@50 Pence: Yes, i dont get how paper like the times cowes to the PC brigade , i’m pretty liberal myself , i dont agree with the content of his article , but i believe in his right to say it and be argued againist , no wonder Trump and his cronies go after the media.

@50 Pence:
You mean it’s ‘liberal’ to oppose sexism and anti-semitism?

@50 Pence: lol you guys go into meltdown on the Daily Edge if it hints at a woman article!!

@50 Pence: now they smell blood. They see themselves as so caring and compassionate but a real viciousness lurks beneath the veneer.

@Tensing Norgay: His right to say it hasn’t been taken away. Remember, he had it published on a privately owned platform. The owners of that platform also have the right to determine what is and is not acceptable on their platform. If he wants to be controversial, let him publish his opinions on his own platform. Too many people cry wolf over freedom of speech without actually realising what that is and that it also comes with responsibilities and repercussions.

@DaisyChainsaw:

“if you keep rubbing it, it’s only going to get redder”.

Are you speaking from experience Daisy?

@50 Pence: One of your alt-right buddies has got the sack and might never work again. Priceless.

@ted hagan: what did he say that was anti-Semitic?

@Paul Lanigan: Essentially: Jewish people, on the whole, are shrewd with money.

@John Hagin Meade: I’ve rubbed a few nubs in my time… What about you?

@Paul Lanigan: Last person to make that type of general connection was Adolf Hitler

@Kieran O’dwyer: I tend to agree with you, however the problem with Myres is his passed record, it is very poor he has been kicked of all newspaper the newspapers he has worked for in recent years.

@Honeybadger197: I would lay blame on the editor. Buck stops with editor who approved the article, who either didn’t read it or agreed with Myers views

@Kieran O’dwyer: I agree. I read the article. It was a typical Myers polemic written in his customary style. Bit OTT but offensive? What I find offensive is the management of a national newspaper hanging one of their journalists in public because people were “offended”. Offended precisely how? In what way exactly did the article fail to meet the high standards of the Sunday Times? And of course Myers is now unable to defend his article because they have effectively silenced him. How very liberal. How very tolerant. How very brave.

What we have is a published article and a serious if unpublished complaints. Publish the complaints and let’s assess their merits. It is not the job of a good journalist to avoid offending people. The proper way to respond would have been by debate not firing.

@John R: the people who made the complaints may have been happy with a retraction or apology. The editor or whoever is responsible for firing him made that decision, not those who are perfectly entitled to say that what the man writes is offensive drivel. I think people have every right to say if they find something offensive, how his bosses responded to that is not their responsibility. Personally I think the man was hired to write the way he writes, I read several of his articles and think he’s writings are just pathetic self serving meanderings but they hired him knowing that this is his writing style so I can’t see how they have grounds to fire him. I wonder is there something we don’t know about. Also if he is a contract writer, they are under no obligation to print his future articles. Not ideal for him but that’s the joy of contract jobs.

@John R: I did not find it offensive = it’s wasn’t a demeaning article about men written by a woman! It’s easy not to be offended when it’s not about you.

@Deborah Behan: Actually Deborah you have just made my point for me. In essence you are saying that because the ire of the article was not directed at me I am not entitled to be offended and lack the capacity to make a judgement. Actually one could argue the reverse just as well that if you are the one the aricle was imed at you are less able to assess itsd merits objectively but to be honest I wouldn’t belittle you by suggesting. Your observations is entirely seld-serving. In effect you are saying that only if you are a woman or Jew shoudl you be have the bone fides to make an observation. That is sheer nonsense and a typical example of censoring opinion not your own.

