Kevin Myers claims he was ‘punished like a rapist paedophile or terrorist’ for column

iptba

[I had to drop a comma between rapist and paedophile in title to make it fit]

Journalist Kevin Myers attacks Leo Varadkar and JK Rowling and claims he was ‘punished like a rapist, paedophile or terrorist’ for controversial Sunday Times column.

Journalist tells event in Portlaoise his freedom of speech has died at the hands of political correctness.

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/news/282495/journalist-kevin-myers-attacks-taoiseach-and-claims-he-was-punished-like-a-rapist-paedophile-or-terrorist-for-controversial-sunday-times-column.html

It is interesting I think to reflect on his punishment:

"At midday I was told I was fired by The Sunday Times. The editor of The Sunday Times made a statement to the press. Not only was I being fired but I would never ever be employed by The Sunday Times again.

"Once the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were seen on television denouncing me and applauding my lifetime ban, my legal advice was that I had no recourse to legal action. I was silenced for all time, not just as a journalist but also as a litigant," he said.

Edited to add: Sunday Times article:
https://eonic1.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/kevin-myers-notorious-gender-pay-gap-article/
or image:
https://ibb.co/j8z8YR

Nate--IRL--

It would appear that being an odious prick has consequences.

Nate

strandroad

The ego is strong in this one.

Across the world that day I was the number one news story, even though North Korea had fired a missile the night before.

From Japan to Argentina they cried over Kevin Myers, I'm sure.

This is the kind of punishment you reserve for a paedophile, for a rapist, for an unrepentant terrorist.

They go to jail or are executed. He lost a gig.

You call somebody a misogynist, or an Islamophobe or Xenophobe or a bigot or a racist. No evidence is required.

He wrote that a woman can have equal pay when she hires a man to negotiate or is Jewish, otherwise they don't deserve it. QED.

Prune Tracy

The narcissism is quite something to behold really - from someone you'd assume would be self aware and practising critical thinking.

I wonder is he just continuing to troll.

lazybones32

It lends some credence to the view that Jews have a lot of connections/influence within media.
An article gets written and within hours, his employers do a u-turn on the acceptability of the piece, he is fired and any 'offensive' refrences to Jews gets removed from his previous writings...based on pressure from London. And Vanessa Fatz gets her muttony-chops extra air-time because of the outrageous and vile anti-Semitism she endured.

liam7831

Nate--IRL-- wrote:

It would appear that being an odious prick has consequences.

You must be a fan of Linda Martin

Snotty

No sympathy for Myers, like most people who only say things for a reaction, he finally picked the wrong target and there was no one going to back his journalistic credibility as he had lost it all years before.

ToddyDoody

I wonder did he enjoy writing the article. I'd say he did.

Esel

Kevin who?

Odhinn

The truth is he'd written far far worse over the years. Still, he was being an arse.

Slutmonkey57b

lazybones32 wrote: »

It lends some credence to the view that Jews have a lot of connections/influence within media.
An article gets written and within hours, his employers do a u-turn on the acceptability of the piece, he is fired and any 'offensive' refrences to Jews gets removed from his previous writings...based on pressure from London. And Vanessa Fatz gets her muttony-chops extra air-time because of the outrageous and vile anti-Semitism she endured.

"The Jews", eh? "Offensive" in quotes, eh?

He wrote an obnoxious, misogynistic, racist piece on more than one occasion. People who aren't misogynistic racists objected and the misogynistic racist had to take some consequences for what he said. Amazing how quickly him and hooky moved from spend their efforts going apoplectic about people being "too sensitive" and then losing their **** when they get told "hey, actually nobody wants to hear your ****, here's a payoff, go and shout at the wind"

darkdubh

Prune Tracy wrote: »

The narcissism is quite something to behold really - from someone you'd assume would be self aware and practising critical thinking.

I wonder is he just continuing to troll.

Always got a thin skinned vibe off him.

Collie D

darkdubh wrote: »

Always got a thin skinned vibe off him.

Definitely an unusually strong victim complex for a man who was permanently on the offensive.

iptba

Sunday Times article:
https://eonic1.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/kevin-myers-notorious-gender-pay-gap-article/
or
https://ibb.co/j8z8YR

The_Valeyard

Esel wrote: »

Kevin who?

We need to talk about him.

Guy:Incognito

"Not only was I being fired but I would never ever be employed by The Sunday Times again."

How many people go back to work for companies that fire them? The implication with being fired is generally that they don't want you to work for them again.

