Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Apparently, the stakes have been raised.


Well, now ... from the comments, isn't this an interesting development?

Concerned Canadian said...

Cynic,

Yes?

I am an NDP member and progressive voter who disagrees vigorously with the position of my party's present leadership on Afghanistan.

OK, that's your right. Go on. I've provided you with this public forum and you're welcome to have your say.

Like most Canadians I would love to see more reconstruction and peace-building take place in Afghanistan. Yet I recognize that when confronting an enemy like the Taliban and the narco-gangs which sustain them, such altruistic aims will never be realized unless the Taliban are challenged by force.

There's much more, but let's cut to the chase, which I reproduce verbatim:

One last word - for Madame Watkins, her family, and those of CF personnel still in harms way in Afghanistan.

Whatever controversy is generated by the obscene comments posted by the loco administrator of this blog, he/she speaks only for a tiny, fanatical minority. Even those who vigorously oppose the mission reject his hateful, outrageous rhetoric.

You have earned the right to speak your mind, and all reasonable citizens of this country - regardless of their partisan or ideological perspectives - stand in solidarity with you. In every generation there have been people so ignorant or spoiled that they oppose and undercut the great strides that their country is making. Sometimes, as in the case of this blog, people cross the line and invite the ire of all patriotic Canadians. Opposing the mission does not reflect badly on an individual's patriotism, but attacking the family of a fallen soldier does. It also makes them a terrible person on a more profound level.

Despite such misguided insanity, we can take solace in the fact that every generation of Canadians has also produced people like your son who, acutely conscious of the immense personal risks, sacrifice themselves on ours and humanity's behalf. I know I speak for all Canadians of conscience, politically divided though they are, when I say from the bottom of my heart: thank you.

PS: CYNIC YOU'RE FUCKED, LEGALLY AND OTHERWISE ONCE WE FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE, AND WE WILL! C YA ROUND.

I'm sorry ... I must have missed the memo when it became acceptable behaviour for members of the NDP to blatantly threaten people on a public forum. Perhaps someone from the NDP can clear this up. Uttering threats in public. Cool? Not cool? I'm just curious.

Sometimes, this whole concept of "civility" can be devilishly tricky to define, don't you think?

40 comments:

Dr. Stimplove said...

I was amused by that part about inviting "the ire of all patriotic Canadians." Nice of that erstwhile progressive Concerned Canadian to say that anyone who doesn't agree with him/her is unpatriotic.

thwap said...

CC- He said he vigorously disagrees with the party on Afghanistan.

I'm pretty sure that the NDP vigorously disagrees with his stance on issuing threats.

Case closed?

E in MD said...

Hey CC... you mind posting the IP Address that post came from? I'd like to do a traceroute it.

CC said...

Sorry, e, I'd rather not go down that road. But let's at least appreciate the spectacle of a commenter who hides behind the anonymity that I provide him who threatens to strip me of my anonymity.

Yeah, there's some definite irony there, isn't there?

E in Md said...

Sorry, e, I'd rather not go down that road.

By CC, at 4:29 PM
-- - - - - -

Mostly I was just curious as to whether or not this particular fucktard was an amateur fucktard or a professional fucktard.

I have to say that I am amazed how many of these societal rejects you seem to bring out of the woodwork.

Scotian said...

So you are fucked legally and otherwise eh CC? I wonder what that legally fucked means as I can see no basis for that claim/threat as just saying it is so does not make it so. As for the otherwise, well that at least is a nice simple and clear threat of illegal consequences brought down upon your head, which in most people's eyes strongly implies the use of force/violence against your person. Got to love that tolerance, civility, and ability to disagree in a respectful manner with the substance of the content instead of deciding to try to harm the messenger.

Classic really, sad, sickening, and a mindset which is inherently dangerous to an open democratic governed by the rule of law society like Canada. Indeed, one can make a reasonable argument that those who have worn our uniform over the decades, bled and died in it to this day are having their sacrifices treated with dishonour and contempt by anyone that makes such an argument in any basis and that to do so while supposedly defending the honour of the military and military family sacrifices is particularly contemptuous. Got to love the way such voices actually display contempt for what our military honour has always stood for in the process of trying to act as the only true defenders of it. Classic eat your cake and have it thinking, something all too common with our CPC brethren which I believe is the case with the self described (and unconfirmed) NDPer, in other words I don't believe that claim and that this is in reality a true CPC supporter (assuming they are Canadian otherwise then if American a GOPer) because the reasoning (such as it is) and the rhetoric is right out of the CPC/GOP playbook for this topic.

