More So Conned Reaction

Or, 'Another Instalment of DJ! Visits the Freaks So You Don't Have To'.

It's still early days for measuring the so-conned reaction to Stevie Peevie's steel-toed boot to their forced-pregnancy delusion, but it seems to me there are -- so far -- three identifiable types.

First, the over-reacting emotional dimbulb, example here being Cecilia:

Do you think Harper has secret prolife plan? He doesn't. Harper is a pro abortion zealot. He'll never let any type of abortion legislation pass while he's on watch. Harper doesn't give a damn about a woman who has been "coerced" into ending her pregnancy.

Harper has to go.

Um. OK. (I don't think Cecilia understands the proper use of sarcasm/scare quotation marks. But then, there's sooo much she doesn't understand, isn't there?)

Next, the reality-challenged ideologue, represented here by our old pal Mr Kicking Abortion's Ass/Sock-Tube Holocaust Survivor, Pacheco:

In my opinion, we are putting too much emphasis on what Harper thinks.

Politicians don't lead, they react and follow. So why take what they say too seriously?

Harper will bend when the underlying politics of the question go against him. And that is going to come with time. Harper is a passing leader. He won't be the guy who has to really face this issue. It will be the next leader.

I swear that I have never heard the phrase "this debate is over" by so many of our opponents. It's quite comical, not unlike the "unqualified support" management gives to a hockey coach before he gets the boot.

Besides, the otherside is confusing the numbers with political will. They are assuming that one correlates with the other. The fact is that the one-third who are pro-life have more gravitas than the weak kneed pro-aborts. Believe me, if the momentum shifts significantly, many of the so-called "women's right to choose" brigade will go silent when the politics of the question shift. Don't kid yourself. The key is in the momentum.

As the momentum shifts so do politicians. Very few are principled. And frankly, we have more principled pro-life politicians in power than we do "principled" pro-aborters. And that's the key factor here.

So not worry, the march for life continues with or without Harper who will still have to give a full accounting to God for his actions -- some of that "accountability" he likes to talk about -- except this kind of accountability has eternal consequences.

So, the anti-abortioneers have 'principles', time, and Gord on their side, while we 'pro-aborts' have only superior numbers of sane people. OK, works for me. (Pacheco does understand the correct use of quotation marks.)

Then there's yesterday's example: the once-hopeful now totally pissed-off, as represented by my Facebook friend Connie.

The ideologues are useless to DJ!'s evul scheme to divide the right. We'll just have to wait for them to die off.

But maybe we can work with the dimbulbs and the pissed-off.

I'm thinking a concerted chorus of 'nyah-nyah -- how's that "Waiting on a Majority Thingy" working out for ya?' might help our cause.

No one likes to be mocked, of course, but it may work differently on the two groups. The emotional dimbulbs might get whipped out of shape enough to vote for the far-far-right christianist parties. Whereas the pissed-off may just become cripplingly depressed over their painful and embarrassing realization of being strung along for so long and stay home.

Now, we at DJ! would never ever suggest trolling of any kind, but a good place to er, gauge how the Mock the Right Campaign is going over might be this Facebook group, Canadian So Cons. From the info page:

We are constantly told that Canada is a socially liberal country, and that social conservatives do not have a place in the public square.

Well, they sure do! Membership in the group numbers a whopping 21! Including many of our fave fetus fetishists like SUZY ALL-CAPS.

Another place to um, monitor reaction might be Bruinooge's Facebook group set up to support his 'coerced abortion' private member's bill.

Mock the Right! It's fun and it might actually do some good!

UPDATE: The conversation at the Freaks continues. Our evul plan is working!

Help Divide the Right

As I grow increasingly gloomy about politics in Canada, I must say I'm mightily enjoying the ReThuglican meltdown in the Excited States. And the news just gets worse for the Republican National Committee.

The head of an influential social conservative organization urged members and supporters Wednesday to stop donating to the Republican National Committee and instead contribute to its own coffers or to candidates with like-minded goals.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, made the plea in his "Washington Update" column posted on the organization's Web site following the revelation that the RNC paid for a night out at a risque Hollywood nightclub.

"I've hinted at this before, but now I am saying it -- don't give money to the RNC," Perkins said in his column. "If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values.

