Now this is ugly, I hope Conservatives do not embrace this without some real hard proof to support it
He hasn't been interim leader for 24 hrs before some in the Conservative online community are racing to the bottom in their choice of rhetoric to oppose Bill Graham with. This is truly disgusting. I do not know how true these allegations are, but since they were made several years ago and there does not seem to be any follow-up confirming these allegations I think it is a very dangerous road for any CPCer to be walking. This is arguably slanderous/libelous, and I guarantee that if this becomes known to the general Canadian public then there had better be real evidence to support it. Otherwise every CPCer that makes this claim will further help to paint the CPC as not only intolerant and extreme in their willingness to embrace anything that might discredit their opposition, but also that there is this guilty until proven innocent standard that CPCers use for Liberals on issues of criminal matters from Gomery to Grewal to Dingwall's expense accounts (unlike the lobby aspect which looked like it might actually have something to it) the Income Trust investigation and now this atrocity. This is very disturbing, and it is certainly a smear style piece of work. One other thing, if this becomes a CPCer talking point anytime soon it will also help paint the CPC as sore winners and nasty pieces of work, not exactly the image they have been trying to project since the election campaign began last year.
As well, this headline this blogger gave it not only paints Graham as a pedophile but the Liberal party as a "Pedophile cult". Is this what principled Conservativism in this country these days truly embraces?!? This is simply unacceptable language unless one can prove that this claim has facts behind it, and to date I know of no facts to support the contention that the Liberals are a "pedophile cult". This willingness to make such outrageous claims on the flimsiest of evidence (when there is any at all or it hasn't been faked up a la Grewal) speaks to a very dangerous mindset, and a complete contempt for anyone not of the "right" party/political affiliation. One can despise the Liberal party on principle, on ethics, on scandals without having to embrace such despicable, sleazy, and stomach turning tactics such as this piece of filth. Something that makes this particularly dangerous for the CPC to embrace this piece of filth instead of enouncing it is the fact that in 2004 Harper said Martin supported child pornography, and that did NOT sit well with the majority in this country, especially when Harper refused to apologize for it. If this charge is picked up by CPC supporters and repeated in the mainstream media sources then it is a virtual certainty it will cause many to remember the 2004 Martin charge by Harper, assuming of course the media itself doesn't do that first. That makes this particularly dangerous ground for the CPC on top of the other reasons I already listed.
***UPDATE Feb 4 06***
Already this is being pushed by both an anonymous poster (I wonder if it is OttawaCore's defender in my comments) and at least one commentator with an alias at Jason Cherniak's blog, Cherniak on Politics in two threads here and here. It would seem that there are those willing to push this despite the risks/dangers of doing so. Yet some critics thought I was making more of this than it deserved, that only one blogger commented on it therefore it was no big deal. Problem is, what one blogger posts can eaily be picked up by their readers and then spread, much like a virus can be spread by contact and in terms of how far and wide it can spread in a short period of time. I think this is something all of us that take such allegations seriously regardless of who makes it need to take to task wherever we can. It would be one thing if this allegation could be backed up with anything resembliing solid evidence, but to date that has been missing from all of this. Yet again though some CPC online supporters are more than willing to presume a Liberal is guilty until proven innocent on the flimisiest of evidence (if one even considers it that much) . Yet when any criticism is made of the CPC or any of it's members, then there must be solid evidence provided otherwise it is nothing but smear and fear politics. Well, calling someone a pedophile as a criticism of someone as a leader can only be described as fear and smear politics. Isn't it remarkable the moral relativism of these CPCers? What they decry when applied to them is something they will gleefully embrace where any of their political opponents are concerned. Yet these are the same voices for the most part that claim it is the "Left" that are the moral relativists and that they are the only ones with morals, consistency, principles, and apply them properly.
