Skeptics “harassed” at Whole Life Expo

By Katie

The Whole Life Expo is:

Canada’s largest showcase of natural health, alternative medicine, and eco-friendly lifestyles. With 60 speakers and over 200 exhibitors, Whole Life Expo brings you the most comprehensive array of natural health products and services ever gathered under one roof.

… Im sure one of two of you read that and rolled your eyes a little bit. Well, so did some skeptics/atheists in Toronto. A few of them decided it would be fun to go and see what was going on, take some pictures and maybe write a follow up blog post or two to discuss what they found.

Well, it all went a little honky. As soon as some of the Skeptics North people showed up they were identified as skeptics and specifically asked not to take pictures of videos of what was going on at the fair. This request was accompanied by a couple announcements over the PA system to watch out for the skeptics milling about the hall. Now… I can’t say for sure how the rest of this all played out or who was egging who on to say what – but eventually someone at the expo said something like “do you think it would be funny if i punched you in the face?” (which to me sounds like an exhausted response to something provoking said by the other side that no one has [or likely will] fess-up to saying). So then… all this happened (hopefully that audio works, if it doesn’t let me know and I’ll sort it out). If you listen to the audio file you will hear some interesting things happening. …The “punch in the face” comment was all twisted by Justin Trottier (the main voice on the audio) to be a threat to Michael’s life. Then there is a bunch of redundant and silly back and forth that just sounds immature and embarrassing.

There are a few things I want to say about the whole mess:

1. Don’t take pictures

If you go to another groups event and they ask you not to take pictures and videos – don’t take pictures and videos. I think it’s reasonable for them to ask – there have been events at CFI where people were asked not to take picture and video… And to snap a photo from upstairs in the hall and then say you’re “out of the exhibition hall” just makes you sound dumb. You obviously know that you’re in the same building that they asked you not to take pictures inside of… and you know that you’re taking pictures of the things they asked you not to take pictures of. To try and pass it off as being legitimate is ridiculous.

2. Overreaction

I think it is important for us all to remember that we need to avoid overreacting and sensationalism. It was wrong for the security guard to do a half/hearted threat to Michael about the punch in the face. But to blow this up as a threat to someones life?! To say that you are genuinely scared for your life because of it?! Come on, this just makes you sound like a child overemphasizing the playground squabble to get the school-teacher on your side. If people know you exaggerated something, especially to this extent, you start to lose your creditability in the whole issue. Far fewer people, including myself, would have taken this entire situation more seriously if it hadn’t been substantially blow out of proportion. Now it just makes it all seem like a big ol’ joke.

3. Doesn’t CFI have better things to do?

Skeptics North is a blog that should definitely be covering this stuff, but doesn’t CFI-Canada have better things to do? It seems like a waste of CFI’s resources to make this into such a big spectacle. As commenter #12 says on the CFI post…

It seems to me CFI is running off the rails, instead of applying effort to fundraising, large sensational media and going after important issues like religion in government or census representation that affect everyone, we are taking on hippies and flakes at the whole life show, pretty pathetic really, immature is another word that comes to mind, after seeing the altercation and the ensuing over blogging of it I wonder what CFI really stands for…..

4. Looking for a fight

There is something to be said for being polite to people. You are taken more seriously and come out as the bigger person. Listening to that audio, who sounds like the bigger person? Who sounds like they’re simply looking for a fight? Justin keeps jabbing at the issue and trying to make someone say something so he can snap at it.

5. Freedom of speech

Now I am not entirely on the side of the Whole Life Expo – they definitely shut out a voice that had the right to be there. Whether or not CFI/the skeptics did enough to warrant their removal from the expo is definitely up for debate. When people on the other side of an issue show up at CFI they don’t get asked to leave or told not to take pictures of the books and photos there… CFI fosters open debate and discussion about this issues. Unfortunately there is a lot of money in natural foods/health products, so I can see why they would want to keep people from exposing anything illegitimate about their products. From a purely business point of view it was in their benefit to kick the skeptics out, but from a freedom of speech and honest debate point of view… it wasn’t a good thing.

(Having said that, if I was them I probably would have kicked them out too… making a stink, taking pictures when they weren’t supposed to and saying people are threatening their life …when they aren’t… is enough to kick people out of an event. But some might disagree.)

Print article

This entry was posted by Katie on December 1, 2010 at 1:32 pm, and is filed under Events, Skepticism. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments (37)

#1 written by jbrydle
about 1 year ago

1. Everything I have read sounds like the skeptics followed the rules on picture taking just fine. The only photos taken inside the convention were taken with express permission from the organizers, and the altercation happened over pictures taken outside the convention room. This is not in any way unreasonable.

