In Support of George Kells

George Kells is Chair of the Human Rights Commission of Prince Edward Island. He’s been raked over the coals of late for speaking his mind in a Guardian opinion piece about the War Against Iraq.

There is no doubting the Mr. Kells is a strong-willed man who sees the war through a particularly aggressive black-and-white set of glasses. A quote from the CBC story about the issue:

He [Kells] says in issues such as a military conflicts you have to pick one side, and his “Friends of Saddam” comment was not out of line.”Some of them must be. Surely it boils down to you’re a friend of George Bush or a friend of Saddam’s. That’s the only two sides you could be on, isn’t it?”

Surely it’s not unusual for a man who spent 37 years in the military to see the world of war as a binary system; there’s little room for shades of grey on the battlefield, and this is the culture from which he comes.

The question at hand — at least the one raised by Leo Broderick of the Council of Canadians — is whether Kells’ comments should disqualify him from serving on the Human Rights Commission. Again from the CBC:

Some of the people who were at the meeting want Kells to leave the Human Rights Commission. A group called the Council of Canadians says Kells should have chosen other words to describe the crowd.

Kells, obviously, thinks not:

“I have no intention of resigning. I think if I were to resign I would be giving in to the people who are trying to squash freedom of speech, so I have no intention of doing that.”

And I support him in this regard.

The Human Rights Commission doesn’t exist to ensure that everybody thinks happy thoughts, it exists specifically to prevent “the unequal, stereotypical and prejudicial treatment of persons.”

The arenas within, and grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited are very clearly laid out by <a href=”the Commission.

And they don’t include “calling people names.”

If George Kells, private citizen, calls a group of people “The Friends of Saddam”, “America Haters,” and “Peace-at-any-Price Appeasers,” he is simply exercising his right to free speech. He’s not discriminating against anyone. Indeed he’s not suggesting that those who hold other opinions should have less right to speak than he does.

If Mr. Kells made his comments in an official capacity, and suggested they reflected the policy of the Commission, or if he suggested that those against the war, say, weren’t worthy of employment, housing, or a right to be heard, well that would be one thing. But he didn’t.

Free speech is hard. Sometimes it’s uncomfortable. Sometimes it means people are going to call you things you would rather they didn’t. But it’s way, way better than the alternatives.

Go George. Go Leo. Onwards and upwards into the court of ideas.


Rob's picture
Rob on March 19, 2003 - 04:01 Permalink

Watching Leo cry about this on TV tonight, I had to look away in shame. Click.

Rob Paterson's picture
Rob Paterson on March 19, 2003 - 12:04 Permalink

Who made Leo the Jello Sherriff anyway. I was at the meeting with the Minister. It was sad. A long line up of the usual saying the predictable.

Outside there were maybe 15 -20 with placards singing Give Peace a chance. The CBC gave them 3 minitues on Compass. The CBC then picked up both Leo and Keith inside giving them 2 minutes each. So Leo got 7 minutes on a 30 minute show. Even Blair Ross was there in camaflage!

Leo can dish it out but can’t take himself. So if you critize him or you say something that does not fit his views and you hold public office — you have to resign! Really

For me the issue is balance. Leo is well organized and hence gets far more coverage than is fair. I can hardly think of a public meeting where, as an organizer, you might be concerened that he will take over. The local media can’t seem to help themselves and pander to his need for coverage.

If the Guardian and the CBC used a bit more care I would be happier. They could have said that there were 300 people at the meeting and there were 15 protesters. They could have said that the protesders dominated the proceedings — that is what happened. But they did the opposite — they showed the protesters as if they were a large force and backed it up with a focus on them speaking. So the meta message is that the Island is right behind our leader Leo Broderick!

Homer Bombeck's picture
Homer Bombeck on March 19, 2003 - 13:10 Permalink

Does Leo still teach? If yes, perhaps he should resign from his public-funded position as he is obviously incapable of imbuing his students with a balanced world view and is in fact skewing their ideology radically to the left before they are capable of making an informed choice for themselves. Does that sound crazy?

Kevin's picture
Kevin on March 19, 2003 - 13:45 Permalink

Why do people Leo bash? Can the ~way~ something is said be so important? Do people who (as above) ‘turn him off’ really disagree with all he says? If so, I wouldn’t want to live their lives… Leo is mostly coming from the right place; it’s only over-exposure that I see as an issue.