Odhinn

iptba wrote: »

Sunday Times article:
https://ibb.co/j8z8YR

Yep, he's a shithead allright.

Dayor Knight

Hi might have a point though. Don't agree with anything he wrote, but I'm not sure the punishment matched the crime. Seems people can say anything they like about some things and some religions and that's fair game, but mention another in a derogatory way and that's the end if your career mate. I don't think much of anything Mr. Myers has written, but I'd prefer to leave him with the right to write it, as long as it's not blatant hate mongering. He made a mistake, said the wrong thing, and apologised profusely. That would have been enough for me.

_Dara_

What a drama queen.

strandroad

Dayor Knight wrote: »

Hi might have a point though. Don't agree with anything he wrote, but I'm not sure the punishment matched the crime. Seems people can say anything they like about some things and some religions and that's fair game, but mention another in a derogatory way and that's the end if your career mate. I don't think much of anything Mr. Myers has written, but I'd prefer to leave him with the right to write it, as long as it's not blatant hate mongering. He made a mistake, said the wrong thing, and apologised profusely. That would have been enough for me.

It's not his first rodeo, he's done this trick before and likely ran out of warnings. He still has the right to write whatever he likes, just on his blog and not in the Times.

Roger_007

"I wholly disagree with what you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it".... (Voltaire).

This principle obviously doesn't apply on Boards, (or anywhere else in today's ultra PC world).

Varik

My only issue with this is that it wasn't his personal twitter or a comment made somewhere else.

He got fired for something that went I'd assume through a editor and got the go ahead from those higher up.

ohnonotgmail

Roger_007 wrote: »

"I wholly disagree with what you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it".... (Voltaire).

This principle obviously doesn't apply on Boards, (or anywhere else in today's ultra PC world).

nobody is stopping him from saying what he wants. he just isnt provided a paid platorm to do so.

Tea-a-Maria

Roger_007 wrote: »

"I wholly disagree with what you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it".... (Voltaire).

This principle obviously doesn't apply on Boards, (or anywhere else in today's ultra PC world).

This webcomic sums up my feelings on this point nicely. By all means spout obnoxious views if you want, but don't go crying when they attract consequences!

iptba

iptba wrote: »

Kevin Myers...Leinster Express

From the Daily Telegraph of London to the Leinster Express of Port Laoise. I wouldn't say Lord Myers is happy with how his decades of trolling has turned out. Career progression with a twist. His career of unbridled arrogance and abject absence of humility or compassion for less well off people makes it hard to feel for him.

He truly is the author of his own misfortune. This time, he picked a crowd who could fight back. Fittingly, he has fallen on his own sword. Zero sympathy. He should now just go into retirement as gracefully as possible and count his blessings that despite his decades of glorification of the British Empire/demonisation of Irish independence he lives in Ireland where we have a decent voluntary culture of support for elderly people (whatever about our state health system), and he has a bus pass which is a pretty fantastic perk of retirement.

I don't believe the man is anti-Semitic, but I do believe his current unemployable status is entirely the product of his business model of trolling weaker sections of society. I'll never have respect for his rank hypocrisy on the use of violence to achieve a political aim - it is something to glorify if it's done on behalf of the British Empire, but something to revile if it's done on behalf of Irish independence. That he was given a mouthpiece in the national media to spout that for decades testifies to how privileged he has been. Having said all that, he's finished and there's no point in kicking him when he's down.

biko

Another journo trying to play the victim card.
It's offiensive

Prune Tracy

Roger_007 wrote: »

"I wholly disagree with what you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it".... (Voltaire).

This principle obviously doesn't apply on Boards, (or anywhere else in today's ultra PC world).

But when has anyone ever been able to publish or broadcast absolutely anything they like? There was even more severe censorship here 30 years ago.

Freedom of speech does not mean absolute free speech. And it relates to the government, not private enterprise. It means someone cannot go to prison. A commercial enterprise can do as it wishes within the bounds of the law. Now I do think the press - private enterprise or not - should provide a platform for any view that's some bit supported. But that doesn't apply to attention-seeking and trying to rise people, which is what Myers was doing.

That said, he was somewhat scapegoated - the Sunday Times allowed the piece to go through, so the disapproval afterwards is somewhat disingenuous.

I wouldn't mind if he got to write again, but maybe he'll change style to journalist rather than wind-up merchant.

TAFKAlawhec

Roger_007 wrote: »

"I wholly disagree with what you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it".... (Voltaire).

