Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Steyn nails it | Main | A media heritage moment »

Friday, November 17, 2006

Liberal Double Standard?

Where is Belinda, and the federal Liberal Party, the great defenders of women's honour?

"If he doesn’t hear from federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose by week’s end, Liberal MP Mark Eyking says he’ll "corner her to see what the department is doing" about an environmental assessment at a Point Aconi strip mine site." (emphasis mine)

Near as I figure, that comment could be seen as exceptionally threatening to a woman, let alone a federal minister. It could also be framed as misogynist.

In light of Rovergate, where are the women's rights groups screaming about the phallocentric system of politics we have in this country and that a comment made like that is a threat to all women? Where is Belinda and the Liberal Party decrying that this is another example of why women won't enter politics?

Or is this another example of she's not on the left, and she's the enemy so we'll let this one slide?

Seems to me that there is double standard on what is acceptable behavior towards women by "progressives". If it's being done to a Conservative (or if you live under the Taliban regime) then evidently it's OK to treat some women by a different standard.

Posted by Mike The Greek on November 17, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberal Double Standard?:


It looks like you're reaching there Mike.

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-11-17 6:50:29 AM

Very good point Mike, I felt a slight jolt of adrenaline when I read that "corner her" quote in the news, it's a clear statement of intent to physically dominate her, interfere with her physically. Rona Ambrose should get a legal restraining order against this creep.

Posted by: anon | 2006-11-17 6:56:03 AM

There is no questioning the clear double standard that is applied to Conservatives verses Liberals, but aren't you over reacting just a little in this case?

Watching Ambrose I get the feeling she can look after herself.

Just more oral flatulence from another angry, shrieking, "caring" Lib.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-17 7:39:51 AM


Reaching? Like the two weeks of press over the "dog" comment... Or how about Goodale's assertion that McKay was unsuitable to promote women's rights in Afghanistan? That's not reaching?

I am pointing out that a) the MSM picks the stories it finds offensive, and promotes those same stories depending on the side (this item has been largely ignored by the predominantly left wing media), b) even contrite issues can create a firestorm in the silliness that is Canadian politics and c) there is a different standard for some in politics than for others.

And finally, ask a women who has ever been "cornered" by a male and ask her if it isn't, at best, extremely disconcerting.

Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-11-17 7:47:42 AM

Eyking is playing politics Cape Breton Style. The proposed surface mine at Point Aconi is very controversial and opposed by many residents of Victoria County and Sydney. If Eyking was a little
smarter he would know the proposed Project is currently under review by both Federal and N.S Provincial environment officials. In any evet surface mining is not appropriate in Cape Breton
but if the project goes ahead doubtless the local Cape Breton company will seek aid from ACOA who are forbidden to respond until after the completion of a full environmental assessment. Ambrose as Environment Minister is impressive despite the MSM, whose knowledge of environmental issues can be enscribed on the head of a metric size pin. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-17 8:00:58 AM

Come on Mike. Yes there is a giant media double standard, and I'm generally one of the harshest critics of media bias in the MSM but you are really reaching if you are extending it to this. "Corner her" is nothing more than an expression. A harmless expression.

Posted by: john g | 2006-11-17 8:01:49 AM

Agreed ":a harmless expression" Cape Bretoners have lots of "harmless expressions", like "I'm voting Liberal because my great grandfather was a Liberal"
or "Let's elect Rodney the Fiddler Premier" and watch what happens" Eyking probably meant to use the word "confront" but got carried away. No one ever said this guy was smart. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-17 8:16:21 AM

Mike, you're right when you say "Seems to me that there is [a] double standard on what is acceptable behavior towards women by 'progressives.'"

You're darned right there's a double standard. If you are not a "progressive" woman, meaning you're probably pro-life, pro-family (very possibly staying home with your children), pro-marriage, pro-men, etc., the so-called "progressives" feel that it is entirely OK to treat you like s**t. I've been treated like this so many times, that it has ceased to amaze me but it never ceases to enrage me.

