Олменд, подтверждаю, была такая статья. В Оттава Ситизен. Все верно, до последнего слова. Я поднял подшивку, каюсь, не поверил сперва, что такое тут может быть опубликовано. Если бы такое про индусов или арабов написали (я уж молчу про еще один избранный такой народ) - был бы г-н Робсон теперь в долговой яме. А так - отделался извинениями, не очень искренними.
Привожу извинение внизу, для справки.
(From the Ottawa Citizen, January 19, 2000) An apology to all readers for my column on Russia: The purpose of this column is to offer a sincere and detailed apology for my Jan. 7 column on Russia. It was offensive and hurtful and I am extremely sorry for what I wrote. Had I not been away for the past week, I would have apologized sooner. The e vulgarity of the headline, the final line and the comparison of Russia to a lump of dung contributed to its offensiveness. They were cheap shots and I regret them. But what was really wrong was that I wrote it in such a way as to suggest that I feel contempt for all members of an ethnic group. If I really held those views, and was making a dishonest statement of regret to avoid trouble for myself and my employers, I would expect and deserve the contempt of all readers. I truly did not mean it the way I wrote it. But I did write it that way, so I apologize. I do not wish to o reopen wounds, but I want to quote the paragraph I particularly regret in order to apologize for and retract it, clearly and completely. I said Russia "stinks, literally and figuratively, and always has. People there have no manners, and as (historian Richard) Pipes argues, no cultural capital, particularly no tradition of decency toward strangers. In Russia, when someone is swindled, popular sympathy goes to the swindler. Communism, of course, made it worse: Communism makes anything worse. But the bottom line is: Russia has sucked, sucks, and will suck." As you can easily see, and as I should have seen, this passage implies that there is something inherently wrong with Russians as people. Many Canadians who came here from Russia, or whose ancestors did, have written to express their pain and anger that I would make such a statement about an entire group of people. They are right to do so. I do not think there is something wrong with Russians as people and I did not intend to imply any such thing. But it is very clear from the way people have reacted to the column that it had that effect, and in rereading it, I understand why. It is not appropriate for columnists to back down simply because something they write causes public anger. That is part of the process of debate. Sometimes we expect to cause anger among people who hold certain views and behave in certain ways, and other times we provoke anger we consider misguided. But when there is a great deal of anger from an unexpected direction, I have to ask myself whether I wrote something other than what I intended to write, and something I should not have written. In this case the answer is clear: Yes. I did, in a way that was very hurtful. Instead of criticizing those who think or act in certain ways, I created the impression I was criticizing those who are of a certain ancestry. In saying that I did not intend it, let me repeat that I am not offering an excuse. I am offering an apology. Had I intended a blanket condemnation of everyone of Russian ancestry, my apology would not be sincere and I would not expect anyone to accept it. Because I did not intend it, but did write it, my apology is necessary, and I hope that it will be accepted. I do believe that the course of Russian history has been very unhappy, and that the people have suffered greatly. I believe that as a result of its history Russian culture has had and still has too little of what de Tocqueville called associationalism. Russia has been appallingly misgoverned throughout its history, and those who have sought real liberty have found too little popular support. I fear they still do, and I believe the result is dangerous both to the inhabitants of Russia and to the world. But to write these views in such a way as to imply that all Russians are therefore vile is, itself, vile. And by the sloppy and overheated way I wrote the column, I not only concealed anything useful I may have had to say, but undermined my point of view and my credibility. In fact I wish those Russians s trying to reform their country's politics, economy and much of its society every success. I admire their bravery, and respect the difficulty of their task. And to those Canadians who have come here from Russia, or whose ancestors did, I must say that I think all things considered you have made a wiser choice than those who have stayed. The prospects for a good life are far better here than there. Had I said all those things in the column, rather than what I did say, I would have expressed what I really think and would have been prepared to defend it. But I did not. So what really y matters now is not my opinion of Russia, but my opinion of my column of Jan. 7. I am ashamed of it. By careless writing and overgeneralization, I produced a column that was highly offensive. I am very sorry.
Мда...