Maurice Vellacott shoots off
Once again a another Conservative MP shoots off again. Now before people start on the comments section going after me, I should note that Maurice Vellacott has always been a wacko and one of the more right wing members, however this is an opportunity for Harper to show whether the party has moderated or not. While he loves to muzzle his party members, he seems to turn a blind eye when the wackos shoot off. If he wasn't such a muzzler this might be less of a worry since one could simply dismiss this as one of the few wackos within the party. But the fact he muzzles his party members and we still have one saying this should make one worry just how right wing the party is. At the very least I hope it makes people think twice before next election if they are ready to give Stephen Harper a majority government.
Still with his appointment of Vic Toews as justice minister and his history of attacking the judiciary I am quite concerned. This is one of the main reasons despite my right of centre economic views that I refuse to support the Conservatives. I see the judiciary as a very important part of our checks and balances and believe if anything their role is even more important to prevent Harper from implementing a socially conservative agenda.
Still with his appointment of Vic Toews as justice minister and his history of attacking the judiciary I am quite concerned. This is one of the main reasons despite my right of centre economic views that I refuse to support the Conservatives. I see the judiciary as a very important part of our checks and balances and believe if anything their role is even more important to prevent Harper from implementing a socially conservative agenda.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 9:09 PM
38 Comments:
Nice to see we were both watching CBC...
I am glad the CBC is still reporting this. Lets remember the more they attack the Tories the more they risk having their funding cutoff so I am glad they still promote their flaws. Now I would not be against cutting off funding to CBC if a private alternative existed, but thats a whole different story.
I take it you don't consider the CTV to be a private alternative?
I do consider CTV a private sector alternative for news. However, they don't play as much Canadian content, don't have a national radio, no French services outside Quebec and Aboriginal languages in the North. I am all for privatizing CBC, provided its current mandate is maintained. Now I realize that might be difficult, but the government could still subsidize it. Even on private networks, most Canadian shows receive government funding.
"While he loves to muzzle his party members, he seems to turn a blind eye when the wackos shoot off. If he wasn't such a muzzler this might be less of a worry since one could simply dismiss this as one of the few wackos within the party."
Check-mate! It's one thing if a one (heck, maybe even two) MPs shoot their mouths off and say ridiculous crap and the leader flat-out dismisses the comments. But Harper largely does NOTHING with these comments and reinforces his gag order. It makes me wonder what else is being said behind closed doors.
Much like Miles, this is my reason for not being a member nor a supporter of the CPC despite my fiscal conservatism. That being said, I think I would make a pretty good Liberal if it were not for the Trudeau wanna-be's waiting in the wings to spring back into power.
We all know which party I support :)
When Rothstein's appointment was under review I was quizzed by a Con friend to name three justices of the SC. When I named them all I was told I was a freak. Personally I think one has to be a freak to claim that someone is corrupt and tainted when you don't even know their name. So, Conservatives here, please stay on message. Go check the tapes of John Willimas explaining it on camera from the foyer of the House: if one was appointed at a time when the Liberals were in power one automatically is corrupt and tainted. After all, what could possibly make Canada a second-rate country? PS I just saw on TV ceremony at Italian airport where the bodies of two Italian soldiers killed in Afghanistan were patriated. How uncivilized!
Between Vic Toews attacking the judiciary and Michael Ignateiff promoting the torture of prisoners and the war in Iraq, I think this country is going to hell in a hand basket. The only way we can stop this is to accuse Vic Toews of sexual assault. Then we can have the Liberal party lead by Ignatieff take Canada from a nothing country into a strong war-like nation and show those arabs we mean business.
I think its also important to note that Harper saw fit to reward Vellacourt with the post to lead the committee on First Nations (can't remember its actual name)... Can you see the outcry if Carolyn Parrish, after saying what she said, was put at the head of a committee? We know this guy is an extremist, but that Harper to actually put him in any role of authority shows that either there are WORSE options than Vellacourt or that Harper DOESN'T CARE... Hopefully the CBC (I love Christina Lawand!) keeps it up and forces the other news outlets to start paying attention too.
I generally agree with the sentiment here. Dylan is absolutely right that there is a difference between one or two nutbars in a party versus many. Cecilbdemille is also right that appointing Vellacott as the head of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee even after his comments about the police taking Indians out of the city is disgusting. Interestingly enough the NDP and Liberals tried to block his appointment as chair of the committee, but unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois agreed to it.
