"A
Revolting Confession" by Kevin Potvin. The original article (Nov. 28th 2002).
[Kevin Potvin celebrates the attacks of 9/11 by joyously exclaiming to himself (and in his article, to the world) "Yeah!" and "Beautiful!" and feeling the urge to pump his "...fist in the air...," while also presenting himself as though he is "revolted" by his own reaction and claims he is not sure what side he is on. Apparently he is so 'revolted' by his own reaction that he has featured this article most prominently, the title and link for which are still posted above the news, in April of 2007. Which side is he on? You be the judge. Hint #1: He condemns the U.S., "corporatism," "militarism," etc. but not al-Qaeda, bin Laden, et al. and exclaims "Go, Osama, Go!" Hint #2: His article contains not one word or regret or sympathy for the victims; on the contrary, he states that he doesn't care. Needless to say, all of this qualifies him for entry into this jihadist/sharia supremacist "useful idiots" section.]
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f6edd8aa-0739-4197-b4c4-67a170f45a3c
Green candidate stands by remarks praising 9/11. 'Beautiful'
Katie Rook, National Post. Published: Friday, April 13, 2007
“ […] A federal Green party candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway
is standing behind a controversial editorial he wrote more than four years ago
in which he describes the falling of the World Trade Center twin towers as
"beautiful." “
“[…] Mr. Potvin said in a telephone interview last night
that he is now skeptical that the events of 9/11 were entirely the work of
terrorists.
"I have no idea what happened on that day, but it's
certainly not the story that Washington propagates."
Mr. Potvin, who was recently acclaimed as a Green party
candidate, is today meeting with voters to discuss "9/11 truth and its
implications for Canadian foreign policy" at a downtown Vancouver cafe.
The Green party could not be reached for comment last
night.”
Update: Green Party leader Elizabeth May won't nominate Potvin.
Updated Sun. Apr. 15 2007 5:23 PM ET. Canadian Press
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says she won't sign the nomination papers
of a Vancouver candidate who described the twin tower's collapse on Sept. 11,
2001 as "beautiful."
Kevin Potvin said on Friday he was being "symbolic" when he wrote
a column in 2002 cheering the terror attacks, and that it should be obvious he
took no pleasure in the fact that thousands of people were killed that day.
[Arch: In fact, it is not obvious at all. Potvin explictly expressed pleasure at the attacks, and in the article had no words of regret for the victims. He said his confession was revolting to him, but he did not say that the attacks were revolting or wrong. What does that mean? Yes, people are complex and have a complex array of emotional reactions to such events, but nowhere in Potvin's original article does he express sympathy for the victims. He said he didn't care (except in terms of cheering on bin Laden) and that he also did not care about the thousands of people killed in other tragedies (or atrocities) either].
But May said in a statement released Sunday that Potvin's views are
antithetical to the party line.
"Non-violence is one of the Green Party's fundamental principles,"
said May. "Our members declare their commitment to strive for a culture of
peace and cooperation between states and between people.
"I spoke with Kevin and realize this has been difficult for him. He is
a community leader, a father and an engaged citizen. He plays a very helpful role
in his community.
"However, his views are antithetical to Green Party values. We have
irreconcilable differences. I will not sign his nomination papers and he will
not be a Green Party candidate" in Vancouver-Kingsway.
Potvin is the publisher and editor of The Republic, an alternative
Vancouver newspaper.
Parts of his November 2002 column were reproduced in newspaper articles
Friday. He wrote that when he saw the first of the World Trade Centre towers
fall Sept. 11, 2001, "there was a little voice inside me that said 'Yeah!'
"When the second tower came down the same way, that little voice said
'Beautiful.'
"When the visage of the Pentagon appeared on the TV with a gaping and
smoking hole in its side, that little voice had nearly taken me over and I felt
an urge to pump my fist in the air."
The column goes on to say "I know lots of people were killed. But then
again, I see lots of people getting killed whenever I turn the TV news on, and
frankly, it doesn't really get me anymore."
Potvin said Friday he didn't mean he was dismissing the deaths. He said in
an interview with the Canadian Press that he titled the column "A
Revolting Confession" because he was repelled by his own thoughts.
[Arch: But he did explicitly dismiss those deaths and thousands of others. Even now, while denying that he dismissed the deaths, he is still, for whatever reasons, unable to state that he regrets the deaths of those victims. He claims he was "revolted" by his own thoughts. Why? He stands by everything he said in the original article, refer to it as "truth," and has expressed no sympathy for the victims of 9/11. So what is it that revolts him? He still hasn't told us, but maybe hopes that various people will fill in the glaring absences in his explanation].
"Obviously, as a human to human here, you know that I'm not using beautiful
in that sense," he said.
[Arch: In what sense? He won't say it! Again, it's not obvious at all. Everything he wrote still indicates that he thinks the events were beautiful].
In his column, Potvin said the number of people killed on Sept. 11, 2001,
isn't the reason why those attacks were such an important event.
Lots of people die every day in lots of places like Rwanda and in the United
States, he wrote.
