April 3, 2008

Uncrossing The Line

In the opening weeks of the provincial election, I expressed my underwhelm with the SaskParty campaign in this way;

And perhaps the most important question of all - will the Saskatchewan Party leave the security of pre-election poll results showing their party with a wide lead to campaign like a government in waiting? Is SaskParty leader Brad Wall going to step up his “football dad” image and act like a premier?

Will he lead the wave or just hope to ride the “change for change’s sake” trend to victory? At the moment, there is a sense of the latter. He may passively ride the trend. The SaskParty platform, while well thought out and publicly detailed, is decidedly tepid. The campaign style seems haunted by the fear of misstep. They’ve forgotten that battles aren’t won by keeping one’s head low.

It was advice not taken.

I'm slow to anger. This does not mean I lack a quick temper, but there's a difference between leaving a bruise and leaving a body. Genuine anger requires time, reflection, and something heavy that balances well in your hand.

It all started with a call from the CBC's Jeff Leo, who broke the news. Sometime between March 28th and April 1st, the United Nations had issued the Universal Declaration On The Rights of Crack Whores - and I didn't get the memo.

Unfortunately, my Premier did.

And they had caught him off guard, in a position of strength. So I was not surprised that he distanced himself, to heal the rift I'd created between the SaskParty and a deeply hurt intravenous drug user community. When a man will throw "being a good dad" under the wheels of an NDP opposition he's just annhilated at the polls, what possible chance does a Bingophobe have?

So today, the intended shoe dropped. Because when a man will throw a Bingophobe under the bus, what possible chance does a Conservative MP saying "faggot" on video have?

Or that was their hope.

For that was the plan all along. Few reacted to my Station 20 West commentary because within its "harsh" nature, it spoke the truth. It went virtually unnoted until NDP MLA Cam Broten issued the Saskatchewan New Democrat's unilateral redefinition of "Identifiable Group".

Had he kept his wits about him and remembered Who. He. Is. and more importantly, who they are, there would have been no successful set-up, no "distancing" Premier Wall on fresh tape declaring intolerance zero-tolerance.

But this too, shall pass. The fashion sense jokes are already emerging.

I hope he's learned a lesson. I hope he's learned that pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends. I hope he's learned that whoever is advising him on his public image needs to be kicked to the curb.

But most of all, I hope he's learned to stop offering his throat.

One last thing. Speculation abounds in certain quarters about my "motivation" for supporting the SaskParty. Specifically, what benefits might have been coming my way.

Given events of this week, and given my anger, it's time to put certain facts on the record. Get your pads and pencils ready my friends, because here's the dirt you've been waiting for.

In exchange for my support of the SaskParty in my capacity as a blogger, I have received precisely ... nothing.

Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered. No government contracts, no consulting gigs, no private business tilted my way. No invitations to social events, no advertising contracts, no party positions.

Not so much as a free case of beer, left anonymously on my doorstep.

So there you have it. My support for Brad Wall and the SaskParty has been, all along, exactly as represented - the exclusive domain of one private citizen acting voluntarily, without compensation or expectation of reward.

Which means the only "lines" here at SDA remain those drawn by me, and the rule of law.

So, Premier Wall - I ask that in the future you not trespass on my property.

You do not draw the lines here.

You're not my referee.

And I answer to no one.

(Mr. Broten - I'll be dealing with you in due course.)

Posted by Kate at April 3, 2008 9:49 PM

Kate McMillan Warrior Princess.

Posted by: John West at April 3, 2008 10:12 PM

On safe-injection sites,
"To me it's just as obscene that our governments would be subsidizing this behaviour as it is for me to say, 'What the hell, share your needles, you're killing yourselves anyway,'" she said.

Is that an apology? Or out of context?

Posted by: Taylor at April 3, 2008 10:16 PM


Posted by: Kate at April 3, 2008 10:23 PM

Awesome! You should take plenty of credit though for bringing blogs into the political discourse. This is a new thing in Canada as far as I'm concerned. You did cross the line.

Posted by: Darcey at April 3, 2008 10:25 PM

"I hope he's learned that pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends."

So pithy. So true. So well-stated.


Posted by: Drained Brain at April 3, 2008 10:27 PM

Is that an apology? Or out of context?

What part about safe injection sites being funded by our tax dollars being obscene did you not understand?

Kate, excellent.

Posted by: Nicole at April 3, 2008 10:27 PM

I didn't know telling the truth as it is, would be considered "crossing the line".

Posted by: theredsuit at April 3, 2008 10:36 PM

I think that its good to have commentary, like SDA and Ezra, that is not PC. PC needs to end because it prevents progress towards solving difficult issues - immigration, HRC's, poverty, children's safety etc. Too much time is wasted tip toeing around, in fear of offending someone. It ends up being about saying the right thing, instead of doing the right thing. Including throwing your supporters under the bus when feeling the PC heat.

Posted by: lynnh at April 3, 2008 10:40 PM

My observation on socialists still holds good. Oh,I was British Labour Party supporter as a young man.

On MP Tom Lukiwski's 1991 home movie, with a few brews under his belt, re homosexuals. "....With dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases". Ah, the clucking of chickens and the phony indignation. The calls for resignation.

At least the beggers could call for a brew afterward and have a bit of a laugh- no luck here.

Posted by: Peter(Lock City) at April 3, 2008 10:40 PM

I thought that the quote was implying that both ideas were obscene; (1)safe injenction (2)Kate's comments. Both obscene. That is how it read anyway.

And as other say, Kudos on reigning in some of the democratic legitimacy back towards the citizen.

Posted by: Taylor at April 3, 2008 10:41 PM

The line, which on the left, is often cocaine, is never in the same place twice. They move all around as necessary depending on whether something is being said by a Liberal or a Conservative.

Posted by: John West at April 3, 2008 10:42 PM


Good on ya. In this day, many are too quick to apologize when none is warranted, and reticent when an apology is entirely necessary. Nice to see you know which is appropriate for both yourself and Mr. Wall.

Posted by: Woodporter at April 3, 2008 10:47 PM

Kate, don't be so hard on Mr. Wall. He saw an apparition of a progressive army, and he truly and honestly believed it was real. That's why he took off his uniform and ran towards them. It was for his own safety.

Show some mercy for him. He simply got spooked, thought the other side was coming for him, and he just didn't want to be shot.

He's still the same old guy. I'm sure he won't blame his constituents for not following him.

Posted by: EBD at April 3, 2008 10:51 PM

What was that Nixon said about politicians pussyfootin around in the dark ? Lot of that goin on lately . No pussyfootin done here though .

Posted by: cantuc at April 3, 2008 10:52 PM

Kate, you said it very well. The best I could come up with was: Grow a Pair!

I had hopes that this new government understood Web 2.0 and could harness the power of what could be. Again good advice has been ignored.

Posted by: MrPaulDecker at April 3, 2008 10:52 PM

Kate's comments, as I understand them, were that there are two types of obscene attitudes to drug users: a)gov't funding safe-injection sites, and b)she, or anyone, telling the drug users to share their needles...because the drugs (in those safe injection sites) are killing them anyway.

So, how could this NDP twit suggest that Kate was advocating sharing needles? She was saying that IF you use drugs, and IF the gov't encourages you to use drugs by providing 'safe sites', then, you might as well share needles since the drugs are killing you anyway.

The NDP/Liberals - always the misinformation, always the smear campaigns. Good for kate - to confront and stand up to them.

Posted by: ET at April 3, 2008 10:58 PM

Brad Wall is an idiot. Not only does he look like a complete idiot in those videos, he had the brains to leave this video behind for people to find it.
Lukiwski deserves to be canned, he is clearly an ass.
And it's true that the comments from Kate were used as a political ploy by the NDP.
So let's clear the homophobes out of the conservative party and move on.

Posted by: sf at April 3, 2008 11:00 PM

This time it is a 16 year old video with a conservative using the word fagot, and the week before a military defense blue print just happens to fall into the hands of enemies of the conservatives?

Someone made a copy of the videotape and left it there on purpose is what I think, same with the blue prints.

I think there are traitors or spies or whatever you want to call them in the conservative party.

It is not conservatives who have a deep hatred of homosexuals and of immigrants, it is leftists who have a deep hatred of conservatives.

And that deep hatred makes them leftists plant evidence here and there and call their friends at the liberal main stream media who can barely hide their joy when they read their version of event on tv.

I just saw it on CBC and by the way they present this news (with a twinkle in their eyes from the sheer joy of being able to bash conservatives and torture conservative voters) you would think this is a bigger story than Adscam was.

I'll say it again,

It is not conservatives who have a deep hatred of homosexuals and of immigrants, it is leftists who have a deep hatred of conservatives.

Posted by: Friend of USA at April 3, 2008 11:02 PM

"It is not conservatives who have a deep hatred of homosexuals and of immigrants, it is leftists who have a deep hatred of conservatives."

You should go about reading some of the comments found around on this blog, my friend. This 'deep hatred' is, if anything, a little bit of both on either end.

Posted by: Taylor at April 3, 2008 11:07 PM

Karma's a bitch.

Posted by: Reid at April 3, 2008 11:08 PM

I think that its good to have commentary, like SDA and Ezra, that is not PC.

It's not good, it's essential.

Posted by: PiperPaul at April 3, 2008 11:12 PM

What's the opening line on Broten ? ..... any takers ?

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at April 3, 2008 11:12 PM sound as if you've been cheated on by your lover, Kate. Hahahaha. Does our little racist feel betrayed by her snuggly wuggly premiere. HAHAHAHAHA.

This whole thing is so hilarious. Wall's comment was rather benign and as such he stands in a different group than the bigot MP and bigot Kate. I really hope the human rights commission is abolished because Kate will bury herself in no time when she can write without fear of the law. I totally support its abolition.

Posted by: Mindy at April 3, 2008 11:15 PM

One more thing,

I saw the part of the video where the conservative MP ( who was not one at the time ) says "fagot"

and he also says fagot spread diseases.

What is wrong with that?

Well it is a fact, homosexuals do spread diseases.

Their life style is the perfect way to spread many disease.

Go to some very liberal-progressive and pro-gay health site such as Colombia University's "Go ask Alice" site, and there you will learn that they tell women - straight heterosexual women - to be extremely carefull if not avoid anal sex completely because it is the best way to spread dangerous and deadly disease!

yes on a far left site from a far left university they discourage heterosexual women from having anal sex because it spreads diseases.

Does that make them homophobes?

No it is simply a biological and scientific truth.

It has nothing to do with homophobia or being conservative.

Wasn't there a report a few weeks ago in which we learned that homosexuals have rate of STDs 13 times higher than the rest of the population?

There you go again, it is biology and science but not homophobia or conservative bigotry or whatever.

Posted by: Friend of USA at April 3, 2008 11:16 PM

Politicians today are not up to standard what ever you think.
The problem is partly the population.
Partly the politicians being a bunch of damn demagogues.
Partly with the schools where propaganda is the main subject.
Partly with ‘journalist’ that misrepresent, omit, lie, spin, tell only what will give a jerk to the audience, though there are those rare moments they actually report what’s happening.

Plutarch in The Rise and Fall of Athens, in the book on Solon reports, that certain ‘Anacharsis remarked after attending a session of assembly, that he was amazed to find that in Greece wise men spoke on public affairs, but fools decided them’.

As you can see the affairs of people apparently have not changed to this day, not only the same old, also the same very old.

Don’t know much about this Wall guy, mostly what was written here. As soon as he promised the variant on $15 drug money, he was history.

Trouble is, who do you call. There is serious lack of leadership right across the country. Just because somebody says that he or she is best to lead, that is not a qualification, though it relieves the responsibility of others and sort of gets on with the business at hand.

From reading commentaries on this blog you can tell there are those of good quality material as Anacharsis mentioned.

Look what happened to Brad Wall, Tom Lukiwski. Comments that mean nothing, said a long time ago and these two are groveling like two kids found with their hands in a cookie jar, they can't even throw a punch. This is quite unbelievable behavior of grown men that are supposed to lead.

Unfortunately we are stuck with this kind of governance for now.

Posted by: Lev at April 3, 2008 11:18 PM

Who the heck is Broten?

Posted by: sf at April 3, 2008 11:22 PM

Kate; you are a very impressive and remarkable person - I am becoming a fan

Posted by: Brad at April 3, 2008 11:26 PM

Kate, run for office. Consider it, seriously.

Lay waste to these mental midgets looking to politics as a career.

Your motivations would be pure, not tyrannical (like all leftists who merely lust after power and control of others lives) and that is what is lacking today.

Go for it, woman.

Posted by: Doug at April 3, 2008 11:30 PM

"But most of all, I hope he's learned to stop offering his throat."

Geez, I wonder if Brad Wall needs a translation of Kate's advice.

I can hardly wait until Kate zeros in on the Broten fellow.

The leftist MSM is in salivating mode, so Lukiwski
is toast in his Parliamentary secretary job for sure.

Wall is in a better position to survive politically than is Lukiwski.

And in all the confusion, Kate at SDA will have focused in one well worded blog the obscenity and folly of governments offering "safe injection" sites not only in Saskatchewan but across this land, for that matter.

But who is listening?

Certainly not MSM, they are too engrossed in covering "homophobia".

Posted by: Joe Molnar at April 3, 2008 11:38 PM

The NDP's action equates to proof that they do indeed feel the influence of this blog.

Apparently the word 'bigot' has now been redefined. The new definition is: one who holds another accountable for their choices and actions.

Anyone taking the time to read the posts here careful will note the consistent theme. It truly does not matter what race, culture, religion, economic background, sexual orientation floats your boat: you are measured on making use of your abilities and talents to the best extent possible.

My definition of racism: in the name of equality, finding another race so inadequate that special compensations must be made. It is an arrogant and demeaning posture at the same time.

Equality is equality (isn't it?). A standard is a standard (isn't it?).

People dealing with setbacks and misfortune is one thing. People making bad choices and expecting others to save them from them is another. In a special category are those who make bad choices, and try to fob them off as setbacks, exploiting the generosity of others.

It is as preposterous to contemplate a society in which there is no pushback on this kind of exploitation, as it is to contemplate a society which offers no framework of assistance for those truly in need.