@Blah blah: that’s a different issue… Was the sub-editor Irish and was it a cultural difference between us and the UK that allowed it through

@Dell: One of the groups who made the complaint asked for his removal so I think we are perfectly entitled as readers not to be treated as children but to make up our own minds on the substance and merit of the complaint. And I agree that the paper has ultimate responsibility for firing Myers. I think their approach is wrong. The proper response would have been to challenge his views in writing by publishing a counter-article. But that would require an ability to take a stand independent of perceived poitical correctness. As matter stand all we have is a series of soundbites as the reasons for his sacking. The Sunday Times knew what they were getting when they hired Kevin Myers. They are absolute hypocrites. I found their apology to be grovelling without understanding why they felt the need to respond in this way. However, they have hung Myers out to dry having hired him knowing how he wrote and because he is a contrarian and have done so in a cowardly fashion. They have done freedom of the press no favours. Freedom of the press requires that, on occasions, offence be caused and sometimes a columnist may go beyond what is acceptable. If this means summary sacking in such a fashion then the only beneficiary will be undue caution and a fear of causing offence.

@John R: people who complain often suggest that people be fired, that doesn’t mean that their employers go through with it. Also that person who did suggest he be fired is not speaking for all other complainants. Either way, I agree, sacking him was not the correct way to handle this situation. If the management themselves have decided they don’t like his style if writing any longer or are thinking of changing the way they run their newspaper, they are perfectly entitled to do so, but this is not how that should be done.

@Blah blah: Those editors, on big salaries, remind me of the building inspectors for Priory Hall. They got big money for their expertise but didn’t inspect at all. However, none of them lost their positions. Welcome to this modern world of ‘passing the buck’ and going to their next assignment.

@Dell: apologise for what? Saying Jewish people know how to negotiate?

What if he said that the Irish know how to drink

Or that liberals know how to easily take offence ….

@Paul Lanigan: did I say he needed to apologise? I said they may have been happy with an apology. That’s right, The liberals take offense and the alt right never complain.. No siree.. You won’t here them whingeing about their oh so awful plight in a world that is out to get them with its leftist liberal agenda.. Poor little things can’t cope.

@Dell: First of all, he wasn’t fired, just not being commissioned anymore. Secondly, the single original complainant (from the campaign against antisemitism) demanded not only an apology, but also requested the end of Myers career and his blackballing from any title. Do they not see an issue with this? Whatever about the inaccuracies over his holocaust article (basically an over-sensationalized pedantic look at the semantics, results similar to Finkelsteins’ book, and not one anti-semitic claim), the article made reference not to the people in the BBCs capacity to do their job (apart from condescending all of them), and made one point being that these presenters would not tolerate being screwed over on contracts on account of being Jewish. Now, apart from mentioning their religion as a snide sideline, is there any reason to call the whole article, and the man’s body of work (and of course, he now will only be known as a journalistic equivalent of Goebbels) anti-semitic?

Has there been any single journalist (apart from the certain extremes) able to come out and analyse the fall out of this in a measured way, or is journalism and analysis today either sensational, false and opinionated without a care or else extremely PC and afraid to publish anything.

If anything in this whole debacle, it shows that stereotyping a group of people in a flippant way (like Myers did) results in viciously proving another stereotype, and actually making the point that Myers made in his holocaust-denial article.

@Kieran O’dwyer: I’m taken offence to that remark about a shiver looking for a spine

@Gulliver Foyle: so he is a contracted writer and they are perfectly within their rights to decide that his brand of journalism doesn’t suit their readership? Personally I think they commissioned him to do exactly what he does best, annoy people, and then he did it and they decided that it wasn’t actually a good idea after all and so won’t be hiring him again.

@Dell: Perfectly right if that was the case, and well within their rights. The only issue with that was it was their brand of journalism, it did – in the main -
match their readership, and it was a small lobby with political clout in media that changed their mind. btw: I couldn’t care less – never buy or read those papers, and only remember Myers from those old RTE reports during the troubles. Always concerned about censorship, though.