Boy they love to talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk they are nowhere to be seen. Already we are seeing the importation of a philosphy that has taken root in America's conservative movement, IOKIYAR (It's O.K. If You Are Republican). For them it is IOKIYACPC. Got to be impressed though by the brazen hypocricies they are willing to commit while all the time claiming they aren't the ones doing so but all of their opponents/critics.
As well, this headline this blogger gave it not only paints Graham as a pedophile but the Liberal party as a "Pedophile cult". Is this what principled Conservativism in this country these days truly embraces?!? This is simply unacceptable language unless one can prove that this claim has facts behind it, and to date I know of no facts to support the contention that the Liberals are a "pedophile cult". This willingness to make such outrageous claims on the flimsiest of evidence (when there is any at all or it hasn't been faked up a la Grewal) speaks to a very dangerous mindset, and a complete contempt for anyone not of the "right" party/political affiliation. One can despise the Liberal party on principle, on ethics, on scandals without having to embrace such despicable, sleazy, and stomach turning tactics such as this piece of filth. Something that makes this particularly dangerous for the CPC to embrace this piece of filth instead of enouncing it is the fact that in 2004 Harper said Martin supported child pornography, and that did NOT sit well with the majority in this country, especially when Harper refused to apologize for it. If this charge is picked up by CPC supporters and repeated in the mainstream media sources then it is a virtual certainty it will cause many to remember the 2004 Martin charge by Harper, assuming of course the media itself doesn't do that first. That makes this particularly dangerous ground for the CPC on top of the other reasons I already listed.
***UPDATE Feb 4 06***
Already this is being pushed by both an anonymous poster (I wonder if it is OttawaCore's defender in my comments) and at least one commentator with an alias at Jason Cherniak's blog, Cherniak on Politics in two threads here and here. It would seem that there are those willing to push this despite the risks/dangers of doing so. Yet some critics thought I was making more of this than it deserved, that only one blogger commented on it therefore it was no big deal. Problem is, what one blogger posts can eaily be picked up by their readers and then spread, much like a virus can be spread by contact and in terms of how far and wide it can spread in a short period of time. I think this is something all of us that take such allegations seriously regardless of who makes it need to take to task wherever we can. It would be one thing if this allegation could be backed up with anything resembliing solid evidence, but to date that has been missing from all of this. Yet again though some CPC online supporters are more than willing to presume a Liberal is guilty until proven innocent on the flimisiest of evidence (if one even considers it that much) . Yet when any criticism is made of the CPC or any of it's members, then there must be solid evidence provided otherwise it is nothing but smear and fear politics. Well, calling someone a pedophile as a criticism of someone as a leader can only be described as fear and smear politics. Isn't it remarkable the moral relativism of these CPCers? What they decry when applied to them is something they will gleefully embrace where any of their political opponents are concerned. Yet these are the same voices for the most part that claim it is the "Left" that are the moral relativists and that they are the only ones with morals, consistency, principles, and apply them properly.
Boy they love to talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk they are nowhere to be seen. Already we are seeing the importation of a philosphy that has taken root in America's conservative movement, IOKIYAR (It's O.K. If You Are Republican). For them it is IOKIYACPC. Got to be impressed though by the brazen hypocricies they are willing to commit while all the time claiming they aren't the ones doing so but all of their opponents/critics.
posted by Scotian | 5:32 PM
20 Comments:
Unless he/she has proof of these allegations, then it is libel. Do people like this realize what devestation can result from this kind of crap? Do they realize that it could backfire and ultimately affect them if allowed? What happens if someone accuses them (without proof) of killing, or molestation of children, or wife beating. Bah, this is disgusting.
What a sad day for Canadians - the infiltration of American smear tactics.
GoodGrief:
Which is exactly why I chose to blog about it myself. I am seeing more and more a willingness to embrace this kind of political activity by some in the Conservative community online as well as offline, and it really worries me. I fear that they are taking the wrong lessons from what we have seen the GOP manage with these tactics. They see only the success in gaining power, what they fail to see is not only the bitter partisanship it fuels but the long term rebound against any party/political movement that chooses to embrace these tactics.
