Why on earth would any responsible news agency hire 'independent expert' analysis of tapes that could be evidence in a criminal investigation?
Why, when the analysis is completed, would that news agency release the results to the public as though the conclusions drawn were fact?
By now, you've all read or heard this (edited):
Experts say Grewal tapes were altered
Last Updated Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:00:47 EDT CBC News
Two audio experts have independently concluded that the secret recordings made by MP Gurmant Grewal were edited.
John Dooher, a forensic audio engineer hired by CBC News, said Thursday there is a "crude" edit and something "amiss" about a section of tapes made by the B.C. member of Parliament.
His conclusions are supported by Stevan Pausak, one of Canada's leading forensic-sound analysts. Pausak was asked by Canadian Press to carry out a similar examination. He said one of the tapes has an abnormal break, indicting (sic) a section may have been cut out.
The CBC does not indicate in their report that their experts weren't examining the original tapes, and the omission of that significant information, leads the reader to assume it is the originals which were examined. Canadian Press to their credit, notes (late in the piece) the Conservative statement of the same day, that the gaps were made in transfering the originals to CDs for use on the Internet.
More than being an oversight, CBCs exclusion of this detail in their initial reporting of this, is extremely prejudicial.
At the time of their news reports, the original tapes had been handed over to the RCMP, but there are no reports that the RCMP ever asked for the tapes. Questions abound as to why the Conservatives did not hand over the tapes from the beginning, but I wonder where was the initiative of the RCMP? Within days of the existence of these tapes being made public, the RCMP was formally asked by the Bloc and the NDP to launch an investigation. They were aware of the tapes, but never asked for them. Although the RCMP is now 'reviewing' the tapes, there is still no formal investigation.
Conjecture over the authenticity and integrity of the tapes is spin when it comes from the Liberals. It is expected that they will vigourously defend themselves. But when the CBC or Canadian Press reach beyond their scope as reporting agencies to begin acting as investigators -- prematurely drawing conclusions where none can credibly be drawn -- and announcing those conclusions as truth -- they cease to be reporters of news and become tools for the Liberal government.
This whole story about 'tape doctoring' began with Liberal accusations, and rather than let the RCMP do their job, two media outlets (with ties to the government) couldn't wait. Instead, they took it upon themselves to ascertain the 'truth' -- only it is not truth they have provided -- simply speculation, dressed up to look important.
With all the gnashing of teeth over the importance of waiting for the truth with Gomery -- one would wonder why these two agencies would jump the gun rather than waiting for the RCMP and/or the Ethics Commissioner to do their jobs.
I had always believed that journalists were in the business of reporting the news, not making it -- and certainly not making it up.
canadianna
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Thursday, June 02, 2005
The Tale of the (Mishandled) Tapes
The Conservatives dropped the ball on this one.
I don't believe the tapes were doctored, but the suspicion is out there and a lot of people have already started with the 'a-ha!s'.
Libs, who have been largely silent until now, are posting comments all over the place suggesting Harper and Grewal resign because of the 'disgrace' they have brought to the political process. And people who are not inclined to care about politics either way, just find this very boring or mildly amusing -- but the accusations of tape-tampering will linger in their psyches. Even when the Conservatives are cleared, it's like when a man is accused of rape and subsequently exhonerated -- there are people who will always believe he must have done it, but got off on a technicality.
The Conservatives have a lot to answer for with this -- not the 'alleged' doctoring (funny how they were 'alleged' transcripts, but no such modifier used by Libs today). They should be answering to their supporters for fumbling so badly.
The tapes should have been handed over immediately. Waiting may have allowed them to catch the news cycle as they saw fit, but it has obviously been a PR disaster.
They are trying to play the same games as the Liberals, and they are amateur hour. People don't want the spin -- they want the truth. It would have been much better to do the information dump than the tease. People get ticked off when you mete out information at a trickle. They start to feel they're being manipulated. The Libs (masters of manipulation) know all the ploys -- they invented them. They've been five steps ahead of the Conservatives from the getgo.
If the Conservatives had played it straight instead of being coy to keep the headlines, maybe it would be the Libs in the spotlight and on the defensive.
Liberal strategists are masters of the game. Regular people don't want games anymore, but when given the choice, they'll pick the winning team -- not because they believe in them -- but because the other guys look like losers.
Honesty and integrity in government begins when we dispense with 'tactics' and 'strategy' and start talking the talk and walking the walk. Otherwise, the Conservatives are nothing better than less-successful hustlers than the Liberals.
canadianna
I don't believe the tapes were doctored, but the suspicion is out there and a lot of people have already started with the 'a-ha!s'.
Libs, who have been largely silent until now, are posting comments all over the place suggesting Harper and Grewal resign because of the 'disgrace' they have brought to the political process. And people who are not inclined to care about politics either way, just find this very boring or mildly amusing -- but the accusations of tape-tampering will linger in their psyches. Even when the Conservatives are cleared, it's like when a man is accused of rape and subsequently exhonerated -- there are people who will always believe he must have done it, but got off on a technicality.
The Conservatives have a lot to answer for with this -- not the 'alleged' doctoring (funny how they were 'alleged' transcripts, but no such modifier used by Libs today). They should be answering to their supporters for fumbling so badly.
The tapes should have been handed over immediately. Waiting may have allowed them to catch the news cycle as they saw fit, but it has obviously been a PR disaster.
They are trying to play the same games as the Liberals, and they are amateur hour. People don't want the spin -- they want the truth. It would have been much better to do the information dump than the tease. People get ticked off when you mete out information at a trickle. They start to feel they're being manipulated. The Libs (masters of manipulation) know all the ploys -- they invented them. They've been five steps ahead of the Conservatives from the getgo.
If the Conservatives had played it straight instead of being coy to keep the headlines, maybe it would be the Libs in the spotlight and on the defensive.
Liberal strategists are masters of the game. Regular people don't want games anymore, but when given the choice, they'll pick the winning team -- not because they believe in them -- but because the other guys look like losers.
Honesty and integrity in government begins when we dispense with 'tactics' and 'strategy' and start talking the talk and walking the walk. Otherwise, the Conservatives are nothing better than less-successful hustlers than the Liberals.
canadianna
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Paul Didn't Call
Michael at The Blue Maple Leaf gives a good account of Harper's questioning of the Prime Minister during Question Period today. Harper was really able to pin him down and Martin looked foolish trying to climb out of the quicksand.
Another interesting question came from Gilles Duceppe. The Prime Minister had just said, more than once in reply to Harper's questions, that: Grewal approached, no offer was made -- an offer was solicited, the member from North-Delta asked for rewards but no deal was made. Duceppe got up, and it looked like he was uncertain that he was going to be given the floor. He had already asked his questions near the beginning of QP and this was closer to the end.
He said to the PM (and obviously, I am paraphrasing a translator): You have just stated (the above). You say now that you knew that Grewal approached, you knew that he asked for some consideration in exchange for crossing the floor -- it is against Section 119 of the criminal code for an individual to ask for something in exchange for his vote, and yet you didn't call the RCMP when you knew this crime had been committed. Why did the Prime Minister not call the RCMP?
Of course, Martin didn't stand up. Anne McLellan got up and went on and on and on about how if anyone knew about a crime they should report it, and if the member knows about a crime of course he should go to the RCMP . . . blah, blah, blah.
canadianna
Another interesting question came from Gilles Duceppe. The Prime Minister had just said, more than once in reply to Harper's questions, that: Grewal approached, no offer was made -- an offer was solicited, the member from North-Delta asked for rewards but no deal was made. Duceppe got up, and it looked like he was uncertain that he was going to be given the floor. He had already asked his questions near the beginning of QP and this was closer to the end.
He said to the PM (and obviously, I am paraphrasing a translator): You have just stated (the above). You say now that you knew that Grewal approached, you knew that he asked for some consideration in exchange for crossing the floor -- it is against Section 119 of the criminal code for an individual to ask for something in exchange for his vote, and yet you didn't call the RCMP when you knew this crime had been committed. Why did the Prime Minister not call the RCMP?
