Lunatics Behaving... Like Lunatics

With amusing regularity, one of the far-left's favourite political tactics is to set out to capture footage of conservatives behaving badly.

Courtesy of Jeff Jedras we get a vision of how the 200 far-lefties who turned out in Ottawa to fawn over Brigette DePape behaved. It was not, by any means, a positive picture.

Clearly visible in the video, which Jedras (himself not a Conservative) filmed while walking to the convention to cover it as an accredited blogger, are basically the standard far-left sore losers.

"Fuck you, shame on you, go to hell," one man shouts at Tories as they peacefully walk to their convention.

"I hope you choke on your money!" an unseen woman can be heard shouting.

At one point what sounds like a faint "you are Godless" can even be heard.

Each individual Conservative who peacefully passes by their fuming throng is serenaded with shouts of "shame!". (Apparently, Conservatives should be ashamed to win elections, fair and square.)

It's a comical reminder of the extreme double-standard deliberately promoted by the far-left. If conservative protesters were to appear at the upcoming NDP convention, they would instantly declare it to be an act of bullying and intimidation. When far-left protesters present at the Conservative Party convention are subjected to actual bullying and actual acts of verbal intimidation, it's simply brushed off as inconsequential.

Jedras, to his own exemplary credit, doesn't shy away from the aggressive protesters, nor did he hide the evidence of the far-left's typical behaviour, as Rabble does.

In viewing Rabble's own video of the protest, it becomes clear that mr "fuck you, shame on you, go to hell" was not by any means a random protester. Rather, it was Dan Sawyer of Take Back the Capital, who was given a stage to speak on.

Jeff Jedras may be solidly on the left, but he hasn't descended into the depths of hatred those further left than he have resorted to. Nor does he hide it, as many would.

(After all, Rabble did.)

"Paper Holes", Not "Bullet Holes"

Liberal Party response to photo controversy not a pretty picture

In some sectors of the Canadian media, the response to the outrage swirling around the Liberal Party's "Anywhere but Copenhagen" contest has been anything but torrid.

On the National Post's Full Comment blog, Jeff Jedras offered the same response as Warren Kinsella: the Stephen Harper-as-Lee Harvey Oswald photo was bad, but the Conservative party has been just as bad.

Jedras and Kinsella both pointed to an image that appeared ont the Conservative Party website during the 2008 election, in which Stephane Dion appears in front of a red background peppered with what they had described as "bullet holes".

That the bullet holes in question don't resemble bullet holes as most Canadians would recognize them is just one problem with this attempt at a diversion. As Tim Powers points out in the Globe and Mail, the second problem it is that simply has no basis in truth:

"Warren's prop today was a picture of Stéphane Dion surrounded by paper holes depicting his flawed policy initiatives - like the carbon tax - along with comments from Liberals. But according to the Liberals these were bullet holes and this was therefore a terrible thing - as offensive as their assassination photo.

It was prepared by purchasing an iStockphoto image called 'Paper Holes.' That’s right, paper holes. The supplier (a Canadian company, by the way) describes the image as 'black hole [sic] in paper.' Check it out here."

And to make matters worse, the "headshots of possible shooters" were actually the headshots of people who had been challenging and questioning Dion's Green Shift policy (poking holes in it, if you will -- perhaps even paper holes).

Moreover, if one were to actually take time to read the text in question, they'll find this all makes perfect sense.

Of course, it's very unlikely that Jeff Jedras, Warren Kinsella, or anyone else from the Liberal Party will stop peddling their rhetoric even after it's shown to be demonstrably false.


Other bloggers writing about this:

Lord of the Universe - "Liberals and Fake Harper Assassination Pic: Idiots of the Day"

Kitchener Conservative - "Hey Libs, You Screwed Up... Just Admit It!"

They Perpetually Just Do Not Get It

Some people aren't necessarily soft on crime -- just soft-headed

In virtually any election or pre-election campaign, if there's any topic that it's largely safe to campaign on, it's crime.

There's a very simple reason for this. Canadians of all political stripes recognize that crime detracts from their quality of life, and Canadians of all political stripes want crime dealt with.