This was one of the main concerns I had about Reform/CA and the CPC under the current management. I also think that for many of these Conservatives they really do believe there is little real difference between American and Canadian culture and values, which is another reason why they think the same results should come here from the same tactics used in the same way. I happen to think though that is a faulty premise. There are subtle yet profound differences throughout our two cultures, one of which is that extremism of language tends to set off red flags in most Canadians of every political persuasion. Another is that the Christian political activist movement has a far smaller base to start from in our demographics as is the case in America, and hard core nationalism has not had much history of success in this country.
Combined with the differences like between the melting pot approach versus community of communities for immigration and cultural integration to the society and you have some pretty major differences. Still, if left unchallenged vigourously I fear these tactics could work, which is why I draw attention to them when I encounter them. Indeed, my focus on the Grewal fraud is another example of such, there are some things which simply are too destructive to the integrity and honour of our political environment to be allowed to become considered acceptable. To not keep watch for such is to surrender on values we have held in this country since its birth if not before, and I will be damned if I will just roll over and let them be lost without a fight.
Scotian, Harper does not control the internet. This fellows ramblings are his own. For you to paint everyone right of you with the same brush is ignorant. All right wingers are not devout Christians and flag waving Americans living in Canada.
People who post this garbage will get their "just desserts" in due time. I would ask that you try to refrain from lumping everyone that voted for the CPC in the "monster" category. We run across idiots every day but that does not mean that everybody we run across is an idiot. Think about it.
anonymous:
Nice swing and a miss. Did you bother to read through my post before jumping to these conclusions or do you not care to bother to make sure that was what I had said before jumping on me for it? In other words guilty until proven innocent even when the evidence to support innocence is right in front of you. In case you missed it I pointed out that this was from an individual source online, if one I got from the Blogging Tories sites, and that this would be very dangerous for the CPC to pick up on and use unless they can provide hard evidence to support such a claim. I guess though it is more important to assume facts not in evidence for you where anyone critical of the CPC or social conservative movement is concerned, eh?
Congratulations on discrediting yourself right in your own post, making a criticism that was inappropriate because of the content of my post which you apparently didn't read or didn't understand, and generally being a sanctimonious twit. I am well aware that not all CPCers are socons, that not all socons are politically driven, etc. My concern though is with the ones that are that have a strong grip within the CPC leadership for all the campaigning on a moderate campaign this time out. As well, seeing as how the socon movement has gone in our Southern neighbour it does leave many of us in this country uneasy about the degree of influence they have in the CPC and what that could mean in our culture/society. Not an unreasonable thing to be doing given what has happened down South.
Anonymous, your words are nice but what actions are you taking?
Are you countering the tactic in any way? Or are you sitting back watching the Conservative proxies and counselling non-Conservatives not to worry?
Until such time as Harper or MacKay or some other senior Conservative or even a major Conservative blogger comes out and explicitly condemns this adoption of US right wing tactics I'm assuming it's approved of.
So if you don't want to personally be lumped with your monsters or idiots as you characterize them, get busy putting a stop to it instead of muttering "there, there dear" to those of us who see this as unacceptable.
Scotian, Well said, in all cases. I think I'm in love (although I'm probably old enough to be your Gran). Isn't it interesting that we are now seeing a plethora of ANONYMOUS commenters? I guess I shouldn't be surprised what with the success of sites like Petites Animaux Morts.
I have always been proud to be Canadian because most of us are not partisan - we worry about ourselves, but we also worry about things like the environment, good governance, fiscal responsibility and all folks who are in a difficult situation regardless of race, sexual orientation, creed or politics. I believe that is what sets us apart and I don't want to lose that.
Keep blogging and ignore the Anonymous folks who have nothing to add to the discussion except uninformed tidbits that are supposed to tear us down while supporting their position.
