Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Doug Saunders of the Globe and Mail:
In a startling flight to the fringes, the European Union’s 490-million citizens sent an amazing range of angry, racist, anti-European, anti-immigrant, separatist, protest and far-right parties and candidates to represent them in Brussels, a ragtag protest vote….
The Scotsman:
(BNP) leader Nick Griffin, newly elected to the European parliament, was pelted with eggs and forced to abandon a press conference.
Shouting “off our streets, Nazi scum”, demonstrators yesterday chased Mr Griffin and party colleague Andrew Brons away from College Green in front of parliament…
Demonstrators — hastily mobilised by text, e-mail and twitter — hammered on the tops of the departing cars with their placards and cheered as they saw the politicians off…
RABBLE …the very definition.
Sure will be interesting as the blowback hits them in the face.
When Leftist’s can’t win a debate they turn to violence. Nice, real nice.
“We are calling on people to organise protests whenever we hear they are speaking or appearing, to make it clear the BNP is not an acceptable part of society.”
And these clowns call themselves anti-fascist?
As blogger “Mark” notes at Darcy’s dustmybroom.com, “Mr. Saunders is not reporting; he’s promoting the Canadian liberal, politically correct agenda.”
How bloody true. When Europe and European countries were electing communists and porn stars and various mixed-bag Marxists there was nary an article in any prog-paper saying anything like “In a startling flight to the fringes…” followed by a string of pejorative adjectives.
The following policies:
-selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports
-industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people
-take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants
-take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants
-committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens
-Increased investment is needed in Britain’s public transport system to bring it up to the highest standards in the world
are not from Labour’s website but are the BNP’s. And somehow it is called a far-right party. I think this linear political spectrum needs an update.
I would be willing to bet that if we were to look at the policies of these so-called right wing parties that they would be about as right wing as Jack Layton. By North Americans standards, your average European would not recognize a conservative if they tripped over one.
One other thing to note, xenophobic parties are not Conservative. They are SOCIALISTS who want to use the power of the state to “purify” their country and impose their social agenda from above. Details differ, results remain the same.
Conservatives want -less- government. So far as I can see the BNP is not particularly Conservative.
The Slope and Fail strikes again. Euros must be doing something right if the Slope apparatchiks are pulling out their hair.
The BNP are racists; “about as right wing as Jack Layton” in the sense that the NSDAP were about as conservative as the Bolsheviks. The expression “right-wing” has been up for grabs for a long time now, as I’m sure everyone’s noticed.
The BNP are not the story. They haven’t gained much. Why voters – former Labour voters, for the most part, not Tories – have opted for them to the extent that they have is the story.
Further to qwerty1’s excellent point that these so called ‘far right’ parties have very leftist policies, it’s also obvious to anyone who bothers to look that the Conservatives had a slight rise in support in the EU election while Labour got trammeled. In other words, the BNP’s support likely came from disaffected Labour supporters; ie, the Left.
But Saunders is a hack and the Globe is dismal sludge. Don’t expect anything other than the usual mediocre burp of conventional wisdom from that corner.
I am surprised at Doug Saunder’s tone. I shouldn’t be, but still, I am.
it’s something a good editor would catch…
You know maybe democracy is the way to fight them. Is the argument about women voting in burkas or is the argument about their moslem women voting? Lets promote our system, maybe we can learn from the european example and not let it get too far. Voting is free, secret, and the best way to express how you want your country to be run without anyone judging you on it.
I know what you mean, Marc, but that’s just the Toronto Globe and Mail’s worldview. Saunders’ piece is one of those seamless “tweeny” stories that editorializes nonstop while presenting itself as news coverage.
Exhibit A: Saunders refers to “a looming new formation that might be called the ‘angry bloc.'”
“Looming” means threatening, of course, and note how the new members amount to a “formation” when he wants it all to loom, but an “amazing range” of “rag-tag” parties when he wants to dismiss the significance of the voters’ desires.
