Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Is the bad international publicity reason enough to call off Canada's seal hunt? | Main | Poll shows majority believe the criminal offence of polygamy trumps freedom of religion »

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Poll shows 'in-and-out' scandal has hurt Tory credibility

Elections_can A Toronto Star / Angus Reid poll released today shows “the ongoing dispute between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party has had a negative effect on the current minority administration.”

58 percent of respondents think the so-called “in-and-out” scandal has damaged the credibility of the Conservative government. Here are the key findings:

KEY FINDINGS
» 58% think the dispute between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party has damaged the credibility of the Conservative government
» 47% say the Conservative Party won the 2006 federal election in a fair manner
» Respondents are almost evenly split on whether political parties should be allowed to channel funds for advertising from the national campaign to local campaigns
» 52% believe the Conservative government should not resign over this matter

Readers can learn more about this story by reading posts by Western Standard blogger and post-partisan pundit Gerry Nicholls here and here -- and Western Standard blogger Steve Janke here and here.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 26, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e551fd4b338833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Poll shows 'in-and-out' scandal has hurt Tory credibility:

Comments

The facts are not out so polls, schmoles, wait for the facts and in the meantime cut the crap.

The goddamned pollsters have no credibility doing polls on an issue that's not sorted and there is a court case ongoing as well.

Why ever would this be a legitimate topic to comment on? Get lost.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-26 4:32:11 PM


Why? Cause the mainly lefty media, mainly lefty everything, can't live thru one day without trying to discredit the Tories. They are so desperate to get this country back so they can finish it off.

Posted by: Sounder | 2008-04-26 5:04:23 PM


What a surprise, the Librano/media alliance along with loyal Libranos in EC run a smear campaign against the sitting government and then the inevitable and predictable polling that follows to see if any of the feces been thrown around has stuck. Of course this latest smear, to deflect attention away from Steve (the rocket) Dion and his criminal buddies will have little to absolutely no effect on public opinion. The Liberano/media alliance are truly pathetic if they think this kind of obvious smear is going to put them back in power.

Posted by: sean | 2008-04-26 8:27:26 PM


I agree with the law that companies and unions are not allowed to donate to political parties -- after all, they're legal entities and, unlike natural persons, are not allowed to vote, so they should not be allowed to influence the process by donating money either.

But I strongly disagree with spending limits. The money, freely handed over by party members and supporters, belongs to the party and thus becomes the party's private property. As owner of such private property, the party should be able to do with it as it pleased.

The spending limits should be removed from the law (but, apparently, even Elections Canada isn't too clear on the interpretation of the law, so why keep it on the books?).

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2008-04-26 9:18:04 PM


Coming from the Toronto Star the Conservatives could invent a cure for cancer and the star would trash them for it in some way.

Posted by: Rob C | 2008-04-26 9:49:08 PM


Well, duh.

The Toronto Star probably had the headline made up before the EC "raided" the CPC Headquarters with their search warrant. (Do you think any Star writers have contacts with the CBC?)

This is so predictable. The very publicly served search warrant was devised for just such a purpose: Get the public to view the CPC with distrust. And as the LPC and their flying monkeys in the media can't get the public to think this way because the CPC government is right on track and is actually GOVERNING Canada, they've been on a relentless mission to cast the CPC as "just as" corrupt as they are.

Add to this smelly scenario the fact that the EC had some 'splaining to do under oath the very next day and the smell is more than dead and rotting fish.

This is the smell of total corruption in league with collusion between the LPC and their lapdogs in the MSM and Elections Canada (so what that the head of Elections Canada was appointed by PMSH? The whole bureaucracy is crammed-full of Librano civil servant appointees).

Same-old, same-old. That's the thing about evil. It's totally uncreative and the same old crap all the time.

Fortunately, there are a lot of Canadians who DON'T read the TorStar. I know I don't.

Posted by: batb | 2008-04-27 7:05:30 AM


This Toronto Star "poll" a real example of where the adage "consider the source" applies.

