Much as I disagreed with Michael Cooper's grandstanding at the Justice Committee, expunging his statement from the record is plain stupid, and it's been done to give the impression that what Cooper said, was far worse than it actually was.
This is the problem with the world today - people aren't content to disagree, or disavow, or dissect and discuss -- they feel the need to erase points of view, and muzzle opinions that don't follow their own ideology. That, and blowing things out of proportion, implying meaning that isn't there - are all tactics of people who are trying to control the way people think and speak about ideas.
Michael Cooper's words were not hate speech. They did not incite violence. He was rude to a witness and then quoted from a mass-murder's manifesto -- which really, shouldn't be a problem since it wasn't to agree or promote, but to enlighten. But in Canada (and much of the Western world) you just know that the liberal fascists will pounce on that as stoking the flames of populism or some such BS, which is exactly what happened. Cooper should have known would happen, which is why he should have referenced the document without directly quoting.
But removing the cited passage from the record? Why? It wasn't scary - it had nothing to do with violence, and everything to do with ideology and motivation. How is this controversial at all?
Andrew Scheer took the bait and removed Cooper from the committee. Mistake. An apology by Cooper for being rude should have sufficed, and Andrew Scheer should have stood by his MP for quoting the manifesto because it was done to support a point and didn't say one violent or hateful word against any group or person (except conservatives). Scheer dropped the ball, yet again. It's okay for someone like me to comment and say Cooper shouldn't have read from that paper - but Andrew Scheer is the Conservative leader, hoping to become my PM. He should have stood up for his MP and for conservatism in general by saying - Cooper was rude and has apologized for that, but reading from the writings of a terrorist is not a hate crime, and was necessary to counter the assertion of the witness. Period. And Cooper should still be on that committee.
This is how liberals win. They decide to be outraged over something that is not outrageous, and conservatives get wobbly and concede ground.
I hate Justin Trudeau. Maxime Bernier and his party have become too extreme for mainstream politics. But Andrew Scheer is tepid at best. He's so eager to please everyone that he's lost his moral compass.
The only thing that was wrong with Cooper's actions was his manner. A simple, okay - he was rude but he was right - would have changed the channel. Instead, days later the Liberals are saying that Scheer didn't go far enough - that Cooper should be removed from caucus. Given the extremity of the punishment Scheer meted out, that makes sense, because expulsion from the committee conceded that Cooper's actions were that extremely egregious, and if that's the case, how do you justify keeping him in the fold?
People aren't reading whole stories. Except conservatives, did anyone really bother to scroll down far enough to see, or play the video to hear exactly what Cooper said? Probably not. So most people are taking it from the headlines that a bigot still sits on the opposition benches and Andrew Scheer won't expel him.
The only one to blame for the perception is Andrew Scheer. He gave them fodder.
canadianna
This is the problem with the world today - people aren't content to disagree, or disavow, or dissect and discuss -- they feel the need to erase points of view, and muzzle opinions that don't follow their own ideology. That, and blowing things out of proportion, implying meaning that isn't there - are all tactics of people who are trying to control the way people think and speak about ideas.
Michael Cooper's words were not hate speech. They did not incite violence. He was rude to a witness and then quoted from a mass-murder's manifesto -- which really, shouldn't be a problem since it wasn't to agree or promote, but to enlighten. But in Canada (and much of the Western world) you just know that the liberal fascists will pounce on that as stoking the flames of populism or some such BS, which is exactly what happened. Cooper should have known would happen, which is why he should have referenced the document without directly quoting.
But removing the cited passage from the record? Why? It wasn't scary - it had nothing to do with violence, and everything to do with ideology and motivation. How is this controversial at all?
Andrew Scheer took the bait and removed Cooper from the committee. Mistake. An apology by Cooper for being rude should have sufficed, and Andrew Scheer should have stood by his MP for quoting the manifesto because it was done to support a point and didn't say one violent or hateful word against any group or person (except conservatives). Scheer dropped the ball, yet again. It's okay for someone like me to comment and say Cooper shouldn't have read from that paper - but Andrew Scheer is the Conservative leader, hoping to become my PM. He should have stood up for his MP and for conservatism in general by saying - Cooper was rude and has apologized for that, but reading from the writings of a terrorist is not a hate crime, and was necessary to counter the assertion of the witness. Period. And Cooper should still be on that committee.
This is how liberals win. They decide to be outraged over something that is not outrageous, and conservatives get wobbly and concede ground.
I hate Justin Trudeau. Maxime Bernier and his party have become too extreme for mainstream politics. But Andrew Scheer is tepid at best. He's so eager to please everyone that he's lost his moral compass.
The only thing that was wrong with Cooper's actions was his manner. A simple, okay - he was rude but he was right - would have changed the channel. Instead, days later the Liberals are saying that Scheer didn't go far enough - that Cooper should be removed from caucus. Given the extremity of the punishment Scheer meted out, that makes sense, because expulsion from the committee conceded that Cooper's actions were that extremely egregious, and if that's the case, how do you justify keeping him in the fold?
People aren't reading whole stories. Except conservatives, did anyone really bother to scroll down far enough to see, or play the video to hear exactly what Cooper said? Probably not. So most people are taking it from the headlines that a bigot still sits on the opposition benches and Andrew Scheer won't expel him.
The only one to blame for the perception is Andrew Scheer. He gave them fodder.
canadianna