Liberals are such two-faced hypocrites. They are so entitled that they have lost the ability to in any way be objective about their behaviour. When it's pointed out to them, they simply can't grasp it. If you don't think like them or live like them--or lie like them, all in the name of equality, openness, tolerance, multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights, environmental sensitivity, and diversity--you deserve every slur in the book because you're just not...like them. You're not with it.

The reason for their behaviour, of course (Emperor's new clothes, anyone?), is that l/Liberals are not open, or tolerant, or genuinely for diversity or equality. These are just buzz words to forward their sleazy, money-grabbing policies and to make sure that the government is in your face (and usually in your bedroom, too) at all times.

All the Librano$ have to say is that things in Canada aren't diverse enough, tolerant and open enough, or gay-/fem-friendly enough in order to slap on another tax in order to steal more money from the Trudopey-zombified Canadian dupes...er, I mean, public. More social programs, all run by the government, will fix things up.

Yeah, right.

C/conservative women need not expect any respect in politics, in the MSM, in academia, in feminist enclaves, or anywhere else in Canada--despite the constant l/Liberal/NDP quacking about "equality for women." Only certain women are equal.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-17 8:25:06 AM

john g,

And the simple comment "you have her" wasn't anything more than an expression?

I agree that this was a silly remark, but then again had the Rovergate thing not happened, I like most of you would have ignored it.

But left-wing media and advocacy groups rely on the right wing's complacency on most issues. As a said, the comment could be taken in a number of ways.

Ask a secure, confident, successful man or woman what the comments means, and it will be shrugged off. Ask a battered woman, and a left winger with an agenda what it means, and it is a totally different story.

Sure it's picking fly shit out of pepper, but don't focus on this particular argument... Focus on what has really become of speech in this country.

Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-11-17 8:26:09 AM

It seems to me that anyone who would cry foul about being cornered would not make it in politics regardless of gender. Perhaps I just don't fully understand the trouble with being cornered since I have a survivor instead of a victim mentality. -- John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-11-17 8:37:25 AM

Mike The Greek said:

"Sure its like picking fly shit out of pepper"

Which pretty much sums-up Canadian politics in general.

The Libs are as busy as a prick in a whore house trying to find 'the' issue with this government. There unprincipled selfishness is astounding. Perhaps they might try working with the government to move the nation forward for a pleseant change.

Posted by: missing link | 2006-11-17 8:44:04 AM

"Corner her"? Even the WS crowd isn't buying this one. "Reaching"? More like making an ass of himself ... again! Be careful Mike of Ezra might just give you the tap on the shoulder.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-17 8:52:47 AM


Once again, as per usual, your "mile wide-inch deep" thought processes prevail.

If you don't like what I comment on, I know I am on the right track...


Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-11-17 9:04:58 AM

Mikey ... Ticanias dude,

To "corner" someone, simply means to be aggressive in getting their attention. This is not a misogynist or anti female thing to do.

If Women want to piss with the big dogs, they will have to deal with an occasional cornering.

It's just part of the game.

You are reaching with this one. Makes us look over sensitive like the Lefties and their pals the Muslims. Rona is tougher than that.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-17 9:23:55 AM

Et tu, Duke... et tu? lol

Yia sou...!

Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-11-17 9:27:14 AM

Sorry Mike,

We share heritage, and I agree with you on pretty much everything, but my take on the abuse Rona is getting from the one-worlders and other idiots is good training for her.

I think she will be around for a long time. And I love her hair. I think she is tough and smart unlike her detractors.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-17 9:44:01 AM

HUH? Duke and I AGREE on something? Either that is confirmation that Greco-Mike-o has really lost it or it is a sign of the apocalypse. Poor Mikey!

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-17 9:45:02 AM

Context Mike...context.

You can't compare what Mackay did (or didn't) say to this incident. "Corner her" is nothing more than expression meaning to have a face to face chat, possibly with someone who is trying to avoid meeting with you. That's it. There is nothing threatening (at least in the male/female context you are suggesting) about Eyking's comment.