This principle obviously doesn't apply on Boards, (or anywhere else in today's ultra PC world).

F**k all to do with PC or whatever boogeyman is in vogue these days. The Sunday Times as a private publisher is perfectly entitled to decide what it publishes and who can write for what it prints provided it is within the law of the land where it is published or sold e.g. concerning libel, national security and so on.

Too many people that cry out "FREEDUM SPEACH!" these days forget three important things...

1. The modern origin comes from the USA constitution, where it regulates government censorship and interaction not private censorship and interaction.

2. Your words and actions are (unless explicitly given or provided for e.g. Parliamentary privilege) not immune to consequences. Go to your boss or manager tomorrow morning and say to their face that he/she is a wanker & an asshole & that they seem to enjoy being alone around little children; good luck keeping your job afterwards while wailing "FREEDUM SPEACH!!!!1111"

3. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to an audience. I'm free to post here on boards.ie provided I comply with their terms and conditions (also see point 1). If I make a post that is say libellous about the Taoiseach or President I will very likely get banned. That's not me having my freedom of speech rights being suppressed, that's me being a complete dickhead and suffering the consequences (again, point 2). I don't have the right to walk into the offices of the Irish Independent or the Examiner and demand that they publish an editorial or letter of mine, nor do I have a right to walk into the Six-One studio mid broadcast to say what's on my mind. If I'm having a difficulty getting a platform I can say publish a leaflet to be distributed or set up a blog though a web host & domain name seller (provided again I comply with their T&C's) but the important thing to remember is that no one is compelled to provide me with a platform or be forced to listen to me the same way no woman is obliged to look at me while I pull my cock out and wave it about in their face.

Within reason a person has the right to call someone out as a dickhead, racist, bigot etc. while at the same time someone can call out someone else for being too sensitive, too eager to engage a chilling effect, too willing to suppress opinions that don't fit a narrative etc.

The problem in recent years on the Interwebs and in real life is that once you were expected to explain yourself on most issues, nowadays the prevalence of ****posting and ignoring facts and evidence if they don't fit ones worldview (or deliberately distorting such to support or oppose). We've ended up with echo chambers to fit our narrow POV sometimes either because we don't want to be challenged or that an opposing point of view is not made constructively but rather in demeaning or threatening manner and most people simply don't want to deal with bull****. Another one, you make a claim and I ask you to support it with trusted evidence - don't palm me off with "Google it yourself" or "I'm not here to spoonfeed you" or some dodgy link to Indymedia or InfoWars. You made the claim - you provide the evidence! I'm not here to either blindly accept what you say or put up with your laziness or ignorance.

In Kevin Myers case, he has often picked on sections of the public that aren't or weren't able to give an equal, measured response on a similar platform. Whatever about influence of Jewish people in the UK media, because he had often took to targets where there was minimal consequences to him (ref. point 2) he either felt too confident or was in wilful ignorance in writing the column he wrote. That ended up with consequences as he picked the wrong target. We've all said or did stuff that has backfired in some way and we usually end up learning from it, journalists are not and should not be immune to these standards either. He is too far up his own arse to recognise that **** can fling both ways and now he's crying like an "triggered cucked SJW snowflake" (I call bingo!) because he cannot handle the consequences of his actions. If he was more of a darling of the alt-right or new right or whatever they call themselves these days we'd likely see a #jesuiskevin hash tag going about on Twitter & Gab. Now at best he's a €2 shop Katie Hopkins without the social media awareness.

If you've read the above and you don't understand it, then you don't understand life. Rant over.

Roger_007

Prune Tracy wrote: »

But when has anyone ever been able to publish or broadcast absolutely anything they like? There was even more severe censorship here 30 years ago.

Freedom of speech does not mean absolute free speech. And it relates to the government, not private enterprise. It means someone cannot go to prison. A commercial enterprise can do as it wishes within the bounds of the law. Now I do think the press - private enterprise or not - should provide a platform for any view that's some bit supported. But that doesn't apply to attention-seeking and trying to rise people, which is what Myers was doing.

That said, he was somewhat scapegoated - the Sunday Times allowed the piece to go through, so the disapproval afterwards is somewhat disingenuous.

I wouldn't mind if he got to write again, but maybe he'll change style to journalist rather than wind-up merchant.