Of course, Martin didn't stand up. Anne McLellan got up and went on and on and on about how if anyone knew about a crime they should report it, and if the member knows about a crime of course he should go to the RCMP . . . blah, blah, blah.
canadianna
Grewal didn't want to be Inky Mark
I am inclined to think Grewal's motivation for taping conversations with Murphy and Dosanjh is irrelevant.
Maybe Grewal did intend to cross the floor. If that is so, why didn't he? There is every indication that had he abstained in budget vote, that he would be on his way to Cabinet in the government -- because as Dosanjh said: 'Cabinet is easy'. So, if that was his desire, Cabinet within the government -- and Murphy obviously didn't say no -- in fact, he all but said yes -- then why didn't Grewal jump at the chance?
If we look at the situation in context, and remember what happened with Inky Mark, then maybe Grewal's assertions have more credibility.
Grewal says he was approached a few times, and declined. That would give him an opportunity to be prepared that it might happen again -- Murphy or Dosanjh might have said: 'don't say no just yet, we'll let you think on it'.
Given that Inky Mark publicized what he characterized as an approach by the Liberals for his vote, and that Inky Mark was swifty and summarily dismissed by both the Liberals and the media -- Grewal's decision to tape the conversations is more clear.
Had Grewal told anyone that the Libs were courting him, their response would be 'why would we want him -- he's (conveniently) under investigation for graft'. He would have been mocked and ridiculed in the same way Inky Mark was, and he would likely have been disbelieved.
However 'wrong' it might have been for Grewal to tape these conversations, the fact remains that there would have been no way to corroborate his accusations. It would have been the 'he said/he said' that the press is trying to make it now.
Rather than playing the 'they're both just as bad' game, the press and the public should demand more from government representatives like Murphy and Dosanjh. They are in positions of power and influence and their abuse of public trust is clear. Grewal getting it on tape, didn't make it so.
canadianna
Maybe Grewal did intend to cross the floor. If that is so, why didn't he? There is every indication that had he abstained in budget vote, that he would be on his way to Cabinet in the government -- because as Dosanjh said: 'Cabinet is easy'. So, if that was his desire, Cabinet within the government -- and Murphy obviously didn't say no -- in fact, he all but said yes -- then why didn't Grewal jump at the chance?
If we look at the situation in context, and remember what happened with Inky Mark, then maybe Grewal's assertions have more credibility.
Grewal says he was approached a few times, and declined. That would give him an opportunity to be prepared that it might happen again -- Murphy or Dosanjh might have said: 'don't say no just yet, we'll let you think on it'.
Given that Inky Mark publicized what he characterized as an approach by the Liberals for his vote, and that Inky Mark was swifty and summarily dismissed by both the Liberals and the media -- Grewal's decision to tape the conversations is more clear.
Had Grewal told anyone that the Libs were courting him, their response would be 'why would we want him -- he's (conveniently) under investigation for graft'. He would have been mocked and ridiculed in the same way Inky Mark was, and he would likely have been disbelieved.
However 'wrong' it might have been for Grewal to tape these conversations, the fact remains that there would have been no way to corroborate his accusations. It would have been the 'he said/he said' that the press is trying to make it now.
Rather than playing the 'they're both just as bad' game, the press and the public should demand more from government representatives like Murphy and Dosanjh. They are in positions of power and influence and their abuse of public trust is clear. Grewal getting it on tape, didn't make it so.
canadianna
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Maybe they'll start an inquiry
There must be good men and women in the Liberal Party -- they can't all be corrupt and morally bankrupt -- and yet, they'll be in the House tomorrow, jeering and cheering as is required of them by Dear Leader.
An ethics professor on CTV tonight said that Tim Murphy did not cross the line into criminality. He said with a straight face, that the tapes are ambiguous and that Murphy did not offer anything so he did not cross the line.
There is no line anymore. How can you be unethical, if there are no ethics? How can you behave immorally, if morality is relative.
The PM says: Grewal 'approached'. I don't believe it's true, but in another place, at another time, that would not have mattered. The illegal actions of two senior members of the PM's staff would have been enough to have the government fall.
Do Canadians want gay marriage, and hate Christians so much that they can turn a blind eye to this? I admit, I am biased against the Liberals at this juncture in my life -- but I can't see how anyone could accept that they did no wrong, and that there was nothing wrong with what they did.
Scott Reid even tried to paint this as 'entrapment'. The laugh is that in order to be entrapped, Grewal would have had to have been working as an agent for the government or the police.
There are questions as to whether this will even be investigated --- he obviously was not working on behalf of any policing agency -- and the government certainly wouldn't set itself up -- it was trying to prop itself up.
It is not illegal for a private citizen to record conversations and not disclose the taping of the converstations. People are trying to make out the issue of the taping is somehow as shocking and unethical as attempting to bribe MPs in order to maintain a tenous grasp on power.
There is no spin that can make this anything but what it is.
The sound of the media's indifference is deafening.
canadianna
An ethics professor on CTV tonight said that Tim Murphy did not cross the line into criminality. He said with a straight face, that the tapes are ambiguous and that Murphy did not offer anything so he did not cross the line.
There is no line anymore. How can you be unethical, if there are no ethics? How can you behave immorally, if morality is relative.
The PM says: Grewal 'approached'. I don't believe it's true, but in another place, at another time, that would not have mattered. The illegal actions of two senior members of the PM's staff would have been enough to have the government fall.
Do Canadians want gay marriage, and hate Christians so much that they can turn a blind eye to this? I admit, I am biased against the Liberals at this juncture in my life -- but I can't see how anyone could accept that they did no wrong, and that there was nothing wrong with what they did.
Scott Reid even tried to paint this as 'entrapment'. The laugh is that in order to be entrapped, Grewal would have had to have been working as an agent for the government or the police.
There are questions as to whether this will even be investigated --- he obviously was not working on behalf of any policing agency -- and the government certainly wouldn't set itself up -- it was trying to prop itself up.
It is not illegal for a private citizen to record conversations and not disclose the taping of the converstations. People are trying to make out the issue of the taping is somehow as shocking and unethical as attempting to bribe MPs in order to maintain a tenous grasp on power.
There is no spin that can make this anything but what it is.
The sound of the media's indifference is deafening.
canadianna
'Alleged' Transcripts
So now the transcripts are 'alleged transcripts'
That's what Anne McLellan started shouting during Question Period, and I wonder now if that will be the slant the Libs will take. Will they begin to doubt the authenticity of these tapes -- or the accuracy of the transcripts?
The delay by the Conservatives in releasing these tapes gives rise to these sorts of accusations.
That said, what we have heard and read seems credible.
Paul Martin's 'I don't know anything, and we didn't do anything' defense is getting worn.
When is this going to explode?
I remember back in the 90's when David Peterson was ousted from Ontario, and when the Conservatives were tossed in 1993. Where is the rancor and bitterness that existed back then for what were far less egregious behaviours?
The media called the shots back then too, and the difference is, the media is still willing to give Martin a pass.
canadianna
That's what Anne McLellan started shouting during Question Period, and I wonder now if that will be the slant the Libs will take. Will they begin to doubt the authenticity of these tapes -- or the accuracy of the transcripts?
The delay by the Conservatives in releasing these tapes gives rise to these sorts of accusations.
That said, what we have heard and read seems credible.
Paul Martin's 'I don't know anything, and we didn't do anything' defense is getting worn.
When is this going to explode?
I remember back in the 90's when David Peterson was ousted from Ontario, and when the Conservatives were tossed in 1993. Where is the rancor and bitterness that existed back then for what were far less egregious behaviours?