Posted by: shaken at April 3, 2008 11:40 PM

My comments are already stated on the injection post, & their like. Its asinine if NOT criminal.

That peoples hard earned money tax goes to folks who steal, lie, cheat prostitute themselves out (both sex's) & cause horrible family problems. Ruin communities with gangs, graffiti, violence to the point your city becomes indistinguishable from a landfill.

Should have a "Safe" injection site using tax monies. While the police are handcuffed by the bleeding hearts & the public has no "Safe"
zone because of these miscreants.

Was Kate’s comment out of line? No in my opinion though it was harsh, it was not as brutal as these people have made their lives. By extension ours, to keep a killing habit that the prohibitionists (mostly socialists) have created for their profit.

That the government condones this is limper than Ex governor Spitzer of NY States sex life these days. Although I think prohibition is the root cause of this epidemic of drugs, by no means do I personally condone its use. Banning this stuff just corrupts our institutions while creating criminal empires.

As far as I am concerned Kate, its the Sask.-Party that turned weakling . In the end this will hurt them if not divide the real conservatives from the opportunists.

Your Premier not only denounced you but free individual expression, which you have had great success generating. Its the Sask.-parties loss. Your gain is more legitimacy with integrity intact. Ms. Walls is deep fried in his own B.S. He looks like the Mad Hatter running from the Red Queen.

Its another sad example of how some Men have turned into wimps with no chins in this Nation. Being a guy I can say that with no qualms. Have witnessed it too many times to count. Cowardice seems to be in vogue these day’s, just like idiocy has been a trend in schools for some time.

Thank You for all the hours that you put in this blog for freedom of thought. Allowing us who post hear, the right to be heard. That they tried to use you as a political monkey's paw to deflect the oppositions slurs is disgusting to say the least. Not be tainted by your Blog despicable & gutless!

As they used to say: better to have the gentry's anger, than them owning an obligation to you.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 3, 2008 11:41 PM

Stand your ground, Kate. I don't always agree with you, but I always have a sh*t load of respect for you.

Posted by: djb at April 3, 2008 11:44 PM

As my gay friends would say..."you go girl!!"

Posted by: Sammy at April 3, 2008 11:49 PM

It is as preposterous to contemplate a society in which there is no pushback on this kind of exploitation, as it is to contemplate a society which offers no framework of assistance for those truly in need.

Posted by: shaken

Well said!!

Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 3, 2008 11:50 PM

Very good comment Shaken. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: haffee at April 3, 2008 11:51 PM

Grant Devine, faced the NDP, and their free public relations firm,the media, a media whom he naively thought he could win the hearts of. That, coupled with his in ability to manage the liberals in his caucus brought about his eventual demise.
Wall better grow a back bone and acquire some discernment very soon or we will witness a repeat of the eighties.
Bringing on the likes of Kate as a political adviser would be a great first step!

Posted by: ivbinconned at April 3, 2008 11:54 PM

"Wasn't there a report a few weeks ago in which we learned that homosexuals have rate of STDs 13 times higher than the rest of the population?"

Was it the same report indicating that if you are not a White Heterosexual Male you are statistically 10 times more likely to contract an STI? Infectious diseases are spread in marginalized communities. All throughout human history - exclusion and poverty has equaled disease.

Posted by: Taylor at April 3, 2008 11:57 PM

Good for you Kate.
You are completely correct on all counts.

Posted by: Talkinghead at April 3, 2008 11:58 PM

His earth hour support was the writing was on the wall I thought. Now this nonsense.
Grow a pair Brad---you're making Dion look like Don Cherry.

Posted by: wingwalker at April 4, 2008 12:01 AM

Now for the acid test.

Jack Layton is to have a blood transfusion. Figure leans over the prostrate Layton. "Running low here on supplies, emergency conditions, five patients beside yourself need blood. We have blood donated by a well known homosexual, can we give it you?" Of course, the next guy to you can have the regular guy's blood- ok?"

Mr Layton..... oh Mr Layton....

Posted by: Peter(Lock City) at April 4, 2008 12:04 AM


you are sooo hot!

You're the best baby!


Posted by: Glenn at April 4, 2008 12:07 AM

Great post Kate straight from the heart !

Posted by: royalist at April 4, 2008 12:11 AM

I agree with you, Kate. I grieve when our so-called leaders fail to lead. Same with Harper rolling over on the marriage issue. I supported both Conservative and Sask party candidates and keep hoping for some courage and leadership, but they just don't have it.

Posted by: Wally Falconer, pastor at April 4, 2008 12:21 AM

Does anybody know who Tom Lukiskiw was lampooning in the home video 17 years ago? Apparently there was a human rights or gay rights issue current in the events of the day in Sask. back then.

Tom was mimicking somebody who was apparently making negative comments about homosexuals back then. Does anybody remember what the issue was and who the main players were?

Posted by: lmf at April 4, 2008 12:32 AM

Appeasement never helps you, just your opponent. Will these cowering milk brained so called conservatives ever learn that bloody lesson. Shit on them, not yourself.

Posted by: Westerm Canadian at April 4, 2008 12:38 AM

Sidetrack, sidetrack, and never face the issues head on continue to throw petty shit in the face of conservative governments, who are trying to run the country and provinces. These pathetic losers ndpeers and lieberals must try ones resolve to the core. They have nothing to offer the people of canada but thievery and political correctness to the point of capitulation. I cannot believe there is anyone stupid enough to vote ndp or liberal, but since there is what exactly are the issues facing Canada you liberals and ndpeers, is it gay bashers, is it Cadman, what losers you all are.

Posted by: bartinsky at April 4, 2008 12:40 AM

I can appreciate Kate's approach to this as well as Brad Wall's. I think the Premier's initial stance killed the issue and the NDP have been neutered. Mr. Wall is treating the NDP like they don't exist. He is de-humanizing them.

Having said that, if I were Mr. Wall, I would be getting my long knives sharpened and tomorrow put those knives to work behind the scene within the gov't bureaucracy. That is where all the NDP snakes are hiding and I would be merciless.

Posted by: Gypsy at April 4, 2008 12:55 AM

"I hope he's learned that pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends."

Hahahahaha - what have I been saying Kate? Perhaps Brad IS the poster boy for the NDP!

Posted by: John Murney at April 4, 2008 1:42 AM

Well said Kate - like Wall - think he is genuinely a good person. Feel bad for his family being dragged through this. He was just a guy with a job then - no wonder no one wants to run for politics these days - the NDP may want to look at themselves..several folks of questionable character over there. I hope this doesn't turn into a spy vs. spy scenario. That said - I agree Premier Wall shouldn't put up with this crap - Stop being afraid that we will all turncoat on you and vote NDP if you don't please everyone - we are sick of the policizing - cut the unions, fire the NDP insiders (clean out the whole public service if you have to) - right now Wall is simply so afraid of being labelled a conservative that he is wallowing in appeasement.....

Posted by: lindy at April 4, 2008 1:43 AM

Brad Wall is making good politically expedient decisions right now. He's poised to govern Saskatchewan during a huge boom in his next 4 years while towing a moderate line and cutting in to centrist NDP votes. While you people may be his base, you really have nowhere else to go, and you won't abstain from the next vote because you fear the re-election of the NDP too much. In essence, he can afford to piss you all off, and still raise his chances of holding on to power.

Posted by: steve at April 4, 2008 1:52 AM

Tolerance becomes a joke in the absence of truthfulness. I'm tired of seeing people apologize for past stupidity that doesn't still manifest as part of their present character. It's better to see them to own up to it and say that was then and this is now, let's get on with the more important things.

Brad Wall doesn't have to be everyone's friend. His job is to show he's competent enough to earn our vote next time.

Posted by: Martin B. at April 4, 2008 2:03 AM

I could look at this as something negative for you and yours....or I could choose to look at it as a politician talking about a citizen with a computer, in effect making private citizens as big as Big Media.

That's how I'll look at it, because that's exactly how it is. Twenty years ago, I had to record data on cassette tapes. Twenty years later, citizens have a voice of consequence. I dig that.

Posted by: Sean Berry at April 4, 2008 2:11 AM

Well said shaken.

Combine, two humongous institutions like Wall, and his provincial government, (who's effort so far show incredible gut-less-ness), along with the Federally funded CBC's 13 billion dollar a year gigantic socialist spin and misinformation machine, to combine a swipe at private citizen Kate McMillian from Del. Sask

And she kicks the crap out of them, and never breaks a nail.
Like Darcey said

You should run.


Posted by: richfisher at April 4, 2008 2:12 AM

Every time you give anything to your enemy or opponent the next time they come back they want more . If you give once its a helluva lot harder to say no next time . Didn't Wall just defeat the ndp ? Why the hell should he turn into one ?

Posted by: cantuc at April 4, 2008 2:15 AM


If I may use this venue for a moment.

I just finished watching CTV's Robert Fife gleefully discussing the matter of this taped revelation where gays were slagged by MP Mr.Tom Lukiwski.

Robert Fife'S comment to count Floyd the CTV news corpse was "We all know that there are some knuckle-draggers in Mr. Harpers government and that's why he keeps such a tight reign on them."

Here is my question to the gleeful Mr. Fife ...

Who are these knuckle-draggers? Please name them otherwise all members of the conservative caucus are painted as knuckle-draggers and I think that is grossly offensive to those who may not fall into that category.

Mr. Fife, will you please name them and explain exactly how each one qualifies as a knuckle dragger.

I find these comments by a national news commentator highly offensive.

Posted by: John West at April 4, 2008 2:18 AM

steve said, "In essence, he can afford to piss you all off, and still raise his chances of holding on to power."

Steve, the people of Saskatchewan and voters on the right in general have proved twice in the past twenty years that they don't appreciate what you're advocating.

New parties happen.


Posted by: lance at April 4, 2008 2:29 AM

Kate McMillan: "I answer to no one..." Wow! Not even God? You're kinda like a modern day Annie Oakley.

Posted by: Johnny Maudlin at April 4, 2008 2:36 AM

First post.....

"Kate McMillan Warrior Princess."

John West.

I say,

Warrior POET.

Posted by: Rednik at April 4, 2008 3:39 AM

Annie Oakley

"In 1903, sensational cocaine prohibition stories were selling well. The newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst published a false story that Oakley had been arrested for stealing to support a cocaine habit. The woman actually arrested was a burlesque performer who told Chicago police that her name was "Annie Oakley". The original Annie Oakley spent much of the next six years winning 54 of 55 libel lawsuits against newspapers. She collected less in judgments than were her legal expenses, but to her, a restored reputation justified the loss of time and money.

Most of the newspapers that printed the story had relied on wire services, and upon learning of the libelous error they immediately retracted the false story with apologies. Hearst, however, tried to avoid paying the anticipated court judgments of $15,000 ($300,000, adjusted for inflation) by sending an investigator to Darke County with the intent of collecting reputation-smearing gossip from Annie's past. The investigator found nothing."

Posted by: ural at April 4, 2008 3:41 AM

Well said Kate! I hope that Mr. Wall has taken the time to come over to sda to brush up on how to keep friends and know enemies.

John West; I was at home watching the same 'clip' of red headed Fife and I thought exactly the same thing!! Where is the accountability clause PC rubber stamping that fella's lips? Why is he free to 'label' people in such a negative cavalier manner.

I lit up a cigarette and considered my good fortune that I was not not in a public place, where I would have been ridiculed and fined for having such a violent reaction, (lighting a smoke of all the unthinkable things to do!) and thought to myself 'Is that reporter saying what he is saying on purpose FOR some purpose or is he too stupid to think that the tables can turn on him too?

Brad should take up smoking IMO - he could light up a smoke the next time the msm wants a reaction. Tobacco smoke sends the PCs of all stripes scurrying for the furthest corner. I think that Mr. Winston Churchill used to blow smoke in the faces of those he was fed up with - learn from the past and take a few notes Conservatives.

BTW there are plenty of Dipper/Puffin statements that can be used as an answer to any reporter generated outrages - don't let your lips skip a snort; just make a statement ' At this time we have no reason to bring up the nasty temper tantrums Mr. Romanov used to stage'...'No we are not prepared at this time to question why PET gave the 'finger' to peacefully protesting farmers in Salmon Arm'...'we do not know why Bobby of the red hair would 'label' or target a small minority group of Western people and suggest that dinosaurs do indeed exist with humans' ....maybe later...stay tuned. 'Have a nice day'.

Posted by: Jema54 at April 4, 2008 3:59 AM

Kate- keep saying what you want, when you want - it's your BLOG.

The lefties have theirs, they can write their views there!

Given how popular Kate's blog is compared to the lefties, I would say Kate represents far more of the general population than any combination of lefties!

As for Brad Wall, you were elected as a leader -so bloody well LEAD.

If enough people cared about what the NDP has to say then the NDP would have been elected.

They weren't - YOU WERE! Ignore their drivel, dance to your own tune.

If you are going to play along to the NDP playbook then we may as well elect the commies again.

Posted by: Frenchie77 at April 4, 2008 5:33 AM

I always have trouble whenever the NDP point fingers at others for "offense comments" about the poor, gays or any other group they pander to in a desperate attempt for votes, when their own demigod, Tommy Douglas, openly embraced the KKK, took part in a horribly racist correspondence in which he put every imaginable racist slur on Japanese Canadians, stated, on video, that homosexuality was a "mental illness" that should be treated in institutions and not only bashed the poor, but wanted to put them in concentration camps and referred to unwed mothers as common prostitutes.
I have been told (more than once) that I do ramble on about old Tommy, but I guess I just can't get over the extreme hypocrisy of the NDP.

Posted by: Trent at April 4, 2008 6:46 AM

John West, I caught Fife last night on that as well. My immediate response was "outfcukingragious!". That comment was so over the top, so unprofessional, that it should not be allowed to stand. Complaints to Broadcast Standards Council and the CRTC should be made, with emphasis to the CRTC about the inappropriate use of the public airwaves by CTV. If I were Harper's media team, I would be freezing CTV out this morning of EVERY media event, as if they never existed. They've demonstrated (again) that they have no respect for the public resource the airwaves represent, and should not be allowed to continually use it for slander. There is a big difference pithy political comment and out and out bigotry.
The irony is that they don't get that they're guilty of doing the very same thing they're ranting about.

