Wednesday, 27 June 2012

(Not So) Baseless Smears!

Waaaah! Somebody smeared Stephen Woodworth, he of Woodworth's Wank/M312, on Twitter! While he was getting his sick mum a hamburger! His press release, sans mention of the burger. (By the way, the Guelph Mercury does a pretty nice smear of the guy who posted it.)

It was all over the place and while I didn't retweet it, knowing by now that Woody is far too slippery to come out and say something that explicit, lots of people did.

deBeauxOs pointed out (can't find the bloody tweet) that while the quote is a conflation of Santorum and Woodworth (and doesn't that creep a body right out?), it seems to reflect his view of the issue.

Now since Woody's got me blocked, it is huge pain in the ass to track down his actual tweets. Luckily, @lahtay44 copied his answer to a question on rape.

Typically, he deflects.
@WoodworthMP: **For some the answer might be different if question was"Do you support a raped woman's right to take her child's life?"**

I don't know if that was in answer to SomeCndnSkeptic, who has been asking for Woody's view on pregnancy resulting from rape for fucking months. I've asked him and will report.

So. You decide. The false quote is grosser, but is it fundamentally different from the loaded-language answer Woody did give?

Image source.

ADDED: SomeCndnSkeptic replies.

ADDED: LifeShite links to this post! *Waves* at LifeShiters. Be sure to check this post from today too.

ADDED: LifeShite says I'm accusing fetus fetishists of condoning rape because they oppose abortion even in cases of rape. Have a read of this old post on how ff's discount the incidence of rape-caused pregnancy and thus, 'hey, hardly anybody gets knocked up, what's the big deal with no rape exemption?' I do call that condoning rape, wouldn't you?


Anonymous said...

I think he has actually gone one step further in his real tweet than in the fake one. He has left himself zero wiggle room. No abortion for rape victims. Period. no?

Kayvee1000 said...

1/3 I must confess, I was one of the hundreds or thousands that viewed this Tweet that was attributed to Mr. Woodworth, and I did in fact RT what I viewed as the most egregious statement by an MP. For my participation of RT this ‘satirical’ comment I did receive a scolding from one of the people I respectfully follow and they follow back. I have to admit, I was taken aback and I felt somewhat humbled by such criticism. However, after this scolding, something remarkable happened, which made me ask myself:

1)Q. Did he actually write it? A. I don’t know!
2)Q. What if he didn’t write it? A. I want to know!
3)Q. If he didn’t write it, does he concur with the stated ideology?
A. I don’t know!!

Just like @SomeCndnSkeptic, I received the same convoluted response back from Mr. Woodsworth. This tweet also gathered others in an extensive conversation asking him further questions. However, for all of us involved, we realized we were being engaged in psychobabble, with no concrete answers to be found from Mr. Woodworth.

Fern, as you displayed above,@SomeCndnSkeptic confirms he received the same ‘spin’, which I referred to as ‘rhetoric’, which both equate to the same thing, hence inconclusive jargon. Anyway, at one point of the discussion, where I realized Mr. Woodworth was no longer responding to anyone’s questions, I decided I would unchain the tether of tweets, and send a separate tweet asking Mr. Woodworth the following question:

(note: I wish I could make the picture for you, however, I am somewhat technically challenged on how to do that, so you will have to hit the link yourself - sorry:)

As you can see, I this would appear to be a straight-forward, unambiguous question, that requires either a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer. If I had more than 140 characters to work with, I would have placed a circled ‘Y’ or ‘N’ to make it easier for him; however, this was not an option. Anyway, once I had tweeted this, I received a number of playfully jeered tweets by fellow tweeples asking: ‘You don’t really expect to get an answer back do you?”, Silly me, I tweeted back stating: I’m am truly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Again, chuckles from fellow tweeples.

Kayvee1000 said...

2/2 The next day, a few people started asking me if I had received a response back, sadly and humbling as it was, I had to say ‘no’, I haven’t received any response. Again, as you may expect I received a few “told you so’s ” and ‘hehes.’ Which I considered to be fair, as I would have done exactly the same thing:)

The journey through the course of these events over the last few days forced me to take a hard look at what had happened, and look inwards to find some answers. After all, I had been fairly criticized and humbled in several ways, while feeling puzzled at the same time. Then I realized that I needed to ask myself “what have I taken away from this experience?” Difficult process, but this is what I have discovered from my own introspection so far, and there could very well be more, but for now this enough for me, and I sure for anyone reading this.

1) That I will always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, as I extended to Mr. Woodworth; however, this completely excludes any member of “Harper’s Government” from this day forward.

2) That Mr. Woodworth, in my opinion, is just another Reform MP, which, as Canadians we have come to expect consists of no transparency or accountability by this newly branded “Harper Government”.

3) I myself have determined, which is my free thought, and therefore, still free to express (for today anyway), that when someone with the title of MP in Canada, and as such holds the power to bring forth such an egregious-Motion like 312, which, in effect restricts: equal rights; rescinds women’s autonomy over their own bodies; redefines Human, ‘Persons’ Rights and Freedoms by applying nasciturus fiction, not LAW; stripping women of their ‘Right’ to determine whether the zygote/fetus ‘inside of them’ is viable, which is determined by a women if she decides to carry to term or not; by assigning fetal ‘personhood rights’ above and beyond ‘women’s personhood rights’; and ultimately to re-criminalize abortion, which has a two-fold effect: by increasing Feminization of Poverty; and strengthens ‘the good ol’ boy’s patriarchal order’.

4) That there is both a general and legal definition with regards to “Lying by Omission”. That MPs are not only obligated to stand up and defend their endorsement, but as (key word) ‘OUR’ representatives we must ‘Demand’ that they publicly stand up and announce that this, is in fact, what they believe to be true. By Mr. Woodworth’s chosen action (or lack thereof) to not answer direct and publicly published questions, the flags get raised to a code red level. Where only a rational individual can assume one of two things: i) that by way of declaring his answer is ‘Yes’ to the said question would equate to his true intent and endorsement, which would ultimately be political suicide; or ii) by not answering this question leads one to believe he is Lying by omission, defined as “which is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception”.

5) That this “Harper Government” has not only restricted Judicial Powers from our court system by way of imposing mandatory sentencing, they are now restricting our Medical Doctors from their medical powers.

6) That we/Canadians must always demand answers, accountability and transparency.

7) And Last, and yes least for anyone reading this, was my personal discovery of accepting constructive criticism in such a public forum, and being more cautious of what I RT; and that my sense of humour was able to withstand public hehes’ and told you so’s.

Post a Comment