Partisanship Is Sooooo Over

Partisanship is at best silly, at times ugly, and right now it's bloody dangerous.

Since PMSHithead got his minority I've been imploring the Fucking Useless Opposition® (FUO) to get their act together and actually OPPOSE this government's destruction of Canada. You know, like they're supposed to do.

But no. They'd rather bash each other.

And now, we've got perhaps the LAST CHANCE to boot Stephen Harper and his band of vandals, and they're bashing each other even harder.

The majority of Canadians could Campbellize the hated Harperoids, if only the FUO® would co-operate with each other a teensy bit.

But no.

This morning, the story about the Short-Pants Brigade taking over from the Immigration Department and making literal life and death decisions based on political expediency drove me over the edge.

I decloaked.

Connie @freedominion & I agree on almost nothing but that Harper must be stopped and #C51 repealed. I volunteered to index her book. #elxn42

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) October 8, 2015

Connie responded.

As @PMHarper tries to win w/ wedge issues driving Canadians apart, stopping him is bringing us together. #elxn42 https://t.co/YEnkrenG1h

— Connie Fournier (@freedominion) October 8, 2015

Connie's dismay at the Harper government has been brewing for some time. In February this year I linked to this at Free Dominion.

Canadian conservatives don't deserve to have a majority government.

There. I said it. I haven't given up on conservatism. Actually, quite the opposite. I have just come to the conclusion that it is not in the interest of conservatism (or liberty or democracy, for that matter) for the Conservative Party to remain in power.

Her main beef then and now is the Jihadis Under Every Bed Law, aka C51. Free Dominion reopened its forum to join the fray against it.

As I wrote then:

It beats the hell out of me why anyone purportedly in this fight -- and it is the fight of the decade at the very least -- would scorn any ally. But some are too pure to join forces with groups they otherwise disagree vehemently with.

Just as now, it beats the hell out of me why anyone would scorn any ally in the fight to get rid of the worst government in Canadian history.

And Connie has other issues with the Harper Party, so when I heard that she was writing a book addressed to her fellow Conservatives, I offered to help.

She accepted. I proofread and indexed the book. It's called Betrayed.

From the Introduction:

In this book, I will be making the case that conservative Canadians have a responsibility to keep our government in check.  When a leader that we have elected goes off the rails and begins to dismantle the very fabric of our democracy, we have a duty to send our own people into the political wilderness until they learn to handle the unfettered power of a majority government with the care and respect it deserves.

Perhaps you are thinking right now that I am not giving Stephen Harper enough trust.  You might think that he is not the type of man to abuse legislation that allows warrantless government access to our personal information, or legislation that allows judges, in secret trials, to give CSIS permission to do virtually anything but rape us or kill us.

His record tells a different story as I detail in Chapter ten.

But,  even if you do trust Stephen Harper and discount my reading of events, he is not going to be the Prime Minister forever. You have a responsibility to ask yourself if you trust the level of power that Harper has consolidated in the PMO in the hands of every potential new government that this country ever elects.

If the answer to that question is "no", then we must accept that Stephen Harper, by ramming through some very perilous legislation --most  notably Bill  C-51, the  Anti-Terrorism Act -- has put future generations in danger. For that reason alone he must be stopped. I will be talking in this book about Free Dominion's history and about some  of our experiences with censorship and "disruption" that have occurred already, under the watch of our Conservative government.

I'm pretty sure that regular readers here need no more reasons to vote against Harper, but maybe you've got Conservative friends and family you're going to be seeing this Thanksgiving weekend.

You could print out copies of Connie's Introduction and hand them around the table. *evil grin*

Or not.

So, what's the point of this blogpost?

To show ALL YOU "PROGRESSIVE" JACKASSES that common cause exists.

And that the stakes are high enough.

Do something to stop Harper.

And stop bashing each other.


**********************************************



Regular readers may remember that Connie and I have history. We've agreed on issues like prorogation, the G20 police state in Toronto, prison farms, and the need for better definition of online defamation. And of course the Jihadis bill.

We've both taken shit for our occasional public agreement. Notably, but perhaps not surprisingly, from male people who seem to think we need policing for consorting with each other.

It may amuse, then, to learn of my "price" for helping with Connie's book.

It was inspired by Canadian Cynic, who, in support of the documentary "Election Day in Canada," tweeted this:

... no more tweets out of CC HQ until this https://t.co/DYYIh9YM2c gets to $5,000. 9,007 followers ... don't tell me you can't do this. Bye.

— CC (@canadiancynic) August 9, 2015

I asked Connie to make a donation to the film in her own name. I didn't ask her to make any kind of statement about it.

But she did.

Welcome, Foes of the C51 Police State

Just about every Canadian -- of every conceivable stripe -- opposes Bill C-51, aka the Jihadi Terrorists Under Every Bed Bill.

Former PMs, former Supreme Court Justices, law professors, the Canadian Bar Association, unions, First Nations, journalists, former CSIS officers, environmentalists, and even ordinary, everyday, minding-their-own-business Canadians.

Today it was announced that Free Dominion is reopening its forum to join the fray.

Here is Mark Fournier's explanation.

Although it entails some risks, Connie and I have decided to reopen the forum in reaction to the dangers to our freedom that we are all facing if Bill C-51 is passed by the federal government. So far the political left in Canada has been bearing the main burden of opposing this legislation and we believe principled conservatives and others should have a place on the political right where they can voice their opposition to this dangerous bill.

It beats the hell out of me why anyone purportedly in this fight -- and it is the fight of the decade at the very least -- would scorn any ally. But some are too pure to join forces with groups they otherwise disagree vehemently with.

I'm not so pure.

