The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Plus Ca Change...
From the Globe and Mail.com:
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay also insisted, however, that freedom of expression must be exercised responsibly, noting that the cartoons have caused offence to both Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada and around the world.
"Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada, but it must be exercised responsibly. We commend those Canadians who have acted appropriately," he said in a statement.
See? what I've been saying all along to my panicked leftist colleagues, friends and acquaintances about the Conservatives is already proving true: They won't represent much change from what we've had since 1993. How thoroughly disappointing.
What drivel. Who, I wonder, are the "Canadians who have acted appropriately"? Does he mean all the media outlets who haven't reprinted the cartoons? Does he mean those -- including, apparently, Mackay himself -- who are allowing themselves to be cowed by Islamist fundamentalists? Does he mean all the mealy-mouthed pundits who give moral equivalence to the riots/threats/embassy burnings and the actual publishing of the cartoons? Because that's sure what it sounds like.
Score another for Islamofascism. Breathe a sigh of relief, Islamist nutjobs the world over! Canada will continue to be useless and spineless. Not that, militarily, we represent much opposition, but morally, we could have stood for something.
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Plus Ca Change...:
Do you think the imam recently indicted in London for incitement to hatred should be allowed to spew his bilious hatred in the name of free speech without restriction as well?
Posted by: Road Hammer | 2006-02-08 1:22:49 PM
Wow ....what a let down from McKay.
Mindless repetition of the applogist line from the MSM.
For Shame! I'm not afraid to say that the Islamists deserve every bit of criticism they get and I'd like my government to say so too!
Posted by: PGP | 2006-02-08 1:30:18 PM
We need to take a stand for Western, liberal, values but we don't. What a shame.
To make fun of a Muhammed is one thing, to encourage/incite violence is completely different.
The cartoons (have you seen them?) aren't inciting anything, they are just a pretty lame attempt to make fun of Muhammed/Islam.
It is (and should be) perfectly ok to make fun of Christianity, Jesus, Judaism, Abraham, Moses, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc etc. As well as Islam and Muhammed.
The real issue is the Islamist reaction to these cartoons, and the manipulation and escalation of the situation for political purposes by many Muslim clerics and leaders.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2006-02-08 1:32:28 PM
Once again I must express my gratitude to all those who are publishing these cartoons on the internet or wherever, sometimes at great risk to their personal safety. The MSM is, as usual, largely caving in to the Islamofascists. Were it not for the internet, the average citizen would have had no choice but to accept the MSM's carefully filtered version of these events.
As for Peter McKay, when he "commends" those who act "appropriately", is it therefore fair to assume that he condemns those who have printed the cartoons? McKay's views reflect the moral relativism that permeates our Western societies; he feels compelled to appear "evenhanded" by balancing criticism of appallingly evil acts by implying that the victims of those acts somehow provoked the aggressor.
Posted by: Dennis | 2006-02-08 2:01:24 PM
I think that Peter Mckay does not represent the overall viewpoint of CPC. He is in favour of SSM, abortion. He comes from the old progressive group. No wonder he was the boyfriend of Stronach.
I guess we have to endure people from the old group of Joe Clark. We cannot ask to boot him out. That's politics.
On the other hand, CPC got about 36% of the votes. That leaves 64% of people who would not have agreed on a true conservative and clear position like: go ahead, publish the cartoons and the heck with violent actions against Canadians abroad.
There are two people still hostages in Irak. I guess we may wait until they are free to speak without restraint.
I suggest violence is not only generated by cartoons but by the way imams manipulated the information.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-02-08 2:17:40 PM
Why is Peter MacKay in Foreign Affairs? Why why WHY? Why not put him somewhere where he can't embarass us on an international scale?
Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2006-02-08 2:33:48 PM
Road Hammer said,
"Do you think the imam recently indicted in London for incitement to hatred should be allowed to spew his bilious hatred in the name of free speech without restriction as well?"
If I understand you correctly, you are equating these satirical cartoons with "spewing bilious hatred"?
"We commend those Canadians who have acted appropriately"
Posted by: potato | 2006-02-08 3:20:35 PM
I am not equating these cartoons with incitement to terrorism. What I am suggesting is that there are some limits to free speech that are rightly enshrined in law. For instance, you can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but you may be charged with mischief. That is an infringement on freedom of speech, is it not?
Posted by: Road Hammer | 2006-02-08 4:52:28 PM
I second what the Raging Ranter said. Peter has not grown much of a spine over the years. I think he should take a long look at himself and determine what he values and what he stands for- his preppy days are over. He is too old to be viewed as a boy making his way though his first four years at University; 'finding' himself. He has a very important job now and if he does not have the backbone for the job he should trade with Stockwell Day who would be an outstanding Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-02-08 4:58:28 PM
Road Hammer - shouting 'fire' in a theatre is not free speech. Neither is a rant urging people to terrorize and murder people.
The nature of 'free speech' is that it is FREE, which means that it is OPEN. Open to rebuttal, to debate, to dissent, to discussion, to argument.
A statement made without any possibility of rebuttal, dissent, debate, discussion - is CLOSED. It is not 'free' i.e., OPEN speech. It is closed speech; all you can do is accept it.
The essential nature of FREE speech is its openness. It has to be open to others, so that others can discuss and debate and argue about the content of that speech.
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-08 5:11:35 PM
Only fools believe that free speech is possible without offence.
I am so dissapointed that our new foreign affairs minister has chosen to take the low road of a non-committal stance on this matter.
