Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Maryantonett Flumian | Main | Blue Man Group Addresses Union Whiners »

Monday, May 30, 2005

Globe hits a new low

The Globe and Mail has been on a tear against the Conservative Party for months (years?). And they've been on an anti-Christian jihad for much longer.

But on Friday their two campaigns for political hygiene intersected.

Here's my take on the subject.

Posted by Ezra Levant on May 30, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8344735b353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Globe hits a new low:

Comments

Exactly, Ezra. I thought the same thing. Just substitute one word for another: Jew for Christian - and everyone would be screaming -'racist, bigot'..etc.

Can you imagine; we have set up a situation here in Canada where tolerance extends ONLY to all religions except Christianity. Incredible. That's what multiculturalist relativism has done to us; it has set up a situation where 'everyone but us is OK'. That's the leftist scenario. 'We, the West, are bad; everyone else is OK'.

Could it be the fluorinated water? Or is it popcorn? What has turned our brains to sludge?

Posted by: ET | 2005-05-30 8:46:26 AM


You're quite correct. Even among some conservatives I've seen the same prejudice. The Pope's recent passing bought out a lot of ugliness from a lot of people. I've been really surprised.

Posted by: BC Monkey | 2005-05-30 8:54:47 AM


I'm not sure it's bigotry to point out the fact that a group of people with a particular agenda are seeking to advance that agenda, and that other people are opposed to that agenda.

Frankly, given the pre-eminence of Christianity in North America it seems rather silly to hear how some Christians try to claim victim status. Especially since they are often the same people who will sneer at the "homosexual agenda" while trying to restrict the rights of gay and lesbian Canadians; who really have been a persecuted minority.

Not being allowed to interfere with the rights of others is not the same as being persecuted. And if you can't take the criticism, don't get into politics.

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-30 9:27:53 AM


Nonsense, A Hermit. Gays and lesbians are not a 'persecuted minority'. Provide some evidence of their persecution.

What rights are you talking about? Be specific and please give an accurate definition of 'rights'.

You claim that since Christianity is pre-eminent in North America, then, it cannot claim 'victim status'.

What do you mean by 'victim status'? What's a 'victim'?

Are you saying that christianity cannot reject accusations against it? Are you saying that IF someone attacks Christian ideology, THEN (because Christianity is pre-eminent in North America)...Christians cannot defend their ideology??? That's totally illogical.

That's like saying that if you live in a society where the majority are literate, and someone attacks the value of literacy...then these literate people cannot defend that value, because 'literacy is pre-eminent'. Don't you see how illogical your argument is?

If Christian values are attacked, and Christians themselves are presented as 'asocial' citizens, then, they have every right to defend themselves against such spurious and bigoted claims.

As for gays/lesbians...good god..' a persecuted minority'. Give me a break.

Posted by: ET | 2005-05-30 9:47:57 AM


Jenkins had a cartoon in the weekend's Globe showing Harper with a massive wooden cross stuck through his finger. It worked in the sense that he hit his mark. However would he have used an equivalent muslim symbol in the same way to demonstrate how devotion to Islam is crippling a given political party. Perhaps ... if the party in question happened to be somewhere like Uzbekistan. As Aislan discovered with a dodgy reference applied to a dog, muslims can get into a froth pretty quickly. As Theo van Gogh discovered, it can also be lethal.

Posted by: Aidan Maconaghie | 2005-05-30 9:49:42 AM


Hit the mark ... as far as Jenkin's intent was concerned that is.

Posted by: Aidan Maconaghie | 2005-05-30 9:58:26 AM


Thank you Ezra for having the sand to put in print what has needed saying for far to long.

Modern devolved liberal dogma has embraced selective religious/socila/class bigotry...it's that simple. Dogmatic Liberals believe that if they hate something that hate transcends base anti-social vulgarity and becomes enlightened social engineering doctrine....you can't be bigoted if you are an "enlightened" Liberal on a self sanctified social deconstructionist crusade.