@Gulliver Foyle: I don’t think he should be censored either, I don’t agree with much of anything he says but I don’t think that the pontius pilate way he is being dealt with is the right thing to do. I have no idea what kind of people pushed for him to be fired but I think that it had nothing to do with liberals and a lot more to do with a few people with a lot of money and power. Personally I think people like myers should be published as it opens up debate, don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t subject myself to one if his articles again but silencing him and his ilk doesn’t serve any purpose. But I do also believe that as a private enterprise, the times is entitled to do whatever they see fit and don’t owe it to him or any of us to give him a soapbox.

@Kal Ipers: What part was particularly racist and unworthy of a debate?

@Fergus Sheahan: It wasn’t particularly anything it is simply racist. There is absolutely nothing to debate why would there be?

@Kal Ipers: Good vague answer…I see his comments as maybe stupid and ill-informed but racist? come on in exact quote where is said something racist, there’s always room for debate you have to at least give him the chance to back up his claims against someone with polar opposite views otherwise what is the point of opinion pieces? should people check with you first?

@Fergus Sheahan: No room for debate on fact. He made a racist statement end of. If you don’t know what he said then why are you defending it?

@Kal Ipers: where did I say I don’t know what he said? I asked you to quote the exact part that you found racist and where there can not be any room for debate on? any chance you’d furnish me with that?

@Kal Ipers: is it racist to allude to the fact that scots are tight with their money?

@Paul Lanigan: racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
“theories of racism”. So in answer to your question, yes.

@Fergus Sheahan: The same place I said you didn’t know, you didn’t and I didn’t. I asked a question. There is absolutely no need to repeat it as we both know what was said. You are making it out like it is debatable, it isn’t what he said is racist that is it.

@Kal Ipers: Your missing the whole point, Kal. It’s flippant, stereotypical and bile against women (not a race), jews (not a race), journalists (not a race) and society. We all take the point that there was an inappropriate, inverse compliment about a english women who are members of an ethnic group not being able to be taken advantage off in contract negotiations. but racist? nothing.

@Kal Ipers: he is at worst guilty of lazy stereotyping not racism and i’d like to see him given the chance to qualify his remarks before you and you likes have him beaten with a burlap sack of door handles

@Gulliver Foyle: And Fergus. No simply racist no debate you are wrong if you think otherwise.

@Fergus Sheahan: People don’t just apologise when they do something illegal, many of us try to adhere to a principal called manners. Perhaps you could look it up some time.

@Kal Ipers: Good point well made, if you say i’m wrong then i must be, You are a fascist no debate you are wrong if you think otherwise

@Ron North:

@Ron North: Sorry Ron, i promise to adhere to this manners principal that you have made me aware of I hope you have a nice evening in your Ivory Tower

@Fergus Sheahan: There is no debate on fact. Your insistence on there being debate is a separate issue. Effectively you are trying to make a Monty Python situation which I am not bothered with as you are beneath me.

@Kal Ipers: i’m surprised you are able to type considering you are so far up your own @nus

@gjpb: he said women don’t work as hard as men and don’t have as much charisma.

@Dell: did you forget to sign off with your favourite new term (ie ‘broflake’)? One wonders what you used before it got its 1st entry in Urban Dictionary only a month ago. At least you still have that old liberal reliable – ‘bigot’ – to fall back on. The oldies are the goldies.

@Dell: I think they tend to refer to those self proclaimed liberals who tick a few must have boxes that mark out their side of a few trending issues. That might label someone as a liberal, but doesn’t make it so. Just like many conservatives who argue on the same issues. The worst are those who take an automatic position just because it is publicly associated with their side, lazy minds.

@Malachi: read it again and you will see it’s nothing of the kind

@Squarepeg01: Have you a link to it? I cant find one. Thanks.

@Squarepeg01: says the person who labels everyone he disagrees with a “liberal” . The irony. You keep fighting the good cause of every suffering, middle class, white male there sunshine, you are doing an excellent job.

@Honeybadger197: GIYF. I’m going from memory – so I haven’t taken my own advice!

