The Shotgun Blog
« Canada saved by global warming! | Main | January 25 is November 2 all over again »
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
Link: NORMAN'S SPECTATOR.
I'M TAKING THE DAY OFF.
A quick scan turned up this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.
Before signing off, two matters:
At the Gomery Inquiry yesterday, Georges Clermont testified that political intervention into the operations of Canada Post began in 1993, well before the Quebec referendum, the ostensible reason for the sponsorship program.
As far as I can tell (it is my day off, after all), no English-language newspaper reports this today. Isabelle Rodrigue, of Presse Canadienne, is the only one to report the testimony--here.
(UPDATE: Here I am taking a day off, and whom do you think I hear from? It seems that Warren Kinsella resents my bringing Isabelle's story to your attention. Here's his email:
"Clermont is a liar. He perjured himself yesterday. This morning I have sent a 72 page document to the commission detailing the sponsorships and sports boxes that Clermont set up as CEO. When we told him to stop, he didn't.
When I told him, personally, that we did not want Canada Post to do anymore advertising because they were a monopoly and we did not see any need for them advertise, he ignored us. When we insisted, he hired Joe Thornley to lobby his own minister.
We fired him when it was established he took cash payments from Jose Perez, and authorized CPC to sponsor his own son's race car.
Don't write to me anymore. As of today, you - and your tenure at PMO and as ambassador - are going to be featured prominently, and regularly, on my website and elsewhere.
You want a fight, Norman? You've got one. Ask Kim Campbell and Stockwell Day how much they enjoyed being a focus of my attentions.")
POSTSCRIPT:
Here I was hoping to have a quiet day--alternating between walking the dog on the beach in the spring-like weather, and listening to Dexter Gordon while reading Azar Nafisi's gripping tale of life in Teheran. And into my life comes Ottawa's most fearsome attack dog--Warren Kinsella.
Aside from accusing a former Canada Post CEO of committing perjury in his testimony at Gomery yesterday, over on his site he's re-writing the history of my departure from ACOA--a position to which I was appointed by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
I suppose I could have stayed, and accepted personnel "suggestions" such as the one about Chuck Guité contained in Warren's infamous letter to my colleague, Ran Quail, with whom I shared a minister--David Dingwall.
So let's see if I have their story straight.
Kinsella's minister, David Dingwall, testifies that they wanted Chuck Guite in the job because he was a star and was "universally acclaimed" after the 1995 referendum. That would be the referendum, by the way, in which their team almost lost the country.
Today, Stéphane Dion--the minister responsible for national unity--testified he had no involvement with the sponsorship program and, after he looked into it in 2001, he concluded that it had zero impact on national unity.
I can see why all this would make Kinsella, a former Chrétien staffer, uncomfortable. At the risk of further upsetting him with the truth about the sponsorship program, here's Isabelle Rodrigue's enlightening report from today's hearing.
And here's the English version, which adds the news that lawyers for Kinsella's old boss--Jean Chrétien--are seeking the dismissal of Judge Gomery.
For the record, here's the Globe and Mail editorial on my resignation from the public service of Canada in 1996:
The end of ACOA
3 July 1996
The Globe and Mail
A12
"THE last veil was stripped from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency last week with the departure of Norman Spector. The veteran public servant had been appointed president of the federal government's East Coast regional development body last year in order to clean up ACOA's operations and repair its shady reputation. His exit is an acknowledgment that such attempts are doomed to failure. There is no longer any sense pretending that ACOA serves any useful economic purpose.
Created in 1987, ACOA is the latest and most expensive in a long line of schemes to resurrect the Atlantic economy by giving money and low-cost loans to corporations -- or, as its detractors have always said, to buy votes for the governing party by handing out highly visible money.
We now know that ACOA's role is entirely political, that its protests of economic beneficence have been cosmetic. Mr. Spector tried to steer the agency into independent, objective economic-development activities, and he was rejected outright by the Atlantic Liberals. Listen to New Brunswick MP Paul Zed: "All we wanted was for Mr. Spector to do his job and have a relationship with us." Or Nova Scotia MP Ron MacDonald: "There was a complete lack of connection on the political side. He didn't inform us in advance of decisions that would have a negative impact on us or our constituents." Since when should elected officials have a "relationship" with aid agencies? Since when have business loans and grants had a "political side?"...
ACOA officials protested that they had changed their ways. But eight weeks ago, Mr. Desautels reported that ACOA was still at it: much of the agency's largesse went either to companies that didn't need the money or whose success would likely come at the expense of other local companies. Many suspected that the loans and grants have more to do with politics than any genuine aid. Mr. Spector's departure has confirmed the suspicions."
ANYWAY, back to the main story today.
As I argued in yesterday's Globe, there's considerable reason to suspect that the principal goal of the program was not national unity, but to elect more Liberal MPs in Quebec--a matter that figured prominently in Mr. Chrétien's self-proclaimed legacy when he left office.
Next, a few points about the law professors in today's Globe and Mail who say there's no alternative but the notwithstanding clause to preserve the existing definition of marriage.
First, with all respect to their legal knowledge, there are no facts in the future. Probability is one thing, but no earthly being--not even a law professor--can guarantee absolutely how the Supreme Court would rule on the issue if presented with legislation.
Second, judges, like other Canadians, read the newspapers, and they are sensitive to public opinion--as the editorial in yesterday's Globe and Mail suggested.
Third, the most that any law professor--or pundit, for that matter--can say at present is that the Supreme Court would likely strike down the traditional definition of marriage.
A politician who refuses to answer the hypothetical question of what he would do in these circumstances would not be creating any precedent I know of.
Fourth, any law professor who suggests that Stephen Harper is dragging the Supreme Court and the Charter into the political arena, who has not publicly condemned the government for referring the issue in the first place, is playing politics now.
Fifth, Prime Minister Martin says polygamy--a separate but related matter--will remain a crime as far as he's concerned.
However, he can only make this commitment honestly if he's prepared to use the notwithstanding clause. I don't see the professors demanding that he come clean on whether he would. (Here's a recent Globe column in which I set out the analysis.)
Let's face it: the law professors are playing politics in today's Globe and Mail.
Having entered the political arena, these professors--who by-and-large did not condemn the government for abusing the reference power, support same-sex marriage and oppose using the notwithstanding clause--should understand they have one vote each, just like every other Canadian.
They should also understand if, as I suspect, Stephen Harper does not look to them for advice on how to manage political issues--one step at a time, never more than are absolutely necessary---or on how to present himself and his Party to the Canadian people.
One final point.
Whatever your view on same-sex marriage, as the debate heats up toward the Parliamentary vote we should all keep in mind that most journalists and editors are way outside the mainstream. It will be no surprise if the coverage reflects their personal views.
Lester Markel, who worked at the New York Times for 40 years, put it this way:
"The reporter, the most objective reporter, collects fifty facts. Out of the fifty he selects twelve to include in his story (there is such a thing as space limitation). Thus he discards thirty-eight. This is Judgment Number One.
"Then the reporter or editor decides which of the facts shall be the first paragraph of the story, thus emphasizing one fact above the other eleven. This is Judgment Number Two.
"Then the editor decides whether the story shall be placed on Page One or Page Twelve; on Page One it will command many times the attention it would on Page Twelve. This is Judgment Number Three.
"This so-called factual presentation is thus subjected to three judgments, all of them most humanly and most ungodly made."
Markel points out where bias starts, but not where it ends. And, no Canadian media organization has a completely independent Ombudsman to whom we can complain.
Your only protection as a reader and as a citizen--as it is mine, on this issue and on every other--is to read and watch a variety of sources in different languages and with different perspectives. And, of course, to leave plenty of time for the indie, non-mainstream media, especially blogs!
HAVE A GOOD ONE. BACK ON-LINE TOMORROW.