And of course, “the angry bloc.” What a load. It beggars belief to say that those who voted for the centre-right parties are *angrier* than the leftist, communo/Marxist tribe who’ve been rioting/protesting/direct-action-ing against “the right” — capitalism, the G7, the “rich” — in Greece, and France, and even Britain and Germany, for the last thirty or forty years.
Perhaps just slightly off topic – but in the same vein of ‘skewed reporting’, this just in:
While channel flipping, I just caught Keith Olbermann on MSNBC asking whether the election of a more moderate gov’t in Lebanon could be the result of Obama’s speech just three days before!
Truly, there seems to be nothing that Obama can’t do.
If they’re going to give him credit for that, No Guff, they’re going to have to give him credit for Europe fleeing in the opposite direction from Him.
I think that the National Post’s Kelly McParland is wayyyyyyyyy off base with this editorial. He very much supports the violence against the BNP.
While I don’t support any racists, the way to counter them is not through violence but rather debate.
You all Google for Melanie Phillips and read her take on what his happening in the UK. Note: I’d link to it but it appears that providing 2 URLs on SDA always bans the post.
I watched an interview with the BNP leader that was recorded just before he won a seat as an MEP. If you just saw the transcript it you would have thought it was a speech by Mr. Phil Fontaine. It was all about protecting indigenous people and promoting indigenous rights. The guy has mastered the politically correct language to the point where the “anti-racists” do not know how to debate him.
Why let facts stand in the way of a good story?
I am not mistaken:
– Voter turnout was higher than in previous EU elections.
– The winners where generally centre-right parties, the losers generally centre-left parties.
So G&M should perhaps check their facts… but that is likely too much to hope for.
conservatives want less government? not in canada.
Left-whinger from Winnipeg on Iggy, the left-winger who cries “wolf”.
“Poor English doomed leftish Stéphane Dion.”.
“He’s also repeating Dion’s biggest mistake, crying wolf. He keeps threatening to bring down the government and then backs away, to rising ridicule.”
…-
“The View from the West
Ignatieff’s shift right angers Grits
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is shifting his party to the right. He’s killed the centre-left coalition. He’s defended the tar sands. Now, he’s supporting the Conservatives’ law and order legislation.
He’s taking a big risk.
When Liberals “tack right” ideologically, or have a leader whose image is right-of-centre, like John Turner and Paul Martin, they lose elections.
A solid 30 to 35 per cent of Canadians always vote for the party of the right, now the Conservatives. The main political game is the 65 to 70 per cent of Canadians on the centre and left. When the Liberals pursue the conservative vote, not only do they fail to make inroads, they lose a big chunk of their base, and their potential base, to the three left-wing parties.”
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/ignatieffs-shift-right-angers-grits-47509572.html
Europe’s socialist Pyramid Scheme: parasites.
…-
“Playing Parliament in Brussels”
“Given that the European Parliament is not a real parliament, one may wonder what purpose its 736 members serve. The EP’s internal budget is extravagantly high, the MEPs receive a handsome income, which is often the envy of national MPs at home, their perks are lavish, and their lives very comfortable in the Brussels parliamentary office complex, which is aptly called the “Caprice des Dieux” (the whim of the Gods).
The life of an MEP is so attractive that many politicians prefer to stand for election in the EP – though it lacks legislative power – than in the national legislature. Instead of being legislators, MEPs are European lobbyists whose function it is to persuade the members of their parties at home that the EU is an important organization which should not be cut back. Since all national parties of some significance have MEPs, they all have their internal pro-EU lobbyists.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3959
The analogies using the left-right paradigm are fallacious in this case.
The election of so called “hard right” seats in Europe is, in fact, the rejection of most old line parties and politics and a signal of the drift away from top-down pseudo democratic governing systems.
The old line Euro parties and policies were defined by elitism. Top down public policy making, pan-partisan control agendas and intrusive public administration by a cadre of the usual social engineering fabians.
So, the EU parliamentary seat outcome was also a reaction to the tightly manipulated limited democracy and micro managed societies these control freak parties ran. Essentially this ballot was a populist revolution against an elitist political class.
