Left vs right, right vs left

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 957
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't live in Ontario and am therefore not really entitled to an opinion but here it is anyway - I'm not a big DF fan but after the gross mis-management of the province by the Liberals can anyone re

Posted Images

Reality check: Did the Liberals create 60% more full-time jobs than the Tories?

Hoping to beat back Conservative claims that their environment-friendly agenda is a costly jobs killer, the Liberal government has been burnishing its economic record lately, insisting that it has done better at creating jobs than its Tory predecessor.


Since we formed government, the Canadian economy has created over 60 per cent more full-time jobs than the Conservatives did over the same time period,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Aug. 14.

READ MORE: Canada adds nearly 32K jobs in June, raising the odds of a July 11 rate hike

It’s an important exercise in spin for a government whose central brand is about convincing Canadians that “the environment and the economy go hand

in-hand” – that fighting climate change, in other words, needn’t come at the expense of economic growth.

Hence the recent message from Trudeau and other cabinet ministers that since being elected in 2015, the Liberal government has created 60 per cent more jobs in Canada than the Conservatives did during the same time period.

Are they telling the truth?

Spoiler alert: The Canadian Press Baloney Meter is a dispassionate examination of political statements culminating in a ranking of accuracy on a scale of “no baloney” to “full of baloney” (complete methodology below).

This one earns a rating of “a lot of baloney.” Here’s why.


Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office pointed to Employment Minister Patty Hajdu’s office to provide a breakdown of how Trudeau came up with that 60 per cent figure.

Veronique Simard, a spokeswoman for Hajdu, said the Liberal government created 542,500 full-time jobs in the 33 months since winning the 2015 election, while the Conservatives under former prime minister Stephen Harper “created just 322,300 full-time jobs in its last 33 months in office.”

Trudeau wasn’t the only one spreading the message: in a response to Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre deriding the Liberal carbon plan as a “job killer,” Environment Minister Catherine McKenna tweeted, “Our government has created 60 per cent more jobs than the Harper Conservatives did in the same time period.”

“The Canadian economy is humming,” she wrote. “Our emissions are dropping. We have a plan and it’s working.”


To calculate the number of jobs created over a specific period, The Canadian Press relied on figures from Statistics Canada for full-time jobs each month. The agency reports the total number of people employed monthly, which stood at 15.1 million full-time workers in July.

Calculations by CP confirmed the data provided by Hajdu’s office: 542,500 new full-time jobs between October 2015 and July 2018, and just 322,300 new jobs between January 2013 and October 2015 – a difference, for the record, of 59.4 per cent.

But there’s more to the claim than just the numbers.


For one thing, there’s the familiar political convention of taking credit for economic growth – a practice that brings to mind the old saw about “lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Any suggestion that the Liberals are “somehow responsible” for those numbers confuses the sequence of events with causality, said Stephen Gordon, an economics professor at Laval University.

“The fact that this is done so often doesn’t make it any less wrong,” said Gordon – no fan, he said, of using such statistics to suggest that the arrival of any new government results in more jobs.

But for the sake of argument, the Liberals should be comparing their first 33 months not with the end of the Harper era, but the beginning – a period that saw 635,400 new jobs between January 2006 and October 2008.

READ MORE: Half of Canadian jobs will be impacted by automation in next 10 years

“If you’re going to argue that the arrival of a Liberal government leads to increased employment, you might as well argue that the arrival of a Conservative government has an even stronger effect on employment,” Gordon said.

“It’s a stupid game to be playing, and I wish politicians would stop playing it.”

Governments often “claim credit for – and take blame for – economic performance for which they often have little control,” added Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo.

“Stephen Harper was no more responsible for the 2008 global recession than Justin Trudeau was for job growth in the month he was elected.”

Using month-by-month statistics to measure performance in the job market can be unreliable, since the story can change dramatically, depending on which months are chosen as reference points, said Sheila Block, senior economist from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

During the Conservative government’s first 33 months in office, the economy was booming, while their last 33 months included a collapse in oil prices, she noted.



In truth, governments of all stripes take credit for short-term and medium-term economic indicators that are actually beyond their control. And they are selective about the data they choose to promote, as well as the time frames, to ensure it supports their narrative.

Indeed, by contrasting their first 33 months with the Conservative government’s last 33 months, they are effectively comparing apples and oranges.



