This is What They Think of the Majority of Canadians

The time when it was fun to pick on the perrenially-deranged CK of Sister Sage's Musings has long passed. If it weren't for her insistence on a state of war, your not-so-humble-scribe wouldn't bother any longer.

But CK has a gift for sometimes producing blogposts that are so outrageously and feverishly insane that it just can't be ignored. Such is the case with a recent post in which CK denigrates the majority of Canadians as sheep, merely because they are mostly centrists who don't share her extreme views:

So CK clearly recognizes that the Canadian centre is shifting toward conservative ideas and conservative values. But instead of considering the possibility that Canadians have recognized that this is because conservative ideas and conservative values are actually applicable to the real lives of the majority of Canadians than progressive values are, CK simply insists it's because the majority of Canadians allegedly don't think for themselves.

CK, like so many progessives, won't take responsibility for the lack of appeal of their inferior ideas. Rather, they simply insist that Canadians are cattle, and move on unabated.

Yet progressives likely will not stop attempting to impliment their ideas. They simply recognize that they'll have to do so in one of two ways: either by sneaking them under the civic radar -- as they did for so many years via appealing to courts in place of citizens, and by corrupting institutions such as Canada's Human Rights Commissions -- or by forcing them on Canadians through a coalition government.

CK seems to reject the notion of a Coalition, but not because she recognizes it as un-democratic. Rather, she continues to labour under the delusion that the coalition was democratic:

What CK clearly fails to understand about democracy is that it is not merely the rules that determine what is democratic. Nor do MPs decide what is democratic. Rather, citizens decide what is and is not democratic -- the Canadian people (those unthinking, Kool-Aid drinking cattle, in CK's opinion) decide what is democratic.

The Canadian people decided that the coalition was undemocratic.

The majority of the Canadian people also decided that Stephen Harper's 2010 proroguement of Parliament was undemocratic. The proroguement was well within the rules established by the Constitution -- both by written and unwritten portions of the Constitution -- while the 2008 coalition was arguably at odds with constitutional convention.

Therefore we know that the rules alone are not enough to establish a particular practice as democratic.

Yet in CK's mind, when the so-called progressive political parties get together to engineer a blatant power-grab against the will of the Canadian people, that's entirely democratic despite the aforementiojned will of the Canadian people.

It's certainly fair to wonder what else CK would like to push into place against the will of the Canadian people.

That's the insidious implications of CK's self-serving rhetorical trick. When the majority of Canadians are deemed to be unthinking and uncritical, their will loses any and all meaning. Once the will of the Canadian citizenry loses meaning, progressives could justify ramming anything they like through, regardless of the objections of others.

That's the irony of CK -- clearly not being able to recognize totalitarianism -- insisting that Stephen Harper is a totalitarian who would abolish elections if he ever won a majority government. CK's own vision for the country is a vision of totalitarian tyranny -- with her and her cohorts as the tyrants.

This is why people like CK can never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power, and must be isolated from them at every opportunity. After all, she belongs to an ideological cabal to whom human life only has value so long as it helps them advance their extrene ideological agenda.

We can already see the contempt CK holds for the will of the majority of Canadian citizens if that will won't help her advance her aforementioned extreme ideological agenda.

And Sister Sage Does it Again!

If the meltdown experienced yesterday by CK of Sister Sage's Musings didn't establish that she's just completely out to lunch with her delusions, a more recent post may confirm it once and for all.

In the post, CK suggests that progressives outside of Quebec should start a Quebec separatist movement to aid in the separation of Quebec so they may have have a far-left refuge in the case that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should ever win a majority government.

For his own part, Progressive Bloggers founder Scott Tribe has expressed his hope of hopes that CK wasn't being serious when she made that particular suggestion.

Sadly no, Scott. Rather CK is all about backing the separatists so long as it easily meshes with being anti-conservative.