"Better yet, become a member of FRC Action and learn about the benefits it offers, including participating in the FRC Action PAC which can support candidates who will advance faith, family and freedom," he said.

Perkins is the latest social conservative leader to openly criticize RNC Chairman Michael Steele for allowing the controversial expenditure to happen under his watch.

Don't give the RNC money. Give it to this group.

So far, the new soft-money group, American Crossroads, has received commitments of almost $30 million and is seeking to raise a total of some $60 million to help dozens of Senate and House incumbents and challengers this fall, say three sources familiar with the new 527. In contrast, at the start of January, the Republican National Committee had only $8.4 million in the bank compared with the $22.8 million it had on had a year earlier when Steele was elected chairman.

So, I was wondering: how can I help that sort of move here?

Oh. Look: Rural Alberta is starting to turn on Progressive Conservatives.

So now the Highwoods constituency association last week sent a letter to the PC party head quarters accusing the government of "nearing the precipice of moral insolvency to govern."

Yowzer! That's strong language. (And it's also, alas, provincial. And the disgruntled will probably support Wild Rose Alliance, a party described as 'right of Attila the Hun'.)

Nonetheless, dirty laundry is being aired. And, even better, Alberta Cons are getting hit in the pocketbook too.

This is also evident as while the Party continued to make the highest amount of donations from corporations their membership renewals fell precipitously by over $58,000. When your party memberships only cost $5 a year it means that number is fairly alarming.

Alarming? Yee-haw!

Seems to me that humble (ahem) bloggers can help divide the right.

From hanging out at Free Dominion, I've learned that both the fiscally conservative and socially conservative are not happy with Stevie Peevie. For the former, he's spending way too much money, and for the second, he's not doing anything about their issues -- abortion and same-sex marriage.

I don't think the fiscal conservatives can be persuaded in any great numbers to vote for the evul tax-and-spend Liberals -- but maybe for the Greenies? I leave this to wonkier wonks than I.

But maybe the so-cons can be cajoled into at least keeping their chequebooks shut and staying away from the polls.

And there's another group -- libertarians. When it sinks in with them that their sons and daughters -- or themselves -- will get a mandatory six-month minimum prison sentence for as little as six pot plants, they may well stay home too.

So, let's get to work, progressive bloggers! In our blogs and in our lives, let's harp on keep pointing out that Stevie Peevie will NEVER reopen the abortion debate and that responsible adult taxpayers who get caught smoking a little recreational weed WILL go to prison.

Divide the Religious Right

Canadian (Catlick) LifeShite sniffs: 'Trend Shows National Association of Evangelicals Joining Contraception Bandwagon'. Oooh, contraception is a bandwagon, is it?

The National Association of Evangelicals appears to be shifting away from its neutral stance on contraception in favor of a qualified endorsement of a practice. A new survey released by the NAE, which claims to represent 45,000 evangelical churches, reveals that Evangelical pastors overwhelmingly believe in artificial forms of contraception.

Qualified? Ninety (90) per cent of evangelical leaders are 'open' to both barrier and hormonal contraception.

“Most associate evangelicals with Catholics in their steady leadership in pro-life advocacy, and rightly so,” said Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, in a press release. “But it may come as a surprise that unlike the Catholic church, we are open to contraception.”

They did their own survey and released the results. Another poll, by Gallup in 2009, supports the numbers.

Evangelicals are overwhelmingly OK with contraception. Who knew?

Also this past week, Ted Haggard, past-president of said National Association of Evangelicals and 'survivor' of a narsty homo paid sex and drugs scandal, announced his new church.

Since the scandal, Haggard has undergone intensive therapy and has emerged as someone who claims to be heterosexual with "homosexual attachments" or urges that he says are now under control. With that kind of background, it made sense for reporters to ask whether his church would welcome gays and lesbians. Haggard was adamant that yes, they would be welcomed, saying: "I would tell them to study the scriptures. I would tell them to explore that with God. It is an individual walk for them."

Zow. Contraception- and gay-friendly. This ain't your Old Timey Religion. Though WTF it is remains to be seen. But, hey, anything to divide the right is okey dokey with us.

Divide the Right!

Citing two new developments, the gloriously aptly self-dubbed Dodo whines:

I am not happy today with PM Harper and the Conservative govt. NOT AT ALL.