The Baloney Meter is a project of The Canadian Press that examines the level of accuracy in statements made by politicians. Each claim is researched and assigned a rating based on the following scale:

No baloney – the statement is completely accurate.

A little baloney – the statement is mostly accurate but more information is required.

Some baloney – the statement is partly accurate but important details are missing.

A lot of baloney – the statement is mostly inaccurate but contains elements of truth.

Full of baloney – the statement is completely inaccurate.





Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been pointed out before, but it bears mentioning, how many of these jobs are government positions? And how many are related to an unsustainable real estate and building boom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would maintain that there are logical and predictable consequences to policy development based on agendas and the inability to look around corners. Sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration law lead to sanctuary 2nd amendment cities that refuse to enforce gun control laws. The premise “why would anyone need a handgun” leads to why would anyone need a car or motorcycle capable of going faster than the speed limit.

If your hobby is muscle cars and sport bikes I don’t automatically assume you drive dangerously or need to be regulated simply because others might. But, if the question “why do you need it?” becomes governing and applies across the board, people who previously took refuge in that argument (for their own purposes) may be bitten by the unintended consequences beast. 

This took less time than I thought it would…. now, given the drowning hazard to young children, why would anyone need a swimming pool in their back yard?


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people will never understand.  you don't need a gun to hunt a rutabaga.  You do to bag a deer or moose to feed your family.  But the tree huggers make the greater case because they have the support of the fear mongering media and government who what you to live in fear.  It keeps you compliant.  Free thinking Gun owners are a dangerous thing  (to them selves if you watch the video in the other thread).

Shooting is a sport whether it takes place on a range or in the bush.  For many in this country it is also a method to feed their families.  I know several people even in Southern Ontario that bag enough during hunting season to sustain their family for a year.

The Rutabaga crowd will never see it though.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fined $55,000 for calling a Male a Male 




“ We told you this was coming. We warned you it would happen. We were not crying wolf. We were telling you the truth. And now it is here, as a headline announces: "Canadian tribunal fines Bill Whatcott $55,000 for expressing Christian views on 'transgenderism.'" In other words, Whatcott called a biological male (who identifies as a female) a "biological male." That was his crime. “

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Further to the above post...


For those who cherish a free society, the recent BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) ruling in Oger v. Whatcott is an alarming step toward a darker future in which the government actively punishes citizens who object to political correctness.  The BCHRT has ordered a Canadian citizen to pay $55,000 for peacefully expressing the “wrong” opinions.

The case arose during the 2017 British Columbia provincial election, in which Oger ran unsuccessfully for the NDP.  Whatcott distributed a one-page flyer stating, in part, that Oger “is a biological male who has renamed himself ‘Morgane Oger’ after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle. Ronan is running for the NDP in the Vancouver-False Creek riding and BC’s media and the NDP are promoting a false narrative that Ronan is a woman born into a male body.”

Whatcott further stated: “I am writing this flyer this election to share my concern about the promotion and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God given gender.  …. the media, NDP, and everyone in the riding might try to pretend Ronan is a woman. But the truth is Ronan’s DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change these facts. …   ‘transgenderism’ is an impossibility. A male cannot ‘transition’ into a female, nor can a female ‘transition’ into a male. One can only cross dress and disfigure themselves with surgery and hormones to look like the gender they are not. This practice is harmful and displeasing to God.”

Whatcott is no angel.  He often uses inflammatory and offensive language that repels even those who might be his ideological allies.  For example: “Those who embrace the transvestite and homosexual lifestyles put themselves at greatly increased risk of diseases such as HIV, syphilis, HPV of the rectum, anal gonorrhea, Hepatitis A,B & C, etc…. Homosexuals and transgenders are also at increased risk of drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, and domestic violence. In addition to the physical and social consequences of adopting a false sexual and gender identity, there are spiritual consequences too.  Our God is a God of truth.”


In its ruling, the BCHRT reproduced Whatcott’s flyer in its entirety, including text not cited above.  The BCHRT ordered Whatcott to pay $35,000 to Oger for having peacefully distributed offensive flyers during an election, plus $20,000 regarding “improper conduct” during the hearing.  Most of Whatcott’s “improper conduct” consisted of referring to Oger as a man.

There can be little doubt that Whatcott’s flyer was, and is, upsetting and highly offensive to many people, including Oger. But a free and diverse country doesn’t punish the peaceful expression of ideas and beliefs, however offensive, hurtful, false, or wrong the majority might consider them.  Most Canadians would likely consider Whatcott a jerk.  But in a tolerant nation, being a jerk isn’t against the law, nor should it be punished to the tune of $55,000.