Don't get me wrong, I agree completely with the state of affairs; I just think you're way over the top with this particular example. Focus on the more egregious examples.

Posted by: john g | 2006-11-17 9:46:34 AM

'been around the block'
Great Post ...and more so ...when it comes from the gut
We need more of you.

Posted by: Simon | 2006-11-17 10:43:23 AM

Mike's post is not a good example of effrontery though it does succeed in making the desired point, as all the comments accede.
There are so many thoughtful points made here but the truth of course is that Canadian Politics and specifically the left face is still in its adolesence and not showing much chance of growing up.

Posted by: Simon | 2006-11-17 10:59:00 AM

There is no doubt that there is a difference between the terms, "cornering somone", or "cornered" as in by a ferile animal, and "cornering a woman".

"Cornering a woman" specifically refers to the acts that rapists use, when a rapist performs sexual assault.

Anyone who cannot see that is trying to skirt the obvious.

Read the following, till you get to the term "cornering" and you will clearly see, that Liberals choose to skirt away from progressiveness, when it is not convenient for them.


So much for women's rights in the Liberal Party of Canada.

If I were Rona, I would refuse to have a meeting with that jerk, until be publically apologizes for his rude and clearly sexist statement and tone.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-11-17 11:01:20 AM

Thank you for your post Lady. You have changed my mind. If that is indeed how many women would take Eyking's comment, then it is indeed sexist. Such insensitive wording -- which is tantamount to a threat -- could indeed hinder women from entering politics much more than being called a name. Of course, Eyking can say what he pleases, but he has to be willing to take responsibility for the reaction when his words end up having a meaning other than that which he intended.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-11-17 12:15:41 PM

Tell you what, the Liberals CORNER the market on hypocrisy, it's there for all to hear on most issues they're ranting on about. The Environment is the latest cause du jour. Indian Affairs is another big yelp about which they did squat, all talk, no action. We won't count their death bed Kellowna Accord.

Rona Ambrose is a class act. The Opposition critics are going over the top. One only has to look at the NDP critic to be frightened by his wild eyed critique of Ambrose, it's starting to look close to personal hatred and he's definitely getting carried away. Eyking was just opposing, whether he knows what is another debate, he better be careful about using any figures of speech in today's climate.

The Liberals did nothing but sign a paper to give money to big polluters, now, it's an urgent matter for the Conservatives to act after only ten months in office. We have to be suspect the Liberals are playing to Quebec voters who love the big bucks they get in credits. The Blocheads are yelping every day and it may well be more about money than the Environment.

Hypocrisy reigns supreme in the Opposition benches.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-17 12:38:31 PM

Mr Reynolds,

You are most welcome.

And, may I add, that the standard is that men who use that term, "cornering a woman" are indeed NOT gentlemen, nor are they, in my mind, worthy to be called men, whatsoever, but appear more like cowards, who attempt to hide their issues behind coarse words.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-11-17 1:48:27 PM

Lady and Liz J,

I was hoping you would show up. Occassionally we men are a little aloof when it comes actions and how the female gender view actions or words. While "cornering" to men is a reason to fight, it has a much more sinister significance to women.

For all my detractors, yes they are just words. The words "Mein Kampf" are literally translated as "My Struggle". By themselves, they are not offensive at all, but put them in context of the title of Hitler's book, then the same words take on a much more menacing meaning. (Oh and for the moron Mark Logan, I am not equating the horrors of Mein Kampf to this situation. I am merely using an example of words and their meaning... so don't get your shorts in a knot... Did I mention that I think you're a moron? Oh, and Ezra hasn't tapped me on the shoulder...)

The Liberals have made it fair game to use any words in any context that they find offensive to beat on their opponents. We are right wingers think we're too smart or civilized to do the same. And that's what the progressives count on.

Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-11-17 2:23:32 PM

Well articulated!