2. Imagine a hypothetical situation where a large man (from the picture, he does in fact look large) walking quickly towards a smaller man. The larger man is leaning forward, he’s scowling, and overall looking quite aggressive. He stops 6 inches from the smaller man’s face and puts a clenched fist up to the side of his head and yells “would it be fucking funny if I punched you in the face?” That sounds pretty damn threatening to me. Is that what happened? I have no idea, and neither do you. I agree the video that initially played in my head wasn’t like that either, but we just don’t know.

3. This is a low blow. Who among us hasn’t been accused of wasting our time opposing religion when there are far bigger problems, like AIDS or starvation? Yes, Justin spent an afternoon away from his desk and he wasn’t on national TV. That’s allowed.

4. I agree with you on this one.

5. Agreed more or less. Freedom of speech doesn’t really apply to private groups, but it’s still a good idea in the interest of civility and fairness.
- #2 written by Brian Lynchehaun
  about 1 year ago
  
  I agree on all these points.
- #3 written by Katie
  about 1 year ago
  
  1. no they didn’t – i have linked to photos of the expo that they took after being asked not to. THey weren’t outside the expo hall, they were above the floor the expo was happening on but as the woman in the audio points out – it was still the expo hall and still the content they were asked not to take pictures of.
  
  2. Well I know how big the guy threatened was, he’s by no means small. I’m average height and he towers over me. And from what I heard it happened in the middle of a conversation, not him running up to them as you’ve described.
  
  3. …I won’t get further into this argument here, but it may just be more than one afternoon sometimes, but that’s besides the point, too. It’s not a low blow – CFI posted this on their official blog and it’s just embarrassing not helpful for “the movement.”
  - #4 written by Steve Thoms
    about 1 year ago
    
    Katie, just a quick clarification regarding the photos, and the hall…
    
    The pictures were taken from a catwalk that was above and beside the expo hall. The catwalk was accessible to every person who was in the MTCC, regardless of their connection to the expo. The general public could freely walk about that catwalk, did not require tickets for entry, and there were no prohibitions of access or photography to/from that location.
    
    In short, that was general access.
    
    The ad-hoc signage did not prohibit photography *of* the expo, just *in* the expo. If the expo didn’t want any photos at all, then they might have taken better care to inform people (not just skeptics).
    
    Also, If memory serves me right (which it rarely does, because TV has rotted my brain), there may have been other non-Expo events at the building that day….t’is a big place, and lots of people are free to roam about the place.
    
    I appreciate the attention this story has got thus far, but I am somewhat disappointed to see so many people who weren’t there, judge and condemn the attendees/skeptics who were. I cannot (nor will not) speak to Justin’s experience, but the air of hostility against us that day was well-documented.
    
    I also acknowledge that there are some minor gaps in the narrative between Justin’s, Mitchell’s and my own account, and this can be chalked up to the fact that we were not traveling as a single group, so our experiences were quite different. But the very fact that there are gaps in the narrative should be reason enough to withhold judgment (ie: the audio recording was but a brief snippet of a much longer exchange), and certainly condemnation.
    
    I won’t speak to the priorities of how the CFI should allocate resources and spend PR. That’s not my affair, and quite outside my scope. But the commenters characterization (which you tacitly condone) of “hippies and flakes” is a bit disheartening. While there was certainly no shortage of corn flakes there, some of the organizations and companies represented there are but spearheads of larger, more organized fronts. They routinely market (and sell) snake oil as cures for cancer, and successfully lobby the government to take decidedly pseudo-scientific stances which, quite literally, kill desperate people. If people think that the CFI shouldn’t be spending their energies fighting these initiatives (which beat us regularly), then I’m not sure the ‘movement” is worth it’s salt. Surely, you HAVE to appreciate that this is a value judgment on behalf of the commenter (and maybe yourself), and the language of condemnation might be misplaced, if rash.
    
    Thanks,
    Steve
#5 written by Riz the Anti-Theist
about 1 year ago

If you are so sketchy on the details.. do you really feel it is appropriate to make criticisms like you have over the entire engagement? Perhaps it would be best to solidify what actually happened, first.. and I mean no offense by this. I just assume it would be in the best interest of all parties involved not to report prematurely on anything to which you do not have the full details, as you’ve clearly admitted.

