You just have to check out the second video clip of the Stephen Harper speech via CTV. Listen very carefully to the end of the clip. After Stephen Harper finishes speaking you can clearly here the CTV translator snidely say -“no kidding”. Seems the hate Harper vibe has been completely ingrained at CTV.
The clip is here. See what you think.
Doesn’t surprize me.
The lefties like to talk about tolerance.
They are anything but hypocrites.
I downloaded the video and isolated the portion containing the remark in question…
My blog entry is here…
http://conservativelife.com/blog/index.php/canada/2005/09/23/no-kidding-ctv-s-anti-conservative-bias-.html
The shortened file is here…
http://www.conservativelife.com/vids/nokidding.wmv
Hmm… I just don’t get what the “no kidding” was in reference to. I suspect that it was banter between a commentator and the newsnet host about something which could be (but perhaps isn’t) unrelated. Anyways, I think it’s hardly evidence of hatred or bias. If it is, what is it being said in reference to? Him thanking his caucus.
On a related note, I am glad to see that Harper criticized the Liberals for not going after Adscamers with hard enough sentences. May he never ever again suggest that there should be more distance between cabinet and the RCMP. I really feel badly for the guy when he whores out his intellect and principles like that.
Peter: “May he never ever again suggest that there should be more distance between cabinet and the RCMP”? – you actually LIKE the idea that our very top cop is, in essence, a Deputy Minister???
No, not at all. And I equally dislike Harper critcizing the Liberal party for Coffin’s sentence. He knows, deep down, that it’s a stupid and insipid argument.
I remember when he didn’t use to make arguments like that. It’s a shame he does now. Now, he criticized the Liberals for not doing what so many people on this site criticize them for doing. It’s two-faced and unbecoming of him.
Peter – to quote the great Ronald Reagan “there you go again” – your attitude that the Liberals can do nothing wrong and that the system, particularly the in-justice system, is perfect and the Liberals are above corruption would be laughable if there weren’t so many brainwashed think-a-likes out there like you. I for one, welcome your pompous defense of the most corrupt regime in Canadian history to this site. It serves as a good reminder of the assininity we are up against. Your see no evil, head buried firmly up your ass, pontifications are very effective in doing for the Liberals what the likes of Howard Dean, Lewis Farrachan(sp) and Patty Sheehan and other moonbats have done and are doing for the Democrats. They were so successful (and before you point out in your pompous way that Sheehan wasn’t around during the last election – I know) in putting John Kerry in the White House that…Ooops…forgot, it didn’t work.
Some of us out here, perhaps naively, still believe that honesty and integrity in public office holders is an important quality. No matter what you say, you can’t argue that Harper does not represent these qualities. Keep up the good work Peter. Your incessant prattle is very motivating to those of us who hold much different values then you obviously do.
RD, I give you credit for responding to PL. Frankly, I have no tolerance for those people and admire you for saying what I cannot.
What if I were to politely ask the name of the apparently very rude ‘f**k la queen’ attitude translator. You think i’d ever get it? No. Not ever. No way. Bugs me cause he sounds alot like someone I once knew onboard an HMCS back when in the olden days. A voice of a “nation”. A voice I will NEVER FORGET. But, ya know, they all sound alike to me. You?
Time to get off our asses people. Don’t ya’ll think we’ve had enough time to think about this? What else d’ya wanna hear? A Chinese translator? Take it from an old hand. Its not a fight we really wanna fight. We must move towards Secession soon. Prepare.
I hate to do it. I’m going to side with Peter on this one. He clearly said “no kidding” – but why or to what?
I hate to sound like a broken record, but perhaps finally I’ve found the appropriate topic under which to deposit this PROOF of MSM bias against Mr. Harper. Peter, please go here:
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-manipulative-msm-bias-against.html
And try to explain if you disagree with my finding there.