This is a bad start for us all! We do not need another weasling appologist government. Even if this is just some gaff because the response was written for McKay he should have had enough sense to not make the statement. A good start would be to fire the staffers who prepared the statement. They are obviously good for nothing. And if this is what McKay truly believes he needs to be reminded that this is not what our constituency believes.
Posted by: PGP | 2006-02-08 5:35:54 PM
Petie at foreign was the worst choice of the cabinet. Anyone who responds to a dumping by crying in the potato patch does not have the [email protected] to take on world fascism. Hopefully Harper shuffles in Stock or Kenney to foreign before Petie does any more damage.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-02-08 6:47:43 PM
Absolute drivel. MxKay's been in his job, say one day, and he's supposed to have had his department think through an in-depth analysis of world implications, prior to creating an innoculous press release? Grow up. Get real. That was really a stupid post.
Posted by: Erik Sorenson | 2006-02-08 8:27:23 PM
Rather pretentious talk, "it should be okay to make fun of Jesus," wouldn't you say?
Where to begin? Two thousand years of civilization? Turning the other cheek when he could have told the Romans to get lost?
Giving up on the lucrative job to follow his conscience?
Not being a one-dimensional Canadian nitwit?
The possibilities are endless (there's 32 million candidates).
You might want to pay more attention to whether Jesus is making fun of you.
Posted by: Peter O'Donnell | 2006-02-08 8:39:01 PM
Oh I forgot the music of Bach and Mozart.
Nothing much compared to, umm what do you "greatest people in the world" call your wonderful noisemakers? Oh yes, "Bare Naked Ladies." "Guess Who." Wow, what a country. I would think that freedom of speech was the least of your worries. Maybe you should work on achieving an average mental age of something over ten.
Posted by: Peter O'Donnell | 2006-02-08 8:44:36 PM
I know that I've been absent from commenting for awhile, and won't be able to spend too much time commenting now since my schedule is very full and time is a premium.
Anyway, two things.
Wrt MacKay. I've never been a fan of his. I feel he falls into the Joe Who classification of a Red Tory. In fact, his poor taste and judgement led him to have 'relations' with Belinda. That alone should call him into question. Now, we can't forget that the info that he is being fed is coming from the career bureaucrats and they haven't changed since the libs left. I don't know/think if Peter will ever be able to change the 'philosophy' of foreign affairs. Stock could have. His grasp and strong opinions would have put his stamp onto that department immediately.
Now on the second item. The appointments. I understand Harper's actions. I believe that he is taking the steps necessary to secure a majority in the next go around scheduled for 2008 or so. But what I'm getting a howl out of is the MSM. To watch Emerson walk up that driveway and see the stunned looks on the media's faces was priceless. In fact I think what is REALLY torquing the MSM is the fact that for the first time in how long, they will have to WORK for a story. No more leaks or convenient e-mails from the PMO. Boy I'll bet they are all pissing themselves as they try and figure out what to do and how they are to get the next day's headline.
So while I do not agree with how Harper did what he did, I understand why. I also believe that he will still implement an 'elected' Senate (details need to be worked out yet, ie. elections? when? under what circumstances?). Harper never agreed to try and stop MPs from crossing the floor. [again another irony. Wasn't it the Reformers who wanted to adopt recall and referenda? And wasn't it the PCs/Libs/MSM who laughed them out of the room as their ideas being backwards?)
And I still can't get over watching the MSM. They don't know what to do and don't know how to get a story. I'll bet that is what Harper is up to. No more sucking up to the media. Period!
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-02-08 9:08:50 PM
MacKay is reported today in Nova Scotia stating
that there is no intention to downsize or change
anything related to the operations of the well
known and notorious Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Ageny. The opportunties provided by ACOA are
directed to Liberal patronage appointments in the
repository of incompetence and indulgence. ACOA
in the public interest, must be subject to a full
scale forensic audit, a recommendation that was
submitted to Martin two years ago and ignored. The key element in the potential success in the
Harper government is change; the public want and
demand change. The President of ACOA has eight
Executive Assistants and about fourteen people
engaged in "public relations", otherwise referred
to in this tiny, perfect New Brunswick city as
bullshit. MacKay may not be suited for a Cabinet
Post of consequence in the Harper government. He
should as a Nova Scotia MP be aware that three
devasting Studies were undertaken by the Atlantic
Institute for Mark Studies, in association with
York University and the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation - ACOA, as structured today, will not
survive a forensic audit, which will also bring
forward Dingwall's "entitlements" as the ACOA
Minister in his controversial past.
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-02-09 4:58:10 AM
Just finished watching the CBC & CTV politics shows this afternoon. Hilarious.
The news folks on the CBC and CTV shows didn't know what to do. There was Fife stating that by now the libs would have spun these issues to death (the appts). They honestly don't know what to do!
And Emerson keeping the reporters waiting for 25 mins and then 'no-showing'. Priceless. The CBC wench couldn't understand why Emerson hadn't got his butt over to Parliament Hill to answer their questions.
That folks is the problem. The media (MSM) think that they are part of the political process. Me thinks that Harper has just removed them.
Take them out of the equation and then you don't have to worry about catering to them. Because I'm positive that Harper hated having to pander to the liberal media in order to get a 'good headline'.
Harper will make laws and policy which the electorate will see and understand. To hell with the media.
It was worth spending an hour of my precious time to watch CBC. They were confused and did not know what to do or say.
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-02-09 4:03:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.