Peter, interesting point. You’ve thought that out and really make some excellent, and very logical, points. May I offer you what I had been thinking before I read you? This was a note I jotted at breakfast yesterday so that I wouldn’t forget to keep thinking about this one; it is purely academic and does not necessarily reflect my personal opinion… and if I was thinking strongly this way I would strengthen it. So, with that forward, here it:

When I listen to George Kells I hear sincerity in his voice and purpose in his thought. I hear the kind of person anyone would be proud to be related to or be friends with because, over all, he sounds like a person of manners and dignity.

That’s perhaps why it’s very very hard for George and those who rightly admire him to understand why sometimes the word “fossil” pops up when those who advocate for social change disagree with him. George is a product of his generation, his service to his country, and his commitment to his community and family

Mitch's picture
Mitch on March 19, 2003 - 13:58 Permalink

Don’t hastily belittle the point of view just because LeoB happens to be a proponent…that is the subject of other long past threads here.

The issue here isn’t, IMHO, free speech, but discretion. Kells showed an alarming lack of discretion by espousing his point of view publicly with the use of demeaning labels to belittle his opponents. You can oppose war in Iraq without being a “friend of Saddam” etc., just as you can support military action without being a “cowboy imperialist” or whatever.

Indeed, it is the very use of such demeaning labels to describe persons one doesn’t like or agree with that is a hallmark of the very discrimination our Human Rights Commission is designed to protect us against.

I do not suggest for a moment that Kells cannot have or express his opinions. But before he goes out and argues them publicly, employing epithets to “support” his cause, he should step aside from his position with the HRC, which demands, in order to have the confidence of the ENTIRE public it protects, both real and apparent neutrality, sensitivity and discretion.

Similarly, our Judges have their personal opinions, but as well understand the requirement of exercising discretion in the public expression of same lest the public lose confidence in their ability to judge a case on its merits alone. Kells’ publicly espoused “black and white” approach to the complex issue of war in Iraq, and the employment of negative labels to diminish those who have a different view, leaves me with a serious concern about his ability to judge matters that may come before him on their merits alone.

Campbell Webster's picture
Campbell Webster on March 19, 2003 - 14:01 Permalink


The point here is not whether Mr. Kells has the legal right to free speech. Ofcourse he does. No rights are without some limitations, though. And these sections of the human rights legislation may indicate that Mr. Kells has indeed violated the law. From the Human Rights Act:

12. (1) No person shall publish, display or broadcast… representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons.”


13. No person shall discriminate against an individual or the class of individuals in any manner prescribed by this Act because of…political belief of any person with whom the individual or class of individuals associates.”

And even if Mr. Kells has not violated the law, he has undoubtedly made PREJUDICIAL statements about groups of people in a public forum. This is wholly inappropriate for a person in his job, and he should be removed. Prejudice quite simply means to prejudge. He has called a group of people Friends of Sadam and America Haters etc. and that is prejudice.

Homer Bombeck's picture
Homer Bombeck on March 19, 2003 - 14:29 Permalink

In the literal sense of the word ‘discriminate’, Kells is guilty, but he did not violate the intent of the law quoted above, the purpose of which is to prevent the denial of rights based on said discrimination. I find this whole debate a waste of time. It’s a silly excercise in the minutiae of polical correctness.

Alan's picture
Alan on March 19, 2003 - 14:58 Permalink

I fortunately have missed the Leo v. Kells aspect which, it sounds like, is a sideshow to the real issue that the head of the HRC showed himself to be amazingly unsubtle in his thoughts. It does not matter that he is an ex-military and therefore thinks in black and white. It does matter that he has indicated that he is possible removed from thoughtful understanding of a difficult problem. Under his formula, the Government of Canada loves Saddam. As his position requires careful and complex thinking, is he the man for the job?

Rusty's picture
Rusty on March 19, 2003 - 15:48 Permalink

I agree with Peter. George Kells gave his opinion, nothing more or less, which he is as entitled to do as anyone. The fact that he used colorful language to describe his opinion is not an incitement toward hatred and is hardly grounds to call for his resignation from his duties. Shame on the Binns government for even considering his removal. Campbell Webster’s post is wrong, I think. The Human Rights Act applies only to certain groups and has a fairly limited definition of “discrimination”. By this logic, I think Kevin’s remark that George K. is a “fossil” would qualify. But that remark also begs the question: Is it okay for someone to call George a fossil but not okay for George K. to call Leo B. a “friend of Saddam”? (Gosh, this is starting to sound like the smoking doors at High School!) We must preserve everyone’s right to express themselves even if we disagree. I disagree with most of what Leo B. says but, in spite of the many inaccuracies about politics and his level of anti-American rhetoric, I have never claimed to be offended on anyone’s behalf or felt discriminated against because of it. Leo B. is no longer a publicly-funded educator, having retired, but surely the question he poses would have been relevant when he was teaching.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 19, 2003 - 15:53 Permalink

I am reluctant to rush to Kells defense simply based on my dislike for Leo’s tactics and overacting while pushing his agenda(s).