Any party that tapped into the seething populism of the middle class European won big. Those elites who dismissed the social laissez faire attitudes of the middle class for the intrusive public policy agendas of the political elite, lost big.
This grass roots populist revolt of the alienated majority has been brewing in Europe for some time. Europeans are sick of watching their democracies erode and their societies made dysfunctional with social experiments. They want their democracies back from the political elite.
I’m just not so sure they chose the right people to represent this democratic populism but they did send the elites a message that would be politically fatal to ignore.
conservatives want less government? not in canada.
~old white guy at June 10, 2009 5:37 AM
All political parties want to be in power, or what they want is irrelevant.
I still trust that the CPC will want and give us less government when they get a majority so that what they want is what they can actually give us.
None of the other parties that the CPC must depend on to pass legislation as a minority government even pretend to want less government.
Most of the “fringe” parties elected to the MEP are Socialist and socially left-wing. The BNP believes in animal rights ffs.
conservatives want less government? not in canada.
AGREE!
Oh, those angry voters, they are voting for the wrong parties!
Sorry OZ, although I agree the Cons are by far the best option, minority govt shouldn’t mean complete abdication of all principles.
The only “Conservatism” on display from the current govt has been tinkering around the edges coupled with the very Liberal-like play to your base reefer madness/faux tough on crime moments.
Upon the election of the next Liberal govt, the only evidence of the current Conservative govt will be higher taxes, a more complicated tax form, and more govt; thanks once again to a Conservative Party that governs like the Liberal Party. See Mulroney.
It truly saddens me that Stephen Harper’s legacy will be one of a missed opportunity. I really believed he was smarter and braver than that.
But the fact remains that we as Canadians have MORE government than we did 3 years ago to what should be the everlasting shame of all Conservatives.
It isn’t the federal government that has increased its hold but provincial and municipal governments. Here in Ontario, McGuinty of Ontario has massively increased the size and scope of the bureaucracy and Miller of Toronto has increased taxes on anything that moves or even exists and inserted regulations (and fines)in the same breath.
As for the European Union, an amorphous, unaccountable and extremely costly and useless Haven of the Elite, it is naturally in conflict with the real life decision-makers of national governments. You can’t have two presumed authorities over the same territory unless one is privileged, and the EU should not be privileged. That’s because decision-making is always best left to the people who are directly affected by those decisions – as Amendment 10 of the US Constitution so clearly acknowledges.
Too much democracy for Doug Saunders and the Labour Party activists.
Sorry OZ, although I agree the Cons are by far the best option, minority govt shouldn’t mean complete abdication of all principles.
~bud at June 10, 2009 9:12 AM
I agree bud, minority government doesn’t mean complete abdication of all principles.
I’m not sorry to inform you that what minority government does mean, and it’s clear you and others don’t understand this, is that unless the other parties share the principles that a minority government wants to enshrine in legislation, and in this case they don’t, those principles have to wait until that government obtains a majority or they risk losing all power and then those principles will be cold comfort as well as irrelevant.
You are right ET.
Although I don’t think our present govt deserves any awards for anything other than ” they are probably not as bad as the other guys would be”.
But there does not seem to be any political party anywhere in the country that appears at all interested in seriously slowing down let alone reducing the influence of govt in any way. Almost unanimously the opposite in fact.
To say nothing of business, academia or the professions.
There are no voices, let alone champions to deter what I see as a very bleak, govt controlled future.
Which is why I am gobsmacked that my Conservative Party appears to love Big Brother so much.
And so pi**ed that they are using their “law and order” base to play politics(oh so much like the Liberals and their gender/identity/ethnic bs).
And provincially? Pretty hard to tell the diff between the Libs and the Cons in NB. Almost impossible.
C’mon Oz, you should realize that not every single thing done by govt requires a vote in the House of Commons.
The Conservatives, have been neatly framed by the Liberals and their simp media friends, as aggressive, confrontational and obstructive.
And for what? Less implementation of Liberal policy? Any great collisions, spending of political capital over Conservative vision?
