July 21, 2015

Toronto Star's "Catherine Porter is a shameless liar who doesn't take responsibility even after she's caught"

Rebel Staff
 

You might have heard about the "apology" I got today from the Toronto Star's Catherine Porter, after we caught her lying about me in her column.

You may remember what happened:

She painted me as a bully in print, but we had video that showed that much of she was saying wasn't true.

You can see the whole thing HERE.

Under pressure from The Rebel, our viewers and, no doubt, her employer, Porter was forced to write the non-apology to me that ran in the Star today.

I'm not surprised by any of this because Porter declared in a previous Star column -- one she wrote about a woman who lied about having cancer, and who she called a "hero" -- that lying is acceptable for a "good" cause (like turning me into a bad guy.)

That's typical of self-proclaimed "social justice warriors" like Porter, and the other Media Party types who won't condemn her.

They all think the ends justify the means.

PS: You won't believe where Porter is going to be tonight. And no, I'm not lying...

 

(WATCH the whole video of my encounter with Catherine Porter at ProtestVideo.ca)


JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

VISIT our NEW group blog The Megaphone!
It’s your one-stop shop for rebellious commentary from independent and fearless readers and writers.

READ Ezra Levant's bestselling books debunking environmentalist propaganda against the energy industry:
Groundswell: The Case for Fracking
Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands




Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-07-23 20:14:55 -0400
In other words her “apology” is a lie, and for the good cause of saving her own sorry butt from the boot.

Again, this is secular humanist thought and behavior – since there is no God and we are all nothing but bags of chemicals with no soul; merely biological automatons functioning to “spread our genes through the population” for some imagined Darwinian survival goal, what’s wrong with lying? Nothing according to the new atheist evangelists who boldly claim that all morality is an illusion.
Don’t believe it? Proof: “As evolutionists, we see that no (ethical) justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence, the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding … Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.” (Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics” in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement by James Edward Huchingson, (Harcourt Brace, 1993).)

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) NO ULTIMATE FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS EXISTS; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” -William B. Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, NO EVIL AND NO GOOD. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” – Richard Dawkins, – Out of Eden, page 133

Sam Harris sets forth this position, “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.” – Harris, Free Will
Of course, it logically follows that if no free will exists, morality in humans is also a mere illusion with no real meaning at all.
Where there is no moral agency there can be no morality. For, morality assumes, as it’s very foundation, the ability of sentient beings to choose freely between right and wrong options. If no such choice really exists, then morality is also nonexistent.
No one expects bacteria or rocks, or trees or cats or … to have morality.

“If there is no God, everything is permitted.” – Jean Paul Sartre on Ivan Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevski’s character
Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse puts it bluntly, “Morality is no more … than an adaptation, and as such has the same status as such things as teeth and eyes and noses. … [M]orality is a creation of the genes”.
Naturalist atheist Simon Blackburn says much the same: “Nature has no concern for good or bad, right or wrong. . . . We cannot get behind ethics.”

For secular humanist relativists like Porter, there is therefore nothing inherently wrong in lying – or any other crime as long as its “for a good cause”. The word “good” remaining undefined, vague and arbitrary. For the Nazis, “good” was murdering millions of innocent Jews. If there is no real morality, who can tell them that they’re wrong? Nobody, ever.
That’s the inevitable logical conclusion of atheism.

“If morality is always relative to one’s own society, then you, coming from your society, have your moral standards and I, coming from my society, have mine. It follows that when I criticize your moral standards, I am simply expressing the morality of my society, but it also follows that when you condemn me for criticizing the moral standards of your society, you are simply expressing the morality of your society. There is, on this view, no way of moving outside the morality of one’s own society and expressing a transcultural or objective moral judgment about anything, including respect for the cultures of different peoples. Hence if we happen to live in a culture that honors those who subdue other societies and suppress their cultures, then that is our morality, and the relativist can offer no cogent reason why we should not simply get on with it.”
- professor of bioethics, Peter Singer

