Clarke does for the Canadian National Firearms Association... (UPDATE)

what Levant does for Tar Sands extraction corporations.

We suspect both of them do it for money, as mercenaries and paid lobbyists. Perhaps also out of love for the *cause* they promote.

Each one brings to advocacy endeavours a wide range of knowledge, skills and experience.

Ericka, however, is able to harness some persuasive arguments that Ezra cannot.

My co-blogger fern hill wrote a blogpost which features a photograph of Clarke with the Minister of Justice for the Harper government and Kurtis Gaucher, that Press Progress published. 

When that photograph went viral, Petey MacKay was asked why he donned the shirt, claimed it was a wounded Canadian veteran (Gaucher) who requested it, yadayadayada...

As fern hill pointed out in her screen caps as well as a very revealing one from PatRiotChick, it was all a RUSE engineered by Clarke.  And MacKay was duped. DUPED!!!

*Mind you, Ericka appears to be as dim as Ezra, and she has yet to master the obstreperous bullying techniques that he has perfected as a StunTV host.

  

But as you can see from the photographs above and this one, and that one; she has different tactics at her command.  No matter that her gallery of photos on her Facebook account (now locked) looked eerily like those posted by Michele McPherson - Bruce Carson's fiancée - when she was a sex worker advertising "the Girl Friend Experience".

Lobbying is a complicated job which requires that supplicants hired by corporate interests or other organizations, meet politicians to secure their collaboration.  Much has been written about the talents female lobbyists must deploy to win the support of powerful men.  While official meetings held in public officials' and government buildings must be recorded as well as any campaign or party contributions, quid pro quo may cover a wide range of mutually beneficial favours.

So, let's assume that Ericka Clarke is employed respectably and honourably in the performance of her duties, and that she is NOT a woman who needs rescuing from a dodgy organization that trafficks her talents to members of the Harper Conservative government.  Let take as a given, just as Kate Heartfield outlined here, that Clarke is NOT “selling her body” or “selling herself” for the purpose of promoting CNFA and its goals. 

No need to involve MP Joy Smith and Cons' prurient concerns and beliefs about the rampant sexual exploitation of women and girls that were spewed during the Justice Committee hearings about C36.  Clarke's interactions with CNFA, its membership and the politicians she meets are seemingly professional, consensual and not coercive.

In fact, her status and working conditions are much better than those imposed upon young women hired by PETA to stage a "protest" aka publicity stunt during the Ottawa Ribfest.  Those employees are the equivalent of female servers in the employment of Hooters.  It is a job requirement that they display their bodies in the uniforms provided by their employer, albeit a less revealing one for restaurant staff.

Sadly though, CNFA does not appear to value Clarke's role as a 'field officer' highly enough to put her name on this very special invitation sent to MacKay and his "fellow" MPs (CPC only?).  Perhaps she'll be present as bullet buffer and spirit-fluffer, unless the association didn't appreciate the frenzied media brouhaha she created.

Ericka Clarke and Ezra Levant.  We may disagree with the goals and ideology of the organizations that pay their salaries.  Both are workers toiling, as many of us choose or are obliged to do, in the bowels of capitalist enterprises.  We may mock their words, expose their lies, deconstruct their odious tactics.  If they attack those who criticize their Over Lords, we will push back - as hard as we can.

This is a blogpost we published shortly after the Moncton shootings, questioning the premise of the NFA and its lobbying efforts in Canada.

*After reviewing the docs that I screencapt'ed in preparation for this blogpost, I realize that I forgot to insert that one as an example of Ericka's skills. So, there it is.

October update:

Go see what Stephen Lautens found here.

So Ericka Clarke is effectively a lobbyist?! Now someone should check the Harper government Lobby Registry to ensure that her work is recorded there, if Clarke is indeed a professional lobbyist rather than a skilled amateur.

Barbara Frum on How to get women elected.

In the October 1971 issue of _Chatelaine_ Barbara Frum wrote a short piece in her characteristic irreverent, droll style.  It was titled: "Insiders' tips on how to get women elected."

The last paragraph:

Marry a man who's already there and become his widowA third of all the women who've ever been in Parliament got there on the sympathy vote, as widows.  One hard-eyed pro, who dismisses the ability of women to get into politics on their own and has been cynically successful running widows on the black-crepe ticket, says: "The only way you'll ever see a hundred women in the House is to provide a hundred rifles to the wives of sitting members, and then teach them how to shoot."