But one actually has to love the sheer insanity of the very proposition itself. CK seems to imagine that a sovereign Quebec would become a progressive utopia.

Evidently, she hasn't stopped to wonder precisely how Quebec will continue as it does today without the billions of dollars the rest of Canada -- particularly conservative Alberta -- pumps into the province just to keep them in milk and honey today.

CK imagines a Quebec where that pot will almost certainly be sweetened further without the rest of Canada to subsidize it. One can only imagine how.

Perhaps she believes that Canada, following said separation of Quebec, will simply continue to be generous out of the goodness of our own hearts.

Quebec separatist leaders have certainly said as much before. During the 1995 Referendum campaign, a number of separatist leaders said they would separate from Canada without accepting their share of the national debt.

"Au revoir... et merci pour nos droits!"

And, naturally, what Canadian progressives wouldn't want to emigrate to Quebec so they can live as second-class citizens in a state that would be founded on a racial ideology? All because they can't stand the thought of having a government they disagree with for a few years?

Just fucking brilliant.

Update! Submitted for your approval:

Complete meltdown. 'Nuff said. (For now.)

Timestamps!

More untintentional hilarity, as only a Chickenwanker can provide it:

Apparently, timestamps make all the difference in the world.

Particularly when Audrey has so much business lecturing anyone about that.

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?

Keep These People As Far Away From Abortion Policy as Possible

In the most recent dispatch from Sister Sage's Musings, CK reminds us of why she and her cohorts should be kept as far away from abortion policy as humanly possible.

One would scarcely believe it if they hadn't read it with their own two eyes -- mostly because the pro-abortion lobby, if asked whether or not women have ever procured abortions for fickle reasons, tends to freak the fuck out over it.

And yet there it is, on one of the most feverishly incoherent pro-abortion blogs on the internet:

"Being pregnant would have been a huge embarrassment," the woman writes. "The other alternatives of keeping the baby and getting married, or giving the baby up for adoption did not appeal to me in the least."

This is a woman who had an abortion because pregnancy would have been too embarrassing for her. Allowing her child to live with an adopted family, or raising the kid within a marriage? Just not appealing. And this is who pro-abortion activists like CK want as the spokesperson of their movement.

It certainly isn't right that this woman was arrested for procuring an abortion. And while there are numerous good reasons for abortion to remain legal, providing women with a convenient out for avoiding having to admit the "embarrassment" of irresponsible sexual behaviour (perhaps using a condom just wasn't appealing) just isn't one of them.

Of course, abortion is a topic that really gives lunatics of various political stripes their time to shine. And when that time comes, CK tends to shine on like a crazy diamond.

Consider this particular post, a seething pseudo-rebuttal to an Examiner.com article wherein Brian Liley considers data from four separate abortion-related polls.

CK accuses Liley of being a sucky news reporter, and a sucky statistician.

Her argument is that she doesn't like Mike Duffy, Ezra Levant, Shona Holmes, Afghanistan, 10 percenters and corporate welfare. Ergo, Brian Liley sucks.

And yet Liley's conclusions from examining four different polls on abortion likely sound far more like the opinions of most Canadians on abortion than CK is likely comfortable with:

"If we put all four polls together what we find is that Canadians likely find abortion to be morally wrong, something they think should be restricted at some point before birth, something that should receive limited public financing, something that should remain legal and a true hot button issue as to whether Canada should fund abortions overseas."

That may sound far more like the opinion of most Canadians on abortion than anything that has ever been produced at Sister Sage's Musings, or by CK's fellow Chickenwankers at Unrepentant Old Hippie or Dammit Janet. So CK's apparent response is to scream "I hate all of these things, ergo you suck!" at any journalist who draws any conclusion other than "Canadians think abortion is nifty".

It's frightening to think of where Canada would be if individuals like CK got their wish and the abortion debate were reduced to this kind of level -- one where in journalists are forbidden from exploring the nuances of Canadian attitudes on the issue, simply because it doesn't advance the pro-abortion lobby's extreme ideological agenda.