It seems that selective religious discrimination/bigotry is in vogue with the lib-left nattering class elite.

It's tough for us normal, well adjusted hosers to take this unfathomable elitist hubris and raving hypocrisy...particularly when it is spewed at us from the pages and TV screens of the nation's MSM.

Having never been particularly "religious" myself or subscribing to any organized religion, I do admire people of faith for their unwavering commitment to their beliefs in deity...whether that be Christian ,Muslim, Budist, Sikh or Jew.

Part of the simple beauties (and corner stone of Canadian, English and American civil libery) is the freedom we in constitutional, rule of law democracies, enjoy in the absolute freedom from the official state persecution of religion that has been at the core of history's darkest tyrannies.

More than any other breach of section 15 freedom from prejudice charter guarantees, it is religious persecution that fires my sense of civil out rage the most. Possibly because I view this civil poison as historically the most dangerous to a free society.

The media/academic Liberal elite are flirting with some of the most dangerous dark forces in Pandora's box when they dogmatically embrace concepts of state enforced secularism and institutionalized militant atheism....religious villification can change quickly to state sanctioned religious persecution in a heartbeat...from there it is a fast downward slope to state sanctioned repression and tyranny. Some one must hammer this home to the public...that there is some deeply flawed and dangerous social policy thinking in Liberal elite circles.

Perhaps Ezra, they will listen to an articulate, passionate practicing Jew ..... then again sympathy and appologising for militant theocratic Islam also seems in vogue with the ethically dyslexic Lib-left elite scribbling class.

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-05-30 9:58:33 AM


Wednesday, October 27, 2004
The New Kristallnacht


Full disclosure: I am not a Jew. I am a practicing Christian, non-evangelical, from a background of tolerant Protestantism. I read eclectically, am well educated, and consider myself an intellectual. And I stand with the Jews.

Many historians date the beginning of the Holocaust to November 9th, 1938. On that date the Nazi government launched a pogrom against the Jews, killing hundreds and arresting many more. Synagogues were torched, Jewish shops and homes were looted and destroyed, and Jews were shipped off to concentration camps. That night of major violence came to be known as Kristallnacht, in reference to the shattered glass found on the sidewalks in front of Jewish businesses all over Germany. A few days later new laws were passed by the Nazi government, effectively banning all economic activity by Jews and removing what few civil rights remained to them. It was a big step down the road that led through the gates of Auschwitz and Treblinka to the Final Solution.

http://www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

And I stand with the Jews.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-30 10:37:27 AM


"Provide some evidence of their persecution." - ET

Well, we can start the fact that within my memory homosexuality was illegal in this country (I don't think Christianity has ever been against the law in Canada, has it?) move to the opposition to marriage, and if you want more specific examples there's my uncle getting fired a week after his boss found out he was gay...

Bottom line for me; if you don't want your religion criticzed, don't make it part of your politics. If you bring it into the political arena it's fair game for criticism.

And criticism is not the same as persecution.

Just for fun, try Ezra's little experiment, only this time replace "Christian" with "Muslim" and see how it reads. I think I know what kind of reaction such an article would get on this blog, and it wouldn't be sympathetic at all...

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-30 10:46:08 AM


And yet, today the Globe - in its lead editorial no less - applauded the democratic results from the democratic process that resulted in these nominations. If they are single issue nominees, they would not be the first, and it will be up to the electorate.

It is a somewhat new phenomenon for churches to advocate congregations to take out memberships en masse with a party in order to get a candidate nominated, regardless of the party's platform. We are seeing it more and more, and it is newsworthy. And it is reported on: witness the coverage given to this in the Indo-Asian communities. The Globe and other papers always mention this, for one example, when they discuss why Cadman sits as an independent.


Oh, and ET, come on. "Gays and lesbians are not a 'persecuted minority'." It's one thing to say they should not get the same citizenship benefits as the other 95% of Canadian citizens as I have read from you before, but to say they are not persecuted is a little much. I have several friends who even today have ended up in the hospital - one because of a parent - for no reason other than that they love someone of the same sex.