Agree with Werner, there should be no limit as to what any private citizen can donate to their party of choice.
Big companies and Unions is another story, that's where the Liberals got the bulk of their funding, payola, palm greasing, whatever. Donate to the party and your company gets the job is how it worked.

It's not the little guy who kept Libranos in power it was ironically the one who portrayed himself as the Little guy from Shawinigan, he was the one who stole their thunder with this law. Now they're bankrupt, bankrupt in every sense of the word sadly, desperate too. Have to call in all their bureaucratic friends as well. The Liberal elves are hard at work madly seeking possible scandals to tar a Party they can't beat with honesty.
Talk about slime politics!

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-27 7:32:25 AM


Nothing like the sound of Tories whining to brighten up a Sunday morning.
Suck it up princesses - scrutiny come with power.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-27 9:48:02 AM


At least the Tories have some crediblity to lose, the Libs are starting with absolutely zero, if not about a -1000 rating.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-04-27 10:07:51 AM


What's really biting the Libs is they can't afford to run up a bar tab. Really tough when getting cozy with the hacks and hounds in the MSM can't include quenching thirsts with liquid lunches.

Judging from what they've been coming up with, they're pretty dry.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-27 12:27:25 PM


Right on, Liz J.

I'm no princess. I'm one hard-working, trying-to-pay-the-bills, Canadian who's had it up to "here" with the rank corruption of the Librano$ and their collusion with the MSM Flying Monkey Squad as they try to unseat a duly elected government by manufacturing a scandal of the week, which their lapdogs gladly spread.

I'm fed up with the Librano$' dirty tricks as they tinker with our democracy.

Posted by: batb | 2008-04-27 1:54:08 PM


Be very suspicious of polls, any poll that is. Unless one knows what questions were asked and how they were worded, they are misleading at the best and dishonest at the worst.

Second I say that no one actually informed of the facts here would respond as the poll claims.

So I see no significance in this "latest bit of news".

Posted by: Alain | 2008-04-27 4:04:58 PM


The Toronto Star pols mostly it's own choir so the results are suspect from the get go.

I seriously doubt that an extra million of advertising won the last election for the CPC. It was that lunatic idiot Marting who lost it with help of a bunch of condescending liberal election advisers.

Beer and Popcorn?
Soldiers with guns in our streets?
Olivia Chow is a dog?
Harper looks like a scary wolf with an agenda?

Those toss outs were worth a million each in Tory advertising.

I mean really!

Posted by: John V | 2008-04-27 4:08:23 PM


I must admit I'm not a princess either, 'batb but an ordinary budget juggler.

If anyone had the stomach to watch Giggles Taber and Owl Oliver today, what a barf out. Anyone who thinks they haven't got the knives out for Harper and the Conservatives is out of touch with reality.

Last guests were Greg Weston and a Toronto Star guy, name escapes, same line, stacked deck ending to their Liberal love-in show.
Weston must be feeling the symptoms of dehydration, certainly not making any reasonable comments. He hasn't gotten over not being invited to one of Harper's events with the Media. It's called vengeance gone amok and very childish.

Really, how much longer must we endure this vendetta?

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-27 4:30:07 PM


It's eternal Liz.

Posted by: John V | 2008-04-27 5:02:51 PM


Please. Elections Canada has been feuding with the Conservatives completely unrelated reasons for two years, as Marc Mayrand tries to consolidate his power. This entire affair reeks of payback for the public humiliation Mayrand suffered at Harper's hands when the former refused to comply with new legislation requiring Islamic women to doff their veils while voting. There's also the fact that the $1 million in question is actually money Elections Canada is supposed to reimburse the Tories for, so they've a financial as well as a personal motive for not doing so.

