Remember that $10,000 ring Svend Robinson pocketed? It turns out that he could have afforded it if he had just waited a bit. The RCMP paid Her Majesty ten thousand smackers after his pants got torn and his leg got a boo boo during a scuffle at the 2001 Free Trade Summit:
Former NDP MP Svend Robinson received a cash settlement of $10,000 from the RCMP, government accounting ledgers show.
Robinson said his calf was cut and his pants torn during a protest at the 2001 free-trade summit in Quebec City.
Public accounts published yesterday show that Robinson received the money for “pain and suffering.”
Robinson, out for a walk with his dogs last night, said he couldn’t speak about the payment.
He declined to say whether the money had helped to ease his pain and suffering.
[link — h/t: Neale News]
Me, I’m thinkin’ that a person could buy a whole lotta nipple clamps with $10K. Which would perhaps explain why Svend not only couldn’t afford the ring, but also why he didn’t want to discuss ‘pain and suffering’.
Peter, I never made any connection between the other stuff and the incident that led the taxpayers to pay ten grand for a pair of pants. I merely put a lot of facts out there as we were on the subject of Mr. Robinson. I regret any perceived connection on your part between what you indicated and the ripped pants.
I don’t believe there was any real “suffering” on the part of Mr. Robinson. Just ’cause the Mounties apologized (as probably ordered) doesn’t mean that in reality Svend actually suffered. If he did “suffer”, then it was almost entirely in his head, as we know he suffers a lot that way, or perhaps it’s an act? A real hero would not have bawled like a baby about something so insignificant, after all. Gimme a break!
Anyway, I hope he learned a lesson for his own good: don’t place yourself in unnecessary danger and then blame others for the injury/suffering you incur as a result of your own failure to foresee what’s coming to you should you not stand way back.
I don’t care if the Mounties apologized. That doesn’t absolve Mr. Robinson for his own stupidity which indubitably played a causative part in the injury (Some injury, eh? Wonder how much Bill Clennett got as a settlement for the Cretch rearranging his face; it should be far, far greater than what SR got for his pants).
Whatever happened to common sense? It’s become a rarity these days, replaced with knee-jerk political correctness. Are you sure YOU haven’t lapsed in YOUR thinking, Peter? Is it any less possible for it to happen to you (or Svend) than for anyone else? Food for thought.
With all due respect. And without sarcasm, lest it be perceived.
Stephen:
This was the first paragraph of your entry: “It astonishes me that a dangerous lunatic such as Svend is being so richly rewarded by the “Liberal” state after all the horrible stuff he has done to make Canada look bad on the international stage.”
You obviously were implying that you didn’t think Svend was deserving of the money because of all the damaging things he has done. You can say otherwise. Or you can just admit that you were wrong.
Stephen never said that, Peter, Sentinel did.
Are your other opinions similarly incorrect?
Stephen McAllister is The Senitel.
If I am wrong on this, I apologize. I prefer to use people’s real names rather than pseudonyms.
Peter
No dice, Peter. You didn’t say McAllister, you just said Stephen, which a reasonable person would construe to be a reference to Michaud, that is, the one Stephen who has participated in this act.
When discussing the characters in a play, Peter, I prefer to use the names of the characters, not the actors, in order to avoid being gratuitously obtuse to the context, and casually ingracious to the sensibilities of others trying to enjoy the show.
Hmm. Good point, Peter.
But…
Think about this: If it had been Stockwell Day instead of Svend Robinson, would the RCMP have bent over backwards for him? I doubt it, as the Liberal gov’t would never order them to apologize to Mr. Day as they would deem him not-politically-correct, which is apparently a greater offence in their eyes than another person’s supporting genocide of Muslims in Kosovo, of Jews in Israel (supporting the intifada is effectively that) and supporting Saddam, who had the Kurds gassed to death just ’cause he didn’t like ’em and so on.
I apparently wanted to highlight that there’s a double standard as a prelude to the issue at hand, the shocking payment of ten thousand dollars to some professional left-wing extremist who deliberately placed himself into harm’s way during a riot perpetuated in part by extremists wearing gas masks and chucking molotov coctails and rocks all over the place. The very idea that ANY ONE of those individuals would be compensated at all is mind-boggling!
I was trying to help people realize that people of various extreme left-wing persuasions are treated with favorable preference by the state under Paul Martin’s Liberals today as compared to regular folk, especially those of conservative orientation. Do you disagree that left-wing extremists get greater respect and rewards from the Liberal state than regular folk? Do you wish to believe what the Liberals and the biased MSM tell you to believe? Can you not see the blatant double standard here? Don’t you see that there is now increasing state/MSM pressure bearing upon the population in terms of making them feel they’d better “get with the program” as prescribed by the Orwellian Big-Brother “Liberal” state?