Posted by: Skip at April 4, 2008 7:02 AM

To Harper and the Conservatives let's borrow from Kipling, "if you can keep your head when all about your are losing theirs....."

The Liberals and Dippers are losing big time, there's nothing left for them now but dredging up decades old audio/video tapes, old newspaper articles, ANYTHING to use to smear the Prime Minister and Conservative MP's.

There is one cure for all this nonsense and it's called an election. Let's put them out on the stump and see how far their smut research will take them. Dion, Layton, Duceppe and May can all get out and peddle their wares. Let the people decide whether they want wannabe smut detectives to take care of the country or the capable Prime Minister we now have.

Posted by: Liz J at April 4, 2008 7:27 AM

I like the broadcast standards council complaint suggestion.

Posted by: Kate at April 4, 2008 7:32 AM

Not much sense getting upset over a progressive and the term knuckle dragger, come next election you'd get rich if you were paid a nickel for every time you heard the word Neanderthal come out of their enlightened lips.

Posted by: Mugs at April 4, 2008 7:34 AM

People see my stooped stature, look at my scarred knuckles, look at the tanned back of my neck and they whisper as I go by. I hear snatches of "redneck" and "knuckledragger" and "neanderthal". I see them smirk, I see them snarl, I see them clenching their fists.

When I hear these names being called, I fear physical attack, because name-calling always precedes physical attack. I live in fear everytime someone utters the word "knuckledragger" or "redneck".

Those words expose me to hate and harm! I don't know what to do! Oh, woe is me...won't someone help me! Is there not some organization that could help to stamp out such hate?

Why, oh why, must those people be so HATEFUL and HURTFUL and PETTY and INTOLERANT?!?!

I call on my oppressed brothers and sisters at EGALE to stand with me, I call on Warren Kinsella and Jason Cherniak to protect me, I call on Dean Steacy and Richard Warman to seek out and destroy my detractors! Scooby-Doo, where are you?!

Posted by: Oppressed Farmboy at April 4, 2008 7:57 AM

It appears this newly minted premier is letting the opposition pick is friends for him and dictate is policies.

Wall the junkies premier.

"I hit the city and
I lost my band
I watched the needle
take another man
Gone, gone, the damage done.

I've seen the needle
and the damage done
A little part of it in everyone
But every junkie's
like a settin' sun. - (Neil Young)

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 4, 2008 8:10 AM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"Roy John Romanow, PC, OC, SOM, QC, (born August 12, 1939 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan) is a Canadian politician and former Premier of Saskatchewan (1991–2001).

He was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan in the 1967 provincial election in the riding of Saskatoon Riversdale. From 1971 to 1982, he served as deputy premier of Saskatchewan. In 1982 he was defeated by Joanne Zazalenchuk a 22 year old retail employee. From 1987 to 2001, he was leader of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party. Up until recently, Riversdale remained one the poorest and most crime ridden urban ridings in Saskatchewan, but recent gentrification efforts are changing the face of Romanow's old stomping ground. Romanow was well-acquainted with Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister from 1968–1979 and 1980–1984. He remains a close friend of Jean Chrétien, who was prime minister from 1993 to 2003.

During the 1981 discussions over patriation of the Canadian constitution, Attorney-General of Ontario Roy McMurtry, Chrétien and Romanow worked out the final details of Canada's new constitution, resulting in the famous late-night Kitchen Accord. Romanow objected strongly to any protections on private property in the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and none were included.

On November 7, 1987, Romanow replaced Allan Blakeney as leader of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party. When the party won the 1991 provincial election, he became Premier of Saskatchewan."

Life in context. As you were.

Posted by: john at April 4, 2008 8:25 AM

Taylor wrote, "Infectious diseases are spread in marginalized communities. All throughout human history - exclusion and poverty has equaled [sic] disease."

Interesting . . . because every Ontario school has been asked to display the following poster, provided by the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario:

There's a big, inverted rainbow triangle in the middle. The text, in large letters above the triangle is, "POSITIVE SPACE".

Beneath the triangle are the words, "This is a place where human rights are respected, and where lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and their friends and allies, are welcomed and supported." [sic: 1) no respect for non PC types, and 2) no comma needed between the subject, “allies”, and the predicate: and this was written, apparently, by teachers!]

Where are the other posters?

The homosexual activist agenda and that of their “friends and allies” is treacherous and plays both ends against the middle:

1) While this group is no longer marginalized—homosexuals are now the darlings of “polite society” and no criticism is allowed—they still play the victim card, whenever it suits them.

2) While homosexuals, as a group, have a significantly higher than normal rate of disease, drug use, and domestic violence and breakdown, which often catches up with them—a dear homosexual friend of mine died young of AIDS—it seems that no one’s allowed to mention THEIR poor choices or hold them accountable for their behaviour, either now or in the past.

This double standard is alive and well, Taylor, and it has nothing at all to do with the so-called respect, welcome, and support the poster prattles on about. In fact, this poster is all about giving notice that one group—now a very powerful one—is privileged, and that no criticism will be tolerated. E.g., Advertisers make a bundle from and cater to the mainly no-kids, “adult”, homosexual lifestyle, and judges and politicians bow before the homosexual agenda.

Certainly, the public school boards, most political parties and courts, and the MSM do NOT respect, welcome, or support the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of sexuality or the family, even though the new dispensation—all about complete sexual license: adult pleasure at the expense of our children’s health and wellbeing—has wreaked utter havoc on all of society.

Taylor, you and the totally hypocritical elites in this country are simply mouthing untruthful—marginalizing, often hateful in their own right, and dangerous—platitudes, which don’t stand up to the scrutiny of reality.

That shallow politicians keep sacrificing themselves and the rest of us on the altar of homosexual privilege and power—do it our way or else—is a perfect illustration of the craven public culture that is going to deep six this society, unless we start to push back. Enough!

Posted by: lookout at April 4, 2008 8:27 AM


Posted by: The Phantom at April 4, 2008 8:32 AM

Great response Kate!

Brad Wall needs to read one of the Aesop's Fables, The Man, the Boy and the Donkey.

Moral:If you try to please Everyone you'll end up pleasing No one.

Re: Fife...It's okay for him to call MP's knuckle draggers on National TV, but it's not okay for someone to say faggot at a private party?

Hope we hear from Buckler on that one.

Posted by: bluetech at April 4, 2008 8:34 AM

"Robert Fife'S comment to count Floyd the CTV news corpse was "We all know that there are some knuckle-draggers in Mr. Harpers government and that's why he keeps such a tight reign on them.""


I truly believe the time has come to bring some of these holier than thou journalists down to earth. I bet both Bobby and Floyd are trying to think back to some of the "knuckle-dragging" things they have said in their past and hoping against hope no one has it on tape!!!!!!

When the H*** are the press going to actually do their jobs and REPORT on something Canadians care about.

This is the "scandal of the week". Every Canadian - even if they are horrified by this - can relate to stupid things they have said when they drank.

It is time to call these pseudo journalists out for their BLATANT bias and gleeful joy when these kinds of things surface. Thankfully we have bloggers that dig into the pasts of those that hold themselves to be higher than those "Knuckledraggers" in government.

I hope that Tom and Brad think really hard about who was behind the camera in that tape. I would bet it is someone connected with either the Sask NDP or the federal Liberals.

Posted by: Alberta Girl at April 4, 2008 8:39 AM

Kate - god(dess) of the copybook headings!

Posted by: Tenebris at April 4, 2008 9:08 AM

Brad Wall is a politician and a male. Therefore, by definition he lacks principle and foresight. What did you expect?

What this country needs is an Iron Lady of our own who doesn't give a rat's ass about convention. Any volunteers?

Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle at April 4, 2008 9:11 AM

Sean: "Twenty years later, citizens have a voice of consequence"

Exactly. That's why truthfulness will always trump tolerance. Can meaningful debate take place otherwise? Consequence is what gives our voices value. That's why Kate and her remarkable venue in our day and age is so valuable. Thank you Kate, warrior on!

Posted by: Martin B. at April 4, 2008 9:12 AM

Crossing Lines eh?
Whose lines and who gets to decide where they lie?

I recall as a kid one silly little man on the playground tried to act out that scene from a cartoon as if to make some point about his own importance in the playground domain.

His line didn't make a damned bit of difference to his broken nose .... or to the teacher who hauled my ass up to the principles office where I got the strap! I did not however make ANY apologies to anyone in the matter .. which left me feeling just fine at the end of the day.

Point being .... those in authority need to act like they are in authority or loose it. (Brad Wall ! )
Those who only act like they are in authority deserve to get their nose bloodied. (Figuratively or literally works fine with me)

When you bloody some twits nose ... there's likely to be consequences. In my experience it's fine to take your lumps and having done it without making excuses or apologies is the right way to go.

Kate .... no excuses no apologies.... I like your style!

Posted by: OMMAG at April 4, 2008 9:15 AM

Anyone have e-mail address,or ph.# for CRTC or Broadcast Standards?We need to flood them with complaints re the Fife comments.This was done on a national newscast,and I am really offended.It was way over the top.I am wondering if Fife has family member that is gay,as when he was on Duff last eve,he started to say something about 'anyone who has a child that is gay' then kind of trailed off...he looked almost teary-eyed.Is there a subtext to his 'knuckledragger' comment?Just wondering.

Posted by: Sammy at April 4, 2008 9:18 AM

Sandra Buckler should confront Robert Fife and CTV in a public press release, to put names to the "knuckledragggers" in the conservative caucus.

Fife's comment is not news but commentary, pure and simple.

But then we all know Fife as a Liberal "lickspittle" journalist, don't we?

Enough said!

Posted by: Joe Molnar at April 4, 2008 9:19 AM

New parties happen.

And old ones die.

Posted by: Louise at April 4, 2008 9:19 AM

Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
P.O. Box 3265, Station D
Ottawa, ON K1P 6H8
Fax: 613.233.4826

Posted by: BB at April 4, 2008 9:26 AM

"I hope he's learned that pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends."

One for the quote book.

Truth is a gun and the left are voluntarily unarmed. Heh.

Posted by: irwin daisy at April 4, 2008 9:37 AM

Also complain to CTV


It is time to inundate them with complaints - this, to me is the final straw with their blatant bias.

Posted by: Alberta Girl at April 4, 2008 9:48 AM

I know this "old" news but it is related the topic of this thread - scroll down to what is in bold character, it will all make sense,

... ... ...

Prisoners more violent than in the past: report

Updated Thu. Dec. 13 2007 9:28 PM ET News Staff

A new report finds that Canada's prison population is more violent and requires more intervention and rehabilitation strategies than in the past.

The Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel released its 250-page report to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day on Thursday.

The report says it discovered an "alarming" picture of who is arriving at Canada's penitentiaries:

* Nearly 60 per cent are now serving sentences of fewer than three years and have histories of violence;
* The proportion of offenders who are classified as maximum security upon admission has increased by 100 per cent;
* One in six now have links to gangs and/or organized crime;
* Four out of five arrive at prison with a serious substance abuse problem;
* 12 per cent of male offenders and 26 per cent of females are identified as having a serious mental health problem

... ... ...

4 out of 5 arrive with a serious drug problem?

how are clean needles and "safe" sites for them going to help ?

As Canada has become more liberal along the years, the problems listed above have all gone worse, much worse
- including violence -
which liberals assure us are the ones who know how to take care of that, you know with leniency, appeasement, second chances...

ok we have tried the liberal way and we have more drug addicts and more violent criminals,

can we try the conservative way now?

Posted by: Friend of USA at April 4, 2008 9:52 AM

It never fails to amaze me how the left have pushed for change from real values..

Is it not the case that...

1.) Uncrossing your legs for money is illegal
2.) Tagging your favourite building being illegal
3.) Doing drugs! illegal

Funny how the NDP want us to understand what drives these people to do this...Why does the NDP continually support illegal activity? This is what should be investigated and reported!

When will we finally go back to being responsible for our own actions, rather than blame the SYSTEM!

Dam it Kate, you said what most of us think; and even the CBC took the time to print it.. (although not for the reasons it should have been cited) GOOD ON YOU!

We can not continue to blame the manufacturers of the ladder for our continued misuse of it and subsequently falling an breaking our necks...

Posted by: NorthernLight at April 4, 2008 9:53 AM

You should consider this entry for Best of SDA, Kate.

Posted by: Charles MacDonald at April 4, 2008 9:57 AM

That's the whole point Alberta Girl, the press really believes it is doing it's job! where have you been for the last 20 yrs! the media has been pushing and pushing, slowly but firmly to the point where we're at today. hence the success of 'Rush'(30 million listeners), yes 30 million, 10% of the US population listen to Rush, because they can't get that side of the story from anywhere else! and that still hasn't taken away from others that have a 'right' point of view like, Hannity, Savage, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck, etc etc etc..
and of course, the tremendous success of Small Dead Animals !!! 'PC' is all about pushing left ideas and making them mainstream, that has happened, slowly but surely over the late 20yrs, to the point 'conservatism' has been marginalized. 'conservatives', haven't been standing up for themselves, and look where that lack of backbone has taken us! Thanks for being here Kate. (BTW, I don't think you should run for a seat in politics, I think you should get a 2hr daily talk show from 8-10pm or 9-11pm, it wouldn't be a question of whether it would be successful or not, the question would be what radio station would carry it! and please don't tell me how conservative CJME & CKOM are, they're both full of progressives and liberals from 8:30am to 6:00pm day in and out)

Posted by: Carl at April 4, 2008 10:03 AM

Well said, Kate.

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 10:04 AM

"What this country needs is an Iron Lady of our own who doesn't give a rat's ass about convention."

Couldn't agree more Carbuncle...Canada's male conservative population has produced some wimpy pathetic leaders. I find myself reading mostly the blogs of female conservatives and I do so because their dedication to principle is Kate's

Canada has a few Maggie thatchers in waiting

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 4, 2008 10:08 AM

Carl at 10;03 am -

"Thanks for being here Kate. (BTW, I don't think you should run for a seat in politics, I think you should get a 2hr daily talk show from 8-10pm or 9-11pm" etc, etc,

Carl is absolutely correct of course!!