After the next Liberal govt, will there be the tiniest trace of this one?
I have seen very little Conservatism, let alone a champion. Who, let’s face it, would be a hypocrite as a member of this govt.
bud – I don’t agree with you in your view that the Conservatives are ‘not as bad as the others might be’. I refer only to the federal Conservatives; the provincial ‘progressive conservatives’ are essentially Liberals.
But I think that Harper’s federal Conservatives are very different from the others. It’s been a hard fight to get things done – and not done – when you are in a minority. The majority in our parliament is socialist left: the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc.
Think about it. We in Canada have essentially set up our government structure such that the most normal majority will always be liberal socialist. That’s because we’ve allowed one province, which always votes socialist, its own political party. The Bloc is socialist. It effectively ensures that at least 15 to 20% of the House seats are socialist.
Then, we have another ‘cement-block’, which is the ethnic and minority vote which has been manipulated to be solid Liberal. How did the Liberals manipulate this? By the multicultural sections in the Charter, which focused on isolating and privileging immigrant groups (and Canada had an open-door immigration policy under the Liberals). Then, the Liberals encouraged isolation and non-integration – and funded these groups. In return for their vote. This turned Ontario and particularly Toronto, the key site of immigration, into a Liberal enclave.
So, there’s another 20% and more that is socialist – and that keeps the big cities Liberal.
The NDP aligned themselves with the unions but have fought with the Liberals for control of the union population. And think about this – we have also set up massive bureaucracies, all fat cat unionized – and they vote Liberal-NDP. And they are in the big cities.
So, we’ve ensured that one province, with 25% of the House Seats – is socialist. And we’ve ensured that the big cities – with 25%-30 plus of the seats – are socialist. There’s your majority gone.
Whining about fascists while sending in the brownshirts. I bet they have zero comprehension of the irony.
Every chance I get.
I remind people within listening range who think the Nazi’s are right wing, ARE NOT.
National Socialists. The equally violent, bigoted, hateful and repressive bastard brother of Communists.
The more we let people go uneducated about that the more we allow the left to deflect, spin and further their revisionist history.
Repeat after me. “Nazi’s are the bastard brothers of Communists.”
bud – anything to do with money has to be a House vote, not a bureaucratic decisions. Remember also that the bureaucracy and the MSM are primarily Liberal. And the Senate – which has effectively blocked or rewritten Conservative bills.
Therefore, when Harper wants to reduce government involvement in the economy, leaving it to private markets, the Left sets up a Coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, because they insist that the government isn’t involved in and ‘stimulating’ the economy.
When Harper wants to end such fat-cat Liberal schemes, which do nothing for Canadians but use taxpapyer money to fund more Liberal-devoted bureaucrats – such as the Gun Registry, the HRCs, bloated special interest group fundings (SOW, CBC) and so on…the majority in parliament and the MSM endlessly scream against such endeavours.
And all the projects that the Harper govt has been involved in, including extensive pollution (that’s not AGW) work in clean water, sewage modernization; including rapid transit works; the North, and so on – none of this is reported in the MSM. OR, if it is reported, then the local politicians, such as Liberal McGuinty and NDP Miller take full credit..ignoring that the money and initiative comes from the federal govt.
Our foreign role? Harper is now one of the most respected international politicians in the world. Does the CBC or CTV interview him? No, he’s interviewed on FOX and CNN. Not in Canada.
C’mon Oz, you should realize that not every single thing done by govt requires a vote in the House of Commons.
~bud
Alright, give me some examples of what they could have done that they didn’t and still stayed in power.
The Conservatives, have been neatly framed by the Liberals and their simp media friends, as aggressive, confrontational and obstructive.
~bud
And you frame them as “Cons” and state that they have no principals.
The difference between you and the Liberals is what?
And for what? Less implementation of Liberal policy? Any great collisions, spending of political capital over Conservative vision?
~bud
Yes, less implementation of Liberal policy and…the second part is incoherent unless you mean that this minority government can afford “great collisions” with so little political capital, it being a minority government.
