07.23.2012 07:38 AM

Nurie responds

Nothing from JamesHalifax yet.

Dear Mr. Kinella,
Thank you for this timely message. Firstly, please allow me to apologize for causing you any sort of grief
or aggravation, as a result of my childish, immature and silly comments. Secondly, I have decided that
this will be my last post on your web site, as while I would fully conform to your rules if I were to continue
to post, I feel very bad for upsetting you. Thirdly, you are quite correct that I have posted “race based crap”
and for that I am truly sorry for that. I can assure you that I do not hate individual or group on the basis of
their racial, ethnic, cultural, national, linguistic and/or religious background. While my comments were indeed
very silly and clearly wrong, I was only doing them in an effort to ‘smoke out” the racists, who post to your
forum on a regular basis, and to that end, I do believe I was vindicated. I was deeply distressed by the
cravenly indifferent, crypto-racist, and highly euro-centric comments, which quite often made direct attacks
upon Afro-Canadians, with regard to the issue of gun control. So I thought I would “give them a taste of their
own medicine”, as it were. However, it was very wrong of me to use your forum for personal reasons
like that. I would like to wish you the very best of good luck and success with all of your projects in the future.
I do hope you can forgive me for causing problems on your web site. If I may suggest, perhaps it would be
prudent for you to remove any and all comments I have made in the recent past on your web site, as they
may be offend and upset potentially new readers who visit your web site.

Nurie Jahangeer


  1. Michael Behiels says:

    Thanks Warren for taking action against anonymous commentators who use blogs like yours to vent their spleen against everyone and everybody that they hate.

    I agree with you that every person making a comment online should reveal their real name so that they can be made accountable to their respective communities.

    I am confident that if everyone was forced to reveal their identity, most of the libelous and slanderous comments would stop. These ‘haters’ would be forced to vent their anger in other ways or stay silent.

    I encourage you to implement such a policy. Create a level playing field. Those of us who reveal our names are open to scrutiny. Those cowards who don’t reveal their names should go elsewhere to peddle their hate.

    • dave says:

      I agree with your point that giving our real names would tend to bring with it a personal responsibility for our remarks that anonymity might water down.

      However, I sometimes wonder whether the degree of anonymity in ‘creating’ a name can allow readers and commentators to focus more on the points and ideas presented, rather than on the person making those comments.

      • Michael Behiels says:

        There is absolutely no reason for anonymity when someone is making a public statement.

        If a journalist operated via anonymity they would be run out of town.

        If a politician put a paper bag over his/her head and made nasty remarks about their political opponents they would be deemed certifiable.

        All cowards should stop exploiting the internet for personal gratification without taking any responsibility for their nasty rants.

        The only way to root out the rot is to many identification and full disclosure necessary.

        • dave says:

          The postings here are, as you say, public, and, quite often, statements.

          Sometimes, though, I have seen discussions which explore and enlarge various ideas, to the benefit of all of us reading those discussions. Suppose a very public figure were to come into such a discussion. Would s/he be restricted by office or party affiliation isn what /she could say?
          If a very public figure can come in here with anonymity, would s/he not be more able to explore, try out, and express ideas that s/he otherwise would not be able to in a quasi public arena such as this?

        • VC says:

          Is the rot the agent or the idea, professor?

  2. Jason King says:

    Interesting. It’s good to see someone own up to their actions in a time when we often get apologies for people taking offense rather that for the actual deed. Saying that, the only racist that was “smoked out” and given a “taste of their own medicine” turned out to be Nurie in the end. She’s right when she states she’s vindicated in that regard.

    Strange days we live in. BTW I wouldnt be holding off paying any bills until you hear from JamesHalifax.

  3. Mr. Murdoch esq says:

    Keep his comments and send to CSIS and Homeland Security. His behaviour and comments on your Musings, speak for themselves. If I were you I would save them.

  4. Cath says:

    To be very honest Warren, what dust-ups like this do is turn people off your website discussion forum which I like because it’s usually intelligent debate from all sides with little babysitting by you, but totally consistent when you need to be.