Huh.  Imagine publishing that, nowadays...?

On the other hand, jerks like Peter MacKay should be very, very afraid.

Grand merci to mon copain, who spotted the vintage _Chatelaine_ on my bookshelf and perused it, much to our shared amusement.

Wacking the Piñata. With updates!

C36 — the Harper government, with its usual doublespeak flair, titles it the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act — is just one MASSIVE piñata of a Bill.  And when it is whacked, all sorts of goodies come tumbling out. Like Don the Plumber's John School™ - but more on that, later.

No no no.  This piñata  is NOT what you think it is.  Get your mind OUT of the gutter.

This piñata was previously a commemorative War of 1812™ genuine papier mâché artillery cannon replica produced for its never-ending celebrations and now recycled by the ever-so thrifty Harper government. It was spray-painted Barbie™ pink to please the ladies. 

"What's in the C36 piñata ?" you may ask.  Although it was thoroughly wacked at the House of Commons Justice Committee proceedings, it appears that more goodies are popping out for the Senate committee studying the bill.

MacKay, speaking to reporters, said the Conservative government decided to take a calculated risk that any Charter challenge would ultimately fail.

That’s largely because, he said, the law is a legal shift towards outlawing the purchase of sex and viewing prostitution as the exploitation of “vulnerable” women, not the nuisance targeted under the now-unconstitutional laws against street prostitution or bawdy houses. 

The bill doesn’t “enable prostitution” but it will still allow those who “claim to freely choose” prostitution to do so safely, work indoors or hire body guards, said MacKay. It gives “legal immunity” to prostitutes, and so directly “responds to” the Supreme Court of Canada’s concerns in its Bedford ruling in December, MacKay told a Senate committee studying the amended bill. [...]

MacKay said he made his own assessment after discussions with “other lawyers and judges.” He shrugged off the prospect of more court battles.

“I’ve been around this place a while,” MacKay said. “I’ve practiced law, I’ve argued both for and against certain Charter submissions. But I don’t suffer from Charter constipation.”

So. The unCONstipated Minister for Lady Parts and Weaponry Peter MacKay claims that sexworkers will get "legal immunity". 

Some senators, who are also lawyers, are not so sure how that "legal immunity" would apply.  

Wait!!! Here's a thought. Why can't the C36 pinãta offer "legal immunity" to ALL women and girls who suffer any form of sexualized violence? Most harassment and rape isn't perpetrated by clients or johns. Shouldn't every woman and every girl be *rescued* from daily sexualized violence too?

One man speaking to senators was adamant that clients should all attend John School; his contention was that "fathers and grandfathers" who buy sex services are completely transformed by the program.  Presumably none of them ever sexually harass or violate ANY woman EVER again.

(Hell, why not send every Tom, Dick or Harry to John School?  That's the ticket; compel all boys and men to complete this program; those who actually don't coerce women (or pay them) to have sex can mentor the ones who do.  Surely that's the logical outcome to C36, if the premise is actually what the Cons pretend it is.... Aaaaand, make sure CPC MP Bob Dechert is sitting in a desk at the front.)

Then there's senator Plett — so thoroughly repulsed and disgusted by sexwork that he would deprive sexworkers, specially those who have chosen this work, of legal protection and their right to safety. 

Employees in high-injury-risk occupations as varied as firefighters, healthcare professionals, cops, stunt performers, soldiers and pro athletes choose their work because of the high income, the benefits and the opportunities they derive from it.  But Plett doesn't see any of that; he is affronted that defiant women won't be shamed nor called victims, thus he wants them to be threatened, endangered and harmed.

Sour grapes! Bitter candy! Mouldy sweets! Senator Donald Plett wants those BAD women who don't want want to be rescued, PUNISHED!

My co-blogger fern hill looked into Plett's background. Hint: he's no lawyer but some of his best Con friends are...

The biggest, sparkliest, juiciest goody in the C36 piñata is that mythical whopping 20 Million $$$ that would ostensibly fund "rescue" programs that Evangelicals and Prohibitionists who support the bill would be awarded.  And Con MP Joy Smith's Foundation would get a chunk of that money too, with no pesky CRA audits I bet!

My suggestion: 

The Senate committee continues to hears presentations today.

In case you've missed it, go read @kwetoday's brief to the Senate standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs, here.  It exposes what a hollow, empty sham C36 really is. 