@Dell: moderm liberalism is a b@stardisation of what it was in its original Whig heyday. Burke, Paine, Mill et al would hardly recognise it. You realise the term ‘neo-consevative’ was coined in the 1960s/70s (long before the Bush Whitehouse) by Irving Kristol and others to denote themselves. They weren’t traditional William F Buckley conservatives. They were ex-liberals who thought liberalism was going in te wrong direction. ie they were mugged by reality

@Squarepeg01: and this has to do with you labelling everyone who disagrees with you as a liberal how exactly?

@Honeybadger197:

I have a link;

http://archive.is/2017.07.30-135449/http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/there-was-no-holocaust-kevin-myers-28473646.html#selection-2717.0-2717.444

Note the fantastical attacks on the historical record of the Holocaust.

@Malachi: Thanks Malachi.

@Malachi: em, did you read to the end where he says he believes the Nazis planned the extermination of the Jews? All he is disagreeing with is the way thw historical narrative was put together as a matter of point by point dogma.

@Dell: well either I’m using the term ironically or just in keeping with the left’s taking over the term for themselves. Would scare quotes help with your understanding?

@Squarepeg01: I read the whole thing. Saying he believes the Nazis wanted to exterminate Jews is like saying the sky is blue, you get no plaudits for it.

It’s the awful misrepresentation of the historical record of the Holocaust earlier in the piece I have a problem with.

@Squarepeg01: well for someone who whines so much about the liberals labeling people who disagree with them as bigots, islamaphobes etc, you certainly do a fair share of branding yourself. The truth of the matter when it comes to this is that an organisation decided to stop using the services of a, in my opinion, pretty bad journalist. More than likely because some of the complaints came from outside this country, which means it had nothing to do with liberals controlling anything and all to do with the management of the Irish Times being disloyal to its staff to save face with a foreign audience. That audience isn’t particularly liberal or otherwise, and an apology would have sufficed or open up a discussion on the matter. . Blaming liberals for the actions of what seems to me to be a bad employer who would turn on a dime, is hardly productive. Or are you advocating that people not make complaints now?

@DaisyChainsaw: It wasn’t anti woman, the complaints stem from his comments on jews.

@Dell: false equivalence. When I call someone a liberal, I am identifying him or her as my enemy while at the same time calling into question the common assumption that liberalism in its modern guise is good. When you call me a bigot you are branding me as an other, a pariah, outside the pale, not worth debating with, someone to be hated because that’s what you do with a bigot. When liberals ‘complain’, their aim is to shut down and destroy, not to engage in debate. And the things they complain about are getting closer to the centre all the time.

@Malachi: read the article properly. He’s making a literal point. The very fact that people are getting their knickers in a twist proves his point

@Squarepeg01: “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” George Washington 1797. Why are people that disagree with you your enemies? That’s awfully thin-skinned of you.

@Squarepeg01: are you for real?? Are you actually trying to argue that your name calling is innocent compared to the name calling used by the people disagreeing with you? You have on numerous occasions explained how terrible liberals are and then call everyone who disagrees with your opinion a liberal.. You constantly play the people and not the ball and then pathetically cry fowl when it’s directed back at you or your arguments. Broflake may have only been coined recently but it was invented because of people exactly like you.

@Squarepeg01: where they call you a bigot they are debating with you. But you’ve just described yourself as a bigot by saying you see those that don’t agree with you as your enemies.

@Dave O Keeffe: because liberals are not really liberals. The full-blooded ones are secular religious zealots who want to burn anybody who doesn’t 100% subscribe to their orthodoxies. Have reservations about the consequences of gay marriage – you’re a bigot. Point out that there are 2 lives at stake in the abortion issue, you must hate women. Call out the destructiveness of mass immigration – you’re a xenophobe. Think minorities need to be encouraged to integrate rather than be coddled or use the wrong PC terms when referring to them, you’re a hater. Think Trump was a better option to HRC, you’re practically a fascist. And this kind of OTT reaction to everything they disagree with has potentially ended the career of someone I admire. Watch your back, Peter Hitchens.