The media called the shots back then too, and the difference is, the media is still willing to give Martin a pass.
canadianna
Monday, May 30, 2005
One-Issue Propagandist
Gloria Galloway's continued focus on 'activist Christians' in the Conservative Party has removed any guilt I had, pegging her as an irresponsible scaremonger.
It doesn't even matter if she's not writing in a 'negative' way. Even if she is only reporting the facts, the subject matter is wrong.
Freedom of the press -- yes, I agree -- she has the right to write what she sees fit, and the Globe has a right to print it. But in order to maintain at least the appearance of being unbiased, Galloway's approach should have been to examine the religion in nomination races in general, or one-issue candidates across all parties --- not the Conservative Party in particular.
John McKay, evangelical Christian and Liberal MP in Toronto, estimates that over 20% of Liberal MPs (not just candidates -- actual MPs already serving in the House) are evangelical Christians, or have evangelical 'sympathies'. Even more than that are either Roman Catholic, or orthodox Christians. Their ability to separate their responsibilities as MPs from that as Christians has not been questioned by the media.
In fact, John McKay, a Parliamentary Secretary and member of the Privy Council, asked for and received, a special dispensation from the party to vote against the Civil Marriage Act. It is believed Paul Martin gave the dispensation because McKay's one vote wouldn't be decisive, but McKay had threatened to vote against Bill-C-38 regardless of this special authority.
One-issue candidates are not exclusive to any particular political party. One could argue that Scott Brison is a one-issue candidate. He left the Conservative Party because of the same-sex issue. It might be argued that Belinda Stronach is a one-issue candidate (her own advancement being the one-issue) Many people said that Glen Murray (failed Liberal candidate and former mayor of Winnipeg) was a one-issue candidate. Besides questioning their loyalties, I don't recall anyone making too big of a deal of the 'one-issue' that defines their political careers.
Chuck Cadman, the current hero of the Libs, is a one-issue candidate. When the Libs were soliciting his support on the non-confidence vote, it didn't bother the newspapers that his career in politics began with one-issue. Maybe people think Cadman's issue was a 'good' issue, and these 'Christian activists' are forging their political careers on a 'bad' issue, but the fact remains that no politician can remain a 'one-issue' MP and maintain the support of the electorate -- which renders the Globe's anti-Christian zeal even more disturbing.
And, I believe I could argue with considerable success, that most Liberal candidates are one-issue candidates. The issue is power. They want it at any cost. What they have to do for it is never an issue.
Galloway has allowed her anti-Harper, anti-Conservative predisposition to take hold of her writing. In a bid to discredit the Conservative Party by disseminating misleading information, she has become hostile to the opening of the public square to all who would have a voice.
Galloway's accusatory tone suggests she is obesessed with 'outing' Conservative Christians and branding them as cardboard cutouts, incapable of thinking seriously about any issue but homosexuality -- or perhaps she believes they are unable to hold more than one thought at a time -- something she would do well to worry about in herself. She'd have us believe that of any demographic group, Christians alone are unsuited to balancing the fine line between their religion and their politics. I would argue that to be able to maintain religious convictions in an increasingly secular world displays an incredible ability to work co-operatively and conjointly with those with whom you have considerable moral and spiritual disagreements.
While she continues to try to paint Christians as threatening to the democratic process, she diminishes the invaluable contributions Christians have made to education, civil liberties, and democracy over two millennia. Argue what you will, Christian values have shaped Western Civilization for the better. People like Galloway would do well to remember that.
Christians have not tried to impose their values on the government -- this government is attempting to impose its values on all Canadians. This important distinction should be remembered when the liberal press lifts its poison pen.
Mark Peters, Warwick, Policial Staples, and Dissonance and Disrespect, (among others, I'm sure) all have comment and/or links on this subject.
Cheers,
canadianna
It doesn't even matter if she's not writing in a 'negative' way. Even if she is only reporting the facts, the subject matter is wrong.
Freedom of the press -- yes, I agree -- she has the right to write what she sees fit, and the Globe has a right to print it. But in order to maintain at least the appearance of being unbiased, Galloway's approach should have been to examine the religion in nomination races in general, or one-issue candidates across all parties --- not the Conservative Party in particular.
John McKay, evangelical Christian and Liberal MP in Toronto, estimates that over 20% of Liberal MPs (not just candidates -- actual MPs already serving in the House) are evangelical Christians, or have evangelical 'sympathies'. Even more than that are either Roman Catholic, or orthodox Christians. Their ability to separate their responsibilities as MPs from that as Christians has not been questioned by the media.
In fact, John McKay, a Parliamentary Secretary and member of the Privy Council, asked for and received, a special dispensation from the party to vote against the Civil Marriage Act. It is believed Paul Martin gave the dispensation because McKay's one vote wouldn't be decisive, but McKay had threatened to vote against Bill-C-38 regardless of this special authority.
One-issue candidates are not exclusive to any particular political party. One could argue that Scott Brison is a one-issue candidate. He left the Conservative Party because of the same-sex issue. It might be argued that Belinda Stronach is a one-issue candidate (her own advancement being the one-issue) Many people said that Glen Murray (failed Liberal candidate and former mayor of Winnipeg) was a one-issue candidate. Besides questioning their loyalties, I don't recall anyone making too big of a deal of the 'one-issue' that defines their political careers.
Chuck Cadman, the current hero of the Libs, is a one-issue candidate. When the Libs were soliciting his support on the non-confidence vote, it didn't bother the newspapers that his career in politics began with one-issue. Maybe people think Cadman's issue was a 'good' issue, and these 'Christian activists' are forging their political careers on a 'bad' issue, but the fact remains that no politician can remain a 'one-issue' MP and maintain the support of the electorate -- which renders the Globe's anti-Christian zeal even more disturbing.
And, I believe I could argue with considerable success, that most Liberal candidates are one-issue candidates. The issue is power. They want it at any cost. What they have to do for it is never an issue.
Galloway has allowed her anti-Harper, anti-Conservative predisposition to take hold of her writing. In a bid to discredit the Conservative Party by disseminating misleading information, she has become hostile to the opening of the public square to all who would have a voice.
Galloway's accusatory tone suggests she is obesessed with 'outing' Conservative Christians and branding them as cardboard cutouts, incapable of thinking seriously about any issue but homosexuality -- or perhaps she believes they are unable to hold more than one thought at a time -- something she would do well to worry about in herself. She'd have us believe that of any demographic group, Christians alone are unsuited to balancing the fine line between their religion and their politics. I would argue that to be able to maintain religious convictions in an increasingly secular world displays an incredible ability to work co-operatively and conjointly with those with whom you have considerable moral and spiritual disagreements.
While she continues to try to paint Christians as threatening to the democratic process, she diminishes the invaluable contributions Christians have made to education, civil liberties, and democracy over two millennia. Argue what you will, Christian values have shaped Western Civilization for the better. People like Galloway would do well to remember that.
Christians have not tried to impose their values on the government -- this government is attempting to impose its values on all Canadians. This important distinction should be remembered when the liberal press lifts its poison pen.
Mark Peters, Warwick, Policial Staples, and Dissonance and Disrespect, (among others, I'm sure) all have comment and/or links on this subject.
Cheers,
canadianna
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Martin's Dirty Work
I've been thinking a lot about this 'Christian Activist' thing in the Globe. It's carefully worded, but it's a controversial piece because of its subject matter. Religion - politics. It's a tricky subject. I started to feel bad about giving Gloria Galloway a hard time. It might have been poor judgement to offend a whole segment of society, but certainly there couldn't have been a political motivation -- it's not like she's one of those 'Liberal cheerleaders' Harper dislikes so much.
I was doing a search for something else, and I came across this-- I'd forgotten all about it.
Do you remember this from last year:
CTV -- May. 8 2004 11:13 PM ET
Liberal MPs shocked by party's election tactic
Canadian Press
OTTAWA — . . . (devout) Liberal MPs were horrified to discover their party last month commissioned a pre-election poll asking Ontarians if they'd be more or less likely to vote for the Conservatives if they knew the party had been "taken over by evangelical Christians."