Ideas have consequences.
commented 2015-07-23 15:41:52 -0400
Wanda in my opinion feeding the lefty trolls by being outrageous is absolutely a good deed. Unlike us who have insults hurled at us and we just sluff them off, to the SJW you using free speech to hurl venom they deem racist,sexist, or homophobic drives them insane. Did you see what happened when Ben Shapiro called Bob (Zoey) Tur sir? I’ve trolled that wench Steph Guthrie for weeks praying for her to call the cops, I’d welcome my chance to “spew hate” in a courtroom. If we don’t challenge these people by offending them, we are adding to the direction that free speech is going, which is illegality.
commented 2015-07-23 13:42:04 -0400
Porter thinks everyone lies and is expected to lie? Ezra, if you got an apology from this liar it wouldn’t be sincere because she has no character and would probably be lying. As children we were taught not to lie. Lying is for people with shady characters, con men, some politicians etc and are not to be trusted. She even used her own child in a lie. She has no ideals or principles and should be fired from her job as a reporter. Now that this is out who’s going to ever believe anything she has to say in a news column?
commented 2015-07-23 09:53:10 -0400
Bill Elder – “infantile”? You are a much kinder man than I am, my friend.
commented 2015-07-23 08:02:21 -0400
Well I’m “sorry” I ever wasted fleeting glance at Porter’s infantile spew.
commented 2015-07-23 07:14:46 -0400
Are you people all new to online discussion forums? Instead of feeding the troll, why don’t you just ignore him/it? This guy has hi-jacked this entire discussion thread and you’ve let him do it. This thread is beginning to look like the comments section of the Glob. Watch for him to turn up in other threads to do exactly the same thing. When you’ve got a troll on the board, ignore his comments and continue whatever discussion was going on before. If you don’t, you’ll find that most participants leave the board and don’t return.
commented 2015-07-23 00:01:48 -0400
Clearly you were dropped on your head at birth, There is no point in any more dialogue. You are challenged.
commented 2015-07-22 23:47:04 -0400
Sure – Ezra Levant made a “mistake”.

Did he also make a mistake – which resulted in a Judge stating that Ezra Levant shows “a reckless disregard for the truth”?

Or Ezra’s own lawyer stating that the world shouldn’t take what Ezra ever says seriously, because he is an attention whore who makes up shit for drama and fake controversy.

I love how you all completely ignore the fact that Ezra Levant lost all credibility. Not that he ever really had any, but even his own lawyer had to come clean about the kind of person that Ezra Levant truly is.

And this doesn’t bother any of you.
commented 2015-07-22 23:06:04 -0400
Robert Prongay, what you mentioned of Jimmy is a characteristic of many leftists. For people they don’t like, if that person make an error they are immediately called a liar.

ezra made a mistake about the identity of some protesters. He was confronted later with his mistake and then immediately took to the a public forum (the Source) to correct his mistake.

This, in the eyes of Jimmy, means that Ezra is a liar. To anyone with any common sense, it is obvious all Ezra did was make a mistake, not a lie, but Jimmy still accuses him of lying.

This only indicates that either Jimmy really does not understand the difference and is just plain stupid, or he is deliberately lying calling Ezra a liar. I tend to think the latter is actually the case. When Jimmy calls Ezra a liar for this, Jimmy is, in fact, the actual liar.
commented 2015-07-22 20:42:46 -0400
“You all desperately need me.” Wow! Arrogance and superiority complex all wrapped up in one statement!
commented 2015-07-22 19:17:54 -0400
Wait he made shit up by be being mistaken in his identity of people, based on the identities submitted to him by viewers ? : He then corrected it based on the people he mistakenly identified informing him it wasn’t them almost 9 months before the CBSC ruling. This is what you call a lie? So if a reporter makes an error and acknowledges that he was mistaken based on the source of the information you equate that to fabricating a dialogue you had directly with a person in an op/ed you write?

I get it you disagree with Ezra, and his opinions annoy you, but you can’t just turn that into him fabricating supposed fact, you have provided no examples of him fabricating suppose facts. He never claimed to see the couple he was told they were there, read it from the CBSC.