In fact, I've spent most of today sending emails to two groups I and my co-bloggers usually mock the shit out of -- fetus fetishists and gun nuts.

Funnily, the same idea occurred to Lorne Gunter.

He too sees many dangers for all manner of people in C-51. Among his examples, this:

Want a quicker, easier way to stop abortion doctor murderers or anti-registration gun owners or politically incorrect groups with unpopular views? Label their activities a threat to national security and government agencies can eavesdrop on their phone calls and intercept their e-mails and texts.

(I think he had a bit of brain-fart there lumping abortion doctor murderers -- I mean, who wouldn't want to stop them? -- in with the noble gun owners and politically incorrect. But we get his point.)

Hell, CSIS has already identified white supremacists and anti-abortion fanatics as higher terrorist threats than radical Islamists.

In fact, it appears that the main gun owners' organization in Canada, the National Firearms Associations, does have serious enough reservations about C-51 to join the Protect Our Privacy Coalition and schedule an appearance before the C-51 committee.

But then it mysteriously reneged.

Tasha Kheiriddin speculates about a quid pro quo offered and accepted. NFA has some issues with the Harperists over other pending legislation.

Was the NFA feeling the heat? Or was it the other way around? Could amendments to C-42 [the other legislation] be in the offing, and was the NFA’s decision to abstain from embarrassing the government by tearing into its terrorism law the quid pro quo?

We don't know what the organization was thinking, do we? But I wonder what individual gun owners think of a bill that could label them -- just about on a whim -- security threats, disrupt their activities, intercept their communications, and TAKE THEIR GUNS AWAY?

As for the fetus freaks, much as I loathe them, I doubt that even they -- with at least one NOTABLE EXCEPTION -- would want to protect abortion doctor murderers.

But in today's Canada, anti-choicers are proudly dissident. And depending on the whims of police, security forces, and governments of the moment, they could find their little bunfests and prayer-wanks subject to some serious scrutiny and disruption too.

The simple fact is that the C-51 police state threatens us all. All of us. Birdwatchers and bloggers, target-shooters and teaching assistants.

Fetus freaks and free-speechers, too.

All of us.

Me, I welcome anyone who recognizes that fact and is willing to join in the fight.

And hell, who knows? A grand unified anti-police state movement may just breathe some life into the old Canadian collectivist notion of the common good.


UPDATE: Vice has the goods on the quid pro quo. NFA buckled pretty easily for a bunch of tough guys and gals, didn't they? I hope the members are satisfied.

Conservative Does Not Think Conservatives Deserve Majority (Wait til you find out who)

Putting this here for people who do not do the Twitter thing or who may have missed it.

Connie Fournier (yes, that Connie Fournier) writes:

Canadian conservatives don't deserve to have a majority government.

There. I said it. I haven't given up on conservatism. Actually, quite the opposite. I have just come to the conclusion that it is not in the interest of conservatism (or liberty or democracy, for that matter) for the Conservative Party to remain in power.

She goes on to excoriate -- very capably but from a conservative's point of view -- this government's abuse of privacy, freedom, and democracy focussing on the Jihadis Under Every Bed Bill, aka Bill C51.

Fourth-last paragraph:

It is obvious that we, as a political movement, do not have the maturity at this time to handle the unlimited power of a majority government. When we, as citizens, are left depending on the NDP and the Green Party to try to stop the Conservatives from stripping us of our rights, it is very, very wrong.

Go read the whole thing.

So, Connie, I guess we can expect to see you at upcoming anti-C51 rallies, eh?

Defamation in the Internet Age: The Trial

Were my ears burning yesterday?

Frankly, no.

But a comment by Marky Mark on an old blogpost alerted me.

First, the old blogpost, User Pay, from June 2012. The stage was being set for an examination of defamation in the Internet age.

My point then was that no matter who *won*, everyone who participates in discussion forums, blogs, comment threads, and now, I suppose, Twitter and Facebook too, had a stake in the matter.

And that its resolution was going to cost a bomb.

A lively discussion ensued and some strong positions were taken.

Now, finally, the issue is before a court and blogger Marc Lemire of Free Dominion is reporting. He's obviously not an experienced court reporter and his writing could be clearer.

Here's where I come in (his formatting):

There was some back and forth about a blogger named “Fernhill”. Apparently she was a “leftist progressive” blogger who mentioned this case and proposed to her readers to support both “Dr Dawg” and Freedominion.  This apparently made “Dr Dawg” “very upset” and left him feeling “betrayed” by her.  Fernhill was a progressive blogger and he wanted her to “pick a side” and that “it was wrong to raise money for the other side”.

Note that I did *not* raise money for any side; I merely raised the issue of how this slugfest was to be financed.

Lemire is reporting daily (links to other sessions at his blog) and will presumably continue.

I confess I won't be following with bated breath, but the outcome might be interesting. Also of interest is the fact that the judge is a complete newbie to the Innertoobz. She says she's "never been on a blog." Woo.

I'll report if and when there's anything of note.

Added by deBeauxOs: If any new or old readers might be fascinated by the trivia and arcana of this case, the blogger MarkyMark posted this, with a very lively and informative open comment thread, in June 2012.

User Pay

Couple of things up front: I am not a lawyer. And I have not polled other DJ!ers on this. I'm speaking solely for myself.

I have no dog (so to speak) in this fight beyond my status as Internet user: blogger, Tweeter, and blog commenter.

So this happened.

Dr. Dawg will have his day in court, a panel of judges has ruled.

In a decision released Thursday, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reinstated the defamation suit of John Baglow, a.k.a. Dr. Dawg, an Ottawa blogger who said his reputation had been soiled in an online conservative chat room.

That allegation will now be the subject of a trial that could establish new rules for discourse in the Internet’s bruising marketplace of ideas.

