… is about to get a lot more interesting.
h/t Second Thots.
Screenshot
Update Varlaki has now pulled his entire blog content down. He responds with an apology in the comments here. I don’t know that it’s going to be enough to avoid an interview with the RCMP, considering the specific nature of his threat.
“We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists…”
and these are heads of state, how? Robert? Are you really dumb enough to call Instapundit an extreme blog full of rants that call for assassination of leaders of legitimate nations? You’ve got to do better than that.
too often lately the RCMP reaction has been akin to the cops on the Simpsons.
and we can go back to the time when PMJC’s wife had to defend them “wit a pice of eskimo statchew”
ET: If I were debating one side of an issue, and it came to light that my only supporter was “Mr. F the Jews”, I would immediately contact a nutty left-wing (redundant?) blogger and convince him that “the time had come to put a bullet in my head.”
First, it’s ‘really me’, ET, who has been posting here. And I continue to stand by my opinion; I think everyone calling for this young man’s head is complete overreaction.
As for other blogs, I simply won’t name them, but there are ‘right’ blogs that include advocacy of death against Chinese leaders, Muslims and imams, etc.
To even suggest that the ‘right’ never harbors such thoughts, never voices them – and only the ‘left’ thinks in such a manner is to divide our species into two typologies – and that’s invalid. We are all human, and we can all think and voice andn even act on such thoughts.
I repeat – a young kid, full of bravado and utopian arrogance – voicing such things is completely different from anyone with a deliberate agenda of carrying out such an action. Compare the threats and exhortations at hockey tournaments. Does the public shrieking ‘kill him, kill him’ expect anyone to actually carry out this very public order??
gwgm- your analogy is invalid. This young kid did not threaten to ‘take out Harper’s children’; he did not even threaten Harper. It was a scenario of voiced bravado and should be met with ‘yeah, sure, so much for democracy’ or ‘naah, I think the bullet should reverse and hit you because you’re a twit’
So far, I haven’t seen any comments that will make me change my mind.
Thanks, Kathy…I was unsure which side of the issue you were sitting on. And my apologies to ET…I think some posters are attributing my comments to you.
Personally, I would have no qualms about the guy getting charged…his comment could easily be mistaken for a death threat…very much more so than the “witty” statement about Trudeau (and the less-witty statements made by Coulter and Maher). Although his comment should be taken seriously and investigated (with charges laid if appropriate), I’m not sure that it is so truly outrageous as to warrant the reaction here that it has.
So, add me to the tar-and-feather to-do list along with ET.
He was foolish to have said it and he should face the consequences of having said it, but this is a free country and freedom of expression is permitted. I don’t think this is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre…although it may be the same as saying “I think someone should bomb this plane” at the airport.
*
“Jim O’Brien said… Allan has come forward with a much clearer apology.
We should be willing to forgive.”
Hey smarty-pants… there’s a big difference between regret, especially after
stepping on your own dick… and an apology for threatening harm.
“I have pulled the entire blog due to the volume of emails I was receiving.
I just don’t have time for all that.”
And that, my friend… isn’t even close to an apology.
*
I suspect this educated young man is about to get some more education.
40-odd years ago, I was a young, catholic, neo-marxist at an Australian university. At that time, I’m sure that I more than once remarked to my friends that Bob Menzies (long-standing conservative PM) ought to be shot.
It took me a long time to understand that the wealth of nations derives from the hard work, ingenuity and entrepeneurial spirit of the private sector and that this has to be given relatively free rein in order to flourish.
Now, I am an old catholic member of the CPC.
Give the young feller a break. At most he is guilty of naivete and stupidity.
Also, he needs to get a real job (and a haircut?)
ET: Canadians are sick of young monsters getting a free pass to do say anything and do everything – including murder – safe in the knowledge that their age will get them off the hook.
Eric Harris (18) and Dylan Klebold (17) were ‘younger kids’ than this clown. I’ll bet the parents of the children they killed at Columbine High School wished someone had paid attention to the warning signs and website tipoffs.
I’m starting to think that they could find a weapons cache in this kid’s house, with maps to Sussex Dr….. and you’d still be making excuses for him.
From Wiki: “Early warning signs began to surface in 1996, when Eric Harris first created a private website on America Online. The original site was set up to host Doom levels that he and Klebold had created, mainly for friends. Harris also began a primitive blog on the site, which included jokes and small journal entries concerning his thoughts on parents, school, and friends. By the end of the year, the site contained instructions on how to cause mischief, as well as instructions on how to make explosives, and logs of the mischief he and Klebold were causing. Beginning in early 1997, the blog postings began to show the first signs of Harris’ ever-growing anger against society….”
