Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Star Letter | Main | Supreme Court on child rape »

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Krieber and 'terrorism'

The news, that Janine Krieber, wife of Stephane Dion, suggested that pro-choicers might turn to terrorism if C-484 is passed, is starting to spread.

While most national media seem surprisingly disinterested in Krieber's declarations, which I first disclosed here on The Shotgun last week, the Toronto Star's Antonia Zerbisias has now picked up the story.

Interestingly, Zerbisias is bending over backwards not to leap to any conclusions. One suspects that she would not be so prudent if, for example, a wife of a conservative politician had suggested that pro-lifers would turn to terrorism if pro-abortion legistion were to be passed.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 25, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Krieber and 'terrorism':


Glad she realizes terrorism is a problem, but the left always likes to chastise the right for 'fear mongering' on so many issues. What is this?

Posted by: Sounder | 2008-06-25 1:20:30 PM

Again Terry you have nailed it way ahead of the rest of Canada and the MSM. Strange how one politician's wife can make a comment that there could be terrorist activities because of parliament is considering a private members bill and no one even bats an eyelash. Had the tables been reversed and Stockwell Day's wife said something equally inane, they would have been tearing their hair out to get a resignation.

But No this is about abortion again and Stephane Dion's wife is aligned with the Pro-abortion crowd. She gets a free pass. Mr. Bernier loses his job because he brings a tart to the swearing in ceremony and left some still unknown papers at their little lovenest. Mrs. Dion predicts terror on the streets and Stephane hears not a peep from the MSM. I guess no one really gives a SHIFT. (Green or any other colour)

Posted by: Servant | 2008-06-25 2:02:11 PM

Well done Terry! That's "GOTCHA!" at it's best! You used a news story from a small town rinky-dink newspaper and an article written by someone who usually writes about the openings of vegetable gardens, house fires, local tourism, and hospital openings. She tells us that "Janine Krieber says the next potential domestic terrorism threat is the abortion issue" but does not bother to actually quote either the question asked or the answer given to back up this startling sounding claim. You also ignore the fact that Krieber, according to quotes actually given, clearly defines "terrorism" by its real meaning, which need not involve violence at all.

Then, when she says she mentioned abortion because of a recent demonstration you assume (and you know what happens when one assumes) that she must have meant that she thinks the demonstrators or likeminded people would be the source of the terrorism, even though nothing she says suggests this. The demonstration simply is a reminder that abortion is an issue that people feel very passionately about on both sides and in the past has lead to demonstrations by both sides that often can be quite nasty when the two sides appear together. These demonstrations, if they become more common, can certainly be seen as an example of "social dividing".

So what she actually said, so far as we are told at all, is rather un-spectacular. But for a local reporter tired of talking about "a community potluck that drew about 20 people" it could be the ticket to the big time. All you need is a GOTCHA! opportunist to pick up your column. That's where you come in, Terry. Job well done!

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-06-25 2:40:56 PM

Well done FC! That's "GOTCHA!" at it's best! You used a blog story from a now-defunct rinky-dink magazine. You tell us that Terry O'Neill ignores the fact that Krieber clearly defines "terrorism" by its real meaning yet you do not bother to actually show where Terry dismisses these quotes rather than overlooks them.

You also promote the fact that Terry assumes (and you know what happens when one assumes) that she must have meant that she thinks the demonstrators or likeminded people would be the source of the terrorism, even though nothing she says suggests this.

FC, dude, get a grip and stop jumping to conclusions about bloggers intentions!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-25 7:31:58 PM


LOL!!! I just want to thank you for your comment here because it won me a $10 bet. I bet that you would post a reply in this thread that copied my text in an attempt to play the "same to you, bub" game and sure enough, you came by to oblige! It was a pretty safe bet, though. One trick ponies can always be counted on to perform their one trick again and again and again....

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-06-25 7:45:02 PM


I'm glad you "claim" to win that bet. However, that doesn't change the fact that I did to you precisely what you did to Terry and you are unable to defend yourself.

Hyperbole uber alles!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-25 7:51:30 PM

What's wrong? Are you pissed that I successfully mimicked your rhetorical style or that I questioned your "claim" that you actually bet/won $10 bucks with anyone.

Do you realize that it's impossible to verify or prove such a claim? So why bother mentioning something so inane? Insecurity, I reckon.

Now, please stick to provable assertions rather than ASSUMING what Terry was asserting with respect to this issue.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-25 8:12:20 PM

Zerbisias babbles: "Maybe this is one reason feminists should be glad for the U.S. ''War on Terror.'' It appears to have had a mitigating effect on violence against abortion providers." Thoughts like this, connections between completely unrelated things, is either mental illness or dishonestly pushing an agenda.

Posted by: abcd | 2008-06-26 8:10:08 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.