As for the public's reaction--you've heard of Bush Derangement Syndrome? Meet "Shrub" Derangement Syndrome. Stay tuned for claims that Harper "stole" (or rather "bought") the election, claims of "invalidity," and so on. The Conservatives won a minority government because the Liberals at that time were virtually unelectable, and it is to Toronto's eternal shame that they did as well as they did. You really have to wonder just how bad the Grits would have to get before the 905 belt stopped voting for them.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-27 8:28:24 PM


Face it, CON supporters - Harper and the CON party got caught BREAKING THE LAW. And they got caught. Not only that, they implicated 67 CON candidates and their campaigns in their Ponzi scheme.

Have you all gone 'soft on crime' suddenly? Some of your people are going to jail. There are CON MPs in the House that will have to resign. It's up to you to throw them over the side, or they will drag all of you down with them down to two-seat territory.

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-04-28 3:13:38 AM


batb sez: "I'm no princess. I'm one hard-working, trying-to-pay-the-bills, Canadian who's had it up to "here" with the rank corruption of the Librano$ and their collusion with the MSM Flying Monkey Squad as they try to unseat a duly elected government by manufacturing a scandal of the week, which their lapdogs gladly spread.

I'm fed up with the Librano$' dirty tricks as they tinker with our democracy."

Tell me which 'Librano' thought up the scam? Which one hired Retail Media? Which one called the ridings telling them to scam Elections Canada?
Which one appointed the heads of Elections Canada?

If you agree with the Harper line, feel free to pay the $600,000 your CONs want from the Canadian taxpayer, 'cause they're not going to get it from anyone else.

This is a TORY scam, and they got caught.

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-04-28 3:21:02 AM


What scam?
Seems to me taking the matter to court is a pretty open and above board action by the Conservatives. They feel they've done nothing wrong and obviously feel they can prove it.

When a few Liberal "Joe Blows" blow out around the Country in search of the over $40 million gone into thin air after being sprung from TAXPAYERS dollars by Chretien's administration, we'll talk about scams and schemes. Liberals wrote the manual on how to con the electorate.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-28 5:12:33 AM


joe bleau: Thanks for re-posting my comment: a satisfying blush to see my well-considered thoughts thus displayed.

I'll say it a third time: I'm angry as He** about the Librano almost 40-year rampage, trashing traditions and realities that actually work--such as intact, two-parent families, in which children do far better and are far less likely to be either abused or neglected. They've stolen over $40,000,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and many times broken election rules: Did EC ever haul them up on the carpet?

Are you kidding? The officials, no doubt Librano appointees, probably party with Librano top brass. The Librano$ got a pass on that one, like so many other things.

Do the indiscretions of the Librano$ get splashed across the front pages of our newspapers and talked about ad-nauseum on Newman's "the brawwwwdcast"? Nope. The Librano gaffs and worse are hidden on page 15, are defended by the Librano-friendly "political pundits" on the telly, or just aren't mentioned at all.

If not for Blogging Tories a whole lot of the Librano guana would be unknown.

As for the PMSH appointing "the heads" of EC, how many Librano-appointed pen and paper pushers at EC does this "head" have to deal with? I suspect that most of the EC positions are staffed by Librano-friendly, CPC-negative employees.

With any luck, this too will pass. But it stinks to high heaven, and nothing you can say, joe bleau, is going to change that.

Posted by: batb | 2008-04-28 5:23:47 AM


Joe Bleau wrote: “Face it, CON supporters - Harper and the CON party got caught BREAKING THE LAW. And they got caught. Not only that, they implicated 67 CON candidates and their campaigns in their Ponzi scheme.”

Excuse me, Joe Blow, but they haven’t necessarily been “caught” doing anything. They’re under investigation by a biased “non-partisan” committee who served a dramatic, sweeping warrant far out of proportion to the supposed violation in front of a gleeful media who just “happened” to be there. The Elections Canada chief was answering hard questions under oath the very next day. Face it, Blow—this whole thing stinks.

Joe Bleau wrote: “Have you all gone 'soft on crime' suddenly? Some of your people are going to jail. There are CON MPs in the House that will have to resign. It's up to you to throw them over the side, or they will drag all of you down with them down to two-seat territory.”