UPDATE: Plett the Plumber continues to blurt out loud the malevolent, sexist, gynophobic premise at the core of C36:

From this account of the second day of the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee hearings on C36:

Here's another report from that day from Star journalist Tonda MacCharles. It was lively!

No Compromise MacKay

Press Progress published this photo today.

Yes, indeed, friends of Peace, Order, and Good Government, that is Canada's Minister of Justice and Attorney General pandering his foul ass off.


It apparently comes from a tweet by Ericka Clarke, who identifies herself as "NFA Field Officer."

Peter Mackay (Attorney General of Canada) rocked a #nocompromise shirt with me today! #nfa #cdnpoli #change #politics pic.twitter.com/lGEhHbzBDJ
— Ericka Clarke (@ericka_clarke) August 23, 2014

That would be the National Firearms Association.

As Clarke points out, the corrupted Canadian maple leaf symbol is captioned "No Compromise."

Let's have a closer look at it from NFA's swag page. These are pins on offer.

(Isn't that sweet? They offer a girly-pink version.)

Now, I don't know anything about guns, but that doesn't look like a varmint-scaring or freezer-filling type weapon to me.

Moreover, the phrase itself is lifted from the org's bigger and scarier USian cousin, the mega-lobby National Rifle Association.

Sadly, cosmic synchronicity strikes.

The top news story today is about a 9-year-old killing her instructor with an Uzi at a place called "Bullets and Burgers." (You can't make this shit up.)

Also, from the Cosmic Whup-Ass Department, there's another story on the latest CONservative fearmongering fundraising flyer, touting "traditional family values."

Under a section entitled "I stand with the Conservative Party on the following issues," the members are asked to check off those that apply. "Respecting traditional family values," is one of the options, along with "safe and sensible firearms policies" and "tough-on-crime approach."

If only the CON Brain [sic] Trust could have seen into the future, I'm sure another option would have been "respecting the rights of young children to play with heavy assault weapons while their parents had a burger and a brew".

As I asked on Twitter: Has any other Attorney General of a supposedly civilized nation ever panderingly posed with butchered national logo on his chest with a bunch of gunnnutz?

I'm pretty sure no other Canadian Attorney General has.

But then no other Canadian Attorney General has posed with a police department and a tank before either.

That's New Glascow, Nova Scotia, population in 2011 a tad over 9,000.

So, fellow and sister Canadians, is Canada unrecognizable yet?

UPDATE: Huffington Post: MacKay was duped into posing in offensive NFA t-shirt.

While that's really not hard to believe, Stephen Lautens opines:

If he's that big a dupe, let's hope MacKay's next clothing encounter is with someone from Victoria's Secret http://t.co/n85LhCpgB8 #cdnpoli
— Stephen Lautens (@stephenlautens) August 27, 2014

Added: Duped is the absolutely most correct word for Petey.

MacKay has quite the history of blaming others for his boo-boos, doesn't he?



UPDATED: Challenged to make photoshop good on his Victoria's Secret idea, Stephen pops this out instead. (Some are very relieved.)

MORE UPDATE: CBC.


EVEN MORE: Lautens is on a roll. Check out #MacKayTees on Twitter. Fun!


UPDATE (August 28/14) About that "duped" angle.

Dammit, double dammit. Ericka Clarke insulted me on twitter four times, telling me that the other guy in the photo whom I'd called the other doofus is a vet who'd "sacrificed life and limb". She told me to "keep it classy." Just now I was trying to embed one of those tweets here and discovered that SHE'D DELETED THEM ALL AND LIKE AN IDIOT I DIDN'T TAKE SCREEN SHOTS.


Arggggghhh.

The cowardice of these people knows no bounds.

MEA CULPA: I was wrong.

@fernhilldammit That would be the injured veteran you so lovingly called a 'doofus'. He sacrificed life and limb for your rights. Continue.

— Ericka Clarke (@ericka_clarke) August 28, 2014

She didn't delete.

UPDATE: From harebell in the comments. This is priceless. The doofus is a liar and Ericka is a shameless schemer.

