Upon receipt of submissions from Stephen Malthouse, The Islands Grapevine denied their publication, (but offered to publish revised versions), because their content included counter-factual claims, and derision of a Denman “decolonization” community group, These elements violated TIG’s editorial policy. Here’s Malthouse’s reply to us, followed by our response.
_____________________
Hello Keith, Thank you for your reply. It is really not worth debating these topics with you, but I do have a few comments. Firstly, I am aware of DRIPA, UNDRIP, court decisions in BC and section 235 of the Constitution Act, so you are presumptuous to be lecturing me.
Secondly, there was no intent to insult any group on the island, but people must be responsible for what they insert into the paper. If it is woke nonsense about us learning to accept our place as guilty colonizers, then there is reason to challenge it. Usually those that want to eat the rich, don’t own anything themselves. It is easy for them to think reconciliation is simply giving everything back. If their feelings are hurt because someone contradicts them, that cannot be avoided.
Thirdly, the editor(s) of the Grapevine seems to have lost their enthusiasm for publishing dissenting views, but have no shortage of justification for this change. I suspect this lack of editorial gumption is why we have a 2-page children’s’ story every week and long articles about nothing in particular to fill up the space.
The people that were previously offended because the Grapevine censorship was not to their liking are now publishing the Barnacle, while the rest of us have had our submissions repeatedly rejected and are reluctant to engage with you. One by one, I have seen writers excluded, and now we are left with little of substance and local relevance. Of course, there are still the weekly stoner cartoons, which may be of interest to somebody, somewhere.
The Grapevine, which I once looked forward to reading, now seems to have been politically correct-ed to death. Or is it just your tastes and opinions that are driving the editorial policy now? It is unfortunate that the paper, which served the island so well previously, is now almost moribund. It has lost its place as the townhall of the islands, where opinions could once be shared without fear of ruffling someone’s feathers and causing them to faint.
Stephen Malthouse, MD
________________________
Stephen, We can agree that there’s no point in debating this. Mike and I predicted several elements of your reply, including your insult to his intelligence, echoing your sycophantic acolytes, when we enforce an editorial policy that existed prior to me joining the paper as an editor. The current and corrupt advertising boycott by tax funded agencies is mostly caused by TIG carrying water for you and your aforementioned devotees..
Publisher Mike is also TIG’s editor, whatever you predictably think, and he makes all final editorial decisions. Thankfully, after navigating waters that nearly destroyed its economic viability, TIG is healthier and growing. Unlike the College of Physicians successfully undermining your practice, the censorious virtue-signallers have failed to put TIG out of business, and we will continue to proudly stand behind our editorial decisions.
No writer has been excluded, ever. Not one. There are 4 contributors who have refused any editorial feedback from the publisher and editor, and they have withdrawn on their own account. The paper is better off for it, while TIG continues to flourish. As a man whose views were too radioactive for even the B.C. Conservatives to stomach, you have only confirmed what we guessed your response might be. Bravo!
TIG continues to take heat for publishing dissenting views, particularly our weekly column by Caitlin Johnstone, but also a few others. In your case, and the case of your sycophantic acolytes, you all have the opportunity to be heard in our weekly paper, as long as you have a willingness to respect TIG’s boundaries and feedback, set by Mike, and printed in the paper each week. You could also do your own mailings.
And guilty as charged, for continuing to publish “stoner cartoons”, dad jokes, a crossword, and the tide table. Who ever heard of a newspaper that does? You deny your “intent” was to insult, then proceed to confirm your insulting views, a predictably teaching moment for irony, claiming “people need to be responsible for what they put in the paper.” On this we agree, and it includes you, with your reactionary nonsense.
The Islands Grapevine is also Mike’s livelihood, and most islanders are grateful for it, while we have expanded our circulation, advertising base, and web presence, despite the efforts of those whose behaviour you mirror, but reflected in some kind of Jungian funhouse, and where all conflict is about control. The Barnacle is free to lose thousands of dollars in a vanity press, as you are free to do as well. We refuse.
As you know, the Covidiots are those who have sought to silence dissent, while TIG has not changed its editorial policy or its taste. Our criteria for what to publish is unrelated to whom we agree with, and we have more than enough content submitted each week to “fill space.”. If the “town hall” seems less diverse, it is because of the chilling effect created by both you and the Covidiots, who choose to withdraw. So be it.
Please pass on our gratitude to Thomas and Peri, and Max and Helen, and the rest of your culturally amusing all-star team. We have a paper to run, and no good deed goes unpunished!
Keith Porteous, Associate Editor