How many people went to jail for the sponsorship scandal, Blow? That was a way bigger crime than the Conservatives are supposed to have committed. And there’s that gun registry that had an overrun of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERCENT; how many people went to jail for that? Get a grip, already.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 7:19:33 AM


Yes Shane , if the Liberals had to be summed up in one phrase it would be ' lack of proportionality'. It is the new tool of the communist left wielded by a propagandizing ,elitist media .

Posted by: daveh | 2008-04-28 7:54:31 AM


daveh,

You left out incredibly corrupt.

We have reached the point (have for some time now) on both sides of the border, in which we are watching these corrupt leftist goliaths set political agendas, and try to install their communist/fascist vision through outright lies, innuendo, the re-writing of history, anything at their disposal.

Although most clear thinking people see through these people (more all the time), it is amazing to see how many people lap up their communist pablum, particularly here in Canada and take these fascists at their word.

Frightening really.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-04-28 8:13:53 AM


Of course the Liberals know they have many friends and supporters in EC. Why would they be so sure of the outcome and be taking an accusatory stand against the Conservatives without due process?

We must demand all parties be investigated.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-28 8:45:11 AM


On WABC New York, I heard a NYU professor say, after a long study of the descriptive language of the Left and the Right, that the Right thinks the Left is stupid, and the Left thinks the Right is evil. Left and Right doesn't apply in Canada as much as the USA, because we have other parties. We don't have to vote Yes or No, we can vote Maybe.

Posted by: larry Price | 2008-04-28 1:02:42 PM


Actually, Larry, the U.S. also has other parties. In the U.S. Congress there are currently two independents. It's true that none of the "other" parties usually take any seats, but for all its ability to grab a dozen or so seats, the Canadian federal NDP has never been elected either. The Green Party has never won a single seat but regularly makes the news.

For the record, the NYU professor is right--Right-wingers generally see Leftists (apart from radicals) as well-intentioned but naive, whereas the Left affords no such charity to the Right--the depth of liberal hatred for conservatives is truly stunning, considering how far evolved from the medieval wars of religion they're supposed to be. Witness the difference in the opposing protests between the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. And liberal behaviour after Dubya won his second term was little short of psychotic.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 1:51:19 PM


Shane wrote:

"For the record, the NYU professor is right--Right-wingers generally see Leftists (apart from radicals) as well-intentioned but naive, whereas the Left affords no such charity to the Right"

"As I have said before, leftism is AIDS for civilization"
- Adam Yoshida

"Toronto is nothing more than a cesspit of Left-Wing Socialists"
- Gerry

"I know you leftie whacko freaks think they have it coming anyway and don't want to bothered by facts..."

"This is what happens when you panty wearing lefties..."
- deepblue

Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with the main thread, but I couldn't resist.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-28 2:23:55 PM


Couldn't resist doing what, Angela? Apart from demonstrating your ability to cut and paste, you haven't really done anything. Now, if you had rebutted the above statements, that would have been something. But simply cherry-picking quotes and then raising an eyebrow or thrusting your hands on your hips (neither of which translate very well through the medium of the blog) isn't really doing anything.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 3:08:45 PM


I thought it was the lefties who were supposed to have no sense of humour, Shane.

You stated that the Right, while disagreeing with the Left, only sees them as "as well-intentioned but naive", whereas the Left harbours an irrational psychotic hatred for the Right. It took me all of two minutes to find immature, hateful statements uttered by the Right against the Left on this blog. Obviously this can't be generalized to all Right-wingers. Similarly, you shouldn't make sweeping statements about "the Left" with nothing to back it up.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-28 3:21:15 PM


I have a great sense of humour, Angela...it generally comes into play when someone says or does something funny. :-) Funny usually means unexpected; it is the surprise twist of a situation that tickles the humour.