Posted by: TB | 2005-05-30 11:05:57 AM


A Hermit - the fact that homosexuality WAS illegal, is not evidence that they are NOW a 'persecuted minority'. Don't mix up temporal areas. At one time, women were not allowed to vote. Is that evidence that they are NOW persecuted? No.

The fact that Christianity has never been illegal in this country, while homosexuality has been illegal, means that you cannot compare their status as 'persecuted'. You can only compare like with like; that is, compare other variables that were once unaccepted and illegal, and are now accepted/unaccepted.

The opposition to gay/lesbian marriage cannot be defined as 'persecution'.

Your uncle's being fired a week after his employer found out he was gay is inadmissable as evidence of persecution. Why? Because you'd have to prove that the two variables (Being Gay and Being Fired) were CONNECTED!!!! OK? If you can prove their connection, you'd have a case. I doubt if you can prove it..and if you could, your uncle could sue.

Right - criticism and persecution are not the same. So- people ought to be able to criticize the gay/lesbian agenda of SSM, without being branded as 'persecutors'. Right? You seem to reject this; you seem to say that people who criticize and oppose SSM are persecutors. No.

Many religions are against SSM, not simply the Christians. Therefore, the Globe and Mail article, with its focus on Christianity as 'activist' (which implies behaviour based on emotion rather than reason) was selective and biased.

Again, you'd have to prove your point that if the word 'Jew' were replaced with 'Muslim', the reaction against the G&M article would not be the same. Ezra's point was that the general public are not outraged when Christians are defined as biased, but it is outraged when Jews are. And, you know, I suspect that if you used a different term (Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist etc)..people would be equally upset.

Again, don't mix variables. People might react differently to a text referring to Muslim ideology because we are currently at war with Islamicism, with Islamic fundamentalists. That affects how people react.

Posted by: ET | 2005-05-30 11:09:44 AM


TB- I'll repeat. Gays and lesbians are not a persecuted minority. .

Your example that you have 'several friends who have ended up in hospital'..one, because of a parent...and the only reason because of their homosexuality/lesbianism'...is invalid as a claim that gays/lesbians are persecuted.
Why?

Because the same result (being beaten up) could have resulted from other causes, which you do not provide and perhaps may not know about. The fact that a parent beats a child to hospitalization, says something about the basic relation of the child/parent, and also, the basic nature of the parent. Both of these can have NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Such a parent could beat a child for any other reason.

I find it disturbing that you have 'several' friends who have been beaten up, requiring hospitalization, for any reason. What kind of situation are your friends in, where violence emerges? What are the other variables..besides homosexuality...that enable violence?

My experience, which is the opposite of yours (I have numerous gay acquaintances, none of whom have been beaten up/fired/ etc, etc)..is equally as invalid as yours as proof that gays are/are not persecuted.

The proof has to be in statistics, and I don't think that such evidence exists. They are not persecuted.

Now- ask a different question. Are gays/lesbians always going to be peripheral in a society? The answer, I would suggest, would have to be 'yes'.

I suggest that homosexuality is not a cultural behaviour but a chemical, i.e., innate behaviour. Now, since sexual reproduction is the biological mode of advanced organisms..that is, only the most primitive reproduction is by asexual means, then, sexual reproduction is a requirement of our species. That requires male-female sexuality. I'm unsure what effect, biologically, advances in technology, such as in vitro fertilization, etc, etc will play on sexuality in our society.

I'm still suggesting that our biological species requires male-female sexuality. It also requires the family as nurturance of the offspring. The reason for this is that our species, almost alone of all species, requires a LONG nurturance period. ....which increases as civilization becomes more complex. A child stays within the family for 15 and more years. That requires stability of family.
I'm unsure what effect the state intervention into child-rearing will have on the family.

