Month: October 2004

“All Canadian provinces are obviously distinct from one another. But with its difference in language, Quebec is different in a fundamental way which requires specific attention … Other multilingual democracies, like Switzerland and Belgium, have these kinds of arrangements. They give the minority language community the ability to feel secure and to make a more positive contribution to the country” — Liberal environment minister Stéphane Dion, 1996 (then the Liberal intergovernmental affairs minister)

Prime Minister Paul Martin mocked Conservative Party of Canada leader Stephen Harper in the House of Commons for lacking a “made-in-Canada” solution and wanting “to do it with the both of them (the Bloc and the ADQ) in a bed and breakfast in Brussels”.

Instead of “kick-start[ing] some national discussion” on the topic, looks like we’ll stick to partisan hackery.

Then again, perhaps Harper is guilty too of playing politics with the Liberals by drawing them out with veiled Liberal quotes and by hitting them back before the news cycle comes full circle.

Or has Stephen Harper learned that Canadian politics is all about Quebec?

Anglophone lawyer, Jennifer Myers got out of a traffic ticket on Monday because the “No Left Turn” sign that she neglected, and for which she subsequently received a ticket, wasn’t in French.

By the way, the traffic violation was in the city of Toronto and Myers doesn’t speak a word of French.

It’s good to see that these laws of language equality are now being applied and exploited equally by all Canadians, regardless of their linguistic background.

Warren Kinsella, former aide to Jean Chrétien and fellow blogger, has threatened members of our own community of bloggers with legal action for what he calls ‘libelous’ comments.

“The fact that I did so (posted a picture of a little boy saluting his deceased submariner father) offended rightist bloggers, however. That’s okay, I guess. Those kinds of guys – and they’re mostly white, angry and aroused by Mark Steyn’s web site – get offended by all sorts of things. But when one of them wrote that I was actually responsible for the death of that child’s father, that wasn’t okay. I demanded that he take down his post. He wouldn’t. I told him I would sue, and the post disappeared. Thereafter, he posted a veritable avalanche of hate. That was a big mistake.” — Warren Kinsella

Simmer down now Warren. You’re obviously not responsible for the death of this boy’s father, and honestly, the only people who might believe that you might be may be Jack Layton (Paul Martin killed homeless people after all), and some members of the association of amateur armchair advocates for asinine attributions (and atrocious alliterations). Now really, you feel that your reputation has been sullied by these brutes and you feel that you need to collect on damages to your reputation caused by this incident? Honestly, I know garbage when I read it and I don’t believe that any significant number of people are really going to become anti-Warren after this incident.

I’m actually surprised by, what some may call (not me, after all — please don’t sue me) hypocrisy concerning your eruption over your latest scraped elbow. Aren’t you the Warren Kinsella who giggled himself pink with a Barney the Dinosaur toy on Canada AM to illustrate your personal opinion that Stockwell Day’s personal religious beliefs are dillusional? Isn’t that you mugging for the camera wearing a t-shirt labeling U.S. President George W. Bush an international terrorist?

However, you may have done more do damage your reputation by taking on your blogger colleagues than any falsehood on some political hack’s website.

Those that live in glass houses…