The issues?

Stevie Peevie kissing Mooslim butt and the billion dollar G8/G20 security boondoggle.

Yay! With today's declaration of war on the Cons over the Intertoobz by my Facebook friend Connie, more issues to help divide the right!

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.

Bruinooge's Bill Divides the Right

In DJ!'s ongoing effort to divide the right, Bruinooge's private member's bill, C-510, or the Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill (OK, it's not as good as Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, but we're working on it) may be a boon.

Let's have a look at what the so-conned are saying.

First, LifeShite appears to think that if they keep asking the same question, they'll get an answer they like.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, refused today to say whether the PM would allow a free vote in his party on the recently-tabled private members bill from Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge that seeks to protect women from coercive abortions.

Asked by LifeSiteNews (LSN) whether there would be a free vote, Soudas responded that “the government's policy is that we will not initiate or support legislation that reopens the debate on abortion.”

“That's been the consistent policy of this government and this Prime Minister since he took the position and since he was leader of the opposition,” he added. “The government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.”

Asked again, Soudas reiterated, “Like I said, the government will not be supporting this piece of legislation because we do not support reopening the debate on abortion.”

LSN asked “So that means no [free vote]?” and Soudas said again: “The government will not be supporting this piece of legislation.”

Over at Catholic Insight, famous frothing fetus fetishist, Alphonse de Valk, has really got his panties in a twist:

We already know that under Marxist/atheist Gilles Duceppe the Bloc Quebecois is unfit to govern. The New Democratic Party has long since earned the title The New Death Party because of its 45-year-long commitment to killing babies. The Green Party is all in favour of reducing the earth’s population one way or another. The Liberal party under agnostics Ignatieff, Rae and Dion is set to kill as many babies as possible, preferably in Africa and Asia, while carrying on the Trudeau tradition at home. That party still has three or four MP’s who think otherwise but they are locked into the wrong party.

That leaves the Conservatives whose pro-life members must get ready to rise up against Stephen Harper.

Oooh, rise up! Against Stephen Harper! Yay!

No Apologies got the same answer from different spokesthingy, with an added kicker (emphasis mine):

The Prime Minister’s Office was quick, however, to squelch any thought Bruinooge’s bill might be acceptable. “The government will not support the bill,” Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall said in an interview. “Our Conservative government will not initiate or support any legislation that opens the abortion debate.”

(snip)

MacDougall said the government would demonstrate its opposition at the time of any vote by having cabinet ministers vote against it.

Obviously, the only choice (snerk) left for rabid fetus fetishists is the Christian Heritage Party and they've got ambitions!

Christian Heritage Party leader eyes Tory votes
The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) is hoping be to the Tories what the Green party has been to the Grits.

CHP Leader Jim Hnatiuk believes the Greens on the left have siphoned votes from the Liberals in the last couple of federal elections — and his party intends to mirror that success on the right against the Conservatives.

To get the ball rolling on the monumental task, Hnatiuk is on a Western tour that stops in Kamloops on Saturday, April 17.

Hey, they got nowhere to go but up -- from 0.19% of the popular vote last two times out.

And who wouldn't want to vote for a party whose (albeit unofficial) colour is -- wait for it -- PUCE? (I just looked 'puce' up to be sure. Yup, means 'flea-coloured'.)


ADDED BONUS: Go read pale at A Creative Revolution.

MORE BONUS: Online poll. Link supplied by Roddy himself at the FB page. You know what to do.

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.

Harper: The (Post-Election) Great Uniter?

One thing this election has made abundantly clear -- progressives can't or won't work together.

And Jack Layton is delusional if he really thinks he can work with the Harper Regime.

So I was thinking. From DJ!'s ongoing efforts to divide the right, an odd thing became apparent. There are quite a few issues that left and right can agree on.

Harpie's lying, cheating, and scheming to stay in power.

His contempt for democracy.

HIs authoritarian fetish made manifest in the G8/G20 police state and proposed legislation on Internet privacy and freedom and copyright issues.

And smaller matters too like the closure of the prison farms.

Here is John Moore in today's NatPo.