Fortunately, a great many Canadians aren't prepared to simply allow the erstwhile "cultural warriors" of the far left to have their way on this issue: no matter how much they may demand it.

Somehow, It's Conservatives Who Are Always the Bad Guys

Clifford Olson killed eleven people. Karla Homolka participated in the torture and murder of four people. Graham James sexually molested an unknown number of hockey players during his time as a coach.

Yet somehow, to some people, conservatives are always the bad guys. Even if they haven't killed or molested anyone.

That's about the only thing that can be taken away from this most recent dispatch from the most demented of the Chickenwankers.

In a post about the controversies surrounding the pardon of James, the (seemingly) pending pardon of Homolka, and the thousands of dollars in pension funds being paid out to Olson, Sister Sage's Musings proprietor CK insists that an evil conservative conspiracy simply must be afoot:

First off, contrary to what CK may think, decisions about pardons are not made by the Minister of Public Safety. Rather, they're made by parole boards according to criteria that, as a consequence of Liberal Party thug huggery, has allowed one of the worst of the worst to slip through the cracks and be pardoned.

One doesn't have to be Frank fucking Castle to figure out what's wrong with this picture, and that something needs to be changed.

In fact, that the very idea that changes need to be made to the criteria for the granting of pardons could lead to an accusation of planning to scrap pardons altogether is nothing more than the product of a fertile imagination. No one in the government has ever suggested such a thing.

Likewise with old age pensions. Perhaps the idea that serial murderers serving more life sentences than they could serve if they were cloned multiple times shouldn't receive an old age pension is a revolutionary and subversive idea for CK. Not to those oversensitive to the fact that Olson killed eleven people, two of them children.

Likewise with the notion that cutting old age pensions is on anyone's agenda. No one in the government has so much as spoken of it, so this accusation has basically been invented out of whole cloth.

Certainly, CK has done many, many stupid things since turning 18.

Her blog alone is proof of that.

But well-earned comments on the dismal intelligence of SSM's principal author aside, it requires a complete lunatic to argue that Graham James sexually molesting young hockey players entrusted to his care is the same thing as the jay walking ticket written out to the 19-year-old down the street, or even the DUI racked up by your neighbourhood drunk.

The latter case in unquestionably cause for condemnation, but it isn't quite on the scale of murdering eleven people, or gleefully filming the pre-murder torture of four.

The average "stupid thing" done by many Canadians doesn't even begin to measure up to the misdeeds -- actual misdeeds, unlike the fictional ones CK is constantly attributing to Stephen Harper -- of these four. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even in the same league.

As for what incentive convicts would have for keeping their noses clean: how about not going back to jail? That would work for the majority of Canadians.

But apparently not for CK.

Another beef CK apparently has is that knowledge of James' pardon became public at all. The notion that knowledge that a multiple child molester has been pardoned for his crimes is actually a matter of public interest has never really occurred to her.

Of course, CK has proven herself remarkably favourable to the suppression of any information that doesn't fit her specific ideological agenda. No one should be surprised.

The truth is that CK's objection to this entire matter is simply so clearly confused that one wonders if she even understands half the objections that she's raising. For example, she accuses Harper of having no empathy for the families of the victims of Olson, James or Homolka...

But has apparently not bothered to stop for two seconds to ask herself two questions:

First off, would the fact that Olson has collected thousands of dollars in pension funds while serving time for the murder of said 11 people and the fact that James has been pardoned, with Homolka apparently set to be pardoned, cause more or less pain to the families of their victims?

Secondly, would the fact that these matters have become nothing but ideological boilerplate to a retarded lunatic like CK cause those families any pain?

Or would they in fact be comforted to learn that the government of Canada actually cares about their pain, and wants to prevent travesties of justice that actually serve to trivialize that pain?