As per the phrase'corner her'.
It's interpretation is completely dependent on context.That and the fact it was uttered by a liberal.

It reminds me of Mackay's comment'stick to your knitting'.The only real difference I see here is it was uttered by a conservative.This was all the MSM needed to know to shout'sexism'for a couple of weeks!

Nope,no media bias here!

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-11-17 2:37:11 PM

There are some excellent points made here so far.

Ambrose and Stronach are excellent examples of the double standard.

The same ones who decried the insult to Stronach thought nothing of the hair comments about Ambrose.

What is the difference? Only one. Ambrose is conservative and Stronach isn't.

Double standard.

I don't blame them. They've got the card - play it. Of course, the more you play a card the weaker your hand gets. Now you have moderate Canadians actually defending Mackay and Ambrose when they probably otherwise wouldn't have.

Posted by: Rob V | 2006-11-17 4:10:18 PM

For a conservative or right-winger...that is a stretch. However, as you said the following:

"But left-wing media and advocacy groups rely on the right wing's complacency on most issues. "

"The Liberals have made it fair game to use any words in any context that they find offensive to beat on their opponents. We are right wingers think we're too smart or civilized to do the same. And that's what the progressives count on."

And it is here that you are on solid ground. The Left wouldn't hesitate to use your example of "cornering" and the MSM would trumpet the "threatening behaviour" meme loudly and often.

I want to point out something. Snowy said (another time) the following in response to pointing out left-wing wrongs following similar right-wing discrepancies.:

"Why is it the right that seems to have to go back 20 odd years every time they fuck up to actually JUSTIFY their own indiscretion?"

The answer my friend lies in the right's humility and fair-mindedness as you have pointed. It's only when ours foibles are displayed will we point to the left's lack of same which gives them the perfect opportunity to trot out the above typical dismissal.

I don't know the answer. I don't want to wallow in the mud with them but at the same time it is inherently a defensive battle we fight with such pigs.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-17 5:12:36 PM

I went to the movies today and saw an ad from The World Wildlife Fund about "global warming". It portrayed wild weather like flooding, hurricanes and lots of rain, while people carried on as if it were not happening. The point was that we can't just pretend that "global warming" isn't happening. It was shameless, manipulative and rather pathetic, reinforcing my belief that it's all a hoax to separate us from our money with Kyoto.

Do these "climate change advocates" think we can be so easily mislead? Their evidence is weak, based on taking their word for what could happen, not what is or was happening. A few pictures followed by some words about a charming theory aren't enough to convince me that I should send my hard-earned money to some African dictator, or why Ontario's auto industry will be exempt from the same burdens. If the idea that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, etc are paid agents of the corporations wasn't too fantastic, then maybe they are willing dupes of the same. Pathetic.

Fortunately the movie was "Casino Royale", and it was superb. Highly recommended.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-11-17 5:42:24 PM


Ayn Rand said that in the battle between the honest and the dishonest person, the dishonest person always wins. She was right.

Honesty is sacred to the right. It is a line that few of us are willing to cross. It is a self-imposed boundary. On the flip side, the left (Libs and NDP) change direction constantly and truly believe that the means justify the end. They feel that they are so morally superior to the right that they will use anything available to them to ensure the right does not get in power. For them, its them saving us from ourselves. So lying is perfectly acceptable.

We right wingers constantly shoot ourselves in the foot.

Case in point - the income trust issue. The Conservatives absolutely did the right thing by cleaning up the Liberals mess. That situation, not addressed, would have one day had the RBC converting to an income trust. Had that happened, the left would have been all over the Conservatives to stop that terrible thing from happening (think of all the lost tax revenue and the loss of social program funding), even though it was a Liberal policy to begin with. They have no problem whatsoever playing both sides of the fence. And the MSM would have backed the Liberals ... again.

So what do the Conservative supporters do about Harper doing the right thing. The idiots cry about never supporting the Conservatives ever again. They trusted them and now they were betrayed. We hold this altruism to unsustainable levels and then shit on our own guys for doing the right thing. Meanwhile the left stand by laughing their asses off.