And, chill, my good man. Mr. Harper doesn’t need to at each drop of the hat state the obvious which has already been well-stated by so many. Of course one must assume, as he’s a smart man, that he believes Coffin should’ve been more harshly punished. It’s not reasonable, I believe, to suggest that silence makes consent.
Shouldn’t you also denounce Paul Martin’s failure to declare Coffin’s sentence as too lenient?
I’m starting to feel troubled at some of the things you’re saying about Mr. Harper. Peter, I realize you understand arcane pollster methodology, but are you sure you understand real-world politics? You, of course, realize that publicly expressing your opinion so harshly of your claimed leader can only HELP Paulie and the Liberals? This is another problem we CPCers have to contend with: friendly fire. It doesn’t help. I would hold my tongue publicly with any criticisms lest I shoot my own party -and country- in the foot.
Loose lips sink ships.
I hope you will think carefully about this. We need you to be calm and level-headed and not be too brutally frank. In politics one must know when to bite one’s tongue. Now more than ever we shouldn’t be praising Liberals and condemning Conservatives, upon whom the very future of Canada depends.
Take a deep breath…
Peter Loewen, the Hans Blix of S.D.A.
Nothing to see, move along….I don’t beleive it….They wouldn’t do THAT….
The truth is that judges are independent, and I am sure we can all agree that political interference in the sentencing process would be a very bad thing.
I’ll try to make my point more clear: Harper complained during his speech that the Liberals weren’t getting tough enough on Adscam based on cases like Coffin. But he knows it’s a false argument, because if the Liberals started to interfere – take for example Jean Lapierre’s suggestion that they needed a few charges to be laid befor the last election – then Harper would criticise them for that.
He knows – as do all of you – that we don’t want political parties directing the police, especially ones as self-serving as the Liberals. So he shouldn’t make hay when they don’t. It’s facile and duplicitous. It is, in short, the kind of things Liberals do.
Stephen, you wrote “I hope you will think carefully about this. We need you to be calm and level-headed and not be too brutally frank. In politics one must know when to bite one’s tongue. Now more than ever we shouldn’t be praising Liberals and condemning Conservatives, upon whom the very future of Canada depends.”
Sorry, I don’t like intellectual dishonesty from whatever party. I likely won’t be quiet.
well,bd brought a little levity into the discussion with judges are independent.If they were elected they might be,if they are appointed they never are as they always know who appointed them.As for mr.loewen,we will wait patiently for his discourse on intellectual honesty on the libs and ndp but then maybe he wont be able to find any.
Spike:
I don’t think the Liberals or the NDP are intellectually honest. None of them are. That’s why I used to like Stephen Harper: because he was a cut above the rest. Not anymore.
Finally, I just don’t see how making judges elected will at all help them make more level-headed decisions.
Appointing judges are fine but we need a vetting or confirmation process. the supreme court judges are appointed at the sole discretion of the PM. Pure politics and nothing else. This is equally true throughout the Canadian justice system.
Left leaning, activist judges, politically appointed. What are the chances they are going to rise above that and rule based on law and fairness?
enough
Harper did say he favours mandatory sentences, and that is something that judges cannot get around. The crown can appeal Coffin’s sentence,but will they? Or will, as Greg Weston suggested in yesterday’s Toronto Sun, keep plea bargaining so as to avoid being forced to tell all during a trial? If that’s the case, this is a waste of time and slaps on the wrist will be the most we can expect. The Liberals handcuffed Gomery with a narrow mandate, and a few words in the right ear of any judge will ensure leniency. I don’t think I’m alone in believing that tampering with judges, or sorry, influencing them, is the normal part of our judicial system. A classic example of that is the Air India case in which one judge was expected to go through over a decade of info gathered, and was called to account by media who found errors in judgement, things he’d missed and were obvious to everybody else, etc. Still, no inquiry. To highlight the incompetence of the RCMP/CSIS and upset the Indo-Canadian factions in B.C. does not sit well with Liberals.
because if the Liberals started to interfere
STARTED TO INTERFERE?!? You’ve got to be kidding. Do you honestly think there weren’t called between the PMO and those involved in the trial?
