Kinsella the cowardly lion

I love public debates.

Two years ago, right after the Western Standard published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, I was invited by the Canadian Association of Journalists to debate against Mohamed Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Elmasry's debating style was strange: he rambled from denouncing "zhoos" for controlling the media, to bragging about how Canada should be grateful to him since he is personally responsible for developing Research In Motion's BlackBerry. In other words, he's an egocentric conspiracy theorist with a big dose of Jew hatred. Here's a column I wrote about Elmasry shortly after that debate.

Once, I even debated Syed Soharwardy, the anti-Semitic imam who filed a human rights complaint against me for publishing the cartoons. Soharwardy was so upset by that debate that he went to the Calgary Police Service afterwards to try to get them to arrest me!

But for sheer cheekiness, one of my favourite debates was back in 2005 when I debated against Joe Volpe, then a federal cabinet minister.

We had just run a hilarious cover story called The Libranos, about how the corrupt federal Liberals were stealing money in the manner of a criminal organization. Here's the cover of that issue. 

I don't think the video clip is still available on CTV's website, but here are some contemporaneous reviews by viewers. But the point is: it didn't matter that I shellacked Volpe. Because merely by having him agree to debate me on live, national TV, I had won.

Imagine that: a senior government cabinet minister, deigning to debate a small magazine publisher about... the magazine. How could I lose? How could I not come across as bigger than I was, and him smaller than he was? By participating, he granted our little magazine much more credibility and authority than we had. Forget about the fact that he flashed his temper, and sounded ridiculous (I think he called me, a Jew, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, or something like that.) Even if he would have "won" the debate ("no, we're not crooks like the Sopranos") he looked ridiculous.

I loved it!

Which brings me to the curious case of Warren Kinsella (who himself had a significant enough role in the Libranos drama to be mentioned many times by name in the Gomery report, and cited for "highly inappropriate" interference in how public funds were spent).

Over the past few days, Kinsella has been even more excitable and desperate than normal. He has been demanding that Mark Steyn debate him at a June 3rd event sponsored by the Public Policy Forum in Ottawa.

I can understand why: like me debating against Joe Volpe, Kinsella debating against Steyn would be a coup for Kinsella. Steyn is the big dog in Canadian media -- both through his column in Maclean's, but also on the blogosphere, where he has more traffic than any other political blogger in the country. (Kinsella ranks 21st, and is falling). Kinsella used to be interesting when he had access to the federal Liberal Party. That hasn't been the case since Jean Chretien left, and it has stripped Kinsella of his strongest suit. Kinsella is occasionally funny, but more usually over the top. His schtick worked when he was affiliated with the prime minister of the day, no matter how tenuously. That's just gone now. Of course Kinsella would like to debate Steyn. And I would like to debate Stephane Dion on national TV, too, but it's not going to happen.

Kinsella has taunted Steyn:

C'mon Mark! You're not afraid to debate little old me, are you?

and

we can safely regard Mark Steyn as a chickenshit.

and

Your hero shouldn't be afraid, then, right? The Public Policy Forum will sponsor it, next month in Ottawa. I'll agree to any format your hero desires.

The great man couldn't possibly be intimidated by someone committing career suicide, could he?

I look forward to his response. He certainly lurks on my site enough, so I know he's read my offer

and, my favourite:

Let's go, tough guy. 

It's all very compelling theatre, except for one thing: Kinsella was invited by the Public Policy Forum to debate me, and he refused, saying he'd debate anyone but me!

Last month, the PPF invited me to the debate, and I accepted. But then Kinsella backed down, claiming that his lawyer said he couldn't. According to the PPF's organizer:

Mr. Kinsella's lawyer... weighed in with a list of people and issues where there were potential problems.

You're damned right I'd be a potential problem -- I'd cream Kinsella in a debate!

There are no lawsuits between Kinsella and me -- though he's blustered and bluffed enough, you'd think that he'd have filed one by now.

He's not suing me, and I'm not suing him. Unless Kinsella was planning to defame me, there's no "potential problem" -- and even then, I'm sure I'd let him go, because his rage-aholic rants discredit himself more than anyone else.

So why does Kinsella need a lawyer to tell him not to debate me? I don't think there's a legal reason. I think Kinsella is scared. As Kinsella would say, C'mon Warren! You're not afraid to debate little old me, are you?

The PPF isn't a for-profit group; frankly, they couldn't pay my regular speaking fee -- I told them whatever they could chip in was fine. But I thought it would be a great debate in front of thoughtful people. I'm in the centre of the human rights maelstrom and Kinsella, well, he's one of the only people who are willing to make the case for political censorship. Let's argue.

But, Kinsella backed out -- blaming his lawyer. (At least it's better than his excuse he offered for not following through on his lawsuit against me -- blaming his wife!)

I was a little bit surprised that the PPF didn't tell Kinsella to buzz off. Kinsella was very rude and low-class -- like demanding that the host of a party un-invite another guest, or Kinsella wouldn't attend. But I didn't want to make a fuss for the PPF, and a five-hour flight each way for me, for a one-hour debate that didn't pay, wasn't worth making a fuss over.

I hope the event is a success, though with Kinsella verbally vomiting over his potential debating partners, I'm not sure if the PPF will be able to find a debating opponent for him. If I were Keith Martin, I'd certainly not lower myself, Volpe-style, to debating with Kinsella.

I hope the PPF debate is a success, though I'm not sure if Kinsella is quite the draw he might have been four years ago when he actually had access in Ottawa.

I've got about four or five public events over the next two months about human rights commissions, from Vancouver to Toronto, and I'll be sure to publicize them in case anyone wants to attend. Some of them are just me speaking on my own, but at least one is going to be a debate against a senior human rights officer with serious credentials. I'll be sure to keep you posted.

I'll share the details of one of them now: Moses Znaimer's ideaCity conference, in Toronto this June. It's not inexpensive, but it's an amazing line-up of speakers from all walks of intellectual life. I'm honoured to be invited, and I don't think that, like Kinsella, I'll be hiding behind "my lawyer" when tough questions are thrown at me!