Seems like a battle between the rights to free speech vs. impartiality (required or assumed) that comes with certain responsibilities. I see Kells as having verbalizing what most of us think, but are reluctant to express. And, he is someone who has a credible opinion, which must really irk Leo. Kells, as a Canadian citizen, has the right to discriminate, but not to illegally discriminate. Is accusing someone of supporting a cause illegal discrimination? Did he deny anybody their rights by associating them with a cause? If these issues serve to stifle us, will they stifle self-interest groups like Leo’s? Have I just discriminated illegally? If Kells was dismissed, could he sue for wrongful dismissal? Sounds like an issue for the lawyers, but this serves to educate people like me who feel they may not really understand illegal disceimination. Does everybody need an ethics councillor these days? Should I be concerned about my right to choose who I play golf with, and how I choose, especially now spring is here?

How did Kevin do last night…was he impartial? I am confident he was. My question would have been to our PM, asking him if he is a moron…

Peter Rukavina's picture
Peter Rukavina on March 19, 2003 - 16:15 Permalink

I would far rather know what the Chair of my Human Rights Commission thinks than to have him gagged behind the veil of discretion. Everybody has opinions. Everybody has the right to express them. To suggest that Mr. Kells can’t have opinions and still fairly and justly adjudicate his responsibilites on an administrative tribunal is to belittle his intelligence and experience (which is an insult to Mr. Kells in itself, which potentially leads to a very confusing censorship loop). Let’s recognize that we’re never all going to think the same thoughts, and that this is too small a place to start filtering speech through a tact and correctness filter. I say all this not out of any great love for Mr. Kells and his opinions, but simply out of the selfish desire to not be subjected to the same litmus tests the next time I speak my mind in public. Ideas are best debated when they are in plain view.

Alan's picture
Alan on March 19, 2003 - 16:41 Permalink

I think we are not far apart, Peter -please disagree if not —  but I would say it in this way. If the private person speaks out, the public is right to judge the person accordingly based on the quality of the statements. If the person holds public office, so much more the interest in the public critically assessing the quality of the person who has control of an important part of public life. We do not simply respect the presence of ideas which — as you rightly say — should be placed in public. We have to weigh them and engage with them. I do not know the relative intellegence of any person other than thought their statements and other actions. I am reluctant to value any person — for good or bad — based on a history of appointments. What is most important is an engaged, ripe and open debate and if public officials enter into them they should be expected to be treated as a citizen and have the quality of the statement considered in the context of their position. This is no different than if a private contractor shared his ideas on their use of technology that, on review, were indicating a somewhat suspect grasp of his trade. Otherwise, we are assuming two tiers of citizenry.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 19, 2003 - 16:59 Permalink

It seems to me our society places to much significance in the protection of insight and free speech of the basketball players, Dixie Chicks and actors who live in the world of fantasy, while seeking to stifle the words of those in public office and others who have acquired levels of expertise, or who may have achieved a level of accountability.

Andrew Chisholm's picture
Andrew Chisholm on March 19, 2003 - 22:58 Permalink

I agree, Peter. He is a human, he is a Canadian, he has access to free speech the same as me, you and all Canadians. Leo just likes to see his name in every media source that will print his B.S propaganda.