I am fully aware that there are examples of hate on both sides of the fence. But seriously, let's talk relative numbers here. Who do you see in greater numbers, marching in the streets, manning the barricades, burning people in effigy, trashing frankenfood labs, spiking trees, sabotaging industrial equipment, overturning cars, shattering windows, charging police lines while sporting balaclavas like terrorists? When Bill Clinton appeared poised to win in 1992, did we see anything like the Left-wing, Michael-Moore-led freakfest that predated Dubya's second win 12 years later, or the vast collective mourning that came after?

Place those two sides impartially on the scales and I think you'll find one side hits the counter with a resounding thud. And a hint: It won't be the Right-wing side. But then, you knew that already. So why are you making a show of pretending you didn't? Anything for an argument?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 3:38:38 PM


Shane,
to make a few points,
has marching in the streets been declared a crime,
Half a million people marched in the street to pprotest the Iraq war. The reasons they marched was to protest the killing of huge amounts of people which seems to be the truth of the matter.
There are right wing and left wing barricades.
There are some effigies they would rather burn in person.

Posted by: patraig | 2008-04-28 7:01:02 PM


As for Labs, trees, and bulldozers left wing tries to stop an action. Right wing dictators take the opposition and throws them out of an airplane at 4000 feet over the ocean. As for charging police lines in balaclavas when a group of quiet protesters (retired folk] attend a protest police with bricks joined them to "infiltrate"
the group. They wanted to hurl rocks and charge the barricades until the wise older folk told them to take a hike. They were then sheepishly arrested by their comrades and someone dug until the story came out.
Clinton won on all fronts.
With florida the mockery of elections was on display. Can't see how you defend elections with a display like that. I fyou want to argue don't allow yourself to go blind.
Conservatives got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
But they did it after swearing a holy oath they would never do such a thing. Admire the party for their cunning but you can't for their honesty anymore.

Posted by: patraig | 2008-04-28 7:18:35 PM


Angela,
I hope you feel properly chastened. As you can see, Shane is quite confident that he has a great sense of humour -- indeed, a sense of humour without equal. Which is why he always laughs at his own jokes. That, and if he didn't, the silence would be unbearable.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-28 8:17:07 PM


Patraig, I never said marching in the streets was a crime, did I? I NEVER said that. Nor did I say that the Right wing never erects barricades. I said to look at the RELATIVE NUMBERS. Unless, of course, you're afraid of what such a dispassionate and objective survey might reveal.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 10:49:28 PM


Right on cue with the ad hominem, Truewest. Shouldn't you be over on the anti-HRC blog defending your buddies, the authors of Canada's latest auto-da-fe? Or are you following me about because you want my body?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 10:51:20 PM


Like I said, Angela, Shane has a GREAT sense of humour. And he's not at all thin-skinned.
Oh, did I mention that he has a gun? If I didn't, he almost certainly will, sooner or later, typically once he gets the sense that you're not treating his ill-informed blusterings with sufficient respect.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-28 11:02:55 PM


Patraig wrote: “As for Labs, trees, and bulldozers left wing tries to stop an action. Right wing dictators take the opposition and throws them out of an airplane at 4000 feet over the ocean.”

Again, Patraig, numbers. Both Left-wing and Right-wing DICTATORS do things like throwing them out of airplanes, and an impartial review of the 20th century demonstrates that the Left has considerably more blood on its hands than the right. If you count the Nazi socialists, the Russian socialists, the Chinese socialists, the Southeast Asian socialists, you’re probably pushing about 100 million people. No wonder their flag’s red. We were talking about CANADIAN CITIZENS. Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, and for the sixth time lame.

Patraig wrote: “As for charging police lines in balaclavas when a group of quiet protesters (retired folk] attend a protest police with bricks joined them to "infiltrate"the group. They wanted to hurl rocks and charge the barricades until the wise older folk told them to take a hike. They were then sheepishly arrested by their comrades and someone dug until the story came out.

What story, Patraig? You presented this “expose” in such a disjointed and haphazard fashion that it’s difficult to make any sense of it. Are you seriously arguing that every violent protestor is a police plant? Should we check the windows for flying saucers next? Hey, who wants to know who killed JFK?

