He talks about the "exodus" of Anglos from Québec as if he's some kind of linguistic victim. Is he insane? And to compare that kind of thing to 1755 really borders on hate speech. As it is, his comments are mild. The COR party itself still has many card-carrying revisionist "expulsion deniers". To even acknowledge that the expulsion occurred is "progressive" for a COR member.
Nice, but although proof was asked for, it was calling the leader of the New Brunswick Union a bigot that was the issue, not Brent Taylor. So far as we know the only thing the union leader is guilty of is agreeing with the ban. That, unfortunately, makes Taylor in the right on the assertion that the bloggers credibility is stained by the absurd comment that the union leader is a bigot, when there is no proof of such a thing. We do have to keep in mind the context, since Charles has quite openly called himself a bigot on many occasions, which means the word is being used more loosely than others would see it. For many, 'bigot' essentially means 'racist', while that is not true, it still holds true. Although Taylor borders on being a racist, perhaps even crossing the border, he's clearly just in the idiot camp, which explains his welcome at the Irving Press.
You want to see some real dodgeballing or shall we say passing the buck....Go to aliant.net and click on the 8 minute bull session by none other than Mr.Deflection himself.Mr.Lard greases his way through the questions and makes no mistakes what-so-ever to assure the public they can find fault with every member of every other party including a few changes to his own party as he felt the blame of any and all accusations that seem to be flying toward him directly must obviously be a hugh mistake by either the miss-interpretations of the news media or those folks in New Brunswick that have been confused about there being any real compatition to face his party as an alternative solution should put their trust back where it belongs as he Thinks is known province wide for being the most popular and positive premier the Province of New Brunswick has ever been witness to.Mr.Murphy does a great job of reminding him throughout the interview that it indeed takes two to tango. How do you spell bernard lord? arrogance and ignorance seems to still fit like a glove with it comes to blowing nothings into the wind so he can hear his own praises bouncing in his earpiece.Sad,sad State of affairs indeed.
Bigot is still better than a Kook. A bigot can think for himself and a kook cannot.
I watched the interview of Lard. Lard truly thinks NBers are stupid and he can keep on fooling them.
Absurd comparison? Absolutely. Bigot? I don't see it. In fact Taylor makes an excellent point. We are as a society stuck in the past and harbouring grudges for things which happened to people who are long dead by people who are long dead. Any apologies made now are worthless because the victims and perpetrators aren't around anymore.
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. So keep in mind that Charles use of the word is not so striking, notice the word 'politics' in there, which makes a LOT of canadians bigots.We know Spinks comments have often travelled the same bigot border, I'd like a single example of how we are 'living in the past'. Who even thinks about the expulsion unless there is an article in the paper. Apologies are just that, everybody knows that it happened long ago, they aren't retarded. An apology is simply a gesture, and a pretty easy one at that. Taylor's comments are idiotic. First he says he's tired of people talking about the past, then goes on to talk about the past in Quebec. White anglos would look well to look at the deportation as it is not just something historical. That type of treatment continued long after, and the racism is very evident to people who actually live life away from their computer. However, governments have always played on people's fears and made race relations far worse than they normally would be otherwise. There's no doubt he's a bigot, although the editorial slant is very evident in that page. COR was being labelled as simply the 'anti french' party in the press and its no surprise they'd get tired of the same questions over and over.
Well Mike by that argument, everybody is a bigot including you because you're not tolerant of me. Ridiculous you say? Of course it is and that's my point. Throwing around the word bigot at everyone quickly makes the word meaningless. As for apologies, well okay, but who apologizes and to whom? The victim and agressors are all dead.
So anyone who voices an opinion other than the popular sentiment is a bigot? Where does that leave Charles? He must be the bigot of the day.Look, I completely disagree with what Taylor said when he was a member of CoR, but he did have every right to voice his opinion. His comments do not even come close to hate... Look at Hitler's speaches and the speach that incited genocide in Somolia. That my friends is hate and bigoted.
Well? By that argument, everybody is a bigot including you because you're not tolerant of me. Ridiculous you say? Of course it is and that's my point. Throwing around the word bigot at everyone quickly makes the word meaningless.As for apologies, well okay, but who apologizes and to whom? The victim and agressors are all dead.