Posted by Norman Spector on January 25, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/1722564
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NORMAN'S SPECTATOR:
» A Canadian Web Flame War in Progress from Joey Coleman's Blog
Life in the Canadian Blogosphere just got very interesting. In one corner; Former Chief of Staff to Brian Mulroney, leading Canadian News Junky, member of the Western Standard Group Blog, and Maclean's Magazine. In the right corner: Norman Spector In... [Read More]
Tracked on 26-Jan-05 11:39:49 AM
» A Canadian Web Flame War in Progress from Joey Coleman's Blog
Life in the Canadian Blogosphere just got very interesting. In one corner; Former Chief of Staff to Brian Mulroney, leading Canadian News Junky, member of the Western Standard Group Blog, and Maclean's Magazine. In the right corner: Norman Spector In... [Read More]
Tracked on 26-Jan-05 11:47:22 AM
» A Canadian Web Flame War in Progress from Joey Coleman's Blog
Life in the Canadian Blogosphere just got very interesting. In one corner; Former Chief of Staff to Brian Mulroney, leading Canadian News Junky, member of the Western Standard Group Blog, and Maclean's Magazine. In the right corner: Norman Spector In... [Read More]
Tracked on 26-Jan-05 12:44:30 PM
» The Dreyfus Award from Trudeaupia
Get the man a straitjacket. [Read More]
Tracked on 29-Jan-05 10:51:22 PM
» The Norman Invasion from The Crankset
What better subject for a first post than an incestuous account of a blog war? I tell you, J.C., the readers eat this stuff up!
Anyway, if you've been perusing certain Canadian conservative blogs, you'll have probably read accounts of Norman Spect... [Read More]
Tracked on 30-Jan-05 12:48:01 PM
» Leap blogging from Bene Diction Blogs On
Some wag has called this virus going around the 100 day cough. Norwalk and influenza A have been identified but this one just kind of hangs on and medical people say it has low level symptoms for about 3 months. We need some sun I think. A book The Int... [Read More]
Tracked on 7-Feb-05 5:30:05 PM
» A tale of two Kinsellas from Le blog de Polyscopique
Warren Kinsella, former political aide to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, lately got into fights with National Post columnist Andrew Coyne, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's chief of staff Norman Spector and Maclean's columnist Paul Wells. The Natio... [Read More]
Tracked on 15-Feb-05 6:13:56 PM
Comments
Blogs are now a crucial factor in the fight to shape public opinion. Long live blogs and bloggers.
Those "law professors": two words used to shock and awe the stupid readers. Is that called speaking from authority? Do the "law professors" have a monopoly on wisdom? Perhaps, it is wis-dumb?
Posted by: maz2 | 25-Jan-05 6:50:30 AM
"A quick scan turned up this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this."
Thanks for being courteous enough to use hyperlinks.
*cough*
Posted by: Sean | 25-Jan-05 7:12:28 AM
Sean, using the link that Norman does provide gets you to where you want to go. This has been his convention from the get-go at the Shotgun.
I disagree with Norman as often as I agree with him, but I do appreciate his daily efforts.
Posted by: MLM | 25-Jan-05 7:34:37 AM
"Prof. Choudhry said that while nothing prevents Parliament from enacting an obviously unconstitutional definition of marriage, it would be doomed to fail and IT WOULD ALSO HARM THE POLITICAL PROCESS.
"At some point, the process would wear down the gears of the Constitution," he said.
INVOKING THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE IS LIKELY TO HAVE A SIMILAR EFFECT, Prof. Choudhry said, since it must be renewed every five years by succeeding governments."
Norm, you better write Professor Choudry and the other 133 law professors and enlighten them regarding the "robust role" parliamentarians have in our system of "constitutional supremacy".
P.S. I'm still waiting for your examples of politicians actually using the notwithstanding clause (and I'm aware Quebec, who I don't believe ever ratified the constitutional amendments that include the Charter, invoked it with respect to their racist language laws - wow, there's a powerful precedent for subsequent invocations!)
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 25-Jan-05 9:04:07 AM
firewalls,
I see you're still having trouble reading, including the rebuttal points I raise today
As to the notwithstanding clause, it's been used by Saskatchewan. You can look it up.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 9:06:47 AM
"Sean, using the link that Norman does provide gets you to where you want to go. This has been his convention from the get-go at the Shotgun."
Yes, and it has been an annoyance from the get-go. There's no reason why he can't be courteous enough to:
a) Include functional hyperlinks, or
b) if he's going to force me to go to a second site to get working links, limit the post to this site to a single paragraph so I don't have to spend so much time scrolling.
He takes up a disproportionate amount of space and bumps other good authors down the page with his postings, which are for the most part useless without links.
Here's the bottom line for me. If Spector keeps posting to the Shotgun, I'm not renewing my WS subscription (it's due shortly). If Spector is turfed, I'll renew. If he is turfed AND Kathy Shaidle returns (I may disagree with her on religion but I still enjoy reading her posts), I'm buying two gift subscriptions for friends in addition to renewing.
Posted by: Sean | 25-Jan-05 9:25:34 AM
firewall,
I'm reluctant to disturb your profound ignorance, but most recently Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause to permit the teaching of religion in public schools.
As Quebec, like the other provinces, is a democracy in which everyone has the right to vote, I have no problem with the elected representatives of the people using a constitutionally and legally valid provision of our system to reflect majority sentiment.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 9:27:09 AM
Sean
Anytime the proprietors of this site change their minds about the desirability of my postings--be it to save your subscription or any other reason--I'll be pleased to desist. I'm doing this as a service--as I do for Macleans--and hardly need the traffic or the exposure.
As to the volume, you may have noticed that I introduced a new feature last week on my site to assist readers who are pressed for time; it is this summary that I am now posting, which should serve to minimize the degree to which other Shotgun content gets pushed down.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 9:33:08 AM
"I see you're still having trouble reading, including the rebuttal points I raise today."
I read your "rebuttal points" and essentially concur with them. The problem, of course, is I'm not one of the 134 - ooooo! - law professors, thank you lord, whose views I suspect are likely to receive just a teensie weensie bigger audience than your rebuttal (if the drool from the breathless 134 - ooooo! - law professors!!!! Grope hack who wrote the story hasn't smudged the type).
Strange as it might seem to you, I, too, favour "constitutional supremacy" IN THEORY. The problem here in Trudeaupia is that, Quebec separatists appeasers aside, a politician that even whispers the word "notwithstanding" is immediately set upon by the screeching Lieberal hordes, the yapping dogs at the Grope and the Corpse and then 134 - ooooo! - law professors swoop in and finish the job.
I don't doubt your response will be to suggest the reason the "notwithstanding" clause hasn't been widely used is there hasn't been suffient "public support" for its use with respect to a particular issue. Norm, the feds didn't even have the balls to use it two months after the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 (and 20 some Canadians perished) in enacting their "security act" tripe. So much for a "robust role" for our esteemed parliamentarians. In the meantime, the total re-engineering of our society by our judicial sanhedrin continues apace, albeit one incremental step at a time.
"As to the notwithstanding clause, it's been used by Saskatchewan. You can look it up."
I don't recall this - perhaps Ms. McMillan could assist (maybe she's depicted it on a goalie mask). I can tell you that here in Alberta, even braveheart Klein, in possession of 93% of the seats in our legislature, couldn't sell using the notwithstanding clause to prevent that most highly respected of professionals, the PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS, from gouging exhorbitant fees out of their unfortunately sterile clients.
Face it, Norm, you've put your faith in a dead letter.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 25-Jan-05 9:44:42 AM
I seem to recall that a certain premier in Ralph's World showed a decided lack of cojones when it came down to the crunch.
Lots of huffing and puffing, as on health care--but all it amounts to is bitching and moaning and an unwillingness or incapability of doing anything about it.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 9:57:01 AM
S. 33 was invoked by Saskatchewan after the Court of Appeal in that province ruled that a back-to-work labour law impaired union worker's freedom of association, as enshrined in s. 2(a). This occured way back in 1985 (the relevant case is RWDSU v. Sask). At the time, the government of Saskatchewan was appealing the case to the Supreme Court, which later overturned the lower court's judgment.
Also, we should keep in mind that the clause cannot be invoked to override *any* ruling that a government takes exception to. S. 33 can only operate on s.2 and s.7 to s.15 of the Charter.
Posted by: Clement Ng | 25-Jan-05 10:55:09 AM
Clement
That's correct.
One slight precision--the power is lodged with Parliament and the provincial legislatures--not governments--and may only be used with respect to legislation that is intra vires their respective jurisdictions.
For the information of Shotgunners, here's an excerpt from a secret letter Pierre Trudeau sent to Emmett Cardinal Carter of Toronto, at the height of the patriation debate, back on Dec. 21, 1981:
"Should a court decide at some future
date that sections 7 (the right of women to security of the person) or 15 equality rights) establish a right to abortion on demand, Parliament will continue to legislate on the matter by overriding the court's decision and the specific charter right."