So, who decides what the concept of free speech allows you to say or what is not acceptable?
There are laws in this jurisdiction which make it illegal to incite hatred. If Myers broke the law, he should be prosecuted for so doing. If, on the other hand, he merely expressed views which most people found distasteful but not illegal, then he is still legally entitled to express those views. Anyone who disagrees is also entitled to express their disagreement or disgust or whatever. That is my idea of free speech.
Personally, I would disagree with most of Myers opinions, but I still want to hear them. There seems to be an attitude now that anyone who has unpopular opinions should be silenced. It's better to have these things out in the open.

johnnyskeleton

lazybones32 wrote: »

It lends some credence to the view that Jews have a lot of connections/influence within media.
An article gets written and within hours, his employers do a u-turn on the acceptability of the piece, he is fired and any 'offensive' refrences to Jews gets removed from his previous writings...based on pressure from London. And Vanessa Fatz gets her muttony-chops extra air-time because of the outrageous and vile anti-Semitism she endured.

I dunno. Didnt the Jewish Council of Ireland twitter come out pubically in his defence saying that it wasnt anti semetic?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/jewish-council-in-ireland-comes-to-defence-of-kevin-myers-1.3172216?mode=amp

Prune Tracy

Roger_007 wrote: »

So, who decides what the concept of free speech allows you to say or what is not acceptable?
There are laws in this jurisdiction which make it illegal to incite hatred. If Myers broke the law, he should be prosecuted for so doing. If, on the other hand, he merely expressed views which most people found distasteful but not illegal, then he is still legally entitled to express those views. Anyone who disagrees is also entitled to express their disagreement or disgust or whatever. That is my idea of free speech.
Personally, I would disagree with most of Myers opinions, but I still want to hear them. There seems to be an attitude now that anyone who has unpopular opinions should be silenced. It's better to have these things out in the open.

But commercial enterprise can suppress all they want. It's when the government interferes that it's problematic.

I totally agree with your last two sentences, but Myers was purely out to wind up - not to contribute an opinion.

Guy:Incognito

Roger_007 wrote: »

So, who decides what the concept of free speech allows you to say or what is not acceptable?
There are laws in this jurisdiction which make it illegal to incite hatred. If Myers broke the law, he should be prosecuted for so doing. If, on the other hand, he merely expressed views which most people found distasteful but not illegal, then he is still legally entitled to express those views. Anyone who disagrees is also entitled to express their disagreement or disgust or whatever. That is my idea of free speech.
Personally, I would disagree with most of Myers opinions, but I still want to hear them. There seems to be an attitude now that anyone who has unpopular opinions should be silenced. It's better to have these things out in the open.

Nobody is stopping him expressing any views. His ex employer is just no longer paying him to express them in their paper, which they are entitled to do. He can express his views all he likes on his blog/YouTube channel/ newsletter or on a street corner with a megaphone if he wants. At the end of the day, the people that own/operate the newspaper decide what views they put out.

wes

If he was silenced, then we wouldn't have this thread.

dresden8

He liked to promote the use of the word bastard.

He was the ultimate "bastard".

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

He totally was punished like a rapist, paedophile or terrorist. That's why he's in jail now.

His freedom of speech was very much violated. That's why his opinions were published in a globally read publication, and why he's now at public events reflecting on the consequences of that.

This treatment of Myers, which IS like the treatment of a rapist, paedophile or terrorist, vindicates his decade or so of being paid to opine weekly about how de librels these days are thin skinned little snowflakes who over react to things and lack perspective.

Outlaw Pete

Paola Enough Horse wrote: »

....de librels these days are thin skinned little snowflakes who over react to things and lack perspective.

Ah in fairness, that's true.

Arghus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah in fairness, that's true.

Expert rebuttal.

Shenshen

Roger_007 wrote: »

So, who decides what the concept of free speech allows you to say or what is not acceptable?
There are laws in this jurisdiction which make it illegal to incite hatred. If Myers broke the law, he should be prosecuted for so doing. If, on the other hand, he merely expressed views which most people found distasteful but not illegal, then he is still legally entitled to express those views. Anyone who disagrees is also entitled to express their disagreement or disgust or whatever. That is my idea of free speech.
Personally, I would disagree with most of Myers opinions, but I still want to hear them. There seems to be an attitude now that anyone who has unpopular opinions should be silenced. It's better to have these things out in the open.

You're right, he broke now law. And consequently, as far as I can tell, he's not being prosecuted or charged with anything, is he?

If the paper he was writing for decides they no longer want to give him a platform and pay him, surely that's entirely within their legal rights, too?