As for other blogs, I simply won’t name them…
I however, will.
AND THEN THEY CAME FOR ALEXANDER SKREPNEK
http://myblahg.com/?p=1949
If you follow the links it will lead you here.
Carolyn Parrish should die
http://tinyurl.com/2gzgco
ET’s initial comment pretty much sums up my thoughts on Alexander Skrepnek and the lynchmob that’s after him.
I’m all in favour of tearing an elected official a new one if they say something stupid, but this behaviour of going after Canadians for things they write on a blog only because they can be connected to someone in power is highly disturbing.
In The Sleep Viking’s world, rick, Instapundit is far right, because he’s from Tennessee and owns a gun…
Of course last time I checked he’s also pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, pro immigration, pro choice… Yep a real right winger.
Robert, I haven’t read Instapundit in years (for why, see above). I can only know about posts. On. Blogs. I’ve. Read. That’s what the words “I haven’t read posts like that” means. ET and I read different blogs. Is that ok with you?
This is like your obsession with me being “a frequent guest on the CBC” when in fact I have been a guest on the CBC twice _in this century_.
You are, as usual, confused.
And a credit to your party, btw.
gwgm – I think you should only speak for yourself, rather than claiming that you are speaking for all Canadians, eg. “Canadians are sick of…”
He is not a ‘young monster’; he is not ‘saying AND doing everything’; I repeat my caution about the danger of assuming that words are equivalent to actions. They are not. I think this merger of words with actions is extremely dangerous to freedom of thought and speech.
I also suggest that you not make assumptions about what I would do IF a ‘weapons cache’ was found in his home. I keep repeating, that words and actions are not the same nor are they always linked.
Your analogy is invalid. Because two kids set up a blog with specific instructions and details on making explosives is not equivalent to someone saying ‘our PM should be shot’.
Again, my view is that this issue has been blown to hysteric extremes – much like Chicken Little.
I agree with jlc – give the kid a break. The sky is not falling.
Just wondering what the reaction would be if instead of PMSH he had referred to someone from the rop. Riots and carbeques?
I don’t think ET will thank me for this but nonetheless: Good for you, ET, for not just following the mob!
I’ve read stuff this bad all over the web, including on a lot of right-wing sites. It’s bad whoever says it – not just when people you disagree with say it and not just when they say it about your political hero.
aah… this little-baby redliberal personifies the INTOLERANCE of the brainwashed left in its full flower!
Credo of the Left:
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for my rights, for that is your way.”
”When I am stronger than you, I take away your rights, for that is my way.”
The Right generally regards the Left as simply misguided. The Left, however, assumes that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil….and more.
Kathy and exile(AV for sure!)
This alan guy DID threaten the life of a person.
PERIOD.
Let him bear the consequences.
“I think it’s an overblown reaction. Now, if he had been taking steps to carry out such an action, ie, purchasing a gun, purchasing explosives, etc, etc – that’s moving the words into action. But I cannot stress enough the danger of thinking that words are actions.”
I’m taking ET’s side on this. I’m not in favour of criminalizing speech.
(Cross-posted to Second Thots)
I believe Allen’s about to learn the difference between public and private personas/spaces, and the utterances that are appropriate to each.
Here’s a primer:
Your dorm room is private.
Having coffee or a beer with your buddies is private.
Interactions on a date are private.
Casual interactions with strangers on a street corner are private.
Dinner with your family is private.
YouTube is public.
MySpace is public.
Your blog is public.
E-mail (even though you think otherwise) is public.
Chatrooms are public.
Second Life is public.
Et cetera.
The second set of examples above can be generalized as follows:
If it’s on the ‘Net, it’s public, indexed, searchable, and (for all practical purposes) eternal.
If you don’t want it to be public, and especially if it’s likely to be misconstrued, don’t put it on the ‘Net.
Got it?
For the first time I must disagree with the brilliant ET. When I read this man’s post a chill went up my spine. I have never read something like this before actually stating that our Prime Minister is to be shot. I felt this man was deadly serious. Though the left and their supporters always seem to resort to advocating violence if they don’t get their way this is over the top.
This post to me seemed a real threat and I am not being hysterical or overreacting when I think the RCMP should take this seriously and investigate this individual to see if that threat does exist. At the very least there are limits to free speech and this man may have crossed it
It is a certainty that this little creep will be interviewed by the RCMP, it’s standard procedure. However, I don’t believe that what he posted would be sufficient to qualify as a criminal offence.