Everyone knows the PMO told the RCMP to ignore Dosangh and Murphy who committed crimes and report on Grewal who did not.
I’m just wondering whether Peter Loewen is related to John Loewen…
PL, I think you’re missing Harper’s point. I don’t think he’s suggesting that the government should try to force the court to change their decision. The inference, here, is that the liberal appointed justices are out of touch with the will of ordinary canadians. The “natural ruling” family has already influenced the justice system beyond belief by appointing their friends, who know EXACTLY why they’re there and “upon which side their bread is buttered”.
Justice in this country is now firmly controlled by the LPC. It’s quite ingenius, really. They don’t even have to speak. Every decision just automatically goes their way.
Why is it that judges are more inclined to sentence a convicted criminal closer to the minimum terms than the maximum? Don’t think for a minute that they aren’t “encouraged” by the justice system to keep the prison population down.
Sorry Ferrethouse, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t criticise the Liberals for having interfered, and then not criticise Harper for suggesting they can interfere more.
This is not about the corruption of the Liberals. Let’s take that as given. My current objection is about Harper making the argument he did. He used to stick to his principles. Now he is just another politician.
Peter Loewen doesn’t miss Harpers point. He is just ethically and morally opposed to what Harper and conservatives stand for. Loewen wants more of the staus quo.
enough
Peter Loewen states … “I am glad to see that Harper criticized the Liberals for not going after Adscamers with hard enough sentences”,
and then his next post has this… “And I equally dislike Harper critcizing the Liberal party for Coffin’s sentence”
What the fuck? Which is it?
Then there’s this… “Now, he criticized the Liberals for not doing what so many people on this site criticize them for doing. It’s two-faced and unbecoming of him.”
Please tell me how someone can be “two-faced” because of what OTHER people said?
Man, I’ll have whatever you’re on, because it sounds like you’re having fun in La La Land.
Heey Belinda er uh,
Peter when did Harper ask for the liberano$$$$ to interfere.
I must have missed that.
I thought the first clip with Fife was a classic piece of single party state indoctrination. Through the use of innuendo and personal biased opinion the concept is repetitively (monotonously)
put forward that no matter how inept, corrupt and visionless the liberals…no matter how bad it gets from their mismanagement, change of government in the single party state is not an option…simply out of the question. No matter how immaculate CPC’s leader or policies they are doomed to perennial loss…they simply CAN’T win…therefore resign yourself to the fact that there is no fundamental change possible from status quo liberal party rule….this is the message Fife and the News “Barbie” semt out in this segment…it is a powerful implied/subliminal message that is repeated by all the usual MSM suspects.
The real outrage in that forst video clip is not so much the whisper campaign slagging they were doing on Harper and the CPC but the attitude displayed by the news Barbie. At one point she referred to the CPC and their suppirters as “these people” which is a dead give away as to the contempt and elitist mindset the single party state minions have for anyone who disagrees with them or represents an alternative or opposing ideal….”these people”….really cute.
Thanks to the alternate media I can flip the bone to smug indoctinators like this but there are millions of people that lap this shit up like it was pure honey….how may does CTV send to the polls disinformed and conditioned?
jhuck: the first comment was meant to be sarcastic. I am sorry you missed it.
I shall have the Harper quote up momentarily.
peter
Alright, if you got to the linked CTV site, and listen to the second half of the speech, the point of objection comes at around 24:50.
To wit, Harper says “Do we really expect that the Liberals rre going to fight aggressively to prosecute the con artists behind the sponsorship scandal. The people in their own ranks. Do we really believe that?”
But it’s not the Liberals who are prosecuting, and it’s not their place to prosecute. We all know this. We all know that the corruption which occurred – and we know it did – needs to be ferreted out with the least amount of political interference. But, Harper doesn’t mind scoring cheap political points by criticizing the Liberal party for not doing something which he would criticize if they did.
