Will this scandal remove James Moore from the Ministry of Heritage?
It just might…
Will this scandal remove James Moore from the Ministry of Heritage?
It just might…
With Mary Walsh’s early morning ambush on Toronto Mayor Ford which terrified his 5-year-old child still fresh in our mind, this version of the trick is actually funny!
The thing that gets me is how good a sport Mr. Ford is about the whole thing. It casts him in a vastly different light than the CBC commentary – which had subsequently been proven to be an outright lie.
On the one hand – a bunch of ‘professional’ journalists from CBC tell an outright lie (that Mr. Ford called the 9-1-1 operators ‘bitches’). On the othe hand – a Mayor who proves he has a sense of humour, even about himself…
Hmmm…. Form your own conclusions!
Last night, after coming home from having voted, I was surfing the blogosphere a little. My husband looked over my shoulder to read this and wanted to know if I wrote it…as it is almost verbatim what I had said to him in the morning:
Election day is here and at some point I will drag myself to the polling station. This time will be different though. I will not be casting my vote for the Conservative party. I just can’t.
I can’t cast a vote for a party whose leader thinks miming Dalton McGuinty is a good thing. I can’t hold my nose and vote conservative just because some guy who claims to be conservative finagled his way to the leadership of the party, just because he may not screw me over quite as thoroughly as McGuinty will.
I will not opt for the lesser of two weevils this time out. I’m just not going to vote for any weevil. My vote will go to the Freedom Party, in part in protest, in part because they do hold views compatible with my own, views that seem alien to the weevil currently in charge of Ontario’s PC party.
So long weevils.
Except that I did not make the clever weevil analogy….
During elections, it is the custom for the various candidates vying for our votes to knock on the doors of the constituents in the riding where they are hoping to win the seat, assure the voters that you care about each and every one of them – personally – and, hopefully, convince the voters that they are worthy of their trust.
I have experienced this many times – politicians of all political stripes and polka-dots have had a discussion with me at my front door, from federal, provincial and municipal levels. This has led to interesting discussions (though usually, not particularly long ones as the candidates are eager to hit as many homes as possible in the little time available to them) and even when we do not see eye-to-eye politically, the politicians have always been on their best and most affable. After all, you never know when a neighbour is listening and might be impresses….
With the current Ontario election in its last week, I was not particularly surprised to see a political candidate on my doorstep, hoping to convince me to give him my vote. What shocked me was that almost from the first moment, the dude trolled me!
The only thing I can think of was that it was a cold and rainy evening when Ric Dagenais of the NDP happened upon my abode – so his demeanour might have been a reflection of the elements… because I cannot imagine why on Earth anyone hoping to convince me to vote for them would behave like a such a small-minded troll. Truly…
What came out of this guy’s mouth was astonishing. I find it difficult to understand what possessed him to behave as he did, to say the stuff he said. It made him sound, well, uneducated, slightly unhinged and patronizing all at the same time.
Let me expand on that.
He started ‘on script’ and asked if I had considered voting for the NDP. I said that while still undecided, I was seriously considering the Freedom Party of Ontario.
Mr. Dagenais’s eyes glazed over as he said: “Who?”
It took him a bit, but he finally remembered who that was. Then he said: “They are running a candidate in this riding?”
When I assured him that they were (Marco Rossi), he reluctantly agreed that yeah, he guessed they were.
So far, he has sounded just a bit grumpy and a more than a little ignorant – he could not even remember who was competing against him for the seat in the Ontario legislature.
Then he asked me why I was considering the Freedom Party.
I told him my honest opinion: that we needed to move towards smaller government and that I thought the Freedom Party was the best choice for people who do not like big government.
This seemed to shock him: “You think the NDP does not stand for small government?”
At first, I thought he wassimply jesting – facing a voter with insurmountable ideological differences from him, that he would depart on a light note. I was wrong. He was serious…
Then he began to explain to me that the NDP was the ONLY party that would guarantee me ‘smaller government’. With a straight face, he was honestly trying to convince me that NDP was the only logical choice for people who want to reduce the size of the government.