The fine for drunk driving, a Criminal Code offense which directly endangers the lives of other people, and an act that is strongly stigmatized as a profound societal evil, is $1,000 for a first offence.  By contrast, a tyrannical and out-of-control government body has ordered Whatcott to pay more than what many Canadians earn, after tax, during an entire year, simply for distributing flyers peacefully during an election.

In a free country, Oger can identify as a woman.  That’s Oger’s right.  But it is equally the right of other people – all people – to disagree with Oger, and to voice that disagreement.


Even more scary than the $55,000 penalty is the Tribunal’s arrogant assumption that it has the right to determine truth on behalf of all citizens, in this case, the “truth” about transgenderism.  In its ruling, the BCHRT claims that Oger is a “victim of oppression” whose “very existence” is in danger of being “marginalized,” simply by someone stating that Oger is biologically male and therefore not a woman.  The BCHRT claims that Whatcott’s flyer somehow has the power to impede “meaningful participation in social and political decision‐making,” and concludes that the flyer “does not engage in topics of valuable ongoing public discussion.”

By imposing its progressive, post-modernist, and politically correct opinion on Whatcott, this government body likewise imposes it on all of society.  The message is clear to all citizens: if you refuse to kowtow to political correctness, you will pay a heavy price.

Lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca), which intervened before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the Oger v. Whatcottcase.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Censorship happens in the blink of an eye.

Two weeks ago, I tweeted a triptych that read: “How censorship happens: a story in three parts.” The first image was of a recent Vice headline stating that Facebook was moving to ban white nationalism and white separatism. The second was a tweet by left-wing activist Anthony Watson referring to Quillette as a “right-wing, white-nationalist website.” The third was a tweet thread in which two Canadian academics speak about monitoring and making a list of Canadians who dared to publish with Quillette.


Censorship happens as quickly as one can construct a false syllogism. And right now would be a very good time for us to start paying attention to where and how it’s happening. 

Facebook’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg penned a recent op-ed in the Washington Post in which he advocated for a laws against what he refers to as “harmful content” as well as international laws to monitor and regulate the internet. “It’s time to update these rules [of the internet] to define clear responsibilities for people,” Zuckerberg said.

Of course, big tech is not waiting for the laws they crave to take action. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube have all deplatformed controversial figures such as Alex Jones, Faith Goldy, and Milo Yiannopoulos. These precedents have then been used to ban perfectly mainstream and reasonable figures like Meghan Murphy, a feminist who committed the high crime of “misgendering” on Twitter. She’s not the only one. Gender critical voices are routinely banned on Twitter, while their opposition is free to libel and level threats of violence with no administrative consequences.

It seems that the rush to censor coincides with major tragedies in the world. Or, perhaps the censors among us exploit tragedies in order to achieve their goals of making our culture antiseptic. The desires of speech-denying ideologues line up perfectly with big tech companies, who are primarily interested in manifesting their dominance in marketplaces worldwide, not adhering to ethical standards. 

As the regressive censors continue to dance with their corporate partners, it’s never been clearer that we need more speech and more platforms.

Take, for instance, the rush to smear conservative commentator Ben Shapiro in the wake of the Notre Dame Cathedral tragedy. Shapiro tweeted: “Absolutely heartbreaking. A magnificent monument to Western civilization collapsing” He added a few follow-up tweets stressing the importance of God and Judeo-Christian tradition.

As a result, Washington Post contributor Talia Levin spat out an incoherent hot takeclaiming that Shapiro was stoking racial tensions: “Given the already-raging rumors about potential Muslim involvement, these tweets evoked the specter of a war between Islam and the West that is already part of numerous far-right narratives,” she wrote. Levin also unfairly slimed conservative writer and filmmaker Mike Cernovich, whose “wordcrime” was to tweet “The West has fallen.” In Levin’s depraved mind, these simply phrased, mournful tweets are enough to liken these conservatives to actual Nazis like Richard Spencer. It’s disgusting.

When Shapiro punched back on Twitter, Media Matters got involved. For those who aren’t aware, Media Matters is the powerful woke-scold organization that regularly boycotts and slimes prominent conservatives in the name of progress.