Roger_007

Shenshen wrote: »

You're right, he broke now law. And consequently, as far as I can tell, he's not being prosecuted or charged with anything, is he?

If the paper he was writing for decides they no longer want to give him a platform and pay him, surely that's entirely within their legal rights, too?

I absolutely agree that if the paper doesn't want him writing for them any longer, they can make that choice. That's also part of free speech. I just think it's important that all opinions are heard, whether they are popular or not.
Don't forget that it is not too long ago that anyone who publicly supported gay rights would be ostracised from the mainstream media.

lazybones32

Shenshen wrote: »

If the paper he was writing for decides they no longer want to give him a platform and pay him, surely that's entirely within their legal rights, too?

But was this decided solely by the managerial staff at the paper or was it because of external pressure?

I find it amusing how people choose to ignore the processes that came into play that weekend and simply view it as a paper no longer requiring the services of an established writer.

animaal

Myers is a smug windbag. The Times has the right to decide not to employ his services. But I'm not celebrating him being shut down.

it was a crappy move by the paper to provide editorial oversight and publish his articles, and then push him under the bus when there was a backlash.

Personally, I disagreed with lot of what he wrote. But there were times when he challenged me. Do we really only want to be exposed to journalists who fall in line with "acceptable" opinions? Historically that hasn't worked out so well.

PeterParker957

There does seem to be a list of targets that are encouraged to be mocked and others that are completely untouchable.

Greggs in the UK published an ad replacing Jesus with a sausage roll. I'm Catholic and I thought it was hilarious.

However, do that with Mohammed and your a**e is on the business end of a massacre. cf Charlie Hebdo.

BillyBobBS

Just the way the world is going I'm afraid. If you don't tow the PC line you are a target. Sad state of affairs.

PeterParker957

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Just the way the world is going I'm afraid. If you don't tow the PC line you are a target. Sad state of affairs.

I've just been told I am against equality because I don't want to sit on a focus group discussing women only promotion lists and why they are "the only way to go".

I give up. The world has gone mad and we can do nothing to stop it.

sbsquarepants

I don't actually think what he said was all that bad in the scheme of things - but he's such an unlikeable, pompous, smug, odious little west brit fúck bag, that I was glad he got sacked anyway.
Schadenfreude at it's finest.

darkdubh

Himself and Eoghan Harris have a lot in common.

exaisle

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't actually think what he said was all that bad in the scheme of things - but he's such an unlikeable, pompous, smug, odious little west brit fúck bag, that I was glad he got sacked anyway.
Schadenfreude at it's finest.

There's nothing like a balanced unbiased opinion.....you lost me at "unlikeable" because what you think of him isn't as pertinent as what you think of what he said, but I do agree that what he said wasn't "all that bad in the scheme of things".

My understanding is that it was passed by 5 members of the editorial/legal staff and passed unedited.

Sounds to me very much like the Sunday Times sacked him to protect their advertising revenue and circulation...

Shenshen

lazybones32 wrote: »

But was this decided solely by the managerial staff at the paper or was it because of external pressure?

I find it amusing how people choose to ignore the processes that came into play that weekend and simply view it as a paper no longer requiring the services of an established writer.

External pressures such as a fear of loss of advertising and readership?
I'm pretty sure that these were the prime reasons for the paper.

Why would a paper support one of their employees if it meant that they would lose revenue by doing so?

padd b1975

J.k.Rowling is hard work to put it mildly in fairness.

strandroad

animaal wrote: »

Personally, I disagreed with lot of what he wrote. But there were times when he challenged me. Do we really only want to be exposed to journalists who fall in line with "acceptable" opinions? Historically that hasn't worked out so well.

He's not a journalist though, not anymore. He's a professional sh*t stirrer like Lena Dunham or Katie Hopkins, just looking to push the buttons for attention. There is nothing stopping the Times or other papers from reprinting his work if he happens to have an original thought beyond his usual output, but looks like his usual output was not passing their (belated) quality control.

sbsquarepants

exaisle wrote: »

There's nothing like a balanced unbiased opinion.....you lost me at "unlikeable" because what you think of him isn't as pertinent as what you think of what he said, but I do agree that what he said wasn't "all that bad in the scheme of things".

My understanding is that it was passed by 5 members of the editorial/legal staff and passed unedited.

Sounds to me very much like the Sunday Times sacked him to protect their advertising revenue and circulation...

Maybe you misunderstand schadenfreude.

That it was passed by 5 editorial / legal staff only makes it better:D