Now – let’s do a little recap. I was aware of more candidates in this riding than he, as one of the candidates, was. This should obviously put me into a category of ‘at least somewhat informed voter’ – or, at least, not an absolute political ignoramus who is unaware of the NDP’s policies and their inherent incompatibility with ‘small government’. OK – I am blond…and since my left shoulder has still not fully healed, my pony tail was not well centred or actually styled, just sort of sraped back off my face. And, when he knocked on my door, I was in the process of cleaning my house and dressed in my ‘grubbies’. So, I probably looked ditsy and grubby at once. Still, treating me like an idiot by offering me such transparent lies, in such a patronizing manner, was a bit of a strain on me.
In order to re-focus the conversation, I tried to explain that I thought the government should be much smaller than the NDP suggests – that governments should really not provide any services beyond the military, policing and judiciary. Pretty standard stuff – right? Mr. Dagenais had a very weird reaction to this: he accused me of wanting to live in a police state!
He got quite heated, too, leaning forward and pointing a finger to deliver the message. Needless to say, I was not prepared for such an irrational statement, nor the passion with which it was delivered. I still don’t know if Mr. Dagenais was just trolling (I hope so) or if he is truly so ill informed that he thinks that wanting less government truly means wanting to establish a police state.
I tried to explain it – I really did. I good faith and everything. But his claims kept getting more and more irrational, at one point claiming that if citizens were granted property rights, then multinational corporations would build poisonous factories across the street from my house and kill my children!
Yes, he actually went that far.
The thing he said were so irrational that I asked him to stop with the ‘straw men’ arguments because it was silly, but I don’t think he even heard me. But he seemed like he was just getting started… He actually shouted that I would build a Nazi state and demanded to know if that was what I really wanted!
Rather than stand there and continue to be insulted, I asked him to please leave. It took him several sentences to register what I said, then he looked up at me in shocked surprise – so I repeated my request. He said he guessed he’d better – and stalked off…
The encounter had left me rather baffled. I am grateful to Ric Dagenais and all the candidates for participating in the political process: without people willing to devote their time and energy and running for public office, our system would simply cease to function. People of all political opinions and views ought to have someone to vote for who represents their views. Without people like Ric Dagenais, this would not be possible – so I am sad to have had such a discouraging encounter with him.
Still, I hope this was just stress coming through, that I had unknowingly pushed some buttons that led him to troll me…and that he truly does not believe that giving property rights to citizens would lead to multinational corporations killing all the children and reducing the size of the government would lead to a Nazi-style police state.
Four years ago, Ontario Conservatives were hopeful: after the inept mismanagement and corruption of the McGuinty regime, it seemed that a Conservative majority was assured.
Until, of course, then Conservative leader John Tory snatched defeat from the jaws of victory! The issue that crashed the Conservatives was Tory’s promise of public funding of religious schools. His assertion then was that funding faith-based schools is the only way to regulate them.
Really.
He actually stood up and said this – and did not see what was wrong with this thinking.
For obvious reasons, this single stance by the Conservatives brought us another 4 years of McGuinty. And, during this 4 year term, Mc.Guinty expanded religion in publicly funded schools; both Catholic and Public (which are ostensibly secular). Now, we see sectarian and gender segregation in tax-payer funded schools in oder for clerics to instruct the students and lead them in prayer.
And no wonder – McGuinty is sleeping with an activist for religious schools! Quite literally – he is married to her…
But, surely, the Ontario Conservatives have learned from this, no?
They have a spanking new leader, Tim Hudak, whose parents are said to be teachers: between that and the Tory disaster last election, surely Hudak will not be so stupid as to run on a platform of taxpayer-funded faith-based education, right?
May be, may be not… According to this interview by Brian Lilley, it is not so certain.
Some women who come to Canada get trapped by the system – and become exploited as sex workers.
No, not all.
Some women choose to prostitute themselves – and they should be free to do so, and safely (as in, within the law, so they feel free to call police if they are robbed or assaulted – just like everyone else).
But, until our anti-prostitution laws are thrown out, some women – especially some immigrant women – will be trapped ‘by the system’ and will become, in a very real way, sex-slaves. In ‘therapeutic massage’ places and strip clubs and so on…
How?
Their sponsors (whom they owe money for transportation here) take away their ‘papers’ and force them to ‘work off the debt’… Except that, once they start working in the illegal sex industry, they are told that since they broke the laws, they must continue to work as sex slaves or they would be ‘turned over to the authorities’ – something most 3rd world immigrant women fear, as they come from countries where ‘authorities’ do not treat women in jail very well.