However, I didn’t mean to claim that Mr. Robinson’s being a leftist nutcase actually had any bearing upon the ripped-trouser settlement. The settlement should not have happened, regardless of who may have had his pants torn; the police were doing their job as ordered. That those who issued the orders forced the police to recant is bizarre.
How can we maintain law and order if the police are terrified of the consequences of getting in trouble for doing their job, for heaven’s sake? The state has the police handcuffed as well as the military, the CSIS, the Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner, etc. etc.
Peter, it’s a far, far broader issue than a $10,000 check for a pair of fecking pants.
In my humble opinion.
Peter Loewen, The Canadian Sentinel never revealed his actual name.
Why would you?
Tony: In each case, I was responding to the Senitel’s claims, and quoting the Senitel. Obviously, I was referring to him. You’ll also notice that he (Senitel) responded directly to these. Sorry for the confusion. I obviously prize clarity.
peter
Perhaps it’s Mr. Loewen who has demonstrated a lack of clear thinking skills.
And it’s spelled “Sentinel”, Mr. Smartypants.
Senitel: I thought you were Stephen McAllister. If you wish to say otherwise, please do. I’ll start referring you to Senitel from now on, to avoid confusion.
Mr. Loewen claimed he was responding to the Sentinel.
Then why did he use the opening address of “Stephen:”?
I am honestly quite embarassed that I constantly spell Sentinel incorrectly. Sorry.
Peter, let’s forget it.
It’s silly to get worked up over a pair of pants, isn’t it?
Besides, I’ve had a bit of Italian red wine.
Obviously I did it because I was under the belief that Sentinel is Stephen McAllister, who used to comment on this blog frequently but dissappeared at the same time Sentinel arrived – like when your father goes and Santa appears on Christmas Eve.
We better cut it out, or Kate’s going to be royally pissed at us for turning the thread into something it isn’t…
Just so, Peter. Even after you’ve seen mommy kissing Santa Claus, if you try to talk about your father in a public conversation via references to Santa, people are likely to (1) be somewhat confused, (2) be at least slightly suspicious, and (3) look at you funny.
And, Sentinal, I don’t think this is off topic, appologies to Kate if she disagrees. I think it is important to keep references clear in discussion of matters of some civic importance. In the case of this thread in particular, references to Mr. Robinson’s sexuality are not relevent; references to his criminal behaviour that should have had him disbarred but now has him employeed in legal council at a public sector union, and the possible political culpability of the state police in the matter, is relevant.
References matter.
I’m in complete agreement with you, Tony. Svend R., regardless of with whom he likes to spend his private time, should’ve been disbarred at the very, very least for his grand larceny yet instead he reaps all kinds of rich rewards.
Meanwhile, we regular, law-abiding, quiet, polite folk continue to suffer under the burden of high taxes which partially go towards people like Robinson, Dingwall, Coffin, etc. etc….
We’ve a right to question what happens to our tax dollars and when high-profile elitists get a slap on the wrist when we might get a prison sentence.
I was afraid we’ve turned this thread into a “chat room” even if we’re on topic. I hope Captain Kate will have mercy on us.
Tony:
You are right about names. Again, I am sorry for the confusion.
I am afraid that whether Svend stole a ring should have no bearing on whether he got a settlement from the RCMP. It certainly should bear on whether he practices law, but not whether he receives a settlement. I don’t think this is debatable.
Peter
PM separates church-state But vows he’s strong Catholic (Kanuckistani Barf Alert!)
Posted by GMMAC
On 10/01/2005 11:11:08 AM PDT � 7 replies � 93+ views
CALGARY SUN ^ | Sat, October 1, 2005 | CP Wire
CALGARY SUN Sat, October 1, 2005 PM separates church-state But vows he’s strong Catholic VANCOUVER (CP) — Prime Minister Paul Martin said yesterday he separates his privately held Roman Catholic beliefs from his duties as a politician, despite the apparent threat he could lose access to the sacrament of communion for his government’s stand on same-sex marriage. Catholic bishops meeting in Vatican City at the first synod led by newly anointed Pope Benedict XVI are expected to consider refusing communion to politicians who pass laws that violate church doctrine. “I am a practising Catholic, in fact I am a strong….. more>>>
Behold The Altar To Political Correctness!