I want an open government where cabinet ministers have the latitude to run their departments. I want a Prime Minister’s Office that doesn’t hold caucus and cabinet in such a vice grip that no one dares speak or propose policy without first asking permission. I want transparency and an atmosphere where high-ranking civil servants offer counsel without fear of cabinet ministers hanging them out to dry. I want to know what major policy initiatives are going to cost.

Mostly I want fiscal conservatism. Is that too much to ask?

The Conservatives have spent five years pandering to pocket constituencies with conniving tax breaks and cash handouts. It’s not the government’s job to favour tradesmen over managers or to subsidize hockey and piano lessons. Rationalize spending, simplify the tax code and let individuals decide where to spend the extra money in their pockets.

Stimulus spending was necessary to cushion the economic plunge, but when you take out a mortgage you don’t blow it on bandstands and jungle gyms. Major spending must always be on the kind of legacy projects that benefit the future generations that will pay for them. If there are to be large cash layouts in the coming four years it should be for necessary and justifiable initiatives, not photo opportunities.

The Conservatives have grown rather than shrunk government. Each year spending has gone up beyond the rate of inflation and GDP growth. The Tories have spent more on polls, focus groups, advertizing, travel and outside consultants than the Liberals ever did. Rein it in. Health-care spending wouldn’t be a looming crisis if money wasn’t being bilge-pumped out of the treasury. Jim Flaherty rivals Paul Martin in the mastery he brings to the Finance Department. It’s time he was allowed to bring in a budget dictated by national need, not political canniness.

On every front, the time has come for the Conservatives to plot a course for Canada and not just for their electoral aspirations. Conceive of a crime strategy that addresses public safety, not fear. Embrace the family values of newcomers without tacitly nurturing the sexism and homophobia that may go hand in hand. Chart a foreign policy that does not first involve data mining the nation’s ethnic communities. Show respect for the institutions that create the framework for the privilege you now hold. Respect for Parliament should be a core Conservative value.

Yes, I know. But disregarding that fantasy about Deficit Jim Flaherty, I can agree with much of the rest of it. For reasons other than fiscal conservatism, of course.

Throughout his reign as Slime Minister, Stevie Peevie has faced a Fucking Useless Opposition®. Arguably, the new opposition will be even more fucking useless.

The Sixth Estate has laid out a Manifesto for the Next Opposition*, including five reasons why 'we' lost the election.

Among them:

Third, it is fiendishly difficult to challenge a government in power when it is supported and endorsed by 90% of the media. The reasons for the media’s complacence vary: rich corporate owners favour low-tax Conservative governments, and lazy journalists favour cheap and easy stories based on press releases and innuendo rather than genuine but time-consuming investigative journalism. But the polls show conclusively that 90% of the media only speak for about one-quarter of Canadians. That’s a problem, and it’s a problem that we can do something about. I’m going to return to that in a moment.

He says we need credible new media.

I can’t do much about the above at the moment, but I do want to return to the third problem. We’re reaching a point where the mainstream corporate media is so unvaryingly compromised and corrupt that it is mostly useless. They opposed the NDP by reflex, they endorsed the Conservatives because they were pro-business, and we can count on them to do the same for the next four years. The majority of people in this country are not politically active outside of election campaigns and are mostly trusting of the media, mostly because there are no trustworthy alternatives and because finding those alternatives would take effort.

He goes on to lay out the challenges and advantages the blogosphere faces in trying to fill the gap.

The problem we have is coordinating our efforts and getting people to notice. Those are big problems, but not as big as the problem the Internet solved for us in the first place.

Internet freedom is going to change, too, as the result of the death of Internet neutrality. But we have an unprecedented window, and while it is closing, for the moment it’s still open. And I continue to believe that a large majority of Canadians do care about democracy, about healthcare, about the health of the planet, even if they’ve been temporarily dazzled by tax breaks and bamboozled by scaremongering about separatist coalitions. I have to believe that. There is no other choice. I refuse to believe that this country has raised multiple generations who are ignorant enough, selfish enough, and narrow-minded enough (not to mention in brazen denial enough) to genuinely support the government they just voted for.

How do we go about seizing this opportunity? Haven’t a clue. But we have four years to find out, and now’s a good time to start.

I too believe that a majority of Canadians -- from right across the political spectrum -- care about democracy, accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility, and rational policy-making.

It's up to us to hold this government to account through a Citizens' Loyal Opposition.