My basic point is that our species, to continue biologically and socially, requires male-female sexuality and family nurturance. Therefore, gay/lesbian bonds will always be minorities. That doesn't mean that they are persecuted.

Posted by: ET | 2005-05-30 11:32:05 AM


Ezra, that was an excellent column, in which you said many things that needed to be said out loud. It's no good if a majority of people are thinking it, and no one is saying it. It's not only "uncool" these days to be a Christian, but it's okay to have it thrown in your face by those who prefer secularism. For centuries, people of opposing religions have fought each other to prove who held the greater truth. But only under communism can outlets like the G&M get away with belittling a particular religion, and they can only get away with belittling Christianity. All the other major religions are too heavily protected, either by law, conscience, or zealotry.

RG

Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-05-30 11:44:10 AM


Hey, "A Hermit" - shouldn't you be off in a cave far fromsociety with Osam?

ANd it's been three days now and I still haven't gotten an answer from you:

SINCE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY SUCH AN EXPERT ON MARRIAGE, CAN I MARRY MY MOTHER AND REQUIRE THAT THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZE IT? IF NOT, THEN WHY NOT?

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 11:49:57 AM


I don't realy expect a serious answer, since you are illogical, tedious, dull, dishonest, and a coward.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 11:51:02 AM


Maybe some of the Globe writers can get away with taking shots at Christians because they are Christian.

Ignoring the Globe's alleged indiscretions how about a few points to ponder.

Christian doesn't make you right wing.
Think about what Jesus would do and what party would he be affiliated with? Probably the NDP or worse the communist party.
I don't think Jesus had a lot of teachings on the free market economy, unions and illegal trade sanctions.
In my agnostic opinion, if Jesus ran the country he would probably give all our tax dollars to the poor, feed them and build them homes.
He wouldn't reduce corporate taxes and cut social spending to make the world a better place.

Or how about we just leave this whole religion thing out of politics because like you or me neither of us know what Jesus would do, or Mohamed, Buddha, Zeus or Vishnu.

Is secular governement only a Liberal idea?

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-30 12:17:36 PM


Gamblog yet again reveals his profound ignorance, by suggesting that Jesus Christ would be a Communist.

The whole point of Socialism-Marxism-Communism from Saint-Simon to Nancy Pelosi is: CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT CHRIST.

That's why its symbolism comes from Isaiah, and its rhetoric is just an athiest's reading of St. Paul.

BTW, you are another one of those cowardly "experts" on matrimony who ran off faster than Belinda Stronach can switch parties when I asked if anyone could answer the following:

CAN I MARRY MY MOTHER AND REQUIRE THAT THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZE IT? IF NOT, THEN WHY NOT?

Again, I don't realy expect a serious answer, since you are illogical, tedious, dull, dishonest, and a coward.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 12:24:56 PM


Gamblog, you might try only writing about things you understand.

I realize that that would leave you with nothing to write about besides bus fares and The Gilmore Girls.

"Do not labour for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

- Jesus Christ

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 12:33:51 PM


The point of my last post was to leave religion out of politics, so we don't have to worry what party Jesus would be a member.

Brian, as I already pointed out "Nuff said" on that issue.
However, to help you sleep at night.
You can marry your mother, brother or any other if you can convince the provincial and supreme courts to allow it. Currently you can't, but I wish you all the best if that is what you and your mother wants.


Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-30 12:37:53 PM


Gamblog: "Jesus...what party would he be affiliated with? Probably the NDP or worse the communist party. I don't think Jesus had a lot of teachings on the free market economy, unions and illegal trade sanctions. If Jesus ran the country he would probably give all our tax dollars to the poor, feed them and build them homes. He wouldn't reduce corporate taxes and cut social spending."

Fascinating!

Please share with us your ideas about what kind of a government Muhammed would run.

Please be share to give your name and address in case some Osam-type takes exception to your yammerings, and decides to pay you a visit to "debate" with you.