Another Leo's picture
Another Leo on March 19, 2003 - 23:28 Permalink

I was a member of the community who was invited to attend a consultation with the policy outlines on Foreign Policy
on February 11. I attended the debate held with Minister Graham and that was done on the basis of the three pillars of discussion laid out by the Foreign Affairs consultation-there were many speakers on many issues who submitted their questions and made comments through the Chair, Roger Younker.George Kells did not attend but expressed his views what occurred there based on hearsay and not on any direct evidence whatsoever. Does he make judgements far too often on his own biases rather than on the evidence before him? We all have various biases on various issues but I believe that everyone is entitled to respect and dignity if they are expressing their views in public forums and if you are a Commissioner of Human Rights for a Province, this is imperative. The expression he uses to describe those he disagrees with in this instance bear repeating: “Friends of Saddam, America haters and the peace-at-any-price appeasers”. These are extreme words, in fact words that are hateful and are not reasonable in any sense of the word. He is attacking a group of people whom he disagrees with yet tries to maintain that is what is happening to him. I believe that many of those seeking to support the United Nations and multilateralism and who believe strongly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis of our human rights legislation are disturbed when the Chairperson of the provincial human rights commission totally denigrates and repudiates the role of the United Nations as he did on radio yesterday morning. The issue is not Leo vs. George but whether someone in George’s capacity who is entrusted to uphold human rights law in this Province has the credibility to conduct himself in a manner so that those appearing before the Commission feel they can have a fair and impartial hearing. I believe he fails that test. One of the members of the Social Affairs Committee which may look at this issue is Pat Mella. I believe Mr. Kells was her former campaign manager. I would like to ensure that any future human rights commissioners are individuals who have a strong knowledge and background in suporting the advancement of human rights — I believe all Islanders who entrust themselves to the Commission deserve nothing less.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 19, 2003 - 23:47 Permalink

I believe that everyone is entitled to respect and dignity if they are expressing their views in public forums…”

Sheesh, Another Leo…I haven’t seen anyone yet that has been comfortably express a differing view in Leo’s presence, especially with an audience. If you really believe that, get rid of megaphone man.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 19, 2003 - 23:48 Permalink

that’s “comfortably able to express”

Peter Rukavina's picture
Peter Rukavina on March 20, 2003 - 00:14 Permalink

Here’s the problem, as I see it: if we decide that people who make insensitive comments, or comments to which some take offense, are going to be disqualified from holding public office, then we’re going to need a mechanism for evaluating speech. I can’t possibly conceive of how that would work, and I certainly wouldn’t want to be subjected to its wrath.

Rob Paterson's picture
Rob Paterson on March 20, 2003 - 13:35 Permalink

I write this after hearing the news on CBC radio this morning — again a 2 minute piece on Leo versus Kells.

My point is not Leo (he too is entitled to have his views) — it is why the CBC and the Guardian give Leo such a platform and hence power.

Alan's picture
Alan on March 20, 2003 - 14:40 Permalink

Bingo. It is the lack of broad opinion gathering that often irritates me the most about news in PEI. I understand the CBC uses the term the “CBC 100” for the persons repeatedly heard from. It is, however, the fault of the person holding the microphone or pen and paper if not enough variety is provided.

Peter, we must be able to evaluate and judge anyone on the basis of what they say and consider whether they are right for the job. That is how we weed out the lesser skilled, whether it is a plumber or a public official. That may be rough and requires the population to play its role in the marketplace of ideas but otherwise we are “receiving from above”.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 20, 2003 - 15:49 Permalink

Alan’s second paragraph above certainly looks to me like having outlined a form of discrimination (

Alan's picture
Alan on March 20, 2003 - 16:13 Permalink

Wayne is right that it is a description of discrimination but I think it is — in the sense of the legal test for discrimination — only a first step in whether a wrong has occurred. You also have to consider whether someone has suffered a loss of some kind as a result of discrimination and whether that someone is even a proper someone to be protected by such laws. We don’t, for example, protect corporations against discrimination.

I think there is a distinction in the discrimination inherent in the debate of ideas and the discrimination against folks who are not fit for a position as exposed by words or actions. I am not saying that Mr. Kells is or is not fit (or Mr. L.B. one or the other for that matter). I am saying that there are two debates occurring side-by-side which are related but distinct: has a group been wronged by a statement gone too far and has the statement shown a public official to lack required ability. In the first question I do not see that the group is sufficiently a group to be protected against “discrimination” — for comparison read a Supreme Court of Canada case available through Googling called Hudson where a new resident to Quebec was not allowed to vote: it was held that he was not part of an identifiable “group”. In the second question, I think that a lack of subtlety has been exposed. Whether that is to a critical degree is the job of the employer to determine but also the public to lobby upon. Not on the basis that the thought is “un-Leo-ish” but whether it is insufficient generally.