“The issues raised in this action are all important because they arise in the relatively novel milieu of Internet defamation in the political blogosphere,” Justice Robert Blair said, writing for the three-member appeal panel.

Questions about what constitutes defamation in the caustic world of blogging have not been addressed by Canadian courts “in any significant way,” Blair noted. It means, he said, that a full-blown trial is needed to explore key questions, such as:

• Should the law accept that “anything goes” in the blogosphere?

• Are defamation standards on the Internet the same as those now applied to newspapers and TV?

• Should posts on a political blog be considered the same as ones on Facebook or Twitter?

A trial, Blair said, will allow the court — “whose members are perhaps not always the most up-to-date in matters involving the blogosphere” — to answer those questions with the benefit of cross-examination and expert evidence.

The appeal ruling overturns a lower court decision to throw out Baglow’s lawsuit before it could proceed to trial.

Relevant sections of the ruling at Morton's Musings.

So. There's going to be a trial. With facts and arguments and expert testimony and cross-examination.

You know, the stuff that helps inform the law in a fast-changing world.

And, presumably, at the end of the day, interested parties will have a better idea of what can and can't be said on the Innertoobz. And who is and is not responsible for content on a blog or discussion board.

How is this a bad thing?

Well, the bad part is that the individuals involved have to pay for it. And the costs could be substantial.

I'm no organizer but if someone would like to set up a way to fund BOTH sides of this case, I'd chip in.

Failing that, if/when Free Dominion and Dr Dawg get their own funding mechanisms in place, I'd chip in to BOTH of those.

It is not a matter of taking sides. It is a matter of setting some guidelines for current users of the Net and for future cases of outrage and umbrage.

Somebody's gotta pay for it. Why not the greater Canadian Internet community?

Image source.

MORE: With comments from a defamation lawyer.

UPDATE on Saturday, June 16/12: My response to Namó Mandos's post.


ADDED by fh on June 19/12: Isn't this an interesting development? I wonder who will debate.

No, he's not actually irony-impaired

A very strange third attack on our very own Fern Hill has emanated from the keyboard of one Warren Kinsella. Suffice it to say that we all know that his irony-impaired act is totally disingenuous, and this is hardly the first time he's used this sort of tactic. You can rest assured that he knows that "good friend" is uttered in irony, and that he's playing some sort of game.

My theory is that he thinks that he's responsible for giving Fern some credibility from the whole Hudak business, and that he thinks that Fern is somehow basking in pleasure from his attention, and now that DJ has not proven a reliable ally to a Liberal buddy, he feels obliged to take away what he hilariously thinks he's given. And, likewise obligingly, the tedious Liberal authoritarian followers unsurprisingly follow suit. Couple that with Dawg's awesome act of totally sucking the wind out of WK's sails, and now it's personal, about his ego.

These sorts of tactics might work with buffoons who care and who live and die by what other people think of them, like Stockwell Day (nice takedown, guy), but for us at DJ, this is mainly rubberneckishly instructive, though admittedly less so than the actual megafail trainwreck that was the ProgBlog response to M312. Warren is a bright and very successful guy, but ultimately he too is limited by the things that brought him success, of which he is a clear product.

But DJ comes from another place and has another end. I have been a part of the Canadian political internet since the time when babble, the grandmother of the Canadian progressive internet, was itself young, and, in fact, quite a bit before that. This was also before FD, a site of whose "qualities" and "character" I am intimately familiar. I know very well what sort of loathesome little toads inhabit it, that disingenuous enabler git Connie Fournier included, I know that they mean people like me no good, and worse than no good.

Our Fern comes from the selfsame political culture that existed before Warren was ever any kind of player on the Canadian political internet and will probably exist after he retires from it. She too is well aware of what is at stake, is not a child on the interwebs, and can handle herself thankyouverymuch.

But, as I said, we should all take this as an instructive moment when the political culture of the traditional media and Parliament Hill meet the culture of internet debate and are shocked to discover that it is full of ordinary people with ordinary human relations. Thank you, Warren, for obligingly providing us this little reminder. Have fun with your quixotic little campaign. All of us, Fern included, will sit back and enjoy our popcorn.

Discussion Boards Dead? Discuss.

I cut my virtual teeth at babble, which, I just learned celebrated its tenth anniversary in April. I joined in 2002 or 2003, near enough to 9/11 that the OMFG-handholding-minute-by-minute-planes-crash-into-WTC thread made for riveting reading. (I just had a lazy look for it, but couldn't find any threads older than 2005.)

There was some major unpleasantness, totally ignored in the anniversary story, and a bunch of babblers left in high dudgeon.

Judging from this, same old shit is going on.

Many of the dudgeonistas fetched up at something initially called 'babble strike' or somesuch but became after a democratic vote (natch) enmasse. (I was pumping for 'Herding Cats', which got some, but not enough, votes.)

Further unpleasantness and a further rift ensued, this time dudgeonistas found themselves at Bread&Roses. That's where deBeauxOs and fern hill met and started our blogging careers at Birth Pangs.

Just to round out the round-up of Canadian non-partisan political boards, I should add Free Dominion, aka The Dark Site, where I frequently still lurk.

So, nowadays, leaving aside my FD lurking, I rarely go to any of them. They seem just plain sad to me. They seem to function mostly as link-farms where people stash stuff they may want to go back to. Membership is much diminished and the personal schticks are getting pretty old.

Once vibrant -- B&R in particular was the chosen hang-out of some of the snarkiest lefty bloggers and blog-commenters -- now left behind in Twitter-dust.

On a slightly peripheral note, I hate the new Facebook, but still occasionally visit some political groups I joined around the second prorogation to see what people are talking about. But I don't -- and never really did -- feel any connection to it.