Oh, what's that, I see, I thought you wouldn't because you're a coward, and only go round yapping about Christ, but you say you wont speculate on Muhhamed's party affiliation because your really don't know enough about Islam to say for sure?

That's funny -- your ignorance doesn't seem to have had any injuctive power over your grubhole when it comes to spouting anti-Christian politico-theological drivel.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 12:44:47 PM


Brian, was Jesus referring to Kraft singles and other processed foods in that passage?
I don't think I've ever seen a moldy Kraft single.
Does Jesus seal my Kraft singles in their plastic wraps and is that why they are so tricky to open?

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-30 12:45:43 PM


"You can marry your mother, brother or any other. I wish you all the best."

There we have it.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 12:46:14 PM


If only those buffoons Winston and "A Hermit" could be so honest.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 12:47:55 PM


Wow, http://www.girlontheright.com/, is that really your picture?

So clean and wholesome!

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 12:51:20 PM


The Globe's anti-Christian/anti-Conservative biases are played out everywhere else in the liberal press in Canada ... ad nauseum.

One of the reasons they get away with this is because we on the right CENSOR OURSELVES more often than not. When it comes to getting down and nasty, the left has it all over us. On Rabble recently - the leftie TO cartoonist Constable showed the Pope making a nazi salute to the virgin Mary. I've read column after column in the Star and other places in which conservatives and christianity are villified and insulted ... with a vitriol that few right wing columnists would be prepared to return in kind.

Personally I don't think an ethical straight jacket, a sense of decorum and the need to be polite helps when it comes to the battle in the political arena these down n' dirty days. The era of "ladies and gentlemen" is long gone, and in order to win, the right has to adjust to the new rules of play. If we choose not to "get down on their level" - we lose. We might walk away with our so-called "dignity" intact - but dignified losers are still losers.

The idea that the public might hold it against us if we take off the gloves, I believe to be a misplaced concern. The voter tends to respond favorably in my experience to an outspoken willingness to be yourself and say what you think. In the early years of the common sense revolution in Ontario, Mike Harris magnetized the public with precisely those qualities. He said what others were fearful of saying - and moreover he said it without apology or guilt ...(the Harris legacy aside). Ralph Klein also has these qualities.

A perfect example of the "Tory straight jacket" was observing Steve Harper on TV during the last campaign. Steve is a great guy in person - but he came across as wooden, stiff and non-spontaneous on the box. I wanted to jam him with a few volts, muss up his hair and loosen his tie!! If he had "gotten down" more, the result might have been surprising. The media savvy public these days are highly attuned to these nuances of personal style - and respond to them.

Sometimes I get the feeling with conservatives that we have a deep distrust of visceral responses, for fear it might uncloak some verbotten emotions and attitudes, that may allow the lefties to label us with the predictable bigot tags. A lot of people live in dread of being labelled this way - even though they despise the Liberal mind-set that is doing the labelling. As a cartoonist with pointed right wing opinions, I have been on the receiving end of insults and threats. It's how they think they can control us. Shut us up. And know what ... oftentimes it works like a charm.

Here is an example. An old friend of mine in Toronto who is opposed to gay marriage, let this view drop among some professional associates. This guy is NO homophobe or gay hater, but the mere fact that he was candid about the issue of gay marriage resulted in ostracization, loss of promotional opportunites and social blacklisting. Of course this was done in the "low key liberal" fashion that makes it hard to cry prejudice.

So yes, many of us are terrified of these labels and threats to our reputations. But this intimidation is being used as a weapon to minimize us and reduce our volume. And it's an extremely effective weapon in the culture wars in which we are engaged.

On the right, we have to let go of our reserve and second guessing. We have to call it like it is - and be damned. Ezra has shown the will to take off the gloves on occasion, based of what I've seen in his columns. Guys like Coren also know how to throw a mean hook or two.

On occasion, we REALLY DO need to toss the scripts and undo our constraints, so we can shock opponents who clearly THINK they have us pigeon holed and minimized, to a level of "managable stereotype".