His impending visit from a couple of (in his terminology) “pigs with double-digit IQs” will undoubtedly cause his sphincter to tighten more than a little.
Well this is all very interesting kids, I must say. One side calling for the RCMP, the other side tut-tutting in the name of free speech, youthful exuberance and etc.
One question to both sides: If the Prime Minister being told to buy kevlar was a member of Canada’s Natural Ruling Party (TM), would Allen Varlaki have been allowed to call his lawyer yet?
If this is a real threat, or perceived by some as a threat, or threats of a plot etc. didn’t the liberals and ndp and bloc just vote down any action by the police to investigate or question this guy.
Maybe some of the old Red Foreman would do Allan good!
Gotta agree with ET on this one. The kid is nothing more than a spoiled brat and a visit from the double digit IQ’s may help him develop a new attitude. Too bad they can’t rough him up a little,though. Seemed to work wonders in the past.
The “kid” is over 21 and made a death threat.
PERIOD.
He WILL bear the consequences.
Here’s my take on this “kid”, at the least he needs some psychiatric help. At 22, granted you are still a work in progress, but, his level of vitriolic rage isn’t wholesome or age appropriate. OK, after more than a few drinks in a bar with friends in a heated political discussion, but, to sit down alone, with perfect grammar as he demands credit for in his comment, to compose an assassination rant, sorry, but this is a very angry person whose issues transcend politics.
I doubt that he is another Lee Harvey Oswald, but then again, Oswald was telegraphing his angry inadequate persona for years before he acted. Too bad there was never an intervention when he was 22. What’s the worst thing that can happen if the RCMP pay him a visit, not much, but, that may be that seminal point in his young life when he realizes with embarrassment as a motivator that he needs to address some issues.
Criminal? … I don’t know … I’m not a lawyer. But I do believe that when one crosses the line there should be consequences. Maybe his workmates, schoolmates, friends, family will tune him in … maybe not.
Well down here in the US what usually happens is that the citizen spouts off.
Then there’s a knock on the door, and there are a couple of very serious and grim-faced men from the Secret Service who detain the man making the threats.
The subject is cross-examined very pointedly and very seriously until the Secret Service is convinced that the subject is simply a blowhard exercising freedom of speech.
At this point the Secret Service, having reminded the subject that such public threats are taken very seriously, leave him to think about whether he wishes to provoke a second visit.
I think that Mr. Varlaki’s words in the case at hand are on the borderline. If they were just a little bit stronger, I’d say lower the boom. If they were just a little bit weaker, I’d say no harm no foul. As it stands, I can argue either for the prosecution or the defense, as many competently have above.
So I’m going to take the position at this point in this case that at a minimum Mr. Varlaki should get a visit from those responsible for the Prime Minister’s security, for two reasons. Firstly, he needs a smack up-side the head to help impress upon him that there are, indeed, some perfectly reasonable limits to free speech in any functioning civilization (even though I relentlessly argue in favour of keeping those limits as small as practically possible). Secondly, such a visitation will allow those who are more knowledgeable than I on these matters to perform a proper evaluation of Mr. Varlaki’s state of mind and its relationship to the degree to which he should be reprimanded for his misbehaviour.
Whether or not Mr. Varlaki’s behaviour rises to the standards of mens rea and actus rea in the matter at hand is, I think, beyond my ability to determine given the information we have and my limited knowledge of the precedents in this area. Nevertheless, I suspect Mr. Varlaki, and probably quite a few other blog-o-pundits, are now more aware or at least reminded of the matter of Canadian jurisprudence in cases like this, and of the nature of the functioning of this medium in our commons.
Remember this: you write it, you own it, guaranteed.
Greg:
That’s pretty much what will happen here, as well. And the RCMP members of the Protective Service tend to be less than cordial in situations like this.
Doesn’t removing the posts and his entire site show a guilty mind, Vitruvius? (From March 12, 2007 7:25 PM)
Did I ever tell you guys about the time that the US Secret Service came to visit? They did. Along with a rep from the RCMP. It was back when Billy Clinton was visiting Calgary for a speaking engagement. I was planning on protesting said engagement (http://no-libs.com/?p=449) and stated as much on my blog. It seems that the powers that be saw said post, did a little research and discovered a post where I called Clinton a Moonbat. They then discovered another post where I discussed “beating” MoonBats (in the metaphorical sense) and deduced that I could possibly be a security risk to Clinton… Luckily for me, I was able to show that the “beating” was done with words and had nothing to do with physical contact, lest I’d be sitting in a cell for the duration of Clinton’s visit. I did peacefully protest the former POTUS but there were sniper rifles focused on me while I did it (yes, I saw them).
