Jared Taylor of American Renaissance booked his 2011 conference in Charlotte with the Sheraton Charlotte Airport Hotel. However, days before the event was to take place, the hotel informed Mr. Taylor it was breaking its contract with him.
It turned out that Patrick Cannon, who is Charlotte’s mayor pro tem and also a city councilman, had contacted the hotel and pressured it to keep Taylor’s group from meeting. Cannon, a member of the powerful Mecklenburg Black Political Caucus and a life member of the NAACP, sent an email to a constituent that read: “I have all hotels, motels, and gotels [sic] on notice and they seem to be cooperating well still.”
Taylor held an outdoors news conference at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Governmental Center on January 31st, a raw, cold day. Despite the weather, all the major news organizations attended, including Mi Gente, a Spanish-language publication.
In his opening remarks, Taylor recapped what the city of Charlotte had done to his group, and asked for an apology, as well as replacement facilities for his conference. He read the text of the email Cannon authored, and announced that another city councilman, Warren Turner, may have also worked behind the scenes to pressure area hotels to deny Taylor and his organization their right to free speech.
“We think better of Charlotte than this,” he told reporters. “We call on Patrick Cannon and Warren Turner to consider how their actions soil the reputation of their city. We believe they should support free speech. We believe they should take a stand for genuine tolerance of a genuine diversity of ideas.”
Taylor, who calls himself a “race realist,” said that his group openly advocates for “white interests.” No one in Charlotte objected, he said, when the Latino advocacy group La Raza, which he translated as “The Race,” met there, nor did local government take action when Louis Farrakhan visited, even though Farrakhan has made statements that Taylor characterized as “vile things” about Jews and whites, such as claiming the US government purposely flooded New Orleans to kill blacks.
The reporter for Mi Gente asked Taylor if his group was white supremacist. He responded that the people of Japan or Israel or Mexico could be called “supremacist” because of those nations’ strict enforcement of immigration laws. Then he asked the reporter a question. “Your paper is called ‘Mi Gente,’ which means ‘my people.’ Who are your people?”
“Everyone,” she said, raising her hands in the air.
“Everyone?” Taylor asked.
The reporter shrugged. “The entire Latino community."
Taylor pounced on this. “And if you wanted to associate with your people, or hold a conference, do you think you would be allowed to do so here in Charlotte?”
The reporter busily scribbled notes.
One group that made no bones about their intention not to support free speech showed up as well. Five protestors who said they were members of Anti-Racist Action approached Taylor. With members of the Charlotte police poised at the edge of the courtyard, one of the protesters yelled obscenities at Taylor as he began to speak.
When Taylor concluded his Q&A, the reporters turned to the black-garbed protestors. One of them, Michael Behrle, boasted, “American Renaissance will not hold a convention in Charlotte. If they try, it’ll be just like Canada,” referring to the violent disruption of the American Renaissance conference in Halifax in January, 2007.
“That sounds hypocritical,” said one bystander.
Comments
Well-balanced account of American Renaissance's news conference. We could use more journalists like you.
Yes, Michael it is a sad day for America. I live in Africa and this story has taken my fancy so I get on the chat forums and try to explain freedom of speech to Americans and they simply have no idea what it is.
The best take on this event yet. Commendable.
What an extraordinary story - the reporter from Mi Gente was physical proof of what Mr. Taylor was talking about: "My People," a publication promoting and explaining the interests of Latinos, is hostile to a publication/conference which wants to discuss issues and ideas of whites. Huh?
I hope this piece is distributed/posted nationally - it's got a lot to say about the social/political fabric of society.
Excellent reporting. I doubt the mainstream media will be as objective. I hope Mike stays on top of this story.
Good report. So now does this mean that the NAACP can no longer have any type of convention in Charlotte? They certainly make no bones about whose interest they support. It surely doesn't include whites or Latinos or Asians. How can this be? You can't have it both ways. But maybe here, you can. When does it all stop? Never?