Canadian MSM is corrupt.

Posted by: Joe Molnar at April 4, 2008 10:11 AM

Kate you Rock!!!

Posted by: madasl at April 4, 2008 10:19 AM

As others have pointed out above, the Big Picture is that the members of the Canadian Left Establishment, from the NDP itself, to labour unions, to the CBC, to certain semi-washed-up political consultants and other various and sundry feeders at the government trough, continue desperately to limit the parameters of acceptable political discourse within the country by attacking any opinions to the right of the Liberal Party platform as hate speech and “beyond the pale.”

Such pernicious practices as ad hominem attacks on “knuckle draggers” reveal the intellectual paucity of the left and its failure to engage the right in a genuine debate of ideas. The left after all, is “reactionary” in being married to the same old ideas, Saskatchewan-style Medicare in the home of Saint Tommy being just one prime example. Isn’t one definition of insanity the propensity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Doesn't that describe "fixing medicare for a generation," as a Great Leader once promised?

The only antidote to this McCarthyism of the Left is to refuse to succumb to the temptation to throw the same kind of dirt back. Engaging them in the battle of ideas will not only infuriate them but, in the long term, win more converts.

For what it’s worth…

Posted by: Drained Brain at April 4, 2008 10:29 AM

Thanks for the e-mail addresses of where to write re:Robert Fife's inappropriate comments. And, Kate, you're awesome. Be encouraged by those of us who support you.

Posted by: Moose Javian at April 4, 2008 10:35 AM

CTV poll this morning,

Should Tory MP Tom Lukiwski step down?
2401 votes (36 %)
4333 votes (64 %)

Total Votes: 6734

Posted by: Friend of USA at April 4, 2008 10:36 AM

Kate, way to kick butt. That was my YES! (with arm pump!) back at 8:32am.

And now, The Phantom speaks to the Lefties.

Dear Lefties,

In a free country, one is free to like some people and dislike other people. One is even free to [gasp!] stereotype an entire group! Particularly while drinking with friends, even more particularly when one is imitating someone else's stereotype.

One is free to overstep the bounds of good taste. Free to make fun of other people's accents. Free even to spew insane hatred.

Also free to have your ass kicked by the guy you're spewing at. Freedom means you don't have to take lip from people. You can walk away, and if they restrain you, freedom means you can defend yourself.

All the Lefty/NDP inspired tut-tutting about this video is intended to convey the idea that this is NOT a free country, that people must be punished for the behavior portrayed in the video.

All the abject (and totally unconvincing) apologies of the tut-tut campaign also convey the idea of un-free speech, and bow down to the hall monitors in the hope of evading their just punishment. they think they should be punished, they are just trying to sliiiide out of it.

I am sickened.

Once, just once in my adult like I would like to see a politician stand up in front of the Lefty anti-freedom steamroller and defy them. "Hell yes I said that. At a f-ing party 16 years ago, I made fun of some guy. Its a free country you sorry a--holes, WHAT'S IT TO YA?!!!"

That guy would win my support forever.

Politicians of the Conservative Party and Sask Party, for God's sake grow a spine and spit in these people's eye like they deserve. They already hate your guts and call you "knuckle draggers" on national TV, I can't see a downside to sticking up for your personal beliefs and Heaven forfend, actual facts.

As for my personal opinions, I'm not shy of sharing them. If anyone, anywhere, ever was offended by something I posted here or at my blog or anywhere in all the Internet, I'd like to take this opportunity to say:


Its a free country, and its going to be getting a lot more free if I have anything at all to say about it.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 4, 2008 10:36 AM

Years ago an old man I knew told me that he had the perfect solution to the "Indian problem". He said that the government should "build a great big liquor store in the middle of the reserve, and then give them all the money they can spend."

Kate, your comments pointed out that this is precisely the approach that is being taken by governments that hand out money to addicts, and then build safe injection sites. As though there is a safe way to be a smack addict!!

But as usual, the dimmer sorts cannot seem to read the English language. I am expecting a string of out of context quotes from Kinsella anytime now. I have not been over to his site yet today. I'm still annoyed at Robert Fife from last night.

Anyway, everyone go to the CTV website. There is a poll there on the right hand side of the page that might interest you.

Posted by: Karl at April 4, 2008 10:39 AM

Tom set to do public 'apology' in HofC at around 10 am..cbc/ctv/cpac will carry live.

Posted by: Sammy at April 4, 2008 10:44 AM

What melodramatic rubbish...

Kate, have you ever considered that the Premier distanced himself from you because you are quite simply wrong? You made comments that were ignorant and insensitive.

The Premier also distanced himself from Tom Lukiwski; is that another reason for which his image consultants should be kicked to the curb? It seems to me, that when you encounter intolerant radicals, as a public figure, distancing yourself from them is exactly what you do... unless you agree with them, of course.

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 10:44 AM

Forain : You made comments that were ignorant and insensitive

Sounds like there is a job waiting for you at the CHRC, or do you already work there?

Now- crawl back to your bed, adults are talking!

Posted by: Frenchie77 at April 4, 2008 10:49 AM

Interesting how the left thinks that is has the right to rummage through the private property of others. But they come by it naturally because you don't have to scratch a leftist very hard to find a fascist underneath.

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 10:57 AM

Frenchie77 (Really?),

You're not one of those Levantite pseudo-defenders of democracy are you?


I forgot to inquire. How exactly do you intend to "deal with" Mr. Broten? Do you intend to write a nasty blog post insisting that his family is comprised of intravenous drug users?

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 10:57 AM

"I forgot to inquire. How exactly do you intend to "deal with" Mr. Broten? Do you intend to write a nasty blog post insisting that his family is comprised of intravenous drug users?"

A classic example of projecting one's one retaliatory proclivities...

Posted by: Drained Brain at April 4, 2008 11:01 AM are way out of your league. Save the environment...turn off your computer.

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 11:01 AM

The first six pages of today's Leader Post are dedicated to "The Tape". Six full pages! About comments made 17 years ago? Yikes.

Posted by: glasnost at April 4, 2008 11:03 AM

Have you ever considered the fact that, socalist partison idiot spear carrier's have sucked the life out of our country with politicallly correct bromides and untruths, and that's why all of Canada voted to distance our country from the liberals and NDP flakes like you.

Posted by: richfisher at April 4, 2008 11:04 AM

Frenchie77 (Really?),

You're not one of those Levantite pseudo-defenders of democracy are you?


I forgot to inquire. How exactly do you intend to "deal with" Mr. Broten? Do you intend to write a nasty blog post insisting that his family is comprised of intravenous drug users?

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 11:14 AM

The e-mail given for CSBC doesn't work. I sent the returned mail to, with a comment to have current e-mail on their website!

Posted by: wendy.g at April 4, 2008 11:14 AM

What is puzzling is the constant insistence by the left that its members should not be offended. Why not? Why should everyone accept their beliefs and behaviours? Why?

The left, which includes such groups as homosexuals (gays and lesbians), drug users, moral relativists, anti-war, anti-poverty etc etc claim that their beliefs are the Absolute Truth and must be accepted as such. To query and even reject such beliefs is, to them, a violation of Absolute Human Rights.

Do they hold the key to Absolute Truth? Are their beliefs the only way to live? No.

What if someone rejects homosexuality as a socially and biologically dominant mode in a society? This doesn't mean that they HATE homosexuals; it means that they consider such a mode of life, statistically, as non-normative. Why is this offensive?

Why does the left insist that no-one is allowed to have any other belief than theirs? Why do they constantly explode in rage at being offended when someone rejects their beliefs? The only other comparable group that behaves this way, are the Islamic fascists. They too, insist on our accepting their beliefs as the Ultimate Truth. They too insist on our acknowledging their way as the Only Way. They too are perpetually offended.

What's the problem with the left? Why are they so intolerant of others?

Posted by: ET at April 4, 2008 11:17 AM

wendyg, it's because you suffer from a little lysdexia. It's cbsc, not csbc.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at April 4, 2008 11:21 AM

Brison up in QP demanding Tom's resignation ! Oh the sanctimony.Tom gave heartfelt apology in the House,now,can the Libs/NDP get a life and do something,anything productive?For once in my life,I would agree with Bob Rae,when he recently said that the NDP was a party stuck in the last century.

Posted by: Sammy at April 4, 2008 11:23 AM

Thanks, Yukon! I ended up using their complaint link.

Posted by: wendy.g at April 4, 2008 11:24 AM

I think it says far more about the NDP than it does Wall et al that these pathetic leftard losers and their media whores have to dredge up 16 year old party videos.

I guess there's a reason why these dipper leftards were kicked to the curb in the last election if this is the best they can do.

Society and it's standards change over time. If you dig up comments from the past and filter it through today's screeching manic paranioa about all things "insensitive" you're being even less reasonable than these turds usually are.

I look down against anti-gay comments as they are mostly just ignorance but the idea that you should be publicly flayed for a statement you made after a few beers 16 years ago is pathetic.

I think anyone who isn't a leftard dipper or leftard media jackass looks far more negatively at the NDP (and media) than they do with Wall and company.

Posted by: Warwick at April 4, 2008 11:29 AM

" means that they consider such a mode of life, statistically, as non-normative."

ET, even Tommy Douglas agreed with that.

The ideology is similar to Islamofascism. Even more similar, Islam has the prophet Mohammad. And the NDP has the prophet Tommy.

Both are being kept in the closet for fear of exposure. But the facts are getting out. Tommy's thesis is a bomb. You should read it.

Posted by: irwin daisy at April 4, 2008 11:32 AM

Do you intend to write a nasty blog post insisting that his family is comprised of intravenous drug users?

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 11:14 AM

Like this?

Posted by: richfisher at April 4, 2008 11:33 AM

Scott Brison .. " Alberta can BLOW ME!"

Will Scott Brison resign??
Who exactly votes for these turds?

Posted by: OMMAG at April 4, 2008 11:35 AM

At worst, the comment about intravenous drug use was satire in a similar vein (oops!) as Swift's "A Modest Proposal". I wouldn't expect that much background knowledge from an ndp dullard.
And, forain, if you're going to post here, at least stop trying to be clever. That amount of strain can't be good for you.

Posted by: christopher rivers at April 4, 2008 11:38 AM

ET, what if they do hate homosexuals? So what?

Homosexuals of my acquaintance are more than fully capable of telling such a person to shove off, with my energetic help on a couple of occasions as I recall.

The Left is composed of people too lazy or too timorous to stick up for themselves, and of those who pander to them. "There oughta be a law!" is the refrain, and Lefty politicians rush to comply. Its the totalitarian impulse that makes them what they are.

Gays got where they are today by finally coming out of the closet. They said "Its a free country, I'm gay, bite me if you don't like it." That is commendable, and Conservatives should take a page from their book. There oughta NOT be a law, and we intend to make it that way.

Lefties should crawl back under their rock to shrivel and quietly expire with the other cowards, panderers and vermin. Those who are offended by this remark can join the line of those waiting to bite me. You'll have a while to wait, its getting pretty long.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 4, 2008 11:38 AM

ET, I agree entirely. Caroline Glick is asking similar questions about the Left in today's column, Fear of Democracy.

Posted by: Charles MacDonald at April 4, 2008 11:39 AM

16 years ago eh? Coincidentally 1991 was the year that it became permissible to be a Homosexual member of the Canadian Forces. I suppose all of us Neanderthals that served before that time should resign in disgrace for condoning that 'barbaric' directive.

That purge should be expanded to include anyone who sat in government at the time or has since joined it.

Posted by: Zip at April 4, 2008 11:39 AM

Kate, I have not read these comments. I did read and reread your post. I admired you before and I admire you even more now. You are my kind of people.

Posted by: Brian Mallard at April 4, 2008 11:40 AM

Mr. Rivers sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman. " a similar vein..." BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

Posted by: The Phantom at April 4, 2008 11:40 AM


"What's the problem with the left? Why are they so intolerant of others?"

Because liberalism is a mental disorder. There is not other explanation.

Posted by: John West at April 4, 2008 11:43 AM

OMMAG, "Alberta can blow me" was Scott Reid, not Scott Brison.

Posted by: john g at April 4, 2008 11:51 AM

Keep it up, Kate!

You straight up commentary is the prime reason that I check in to this blog everyday.

It is time for this country to regain its backbone. The lefties would have us make accomodations for people living a lifestyle we don't believe in. Whether it is drug use, homosexuality, living on welfare or any other issue I disagree with, I will not apologize for disapproving. In turn, I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I do.

Why is everyone so obsessed with gaining approval for their actions. Here is a news flash, it is easy to go with the flow, it is hard to make a stand based on your opinion or morals.

The lack of condemnation or consequences is what makes it easy to do the wrong thing. When the government makes it easier to do the wrong thing, the situation never gets better.

Again, keep up the good work!

Posted by: Trevor at April 4, 2008 11:54 AM

...Ho Camonie Kate, this is the longest post I've seen from you over the years!

Hell knows no fury like the wrath of a that of a scorned woman...

Posted by: tomax7 at April 4, 2008 12:06 PM

I think that leftism isn't simply a mental disorder but a moral disorder.

The intolerance of the left towards other people's beliefs and behaviour is incredible. Their insistence that they and they alone hold the Key To Truth is extreme arrogance.

Homosexuality exists and has always existed. Statistically, it will always be in a minority. It's neither morally right or wrong in my view. The fact that some people define it morally is none of my business; it's their business and their right to make that judgment.

That's why, for example, I consider the HRC judgments against both churches and individuals, who reject homosexuality, to be unjust and in themselves, discriminatory judgments. Beliefs are the right of the individual; the state should stay out of such areas and should only interfere if the belief becomes instead, violent actions.

The left has no right to insist on only one moral conclusion.
Again, the left has no right to insist that accepting or not accepting homosexuality is also a moral judgment.

The same with the other opinions of the left. They do not hold the Key to Absolute Truth nor are they the Inquisitors of Moral Absolutism.