I think our new (young) friend is in for much the same treatment…
And rightly so…
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle (above)
Does the Archdiocese of Toronto know about this?
In a post from Sept 2006, young master Allen writes:
“I can finally say that I’m all settled in here at Serra House.”
Serra House is where you live when you think you might have a vocation to the Catholic priesthood.
………..
My first impressions when I read the assassination statements saved on Second Thoughts, I pegged him as a very angry Dipper because I read similar sentiments (but not uttering overt death threats) on the babble/rabble.ca forum … and it came from those who I labeled as “neoDeviates” having hijacked the NDP for their one issue politic.
Now that I read he may have thoughts of entering the RC priesthood, my suspicions are reinforced … this guy may be a political neoDeviate and is lashing out at the biggest symbol in Canadian politics the neoDeviates on the rabble forum virulently attack – Stephen Harper and his family too.
The next federal election will be most bitter and violent as the Dion Liberals desperately attempt to claw back power, and the mentality displayed on the offending blog is symptomatic of the extremism that has invaded Canada and our politics …. “extremist elements” most certainly lurk in our very midst.
When one is already in a hole, continuing to dig is generally not helpful in getting out of that hole. His initial reaction, on his blog, in response to critical comments posted…an excerpt:
“Finally, Mr. Anonymous, I hope you have called the RCMP. I’ve always wanted to get on one of those lists they’ve been keeping; I think it’s cool. Anything to distinguish myself from the herd of unquestioning fatalistic animals this society has become. I would imagine that most people who have have managed to preserve the capacity for independent thought and uncensored articulation might find themselves up there with Osama Bin Laden and the like.
“Piss off pansies! This is the real world, and if you can’t stand the heat, stick your head in the oven and get it over with.
“Always a pleasure…
“On a side note. Might I make an important distinction should the pigs be reading this. I know it’s difficult to understand given your double-digit IQs and all, but saying someone should take a bullet is different from saying I will deliver such a bullet personally. I don’t really care for guns all that much, so I would never pick one up and shoot Mr. Harper myself. Does that mean I would be bereft if someone did? I’ll leave that up to you.”
Well the young man is assuredly now on one of those “lists” to which he referred…I doubt that he’ll find the real thing terribly “cool”.
Oh, and Allen, cancel those plans to spend spring break in Ft. Lauderdale…I don’t think you’ll make it across the border easily anymore…
Have you people ever read Free Dominion? There’s stuff this bad on there quite frequently. And I’ve seen some things in the comments here (and at the Western Standard) every bit as bad as this. No one seems to mind, though. Funny, that.
I object to this kind of thing no matter who it comes from, unlike most of the commenters here.
Yes, Andy, I have no doubt that Mr. Varlaki’s post hoc actions indicate something like a guilty mind. The question is, did he feel guilty of mens rea, or did he feel guilty of making a fool, focus, and/or laughing stock of himself in the publics mind?
There were I couple times in my youth that I did something stupid enough to warrant a visit from the local constabulary because of my big mouth (my apologies to all taxpayers). They were convinced, apparently, of my honesty and remorse, but they left no doubt in my mind that if I bothered them again on such a matter, they would make things, at least procedurally, much more difficult for me (Greg expressed this phenomenon well). In addition, in those cases, other people highlighted my errors, as the blog-o-sphere is now doing with Mr. Varlaki.
So as I said: at least until further developments, I think that the way things are probably being handled, both officially and in the blog-o-sphere, is just fine with me. I don’t see a major unaddressed problem presented by this particular case.
(PS to Exile: In my opinion you are being disingenuous. It is not the case that most of the commenters here don’t object to this kind of thing no matter who it comes from. Most conservatives and libertarians don’t think you should be able to utter threats without facing situationally appropriate consequences.)
“It is not the case that most of the commenters here don’t object to this kind of thing no matter who it comes from. Most conservatives and libertarians don’t think you should be able to utter threats without facing situationally appropriate consequences.”
Then they need to say so when conservatives utter threats. It would be nice to think that this was true. I have read far too much about what “should happen” to people the writer disagrees with.
But if you suspect that I am being dishonest, there is really no point in trying to talk.