    I totally stopped reading the 300+ comments on the thread post in question when they began to disgust me. You made the right call.

  5. Mulletaur says:

    JamesHalfax will never apologise, that would be like Stephen Harper himself apologising.

  6. Michael Bussiere says:

    There is no such thing as a funny or ironic racist comment, and no such thing as a racist joke. Any comment or conversation that is prefaced with the words “I’m not racist, but….” is invariably racist, no matter how innocent or naive it may be in the heart of the person.

    I am of mixed race, and the friendly jabs by friends of (forgive this, I’m not sure what the designation is) the majority are meant to be loving jibs, but invariably feel peculiar and express a dividing line.

  7. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    Just to quickly clarify, I apologized to Warren, because I truly feel bad for having upset him and caused
    him problems on his web site. I greatly respect and admire Warren, and to think that my comments have
    caused him grief, really bothers me, and I believe the best thing to do now is for me to make no further
    postings on his web site. I also feel bad for upsetting anyone who took offense to any of my comments.
    With that being said, I remain adament that I never said anything “racist”, as it were. Yes, I did make
    several “race-based” remarks which were very silly and immature on my part, and yes, but they were
    not “racist”. In fact, apart from the silly insults I made to a few people, my overall commentary on this
    web site is in keeping with what is taught as most Canadian Universities these days, especially the
    Liberal Arts programmes, where “Whiteness” and “White Privledge” as discussed and explored in depth.
    Nevertheless, my comments, even if they were misunderstood, have caused problems and arguments
    on Warren’s web site, and are distracting from the important work that he does on a daily basis.

    Just to explore my position a bit more, very quickly, while it is true that visible minorities and Aboriginals
    can make “bigoted” remarks against White people as well as to other visible minorities and Aboriginals,
    it is pretty much universally agreed by the vast majority of academics, journalists, corporate diversity
    trainers, and anti-racist educators that visible minorities and Aboriginals do not have the power to be
    “racist” in Canada or any other White majority nation-state. Therefore, it is pretty much universally
    agreed that so-called “reverse racism” or “anti-White racism” does not exist, and furthermore, it is
    impossible for it to exist.

    In any discussion of racism and it’s alleged “Reverse Racism,” it’s crucial to start with the definitions of
    prejudice and discrimination, to lay the foundation for understanding racism in context. There’s a reason
    these three terms exist, and a very good reason not to conflate them, as I’ll demonstrate below.

    Prejudice is an irrational feeling of dislike for a person or group of persons, usually based on stereotype.
    Virtually everyone feels some sort of prejudice, whether it’s for an ethnic group, or for a religious group,
    or for a type of person like blondes or fat people or tall people. The important thing is they just don’t like
    them — in short, prejudice is a feeling, a belief. You can be prejudiced, but still be a fair person if you’re
    careful not to act on your irrational dislike.

    Discrimination takes place the moment a person acts on prejudice. This describes those moments when
    one individual decides not to give another individual a job because of, say, their race or their religious orientation.
    Or even because of their looks (there’s a lot of hiring discrimination against “unattractive” women, for example).
    You can discriminate, individually, against any person or group, if you’re in a position of power over the person
    you want to discriminate against. White people can discriminate against black people, and black people can
    discriminate against white people if, for example, one is the interviewer and the other is the person being

    Racism, however, describes patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized as “normal” throughout an
    entire culture. It’s based on an ideological belief that one “race” is somehow better than another “race”.
    It’s not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that
    actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate.

    Now to “Reverse Racism.” It’s crucial to maintain the distinction between the above three terms, because
    otherwise white people tend to redefine “Discrimination” as “Racism”. Their main argument is that because
    both blacks and white can discriminate against each other, that “Reverse Racism” is possible. But the truth
    of the matter is that black people: 1) have far less opportunity to discriminate against whites than whites have
    to discriminate against blacks, overall; and 2) black people lack a system of institutionalized support that protect
    them when they discriminate against whites.

    It took black and white people working together for one hundred years to get programs like Affirmative Action
    installed in the U.S., but it took one white man (Alan Bakke) only a single Supreme Court case to get those programs dismantled because he felt he didn’t gain entry into medical school based on his white race.