I am fed up with the left's self-proclaimed role as the ultimate arbitrators of Truth and Morality. Their smug sense of superiority, entitlement and privilege, as the Holders of Truth and Morality is disgusting.

Posted by: ET at April 4, 2008 12:07 PM

"I think that leftism isn't simply a mental disorder but a moral disorder".

You're being nice ET.

Leftism, namely the Liberal Party of Canada, and those who support it, are direct contributors to Canada's moral decadence.

dec·a·dence (dk-dns, d-kdns)
1. A process, condition, or period of deterioration or decline, as in morals or art; decay.

2. often Decadence A literary movement especially of late 19th-century France and England characterized by refined aestheticism, artifice, and the quest for new sensations.

Posted by: tomax7 at April 4, 2008 12:14 PM


"I consider the HRC judgments against both churches and individuals, who reject homosexuality, to be unjust and in themselves, discriminatory judgments."

You have, like so many others, missed the point entirely. People are, in fact, free to reject for themselves anything that they like. They can not, however, spew hateful comments to whomever they like. To hold people that make bigoted comments to account is not "discriminatory."

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 12:34 PM

ET, I think you give them too much credit. They aren't disordered at all. They're trying to run the show, and they are doing whatever they think will further that.

Self defense is inconvenient? Throw gun owners under the bus.
Muslims form a useful voting block? Throw feminists under the bus.
Right to own property is inconvenient? No problem! Under the bus it goes.
People on the internet getting in the way? CHRC takes care of those guys. Free speech? Under the bus!

Homosexuals as a group can expect to join the feminists under the bus when it becomes expedient. So can immigrants and every other group currently in favor.

Lefties pursue Big Government policies as a way to increase their power and their opportunities to steal. They have no beliefs, morals or standards, what they have is an unbounded appetite for graft and the uncontrollable desire to push other people around.

I look forward to their removal from the public scene, in handcuffs and disgrace if at all possible.

If any Lefties were offended by these remarks, good.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 4, 2008 12:38 PM

Troll Alert!

Somebody is either spewing hateful comments here, along with subconsciously confusing "can" with "may," or else parodying the standard HRC line:

"They can not, however, spew hateful comments to whomever they like. To hold people that make bigoted comments to account is not 'discriminatory.'"

Posted by: Drained Brain at April 4, 2008 12:40 PM is YOU who is missing the point. Who decides what is "hateful"? You? Clowns like you? My guess is that being the hypocrite you are, you would go ballistic if the government decided to censor something (like "art", for instance). You would argue that the government has no place in doing so, but that is exactly what you are suggesting. Don't bother to answer....the "logic" of the left really is psychotic.

By the way, pinhead, who really released the tape anyway? It was private property released by the left. Now get back to your "job" at the "Human Rights Commission".

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 12:40 PM

Be of good cheer, folks. vitruvius, in all his pomposity, has prepared, off the original vinyl, the great works of Nestor Pister. The right will rise again. If only Kate would put up a Reader's Tips post.

Posted by: maggie at April 4, 2008 12:48 PM

Forain said: "To hold people that make bigoted comments to account is not "discriminatory."

No, it is not "discriminatory". It is fascist. Bigotry is purely in the eye of the beholder, and when governments start deciding who shall be allowed to speak and who shall not, who shall be rewarded and who shall be destroyed, that is what we call fascism.

Making you, my dear Forain, a fascist. A totalitarian. An enemy of free speech. A destroyer of freedom. A tool of oppression.

Please go and smack your head with a brick for me, there's a good whatsit.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 4, 2008 12:49 PM

Kate, I think a blogger should not be affiliated to a political party, and should refuse such offers. Stay free, we (the people, not the pols) need your voice.

Posted by: Manny, in Moncton at April 4, 2008 12:55 PM

forain - it's you who have entirely missed the point. The point is freedom. Freedom of thought, belief and speech.

So, yes, people can indeed 'spew' (I believe you mean speak or express)their opinions to whomever they like. That's called, again for your edification, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

So, if I tell you that I consider people who insist that I don't have freedom of speech and that I 'mustn't offend anyone'.. to be thin-skinned mindless dinosaurs - about all you can do is dissent. So? You consider my insistence that I can speak my mind, and express my my prejudices and biases to be an example of 'bigotry'. So? So what if you view me as a bigot? So?

You are the one who doesn't understand. You see, you insist that certain thoughts are 'bigoted'. But that's your conclusion. I think differently. I think that your view that I must not say certain things - I think that's bigoted. It's also arrogant. And discriminatory. And incredibly smug. You aren't the arbitrer of Truth.

Who the heck are you to tell me what is bigoted and what is not bigoted. Furthermore, why can't I be and express bigotry? What's your problem?

You, with your reference to 'Levantite pseudo-defenders of democracy' - you were making a bigoted statement.
You defined Tom as 'an intolerant radical' and recommended 'distance'. That's so bigoted of you; you, in your smug self-assertion of worth, can't handle dissenting opinions.

So, no, you are the one who 'doesn't get it'. You, in your self-appointed role as The Source of Truth and Morality, claim that free speech is not a right, and that certain thoughts and words are 'bad' and 'not allowed'.

Get lost.

Posted by: ET at April 4, 2008 12:55 PM

I think we are witnessing, finally, the early death throes of Canadian "progressivism". All along, I felt that "da Canadian values" of Cretin and company did not really reflect the views of a more conservative general public. Examples, capital punishment, gay marriage, OPEN ENDED immigration of the alien and dangerous variety, etc. The public quite simply did not share the elitist narrative; in short, the common folk have common sense.

This tactic will FAIL. Here's why: most decent people frown on one person opening another's mail without permission; most people frown on releasing to the public material of a totally private nature (this video tape). Most people will conclude that the villain of the piece is the vicious, ruthless, anything for power NDP/LPC/CBC.

Finally, isn't this a straight case of invasion of privacy. Don't decent people defend privacy, without regard to what behaviour may be engaged in, in PRIVATE, as they do freedom of speech without regard to the content of that speech (short of actual direct incitement to violence). Don't we have a "Privacy Commissioner". Or is that only for protecting criminals, protecting secretive bureaucracies?

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at April 4, 2008 1:01 PM

Why was Shawn Murphy's resignation not called for when he yelled over a Conservative who was speaking in the HOC to hang Mulroney, hang him high and a few other choice words? He was forced to apologize, which he did and it was over the top as well. He apologized to EVERYONE in Canada. It was the most prolific apology ever.
Why are people who are homosexual out for more blood? Why are they allowing the bozos in the Liberal ranks like Goodale and Brison to use them for perceived political purposes?

Anyone looking for examples of hypocrisy need only look at the likes of Ralph Goodale and his pack of Liberal bum sitters and abstainers as an excuse for an Opposition.

Posted by: Liz J at April 4, 2008 1:08 PM

CTV HA HA HA!! What a joke they and cbc are!

Remember when they broad casted on the 6 o'clock news here in Montreal, that Jupiter or whatever star, was about to appear on the horizon for that evenings sunset and it would be as big as the MOOOOOON...

Fringin idiots, this was from a hoax email that we had received a year earlier... the media ARE a bunch of lord of flea types, they'd sooner see us jailed than be allowed to speak the truths. Just like all the corrupt CHRC's currently operating.

Cowardly ignorant lying bastards = liberals and their well heeled media lap dogs.

Had my rights denied by liberals and progressive socialists just 18 years ago in the workforce! AND I'm not allowed to address this? This is pissing me off.

THANKS KATE at least I know people like you are the NEW grounded voice for the ones THEY hate, COUNT ME IN.

Proudly standing away from that stink even it it means standing alone forever.

I tell my daughter, just 18, don't mention your family's military past, at least not until you see soldiers action figures as well as the sleazy babie attire.... I know first hand, what a negative backlash that will bring her in her liberal dominated environment.

What can I say, we're from small town cheap, and I speak the truth on this.

Wonder what the real story behind the Brenda Martin is?
Bet I can make a pretty accurate guess. I also know, she is still so twisted up that she's still sucking up to her previous abusive handlers...afraid she's bound to spin for a while yet.

LSM and Liberals - snort - yeah, I spit on you.

So distrustful of what has become of this countries bureaucrats that, I expect to hear that revenue canada will be doing sweeping audits on the deceased soldiers families...while card carrying liberals will still be allowed to hide their taxable income.

Abuse kicks down.
It's true.

Posted by: ldd at April 4, 2008 1:16 PM


You're a twit.

There is nothing in the constitution that reads: "thou has a right not to have your delicate sensitivies offended by speach you are too weak to handle."

There is a small plurb about having the right to free speach. Oh, and something about the freedom of speach being a "fundamental right." But you're too stupid to be able to read it.

If you tools want people's speach banned I'd start with ignorant leftard asses like you.

Posted by: Warwick at April 4, 2008 1:18 PM

Is SaskParty leader Brad Wall going to [...] act like a premier?

That's the key to it. No different than the "gays with dirty fingernails" guy.
They are now in power and have to actually deal with problems and represent ALL the people.

So some old baggage has to go. Even Harper no longer goes down south to piss on Canada and "believes" in evolution.

You haven't changed -- he has.

Posted by: dizzy at April 4, 2008 1:18 PM

Dizzy dipper,

"You haven't changed -- he has."

Sadly the leftard dippers will never change.

Posted by: Warwick at April 4, 2008 1:23 PM

"OMMAG, "Alberta can blow me" was Scott Reid, not Scott Brison."
I'm pretty sure Scott Reid was "They'll just waste it on beer and Popcorn." ... not sure why I recall Brison as the author of "...... Blow Me!"

However... If it's Reid on both counts ... "Will the Leader of the opposition and the Head of the LIberal party disavow and repudiate the one who made those disrespectful and bigoted statements?"

Posted by: OMMAG at April 4, 2008 1:25 PM

Hey Fake-rain

These guys say it with guitars.

"F" , you I won't do what you tell me."

Posted by: richfisher at April 4, 2008 1:26 PM

At the end of the day, Kate's enjoying less and less influence with conservative politicians and media. That's all that matters. Deny and spin and call us fascists till the cows come home, SDA faithful. Here in the real world, it changes nothing.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at April 4, 2008 1:29 PM

Well done Kate.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at April 4, 2008 1:29 PM

I always knew that Wall was holding back on something of his true nature. I feared it was a dogmatic ultraconservative religious hidden agenda. Now I see that should have been the least of my fears. My real fear should have been that the man has no spine or leadership abilities and will not be able to provide any direction to or control over his mates in the Leg. We all know where that took us last time. The good thing is that this time there is money in the bank account so if they start spending like NDPers we might not go broke. (And no I am not suggesting the SaskParty is a bunch of crooks. I now fear a spending spree.)

BTW - Good for you Kate and Good for all of you who support Kate and her and our comments about self responsibility, individual rights/liberty and the fight against PC.

Posted by: rroe at April 4, 2008 1:36 PM


"it's you who have entirely missed the point. The point is freedom."

Spare the fair readers your melodrama.

Don't hide behind the too frequently misused assertion that anything can be said is a tenet of free speech.

You like to accuse people of being moral relativists, so here's an absolute for you: some comments just aught not to be made because they hurt people. Making general and ignorant comments regarding identifiable groups should simply not happen. To say "My personal belief is X" is far different than what Lukiwski said. Don't conjoin two entirely different phenomena.

I also appreciated the "get lost" comment. It added a nice touch to your post.

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 1:38 PM

Since the remarks supposedly "crossed a line" and were "hurtful" then I would suppose they were most hurtful to those to whom they were directed i.e. the downtown crack addicts. To be hurt by those comments, they must have read them. This raises the obvious question, Kate, exactly how many crack addicts would your traffic counter suggest take time out daily from their drug seeking and fund raising efforts to link to your site?

Posted by: DrD at April 4, 2008 1:40 PM

JohnnyRingo....I guess you can't see that you and those like you are now the "establishment". Your grip is weakening and the pendulum swings.

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 1:45 PM

Reagan and Thatcher won power by being conservatives, not by apologizing for being conservatives.

Posted by: Stan at April 4, 2008 1:47 PM


Posted by: ducktrapper at April 4, 2008 1:50 PM

ET, we have here someone hypothesizing that my muzzling speech, that minds can be changed. That is the premise of the muzzling.

Which is to say, that unless the speech is heard, the thought won't occur in others.

A thought has become an infection. Speech is the transmission vector for that infection.

The goal is to eliminate the thought, therefore, act on the vector of transmission. It's a rather broad spectrum antibiotic - curtailing speech. Furthermore, it is, at is base, deeply insulting (hurtful) even in that it presupposes that most people do not have original thoughts, nor the ability to reason upon non-original thoughts. They are inferior.

Indeed, the model is that the masses are drones of the state, which must be tended to with utmost care lest a wayward notion distract them from their duties of surrendering body, soul and product to their elite masters - those human arbiters of Right and Wrong.

What a bleak, bland, pointless existence the lefties would have us live.

Posted by: shaken at April 4, 2008 1:50 PM

Did I miss the election or memo that allowed the government and HRC to unilaterally replace the right to free speech with the right to be protected from "hurt feelings"? Must have been the same one that allows the HRC to circumvent every modern rule of law and bypass the legal rights of those accused of hurtful speech.

Posted by: lynnh at April 4, 2008 1:56 PM


this whole thing was an intended setup by the dippers

so they must be concerned about your influence, other wise why would they bother going after a citizen blogger?????

you are now as well known ,across the country, as ALL those fool politicians


Posted by: GYM at April 4, 2008 2:00 PM

Looks like that fascist comment scored a hit on JohnnyRingo.

Johnny baby, I don't know if you can understand this, but Kate said she doesn't have and isn't seeking any influence with Conservative politicians. That would be at the bottom of her comment right at the very beginning.

The most important thing to remember about Conservative politicians is the POLITICIAN part. As a group, politicians produce the best results when put under pressure and close scrutiny.

These guys response to the NDP hack job du jour certainly leaves something to be desired. Like guts.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 4, 2008 2:03 PM

Don't hide behind the too frequently misused assertion that anything can be said is a tenet of free speech.