GoodGrief:
Not to fear, you are nowhere near old enough to be my Gran, you let your age slip some days back elsewhere and I took note of it. If it makes you feel better you can only be my mother and even then you would not have finished your teen years when I would have been born. Hope that makes you feel a little better on that score, milady.
As for the sudden appearance of "anonymous" commentators all being critical of something I blogged, well all that says to me is that not only do my words worry them but that they are too afraid to even create an alias for themselves to be known by. I am not going to worry about people like that, especially since I get the impression that they are more along the lines of the American conservative Trolletariat I have fought down at Political Animal for the past two years or so now. Granted, a few of the anonymous critics appear to have some substance to them to indicate a real person that simply wants to protect identity everywhere, but I somehow suspect those will end up being a minority.
I am flattered you like my work enough to think you might be "in love" with me, knowing people might find one lovable is always a wonderful compliment in my view. I thank you for it. I have quite enjoyed your work where I have seen it as well, you write beautifully and with both heart and substance, something I myself quite prize. So I suspect one could say with have a true mutual admiration society here, eh? :)
Ottawa Core
Against my better judgement, I read your non partisan unbiased post and browsed through the rest of your site. It's a relief to see that you are a truthsayer and not a rabblerouser - irony check.
I presume that you do have documented proof, and that those people who you have quoted are prepared to present their case to the judiciary? If not, what you have written could be actionable. It begs the question of why you wrote it. What possible motive could you have? I used to have nightmares about my children being subject to paedophiles, so that plays to my fears. Is that what you were trying to do, strike a primeval chord? Have your readers react rather than question?
You indicate that you do not represent the CPC, which is a nice disclaimer, however you are definitely a supporter of their agenda, as your previous posts and the comments section will ascribe. I was struck with awe at the one:
"Well done, Blogging Tory. One step closer to "the final solution" for sexual deviants like homosexuals..*wink*"
I don't know you, but, frankly, it is you and others of your ilk that will ensure that the CPC does not get my vote anytime soon. Before you choke on the Liberal label, I was once a member of the PC party and have voted Conservative in the past. I am your average Canadian. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. You are courting the basest of the base.
Scotian, forgive my longwinded partisan exposition. I lost my attempt to be impartial when I read his site. He/She is quite eloquent, but so venal.
GoodGrief:
No problem, you said about the same things I would have if I got here first. Besides, seeing as I tend to being long winded myself I have no problems with others doing the same here in my comments. Please feel free to take whatever space you need to write, I do not mind in the slightest. Whenever someone starts off claiming I am a "left wing socialist" I know I am in the presence of one that assumes facts not in evidence/proven from the outset. Like yourself I was someone that would vote PC as well as Liberal because of my social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, but why let facts get in the way of a rant filled with innuendoes, assumptions, and flat out nonsense, eh?
For example, he, like anonymous, seems to think I am citing a CPC conspiracy, or that he is an official spokesperson for the CPC. When I stated quite clearly that my concern was that this kind of allegation is very serious, and if picked up by the CPC and used that they had better be able to back it up with solid evidence, otherwise it would have a negative backlash for the CPC. Isn't it amazing how every one of my critics on this post have assumed I was projecting this man's willingness to risk slander/libel charges onto his entire party, despite it being clear in what I wrote that I was not doing any such thing?
This is an all too common tactic from the Right in America, and it is one I see many online Conservatives in this country are willing to adopt. That being claiming someone is making a claim/argument they clearly are not then to castigate and vilify the person based on that instead of what was actually written/said. There is nothing a good propagandist for the Right in NA likes more than to beat their opposition with straw men arguments.
This is one of my biggest issues with most online Conservatives. they make things up all the time, assume facts not in evidence are truthful until completely disproved (if even then), and love to claim those that disagree with them are the ones doing all of this. Got to love all that projection. Not to mention the standard of guilty before proven innocent where any of their political opponents are concerned, yet when it is one of their own they demand innocence until proven guilty. Got to love that kind of moral relativism along with the blatant hypocrisy.