Wow, a balanced report on Mr Taylor and the appalling behaviour of Mr Cannon. Well done.
Amazingly fair report on the AmRen conference, etc. Thank you Mike Tuggle!
I have to say, protester Michael Behrle is one of the true heirs of Ernst Rohm. Trying to silence others going about a peaceful gathering, the guy is a disgrace.
Mr. Tuggle, I hope other journalists learn from you. Thank you for a well-written and balanced report.
Thanks for the story. It's appalling how people feel they can behave like Nazi storm troopers as long as they can paint their victims as politically incorrect.
Once again this shows the Evil Double-Standard that this nation places on its subjects. Blacks and all other non-whites are allowed a heritage and a shared pride in their common identity, but once whites show some ethnic solidarity the Hatists come out from underneath their Satanic rocks. Anyone who takes part in this double-standard is pure evil. They should be thrown in prison or given the Death Penalty.
How long do you think Whites are going to put up with this humiliation and oppression? Read history to see what happens when whites throw away their collective guilt and decide to fight back. This Evil Nation is not worth saving. The PC Hate-State must be overthrown.
Ditto Britton. Minority gropus have done everything in their power to ensure Whites do not come together as a race. hispanics are some of the worst at this. While they enjoy membership in groups such as La Raza ( why would anyone question a group that calls itself 'the race') they have the audicity to condemn Whites for demanding the same right to assemble and associate with their own race as they freely do. They know once Whites come together, their days of pushing anti-white social doctrines of "multiculturism and diversity" are finished!
So called mayor Cannon ought to spend a few years in prison reflecting on the whole concept of freedom of speech. Then, if still of the same views, perhaps he should be deported to a country more in tune with his views. Why he wants to live in the USA is beyond me.
Micheal Behrle, the alleged ARA squid, has no clue what he's talking about or of even what he's doing. Perhaps he'd like to debate Mr. Taylor in a public forum and prove his idiocy once and for all.
Either that or he and his "organization" can protest an upcoming black pride event. That would be worth seeing....
This was by far the most even handed coverage of this event to date. Well done Mr. Tuggle.
American Renaissance should change its name to
National Association for the Advancement of White People
NAAWP
Problem solved
On first read, this sounded very even-handed and I applaud free-speech for all, regardless of the message (short of calls to violence). Even calls to violence are free speech, but I suspect the repercussions would stop most from voicing such intent.
However, a second read shows a bit of bias in this report. I can't help but notice that Taylor was described as having "pounced". The wording makes it sound like Taylor was an avenging angel of some sort, a skilled hunter to be respected. The description of the reporter's scribbling made the reporter look weak and sheepish - not because she was, but by the choice of words and formatting of the one-line paragraph. Additionally, the identification of the protestor against Taylor, versus the anonymotiy of the 'bystander' that supported Taylor is another tell-tale sign of bias.
In the end, I do indeed support Taylor's right to speak at any hotel or conference center he chooses (and am inflamed by the mayor-pro-tem's actions), but to herald this article as unbiased is a bit short-sighted and the author is not helped with the number of 'Anonymous' comments left in support of Taylor.
It is a difficult and dangerous thing to discuss equal rights for whites, I know. but this piece doesn't quite escape the bias it pretends to. Hopefully, future articles will improve on that factor.
And on further examination, AmRen's racist beliefs are quite clear and I'm seeing an interesting background for the author of this article...
Again, I'm not debating the issue, just the author's presentation of it.
RE: John Carson--Mr. Carson seems to have such an eye for nuanced detail and one might even conclude that he is a bit over analytical in his assessment of Mr. Tuggle's piece.
Your assignment (should you decide to accept it) Mr. Carson will be to apply your talents with complete and equal thoroughness to the analysis of the editorial in today's online edition of the Charlotte Observer.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/31/2026172/free-speech-covers-a...