Rob MacD's picture
Rob MacD on March 20, 2003 - 16:16 Permalink

I am wary of adding my opinion to this debate due to my ignorance of the laws concerning discrimination…but, it seems to me that the ‘groups’ Kells disparages, ie., “Friends of Saddam, America haters and peace-at-any-price appeasers”, aren’t actual groups, but rather loose collectives of people whose commonality (at least as far as this issue is concerned) is a similarity of opinions. He isn’t denying them their opinions. He is disagreeing with their opinions. I am at a loss as to understanding what specific discrimination has ocurred, and who was discriminated against. Is the discrimination that these people were called names? If so, and if the names were akin to racial slurs, then I could see their point. But to me, “Friends of Saddam” “America haters” are akin to calling people “tree huggers” or “bible thumpers”. I must be missing something obvious, since relatively smart people seem to be claiming discrimination. I can’t imagine they’d be doing so over such generic name-calling as this.

Kreskin's picture
Kreskin on March 20, 2003 - 17:30 Permalink

I must be missing something obvious, since relatively smart people seem to be claiming discrimination. I can’t imagine they’d be doing so over such generic name-calling as this”

I must be missing something also. Well stated, Rob MacD.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 20, 2003 - 18:20 Permalink

Is calling someone a “right wing liberal” an act of illegal discrimination? What about a “computer nerd”? What about “moron” or “bastard”?

Sticks and stones…”

Mitch's picture
Mitch on March 20, 2003 - 19:32 Permalink


I think the last few posts have misapprehended some earlier comments. I don’t believe anyone is really arguing that “generic name calling” (oxymoron ?) is discrimination in the sense of it being something the HRC should examine in the context of this case. It is not the names, it the thought — or lack thereof — behind the use of demeaning labels to buttress one’s agruments that is in issue here. It is not the fact that Mr. Kells has opinions, or even what those opinions are, that is in issue. It is what is revealed in his manner of expressing those opinions that is troubling.

Lets flip the burger over here and look at the other side — would you be just as comfortable with the oft-villified LeoB as Chair of the HRC ? Were LeoB to publicly label the Kells’ of the world, solely by virtue of supporting military action, a bunch of “war mongerers” and “civilian killers”, (which he very well might), would you consider him fit for the Chair of HRC ? Does the fact that Mr. Kells reduces the complex issues of war in Iraq to “you’re either for’em or agin ‘em” not concern you, in that he might apply similarly simplistic reasoning to the complex issues surrounding human rights in this province ? It’s not that he is right or wrong, it is how he gets there, and how he chooses, despite his position, to jump into the fray on a partisan basis when, to be effective, he must be viewed and balanced and open-minded.

And Peter’s point about the relation between insensitive comments and holding public office — he is no doubt correct that it should have no bearing on holding public office in general, but “public office in general” is not the subject. We are dealing with a specialized, specific position of public trust which demands discretion, impartiality and open-mindedness. Chair of the HRC is not, in my view, appropriate for either the Kells’ OR the LeoB’s of the world.

Peter Rukavina's picture
Peter Rukavina on March 20, 2003 - 19:38 Permalink

And what sort of universally accepted test would you suggest we apply for “discretion, impartiality and open-mindedness?”

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 20, 2003 - 19:50 Permalink

Sounds like thought police to me. Will job descriptions now outline exactly what is meant by, and how to be viewed as “balanced and open-minded”?

Mitch's picture
Mitch on March 20, 2003 - 20:47 Permalink

I do not suggest “discretion, impartiality and openmindedness” as tests — before — employment or secondment, but rather as the hallmarks of fitness for the job as it happens — and I speak here of the SPECIFIC position of HRC chair (as opposed to public office generally, or doctor or farmer etc).

It may at first seem difficult to ascertain in advance from a prospective HRC chair — or some similar position — that they are “balanced and open-minded”, but no more so than many of the other attributes sought regarding jobs of this nature — judgment, tact, discipline, insight, leadership etc etc. Typically the job applicant would point to references or career accomplishments to demonstrate these things.

What is not difficult to demonstrate is the lack of these traits, and when it comes to ones I mentioned previously — discretion, impartiality and openmindedness — they are sorely lacking in the letter and subsequent comments by Mr. Kells, whether you agree with his position or not.

We all have opinions, and as citizens the right to express them to the extent they do not violate the law (don’t go there, yet) The question may simply be: “If you want to be HRC chair, (as opposed Chair of the Winter Carnival) must you be willing to limit your personal rights to publicly spout off, for the greater good of preserving the integrity of your voluntarily held office ?”