It took an extra year, but they finally managed to get the word out on this. I wonder did they pay Galloway for sniffing out this scoop, or was it on the promise of some future consideration. Senate? Not senate.
Naw, some people don't even need inducement to show lack of principle.
Cheers,
canadianna
I was doing a search for something else, and I came across this-- I'd forgotten all about it.
Do you remember this from last year:
CTV -- May. 8 2004 11:13 PM ET
Liberal MPs shocked by party's election tactic
Canadian Press
OTTAWA — . . . (devout) Liberal MPs were horrified to discover their party last month commissioned a pre-election poll asking Ontarians if they'd be more or less likely to vote for the Conservatives if they knew the party had been "taken over by evangelical Christians."
It took an extra year, but they finally managed to get the word out on this. I wonder did they pay Galloway for sniffing out this scoop, or was it on the promise of some future consideration. Senate? Not senate.
Naw, some people don't even need inducement to show lack of principle.
Cheers,
canadianna
Harping on about Harper
Today in the Toronto Sun, Greg Weston echoed the sentiments of Don Martin of the Nation Post, who suggested that Stephen Harper needs a make-over. (Martin's column was subscriber only, so I won't bother to link.) The only difference seems to be that Martin believes there is a chance it could work, and Weston doesn't.
Both columnists in so-called 'conservative' media, they follow in the same vein as Adam Radwanski, who has written negatively of the Conservative Leader on many occasions: Has Harper's Time Come? (May 20th) and Sucking them in, Blowing them off (May18) Stephen Harper's Tipping Point (March 18)
These men are amongst a host of media pundits who insist they are reflecting the views of the public when they write their scathing commentaries on Harper. I disagree. They are creating public opinion.
When Harper assumed the leadership of the Conservative Party early in 2004, the media was quick to point out how little we knew of the man. He was described as a 'policy wonk' who was not given to chit-chat with the journalistic elite of Ottawa. Now, because Harper doesn't bow to those who shape popular opinion, they continually offer public rebuke of his perceived 'failings'. Rather than taking the view that Harper's anger is well placed, and that he is reacting with justification to ongoing abuses by the Liberals of the public trust --- these sensitive columnists are betraying their frustration with Harper not playing their game, their way.
Harper doesn't schmooze and suck up to them, so they have taken personal offense, and allowed it to colour their commentary. Of course columnists are supposed to express opinion, but nothing of what they've said substantially reflects Harper's leadership abilities. They are talking about Harper's need to change public perception, while beating the anti-Harper drum. Their writing drips with contempt as it reinforces the negative view of him that they have been pushing all along.
Don Martin says:
To put it bluntly, Stephen Harper is screwed.
What analysis. What insight. What would we do without Martin's enlightening observations? Indeed, Martin has taken on one of the characteristics of the liberal press. He speaks in our vernacular. He talks the lingo of the common man.
If the public thinks Harper's scary, and it does . . .
Says who? Says Don Martin. Says John Ivison. Says Adam Radwanski. Says Gred Weston. Says the Globe & Mail. Says the Toronto Star. Parrots Joe Canadian.
Do they really think the average Canadian is so weak-kneed and lilly livered that they are quivering over anything Harper has said? And those who recite the mantra on cue haven't thought this up themselves -- the lack of varied public response is indicative of a concerted campaign to malign Harper. When you keep asking people "Do you think Stephen Harper is scary?" eventually they are going to believe that he must be, or they wouldn't have been asked.
Don Martin opines:
Harper appears to have confused signs of firm leadership with flashes of sneering anger. The public hates angry white males, and he's become Parliament's Exhibit A.
Ottawa's reporters are, in Harper's mind, a Liberal cheerleading squad. Yes, those elements exist. But it's not monolithic . . .
Martin censures Harper throughout the column, then suggests the 'Liberal cheerleading' amongst commentators is not uniform. While he is soundly thrashing Harper, the Liberal cheerleaders are nodding from the sidelines -- Don Martin may not be cheering for the Liberals, but while he persists in creating animosity for, and perpetuating myths about the Conservative leader, he is certainly giving the Libs comfort and supplying them with ammunition.
Greg Weston gives us more of the same:
On the evening of Paul Martin's televised grovel to the nation last month, Stephen Harper stepped up to the microphone, scowled into the camera, and proceeded to scare the living hell out of voters from sea to sea.
Media judgment of the Conservative leader's performance was swift and brutal, depicting Harper more as a candidate for anger management than a prospect for prime minister.
Weston says it right there -- 'media judgement . . . was swift and brutal'. Not public opinion, but media opinion--- passed on to the public as 'news'.
John Ivison of the Post said of Harper the day following the big speeches that Harper: "just reinforced the view of many voters that he's not a man they'd want in their living room in the flesh."
The Globe & Mail editoral after the speeches said: "Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, by contrast, was shrill and excessive. His thirst to harness the anger over sponsorship to bring down Mr. Martin is understandable. . . but to call Mr. Martin's speech a "sad spectacle" performed by a man "begging" for another chance was a bit much."
Those assessments became popular opinion, they did not reflect it.
Greg Weston closes today with:
But most of the wisdom coming at Harper is cosmetic and unrealistic, an expectation that somehow a grumpy not-so-old man can be miraculously transformed into a warm and fuzzy metrosexual who loves politics, journalists and Belinda Stronach.
The NP announced yesterday that political scientists say that people would prefer to have Peter McKay to dinner than Stephen Harper. BIG DEAL! This isn't Canadian Idol, it's politics. I want a leader who is strong and assertive. I want leader who doesn't mince words. I want a leader who sees injustice and gets angry. I want a leader who is a little uncomfortable in the spotlight, because it suggests to me that he's not courting the media --- he's the real deal.
Arrogant media-types know that they have the power to sway public opinion. This is another example of a non-news story taking on a life because the media wants it to. With each line of condemnation they are not just telling us not to like Stephen Harper, they are telling Stephen Harper -- 'you better be nice to us, or else you can expect more of the same.'
canadianna
Both columnists in so-called 'conservative' media, they follow in the same vein as Adam Radwanski, who has written negatively of the Conservative Leader on many occasions: Has Harper's Time Come? (May 20th) and Sucking them in, Blowing them off (May18) Stephen Harper's Tipping Point (March 18)
These men are amongst a host of media pundits who insist they are reflecting the views of the public when they write their scathing commentaries on Harper. I disagree. They are creating public opinion.
When Harper assumed the leadership of the Conservative Party early in 2004, the media was quick to point out how little we knew of the man. He was described as a 'policy wonk' who was not given to chit-chat with the journalistic elite of Ottawa. Now, because Harper doesn't bow to those who shape popular opinion, they continually offer public rebuke of his perceived 'failings'. Rather than taking the view that Harper's anger is well placed, and that he is reacting with justification to ongoing abuses by the Liberals of the public trust --- these sensitive columnists are betraying their frustration with Harper not playing their game, their way.
Harper doesn't schmooze and suck up to them, so they have taken personal offense, and allowed it to colour their commentary. Of course columnists are supposed to express opinion, but nothing of what they've said substantially reflects Harper's leadership abilities. They are talking about Harper's need to change public perception, while beating the anti-Harper drum. Their writing drips with contempt as it reinforces the negative view of him that they have been pushing all along.
Don Martin says:
To put it bluntly, Stephen Harper is screwed.
What analysis. What insight. What would we do without Martin's enlightening observations? Indeed, Martin has taken on one of the characteristics of the liberal press. He speaks in our vernacular. He talks the lingo of the common man.
If the public thinks Harper's scary, and it does . . .
Says who? Says Don Martin. Says John Ivison. Says Adam Radwanski. Says Gred Weston. Says the Globe & Mail. Says the Toronto Star. Parrots Joe Canadian.
