In today’s Ottawa Citizen yours truly has a few comments quoted near the end.
Almost everyone has a skeleton or two inside their closet. But keeping them there, locked safely in the past, has never been more difficult for people in public life, as Tom Lukiwski discovered this week.
The Conservative MP apologized again yesterday for the anti-gay screed he uttered on videotape, 17 years ago, in a political backroom in Saskatchewan.
“I will spend the rest of my career and my life trying to make up for those comments,” he told the House of Commons.
In other news, Svend Robinson was released on parole this week.
Lukiwski, shut up – you’ve said enough. Stop being a chew toy. Give it a month, and even Google will have trouble remembering your name. You’ve spent enough years in political life to know the truth behind “there, but for the grace of camcorder…”
Charles Adler and I are on the same page;
Do I want to spend hours chatting about what a couple of drunken hacks laughed about in private 16 years ago? No. They were getting stupid with each other and some other fellow travelers. They were stupid to tape it and stupid not to trash the tape years ago.
Would it be a stupid move for me to get into public life? Yes it would be.
My honest approach to such stupidity would be covered by certain media types as enabling sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. Why would any intelligent person want to participate in such an intellectually dumbed-down environment as today’s political circus?
Indeed. The chances that anyone who has survived the eyeball-scratching of internal party politics to rise to a position of national prominence without uttering a few politically nuclear epithets is near zero.
This type of indignation is highly selective. For example, I’m described in the Citizen as running a controversial blog, yet there’s a NDP riding association president in Saskatchewan who lists among his “daily reads” the Number One Source On The Progressive Net For The Word “C*nt”[TM].
To date, the NDP’s official party net nanny hasn’t noticed, You’d have thunk he’d have found it whilst surfing. Someone ought to tell him before Lorne Calvert hears about it in the Leg.
If the politicians had their brains turned on they would be going after the person in the NDP (similar to the income trust) that spread the hate tape to the media which may be the act of breaching the law. Private rants in a private war room would appear to not be a breach of the law. Now days it appears politicians will sell their sister to keep their jobs. Will be interesting to see where Harper keeps his spine. Jean never backed down in his years in politics and would just leave the country when things got to hot. Then make a mess overseas and come back and start all over again. Lets see if freedom of personal belief lives at the CPC and lets see if you will sell your beliefs for power.
If I were one of the people in that video, I would seriously be thinking hard about all the people in the room – it doesn’t look like it was a big gathering – it shouldn’t be that hard to figure out who the Judas is.
I no more believe the NDP happened to find a tape “left behind”, this was either planted and a mysterious phone call made to “look” in a certain place – this has had far more impact on the Tories than the Sask party. This has the smell of Liberal pseudo scandal all over it.
As a few that read my comments may know, I know nothing.
Though.
Thinking about the terminology of ‘homophobe’. Seems that the word is more of a newspeak than an expression of fact. Few people if any are afraid of homosexuals.
On the other hand the word heterophobe would be an accurate description of many comments coming from homosexuals.
As for homosexuals, my sense is live and let live, just get out of my face.
Many years ago a French philosopher, I forget which one, said about the common sight in Paris of couples hanging around their necks and other such activity, that it is nice to see people being amused with one another though they do expose themselves to ridicule.
As for Lukiwski, if he was to resign, he should do it because of all the bloody apologizing. Any apology after the first one is insincere. The guy should not apologize at all. What he should have said is ‘what I said long time ago was stupid, end of story, move on, I reserve right to say stupid things in future, it is the part of human nature’.
Should say ‘reserve the right’
Cascadian: “The culture in 1991 was very different from today, some might even say it was way better, people tended to voice their opinions freely especially when attending functions of like-minded individuals.”
For instance, in 1991, Stephane Dion, a man who purports to be PM in waiting, was a separatist. For instance, most parliamentarians in 1991 were against gay marriage. Which is potentially more harmful, drunken idiot remarks, or the wish to take Quebec out of Confederation?
This could backfire on MSM; the knuckledraggers in the Liberal and NDP party could switch their vote to Tory. (sarc off)
Look at the bright side. The NDP released the tape now, rather than waiting for the middle of the election campaign when the political impact in urban centres may have been greater.
VonRock: “Why do you move out of a place and leave a bunch of video tapes behind? Lazy and stupid?”
Preceisely.
It’s clear to me that the Conservatives DIDN’T leave a bunch of video tapes behind. What Political Party would do that? They’d be ripe for…ta da…being tarred and feathered by their enemies.