In the minds of anyone but a terminally stupid twit like CK, the answer to this question would be obvious.

But it raises an important question about the mentality of individuals like CK. A couple of days ago, it was noted that CK had seemingly lost the popular left-wing narrative on Canada's Human Rights Commissions. It was pointed out that, contrary to her comments on the matter, Canada's HRCs were never meant to prevent bigotry outright, only to settle cases of discrimination.

But could CK's repeated insistence that things such as changes to Canada's pardon system to prevent the worst of the worst from getting pardons they don't deserve are pretexts for something allegedly ideologically heinous actually be a deeper indication of how CK herself thinks?

Perhaps, in CK's mind, the HRCs are really pretexts for thought-police-like institutions to crack down on ideas she doesn't like; starting with things like bigotry that the overwhelming majority of Canadians oppose, and eventually working its way up to broader anti-conservative thought-policing as societal barriers to such tyranny degrade.

One expects -- one hopes -- that no one actually involved with Canada's HRCs have any such tyranny in mind, and that plans for such tyranny exist only in the mind of CK.

Fortunately, considering that CK is so out of touch with Canadian values that she can't even get a simple matter like heinous criminals don't deserve to be pardoned or paid while in prison right, one is comforted that this is very likely the case.

Thought Police - Sister Sage Lost the Narrative

Or probably never actually had it in the first place

Readers of the Nexus may have begun to think that Chickenwanker CK of Sister Sage's Musings was getting a free ride of late.

Were that the case, it certainly wasn't by intent.

The most recent dispatch smuggled from the far side of the Blogging Iron Curtain has CK complaining about the ongoing Conservative-sponsored Senate inquiry into free speech in Canada that has been so splendidly covered by Blazing Cat Fur and shows that CK has a very different take on Canada's Human Rights Commissions than their most reasonable proponents.

The most reasonable propnents of HRCs treat them as an institution dedicated to fighting against and remedying matters of clear discrimination. CK, apparently, has a different vision in mind for Canada's HRCs: that of making bigotry illegal.

That is, frankly, what one feels most temped to take away from something like this:

Contrary to what CK may believe -- and desperately want others to believe -- Canada's Human Rights Commissions do not, by any means, make it not OK to be a bigot.

Rather, existing social norms are what make it OK to be a bigot.

Rather, Canada's Human Rights Commissions -- and their tribunals -- have been abused by a number of activists who would love nothing more than to censor people with bigoted attitudes.

The problem is that such censorship doesn't render bigoted attitudes non-existent. Nor does it even reduce the prevalence of such bigotry. All censorship does is obscure that bigotry from public view.

But as with so many things, one is utterly unshocked to learn that, to CK, this is really just about her hatred of conservatives, and of conservatism:

For someone who is so keen on human rights law, one is actually surprised to learn the full extent to which CK is actually ignorant of it.

For one thing, remarks such as "let's torture the Brown people" and "let's kill all Gays" both meet the definition of hate speech under the criminal code. Complaints over remarks like this would actually have no place in an HRC. Rather, they're a matter for criminal courts.

Likewise, one is surprised to find that CK doesn't seem to understand that just because a school teacher believes that the Holocaust never happened doesn't mean that he can teach that to school children. The curriculum, after all, is decided not by individual teachers, but rather by provincial ministries.

The belief that the Holocaust never happened would certainly challenge the qualifications of a teacher -- particularly in fields such as history. Further, that would be a matter for licensing authorities, not for HRCs.

But in the end, apparently CK's ignorance isn't to blame for her outrage over the notion that her precious institutions of censorship may be eliminated. Rather, we're supposed to blame "evil" Stephen Harper.

As per usual, when CK has lost the narrative, she simply makes up her own.

Individuals like Ezra Levant -- who she also accuses of "selling out" his own people by defending Marc Lemire -- have complained not that the protesters made use of their freedom of speech. Rather, they have complained that the University of Ottawa acted preemptively to cast a chill over the free speech of Ann Coulter, and that the protesters themselves made the event itself unmanageable and unsafe -- even going so far as to set off a fire alarm.