Blogging and tweeting are enough for me.

What do you think?

Are the 'Speechies' Right, er, Correct?

Mark Fournier of Free Dominion is conducting on-line seminars on Bill C-51: Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act.

Today's instalment (bold in original; one typo fixed): Canadian government plans to outlaw internet anonymity.

Yesterday we examined how the Canadian government is planning to effectively outlaw internet linking by making Canadians permanently legally responsible for the content of any webpage they link to using the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act. Today we will look at how the same Act will outlaw internet anonymity.

Clause 11: The existing provisions of the Code regarding the offences of sending a message in a false name and sending false information, indecent remarks or “harassing” messages (the French term “harassants” currently used in subsection 372(3) of the Code is replaced by “harcelants” in the bill) refer to certain communication technologies used to commit those offences, such as telegram, radio and telephone. Clause 11 of the bill amends those offences by removing the references to those specific communication technologies and, for some of those offences, substituting a reference to any means of telecommunication. As a result, it will be possible to lay charges in respect of those offences regardless of the transmission method or technology used.

This is an exact duplicate of the process that brought thought crimes legislation, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to the internet and enabled the Canadian Human Rights Commission to engage in acts that were finally ruled to be unconstitutional by the very Canadian Human Rights Tribunals that rubber stamped convictions in 100% of the cases brought before it. Only this time it is to be expanded upon and enshrined in the Criminal Code of Canada. If this Bill is passed the Canadian government can throw out the reviled Section 13 of the CHRA, they won't need it anymore because they will have something even worse to use against us.

Look very carefully at the wording of Clause 11 above. The key word is “and” which follows the words in bold text (text not bold in original document). It would be bad enough if the new law proposed making it an additional offense to use a false name (an internet alias) “while” “sending false information, indecent remarks or “harassing” messages”, like using a firearm in the commission of a robbery, but this wording makes “sending a message using a false name” a stand alone crime. Think long and hard about the implications and dangers of this part of this proposed bill.

Where are internet aliases most commonly used by Canadians today? They are almost universally used in internet forums, bloggers' comments sections, and comment sections of other websites. This law will make using an alias a crime. It is not likely they will try to prosecute everyone using an alias online but it will give the government the means to identify and criminalize anyone who writes anything the government disapproves of. Imagine an internet where Canadians were forbidden by law to speak anonymously.

Think it would never happen in Canada? Never forget what happened with the CHRC and never give those who enabled that disaster the means to do it again.

Yesterday, Fournier pointed out the dangers of linking contained in the same bill. He quotes Clause 5.

Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted...

And goes on to explain.

Hyperlinks are at the very core of the internet, they are what enables every internet user to view any available page on the internet and direct others to view pages. This bill will put the control of all hyperlinks into the hands of government bureaucrats and put all Canadian internet users in legal jeopardy.

This clause essentially makes any Canadian posting a link on the internet legally responsible for the content of any web page linked to even though the person posting the link has no control over the content of that page. If the person who does control the page you've linked to changes the pages content you are still legally responsible because you posted a link.

This will make it unsafe for any Canadian to post a link to any page on the internet that he does not control.

This bill will also make it impossible for any Canadian to operate a forum or a blog that allows for public comments. Even if a blogger vets every posted link on his blog with a bevy of lawyers at his side he still will be held legally liable if the content of the outside web pages changes. The only way to safely operate a blog will be to disallow links to other sites and pages.

Beyond the dangers of this bill as it is supposed to function lies the massive potential for abuse by government agents and private individuals. A person who dislikes you for political, competitive or personal reasons could easily set you up with legal problems. Using readily available proxy servers and disposable emails anyone could set up a simple webpage outside of Canada with a theme of “I hate [enter favoured group here] and then post a link to it on your forum or blog. A screen shot of both the created page and the hyperlink on your page is all the evidence needed to show the new law has been violated.

I am no kinda expert on human rights tribunals/commissions (paging Dr. Dawg), but I do know that the speechies loathe them. (And today, we find out that Ontario Top Con Man, Tim Hudak, has backed off from his promise to axe the tribunal here. Building a 'big tent' party ain't so easy, is it, Timmie?)

But if Fournier's reading is correct -- if a little paranoid -- then blogs like DJ! are in beeeg trouble. Not to mention Facebook pages, Tweets, and whatever new fangled toys the Intertoobz geniuses come up with.

Given that we are facing four or five years of authoritarian, liberal-loathing Harperism, shouldn't we progressives be a tad worried?

And, for that matter, shouldn't the telcos and ISPs be howling at the expense of such monitoring?

It seems to me that this could be a great issue for the Fucking Useless Opposition® and a way to make some new and old Con MPs veeeery uncomfortable under a deluge of outraged letters, emails, tweets, and phone calls.

But, as Fournier points out, we'd better act quickly. SHithead vows to pass his omnibus Stoopid on Crime bill within 100 days.

Oh-oh. Brian Lilley is on it. I like his last paragraph.

The Harper Conservatives won a majority Monday, they can pass this bill without relying on any other party for support. But they still need your support and your donations and the Canadian public should tell them they will get neither if they put forward bills like this that attack liberty.

UPDATE: HOLY CRAP! Link to Michael Geist from reader Mark Francis.

. . . more important than process is the substance of the proposals that have the potential to fundamentally reshape the Internet in Canada. The bills contain a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.

So-Conneds = Spent Force

We're not doing our happy dance quite yet, but the faaaar right might well be wising the fuck up.

Today, the National Post has an article titled 'Social conservatives watch campaign from sidelines'.

Stephen Harper's promise Monday that a Tory majority would not open the debate on abortion or gay marriage is likely the final proof that social conservatives have become a spent political force in national politics, observers say.

