May 24, 2015

Babcock, Bullard and Free Speech

Theo CaldwellArchive

In this accolade-drenched broadcast, I employ a mystery theme throughout as I comment on Mitt Romney boxing, Montreal regaining baseball, and The Mountain at the bat.

From there, I herald the hiring of Mike Babcock, hold forth on the hilarity of Mike Bullard, and proclaim the sell-by date of David Letterman.

At no extra charge, I invoke Emerson, Shakespeare and Corner Gas in drawing a distinction between censorship and free speech.

Ultimately, for the benefit of slower audience members, I explain the theme and reveal the Monster at the End of this Book. Fear not, gentle listener.


READ Finn the half-Great, Theo Caldwell’s first novel for young adults:
Finn McCool, at fourteen feet, thinks he is the tallest thing in the Emerald Isle. That is, until he ventures outside his childhood valley...

JOIN 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.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-31 21:43:55 -0400
Erin, In reference to that “choice” you refer to……it has been my experience that when you exercise it you hit a wall of resentment……and when you tell them you are Buddhist….they assume you are just being a smartass …..I
commented 2015-05-28 20:32:34 -0400
Erin I was referring to some prose that Theo posted here, but apparently few got to read it before it was taken down, in which Theo said disparaging things about a former employer…..this was what Theo was referring to in this podcast so if you missed the connection that’s perfectly understandable.

As for the business of what the ritual that is demanded at court proceedings …in court you are asked by people who have no subject matter jurisdiction over the Bible (by virtue of the fact that they are not duly ordained clergy of any of the Orthodox churches who determined the Canon of the Bible) to swear an oath on a book that tells you with no ambiguity whatsoever not to swear oaths (Matthew 5:34) and has nothing good to say about lawyers (Luke chapter 11 and elsewhere)… tell far more truth than the court ACTUALLY wants to hear…..especially in this era of political correctness….this current crew of judges are fine with the concept that …“truth is not a defence” ….and Irwin Cotler is the choirmaster of THAT choir.

That being the case why would you even be asked to do so?

It’s really too bad that we live in a world where landlords can demand references but prospective tenants cannot demand references from previous tenants ….same with employers. This particular employer could bad mouth Theo to his heart’s content with no fear of defamation reprisal whereas Theo does not have the same freedom of speech ….again Erin…since you didn’t get to read the piece this might not be understood.
commented 2015-05-25 21:56:46 -0400
“You have the right to free speech but not the right to be heard”. That’s pretty good, though it was Patrick’s not Theo’s. I also like the bit about tipping sacred cows. The Emerson reference was even better. But I have to say, what the hell does editorial freedom and journalistic integrity have to do with boxing, Pac-Man, Victoria Day and frost warnings? Birthdays? Really???
Theo, you come across so much better in print than on radio. But I will try to tune in now and again, hoping to catch those few nuggets of value randomly interspersed with what otherwise struck me as a rather incoherent and wholly unfocused diatribe.
Also, in the future, try not to confuse editorial freedom with journalistic objectivity. Op eds are at least labelled such that they are distinguishable from news reporting. The problem as I see it with mainstream news outlets is that they claim to be objective and balanced but are anything but.

Glenn, after listening to Theo’s broadcast, I am even more confused by your comment and what possible connection it has to your former union employer or being asked to swear/affirm to tell the truth in court.
commented 2015-05-25 21:27:03 -0400
Glenn, once more your own comment proves your ignorance about Canadian law. In Canadian legal proceedings, it is true that witnesses must be “sworn in” (so to speak) before they give testimony. But they are also given the choice to swear on the Bible, or, if they prefer, give a solemn (secular) affirmation. It’s clearly laid out in the Canada Evidence Act, section 14(1): “I solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given by me shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
commented 2015-05-24 21:14:06 -0400
Theo, I was one of two who posted comment on something you referred to. Theo. when I bailed out of Montreal after the first referendum…my employer was glad to see me go and said “There is a shovel with your name on it at the bottom of a coal mine in Cape Breton waiting for you Mr Union Troublemaker”. I am now retired…that gentleman is now shovelling hot coal in Hell…and I have yet to even visit the miner’s museum in Glace Bay……:-)

Believe me I know what it is like to have an elephant calibre arsehole of an employer….:-)

Theo there are truths I know of which I dare not speak and which I dread having water boarded out of me.

The most absurd thing I have ever heard as a legal demand imposed on anybody is “DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD

I would certainly not require God’s help to tell the average courtroom more truth than they would be comfortable hearing.

But keep it up and keep the faith….when you call me “gentle listener” you flatter me…….:-)