The Shotgun Blog
« Beware bloggers | Main | Terry rides with the Tories »
Friday, December 16, 2005
opposite of "social activist" = right-wing
Since I'm one of the people constantly harping about media bias, when there's a good example of it I like to point it out. Take this new CP wire story. We'll overlook the fact that on the eve of the debate and during the middle of the election, the writer decides it would be a good idea to whip up a wire story about Maude Barlow. Who just happened to release a new book. Take a look at how she is labelled compared to Barry Cooper:
When United States Ambassador David Wilkins warned the prime minister
to stop chest-thumping, it was more than an off-the-cuff remark
amplified in the heat of a federal election campaign, social activist
Maude Barlow says.
...
Barry Cooper, a senior fellow at the right-wing Fraser Institute think-tank, said Barlow's fears of an orchestrated attempt by American right-wingers to infiltrate the Canadian electorate are unfounded.
No media bias? Nuff said.
Posted by Adam Daifallah on December 16, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8349ac74e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference opposite of "social activist" = right-wing:
Comments
Didn't Raymond Chretien, an ambassador to the US or UN (I forget which), who is a close relative of the crook Chretien, inform Americans in 2000, officially, that Canada would prefer that they elect a Democrat (Al Gore) rather than Bush?
How does Ms Barlow feel about it when Canadian officials attempt to interfere in the US election?
Ms Barlow says that the ambassador's comments 'pose a risk to our national values of tolerance and independence'??? What?? Another Justin? How does a nation have a value of 'tolerance'? Is there such a thing as a nation with a value of 'intolerance'? Tolerance and intolerance of WHAT? Of Whom? Canadians, obsessed with anti-Americanism, can hardly be called 'tolerant'. And - what does 'tolerance' MEAN???? Tolerant of cultures, such as the Taliban, where women are forbidden to go to school? What does tolerance mean?
Canada?? Independent? Hah!!!!!! What a joke. Canada can't make a decision on its own; it has to consult the UN; it has to consult Chirac..
Posted by: ET | 2005-12-16 5:01:37 PM
This is an excellent example of classic media bias: conservatives labelled as political, leftists described as doing good for the people -- without reference to the political spectrum. The media has been better about this lately. Obviously, not better enough.
Harper's recent vow not to use the notwithstanding clause for gay marriage is yet another example.
The media and other SSM advocates are simply incapable of understanding Harper's position. They honestly don't get it, even though it's perfectly coherent for anyone with half a brain.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on traditional marriage. In fact, it has said that Parliament gets to decide. Until it strikes down Parliament-made law, the notwithstanding clause is not necessary.
Is that so hard?
Some sorely needed political diversity in the media is long overdue.
Posted by: The Cyber Menace | 2005-12-16 5:12:08 PM
Agreed, Cybermenace- and it was quite disturbing to see Martin, last night on the French debate, huffing away, that HE cherished the Charter; that HE would always Honour The Charter..on and on and on.
But- the FACT is, the Charter has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Marriage - any type of marriage - is NOT a human right. It's a social value, and therefore, the Supreme Court refused, refused, refused (did you hear that, Martin?)..to take the case on SSM. It refused to hear it - and said that it was up to Parliament to decide the nature of marriage.
That is, marriage is a SOCIAL definition, and it is up to the PEOPLE, do decide on the type of marriage. Martin, in the parliament, refused to allow the people to decide. He refused to allow a free vote. Same with Layton. Only the CPC allowed their members to vote freely.
All that Harper is saying, is that the process of deciding on marriage was flawed. It has to be up to the people to decide; therefore - either a referendum (as in the US, state by state) or, a FREE VOTE. And Harper is saying, if he's elected, he would reopen the debate, and allow a free vote.
If the free vote comes out the same (in favour of SSM), then - that's it. If it comes out differently (against SSM) - then, that's also it, until the next time Parliament or The People want to vote on it.
But, it has nothing to do with the Charter. That's also why Harper can say- that he won't use the NotWithStanding Clause..for that clause is only used to overstep a Supreme Court Decision. If the Supreme Court REFUSES to decide on marriage, and says it is not a human rights issue but a social issue - the NotWithStanding Clause is irrelevant.
The main problem that Harper sees with Parl'ts marriage rules, is that it was not a judgment by the people, but by Paul Martin (for votes). It has to be a free vote. And - this free vote could very well vote in favour of SSM. But, it would be a free vote. Not a Paul Martin Order.
Posted by: ET | 2005-12-16 5:38:42 PM
Good Lord, Robert.
Are you off your meds again?
