Wednesday, March 21, 2012

NP's Jonathan Kay attacks Ezra Levant (and his new book about Omar Khadr)

The ever smug, snotty left-lib Jonathan Kay, having eavesdropped on Ezra Levant in the next cubicle (and apparently took notes), has decided that Ezra Levant lacks sufficient "intellectual sophistication and nuance" to process a case as "complex" as Omar Khadr's:
... the two of us were side-by-side cubicle neighbours. He did every telephone call in a booming Rush Limbaugh voice ...
...his style of attack is so obsessional that it sometimes seems like a manifestation of clinical mental illness...
...when it comes to an intellectual endeavor that actually requires intellectual sophistication and nuance — say, a full-length book about the legal treatment of a captured Canadian child-soldier ...
... most reasonable observers would agree that the case is complex.
This commenter captures the essence of Kay's attitude towards Ezra:
Well I don't know, Jonathan. I'd say it sounds a little more like you sat in your cubicle at the Post, and you watched Ezra come, and then you watched him go, and then you saw him put book after book on the bestseller list while you sat in your cubicle and wrote wimpy articles that no one reads. What makes this even more sad is that the only reason anyone read this particular article is because it happened to be about Ezra Levant.
I guess we can look forward to Kay's many "Welcome back Khadr!!" columns.  We can also look forward to Ezra's response.  Kay has handed him a couple of weeks worth of material.


Anonymous said...

"He conducted every phone call in a loud Rush Limbaugh voice" And You Jonathan Kay listened to something that was none of your business in a typical cowardly lefty weasel manner. What a hero.

Rob C

Alain said...

The poor man's ignorance and inability are showing, for instead of providing proof that what Ezra wrote is incorrect, which he cannot, he does the typical leftist personal attack. In the case of Khadr there is nothing complex, and Ezra presented documented facts. Kay is a pathetic, insignificant little man that no one other than his fellow travellers take seriously.

JohnR said...

Our beloved National Post is quietly being turned into a Liberal mouthpiece with Jon's new political bonafides under Godfrey. Barbara aught to box his ears.

They've inexplicably failed to invite the best thinker of our times Mark Steyn back into the fold and instead allow socialist equality drivel pushers like Dan Gardner and Dave (I hate Canada's military) Bidini to soil the pages.

The National Post retains their original subscribers with an ever dwindling roster of writers. Wisely they retain the unmatchable George Jonas as well as Conrad Black, Christie Blatchford, Rex Murphy and Robert Fulford. Also precious are Charles Krauthammer, Charles Lewis and always timely reporting by Joseph Brean.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan who? said...

So if one conservative criticizes another that makes him a leftist?

I suppose David Frum is a pinko commie?

Anonymous said...

Serious question here. Who's Jonathan Kay?

Brad Maynard

Anonymous said...

I don't think much Kay but his article is spot on regarding Levant. Maybe a bit generous. None of this post's purplish prose comes close to actually countering any of Kay's criticism.

Anonymous said...

Didn't he also end his report saying, if he was on a plane in Canada, with Omar Khadr, he would be having thoughts as to if the plane was going to blow up?

JR said...,
Jonathan Kay and David Frum have a lot in common. They have similar smug, snotty, elitist styles and both are fond of attacking staunch conservatives they think are beneath them (eg. Tea Partiers, Sarah Palin, Ezra Levant). They're certainly not "pinko commies" but they're a lot more 'liberal' than they are conservative. For a conservative Kay, I recommend Jon's mother, Barbara.

Anon (4:48:00 PM PDT),
The point of this post is mainly to highlight Kay's insufferable left-lib snobbery couched in his own "purplish prose" personal attack on Levant. It's typical of Kay. See comment immediately above.

john said...

Who's johnathan Kay? He's a columnist at the National Post. Like his mommy Barbara Kay?

Gee little Johnny, how did you get your job?

I'll bet it was because of your immense literary talent.

Bec said...

I read this book and could not put it down. It was brilliantly researched and in fact at times, I felt the research was taking away from the story.......but then I remembered what Ezra fights against,journalists like J Kay.

We are bombarded daily by crappy propaganda pieces, gossipy goop, sloppy sentence structure etc in our Canadian media, mostly never backed up with an ounce of fact or credible sourcing. Then we get a controversial, brilliantly reasearched book by Ezra. Do we smell envy?

Anonymous said...

"We are bombarded daily by crappy propaganda pieces, gossipy goop, sloppy sentence structure etc in our Canadian media, mostly never backed up with an ounce of fact or credible sourcing. Then we get a controversial, brilliantly reasearched book by Ezra."

That's funny. With that first sentence, I was sure you were describing Ezra's work.

Anonymous said...

Nice try drprunesquallor but everyone knows Kay is a lib-pinko commie. He has also told conservatives that they should accept "science" just like his loonie God-hating bretheren.

Xanthippa said...

What I am dissappointed with is that in the comments following the article - nor here - nobody called Jonathan Kay on the actual factual error - or deliberate lie, whichever you prefer - in his article.

He states, quite categorically and without supporting his point, that Omar Khadr IS a 'child soldier' under UN's laws.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

Even if one were to equivocate on the 'combattant' thing (uniform and chain-of command are necessary for a UN classification of a combattant to be 'a soldier') and, for the sake of the argument, we pretended that Omar Khadr did not fail that part of the UN definition (which he does, but, let's indulge the argument...)

Even if he had indeed been a 'soldier', Omar Khadr would still have failed the UN's definition of 'child soldier'.

UN's definition of 'child soldier' only extends to people 14 years of age or younger.

That is the UN's definition, not mine. look it up - I did.

So, for Kay to so boldly state that Khadr was a 'child soldier' is, for a journalist, unforgivable.

That he was not challenged on this claim's veracity is disgrace on us all!

JR said...

True, Xanthippa. Kay quacked the left's standard "Khadr was a child soldier" canard as if it were an obvious given. He should have been called on it.