**bleep** you and the burro you rode on.” There it is. These are the words of the “prestigious” organization that wants to keep us safe from dangerous language. The tweet was properly ratioed, and the Washington Post smear backfired this time, but if Levin had her way, the “trust and safety” teams of big tech would be holding meetings to figure out how to get Shapiro off of their platforms. 

After the New Zealand mosque shooting, a major bookstore banned Jordan Peterson’s self-help book, 12 Rules for Life, in a completely ill-advised attempt to to keep their culture safe. Of course, the irony was that Peterson’s work is specifically effective in helping young men sort out their lives and avoid the pitfalls of radicalization. Thanks to the voices of reasonable people, Peterson’s book was reinstated.

The censors among us start out by targeting Alex Jones or Faith Goldy or whoever they feel they can safely say is a conspiracy theorist or a white supremacist. But they don’t stop there. If they had their way, they would never stop. They simply need those people for precedent. Did you develop an appreciation of Western civilization by listening to Ben Shapiro? You’re a white supremacist. Did you clean your room and straighten out your life thanks to Dr. Peterson’s book? You’re a white supremacist. Did you publish an essay with Quillette? You’re a white supremacist.

We can all clearly see the game that they’re playing, and we can’t let them win. We need to speak out while we still can.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrogant Elitists At Toronto Star Run Horribly Condescending Attack On Alberta Workers



Without Alberta workers, and without the oil industry in particular, Canada would be a much poorer and much worse country.

Working People and our energy sector keeps our country alive and functioning.

Look at it this way: Canada couldn’t survive without the energy industry. But we sure could survive without the corrupt establishment media.

But the arrogant elitists in the establishment media don’t realize how redundent they are. Instead, they have an inflated sense of their own importance, and look down with contempt on every else.

“When Conservatives talk about the elites, this is what we mean. The condescension, talking down to and mocking of people they see as yokels. The pearl-clutching over a high-school dropout actually making a good wage for doing an honest day’s work.”


While there may be some good reporters at the Toronto Star, the overall organization and attitude of the establishment media elites is absolutely dripping with contempt towards Canadian Workers and towards the energy industry.

And that obvious contempt is why more and more people are rejecting the establishment media and turning towards websites like SpencerFernando.com, where the truth and the viewpoint of common-sense Canada is actually represented, instead of constantly denigrated.





Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

if you get the chance, watch the movie BREXIT.  I watched it the other day and it is a docudrama base on the activities leading up to the Referendum on Brexit in the UK and the way social media engineered the leave vote.

Perhaps then every one would understand how they are being manipulated by the few to gain control.

It's not just facebook and twitter either.  it happens here on a smaller scale.


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, boestar said:

Perhaps then every one would understand how they are being manipulated by the few to gain control.

It's not just facebook and twitter either.  it happens here on a smaller scale.


Do you mean "here" like here on the forum or "here" like here in Canada?  

Edited by seeker
Link to post
Share on other sites

both.  Pay attention to the posts.  As I said its a small scale but the propaganda posts are alive an well on here as everywhere else.  The people sharing may not even realize it but I am sure most do.


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, boestar said:

both.  Pay attention to the posts.  As I said its a small scale but the propaganda posts are alive an well on here as everywhere else.  The people sharing may not even realize it but I am sure most do.


Yes, some posts are biased according to the beliefs of the poster and some linked articles are biased too but I was responding specifically to the bit - " Perhaps then every one would understand how they are being manipulated by the few to gain control."  I don't feel like anyone is manipulating me to gain control (here on the forum) so maybe that means I'm the one doing the manipulating - although that doesn't feel right either.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The posting of Memes which are generally created by someone else for a specific purpose.  Those get shared on here and every other platform. The manipulation may not specifically be on the part of the poster but the function remains the same.  To get an emotional response which may alter your perception whether that is right or wrong, truth or lie.

Not seeing it is part of the problem.  I have seen millions of reposts of memes that show data that is far from accurate but causes millions of people to react to it.  That, my friend, is social engineering and we are all victims of it.


  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boestar said:

The posting of Memes which are generally created by someone else for a specific purpose.  Those get shared on here and every other platform. The manipulation may not specifically be on the part of the poster but the function remains the same.  To get an emotional response which may alter your perception whether that is right or wrong, truth or lie.

Not seeing it is part of the problem.  I have seen millions of reposts of memes that show data that is far from accurate but causes millions of people to react to it.  That, my friend, is social engineering and we are all victims of it.