Patraig wrote: “Clinton won on all fronts.”

He won by six million votes and five percent of the popular vote—hardly “on all fronts”—and it is doubtful he would have managed that had the Right-wing vote not been split by Ross Perot, who captured a surprising 20 million votes and 20 percent of PV. My point is that the Republicans took the loss with a lot more grace than Democrats took either of Dubya’s wins.

Patraig wrote: “With florida the mockery of elections was on display. Can't see how you defend elections with a display like that. I fyou want to argue don't allow yourself to go blind.”

Yes, complaining that black Floridians were disenfranchised because they were too stupid to read a ballot or operating a voting machine was indeed a dark, cynical display of political desperation. Every recount taken in Florida had the Republicans winning. Democrats wanted to keep going until they got ONE recount in their favour, at which time they would have declared themselves the victors and demanded an end to all further counting.

Patraig wrote: “Conservatives got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.”

Says a highly contentious and partisan Liberal appointee who has a history of putting his foot in Harper’s crotch for the fun of it. Harper clearly thought his legal position sufficiently clear to actually sue Elections Canada for the money, knowing everything would come out at the trial. But hey, it’s okay for Leftist protestors to break the law, right? After all, they’ve got a cause.

Patraig wrote: “But they did it after swearing a holy oath they would never do such a thing. Admire the party for their cunning but you can't for their honesty anymore.”

It has not been PROVEN that they did ANYTHING. All we know is that documents were seized in a staged raid to which the media had secretly been invited to maximize embarrassment for the government.

Do you even read this crap before you post it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 11:08:27 PM


Truewest von Troll wrote: "Like I said, Angela, Shane has a GREAT sense of humour. And he's not at all thin-skinned.
Oh, did I mention that he has a gun? If I didn't, he almost certainly will, sooner or later, typically once he gets the sense that you're not treating his ill-informed blusterings with sufficient respect."

Unlike you, who just follow me from blog to blog, stay long enough to administer an e-wedgie, maybe drop a note or two about your buddies the Inquisitors (They're not legally trained! Are too! Are not!), before crawling back under your rock to wait for the next opportunity. What a pitiful existence you must lead, if your entire presence has been reduced to an anti-. But then, that's the existence liberal Canadians prefer, isn't it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 11:11:31 PM


That Shane! Such a kidder! Facts? He don't need no stinkin' facts! Hell, Shane can turn a fact on its head if it suits his purpose.

Not only does he denounce Marc Mayrand as ``a highly contentious and partisan Liberal appointee who has a history of putting his foot in Harper’s crotch for the fun of it`` but suggests that this whole fuss arises because Mayrand ``refused to comply with new legislation requiring Islamic women to doff their veils while voting``

Now, most people who chose to set out those facts with such majesterial authority would take care to be sure they are correct. But not Shane! Facts and research are for lesser folks, folks without the magnificent sense of humour that Shane is famous for! (well, that and the guns. And that magnificent belly that rumbles like an earthquake when Shane types his posts - two at a time.)

Of course, unlike Shane, lesser folks would know that Marc Mayrand was appointed by Little Stevie Harper. And that he refused to enforce a ban on veils because, wait for it, the legislation didn`t actually ban veils, even by implication.

But those are mere facts, hardly a match for Shane`s great sense of humour, his guns and his magnificent stupendous unparalleled girth.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-28 11:35:57 PM


Shane: Take it from me, who's been around the block: Leave the trolls alone. Every time you feed them, they keep coming back. They end up hijacking the thread until there's no point in commenting any more.

Starve them.

Posted by: batb | 2008-04-29 5:23:30 AM


Shane,
Too bad you consider it "crap"
Here it is verbatim
QUEBEC - The Quebec provincial police acknowledged in a statement Thursday that their agents had infiltrated protesters demonstrating during the recent North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que. but denied that they acted as "agent provocateurs" to instigate violence
The video shows the three black-clad bandana-wearing men being singled out by union organizers and the crowd. Other protesters started pointing at them and crying "police."

