When the principal secretary to Fred Hiltz, Paul Feheley, was appointed editor of the Anglican Journal, some questioned whether this would compromise the paper’s editorial independence.
The Journal gets a $596,627 subsidy from Canadian Heritage – from our taxes – but only if it maintains editorial independence; since it involves money, this is an important issue for the church.
Doubts I may have harboured about the Journal’s editorial independence were allayed somewhat when the article about my little spat with Michael Bird appeared.
However, the doubts – which I am doing my best to embrace – were reinvigorated when, the day after the article appeared, five paragraphs mysteriously vanished; ENS also carried the article and the same thing happened there.
Presumably, somebody contacted the Journal and ENS to ask for the removal of the now expunged material. I have no idea who.
Do you have a screenshot of the original article?
The Anglican Journal is the party newspaper of Anglicanism.
It is a fund raising organ; Rah-rah tabloid rag; propaganda machine and, above all, pathetic.
I commented on the bishop Bird article and included a warning aimed at their usual clumsy censorship. You do not have to be a guardian of free speech to figure out that the comments were heavily censored and the bias manipulated.
This action is very relevant to your law suite with Bird so provide your brief with all the details. Nothing can be erased or hidden once this goes to court; you will note that ORIGINAL copies of electronic documents must be provided to the court.
I was unaware that we are paying for the AJ, but not surprised of course: begging money from the government is Hiltz’ major forte.
Abba Ministries of Canada has a modest publication entitled Abba’s vineyard for our pastors and I will will now be applying for a grant from Canadian Heritage so that we can go public. The ANiC should follow suit if it has not already done so…
That’s “suit” not “suite,” and I have no idea what “This action is very relevant to your law suit(e) with Bird so provide your brief with all the details” is supposed to mean or accomplish.
Dear “Anonymous” thank you for the English lesson. No doubt you are British, have English as a first language and are quite naturally monolingual… Personally, I regret that I am not in any of those superior categories.
I am also sorry that you could not understand what I was trying to say in my halting English; however that is probably due to a low IQ on your part and not a case of sic erat scriptum.
The Anglican Journal is not the subject of the litigation and, short of anything published therein that may constitute some form of admission, be it hearsay or otherwise, by or on behalf of Bishop Bird, or that may prejudice, at law, the position of a party to the action, perceived censorship and bias in the Anglican Journal have nothing to do with the lawsuit Mr. Jenkins is involved in.
Please leave the provision of legal advice to to Mr. Jenkins’ legal counsel. If the two redacted paragraphs are relevant to the case then Mr. Jenkins can bring those to the attention of his lawyer.
You are correct that English is my first language. Your use of the Latin quasi-maxim is out of context, by the way.
My error. There were five paragraphs removed, not two. Trying to do too many things at once, I’m afraid.
You miss my point entirely, and the English are usually so good at sarcasm…
PS [postscript, P.S., whatever] do not be afraid.
I have again reviewed your comments here and on the AJ site. It is apparent I missed nothing.
Apparent to me, anyway. If you can clarify what your point was I think it would be helpful to anyone viewing the dialogue.
Aussi, je suis Canadien, merci.