It seems highly likely that some enemy, with access to this 17-year-old tape, GAVE/SOLD the tape to the NDP which say they just “happened” to come across it when they took possession of the Conservative offices…
The NDP story doesn’t hold up.
The Conservatives were unlikely to have left ANYTHING behind in their offices, soon to house the NDP, let alone a tape as compromising as this one.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
ASK THE MSM WHAT THEIR ROLE HAS BEEN IN THIS FIASCO.
Conservatives hate gay people. Get over it.
aa: Why don’t you get over it?
Most “conservatives” know gay people, love gay people, work with gay people, have fun with gay people, help gay people, have gay people in their families, and don’t actually divide their friends and family into “gay” people and “non-gay” people.
There’s a HUGE difference between hating someone and being concerned about their lifestyle.
‘Seems to me that if you care about or love someone you might have some problems with a lifestyle that could lead to some major health problems–and that usually does.
“There’s a HUGE difference between hating someone and being concerned about their lifestyle.”
batb…..not to the leftards. Remeber,the only lifestyle they are concernd about is making sure they inflict theirs on YOU.
Besides,you are asking them to discern between emotions and logic! Tsk,tsk heh
Leaving aside batb’s tired old designation of homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle’ (presumably one that’s chosen?), where does batb get the statistics which claim that homosexuality “usually” leads to major health problems?
USUALLY?
Is there anything to back this up? Or is it the same ol’ SDA realm of fantasy, where people just spout off whatever made-up nonsense they feel like, in order to ‘win’ arguments or make themselves feel better?
I mean…sorry to wreck the party, here. But as a member of the reality-based community, anyone care to substantiate Batb’s claim that homosexuality USUALLY leads to major health problems?
I can’t be bothered to look it up for you, but I believe the average lifespan of gay men is significantly lower than for that of straights.
Call it lifestyle, call it preference, I don’t care. It’s still the only “identity group” that’s defined by a behavior. Lots of doors await opening on that count.
Meaning, wait until they find the genes for pedophilia and then watch the heads explode. That’s not a matter of if, but of when.
I thought the Conservative party was fighting with the Sask Party over money left over in their trust. Someone in the old Conservative Party obviously did not receive something they wanted. The Sask Party seems to think the NDP had a right to the tape because they are not going after them.
For Rolik:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/exec_director/cc08_state_of_movement.pdf
“‘State of the Movement’ Address by Matt Foreman,
Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Given at the 20th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change, in Detroit, Mich., on Feb. 8, 2008”
“Today, right now, more than 45 percent of African-American gay and bi men in key urban areas
are infected with HIV, with a 33 percent increase in new diagnoses among our brothers under
age 30 over the past six years. Today, right now, African Americans are nearly 10 times more
likely than white people to be diagnosed with AIDS.
The response — internal to our community and external — is appallingly racist. Internally, when
these numbers come out, the “established” gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if
this isn’t our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay
or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”
BB obliges.
and “presumptuous” rolllk, “Will not see”
We will never hear from rollk,.. back to his everything-gay-comfy world., head up his own gay ass.
Kate: “I can’t be bothered to look it up…”
No surprise there, Kate. Just make any statements you like,and when questioned wave your hand and say “I don’thave to prove it…the facts are out there – find’em yourself…”
You’re as intellectually sophisticated as your airbrush monstrosities are artistically sophisticated.
Oh, and hey, we’re just talking about ‘gay men’ now? I thought we were talking about homosexuals..
Kate: “Wait unitl they find the genes for pedophilia…”
You don’t present any facts to support your assertion, then you turn to the future where your bigotry will be ‘justified’ in Tomorrowland…
What debate!
Such a rigorous intellect you possess!
This isn’t a site where base ignorant prejudice is dressed up in phony academic jargon at all!
Hey BB
You think your post proves batb’s assertion that homosexuality usually leads to major health problems?
Where in your post does it prove that lesbians USUALLY experience major health problems?
It says 45% of black gay men in urban areas have HIV.
That doesn’t even show that black gay men in urban areas USUALLY have major health problems. 45% of them do.
Along with all the other homosexuals in the world, lesbians and gay men, it hasn’t been shown in the least that homosexuals USUALLY experience major health problems, as batb claimed.
batb makes an idiotic unsubstantiated bigoted comment.
Kate chimes in with a bunch of rigamorole which proves nothing except her own bigotry.
BB posts irrelevant stuff that does nothing to substantiate batb’s claim.
richfisher moronically jumps in to say that BB’s line of bull has actually proved something – as well as tellingly using “gay” as a pejorative against me. Oooh, when rednecks attack!
Typical.