Posted by: Aidan Maconaghie | 2005-05-30 12:54:03 PM


Aiden, I for one am not really into castrating myself whenever I feel like expressing an opinion.

Re "This guy is NO homophobe or gay hater, but the mere fact that he was candid about the issue of gay marriage resulted in ostracization, loss of promotional opportunites and social blacklisting.":

I have (oops, HAD) a friend, who is a Police Detective, and since he's also a Jusitice-of-the-Paece he performs weddings, and he taul me that he married a couple of tuppence-lickers, so we tallked about that a bit.

Anyway, I sent him an email with some arguments about why I thought he was wrong to have done so, and he called me up and said (NO EXAGGERATION), "My wife is really pissed off with you, and doesn't want me to be friends with a homophobe. We could still be friends, but don't email or phone me."

OMG.

We are adrift in a world bereft of sanity.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 1:02:05 PM


Brian: logically, nothing prevents it. The whole point of banning incestuous marriage is that the offspring would be inbred. Once you move the idea of children out of a central role in marriage, as is done by legalizing gay marriage, you do remove the main argument against incestuous marriage.

I suspect this is the point you were trying to make?

Posted by: BC Monkey | 2005-05-30 1:10:12 PM


"Tuppence-lickers"? So the English are all gay now too?
Why did you think you had the right to tell your friend what he should and shouldn't do with his powers to wed people? He's the JOP not you.

Just accept it man before you give yourself a heart attack.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-30 1:12:32 PM


BC Monkey,
So you suggest that gay couples are incestuous? I don't believe gay couples can have inbred children. That is why it is perfectly all right and the main argument against incestuous marriage still exists.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-30 1:21:18 PM


If we *do* substitute Christian or Jew for Muslim, it is *not* the same.

iSLAM is a whole life system that when in a position of authority anywhere in the world, past or present, obliterates all other beliefs; just ask the ancient Buddhas or the Temples in India.

Oh, yeah, there *was* that one period a long, long time ago, when iSLAM didn't obliterate everything it conquered. Apparently we are forever endebted to this historical anomoly.

Upper Canada's contemplation of Shari'a Law is empowered by the Negligentsia. At least for the sake of Quebexicans, they got it right about Shari'a and iSLAM.

Posted by: wharold | 2005-05-30 1:39:25 PM


Wharold,
You seem to have a problem with your shift key or caps lock. Everytime you write Islam you write iSLAM.
Just thought I'd point that out.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-30 1:44:55 PM


ET, the fact that within a generation homosexuality was illegal should tell you something about society's attitude toward homosexuals; it's changing, obviously, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think it all changed overnight. Just read Brian O'Niel's comments here if you don't believe me...

As for my uncle's case, I'm not get going to get into a whole lot of personal details for obvious reasons; but I'll point out that he had just been given a promotion and a raise, told what a great job he was doing and then, after his sexual orientation became known, was told he "wasn't fitting in" (after more than a decade at the firm), and offered a big fat severance package to go away quietly. Maybe there's no smoking gun, but again, you'd have to be awfully naive not to see what was really going on.

Maybe he could have gone to court, on the off-chance of getting a settlement, or hanging on to a job in what was clearly now a hostile environment or he could take the money and run. He decided life was too short, swallowed his pride and took the deal, but he's never been happy about it.

I think Warhold just proved my point about replacing "Christian" with "Muslim" in the article...now let's try it with "atheist" and see what happens...;-)

As for criticism not being the same as persecution, we agree on that point...good.

Now, would you agree that trying to deny equal rights to a group of citizens is more than just criticism? And in this case its not Christians whose rights are being stepped on.

And to reinforce Gamblog's excellent posts; it is the people pushing the anti-marriage/social conservative agenda who do a disservice to all Christians by labeling their political social conservatism as "Christian". Not all Christians share their political views.

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-30 2:12:19 PM


"Gamblog", you fool, I thought it was "Nuff Said"?