Incidentally, I guess OttawaCore forgot his article was posted to the Blogging Tories site, because that was where I found it in the first place. Seeing as the Blogging Tories have made it clear that to be a member requires one supports the CPC and Harper to get elected it is not unreasonable to consider that policy has not changed in the short time since the election ended. Now, since he made it to that site with this blog entry titled as he had it, it is not an unreasonable concern to worry that others in the Blogging Tories would pick it up and eventually that would bring it to the notice of the MSM in this country.
Incidentally, notice that in all of his comments he still has not been able to actually back up this serious an allegation about Graham and especially the calling of the Liberal party a "pedophile cult". It is also noteworthy that he is so willing to portray his political opponents with one of the absolute worst things one can accuse another human being of, yet is so upset that someone called him on it and took offence at the far milder criticism leveled at him for doing so. In other words, he is good for dishing it out, but taking it seems to be a problem for him. Reminds me of other prominent Blogging Tories now that I think on it.
OttawaCore:
Feel free to continue making such outrageous and slanderous comments, sooner or later you will discover that these things come back to haunt one. You might want to learn to read a bit better though before you bother critiquing anything else I write, because all you did was show your inability to do so honestly and accurately. One of the reasons I love having people like yourself able to leave comments in my blog is that for the most part you all tend to provide examples of these inabilities. Indeed, you make a wonderful example for bigotry and a willingness to embrace hatred, as GoodGrief noticed when she visited your blog.
I look forward to your eventual lawsuit if you keep up posting such bilge as you did in this case with the level of "evidence" you were able to provide regarding Graham, and as for your claim of the "pedophile cult" being an accurate way to describe the Liberals, then you have zero basis to be offended by anything said negatively of the CPC with equal evidence, namely zero evidence.
Practice what you preach before you take others to task for your own hypocrisies and projected behaviour. Otherwise all you do is continue to make a fool of yourself for all to see.
Ottawa Core:
I am not calling for your censorship, so you can get off that particular high horse of yours right here, right now. What I have said is no less protected than your speech, indeed that does appear to have gone over your head. I am not threatening you with lawyers, I am however observing that you are making serious allegations about a public figure that unless supported by sufficient evidence leaves you and those that chose to repeat potentially it open to lawsuits. I realize subtle distinctions are not in vogue for many in the Conservative community online (though thankfully there are a few Conservatives that is not true of, if alas the minority) but they do exist, and they are relevant. This is a classic case of such.
You appear to have a lot of anger and hatred built up yourself to leave such comments in my blog. This also tends to be consistent with a lot of Conservative partisans I've noticed. Your willingness to display naked contempt without provocation is clear for all to see, and I hate to tell you this but my free speech and long-windedness is not really sufficient provocation in most civilized company. What is worse though is your undertone of hate throughout the contempt. Your anger is raw, and this is an emotion that when cherished inevitably leads to hatred.
You want to be making accusations that are serious and provocative, that is your right. However, it is as much the right of those that feel you are defaming them to sue you to either prove it or retract it, usually along with damages for such carelessness. Free speech does not mean one can say whatever one likes without repercussion, not even a private citizen, and this appears to be a concept you are unfamiliar with, as are at times too many of your online Conservative brethren. This may well end up being another example of this in action if this allegation is picked up and does draw a response from Mr. Graham and the Liberal party for that matter.
Pedophile cult indeed. Has it ever occurred to you that such extreme language is one of the main reasons many Canadians consider the CPC and previously Reform and the CA extremist even more so than any policies? If not, you might want to reflect on that, for you underscore it in your contempt, anger, and hatred for all to see, and we are all to some extent defined by our associations as well as ourselves, and if you do care for the future of the CPC you will learn to be a bit more moderate unless you have the goods to back it up with.
Otherwise you are at best a cheap rhetorical firebomber with the ethics of a stone, which is to say none at all.