Because this isn't funny anymore.



*I don't do that 'MUST READ' thingy, but I strongly recommend people read the whole thing.

Anonymous Comment from a Federal Civil Servant

Anonymous comments can now be submitted at DAMMIT JANET! though they are also moderated. This setting was modified in order to allow those who don't have Google accounts to leave comments.

This morning, at 9:24 AM, someone posted from this location - Government of Canada 11 Laurier Street Hull QC - this anonymous comment:

"As biased as this article may be,it's only to be expected from left-wing leaning supporters, who feel the need to use the same propoganda that they condemn others for. You may disagree with a view, and ultimately not support it - but the reality is that many "non-right wing" and "non-Christian" causes are supported by taxpayer funded initatives, yet I don't see you bashing them? It's this intolerance that is furthering the great social divide in Canada, one that is further taking away from Canada's identity as a nation that embraces and supports diversity of thought, culture and belief syste,." (sic)

It was a response to fern hill's blog post: Public Funding for Fetus Fetishists? It would seem that this civil servant, posting from her or his work station, does not agree with the view of separating Church from State. That's an opinion he or she has a right to think, but to post it from a federal government computer? One also wonders how that civil servant, working in the province of Québec, feels about the hateful anti-Québec propaganda Harper supporters spread as well as the western separatism feelings their December campaign fed?

Isn't that an ethical no-no that rightwing RepubliCons keep harping and shrieeekkking about? Oh wait. Only when it's not their own rightwing RepubliCon supporters who do it.

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.

What Happened

I'm going to divide this into three sections: The Blow-by-Blow, The Support, The Take-away. (You may skip.)

The Blow-by-Blow
Yesterday, I announced DJ!'s intention to quit Progressive Bloggers. Intention, not yet a request to be unplugged, because DJ! is a group blog with contributors across the continent and (at the moment) off the continent as well.

So, if you usually get here from PB, you'll have to make other arrangements, because as soon as my co-bloggers here have taken the opportunity to say good-bye, we will be gone from there.

The group includes people (male and female, note) who all have relationships with the innertoobz. Some very long-standing, some not. All -- in my view -- with the right to use the PB platform to say buh-bye to friends and associates who use it.

My thought was that once everyone who wanted to had said what they wanted, THEN we'd unplug ourselves however that is done.

Meanwhile, my post was generating some reaction. (I'll get to that under The Support.)

Boyos didn't like the reaction. My post at PB had 17 votes the last time I looked before the purge. There was a lot going on at Twitter.

Then, suddenly, DJ! was purged from PB. Gone.

My post had been up for a few hours. deBeauxOs's had been up at PB for perhaps a hour. Posts from Námo Mandos and Niles were published at DJ! but had yet to appear at PB. And one from Beijing York (perhaps still in the works) was in progress. [ADDED: Tada!] It is a long weekend, after all.

Yes, DJ! wanted to be gone from PB. But funny thing: we wanted to leave on OUR terms. (Kinda like people in general want control over their actions, bodies, lives, etc., yes?)

Not to be.

@stribe39 If you'd read my post, you'd have seen that the other DJers wanted to say goodbye. So, again I say: fuck you. #smallminded #prissy

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) April 7, 2012

The Support
The initial post got great reactions from Dr Dawg, Dave at TGB, and Orwell's Bastard. Those three have 'top votes' at PB at the moment.

And, as I said, there was a rumble going on on Twitter. And more reaction since, natch.

The Take-Away
1) The boyos at ProgBlog had a teensy amount of control over a feminist body blog and they exercised it because they could.

2) As Dr Dawg said (in Twitter DM so no link): Management often locks workers out before a planned strike. I always smirk when I read mods, site admins, and blog award vols whining about how much unpaid labour they put into their roles. Yeah, buddies, but if not for the bloody UNPAID bloggers you'd have nothing to whine about.

3) The decision to leave is correct.

Keep It Simple: Commit Math

Now, this has gotta sting, coming as it does from former senior advisor to Heil Harper, Keith Beardsley.

Fiscal responsibility has been the hallmark of the Harper government from day one. It's therefore quite interesting to see in year seven of his reign that the opposition is focused on trying to destroy the credibility the Tories have on that front. It's a good strategy on their part, enabled by some help from the government side.