Anything can be said EXCEPT direct incitement to violence. Recall the Canadian prof islamist Elmassry said it was OK to kill all Isralis 'cos they all serve in the military. Recall, there was no outrage on the left. None. It angered me but I didn't consider it "direct incitement". You can well imagine the number of Jewish Canadians whose feelings were hurt.

If you don't get that there is NO SUCH THING as a right NOT to be offended, you have zero understanding of free speech and you should therefore not bother with this grown-up site.

In fact, were it not acceptable to offend people, there would be no need for free speech in the first place. In other words, no protection is required to say "nice things".

Using poster penny's immortal phrase, I have to presume you're "young person".

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at April 4, 2008 2:08 PM

I think you should mention what your beer preference is, you know, just in case either side wants to apologize or at least say thank-you anonymously on your doorstep.

Posted by: Cherie at April 4, 2008 2:17 PM

Johnny Pinko sez:

"At the end of the day, Kate's enjoying less and less influence with conservative politicians and media."

Actually, the opposite is more likely. The politicians who disagree with such democratic fundamentals as freedom of speech will be enjoying less and less influence with voters.

"People have been conditioned by the lie of multiculturalism to believe that what they should think is more important than what they do think." – Pat Condell

Multiculturalism, relativism, pcism and now speechism.

Posted by: irwin daisy at April 4, 2008 2:17 PM

'''the real world''' HUH?

Ah, now that's so rich coming from an elitist troll baby...funny funny stuff,

There's dead fish needing a good wrap everywhere in Canada, in our cities, on our streets... in our bureaucracy.

Posted by: ldd at April 4, 2008 2:24 PM

Caroline Glick is asking similar questions about the Left in today's column, Fear of Democracy.

Posted by: Charles MacDonald

Excellent article, I encourage folks to read it.
Thnaks for posting it .

Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 4, 2008 2:28 PM

Well said Kate.

And spoken directly to the politicians who suck and blow on any given topic deemed of use to them on a particular day.

Given that prostitution is unlawful in this country, it's curious that politicians at the municipal/provincial/federal level aren't all charged at the same time, en masse.

Or maybe not that surprising, given the RCMP's track record of investigating and prosecuting them.

Politicians are the disease, not the chemotherapy.

Posted by: hardboiled at April 4, 2008 2:29 PM

It's just like lefties Clinton and Obama... Take jabs at the petty dirt because they can't deliver any opposing policies that make any sense.

Posted by: Jabber at April 4, 2008 2:31 PM

It was definitely Scott Reid, Liberal mouthpiece of the most sickening, obnoxious sort who said "Alberta can blow me". He also said the parents would spend the $100 dollar allowance on "beer and popcorn".

He and Paul Martin were a mutual admiration duo. He did disappear for a period after the beer and popcorn quip but he's been back in the limelight defending the dregs of the Liberal Party on Duffy Live regularly.

As for Scott Brison he can pick up Ralphy Goodale and just blow away and take their income trust tips with them. That's still a murky file that needs clarification. We can take some comfort in the fact the Liberals are starting to drown in their own muck and they're flailing like hell for mere survival. Expect more outrageous accusations and dredging back decades for poop on Conservatives. Didn't Sir John A like to tipple?

Posted by: Liz J at April 4, 2008 2:37 PM

I heard Lukiwski's abject apology on the CBC news: disgusting in its snivelling and grovelling and, especially, in his complete misunderstanding of Canadians’ Charter rights to freedom of expression. God help us if this MP really means what he says. (And God help us if he doesn’t because that means he’s a liar.)

Lukiwski said that not only should such views as his—17 years ago when he was drunk—be disallowed publicly, they should also be disallowed privately. (Does that mean we should all have direct audio feeds from our homes to the CHRC?) I'm going to email him and say my support—after the over-the-top apology—has waned somewhat.

Yes, I'd love to see a politician kick butt right back. Believe me, there'd be lots of Canadians who'd be cheering.

ET, Warwick, Phantom, Me No Dhimmi, and many others, many thanks for your remarks. Perhaps the silent Taylor could respond re the discriminatory, pro-homosexual public education propagan . . . whoops, agenda I mentioned @ 8:27 today.

And perhaps (s)he and other would-be censors, like Forain, should check out the intemperate and hateful comments made by homosexual activists in their often over-the-top publications about those with whom they disagree. Could that be why EGALE—Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere—supports the removal of Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act? (An assignment for Forain: In essay form, explain why EGALE supports the removal of Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act. Psst . . . If you read, mark, and inwardly digest the comments here from those who disagree with you, you should ace this assignment. If you submit it here, I’m sure ET would be willing to grade it.)

If we’re talking true equality, how come homosexuals and their “friends and allies” (Ontario Teachers' Federation) get to disparage and belittle others and their beliefs, often using obscene language, but no one's supposed to ever breathe a word of criticism about them? E.g., The Rev. Stephen Boissoin was particularly slammed by the AHRC for using a war-like metaphor in an intemperate letter he wrote against the homosexual agenda. In that context, isn’t the Teachers’ Federation of Ontario’s shilling on behalf of homosexual activists intemperate, and its use of the word “allies” a war-like metaphor? But, silly me, I’m pointing out this double standard on the assumption that what’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Not in the Federation, Taylor or Forain’s Canada, it’s not.

The apparent caving of the Conservatives on the issue of free speech is most disturbing. Ezra Levant says it’s time to call them on it. After Lukiwski’s—damn, that’s hard to spell!—sickening and sissy act of appeasement today, I particularly agree.

Posted by: lookout at April 4, 2008 2:56 PM

I think it's imperative that all conservatives distance themselves from one another.

Posted by: EBD at April 4, 2008 3:08 PM


Perhaps, there is another explanation for why Lukiwski apologized. Perhaps, instead of doing it as a crusader against free speech, he did it because Canadians demanded it of him, because he was wrong to make the comments in the first place.

How are Ezra and the Western Standard doing, anyway?

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 3:15 PM

What's Francis Fox been up these days?

Posted by: JM at April 4, 2008 3:15 PM

I think the Liberals are acting like a bunch of fags on this issue.

Posted by: Jimbo at April 4, 2008 3:20 PM

oooh oh, Jimbo line up for your execution by HRC...

Unless of course you're just channeling special k man...

Posted by: ldd at April 4, 2008 3:23 PM

Hipocracy. . and we are all guilty .. That means you and I both.

They were letting their hair down. Bending the elbow.

You and I have put these purist politicians to shame when it comes to funny accents and comments about gays and lesbians.

** On MP Tom Lukiwski's 1991 home movie, with a few brews under his belt, re homosexuals. * * ....With dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases .* *

Two things:

First; in some cases it is the truth.

Second; In a loud back-slapping, have another drink setting, it is merely tasteless banter.

Tasteless party banter is often at someones*s or some group*s expense.

And to make humour using funny ethnic accents is not worthy of mention. All comedians and stand-ups do it every day.

I have heard many and you have as well, if you ever watched an episode of Homer Simpson and the Indian or Pakistani store owner.

Agreed, the comments were as common as we commoners are likely make, but publicizing a private tape taken at a party 15 years ago seems a low life thing to do.

The video camera should have been returned without snooping. More solid proof that most politicians are as flawed as we all are. = TG

Posted by: TG at April 4, 2008 3:28 PM

Haha. funny to call Liberals "fags".

Whether it's on the issue of women's rights, civil rights, and now homophobia, you guys have been wrong on every important issue of the last hundred years.

What's funny is that you're all so proud of it.

But what choice do you have, really?

You're like embittered alcoholics. "Screw'em all - I'll drink as long as I want...makes no difference if I ruin every relationship in my life...they're all a bunch of know-it-all phonies anyhow...They ain't gonna tell me not to drink and drive! Bunch a politically correct pussies anyhow!"

Sure - none of it makes any sense.

But you have no choice, do you?

You're all too invested in it now.

Posted by: rolik at April 4, 2008 3:31 PM

Na na na na na politics, that is all the stinking ndpeers and lieberals can come up with. Do absolutly nothing to better the country just try to dirty a conservative, these bastards are so destructive, They have mostly inherited their wealth and they show it, useless to society as is a heroin addict, go to hell you snivelling leftys. Oh did I hurt your feelings, boo hoo. I am proposing an addition to the organ transplant program, I just have to clear it with health Canada. I am proposing a manly man registry, where real men with real balls like say Reagan and Churchill in the past, can sign up and donate their gonads, so these stinking leftys can have some hope in their shallow lives by having a simple transplant, oh yes government funded just like your sex changes you putzes like, think of the fun at your next lefty party when one of you can finally say, IN A DEEP VOICE, I hate Harper, why you will be the most popular wimp in the room, and just remember there could be a camera rolling. Just imagine Robert Fife coming on CTV with a deep boomiong voice instead of that PEE WEE Herman voice of his, to call us all knuckle draggers. Well just remember you eastern stinking liberals, call us westerners whatever you like when you stop cashing the transfer payment checks, you welfare bums.

Posted by: bartinsky at April 4, 2008 3:32 PM

A few jabs to the body and a right cross to the jaw. Good job, Kate.

The MSM is now playing on the same level as the National Enquirer airing 16 year old movies taken at a private party where people were drunk and acting stupid, no doubt egged on by others acting drunk and stupid. Decent people would have just tossed this in the trash. Instead we get it broadcast through the supper hour as all the usual sanctimonious suspects chime in.
Wonder what they are diggin up on Diefenbaker?

Posted by: muttsrus at April 4, 2008 3:37 PM

no, forain, don't move into childish invective.

Free speech isn't 'melodrama'. It's a basic and fundamental right.

You claim "Don't hide behind the too frequently misused assertion that anything can be said is a tenet of free speech."

Actually, forain - that's not a definition of 'freedom of speech'. Your definition is wrong. After all, there's the well-known truism that you can't shout FIRE (when there isn't a fire) in a crowded..etc. And, freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can lie under oath. And so on. Freedom of speech doesn't mean 'anything can be said'.

It means that you can express your opinions and beliefs. Your opinions and beliefs may be met with disdain, dissent, outright laughter or anger. But, you can express them. They may offend someone. But no-one has the right not to be offended. I know you think so, but you are, fortunately, wrong.

You also said: "You like to accuse people of being moral relativists, so here's an absolute for you: some comments just aught not to be made because they hurt people. Making general and ignorant comments regarding identifiable groups should simply not happen."

Again, forain, you are wrong. That's not a moral absolute.
The possible result of 'hurting people's feelings' is not a criterion of whether or not 'some comment should be made'. Not only are feelings entirely subjective and therefore, non-universal, but no-one has the right to 'not be offended'. What is offensive to one person is irrelevant to another.

You then said: "To say "My personal belief is X" is far different than what Lukiwski said. Don't conjoin two entirely different phenomena."
Again, forain, you are wrong. They are similar. Not different.

Oh, and I object to your claim that "Canadians demanded' an apology of Lukiwski. Are you the official speaker for Canadians? How do you know what Canadians want? I object to the arrogant assumption of leftists (Liberals, NDP) who always inform us that "Canadians want/don't want'. They don't have the guts to simply speak for themselves; they always hide behind the general 'Canadians want/don't want'.

By the way, forain, what about your bigoted comments about 'Levantite pseudo-defenders of democracy' and Lukiwski as 'an intolerant radical'?

Don't you think you should not be offending people who feel that they are defending a basic tenet of democracy (free speech), rather than calling them names? Why are you being so offensive and name-calling people?

Posted by: ET at April 4, 2008 3:39 PM

Here in QC la la land.

Lesbian prosecutors will side with others of their kind OVER justice for the breeders, bonus if it's also an anglo.

Next time folks, let 'em go.

Posted by: ldd at April 4, 2008 3:45 PM

To me, the "dirt under the fingernails, spreading disease" bit is what showed he was just joking around about stereotypes -- "Ha ha, au contraire, my tipsy friend, I'm the manliest of men, not like those darned..." etc. What he said is in the same ballpark as "You gotta really watch those Scots, they'll steal your silverware and hide it under their kilt..."

I think this absolutely pathetic display we've been witnessing in the media, and on the political side by Pat Atkinson in particular, is going to be counterproductive for them in the long run. It's one thing to say "If you're going to be in our little club, and wear the decoder ring, you can't use these words"; it's another to bray that it's a done deal across the country that it's self-evident that people like Pat Atkinson and the NDP get to be the arbiters of what civilians -- Mr. L wasn't elected at the time -- joke around about drunkenly.

You know, a few years ago I would have considered an assertion that the prog-left wants to control people's thoughts to be ridiculous...

Posted by: EBD at April 4, 2008 4:00 PM

Kate McMillan; an Army of One.

I do believe it would be a fine day even if I said so me-self for a redneck from Luisi-Yana to get drunk on some Canadian Whiskey and raise my glass to make a toast to a fine Conservative Canadian Woman.

Posted by: Ratt at April 4, 2008 4:18 PM

Your opinions and beliefs may be met with disdain, dissent, outright laughter or anger. But, you can express them.

Speech (opinions and beliefs) may be met with consequences (disdain, dissent, laughter ...)
If one is operating in the realm of politics, the consequences can be extreme, as Lukiwski is finding out.
So it is you who are quite wrong. So, no, manny. You are quite wrong. I don't have to accept the consequences of my speech.

Posted by: manny at April 4, 2008 4:21 PM


Yawn. you're a tiresome little gnome with nothing useful to say. Go away child, and bother someone else.

Posted by: Warwick at April 4, 2008 4:22 PM

politics in this country has become so National Enquirer, Looking for the Dirt, The scandal of the week. No wonder so many are tuning out & when something comes along that is for the betterment of canadians we don't listen we or the media look for ways to trash & bash.
Mr luikinski has apologized for the comments he had made case closed, end of subject for most Canadians IMO. Which in the form of apologies of which i have seen in Parliment of late was more Heartfelt then other's(Murphy & the NDP Peeping Busy body)

Posted by: bryanr at April 4, 2008 4:30 PM

About what time was the Fifer talking about knuckle-draggers? I want to see it...

Posted by: Johann at April 4, 2008 4:30 PM

It's refreshing to see Kate acknowledge that her political views are too severe and excessive to be acceptable to her preferred political party members.