The Russians used it to great effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I’m not too concerned about bias. It’s generally pretty innocuous, easy for a thoughtful person to discern, and for the most part each of us has one.

What concerns me are narratives and the deliberate, wilful manipulation of facts and blatant lies that are told in support of that narrative. If bias is a “tendency” then surely narrative qualifies as an “ideology”.

So, take anything you have first hand (boots on the ground) experience in that may be controversial and compare what you know to be true with what you hear (or don’t hear) being reported in the media or what politicians say (or don’t say) about the same subject.

And, if you don’t have that experience just pick something easy and put it in the form of a question or series of socratic questions. I’m not a Scheer fan but, is he really a white supremacist? Is his party really a bunch of racists? Are those who voted for him racists? Do you even know what real racism looks like? 

You don’t need to have been to Rwanda to understand racism or it’s effects. Everyone knows damn well that Scheer isn’t a white supremacist and saying it over and over is most definitely not a bias. It is a bold faced lie foisted on the public by those with a narrative that supports an agenda. That’s far more dangerous than simple bias IMO. Calling that behaviour a bias is to not understand bias and calling Scheer a racist is to not understand racism. In either case, it is the ignorance of the accuser (or narrative supporter) that usually stands on full display.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If bias isn't a concern, then the issue becomes delivery of the message.

I have made it a point to 'fact check' before believing anything now.  It truly is scary what is passing for news these days.  

While Scheer may or may not be a white supremacist, he has pulled a 180 on the issue.  It wasn't until he was pushed that he denounced it.  That observation is based on these articles, two from 2017 and the other from this year.


The party’s willingness to engage – and widespread refusal to condemn – the Canadian website that has given a platform to the alt-right and conspiracy theorists known as The Rebel is just another example.

As my colleague Sean Craig has noted for Global News, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, as well as several other Conservative leadership contenders have appeared on The Rebel: “Scheer has given at least three one-on-one interviews with The Rebel since November 2016. Many other leadership candidates besides Scheer and Alexander, including Kellie Leitch, Brad Trost, Pierre Lemieux, Erin O’Toole, Kevin O’Leary, Tony Clement, Rick Peterson, Andrew Saxton, Steven Blaney and Maxime Bernier, have variously appeared on Rebel properties or at Rebel events.”

Politicians of all stripes are obviously all within their right to choose whichever media outlet they grant interviews to, that’s not really the issue.

It’s the cowardly silence coming from the Conservatives that is worth noticing.

After all, if they think The Rebel is merely a conservative outlet that provides a place for right-leaning analysis and opinion, they should say so and stand by their choice. But as of yet, none have come forward to defend The Rebel generally, or their choice to sit down with the controversial outlet specifically.

Canadians deserve their Opposition to be resolute in the condemnation of the alt-right and white nationalist movement in Canada.

Remaining silent or unclear implies that the Conservatives would rather placate some of the worst factions of their voting bloc instead of taking the more principled route.

Canada needs a healthy Conservative Party.

What Canada doesn’t need is a right-leaning populist party that openly courts racists and xenophobes.

This ensures the stagnation of the Conservative Party and its inability to draw more people, especially millennials who will comprise the largest voting bloc in the next election, into the Conservative tent.

Donald Trump is a bigot. His administration is full of them. Andrew Scheer and the Conservative Party are certainly not the same as Trump and his White House, so why aren’t they doing a better job of differentiating themselves from the Trumpian conservatives to the south?

Scheer has a choice to make.


It is said that you can take the measure of a man by the company he keeps.

By that objective calculus, the toxic company that Canada's Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, stubbornly keeps ought to disabuse anyone of the silly notion that Canada is an antidote to the pestilence of white nationalism infecting other, Western "liberal" democracies. 

Scheer has a long history of courting white nationalists by appealing unabashedly and overtly to their ugly, nativist, xenophobic and racist temperaments (to describe them as "ideas" is antithetical to the word).

Serious attention should be drawn to Scheer's relationship with Canada's extreme right wing since, if accurate, a recent spate of public opinion polls suggest that the Conservative chief may well become prime minister come the next federal election scheduled for October. 

Of course, Scheer is a faithful disciple of former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper who besmirched himself and, perhaps more importantly, the country he served by championing racism-infused "policies" as a means to mine the support of Canadian bigots who would be attracted to such malevolent policies at election time.