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 11:12:08 AM
1) Actually, I was about to subscribe before Norm showed up and ran a lot of good people off the Shotgun.
I thought it would be novel for friends to come over and see a copy of the Western Standard on my coffee table.
"What's that?" they would ask.
"Oh," I would say blandly, "that's the pre-eminent Canadian conservative magazine. You should read it."
An atmosphere of my acknowledged cosmopolitanism would settle over the room.
"Canada," one of them would say, "that's not Mexico, right?"
"Absolutely, it's north."
"No kidding, like around Wyoming or something?"
"Even further north."
"My God, Greg, you're really in touch with the world."
I smile nonchalantly as we head to the pistol range.
So sure, if Norm goes, I'll subscribe.
2)We need Kathy Shaidle back. In the States, the religious argument is changing, and becoming more vital. The old crew that argued against evolution has moved into a more sophisiticated argument of "intelligent design", which is very similar to the teleological argument for the existence of a supreme intelligence.
The teleological argument basically says that if you found a pocket watch on a deserted beach, you would surely conclude that it was created by some intelligent being.
This can be argued against, but not easily. One scientist has suggested that for our world to be an accident of evolution, it would be the equivalent of a tornado hitting a junkyard and creating a 747.
Now in President Bush's inaugural address, he argues for the position of natural law which is very similar to the basic premise that American founding documents are based on. This can be linked with the argument for intelligent design.
So the argument has shifted from a religious venue to a philosophical venue uniquely American in its character.
Needless to say, we need Kathy to help us sort all this out.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 25-Jan-05 11:42:44 AM
Allow me to observe that the Supreme Court has not declared the real definition of marriage to be unconstitutional. Rather the contrary, it indicated, both in the Egan case and in the reference just passed, that the existing marriage laws are in fact constitutional. So a Harper government could indeed reaffirm the marriage laws and appeal any attempt to strike them down to the Supreme Court. Only if the Supreme Court then reverses itself will the notwithstanding clause be required. And then, of course, it will be visibly justified, since a Court that can't make up its mind about something that basic clearly requires guidance.
Posted by: ebt | 25-Jan-05 11:57:39 AM
"So the argument has shifted from a religious venue to a philosophical venue uniquely American in its character.
Needless to say, we need Kathy to help us sort all this out."
Total agreement on this. While I'll quite often disagree with Kathy's position, I still feel that it's worth knowing. And, yes, she occasionally causes me to change my thinking. ;-)
Posted by: Sean | 25-Jan-05 12:02:36 PM
Greg
As I mentioned, I'm at the disposition of the owners of this site.
In the meantime, do you realize how much like the "Ugly American" you sound?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 12:47:50 PM
"In the meantime, do you realize how much like the "Ugly American" you sound?"
Norm. Stop trolling.
Posted by: Kate | 25-Jan-05 1:17:14 PM
Yes, thank you Norman. The authority to invoke the clause indeed lies with the Parliament and the legislatures, formally speaking.
Now regarding what ebt wrote. I think you're mistaken here. It does not matter at this point whether or not the Supreme Court has reviewed the marriage law. Once a lower court rules that a statute is unconstitutional, it *is* unconstitutional, until the judgment is reversed by a court higher up (and that of course does not have to happen). The Supreme *can* have the last judicial word, but it is not required to have the final say. If a legislature declines to appeal a case, then the impugned law remains unconstitutional (although a court may decided to temporarily suspend invalidation. giving the legislature time to ammend the offending section of the statute).
Accordingly, it is a Harpur government that would have to appeal one of the lower court cases in which the common-law definition of marriage was invalidated, and the time limit for appeal has passed with respect to several of those cases. Parliament cannot simply "reaffirm" laws that has been struck down (the situation is all the more complicated by the fact that provincial laws that make reference to the federal law are also at stake here). At this point, the only way to save the common-law definition of marriage is to enshrine it in the constitution or do what the Conservative's are proposing (establishing a seperate legal category that applies to same-sex couples).
BTW, before anyone gets the wrong impression, I should note that I'm not a lawyer by training. Persons more knowledgeable are welcome to correct me.
Posted by: Clement Ng | 25-Jan-05 1:36:28 PM
Sorry, Clement, but all he has to do is repeal the provision that was attacked and enact a new one. No matter what it says, it is in force until struck down; at which point he has a fresh appeal.
But he doesn't even have to do that. There are still three provinces in which the old law remains in force. He can start a new court challenge in any one and appeal it. And, of course, he can always direct another reference to the Supreme Court on such terms that they cannot decline it.
Posted by: ebt | 25-Jan-05 1:49:37 PM
Oh, and it's time to cut Norman Spector's throat. That last comment of his was completely unacceptable. If he's still here tomorrow, I'll tell him just exactly what he sounds like, and you won't enjoy hearing it much. Act now.
Posted by: ebt | 25-Jan-05 1:52:21 PM
Ebt:
Yes, I think you're correct. My bad. Until the replacement provision is ruled unconstitutional, it stands.
This stuff about the federal government starting an appeal, however, is lost on me. How could the feds start an appeal in a province where the law has not yet been struck down? What would they be appealing? I think you know more about this stuff than I do.
Posted by: Clement Ng | 25-Jan-05 2:09:03 PM
So if I'm tallying correctly, in the two decades since enactment of the Charter, we've had three invocations of the "notwithstanding clause" - one (Sask) that appears to have been a purely pragmatic (and ultimately redundant) way to resolve a regional labour skirmish and two (Quebec) that can only be viewed as being motivated primarily by "distinct" Quebec political considerations. I'm not sure I'd regard any of these uses as an example of our parliamentarians demonstrating the "robust role" our constitution allegedly affords them.
Norman, these examples may convince you that the notwithstanding clause remains a viable option to restore the proper balance between parliament and the courts. I remain utterly unconvinced. Please do not disparage me for it.
P.S. where were those 134 - ooooo! - law professors when that Saskatchewan thing was happening?
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 25-Jan-05 2:20:22 PM
Norm, do you realize how much like a "Bully" you sound?
Re-read my post. You'll see that I make Texans -- and myself -- all sound pretty silly.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 25-Jan-05 2:20:46 PM
Clement and ebt: Question, does Danny Williams in Nfld still have time to appeal that court decision, as it only happened a few months back??
Could he not take it to the Supremes?? Just wondering.
Sean and Greg in Dallas: I think there is room for both Norman and Kathy on here. Like it or not this is the most interesting blog out there and Norman plays a huge part in that. But it sure could use Kathy too. You two and others need to persuade Kathy to come back.
Posted by: MikeP | 25-Jan-05 2:36:53 PM
Greg,
I'll reflect on your comment, as you have on mine.
ebt, are you referring to Zarqawi's actions in Iraq, which caught Cheryl Gallant's eye, or the guys who did it to Danny Pearl in Pakistan?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 2:37:32 PM
firewall,
Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves. If you want governments that have the testicular fortitude to use the notwithstanding clause, you'll have to get involved politically and work for it--rather than bitching and moaning or pissing in the wind or saving souls or engaging in various other fantasies.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 2:43:19 PM
EBT wrote:
"...all he has to do is repeal the provision that was attacked"
My understanding as to what courts have been doing is interpreting various sundry federal and provincial statutes that establish specific marriage entitlements to be unconstitutional to the extent those entitlements are not extended to gays. What remains unresolved because our "apolitical" SCC refused to answer the question, is whether a federal legislative initiative of some sort to affirm that "marriage" is limited to heteros, would, on its face, be "unconstitutional".
In other words, I think this tangled mess of virtually impenetrable legalese essentially distills down to the courts having ruled gays are to have all of the entitlements of marriage, but (undoubtedly with great reluctance) leaving it open for parliament to enact legislation affirming that "marriage" continues to be an exclusively hetero institution (i.e. exactly Stephen Harper's much maligned position).
And for those who suggest the "hetero is constitutional" issue really isn't unresolved, nudge nudge wink wink, because we ALL know that the SCC will strike down any legislation attempting to accomplish this, I've seen the SCC do some pretty stupid things (that whole Marshall/native fishing rights thing comes to mind), but refusing to rule on an issue, allowing parliament to then enact a law on that issue, and then striking down that law would set a new low in "stupid supreme tricks" (although, of course the 134 - ooooo! - law professors would applaud them).