Apparently not.

Tuppence-lickers is an time-honoured referance to Sapphic devoties, making use of a labial metaphor.

Is that too difficult for you? Do you need a drawing? Can you read?

"Why did you think you had the right to tell your friend what he should and shouldn't do with his powers to wed people? He's the JOP not you."

Oh la-di-frickin'-da. Excuse me for having an opinion, you ignorant pissant totalitarian wannabe.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 2:13:56 PM


A Hermit who can't stay in his cave with Osama, CAN I MARRY MY MOTHER AND REQUIRE THAT THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZE IT? IF NOT, THEN WHY NOT?

I know you've only had 3 days to think of a response, but still...

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 2:17:05 PM


>if Jesus ran the country

He would not. Jesus would exhort us to live by the (Jewish) law and faith, but he would respect to a scrupulous fault each person's free will. Jesus was not a socialist; he was a compassionist. The former gives from the pockets of others; the latter gives from his own. Socialists in several respects are the antithesis of compassionists.

Posted by: lrC | 2005-05-30 2:17:16 PM


Re IrC to Gamblog: Pearls before swine

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 2:24:35 PM


Since our resident sob-sisters changed the topic - yet again - to gay marriage, and then - yet again - fell silent when put in their place, how about returning to the subject of the original posting?

Check this [http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050530/ca_pr_on_na/parl_resumes] out:

* The Conservative party's nomination procedures have left it vulnerable to special interest groups.... Some Tories fret that a recent flurry of nominations has elected several socially conservative candidates.

* "It should concern a political party when there is an organized campaign to take over a nomination, whatever the cause or the group," said Val Meredith, a former British Columbia MP. "Canadians don't want their parties dominated by special interests."

* Meredith, a long-time Reform MP, was ousted last year as a Tory candidate after a bitterly contested nomination battle during which religious conservatives opposed her.

* Rick Anderson, a former Reform party and Canadian Alliance strategist, said the entire nomination process should be re-examined, and suggested it should be administered by Elections Canada.

* "This is a dysfunctional area of our democracy. ... Let's not forget that in half the ridings in this country, the nomination is more important than the election, because alternate parties can't win that seat," he said.

* "In that sense, you have MPs being selected by 200, 300, 500 people."

* Moderates within the party have recently raised concerns that fundamentalist Christian organizations have succeeded in winning control over a clutch of riding associations in B.C., Ontario and Nova Scotia.

* In those ridings, candidates with ties to groups like the Christian Legal Defence Fund, Focus on the Family — which is affiliated with a well-funded U.S. organization of the same name — and to evangelical churches won nominations with the support of high-profile pastors.

* Meredith said similar contests have since taken place across the country and the party "doesn't seem to be overly concerned about what's happening."

* In the current raft of nominations, incumbent Tory MPs have been PROTECTED from nomination challenges, but in about 200 other ridings the battles have been hard-fought and occasionally vicious.

* Anderson pointed out the Liberals have largely avoided similar controversies since then-prime minister Jean Chrétien reserved the right to appoint candidates regardless of the wishes of local riding associations.

* The Conservatives have given no such power to their leader.

* Other moderates complain that the move to the centre engineered by Tory Leader Stephen Harper over the last year may be all for naught.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 2:45:49 PM


What on earth good did Val Meredith or Rick Anderson ever contribute to Reform or Alliance?

Anything that a talking horse couldn't have done twice as well?

If anyone suggests, "good riddance to bad rubbish," of course someone will say, "but we need a bigger tent!"

The point is not their opinions - the point is that they are DESTRUCTIVE and rotten. And the sooner they and their pinup candidate Belinda are over polluting the Liberal ranks, the better.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 2:53:35 PM


This is the creepiest thing I've read all day:

"Rick Anderson, a former Reform party and Canadian Alliance strategist suggested that the entire nomination process should be administered by Elections Canada."