Do they really think the average Canadian is so weak-kneed and lilly livered that they are quivering over anything Harper has said? And those who recite the mantra on cue haven't thought this up themselves -- the lack of varied public response is indicative of a concerted campaign to malign Harper. When you keep asking people "Do you think Stephen Harper is scary?" eventually they are going to believe that he must be, or they wouldn't have been asked.
Don Martin opines:
Harper appears to have confused signs of firm leadership with flashes of sneering anger. The public hates angry white males, and he's become Parliament's Exhibit A.
Ottawa's reporters are, in Harper's mind, a Liberal cheerleading squad. Yes, those elements exist. But it's not monolithic . . .
Martin censures Harper throughout the column, then suggests the 'Liberal cheerleading' amongst commentators is not uniform. While he is soundly thrashing Harper, the Liberal cheerleaders are nodding from the sidelines -- Don Martin may not be cheering for the Liberals, but while he persists in creating animosity for, and perpetuating myths about the Conservative leader, he is certainly giving the Libs comfort and supplying them with ammunition.
Greg Weston gives us more of the same:
On the evening of Paul Martin's televised grovel to the nation last month, Stephen Harper stepped up to the microphone, scowled into the camera, and proceeded to scare the living hell out of voters from sea to sea.
Media judgment of the Conservative leader's performance was swift and brutal, depicting Harper more as a candidate for anger management than a prospect for prime minister.
Weston says it right there -- 'media judgement . . . was swift and brutal'. Not public opinion, but media opinion--- passed on to the public as 'news'.
John Ivison of the Post said of Harper the day following the big speeches that Harper: "just reinforced the view of many voters that he's not a man they'd want in their living room in the flesh."
The Globe & Mail editoral after the speeches said: "Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, by contrast, was shrill and excessive. His thirst to harness the anger over sponsorship to bring down Mr. Martin is understandable. . . but to call Mr. Martin's speech a "sad spectacle" performed by a man "begging" for another chance was a bit much."
Those assessments became popular opinion, they did not reflect it.
Greg Weston closes today with:
But most of the wisdom coming at Harper is cosmetic and unrealistic, an expectation that somehow a grumpy not-so-old man can be miraculously transformed into a warm and fuzzy metrosexual who loves politics, journalists and Belinda Stronach.
The NP announced yesterday that political scientists say that people would prefer to have Peter McKay to dinner than Stephen Harper. BIG DEAL! This isn't Canadian Idol, it's politics. I want a leader who is strong and assertive. I want leader who doesn't mince words. I want a leader who sees injustice and gets angry. I want a leader who is a little uncomfortable in the spotlight, because it suggests to me that he's not courting the media --- he's the real deal.
Arrogant media-types know that they have the power to sway public opinion. This is another example of a non-news story taking on a life because the media wants it to. With each line of condemnation they are not just telling us not to like Stephen Harper, they are telling Stephen Harper -- 'you better be nice to us, or else you can expect more of the same.'
canadianna
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Harper Refuses to Answer Stupid Question
If they'd have dropped it, I'd have dropped it.
Yesterday the Globe & Mail took the non-issue of Christian canadidates being nominated in their ridings and put a sinister spin on it. Be afraid . . . be very afraid . . . Christian Activists will 'penetrate' a riding near you.
Apparently the very clever Gloria Galloway thought she'd found the smoking gun of the Conservative 'hidden agenda' -- who'd have thunk it -- Conservatives --- actually vying for their riding nominations (almost unheard of in this country). Wow, this is news. That a small percentage of those Conservatives also happen to be Christians is what makes this story inkworthy to the big-brained Ms Galloway:
Christian activists have secured Conservative nominations in clusters of ridings from Vancouver to Halifax -- a political penetration that has occurred even as the party tries to distance itself from hard-line social conservatism.
She goes on by quoting a failed candidate in a riding, who despite his failed bid, apparently speaks for the entire party:
Some Conservatives argue that the selection of a large number of candidates from the religious right is an unfortunate turn for a party that was accused in last year's election campaign of harbouring a socially conservative "hidden agenda."
"The difficulty, from a party perspective, is that it begins to hijack the other agendas that parties have," said Ross Haynes, who lost the Conservative nomination in the riding of Halifax to one of three "Christian, pro-family people" recommended by a minister at a religious rally this spring in Kentville, N.S.
Our party spokesman wasn't finished yet either. And of course he wasn't talking out of his own disappointment. He has the best interests of both the country and the party at heart:
Candidates who are running on single issues such as opposition to same-sex marriage "probably can't get elected because they certainly don't represent any mainstream population view," Mr. Haynes said.
So apparently the economy, corruption in government, the democratic deficit, health care, child care and all those other non-sex related issues are the exclusive domain of non-Christians.
The Globe has attempted to make this like an exposé. They've started with the assumption that Liberal Christians will act in the best interests of the country and that Conservative Christians will compromise democracy.
I thought they'd had their fun trying to 'out' the Conservatives, but they were back at it today:
Yesterday the Globe & Mail took the non-issue of Christian canadidates being nominated in their ridings and put a sinister spin on it. Be afraid . . . be very afraid . . . Christian Activists will 'penetrate' a riding near you.
Apparently the very clever Gloria Galloway thought she'd found the smoking gun of the Conservative 'hidden agenda' -- who'd have thunk it -- Conservatives --- actually vying for their riding nominations (almost unheard of in this country). Wow, this is news. That a small percentage of those Conservatives also happen to be Christians is what makes this story inkworthy to the big-brained Ms Galloway:
Christian activists have secured Conservative nominations in clusters of ridings from Vancouver to Halifax -- a political penetration that has occurred even as the party tries to distance itself from hard-line social conservatism.
She goes on by quoting a failed candidate in a riding, who despite his failed bid, apparently speaks for the entire party:
Some Conservatives argue that the selection of a large number of candidates from the religious right is an unfortunate turn for a party that was accused in last year's election campaign of harbouring a socially conservative "hidden agenda."
"The difficulty, from a party perspective, is that it begins to hijack the other agendas that parties have," said Ross Haynes, who lost the Conservative nomination in the riding of Halifax to one of three "Christian, pro-family people" recommended by a minister at a religious rally this spring in Kentville, N.S.
Our party spokesman wasn't finished yet either. And of course he wasn't talking out of his own disappointment. He has the best interests of both the country and the party at heart:
Candidates who are running on single issues such as opposition to same-sex marriage "probably can't get elected because they certainly don't represent any mainstream population view," Mr. Haynes said.
So apparently the economy, corruption in government, the democratic deficit, health care, child care and all those other non-sex related issues are the exclusive domain of non-Christians.
The Globe has attempted to make this like an exposé. They've started with the assumption that Liberal Christians will act in the best interests of the country and that Conservative Christians will compromise democracy.
I thought they'd had their fun trying to 'out' the Conservatives, but they were back at it today:
Mr. Harper, who was touring a Toronto housing and recreational complex, would not answer questions about a separate issue relating to concerns that Christian activists are organizing to nominate Conservative candidates who will fight against same-sex marriage.
Stephen Harper, a man who's known for not suffering fools -- wouldn't answer a stupid question! Did they really think he'd stand there and try to justify people within his party, exercising their rights within a democracy?
Isn't it better that the party leader doesn't interfere in the local nominations process? Or do Gloria Galloway and Karen Howlitt prefer the Liberal practice of hand-picking and parachuting candidates, circumventing the local nominations process altogether.
Perhaps the Conservatives should have people fill out a quesitonnaire before they are allowed to join the party to weed out the undesireables. If they check the little box that says: 'Are you now, or have you ever been a Christian?' then you know to burn the membership or at very least their nomination papers.
Instead of this being a debate about how we are going to structure one of our fundamental institutions, it has become a monologue. The Globe continues to play into this with their anti-Christian inferences. If you're not onside with the gay agenda, you must be homophobic.
The left has framed the question in a manner that silences and marginalizes a good portion of the population -- not just born-again Christians ----people of all religions and people with no religion who have legitimate reasons for objecting to same-sex marriage.