Au contraire, we're being very tolerant of Spinks comments. Use your dictionary, if you 'tolerate' somebody's behaviour that doesn't mean you agree with it or don't refute it. And just because people use a word wrong doesn't make it Charles fault. A bigot is exactly that, no more, no less. The debate needs to be conducted specifically, not in theory, so one would expect a 'tolerant' government would at least apologize for historical wrongs. It doesn't 'hurt' anybody. Keep in mind that we are talking about governments, not people. True, those who conducted the expulsion are dead, but even those people were 'carrying out orders'. The New Brunswick government is not identical to the government of the 1700's, but it is very similar. The only marked change occurred in 1857 with the introduction of 'responsible government', which only meant that instead of nominations for the House, people were elected. In New Brunswick, with only two parties, that only means that instead of the choice between two people, one guy was nominated. So government is very much a continuing entity, it's called precedent and it is what our legal and political system is based on. So the government has a different agenda than the population, which is why you heard Stephen Harper apologize just last week for something he had no part in. However, it says a lot about a culture when adherents refuse to even support a government which would simply make a public statement of apology to a group. Particularly when it costs them nothing. I disagree with the above post as well, just because a 'hate speech' was shown to incite violence, doesn't define it as hate speech. Hitler made speeches for years leading up to the war where hatred was clear. However, the books writer was making some editorial decisions as he was saying Taylor "thundered" and "Taylor gave them anger" and "they had joined COR out of anger". That's very inflammatory rhetoric by the author, very much along the lines of hate speech as its supposed to make readers assume that a political movement arose simply from emotion. That's completely untrue, and if there were more books on that period I would discard this one immediately. Taylor's first comments are quite true, WE did no wrong, however, as said in a previous post, there is a great benefit to raising such an issue. New Brunswick, like Canada, has always had deep divisions between french and english. This is even more blatant in rural areas where it often results in violence. I'd suggest most of that is due to policy decisions. How come Switzerland can function quite equitably and complacently with THREE linguistic and cultural groups, and canadians can't do it with two? Trying to claim that he was part of an expulsion is simply stupid as all hell, not necessarily bigoted. After rereading that page, I have to agree that it doesn't necessarily show 'bigot' behaviour. It is INFERRED, but that's because of the writers very poor style. Taylor says "us", while the writer says "leaving no doubt the meaning of 'us'" That's simply propaganda writing. I am no expert on COR, but the name 'confederation of regions' says it all. In the states the south wanted a 'confederacy of states' which led (partly, but in good part) to the civil war. They wanted a decentralized federation with no real federal government. I assume COR picked the name for a reason, and no doubt universal bilingualism would be one of the first casualties. Keep in mind that most of COR's parties have been implemented by Lord anyway. Rural francophone areas have been much harder hit by reductions in provincial grants, and provincial spending in francophone areas for medical care and education has dropped considerably, much as was the case prior to the sixties. While I don't know much about COR, partly because very little has been written about it, I'd be interested to know just how much is that 'media bias' that we hear so much about. Decentralization of political decision making has been a recommendation of just about every economist and political theorist in the last fifty years, but governments are very much opposed to it, as it limits their powers. So it would be no surprise that the press would be very much against it.
My last comment was towards(6:01). The time delay Charles has imposed makes comments a little tougher sometimes. I'm still getting used to the new rule.
no time delay spinks...just that I have been very busy lately.....
2 Things..Number 1: "Keep in mind that most of COR's parties have been implemented by Lord anyway. Rural francophone areas have been much harder hit by reductions in provincial grants, and provincial spending in francophone areas for medical care and education has dropped considerably, much as was the case prior to the sixties."Q: Are these cuts due to fact these communities are french or the statistical fact that there are less people living in these french rural regions with no indication of it slowing down? Number 2: I find it ironic that Charles touches on the topic of censoship by the Irvings and the goverment, yet he moderates the comments on this blog. What gives Charles, are you just has bad as "the man"? ;-p
It was an open blog for over one year and suddenly the idiots came out from nowhere and left some bad comments especially against my priest.So I said- Enough is enough!!!I had many people telling me that I shouldn't accept the bad comments about me? I don't care.....I just blog away and let the people debate the issue which remind me?I haven't blog much lately because I have been busy but stay tune.....I got lots to blog!!!
It still should be an open Blog the way it used top be. Heil Charles ? AND you holler about the Irvings screening and deciding what should be published ??I can understand removing any Foul Language.
Isn't "banning" comments on your blog by people you disagree with the same thing as Charles being "banned" from the legislature, albeit on a different level?
He's not Banning anybody in any way he's just excercising his options of the "seven second delay clause" which is usually used to intercept inapropreite language before reaching the public at large.
3:23 and 3:25 you are talking to a brick wall. Wasting your time.
Post a Comment