"I really have to think Kurtis for playing the crippled veteran, MacKay didn't question that" ... pic.twitter.com/QNI6trz5Jc #shameful #cdnpoli

— PatRiotchick (@PatOndabak) August 28, 2014

LAST (I promise) UPDATE: The Star ran a story on #MacKayTees with lots of Stephen Lautens's photoshopped creations but failed to credit him despite his name running up the side and the fact that the Lautens family has a long and current relationship with the paper. At his own blog, Stephen has collected the whole set for our enjoyment. Thanks, Stephen.

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.

What about the Children??!11!??

For so-cons, it's aaallll about the children.

The new prostitution bill, C36, among other things, would criminalize the selling of sex anywhere children might reasonably be expected to be present, which given the little buggers' omnipresence is literally anywhere.

Because as pearl-clutching Focus on the Family lady, Andrea Mrozek, says: "Parents don’t want to see massage parlours next to ballet schools."

Though, twitterer Voice of tReason points out there is some overlap.

@canadiancynic @fernhilldammit yeah but ya kinda need a sense of rhythm for both professions

— Voice of tReason (@V_of_tReason) June 14, 2014

The cyber-bullying law, C13, similarly "protects" children.

MacKay said C-13, also known as the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, reflected the government’s commitment "to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators and from online exploitation."

And the practice of warrantless searches by police, savaged by the Supreme Court this week, allows cops to go after evil child pornographers without the inconveeeenience of convincing a judge that there's merit to their hysteria suspicions.

But. When it comes to exposing kids to gory, faked-up photos supposedly of aborted fetuses, protecting the children gets thrown out with the bathwater to preserve, yes, you guessed it, FREE SPEECH.

Oddly, parents who don't seem overly concerned with school-yard prostitution, are quite ticked over traumatizing flyers shoved in their mailboxes for their children to find and freak out over.

Two cities in Canada have been targetted by the Centre for Bioethical Reform, aka the Fetusmobile people, for their frankly named "Face the Children" project.

Parents in Calgary are pissed off and people in Hamilton want a law against the abusive practice.

So, Petey, how about a law called "Protecting Children from Nutbars with Psychotic Fetus Fetishes"?

Hm?

C36 = CONtempt for women and CONtempt for the law.

Last week Justice Minister Peter MacKay, channeling all the prurient lunacy of General Jack D. Ripper and the worst pearl-clutching clichés of a Victorian schoolmarm, presented Bill C36 in the House of Commons.

The language Petey used and repeated for emphasis was quite revealing.

Harper and MacKay's new bill - C36 The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, the latest CPC government crap legislation and named the opposite of what it actually does - offers in one venal and meretricious piece of legal flimflam the worst of Con bias, prejudice and hatred.

It is a loathsome pottage of spitefulness (directed at the Supreme Court of Canada), class prejudice, racism, misogyny and fundamentalist religiosity.

The reaction on Twitter ranged from pithy excoriations by sex workers, lawyers, non-abolitionist feminists, charter experts and human rights advocates, to PMO-issued speaking points barked by CPC trained seals and fatuous accolades by anti-prostitution organizations.

This perspective was odd and interesting, with a focus on the utilitarian and economic aspects of sex work which allows a detached evaluation of the Nordic and New Zealand models. However its breezy conclusion: 
«..because the government regulates the activities of industries in which workers are put at risk, but also because machines have replaced much of the dangerous work that was previously done by workers the current state of technology is such that machines will soon be capable of providing the same services currently provided by sex workers. You don’t have to be an economist to predict that while governments have failed to reduce participation in the sex trades, technology is very likely to succeed» 
doesn't address the very basic human needs this service industry meets - and that machinery would likely not.

The last decades have seen an expanded commercial development of dolls that replicate some aspect of human bodies; though some are crafted to resemble in minute details all physical details of known porn actors, they are essentially very expensive, static silicone sex toys.  There's a niche market for (mostly) men whose sexual proclivities are geared towards the forcible penetration of beautifully crafted, inert objets d'art with compliant orifices.  It's worth glancing at the NSFW websites of Real Doll, Doll Story and Fantasy Sex Dolls to get a sense of which traits are valued and deemed desirable.

This segues aptly into the most lucid, trenchant and fierce deconstruction of sex work that I have read.

«What is prostitution? Are women selling a service, or are they selling themselves, as a commodity?

Many supporters of the Nordic model, both in feminist and family-values circles, say it’s the latter. Prostitution, they say, is a commodity sale. It is inherently objectifying and exploitative, they argue. It is itself a harm, even if all the associated harms can be eliminated. A woman who believes she is freely choosing her job has to be wrong about that, they argue. She is a victim whether she knows it or not.

