacking civilians who live in uncertainty and have decided doubt and knowing for themselves is the better way to go. Frank readers decide no one in the world is intelligent enough to choose what they can read or hear. They simply take that responsibility upon themselves and haven't relinquished it to anyone.
Frank readers reject that anyone ought to censor or suppress a media outlet due to offense. It wasn’t just an attack on Frank magazine, it was an attack on the foundational principles of liberal democracy. An attack on civilians right for themselves to decide how to live, with a critical thinking mindset or not. After all, free speech is meaningless unless it’s the freedom for the contrarian to tell a crowd what they don't want to hear. The right of a lone journalist, wrongly labeled a conspiracy theorist, to pursue the story and argue based on the evidence the merit of their ideas and to have the public decide.
The value of expression only extends to our desire and ability to defend it. Of what use is Canadian Media if they refuse to defend the free expression of another media outlet at the first challenge? Or hesitate, in a moment that requires a statement of co-responsibility and solidarity? To barely whisper “I'm Spartacus” a week later, at such critical junctions, somewhat misses the mark.
In a democratic society that champions difference, people attacking Frank need to be told, the only thing they are due is being courteously disregarded, instead Global et al gave a barely literate, quacking brood of bird brains, behaving as a flock, a platform by acting as a gramophone for their absolute drivel.
The notion that liberal democracy champions sensitivity, that it guards the emotions of others, is a quintessential fallacy. The marketplace of ideas, which is the foundation of Canadian society, is better thought of as a boxing ring, where ideas compete and civilians decide for themselves which ones are the winners and losers. Offense is an integral aspect to how we determine what is true: public criticism, scrutiny and questioning are the only thing that prevents people from the rule of moral authorities and kings. All claims are, must be, open to evaluation, debate, and questioning as to allow for the advancements of ideas and knowledge towards a more precise understanding of verity. Anyone, anywhere can challenge even the most sacred beliefs based on sound evaluation and criticism. It is the lowest standard for human dignity.
Telling the truth, expressing oneself freely and exercising the right of free speech, in the interest of public safety and truth, will cause offense. Media, journalists and civilians must encourage offense, when the need arises and it will. Taking offense is the first step to learning.
Whenever you shut down one's right to speak you shut down another's right to hear. Any civilian that lives in Nova Scotia, whose safety, as well as the safety of those they care about, was compromised, has the right to hear for themselves what’s in the audio. It's a direct commentary on how flagrantly the public was lied to. It's in everyone’s interest to know the level and extent the police are lying to them. Any argument asserting the transcript imparts the same detail as an audio recording is just noise. The sophistry of double thinkers, that flip between accepting the need to publish the recordings while simultaneously denying it.
The words of the victims speak more truthfully, ardently on this forlorn topic than all the verbiage of the RCMP or the illiberal herd which is filled with doublethink, lies and piffle.
Who is anyone to say what others need to hear to get a point? Who is to say what is appropriate for a civilian to listen to in relation to understanding the police force that did this, lied about it, then lied for months more? The only one who has a right to determine what they might or might not need to hear is the individual.
This was never going to be an exchange of mere niceties between two disinterested parties. One group champions the humanitarian principle, they decide it is their right to eliminate free expression if it causes emotional discomfort. A second group that champions frank and open discussion on the public interest/safety believes someone else’s feelings being hurt is probably the first step to that faction learning what they should never have forgotten: The RCMP has a history of mendacity and hard hitting investigative journalists such as Paul Palango, and brave media outlets such as Frank are needed to bring the public’s attention to the RCMP's lack of accountability and transparency.
If we must talk about insult, the readers of Frank magazine were very offended by the attempt to cancel Frank magazine. This saeva indignatio, this regression to infantilism is a horrible capitulation to unreason. It is quite enraging to us. We reject it. After all, is this Kindergarten? Nursery school?
Criticisms, questions and comments: NovaScotiaCitizen@protonmail.com