Let's face it-this reporter has done a marvelous job. He is the first, as far as I know, not to demonize Mr. Taylor and to point out the absurdities and hypocrisy that lies behind the facade of these minority groups.
What is a racist? Someone who acknowledges that there are differences amongst various groups of people, and that these are biological and far from the "man made constructs", an idea that PC proponents like to shove down people's throats.
AmRen has never been a proponent of hate, only reality. And what the NAACP and the other groups have done is intimidate and silently threaten until they get their way. AmRen has as much right to Free Speech as anyone else. Shame on those who have backed down because of their fear of minorities and their unspoken, but very real threats.
Mr. Taylor, these groups know you speak a truth that they do not want to hear. Thanks for exposing them as the hypocrites they are.
John Cason,
You make some valid points, and you offer them in a polite, moderate tone. I profoundly respect that.
I admit to having my own opinions, like any other reporter. However, I attempted to record, to the best of my ability, what the issues were, and what the various parties had to say about them. No other report that I have seen (including our local TV stations) mentioned Mr. Taylor's exchange with the Mi Gente reporter, whose bias couldn't be clearer. If the purpose of the press conference was to hear Taylor's side of the story, why didn't the press present the facts he offered? Why is one person's gente permitted what the other person's gente is denied? I suspect the only reason the press showed up with cameras, audio recorders, and notepads at the ready was to "catch" a dumb racist saying something stupid.
One cannot be unbiased, but it is possible to be fair and to keep objectivity as a goal. Thus, I noted that "the race" was Mr. Taylor's translation of "La Raza," not La Raza's.
As to the identity of the protestors, I believe that is absolutely relevant to the story. These "antifa" have pursued Taylor and forcibly silenced him at his past conferences -- Behrle even repeated his threat to attack Taylor again. Rather than being casual passers by who just happened to stumble upon an outdoors news conference, these were people who stalk those they disagree with and assault them.
If that's not relevant information, I don't know what is.
For those who wonder why there are anonymous replies in fovor of Taylor, just look me up sometime and see how the left tries to destroy a person who does not agree with them.
Favor*.
I do understand that fear of public smears will lead to a desire for anonymity, and I'm not knocking that - I'm just saying it doesn't look good. The KKK hides under hoods for a reason other than tradition (no, I'm not linking the KKK to this article - professional wrestlers hide their faces, as well). I do wish that folks would speak their minds and not hide their identities.
My concern with naming the protestor was not that the author named the protestor, but that the author failed to name the supporter. Again, there is a veil of secrecy that lends creedance to the feeling of ill-will against certain separatist groups.
Let me be perfectly clear: I fully support free speech (and, yes, I'll be reviewing the article mentioned by John Pershing). I also believe in transparency. I have no problem with the author's portrayal of this event from a factual basis, but the tonality of the writing lends itself more to 'Views' rather than 'News'.
I strongly believe that this article should be reclassified under a topic more in line with what it represents, rather than the title of Charlotte City Politics. I feel like such a broad title should apply to either 1) an unbiased approach, or 2) multiple views from multiple authors. Given the author's background and apparently strong ties to separatist/racialist movements, the article is being presented too much like an unbiased report, rather than a biased spotlight.
[cont]
[cont]
My feelings on this are bolstered by the fact that this is the first article written under this Examiner title by the author. It leads me to believe that the event triggered an opportunity for the author to get a concept out in the public eye, rather than a desire to cover all Charlotte City Politics in a detached fashion.
I know everyone has bias and that bias often seeps into an author's work, however - this seems like a fairly clear case of biased journalism in support of one side, not political reporting for the sake of all Charlotteans. I'm certain that Examiner would love to have the author as their League of Southerners Examiner and I feel that would be a much more honest and honorable title choice.
Yes, I've voiced the same opinion on Political Buzz Examiners that are clearly agendized to one party or the other. My opinions regarding the actual topic of the article don't affect my opinion of its classification.
Thanks for your ear.