After the next Liberal govt, will there be the tiniest trace of this one?
~bud
Next Liberal government?
You mean the one that presides over the breakup of Canada?
I have seen very little Conservatism, let alone a champion. Who, let’s face it, would be a hypocrite as a member of this govt.
~bud at June 10, 2009 10:50 AM
You characterize the Conservatives with the pejorative “Cons” meaning con-men and say they have no principles. This typifies an attitude that erodes soft support ensuring no majority government.
You cut off their legs and castigate them for being unable to sprint.
If they ever get a majority and act as they have been doing I will be right in your corner calling them out, bud, but criticizing them now when they haven’t had the power to legislate Conservative principles is unprincipled, if you are a Conservative.
Were you a child or otherwise missing in action to have forgotten what it was like when Conservatives were wandering in the political wilderness for 11 years until Stephen Harper’s CPC won their first minority government?
“When Harper wants to end such fat-cat Liberal schemes, which do nothing for Canadians but use taxpapyer money to fund more Liberal-devoted bureaucrats – such as the Gun Registry, the HRCs, bloated special interest group fundings (SOW, CBC) and so on…the majority in parliament and the MSM endlessly scream against such endeavours”
If Harper had made the gun registery a confidence motion during the Dion days it would be history. Priorities.
Listen, I’ve been a Conservative apologist since I was 12. 40 years now and can’t see much difference other than a whole lot more govt, regardless of who wins.
Just saying my Conservative Party doesn’t have much Conservative in it, regardless of what it professes. And Conservative politicians are the first to run away from Conservative policies. When was the last time a Conservative tried to make a case for less govt?
I don’t discount the obstacles but, from what you’re saying, a vote for the Conservatives is always going to get you Socialist policies and at best, a slowdown in the headlong rush. Seems like, at some point, you might want to try a different tact. Maybe convince some people that Conservative policies work. Or actually believe that they do.
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche ArbeiterpPartei
National Socialist German Workers Party.
Short form – Nazi Party.
It is a criminal offence to have and belong to such a party since 1945. The zealots in Canada commonly call persons this name- as in what’s left of England.
No criminal charges though, for being a “Nazi”.
A good old fashioned hysteria being had in England, working themselves up into a frenzy. As mindless as a football crowd, at an International match.
If Harper had made the gun registery a confidence motion during the Dion days it would be history. Priorities.
~bud
The CPC would have been toast. The Gun registry exists because Ontarians and Quebecers wanted it.
The Maritimes would have voted the same way they have been voting, largely against the CPC, because the Maritimes are filled with welfare junkies.
Listen, I’ve been a Conservative apologist since I was 12. 40 years now and can’t see much difference other than a whole lot more govt, regardless of who wins.
~bud
That would be why you’re comfortable labeling Conservatives with the pejorative “Cons” like the enemies of conservatism do.
Just saying my Conservative Party doesn’t have much Conservative in it, regardless of what it professes. And Conservative politicians are the first to run away from Conservative policies. When was the last time a Conservative tried to make a case for less govt?
~bud
What part of minority government don’t you understand? Right off the top, cutting programs means laying off Ontarians and Quebecers in the middle of a major recession.
If the CPC did that, which it can’t because it’s a minority government they would instantly be in a election that they would lose.
It would be political suicide.
I don’t discount the obstacles but, from what you’re saying, a vote for the Conservatives is always going to get you Socialist policies and at best, a slowdown in the headlong rush.
~bud
Ah, bud, but you do. You have yet to acknowledge that the CPC is restricted by government minority status.
Seems like, at some point, you might want to try a different tact. Maybe convince some people that Conservative policies work. Or actually believe that they do.
~bud at June 10, 2009 11:51 AM
Everyday that the CPC stays in power it is the death of the successful decades long Liberal meme that “Conservatives are scary”.
It takes a while to overcome a successful meme like that.
When Canadians become comfortable with CPC governance, that meme will be dead and maybe, if Canadians aren’t convinced by the bogus meme that the Conservatives are “Cons” and are “unprincipled”, maybe the Conservatives will get a majority.