Lets remember that if the issues involved are of such fundamental importance or urgency that Mr. Kells MUST get involved to the degree he has in this case, he always has the option to step aside from HRC to do so. As well, no one that I have read in this thread has suggested he can’t express his opinion at all, just that he should have exercised more discretion in doing so. And if he couldn’t — if there was just no way GK could express his support for war without belittling his opponents with the insults -“America haters” and “Friends of Saddam” — then he is, or has become — unfit for the job of HRC chair. I still maintain that the HRC needs something other than the Kells’ or the Brodericks’ to bring balance and perspective to its important work.

KevinD's picture
KevinD on March 20, 2003 - 20:50 Permalink

Was George Kells Mella’s campaign manager? I hadn’t heard this before.

Another Leo's picture
Another Leo on March 21, 2003 - 00:10 Permalink

I am glad the discussion is moving towards the
area — Is this person competent or has the background to be able to fulfill this role? I would put forth that Islanders deserve someone who has a background and understanding on the basis of human rights legislation
starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has the ability to see things in an impartial manner. In administrative law, adjudicators must be seen to be fair and if there are instances where they cannot pass this test they should step down. I believe the remarks made were so disparaging and virulent in this instance and not based on reasonable disagreemnet, I think he cannot pass this test. I think positions like this should not be filled through patronage but on a higher standard where the skills and knowledge of the applicants should be part of the process. It is my understanding that George Kells has acted as Pat Mella’s campaign manager in the past and she is on the Committee which will judge his actions.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 21, 2003 - 01:28 Permalink

Is there a credible source to clear up this rumour about campaign manager?

Didn’t Tina Turner have a song out a few years ago called “We don’t need another Leo”???

Alan's picture
Alan on March 21, 2003 - 15:03 Permalink

I think the Kells-Mella relationship is pretty much fact. Elections PEI office can confirm.

jimbob's picture
jimbob on March 22, 2003 - 01:28 Permalink

George Kells did nothing wrong and is entitled to his opinion, although notice that it was not the story behind the legitimacy (or not) of his opinion that made the news….it was the agenda of the protesters led by my old VP @ Colonel Gray.

CBC PEI has a “lack of broad opinion”? Stop the presses!

In case anybody ever noticed, the whole Island Morning-Main Street-Compass agenda for the past couple of years has been slanted away from the centre as their half-dozen or so correspondents strive to report on original news which the Guardian/Pioneer/Graphic seem to always scoop them on anyways. And the commercial stations are always there with their cellphones for anything really important (snicker). So CBC PEI resorts to catering to Maude Barlow wannabes to create news. I have no problem with CBC reporting in other regions (I admire CBC St. John’s in particular) but the PEI outlet is toast from this viewer’s mind.

From talking with friends down east and in Summerside and other locales, the CBC station on University Ave. is also becoming more and more a specialized media outlet catering exclusively to Charlottetown….

Also, ever notice who’s been so big on keeping CBC’s presence here by protesting to Sheila C.? COME FROM AWAYS! Jack McAndrew and others have a vested interest in maintaining the station but only because the’ve vested so much of their lives in it. To the average farmer/fisherman out there, not many care anymore.

I say bring back CFCY-TV and the good old days (even though I wasn’t even born in that era…) Maybe we could have decent balanced newscasts of interest to Islanders that are non-ideological (without resorting to the pathetic attempts by ATV et. al.) and maybe some cultural programming as well (another Don Messer anyone?). CBC used to be much more but federal cutbacks have made the PEI station a joke and viewers/listeners should endorse home-grown replacements.

Kevin's picture
Kevin on March 22, 2003 - 22:56 Permalink

Peter: What would you say if Pat Binns had written the letter?

jimbob's picture
jimbob on March 23, 2003 - 03:07 Permalink

Even if the preme wrote the letter, he’s entitled to his opinion and it should get the same amount of attention that any letter to the editor @ the Guardian gets — I always read them after the obits anyways…. same as Rick Morin is entitled to his and same with my old VP Leo. Media on PEI should stop catering to one viewpoint or the other and report fairly. Ditto for treatment by citizens of public officials. I don’t care for the Bushies or their new doctrine to control the world (… but even if Bush wrote a letter to the Aroostook Times complaining about something or other, he’d be entitled to it.

Elise's picture
Elise on June 15, 2005 - 04:15 Permalink

Heyyyyyyyy thats my grandfather you’re all talking about (George Kells), so watch it everyone. Take it from one who knows that he would never be intentionally discriminating. He is a wonderful guy and I don’t care what some lobster fishermen have to say about his letter to the editor.
Let me refer to an earlier point. In the words of Kevin (top of page “I hear the kind of person anyone would be proud to be related to…” This is most definitly true.