Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Wrong | Main | US Senate hearing on Iran »

Monday, July 24, 2006

Order of Canada disgrace

The Governor General has announced the latest appointments to the Order of Canada and there are indeed some good picks. But one stands out because her presence among those honoured, dishonours the Order of Canada. Michaelle Jean announced that former Toronto Star columnist Michelle Landsberg is now a member of the Order of Canada. When Landsberg retired from the Star in 2003, this is what The Interim, the socially conservative paper I edit, had to say about her:

"As a commentator, Landsberg's greatest failing was a complete inability to recognize that the folks who disagreed with her might have arrived at their views honestly, and merely possessed a different take on how to make the world a better place to live. Instead of viewing them as intellectual opponents, Landsberg saw modern-day Hitlers. The world she described is indeed a scary place, where rich, conservative, middle-aged men spend their days sipping scotch and thinking of new ways to harass minorities and single welfare moms. "

That doesn't sound like someone worth honouring.

Posted by Paul Tuns on July 24, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Order of Canada disgrace:


I was raised by a single welfare mom and she would have had two words for Landsberg - piss off.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-07-24 11:40:24 PM

Some body tells me why Michelle Jean is Canada's GG?

Is she a separatist?

Posted by: Winston | 2006-07-24 11:52:01 PM

Landsberg is a very ignorant woman judging by some of the vile columns she wrote, a person filled with such hatreds certainly does not deserve to be honoured. Scorned would be more appropriate.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-07-25 1:12:40 AM

The "Order of Canada" is a Political Medal and is quite meaningless, really not an Honor, but a tarnished reward more or less for some years of political loyality or worse. The current List would have been prepared by the flunkies in PM Martin's Office, and perhaps PM Harper should have had second thoughts and vetted the "List"
Having the "Order of Canada" does not get one a free double-double at Tim Hortons. But I must say I have been reading the Red Star for about 60 years and don't recall any thing by Landsberg.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-07-25 3:48:42 AM

The Order of Canada medal becomes less an honor each time we see obviously unworthy recipients. It's just another "honour" bastardised by politics, just like the post of Governor General. However, don't blame this current list on the Conservative government. Has Louise Arbour been honored yet?

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-07-25 6:05:45 AM

The Harper Conservatives were given a temporary mandate by Canadian voters which can become a long term and highly popular mandate if significant changes are made in the operation of government. Perhaps the "Order of Canada" should be isolated and not awarded for several years, agreed it has become meaningless, ruined by Chretien and Martin. Harper should also dismantle Federal funding agencies like ACOA and Western Diversification. Every member of the ACOA
Board are Liberals, as well as most senior bureaucrats and flunkies. Minister MacKay's unstinting support for ACOA here on the East Coast has undermined his and the Harper government's credibility. Change is the operative word.Most Maritimers support and appreciate Stephen Harper, who can turn this attitude into a substantial majority.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-07-25 7:12:39 AM

she is part of the left wing establishment that contaminates all canada. nuff said

ps- her son is a cbcer - surprise surprise

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-07-25 8:24:52 AM

Hollywood is phony professionally, so they have unending meaningless "awards" ceremonies. Ahhh, now I've got that catchy Academy Award winning tune running over and over in my head: "It's Tough Out Here for a Pimp."

Go to one of our local School Board meetings and the first half-hour to sixty minutes is consumed in "awards" for "teachers" and other unionized clowns who produce an abysmally failing and profoundly perverted "education" product.

All of the useless females in our Congress immediately put forward The Congressional Medal of Honor, for that "soldier" girl who was knocked out cold in the first minute of rocket attack engagement of the supply truck she was happlessly riding in the back of, and she remained unconscious for the entire two days until numerous extremely brave actual soldiers went in under fire and by stealth to find and retrieve her unharmed from an Iraqi hospital. Fortunately, the buffoon "girls" from Congress didn't succeed in soiling our military awards system by actually getting "honors" for the excess baggage-girl riding on a supply truck (when all she expected to get by joining the U.S. Army was an easy job-pension in the states busily shining her shoes).

Honors from government are cheapened when those responsible pander rather than lead. But then again, "It's Tough Out Here for a Pimp."

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-07-25 8:44:01 AM


Very few folks actually join the Army, to be soldiers. If you surveyed a sample of a hundred, most will say they joined for the benefits. And, when you go to the recruiting offices, that is what they sell. So, just because a female soldier may have joined for the booty, does not mean she is lower than any other soldier.

Yet your point was, that she got a medal when perhaps she was undeserving. That is another point.

I once saw a person get a medal for being the longest standing Pte. Makes Pte passed out in a truck whatever, look like a real hero. And the person who nominated the fool was? Oh, a real Liberal!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-25 9:17:08 AM

Lady -

I've been there and know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-07-25 9:54:28 AM


(1) Let me know if a REAL newspaper prints something about her, k?

(2) Should we take your criticism seriously if you can't even spell her name correctly?

(3) Can you call it a "paper" if it only publishes online? I thought that was the definition of a vanity blog.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-07-25 2:42:45 PM

Jack Macleod: Most Maritimers support Stephen Harper? Sure hope your right, time will tell but can't be sure at this point. Electing Liberals no matter what has been the rule in Atlantic Canada, such exception to that rule will be a sea change for sure. Harper is a breath of fresh air and surely the people of the Maritimes are aware of his decency and sincerity. The Liberals should be a tough sell to anyone paying attention for the past decade. Harper is a leader who says what he means and acts on it, we can only benefit from such leadership.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-07-25 2:50:15 PM

Is this really surprising? Has anyone actually taken the Order of Canada seriously for the last 30 years?