"We're now just seen as eccentric," said Link Byfield, a long-time social conservative activist and current provincial candidate for the Wildrose Party in Alberta. "I understand why political people avoid these topics. Politicians are not there to be imaginative or perceptive; they're there to be popular. Whatever makes people angry they're going to avoid.

"Harper has made it abundantly and compellingly clear that the social conservative agenda is not to be contemplated in his government and not to be advocated or advanced. And he will have come to this conclusion because he has seen it necessary to get centre voters. As long as he's leader that will remain the case."

'Spent political force'. 'Eccentric'. Lovely words, yes?

The so-conneds have finally had it. Mind, Harper played them like a bunch of banjos for quite a while, repeating the mantra 'Next year in Majorityland'.

Mr. Byfield said Mr. Harper concluded early on that the social conservatives would stay with him because they had no other choice in the political landscape -and if they did not they would not jump to other national parties. The Prime Minister then made it clear to his MPs that they were not to raise these issues, he added.

They sucked up that KoolAid long enough, it seems.

They're pissed.

Here are two threads at the Freaks in which the painfully obvious manifests itself to the painfully oblivious. This one, on 'not even in MajorityLand will we revisit abortion and equal marriage' and an older one I've linked to before on Harper's hidden agenda.

There may not be a lot of them, but they're loud. They're sitting on their wallets, their hands, and voting fringe or spoiling ballots.

They're talking about a new Reform Party. They're talking about ousting PMSHhithead ASAP.

Woo-hoo!

(One 'woo-hoo' does not a happy dance make. I'm still très nervous.)

Harpo's 'Hidden Agenda' from Far Right POV

For today's instalment of DJ!'s effort to divide the right, we present this thread at the Freaks started by my Facebook friend Connie: Does Stephen Harper Have a Hidden Agenda?

It seems to me that many conservatives are betting everything on their hope that Stephen Harper really does have a "Hidden Agenda".

Social conservatives have been told by Harper repeatedly that he won't even let Members of Parliament debate the issue of abortion while he is Prime Minister, yet they are planning to dutifully march to the polls on May 2nd and cast their vote for him in hopes that he is lying.

Free speechers have seen this government, on their own initiative, introduce legislation that would eviscerate our online privacy and freedom of speech. The CPC appointed Jennifer Lynch as head of the CHRC, where she launched a full-out attack on free speech, and the Conservative Justice Minister did nothing to rein her in. Yet, many free speechers figure Harper had "no choice" but to do these things because he has a minority government. Somehow, if he has unlimited power, they think he will stop taking our rights away, so they are going to vote for him, too.

Some fiscal conservatives are willing to gamble their prosperity on the hope that bank bailouts and wasteful spending by the Harper government were simply a way to lull their opposition into thinking that the CPC was not "scary", and that their threatened government attacks on the oil sands, and their seeming acceptance of the global warming farce was just play-acting. These fiscons will do their duty on May 2nd, too, and vote for Stephen Harper strictly on the belief that the past six years have been a lie.

I am going to propose something radical here. There is no "Hidden Agenda". There never has been, and there never will be! Whatever Stephen Harper has done in the past that he sees as instrumental in winning him his majority, he will continue to do in the future. There will be no change of heart, no ripping off of the shirt to reveal the caped conservative superhero.

If you are not happy with the performance of Stephen Harper over the past six years, don't vote for him unless you are content to see him behave exactly the same for the next five.

Conservatives are normally very logical people, so I find it appalling that, over an over again, they go back and vote for people who are promising the OPPOSITE of what they want!

There is a Bible verse in Matthew that says, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."

Stephen Harper has squandered the past six years. If anything, Canada is less conservative now than when he started. We have seen how he has handled the "little" power of a minority government, so we know exactly how he will handle "much".

Think about it.

Isn't clear thinking from the Right bracing?

Several of the Freaks agree with her.

Egypt, as seen by Free Dominion

In another episode of 'DJ! Visits the Freaks So You Don't Have to Get Out Your Wellies', here's how they monitored events in Egypt.

The thread was initially titled 'Egyptian Riots', later changed to 'Egypt - A Web 2.0 Revolution'. It was started by a poster named 'fourhorses' on January 28 and it's still going strong, up to 174 pages (a FD page holds only 15 posts, but still, that's a lotta posts).

'fourhorses' offered mostly straight reporting, links and complete stories (they have no use for copyright over there) from legit (as opposed to their more usual wingnut) sources, including Al Jazeera English.

Some Freaks weighed in with comments like this one from Red Dog:

muslims rioting against other muslims and burning up a muslim country is a problem because.....?

Others voiced fears for Israel and of Islamic radicals, while displaying MASSIVE ignorance of any actual facts.

Another, named Kate Shaw who has an Israeli flag in her sig, actually said this:

Its the End Times -- and more and more of this is going to be happening everywhere; and especially here in Canada where we have allowed Enclaves to balkanize our country to the point that we have plenty of dry tinder awaiting a match.

Say your prayers and watch for the USA to close the major bridges when the fire starts.

A few very -- two, maybe -- demonstrated optimism, and, funnily, they seemed to be in command of a few of the issues.

My Facebook friend Connie snarked about what happens when you shut off the Internet.

But mostly it was 'fourhorses'. He or she was obsessed. (Ahem.) When things really heated up, she/he started posting tweets from knowledgeable people in the streets there, many of them the same people I was following. (Hmm.)

The others mostly left off with the stupid remarks and let him or her go to it.

It is a rare and commendable example of the Freaks being interested in foreign events. I hope a lot of them followed along and learned something.

Resistance Is Not Futile!

In another episode of DJ! cheers 'Dividing the Right' or, DJ! visits Freak Dominion so you don't have to, the Freaks are discussing Stevie Spiteful's convo with Peter Man's Bridge in two threads.