Oz:
1.I used Cons as an abbreviation not a pejorative.
2. There is bird in the Paridae family that when combined with the word head might make a suitable new moniker for yourself.
3. Pack your bags, there will, unfortunately, be another Liberal govt someday.
4. Wah, wah, wah, darn media, socialists, bureaucrats. It was all their fault. Minority means never having to say you’re sorry. Maybe you can articulate the legacy the last 3 years of Conservative governance will leave with the average voter. Carbon tax?
Bud, have you ever wondered why the liberals are the “natural governing party?”
It’s because conservatives would rather bicker over moral purity than win. Liberals have no such problem.
I’ll take a slower creep in the size of government to a faster creep in the size of government when I can’t get a reduction in the size of government. I’m not letting the perfect be the enemy of the barely mediocre.
bud – ‘If-Then’ speculations are just that. Speculations. There is no proof that IF Harper had made the gun registry a confidence motion – and he’d be blasted for making a non-financial bill a confidence motiono – that it would have passed. My different view? It would have failed, because the Bloc, NDP and Liberals in the Big Cities would have refused to accept it.
I agree with you – we, as a nation, have to convince people that conservative policies, which are primarily less government, more local control, more private enterprises and basically, pragmatic rather than partisan solutions – have to be sold to Canadians.
Canada is a socialist country. Why? I think it’s because we’ve been a protected people since our inception. We’ve never had to, as did the US, ‘do it on our own’. We were either economically and politically and militarily part of the British Empire, or the Commonwealth. And, we’ve always been embedded within the American economy and its military protection.
We have not promoted economic entrepreneurship. Instead, we simply sell raw resources to the US. Or, we take their inventions – for we don’t innovate – and produce them more inexpensively here, and sell them back. Or, we set up American franchises here. We don’t do things on our own.
Recall that infamous Quebec case, where a town sued Wal-Mart, insisting that it set up a store there, to hire their townspeople. Would they ever think to set up a store on their own? Nope.
Canadians retired from the world scene, leaving the heavy military duties to the US. We called ourselves, heh, ‘peacekeepers’, ignoring that a peace has to be first established.
We refuse to be competitive in the world market. Did you know that over 85% of our exports are to one country? The USA? Such a reliance on one country is unheard of in any economy in the world.
Released from economic and military and aid duties, what has Canada done? Set itself up as a socialist haven. Enormous bloated bureaucracies have destroyed our health care – and we’ve relied on the US treatment centres to assist us. Many of our people go to the US for treatment because of our inadequate system here. Why inadequate? Because the money goes to the key punchers, the record keepers (note the most recent scandal about millions going to electronic record keepers in Ontario)..and doesn’t go for equipment and supplies.
Think about the gun registry. Has it reduced gun crime? No, gun crimes in, eg, Toronto, are now so routine that they are glossed over in the media. But it’s cost a fortune. Why? For the key punchers, the record keepers.
Heh – we are a nation of key punchers.
Released from individual responsibilities, ‘kept’ by Britain and the US – Canada has remained ‘kept’ which is to say, immature, or, socialist.
And bud, I don’t think you are aware of the accomplishments of the Harper government, even as a minority. You might try to google the term, or check out Crux of the Matter.
Oz:
1.I used Cons as an abbreviation not a pejorative.
~bud
Sure, plead ignorance. Enemies of Conservatism use the same term the same way and, of course, everybody else will at least get the subliminal meaning that they and you intend.
A Conservative supporter of “40 years” too lazy to write the word Conservative would use Tory.
Same number of letters.
2. There is bird in the Paridae family that when combined with the word head might make a suitable new moniker for yourself.
~bud
Niiice. An ad hominem attack.
3. Pack your bags, there will, unfortunately, be another Liberal govt someday.
~bud
If you have your way, and get your meme about the CPC being “Cons” and “unprincipled”* across they just might.
*There is a difference between not willing and unable that clearly eludes you.