The reason why this is so dissappointing is because he used to be a cut above the rest. He used to not make circular and question begging arguments like this. But now he has, and he’s just like the others.
Peter
Peter Loewen: Surely what’s sauce for the Martin goose is also sauce for the Harper gander, given the state of political discourse in this country.
Did not the Liberals constantly say in the House that anyone involved in Adscam would be “punished to the full extent of the law”, or words to that effect? At the time I wondered what control they had over the judicial system that would allow them to make such statements.
For example:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/087_2005-04-21/han087_1445-e.htm
Question Period, April 21, 2005
‘Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I have been absolutely clear. If any of the allegations and assertions that have been made in front of Mr. Justice Gomery are found to be true, we do not condone that kind of unacceptable conduct and we have said that it must be punished to the full extent of the law.’
Note the use of “must” rather than “should”. “Must” in imperative and directive.
And if no time for the crime is the full extent of the law’s punishment, then the Liberal view of the law is different from that of a great many others.
Mark
Ottawa
PL; ‘”must” is’.
Mark
Ottawa
PL: Should have read ‘”must” is’.
Mark
Ottawa
The striking thing about the Adscam trials of course is that in a crime which benefitted the politicians and was said by the defendents to be orchestrated by those politicians, for some reason no politicians have actually been charged.
In the UK or the US the media would be in a frenzy. But here, we have one great yawn.
Though one can’t simply blame the media. The Canadian public has given a new meaning to complacent during this scandal.
It’s worse Chip
Guys like Peter actually attack the only elected official who points out the lack of justice.
No, richfisher. I have criticized Harper because I think he is being intellectually lazy.
Look, if you want a party which is only concerned with winning, and is led by someone who will say whatever it takes to get elected, even when he knows it’s absurd and contradictory, then fine. We already have one of those in Canada, but I suppose we can have another.
What I want is a party and a leader more principled than that. I don’t want, in Harper’s quoting of Nietzsche, the party to become the monster it’s trying to kill. If you’ll excuse anything and do anything you’re no better than the current lot.
I don’t disagree that crimes have likely been committed, and then that Liberals dealing of this has been almost farcical. But that only makes it more absurd for Harper to criticise them for not doing enough to prosecute. First, they are not constitutionally in a position to do so. Moreover, they are not morally in a position to do so. So he ought not to take the piss out of them for doing what we know they cannot and should not do. It’s just too easy, cheap, and unbecoming.
Peter
Peter Loewen: “…only makes it more absurd for Harper to criticise them for not doing enough to prosecute. First, they are not constitutionally in a position to do so.” So when DPM (and Solicitor General) McLellan said (see above): “… unacceptable conduct…must be punished to the full extent of the law…” she either:
a) was not in a constitutional position to make the statement–note the “must”; or
b) was trying improperly to influence the judiciary.
In the case of b) she certainly failed miserably.
Mark
Ottawa
Criticizing one’s leader incessantly is cheap and unbecoming. Remember what happened to Carolyn Parrish?
Hey, PL, nobody’s perfect. Nobody. Don’t demand perfection of anyone, lest they demand it of you in turn, which you cannot deliver any more than any of us.
If we the Conservatives are going to be perfect little angels when fighting an ELECTION CAMPAIGN, then the Liberals, who we know to be ruthless as hell, will steamroll over the whole lot of us, unless we use what we know and go to ELECTORAL WAR fully armed and ever prepared to use our weapons, and actually use them.