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 25-Jan-05 2:50:39 PM
Mr. Spector is playing devil's advocate.
Some devil. Keep it up.
Posted by: maz2 | 25-Jan-05 2:55:13 PM
MikeP wrote:
"does Danny Williams in Nfld still have time to appeal that court decision, as it only happened a few months back??"
I'll defer to ebt, as my knowledge of legal procedure exhausted itself after my second post (my interests are mostly in legal philosophy and, although this seems odd, you can study legal philosophy (H.L.A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin, John Finnis) without learning much about legal process).
Posted by: Clement Ng | 25-Jan-05 3:29:40 PM
"you'll have to get involved politically and work for it--rather than bitching and moaning or pissing in the wind or saving souls or engaging in various other fantasies"
Does that mean the twenty or so years, hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars I've spent supporting the PCs/Reform/Alliance/CPC, culminating in days spent on the campaign trail away from my family last June because the sheer slimyness of our opponents made victory virtually certain, don't count?
I haven't always been firewalls, but I have grown weary of kicking against the goads and, I assure you Norm, I am far from alone.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 25-Jan-05 4:03:16 PM
it means you'll have to work harder, unless you're ready to work smarter.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 25-Jan-05 4:05:17 PM
Doing the same things over & over & over; getting the same results=Opposition benches.
There is another word to describe this process.
Work smarter; take risks; articulate your party platform in standard language; build a coalition with the enemies of your enemy; The art of the possible is still the best definition of politics; Study Sir John A. MacDonald's methods, the sly old Scot; study the politics of WLM King. The past is prologue.
Posted by: maz2 | 25-Jan-05 4:23:49 PM
Sean, Greg-outside-Dallas and Mike; I concur! Norm is good...and all, but Kathy adds an interesting twist to things. She's posted some pretty engaging and thought provoking items at her site.
As for the exchange with Warren Kinsella; I'd never realised just how aggressive and vindictive he was.
His website, you know, has a few factual errors, even though I only parused it for 3 or 4 minutes!
Does anyone know if it's managed by consultants who do sponsorship drives?
Posted by: John Palubiski | 25-Jan-05 5:40:21 PM
"It means you'll have to work harder, unless you're ready to work smarter."
Norman, congrats on all the 'smart' work you did for your old party. You know, the one that set new standards for alienating voters, that was reduced to 'rump party' status in the House of Commons, that had an unserviceable debt, and as a result, was picked up at fire sale prices by the Alliance.
You can pat yourself on the back for a success like that for years to come, I imagine.
Posted by: Sean | 25-Jan-05 6:55:16 PM
A suggestion for Norm, try to be a little less insulting to people that still have hope and a bit of confidence in conservatism. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean that they're
"still having trouble reading, including the rebuttal points I raise today"
or have
"profound ignorance"
and of course
"do you realize how much like the "Ugly American" you sound?"
You should also not assume you are the only one who has been actively involved in politics.
"but all it amounts to is bitching and moaning and an unwillingness or incapability of doing anything about it. "
and
"get involved politically and work for it--rather than bitching and moaning or pissing in the wind or saving souls or engaging in various other fantasies."
Debate is great, and shouldn't involve mud-slinging.
Posted by: ld | 26-Jan-05 11:36:18 AM
ld
If it's a question of the tone of debate on this site, I think you'd probably find a better market for generic suggestions. Otherwise, given the context, such observations come off as partisan, at least to these eyes.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 26-Jan-05 12:15:14 PM
maz2
Somehow, I missed your initial comment yesterday in this thread.
I heartily endorse your statement: "Blogs are now a crucial factor in the fight to shape public opinion. Long live blogs and bloggers."
The damage inflicted on these law professors who somehow showed up on the front page of the Globe and Mail is the reason I've been stressing the importance of turning our attention to Canadian issues.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 26-Jan-05 12:20:16 PM
Regrets about the multi-trackbacks. I will correct my webserver settings to prevent this.
Posted by: Joey Coleman | 26-Jan-05 1:21:42 PM
Sean, Mike, and John Palubiski, I did contact Kathy Shaidle 2 or 3 weeks ago (did you see the article she wrote on Flannery O'Connor a few days ago?), and she was pretty adamant about not returning to the Shotgun for some pretty good reasons.
My hope is that if a number of us contact her, she would see an opportunity for a "celebrated return to the stage". If we were fortunate enough for this to occur, we would have to bear in mind that Norm's offensive behavior might turn her off again pretty quickly.
Norm doesn't seem to get that there is a certain social element on the blogosphere, and there is an element of friendship and camaraderie that grows over time. Maybe he played power politics for so long that he just doesn't know anything else.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 26-Jan-05 3:06:06 PM
I agree. Come back Kathy. You have edge. I like that.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 26-Jan-05 7:06:00 PM
I've never met Kathy, so I have no comment to make about her personally.
My personal view is that several malignancies are eating away at the progress of conservatism and conservative thought in our country.
I believe it is these malignancies, not the absence of well-funded think thanks--Adam Daifallah's thesis--that explains our lack of success in Canada.
Prominent amongst these malignancies are Canadian self-hatred and its close cousin--US-envy. I understand the presence of both reflexes in the minds of minority groups--which is what Canadians are on this continent, after all--but this does not in any way cause me to admire either when I see them.
I think the colonization of our intellectual traditions is exemplified by the pretension of American citizens on this site that they have a valid role in Canadian domestic debates. While international dialogue amongst conservatives is to be cherished and stimulated, we confuse the international and the national conversation at our peril.
I also regard the pre-disposition against compromise--derived from deeply held religious beliefs--to have had a negative impact on the success of conservatism and conservative thought in Canada.
I believe all of the above should be marginalized intellectually, as they likely cannot be extirpated, primarily through vigorous debate.
However, if an aggressive person met by an aggressive opponent wants to pick up their ball and leave the playground because they cannot stand the heat, I certainly would not object to a second best route to a healthier Canadian conservatism.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 26-Jan-05 10:40:33 PM
"However, if an aggressive person met by an aggressive opponent wants to pick up their ball and leave the playground because they cannot stand the heat"...
I think the better analogy is that of leaving a swimming pool after figuring out that someone has only jumped in to take a piss.
Posted by: Kate | 26-Jan-05 10:59:33 PM
I'd say if you're gonna dish it out, you'd better be prepared to take it. And that if you can't stand the heat, you'd better stay in your pajamas out of the kitchen.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 27-Jan-05 1:23:35 AM
Norman (channelling the ghost of Joe Clark) wrote:
"I also regard the pre-disposition against compromise--derived from deeply held religious beliefs--to have had a negative impact on the success of conservatism and conservative thought in Canada."
Actually, the "pre-disposition against compromise" has been the only thing preventing conservatives from morphing into Lieberals. Norman, "compromise" is what LIEBERALS do! - it is THEIR GAME! They set the rules, own the stadium and bring the ball. Conservatives HAVE NO HOPE - NONE, NADA, NIL, ZILCH - of out-compromising the Lieberals.
Want an example? - think no further back than the last election and the big "A" - the position of the CPC on abortion was INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Lieberals and was most assuredly a sizeable compromise of the position held by a large number of conservatives. And was the CPC rewarded for its compromise? Did the MSM have an epiphany and begin extolling the virtues of the new CPC position? Did all of the "progressives" in southern Ontario have the "conservatives are rednecks" scales fall from their eyes? What in heaven's name makes you think it will be any different on any other issue on which conservatives compromise?
And Norman, please don't bother responding by chanting your mantra "Cheryl Gallant - Cheryl Gallant - Cheryl Gallant" - if Cheryl Gallant didn't exist, rest assured the Grope, the Corpse and the rest of the Lieberal MSM mouthpieces would INVENT HER - it's not as if they haven't conjured up conservative positions out of thin air in the past (try googling "conservative" "Canada" and "hidden agenda"). And you surely can't believe it's possible to purge a party of all who might on occasion make idiotic utterances. The problem isn't that only conservative politicians say stupid things (think Hedy Fry, Eleanor Caplin, Svend Robinson), it's that conservative stupidity is the only thing the media ever hears (or, in many more cases, thinks they hear).