One is a general discussion in which Stevie Peevie gets called a socialist, an anti-Conservative, and -- what's really gotta hurt -- a Lieberal.

Admittedly, some there think he's just dreamy. It's the speechies and fetus fetishists who are really pissed.

The other, titled Harper on KILLLING BABIES (caps theirs), more of the same sentiment is expressed.

My Facebook friend Connie WINS the thread with:

I will vote CHP, Libertarian, or spoil my ballot if neither of those option exist. I will NOT send another body to Ottawa to join Harper's borg.

Yeeheehee.

Let's make it a meme!




ADDED: You go, girl.

Harper could throw us all in his nice shiny new prison cells and some of you would say, "Just be patient until he has a majority".

Fantino and Dividing the Right

OK, depending on how one looks at it, it could be called 'far left and far right working together' or 'divide the right', but the Freaks are seriously pissed about Fantino's cabinet job.

Here's my Facebook friend Connie:

I'm willing to strike a deal with the opposition. If they bring down the government, I won't campaign, finance, or vote Conservative.

Here's a like-minded Freak:

I arrived to your same conclusion, a long time ago. I think I would be specially important to target 905 ridings , where the CPC has some red tories in some cases and in others people without spine to stand up to Harper.

I would suggest in those areas in which the CPC vote is close to that of the Liberals, one should hold their noses and vote for their opposition.

This would be not so much about voting against the CPC, but more like a lesson and a price to pay for departing from social and fiscal conservatisme.

That's all it would take. No campaigning, financing, or voting from the so-conneds.

Simple.

Yo! Fucking Liberals ®! You paying attention? There's electoral gold in and around Toronto and elsewhere. Exploit it.

You're welcome.

More Conservatives Against Fantino

In DJ!'s ongoing campaign to help divide the right, this is heartwarming.

The Freaks are discussing the Vaughan by-election. It seems they don't like Julian Fantino much.

Fabulous Fred said:

It is the duty of all good conservatives in Vaughn to vote liberal.

The message must be delivered to Harper's ivory tower that only genuine bona fide conservatism is palatable. If Fauntino wins it open the flood gate for disgruntled Dippers and Liebrals to run as CPC candidates without ever altering their political beliefs one iota.

Yeah, because authoritarian, homophobic Fantino is just another soshialist in cunning disguise.

Ah well, who cares really? The Freaks can join the original Conservatives Against Fantino with our blessings and good wishes.

BONUS: Isn't this special?

Meeting Conservative Julian Fantino last month on the hustings for the upcoming Vaughan by-election didn't go as Liberal Tony Genco expected. He'd imagined pleasantries between competing candidates.

Not quite.

“I gave him my best wishes,” Genco told the Star, “and he told me some of my signs were too close to his campaign headquarters so he'd had his people take them down.”

“I was totally surprised,” said Genco. “I asked him if he would please give them back — they're expensive, you know — but he didn't respond.”

Genco apparently never did get his signs back — an example, according to his critics, of the arrogance of a former top cop who's used to doing what he pleases.

More on Harper, The Great Uniter

In a discussion on Why Harper thinks he's smarter than the experts at Macleans no less, a commenter at the Freaks named Fabulous Fred had this to say:

Harper had potential to be a good.P.M. if he didn't have so many personal flaws like being a control freak, having an ego so large that it allows him to do anything, anything at all to get a "majority" (never going to happen), and to stomp out opposition with fascist tactics and repressive government bureaucracies.

Stephen is yesterdays man. If the liebral party wasn't so incredibly pathetic, Harper would be gone by now. He isn't that good, they're that bad!

Indeedy-do, even his base base is tiring of King Stephen I.

Can Left and Right Work Together?

Well, I dunno if this will amount to anything, but it's fun. I'm hoping to prove JJ wrong when she says she despairs of the human condition because we can't seem to work together.

I was visiting the Dark Side earlier today and saw this thread about the protest supporting the prison farms that Stevie Peevie wants to axe. It included this link.

Hundreds of farmers, local residents and prison-rights advocates who want the Conservative government to keep Canada's prison farms open set up a blockade to the regional headquarters of the Correctional Services of Canada in Kingston, Ont., on Friday morning.

About 250 people showed up for the three-hour protest, which started at around 6 a.m. along the busy street. Campaigners said they want the government to reconsider its decision to close the farms, which are being phased out by the end of this fiscal year.

"We see the farm as an effective rehabilitation and job-training program that also provides food for the prison system," said Dianne Dowling, a member of the Save Our Prison Farms committee and local representative from the National Farmers Union.

The prison service currently operates six farms — each located in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and two in Ontario.

About 300 prisoners work at the farms, operating machinery, taking care of animals and growing food for prisons.

The farms, which the prison service has operated since the 1880s, cost about $4 million annually. The government has said the money will be used to provide more relevant employment skills to rehabilitate prisoners in contemporary trades.

Several of the commenters at the Dark Side support the prison farms. For the wrong reasons of course, but nonetheless. . .

So I sent a message to my close personal Facebook friend, Connie Fournier, owner of the Dark Side, to tell her that there was another issue we could maybe work together on. In addition to the G20 insanity. I included a link to a Facebook group supporting the prison farms.

She sent a message back saying she found it creepy that we were agreeing on so much. She also said that she'd joined the group and posted the info at FD. And indeed, she did.

Anyway, I joined a facebook group to save the prison farms. It looks like Stephen Harper has managed to find yet another issue that I can agree with the lefties about. He's a uniter, for sure!

If we can't divide the Right, maybe we can work with them.

Taking a walk on the Dark Side. . .

To see if/how the G20 insanity is still in play.