We have tried being perfect angels in the past and the entire left destroyed us with maximum prejudice. We made the mistake of seeing the country through rose-colored glasses; we believed that if we were going to be perfect and never brutal, then the good people would see us for the good people we are and trust us to be gov’t., therefore voting for us en masse, giving us a landslide. Never happened. The Liberals control far too much of the country- the MSM, the judiciary, all federal departments and agencies… no wonder they do not fear going into elections- it’s unlikely they’ll lose, what with their vise-like stranglehold upon so much all over the place…
Do we want to be scrupulously, spotlessly, sterilly perfect during the ELECTION? If that’s the case, then the future of our democracy and country are less certain than at any time in history. This is a warning. Look, we can fight fire with fire in ELECTORAL WAR, then when in power, we can be “perfect” and everything, which is essentially more or less what we Conservatives want out of gov’t, but don’t get from Liberals, ever.
It’s like WWII. We the Western World dropped two nukes on Japan and won the war (the Japanese actually nearly developed the bomb themselves -History Channel Documentary- but fortunately the facility with all the r&d was destroyed in bombing). Then we helped them rebuild and here we are, good friends with them, they have a great country and economy, etc. If we were to have been perfect and fight the war in the traditional way, it would’ve gone the other way and we might never have been born to argue about one statement of the Leader of the CPC.
Get serious. Get together. Fight the winning fight and give the Liberals what they have been asking for since time immemorial. The big prize is a better Canada through a new, Conservative government.
Never lose sight of that.
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com
Mark:
That’s a good question, and I appreciate you approaching this thoughtfully. If McLellan were to intervene in the Coffin case, and call on judges to dish out heavier sentences, and/or if she were to contact the crown and ask them to charge more people, do you think this would be an acceptable intervention? And would it be acceptable in this specific case, or would it also be acceptable more broadly?
Peter
I have to question your belief that Harper will clean things up. I have always voted conservative or reform and even helped on a campaign but am not sure I will this time. Yes the courts and police are corrupt. Just take the RCMP for example
-Junior Mounties complain when they try to investigate Mob control of our ports they are blocked by senior officers to the point some end up in witness protection.
-Sheila says they were involved in money laundering and they are investigating themselves. Nice when the suspect runs the investigation
-Chretian tells them to stop investigating Shiwanigate – see above point
-CSIS says Chinese intelligence has infiltrated the highest political levels
-How many senior Mob, police, politicians etc… are serving serious time ?
-They dont automatically look at Human Resources etc… even when the PM says so maybe a few million were stolen. Even a beat cop will pull over a suspiscious car.
I e-mailed the conservative party with one question ( I have many but sent only one to start ). Your website is very general, what specific thing will you do to clean up the RCMP. No response and to further depress me, this morning the conservative panel member investigating gas prices said with a straight face that he is absolutelly sure there is no collusion. Sigh, I miss Preston, I thought he might have been honest.
Hang in there, Perkunas. I’ll see what I can find out…
Perkunas, you raised an excellent q. re. what the Tories will do to clean up the mess in the RCMP.
Very specific. Hard to give a specific answer when we’re not in power and therefore have no access to finding out the things we must in order to determine which specific things need changing/cleaning. This is the reality of the state- so many things are hidden from even the Leader of the Opposition, not just us citizens, regardless of the Access to Information Act. I know there are billions and billions of dollars being wasted out there, and the Tories want to fix it. But so much of it is hidden from our view, like the apparent corruption in the RCMP and all other gov’t dept’s. Bottom line, we want to clean up everything. But we must first get into power so as to see for ourselves the locations and extents of the messes the Liberals have made. Wish we could be more specific now. Maybe there’ll be more info forthcoming…
Meantime, in case you hadn’t located it, here’s the link to the Policy Declaration for you to pore over…
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/policy_declaration/policy_declaration/
I hope I have been of at least a tiny bit of help.
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com
I just read the news story about John Loewen. I’ve never met the man (not in the Martin-Boulay way. I really mean it).
“If McLellan were to intervene in the Coffin case, and call on judges to dish out heavier sentences, and/or if she were to contact the crown and ask them to charge more people, do you think this would be an acceptable intervention?”