Galloway and her ilk are fuelling the fires of intransigent anti-Christian zealotry. They openly pander to left-wing conspiracy-theorists. In any other public arena, against any other group, these small-minded fantasies of a subversive plot to over-take the political process would be mocked and scorned.
There aren't that many sources of news in Canada. The ownship of our various outlets are concentrated in very few hands. The Globe's prominence and national base demand a responsible handling of contentious issues.
If Galloway wants to be cheerleaders for the Liberals, that's her business, but if the Liberals were truly worthy of support, she wouldn't have to do it by Christian-bashing.
Galloway uses emotionally charged words like 'infultrate' and 'penetrate'. She asks loaded questions, and suggests by her tone that Christians should be stopped -- and that Stephen Harper won't answer the call.
And Canada either shrugs or applauds.
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.... There is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we must be most aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."-- William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court Justice from 1939-1975
canadianna
Friday, May 27, 2005
Politics and Religion -- Again
Religious freedom is usually the first thing expunged in a dictatorship.
They need you to worship the party.
It's usually done through state controlled media and an organized (often violent) campaign to eliminate troublesome elements in society. Think China and fallon gong.
In Canada, none of that is even necessary. Religion will be destroyed without the messy violence less nice countries perpetrate, and the government can claim clean hands because no concerted effort is even required on their part.
Major media in Canada already worships at the altar Liberal, so the job's half done. Our government need not impose its worldview on the media as it must in other one-state countries -- the media is dutifully trotting along ahead, clearing the way for their masters.
This sort of 'expose'- type writing -- on a story that could not and would not be written about any other minority group -- should outrage 'moderate' voters. And it will. They'll think how typical and revolting that those damned Christians are allowed to be involved in public life. 'Moderate' conservatives like mindlessinottawa (whose rants against born-again Christians would be considered hate-speech if directed at any other group) will go over the top in their rages at those who would dare allow their faith to impact on their actions and politics.
The liberal media is partly responsible for the arrogance that allows Liberals to think they are the 'natural governing party'. But 'moderates' are complicit --- when instead of questioning the motives for such an inflammatory headline and topic in the mainstream media -- they agree that Christian values have no place in the political arena.
John Reynolds is right. This article could not have been written about any other group.
Christians participating in politics shouldn't be a turn off, but the tone of the headline, and the article itself, tells the reader it is.
Conservatives have to stop apologising for the values of our fellow conservatives. If we don't, people will think there is something about being a Christian that should make us ashamed.
Cheers,
canadianna
They need you to worship the party.
It's usually done through state controlled media and an organized (often violent) campaign to eliminate troublesome elements in society. Think China and fallon gong.
In Canada, none of that is even necessary. Religion will be destroyed without the messy violence less nice countries perpetrate, and the government can claim clean hands because no concerted effort is even required on their part.
Major media in Canada already worships at the altar Liberal, so the job's half done. Our government need not impose its worldview on the media as it must in other one-state countries -- the media is dutifully trotting along ahead, clearing the way for their masters.
This sort of 'expose'- type writing -- on a story that could not and would not be written about any other minority group -- should outrage 'moderate' voters. And it will. They'll think how typical and revolting that those damned Christians are allowed to be involved in public life. 'Moderate' conservatives like mindlessinottawa (whose rants against born-again Christians would be considered hate-speech if directed at any other group) will go over the top in their rages at those who would dare allow their faith to impact on their actions and politics.
The liberal media is partly responsible for the arrogance that allows Liberals to think they are the 'natural governing party'. But 'moderates' are complicit --- when instead of questioning the motives for such an inflammatory headline and topic in the mainstream media -- they agree that Christian values have no place in the political arena.
John Reynolds is right. This article could not have been written about any other group.
Christians participating in politics shouldn't be a turn off, but the tone of the headline, and the article itself, tells the reader it is.
Conservatives have to stop apologising for the values of our fellow conservatives. If we don't, people will think there is something about being a Christian that should make us ashamed.
Cheers,
canadianna
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Sounds Good On Paper
When the Civil Marriage Act becomes law (which I believe it will) we are assured that nothing will change. Churches will maintain authority over their own visions of marriage. The fact sheet explains the rationale behind this.
This week, 'Peg City Kid and I exchanged views for and against same-sex marriage. Needless to say, neither of us leave this debate with changed minds.
Peg believes that equality in marriage is a 'rights' issue. He argues that denying gays and lesbians the right to marriage is tantamount to sending them to the back of the bus. He further suggests that clergy will be protected by this new law, but that government has an obligation to protect gays and lesbians so they can freely participate in their religion:
Peg said: Is marriage not a part of Christianity? Judaism? the teachings of Islam? . . . The Canadian government cannot force religious establishments to perform gay marriage.However, the Canadian government has the responsibility to make sure that the right of the individual are upheld and they are not discriminated against.How can the government ensure a persons right to practice there own religion if that person has been descriminated against in part of that religion. That is the point. It's not about civil unions, it about the right for an individual to practice religion.
I argue that marriage is not a 'right' and that if it were, then the other excluding elements (age, number of persons, familial relation) would have to be removed as well, because they are discriminatory. I don't believe gay and lesbian couples meet the criteria for marriage, therefore the institution should not be adapted to them, but another institution created to allow them the same benefits that marriage would bring.
What I find interesting is the one thing on which we both agree. If marriage is a 'rights' issue, as 'Peg says, then allowing churches etc. not to marry them based on 'religious reasons' would be the same as sending gays and lesbians to the back of the bus.
'Pegs paragraph above spells it out very clearly. "It's not about civil unions, it's about the right for an individual to practice religion."
Now 'Peg is not just speaking for himself. He is speaking for all those who champion this law. His talk is their talk. And he's correct -- it isn't about civil unions, it's about stripping religions of their autonomy.
In the year or two following the passage of this bill, the challenges to religious institutions will start coming. A gay Roman Catholic couple will approach their church and request a wedding. When it is denied, they will sue. They would argue that they are not being treated the same as their opposite-sex peers. They would say that they have a right to practise their religion, and for their religion to prevent them from participating in a sacrament which is offered to others, is no different from blacks having to use separate facilities during segregation. Lawyers would call it 'religious Apartied' to allow churches etc. to discriminate in the name of 'freedom of religion'.
What side do you think the government will come down on? A priest might be protected from a lawsuit, but religion is not protected from state interference when rights and discrimination are in play.
Anyone who thinks this issue is black and white is mistaken. Religious freedom is precarious. In Canada, it depends on judicial consent. Many people think the concept of 'separation of church and state' is a measure to protect states from religious interference, when in fact the opposite is true.
I don't believe marriage is a rights issue, but our current government does. If marriage is a right, then should religions and religious institutions be allowed to discriminate based on 'freedom of religion?'
If not, if religions must change their core understanding of marriage and its sacraments to reflect the 'moderate' worldview imposed on them by a government, then they no longer serve their intended function. If they are simply another apparatus of the state -- why not just save time and abolish religion?
This week, 'Peg City Kid and I exchanged views for and against same-sex marriage. Needless to say, neither of us leave this debate with changed minds.
Peg believes that equality in marriage is a 'rights' issue. He argues that denying gays and lesbians the right to marriage is tantamount to sending them to the back of the bus. He further suggests that clergy will be protected by this new law, but that government has an obligation to protect gays and lesbians so they can freely participate in their religion:
Peg said: Is marriage not a part of Christianity? Judaism? the teachings of Islam? . . . The Canadian government cannot force religious establishments to perform gay marriage.However, the Canadian government has the responsibility to make sure that the right of the individual are upheld and they are not discriminated against.How can the government ensure a persons right to practice there own religion if that person has been descriminated against in part of that religion. That is the point. It's not about civil unions, it about the right for an individual to practice religion.