I do consider CTV a private sector alternative for news. However, they don't play as much Canadian content, don't have a national radio, no French services outside Quebec and Aboriginal languages in the North. I am all for privatizing CBC, provided its current mandate is maintained. Now I realize that might be difficult, but the government could still subsidize it. Even on private networks, most Canadian shows receive government funding.
If you privatize CBC, you won't get much Canadian contents and shows like you do now.
For private television networks, it is much cheaper for them to buy American shows. They make more money too.
You also cannot expect private television networks to create more Canadian shows even if the government was helping them.
Vellacott is an excellent opportunity for Liberals to examine why such a person gets the vote when Saskatoon, a progressive city, is a big part of his riding?
The answer is simple, rural voters. The libs have completely lost the rural vote and these voters are in no mood to be nice. They are pissed. Their towns are drying up, their crops are sold for peanuts, the banks and the chemical / GMO corps have them literally by the balls. They are forced to beg. These are proud people who work hard. If the libs study this issue and do their homework, perhaps they can come up with a real plan that puts an end to this situation for once and for all. and win back the votes of communities which produced the co-op, the wheat board and Tommy Douglas.
-WV
Woosang - Privatizing CBC is not a major priority for me and I would be quite happy if it was a private non-profit organization that received the same amount of funding as it does now. It would also be mandated to show a certain amount of Canadian content. Even private networks must show a minimum of 60% Canadian Content and 45% during prime-time. Also almost all Canadian shows including those on CTV are subsidized too. You are right though that the free market doesn't work in this area and so having no government intervention at all is not a solution.
Anonymous - You are right rural voters are pissed at the Liberals (with the exception of Northern Ontario and Atlantic Canada), however I still hope the Liberals can re-build their support in rural Canada. Also Saskatoon is a mid-size city so it is more Conservative than large metropolises like Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.
I guess this means that I should be frightened by Carolyn Bennett's garbage about no state-run daycare turning children into criminals.
And she's an ex-cabmin and Liberal leadership candidate.
Whoa, check out the map (PDF)before you call Saskatoon a conservative city:
http://www.elections.ca/scripts/fedrep/searchengine/results3a.asp?edid=47011&tab=3&subtab=2&prov=47&bhcd2=1147118264
This is a rural riding as are pretty much all ridings in Saskatchewan. Progressive voters are drowned out because their bases (cities) are chopped up. You want the prairie vote; go talk to the rural people and put your ears on. No one listens to them. But they vote as a bloc; why? Because they talk amongst themselves.
-WV
Brandon: I guess the good thing is that if you find yourself in front of a judge, she won't be Carolyn Bennett. Bennett is a doctor of medicine. And she is a polician who has the right to say the most ludicrous thing just like some politician may say this country is a second-rate one, with some of its citizenry lacking in character. Hasn't stopped one from becoming prime minister.
Brandon - What Carolyn Bennett said was stupid, however wanting state run day care is a mainstream idea. Canadians are pretty much split right down the middle on the issue whereas when it comes to the Charter, Canadians overwhelmingly support the Charter. Also at the provincial level I am concerned about the left since the NDP has taken power before and could again, while I am not worried about the right since the BC Liberals are the furthest to the right of the parties that could win and I am comfortable with them.
On the other hand federally, it is the right who I worry about. After seeing what they've done in the United States, I don't want to see them do to Canada what they've done to the US. The Conservatives still have a large number of hard core right wingers left over from the Reform Party and Harper has a sympathetic ear for them. While for the left, the NDP stands no chance at winning federally and the Liberals will not win the next election if they move too far to the left. They can move a little to the left, but not too much.
Miles, there is nothing mainstream about believeing that kids raised at home are bound to be criminals.
if it was a private non-profit organization that received the same amount of funding as it does now. It would also be mandated to show a certain amount of Canadian content. Even private networks must show a minimum of 60% Canadian Content and 45% during prime-time.
Well, CBC is in a sense a non-profit crown corporation and your suggestion of turning them into a private non-profit group receiving same amoung of funding does not make any sense whatsoever.