While everyone of you bloggers spent your time apologizing for Likewski and Wall, Kate spent her time stubbornly entrencheing herself into the extreme political far right where the Devines, Pankiws and other demagogues are free to rant to themselves.

I smell the demise of SDA Yahooo!!!!

Posted by: beardyscree at April 4, 2008 4:49 PM

Yet again, manny - you are the one in the wrong. The fact that he leftists in the MSM and the House, ie, the Liberals and NDP, are screeching their self-proclaimed moral superiority doesn't make them morally right. It just means that they are yelling.

Their insistence that thoughts and speech must be confined or 'face the consequences' is absurd. Yet again, I don't have to acknowledge the reactions of some people as having any intellectual or moral validity. If they yell, if they call me names - that doesn't mean that THEY are intellectually or morally right.

That's what you don't get, manny. Your view is mechanical; you think that IF a speech gets a reaction, THEN the reaction is correct. Who says so? You've reacted to my thoughts. I say that your reaction is incorrect.

And I think that the Liberal/NDP reaction is also incorrect. The smug superiority of these people, all claiming that one MUST 'love' homosexuals or be called bigoted. Why? Is it a sign of 'being human'? No, of course not.

You know, when I think of these same people, with their 'beer and popcorn' sneers, their insistent bigotry against America, against corporations, against people who disagree with AGW - well, freedom of speech means that they can express their opinions. But that doesn't mean that they, or you, manny, are right.

Posted by: ET at April 4, 2008 4:50 PM


"Freedom of speech doesn't mean 'anything can be said.'"

You've restated my point, although in a markedly more banal way, almost perfectly.

So, as one of the many graduates of the Levant school of Human Rights defence, you must not be familiar at all with any other part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Article 15, section 1 says:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Free speech is not a license to say anything one pleases. It's tempered by a regard for identifiable minority groups. In your misguided zeal to defend your bastardized notion of free speech, you are contradicting the same Charter of Rights that you believe yourself to be defending.

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 4:54 PM

I'm waiting for the essay, Forain, re why EGALE disagrees with you.

Re your assumptions: no, no, and no. Ezra Levant's doing just fine. Check out his web site.

Posted by: lookout at April 4, 2008 4:55 PM

A lesson for Brad from my Dad:
A few years ago my dad (a retired rancher from the beautiful Cypress Hills) and his Sheltie dog named Charley were having breakfast when a slick looking guy knocked on the door. Dad went over and let the guy in, Charley whipped around behind the guy and bit his ankle; drawing blood.

The guy swore and kicked at Charley, Charley barked long and loud and continued to circle the guy.

The guy said that he was going to sue my Dad because the dog had drawn blood. Dad looked really worried, at Charley and the guy took out his pen. Dad said "Well I guess I will have to take Charley into town for a tetanus shot.

He told the guy to leave and he did noting the house and the name of the resident Sheltie.

The guy continued around the little town schmoozing and told several people all about Charley. When word got back to my Dad, he defended his pal Charley and told any critics that they had encountered a thin skinned panty waist and that he was NOT considering 'doing something about his dog'!

A few months later the people who had 'invested ' with the panty waist found out that he was running a Brenda Martin's boss type fraud; they were all taken to the cleaners. They all wished that they had had a dog like Charley who 'just knew' the guy was a crook.

Charley became the home town hero! He was a very good looking dog but he was yappy and intelligent and he did not back down for anyone (he didn't like policemen, the next door neighbours, the local preacher, anyone drunk - except Dad -...)so many people had, in the past, avoided and belittled Charley as a yappy, nasty dog.

Truth is often stranger than fiction. Put Kate in Charlie's position and think of how things would have turned out if Brad had acted like my Dad!

Posted by: Jema54 at April 4, 2008 4:57 PM

Sometimes the truth hurts. By your logic the truth will never be told.

Great post Kate! Forain,being an example, shows we need a lot more of it.

Posted by: sysk at April 4, 2008 5:01 PM

As long as Kate continues to attract readers, she will continue to be influential. seeing as this comment thread is well past 100 comments, I see no evidence of decline in her influence.

Posted by: Half Canadian at April 4, 2008 5:05 PM

Forain, you are citing treatment before the law in the charter. "It's tempered by a regard for identifiable minority groups". Says who? Not the charter. The charter is stating specifically about rights before the law. It's a leap (and a leap you want to make) to deduce that this means "regard for identifiable" anything.

Such a vague standard as "tempering by a regard" does not hold water in any kind of objective test, and is therefore useless.

Treatment before the law is not the same as treatment from an opinion of another citizen.

ET is correct. You are quite wrong.

Posted by: shaken at April 4, 2008 5:06 PM

Still haven't seen anyone answer why the left thinks it has the right to inspect someone's private property and then turn it over to someone other than the owner. Seems to me that the left are the ones who are partaking in the spread of the message.

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 5:14 PM

You lefties keep ignoring ( on purpose? ) that the comment was made in private.

Just like later this evening when you sit with other lefties - in private - you will call us names.

Yes you will,
you will talk about this site and the homophobic racist mouth breathers knuckle draggers that post here.

you know I am right.

oh and about spewing.

the comment was made in PRIVATE and made BEFORE the man was an MP.

There were no homosexuals present so no one got hurt in any way.

There was no spewing of any sort.

Stop lying through your teeth.

Stop it now, and go call us names in private, you have our approval.


Posted by: Friend of USA at April 4, 2008 5:27 PM

Re Rolik
"Haha. funny to call Liberals "fags".

Whether it's on the issue of women's rights, civil rights, and now homophobia, you guys have been wrong on every important issue of the last hundred years."

Glad it gave you a chuckle. In this instance, I was using the word "fag" in the general pejorative sense, not denoting anyone's sexual preference, which doesn't concern me. But if you insist on feeling insulted, for any reason, be my guest.

As asked in another thread, if the comments are so hurtful, why are the NDP, Libs, and their media cohorts insisting on broadcasting them repeatedly across the nation? Could they be scoring political points at the expense of those they're pretending to stand up for?

If so, which is the greater sin, uttering comments at a private party where it was very unlikely anyone would ever hear them (and thus no-one would be "hurt" by them), or playing politics in a way that ensured as many people as possible would be "hurt"?

Until I get a reasonable answer, and I doubt there is one, please spare me the phony righteous indignation.

Posted by: Jimbo at April 4, 2008 5:33 PM

Forain, you used the phrase "Levantite pseudo-defenders of democracy". That offended me.

According to your own words, you now owe me an apology. I may, or may not, accept bigot, you.

And I have to be correct, because you can't just say anything, can you, Forain?

But...of will not believe that I am offended because you won't think that I SHOULD be offended by what you said, so you'll carry on. And miss the whole point.

Posted by: Eeyore at April 4, 2008 5:37 PM

Your view is mechanical; you think that IF a speech gets a reaction, THEN the reaction is correct.

Not at all. For example, in the Lukiwski matter, I think the whole thing is overblown. I don't agree with the reaction. I merely made the observation that there is, and will be, a reaction, whether you or I agree with it.
Mr. Lukiwski is still free to express his opinion, and everybody else is free to express their reaction to what he says. And he must, rightly or wrongly, live with the consequences of his words.

Speech must be free, but one must also take responsibility for what they say.
You, ET, seem to be stuck in a kneejerk, I say black, you say white, I say sugar, you say shite mentality.
You say speech has no consequences, and shouldn't have. I say it does, and should. Obviously, as today's headlines demonstrate, you are wrong.

Posted by: manny at April 4, 2008 5:37 PM

Aw.....isn't that cute? Forain is playing lawyer. He says "So, as one of the many graduates of the Levant school of Human Rights defence, you must not be familiar at all with any other part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Article 15, section 1 says:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Free speech is not a license to say anything one pleases. It's tempered by a regard for identifiable minority groups. In your misguided zeal to defend your bastardized notion of free speech, you are contradicting the same Charter of Rights that you believe yourself to be defending."

Interesting that Forain didn't quote the following from the Charter of Rights.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (The Canadian Human Rights Commission might want to bone up on that a bit).

"Forain" that an alias for Jadewarr?

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 5:38 PM

Manny said,

You say speech has no consequences, and shouldn't have. I say it does, and should. Obviously, as today's headlines demonstrate, you are wrong.


If you videotape yourself having sex with your partner, there is no consequences.

But if someone finds the tape and gives it to some journalist and it is broadcast on tv,
then the horrible consequences do not come from the private act of videotaping something private but from making very public something that is very private.

If you are picking your nose while reading this, alone in your home, then no one is disgusted.

If a video of you picking your nose alone in your home is shown on tv, it becomes disgusting to many people.

Can you see the difference?

It is creating an artificial context to show a private video on tv.

The video becomes something it is not.

The private moment becomes something it is not.

Posted by: Friend of USA at April 4, 2008 6:08 PM

forain - You are being offensive, name-calling me (Levant school). But, I'm not offended as I don't consider your remarks reasonable or knowledgeable. So, forain, keep on insulting me and others. You seem to like to do that.

As accurately pointed out by John Luft, section 15 says that everyone is equal under the law. The only civil/criminal law referring to speech are those refering to defamation and hate. Both refer to individuals. There are no laws about references to groups.

Section 2 of the charter provides for equal freedom of speech - for everyone. section 15 does not refer to SPEECH or THOUGHT. Sheesh - can't you read? It refers to The Laws of the country.

So free speech is NOT tempered by a 'regard for minority groups'. What utter nonsense. Equal treatment by the law means equal treatment within the law. No special treatment for any group, minority or otherwise.

Yes, free speech means exactly what the words declare. Freedom of speech. I don't need to NOT offend anyone. I can offend a majority or a minority. It's my right.

You simply don't get it forain. Free Speech has NOTHING TO DO WITH FEELINGS! Offending someone or not offending someone is not a property of free speech. If someone is offended - tough. To not speak, because someone might feel 'offended' is ridiculous.

Furthermore, being in a minority does not give anyone the right to special treatment in a society. It doesn't mean that other people have to speak 'softly' around them for fear of offending them. After all - doesn't all the name-calling the left does against Americans - isn't that offensive? Are they a minority?

no, manny, you don't get it. I don't have to accept the consequences of my speech. I'm speaking to you; the consequence is, in one case, your speech to me. I don't accept what you say as having any validity. So, I don't have to accept the consequences of my speech. The point is, speech has multiple consequences. Some I'll accept as reasoned and valid; others I won't accept as unreasonable and invalid. OK?

Posted by: ET at April 4, 2008 6:12 PM

ET, you don't have to accept the consequences of your speech because nobody gives a hoot what you say.
But if you operate in the public/political sphere, you DO have to accept the consequences.

Posted by: manny at April 4, 2008 6:29 PM

So, manny, I guess you think Bob Fife should apologize and resign--or what?

Posted by: lookout at April 4, 2008 6:42 PM

manny....what ARE those consequences?

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 6:42 PM

But if you operate in the public/political sphere, you DO have to accept the consequences.

The man was not an MP back then and did not make the comment in the public /political sphere.

There should not be any consequences to what people say in private.

What we say in private should not be shown on tv by evil journalists.

A comment made in private does not become a public comment because some journalist show it on tv.

It is an artificial situation disconnected from reality.

Posted by: Friend of USA at April 4, 2008 6:44 PM

Robert Fife called conservatives "knuckle draggers" in front of millions of tv viewers.

Now that is what you are talking about Manny.

that is what you disapprove of.

Robert Fife did not say it in a private party with a couple of friends.

Posted by: Friend of USA at April 4, 2008 6:47 PM

manny....what ARE those consequences?

So far? Public humiliation. Public apologies. Who knows what the impact will be on career advancement, re-electability, etc.

So, manny, I guess you think Bob Fife should apologize and resign--or what?

No I don't. But if his employer is at all concerned about the knuckle-dragging/neandertal demographic, it might happen.

Posted by: manny at April 4, 2008 6:52 PM

A comment made in private does not become a public comment because some journalist show (sic) it on tv.

Uh, yes, it does.

Posted by: manny at April 4, 2008 6:56 PM

Manny, you really need to think about the consequences of what you are saying...

Posted by: Skip at April 4, 2008 7:38 PM

John Luft thinks clearly,

** Still haven't seen anyone answer why the left thinks it has the right to inspect someone's private property and then turn it over to someone other than the owner. Seems to me that the left are the ones who are partaking in the spread of the message.**
Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 5:14 PM

Liberals who intercept a private party tape and make it public with intent to cause damage could be subject to penalty in the eyes of a *FAIR* officer of the courts. = TG

Posted by: TG at April 4, 2008 7:39 PM

If you haven't seen it, you should see the movie called "Sophie Scholl: The Final Days". It is the story of Sophia Scholl of The White Rose, which was a non-violent resistance group in Nazi Germany, consisting of a number of students from the University of Munich and their philosophy professor. The group became known for an anonymous leaflet campaign, lasting from June 1942 until February 1943, that called for active opposition to German dictator Adolf Hitler's regime.

Sophia and Hans Scholl and Christoph Probst stood "trial" before the "Volksgerichtshof" - the People's Court that tried political offenses against the Nazi German State (they were beheaded the same day).

The reason I bring this all up is the scene near the end of the movie in the courtroom may well be a reasonable proxy for what goes on at the Canadian Human Rights Commission (sans beheading. At least for the time being).

Scholl was recorded as saying "Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just do not dare express themselves as we did."

Posted by: John Luft at April 4, 2008 8:01 PM

I'll go on record as saying that Kate McMillan has finally broken into the coveted "big time", is now amongst the elite ranks of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Mike Savage, Ezra Levant et al, all targets of hysterical, politically-correct-to-brain-damaging-extremes, Liberal Fascists.

Nothing Kate's said is bad, nor wrong. Kate's known for her stinging sarcastic wit, and hypersensitive, hysterical, political correctness-fearing people need to get used to this, need to practice the open-mindedness and tolerance they preach. Kate has a style of making her points, we see, and it's unfortunate that stupid people, rather than engaging their brain cells and trying to understand the points she's trying to make, would fly off the handle, totally unhinged and start calling her silly, cliched, outdated names. Sheesh!

I continue to stand with Kate McMillan.

You go, girl! Tell them off! Stand up for your... and our... rights!