Scotian, well said. Hopefully, your young fellow blogger will think before writes next time.
Frankly, with what I'm seeing on the internet from the ilk of Blogging Tories, I won't be voting CPC anytime soon.
GoodGrief:
I love this part from Ottawa Core : "if i were able to stomach perusing your collective bile for more than the nano second it takes to "get the picture" of your political parroting i'm certain to find the humanity behind the mask of liberal speak. unfortunately my better judgement prevents me from debating ether. we're all lawyers they say. be afraid, be very very afraid."
He is stating that he takes an extremely short period of time to get the "picture of my political parroting", which reads to me like he is saying he is not actually reading through what I write but skimming it just enough to get that much. No wonder then his arguments/rebuttals have been so wildly wrong. If he cannot be bothered to read through what is there it is impossible for him to then write an intelligent and reasoned response. It also demonstrates his projection of his biases about "socialists" (which appears to be anyone to the right of him by the sounds of it) onto me regardless of how inaccurate that overlay may be and in my case is.
If this is how a supposedly rational, reasonable, and intelligent Conservative approaches issues and perspectives that disagree with his own it is no wonder that there is such a disconnect between Conservative speech/rhetoric and reality. I have to say though Ottawa Core also proved just how intellectually dishonest he is with this. After all, to critique anything one has not read fully is by definition dishonest, for you cannot know for sure what really was said and what was not, especially in the case of someone like myself that not only writes long winded work but also uses quite a degree of distinctions within those writings. To not see them in full context is almost guaranteed to alter meaning, and it appears context is something Ottawa Core is too afraid/busy/contemptuous of to bother with by his own admission at this blog.
This is why I love having CPCers come here, they continue to provide me with much insight into their ways of thinking, and they also provide wonderful examples of this type of behaviour for me to point to. As for supporting the CPC any time soon, not until I am convinced they have cast aside the Reform/CA extremism of belief and willingness to embrace such extremist tactics in their political discourse. Not to mention the surprising amount of open xenophobia one encounters in not just CPC supporters but in some CPC MPs.
Dana says:
"Until such time as Harper or MacKay or some other senior Conservative or even a major Conservative blogger comes out and explicitly condemns this adoption of US right wing tactics I'm assuming it's approved of."
Is this the innocent until proven guilty you speak of Scotian?
John, I speak for myself not for Scotian. Who do you speak for?
The last 5 years of observing the Bush administration's proxies on cable and the web operate has been instructive to more people than only Conservatives. This is not a game whose rules or tactics are known only to you and yours.
So I'll repeat, until and unless this kind of reprehensible tactic is repudiated by senior Conservatives there is no choice but to assume that it's approved of at the highest levels of the party.
Or...or...and maybe you'll like this better - Harper and the party leadership have no sway whatever with the rank and file Conservative blogging community and it's that rank and file who are the most despicable and dangerous.
In the former case Harper et al are complicit in some rather dastardly behaviour. In the former they're merely impotent and incompetent.
Which do you prefer?
Dana:
Nice point. Either it is the CPC supporters that the party has no influence over (which given the lingering questions about how the Blogging Tories were formed and to what extent they were acting as a quasi official media source for the CPC election campaign seems a bit of a stretch) yet still refuses to upbraid for their use of such disgusting tactics, they tacitly approve, or they are the original source disseminating these tactics to their supporters. Given the loving support Monte Solberg has had for SDA and Kate M despite her rather controversial comments regarding aboriginals, aboriginal political activists, and residential schools, I rather doubt the CPC is unaware of the Blogging Tories and their content.
It is also a bit irritating that these people play dumb about the use of political tactics and strategies that the GOP have been perfecting the last couple of decades. Especially when most of us that decry the use of such tend to cite exactly what we are referring to being done and why we consider this to be such a bad thing as well as being able to cite examples of it in use from the GOP.
