Wow, now this could start a loud discussion leading off to all kinds of
tangents relating to humanity and our endeavours. Most of us know
what hypocrisy is, Webster's describes it as “pretending to be what
one is not or to feel what one does not feel, a pretense of virtue or
piety etc.” Is this something many of us have come face to face
with at one time or another? Of course the answer is yes. Can we
say it was a pleasant experience, usually no, as we are left angry
and disappointed.
As a
publisher and journalist, meeting and interacting with a wide variety
of people is a necessity. Each article has a life of its own, a
purpose. For a journalist the right to freedom of speech is as
important as breathing. At the same time this right has to be
exercised with the acceptance of the consequences if taken too far.
There
well be some who claim that such acceptance is hypocritical in
itself. How can freedom be fenced in with conditions? In response
one can ask then if hate speech is to be accepted as free expression
without consequence? At times this debate tethers on a tight rope
attempting to find an acceptable middle ground.
Social
media and the world of the Internet provides a different angle to the
debate of free speech. Today anyone can open a Twitter account and
post any comment on any subject at any time. Knowledge or experience
no longer are prerequisites; an armchair quarterback is able to
dissect the latest Bills game from his lounger, bed or the washroom's
comfy chair for all to see. At the same time social media can
provide an open world to exchange thoughts and opinions with others
who would not be reachable in normal daily travels.
So is
it a pretense of virtue or piety to expect, even demand, restraint or
consequence for one's words while still believing in freedom of
speech? No one said this was an easy debate, even if the question of
the nature of hypocrisy will bring many to opposite sides.
To
answer at least one question, hypocrisy is within all of us and
usually it is not intended. How easy is it to say one thing and for
whatever reason do the opposite? True there are professions which
require the skill almost as a prerequisite, such as politics.
Children are open and honest, it is rare in natural circumstances to
find a child pretending other than in a game. Hypocrisy is
definitely a honed skill we pick up through the ascension from
childhood to responsible and mature adulthood.
Now
that being said the tie into the hand ringing question of free speech
and consequence comes in the form of a living example. It is a
situation unfolding at this very time revolving around Twitter.
Social media in its various forms can be entertaining, it can be
informative, and it can be a tool used to attack and damage the
character and reputation of others. More alarming is when this
attack is aimed at a total stranger.
On
Twitter, acting Captain Andrew Gill, a member of the Niagara Falls
Fire Department, posts a great deal about the Buffalo Bills football
team, information and news relating to the fire department and
personal tidbits. Gill also at times sees himself as a
socio-political commentator and will throw out posts relating to
local political events. Prior to his uniform days at the Niagara
Falls Fire Department, Andrew Gill had traveled through varying
career paths. One of these adventures brought Gill to the City of
St. Catharines City Council as an elected City Councillor. This
lasted only for one term, and although he tried to stay in the
political arena, any attempts made had failed.
In
2011 Andrew Gill appeared on the pages of the local newspaper The
Standard, as he had sued Preston
Haskell for defamation. At the time Haskell published the newsletter
Niagara Winners Circle and had made comments relating
to Gill whilst he was still a City Councillor. Gill took offense to
the comments by Haskell claiming they were not true, sued and won.
The Standard's article by
Marlene Bergsma, who no longer works for the paper, wrote that Deputy
Judge Brian Marotta had said that Haskell displayed “reckless
disregard for the truth.” On the witness stand Andrew Gill spoke
emotionally about how this article affected his father and the pain
it caused his family.
Gill
had a lot to say after the trial. He claimed that he filed the legal
action against Haskell to protect other civic minded people who may
want to run for public office but would be afraid to make themselves
vulnerable somehow. Bergsma quoted Andrew Gill saying: “This was
never about money. This was about someone taking a shot at my
integrity and my credibility and you can't put a price on that”,
and that “The judge sent a strong
message you can't say whatever you want where you want, and when you
do say something, it has to be based on facts.” These are
wonderful strong sentiments expressed by the winner Andrew Gill in
2011.
That
was 2011. Now in 2017 Andrew Gill had done a complete turnaround.
Gill made two tweets on July 27th,
2017, the first at 8:37am and then again at 8:51am, attacking an
individual he had no personal business dealings with at any time.
First he said, “Just heard Niagara Truth Warrior Davidoff hit
another home run today!” with a “What a Loser” GIF.
First
of all Gill posted this at 8:37am; no courts begin before 10:00 am.
More importantly the Davidoff Gill refers to is Alexander Davidoff,
who was not scheduled for court on the 27th
of July. Andrew Gill lied! There was another Davidoff scheduled for
court on that day, not
Alexander Davidoff. Court lists are available on the web, did Gill
have trouble reading English? Or was this information passed on to
him by another individual?
Not all issues brought before a
judge end in one party winning or losing; there are many times when a
judge will simply hear motions as an impartial adjudicator. So how
could Gill predict any outcome, especially at 8:37am before court
even begins? Did he hold onto crystal balls to consult or was it
someone else who had them? Mixed in with the lie and other glaring
questions that test anyone's sanity, there is the label of “Niagara
Truth Warrior.” Where did this come from? Clearly it is done in
an insulting manner, but who came up with it?
This was not enough for Acting
Niagara Falls Fire Captain Andrew Gill. Fourteen minutes later, at
8:51am, he tweeted again, “Always entertaining when Niagara Truth
Warriors Petrowski, Bracken, Haskell and Davidoff go to court!
#Losers.”
Andrew Gill had proven that to lie
publicly is not a problem for him, and he did so again in the second
post, literally minutes later. The second post also has a GIF with
an individual sitting at the side of some machinery and being
repeatedly hit on the head. Here Gill expands his tag of 'Niagara
Truth Warriors' to include three other people. One question begs for
an answer, why include [Alexander] Davidoff with the other three and
that tag?
A
written notice was sent to Andrew Gill informing him that legal
action was being prepared. On August 24th
2017 Gill responded with an email. He first confirms receipt of the
notice and then proceeds with this, “As a gesture of good will and
without prejudice or acceptance of wrongdoing. I will remove the two
tweets in question and offer my apologies to you for all the hard
feelings my tweets may have caused you.”
An astounding “gesture of
goodwill,” but mind you “without prejudice or acceptance of
wrongdoing,” and he removed the two tweets. These posts were
public and intended for one purpose; this 'apology' by Gill was in a
private email. Not only was the apology laughable, he accepted no
wrongdoing. He lied with the intent to damage the reputation of a
stranger but he did no wrong.
Being
the individual that Andrew Gill had apparently shown to be he did not
disappoint. On September 1st
2017 he could not resist and posted again: “This is what the
Niagara Truth Warriors do to me” with a GIF of a Minion vomiting.
As
he had provided the names of the other so called Truth
Warriors it
was easy to check the web if any of these individuals had made any
comment regarding Gill or on any community matter. No, the web was
silent and the target of this post was quite clear.
Now one can come to some conclusion
on the issues raised. Should Andrew Gill's actions be considered to
be simply the exercise of free speech or should there be consequences
and restraints? Gill himself went to court against Preston Haskell
in 2011 for what he claimed was commentary published which was not
based in truth. In addition to the issue of free speech Gill has
displayed a perfect example of hypocrisy in action. Simply refer to
the words attributed to Gill by the reporter after the trial in 2011,
and compare them to his actions and words in 2017.
Andrew Gill now sits in the same
chair as he put Preston Haskell in back in 2011. His defense will be
extremely interesting to hear.