So, while I think that prostitution should be legal – until it is, I cannot condone anyone paing for the services of 3rd world immigrants trapped in the ‘massage parlour’ sex trade. It’s not the sex that bothers me – it is that these customers are actively helping to enslave women who would are not in this line of work voluntarily.
So much has been written about it that one would have to try very, very hard not to be aware of this.
Except, perhaps, Mr. Layton.
Or, perhaps not!
Mr. Layton – if you want to get your jollies off, good for you. But don’t abuse the most vulnerable in our society in order to do it!!!
P.S. – I should be more clear on what I mean: I don’t care if Mr. Layon got a massage or a massage with a ‘happy ending’ – I have a problem with the fact that he would financially support an illegal bawdy house.
Update: things keep getting more and more incriminating.
Friends,
The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) designated by the US Justice Department and the FBI as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, is partnering with the Liberal Party and Michael Ignatieff to host a fundraising event for liberal candidate Omar AlGhabra in Mississauga tonight.
As if this link alone was not troublesome, ICNA is making no secret of their association with both Ignatieff and AlGhabra. In a mass e-mail burst, ICNA head A. Qayyum Mufti wrote:
“Please help Omar AlGhabra reach the the parliament once again. Support him in his campaign by volounteering, financially, and inviting others. Join him this Monday to kick start his 2011 election campaign.”
For the uninitiated, ICNA follows the ideology of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Albanna. The spiritual head of ICNA is the late Syed Maududi who was once sentenced to death for his role in the pogroms aimed at liquidating the Ahmaddiya Muslims in Pakistan in 1952.
How on earth will the leader of the Liberal Party Michael Ignatieff explain why he got himself in bed with ICNA? Well, if Rob Oliphant can have lunch with a pro-Taliban politician Imran Khan, then ICNA promoting a liberal candidate should be no big surprise.
Tarek
——–
Head over to his page – he has more!
HT: BCF
Hi Mr. Poilievre!
As my MP, you have done a good job – I have no complaints.
However, I am having growing doubts as to the direction the Conservative Party is taking…. Doubts which, I know for a fact, are not limited to myself but which extend to a lot of ‘little c’ conservatives in your riding – as well as some very influential ‘big C’ conservatives. I know, because they have told me so.
One of the cornerstones of our political system (and of the conservative philosophy) is that whatever their physical differences, each and every citizen is equal in the eyes of the law.
Unfortunately, this principle had been abused and, frankly, figuratively thrown out the window, in the way that the whole ‘Caledonia situation’ had been handled. Instead of treating all citizens as eaqual and upholding the rule of law, the OPP – under the leadership of Julian Fantino – practiced what could only be described as race-based policing. Now, the Federal Conservatives have not only permitted Mr. Fantino to sit in the House of Commons as a member of your party, he has been given a leadership role!
As a Canadian patriot, I find this highly insulting – and more than a little frightening.
However, I do understand that since what had happened in Caledonia had not been properly covered in the mainstream media, you may be unaware of exactly what it is that has so many people so very upset. Therefore, I would like to invite you to come – as my guest – to an information evening about what had happened in Caledonia. The event is co-sponsored by the Free Thinking Film Society (who recently sponsored the screening of the movie ‘Iranium’) and the International Free Press Society.
Details of the event:
Date: March 22, 2011
Time: 19:00 hours
Place: Library & Archives Canada, 395 Wellington St. (just down the road from the Supreme Court and Parliament buildings)
I truly do hope that as both a partiotic Canadian and as an MP, you will accept my invitation and take the time to learn about this very important threat to our core Canadian values. If you have any questions, please, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, I look forward to seeing you there!
‘me’,
blogging as Xanthippa
From our schools to our media to our bureaucracies, every aspect of our society is so infested with Cultural Marxism that ‘Newspeak’ has seriously corrupted not just our language, but our very ability to think clearly. We no longer even recognize it when we hear it.
One such example is the currently popular claim that ‘leadership’ requires one to be skilled at ‘consensus building’.
First, let’s look at the meaning of ‘leadership’ and what constitutes ‘a leader’:
‘Leadership’ is the ‘ability to lead’, fulfilling the role or function of a ‘leader’.