Norman, I suspect you're right - the CPC is unlikely to ever form a government without further compromise by those of us with "deeply held religious beliefs". Canadians clearly prefer "the shallower the better" when it comes to leaders and, you know what, we're getting what we deserve.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 27-Jan-05 9:40:21 AM
Driving people out of the kitchen is not what blogging is about.
Driving subscribers from the WS and readers away from the Shotgun is not what the rest of us are about.
Divisiveness is what the old Red Tory party was about, though. And I think it's what you are actually up to - undermining the credibility of a new, intelligent voice in Canadian conservative thought.
I suggested earlier that your behavior may be due to the influence of medication. I will allow that this is still a possibility, and sad to say, the prettier one.
The only other logical conclusion one can draw from your troll behavior in the comments, your petty ad hominems, your intellectual dishonesty in neglecting active links in the diatribes you direct towards the writing of other bloggers (on site and off) - - is that you are intent on driving readers and the best writers from the Shotgun.
I believe its intentional on your part, and I'm calling you out on it.
Posted by: Kate | 27-Jan-05 10:09:44 AM
"I think the colonization of our intellectual traditions is exemplified by the pretension of American citizens on this site ... "
Geez, Norm, I don't know if you've noticed, but Canadians have been more than forcefully expressing their opinions (sometimes demands) about America for a long time. You even have Canadian government officials like Carolyn Parrish who actually cuss the US out and call America dirty names.
Many of the posts on the Shotgun are conspicuously about America. You had one the other day about Delta Force and Seal Team Six yourself.
I'm glad the Internet has provided us with places where Canadians and Americans can talk with each other over the heads of politicians.
Fortunately, on the Shotgun we're largely in agreement. My hope is that conservative Canadians will feel the support that conservative Americans have for their situation and their effort.
I admire a lot of Canadian bloggers. Thank God, these days, it's easy to be a conservative in Texas. To be a conservative Canadian must take a lot of courage and tenacity.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 27-Jan-05 10:30:05 AM
firewall,
The reason Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has no criminal sanction on abortion, at any stage of a pregnancy, is because so-cons were unprepared to compromise back in the late 1980s.
I believe that was a political error, and a moral error--as saving even one life is, in my book, the moral thing to do. That takes compromise, which is what politics is all about. Those who are not prepared to compromise on such issues have effectively taken themselves out of Canadian politics. I hope so-cons reconize this today.
Kate, Those who know my past know that I am not a Red Tory. I have written countless columns criticizing Joe Clark, for example. Those who know me know as well that I've written many articles about re-uniting the parties. And, on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, I don't think anyone would mistake me for a Red Tory
Your allegations are therefore completely without foundation.
Greg, you're right that Canadians have a tendency to pretend they're involved in your politics. Both on the left and the right. It is a tendency I decry, as I think it's a waste of time and energy.
It's not that we don't have enough to do as conservatives in Canada. For example, I ask myself why none of us is posting on the cbcwatch site, when we see something egregious on the government owned broadcaster.
That would be a hell of a lot better use of our time as Canadians than getting into the minutiae of Iraq, even for those of us who have knowledge of the region and its languages.
That's where I started this campaign, and that where I'll end this post. It's awful hard to be a conservative in Canada--especially if you are a so-con. The temptation to escapism and a fantasy life is strong. I understand all that; but I decry it.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 27-Jan-05 10:58:16 AM
Kate
I'm a bit mystified by your reference to the best writers leaving the Shotgun.
While I know Kathy thinks she's in Mark Steyn's class--a comparison I find risible--surely to God you cannot be referring to her.
I know Steyn quit the National Post, but I can't find a single article she's written for that paper--even in its golden age of conservatism.
In fact, in all of 2004, I can only find one article she's written in a Canadian newspaper--and that was a book review in the Toronto Star, believe it or not.
So, to whom exactly are you referring?
I also find it a bit hypocritical for you to accuse me of making ad hominem arguments in the very same post in which you suggest I'm on medication. Not only is that a silly allegation, as is readily apparent to anyone who knows me, but it suggests you're intellectually incapable of debating the issues I've raised, which relate to malignancies retarding the progress of conservative thought and conservatism in Canada.
Your implicit endorsement of and failure to condemn those who've threatened to cancel their subscriptions to the Western Standard is further evidence that you are incapable of making the counter-case. That kind of pressure tactic is simply reprehensible--it represents intellectual thuggery of the first order and you should be ashamed of yourself for cautioning it.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 27-Jan-05 2:28:50 PM
Kate,
On the odd chance you were referring to yourself as one of the best writers on the site--perhaps signalling that you'd made up your mind to leave--I did a search but could not find anything by you in the Post, the Globe or even the Toronto Star. Perhaps there's something wrong with the search engine--maybe it doesn't have permalinks or something like that.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 27-Jan-05 2:37:11 PM
Dear Norm,
Since your online research skills are as crappy as your way with HTML and your ability to write without cliches, let me enlighten you.
I do not consider myself to be in the same class as Mark Steyn -- although he has agreed to marry me, so he must think of me as his equal in some respects :-)
You are, once again, misquoting me. If you're going to obsess over stuff I say, (and you do, as your frequent 2-months-later posts about "saving souls" indicates) at least get your facts right.
I was actually a columnist with the Toronto Star for about 2 years, during one of the Sunday paper's many iterations. I still write for the religion section occasionally.
I was a regular contributor to the old Report before it shut down. My work has appeared in the Globe and Mail, the Dallas Morning News (my first op ed for them attracted +30,000 hits to their web site in 48 hours, which in turn helped the editor who solicited the piece earn a promotion), the online version of the American Spectator, Seventeen, Canadian Forum, This Magazine and other publications.
I've been quoted in Time magazine, interviewed by Vatican Radio, the Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, CBC Morningside, to name a few.
My first book was nominated for a Governor General's award and has been on the ciriculum at U of T.
I've received four Canadian Church Press Awards (including Best National Columnist) and was recently nominated for a Best Columnist award by the Catholic Press Association in the U.S. I'm a long time contributing editor for the Catholic Register.
To actually earn a living, I've been a copywriter for a few of the largest e-commerce and non-profit organizations in the country.
Better re-subscribe to InfoMart.ca, there, Norm. Tool of the trade and all that. I hear you can even write it off. Baring all else, it's called "Google."
And yes, Norm, I did quit the Shotgun, in part, because I was tired of your vicious post-menopausal bullying, your cliched arguments ("If you can't stand the heat..."), technical incompetence and Kissinger & Associates realpolitik worldview.
A fairly large number of people have told me they've stopped reading the Shotgun because your daily news round up hogs the site and breaks a number of blogging conventions. And because, like me, they think you're a jerk.
Posted by: Kathy | 27-Jan-05 4:19:16 PM
Kathy
Do you mean to tell me that Kate really was referring to you! That's truly amazing--but if you say it's true I'll believe you.
Nothing ever in Mark Steyn's National Post, nothing in my Globe and Mail except one book review five years ago, nothing understandably in Le Devoir, nothing even in the damn Toronto Star for god's sake last year except one book review.
And Kate calls you one of the best writers on this site. Truly amazing. Sounds to me like you're washed up, Kathy.
Anyway, I'm glad you're back at the Shotgun. I hope if you stay, you'll engage in substantive debate while you practice your writing. I'm especially interested in debating your position that Canada is a half-assed country, and your assertion that it's more important to save souls than to advance the conservative cause in Canada.
I'd also be interested in debating you about the political strategy of the so-cons, one of the reasons we are one of the few countries in the world that has no criminal sanction on any abortion at any stage of a pregancy. In my view, this is an important debate in order to prevent such horrible mistakes in future.
Kathy, ad hominem attacks are no substitute for substantive debate, and are normally indicative or an inadequate mind. I don't know if this applies to you, as you've not given me an opportunity to test your subtantive ideas, and I've been unable to find any of your material in the quality Canadian papers like the Post and the Globe.
In the absence of any evidence that you can think, write and reason in real debate against me, that's the conclusion I'd inevitably be driven to.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 27-Jan-05 4:59:52 PM
I was dead serious about my speculation regarding medication altering your thought process.