@Dell: not true. I generally rebut the idea first – if there was an idea there to begin with – and THEN call out the other person as a liberal and/or elaborate on the history of liberalism that people may not be aware of. Check my responses even on this thread if you don’t believe me. Are you honestly saying you are offended by my calling you a liberal. But everyone knows exactly what you mean when you call someone a bigot.

@Squarepeg01: read through your comment and see if you can find any OTT reaction. The problem is that you have described yourself as a bigot after saying they have no right to call you one. There’s guilt on bith sides and your way of looking at it doesn’t allow for any gray areas. People are either with you or against you, you don’t allow nuance.

@Squarepeg01: A real shame that you are concerned about the writings of by far the worst of the Hitchens brothers. The surviving sibling is a firm believer that the Islamic mandate of “modesty” for women is somehow something we should desire in the West.

@Squarepeg01: you do realise that describing someone’s argument as bigoted is a perfectly rational thing to do if you think their argument is bigoted? Should we use more gentle words so as not to offend your sensibilities when people are putting forward bigoted arguments? If, in its extreme, for example I were to say that someone were not entitled to the same rights as me because of their skin colour, should people pussy foot around telling me that what I said was bigoted? I should hope not. If someone puts their opinion out there, they need to be prepared to take whatever reaction comes from it. I don’t care that you call me a liberal, I do care that you do it and then get offended when others call out your arguments as close minded or bigoted. You are hypocritical, your argument is that liberals try shut down debate because they call out bigotry, no one is stopping the person from continuing to debate. Myers has many many forums to counter people’s complaints and the Irish times are a business and should be allowed decide to discontinue using any contractor. I didnt say it was a wise decision on their part and I think they can not claim to be doing it for any reason other than to cover themselves but again, that is hardly the liberals fault.

@Squarepeg01: look up the political horseshoe theory. Not only is it fascinating, it’s also pretty much exactly what we’re talking about

@Dave O Keeffe: don’t be daft. I’m called a bigot by liberals precisely because they DON’T want to debate with me. They think they can take a shortcut to ending the conversation by assassinating my character as they have done with Mr Myers. Nobody after all wants to be called a bigot, whereas you and Dell no doubt embrace the term ‘liberal’. The equivalent would be if you lambasted me as a ‘conservative’, which I am. And for the record, yes I get offended when called a bigot but so what? I don’t think offence counts as an argument so I don’t use it to shut you down. Anyway, it’s not bigoted to identify your enemies. It is clear thinking. If I wanted to silence you, I would be guilty of intolerance and therefore bigoted.

@Malachi: I would only fault him on that if he thought women ought to hide themselves away in their homes or behind veils and that it should all be policed with draconian laws and the threat of violence. I’m pretty sure he does’t subscribe to either.

@Atheos Euripides: How many accounts do you have exactly?

@Atheos Euripides: Isn’t ‘Myers’, a Jewish name .

Only where there are numerous Myers’s. In this case we’re talking about one Myers. No apostrophe required at all.

@Ciaran De Bhal: S&W list a number of exceptions to the rule. The one you mention is not one of them.

@Mairtín: nope, that’s “Meyer” (which comes from enlightened). Interestingly, the Mayor surname popular in the US was the Anglicization of this surname.

@John R: Are you saying that broadsheet newspapers should be required to pay a person to produce content they don’t want?

What kind of suggestion is that?

@John R: that decision was made by his boss, not those who complained.

@John R: Why should you be paid for propagating hate and lazy stereotypes. Spout your crap all you like, but man up and take it when you’re called on it.

@DaisyChainsaw: the hate comes mostly from the left. Bigot, racist, Islamaphobe, sexist, anti-Semite – anything to destroy your enemies and ruin our reputations. And you have the cheek to say we are the ones with hate.

@DaisyChainsaw: Daisy, he wasn’t spouting hate in my view and nor was he spouting anti-semitism. He was certainly indulging in some stereo-typing to be sure but since when was this a sacking offence?