As for Coulter and George Galloway, CK may be shocked to learn that the difference between the two is that Coulter has never directly provided funds to an organization that is listed on Canada's registry of banned terrorist organizations. George Galloway has.

Moreover, CK seems to have omitted the fact that is a bureaucrat at Public Safety Canada -- a public servant -- that ruled Galloway inadmissable to Canada.

In the end, CK concludes, none of this could possibly because conservatives cherish freedom and want to preserve it against the tender mercies of an encroaching thought police-like institution. Rather, it's just because conservatives are hateful, and want to facilitate hatespeech.

But considering that CK herself has an unfortunate history making bigoted comments, one expects that she'll find that to be an awfully tough sale.

I'm Sure CK Would Like You All to Know that "Sand N**ger" is a Bad Word

There's something about Canada's progressive blogosphere and the topic of racism. There's something about it and the very notion of racism, especially at its most extreme fringes.

There are days in which a conservative can't even breathe without being accused of being a racist by such individuals.

This is actually rather remarkable when one considers the uneasy relationship some of them have with racism -- that they're more than willing to tolerate it when it comes from someone on "their side" of the ideological divide.

So one would imagine that when it was pointed out to CK of Sister Sage's Musings that her "Uncle Tom" remark directed at Conservative MP Christian Paradis was actually a racial slur, one would expect that it would provoke some serious soul-searching in the heart of anyone who was serious about the topic of racism.

Guess again:

That's CK using the pronunciation of the word "master" stereotypically attributed to black slaves and applying it to, of all things, to the spokesperson of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

God knows that no one has ever applied the vile epithet of "sand nigger" to Karzai himself.

CK has the temerity to claim her comments were merely "sarcasm", but after reading them it becomes clear that she just has a different definition of sarcasm than the rest of the world does.

If a Blogging Tory had dared utter such epithets, one would have to imagine that CK and her colleagues in The Chickenwankers would be all over it like a pit bull on a poodle. They would actually be right to do so.

But this being the case, one has to wonder why it would be acceptable for CK to indulge herself in the same kind of language.

Then one remembers who they're dealing with, and the answer becomes crystal clear: to CK, Hamid Karzai is on the wrong side of a political issue, and for her that makes all the difference in the world.

God, This is Just Too Good to Pass Up

Truth be told, I try to avoid giving marginal specks like Sister Sage's Musings proprietor too much exposure here at the Nexus. Over the past two days, CK has already gotten far more than someone as cowardly as she deserves.

But recently something presented itself that was simply too good to pass up.

Those who witnessed CK's last temper tantrum in the comments section of this blog may remember the following comment:

"Paranoia, Greed, bigotry, useless wars to keep corrupt governments in power = bad.

Unfortunately, the latter is all we see of today's conservatism: no redeeming social qualities here. You included. Not my fault you can't successfully defend irredeemable character flaws."

Which would beg a question about how CK may feel about the corruption that seized up the very heart of the Liberal Party right before its big fall from grace in 2006.
A comment made on a post about the ongoing investigations into the Sponsorship Scandal at Sandy Crux's blog turns out to be fairly revelatory.

CK writes:

"Has it been that slow of a newsweek for you and Daniel Leblanc?

I know what your motivation is, but what is Leblanc’s? A con cheerleader like you, who would do anything to hammer the opposition away, now that 10percenters are not allowed? Or a Bloc supporter boosting Gilles Duceppe’s newly resurrected campaign for sovereignty?

Either way, it’s high time to move on. This is a 10year old crime. Gomery had his inquest. It’s over.

Besides, you kind of lost that right to complain about adscam, given that Harper campaigned on cleaning up Ottawa before he was first elected.

So far he runs away, prorogues and deflects and distracts when the going gets tough and he’s in the hot seat."