One of the three men is seen shoving and swearing at Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union of Canada, who is angrily confronting the trio, demanding they put down the rocks, remove their bandanas, and identify themselves.

After being backed into a corner against a line of provincial police officers in riot gear, they try to force themselves through the police line and are arrested while the crowd cheers.

Please refrain from the attack mode and deal with fact. consider the implications here. Had the cops started a riot that got these people clubbed and tazered you would be the first to say they deserved it with their rabble rousing. You know the action taken against the instrument of the state?
Nothing. It might be crap to you but I find it deadly serious. How many other protests are the police throwing rocks? Can you tell me?

Posted by: patraig | 2008-04-29 5:30:31 AM


Here's the link in case you think it's a MSM plot
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=66de9807-d2f0-444e-903e-1c0ba64556de&k=39211

Posted by: patraig | 2008-04-29 5:34:48 AM


Patraig wrote: :”That Shane! Such a kidder! Facts? He don't need no stinkin' facts! Hell, Shane can turn a fact on its head if it suits his purpose.”

I get this from a guy who conveniently ignores facts or questions it would be embarrassing to address, clumsily offers “police plants” as the explanation for pretty much all violent protestors (after all, it would be stupid to even mention it if there were only one or two incidents and all the rest of the brick-throwers were bona fide anarchists), and struggles even for that.

Patraig wrote: “Facts and research are for lesser folks, folks without the magnificent sense of humour that Shane is famous for! (well, that and the guns. And that magnificent belly that rumbles like an earthquake…Of course, unlike Shane, lesser folks would know that Marc Mayrand was appointed by Little Stevie Harper. And that he refused to enforce a ban on veils because, wait for it, the legislation didn`t actually ban veils, even by implication.”

Posing now, TrueWest? Funny how bloggers are allowed to infiltrate under false names, but not cops. Boy, that ass is cute. Both points are conceded—I really should have done better. However, giving your stumbling attempts to justify violent protests and the way you completely bungled your agents-provocateurs example (you didn't even mention a time or place), you’re in no position to be crying foul.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-29 7:19:45 AM


Damn that Office clipboard!

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-29 7:28:31 AM


Patraig wrote: “The Quebec provincial police acknowledged in a statement Thursday that their agents had infiltrated protesters demonstrating during the recent North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que. but denied that they acted as "agent provocateurs" to instigate violence. The video shows the three black-clad bandana-wearing men being singled out by union organizers and the crowd. Other protesters started pointing at them and crying "police."”

So finally we get a half-intelligible quote—it only took a whole day of constant prodding to get it out of you. But how does a single incident explain all the violence perpetrated by Leftist protestors everywhere? The answer is, it doesn’t. This is a red herring, the lamest one I have ever seen.

Patraig wrote: “Pease refrain from the attack mode and deal with fact.”

The fact is that one example does not provide proof of a trend. The fact is that Leftist protestors are both more violent and far more numerous. A fact you have twisted yourself into knots trying to avoid having to admit. Sad.

Patraig wrote: “Consider the implications here. Had the cops started a riot that got these people clubbed and tazered you would be the first to say they deserved it with their rabble rousing. You know the action taken against the instrument of the state? Nothing. It might be crap to you but I find it deadly serious. How many other protests are the police throwing rocks? Can you tell me?”

I can tell you that at almost all other protests the police are NOT there throwing rocks. Really, Patraig, is this lamentable effort the best you can do? If ONE example of questionable ethics is enough for you to condemn an entire group, then we have enough dirt on Leftist protestors to put them away for the next nine hundred thousand years. Tell me, why should they be held to a lower standard of conduct?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-29 7:29:07 AM


Truewest, isn't your mother calling you? I'm not going to leave no matter how hard you try, and you're not adding anything at all to this discussion, so go crawl back under your rock. You're like a crazed, embittered Democrat after 2004 looking to take your fury out on anything Right. Right turns, right-handed scissors, whatever. It's sad. Notice how much more gracefully the Republicans took their 2006 loss of the House?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-29 7:31:55 AM


