Frank Graves and the Continuing Culture War

Poll for CBC not "viewer-inspired", but Liberal-inspired

If anyone in Canada still had questions about whether or not Frank Graves is using his work at EKOS to further the culture war that he recommended to the Liberal Party, a recent poll presented on the CBC should have the answer.

Graves and the CBC described the poll as "viewer inspired". The individual who proposed the question, a woman by the name of Mary Pynenburg, is in actuality a former Liberal Party candidate.

The abstract describing the results of the "viewer-inspired" poll is entitled "Women See It Differently". It suggests that Canadians want to see more women involved in politics, and that women are even more likely to think so than men.

The results aren't all that surprising. Moreover, on their own the results would be entirely controversial. There's good reason to want more women involved in politics.

But when one compares the poll results to figures related to women's participation in politics, the matter becomes more transparent.

Currently, the Conservatives have 23 women in their Parliamentary caucus. It's the most women of any caucus in the House of Commons, but the smallest proportion, at 16%. The Liberal Party has 19 women in its caucus, accounting for 25% of its MPs. The NDP caucus is 32% women with 12, and the Bloc Quebecois 31% with 15.

These numbers improve slightly for the Tories when the matter becomes the question of women candidates. In the 2008 election, the Conservatives fielded 63 female candidates (20% of their total). The Liberals fielded more women with 113 (31%). The NDP fielded 104 (34%), the Bloc 20 (27%).

So while many Canadians would rightly agree that more women could stand to be involved in politics, it becomes clear that the EKOS poll in question was largely devised as a means of aggravating a cultural conflict.

Never mind that in the most recent election the Conservatives were most successful at electing women. Suddenly, poll results like this could be used to justify conservative reluctance to mandate that a certain portion of Tory candidates be women, regardless of whether or not a better a particualr riding has a better candidate to offer.

Graves, for his own part, insists that he had no such thing in mind.

“I had no idea whatsoever who submitted the viewer-inspired question,” Graves explained. “And I didn’t select it. I have never heard of Mary Pynenburg before last night. … The question that we asked was framed according to the best methodological standards and neither the question nor the analysis or reporting revealed any bias.”

The problem for Mr Graves is that, after his cultural warrior fantasies became public knowledge, noone believes him. Nor should they.

Frank Graves is utterly transparent. Until he resigns from EKOS, so will that firm.

The Unique Brand of Mysogyny of the Left

What do women want?

It's a question asked by men the world over, and by politicians in particular.

In our most recent dispatch from the far side of the Blogging Iron Curtain, CK purports to provide the answer:

So women don't want to be protected from crime, and don't want children protected from sexual predators.

Who knew?

What do women actually want? Well, speaking on behalf of "the sisterhood", CK is more than happy to let us all know:

Evidently, CK has subscribed to the Antonia Zerbisias/Heather Mallick point of view where the long gun registry must be maintained not only as a piece of left-wing ideological boilerplate, but as a piece of feminist left-wing ideological boilerplate.

And that's what CK assumes women want.

She assues that women -- all women -- want universal state-funded childcare, a fastidious left-wing interpretation of the Canada Health Act, and ideological preference for what advocacy and activist groups will be funded, and which ones will not:

CK says women want an end to "all discrimination".

Except discrimination against religious groups. That kind of discrimination is A-OK.

Moreover, CK also assumes that Canadian women -- all Canadian women -- share her simmering and blistering hatred of all things conservative. Including conservative women:

One cringes at the thought of the sight of CK hammering out that semi-lucid diatribe against conservative women. It's frankly hard to overlook the bizarre and distinctly anti-conservative brand of sexism permeating CK's tirade.

The assumption made is that Rona Ambrose couldn't even possibly be thinking for herself. Rather, "her master" (or "massa", in CK's previous adventure with racist commentary) tells her what to say, tells her what to think.

One would be shocked, until one remembers that this is the same brand of sexism directed by left-wingers against conservative women. Left-wingers, you see, insist that they represent all women.

Unless one includes conservative women. At which case, as one recalls with Heather Mallick's career-killing diatribe against Sarah Palin, they actually cease to be women at all. Moreover, they actually cease to be human at all!

At that point the loonishly extreme left ideologues like CK content themselves to merely say mean things about them. But that's of little surprise: did anyone actually expect anything more?

Unintentional Sexism?

We report, you decide.

Sexism Strikes Again?

Or does it? Only the Liberals know for sure

This just in! Apparently, Belinda Stronach is a woman.

Go figure, I hadn’t noticed either.

But apparently, she is indeed a woman, and as such the Federal Liberal Women’s Caucus has stepped forward to declare that much of criticism of Stronach is sexist.
Wow. I never saw that coming. Not in a million years. Nope, no sir…

Anyway, following the reaction to Belinda Stronach crossing the floor to sit with the perennially crooked Federal Liberals, the Liberal Women’s Caucus has stepped forward to decry and bemoan the sexism allegedly being directed at the embattled MP.
Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman called Stronach (a woman considered by some to be among the most attractive Members of Parliament) “a dipstick – an attractive one – but a dipstick.”

Alberta Conservative MLA Tony Abbot declared that Stronach had “whored herself for power.” Unlike the CBC, CTV allowed Abbot to elaborate by also printing, “ Some people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices. She sold out for a cabinet position."

Liberal MP Judy Sgro weighed in, saying, “"I think it's important that we try to raise the level of discourse and debate and they shouldn't be reduced to the kinds of throw-away comments that people are clearly using last night and this morning. So I would call on Mr. Harper to apologize to Ms. Stronach and to women of Canada, and ask his colleagues to very much do the same so that we can try and restore some level of respect and discussion here in Ottawa."

Because Stephen Harper is obviously responsible for the comments made by Alberta and Ontario MLAs. And the Liberal Women’s Caucus isn’t licking their lips at the concept of Harper tucking tail on their behalf. No, not at all.

Linda Trimble, professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta stepped into the debate, saying, "When she's being called a whore and a dipstick – well, that's intensely personal, and it goes to her integrity. Those are not the kinds of comments made when male politicians cross the floor."

So what of Stronach’s integrity? She was elected by her constituency as a Conservative, but there have been plenty of MPs cross the floor to sit with other parties, right?

Then again, when Liberal MP David Kilgour crossed the floor, he didn’t do so to sit as a critic, or even as a member of the Conservative party – he did so to sit as an independent. When Conservative MP Chuck Cadman crossed, he did likewise.
When John Bryden crossed to sit as an Independent, he would eventually sit as a Conservative… but not for eight days afterward.

Even the venerable Joe Clark crossed the floor once, to sit as an… independent. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Maybe one that Belinda Stronach doesn’t fit?
Even Deborah Gray (I would like to note, also a woman) once crossed the floor, to sit as an… independent. She, however, would eventually rejoin the Canadian Alliance. Likewise with Valerie Meredith.

Here in the Nexus, if there’s anything I do, it’s call a spade a spade. Frankly, it’s fairly obvious what these individuals are trying to do. They’re following one of the cardinal rules of politics: make it hurt to take you on.

By ideologizing the issue of Belinda Stronach’s betrayal, these individuals are out to make it impossible to criticize Stronach without being branded as sexist. This is similar to attempts made by the proponents of same-sex marriage to make it impossible to criticize moves to legalize same-sex marriage without being branded as homophobic, or make it impossible to not support affirmative action programs without being accused of racism. The list goes on and on, and it’s actually a fairly effective mudslinging tactic.

Because it’s becoming fairly obvious that it’s one thing for a woman to have “great shoes,” (words of Anne McLellan) but it’s entirely an obvious to question the integrity of an MP who has just stabbed her constituents in the back.