Private television stations and networks (e.g. CTV, Global,TVA) and ethnic TV stations must achieve a yearly Canadian content level of:
60% overall, measured during the day – i.e. 6AM and midnight;
50%, measured during the evening broadcast period – i.e. between 6PM and midnight.
CBC must ensure that at least 60% of its overall schedule measured during the day.
Broadcasters can claim a 125% to 150% time credit for Canadian dramas when they're aired during peak viewing hours (7PM to 11PM).
In a reality though, most private television stations fill their requirements through news.
Miles, there is nothing mainstream about believeing that kids raised at home are bound to be criminals.
Werd. Couldn't have said it better...
Brandon - There is nothing mainstream about What Carolyn Bennett said. However, wanting a national day care system is quite mainstream just as opposing it is. The country is quite divided on the issue.
Woosang - The idea of making a non-profit corporation versus crown corporation is it would have more independence from the government. Besides programs that can be done by the private sector should be spun off, focus on what the private sector cannot do. After all that is what governments are suppose to do.
About all it did was show the juvinille state of the phoney war between Harper and the "national media."
It didn't look as though CBC was out to cover a story at all - 'cause none was presented - but to find a Tory willing to make an ass of himself, which Vellacott, to his discredit, did.
But CBC's obsession with finding a "scarey Tory" as some sort of national news story is equally discredble and certainly not deserving of my tax dollars to support.
Headline: CBC gets close enough to bare fangs at backbench Tory. Sort of like wolves picking on the sickly - hardly something of which to be proud.
Not to fully defend Harper. He hasn't handled this very well either - but he's at least a politican, which CBC line-up editors and reporters aren't - or at least aren't supposed to be.
Woosang - The idea of making a non-profit corporation versus crown corporation is it would have more independence from the government. Besides programs that can be done by the private sector should be spun off, focus on what the private sector cannot do. After all that is what governments are suppose to do.
I disagree Miles. Even if that non-profit corporation was not a crown corportation, they would get a funding from the government (according to how you described)... So what's really different there?
Even now, CBC is quite independent from the government.
I should also remind you that in Canada, it is cheper for television stations to import American shows than producing their own show.
I think CBC is just doing its job. The job of the media is to scrutinize the government. During the last election the CBC was not nice to the Liberals by any stretch of the imagination. If you saw Mansbridge's interview with Paul Martin he questioned him on a number of things, for example when he refused to call the attack ads, attack ads, he pointed out most people would call them that.
Sure the CBC may have a Liberal bias, but when you consider how hostile the right has been towards them, is that really any surprise.
Woosang - CBC is somewhat independent depending on who you ask. The Prime-Minister still appoints the president of the corporation. Also while American shows are cheaper to import, if they were mandated to play a certain amount of Canadian content and the Canadian programs were subsidized they would be played. People forget even the private stations must play a certain amount of Canadian content.
Woosang - CBC is somewhat independent depending on who you ask. The Prime-Minister still appoints the president of the corporation. Also while American shows are cheaper to import, if they were mandated to play a certain amount of Canadian content and the Canadian programs were subsidized they would be played. People forget even the private stations must play a certain amount of Canadian content.
There are many discussions on whether the media ownership has any influences on its bias. Some have said that the media ownership has great influence on the media's political bias while others have argued that the ownership does not have much influence.
Yes, you can force television stations to show certain amounts of Canadian contents. However, in a reality, private TV stations will air as little Canadian show as they can. You just can't expect them to produce Canadian shows even if they were getting some money back.
When was the last time CTV or Global TV produced Canadian programs other than news or news shows?
Do you see stations like CTV producing Canadian dramas like Trudeau or Canada- Russia 72, or even shows like Rick Mercer Show?
I realize that private stations won't voluntarily produce Canadian shows, which is why there are Canadian content quotas. If they are playing too little, raise them. Now I don't support raising them for private TV stations, but I would support doing it for a private CBC network.
While the discussion of the CBC is nice, it is hardly relevant as to why a nutjob like Vellacott would get the votes. Far more interesting and to the point, is a discussion of why ANYONE would vote for him. Are there any Liberals interested in examining what would make voters who at one time championed the Co-op, the Wheat Board and Tommy Douglas vote for such a wanker? My theory that it has to do with the way Liberals, NDP'ers and pretty much everyone does not care, nor listen to the rural voter is a window into winning those voters back. By listening to them and understanding the real situation and providing solutions to extricate them from a twenty year takeover of the family farm by banks and chemical companies. It seems that people would rather bite the hand that feeds them. And so we end up with people like Vellacott. But hey, go back to discussing the CBC if you want.