And just who tells the judges to be so soft on criminals in the first place? The sissy, limp-wristed, like-minded governing Liberals who appointed them, that’s who.
Nice try Peter. But you’re arguemnt’s a sham because of Can-uh-duh’s elected dictatorship/stack the deck version of democracy.
Peter Loewen: Of course ministers should not intervene in the ways you raise. But neither should they make what amount to promises in Parliament that they cannot back with results, nor which might be seen as trying to interfere with the judiciary.
Liberal ministers made quite a few statements similar to McLellan’s yet I can recall no criticism of them in either sense.
Mark
Ottawa
I agree all the details cant be outlined before an election but plenty of policies can. Harpers popularity would be a lot higher if in the spring along with condemning the Liberals he presented a plan that if elected he would establish a permanent independant auditor generals office that could look at anything. Presenting a plan to stop arm length pools of money that are secret and out of the auditors reach. He could proir to an election present a process of vetting judges, head of police and security ( I personally like the US style). Present a plan to introduce a law with established punishment for certain crimes (re Coffin). I cant tell you how often I have heard they are all the same crooks, what do you think he will do different. At least the conservatives would have an answer.
Meanwhile, over at the LBC, Librano$$$$$ Broadsaying Castration, aka Pravda:>>>>>
Fontana calls both sides in CBC dispute to talks
CTV.ca – 1 hour ago
Labour Minister Joe Fontana has invited CBC management and the Canadian Media Guild to Ottawa next week for a meeting aimed at ending the current lockout at the broadcaster, a union spokeswoman said Friday. …
CBC management rejects union offer National Post
Fontana calls both sides in CBC dispute to capital for Monday … 940 News>>>>>
He knows – as do all of you – that we don’t want political parties directing the police, especially ones as self-serving as the Liberals.
Sorry, uyour too LATE. The PM ALREADY directs the RCMP.
Horny Toad
Perkunas, of course you’re right to take a wait-and-see approach, which is what I always have done. Following the Cdn conservative movement since the early nineties, I have seen patterns develop in which conservatives have been widely expressing the desires you mentioned. Remember, the Policy Declaration is a living document subject to periodic democratic change by member delegates at the Conventions. Trust me; soon enough more answers to specific concerns will definitely be given.
In fact, I just located some specifics that I think you’ll like, here:
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/key_issues/safer_streets_and_a_stronger_country/
It includes mention of minimum sentencing, as you want, plus others…
maz2,
With Fontana trying to get the CBC back on the air, I’m inclined to think that a fall election is possible and Joe knows the Libs need, (emphasis on need) the CBC to help them get re-elected.
Lately though, no matter what Peter L. will say, I’ve been noticing a trend by ordinary Canadians to discount anything put out by the MSM. Am I alone in this thinking?
Old Squid, I agree. In fact, MSM are starting to use blogs as sources, from what I’ve seen lately. This week, Our Ms Kate got a nice plug from the Toronto Sun, and the Vancouver Sun’s Barbara Yaffe was quoting from one of the blogs re Pierre Pettigrew. John Ivison, in today’s NP, was saying how the Tory dissidents are connected to Stronach, a la yesterday’s post by Kate. Don’t know what happened to that last night. It suddenly disappeared, but Kate had all the Magna types who’ve been dissing Harper. It wasn’t intentional, she just connected the dots. But folks are blogging more than reading drivel I just saw PM the Pimp being interviewed in an ‘exclusive’ re the upcoming session. No election until after Gomery he says BUT other parties might force it, blah blah. CTV is the bastard of the CBC, I think.
Mrs. Thacher,
In reading about John Loewen running for the Liberals, I’m reminded of the guy who said that EVERYBODY has their price ( I capped that to bug John’s brother Peter) But to sell your soul for a chance to sit as a Liberal in Parliament is really selling out cheap.
Consider this and please respond:
In spite of everything the Liberals have done to this country, Canada still marches forward. I say that says a lot of positive things about people who don’t have PHDs!