And, Kate, yes, I know your skin is three inches thick; you're quite capable of holding your own against anyone. They don't stand a chance. ;)

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at April 4, 2008 8:29 PM

Objectivism blows, Kate. And It's time for you to step down.

Posted by: okey dokey at April 4, 2008 9:01 PM

And It's time for you to step down.
Posted by: okey dokey at April 4, 2008 9:01 PM

LOL, for pete'sake...

You revoking her membership to something there sparky?

Posted by: ldd at April 4, 2008 9:08 PM


No, I'm not being offensive or name-calling. I am disagreeing with you and you don't appreciate it.

My appologies. I made a presumption that you were familiar with the documents that you were refering to. Yes, every one is regarded equally before and under the law. The Criminal Code of Canada is a law, I'm quite sure, and it defines identifiable groups as groups recognizable by the characteristics listed in the Charter. The Code also stipulates prohibitions based on the willful promotion of hatred of any of these groups. So, like I said, free speech (which is left to interpretation) is tempered by a regard for minority groups.

Says ET: "Sheesh - can't you read?"

Are you kidding me? Have you reprimanded me for "being insulting" (one of those morally relative terms of yours, to be sure) and insinuated that I'm illiterate in the same post? Nice work.

Posted by: Forain at April 4, 2008 10:23 PM

Forain, are you saying that sexual preference is mentioned somewhere in the Charter?

Please identify and cite the appropriate section.

Oh, btw, I actually have a framed copy of the Charter hanging on my wall, printed about when it was originally brought forth, and I've read it many times. I'd be shocked to look at it again and find the words "sexual orientation". Of course, maybe I need reading glasses or perhaps need to shut off my brain...

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at April 4, 2008 10:51 PM

Yeah, like the arbitrary HRCs, full of unelected L(l)iberal lackeys, a L(l)iberal lackey judge, who, like you, Canadian Sentinel, could not find the words in the Charter, on his/her own recognisance, simply "read in" the words "sexual orientation", where they weren't, in order to accord rights to an approved group. How arbitrary is that?

'Nice work if you can get (away with) it, eh?

Posted by: lookout at April 4, 2008 11:31 PM

P.S., Canadian Sentinel: Although, before 1982, Parliament debated the issue and decisively decided against including "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground for discrimination, a judge--just one, in Alberta, I believe--read in "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground for discrimination in one case. (BTW, the homosexual defendent then won the case.)

After that case, the precedent of including "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground for discrimination was used across Canada in all cases to do with the conferring of various rights on homosexuals, up to and including the "right" to marriage. In all the court cases after the one granting "sexual orientation" Charter status, the competing rights of homosexuality and religion became a serious issue. It's no surprise that, in virtually every case, if not all, with Liberal appointed judges, the rights of homosexuals trumped the rights of religious (Christian) Canadians every time.

I might also add that the considerable litigation fees for most of the homosexual cases were paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, via the Court Challenges Program (scrapped by the Conservatives), run, outside the aegis of Parliament, by a feminist, lesbian lawyer. Like the HRCs, only "approved" groups could tap into this slush fund for left-wing causes.

The conservative litigants? Well, they just had to raise their own money the best they could. Like at the HRCs, the conservative Christians also lost every time.

The damage the tentacles of the Liberals have done in this country, much of it under the radar, is horrifying. Even a lot of people here have no idea of the extent of the skulduggery.

Posted by: lookout at April 5, 2008 12:00 AM

Another ploy the usual vociferators here are employing in their flaying, ineffectual attempts to refute the irrefutable logic of Forain's argument is the old "the law doesn't protect you from hurt feelings!"

When Forain stated that there should be limits on free speech which is 'hurtful' to other people, they conflate this into 'hurt feelings'.

Fact is, racist comments against minorities reflect a mindset which lead logically to more than feelings being hurt - as history has often shown. Derogatory comments about homosexuals, women, Jews, the handicapped, and other minorites are part of a mindset which have led many times to more than feelings being hurt.

The purpose of such comments is to dehumanize the subject of them. And from there...well, again, we only have to open our history book to see what happens.

Again, folks. Freedom of speech is like freedom of movement. Throw punches into the air all you like in your front yard. But doing so on a crowded subway? Not so good. Hurts people. Assault. Against the law.

By all means, speak out on every subject under the sun. But make racist/homophobic/sexist comments? Not so good. Historically proven to cause tragedy. Hurts, traumatizes, and dehumanizes people. Assault. Against the law.

Or to put it simply: is it really so hard for you guys to lay off slagging the 'fags', 'ni--ers', etc. etc.? Do you really need that badly to have someone to blame for your sadly underdeveloped lives? Are you really going to fight for your right to be ignorant forever?

Posted by: rolik at April 5, 2008 12:14 AM

The Canadian Sentinel says "Forain, are you saying that sexual preference is mentioned somewhere in the Charter?

Please identify and cite the appropriate section."

Of course, as we all know, it is not mentioned. In fact, it was DELIBERATELY not included.

Posted by: John Luft at April 5, 2008 12:15 AM

Your thesis, rolik, is trite and simply not true, To let off steam, we all use black humour—that has nothing to do with race, in case you didn't know—the vast majority of which is never translated into action. E.g., I’d let off steam in private about a particularly difficult group of students: they’re the ones I worked hardest for and they thrived, as a result. (Psychologically, letting off steam is better than sublimation, rolik, in case you didn’t know. I’d posit that it’s sublimation, not private venting, that has most often been “[h]istorically proven to cause tragedy”. )

BTW, I notice that you left “Christians” off your list of people who could be hurt, traumatized, and dehumanized by negative comments. Didn’t you know that Christians are now the politically correct and approved whipping boys in this country? I’d assume you left this group out because they don’t count in your closed system.

Your thesis that negative and sometimes unpleasant speech necessarily leads to “Assault [and is] Against the law”, is dead wrong—so far, thank God. If you had your way, we’d all be under the yoke of Orwellian speech codes: you know, the kind our autocratic, draconian, kangaroo courts, called Human Rights (sic) Commissions, already selectively use to harass and punish law abiding, "unapproved" Canadian citizens. And which citizens would those be? Why, hardly ever, visible minorities, homosexuals, or women (feminists), the groups about which you’re so concerned, and groups, which, BTW, are on record as saying extremely nasty things about those they see as their political enemies. In fact, it is visible minorities and homosexuals, at taxpayer expense, who often win in the HRC Star Chambers. The losers? Very often white, Christian males. Do you think this group is expendable? Do you think they need less protection than your favoured “victims”?

Your politically correct, little world, where unpleasant words alone would be criminalized would be a dangerous place for all of us. Then we would all be guilty of “pre-crimes”—crimes which our words might (you say will) precipitate—decided by some arbitrary state agency, which would look just like our HRCs. Thank God, our Charter still guarantees us freedom of speech, though this right is not always honoured: the HRCs are a serious blight on a free country, a blight which would be the logical conclusion of your ill-thought thesis.

Posted by: lookout at April 5, 2008 8:29 AM

That's true, John. This fact of deliberate exclusion is an indicator that that special "orientation" was never intended as a "right".

If s-e-x is a right, then how come there aren't taxpayer-funded brothels to ensure that those who aren't getting any can get some, and have their "right" to "do it" fulfilled? I just don't believe that a "right" can be founded on what one does with one's genitalia and one's preferences thereabout. It makes no sense at all.

WE aren't stopping people from doing in the privacy of their homes that which isn't illegal. What more could the libertarian ask for?

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at April 5, 2008 8:32 AM

What Lookout said. very good response.

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at April 5, 2008 8:37 AM

Rolik, why is it every time a lefty joins the conversation, we have to lower the level of academic discourse so low so that you are able to understand what is being discussed?

Let me remind you of a basic analysis tenet that, apparently, no liberal understands: "Correlation does not equal causation". Holding opposing views on social issues does not a priori lead to anything more than holding opposing views. Escalation of opposing viewpoints to violence is a consequence of many factors, including suppression of those opposing viewpoints.

This discussion isn't about the content of inappropriate speech, its about who gets to decide what it is, and who's standard applies. We are rejecting the left claim, your claim, to priority of the decision.

I am comfortable in saying that if you polled ALL Canadians, you will find that the majority will find the practice of homosexuality offensive. Equally, you will likely find the majority of Canadians will agree, somewhat begrudgingly, that left to their own devices, its no one else's business. This is a belief shared by most about most things.

I also know, with absolute certainty, that virtually every individual, in the privacy of their own lives, expresses what can be defined as a bigotry about some one or group, at one time or another, on more than one occasion. Bigotry is colour-blind, independent of religion, race, creed or sexual orientation. It exists in us all. It is an undeniable, un-reformable characteristic of being a human animal. It is the unassailable consequence of our tribal will to survive.

What is at argument here, is your assumed right to define, for a group that disagrees with you, who is going to set the standard, and in doing so, you claim a superior right to use the very techniques of bigotry to assert that standard. Is the fundamental hypocrisy not clear to you? Are you so intellectually dogmatic as to not recognize the double standard? Or is this really not about equalities, but rather about simply the application of your tribal bigotry over others?

The left's characterization of people who do not agree with them as "knuckle-draggers", pejoratively as "racists" and "bigots" (usually used incorrectly and out of context), is as offensive to as many as the terms "faggot" and "kike" are to others. You have no moral pedestal to stand on. You are no less "racist", "bigoted" or "neanderthalic" then the people you seem to hate.

This is the great failing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Constitution, and why they are defective documents. Neither preserves rights; rather, they entrench institutionalized racism, bigotry, and ultimately, hatred. That's what these discussions are about. Repatriation of the constitution was not a victory for Canada, it was the acceptance of a blueprint for its destruction.

Posted by: Skip at April 5, 2008 8:46 AM

Great ost Kate.You are a breath of fresh air.

Posted by: sysk at April 5, 2008 10:12 AM

Skip - A most excellent post.

Posted by: Kathryn at April 5, 2008 11:00 AM


If you and your pals need to let off steam, I'm sure there's some other way to do it than slagging minorities, isn't there? I mean, is that the only way your type can vent your frustrations?

You say Christians are now the 'politically correct whipping boys'. If so, why are there not pejorative terms for them like 'fag' for homosexual, or 'ni--er' for black people (a favourite around here)? As well, we live in a county where the major holidays are all Christian-based. Are you really trying to play the ol' 'Christians are victims of pc' card? Do you really believe they are being discriminated against like people of colour and gays? That's just silly.

If you're going to debate me you really need to step up your game.

The 'white Christian males' you seek so much to protect won't have a problem if, in their majority status, in their possessions of most of th society's power, they can refrain from insulting and picking on minoritie. Is that really so hard for them to do?

Posted by: rolik at April 5, 2008 11:45 AM

rolik: "Whether it's on the issue of women's rights, civil rights, [...] you guys have been wrong on every important issue of the last hundred years."

Abraham Lincoln and John George Diefenbaker, rolik?

"You say Christians are now the 'politically correct whipping boys'. If so, why are there not pejorative terms for them like 'fag' for homosexual, or 'ni--er' for black people[?]"

Xtra likes calling straights "breeders".

Posted by: jwkozak91 at April 5, 2008 12:34 PM


You're way out of your league here. It's laughable that you claim academic superiority when you are and your fellow posters here deny science and fight for your right to malign others with sub-mental pejoratives.

The issue here isn't about opposing viewpoints. Did the Nazis have 'opposing viewpoints' to the Jews about the place the Jews should occupy in their society? Yeah, sure - similar to the 'opposing viewpoints' I've seen spouted here about people of colour and homosexuals.

Your definitions of bigotry as the 'unassailable consequence of our tribal will to survive' is nonsense. You therefore say genocide, Nazism, the Klan, etc., are inevitable - so what the hell, anything goes, and you and your type can keep on saying 'fag" and "ni--er". Nice rationalization! It isn't "unassailable" as you claim (might want to check your thesaurus). It's already been assailed. The only ones who say different are old farts like yourself who regard slagging minorities in order to justify your pathetic lives as a birthright. The rest of us have moved on - long ago. Luckily, you guys are dying out.

The 'majority' of Canadians find homosexuality objectionable do they? On what basis do you say this? How is it that known gay entertainers continue to make any sort of living at all? Look, if you had a real argument you wouldn't have to make up stuff trying to buttress it up. Sadly, you have no argument - only a bunch of primitive prejudices you try to dress up in pseudo-academic phraseology. Nice try. Now pick up your club and lurch back to your cave.

Posted by: rolik at April 5, 2008 12:44 PM

"Luckily, you guys are dying out."

The ADQ in Quebec? The fact that the Conservatives are coming back in Quebec? The CHOI-FM affair? Independent MP Andre Artur? I think that those who voted for "les Creditistes" didn't go away, rolik. You might want to look up Quebecois libertarian Pierre Lemieux.

Posted by: jwkozak91 at April 5, 2008 1:05 PM

Rolik, your ignorance is simple astounding. A post full of words you don't comprehend, about topics you have no knowledge, but have already formed an opinion, about people you do not know and have never met. All emotion, mis-representation and devoid of substance, and mostly pejorative. The only thing you are able to feed on is anger and derision. You are a woefully empty vessel. Simply not worth the debate. Shame on me for feeding the troll, again.

Posted by: Skip at April 5, 2008 1:35 PM


I dealt with Skip's "arguments" point by point, handed his ass to him, and the best he can come up with is a bunch of whimpering.

Go ahead, Skip. Defend your assertion that racism is merely a differing viewpoint and that the majority of Canadians find homosexuality objectionable.

You can't? Okay - just whimper and whine then.


Posted by: rolik at April 5, 2008 1:46 PM


something private becomes public simply because journalist are showing it on tv ?


imagine you forgot to turn off your webcam,
from which we can see your bathroom door,
which you did not close because you are home alone,
and the images of you having a bowel movement and passing loud farts and then wiping your butt are sent on the internet.

Then you agree that anyone catching this video can put it on you tube for millions of people to watch because it is now public,


that very private moment of yours is now public and you are fine with this,


you are absolutely fine with this, and you do not see anything wrong with this ,


Posted by: Friend of USA at April 5, 2008 2:44 PM