It sounds as though you’ve made a post based on what your assumptions of the situation were. That’s just the vibe I get from it, to be honest.
- #6 written by Brian Lynchehaun
  about 1 year ago
  
  I completely agree.
- #7 written by Katie
  about 1 year ago
  
  I based it on other stuff I read that I didn’t feel like adding – ian has posted a bigger rundown of what happened but i didn’t feel like it was important. I forget that people like to nit pick on something like this instead of commenting on the meat of the post.
  - #8 written by Brian Lynchehaun
    about 1 year ago
    
    Given that the meat of the post looks like it was just pieced together from the complete lack of facts that are available, you’re complaining that it’s being pointed out that it looks like the meat of your post was just pieced together from the complete lack of facts that are available?
    
    Are you kidding?
    
    Katie:
    
    “Premise 1, P2, P3, Therefore C”
    
    Riz:
    
    “P1, P2 and P3 all seem kinda…. lacking in facts”
    
    Katie:
    
    “Oh… I have these other premises over here that I didn’t mention. You’re nitpicking….”
    
    This is seriously your response to Riz’s criticism?
    - #9 written by Katie
      about 1 year ago
      
      apparently.
      
      i listed criticisms based mainly around the audio that i posted. im not sure how i can post my evidence than the actual audio.
      
      i dont know what really happened leading up to the audio, but my reaction is based on the audio…………………….. so uh yeah. that’s seriously my response. Is that seriously your comment? Just wondering.
      - #10 written by Brian Lynchehaun
        about 1 year ago
        
        Let’s shoot for basic comprehension.
        
        I based it on other stuff I read that I didn’t feel like adding
        
        contradicts
        
        i listed criticisms based mainly around the audio that i posted
        
        Do you understand that these two things contradict each other?
        
        (hint: the answer is either “yes, my bad”, or [something which means that you don't understand])
      - #11 written by Katie
        about 1 year ago
        
        Brian:
        
        MY CRITICISM IS BASED ON THE AUDIO WHICH IS FULLY AVAILABLE ON THE SITE.
        
        Okay we are done now.
      - #12 written by Brian Lynchehaun
        about 1 year ago
        
        Yes, mein fuhrer. Since you have declared that we are done, we are done.
      - #13 written by Tye
        about 1 year ago
        
        Godwin Troll FAIL
#14 written by Ian
about 1 year ago

I think we have a situation where a lot of murky stuff may or may not have happened, so all I can pass judgement on is what I saw after.

First, Steve Thoms did a great write-up of the events (although he wasn’t present for the exchange in the audio clip), which presented the skeptics positively and while admitting that some threats occurred, didn’t overplay anything with appeals to emotion.

Next, Justin posted the following (copied here for posterity) on CFI Canada’s website (as well as his own personal blog) with the above audio (which was later removed). I found it to be quite poorly written and if you were someone with no other knowledge of the events, I think you would come off seeing CFI in a very poor light – i.e. that they went to the Expo looking for trouble, found it, and then cried wolf.

Now, apologies for the length of this comment, but here’s the CFI Press Release:

Skeptics Harassed & Threatened with Violence @ Whole Life Expo for Alt Med by Organizers & Workers
November 29, 2010
On Sunday November 28 between 10:00 am and 1:00pm about 20 members of the Centre for Inquiry, the Skeptics North blog and the Association for Science and Reason attended the Whole Life Expo 2010, an Alternative Medicine fair, at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. The following are the events that transpired. The photo of a Whole Life Expo worker who threatened violence against one of us is here included, as is a recording of our conversation with Metro Toronto Convention Centre Event Manager and security.

Audio Recording of Incident with Metro Toronto Convention Centre’s Event Manager and her Security Officers.