Conservative MP Joy Smith is one of the strongest voices on this side of the debate, who says she recognizes “prostitution as an industry that is inherently harmful to women and girls and therefore must be eliminated.” She favours the Nordic model.

If you believe that selling sex means selling women, you believe that a woman’s value equals her capacity to have sex.

Framing this as a gender-equality argument is ironic, because that same notion underpins many of the world’s most sexist ideas — including the idea, still in place in some parts of the world, that rape is a property crime.

We in Canada don’t generally talk about rape that way any more, but we still use that language when we talk about prostitution. We use phrases like “selling her body” or even “selling herself” — rather than “selling sex.”

To assume that prostitution commodifies women, we have to also think a certain way about heterosexual sex. We have to think of it as male access to a woman’s body — not as something a woman does with her body. This is the "why buy the cow when you’re getting the milk for free" way of seeing women’s sexuality. Again, not exactly a gender-equality argument.»

(I interrupt Kate Heartfield's thoughtful prose with a crude example that illustrates how a married woman, in this case a politician's wife, is subjected to that very degradation that so incensed MacKay. Juxtapose this with the passage here in which Rob Ford attempts to traffick Renata. Also, if sex-workers were to publish clients' names, all would see that putative "family-values" rightwing Con men make up the majority of their lists.) 

«There is another way of looking at sex: that a woman’s value as a human being has nothing to do with whom she chooses to have sex with or how often or what conditions she imposes on that choice. If this is our assumption, then a woman who sells sex is not selling herself. She isn’t turning herself into a commodity, and neither is anyone else. Sex is merely the service she sells.»

Registered and practical nurses, athletes, child care workers, lawyers, therapists, morticians: all provide professional services that sometimes require that they engage in a particular activity that some people might find repellant and disgusting. The specific *ickiness* of a task does not detract from the knowledge, respect and dignity they bring to their jobs

What is most disappointing to me in this whole debate is the participation of abolitionist feminists who give credence to Andrea Dworkin's pragmatic and ideological analysis of women's bodies as pornographed and fetishized commodities.  Believing this construct to be so deeply embedded in all institutions that it cannot be uprooted, they think that in order to limit the horrific harm that's done to women who are trafficked or trapped by poverty and many vulnerabilities in the "sex trade", they are obliged to align themselves with punitive and sex-phobic Reformatory Evangelical conservative legislation.

Whatever their expertise, critics of C36 agree that it will NOT keep women safe; it will probably endanger them MORE than the old law did.

And, just in case you know people who still don't get why C36 is so MASSIVELY WRONG, direct them to Tabatha Southey's splendid slam dunk.

ADDED: Money for sex, sex for money is a personal reflection on sex work that I posted in March this year.

MORE: Joyce Arthur deconstructs the toxic misogynist religious ideology at the core of C36.

Time to Roast #PeterPeeper

Remember this from February this year?

The Conservative government has abandoned its controversial and much-maligned Internet surveillance bill, legislation it once claimed was crucial to stopping child pornographers.

Less than a year ago support for Bill C-30, the so-called Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, was presented to Canadians by the government as a binary choice.

"He can either stand with us or stand with the child pornographers," Public Safety Minister Vic Toews scolded a Liberal critic in the House of Commons last February.

The comment set off a public fire storm concerning the Internet and personal privacy — a nasty fight that resulted in unsavoury details of Toews' divorce being splashed across the web by a Liberal party operative.

Toews, who introduced the legislation, did not attend Monday's news conference where Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Bill C-30 is dead.

It's back.

When Justice Minister Peter MacKay unveiled the federal government's proposed cyberbullying law on Wednesday, he touted it as a necessary tool to combat the often hurtful spread of intimate images. To emphasize the underlying point, he made the announcement during national Bullying Awareness Week.

But legal experts were left wondering why a piece of legislation that is meant to rein in online tormentors is also taking on terror suspects and people who steal cable TV signals.

"There is a much larger agenda at play here," says Rob Currie, director of the Law and Technology Institute at Dalhousie University.

Under the banner of anti-cyberbullying measures, the government is "trying to push through a number of things that have to do with law enforcement but nothing to do with cyberbullying."

Like its predecessor, it is deceptively named. They're calling it "Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act'.

It is simply and literally ghoulish, feasting on the corpses of dead girls.

