Justin Trudeau responds to #Hairgate censorship of Margaret Atwood

I think the comment at the end about Elizabeth May (which was hilarious and fit perfectly) raised a few editorial eyebrows which led to the article being offline for a few hours.

the left was censored once and they make a stink about it

CBC blocks almost every anti-Trudeau/Mulcair or pro-Harper post and has zero articles that make Harper look good or Trudeau/ Mulcair look bad.

Plus they take $800,000,000 from us annually to pay for their propaganda... Then to add insult to injury to Canadians, they have Mulcair and Trudeau in a bidding war to see who will give them more taxmoney. Both of them have promised CBC now over a billion annually. The Liberals even created a website to "fight" the Conservative tax cuts but not until CBC gave them their approval. Disgusting anti-democratic bunch

(obviously in return for such blatantly obvious biased new reporting)

Oh boo hoo hoo. Save some kleenex for October 19, guystone.

What do you think about public Waterworks? Why should I have to pay for someone else's water? Why not just let Nestle do it all, and everyone who can't afford it can dehydrate to death in short order?

Guystone, it's not all about your precious tax rate. With such whining on your part, i'll guess you're a homeowner. Nice TAX-FREE capital gain!

I enjoyed Atwood's article immensely. It was hilarious. Anyone who has seen the silly conservative attack ad where an actor pretending to be a thoughtful Canadian voter comments, "Nice hair though", as though the public so small minded as to be making a decision based on that one issue, would have felt insulted. Atwood's piece skewered the illusion of cleverness from the conservative boys in short pants. That is why it was deleted.

While I appreciate that Justin's hair shouldn't be an election issue, neither should Harper's. All this juvenile nonsense about hair is why we need to have a civil, cordial conversation for a change about what matters to Canadians. I would welcome Elizabeth May and her Greens to change the channel in this respect. From what I have seen over the last ten years, the Green party policy book has talked about centric, sensible, market based policies, and not a word about hair. I hope we elect more of them this fall. I know I will do my part.

For the record, Harper needs to be defeated in October. The man is a threat to Canadian democracy itself.

That being said, if the National Pest had let Margaret Atwood's article stand, with its comment about Elizabeth May's breasts (not the word Ms Atwood used), we'd be lambasting the editors for letting the article stand unchanged and calling them sexist, misogynist and whatnot.

The rest of Ms Atwood's article was spot on. However, the National Pest, whatever I may think of its editorial board and their political ideas, is a private organization. As such, anything that gets posted on their website (or published in their paper) is up to them - they have the right to post or not post anything they wish - and if they refuse to post something, then it's not censorship.

Censorship is what you get when the government, either through legislation or some other means, limits what citizens can say. The National Pest did not say that Ms Atwood could not say what she said anywhere. They just didn't want her comments about Elizabeth Mays breasts on their website.

Let's remember that we can't have our cake and eat it too.

Oh, and I noticed that Justin Trudeau's reply to hairgate has a "Justin has picked his priorities" and arrows start popping up pointing at people in the audience. And the first few that get pointed at are all men who are...shall we say...follicly challenged?

Heh.