The Shotgun Blog
« No Mo' Nato? | Main | The Greens should look to the market »
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
PMO to MPs: if free speech comes up, change the subject
Of course, the PM's wimpiness and indifference in the face of widespread criticism of our "Human Rights" Commissions simply reflects the wimpiness and indifference of the Average Canadian.
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on February 12, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/26049672
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PMO to MPs: if free speech comes up, change the subject:
Comments
The wimpiest line of the memo?
"My Canada includes First Nations."
It's even wimpier in the actual document because the 'includes' is underlined, as if to suggest that the MP hold the word really long to make himself seem really sincere and inclusive.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 12-Feb-08 8:07:44 AM
To be fair Kalim, I believe that was inserted as a reminder that legislation is pending to include Indians as well under the provisions of the Act.
Indians have to date been exempted from it's provisions.I'm not a mind reader but if that was the intent, then there is really no wimpiness at all in that statement.
Posted by: atric | 12-Feb-08 8:33:53 AM
You're right about the context of the line, but the wimpiness doesn't lie in the content, but in the style. The wimpiness lies in the fact that in a document which is mostly a factual summary of the issues and the PMO's position, there's this one stupid line which is just rolling in smarminess.
Besides, as Kathy points out, bringing up Bill C-21 which would bring Natives under the HRC is a diversionary tactic to distract from the fact that they intend to do nothing about section 13.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 12-Feb-08 9:15:24 AM
I don't notice the smarminess and personally don't think it was intended but I do agree that he's wimping out with respect to Sect. 13(1).
Seeing that it appears almost all Canadians find this section offensive, I can't understand why he wouldn't ride this horse as an election issue.
Posted by: atric | 12-Feb-08 9:42:17 AM
All Canadian politicians act as purveyors to the multicultural armies in order to solicit votes. Were there another option they could not ignore, they would go there. Canadians march muddle-headed and trusting into an uncertain future paved by those for whom they vote. In my opinion as a trusting and muddle-headed Canadian, the current Canadian government performs much better than would any of the alternatives now existing.
Posted by: dewp | 12-Feb-08 10:42:00 AM
If these politicians had any BACKBONES they would disband these HRCs. But, what do you expect from Mr. Muzzle and the Muzzlers?
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 12-Feb-08 12:20:58 PM
Wimpiness of the Prime Minister?
Funny stuff.
Where are the Liberals and NDP on this issue.
More like prudent politics on the part of the PM's office.
Whichever party takes up the cause will be crucified by the media, especially the Conservatives. Why not let things play out?
If you are going to send out accusations of gutlessness finger all the political parties.
Posted by: Paul | 12-Feb-08 12:55:01 PM
Wimpiness of the Prime Minister?
Funny stuff.
Where are the Liberals and NDP on this issue.
More like prudent politics on the part of the PM's office.
Whichever party takes up the cause will be crucified by the media, especially the Conservatives. Why not let things play out?
If you are going to send out accusations of gutlessness finger all the political parties.
Posted by: Paul | 12-Feb-08 12:55:05 PM
I believe, "prudent politics" is just another name for political cowardice. All these political parties are ALL the same. Liberal, Tory same old story as the saying goes. Still, the "true believers" can always be counted on to "believe" there is a difference.
Posted by: Sterphen J. Gray | 12-Feb-08 1:03:06 PM
I fail to see how this qualifies as "prudent politics", especially when even a good part of our agenda-driven leftist MSM are on side. Furthermore it is an issue that crosses all party lines and the private member's bill is from a liberal.
To place its survival on the Afghan mission rather than protecting the traditional Canadian freedom of expression and of the press is anything but prudent politics.
I shall keep the pressure on my Conservative MP and the PM making it very clear that I expect better.
Posted by: Alain | 12-Feb-08 1:10:40 PM
My interest in removing the freedom of speech sections from the AB HRC has been registered with both the commission, appropriate ministers (2), and Premier Stelmach.
They see nothing wrong with having a Calgary alderman appointed for a second term (to 2010) as one of the three southern AB panelists on the AB HRC. Since there is no concern about conflict of interest on the part of PCs, change from this direction is totally unlikely.
Add to this, reducing considerably the draconian powers that are enjoyed by HRC staff at considerable expense to the respondent at little, if any, cost to the complainant.
I have filed my nomination as an Independent Candidate in Calgary Lougheed this a.m. (Feb 12). On my to-do list would be to present a private members bill to cover the two aspects of the AB HRC above.
My web site is up at gkeithlaurie.com and a blog can be found at ab-first.blogspot.com
G. Keith Laurie
Posted by: calgary clipper | 12-Feb-08 1:23:22 PM
Well, say hello to the Liberal Party come next election. Harper just lost my vote.
Posted by: Faramir | 12-Feb-08 4:14:44 PM
It doesn't matter Faramir. The only choice is what brand of NDP you get. All will steal us blind and apply the cash to areas that will get them elected. Harper is a liar, thief and a sell-out just like the rest of them.
Posted by: Veteran | 12-Feb-08 4:42:42 PM
Harper and his Liberal oops I mean "Conservative" government are giving $100 Million of our tax dollars for a "human rights museum." Meanwhile, Canadians are being dragged before so-called "Human Rights Commissions" that are kangaroo courts. What a political farce.
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 12-Feb-08 4:59:41 PM
Yep, at least Chretien lied about the Kyoto bullshit. Harper amounts to nothing more than an implementer of all the Chretien policies that we despised.
Posted by: Veteran | 12-Feb-08 5:31:52 PM
I think all Conservatives who believe Harper is more concerned with getting elected than the people who vote for the Conservative Party should vote green. Section 13 being struck from the HRC is the single most important issue to me, not the Religion of Global Warming. If we vote for a party that doesn't stand a chance of getting many seats ergo our vote against the Cons will show the Conservative Party we will not support a party that doesn't support it's members. It also won't allow for a major gain in the leftard parties. If I'm going to vote for a party that doesn't attempt to represent me, then I'll vote for for a Political Party that doesn't stand a rat's arse of ever being a player in Canada. Might as well laugh instead of feeling like crying at the betrayal that Harper appears to be committing. Human rights are important to the Conservative Party, unless you are white, female, over weight, a Christian or an author or a Jew.
On a side note the new ad I saw on TV today for Diversity (new buzz word for Multiculturalism) is an eye opener, it mentions diversity in the Muslim community, the Jewish Community, the Homosexual Community etc. Of course no mention of "Christians" as part of Canadian Diversity. I think it's clear we are to be shunned and it appears the Conservative Government has written our role out of society and the history of this country. Watch for the new Commericals on the Building of the HR Musium and the ads on Canadian Diversity. It's offensive to me as a Christian that we were the only group left out of the leftard propaganda. I'm not surprised, but it does sicken me because this nation was built on Christian/Judaeo beliefs not Communist Marxist Propaganda spread by the Conservative (ya right) Goberment.
Posted by: Rose | 12-Feb-08 5:36:35 PM
Actually Rose the buzz word diversity has been around for several years now. In the federal civil service along with the provincial ones, it replaced employment equity which had replaced affirmative action. It was still the same rot, just name changes probably to keep the public confused.
Posted by: Alain | 12-Feb-08 11:05:40 PM
Post a comment