Or as Canadian Cynic put it:

I sincerely, sincerely, sincerely expect the Harper Govt to say, "You're either with us, or you're glad Rehtaeh Parsons is dead."

— CC (@canadiancynic) November 22, 2013

Go read Michael Geist on the details. He winds up with this:

Law enforcement have been asking for some of these provisions for many years and there could be a good debate on the merits of many of the proposed reforms. As this post suggests, some of the provisions raise some serious concerns. Yet the government is signalling that it would prefer to avoid such debates, wrapping up the provisions in the cyber-bullying flag and backtracking on a commitment made earlier this year to not bring forward Criminal Code amendments that were contained in Bill C-30.

We need to put on another protest like #TellVicEverything.

Stephen Lautens has come up with the hashtag #PeterPeeper and a poster.



Let's get to it.

The primal ooze...

Yesterday I went to see _2001: A Space Odyssey_ with a friend.

I had forgotten how tedious the first act is, as the primates - most likely nasty chimpanzees and not collaborative Bonobos - become weaponized and discover how to dominate the rival clan by killing their leader.

My companion found that bit quite entertaining; it reminded him of recent carnage - more specifically, the take-over of the Progressive Conservatives by the Reform Party, when Peter MacKay morphed from an insipid PC into a weaponized yet still insignificant, greedy opportunist.

Do you recognize any of the scoundrels?

The ReformaTories haven't evolved much, have they?

So you think we can dance ...err, be a US "homeland"?

Sadly, it's neither a reality show nor exploitative entertainment: it's actual *real* exploitation of Canada and our resources.

Go read Creekside: Combined Defence Plan - So we're a "homeland" now?, howl loudly then take action with the political and social action group of your choice.

Stevie Spiteful comments on MacKay's marriage.

Oh my.

Whatever is he trying to tell us about his CabMin?

It's the Contempt Culture - Again!

Defence Minister Peter MacKay used one of only three search-and-rescue helicopters available in Newfoundland to transport him from a vacation spot last year, CTV News has learned.

MacKay was picked up at a private salmon fishing lodge along the Gander River last July by a Canadian Forces Cormorant helicopter. Military sources said the order to collect MacKay came from the defence minister's own office.

"This is not a common practice . . . this is the only time a search-and-rescue asset was used as shuttle service," a source told CTV News.

As we observed here, Harper's Con government is developing quite a prodigious sense of entitlement.

Expect more of this rapacious gluttony at the CPC trough.

Meanwhile Stevie Spiteful and Smilin' Jim have hired consultants to the tune of $90,000. a day to show them how to slash spending - except for their own illicit perks, of course.

When did Peter MacKay start morphing into

a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling retriever?

It seems fitting, does it not? After all, he calls women who escape his control "bitches". And, he is known to cause distractions in order to draw his target out of the safety zone.

Funny how those Contempt Party guys are chivalrous and gallant towards the ladies until a woman does something that challenges their authority. Or that threatens their carefully crafted image of propriety. Then the gloves come off.

My apologies in advance to Nova Scotia Duck Tolling retrievers. You are all better sentient beings than this Contempt Party candidate.

Peter MacKay's picture from here.

$150K Squirt/Photo Op

Around the blogosphere and twitosphere, JimBobby has been wondering what that ejaculation missile firing by Sour Grapes cost us.

The answer is supplied by Robert McClelland in the comments here.

From the CBC a couple of years ago:

Canadian army gunners in Afghanistan are now cleared to fire new GPS-guided artillery shells at Taliban militants at a cost of $150,000 a round.

Then, there's what lindsaymstewart said on the matter:

Don Cherry is now an unlawful combatant worthy of the same fair treatment afforded Omar Khadr.

Peter 'Airshow' McKay should be fired. Sour Grapes should be IGNORED.

Who Da Scarediest Cabinet Minister?

CBC's The Current has a list of cabinet ministers who have declined and accepted requests to participate.

Here are the top four refusniks. Which is the refusiest?

Guess first, check the link after.

Vic (The Adulterer) Toews

Jim (I'm Outta Here) Prentice

Lawrence (The Loose) Cannon

Peter (Crybaby but in a Macho Uniform-Wearing Kinda Way) MacKay

Follow-up question: Are they more scared of Anna Maria Tremonti or The Voice? I've met The Voice. Definitely scarier.