Media Release

Misidentification of Protestors Constitutes Code Breach,

Says Canadian Broadcast Standards Council

Ottawa, October 23, 2013 – The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) today released its decision concerning an episode of The Source broadcast on Sun News Network on January 23, 2013. The host of the public affairs discussion program misidentified protestors in a video clip. The CBSC found the station in violation of the CAB Code of Ethics for the error. The CBSC did not, however, require the station to make an announcement on air because Levant had already acknowledged the error in a subsequent episode of his program.

The host of The Source, Ezra Levant, showed videoclips of a protest that had occurred outside the Sun’s Toronto office. The protestors objected to Sun Media’s coverage of the Idle No More movement. A few days later, Levant replayed the clips, saying that, following their initial broadcast, he had received information from viewers about who some of the protestors were. He identified one couple by their names, stating that they were “professional protestors” who had engaged in other protest activity.

The CBSC received a complaint from the identified woman, who asserted that she was not the person in the clip as she had not attended the Sun Media protest and had not even been in Toronto at the time. She also complained that Levant had tarnished her reputation and that of her husband by accusing them of being professional protestors and using the Aboriginal movement to cause a “ruckus”.

The CBSC’s National Specialty Services Panel concluded that Sun News Network breached Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics for including inaccurate information in the talk show. Levant had acknowledged his error on the February 8 episode of The Source.

The CBSC was created in 1990 by Canada’s private broadcasters to administer the codes of standards that they established for their industry. The CBSC currently administers 7 codes which deal with ethics, equitable portrayal, violence, news and journalistic independence. Nearly 790 radio stations, satellite radio services, television stations and specialty and pay television services across Canada are members of the Council.
commented 2015-07-22 19:08:10 -0400
another thread held hostage, and ended by a troll.
commented 2015-07-22 19:01:30 -0400
Mancave,

No, I bring common sense, logic and reason to The Rebel. You all desperately need me.
commented 2015-07-22 18:59:48 -0400
Again, someone who has to defend Ezra Levant – whenever he gets into trouble has clearly stated that Ezra doesn’t have credibility and shouldn’t be taken seriously. There is no way to spin that, so that is why you are all ignoring it.
commented 2015-07-22 18:56:05 -0400
Liza,

LOL. What choice did Ezra have? Taking ownership of made up bullshit when you are called out on it doesn’t negate the fact that you made shit up. He didn’t make an honest mistake or make some kind of understandable error. He knowingly made shit up.
commented 2015-07-22 17:11:03 -0400
Troll is at least as much a liar as Porter.
commented 2015-07-22 17:08:47 -0400
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant
under ‘Broadcasting inaccurate information’
The source for the quote below, which troll chose to cut and paste in PART, leaving out the part where Ezra takes full ownership of his mistake.
commented 2015-07-22 17:03:31 -0400
’Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ’ The UN of Canadian broadcasting, and just as invalid. Completely infiltrated by the left. Completely ineffective.
There are attention whores who lose all credibility because they are proven liars,(Porter) and then there are attention whores who tell the truth, push the envelope of mainstream opinion, consequently ticking people off, and bringing out the barking dogs. (Ezra)
This is not in reply to troll.
“The CBSC’s National Specialty Services Panel concluded that Sun News Network breached Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics for including inaccurate information in the talk show. Levant had acknowledged his error on the February 8 episode of The Source.”
LEVANT HAD ACKNOWLEDGED HIS ERROR ON THE FEBRUARY 8 EPISODE OF THE SOURCE.
commented 2015-07-22 15:57:49 -0400
Jimmy you mentioned Ezra is a “attention whore”. Isn’t that what you are trying to do with your posts?
commented 2015-07-22 15:51:26 -0400
Thanks for posting the link Liza. People like Jimmy maybe need to see it, but it could be too much for them to comprehend.
commented 2015-07-22 15:30:58 -0400
Robert,

Sure I can provide proof, but the problem is that you have already been bought and paid for by Ezra Levant, so you are just going to view it as a liberal attack, etc. If you are able to keep an open mind with facts from any media source – I will be happy to share examples with you.

