Green candidate: column cheering 9/11 'symbolic'

VANCOUVER -- A Green candidate for the next federal election says he was just being "symbolic" when he wrote a column in 2002 cheering the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Kevin Potvin said Friday it should be obvious that he wasn't happy with the deaths of the thousands killed that day.

Potvin is the publisher and editor of the alternative Vancouver newspaper The Republic.

In November 2002, he wrote a column saying that when he saw the first of the World Trade Centre towers fall Sept. 11, 2001, "there was a little voice inside me that said 'Yeah!'

"When the second tower came down the same way, that little voice said 'Beautiful.'

"When the visage of the Pentagon appeared on the TV with a gaping and smoking hole in its side, that little voice had nearly taken me over and I felt an urge to pump my fist in the air."

The column goes on to say "I know lots of people were killed. But then again, I see lots of people getting killed whenever I turn the TV news on, and frankly, it doesn't really get me anymore."

Potvin said Friday he didn't mean he was dismissing the deaths.

"If you read the story that I wrote, you'll notice that I'm talking about it on a symbolic level," he said.

"I go to great pains to make clear that I'm not talking about the deaths of anybody. After all, as you can imagine, I'm a human being. I'm a father, I'm a hockey dad, I'm a businessman, I'm a community leader. I'm obviously not going to be revelling in the deaths of anybody."

In his column, Potvin said the number of people killed on Sept. 11, 2001, isn't the reason why those attacks were such an important event.

Lots of people die every day in lots of places like Rwanda and in the United States, he wrote.

"The only reason Sept. 11 merits so much attention is because the targets were so supremely symbolic. Corporatism and militarism were struck that morning, and that's why it's such big news."

He also wrote that he is not alone in his belief.

But on Friday, Potvin appeared insulted that anyone would suggest his column meant he was jubilant about the violence and killing. He noted he entitled the column A Revolting Confession because he was repelled by his own thoughts.

"Obviously, as a human to human here, you know that I'm not using beautiful in that sense," he said in an interview.

After parts of his column were reproduced in newspaper articles Friday, Potvin issued a clarification but he never disavowed his sentiments in the statement or a following interview.

"If you're asking 'do I weasel away from things I've said in the past?' No, I'm a man of my word and I stand by what I say," he said.

"I don't always agree with what I say. . . I change my mind when new information comes along. I'm a politician who changes my mind."

Potvin was acclaimed as the candidate for the east Vancouver riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, a seat currently held by Conservative MP David Emerson.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said she found the statements in Potvin's column "shocking."

She wondered whether news reports had taken him out of context and said she'd give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

But she added: "If those reflect his real views, he will not be a candidate for the Green Party."

Potvin said he intends to run, despite the controversy.

He said the House of Commons is precisely the place for debate on differing ideas.

"Don't you think the Parliament of Canada requires people that are free thinkers, independent thinkers and people that bring other points of view to the table besides those that are commonly accepted and those that are credentialed by the newspaper columnists?"

A revolting confession

This and the article following it were originally written in October of 2001, five weeks after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. It seemed prudent at that time to stuff it in the back of the drawer for when things lightened up again. But it seems that's not going to happen.

I have a terrible confession to make. When I saw the first tower cascade down into that enormous plume of dust and paper, there was a little voice inside me that said, "Yeah!" When the second tower came down the same way, that little voice said, "Beautiful!" When the visage of the Pentagon appeared on the TV with a gaping and smoking hole in its side, that little voice had nearly taken me over, and I felt an urge to pump my fist in the air.

This is a revolting confession, I know. But it's what happened.

I know lots of people were killed. But then again, I see lots of people getting killed whenever I turn the TV news on, and frankly, it doesn't really get me anymore. Plenty more people are killed without my knowledge. A million Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days a few years ago. That's a rate of six whole World Trade Center tower catastrophes every day for over three straight months running--and the whole thing barely registered on my radar.

Let's face facts. If the news on the morning of September 11 was that 3,000 Tanzanians or Burmese had been killed, they wouldn't have broken in on regularly scheduled programming, or cancelled football games, and there'd be no conversation about it the next day. No one would say the world changed. It's been a long time since lots of people getting killed is, in itself, news, and we all know this, and we all live comfortably with it.

The fact it was Americans who got killed is also not the reason this event gets so much play. As many Americans die from murder in any month as died on September 11, and hardly anyone notices this either, or cares.

The only reason September 11 merits so much attention is because the targets were so supremely symbolic. Corporatism and militarism were struck that morning, and that's why it's such big news. New York is not just home to American corporate headquarters, it is home to global corporate headquarters. It is the centre of global corporatism, and the twin towers were constructed precisely to celebrate this very fact.

The Pentagon is likewise not just home to the American military. The American military is so overwhelmingly dominant in the world, with a reach giving it ultimate power in every corner of the planet, that the Pentagon is really the home of the global military. The US supplies so much of the world's arms and commands so much of the world's force, either directly or through proxies in every nation on the planet, that the Pentagon is, to put it plainly, militarism itself.

I recognized these facts on that fateful day and so did a lot of other people, and I know I wasn't alone when I heard that little voice inside me say, "Yeah, beautiful!"

Nor was I alone, I know for a fact, whenever I passed a TV or newspaper with a report on the ensuing US war to capture Osama bin Laden, and I secretly said to myself, "Go, Osama, Go!" I am happy he has eluded capture by the Americans. I am in love with those Afghans who, whenever asked, said, "He went that-a-way," and their fifty hands pointed in fifty different directions.

There is a war on. US President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld call it "a war on terrorism." But is war not terrifying? And is terrorism not war, waged by those who can't afford tanks and airplanes? If someone wanted to wage war on the US, with all its satellites and drone bombers and smart missiles, what other form could it possibly take besides terrorism? To call it "a war on terrorism" is like calling it a war on war–surely an absurdity.

This is not a war against terrorism. It is a war against unbridled corporatism and militarism. And I'm not sure which side my heart is on.