February 7 update: Greg has retracted.
Greg, at Sinister Thoughts makes a nice catch;
I was watching the National last night [Friday – ed]and was dumbfounded by one member of the “Citizens Panel” (roughly 27:30 minutes in) of “undecided” voters, as she effortlessly mouthed Liberal talking points. I thought it was kind of odd and even Mansbridge seemed a little uncomfortable. I googled the panelist’s name and in her bio were these little nuggets…
She advised on Popmachine.com…..Hah!
Dont follow her advice, that was an interesting “scam” that went nowhere and lsot people money. If I were her I wouldnt be advertising that I was instrumental on that lead balloon….
Maybe she’s undecided as to how much she should donate to the Liberal cause.
This is a great article which will take you behind the scenes of the CBC and their impartiality – you know they researched these participants. You will have to agree after you hear her for the CBC to say Rikia Saddy is “undecdided” is a joke and the CBC owes Canadian viewers an apology for this attempted snow job.
I’m having a flashback!!
Did Anyone Else Get One Of These?
Stephanie Matteis of CBC’s The National e-mailed James Bow;
Hi James,
I’m hoping you can help?
I’m looking for someone who was going to vote Conservative in the last election but changed their minds along the way because they were scared, freaked out or worried about the Conservatives, the Conservative agenda or its leader. So, instead, they voted Liberal. Now you’re facing the same dilemma this time. If this describes you AND you are willing to travel for a couple of days next month AND you are willing to appear on television then please get in touch immediately.
If this doesn’t describe you, please feel free to forward this email to someone you feel might fit this description.
Thanks.
Another thing,
Kate, are you going to post this on the CBC blog?
Rather than sleeping with the enemy, you are the fox in the henhouse!
Norman..
If you take their money, then it can’t be called revloutionary or fox in the henhouse. You’re working for the enemy.
It’s as fake a presentation of independence as rappers doing McDonalds commercials.
The left liberal/socialist hug-a-thug propaganda from Saddy. Note all the socialist “hot-button” words she packs into the last paragrapph. >>>>
Tough General, Bad Approach
Our new Chief of Defence Staff doesn’t get terrorism, or Canadians.
By Rikia Saddy
Published: July 20, 2005
……………
“Contrast this with General Hillier’s comment on the front page of the Globe Friday: “We’re not the public service of Canada, we’re not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people.”
In fact, they are the public service. General Hillier certainly was not elected to represent me or the views of my neighbours. You, sir, are not the face of Canada.
Big opportunity
Canada has a unique opportunity in this world. Our country is young, our politics mostly borrowed, our history mostly peaceful. As a country of immigrants, we have opened our arms to the world, and succeeded in multiculturalism to an extent that our friends in Europe and down South could learn from. We pride ourselves on being a tolerant people, and have led the way in human rights and progressive freedoms. Our naturally self-effacing nature means that we are one of the few countries that can actually admit when we’ve made a mistake, as we did publicly in Rwanda.”
http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/07/20/ToughGeneral/
I have read the posts on CBC: I thought that they are very effective; they certainly do not tow the CBC party line. We should be pleased that some sheltered CBCphiles will be exposed to the truth this way!
OT, but here’s my bleg:
Isn’t the notwithstanding clause a bogus issue? I thought the Supreme Court ruled that the Charter permits SSM, but does not mandate it, thus sending it back to Parliament. If Parliament decides no on SSM, then that’s fine with the Charter, right? So why all the talk about the notwithstanding clause?
I need to know this by tomorrow morning, so I’d really appreciate any answers in these comments!
Thanks!
You’re right – the Supreme Court has not ruled on the question of marriage rights being includeded as a right under the Charter. They refused to answer that question.
Now isnt that weird….here is the question I posted on Normans Spectator…
“Perhaps someone can calrify this, as I am not a constitutional lawyer.