One thing that Canadians are certain to represent is when crime is treated as an ideological issue. Unfortunately for Canada, one particular ideology reigs supreme in Canadian justice: the belief that all individuals can be rehabilitated, and that law's role is simply to deter criminals, then rehabilitate them when they do offend.

Unfortunately, the individuals who subscribe to this particular ideology have over looked at least one of the law's other roles.

Jeff Jedras seems to be one of these individuals:

"I remember being dumbfounded during the 2005/06 election campaign, when the Paul Martin Liberals included support for mandatory minimum sentences for some (gun-related) crimes in the election platform, a move to echo ineffective Conservative policy proposals that was also adapted by the NDP.

Mandatory minimums don’t work, the evidence on that point from the US is pretty overwhelming. Criminals know what they’re doing is wrong and they know there are consequences; mandatory minimums aren’t a deterrent. They do nothing to prevent crime, they only increase prison populations. They're about appearing tough on crime without doing the heavy-lifting to actually prevent crime."

What Jedras -- and so many members of the the so-called "smart"-on-crime crowd don't seem to get is that deterrence is not the only purpose the law serves.

The protection of society seems to be the legal missing link for his particular crowd. They complain that mandatory minimum sentences "only increase prison populations". They don't seem to understand that, at the end of the day people who commit violent and gun-related offenses belong in prison.

In cases where an individual is a repeat violent offender -- and that they cannot be effectively rehabilitated, as is the other pillar of any effective criminal justice system -- they belong in prison longer. Probably even indefinitely.

This is not a difficult concept to understand. Yet somehow the ideologically-blindfolded "smart"-on-crime crowd seem to manage not to.

Jedras goes on to complain that the Conservative bill would institute mandatory minimum sentencing on "simple possession". This is actually untrue.

In fact, Bill C-15 would introduce mandatory minimum sentencing in cases where someone is convicted of trafficking or growing marijuana without a medical permit. There's actually a big difference.

While Jedras makes a much stronger case regarding recent suggestions by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson that he may introduce legislation allowing police to randomly administer roadside breath tests, it's hard to see how one could miss the mark any more on the topic of mandatory minimum sentencing.

It should be noted that most criminals can be rehabilitated, and should be.

But people who commit violent crimes or traffic kdrugs belong in prison. Every day that such individuals are prison is a day that they aren't on Canadians streets peddling their wares or committing said violent acts.

Every day that they are in prison protects Canadian society from their misdeeds.

This isn't that difficult a concept to understand. The problem may not be that some of Canada's left-of-centre parties are "soft" on crime. It may just be that they're soft headed on crime.

Dr Hedy Fry: Kinda Stupid

Liberal MP embarrasses party, self -- again

One simply had to rest assured that if the Liberal party had a Rob Anders of its very own, it would be a kinder, gentler Rob Anders.

Those who follow Canadian politics even passingly know who Anders is: he's the Conservative MP for Calgary West, and generally a disgrace to Parliament, his party, and himself.

Among the various controversies Anders has stirred up included denouncing Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist, and firing the manager of his riding office over a financial dispute.

But the Liberal party has a Rob Anders of its very own, and it bears the very unthreatening guise of MP Dr Hedy Fry.

Like Anders, Dr Fry is well-known and recognized as a general embarrassment to Parliament, her party, and herself.

Among the various controversies Fry has stirred up included claiming cross burnings were taking place in Prince George, BC, and sending out mailings that seemed to imply that Canada's military was no longer proud to wear the flag on their ruck sacks.

But today Dr Fry seems to think she's finally hit that partisan home run she's been itching for, when she drew comparisons between some Olympic gear the Hudson's Bay Company are selling to commemorate the Vancouver Olympics and the Conservative party logo.

Dr Fry insists that the logo being used for the gear "bears a striking resemblance" to the Tory logo.

Even blogging magnate Jeff Jedras has taken the bait.

One assumes that a great many Canadians would be surprised to find out that HBC is actually secretly a Conservative party front -- perhaps none more than HBC itself.