Latest Posts
- Notice to “Spectator” readers
- So Long. Farewell. Auf wiedersehen. Goodbye.
- Magazine maven Bonnie Fuller poised to market her toughest brand yet: Herself
- John Macfarlane grabs The Walrus’s tiller
Tools
Categories
- General
- Bay Street
- Black Watch
- Television
- Radio
- Internet
- Newspapers
- Gossip Hound
- Egos
- Across the Ocean
- Over the Border
- Books
- Magazines
- American Election
- New York Times vs Wall Street Journal
- Gaffe of the Week
- Livent Trial
Postings by date
Peter Munk interview at Indigo goes awry due to rowdy audience member
Posted on June 12, 2008 by Douglas Bell
at Indigo Books
Balzac’s neatly turned observation that “behind every great fortune there is a crime” has developed into a veritable shibboleth of the activist left. One thing is sure: if you make or inherit a great fortune, it’s a lock you’ll be accused of a great crime. Gates is a monopolist, Murdoch a closet fascist, Thomson a virtual polygamist, and don’t even get me started on all those Russians. Tuesday night in Toronto I saw this phenomenon in action. Peter Munk, whose Barrick Gold Corporation has developed into one of the great Canadian money-spinners of recent times, was interviewed on the stage at Indigo Books. His interlocutor was his daughter, Vanity Fair contributor Nina Munk. The subject of the chat was supposed to be a new book by Munk the Younger and Rachel Gotlieb that is titled The Art of Clairtone and celebrates the design innovations of Peter Munk’s long-defunct stereo company. The evening went more or less as planned, with Nina asking Peter straightforward journalistic questions concerning the content of her book. And then, in a moment, things went haywire.
At the opening of the Q&A, a nondescript gent stood up and, in a wan tone, began to ask a question that seemed to turn on what he claimed was Barrick’s spotty environmental record. Nina Munk was alert to the dangerous direction she was being drawn, so she interrupted the man, saying that the questions on the evening were meant to turn on Clairtone. Did he have a question in that regard?
He didn’t. In fact, this is where things really went off the rails. The fellow simply carried on like a low-key high school English teacher addressing morning assembly. As he gathered pace, the tenor of his accusations grew more and more inflammatory: “Murder…slaughter…rape…Peter Munk has blood on his hands.” Parts of the audience quickly turned hostile, especially when the man began handing out a yellow flyer that repeated the same accusations in print: “Shut up…sit down…I’m tired of hearing that shit, etc., etc.” From the stage, Nina Munk plaintively asked him to sit down “sir” and even asked—several times—“Can we discuss this afterwards?” The elder Munk’s expression remained fixed in an unhappy mask.
Eventually, a couple of burly Indigo staffers appeared and hustled the man out without further incident. The event clattered to a conclusion. Afterwards, Peter Munk huddled briefly with the Indigo staffers, asking to see the flyer and quietly remonstrating them. “The man called me a murderer, for God’s sake.” I later discovered that a photographer at the event was shooting the protest for the Web site protestbarrick.net, which is associated with an anti-Barrick cause—the same one referred to on the yellow flyer.
If nothing else, the whole scene was distinctly Canadian: an understated protest and a polite, if dismissive, response. But from the looks of this flyer and its associated Web site, Munk and Barrick are in for choppy water.
- Back to Spectator Home
- Categories: General, Bay Street, Gossip Hound, Egos, Books
- Permalink
Comments
Neither the author nor Toronto Life necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Editors will not correct spelling or grammar. Toronto Life reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. Read our full policy
You must register to post comments. Please register here.
leaf June 12, 2008 at 2:52 p.m.
Let’s draw a parallel between this scene and this blog, shall we?
Cast of characters:
peter munk = doug bell
rowdy audience member = leaf
nina munk = blondie in BC (for no other reason than she likes being famous)
indigo staffers = the “group”
-------
here we have doug bell blogging away for well over a year… An observing blog reader and poster for nearly a year, leaf denounces DB not as a murderer or rapist but as a fraudster, the imposter behind the blog’s oldest and most controversial poster: donna (as well as her many successors and puppets).
I forget what rebuttal the blond came up with but, as everything she comes up with, it is not important.
In response to the accusation, DB’s expression remained fixed in a dubious and questionable silence.
The “group”, unlike the indigo staffers, has also remained silent and powerless, contrary to its many promises of identifying and silencing the rowdy blog member.
both scenes are distinctly Canadian: an understated (or absent) protest and a polite (or cowardly lacking?) response.
it appears this blog is not big league enough to chop water...
Barbara_in_BC June 12, 2008 at 4:10 p.m.
I see that Barbara Amiel is back.
Your desperate bid for attention from the blog host? Also not big league enough to chop water.