Nearly as soon as Mitchell Gerskup, a Skeptics North blogger, entered the Expo, he was identified based on his photo having been seen on his blog by organizers of the Expo. An organizer of the event came over to warn him not to take photos because of a newly introduced policy that prohibited the use of recording equipment. Mitchell complied. In fact, Centre for Inquiry Multimedia Director Derek Pert, who had come with his video camera to record interviews, promptly left to return his equipment to his car.
Shortly after, an announcement was played warning the exhibitors that there were bloggers at the show from from the blog website “Skeptics North” all dressed in black.
Within 10 minutes I, Justin Trottier, had joined Mitchell. We were then approached by Julia Woodford, the Expo Manager and a columnist withVitality Magazine, to reiterate that we were not to take photos or slander anyone. I asked her why it was necessary to threaten us again, when someone else had already done so. I explained that we were honouring their policy and this constituted intimidation. This led to a 45 minute exchange during which other Event organizers became embroiled. It also led Woodford to pull on Mitchell’s jacket as she pointed out his camera (which was already visible without her touching him), to which I replied “Don’t touch him.”
At one point, one man, who would later end up making a violent threat against CFI member Michael Payton, came over to stand right in my face and ask me “who the hell I was.” I handed him my business card but he didn’t take it, saying, oddly “I don’t care who you are” and walking off. Much of our exchange with Woodford consisted of her accusations against our bloggers for slander and our responding that we were skeptics engaging in critical inquiry.
The rest of the morning proceeded relatively uneventfully, although for no apparent reason, a second announcement was later given over the PA system reminding exhibitors of the presence of skeptics and to “be diligent.”
Just before 1pm we decided to leave, so some of us exited the Expo and walked up to the second floor, which was outside the Expo grounds. At this point, we believed that being outside the Expo grounds, the prohibition on taking photos was no longer enforceable, so we took a few shots. Woodford saw this from below and told us to leave, calling the Metro Toronto Convention Centre security.
Before the security arrived and while we were packing up, the man who had asked me “who the hell I was” earlier, who had been handing out Expo literature at the door all morning and was carrying a walkie talkie, clearly identifying him as a worker with the event, approached CFI member Michael Payon. During their conversation, the man asked Michael “Do you think it would be fucking funny if I punched you in the face?” Upon hearing this remark, I asked him “Did you just threaten to punch him in the face?” The man responded “I never said that.” and started walking off as the security approached. The photo of this man is included on this page, as well as recordings of the ensuing conversation with security.
When security arrived, they asked us to leave. We responded that we would do so, but we would also ask that they follow up on the matter of the threat of violence. The security was totally dismissive; we were told by security guards and the Metro Toronto Convention Centre Event Manager Sasha Saldanha “That’s your problem.” and “You deal with that.” and “We didn’t see anything”. During the conversation, security guards were mumbling under their breath, laughing at us and acting in a wholly unprofessional and demeaning manner. They clearly didn’t take the threat of violence nearly as seriously as the concern with our taking photos, perhaps because the latter threatened the building’s future business relationship with the Whole Life Expo. Since the Whole Life Expo worker in question had intimidated me earlier and had followed us to the second floor and outside the Expo grounds where he made his threat of violence against Michael Payton, we were legitimately worried he would follow us after we left the building, and feared for our safety.
The Event Manager of the Metro Convention Centre Sasha Saldanha finally indicated she would speak with the man who threatened violence and, although that seemed unlikely, we left. One security guard followed us out of the Centre and along the overpass, leaving us only when we were about to enter the walkway directly connected to Union Station. We then consulted with our legal advisers and immediately filed a police report. The police informed us they would open an investigation and see about charging the suspect.
Audio Recording of Incident with Metro Toronto Convention Centre’s Event Manager and her Security Officers.
It should be noted that members of Skeptics North attended the Whole Life Expo in 2009 and there were no such incidents, nor was there a policy against recording devices. In 2010 myself and Michael Payton attended a similar convention, the Total Health Show in March 2010, in the same venue. We engaged in interviews and conversations and published an editorial in the National Post. At no time were we at these past events, or at the Expo this weekend, attempting to to create trouble. As the National Executive Director of the Centre for Inquiry, an influential and respected educational charity, I seek to engage in reasoned and productive dialogue, as do the friends and colleagues who accompanied me to this event. Yet we were immediately targets of intimidation, harassment and ultimately a threat of violence by Organizers and workers with the Whole Life Expo, simply for being skeptics.
If you should feel inclined to respond to this mater, Julia Woodford is a columnist with Vitality Magazine, which can be reached at (416) 964-0528. Here is Vitality’s full contact info
Vitality Magazine  356 Dupont Street , Toronto, Ontario  Canada M5R 1V9
To inquire further by phone, call (416) 964-0528.
For Classifieds, Service Directory, and Calendar of Events listings inquiries Contact: listings@vitalitymagazine.com
For Display Advertising and Administrative inquiries Contact: seeta@vitalitymagazine.com
For Editorial inquiries  Contact: editorial@vitalitymagazine.com
For Circulation inquiries Contact: circulation@vitalitymagazine.com
We’ll be lodging a formal complaint with the building owners and if Security was negligent in their duties, consulting with our legal advisors to see what our options are. Feel free to contact Metro Toronto Convention Centre Event Manager Sasha Saldanha to express your concern with how they handled the threat of violence in their building

