The following CiF comment, beneath the line of a post by Guardian Readers’ Editor Chris Elliott’s on the Trevino affair, pointed out the hypocrisy of the outrage over Trevino’s one Tweet, in the context of the Guardian’s licensing of racist extremists who advocate terror. (See AKUS’s take on Elliott’s defense, here)
The comment was deleted by ‘Comment is Free’ moderators, so ‘Henrybrav’ posted it again. It was then deleted without a trace, and ‘Henrybrav‘ informed us that he was put on pre-moderation.
Then, ‘Henrybrav’ re-registered as ‘Bravhenry’ and re-posted the same comment, including text informing readers that he (‘Henrybrav’) had been put on pre-moderation, and that he did not expect his comment (as ’Bravhenry’) to stay up for long. He also suggested that other commenters should ask the same question.
That comment was quickly deleted, and ‘Bravhenry’ was banned completely.
As you may recall, our August 21st post pointed out that off-topic and quite vicious ad hominem attacks against Josh Trevino (accusing him of advocating murder) beneath the line of his inaugural post at CiF, by the likes of Ali Abunimah and Ben White, were not deleted by CiF moderators.
So, it seems that it is okay for CiF commenters to impute the absolute worst motives to pro-Israel commentators, but forbidden to point out the moral hypocrisy of Guardian editors – which – in its most egregious manifestation – includes legitimizing the voices of Islamist terror.
The Trevino episode continues to demonstrate the Guardian’s true illiberal nature – as well as the boundless hubris and hypocrisy exhibited by their editors.
- Guardian caves in to bullying on Josh Trevino (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s Pathetic Excuse for Firing Josh Trevino (cifwatch.com)
- My ‘Times of Israel’ post: In firing Treviño, Guardian’s hypocrisy laid bare (cifwatch.com)