Are journalists now required to censor what they write against some ill-defined notion of “offence”. Isn’t ii often when we feel offended that we are forced to confront some aspect of ourselves that we need to examine or some idea that we hold dear that needs ot be challenged. Since when did the right not to be offended become so ingrained? Are we to require newspapers to be “safe-spaces”? Should we receive warnings before we read some articles just to be on the safe side? Myers article was OTT and polemical but not as remotely as offensive as many other articles I have read. The proper way to deal with this is by debate not by sacking. That is what mature liberal democracies should do. Effectively we have now swept all of this under the carpet and have not discussed why his aricle was considered so offensive that it merited removal from the website and his summary dismissal. If you are comfortable with this I most certainly am not.

Finally, Myers was not propagating hate. The fact that you make such a statement does not make it so.

@John R: Well said. Contrarian voices are needed for textured debate. What he said was not truly offensive and what offence is taken, not given.

@John R: He was and he knew full well what he was saying, like his idiotic article re no Holocaust but Nazi genocide. He now knows full well the consequences of his idiotic sexist attitude especially to woman. If you read the comments in the context of the article it is even more damning and premeditated. We live in a different world now and there are consequences to free speech – the law and fanatics – the ones you incite and the ones that come for you aka Charlie whats his face in Paris who got half his staff wiped out with his bloody principals.

@Niall Sullivan: Perfectly put. In the words of Deborah Lipstadt after Austria jailed (a real anti-Semite) Irving: “I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech. Let him go and let him fade from everyone’s radar screens… Generally, I don’t think Holocaust denial should be a crime. I am a free speech person, I am against censorship.”

Let him state his opinion, but let others take him down with facts and argument. If anything, this has made Myers a martyr for far-right opinion, and I don’t have a clue, or care, for what his political leaning is.

@Gulliver Foyle: But Irving was actually persecuted under stupid laws. This is not the same at all. Myers is a bottom-tier hack of a columnist whose services are no longer required by the Times.

The comparison to Irving is actually terrible. The two situations couldn’t be further apart.

@Beachmaster: perhaps you would explain which part was lies??

@Michael Fitzgibbon: The whole thing was lies. Paul joseph watson calls here out on it in very funny fashion.

@Bairéid Rísteard: Prison Paul? The wannabe who lives with his parents and is currently being schooled by a historian?

@DaisyChainsaw: It truly is pathetic that they waited so long to pull the article which was historically unsound.

@Tony Daly:

It just means all in management editorial chain probably let the piece through, not expecting anyone to kick up such a fuss.

Myers was a little over the top, a bit misogynistic, and probably had a tongue in each cheek when he wrote about the two highly paid Jewish ladies in the BBC.

It’s a well documented fact, from when Old Testament was first written forward, that Jewish people are good negotiators, excellent business people, particularly in banking and Entertainment.

Jewish comics in NY are always the most self deprecating, telling corny ones like “why did God give Jewish folk biggish noses?” ” Cause fresh air is free”

@Rory J Leonard: Yeah, the whole Jewish jibe loses the ‘tounge in cheek’ element when he’s also publishing nonsense about the Holocaust.

@Malachi: (after reading the article) He doesn’t seem to spout any nonsense about the holocaust, but is commenting on the illegality of saying “i deny the Holocaust (capital H)”. You are right, though in that he is not the best person to make glib remarks about the women, considering the audience of the opinion piece now includes the UK.

If they were exclusively in Ireland, those comment would be ignored by the media, and the article would be focusing on the fact it is misogynistic and lazy.

@Gulliver Foyle: I’ve been through this argument already about his piece (if you could call it that) on the Holocaust.

He makes a very suggestive (and totally false) accusation that Jewish activist groups (such as the Simon Weisenthal Centre) twisted the death toll into the now accepted ~6 million figure. Even the most basic google homework can disprove this bullocks, so he’s either genuinely incompetent or malicious in his intent to mislead.