I say, “Not another Liberal government if, combined with Adscam, the Liberals are responsible for looting the Canadian mint and/or they keep picking such banal leadership as Dion and Ignatieff.”
And the “pack your bags” schtick is pure Eastern Liberal obtusness. I’m staying right here, the only thing that’s moving, if the Liberals are re-elected, is the international borders of Canada.
4. Wah, wah, wah, darn media, socialists, bureaucrats. It was all their fault. Minority means never having to say you’re sorry. Maybe you can articulate the legacy the last 3 years of Conservative governance will leave with the average voter. Carbon tax?
~bud at June 10, 2009 12:22 PM
Still can’t seem to grasp the effect that being a minority government has on the policies of the CPC, eh bud?
Legacy?
Conservatives care about what is good for Canada, not legacies.
All the BS spending that Calgary’s liberal mayor is wasting taxes on are his legacy projects.
long ago I realized, and others agree, that the political spectrum is like the space-time continuum; it curves around onto itself. i.e. extreme left and extreme right share more characteristics, priorities & tactics than they differ on.
or they care to admit.
just look at SDA.
If the NDP were racist, they’d be the extreme right. That’s a fine line.
Wrong eljay.
The Right represents individual liberty.
The Left represents the power of the collective over individuals.
The NDP are clearly collectivists.
The current NDP Canada President, Anne McGrath, ran as a candidate for the Communist Party of Canada in Edmonton-Strathcona, in the 1984 Federal election, placing seventh.
Wound a little tight, aren’t we Oz?
Ad hominem? Take a look at your tone from the beginning, let alone your presumptions and pop psychology. I’ved worked more Con campaigns than you’ve read (I’m being presumptious here)about.
You know, I’ve always thought it would be nice if all the a**holes in the world had to wear a button and I had the a**hole button franchise.
Oz, if that ever happens, I’ll make sure you get button # 1.
Oz,
In case that was a little too male for you, I can do it your way.
All the BS spending that Calgary’s liberal mayor is wasting taxes on are his legacy projects~ Oz
Oh? Does Calgary actually have a Liberal Party running municipally? Can the Calgary mayor spend city money on legacy projects by himself?
Conservatives care about what is good for Canada, not legacies~ Oz
Apparently Con headquarters forgot to inform me of the Oz to speak for all Conservatives vote.
If you have your way, and get your meme about the CPC being “Cons” and “unprincipled”* across they just might~ Oz
Memo to self: look for missing meme memo in memory.
everybody else will at least get the subliminal meaning that they and you intend~Oz
Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. …
Look, in common, public usage — i.e., the actual, in-the-world meaning that we don’t get to decide — the BNP is deemed “far right.” So the debate over whether the BNP is right or left is essentially moot and without practical significance. If anyone finds news commentary (as opposed to an article that debates the use of the terms) anywhere which casually refers to the BNP as “left” or “far left,” let me know.
The point of the post was that the newly elected “right” is portrayed by the G&M’s Saunders as being angry, and protesting, and yet it’s those who self-identify as left who (see the juxtaposed Scotsman article) who are pelting with eggs and silencing those they identify as being “right.” This statement from the co-ordinator for the British Public Services Union is entirely typical: “Britain in two places has sent the far right to be with Europe. They clearly don’t speak on behalf of the community…”
If one believes that blog-debates can redefine common usage of the terms “right” or “left” then it could follow that the mobs who set out to silence “the right” or the “extreme right” are actually silencing the left. In real-world terms that’s simply incorrect; by the definition of those who oppose the BNP, the BNP speakers represent the “right.” ”
The BNP is a racist party, with vile beliefs based on racist purity, quite similar in that regard to the ol’ National Socialist German Worker’s Party, but it needs to be understood that the direct-action protests against them, and attempts to silence them, are broadly oriented against “the right,” and not necessarily entirely against the BNP. Attempts to define the BNP as “left” not only don’t change that fact, but also occlude the realistic examination of the nature of the left’s ongoing attempts to silence those who *they* define as being too far “right.” It’s a sliding scale.