Did the Supreme Court state that the traditional defintion of marriage was unconstitutional? (John Duffy stated this on CBC)
OR
Did the Supreme Court state that EXPANDING the defintition of marriage to same sex couples was constitutional but did not rule on the constitutionality of a the existing definition?
Can anyone clarify, there is a pretty clear distinction in the positions being put out by the various political parties….someone isnt telling the truth it would appear.
Norman, any thoughts or links you can point to?”
It was prompted by John “I agree with Scott reid” Duffy’s comment that the court has said that the issue is settled. It wasnt what I remembered the ruling being…..
Interesting, John Duffy lied about the Supreme Court….
BT and Kate,
You have to be careful though. It is a fine line between saying that the SCC said that marriage rights are not included in the Charter, and whether or not the denial of said rights is constitutional. Under s. 15, the first part of the test is whether the government makes a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground (which orientation is), that results in the denial of a right given to a comparator group (in the case of SSM – hetero couples.) The reference does make it clear that the denial of marriage rights, based on sexual orientation is an infringement of s. 15. So while marriage rights are not included, their denial can be a violation of the Charter. Because it was only a reference, cases such as Halpern, which did the full s. 15 analysis are precedent in each province.
The main area that is really unsettled is how religious rights fit into this. The SCC explicitly stated that religous practitioners can not be compelled to perform SSMs, but did not for any further to explain how this can be balanced. If a conflict arises here, s. 1 is the better place to try and have religious rights be honoured. Unfortunately, a Liberal government probably would even bother to properly tender the necessary argument for a s. 1 analysis to protect religious rights.
Cheers.
at least she seems to adhere to her principles.
http://rikia.gnn.tv/
…For nearly two decades, Rikia Saddy has been working to shift consumer and voter perceptions and behaviour….
Ms. Saddy is concerned with increasing voter apathy, and has begun to devote her energy toward holding a higher vision for Canada in the world, and the democratic renewal of principles that have been lost on both the left and right of our political spectrum.
Wasn’t Rikia Saddy the same person who was featured traveling to Quebec, with the CBC TV reporter (?Kelly?) a few weeks back, to get a feel for why Quebec wants to separate?
She met with Duceppe for a quick one on one, and some of the popular elite of Quebec culture.
Sure she was appropriately chosen as an undecided….sure;)
You didn’t expect CBC to provide a form for true “undecided” non partisan comment did you?. Rikka may have fooled the CBC news directors but I think they wanted to be “fooled” about the real political alignment of their “undecided” commentators.
This is a great expose on the supposed impartiality of the CBC in this election. If it was not deliberate then we would expect an apology from this public broadcaster. Not much research or background checks was required so the public is assured that what the CBC is giving us is in fact genuine and honest positions. How are we protected from this sort of scam in the future and do the CBC owe Canadians apology for this fraud?
Peter Mansbridge could have done some remedial work at the time of the broadcast, after he realized that this panelist is far from a genuine “undecided” by confronting her politely and remarking “it sounds like you may have decided ” which would have been fair comment under any circumstances.
Hey guys what’s that make Kate’s inclusion on the CBC blogger’s panel….a “token tory”?
😉
Well, I don’t have any idea about that but I would like to read more on it.
Just because s.15 says denial of marriage rights is an infringment of the charter, it does not follow that the denial of using the word “marriage,” while supporting civil union protections (CPC position)is an infringment. It’s just a word after all. Mr Martin has blown this thing out of proportion in a cynical ploy to drive a wedge between voters of good conscience. I cannot understand why he is doing it. He is ahead in the polls, and risks looking like a hypocrite – It’s not OK for the PM to “take away rights,” but it’s OK for anyone else? HUH?? Martin’s actions seem like those of a desperate man, not someone who is ahead in the polls, and possibly touching on majority territory. IMHO he had handed the agenda back to Harper, who can now march out “constitutional experts” to rebut Martin’s argument. Harper should do that, then immediately move on the disgusting Liberal record around our aboriginals. Game, set match.