So, regardless of the fact that investigations into the Sponsorship Scandal have yet to deliver all of those responsible to justice, CK thinks that the matter should just quietly go away -- so long as it continues to pose a threat to the Liberal Party.

It seems that corruption is only bad so long as CK can pretend conservatives are corrupt -- even if there has been no corruption.

It seems that everything is different once CK's white hot simmering conservative hatred of conservatives is in play.

More From the "Progressive" Left -- Canada as Animal Farm

A post yesterday about a lunatic screed written by committed chickenwanker CK of Sister Sage's Musings has, unsurprisingly, offered a goldrush of insight into the workings of CK's feverish mind.

In a comment since made here at the Nexus (where CK indulges herself in the privilege of posting comments, yet bans unwelcome commenters from her own blog), CK makes herself a little more clear on what her precise vision for Canada is -- and it isn't pretty (grammatical errors, incoherence and all):

" I never said Quebec should never have anymore seats. I don't think there should be anymore seats. Don't you cons prefer smaller government anyway? 30 new seats would certainly expand government further at about 25 000 000$: Don't you cons hate wasteful spending?"

If CK knew anything about Canadian politics, she might actually understand one point that renders her entire argument moot:

In Canada, government and Parliament are actually separate entities. Parliament is not the government of Canada, but rather its legislature.

Within Canadian democracy, the party that is designated to govern by the Governor General (according to Constitutional convention, the party that produces a working plurality or majority of seats) becomes the governing party, and is responsible to Parliament for its management of government institutions.

Ergo, expanding Canada's Parliament does not increase the size of its government. It merely increases the size of its legislature.

But there's more to CK's lunacy:

"Allow me to introduce myself here with specifics.

Help your fellow man; needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few; the working class before big corporations and eradicating poverty and equal access to health care and other social programs, justice for all = good"

Pay particular attentio to the "justice for all".

Canadian democracy is based on the principle of representation. We elect our MPs to represent us.

Yet, as it turns out, not all Canadians are represented equally.

For example, in 2009 the province of Quebec was determined to have 7,828,900 citizens living there. Divided by the 75 seats Quebec has in the House of Commons, Quebec has one seat for every 104,385 people living there.

Alberta, on the other hand, has 3,687,700 citizens living here according to 2009 numbers. Divided by Alberta's 28 seats, this leaves Alberta with one seat for every 131,703 people living there.

Ontario has 13,069,200 citizens living there according to the same 2009 numbers. Divided by Ontario's 106 seats, Ontarians have one seat for every 123,294 people living there.

British Columbia has 4,455,200 citizens leaving there according to the 2009 figures. Divided by BC's 36 seats, British Columbians have one seat for every 123,755 people living there.

So, the question simply must be posed to CK:

How, precisely, is this "just"?

And then one remembers that to individuals like CK, justice doesn't necessarily entail all citizens being treated equally. One remembers that, in the minds of individuals like CK, justice requires that some citizens enjoy greater benefits than others.

Such as, for example, Quebeckers, who under the current status quo, are "more equal" than Albertans. And that's "justice".

That, by the way, shouldn't be mistaken for a "superior equality" of generic Quebeckers over generic Albertans. That's a "superior equality" of Quebec women over Albertan women, a "superior equality" of Quebec LGBTs over Albertan LGBTs, a "superior equality" of Quebec minorities over Albertan minorities.

It's even a "superior equality" of Quebec francophones over Albertan francophones.

CK's vision of Canada is essentially a vision of Canada as Animal Farm. But to CK, it's conservatives who must always wind up being "less equal" than other Canadians. Thus she opposes provinces that tend to vote Conservative (and those that are voting Conservative in greater numbers) receiving more seats in the House of Commons.

It has nothing at all to do with the size of government. CK simply hates conservatives:

"Paranoia, Greed, bigotry, useless wars to keep corrupt governments in power = bad.