The problem with the right is we don't fight dirty. And the left and the media know that we're wimps. In order to beat the dishonest man, then you must become dishonest. In order to fight the Liberals and the NDP, you need to fight them in exactly the same way they fight you, and be better than them at it. The right needs to take the position of the left of the means justify the ends. If not, we will always be an interim party while the Liberals reconstruct themselves.

If the phrase "stick to your knitting" can be made to exact an apology from someone, so should the comment about "cornering" a woman.

And, as per usual, the right wingers here think the issue is too small to be even considered, while the left would have been over that like a dirty shirt.

It's time for the right to get their collective heads out of their asses and realize how to fight the left, rather than debate the merit of whether a topic is large or moral enough to debate.

With the exception of some of you and the ladies, the others totally missed the point and the tactic.

Sure its a chicken shit comment, but a) would the Libs have used it? (you bet your ass they would have) and b) we need to start learning how to play the same game against the left... If not we're destined to be the natural opposition as opposed to the natural ruling party.

Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-11-17 5:42:58 PM

Zebulon Pike wrote: I went to the movies today and saw an ad from The World Wildlife Fund about "global warming". “snip” It was shameless, manipulative and rather pathetic, reinforcing my belief that it's all a hoax to separate us from our money with Kyoto.

You said it was an ad. And the role of advertising is???

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-11-17 5:49:35 PM

I don't think I missed the point at all. I just don't have an answer. I wish I knew a way to keep our integrity and still win the battle.

I know you can at least respect my wish even if you can't necessarily agree with it. Something the left is incapable of, generally.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-17 5:50:20 PM


We all wish it could be that way, but it isn't... And that's what we eventually have to figure out.

I absolutely respect the man (or woman) that has an issue about maintaining their integrity.

But, as the Col. said "We build walls and on those walls are men who protect us with guns..." Someone has to do the dirty work....

Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-11-17 5:53:46 PM

NSZ: if "global warming" is supposed to be this dire threat to the world, then cheap fake advertising is not the way to recruit public support.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-11-17 5:54:50 PM

Zebulon Pike wrote: NSZ: if "global warming" is supposed to be this dire threat to the world, then cheap fake advertising is not the way to recruit public support.

I disagree. The reason why you have advertising is because it works.

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-11-17 6:05:12 PM

"But, as the Col. said "We build walls and on those walls are men who protect us with guns..." Someone has to do the dirty work...."

Agreed. And it is precisely those men with guns who do their best to keep their integrity despite very difficult decisions that I will trust once the dirty work is done.

The ones who do the dirty work for expendiency...I will not trust.

I can only rely on proxy character traits exhibited consistently to help me decide.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-17 6:08:24 PM

"You said it was an ad. And the role of advertising is???"

I thought your handle was NO "SPIN" ZONE. Are you advocating false advertising (if it is) as acceptable?

Isn't that spin?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-17 6:12:25 PM

h2o273kk9 wrote: Are you advocating false advertising (if it is) as acceptable?

Show me where I said false advertising was acceptable.

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-11-17 6:16:28 PM

Zebulon Pike wrote: "NSZ: if "global warming" is supposed to be this dire threat to the world, then CHEAP FAKE advertising is not the way to recruit public support."

"I DISAGREE. The reason why you have advertising is because it works."

"Show me where I said false advertising was acceptable."

I'm sure you didn't mean to support it but you left it as a possibility given the way you phrased your replies.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-17 6:20:18 PM

h2o273kk9 wrote: I'm sure you didn't mean to support it but you left it as a possibility given the way you phrased your replies.

Not a bad attempt at a Straw Man. I’ll be generous and give you a 5 on a scale of 1 - 10

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-11-17 6:38:30 PM

"I'm sure you didn't mean to support it ..."

"Not a bad attempt at a Straw Man. "

As I was being sincere in giving you the benefit of the doubt...I now retract it.