And from his own Wikipedia page – this isn’t libel:

Broadcasting inaccurate information:

On January 23, 2013, Levant showed video of a protest that had occurred in front of the Sun News office in Toronto in which protesters objected to the Sun’s coverage of the Idle No More movement. Levant replayed the clip on a subsequent show and proceeded to identify one couple by name claiming that they were “professional protesters.” The couple subsequently contacted Sun to complain that it was not them in the clip, that they had not attended the protest nor even been in Toronto at the time and then complained to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council when the Sun did not correct their story. "The CBSC’s National Specialty Services Panel concluded that Sun News Network breached Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics for including inaccurate information in the talk show.
commented 2015-07-22 15:21:13 -0400
I have some pity for Catherine Porter. She is in my mind a product of the moral relativism brainwashing encouraged by the education system where “intellectuals” dream up highly unusual situations, where lying might appear to be a good or beneficial result. These situations are often craftily designed to get you to arrive at the conclusion they want you to arrive at with no alternatives but the ones they have chosen. In the end you might conclude telling a lie is good right because I saved a life or more. But the truth is telling a lie was simply the lesser of the two evils and by comparison it was better than allowing an innocent to die. Often people in school are encouraged to question everything except of course if it is the opinion of the Professor grading your paper.
commented 2015-07-22 15:18:13 -0400
Liza,

Again, his own lawyer said that Ezra doesn’t have credibility and shouldn’t be taken seriously – because he says anything simply to get a reaction – regardless if it’s truth or not. In other words, Ezra Levant is a attention whore.
commented 2015-07-22 15:11:00 -0400
Oh well Jimmy painting with a broad brush is something you know all about. As for Ezra lying care to provide an example? I hope you don’t mean when his opinions have been labeled as slander, because there is z huge difference between what somebody thinks of another and stating as factual an encounter that was nothing like you described it. She should have given her opinion rather then just lie about facts. Ezra is a big boy he can handle insults as well as these defaming lies without crying to the HTC. To bad the left isn’t so thick skinned.
commented 2015-07-22 14:26:17 -0400
No, the status quo, attempts to reprimand Ezra periodically for pushing back against hypocrisy and speaking up for the truth. You don’t know the difference.
(2014 Sappho Award by The Free Press Society)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj59qFfnwrg
Remember what I said. Dogs don’t bark at parked cars.
Learn the difference between being a liar and being a shit disturber.
commented 2015-07-22 13:08:04 -0400
Robert,

I have never been drunk or high in my life. I am also not Portuguese and was born in Toronto. Try harder.

I am also not just throwing around words like irony and hypocrisy. Ezra Levant has gotten into trouble by lying and making up shit and that’s where the hypocrisy comes into play.
commented 2015-07-22 11:54:15 -0400
The far left is made up entirely of liars, cheats, and thieves. NDP and the 4 million dollar theft of tax payers money, The Star and it’s reporters printing lie after lie. The CBC and it’s lies by omission. The list could go on for page after page.
commented 2015-07-22 11:36:43 -0400
I have to wonder on what level someone who takes money from cancer victims who truly need it and causes the greater public to become skeptical of donating to charities thereby denying them even greater amounts of much needed funding can be portrayed as a hero. Ezra if she had admitted her error immediately and apologized it could have been easily forgiven but now in my opinion she has become a liability to the Toronto Star who will have to work overtime double checking her facts and cleaning up her messes. Her attitude about lying can possibly sully the reputation of everyone she is involved with. The saddest part of it all, what a way to raise a child.
commented 2015-07-22 11:17:04 -0400
Robert, Funny you should mention Joan. I had her in mind as I made my last remark. More than once I have waded through comment sections strewn with her flotsam and jetsam. As soon as I see her name now, I just give up and move on.
I am going to practice what I preach now and say no more about it.
commented 2015-07-22 10:54:42 -0400
Roger point taken, but do we ever get a salient point from a liberal poster? On our pages we allow them to comment with no monitoring or deletion, on their pages you lay out a full logical argument and you’re attacked as a bigot,homophobe,sexist or such or worse just deleted or not approved. Sometimes you have to “fight” like the opposition as much for entertainment as effect. This guy and that Joan wench want a rise I give it to them lol.