Harper's sorry, signature gambit in this regard was the unveiling - stripped of its government-sanctioned rhetorical embroidery - of a "snitch" line, where Canadians were encouraged to report other Canadians guilty of culturally "barbaric practices" deemed "incompatible" with "old stock" Canadian values.

Harper's legion of apologists insisted that his snitch line and use of the benign "descriptor…old stock Canadians" weren't Exhibit A and B of how to practise sectarian wedge politics. So, stop hyperventilating you perennial politically correct types, the apologists cried.

Today, the same cavalier defence is being employed by the same band of apologists to dismiss as inconsequential Scheer's undeniable associations with notorious white nationalists that should, if decency had any currency in politics, be disqualifying.

On February 19, Scheer spoke at an event on Parliament Hill organised reportedly by "disgruntled pipeline workers" who had travelled from Western Canada by picayune convoy to Ottawa to "have their voices heard". He was joined by several members of his Conservative caucus who took dutiful turns praising the "protesters" and pledging fidelity to their amorphous cause. 

"We are fighting for you. We are standing with you," Scheer told the small, yellow-vested gathering. One Conservative senator was less trite, urging the assembly to "roll over every Liberal left in the country". His invitation to violence was predictably greeted with hoots and cheers. 

The rumble-ready "United We Roll" contingent that Scheer and company welcomed, encouraged and applauded, included attendees who - anti-hate groups detail - celebrate their white nationalist, white-supremacist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim credentials online.

Still, for the doubters, the "protesters'" convictions surely became apparent when Faith Goldy was also asked to speak at the "rally" as their marquee guest. 

Goldy has, for years, flaunted her white nationalism on a variety of media platforms. Among her other noxious "beliefs" is the "theory" that the white race is facing "genocide" and is on the precipice of extinction.

In December 2017, Canada's racist-in-residence, who also thinks launching another Crusade to retake the Holy Land is a laudable geopolitical strategy, recited, with little prompting and with evident glee on a racist podcast the white supremacist clarion call, The Fourteen Words: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." 

A few months earlier, Goldy displayed her white nationalist bona fides again by appearing on a podcast affiliated with [neo-Nazi website] the Daily Stormer while in Virginia.

Goldy described her tete-a-tete with Nazis as a "poor decision."

Scheer knew all this and more when he chose to attend the same event, organised by the same people who thought it appropriate and right to invite Goldy, who told Indigenous peoples who assailed her presence on Parliament Hill: "If you don't like our country, leave it." 

Rather than say no, Scheer and his caucus colleagues opted to stand - figuratively speaking - rancid shoulder to rancid shoulder with a racist in the rank pursuit of parochial, political self-interest. And with that, the nexus of traditional "conservatism" and the wretched right wing was fashioned - married by two speeches in one place, at one time, separated by just a few metres. 

Scheer and Goldy have shared more intimate moments. Before she was fired over her "poor decision" to enjoy a convivial chat on a Nazi podcast, the telegenic Goldy was a host on a network featuring a cavalcade of frothing, perpetually indignant, anti-establishment personalities called Rebel Media.

In early 2017, then-Conservative leadership candidate Scheer was Goldy's chummy, featured guest on her defunct programme On the Hunt - for what precisely remains a mystery. 

In any event, the "hot" topic du jour was a non-binding, symbolic motion introduced by a Liberal MP to condemn Islamophobia and all religious discrimination in the aftermath of the Quebec city terrorist who murdered six Muslim men praying in a mosque. 

Scheer told Goldy he would emphatically vote against the motion because, like his effervescent TV pal, he was concerned that denouncing the hatred that fuelled the butchery of Muslim worshippers by way of a parliamentary motion would inevitably morph into an "attack" on free speech. "Absolutely," Goldy said, approvingly. 

Fast forward to the horror in New Zealand, when another racist who referenced "white genocide" and "The Fourteen Words" in his "manifesto" slaughtered 50 Muslim children, women and men and grievously injured scores of other innocents because of where they prayed and who they prayed to.

Scheer's response? Not surprisingly: muted platitudes on Twitter. "Freedom has come under attack in New Zealand as peaceful worshippers are targeted in a despicable act of evil. All people must be able to practice their faith freely and without fear," he wrote without naming the faith of the massacred or the sites of their massacres. You see, "freedom", not Muslims, was "attacked".