And I noticed that you have not, in fact, explicitly denied supporting false advertising in any form.

Do you support false advertising? Yes or no.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-17 6:56:20 PM

h2o273kk9 wroteAs I was being sincere in giving you the benefit of the doubt

And now an Appeal to Pity. Much too obvious. 4 out of 10 on this one.

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-11-17 7:20:53 PM

Mike, I guess we have our first example of a lack of integrity.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-17 7:30:01 PM

h2o273kk9 wrote: Mike, I guess we have our first example of a lack of integrity.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-11-17 7:51:05 PM

You still haven't answered the question? What other lesson should I draw?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-17 8:08:06 PM

The wheels of the God's grind exceeding slow ... and exceeding fine.

Sometimes we have to trust in God's promise, "Vengeance is mine." When you fight fire with fire, you usually get flamed yourself.

I am in awe at how Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to shoot back at his critics. There are so many things he could say or do to show what idiots they are, but he takes a few steps back, keeps his mouth shut, and aims his shots slowly and carefully. He's showing himself to be a canny tactitian, and he's spooking out the opposition and the MSM. He's an expert in practising "the doctrine of reserve," not an easy thing for a politician to do. But Harper's more than a politician; he's becoming a statesman.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-18 7:47:24 AM

Whoops: typo in last post: The wheels of the GODS grind exceeding slow ... and exceeding fine.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-18 7:48:57 AM


It appears Mr. Eyking’s statement has been taken way out of context and much absurd ado made about it.

Mr. Eyking was speaking on behalf of his extremely frustrated constituents including myself who have been given the royal run around on the Point Aconi strip mine for almost 2 years now. The proposed project is NOT under environmental assessment review by the federal government and that is the problem that Eyking is trying to get Ambrose to address.

For those who may be interested in the context of Mr. Eyking’s remarks before jumping to conclusions:

Under changes to the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Devco became subject to the act on June 11, 2006. Just hours before, on June 8th , Devco sold the Prince Mine at Point Aconi to Pioneer Coal, and the Donkin mine to Xstrata, but shush, judging from the lack of reporting they don’t want anyone outside Cape Breton to know.

Eyking is a farmer, his farm is not far from the area to be strip mined. He understands the problem and shares his constituents concerns.

Last week for example, his constituents reported that there is untreated acid mine drainage being discharged into the brook at the Prince Mine. The provincial government inspectors say they don’t know what the “orange percpitate” is and sent the information to Ambrose’s Environment Canada for comment.

Yesterday, November 17, as expected, the provincial Minister of Environment dismissed the formal appeals of his decision to issue Pioneer Coal a permit to strip mine Point Aconi, hence the timing of Eyking’s comment.

It is Eyking’s constituents who are demanding that he “corner” Ambrose and find out what her department is doing about it and it is to them he is speaking. And lest ye have any partisan delusions, Eyking’s nearby neighbour and Tory MLA for the area is also opposed to this strip mine and doing whatever he can to get them to listen to his concerned constituents and do a proper environmental assessment, as are Cape Breton’s NDP MLA’s and the area’s county councilors, and as did the Tory candidate for Eyking’s job in the last election. For more information see http://www.c-a-s-m.org

Posted by: brock | 2006-11-18 4:24:35 PM

Thank you for the additional information. From my perspective, it changes absolutely nothing as I never viewed the words he spoke as sinister anyway.

However, I think I speak for many here who believe that CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT is not a luxury that would similary be provided to conservatives had they uttered the same words in the same context.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-18 4:34:35 PM

Propaganda is propaganda no matter which side is doing the spin doctoring and twisting the meaning of words is an easy technique. If anyone is so narrow minded and thin skinned that they take offense at a Cape Bretoner saying “corner her” then they deserve all the criticism they can get imho. Apparently ceertain conservatives like to dish it out but can't take it.

Posted by: brock | 2006-11-19 10:08:04 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.