Casey June 12, 2008 at 9:17 p.m.
Barbara_in_BC June 12, 2008 at 4:10 p.m.
" I see that Barbara Amiel is back.
Your desperate bid for attention from the blog host? Also not big league enough to chop water. "
Simple, leaf is back because it simply needed a break from hanging out on its favorite child and adult porn sites. This is why this monster disappears from this blog periodically.
Leaf is so irrelevant that Doug bell, etc., don't even bother wasting their time with this crackpot. Basically? The worst thing that anyone can suffer is to be ignored as if it does not exist or matter - precisely the sort of non treatment leaf receives here - it is a non entity.
Meh.....
Casey June 13, 2008 at 8:58 p.m.
leaf June 12, 2008 at 2:52 p.m.
You continue to hate anyone and everyone on this blog, including Douglas Bell; you are an ignorant, uneducated and laughable loser; you are considered irrelevant here and are ignored; you are a lowlife child porn / adult porn freak and obvious paedophile; you contribute nothing of a positive nature but even if you did at this point in time, you would be ignored - so the question is why you still log onto this site that you so despise? Must be that you are so lonely and isolated in your sewer aka home, that posting anything here makes you feel like you exist. Please be informed that you exist only in your own disturbed mind - no one here gives a damn what you type and most skip over your drivel. Your only friends are your web cam, sewer rats and the mice that also inhabit your filthy domicile.......yuck.
leaf June 14, 2008 at 3:10 p.m.
2 posts and a little over 250 words = casey following its own advice and ignoring me.
~ leaf laughing at a bell that can’t help but ring itself ~
PYork June 15, 2008 at 11:09 a.m.
I am the person who spoke out against Munk and Barrick at Indigo's.
Below is my response to comments regarding this incident, the full version of which appears at http://protestbarrick.net/article.php?id...
Below is a truncated version due to the space constraints of this forum.
Statement by Paul York
For those who may be interested, I wish to state why I referred to "murder" and "rape" and said that "Peter Munk has blood on his hands" at the recent event at Indigos bookstore. The term "murder" was understood by most people, but for those unfamiliar with Barrick's record, "rape" confused them.
Barrick Gold owns and operates the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea, Enga province, where about thirty-two people have been shot by security guards hired by Barrick. The same guards have gang-raped women of the nearby village. This is the testimony of three Papua New Guinea residents who were recently at the Barrick Gold AGM, and it also the testimony of villagers who appear in a documentary film on the subject. The Papua New Guinea delegation met with Barrick executives asking for an end to this but met with disappointment.
I have no reason to doubt the word of the Papua New Guinea residents or the testimony that these photographs provide, given that I've heard similar testimony of Barrick's callous disregard for human life from many other parts of the world. For example, Barrick Gold security has jailed and murdered several people in Tanzania, as noted in detail at http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/gold/Ba...
Barrick also harms people around the world in other ways other than point-blank murder: they deprive people of water in drought-stricken areas, contaminate water with arsenic, lead and cyanide, and deprive people of their traditional livelihoods (farming and traditional mining) by stealing their land. Whether at the point of a gun or more indirectly, through water contamination, murder is murder.
In the archives of http://protestbarrick.net/ you will find substantial evidence of Barrick Gold's environmental crimes and crimes against humanity, which they have been perpetrated for decades in poor countries with impunity. The devastation wrought by Peter Munk and Barrick Gold will continue for centuries. He is certainly a great philanthropist, but his most lasting legacy is murder.
It is therefore highly disingenuous of Mr. Munk to feign injury and surprise when he is confronted in public regarding these matters. I am sure he knows full well what his company has done and is continuing to do. No matter how much money Mr. Munk gives away to this or that good cause, he is still personally morally responsible for these crimes ...
True, Barrick claims to be a "good corporate citizen" and to act in responsible manner. I would submit to you that voluntary “corporate social responsibility” (i.e. building a school or hospital) does not excuse water coontamination, illegal detentions, murder and rape.
Casey June 15, 2008 at 3:33 p.m.
PYork June 15, 2008 at 11:09 a.m.
Thank you for enlightening me, at least, to what Barrick Gold / Peter Munk have been accused of and allegedly responsibile for the ecological and human catastrophies that you have so eloquently described above. I was ignorant of these horrific abuses and as such, stood silently and selfishly by totally oblivious to what you state.
I am a concerned citizen who cares deeply for the tragic present ecological conditions of our planet and to its " rape " by " good corporate citizens " such as Peter Munk. Your comments have indeed opened my eyes and my gratitude and appreciation to you for not only taking the time to post to this blog but to having possessed indeed the guts to stand up and be counted, particularly at the interview that took place at Indigo. Profoundest thanks to you for speaking out.
Post a comment