I argue that marriage is not a 'right' and that if it were, then the other excluding elements (age, number of persons, familial relation) would have to be removed as well, because they are discriminatory. I don't believe gay and lesbian couples meet the criteria for marriage, therefore the institution should not be adapted to them, but another institution created to allow them the same benefits that marriage would bring.
What I find interesting is the one thing on which we both agree. If marriage is a 'rights' issue, as 'Peg says, then allowing churches etc. not to marry them based on 'religious reasons' would be the same as sending gays and lesbians to the back of the bus.
'Pegs paragraph above spells it out very clearly. "It's not about civil unions, it's about the right for an individual to practice religion."
Now 'Peg is not just speaking for himself. He is speaking for all those who champion this law. His talk is their talk. And he's correct -- it isn't about civil unions, it's about stripping religions of their autonomy.
In the year or two following the passage of this bill, the challenges to religious institutions will start coming. A gay Roman Catholic couple will approach their church and request a wedding. When it is denied, they will sue. They would argue that they are not being treated the same as their opposite-sex peers. They would say that they have a right to practise their religion, and for their religion to prevent them from participating in a sacrament which is offered to others, is no different from blacks having to use separate facilities during segregation. Lawyers would call it 'religious Apartied' to allow churches etc. to discriminate in the name of 'freedom of religion'.
What side do you think the government will come down on? A priest might be protected from a lawsuit, but religion is not protected from state interference when rights and discrimination are in play.
Anyone who thinks this issue is black and white is mistaken. Religious freedom is precarious. In Canada, it depends on judicial consent. Many people think the concept of 'separation of church and state' is a measure to protect states from religious interference, when in fact the opposite is true.
I don't believe marriage is a rights issue, but our current government does. If marriage is a right, then should religions and religious institutions be allowed to discriminate based on 'freedom of religion?'
If not, if religions must change their core understanding of marriage and its sacraments to reflect the 'moderate' worldview imposed on them by a government, then they no longer serve their intended function. If they are simply another apparatus of the state -- why not just save time and abolish religion?
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Answering My Critic -- Part 7 -- Last Part
16. You're right though, things across the border did not happen over night, it took years of oppression, close-minded idealogies and total disdain for the international community. You have no idea how hard I have to fight the urge to rattle off a paragraph of insults, as that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That really is just a stupid comment. Canada has spent decades trying to define it's self as an indepentant and distinct nation (especially in terms of foreign policies) and you want to go jump in the American's lap?
Canada has so many years defining itself as ‘not American’ that we are losing what it really means to be Canadian. By pulling away from our traditions and roots, we are denying our founding peoples and the underlying principles and values that enabled these two great warring empires to co-exist on the same soil.
Do you really think that by stripping away our heritage in order to not be American, will make us any more Canadian? That is not independence, it is petulant self-mutilation. Trying to accommodate special interest groups in the name of being ‘progressive’ or ‘enlightened’ is tantamount to kicking out a pillar of a building and suggesting that the architecture did not match current trends. The pillar represents stability. Removing even one factor of societal stability will inevitably lead to the crumbling of societal norms. Like it or not, societal norms are what enable societies to perpetuate and flourish.
The problem is the generation who looks for instant gratification. The how does this affect me group. This isn’t about you. The effects of this will not be known for a couple of generations, just like the effects of the Residential Schools can only be determined now, from a distance. But the damage will be done, and in this case, it will be more pervasive and wide-spread because it will be systemic and nation-wide.
Societal institutions are put in place for the benefit of society, not for the comfort of individuals as we so often believe. Altering the institution of marriage, allowing it to yield its very meaning to accomodate a fashionable interpretation, leaves it open to further dismantling in the name of 'rights' and 'equality'. Recognition of this does not make me a bigot or a fascist. It makes me a Canadian who is concerned for the future of our country. I believe the SSM law will pass, and I hope that my concerns have been for naught. In the meantime, they are my concerns and I will not be silenced.
17. Just as an end note, I'd just like to point out that the Liberals managed to get re-elected in the midst of the scandal. Instead of accepting that this is the government the people want, you chalk it up to Liberal "deceit" and "lies". I'm sorry Canadianna, but that's just not it. You can point as many scandal, mistakes and whatever else you want about the Liberal government, just as I can do the same for any government before them, it doesn't change a thing.
I agree that the Liberals are the choice of some people (not most people and certainly not the people) – despite their assaults on democracy, their theft of billions of dollars, the concentration of power in the hands of a few (mostly unelected) advisors to the PM, the squandering of taxpayer money and the perversion of truth on so many levels. Canada’s willingness to accept the unacceptable, and defend the indefensible only serves to prove my point. Most people choose the status quo if 'it doesn't affect' them. By now, dissent is not safe in this country because it exposes you to the ridicule and wrath of those who control the press, the governing elite and the conforming masses. So, most people stay quiet in order to stay out of the crossfire.
It doesn’t mean they approve.
It means they are afraid.
Canada has so many years defining itself as ‘not American’ that we are losing what it really means to be Canadian. By pulling away from our traditions and roots, we are denying our founding peoples and the underlying principles and values that enabled these two great warring empires to co-exist on the same soil.
Do you really think that by stripping away our heritage in order to not be American, will make us any more Canadian? That is not independence, it is petulant self-mutilation. Trying to accommodate special interest groups in the name of being ‘progressive’ or ‘enlightened’ is tantamount to kicking out a pillar of a building and suggesting that the architecture did not match current trends. The pillar represents stability. Removing even one factor of societal stability will inevitably lead to the crumbling of societal norms. Like it or not, societal norms are what enable societies to perpetuate and flourish.
The problem is the generation who looks for instant gratification. The how does this affect me group. This isn’t about you. The effects of this will not be known for a couple of generations, just like the effects of the Residential Schools can only be determined now, from a distance. But the damage will be done, and in this case, it will be more pervasive and wide-spread because it will be systemic and nation-wide.
Societal institutions are put in place for the benefit of society, not for the comfort of individuals as we so often believe. Altering the institution of marriage, allowing it to yield its very meaning to accomodate a fashionable interpretation, leaves it open to further dismantling in the name of 'rights' and 'equality'. Recognition of this does not make me a bigot or a fascist. It makes me a Canadian who is concerned for the future of our country. I believe the SSM law will pass, and I hope that my concerns have been for naught. In the meantime, they are my concerns and I will not be silenced.
17. Just as an end note, I'd just like to point out that the Liberals managed to get re-elected in the midst of the scandal. Instead of accepting that this is the government the people want, you chalk it up to Liberal "deceit" and "lies". I'm sorry Canadianna, but that's just not it. You can point as many scandal, mistakes and whatever else you want about the Liberal government, just as I can do the same for any government before them, it doesn't change a thing.
I agree that the Liberals are the choice of some people (not most people and certainly not the people) – despite their assaults on democracy, their theft of billions of dollars, the concentration of power in the hands of a few (mostly unelected) advisors to the PM, the squandering of taxpayer money and the perversion of truth on so many levels. Canada’s willingness to accept the unacceptable, and defend the indefensible only serves to prove my point. Most people choose the status quo if 'it doesn't affect' them. By now, dissent is not safe in this country because it exposes you to the ridicule and wrath of those who control the press, the governing elite and the conforming masses. So, most people stay quiet in order to stay out of the crossfire.
It doesn’t mean they approve.
It means they are afraid.
Answering My Critic -- Part 6
13. anonymous, You got some serious thinking to do. This is an issue of pride. This issue is about whether or not Gay or Lesbians will have the "pride" to be recognized as equal to any other Canadian under the law. We, the majority of Canadians, have made it clear we will not tolerate an "equal but different" mentality, That is a preposterous and backward view.
So this is about pride? I thought is was about principle. The principle of equality in a free society recognizes our individuality -- pride is self-indulgence.