"The only reason Sept. 11 merits so much attention is because the
targets were so supremely symbolic. Corporatism and militarism were struck that
morning, and that's why it's such big news."
He added on Sunday that if the Green Party believes that getting rid of a
candidate will put a controversy to rest, it's not ready for national politics.
"I think the Ottawa headquarters of the Green party misplayed this
whole issue and they're not ready for prime-time national politics," he
told the Canadian Press.
[Arch: Potvin's honestly-stated views are incompatible with those views of the Green Party leader. It would have been politically suicidal for the Green Party to run this candidate. That Potvin still doesn't seem to get this, and faults the Green Party instead of himself, only lends further support to the claim that he has incredibly poor judgement and is out of touch with reality].
Here's more from a column on Apr 13 2007 where Potvin is quoted:
Green candidate: column cheering 9/11 'symbolic'
Canadian Press
" VANCOUVER -- A Green candidate for the next federal election says he was
just being "symbolic" when he wrote a column in 2002 cheering the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
[Arch: That's part of the problem. He doesn't seem to have registered an emotional connection to feel sympathy for the victims. For him that part is an abstraction, it is symbolic. (If it is otherwise, he hasn't bothered to tell us that yet). It makes him happy that the U.S. was attacked. At the same time, he expresses positive emotions toward the terrorists such as bin Laden, hoping in earnest that bin Laden escapes (e.g., he wrote "Go, Osama, Go!")].
Kevin Potvin said Friday it should be obvious that he wasn't happy with the
deaths of the thousands killed that day.
[Arch: Not obvious unless Potvin repudiates his article, which he still insists is a true expression of his feelings].
[...]
"If you read the story that I wrote, you'll notice that I'm talking
about it on a symbolic level," he said.
"I go to great pains to make clear that I'm not talking about the
deaths of anybody. After all, as you can imagine, I'm a human being. I'm a
father, I'm a hockey dad, I'm a businessman, I'm a community leader. I'm
obviously not going to be revelling in the deaths of anybody."
[Arch: Potvin continues to pretend he wrote something other than what he actually wrote, and introduces a litany of red herrings].
[...]
But on Friday, Potvin appeared insulted that anyone would suggest his column
meant he was jubilant about the violence and killing. He noted he entitled the
column A Revolting Confession because he was repelled by his own thoughts.
[Arch: It is remarkable that as a writer he did not realize that his article would convey the general idea that he was jubilent; that his unclear statements about being "revolted" by his confession would be drowned out by his clear and unambiguous "Yeah!" "Beautiful!" and "Go, Osama, Go!" It is also remarkable that he blames some readers for interpreting his own words in the most accurate way].
After parts of his column were reproduced in newspaper articles Friday,
Potvin issued a clarification but he never disavowed his sentiments in the
statement or a following interview.
"If you're asking 'do I weasel away from things I've said in the past?'
No, I'm a man of my word and I stand by what I say," he said.
"I don't always agree with what I say. . . I change my mind when new
information comes along. I'm a politician who changes my mind."
[Arch: Thus far, he hasn't changed his mind about the article in question].
[...]"
To be Brutally Honest. By Kevin Potvin.
Excerpts:
"Everyone was quick to say they were so sorry to see so many
people killed."
[Arch: Not Potvin, in his article. Quite the contrary. He didn't say he cared about the deaths and he said he was happy about the attacks on "militarism" and "corporatism".]
" More than half the essay was devoted to the awful deaths of
that day and in other massive tragedies, and re-reading it then, I could well
recall the anguish I felt at writing what I had."
[Arch: Again, he did not condemn the attacks, and he did not express sympathy for the victims].
"What if, I wondered, a real viable candidate was willing to
speak in public openly and honestly about 9/11 and related it directly to
things like foreign policy? And I didn’t just mean 9/11 as a horrible tragic
and regrettable event."
[Arch: Here Potvin comes close to stating something like a statement of regret; indeed it would be a statement of regret, but it is obscured by "And I didn't just mean..." which renders the rest of the sentence ambiguous. Potvin does not seem to grasp that what is called for here is a clear and unambiguous statement. If he really truly does have sympathy for the victims, he should express that. He doesn't do so clearly. Why not? Also, he calls the event tragic, as if it was an earthquake or a hurricane disaster; he doesn't say the terrorists were wrong to attack those civilians in those "corporate" symbols. Why doesn't he say that they were wrong, reprehensible, etc.?].
"I read a statement that apologized for how my essay had been
mischaracterized to construe me as someone who could possibly take joy in the
events of that day. Then I dismissed the media and tried to get back to the
constituents for the scheduled meeting to talk about Canadian foreign policy."
[Arch: He wants to have it both ways. He wants to express his honest feelings of joy at the attacks, but he doesn't seem to want to be bothered to either defend his views or provide justification (in his worldview) for them. Thus, instead of admitting that he was either wrong in his views or inept in conveying them clearly, he blames people for "misconstruing" his statements "Yeah!" "Beautiful!" and "Go, Osama, Go!"].
-Arch