Leaving aside the detail that disingenuous is not the same as dishonest, it may be the case that you have read far too much Exile, but that is not equivalent to your argument about most commenters. The fatal error in your attempted argument is that you said most commenters. If you had said some commenters, you might have had a living argument. Alas, it’s a bit late for that now, your argument has ceased to be.
exile: Why are you bring in Free Dominion, Western Standard and “…. conservatives (who) utter threats”, when we have a very specific example of somebody thought to be a disgruntled Liberal supporter uttering incitement to kill our prime minister?
Are you trying to justify this person’s despicable actions because you claim you read similar threats by ‘conservatives’?
What are you motives bringing into this discussion what you claim are equally despicable acts by ‘conservatives’?
Are you defending tit-for-tat hatred?
Considering what Bruce did for a living in the last life, my money’s on Bruce…[winking icon]. Make sure you’ve got clean underwear, Allen. Double-digits are humourless.
ET, with respect…
What’s the difference between this and a guy standing on a street corner holding a placard with a picture of a flak jacket and a slogan underneath stating “Someone, someday, for the good of the country, has to put a bullet in the Prime Ministers head!” Would you tell offended passersby “Move on, no story here.” Would you wait till the police came by to tell them “Leave him alone, they’re only words.”
U. of T. student = high scholastic achievement, no? Prestige school, right? Probably regards himself as one of the elite.
Someone should explain to the little sucker the difference between “adverse” and “averse”.
So he’s developed an ‘adversity’ to reading newspapers, has he? He means ‘an aversion to’, but he doesn’t know that’s what he means. That about sums it up … pseudo-intellectual little twerp with delusions.
If the RCMP do nothing to prosecute the person who published these overt death wish/threats against our prime minister, that will open the door for even more outrageous acts of terror against Harper and his family.
An example should be made of this nutbar to serve as a warning to others who think they can just express their political feeling in such a callous manner.
Those that argue this is just an innocent prank by some 22 year old college student should just remember Dawson College and Ecole Polytechnique massacres. This guy if filled with anger and is dangerous to Canadian society.
“ET, with respect…
What’s the difference between this and a guy standing on a street corner holding a placard with a picture of a flak jacket and a slogan underneath stating “Someone, someday, for the good of the country, has to put a bullet in the Prime Ministers head!” Would you tell offended passersby “Move on, no story here.” Would you wait till the police came by to tell them “Leave him alone, they’re only words.””
No, of course not! But if there was another guy across the street with a picture of a flak jacket and a slogan underneath saying “Someone, someday, for the good of the country, has to put a bullet in Jack Layton’s head”, and the people around me were all talking about the first guy and not the second, calling the police on the first guy and not the second, I’d be making the same arguments I am here. Likewise, if the people around me were all talking about the second guy and not the first, calling the police on the second guy and not the first, I’d be making arguments parallel to those I am making here.
BOTH need to be called to account. (And I do not support the ndp. I just picked Layton as an example.)
I decided to reply to you since you make a rational argument and do not rely on childish insults.
Personally, I think we’re being too hard on the kid. He sounds fairly immature and spoiled, probably not going to make it through to ordination.
Aren’t the Khadrs still in Canada collecting welfare? Didn’t that loudmouth Coderre march in support of Hezb’allah? Didn’t the Canadian-born muzzies from TO who were going to behead PMSH get minimum bail & release from jail? Hell, with all that going on, it’s kinda hard for some spoiled momma’s boy NOT to join the bleating liberal circus online and type out his puerile whims for ego reinforcement. That’s all this is: a cry for attention by a kid who doesn’t have the tools but wants to seem relevant & important.
exile,
Nobody said that Layton should be shot … no flack jacket across the street.
Vitruvius, “disingenuous” is not equivalent to “dishonest” but it implies dishonesty.
Mr. Allen Varlaki seems to be suffering from Sudanese Shrinking Mimesis Syndrome.
(Tip of the hat to Mark Steyn)
ural: “exile, Nobody said that Layton should be shot … no flack jacket across the street.”
That’s not the point. The point is that there are similarly threatening remarks on conservative blogs and no conservative seems to object to those.
And no I do not think that justifies this guy’s behaviour. My point is that if his behaviour is bad (and it is) then the same kind of behaviour is bad when engaged in by conservatives.
No, Exile, disingenuous does not imply dishonesty, as you claim. While the latter is one of the possible implications of the former, there are other possible implications, such as “unaware or uninformed, naive”, which you would have noted if you had the foresight to consult a dictionary or answers.com before you exposed your misunderstanding of the relevent denotations; therefore, it is not the case that any such implication as you claim is a priori necessary. If you want to play this game, son, you would be better off to study the rules first.