It's not ad hominem. It's called giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Kate | 27-Jan-05 5:05:37 PM
"On the odd chance you were referring to yourself as one of the best writers on the site--perhaps signalling that you'd made up your mind to leave--I did a search but could not find anything by you in the Post, the Globe or even the Toronto Star."
You're quite right -- Kate isn't widely published like you are, Norman. Indeed, I have one of your articles here right now, although I have to say that I'm not all that impressed with the quality of it. I have decided that Purex chafes less.
Get over yourself, already. No one cares how many dead tree publications you have written for. Either your posts are interesting or they're not. Right now, so far as I'm concerned, you're polluting a perfectly good blog with your uninteresting tripe. There is nothing new or original about your commentary in Norman's Spectator and there is no information provided that can't be found at nealenews.com or bourque.org in a quarter of the time. And the latter provide working hyperlinks, something which is apparently beyond your abilities.
It scares the hell out of me that someone like you was actually involved in running our country at a fairly high level. It does explain a hell of a lot about the sad state it's in, though.
Posted by: Sean | 27-Jan-05 5:29:09 PM
Norm, you're really starting to get petty.
At the risk of revealing my "pretensions," to "colonialize" Canadian "intelletual tradition," I think Kate and Kathy are indisputably two of the best writers on the Shotgun, and that's saying quite a lot.
(Incidentally, colonialization of Canadian intellectual tradition has to be the most sophisticated and profound thing anyone has ever accused me of. Man, that capability is high praise for a redneck from Midland, Texas.)
Kathy's open letter to you was ample demonstration of her sassy, articulate prose style. Interesting, entertaining, and that's not always easy to do while handling heavy subjects.
Kate won Best Canadian Blog of 2004. She had to win over some damned good blogs to accomplish that. I don't recall you having won any such awards.
In respect to your accusations relative to logical inconsistencies, I promise you, you're no Wittgenstein.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 27-Jan-05 6:02:48 PM
Kate, Kathy, Sean:
Not one of you has responded to Norm's point on debating Canadian politics. I'm not a writer, politician, or connected in any way to the establishment. I work in a printshop. I'm damned worried about Canada, and think the Western Standard/Shotgun are the best news in Canadian political debate in a long time, if it would focus on Canada. The U.S. is well served by blogs and mainstream media. How does this site discussing Iraq, Condi, Bush, neocons and so on, help get the Liberals out of office?
One other point; in the U.S. its the left that hates their country and are becoming irrelevant. Judging by this site, its certain people on the right who are headed in this direction.
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 27-Jan-05 6:13:41 PM
"Not one of you has responded to Norm's point on debating Canadian politics."
Is the Western Standard about debating Canadian politics or debating matters of interest to Canadians (Western Canadians in particular)? Why can't those matters of interest include the U.S.A.? Anyhow, I don't need Norm to tell me what I can and can't think about or talk about, thanks. I get enough of that from the Natural Governing Party.
Something for you to consider: Canada has lots of fresh water, oil, and natural gas, but no military. The United States is running short of water, oil, and gas, but they have a honking HUGE military. At some point they're going to notice this (it sounds like Bush already has).
I would suggest that discussions pertaining to our American neighbours are extremely germane.
Posted by: Sean | 27-Jan-05 6:24:25 PM
"Something for you to consider: Canada has lots of fresh water, oil, and natural gas, but no military. The United States is running short of water, oil, and gas, but they have a honking HUGE military. At some point they're going to notice this (it sounds like Bush already has."
Point taken. How should we view this as Canadians? If they invade I would think that they would become occupiers, thus the enemy. Or would we follow the path of Vichy France?
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 27-Jan-05 6:44:25 PM
Jeff,
we're not going to invade Canada. The American people care for the Canadian people. We like you. We respect you. We have an old, important history together. I've been told that 1 out of every 30 Canadians already live in the US.
We might find that our military appropriations no longer require a Canadian contingency because our Mission has changed.
If Alberta of its own free will took completely lawful steps to leave the Confederation, I imagine the US would have conversations with them should they desire US statehood.
Both of these topics are big subjects, but neither of them involves any military aggression from the point of view of the United States.
I hope you get to take a trip down here sometime. You will find that most Americans will be interested in you and your country, and will enjoy knowing you.
If your press has suggested to you that the US might actually invade Canada, they have completely distorted America's good intentions. The very idea that America would invade Canada isn't just wrong, it is weird.
As an old VietNam veteran, I can promise you that under our current policy in respect to Canada, American citizens would fight and die for you and your family and all your friends. If we had to, we would go to our graves to save you. Because we believe you're worth it.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 27-Jan-05 7:35:23 PM
"we're not going to invade Canada. The American people care for the Canadian people. We like you. We respect you."
I'm not suggesting that the U.S. will invade out of greed or malice. When something valuable is left sitting around unprotected, the odds are good that someone will come along and steal it for themselves. Our country is a jewel in terms of natural resources, that somebody, somewhere will want to take for themselves.
If the U.S. winds up taking over Canada, it will be very likely because we've bloody well forced them into doing it to make sure that our resources don't fall into the wrong hands. It sure as hell won't be the fault of the Americans -- they'll simply be taking the high road and helping those who aren't helping themselves (as they always do, bless them).
Posted by: Sean | 27-Jan-05 7:42:37 PM
"Not one of you has responded to Norm's point on debating Canadian politics."
****
What did Rand say again? When faced with a contradiction, "check your premises."
Now. Pay. Attention.
It is false premise that I (and others) blog here or anywhere else to get Conservatives elected or "change Canada".
It is a false premise that I am here to "debate" Norm Spector or anyone else. I'm not in the business of persuading people.
I am not a political activist or a journalist or professional writer, nor do I represent myself as such. I'm a commercial artist who started blogging about a year ago because it was more satisfying than yelling at the radio.
I'm just another "sherpa" of the internet, as Hugh Hewitt so accurately portrays us.
My traffic and linkage started at zero. I did not hitchhike into the blogosphere from the National Post or MacLeans. I recieve no paycheck for what I do, run no ads, take no donations.
Checking today, my site, "small dead animals" is ranked #138 on the TTLB Ecosystem.
By way of comparison:
Reason Hit&Run #143
Victor Davis Hanson #169
Blogs Canada E-group #180
Spoons #181
Althouse #186
Colby Cosh #303
When it comes to what constitues appropriate content for a Canadian blog, I don't think I need advice just yet.
Posted by: Kate | 27-Jan-05 7:54:07 PM
Greg,
I am well aware that you aren't going to invade Canada. It's Sean that has implied such a thing may happen down the road. My point to him is, that as a Canadian, how should one view such an event were it to come to pass?
I would suggest that the U.S. or any other country that would invade Canada would be an occupier, and Canadians would have to decide how they would view an occupation. Would we get by as best as we could without ingratiating ourselves with the occupier, or would we be a Vichy France?
It seems to me that those that espouse Alberta joining the U.S. voluntarily are treasonous.
And finally, my grandmother comes from down your way, namely Victoria, Texas. She came with her parents and siblings and homesteaded in Alberta in 1920. I have been to visit my relatives in Victoria, Texas and have seen my great grandfathers blacksmith shop in Italy, Texas. I also have relatives in Atlanta, Nashville, and Dallas, all of whom I am either in touch with, or have met at one time or another.
I love the United States but am Canadian. My future and my kids future is in Canada. Americans who suggest that they would welcome Alberta if it seperated from Canada are inciting revolution in my untrained/unsophisticated view.
Next time, you may want to be careful with your patronizing postings, as not all Canadians that want a positive future for Canada are ignorant anti-Americans.
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 27-Jan-05 7:56:50 PM
Sean, I appreciate your clarification. Thanks.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 27-Jan-05 8:01:23 PM
Greg, no offense was intended, and I apologize if any was given.
Posted by: Sean | 27-Jan-05 8:06:50 PM
Jeff, fair enough. Consider me chastised. I see you understand Americans are not anti-Canadian.
I guess right now Alberta's future is a discussion you're having among yourselves. Good luck with it. I hope you come to the best decision for Alberta.
Sean, you're more gracious than I deserve. If I ever get a chance, I'll buy you a beer.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 27-Jan-05 8:50:23 PM
Kate,
I'm sure you have very nice permalinks on your site. As to substance, from all indications in this thread, you seem incapable of engaging in serious debate on issues that matter to Canadians. Adn I've yet to find your by-line in any Canadian newspaper mixing it up in Canadian debates.