Unfortunately, the latter is all we see of today's conservatism: no redeeming social qualities here. You included. Not my fault you can't successfully defend irredeemable character flaws."

Considering who CK takes her orders from, it's impossible to read a statement like that without having to suppress a snicker.

Considering that CK fawns over the deeply bigoted Bloc Quebecois when its leaders say something that make conservatives angry, it's impossible to take her seriously on the topic of bigotry.

But, once again, even the "irredeemable character flaws" of a movement she mistakenly believes to be progressive (Quebec separatism is actually starkly regressive and reactionary) are not deemed to be equal to those she attributes to conservatives.

Even established bigots like the BQ are "more equal" than the alleged bigots in Alberta.

It should probably be rather amusing that CK would accuse conservatives of hating Quebec while she herself strikes positions that are starkly anti-Alberta, anti-British Columbia, and anti-Ontario.

In CK's fevered mind, in the course of being anti-conservative, absolutely anything goes. Even opposing increasing representation for the majority of Canadians so they can be closer to parity with Quebec and the Maritimes.

It's just another reason for Canadians to oppose the extreme agenda of lunatics like CK by any democratic means necessary, and by any democratic means available.

It's crystal clear that a great many Canadians cannot afford to settle for being "less equal" than CK and her cohorts -- which is exactly what Canada's extreme progressive fringe wants.

Oh, my. Hooray for the "Progressive" Left!

Despite the efforts of Sister Sage's Musings proprietor CK to evade criticism, she will certainly be disappointed that it isn't all that difficult to get period dispatches from the mind of a lunatic.

In most recent lunatic screed from those not-so-illustrious halls, CK complains that adding more parliamentary seats to account for population growth is "cheating", unless seats are added in Quebec despite the lack of population growth in that province.

And who's cheating? Why it's the Conservative Party, of course!

Of course, in order to make this argument CK has to overlook the results of the 2006 Census, when it was determined that Quebec's proportionate share of Canada's population had actually shrunk, while those of Alberta, Ontario and BC increased -- thus requiring an increase in their representation in Parliament to reflect that change.

CK, of course, doesn't like this because of her deep-rooted hatred for anything even remotely associated with the Conservative Party -- like the provinces of Alberta (where the Tories hold all but one seat), British Columbia (where they hold 22 of 36 seats), or Ontario (where they hold 51 of 106 seats).

Of course, CK has an awfully interesting definition of cheating. Previously she insisted that if the Conservative Party were to enact ideas that they plan to campaign on (should they win) it would be "cheating".

(Interestingly enough, many more Canadians would suggest that it would effectively be cheating to campaign on an idea, win, and then not impliment it.)

By either standard, virtually every government elected in Canada would have cheated in one way or another. Yet when if the Conservatives were to act on the ideas they get elected on, it suddenly becomes intolerable. But only suddenly.

Continuing, CK suggests that continuously and permanently granting Quebec a disproportionate level of representation in Canada is the only way to convince Quebec it shouldn't separate.

The message CK would like to send to Stephen Harper seems rather simple: if you don't want to face continuous vapid accusations of cheating, just keep continually rigging the game in Quebec's favour.

Unfortunately, CK seems to have yet to figure out that Canada's future is not a game, and that Quebec will have to learn to play an equal part in that future, because separation isn't going to happen any time soon.

If all this weren't silly enough already, the "progressive" CK even indulges herself in a racial slur directed at a Quebec MP:

If it weren't coming from a Chickenwanker, one would hardly believe it.

My, But How Quick the "Progressives" Are to Swallow Regression

"Progessive" approves of Duceppe's extremism out of anti-Conservative fervour

Despite the extraordinary measures taken to evade criticism by the most dedicated of the Chickenwankers, it isn't all that difficult to keep tabs on what that particular lunatic is up to.