Ok, I checked out the post on the Observer's website. Yes, it is clearly biased. There is no subtlety and no denial. It clearly calls Taylor unintelligent and primitive.
However, it also makes my point. It is an opinion piece. It is marked as opinion. It is not in a news category of any kind. I think the Tuggle article is better written and certainly comes closer to the middle than the Observer piece, but... BUT the Observer piece is properly categorized.
However, I have sent an email to the editor regarding the subtitle of "Our View" in the readers' section. I believe they meant it to mean the readers' views, but it is laid out in such a way as to imply that it reflects the Observer's view - very misleading.
"However, I have sent an email to the editor regarding the subtitle of "Our View" in the readers' section. I believe they meant it to mean the readers' views, but it is laid out in such a way as to imply that it reflects the Observer's view - very misleading."--
I can't let that sophistry slide Mr. Carson
I don't think that a credible case can be made that the Observer piece was meant to reflect the views of its readership on this issue. Go look at the results of the WBTV viewer poll on this and if you'll accept axomatically that the Observer readership and the WBTV News readership are fairly close proxies for each other in terms of demographics and political orientation, then you simply can't make your case.
http://www.wbtv.com/ Scroll to viewer polls on right hand side.
As of this moment 57% of viewers side with American Renaissance's right to assembly and free speech.
Clarification: I didn't mean that the post was an accurate reflection of the readers' views; I meant that "Our View" is meant to indicate that the post forum is open to readers. I have no concern what opinions readers hold in this context. I'm willing to bet that if the question was not tied to a subject as controversial as white rights, the poll numbers would show way more than 57% support of any groups right to free speech.
So, not sophistry - just a failure of clarity on my part.
Fair enough Mr. Carson. At this pont I would like for you to link us to
an item in some other media organ that properly falls in the "news category" that you feel is equally or more comprehensive and less biased than Mr. Tuggle's piece.
Awh too bad. Mr. Taylor found the the right to refuse service to anyone. As was once used to not serve blacks by racist establishments was used now against bigots. Hmmmmmmm. So how does it feel? you know I understand not wanting to let them have their conferance. The ideas and views expressed by this organisation are pretty much the same stuff that Hitler used to claim the superiority of the "arian race" . This stuff is a pack of lies to justify hate and causes conflict. So would I want conflict in my city, or hotel? Nope! Trouble makers are refused service just like places refuse to allow guys sporting bike gang colors. Free speach? Sorry when you abuse the freedom we loose the freedom. And this organisation abuses the freedom. There is a responsability that comes with freedom, and when people are not responsable we all suffer the loss of our freedoms.
One more thing. Jared Taylor set up the conferance as he sets up many of his speaking engagments with dishonesty. He tells people he is a "race-relations expert". And that he is about race relations. That is very misleading. He is against any type of relations between races. He gets on the radio doing the same thing to unsuspecting people. Then when questioned about who he really is he denies the truth (lies). When asked if he knows members of the KKK he denies. Yet I've seen photos of him with David Duke. Yet Talor said this, "I've never been a member of the Klan. I've never known a person who is a member of the Klan," Yet KKK member Don Black, whose has a neo-Nazi Web site, Stormfront.org, is often at Taylor's gatherings, and there of photos of Black sitting at Jared Taylor's kitchen table, with a beer in hand. Well sorry when you lie about who and what you are about people should feel free to get out of the deal, when the truth comes to light.
Oh and as far as this being a "Free speech" issue. Sorry it's not. It is about a business or community having the freedom to insure public safety, and to choose what it supports. If you run a business and there is a knitting and quilt making conference and there is a Hells Angels rally. You have a right to turn down the Hells Angel rally and the city just informed the businesses what the truth was. The businesses then armed with the truth made a decision to refuse service. Giving Jared and his racist hate organization a place to meet would look like you condone it and could be econimically harmfull to your business as people would choose to boycot yu in the future. Sorry not realy about free speech. Its about public safety and economics, and about someone who misleads and was found out.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!