Metro Toronto Convention Centre
255 Front St. W. Toronto, ON M5V 2W6
Event Manager: Ms. Sasha Saldanha
Tel: 416-585-8313
Fax: 416-585-8224
Email: ssaldanha@mtccc.com
- #15 written by rebekah
  about 1 year ago
  
  Any word on why the audio was removed?
  - #16 written by Brian Lynchehaun
    about 1 year ago
    
    Several people (including myself) believe that
    
    A) the audio does not match the description of the audio in the statement
    
    B) the impression that the statement intends to give is not the same as the impression that the audio will give
    
    Basically: the audio is highly damaging to CFI, and should not have been released. At all. And is now viral. Yay Justin!
  - #17 written by Katie
    about 1 year ago
    
    a lot of internal CFI volunteers suggested it was a bad idea to leave the audio up because it was bad PR and such, so it was removed.
#18 written by Joe
about 1 year ago

These sorts of things are always hard to judge… even when you are actually there…. To me, from what I’ve read and heard, this seems very minor…. but people react differently.

I’ve been in situations where people were screaming insults right in my face…. and not felt particularly threatened, but I think I’m somewhat more experienced with physical violence than the average ‘skeptic’ I volunteer with.

When you challenge someone, in person, face to face, even with what you think is ‘rational criticism’, its a ‘kind of threat’ and it will be perceived as such, and often people react and overreact defensively, and sometimes things escalate.

I’m always amazed when I hear people went to ‘protest something’ and then get shocked that threats and insults was the result. This isn’t good, but its not shocking either. Adrenaline and disagreement can be a dangerous mix.

As far as complaining to the building owners, that’s a complete waste of time. When you are a protester, you are the problem… as far as they are concerned. Security is about protecting the property and the people on it, from you.

And unless security sees a crime take place, there really is not much that they can do.

And unless some physical violence actually occurred, or you get a threat actually on tape… the police don’t really have much to work with either.
#19 written by John
about 1 year ago

I have to agree with Katie and Ian in thinking that this incident is in no way flattering to CFI’s image.

My first impression on reading Justin’s post was that the Expo was clearly in the wrong, and that a threat of violence was highly inappropriate.

However, after hearing the audio recording, it was very obvious to me that both sides acted in a highly unprofessional way.

It was very silly of course for the expo to be so fearful and untrusting of the skeptics, and that is an important observation that needs to be pointed out. I think that to an outside listener, the skeptics in that particular recording were being rude, abrasive, argumentative for no good reason, and just being annoying.
#20 written by Randy
about 1 year ago

Listening to the audio you provide, I don’t come to the conclusion that anything was “all twisted”. There’s not enough to tell anything about what happened.

Frankly, unless they were really get out of control (doubt it), I think the treatment of the skeptic group was ridiculous, paranoid, and defensive. If the public is invited to a promotional event, obviously they should be able to take pictures. Of course, there’s something fishy about a promotional event that wants to hide what it is promoting.
#21 written by Kevin
about 1 year ago

I am amazed that a bunch of so called open minded skeptics would not look at both sides of a story before coming to a conclusion – it is fair to both parties before accusations fly. If one listens and believes what they hear, is that not being like sheep?
- #22 written by Ian
  about 1 year ago
  
  I’m looking at this from the outside. I see a press release from CFI making some strong accusations about harassment and threats of violence and included with that is an audio file which contains Justin raising his voice to a business manager. I’m saying that’s bad-PR.
  
  As for the details, I admit I don’t know them all, as does Katie. I doubt that we’ll ever really get the full story from the convention centre staff or the Whole Life Expo people, so everything is going to be tilted. The audio recording is the actual only hard evidence we have from that event, the rest is anecdotes and eye-witness reports. I trust that they aren’t lying about the threat, but how sure can we be of the context?
#23 written by Kevin
about 1 year ago

Has anyone called the organizers of the Whole Life? Nothing against the skeptics who attended but are there not two sides to a story? Is that not what skeptics do – or are there underlying reasons at play here?
- #24 written by Katie
  about 1 year ago
  
  Yeah, I’ve wondered this too, Kevin. I’ve thought about calling the organizers buuut it’s exam time and I’m busy. :)
#25 written by Renshia
about 1 year ago

This is the second time I have followed instances that have involved Justin. You would almost think he is american the way he runs off to find the lawyers at the drop of a hat.
If this is how the CFI is going to represent us I would rather not be associated with them.