Yes, Batb, but eventually they get bored and move on. They have to change their diaper sometime.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-29 7:33:23 AM


Shane, not content with posting back-to-back posts, is now posting five posts at a time. And loathe as I am to break the string - go for six, Shane, go for six! -- I must do so to point out that Patraig and I have nothing - nada, rien, zero -- to do with one another. Barely even read his posts. And also to commend Shane for admitting he got the facts about the Election Canada business not just wrong, but completely ass backwards. Well, he didn't quite admit that much -- merely that he "should have done better" -- but hey, admitting that you have a chronic problem with inventing facts to suit your arguments is the first step to recovery. Next step, rehab!

Posted by: truewest | 2008-04-29 7:52:19 AM


Unlike you, Truewest, who still won't admit you were mistaken when you said initially that most HRC members had legal training. Once a little research proved you wrong, you shifted gears and tried to argue that legal training wasn't necessary, nor were standards of evidence or even regard for the truth. Guess that makes me a class act compared to you...

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-29 8:01:16 AM


Angela wrote: “As a supporter of gay rights I intuitively feel that this decision is right, but I can also see why this organization would think that they could not employ someone whose lifestyle contradicts their view of "Christian values" (of course, I don't agree with that, but that's a whole other topic).”

Gay rights does not automatically mean that gays can broach contracts with impunity, nor does it morally excuse them from signing contracts they know, or ought to know, they will not be able to honour. Faith-based organizations are generally staffed by people of the faith, or failing that, those who will at least abide by its restrictions. Why would anyone want to work for an organizations whose values are at odds with her own?

Angela wrote: “Shane - you seem to have been the one putting the most thought into this, so if you could explain your position a bit more to me, I'd really appreciate it. How, in your view, could the government continue to give millions of dollars in funding to an organization who is discriminating against employees based on an enumerated Charter ground? Is it a case of "freedom of religion" trumps equality? Are you thinking that this type of behavior is saved by section 1? Or are you one of the people who thinks that we should scrap the whole Charter?”

First of all, Angela, the preamble to the Charter recognizes “the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” So if you want to take a strictly legal interpretation, that inclusion puts a whole new wrinkle on all that follows, since the Scriptures of all three Abrahamic faiths who acknowledge God as their Deity have outlawed homosexuality from time immemorial. Don’t laugh—liberals have won court cases with far less. As for Section One, it is too vague to be of any value whatsoever—as the framers intended.

Angela wrote: “You also made a "bad faith" argument and implied that she had "lied" when she signed the employment contract. But really - in most employment situations you aren't even allowed to ask these kinds of questions. If the asking of the question was a violation of her rights, then the contract is void anyway. And besides, how exactly could she go about "proving" that she was not a lesbian before she started working there? You can't "prove" a negative.”

People don’t generally just “decide” to become lesbians. I do know that there is less evidence of a genetic link for lesbianism than there is for homosexuality, and that lesbianism is often a more intellectual choice tainted with a marked distaste for men (unlike homosexuals, who often get on with women just fine), but it’s not like an on/off switch. Barring the onset of some medical condition, this woman would have known her sexuality was at least ambiguous when she signed, which means she signed IN BAD FAITH. She had NO intention of honouring the contract, no matter which way the needle ended up pointing, which makes it, and therefore her employment, void. If you don’t agree with the contract, if you think it’s a violation of your rights, THEN DON’T SIGN IT.

As for “asking the question is a violation of her rights,” don’t make me laugh. If it is, so are the speech codes, sex codes, dress codes, and numerous other restrictions that permeate all careers from the boardroom to the university campus, whose usefulness and efficacy is at least as nebulous as the desire of Christians to maintain Christian ideals in their institutions.

And while we’re on the subject, the HRC’s recent assault on free speech is, in itself, an affront to the Charter. But then, free speech is, well, so AMERICAN.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-29 8:25:42 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.