If censorship doesn't benefit our community, why was this comment censored?

You say that:
"Estonian World Review has left a very strong impression of being against the Estonian Centre development as acknowledged by Tauno Mölder himself when he cites 70% of articles as neutral and 30% as against the new development. "

This is incorrect. What he said was actually:

"The remaining 70% are neutral news, announcements, or pieces published by the 4Orgs."

You either didn't understand what Tauno wrote, or are pretending to not understand - pieces published by the 4Orgs have been anything but neutral.

the 70% not critical include PR releases by 4Orgs and pro Madioson opinion pieces.

The original article at Eesti Elu, makes no suggestions about censorship, just accountability. The premis of this EWR article is thus, based on a fabrication. It is unfortunate that the author of this piece feels compelled to stoop to such vulgar manipulation.

Has anybody advocating for censorship actually called it as such? They usually use words like "unity", "party line", etc.

Kalle, thank you for your feedback.

I went back through all the articles published about the re-development and Madison projects. http://www.eesti.ca/toronto-ee...

Out of 230, I counted 6 opinion type articles that could be considered to be without specific author. Four of them are from Eesti Maja Sõbrad. As you probably know, Eesti Maja Sõbrad is a loose community based organization with fluctuating membership and juhatus, not unlike several other Estonian community based organizations. While the Sõbrad juhatus did not print their names under every opinion style article they submitted, it was nevertheless not hard to figure out who they were. You only had to check out their earlier articles and photos about their talgutöö around Estonian House. They are now official non-profit organization and their board members are on public record, also published in EWR.

Two remaining articles are signed as ’concerned shareholders’. This group was initially formed by several shareholders (who were known to EWR) of Eesti Maja, but who were at the end able to get support from approximately 1000 shareholders. I think it would have done our community a great disservice to reject their article submissions and viewpoints, considering their large reach.

Estonian World Review is also a volunteer based organization and although it has a formal structure and ownership, we relay on submissions from our community based contributors and Estonian language newspapers from Canada, USA, Estonia, Sweden, Germany, Australia, etc.

I do not consider the specific “Tulge Külla” article you mention as an opinion piece, it is merely an announcement from a group that is in the beginning stages of formation, somewhat similarly to early stages of Sõbrad. They have promised more information soon, stay tuned and check back often to www.eesti.ca.

I hope this clarifies your concerns.

Kolga in his article uses words/phrases such as "trolls", "stoked existing discord", "slinging of mud", "innuendos, rumours and baseless accusations", "creation and dissemination of erroneous information", and "intended to sow anger and discord". This last one is really over the top - it's one thing to voice an opinion on something that has been said but to claim to know the intentions behind what someone has said seems to me a bit much.

It's hard to take Kolga seriously when he uses all these derogatory terms to label people/actions without providing so much as one example. If there have been so many cases of trolling, mud slinging, erroneous information etc. that Kolga feels the need to write an article on the subject then surely he could provide us with at least a couple of examples. In the absence of such examples (he's failed to provide even one), it's hard to view his article as anything but what he's taking an issue with - mud slinging. He's says that rifts must be healed but it seems likely that this kind of mud slinging won't help, in fact it's likely to make things worse.

exactly. In half of his his article, Kolga calls for harmony, unification, respectful debate, etc. All good things. But the other half is unsubstantiated "trolls", "stoked existing discord", "slinging of mud", "innuendos, rumours and baseless accusations", "creation and dissemination of erroneous information", and "intended to sow anger and discord".

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Lugeja and his alter ego are demonstrating what is commonly known as a guilty conscience. It’s becuase of their cyber-bullying and anonymous sniping that many of us post anonymously.

Dear Virve, lugeja is my moniker.

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Dear Virve,

To expand on my earlier response:

Anonymity is a common characteristic of most people who post on this forum, in fact it's a common characteristic of most people who post on any internet forum.

This has been discussed before, people have given their arguments both for and against allowing anonymity and at this time, anonymity is allowed (in the same way it is allowed on almost all internet forums). If you don't like that then feel free to petition for change but as long these are the rules I would appreciate it you would respect my rights (and the rights of others).

I personally like the fact that most people remain anonymous here for the simple reason that the focus is on what is being said rather than who is saying it. People have a tendency to focus on who is speaking rather than what is being said, that's the unfortunate reality.

If you have any questions/comments on what I've said then that's one thing, I welcome discussion. If however my identity is more important to you then the issues at hand then I can only assume that the issues aren't very important to you.

To lugeja.

While anonymity certainly has merits (for instance, directing attention to arguments as opposed to who's making then, as you said), I'd argue that in some contexts that's not the ideal.

Remember, this whole discussion is about the future of a community asset; an asset which by definition has community stakeholders. Part of evaluating arguments in this context therefore also involves evaluating an individual's relationship to that asset (for better or for worse).

Anonymity is a convenience afforded by this forum, not a right.

I don't know who you are, but your understanding of 'the truth' is s-k-e-w-e-d. THIS project, is the construct of the few, "thinking" they were somehow bestowed and qualified to divine what Toronto Estonians needed to move onto the next fifty years of urban presence in the City of Toronto. Architecture is a very nuanced process, involving ALL the abstract faculties of the human condition and the culture of a people, a tribe, is constantly evolving. The "masses" were left out of an important evolution- capiche?

"Kas neil on panipaigad või kolukambrid?" asked a prominent sorority member, about space for guides’ and scouts' storage and archives, in a lengthy email sent to all. Further messages on the subject were formally disallowed, and organized discussion at meetings (even on how to discuss issues without violating the constitution and by-laws) also prohibited, (a recipe for irrelevance?), before and after the "town hall". There, lawyer and Estonian Credit Union Chair Ellen Valter ruled out the use of Estonian, as if we were at EstDocs and not the “Private” community meeting announced by the sign at the door. (This was certainly not the vision of equality and inclusion delivered under her watch as the EstDocs keynote speech of 2010 on “Endangered Languages”.) That meant a lot of people were not able to speak to what the place and the spaces mean to them, ask questions or otherwise participate in the “discussion” of the proposal to sell Estonian House that was brought with great speed to a “vote”.

Across the street the Estonian church has been offering simultaneous translation (in its services). A laudable development in itself, it invites the question, why has this been outside the reach (financial, logistical, intellectual, network, language and culture heritage mandate, intention?) of the “leadership” of the 3 plus 1 org’s, and their communications experts? This is yet another example of ineffective and suboptimal decision-making, and the need for public forums, press freedom, and vigilant appraisal.

In the book subtitled “Canadian Social Values at the End of the Millenium” Environics co-founder and president of research and communications Michael Snow divided Canadians into 12 “values tribes”. He finds the greatest differences in values occur across generations. Things are changing very quickly and this poses a challenge for generating continuity.

The Esto house board canceled the vote

Though they had spent hours confirming shares

All those who attended signed a petition to have or force a vote

They wanted to book the meeting and the venue

So please get it correctly

The board refused to call a vote

Most likely because they could surmise the vote would have proven more were against the move

AND as a shareholder you hold the responsibility to educate yourself on all the by-laws and actions that can be initiated by yourself. That's as easy as picking up a phone and placing a call to make an appointment to see the president of Eesti Maja ...... oh snap that was too hard wasn't it?