Sorry Peg. Truth is self evident. Laws are not going to make anyone who doesn’t agree with SSM change their minds. As matter of fact, it will likely entrench positions. Try as this socialist state might, you can’t legislate thought, principles or values. You might not agree with my principles, thoughts and values, but passing a law that says they are wrong is not going to change them.
And, sorry to burst your bubble ‘Peg. But we are 'different but equal.' Isn’t that what multiculturalism, gay pride, feminism and asymmetrical federalism are all about– different but equal? Or have the Liberals been handing us a line of nonsense for forty years?
14. Bob, Before you say something, make sure it's not a load of crap.
When you come to my comments section, please don’t insult my guests. If you disagree, fine. Do so respectfully. I have allowed you your say (although why, if you are so passionate you didn’t just put it on your own blog, I don’t understand) Being rude doesn’t strengthen your argument, it just diminishes your credibility.
15. Mcguire, We are Canadians, not Americans, and we have absolutley no intention of becoming Americans. In order for a government to be considered "middle", the people have to agree with them.
In Hitler’s Germany, in Stalin’s Russia, in Communist China, in Amin’s Uganda – the majority of people went along with the government because it was the easy route. That doesn’t make it the middle. It doesn’t make it right. It keeps you from having to form your own opinion. It keeps you from standing out in a crowd. It makes it safe.
. . . and the band played on.
So this is about pride? I thought is was about principle. The principle of equality in a free society recognizes our individuality -- pride is self-indulgence.
Sorry Peg. Truth is self evident. Laws are not going to make anyone who doesn’t agree with SSM change their minds. As matter of fact, it will likely entrench positions. Try as this socialist state might, you can’t legislate thought, principles or values. You might not agree with my principles, thoughts and values, but passing a law that says they are wrong is not going to change them.
And, sorry to burst your bubble ‘Peg. But we are 'different but equal.' Isn’t that what multiculturalism, gay pride, feminism and asymmetrical federalism are all about– different but equal? Or have the Liberals been handing us a line of nonsense for forty years?
14. Bob, Before you say something, make sure it's not a load of crap.
When you come to my comments section, please don’t insult my guests. If you disagree, fine. Do so respectfully. I have allowed you your say (although why, if you are so passionate you didn’t just put it on your own blog, I don’t understand) Being rude doesn’t strengthen your argument, it just diminishes your credibility.
15. Mcguire, We are Canadians, not Americans, and we have absolutley no intention of becoming Americans. In order for a government to be considered "middle", the people have to agree with them.
In Hitler’s Germany, in Stalin’s Russia, in Communist China, in Amin’s Uganda – the majority of people went along with the government because it was the easy route. That doesn’t make it the middle. It doesn’t make it right. It keeps you from having to form your own opinion. It keeps you from standing out in a crowd. It makes it safe.
. . . and the band played on.
Answering My Critic -- Part 5
9. Why this issue is even being discussed in parliament befuddles me.To me, a silly left-minded individual this seems like progress, we are adapting to a changing society. The direction we progress in is up to the people, if the people didn't like it, they wouldn't vote have voted Liberal. THIS is how democracy works.
This issue was brought up in parliament in 1999 because of court decisions resulting from charter challenges. Traditional marriage won. The radical left just keeps bringing it up and bringing it up until they finally feel the government ‘got it right’. An unelected, unaccountable judiciary has decided this – despite their own findings as recently as 1995 that marriage is ‘one man one woman’. The government is no longer allowing free-votes on this issue of conscience. This is not how democracy works. This is how dictatorships work.
A person might have voted Liberal because they preferred their stand on child-care or health-care. Their re-election is not implied endorsement of every policy they have – or else you would be saying that Canadians endorse corruption, theft and lies and we all know that’s not true, right?
10. Your right, wanting to ban same-sex marriage doesn't make you "intolerant" it makes you a fascist.
Do you even know what fascist means? Don’t throw words around because you think it makes you look clever. Go, look it up. Who’s the fascist? Also, don’t resort to name-calling. It weakens what little argument you have.
11. Oh, and Canadianna, in regards to your worry that they will "main street" same-sex marriage, same-sex couple have already been granted the right to marry in 10 provinces.
Again, you have misread me. I said –If gay-marriage is not the domain of the radical left, what is? And whatever it is, watch out, because it won't be long before they main street it.
When all things are marriage, nothing is marriage. If it is discrimination to exclude same-sex, then by the same logic it is discrimination to exclude polygamy, incest, child-adult unions. Don’t say ‘but that’s different’. To those whose ‘rights’ are being denied, it is exactly the same. They will do as the militant gays have done. They will lobby, they will ridicule, they will scorn – until their ‘rights’ are recognised. It may not happen in my lifetime. It took over forty years for the gay agenda to be advanced. But it will happen. There’s no stopping it once marriage becomes a ‘rights’ issue.
Now I will begin to address your comments to my guests:
12. Chris, you are way off bat, so far off in fact that your opinion is offensive and dangerous. Just for your information, the first establishment to perform same-sex marriage in my city was a synagogue, don't drag us into this, as I can assure you, a majority of Jewish people do not agree with you.
So, if the synagogue performed a same-sex ceremony, then SSM can’t be against the Judaism. Therefore, when a SS couple wants to get married in a synagogue where the rabbi does not believe in SSM, if the couple wants to challenge it under the charter, it can and would likely win. If something is against a ‘religion’ then all arms of the religion – each temple, each rabbi, must be following the same book, right? See the slippery slope we're on?
Never speak for the majority, Peg. You’ll find you’re very much alone.
Just a few more folks.
This issue was brought up in parliament in 1999 because of court decisions resulting from charter challenges. Traditional marriage won. The radical left just keeps bringing it up and bringing it up until they finally feel the government ‘got it right’. An unelected, unaccountable judiciary has decided this – despite their own findings as recently as 1995 that marriage is ‘one man one woman’. The government is no longer allowing free-votes on this issue of conscience. This is not how democracy works. This is how dictatorships work.
A person might have voted Liberal because they preferred their stand on child-care or health-care. Their re-election is not implied endorsement of every policy they have – or else you would be saying that Canadians endorse corruption, theft and lies and we all know that’s not true, right?
10. Your right, wanting to ban same-sex marriage doesn't make you "intolerant" it makes you a fascist.
Do you even know what fascist means? Don’t throw words around because you think it makes you look clever. Go, look it up. Who’s the fascist? Also, don’t resort to name-calling. It weakens what little argument you have.
11. Oh, and Canadianna, in regards to your worry that they will "main street" same-sex marriage, same-sex couple have already been granted the right to marry in 10 provinces.
Again, you have misread me. I said –If gay-marriage is not the domain of the radical left, what is? And whatever it is, watch out, because it won't be long before they main street it.
When all things are marriage, nothing is marriage. If it is discrimination to exclude same-sex, then by the same logic it is discrimination to exclude polygamy, incest, child-adult unions. Don’t say ‘but that’s different’. To those whose ‘rights’ are being denied, it is exactly the same. They will do as the militant gays have done. They will lobby, they will ridicule, they will scorn – until their ‘rights’ are recognised. It may not happen in my lifetime. It took over forty years for the gay agenda to be advanced. But it will happen. There’s no stopping it once marriage becomes a ‘rights’ issue.
Now I will begin to address your comments to my guests:
12. Chris, you are way off bat, so far off in fact that your opinion is offensive and dangerous. Just for your information, the first establishment to perform same-sex marriage in my city was a synagogue, don't drag us into this, as I can assure you, a majority of Jewish people do not agree with you.
So, if the synagogue performed a same-sex ceremony, then SSM can’t be against the Judaism. Therefore, when a SS couple wants to get married in a synagogue where the rabbi does not believe in SSM, if the couple wants to challenge it under the charter, it can and would likely win. If something is against a ‘religion’ then all arms of the religion – each temple, each rabbi, must be following the same book, right? See the slippery slope we're on?
Never speak for the majority, Peg. You’ll find you’re very much alone.
Just a few more folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)