That vapid, perfunctory tweet was consistent with Scheer's reluctance to offend the odious likes of Goldy et al for fear of alienating a potential well of votes during a likely close election. Donald Trump has proven that racist overtures - blatant or cloaked - can afford a winning edge in a tight race.  

Only later, after a torrent of criticism, did Scheer issue a second statement on Facebook, daring to mention Muslims and mosques. By then, it was too late. His initial response indeed reflected the measure of the man and the company he keeps.

Despite claiming now to shun the decaying network, Scheer holds other Rebel Media alumni close to his bosom. His 2019 campaign manager was a founding director of Rebel Media.

Like his mentor Stephen Harper, Scheer is intent on, it appears, leading Canada down a dangerous, sinister slope.


 So if you take the bias out of those two opinion pieces, what you get is that Scheer openly has courted right wing ideologists.

It wasn't until just recently, when he was pushed, that he denounced white supremacists.


OTTAWA—Andrew Scheer condemned “anyone who promotes racist ideology” after a Conservative senator questioned whether white supremacy was a significant threat to Canadian communities.

Scheer told reporters Wednesday that he “100 per cent” denounces anyone who “promotes white nationalism, promotes any type of extremism.”


And it was because he was called out on the views of one of his senators.  

After all that is going on the world, why did it take that long for him to make the statement?  Was he afraid of alienating a voting block?

In getting back to the main point, it once again demonstrates that the right has used manipulating social media by flooding biased messages to a far greater and more effective extent than the left.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, it wasn’t just Scheer  who didn’t mention Muslims......Liberal Minister Goodale and  Liberal appointed GG Payette were also “guilty”:


-- Andrew Scheer says criticism over his initial failure to mention that Muslims were targeted in the recent mass murder in New Zealand is "completely baseless" and driven by "disgusting" Liberal efforts to score political points from the tragedy.

Moreover, he argued that initial tweets by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Governor General Julie Payette also didn't specifically mention mosques or Muslims.



And it’s funny how the election is shaping up, far from the Liberals pledge to avoid name calling, which the media is to blame as well, but here is a sample of words/phrases from the articles in Deicer s post:

white supremecist,  cowardly silence,  alt right,  white nationalists,  toxic company,  racism infused policies,  Canadian bigots,  rancid shoulder to rancid shoulder,  odious likes of, dangerous sinister slope.

Pretty hard taking the bias out of those pieces and coming up with an unbiased view of Scheer and the Conservatives.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, st27 said:

    And it’s funny how the election is shaping up, far from the Liberals pledge to avoid name calling, which the media is to blame as well, but here is a sample of words/phrases from the articles in Deicer s post:  white  supremecist,  cowardly silence,  alt right,  white nationalists,  toxic company,  racism infused policies,  Canadian bigots,  rancid shoulder to rancid shoulder,  odious likes of, dangerous sinister slope.

Trudeau would have to be pretty dense not to see his political demise in the mirror. He knows his days are numbered so he’s got nothing to lose.  Vitriol is all he has left. He has NO record to run on and he’s desperate.

He’s had two vacations in the past several weeks and will continue to suck at the trough till his last day.

At least Canadians get to see him for what he really is.

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, deicer said:

While Scheer may or may not be a white supremacist, he has pulled a 180 on the issue.  It wasn't until he was pushed that he denounced it

If you are suggesting that he is I think you are part of the very problem you seem to oppose. If there is evidence bring it forward, the entire notion of exaggerated claims, manufactured evidence and false convictions (as a result) is exactly what we are talking about here. Really, because he didn't condemn it, he is favour of it?

By that logic, since AOC has not condemned the attacks in Sri Lanka as she did in New Zealand, are we to conclude that she hates Christians and approves of the massacre. Since Canadian Muslims have not been condemning this in a big way are we to assume they approve? Yes indeed, I can do this all day and make it progressively more silly as I go along. 

If silence is deemed "cowardly" how much more so is a snippet of truth woven into a tapestry of lies in support of a narrative. There is a big difference between this and bias. Bias is partiality and favouritism.... the current level of lies, name calling and fabricated news bites is something all together different.

As far as I know, JT has not condemned the practice of playing bagpipes in kayaks.... does that make him culpable in boating accidents where bagpipes are deemed to be a cause factor? In actual fact though, pipers are more likely to be shot by a neighbour..... I don't recall hearing him condemn that either. Maybe he hates pipe bands too. Canadians of Scottish descent are outraged.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.