Posted by: Garth Wood | 2005-12-16 5:41:51 PM
ET and CM: Which is why I dont understand Andrew Coyne on his blog saying the matter is now settled and SSM will stand. He says Harper wont have the numbers to justify change and without the NWS clause he has no hope. But Harper has said all along he doesnt need it, for reasons you both state. In fact I believe that if he doesnt have the numbers he could still say the Feds are getting out of marriage and let the provinces handle it. Could he not??
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-12-16 5:45:23 PM
I think that the provinces should handle it, just like the individual States handle it in the USA. In the US, various states had referendums, actual referendums, on the ballot at the same time as the presidential election. In other words, the decision on marriage was clearly, up to the people. Absolutely nothing to do with the courts and most certainly not, the Supreme Court.
I don't know if the numbers would change if Harper held a free vote; I simply don't know. But, the real issue here, is democracy - and the right of the people to make the decision on this matter. Not Paul Martin (who did it for votes in the gay community); but, the people - including the gay and not gay communities.
I like the idea of leaving it to the provinces, for I'm in favour of increasing provincial rights.
Posted by: ET | 2005-12-16 5:55:14 PM
Robbie sees his Liberal party is in a big slide in the polls and he is coming unglued. Its OK Robbie. Go on upstairs, Mommy is calling you to supper.
Posted by: Bazoo | 2005-12-16 6:06:30 PM
"How does Ms Barlow feel about it when Canadian officials attempt to interfere in the US election?"
ET: she'd say how they are simply expressing the legitimate concerns of the Canadian people! How's that for hypocrisy.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-12-16 6:42:58 PM
Maude Barlow is head of the Council for Canadians, and Barry Cooper professor at the U of C and member of the Fraser institute. Or if they are going to going to call Mr Cooper a member of a right wing think tank, they should have said "and Maude Barlow head of the Council for Canadians a left wing lobby group. Got it Robert."
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-12-16 6:48:10 PM
Fidel Castro = Social Activist There is no difference.
Posted by: Bazoo | 2005-12-16 7:08:56 PM
Yeah, if someone comments from the Fraser Institute or the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies or the National Citizens Coalition, it's always "the right-wing...." On the other hand, the Council of Canadians, or the David Suzuki Foundation, or the Lesbian Ecofeminist League (ok, I made that last one up) are never labeled left wing. Makes me sick. If you want another example of media bias, take a look at this piece on the CTV website.
http://tinyurl.com/a2l66
If you don't want to bother with the link, the last two paragraphs read as follows:
"Harper also stressed Friday the need for a federal clean air act to improve and monitor air quality. Conservatives have said that smog-producing emissions must be cut to reduce millions of dollars in respiratory health-care costs.
But Harper has rarely raised environmental issues in this campaign."
Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2005-12-16 7:14:19 PM
Take cuss words out of some people's vocabulary and you leave them half speechless. Robert, I do not mind reading opinions of other people but when you use unnecessary gutter language, from that point on I completely disregard what you might be trying to say. In effect, in my case and I suspect most other readers of this blog, you completely self censor yourself. Your comment gets ignored and we move on to the next.
Posted by: Bob Wood | 2005-12-16 7:17:58 PM
Don't you just love that last sentence? They just can't resist calling into question the paragraph in which they outline Harper's environmental position. Just doing their jobs as "impartial" copy writers of course.
Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2005-12-16 7:18:32 PM
It isn't Robert's cursing that gets him censored, it's his complete lack of coherent thought. Thinking individuals simply cannot be bothered to follow the scattergun missives of a lefty nutbar and his random brain farts.
Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2005-12-16 7:21:32 PM
ET, she meant "tolerance" [of theft] and "independence" [from responsibility].
Speaking of those Canadian values, would I be wrong in guessing that Maude's book received a tolerably large subsidy from the Liberal government (ripped out of right wingers' paychecks), and that therefore she is anything but independent?
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-12-16 7:30:29 PM
Those CP bozos couldn't even figure out that Cooper's at the Uof Calgary, not the U of Alberta as they report.
Posted by: Tom | 2005-12-16 8:41:26 PM
The real issue here isn't "US conservatism" but "conservatism" in general.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-12-16 8:47:03 PM
I think Mr. Cooper solidly entered the realm of 'social activism' in 1991 when he co-authored the book 'Deconfederation' with Mr. Bercuson.
The book begins with a description of Quebec and the ROC as a pair of scorpions trapped in a bottle together and suggests it is time to break the bottle.
I paid $24 for the book in 1991 and it is still relevant.
Posted by: Speller | 2005-12-17 9:58:12 PM
Canadian Press has been pretty solid!
If you are of the conservative bashing frame of mind!
A haven for moonbat journalism hacks the CP pops more anti-conservative "Nuggets" than any other source that I have seen. If I owned shares I'd sell them.
And Robert...It is not just what you say but how you say it!
Your heavy handed sarcasm is a case in point!
Posted by: PGP | 2005-12-18 4:22:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.