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-07-25 8:06:25 PM

What are you complaining about?

Landsberg's greatest failing was a complete inability to recognize that the folks who disagreed with her might have arrived at their views honestly, and merely possessed a different take on how to make the world a better place to live.

She sounds like your kind of gal...

Posted by: Devin Maxwell | 2006-07-26 9:24:08 AM


I do not doubt that you know what you are talking about.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-26 10:23:03 AM

Liz J, you might want to improve your knowledge of electoral history. In the elections before McKay sold out to the Reform Party, the PROGRESSIVE Conservatives actually captured several seats in the Maritimes.

Given their priorities on social assistance programmes and compassionate governing, it's unlikely you will see too many seats going to the Conservatives in the near future.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-26 10:59:42 AM


Ahah! You are a gliberal! What typical false nonsense you utter!

The Reform Party was not even in existence when Peter McKay made that difficult choice, to permit the members of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the choice to make up their minds, for themselves, whether to unit or not. Peter McKay sacrificed his own ambitions to lead the PCs, and also to lead the new Conservative Party of Canada, for the sake of the best interests of Canada and the free world.

And, the decision to permit the people to choose for themselves is what we call democracy!

The current platform of the Conservative Party of Canada includes the democratically determined position of the membership, including both of the original parties. And neither party exists anymore! There is only one Conservative Party of Canada, and I thank the almighty for that!

If we had things your way, there would be no single Conservative Party, as you would have relished in the pleasure of the continuation of the division of the people of Canada, who hold the majority viewpoint, that a job and self-sufficiency is better than welfare any day of the week, any week of any month, and any month of any year!

And you bring misinformation into the debate.

Although Conservatives believe that a job is the single best social program out there, social assistance, and being the compassionate Conservative, and enabling people to participate fully, in our society, remain the stallworth principles of any true Conservative and Canadian. Fear mongering has been the principle through which gliberals have cowed Canadians! And fear mongering has been the way the NDP have cowed Canadians. I do not believe for one second that Maritimers would prefer to choose the welfare lines, over good honest work and the benefits of a days pay, a weeks pay, a months pay, and a years pay! In case you have not noticed, that means more money and ability to support ones family, than could ever be available in the welfare line! Plus, with the added benefit, of holding your head up high, with pride!

You should try it! It really feels great!

Meanwhile, stop stuffing Maritimers down, into a unemployment box, that they would not even choose for themselves! MAritimers, just like anyone else, are entitled to all the economic benefits as are any other country. And Conservative principled government, is the only way they are going to realize that!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-26 1:01:24 PM

Lady, the Canadian Alliance was the Reform Party. They just kept changing names with little success. Then Peter McKay, after striking deals within the PC NOT to "unite the right" (because it was really the more centre-right PC's with the extreme right CA), did so anyway. Time that with the Sponsorship scandal and the tired Paul Martin, and you have a Conservative minority government.

I voted for Harper as a breath of fresh air (while I held my breath that he wouldn't be a Bush Jr). Well, with his recent foreign policy musings, he has shown himself to be a discount, small-time Bushie (which makes the ultra-rights on this blog spasm with delight).

Well, he has cost himself any chance of a majority. He had NO seats in the three biggest cities in Canada - his hawkish foreign policy ain't gonna bring him any success in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (I live in Toronto, so I know). He made great strides in Quebec that got him the minority government. Well, Quebec is the only province where a majority of people have disagreed with his handling of the current Middle East situation (especially his "measured" comment and his lack of feeling about the children from Montreal that died).

So, I don't think we'll see a Conservative majority anytime soon. They might just pull off another minority, but that will be seen as a failure in Conservative circles. He was supposed to get a majority last time, but too many pepole were spooked by him - a fear of just the sort of viewpoints we're seeing now.

Posted by: Geoff H | 2006-07-26 1:16:48 PM


I do not believe that the majority of Canadians disagree with PM Harper's position on the Middle East.

The record will show, that he responded to the crisis, by getting the Canadians out, who wanted to leave.

And, I believe the majority of folks want nothing to do with terrorists and their causes, in spite of the so called neutral position, that you so wave around.

Canadians are not the terrorist supporting kind of people you claim we are.

Canadians are inclusive, but not to the point where we will go as far as including groups that are terrorists.

Even gliberals understand that point, even though it takes them a lot longer to get to that point.

And, Quebecers, although they might be less informed on the whole, they do not tolerate terrorists.

Some Quebecers have had first hand experience with terrorist attacks, and the scars to prove it. Plus, terror, when it struck Quebec, was wiped off the face of the map quicker than they could say, "Je me souviens".

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-26 6:27:04 PM

I've looked quickly through this thread and don't think that anyone has mentioned that Michelle Landsberg, aside from being Avi Lewis' mom (he of CBC/counter spin "fame" and husband of author and activist Naomi Klein), is also the wife of Stephen Lewis, U.N. Special Envoy and AIDS activist.

MS. LANDSBERG, being a dyed in the wool feminist, would chastise me for linking her with her husband (shame on me!) but facts are facts: Michelle Landsberg is married to Stephen Lewis.

So nepotism rears its ugly head again in the La-La-down-the-rabbit-hole-land Canada has become (but with the election of PMSH and the CPC is slowly returning to something resembling a real country).

Like the Queen of Hearts, Michelle Landsberg's battle cry to anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with her left/lib/fem views is "Off with their heads!"

Posted by: new kid on the block | 2006-07-26 7:47:22 PM

You said "Naomi Klein".

I have nothing to say about her, who she married, or her mother-in-law.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-27 2:16:01 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.