Katie I agree with you. it sounded like total provocation by being a dick and then crying victim.

I think we need to act like reasonable people if we are going to claim it. If you act like a dick, don’t be surprised if you get treated like a dick. Can you really blaim the guy for defending his vendors? Can you really blame them for not wanting them to make mockery of their woo?
Now I know they claim that they were just innocently going around to “do interviews” But we all know their intention was to mock the bullshit. Should have been more subtle guys.
Man up and take your licks.
And I am pretty sure this is what all the talk was about when so many people were screaming “DON”T BE A DICK.”
#26 written by janet
about 1 year ago

I don’t see how it appears they went there to “cause a stink.” From reading the press release and listening to the audio, it appears they went there to report on the event and were harassed from the get go. I don’t think the threat from the guy intimating he though it would be funny to punch them in the face would be something to take lightly, especially when they non-violently complied with the requests for no photos to the best of their knowledge.
We recenlty had a similiar expo here, Body, Mind and Soul or something like that. I’m rethinking the idea of joining with other skeptics to go and report on it, although I am loath to pay money for it when I already know exactly what they are selling.
I give them props for going to report on it – too bad it turned into some kind of gong show.
#27 written by pf
about 1 year ago

Press release lol. it is a one sided rant lol. and the audio is appalling. Juvenile. “Don’t touch me!!”
You kind of skeptics are an embarrassment to healthy skeptical inquiry. Those at the Whole Life and the ones that take their words as “gospel” are out to harass and provoke. Don’t be so angry and negative – life is too short to get worked about about sugar pills and chakras :)
#28 written by Julia Woodford
about 1 year ago

Hello Katie, I am very impressed with you. It warms my heart to know that there are folks like you who are interested in genuine skeptical analysis, rather than biased reporting masquerading as skepticism (such as that by Mr Trottier). Good for you. I think you have a bright future in social commentary. Julia
- #29 written by Crommunist
  about 1 year ago
  
  @Katie
  
  Bahaha what a back-handed compliment. Being praised for your “genuine skeptical analysis” by the person who hosted the woo-fest in question. That’s like winning a science reporting award from the Huffington Post.
  - #30 written by Ian
    about 1 year ago
    
    That’s uncalled for. We have very little to go on from what actually happened there. The only concrete evidence is the audio posted above – and Justin doesn’t come off very cordial in it (and we can debate whether his attitude was justifiable/understandable). Dismissing a key witness to the events because of her other activities is hardly ‘being skeptical.’
    - #31 written by Kevin
      about 1 year ago
      
      Thanks Ian. That is what being skeptical is all about.
#32 written by Julia Woodford
about 1 year ago

Sorry if you think it’s back-handed. But I think Katie is a breath of fresh air in the discussion of this matter, as she has shown enough insight to recognize that there is more than one side to this story. I am currently preparing a statement for submission to CFI which gives my take on what happened on November 28. Meantime, Katie has earned my respect because she represents the best of what genuine skeptical analysis is about, and that includes turning a skeptical eye on the behaviour of your own compatriots.
- #33 written by Katie Kish
  about 1 year ago
  
  Thank you Julia, I appreciate the compliment. It’s a harsh crowd around here sometimes…
  
  If you’d like, I’d live to see the submission you’re preparing. I doubt I’ll do another full post on the topic, but I can update this post with your side of the encounter.
  
  (katiekish @ gmail . com)
- #34 written by Joe
  about 1 year ago
  
  As long as you’re willing to do a skeptically thorough investigation, that includes possible disciplinary action against the individual alleged to have verbally threatened violence, you’d be going a long way towards… respect, in my book, anyway.
#35 written by Julia Woodford
about 1 year ago

Katie, because I prepared my statement specifically for the board of directors at CFI, for them to review at their meeting in a week’s time, I would be hesitant to release it in advance of that meeting. But I do appreciate your interest and will keep you posted. Once they have completed their own internal review of the situation, I would guess that they will grant permission for the general release of my statement and photos.
#36 written by Kevin
about 1 year ago

Someone calling Julia a bitch and someone telling one of her staff to “lick his balls” would, I assume, lead to a hostile war of words.
- #37 written by Joe
  about 1 year ago
  
  A ‘war of words’ just means everyone acted badly.

Comments are closed.

Skeptics “harassed” at Whole Life Expo

By Katie

Search

Comments

Blogs by Canadian Atheists

Campus Groups

Canadian Organizations

Other Atheist blogs

Categories

Archives