I am getting thoroughly tired of this ongoing debate about whether racist Canadian hate-monger Kate McMillan is, or is not, a "member" of the Conservative Party. Despite her clear membership in the Blogging Tories, she is adamant that she is unaffiliated with any party. Worse, she's managed to snooker into that myth at least a few bloggers who should know better:
... on prompting by Andrew of Bound By Gravity, I retract any suggestion that Kate speaks for, or is a member of, the Conservative Party of Canada.
That's just annoying. Let's look at the evidence, shall we? First, the site is called "The Blogging Tories". That's "Tory" with a capital "T", which suggests the use of a proper name and/or organization, and not just a general ideological attitude.
Furthermore, the home page header shows what appears to be a part of the Parliament buildings, no? Which strongly leads one to assume there's an actual political connection here. And politics would equal Conservative Party of Canada, unless things changed drastically while I was sleeping.
Finally, we have at least this definition of the word "Tory":
In Canada, a Tory is a member or supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada.
And yet, despite all of this evidence, McMillan insists that she has no political affiliations and that, mysteriously, one can be a member of the Blogging Tories without being an actual, you know, Tory.
Well, fine. Under that amazingly-accommodating definition, it would seem I could just as easily be a member. Which is why I just now submitted my membership application, and I encourage all other (non-politically affiliated) members of Progressive Bloggers to do the same. Apparently, one need not actually have any official sympathies with the Tories to be a member of BT, which makes all of us Progressive Bloggers eligible.
So come on down! The more, the merrier. I'm assuming my membership request won't be rejected based on a few niggling ideological differences. Or that I'm not an actual Tory. Or anything like that.
After all, they keep talking about having a "big tent." Let's see just how big that tent really is, shall we?
15 comments:
Great idea!
I'm overtly a Green Party member, and I'm fairly sure Stephen Tatylor knows this, so I'll pass on the application.
Still, ProgBloggers will fit right in with the new Tories, given how Harper is supposedly all progressive conservative now.
Heh. Champion idea. I don't mess up my site with blogrolls, but there's a first time for anything. I'll give this one serious consideration.
Incidentally, I wasn't getting Kate off the hook with my comments. I was simply stating that she has no official Conservative Party status, unlike, say, Richard Mahoney, Michael Ignatieff and Paul Martin, all of whom have used libel threats or jail as a way of coping with political opposition. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, the Conservative Party per se gets a pass on Kate's libel threats.
Dr. Dawg barks:
Unless I see evidence to the contrary, the Conservative Party per se gets a pass on Kate's libel threats.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the Tories had to take responsibility for Kate's threats of a lawsuit.
I was simply suggesting that it's pretty disingenuous to have her on the BT blogroll but, at the same time, disavow any political affiliation whatsoever. That strikes me as splitting some mighty fine hairs.
I requested to join the Blogging Tories many months ago, but still have not heard heard whether my application was allowed or rejected. Since the Wingnuterer isn't on the BT blog roll I must assume my application was rejected, and me a Red Tory
Wow, talk about conspiracy theories!
How about we get on with debating the strenths and weaknesses of party positions and platforms this election, rather than slagging blogsters? Wouldn't that be constructive?
Gee, as a first step, you could help your friend Jason get his facts straight ... before he commits pen to paper (or stubs to keyboards, as it is).
Or, just rename your blog to "Canadian BlogSlagger". Doesn't have the same ring as "Canadian Cynic", but it sure would be more accurate.
Eric,
The Canadian BlogSlagger is know as the Wingnuterer ;-)
CC is the Canadian Blogging Bow Shot! He ussually fire south though ;-)
Complete and utter nonsense. I am a member of CPC, but not a member of BT. These two have nothing to do with each other. Another nutty idea hatched by some Regressive Bloggers.
Hold on, AA. It's easy to be a CPC member without being a BT member. But you have to admit that it's a little rarer the other way around.
On this subject -- the following might be interesting... see this blogpost of mine
http://somenamedia.blogspot.com/2005/12/logical-fallacies-101-tutorial.html
Especially Section 8 - with the accompanying paragraphy about what happened to Gin and Tonic, and what was said to her by the co-owner of the Blogging Tories...
ie ""Dissent? You stated that you no longer support the Conservative Party. And you expect to remain on a blogroll for the Conservative Party? "
That seems pretty definitive for me!
It seems to me that the important point about joining the Blogging Tories is that by doing so one is self-identifying as a Conservative, just like joining the Blogging Dippers identifies one as a NDP-supporter, or joining the LibBlogs, a Liberal.
The point is that it's not up to the Blogging Tories to police their membership.
But for Kate to say that she is not a Conservative strikes me as not persuasive. She identified herself as one when she joined the BTS.
Oh Peter, the world is so mean to the both of us ~sniff~
Well Stephen Taylor may not have let me in, but he does admit to reading and lurking around my blog.
What's the big deal about belonging to a blogroll? We can all identify sufficiently through our posts and even the links we put on our sites. Besides, and I can only speak for myself, the majority of my visitors find my site through Google and Yahoo, where, apparently, my site gets top billing on most search words.
AlbertaAvenue:
Are you really that dense or are you simply trying to muddy the issue? The point was that to be a member of the Blogging Tories appears to require that one supports and/or is a member of the CPC, not that being a member of the CPC made one automatically a Blogging Tory. Kate McMillan has chosen to claim while she is a CBC blogger that she has no political affiliation despite her being webmaster for the Western Shotgun Blog and a long standing member of the Blogging Tories.
In other words Kate is LYING when she claims to be unaffiliated, and one of the ways by which this LIE is proven is her membership in the Blogging Tories, especially after they recently kicked out someone because they no longer supported the CPC on their blog. This makes it fairly clear that to be a member of the Blogging Tories requires that one be supportive of the CPC, which underscores Kate's deception in claiming to be non affiliated politically.
Supporting the views or principles of a party does not make for "affiliation". If Kate says she is not a member of the CPC, then she's not a member of the party, and thus not affiliated with it, even though she supports their policies. Get your language and terminology straight, you leftist morons.
In that case, what does it mean to be a Blogging "Tory"? Or any kind of "Tory", if you're not an actual member of the CPC?
More to the point, do you even have to support the policies of the CPC to be a Blogging Tory? Go to the BT website and check out the membership page -- there's not a hint of requirement that you have to agree in any way with the CPC or its policies in order to join.
You really should try to get a clue, AA, before your next post.
Post a Comment