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 2:56:01 PM


Wow, Brian. 15 posts today and it's only 3 o'clock CST! And, more impressive yet, 6 of the last 7.

Sorry to break your string of 4 in a row. Just wanted to make sure your efforts got the proper recognition they deserve. Carry on now.

Posted by: TB | 2005-05-30 3:05:37 PM


Thank you for your praise and adulation, just keep away from my lungs.

I would rather read some other bloggers intelligent commentary, but...

Also, it would be nice to hear from A Hermit Who Can't Stay Away From The Rat Race on why one may or may not marry one's cult or kin.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 3:22:31 PM


What can I say?

I live in Reg Halfcock's riding. Obviously I don't have anyone intelligent to talk to around here.

To make things worse, I live near the University, so I'm surrounded by ignorant students (excuse the redundancy).

In the words of Al Pacino as Colonel Frank Slade, "I'M IN THE DARK! I'M DYIN' HERE!"

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 3:27:47 PM


Actually, I thought Rick Anderson's comments were bang on. I don't think it's a partisan thing, either -- the Liberals have had similar problems with ethnic bloc voting.

One suggested reform to the nomination process would be to require people to have been party members for at least one year before voting at a nomination meeting. Since nomination meetings aren't scheduled far in advance, it'd no longer be possible to "take over" a riding association by signing up new members.

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2005-05-30 3:33:06 PM


It is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: "Ye shall be as gods." It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God.

It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man's liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man's destiny and reorganizing man's life and the world. It is the vision of man, once more the central figure of the Creation, not because God made man in His image, but because man's mind makes him the most intelligent of the animals. Copernicus and his successors displaced man as the central fact of the universe by proving that the earth was not the central star of the universe. Communism restores man to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God...


#############################


Whittaker Chambers: Letter to my Children.


What is Communism? Answer: A religion.

http://www.rapp.org/url/?9KPQAAR8


Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-30 4:00:26 PM


Anyone who thinks that Rick Anderson is "bang on" in suggesting that political party nomination procedures "should be administered by Elections Canada" is virtually beneath contempt, as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously, since you get your marching orders from a bunch of crypto-Communists like Michael Ignatieff, Bruce Cockburn, Paul Krugman, Amartya Sen and Jared Diamond, you can be expected to take the statist line.

And if I ever need political advice from someone who voted for Kim Cambell, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin and Ujjal Dosanjh, I hope someone will just put me out of my misery.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 4:04:38 PM


The last comment was addressed to poor Russil Wvong.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 4:06:39 PM


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I think Anderson does a good job of pointing out a serious problem; but I don't think that Elections Canada ought to run party nomination meetings. Hence my alternate suggestion (the one-year waiting period).

And for the record, I don't agree with Bruce Cockburn's point of view at all -- I thought "Call It Democracy" was ridiculously over the top. But there are people who take this kind of thing seriously, as we saw in Seattle.

I'm curious: if you didn't vote for Campbell _or_ Chretien, who did you vote for?

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2005-05-30 4:15:29 PM


Since I am basically a conservative, I always will always vote for the candidate who is the most moral, conservative and intelligent.

Obviously, then, I would rather drink a Fear Factor cocktail than pull the lever for Cambell, Chretien, Martin, Dosanjh or any of their fellow travellers.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 4:20:06 PM


Yes, but who did you vote for in 1993, when Campbell and Chretien were the party leaders for the Conservatives and the Liberals?

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2005-05-30 4:22:26 PM


Yes, I'm sorry. I see you didn't endorse Bruce "Rocket-Launcher" Cockburn's scribblings and bleatings; you just helped promote him to some extent. So you have that on your conscience. But that's peanuts copared to the black stain of having voted for Kim Cambell (shame!), Jean Chretien(shame!), Ujjal Dosanjh (shame!), and Paul Martin (SHAME!).

Do you really trust yourself to vote in future? Perhaps, in future, you could have yourself "commited" on election days; so that you don't harm yourself or those you love.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 4:29:33 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.