In the most recent amusing dispatch from Sister Sage's Musings, CK blogs that recent remarks by Gilles Duceppe comparing Quebec separatists to the Free French of World War II are absolutely fantastic -- mostly because conservatives don't like it, and even accusing Stephen Harper of being a separatist:

"'Squabble and Divisiveness'? Really? He’s attempting to unite Quebecers. As for squabble and divisiveness that you refer to; well, where’s the problem? Afraid that perhaps Gilles might play it better than Steve? Oh, like Steve never made any anti-Quebec statements in his career.

This is classic Steve calling the kettle black here; not only because of his games of divide and conquer against the opposition parties and with Canadians in general, but, what many seem to forget is that ol’ Stevie himself attempted to engineer the break-up of Canada. I seem to remember a letter written by Stevie to Ralph Klein in 2001, all about creating a firewall around Alberta. I suggest you click on the link and read this firewall letter to remind us of how much Stevie loves Canada to remain all together in love and singin’ 'Coombaya'."

Apparently, CK's standard for "anti-Quebec statements" is Stephen Harper factually pointing out that the 2008 Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition agreement represented a deal with separatists. (Some comically accused Harper of "Quebec bashing" for that.)

As for Stephen Harper's "firewall letter" being an attempt to "engineer the break-up of Canada", few claims could possibly be more comical. Among the recommendations in the famed letter were instituting a provincial police force, setting up an Albertan pension fund, and reassert provincial jurisdiction over health care policy.

Astute Canadians would recognize these recommendations very quickly. They are the same powers already asserted by Quebec and (in the case of a provincial police force) by Ontario.

The letter also recommended using the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the matter of Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate Reform onto the federal agenda. The only remotely radical proposal in the letter was for the province to collect at least the provincial portion of income tax revenue. Again, this is a power that Quebec already exercises.

Interestingly, Quebec's use of such powers has yet to precipitate the break-up of Canada -- something perfectly apparent to all Canadians, including the signatories of the firewall letter.

This is for good reason. These measures all significantly increase the level of provincial autonomy, but they stop far short of full sovereignty. In short, provincial autonomy doesn't equal provincial separation, and CK could stand to hear it if she wasn't so busy trying to evade criticism and debate.

If the firewall letter doesn't provide sufficient evidence for rampant separatism in Alberta, CK insists that many conservatives have mused about separating from Alberta. She's even heard them:

"In addition to that firewall letter, I have heard many an Albertan conservative musing about themselves pulling out of Canada as they feel the rest of Canada (mainly Quebec) are thieves. Wonder why that never makes the headlines of so-called mainstream media? Oh yeah! It’s Harpercon media. Wonder why Stevie never condemns them for their misanthropic behavior?

Oh and Stevie, Soudas and the rest of the Harpercons: I want to thank you for succeeding, yet again, in alienating Quebecers. Remember Stevie, it ain’t just separatists who endorse and vote for the Bloc."

Of course, anyone who cared to look would have serious difficulty locating a separatist party in Alberta that polls at a level even approaching political relevance in Alberta. It certainly isn't anything like in Quebec where separatists have formed the government on a number of occasions and held referendums.

Alberta separatists have largely been ignored by the media because they're marginal and irrelevant. In Alberta's political history, Albertan separatists can boast the election of one (1) single-term MLA.

Nothing at all like Quebec.

Moreover, CK once again parrots the line that criticizing the Bloc Quebecois alienates Qubeckers, noting that not all of the Bloc's voters are separatists.

Which is true enough. A portion of the Bloc's voters are individuals like CK who seem to have deluded themselves into believing that the BQ is a "progressive" political party, despite the vile, pervasive, and quite undeniable racial ideology that forms the basis of the party's political culture.

The Conservative Party could, of course, waste its energy trying to accomodate such fools. But considering the amount of mental energy they've expended ignoring what every other Canadian who has cared to look recognizes as plainly as the nose on their face, that wouldn't merely be a waste of energy, but a colossal waste of time.