Hint to anonymous: Next time you try to pass yorself as a progressive NDPer you might want to sound a least a little like one instead of a total CPC/GOP clone. It would make claiming to be a NDPer at least remotely possible as a consideration instead of being clearly laughable as it is in this example.

Bored With Cynics said...

"Legally Fucked"... Maybe your statements to Wanda Watkins might fall under the Hate Crime in the Criminal Code.

I wonder if the police would be interested?

CBC Story

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Dr. Stimplove said...

So, Bored, where in what you just quoted would CC's remarks fall? I sure don't see how the "likely to lead to a breach of the piece" part fits in.

Dr. Stimplove said...

... And I don't see how you could say CC was guilty of "wilful promotion of hatred."
I would like an explanation. I'm curious.

CC said...

Oh, puhleeze ... if what I wrote rose to the level of a "hate crime," half the Blogging Tories would be in prison.

Get a grip.

Dr. Stimplove said...

You're right, CC. I wonder if ANY of these reich-wingers gave RightGirl a figurative thrashing for that bit about aboriginal Canadians being dope-smoking, lazy, incestuous wastrels. THAT seemed like "wilful promotion of hatred."

Ti-Guy said...

Oh, puhleeze ... if what I wrote rose to the level of a "hate crime," half the Blogging Tories would be in prison.

Care to "take one for the team" so we can finally lock most of them up?

No? Well, didn't hurt to ask.

Anyway, I've been legally fucked many times. As far as threats go, it doesn't really work, does it?

E in MD said...

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

By Bored With Cynics, at 4:57 PM


- - - - - -

Admittedly I'm not familiar with Canadian legal precedent but CC wasn't telling other people to hate Wanda or to attack her. CC was saying expressing an opinion just like all those right wingers do, every time they start bashing on liberals.

Seems to me that inciting hatred, by definition would be suggesting that other people hate a specific target. against any identifiable group would be something like : I want all of you to go out and kill X

Where precisely is Cc doing that? Can you quote a line?

dr. stimplove said...

So ... does Bored care to explain her/his statement?

CC said...

Can we please stop this whole "hate crime" thread? It's just too fucking stupid for words.

dr. stimplove said...

Yeah, all right, enough of that. But I think it would have been entertaining if Bored tried to explain himself.

Concerned Canadian said...

I am in no way speaking on behalf of the federal or provincial NDP, nor would I purport to. In fact, I spent much of my time elaborating how DISAGREE with the position of Jack Layton. For any official spokesperson of the party, such language and tone would not be appropriate. I am speaking only as a private citizen.

At CC, however, where swearing and disrespect is a regular occurrence (again, even when directed at the families of fallen soldiers), such courtesy seems redundant, even excessive.

I would also say all this talk of violating the CCoC is a joke. This is a vigorous discussion, nothing more. The conclusion of my earlier post was irrational and I apologize if CC took it as a threat. All that was meant is that people who harbor such abhorent views should be held to account in the court of public opinion. Would your co-workers, clients, and friends be interested to know your opinion of Madame Watkins' grief? Most of the country knows now. I'm willing to give up my anonymity if you are.

I thought RightGirl's comments about aboriginals were just as disgraceful as CC's, by the way. Just because you oppose the Taliban and support Canada's operation in Afghanistan doesn't mean that you are a Harper Crony.

There was in fact no memo which made such aggressive language acceptable. I was wrong to conclude my otherwise legitimate message in such a way. There. I appologize, but only for the last line. Maybe you should go ahead and do the same.

PS SCOTIAN: I actually am a card-carrying member of the NDP in an East-Ontario riding. I support the party because I believe in its historic commitment to social justice, environmental sustainability, and the legacy of innovative social policy it has left our country.

Supporting a war against theocrats who rape women, actively support international terrorism, and behead teachers for instructing girls does not preclude support for these goals, does it? Is our party big enough to host disagreement on foreign policy, or should we all just join the Liberals? Apparently not, in your view.

If we could ever get serious about foreign policy, we might win an election some day.

PS Dr Gimplove: I SPECIFICALLY say exactly ONE LINE after the part of my writing you quote that "Opposing the mission does not reflect badly on an individual's patriotism." The country is divided 50/50, and that is entirely fine in a democracy. My only beef is with telling this fallen soldier's mother and her grief to "fuck off."