In fact, at Kathy's suggestion, I just checked Infomart, and found nothing under your byline there either in the past couple of year.
As for Kathy, let's just say she has fewer hits than Mark Steyn. In fact, let's just say she's bluffing, because in the last two years--in addition to the articles I mentioned in my first post in which she seems to have been playing the role of token believer at the Toronto Star--all that comes up is a Report article. And I must note her deafening silence at my challenge to debate.
Sean, I hadn't realized you were concerned that the Americans will invade us. If this is realistic, do you think it's possible that Greg and the buzz cut who logged on a couple of weeks ago could be fifth columnists, trying to soften us up before they move in for the kill? And now he's trying to re-assure you, get your defenses down, etc before the tanks rumble across the border? If I were in your shoes--obviously a very theoretical notion--I'd give serious thought to these questions.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 12:20:38 AM
Kate,
Now that I understand that your purposes in blogging ("I'm a commercial artist who started blogging about a year ago because it was more satisfying than yelling at the radio.") are essentially ego driven--akin to a teenager who keeps a diary--I thought I'd try to understand your problem with others whom you'd not like to see on this site.
So I did a search on MWW and I discovered that she's published a lot more by-lined articles in the National Post than Kathy Shaidle has.
So, let me see if I have this straight. Kathy is one of the best writers on this site--right up there in Mark Steyn's category in the estimation of some.
MWW has more by-lines than Kathy in Mark Steyn's former paper.
Does this mean that she, too, could be Steyn's equal, or perhaps even better than Steyn.
Since we all agree that Steyn is truly a great writer, I'm certainly going to have to read MWW's articles if there's even a remote possibility she's in his league.
I doubt I'll agree with everything she's written--or maybe with none of it. But what I can't understand is why you'd like to see MWW, who has more by-lined articles in the National Post, leave this site and at the same time want to see Kathy back.
Personally, I'm hoping Kathy will soon get over her petulant decision to take her ball and leave the playground--so that we can debate the true issues. But I can't grasp your logic.
The only explanation I can think of is that, as a commercial artist, you really like her permalinks.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 6:58:00 AM
Norm, I'm not back at the Shotgun. I felt obliged to fill in the gaps in your knowledge about me.
And I know Kate was referring to me; she's one of the many people (including Ezra Levant himself) who've emailed me, asking me to return to the Shotgun because they value my writing, both its style and its substance. So there is nothing "truly amazing" about it.
Writing for Canadian newspapers does not happen to be MY personal standard for greatness. When something you write for a major _US_ newspaper gets +30,000 hits in 48 hours, let me know. And I'd like to see YOUR GG citation, while we're at it...
You obviously _didn't_ read my post, because you persist in the notion that "I had one thing published in 2004", an absolute absurdity. How DARE you accuse me of lying about my resume??
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 28-Jan-05 7:46:11 AM
"Sean, I hadn't realized you were concerned that the Americans will invade us. If this is realistic, do you think it's possible that Greg and the buzz cut who logged on a couple of weeks ago could be fifth columnists, trying to soften us up before they move in for the kill?"
I regard this as an extremely remote possibility at the moment. However, it becomes more real every day with the neglect and scorn that we heap upon our own military here in Canada. We're fast reaching the point where we won't have a military.
Once upon a time, using passenger aircraft as weapons was a remote possibility too, right? Just because something is unlikely, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and prepare for it as best we can.
Posted by: Sean | 28-Jan-05 8:33:57 AM
Kathy
I, too, would like you to return. Here's what I wrote on that issue, and about your publications:
"Personally, I'm hoping Kathy will soon get over her petulant decision to take her ball and leave the playground--so that we can debate the true issues. But I can't grasp your logic."
"MWW has more by-lines than Kathy in Mark Steyn's former paper," and
"As for Kathy, let's just say she has fewer hits than Mark Steyn. In fact, let's just say she's bluffing, because in the last two years--in addition to the articles I mentioned in my first post in which she seems to have been playing the role of token believer at the Toronto Star--all that comes up is a Report article. And I must note her deafening silence at my challenge to debate."
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 8:39:43 AM
If I were as concerned as you, I'd really want to get the Yanks off this site.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 8:40:40 AM
If I wanted to entertain trolls, I'd go to Usenet.
Why debate when you can be entertained? The spectacle of old Norm Spector, lashing out the demons of his own political irrelevancy, trying to hide his technical incompetence. It's fascinating - to watch how a few pushed buttons can trigger a full scale meltdown of professional composure.
You know, arrogance is a pretty poor substitute for self-respect. Lowering yourself to belittling a little old ordinary Canadian Nobody who writes a teenage "diary"... ?
Is this what it's come to?
I' imagine you wrote very nice articles in the Globe and Mail when you were in your prime. I'm sure that with one mighty stroke of the Spector pen, hundreds of thousands could be persuaded to the Conservative Way, if only they'd let you.
Unfortunately, the only place one ever sees a Globe And Mail, or National Post out here is in the waiting room at Air Canada Cargo.
Maybe you can get a gig at the Western Producer?
Posted by: Kate | 28-Jan-05 9:17:29 AM
Kate:
"Unfortunately, the only place one ever sees a Globe And Mail, or National Post out here is in the waiting room at Air Canada Cargo."
They make excellent cat tray liners, too.
Norman:
"If I were as concerned as you, I'd really want to get the Yanks off this site."
Please tell me what that would accomplish?
Posted by: Sean | 28-Jan-05 9:44:21 AM
As an avid reader, just thought I'd let everyone know that my daily reads include Small Dead Animals, Relapsed Catholic & Recovering Liberal, and Polspy. (Blogs, Norm.) And of course the Shotgun. Shotgun is usually last though, cause I have to page down about 6 times to get through all the daily news crap. My homepage is Neale news, and we get newspapers at work. I read blogs for independant thinking peoples opinions on a gamut of issues, not the news.
Posted by: ld | 28-Jan-05 10:22:34 AM
Norm is starting to remind me of a character from Waiting for Godot. Maybe he simply doesn't care how absurd he looks, provided he can be the last poster on the site.
He apparently has decided that qualifications for posting require a newspaper career. I imagine that leaves out 80-90% of Shotgun bloggers.
He ridiculously wants to accuse a bunch of posters of not being good writers. (Relative to who, F. Scott Fitzgerald? Proust? John Updike?)
My evaluation is that Kate and Kathy are definitely good writers. Norm is pretty good too, but not as good as they are. When one spends a lifetime trying to develop a pedagogical delivery, as Norm does, it can be very hard to switch to a more vivid and popular way of writing.
Finally, if Ezra Levant wanted to restrict Americans from the Shotgun, all he would have to do is stipulate it.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 28-Jan-05 10:53:23 AM
Greg
Don't get me wrong: I like having you here to represent your compatriots' views. I particularly liked it when you encouraged Alberta separatists to split up our country. That was a useful reminder of manifest destiny, a light unto the nations etc.
My only concern is for Sean, who's concerned that you're planning to invade us. I don't want him to lose any more sleep out of a concern that there may be Yankee spies infiltrating this site.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 11:08:34 AM
Norman your continued efforts to smear Kathy Shaidle reveal the fool you truly are. Your campaign highlights the fact that you are petulant sore loser.
Posted by: allan amberson | 28-Jan-05 11:52:04 AM
I am all for freedom of speech however Norman "The Liar" Spectors attempts to smear his betters border on libel. What gall, you can only find that sort of unbalanced behavior in someone of Norman's kind- "Self Appointed Know Nothing In Chief".
Posted by: allan amberson | 28-Jan-05 12:00:16 PM
"My only concern is for Sean, who's concerned that you're planning to invade us. I don't want him to lose any more sleep out of a concern that there may be Yankee spies infiltrating this site."
I'm actually losing sleep over an impending tax bill if you must know. I made enough extra money with a side business this year that I jumped tax brackets and the extra income was all wiped out. I now have a choice between owing money to the bank for an RRSP loan or to the government for taxes.
If being invaded by the Yankees means that I'll have to pay their tax rates instead of the ones I'm used to, I'll be waving an American flag and cheering them on as their tanks cross the border.
Some problems are worth having.
Posted by: Sean | 28-Jan-05 12:04:07 PM
I'm here all the time, always ready to debate Kathy on serious issues of concern to Canadian conservatives.
And, along with others, I hope she'll return to share with us her writings, which rival Mark Steyn's in quality.
No doubt her virtual disappearance from Canadian newspapers is simply a temporarty dry patch; when you next speak to her, you should assure her she's in great demand on this site.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 12:09:18 PM
Norman face it- people actually read & enjoy what Kate & Kathy have to say. The popularity of their work and web sites speaks volumes. The calibre of their work is head and shoulders above anything you could hope for.You seem a withered soul poisoned by jealousy and now, backed into a corner exposed for what you truly are -a windbag , you lash out. Go home Norm, leave writing to the talented, your day is passed if it ever existed at all.
Posted by: allan amberson | 28-Jan-05 12:14:03 PM
Allan
I've never claimed to be a great writer. Thinking about it, I'd say I'm just good enough...
And, though I've been published in the National Post, I've certainly never, like Kathy, claimed to be in Mark Steyn's class.
However, I have to say, to be frank, the only thing I can think of that they have in common is that neither of them is published in the National Post.
Now Allan, get along back to mama for your pat on the head for trying to be helpful to damaged goods.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 12:22:32 PM
As a long time fan of Kathy Shaidle and relapsed catholic I can understand why this guy Spector is so obviously upset that he resorts to outright lies. The man has no talent I visited his site- it sucks- I think he may in fact be delusional- it can't just be an out-sized ego driving this mania.
Keep Up The Good Work Kathy!
Posted by: Stephen Garry | 28-Jan-05 12:37:40 PM
Norman, face it you are nowhere near good enough- what you lack in talent you attempt to make up for by slandering others. Conservatism in Canada does not need a mealy mouthed never was such as yourself. Please desist in your efforts as the self appointed moderator of conservative dialogue on this blog. Too much space has been devoted to shredding your inane posturing as it stands.
Posted by: allan amberson | 28-Jan-05 12:46:33 PM
"...Yankee spies infiltrating this site".
Norm, that really hurts. If you had called me a Southern spy, you would still be wrong, but it would at least be acceptable.
Advice to Canadians: this winter please try to get down to visit our beaches and lie around in the warm sun for a while. We will enjoy seeing you, and we can always use a few more dollars.
Cautionary note to travelers: while you are visiting the South, please be advised that it is not a good idea to call a bunch of American Southerners "Yankees."
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 28-Jan-05 12:56:22 PM
Gee Norm I visit realpsed on a regular basis, i knda like recovering liberal as well. I also like poetry.. now lets see kathy Shaidle 2 published books ,in fact her 1st received a GG nomination. What have you done lately -oh right nothing.
Posted by: Samantha | 28-Jan-05 12:57:27 PM
I'm expecting a medal from the owners of the shotgun site for bringing all kathy's friends over here to lend support. Let's hope it at least increases the attractiveness of the site to advertisers, because the messages have no intellectual value, that's for sure.
Obviously, Kathy must be mortified, after having had the infrequency of her publication in Canadian newspaers noticed, notwithstanding claims that she and Mark Steyn are in the same class as writers.
Then, having been caught lying about her resume by MWW--who had the smarts to check Infomart--must have been a real shocker for Kathy.
Having to back off debating me must be humiliating. It's regrettable, because I still think it's important to purge the malignancies in Canadian conservatism that some of Kathy's thinking represents.
It's no wonder, though, that she's calling in the rescue squad. Let's hope you're in time to prevent another relapse, if not a breakdown.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 1:16:00 PM
Norm, stop waving that thing around. Someone's going to lose an eye.
Posted by: mgl | 28-Jan-05 1:23:04 PM
Norman, Kathy Shaidle, unlike yourself, has no reason to be mortified. You do not debate Norman you lie. She has not falsified her resume nor misrepresented herself in any fashion. You on the other hand have proven yourself a low life for continuing to make false accustions. Have you no shame? Are you so degraded that reason fails to penetrate that ossified space between your ears?
Posted by: allan amberson | 28-Jan-05 1:29:26 PM
"I'm expecting a medal from the owners of the shotgun site for bringing all kathy's friends over here to lend support."
I am currently a paying subscriber to WS, but my subscription is getting close to running out. I will renew, if, AND ONLY IF, you are removed from this group blog. Now that Kathy is back that renewal will be accompanied by two gift subscriptions as well.
"Let's hope it at least increases the attractiveness of the site to advertisers, because the messages have no intellectual value, that's for sure."
I assume you are including the messages posted by Mr. Ezra Levant (future prime minister, I hope) in with those that have no intellectual value?
"Obviously, Kathy must be mortified, after having had the infrequency of her publication in Canadian newspaers noticed, notwithstanding claims that she and Mark Steyn are in the same class as writers."
She never claimed that. If you can prove otherwise, provide the exact quote. I'm directly challenging your honesty here. If I am wrong, I will apologize sincerely and handsomely.
"Then, having been caught lying about her resume by MWW--who had the smarts to check Infomart--must have been a real shocker for Kathy."
You've just given me an idea...
"Having to back off debating me must be humiliating. It's regrettable, because I still think it's important to purge the malignancies in Canadian conservatism that some of Kathy's thinking represents."
While I also disagree with many of Kathy's opinions (I regard Christianity with disdain and disgust), I still want to hear her opinion. There are things she can teach me if I am willing to learn. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, you know.
"It's no wonder, though, that she's calling in the rescue squad. Let's hope you're in time to prevent another relapse, if not a breakdown."
Kathy at no time called in a rescue squad. I was the one who first mentioned the fact that I missed her and this spurred on others. Kathy did not incite a single person to come forward on her behalf. It is extremely dishonest of you to accuse her of this.
Posted by: Sean | 28-Jan-05 1:46:54 PM
Norman are you serious "purge the malignancies in Canadian conservatism" ? What sort of asinine totalitarian claptrap is this? I think you would find yourself more welcome on babble.ca-they like to silence opinion as much as you do. The only malignancy evident here is your very being.
Posted by: allan amberson | 28-Jan-05 2:06:51 PM
It really is quite sad that Kathy can't defend herself from the clear evidence MWW adduced that she's been lying about her publications.
[January 31, 2005 Moderator's Note: The preceding allegation is unsubstantiated and therefore should not be considered as fact. However, since much of the above discussion took place before this was discovered and because other issues are discussed, the management of this site considers the fairest thing to do for all parties is to let the thread stand with this caveat. Comments on this thread are now closed.]
I can also understand how depressing it must be to be shut out of respectable newspapers in Canada.
It's also sad that Kathy has to call upon her friends to defend her.
What's most sad is that she's not prepared to defend her view that Canada is a half-assed country. This kind of America-envy/self-hatred must be purged from conservative thought if there is to be progress in Canada. And the only way to purge it is through vigorous, no holds-barred debate.
The same goes for Kathy's view that saving souls is more important than politics. That's the philosophy that led to Canada being one of the few countries in the world that has no criminal sanction on abortion at any stage of a pregnancy.
I suppose no one knows for sure whether there have been any partial birth abortions in Canada as a consequence, but I can understand why Kathy would not want to debate the proposition that, if there have been, the blood is on the hands of those who opposed the abortion compromise of the late 1980s
It's important to have this out, in order to avoid a replay of this horrific mistake in future. But I suppose second best to purging these ideas through vigorous debate is to have their proponents abdicate the field and hide.
As to Sean's point, in my experience no publisher worth his salt succumbs to the sort of threat, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even broaching it.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 2:20:25 PM
Norman Spector: "... nothing even in the damn Toronto Star for god's sake last year except one book review."
A search of the Toronto Star archives shows that the paper published three articles by Shaidle in the past thirteen months. http://www.thestar.com/static/archives/search.html
Norman Spector: "Then, having been caught lying about her resume ..."
What specifically did she write that was a lie? When you misstated the number of Shaidle's articles published by the Star, was it an honest mistake or a lie?
Posted by: MDP | 28-Jan-05 3:33:21 PM
MDP,
I believe there are 12 months in one year.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 28-Jan-05 3:44:45 PM
Norman,
I believe you wrote that the Toronto Star published only one piece by Shaidle in 2004. Since that is false, perhaps you should admit your mistake and apologize instead of pretending that the number of months in a year makes your falsehood true.
You also need to spell out precisely how Shaidle "lied" about