He cites Scott Brison's jibe about each Economic Action Scam ad on Hockey Night in Canada representing the cost of the federal contribution to 32 summer student jobs.

Beardsley notes:

Simple stuff, but it resonates with Canadian families struggling to get their kids through university.

Yes, that resonates with Canadians with kids, but how about something that will resonate with all of us?

I did some math. One ad spot costs $95,000. The average yearly Old Age Supplement is a paltry $6,180.

Ergo, one EAScam ad = 15.3 yearly pensions.

In our ongoing quest to Divide the Right, it's time to bang the fiscal wastebin a little harder.

The other day I blogged about just two items: the mystery billions spent on consultants and the Economic Action Scam ads.

On Twitter, I asked my good friend Connie what her members think of such waste and unaccountability.

She obliged and started a thread at the Freaks with a link to my blogpost.

Embarrassing - hardcore leftists calling CPC on fiscal waste

by Connie Fournier » 05/ 09/ 13 11:23 am

With the CPC Convention coming up really soon, it's a good time for us to take an honest look at how the majority CPC government has been performing so far.

When the far, far left is calling the government on fiscal waste, I think we need to, at least, check it out.

What do y'all think?

It didn't get much response. But hey, I'm trying and Connie is willing.

Harper is fucked on the so-con file and he knows it as Chantal Hébert points out.

And as a commenter there observes, the base is finally getting it too.

For all these years Harper's worked on the theory the "base" of his party isn't too bright, and it's taken the base this long to figure it out - which pretty much speaks for itself.

Scott Brison is a smart feller. So is Keith Beardsley. Let's help them out. Commit more math!

ADDED: Here's another unit of measurement: $3,000 a day for CON media monitoring. Two days = 1 average OAS pension.

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.

Divide the Right: Election Notes

Docter McVety is stamping his little feet again.

Stephen Harper’s refusal to reopen the abortion debate risks suppressing the Conservative vote, a leading voice of Canadian social conservatism says.

“There is just no energy out there,” Charles McVety, the evangelic leader and Christian activist, said in an interview. “Frankly, my fear for Stephen Harper is that being so overt standing against the pro-lifers, he risks not motivating Conservative voters.”

Mr. McVety noted the Conservatives lost 160,000 votes between the 2006 and 2008 elections. He blames Mr. Harper’s decision just before the 2008 campaign to block Conservative MP Ken Epps’s private member’s bill that would have made it a separate offence for killing a fetus when a pregnant woman was murdered.

And they haven't forgotten this session's failed sneaky abortion recriminalization attempt either, viz this thread at the Freaks.

So-cons are finally wising up.

Well, not all of them. A new thread over there has my FB friend Connie wondering about REAL Women and Canada Family Action.

So, why are these socon organizations pimping for Stephen Harper? Why are they are ignoring the fact that the Christian Heritage Party welcomes social conservatives, and that Stephen Harper keeps kicking them in the teeth?

Has someone promised them something? Do they know something the rest of us don't know? Or, do they just have masochistic tendencies? I'd love to know the answer to that.

It is confusing. One -- albeit MASSIVE -- force is chiding Harper, two other pretty powerful groups are backing him.

Hmmm. Christo-Fascists, masochism, hair shirts, self-flagellation. Connie may be onto something there.

(I've been a bad bunny. In the comments on the Globe piece, I've posted a link to the Christian Heritage Party a couple of times. Just doing my bit for strategic voting.)

Divide the Right: Fetal Gore Porn Gang Targets Harper

Woo-hoo!.

From the Fetal Gore Tour nutters:

Anti-Abortion Face-Off with Stephen Harper

Postcards with Aborted Fetus Images Alongside Harper Images Go to Constituents

Calgary, AB. Starting today, a group of anti-abortion activists will circulate postcards with images of Prime Minister Stephen Harper next to bloody, graphic pictures of late-term aborted children to homes in Harper’s constituency.  Harper is the first of five politicians the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) says it will make “Face the Children”—the name of its new project.  The group plans to distribute 250,000 postcards in the five ridings by summer’s end.

You can see the postcard at the link.

They are keeping mum on the other politicians they will target.

This is a beauty lose-lose for Herr Harper.