The story seems to have dropped off the radar at Blithering Tories (CC, we miss you), except for a little smirking over McGuilty's taking some heat from the left.

Different story at Free Dominion. There are three current threads on G20 policing. And while there is the expected 'club the dirty hippies like baby seals' stuff (somebody actually said that, not at the Freaks, but in the comments on a CBC story), there are some surprisingly sensible comments. Or, it could just be the group's proclivity for conspiracy theories and/or distrust of govmint.

In 'Police Provocateurs at all G8 Events', my pal Connie responds to Madrod.

Madrod: To my mind, the Toronto Police Chief has been trying to equate in peoples minds that legit protesters are in the same league as terrorists and anarchists.

Connie: So have a lot of people here.

In 'Black Bloc/Black Ops at the G20', they are speculating whether all or only some of the window-smashers and cop-car-torchers were cops.

Things get really heated in 'More T.O. Cops as Anarchists, Communists & Rapists'. There is some serious cop-bashing going on.

One poster quotes in full a letter sent to Mark Steyn, but I'll save you the click and do it too.

Mark, I live a few blocks from the mayhem we saw a few days ago in Toronto. I’m delighted the police finally clamped down on the criminals, but the optics of last Saturday were a disaster. After I watched on TV the outrageous vandalism of the criminals, with the police— vast hordes of them— standing by, I phoned the Toronto PD to lay a complaint about their astonishing stand down. From start to finish (five calls in about ten minutes) I was treated with the utmost contempt and unprofessionalism by “Toronto’s Finest”. My interactions were reasonable and courteous, though firm.

Here’s what happened:

1) I called; the officer gave me her badge number and said she had no idea about what was happening on the streets. I told her of burning police cruisers and violence, and she claimed to have no clue about this. I said I was very pro-police, but was appalled by their lack of action. I told the officer, who continued to claim ignorance of the situation, that this would be a PR disaster for the police. I then asked how I’d lay a complaint. I was given the phone number of the complaints department.

2) I called the number. The voice mail box, for a “Beverley Picard”, not identified as a police officer, was full. I phoned again. Same thing.

3) I called the number again. I did not get the badge number of the person who answered. I explained that I seemed to have a wrong number for the “complaints department”. Then, with no explanation offered to me for the number I’d been given, this person simply, electronically, passed me on to a line at 52 Division (police headquarters).

4) I repeated my support for the police and my complaint about them standing by while their own cruisers were on fire and vandals were openly damaging property with no arrests. “Oh no,” said the woman on the other end of the phone. “Yes, police cruisers are burning while the police watch,” I said. “OH NO,” said the woman on the line. I then said, “I get the impression that you’re not being serious here. I think, perhaps, you’re being sarcastic.” She hung up on me!

5) Back to the original number. Another officer answered and was sorry for my troubles. When I said I paid taxes to be “served and protected,” she said, “I pay taxes too.” She then informed me that my original contact didn’t exist. “Perhaps you wrote the badge number down incorrectly,” she suggested. In fact, this officer actually said there was no “complaints department” number, and that I should get in touch with my MP or with 52 Division in person after the G20 is over. (Right… as if I think dealing face to face with such do-nothings and ho-hum enablers would accomplish anything.)

6) I then tried Chief Blair’s phone number. The phone rang and rang. Then there was a click. Then there was the dial tone again...

“Toronto’s Finest”? My reasonable interaction with these people, with its multiple non-sequiturs and contradictions, leads me to think the police are cretins: it was like interacting with the Red Queen in Wonderland. Yes, the police were under pressure, but it seems that I, a concerned, supportive citizen, was given the royal dismissive run-around by these four seemingly unengaged women. So much for “To Serve and Protect”!

So this is the new, unimproved way our society deals with thugs and bullies in all public places: make things safe for the bullies. Figuratively declaw and demean all competent adults responsible for the well being of the well behaved, while pussy-footing around in order to protect the rights of the bad guy. The rights of the good guys? You must be joking!

(name withheld)
Toronto, Ontario

Also from comments at CBC, a former staunch supporter of police said s/he started to change her/his mind over the Robert Dziekanski case and that recent events have sealed the deal.

So. Is another front developing in our ongoing campaign to Divide the Right? This time a schism between lawnorder (as JJ styles it) cons and libertarian cons?

We at DJ! will try our darnedest to help.

Of course, cops will always have their groupies. For a giggle, check out the Support for the TPS and G20 Security Officers Facebook group, with at last peek 2268 members.

In contrast, the FB group demanding a public inquiry will hit 39,000 members pretty soon, probably within the hour.

The So-Conned Catch a Clue

It's a long weekend so it's not surprising that the fetus fetishists have yet to respond to the news that Stevie Peevie insists there will be no new abortion law. (Not that we trust him on that atallatall.)

They're discussing it at the Freaks, though, and my Facebook friend Connie had this to say:

There is no reason for Harper to take the position that he will "oppose any attempt" to create legislation around the issue of abortion.

If he thinks he is fooling the socons because the "threw us a bone" in refusing to fund overseas abortions, then refused to even allow a discussion of the issue in Canada, he's in for a surprise.

Canada is probably the only country in the world with absolutely no restrictions on abortion, yet Harper has no problem putting all kinds of restrictions on our real rights, like freedom of speech.

The cultural change has happened already. The polls prove it. The turn-out at the March for Life proves it. That cop-out doesn't work for Harper anymore. At this point, it is Harper's gutlessness that it holding back progress in this area, and the socons aren't being fooled.

We have a Prime Minister who thinks it is appropriate to legislate that ISPs install software to spy on us and turn over that data without a warrant, and that the police be allowed to conduct random breathalyzer tests. But, NO WAY will he allow legislation that would infringe on the "right" of an abusive man to force his woman to have an abortion!