Where Canadians’ Fundamental Liberties
Are Sacrificed For Imagined Personal Gain.>>> more
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494856/posts
And I do think it is debateable, Peter, unless one presumes the impossibility of the settlement being politically motivated, as opposed to, say, motivitated by a sense of fair play and justice.
A western Canadian farmer goes to jail for months becuase he did something with *his* harvest that’s not even illegal in Old Canada; Mr. Coffin has to promise to be home in time for his favourite TV show, at least on weekdays, and he has to lecture impressionable students on *cough* ethics. And Mr. Robinson gets to play toy lawyer funded by extortion.
Fortunately, all the universities Coffin’s been assigned to by the Liberals are in Quebec (AFAIK), so absquatulation remains an option.
(And, Maz2, buddy, I appologize if you’re actually autistic, but have you no social skills at all? Is it completely oblivious to you that a handfull of people have been trying to have an interesting discussion here for the last day or so, and you just walked into the room and farted? Sorry, Kate.)
Ring dem bells>>>>>>>> for da stance by AdScam Martin.>>>>>>
Martin can receive communion despite gay marriage stance, says PM’s priest….
MONTREAL (CP) – Despite his stance on same-sex marriage, Paul Martin will always be welcome to receive the sacrament of communion in his home riding, the prime minister’s local parish priest said Saturday.
“We can’t use the eucharist as a time . . . to judge a person’s conscience by refusing them communion,” Rev. John Walsh told CJAD radio.>>>
canoenews
Tony: Agreed on maz2.
Under the conditions you’ve specified, it’s worth questioning Svend’s settlement. But then, what matters are not his past actions, or his sexuality, but the larger corrpution which would allow this settlement. I think to ascertain that, we’d have to have a better sense of what the other settlements were for, and for how much.
Peter
“Absquatulation”? Not again, Mr. Big Word Guy? 🙂
(And, Maz2, buddy, I appologize if you’re actually autistic, but have you no social skills at all? Is it completely oblivious to you that a handfull of people have been trying to have an interesting discussion here for the last day or so, and you just walked into the room and farted? Sorry, Kate.)
And leave Maz2 alone; he’s very helpfully informative. We all appreciate his breaking news. It takes a lot of effort and committment.
I salute you, Maz2.
And any “windy flow state” of, what was it, bloviation, relating to him has no bearing on anything. We all do it sometimes.
Guess what, Peter, I more or less completely agree with your last comment.
Maz, I wonder why PMPM’s priest changed his mind? Ah, perhaps a particularly generous deposit into the rectangular basket on the stick?
I think I just drank the Communal wine…
Tony:
Let’s call it a (happily resolved) day.
Peter
Peter: done. Sentinel: sigh.
Go Maz2!!!
🙂
Svend Robinson and his playboy.
Lyrics.
Who wants to buy this diamond ring.
He took it off the table,but that doesnt mean a thing.
This diamond ring doesnt shine for him anymore.
And stealing diamond rings doesnt mean what it meant before.
So if youve got someone whose love is true.The government works for you.
This stone is genuine like love should be.
Lying in the forest, more pain and suffering.
This diamond ring can mean something beautiful.
Back in politics , its my dream coming true.
And then your heart wont break like mine did
If there’s a pardon behind it.
This diamond ring can be like a stepping stone.
lots of attention ,that my mind so bold ,
constantly demands, without so much as told.
you can have a record, you can do some time.
More bloviation (snice werd) :
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
October 03, 2005
Paul Martin vs the Pope
Angry in the Great White North has added another entry to his list of Church vs State posts. Looks like the Pope is going to bring down the hammer, which means Paul Martin and his pet priest Father John Walsh are in trouble.
The Pope and a synod of bishops are considering making it an across-the-board policy that politicians who vote in favour of legislation that runs counter to an issue of morality will be denied communion in any parish church.
Paul Martin will have to drop the phrase “good Catholic” from his resume. And Father Walsh might have to look for a new job. Under this rule, Walsh’s attitude that politicians get a special pass on actually being moral Catholics is rightly identified as so much hogwash. Walsh either plays by the new rulebook or looks for a new team.
Bet this ruling, if adopted, is going to affect a lot of Liberal, Bloc, and NDP MPs. Expect a lot of howling about separation of Church and State, which to these people means one thing: whatever I do is fine!
I don’t expect Pope Benedict to be particular worried about upsetting the likes of Paul Martin. Do you?
Posted by Angry at>>>>>>>> SDA