‘To lead’ means to ‘show way by going in advance’, ‘to guide’, ‘to direct’, ‘to inspire’.
So, whom do we, as a society, regard as the greatest leaders of all times? I did a little bit of googling on this – please, do the same. While the leaders ‘closest’ to us necessarily dominate our cultural memory, there were some names that consistently keep being mentioned, by educational sites, journalistic/populist opinion sites and discussion boards alike.
In no particular order, these are just some of these names that keep cropping up over and over when people discuss ‘great leaders’:
So, how many of these were known as ‘consensus builders’?
If I may quote from ‘What is ‘Cultural Marxism’?’, a guest-post on this blog by CodeSlinger:
Another example is the concept of intersubjective rationality, developed by Habermas, which replaces the individual process of reaching a conclusion based on the objective criterion that it follows from valid reasoning and known facts, on the one hand, with the social process of establishing a consensus supported by the subjective criterion that the group feels good about it, on the other hand. In today’s schools, those who do the former are maligned for being judgmental and demanding, while those who do the latter are praised for being good team players.
‘Consensus’ literally means ‘coming together’ (con) ‘of feelings’ (senses, sentiments). Dictionaries typically define ‘consensus’ as an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
In other words, ‘consensus building’ is a form of governance a group of people will resort to when it lacks ‘leadership’.
How does this translate into the political world? We are constantly bombarded with the message that great political leaders ought to be skilled at ‘consensus building’…
Our ‘Western’ societies have built-in safeguard mechanisms to ensure that ‘governments’ remain accountable to the citizens who elect them. Perhaps the most important single element in this mechanism is that our elected bodies are based on the adversarial principle.
It is precisely because the political adversaries of those who propose a particular policy or course of action bring public scrutiny to it by publicly pointing out the flaws or shortcomings of this proposal that the issue is brought to public attention and thoroughly examined. It is certainly not a pleasant process (nor is it meant to be pleasant), but it is one through which at least some light is shed onto what is being proposed – in as much detail as possible – and which engages the electorate in the debate (at least a little bit).
This is the method through which, in our system, we the citizens keep our elected politician accountable to us. It is therefore important that we do nothing which would minimize this process!
What would happen if, before proposing a new law or introducing a new project, the head of the group that is proposing it went to all the elected representatives and put just enough of an ‘incentive’ into the proposal for each an every one of the representatives to not want to loose that ‘carrot’?
Certainly, any such project would be significantly costlier, because in addition to the core cost, it would now have to also bear the cost of a ‘carrot’ for each of the elected representatives – the bit that got them to ‘go along’ with it.
Of course, any such law or rule would be significantly more convoluted because it would now have to accommodate/fulfill/have exemptions for/’bundle in’ all the ‘carrots’ for each of the elected representatives – the ‘incentives’ that would be built in to it to ‘facilitate the building of the consensus’.
Every ‘quid’ would have a ‘quo’.
All policy would be shaped by back-room deals, where ‘consensus builders’ would be busy building ‘accommodations’ and ‘incentives’ into everything that would placate or mollify any potential dissent….among the elected representatives.
Once this process was done, the product would be presented to the public as a ‘done deal’. I imagine the ‘dialog’ with the electorate would go something like this:
We have worked it all out, the proposal is so awesome that we all agree on it!
What? You want to see the details?
Why?
We, your elected representatives all agree on this so this must the best course of action. We have examined it in detailed and built a consensus – you needn’t worry your pretty little heads about it!
What? You don’t like it? You want to vote us out?
And replace us with whom? EVERYONE agrees with this!
In other words, if there is a consensus among our elected representatives on a proposed course of action, if each and every one of them considers it in his or her best interest to proceed with it as is, it is very unlikely that the voters, the citizens, will have any opportunity to learn much about it before it is implemented. There is another word for this type of ‘consensus’: collusion!
In an environment like this, an environment of back-room-deals and political collusion, where there is little controversy which leads to public debate or scrutiny of proposed policies, corruption can be very easily hidden.
In my never-humble-opinion, ‘consensus-building’ among elected representatives is not just anathema to responsible government and an abdication of leadership, it is an active attempt to corrupt our governance structures and eliminate accountability of elected officials to the citizenry.
I would even go further than that: politicians who tout governing through ‘consensus-building’ are openly admitting they intend to rule through corruption!