It's time for Harper to go.

Of course, she's wrong about the culture changing in her desired direction, but I can really get behind that last sentence.

So, ya think the so-conneds will sit on their chequebooks, stay home, or vote for one of the fringier nutbar parties?

BONUS: From Norman Spector an account of Stevie Spiteful's hissy fit. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall. . .

According to a report by Hélène Buzzetti in Le Devoir this morning, Prime Minister Stephen Harper met for nearly an hour with his closest advisers last Monday in order to find a way out of the G8/G20 maternal-health abortion mess on the government’s hands.

“ ‘Stephen Harper was furious,’ according to a well-informed Conservative source and is reported to have said: ‘I’m in a bind on this issue and don’t look forward to taking it into an election campaign.’ According to the same source, the minister responsible, Bev Oda, is part of the problem: ‘She’s not a good communicator, she’s pro-choice and is not persuasive when she speaks on the issue’.”

“At last Monday’s meeting, one faction suggested that Mr. Harper deliver a major speech ‘to set the record straight.’ The other group [led by chief of staff Guy Giorno] ruled this out: ”We must protect our base’.”

Yah. Connie feels real protected. Not to mention Bev Odious.

Da Woims Toin!

Woo. A conservative blogger gives the CPC and Harper a big-time SMACK-DOWN, titled 'Why the CPC will lose the next election'. Fun read.

My fave bit:

But, given the Harper penchant for partisan guttersnipe politics, you can’t blame Canadians for just lumping the “cons” in with all the rest. And, come next election, I predict a trouncing of the CPC, where voters will pick the real deal ... the Liberal Party of Canada instead of the fake version, the Liberal Conservative Party of Canada led by Stephen Harper. All the Beatles’ tunes in the world aren’t going to save us; and lord help us if the LPC ever finds a leader with a pulse.

They're discussing it at Free Dominion and my Facebook friend Connie Fournier had this to contribute (emphasis mine, I couldn't resist):

I think they are going to lose next election, too. And it makes me really angry.

Instead of using the past four years to make worthwhle political change in this country, the Harper-led CPC has patted us on the head and told us to "wait for a majority".

Well, if we lose the next election, Stephen Harper will go down as the biggest loser in Canadian political history, and we will go down as the biggest suckers.

All of us worked our fingers to the bone for a chance to put someone in the PMO who would do politics differently. The grassroots were betrayed by a bunch of smug, condescending suits who thought that the game was more important than good governance.

If Stephen Harper loses this election, we will have gotten zero return for all of our work. And, if he has any grace at all, he'll go hide his head in shame.

Don't you just love the smell of imploding ReformaTories in the morning?

We must be winning. . . .They're acting like bigger idiots than ever

The various ReformaTory spins being put on yesterday's Pro-Democracy rallies are instructive (and fun!).

Over at Free Dominion, at first some refreshing honesty from my Facebook friend Connie Fournier.

There were thousands of people on Parliament Hill. I would guess about 5000.

We went there half expecting it it to be a crowd of freaks wearing terrorist garb and masks like the group that was in Ottawa protesting Bush that time, but we were surprised by the people who were there.

They were a bunch of normal looking Canadians.

That said, we did leave early because the speakers were crap. One thing that we learned when we were organizing rallies is that you have to get your speakers to stick to the message. We left because we were sick of hearing about "climage change". A guy behind us was saying he left because he didn't want to listen to someone talking about some problem with Nortel.

Anyway, I agree with Narrow Back. Harper is in trouble.

After some more typical FD drivel, Connie wades back in again:

Is the CPC telling people to say that it is better to not have Parliament than to have it? It seems to be quite the theme here lately, and I find it quite disturbing coming from people with populist Reform roots.

I'll put this as plainly as I can. Any country that is being run by one person is a dictatorship.

I know that none of you would be dismissing this if a Liberal had sent everyone home to run things himself. You'd really be better off to just say that you don't care than try to justify it.

A very few of her minions, l like the above-mentioned Narrow Back agree with her. The rest put their hands over their ears, chanting 'IdontcareI dontcareIdontcare.' Like this poster, EdS, who can't handle the quote function and has a 'I miss Ronald Reagan' poster for an avatar:

{quote="Connie Fournier"]I know that none of you would be dismissing this if a Liberal had sent everyone home to run things himself. You'd really be better off to just say that you don't care than try to justify it.[/quote]
That is my position, precisely. If the Liberals had done this, I would be ranting on street corners. That Harpoolah has done it...
Ho-hum... you're right... I don't care. I don't care what Harpoleon does. He could declare Martial Law... don't care. Don't care what happens so long as no bastard liberal is in power. Those vile curs, those socialistic progressive bastards are scum. I hate them with a passion that cannot be described.

Another novel ReformaTory approach is to deny that there were any rallies atall atall. CC in a post tellingly titled 'Let the dumbass, retarded wankitude begin' demolishes one Blogging Tory called The Iceman.

Pause to savour what happened here. Iceman wants to go to the CAPP rally to mock people who actually value the idea of a real democracy. He does not bother to actually check any of the countless online sources of information to find out where that rally is marching to. Instead, he takes a wild guess ... and guesses wrong. He therefore concludes there was no rally, and goes home.

If a four-year-old did something like that, I would consider them retarded.

Go to CC's to read the whole thing and get the link to Iceman's hilarious photo essay on Where the Woozle Wasn't.

Meanwhile, one of the discussions at the CAPP group focuses on collecting examples of such spin and considers ways of confronting them. Drop by with examples or advice.

Oh. And membership is still growing. It hit 215,000 early this evening.

ADDED: I think I might be getting a girl-crush.