Surprise, Surprise

BREAKING! Men happier about surprise pregnancy than women (link to the PDF of the survey there).

In order to gauge the “surprise fetus” reaction, NCPTUP [National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy] researchers first isolated survey respondents who claimed it was “very important or somewhat important for them to avoid pregnancy right now.” Then, researchers asked them how they would feel about an unplanned pregnancy:

If you found out today that (you were/your partner was) pregnant, how would you feel: Very upset, a little upset, a little pleased, very pleased, wouldn’t care.

Results: Staggeringly gendered! Forty-three percent of young men responded that they would be “a little pleased” or “very pleased” by the news; only 20 percent of women answered the same. Men also proved more comfortable with an unplanned pregnancy at an earlier age: Thirty-four percent of men 18-19 said they would be pleased. By the time they reach age 20-24, 42 percent of men said they would be pleased. And over 50 percent of men aged 25-29 would be pleased by the news. Remember: this is only among men who deemed it “important” that a pregnancy not occur at this junction.

And, presumably, these are not the guys actively sabotaging their partners' birth control.

I ran into this story while doing my regular rounds of the dark places fetus fetishists hang out. Look how LifeShite spins it:

A new survey that has an impact on the abortion debate shows men are more likely to be happy with an unexpected pregnancy than women. The survey gives further credence to the idea that women who have an abortion thinking their boyfriend or husband would not be supportive should think again.

Yeah, riiiiight. I'm going to gamble that my bf is among the 43% who are going to be 'a little pleased' and not among the 57% who are going to head for the hills. There's a winning strategy. And even if he is 'pleased' by the pregnancy, how pleased is he going to be by an actual noisy smelly baby? How pleased is he going to be by at least 18 years of expense?

And more on the gender divide. I was going to title this 'More from the "Well, Duh" File'. But when I told my sweetie about this survey, he was surprised that it was the guys who were more likely to be pleased by a surprise pregnancy.

In turn, I was surprised by his surprise.

Are you surprised?

Tim Hudak: Is He or Isn't He?

Several Blogging Tories have their knickers in knots over this clever ad.



I got to wondering -- is Tim Hudak a fetus fetishist?

I hit the google and it seems the jury is out.

This Catlick site notes:

in 1995 and 1999, Hudak signed a CLC [Campaign Life Coalition] questionnaire, with the organization rating him “pro-life with exceptions.”

This source says that Jason Kenney thinks so.

He supported Tim Hudak in the Ontario provincial race, telling colleagues Hudak was reliably pro-life.

(But consider the source -- Kenney, I mean.)

LifeShite more recently:

Hudak has however been a great disappointment for pro-life, pro-family Ontarians who had originally expected the MPP to stand up for life and family since his first election win under the Harris regime.

In his recent party leadership campaign, Hudak, consistent with his past performance, refused to announce a stand on pro-life issues.

Ah, the old bob-and-weave.

Well, inquiring minds want to know. Is he or isn't he a proliar?

Because in Ontario, fetus fetishists can always go with the Family Coalition Party.

Zow. In 1990, they polled 2.7% of the popular vote. Sadly, in recent elections, they've sunk by 2/3 to 0.8%.

DJ! just doing its humble bit to help divide the right.

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Remember the Ottawa cop who abused a Black woman?

Sgt Steven Desjourdy has a new job. That's him on the right.

Yes Desjourdy - who should NOT even be allowed within 10 metres of any woman in police custody - now works in the division that investigates human trafficking.

In April this year - yes in 2014 - Desjourdy was "found guilty of discreditable conduct at an internal Ottawa police disciplinary hearing into a widely reported, controversial cellblock strip search in 2008.

In September 2008, Desjourdy left a female prisoner half naked in pants soaked with urine; her shirt and bra had been cut off during a strip search [...]

It took more than three hours for Desjourdy to provide her with temporary clothing called a blue suit."

DAMMIT JANET! has written about Desjourdy or pointed to him in reference to cop violence towards women in police custody.

For example, this: "a judge recently exonerated the sexualized brutality that a police officer used against a woman detained for alleged public intoxication - a "charge" which was never actually shown to be founded.

Violent cops like Steve Desjourdy sexually humiliate, degrade and punish jailed women with impunity. His actions which were challenged in criminal court, have been excused and thus can become the official standard that police taking women into custody can apply.