-WV
Anonymous - I was only responding to Woosang. I think you have a good point. I think it is more many people in rural areas feel alienated and since the NDP is in power provincially and Liberals were in power federally they were attracted to the party not in office at either level.
Also some Conservative ideas such as opposition to SSM and the gun registry sell well in rural Canada, or at least where Maurice Vellacott comes from.
I guess one should check facts, as boring as they are.
Here is a link to a speech given by the afformentioned Supreme Court Justice - absent malice by the way as I haven't read it all yet myself.
Go to http://www.eugenemeehan.com/english/speeches/UnwrittenConstitutionalPrinciples.pdf
for the text of the speech.
AB/ba
I've seen the speech and nowhere in the speech did she refer to herself as God. This is just another example of the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives attacking the judiciary.
Thankfully tomorrow the Liberals, NDP, and BQ will remove Maurice Vellacott as chair of the Aboriginal Affairs committee. Hopefully next election the voters of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin will do the right thing and remove him as MP.
Yah, you hafta check out John McKay's site.
"Judges are not value-free or impartial. The main difference between parliamentarians and the judiciary, however, is that John McKay, M.P. can be called to account for his value judgments but a judicial officer cannot. Canadians know little about judicial officers, or how they are appointed, and these officers are protected by judicial immunity. They have become the new High Priests. There is a qualification period; a set of mystical texts; priestly robes; and a societal deference. We worship at the altar of judicial pronouncements. "
High priests? This is just another example of the Liberals attacking the judiciary.
Well done, Brian C!
Sorry Miles, he's got you cornered.
McKay wasn't just some obscure backbencher, he was a Martin cabinet minister.
This is nothing more than total hypocrisy on the Liberals' part.
Off topic, but I thought it would interest you:
Klein encourages Manning to run for Tory leadership
Last updated May 9 2006 01:53 PM MDT
CBC News
Premier Ralph Klein is encouraging Preston Manning to run for the leadership of the Alberta Progressive Conservative party.
Manning has yet to announce whether he is going to run, but Klein says the former Reform Party leader would be a great candidate in the race to succeed him. Klein announced in March that he would be stepping down as leader.
Brandon - John McKay was not the chair of the Aboriginal committee, justice committee, or committee for status of women. He never came anywhere near anything having do with minority rights. On the other hand Maurice Vellacott has made racist statements about aboriginals, yet gets appointed as the chair. Secondly the Liberal Party of Canada is unequovical in their support of the Charter and minority rights. On the contrary the Reform Party who make up over half of the Conservative caucus spent much of their time attacking the judiciary including Harper himself. Since their socially conservative agenda would never pass the Charter, they want to get rid of it since they can implement their socially conservative agenda which benefits their narrow minded supporters, but is bad for the majority of Canadians.
Ralph Klein is encouraging Preston Manning to run, but that doesn't mean he will endorse him. Lets remember Ralph Klein endorsed Jean Charest, not Preston Manning in the 1997 federal election. Also he doesn't want to be on bad terms with many of the party members who do support him.
This is just another example of the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives attacking the judiciary.
Well, the dufus resigned and is gone, though hardly in a blaze of glory. But I do hope that the Conservatives merge with still another party so that we can give your paranoic delusions a proper medical term Miles.
I guess this Reform/Alliance/Conservative thing means something to you and fellow conspiracy theorists - but it bores the hell out of the rest of us.
Good fodder to remember why we don't vote Fiberal - they appear to stand for nothing other than racist name calling. Poor Fiberal supremecists, having to put up with the niggers running things, and all. Must be tough, eh?
Anonymous - Next time you post the word "Nigger" on my blog, I will delete it. I don't tolerate racists. Canada is a nation of tolerance and those who espouse racism need to go elsewhere.
I am not paranoid, I've seen the destruction of neo-conservatism South of the border and I don't want to see it here in Canada.
You don't tolerate racists but you vote Liberal. Cute.
Anonymous, you sound a lot like Jim Pankiw, who was a racist pig, but yet accused others of being racist against whites.
Post a Comment
<< Home