    “Reverse Racism” would only describe a society in which all the rules and roles were turned upside down.
    That has not happened in the U.S., however much white right wing ideologues want to complain that they’re
    being victimized by the few points of equality that minorities and women have managed to claim.
    White people who complain about “Reverse Racism” are actually complaining about being denied their privileges,
    rather than being denied their rights. They feel entitled to be hired and not to be discriminated against, even
    though the norm is white people discriminating against blacks. If, in a rare instance, a black employer discriminates
    against a white job applicant, that’s not “reverse” anything — it’s simple discrimination. It’s to be condemned on
    principle, but it’s not evidence of some systematic program by which whites are being deprived of their rights.

    The right wing popularized the term “Reverse Racism” because they were really angry at having their
    white privileges challenged. Anyone who uses that phrase, whether they are right wing or not, furthers
    the right wing’s cause. This is what I tell Liberals, NDP, and progressives who I hear using the term —
    not only are they being inaccurate, but they’re helping out their opponents.

    The above arguments can be applied to any institutionalized structure of oppression, affecting any race,
    ethnic or religious group, and can be used to to oppose claims of “Reverse Sexism” too.

    So in sum, yes, I did make some “race-based” comments on Warren’s web site, which were both silly and immature,
    but I have NEVER threatened anyone on this web site and I have NEVER made any “racist” comments on this web site.
    In fact, I make it a daily mission to fight racism, sexism, mysogony, homophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
    whereever I encounter it.

    So in sum, yes, I did make some “race-based” comments on Warren’s web site, which were both silly and immature,
    but I have NEVER threatened anyone on this web site and I have NEVER made any “racist” comments on this web site.
    In fact, I make it a daily mission to fight racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
    whereever I encounter it.

    If I said anything which may be considered as being “anti-White”, then I am truly sorry to anyone it offended. It was
    not my intention to offend or upset anyone, only to graphically show the real racists on this forum what is is like to
    be on the recieving end of such comments, a fact, that millions of visible minority, aboriginals and recent immigrant Canadians must bear on a daily basis on this country, in both its subtle and overt forms.

    I hope that clarifies things a bit.

    I wish everyone here an enjoyable rest of the summer.

    Peace and Love.

    Nurie Jahangeer

    • KP says:

      I say this as a caring person. Nurie: get help.

    • The Doctor says:

      Nurie, go look up the word “sophistry”. You might learn something.

      As for your “there is no such thing as reverse racism” argument, Nazis made essentially the same argument about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s, i.e., that the Jews were a privileged and oppressive class, therefore it was ok to say all kinds of nasty things about them. It’s the ultimate slippery slope. The fact that there are a bunch of academics spouting this kind of crap in universities is neither surprising nor any kind of defence or justification. There’s all kinds of idiocy that we allow in universities in the name of academic freedom; the fact that we allow it doesn’t mean it’s not idiotic.

      • Jason King says:

        Please bcpl,

        Nurie has already used that opinion piece to back up her argument. The problem with it is, it’s an opinion piece. The writer doesnt submit more than conjection and does not pass the smell test.

        Her argument is moot to suggest that a person cannot be racist purely because of their melanin levels. Just as Nurie tries to mask her racism by saying it was some kind of “experiment” or “joke”. It’s racist regardless bcpl, the identity of the speaker is pointless.

        • bcpl says:

          Sorry, I wasn’t being clear.

          I was not commenting on the content itself. Rather, I was intending to show that short of the first and last paragraphs it is, word for word, someone else’s work.

  8. W the K - No, not Warren says:

    Nurie: Among other things, embrace the value of brevity.

    • The Doctor says:

      I love the fact that Nurie begins that post above with the words “Just to quickly clarify”. That’s why I sometimes wonder if Nurie is for real or some fictional creation of a brilliant satirist.

  9. Reality.Bites says:

    If this was a quick clarification I shudder to imagine what the long version would have been!

  10. fred says:

    Nurie, I am not offended by your comments because my skin is pink, except when I eat a lot of carrots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *