The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
I can't link to it because it's behind a firewall, but Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe writes today that jewel thief and depression sufferer Svend Robinson is contemplating a return to the federal political arena.
Yaffe writes that Robinson is "canvassing the views of friends and foes around town" about the prospect of trying to knock off Liberal big-mouth Hedy Fry in Vancouver Centre.
Perhaps the most astonishing part of Yaffe's column deals with news that Robinson contacted Coquitlam Conservative MP James Moore with a request that, whoever the Tory candidate ends up being in Vancouver Centre, he refrain from hitting "below the belt" with references to Robinson's notorious jewel heist. Moore is quoted as saying he'd promised to speak out against any such alleged low blows, "on the understanding the NDPer in Moore's riding wouldn't play dirty against Moore."
I've never seen better evidence that Ottawa does strange things to one's mind, even one as sharp as Moore's. Since when is it dirty politics to mention someone's criminal past? This is bizarre in the extreme.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference He's baaaack:
Punching below the belt is also referred to as hitting someone in the jewels.
I couldn't resist. Its a compulsion.
Posted by: Plato's Stepchild | 2005-09-28 6:14:48 PM
"Once a thief, always a..."
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-09-28 7:11:50 PM
Now that his past has been clearly established and he fits in so well, I assume Sven will be running as a Liberal?
Posted by: BC Con | 2005-09-28 7:18:23 PM
They welcomed him back by affirming his age of consent philosophy in the commons:
"Interestingly, homosexual activist and MP, Svend Robinson, was reported by World Net Daily and the New York Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute to have spoken at a United Nations sponsored conference in August, strategising how to re-launch the UN same-sex marriage resolution that failed. At this conference, a San Francisco based group named the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission circulated "fliers" listing lowering the age of consent as one of the laws it wants changed. Noteworthy, is the fact that Canada's age of consent is only fourteen."
Posted by: Johnny | 2005-09-28 7:32:08 PM
One thing we don't know about Robinson is: does he do drugs? Another thing, does he have sympathy for pedophiles? If accepted in the lib party, would he hold a ministry?
Other kind of questions: what kind of drugs does he use for depression? How does he make sure he does not get AIDS? Does he still visit a psychiatrist?
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-09-28 8:46:56 PM
Sevend Robinson,is a radical biase homosexual activist,often a trouble maker and blamer-he should not be a MP.
Posted by: Larry | 2005-09-29 2:26:30 AM
Only in Paul Martin's "Liberal" Canada does a convicted criminal get to run all over again for federal office. Of course. Professional courtesy among thieves.
Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel | 2005-09-29 2:31:48 PM
Well, I'm going to differ. I'm most certainly not NDP or Liberal. But I don't think that Svend Robinson is a criminal.
First, his homosexuality is his business; it isn't ours. It becomes our business only when it causes an abuse of the public's interest. For example, if Pettigrew is homosexual and he uses public money to fund his companions on his travel, then, that is an abuse of the taxpayer's interest. Otherwise, his sexuality is none of my business. I'm interested only in Robinson's capacity for objective and rational analysis AND his ideological alliances. It is only these two factors that ought to be considered.
Second - he's not a 'criminal'. Yes, he stole a ring. The next day, he turned himself in to the police. These two acts are not the actions of a criminal but of someone going through some kind of emotional and psychological crisis. My guess is that it was a kind of 'psychological suicide' because his partner was rejecting him. Those two actions, taken together (theft and returning the theft) remove any definition of him as a criminal. I think it is completely wrong to so define him.
If we want to talk real criminality, let's talk about Chretien, Martin, the Adscam Boys, Gagliano, Radzwanski, Coffin and on and on and on. These guys have stolen millions from the taxpayer, both in personal benefits and to maintain themselves in power. They have denied it all, have returned none of it - and - we vote them in repeatedly or permit their continuance in office.
Remi- your questions, I think, are out of line. Whether he uses drugs for depression, how he ensures he does not get Aids, whether he visits a psychiatrist - are not public business and have nothing to do with his ability to be in public life.
I wouldn't vote for him for political reasons: because I'm against the NDP and its policies, which include its policies on SSM and I don't agree with Robinson's alliance with this ideology. The rest is irrelevant. And he's not a criminal! That would be like calling Oliver Twist a criminal for a loaf of bread.
Posted by: ET | 2005-09-29 3:18:23 PM
Should Svend be more worried about taking it on the chin?
Posted by: Skullsbeneath | 2005-09-29 4:13:25 PM
No, ebt, I'll stick to my view. I think you are missing the point. How do you know that he ONLY turned himself in because he knew he'd been caught? Proof?
My point is that he, himself, immediately returned the ring and turned himself in. That's an admission, by the self, of wrong-doing. That's not the behaviour of a criminal. I am unaware that he only returned the ring because he knew he'd been caught. I've never heard of that.
No, I'm not bringing in 'theft of food because you have no other way to eat' as an analogy. It isn't comparable. So, why do you use it?
The value of the item stolen is not the key point. If someone steals two packages of cigarettes - refuses to acknowledge it, tries to get away with it - that's theft.
Nor am I saying 'only $60,000'. I never mentioned the cost of the ring. That's not relevant.
Again - he returned the ring on his own initiative. Not the court's initiative. Nor out of any awareness that he'd been caught. His own initiative. That means - he's not a thief. My view is that he made an error due to psyschological stress.
The theft by the Liberals of taxpayer money IS theft. They are criminals; they take the money for personal gain; deny that they took it; refuse to return it.
Posted by: ET | 2005-09-29 4:33:07 PM
A hat tip for ET being unendingly patient and polite. If Svend wants to run, so what? It's his right. The voters as a whole will decide if he's worthy after the scandal. Hint: Think Dick Hatfield, PC, had scandal, ran anyways, got humiliated. Apparently almost everyone who visits the Shotgun lives in a glass house.
Posted by: Don | 2005-09-29 5:27:24 PM
I heard that he knew he had been caught on video tape also...feeble excuse...I'm traumatized, so I stole a ring as a cry for help...gimme a break...though it would be nice to see him and Hedy Fry mix it up...maybe she would have homosexuals burning crosses on lawns somewhere in B.C this time ?
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-09-29 10:29:45 PM
Having him run for your party is indicative of the party itself. Birds of a feather flock together. As all politicians are on display on a daily basis is this really someone you want your children to be subjected to? If it was a teenager that stole you should be lenient and forgiving. Not a public figure of his age and profile. As previous opinions stated he is just a common thief and he and the liberal deserve each other. The only thing that would be preferable to him running for any party was if he would move east and join all the other ELB’s.
Posted by: Jim | 2005-09-29 11:12:33 PM
Regardless of what you think of Svend Robinson, the truth is that he did not immediately turn himself in after stealing the ring. He did so only after he knew the police were after him. Check out Kevin Libin's column on the affair http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=234, and my story on his "I was crazy when it did it" verbal shenanigans, which followed much later, http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=850
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2005-09-30 8:03:26 AM
DAarn! I've ripped my pants!
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-10-01 10:38:31 AM
Christopher Robbin - a personna of USSR soviet gulag times - 'who shot Christopher Robin?'. Am I the only person who thought the "ring thing" was a set-up to cover something much dirtier?
Posted by: jema54 | 2005-10-01 12:07:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.