According to the judge who presided over the trial, Desjourdy "used reasonable force".

Many who viewed the internal video that captured Desjourdy and his colleagues' actions, observed that he seemed to be enjoying his job, exerting force in order to break the detained woman's will and her instinct to defend herself from the cops' deliberate, sexualized violations." 

Meanwhile, last week some Harper government MPs staged a series of opportunistic histrionics at the Justice Committee, ostensibly to hear presentations from women who have been trafficked and religious groups hoping to receive a large chunk of money in return for rescuing stigmatized victims they'll rehabilitate and pity, ALL in support of C36.

ADDED: This from Kate Heartfield captures the intent of the CPC dog-and-pony show, as well as the very worst moment when the chortling, snorting, oinking Con MP Goguen tried to score points against a lawyer (who substantiated his opposition to C36 with evidence) by badgering a multiple-rapes survivor.

(DJ! does NOT support C36; it is contempt for women and for the law.  In that blogpost, I reminded Peter MacKay - so greatly disgusted with "perverts" who purchase sexual services - that he might direct some of his outrage towards a certain Con politician, a buddy of Harper who subjected his wife to the very degradation that so incensed the Minister of Justice. Juxtapose this with the passage here, where Rob Ford offered up Renata to anyone interested. Procurement, or trafficking his wife. Is that a Ford family value?)

Back at the Justice Committee hearings, law enforcement witnesses like Chiefs of police supporting C36 were unable to explain why current criminal code sanctions against human trafficking aren't being enforced to stop "procurement" and the enslavement of women into forced sex work through threats, confinement and other brutal methods.  

And the focus of MP Joy Smith's (yes, the MP who hired Vic Toews' mistress) attention at the hearings was riveted upon the horrific, brutal stories told by women who had been trafficked.

Despite numerous fundamentalist religious groups vehemently claiming thousands upon thousands of women are sexually assaulted 10, 20, 30 times daily, very few police investigations, arrests, charges, and prosecutions of human trafficking are being followed through in any rigorous or systematic way.

On the last day of the hearings Christa Big Canoe of the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto challenged the legal sloppiness of the pro-C36 crowd who used trafficking, and prostituting as synonyms for one and same criminal activity.  

MPs should distinguish between sex work and human trafficking as they consider bringing in a new prostitution law to replace the one struck down last year by the Supreme Court, an expert said Thursday.
After three days of often heart-wrenching testimony, the House justice committee is wrapping up the first phase of its work on the government's proposed prostitution law rewrite.
Many of the witnesses told horrifying tales of being trafficked and abused, while others spoke in favour of letting sex workers choose to sell their services.
Christa Big Canoe, legal advocacy director at Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, summarized the divide following 20 hours of hearings.
"[What] we're hearing a lot from a lot of the witnesses is the interconnectedness, but what we're not hearing is the distinct differences between trafficking and sex work," she said.
Big Canoe suggested better enforcing Canada's existing human trafficking laws if MPs are worried about the problem. Studies of human trafficking, she said, talk about how elusive the traffickers are.
"So the question I have to this committee is, how is that going to change by the provisions that you're now proposing, and what can be done to change that if it's not already occurring?"
The committee has heard from police officers that it's difficult to charge alleged human traffickers and that some law enforcement agencies use the threat of charges against prostitutes to extricate them and have them provide evidence against the traffickers.
Big Canoe pointed out that last year's Supreme Court ruling known as Bedford dealt specifically with Canada's prostitution laws.
"Bedford was about sex work. It wasn't about trafficking. We have laws in Canada about trafficking that aren't actually being used well. 

So Sgt Desjourdy, "known to police" for brutalizing women in police custody, is assigned to Human Trafficking at the Ottawa Police Services.

What sadistic person in Human Resources assumed this bully and abuser of women would be an appropriate fit for law enforcement tactics which Prohibitionists and Evangelicals are counting upon to "extricate" women from coerced sex work, arrest them, threaten them until they agree to testify against their traffickers then afterwards dump them somewhere, perhaps in the basement of a church where Harper Conservative business men can exploit them as "regular" low-waged-with-no-benefits workers.  

Oh. Wait.

Grand merci @kwetoday whose tweet tipped me off to Desjourdy's new job.