It's one of the lowest comments in the history of Canadian blogging.

Anyway, bye Cynic, enjoy your elite little blogspot space here, which you graciously "provided to us." Don't flatter yourself by thinking that I, or anyone else, gives enough of a shit about you to actually threaten you physically.

The damage done to your reputation by this incident is more than enough punishment. You've joined the ranks of Norman Specter and Robert McClelland.

Anonymous said...

Amen! Thread over.

Anonymous said...

Most of the country knows now.

Oh yeah? What country do you live in? This is small time blogosphere stuff, not national news.

The Seer said...

Has it occurred to anyone else that if Bush had captured Osama bin Ladin when he was cornered at Tora Bora, that the American people would have figured they had won The War on Terra and that an invasion of Iraq would have been unnecessary? Did Bush spare Osama to protect his shot at Sadam?

Concerned Canadian said...

You're obviously right. No one really does give a damn about this exchange.

Among those who follow federal politics and read blogs, however, this incident will become notorious.

Warren Kinsella may be an asshole, but he's sure good at singling out and discrediting punks like CC and McClelland who step to him.

Anyway. I go now.

Anonymous said...

discrediting punks like CC and McClelland who step to him.

Step to him?

What is this a hip-hop video? Who talks like that...grow up.

Anonymous said...

Oh no...Mr. Ed's really mad now.

http://mrerl.blogspot.com/2007/07/open-letter-to-canadian-cynic.html

Raphael Alexander said...

Dude, it's obvious you're a whore who is using this issue to boost your popularity. Well let's just say Osama bin Laden is popular too. And just like him most people would like your head on the end of a sharp pointy stick. And just like him, you blame all of us for being an idiot and a sick person.

Any more writing about you is pretty much a waste of my $29.99 internet connection service.

Ti-Guy said...

This is hilarious...

Just because I'm a High School student, doesn't mean that I'm any less smarter then you...

Persuasive argument, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

ti-guy...the best part is when he says that he gets laid more because he's a high school student, disregarding the fact that he looks like he took his cousin the prom and spends his nights violently masturbating.

Anonymous said...

You lefties love to accuse others of masturbating. I see this constatnly. Projections of your feelings of guilt, I suppose. It's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise, why bother with such silliness?

Ti-Guy said...

Please, let's not go there. Mr. Ed's parents really need to know what their adorable little tyke is divulging to the public at large.

Mr. and Mrs. Ed?...time to get junior off the computer.

Anonymous said...

"The best part is when he says that he gets laid more because he's a high school student, disregarding the fact that he looks like he took his cousin the prom ...."

Besides, that is part of his joke, knucklehead. He's a young kid, a bit geeky, but still he gets laid more often that the sour, stinky, ranting, hyperventilating CC. It was a JOKE ... at CC's (and now your) expense.

Anonymous said...

I don't see the problem. Our soldiers volunteer to be soldiers.
I do not support vigilantes.
Remember our general who said we are there for retribution???

thwap said...

I don't mind masturbating. I think it's great.

I did once mock a troll by saying he masturbated with Cheetos-stained hands.

I apologize if people thought i was condemning masturbation in general.

Anonymous said...

It's not that you masturbate which we find disgusting about you, thwap. It's that you insist on doing it in front of everyone.

Anonymous said...

Without masturbating, the Canadian blogosphere wouldn't have perma-troll Ti-guy, who is an errant chunk o'Robert McLelland's spunk that came to life!

Anonymous said...

Anon.,

Ha! Who'd a-thunk he was a chunk of spunk? I thought he just liked to watch McC's hunk o'junk.

empirecookie said...

Oh come on! You don't actually believe the "I am a member of the NDP" crap do you? Why would someone planning to leave such a psycho message tell the truth about anything?

Ti-Guy said...

Nonny's back, CC. I saw his droppings over at Celestial Drunk's earlier.

thwap said...

I've masturbated in front of a couple of people, but certainly not everyone.

Anonymous said...

Good for you, thwap. Good for you. You must be proud.

thwap said...

Thanks. I am.

(feel free to talk about "masturbation" more, but this is beyond stupid, and i'm almost as much to blame as you.)

[btw: you sound like a different 'anonymous' than the other 'anonymous.']

Anonymous said...

"[Y]ou sound like a different 'anonymous' than the other 'anonymous.

Nothing gets by you, thwap.