Is this really the best you guys can do?
Pa – thetic!
Those were stats from their own representative.
And he took heat for even saying this much.
Don’t be too hard on him, Rolic.
Earlier in this thread, loki posted: “Criticism of homosexuals seems to be verbotten now despite the well known health consequences of homosexuality. If one excludes IV drug users, > [more than] 95% of sexually transmitted HIV cases occur in homosexuals. All venereal diseases are orders of magnitude higher in the homosexual population which is not surprising given that having several hundred sexual partners/year is considered ‘normal’ in cities such as Vancouver.”
The evidence that there is a seriously reduced life expectancy (for gay men in particular), and a great deal of disease, as well as domestic violence (Statistics Canada), in the GLBT community is well documented, often in its own publications.
“(S)/he who can read, let that person read.” If the message doesn’t register, I guess some people have language processing problems. Or maybe some other kind of problem . . .
The onus is on people like that (not Kate) to provide a real argument and some stats to back up their juvenile, fictional rants. Of course, the fact that they can’t provide the stats to prove their point is borne out by the vicious and vacuous ad hominems they fling about instead. Talk about narcissistic hypocrisy.
What’s rolik’s fav pick up line:can I push your stool in?
Lookout:
The statement was that homosexuality USUALLY leads to major health problems.
Nothing posted here, including the irrelevant quotations you have offered substantiates that claim in the least. If you think they have, it’s you who has reading comprehension problems, and should probably seek professional help for them.
Put up or shut up. Prove the claim or align yourself with the rest here who routinely spout off with completely unfounded assertions – i.e., the fantasy-based community.
H.ryan
Thanks for displaying the real rationale behind all the high-flown rhetoric used by Kate and the rest here: ignorant bigotry and homophobia.
Just like the ones here who pipe up during discussions about race with “ni–er” etc., you have provided an essential glimpse into the reality of SDA: redneck prejudice dressed up with phony baloney after-the-fact justifications.
Carry on!
According to law, “Silence means consent.”
As long as rolik is silent re documenting his/her thesis, by default, those who have taken the time and effort to verify their assertions carry the argument.
So, rolik, either quote the statement(s) with which you disagree and refute, with evidence, or your increasingly pathetic assertions continue to have no weight at all.
Ah rolik get a life you pathetic left wing retarded moron.You give us sane hard working common sense people a glimpse into the reality of a dumb ass leftard who would rather have their head chopped off than to be called a racist.Don’t you know that every time you throw that word around it carries less weight,but carry on.
You know what’s problematic about this is that Kate feels the necessity to retract her Democratic opinion. What’s troubling about it is that the SaskParty all but drew-and-quartered Kate and two or three days later Brad Wall is found in a video tape committing acts of extreme disrespect to Saskatchewan Voters (particularly from Preecville). What’s crazy about this is that Brad Wall can be heard laughing in the background while a member of his party racially mocks the shape of black peoples eyes. What’s worthy of real criminal time is that Brad Wall and his fellow Party Members broke the law in specific sections 193 and 266 of the Saskatchewan Election Act (which define corrupt election practices).
For whatever possible damn explanation the SaskParty can try to weasel out about why they removed Kate’s blog from their website, Brad Wall is guilty of much greater crimes of racism against black people’s eye shapes, corruption under the election act, and making fun of Saskatchewan voters – and no it does not matter that it was 15 years ago because he was an adult and responsible for his actions). This was done on the Taxpayer dollar (as the election expense returns show for that year), and by public officials in a public funded setting during an election (section 266 of the Election Act) and NOT by private citizens.
In case you think I’m doing this to support the NDP – BA-LONE-EE… the NDP are just as guilty and just as abusive to Sask TaxPayers on just as regular a basis.
Send the whole lot of them to jail is what people are saying in Saskatchewan. Many are just plain sick and tired of watching dedicated and involved people like Kate be censured while far worse “actual crimes” are committed.
Brad Wall apologizes one day, and jokes about the event the next (saying at the premieres dinner is anybody video taping this?)
Shameful… or Shameless…. Both is the answer… the acts where shameful (and illegal and racist) but it was shameful that he would joke about it a day after apologizing for it on the floor of the legislature saying, and I quote, “… it is wrong for anyone to make light of these things…” which is just what he did at the premier’s dinner a day after apologizing…. SHAMEFUL.
Just to be clear adler is wrong… this is not a couple of drunken hacks in private… it’s in public and was the alcohol cost was reimbursed by taxpayers. If it was in private… ok… but it wasn’t… it was public both in action and in who was funding it.