I rather doubt though you are going to get any satisfaction from this person on this point though. It is annoying though that these rhetorical bomb throwers think we have no idea where these tactics got their start from, nor that there has been extensive contacts between the Canadian and American conservative movements and that the Americans have been teaching their counterparts their tools of the trade to gain power and shape opinion. I mean it has been going on for several years now it is not like it is a sudden recent development.
Dana, I will say again. It is not the job of Harper to patrol the internet looking for points of view that disparrage his party and then respond to them. Nor would it be Laytons job to do that for the left.
You have used some classic faulty logic here which is guilt by association. Just because A equals B does not mean that B equals A. Example, I have not heard of you coming out against the Liberal staffer who called in accusing the CPC candidate of comitting rape, therefore I can assume that you fully support this caller and his/her actions? Example #2 I have not heard you condemn Svend for stealing that ring therefore I can assume that you support stealing others property? No, I can't do that because it does not make any sense.
I speak for myself, I speak for someone who is tired of seeing the hate in this country continually build because people like yourself and Ottawa Core refuse to look past your partisan blinders to try and accomplish something together. I don't think everyone has to agree with what you say but these petty attacks get us no where. You both fight just to fight. I see no purpose or gain from it.
I believe that Scotian's post was about the potentially libelous statements being made by CPC supporters - he never once indicated that it was a CPC construct. He indicated that he hoped the CPC would not follow suit. John, did you actually read what he wrote? Svend Robinson has nothing to do with this issue, nor does any other politician who has behaved in a less than sterling way. It has to do with what Canadians expect from their representatives, regardless of which persuasion. If the supporters of any party don't understand that basic issue, then they are out of tune with what I believe is the majority of Canadians. There was a lot of disappointment expressed on the blogosphere when Svend was arrested, but what's that got to do with the price of tea. The issue here is that there are allegations of paedophilia against a man. There appear to be no attempts to bring this to the attention of the authorities, just attempts to spread the rumours throughout the blogosphere to discredit him. John, how would you feel if it were you? There have been many men who have been similarly accused, who, when the accusations were investigated, were totally innocent. Some of those allegations were brought about by former spouses with a grudge. This is reprehensible, there is no excuse. If there are witnesses and justification for these charges, then the police should be involved - not smear tactics on the blogosphere. What's worse, is that these folks perpetrating this smear are signing themselves as anonymous, little realizing that most blogs can trackback through the IP address, meaning that if it were to be reported to the police as willful libel, these folks could risk being charged themselves.
I personally am very upset by these tactics. If you even bothered to read previous comments, you will understand that as a former Progressive Conservative member, I find this totally distasteful beyond measure. You can bring up any number of situations where other politicians have been caught in whatever net, however, these are unproven allegations, there has been no involvement of police and there has been no intent on the part of the people spreading this to get the police involved.
By the way, my brother was a drug addict. He lied his way through life. That's why the judicial system is so important - to protect us all from people like my brother.
Scotian - mea culpa.
Nice blog. I like the long format. I can see you put good time into this.
You keep writing. I'll keep reading.
James Bowie:
Thank you for your kind words. I do what I can, unfortunately with unstable health it makes it difficult to do this as extensively as I would prefer.
GoodGrief:
Nice rebuttal to John, you spared me the bother and I thank you for it. What was the mea culpa for though?
John:
Read what GoodGrief said, she said about what I would have to your inanity.
I don't think Grief actually read my post because I too stated that I think these things are wrong. My point was that you cannot use reverse logic to make a stab at the Conservatives. Your implications come across loud and clear. Just because they have not come out against it does not make them supporters of it. And really when you suggest that they do, you are perpetuating the lies and smears from all sides. Your issue is with Ottawa Core, not Stephen Harper.
The others examples were thrown in just to illustrate my point.
Might I suggest we leave it as this and everyone walk away agreeing that these attacks are unacceptable and everyone should make their assumptions based on facts and not fear.
Post a Comment
<< Home